“What Will Summit County’s Winters be like in 2050?” climate change presentation at CMC Breckenridge

#Breckenridge #Colorado

Summit Daily Photo

Summit Daily Link

Climate change has become one of the most discussed and examined science topics in the news lately. The global effects of warming temperatures are apparent from frequent large wildfires in the Western U.S. to Delaware-sized icebergs breaking away from the Antarctic ice shelf. But what are the local effects of climate change? What will Summit winters look and feel like in 2050? Those questions are the focus of a presentation about climate change hosted by the High Country Conservation Center, Friends of the Dillon Ranger District and NOAA research scientist Klaus Wolter on March 15.

In a press release, the HC3 notes that Colorado is one of the fastest warming states in the country, with snowpack melt beginning 15 to 30 days earlier than normal. Colorado's average temperature has risen 2 degrees over the past 30 years, and climate model project another 2.5 to 6.5 temperature rise by 2050.

"We hear a lot of talk about climate change, but we don't often get to hear about how it is going to impact Summit County and our mountain communities," said Jen Schenck, executive director of HC3. "I am very excited that Klaus Wolter is speaking, as he is going to talk about Summit and the mountains and how it could affect ski seasons and winter in Summit."

Issues related to climate change and the local environment, such as drought, wildfires and the mountain pine beetle will also be discussed at the presentation, which will be free to the general public.

The presentation will take place at Colorado Mountain College Breckenridge from 6-7:30 p.m. on March 15.

Could Breckenridge better manage its snowfall with high-powered melters?

#Breckenridge #Colorado

Summit Daily

Summit Daily Link

Breckenridge welcomes, even prays, for snow every winter, but town officials saw in action Thursday morning one proven way to get rid of excess piles of it when the snowfall gets to be too much.

Breckenridge town officials and Mayor Eric Mamula watched a live demo of a mobile snow melter Thursday morning inside the Stilson Lot, off Wellington Road, where the town hauls and stores excess snowfall in the winter.

For the demo, the New York-based company, Aero Snow Removal Corp., had one of its truck-mounted melters turn tons of the white stuff into water as town officials considered how one might work in Breckenridge.

"Right now, the town is looking into the snow-melting machine, but the demo was purely informational," said Haley Littleton, a spokeswoman for the town. "We just wanted to see what it would look like and if it would be a good fit for Breckenridge."

A melter could certainly help keep unwanted snow from piling up on Breckenridge streets and its already-taxed parking lots, but Littleton said the primary application for this kind of technology here could be freeing up high-dollar, prime real estate properties currently reserved for snow storage.

Littleton said the town's Public Works department will follow up on the demo, continue to weigh the idea and, if town staff decide it's a good idea, present something to Breckenridge Town Council down the road.

As for the melters, Aero Snow has larger, tractor-pulled units, too, said Robert Stone, the company's general manager at Denver International Airport, but the model on display Thursday in Breckenridge has been rated to melt up to 150 tons of snow per hour.

It's totally self-propelled and has been helping keep flights arriving and departing on time at DIA for the last 10 years, he added.

"You do the math conversion to pounds, and 150 tons is a lot of snow," Stone said.

In fact, it's exactly 300,000 pounds of it.

By making the melter mobile, he continued, Aero Snow has all but eliminated one significant cost related to snow removal: transport.

"Sometimes we truck snow to a location," he said, explaining that's not usually the best way to handle it. "You can take one of the pieces of the puzzle out of the way by bringing the melter to the snow."

The water produced by the melter shoots out of the machine on each side, almost like two open fire hydrants when the machine's in melting mode.

And operators can turn it up even hotter, Stone said, but they try to keep the water exiting the machine at about 32 to 36 degrees Fahrenheit to keep energy consumption down.

He acknowledged that the water pouring out of his company's melters can lead to ice forming, but there are ways they mitigate that, he said.

"We try to park these melters in close proximity to storm drains," Stone explained. Doing so allows subsurface-earth temperatures to help warm the H2O while it's being funneled to a less obtrusive locale.

According to Stone, Aero Snow owns and operates roughly 150 melters across the U.S. The company manufactures the machines, which he described as a "somewhat expensive" niche product built for a singular purpose.

As a result, Aero Snow only rents its melters out — many times by the season — and does not sell them, he said.

