HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-07 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION AGENDA
�1�
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
11:00 A.M., JULY 7, 2009
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied
upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item.
Public comments on work session item may be solicited by the Town
Council
1. ITEM/TOPIC: Recognition of Town of Vail Safety Committee. (5 min.)
PRESENTER(S): John Power
2. ITEM/TOPIC: Site Visit to Vail Village Inn Special Development District #6,
100 East Meadow Drive and Gore Creek Drive, Re: Vail Village Loading
and Delivery Review of Pilot Program (Meadow Drive, Courier Areas) and
Update on Long-Range Recommendations (45 min.)
PRESENTER(S): George Ruther Greg Hall Steve Wright Suzanne Silverthorn
3. ITEM/TOPIC: PEC/DRB Update (15 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
4. ITEM/TOPIC Commission on Special Events (CSE) Strategic Plan
revisions. (15 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Sybill Navas
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The CSE is seeking feedback on the draft
of the revised Strategic Plan.
BACKGROUND: The current plan was adopted for the time period 2006-2009.
The updated plan has been revised with input from the Vail Economic Advisory
Committee (VEAC), the Vail Local District Advisory Committee (VLMDAC), and the
Event Review Committee (ERC). Following the discussion with the Town Council,
the CSE hopes to adopt the revised plan at their meeting on August 5, 2009 and
will bring the finalized version back to the council in the fall for their final approval
by resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No formal action is being requested.
5 ITEM/TOPIC: Fire Department Impact Fee Presentation. (30 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Mark Miller Judy Camp Tom Pippin (BBC)
�i�i2oo9
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen and discuss Impact Fee
presentation by Tom Pippin (BBC Research and Consulting). Provide feedback
regarding approval to move forward with development of an ordinance relative to
imposing a Fire Department impact fee for the of Town of Vail.
BACKGROUND: Earlier this year (1st supplemental) the TOV Council approved
funds to conduct a Fire Department Impact Fee study for the Town of Vail. BBC
Research and Consulting was hired to conduct the study, having completed similar
studies in Eagle County and extensively throughout Colorado. Vail is the only town
in Eagle County that does not impose a Fire Department impact fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review, approve, and provide direction to the
Town Attorney to develop an ordinance for imposing an impact fee for fire
protection in the Town of Vail, based on the recommendations provided by BBC.
6. ITEM/TOPIC: Recap of winter 2008-2009 parking stats and presentation of
parking survey results. A review and discussion of current Town Council
parking policies as it relates to both the up coming season and the longer
term future. (60 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall Chris Caress, RRC Inc.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the reports, listen to the
presentation, ask questions and provide any direction on overall parking policy
objectives, and goals for the task force and begin dialogue regarding long term
parking solutions as we start the to the Ford Park parking study.
BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail through the boulder consulting firm of RRC.
Inc., conducted a parking intercept survey in 2009 for the purposes of updating
parking user demographic profiles, ask parking experience satisfaction levels and
to determine behavior preferences. The survey results are complete. The town
council in adopting the parking task force recommendations for the coming year
reviews the Parking Policy Objectives for the coming season. We are asking the
council to review the policies, review last seasons parking results and provide
direction as we undertake parking task force meetings later this month and begin
work on long term parking solutions with the Ford Park Study set to begin later this
month as well.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt, or modify the staff recommendation
regarding parking policies and task force goals. Provide preliminary input on longer
term parking and transportation solutions.
ITEM/TOPIC: LionsHead Transit Center Program Needs. (30 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen/discuss transit program needs and
affirm direction.
BACKGROUND: The LionsHead Transit Center design team will present the
findings on the program needs for the LionsHead Transit Center, specifically
regarding the necessary number of buses and shuttles to accommodate current
and future needs. This program need will allow the team to evaluate concepts for
operation and functionality.
�i�i2oo9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Listen/discuss transit program needs and affirm
direction.
8. ITEM/TOPIC: Parking Survey Update and Review of Current Council
Policies and Request for Direction for 2009-10 Ski Season. (60 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Chris Cares Greg Hall
9. ITEM/TOPIC: Discussion of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2009, an
ordinance making supplemental appropriations and budget adjustments to
the Town of Vail General Fund, Captial Projects Fund, Real Estate Transfer
Tax Fund, Dispatch Services Fund and Heavy Equipment Fund of the 2009
Budget for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the said adjustments
as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (20 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Kathleen Halloran
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide input regarding the 3rd
supplemental of 2009, Ordianance No. 14, Series of 2009, in preparation for
approving the second reading during the evening session.
BACKGROUND: To be provided in a separate memo.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council approves
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2009, upon second reading this evening.
10. ITEM/TOPIC: Information Update. (15 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer
11. ITEM/TOPIC: Matters from Mayor Council. (15 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Town Council
12. ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(b)
(e) to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property
interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to
determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Re: Draft
agreement amending the Development Agreement with Open Hospitality
Partners ("OHP") pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of the
Lionshead Parking Structure. (20 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
13. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (4:30 p.m.)
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT OT CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL
BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, JULY 21, IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
7/7/2009
CHAMBERS.
�i�izoo9
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Recognition of Town of Vail Safety Committee.
PRESENTER(S): John Power
�i�i2oo9
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Site Visit to Vail Village Inn Special Development District #6, 100 East Meadow
Drive and Gore Creek Drive, Re: Vail Village Loading and Delivery Review of Pilot Program
(Meadow Drive, Courier Areas) and Update on Long-Range Recommendations
PRESENTER(S): George Ruther Greg Hall Steve Wright Suzanne Silverthorn
ATTAC H M ENTS
Loading Delivery
�i�i2oo9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Stan Zemler, Steve Wright, George Ruther, Greg Hall, Suzanne
Silverthorn
SUBJECT: Vail Village Loading and Delivery Review of Pilot Program (Meadow
Drive, Courier Areas) and Update on Short-Term and Long-Range
Recommendations
DATE: July 7, 2009
1. BACKGROUND
On March 17, 2009, the Vail Town Council voted 6-0 to approve a staff recommendation
to:
Retain a modified loading and delivery system for the Village Core from
March 18 to July 7, 2009.
Initiate a pilot program for East Meadow Drive from March 18 to July 7, 2009.
Initiate a series of long-term recommendations to improve the flow of
deliveries throughout the Village.
Return to the Town Council on July 7, 2009 to review the status of the
policies and retain or modify as needed.
2. OVERVIEW OF VAIL VILLAGE LOADING AND DELIVERY POLICIES
Village Core Program
Loading and delivery policies for the Village Core (Bridge Street, Gore Creek Drive,
Hanson Ranch Road) have been evolving following the opening of the underground
Mountain Plaza facility and its 17 public bays during the 2008-09 ski season. Decision
points have included the following:
On November 18, 2008, the Vail Town Council approved a pilot program for
Village Core loading and delivery policies to begin January 9, 2009.
On March 17, 2009, the Vail Town Council reviewed the Village Core pilot
program and voted to retain a modified loading and delivery system which
remains in place as of July 7, 2009:
o On-street delivery available from 4 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on Bridge Street and
from 4 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. (shortened from 11:30 a.m.) on Gore Creek
Drive.
o Designated courier areas for Fed Ex, UPS, USPS, etc., to be reviewed by
the Vail Town Council on July 7:
Gore Creek Drive, north side, east end of Gorsuch Building from 6
a.m. to 6 p.m.
Two spaces at the south end of the Willow Bridge Road loading
zone (next to Checkpoint Charlie) for use by the couriers
from10:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Convert the loading zone on East Meadow Drive in front of Vail
Boot and Shoe to allow couriers only from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
�i�i2oo9
1
a-i-i
o Hanson Ranch Road across from the Christiania Lodge available for 30
minutes of unattended parking for vehicles less than 20 feet in length
from 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. No parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. Also available for
5-minute attended parking.
o Mill Creek Court Building loading zone available for vehicles less than 20
feet in length by permit only between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. No parking from 6
p.m. to 6 a.m.
o Outlying, dispersed loading and delivery options available from 6 a.m. to
6 p.m., including use of the Mountain Plaza facility. In the event of a
closure on Vail Pass, on-street delivery hours may be extended as
needed. The list of numerous exceptions developed previously applies,
as well as the Code of Conduct for drivers.
East Meadow Drive Pilot Program
On March 17, 2009, the Vail Town Council voted 6-0 to implement a pilot program for
loading and delivery on East Meadow Drive to be reviewed on July 7, 2009, as follows:
o On-street loading and delivery on the street's north side from 5 a.m. to 8
a.m. as designated. Restrictions apply. Drivers enter from the east from
Village Center Chute or Checkpoint Charlie to access and must not
impede bus service which begins at 6 a.m.
o Use the techniques identified in the Code of Conduct to reduce noise
impacts. Amend delivery regulations for summertime use if necessary.
Discussion to occur during July 7 Town Council review.
o Continue police education and facilitation program using enforcement
measures when appropriate and warranted.
3. EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT POLICIES
The Village Core and East Meadow Drive pilot programs appear to be successful. The
loading and delivery zones have provided sufficient time and adequate access for
vendors with bulky or voluminous loads. The small package delivery services (USPS,
Fed-Ex, UPS) have been complimentary of our efforts in addressing their unique needs.
The merchants also appear to be pleased with the results. The police department has
received few complaints regarding these initiatives. This is attributed to collaborative
planning through community partnerships coupled with balanced enforcement efforts.
The removal of the ad hoc loading zone on the south side of La Bottega has eliminated
most noise complaints from nearby residents. There is still an impact to visitors that are
walking on Bridge Street or Gore Creek Drive as they negotiate the loading and delivery
vehicles parked on the streets prior to 10:30 a.m. Access to the overflow loading zone
on the south side of Gore Creek Drive east of Bridge Street remains a challenge as
vehicles are either backing down the street (i.e., beepers) or driving the wrong way on a
one-way street.
4. UPDATE ON LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS MID-2009-2010
On March 17, 2009, the Vail Town Council approved a request by the town staff to
pursue a list of long-term recommendations to improve loading and delivery efficiencies.
An update on the recommendations is as follows:
�i�i2oo9
2
a-i-z
Work with private property owners and delivery drivers to pursue increased use
of existing on-site loading zones, i.e. Village Plaza, One Willow Bridge Road, Vail
Plaza Hotel, etc.
Update: Since the March 17, 2009, Vail Town Council meeting severa/ key
actions have been completed to improve loading and delivery efficiencies from
the Vail Plaza Hotel. For instance, a new garage entrance door has been
installed into the west wall of the Vail Plaza Phase 111 Condominiums. This new
16-foot wide entrance door now permits direct and legal access between the
upper level of the Phase lll parking garage and the existing loading and
delivery dock located within the Vail Plaza Hotel. This access is governed by
an existing perpetual easement for ingress and egress by and between Phases
lll and IV of the Vail Village Inn.
Additionally, the width of the alley way located between the Vail Plaza Hotel
and the Vail Plaza Phase lll Condominiums has been increased to thirty-four
inches (34") clear. Thirty-four inches (34") is the minimum width of the existing
service door providing access to the alley way.
Proceed with the installation at town expense of a lift to connect the lower level of
the Vail Plaza Hotel loading and delivery area to the Village Inn Plaza
commercial core area. At such time as ANY redevelopment (i.e., SDD
amendment) occurs in any phase of the Village Inn Plaza (SDD #6), the applicant
would be required as a condition of approval to reimburse the town for this
expense. The lift is estimated to cost between $40,000 and $45,000. This
recommendation requires permission from the property owners association to
allow access to private property. Staffs recommendation is based on the
following considerations:
o The Town of Vail is a property owner within SDD (Phase V).
o The Town of Vail will seek funding partners from within the SDD.
o The installation of the lift will significantly improve the function and flow of
loading and delivery within the SDD and serves a compelling public
interest.
o The Town of Vail will place a lien on the properties ensuring full
reimbursement in the future.
o The Town of Vail should take a leadership role in resolving this issue.
Update: Since the March 17, 2009, Vail Town Council meeting staff has met on
numerous occasions with potentially affected parties in an attempt to combine
efforts and reso/ve the vertical circulation needs for loading and delivery
within the established Special Development District A local contractor and
architect working on behalf of several residential property owners within the
District have identified a likely location to install an indoor freight elevator.
Additional commercial property owners have conceptually acknowledged a
willingness to contribute financially towards the cost to construct the indoor
freight elevator improvements. Clearly, their willingness to contribute is largely
dependent on the cost and timing of the project and the town's willingness to
permanently remove loading and delivery activity from East Meadow Drive. At
this time it is estimated that the cost of construction will be approximately
$40,000 -$50,000. This cost does not include any annual maintenance or
operating expenses.
�i�i2oo9
3
2-1-3
Lastly, staff has met with a residential/commercial property owner during a
pre-application meeting that has expressed an interest to amend an existing
major amendment approval. As a result, the potential applicant has
acknowledged a willingness to financially contribute towards the completion
of the loading and delivery circulation needs as a likely public benefit Again,
the request would be to remove loading and delivery activities from East
Meadow Drive if the Town accepts the financial contribution. At this time
terms of a real estate sa/es transaction are being finalized.
If a cooperative arrangement can be reached, the advantages and
disadvantages of the new indoor freight elevator would be:
Advantaqes
The final vertical connection to a multi-million dollar on-site loading and
delivery system will be completed.
Loading and delivery activities could be removed entirely from the
pedestrian street (East Meadow Drive).
Special Development District #6 will comply with the requirements of the
Town of Vail Zoning Regulations.
No one owner or business within the District will have to bear the full cost
of the shared loading and delivery system.
Greater compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan recommendations
regarding creating a pedestrianized village with dispersed loading and
delivery facilities.
Reduced noise, odor and congestion from delivery vehicles on East
Meadow Drive and improved visual aesthetics in the Village.
Creates multiple routes and means for accessing the various stores and
businesses with the District.
Disadvantapes
The new route and system will require a shift in loading and delivery habits
that exist today.
The indoor improvements require the establishment of mutually agreeable
easements for pedestrian access and maintenance and operating
agreements.
Work with affected parties to design a permanent solution for loading spaces on
Gore Creek Drive east of Bridge Street to address acknowledged deficit.
Update: Since the March 17, 2009, Vail Town Council meeting staff has explored
options for creating a permanent loading space on Gore Creek Drive east of
Bridge Street. To that end, staff has prepared preliminary drawings for the
construction of a new 8-foot wide loading zone on the south side of Gore Creek
Drive next to the Mill Creek Court Building. This area is presently used as an
overflow loading zone. This area of Gore Creek Drive presently allows for 30-
minute permit parking for vehicles no larger than 20 feet in length from 6 a.m. to 6
p.m. Staff has shared the preliminary drawings with many of the adjacent
property owners and potentially affected parties in the area.
4
7/7/2009
2-1-4
Advantaqes
Converting the current landscaped area to a loading and delivery parking
area provides a safer way to accommodate the movement of goods, as well
as maintain the flow of vehicles and pedestrians through the area.
Improvement takes place entirely on Town property.
Allows for removal of the existing courier zone at the east end of the
Gorsuch Building.
Improvement access to and from the Vail Rowhouse parking spaces.
Disadvantaqes
Requires Town expenditure to cover construction costs and ongoing
operating costs for snowmelt.
Reduces greenscape area inconsistent with the Town's adopted Zoning
Regulations.
Reduces visual access to businesses in the Mill Creek Building.
May pre-empt future solutions due to its permanency.
Conflicts with Vail Village Master Plan Goa/s and Recommendations.
Requires vehicles to access the new parking area through pedestrianized
portions of Vail Village.
Work with affected parties to prepare a recommendation for incremental
adjustments in the loading and delivery policies to accommodate the future use
of loading docks at Solaris on East Meadow Drive.
Update: This work will commence before the close of the 2009-10 ski season.
5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests Town Council consideration of the following recommendations:
Retain current loading and delivery policies for Village Core and East Meadow
Drive through the remainder of 2009 and into mid-2010 with interim modifications
as needed. Likely modifications would result should the indoor freight elevator
improvements be completed with the Vail Village Inn Special Development
District, #6.
Provide direction to staff regarding Town Council's interest in gathering additional
details on the option to construct a loading and delivery pullout on the south side
of Gore Creek Drive. (i.e., DRB/PEC review, construction cost estimates,
operating cost estimates, involvement with the adjacent property owners and
future users, etc)
Direct staff to evaluate opportunities for future incremental adjustments in the
Vail Village loading and delivery policies upon completion of Solaris in July 2010.
The four bays at Solaris will complete the Village core public improvements for
dispersed loading and delivery which will include a total of 12 public bays
(located at Mountain Plaza, Vail Plaza Hotel and Solaris), estimated at $15
million in public improvements invested by the developers, and ongoing
contractual cost-share investments by the Town for operation of the Mountain
Plaza facility.
5
7/7/2009
2-1-5
6. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
Review the recommendations regarding loading and delivery policies in Vail Village and
approve or modify as needed.
ATTACHMENTS
Drawing of recommended improvements to Gore Creek Drive.
6
7/7/2009
2-1-6
o�� 4
�i32 2' CONCRETE PAN
a
B" CONCRETE o �i 6pA _�`'—r
BAND EG a EL7�4
�s.� i ,f Rk
/fi ii�i
RESET EXISTING PAVERS
f r
CONCRETE UNIT �j i 5
PAVERS,80mm �'.y� +�.��""-t i��•
i� 75 7 GIBkiE
E1.75.8
t J 7 EG 75 9 �v
r -I- r'� R
4 5 i. ,r Y:s'
...ti, �7.7
ti f 7 a ..a j ^R.i,y �-�T.f�
1 ���f1 ��r� J J .77.$ 77.8 "....�,E' rv�
6" CONCRETE �1 �i` e '"w 7.
CURB �'J
1. r ��i� R5 w,
o -J' y t 7
I
GRADE MATCH CENE
EG
77.1r
RELOCATE EXISTING TREE
ON SITE
NOTE: EXISTING PERENNIALS TO BE SALVAGED AND
RELOCATED ON 51TE PER DIRECTION OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
q t
JUNE'i7, 2009 p��'��:�
1 r
row� o� vAiL ,7 �iL� CRE��e CoU�� �Ui��I�vG
�EPe��rmEtvr o� Pusuc woR�s Lo��i�uc ANO ����v��� PAR�tONc
PROPOSIED LAYOUT
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: PEC/DRB Update
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
ATTAC H M ENTS
June 17, 2009 DRB Meeting Results
June 22, 2009 PEC Meeting Results
�i�izoo9
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
PUBLIC MEETING
r1 June 17, 2009
V�U� Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado, 81657
PROJECT ORIENTATION 1:30pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Mike Dantas
Pete Dunning
Tom DuBois
Brian Gillette
Libby Plante
SITE VISITS 2:OOpm
1. Azcarraga Residence, 4768 Meadow Drive
2. Rucksack Building, 288 Bridge Street
3. Bull/Ellis Residences, 302 Gore Creek Drive
4. West Vail Fire Station, 2399 North Frontage Road West
PUBLIC HEARING TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:OOpm
1. Yarde Residence DRB090127 5 minutes Rachel
Final review of changes to approved plans (stone veneer)
1895 Meadow Ridge Road/Lot 17, Buffehr Creek
Applicant: Brian Gillette
ACTION: Approved
MOTION: Dantas SECOND: Plante VOTE: 4-0-1 (Gillette recused)
2. Rucksack Building DRB090172 10 minutes Rachel
Final review of changes to approved plans (entry)
288 Bridge Street, Units C-1, C-2, C-3/Lot E-F, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects
ACTION: Denied
MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Dantas VOTE:5-0-0
FINDING(S):
The Design Review Board found that the proposed entry did not comply with the Vail Village
Urban Design Guidelines.
