HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-15 Support Documentation Town Council Evening SessionTOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Input (10 min.) 2. Russ Forrest ITEM/TOPIC: Conference Center Update. (45 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The purpose of the evening item is to provide the community and the Vail Town Council a comprehensive review of progress to date on the Conference Center. Specific action requested of the Town Council is to: Review progress and public input on the design and review the capital budget for the project. Request permission to forward the design to the three general contractors. Request permission to issue a Request for Proposal for Operation and Management of the Facility. RECOMMENDATION: On February 24`" at.2:00 p.m., the Vail Conference Oversight Committee met to review progress on the conference center design. The Committee voted to recommend forwarding the attached design to the three general contractors to price this design. 3. Gary Suitor ITEM/TOPIC: I-70 Coalition Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). (1 1/2 hrs.) BACKGROUND: A presentation by the I-70 Central Mountain Transportation Corridor Coalition. The coalition will present a synopsis of the Colorado Department of Transportation's Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PETS), which outlines possible improvement alternatives for I-70 between C-470 and Glenwood Springs. The Town of Vail is a member of the I-70 Coalition; the group is seeking Council and community input on a c\ preferred option for the highway improvements. Potential alternatives listed in the PETS include rail, monorail, buses, additional lanes and high-occupancy vehicle lanes. 4. Greg Hall ITEM/TOPIC: Village Streetscape Phase II Construction contract Award for 2005-2006. (15 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/ Deny Village Streetscape Phase II Project Award. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town of Vail and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District cooperatively have designed and have received a proposal for construction improvements in Vail Village. The council directed the town Manger to negotiate a price for the improvements. These improvements include the replacement of utility lines, drainage system improvements, installation of snowmelt system and final streetscapE: treatment for Children's Fountain, Gore Creek DniVe from Mill Creek to Hanson Ranch Chute, Gore Creek from Children's Fountain to Checkpoint Charlie, Gore Creels Promenade, Willow Bridge Road from Checkpoint Charlie to and including the International Bridge The Town of Vail has reviewed the proposal and with the contractor. The Project is scheduled to begin Construction April 11'`h, 2004 with full excavation to begin April 18ch~ 2004. 'The Project will continue in a spring and fall construction sequence for the next 2 years 2005-2006. The staff recommends the council direct the Town Manager to execute a contract to B & B Excavating up to $5,765,000. The project falls within the budget established within the capital project and ReTT budgets approved for 2005 and recommended for 2006. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct the Town Manager to execute with B&B Excavating a contract for up to $5,765,000. 5. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. #5, Series of 2005, an ordinance amending Section 6-3C-5C of the Vail Town Code, concerning the possession of liquor by underage persons, and setting forth details in regard theretc-. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Approve with amendments, or deny Ordinance No. 5, Series 2005. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Certain text amendments are necessary to the Town of Vail Police Regulations, as they relate to the possession or consumption of liquor by underage persons, to be consistent with the Colorado Revised Statutes. More specifically, the Town Code does not currently address the possession/consumption of liquor by underage persons on private property. This current loophole in the Town Code would be addressed by the proposed legislation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: '`Approve Ordinance No. #5, Series 2005. 6. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. #8, Series of 2005, an ordinance for the conveyance to the Vail Corporation, d/b/a Vail Associates, Inc., of certain portions of Tract C, Vail/LionsHead first filing, and Tract C, Vail/LionsHead third filing, which are owned by the Town of Vail, and for the vacation and termination of certain existing public utility and drainage easements within Vail/LionsHead, first and third filings, all in connection with the development of the LionsHead "Core" site, a/k/a Arrabelle at Lion Square. (20 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Approve with amendments, Deny BACKGROUND RATIONALE: An ordinance for the purpose of (i) authorizing the conveyance by the Town of Vail to The Vail Corporation, d/b/a Vail Associates, Inc., of those portions owned by the Town of the approved development site for the Lionshead "Core," also having the project name of "Arrabelle at Lion Square," such conveyance being conditioned upon the closing under the Core Site Development Agreement, and (ii) terminating pre- existing platted easements within the Core development site, conditioned upon the closing under the Core Site Development Agreement and the provision of necessary replacement easements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance #8, Series 2005 on first reading. 7. Russ Forrest ITEM/TOPIC: Second Reading of Ordinance # 7, Series of 2005: Consideration of a recommendation by the Open Space Board of Trustees to include 20 parcels of land in 16 areas as designated open space. (15 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve all or a portion of the recommended parcels of land for designated open space. In addition, provide direction to staff on whether an ordinance should be developed and presented to the Vail Town Council to designate three properties referenced in Attachment B as parks. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On January 25, 2005 the Vail Open Space Board of Trustees met at a scheduled meeting and unanimously voted to recommend twenty properties (16 areas) to the Vail Town Council for Open Space Designation. Attachment A summarizes the 20 parcels and 16 different areas that the committee is recommending the Town Council consider for ~ designated open space. A map of Town owned lands with the recommended parcels identified in red on the map is provided. (Attachment B) Furthermore the C-pen Space Board of Trustees voted unanimously to forward a recomrnendation to the Vail Town Council that the properties in Attachment B referenced as A, B, & C be considered for designation as parks so that they could be considered for designated open space in the future. On February 15th, 2005, the Vail 'Town Council asked staff to determine the appropriate steps to designate a parcel of land as a park. The Town Attorney has concluded that this should be done through the approval of an ordinance. 8. ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report (10 min.) - Revenue Recovery Group. Staff plans to engage Revenue Recovery Group (RRG), an organization .that provides consulting and audit service to municipalities for sales and lodging taxes, franchise fees, and other tax issues. The primary service staff plans to use is a group audit in which RRG audits companies doing business in multiple jurisdictions to assure they are paying the proper amount of tax to each. Costs of the audit arse shared among the agencies involved. Aspen recently recovered S 165,000 from one company as a result of a group audit performed by RRG. 9. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (9:15 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING ART TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR (EVENING MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6 P.M. TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2005, IN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information MEMORANDUM TO: ~ Vail Town Council ' FROM: Conference Center Advisory Committee DATE: March 15, 2005 t SUBJECT: Update on the Vail Conference.Center Staff: Russell Forrest t 1. PURPOSE The purpose of the afternoon and evening items is to provide the Vail Town Council a comprehensive review of progress to date on the Conference Center. Specific actions requested of the Town Council in the evening include: • Review progress and public input on the design and review the capital budget for the project, ' Request permission to forward the design to the three gerieral contractors, Request permission to issue a Request for Proposals for Operation and ' Management of the facility. On February 24th the Vail Conference Advisory Committee met to review progress on the conference center design. The Committee voted to recommend forwarding the attached design to the three general contractors to price the construction of. this design. ' In the afternoon worksession, staff would like to review the draft master plan for , the Lionshead parking structure with the Vail Town Council and discuss how any required affordable housing should be addressed in the development review ' process. 2. BACKGROUND V The ail Town Council on April 20, 2004, authorized a series of next steps which included interviewing owner's representative firms for the Conference Center. On April 29, 2004, the Committee met to interview five owner's representative firms. On May 18, 2004, the Vail Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute t a contract with Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. to be -the Town's owner's representative and funding for the first phase of this contractor $8,510. The Vail Towri Council also authorized the Committee to negotiate with both Piper Jaffray ' and Kirtpatrick Pettis to be the Town's investment banker on this project. On June 1, 2004, the. Vail Town Council voted to approve the following requests from the Committee: 1 1 • Authorir_ation to engage Piper Jaffray as the Town's investment banker for the Conference Center. • Authorix_ation to issue an RFQ for dEaign team assistance on the Conference Center. ~ • Request to move forward with a negotiated guaranteed maximum price (GMP) process for engaging a design team and a general contractor (as opposed to a design build process). This essentially means that both the architect and general contractor will work for the 7~own of Vail. • Request for the Vail Town Council to approve the next phase of an owner's representative contract. The preconstruction phasE~ of the contract would cost up to $155,774. However, the Committee is only rE:questing $93,212 (includes fees and reimbursables) to fund this function until ai decision is made by the Vail Tovvn Council to issue bonds wkiich is anticipal:ed in the November/December 2004 time frarne. On June 15, 2004, the Vail Town Council reviewed and approved the following next steps: • Approval of the. proposed process far engaging the public in the design team selection process. • Selection criteria for request for proposals. • ConsidE;ration of proposed process givens. • Review of updated project budget and interrelated parking costs, and • ConsidE;ration and review of the major points of the proposed scope: of service request for proposals for design services (to be given to the top 3-4 teams selected in the qualification competition). On July 6, 2004, the Vail Town Council reviewed and approved the fallowing next steps: • Review the recommendation from the Committee can short-listing the design team candidates and to issue the Request for Proposals (RFP) to tlne .six recommended design teams. • Review and approve suggested changes to the design team selection process from thE: Committee. • Request permission to issue a RFP for a surveyor to survey the Lionshead parking structure site and surrounding area. On July 20, 2004, the Vail Town Council unanimously approved the following • A contract for design services with Fentress Bradburn. • Approval of next steps for master planning the Lionshead parking structure/conference center site. On September 21, 2004, the Vail Tawn Council, Conference Center Advisory Committee, Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed five alternatives site plans. In addition, the public reviewed the same alternatives on September 22, 2004. The near unanimous opinion from the 1 1 ~J 1 I 2 ' various groups that reviewed the site plans was that alternative three is the preferred choice. On October 19, 2004, the Vail Town Council met and reviewed an update on ~> architectural images for the conference center and authorized the Committee to move forward with public discussions regarding the alternative styles. ' The Committee met on October 21, 2004, and reviewed the qualification submitted by six gerieral contractors. After reviewing the qualifications, the Committee ' recommended to the Vail Town Council that three general. contractors receive requests for proposals. Those general contractors include: ' Hansel Phelps Construction ^ Hunt Construction Group/Hyder Construction ^ M.A Mortenson Company ' On November 2, 2004, the Vail Town Council approved a motion to forward the above mentioned contractors requests for proposals. ` The design team of Fentress Bradburn developed three alternative architectural approaches. These images were not the elevations of the proposed Conference Center but rather provided alternative visions or inspirations that could be ' considered for the conference center. The three styles include: 1. Bavarian/Traditional Vail style ' 2. Contemporary 3. Natural/Environmentally inspired style ' The Conference Center Advisory Committee reviewed the public input associated with the three design alternatives on November 18, 2004. After reviewing the public input and the associated costs with each design option, the Committee forwarded a recommendation for the "Architectural Vision Inspired by Nature." ' The Committee felt that this would create an outstanding architectural structure. The materials as envisioned by the design team would utilize "mountain" materials such as heavy stone and timbers. The roof element would be more iconic but is ' intended to reflect the form of the surrounding mountains. It should also be noted that one member of the Committee, although not present on November 18, 2004, preferred the Traditional Vail Vernacular look. On December 7, 2004, the Vail Town Council voted 6-1 to direct the Conference Center design team to move forward with a "natural/environmentally inspired" design style. ' The Conference Center Advisory Committee met on December 14, 2004, and voted to recommend that the Town of Vail purchase (using Conference Center funds) the water and sewer taps for the Charter Bus Lot site. On December 21, ' 2004 the Vail Town Council authorized that the Town purchase tap fees with the condition that the Water District provide a letter confirming .that a tap fee could be used on the same. site for a different use in the future and that the taps could be moved to another Town of Vail owned land. The District did provide a letter ' confirming this issue referencing the District's policies for doing tap transfers. The final cost of the tap fee was $297,896. On January 18'h, 2005, the Vail Town Council voted to continue to move in the direction of the "natural" design. The Vail Town Council did express concern about the roof of the facility. They furtherrrrore asked that the design team develop alternative ideas for the roof of the facility. 3. DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTS AFTERNOON WORKSESSION ITEMS A. Master Plan As part of the conference center process, the Town Council directed staff to prepare a master plan far the Lionshead parking structure and conference center to comprehensively review how development on the Lionshead Parking structure relates to public improvements anticipated in Lionshead. An important next step in the conference center process is moving forward with reviews with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board. These discussions will include reviewing the plans for the conference center, potential modifications to the Lionshead Parking structure, and a Master Plan for the Vail Conference Center and the Lionshead Parking structure. Prior to the first meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff wanted to review the draft Master Plan for the Vail Conference Center and thE: Lionshead Parking Structure with the Towrr Council. Specifically this plan is intended to comprehensively look at the Conference Center and thE~ Lionshead Parking structure area. The draft plan discusses the specific provisions of the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan a;s it relates to the Lionshead Parking Structure area and to Transit recommendations.. The Master Plan for the Vail Conference Center and the Lionshead Parking Structure is intended to: • ~ Provide direction for' public parking Discuss Frontage Road improvements • Evaluate transit options • Discuss compliancE; to the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan The attached plan (Attachment A) may result in an amendment to the Lionshead Master Redevelopment plan due to evolution of transit and circulation issues since the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plans adoption in December of 1998. On February 15~h staff reviewed several options for the location of regional bus facility and how loading and delivery, hotel shuttles, skier drop-off could be accommodated in Lionshead. The Town Council directed staff to remove the North Day lot from consideration for diesel buses. The Council felt that that the most appropriate location for a bus drop-off/transit facility was the Lionshead Parking Structure. ' ~ With this item, staff would like to inform Council of the Master Plan and its contents before having initial discussions with the Planning and Environmental Commission. In addition, staff would like to '~; review options for locating a transit center on the Lionshead Parking structure as per Council's previous direction. ' B. Housing: The conference center design team will soon be submitting a formal application for a Conditional Use Permit for the conference center. In order to proceed with the preparation of the application materials we need input from the council regarding how to address employee housing issues. ' Utilizing the same formula as any other proposal in the Town of Vail, it has been determined that the conference center will generate 45 - 50 full time ' equivalent employees. In accordance with the town policy of requiring mitigation of 15 % of the generated employee demand the conference center housing requirement is for seven beds. The options for meeting the employee housing requirements, in order of the stated preference of the. Town, are to build on site, build off site within the Town boundaries and pay in lieu of the actual construction. There are several options available to the conference center project to address this requirement. 1. Construct seven beds within the conference center. This option would be very expensive. The construction cost of the living space and the associated required parking would greatly ' exceed a "standard" acceptable cost for affordable housing . construction. In addition, although the physical location is desirable, living within a conference center space is probably less than desirable. The mixing of housing and conference center uses on such a constrained site not very compatible. ' 2. Construct or buy down seven beds off site. The Town of Vail is not actively investigating any new housing ' projects. The funds required to construct or buy down seven beds could probably be more effectively leveraged as a part of a larger project or as a pay in lieu. ' 3. Pay in lieu of housing construction. At the proposed mitigation fee of $75,000 per bed the pay in lieu fee ' would total $525,000. There are several ways to address this option. An amount of $525,000 could be transferred from the ' conference center budget to the housing fund. This $525,000 cost ~ was not anticipated in the original conference center budgeting and . bonding analysis process. In order to add this expense to the 5 n conference center and maintain the current budget would require program and value engineering changers. ' A second method of addressing the pay in lieu option is to \~ .recognize the investment: and contributions the Town of Vail has ' made in previous housing projects within the Town of Vail boundaries and to establish those contributions as a <;redit to the' Town. This method is consistent with the approach used by the ' . City of Aspen. As the Ci1:y of Aspen is involved in housing projects they quantify their investment and estak~lish housing c;reedits for their future use. As an example, their recently constructed recreation center complex covered the employee-housing requirement by utilizing credits from a prf~vious housing project. The Town of Vail has invested substantial funds into housing projects in the recent pa:>t. These inve;>tments should be quantified as housing credits and then could be applied to the conference t center and to other potential civic projects. The design team would suggest pursuing a pay in lieu option that recognizes credit The Town of Vail has gained through recent housing investments. EVENING ITEMS C. Design & Budget Update t On March 1, 2005, the design team introduced a revised design to the Vail Town Council and reviewed the capital budges: for the design. In addition, stafli reviewed the budget issues that may affect the project. budget i.e. interest rates, construction cast escalation, CDOT approval housing, .zoning, and building code requirements. Attachment B summarizes the current design. Attachment C; provides a :summary of thE; comments ' received from the public on this design. Public Meetings occurred on March 4th 8th and 9th to review operation and design of the project. The current construction budget and cost estimate based on i~:he attached design is further described in Attachment D which includes thE: powerpoint pre:>entation used in recent public meetings. The current construction team budget and estimated cost. of construction is: , Current Funds Available for Construction: $36,548,931 Cost Estimate Plus Design/Bidding Reserves: $36,493,000 Net Over or (Under): $ (55,93'1) They above mentioned budget is based on are annual debt service which shall not exceed $2.7 million. As interest rates change 'the revenue available for construction get will change. Piper Jaffray estimates a move of 25 basis points will reduce the revenue available for c:orrstruction by , approximately $1.2MM. 1 The cost estimate is based on integrating construction estimates from five cost estimators (two consultant and proposals from three general contractors). When a design is accepted by the Vail Town Council, the General contractors will be asked to resubmit cost proposals based on the final approved design. The Conference Center Advisory Committee is requesting that the Town Council authorize staff to provide the current design to the three general contractors for pricing. A motion to this affect is requested. D. Operations: The Committee has further scrutinized the operational budget and various operating models. The Committee has generally agreed that a new board of governors should not be convened until bonds are issued for the project. However, the Committee believes that to further refine the operational budget and increase confidence that .the operational deficit can be managed, it is desirable to issue an RFP for operators and managers. HVS International worked with the Committee to develop a draft RFP which is provided in Attachment E. The Committee is requesting that the Town Council authorize (via a motion) staff to issue the attached RFP. 4.. NEXT STEPS: Proposed next Steps include: ~' ^ March 16th: Forward design to General Contractors to price ^ March 16th: Issue RFP for operations and management ^ March 18th: Public Meeting from 8:30-10:00 a.m. at the Library ^ March 24th: Public Meeting from 5:00-6:30 p.m. - at the Library ^ Mid April: Receive proposals on construction costs and operations Attachment A: Draft Master Plan Attachment B: Elevations of the Conference Center Attachment C: Public Input on design Attachment D: Powerpoint Presentation/Budget Summary Attachment E: Operations RFP F:\'cdev\COUNCIL\MEMOS\05\conference center031505.doc 1 1 ~~ MASTER PLAN FOR THE VAIL CONFERENCE CENTER AND THE LIONSHEAD PARKING STRUCTURE DRAFT PREPARED BY FENTRESS BRADBURN ARCHITECTS LTD. March 10, 2005 .~ i~s7r MASTER PLAN FOR THE VAIL CONFERENCE (:ENTER AND THE LIONSHEAD PARKING STRUCTURE TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER _ PAGE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2 INTRODUCTION: THE PROJECT, THE SITE, AND THE PROCESS A. Purpose of the Master Plan B. Urban Design Goals for the Project C. Organization of the Master Plan Document D. Conference Center Project Description 1. Project History 2. Background on the Lionshead Parking Structure. 3. Summary of the Preferred Development Concept 4. Anticipated Building Program E. Description of the Site 1. Background on Selection of a Site for the Conference Center 2. Site Location and Physical Characteristics 3. Current Zoning 4. Existing Adjacent Uses 5. Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues F. Applicable CoXnmunity Plans and Goals 1. Tov~m of Vail Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2. Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan 3. Vail Transportation Master Plan 4. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan G. Public Process 1. The Public Input Process 2. Summary of Primary Themes from Public Input 3. The Development Review Process 3 TOWN-WIDE CONCERNS: FUNCTIONAL ISSUES A. Vehicular Circulation 1. ,Frontage Road Improvements 2. Reduction of Congestion and Conflicts on East Lionshead Circle 7 7 8 8 10 13 16 21 B. Parking 27 1. Parking-Related Objectives in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan 2. Engineering Analysis of the Existing Lionshead Parking Structure 3. Projected Parking Demand Associated with the Conference Center 4. Parking and Service under the Conference Center FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 D ° ° [~`~ CHAPTER PAGE ' 3 (FUNCTIONAL ISSUES, CONTINUED) 5. Relocation of the Entry to the Lionshead Parking Structure 6. New Exit at the West End of the Lionshead Parking Structure ' C. Public Transit 34 1. Transit-Related Objectives in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan 2. Alternative Locations for a Transit Center 3. Criteria for Evaluating Altemative Transit Center Sites 4. The North Day Lot 5. Transit Center on the Existing or Redeveloped Lionshead Parking Structure 6. Transit Center in the East Lionshead Circle Turnaround 7. Conclusions and Recommended Direction D. Service and Delivery 41 1. ~ Relevant Objectives in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan 2. The Conference Center Solution 4 THE LIONSHEAD CONTEXT: QUALITATIVE ISSUES A. The Pedestrian Environment 43 1. Adopted Town Objectives for East Lionshead Circle 2. The Conference Center as a Connective Element and Catalyst for Activity 3. 4. Pedestrian Improvements at the East Portal to the Lionshead Mall New Pedestrian Connection from Frontage Road to Lionshead East Portal 5. Retail Space along East Lionshead Circle B. Responses to Neighborhood Concerns 46 1. General Concerns of Neighborhood Residents and Property Owners 2. Responses in the Conference Center Master Plan i C. Connections to the Natural Environment 48 D. Relocation of Existing Uses on the Project Site - 49 ' E. Relationship to Vail Resorts' Core Site Development Plans 51 F. Applicable Development Standards 52 ' G Architect l D i id li G . ura es gn u e nes 53 1 H. Compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan 55 5 IMPLEMENTATION 57 A. Phasing B. Cost Estimates C. Next Steps 1 ii FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 6 APPENDICES after page 60 A. Parking Feasibility Study, Lionshead Parking Garage, Carl Wacker Parking, Inc. (final report dated February 4, 2005): Recommendations on parking access; revenue control options; structural and code review; feasibility of vertical expansion; feasibility of a transit center within the structure; operational review. B. Parking Analysis Appendix, HVS International (January 18, 2005) C. Vail Transit Center Site Selection Report, URS Corp. (February 7, 2005) D. Phase 1 Environmental Site AssEasment, Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC (October 12, 2004) E. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation of the Charter Bus Lot Site, CTL/Thompson, Inc. Consulting Engineers (July 19, 2001) F. Detailed Record of Public Comments, August-December 2004 G. Conference Center Ballot Initiative, November 2002 H. Excerpt from the 1998 Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan: Chapter 1, Executive Summary I. Excerpt from the 1991 Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plarr: East Lionshead Circle FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 ~J D ° ° ~~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS \>This master plan and the concepts it describes for the Vail Conference Center would not have been possible without the active involvement of many Vail citizens and the concerted efforts of the Town staff, officials and consultants listed here. Vail Town Council Members Rodney Slifer, Mayor Kent Logan Dick Cleveland, Mayor pro-tem Greg Moffet Diana Donovan Kim Ruotolo Farrow Hitt Conference Center Advisory Committee Rodney Slifer, Mayor and committee chairman Kent Logan, Town Council representative David Pease and Stan Cope, lodging community representatives Merv Lapin and Frank Johnson, retail/business community representatives D Scott Proper and Rick Scalpello, community-at-large representatives Bill Jensen, Vail Resorts representative a Town of Vail Staff Stan Zemler,. Town Manager Russell Forrest, Director of Community Development Greg Hall, Public Works and Transportation Director 8 Mike Rose, Transportation Manager Town of Vail Owner's Representative and Project Manager 0 Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. Chris Squadra Tim Brekel 0 Adam Williams Fentress Bradburn Architects, Ltd., Lead Consultant Curt Fentress Scott Dergance Michael Winters Nathan Kibler-Silengo John Kudrycki URS Corporation, Nathan Larson, traffic and transit center analysis Carl Walker, Inc. (Denver), Scot Martin and Paul Mack, parking structure analysis 0 Rick Pylman ~ Associates, zoning, permits and development review facilitator Sherry Dorward 8~ Associates, community liaison, master planning and landscape architecture ' ~~ FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 L,6"~';,~1r 1 CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMAnARY. ,~ A. PURPOSE OF THE MASTER PLAN The purpose of The Master Plan for the Vail Conference Center and the Lionshead Parking Structure is to assure that the development of the charter bus lot site and any future modification or redevelopment of the parking structure are in harmony with the objectives of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Town staff initiated this master planning process in order to facilitate a successful design for the conference center and to take advantage of the opportunity to meet other municipal goals at the same time, including the improvement of public roadways, parN;ing and transit facilities and the enhancement of the pedestrian environment. The master plan is not intended to evaluate the need for or financial feasibility of a conference center in Vail; these questions continue to be part of the public dialogue. Nor is it the purpose of this document to present for review and approval specifics of the architectural design for the facility. B. PROJECT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED CONCEPT In November 2002, Town of Vail voters approved a ballot initiative for a dedicated lodging and sales tax to pay fora 100,000-sq. ft. conference center on an unspecified site. A budget of $46.2 million was estimated, of which approximately $8 million was earmarked for 350 additional parking spaces. Collection of the lodging tax began in January 2003. In May 2003, the Vail Town Council approved a motion to locate the conference center on the Town's charter bus lot east of the Lionshead parking structure and directed staff to form a conference center advisory committee. In July 2004, Fentress Bradburn Architects in Denver was selected by the committee and Council members to lead the c9esign team. After a number of intensive public input sessions throughout the fall of 2004, a preferred scenario evolved in which the conference center functions are arranged as follows: the main ballroom, junior ballroom and kitchen are adjacent to one another on the main (frontage road) level, meeting rooms and internal loading docks are one level below, and parking spaces are on '.two levels underneath the building. An engineering evaluation has revealed that the existing Lionshead parking structure cannot support an additional deck without major structural modifications, and significant problems with interior circulation and egress at peak periods were noted. Therefore, in the initial development phase, the preferred scenario invests comparatively little money in modifying the Lionshead parking structure, leaving open the possibility of redeveloping it in the future. A more efficient garage could be designed to use a smaller portion of the site now occupied by the existing parking structure, increasing the parking capacity while at the same time making available an additional development site for desired future public or private uses. The current program for the conference center includes a 21,000-sq 'ft main ballroom; an adjacent 9,000••sq ft junior ballroom (both divisible); 10,000 sq ft of meeting space; 28,300 sq ~ft for registration, pre-function, and guest support facilities; a 4,600-sq ft kitchen; and 39,200 sq ft for administration, service, storage and internal loading docks. A 2,500-sq ft outdoor terrace adjoins the main level, facing south toward the ski mountain. All arrivals by vehicle (taxis, buses, cars) will use the drop-off area at the building's main entry on South Frontage Road.. Parking and service entries wilt also access the building from the frontage ~' ~U FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 1 road. A second major entry to the building, one level down on the south side, will serve those arriving by foot or in-town shuttle bus. There will be 320 parking spaces on two levels under the structure. ~~ C. THE SITE The Town-owned charter bus lot, approximately 50,000 sq. feet in size, and the Lionshead parking structure fall within the General Use Zone District, in which all proposed uses must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) as conditional uses and all development standards are determined by PEC during the conditional use permit review. The property is also within the study area for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the area designated for the Lionshead Public Facilities Investment Plan. The charter bus lot is undeveloped and is currently being used to park out-of-town ski buses, RVs and horse carriages. The entry/exit lanes for the parking structure cut across the charter bus lot and will have to be relocated in any scenario for development of the bus parking lot. The most practical vehicular access to the charter bus lot is from the frontage road, as neighbors oppose any increase in traffic volume on East Lionshead Circle. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment completed in October 2004 (Walsh Environmental) found no significant environmental conditions that warrant additional evaluation of soil or groundwater at the site, although a Phase II investigation will be conducted in any case. Town staff has identified increased traffic volume and parking demand, seasonally high groundwater, and noise from construction and deliveries as potential environmental issues that may require further study and mitigation. D. ASSOCIATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS The Fronfa_ge Road. Design team engineers and Town Public Works staff have reviewed the traffic volumes and turning movements projected for the frontage road after construction of a conference center and, consistent with the Lionshead master plan, have recommended the widening of the roadway to allow for increased traffic loads and the addition of a bike path and a median. An additional west-bound lane, combined with dedicated left-tum lanes into the parking structure, will clarify turning movements into the conference center and the parking structure and will allow for maximum stacking ability during peak arrival times. An additional east-bound lane will serve traffic back to the main roundabout. East Lionshead Circle 1. A new dedicated right-turn lane onto the frontage road is proposed to alleviate congestion at an intersection where left-turning vehicles currently cause back-ups and consequent delays in bus cycle times. 2. The east portal area, where vehicles congregate. to unload, will be reconfigured to remedy serious safety hazards for pedestrians trying to cross from the parking structure to the mall. Delivery vehicles, hotel shuttles, and skier drop-off will be relocated to Vail Square and the North Day Lot to reduce traffic volume in the area. Stairs from the parking structure and the in-town bus stops will be shifted slightly and new heated crosswalks added to redirect pedestrians away from bus loading areas. In addition, the master plan has proposed consideration of this area as one option for future development of a transit center. (See Chapter 3, Secfion C for an expanded description.) FINAL DRAFT, 3/10!05 5)[~~~`,~r 17 3. New streetscape treatments, coordinated with other initiatives by the Town in the Village core and by Vail Resorts in Lionshead, are anticipated along the north side of the street to improve the walking experience from the east portal to the con~Ference center and to strengthen the connection between Lionshead and Vail Village. 4. A proposed civic plaza at the south entry of the conference center will create a new public space that connects to Dobson Arena. Public Parkin_g. The conceptual plan includes 320 spaces under the conference center: 125 spaces to be reserved for use by conference center attendees -Nhen needed; 70 spaces to replace those lost when a new north entrance is created for the existing parking structure; and 125 new spaces for the general public. This results in a total of 250 net new public parking spaces that can be operated as an integral part of the Lionshead parking structure. Vail Resorts is willing to apply the $4.3 million it has committed for the development of additional public parking to the cost of the 320 parking spaces underneath the conference center as long as the 12`.i parking spaces associated Hrith the conference center are made available on most peak ski days, when the probability of a large day-time conference event is small. Public Transit The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recomrne~nded development of a municipal transit center on the North Day Lot to accommodate regional buses, charter buses, skier drop-off, hotel vans, and service vehicles. Engineers at URS, commissioned in 2004 to revisit the site selection issue, agreed that the North Day Lot is the best location if judged only on circulation criteria. However, funding and political issues present obstacles to the use of that site for afull-service transit facility. Consequently, this master plan recommends that Vail Resorts' plans for development of the North Day -Lot incorporate a transit facility to accommodate skier shuttles (hotel and lodge vans) and skier drop-off (private cars); that the regional (ECO} and west. Vail bus stops be maintained for now at Concert Hall Plaza; and that charter bus loading and unloading be accommodated in the service areas under Vail Resorts' proposed Vail Square and Front Door projects. These actions will reduce congestion at the East Lionshead Circle and permit consideration of a smaller transit facility. The master plan further recommends that within the next few years the Town solicit proposals for the redevelopment of the Lionshead parking structure to gauge the financial feasibility and degree of developer interest in a concept that combines mixed uses, more efficient parking, and possibly .a transit facility for regional and Town buses. If an interested and qualified developer is not found, then the Town should move forward with construction of• a transit facility either on the existing Lionshead parking structure or adjacent to it in East Lionshead Circle. E. RELATIONSHIP TO VAIL RESORTS' I;ORE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS The underlying intent of both Vail Resorts' core site redevelopment (1/ail Square) and the conference center project is to increase the intensity of activity and e~;onomic output in Lionshead. In that sense, the proposed uses are both compatible and interdependent. Interesting public spaces and continuous pedestrian corridors will be irr-portant to assure interconnectedness and mutual benefit. Thus, the east portal to Lionshead is a crucial linchpin between the two projects, and its redesign should be coordinated with Vail Resorts' streetscape design team. White both projects will use regionally appropriate materials, it is deemed more important that the conference center have unique, identifiable character than that it be similar in architectural character to the European traditional style of the core site development. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 3 C!G:~',~,:I F. PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH ADOPTED COMMUNITY PLANS ,~ The Town of Vail Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1986), in addition to setting general ~ development objectives, analyzed the Lionshead parking structure /charter bus lot site and recognized its potential, in conjunction with Dobson Ice Arena and the Vail Library, to form a civic center complex. The current proposal is consistent with that goal. The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan (1991) recommended improvements on East Lionshead Circle, with which the conference center master plan is consistent. The Vail Transportation Master Plan (1993) identified a number of action steps relevant to this project, including: 1. Designated skier drop-off areas; 2. Better entry feature monuments and directional signage; 3. Retention of the existing public parking supply and its expansion where possible; 4. Evaluation of replacement sites suitable for parking oversized vehicles; 5. Possible relocation of the west turnaround for the in-town shuttle buses from Concert Hall Plaza to East Lionshead Circle; 6. Phased improvements to the frontage road, including a continuous bike lane, left-turn lanes, and landscaping. 7. Evaluation of possibilities for improving loading and delivery functions. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (1998) is the most directly relevant ' community planning document. It recommended the creation of a civic "node" with constnaction of a civic center adjacent to Dobson Arena and the Vail Public Library and set goals for improvements in vehicular and transit systems, parking supply, public spaces and pedestrian corridors. It described a qualitative vision for architectural aesthetics but did not prescribe a specific architectural style. The design team feels confident that the ' architectural concept for the conference center responds in a satisfactory manner to the intent of the architectural design guidelines in the Lionshead master plan. The Lionshead master plan also recommended the addition of a protected view corridor looking south from the charter bus lot. A photo simulation of potential development on the Lodge at Lionshead property was done which illustrates that a new structure, even at a maximum allowable average height of 72 feet, does not appear to interrupt panoramic views to the mountain from the main level of the conference center. The issue will be revisited during schematic design, after the basic plan of the conference center is better defined. The design team has concluded that the conference center master plan complies in all ' .significant respects with the goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. However, certain components of this master plan represent changes from the specifics, though not the intent, of the Lionshead master plan. These changes include: • Certain recommended roadway modifications reflecting updated analyses of traffic movements and volume; ' Anew strategy for developing a transit center, reflecting the current planning context; • The decision to supply parking under the conference center rather than on top of the Lionshead parking structure and to explore phased .redevelopment of the parking structure; • The recognition that design guidelines governing mixed-use commercial/residential buildings may not be entirely relevant for a large, iconic civic building. ' 4 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 G. NEXT STEPS In accordance with procedures specified in the Town of \/ail Municipal Code, Town Council may decide to amend `the Lionshead Redevelopment 11Aaster Plan by passing a Council resolution to adopt this master plan as an extension and refinement of the earlier plan. The development review process for the Vail Conference Center will entail an application to the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission for review of a Conditional Use Permit to allow convention facilities. This process will include a review of the project's compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The development review process will -also include an application to i:he Town of Vail Design Review Board for review and approval of the architectural design and site treatment. Town Council will make the final decision to approve the plans. Hearings of all town boards are open for public comment. A CDOT access permit will be required for changes proposed to the frontage road. A process to select a general contractor is underway. Based on the chosen contractor's guaranteed maximum price and with a recommendation from the Conference Center Advisory Committee, Town Council will make the final decision on whether on not to proceed with the issuance of bonds. Construction of they conference center is expected to take 20 to 24 months. Before it can begin, the entrance to the Lionshead parking structure must be reconstructed in another location at a time that will not interfere with ski season usage. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10105 5 Fig. 1-1. View from East Lionshead Circle looking east toward the Vail Conference Center site. D ~ A ~~ architecture, the second following a more contemporary style, and the third inspired by natural forms, materials and processes. Stakeholder groups who participated included Lionshead merchants, a group of local Vail architects, adjacent owners and the lodging community. Public input and comments were carefully recorded and tabulated. In early December, with a recommendation from the Conference Center Advisory Committee, the Town Council voted to move forward with the "naturally inspired" approach. Since then, meetings focusing on the architectural direction have been ongoing with the advisory committee, community stakeholder groups, Town staff, and Council. O Presentations on the status of the project have been given to the Vail International Homeowners' Association meeting on November 25, 2004 (focusing on their access), the Vail Valley Homeowners' Association annual meeting on December 29, 2004, and a the Vail town meeting at Donovan Pavilion on December 30, 2004. A group of meeting planners from the Denver and Vail Valley areas met on January 5, 2005 to review the design and provide feedback. HVS International presented its updated business plan to the advisory committee and local hoteliers on January 10, 2005, and work sessions with HVS, independent operators, event planners and consultants regarding operational issues are ongoing. Tentative dates have been scheduled in March for more public meetings to review the evolving building plans and the master plan. In the meantime, a regularly updated project website encourages public comments. 