As far as the cost of one goes, the model working in Breckenridge on Thursday has been valued somewhere between $650,000 to $750,000, according to Stone, who put the ballpark cost of renting one out at about $1,500 to $2,000 an hour.

There's only a certain number of entities that need a machine like this, such as northern cities or airports that have to clear large amounts of snowfall. However, for the ones who do, the company's biggest claim rests on the side of its machines: "The World's Best Snow Melters … Next to the Sun."

Planned Breckenridge parking garage likened to ‘turd in punch bowl’ before getting planning commission OK

#Breckenridge #Colorado

Summit Daily

Summit Daily Link

Of the four people who spoke against it Tuesday, a man from Breckenridge had the strongest language for the town's efforts to build a new parking garage downtown, delivered just moments before planning commissioners recommended town council green-light the project.

"I'm going to be brusque, I'm going to be rude, I'm going to be inappropriate," Lee Edwards told commissioners after calling the proposed parking garage "a turd in a punch bowl."

The new parking garage would be built partially on the existing Tiger Dredge parking lot on Adams Avenue and on the adjacent F Lot parking along S. Park Avenue. The new structure is expected to house over 400 cars, thus helping address the persistent parking problem in Breckenridge.

Edwards was third in the lineup of public commenters Tuesday. None liked the idea, and each listed some reasons why. Many overlapped, but most took issue with the appearance and size, traffic patterns on S. Park Avenue and the location of the proposed parking garage.

"There are some ugly buildings in this town," one woman said. "None of them will have to worry about being the ugliest."

She said that if the town really wants to build a parking garage, council should consider another site, perhaps the Stephen C. West Ice Arena. Other alternatives floated Tuesday were Breckenridge Ski Resort's gondola lots, but the town does not own those properties.

In July, Breckenridge Town Council weighed four different town-owned properties, including the ice rink, and landed on Tiger Dredge as the best immediate option. Efforts to build more parking at the ice rink remain on the table, but there's little taste among town officials to pursue two massive parking projects side-by-side.

Before public comments at Tuesday's meeting, town staff walked the planning commission through their assessment of the proposed project, based on a positive and negative point analysis, while looking for the commissioners to confirm staff's scores.

The project received a passing grade, plus-eight points, though one of the commissioners took issue with the process in which a project can receive plus-six points for meeting a town council goal and plus-eight points for inclusion in the town's capital improvements plan.

Commissioner Gretchen Dudney described the point-analysis as "a catch-22," and said that, without the 14 positive points afforded from those two categories, the plan wouldn't pass. It's basically "council passing a project it wants to pass," she said. "But nevertheless, that is the law so they do get those points, and the project passes, in my point of view."

Per the analysis, the proposed parking garage was docked 10 points for going over the recommended height — 49 feet at its tallest point on an elevator shaft, but significantly lower with the actual parking structure — and another point for having a long, unbroken ridgeline in excess of 50 feet in length. Two more points came off for an unbroken retaining wall over 4 feet tall, and six points were subtracted for "non-natural" exterior materials, mainly preformed concrete.

On the plus side, the project also got boosts for providing public parking, additional landscaping, bike storage and pedestrian paths, and sharing a trash bin with the Riverwalk Center.

Realizing a parking garage is, in fact, going to have to house hundreds of cars, staff also acknowledged as much in the analysis, writing "that this is a large utilitarian structure intended for the sole purpose of providing … a much needed place to park."

Defending their decision to recommend project approval, commissioners said they thought the analysis was fair. Considering it's a parking garage, some even defended the designs.

"I think it's good-looking for a parking structure myself," said Dudney, explaining the commissioners didn't pick the site and referring questions about its proposed location to town council.

"Parking structures are just not terrific looking projects," she continued. "To make them efficient and house the most number of cars, they have to be straight lines so I support the project as designed, and I support the point analysis staff has come up with."

Other commissioners fell along the same lines, and they unanimously recommended town council approve the garage. When they did, a woman seated in the gallery didn't keep quiet. "So disappointing," she said loud enough to be heard.

The next meeting of the Breckenridge Town Council is Tuesday.

BRECKENRIDGE’S PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE

Here are some of the details surrounding the town’s proposed parking garage in downtown Breckenridge at the Tiger Dredge parking lot, gleaned from Tuesday night’s meeting of the Breckenridge Planning Commission.