3. Bull Residence DRB090147 5 minutes Nicole
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows, doors)
302 Gore Creek Drive, Units 402 403 (Mill Creek Condos)/Part of Lot I, Block 5A, Vail Village 5 Filing
Applicant: Snowdon Hopkins Architects
ACTION: Approved
MOTION: Dantas SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 5-0-0
Page 1
7/7/2009
3-1-1
4. Ellis Residences DRB090153 5 minutes Nicole
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows, doors)
302 Gore Creek Drive, Units 203 303 (Mill Creek Condos)/Part of Lot I, Block 5A, Vail Village 5 Filing
Applicant: Snowdon Hopkins Architects
ACTION: Approved
MOTION: Dantas SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 5-0-0
5. Teddington/Cagle Residence DRB090151 5 minutes Bill
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (exterior materials)
1517 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 12, Block 3, Vail Valley Filing 1
Applicant: TrD Architects
ACTION: Approved
MOTION: Dantas SECOND: Plante VOTE: 4-0-1 (DuBois recused)
6. Azcarraga Residence DRB090175 5 minutes Bill
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (pool, deck, landscaping)
4768 Meadow Drive/Lot 1, Block 7, Bighorn 5th Addition
Applicant: Even Flow Pools
ACTION: Approved with condition(s)
MOTION: Gillette SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 5-0-0
CONDITION(S):
1. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for Staff review that includes a foot-for-
foot replacement, or transplanting, of the removed evergreen trees and additional planting in the
western berm.
2. The applicant shall improve the existing volleyball court or remove and re-vegetate the court
area prior to requesting a final planning inspection.
7. West Vail Fire Station DRB090177 30 minutes Bill
Conceptual review of new construction (fire station)
2399 North Frontage Road West/Parcel A, Vail Das Schone Filing 1
Applicant: Belford Watkins Group
ACTION: Conceptual no vote
STAFF APPROVALS
Gilded Spruce DRB090131 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (window)
183 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 1/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Lou Meskimen
Ross Residence DRB090141 Bob
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
1297 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Valley Filing 1
Applicant: A Cut Above Forestry
Booth Creek Properties Inc Residence DRB090143 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (re-roo�
2905 Booth Creek Drive, Unit B/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 11
Applicant: Master Sealers
Page 2
7/7/2009
3-1-2
Carson Residence DRB090144 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
366 Forest Road/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 3
Applicant: Abel Forestry
Schulman Residence DRB090145 Jen
Final review of a minor exterior modification (landscaping)
1772 Alpine Drive/Lot 10, Vail Village West Filing 1
Applicant: David Schulman, represented by Dantas Builders
Streetscape DRB090146 George
Final review of changes to approved plans (planter, curb)
100 West Meadow Drive/Unplatted
Applicant: Town of Vail
Jensen Residence DRB090148 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
5116 Main Gore Drive North/Lot 1, Block 2, Bighorn 5th Addition
Applicant: Marty Jensen
Sandstone 70 Condominiums DRB090149 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
903 Red Sandstone Road/Sandstone 70
Applicant: Jim Cooper
Callahan Residence DRB090150 Nicole
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows)
1875 Sunburst Drive/Lot 7, Vail Valley Filing 3
Applicant: Beck Building Co
Blumberg Residence DRB090154
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
366 Forest Road, Unit A/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 3
Applicant: Seth Blumberg
Meadowlark Residence DRB090155 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
4856 Meadow Lane/Lot 12, Block 7, Bighorn 5th Addition
Applicant: Shane Maullin
Timber Ridge DRB090158 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (stairs)
1280 North Frontage Road West/ Lots 1- 5, Resub of Block C, Lions Ridge Filing 1
Applicant: Joe Costa
Kruse Residence DRB090159 Nicole
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows)
2199 Chamonix Lane, Unit 12/Lots 2, 3, Vail Heights Filing 1
Applicant: Mathew Seiler
Page 3
7/7/2009
3-1-3
Stampp Residence DRB090160 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows)
1838 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 43, Vail Village West Filing 1
Applicant: Richard Stampp
Truscheit Residence DRB090161 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior (landscaping)
4017 Lupine Drive/Lot 7, Bighorn Subdivision
Applicant: Robert Truscheit
Wisenbaker Residence DRB090176 Bill
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (stairs, grading landscaping)
153 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 37, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Land Designs by Ellison
Byers Residence DRB090164 Rachel
Final review of an addition (windows, doors)
4562 Streamside Circle/Lot 17, Bighorn 4 th Addition
Applicant: Holly Byers
Ferraro/Attebury Residences DRB090165 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior (decks)
2447 Chamonix Lane, Units C-13 C-14/Lot 25, Vail Das Schone Filing 1
Applicant: Mike Wellman
Timber Ridge DRB090168 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows)
1280 North Frontage Road West, Buildings J, K, L, M, N& P/Lots 1- 5, Resub of Block C, Lionsridge Filing 1
Applicant: Joe Costa
Arford Residence DRB090169 Nicole
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (re-paint)
2962 Bellflower Drive/Lot 16, Block 6, Vail Intermountain
Applicant: Craig Arford
Trotta Residence DRB090170 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (door)
1568 Golf Terrace, Unit 48/Sunburst Filing 3
Applicant: Chris Ciocian
Nicholls Residence DRB090178 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
2925 Manns Ranch Road, Unit B/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 13
Applicant: Margaret Nicholls
Rams-Horn Lodge DRB090179 Jen
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
416 Vail Valley Drive/Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 5
Applicant: Rams-Horn Lodge
Page 4
7/7/2009
3-1-4
Pitkin Creek Park DRB090180 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (re-paint)
3931 Bighorn Road, Building 5 and 3971 Bighorn Road, Building 7/Pitkin Creek Park
Applicant: Carl Cocchiarella
Dean Residence DRB090181 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (re-paint)
4939 South Meadow Drive/Lot 12-S, Block 5, Bighorn 5 th Addition
Applicant: Susan Dean
Cashman Residence DRB090183 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (re-stain)
2735 Snowberry Drive, Unit A/Lot 12, Block 9, Vail Intermountain
Applicant: Rich Gutfreund
Kinney Residence DRB090186 Jen
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
5164 Main Gore Drive South/Lot 13, Vail Meadows Filing 1
Applicant: K. Kinney
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office
hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75
South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356,
Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Page 5
7/7/2009
3-1-5
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
i June 22, 2009
1:OOpm
TOwVi OF V�
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Rollie Kjesbo
Michael Kurz
Scott Lindall
Sarah Paladino
Bill Pierce
Susie Tjossem
David Viele
Site Visits:
1. Vail Nature Center 841 Vail Valley Drive
2. Fire Station 2399 North Frontage Road
15 minutes
1. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional
Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a seasonal structure or use to
accommodate educational, recreational or cultural activities (greenhouse) at the Vail Nature
Center, located at 841 Vail Valley Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC090018)
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Approved with condition(s)
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6-1-0 (Pierce opposed)
CONDITION(S):
1. This conditional use permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town
of Vail approval of the associated design review application.
Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff inemorandum.
Tom Gaylord, Director of the Vail Nature Center, added that the structure will fit well with the
mission of the Center as an education tool to demonstrate what can be achieved with a
greenhouse in this climate.
Commissioner Kurz inquired as to where water will come from for the greenhouse.
Tom Gaylord, stated that it will initially be brought in by the golf course facilities, and will then be
re-circulated through the hydroponics system.
There was no public comment.
The Commissioners expressed their support of the application.
Commissioner Pierce, stated his concerns that the geodesic form of the greenhouse was not
compatible with the historical architecture of the Nature Center. He was supportive of the
greenhouse concept.
Pa e 1
7/7/20�9
3-2-1
60 minutes
2. A request for a work session to discuss a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3,
Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of public buildings and grounds
(fire station), located at 2399 North Frontage Road/Parcel A, Resub of Tract D, Vail Das Schone
Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090019)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Tabled to July 13, 2009
MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0
Ann Gunion of VAg, representing the Town introduced the team working on the project. She
then gave a presentation on several schemes which were developed thus far to explore siting of
the fire station.
Commissioner Tjossem inquired as to the impacts of through residential traffic from the housing
to the north.
Commissioner Kjesbo asked is the adjacent gas station had been approached about a combined
driveway with the fire station.
Commissioner Kurz inquired as to the adequacy of the resident housing.
Commissioner Pierce expressed his support for including public conference facilities in the fire
station building. He asked for clarification about buffering along the eastern property line
adjacent to the gas station.
Commissioner Kurz inquired as to what equipment will be going into the bay. He then further
inquired as to the function of the hose tower.
Chief Miller noted that hose towers are an iconic feature to fire stations. He then described how
the tower will be used for training purposes such as ladder exercises and repelling.
Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the interface with the fire station and the residential project
to the north.
Ann Gunion stated she would bring an overall site plan to the next hearing to show the driveway
connections.
Commissioner Lindall asked how pedestrian would make there way from the residential project
through the fire station site to the Frontage Road and bus stop.
Ann Gunion stated that would give that some thought and return with an answer at the next
hearing
60 minutes
3. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090017)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Rachel Friede
ACTION: Tabled to 13, 2009
Pa e 2
7/7/20�9
3-2-2
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0
Rachel Friede gave a presentation to obtain input on certain issues within Title 12, Zoning
Regulations, in order to allow Staff to proceed with the Code Revision Project.
Commissioner Kurz inquired as to the proposed shift of the review of funiculars from a
conditional use permit to a set of design standards. He felt that there were impacts of a funicular
that should be reviewed by the PEC.
Commissioner Pierce stated that the installation of a funicular is a significant investment and a
conditional use permit having the ability to revoke an approval should not be issued.
Commissioner Viele expressed his understanding of the need to clearly defined set of standards
for a funicular but maybe the title of a conditional use implies a structure or use for a temporary
period of time. He added that he was most concerned with the proposed elimination of the
primary secondary zone district and incorporation into the two-family district.
The Commissioners expressed concern over the legal issues that would arise with rolling the
Primary/Secondary into the Two-family District.
Rachel Friede described Staff's approach to proposing to combine Professional and Business
Offices into a singular term "Offices".
In the discussion of roof height, the Commissioners expressed that a home with a flat roof should
have height measured as 30' to the roof deck and 33' to the top of the parapet wall. It was also
discussed that an additional 12 inches of height should be allowed in order to construct a super
insulated roof system.
The Commission agreed that dog kennels should be removed from the list of land uses within
the residential zone districts.
The Commission discussed the integration of green building into the Code.
5 minutes
4. A request for a work session to discuss the adoption of the Frontage Road Lighting Master Plan,
an element of the Vail Transportation Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC090014)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Table to July 13, 2009
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0
5. Approval of June 8, 2009 minutes
MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0
6. Information Update
Town Council action on SDD No. 41, Vail Row Houses
7. Adjournment
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 7-0-0
Pa e 3
7/7/20�9
3-2-3
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The
public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the
Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970)
479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published June 19, 2009, in the Vail Daily.
Pa e 4
7/7/20�9
3-2-4
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Commission on Special Events (CSE) Strategic Plan revisions.
PRESENTER(S): Sybill Navas
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The CSE is seeking feedback on the draft of the
revised Strategic Plan.
BACKGROUND: The current plan was adopted for the time period 2006-2009. The updated
plan has been revised with input from the Vail Economic Advisory Committee (VEAC), the Vail
Local District Advisory Committee (VLMDAC), and the Event Review Committee (ERC).
Following the discussion with the Town Council, the CSE hopes to adopt the revised plan at
their meeting on August 5, 2009 and will bring the finalized version back to the council in the
fall for their final approval by resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No formal action is being requested.
ATTAC H M ENTS
CSE Strategic Plan Memo
CSE Strategic Plan draft
�i�izoo9
Memo
To: Vail Town Council
From: Commission on Special Events (CSE)
Date: July 7, 2009
Re: Updated CSE Strategic Plan: Council feedback is requested.
The CSE is seeking feedback from the Town Council on the draft of the revised
Vail Commission on Special Events Strategic Plan. The current plan was adopted for
the time frame of 2006- 2009, and the CSE hopes to formally adopt the new plan at
their meeting on August 5. The Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council
(VLMDAC), the Vail Economic Advisory Council (VEAC) and the Event Review
Committee (ERC) have reviewed the updated draft, and recommended changes have
been incorporated. In addition to making the plan more concise, key changes and/or
additions that have been made are listed below:
Page 2:
The mission statement was revised to acknowledge the CSE's role in evaluating
events and to recognize that diversity is an important part of providing a balanced
calendar of events.
Language was added to eliminate an expiration date, but to allow for revisions as
deemed necessary.
Page 5:
Language was added to address the sponsorship vs. seed-funding issue, and to
formally recognize that many events are likely to require continued sponsorship from
the CSE in order to keep them in Vail.
•"A post-event recap will be expected from each event receiving public funding and
will be publicly reviewed by the CSE." This addition is intended to provide equal
accountability for events funded by the Town Council and those funded by the CSE.
Pages 6-7:
•"Categories of Events," which were part of the original CSE Strategic Plan in 2002
but were eliminated in the 2006 plan, have been added back in because the CSE
members felt that it was not reasonable to evaluate the contributions of all events as
if they were the same.
Page 8:
Recognition that the CSE is a part of the town's Economic Development
Department, which did not exist when the CSE was originally formed.
7/7/2009
4 1 1
Pages 9-11:
Emphasis was added to reinforce the importance of communicating with other
community organizations, including the VCBA, WP, VRD, VEAC, and the VLMDAC.
Recognizing the Town Council's focus on environmental sustainability, language
was added to encourage "Green Events" practices.
Encourage event producers to develop sponsorships and reduce over time their
reliance on Town of Vail funding.
Attachment A: The "Special Event Rating Grid" is a tool the CSE has developed to
assist in objectively evaluating the large variety of event funding requests.
Addition of a"Green Events" category
The number of points available to each category was increased from 5 to 10, in
order to provide opportunity for the scores to better reflect the positive and/or
negative differences between events of the various categories.
�i�izoo9
4-1-2
I
"J e
1. +-i= r;:
�t
r.�
y
I
a a. u f x�
4 a f r
1 t �zty r
a t r� s x�
a 4 4 1� F- k• t�`ft.
4 1 �1 f
:3`� r ,l
i,. t.�,� tr g
�6 -c r F
iV
i i �b �4"
y
y 4 .Y
_T�� i� f
�t
Our Values:
Integrity-Collaboration-Accountability-Respect
Purpose:
The mission of the 1/ail Commission on Special Events (CSE) is to support and
assess a diverse col%ction of special events, both large and small, which
promote 1/ails vitality, sense of community, and increase the quality of the
experience for guests and residents year-round.
The purpose of the Commission on Special Events Strategic Plan is to
establish guidelines that will assist the CSE in developing and supporting a
calendar of events that accomplish the following goals:
Assist in balancing the year
round economy �a
a
Increase sales and lodging
tax revenues in the Town of
Vail
,Y r r
Promote a strong sense of
community
Appeal to a diversity of
i nterests
Provide a better quality of life
for guests and residents
�p
Entice visitors to return, and
Increase the length of their
visits
It is intended that this document be revisited and revised as the community
evolves and action steps are completed.
Vnrl CSE Str�ategrc P/arr DRAFT Rei�rsed.• 6/Z3/09 Page Z o/� 11
7/7/2009
4-2-2
Process:
A committee was appointed by the CSE to develop a final draft of the plan.
The committed consisted of CSE members Kerry Donovan and Rayla
Kundolf, Vail Economic Development Manager Kelli McDonald and CSE
Coordinator Sybill Navas.
The document was reviewed by the following entities:
Town of Vail Event Review Committee (ERC)
Vail Economic Advisory Council (VEAC)
Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council (VLMDAC)
Vail Town Council
M 0��
E ��C�
Y� ryr
r l. ��J
7
j �r�
r'�,,� �t
a" T
�.v 6 3'V��
r° P
�i'�
t
I�.
I r r t
Adopted on (date) by the Vail Commission on Special Events
Commission on Special Events Members:
Dave Chapin, Chairman
Robert McKown, Vice-Chairman
Bobby Bank
Kerry Donovan
Meggen Kirkham
Rayla Kundolf
Heather Trub
Vnrl CSE Str�ategrc P/arr DRAFT Rei�rsed.• 6/Z3/09 Page 3 0/� 11
7/7/2009
4-2-3
Background:
c
i ,.'i A
�F 1
Y� a� j�
t. ic r w .r
e
r r
yr .�'s �a
i i i�` t :::n
In 2002, the Vail Town Council approved legislation that created the
Commission on Special Events (CSE) in its current form. This ordinance
reorganized the existing CSE and set several broad objectives:
1. Stimulating the local economy
a. Increase lodging and sales tax collections
b. Increase number of visitors
c. Insure that visitors have a high rate of intent to return
2. Create a sense of community in Vail and increase the quality of
experience for both guests and residents
3. To establish a single point of contact for events administration
4. To provide street entertainment and special events that reflect the
high quality image of Vail and contribute to vitality, economic viability
and fun throughout the year
Vnrl CSE Str�ategrc P/arr DRAFT Rei�rsed.• 6/Z3/09 Page 4 0/� 11
7/7/2009
4-2-4
Strategic Fundamentals:
The CSE will encourage and recruit independent event organizers to
produce events in Vail by acting in a sponsorship role to provide seed
funding for the development of new events and sponsorship dollars for on-
going events, particularly those events that are contributing to the economic
vitality of the community.
It continues to be the job of the CSE to weed out events not
performing as expected while continuing to encourage the development of
new events that are commensurate with the world class image of Vail.
Additionally, in keeping with the public trust and economic realities,
every event investment will be held to a high level of accountability. A post-
event recap will be expected from each event receiving public funding and
will be publicly reviewed by the CSE.
Progress will be evaluated by addressing these basic questions:
Did every event investment increase Vail's economic performance?
Are event investments being fully leveraged to increase sales and
marketing reach?
Are we consistently achieving more impact with public resources?
Do these events contribute to a strong sense of community and better
quality of life?