2. Summary of Primary Themes from Public Input The following list summarizes the most substantive comments from community stakeholders who participated in public meetings and open houses listed above. A complete record of public comments is included as Appendix F. (An asterisk * indicates that the comment was made by more than one stakeholder group.) HOTELIERS . "Create a year round economic engine that will bring more people to town. • *Provide a dedicated drop-off area and easy access from all forms of transportation . • Provide dedicated parking for the conference center under the structure. • *Provide for future expansion of the facility. • Create a sense of connection to the outdoors and/or provide an outdoor space. ' ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS • Preserve private development opportunities and rental prospects. • Reduce vehicle traffic on East Lionshead Circle. • Minimize noise, traffic, impacts of construction. • Preserve views. • *Create a timeless landmark building that works with the surrounding buildings 1 (existing and future) and is also noteworthy when seen from above. • Screen the loading and service area; access it from Frontage Road, not from East Lionshead Circle. • Concerned about proposals to add retail on the parking structure facade, though other stakeholder groups thought it could help to animate the street as a pedestrian connection to the village. ' Concemed about building bulk and mass. • Preserve existing vehicular access (Vail Intemational). ' ~ $ FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 GENERAL PUBLIC • Assure an energy efficient, environmentally conscious design -something the community can be proud of. ~~ • Focus on conference space as the primary function. PUBLIC WORKS • Satisfy traffic safety concerns on Frontage Road by widening the roadway and other improvements. • Doubt the wisdom of spending money to expand. or retrofit the existing parking structure. 3. The Development Review Process The development review process for the Vail Conference Center will entail an application to the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission for review of a Conditional Use Permit and development plan to allow .convention facilities. This process will include a review of the project's compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The development review process will also include an application to the Town of Vail Design Review Board for review and approval of the architectural design and site treatment as outlined in the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Town Council will make the final decision to approve the plans and proceed with issuance of bonds. Hearings of all town boards are open to the public for comment. A CDOT access permit will be required for changes proposed to the frontage road. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10!05 19 e s t C~~=rr u 20 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 i~; _ :J7r .~ CHAPTER 3 TOWN-WIDE CONCERNS: FUNCTIONAL ISSUES This chapter addresses areas in which the conference center project will affect functional issues of concern to the community as a whole, specifically: vehicular circulation and traffic flow on the frontage road; public transit; public parking; and service and delivery functions. In each of these areas, decisions have been made in the programming and site planning of the conference center/ parking structure site with the intent to reduce the potential for negative impacts in these areas and take advantage of opportunities to contribute needed public facilities. A. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION 1. Frontage Road Improvements The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan called for improvements to South Frontage Road to facilitate and clarify traffic flows and to improve its aesthetic appearance, break up its perceived width, and create a better overall image for Lionshead. The conference center design team, URS traffic engineers and the Town of Vail Public Works staff have used that plan's recommendations as a point of departure and have updated the projected traffic volumes and turning movement:> on the frontage road after completion of a conference center. Both the .1998 plan and the recent update agree that the roadway must be widened to handle the increased traffic loads, and both suggest the addition of a bike path and a median. The primary difference is that the new projections have prompted the addition of another 12-foot west-bound traffic lane (as shown in Fig. 3-1 below and the roadway section, Fig. 3-2, on the next page). ,,; ~-_ -~_ *q~ ~~L ~--~- _-mot _ _`-: ,' 1 _ . Y~h ~-! `,, ~_ 1 -:31 ~ wry _ { CLL ~ 1, _ , V -~ CrVIG ~CtV`E,e i ~~~ ~ ~ r~~'"~ . u3 . Fig. 3-1. Modifications to South Frontage Road recommendead as part of the conference center project. The addition of west- and east-bound lanes is considered essential to handle increased traffic loads along the frontage road as Lionshead continues to develop. The west- bound lane will extend from the main Vail roundabout to the relocated entry of the Lionshead parking structure, allowing traffic to continue west unobstructed by cars waiting to turn into the parking structure. This additional west-bound lane, combined with a dedicated left-turn lane into the parking structure, will allow for maximum stacking ability during peak arrival times. The additional east-bound lane will also extend to the ' main Vail roundabout. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 21 ' O O O O O Oi O O O ® ~i ~1 D D O O O D d N fV 'T1 ~~ W N 0.5' I-70 RETAINING WALL 2' SHOULDER 8' 12' PARKING THRU LANE CURB & GUTTER TYPE 2 (SECTION IIB) (T~'P) I 2% EXISTING GAS LINE p VARIES LEFT MEDI TURN LANE CL ROADWAY 12.25' l PGL ~ 6" ASPHALT 14" ABC 12' RECOMPACTED SUBGRADE 13~ 14' THRU THRU LANE LANE Q D 10' SIDEWALK/ BIKE LANE CURB & GUTTER TYPE 2 (SECTION IB) (T~) 2% , PROPOSED 24" STM 2%_ I / ~r %/i CONC. WALK 4~ (MIN.) (TYP.) 6' RECOMPACTED SUBGRADE (TYP.) 7' MIN. TYPICAL SECTION SOUT}i FRONTAGE ROAD STA: 353+50 TO STA: 365+00 N.T.S. T_ z r C7 ;U D w 0 0 cn The addition of a six-foot shoulder along the north side of the frontage road will provide space for overflow parking during peak ski days. A ten-foot pedestrian/ bike path will be constructed along the south side of the road to complete a continuous pedestrian/ bike path from Cascade Village to Vail Village. A landscaped median will help to screen I-70 and will define left-tum movements into the parking structure, the conference center, and East Lionshead Circle. The parking structure's relocated exit will have two dedicated turn lanes out of the structure and onto South Frontage Road: one lane for cars turning left into the west-bound lane and the other for cars turning right into the east-bound lane. Visually, these modifications to the frontage road, when completed, will create a "Grand Boulevard," providing an aesthetic entrance to the Town's commercial core areas while improving vehicular traffic flow. 2. Reduction of Congestion and Conflicts on East Lionshead Circle a. Improvements at the Intersection with the Frontage Road The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identified the need to alleviate congestion at the intersection of East Lionshead Circle and South Frontage Road and to reduce traffic volume on East Lionshead Circle. Because East Lionshead Circle is currently only one lane each way, right-turning traffic at the intersection with the frontage road tends to back up and block in-town shuttle buses turning left at that point. Anew dedicated right-turn lane onto the frontage road is recommended to separate thesetwo flows, alleviating some congestion from the problematic intersection (Fig. 3-3). . Fig. 3-3. Dedicated right-turn lane at Frontage Rd. b. Improvements at the East Portal to the Lionshead Mall One area of acute conflict is the intersection at the southwest corner of the Lionshead parking structure, where skiers walking across East Lionshead Circle from their cars to the Lionshead mall and ski lifts converge with traffic of various kinds. In a previous redesign of the intersection (1980's), a pedestrian crossing was defined with pavers to differentiate it from areas where delivery trucks and buses load and unload, but it does not provide adequate control, and pedestrians persist in walking through the already. crowded service area. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identified the need to reduce congestion in this area by restricting access to all vehicles other than in-town shuttle buses, emergency vehicles, and private cars belonging to residents in neighboring buildings. The current plan for the Vail Resorts' core site in Lionshead (Arrabelle) includes an eight-bay underground loading area which will accommodate most of the service and FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 23 ' D ° ° ~~ delivery functions that now park in the east portal turnaround area. Additionally, the relocation of hotel vans and skier drop-off to the North Day Lot will leave only the in- town shuttle buses, emergency vehicles, and local residents as the primary traffic on East Lionshead Circle. Better directional signage would also contribute by reducing the number of lost drivers on the street. Relocation of service and delivery functions, hotel vans and skier drop-off to other sites will also help to reduce traffic volume on East Lionshead Circle east of the congested portal. 0 The conference center design team has considered the option of constructing a bridge over East Lionshead Circle in order to separate pedestrian traffic from cars, service trucks and buses at the troublesome confluence. An ADA-accessible elevator and escalators would be required for the parking structure. The pedestrian a bridge would force pedestrians and skiers from all levels of the parking garage to go up an elevator or escalator to cross the street, then down to ground level on the other side via another set of escalators and elevators. This complex crossing would be confusing and very expensive due to all the vertical circulation pieces, the heated bridge, and the enlarged, snowmelted transition areas on both sides of the bridge. Therefore, the team has concluded that this is not a realistic option. The construction of a tunnel was also studied, but it suffers from the same convoluted circulation and the expense of vertical circulation elements. This too was discarded as a possible solution to the problem. Fig. 3-4. One concept for reconfiguring the east portal intersection to make the on-grade pedestrian crossing safer. In this option, the Subway Annex building is retained, and the stairs from the parking structure are unchanged. With the reduction in the number of vehicles stopping in or moving through the east mall portal that will be achieved when Vail Resorts completes its Lionshead projects, an at-grade pedestrian crossing becomes a viable and safe solution. At a minimum, the conference center master plan suggests moving the town shuttle bus turnaround slightly eastward to separate pedestrian crossings from vehicular zones (Fig. 3-4). New pedestrian crosswalks should be heated and defined by special paving to create a safer connection between the parking structure and the Lionshead mall. Decorative handrails and planters could be added as pedestrian barriers to direct ' 24 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 D ° ° ~~ pedestrians into the crosswalks. Town shuttle bus stops will be provided to the north , and the south of the relocated turnaround and, in this option, lost drivers would use the tumaround south of the conference center. Consistent with the Lionshead ' Redevelopment Master Plan, a piece of public art or other iconic element in the mall entry plaza is recommended to provide a visible landmark at the portal to the Lionshead mall. , A more ambitious reconfiguration of the east portal intersection could be undertaken in conjunction with an alternative to develop a transit facility at that location, which ' would necessitate removal of the Subway Annex building and relocation of the public restrooms and Youth Services function now housed there. (See Fig. 3-73, Section C, Public Transit, for a diagram.) This option would reconfigure the street as well, providing a new place for lost drivers to tum around and go back to the frontage road , without driving all the way to the tumaround at Dobson Arena. c. Relocation of Hotel Vans and Skier Drop-off The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan anticipated that hotel vans and skier drop-off would be relocated from the east Lionshead portal, where they cause ' considerable congestion, to Vail Resorts' North Day Lot, where they could be integrated into a redevelopment plan for the property. d. Access to the Vail International Condominium Building ~~~ - ~ ~ ~ .- ~ - - -r-~-~ ~~~ ~ ~~:,~ Currently, the access to Vail International is a driveway from East Lionshead Circle that runs between the conference center site and Dobson Arena, interrupting a ' desired link between the two public facilities. The conference center design team FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 25 , Fig. 3-5. Although the conference center can be built without moving Vail International's access drive, ideas for relocating the access point to the frontage road were studied. D ° ° [~~ ' agrees with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan that the optimum solution to this potential conflict would be to relocate Vail International's access to the frontage road side of their property. This concept is physically feasible, both at the east side of the Vail International property, via a new driveway (possibly in cooperation with the Evergreen Lodge), and/or at the west side, . via a driveway shared with the conference center's service and parking entry (Fig. 3-5). Although some Vail International condominium owners also feel that access from the frontage" road would be to their benefit, it does not appear realistic that the owners will be able to reach agreement on a relocation scheme within a timeframe consistent with the conference center design process and the timing of critical design ' decisions. ,Consequently, conference center planners are moving forward with a plan that does not depend upon relocating the current access. ii Town staff has noted, however, that the number of pedestrians using East Lionshead Circle will increase after the charter bus lot is developed and if additional residential or retail uses are developed on the parking structure site (as recommended in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan). Safety of pedestrians crossing from the conference center to the arena is of foremost concern and will likely limit the continued ability of charter buses delivering guests to Vail International to use the existing driveway for backing maneuvers. Because of the Town's (and the residents') desire to avoid any increases in traffic volume on East Lionshead Circle, it is also likely that any future development of additional residential units on the Vail International property will trigger a requirement that access to the condominium complex be relocated to the frontage road. e. Drop-off Area for Conference Center Attendees ~~i JJ 26 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 Fig. 3-6. Proposed drop-off area for the conference center To avoid increasing the traffic volume on East Lionshead Circle, a prerequisite for conference center planning has been that all vehicles entering the new facility will access it from South Frontage Road. A drop-off lane large enough for three charter/event buses will be accessible from the east-bound lane of the frontage road and will be wide enough that both buses and cars can pass vehicles that are unloading passengers (Fig. 3-6, previous page). The drop-off area will be covered to protect unloading passengers from the weather as they gather in the north entry plaza and prepare to enter the conference center. The proximity of the drop-off to the conference center parking entry will facilitate valet parking during events. Taxis and private vehicles will also use the drop-off lane to deliver event/conference attendees. A modification to the diagram in Fig. 3-6 that would provide for U-turns from the west-bound frontage road into the conference center drop-off area is being studied; project traffic consultants are unsure if CDOT will deem that option acceptable. Once charter buses have unloaded passengers at the conference center, they will be directed to park in West Vail on North Frontage Road or possibly in Ford Park (see Relocation of Existing Uses, Chapter 4, Section ~. B. PUBLIC PARKING 1. Parking-Related Objectives in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan The Lionshead master plan recommended undertaking further study to determine a more exact projection of parking demand in the Lionshead area but, in the absence of such a study, estimated that another 400 to 500 parking spaces would be needed to meet the increasing demand for skier parking in the Town of Vail. Since the adoption of that plan, Town staff and Vail Resorts have generally agreed that another 400 public parking spaces would help reduce to fewer than fifteen the number of days during the ski season that cars must be parked on the frontage road. This number is irrespective of any additional demand created by development on the charter bus lot. The Lionshead plan also recommended that: • The Town consider adding another parking deck to the Lionshead parking structure and/or constructing a secondary parking structure in west Lionshead, on or near Vail Resorts' maintenance yard, or on the West Day Lot (an option likely precluded by Vail Resorts' development objectives for the site); The Town should not permit any net loss of public parking as a result. of future development on any property in Lionshead, including the conference center site. 2. Engineering Analysis of the Existing Lionshead Parking Structure Carl Walker Parking, Inc. has evaluated the existing Lionshead parking structure to determine the condition of the structure, its suitability for expansion, its compliance with current building codes, and the effect of its design configuration on efficiency of circulation and operation. The consultant's report also includes recommendations on relocation of the parking entry/exit point, alternative revenue control options, and the feasibility of a transit center within the structure. (See Appendix A for the complete final report.) FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 27 ' ~ ~ ~~ ' Code Issues. The Lionshead parking structure was designed in conformance with the 1979 Uniform Building Code in effect at the time. However, under the 2003 International Building Code (IBC), which is now the design standard for Colorado, the parking structure fails to satisfy many code regulations pertaining to ventilation, fire suppression, ADA-accessible parking spaces, and guardrail heights. Significant modifications to the ' parking structure may require improvements to bring the modified portions of the structure into compliance with IBC code provisions, although "portions of the structure not altered and not affected by the alteration are not required to comply with the code requirements for a new structure." The Walker report notes that an upgrade to the fire ' prevention system would probably be required in any case, at a cost of $400,000 to $500,000 per covered tier of parking. And, should other code compliance upgrades be required, "they could total $250,000 for handrails and guardrails, $200,000 for an ' elevator, and, possibly, $150,000 for plumbing upgrades" ($1.0 to $1.1 million). If the garage were to be expanded vertically or if the openness of the existing structure were affected, additional mechanical ventilation would likely be required to meet code. ' Structural Issues. Walker's review of the structure found it "to be in reasonably good condition given its age and exposure." However, after performing an analysis of the ' vertical and lateral load resisting systems, the parking consultants concluded that the existing structural systems are not sufficient to support an additional level of vertical expansion. In order to expand the structure upward, the existing foundations would ' need to be upgraded or an independent support system would need to be constructed. The sheer walls and foundations would also have to be upgraded to handle the increased lateral loads. ' Operational Issues. Working with the Town's transportation manager, Carl Walker Parking also analyzed the operations of the existing parking structure. They concluded ' that the structure's split level design, two-way intemat flow, and one-way internal ramping system cause significant circulation conflicts, long waiting times to exit during peak periods, and an unsafe pedestrian environment. ' To reduce exiting times and improve the existing structure's operations until it can be redeveloped, Carl Walker Parking has recommended adoption of a combined central pay and exit cashiering system. Central pay stations would be conveniently located ' inside the parking structure to allow people to pre-pay and exit though express lanes. The exit cashiering system would function in the same manner as the current operation but will be improved by the addition of the central pay express lanes, a new relief exit to ' the west (see relief exit diagrammed in Fig. 3-17}, and the ability to use the. exit through the conference center during times when no events are being held there. (See conference center parking access and circulation diagram, Fig. 3-9.) The Walker report also advocates converting the two-way circulation system within the garage to a one-way system with angled parking, as the two-way flow pattern causes traffic conflicts, confusion for users, and safety hazards for pedestrians. Although the conversion could reduce the capacity of the garage by an estimated 100 parking spaces, Walker lists a number of advantages, including improved circulation flow, shorter exiting times, greater ease of parking, better visibility for drivers and pedestrians, and reduced potential for accidents. If the loss of parking spaces is unacceptable, Walker strongly recommends converting at least the northern half of the top deck to a one-way flow in conjunction with the relocation of the garage entry/exit point. 1 2$ FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 IciU4 `~C if Recommendation Against Vertical Expansion. Carl Walker Parking was asked to evaluate the pros and cons of adding parking on top of the existing structure versus constructing parking underneath the conference center. The consultants determined that parking below the conference center is preferable because, among other reasons, the operational deficiencies of the existing garage will be made far worse if the capacity of the structure is increased. The Walker report concludes that, "we do not believe that a vertical expansion (of the existing structure] is very practical from a cost, constnactability, or operational standpoint." Considering the high costs associated with the structural and code upgrades, as well as the operational deficiencies identified by Carl Walker Parking, the design team and Town staff have recommended against adding a deck to the existing parking structure, at least in the initial phase of conference center development. The Conference Center Advisory Committee and Town Council are in agreement and have expressed a preference for the development scenario that, by putting parking under the conference center, preserves the option to demolish and replace the existing Lionshead structure in the future instead of investing money in retrofitting it. 3. Projected Parking Demand Associated with the Conference Center Projections by the Town's transportation consultant, Felsburg Holt & Ullewig (FHU), and by HVS, the consulting firm that prepared the business plan for the conference center, estimated that event activity at the conference center would create additional demand for 125 parking spaces. With this number, it was expected that the facility could host a conference for 700 people even during a peak ski day. The 125-space target was incorporated into the program requirements given to the conference center design team. In addition, to avoid any net loss of public parking, the building program requires replacement of any spaces lost in the existing structure due to relocation of the entry/exit point; this number is currently estimated at 70 spaces, for a total parking requirement of 195 spaces associated with the conference center. Subsequent work by HVS was requested to revisit and verify the conference center parking demand projection of 125 spaces. In January 2005, HVS issued a revised parking analysis appendix to its conference center business plan. (See Appendix B for the complete report and the assumptions on which the parking projections are based.) The HVS analysis explains that it is typical to plan fora "design day" (i.e. the majority of days, when there are sufficient parking spaces to satisfy demand) rather than a "peak day" (i.e. the busiest days of the year, when parking demand is at its maximum) to avoid the cost of building spaces that sit vacant most of the year. In calculating parking demand, it is standard practice to consider 75% to 85% of peak day demand as the design day; however, at the Town's request, HVS used 90% as the design day percentile in its report. In its design day projections, HVS considered both the "base demand" (skiers and other visitors) and the incremental demand associated with use of the conference center for meetings and evening events (attendees and employees). Significant conclusions from the HVS analysis include: • The number of parking spaces the Town will need to add because of the conference center is a function of the design day demand in the ski season; the facility will not cause demand to exceed design day supply in summer and shoulder seasons. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 29 D ° ° ~~ ' In the peak day demand scenarios, parking deficits will occur with or without the conference center. at noon and 3:00 PM during the ski season. Deficits also occur in the peek scenario at 7:00 PM in the summer, although this is less problematic than ski season deficits because there is more capacity in the Village structure. ' The HVS business plan estimated that the conference center will need 18 permanent full-time employees. Larger events may require as many as 70 to 80 part-time. personnel. HVS recommends providing only 10 parking spaces for facility staff and ' visitors; it suggests that other employees be given incentives to park remotely and use Town and County public transit. • The peak day scenario indicates that the conference center will create an estimated demand for 62 additional parking spaces (52 plus 10 spaces for employees). This suggests that the 125-space target "exceeds the number of spaces necessary" to satisfy demand generated by activity at the conference center. However, if the goal is ' to avoid increasing the overflow parking at the Lionshead structure, "The 125 additional spaces would decrease the number of overflow cars [related to skier demand] and provide additional capacity to handle peak conference center demand." ' After construction of 125 net new parking spaces with the conference center, the only time when estimated demand will exceed capacity on a design day is during the ski season at noon (a deficit of 99 spaces, versus a deficit of 175 spaces at that time of day without the new conference center parking). • The HVS analysis concludes that "the addition of 125 parking spaces is more than sufficient to accommodate the event-related demand projected for the conference center at the highest demand periods when spaces are at a premium. The additional parking spaces would create the added benefit of reducing overall excess parking ' demand at the Lionshead structure, as the design day demand or less will occur on 90 percent of the days during the ski season." ' 30 4. Parking and Service under the Conference Center Following on the recommendation of project engineers against vertical expansion of the existing parking structure, the project architects have determined that 320 parking spaces could be developed on three levels underneath the conference center (Fig. 3-7). A fourth underground level, bringing the total to 455 spaces, may be physically possible but would add significantly to the cost per space and is not being actively pursued. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 Figure 3-7. North-south section through the conference center showing parking levels and the loading area underneath fhe ballrooms. L~ V s'~ elf The 325 proposed spaces under the conference center would satisfy the following needs: • 125 spaces to be reserved for conference center use when needed; 70 spaces to replace those lost when a new north entrance is created for the existing parking structure; • 130 new spaces for the general public. Minus the 70 spaces intended to replace those lost to the new entry, this plan yields a total of 255 net new public parking spaces. These spaces can be operated as an integral part of the Lionshead parking structure when not needed for conference center activities. Vail Resorts has committed $4.3 million to be used for the development of additional public parking. The company is willing to apply this amount to the cost of the 320 parking spaces undemeath the new conference center as long as the 125 parking spaces associated with the conference center are made available .on most peak ski days, when the probability of a large day-time conference event is small. The project transportation consultants and cost estimators anticipate that the cost per space of putting parking below the conference center is similar to the cost of putting it over the existing parking structure. According to estimates in the Carl Walker Parking report, the cost per space under the conference center could range from $28,000 to $32,500, depending on how many levels are built and without including soft costs and dewatering systems. The cost per space for vertical expansion of the existing structure could range from $32,250 to $37,500, without including soft costs, new mechanical system, or demolition but assuming that all code-related and structural upgrades are included. (In contrast, new construction of above-ground parking is estimated at $22,000 per space.) As a second phase in the effort to address the public parking challenge, Vail Resorts has recommended that the Town and the resort company work together to develop a funding source for a new parking structure on the Vail Resorts/Holy Cross maintenance facility site in west Lionshead. Preliminary design work by Vail Resorts has indicated that a four-level above-grade parking structure with 400 spaces could be created on the site, which currently provides surface parking for Vail Resorts employees. If this plan were to be pursued, it would be understood that half of the 400 spaces would be reserved for Vail Resorts employees; the other 200 spaces would be available for others employed in the Town of Vail. With the 250 net new parking spaces underneath the conference center and 200 new employee parking spaces at the Holy Cross site, Town staff is confident that current skier parking on the frontage road could be reduced to fewer than fifteen days a season. This strategy does not preclude the redevelopment of the Lionshead parking structure. Because the conference center parking can be operated independently from the Lionshead parking structure, the existing structure could be replaced in phases. The northern half of the existing structure could be demolished first and replaced with a new and more efficient garage of equal or greater capacity. During that phase, temporary access ramps and temporary relocation of entry/exit gates to East Lionshead Circle will FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 31 ' D ° ° ~~ ' permit operation of the southern half of the existing structure until construction of the new parking structure is completed. At that time, the south half of the structure can be torn down, leaving an open site for redevelopment of more active uses along East ~~ Lionshead Circle. A separate entry/exit for both parking and loading under the conference center will be located on the building's east side, accessible and highly visible from both west- and east-bound lanes of South Frontage Road (Fig. 3-8). This entry/exit will also serve as a much needed relief exit for the Lionshead parking structure during peak exiting times when parking under the center is not needed for conference participants. .. ~ -~- t ;! 1 e ~' ~7:J ce v~~ ,,~~aa C1- 'S : ~ I . ~ ~..~. c J-1?, i . r;~ ~/V/G CENTER i , - r,. , ` ~ ~. :, _ ~. Pare.h4~ . y r 1 Fig. 3-8. East-side service ramp. Trucks going to the loading area will share the same drive. Cars will turn into the parking structure after the first ramp, while service vehicles will continue another level down to the enclosed loading docks (Fig. 3-9; see also the section in Fig. 3-7). Vail Intemational could access the frontage road by sharing this ramped driveway if the Vail International Condominium Association elects to seize the opportunity. The new conference center parking will include at least one connection back to the Lionshead parking structure, allowing the conference center's parking to function as part of the Lionshead parking structure on peak ski days. This connection can be closed off when necessary, allowing the two parking structures to operate independently of one another so that the conference center parking supply can be reserved for exclusive use by meeting and event participants. ' 32 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 Fig. 3-9. Conference Center parking access and connections to the existing Lionshead parking levels (level below ballrooms). ~T1G!s,G~lf 5. Relocation of the Entry to the Lionshead Parking Structure Fig. 3-10. Relocated entry and reconfigured ticket and cashier booths, Uonshead parking structure. The current entry/exit of the Lionshead parking structure crosses the charter bus lot and will be displaced with the construction of the new conference center. Carl Walker Parking has determined that the best location for a new entry is in the middle of the north side of the existing structure, where there is maximum distance between the numerous curb cuts along the frontage road and adequate distance from the intersection with East Lionshead Circle. This location also provides the longest stacking lanes inside the structure to accommodate the volume of cars exiting during peak periods. The new entry/exit. will displace 70 existing parking spaces, which will be replaced in the new parking supply underneath the conference center. The existing access point to the parking structure consists of five gates that change between entry and exit lanes depending on the need. Based on parking projections, the feasibility study by Carl Walker Parking (Appendix A) identifies an expanded need for three entry lanes and five exit booths in order to attain an acceptable level of service (LOS A or B). The new entry design (Fig. 3-10) will have two entry lanes from the frontage road that will feed three entry ticket gates. The exit will have four cashier booths that will feed two exit lanes onto the frontage road; one of the lanes will be a dedicated right turn and the other will be a dedicated left turn. This new entry/exit is operationally equivalent to the entry/exit gates in place today; if and when the Lionshead parking structure is redeveloped, it can be redesigned. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 33 ' D ° ° [~~ ' 6. New Exit at the West End of the Lionshead Parking Structure . , _ To improve the efficiency of the existing Lionshead ' " ___- parking structure, Carl Walker Parking has identified c-~'~ ~--- the option of an additional exit to East Lionshead ' ~ : ~ G=-~=' Circle from the second level of the structure. This exit - ~ would be used only to provide relief during peak -~ ` periods. To make it function efficiently will require an °-~ additional turn lane onto East Lionshead Circle, which ' ~ __ ; ~ will feed into a dedicated right tum lane onto South Frontage Road (Fig. 3-11). The addition of this lane will separate the majority of the traffic turning right .~ ;~~ €~ ~ from the in-town shuttle buses turning left, alleviating ~; ___~~ some congestion from the problematic intersection. ' l (These improvements are not included in the / ~ conference center project budget -see Estimated / ~' I Costs for Implementation, Chapfer 5, Section B.) t i ~~r ~- ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~~~ ~~:,~~~ Fig. 3-11. Relief exit from west end of LJonshead parking structure r C. PUBLIC TRANSIT ' 1. Transit-Related Objectives in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies two specific actions to maintain and improve the level of service of the Town's transit system. The first is the addition of a right-tum lane from East Lionshead Circle onto South Frontage Road that would reduce delays for town buses attempting to turn left onto the frontage road. (This recommendation has been incorporated into this master plan -see Section A.2.a. and Fig. 3-3 in this chapter.) ' The second recommendation 'in the Lionshead plan was the development of a municipal transit center in Lionshead to accommodate regional buses, charter buses, skier drop- . off, hotel vans, and service vehicles. This action was recommended for several reasons: • First, it was deemed necessary to handle the growing number of regional buses serving Vail, a growth trend that is expected to overload the capacity of the existing ' Vail Village transit facility. • Second, it was seen as an essential step in the effort to alleviate circulation conflicts between buses, pedestrians, cars and service vehicles in' the congested area ' between the Lionshead parking structure and the east portal to the Lionshead mall. Except for Eagle County's ECO buses and the Town's West Vail buses, all of these modes of traffic -delivery vehicles, in-town buses, hotel vans, and private cars -use ' that turnaround on East Lionshead Circle. By diverting at least some of these modes ' 34 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 to other sites, a new transit center in Lionshead would reduce congestion and hazards to pedestrians. • Third, a new transit facility v`vas seen as the best option for relocating charter bus loading and unloading after development of the existing charter bus lot. The Lionshead plan identified the North Day Lot as a site ideally located fora multi- purpose facility for regional and Town buses, charter buses, delivery vehicles, hotel shuttles, and skier drop-off. One of the advantages of this location is that it would funnel pedestrian traffic into the Lionshead mall at its center point, changing the distribution of pedestrian circulation through the core area and helping to energize the western portion of the mall that currently suffers from underutilization. The plan also recommended that potential regional transit systems, both vehicular and non-vehicular (i.e. trains, monorails, etc.), be investigated so as not to preclude opportunities for future intermodal connections. 2. Alternative Locations for a Transit Center As part of the master planning process for the conference center, URS was engaged to evaluate and compare four options for development of a new transit center that could accommodate all the modes of transportation mentioned above and that could handle a minimum of five buses atone time. The four options included: • A multi-use development by Vail Resorts that incorporates a transit facility on the company-owned North Day Lot, consistent with the recommendation in the Lionshead master plan; • Anew transit center on the top deck of the existing Lionshead parking structure, assessed from the frontage road (Fig. 3-12); • Anew transit Center as part of a redevelopment of the Lionshead parking structure site; • A transit facility in the East Lionshead Circle turnaround site, at the southwest comer of the Lionshead parking structure (Fig. 3-13). - There is a fifth option: the no-action alternative to leave the regional bus stop at Concert Hall Plaza. Although the least costly alternative, this site is too small and oddly shaped to be considered for a full transit program or any ancillary uses. Also, it does not offer a very direct pedestrian route to the mountain, and its continued use as a bus and delivery stop limits the redevelopment potential of a property that could be mare effective as the westem portal to the Lionshead core. It is likely, however, to remain the designated stop for ECO and regional buses until another transit center option can be developed. 3. Criteria for Evaluating Alternative Transit Center Sites Factors that were considered in the evaluation process included: • Adequate physical space for the desired transit program (5 buses, 5 shuttle vans) and the requirements for safe vehicle circulation and maneuvering; • Convenient access for buses on Town of Vail and regional bus routes (and 1-70); • Safe distance between transit center entry and any roadway intersection (+/- 150'); FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 35 , D ° ° ~~ ' Se aration from the Villa a transit center p g , • Space for a sheltered waiting area and public restrooms (+/- 600 sq. ft.); • Potential to combine space with the information center; ~> • Structural capacity of the existing Lionshead parking garage; • Cost of development; ' Potential for future expansion of the transit center; • Projected impacts on frontage road traffic; • Impact on pedestrian circulation patterns, particularly between the Lionshead parking structure and the retail core, as well as between the transit center and the retail core; also, safe movement within the transit center and proximity to pedestrian destinations; • Visibility of the facility from I-70 and the frontage road; • Ease of rider transfer from regional to in-town shuttle buses; • More even distribution in the pedestrian flow into the .Lionshead core area from transit stops and parking; • Ability to assemble a partnership with Vail Resorts and Federal agencies; • Availability and timing of Federal mass transit funding; • Community input. These criteria were considered starting points for discussion; not all of them proved significant in the initial evaluation of alternatives. 4. The North Day Lot ' , Based only on functional criteria, URS agreed with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (see Fig. 3-12) and concluded that the best location for a transit facility is ' the North Day Lot (Appendix C, Vail Transit Center Site Selection Report). The largest of the alternative sites, this location provides more space for a full transit program and potential future expansion, has better vehicle access from the frontage road, is accessible for pedestrians coming from the north side of I-70, and strengthens the north- ' south pedestrian axis into the Lionshead core. Despite the preference for the North Day Lot, however, a number of difficulties and challenges exist: ' The Town of Vail does not have adequate funding now to commit to a $9-$10 million transit facility, but Vail Resorts is prepared to move forward now with the redevelopment of the property. ' Federal grant dollars may be available in 2007 for a transit facility; however, the Town's funding request for $7 million could be reduced or eliminated. • There is significant opposition from adjacent property owners to a transit facility on the North Day Lot that will serve diesel buses. Vail Resorts will move forward with a 150-bed affordable housing project on the North Day Lot if the Town elects to locate a transit facility with buses on the site. However, if large buses are not located on the North Day Lot, Vail Resorts is willing to entertain the idea of a cooperative redevelopment of Timber Ridge in ' exchange for being allowed to develop an accommodations project on the North . Day Lot. ' 36 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 _~~~ _ 1`iOILTH LIONSir~r'~i? PE~ESTItIAN CC3RRiDflR PEDES'TI3ir~„~I PORT T4ANSPO:RTATIO~t C1NTIzR A1~.RiV,~,I, FACILITY d.OGALlR.I:GIONAl. SHUTTLES LOCAIJIt%GIONriI. TRrL~7SIT AN'A CHr1ItTFIt. BUSES JPEAEVELflI'ED/REA~OV ATEA LAidAI~IARI~ TOVdI~iIORfES ~. a ___._n. ~~ ~ - - -- ' LANi?41t1RIC ~ w 3 ~ `_ ' ~- 5, ~ ,~' ~' F h µ ._ p _ ~ ::_ .~ - . l . __, .-._...,., .....e-_..eT _ ~ r ~~ ~'~ 6 1 ' S ~ l 1 1 r.r ~ ~ - - ~~ .....,~ r ~ ~iS'I•ING PEAESTItIAN BI~IAGE TRA:NSTC VEHICULAR CIRCULATION ACGESS TDBELOW-STRUCTURE SERVICE ANA AEI.iVEItY FACILITY SI'iORT TERY+i 5I{IER T3ROP-OFF' AREA LANASCAPE SCREENING TOWARAS 3VESTWG*(A CONDOM~15UIvIS Fig. 3-12. Conceptual diagram from the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan illustrating a possible layout for a transit center on the North Day Lot (page 4-31). FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 37 . D ° ° [~`~ ' S. Transit Center on the Existing or Redeveloped Lionshead Parking Structure ' ) Whether a transit center is built on the top deck of the existing parking structure or is part of a future redevelopment on the parking stnacture site, many of the pros and cons of the location are similar in both alternatives. Advantages they have in common are the ' absence of adjacent residential properties, the fact that the site is already Town-owned, the direct vehicular access from the frontage road, and the proximity to the conference center. A major disadvantage of both alternatives is the proliferation of curb cuts along ' the frontage road, which could be confusing for drivers and may be unacceptable to C DOT. Other disadvantages are that the site is minimally adequate in size for the desired program, displaces existing parking spaces, and offers no expansion potential. Further, the pedestrian connection to the retail core and the mountain is the longest of any ' altemative, and the walking route from the existing structure does not offer ahigh-quality experience. (In a redevelopment project, it could be redesigned.) Neither alternative leaves space for landscaping to improve the visual quality of the frontage road. If the transit facility were built on the existing garage in phase 1, with the conference center, it would have to be relocated for the duration of phase 2 redevelopment, then later rebuilt. As part of a redevelopment of the site, the timing of the transit center project would be complicated by the need to involve an outside developer. 1 1 38 ~..~~ ~. ~° ^s,-ice.. _,_~. ~_ ,:'. ~' In addition to the functional evaluation by URS, the engineers at Carl Walker Parking were asked to evaluate the structural capacity of the existing parking garage to support bus traffic. They found that the IBC-required live-load carrying capacity is greater than twice the design load of the existing structure, and the concentrated live-load capacity of the structure would have to be nearly ten times greater, or more, to meet code. Further, in evaluating similar pre-cast parking structures that have been retrofitted for bus traffic, they found that the impact of .buses had caused rapid deterioration of the double tee FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 Fig. 3-13. Conceptual layout of a transit center on the top deck of the existing Lionshead parking structure ~Gs.r~° flange connections in the structure. The Walker report concluded that they would "strongly recommend against bus traffic on the existing structure unless extensive reconstruction is undertaken." 