• Looking to increase parking in the downtown area, Breckenridge hired a design team lead by Walker Parking Consultants last year to spearhead the project.

• After weighing four town-owned locations, council decided the parking garage would be best on pieces of the existing Tiger Dredge Parking Lot and F Lot, and by using the difference in grade between the two parking lots, the height of the parking garage will be kept down.

• The parking garage will come with a new transit center on South Park Avenue and a lobby and restrooms on West Adams Avenue.

• In total, there would be 652 parking spaces with 157 at a redesigned F Lot, 89 more on a redesigned Tiger Dredge and the new parking garage housing the other 406 spaces.

• The garage would be three levels — an upper, lower and main — encompassing 155,00 total square feet. The upper level would be the smallest of the three at 38,775 square feet.

• The project is expected to come with more than 23,700 square feet of heated sidewalks and drives.

• The town aims to break ground this May. Construction is expected to take about 15 months. The town will lose F Lot and half of Tiger Dredge for one full winter. Public transportation, along with lots north and south of town, should help alleviate the crunch caused by construction.

• Town staff are working with the Breckenridge Creative Arts board to have a large-scale public art piece on the parking structure facing W. Adams Ave and the Riverwalk Center.

• The bronze Tenth Mountain Division sculpture along the walking path will be move, possibly off-site to somewhere else in Breckenridge.

• Landscaping is the least of concerns right now with greenery on all four sides. The majority will be along South Park Avenue and the Blue River, but there’s more with the redesigned Tiger Dredge and F Lots.

• Colorado Department of Transportation must approve the project, including a final traffic study by a registered Colorado Professional Engineer.

Source: Compiled by Eli Pace from comments at Tuesday’s Breckenridge Planning Commission meeting and the corresponding agenda packet

PARKING STRUCTURE POINT ANALYSIS (PLUS-EIGHT COMPOSITE)

Below is Breckenridge town staff’s positive and negative point analysis for the town’s proposed parking garage at Tiger Dredge and F Lot. The town’s planning commission approved the analysis Tuesday and then recommended Breckenridge Town Council also approve the project.

Negative Points

-6 — Most of the exterior materials being non-natural on each elevation

-10 — Over height with the enclosed structures

-1 — Long, unbroken ridgeline exceeding 50 feet in length

-2 — Unbroken retaining wall exceeding 4 feet in height

-19 points

POSITIVE POINTS

+4 — Providing public parking in structure

+8 — Infrastructure Capital Improvements Plan

+6 — Meeting a town council goal

+4 — Landscaping

+2 — Shared dumpster with Riverwalk Center

+3 — Additional pedestrian/bike path near the river and covered public bike storage

27 points

Source: Breckenridge Planning Commission

Breckenridge offers newsletter with council updates

#Breckenridge #Colorado

Summit Daily Link

Breckenridge is offering a regular newsletter put together by town staff and focusing on Breckenridge Town Council updates, including recaps, information on decisions made and news about town projects.

To sign up for the newsletters, people should go to TownOfBreckenridge.com, mouse over "Your Government" and click on "Town Council." From there, they can click on the link to sign up for the updates.

People who sign up will be asked to provide their first and last names, a valid email address and zip code, and the town promises to only send them information regarding town council.

Council meets on second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at Town Hall, 150 Ski Hill Road in Breckenridge.

Work sessions precede the meetings and begin at 3 p.m. The regular meeting starts at 7 p.m.

High Country snowpack still lower than normal; prospects uncertain for relief

#Colorado

Summit Daily

Summit Daily Link

 March and April are Colorado’s snowiest months. But a persistent dry spell doesn’t show any immediate signs of breaking.

The latest readings from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s snow measurement sites at Vail Mountain, Copper Mountain and Fremont Pass show a mixed bag of “snow water equivalent.”

While Vail Mountain continues to have adequate snow for skiing and snowboarding, the measurement site continues to give below-average readings.

On Monday, March 5, the Vail Mountain site showed only 9.8 inches of snow water equivalent, below even the 12.5 inches recorded in the historic drought year of 2011-12. In that drought year, the snowpack at Vail Mountain peaked on Feb. 28 and then fell quickly. The Vail Mountain measurement site was melted off by April 8.