��y a p' r A
y r
��5 r,
.i.� r'a�
��.r;
t rr
�I j ,l��
�..a
x r.�
f r
x
rf���` i�
zy�r.��v-� �t,�, 'v���.�an�s
rncnfr�
�j"- FS�S?INGFt,
��t�
r
.�r: r�'-
r� -'f�.�
a i' y i
}1� 1�„N I
y
1�
a
w,�' o
Vnrl CSE Str�ategrc P/arr DRAFT Rei�rsed.• 6/Z3/09 Page 5 oJ� 11
7/7/2009
4-2-5
Events that qualify for CSE funding are ultimately selected by what they can
contribute to the community and how they fit into a calendar of events that
will appeal to a diversity of interests and provide a balance of activity and
economic vitality throughout the year.
Categories of Special Events:
Special Events are as diverse as the people that they attract. Different types
of events contribute to the community in different ways, and the CSE must
remain cognizant that all special events do not serve the same purpose in
the community. While recognizing that some events ��overlap" into more
than one category, in order to facilitate the comparison of the contributions
that varying events bring to the community the CSE has developed the
following categories of Special Events:
Iconic Events:
1. Take place over a period of several days, or even weeks
2. Attract destination visitors from outside the region, and provide
strong stimulus for the lodging, restaurant and retail community
3. Nationally or internationally recognized competitions or cultural
events that contribute to Vail's image as a world-class destination
4. Leverage community contributions with major sponsorships
5. Require a large number of volunteers and significant community
support
Examples: World Alpine Ski Championships, TEVA Mountain Games,
BRAVO! Vail Valley Music Festival, Vail International Dance Festival, Jazz
Festival
Role of the CSE: Review, evaluate economic impacts and potential,
facilitate and recommend
Participatorv Events:
1. Attract destination guests and put ��heads in beds" for the duration
of the event
2. Provide benefit to the lodging and restaurant community
3. Turnkey: the Town's role is that of a host site
4. Capitalize on infrastructure that might otherwise be under-utilized
Examples: TEVA Mountain Games, Kick-It 3vs3 Soccer, Vail Lacrosse
Shootout, Vail Challenge Cup Soccer, Vail-Eagle Hockey Tournament
Vnrl CSE Str�ategrc P/arr DRAFT Rei�rsed.• 6/Z3/09 Page 6 0/� 11
7/7/2009
4-2-6
Role of the CSE: Partner with the community, recruit, evaluate economic
impacts and potential, provide sponsorship and/or site fees where
necessary, facilitate, review
Ambient Events:
1. Provide entertainment, activities and street vitality for guests who
are already here, or who might come into town for an afternoon or
an evening
2. Attract visitors from within the region or the Front Range
3. Help to keep people in town for longer than they might otherwise
stay
4. Contribute to Vail's image as a place where there is always
something fun to do
Examples: Vail Jazz Festival, Summer Street Entertainment, Gourmet on
Gore, BBQ Bonanza, Oktoberfest, Vail Farmers' Market, Lionshead Friday
Afternoon Club, Vail Arts Festival
Role of the CSE: Communicate and partner with the business
community, develop concepts, encourage sponsorship development,
provide funding where necessary, evaluate economic contributions,
review
Community Events:
1. Create a venue to celebrate major holidays and important
community events, and to preserve the heritage and traditions of
our community
2. Provide for a better quality of life for residents: i.e. make people
happy
3. Bring ��neighbors" (Summit County, down-valley) into town
4. Do not have a strong ability to attract major sponsors and/or do not
provide opportunity for additional revenue sources to the event
producer or measurable economic contributions to the Town of Vail
Examples: America Days, Holidays in Vail, Trick-or-Treat Trot, Lionshead
Easter Egg Hunt
Role of the CSE: Facilitate, work with community organizations, contract
for event production where necessary, evaluate and review
Vnrl CSE Str�ategrc P/arr DRAFT Rei�rsed.• 6/Z3/09 Page 7 0/� 11
7/7/2009
4-2 7
Givens:
The Commission on Special Events (CSE) strategy assumes several givens:
Special events contribute to
visitor satisfaction, sense of
community and increased
s e n d i n
P 9•
Cooperation and ��f.
communication with other t
community organizations
that are essential to the
-z,,.,
success of the CSE's
program.
Events that receive support 'r`
from the CSE must be of a
quality commensurate with
Vail's image as a world-class
A �i�I ��i
resort.
The use of ineasurable t k
criteria in event selection,
funding and evaluation is
critical to ensuring progress.
A single point of contact is
required to support special
event producers.
The CSE is part of the Town of Vail's Economic Development Department
and relies on the Town Council to provide:
Policy Direction
Consistent Special Events Funding
Proactive Development of Appropriate Special Event Venues
Town of Vail Staff support for Special Events as required
Every significant event destination allocates resources to the administration,
ongoing support and recruiting of special events. Research has proven that
Special Events generate additional sales tax revenues in the Town of Vail.
The CSE recommends that some percentage of these increased revenues
should be used not only to help underwrite the costs of administration, but
also for research, evaluation and further event development or recruitment.
Vnrl CSE Str�ategrc P/arr DRAFT Rei�rsed.• 6/Z3/09 Page 8 oJ� 11
7/7/2009
4-2-8
The CSE will:
Provide a balanced, year round calendar of events appealing to residents
and guests of diverse interests by:
o Attracting and developing events that will enhance and contribute to
Vail's world-class reputation
o Attracting visitors by dedicating resources to recruit and develop new
events
o Attracting and supporting participant events for visitors and locals
o Developing community events that will enhance the experience of
Vail's guests and residents, as well as become effective marketing
tools. Examples include Vail America Days, Holidays in Vail, Trick-or-
Treat Trot, Lionshead Easter Egg Hunt, etc.
o Encouraging producers of special events to provide free street
entertainment, e.g. clowns from circus, musicians from BRAVO, and
artists from the Vail Arts Festival
o Actively soliciting entrepreneurial street entertainment
Assess and evaluate events to insure that the community benefits are
commensurate with the investment of public funds by:
o Following objective event selection, funding and evaluation criteria
o Developing critical success measurements: In coordination with the
Vail Local Marketing District (VLMD) and appropriate research vendors,
tools will be developed to regularly measure the following criteria:
Economic indicators
a. Increased sales tax collections
b. Increased lodging tax collections
c. Improved occupancy rates
d. Impact from direct event spending
e. Quantifiable marketing benefits
Contributions to sense of community:
a. Does the event improve the quality experience for guests
and residents?
b. Does it pull down-valley residents into Vail?
c. Does it make people happy?
o Communicating with the local business community, the Vail Chamber
and Business Association (VCBA), the Vail Valley Partnership (VVP)
Vnrl CSE Str�ategrc P/arr DRAFT Rei�rsed.• 6/Z3/09 Page 9 0/� 11
7/7/2009
4-2-9
and the Vail Recreation District (VRD) to insure that the events funded
by the CSE have a positive impact on the local economy
o Ensuring that event investments are closely coordinated with the
economic needs of the community as recommended by the Vail
Economic Advisory Council (VEAC) and with the broader marketing
objectives identified by the VLMD
o Maintaining biannual meetings with the VLMDAC and continue to work
cooperatively to align the special events and marketing programs.
➢��Green Events:" Encourage environmentally sustainable practices for all
Town of Vail events
Encourage producers of major events to develop sponsorships and to
reduce over time their reliance on Town of Vail funding and the
percentage of the event budget that is funded with public dollars
Encourage a culture within the Town of Vail that welcomes special events
and provides a��can do" attitude of cooperation between Town of Vail
Departments, Event Promoters and local businesses
Advocate for the development and improvement of venues and facilities
for Special Events within the Town of Vail
Improve coordination and communication between the Town of Vail's
Event Review Committee (ERC), the Vail Recreation District (VRD), Vail
Mountain Marketing and the CSE
Develop a refined program for the allocation of in-kind services to support
Special Events
Provide complete and accurate information with regard to the calendar of
special events in response to the needs of prospective visitors, event
promoters, Town of Vail staff, concierges, locals and guests
Maintain a"single point of contact" for Special Events
Demonstrate to the Town Council that special events are a revenue
provider for the Town, not an expense, and that events can deliver
substantial sales and lodging tax revenues while simultaneously making
Vail a more exciting place to live and visit
Vnrl CSE Str�ategrc P/arr DRAFT Rei�rsed.• 6/Z3/09 Page 10 oJ� 11
7/7/2009
4-2-10
ATTACHMEI T A: CRITERIA FOR ALLOCATIOI OF CSE FUI DS
SPECIAL EVEI T RATII G GRID
EVEI T I AME:
DATES: AMT. REQUESTED:
I ew Evcnt Existing Event if ycs, of ycars
Thc cvcnt is: (check all that apply)
Iconic Participatory Ambient Community
I
Docs the event havc thc potential to:
Benefit local restaurants
Increase room nights
Stimulate Retail Sales
Coiltribute to Vail's sense of coinmunit
Proinote Visitor Intent to Return
Timing: How well does it contrihute to a balanced annucrl ca/endar° of
events?
Demographic Fit: Does it match the profile of�targeted visitors, in
alignn�ent with the VLMD :s �rogram?
Growth Potential: How big can it becorne? Will it be anni�c�l?
Leveraging Value: How hreat is the �otenticrl to attract s�onsorshi�s
and ynedic� ex�oszrre, thereby increc�sing the impact of the CSE, funds?
"Grcen Events:" How well does the event comply with Vail :s
commitment to environ�rental sustainability?
Produccr Qualifications: Do they hcrve the cability to prodz�ce an event
compatible with the imnge of Vail ns a"world class" t°esort?
TOTAL SCORE:
CSE Member Initials: Amount of funding suggestecl:
�i�i2oo9
4-2-11
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Fire Department Impact Fee Presentation.
PRESENTER(S): Mark Miller Judy Camp Tom Pippin (BBC)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen and discuss Impact Fee presentation by Tom
Pippin (BBC Research and Consulting). Provide feedback regarding approval to move forward
with development of an ordinance relative to imposing a Fire Department impact fee for the of
Town of Vail.
BACKGROUND: Earlier this year (1st supplemental) the TOV Council approved funds to
conduct a Fire Department Impact Fee study for the Town of Vail. BBC Research and
Consulting was hired to conduct the study, having completed similar studies in Eagle County
and extensively throughout Colorado. Vail is the only town in Eagle County that does not
impose a Fire Department impact fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review, approve, and provide direction to the Town Attorney
to develop an ordinance for imposing an impact fee for fire protection in the Town of Vail,
based on the recommendations provided by BBC.
ATTAC H M ENTS
Impact Fee Narrative
Fire Impact Fee
�i�i2oo9
RESEARGH SL
'�Ql`�iSULT I NG
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive
Suite 850
Denver, Colorado 80209-3827
303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448
www.bbcresearch.com
bbc@bbcresearch.com
JUIle 29, Znn9
Mark Miller, Fire Chief
Vail Fire and Emergency Services
42 W. Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Vail Fire and Emergency Services Impact Fee Study Revised Draft Report
Dear Chief Miller:
The Town of Vail hired BBC Research Consulting (BBC) and Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. (SBA) in
May 2009 to calculate itnpact fees for Vail Fire and Emergency Services (VFES). We will do so by answering
the following four quesrions:
1. What is the current level of service provided by VFES? Since the primaiy purpose of impact
fees is to help VFES maintain its current level of service in the future, it is necessary to know
the level of service VFES is currently proviciing to the communiry.
2. What future growth is expected within the Town of Vail? How inany new residential
households and nonresidential buildings will be served by VFES over the next rwenry years?
3. What new infrastructure is required to serve fiiture growth while maintaining the current
level of service? Far exatnple, how tnany new stations and fire trucks will be needed over the
lifespan of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to maintain the current level of service?
4. What impact fee is required to pay for the new infrastructure? Here we calculate an
apportiontnent of new infrastructure costs to future residential and nonresidential land-uses.
Then using this distribution the applicable impact fees are determined.
We believe that addressing these four questions, in order, provides the tnost effective and logical way
to calculate impact fees for VFES. This methodoloby is consistent with our past fire impact fee wark
over the last fifteen years, including over 20 fire impact fee studies in Colorado alone and mare than
100 such studies nationally.
7/7/2009
5-1-1
Revised Draft Report Page 2
1) W hat is the current level of service provided by VFES?
The current level of service for a fire department is rypically described by several measures:
the average time it takes the department to respond to a call;
the "ISO ratinb" far fire insurance purposes; and
any stated policy goals that have been adopted by elected officials.
In the case of VFES, it is possible to report the current level of service using all three measures:
the average response time is seven tninutes and forry-one seconds (7:41) per call;
the current ISO rating' is 5; and
the Town CounciPs recognized level of service goal for VFES is zero loss of life, to contain any
fires in their room of origin and to respond to 90 percent of all incidents with 5 minutes or less.
VFES is anticipating additional residential and non-residential growth in the future. In arder to maintain the
current level of service to both existing and future residents, visitors and businesses, additional infrastructure
will be needed. Impact fees could help mitigate the financial burden on the Town created by these necessary
future investments.
2) What future growth isexpected in the Town of Vail?
In May and June of 2009, SBA prepared an analysis of expected residential and non-residential growth that is
likely to occur within the Town of Vail during the CIP period as measured by net new Single Fatnily
Equivalent units (SFEs). The municipal limits of the Town are VFES's primary service area.
Please note, however, that VFES's service area also extends beyond the Town boundaries to cover several
locations within unincarporated Eagle Counry. These locations include Interstate 70 frotn tnile tnarker 182
to mile marker 190, certain partions of the I-70 frontage road in the Town core, the Hibhland Meadows
development, Piney River Road development, and wild land fires on Vail Mountain. Because the Town of Uail
does not have the authority to impose impact fees on new develop7nent occurring outsicle its municipal li�nits, these
projeets have not been inclucled in the �^owth projections used in this study.
Exhibit 1 on the following page summarizes the Town of VaiPs overall growth projections of SFEs during the
CIP period froin January 2010 through Decetnber 2025. It does not include units that are already under
construction in 2009, or are expected to break ground later this year. This is because impact fees are not
charged "after the fact" on projects that have already pulled building permits.
VFES was re-evaluated by an ISO rating tcam in June 2009. While thc rating mam has not issucd its final report, it has identified
scvcral "prcliminary deficicncies" that will necd to bc addressed for Vail to maintain its current 1S0 rating staffing, resources and thc
necd for a third cnginc.
7/7/2009
5-1-2
Revised Draft Report Page 3
F�chibit 1.
Town of Vail
Single Family Equivalent (SF� Growth, 2010-2025
SFE Growth
Project Description 2010-2025
Unspecified new and remodeled units 247
West Vail Mall 531
Lionshead Future 177
Vail Village Miscellaneous 63
FourSeasons
Solaris
Ritz Carlton Residences
Ever Vail 408
Vail Cascade Cascade Condos 6
Cascade Cornerstone Building 26
Evergreen Lodge New Fairmont Hotel 73
Glen Lyon Building 13
Timber Ridge 0
Lionshead Parking Structure 270
Strata 5 7
Tower Residences/Lionsquare Lodge North
Chamonix Net of West Vail Fire Station (7 SFE's)' S8
Timberline Lodge/Roost Lodge 44
Solar Vail 58
Lionshead North Day Lot 32
Landmark Condominiums
Total New SFE's 2,063
Notes: (1) The 7 SFEs ass�ciated with the new West Vail Fire �ation are deducted.
�urce: Stan Eernstein and As�ociates. Inc.
As shown above, the Town of Vail is expected to experience future growth of an estimated 2,063 net new
sinble-family equivalent units (SFEs) during the CIP period. The "net new" concept is important in that it
accounts for anticipated demolitions and redevelopment projects.
7/7/2009
5-1-3
Revised Draft Report Page 4
At the end of the CIP period in 2025, 18 percent of the existing SFEs will have been newly constructed
durinb the CIP period. As explained below, this percentage will become important in allocating project costs
in the CIP.
3) What new infrastructure is required to maintain the current level of service for future
growth?
VFES plans on constructing new buildings, rehabilitating existing structures, and purchasing new vehicles and
eyuipment during the CIP period. However, not all of these new infrastructure purchases are associated with
growth.
Some capital costs are for repair and replaceinent of facilities (e.g., standard periodic investment in existing
facilities such as replacing an older fire engine). These costs are notimpact fee eligible. Some capital costs are
for betterment of facilities, or implementation of new services (e.g., adding technical rescue capaciry). These
costs are generally not entirely impact fee eligible. Some costs are for expansion of facilities to accotntnodate
new developtnent at the current level of service (e.g., purchase of new fire truck to accomtnodate expanding
population). These costs are impact fee eligible.
Because there are different reasons why VFES invests in capital projects, BBC conducted a"GRUM" Analysis
on all projects listed in the CIP:
Growt h. The "G" in GRUM stands for growth. To determine if a project is solely related ro
growth, we ask "Is this project designed to maintain the current level of service as growth
occurs?" and "Would the Fire Department still need this capital project if it weren't growing at
all?" "G" projects are only necessary to maintain the Department's current level of sernice as
growth occurs. It is thus appropriate to include 100 percent of their cost in the iinpact fee
calculations.
Repair Replacement. The "R" in GRUM stands for repair replacement We ask, "Is this
project related only to fixing existing infrastructure?" and "Would the Fire Department still need
it if it weren't growing at all?" "R" projects have nothing to do with growth. It is thus not
appropriate to include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations.
Upgrade. The "U" in GRUM stands for upgrade. We aslc, "Would this project improve the Fire
Department's current level of service?" and "Would the Department still do it even if it weren't
growing ar all?" "U" projects have nothing ro do with growth. It is thus not appropriate ro
include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations.
M ixed. The "M" in GRUM stands for Ynixed. It is reserved for capital projects that have sotne
combination of G, R and U. "M" projects by their very definition are partially necessitated by
growth, but also include an element of repair, replacement and/ar upgrade. In this instance, a
cost amount between 0 and 100 percent should be included in the fee calculations. Although the
need far these projects is triggered by new developtnent, they will also benefit existing residents.
7/7/2009
5-1-4
Revised Draft Report Page 5
There are no projects in the following CIP that are 100 percent growth-related; none were determined by our
study to be necessitated solely by browth. Alternatively, some projects were determined to be "mixed" in that
they had elements of growth, repair and replacement and/or upgrade. The new West Vail Fire Station and the
retnodel and potential relocation of the East Vail Fire Station are exainples of such projects. In these
situarions, only a portion of the total cost of each project was included in the final impact fee calcularion.�
The remainder of the cost of each "tnixed" project should be paid by the Town from non-impact fee revenue
sources.
E�ibit 2 below includes all new infrastructure projects (including replacements, repairs and upgrades) VFES
plans to buy and build between now and 2025.
Exhibit 2.