6. Transit Center in the East Lionshead Circle Turnaround The portion of East Lionshead Circle at the southwest comer of the existing parking structure and the eastern entry to the Lionshead mall is large enough in size to accommodate currently projected transit functions. The development of a transit center here is workable with certain caveats: 1) the Annex building (where Subway and Youth Services are located) will need to be removed and Youth Services relocated; 2) the stairs from the parking structure will need to be relocated; 3) the new loading facility under Vail Resorts' Arrabelle will have to be constructed so that service and delivery functions can be removed from this area; and 4) the North Day Lot redevelopment will have to be completed so that hotel vans and skier drop-off functions can be relocated. All driveways into neighboring condominium buildings can be maintained in their current locations under this scenario. Among the advantages of this option are that it offers the shortest walking distance from parking and buses to the mountain and it will not require that routes for the in-town shuttle be modified. Significantly, it does not add new access points to the frontage road FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 39 ' Fig. 3-14. Conceptual diagram of a transit center in a reconfigured portion of East Lionshead Circle. D ° ° ~~ ' (therefore CDOT approval is not required), and it has the potential for funding synergies between Federal transit sources and local TIF monies. This option also solves some ' difficult circulation issues: By redirecting pedestrian traffic from the parking structure away from bus loading areas and by relocating some vehicular functions to other sites, it simplifies vehicular circulation patterns through the area and eliminates most of the ' conflicts presently experienced at the site. By providing a place for lost drivers to turn around, it reduces traffic volume on the street. With better signage, new entry monuments, creative landscaping and a visible landmark of some kind in the arrival plaza, this alternative also supports efforts to make East Lionshead Circle a more prominent entry into Lionshead. ' There are of course some disadvantages of this option apart from the necessity to relocate Youth Services and the public restrooms. From a circulation standpoint, uphill bus movement on East Lionshead Circle, combined with a proposed new relief exit from ' the parking structure, could cause congestion at the frontage road intersection. Vehicles coming in from the frontage road would be forced to go through a bus lane in order to drive to neighboring condos and could at times conflict with bus movements. There is limited potential for future expansion of the facility. Unless very well designed, a transit ' center at this location would not constitute ahigh-quality entry to Lionshead or an asset to redevelopment plans for the parking structure. 7. Conclusions and Recommended Direction The URS report concludes that, while the North Day Lot is their preferred site, the East Lionshead Circle turnaround site also warrants serious consideration. The option of ' . including .a transit center in a redevelopment on the parking structure site could be the most cost-effective solution but; because it requires developer involvement, is the least ' certain option. Both URS and Carl Walker Parking discourage a transit facility on the existing parking structure, at least not in phase 1 with the conference center and not without significant modifications to the structure. After meetings between Town staff, Vail Resorts, Town Council and advisory committee members, the following direction is proposed: ' Locate an eight-bay central loading and delivery facility under the Lionshead core site development, to be built by Vail Resorts (Arrabelle). Plans for this development were approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in 2004. This facility will allow delivery vehicles serving Lionshead stores and restaurants to be removed from the east portal area. • During specified times of the day, allow charter buses to utilize the service/delivery ' facility under Arrabelle for loading and unloading passengers. Vail Resorts is agreeable, as this will improve skier operations by bringing guests from their buses directly up an elevator to obtain lift passes and meet ski instnactors within the same ' building. Off-site parking for charter buses could be provided along North Frontage Road and/or at Ford Park. ' Integrated with Vail Resorts' plans for development on the North Day Lot, design a facility to accommodate hotel skier shuttles (gas vans) and skier drop-off (private cars). ' Maintain the regional (ECO) and west Vail bus stops at Concert Hall Plaza for the next two years. ' 40 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 • Develop an RFP in 2006 or 2007 for the redevelopment of the Lionshead parking structure. The development program would include a transit facility for regional and Town of Vail buses within the project. At the same time, Town staff will continue to evaluate the viability of the transit facility option in the East Lionshead Circle turnaround area. If an interested and qualified developer is not found within the next few years, move forward with the design and construction of a bus stop/ transit center on East Lionshead Circle after the core site and North Day Lot redevelopment projects by Vail Resorts are completed. D. SERVICE AND DELIVERY 1. Relevant Objectives in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan The Lionshead plan reiterated a desire for a centralized service and delivery facility somewhere in Lionshead -possibly the core site or the North Day Lot - so that use of the East Lionshead Circle area by service vehicles could be eliminated. If the transit strategy outlined above is implemented, this objective will be accomplished. The Lionshead -plan also suggested that a service vehicle parking area at the west end of the Lionshead parking structure be considered if businesses in the' eastern portion of the Lionshead mall find that the central service facility in the Vail Square development is too far away for convenient deliveries. With the recommendations made in this plan, it would not be possible to accommodate service vehicle parking at that location. Finally, the plan mandates that all site-specific service and delivery facilities be screened from adjacent uses. 2. The Conference Center Solution Service access to the conference center will share the parking entry/exit at the east side of the new building (see Figs. 3-8 and 3-9). Anew left-turn lane will be added from South Frontage Road into the ramped driveway that accesses the service area and parking. The entrance to the parking will immediately break off to the right and into the conference center's parking garage, while the service ramp will continue down to the next lower level. The service/parking ramp will be screened from adjacent Vail International residents by heavy landscaping on a berm along the driveway. The east wall facing Vail International will be designed as an attractive elevation. The service area and loading docks will be completely enclosed, with interior space large enough for four trucks plus trash handling equipment. Because of its proximity to Dobson Arena, the conference center's loading area could be scheduled for shared use by both buildings if events are coordinated in advance. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 41 ' 1 1 42 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 D o ~ ~~ ' CHAPTER4 THE LIONSHEAD CONTEXT: , ~~ CONNECTIONS AND COMPATIBILITY This chapter focuses on contextual and regulatory issues that have arisen with the proposal to ' locate a large civic facility in Lionshead. The contextual issues examined here relate to several high-priority objectives identified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, specifically: the quality of the pedestrian environment (Section A); compatibility with neighboring uses and ' building character (Section B);and the enhancement of connections, both visual and physical, to the natural environment (Section C). Other important contextual issues include the relocation of existing uses on or adjacent to the project site that will be displaced by the conference center (Section D) and the relationship of the project to Vail Resorts' plans for redevelopment of the Lionshead core site (Section E). From a regulatory standpoint, there are two primary considerations: compatibility with the ' Town's adopted development standards (Section F) and design guidelines (Section G) and an assessment of the project's overall consistency with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan ' (Section H). A. THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT. 1. Adopted Town Objectives for East Lionshead Circle ' Key among a number of recommendations for pedestrian improvements in the ' Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was the enhancement of East Lionshead Circle as an essential part of a stronger east-west pedestrian corridor linking Vail Village to the Lionshead commercial core. , For the redesign of East Lionshead Circle and the addition of pedestrian amenities, the Lionshead master plan simply called for implementation of relevant provisions of the ' earlier Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan in a style consistent with the design improvements that have subsequently been proposed for West Meadow Drive and the Village. To make the street more hospitable to pedestrians, the Streetscape Master Plan ' (pages 13-20) identified .these specific streetscape improvements for East Lionshead Circle (Fig. 4-1) and the plaza at the eastern portal to the Lionshead mall: • Reconfiguration of the existing east portal to Lionshead mall to reduce conflicts ' between vehicles and pedestrians coming to and from the parking structure (see Section 3 below and Chapter 3, Section C.6). • Separation of the pedestrian walkways .from the vehicular roadway on East , Lionshead Circle and reduction of the width of the roadway to 24'. • Addition of benches and other site amenities along the north side of East Lionshead ' Circle. • Selection of new street lighting fixtures with a consistent design theme. ' • Addition of pedestrian crosswalks. • Consolidation of the driveway entries into the Lodge at Lionshead. ' FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 43 ' t SECTION.A EAST LIONSIIEAD CIRCLE Fig. 4-1. Diagrammatic section through East Lionshead Circle showing improvements recommended in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan (1999, page 20). Most pedestrian improvements were proposed on the north side of the street, adjacent to the parking structure (the right side of this drawing). It is intended that these basic improvements -paver walkways on both sides of the ' street, benches, new street lights and new pedestrian-scale lighting -will be part of the initial phase of conference center development, though not included in the conference center budget or basic design scope of services. More intensive improvements in public ' spaces along the street could happen in conjunction with subsequent redevelopment of the parking structure. ' 2. The Conference Center as a Connective Element and Catalyst for Activity. A fundamental goal of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pian was to increase the vitality of the resort/retail sector in Lionshead by improving the aesthetic appeal, intensity and variety of pedestrian activities at the ground floor level of core-area buildings. In Chapter 8, the plan states: . ' The pedestrian experience of the public spaces within Lionshead is the most critics! issue for redevelopment....One of the most effective ways to intensify this experience is through careful design of the architecture which defines the public spaces. Visually dynamic variation at the pedestrian level can help to avoid a monotonous streetscape, and judicious use of ornament, detail, artwork, and color can reflect individuality and establish a variety of experience. The introduction of another civic building in the node that currently includes Dobson Arena, Vail Public Library and the Vail Valley Medical Center was a deliberate choice meant to strengthen not only the concentration of community-based activities but also ' the pedestrian connection between Vail Village and Lionshead by adding another destination to the elements that punctuate the chile-long walking route. It is hoped that ' 44 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 ~~I~''%,~[.u, events held in the conference center as well as a proposed new civic plaza at the center's south entrance will create new energy at street level and help to reduce the perceived walking distance between the Town's two commercial cores. Visually, too, the conference center will be a landmark that draws pedestrians through the civic node from both directions. The usefulness of the civic plaza proposed at the south side of the conference center will be enhanced if the existing vehicle turnaround that currently terminates the publicly accessible part of East Lionshead Circle at Dobson Arena can eventually be eliminated. After developments by Vail Resorts on the North Day Lot and the core site are completed, allowing the removal of some service and drop-off functions from the east portal turnaround area, this important intersection can be improved, possibly eliminating the need for another turnaround at the eastern end of the street.. This would help to strengthen the pedestrian connections among the various civic buildings and create a more dynamic, multi-purpose public space at the pedestrian entry to the conference center. However, a temporary turnaround slightly to the west of its current location, as illustrated in Fig. 4-2, will be needed until the conference center construction is complete. The sauth edge of East Lionshead Circle wiH remain where it is. In addition, a physical on-grade connection between the conference center and Dobson Arena, heated and possibly covered, can be achieved without blocking the driveway to Vail International or the pedestrian path to the Evergreen Lodge. (A covered connection is-not included in the conference center construction budget.) ~- __ -I .__ _ -- --- - - ~ , ---w-- --~r--~, ~.- ~~ ~ j~_ ~.: ~ ~ - z __~ Fig. 4-2. Conceptual site plan diagram showing connections between the conference center, Dobson Arena and the library, the relocation of the turnaround slightly to t/re west, and space for a new public plaza of fhe south side entry to the conference center. Direct pedestrian access from the Lionshead parking structure into the conference center will be provided via an elevator and new stairs that replace the existing steps at the southeast corner of the parking garage. Pedestrians going from the garage to the FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 45 ~ ~ ~~ ' arena or the libra will be able to circulate from the elevator to the walkway that ry connects to Dobson. 3. Pedestrian Improvements at the East Portal to the Lionshead Mall ' Section A.2.b of Chapter 3 discussed proposed traffic modifications at the east portal plaza to increase pedestrian safety by clarifying traffic movements and reducing the variety of vehicles using the area. Both alternative site plan concepts for the east portal ' turnaround area (one with a transit center, Fig. 3-13, and one without, Fig. 3-4) shift the bus stop and crosswalk locations in order to funnel pedestrians more directly from their point of origin (bus stops, parking garage levels) to their destinations in the mall. And both reserve a place for an architectural or public art landmark to anchor an improved ' public arrival plaza. The plaza itself would be redesigned in collaboration with the streetscape plans that are part of Vail Resorts' proposed Vail Square project. ' 4. New Pedestrian Connection from Frontage Road to East Portal of Lionshead Mall Another needed improvement in the network of pedestrian connections, identified in the ' Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is a sidewalk along the north-south section of East Lionshead Circle up to the frontage road. This fink would greatly improve the safety of skiers who have to park on the frontage road and walk to the Lionshead gondola. It would also serve as a secondary walkway to the Lionshead mall if transit facilities are developed on the Lionshead parking structure in the future. Further, it would be the only . connection without stairs linking the I-70 pedestrian overpass and recreation path to the Lionshead mall. When the Town proceeds with the design of streetscape improvements on East Lionshead Circle, this component is recommended for inclusion in the plan. 5. Retail Space along East Lionshead Circle The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan suggests that the Town consider wrapping 1 the south facade of the parking structure with a retail or mixed-use development in order to create an even stronger pedestrian corridor between Vail Village and Lionshead. The phasing plan for the conference center provides for this possibility, either as an addition to the existing structure or through redevelopment of the parking structure site. B. RESPONSES TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS 1. General Concerns of Neighborhood Residents and Property Owners ' In initial planning sessions during September 2004, the design team, Town staff and community participants identified a number of issues affecting the area immediately adjacent to the conference center site that residents wished to see addressed during the ' master planning phase for the new facility. The following key objectives of adjacent property owners were gathered from community work sessions: • To assure that the new facility will not increase vehicular traffic on East Lionshead Circle, and, if possible, to reduce traffic volume on the street. • To access the Civic Center's service area from Frontage Road and screen it. 46 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 • To maintain driveway access to condominiurrls currently served from East Lionshead Circle. • To create a facility generally compatible with the scale and character of adjacent civic and residential condo developments. • To maintain existing pedestrian connections to the Lionshead core from residential properties. • To discourage concepts for the conference center and its site plan that might preclude future redevelopment opportunities on adjacent properties. 2. Responses in the Conference Center Master Plan Traffic Volume on East Lionshead Circle: All vehicular access to the conference center will be from South Frontage Road. In addition, the conference center master plan recommends relocating certain other vehicular traffic that currently uses East Lionshead Circle to other locations -hotel shuttle vans and skier drop-off to the North Day Lot and delivery vehicles to a new central facility under Vail Resorts' core site redevelopment. These master plan provisions should assure that traffic volume on the street is not increased by the conference center development and, on the contrary, should accomplish a reduction in traffic. Service Access to the Conference Center: Both, service vehicles and parking for the conference center will access the facility via a ramped driveway from the frontage road on the east side of the new building. Because this is the only workable alternative for service access, there are concems for its visibility from Vail International, so the driveway will be well screened with vegetation, attractive retaining walls, and grading. Existing Driveways on East Lionshead Circle: The master plan does not obstruct any existing driveways to condominiums accessed from East Lionshead Circle. Alternatives for relocating the existing driveway to Vail International, which cuts across the potential pedestrian connection between the conference center and Dobson Arena, were discussed with condominium owners but none seemed compatible with the project schedule (see Chapter 3, Section A.2.a7. Compatibility in Scale and Character: With a facility of the size proposed for the conference center, it is difficult to mimic the scale or architectural character of adjacent residential condominiums and, in any case, it is the objective of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to encourage significant upgrading of the area's existing residential buildings and to create a civic landmark with the conference. center. The proposed building will be compatible in scale and use with other nearby civic facilities and, over time, may be the catalyst for improvement in the exterior appearance of the adjacent parking structure. Although the footprint of the building will be considerably larger than that of neighboring buildings, the height of the building, at two oversized stories, will still be compatible with the neighborhood. Architects are proposing to use high-quality materials evocative of a mountain setting, which are consistent with Lionshead master plan objectives and should help to integrate the structure with existing and future buildings in Lionshead. (See also the discussion of development standards and architectural guidelines in Sections F and G of this chapter.) FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 47 ' • Options for Future Development: Both Vail International and the Lodge at Lionshead have entertained the possibility of additional development on their ' properties. In the case of Vail International, this consideration is a factor in evaluating alternatives for relocating their driveway access to South Frontage Road, as the owners do not want a new driveway to preclude future development over their current parking area. In the case of the Lodge at Lionshead, condominium owners were concerned that the designation of a protected view corridor from the conference center might limit the height of any new building on their property, but this does not appear to be a problem (see next section). C. CONNECTIONS TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recommended two strate ies to assure that the 9 increasingly intensive development encouraged in Lionshead would not cause the loss of visual and physical connections to what is ultimately the town's most important drawing card: the natural environment, primarily in the form of mountain views and Gore Creek. The first strategy was to create as many green corridors as possible that penetrate into the developed areas of Lionshead. This has implications for the design character of public spaces and suggests that the pedestrian connection from the conference center to the Gore Creek recreational path be made more visible through signage, landscaping, and pathway ' improvements. The second strategy was to establish several key public view corridors to preserve and ' protect the visual connection to the natural environment. With particular relevance to this project, the Lionshead master plan recommended that the Town consider designating a ' 48 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 i protected view corridor from the charter bus lot (thE: conference center site) toward the ski mountain to the south (identified as "View Corridor Three" in the Lionshead plan, page 4-7). It is certainly true that views from inside the conference center to the surrounding mountain ,' landscape are a crucial design element that can set the facility apart from its competition ~ and make it a special destination for meetings and events. After a site visit with Lodge at Lionshead owners to discuss the potential view corridor, a photo simulation of potential development on the condominium property was done to show the impact on views of a new condominium building at the full allowable height (Fig. 4-4). A new structure, even at a maximum allowable average height of 72 feet as indicated by the dashed line on the photo, does not appear to interrupt panoramic views to the mountain from the main level of the conference center. It was agreed by all to review the view corridor issue again during schematic design, after the basic. plan of the conference center is better defined and a specific view point from an important activity area in the new building can be identified. _..~ _ ~~ i ,a .- ,. .. I, i ~ ~,'~ ~ r ' , ~ i fi x ~. ~.t 1 ~ ~ ' a ' ~~ ~ 17 _'' ,i u .~, ~~ rti~ yT~;E~~,,~1. ~ j 7` r i r CL m ~ ~ 1 i' st * ~ ~' J ~ 7 ~ , ~ r 1. 1,~ ~ ~y9'{` ,x f -~a~t ~ ,N ~' ~ 1. if 4th ~~ ~' y. ~ ~Y ~~ s ~ _4LK .arv Mrs _ ~ ~~ } ~5..^ S ~ F ~ . J ~~' ~~AB"" /• t ~'.t4 .~ `rrF a~ .. as ~ ~-~' .. 40.- dI+"~~. `~r:q'T::1~ .. ~'.~'~x:~ve~.~.~ ~~~...'eTfiE ~ .'k1~' Fig. 4-4. View simulation from the main ballroom level of the conference center, looking over the Lodge at Lionshead toward the ski slopes. The dashed line indicates a future addition to the condominium property that rises to an average of 72 feet. D. RELOCATION OF EXISTING USES 1. Charter Buses Most charter buses are bringing skiers during the winter season. Vail Resorts has agreed that charter buses will be able to load and unload at the new loading and delivery areas under both the Lionshead core site hotel (Arrabelle} and the Front Door. During the ski day, buses could park along North Frontage Road or at the east end of Ford Park. After construction of the conference center begins and until the completion of Vail Resorts' developments, it is recommended that ttie charter buses load and unload at the North Day Lot and park at Ford Park. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 49 , D ° ° ~~ ' 2. Visitor Information Center ' Town staff and the design team agree that it may be possible to house the visitor information center (or a small information booth) in the conference center if Town Council elects to add this use to the development program and budget. However, there ' could be access issues and circulation conflicts between resort visitors and meeting participants if the function were located in the new building. Spatial requirements for the information function, operational needs and budgetary implications have not yet been t defined. Other alternative sites for visitor information might include a temporary structure on the Lionshead parking structure, a new facility as part of the North Day Lot development, or a centralized, expanded facility on the Vail Village parking structure. ' 3. Youth Services 1 1 1 The Youth Services Center shares space with Subway and the public restrooms in the small annex building attached to the southwest corner of the Lionshead parking structure. Although the facility, operated by the Vail Recreation District, is widely regarded as inadequate in quality and capacity, it will not be displaced by the conference center project. However, the portion of East Lionshead Circle in front of the annex has emerged as one of the alternative sites for a transit facility, in which case the annex building would have to be removed and Youth Services relocated to another site. As the planning process for the transit center moves forward and if this site is selected, a location and funding sources for a new Youth Services facility would have to be identified.. 4. Snow Storage Area for the Lionshead Parking Structure ~. rf 5. Skate Park Construction of the conference center will reduce the snow storage area on the east end of the existing parking structure and force maintenance crews to push more of the snow on the top deck toward the west end. Proposals to add a right turn lane onto the frontage road from East Lionshead Circle and to open a secondary relief exit at the west side of the parking structure, both described in Chapter 3, may. slightly reduce the width. of the area available for snow storage along the structure's western edge (Fig. 4-5). More detailed analysis is needed to understand whether these changes will be acceptable and what might be done to offset the reduction in snow storage space. Fig. 4-5. The snow storage area along the west side of the Lionshead parking structure could be reduced by the new right-turn lane and auxiliary parking structure exit proposed for East Lionshead Circle. The current skate park is a temporary summer season facility on the top deck of the Lionshead parking structure. It is considered to be worn-out and in unsafe condition, ' S0 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 and it will not be reopened at the current location. Anew skate park is needed, but a site in town has not been found. ~~ 6. Horse Carriages The horse carriages will be relocated to the waste water treatment plant's parking lot. E. RELATIONSIiIP TO VAIL RESORTS' CORE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS The important relationships of this project to the major redevelopment proposed by Vail Resorts in the Lionshead core are both functional and aesthetic. They concern the design character of the connecting pedestrian , streets, the continuity of essential pedestrian corridors, the relocation of certain service functions, the synergy of uses, and the aggregate impact of new development on parking supply and demand. Consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the underlying intent of both Vail Resorts' redevelopment and the conference center project .is to increase the intensity of activity in Lionshead, making the area a more effective attraction for visitors and a much stronger factor in the Town's economy. In that sense, the proposed uses are both compatible and interdependent. The increased bed base and variety of activities that will result from Vail Resorts' core site development will inevitably contribute to the success of the conference center, and vice versa. Continuous pedestrian corridors and a sequence of interesting public spaces will be important to assure the full measure of interconnectedness and mutual benefit. The east portal to Lionshead thus becomes a crucial linchpin between the two projects, and improvements recommended there should be designed in coordination with Vail Resorts' design team and planned to coincide with completion of the core site redevelopment. To enhance pedestrian vvayfinding, the signage, lighting and streetscape materials along East Lionshead Circle should harmonize with those proposed by Vail Resorts within the Lionshead core area. It is not necessary that the streetscape design be exactly the same in both areas; however, some continuity of materials and design elements should be worked out in consultations between Tovvn staff and the respective design teams. Distinctive and identifiable streetscape elements that express qualities unique to each area and that are located at key decision points along the pedestrian corridor will help to increase the level of visual interest and provide a series of landmarks that assist in wayfinding. Regarding service and delivery functions, the inclusion of a central service facility in Vail Resorts' core site development will be of enormous help in improving the pedestrian experience between the eastern portal to Lionshead and the conference center. In terms of parking, both developments have proposed to provide enough dedicated parking spaces to meet the projected incremental demand attributable to the activities they contain. The question of architectural design compatibility between the two developments is more difficult to answer definitively. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan offers detailed guidelines that are specifically targeted for the kind of mixed-use development proposed by Vail Resorts at.the core site, but the relevance of the design guidelines for an iconic stand- alone conference center is less clear (see Section G below). While both projects are expected to make use of. regionally appropriate materials and design idioms, it may be more FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 51 , D ° ° [~~ important that the conference center have unique, identifiable character than that it be similar in architectural character to the core site development. ~~ F. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The majority of the properties that fall within the study area of the Lionshead ' Redevelopment Master Plan are designated as the Commercial Core 2, Lionshead Mixed Use 7, or Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Zone Districts. The land use code provisions that govern each of these zone districts contain development parameters, such as building setbacks, site coverage, and building height limits, which are intended to control certain aspects of ' design and development within these zone districts. The conference center site, however, is designated as part of a General Use Zone District. ' The Town of Vail zone district regulations recognize that a typical set of development standards may not be appropriate in the General Use Zone District because of the special characteristics of public and quasi-public uses likely to be developed in that zone district. In accordance with the zoning code, all development standards for proposed building developments within the General Use Zone District are to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) during the required conditional use permit review. ' Chapter 7 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan discusses development standards for private properties within the Lionshead study area that may vary from the development standards that apply to the zone districts identified above. ' However, Chapter 7 is not ' specifically applicable to the Vail conference center site's General Use Zone District designation, and master plan standards relating to density and gross residential floor area are not relevant to the proposed conference center use. While the Lionshead master plan ' does not recommend modification of pre-existing standards relating to site coverage, landscape area or setbacks, it recognizes the need for flexibility in the application of development standards for those unique properties that are located in the pedestrian retail ' core or that can contribute to the enhanced function and appeal of high-priority pedestrian corridors and spaces. ' In lieu of specific standards for building setbacks, step backs, massing, and roof forms, the Vail conference center project is being designed to allow the building to meet the overall objectives of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to accomplish the specific ' development objectives for this centrally located site, and to satisfy the spatial and programmatic requirements of a unique civic facility. Prior to the construction of the Lionshead parking structure, East Lionshead Circle formed a loop back to the Frontage Road. Construction of the parking garage resulted in a change to this road. East Lionshead Circle now physically terminates at Dobson Arena and Vail International, with Meadow Drive continuing east between the library and Dobson Arena. t Title and survey documents indicate that the right of way under the civic center site and the Lionshead parking structure may not have ever been formally vacated. The conference center structure may be built in a portion of this right of way as long as access is maintained to Vail Intemational. ~ Development standards relating to employee housing may be applicable to the conference ' center project. Based on an estimate of new jobs that will be created by the facility, there may be a requirement to provide seven new employee beds. The possibility of a pay-in-lieu arrangement has been mentioned, but the issue has not yet been resolved. ' S2 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 L~~ G. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES The conference center site is surrounded by an eclectic mix of existing condominium and civic buildings, some of which are architecturally undistinguished and none of which conforms to any consistent style or theme. The site is not part of the Lionshead core area, where greater consistency in architectural theme is a desirable objective. It adjoins a 26- ' year-old pre-cast concrete parking structure that no one wishes to emulate but that requires an effort to respond with respect, to provide functional connections between the buildings, and to make their juxtaposition tolerable in the event that redevelopment of the parking ' structure proves unfeasible in the foreseeable future. In this eclectic context, the most important architectural qualities of the conference cE~nter and any future modification of the parking structure may be their contribution to the creation of memorable landmarks, a more ' dynamic street edge and a stronger connection to Lionshead. The architectural guidelines contained in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan generally relate to the development .and redevelopment of mixed-use commercial and residential projects and are not particularly applicable to an iconic special-purpose civic building. The Town Council's desire for a civic icon and the specific single use of this building as a conference center suggest that its architectural design, while respectful of the t design guidelines in the Lionshead master plan, should aim to create a landmark building with a unique architectural identity. - ' The vision statement that introduces Chapter 8 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, "Architectural Design Guidelines," states this general vision for the character, of Lionshead: ' The architecture of Lionshead is envisioned as a unified composition of buildings and public spaces based on the timeless design principles of form, scale, and order, made ' responsive to their setting and environment. -f is not envisioned as a strict dictation of a specific style'; or "theme".... The new image for Lionshead should move towards the future =using historical alpine references and Vail Village as antecedents. This design framework will allow individual property owners freedom of expression...while ' establishing and maintaining an overall unifying character and image for the entire community. In addition, it is paramount that the redevelopment effort address specific design considerations generated by the location, climate, and surrounding , environment, such as addressing views, using indigenous building materials, and reflecting the alpine heritage.... However, within this framework; the architectural language of buildings in Lionshead should strive to reinterpret its heritage and look to the future instead of simply mimicking the past. A number of specific design principles grid design elements are mentioned in the architectural design guidelines as tools by which individual buildings can contribute to the vision for a renovated Lionshead. Many of these, described below, are also relevant to the conference center design and have been successfully incorporated into the initial architectural concept for the facility. The design team feels confident that the architectural , concept for the conference center will respond in a satisfactory manner to the intent of the architectural design guidelines in the Lionshead master plan. • Portals: Certain buildings influence the initial impression of a community as a welcoming and intriguing place. "Stand-alone structures (such as the conference center] can act as portals through appropriately scaled, large openings and significant mass (Page 8-8)." FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 53 ' ~ ~ ~~ • Edge Definers: Through their mass and scale, edge-defining buildings help to establish the transition zones between neighborhoods or different uses. In this case, the conference center also functions like an exterior wall against the interstate highway. Further, as the guidelines encourage, the building's eastern facade will not appear to Vail International as the back side; rather, through the use of textural materials and interesting window configurations, this elevation will also be attractive. ' Public Space Definers: Building siting and massing should be designed to define exterior public spaces as versatile containers for pedestrian activity. The conference center plan responds to this guideline with the creation of new public spaces on the north and south sides of the structure that relate well functionally to the building's interior activity areas. • Pedestrian Scale on East Lionshead Circle: At the street level, pedestrian scaled elements in architecture and streetscape were identified in the plan as crucial enhancements that encourage visitors to walk to and through the commercial core. The conceptual design of the conference center's south side offers astone-columned ' covered arcade, an upper-level terrace overlooking the street, a new civic plaza, and an architecturally interesting building facade, all of which contribute pedestrian-scaled elements to the walking route between Lionshead and Vail Village. • Landmarks: Certain buildings, such as the conference center, should stand out as landmarks, helping to orient visitors and projecting an image of Lionshead as seen from outside the neighborhood (especially from the highway). • Transition from Outdoor (Public) to Indoor ("Private") Space: Creative design of building facades along key pedestrian corridors influences the sense of vitality and .excitement. The design of windows, lighting, colonnades, porticos, artwork and other visually stimulating elements invite pedestrians to linger and explore. • Ground Floor Diversity: "At the pedestrian scale, the street level should be dynamic and interesting, by varying forms and masses at the bases of buildings (page 8-17)." • Building Height; The Lionshead master plan sets 82.5 feet as the absolute maximum height and 71 feet as the maximum average height for all structures in the study area. (See the Lionshead plan, page 8-20 for the manner of calculation.) Buildings that do not front on primary pedestrian retail streets, the ski yard, or important open spaces (this includes the conference center) may have a maximum initial eave height of 60 feet, at which point they must step back at least 12 feet. This does not mean that the building facade can be unarticulated and flat; to the contrary, the horizontal and vertical planes ' should be broken up according to other guidelines in the master plan. • Vertical Segmentation: The guidelines describe a concept that divides building elevations into base, middle and top levels, each of which displays subtle differences from the others. The intricacy and visual dynamism of the ground-level base are intended as a stimulating contrast with the less obtrusive design and "quiet" massing of the middle level. The tops of walls should be designed to "comfortably engage the roof" to avoid an abrupt transition in building form and to reduce the apparent height of the building. • Materials: The design guidelines strongly encourage the use of indigenous materials for primary architectural elements. Particularly at the base level, materials of varying - textures should convey strength and appear to anchor a building to its site. Stone 54 FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 veneers should appear substantial and structural. Hand-crafted and durable materials should be used for accent elements. Earth-tone colors derived from the natural ,~ landscape are encouraged. • Roofs: The guidelines suggest a preference for pitched roofs in the Alpine tradition and a desire for a consistent roofscape as a unifying image of Lionshead when viewed from ski slopes above town. Large areas of flat roof hidden by a mansard roof are discouraged. Although the necessarily large footprint of the conference center makes a pitched roof across the entire structure impractical, the design team agrees that the roof form will be an important image-making component of the building's character. The Lionshead master plan allows unique buildings to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis according to design intent rather than quantitative criteria (page 8-38). • Doors and Windows: These elements should be recessed, not flush with the building facade in order to express solidity of structure at the base. Size of doorways and attention to detailing should clearly differentiate the most important entries from secondary ones. Window shapes should be consistent with variations in building form. • Architectural Detailing: The guidelines encourage the use of interesting details such as brackets, lighting fixtures, signs, and other ornamentation with hand-crafted quality "to infuse heritage, culture and artistry into the Lionshead environment." H. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN The master plan concludes that the conference center project complies in all significant respects with the goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. However, certain components of this master plan represent changes from the specifics, though not the intent, of the Lionshead master plan. These changes include: • Certain recommended roadway modifications reflecting updated analyses of traffic movements and volume; • Anew strategy for developing a transit center, reflecting the current planning context; • The decision to supply parking under the conference center rather than on top of the Lionshead parking structure and to explore phased redevelopment of the parking structure; • The recognition that an iconic building may require some variance from design guidelines governing mixed-use buildings, particularly for the roof. In accordance with procedures specified in the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Town Council may decide to amend the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan by passing a resolution to adopt this master plan as an extension and refinement of the earlier plan. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 55 ~ ~'?V_;'G 1P i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,; FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 D o ~ ~~ ' CHAPTER5 , IMPLEMENTATION A. DEVELOPMENT PHASING The following sequence of tasks is recommended to commence immediately after a Town ' Council decision to approve the issuance of bonds to construct the conference center. Phase One -Year One • Confirm a temporary location that can be used to load and unload charter buses until ' Vail Square is completed. Determine a location for charter bus parking. • Find a temporary location for the Visitor Information Center (or a new permanent location, if the decision is made not to include those functions in the conference center). • Remove the existing entry/exit lanes at the east end of the Lionshead parking structure and construct a new garage entry/exit point on the north side of the structure. (Note: construction schedule must not coincide with ski season.) • Relocate existing utilities as determined by project engineers. • Finalize the plan for modifications to South Frontage Road and secure a permit from CDOT. • Define and adopt View Corridor Three, as recommended in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, chapter 4, page 7. , Phase Two -Years Two and Three • Locate and construct a temporary turnaround on East Lionshead Circle to facilitate i vehicular circulation during construction of the conference center. • Construct the conference center building (20 to 24 months). • Complete the civic plaza and streetscape irriprovements on the portions of South Frontage Road and East Lionshead Circle that are within the conference center project limits. • Complete streetscape improvements along East Lionshead Circle from the conference center project limits westward to the edge of Vail Resorts' project limits t (to be paid from TIF funds generated by the Lionshead Public Facilities Investment Plan).. • Complete the roadway improvements on South Frontage Road. • Construct a new right-turn only lane on East Lionshead Circle at the intersection with South Frontage Road (not in the conference center projecf budget). , • Construct a new secondary relief exit from the Lionshead parking structure. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 57 , D ° ° [~~ 1 Issue a re uest for develo ment ro osals to re lace the Lionshead arkin • q P P P P P 9 ' structure with a new garage, a transit facility, and other development, public or private, yet to be determined. • Make a decision on how and where to proceed with a transit center in Lionshead; . request Federal funding. • Modify or eliminate covenants on the Lionshead parking structure and determine if a ' zoning change is needed. Phase Three -Future Years ' Redevelop the Lionshead parking structure site in one or more phases, or • Add a transit center to the top deck of the existing parking structure. ' Improve the arrival plaza at the turnaround area on East Lionshead Circle. • Make application to the Planning and Environmental Commission for a zoning change if needed for redevelopment of the parking structure site. B. COSTS Preliminary estimates of construction costs for the conference center were done in early ' January by cost estimators on the design team, based on schematic drawings. A range of costs has been estimated for items outside the basic project budget which have not yet been designed; these, too, are subject to change as the architectural and engineering plans ' are refined. Conference Center $35 - $38 million Frontage road improvements included in $750,000 - $1.5 million the basic project budget ' -Frontage road improvements beyond the project area not yet estimated (This includes the roadway segments east of the conference center to the main Vail roundabout and west of the conference center to the North Day Lot.) East Lionshead Circle, right-turn lane at South Frontage Rd $100,000 - $250,000 East Lionshead Circle, streetscape improvements $500,000 - $1.5 million (The cost for streetscape outside that portion included in the conference center budget will depend on plans for reconfiguration of the east portal turnaround area and whether the parking structure is redeveloped.) East Lionshead Circle, redesign of east portal tumaround $500,000 - $1.5 million Area, without transit center 1 (The cost assumes special paving, snowmelt, new lighting and street furniture, upgraded landscaping and storm drainage, as illustrated in Fig. 3-4, p. 24.) 