There’s better news from Copper Mountain — near the headwaters of Gore Creek — and Fremont Pass, near the Eagle River’s headwaters.

At Copper Mountain, the snow water equivalent is 79 percent of normal. The Fremont Pass site is right at the 30-year average.

While there’s more snow at the highest elevations, it doesn’t really matter where the snow and its water sit.

Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Communications and Public Affairs Manager Diane Johnson said the district routinely moves water around the district — which stretches from East Vail to Edwards — depending on where it’s needed.

WATER FLOWS TOWARD NEED

That need involves meeting demand, of course. Water can be pumped from Edwards to Vail during ski season to meet needs when the town is full. Conversely, water can be pumped from Vail to Eagle-Vail, Avon and Edwards during warm months, when people are using water for landscaping.

Aside from meeting human needs, the district can also put water into Gore Creek and the Eagle River to maintain streamflows.

That work gets done even in wetter years.

“We’re stewards of our streams,” Johnson said. “We’ll change operations to leave more water in the streams.”

It’s still hard to tell just what kind of snowpack the season will bring. But, Johnson said, the district is confident in its plans for dry years. The last dry year was only six years ago, after all. Plus, technology available to both water managers and customers has improved.

Part of that technology allows users to see changes in irrigation use almost immediately. Customers who use devices that determine how much irrigation a lawn, garden or flower box needs can quickly see what they’re saving.

But, Johnson said, planning for dry conditions also interrupts other work at the district. More snow would be nice. Even rains in May and June would be helpful.

“But we like snow best,” Johnson said.

While the district has some reservoir storage, much of that storage is reserved for maintaining streamflows, not for human use. Snow melting off hillsides and recharging underground aquifers keeps water where it needs to be.

UNCERTAIN OUTLOOK

We’re all hoping for more snow in the next several weeks, and it’s hard to tell just what those weeks will bring. Still, the outlook isn’t particularly promising.

Andrew Lyons, a meteorologist in the Grand Junction office of the National Weather Service, said the winter-long dry pattern seems to be holding.

An area of high pressure around the Southwestern United States and over the Pacific Ocean has been pushing storm systems to the north of Colorado all winter. That pressure ridge hasn’t moved much.

Lyons noted that we’re in the second year of a “La Nina” pattern — which develops due to cooler-than-average temperatures in the central Pacific. Those systems tend to bring more snow to Colorado resorts north of Interstate 70. Historically, though, the second year of La Nina patterns tend to be more dry than the first year.

Lyons said the current pattern has about run its course, which means the long-term outlook is uncertain.

The 90-day outlook from the U.S. Climate Prediction Center isn’t encouraging.

That forecast calls for a better-than-average chance of higher-than-normal temperatures and lower-than-normal precipitation.

Still, it’s springtime in Colorado. Just about anything can happen.

Keystone Resort looks to address parking woes on weekends

#Keystone #Colorado

Summit Daily Photo

Summit Daily Link

Whether it's free or paid, parking is not an unlimited resource at Keystone Resort, where nailing down an open spot during peak times on the busiest of days can be next to impossible.

In all fairness, parking doesn't present an issue at Keystone most of the time. On weekdays or off-hours on weekends, skiers and riders can get in and out without too much hassle, hitting the lifts as easily as carving down a 3.5-mile beginner run named "Schoolmarm."

Really, the problem generally stems from the early birds grabbing their last runs of the day as the later crowd begins filing in. It's only during peak times on the busy days — usually from about 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on the weekends — that parking presents an issue. Throw in a fresh round of snow, and parking problems are almost guaranteed.

When the early traffic starts to head out, pressure comes off parking for the night crowd, with Keystone's last lifts running until 8 p.m.

In February, for example, Keystone's free lots were more than enough to accommodate the weekday traffic, but they filled up quick four out of four Saturdays, while the paid lots hit their limits three out of four Saturdays. January was similar with at least five days that month that Keystone's parking lots reached capacity, including on three out of four Saturdays and on pair of Sundays.

Seeing the problem, Keystone is one of the few ski resorts with a Twitter feed solely dedicated to parking (@KeystoneParking). Furthermore, resort officials have been rather aggressive about updating the account, letting people know when lots close as it happens, or alerting people once they have reopened, by posting up to a half-dozen Tweets or more on a heavy day.

