The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2006-02-14. f , 9 : 4/ j , Prepared 2/10/06 & W 41<*#t Â¥2 N 04. evilÂ»I? -TOWN. OF ESTES PARI< -al::*.14.9 a 0*.:uÂ·234 7 ' q rÂ·.1.4--12'<Â£.Â·'. ..,....Â·-:' fGENÂ«947.2 y:jii:.,ir.#rÂ·'.:~:~.6.::, ::jir)#S~- ...... l-5154; .#333919*{2.6-* #'::.5,72.....7f.... t.: 7 :.:.6%.1 ..3')_.r J<f:.r ...., *** jÂ·Ne;..&*2&%/11642 24:..5195*E#41..~ : St f Â·Â·. .:Â·.r~*99'*N~VA'-te#w The Mission of the Town of Estes Park le to plan and provide reliable, hi0h-value eervices for our citizene, visitors, and employees. We take Great pride eneurinG and enhancinâ‚¬ the quality of life in our community by bein0 Good etewards of public resources and our natural eettlr10. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, February 14, 2006 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address) TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 24,2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, January 26,2006: 1. Estes Valley Victim Advocates Contract B. Community Development, February 2,2006: CVB 1. Stanley Park Contracts 2006 1. Suri-Llama Association - June 1-4 2. Colorado Arabians Horse Club - July 1- 4 3. Copper Penny Show - Colorado Hunter Jumper Association - July 21- 23 2. Theatre at Stanley Park Expenditures 1. Theatre pro forma update: Approve agreement/expenditure with AMS Planning & Research - $7,000 FOSH/Comm. Reinvest. 2. Theatre design: Approve agreemenVexpenditure with Thorn Architects and Semple Brown Design - $15,000 FOSH/Comm. Reinvest. 3. 2006 Performance Park Noise Policy 1 Continued on reverse side 4 , , Senior Center 1. Naming Senior Center Room #114 for Don & June Tebow Community Development Department 1. Salud Foundation - Request for Security and Fee Waivers 2. Hazel Stevens - Request for Fee Waiver C. Public Works, February 9,2006 4. Conference/Training Policy Meview. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A. ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL ADDITION, SPECIAL REVIEW #06-01. APPLICANT/ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER. Planner Chilcott. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE 1-06 - PARK HOSPITAL DISTRICT NORTH PROPERTY LINE (undeveloped 50 ft Right of Way). LEASE AGREEMENT. Dir. Linnane. 2. REPUBLIC PARKING - PARKING STUDY. Chief Richardson. 3. MUSEUM ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS. Dir. Kilsdonk. 4. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS REAPPOINTMENTS. Dir. Joseph. 5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(E), C.R.S. - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators and 24-6-402(4)(B), C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. 6. LOT 4 STANLEY ADDITION CONTRACT - REQUEST APPROVAL. Town Administrator Repola. 7. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 8. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2 , 1 , hp LaserJet 3015 . HP LASERJET FAX invent Feb-10-2006 2:00PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 148 2/10/2006 1:47:34PM Send 6672527 1:30 2 OK 149 2/10/2006 1:49:09PM Send 5869561 1:29 2 OK 150 2/10/2006 1:50:43PM Send 5869532 1:42 2 OK 151 2/10/2006 1:52:31PM Send 5861691 2:09 2 OK 152 2/10/2006 1:54:46PM Send 6353677 0:00 0 Busy 153 2/10/2006 1:56:22PM Send 6353677 1:44 2 OK 154 2/10/2006 1:58:12PM Send 5771590 2:35 2 OK 'Fl 1 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 24,2006 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of January, 2006. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Richard Homeier Lori Jeffrey-Clark Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Bill Pinkham Also Present: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Tucker, Sunnyside Knoll Resort, commented he has received several positive comments regarding the Convention and Visitors Bureau. He noted Loveland will be hosting the Good Guys Hotrod Show on June 2,3 & 4,2006 and he believes this would be an excellent opportunity for Estes Park to attract visitors. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Levine invited the community to join Habitat for Humanity in the dedication of its newest house on Halbach Lane this Sunday at 2:00 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 10, 2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, January 12, 2006. B. Utilities, January 19, 2006: 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, December 6,2005 and January 10, 2006 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 20, 2005 and January 17, 2006 (acknowledgement only). 6. Conference/Training Policy - Minor revision pertaining to reservation and expense report procedure. Board of Trustees January 24,2006 - Page 2 It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Doylen) the Consent Agenda be approved with item 1.6 being postponed until the February 14, 2006 Town Board meeting, and it passed unanimously. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for all the following Consent Agenda items: 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL ADDITION, SPECIAL REVIEW #06-01. APPLICANT/ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER. Planner Chilcott. APPLICANT REQUESTING CONTINUATION TO FEBRUARY 14, 2006. It was moved and - seconded (Doylen/Levine) the Planning Commission Consent item 1.A be continued to the February 14, 2006 Town Board meeting, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. CACP PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ACCREDITATION AWARD - CACP PRESIDENT. CHIEF JOHN PATTERSON. Police Chief Richardson introduced Chief John Patterson, President of the CACP, who presented the Estes Park Police Department with the CACP Professional Standards Accreditation Award. He stated only 35 agencies have received this award. Mayor Baudek commented Estes Park has an exemplary Police Department and it is nice to have an objective way to show the high stbndards they meet. 2. ADOPTION OF 2006 ORGANIZATION CHART. Town Administrator Repola reviewed the 2006 Town of Estes Park Â· organization chart. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded (Levine/Doylen) the 2006 Organizatiod Chart be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. Town Administrator R6pola reported a tree had to be removed in Bond Park due high wind damage. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned th6 meeting at 7:16 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk 1 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 26,2006 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 26th day of January, 2006. Committee: Chairman Newsom, Trustees Doylen and Homeier Attending: Trustees Doylen and Homeier Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Chief Richardson, 2nd Asst. Chief Hirning, Deputy Clerk Schares Absent Chairman Newsom Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT. 1. Estes Valley Victim Advocates Contract - Request Approval. Chief Richardson reviewed the 2006 Victim Advocates contract for services. Staff recommends approval of the contract for the amount of $7,500.00. The Committee recommends approval of the Estes Valley Victim Advocates Contract for $7,500.00. Reports: 1. Zone Summary 2005 - Sgt. Rose reviewed the progress of Zone Policing in 2005. Trustee Doylen recommended expanding Zone Policing to also address criminal issues, as well as civil issues. Chief Richardson advised that this program is in its infancy stage and over time will evolve. 2. Community Assessment - Officer Allen presented a community assessment of the transient issues in Estes Park. He recommended the Town take a proactive approach to getting the transients the help they need. FIRE DEPARTMENT. Request for Fireworks Permit from Cultural Arts Council of Estes Park - presented by representative from C.A.C.E.P. - Request Approval. Mike Oline, President of C.A.C.E.P., requested a fireworks permit for Bond Park on January 29, 2006 and permission for a parade along MacGregor Ave., Park Lane and Virginia Drive for the Chinese New Year's Celebration. Second Asst. Chief Hirning commented there is a fire hazard concern with the fireworks in Bond Park. Town Administrator Repola recommended the Town assist with the insurance premium for an amount not to exceed $350.00. The Committee recommends approval of the fireworks permit, contingent on liability insurance with the Town contributing up to $350.00, and approval of the parade. POLICE DEPARTMENT. Reports: 3. Republic Parking - Tamara Von Feldt and Dana G. Klein, Republic Parking System, reviewed the draft of the 2005 Town of Estes Park Parking Study. The final report will be presented to the Town Board when it is completed. 4. Pit Bull Study - Chief Richardson stated it has been found at this time the Town can not have a breed specific dog ban due to statutory requirements. Further RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - January 26,2006 - Page 2 studies will be done to promote a safe environment for the citizens and tourist of Estes Park. FIRE DEPARTMENT Reports: Year End Reports: Second Asst. Chief Hirning reviewed the 2005 year end report. There being no further business, Trustee Doylen adjourned the meeting at 10:16 a.m. Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 2,2006 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 2nd day of February, 2006. Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Levine and Pinkham Attending: Chairman Doylen and Trustee Pinkham Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Directors Pickering, Joseph, Kilsdonk and Mitchell, and Deputy Clerk Schares Absent: Trustee Levine Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU Stanley Park Contracts 2006 - Request Approval. Mgr. Hinze presented the following contracts: 1. Suri-Llama Association - June 1-4 2. Colorado Arabians Horse Club - July 1- 4 3. Copper Penny Show - Colorado Hunter Jumper Association - July 21- 23 Concluding all discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the Stanley Park Contracts for 2006. Theatre at Stanley Park Expenditures - Request Approval. Town Administrator Repola requested approval for the following expenditures: 1. Theatre pro forma update: Approve agreement/expenditure with AMS Planning & Research He explained a study group has been pulled together to review the needs and wants of a theatre in order to fulfill one of the Town Board goals. Concluding all discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the Stanley Park Expenditure of an amount not to exceed $7,000 for the AMS service contract to be paid half from the FOSH Fund and half from the Community Reinvestment Fund. 2. Theatre design: Approve agreemenVexpenditure with Thorp Architects and Semple Brown Design Staff recommends approval of the agreement/expenditure with Thorp Architects and Semple Brown Design. Concluding all discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the Stanley Park Expenditure not to exceed $15,000 with Thorp Architects to be paid half from the FOSH Fund and half from the Community Reinvestment Fund. 2006 Performance Park Noise Policy. Sgt. Rose reviewed the Noise Level Study at Performance Park conducted in August 2005. Staff recommended studying the sound level for the 2006 summer season and implementing the following policy changes for the 2006 summer season: 1. Retain Hours of Performances: Monday - Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 2. Decibel level not to exceed 15 decibels over the ambient level at that time. a. Discussion of wattage of speakers on stage by Ward Durrett. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - February 2,2006 - Page 2 3. If a violation occurs: a. During a performance: if the decibel level is over suggested level performers/group would be asked to reduce sound level. If second request needs to be made to reduce sound, they would be asked to finish and leave. b. After a performance: Performers/group would be notified and told they may not be able to return. 4. The permit to include a clause stating pdrformers/group understands the decibel level and possible consequences if they do not comply. Ward Durrett, explained the types of decibel readers available to monitor the decibel level. The cost for the Decibel Reader would not exceed $1500. Tom Hochstetler expressed concerns with the performers using large amplifiers. Town Administrator Repola recommended Special Events staff shall use their discretion when scheduling multi-day events, as well as multiple dates for any single entity or organization. Following discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the 2006 Performance Park Noise Policy, purchasing a decibel reader not to exceed $1500, and continuing the Noise Level Study for the 2006 summer season. Reports. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Advertising & Communications â€¢ Special Events â€¢ Visitors Center Dir. Pickering announced that the Grand Opening ofL the CVB will be April 7, 2006 ' beginning at 5:00 p.m. MUSEUM/SENIOR CENTER Naming Senior Center Room #114'for Don & June Tebow Dir. Mitchell requested permission to honor Don and June Tebow by naming room #114 in the Senior Center after them by placing a plague over the room. The Committee recommends approval of naming room #114 in the Senior Center after Don and June Tebow and creating a policy for naming property of the Town of Estes Park. Reports. Reports provided for informational purposed and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Museum Monthly â€¢ Senior Center Monthly COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Salud Foundation - Request for Security and Fee Waivers. Dir. Joseph reviewed the request of the non-profit Salud Foundation to waive the security and fees associated with their improvement plans. The Committee recommends waiving the improvement security and building permit fee for Salud Foundation. Hazel Stevens - Request for Fee Waiver. Birchfield reviewed the request of Hazel Stevens to waive the fees for replacement of a roof that was not properly installed in 2001. He explained during 2001 roofs were not inspected and staff recommends approval of the request to waive the fee. Following discussion, The Committee recommends waiving the roofing permit fee for Hazel Stevens. Reports. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Activity and Budget Summaries RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - February 2,2006 - Page 3 MISC. Dir. Kilsdonk acknowledged the CIA participants attending the Community Development Committee meeting. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m. Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 9,2006 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of February, 2006. Committee: Chairman Levine, Trustees Homeier and Jeffrey-Clark Attending: Chairman Levine and Trustees Homeier and Jeffrey-Clark Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Public Works Director Linnane, Deputy Clerk Schares Absent: None Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. TOWN HALL BACK STAIRCASE REPAIR- BUDGETED ITEM- REQUEST APPROVAL. Dir. Linnane reviewed the request to remove and replace the exterior north staircase and the request to install porcelain tile on the interior stairs. Staff recommends removal and reconstruction of the east exterior staircase at a cost not to exceed $10,000 using Westover Construction to complete the budgeted project. Staff also recommends using Abbey Carpet & Tile at a cost of $10,500 to strip the interior 2 staircases and then tile them. It is recommended that 50% of the budgeted funds for roof maintenance be allocated . to the interior stair repair. Following discussion, The Committee recommends approval to proceed to bid for the exterior staircase and two interior staircases. REPORTS. None Miscellaneous. Dir. Linnane updated the Committee on the progress of the new Park Shop and reported it is on schedule. He stated Bond Park is making progress and will be ready this summer. There being no further business, Chairman Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:18 a.m. Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk CONFERENCE/TRAINING POLICY Revised: November 25,1997 (Re-stated Policy in its entirety) June 4, 1999 (Per Diem) October 26,2000 (Commuter Expenses) January 27,2004 (Mileage/vehicle allowance) * February 14, 2006 (Reservations, Reports, Exceptions) INTENT The intent of this travel policy is to initiate general rules and regulations to clarify responsibilities pertaining to travel expense for all Elected Officials, Planning Commissioners, Rodeo Committee Officers and Employees. * All reservations for travel, including accommodations when applicable, and all Travel Expense Reports shall be processed by a designated person in each department. DEFINITIONS 1. Conference. A gathering of regional or national members of a professional organization over a period of several days for the purpose of continuing education and conducting the business of the organization. 2. Training. Classes, seminars, workshops, or similar programs held to improve the job knowledge and/or skills in a specific area, e.g.: municipal government, computer operation, supervision, pump repair user groups. ELIGIBILITY. In-State (or Regional - could include out-of-state): Elected Officials. Depending upon the yearly budget, authorized to attend various conferences/workshops sponsored by the Colorado Municipal League, and other related conferences. Planning Commission and Rodeo Committee Officers. Depending upon the yearly budget, any or all members of the Planning Commission, and the Rodeo Committee Chairman and two Officers may be eligible to attend one conference/workshop per year. Department Heads. Depending upon the yearly budget, a maximum of two conferences per year. Other Employees. Depending uponthe yearly budget, an employee may be eligible to attend one conference per year, with a maximum consecutive attendance of two years, as determined by the Department Head. An employee must obtain the approval of their Department Head prior to submittal of the registration forms to the Town Clerk. 