58 ~ FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 rU ,; , Transit center on top of Lionshead parking structure $7 - $8 million (This figure includes the estimated cost of replacing 100 parking spaces lost because of the transit center, at a cost of $40,000 per space) Transit center in the east portal area Lionshead parking structure relief exit not yet estimated $70,000 - $150,000 On-grade, heated connection to Dobson $70,000 - $150,000 (Assumes approximately 4,000 sf of heated paving, not covered) C. NEXT STEPS 1n accordance with procedures specified in the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Town Council may decide to amend the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan by passing a resolution to adopt this master plan as an extension and refinement of the earlier plan. The development review process for the Vail ConferE~nce Center will entail an application to the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission for review of a Conditional Use Permit to allow convention facilities. This process will include a review of the project's compliance with the ,Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The development review process will also include an application to the Town of Vail Design Review Board for review and approval of the architectural design and site treatment. Town Council will make the final decision to approve the plans. Hearings of all town boards are open far public comment. A CDOT access permit will be required for changes proposed to the frontage road. An Environmental Impact Report will be necessary. A process to select a general contractor is underway. Based on the chosen contractor's guaranteed maximum price and with a recommendation from the Conference Center Advisory Committee, Town Council will make the final decision on whether on not to proceed with the issuance of bonds. Construction of the conference center is expected to take 20 to 24 months. Before it can begin, the entrance fo the Lionshead parking structure must be reconstructed in another location without interfering with ski season usage. FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 59 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 C''G'~~~~~, ,, A 60 V FINAL DRAFT, 3/10/05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~~ A Report on the Recommendation of a Preferred Site for the fail Transit Center Prepared for: The Town of Va i I Prepared by: Nate Larson, PE, PTOE URS Corporation On Behalf of: Fentress Bradburn Architects February 7, 2005 This brief report has been prepared at the request of 'Gown of Vail staff to evaluate four site options for regional transit transfer activities. This report has the following three ~> parts: 1. Evaluation Criteria 2. Pro/Con analysis of the four sites 3. Conclusions The current transit center is not considered large enough to accommodate the desired functions, which include but are not limited to the following: • Bays for up to five buses and five hotel shuttle vans at one time • Warming enclosure for passengers and drivers • Restroom facilities • Visual display of system route and schedule information The consideration of a new location is driven by fact that the existing site is not large enough to accommodate these desired functions, which are considered vital to the future success of multimodal transportation to, from, and within the Town of Vail. If a new location is selected, all transit center functions currently occurring at the existing site will be transferred to the new transit center when it opens. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING TRANSIT OPTIONS The following criteria were developed by the Vail Civic Center consultant team to facilitate the Pro/Con analysis of each site, and are presented in no particular order: 1. Capacity to meet program targets (5 buses, 5 shuttle vans) 2. Adequate space for vehicle circulation and maneuvering within the center 3. Traffic impacts on Frontage Road 4. Impact on access /egress at Lionshead parking structure 5. Safe pedestrian movement within transit center & from there to Lionshead Mall (proximity to pedestrian destinations) Vail Transit Center Site Selection Report ii 1 I I 1 1 1 6. Potential for future expansion of transit center 7. Provides space for waiting area, restrooms, etc. (+/- 600 sf?) ~> 8. Balances pedestrian flow into Lionshead Mall (east vs. west) 9. Possibility of combining with Information Center? 10. Convenient access for buses from Town of Vail and regional bus routes (and I-70) 11. Visibility from highway and Frontage Road 12. Ease of rider transfer to in-town shuttles 13. Safe distance between entry to transit center and any roadway intersection (150'?) 14. Cost 15. Separation from Village Transit Center These criteria were considered starting points for discussion, and not all of them were eventually used in the Pro/Con analysis. No scoring or weighting mechanisms were used in this analysis. The Pro/Con analysis for the first three sites was conducted in a workshop setting on September 29, 2004 by consultant team members Mike Winters (Fentress Bradburn), Nathan Kibler-Silengo (Fentress Bradburn), Nate Larson (URS), and Sherry Dorward, Landscape Architect. OPTION ~: CONCERT HALL PLAZA The Concert Hall Plaza site is the location of the existing transit transfer facility. It is located on West Lionshead Circle south of Frontage Road (see Figure 1). Vail Transit Center Site. Selection Report ~ 2 Road L ~ d E % ° , ^ ~ kt ` y,' V I ~ '~ ~ l } ' Y < <;, ~, k v~~G~` 'fi'r t4..-~ _ _ ~r ~rY, ~ ~ } ~ -? C4 i;t~, s1 rFf t ~i~~~it S ~~ t _ d C 4 ~~ -~~_~* ~- -~ ~- _ 7~. ~- ~ A i ~~ r~i~ c ~ - ~ ti .. :.I .-2. .. i _' 4~;f~i ~ ~ r a ~ ,; 1 ~~ t~ h-~ ~- ~3__~ } , _ ~t_ ~ r:, rt '~~ t .,r - as ~!. ~_;. I_~ ~° ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~:,.zi y.~-a,~`~"r3"~ }~ ,=e tine "r 1 , •_ y? fir ~ k ~~_-~ `s ., - ' .4~~, ~ 4 x Fi ~ure 1. Concert Hall Plaza Site g PROS r • Least cost • Existing CONS • Can't fit full program or any ancillary uses ~ ' • Conflicting uses (delivery and service, pedestrians, cars) • Inefficient, unworkable shape (circle) , • No direct pedestrian route to mountain • Site doesn't energize retail development, most likely pedestrian route is at mall edge (down the street) , • Brings big buses into Lionshead pedestrian zone • Limits potential redevelopment of Concert Hall Vail Transit Center Site Selection Report OPTION 2: NORTFI DAY LOT 1 ,~ The North Day Lot site is the located on the southeast corner of the intersection of ' Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle (see Figure 2). ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ 1 ~•~rt ~ - ', Frontage .Road. t ,7~ -• .j --- ~ a =' _ - e i ~ - _ ~ _. 1. ~ ~ S 'CST. -n i I ri ~ ~ J . y~ ~ . ~' _ i ~f I 4 _~~~ ~ '•- ~. ~ ~-~• ~ _ r .. ~ ~ ~'~~ P 7P7 ~j } r ~~} ..tea ~ _' 1 t{'~~„1r 1~ ~,vy~F~~'~•4/~~~ 4f ~' ~~ ` f~=y,Fj VI ~ ~x .. ~ ~- ~~,-~"~."'"` ~ F '., n.KP J A(,~~~.~,r~~~~} y r ,fit ,,,{, (! ;+ ~ C ~yfr '~~~1~,~' 1^'x~~6~CrwJ~ t"3~ 3 4TM ~~ ~ 1~P~ ~'~• f" ~; ~ ~~~ ~ 'r 1, 3 c, i 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t i° ~ `~ ~~ ~ ... -~E'.:~.~"u_ ., . . .. ... _ ', _ .. s7i ~tY-,~°,~'$~5. .-_rc~'6:~... ~ ::3{ .. _ ^~:..._..IFLa,C~ ,. i5 Figure 2. North Day Lot Site PROS • Pe destnan overpass makes thts transit location more accessible to people coming from north side of I-70 • Strengthens North-South pedestrian axis into Lionshead core • Biggest site, allows best potential design (functional, expandable) • Better vehicle access - no conflicts with parking structure, minimal number of ' Frontage Road curb cuts • Closer to mountain than Options 1 or 3 Vail Transit Center Site Selection Report 4 1 • Pedestrians don't have to cross a vehicular street ' • Already part of adopted Lionshead master plan ' • Might integrate better with in-town shuttle CONS ' • Have to work around pedestrian overpass (site planning constraint, not obstacle) , • Proximity to residential condos (opposition to traffic and diesel buses, noise) • Limits use of site for other needed/desired development, increasing development , costs • Not a Town of Vail property (but Town has rights in the Lionshead development agreement) OPTIONS 3a and 3b: ON TOP OF THE LIONSHEAD PARKING STRUCTURE The existing Lionshead Parking Structure is located on the southeast corner of the , intersection of Frontage Road and East Lionshead Circle. With Option 3a, the new transit center would be located on top of the Lionshead parking structure (see Figure 3). With Option 3b, the transit center would be located on the redeveloped Lionshead Parking Structure (see Figure 4). r Vail Transit Center Site Selection Report 5 ' 1 ii Figure 3. Lionshead Parking Structure Site (Existing) Option 3a PROS • No adjacent residential properties • Town of Vail property • Direct access from1Frontage Road • Close to civic/conference center CONS • Density of the many curb cuts along Frontage Rd. (potential CDOT concern) • Displaces parking spaces • Complicates circulation patterns on Frontage Road -lack of clarity for drivers • Requires physical improvements to parking structure if placed on existing structure (i.e. Phase 1, option 3) Vail Transit Center Site Selection Report 6 • Inconvenient pedestrian connection • Longest distance to mountain ' • Unpleasant pedestrian experience (quality concerns) • Poor visual quality of Frontage Road (no space for landscaping) ' • Space available is minimally adequate for program • No expansion potential , • If transit center~is located on existing structure; in Phase 1, it will have to be relocated for duration of Phase 2 construction, then rebuilt. , Option 3b PROS • No adjacent residential properties • Town of Vail property • Direct access from Frontage Road Vail Transit Center Site Selection Report 7 1 • Pedestrian connection to Lionshead can be desi ned a ro riatel g PP P Y ' • Close to civic/conference center CONS ' • Density of the many curb cuts along Frontage Rd. (potential CDOT concern) • Displaces parking spaces ' • Complicates circulation patterns on Frontage Road -lack of clarity for drivers • Longest distance to mountain ' • Poor visual quality of Frontage Road (no space for landscaping) • Timing requires developer involvement ' Would require removal of Vail Resorts International covenants • Space available is minimally adequate for program 1 OPTION 4: E. LIONSHEAD CIRCLE TURNAROUND The E. Lionshead Circle turnaround site is located across E. Lionshead Circle from the southwest corner of the Lionshead parking structure, at the,entrance to the Lionshead ' Mall. This option would include the removal of the Youth Services facility and existing r il t a d t t th ki l i d e a sp ce a jacen o e par ng structure (current y occup e by Subway) and reconfiguration of the parking structure's pedestrian access (see Figure 5). PROS ' • Su orts efforts to make East Lin h pp o s ead Circle a more prominent entry into '' Lionshead (which could include enhanced signing and/or monuments) • Shortest distance to mountain minimizes skier/mountain employee walking distance • Directs pedestrian traffic from parking structure away from bus loading areas ' Displaces current unregulated dropoff and delivery area • Does not require route modification for in-town shuttle • Able to accommodate currently-projected transit and hotel shuttle needs easily Vail Transit Center Site Selection Report 8 a ~~ I I 1 r-~ ~ .: r--- r---,~ Figure 5. E. Lionshead Circle Turnaround Site • Does not add new access to Frontage Road (CDOT approval not required) • Potential for funding synergy between TIF and federal transit sources CONS • If full transit operations capacity is realized, uphill bus movement could result in congestion at the Frontage Road/E. Lionshead Circle intersection, especially. in concert with apeak-period "relief' exit from the parking structure • Local traffic inbound on East Lionshead Circle is forced to go through a bus lane • Increased bus traffic could conflict with E. Lionshead Circle residential traffic • Slightly longer and less desirable bus routing pattern, given grade and low-speed residential character of E. Lionshead Circle Vail Transit Center Site Selection Report 4 ~ • Proximity to residential condos could translate to opposition to increased traffic ' and diesel bus noise and emissions ~~ • Large retaining wall structure would be required in front of the Lionshead Centre ' commercial building-potential pedestrian/ADA access challenges • Potentially undesirable entry to Lionshead, with increased pavement and ' vehicular movement. • Potential to make parking structure site redevelopment less attractive by ' occupying what would otherwise be a connection between the parking structure site redevelopment and the entry to Lionshead i • Limited future transit center expansion potential • Would require the relocation of existing Youth Services facility CONCLUSIONS ' The Pro/Con analysis documented in this report has led to the following preliminary conclusions: 1. Concert Hall Plaza is an inappropriate site unless cost is the only criterion ' 2. North Day Lot has the most advantages and least disadvantages 3. Lionshead is best Town -controlled property ' 4. Should not, in any scenario, build transit center on the existing Lionshead structure in Phase 1 (can only be temporary) ' S. A Transit Center in the redeveloped Lionshead Parking Structure would be the most cost effective option, but has the least certainty ' 6. The Lionshead Turnaround site has some merit as a potential site 7. North Day Lot is the best overall transit center location As a result of the analysis documented in this report, the consulting team recommends the Town consider the North Day Lot site the preferred site for a new transit center. The E. Lionshead Circle turnaround site would also have sufficient advantages to warrant consideration, and the Lionshead parking structure options should be considered viable. Vail Transit Center Site Selection Report 10 Vail Li®nshead P arming Garage ' February. 7, 2005 Submitted To: Prepared .Bv: Carl Walker, Inc. Parking ^'' Denver, Colorado Planning Engineering Restoration Atlanta ®Charlotte • Chicago • Dallas • Denver ®Indianapolis ~ Kalamazoo ®Philadclphia •. Phoenix B Tampa ~v~v~v. c a rl oval k e r. c o m TALE O~ C®NTENTS Pa e PARKING ACCESS AND REVENUE CONTROL OPTIONS ...........................1 1. Exit Cashiering ..............:............................................................................:..... l ' 2. Multi-Space Meters .....................................................................:...........'.........1 3. Central Pay Station ..........:.....:......................................................................... 2 Evaluation Matrix ................................................................................................. 3 Recommended Parking Operations .............................:.................................... 4 LANE AND QUEUING ANALYSIS ...................................................................:...... 5 . . STRUCTURAL, CODE AND OPERATIONAL REVIEW ................................... 7 Existing Condition .............................:.:..............................................:................ 7 ... Code Compliance .............................................:........:..:....................................... 9 Feasibility of Vertical Expansion .............:.. ...................................................... 12 Feasibility of a Transit Center ............................................................................ 13 a ,~ Operational Revie~v ...................................................................:......................... 14 Functional System Capacity ........................_..............:........................................ 16 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT ...........................................................................:............ 17 RECOMMENDATION ........................:......................................................................... 20 CONFERENCE CENTER PARKING ..............................................:........................ 20 Public/Consumer Shows .............:...................................................................... 21 Special Events ....................:.................................................................................. 21 Ski Days ......................................................................................................:.......... 22 1' Tt~A'N~' GAII. n ~~~ P~rkirl9 ~~~~` PUnnkug Engineering Fiealora~fan ~~ ~~ Vail Lionshead Parking Garage , Parking Feasibility Study PARHING ACCESS AND REVENUE CONTROL OPTIONS The selection of the appropriate parking access and revenue control system for the Vail Lionshead garage is essential to ensure efficient operations and maximize the collection of parking revenues. The revenue control system selected for a parking facility is related to its size, type, location, and function. Following are three primary options for consideration. 1. Exit Cashiering Exit cashiering represents the existing method of operation. Exit cashiering has an average service rate of approximately 135 vehicles.per hour per lane,. (Data downloaded from the town's parking operating system indicate a higher cashier service rate of approximately 200 vehicles per hour.) It :is understood the Lionshead garage experiences long vehicle queues and delays during the peak ski season because of exit cashiering. Twenty- to 25-minute delays are not uncommon. If this method of operation is continued it will be necessary to provide a sufficient number of exit lanes to shorten traffic queues and wait times. Exit cashiering should not be entirely overlooked, as it has several advantages, including: • Maximizes revenues as transients pay a v:~riable rate based on length of stay. ' 0 Is well understood by patrons and is genE:rally convenient. • Requires no enforcement. • Guarantees the presence of people to manually operate equipment in the event of a malfunction. 2. Multi-Space Meters The parking garage. would not have access control equipment with this operating system. Multi-space meters would be used to collect revenues from transient patrons and contract parkers could use cards that work with the system, display hangtags, or have a separate "nested" area within the garage that is access controlled. 1VIu1ti-space meters are similar to a standard parking meter but provide single-point control for a ~~~ Page 1 Parking ~"'~~j~~ p4nn6ng En9lneering Raaioutfon , - e, T17~r~(~Y~ ' ~f Vail I~ionshead Parking Garage Parking Feasibility Study larger number of spaces. Patrons note the parking space number, proceed to the multi-space meter, and insert the appropriate fee and key the parking space number into the machine. (This is also referred to as "Pay-by-Space.") The primary advantage of multi-space meters is no access control egiupment and free flow service rates upon entering and exiting the parking facility (approximately 600 to 800 vehicles per hour per lane). The principal disadvantages.to multiple-space meters include: 0 Confusion among users who are unfamiliar ~,vith this newer form of revenue control. 0 Extensive signage is required to provide patrons with the information needed to efficiently locate and use multi-space meters. ® Meters are essentially "honor" systems, and gated facilities produce more revenue. ® Payment is in advance of parking so patrons who do not pay for sufficient time in advance must return and add additional time, or risk receiving a parking ticket. ® Customer service concerns when users are overcharged for parking. • Numbering all of the parking spaces. 0 Enforcement is required. There is a separate parking area with approximately 95 parking spaces in the Lionshead garage that is currently controlled with t~vo multi-space meters. The system has worked relatively well for the small number of spaces. 3. Central Pay Station .With this system a patron would insert their parking ticket into a centrally located cashiering station that calculates the parking fee. These systems t}~pically accept cash, credit cards, and validations, and can return change when appropriate. The patron would then pay the parking fee and the machine issues a ticket to exit the Garage. The patron inserts the issued ticket into,alag-time exit verifier and the barrier gate opens if ,~a-'~ Page 2 Parliang ~ ~~ m`~'~L~`~' . Manning ~ En91n«riny fla6lnrA~ion .~ - ,~ ~~~~~ Vail Lionshead Parking Garage ' Parking Feasibility Study the fee has been paid. This method of operation has a service rate of approximately 360 vehicles per hour per lane at the vehicle exit. The primary advantages to this system are the high service rate as compared to exit cashiering, labor savings, and no enforcement requirements. These systems are generally recommended for facilities with very high levels of activity and significant revenue production. Disadvantages include:- • The purchase of an expensive cashiering machine(s). • Relatively new technology that is not well. understood by many patrons. • Extensive signage is required informing patrons to take their parking tickets with them and to pay for parking in advance of vehicle retrieval. • Escape lanes are required for those who do not pay in advance of vehicle retrieval. A manned central cashier station can replace the cashier machine. It is also not uncommon to combine central cashiering (either automated, manned or both) with exit cashiering. Repeat users of the facility would. likely utilize central cashiering and take advantage of shorter lines in the lanes, with exit verifiers. Those unfamiliar with the parking facility and central pay coL>Id pay a cashier upon exiting. Escape lanes are not required with this hybrid operating method. Effective signage is required to direct patrons to the appropriate exit lane. It is also difficult to project the use of the machines with a hybrid system, although at least :r 50% reduction in cashiering would be expected. Evaluation Matrix The four operating methods (exit cashiering,. multi-space meters, central pay station, and central pay/exit cashiering) are.ranked based on several: evaluation criteria presented in the table on the following page. The operating methods are scored 1 (below. average), 2 (average or neutral), or 3 (above average) in each of nine categories. The evaluation criteria are not weighted. The operating method with the highest total score is deemed the best. As ~~ ~~~ Page 3 Parking +~"~- ~ '~ Puinning Englnrarin9 Reeaorarion 1 1 1 1 .: ~~~~~ ~~ Vail Lionshead Parking Garage Parking Feasibility Study presented in the table, exit cashiering and central pay/edit cashiering have the highest total scores of 21. Central pay has a score of 16 and multi-space meters have a score of 15. Parking Operation Evaluation Matrix en C "c O '° ^~ c u 'n a u •a E v c o" v °. w c~ c H o N ° " .G v ~ ~ u v w' ° u .; n. ~ fi a. a a , a4 ~ H -= E ~ u 'c O a v ~ W ~ ~ v c ~~ cr ~ r v ~ :a v ~> Method of O erasion ~ N ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ J ~ c ~°-° > ~° t~ ° ExirCashiering 3 3 .1 1 3 1 3 3 3 21 Multi-Space Merers' 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 15 Central Pay 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 16 Central Pay/Exit Cashiering 2 3 l 2 3 2 .2 3 3 21 ~~ Recommended Parking Operations Recommended for the Vail T,ionshead parking garage is a combination of central pay and exit cashiering. Central pay offers higher service rates, which would shorten exit queues and wait times; and exit cashiering would eliminate the primary disadvantages associated with central pay. A good 'example of this hybrid operating system is at the River Park Square Mall parking garage in downtown Spokane, WA. They have combined two automated and manned central pay stations inside the mall with exit cashiering in the parking garage. The mall advertises "Pre-paying for parking allows you to exit the garage quickly through one of the express lanes." This hybrid operating system has been briefly discussed with the town's Transportation Manager who is interested in pursuing this option. A central pay station would be located in . the south~,vest corner of the garage on the ground level where there is the heaviest pedestrian traffic. , ~~'~ Parkcng ~~~"~~ P1ann~n9 Engln+erinv ReMOr~tion Page 4 Vail Lionshead Parking Garage ° Parking Feasibility Study T17~?d~'v~ LANE AND QUEUING ANALYSIS \~ As indicated in the table on page 6, a minimum of ttivo (2) entry lanes and four (4) exit lanes are required in the Lionshead garage based on the following assumptions: ' ' ^ 1 050 arkin s aces existin ca aci of 1 135 s aces less a roximatel 85 ' P g P ( g P n' ~ P PP Y spaces) ^ 100% Push Button Ticket Dispenser Inbound (service rate of 400 vehicles per hour per lane). ^ 50% Exit Cashiering Outbound (service rage of 200 vehicles per hour, from download of SCAN data). . ^ 50% Central Pay Outbound (service rate of 360 vehicles per hour per lane). ' ^ 60% Peak-Hour Inbound Flow (from download of parking data on a peak day in 2004; anticipates 30-minute arrival period) ' ^ 77% Peak-I-Iour Outbound Flow (from, download of parking data on a peak day in 2004; anticipates 30-minute departure period) t ^ 0.85 Peak-Hour Factor (accounts for busiest 1 S-minute period within the '/z- hour). t However, recommended for the Vail Lionshead garage are a minimum of three inbound lanes and five outbound lanes. Two inbound lanes achieve approximately LOS B-, which is not recommended for a ticket dispenser entry. Three inbound lanes are required to attain , LOS A. Similarly, four outbound lanes achieve approximately LOS C/C-. Five outbound lanes are required to attain LOS B, which is the minimum LOS recommended, and si.Y , outbound lanes are required to attain LOS A. The analysis assumes there are no impediments to traffic flow after entering the garage anal there is sufficient street capacity ' after exiting the garage. r Currently, the metered parking area with 95 parking spaces has one inbound lane and one outbound lane with no controls: The remaining 1,040 spaces in the garage utilize a total of ' five lanes. There is one inbound lane and four outbound lanes in the afternoon when there ~~~ Page 5 Parking ~~~~ ' Planning ~n9lnser:ng Realor»iolr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lUWIIIs> it'l1I ~~ Vail Lionshead Parking Gaxage Parking Feasibility Study :~ ) > ,~ is peak o>_itbound traffic flow. This is an insufficient number of outbound lanes, for exit cashiering. Our analysis indicates the need for seven e:cit lanes to attain LOS B with e:cit cashiering only. Nine lanes are regtured to attain LOS A with exit cashiering only. Vail Lionshcad Parking Garage Estimated Number of Lanes Required and The Average Length of Vehicle Queue Entering/Exiting the Garage Average Length of Queue (formula) (1) Lq = ti` 1-ti urLrre: ti = traffic inlrnrily =ratio ofpeak. flan raft !o tGr tenrire rule. A. Number of Parking Spaces in Garage 1,050 Percent/Number Exit Cashier 50.0% 525 Percent/Number Central Pay 50.0% 525 B. Peak-Hour Flow Percentages (2) Picket Dispenser Inbound & Esit Cashier Outbound Ticket Dispenser Inbound & Centra! Pay Outbound C. Number of Peak-Hour Vehicles (A s B) Ticket Dispenser,Inbound & Exit Cashier Outbound Ticket Dispenser Inbound & Central Pay Outbound Combined D. N(aximum Sen•ice Race (per hour per lane) Ticket Dispenser Inbound & Exit Cashier Outbound Tickec Dispenser Inbound & Central Pay Outbound Combined r E. Numbez of Lanes Required (C / PHF x D) (3J Peak-Hour Faecor (PHF) Ticket Dispenser Inbound & Exit Cashier Outbound Tickec Dispenser Inbound & Central Pay Outbound Combined F. Number of Lanes Requied (rounded up) G. Iv[inimum Number of Lanes Recommended H. Lane Capacity (D s G) 1. TraEEc Intensity (C / H) AM PM 1n ~4LC In sic 60°/ 12% 17% 77% 60% 12% 17% 77% 3l5 63 89 404 315. 63 89 404 630 126 - 179 809 400 200 400 200 400 360 400 360 400 257 400 257 0.85 0.926 0.371 0.263 2.378 0.926 0.206 0.263 1.321 1.853 0.576 0.525 3.699 2 1 1 4 3 5 3 5 1,200 I,28G 1,200 1,286 0.53 0.10 0.15 0.63 . Average Queue Per Lane (~fJ 0.53 O.OI 0.03 1.07 K. Level of Service (LOS A A A B Notes: (7J I'Gr k gllr f r/ e r/rrorr dace nor rnr/ rdr for rrGidr in ~ e nnirr porNion. (?J T/rr mavrume inLonnA and orrtGormd fl rv rota arrnnir a 30-nrinurr urriral and d parture period (rhm/prak / one fl°rv rohr x ?J. (3J PHF =Peak-Hoar Fartor (arrarnh for tGe Lrurert 75 niinntr prrr°rl uilHrn t/'r GarrrJ. ' (1) SO % mn~idenr rGe over qr queer wrl7 nor Lr rv~ardrd. r~~"~ Parking ~^-,~~.`~~' P4nn?ng EnBlnoeriny RaeloratFon Page 6 i f i lowxo~v~~i19 Vail Lionshead Parking Garage Parking Feasibility Study STRUCTURAL, CODE AND OPERATIONAL REVIEW ~~ Carl [~/alker, Inc. (Carl Walker) performed a cursory revie~,v of the existing conditions and the original design of the Vail Lionshead parking structure, including the original design drawings prepared by Robbins + Ream, Inc./K.K.B.N.A. in 1980 and the Structural Condition Assessment and Feasibility- Study of Expansion Options reports prepared by J. R. Harris and Company earlier this year, in order to evaluate the current physical condition of the structure, code compliance, and feasibility of vertically expanding the parking structure in Vail, Colorado. On Friday, 10 September 2004, representatives of Carl Chalker toured the Lionshead Parking Structure with Mike Rose of Vail Transit and Adam ~Iilliams of Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. to visually review the existing condition of the structure, as well as consider what might be regtuxed to bring the existing building into compliance with current building codes. During the tour we discussed the structure's maintenance history, along with the current maintenance and operating practices. Existing Condition Based upon our.brief visual observations, the structure: appears to be in reasonably good condition given its age and exposure. There are a variety of relatively minor structural and waterproofing deficiencies throughout the structure. These deficiencies can be categorized into three primary concerns: (1) scale damage, (2) corrosion-induced delamination, and (3) leaking joints. Scale damage, which is the deterioration of the surface of the concrete caused by freezing and thawing of water within the concrete, results in exposed aggregate at the top surface as shown in the photo to the right. A scaled surface is subject to accelerated deterioration and can also be very slippery when wet. The scale damage evident in the Lionshead structure is concentrated at and near the roof level of the structure. Scaling is especially severe at the down-bound ramps at the west end of the garage. Scaling can be ~~~ - Page 7 Parking ~~'~~^ - Plennhng En9lasering Reatora~4o~ ,. ~, ~ Ll~ ~~ •~ Vail Lionshead Parking Garage Parl~ing Feasibility Study ~> repaired `with a concrete overlay. Proper drainage, air-entrained concrete, and surface waterproofing will help alleviate the problem. t~ ~„w;-Y-~ r~~,~ ~,,~~,~;~;~. Corrosion-induced delamination, or spalling, is caused S ~~ 214 ~~5 :. '¢ ~r~r~_;=`_'-~;~5 ~ ~ ~. by corrosion of the reinforcing steel embedded in the ~*s ~ rz ~'~'-- i J~~~~ ,~ ~ ~' concrete. The rust creates uiternal stresses in the ~ , ~, .,~ r 7 . ~ a~~ ~ i ~<~ , t ,; ~ ;.4X~ ~~` concrete that cause it to fracture and delaminate. t yt4 ~ ~T ~' '~, ~y.,,~ 5 ~' ~ ~ ~ Chlorides from road salt will substantially accelerate the ~~~ „ i ~ ~ ,~ ~ corrosion. In extreme cases, the corrosion of the t~"r~ ~t;r~tiw~ - ~ , '~ °°~"' reinforcement can result in inadequate structural strength leading to failure. Corrosion damage in the. Lionshead garage appears relatively isolated (e.g. at stair; see photo), although we did not perform any soundings. Based on the chloride concentration test results presented in the]. R. Harris report, the potential exists for fairly widespread topping del<unination at the second tier. We recommend a comprehensive chain drag to determine if delamination or debonding has-occurred. Delamination can be repaired by patching or overlay; however, chloride contaminated concrete will likely continue to deteriorate after repairs. The leaking evident in the Lionshead garage is not particularly widespread. It appears due to isolated failure of the waterproofing systems, including the,,joint sealants and expansion joint sealant systems. Snow removal is a major concern at this.faciliry. Large front-end loader snowplows are employed to move the snow to the gated evacuation areas, where it is hauled off site. The snowplows are o$en responsible for damage to the waterproofing systems.. Other deterioration exists in the structure, including cracking in the slab-on-grade exacerbated by hydrostatic pressures in the subgrade, column and beam cracks, and localized cracking at precast connections. At the grade level, hydrostatic pressure periodically causes the slab-on-grade to rise, reducing the headroom at the adjacent crossover. In a number of Page S .~~"~ Parhirtg ~: ~~~~ PUnn6~g .Englnwrin9 Resloro~ion Vail Lionshead Parking Garage ' ,~~~~ •' Parking Feasibility Study locations, the double tee bearing pads have "walked" from under the bearing, and, in a few cases, have fallen out. Drainage is also very marginal throughout the parking structure. Short of extensive removal and replacement of the topping, which is obviously very expensive, there is not a simple solution that will correct this problem. Without quantification of the specific deterioration present in the garage, it is difficult to attach a cost for repairs. An amendment to the condition appraisal report by J. R. Harris to ' identify specific quantities of repairs would be necessary to develop a reasonable cost estimate. Nevertheless, given our observations and excluding any hidden deterioration such ' as topping delamination, we would anticipate repair costs in the $100,000 to $250,000 range. Code Compliance The Lionshead garage was likely designed under the 1979 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), whereas currently, the 2003 edition of the: International Building Code (IBC) is the design standard for Colorado. Based on the current building code, the structure is , classified as Occupancy S2. The upper two tiers appeax to satisfy the re.gturements for an Open Parking Garage, and the lowest tier has forced ai:r ventilation with CO detectors. ~~ The existing overall footprint of the building is approximately 133,000 square,feet,.and the ' actual floor area of each half of.the building is approximately 61,000. Under the current building code, the area of the footprint and the configuration of the exterior openings would ' require Construction Type IA or IB (Fire Resistance: 3--hour with 2-hour floors or 2-hour throughout, respectively). Based on the 1979 UBC, open parking garages up to 125,000 , square feet were allowed to be Construction Type II-F.R., which meets or exceeds the fire resistance requirements of IBC 2003 Construction Type IB. Height restrictions do not come into play. - - t ,~~~ Page 9 Parking ~~~ , P4nnMg Engln++rirg Rasioratiort Vail Lionshead Parking Garage 9; ~~~,~~ • Parl~ing Feasibility Study. \) Based on the floor area and the ma:cimum allowances, the occupant load per floor is ' approximately 610. ~Y~ith a minimum of four stairways per level, not to mention direct access to grade, the egress pathway (i.e. stair width) must be approximately 3'-10" or greater, which is certainly the case. ' If the garage is expanded vertically, the ventilation system .will need to be modified to . accommodate the exhaust. Furthermore, if new construction unpacts the openness of the ' structure (e.g. new residential directly adjacent to the parking structure along the southern facade), additional mechanical ventilation will likely be required. -. Currently, there does not appear to be a fire suppression system in the structure. It is probable that the local fire authority will regtire current code-compliant fire suppression at the lowest tier or, possibly, on all tiers due to the lack of openness at the lowest tier. .. The guardrail (i.e. spandrel) height above the floor is shown to be 2 -9 above the finished ' floor. Current code requires 3'-6", which yields a deficit of 9 inches. If the code authority requires this to be rectified, a metal guardrail can be attached to the top of the spandrels to increase the height without significantly impacting openness. Furthermore, the stair handrail/guardrail conflgiiration does not satisfy the current code. Code requires separate handrails and guardrails. Interior handrails must be continuous between flights. Guardrails must be configured to restrict passage of any object larger than a 4-inch sphere. ' ADA .parking is located at the lowest tier of the southern part of the building, which is the only part that currently has a reasonably accessible pathway to the Lionshead Village. The ' minimum floor-to-floor height of 11'-0" and the structural depth of approximately 35 '/z" yield a minimum headroom clearance of approximately 8 feet. This is not sufficient for t~DA vans. ADA vans may be located at a convenient location elsewhere in the parking system. However, if vans are to be accommodated within the Lionshead structure, they would have to be located at the roof tier, and an accessible pathway, probably including an elevator, would need to be constructed. Additionally, there are currently 12 designated ' handicap spaces. Code currently requires 22 accessible stalls, yielding a deficit of 10 stalls. Page 10 ' ~~~ P4nnkrg Englnnrrw!g ReeloralGon Vail Lionshead Parking Garage Parking Feasibility Study \ \~ However, Mike Rose indicated that during the last ADA audit, the current number of stalls was found to be sufficient. Plumbing systems were not reviewed. Current plumbing code usually requires roof level drainage to the storm sewer and covered level drainage' to the sanitary sewer system. Typically, asand-oil separator is required before water is sent to the sewex system. Occasionally, on-site storm water detention is required by local code jurisdictions. Based on visual observations, light levels appear to be sufficient by IEEE/NPA standards. The light fi~Ytures appear to be high-pressure sodium. The light is very yellow in color. Light distribution cot>Id be improved by staining the ceiling and walls white. Chapter 34 of IBC 2003 addresses existing structures, ;end Section 3403 specifically deals with additions, alterations, and repairs. Specifically, paragraph 3403.1 states that while the new construction related to an addition or alteration of an existing structure shall conform to the requirements of the code, "[p]ortions of the structure not altered and not affected by the alteration are not required to comply with the code requirements for a new structure." Based upon this, it is our opinion that the deficient components of the existing structure would not require upgrade to be compliant if the over<<1i structure is modified or added to, provided the addition or modification in itself does not adversely affect the code compliance of the existing portions of the structure. The notable exception to this is the fire prevention system, which, in our experience, almost always requires upgrade based upon the discretion of the local fire authority. Ultimately, however, like the local fire authority, the local building authority is the final arbiter of the code requirements. We anticipate that the cost for automatic fire suppression would be $400,000 to $500,000 per covered tier (1 minimum, 3 total). While we do not believe that the other code compliance upgrades should be required, they could total $250,000 for handrails and ~~ Page 11 Aerkmg ~~~~ P4nning En9ln~aring ReMoralFon C Vail Lionshead Parking Iiarage ~~r~~p~` Parking Feasibility Study guardrails, $200,000 for an elevator and related structure, and, possibly, $150,000 for ' plumbing upgrades. Refer to Table S.1 to compare costs. ' Feasibility of Vertical Expansion We reviewed the original design Drawings prepared by Robbins + Ream, Inc. / K.K.B.N.A. ' in 1980 and the Structural Condition Assessment and Feasibility Study of Expansion Options reports prepared by). R. Harris and Company earlier this year. We also performed ' a simplified analysis of the vertical and lateral load resisting systems. Our analysis showed .that the existing structural systems as constructed are not sufficient to support an .additional ' level of vertical expansion, confirming the Harris report. The existing foundations would need to be upgraded to support an additional 50% of their current capacity, or, alternatively, ' = a completely independent vertical support system would need to be constructed for the expansion. The lateral loads appear to be approximately rivo times the original design, ' necessitating substantial improvements to the shear walls, and foundations. We concur with Harris that adding an additional level is possible; however, based on our initial investigations, ' we do not believe that a vertical expansion is very practical from a cost, constructability, or operational standpoint. J It is probable that the cost to upgrade the foundations and superstructure to allow for a ' vertical expansion, will be upwards of $2 million. 'For each 200-stall deck that is constructed as part of a vertical expansion to the existing structure, a construction cost of $4.4 million ($22,000/space) in addition to the cost of upgrades and code compliance should be a reasonable bud et assumin the current architectural character is maintained. tiv g g Alterna ely, ' ~ the structure could likely be completely demolished and replaced with a much more efficient facility on a smaller footprint for approximately $34.5 million ($22,000/space + demolition cost), housing a total of 1,500 parking spaces. Amore cost effective option would be to construct approximately 195 additional spaces under the new Conference Center to accommodate the new program plus spaces displaced in the existing garage. The cost for this would be in the neighborhood of $5.5 million {$28,000/space average), and this parking ' would serve the Conference Center in a more functional manner. Providing 325 spaces ' Page 12 ~~~"'~ Parking ~~~T?~~c~f Psann~t9 Engineering Remora lLun ,. ~~~~~ Vail Lionshead Parking Garage , Parking Feasibility Study below the conference center would cost approximately $10.6 million ($32,500/space average), and 455 spaces below the conference center would cost approximately $16.6 million ($36,500/space average). Refer to the table below to compare costs. Cost Comparison of Options Vertical Vertical Expand Expand New Parking New Parking New Parking Lionshead Lionshead DemoJReplace Below Below Below Garage Garage Lionshead ' Conference Conference Conference (half tier) (whole tier) Cara e Center Center Center # Stalls 200 400 1,500 195 325 455 Demolition N/A NJA $1.`_i million N/A .NJA NJA Fire Suppression Up to $1.5 Up to X1.5 million million i~I/A N/A NJA N/A Life Safety, Accessibility, Up to Up to X600,000 i~/A NJA NJA N/A Plumbin U ides $600,000 Structural U ades $1 million -$2 million ]~1/A N/A N/A N/A $5.46 $10.6 $16.6 . New Construction $4.4 millions $8.8 millions X33 millions million2 million3 million4 Total Up to $7.5 Up to $12.9 $10.6 $16.6 million million $34.,'i million $5.5 million million million Notes: 1. Assumed X22,000 per stall for construction of new above ground parking (does not include soft costs). 2. Assumed X28,000 per stall for construction (does not include soft costs). 3. Assumed $32,500 per stall for construction (depending upon the extent of dewatering; does not include soft costs). 4. Assumed X36,500 per stall for construction (depending upon [he extent of dewatering; does not include soft costs). Feasibility of a Transit Center We also reviewed accommodating public transit (i.e. buses) on the top tier of the existing structure. Currently the Vail Village parking structure ;supports transit traffic at the roof tier However, it is our understanding that the Village structure was designed with that function in mind. As such, we understand that the double tees and topping slab are substantially deeper and stiffer than at the existing Lionshead structure. According to the original drawings, the roof tier of Lionshead is designed to support 125 psf live plus snow load, and UBC 1979 requires the capacity to support a 2000-pound concentrated load. To accommodate buses on parking structures, Section 1607.6 of IBC 2003 requires a uniform live load-carrying capacity greater than twice the current design load, and a concentrated load-carrying capacity 9 to 13 times existing, which correspond to the 1996 AASHTO highway loads.' Current AASHTO design is even more demanding, and it is likely that the Page 13 :a®r~ Parking ~~l~(~ Mann4~g En9lnaerir.g iieeloratio~ I _ a,~. Vail Lionshead Parking Garage ' ~~~Y~ ~ ' Parking Feasibility Study ~ ~ actual bus loads will.exceed those shown in Table 1607.6. Additionally, we reviewed the ', performance of precast parking structures that have been` modified to allow bus traffic. In our experience, the impact stress of bus traffic on the double tee flange connections in such ' a retrofit will cause rapid deterioration of those connections. Given this, we definitely recommend against bus traffic on the existing parking structure unless extensive ' .reconstruction is undertaken: ' To accommodate transit traffic, the structure will require extensive modillcation, likely including complete removal and replacement of the floor and strengthening of all of the ' supporting structural members (i.e. foundations, columns, beams, spandrels). It is difficL~lt to estimate a cost for such an extensive retrofit, but it would be reasonable to assume a cost ' of X150 per square foot or more for all three levels, excluding finished space. Operational Review ' The existing Vail Lionshead garage is a split-level design with flat parking bays stepped at ' half-level intervals and speed (non-parking) ramps that provide for vertical vehicle circulation. Although once a popular design, split-levels-have grown out of favor because of ' poor circulation, traffic conflicts, steep ramps, and functional ineftlciency (square feet per space). Split-levels are occasionally designed today for small and rectangular sites, when more efficient and better functioning designs are not practical or possible. Split-levels may have either one-way or tlvo-way traffic flow. The design of the Lionshead parking structure, with one-way ramps on both ends, is meant to have one-way traffic circulation throughout. Two-way flow creates traffic conflicts and confusion for users. This is coupled with ' pedestrian flows that cross the parking bays. Pedestrian travel is safer when parking bays are oriented in the same direction as pedestrian travel. However, many of the problems associated with this design coL~ld be largely alleviated if the two-way traffic flow is converted to one-way traffic flow. The proposed one-way traffic flow and a new entry/e~cit on the north side of the garage are graphically illustrated in the isometric on the following page. ' ~~-~ Page 14 Parking ' "!.~~61'~°~'~q!c ~.~^ P1ann~ng En9lnee~irrg fiaaloralian Vail Lionshead Parking Garage ~~~~~` Parking Feasibility Study Although there would be a relatively large reduction in the n~imber of spaces with angled parking (100± spaces), the parking facility would function better with angled parking and one-way traffic flow. The four parking bays allow for separate inbound (indicated in blue) and outbound (indicated in red) threads and very short travel distances from the top level to the bottom level and vice versa. ~N .~~r +---- :;_-~- LE11~L 3H LEYE1 3J1 LEVEL 29 LEtiEL ZA. ~j LE4Eli8 LEVEL to 15OMETRIC NO SCP.LE One-way traffic flow has several advantages, including: • Separation of inbound and outbound traffic and improved flow capacity of the circulation system. 0 Easier for parkers to enter/exit parking spaces. • Vehicles are more likely to be centered iri angled spaces. ~~® Page 15 Parkeng ~~~~~^ Planning Engln~ering RaMoralion s 1 Vail Lionshead Parl~ing Garage ~rK~'Y~, %' Parking Feasibility Study ~ \) ® Less circulation conflict ,and reduced potential for accidents. ® Better visibility when backing out of a stall. 