It's greatest value is keeping people ahead of the jam, but the Twitter account also offers insight on parking specials, such as free days at the paid lots for those who carpool or giving carloads with families good spots up front.

On days when all lots are entirely full, Keystone has drawn some fire through the feed. "Paid $124 for lift tickets today and you don't have parking," one man tweeted back at Keystone Parking's after one of its "all lots are full" updates in February.

"So glad we got season passes… they are really paying off," another woman added sarcastically. "So we just drive four hours back home then?" she asked in follow-up tweet, not getting a response.

But many others appreciate the info.

"Please ignore complainers," replied one man, who thanked Keystone "for the useful updates."

When the lots fill up, there are few options at the resort. Drivers are allowed to circle the area in search of an available spot, but Keystone employees try not to let anyone stop and wait by the free lots.

At the paid lots, lines form as the gates allow one car in for every one out, often leading the drivers there to waits of 45 minutes or more.

"Public transportation is also a great option, especially for local skiers and riders," said Russell Carlton, a resort spokesman.

In fact, when all of the lots are full, the Summit Stage bus route offers one of only remaining ways to get to the resort.

"We also strongly encourage carpooling and offer dedicated up-front parking in the Montezuma Lot for guests traveling with families or four or more passengers per vehicle," Carlton added.

In addition to the Twitter account, Keystone also has a page on its website dedicated to parking with a list of the average times its lots fill up on the weekends and the best, most sought powder days.

Carlton said the resort annually re-evaluates all of its operations to ensure they can provide "the greatest overall guest experience."

Given the high volumes of traffic and revenue paid parking could generate, some believe that ski resorts will soon do away with free parking altogether. Despite the crunch at peak times, however, Keystone will continue offering free parking for the 2018-19 season, the spokesman said.

Time is running out to see the Dillon Ice Castles, which will close for the season this Saturday, March 10

#Dillon #Colorado

Summit Daily Photo

Summit Daily Link

Winter has officially come to an end at the Dillon Ice Castles, and time is running out to see the winter spectacle. The castles will close for the season this Saturday, March 10, "due to weather," according to the Dillon Ice Castles website.

The popular attraction opened on Dec. 28 and features a life-sized castle complex made up entirely of ice. In a press release, the Utah-based company claimed that Dillon Ice Castles had "tens of thousands" of visitors over the past nine weeks.

"It's been an exceptional winter in Dillon," said Ice Castles CEO Ryan Davis. "Summit County is a premier winter destination, and we were proud to be a part of the seasonal fun so many visitors to Summit County are looking for."

This is Ice Castles' first year in Dillon. In previous years, Silverthorne, Breckenridge and Steamboat have also hosted the winter attraction. The company, Ice Castles, LLC, has five other locations this year across the United States and Canada. Other host cities include Stillwater, Minnesota; Midway, Utah; Lincoln, New Hampshire; Edmonton, Alberta; and Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Tickets are available for the rest of the week. They can be purchased in person at the ice castles, which are located at 120 Buffalo Street in Dillon, or at its website, IceCastles.com/Dillon.

Do short-term rentals reduce local housing stock? Frisco wrestles with the question

#Frisco #Colorado

Summit Daily Photo

Summit Daily Link

The Frisco Town Council is considering an overhaul of its short-term rental regulations after receiving estimates that only half of town properties listed on sites like Airbnb and Homeaway are in compliance with current licensing rules.

The most likely change, which could take effect by November, would scrap "umbrella licensing," which allows property management companies to list their entire short-term rental portfolios under a single license. That leaves thousands of revenue dollars on the table and prevents the town from precisely monitoring STR numbers.

A recent third-party analysis found approximately 850 short-term rental listings in Frisco, but only 237 active vacation rental licenses — 25 of which were umbrella licenses. Town staff estimate that even if umbrella licenses account for 200 units, the town has still only achieved a 50 percent compliance rate.

"We've known about this for a couple years, we haven't put the resources into it, but I think now we need to get more staff involved and start looking at it pretty closely," Frisco Mayor Gary Wilkinson said during a council work session on Tuesday.

More stringent measures like capping STRs in town are on the table, but council seemed more inclined to strengthen and better enforce the current licensing system rather than strictly curtails rentals. More public hearings will precede any rule changes, council said.