Vail Fre and Emergency ServicesCapital Improvement Plan, 2010-2025
Portion Allocated
Year Purchase to Indude in Purchase
Type of Capital Infrastructure Purchased Value Impact Fees Value
Buildings
Construct New West Vail fire Station 2010 $5,520,000 80°/o $4,416,000
Remodel/Relocate East Vail Station 2012 $775,000 18% $138,799
Remodel/Expand Vail Village Station' 2011 975 000 0%
Subtotal Buildings $7,270,000 $4,554,799
Vehicles and Equpment Z
Replace Existing Pierce pumper #411' 2014 $620,000 0% $0
Replace Existing Pierce pumper #412' 2022 $786,500 0°/o $0
Replace Existing Pierce pumper #414' 2011 $568,200 0% $0
Replace Existing Pierce aerial #430' 2022 $1,209,200 0% $0
Replace Existing Pierce platform #431 2021 $1,174,000 0% $0
Replace Existing Brush Truck 2' 2019 $109,000 0% $0
New Pumperfor West Vail Fire Station 2010 $570,000 80% $456,000
New Heavy Rescue Truck 2015 $300,000 18% $53,729
New Type 6 Wildland Truck 2014 $150,000 18% $26,864
Technical Rescue Equipment Package' TBD 100 000 18% 1 7 910
Subtotal Vehicles and Equipment $5,586,900 $554,502
Impact Fee Study $15,000 100% $15,000
Grand Total: $5.124.301
Note: These new as�ts will allow VFESto continueto meet the current level of service throughout the CIP period.
(1) These itemswill befunded entirely from the Town of Vail "Capital Rojects Fund" —see below for adetailed explanation of what hasalready been budgeted.
(2) All vehicle Purchase Valuesare calculated as "fully loaded" which includestools communications and equipment.
(3) Technical Rescue Es�uipment Package includesconfined �ace and trench re�ue capabilities.
�urce: Vail Fre and Emergency Services and BBC Re�arch Consulting. Inc.
After accounting far completely non-growth related and "mixed-use" purchases, the rotal value of impact fee-
eligible capital construction and purchases is appro�tnately $5.1 million. This nuinber represents growth's
"fair share" of VFES's future infrastructure needs.
z--
1 o calculam die `M" percenta�c for the East Vail Station, L�'ew Hcavy Rescue "1'rucic, L�'ew Wildland Truck and'1'echnical Rescuc
Equipment Pacicabe, we divided the net new SFEs durin� the C1P period by the total number of SFEs at the end of the C1P period in
2025. 11ic numbei�s, d�tailed in Exhibit 1 above, arc 2,0C3 net new SFEs dividcd by total SFEs of 11,51) at the end of the C1P period
in 2025, which equals approximately 18 percent �l�h� "M" percentage for the West Vail Fire Station and 1�'ew Pumper �l�rucic to be
stationed thcrcin wcrc choscn in consultation with VFES staff. Thc formcr linc itcros arc lcss closclv linkcd to growth than thc latmr
items thus supportin� the lower "M" percentabe.
7/7/2009
5-1-5
Revised Draft Report Page 6
The Town of Vail maintains a"Capital Projects Fund" which collects revenue from sales tax, use taY, and
Federal, State and local grants. The purpose of the Capital Projects Fund is to pay for infrastructure
improvements in the Town either directly ar through debt sernice on bonds that have been issued for
purposes of capital construction. During budget deliberations each year, VFES is eligible to compete with
other Town departments for a portion of the Capital Projects Fund.
Based on the Town's most current 2009 budget, VFES is already expected to receive near-term Capital
Projects Fund suppart for the following infrastructure improvements:
$568,200 in 2011 to help fund vehicle replacement; and
$975,000 in 2011 to remodel the main Vail Village Fire Station
Please note that while these capital projects are listed in the CIP above (E�ibit 2), they are not included in
the impact fee calculations. This is because under the "GRUM" concept discussed previously, these projects
are related ro repair, replacement and/or upgrade of existing infrastructure. The Town of Vail plans to invest
in these infrastructure improveYnents regardless of the pace of future growth. It would thus be inequitable to
ask new development to help pay for these projects.
By contrast, the construction and equipping of the new West Vail Fire Station and the East Vail Fire Station
remodel/relocation have not been budgeted from the Capital Projects Fund. This means two things: 1)
sufficient Capital Projects Fund revenue is not available to pay far the respective entire project, and 2)
portions of these projects are related to new growth in Vail and could thus be at least partially supparted by
impact fee revenue. These projects, and several vehicles identified in E�ibit 2, are therefore mixed ar"M"
projects under the "GRUM" concept discussed above.
For this reason, the CIP (see Exhibit 2) includes some of rhese costs in the impact fee calculations. If the
Town of Vail adopts impact fees, it will be responsible far funding the balance of these projects from non-
impact fee revenue sources. In other words, existing Vail residents and businesses will have to contribute their
fair share either through Capital Projects Fund revenue that has yet to be budgeted or other sources of
revenue.
4) What impact fee is required to pay for future infrastructure?
Here we calculate how much of the new fee-eligible infrastructure will be paid by developers. Using the
distribution of future land-use from Exhibit 1, we can assign future infrastructure costs from Exhibit 2 to the
appropriate development category and calculate the applicable fees. Our results are shown in Exhibit 3.
7/7/2009
5-1-6
Revised Draft Report Page 7
F�chibit 3.
Calculation of Fre Impact Fee Calculation
Impact Fees
Allocated Value for Future Fire Infrastructure' $5,124,301
N°�e. Net Growth in SFEs during CIP I'eriod z 2,063
(1) See C hibit 2.
�z� �e�h'b't'. Impact Fee per New SFE $2,484
�ur�e:
Vail Fire and Emergency �rvices. San
Bernstein and As�ociates. Ina: and BBC
Re�arch Consulting.
As indicated above, we have calculated an impact fee of $2,484 per new SFE. A fee not to exceed this amount
is recommended far consideration by the Town of Vail. New sinble family homes would be charbed this fee
unless they were large enough ro count as more than one SFE, as rypically determined from the utiliry meter
partion of each unit's building permit Similarly, multifamily and non-residential development projects would
be assessed impact fees according to the number of SFEs they represent.
Implementation Recommendations
We offer the following recommendations for your consideration:
The fees calculated in Exhibit 3 should be considered as the full-cost recovery atnount. Town of
Vail elected officials could choose to adopt any fee amount between zero and the figures in
E�ibit 3. They cannot impose a greater amount.
The Town of Vail should promprly create and maintain an"Impact Fee Fund" separate and
apart from the General Fund. All future iinpact fee revenue should be itnmediately deposited
into this account, and withdrawn only to pay far growth-related infrastructure. VaiPs General
Fund should be reserned solely far the receipt of taY revenues and associated interest earnings,
and ongoing operational expenses. VaiPs Capital Projects Fund should be reserved for the repair,
replacement and upgrade of existing infrastructure not related to growth.
The fees calculated in this study should be updated periodically as VFES invests in additional fire
protection infrastructure beyond what is listed in Exhibit 2, and/ar the SFE growth projections
change significanrly.
The fees should be updated annually based on the Engineering News Record index or other
infrastructure inflation indices.
For projects listed in the Capital Improvements Plan that are not 100 percent growth-related
(including "tnixed" projects), the Town of Vail should assutne the responsibiliry of paying their
share from non-itnpact fee revenue sources.
7/7/2009
5-1-7
Revised Draft Report Page 8
Please feel free to contact us with any questions you might have about our conclusions. We will
farward samples of fire impact fee enabling ordinances to your Town Attorney when you indicate it
is appropriate.
Sincerely,
j���
�G��
Stan Bernstein
Thomas A. Pippin Stan Bernstein
Managing Director Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc.
7/7/2009
5-1-8
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc.
Fincancicrl Planners and Consultc�nt.s
For° Local Covet°nments, Munici�al Bond Undet°writet°s, and Real Estate Developet°s
8�100 East Prentice Ave., Penthouse
Greenwood Village, Colorcrdo 80111
Phone: 303-409-7611 Fax: 303-409-7612 Emai1.• Stanplar� �c� Earthlink.net
June 8, 2009
Mr. Marlc Miller, Fire Chief
Town of Vail Fire Department
RE: DRAFT #1 TOWI OF VAIL FIRE DEPARTMEI T("VFD") FUTURE
SII GLE FAMILY EQUIVALEI T UI IT FORECAST
Dear Chief Miller:
Enclosed for your review is the most current draft of the results of our 2009 forecast of
future Single Family Equivalent Units (SFE's) within the botmdaries of the Town of Vail
(which does not include all of the geographical area, or development, located within the
Town of Vail; although it includes the vast majority of it),Fire Department ("VFD"). For
the purposes of this forecast, one SFE contains 3,000 square feet, with the exception of
hotel rooms which are assumed to be 0.35 SFE's or 0.50 SFE's depending upon kitchen
facilities. The attached Schedule 1 summarizes the future SFE' S for VFD for the years
ending December 31, 2009 through 2025.
As of December 31, 2008 there were approximately 9,456 SFE's beiilg served by VFD.
The attached Schedule 1 indicates an additional 2,405 SFE's could be added during the
next 17-years which represeilts an lllcrease of approxiinately 25.43% over the SFE base
as of Deceinber 31, 2008. There are several large projects currently Lmder constrLlction
that have al�eady obtained building permits and are listed below;
Proiecti Incremental SFE's
Four Seasons Resort 90.0
Solaris 100.0
Ritz Carlton Residences 124.0
Lioils Square North 9.0
Landmark Condominiums 19.0
Total SFE's 342.0
Subtracting the 342.0 SFE's resulting froin projects that have already pulled building
pennits results in approximately 2,063 potential future SFE's that be subject to paying
Fire Protection Impact Fees to VFD. These additional potential future SFE's represent
an increase of approximately 21.8% above the cunent number of SFE's in amount of
9,456.
�i�izoo9
5-1-9
Chief Marlc Miller
June 8, 2009
Page 2 of 4
Schedule 1 indicates that an additional 22 SFE'S subject ro impact fees could be added
during 2009 through 2011; 1,190 SFE's could be added during 2012 throL�gh 2016; and a
total of 851 SFE's could be added fiom 2017 through 2025 (an average of approximately
95 annually). It is iinportant that these SFE estiinates are carefully monitored so that
adjusnnents can be made as future events regarding construction activity becomes
clearer.
A brief suinmary of the variolis projects expected to be constructed during the next 20-
years within the boundaries of VFD is described in the followiilg paragraphs.
Four Seasons (Formerly Holiday Inn/Chateau) The Four Seasons project is
expected ro be completed during 2010 with net new SFE's of 44, for a total of 90 SFE's
(assuming 122 hotel rooins, 16 whole ownership condos, 19 fractional owilership
condominiums, 14 employee housing units, a spa, and restaurant space). This project
will not generate aily Fire Impact Fee revenues.
Solaris (Formcrly Crossroads) The Solaris development will contain 77 whole
ownership condos, a lO lane bowling alley, a movie theater, an ice rink aild coininercial
space, and is estimated to generate approximately 50 new SFE's for a total of 100 SFE's.
This project is expected to be complete ii1 late 2010. Tlus project will not generate any
Fire Impact Fee revenues.
Ritz Carlton Residences (Formerly West Dav Lot) The Ritz Carlton Residences will
contain 116 whole ownership condos, 2 employee hoLising units, plus commercial space
and is expected to generate approximately 124 SFE's. Completion is expected in 2010.
This project will not generate any Fire Impact Fee revenues.
Landmark Condominiums The Landmarlc will add 18 whole owilership condos aild
one einployee housing unit, with expected completion in 2010. This will add 19
additional SFE's. This project will not generate any Fire Inlpact Fee revenues.
Towcr Residences (Lionsquare Lod�e I orth) The Tower Residences are being built
adjacent to the Lions Square Lodge and will include 9 whole owilership condos expected
to be coinplete in 2010. This will add 9 new SFE's. This project will not geilerate any
Fire Impact Fee revenues.
Ever Vail Vail resorts is planning to develop the land that is cui�eiltly the VRI
Maintenance Building, Amoco/BP gas station, and Blocicbuster retail center as Ever Vail.
Preliminary development plans include 53 employee housing units, 240 whole owilership
condominiums, a 127 room hotel, aild approxiinately 142,000 square feet of retail aild
office space. This project is expected be completed in phases in years 2012 through
2015. We estiinate a total of 408 new SFE's will be generated from this project, all of
which will be subject to Fire Iinpact Fee revenues.
�i�i2oo9
5-1-10
Chief Marlc Miller
June 8, 2009
Page 3 of 4
Cascadc Condos (old CMC sitic) The old Colorado Mountain College site will be
redeveloped into 14 condoininiuin units with anticipated completion in 2012. This will
net approximately 6 new SFE's, all of which will be subject to Fire Impact Fee revenues.
Cascade Cornerstonc Building This project will consist of 22 whole ownership
condos and 4 employee housing units with a total of 26 new SFE's. Completion is
anticipated during 2012. All of these SFE's will be subject to Fire linpact Fee revenues.
Evcrgreen Lodge (I ew Fairmont Hotel) Redevelopinent of the Ever�een Lodge is
anticipated to consist of 91 whole ownership condos, 129 hotel rooins, and 21,600
square feet of commercial space, adding a total of 73 net SFE's during 2013. All of
these SFE's will be subject to Fire Impact Fee revenues.
Glen Lvon Buildin� Adjacent to the proposed Ever Vail site, the Glen Lyon Building
is not currently owned by Vail Resorts and is expected to be redeveloped as 15 whole
condos and 4 employee housing uiuts with completion in 2014. A total of 13 net new
SFE's are expected as a result of this development, and will be subject to Fire Impact Fee
revenues.
Timbcr Ridgc At this tiine the Timber Ridge redevelopment plails are very uncertaiil.
We have not included this in our SFE's at this tiine it is possible that very few, or in
excess of 100 net additional SFE's could be generated from this project we have talcen a
conservative position and assuined that i10 incremeiltal SFE's will be generated..
Lionshead Parkin� Structure This is a potential very large new development project
located at the existing Lionshead Parlcing Lot site. The project is very uncertain at this
time, but will lilcely happen soinetime in the next 17 years. We have included 270 new
SFE's during years 2015 and 2016 consisting of 240 hotel rooms, 130 whole ownership
condos, 25 fractional ownership coildos, and restaurant, retail, aild conference facilities.
This project will be subject to Fire Impact Fee revenues.
Strata (old LH Inn, Vail Glo) The Lionshead Inn and Vail Glo buildings will be
redeveloped as Snata. This development will include 63 whole ownership condos, 16
fractioilal ownership condos, 1 employee housing unit, and 12 hotel rooms. Expected
conlpletion is 2013. This project will add 57 new SFE's which will be subject to Fire
Impact Fee revenues.
Chamonix/Fire Station This site has been approved for 58 whole ownership condos
and a fire station. We estimate 65 SFEs with completion in 2012. Only 58 SFE's will be
subject to Fire Iinpact Fee revenues.
Timbcrline Lodge (Formcrly Roost Lodgc) The Roost Lodge is expected to be
demolished and redeveloped to include 28 whole ownership coildos, 3 employee housiilg
units, and a 102 rooin Marriott Residence Inn hoteL Completion is scheduled for 2012
with an estimated 44 ilet SFE's. All of these ilet SFE;s will be subject to Fire Iinpact Fee
revenues.
7/7/2009
5-1-11
Chief Marlc Miller
June 8, 2009
Page 4 of 4
Solar Vail The Solar Vail development will include 82 Einployee Housing units that
will replace the existing 24 Coiido Units. Developinent is scheduled to be complete in
2012. This will add 58 net SFE's which will be subject to Fire Impact Fee revenues.
Lionshcad I orth Day Lot Vail Resorts intends to develop this site i�lto approximately
32 einployee housing units. Project completion is expected in 2012 and will add 32
SFE's which will all be subject to Fire Impact Fee revenues.
Wcst Vail Mall While there is speculatioil about potential redevelopment of the West
Vail Mall area (includiilg the West Vail Lodge), there is currently no master plan for this
area and there are no specific developments plans. We have included 50 SFE's annually
in years 2017 through 2021 (approxiinately 70 SFE's amlually from 2022 through 2025)
for a total of 531 additional SFE's, all of which will be subject to Fire Impact Fee
revenues. Potential expansion projects s include Brandess Building, Garts, McDonalds,
Safeway, Vail das Schone, and West Vail Lodge.
Lionshcad Othcr A total potential of 177 net SFE's could be generated from
Lionshead expansion project such as Vail International Residcnes and Concert Hall Plaza
commercial space. These SFE's would be subject to Fire Iinpact Fee revenues.
Vail Villa�e Misccllaneous A total of 63 potential net SFE's could be added during the
next 10 years froin expansion projects related to Gorsuch, Wren, All Seasons, Chalet
road, Ramshonl, Texas Townhoines, and Vail Trails West. All of these SFE's would be
subject to Fire Iinpact Fee revenues.
Other —It is assuined that an average of 10 SFE's will be added each year froin 2009
through 201 l, with 15 SFE's added aiinually after 2011 as a result of tmidentified new
construction projects and remodels. All of these SFE's would be subject to Fire Impact
Fee revenues.
LIMITATIOI S
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. has assembled the above information, and the
infonnation presented on Schedule 1, based on information provided by others. Stan
Bernstein and Associates, Inc. has not independently evaluated or tested this information.
Consequently, Stan Benlstein and Associates, Ii1c. does ilot vouch for the achievability or
accuracy of this infonnation, and disclaims any opinion with respect to this information.
Very truly yours,
Stan Bernstein
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc.
�i�i2oo9
5-1-12
Town of Vail Fire Impact Fee Overview
July 7, 2009
Presented to
Town of Vail
Presented by
Tom Pippin
BBC Research Consulting
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 850
Denver, CO 80209-3827
Phone: 303.726-5687
pippin.tom@gmail.com
I
i
R.�s�.a�zcH
�C3NSULTII��
zzoo��
5-2-I
Definition of Impact Fees
I
I
monies collected formally through a set schedule, or formula,
spelled out in a local ordinance fees are levied onlv aqainst
new development proiects as a condition of permit approval to
SUppol't infrastructure needed to serve the proposed
development. They are calculated to cover a proportionate share
of the capital cost for that infrastructure.
International City Management Association
i Q
2 R.�s�.a,�zcH
�C3NSULTII��
�%z�?oo��
g_2_?
Calculation of Fees
Numerator
(what you need to buy or build to support new growth
at the current level of service)
divided by
Denominator
of new households, square feet)
Full Cost Recovery Impact Fee
::0
3 R.�s�.a�zcH
�C3NSULTII��
�%z�?oo��
5-2-;
Current Level of Service
Vail Fire aims to fulfill several level of service goals:
improve ISO rating (current rating is 5);
zero loss of life;
contain any fires in their room of origin; and
respond to 90% of incidents within 5 minutes or less.
i Q
4 R.�s�.a�zcH
�C3NSULTII��
�%z�?oo��
5-2-4
Projected SFEs—Vail Fire and Emergency Services
SFE Growth
Project Description 2010-2025 Source: Stan Bernstein
Unspecified new and remodeled units 247 and Associates �IIC.