4 The intended traffic flow is self-enforcing. ~ One-way traffic allows the angle of parking to be changed to accommodate changes ui vehicle sizes. Functional System Capacity We use the follo`ving formL~la to calctilate .how long it will, take the last vehicle to exit a parking facility: - E~=(pxtP)+(uxt„)+(sxts)+(ext~ ~~/here, p = number of vehicles parking on the circulation route tP = mean inhibiting period for these vehicles, which is 1/capacity in u = number of vehicles unpacking and departing from the circulation route t„= mean inhibiting period for theses vehicles, which is 1/capacity out s = number of vehicles seeking a parking space but parking off of the circulation route is = mean inhibiting period e = number of vehicles that pass through from anodzer area on the way to an eat tC = mean inhibiting period ' Based on the formula above, it is estimated that it takes approximately 26 minutes to eat the garage with 90° parking and two-way traffic flow. This rates LOS D given a maximum 30- minute departure period. With angled parking and one-way traffic flow, it is estimated that it would take approximately 20 minutes to. eat the garage, which rates LOS B. If the loss of parking spaces associated with an led parking and one-way traffic throu hout g g ' the garage is unacceptable, it is strongly recommended to convert the level 3B parking bays to one-way traffic flow, as indicated in Figure 1.3 on the parking plans that follow. Shown ' on the plan are three entry lanes oriented north-south and four exit lanes oriented east-west on the north side of the facility. The four exit lanes should be supplemented with at least one more exit lane at another location. ' ~~.~ Page 16 Parking -' ~ ~,~~ ~^ . P4nn~ng ~ngln~er4~~g Re slo~~lkn ~w~~ Vail Lionshead Parking Garage Parking Feasibility Study PHASE II DEVEL®PMENT It is anticipates that a large portion of the existing Lionshead parking structure will be replaced with amixed-use development including a hotel, condominiums, and retail space in the future. The site will possibly be shared with a transit center and atwo-bay, multi-level parking structure. Town of Vail officials would like to maximize the number of spaces in the parking garage; up to 2,000 spaces. Carl walkerpreviously expressed to town officials that atwo-bay garage with a parking ramp in asingle-threaded helix configuration, indicated in the isometric below, would not have the ramp capacity to support a large number of spaces. A two-bay single thread has the functional system capacity for a maximum of approxirriately 750 spaces. Asingle-threaded helix always consists of a two-way traffic pattern with 90° parking and rises one level with every 360 degrees of revolution. Because of this, the number of levels in a single helix should preferably be limited to a maximum of six, otherwise the number of turns required and the spaces passed become inconvenient. Single Thread Isometric ~~~ Page 17 ~Partting ~~~+~" ~ . planning Engln~ering Reeto.atfon 1 1 1 1 1 - _ de. ~`~d i~ VAII. ~ , Vail Lionshead Parking Garage Parking Feasibility Study On the other hand, adouble-threaded heli.Y, which could have either one-way or rivo-way traffic flow, would provide the functional system capacity for a larger garage. A double- threaded helix.rises two levels with every 3G0 degrees of revolution, which allows for two intertwined "threads" and the opportunity to circulate to an available parking space without passing all parking spaces as inbound and outbound traffic can be.separated. Because of this, double-threaded helices are often recommended for larger facilities with seven or more levels. A two-bay double thread has the functional system capacity for up to approximately 2,000 spaces with angled parking and one-way traffic flow. A double thread is represented in the isometric below. Double Thread Isometric As indicated in the isometric on the following page, a transit center could be accommodated within the footprint of a two-bay double thread with non-parking ramps to the levels directly belou> and above the transit center. If peak-hour flow rates in Vail, which are based on the user groups served by the garage, ultimately exceed the maximum rates that would allow for the provision of up to 2,000 spaces in a double thread, a garage with express (non-parking) ramps should be considered for this site. ~~--~ Parking ~~~~' P4~nk~g Enyln~wrtr>g RaaorarSon Page 1 ~ r I e' ~~~~~ Vail Lionshead Parking Garage Parking Feasibility Study \~ Double Thread with ~ Transit Center ISOMETRIC NO SCALE F2106 Page 19 ~~-~ Parking ~~~~ Pta~nEne Englnsering ReMoralion r i - ~~.~ t~ YAII. Vail Lionshead Parl~ing Garage Parking Feasibility Study RECOMMENDATION \~ ~> Carl walker recommends providing parking below the Conference Center rather than in a vertical expansion of the existing Lionshead garage for the following reasons: • It will cost less to provide the parking below the center (approximately $28,000 per space) than in the vertical expansion of the existing garage with structural and code upgrades (approximately $37,500 per space for 200 spaces). • The split-level design of the existing garage is operationally deficient, and additional parking spaces would make existing problems worse (un.less the garage is converted to one-way traffic flow). • Parking below the center will be more convenient for event patrons. • Conference .parking below the center could be reserved for event patrons. • Conference parking could still be opened to the general public on busy ski days when conferences are not scheduled. • The entry and exit lane provided for the conference parking could be used to speed exiting of the existing garage and disperse traffic on busy ski days. • Similarly, at least one more entry lane and one more exit lane would be required for 200 more spaces in a vertical expansion of the garage. • It will not be possible to add the parking below the conference center once it is built. CONFERENCE CENTER PARKING The number of parking space currently being considered under the conference center is 195 to.455. Following is an analysis of the number of entry and exit lanes required based on the capacity of the garage. The analysis examines three different scenarios for the conference center. Examined are public/consumer shows, special events, and ski parking when the conference center is not in .~~-~ Parking. ~ ~~p~.~^~ Plsnnbng Englnferkrg ReMoratFon :Page 20 i' ~~ t f ,I f f' ~a~+ Vail Lionshead Parking Garage Parking Feasibility Study use. The estimated number of lanes is determined for each of the three scenarios for 195 spaces, 325 space (195+130), and 455 spaces (195+130+130). Public/Consumer Shows Conference Center events that would generate the maximum demand for parking would be public/consumer shows that would be attended by local area residents. These would represent large events that are typically held on weekends, such as home and garden shows, auto- shows, etc. Most of the attendees would drive and park. The average duration of stay would be relatively short and the parking spaces would. turnover frequently. Peak-hour flow rates, based on parking generation rates; are estimated to be 40% for both inbound and outbound traffic. The number of lanes required, sumn-iarized below, anticipate that. conference center patrons.would take a ticket from apush-button dispenser inbound and pay a variable fee to a cashier outbound. Number of Lanes Number of Spaces Inbound Outbound 195 1 1 325 1 1 455 1 2 Special Events A good example of a special event at the conference center would be a coricert. Most of the event attendees would arrive within an hour before the show and all would depart immediately after the show. The garage would be expected to empty within 30 minutes after an event. The number of laries required, summarized below, anticipates that patrons would pay a flat rate inbound and would not be required to strop (free flow) outbound. Peak inbound and outbound flow would not occur simultaneously. ~~~ Page 21 Parking ~~~~ Punning Engln~srhg fieMOra~fon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,~; Vail Lionshead Parking Garage ~~~ ~~ ~ Parking Feasibility Study \> Number of Lanes Number of Spaces Inbound Outbound 195 1 1 325 2 1 455 2 2 Ski Days ~, ,, The peak-hour flow rates for ski days are 60% inbound and 77% outbound, as presented in our previous parking feasibility study for the Town of Vail. It is assumed that patrons will take a ticket from apush-button dispenser inbound and 50% will pay a variable fee .to a cashier and 50% will insert a validated ticket into an e:cit verifier (central pay) outbound. Peak inbound and outbound flow would not occur simultaneously. The number of lanes required is summarized below. Number of Spaces 195 325 '. 455 Number of Lanes Inbound Outbound 1 1 1 2 1 2 . Based on this analysis, recommended are two lanes for 195 spaces, one dedicated inbound lane and one dedicated outbound lane. For 325 or 455 spaces, three lanes are recommended, one dedicated inbound lane, one dedicated outbound lane, and one reversible lane. ~~'"~ Parking ~"' y~- ~~~^ P4nn6nq En9lnFerag FiaMoration Page 22 {17 l]) 13) la) (61 (51 1]1 `9) 19) 10 11 17 13 14 15 16 f] 18 19 I I I I I_ I I _I I_ I I I_ I I o A C C C L C C I C 54 C I C C C [I C L i I I I ~I I I I I I i I I~, I I I I ~ I 1 I 1 I I 1 I v/ I -- - I - ~J ~~ ~ ~ LEVEL IB ~ ~ ~~ c c c ~ 40 c c .L - c I ~ I ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ b l I I I I I I I I I I I 14 1 46 i I 1 1 i i i i i LEVEL 1A i I i i i ~ i i 1 i f f i i i i i - i 1 I I I I ~I I I I I I I I I~ III ~I I~ I~ I L I C I L I~ I L 17 L I C K L I~ I L I C C I I I I Y I I I I 124 II I I II '~ '~ I I~ ~I - ~J Vail Libnshead Garsge v~l, colo.aao \i~ _ GARAGE LEVEL PLANS 1A 819 ~_ ~.~ ... SPACE TABULATION CHART ~- - - ~_ 1LL`S_IL - ~.~.-T~ _ ,.~ • LEVEL to 3, 1B ' --~'~ ~ _._ FUNCTIONAL PLAN `3"°~- ~"`'".:+.. urn ~n ~- _~ 06~200i-15] ' ISOMETRIC F1:1 ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ Q I O I Q I O I O IIf71 ~ 1 ~ I ~ ~ I I 10 ~ 11 ~ 12 I I 1] 1a' IS 1fi 11 _ 10 I I . ~ I I I I ~ .I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I 1 I 1 Ir I I I ~I 1 ®.I ~- \J -O ~_~J ~- V _~ GARAGE LEVEL PLANS 2A R y0 d®I .~.~ .n. - ..r _ ~l Vail Lionshead Garage vmL caamo ~~ , ~- ,M a _...--^.r^--` -rte-' ' ~ ~ , r~/ LEV EL 3A 63B ~. Eurlcnowu PuH os~oo~-~~ s-r ISOh1ETR IC •~ F1.2 o`I1 1 22}I 3 I ~ I I 1OII 1 I 415 8 1 ~ I I T B ~ ~ 1 9 10 tl ~ ~ ~ I 1 1 12 1oII3 ~ - I ~ 11 1415 ~ I 1 16 ~ - lT ~ - 18 ~ ~ 1- 1oII9 1 ~ ~~Y~: .~......-.. _ _ _- _p._p._ rVy jVy I i _ I I _ I _ I I _ A _ _~ T..,>ml...m Fa {>ml w® _. ~. I I I I I I '~~ _ _ I I i I I I I I I O 1B I I ~ I ( I I I I I I _______I ___ I 'J fp~~ fl- 1,:~T 4_~________~________1 __ ____ I 8 I I I i I I I I I 1 - I ,5 I I I o 1 1 I I I VVVrJJJ=~4441JJJ 1 ii m _~___ I .1111 _____~________}__ I ____ I I I I I I ~ ~ . i I c c I I c c ~ cl _ ~ ' I I I - -Q Vail LlOnsheed Garege c c I I I c c l 15 I __.I - I c c c qI I _ c c 22. I I 1 I c c I van. cawmo I I I I ~ 1 i I I I I I _. ~~ I ' LEVEL $B I I I ' I I~ I I I ~ I 17 I 2t I I I 1 I ~ _ 1 _ 1 I _ _ _ _ 1 I _ _ _ _ I 1 I _ - I _ 1 _ __ I _ _ I 1 ! _~ C b l I f f I I I I I •! I I 1 4 1 I I 1 A I I I I I I I I I I t c c ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ c c c _ _ ~ . ~ I Gr5 a ' I I c c c 11111 I c c c ~- t I ' LEVEL 3A ' C 50 I t ~ I c I c ' c ~ I c ' I ' 4 C C c -J\FJl ICI[Iti~ CI[I C I I I I I c l I I - I I I I I c l I I I I50I I I c I I I I I I I I I C I I I I ~Itlc lµ It lc C I I I I I I ~ I I I 1 I 1 II I I II I I I ~ I I I~ I I I f I ` 8 I 1 I I~ I 1 I I 1 I C C C Q C c c C C c 6 C t C ' C C C~ c C C c C C F C t C , GARAGE LEVEL PLANS 3A 8 3B ®j ~~~r vac .n. - ro -, ~ a ~.~~ ~, -. ~.., ,Y... .o -. -A- ~- lm a. LEVEL ~3A 8 30 ' FUNCTIONAL PLAN 05-2001-157 - ISOMETRIC F1.3 ® ~ ~ ~ ® r ~ ~ ' FNS Convention, Sports & Entertainment .DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan. Appendix.• Parking Analysis I Appendix: Perking Analysis HVS analyzed the demand for parking the proposed Vail Conference Center would generate in each of the three seasons identified in the business plan. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, the Town parking consultant, provided data on base parking demand by season and time of day in the Lionshead structure. This ' data .provided the "base" parking demand assumptions, upon which HVS layered in the additional parking demand associated with conference center _ event activity. ~ Estimated Conference The analysis looked at two demand scenarios: design day and a peak day, . Center Parking which are defined below: ' Demand ^ Design Day-This reflects the 90th percentile of parking demand in each season. ^ Peak Day-The peak day reflects the 100th percentile of parking ~. demand. The exception is the exclusion of the 4`h of July, as there would likely be an ,insufficient number of available lodging rooms 1 to host a major conference that occurs on that date. It is standard practice for parking analysis to look at the 75"' to 85`'' percentile ' as a design day. Rather than providing sufficient parking so that there is never excess demand, typical practice is to plan for a design day so that there are sufficient parking spaces on the majority of days. Froviding sufficient 1 spaces for peak day demand is considered to be inefficient because of the larger number of spaces that would sit vacant for most of the year. However, because of the Town of Vail's desire to limit the number of excess cars that ' end up parked on the frontage road, it instructed HVS to use .the 90"' percentile as a gauge. e In both cases, the parking demand is divided into two segments. The first segment is the base demand from skiers, other visitors, and general demand. The second segment is the demand associated with the conference center and its event attendees and employees. Facilities located in areas that necessitate tNS Convention, Sorts & Entertainment . DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Appendir.• Parking Ana; ysis Z \) ' \) ~~ paid parking typically manage their employee parking to minimize the need for on-site spaces. IIVS assumes that there would be ten spaces allocated for on-site employee parking. The analysis addresses the demand for employee parking in detail later in this letter. The analysis estimates demand at four time intervals during the day. HVS focused on the events that would generate the largest number of attendees in bath the daytime-conferences-and the evening _ hours--= entertainment/civic or banquet events. A day in which the facility hosts a conference during the daytime and an entertainment/civic event in the evening represents the greatest demand for parking in the ski season. In the summer and shoulder seasons, a day in which the facility hosts a conference in the daytime and a banquet in the evening presents the largest demand for parking. By assessing such days for both design and peak day scenarios, HVS was able to determine the number of additional parking spaces that should be provided to accommodate the conference center demand and the implications of conference center event activity on available parking in the Lionshead parking structure. Design Day Table 1 shows the estimated parking demand for the conference center on a Design Day. (90`'' percentile) in .each season. The table also shows the base parking demand and the estimated excess (deficit) of parking spaces in the Lionshead parking structure assuming its current capacity. ' FNS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Appendix: Parking Analysis 3 ~ \) ' Table 1 Estimated Parking Demand for the Vail Conference Center, Ba se Deman d, and L ionshi:ad Capacity-Design Dayt ' Design Day Percent Persons Per Event Driving Car Attendance Total Cars 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 7:00 PM Summer Conference 25% 1.50 850 142 120 137 135 71 Banquet 80% 2.00 900 360 0 0 18 360 ' Additional EmployeeZ TBD TBD TBD TBD Sub Total - -- -- -- 120 137 153 431 Base Demand -- -- -- -- 110 400 575 475 TotalOemand = -- -- -- 2311 537 728 906. ' Excess (Delicil) 815 508 317 139 Shoulder Conference 30% 1.50 550 110 105 107 94 44 Banquet 70% 2.00 550 ' 193 0 0 6 193 Additional EmployeeZ - TBD TBD TBD TBD - SuhTatal 1D5 iD7 99 237 Base Demand - -- -- -- 60 300 525 290 Total Demand -- -- -- -- 165 401 624 527 Excess (Deticil) -- -- -- -- 881 638 .421 519 Ski Conference 15% 1.75 500 43 42 39 41 21 y Entertainment/Civic 85% 2.75 700 216 0 0 11 216 Add6ional EmployeeZ TBD TBD TBD TBD t Sub Talal 42 39 52 238 - -- -- Base Demand - 400 1,125 980 550 ' Talal Demand - -- -- -- 442 1,164 1,032 788 r Excess (Deficit) = -- -- -- 508 (214) (82) 162 'Assuming current suppy ol~parking spaces in Uonshead Parking Structure Z lncremenla! employee parking estimates !o be provided by Fe/sburg Holt 8 Ullevig Sources: Felsburg Holt 8 Ullevig 8 HVS ' For the design day, conference center parking demand during the ski day reaches its highest point at 3:00 PM with demand for 52 total spaces. The highest parking demand occurs at 7:00 PM, when there is conference center demand for 238 spaces. Parking in the evening hours, after the ski day has concluded, is plentiful relative to the available supply during the day. Peak Day Planning for parking associated with the conference center should focus on the Design Day. However, it is also prudent to assess the parking demand that would occur on a peak day. The purpose of looking at a peak day scenario is to identify how intense the demand for parking would be under the very unlikely scenario that base and conference center parking demand r reach their highest points on the same day. This peak day reflects the following scenario: ^ Base parking demand is at its highest point during the ski season, FfLS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRFIFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Appendix: Parkin; Analysis 9 ~) ^ The largest conference event- the facility is likely to hold during the ski season occurs on the same day, and ^ -The largest entertainment/civic -event also occurs on this same day Table 2 shows the parking demand on this unlikely peak day. Table 2 Estimated Parking Demand for the Vail Conference Center, Ba se Deman d, and L ionshead Capacity-Peak Day' Peak Day Parking Percent Persons Per Event Talal Cars 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 7:00 PM Driving Car Attendance Summer Conference 25% 1.50 2,100 350 298 340 333 175 Banquet 80% .2.00 2,000 800 0 0 40 800 Additional Empfoyeer TBD TBD TOD TBD Suh Total - - - 298 340 373 975 Base Demand - -- -- - 125 475 675 575 Total Demand - -- -- - 423 815 1,048 1,550 Excess (Deficit) - -- - -- 732 340 107 (396) Shoulder Conference 30% 1.50 1,800 360 342 349 306 144 Banquet 70% 2.00 1,700 595 0 0 18 595 Additional Employee' TBD TBD TBD TBD Suh Total - -- -- - 342 349 324 739 'Base Demand - -- -- -- 75 350 575 325 'Total Demand - -- - -- 417 699 899 1,064 Excess (Deficit) - -- - - .737 455 255 90 Ski .Conference 15% 1.75 1,250 107 104 96 102 54 Entertainment/Civic 85% 2.75 2,100 649 0 0 32 649 Additional Employee TBD TBD 'TBD T80 Suh Total 3,350 756 104 96 134 703 Base Demand - -- - -- 550 1,350 1,100 800 Total Demand - -- - -- 654 1,446 1,234 1,503 Excess (Deficit) - - - - 411 (381) (169) (438) ~ Incremental employee parking estimates fo be provided by felsburg Noll 8 Ullevig Sources: Felsburg Holf 8 Ullevig 8 HVS The estimates show that the peak conference center parking demand during the ski day, when parking spaces are at a preTnium, is 134 spaces at 3:00 PM. The peak day scenario shows parking deficits in the ski season at noon, 3:00 PM, and 7:00 PM. Deficits occur with or without the conference center demand in the peak scenario at noon and 3:00 PM. Deficits also occur in the ,peak scenario at 7:00 PM in the summer. Parking deficits in the summer are less problematic than deficits in the ski season because there is more capacity at the Vail Village lot to handle overflow conference demand. However, this ' NUS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DR4FT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Appendix: P,~rkin~Analysis S analysis does need to consider ways to address excess parking demand in the summer for peak day demand. ' Conference Center The detailed staff schedule HVS prepared for the facility estimates that there Employee Parking will be 18 permanent full-time employees. In addition, the kitchen would have two full-time employees, which are not included in the staff schedule ' for the facility because the model estimates food and beverage revenues and expenses on a net rather than gross basis. The business plan for the facility is designed such that staff levels increase during larger events with temporary staff so that a minimum of permanent staff is required. There should be approximately 10 parking spaces on site for facility staff and visitors. The balance of employees would either park remotely and walk or ' commute via public transportation. Total staff levels at the facility will vary with the size of events. Events that have plated dinners are the most labor intensive. The typical ratio of guests to serves ranges from 30 to 20 to one, a.. depending upon the specific characteristics of an event. Larger events with 1,000 or more attendees would require two captains, eight additional kitchen personnel, and two restroom attendants. These events can require 70 to 80 part-time personnel. However, the facility would ~ not need to provide on-site parking for all of these employees. For the largest ski-season events, the facility would need to provide remote parking options for attendees, which could also serve employees if necessary. The cost of such service is included in the Town Services line item in the business .plan (estimated at $210,000 in year 2003 dollars). During non-ski season periods when parking is free of charge, a 1 higher ratio of facility employees would drive to work 'and such shuttle service would not be necessary, as the Vail Village lot could help to handle excess demand for the laTgesf events. ' Recommended The number of parking spaces the Town should add to the Lionshead Conference Center parking structure is a function of the design day demand in the ski season. Parking Spaces The prior tables demonstrate that the additional demand associated with the conference center would not cause parking demand to exceed design-day supply in the summer and shoulder seasons. The daytime demand is the critical period for the recommended number of additional spaces, since that is the time when both of the Town's major parking structures are at or near capacity in the ski season. If the combined parking demand at Lionshead exceeds the capacity in the evening, the Vail Village lot could effectively serve INS Convention, SporYs,& Entertainment DRFIFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Appendi,r: Parking Analysis 6 \ \) ~~' the excess demand, as people shuttle to and from the conference center on the Town's bus service. Assuming that ten spaces are allocated for employee parking, the peak scenario suggests that the conference center creates the demand for. 62 additional parking spaces (52 peak conference daytime demand plus the ten employee spots). Previous analysis on the number of spaces the conference center would require has recommended 125 additional spaces. Assuming that the intent of adding the parking spaces is to avoid increases in overflow parking at the Lionshead structure, this analysis shows that the 125 figure exceeds the number of spaces necessary to accomplish this goal. 1-Iowever; the 125 additional spaces would decrease the number of overflow cars related ' primarily to base parking demand in the ski season and provide additional capacity to handle .peak conference center demand. For the purposes of the following demand and capacity analysis, HVS uses the 125 figure . to allow for some unanticipated demand and to remain consistent with prior analyses. Table 3 shows the estimated demand and supply of parking assuming that 125 spaces are added to the Lionshead parking structure. 1 ' HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT I/ail Conference Center Business Plan Appendix: Parking Analysis 7 ~. . . Table 3 Estimated Parking Demand for the Vail Conference.Center, Base Demand, and, Lionshead.. Capacity-Design Day With 125 Additional Spaces (10 for Employees) Estimated Parking Demand for the Vaif Conference Center, Base Demand, and Lianshead Capacily with 125 Additional Spaces (10 )or Employees)-Design Day Design Day Parking Perceni Persons Per Event Telal Cars 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 7:00 PM Driving Car Attendance Summer Conference 25% 1.50 ~ 850 142 120 137 135 71 Banquet 80% 2.00 900 360 _ 0 0 18 360 Additional Employee' TBD TBD TBD TBD Suh Total - -- -_ _ 120 137 153 431' Base Demand 110 400 575 475 Total Demand - - -- -- 230 537. 728 906 ' Excess (Deficit) - -- -- -- 924 617 427 248 ' Shoulder Conference 30% 1.50. 550 110 105 107 94 44 Banquet 70% 2.00 550 193 0 0 6 193 Additional Employee' TBD TBD TBD TBD Sub Total -- -- -- -- 105 107 99 Z37 Base Demand -- -- -- -- 60 3011 525 290 Total Demand -- -- -- -- 165 407 624 527 Excess (Deficit) - -- - -- 990 748 530 628 ' Ski ' Conference 15% 1.75 500 43 4Z 39 41 21 Entertainment%Civic 85% '2.75 700 216 0 0 11 216 Additional Employee' TBD TBD TBD TBD Sub iatal _ -- -- -- -- 42 39 52 238 ' tjase Demand ~ -- _ -- 400 1,125 980 550 Total Demand 442 1,164 1,032 788 Excess (Deficit) -- -- -- -- 623 (99) 33 277 - ~ Incremenla! employee parlu'ng estimates to be provided by Fe/sburg Holt 8 U/levig Sources: felsburg Holt 8 Ullevig & HVS On a design day, the only day and time when estimated demand exceeds capacity is in the ski season at noon. Figure 1 shows graphically the estimated Lionshead parking demand. on a design day in the ski season with the existing and proposed capacities of the parking structure. tfUS Convention, Sparfs & Entertainment DRAFT Vail CanFerence Center Business Plan Appendix: Parkm~ Analysis 3 ~~ `~ Figure 1 Lionshead Parking Demand -Ski Season Design Day 1,zoo t.iao - ~~"" '`-- ~- 1,oaa 900 B00 700 600 500 400 3oa _„` . \ ~~ ` \ ~ .~ \, Current Lionshead Parking - ~\ Strocture Capacity r \ (Proposed ~ionshcod Parking ~~ Structure Capacity ~/ zoo a ~ ,~ \\~ , ai ~` D Entertainment/ Civic ~ Conference Base 1w o - - 9:00 AM ~ 12:00 PM 3:U0 PM 7:00 PM Saun:es: FelsOwg Matt d tlllehg, Town of Vail, d HVS Base parking deficits occur with or without the additional spaces in the ski season, but the additional 115 spaces would reduce excess demand and be more than sufficient to accommodate the additional demand associated with the conference center at the times when demand exceeds supply. Table 4 shows the amount of excess parking demand at the Lionshead structure with and without the conference center, its additional attendee demand, and the additional 125 spaces (assuming ten are used for employee parking) in the design day scenario. 1 1 FIl/S Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Veil Conference Center Business Plan Appendix: Parking Analysis 9 Table 4 (Deficit) of Lionshead Parking Spaces With and Without Conference Center & 125 New Spaces-Design Day Scenario 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 7:00 PM W/o Conference Center & 125 Spaces N/A (175) (30) N/A W Conference Center & 125 Spaces N/A (99) N/A N/A Sources: felsburg Holt &.Ullevig &HVS Adding conference center demand and 125 spaces to the parking structure results in a decrease in excess parking demand, from 175 spaces at noon to 99 spaces. This analysis reveals that the addition of 125 parking spaces is more than sufficient to accommodate the event related demand projected. for the conference center at the highest demand periods when spaces are at a premium. The additional parking spaces would create the added benefit of reducing overall excess ,parking demand at the Lionshead structure, as the design day demand or less will occur on 90 percent of the days during the ski season. Implications of One possible method of addressing conference center parking demand Restricting Event Dates daring the ski season would be to restrict the facility from hosting larger '' in Ski Season events during Fridays, Saturday, and Sundays-the busiest ski days. Conferences present a possible conflict with ski season parking because the demand for parking spaces peaks during ,the daytime when ski-related demand is also at its peak. HVS estimates there will be five conferences during the ski season at demand stabilization. These events often prefer to ' have at least one if not more weekend dates. A frequent event pattern is to conduct move-in activities on a Saturday, hold an opening session on Sunday evening, and conclude on a Tuesday. Other events may. run from Wednesday through Friday. A prohibition of larger conference events Friday through Sunday would negatively affect the ability of the facility to attract such events. Removing 3/7 of the potential event days during this period ' would increase the likelihood of scheduling conflicts. The inability to use weekend dates would deter events .that depend upon minimizing the number of days attendees need to miss work. An alternative approach might be to encourage events to use non-peak ski . days by providing lower facility rental rates for Monday through Thursday.. ' This could increase the likelihood that events would schedule on non-peak H[/S Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Appendi.r: Parkinh Analysis 10 ~} ~~ ski days without decreasing the event potential of the facility. Another strategy would be to set an upper limit on the attendance of an event that would occur on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday during the busiest ski periods. Given HVS' assumptions for attendee parking demand, an event of 1,000 attendees would utilize less than 90 parking spaces. Another option would be to arrange for remote parking and shuttle service during events that occur on weekend days during the ski season. Evening events present less of a potential parking problem because the demand for ski-related parking decreases after the slopes close for the day. Among the events projected to occur in the facility during the ski season, entertainmentlcivic events would generate the largest potential demand for parking in the evening. The estimated peak parking demand for these events in the ski season is approximately 650 cars. Since this demand would occur primarily in the evening, there should be little need to .restrict the size of these events to a point below the maximum occupancy of the facility. The Lionshead structure would be able to accommodate the majority of these cars in the evening hours and the Vail Village structures could serve overflow demand.-Lead times for Town bus service during the ski season are generally short enough to serve as shuttles between the Vail Village structure and the conference center. A slight increase in peak service could be necessary for the largest events. Scheduling In order for the analysis of conference center parking demand and capacity to Coordination Between accurately reflect actual conditions, the Town would need to ensure that the Conference Center & event schedules at Dobson Ice Arena and the conference center are Dobson Ice Arena coordinated. The conference center parking analysis assumes that the parking demand associated with .Dobson in the ski season peak day scenario is minimal, reflecting typical uses such as public skating or a local amateur hockey game. The Town would need to coordinate the scheduling of the two facilities to avoid simultaneous events that would generate parking demand well in excess of capacity. Even so, only the largest of events held simultaneously in the two facilities would approach or exceed the daytime demand associated with skiing. The significantly shorter booking window for Dobson simplifies the coordination of these two facility's schedules. Most of the larger conference center events-those that exceed 500 attendees-will have booking windows of six months or more. Conference events are often scheduled years in advance and larger banquets a,~e typically scheduled several months in advance. Management at Dobson indicates that most of their larger concerts ' HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Appendix: Parking Analysis I \ \> ' and evening events are scheduled approximately 60 days in advance. The Town would also need to coordinate the scheduling of shorter-term entertainment and civic events in the conference center with Dobson's schedule. The Town could maintain a master event schedule throughout the year that included events in both facilities. The type of event and estimated attendance would indicate a range of parking demand and the Town could preclude the booking of simulXaneous events that generated an excessive amount of parking demand at any particular time. Given that Dobson management repoc~ts holding 1-2 large concerts and/or other evening events per month, there would be sufficient scheduling flexibility to coordinate events in the ' two facilities. The level of parking demand that the Town should refrain from exceeding will vary with the season and time of day. Conference Center The Telus Conference Center in Whislter, British Columbia is in many ways Parking In Whistler the most similar facility to the proposed Vail conference center. HVS . interviewed facility operations staff and Resort Municipality of Whistler staff ' to learn how they address conference center parking demand. Conference center staff indicated that parking is not a major operational issue at the facility, due to the high percentage of event attendees that either stay in .nearby lodging units, live in the nearby area, or park remotely in day lots that ' are alive-minute walk from the facility. The majority of event attendees walk to the center, although some use a municipal parking structure that is adjacent to the facility. . According to municipal staff, the parking garage adjacent to the conference center has 217 underground spaces and 75 surface spaces. The surface spaces run on a pay for use system. The-underground spots are free, but limited to three hours. It is very rare that an event at the conference center generates sufficient parking demand to cause shortages, even during the ski season. If there is an especially large event that: is expected to generate significant parking demand the municipality may restrict entry into the parking lot for a few hours prior to the event so that the lot is largely available for use by ' attendees. The municipality maintains approximately 3,100 parking spaces. There are a ' total of 6,581 spaces, municipal and private, in the Village core. The conference center has seven dedicated employee parking spaces. Municipal staff stressed the need for space for truck parking in the process of loading or ' unloading and adrop-off area accessible to buses. Also, any surface parking tNSConvent(on, Spores & Enfertainmen[ DRAFT Vail Cnn(erence Center Business Plan Appendix: Parkin~Analysrs 12 \ ~ ~ ~ ~ , areas should be covered or located far enough away from the faci}ity to avoid ' being covered by snow shed. . I ~, >'° p: ~~ ~~ ~. ~~ i ~a '~ ~: rr. ~-~~: ~~' ~~~~~ _- Updated Design Style Comments Town of Vail 10 MAR 05 Conference Center Question /Comment Brought Up By m Q ~ 0 1 Look into additional ways to make the icon reflect Vail 2 Need to inform the community about the full scope and impact of the project rather than addressing bits and pieces 3 Continue to look into the transition of the parking garage to the building 4 Continue to study and develop the W. elevation and "crown" 5 This is not the wrong building for Vail r 6 Updated design is beautiful and exciting 7 The added storage is a great addition 8 Further research storage/coat check considerations at the ballroom level 9 Consider an interior fireplace at E. Lionshead Circle Entry 10 Consider exterior fire pits at E. Lionshead Circle street level 11 Though original desire was for Bavarian, the updated design is pleasing Consider shifting view corridor towards the SE to minimize the 12 focus on the complexes to the S. of the facility 13 Consider orienting the deck in a more southeasterly direction 14 Concern with the proximity of the balcony to the Lodge at Lionshead property. Consider moving back to the N. 15 Ensure E. Lionshead Cr. Doesn't move further S. as it would eliminate the current vegetation 16 Concerned with potential noise from outdoor terrace 17 Ensure current design of 28' height of ballroom is maintained 18 Though the overall look is fine, please consider softening the sharp angles of the entry feature 19 Ensure facility will not shift E. Lionshead circle 20 Need to figure out how to get more community involvement TEAMWORK DIVIDES THE EFFORT AND MULTIPLIES THE EFFECT... Pale ~ Of Z p:\current projects\...\Public Updated Design Comments 10 MAR OS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X © 2005 All Rights Reserved By Arch itectural Resour ce Consultants, I nc. Updated Design Style Comments Town of Vail Conference Center 10 MAR 05 Brought Up By Question /Comment ~ _ ~~ _ ` ` ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~~ m U Q a 0 O~ 21 Ensure enough women's restrooms are included X 22 Updated design is striking X Concerned with whether the town will be open for business in 23 the shoulder seasons X 24 Much better than the mushroom X 25 Community needs this to jump start the economy X 26 People will come during the shoulder season X Note: The statements above are intended to reflect the comments stated publicly on the design direction and process going forward and are not intended to record questions clarified at the,meetings. Additional comments will be welcomed at forthcoming public meetings. TEAMWORK DIVIDES THE EFFORT AND MULTIPLIES THE EFFECT... Page 2 Of 2 ©2005 All Rights Reserved By p:\current projects\...\Public Updated Design Comments 10 MAR 05 Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. t ,, Vail Conference Center Outline .Business Plan .Market Demand & Operations .Design .Construction Budget .Financing Conference Center 0 v ^' W N ~ W v, ~• ~' a ~ ~ N ~ ~ d \~ IVlarkelt ®emand ^ business Plan ® Market Demand -should we build it? Conference Center N 3 N W ~_ d ,~ Conference Center ^ Dedicated lodging and sales tax approved in 2002 , -_ - _ - ---- -~ ^ Generates $3.4 million/yr ~ - - A Intended to increase year ~'~ round occupancy F v Projected to generate 69,000 ' - additional room nights v $30 million in additional ---_~ ----_ u _-- _:- ~_ spending ~~_~_ ~ ~~_~_~ _ n $1.4 million in additional ~ ~ _ -~- _' sales and lodging tax ---- -~---- 2 Major Topics "Covered in HVS Study ^ Market Demand ^ National Trends . ^ Lost Business ^ Hotel Room availability ^ Input from meeting planners s Review of Estimated Financial Operations ^ Key Assumptions ^ Approach to Marketing ^ Budget ^ Range of Reasonableness for Deficit Weekday Rooms Available for Room Blocks Condo 8 Condo Hotel ~ 2,500 ®Hotel r ~ 1 ,~~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~f f ~ i ~ ~. ~ I i - ~ ~ r r ~ - 1~ ~ "l 2,000 ` ~ rt.. , ~ - 1 ~, q - ~: ~~I "~ i, ` i ~~_ [[_ ~ ~ ~~ i ~~1 ~~ r ~ ', ~'I f ;~ a ~ 1 X500 r- _ __ ~ ~.~ k ~~ r ~ IJ. ~ ~. ~ . ~h 11 I ~ ~ I f_ ~ ;n ~ -~ ~ ~ -1 ~~ ~ 1,000 v r+ ~~ ~ I ~ ~~ '>,, L ~ . ~ rj ~ ~ f ~ ~ z w~ ~~ ~ :_ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ( ~. ~t , C~ ~ +` _ fir. ~ 500 Z ~ j C,7. i~ '~ ~ ~ti ~ - it ~ , A' ~ ~ .-i w , ~ I ~}, ~ ~`, i , ~ ~ k f , , i ~ k ~ _ I _ _ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ~~ ~ 3 i Selected Hotels with Meeting Space in Vail Area Max. Max # SF Single Lodging SF of Largest Room Facility Rooms Space Rooms Space Capacity Vail Cascade 292 21,555 17 5,940 490 Park Hyatt 274 16,350 15 8,631 710 Ritz-Carlton 237 14,040 12 7,200 600 1 New Lodging Units and Function Space in Vail New Total SF of # of Lodging Net SF of Largest Function Facility Rooms Change Space Room Rooms Core Site 14 72 3,000 NA NA North Day Lot - 90 0 0 0 Marriott G. Res. 125 215. 0 0 0 Four Seasons - 74 11,726 4,000 5 Sonnenalp 9 (1) 0 0 0 Tivoli 1 12 1,500 1,000 2 Front Door 13 15 0 0 0 Vail Plaza - 151 6,713 3,857 2 Total 162 628 22,939 - 9 ,~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~~ Lost Events by iVurnber of ~4ttendees it 70 64 60 50 ~Cg _ 42 '~ 4 ~~_ T `~ r ~ . ,~ ~k ~: ~:,_ 30 ~ ~, ~ ~ 18 20 ., ~<, - ~; t ~ r, ; a 10 > 1: ; r ~ r.: 5 4 < 500 50 0 to 999 1,000 to 1,499 1,500 to 2,000 >2,000 Financial Operations of Existing Cen ters ($000) st. Revenues / Cobb S. San George, Overland Expenses Galleria Fran UT Park, KS Revenues $10,106 $1,114 $760 $5,160 Expenses $9,272 $1,629 $1,018 $5,040 Net Income (Loss) $834 ($515) ($257) $120 5 Financial ®perations of Existing Centers ($OOO) Revenues / Vail Expenses Monterey Keystone Telluride (Projected) Revenues $1,720 $2,848 NA $3,975 Expenses $2,774 $6,485 NA $4,562 Net Income (Loss) ($1,055) ($3,637) ($600) ($587) National Event planner Ratings of i4ttractiveness Vail ~ _ ______ ~ ~--- - -~ . - - ~ _ ~ 3.4 _ Monterrey I r __3.3 ~~ Aspen -~ ~ ____~_.._ _,. ~.. - - _. _~ ~.~~ _.__ ~ 3.2 _ _ _ ~ ~-- ^~ Keystone ~, `~ 3.0 Whistler ~ - _ ^~~ 3.0 Banff ~ _ _ ~ _-_ ~ _ ~ 2.9 0 1 2 3 Very Unattractive Average 4 5I Very Attractive fl u 6~ State Event Planner Ratings of Attractiveness Vail c ~.~, _; .r~: ~, = f~~ :-_ - ~~ 4.4 I Denver - ;ti -;~~~~.:.+o; 3.5 Colorado Springs r~:;tz-3 ~..: ~ ~,.,_~. : 7 3.2 Aspen ~ ~1~ -- ~x~~x-~ ~~.~, :mil 3.2 Keystone r .~ ~+v ~~ac~~ a a~~ s w. -~ 3.1 ; Englewood ,~; .9 -;~~~ _y ~ ^~ . , Telluride ` ~-;~ ~I %~T +: -{ 2.4 Grand Junction == r~ 2.4 Fort Collins ~+;~~~~:~~~ 2.3 Pueblo 2.1 Greeley - 2.p Boulder ~ 1,g 0 1 2 3 4 5 Very Unattractive Average Very Attractive Number of Estimated Conference ACenter Events for Vail Type 2008 2010 2012 Corporate Conf. 15 21 23 Assoc. Conf. 7 22 26 Banquets 25 38 45 Meetings 90 107 110 Entertainment 10 14 15 Other 20 23 25 Total 167 225 244 7 Distribution of E-vents by Size 30 25 '~~., ~;~,~: Conferences ,.Y:~ 2p ~ Banquets ~' ~ EnterJ Civic ~"~ -~~ 15 - v ~,`' ~ ,;- 10 . ~~ ~~, 8 i ~: ~' .~x ~ ~1 E ,, ; - 5 ~~ A *~ ~ 1,000 + 700 to 900 400 to 699 200 to 399 < 200 Recommended Facility Program Banquet Classroom Tvpe of Space Square Feet Capacity Capacity Main Ballroom 25,000 2,070 1,710 Mountain Terrace 5,000 410 - Junior Ballroom 10,000 830 680 Meeting Room 10,000 830 680 Facility Total 45,000 3,720 3,080 a~ 1 1 1 Summaryr of Operations/Business Plan ^ Strong national & regional interest in the facility ^ Vail has strong appeal - ^ Reservations: ^ Transportation ^ Community open for business? ^ Conservative operational budget ^ Recently increased marketing budget ^ Deficit up to $700,000 to $1.2 million in operations ^ Maintain positive fund balance by capping debt service to $2.7 million ^ 69,000 room nights ^ $30 million in additional annual spending ~~®esign lJpdate .Business Plan .Design Update - Conference Center W v y N 'O d 7 9 . _ _ ___ - ~ _ - 9 i_ul `i'~ ~ ~t `~ - t i ~'--- d~ Y r ~ -L F~ ~ y i 2~4 ~ ~ . * ~ °~ ~~ x ,-. 1 'i ~~. ~ ,~ ~~ ~7 r ~ a~~~ ~:. _ } .' ~S ~' la ~...N ~ ~ 4 ~_ ~ ~-~-~ ~ yy ~~~ ~- -~i iq a._ ~ .g 1 L ~ ga. ~ i ~~a y '-~~* ~ ~~[ j ~it ~ ~ 1 . ~ _ .L ~ '1 ' f ! H ~ [ ~ R u '~'yb I ~ ~- ' y ~ ~ ' «.' y _ r x ~ ,+d ~ ~@,, , - ~ w iii _: r `vim ~ € ' ' - ~ i .:.-- .,,~ ~ ?, ~ ^¢'FOaacre~ai: s ,_•~ R-~ ~ „ ~ ~,c ~ rx.+ ~- ~ 1?.Y . _ ~- - _ ~ =.~.-~ ~ "' ~' ~ '. 7 ~` U F-t ~ ~'~t-U~ ~ ~ ~ Design Development -Floor Plans - Ballroom Layouts - Building Sections- - Building Elevations - Exterior Perspectives ,~ ~ 1 ~ ~ i ----- ~•-i• -- -- -_ - --~ - ... _ _.._ N~ I ' ~ --a ~ ~ ... ~_ I '` ~ i I ~ ; 1 i ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ,~i~: Lower Parking Level - 8144' `~ ~ I 4 - ~ t '' -. ~ _ ~ a ~ (\ a.~~u a ._..i fit. i'. i ~~: ~:~ ` i ~ t -. ` ~ ~ i -- x _: Floor flans ~ - `--- I F- i n ~ ~ { 1 ~', f `.. E..~... ~ ~ ; r- ,~ .~ ~~.~. m,.~:~ ~ -_~~ -r , ;,;- ~~ `, i ~ , J\ jr 1 - ..- ~ _~ , __ ,,. ~ 1 v ~_ r+....~.. i ~ - 1.... m.~„. .. - ~~ , _- ; 3 Lower Level Meeting Rooms - 8152' i it ~ ~fiT`T"f'~ ~ ~~ i.~ru ~yfi << ,. ~ Floor~Plans ~--'~~ - _ - ! ~ T~~ •~~Y i ~\, ~ ~1~ ,., ~~ ~..___ 3 .. ._ 1 I j ~. ..~~..~ t t ~ 7 _ _ _ f~ i~ ~: ~~ ~ 1 l -~ ~iti a~; ~ ~ - _--~ s> r s ~~~ --,-.-.,-. ._--.-, ~~-,~ ~ ~ I p, _ _ , r i~ Main Ballroom Level - 8189' 12 T { .....,w r ~ '. Floor Plans = ~ ` -~ ~ 3 , ~- ~ ,,.~ _ , t.._.... "\ i%- F J ' Y ~ { - ~` yy ! .~ ~~ ~) ~ i i ~ ; i __ i+ ~ ~! i { 1 y s ~' ~ ! Administration /Mechanical Level - 8206' Ballroom Layouts I~ :, -_ a i' ~ ~~ - ~ ~ yd% - ~3 i~ ~.~~ ~ ~ l~. ~~ 1 _~ ~ ~ {_ _ r xm,ewn,~.E~ n. - uaro,ticas~. ~va+m.x n-•TxEa:. ,. ar~Tex a1aV,vEpGSm^s*av~sT .,wav:.w Ruren tva •r- _ n ~i 4 . ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ )gyp i; - - -. ~i-: _ { ~t~ E ~ / v ~~ t { ~~ .~ -,,_-~_ ~,_T ~..-,,,__T.._.. f ~ .. G `~ ~ (2 I s ~~njj ~ { l _. ~~ _ Y J~ ~ tY ~J ~ I 4.1 2b0:FAT RE.QERwT~£nORU ~ t~NUFETaFT! ];K95F.BN1ASU~MIR iSCM t5 13 ~~ Building .Sections ~~ ~;;, c sac u ~ v <~~ c> a cx ca u ~ r <> ~ t ~ 3 {"~ ~ ~ j' ^ { - ~ 1. ~ ~ -' ~_. ~ ~ ~ ~ v' N t "ti7~ _ ~ b i ~.. ~. i~ ~.~ ~ .. • , North /South Building Section r Building Sections, ---_ -- - ---- -- - 3 ~ ' East/ West Building Section ,~ -. _ i r _ - ij rd is :~1~~) .. n - r~ _ _ _ ~--* a~-w.- East /West Building Section ..... - - -- - - - --~.~ - ---~ - r- .,.. . -(mot r~~ „-.~ .k.n 1~ + a~ -~~~XA .. •n .. -,. 14 1 'wr.~_ -ter-. - •zoain~ayv.o-n.vnare. building Elevations x - ~ _ ., 8 __ ~ ~ ~~ ^-~ T ~ a ~_ - ~: .~ W Ai ~ ~ ~ / ~ f i ~ l ~ A _ ..~, F ~ ~ -z ~~ k ,1 o- p J ~ i p. ~ 1 . ~ ~a ~ ~~~ ' ,~ ~~r~V . t ~ .C~t~v~.~~; ~ ~ ~ -~ ...--- .-._I North South `~ !lnspi_red bymrnvail valley _ _~w~.. t ~s R r < ~J jk- '~~ ~ ~~ it ~~'. ~~, 3 ~ ,: -;.,"~~ -~ ~ ;~ ~ ~- x` to - ~ ~ ~~ ~ i _a _ 15 ~uildinc~ Elevations ~~ 1 East West Perspectives 1 View from the Frontage Road looking SW 16 1 ii I1 1 perspectives View from Dobson/Library ~'erspectives ~, <<- .(. ~~. (` ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~/1~ ~. ~ c i ~ ~ I ~X ~- '~ ~T o`T r 4 ~ L .} :_~#~- ~ .k,. .-< Y' ~~ ` ~ ~~1~~#', tom; ,, ~ S. ~ _, .~ ~. View from E. Lionshead Circle looking NE 17 ~~ Perspectives ~.~ ;~ n ,, ? rr ~ ~ a`- f t, r `i ~; [ f ~ t r ~,~'~ ~~.5"~ r 4, t- i f. ~.,~ 4r ",Fy (I ; '~js5 [ ~ _ ~ ~. I ~3~ F ~S". 'tt. / ;,,:i ~ `~~ ^ rye i?~~" d , `i,, G, a._..~..a,_ ..v~m. View from the Frontage Road looking SE C®nstructoon budget .Business Plan .Design Update .Construction Budget Conference Center 0 3 N v W W y C N ~ ~ 3 = N ~ y d 7 1 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Construction Cost ®vervieW Item ~ Cash ToV's Soft Cost & Construction Contingency ~ FF&E Total ToV Contingency Building & Site Cost 01 MAR 05 Budget 45,906,943 Source of Info PJ FEB 05 (4,336,887) ARC FE Furniture, , Tech, A/V, Artwork & (1,845,000) Accessories (3,176,125) ARC FEB 05 Includes 36,548,931 Design & Estimating Contingency What's in the Contingency? No Uses Until the G 4.8% now 9.1 °l° now 0% now 9 . +30% now 7.4% now Out of 01 MAR 05 Historic round Budget of Line Item Construction 1,756,093 3% to 5% FF&E 184,500 5% to 10° Consultant, 255 151 2% to 10% Eng & Design , Other Cont 980,381 2% to 10° Owner's 3,176 125 4% to 6° Contingency , 19 ~Jnresolved First Cost Issues ' ® Cost Escalation - 2nd Qtr '05? or later? ® Interest Rates - 2nd Qtr'05? or later? ® Sustainable Design? or LEED Certification? a Affordable Housing ® CDoT Approval & S Frontage Road ROW ® Building Code & Zoning Issues . Financing .Business Plan .Design Update .Construction Costs .Financing Conference Center 0 v ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ 3 a m ~ y ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ 01 7 1 1 Financing ^ Debt limited at $2.7 million/year ^ Interest rates will change ^ Fed increasing prime by 25-basis points (.25%) ^ Prime not directly connected to bond rates ^ .25% increase in bond rates decreases construction budget by $1.2 m Op. Revenue Overview - 5t" Year ltern Amount Dedicated Taxes 4,148,514 Event Space, 1,789,590 Sales, A/V, etc F&B 3,397,122 Interest on Fund 85,000 Balance Total Revenue 9,430,226 ' 21 Op. Expense Overview - 5th Year Item Amount Marketing 440,789 Salaries, Etc. 3,349,413 Food & Beverage 2,377,985 Other Op Expense 207,426 Debt Service 2,695,862 Renovat'n Reserve 135,000 Total Expenses 9,206,475 Unrestricted Operational Fund Balance - 5th Year Item Amount Beginning Fund 6 236 551 Balance , , Revenue 9,430,226 Expenses .(9,206,475) Ending Fund 6,460,303 Balance 1 1 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unrestricted Operational Fund balance Summarv Year Beginning Balance Net Revenue/ Expense. Ending Balance 2008 6,765,175 (443,230) 6,321,945 2009 6,321,945 (209,622) 6,112,323 2010 6,112,323 (9,910) 6,102,413 2011- 6,102,413 134,138 6,236,551 2012 6,236,551 223,752 6,460,303 Summary Conference Center 0 N v " ~ N ~ W N ~ 3~ Q 7 ~ d ~ lD y ~ ~ ,D 7 7 23 \~ Surnu~ary . ^ Business Plan ^ Market Study/Business Plan/Governance ^ Operational Deficit $750,000-$1.2 million ^ Issue RFP for marketing and operations ^ Limit Annual Debt Service to $2.7 mil to provide fund to pay for deficit. ^ Design ^ In progress ^ Construction Budget ^ Will obtain a GMP once design is.accepted ^ Financing ^ Will evaluate interest rates when Town is ready to issue bonds. .