1 I , Out-of-State: Elected Officials. Depending on the yearly budget, authorized to attend the National League of Cities Conference, plus one other out-of-state conference per year. Planning Commission and Rodeo Committee Members. Depending upon the yearly budget, the Commission Chairman, Rodeo Chairman or their designee (s), are authorized to attend one conference year. Department Heads. Depending upon the yearly budget, one conference per year. Other Employees. Depending upon the yearly budget, one conference per employee for a.consecutive period of two years,maximum, as determined by the Department Head. No more than one employee may attend. the same conference in any given year. Department Heads are required to include all travel and footnote same in detail in the yearly budget. SAMPLE LISTING OF ANNUAL CONFERENCES In-State/Regional: Elected Officials: American Planning' Association (APA) Colorado- Association of Fairs and Shows (CAFS) Colorado Municipal League (CML) Economic Developer's Council of Colorado (EDCC) Rocky Mountain Electrical League (RMEL) Planning Commission/Rodeo Committee Members: American Planning Association (CAPA) Colorado Association of Fairs and Shows (CAFS) Department Heads/Other Employees: I I As footnoted in the yearly budget. Out-of-State: Elected Officials: Americah Planning Association (APA) American Public Power Association (APPA) American Public Works Association (APWA) International Association of Conference Centers (IACC) International Association of Fairs & Shows (IAFE) OR Professional Rodop Cowboy association (PRCA) National Leadue of Cities (NLC) Planning Commission/Rodeo Committee Members: American Plannihg Association (APA) International Association of Fairs and Shows (IAFE) OR Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association (PRCA) 2 Department Heads: As footnoted in the yearly budget. MILEAGE Personal vehicle travel expenses for elected/appointed officials and employees shall be paid at the current rate established by the IRS. Employees are encouraged to use a Town vehicle, if available, when attending conference and training sessions within driving distance. If an employee uses their personal vehicle, and is not receiving a vehicle allowance, they will be reimbursed at the current rate established by the IRS. Employees receiving a vehicle allowance will be reimbursed at the current rate established by the IRS. EXPENSES The following items will be paid as travel and conference expenses: 1. Registration. The Town will remit advance registration fees whenever possible. 2. Lodging. The Town will remit at least one night's deposit for hotel/motel accommodations, plus tax, when applicable (may include customary tips). The Town will reimburse the standard room rate. 3. Overnight accommodations will not be reimbursed for conference or training sessions within a 50-mile radius, including Boulder, Fort Collins, - Greeley, Longmont and Loveland. Note: See "Exception" Section. 4. Airfare. The Town will reimburse attendees for regular, coach rates. 5. Ground Transportation. Reasonable travel during the conference (may include customary tips). 6. Per Diem. The Town will reimburse attendees using the current Maximum Federal Per Diem Rate Schedule established by the IRS. Receipts are not required. 7. Anyone desiring an advance per diem must contact the Town Clerk. 8. Parking. Airport and hotel parking during the conference/training (may include customary tips). PER DIEM COMPUTATION Out-of-State. One day prior to and one day following is allowed, plus actual days attending conference. In-State. If necessary, M day prior to, and M day following the conference. Per Diem is intended to pay for meals and incidentals during conferences. The reimbursement rate will be calculated on the aggregate number of days attending the conference. 3 Single-Day Training. If an early departure (6:00 a.m.) or late return (7:00 p.m.) from/to Estes Park is necessary to attend single-day training, meals may be reimbursed. Early or late hour travel necessitated by the training location does not qualify an employee for overtime or compensatory time. Payment for associated special events, tours, etc. may accompany a conference registration; however, payment must be made from the attendee's personal funds. COMMUTER EXPENSES Employees electing to commute to conferences or training, within reasonable driving distance, shall be reimbursed at the current mileage rate established by the IRS. Any incidental out-of-pocket expenses such as meals and parking required to attend conferences or training shall also be reimbursed. Receipts must be attached to the Travel Expense Report and submitted to the Town Clerk for reimbursement. ATTENDANCE , Attendees are expected to attend the entire schedule of meetings. If, for some reason, attendance is reduced, reimbursement will be pro-rated. *CONFERENCE REPORT Attendees shall prepare a conference 'report within 30 days of cdmpletion of the conference to be submitted to their immediate supervisor. EXCEPTIONS *Variations and exceptions to this policy may be granted by the Mayor for Elected Officials and Town Administrator, and Town Administrator for employees. The Mayor and so-appointed Town employee shall be exempt from this policy while traveling under the policy of the Platte River Power Authority. These regulations become effective immediately upon the signature of the Mayor. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor Date: 4 Town of Estes Park Community Development Depa,tment Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Director Date: February 10, 2006 Subject: Estes Park Medical Center, Hospital Addition, Special Review #06- 01. Applicant - Estes Park Medical Center, Park Hospital District Background. The Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC) has submitted a special review/location-and-extent application to expand and remodel their existing facilities. The property is located at 555 Prospect Avenue, is zoned "RM" Mu/ti-Fam#y Residentia/, and is slightly over nine acres in size. An approximately 50,000-square-foot addition is planned. One main entrance will be provided for all facilities. This entrance will be accessed from the lower parking lot, which will be expanded by thirty-two parking spaces. Also, the driveway entrance to the parking lot will be relocated to the corner of Prospect and Fir Avenues, and sidewalk will be provided for pedestrian access. The detention basin will be relocated to the northeast portion of the site adjacent to Fir Avenue and the main parking-lot entrance. The minutes from the January 17, 2006 Planning Commission meeting are attached, which include a more detailed description of the plans and recommended conditions of approval. Most Planning Commission conditions have Residential uses ~1Â«fl been addressed. Some conditions need to be m adjacent to all hospital addressed after development plan approval. 1'3"1'vnes. Â· ~\ Minutes from the January 10, 2006 Board of Adjustment meeting approving building and ~ + 117R tiEÂ« parking-lot setback variances and a height I / 11-_B-- Izzlz- -= 02-* variance are also attached. 41 Hospital Z- pit pzpz Z. EE IRM" Im ~ 6~ ~- - The EPMC is also requesting that the Town lease the unoccupied portion of the Prospect Avenue right-of-way to EPMC, which would - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 17, 2006 recently, when applicant's father, Dwight Adrian, passed away. At the time the rezoning notifications were sent to property owners, Mr. Adrian, who owned the property at that time, was in poor health and did not respond to the notification. The rezoning request is consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and other relevant land-use plans. Adequate public facilities exist to serve both units on the property. Based on the lot size, the maximum allowable density is four units prior to site-specific adjustments. Planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant; he stated his support of staff's recommendation for approval. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hix) to recommend approval of the Rezoning of Metes and Bounds, Section 35, T5N, R73W of the 6~h PM, from E- Estate to A-1-Accommodations to the Board of County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. SPECIAL REVIEW 06-01, Estes Park Medical Center, Hospital Addition, located in Section 25, T5N, R73W of the 6~h PM, Applicant: Park Hospital District, Estes Park Medical Center Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a special review application to allow the Park Hospital District to expand and remodel their existing facilities at the Estes Park Medical Center. It will be reviewed by the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees. This is also a location and extent review, which means that the Park Hospital District can override a Town Board decision or a specific condition, provided they follow the procedures outlined in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The property is located at 555 Prospect Avenue and is approximately 9.3 acres in size. It is surrounded by residential uses and zoning. Although alternate sites were considered for the hospital, an addition to the existing building at the current location was the most cost-effective option. The most significant features of the expansion and remodel are as follows: 1. The main building is currently 87,254 square feet in size; an addition of approximately 60,000 square feet is proposed. 2. The new building and remodeled areas will meet current local, state, and federal requirements. This includes federal privacy requirements in addition to building code requirements. 3. The Estes Park Medical Center, which currently has sixteen hospital beds in ten rooms, one operating room, and one procedure room, will be expanded to twenty-two beds in twenty-two rooms, two new operating rooms, and one new procedure room. The old procedure room and operating room will be converted to other uses. 4. The Family Medical Clinic, which was built to house five physicians, but currently houses seven, will be expanded to house nine physicians. 5. One main entrance for all hospital services will be provided on the n6rtheast side of the building in approximately the same location as the current entrance to the Family Medical Clinic. The upper entrance to the Estes Park Medical Center will remain but will not be the primary entrance. 6. The lower parking lot will be remodeled and expanded. Thirty-two parking spaces, including five accessible spaces, will be added, raising the total parking spaces from 182 to 214. No remodel or expansion of the upper parking lot is proposed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 17, 2006 7. The main parking lot entrance will be relocated farther to the north along Fir Avenue, and a turn lane will be added. The existing entrance to the |ower parking lot will be removed. 8. The rightiof-way connection to Stanley Circle Drive will remain; however, asphalt will be removed and access will be blocked by a curb. Vehicular emergency use of the right-of-way will remain. 9, The Park Hospital District has requested that the Town enter into a lease agreement to allow the District to use the unoccupied Prospect Avenue right- of-way immediately north of the hospital for parking, access, and landscaping. The proposed term of the lease is twenty years with an option to extend the lease for an additional twenty-year term. The Public .Works Committee reviewed the proposed lease on January 12, 2006 and recommended that Town Board approve the lease. It will bd considered by Town Board in conjunction with the special review. 10. Sidewalk will be constructed along, Fir Avenue. Staff has discussed a sidewalk connection across the parking lot from Fir Avenue to the main entrance. 11.A service area for loading and trash collection will be provided on the north side of the building. 12.The detention basin will be reshaped and resized. This basin drains a 45-acre portion of Prospect Mountain and is one of the largestdetention basins in the TovOn. 13.The Park Aospital District requested variances to building setbacks, parking- lot setbacks, and building height. 'These requests were reviewed and unanimously approved by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment at their january 10, 2006 meeting. No expansion of the Prospect Park Living Center is proposed. This skilled-nursing facility js licensed for sixty beds. The hospital currently has 250 employees; the number of employees is not expected to increase. The property is zoned RM-Mu#i-Fam#y Residential, and the proposed uses of h6spital and senior institutional living are permitted in this zoning district by special review. The proposed development complies with the applicable density and dimensional standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), with the exception of minimum building setbacks on the north and east sides, and maximum building height. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved variance requests for thede standards on January 10, 2006. The proposed floor-area ratio is approximately 37%, and the prpposed impervious coverage is 53.3%. It should be noted that the proposed uses are not subject to the floor-area or impervious- coverage limits in the RM zoning district. ' A preliminary stormwatdr managemenVdrainage repoft and a preliminary grading and drainage plan was submitted for review. The proposed detention pond is one of the largest in the Town and is one' of the few that releases into an underground stormwater system. The pond will detain water from a 45-acre Prospect Mountain drainage basin in addition to drainage from the hospital site. The current detention basin will be removed; the proposed detention basin will be located in the northeast corner of the site. A ramp into the basin-will be provided for maihtenance access and 'a retaining wall with a maximum height of four feet above the adjacent sidewalk is proposed. The final drainage report and plans must be prepared in accordance with the recently adopted Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards, which include water-quality standards, andmust be submitted pribr to, or with, the building permit application. Sidewalk will be provided along Fir Avenue and Moccasin Circie Drive. Staff recommends providing a pedestrian connection from the sidewalk along the street to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 17, 2006 the main entrance of the hospital. The current design of the detention pond gives adequate room to provide this sidewalk connection. The Park Hospital District requested a variance to allow the proposed parking lot to be built up to the northern and eastern property lines in the locations shown on the development plan; the variance was approved by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on January 10, 2006. The required number of landscaped islands is not provided; however, given the unique use of the property and the constraints inherent in expanding and remodeling the existing facility, staff is supportive of the plan. The proposed number of trees and shrubs exceeds the EVDC landscaping requirements. Seventy-one trees are required and 126 are proposed; 172 shrubs are required and 188 are proposed. The location of trees and shrubs in the Prospect Avenue right-of-way is limited by the fact that plants cannot block future access to utilities in the northern portion of the right-of-way. It is also limited by the requirement that trees and shrubs be placed far enough from the parking lot to allow vehicles to overhang the curb without damaging the landscaping. These requirements leave a limited area in which to plant trees, and staff is supporlive of the applicant's landscaping plan. A total of 214 parking spaces are proposed; 199 are required. There will be no changes to the upper parking lot. The lower parking lot will be redesigned and increased from 93 to 125 parking spaces. Five more handicapped-accessible spaces are provided than are required, although some of the existing accessible spaces in the upper parking lot do not meet current standards. Also, the accessible spaces are proposed to be eight feet wide but are required to be nine feet wide; this may result in the loss of one proposed accessible space. Bicycle racks will also be provided. Pavement markings, including directional arrows, center turn lane at exit, pedestrian crosswalk, stop sign, and turn-lane divider line, should be provided at the main driveway entrance to the hospital, and should be reviewed and approved by Public Works. Staff recommends making the driveway in front of the main entrance one- way. Parking-lot lighting is proposed, but no lighting is proposed along the northern district buffer, which is the area closest to neighboring residences. Although lights up to twenty-five-feet tall are permitted in parking lots with more than 100 spaces, the applicant proposes to limit the lights to 17.5 feet in height, helping to minimize the impact on nearby residences. Given the twenty-four-hour use of the hospital, staff does not recommend restricting the hours of parking-lot illumination. The applicant proposes two delivery areas. One will be on the north side of the building, close to the residential neighborhood; deliveries will be made between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Planning staff believes the hours are reasonable and should not result in conflicts with neighboring residences. A second delivery area will receive deliveries for the Dietary Department as early as 6:30 a.m. but is not located as close to neighboring residences. The applicant proposes to remove the Stanley Circle Drive connection, which will eliminate hospital traffic in this residential neighborhood. Staff has received many complaints over the years about this cut-through traffic. Adequate public facility improvements are required to be installed or guaranteed prior to issuance of the first building permit, and improvements are required to be installed concOrrent with the impacts of the development. The lot is served by the Estes Park Sanitation District and b9 Town water. There will be significant upgrades to sewer, water, and electric lines, with final line sizes and capacities to be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 17, 2006 determined at the building permit stage. ISO calculations were routed to Fire Chief Scott Dorman; no concerns were expressed. The calculations show that the two new fire hydrants proposed, along with the two existing hydrants, will provide sufficient fire flow. All new electric lines will be placed underground, and an overhead line near the northern property line will be buried. A traffic impact analysis was submitted, estimating an increase of 272 vehicle trips per day. This would rai66 the daily trips generated by the hospital from 1,138 to 1,410, which Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying has stated is not a significant increase. Thd traffic ifnpact analysis was based on the assumption that 153 of the 250 hospital employees will work on any given day. The hospital expansion will not result in an increased number of employ6es. The addition of a turn lane at the hospital entrance will improv& safety. The subniitted plans comply with road design and construction standards, except that the two southern driveways should have radii that are compliant with the stanoards and should have crosspans installed. The expansion and remodel will be completed in phases over a period of approximately eighteen months; construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2006. A detailed phasing plan addressing all aspects of construction, including paving, drainage, and landscaping, must be submitted with or prior to submittal of the buildingpermit application. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent neighbors for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Department of Building Safety and Public Works Department,.from Town Attorney Greg White, ar)d from Estes Park Sanitation District. No comments were received from neighboring properly owners. If the recommended conditions of approval are met, the development plan will comply with all applicable standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code and will be consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant plans.. The application mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. ' Public Comment: Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying responded to a question from Commissioner Hull regarding the lack of lighting in the northern area of the lower parking lot. He stated the building architects had completed a lighting study that showed there will be enough foot-canlies of light to provide adequate lightinD in that area without the light shining onto neighboring properties. Commissioner Pohl questioned whether the third-floor portion of the proposed addition would interfere with the helicopter landing pad on the roof of the hospital. Mr. Prochaska stated it would not. Mr. Prochaska stated that work is in already in progress on the planning staff's recommended conditionÂ§ of approval, noting that given the magnitude of this 20- million-dollar project and only three variances requested, there will be minimal impact on the neighborhood. He stated the appliant expects to break ground in April, with building donstruction beginning in the summer and completion expectdd in the summer of 2007. Linda Thierrin, Estes Park Medical Center Adminstrator of Patient Care Services, stated the currentbuilding was built in 1975. The addition and remodel will provide for private rooms, an upgrade of the rehab program, improved operating rooms, and additional funding from Medicaid. She thanked the Commissioners for their consideration of the project. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 January 17, 2006 It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hull) to recommend approval of the Special Review 06-01, Estes Park Medical Center, Hospital Addition, located in Section 25, T5N, R73W of the 6th PM, to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with Carolyn McEndaffer's comments dated January 3, 2006. This may include relocation of the proposed sign at the Fir Avenue entrance. 2. Compliance with the Engineering comments in Greg Sievers' June 17,2005 memo with the exception of Engineering comment #4 concerning sidewalk. A crosswalk shall be provided from the street to the main hospital entrance south of the detention basin. Address drainage comments with submittal of final drainage plans and report. The final report shall take into consideration off-site drainage. The development plan shall be revised to reflect the new detention basin design. 3. Compliance with the comment in Greg White's June 23,2005 letter which states, This Development Plan contemplates development of a parking area along the north side of the property within the Town's right- of-way. Approval of this Development Plan shall be contingent upon approval by the Town of Estes Park of a Lease Agreement with the Estes Park Hospital District for use of the Town's right-of- way as contemplated in the Development Plan. 4. Compliance with the comments in Jim Duell's letter to Alison Chilcott dated December 14, 2005. Comment #1 shall be addressed prior to Town Board review of the development plan. 5. The plan shall be revised to accurately reflect the proposed building size. 6. The final report and plans shall be submitted for review prior to, or with, the building permit application and shall comply with the requirements in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards manual. 7. The preliminary drainage report shall state that it was prepared in accordance with the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards rather than the old Larimer County Stormwater Manual. The drainage report shall be updated to reflect the new detention pond size. 8. The trees and shrubs shown on the plan and the totals found in the plant guide shall match. A total of forty-one trees are shown along northern boundary and thirty-one along the building front. 9. A note shall also be added to the landscape plan addressing the overhang, see Estes Valley Development Code Â§7.11.0.4.d Placement. 10. The landscape plan shall be referenced correctly in the sheet index on sheet one and the grading plan shall either show all proposed landscaping or none. 11. Accessible spaces are proposed with a width of eight feet; these are required to be nine feet wide and the plan shall be revised. 12. Pavement markings, including directional arrows, center turn lane at exit, pedestrian crosswalk, stop sign, and turn-lane divider line, shall be provided at the main driveway entrance to the hospital and shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. The access aisle in front of the hospital parking area shall be one-way. 13. Development plan sheets shall be internally consistent; some refer to an access aisle width of twenty-four feet and others to a width of 24.40 feet. 14. A detailed phasing plan addressing all aspects of construction, including paving, drainage, and landscaping, shall be submitted with or prior to submittal of the building permit application for review and approval. 15.The development plan note concerning lighting shall be revised to reflect the proposed lighting height of 17.5 feet. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 10, 2006, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Al Sager; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Wayne Newsom; Alternate Member Jeff Barker Attending: Chair Sager; Members Dill, Levine, Lynch, and Newsom Also Attending: Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: , Director Joseph Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and welcomed new Board of Adjustment member, John Lynch. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the December 6,2005 meeting. Chair Sager noted that the December 6,2005 variance request for PID 3525121069, 221 East Riverside Drive, Richard & Sandra Slaydon/Applicant, which was continued at the December meeting, has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. A motion was made to accept this change by Member Levine and seconded by Member Newsom. There being no objections, the consent agenda was accepted. 2. HOSPITAL ADDITION, Located in S25, T5N, R73W of the 6~1 PM, 555 Prospect Avenue. Applicant: Park Hospital District, Estes Park Medical Center - Variance reauest from Estes Vallev Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, and Section 1.9.D.1 to allow a 2-foot setback for buildings and structures in lieu of the minimum reauired 15-foot front-yard setback: from Section 7.11.F to allow portions of the parking lot to be built up to the northern and eastern propertv lines in lieu of the minimum required 15-foot setback: and from Section 1.9.E to allow a maximum buiding height of 43 feet from finished grade in lieu of the maximum 30-foot height limit in the RM-Multi-Fam#v Residential zoning district Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this property is zoned RM- Multi-Famiiy Residential and that the surrounding properties are residential. The applicant intends to build an addition onto the hospital an8 requests variances from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to allow a two-foot building-and- structure setback rather than the minimum required fifteen-foot front-yard setback, and to allow the parking lot to be built up to the northern and eastern property lines in lochtions shown on the development plan rather than the required minimum fifteen-foot setback. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow the building height to exceed the thirty-foot height limit required by the EVDC. The new main entry to the building will be a maximum of forty-three feet from finished grade, which is proposed to be one foot higher than the current grade elevation of 7,536 feet. A third floor of approximately 9,000 square feet is proposed over much of the addition to house mechanical and electrical equipment and ductwork. This portion of the addition is proposed to be forty feet tall. Because the first and second floors of the addition will match the height of the existing building, there is little room for ductwork betwben the floors. Staff is supportive of enclosing this equipment. The additional height required to enclose the equipment has been proposed by the building architects based on their experiences with other hospital buildings they've designed. The applicant may be able to reduce the proposed height and/or area of this third floor as the building RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 January 10, 2006 design is finalized. For the sake of comparison, the tallest portion of the existing building, the parapet, is 44.5 feet tall. At the direction of planning staff, the applicant requested a variance to the floor-area ratio. After further review, staff determined that in the RM zoning district, the floor- area ratio applies to multi-family use only. At the time the agenda was published, the applicant was also requesting a variance from EVDC Section 7.5 to allow less landscaping than is required; the applicant has since revised the landscape plan to meet the code requirements and is not requesting the variance. In addition to the variance application, the Park Hospital District has submitted a special review application that will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on January 17, 2006 and by the Estes Park Town Board on January 24, 2006. The variance application and special review application are location-and- extent reviews, which means that the Park Hospital District can override a Board of Adjustment or Town Board decision or a specific condition, provided the District follows the procedures outlined in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Park Hospital District has also requested that the Town enter into a lease agreement to allow the District to use the unoccupied Prospect Avenue right-of-way immediately north of the hospital for parking, access, and landscaping. This will be reviewed by the Public Works Committee on January 12, 2006 and Town Board on January 24,2006. The most significant features of the expansion and remodel are as follows: 1. The main building is currently 87,254 square feet in size, and a 49,757- square-foot addition is proposed. This is a 57% increase. 2. The new building and remodeled areas will meet current local, state, and federal requirements, including federal privacy requirements. 3. The Estes Park Medical Center, which currently has sixteen hospital beds in ten rooms, one operating room, and one procedure room, will be expanded to twenty-two beds in twenty-two rooms, two new operating rooms, and one new procedure room. The old procedure room and operating room will be converted to other uses. 4. The Family Medical Clinic, which was built to house five physicians, but currently houses seven, will be expanded to house nine physicians. 5. One main entrance for all hospital services will be provided on the northeast side of the building in approximately the same location as the current entrance to the Family Medical Clinic. The upper entrance to the Estes Park Medical Center will remain, but will not be the primary entrance. 6. The lower parking lot will be remodeled and expanded. Thirty-two parking spaces, including five handicapped-accessible spaces, will be added, raising the total parking spaces from 182 to 214. No remodel or expansion of the upper parking lot is proposed. 7. The main parking lot entrance will be relocated and a turn lane added. The existing entrance to the lower parking lot will be removed. 8. The right-of-way connection to Stanley Circle Drive will remain; however, asphalt will be removed and access will be blocked by a curb. Vehicular emergency use of the right-of-way will remain. 9. Sidewalk will be constructed along Fir Avenue. 10.A service area for loading and trash collection will be provided on the northern side of the building. 11.The detention basin will be reshaped and resized. This basin drains a forty- five-acre portion of Prospect Mountain and is one of the largest detention basins in the Town. Planner Chilcott stated there are special circumstances associated with this lot and building that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated, and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 January 10, 2006 practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with the Code standards. The requested variances will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purpose of either the specific standards, the Estes Valley Development Code, or the , Comprehensive Plan. The Estes Park Medical Center is a unique use in the Estes Valley. The Park Hospital District contracted with a professional to complete a cost- benefit analysis of purchasing an undeveloped parcel of land and building a new hospital versus expansion ati the current location. This analysis resulted in the decision to expand at the current location. The lot has physical constraints that limit development posmbilities. Although the lot is slightly more than nine acres in size, the developable area is much smaller. Approximately a third of the property, is steeply sloped, heavily treed, and not well suited for hospital expansion. The existing building and parking lot location and configuration restrict how and where expansion can occur. Planner Chilcott stated the proposed variances are not substantial given Â· the proposed use of the property and that the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered.,If the variances are not granted, significant redesign of the hospital addition would be required, and the variances offer the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The proposed addition will improve the appearance of the hospital, and the driveway entrance redesign, along with the addition of a turn lane and sidewalk along the eastern property line, will improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. The expansion of the hospital will improve the quality and level of services provided to residents, including residents of adjoining properties. The removal of the Stanley Circle Drive connection will eliminate hospital traffic in this residential neighborhood. Staff has received many complaints,over the years about this cut-through traffic. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment Comments were received from Town Attorney Greg White and from neighboring property owner, Virginia D. Hampton, who emailed planning staff regarding her objection to the granting of any variances. Public Comment: Doug Faus, CEO of Estes Park Medical Center, addressed the Board. He stated he has made every effort to meet with neighbors from the beginning to discuss plans for the hospital addition. He noted the site provides a number of challenges and that, given scope of project, the variance requests are small. He stated the Park Hospital District has made an effort to work with the Town and meet the Development Code guidelines wherever possible- to minimize the impact of the addition on the community. Member Levine questioned Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone Engineerifig and Surveying about the requested two-foot setback for the addition. Mr. Prochaska stated the building design had been done by Prochaska and Associates of Omaha, Nebraska. Chair Sager requested the applicant clarify the statement of intent, noting the phrasing regarding the encroachment of the current hospital building into the setback is unclear. He also asked for assurance from the applicant that efforts to decrease the third-floor building height and area will continue. Mr. Faus stated it is the Park Hospital District's desire to do so in an effort to minimize costs. At Member Lynch's request, Chair Sager clarified that he was not asking for, a change to the profile of the roof line but for a reduction in the height if it was possible to do so while accommodating the equiprhent and providing space to work on it. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 January 10, 2006 It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the three requested variances, with the applicant's agreement to minimize the height and tota square footage of the third-floor portion of the addition, and with the findings and conditions recommended by staff; the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 2. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the building variance and provide a setback certificate. 3. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with the parking-lot setback variance. 4. A certificate stamped and signed by a registered land surveyor verifying that the foundations are set per the elevations shown on the building permit is required to be on the job site for the Building Official at foundation inspection. A benchmark (control point) should be established on the lot for the surveyor to verify existing grade prior to construction. 5. Approval of the lease agreement with the Town for use of the Prospect Avenue right-of-way. 3. REPORTS Planner Chilcott updated the Board on the variance approved on December 6,2005 for 189 & 191 East Riverside Drive, stating the applicant, Paul Whyard, will construct the first-floor portion of the addition in the near future but will postpone the second- floor portion of the addition. She noted that variance approval must be acted upon within one year of the date of approval and stated that Mr. Whyard may appear before the Board of Adjustment again regarding this addition. Architectural elevations and floor plans for the proposed addition will be available for Board members to review at the February meeting. There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 8:36 a.m. Al Sager, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary . TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum February 8,2006 TO: Town Board FROM: Bill Linnane 0*/ SUBJECT: Park Hospital lease agreement - Prospect Avenue Right-of-Way Background: A development plan for the Estes Park Medical Center has been reviewed and the Public Works Committee (PWC) has recommended its approval. Through the PWC, the hospital requested that the portion of Prospect Avenue R.O.W. that connects Stanley Circle Drive to Prospect Avenue be leased for its use, thereby removing any road connection. (Refer to the rough sketch of proposal.) The PWC has recommended approval of this request. Miscellaneous background info: â€¢ The Town has no plan to use the R.O.W. â€¢ The existing driveway connection to Stanley Circle Drive will be deleted (except for emergency vehicles). This will eliminate higher-speed vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. â€¢ Ihe lease agreement will prohibit future road connections along the hospital's north property line between Stanley Circle Drive and the existing Prospect Avenue roadway. The rough sketch illustrates the proposed concept. As mentioned earlier, the removal of this "short-cut" section will reduce future vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. Cost/Budget N/A Action: Staff recommends approval of the agreement. BL/lb 1-1 VA .a . .L 00 4.4 6/ 03 4 5 6 4 1 C: Â© 4 IA // --- /10 Â¤ 21 Ve *4*DOWE Q '41 / 03 4.3 - - 444 Y \ 2-6.,6.' UNW ZE,1 iii â€¢1> 42.'