West Vail Mall 531
Lionshead Future 177
Vail Village Miscellaneous 63
Ever Vail 408
Vail Cascade Cascade Condos 6
Cascade Cornerstone Building 26
Evergreen Lodge New Fairmont Hotel 73
Glen Lyon Building 13
Lionshead Parking Structure 270
Strata 57
Chamonix- Net of West Vail Fre Station (7 SFEs)' 58
Timberline Lodge/Raost Lodge 44
Solar Vail 58
Lionshead North Day Lot 32
Total New SFEs 2,063
5 R.�s�.a�zcH
�C3NSULTII��
�%z�?oo��
5-2-5
Three Types of Capital Spending
Not all capital costs are associated with growth:
1. R epair and replacement of facilities (i.e., standard periodic
investment in existing facilities such as repairing a leaky roof at an
existing station). These costs are not impact fee eligible;
2. Betterment of facilities, or implementation of new services (e.g.,
development of a fire training center for the first time). These costs
are qenerallv not entirely impact fee eligible; and
3. Expansion of facilities to accommodate new development (e.g.,
construction of new fire stations in growing areas). These costs are
impact fee eligible.
i Q
6 R.�s�.a�zcH
�C3NSULTII��
�%z�?oo��
5-2-6
Vail Fire and Emergency Services,
Future Capital Needs 2010-2025
Portion Allocated
Year Purchase to Include in Purchase
TypeofCapital Infrastructure Purchased Value Impact Fees Value
Buildings
Construct New West Vail Fre Station 2010 S5,520,000 80 S4,416,000
Remodel/Relocate East Vail Station 2012 S775,000 18% 5138,799
Remodell6cpand Vail VillageStation' 2011 S975,000 0°/ $0
Subtotal Buildings S7,270,000 S4,554,799
Vehiclesand Equpment z
Replace Existing Pierce pumper #411' 2014 S620,000 0% 50
Replace Existing Pierce pumper #412' 2022 S786,500 0% SO
Replace Existing Pierce pumper #414' 2011 S568,200 0% SO
Replace6cistingRerceaerial#430' 2022 S1,209,200 0% SO
Replace 6cisting Rerce platform #431 2021 S1,174,000 0% SO
ReplaceExistingBrushTruck2' 2019 S109,000 0% SO
New Pumper for West Vail Fire Station 2010 S570,000 80°/ 5456,000
New Heavy Rescue Truck 2015 S300,000 18°/ S53,729
New Type6 Wildland Truck 2014 S150,000 18°/ S26,864
Technical f�scue Equipment Package TBD S100 000 18°/ S17 910
Subtotal Vehiclesand Equipment 55,586,900 $554,502
Impact FeeStudy 515,000 100% �15,000
Grand Total: S5 124 301
i
7 R.�s�.a�zcH
�C3NSULTII��
zzoo��
5-2-7
Calculation of CIP-Based Impact Fees
Vail Fire and Emergency Services
I
Impact Fee Calculation
Allocated Valuefor Future Fire Infrastructure $5,124,301
Net Growt h i n� d u ri ng CI P Pieri od 2 2, 063
Impact Fee per New SFE $2,484
Notes: (1) See Exhibit 2. Capital Improvement Plan.
(2) See Exhibit 1. Current and Projected Residential Development.
8 R,ESEARCH
�C3NSULTII��
�%z�?oo��
5-2-5
Questions and Answers
::0
g R.�s�.a�zcH
�C3NSULTII��
�%z�?oo��
5-2-9
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Recap of winter 2008-2009 parking stats and presentation of parking survey
results. A review and discussion of current Town Council parking policies as it relates to both
the up coming season and the longer term future.
PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall Chris Caress, RRC Inc.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the reports, listen to the presentation, ask
questions and provide any direction on overall parking policy objectives, and goals for the task
force and begin dialogue regarding long term parking solutions as we start the to the Ford
Park parking study.
BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail through the boulder consulting firm of RRC. Inc.,
conducted a parking intercept survey in 2009 for the purposes of updating parking user
demographic profiles, ask parking experience satisfaction levels and to determine behavior
preferences. The survey results are complete. The town council in adopting the parking task
force recommendations for the coming year reviews the Parking Policy Objectives for the
coming season. We are asking the council to review the policies, review last seasons parking
results and provide direction as we undertake parking task force meetings later this month and
begin work on long term parking solutions with the Ford Park Study set to begin later this
month as well.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt, or modify the staff recommendation regarding parking
policies and task force goals. Provide preliminary input on longer term parking and
transportation solutions.
ATTAC H M ENTS
TownCouncil Memo
RRC Survey Overview
Parking Survey Report
�i�i2oo9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Public Works and Transportation Staff
SUBJECT: Parking Recap 2008-2009 ski season, 2009 Parking Survey report,
policy discussion in planning for 2009-2010 ski season and future
parking planning efforts
DATE: July 7, 2009
BACKGROUND
The Town of Vail Public Works Department through, the Boulder consulting firm RRC
Inc., conducted a parking intercept survey this last winter. A similar survey was
conducted in 2002. The goals of the survey were to determine any changes to the town's
parking customer demographic profile due to the introduction of Vail Resorts Epic Pass,
as well as information on ratings of experience and various aspects of behavior and
preferences. The data base provides the town with updated information which can assist
the town council in discussions both short and long term with regards to parking policies
as to who do we serve, how do we serve them and where do we serve them. The data
base of responses of parking customers not only can be cross referenced for different
answers, the survey also allows the town a group of customers who are willing to
collaborate with the town on additional surveys if we so desire in the future.
SUMMARY OF WORK SESSION ITEM
We will review, discuss and have the council provide direction on the following:
Winter 2009 parking survey results.
General overview of the 08-09 ski season regarding parking use and stats.
Review the current parking policy objectives
Discuss and provide direction to the parking task force for the upcoming season
regarding parking policies, objectives, and goals
Begin to provide direction regarding parking, as we begin the longer term parking
planning work at Ford Park and other parking and transportation alternatives.
2009 PARKING SURVEY
Attached is an overview and the more detailed report of the parking survey results.
Chris Cares will be at the work session to discuss the results with the council and how
the data base can be used in future decisions.
Chris will go over key findings regarding:
Visitor Mix- Overall, surveys indicated 55 percent day visitors, 32 percent
overnight visitors staying in the Vail Valley, and 13 percent locals.
Relationship between parking structure usage and lodging occupancy-. The
analysis shows that parking transactions and lodging occupancies track closely
7/7/2009
6 1 1
with one another, a further indication that the structures are serving day and
destination visitors
Persons per vehicle- This year the overall average persons per vehicle was 2.6
persons, ranging from 2.7 in both structures to 2.1 persons in the Free Parking
Purpose of Trip-Virtually all respondents reported that the primary purpose of
their trip was skiing/snowboarding (95 percent). Yet, 26 percent reported that
they would also be consuming food and drinks, and 9 percent said they would be
shopping
Ratings of the Parking/Access Experience- ratings were generally quite high
Expenditures of parking users-. On average, respondents reported spending an
average of $77, with 95 percent of respondents reporting they spent some
money either in Vail or on their way to Vail in the I-70 corridor. Day visitors
reported an average expenditure of $29 per person for food beverage and
shopping in the Town of Vail.
First Choice Location for Parking the Village and Lionshead structures were
rated almost equal in attractiveness (40 and 38 percent respectively)
First Choice Location to Enter the Mountain-The results show that Vail Village
and Lionshead are approximately equal, and they dominate, accounting for 74
percent of responses. Gold Peak is identified by about 10 percent and 14
percent either have no opinion or don't care
As stated, this is an introduction to the parking survey results and if the council desires
greater depth and understanding of specific portions of the survey we will take the
questions or area of interest and schedule time at a future meeting to review those
issues in much greater detail.
2008 SKI SEASON PARKING OVERVIEW
The 2008 -2009 ski season could be considered a successful one regarding key metrics
of the season as compared to last year. Attached is spreadsheet providing greater detail
of historical parking statistics.
2007-2008 2008-2009
Village transactions 284,159 288,307
Lionshead transactions 186,054 179,028
Total transactions 470,213 467,335
Village Structure Filled Days 73 50
Frontage Road Days 49 24
Total number of Frontage Road Cars* 14,672 8,418
Average Number of Frontage Road Cars* 321 366
Maximum Number of Frontage Road Cars 1070 688
Number Cars Wendy's,
Donavan Park and W Frontage Road* N/A 13,722
7/7/2009
6-1-2
Skier Visits 1,570,000 1,622,000
*Not all days are included in this data
The town was successful in making major improvements in the overall parking goals
while not negatively affecting the number of guest visits or guest satisfaction ratings.
PARKING PLAN POLICY OBJECTIVES AND GOALS
The council had requested to review the current parking policies for the upcoming
season prior to asking the parking task force to meet on their recommendations for next
year. The current policies are as follows:
Parkinq Plan Policv Obiectives
Service Core Markets
Skiers, shoppers, employees
Manage the Yield
Simplify the Product
Design Products so it is Revenue Neutral
I ncrease Safety
In addition the Parking Task Force works with the following guidelines
o Strongly encourage the use of transit
o Recover transit enhancement costs through parking
o Parking cost increases will be borne by parking
o Encourage turnover of shopper parking spaces
o Have the rate of the shopper parking track closer to rates in the structure
o Raise the top rate to offset continued increased cost of operation
o Encourage carpooling/vanpool
o Pass prices reflect a relative value received based on the daily rate (i.e.
season cost is based on 21 weeks at 5 times per week at daily rate)
o Strictly enforce parking violations
Specific goals for 2008-2009 were put in place due to the concern of the Epic Pass and
large employment bases at major construction projects. These included:
Increase the supply of parking by 400 spaces
Diminish the demand of existing parking to free up additional spaces
Better ensure some availability of spaces for shopping and other short term
needs
Encourage alternative transportation modes
And as always, limit overflow parking to 15 days on the Frontage Road
�i�i2oo9
6-1-3
Spaces have been freed up in the Village and Lionshead Structure
New supply was in use at
Donovan Park
Vail Village Club
Arrabelle to a lesser extent
Diminish Demand
Increase rates to discourage use of the automobile
Limit access to some passes to free up spaces and ensure those with the pass
products a reasonable chance of being able to find a spot
Metrics
Village Structure filled less times, and the value lots were less than capacity
Frontage Road parking is down from last year as well as the extreme peaks
Increase supply by managing the existing spaces better
Decrease the number of passes sold
Create a shift in travel patterns of locals
Metrics
Pass sales were down this year
Bus usage is up
More transactions took place at the Village Structure
Value lots were at less than capacity
Shopper Parking
Rate should be increased to ensure open spots
Metrics
Shopper spaces were less than capacity
Increase use of Alternative modes
Enhance bus service
Introduce van pools
Encourage more carpooling as a way to share costs
Metrics
Bus ridership was up
Added bus service in West Vail area
Over 30 van pools in use
Number of single occupant vehicles in both structure surveys was low
Frontage Road parking
Goal of 15 days, more realistic would be half of last year
Enhance bus service on overflow days
Metric
Cut the overflow days in half
Added overflow bus service
7/7/2009
6 1-4
This year more cars were parking in the outlying free areas before the structures filled up
than anytime before. The number of cars on peak days was averaging 150 more than
last year. This would account for some decline in the total parking structure transactions
for the season.
Based on the data of the survey and the previous direction, we feel the current policies
have served the Town council well and as we move into the future continued
dependence on efficient mass transportation as well as an aggressive management of
the available parking spaces, providing a variety of parking options based on
convenience and price while providing clear messaging on the alternatives and services
available is important.
The Town of Vail has a very complicated parking management system that uses the
policy objectives, guidelines and goals each year to frame a parking program. We use
various metrics such as overall skier visits, number of transactions, availability of
spaces, overflows and extent of the overflow, customer satisfaction surveys by Vail
Resorts as well as our intercept survey to manage our programs. It is our observation
the result of the program this last season was quite successful considering all the goals
that were to be accomplished without a significant decline in the overall parking
satisfaction scores or number of parking guests.
We would like to hear any areas of concern but feel the policies need little change for the
short term based on the results of last year.
TASK FORCE FOCUS FOR THE UPCOMING SEASON
It is recommended that the majority of the operations of the past season remain for the
coming season. This includes the current rate structure remain in place. Areas needing
attention and concern are:
The value lots. The usage of the lots and the installation of new equipment
options will be evaluated in the context of the overall parking policies and
goals
ECO transit operations and pricing. The employee passes will need to have
some relevance to ECO prices as well as significant service level changes
and we will adjust according.
The Forest Service lot at Dowd Junction. The use of the lot will need to be
agreed upon between all parties involved up front as the Forest Service was
upset with how the lot was over taken this last year. Based on these
agreements we will adjust our plan accordingly.
Early season demand of construction worker parking. Specifically changes in
operations, schedule and efforts to still complete the Four Seasons by
December as compared to on going conversations with the previous
contractor.
Other significant issues the Task Force identifies in their ski season debrief
meeting to be scheduled for late July.
7/7/2009
6-1-5
LONG TERM PARKING PLANNING EFFORTS
We will begin the feasibility study and planning efforts of the Ford Park long term parking
plan later this month. As we progress, with alternatives at Ford Park we will want to
compare the alternatives of other parking and transportation solutions to make informed
decisions. We will come to the council, similar to how the Lionshead transit Center
project was handled. There will be early work with the council to clarify the problem and
issues, define the project given and goals, establish metrics to evaluate alternatives and
provide a project process and schedule.
If there is any initial input regarding our policies relating to long term parking solutions
that want to be discussed, we would like to hear them now. This, however, will not be the
only time the council will provide input on this subject.
The Vail 20/20 study, the recently adopted transportation master plan, the parking
policies objectives, guidelines and goals, input from stakeholder and public meetings
and further council input will frame these items in much greater detail in the future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Schedule additional sessions on the parking survey as subjects and/or needs
arise
Keep the current parking policies objectives in place for the coming season
Direct the task force to keep the majority of the parking plan in place and work on
the items identified above in the memo
Provide any initial feedback on parking policies as the would relate to the longer
term parking planning efforts
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
Review the parking survey results and provide direction on additional detailed
follow up sessions
Discuss current parking policies and provide direction if any significant changes
need to be made or further work is required to adopt the policies for the
upcoming ski season
Discuss goals or issues, the parking task force should work on for the upcoming
season and provide staff and the task force direction.
Provide any initial feedback on parking policies relating to the longer term parking
planning efforts about to begin.
7/7/2009
6 1 6
Key Findings from Town of Vail Parking Surveys
Conducted between February 14 and March 29, 2009
Compiled by RRC Associates, Inc.
The following discussion provides a brief overview of some of the key findings from the
Town of Vail Parking Surveys, 2009. An expanded discussion of findings, along with
copies of the survey instruments, is also attached.
Methodoloqv. The 2009 surveying effort was similar to a program conducted by the
Town in 2002. However, this season the program included a request for an email
address to do a follow-up survey. In total, 1,056 "intercept" surveys were conducted in
the primary TOV parking lots. These surveys resulted in about 864 emails, which
yielded 160 "bounce backs," and 358 persons responding to the email version of the
survey for an effective response rate of 55 percent. This represents an excellent
response for this type of research effort.
It should be noted that this survey was intended to focus on parking information during a
peak period of the season. Surveys were conducted only on weekends in order to
gather information during periods when Vail parking was in relatively short supply.
Further, surveys were only conducted between February 14 and March 29 and as a
result they do not fully portray the entire season.
Visitor Mix. Surveys were conducted in six of the Vail parking structures/lots. The
origins of visitors vary somewhat by lot although, in the Village and Lionshead
structures, which represent the bulk of Vail's capacity (1,050 and 1,150 spaces
respectively), the profiles of visitors are similar. Overall, surveys indicated 55 percent
day visitors, 32 percent overnight visitors staying in the Vail Valley, and 13 percent
locals. In other words, the lots are attracting a large number of day visitors but they are
also used heavily by overnight visitors from Colorado and out of state. The profile of lot
users is important because it is a strong predictor of other aspects of the visit including
likelihood to visit local businesses, expenditures, and total time spent in Vail.
The Relationship between Parkinq Structure Usaqe and Lodqinq Occupancy. The
analysis shows that parking transactions and lodging occupancies track closely with one
another, a further indication that the structures are serving day and destination visitors.
As portrayed in the report, parking on the Frontage Road is most likely to occur when
both destination occupancy is high and day visitor usage is also heavy.
Persons per Vehicle. The survey tracked persons per vehicle. As in past years, the
structures tend to have larger numbers of persons per vehicle than the free lots. This
year the overall average persons per vehicle was 2.6 persons, ranging from 2.7 in both
structures to 2.1 persons in the Free Parking that included Donovan Park, the Wendy's
lot and the North Frontage Road. Measured in a different way, the percentage of one-
person vehicles was 37 percent in the free lots and between 14 and 18 percent in the
structures and on the South Frontage Road.
RRC Associates 1
7/7/2009
6-2-1
TOWN OF UAIL PARKING SURUEYS 2009
Purpose of Trip. The survey tracked the purpose of the trip among survey respondents.
Virtually all respondents reported that the primary purpose of their trip was
skiing/snowboarding (95 percent). Yet, 26 percent reported that they would also be
consuming food and drinks, and 9 percent said they would be shopping. Once again,
the profile of responses to this question varied by lot. While 31 percent in the Village
structure and 22 percent in the Lionshead structure said they would be dining/drinking,
only 1 percent in the free lots said they would stay for apres ski.
Ratinqs of the Parkinq/Access Experience. The intercept version of the survey asked
respondents to rate their satisfaction with several aspects of the parking experience. As
shown in the report, ratings were generally quite high. The most negatively rated
aspect of the experience is the "overall" rating which often came with specific
complaints about various aspects of the experience including the price of parking in
Vail. However, it should be remembered that crowding issues were minimal during the
latter part of this season when the surveys were conducted.
Expenditures. The respondents were asked about spending patterns on the day that
they were interviewed, both in Vail and on their trip to Vail. These results are detailed in
the report. It should be noted that these results are not a complete proxy for all
spending in Vail by visitor groups. These are responses from visitors that came by car
and parked in one of the facilities where surveys were conducted. Further, there are
aspects of expenditures that were not fully probed through the survey including lift ticket
costs, equipment rentals, or other activities (such as snowmobiling or Adventure Ridge,
etc.). Nevertheless, these results do provide estimates of relative expenditures by the
different segments of visitors and they also offer a measurement of the percentages of
visitors that do not spend anything during their stay. On average, respondents reported
spending an average of $77, with 95 percent of respondents reporting they spent some
money either in Vail or on their way to Vail in the I-70 corridor. Day visitors reported an
average expenditure of $16 per person for food and beverage in the Town of Vail, but
only half report spending with half saying they spent nothing in the Town.