~ Next Steps ^ Council on March 15tH ^ Obtain prices on design ^ Issue RFP for operations e Additional public meetings ^ March 9t": 5-6:30 at Donovan Pavilion ^ March 18t"~ 8:30-10:00 a.m-Library ^ March 24t"~ 5:00-6:30 p.m -Library ^ Receive proposals on construction costs & ops ^ Mid April ^ Council vote on issuing bonds (proposed) ^ May 2005 24 Uail Conference Center \) r Town of i Va 1, Colorado i DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 1 FOR FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES for the ' Vail Conference Center 1 ' March 8, 2005 1 Vail Conference Center Request for Proposals: Facility Management Services ~) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 _~ II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION and HISTORY ...........................................................2 III. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS & DESCRIPTION of SERVICES ..................4 N. SELECTION SCHEDULE AND ACTIVITY .....................................................10 VI. EVALUATION PROCESS and SELECTION CRITERIA ................................11 VII. SPECIAL CONDITIONS ....................................................................................12 APPENDICES: Vail Conference Center Business Plan Appendix 7 Vail Conference Center Concept Plan Appendix 2 Uail Conference Center Request for Proposals: Facility Management Services 1 ' I. INTRODUCTION The Town of Vail (Town) is seeking a public assembly facility management company to provide management and operational services for the new Vail Conference Center (Center). The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to identify interested management companies, gauge their performance in managing comparable facilities, and select the most qualified applicant to manage ' the Center. The Town anticipates entering into an Operating Agreement (Agreement) with a qualified management company to operate the Center. The financing arrangements for the Center require that any management agreement be on afee-for-service basis. Responses to this RFP are due on April 15, 2005 (see IV. SELECTION SCHEDULE AND ACTIVITY for a detailed schedule). Summary of the Town of Vail's Primary Goals & Objectives for Facility Marketing, Operations, and Management The following list summarizes the Town of Vail's primary goals and objectives for the marketing, operations, and management of the Center: ' An operational plan that minimizes the Town's exposure to financial operating deficits and minimizes the volatility of any such deficits while still maximizing the Center's ' ability to attract conferences and other events that generate out-of--town visitation, overnight stays, and the resultant positive economic impacts associated with this event activity. The Town is looking for creative. plans for achieving the balance between the ' financial operating income (deficit) of the Center and positive economic impact that maximizes the net economic and fiscal benefits to the community. • A management program that seamlessly integrates and/or coordinates marketing, operations, and management of the facility to provide premiere customer service. ^ A marketingplan that leverages existing resources and efforts in the Town of Vail and ' presents a seamless one-stop shopping experience for event planners seeking to book the Center, arrange for food and beverage services, and secure a room block for their overnight attendees. .The Town is requesting that management companies prepare a management and marketing plan and a fmancial operating budget and present this proposal to the Conference Center Review 1 Committee (Committee), along with their proposed General Manager candidate. The following describes the primary steps of the RFP process: ' Pre-proposal Conference: Candidates are required to attend aPre-proposal Conference with the Town of Vail for the purpose of receiving a presentation on the project, building and site. There will be a tour of the site, and a meeting with the Lodging Association following this ' presentation, as well as an opportunity to ask questions. RFP Submissions -The proposal should include a description of the management company's ' approach to the scope of services described herein, an operational plan and detailed budge that includes estimated revenue, expense and fees (including proposed incentives), and the proposed general manager for the facility. ~~ Gail Conference Center Request for Proposals: Facility Management Services 2 Review of Management Proposal -The Committee will assess the qualifications and competence of the management company to perform the requested services as demonstrated by the information submitted in the response to the RFP. Selection of Highly Qualified Candidates -The Committee will evaluate and rank the submissions by their responsiveness to the requirements of the RFP and inform the Town Council of the firms judged to be the most highly qualified. With the approval of the Town Council, those highly ranked candidates will be invited. to submit a detailed facility marketing, operations, and management plan, a budget with line item revenues and expenses covering the ramp-up period and stabilization, and to make presentations to the Committee and be available for questions. Presentations and Interviews -Management companies judged to be highly that submit proposals responsive to the requirements of the RFP will be required to make presentations and participate in interviews with the Committee. HIGHLY RANKED PROPOSERS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO IDENTIFY AND SUBMIT THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A CANIDATE FOR THE GENERAL MANAGER POSITION. The General Manager candidate should take a leading role in the presentation. of the management plan. The proposed General Manager, with the support of the managemf°nt company, should demonstrate their ability to perform the required services through presentation of their Management Plan. The General Manager should address the availability and accessibility of personnel, equipment, facilities and other resources needed to successfully manage the facility. If requested, the Town will use its best efforts to protect the identity of the (Gneral Manager from disclosure to the extent allowable by law. Scope of Proposals and Approach to Marketing, - The Town of Vail is interested in evaluating the most qualified firm to manage the Center. Respondents are encouraged to present creative strategies for the organization of the sales and marketing of the facility, but should refrain from teaming with any existing local sales and marketing entities or entering into any exclusive agreements with such parties. The Town reserves the right to proposed approaches to sales and marketing and to negotiate the terms of such structures with the selected management firm. Contract and Fee negotiation with selected management company -Upon completion of the above assessments, the Town will enter into contract negotiations with one of the firms. The Town, in its sole discretion, may cease negotiations with the selected company and begin negotiations with another management company. if it concludes that the negotiations are unlikely to achieve an agreement acceptable to both parties. All contracts will be subject to the approval of the Town Council. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The need for a conference center in Vail that can accommodate events larger than any existing hotel with functions space "has been under consideration for some time. In November 2002 voters in the Town of Vail passed a public referendum in favor of creating an additional 1.5 percent lodging tax and a 0.5 percent sales tax for the purposes building and operating a conference center. Vait Conference Center Request for Proposals: Facility Manasement Services 3 ~> The Town appointed a Conference Center Advisory Committee (Committee) to determine the financial feasibility of developing the facility with the available revenues and the appropriate facility program. This Committee issued a request for proposals for a firm to assist the Committee ' in developing a business plan for the proposed facility. The Committee selected HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Consulting (HVS) to conduct a detailed analysis of the financial feasibility of the conference center. Facility,Recommendation The HVS market study (included as Appendix 1 to the RFP) recommended a facility with a 25,000 square foot main ballroom /exhibit, space and 20,000 square feet of breakout meeting space. The ' facility will feature an overall level of quality representative of Vail's reputation as a world-class resort destination. Design features will enhance event attendees' sense of being in a remarkable mountain resort. Subsequent to the HVS business plan, The Town engaged the architectural firm of Fentriss ' Bradburn Architects to develop a concept plan for the Center. The following table displays the program of function spaces in this concept plan. S~ C.~dq- lea S~ 71~eEtt3' Reo~iat Litt LLSFt~pe 6211rCOtt/ DhlitSpaoe 30, 2,48D 3,330 3,160 2,030 800 1 MainBallrocm 21,000 1,740 2,330 2,210 1,440 560 JlxiCt-BaIIr0071 9,000 740 1,000 950 .620 240 Mct.rtainTeTace 0 0 0 -- =- ' Nlee~rgROOtb 0 0 0 0 0 Block1 5,500 450 610 580 380 150 Block 2 4,000 330 440 420 270 110 BaEYLf 0071 500 20 10 Tidy ~ q0, 3,260 4x380 4y160 2,710 1,060 ' ~ SC~B'E(~'P.C7LL~'i iBlaCe - SOL/C2 Fe~Ufss BlaaWn,wrJ1't~Ls LTD ' Operating Estimates The HVS business plan also included a series of demand-and financial operating estimates for the facility, as shown in the following table. 1 [/ail Conference Center Request for Proposals: Facility Management Services 4 `) ~rt~dDet~tdatSffiI~ot(201D N~rrbe" of E~e-t5 244 Atl~txe 75,600 NEIIVROOt71~i j'15 69,425 EsSn~dl~ita'10a1 Opa~o~ atSlahl(201D Reue't,~ DQ79ve~ Net InCCrt~ (L~s) II'Y~EOQti'ilC I Tdal Sperxirg Jci~ fiscal 1~1Ct $5,186,713 56,168,186 (5981,474) npact~S1al71~t(~'1D 534,124,940 329 $1,481,473 So~rCe HV5 Given the highly seasonal nature of tourism demand and the corresponding wide range of average daily room rates and occupancy of lodging rooms in the Town, the event demand for the Center is anticipated to be highly seasonal. -Given the high level of demand for lodging rooms in the ski season and the correspondingly high lodging rates during this period, the majority of room night intensive event demand is anticipated to occur in the summer; and to a lesser extent, the shoulder seasons. Respondents should describe the types of events they would target for the Center duruig the ski season and specifics describing how they would attract and facilitate these events. Please refer to the Vail Conference Center Business Plan developed by HVS and included in Appendix 1 of this RFP for a detailed description of anticipated event demand by season. - ' Uail Conference Center Re uest or Pro osnls: Facilih Mana ement Services 5 9 f P J 3 \) III. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS & DESCRIPTION of SERVICES ' Prior to submittal of the RFP response, management companies may submit a letter to the Town acknowledging receipt of the RFP and to inform the Town of their intent' to respond. The management company should also provide the name, address, telephone, facsimile number, and e- ' mail address of the individual who can address inquiries related to this RFP and the management company's proposal, and receive clarifications or addenda from the Town. ' Questions concerning this RFP should be submitted in writing to conference(a~,arcinc.to. The Town will provide responses to questions in writing to all known respondents. Management Companies are required to submit information in the order and format requested in ' this RFP and to respond directly to the primary goals and objectives for facility marketing, operations, and management described in the Introduction. Failure to do so may cause the proposal to be considered non-responsive to the RFP. Information requested in the RFP and deemed to be ' privileged and confidential may be submitted in a separate envelope marked "Privileged and Confidential Information." The Town will use its best efforts to protect such information from disclosure to the extent allowable by law. Electronic, telegraphic, or facsimile responses will not be accepted. Submittals should be addressed to: Mr. Russell Forrest, Director of Community Development Attn: Vail Conference Center Management Town of Vail ' 75 Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Telephone: (970) 479-2146 Firm Qualifications ' Respondents must include the following information describing the qualifications and experience of their firm: ' 1. Cover Letter a. The identity of the management company and any partners, consultants or contractors included as part of the response. ' b. The names of individuals involved in the preparation of the RFQ response along with their relationship to the management company. c. A statement confirming that the management company has sole and complete responsibility for performing the services as defined in the RFQ and any addenda issued to this RFQ. ' d. A statement signed by a representative authorized to legally bind the management company, including identification of the management company Vail Conference Center Request for Proposals: Facility Management Services 6 as a corporation or other legal entity, indicating the intent to negotiate a binding agreement for managing the Center. 2. Management Company Profile a. Data describing the management cornpany's current organization, date of incorporation, ownership, corporate office, number of years in business, size of business, services offered, operating philosophy, fmancial performance, personnel policies, number of total employees, and employee demographics. b. A comprehensive list of public assembly facilities operated by the management company. Include name, address and type of facility, and the name, title, address telephone and facsimile number of the client contact or contract administrator. c. The most recent audited fmancial statement of the management company, including at a minimum a balance sheet and an income statement prepared using generally accepted accounting practices consistently applied throughout. In the event the company has multiple offices, the respondent should also provide an income statement and balance sheet for the office proposing to oversee the contract and conduct the work. 3. Relevant Facility Information a. Provide the information for at least three facilities, presently managed by the management company, which are deemed to be relevant as a basis for .comparison to the Center. Management companies are asked to elaborate on common elements and those that may be unique to Vail and adjustments that would be made relative to the Center's operation. b. In a table fornlat, management companies should provide the following information for each of the three facilities: ^ Location of the facility ^ The contracting entity (e.g. City, Authority, etc.) ^ Square footage of exhibition space ^ Square footage of ballroom space ^ Square footage of meeting space ^ The year and month in which the management agreement was initiated ^ Length of term of the management agreement ^ Name of the food service provider ^ The number of full-time employees of the company at the facility ' Uail Conference Center Re uest or Pro owls: Facilih Mana ement Services 7 q f P .l 8 ' The number of part-time employees of the company at the facility ^ The number of sub-contracted full-time employees at the facility ' The number of sub-contracted part-time employees at the facility . The number of events held .in the most recent fiscal year broken ' down into the following categories: conventions, tradeshows, consumer shows, conferences, meetings, banquets, entertainment events, assemblies, and other ' The number of attendees and events held in the most recent fiscal year broken down by the same categories as above For the most recent fiscal year, the total gross revenue of the ' facilities broken down into the following categories: space rentals, food and beverage, event services, parking, and all other revenue ' For the most recent fiscal year, the expenses of the facilities broken down into the following categories: salaries, benefits and payroll taxes, event services costs, food and beverage costs, management ' fees, and all other expenses ^ Include contact information of at least three references that represent the municipal or other ownership entity for facilities your firm manages that are reasonably comparable to the proposed Center in Vail. ' c. The management company should provide a list of the services provided at the comparable facilities and note differences from those listed in the Scope of Services section of this RFP. This list should indicate which services are ' subcontracted and which are provided by the management company. Management Services Proposal 1. Overall Management Plan a. Describe the overall philosophy of how the Center will be managed, operated, and marketed. Describe the Management Company's understanding of the Town's project goals for the Center and how the Management Company will ' assist the Town in achieving them. b. High quality service and unique experience are essential to user satisfaction. Describe the experience your Management Company will provide users of the ' Center. c. Please describe (i) how the management function will be organized including ' information on the on-site management team; (ii) how the management team will report to the central office and to the Town or its designated managing authority, including format and frequency; and (iii) the functions performed by Vail Conference Center Request for Proposals: Facility Management Services 8 ' ~~ the management team including operations management, marketing, customer services, contract negotiation and administration, quality control, .and fiscal services. d. Provide a draft of the proposed contractual agreement and the management fee structure between the Management Company and the Town as the facility owner. e. Suggest strategies that the Town c;an use to measure the operational performance of the Center. f. The Town is particularly interested in investigating strategies for limiting the fmancial operating risk associated with the Center without compromising the economic impact potential o.f the facility. Include any measures designed specifically to minimize the Town's exposure to larger than anticipated annual financial operating deficits including any guarantees that deficits tivould not exceed a certain level. Also, describe how the management plan is designed to strike the best balance between financial operating concerns and the Town's desire for the Center to generate positive economic and fiscal impacts. Describe how your firm has achieved a proper balance between these two goals in other facilities you manage. g. Comment on the design plan of the Center included in Appendix 2. Discuss how the plan may impact operations, event scheduling and revenue generation strategies. Include suggestions that may improve the success of the Center. 2. Pre-Opening Phase Services Describe how the staff will be recruited, organized, and trained. Provide the listing of number and titles of full-time employees used in the operation of the facility. Note which of these positions the Management Company does not expect to employ directly, if any. Please be specific about the proposed start dates for key staff members including the General Manager, the Sales Manager, the lead event coordinator, and other management positions. b. Describe the proposed approach to overall operational commissioning plan for the transfer of the facility from the contractor to the operator. Detail the steps involved in assuring that the contractor completes the work in full and in a high-quality manner. The commissioning plan needs to result in the transfer of a fully functional Center that is ready from a physical standpoint to host the range of events detailed in the HVS Business Plan. c. Propose an organizational chart for the facility showing the divisions, departments, manager titles and worker classifications. The chart should show the direct reporting relationship of the facility to the Town or other contracting entity. The chart should include and identify all anticipated subcontractors, to the extent possible. Note services provided by personnel that are not expected to be directly employed by the Management Company or its subcontractors. Examples of these personnel may include parking staff, box office staff, traffic control, police officers, emergency medical technicians, etc. ' Vail Con erence Center Re uest r Pr orals: F ~ i i f q fo op acil t/Management Services g d. Provide specific details on how policies, procedures, rate schedules, service pricing and lease agreement terms and conditions will be developed. Provide a draft of rules and regulations that are provided to the users of the facility. ' Provide a draft of the rate schedules used by all types of events. Provide a draft of a lease agreement, standard addenda, and any documents necessary. ' e. Describe proposed sales, marketing, public relations, advertising, and promotional concepts that will maximize the demand potential of the Center. £ Describe the approach to achieving a proper balance between pursuing the ' Town's goals and objectives for increased tourism and economic impact with the desire to limit any annual financing operating losses. g. Describe the proposed approach to booking and scheduling events at the ' Center; promoting, advertising, and overall marketing of these events; procedures and policies for' scheduling and settling events with outside promoters, event coordinators, and others; and booking/ scheduling local ' events. In an addendum to the proposal, provide drafts of the booking and scheduling policies and procedures, as well as a sample contract with a facility user for an event. ' h. Provide a detailed budget for pre-opening expenses that includes sales and marketing activities necessary to achieve the estimated levels of event demand. In developing this budget, assume that all activities associated with the pre- , opening sales and marketing are included and that there is no direct reliance on existing local marketing and group sales resources or efforts. ' i. The Town has made no assumptions regarding whether any existing marketing resources or entities would be directly involved in the pre-opening sales and marketing of the Center. Draw upon past experience from similar markets and/or facilities and knowledge of the Vail market to recormnend a pre- opening sales and marketing approach that would maximize efficiency and effectiveness. Describe how and why this approach to the pre-opening sales and marketing of the Center would be best suited to achieve the Town's goals. ' Identify any potential strategies for leveraging existing group sales and marketing resources and capabilities and to what extent (if any) these strategies could improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the Center's overall pre- ' opening sales and marketing efforts.. j. Describe the proposed approach to contract negotiation and administration. Please list all the services that are to be subcontracted through the ' Management Company. Note that the Town intends to maintain approval rights over the selection of the food service provider and key subcontracted personnel. The Management Company may include recommendations for food ' service operations in its response. k. Provide specific details on furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) procurement. Provide drafts of required FF&E inventory and conceptual ' estimates of the costs of this inventory. 1. Please provide drafts of contracts and the necessary forms "in an addendum to ' the proposal. [/ail Conference Center Request for Proposals: Facility Management Services 10 m. Provide a detailed budget for the entire pre-opening phase that includes `~ marketing, final design review and operational input, training, systems development and integration, and any other necessary pre-opening activities. 3. Operational Phase Services a. Describe proposed sales, marketing, public relations, advertising, and promotional concepts that will further the goals of the Center while also maximizing the demand potential of the Center and resultant benefits to the Vail community. b. Describe the proposed approach to booking and scheduling events at the Center; promoting, advertising, and overall marketing of these events; procedures and policies for scheduling and settling events with outside promoters, event coordinators, and others; and booking/ scheduling local events. In an addendum to the proposal, provide drafts of the booking and scheduling policies and procedures, as well as a sample contract with a facility user for one event. c. Describe a detailed sales and marketing plan and budget for the Center. The proposed budget should include estimates for the total financial commitment necessary to effectively market the Center so that, regardless of the differences in recommended approaches to sales and marketing between different respondents, the Town can assess the relative total sales and marketing expenses of each proposal. d. The Town has made no assumptions regarding whether any existing marketing resources or entities would be directly involved in the sales and marketing of the Center. Draw upon past experience from similar markets- and/or facilities and ,,knowledge of the Vail market to recommend a sales and marketing approach that would maximize efficiency and effectiveness. Describe how and why this approach to the sales and marketing of the Center would be best suited to achieve the Town's goals. Identify any potential strategies for leveraging existing group sales and marketing resources and capabilities. Describe how and why the approach you recommend would be most effective and the extent of any cost savings that it could achieve. e. £ Describe the proposed approach to event coordination, production, staffing, and servicing. Provide a draft event work order for one event. Provide a draft of order forms for exhibitor services provided by the Management Company or its subcontractors. Provide a draft of event staffing guidelines, policies, and procedures. g. Describe the proposed approach to facility operation, maintenance, and security services; include ability of Management Company to maintain sophisticated technology systems throughout the facility. /nil Conference Center Request far Proposals: Facility Manabement Services 11 ' h. Describe proposed approach to human resources and payroll services. Describe the method to record employment and operating revenues, expenditures, and capital improvement budgets. ~ . i. Provide estimates of the annual number of events and attendees by type of event for the ramp-up period and a stabilized year of operations for the Center. These estimates should include detailed descriptions of the types of events that the Center would target by season (ski, summer, and shoulder) and strategies for dealing with the high degree of seasonality in the area's base tourism and ' group meeting demand. j. Provide detailed estimated budgets for each year of the initial ramp-up period and for a stabilized year of operations for the Center. This detailed budget ' ~ should include individual line items of a level of detail equal to or greater than the operating pro forma developed by HVS and included in Appendix 1 and should be accompanied by written descriptions of each individual line item. ' This budget must indicate any and all assumed management fees and incentives to be paid to the firm charged with operating the facility. The completeness of this budget and the management approach it reflects in ' dealing with the seasonality and other unique attributes of the anticipated event activity in the Center will play a prominent role in this evaluation and selection process. ' k. Propose a budget approval and review process. 4. General Manager Candidate ' a. The Town stron 1 encoura es res n g y g po dents to make the proposed General ' Manager for the Center available for an interview. The proposed General Manager should demonstrate their ability to perform the required services through presentation of their Management Plan. The General Manager should address the. availability and accessibility of personnel, equipment, facilities, ' and other resources needed to successfully manage the facility. At the interview, the General Manager candidate will be required to provide their qualifications, education, and work experience. Vail Conference Center Request for Proposals: Facility Management Sen~ices 12 ~~ 5. Management Fee a. Propose a management fee arrangement between the Town and the facility manager/operator. Minimally, compensation plans should include an annual base management fee for each year of a five-year term. Appropriation of management fees will be subject to annual approval by the Vail Town Council. The management agreement will detail processes for annual performance reviews and termination provisions. I:f annual incentive fees are proposed, describe how the annual incentive is to be determined. Incentive fees should be compatible with Internal Revenue Services requirements necessary to maintain tax exemption of the Revenue Bonds issued to finance the development of the Center. _r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [/nif Conference Center Request for Proposnls: Facifih~ Mnnagen~ent Services 73 IV. SELECTION SCHEDULE and ACTIVITY\~ A. March 16, 2005 B. March 25, 2005 C. Apri15, 2005 D. April 13, 2005 E. Early May 2005 F. Mid May 2005 G. September 2005 H. TBD a Issue RFP to management firms Pre-proposal conference in Vail. Fifteen (15) copies of the response must be received by 4:OOpm MDT on Friday, April 5, 2005. Responses received by the Town after that date and time will not be considered. Management Company presentations to the Committee and General Manager Interviews Recommendation to and approval of the Town Council Begin contract and fee negotiations with selected Management Company Management company begins pre-opening phase services Center commences operation Vail Conference Center Request for Proposals: Facility Management Sen~iees 14 V. EVALUATION PROCESS and SELECTION CRITERIA Materials submitted by interested Management Companies will be evaluated based upon the criteria listed below. a. The qualifications and competence of the management company to perform the requested services, and whose personnel -have significant relevant experience. Preference will be given to those Management Companies whose personnel have significant experience in managing first-class facilities with similar service requirements as the Center. b. The past performance and the ability of the Management Company to successfully manage similar facilities, as demonstrated by evaluation of previous clients. Emphasis is placed on quality of work, ability to meet financial objectives, and success in achieving stated performance benchmarks. The quality and feasibility of the proposal as demonstrated by the manner and methodology in which the Management Company will achieve the requirements of this RFP. The Committee will also evaluate proposals upon., the Management Company's demonstrated knowledge of how to manage first- class facilities in resort markets similar to the planned Center and demonstrated understanding of the strategies and capabilities necessary to successfully operate the facility. Consideration will be given to unique approaches, resources, and experience of the Management Company that will further improve and ensure the success of the Center. d. Significant consideration will be given to the proposed fmancial performance of the Center, as outlined in the financing plan presented by the Management Company. The Committee will emphasize the creativity of the Management Company in maintaining and enhancing the financial strength of the Center through unique approaches to resource allocation, facility utilization, ,and revenue generation. The approach to handling the anticipated seasonal fluctuations in demand is anticipated to play an important role in the success of the Center. The Town is particularly interested in the ability of Management Companies to manage and/or limit any fmancial operating risk associated with the Center. e. The Committee will. evaluate the overall responsiveness to the RFP. The competitiveness of the response is dependent upon the creativity of the Management Company in meeting the requirements of the RFP, as determined by the company's ability to provide the deliverables described in this RFP. l/aii Conference Center Request for Proposals: Facility Management Services 15 VI. Special Conditions ' 1. The RFP does not commit the Town to procure or award. a contract for the scope of work described herein. 2. All information submitted in response to the RFP shall become the property of the ' Town, and as such, maybe subject to public review as public records. 3. The Town has sole discretion and reserves the right to reject any and all responses received with respect to the RFP and to cancel the RFP at any time prior to entering ' into a.formal agreement with a management company. The Town reserves the right to reasonably request additional information or clarification of information provided in the response without changing the terms of the RFP. t 4. The Town reserves the right to waive any technicalities or irregularities in any proposal. 5. Respondents acknowledge and agree that the Town will not be liable for any costs, expenses, losses, damages (including damages for loss of anticipated profit) or liabilities incurred by the respondent or any member thereof as a result of, or arising ' out of, submitting a proposal, negotiating changes to such proposal, or due to the Town's acceptance or non-acceptance of the proposal. 6. The Town shall provide the release of all public information concerning the project, including selection announcements and contract awards. Those desiring to release information to the public must receive prior written approval from an authorized representative of the Town. ' 7. Neither the Town nor any of its officers, agents, consultants or employees shall be responsible for the accuracy of any information provided as part of this RFP (including appendices). All respondents are encouraged to independently verify the accuracy of ' any information provided. The use of this information in the preparation of a response to the RFP is at the sole risk of the respondent. 8. Any terms and conditions of the response to this RFP will remain in effect for 90 days ' after the date of submission. 9. The respondent shall not collude in any manner or engage in any practices with any other respondent(s), which may restrict or eliminate competition or otherwise restrain trade. Violation of this instruction will cause the Town to reject the :respondent's submittal. This prohibition is not intended to preclude joint ventures or subcontracts. ' 10. All responses submitted must be the original work product of the respondent. The copying, paraphrasing or other use of substantial portions of the work product of another respondent is not permitted. Failure to adhere to this instruction will cause the Town to reject the response. ' 11. The Town reserves the right to amend the RFP through written addenda. The Town reserves the right to waive any portion of the selection process in order to accelerate ' the selection and negotiation with the top-ranked management company. 904 Harrison Ave. Leadville, CO 80461 Tel: 719 486-8208 Fax: 719 486-8208 cgaede@amigo:net em 0 Ta I-70 Central Mountain Transportation Corridor Coalition Members From: Chet Gaede, Coordinator I-70 Coalition Date: February 8, 2005 R« I-70 Coalition Community Meetings By now everyone should (I hope) be aware that the I-70 Coalition will be putting on a community meeting at each of the member jurisdiction prior to April 1, 2005. The purpose of these community meetings. is to bring everyone up to speed on the CDOT Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PETS) and to hear your comments. To find the schedule for these meetings go to the NWCCOG web site (www.nwc.coq.co.us) then click on the I- 70 Coalition link under Rural Resort Region. Then click on the "Individual Jurisdiction Meeting Schedule" link. Each of these meetings will be coordinated by one of three facilitators and will include a presentation by a member of our Technical Advisory Committee. The Technical Advisory Committee ~ is made up of staff members from various member jurisdictions and was formed to review the PEIS. Their presentation is about 45 minutes long and focuses on a summary of the different I-70 Corridor options presented in the PEIS. We know this is a long presentation and we have tried to make it as succinct as we can. Following the presentation there will be a discussion about the PETS during which you will be able to express your concerns about the PEIS and the process. We know that each of you will think of something after the meeting and you may continue to send me your concerns throughout this process..All these concerns will be collated and be the focus of our Coalition retreat on May 5 & 6 when we will be crafting a "Regionally Preferred Alternative." The facilitator assigned to your jurisdiction should have already contacted you to schedule your meeting. If note please give me a call as soon as possible. We are leaving it up to each jurisdiction as to whether or not they would like to send out any special invitations for this meeting to people or businesses in their jurisdiction. Enclosed you will find a printed copy of the presentation and a CD containing the presentation. Please distribute a copy of the presentation to the people who will be attending the meeting. I have also included a copy of an article from "Headwaters" winter 2005 edition, which helps explain the NEPA process. My thanks to the Colorado Foundation for Water Education for giving me permission to use this article. This is a fast and furious process that is driven by a May 24"' deadline for comments on the PETS. If there is something that is not perfectly clear about what we are trying to do please contact me immediately. • Page 1 and involvement. NEPA proceditres~'--~ `` ' designed to help ensure that envirorirr tal information about. a proposed fed action is: available to,the publac befo decision is made NEPA provi~es'sei opportunities, including pul?fiE meet and written comments, for zlze ptible' z Army Corps yeti In Colora - ronmeiitaf. tt theres :.inore~, growth and tl~ .Keniiv an .ens t. or because .they of-federal action. seeing more (envi- temerits} . 1?ecause ~n as :a' result: of interested parties to pamctpate Toda}>'s. EIS repp=ts are thought by: some officials to be :easier :for the -public to.read and'~underst'aiid though they-,are: generally much more `.encompassing .than earlystareirieiits : "Early EISs were more of `a brochure. Th ht have been harder to read but in Denver.-``Generally;,: most. water prof ects will tngger:NEPA Its not i"mpassible but its.very difficult to"do a waterproject and avoid NEPA." The NEPA process ~ typically Lasts two to three years, Kenny says, ;though tt icon last as little as l4 months. Merritt. says. Wolford Iviotuitain took five years to get intent to .prepare an EIS. That notice also starts what is ca}I'ed' the scoping process, when the public and: other organizations .comment to:-:the federal agency about issues` that .need' to, be considered. Some agencies hold ..one or more public meet- ~ings to get. comments during the scoping. phase,. Environmental studies of the veg- etanot; surface water, groundwater; wild- life and a full.gamut of natural and human resources are;'also: initiated at this time. When the scoping process and eriviron- ~rrtental; field work are complete, the feller- - gal agency prepares-.a Draft Environmental ey mtg..,, Impact Statement,', files it with the U.S. .:. y they were SO'pages;" says David Merritt :. through the process, and that was consid : Envtron~ental'Protection Agent and' cit- chief engineer for ahe Glenwood Springs eyed "pretty quick:" Anil. the tiineframe is culates it for rzvtew: by interested parties, ,. .. based.Colorado River Water Conservation 'often determined by the degree of contro who have at Least 45 days to comment., - ~. .: District who;, led the distract through a „., versy associated with a project ;;' Though; called', a draft, this document five-year NEPA process to tltz l98(}s with :: Still .some . water.; providers consider is nearly complete and includes -a full. Wolford Mountam ~eservotr` a ~omt ven - NEPA an onerous process because of its dtsckosure of the impacts of `the- action tore wtth:Deiiver Water. 4Now theymighc ..costs in nme and money It can be viewed . j:Depending. ori' the; project, 'it .can :take .. be caster toread but;they're'5D0 pages ~ as a roadblock, but frankly its muCh`bet months:or years to move from scoping to : "NEPA is: designed ,to :be a 'gubhc ter. viewed as a way to get folks mvolved a draft EIS process, ,says Nicole Seltzer a spokes= 1 1 Aftei• the end of the comment period person .for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District,. At several potrtts., you're required to show your hand.to the .: public.:Yoii cant geEarouridahat Why not.. " go ahead and embrace tt fully? Agencies ~ also use the ;CIS to show _ . corripliance 'with 'other federal erivtron mental requirements For :example the,,. reports .are ,often: used to .demonstrate:, compliance with the EndangeredSpecies Act. and to. document consultanoi with". the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service `.The EIS can also document steps. taken to' comply .. -with the National: Htseoric Preservation Act; which addresses historic properties; . and archeological. sites The NEPA review process onl}r applies to projects that require dome, laird of°' .federal decision: It does not apply to; pn= vote sector or state and local government' actions unless those projects require. an element of.federal oversight and~dectsioii making. Federally-funded ;highways, for. exatriple,.require an EiS:Reservoirs that need a Section 404 permit;from:[lie Army . Corps of .Engineers to discharge :dredge;: or fill material, into 'ravers. a'ad streams; or reservoirs that..zequire a special use ,per- .. mit from,the U: S. Forest .Service,. are also. required. to complete an EIS Most water developriient projects : in Colorado, especially' aaige-scale atorage projects,'require an EIS because they, need , Ivlemtt says. In balance u timate y you re dealing with a public resource." . Because some federal actions do. not have the potential to cause. "significant'' environrriental uipacts, the agency, or the project proponent may prepare. a";more limited analysis ;called an Envtrotunental:• Assessment:;,Thts study helps determine vulether or :not the project .writ result` in significant :environmental impacts=arid ,whether an EIS is,necessary- If the EA determines the. project could cause significant: impacts; the lead federal agency (in conjunction,with-other. project proponents) must prepare an EIS::If it is determined.~that the proposed action will not have ,significant impacts :the :ageiz-. cy can conclude; the NEPA. review with a Finding. of 'NO Significant Irnpact; or FONSi,, allowing the permit to be.. issued and construction-fo proceed:. The. EIS process begins wlien.an orga-. riization that wants to build,.. for example., a water reservoir, applies. to .. the fed- eral agency `that: will fund or otherwise issue permits for their project. That. fed= eral agency-stieh as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation or.`the U.S. Army Corps of. Engineers.'=then publishes a notice in the, Federal Register .publicly declaring. its which :usually lasts .longer than the mini ~ . mum required 45 days; the federal agency ..prepares a Final Environmental Impact Statement; files it with the EPA and makes .tt available to ,thy public. The final state- ~ment n~iust address~all comments received: on the draft:. version and. iiidude. any. modificattons::`or factual corrections. Then the::. federal agency must -wait. at least 30 ..days to :make a decision on the proposed: action: This. 30-day, period: allows ;the public and'. interested parties to further.: review the final document and provide comments .` ' ' "People wazit to be.included:in, the pro- cess," 1vlerritt says: "I don't think (NEPAs drafters); saw„how: much. public involve- ment`there:;would be. Irehanged the way we do waterprojects':" ^ John':; Morton. has worked for HDR Engineenrig for I-0 years as vice president in charge of their environmental science pro- . gram> for the Midwest: Involved in NEPA activities-.for. more. than 30 years, Morton also ,was a . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. employee for`20 years; i-vorhing on a variety of water; storage, projects, inctuding• Denver Wafer.'s. Two Forks project, which was .vetoed by the EPA ' I-70 Central Mountain.. 1 Transportation Corridor Coalition • Community Meetings I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Released 12/10/04 _e _ i.. I-70 Central Mountain Transportation Corridor Coalition • Garfield County • Pitkin County • Eagle County • Summit County • Grand County • Clear Creek County ~,. '~ _ I-70. Central Mountain Transportation Corridor Coalition • Kremmling • Silverthorne • Montezuma • Silver Plume • Glenwood Springs • Georgetown • Red Cliff ~~ ~,, I-70.Central. Mountain Z Transportation Corridor Coalition Purpose of the Coalition ~• To prepare a Regionally Preferred Alternative for the Corridor that could be presented to CDOT. • To attempt to influence CDOT, the Colorado State Legislature, the US congress, and other Federal and State entities having jurisdiction over planning, implementation, or operation of Corridor transportation projects to provide resources to build a Regionally Preferred Alternative to meet the transportation goals of the Corridor Communities. I-70 Central Mountain Transportation Corridor Coalition • Dillon • Leadville • Idaho Springs • Grandby • Vail • Breckenridge • Avon • Empire Z ti ~+~s i;~: n 1-70 Central Mountain Transportation Corridor Coalition • Frisco • Walden • Winter Park • Grand Lake • Gypsum • Fraser • Minturn • Hot Sulphur Springs 1 13 Purpose of Meeting - • Provide information about the PETS • Gather your ideas • May 5 8~ 6 meeting to discuss all ideas and craft a Regionally Preferred Alternative to propose to CDOT durin4 the comment period. . ~~ ~ ~ r` I-70 Mountain Corridor ORAF7' 15 Programmatic Envlronmenal Impact Statement Recreation and Tourism Uses t, 1', _~ r ..... _~ WhIt1. `. ../Gapahol. ,. 1 ~ ~. ~ RooaavHl ^~ t''^ •~ Natlonel ~ Natlonal I I 1 ~". On ~ ~ Poraat Forasb :. ..Vt fro t- l Ra pe 1 Id h I ah _~ gpnnpal. Sp nye t ,., ^ White River and Arapaho - 2 of the most highly visited forests in the US I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 17 Programmatic Environmental ImpacCStatement Arl Alternatives Evaluated In the Draft PETS - No Action. - Mlnlmal Action - Transit - - Highway h; r - Combination Transit & Highway - Build Highway /Preserve for Transit i% - Bul/d Transit /Preserve for Highway I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT - - ~-~ Programmatle'Environmentai Impact Statement I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT' 16 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 224 Recreation Sites within 3 Miles .:t 1. _ itr, r; hot r ~i~ tiJ` .....~ 1' Rlvaf Roowvalt ~ ~nraa~f ?~ ; .Natlonal ~ I . N~tlo o~ntal .Ponab ~e~t Font .i.. ' t ~. ~ adah pW i i3pitn~ .. nWaaQ .-.... ~36~:.. SNMaa jsy ~ .' ~. ,~ , ,- ", ^ 15 of 26 Major Colorado Ski Resorts via I-70 I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 18 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Preferred Grouolna Selection [riteria -Alternative Ability to Meet Project Need - To Increase capaUty, Improve accessibility and mobility and decrease txngesUon -Measured by the ability to accomodata protected 2025 baseline travel demand -Alternative Economic Reasonableness -The measure for economic reasonableness is defined atr any alternative less than or equal to ;4 BIIIion in Capital Cost ..-r ..~ xz,'~''h' P~dl~,' 't~.IP ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ from Pa ~ey2-126.2-127 t 3 I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 25 Programmatic EnvfronmentallmpactStatement Minimal Action (Continu d- Travel System Management a~~r ,Included in ALL Action Alternativ ^3~.