There are plenty of benefits to short-term rentals, which keep the lights on in town and generate foot traffic on Main Street. And while recent tax revenue data suggest they may be taking a bite out of the hotel business, lodging isn't necessarily a zero-sum game. Renting out a spare room can also help local homeowners stay afloat financially.

Perhaps the most important question for short-term rentals, however, is their impact on housing for locals. While STRs have taken on a sort of symbolism for residents who chafe at the lack of long-term housing options, their actual impact on the rental market is unclear.

"Do we know that, if we limit short-term rentals, those owners are going to turn them into long-term rentals or just sit vacant?" councilman Rick Ihnken asked. "I don't know if we can get that answer, but that's the big unknown for now."

If owners can make more money renting to vacationers day-to-day, the thinking goes, they're less likely to lease their units to locals year round. But testing that theory is almost impossible. Historical data are lacking or incomplete, and there are a slew of factors influencing how owners choose to make money off their properties.

"Impacts on long-term employee housing supply are incredibly difficult to quantify as historical data sets are unavailable as to how many units were once available for long-term rent, how many of those units were actually rented by local employees, and how many of those units may have converted to short-term," Frisco town staff noted in a report to council.

Academic research indicates that short-term rentals can limit local housing. One study by an affordable housing advocacy group found that STRs reduced New York City's housing stock by 10 percent. A paper published in the Harvard Law and Policy Review similarly found that STRs were exacerbating Los Angeles' housing crisis.

Frisco, of course, is no coastal metropolis, and it's unclear how STRs might impact the rental market in a town where roughly 70 percent of properties are second homes.

Breckenridge, like all of Summit County, has a high proportion of second homes as well. In 2016, the town commissioned a study that found STRs had a "significant" impact on local housing, reducing the available stock while increasing the demand for workers. The findings, however, were approximate and limited by data availability.

Nick VanDer Sluis, who lives in Denver but rents two condos in Breckenridge short-term, bought his first unit four years ago to avoid Interstate 70 traffic. Renting it out on Airbnb allowed him to use it whenever he liked while still making money off of it, something he couldn't do with full-time tenants.

Breckenridge is not considering new regulations. However, Sluis said that if he were dis-incentivized to rent short-term — perhaps through a cap system that made licenses expensive — he would probably sell his units rather than rent them long-term.

"It's a two-fold problem," he said. "There's a shortage of affordable housing but there's also a shortage of hotels and rooms to rent to drive the industry there. So that's a tough call. If you start limiting short-terms, you're helping one market and hurting another."

Paty Frost, who also lives in Denver and rents a unit in Breckenridge short-term, also enjoys the flexibility of Airbnb, which allows her to bring in some extra money when she isn't staying at her place.

"We haven't discussed doing long-term, so the economics of it wasn't even really part of the decision," she said. "We just wanted to still be able to use the place."

There are probably many owners like Sluis and Frost, whose units would be empty most of the year if they weren't being rented short-term. And while some units that might otherwise be rented to locals have certainly been converted to short-term, it's an elusive number.

One of the stated goals of the town's STR regulations is to "preserve and build Frisco's sense of community as a place where people live year round." But in a town with so many second homes, short-term renting may actually add life to blocks that might otherwise sit empty.

"Whether it's good or bad for neighborhoods, at least there are lights on in these communities and people going to our businesses," councilman Hunter Mortensen said. "I went for a walk with the dog today and walked by four driveways that had not been plowed all winter. To me, that's more of a concern than short-term rentals."

2030 Olympic bid for Denver would require major land, housing commitments for mountain towns

#Colorado

Summit Daily Photo

Summit Daily Link

Bringing the Olympics to the Rockies may be a tall order for Summit and neighboring mountain communities — 12 to 15 stories tall, to be more exact.

The Denver Olympic Exploratory Committee recently met with Summit housing officials and set out the needs for an Olympic village for athletes, coaches and staff in the mountains. Summit Combined Housing Authority executive director Jason Dietz presented the Olympic village requirements to local town and county officials at the authority's regular meeting on Wednesday.

"The site will need to be 35 to 50 acres of 'flat' land," Dietz announced, and was met with a smattering of chuckles from around the table. Finding a contiguous, flat parcel of land is a steep ask in the mountains. A current property listing on LandWatch.com has one 26-acre flat parcel in Breckenridge selling at $1.75 million.