First Choice Location for Parkinq. The survey asked respondents their first choice for
parking location in Vail. As illustrated in the report, the Village and Lionshead structures
were rated almost equal in attractiveness (40 and 38 percent respectively). Day visitors
were likely to call both the Village and Lionshead equal in attractiveness. In contrast,
the Village was favored by Overnight Visitors from Colorado, and the Lionshead
structure was favored by Visitors from Out of State. Locals were especially likely to
identify Donovan Park.
First Choice Location to Enter the Mountain. The above question on preferred parking
location was followed by a question concerning the preferred location from which to
enter the mountain "if the cost of parkinq was equal." The results show that Vail Village
and Lionshead are approximately equal, and they dominate, accounting for 74 percent
of responses. Gold Peak is identified by about 10 percent and 14 percent either have
no opinion or don't care. Cascade received only 1 percent of responses as the
RRC Associates 2
7/7/2009
6-2-2
TOWN OF UAIL PARKING SURUEYS 2009
preferred entry point. Interestingly, these responses showed relatively little variation by
visitor type, with the exception that Overnight Visitors from Colorado were somewhat
more likely to favor the Village access.
RRC Associates 3
7/7/2009
6-2-3
An Overview of Results from Town of Vail Parking Surveys
Conducted between February 14 and March 29, 2009
Compiled by RRC Associates, Inc.
During the latter part of the 2009 season the Town of Vail (TOV) commissioned RRC
Associates, Inc. to conduct surveys in selected Vail parking lots. The purpose of the
surveys was to develop a demographic profile of parking lot users as well as information
on ratings of experience, and various aspects of behavior and preferences (such as first
lift used, time of arrival and likelihood to visit Vail Village/Lionshead shops).
This survey was similar to a survey conducted by the Town in 2002 and comparisons to
the results from that study can be provided as needed. In addition, the surveys this
season included a request for an email address to do a follow-up survey. In total, 1,056
"intercept" surveys were conducted in the primary TOV parking lots. These surveys
resulted in about 864 emails, which yielded 160 "bounce backs," and 358 persons
responding to the email version of the survey for an effective response rate of 55
percent. This represents an excellent response for this type of research effort.
It should be noted that this survey was intended to focus on parking information during a
peak period of the season. Surveys were conducted only on weekends in order to
gather information during periods when Vail parking was in relatively short supply. As a
result, the findings from these surveys should not be generalized to the entire season or
to all days of the week; by design, the survey focused on a narrow sampling of days.
Also, while the survey was designed to measure some of the impacts that occur when
parking spills onto the Vail Frontage Road, during the latter part of this season the
frequency of Frontage Road parking was down considerably from recent years. As a
result, the 2009 surveys are limited in fully profiling the demographics and opinions of
those parking on the Frontage Road.
This full report summarizes selected findings from the research. In addition, the surveys
provide a database that can be explored in greater detail as parking issues or policy
decisions arise. Further, a number of respondents indicated a willingness to participate
in follow-up research and these respondents could be contacted if there are new
questions that Town officials/VRI would like to explore in greater detail.
Copies of the two versions of the surveys that were administered in Vail, the "Intercept"
from the parking lots and the "Email Follow-up" survey, are attached. Responses to
each question have been noted on the survey forms. In addition, "open ended"
comments that were obtained through the research are also provided. The following
discussion highlights some of the key findings from the research and identifies selected
key measures from the responses (such as "people per car" or TOV shopping) that
provide metrics that can be used for planning purposes.
Although this study focuses primarily on survey data collected during the latter part of
the season, information concerning the use of parking over the entire season was
RRC Associates 1
7/7/2009
6-3-1
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS 2009
provided by the Town. These data were analyzed in various ways and is summarized in
the graph below.
The analysis shows that although the frequency of cars parking on the Frontage Road
was down significantly this season, the number of transactions at the parking structures
was very similar to the counts recorded in 2007/08. In total, there were 24 days on
which cars were parked on the Frontage Road this season, compared to 49 days in
2007/08. And on most of the days with Frontage Road parking the number of cars on
the road was less this year than last. Note also that there were only 9 days of Frontage
Road parking between President's weekend (which had no cars spill onto the Frontage
Road) and the end of the season, compared to 25 days with such parking last season.
This information is portrayed in the graph below.
Figure 1
Comparison of VTC and LH Parking Transactions, Structure Fill Dates,
and Vehicles on Frontage Road
Winter 2008/09 vs. Winter 2007/08
�,�v�
i r r u....�
���r� k s r �a ��i� u�
i itC
1 7:C
a 0 1
�t'P'll='.Qi :I' f=f'.3' y F �03: i �P[{i
i98C 'eeti_es�r=rsr-a�e�?wcu%Cd
w 4TC a W cmtme� zar�sa�:.lne� C"".4
cn
t1•TL d L?i umtmea aansa.lors C F:E
L13p5 v IC f1Ed 65u9
a Days 4'C f!.ni STUp
C�a�: L i il ".5
'�7:C C'a�:Liil?�l�:c
l�
L�
i.;�Z08 5 23C6 c.r,'ilCt 12�1�8:t. 12�iL'd.t 1ti'7�ie 11s'J4 li1Q�rF' 11!i6� 1[1 :C+ �+"9B 2i?A.� .�114dC9 "[�1r4° 2+�'Ln:�� ?�-iC9 3f1-0i17`� ?l2S�05 3123�5 u4 ��1t11�CP 4118M.f'
6ay
dGridlireas Afigned with 6aW�rdays)
Source: Town of Vail
RRC Associates 2
7/7/2009
6-3-2
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS 2009
Survey Responses from the "Intercept" Survey Conducted in the Vail Parking Lots
Visitor Mix. Surveys were conducted in six of the Vail parking lots between February 14
and April 5, 2009. The origins of visitors vary somewhat by lot although, in the Village
and Lionshead structures which represent the bulk of Vail's capacity (1,050 and 1,150
spaces respectively), the profiles of visitors are similar. Overall, surveys indicated 55
percent day visitors, 32 percent overnight visitors staying in the Vail Valley, and 13
percent locals. However, there were notable differences in the makeup of users in the
various lots as illustrated below.
Table 1
Visitor Type by Location of Survey
LOCATION OF SURVEY
Free Parking
Vail Village Parking Lionshead Parking (Donovan/ Safeway/
Overall Structure Structure Frontage Road Wendy'sl Other)
In Vail justfor the day 55% 54% 57% 48% 53%
A local resident 13% 9% 13o�o 26 o� o 28 o� o
An overnight visitor staying in the Vail Valley 32% 36% 30% 26% 18%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Overall, about 30 percent of respondents reported that they are from out of state. In
other words, the lots are attracting a large number of day visitors but they are also used
heavily by overnight visitors from Colorado and out of state. The profile of lot users is
important because it is a strong predictor of other aspects of the visit including likelihood
to visit local businesses, expenditures, and total time spent in Vail, and the user profile
sheds light on opinion questions related to parking.
The relationship between destination visitation and use of the parking structures across
the entire season was also analyzed. The lodging occupancy in Vail corresponds very
closely to the number of transactions recorded at the parking structures, as illustrated in
Figure 2 below. This analysis suggests several observations that deserve attention as
parking issues are considered in the Town.
Use of the parking structures is highly variable between weekdays and
weekends. This is the result of day skier visitation but it is also a function
of destination skier visits, as well. As noted above, about one in three
visitors to the Village and Lionshead structures are overnight visitors.
The peaks and valleys in usage are the result of not only day visitors, but
also overnight visitors. As shown, for the most part there are close
correlations between occupancy and transactions. The times where the
occupancies are relatively high compared to parking transactions
generally occur during periods when destination visitors (including
international visitors) were especially prevalent, including the week before
Christmas, the first week of January and the end of the season between
Easter and closing.
RRC Associates 3
7/7/2009
6-3-3
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS 2009
As would be expected, parking on the Frontage Road is most likely to
occur when both destination occupancy is high and day visitor usage is
also heavy. As noted above, Frontage Road parking was down this
season overall and was off particularty during the latter part of the 2008/09
season.
Figure 2
VTC and LH Parking Transactions and Fill Patterns, Cars Parks on Frontage Road,
and Vail Lodging Occupancy Rate
2008/09
�x�� �oo�.
M• •M
4.5.� �]°i
q,rr�� 97at
3 7.�oi.
3,�X�� ."a'iti:.
a
2.� 57�
G
2,r�i� 4794� 5
0'•:�I La_qn•c �..:-_ao I?at� 2.:Oi�J: fF.:- I,'
7
�'•:���idv.�r rc �t�ai
7.� �J 3:i5:-
a r�:�v+hich L�I M1'.led
0 J r2 ��r;
ti Li :�.cmCira] l 2Jg�:
.:i^
a
:��s
II'�2:i;, I L IL�c. _,J3 J_'_. I •liti�. 'J:� I:[�I� I �I e I e�ILc .:2'rL: 1 I.' c �1.1.�! II 1�Ii:LS .!.e
o�y
{Gridli�aas Afigned wtilh Salurdays)
Source: Town of Vail and MTRiP Occupancy Data
Persons per Vehicle. The survey tracked persons per vehicle. As in past years, the lots
with fees tend to have larger numbers of persons per vehicle than the free lots. This
year the overall average persons per vehicle was 2.6 persons, ranging from 2.7 in both
structures to 2.1 persons in the Free Parking that included Donovan Park, the Wendy's
lot and the North Frontage Road. Measured in a different way, the percentage of one-
person vehicles was 37 percent in the free lots and between 14 and 18 percent in the
structures and on the South Frontage Road.
RRC Associates 4
7/7/2009
6-3-4
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS 2009
Table 2
Today, how many people are with you on this trip to Vail?
VISITOR TYPE LOCATION OF SURVEY
Free Parking
Vail Village Lionshead (Donovanl
Day Local Overnight Parking Parking Frontage Safeway/
Overall visitor resident visitor Struciure Sh�uciure Road Wendy'slOther)
One (traveling alone) 18% 17% 45% 8% 14% 18% 19% 37%
Two 38% 42% 31% 35% 41% 36% 32% 36%
Three 22% 24% 11% 21% 23% 21% 29% 16%
Four 15% 11% 9% 23% 15% 17% 19% 6%
Five 5% 4% 3% 7% 4% 5% 3%
Six 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 1%
Seven 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Eight 0% 1% 1% 1%
Nine 0% 0% 0%
Ten or more 0% 1% 0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Average 2.6 2.5 2 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.1
These findings are important in that they tend to confirm that one of the benefits of
charging for parking is more effective utilization of available capacity. This finding is
well documented in the transportation engineering literature and commonly experienced
in many communities. To the extent that the Town is encouraging carpooling and more
efficient use of resources, parking fees are having that desired effect. Further, the data
would suggest that parking charges of $25 this year compared to $20 last season did
not have a significant negative impact in either parking transactions or skier visits.
Transactions held level and skier visits are anticipated to be up. (Note, they were up 9
percent as of January 31 the last date for which results are publicly available.)
Types of Lift Tickets Used. Surveys tracked the type of lift ticket used by the
respondent as well as others in the vehicle. Results showed 32 percent ownership of
the Colorado Pass and 31 percent ownership of the Epic Pass. Note that surveys were
conducted on Saturday of the Presidents weekend, a date when Colorado Passes were
"blacked out." On that weekend Epic passes were especially prevalent and are likely
somewhat over-represented in the total survey results. Other ticket types represented
included: 17 percent daily tickets, 9 percent multi-day tickets and 11 percent other types
of tickets. Not surprisingly, pass ownership is significantly higher among Colorado
residents (both locals and day visitors) but the data indicate that a notable segment of
visitors parking in the lots are using daily or multi-day tickets.
RRC Associates 5
7/7/2009
6-3-5
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS 2009
Table 3
Ticket Type by Visitor Type and Location of Survey
VISITOR TYPE LOCATION OF SURVEY
Free Parking
Vail Village Lionshead (Donovanl
Day Local Overnight Parking Parking Frontage Safeway/
Overall visitor resident visitor Struciure Sh�uciure Road Wendy'slOther)
Colorado Pass 32% 47% 5% 16% 30% 36% 47% 26%
Epic Pass 31% 27% 52% 33% 30% 31% 27% 43%
Other Pass 2% 1% 8% 0% 0% 2% 6%
Multi-day ticket 9% 5% 19% 10% 9% 3% 4%
Daily ticket 17% 14% 6% 24% 20% 15% 7% 9%
Other 9% 6% 29% 8% 9% 7% 17% 12%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
The survey allows the users of different types of passes to be compared and
contrasted. Based on the survey results there are notable differences in the use
patterns by holders of the different types of passes. For example, while 83 percent of
those reporting that they are using Colorado passes were in Vail just for the day, and 16
percent were staying overnight in the Vail Valley, 48 percent of the Epic pass users
were day visitors and 34 percent were staying overnight. These results help to confirm
that the draw of the Epic Pass was in part among destination and overnight (more
frequent) Vail visitors and that the pass helped during a season where the Vail
community was working hard to bring in destination guests. Further breakdowns of use
patterns by the different pass holders have been provided to the Town under separate
cover.
Purpose of Trip. The survey tracked the purpose of the trip among survey respondents.
Virtually all respondents reported that the primary purpose of their trip was
skiing/snowboarding (95 percent). Yet, 26 percent reported that they would also be
consuming food and drinks, and 9 percent said they would be shopping. Once again,
the profile of responses to this question varied by lot. While 31 percent in the Village lot
and 22 percent in the Lionshead lot said they would be dining/drinking, only 1 percent in
the free lots said they would stay for apres ski. And while about 10 percent in the
structures said they would shop, none of those in the free lots intended to shop.
Ratinqs of the Parkinq/Access Experience. The intercept version of the survey asked
respondents to rate their satisfaction with several aspects of the parking experience. As
shown below, ratings were generally quite high. The most negatively rated aspect of
the experience is the "overall" rating which often came with complaints about the price
of parking in Vail.
RRC Associates 6
7/7/2009
6-3-6
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS 2009
Figure 4
Satisfaction with Parking Experience
Q°' Ratingsof5and4"Extremelysatisfed" 21% s7%
o Q
o Ratings of 1 and 2"Extremelydissatisfed" 4°/
[6 Y
N
Ratings of 5 and 4"Extremelysatisfed" 18% s3 /a
c o
o c
w Q Ratings of 1 and 2"Extremelydissatisfed" s%
a�
a��. Ratings of 5 and 4"Extremelysatisfed" 28% 70
c� o o
c
N a�
a� a� m
Ratings of 1 and 2"Extremelydissatisfed" 7% 11
Q
Y Ratings of 5 and 4"Extremelysatisfed" 23� 56
Q a�
Ratings of 1 and 2"Extremelydissatisfed" 12% 25/
0
0% 10 20 30% 40 50% 60% 70% 80 90% 100%
Percent Responding
There were some differences in the ratings by location of the parking lot with the
Frontage Road showing consistently lower ratings than the other locations. However, it
should be recognized that the sample of Frontage Road surveys was relatively low, the
result of only sporadic parking in that area during the latter part of the season.
RRC Associates 7
7/7/2009
6-3-7
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS 2009
Figure 5
Satisfaction with Parking Experience by Location of Survey
o Vail Ullage Parking Structure 23% 89%
0
a Lionshead Parking Structure 2p% gg��
a
a
o- Frontage Road i�, i3�/fl I 43%
a�
`n Free Parking (Donovanl Safewayl Wend Js/ Other) 23% 82%
Vail Village Parking Structure 20°10 84%
m
Lionshead Parking Structure �g% gg��
m
a a
Frontage Road 23% 55%
0
a�
w Free Parking (Donovan/ Safeway/ Wend Js/ Other) 7% 66%
Vail Village Parking Structure 34% 74%
U
0 0�� Lionshead Parking Structure 25% 77%
a� a'
U
a�� Frontage Road i�, I 2fl�, 30%
a o ■Ratings of5 "Extremely satisfied"
❑Ratingsof4
Free Parking (Donovanl Safewayl Wend�lsl Other) 16% 34%
Vail Ullage Parking Structure 26% 55%
Q� Lionshead Parking Structure 21% 61%
a�
m
o X- Frontage Road 16% 26%
a�
a�
Free Parking (Donovanl Safewayl Wend Js/ Other) 28°l0 56%
0% 10% 20 30 40 50% 60 70 80 90% 100
Percent Responding 4 or5
Survey Responses from the Follow-up Survey Conducted via the Internet
Intercept Survey respondents that provided an email received a Follow-up Survey
asking them to look back on their entire visit. The results from this survey are
summarized below and full results are tabulated on an attached copy of the survey
instrument.
Time of Return to your Vehicle. Respondents were asked what time they returned to
their vehicle on the day that they were interviewed. As summarized below, most
respondents indicated that they returned between 2:00 and 5:00 PM. However, a
significant number (12 percent) returned after 5:00, indicating that they had stayed and
participated in other activities besides just skiing.
RRC Associates 8
7/7/2009
6-3-8
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS 2009
Figure 6
At approximately what time did you return to your parked car
on the day you were interviewed?
35%
0
30%
e 25%
e 20°/
a20%
5%
15% 12%
a�
a 8%
5% 4%
5% 3%
1% 0%
Before 11:00 AM 12:00 AM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM After 7:00
10:00 AM PM
These results vary considerably by the type of visitor and whether they are staying
overnight. For example, about 4 percent of Day Visitors from the Front Range reported
that they returned to their cars at 1:00 PM and 23 percent at 2:00 PM. This is in
contrast to only 1 percent and 12 percent respectively of Overnight Visitors from Out of
State. These differences help to explain some of the differences in the likelihood of
shopping and dining in the Town, and also the differing expenditure patterns by these
segments of visitors.
Figure 7
At approximately what time did you return to your parked car
on the day you were interviewed?
By Visitor Type
50%
-�Dayvisitor
�}5% 44
tLocal resident
40% }OvernightvisitorfromColorado
a,35% ��Overnightvisitorfrom0utofState
e
30% 31
Q 9%
�/1 /a
25%
G 22%
20% 9
a ��i
15% 15%
10% 10/
7% 8% 8° �,6i°
0
5% 5%
2
Befare 11:00 AM 12:00 AM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM After 7:00
10:00 AM PM
Activities after 3:00 PM. These results are further confirmed by the responses to a
question concerning activities between 3:00 and 5:00 PM and between 5 and the time
they left. Results show that the various segments of visitors reported distinctly different
behavior patterns after 5:00. It is not that the Overnight Visitors from Colorado were
RRC Associates 9
7/7/2009
6-3-9
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS 2009
especially likely to go back to their units. In contrast, Overnight from Out of State
reported a relatively high likelihood of both drinking, dining and shopping. And Day
Visitors from Out of State were especially likely to dine and shop. While these results
are not surprising they provide some quantitative understanding of how the visitor
segments are behaving, and they also indicate that a substantial number of users of
Vail parking are also contributing to the local economy.