•--. _ Goal: To Improve Operational ,~. i~ Efficiency ~•:1= ti: - Ramp Metering ~, - Slow Moving Vehicle Plan ~`~~ - Enhanced Incident Management _ „ °~ I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 27 $~C Programmatic Envlronmenta/ Impact Statement M1nlma/Action /[ontinugdl Auxiliary Lanes - Slow Moving Vehicle Climbing & Vehicle Descending lanes - Acceleration !! Deceleration Lanes between Interchanges I~ded In ALL Adlon Altematlves -Eastbound, Downhill from Eisenhower Tunnel to Herman Gulch -Westbound, Uphill from Dovvnleville to Empire ]unction I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 29 f Programmatic Environmental linpact Statement Minimal Action (Continued) Total Est/mated Capital Costs -;1.31 Billion . ~~a':~. v'1 I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 26 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Minima/Action (Continued) Interchange Improvements 24 Interchana In / •d din ALL Adio2Alternatives Interchanges between Glenwood Springs and C-470 were evaluated for both operational and safety issues I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT Programmatic Envlronmenta/~Impact Statement Minimal Adlon /Contlnu ) Curve Satety Modiflptlons - New Curve Geometry to Increase design speed on mainline curves to more closely match the design speed of adjoining sections of I-70 Included in A r Action Aft mauves ~ - - West of Wolcott, (mp 155 to 156) - Fall River Road, (mp 237 to 238) - East of Twln Tunnels, (mp 241.4 to 245) -~ '._ I-70 Mountain Corridor GRAFT r Programmatic Envlronmenta/ Impact Statement Mlnlma/Aedon ae a Stan,i el,,,,o er~e.,.~a.,e - CDOT "Not Preferred^ Group - Does not Increase capacity enough or reduce automobile usage to meet the Projected Baseline 2025 Travel Demand -Lowest Overall Cost Actfon Alternative - In Least cost effective group, (;1.45 per person mile) - In Least Construction Impact group - Construction Activities would be dispersed along the Corridor and Implemented based on prforlty -Improved Safety over No Action but would result in only Iowlized congestion relief - Estimated Fatality rates higher than Transit alternatives but lower than Highway alternatives 5 yam, I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT' 37 Programmatic Environmentafimpact Statement Transit (Continued) Rai! Transit with IMC, (Intermountain Connection) - CDOT ^Not Preferred^ Group - Does not meet economic "Reasonableness^ based on capital cost above;4 Billion -Total Transportation Corridor Width on grade would range from 98 ft. (single track) to 112 ft. (double track) -High ultimate capadty and well established technology - Construction of the Rail system would be accomplished away from I-70 travel lanes which would minimize tratftc disruption during construd;lon - In Intermediate cost effective group, (;1.14 per person mile) -Operation in adverse weather conditions may require furtherstudy - Estimated~Fatality rates lower than Bus in Gutdeway, but higher than Advanced Gutdeway System - Potential for freight delivery in off peak hours I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 39 f Programmatle Envfronmenta/ Impact Statement Transit !Continued) Advanced Guideway System _ ~ tYPicnl Configuretten 1'~~(Urtvw' ~ductlan Motors on Vnhlde) ~ ~ 5((5 u L;~ ~- ~Pnr.b NCI T. _ .~ ~? ~: ~~. ~~ ~ o .~• r rp `R..4 ~n I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 41 - ~- Programmatic Envlydnmenta/TiepactStatement Transit !Continued) (from Paga S - J2) Advanced Guideway System - CDOT "Not Preferred" Group - Does not meet economic "Reasonableness" based on capital cost above;4 Billion - Total Transportation Corridor Width is approx. 93 feet - High ultimate capacity and fastest Transit alternative - Highest ridership potential of any Transit mode based on ridership survey - Construction would be accomplished away from I-70 travel lanes which would minimize traffic disruption during construction - In Intermediate cost effective group, (;1.21 per person mile) - The prad:iwlity of the technology under adverse weather conditions in the corridor may require Wither study - Lowest estimated Fatality rates of all alternatives - Potential for freight delivery in off peak hours I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 38 Programmatic Environmentaiimpact Statement Transit !Continued) Advanced Guideway System - Elevated Doubie.Track Monorail Alignment between 0470 and Eagle County Airport, one track eastbound and one track westbound .' - Technology based on Urban Magnetic Levitation System as researched by the Federal Transit Administration, June 2004 Report 7 I-70 Mountain CorrldorDRAFT Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Highwav lContlnued ) 6-Lane Highway, 55 mph Design Speed - - -_.~. i/p}cal Configur$tlno ~- } w r r' ~: ~ t j • a ~ ~ s ; •~ I. •iP~Ram F~.IYrb Hama Gulch ~n~an noMSld. mM1 ~ ~Ptem Rama 6uklim8pwr ~leeeun on nmm Ndi l~ r'Oan allwmal6md Wow (Doan on nuM ad wum~am.l I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 5 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Hiahwav lContlnued ) 6-Lane Highway, 55 mph Design speed - CDOT "Preferred" Group - Total Transportation Corridor Width would range from 94 to 111 feet - Relatively low cost and high highway speeds - Less ultimate capacity than Transit alternatives and more construction related traffic congestion than Rail w/IMC and AGS - In the Greatest Construction Impact group, although slightly less construction impact than Bus in Guideway and Reversible lanes - In Most cost effective group, (;0.94 per person mile) - Estimated among [he highest overall fatality rating among all action alternatives I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT ~- Programmatic Environmental Impact-Statement Hiahwav /Continued) 6-Lane Highway, 55 mph Design Speed -Three Eastbound & Three Westbound Lanes from the Clear Creek/leHerson County Line through the Eisenhower Tunnel -Three Eastbound & Three Westbound Lanes in Dowd Canyon, 60 mph design speed (mp 169 to mp 173) -Three Eastbound & Three Westbound Lanes West of Vall Pass (mp 180 to mp 190) I-70 Mountdln Corridor DRAFT Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Hiahwav /Continued) 6-Lane Highway, 55 mph Design Speed Total Est/mated Capital Costs - $2.41 Billion (;1,74 Billion plus;673 Million In Minimal Action Components) I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT Sa ProgrammaHc'Environmental7mpad Statement Hiahwav f[ontlnued) ((rom Paga 2 - 44) 6-Lane Highway, 65 mph Design Speed -Three Eastbound !i<Three Westbound Lanes from the Clear Creek/Jefferson County Line through the Eisenhower Tunnel -Three Eastbound & Three Westbound Lanes West of Vail Pass (mp 180 to 190) - Three Eastbound & Three Westbound Lanes in newJ,200 ft. Dowd Canyon Tunnel, (between mp 169 and 173) - New 1,400 tt Three Lane Hidden Valley Tunnel to accommodate Westbound vehicle traffic - ~ ~ . - New Ss00 ft. Thren Lane Floyd HIII Tunnel to auommodate Eastbound vehiGe traffic 9 I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 61 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Hiahwav (Continued) (from Gaya 2 - 48) Reversib/e/HOV/HOT Lanes - Two Reversible Lanes with potential for tolling from just east of the base of.Floyd Hilt through the Eisenhower Tunnel, 55 mph design speed - The Reversible HOV/HOT Lanes would allow a speciRed oaupanq to use the facility for free and Tower occupanq vehicles to use it by paying a toll - The Reversible Lanes are Express Lanes that change traffic flow direction as needed to accommodate peak direction demand -The only Entrance and Exit from the Reversible Lanes would be at Floyd Hill, US 6, Empire ]unction and the Eisenhower Tunnel - Trucks would not ba permitted In the Reversible Lanes -Three Eastbound 8. Three Westbound Lanes In Dowd Canyon (Not Reversible) (mp 169 to mp 173) - Three Eastbound 8: Three Westbound Lanes West of Vail Pass (Not Reversible) (mp 180 to 190) I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Hlahwav /Contlnr;ed ) Reverslb/e/HOV/HOT Lanes Total Estimated Capital Costs -;2.52 Bllllon (;1.85 81111on plus;673 Million In Minimal Action Components) I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 65 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Combination A/ternativ~ Build Slx Lane Highway/Preserve for Transit Options Transit Preservation - In 1 ~~ion Ontlon ., ~ ` ~`" ~ Hlghwaji~w[tfi Rail-Presenatton"' " l~ ~ ~r _ } y~ I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 62 ]~ Programmatic Environments! Impact Statement Hlahwav /Continued) Reversib/e/HOV/HOT Lanes - iypleal Cba)iguraggo . ; ~ ,; ?_ ~ y 1L1JEC1 d~ ~' ~ , ' .. 1 R.wrd6li tangy. ~s" ,~"1 - ~ ~ a noes .ii.~..ra t e I-70 Mounain Corridor DRAFT Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Hiahwav /Continued) Reversible/HOV/HOT Lanes - CDOT "Preferred^ Group - Total Transportation Corridor Width would range from 82 to 12s teat - Relatively low cost and high highway speeds - Less ultimata capacity and more wnstrud:lon related trafNe congestion than Transit alternatives - In the Greatest Construction Impact: group =1n Most cost effeRlva group, (;0.87 per person mile) -Higher peak capacty and easier implementation of tolling than other six lane highway alternatives - Estimated among the highest overall fatality rating among all ad:lon alternatives, (similar to SS mph highway) _ i-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 66 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Combinaflon A/t rnativ Build S/x Lane Highway/Preserve for Transit Options TransR preservation - In 1 ~~lon Ootlon l~ ~ ~~ H)gtiwajr with A8S!Pfeaervat on Fr xa _ ~~ ~ ~ a ~~ ~~ - -~` - >~; .: -.~ ' , ., „ ,r,~ ~ ~,~~~~ r~ i' 1~ I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 73 Programmatic fnvironmentallmpactStatement CDOT and FHWA Options for "Ear/v Action ^ Prior to 2010 - Design and construction of Ramp Metering at the following locations: Eastbound I-70 Entrance Ramos -Loveland Pass, (No. 216) - Downfeville, (No. 234) - Dumont. (NO. 235) - - SH 103/Idaho Springs/Mount Evans Interchange, (No. 240) - East Idaho Springs Interchange, (No. 241) Westbound I-70 Entrance Ramos - SH 103/Idaho Springs/Mount Evans Interchange, (NO. 240) - West Idaho Springs, (NO. 239) - Downfeville, (No. 234) I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT T5 i Programmatic Environmentallmpact Statement Comparisons -Peak Hour Westbound Travel Tlme WFnter Saturday, C470 to Copper Mountain, (65 mi/es) Year Alternative Highway Transit Time Time 2000 Baseline .......... . ...................,........_.... ........... 98 Mln. .........___ __.................. .................................i 2025 ~ No Action _ _ ___i __ 115 Mln.,,_. ~._ .. _ ... _... _ ' - ---_. 2025 MlnimaLACtlon., „_.„.l 119.MIn ~. ,,136,Min. 2029 Rail w/IMC. _. .. ~ 108 Mln 95 Min 2D25._AGS, .,., .,. I 108,MIn _83 Min 2-8662- I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT » - Programmatic Environments! Impact Statement Comparisons - Network Capacity .......~....._ _..... _ ._.. Network Capacity........: .... i ..... . _ . ., ......_.. . ...Trend. ... ..... Optimistic.....- No Action 2010 2020 Minimal Action i 2015 2025 Rail w/IMC _.,. . _ 2030 2069 AGS_. _..... __. _...... .. ... ... ! 2030 .. .2065 , ,.Dual Mode Bus in Guideway ; 2030 2055 Diesel Mode Bus.ln Guideway . ._ _ _ 2030 .2055 6-Lane-Highway, 55 mph, . , , , , ., , ! .2030. ,. ,... 2050_ 6-lane Highway, 65 mph 2030 _ ZO50 Reversible/HOV/HOT Lanes 2030 2050 6-Lane Highway w/Rail w/IMC 2045 2090 6-lane Highwayw/AGS. .... .,., .. __2050 ,,._. 2090.,.._.. 6.-Lane Highway w/Dual Mode Bus _, 2045 ._.., ,,...,_ 2080 - .6-Lane Highwayw/Dlesel,BUS ...._ .. ~, 2045 .. ~~ _. .2080 (from Pege 2 - 79) I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 74 Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement CDOT and FHWA Options for "Early Action^ Prior to 2010 -Design and construction of interchange upgrades throughout, the Corridor - Limited highway Improvement, such as lengthening or reconstruction of interchange ramps -Improvements such as lighting or expansion of the Twin Tunnels - Other Safety or Travel System Management Improvements - Begin Tler 2 NEPA Studies -49aES- I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT t Programmatie Environments/Impact Statement Comparisons - Sa/etv Fatality Rates per 100 Million Person Miles Year Alternative i Fatality Rata per 100 Million Person Mlles ,2000 ,,.,Baseline.., , „_,,,, _..,t„ . _ . 0.44 to 0 63 _ .... !..?025...__No, Action_........ _ . _ _...i ... _ _.... 0, 62 ;, 2025 .Minimal Action . „ ,_ _ j ,_ 0.5 , x._2025.. Rail w/IMC ...._._. _.._. :.-- --...._.0.49.--- -~ °-- ~: 2025 AGS 0.46 2025_.:. Dupl_ Mode_BUS_...._.._..._.._..._.!......__..._..........0.49 _ _ __........ ' 2025 Diesel Bus 0.48 ,. i.. 2029. _6.-haner_55.mph ......................1...... ...._ ._.........0.54....... . 1.2025. 6-Lane 65 m h i 0 52 _.,.,. ' .....,....P .. ...... . 2025 Reversible/HOV/HOT j .. , 0 54 13 I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT B ~ Programmatic Environmental impact Statement Construction Impacts Construction Comparisons (from Pages 1 - 64 through 2 - 6a) - NO ACTION -Least construdion Impads - MINIMAL ACTION -Least /Intermediate construdion Impads - RAIL w/IMC -Intermediate construdion Impads - AGS -Intermediate Construdlon Impede - DUAL-MODE IN BUS GUIDEWAY -Greatest construdion Impede - DIESEL BUS IN GUIDEWAY -Greatest Construdlon Impede -SIX LANE HIGHWAY, 55 MPH -Greatest construdion Impede -SIX LANE HIGHWAY, 65 MPH -Greatest Construdlon Impede - REVERSIBLE/HOV/HOT LANES-GreatestCOnstrudion Impede I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT B7 Programmatic Envlronmenta! Impact Statement ro hnical Committee Areas o/Concern -Economic Impact 50 Studies Construction In Service >a Sto Billion °~_°~~~~-' Impact • 201ti ~, z'.~ ~+ o ~0 = Bualina ~ No Action Np and Minimal Acdon t0 Al4madvas (from Pages 3.9 - 14 3 3.9 - SS) ~t ~t0 Year 2a2s 2035 9 County Gross Regional Product - An individual Gross Produd Analysis for each Corridor County would provide a better understanding of the economic Impad to specific jurisdidlons during and after construdion _ ~ I-70 Mountain Corridor ORAF7 69 + Programmatic Environmenta/Impact Statement Technical Committee Areas o/Concern Items identified as needing further evaluation prior to Tier 2 in order to better facilitate Preferred Alternate Selection - Alternative Capacity and Reliability in Adverse Weather Conditions -The potential disturbance of heavy metals from 23 Historic Mill Sites within the I-70 Right of Way In Clear Creek County - Potential Impad to Sedion 106 & 4F Properties - Mobility Restridions and related impede during the Construdlon Period for each Alternative - Economic Impede for each County during and after the construdion period - Determination of Transit Preservation Inclusion or Transit Nonprecluslon for the Build Highway/Preserve for Transit Alternatives I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT r Programmatic Environmenta/.Impact Statement rP~hnical Committee Areas o/Concern CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 2010 to 2025 - Corridor mobility during an extended construdion period is not considered - Alternatives are assumed complete by 2025 and evaluated based on meeting baseline year 2025 travel demand, however mobility during the rnnstrudion period is not addressed - Construdlon mobility restrldions and related Impacts should be Identified and evaluated for each alternative prior to the selection of the "Preferred^ group - If specific mobility mitigation measures such as alternate routes or alternate modes of transportation are viable options during the construdion period, then they should be identified and evaluated prior to the seledlon of the "Preferred" group I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 88 Programmatic Environmental~impact Statement rn~hnleal Committee Areas of Concern ALTERNATIVE COST EVALUATION - The alternative capital cost ceiling should reaed available funds with a payback period that extends beyond 20 years, (2025) - The cost of new parking fadlitles required in resort communities and ski areas to auommodate additional vehicles, (;25,000 to ;40,000 per garage space) is not addressed - Private ownership and operation of vehicles should be considered for all alternatives - Public/Private partnerships In the ownership and operation of Transit vehicles could reduce Transit capital and operational cost - MuniclpaliUes desiring Transit Stations could partldpate In the flnandnp of their own stations which could reduce capital cost -Alternate Transit alignments to the E]MT and Twin Tunnels could be considered to further reduce capital vests - Public/Private partnerships In the ownership and operation of the Reversible/HOT/HOV Lanes, (slmilarto E-470) could reduce ca Ital and o eratlonal cosffi I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 90 Programmatic Environmentahlmpact Statement- rP.-hnical Committee Areas o/Concern TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL TDM Chart Locations In Drag Document - Highway Travel Times are provided In Table 2-13 and 2-14 (Pages 2-85 & 2-86) - Transit Travel Times are provided in Tables 2-15 and 2-i6 (Pages 2-92 & 2-93) -Highway Annual Hours of Congestion are provided in Table 2-20, (Page 2-101) -Highway Daily Hours of Congestion are provided in Table 2-21, (Page Z-102) The model results are often confustng and inconsistent. We would recommend that year 2005 demography data be used and the results of the model compared to adual congestion hours and travel times today to validate the model prior to the FINAL PEIS. New Eagle County skier data should be used in the model since the data used was from a low skier visit year due to marketing 15 I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT r Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Additional Data Minimal Action Components East Slone Interchange Improvements ~ ~ Cost ' Lavaland,Pass,(No 216),. _ , ;2M ' ,Silver Plume,(move west ramps to MP 225),.(No 226),., ,,. ;4M_ .,, „_: ;Georgetown and Argentine St.,.(No..228) .. ..... . ..... .. . ;8M_.,,„_ EmpireJunction,.(No.232j ........__ _ Sl-')....,......, ;Oowniewlle,-(No 234) .... .... ._.._ ... .. ... ;2M .. ..._. iFall River Road (conned to Frontage Road), (NO, 238) i ;4M,.. ,.West.IdahoSprings, (No.,_239)____...__.___ _ ._.__..._. _ ._ S4M.. .._...; Idaho Sprngs, (No. 240) . ., _ _, . ,.,_ .,. __ _ _._,. _ ' ;6M„ East Idaho Springs (NO 241) _ ~ ;SM , , U5.6r.(No, 244). .. ,..__ ......_... ... _ _.. _....._ ..._.. .. , ;lOM.... i ;Hyland Hills and Beaver Brook (modify existing ramps :and. trafficcontrol,_(No.247,.248) .... .. ........._......_..._.. ..; ~?M1...........; Lookout Mountain (No. 256) ., ,,,,,, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ;10fM Morrison, (No. 259)., _,.__ _ _ ._ _ ;iM i 2- 7-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT s Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Addltlonal Data Minima/Action Components Curve Safety Modiflcatlona % Cost I ... .. ... .... of Wolcott, (MP 155. to 156) ...... ........ ......... ......_ ~ ;18M,__,.,. d Canyon,.(MP 170 to 173. ). ,,,,,,,,,,,,, i ;245M„ „ tlver,Road, (MP 237 to 238) _, ... .,..._.. ,,..,,.,,_ ;IOfN,..___„~ of Twin Tunnels (MP 242 to 24s) _ ;137M,._,I Frontage Road Improvements ~ Cost Idaho Springs to Hidden Valley ~ _ ;4M ,__ Miscellaneous Items _ i Cost i c Gore_Creek_Sedimentation_Control,_._.___,__.,..,,_. .. ........_._._...._._.;20M,.,-...,_ r Items in the Corridor . _ ~64M,_ _.,,.i I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 1 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Additlona/ Data Aviation Components Improvements to existing commercial aviation through advanced radar technology to allow additional flights at Eagle County Airport - FAA has agreed to provide matching funds for Eagle County Airport to acquire Traffic Control Beacon Interrogator Radar which will lessen dependence on DIA radar . - Landing capacity would be increased from 4 planes per hour to 12 planes per hour which could attract more out of state flights Additional FAA funds, (;25.5 Million for each airport) may be available for similar Improvements to Yampa Valley Regional and Aspen/Pitkin County Airports I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 98 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Additional Data Minimal Action Components Auxiliary Lanes S',g,~ Avon to Past.Blvd, Eastbound (MP367 to 168),,.. , _ , ., .,__ ;, ;3M._ ._....._., West Slde of Vail Pass, Westbound (MP 190.to_180) „ :.;135M, , West Side, of Vad Pass, Eastbound (MP 180 to 190) , .. i ;135M_..,,,. . Siiverthome to Fristo, Westbound (MP 205 to 203) _, i interchange ;:Improvement E]MT to Harman Gulch Eastbound (MP 215 to 218) .__. _ _.. ; ;SM.... _.... Bakervdle to EJMT Westbound, (MP 221 to 215). ~ ;9M . Georgetown to Silver Plume, Westbound, .(MP 228.to 226)... _ ............._._ ...._ _....__..._.... _....._ ;. i6M._.._. _.. Silver Plume to Georgetown, Eastbound, (MP 226 to 228) _ _ i_;6M . . Downlepille to Empire Jct., Westbound.(MP 234 to 232) _; .;17M._ ,....,_ Empire Jct. to Downieville, Eastbound (MP 232_to 234). __ _. ;17M, ._. ,. Black Hawk Tunnel to Hidden Valley, Westbound ' ,(MP 244 to 243) . .. .... .. .. .. .._..._. .._.. i. ;20M _.. _. . ,Morrison to,chtef Hosa, Westbound (MP 253 to 259) _ ;100M ,. I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 100 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Addltlonal Data Minimal Action Components Slow Movino Vehicle Plan - For vehicle or combination of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 12,001 or more pounds - Any vehicle that is drawing a trailer or semitrailer, regardless of size - Restrict to Rlpht Lane on grades over 6% -Restrict from Left Lane at locations with 3 lanes - Restrict during certain peak periods - Improvements In Commercial Vehicle Chain-up Areas - Improvements In Rest Areas -Improvements In Weigh-in=MOtlon and Automatic Vehicle Ident(fleatlon FaGlRies Traffic simulation Indicates that substantial reductions in congestion would occur by limiting these vehicles during peak periods, however there are serious legal questions regarding time based restrictions I-70 Mountain Corridor DRAFT 102 - ~ Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Addltlonal Data (from Page 2 - 11) i Alternate Routes Screened From Further Consideration i 1. Fort Collins to Wolwtt via Walden (SH 14 & SN 131) 2. Fort Collins to Wolcott via Kremmling (new US 34 / US 40) !3. Fort Collins to Copper Mountain via Kremmling (US 34, US 40, SH9) -4 Denver to Wolcott via new Moffat Tunnel (SH 72, US 40 & new US 34) ;5 Denver to Copper Mountain via new Moffat, Berthoud, and Jones Pass Tunnels (SH 72, US 40 & SH 9) !6 Denver to Wolcott via new Berthoud Pass Tunnel i (US 40 and now US 34) Denver to Copper Mountain via new Jones Pass Tunnel iT (US 40 & SH 9) B Denver to Copper Mountain via Hoosier Pass (surface) (US 285 8: SH 9) .9 Denver to Copper Mountain via new Georgia Pass Pass Tunnel (US 285 & SH 9) 17 '~ _ ., INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE/ r ;I I, [rte I rl ~ I ~ t'l Asa I.- _I.r ~.. r )~ -, --- S .r' _ -~ WEST GORE CREEK DRIVE CHILDREN'S FOUNTAIN Spring'OS - Ulilifies antl fovntoin Reconslr~clipn Fall OS ~ Finish Slreel3[Ope r~ ~, ~.. ~`J ,j~ f l BRIDGE STREET AND GORE CREEK DRIVE INTERSECTION ;prlny ~5-.~n~-s r. .;r~eersc ape EAST GORE CREEK DRIVE / THE CHUTE / HANSON RANCH ROAD (TO VAIL VALLEY DRIVE) up:_ _ _ i.n- e_ SPri g 6 _ Faper^ V~ ~~-_.~ I ~ ~ • ~, ,~~:,,,, UPPER BRIDGE STREET ~ A ~ i Sp ing'G Ut'I t: s ','~;.,.k yR ~~ ,pring'G -. rst Sfreetscape ~~,~,~IH,+ CHECKPOINT CHARLIE - - - ' - - - Spring'06 Ut'I t s antl B~ Idrng ConsrrUCtipn ~ ' Fall '06 ~ F' h S reetscope SEIBERT CIRCLE - r (pendlny Council approval) ~ , Spring OS-Vlilltie~ ' -- iFring'~o .finish ~trsets _aPe - - ' - ~ .~ VISTA BARN E STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT PHASIN 1\ ._ t. ~.' .„ ~' "> ~ . ~' ~ FOUNDERS PARK -" ~ ^'^ AND PA~1tKIN'G GARAGE ; ~a,u- ~ . ~~~~ ~ ° t ~ ~'.". . ~, ^ r 4 ~~ t - - I ; - TIVOII ~~ _ r ~ d Sl ~ HANSON RANCH ROAD ,- - `~~ (FROM THE CHUTE TO SEIRERT CIRCLE) _ _ .- - Spring'I]5-finish Sheesscope lschedvle - - -' tlependent On Seibert Circle conslr~~cfion~ n k Vail Village Phase 2 Streetscape Budget Original Budget Original submittal $ 5,961,525.00 Negogiated Savings $ 197,437.00 Revidsed Contract $ 5,764,088.00 Other Partner Total Contributions Erwsd Cost $ 860,000.00 Private Property Owners $ 366,690.00 VRI $ 70,000.00 Qwest Comcast Sub total other Parties $ 1,296,690.00 Town of Vail Construction Cost $ 4,467,398.00 Town of Vail Streetscape Budgets 05-06 $ 5,580,490.00 Design Costs remaining in 04 $ _ Construction Cost $ 4,467,398.00 Project Contingency $ 550,000.00 Construction Administration $ 260,000.00 Construction Testing $ 20 000.00 Construction Public Relations $ 25,000.00 Snow remove) $ 35,000.00 Temporary Asphalt $ 35,000.00 Potholing $ 10,000.00 Owner provided materials $ 78,000.00 Street Furniture - $ 100,000.00 Remaining Dollars $ 92.00 Costs not included in Phase 2 New Checkpoint Charlie Bldg Work around Mill Creek Court Bldg Seibert Circle Vaii Village Phase 1 Streetst,ape Budget Variance from best O riginal Budget Case Amended Budget 2004 Actuals 2005 Budget Overall Construction Contract $ 6,290,867.04 Inc rest room cost 7989474.44 5239244.76 2750229.68 Other Partner Total Contributions Erovsd Cost $ 1,238,137.30 $ - 1885155.93 980495.2 904660.73. Private Property Owners $ 703,045.00 $ (390,064.00) 407745 125652.5 282094 VRI Hanson Ranch Road $ 348,325.25 $ (99,514.00) 260000 0 260000 Qwest $ 38,549.10 $ (5,000.00) 28721.93 28721.93 0 Comcast $ 57,379.33 $ (7,000.00) 0 0 0 Others 77052.5 77052.5 0 Tov Boilers 134206 '134206 0 Tov Cap Streets @ Mtn Haus 233052.43 233052.43 0 Sub total other Parties $ 2,385,435,98 $ (501,578.00) 3025933.79 -1579180.56 -1446754.73 Town of Vail Construction Cost $ 3,905,431,06 $ 4,407,009.06 4963540.65 3660064.2 1303476.45 Town of Vail Streetscape Budgets 04-05 $ 6,027,425.00 $ 6,027,425.00 Inc 250 K for R Room 6277425 4434839 1842586 Design Costs remaining in 04 $ 52,000,00 $ 52,000.00 52000 56479.04 0 Construction Cost $ 3,905,431,06 $ 4,407,009.06 4963540.65 3660064.2 1303476.45 Project Contingency $ 600,000,00 $ 550,000.00 30000 Hosts 5877.02 12500 Meals refreshments 1534.63 1000 Office supplies 1650.82 1000 Shuttle 2463.11 0 locates .4067.5 500 Copies 2492.06 1500 property research 837 500 Other professionals 6863.64 6000 Construction Supplies Construction Administration Scott Bluhm $ 140,OOOAO $ 100,000.00 110000 53477.42 58000 Chris Delles $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 85000 39999.74 43000 Joe Kracum $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 65000 40765.76 22000 Construction Consultants $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 225000 144572.38 80427 Construction Testing $ 65,000.00 $ 65,000,00 _ 65000 23346.5 40000 Construction Public Relations $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000,00 50000 23738.67 24000 Wall Street Restroom $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000,00 $ 250,000.00 Owner provided handrails $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 12000 19,775.00 0.00 Earl Eaton play features $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 50000 50,500.00 0.00 Design of Phase 3 and 4 $ 300,000.00 $ 290,000.00 250000 169,726.30 80,000.00 Street Furniture $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 100000 0.00 100,000.00 Remaining Dollars $ 542,993.94 $ (248,584.06) $ 250,000.00 249884.35 126,608.21 68,682.55 Remaining Cont TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Open Space Board of Trustees DATE: March 15, 2005 SUBJECT: Ordinance 7, Series of. 2005: Proposed Parcels for Open Space Designation Staff: Russ Forrest There were no changes to Ordinance 7 Series of 2005 between 1S' and 2~d reading: Staff did include a specific legal description for Pirate Ship park in Attachment A of Ordinance 7, Series of 2005. The Open Space Board of Trustees is recommending approval of Ordinance 7, Series of 2005 on second reading. The Town Attorney is researching the appropriate process to designate Town properties as parks. He has requested that this item be discussed an April 5, 2005. TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Open Space Board of Trustees DATE: February 15, 2005 SUBJECT: Ordinance 7, Series of 2005: Proposed Parcels for Open Space Designation Staff: Russ Forrest PURPOSE: The purpose of Ordinance 7, Series of 2005 is to consider 21 parcels of land in 16 areas for designation as open space. Several of the areas, particularly along Gore Creek include multiple parcels. Attachment A summarizes the properties recommended by the Open Space Board of Trustee's recommendation for designation. Three-fourths of the entire Vail Town Council must vote affirmatively to place a property into this designation. BACKGROUND:' The attached memo to the Vail Open Space Board of Trustees summarizes the designation process. Open Space Designation is separate and distinct from zoning. As per the Town Charter, once a property is designated as open space it must remain in Town ownership and must remain in one of the three open space zone districts until such time that registered voters in the Town of Vail vote to remove a property's designation. III. VAIL OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEE RECOMMENDATION: On January 25, 2005 the Vail Open Space Board of Trustees met at a scheduled meeting and unanimously voted to recommend twenty one properties (16 areas) to the Vail Town Council for Open Space Designation. Attachment A summarizes the 21 parcels and 16 different areas that the committee is recommending the Town Council. consider for designated open space. A map of Town owned lands with the recommended parcels identified in red on the map is provided. (Attachment B) Furthermore the Open Space Board of Trustees voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to the Vail Town Council that the properties in Attachment B referenced as A, B, & C be considered for designation as parks so that they could be considered for designated open space in the future. These properties are identified in yellow. These three properties include: Parcel A: Middle bench of Donovan Park; Parcel B: Tract A Vail Village Filling 13; and Parcel C: Unplatted parcel of land in East Vail, south of the Main Gore Drive South. ~~ Attachment A: 21 parcels/16 areas proposed for designation Attachment B: Map of designated open space Attachment C: Memo dated March 20, 2002 on Designated Open Space Process Attachment D: Ordinance 7, Series of 2005 F:\Users\cdev\COUNCIL\MEMOS10512005 desigopenspace\deop021405.doc Attachment A: Town of Vail Property Suggested for Open Space Designation U 7L d a x ~ ~ ~ c v ~ d ~ 'x m .o n m o. n d ~ O a~ ~ d U O ~ ~ Legal Description General Description ¢ ¢ N M U TWP 5 Rna. Al 1 Ellefson Park; GLO Lot # 15 exchan ed with USFS in 1997 2.66 OR Debris Flow southern portion of Buffehr Creek Park 0.68 OR Flood 2 Lot 40, Buffehr Creek Resub. (parcel # 210312302024) (portion adjacent to North Frontage Road West Gore Creek stream (and bike path) 0.31 OR Flood 3 Lot 1, Vail Village West Filing 2 (parcel # 210312306031) tract, adjacent to South Frontage Road West TWP 5 Rn . 80 4 Tract B, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Gore Creek stream tract south of 7.5 NAP Flood Marriott 5 SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of section 5 (parcel # 21010530001 east of Middle Creek; contains 26.6' NAP Flood S raddle Creek trailhead 6 Tract B, Block 5-E, Vail Village Filing 1; (parcel # Gore Creek stream tract behind 2.95 OR Flood 210108226002 Mountain Haus and Vail Mountain Gore Creek stream tract behind 2.64 NAP Flood, Passive 7 Tract A, Vail Village Filing 5; (parcel # 210108227007) Tyrolean and Apollo Park Outdoor Recreation Mill Creek stream tract between Gore OR Flood 8 Tract G, Vail Village Filing 5; (parcel # 210108239004) Creek Drive and Hanson Ranch Road 0.25 Tract H, Vail Villa e Filin 5• arcel # 210108242009 0.09 OR Flood Parcel Description contains Pirateship Park 0.49 A Flood A parcel of land located within Trace E, a Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village, Fifth Filing, and a Part of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village, First Filing and Golden Peak House, Tow of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, recorded under Reception 9 No. 562007 at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest comer of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing; whence the Northeast corner of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing bears N 79°45'00"E a distance of 250.00 feet, said line being the Basis of Bearing for this description. land south of Fairway Drive, adjacent to 2.16 NAP Avalanche & 10 Lots 9-11, Vail Village Filing 10; (parcel # 210108116004) Hole # 5 on Vail Golf course Debris Avalanche 11 (parcel # 210109200005) part of GLO Lot # 3 & 4 exchanged 4.25 NAP Debris with USFS in 1997 Avalanche 12 Tract F, Vail Village Filing 7; (parcel # 210109208007) land south of Ptarmigan Road 1.59 NAP Debris Avalanche land east of Sunburst Drive, adjacent to 27.8 NAP Flood; Debris 13 Tract A, Vail Valley Filing 4; (parcel # 210110201006) Hole # 17 on Vail Golf course Avalanche & Rockfall Tract C, Vail Village Filing 11; (parcel # 210102304009) Gore Creek stream tract, south of 3.38 NAP Flood; Rockfall Booth Creek Drive 14 Tract F, Vail Village Filing 11; (parcel # 210103404016) Gore Creek stream tract, east of Hole 0.53 NAP Flood; Rockfall 13 on Vail Golf course Tract B, Vail Village Filing 11; (parcel # 210103405002) Gore Creek stream tract, south of 0.46 N Flood Booth Creek Drive 15 Tract B, Vail Villa e Filin 13; arcel # 210103401001 Booth Creek stream tract 3.89 NAP Flood; Debris Flo Parcel A Pitkin Creek Park• arcel # 210111100006 Pitkin Creek stream Tract 0.45 NAP Flood Tract A, Gore Creek Park; (parcel # 210111104008) adjacent to Bighorn Road, near east 0.48 NAP Flood 16 Vail I-70 interchan e Tract B, Gore Creek Park; (parcel # 210111104009) adjacent to Bighorn Road, near east 0.05 NAP Flood Vail I-70 interchan e 20 Parcels Total A roximate Acrea e: 69.2 bas Schone Ellefsrn Park ' Narih TrWI (Dawn Tr°Ip Tmilhmd 7ntmmountain Porkcr Perk ,\ ', I l~\11 Town of Vail Open Space and Comprehensive Open Lands Recommendations for Open Space Designation 0 1 Miles N W E s Potato Patch eaatn Fan: ra, wv ~a,h ~ ~ r+an rraa rmniac r: Trallhead Booth Falls SaMcfone PwW (rmd Sardsl°ne) ' ~I Tar lot Tnllheod ~ Meya's Party Spraddle Creek ~ ` ! ~ ~ Mlddk Creek Sr°ddla Cnak ] e %~ ~ TMNCad TrallMad I it ' / Lion's Ridge -r -~. r L _ BuffehrCreek l - ~~ rr"'1 ~ '~ ~ ~ f . ~ ~., , ~, a ~ ~ .,-~ ~ ~ 1 ~ -vim Nrki w 0 .. _ • _ - n s O ~ ' ~~ ~X - ~Tra lhmd © ^ 9.. 6 r - ~ ~ I ~ i - t xmma Aamh OPeo Spatt `~iji - r N~rmrron tavfraMereekt '~ '` ~ s ~ I ~ ~. \ s ~ 1 ~ a ~ .~ &gham lake ~rmuhaae East rralnead ~ Lionshead ,. P W 7l P ` ` ~~ r +y Vail Buftehr i 1 ` i aw ark ~ _ i GuN Pmk 1 _ ~ ~ r Vail Village it Cascade ~ ~ ro N°""` emre' \ Golf Course g /~ a J PVOte Ship Pork bomar Prdd - ~ \ I Donovan Park Rage atauE Dwk fmald A. Ford A,ryhitheater Vdor PavAion f J'~ ~'~~, 1, Ford Park Matterhorn Bighorn Palk ~ Shphem ParX Intermountain ~~ Town of Vail (TOV) owned Vands within TOV municipal boundary currently designated Open Space Town of Vail (TOV) awned lands within TOV municipal boundary meeting all three criteria for Open Space designation, not currently designated Open Space; Recommended by The Designated Open Space Board of Trustees to be designated Open Space Town of Vail (TOV) owned lands within TOV municipal boundary meeting all three criteria for Opdn Space designation, however land not currently designated Open Space ,,~~??~~ Town o(Vail (TOV) owned lands within TOV municipal boundary where current zoning supports Open Space designation however `~;.% land is lacking third criteria, necessary to support Open Space designation; Recommended by The Designated Open Space Board of Trustees to be classified as a Town of Vail park that provides passive outdoor recreational opportunities Parcel'A" -Middle bench of Donovan Park (approx. 2.15 acres) Parcel "B" -Tract A, Vail Village Filing 13 (approx. 13.07acres) Parcel "C" - Unplahed parcel of land in Easl Vail, south of Main Gore Drive South (approx. 4.33 acres) Town of Vail (TOV) owned lands within TOV municipai boundary where current zoning supports Open Space designation however land is lacking third criteria, necessary to support Open Space designation Town of Vail (TOV) owned lands within TOV municipal boundary lacking second and third criteria, necessary to supporl0pen Space designation Lands generally considered TOV land, but not outright owned by the Town; or a condo in which the Town owns one unit To receive consitleratan W The Designated Open Space board of Trustees, properties must meet three requirements: 1) Be owned by the Town of Vail; 2) Be zoned in one of Ihree open space tlistdds (natural area preservation; outdoor recreatOn; or agriculture open space); 3) ExhibA one of the following characteristics: i) environmentally sensitive land (wetland, ripadan areas, a cdtiral hahiral identified by the Divisionof Wildlife, or the Natural Heritage Program); ii) high natural hazard area including 100.year Flood extent as determined and provided by FEMA, antllor TOV red avalanche hazard area designat4an, anNor TOV hgh rock lal{ hazard area tlesignalbn, a~ for TOV high debris flow hazard area; or iii) Town of Vail park Ihal provides passive outdoor recreation opportunities. Process for parcel selection: t)AII TOV Iantl was selected 2) From process 1, all land zoned in suppod o(015 deslgnalion was selected 3) Fmm process 1, all land intersected in any pad, 6y a natural hazard (Avalanche, Debds Fbw, Debris Avalanche, Rocklall, andror FEMA Flood Hazard) was selected ( 4) Ovarleppirg lands selected in processes 2 8 3 = OIS suitable Iantl 5) Shortfalls m OIS suitability were determined for other lands accordingly ~ Mkge LaL 1 Err bka p Attachment C TO: Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Community Development DATE: March 20, 2002 SUBJECT: Proposed Parcels for Open Space Designation Staff: Russ Forrest PURPOSE: The purpose of this hearing is to review and determine if additional properties should be recommended to the Town Council for consideration as designated open space II. BACKGROUND In November of 1995 the Vail Voters approved a Charter Amendment, which created a process to designate open space uses. The margin of approval was 90% voting in favor of the amendment. This was a key next step in the Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan to create a process to go beyond zoning controls to protect Town-owned land with characteristics that make "open space" designation appropriate. An issue raised during the development of the Plan was that, Town-owned parcels can be rezoned or sold with the approval of the Vail Town Council. Section 13.11 of the Town Charter provides procedures for: 1) Designating parcels as open space; and 2) Removing parcels from a designated status. ` To date, 28 parcels and approximately 460 acres have been designated as open space. This includes: 76.3 acres in 2000, 11.65 acres designated in 1999 and 384 acres designated in 1996. III. SUMMARY OF THE DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE PROCESS Qualifications for designation Characteristics of Designated Open Space. To qualify as designated open space, the designated parcel must be owned by the Town of Vail and zoned natural area preservation, outdoor recreation, or agriculture open space and be either: 1) Environmentally sensitive lands (wetlands, riparian areas, critical habitat identified by the Division of Wildlife, or the Natural Heritage Program); , 2) High natural hazard areas including the 100-year flood plain, red avalanche hazard area, high rock fall hazard area, and high debris flow hazard area; or ' 3) Town of Vail parks that provide passive outdoor recreation opportunities. Steps to designate open space Step 1: Unanimous recommendation from the Open Space Board of Trustees concerning a parcel of land which meets the characteristics as set forth in these Charter (see above) Step 2: Town Council consideration of an ordinance to include such parcel as designated open space. Step 3: Approval by ordinance designating open space by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the entire council. for final passage. Steps to eliminate designation Step 1: Town council may consider the sale, lease, trade, alienation, partition, granting of an exclusive license or permit, use or zone change other than one of the open space zone districts identified in this Section of designated open space only upon receiving a unanimous recommendation of such action from the Open Space Board of Trustees. Step 2: The Town Council shall consider an ordinance referring such question of disposal of designated open space to the registered electors at a town election for their acceptance or rejection. The ordinance shall give the location of the land in question and the intended disposal thereof. Every such ordinance shall require the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the entire Town Council for passage. Step 3: The vote of the town on proposed disposal of designated open space shall be held not less than thirty days and not later than ninety days from the date of the final council vote thereon. If no regular town election is to be held within the period prescribed in this subsection, the council shall provide for a special election; otherwise, the vote shall be held at the same time as such regular election, except that the council may at its discretion provide for a special election at an earlier date within the prescribed period. Attachment D ORDINANCE NO. 7 Series of 2005 ~~ AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE 21 PARCELS OF LAND (16 AREAS) IN THE TOWN OF VAIL AS OPEN SPACE AS PER SECTION 13.11 OF THE TOWN OF VAIL CHARTER (SEE EXHIBITS A) WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Charter provides a process to protect properties as open space that met specific criteria outlined in Section 13.11 of the Town of Vail Charter; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that it is appropriate to maintain open space zoning on certain designated properties in perpetuity unless, and until, a majority of the Town of Vail registered electors decided to remove the a Designated Open Space classification; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vait Open Space Board of Trustees unanimously voted to designate twenty one properties in Exhibit A as open space on January 25, 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the twenty one properties in Exhibit A meet the criteria outlined in Section 13.11 of the Town of Vail Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the properties identifed in exhibit A will be designated open space. Section 2 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 3 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision 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. Section 4 At this time, available records indicate all included properties are owned by the Town of Vail. If title of a property placed in the open space designation as identified in Section 13.11(a) 1-3 is found in the future to not be owned entirely by the Town of Vail, then the designation of that property is null and void and will be repealed with approval of an ordinance. Section 5 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 15th day of February, 2005. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the this 1 st day of March, 2005 at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. ATTEST: Rod Slifer, Mayor Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 15th day of March, 2005. Rod Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Attachment A: Town of Vail Property Suggested for Open Space Designation U f0 ~ m d ~ ~ ~ v E d ~ c 'x m ~ a m n a~ ~ ~ d ~ Legal Description General Description Q ¢ N M U TWP 5 Rno. 81 1 Ellefson Paris; GLO Lot # 15 exchan ed with USFS in 1997 2'.66 OR Debris Flow southern portion of Buffehr Creek Park 0.68 OR Flood 2 Lot 40, Buffehr Creek Resub. (parcel # 210312302024) (portion adjacent to North Frontage Road West Gore Creek stream (and bike path) 0.31 OR Flood 3 Lot 1, Vail Village West Filing 2 (parcel # 210312306031) tract, adjacent to South Frontage Road West TWP 5 Rn . 80 4 Tract B, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Gore Creek stream tract south of 7.5 NAP Flood Marriott 5 SW 1l4 of the SW 1/4 of section 5 (parcel # 21010530001 east of Middle Creek; contains 26.6 NAP Flood S raddle Creek trailhead 6 Tract B, Block 5-E, Vail Village Filing 1; (parcel # Gore Creek stream tract behind 2.95 OR Flood 210108226002 Mountain Haus and Vail Mountain Gore Creek stream tract behind 2.64 NAP Flood, Passive 7 Tract A, Vail Village Filing 5; (parcel # 210108227007) Tyrolean and Apollo Park Outdoor Recreation Mill Creek stream tract between Gore OR Flood 8 Tract G, Vail Village Filing 5; (parcel # 210108239004) Creek Drive and Hanson Ranch Road 0.25 Tract H Vail Villa a Filin 5' arcel # 210108242009 0.09 OR Flood Parcel Description contains Pirateship Park 0.49 A Flood A parcel of land located within Trace E, a Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village, Fifth Filing, and a Part of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village, First Filing and Golden Peak House, Tow of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, recorded under Reception 9 No. 562007 at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing; whence the Northeast corner of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing bears N 79°45'00"E a distance of 250.00 feet, said line being the Basis of Bearing for this description. land south of Fairway Drive, adjacent to 2.16 NAP Avalanche 8 10 Lots 9-11, Vail Village Filing 10; (parcel # 210108116004) Hole # 5 on Vail Golf course Debris Avalanche 11 (parcel # 210109200005) part of GLO Lot # 3 8 4 exchanged 4.25 NAP Debds with USFS in 1997 Avalanche 12 Tract F, Vaii Village Filing 7; (parcel # 210109208007) land south of Ptarmigan Road 1.59 NAP Debris Avalanche land east of Sunburst Drive, adjacent to 27.8 NAP Flood; Debris 13 Tract A, Vail Valley Filing 4; (parcel # 210110201006) Hole # 17 on Vail Golf course Avalanche 8 Rockfall Tract C, Vail Village Filing 11; (parcel # 210102304009) Gore Creek stream tract, south of 3.38 NAP Flood; Rockfall Booth Creek Drive 14 Tract F, Vail Village Filing 11; (parcel # 210103404016) Gore Creek stream tract, east of Hole 0.53 NAP Flood; Rockfall 13 on Vail Golf course Tract B, Vail Village Filing 11; (parcel # 210103405002) Gore Creek stream tract, south of 0.46 N Flood Booth Creek Drive 15 Tract B, Vail Villa e Filin 13; arcel # 210103401001 Booth Creek stream tract 3.89 NAP Flood; Debris Fio Parcel A Pitkin Creek Park• arcel # 210111100006 Pitkin Creek stream Tract 0.45 NAP Flood Tract A, Gore Creek Park; (parcel # 210111104008) adjacent to Bighorn Road, near east 0.48 NAP Flood 16 Vail I-70 interchan e Tract B, Gore Creek Park; (parcel # 210111104009) adjacent to Bighorn Road, near east 0.05 NAP Flood Vail I-70 interchan e 20 Parcels Total A roximate Acrea e: 89.2 /ncorporating The British House Sien Comnanv Town of Vail 3/9/05 Planning and Environmental Commission Design Review Board Town Council Fine Dear Town of Vail, Clothing I am writing today to give my support to the Crossroads project. I attended the last two planning approval sessions before this project was sent to council. I have to say that I arrived at the first meeting somewhat critical of the size. However, after hearing from the project managers and seeing the drawings and comparisons I was converted into a supporter of the project. Now, we have meet with the new Crossroads Management and they have shown us some of the new drawings and described their plans for the retail and other commercial space. I believe that this new structure addresses the bulk and mass concerns voiced by planning officials and council members. We also feel that the team that Mr. Nobel has put together has worked very hard with many members of the community to find out what is needed and how best to go about it. It is really refreshing to see this proactive approach to Unique development in this valley when so many geedy developers and landlords Gifts have messed up Vail's true potential. We also discussed the future retail lease structure and were pleasantly surprised to find them very open to our ideas and opinions. The developer wants to create a vibrant town core site that will definitely add to Vail's appeal while also providing for some needed public benefit. I believe that Vail needs to approve the Crossroads project now so that it is not put off for another year till they can demo/ break ground. Any delay will only hurt a village already struggling with its third yeaz of poor revenues. Almost everyone is agreed that Vail has been desperate for redevelopment for a long time. Now that it is finally starting to happen we must move forward with all projects in an efficient and timely manner. The Crossroads project should be approved by the town so we can start to build Vail's future now. Celtic Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Origin Sincerely, ~~~~~ Robert A. Swimm Owner Scotch on the Rockies Office: PO. 13ox 459, Vail, CO 81658 Tel: 970.748.0022 - Fax: 970.748.0033 email: scotchCwaiLnet Shop: 242B E. Meadow Drove, Vail, CO 81657 Tel: 970.476.1957 Fax: 970.476.2660 eslnblisbeJ l984 3•!5.66 Clx.