Dietz added that any such site purchase and infrastructure development would need to be privately or publicly funded, as the Olympics would only pay to rent space while the games are being hosted.

“We want to see what legacy makes the best sense for Denver and the mountain towns.”Ramonna RobinsonSpokesperson for Denver Olympic Exploratory Committee

For a 35-acre site, Dietz said, housing would need to be dense and cover a smaller footprint in order to accommodate the 2,000 rooms needed to house all the athletes. That would necessitate the construction of a 12- to 15-story residential tower in the middle of a village complex. For a 50-acre site, the building would be 2- to 4-stories tall on a much larger footprint. The villages would also need new infrastructure such as roads, plumbing and electricity.

Summit County manager Scott Vargo said that the county is not at all thrilled about the first proposal. "I don't think a huge tower block would be appropriate for our community," Vargo said, adding that the shorter 50-acre complex seems more feasible, though finding appropriate flat land remains a daunting challenge.

Vargo also said that aside from housing, three new sports venues will need to be built in Denver and the mountains for Nordic skiing (the Nordic centers in Frisco and Breckenridge do not meet Olympic specs), the ski jump and a sliding track for the luge/bobsled.

Ramonna Robinson, spokesperson for the Denver Olympic Exploratory Committee, said that the housing requirement is necessitated by International Olympic Committee requirements. "The IOC requires enough housing for 5,500 beds for the athletes, coaches and staff," she said. She added that the committee is looking at the possibility of building separate villages in Denver, Summit and Eagle to spread out the residential need.

Robinson sees lasting benefits to bringing the Olympics to Colorado. She said that the villages and other infrastructure development could become permanent improvements and address some critical needs in mountain communities.

"There are a lot of infrastructure and capital improvements that aren't being funded in Colorado," Robinson said. "We really believe that the Olympics can be a catalyst to attract much-needed federal funds and help with major issues in the mountains, such as workforce housing and expanding and improving I-70. It could be a benefit for everybody."

Robinson said the exploratory committee is listening to as many local voices as they can to see what solution best fits their communities.

"We want to see what legacy makes the best sense for Denver and the mountain towns," she said, adding that affordable housing could be one such legacy.

The exploratory committee has met with officials from mountain towns including Breckenridge, Frisco, Georgetown, Vail and Winter Park. The committee is also encouraging public input through an online survey that closes at midnight Saturday. The survey can be accessed through the exploratory committee's website, SharingTheGold.org.

Update on luxury hotel project at Peak 8

#Breckenridge #Colorado

Summit Daily Link

Breckenridge Town Council rejected a proposal Tuesday night that would have allowed developers to proceed with plans to build a branded, four-star luxury hotel at the base of Peak 8 at Breckenridge Ski Resort.

Council's biggest problem with the proposal, framed in a possible development agreement with the town, hinged on an unprecedented ask to move $5.2 million worth of transferable density rights off open-space land and onto the parcel at the base of Peak 8.

Council had problems gauging how a project of such magnitude might exacerbate the town's already strained infrastructure, including the effect the hotel's employees and guests could have on traffic, parking and housing, all of which have been hammered by recent growth.
Another concern was the landowner, Vail Resorts.

The project was set for 1599 Ski Hill Road, where the Breckenridge Ski Resort Administration Building currently sits next to One Ski Hill Place, on land currently owned by Vail Resorts, which also owns Breckenridge Ski Resort.

In the deal, Vail Resorts would have sold the parcel to a two-pronged development team but managed the hotel through its subsidiary, RockResorts, once built.
Because Vail Resorts also owns parking lots in town with unused density attached to them, Breckenridge Mayor Eric Mamula had asked the development team, a joint venture between Breckenridge Grand Vacations and the Miami-based firm Lionheart Capital, to see if Vail Resorts would agree to move density rights from those lots to the base of Peak 8 to make the deal work.

The additional density would be needed to accommodate 110,000 square feet of wholly owned condos. Without them, the 150-room luxury hotel project was not financially viable, developers have told council.

On Tuesday, the developers informed council that Vail Resorts was not agreeable to shifting the density. When the time came to make a motion so council could vote on the proposed development agreement, no one did.
Instead, the elected officials took turns explaining why they couldn't support the project. Without a motion, the proposal failed. 