~li' I'l V? lk, \ N R \ R /: ty. 1hy,TriTIUI 11 MI 9% '. 6. A 1 6 0 62Â·7Â·Â· %- DIO X~ 4,1 2 31 ~Â» ; j B I - / , li f i, -. 21 -< t.%33 'wg A 0. = â€¢43440 FA .7 - IS 8 201 \ // <y 7 -i k /1# I.y .,PA U 1 -g -* â€¢ =zâ‚¬Z 1 92 Tr UB.4 r Aid- 1 5 & 4 0 Ems 1 L-- 'bi %9 U) Nom 0 0 0 Ul Clo r -1 9 -9 -Ect *6 L #-~ b 3 2 \ D / 11 11 1 .SE b /\ 97, 2-y~2 d Â°44 E -0 -0 -2 4 p 1-8. T b Ommk- 01 =1. 260 cl- . 1 T C m R =.7 --dill * 4 .Amâ€ž ---... A--0 ----.. 2 â€ž (Iâ€ž u. sell BZIS NISÂ¥8 BE) EPMC 02/10/2006 09:02 9705862459 CORNERSTONE ENG PAGE 01 I i.-f~ ~ i O 1 11 1 co Z Â°- b E- 2 1% BONEAV Mid (D Â© 7> M LU -1 Â£9 #RE 25 f,1 0% 8 2* - 0- 0 5,40, Imal ti/4 2 mum 0 810 1 LU 0 ---ri 0 ILL'of< 2ELU!: MI-m Z- LUZ OM Ca Z < K 0 0 'El =0 6 =ES U,8 Â§12" 2.,E .z b ---M </10'. 2-5 002 ZE EME &1% 3% 1!8 15* G *2 2 8 0 5 M g W g @WizE 28 556 50& &3Â§1 45 QI gO~ %E &! 21- 0< f20E 4 i" OMMER GE lig MER *e_, 12 â„¢oz 29 5 85 ga ti Â¤ 82 2/ '3 E- 25 ME Ed W 21 Mi 55 M *2 %%4:3 5% 5%@ :5:#3@; \%\ 5% %*65Â° 5~ b~~ g~&45ZE 2: : E g: 92&3% am mE, 0281,%2 ae ==-Ehem Eg MilliEWL."2'~ / 55 immic *3 im=MEÂ¥&*Ell - 0 Z ... , 111 & 01-14â€¢ZullÂ·:iÂ·.t ~ E z.zige -21 w.wiwgi/-#441150 ZER CWMEN 1% SEMAB=hamwa MON SNUSIXE FZ: Â£ OIL*..:CmÂ»0 z wi*GEM@iN LU O EM *Bills:migalÂ¥*ME*%*MIEW - O 40 9.ION zgMEEMBBE*%/MtizER Zt 101 W O ~.lk $ 111 NOUMOd E&1528NW*El:IE@03*REE#EkiE@*E PORBON LOT 18 PORRON LOT !9 T 1/4 CORNER OF mt UKÂ· Â·111% 'LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDIT[CN~ 'HOSPITAL ADDITION' hIVd 931S3 S 89Â°43'00- E 50682' EXHIBIT A N 89Â°437]{r W 606.82 GIVE =ID 30 1-NIOd 3f,Ul 3H 3093]wi SlyÂ¥ Â£0:09:90 900Z/01./20 'f,â€¢14)Â·V-1!q'4xfluuatudolaAeouer)!pal [00 965\:D' SNIN[VINOD Memo Date: January 18, 2006 TO: Town Board From: Gregory A. White RE: Park Hospital District Lease Agreement BACKGROUND: The Park Hospital Distiict has requested that the Town lease to the Park Hospital District a portion of Prospect Avenue contiguous to the north portion of the Hospital District's property to be used by the Hospital Disttict in the expansion of the Estes Park Medical Center. The Town has the statutory authority to lease property owned by the Town including the unopened portion of Prospect Avenue. Also, the Town is not legally required to use dedicated right-of-way for street purposes. This Ordinance approves the Lease Agreement between the Park Hospital District and the Town for a portion of Prospect Avenue to be used by the Hospital District as a parking area and as a landscaped buffer to the residential properties located north of the Hospital. The lease also requires the Hospital District to construct the new improvements to the Estes Park Medical Center in accordance with the approved Development Plan. The Colorado Statutes require any lease of Town property for more than one year to be by Ordinance. This lease is for three consecutive twenty year terms with the Town having the right to terminate the Lease Agreement at the beginning of each term upon one hundred eighty- days notice prior to the beginning of any subsequent twenty year term. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no budgetary implications STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the Staffs recommendation that the Ordinance be adopted and the Lease Agreement be approved. LEASE AGREEMENT This Lease Agreement, effective this day of , is by , and between the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado municipal corporation (Town), and the Park Hospital District, a Colorado quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision (District), is as follows: Town owns real property, described upon Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which is adjacent to the northwesterly boundary of real property owned by District which is described upon Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. District desires to develop the property described upon Exhibit A, and Town hereby agrees thereto on the terms set forth herein. Section 31-15-715, C.R.S. provides that the Town may lease its property as herein set forth. District shall develop the property described upon Exhibit A as set forth upon the Development Plan, to which the parties agreed, and which was officially approved by the Town on the day of ,2006. Therefore, in consideration of the performance of the terms hereof, Town hereby leases to District the property described upon Exhibit A hereto for a term of twenty years beginning April 1,2006. In addition, this Lease will automatically renew for two additional twenty year terms unless the Town gives written notice to the contrary no later than 180 days prior to the date upon which the term then in effect expires. District agrees to use the property as set forth in the aforementioned Development Plan. Prior to using the property in any other manner, District shall obtain the consent of the Town which will not unreasonably be withheld . Furthermore, District hereby specifically agrees to the following terms with regard to its development and use of the property described on Exhibit A: (1) The development of said property will begin on or about April 1, 2006, and be completed within one year thereafter; (2) The northerly thirty feet thereof shall be landscaped, as shown on the Development Plan, by the District for the purpose of providing a buffer area for the three properties which are privately owned and are adjacent to the northerly line of this property, and the landscaping shall be maintained by the District; (3) To the south ofthe landscaping area, the District will install, on the remaining twenty feet of this area, an asphalt parking area which will be connected, at the westerly and easterly ends, to other parking areas on the District's property; (4) The parking area shall be for no more than forty-five vehicles, and the parking area together with the portion of the loop-drive within the property described upon Exhibit A will be maintained by the District. (5) The District may, if not presently but in the future, install lighting in and for this parking area, which will be downcast lighting; and District will consult with the Estes Valley Community Development Department before so doing. (6) The District will install no buildings within this area; and will take reasonable measures to instruct delivery and rubbish removal vehicles to enter this area from the east; (7) As shown on the Development Plan, the District will take reasonable measures to have the drainage from this area directed to a drainage detention area which will be constructed by the District on the east portion of its property, and the District will maintain the drainage facilities; (8) The driveway which presently connects the District's parking area on the west side of its property to Stanley Circle Drive will be closed off by the District with curb and gutter; which will still allow for police and fire department access in case of an emergency. The Town will not remove the asphalt paving in the right of way which connects the District's property to this street, and will maintain said asphalt. District may place a sign at the entrance to its property at this area indicating emergency access only. District acknowledges and agrees that there are utility lines over and beneath the property described on Exhibit A, and that the Town and other utility entities shall continue to have the right to come upon said property for the purpose of repair and maintenance thereo f, on the condition that the surface be restored by the Town or other utility entity. The parties mutually agree to hold harmless, indemnify and defend one another from and against all claims, demands and legal actions for damages to person (including death) or property caused by the negligent, willful or intentional acts of the other party and involving the property described on Exhibit A hereto, including reasonable costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result thereof. Each party agrees to give the other prompt, written notice of any such claims, demands or legal action, and each party shall have the right to be represented by an attorney or law firm of its choice. The parties agree that by entering into this Agreement they are not in any manner waiving, for themselves or any of their employees, officers or agents, any provision of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, et.Seq., C.R.S., as may be amended. Neither party is an agent or employee of the other with respect to this Agreement. All notices and other documents or information required or desired to be given to the other party under this Agreement shall be written and shall be effective upon the date of personal delivery or one day after the date of the postmark if mailed postage prepaid, as follows: Town Administrator Chief Executive Officer Town of Estes Park Estes Park Medical Center P.O. Box 1200 P.O. Box 2740 Estes Park, CO. 80517 Estes Park, CO. 80517 This Agreement shall be construed pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado, and no interpretation shall be necessarily construed against the party who prepared this Agreement. Both parties acknowledge having been represented by an attorney with respect to this Agreement. The parties agree that the District Court for Larimer County, Colorado, shall be the proper court for venue and jurisdiction should litigation arise between the parties concerning this Agreement. However, should either party believe that the other is in default under the terms hereof, it shall give to the other party written notice thereof, stating all matters it believes to be in default. The parties shall have thirty days subsequent to the delivery of such notice within which to resolve the same. This Agreement contains the entire agreements between the parties; may be amended only by a dated written instrument signed by the parties; and shall not be assigned by either party without the prior written agreement of the other party. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their successors and permitted assigns, and shall run with the land described upon Exhibit A hereto. Town of Estes Park, Colorado Attest: By Mayor Town Clerk Park Hospital District Attest: By President Secretary ... 3 2 i * iii -- 8,13 0 N 11 COM 0 b EnNEIAV U!3 E- 2 RH 1 â€ž~~ : .I *b@ .-- Z -- 2 - E Ul 2,.Ul 7 :2= .1 $ M. 0- 9 = 21 4 N J 8 'ad 1, S E 8 0 111 (0 P" . 42 U.1 2 . 2 m f A ' r + 0 O - E r- ' ' 1= 0 U. 111 ill 2 Â« 6 8 LILI ..AFF,i NE o Qw I W O 3 iNg; Ma ==E 2-3* g= <90 Coz <te 1 Â§* 8**% 8* *0% sEs 52 35zO *2 300 11.Zz m \ 3 m R a . ER*&2 E m i m Z Cm ; 2 i O < > 1 &2 /8= M.Mal'&44 -4,#"' 24 8~.EME :W @g~ ~~iz=*E O LO UJ- ~%%,1 =8" pie , /490 k m 111 hf 0 %2 al@EE k milli~Ellig z Ft- Fli Z OZ \42 G./ Mok' Â©NUS'XE ER*%27 J Pol z A 2 KE,!1!~88 5' *8*Qg:...100 4/=EMNE@gEE,MEW Ul &Â£5%!1!508 m wmE*&*EMEE; o <O*62:01<Wix@%15212Â£1ifklE@Eli PORTION LOT 18 PORTION LOT 19 1 EAST 1/4 CORNER OF c'Fri&*AinD'N/&NNI 1VO MBVd S31S3 ECT MOUNTAjN ADDITIONÂ» '43'00~ E 50582 91O8PITAL ADDITION' EXHIBIT A N 89'43'00' 8931 H~NOIN (93&!OV 0168 92 ONIN]Â¥1NOO ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND THE PARK HOSPITAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Town is the owner of a dedicated public right-of-way known as Prospect Avenue located within the Town; and WHEREAS, a portion of Prospect Avenue located north and contiguous to property owned by Park Hospital District has not been opened and maintained as a public roadway; and WHEREAS, the Park Hospital District has requested to lease that unopened portion of Prospect Avenue for use by the Park Hospital District as part of its expansion of the Estes Park Medical Center; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that the Town would benefit from the leasing this portion of Prospect Avenue to the Park Hospital District for use by the Park Hospital District as more fully set forth in the Lease Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Lease Agreement, as more fully set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and Town Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Lease Agreement. 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. Passed and adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado this day of ,2006. 1 1 - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2006 and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of ,2006. Town Clerk 2 4 Estes Park Police Department Memo To: Mayor John Baudek and Town Board Trustees From: Lowell Richardson, Chief of Police CC: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Date: February 10, 2006 Re: Republic Parking Study Background Staff presented to the Public Safety Committee in June 2005 a recommendation for a comprehensive parking study of the downtown and outlying parking lots in Estes Park. Republic Parking conducted a four day study, July 27-31, 2005. In January 2006, Republic Parking presented a draft report to the Public Safety Committee. Republic Parking will present a final report February 14, 2006 at the Town Board meeting. Budget/Costs N/A Recommendations Staff recommends adopting parking strategies presented by Republic Parking that are consistent with the long term goals of Estes Park as it relates to downtown traffic management. 1 ... TOWN OF ESTES PARK Office Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board ofTrustees From: Betty Kilsdonk, Director, Museum/Senior Center Services Date: February 8,2006 Re: Museum Advisory Board Appointments BACKGROUND: The Estes Park Museum Advisory Board recommends that Mr. Robert Hamblin appointed to a position on the Board. Board terms are for four years. After a career spent in the insurance industry, Mr. Hamblin moved to Estes Park, ostensibly to retire. Since then, Mr. Hamblin has served in leadership capacities at the Community Church, Rotary Club o f Estes Park (as past president and past district governor), and the Estes Park Medical Center Foundation. BUDGET/Â©OST: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that Mr. Hamblin be appointed to a 4-year term on the Museum Advisory Board beginning 2/1/2006. . ,r .. January 24,2006 Mayor John Baudek Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mayor Baudek, The Estes Park Museum Advisory Board would like to recommend that Bob Hamblin be appointed to fill the current vacancy on the Board. The term is a four year term, beginning in January 2006 and ending December 31, 2009. We had three good applicants, and after interviewing all three, we feel that Bob would make a good addition to the Board. I have enclosed his application foryour information. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, 24*1 >~-prk f Susan Harris Estes Park Museum Advisofy Board Secretary . , 1 ./ . MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director 4-t,1/1 Date: 2-10-06 Subject: Estes Valley Board of Adjustments appointments BackEround: The terms of appointment for three board members expire this month; (Newsom, Levine and Sager). Staff recommends re-appointment as set forth below. Budget: no impacts Recommendation: Sager: term to expire Feb. 28,2008 Levine: term to expire Feb. 28,2009 Newsom: term to expire Feb. 28,2009 Administration Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Randy Repola ~2- Date: 2/10/2006 Re: Real estate contract for sale of Lot 4, Stanley Addition Background: During the second quarter of 2005, the Town Board authorized Goal Team 7 (Theatre Feasibility) to explore the sale of Lot 4 Stanley Addition. The Goal Team received three proposals for purchase of Lot 4. Of these proposals, only two met the specifications in the request for proposals. The team conducted interviews with the two parties in late September. The Team unanimously selected the Estes Winds, LLC proposal and submitted a comparison of the two proposals to the Town Board. The Board then authorized staff to enter into negotiations with Estes Winds, LLC to sell the parcel. The initial concept was to sell the land and use the proceeds to construct a performing arts theatre at the Stanley Park Fairgrounds. Though the theatre project is still being evaluated for viability, any proceeds from this sale will be used at the Fairgrounds even if the theatre project does not come to fruition. In either case the proceeds will be used to enhance the cultural, recreational and entertainment aspects of the Fairgrounds which are consistent with the conditions stated in the original deed from F.O. Stanley. Budget The sale price is $1,250,000. The terms and conditions of the sale will be presented in a contract by Town Attorney White at the meeting. Action: Staff requests approval of the terms and conditions of the Real Estate Contract to sell Lot 4, Stanley Addition. 1 REPUBLIC V PARKING 1 SYSTEM Town of Estes Park Parking Study 1 11 4i; 4 -,10 -1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 44 9417 4 ~ ),1/ Estes Park, Colorado g. U 93Â·394 fiN'%4 -. )2Â¥042ent. - , I .Zi'ye'.4 44:>30.?r 3: '''f~- :11-M r;Rai~~.~0954 id n.4.1>=.8- â€¢+-.r- 1 1 06 4 Prepared For: The Town of Estes Park Prepared by: Republic Parking System 1331 17th Street, Suite 608 Denver, CO 80202 303.382.0880 303.295-9157 info@republicparkinq.com www.republicparking.com ~ REPUBLIC'9 ~ PARKING Ivsre. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 9 1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. PURPOSE OF STUDY 4 3. PARKING SUPPLY 5 Parking Space Breakdown 6 4. UTILIZATION ANALYSIR 7 American Legion I nt 8 Big Horn I nt Children's Park Lot.... ......... ..................... ................................................................................14 Coffee Bar I nt Dark Horse Lot.......... .............. ........................................................................... ........ .18 Del's A&W I nt Ice House Lot.....................................................................................................,..... ............22 Municipal Lot.............. ................................................................................................................24 Old Lumber Yard Lot.. ................. ............,,,.,.,..,. 26 Post Office Lot............ .................................................................................................................28 Tregent Park Lot 30 Weist Lot............................... .......................................................................................................32 West Riverside Drive 34 Big Horn Drive...... ......................................................................................................................36 Cleave Street East Elkhorn Aveni ip 40 East Riverside Drive............... ................................................................ ...................................42 MacGregor Avenue North...............................,,.............................................................................44 MacGregor Avenue South.............................................................................................................46 Moraine Avenue............................................................ 48 Park Lane.....................................................................................................................................50 Virginia Drive... ......... 52 Weist Drive...... ........ ...... ................,.,...,,..,..........,,,.....................Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·54 West EIkhorn..................................................................................................................................56 City Analyqiq 58 Open Space Report - July 27, 20(15 59 Open Space Report - July 28,2005 60 Open Space Report - July 29, 2005 61 Open Space Report - July 30,2005 69 Open Space Report-July 31,2005 ....................63 Average Open Space Report- All Week..................... ... ....... ..... 64 Summary.............................. ........................................................................................................65 Location Snapshot.......................................................................................................................66 Occupancy Percentage................... ................................................................................. ..........67 Turnover Ratio...............................................................................................................................68 Length of Stay Report-By Vehicles.............................................................................................69 Length of Stay Report-By Percentages.......................................................................................70 Employee Vehicles 71 Utilization Summary.. 72 5. OWNER SURVEYS 74 Doyou believe there isaparking problemin Estes Park?............................................................75 What complaintdoyou hear the most in regards to parking?.......................................................76 Where doyou currently park?...............................................,........................................................78 Paae 2 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING Where do your employees currently park? Are you in favor of paid parking on the lots? Shuttle Questiong 82 Do you believe a shuttle operation from a remote lot 1 mile away would help the parking situation?.....................,.....,......,,,..,,~..,.......,,,..,,,....,,..,...,..,,*....,....,,,,,.,,.,,*,,,,.,..,..,,.,..,..,...,,,,...,~....82 Would you be willing to ride a shuttle?.... Would you encourage your employees to ride a shuttle?..............................................................82 What do you feel needs to be done to improve parking in Estes Park? 83 6. VISITOR SURVEYS R9 How long did it take you to find a parking space? 86 How many lots did you try to park in before this lot? Would you be willing to pay for parking if it meant quicker access to a parking space?...............88 Would you be willing to ride a shuttle from a remote lot one mile away from downtown? ........... 89 How often doyou come to Estes Park?........................................................................................91 Please rate the overall parking situation in Estes Park? 92 7. RECOMMENDATIONS 93 1. Reconfigure the Weist Parking Lot ........... ....... 94 Existing Layout......,,..,,...,,.,,,...........,,..,,......,,.. ........,..,.,......,.,,..,,..,.,,.,,..,..,,.,..,,., ..,,.,,......,......95 Proposed Layout.................... .....................................................................................................95 2. Signage Program 3. Develop an Employee Parking Program.........................................................................102 A. Designate Employee Parking Lots 102 B. Eliminate the "3 Hour" parking policy......................................................................................104 C. Create a Parking Policy and Institute an Enforcement Program............................................ 104 4. Create Short Term Employee Spaces 107 A. Implement Employee Valet on the Weist Parking I nt 107 B. Create short term employee spaces 108 5. Visitor Shuttle Program 109 6. Employee Shuttle Program 111 Other Options............. ............................................. ............ ..............................................113 Golf Cart Shuttle Service. ... .... .........................................,...,.,... ................................113 Paid Parking............... ......._ Parking Structure..... ................. ........... 116 e 3 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING ...TE. 1. INTRODUCTION The availability of downtown parking is a significant issue for many municipalities. Parking problems are often a sign of success of a downtown area. The demand for parking is directly correlated to growth or decline in the availability of business, employment, shopping, and dining opportunities. Due to the efforts and investments of property owners, merchants and the municipality, the Estes Park downtown area continues as a vibrant economic core of the City. The provision of ample and convenient parking to accommodate the needs of the business and other activities is key to the continued vitality of the downtown. There is currently a perception that the parking is currently a problem in the Estes Park downtown area during the peak season. Merchants and property owners in the downtown area have indicated to the Estes Park City Council that parking is of concern to their continued business success. 2. PURPOSE OF STUDY The following study was prepared by Republic Parking System and is intended to provide an inventory and analysis of parking in the downtown area of the Town of Estes Park. The primary purpose of the study is to create a comprehensive and integrated system of downtown parking that provides convenient and safe parking in a cost effective manner for visitors, employees and residents that is consistent with the vision for a vibrant and active downtown. The study focuses on the following principles: STUDY PROCESS Upon selection of Republic Parking System as the primary consultant on the study, the Republic Parking System team began receiving and analyzing a range of existing data on all aspects of current parking resources, management and operations. A study methodology that combines statistics, perspective and experience was employed. Republic Parking re-evaluated existing parking supply use and operations through an examination of previous parking studies, current parking supply and use of data through field surveys with the visitors, residents, and business owners of the area. In addition, focus group meetings were held with a variety of downtown stakeholders such as employers, public works staff, police department staff, transit operators and property owners. From these interviews, issues as well as potential solutions were fleshed out. A series of follow up meetings, interviews and data clarifications then lead to the findings and recommendations of this report. e 4 of 116 1 /3 ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING ...TE. 1 3. PARKING SUPPLY 1 The parking supply in the Town of Estes Park consists of publicly available off-street parking lots and on-street parking. All of the parking is available to anybody regardless of trip purpose. The Town of Estes Park has established restrictions on some of the parking spaces to encourage turnover and maximize utilization. For this study, the inventory consisted of 14 surface lots and 11 streets for a total of 1,366 parking spaces. Both the map below and the chart on the next page outlines the study area. 1 i 0 4 4 1~1 1 -3 t22:*IN F 4 1. f #44*i T) L N â€ž44 OATH ENTRANCE ROCKY ~~~\ 1 NATIONAL PARK 4 ~t ~ r= E %\\ LU <-MHOBft__ CLD 1 11___~ -3, j ---\\7 3,# 14___ Â« f Al_L f'~ IvER ~\ F ft - 5\16-Â«/H- -,14 sue=% 161 2 , u.iG,06. )*<69+ CLEAVE ST , 1 1, c! t IfiBUPS- -~ 1191 -*s~PuULL-6-Â»>~-Gri- ~13- 4 NORTH ENTRANCE ROCKY -43--/r ...L 2/14et,/15 7 MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK L 7 Â»41 4 i Pri In 3 C 1 {t 10 Â°Â°000' _Ju_2944 PUBLIC PARKING MAP +00 Rr 3\ O ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL Â»J - 1 1,0 //5:55%3221 RIVER 142==1 L:555# Â¥ 'll/Â« j LÂ»> (24,~N REPUBLIC 7| 11 '1.-4-41 PARKING h '&71 1 ~<8<12- <t 1 1 I . 1 - REPUBLIC~ ~ = PARKING Parking Space Breakdown TOTAL AVAILABLE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL MAP# PARKING LOT # OF SPACES HC 30 MINUTE 3 HOUR RV 1 OLD LUMBER YARD 86 4 2 ICE HOUSE 44 1 3 TREGENTPARK 20 1 4 BIG HORN 41 1 5 COFFEEBAR 20 1 19 6 MUNICIPAL 279 8 2 7 7 WEIST 121 2 3 8 AMERICAN LEGION 48 1 9 DEL'S/ A&W 43 2 10 WEST RIVERSIDE 38 1 11 POST OFFICE 94 3 31 60 12 DARK HORSE 97 2 95 13 CHILDREN'S PARK 52 2 14 BROWNSFIELD'S 6 1 1 TOTAL 989 30 33 174 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL STREET PARKING # OF SPACES HC 30 MINUTE 3 HOUR RV A BIG HORN DRIVE 35 1 B WEST ELKHORN 18 C WEIST LOT 18 D MORAINE AVE 35 35 E MACGREGOR AVE NORTH 124 F VIRGINIA DRIVE 19 19 G PARK LANE 41 1 H EAST ELKHORN AVE 6 1 6 1 CLEAVESTREET 43 J EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE 6 6 MACGREGOR AVE SOUTH 32 3 13 TOTAL 377 6 13 66 0 e 6 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING 4. UTILIZATION ANALYSIS A prelude to effectively enhancing any parking operation is a thorough analysis of the locations to determine the exact trends and activity levels associated with each customer group. In this section, we have shown a Utilization Analysis for each location that reveals the daily parking trends including the exact number of daily customers in each facility by the hour and the maximum number of spaces occupied by daily customers at the facility's peak hour of activity. Before the study began, Republic Parking System completed an inventory of all the on-street and off-street parking in the study area. Through this inventory, the total parking supply, location, type of parking (on-street or off-street), use restrictions and total accessible parking were determined. To establish the amount of daily traffic each lot generates on a regular basis, Republic Parking System used the data that was accumulated through daily lot checks completed during the period of July 27 through July 31'2005. Our main objective was to determine how many vehicles were parking on the lots during each day of the study. To accomplish this, we wrote down the license plate numbers for all vehicles on each lot around 9:00am each day. Subsequent license plate checks were then completed making note of any new vehicles that entered the lots since the first check. Depending on the day, there were a total of 4 to 8 checks completed on each lot. By completing these checks, we were able to verify the total number of patrons occupying a parking space, the average number of vehicles parked at each hour and the time of the day in which the lot was the most occupied (peak period). We then used this information to compute the average and peak occupancy percentage and turnover ratio for each lot. The license plate checks also allowed us to determine the amount of time each individual vehicle was parked on the lot which was useful in helping determine how many of the vehicles were likely employees or owners of a business. We have listed the locations separately to help illustrate how the lots and streets performed during each day of the study. We then compiled an overall analysis of the city as a whole, all locations combined, and have shown it at the end of this section. The surface lots are listed in alphabetical order followed by the streets. e 7 of 116 . I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING American Legion Lot American Legion Lot 48 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot I =a 7/27/2005 33 33 35 37 43 43 43 34 28 21 35 7/28/2005 26 32 37 48 47 47 44 43 41 41 41 41 41 7/29/2005 40 40 44 48 47 47 40 33 29 29 29 29 38 7/30/2005 27 45 47 47 48 46 46 42 45 45 45 44 7/31/2005 33 33 41 48 47 47 44 42 AVERAGE 32 37 41 46 46 46 43 38 36 34 38 39 40 AMERICAN LEGION LOT 48 SPACES 45 *40--- Sa 35 - j~~ - lir-Q- T 40 -AVE 1 30 SuE// 25 iw 20 15 10 5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 = 2 22 == 6= m= 1 11 5 65 55 5 <C <C < 0- SE 0- 0- 0-0- 0-0- 0-) CD OO 0- a.) 0 O LO LO O UD guD oUR 93 06 Ou, M 1 0 0 â„¢" Ncv ." Al C\.1 â€¢r- r- Gr,u, 20,0 CD CD - 9- 1 =====irr:Trraarrjrjjrlill/'ll/:a:milillizilillill~ INV 69:6- INV 00:8 10:00 AM -10:59 11:00 AM-11:59P 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM Ed 69~Â£ - INd Â£ INd 69 Â£ INd69*-INd 00* -INd 00 f INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 Mid 69:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:Z- INd 00:Z 8:00 PM - 8:59 PM 39Vh13AV INd 69 9 8:00 AM 10:00 AM - - Ed 00:E 7:00 M- - V\Id 00:9 REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING ly... LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 14 63 16 8 15 2 4 122 7/28/2005 35 57 51 1 13 6 11 174 7/29/2005 16 97 28 4 2 7 3 157 7/30/2005 37 13 82 5 0 6 14 157 7/31/2005 28 0 47 0 0 17 0 92 TOTAL 130 230 224 18 30 38 32 702 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 11% 52% 13% 7% 12% 2% 3% 7/28/2005 20% 34% 29% 1% 7% 3% 6% 7/29/2005 10% 62% 18% 3% 1% 4% 2% 7/30/2005 24% 8% 52% 3% 0% 4% 9% 7/31/2005 30% 0% 51% 0% 0% 18% 0% AVERAGE I 19% 33% 32% 3% 4% 5% 4% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 48 48 Less: Daily Parkers 32 28 Employees 16 12 Open Spaces 0 8 Occupancy Percentage 100.00% 83.33% Turnover Vehicles Parked 174 140 Total Spaces 48 48 Turnover Ratio 3.63 2.92 SUMMARY: The lot became full 4 of the 5 days of the study. There were an average of 8 open spaces throughout the day (83% occupancy). A total of 702 vehicles parked on the lot during the five days which equates to a turnover ratio of 2.92 vehicles per space. Thursday was the busiest day of the week. Eighty-four percent (84%) of the daily patrons parked less than 3 hours. There were an average of 12 employee vehicles on this lot which is 250/0 of the total spaces. age 9 of 116 - REpuSLIC~~ Illlllllllllllllillllllllilllllllilllllllllilllllllllllllllllll = PARKING ...rE. Big Horn Lot Big Horn Lot 41 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot a a 0 0 0 6 7/27/2005 29 29 32 35 35 34 33 31 25 25 31 7/28/2005 24 36 37 37 37 36 33 30 32 33 27 20 32 7/29/2005 35 35 36 37 37 34 33 33 32 28 33 33 34 7/30/2005 24 37 37 37 37 37 39 39 38 38 38 0 33 7/31/2005 17 25 33 37 37 36 36 32 AVERAGE I 26 32 35 37 37 35 35 33 32 31 33 18 32 BIG HORN LOT 41 SPACES 40 - Sa 35 - .Mii -=Â»6><Â»-\ 30 -\ ~AVE \ W 25 T 20 / 15 10 5 0 1 1 59 65 65 2= 56 55 5= 55 << <0- 0-0- 0-0- 0- 0- 2* 2* ** 25 2* 2* ~6 2* 60 ,-- - 01 G N . CN 66 M . - 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM ~Id 69:Â£ - INd Â£ INd69:t-INd 00:* Wd 69:9 - INd 00:9 - IN d 00:9 Ed 69:9 -INd 00:9 ~Id 69:L - INd 00:L Wd 69:8 - INd 00:8 39Â¥83AV INd 69:9 11:00 AM 1:59 12:00 PM-12:59 INd 69:9 - INd 009 INd 699 - INd OOL INd 69 L - INd 009 el0of116 REPUBLIC'~ PARKING ...". LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 H RS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 13 11 4 4 7 2 22 63 7/28/2005 3 36 8 0 7 5 27 86 7/29/2005 24 27 11 9 1 3 23 98 7/30/2005 15 4 11 2 5 0 28 65 7/31/2005 12 0 25 0 12 0 0 49 TOTAL | 67 78 59 15 32 10 100 361 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER Total 1 HR 2 H RS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 H RS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 21% 17% 6% 6% 11% 3% 36% 7/28/2005 3% 43% 9% 0% 8% 6% 31 % 7/29/2005 24% 28% 11% 9% 1% 3% 23% 7/30/2005 23% 6% 17% 3% 8% 0% 43% 7/31/2005 24% 0% 51 % 0% 24% 0% 0% AVERAGE I 18% 22% 16% 4% 9% 3% 28% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average TotaISpaces 41 41 Less: Daily Parkers 14 12 Employees 25 20 Open Spaces 2 9 Occupancy Percentage 95.12% 78.05% Turnover Vehicles Parked 98 72 Total Spaces 41 41 Turnover Ratio 2.39 1.76 SUMMARY: The busiest day of the week was Saturday. Between the time period of 3:00pm and 5:00pm, we saw 39 vehicles which is 95% of the total spaces. There were an average of 9 open spaces throughout the day (78% occupancy). A total of 361 vehicles parked on the lot during the five days which equates to a turnover ratio of 1.76 vehicles per space. Fifty-six percent (56Â°/o) of the daily patrons parked less than 3 hours. There were an average of 20 employee vehicles on this lot which is approximately 49% of the total spaces. age 11 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ I PARKING . Brownsfield Lot Brownsfield Lot 6 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot 7/27/2005 3 7/28/2005 4 4 5 5 7/29/2005 5 5 4 5445 7/30/2005 5 6 6 6 6 66665 6 7/31/2005 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 AVERAGE 4555555555555 BROWNSFIELD 6 SPACES 6 31Â»/4 1 3u 5 *'.~'~00000.G6T 4 -3,- / AVE W 2 1 0 1 I 1 ! I 1 1 I I I I CD O CD 00 CD 0 0, CED Cy) CD CD) UD 09 O UD OLD 0 40 UD 29 LO LCD CD r â€ž N N N (\11 A) 4- U-) ~ ' cio 10:59 AM 8:00 AM -9:59 AM cn 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 4 4 11:00 AM-11:59 PM e * e 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 0 4 -r- 1:00 PM- 1.59 PM INd 69:Z-Vtld 00:Z LO * CD LO INd 69 E- Ed Â£ 1 1 0 INd69:*-INd 00* co LO <D INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 m 0 0 - INd 009 Vld 6949 - INd 00:9 CO LO Ed 69:Z- Ed 00:Z INd 69:8 -INd 00:8 39VWBAV 1 10 INd 699 8:00 AM - 10:00 AM - - INd 00 9 M d 00 E - INd 00 L 0ld 69L - Zld 009 e 12 of 116 REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER'UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 3 5 8 0 1 0 0 17 7/28/2005 3 11 2 3 1 0 0 20 7/29/2005 3 5 5 0 3 0 0 16 7/30/2005 4 21 0 2 0 1 0 28 7/31/2005 6 5 0 6 0 0 0 17 TOTAL 19 47 15 11 5 1 0 98 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER Total 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 18% 29% 47% 0% 6% 0% 0% 7/28/2005 15% 55% 10% 15% 5% 0% 0% 7/29/2005 19% 31% 31% 0% 19% 0% 0% 7/30/2005 14% 75% 0% 7% 0% 4% 0% 7/31/2005 35% 29% 0% 35% 0% 0% 0% AVERAGE 20% 48% 15% 11% 5% 1% 0% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 6 6 Less: Daily Parkers 3 4 Employees 3 1 Open Spaces 0 1 Occupancy Percentage 100.00% 83.33% Turnover Vehicles Parked 28 20 Total Spaces 6 6 Turnover Ratio 4.67 3.27 SUMMARY The busiest day of the week was Saturday as the lot was full throughout the entire day. We saw a total of 28 vehicles on this day which means each space turned over 4.67 times. A total of 98 vehicles parked on the lot during the five days which equates to a turnover ratio of 3.27 vehicles per space. Eighty-three percent (83Â°/0) of the daily patrons parked less than 3 hours. On average, we only noticed one employee vehicle on this lot and did not notice any employees during three of the days. age 13 of 116 - REPUBL,a ~ I"' PARKING Children's Park Lot Children's Park Lot 52 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot 7/27/2005 51 51 51 51 51 50 49 48 50 50 50 7/28/2005 47 47 49 51 51 50 50 50 48 49 50 50 49 7/29/2005 51 51 52 52 52 51 50 51 51 50 49 48 51 7/30/2005 33 51 51 51 51 50 48 49 49 49 48 0 44 7/31/2005 37 50 50 49 52 52 52 49 AVERAGE 44 50 51 51 51 51 50 50 50 50 49 33 48 CHILDREN'S PARK LOT 52 SPACES 50 W 1/1 AVE /7 40 su ~' 30 Sa 20 10 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 :26 22 ~25 :26 ~26 ZE# 2 ~ <C < 0- 0-0- O-0- O- O.0- EL 0- 0- CL CD O O OO 0 0 0 CD CD 01 LID 0 LO cpu-) 0,0 OU-) OUD ~~ LO .... 