Table 4
What did you do between 3:00 and 5:00 pm?
And between 5:00 pm and when you left Vail?
VISITOR TYPE
Day visitor Overnightvisitor
CO Front Day visitor Local CO Front Overnightvisitor
Overall Range OutofState resident Range OutofState
Between 3 and 5 pm
Skied/Snowboarded 58% 60% 60% 37% 47% 64%
Had a few drinks 27% 19% 28% 26% 33% 30%
Went back to unit 15% 9% 12% 11 31 19%
Shopped 12% 10% 16% 5% 8% 21%
Other 12% 20% 4% 16% 11%
Ate dinner in the Town ofVail 5% 4% 5% 8% 2%
Sightseeing 3% 3% 12% 5% 2%
Worked 3% 16% 4%
Advenh�re Ridge activities 1% 1% 5%
Ate dinner on the mountain 1% 1% 3%
TOTAL 137% 127% 132% 126% 142% 143%
5 pm until time you left Vail
Went back to unit 27% 13% 25% 25% 63% 31
Had a few drinks 28% 21 38% 38% 26% 31
Other 27% 42% 25% 25% 16% 6%
Ate dinner in the Town ofVail 15% 11% 6% 13% 16% 28%
Shopped 13% 11% 31% 13% 22%
Sightseeing 5% 11% 5% 3%
Adventure Ridge activities 2% 6% 13%
Skied/Snowboarded 2% 3%
Worked 2% 3%
TOTAL 119% 108% 131% 125% 126% 128%
RRC Associates 10
7/7/2009
6-3-10
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS 2009
Expenditures. The respondents were asked about their spending patterns on the day
that they were interviewed, both in Vail and on their trip to Vail. These results are
summarized below and additional information has been provided to the Town under
separate cover. It should be noted that these results are not a complete proxy for all
spending in Vail by visitor groups. These are responses from visitors that came by car
and parked in one of the five lots where surveys were conducted. Further, there are
aspects of expenditures that were not fully probed through the survey including lift ticket
costs, equipment rentals, or other activities (such as snowmobiling or Adventure Ridge,
etc.). Nevertheless, these results do provide estimates of relative expenditures by the
different segments of visitors and they also offer a measurement of the percentages of
visitors that do not spend anything during their stay. For example, the results show that
28 percent of day visitors reported that they did not spend anything on Vail Mountain,
and 50 percent said they spent nothing in the Town. In contrast, only 17 percent of
overnight visitors parking in the structures spent nothing on the mountain on the day
they were interviewed, and 32 percent spent nothing in the Town.
Table 5
Vail Parking Follow-Up Survey: Expenditures
VISITOR TYPE
OVERNIGHT
DAY LOCAL FROM OVERNIGHT
OVERALL VISITOR RESIDENT COLO. OUT OF STATE
Food/bevera e on mountain
reporting zero expenditure 27% 28% 47% 24% 17%
Average expenditure $17 $17 $13 $16 $21
Food/bevera e in Town of Vail
reporting zero expenditure 44% 50% 47% 35% 32%
Average expenditure $19 $16 $19 $25 $23
Food/beverage in towns outside Vail
re ortin zero ex enditure 80% 89% 75°/a 71% 61%
Average expenditure $8 $4 $6 $9 $20
Food/beverage in I-70 corridor
reporting zero expenditure 72% 67% 86% 67% 83%
Average expenditure $4 $4 $2 $4 $6
Shoppin in Vail
reporting zero expenditure 77°/a 83% 89% 76% 54%
Avera e ex enditure $20 $13 $18 $12 $43
Other expenditure (not gas, transportation
or lodging
°/a reporting zero expenditure 87% 84% 97°/a 94% 86%
Average expenditure $9 $8 $1 $2 $14
Total Average Expenses
Per Person Toda
reportin zero expenditure 5% 7% 8% 4%
Average expenditure $77 $61 $59 $68 $128
Expenditures by Pass Type Epic Colorado Multi-da Dail
reportin zero expenditure 7% 4% 4% 2%
Avera e ex enditure $76 $62 $114 $85
RRC Associates 11
7/7/2009
6-3-11
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS 2009
The survey also permits expenditures to be broken down by the different types of lift
tickets represented in the parking lots. As illustrated in the previous Table, the
expenditures by multi-day ticket holders appear to be higher than those of other types of
tickets ($114) and the Epic pass ($76 per person daily expenditure on the items
identified in the survey) exceeds that of Colorado Card holders ($62).
First Choice Location for Parkinq. The survey asked respondents their first choice for
parking location in Vail. As illustrated below, the Village and Lionshead structures were
rated almost equal (40 and 38 percent respectively) and they were equal among day
visitors. In contrast, the Village was favored by Overnight visitors from Colorado and
the Lionshead was favored by visitors from out of state. Locals were especially likely to
identify Donovan Park.
First Choice Location to Enter the Mountain. The above question on parking location
was followed by a question concerning the preferred location from which to enter the
mountain "if the cost of parking was equal." As shown below, Vail Village and
Lionshead are approximately equal, and they dominate, accounting for 74 percent of
responses. Gold Peak is identified by about 1 in 10 and 14 percent either have no
opinion or don't care. Cascade received only 1 percent of responses as the preferred
entry point. Interestingly, these responses showed relatively little variation by visitor
type, with the exception that Overnight Visitors from Colorado were somewhat more
likely to favor the Village access.
Table 6
First Choice for Parking in Vail by Visitor Type
VI S I TOR TYPE
Overnight Overnight
Local visitor from visitor from
Overall Day visitor resident Colorado OutofSlate
when you visit vail, Vail Village Parking Structure 40% 39% 33% 52% 37%
what is your first choice Lionshead Parking Struchare 38% 38% 42% 25% 53%
for parking? Other 7% 8% 8% 6% 3%
North Frontage Road in WestVail (Safeway area) 6% 8% 6% 8%
Donovan Park 4% 2% 11 6% 3%
South Frontange Road:Ford ParkIG.0 to Vail Village area 3% 3% 2%
Souih Fronlange Road:Lionshead area 2% 2% 4% 2%
South Fronlange Road:Cascade area 1% 1%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
If the cost of parking Vail Village 39% 37% 34% 52% 33%
was equal in all Lionshead 35% 36% 42% 23% 40%
locations, what would Gold Peak 11% 11% 11% 12% 10%
be your first choice area Have no particular pref�rence 8% 9% 8% 6% 10%
from which to enter Vail Don't know 6% 7% 3% 8% 7%
Mountain? Cascade 1% 3%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
RRC Associates 12
7/7/2009
6-3-12
TOWN OF VAIL SURVEY- WINTER 2009 n=1056 7. Do you have a parking pass? 13. Would you be willing to participate in a short
96% No follow-up survey that would ask you a few more
Hello, my name is 4 Yes-What type? questions about parking in Vail? Participants in
and I'm conducting a survey for the Town of Vail. Would that survey will be entered into a drawing for a
you mind if I asked you a few questions? What is the purpose of your trip today? (CHECK 2009110 Epic Pass. (INTERVIEWER NOTE:
ALL THAT APPLY) "Your chances of winning are way better than
95% Ski/snowboard the lotte
1. What is the ZIP Code of your primary g Shop 76% Yes
residence? 5 Work/business
24 No
26 Diningldrinks
1 Other: 14. Can I get your email (or a business card or
IF NOT SKIINGIRIDING, GO TO Q. 11 mailing address if you would prefer to be
2. Is your vehicle a:
80% Private vehicle contacted that way):
IF SKIERIBOARDER
20 Rental vehicle 9. What was or will be your first lift today? E- Mail:
3. Today, how many people are in your vehicle 26% Gondola (Lionshead)
with you on this trip to Vail? 15 Lift 8(Lionshead) Mailing Address if no email:
(ENTER 0 IF TRAVELING ALONE) 2_6 persons 39 Vista Bahn (Village)
1 Lift 1 (Village) Name:
4. How many are skiinglsnowboarding today on Lift 12 (Gopher Hill)
Vail Mountain? 7 Lift 6(Gold Peak) Address:
(ENTER 0 IF NONE) 2_4 persons 1 Lift 20 (Cascade Village)
5. Are you:
11 Don't know
55% In Vail just for the day: where did you 10. How did you or will you get to your first lift?
come from today? 91% Walk
13 A local resident 9 Bus INTERVIEWER FILL IN:
32 An overnight visitor staying in the Vail Valley: Other:
where are you staying? Gender:
ALL SURVEY RESPONDENTS 30%Female
6. What type ticket did youlwill you personally use 70 Male
today? (CHECK BOX) And what other ticket types 11. How satisfied are you with:
do or will members of your party have? (ENTER EXTREMELY EXTREMELY LoCation:
NUMBERS) DISSATISFIED SATISFIED 47%Vail Village Parking Structure
AVG 1 2 3 4 5 41 Lionshead Parking Structure
TICKET TYPE CHECK ONE �ENTER TOTAL #S Ease of finding parking today 4.4 4% 4 8 18 65 3 Vail Village Frontage Road (east of roundabout)
Colorado Pass 32% 0.5 Convenience of access from parking Lionsheatl Frontage Roatl (west of roundabout)
E ic Pass 31 0.5 to where you are going 4.0 4 7 19 28 42 2 Donovan Park
Other Pass 2 0 Safety of access to skiing/ 2 Safeway Area
4 Wendy's/Chamonix site
Multi-day ticket 9 0.3 shopping from parking 4.5 2 2 10 21 66 1 Other �Town of Vail]
Dail ticket 17 0.4 The overall parking experience 3.513 12 19 23 33
Other 9 0.2 Date:
12. IF AFTERNOON—Approximately what time did
you park your vehicle today? Time of interview: AM I PM
AM 1 PM 8:00-10:00=59%
�-�-�3
TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEY WINTER 2009
JVlPl1 1iifL j.9
Hello, you recently answered a few questions concerning your experience parking in the Town
of Vail. You agreed to participate in a survey with a few additional questions. Note that all
returned questionnaires will be entered in a drawing for a 2009/2010 Epic Pass. Thanks in
advance for your input.
Thinking back to your most recent visit, what was the purpose of your trip to Vail that day?
(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) n=356
96% Ski
4 Work/business
9 Shop
24 Dining/Drinks
1 Other:
At approximately what time did you return to your parked car on the day you were
interviewed?
5PM-
3-5PM DEPART
n=226 n=12%
58% 2% Skied/Snowboarded
15 27 Went back to unit
1 2 Adventure Ridge activities
27 28 Had a few drinks
1 Ate dinner on the mountain
5 15 Ate dinner in the Town of Vail
3 5 Sightseeing
12 13 Shopped
3 2 Worked
12 2� Other:
When you visit Vail, what is your first choice for parking? n=354
�i�i2oo9
6-3-14
38% Lionshead Parking Structure
40 Vail Village Parking Structure
6 South Frontange Road:
(3) Ford Park/Golf Course to Vail Village area
(2) Lionshead area
(1) Cascade area
6 North Frontage Road in West Vail (Safeway area)
4 Donovan Park
Other:
If the cost of parking was equal in all locations, what would be your first choice area from
which to enter Vail Mountain? n=357
11% Gold Peak
39 Vail Village
35 Lionshead
1 Cascade
8 Have no particular preference
6 Don't know
If Vail were to make the following improvements to the Frontage Road, how would you rate
this change: n=337
NOT AN A GREAT
IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT
1 2 3 4 5
Widened/paved parking spaces 11% 9% 21% 22% 37%
Additional street lighting 24 23 34 12 7
Landscaping 24 25 32 12 6
Defined street crossing 15 16 33 23 14
Frequent bus stop locations ].0 12 29 26 23
Frequent bus service 8 9 25 26 32
Sidewalks 10 14 29 26 21
Recognizing that there is a cost to providing parking, if the town constructed the
improvements described above and there was a resulting cost for Frontage Road parking,
what would be your first choice for winter parking in Vail? n=301
27%Village Structure (currently $25 per day)
24 Lionshead Structure (currently $25 per day)
30 Frontage Road parking What price would you suggest is fair and reasonable? n=238
59% $5 per day
36 $10 per day
5 $15 per day
$20 per day
7/7/2009
6-3-15
19 Safeway area parking What price would you suggest is fair and reasonable? n=221
67 $0 per day
23 $5 per day
10 $10 per day
$15 per day
Some ideas for pricing parking along the Frontage Road have been suggested. Using a ratings
scale of 1 to 4, how would you rate these choices? n=346
NOT AT ALL VERY
ATTRACTIVE ATTRACTIVE
1 2 3 4
A Frontage Road Season Pass available for purchase 42% 25% 17% 16%
Frontage Road Pricing Zones Pay more for locations closer 37 24 26 13
to the mountain
Assurance of seven day a week parking availability on the 17 21 32 30
South Frontage Road
Assurance of seven day a week parking availability on the 23 28 26 23
North Frontage Road by Safeway
Would your arrival time at Vail change if there was moderately priced parking available on all
days? n-346
49% Yes Would you generally try to arrive: n-oi�8
75 /o Earlier
51 No 25 Later
Thinking about what your party's total expenditures were in Vail on the day you were
interviewed, please estimate (as best you can) your AVERAGE PER PERSON expenses for the
day (Please round up to the nearest dollar): n=348
Avq ��0" spent
$17 27% Food and beverages on the mountain
$19 44% Food and beverages in the Town of Vail
$8 80% Food and beverages in towns outside of Vail (Minturn, Avon, Beaver Creek, etc.)
$4 72% Food and beverages in I-70 corridor (driving to/from Vail)
$20 77% Shopping in Vail
$9 87% Other (do not include gas, transportation or lodging)
$77 5% TOTAL AVERAGE EXPENSES PER PERSON TODAY
Thinking back, how satisfied were you with:
EXTREMELY SATISFIED EXTREMELY
DISSATISFIED SATISFIED
1 2 3 4 5
The ease of finding parking on the day 5% 8% 25% 23% 39%
you were interviewed n=354
7/7/2009
6-3-16
Safe access to skiing/shopping from 2 5 29 26 38
parking n=352
Convenience of access to skiing/shoppin 7 16 26 24 28
from parking n=354
The overall parking experience 11 23 35 17 14
n=�5�
Cost of places to go after 8 26 47 12 6
skiing/snowboarding n=342
Shopping experience in Vail n=�23 3 19 54 15 8
I-70 corridor travel on the day you 10 17 36 24 16
were interviewed n=344
Your overall experience in Vail on the da 2 5 26 44 23
you were interviewed n=353
Do you have any specific comments on aspects of the Vail experience rated above?
And if you could change one aspect of the parking experience in Vail other than price what
would it be?
If you could change one thing about Vail what would it be?
What best describes you? n=350
11% Year-round resident of the Vail Valley
14 Part-time resident, spend avg=3.9, n=44 months/year in the Vail area
75 Visitor vacation for one or more days at a time in the Vail area
What is your age? n=349
avg=39.4 years
Which of these categories best describes your household status? n=356
36% Single
21 Couple, no children
29 Household with children
14 Empty nester (children no longer at home)
7/7/2009
6-3-17
Approximately how many days did you ski/ride at Vail last winter (2007/08)? n=352
avg=11.2 days
And about how many days do you think you will ski/ride at Vail this season (2008/09)?
n=352
avg=13.5 days
Are you willing to participate in additional follow research? n=357
63% Yes
20 No
17 Uncertain
Thank you for your input! You will automatically be entered in our prize
drawing for the 2009/10 Pass.
�i�izoo9
6-3-18
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: LionsHead Transit Center Program Needs.
PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen/discuss transit program needs and affirm
direction.
BACKGROUND: The LionsHead Transit Center design team will present the findings on the
program needs for the LionsHead Transit Center, specifically regarding the necessary number
of buses and shuttles to accommodate current and future needs. This program need will allow
the team to evaluate concepts for operation and functionality.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Listen/discuss transit program needs and affirm direction.
ATTAC H M ENTS
Transit Program Needs Memo
�i�izoo9
LIONSHEAD TRANSIT CENTER POTENTIAL TRANSIT
PROGRAM NEEDS
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
7uly 2, 2009
This memo focuses on the program needs for transit vehicles and other
transportation functions in the Lionshead area, further focusing on the East
Lionshead area. Note that some of these uses may not ultimately be
accommodated in the East Lionshead area, depending on the overall study
findings.
One of the goals of the Lionshead Transit Center is to help address the bus
congestion at the Vail Transportation Center (VTRC) in the Vail Village. While it
is widely seen as one of the most successful resort transit centers in the nation,
transit operations at the VTRC is impacted by use levels that exceed the efficient
capacity of the facility. The facility currently has a total of 6 double bus bays
(each providing space for two buses nose-to-tail) for a total capacity of 12 buses
at one time on top of the facility, as well as the 3 bus bays for the In-town route
down below. However, at peak times there are currently 15 buses using or
waiting to use this facility, which creates bus route delays that ripple through the
Vail Transit and ECO Transit systems. In addition, shuttle, taxi and Greyhound
vehicles also use this facility, adding to the congestion.
Skier Drop-off
The need for skier drop-ofF activity could potentially grow to any reasonable
number that could be provided. The North Day Lot is expected to remain
available, but is also less convenient to some drivers who can be expected to
continue to attempt to drop off or pick up passengers on East Lionshead Circle.
Some level of management of drop-off activity is therefore expected to remain to
ensure that East Lionshead Circle is not overly impacted by skier drop-off/ pick
up activity. The recommended strategy with regards to facility design, therefore,
is to provide a facility that allows management flexibility. Rather than evaluate
the number of spaces that cou/d potentially be used, the pertinent question is
the number of spaces that provides Town stafF with some ability to
accommodate the persistent skier drop-ofF driver.
Our recommendation is that the North Day Lot remain the key skier drop-ofF
location, which is the only Lionshead location advertised. For locals and others
"in the know" that insist on attempting to drop ofF or pick up at East Lionshead,
approximately 12 skier drop-ofF spaces should be provided in the East Lionshead
area as skier drop-ofF/short term spaces, to provide Town staff with an ability to
accommodate skier drop-off drivers without conflicting with other uses.
�i�izoo9
��1
Lionshead Transit Faci/ity Program Page 2
Another policy option would be to prohibit any access to East Lionshead Circle
for skier dropofF or any other unapproved use, such as through provision of a
card activated gate on West Lionshead Circle just south of the Frontage Road.
Considering the many drivers with a need to access the various commercial,
lodging and residential uses along West Lionshead Circle, however, this would be
difficult to implement and enforce, and could well create more congestion than it
solves.