THREE DOORS, NO DEAL
The development team and town council went back and forth for months. Developers gave council its first look at a possible development agreement during an informal hearing Nov. 14.

Tuesday's final push, led by BGV's chief operating officer Nick Doran, began with him retracing their steps to this point. They've made multiple concessions and fulfilled numerous requests from the town, he said, including undergoing a "fit test," which came back largely in favor of the developers' proposal.

Trying to gain council's support, Doran painted it as the best of three options for the town, which he called "doors," a play on the once-popular game show "Let's Make a Deal."
Behind door No. 1, was "the known," Doran said, a development agreement with BGV, a local company that has a long history of working on large-scale projects in Breckenridge.

Going with the development agreement, he said, would ensure the hotel project more than met town code in many ways, including keeping down the building height, increasing setbacks, breaking up the hotel and condos into multiple structures, including a workforce-housing component and providing more parking than what's normally required, among others.

Previously, the developers had sought a slight reduction in the number of parking spaces for the project, but that request was pulled before Tuesday's hearing to make the agreement more palatable.

On the other side of the equation were Doran's doors Nos. 2 and 3, based on the assumption that someone else would develop the parcel, either with condos and a hotel or just a hotel. Doran said they don't believe a singular hotel is feasible, but perhaps someone might come in and build one below a four-star level.
Under either one of those two scenarios, he warned, the project would have similar or greater impacts than the proposal on the table, but wouldn't be nearly as beneficial for the town as what BGV and Lionheart Capital had put together.

"You guys walk away from this, you're walking away from nearly $5.25 million that is going to the Open Space fund," he pushed as he spoke to one aspect of the deal. "In the other two scenarios, there's nothing there, again because they're not working through the development agreement process. We've checked all the boxes. You guys know exactly what you're getting with us." 

VR INVOLVEMENT
At its Jan. 23 meeting, council presented 10 questions to the developers while stalling out the proposal.

One of those sought to gauge how willing Vail Resorts would be to shifting unused density off its gondola parking lots for the project.

"At this point in time, Vail Resorts desires to retain the density currently existing on the gondola lots," states the developers' response included in the town council packet.

Councilwoman Elisabeth Lawrence expressed more support for the project than any other elected official did Tuesday night, saying she does see a need for a four-star hotel in Breckenridge and thinks the base of Peak 8 could be a good place for it.

Still, she couldn't back the development agreement as presented.

"It's difficult because both the seller and the operator — that's not the developer, you guys are in the middle here — but the seller and the operator has available density to transfer, so I don't know how we, with good conscience and our pressured infrastructure right now, can give more density when the seller and operator has that density to transfer," she said. "I feel like that would be shortsighted on the town's part." 

OPPOSITION WINS
When Mayor Mamula opened the floor for public comments, five people expressed concerns or spoke out directly against the project Tuesday, though most were highly complimentary of BGV's role in the community. A few others wrote letters.

"Like everyone else, I really appreciated what BGV means to this community and the role that BGV takes," said Councilwoman Wendy Wolfe, echoing statements of other elected officials and people in the town. "If anyone was going to develop anything up there, I would wholeheartedly support it being Breckenridge Grand Vacations."
Still, she saw the development agreement as "an unprecedented ask" that deserved "an unprecedented amount of scrutiny from our community."

For Wolfe, she just couldn't support the proposal given the current condition of Ski Hill Road and how the additional trips up and down it might affect that already taxed stretch.

Meanwhile, the mayor was perhaps the most critical of the ski resort's refusal to move the density.

"In the end, this is (Vail Resorts') land that you're going to develop for them to use," he told the developers. "This new technique of selling off property and then requiring the developer of that property to go out to the bank and buy additional density — so that remaining density gets concentrated on the property that remains in their hands — I do not support," he said. "In the end, that's my biggest gripe."

Councilman Mark Burke did not attend the meeting, and Councilman Mike Dudick, who's the co-owner and CEO of BGV, recused himself from the discussions.

Reached over the phone Wednesday, Dudick didn't want to comment on the future of the proposal or where his company might go from here.

"The result of last evening was unexpected for BGV," he said before declining to take further questions.

According to town staff, there is no specific timeframe preventing the developers from bringing back a proposal when a motion fails.