0.. .1- â‚¬:D 9- 1- 33 .,- 3(N CO V co r- 10:59 AM 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM INd 69:Â£ - Ed Â£ Ed69*-Mid 00:t, INd 69:9 - Ed 00:9 - Ad 00:9 VUd 69:9 - INd 00:9 Ed 69:Z- Ed 00:L iNd 69:8 - iNd 00:8 39Vh13AV V\Id 69 9 8:00 AM 10:00 AM - - Wd 00 L Ed 69 9 6:00 PM- - IN d 00 9 e 14 of116 REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING ..... LENGTH OF STAY REPORT 'UNDER'UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 32 34 23 23 2 0 26 140 7/28/2005 35 59 13 18 16 8 19 168 7/29/2005 30 93 48 4 15 1 20 211 7/30/2005 25 48 70 13 9 0 18 183 7/31/2005 31 65 10 9 5 17 0 137 TOTAL 153 299 164 67 47 26 83 839 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER Total 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 23% 24% 16% 16% 1% 0% 19% 7/28/2005 21% 34% 8% 11% 10% 5% 11% 7/29/2005 14% 44% 23% 2% 7% 0% 9% 7/30/2005 14% 26% 38% 7% 5% 0% 10% 7/31/2005 23% 47% 7% 7% 4% 12% 0% AVERAGE 18% 36% 20% 8% 5% 3% 10% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average TotaISpaces 52 52 Less: Daily Parkers 32 30 Employees 20 18 Open Spaces 0 4 Occupancy Percentage 100.00% 92.31% Turnover Vehicles Parked 211 168 Total Spaces 52 52 Turnover Ratio 4.06 3.23 SUMMARY This is one of the very busiest lots in town as it was nearly full from 8:00am to 9:00pm each day. Because of its location, a large majority of the patrons coming to Estes Park will pull into this lot to try and find a space before going to another lot. Overall, the average utilization is 92.310/0. We saw a total of 839 vehicles in this lot during the five days of the study which means each space turned over 3.23 times. Seventy-four percent (74%) of the daily patrons parked less than 3 hours. This was the fourth most popular lot for employees as we saw an average of 18 employee vehicles, this was 35% of the total spaces. age 15 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING Coffee Bar Lot Coffee Bar Lot 20 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot 7/27/2005 19 19 20 19 19 18 18 15 14 14 18 7/28/2005 16 16 17 17 16 14 16 17 15 16 17 17 16 7/29/2005 15 15 17 19 20 20 19 19 18 19 16 16 18 7/30/2005 13 16 19 18 19 19 20 20 20 20 19 18 7/31/2005 6 15 15 19 19 19 19 16 AVERAGE 14 16 18 18 19 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 COFFEE BAR 20 SPACES 20 --- 18 Sa 16 - 24*2-----0--- 4 AVE 14 12 10 8 f 6 4 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2= 25 26 26 :~5 25 5 0- 0-0- El- Cl 0 CD 0 0) CD 0 0-) CD CD CD CJ) &6 OLD 010 0% guD ou' 9 ur, 69 gul 6Â° =ZE Cv~ r-r- â„¢cv u.> 66<0 rul- OO â€¢r- T-- - 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM Ed 69 E - INd E INd 69:E INd6~-INd 00:* -INd 00:* Mid 69:9 - INd 00:9 - V\Id 009 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM INd 69:Z- Wd 00:Z 8:00 PM - 8:59 PM 39Vh13AV Nd 699 - INd DOE - nd 00:9 e 16 dfll6 REPUBLIC'~ Illlillllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllli PARKING LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 10 18 16 7 2 2 4 59 7/28/2005 12 36 9 3 4 5 2 71 7/29/2005 11 46 12 7 3 1 5 85 7/30/2005 14 40 8 4 1 6 3 76 7/31/2005 16 0 19 0 0 0 3 38 TOTAL 63 140 64 21 10 14 17 329 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER Total 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 17% 31% 27% 12% 3% 3% 7% 7/28/2005 17% 50% 13% 4% 6% 7% 3% 7/29/2005 13% 54% 14% 8% 4% 1% 6% 7/30/2005 18% 53% 11% 5% 1% 8% 4% 7/31/2005 42% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 8% AVERAGE 19% I 43% I 20% I 6% I 3% I 4% I 5% I 100% Space Utilization Peak Average TotaISpaces 20 20 Less: Daily Parkers 11 11 Employees 9 6 Open Spaces 0 3 Occupancy Percentage 100.00% 85.00% Turnover Vehicles Parked 85 66 Total Spaces 20 20 Turnover Ratio 4.25 3.30 SUMMARY With the exception of Friday afternoon, this lot was pretty much full and only had one or two open spaces throughout the day. We saw a total of 329 vehicles in this lot during the five days of the study which means each space turned over 3.30 times. This could have been much higher if not for the number of employees parking in the lot. This was a high turnover lot as the spaces were all marked "3 Hours" and eighty- two percent (82%) of the daily patrons parked less than 3 hours. There was a total of 6 employee vehicles found in this lot which is 30% of the total spaces. On Friday, we found nine employee vehicles which was 45% of the lot. age 17 of 116 1 VLy ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING ..... Dark Horse Lot Dark Horse Lot 97 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot 7/27/2005 45 45 92 94 94 95 93 89 89 89 83 7/28/2005 75 75 83 91 94 96 92 88 84 88 88 84 87 7/29/2005 59 59 87 97 96 96 94 91 87 94 92 92 87 7/30/2005 24 73 84 94 91 91 82 87 92 93 94 82 7/31/2005 55 55 87 97 97 96 84 82 AVERAGE 52 61 87 95 94 95 89 89 88 91 91 88 85 1 DARK HORSE LOT 97 SPACES I - 90 --- ;-&14 -- 80 70 - T 50 Su / 1 60 - 40 W 30 20 Sa 10 0 I L= 5 56 26 66 26 & 26 'f 2 1 2 CD (3> 00 OO - 0 0 0 CD CD CD LO UD OM O UD ou, 0 0.. â€¢O 0 LO CD 0 0 . 0 CD ./ - 0 -- u.- NN ed 4 .0 Â· Â· r.- Ck:; CD r- r- .r-- 10:00 AM - 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM INd 69:E - INd Â£ Ed69*-INd 00* Wd 69:9 - INd 00:9 Wd 00:9 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM 8:00 PM - 8:59 PM 39Â¥33AV INd 69 9 8:00A - INd OOL 0ld 69 E 6:59 PM REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING ~ ...... LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 60 90 105 32 11 6 8 312 7/28/2005 70 137 106 40 38 6 3 400 7/29/2005 83 124 190 24 19 4 1 445 7/30/2005 74 87 187 8 28 0 4 388 7/31/2005 52 171 19 36 9 7 0 294 TOTAL 339 609 607 140 105 23 16 1839 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER Total 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 19% 29% 34% 10% 4% 2% 2% 7/28/2005 17% 33% 27% 10% 10% 2% 1% 7/29/2005 19% 28% 43% 5% 4% 1% 0% 7/30/2005 19% 22% 48% 2% 7% 0% 1% 7/31/2005 18% 58% 6% 12% 3% 2% 0% AVERAGE 18% 33% 33% 8% 6% 1% 1% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 97 97 Less: Daily Parkers 82 73 Employees 15 12 Open Spaces 0 12 Occupancy Percentage 100.00% 87.63% Turnover Vehicles Parked 445 368 Total Spaces 97 97 Turnover Ratio 4.59 3.79 SUMMARY This was a very popular lot in the afternoon periods as we found it to be nearly full everyday between the time period of 12:00pm and 4:00pm. Overall, the average occupancy on this lot was 87.63%. We saw a total of 1,839 vehicles in this lot during the five days of the study and the average turnover was 3.79 vehicles per space. On the busiest day of the study, each space turned over 4.59 times, which is very high. All of the spaces on this lot were marked "3 Hours" and therefore, eighty-four percent (84%) of the daily patrons parked less than 3 hours. We found only two percent of the vehicles to be on the lot more than 5 hours. There was an average of 12 employees parking on this lot which was 12% of the total spaces. age 19 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ I PARKING Del's A&W Lot Del's A&W Lot 42 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot 7/27/2005 0 4 18 18 7 7/28/2005 1 1 1 6 11 11 10 2 2 7/29/2005 1 1 4 6 28 22 16 2 2 8 7/30/2005 2572929383328301823 7/31/2005 1 1 15 32 32 32 28 20 AVERAGE 125152424191010107 2 11 DEL'S A&W 43 SPACES 40 35 30 25 - Sa 20 15 --T W 10 AVE 5 0 1 1 1 ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =E == 1 15 65 CD 00 0 0, 0 0 2 0 - ZE gÂ¥ <C UD UD ONR OUD ~UD OU-J CL 093 0.0 0 OD cd:2 u r N CN 4* 6-; co r--Â» 66Â°Â° 0 CD r--- r- - 10 009AANM- 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 0 10:00 AM -10:59 A 0 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 P 2:00 PM-2:59 PM INd 69:Â£ - Ed Â£ INd69 *-INd 00* N 0 4 Mid 69:9 - INd 00:9 m N 00 8 INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 4 04 N Ed 69:Z - Mid 00:Z Ed 69:8 - ~Id 00:8 39Â¥83AV o w 8:00 AM - 3 PM - 3:59 6:59 PM e 20 of 116 REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING ly,rw. LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 4 7 4 1 0 0 0 16 7/28/2005 2 0 14 0 4 1 0 21 7/29/2005 0 28 6 0 3 1 0 38 7/30/2005 12 2 63 0 0 5 0 82 7/31/2005 25 0 14 0 1 0 0 40 TOTAL I 43 37 101 1 8 7 0 197 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER Total 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 25% 44% 25% 6% 0% 0% 0% 7/28/2005 10% 0% 66% 0% 19% 5% 0% 7/29/2005 0% 74% 16% 0% 8% 3% 0% 7/30/2005 15% 2% 77% 0% 0% 6% 0% 7/31/2005 63% 0% 35% 0% 3% 0% 0% AVERAGE 22% 19% 51% 0% 4% 4% 0% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 42 42 Less: Daily Parkers 37 10 Employees 1 1 Open Spaces 4 31 Occupancy Percentage 90.48% 26.19% Turnover Vehicles Parked 82 39 Total Spaces 42 42 Turnover Ratio 1.95 0.93 SUMMARY This was the most underutilized lot in the entire city. On average, the lot was only 26% occupied and was never full during the study. We only saw 197 vehicles in this lot during the five days of the study and the average turnover was 0.93 vehicles per space. On the busiest day of the study, each space turned over 1.95 times. Of the patrons parking in this lot, ninety-two percent (92%) of the daily patrons parked less than 3 hours. There was only 1 employee parking in this lot. Page 21 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING Ice House Lot Ice House Lot 44 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot 7/27/2005 8 17 25 37 37 41 34 31 27 27 28 7/28/2005 7 23 44 43 43 40 40 40 39 38 34 29 35 7/29/2005 14 14 35 40 44 39 41 39 30 32 43 43 35 7/30/2005 6 22 33 43 44 44 43 42 42 42 41 37 7/31/2005 2 18 34 40 40 43 43 31 AVERAGE 7 19 34 41 42 41 40 38 35 35 39 36 34 ICEHOUSE 4'SPKE 40 ---4 ~ / / \~AE T W 15 10 5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 13 148 in dear Em ma 28 89 MM 09 ZE ZE 80 80 tu 66 w djo N (N Â· Â· r 64 (v A m Â·r- r- 1- r r 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 A 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM 1/\Id 69Â£ - INd Â£ INd69:*-INd 00* INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 - IN d 009 iNd 69:9 - iNd 00:9 Ed 69:Z - Ed OWL INd 69:8 - iNd 00:8 39Â¥h13AV INd 698 IAId 69 9 INd 69 9 IAId 69 Z - 1/\Id 009 - 1/\Id 001 - INd 00:9 Paae 22 of 116 REF'UBLIC~ ~ PARKING LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 19 50 13 4 2 6 4 98 7/28/2005 19 59 46 0 28 3 5 160 7/29/2005 64 56 30 11 3 3 6 173 7/30/2005 35 27 78 2 8 2 7 159 7/31/2005 35 0 32 0 2 0 0 69 TOTAL 172 192 199 17 43 14 22 659 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER Total 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 19% 51% 13% 5% 2% 6% 4% 7/28/2005 11% 37% 30% 0% 17% 2% 3% 7/29/2005 37% 32% 17% 6% 2% 2% 3% 7/30/2005 22% 17% 49% 1% 5% 1% 4% 7/31/2005 51% 0% 46% 0% 3% 0% 0% AVERAGE 26% 29% 30% 3% 7% 2% 3% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average TotaISpaces 44 44 Less: Daily Parkers 36 29 Employees 8 5 Open Spaces 0 10 Occupancy Percentage 100.00% 77.27% Turnover Vehicles Parked 173 132 Total Spaces 44 44 Turnover Ratio 3.93 3.00 SUMMARY This lot was very popular during the afternoon hours and became completely full during three days of the study. Overall, the average occupancy for the week was 77%. There were a total of 659 vehicles parking in this lot and the average turnover was 3 vehicles per space. On the busiest day of the study (Friday), each space turned over 3.93 times. Of the patrons parking in this lot, eighty-five percent (85%) of the daily patrons parked less than 3 hours. Although we had as many as eight employees in this lot on Friday, there was only an average of 5 throughout the week. 1@ of 116 - 1 '3 - REPUBLIC 7 I"" PARKING Municipal Lot Municipal Lot 279 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot 7/27/2005 140 182 236 236 247 247 247 207 207 207 216 7/28/2005 133 157 180 217 253 237 220 195 177 177 177 177 192 7/29/2005 184 184 220 256 258 258 258 258 197 208 218 218 226 7/30/2005 112 184 218 252 258 263 229 195 222 222 190 213 7/31/2005 100 100 145 190 190 190 222 162 AVERAGE 134 161 200 230 241 239 235 214 201 204 195 198 204 MUNICIPAL LOT 279 SPACES 250 200 / ~;UNh <I w_-_ AVE A L. / \1 'or l T 100 1 50 0 I I I ! I 1 1 I 1 1 m = = 61 2= == 25 5 65 5 0- 0- 0- CL 0- (1 CD OH 00 al) 0 01 66 0 06 5 6 OUD o LD OLD O 9 Â·Â· 22 0.Â· 0 0, 0 -- â„¢N .- 0.10.1 ,~ CD CD ~ - r-- 1- 9- â€ž r 10:00 AM - 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 A 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM V\Id 69 Â£ - INd Â£ INd69*-INd 00* INd 69:9 -INd 00:9 Mid 69:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:Z - INd 00:Z INd 69:8 - Mld 00:8 39VhIEIAV nd 69 9 8:00 AM - - INd 00 L - Ad 00Â£ Zld 69 Â£ 0ld 69 9 - INd 009 REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 101 147 140 78 20 0 64 550 7/28/2005 134 206 140 73 37 23 61 674 7/29/2005 157 0 257 0 165 0 7 586 7/30/2005 133 285 227 79 5 35 39 803 7/31/2005 154 40 130 0 38 0 0 362 TOTAL 1 679 678 894 230 265 58 171 2975 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER Total 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 18% 27% 25% 14% 4% 0% 12% 7/28/2005 20% 31% 21% 11% 5% 3% 9% 7/29/2005 24% 0% 40% 0% 25% 0% 11% 7/30/2005 17% 35% 28% 10% 1% 4% 5% 7/31/2005 43% 11% 36% 0% 10% 0% 0% AVERAGE 1 23% 23% 30% 8% 9% 2% 5% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 279 279 Less: Daily Parkers 180 146 Employees 83 58 Open Spaces 16 75 Occupancy Percentage 94.27% 73.12% Turnover Vehicles Parked 803 595 Total Spaces 279 279 Turnover Ratio 2.88 2.13 SUMMARY Although this was a busy lot, we never did see the lot completely full during the study. At the peak period of 2:00pm on Saturday, we still had 16 open spaces. The average occupancy for the week was 73.12%. Because of the size of this lot, we saw more vehicles parked here than any other lot. Overall, we saw 2,975 different license plates and the average turnover on this lot was 2.13 vehicles per space. Of the patrons parking in this lot, seventy-six percent (76%) of the daily patrons parked less than 3 hours. This number would have been higher had there not been so many employees parking at this location. This location also had the highest number of employees as we saw an average of 58 employee vehicles. age 25 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC 7 ---- PARKING ..... Old Lumber Yard Lot OLD LUMBER YARD 86 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot 7/27/2005 6 9 12 11 9 12 15 12 8 10 7/28/2005 7 9 9 18 26 30 26 22 42 52 42 29 7/29/2005 9 9 13 19 24 27 30 21 23 54 54 54 28 7/30/2005 11 10 19 27 43 59 54 49 55 55 29 37 7/31/2005 4 13 22 40 58 58 58 36 AVERAGE 7 10 15 23 32 37 37 26 32 45 45 48 30 OLD LUMBERYARD 86 SPACES 80 70 60 50 ~Obq AVE 40 30 6/ \\ T Sa 20 10 W 0 6 & a= 2= 2= E= 2 21 21 <C CD O a) O OD 00) 0 g'Â·Ft 23 LID LO 0 UD QUD =Lo OUD 0 4 cd Al N J,6 4 ,26 LO .. 0 ./ 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM d 69 Z L-INd 00:ZI. 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM iNd 69,Â£ - INd Â£ INd 69 E INd69:*-INd 00:* 5:00 PM - 5:59 PM 2 00 6.00 PM-6.59 PM 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM INd 69:8 - iNd 00:8 39Â¥h13AV INd 699 - WV 008 10:00 AM - Wd 699 INd 691 - INd 00:9 - Nd OOL - V\Id 009 Paae 26 of 116 PARKING ~ ...... LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 6 18 7 2 1 1 2 37 7/28/2005 12 84 13 10 3 2 2 126 7/29/2005 65 30 14 4 2 3 2 120 7/30/2005 29 12 85 0 19 0 3 148 7/31/2005 50 3 21 0 1 0 0 75 TOTAL 162 I 147 ~ 140 I 16 I 26 I 6 I 9 I 506 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 16% 49% 19% 5% 3% 3% 5% 7/28/2005 10% 66% 10% 8% 2% 2% 2% 7/29/2005 54% 25% 12% 3% 2% 3% 2% 7/30/2005 20% 8% 57% 0% 13% 0% 2% 7/31/2005 67% 4% 28% 0% 1% 0% 0% AVERAGE 32% 29% 28% 3% 5% 1% 2% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 86 86 Less: Daily Parkers 57 27 Employees 5 3 Open Spaces 24 56 Occupancy Percentage 72.09% 34.88% Turnover Vehicles Parked 148 101 Total Spaces 86 86 Turnover Ratio 1.72 1.17 SUMMARY This was the second most under utilized lot in the city. The average occupancy was just under 35% and the closest it came to filling up completely was on Thursday evening between 6:00pm and 7:00pm when there were only 24 open spaces. For the five days, we saw 506 vehicles in this lot and the average turnover was 1.17 vehicles per space. On the busiest day of the study, each space turned over 1.72 times. This was definitely a short term lot as eighty-nine percent (89%) of the daily patrons parked less than 3 hours. We only found an average of 3 employee vehicles per day parking at this location. Page 27 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING *vs-I Post Office Lot POST OFFICE LOT 94 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot 7/27/2005 37 37 37 89 84 78 59 71 71 60 62 7/28/2005 33 33 50 67 70 73 67 61 56 50 42 34 53 7/29/2005 45 45 70 82 87 87 85 69 54 54 82 75 70 7/30/2005 21 30 72 72 91 84 84 66 83 83 90 71 7/31/2005 18 18 49 93 89 85 74 61 AVERAGE 31 33 56 81 84 81 74 67 66 62 71 55 63 POST OFFICE 94 SPACES 90 ly / _-*30000Â· / -Sa 80 70 60 50 AVE t- 40 30 =--f / -0, f 20 10 0 1 1 1 1 I I I I T ! 1 1 6 5 26 26 -i= 26 66 < 65< <0- 0-0- O-0- 0- 0- CD - 0 0) OU a.> 0 0-) LO OUD OUD OUD *'/) OLD g 'ft a 06 25 NG nu GN H T--- T-- r- 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM INd 69/ - INd Â£ Zld 69Â£ INd69WRd 00* iNd 69:9 - Mid 00:9 - ,\Id 009 iNd 69:9 -INd 00:9 INd 69:Z - INd 00:Z Wd 69:8 - INd 00,8 39Â¥613AV Wd 69 9 8:00 AM - Wd 00:Â£ Wd 69 9 Wd 69 9 Ad 691 - Nd 00:9 - Zld 00 Z - Wd 00:9 REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING ..=. LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 36 162 0 14 9 6 10 237 7/28/2005 24 95 75 17 13 7 7 238 7/29/2005 104 193 62 17 13 0 8 397 7/30/2005 78 12 101 57 6 8 3 265 7/31/2005 39 103 77 18 210 240 TOTAL I 281 565 315 123 43 22 28 1377 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 15% 68% 0% 6% 4% 3% 4% 7/28/2005 10% 40% 31% 8% 5% 3% 3% 7/29/2005 26% 49% 16% 4% 3% 0% 2% 7/30/2005 29% 5% 38% 22% 2% 3% 1% 7/31/2005 16% 43% 32% 8% 1% 0% 0% AVERAGE 1 20% 41% 23% 9% 3% 2% 2% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 94 94 Less: Daily Parkers 77 50 Employees 16 13 Open Spaces 1 31 Occupancy Percentage 98.94% 67.02% Turnover Vehicles Parked 397 275 Total Spaces 94 94 Turnover Ratio 4.22 2.93 SUMMARY Although this was a very busy lot, the average occupancy was only 67Â°/0. For the five days, we saw 1,377 vehicles in this lot and the average turnover was 2.93 vehicles per space. Of the 94 total spaces, 60 were "3 Hour" and eighty-four percent (84Â°/0) of the patrons parked less than 3 hours. We found an average of 13 employee vehicles per day parking at this location which is 14% of the total spaces. Page 29 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 ~ I PARKING ~ Tregent Park Lot Tregent Park Lot 20 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot 7/27/2005 9 12 14 18 18 19 18 17 14 14 15 7/28/2005 0 12 18 19 19 20 19 18 19 20 19 18 17 7/29/2005 16 16 19 19 19 16 19 19 16 20 20 20 18 7/30/2005 8 14 17 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 18 7/31/2005 7 12 17 19 19 19 19 16 AVERAGE 8 13 17 19 19 19 19 19 17 18 19 19 17 TREGENT PARK 20 SPACES 20 Su 18 - 16 T \ W 14 12 10 8 6 4 2- 0 I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ZE= = 0- ON CL a. CD 00 00 CD O O CD Lo 0 LO OUD ZLD OU" 0 r CD r" Al- .- cv CN ./ Lo 10:59 AM 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 A 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM Wd 69:Z-INd 00:Z INd 69:Â£ - INd Â£ INd 69 E INd69*-INd 00:V INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 - Wd 00:9 Mid 69:9 - Wd 00:9 INd 69:Z - INd 00:Z INd 69:8 - Wd 00:8 Ad 69L 39Vh13AV Zld 699 - INV DO:g 10:00 AM - INd69* 3:00 PM - INd 69 9 -MCI 00:9 - Wd OOL - Wd 009 Page 30 of 116 REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING ~ LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER'UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 11 23 17 4 4 1 0 60 7/28/2005 12 36 20 0 15 0 0 83 7/29/2005 37 46 13 8 1 1 0 106 7/30/2005 21 8 34 1 8 4 1 77 7/31/2005 16 4 14 0 3 0 0 37 TOTAL 97 117 98 13 31 6 1 363 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 18% 38% 28% 7% 7% 2% 0% 7/28/2005 14% 44% 24% 0% 18% 0% 0% 7/29/2005 35% 43% 12% 8% 1% 1% 0% 7/30/2005 27% 10% 44% 1% 10% 5% 1% 7/31/2005 43% 11% 38% 0% 8% 0% 0% AVERAGE 1 27% 32% 27% 4% 9% 1% 0% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 20 20 Less: Daily Parkers 18 16 Employees 2 1 Open Spaces 0 3 Occupancy Percentage 100.00% 85.00% Turnover Vehicles Parked 106 73 Total Spaces 20 20 Turnover Ratio 5.30 3.65 SUMMARY This lot averaged only one open space between Noon and 5:00pm throughout the study. This was a high turnover lot as we saw 363 vehicles and the average turnover was 3.65 vehicles per space. On the busiest day (Friday), the lot experienced over 5 vehicles per space. Of the 20 total spaces, eighty-six percent (86%) of the patrons parked less than 3 hours. We only found 1 employee vehicle per day parking at this location. age 31 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC'9 ~ PARKING ...re. Weist Lot WEIST LOT 121 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Lot a. CL 0 0 7/27/2005 57 57 72 87 94 100 88 76 76 76 78 7/28/2005 30 46 61 111 113 113 108 95 106 106 101 101 91 7/29/2005 69 69 106 115 111 106 104 104 85 82 82 82 93 7/30/2005 21 67 90 112 115 115 113 114 115 115 115 99 7/31/2005 33 72 111 110 110 99 99 91 AVERAGE 42 62 88 107 109 107 102 97 96 95 99 92 91 WEIST LOT 121 SPACES 120 - Ill. Sa 100 T- Su ~-~Vâ€¢___ -AVE 80 \ OW- - *I W 4, / 40 A\ / 20 0 == == == 21 2= == 25 m == 1 CL CD CD o M OU CD O O OLD OLD OLD OLD OUD O,0 0 '/, ~ O 0 26:; 26; aid cid~j 342 A,Ai Z~ 1 661;.:; 42; 40 CD CD r-- T-- Tr- 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 A 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM INd 6/5 - Ed Â£ d 69 Â£ INd69*-INd 00:* -IN d 00:, Mid 69:9 - iNd 00:9 INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:Z - iNd 00:Z Wd 69:8 - Wd 00:8 39Â¥h13AV Mid 69 9 INd 699 - INd 00 L Zld 69Z e 32 of 116 REPUBLIC'~ ~ PARKING ~ LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 51 114 39 16 25 2 19 266 7/28/2005 76 87 113 3 37 13 20 349 7/29/2005 ' 50 242 94 0 20 4 15 425 7/30/2005 95 95 99 5 0 19 21 334 7/31/2005 66 0 98 0 0 27 0 191 TOTAL | 338 538 443 24 82 65 75 1565 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 19% 43% 15% 6% 9% 1% 7% 7/28/2005 22% 25% 31% 1% 11% 4% 6% 7/29/2005 12% 56% 22% 0% 5% 1% 4% 7/30/2005 28% 28% 30% 1% 0% 6% 6% 7/31/2005 35% 0% 51% 0% 0% 14% 0% AVERAGE 22% 34% 28% 2% 5% 4% 5% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 121 121 Less: Daily Parkers 80 67 Employees 35 24 Open Spaces 6 30 Occupancy Percentage 95.04% 75.21% Turnover Vehicles Parked 425 313 Total Spaces 121 121 Turnover Ratio 3.51 2.59 SUMMARY This lot was busy but never filled up completely during the study. At its peak period, there were still 6 open spaces. During the morning periods, there was always plenty of open spaces for customers. This location had the third highest number of vehicles (1,565) for the five days of the study which means patrons did not have a problem finding the lot. Overall, the average turnover was 2.59 vehicles per space. Overall, eighty-four percent (84%) of the patrons parked less than 3 hours. This was the second most utilized lot by employees. We found an average of 24 employee vehicles. age 33 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 ~ I PARKING ~ West Riverside Drive West Riverside Drive 38 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street 7/27/2005 23 23 25 27 31 31 28 26 24 11 25 7/28/2005 20 20 21 24 27 26 24 28 32 22 12 12 22 7/29/2005 19 19 18 31 34 36 31 26 21 19 16 11 23 7/30/2005 16 24 34 34 34 36 33 33 33 33 14 29 7/31/2005 16 20 23 30 30 30 22 24 AVERAGE 19 21 24 29 31 32 28 28 28 21 14 12 24 WEST RIVERSIDE DRIVE 38 SPACES 35 30 25 Al 20 -~S--- SU 15 10 AVE W 5 0 1 1 0_ ~ M * 8* 2* 2* SE *9 UD UD .. cD O r WN -r A CNI . U.) CD LO r-- r 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 11:00 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM INd 69:Z-INd 00:Z iNd 69:Â£ -INd 00:Â£ INd69*-INd 00 P INd 69:9 -INd 00:9 - Zld 00:9 INd 69:9 -Mid 0029 Ed 69:Z -INd 00:Z iNd 69:8 -INd 00:8 39Vh13AV 0ld 69 9 8:00 AM - 10 00 AM - INd 69 9 Ad 69 Z - Zld 009 - Ad 001 - nd 008 e 34 of 116 REPUBLIC~ - PARKING ~ ...r.. LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 2 19 6 8 8 6 6 55 7/28/2005 5 11 18 2 6 3 12 57 7/29/2005 3 30 8 11 1 5 13 71 7/30/2005 6 3 0 5 1 18 17 50 7/31/2005 7 0 2 0 9 0 13 31 TOTAL | 23 63 34 26 25 32 61 264 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 4% 35% 9% 15% 15% 11% 11% 7/28/2005 9% 19% 32% 4% 11% 5% 21% 7/29/2005 4% 42% 11% 15% 1% 7% 18% 7/30/2005 12% 6% 0% 10% 2% 36% 34% 7/31/2005 23% 0% 6% 0% 29% 0% 42% AVERAGE 9% 24% 13% 10% 9% 12% 23% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average TotaISpaces 38 38 Less: Daily Parkers 14 7 Employees 22 17 Open Spaces 2 14 Occupancy Percentage 94.74% 63.16% Turnover Vehicles Parked 71 53 Total Spaces 38 38 Turnover Ratio 1.87 1.39 SUMMARY These spaces were occupied an average of just 630/0 of the time. During the study, we noticed 264 vehicles parking in these spaces which meant each space turned over 1.39 times during the day. There was an average of 17 employee vehicle parking in these spaces which was 45% of the total spaces. Page 35 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 ~ I PARKING ~ Big Horn Drive Big Horn Drive 35 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street S 7/27/2005 8 8 11 14 18 21 20 19 16 16 15 7/28/2005 6 9 14 19 18 17 18 18 22 22 14 14 16 7/29/2005 12 12 14 16 24 24 20 21 19 13 13 13 17 7/30/2005 8 15 27 27 32 27 29 29 25 25 25 24 7/31/2005 5 8 11 24 24 27 27 18 AVERAGE 8 10 15 20 23 23 23 22 21 19 17 14 18 BIG HORN DRIVE 35 SPACES 35 30 25 - s U - Sa 20 15 p N. AVE 10 5 0 6 5 25 2= 26 16 r =m <C <C < 0- 0- 0- CD CD 0) 0 0-) 0 O CD LO LO 0 UD OUD *LO OUD g LR 40 gu-) 6 U ~ = = u 4- cd N * h 00 00 CD m r-- r-- 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 A 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM INd 69Â£ - U\Id Â£ F\Id 69Â£ INd69:*-Mid 00:â€¢ Wd 69:9 - Mid 00:9 - Ad 009 UNd 69:9 -INd 00:9 INd 69:Z - ~Id 00:Z iNd 6~8 - Mid 00:8 39Â¥h13AV 8:00 AM - 10:00 AM - - A d 00Â£ Ad 69 9 Md 699 - nd 00:9 - INd OOL e 36 of 116 REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING ~ ly... LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDERUNDERUNDERUNDERUNDERJNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 3 15 3 4 1 4 6 36 7/28/2005 6 11 20 1 5 2 5 50 7/29/2005 12 16 6 2 4 2 9 51 7/30/2005 17 19 20 2 6 0 7 71 7/31/2005 23 0 8 0 4 0 0 35 TOTAL | 61 61 57 9 20 8 27 243 BY PERCENTAGES UNDERUNDERUNDERUNDERUNDERJNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 8% 42% 8% 11% 3% 11% 17% 7/28/2005 12% 22% 40% 2% 10% 4% 10% 7/29/2005 24% 31 % 12% 4% 8% 4% 18% 7/30/2005 24% 27% 28% 3% 8% 0% 10% 7/31/2005 66% 0% 23% 0% 11% 0% 0% AVERAGE | 25% 25% 23% 4% 8% 4% 11% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 35 35 Less: Daily Parkers 21 11 Employees 11 7 Open Spaces 3 17 Occupancy Percentage 91.43% 51.43% Turnover Vehicles Parked 71 49 Total Spaces 35 35 Turnover Ratio 2.03 1.40 SUMMARY The average occupancy throughout the study was only 51.43%, which was one of the lowest in the city. With the exception of Saturday, we never saw vehicles parking in the spaces at the top of the hill. There was a total of 243 vehicles parked in the 35 spaces and the turnover ratio was 1.4 vehicles per space. Seventy-three percent (73Â°/0) of the patrons parked less than 3 hours. Twenty-percent (20%) of the spaces were occupied by employee vehicles. age 37 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC 7 PARKING Cleave Street Cleave Street 43 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street 7/27/2005 22 26 30 32 32 23 23 23 19 19 25 7/28/2005 16 28 30 31 30 29 28 27 24 20 16 11 24 7/29/2005 30 30 30 30 28 30 29 29 28 19 19 19 27 7/30/2005 20 28 28 28 27 25 27 28 28 28 13 25 7/31/2005 19 20 21 31 31 28 28 25 AVERAGE 21 26 28 30 30 27 27 27 25 22 16 15 24 CLEAVE STREET 43 SPACES 40 35 Su 30 - 25 20 ~ 15 AVF 10 Sa 5 0 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 6 9 5 5 25 26 21 21 <C 55 0-0- CL CL CD 0- 0 m aÂ·) 0 O C) CD CD LO O LO OUD *LO OUD .. UD UD 41 xy. . . . 0, .- .- CN N .. 9- Cd CN 6-; 1-r) Co l.r) CD r.- .- r ... 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM INd EE - INd Â£ Wd 69Â£ INd692*-INd 00* -IN d 00 f Mid 69:9 -INd 00:9 Mid 69:9 -Mid 00:9 INd 69:Z-INd 00:Z INd 69:8 -Mid 00:8 39Vh13AV INd 69 9 8:00 AM 10:00 AM - - INd 00Â£ 10:59 AM - Ad 00:9 - INd 00 L - INd 008 e 38 of 116 REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING .r... LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER'UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 9 5 7 2 8 0 18 49 7/28/2005 3 12 6 0 10 4 18 53 7/29/2005 11 5 4 1 4 3 10 38 7/30/2005 0 2 8 2 0 3 11 26 7/31/2005 9 0 6 0 6 0 0 21 TOTAL | 32 24 31 5 28 10 57 187 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 18% 10% 14% 4% 17% 0% 37% 7/28/2005 6% 22% 11% 0% 19% 8% 34% 7/29/2005 29% 13% 11% 3% 11% 8% 26% 7/30/2005 0% 8% 31% 8% 0% 12% 42% 7/31/2005 43% 0% 29% 0% 29% 0% 0% AVERAGE 17% 13% 16% 3% 15% 6% 30% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 43 43 Less: Daily Parkers 9 11 Employees 23 13 Open Spaces 11 19 Occupancy Percentage 74.42% 55.81% Turnover Vehicles Parked 53 37 Total Spaces 43 43 Turnover Ratio 1.23 0.86 SUMMARY This street is primarily used by employees of the businesses. On average, the spaces were a little less than 56% occupied. We only saw 187 vehicles parked during all five days and the average turnover was less than 1 vehicle per space. There were an average of 13 employee vehicles in these spaces which is 30% of the total spaces. On Thursday, we noticed 23 vehicles which we believe were from employees. Page 39 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC.9 ~ PARKING East Elkhorn Avenue East Elkhorn Avenue 6 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street 7/27/2005 7/28/2005 7/29/2005 5555566656655 7/30/2005 16666656666 5 7/31/2005 0446666 5 AVERAGE 2556666666655 EAST ELKHORN AVE 6 SPACES 6 ./.1 4 3 2 A Sa 0 SU l == Em 0> 0 CD 0 0) M O O 03 xu, OUD oLD ~UD OLD gLO g* 22 U- AG N (\IN Arn ,- 60 62 -- â€ž r â€ž <D CD 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM INd 69g - INd Â£ INd69*-INd 00:* UNd 69:9 -INd 00:9 - INd 009 iNd 69:9 -INd 00:9 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM ~Id 69:8 - INd 00:8 39Vh13AV INd 699 9:59 AM - IN d 00 4 INd69 k IAId 699 - Zld 009 e 40 of 116 REPUBLIC~ PARKING LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 7/28/2005 7/29/2005 4 16 11 0 0 0 0 31 7/30/2005 6 1 12 5 0 0 0 24 7/31/2005 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 12 TOTAL 16 17 29 5 0 0 0 67 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 7/28/2005 7/29/2005 13% 52% 35% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7/30/2005 25% 4% 50% 21% 0% 0% 0% 7/31/2005 50% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% AVERAGE 25% 25% 43% 7% 0% 0% 0% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average TotaISpaces 6 6 Less: Daily Parkers 6 5 Employees 0 0 Open Spaces 0 1 Occupancy Percentage 100.00% 83.33% Turnover Vehicles Parked 31 22 Total Spaces 6 6 Turnover Ratio 5.17 3.67 SUMMARY These spaces are very popular and don't stay open long once a vehicle vacates. For the most part, the spaces were occupied throughout the day. On Friday, the spaces turned over 5.17 times. We did not see any employee vehicles parking in these spaces. Page 41 of 116 - REPUSLIC~ ~ = PARKING East Riverside Drive East Riverside Drive 6 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street 2 2 7/27/2005 5 7/28/2005 5 5 5 4 4 4 7/29/2005 5 5 5 566656655 7/30/2005 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 4 6 7/31/2005 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 AVERAGE 5555565555555 EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE 6 SPACES 6 4# 5- a SU AVE 4 -- El T W 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ill 66 65 26 26 655= < 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-0- 0- Cl- (1 0.- ow OW 0 0-> C. CD W CD O LO OUD *41 o LD LO LO LO LO r r N 3 Â· Â·42 eGCN LO ~ CO Â· co 10:59 AM 8:00 AM -9:59 AM cn 10:00 AM -10:59 A cn cn 11:00 AM-11:59 PM en e c) 12:00 PM-12:59 P 01 0 1:00 PM- 1:59 PM Ed 69:Z-INd 00:Z 0 0 INd 6vt- INd Â£ O 0 Wd 69 E UNd69 *-INd 00* 4 Ed 69:9 - Mid 00:9 1 - 0ld 009 INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 =r * Ed 69~Z -INd OWL INd 69:8 -INd 00:8 39Â¥83AV U' 45 114!rh- 8:00 AM - 9:59 AM 10:00 AM - -0ld 00:* - Nd 00 9 - Wd OOL - Ed 00 9 Md69* - n d 00 Â£ e 42 of 116 REF'UBLICV~ Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillilllllllllllllllllillllll PARKING LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 H RS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 H RS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 4 8 10 1 0 0 0 23 7/28/2005 4 10 2 3 0 1 0 20 7/29/2005 6 12 6 0 3 0 0 27 7/30/2005 4 0 17 0 0 0 0 21 7/31/2005 2 18 0 1 0 0 0 21 TOTAL 20 48 35 5 3 1 0 112 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 17% 35% 43% 5% 0% 0% 0% 7/28/2005 20% 50% 10% 15% 0% 5% 0% 7/29/2005 22% 44% 22% 0% 11% 0% 0% 7/30/2005 19% 0% 81 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 7/31/2005 10% 86% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% AVERAGE | 18% 43% 31 % 5% 2% 1% 0% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 6 6 Less: Daily Parkers 5 5 Employees 1 0 Open Spaces 0 1 Occupancy Percentage 100.00% 83.33% Turnover Vehicles Parked 27 22 Total Spaces 6 6 Turnover Ratio 4.50 3.67 SUMMARY Like East Elkhorn Drive, these spaces are very popular and don't stay open long once a vehicle vacates. For the most part, the spaces were occupied throughout the day. On Friday, the spaces turned over 4.5 times. We saw one license plate that appeared to be an employee vehicle parking in these spaces. 92*21Â§_ ~ REPUBLIC 7 - PARKING ~ IV*rE. MacGregor Avenue North Macgregor Avenue North 124 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street 7/27/2005 25 28 30 37 44 43 41 32 23 23 33 7/28/2005 27 28 29 39 49 39 29 30 30 25 20 20 30 7/29/2005 37 37 37 55 72 96 96 96 96 38 38 38 61 7/30/2005 14 14 39 61 83 85 86 72 57 45 32 53 7/31/2005 22 22 42 62 62 62 57 47 AVERAGE 25 26 35 51 62 65 62 58 52 33 30 29 44 MACGREGORAVENUE NORTH 124 SPACES 120 100 - 80 60 40 -p \--221.-AVE 20 T 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lili 5 5 == 2= 21 11 == < <C Q CD CD OO 00 0 0 0-> CD 0/ LID LO O 'f) OUD ZID OLD ~UD LCD <ED Â· 0 r * CU AIN 66 M A r- r - 10 00 AM - 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 A 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM INd 69:Â£ - Mid Â£ INd69*-Mid 00* -IN d 00 f INd 69:9 -INd 00:9 - INd 009 INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:L -INd 00:Z 8:00 PM - 8:59 PM 39Â¥h13AV 1,\Id 69 9 8:00 AM - INd69 k INd 699 INd 699 - INd 00 L - V\Id 008 - INd 009 ige 44 of 116 REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 6 16 15 22 1 4 14 78 7/28/2005 13 46 5 11 10 7 13 105 7/29/2005 23 0 18 0 53 0 17 111 7/30/2005 19 49 69 28 11 8 14 198 7/31/2005 36 6 48 0 13 0 0 103 TOTAL | 97 I 117 I 155 I 61 I 88 I 19 I 58 I 595 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 H RS 7/27/2005 8% 21 % 19% 28% 1% 5% 18% 7/28/2005 15% 41% 10% 5% 10% 7% 12% 7/29/2005 21 % 0% 16% 0% 48% 0% 15% 7/30/2005 10% 25% 35% 14% 6% 4% 7% 7/31/2005 36% 6% 46% 0% 12% 0% 0% AVERAGE 16% 20% 26% 10% 15% 3% 10% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 124 124 Less: Daily Parkers 73 31 Employees 23 13 Open Spaces 28 80 Occupancy Percentage 77.42% 35.48% Turnover Vehicles Parked 198 119 Total Spaces 124 124 Turnover Ratio 1.60 0.96 SUMMARY These spaces do not get utilized very often as the average occupancy had just 44 of the spaces being used - 35.48%. The peak period of the study was on Friday afternoon and 28 of the spaces were still open. We only noticed 595 vehicles parked on this street for all five days of the study. The turnover on this lot was less than one vehicle per space. Employees did use these spaces on the busy days as the average was 13 vehicles. On Friday, we noticed a total of 23 employee vehicles in one of the 124 spaces. age 45 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC 7 PARKING ....2. MacGregor Avenue South Macgregor Avenue South 32 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street 7/27/2005 16 17 18 21 23 16 22 22 18 18 19 7/28/2005 9 9 17 22 22 16 18 19 15 18 20 20 17 7/29/2005 20 20 20 20 23 29 29 29 29 24 24 24 24 7/30/2005 17 19 21 30 27 29 29 29 23 23 23 25 7/31/2005 12 12 15 18 25 25 26 19 AVERAGE 15 15 18 22 24 23 25 25 21 21 22 22 21 MACGREGOR AVENUE SOUTH 32 SPACES 30 25 _,la--AVE 20 - - ~--0 ~ T 15 - - 10 1 5 0 51 65 =E= 2= ~Ef ff ~E~ 6&1 <4. << <; 00) 0 O CD - 02 [1 2* 26 LO oLD gu, O LO O LO O W 660' 60 U CVS! u" cVâ„¢ 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM INd 69:E - INd Â£ INd694-INd 00* Wd 69:9 - UNd 00:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:9 - Ed 008 INd 69:Z - INd 00:Z INd 69:8 - ~Id 00:8 39Â¥h13AV INd 698 11:00 INd 69 9 INd 699 INd 691 - INd 009 -INd 001 - INd 009 Paae 46-bf116 REPUBLIC~ PARKING ...... LENGTH OF STAY REPORT 'UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 14 18 21 10 2 2 2 69 7/28/2005 17 45 12 6 6 0 0 86 7/29/2005 25 14 0 0 17 0 7 63 7/30/2005 21 10 33 27 0 3 2 96 7/31/2005 25 3 30 0 0 0 0 58 TOTAL 102 I 90 I 96 I 43 I 25 I 5 I 11 I 372 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 20% 26% 30% 14% 3% 3% 4% 7/28/2005 20% 52% 14% 7% 7% 0% 0% 7/29/2005 40% 22% 0% 0% 27% 0% 11% 7/30/2005 22% 10% 34% 28% 0% 3% 2% 7/31/2005 45% 0% 55% 0% 0% 0% 0% AVERAGE 27% 24% 26% 12% 7% 1% 3% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average TotaISpaces 32 32 Less: Daily Parkers 27 20 Employees 3 1 Open Spaces 2 11 Occupancy Percentage 93.75% 65.63% Turnover Vehicles Parked 96 74 Total Spaces 32 32 Turnover Ratio 3.00 2.31 SUMMARY Since these spaces are located just off of Elkhorn Drive, the spaces on the west side of MacGregor Avenue get used quite often. On the east side of the street, the spaces are marked "30 minute" and do not get utilized as much. Overall, the average occupancy was just 65.65%. There were a total of 372 vehicles parked in one of these spaces during the study. The turnover on this lot was 2.31 vehicles per space. This number would have been much higher if the spaces on the east side were not marked 30 minute only. This was not a popular area for employees as we only saw an average of 1 vehicle utilizing these spaces. Page 47 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ I PARKING ...... Moraine Avenue Moraine Avenue 35 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street 7/27/2005 15 21 21 14 23 23 20 21 15 8 18 7/28/2005 11 16 20 18 26 26 25 23 21 22 22 22 21 7/29/2005 11 11 18 24 27 30 16 12 14 16 16 16 18 7/30/2005 10 26 30 34 34 34 34 31 27 27 27 29 7/31/2005 16 16 24 31 30 30 24 24 AVERAGE 13 18 23 24 28 29 24 22 19 18 22 19 21 MORAINE AVENUE 35 SPACES 35 30 Ra 25 Â¢ l/L"- T ~21_2~SCZ--- - 20 15 , fi#Â»9/ \- -*AVE 1/ 10 PW 5 0 1 1 1 1 III ! 