Lodging Shuttle Vans
Town stafF reports that three to four lodging shuttle vans are often on-site in the
East Lionshead Circle area at any one time during the peak periods of busy ski
days, and approximately 7 or 8 can be observed at absolute peak times. Given
the number of new lodging properties currently planned or in development, there
is a significant potential for additional shuttle vans. Rather than provide
additional capacity for new shuttle vans, it is recommended that the Town work
with developers of new projects to provide ongoing operating funding to
enhance the already-extensive public transit to serve new developments. Over
the long term, a better overall transportation system that reduces traffic and
parking needs can be provided by generating developer support of the
comprehensive public transit program rather than to splintering the potential
funding resources into additional private shuttle services.
Space for up to 8 shuttle vans at one time is recommended as a goal that could
accommodate current demand without the need for any management of this
use. If final plans indicate that fewer spaces (on the order of 5 or 6) can be
provided, adequate conditions could still be provided if the Town were to
undertake active management of the shuttle vans, such as through a permit
system that limits use or imposes a fee for use of the transit center, or by
stationing personnel to minimize the time necessary for each van to be at the
transit center.
Charter Buses
At present, up to five charter buses are currently on-site in Lionshead at peak
times. There are several factors that can be expected to increase the demand
for charter bus service to Vail over the coming years:
Population growth, particularly along the Front Range, will increase the
number of persons within a convenient drive distance of Vail. Most recent
State estimates indicate that the metro Denver area will grow by 70
percent, or 1.6 million people, by 2035.
�i�izoo9
�-�-z
Lionshead Transit Faci/'ity Program Page 3
While gasoline prices have abated somewhat from last year's highs, future
prices in general are expected to be substantially higher than over past
decades, increasing the attractiveness of intercity bus transportation as a
cost-saving alternative to the private automobile.
The "graying" of the population as the Baby Boom generation ages will
substantially increase the proportion of the population (even the skiing
population) that may find quality intercity bus transportation to be
preferable to driving.
There is an increasing acceptance across the nation of use of high-quality
intercity bus service, expanding its potential "market" beyond the
traditional rider groups.
Based upon these factors, a reasonable planning assumption would be to expect
a doubling of charter bus use over coming years.
Current plans are for the EverVail project to serve as the charter bus portal in the
Lionshead area. If the capacity of this project to accommodate charter buses is
reached, there are several strategies that can be employed to reduce the number
of charter buses on site at any one time. First, the provision of an attractive
charter bus passenger waiting lounge can provide passengers with gathering
point, reducing the time needed for an individual charter bus to be on-site during
the afternoon loading period (when the peak charter bus demand occurs).
Secondly, charter buses can be parked off-site during the day, such as at parking
for a summer recreational facility or school, and scheduled to minimize
overlapping times at the portal.
The working assumption for the Lionshead Transit Center project is that the
existing charter bus parking near the east end of the parking structure will be
maintained, so long as this space is not needed for other program elements. If
so, the assumption will be that this use will be shifted to EverVail.
Vail Transit
Before considering the individual routes, it is important to note that Vail Transit
as well as ECO Transit currently employ "shadow" buses on many routes in order
to provide adequate passenger capacity at peak load times. Also known as
"piggyback" or "tripper" buses, these additional buses are added as a second bus
on a single scheduled run. The use of shadow buses is a common occurrence in
the peak winter season on the West Vail Red, West Vail Green and East Vail
Routes on the Vail Transit system as well as on the ECO Route 6 and
Gypsum/Eagle routes, provided largely inbound to Lionshead and the Village in
the AM peak period as well as outbound in the PM peak period. Drivers in the
�i�izoo9
7-1-3
Lionshead Transit Faci/ity Program Page 4
AM peak period that notice their bus is reaching capacity will call the dispatcher,
who will arrange for a shadow bus to be added at the next major stop and to
serve the route into the VRTC. In the outbound direction, shadow buses are
dispatched from the VRTC and serve the route until all passengers are dropped
off. While this is an appropriate way to provide a high quality of transit service
during periods of particularly high demand, it does increase the need for bus
bays at transit centers serving the key activity areas.
Vail's in-town transit service provides the following routes that presently serve
Lionshead, or potentially could serve Lionshead:
West Vail Green Route (Clockwise) and West Vail Red Route
(Counterclockwise) Currently 2 runs per hour are operated in each
direction, frequently with shadow buses. Substantial expansion is
expected in ridership on the West Vail route, which will increase demand
to up to 4 runs per hour in each direction. At that level of service, either
shadow buses will be provided, or the Green and Red route schedules can
be expected to result in 2 buses onsite at any one time. Two bays are
therefore needed in each direction.
In-Town Route This service does not operate on a set schedule, but
rather buses are dispatched to provide consistent, short headways that
vary with passenger demand. At the busiest times, buses can "bunch"
due to loading delays, resulting in two buses in the same direction at
times. At present, this route continues westbound through the East
Lionshead area to West Lionshead before returning back through East
Lionshead eastbound. This can result in two In-Town buses at East
Lionshead at a time. If this route were instead to terminate at East
Lionshead, one bus bay could serve the route rather than two. At
present, there is reluctance among West Lionshead property owners to be
cut off of the In-Town Route. One dedicated bus bay should be provided
for each direction. A second bus on-site in one direction can share use of
the second Green/Red bus bay.
Sandstone This route currently does not serve Lionshead, but rather
provides service between the Sandstone area just north of Lionshead and
the VTRC. To reduce over capacity problems at VTRC, this route could be
realigned to instead serve a Lionshead Transit Center, particularly once
the Simba Run undercrossing is in place. As Lionshead grows in
importance as a destination, the need to provide convenient service from
the Sandstone area to Lionshead can be expected to grow.
Lionsridge This route also does not currently serve Lionshead, but can
be expected to do so in the future. As this route is "interlined" with the
�i�izoo9
i-�
Lionshead Transit Faci/ity P�og�am Page 5
Ford Park route, this would not reduce the number of buses serving VTRC,
but laying over at Lionshead rather than at VTRC between runs could
reduce overall capacity needs at VTRC.
Table A presents a summary of peak period service times in Lionshead, for both
existing routes as well as the routes that could potentially serve Lionshead. This
table excludes the In-Town Shuttle, as this route is served on an as-needed basis
and specific service times at Lionshead vary.
At present, an optimal program for a single transit center in Lionshead would
provide the following bus bays:
One bay dedicated for West Vail Green Route (which could also be used
for shadow buses on the West Vail Red Route).
One bay dedicated for West Vail Red (which similarly could also be used
for a shadow bus on the West Vail Green Route).
Two bays dedicated for In-town Shuttle Route.
Optimally, two bays would also be provided to serve the Sandstone and
Lionsridge Routes. This would allow the individual bays to be signed for specific
routes. However, considering that the service times in Lionshead do not
coincide, given the site constraints it is recommended that a single bus bay be
designated for both of these routes. Overall, 4 bays are recommended to
accommodate current conditions, with 5 bays required if Sandstone and/or
Lionsridge routes were to be relocated to Lionshead. These figures could be
reduced by 1 bay if the In-town Route were terminated at East Lionshead.
Future �ail Transit /Veeds
Demand for Vail Transit is expected to grow over the coming 20 years, though at
a relatively low rate. While development will increase population and
employment, housing afFordability issues will limit the impact on commuting by
bus completely within Vail. In addition, the development of expanded services at
new mountain portals appears to have reduced the demand for internal visitor
transit use over recent years. Over the last several years, annual ridership has
grown by a rough average of 1.2 percent per year. The high forecast level of
future development in the Lionshead area (an 82 percent increase in the number
of lodging/residential units and a 57 percent increase in commercial floor area)
indicates that the demand for transit service to/from Lionshead will grow at a
higher rate. A 2.5 annual rate of ridership growth, corresponding to roughly a
65 percent increase in ridership over a 20-year period, is assumed for this
analysis.
�i�izoo9
7-1-5
Lionshead Transit Faci/ity Program Page 6
With growth in demand, and after completion of the Simba Run undercrossing,
the service between the Village, Lionshead and West Vail could be reconfigured
into a"Line Haul" route that provides express transit service at key stops along
the corridor. With this express route taking demand off of the existing Green
and Red Routes (which would continue to operate in order to serve other stops),
the total number of bus bays needed for the corridor would be four. In addition,
two Lionsridge buses would be onsite at a peak time (though still at a different
time than the Sandstone bus), requiring one additional bay. In total, an optimal
level of bus bays to serve 2029 Vail Transit needs in Lionshead would be eight
(five for existing services plus three for expansion).
ECO Transit
Lionshead is a key stop on the ECO Transit route system. At present, it is served
by the following routes:
Highway 6 route up to 4 runs per hour
Vail/Beaver Creek route up to 3 runs per hour
Gypsum/Eagle route up to 3 runs per hour
Minturn up to 1 run per hour
Leadville up to 1 run per hour
As shown in Tables B and C, during the peak hour-long portion of the key AM
commute period up to 10 individual service times are scheduled at Lionshead,
with up to 11 service times in the PM commute peak hour. At several times
(such as around 7:37 AM, 8:42 AM, and 4:15 PM), three ECO Transit routes
serve Lionshead within only a few minutes. Given the variation in actual route
times, at these times it is not uncommon for buses from three routes to be at
Lionshead at the same time. Including a shadow bus on one of these routes, up
to four ECO Transit buses are on-site in Lionshead at a peak time.
Current ECO Transit routes follow the South Frontage Road in the eastbound
direction through Lionshead to the VTRC, and then depart Vail westbound via the
North Frontage Road. From the operational perspective of ECO Transit, the
optimal plan would be for all routes to use I-70 to serve only one regional stop in
Vail (such as at VTRC). Given the importance of the need to provide convenient
service to the various other employment centers in Vail beyond the Village, and
the negative impacts of requiring transfers between ECO Transit and the Vail
Transit routes, serving Vail with only one stop is probably not a feasible option.
ECO Transit ridership patterns indicate that a majority of routes need to serve
the VTRC. There are, however, two routes Minturn and Vail/Beaver Creek
that could potentially lay over at a Lionshead Transit Center, rather than the
VTRC. This would reduce overcrowding at the VTRC, and ridership on these two
�i�izoo9
��c
Lionshead Transit Faci/ity Program Page 7
routes is low enough that passenger needing to transfer to Vail buses (like the
In-Town Route) would not significantly impact load levels on these other local
routes.
Growth of ECO Transit ridership in the future is expected to be extensive. The
ECO Transit Emp/oyment Linkage Study prepared by LSC Transportation
Consultants in 2009 indicates a growth in peak winter daily ridership of roughly
45 percent between 2008 and 2013 (only a five year period). Projecting this
further to a 20-year planning horizon is more difFcult. One consideration is
growth in population in the service area. State forecasts indicate that Eagle
County will grow by 135 percent between 2000 and 2035, adding an additional
55,000 potential riders. Lake County, also served by ECO Transit, is forecast to
grow by 166 percent (or 13,000 people). For purposes of this study a 20-year
doubling of transit demand is assumed.
As discussed above for the Vail Transit expansion, much of the resulting increase
in the need for bus bays will take the form of increased service frequency that
will not result in a corresponding increase in the number of ECO Transit buses
onsite in Lionshead at any one time. However, ECO Transit ridership is more
focused on employment trips, which are more concentrated in the periods
around employment start/stop times. Reviewing the existing schedule in light of
this increased demand, a total of two additional bays would be optimal for ECO
Transit in 2029 (a total of six), though five would probably be adequate if space
limits do not allow six.
Roaring Fork Service
It can be expected that public transit service connecting the Roaring Fork Valley
(at Glenwood Springs) and the Eagle Valley will ultimately be provided. Growth
in Garfield County is expected to be the highest in the region, with a population
increase of 234 percent between 2000 and 2035, to a 2035 population of roughly
146,000. It can be expected, however, that connecting service will be
incorporated into the ECO Transit schedule, so the number of bus bays needed
at Lionshead will not be impacted.
Summit County Service
Summit County's population is forecast to rise to an estimated 54,000 by 2035
(from a 2000 level of 23,548), and this 129 percent population growth can be
expected to warrant transit service connecting Vail with Summit County. Summit
County service can be expected to terminate at the VTRC, as serving this closer
center will provide good access to the ski area as well as connections to the local
transit service.
�i�izoo9
Lionshead Transit Faci/ity Program Page 8
Intercity Bus Service
Intercity service, such as Greyhound, can be expected to continue to serve the
VTRC, rather than Lionshead. It is also prudent to assume that scheduled Front
Range intercity bus service will be provided along the I-70 corridor. This could
increase the need for bus bays at VTRC reserved for intercity service, which in
turn increases the need to shift other bus services (such as Sandstone or
Lionsridge) to Lionshead.
Summary of Transit Facility Program Needs
Given the discussion above, Table D presents a summary of the number of
vehicles that are recommended to be accommodated on site at peak times. As
shown, the total number of public transit bays (Vail Transit plus ECO Transit) is
calculated as follows:
For current Lionshead services, 8 bus bays would be needed.
If the Sandstone and/or Lionsridge Routes were relocated from VTRC to
Lionshead, this total would increase to 9 bus bays.
To accommodate growth over the coming 20 years, the total number of
public transit bays would optimally be 14 (8 for Vail Transit and 6 for ECO
Transit). At a minimum, 13 bays would be required to accommodate all
uses (8 for Vail Transit including Sandstone and/or Lionsridge and 5 for
ECO Transit).
This program is slightly higher than previous evaluations of bus bay needs in
Lionshead. For instance, a 2008 evaluation identified the need for up to 6 Vail
Transit buses plus 4 ECO buses, for a total of 10. These figures did not include
shifting the Sandstone and Lionsridge buses from the VTRC to Lionshead, or the
full level of planned increase in the need for ECO Transit service. We believe
these program needs are realistic, particularly given the planned growth in the
Lionshead and the region as a whole as well as recent trends in gasoline costs
and transit use across the nation.
The specific physical space needs associated with these bays will depend on site
design considerations. One potential option that could reduce space needs
would be to provide double bays (as is currently provided at VTRC). This is
particularly applicable for routes (such as West Vail Green and West Vail Red)
that need a second bus bay for shadow buses, as two buses operating in tandem
will not result in delays to the second bus in the double bay.
�i�izoo9
i-s
TABLE A: Vail Transit Peak Period Service to Lionshead
Excluding In-Town Shuttle
Shadow Buses Commonly Used
Sandstone (Potential Lionsridge (Potential
West Vail Green' West Vail Red" Future) Future)
5:45AMto8:15 6:OOAMto8:30 8:OOAM-10:OOAMB
Peak Period PM PM 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM 6:15 AM to 8:15 PM
Minutes Past the Hour
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Source:Vail Transit 2008-09 Winter Schedule
7/7/2009
7 1-9
TABLE B: Existing Peak Morning Winter ECO Transit Service to
Lionshead
Shadow Buses Commonly Used
Time Route 6* Gypsum/Eagle' Avon/Beaver Creek Leadville Minturn
7:01 AM
7:02 AM
7:03 AM
7:04 AM
7:05 AM
7:06 AM
7:07 AM
7:08 AM
7:25 AM
7:26 AM
7:27 AM
7:28 AM
7:29 AM
7:30 AM
7:31 AM
7:32 AM
7:36 AM
7:37 AM
7:38 AM
7:39 AM
7:40 AM
7:41 AM
7:42 AM
7:43 AM
7:44 AM
7:45 AM
8:01 AM
8:02 AM
8:03 AM
8:04 AM
8:11 AM
8:12 AM
8:13 AM
8:21 AM
8:22 AM
8:23 AM
8:30 AM
8:31 AM
8:32 AM
8:33 AM
8:34 AM
8:35 AM
8:36 AM
8:37 AM
8:38 AM
8:41 AM
8:42 AM
8:43 AM
8:44 AM
8:45 AM
Source: ECO Transit 2008-09 Winter Schedule
7/7/2009
7 1 10
TABLE C: Existing Peak Afternoon Winter ECO Transit Service
to Lionshead
Shadow Buses Commonly Used
Time Route 6* Gypsum/Eagle" Avon/Beaver Creek Leadville Mintum
4:11 PM
4:12 PM
4:13 PM
4:14 PM
4:15 PM
4:16 PM
4:17 PM
4:27 PM
4:28 PM
4:32 PM
4:33 PM
4:34 PM
4:35 PM
4:45 PM
4:46 PM
4:47 PM
4:48 PM
4:49 PM
4:50 PM
4:51 PM
4:52 PM
4:53 PM
4:54 PM
4:55 PM
5:12 PM
5:13 PM
5:14 PM
5:15 PM
5:31 PM
5:32 PM
5:33 PM
5:34 PM
5:35 PM
5:36 PM
5:37 PM
5:38 PM
5:39 PM
5:40 PM
5:41 PM
5:42 PM
5:43 P M
Source: ECO Transit 2008-09 Winter Schedule
7/7/2009
7 1 11
Q U�
�L N N N� N N d' M
O I� I� N�� N
V N
O c
O
L a
Q
V �+r N N� N I�
S I� I� CO CO M N CO
a 0 W
O
H
d
C
Q (p �0 i i'� N N CO CO ll�
N
i
v m U
c
a c N- 00 i i N N ln d' '�h
�X
W s
o
L
o
i �ao�n NN aoao
I� Z �x o
w
`w U
N
Q N
.0
a��i
a� a
Z
y
C U v
.0 fl. v�i c
J cq c o
y.r Q m C O cv
y u� ca E E
L c�
R c o c a.5 �n
ca c
a a� L} O�
o a� C� o a� a
ca O O RT c?
W o �L� p j
J Hf`- aQ.��
Q u�� �~C��v�Sv�F- 00 �O�
a�
��U> ww I- z
�i�i2oo9
�-i-ia
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Parking Survey Update and Review of Current Council Policies and Request for
Direction for 2009-10 Ski Season.
PRESENTER(S): Chris Cares Greg Hall
�i�i2oo9
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Discussion of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2009, an ordinance making
supplemental appropriations and budget adjustments to the Town of Vail General Fund,
Captial Projects Fund, Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Dispatch Services Fund and Heavy
Equipment Fund of the 2009 Budget for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the said
adjustments as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
PRESENTER(S): Kathleen Halloran
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide input regarding the 3rd supplemental of 2009,
Ordianance No. 14, Series of 2009, in preparation for approving the second reading during the
evening session.
BACKGROUND: To be provided in a separate memo.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council approves Ordinance
No. 14, Series of 2009, upon second reading this evening.
�i�i2oo9
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Information Update.
PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer
�i�i2oo9
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Matters from Mayor Council.
PRESENTER(S): Town Council
�i�i2oo9
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(b)(e) to discuss the
purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on
specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct
negotiators, Re: Draft agreement amending the Development Agreement with Open
Hospitality Partners ("OHP") pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of the Lionshead
Parking Structure.
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
�i�i2oo9