~u.~$ ~ 3 Proaosal to I)eveloa a Better T, ransnortation Solution for the I-70 Corridor Summit Development Group Revised March 12, 2005 SUMMARY The I-70 Mountain Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) released by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in December lacks a financially reasonable and performance-effective rail alternative. This Proposal is to examine one such alternative to meet the CDOT capital cost and other screening criteria and to be more acceptable as transit and less environmentally damaging than those in the Draft PEIS. It is proposed to model the travel demand, examine the economics and assess other related controlling factors for this alternative. This can be done rapidly because the Principal Investigator has been extensively involved in the project and has extensive demand and system modeling experience. The study will confirm with a major vehicle and transit system integrator that, over the past 5 years, transit technology has advanced and is ready for deployment, even in the demanding environment of the I-70 Mountain Corridor. Also the study will show (and preliminary modeling confirms) that transit alone will significantly reduce future congestion in the corridor and both the transit and full highway widening are not needed. This system will have a number of advantages: 1. As an elevated system, it can have lighter, faster cars with "third rail" electrical pickup instead of overhead wires. 2. It need not stay in the highway right-of--way; it can use the most advantage alignment for cost, environmental protection and aesthetics and can maintain the present highway "footprint" without widening. 3. Wildlife can move under it, and many other environmental impacts, such as air pollution, can be avoided or minimized. . 4. It can be constructed iapidly. with minimal highway traffic delays and the attendant problems and impacts for local communities. . Most important, it can be built in phases (as is proposed for the highway) to meet the CDOT capital cost criteria. This study can be completed in time for officials at all levels and the public to assess the inclusion of it into the formal PSIS decision process, and the product of this proposal will have full comparative financial analysis. The Principal Investigator notes that the public in the Hearings process has exhibited a strong demand for early transit development in the Corridor. The Principal Investigator of this Proposal has over 30 years' experience and has four years of involvement in the PEIS study in the subject matter~of this Proposal. It is proposed that a $67,800 study be commenced by March 18 , 2005, and completed by May 12, 2005. PItQPOSAL The I-70 Mountain Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PETS) was released by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) on December 10, 2004. Reviewers have identified a number of serious flaws in the PSIS, including the lack of financially reasonable and performance-effective rail alternatives. One alternative is conceived in this proposal to meet the CDOT capital cost and other screening criteria and to be more acceptable as transit and less environmentally damaging than those in the Draft PSIS. It is proposed here to model the travel demand, examine the economics and assess other related controlling factors for this atternative. This is possible because the Principal Investigator of this Proposal has been extensively involved in the project until recent months, and has extensive demand and system modeling experience. The proposed system could be funded and operated by aPublic-Private Partnership or a State sanctioned agency, to build an elevated rapid trazisit system of proven technology from Golden (6's Avenue Freewayll-70) to west to Edwards in stages and along an alignment near I-70. The initial phase could include adouble-track line to Frisco and spurs to Keystone and Breckenridge. It could then be extended to Copper Mountain, Vail, and Edwards. It could have spurs to to Black Hawk, Central City and Winter Park Resort (tunnel under Berthoud Pass).. Stations for this system would be located within 250 feet of the lifts at Loveland, Arapahoe Basin, Keystone, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, at the Vail Transportation Center, and at Avon. Other stations would be located in EI Rancho, Idaho Springs, Empire, Georgetown, Edwards and the gaming towns. Glenwood Springs and further west could follow. Stations and routes are shown on Map 1. We believe that the selection of the transit proposal, which is not developed in the PETS, will have such positive effects as.compazed to the highway proposals that a study should examine the merits of the transit proposal and compare its benefits and costs to those of the highway proposals. This system will have a number of advantages: 1. As an elevated system, it can have lighter, faster cars"with "third rail" electrical pickup instead of overhead wires. 2. It need not stay in the highway right-of--way; it can use the most advantage alignment for cost, environmental protection and aesthetics and can maintain the present highway "footprint" without widening. 3. Wildlife can move under it, and many other environmental impacts, such as air pollution, can be avoided or minimized. . 4. It can be constructed rapidly with minimal highway traffic delays and the attendant problems and unpacts for local communities. . Most important, it can be built in phases (as is the highway) to meet the CDOT capital cost criteria. 2 Some may believe we can build both the highway alternative while also setting aside rights of way for the transit alternative, and then later, perhaps 2025, build the transit alternative when the transit technology is more advanced and stable. This study will show a different and superior approach. The study will confirm with a major vehicle and transit system integrator that, over the past 5 years, transit technology has advanced and is ready for deployment, even in the demanding environment of the I-'70 Mountain Corridor. And second, the study will show (and preliminary modeling confirms) that transit alone will significantly reduce future congestion in the corridor and both the transit and fuU highway widening are not needed. .The corollary is not true; because of the potemial induced traffic, we can expect highway traffic to grow to congestion levels again in the event the highway is widened without also building transit. "Minimal Action" highway improvements (safety, climbing lanes, etc} should be constructed. The travel modeling we propose to use to show these relationships will use procedures and coefficients found in Appendix C, Draft PSIS. Because the PEIS is a framework document that will define the long range strategy for the corridor, we believe that the transport implementation actions specified in the document must provide for immediate relief and include a major transit system, if the analysis confirms that such a system is ready now and will be effective. This analysis can be done over the next two months, with firm results available for review in May, 2005. CDOT management has consistently said that if transit can be shown to work in the corridor, that it will be considered. The problem with the analysis in the PEIS is that it does not show that transit works in the corridor because the wrong technologies, attributes and alignments were chosen for the analysis. No one should choose transit given the systems offered in the PEIS document. But using the same analysis techniques, the study will show we can design much better transit solutions. 3 This paper will first explain why the draft PEIS is deficient in several important ways, then describe a new alternative, not examined in the PEIS, then provide a work progam to show this new alternative is cheaper, can be built fast, will have less impact on travelers during construction, will carry more people, will have Beater long term capacity, will be closer aligned to the local development objectives of the mountain communities and the Denver Region and will have less environmental impact than the highway alternatives. How can this be true? This is possible because over the last 5 years, while the PEIS was being written, several events were taking place that would make transit possible where before it was not. Those events included: • Development by Bombardier, a foremost transportation ~uipment manufacturer, for Swiss Rail new high speed train sets with lightweight bogies with radially steered wheelsets and car bodies and powerful electric motors using 15000Vo1t AC cwrent. • Development by Bombardier of Automated Rapid Transit for the JF Kennedy International Airport using steel wheels on steel rails but a linear induction motor for propulsion. • Development by CHUBU in Nagoya, Japan of a lower cost maglev vehicle and rail system that started revenue operation in early March, 2005 and which has been subject to two US Federal Transit Administration studies that have made favorable comments for use of this system in the US and in the I-70 Corridor. • Development by TY Lin (an Imernational bridge engineering firm) of a space truss design of an aerial guideway based upon 10 diameter 100KSI steel tubes that can support auy of the vehicles listed above with 100 spans and at a cost that is less than $8 million per mile. • The emergence of "lean manufacturing" first developed as the Toyota Production System but then accepted by the US Aerospace Errterprise that allows for the exact production of heavy and complex products without error or waste. • The creation of new survey techniques, made available through the use of laptop computers that identify the potential market for public transit solutions. • The approval by the voters of the RTD Fastracks program that will open the entire Denver Region to access to the mountain transit system. • The Federal Transportation Bill (first ISTEA) that will allow CDOT to flex $1.6 Billion of FHWA funds for public transit. • The development of innovative finance mechanisms to use future revenue streams from Federal Grant Programs and private sources to fund projects today rather than wait (pay as you go). • The increasing costs of transportation that makes transit now an acceptable alternative to the car and can provide a revenue stream for both operating as well as capital recovery from fares. • The offer by the Black Hawk casinos to offer CDOT $150 IVfillion to provide improved access to their enterprise hence showing that private interests can form private public partnerships when in their best interests. 5 • The land use control of near 90% of the land in the comdor by the Federal Govenvnent makes compact, efficient developments economically feasible and transit-oriented projects marketable. • Rapid and significant population expansion in the Front Range with high projected transit ridership to the mountain areas, both summer and winter. • High growth in the corridor fueled by new retired persons with greater ability to participate in recreational activities in the Corridor. • Development by CDOT of a new travel demand model that shows the large potential demand for public transit and better analyzes the significant existing delays that occur now in the comdor. The model patterned after TRANSIMS is an integrated planning and simulation model and incorporated newly understood concept of induced travel. These events, taken together now make passible what S years ago was quite improbable, the building of a high speed train linking the mountain communities to the Denver Region and Denver International Airport. The study will focus on these three actions and show that the other actions described in the PSIS will have little consequence to purpose and need of the PEIS. The focus will be: On major weekends and holidays should 90000 persons be transported to the mountains and casinos on 120 trains of a public transit system or should they be transported by 18000 Gars using either a widened I-70 or new reversible lanes. The study will use the mobility criteria of the PEIS, a new benefit cost procedure and alternative financial plans. Other factors, including environment, community objectives, and economic development will be left to later studies that may be done during a second phase of this process by either public or private efforts. We know that if we build either highway alternative that people will use the project and that we know fairly accurately what it will cost and how it will operate. But the transit system has many more options. Options such as station locations, aerial or at grade, on I70 or independent (away) from I-70, AC power or DC, maglev or EMU need to be considered. And to be equally effective with the 18000 cars, the trains must be able eventually to carry 90000 persons per day. This is a huge number of people to be on the transit system, at least 57000 crossing the Continental Divide on a winter Saturday in February or March. This will require 400 passengers per train, each train 500 feet long, every 2 minutes to Arapahoe Basin, Keystone, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, Vail or Beaver Creek. This number of passengers multiplied by the miles they travel in the system is at least twice as large as the RTD system on an annual basis. Is this realistic? Can we load and unload this number of people? Will these people actually decide to use this system rather than their cars? Can we pay for this system? What happens in a snow storm with trains crossing the divide every 2 minutes loaded 6 with skiers from Demrefl How do these people get to the system in Denver to start their trip? Will they not overwhelm the RTD system? Can we build this system for the same or less money than the highway alternative? Can we use the same money generated for the alternative as the transit system. Can we build it quicker? Is it safer? This study will use several experts around the world to give us their thoughts plus use local models, consistent with the I-70 PEIS models to project traffic and the consequences of the traffic. We have already done much work. We have already tested this new system and know it will generate the transit ridership to relieve I-70. And the FTA study has proposed a new guideway design that is cheaper and more effective. Using "Lean Manufacturing" methods we can design and build this guideway in only several years. The results of the new study must be made available to local governmental officials, the Public and atl PEIS reviewing agencies in time to affect the PEIS process. This study is needed because the PEIS has failed in several important ways to properly develop an overall process, develop highway alternative correctly and develop a proper transit alternative. Where has the PSIS failed and what will this citizen's study do differently. Some of the significant problems associated with the overall PEIS process are as follows. 1. Socio economic data not consistent with DOLA. The forecasts for western Eagle County will be connected to resect local government development plans and FAA forecasts. 2. Wrong hourly profiles. A new procedure will be developed to transform period volumes developed in planning model to hourly volumes to be used in the simulation model. 3. Better land use plan. A plan that has been reviewed by local governments and the impact of the transit stations on local development policy will be developed and used to test the transit alternative. 4. Tolls given to transit. A toll model based upon SP data collected in the Ridership Survey will be run with the 3 alternatives and projected annually. 5. An improved benefit cost procedure (B/C) perhaps based upon Summit software as developed by the FTA will be used for the alternatives analysis. 6. Transform daily projections to annual projections. 7. Development of two 2055 land use plans and long term consequences of each alternative, highway widening or transit (vision). 8. Consistent speeds between planning and simulation models. Models will be nm through several loops to make speeds consistent. 9. Consistent recreation trips. Persons who are in the travel parties but do not participate in the recreation activity will be added to the model system 10. Census data will be used in the calibration process 11. ITS will be analyzed 12. Freight Plan. Diversion of trucks to the transit system will be examined with the vehicle manufacturer 7 13. Public Participation Process. If they choose, the I-70 Coalition will be requested to help develop a better process. 14. Weather. Delay due to winter storms will be estimated. 15. Safety. Safety issues will be examined in a later phase of the study or by the PSIS. 16. No need for preclusion projects since the transit system alignment is independent of the I-70 alignment. 17. Speed up schedule to improve the EIS process. Te study will suggest ways to accelerate the schedule. 18. Financing. Specific grant programs will be defined. Revenue from fares will be identified when the travel model shows people will pay such faze. The improved design will generate additional fares that can be applied to capital costs. 19. Parking assumptions 20. Second homes tied to NWCOG study and modify trip generation to use second home locations. 21.Overall State Plan. The CDOT 2030 plan will be examined for some confirmation that FHWA monies can be flexed for transit in the corridor and also for the likelihood that the highway alternatives can be f nanced. 22. Purpose and need to narrow. The new development plans wiU reflect local development policy to the greatest extent practical. The study will correct the two highway proposals in the following azeas and methods. 1. Induced growth more than shown. The PSIS document does not show any significant growth in traffic. The proposal will examine why this is occurring and correct the values to reflect the revised volumes. 2. No need for $400 Million curve smoothing. The B/C (Benefit/Cost) procedure will examine the benefits of each of these projects individually. 3. Account for traffic during construction. An estimate of traffic delays for each year will be made between 2007 and 2025 and these will account for construction delays. 4. Account for delay with reversible lane in the non peak direction. This analysis will assume an operating plan consistent with that proposed in the PSIS and estimate the delay in the off peak direction throughout the year. 5. Individual imerchanges will be sunulated in each of the two major alternatives, highway widening and transit and interchange improvements to reduce delay will be identified. 6. With improvemerns the Eagle Interchange, and socio economic date corrected to be consistent with Eagle County and local government plans and FAA forecasts, we postulate that the Eagle County Regional Airport Interchange, the Silver Dollar Metro District Tunnel and SH 119 widening, and SH 9 widening will not be needed according to the B/C analysis. 7. Truck regulations on roads. We will conduct an analysis of banning trucks during 3 hours per day in each direction and what the social cost and benefit is of the regulation. Also, we will test lane restrictions during these periods but with the trucks as aze normally projected. W will conduct a truck survey for winter weekends to improve the forecast of trucks in the model. 8 8. Identify capital cost, schedule and financing for each highway alternative consistent with the overall State budget between 2007 and 2025. These values must be made in order to operate the B/C analysis. Problems with transit alternatives in the PEIS will be corrected the following areas and methods. These include: Vehicles were not powerful enough, go too far in Eagle County and are too slow. Network does not serve most of the major traffic generators directly. System not designed to be easily built, rather, it was a very labor intensive manner as is T-Rex.. Weekday schedule was too big, does not balance between demand and capacity. Guidelines for the Public Transit Alternative are as follows. I. The alternative must cost less that the cheapest highway alternative. Both alternatives need to be shown to have financing, and the product of this proposal will have full comparative financial analysis. The transit financing could use a TIFIA loan to start construction and complete the entire system at one period. 2. Less overall annual travel delay for the entire corridor. Design the system such that the total delay is less than the highway alternatives. Examine the west Eagle County area where too much employment and population was placed in the PEIS. 3. Is structurally feasible. Design the truss such that it can be built in a plant. 4. Vehicles can match specification derived in the study 5. Transit is more cost effective. Develop a better process using Summit software if possible. 6. System can be expanded with shorter headways. Determine the overall line capacity of each vehicle and control system. Con~alting Allocah,~n of Work Task I: Complete Model Calibration The model will be updated by using census information, additional trips to ski areas because of people in the ski party that do not ski. Travel speeds will be confirmed by the speed study described in Exhibit 1. The VISSIM model will be adjusted to reflect these speeds. Prepare annualize process. Agency: SDG/All Traffic Data, Inc. Task 2: Design and then code the new transit alternative alignment We propose that rapid transit as EMU, ART or Maglev be built from the Jefferson Station to Edwards along a route independeirt of I-70 by near it with stations at all of the ski resorts that market to the day skiers from the Colorado Front Range. This alignment will be drawn in TOPO and a 7% grade will be used as a constraint. Tunnels will be needed between I-70 and SH 119 (4~0 feet), Berthoud Pass (4000 feet), Loveland Pass (8000 feet). Costs for tunneling will use CDOT historical values. The system will be designed to maximize ridership by actually serving each major market. Following the definition of the alignment and station locations, the alignment will be coded into the model. 9 The RTD Fastracks Plan will be coded into the model also including a new segment from the Gold Line to Jefferson Station. The line from DIA to DUS and then DUS via the Gold Line and the new section will be assumed to be the same technology and electrical properties. The need for a bypass of DUS will be investigated concerning the demand from the eastern portion of the region, including DIA and the mountains. Travel speeds wiU be calculated on the entire system using RailSim. The design of the system will use as a goa120 second dwell times, 100 MPH maximum cruise speed and 4 feet/second per second acceleration and deceleration. We will assume all of the vehicles are automated and that station platforms are separated from the trains by automatic doors. Stairs, escalators or elevators will be used to cross from one platform to another. Station platforms will be S00 feet long and straight in order to facilitate the use of 6 car trainsets. Agency: SDG Task 3: Confirm Design of Guideway Space Truss For the purposes of this study only a space truss similar to the truss shown on Exhibit 2, developed during the Colorado Maglev Project. The structural engineer will use this concept to confirm the use of 10 inch steel tubes of 100KSI strength. The analysis will assume spans of 100 feet, cerner of bearing to center of bearing, using 4 or 6 foot diameter piers. Since about 300000 tons of steel is required at a cost of $690 Million, the specification of the type of steel (properties} will be important. The structural engineer will confirm the truss design to carry the assumed load of an EMU, ART or maglev vehicle. The width, depth and cross members will be designed. The steel cross member of about 28 feet will be designed that will be placed on top of the pier. No part of the steel elects will be wielded in the field. Only bolts will be allowed to secure the trusses together and bolt the cross member to the pier. , Agency: Gardner Task 4: Confirm Guideway Space Truss Fabrication Costs Following the specification of the steel placement and steel properties, the steel fabricator shall estimate market rates for fabricating of each truss and cross member (which will be welded together in the shop). The cost will assume delivery of steel to the plant by rail and leave the plant by a special vehicle that will ride on the guideway. No trusses will be transported by road. The fabricator must assume that the plant can construct trusses at 25 trusses per day. Task 5: Specify the ~/ehicle.Operating Plan Seven operating plans will be developed for the 120 mile system. Operation of the RTD rapid transit system will be assumed not to place a constraint on the mountain system travel demand. In other words, what ever the frequency and capacity of the mountain system, the RTD system will provide the same frequency and capacity. The seven plans will be winter weekend, winter weekday, summer weekday, summer Saturday, Summer Sunday, mud week day and mud weekend. Generally, the trains will leave Jefferson 10 Station when they are full and go directly to their destination station. Some trains may make one stop. There will be platform screens that will show the evolving schedule. There will be constraints on the schedule to assure trains at least every 15 minutes during peak periods. Speeds on the system will be automatically controlled to insure each train operates within its own block. These plans will then be coded into the planning model. Agency: SDG Task 6: Define the Vehicle and System Specifications of the System The specifications will be defined by running RailSim to determine the speed on each line and the electrical load. Specific load will be determined based upon the estimate from the planning model as adjusted by the 15 minute demand profile curves developed in Task 1. Tramsets at their maximum will be 4-b cars leaving the Jefferson station every 2 minutes to separate destinations. Agency: SDG with review by Bombardier Task 7: Define 2025 and 2055 Socio Economic Data Using trends between 2000 and 2025 make estimates of population and employmern for 2055 as constrained by the build out projections made by Eagle and Summit Counties. Task 8: Run Planning Model for 2025 and 2055 for 3 Alternatives For the highway widening, reversible lane and transit alternatives, run the model and generate data for use in the delay calculation, B/C calculation and travel time tables. Do the same for the transit land use plan. Then do the same for 2055 plan. A total of 12 runs will be made. These will then be run in the traffic simulation program. Task 9: Run Simulation Model for 2025 for 3 Alternatives For the highway widening, reversible lane and transit alternatives, run the model and generate data for use in the delay calculation, B/C calculation and travel time tables. A visual investigation of interchange needs will be conducted with the simulation model. Task 10: Prepare Report A 20 page report will be prepared that will identify the main factors used in making a decision between this alternative and the highway alternaives. This will duplicate the mobility tables found in the PEIS. Task 11: Peer Review Panel Meeting The meeting will be held at the SDG offices and will review the PEIS and the SDC Process. Representatives from FHWA Washington and FHWA Travel Model Improvement Program, RTD, City of Denver, affected counties, media as well a 3-4 Peers will be invited to attend. 11 Task 12: Public Process Endorsements of local community leaders will be solicited during April. Task 13: Consensus Meeting Present the results of the study to the I-70 Coalition at their consensus meeting on May 4- S, 2005. Task 14: Prepare Comments to FHWA and CDOT Prepare final comments to CDOT and FHWA on or before May 24, 2005 with endorsements from various agencies including environmental organizations, chambers of commerce and tourism, local governments, State agencies, Federal agencies and representarives. Governance and Management "The study will be governed and managed by a well,established research consultant; as of this writing, the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project is interested in this role and can be augmented by a Project Manager experienced in transportation and technological research, and fiarther, Consultant Robert H. Frris of Summit Development Group (SDG), the Principal Irrvestigator, will be involved in a team effort. On about the first pf each month, SDG shall submit a bill and progress report and a copy of any deliverables that were due the previous month. Upon approval by the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, a check will be sent to SDG consistent with the budget as maybe modified jointly by the parties. Agencies and persons providing funding for this study will be supplied copies of each bill and progress report. The progress report will identify work completed, potential problems and their resolution." Budget Agency Howly Rate Hours Summit Development Group 150 260 All Traffic Data Gardner (Transit consultant) 100 20 Bombardier 120 40 Peer Review Panel Travel, IVlisc. Expense Publication Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (administration and management) 5000 Total Total 39000 6000 2000 4800 7000 2000 2000 67800 12 (Note: Summit Development Group has purchased $28,000 of modeling software specifically for this project.) he The schedule is premised on receiving at least $20000 by March 18, 2005, and the remainder of the funds in the budget by May 20, 2005. Task 1 Complete Model Calibration Mazch 28 Task 2: Design and then Code the new Transit Alternative Alignment March 28 Task 3: Confirm Design of Guideway Space Truss March 28 Task 4: Confirm Guideway Space Truss Fabrication Costs March 28 Task S: Specify the Vehicle Operating Plan April 4 Task 6: Define the Vehicle and System Specifications of the System APB 4 Task 7: Define the 2025 and 2055 Socio Economic Data March 28 Task 8: Run Planning Model for 2025 and 2055 for 3 Alternatives April 4 Task 9: Run Simulation Model for 2025 for 3 Alternatives April 4 Task 10: Prepare Report April 12 Task 11: Peer Review Panel Meeting ~y 2 Task 12: Public Process April 25-29 Task 13: Consensus Meeting May 4-5 Task 14: Prepare Report and submit to FHWA and CDOT May 12-24 P~pduct The product of this project will be a Report addressing every factor discussed above. It will be made available to other public officials and to the general public. Robert H. Fri~S Resume g~td ~g,gf renc~tters The resume for Robert H. Friis, the principal investigator for this study, together with two references plus an endorsement of the need for further studies such as this one by the Clear Creek County Commissioners can be found as Exhibits in this Proposal. 13 Eahi it 1 Guideway Space Truss EMU will be adaptation of this concept with rails on top of top tubes .e .o.. -~ ~~ Y wi w nar ' L YA ~ ~s i .. ..~. it+i •: F'i't. .:.. + Y ~7P~L ~Q71~ -~~r irY~rl~~Y~~~d~M rr iyiO~1Y Y ~r ~ M! o er^.u4.r r nw.a~w . war rirr ~~~A7fir W M ~ ~~ 14 Eg6ibjt 2 Resume Robert H. Frtis Robert H. Friis President Summit Development Group, LLC 1514 Blake Street, Suite 201 Denver, CO 80202 303572-0360 (office) 303-572-0366 (fax} bobfriisCa~msn.cQm Education University of Colorado, BS (Civil Engineering) 1968 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, ME (Civil Engineering) 1971 Graduate coursework at Stanford University (Operations Research, 1969) and University of Colorado (MBA Program, I979-80) Seminar on Individual Choice Behavior, MIT Professional Institute, 2000 Seminar on Lean Thinking, The Cambridge University-MIT Institute, 2004 Experience Summit Development Group, LLB, President, May, 2004-Present The firm provides consulting services for alternatives analysis and design, travel modeling, benefit cost analysis and land developmenrt using new urbanism concepts. J. F. S,~o bpd ~s~ociates Transportation Systems Engineer, February, 2000-May, 2004 Developed a multimodal travel demand model for the area from Wyoming to Pueblo and DIA to Utah. Participated in alternative development and evaluation of alternatives described in the I-70 Mountain Programmatic Em+ironmental Impact StatementAuthority. TransPlan Associate, Transportation Engineer, May, 1993-May, 1994 Developed several models for the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Council and for the effort to redevelop Lowry Air Force Base. Deriverr Rgg_ional Council of Governments, Chiei; Transportation Section, July 1971- September, 1977 15 Responsible for maintaining the technical transportation planning process for the Demrer Region through both technical analysis and committee structures. Developed the first multimodal model used in Colorado. Conducted the first landside study for the moving of Stapleton International Airport. Provided travel forecasts for the Regional Transportation District and the Colorado Department of Transportation. Mr. Friis has also built over 60 homes throughout the Denver region over the past 20 years, including several streets in Aurora and Arapahoe County. Registration: Colorado Professional Engineer 10892 Membership Urban Land Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, Congress For The New Urbanism, American Planning Association, Transportation Research Board (National Academy of Sciences) 16 E i i 3 Clear Creek County Endorsement of Proposed Rail Alternative Study February 16, 2005 Albert G. Melcher 7504 East Jefferson Drive Denver, CO 80237 Re: Proposal to Develop and Analyze a Feasible Transit Alternative Dear Bert: Thank you for forwarding to us Robert Friis's proposal to Develop and Analyze a Feasible Transit Alternative for I-70 Mountain Corridor (Draft, 2-1-05). The tremendous importance of the I-70 expansion demands a thorough analysis of all options; we are on record of being concerned that the draft PSIS does not do that. We, in part in collaboration with the I-70 Coalition, are seeking an analysis of the options, and have encouraged others to undertake the effort as well. We understand that Mr. Friis brings an expertise and experience generally not available to the public reviewing the draft PEIS, and we support his effort to bring new thinking to the transit alternatives. Thank you. Sincerely, CLEAR CREEK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Harry Dale, Chairman Kevin J. O'Malley, Commissioner Joan Drury, Commissioner 17 ah~b;~,4 Letters of Reference fot Robert Friis ~~ Y ~ 9 4E {; A y - _~ •~ 66 iJNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAMS BERKELEY • DAMS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERGED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ Colorado D,e~artment of Transportation, Transportation Engineer, August 1992- February1993 and August, 1995-February, 1996 Developed the Skiers Express Bus System that was operated by the Colorado Department of Transportation during 1993-1995. Evaluated the travel, land use and financial feasibility of the E-470 Toll Road for the purpose of CDOT providing a loan to the tJNIVERSiTY OF CALIFORNIA, DAMS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLICY ONE SHIELDS AVENUE DAVI5, CALIFORNIA 95616-8576 March 4, 2005 To Whom It May Concern: This is a letter to recommend Bob Frlis for a project modeling alternatives in the I-70 Corridor. He is certainly qualified, in fact, he is almost uniquely qualified to do this work. Bob is a registered professional engineer in Colorado. He worked for DRCOG for six years in the 1970s and developed their first multimodel travel model, while in charge of all travel forecasting for the region. In subsequent employment as a consultant and for Colorado DOT, he developed other travel models in Colorado and evaluated toll roads and skier bus systems. Most recently, he worked for JF Sato Associates and developed amulti-state travel model including the I-70 Corridor in Colorado. He was also in charge of the modeling work for the Colorado DOT's I-70 Corridor draft Environmental Impact Statement project. It was 18 during this period, 2000-2003, that I met Bob, as I was on the national advisory committee for this project. I develop and test travel models and urban models at the University of California at Davis and had many technical conversations with Bob, during this project. I was impressed by his broad knowledge of travel modeling theory and his mastery of the commonly used travel modeling software packages. I also found that he has a good knowledge of the various transit technologies applicable to this difficult corridor. More specifically, he and I discussed his work with TransCAD and how to represent the various modes correctly. Bob showed a great detailed understanding of the software and of how to apply it to this broad range of transit and auto modes. I strongly recommend Bob for any modeling work related to this Corridor, due to his strong background with the modeling and with the available modes. Sincerely, Robert A Johnston Professor March 9, 2005 March 9, 2005 Harvey Atchison 5804 S. Prescott Street Littleton, CO 80120 Robert H. Friis Summit Development Group, LLC 1514 Blake Street, Suite 201 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Bob: Yes, I am happy to provide a reference letter for you concerning your abilities as a transportation systems engineer and manager. As the former Transportation Development Director for the Colorado Department of Transportation during the 1970s to 1990x, I have had many occasions to work with you on strategic planning, travel demand forecasting and management. During the 70x, when you were the Chieiy Transportation Section, Denver Regional Council of Governments you advised CDOT on the systems portion of the Colorado 19 Action Plan, which provided the direction concerning how we practice transportation in Colorado. You were responsible for providing the forecasts for both RTD and CDOT during the transportation plan restatement process that developed the major roadway and transit plans for the Denier Region. You represecrted the 40 member local governanents of DRCOG on the Regional Review Team, and used your position to manage the 3 agency work programs in an integrated way. During the I-470 controversy created by Governor Lamm, you provided sound technical advise to the 3 planning agencies, DRCOG, RTD and CDOT and to the FHWA as a political solution to the controversy emerged. During the 1990s, I hired you twice to provide technical modeling and planning experience to CDOT. The first time was to provide the Transportation Commission advice concerning the financial and economic feasibility of the E-470 Authority. The Authority had asked CDOT for a $40 Million loan. Second, to develop skiers express bus program to help relieve congestion on I-70. I heartily recommend you to conduct your proposed study of transit and highway solutions in the I-70 Corridor. Yours truly, Harvey Atchison 20 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20009 202-887-3500 March 14, 2005 Robert H. Friis Summit Development Group, LLC 1514 Blake Street, Suite 201 Denver CO 80202 Deaz Bob: I have reviewed your proposal to Develop a Better Transportation Solution for the I-70 Comdor, dated March 12, 2005. It outlines a work program to evaluate alternatives in the I-70 Mountain Corridor that could help to ensure needed consideration of oprions to simply widening highways. The proposal is ambirious in the time and resources allotted. However, as a transportation modeler and travel demand analyst with 30 yeazs of experience, I have been impressed in several meetings with you that you have appropriate knowledge of the problems and opportunities, as well as the experience and skill to advance this iniriarive and produce a useful end product that will ensure a more effective environmental review process with expanded consideration of public transportation alternatives. I encourage efforts that would enable the execution of this proposal and wish you the best in identifying resources and sponsors to advance this work in the needed timeframe to help provide the public, local officials, and decision-makers with a more fully-fleshed out range of choices in the T-70 Mountain Corridor. Sincerely, ~'1~ Michael Replogle Transportation Director Environmental Defense Colorado Preservation, Inc. publishes Colorado's Most Endangered Places List. One of five places are on the2005 list is: `HISTORIC COMMUNITIES IN THE I-70/CLEAR CREEK EXPANSION CORRIDOR." This County will bear the brunt of construction impacts to 2025; Summit and Eagle Counties will be next if we do not develop transit. The CDOT preferred alternatives all show 15 years of construction starting in 2010. After completion, the 2025 traffic delays and congestion will be the same as today's. We'll have more Lanes, 15 years of construction and traffic delays, and no long-range improvement. Rapid Mass Transit is the only reasonable solution -not in 60 or 40 or 20 years but soon. WE RECOMMEND THAT CITIZENS 1. Contact both CDOT (www.i70mtncorridor.com) and your local officials, who can influence a "Corridor Consensus" process now underway. 2. Oppose widening of I-70 because such a project would severely damage: water quality, scenery, tourism-related business, wildlife habitat and migration, historic preservation, and the quality of life for local residents. Ask for "Minimal Lnprovements." 3. State a strong preference for a fixed guideway system transit alternative as first priority. AN ALTERNATIVE: The PEIS lacks a financially reasonable and performance-effective rail alternative. There is a Proposal is to examine one such alternative to meet the CDOT capital cost and other screening criteria and to be more acceptable as transit and less environmentally damaging than those in the Draft PEIS. This system will have a number of advantages: 1. As an elevated system, it can have lighter, faster cars with "third rail" electrical pickup instead of overhead wires. 2. It need not stay in the highway right-of--way; it can use the most advantage alignment for cost, environmental protection and aesthetics and can maintain the present highway "footprint" without widening. 3. Wildlife can move under it, and many other environmental impacts, such as air pollution, can be avoided or minimised. . 4. It can be constructed rapidly with minimal highway traffic delays and the attendant problems and impacts for local communities. . 5. Most important, it can be built in phases (as is proposed for the highway) to meet the CDOT capital cost criteria and using existing proven technologies. The Principal Investigator of this Proposal has over 30 years' experience and has four yeazs of involvement in the PEIS study in the subject matter of his Proposal. He proposed that a $b7,800 study be commenced by Mazch 18~', 2005, and completed by May 12, 2005. This warrants a "hard look." Funding support by citizens is being sought and an established nonprofit organization will receive contributions and contract with the Principal Investigator. For further information on communicating, helping or assisting in the rail study, please contact this Environmental Coordinator: Bert Melcher Albert G. Melcher MS, APA 7504 East Jefferson Drive Denver CO 80237 Phone 303-770-3683 FAX 303-770-3241 a.melcher@comcast.~zet 2 Your Transportation Future: I-70 Mountain Corridor . Our glorious Rocky Mountains are a major reason why we live here and why visitors come. Now, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is. nearing a decision on the transportation- and environmental future for I-70 Corridor. This is via the Progranunatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA.) It's probable that CDOT will want only more highway lanes. The irreversible and non- strstainable implications and the prospective damage to the environment, communities and health of this aze contrary to all principles of environmental quality. In many Hearings and meetings, the. message from the public is overwhelmingly: "~Ve want transit now. We don't wand mare concrete." Why a"highways-only" alternative is unacceptable -13 good reasons. (1) More lanes will cause health impacts from auto/truck air pollution and construction dust; health risks haven't been assessed; health isn't even listed as an impact of concern! . (2) Historical, recreational and cultural values will be destroyed or severely damaged; use will be impaired by noise and other impacts. (3) The added highway noise will be intolerable for residents and tourists. Noise reduction walls: people in cars can't enjoy the scenery -all they'll see is the inside of walls -and people outside will see the ugliness of the walls y (4) More traffic and lanes - a bigger "footprint" -means more damage to water quality, rivers, wetlands; wildlife habitat will be fragmented and migration routes disrupted: (5) Hazardous materials, such as heavy metals, will be released when 23 millsites in Cleaz Creek County are disturbed by highway construction, reducing water quality and banning trout streams. Sand and de-icing chemicals will cause damage in all streams. . (fi} Tourism will suffer during the 15 years of construction and afterwards; the Corridor will lose the qualities that bring tourism to Colorado. (7) Safety can be improved with spot improvements; there is no need to pave more lanes. (8) CDOT appears to base a decision only on capital cost: environmental and social values aze not proposed for'consideration, but they must be the basis for sound decisions. (9) We favor a High Speed Elevated Train as the best solution for this Corridor: it should be constructed instead of more highway lanes or a bus guideway. (10) CDOT should have sought`a "Corridor Vision" in the EIS process but did not. (11) Benefit/cost and other economic analyses should be used to compare alternatives. Economic studies by others indicate that economic benefits of building transit initially, not later, provides the best net benefits over costs. (12) CDOT uses a 20-yeaz funding period, which favors highway paving. A longer period of funding is honest: transit is typically financed with 30-year bonds. (13) The Draft PEIS has toa much inaccurate and misleading information to be acceptable as a document to be used in decision-making; sections on water quality, streams, wildlife habitat, communities, Environmental 3ustice, scenic impairment, etc all have significant flaws. The analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts, including analysis of past actions and actions by others, is also inadequate. ~p~;~,~ 3•c5 • bs t,P~cw+, ~t 3 SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 1892 Rocky Mountain Chapter 1536 Wynkoop Street Suite 4c Denver, CO 80202 Phone 303-861-8819 Fax 303-861.2436 www.rmc.sierraclub.org Rocky Mountain Chanter, Sierra Club, Posifio_n Statement on I-70 Mountain Corridor Draft FEIS The Executive Committee of the Rocky Mountain Chapter, Sierra Club, has adopted (February 10, 2005) a formal position regarding the Alternatives under consideration in the PEIS as follows: 1. Regarding the Preferred Alternative: we adopter position o -6erridor: o Fixed Guideway Transit System, using a rail technology and not bus fiaced guideway o No six-lane highway improvements; utilize selected highway improvements only o Enhanced Bus Operations to supplement Fixed Guideway Transit System o Intermodal Transfer Centers o Travel Demand Management o Travel System Management o Enhanced Air Service o Consider Alternate Routes outside of the Highway Right-of--way as appropriate. 2. Regarding the non-CDOT Train Alterna ive: we encourage and support the development of a planning study to examine the feasibilituch alternative. 3. We urge CDOT to utilize environmental criteria in the final screening and analysis instead of only capital cost. Full environmental costs must be included. If, in the Hearings or during the Comment period, there are any public comments regarding the inadequacy of environmental findings, the Final PEIS should not be issued until the public has a chance to review the reactions and further re-studies of such concerns. 4. The PEIS process has not identified a "vision" of what the mountains will be for future generations. ~ How much mountain sprawl do we want? How much pavement do we want? How many parking lots do we want? These issues need to be resolved before any irreversible highway construction is approved, and these cannot be deferred to Tier 2 studies.