1 I 1 $ Cs E= 66 66 26 55 5 5 5 5 0- 0- CL CL CL CL CD C) - 0 C) OO 0 0 O CD CI> CI> 0, LO OUD OUD O LO 0 LO 09 S 93 LO UD UD LO C) ~ ~ CD r r- â„¢fy rr- )CN 4 W (C> ' . r- CO 0 . CD r--- T-- - 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 A 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM iNd 69 TE - Mid Â£ Md 69Â£ INd69:*-INd 00:* iNd 69:9 -INd 00:9 - Kd 00:9 Ed 69:9 -INd 00:9 INd 69:1 - Mid 00:Z INd 69:8 - INd 00:8 39Vh13AV 8:00 AM - - Nd 00:Â£ - Md 009 - Wd 00 L - nd 00:9 e 48 of 116 REPUBLIC~ PARKING *VITI' LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 5 41 9 6 0 0 2 63 7/28/2005 17 37 30 0 11 1 3 99 7/29/2005 14 66 10 4 2 0 2 98 7/30/2005 26 30 26 28 2 0 6 118 7/31/2005 23 0 46 0 0 1 0 70 TOTAL 85 174 121 38 15 2 13 448 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 H RS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 8% 65% 14% 10% 0% 0% 3% 7/28/2005 17% 38% 30% 0% 11% 1% 3% 7/29/2005 14% 67% 10% 4% 2% 0% 2% 7/30/2005 22% 25% 22% 24% 2% 0% 5% 7/31/2005 33% 0% 66% 0% 0% 1% 0% AVERAGE 1 19% 39% 27% 8% 3% 1% 3% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average TotaISpaces 35 35 Less: Daily Parkers 28 18 Employees 6 3 Open Spaces 1 14 Occupancy Percentage 97.14% 60.00% Turnover Vehicles Parked 118 90 Total Spaces 35 35 Turnover Ratio 3.37 2.57 SUMMARY The average occupancy on this street was just 60%. The only day where it came close to filling was on Saturday between Noon and 4:00pm. These spaces turned pretty well due to the "3 Hour" limit as the average vehicle per space was 2.57. Of the patrons parking in this area, eighty-five percent (85%) left within three hours. There were 448 vehicles parked on Moraine Avenue during the five days of the study. The turnover on this lot was 2.57 vehicles per space. We saw an average of 3 employee vehicles in these spaces. age 49 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC'9 ~ PARKING ..... Park Lane Park Lane 41 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street 7/27/2005 11 26 40 38 36 32 28 28 27 27 29 7/28/2005 11 23 34 35 35 30 32 33 29 24 37 37 30 7/29/2005 40 40 40 40 40 39 40 40 40 39 39 39 40 7/30/2005 12 26 40 38 38 38 36 36 36 38 39 34 7/31/2005 22 22 33 33 37 37 37 32 AVERAGE 19 27 37 37 37 35 35 34 33 32 38 38 34 PARK LAN E 41 SPACES 40 - ,- - SU --1.0.--1- AVE 35 T 30 An - cd 25 /\11 20 /27 15 10 5- 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 57 56 =fi == 2= 2= 5 a- <<L < ou 0 0-) 0 0 0) cn g* g OLD OUD =Lo OLO U-t go c, 0 u- 0413 CN N ./ ... 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM d 69:ZI.-INd 00:ZIÂ· 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM INd 69:Z-INd 00:Z INd 69Â£- Wd Â£ INd 69Â£ 1/\Id694"Wd 00 t -INd 00 4 INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 -INd 009 Wd 69:9 - Wd 00:9 Wd 69:L - Ed 0042 Wd 69:8 - iNd 00:8 39Vh13AV Wd 698 10:59 A - Wd 00:Â£ INd 699 INd 699 01 d 69 L - INd 009 - IN d 00:L - INd 009 e 50 of 116 REPUBLIC'~ - PARKING ~ .VITE. LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 21 23 41 11 7 5 0 108 7/28/2005 30 59 27 9 5 2 3 135 7/29/2005 38 0 35 0 34 0 6 113 7/30/2005 29 59 44 18 2 1 1 154 7/31/2005 31 0 43 0 8 0 0 82 TOTAL I 149 I 141 ~ 190 I 38 I 56 I 8 I 10 I 592 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 19% 21% 38% 10% 6% 6% 0% 7/28/2005 22% 44% 20% 7% 4% 1% 2% 7/29/2005 34% 0% 31% 0% 30% 0% 5% 7/30/2005 18% 37% 31% 11% 1% 1% 1% 7/31/2005 38% 0% 52% 0% 10% 0% 0% AVERAGE 25% 24% 32% 7% 9% 1% 2% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average TotaISpaces 41 41 Less: Daily Parkers 32 31 Employees 8 3 Open Spaces 1 7 Occupancy Percentage 97.56% 82.93% Turnover Vehicles Parked 154 118 Total Spaces 41 41 Turnover Ratio 3.76 2.88 SUMMARY This street was very popular and the spaces turned 2.88 times throughout the day. The overall occupancy was 82.93Â°/0. The busiest day was on Friday when there was only one or two spaces open from 8: 00am to 9: 00pm. Overall, 592 vehicles parked in these spaces and 81% left within three hours. We saw an average of 3 employee vehicles in these spaces. age 51 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 ~ I PARKING ~ ...... Virginia Drive Virginia Drive 19 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street 7/27/2005 8 16 17 18 17 17 14 9 13 7/28/2005 889101214131114118 8 11 7/29/2005 10 10 12 15 18 16 16 16 14 12 12 12 14 7/30/2005 4 11 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 16 14 15 7/31/2005 5 5 14 14 17 18 18 13 AVERAGE 7 8 14 15 17 17 16 15 14 12 11 10 13 VIRGINIA DRIVE 19 SPACES AVE SU 18 - - - 9-1 16- - ~ -\~ W 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 ZE# ~26 26 =E~ 55 11 5 <C <C 0-0- 0-0. 0-0- 1 0-0- CL CD CD 0 a) O a) O aD CD J) CD U-) O UD OUD OUD o LO W LO LO ...... CNI N .r â„¢â„¢ ,.;Â·> M U Â» 00 LO CD 0 r- â€¢r- T--- T-- - oo 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 P 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM Wd 69:Â£ - INd 00:Â£ Wd 69 E INd69*-INd 00* - d 00 f INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:9 - V\Id 00:9 e INd 69:Z - INd 00:L Ed 69:9 -INd 00:8 39Â¥h13AV 8:00 AM -MCI 009 ZId 699 1000 AM - - Nd 00Â£ - 0ld 009 ige 52 of 116 REPUSLIC~ ~ PARKING ~ 'VITE' LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 5 5 7 0 2 2 9 30 7/28/2005 5 14 13 5 0 4 1 42 7/29/2005 9 29 9 7 1 2 3 60 7/30/2005 10 34 13 1 0 2 4 64 7/31/2005 11 0 13 0 0 0 4 28 TOTAL 1 40 82 55 13 3 10 21 224 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 17% 17% 23% 0% 7% 7% 30% 7/28/2005 12% 33% 31% 12% 0% 10% 2% 7/29/2005 15% 48% 15% 12% 2% 3% 5% 7/30/2005 16% 53% 20% 2% 0% 3% 6% 7/31/2005 39% 0% 46% 0% 0% 0% 14% AVERAGE 18% 37% 25% 6% 1% 4% 9% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 19 19 Less: Daily Parkers 13 9 Employees 5 4 Open Spaces 1 6 Occupancy Percentage 94.74% 68.42% Turnover Vehicles Parked 64 45 Total Spaces 19 19 Turnover Ratio 3.37 2.37 SUMMARY With the exception of Thursday, this street came within one space of filling up completely. The average occupancy throughout the day was 68.42%. Each space had a turnover ratio of 2.37 vehicles. Overall, 224 vehicles parked in these spaces and eighty percent (80Â°/0) left within three hours. Although these were "3 Hour" spaces, we still found an average of 4 employee vehicles in these spaces. age 53 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC V ~ PARKING .y../. Weist Drive Weist Drive 18 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street 7/27/2005 8 8 11 13 14 15 14 12 12 12 12 7/28/2005 47917171716141616151514 7/29/2005 13 13 15 15 17 18 18 18 18 13 13 13 15 7/30/2005 13 18 17 16 17 17 16 17 18 18 18 17 7/31/2005 10 13 16 17 17 17 17 15 AVERAGE 10 12 14 16 16 17 16 15 16 15 15 14 15 WEIST DRIVE 18 SPACES 18 Sa 16 ~ T 14 -- -- -./.- AVE 12 W , \/ A 10 , 8 6 4 , 2 0 1 1 CL <4 < CD 0 0 ZE gg ZE gg 22 22 29 99 CD 660 60 rU 352 - - WN A CD 4-> 10 10- LO 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 P 1:00 PM-1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM iNd 69:Â£ - iNd 00:Â£ Wd69:*-Nd 00:* Ulld 69:9 - INd 00:9 Wd 69:9 - UNd 00:9 iNd 69:L - INd 00:Z ~Id 69:8 - Ed 00:8 39Vh13AV INd 699 -INd 00 k d 69 t INd 699 - INd 00 9 - INd 00 L - INd 009 e 54 of 116 REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING ~ LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 6 12 5 2 3 1 1 30 7/28/2005 7 8 11 0 4 1 2 33 7/29/2005 3 11 7 0 1 0 0 22 7/30/2005 12 7 22 0 0 4 3 48 7/31/2005 14 0 20 0 0 3 0 37 TOTAL I 42 38 65 2 8 9 6 170 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 21 % 42% 14% 5% 8% 2% 8% 7/28/2005 24% 24% 30% 1% 10% 5% 7% 7/29/2005 13% 46% 29% 0% 4% 0% 8% 7/30/2005 25% 15% 46% 0% 0% 8% 6% 7/31/2005 38% 0% 54% 0% 0% 8% 0% AVERAGE 25% 22% 38% 1% 5% 5% 4% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average TotaISpaces 18 18 Less Daily Parkers 16 14 Employees 2 1 Open Spaces 0 3 Occupancy Percentage 100.00% 83.33% Turnover Vehicles Parked 48 34 Total Spaces 18 18 Turnover Ratio 2.67 1.89 SUMMARY These spaces stayed fairly occupied throughout most of the week. The average occupancy was 83.33%. Overall, 170 vehicles parked in these spaces and eight-five percent (85%) left within three hours. There were an average of 2 employee vehicles parking in these spaces. age 55 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC~- ~ PARKING .r.r.. West Elkhorn West Elkhorn Drive 19 Total Spaces Vehicles Parked in Street 7/27/2005 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 14 14 14 16 7/28/2005 11 17 17 16 17 17 16 15 16 16 15 15 16 7/29/2005 15 15 15 16 18 16 16 16 14 13 13 13 15 7/30/2005 16 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 7/31/2005 18 18 18 18 17 17 15 17 AVERAGE 15 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 14 16 WESTELKHORN 19 SPACES 18 3 16 -I-IV -.IN 14 -- AVE 12 1 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 1 no. 0-0. 0- O- CD CD O O 0 0) 01 0 C. (J) a) CD LO u, 040 oLD ou, OLD *8; t.0 06 Lo Lo 0 Â· Â· 0 cd/2 3= GCN (4(46 . 9 IM CO . . 1.-- LO -r-- r. - 1000 AM - 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM-2:59 PM INd 692Â£ - INd Â£ INd69*-iNd 00:* -IN d 00 k Ed 69:9 - Wd 00:9 INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:Z - Ed 00:Z Md 69:8 - Wd 0048 39Â¥h13AV Zld 699 - INV 00:9 - Nd 00:9 - INd DO Z - INd 009 e 56 dflle REPUBLIC'~ ~ PARKING ~ LENGTH OF STAY REPORT UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES 7/27/2005 11 23 0 4 0 0 0 38 7/28/2005 13 37 9 3 0 0 6 68 7/29/2005 34 25 6 2 2 1 0 70 7/30/2005 15 24 12 16 0 0 1 68 7/31/2005 12 0 15 15 0 0 0 42 TOTAL 85 109 42 40 2 1 7 286 BY PERCENTAGES UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS 7/27/2005 29% 61% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 7/28/2005 19% 55% 13% 4% 0% 0% 9% 7/29/2005 49% 36% 9% 3% 3% 1% 0% 7/30/2005 22% 35% 18% 24% 0% 0% 1% 7/31/2005 29% 0% 36% 36% 0% 0% 0% AVERAGE 30% 38% 15% 14% 1% 0% 2% 100% Space Utilization Peak Average Total Spaces 19 19 Less: Daily Parkers 15 15 Employees 3 1 Open Spaces 1 3 Occupancy Percentage 94.74% 84.21% Turnover Vehicles Parked 70 57 Total Spaces 19 19 Turnover Ratio 3.68 3.00 SUMMARY These spaces are occupied throughout most of the day. Although our results showed an average occupancy of 84%, the spaces did not stay open long once a vehicle vacated a space. During the study, we noticed 286 vehicles parking in these spaces which meant each space turned over 3 times during the day. There was an average of 1 employee vehicle parking in these spaces. age 57 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING City Analysis â€¢ Open Space Counts - July 27th 28th 2901,30th 31.St - Average Open Spaces - All Week â€¢ Vehicles Parked & Open Space Summary â€¢ Location Snapshot - Occupancy, Turnover, Open Space â€¢ Occupancy Percentage Ranking Report â€¢ Turnover Ratio Ranking Report â€¢ Length of Stay Report - By Vehicles â€¢ Length of Stay Report - By Percentages â€¢ Employee Vehicle Summary â€¢ Utilization Summary Paae 58 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ I PARKING Open Space Report - July 27,2005 LOCATION NAME AMERICAN 15 15 13 11 14 20 27 13 BIGHORN 12 12 966 8101616 10 BIG HORN DRIVE 27 27 24 21 17 14 15 16 19 19 20 BROWNSFIELD 3123212333 2 CHILDRENS 1111123422 2 CLEAVE ST 21 17 13 11 11 20 20 20 24 24 18 COFFEE BAR 1101122566 3 DARK HORSE 52 52 5 3 3 2 4 8 8 8 15 DEL'S'S A&W 43 43 43 39 25 25 36 41 40 39 37 EAST ELKHORN EAST RIVERSIDE DR 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 WEST RIVERSIDE DR 15 15 13 11 7 7 10 12 14 27 13 ICE HOUSE 36 27 19 7 7 3 10 13 17 17 16 MACGREGOR N 99 96 94 87 80 81 83 92 101 101 91 MACGREGOR S 16 15 14 11 9 16 10 10 14 14 13 MORAINE AVE. 20 14 14 21 12 12 15 14 20 27 17 MUNICIPAL 139 97 43 43 32 32 32 72 72 72 63 LUMBER YARD 80 77 74 75 77 74 71 74 78 78 76 PARK LANE 30 15 1 3 5 9 13 13 14 14 12 POST OFFICE 57 57 57 5 10 16 35 23 23 34 32 TREGENT PARK 11 8 6 2 2 1 2 3 6 6 5 VIRGINIA DR 11 11 3 2 1 2 2 5 10 10 6 WEST ELKHORN 1111112444 2 WEIST DRIVE 10 10 7 5 4 3 4 6 6 6 6 WEIST 64 64 49 34 27 21 33 45 45 45 43 TOTAL OPEN SPACES 765 677 506 403 345 356 418 509 564 601 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 01 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM Mid 69:Z-INd 00:Z w h. Ed 69Â£ - Wd Â£ 0 INd69*-Ed 00* Mid 69:9 - Ed 00:9 Mid 69:9 - Wd 00:9 INd 69:1 - Mid 00:Z Mid 69:8 - INd 00:8 39Vh13AV e 59 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ = PARKING Open Space Report - July 28,2005 LOCATION NAME AMERICAN 22 16 11 BIGHORN 1754445 8 11 9 8 14 21 9 BIG HORN DRIVE 29 26 21 16 17 18 17 17 13 13 21 21 19 BROWNSFIELD 2222222101112 CHILDRENS 5531122243223 CLEAVE ST 27 15 13 12 13 14 15 16 19 23 27 32 19 COFFEE BAR 4433464354334 DARKHORSE 22 22 14 6 3 1 5 9 13 9 9 13 11 DEL'S A&W 42 42 42 37 32 32 33 37 41 41 41 41 38 EAST ELKHORN EAST RIVERSIDE DR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 WEST RIVERSIDE DR 18 18 17 14 11 12 14 10 6 16 26 26 16 ICE HOUSE 37 21 0 1 1 4 4 4 5 6 10 15 9 MACGREGOR N 97 96 95 85 75 85 95 94 94 99 104 104 94 MACGREGOR S 23 23 15 10 10 16 14 13 17 14 12 12 15 MORAINE AVE. 24 19 15 17 9 9 10 12 14 13 13 13 14 MUNICIPAL 146 122 99 62 26 42 59 84 102 102 102 102 87 LUMBER YARD 79 77 77 68 60 56 60 64 44 24 34 44 57 PARK LANE 30 18 7 6 6 11 9 8 12 17 4 4 11 POST OFFICE 61 61 44 27 24 21 27 33 38 44 52 60 41 TREGENT PARK 20 8 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 3 VIRGINIA DR 11 11 10 9 7 5 6 8 5 8 11 11 9 WEST ELKHORN 7112112322332 WEIST DRIVE 14 11 9 1 1 1 2 4 2 2 3 3 4 WEIST 91 75 60 10 8 8 13 26 15 15 20 20 30 TOTAL OPEN SPACES 829 699 565 395 318 353 407 467 470 473 522 562 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 0 12:00 PM-12:59 PM - 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM INd 69:Z-INd 00:Z - INd 69~Â£ - INd Â£ w INd69:*-INd 00* w INd 69:9 - Wd 00:9 r- INd 69:9 - Ed 00:9 N INd 69:Z - Mid 00:Z N INd 69:8 -INd 00:8 r 39Â¥h!3AV N e 60 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC'~ ~ PARKING Open Space Report - July 29,2005 LOCATION NAME AMERICAN 15 19 19 19 19 10 BIGHORN 66544788913887 BIG HORN DRIVE 23 23 21 19 11 11 15 14 16 22 22 22 18 BROWNSFIELD 1120000001221 CHILDRENS 1100012112341 CLEAVE ST 13 13 13 13 15 13 14 14 15 24 24 24 16 COFFEE BAR 5531001121442 DARK HORSE 38 38 10 0 1 1 3 6 10 3 5 5 10 DEL'S A&W 42 42 39 37 15 21 27 39 40 41 41 41 35 EAST ELKHORN 1111100010011 EAST RIVERSIDE DR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WEST RIVERSIDE DR 19 19 20 7 4 2 7 12 17 19 22 27 15 ICE HOUSE 30 30 9 4 0 5 3 5 14 12 1 1 10 MACGREGOR N 87 87 87 69 52 28 28 28 28 86 86 86 63 MACGREGOR S 12 12 12 12 9 3 3 3 3 8 8 8 8 MORAINE AVE. 24 24 17 11 8 5 19 23 21 19 19 19 17 MUNICIPAL 95 95 59 23 21 21 21 21 82 71 61 61 53 LUMBER YARD 77 77 73 67 62 59 56 65 63 32 32 32 58 PARK LANE 1111121112221 POST OFFICE 49 49 24 12 7 7 9 25 40 40 12 19 24 TREGENT PARK 4411141140002 VIRGINIA DR 997413335 7775 WEST ELKHORN 3332022245553 WEIST DRIVE 5533100005553 WEIST 52 52 15 6 10 15 17 17 36 39 39 39 28 TOTAL OPEN SPACES 606 606 430 298 226 212 249 305 432 472 428 442 00 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 00 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 4 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 0 12:00 PM-12:59 PM - 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM INd 69:Z-INd 00:Z - INd 69 Â£ - UNd E co Wd 6947-INd 0047 Mid 69:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:Z -Mid 00:Z Wd 69:8 - INd 00:8 39Vh13AV Pace 61 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ I PARKING ...TE. Open Space Report - July 30,2005 LOCATION NAME AMERICAN 21 BIGHORN 17 4 4 4 4 4 3 BIG HORN DRIVE 27 20 8 8 3 8 6 6 10 10 10 11 BROWNSFIELD 10000100001 0 CHILDRENS 19 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 3 3 4 4 CLEAVE ST 23 15 15 15 16 18 16 15 15 15 30 18 COFFEE BAR 74121100001 2 DARK HORSE 73 24 13 3 6 6 15 10 5 4 3 15 DEL'S A&W 41 38 36 14 14 5 10 15 13 13 25 20 EAST ELKHORN 50000010000 1 EAST RIVERSIDE DR 00001000112 0 WEST RIVERSIDE DR 22 14 4 442555524 9 ICE HOUSE 38 22 11 1 0 0 12223 7 MACGREGOR N 110 110 85 63 41 39 38 52 67 79 92 71 MACGREGOR S 15 13 11 2 5 3 3 3 9 9 9 7 MORAINE AVE. 25 9 5 1 1 1 1 4 8 8 8 6 MUNICIPAL 167 95 61 27 21 16 50 84 57 57 89 66 LUMBER YARD 75 76 67 59 43 27 32 37 31 31 57 49 PARK LANE 29 15 1 3 3 3 5 5 53 2 7 POST OFFICE 73 64 22 22 3 10 10 28 11 11 4 23 TREGENT PARK 12 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 VIRGINIA DR 15 8 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 5 4 WEST ELKHORN 21000000000 0 WEIST DRIVE 50121121000 1 WEIST 100 54 31 9 6 6 8 7 6 6 6 22 TOTAL OPEN SPACES 922 596 382 242 175 156 213 287 257 267 382 8:00 AM -9:59 AM cÂ» 10:00 AM -10:59 AM - 11:00 AM-11:59 PM - 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 0 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM INd 69:Z-Mid 00:Z N Ed 69:Â£ - INd Â£ N N Wd69.*-Ed 0047 0 N INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 ce CO Mid 69:9 - INd 00:9 co Wd 69 Z - INd 00.Z co co INd 69:8 - Wd 00:8 39Â¥83AV 1 0 e 62 of 116 - REPUBLIC'~ ~ = PARKING ...r.. Open Space Report - July 31, 2005 LOCATION NAME AMERICAN 15 15 7 BIGHORN 24 16 8445 BIG HORN DRIVE 30 27 24 11 11 8 8 17 BROWNSFIELD 1100000 0 CHILDRENS 15 2 2 3 0 0 0 3 CLEAVE ST 24 23 22 12 12 15 15 18 COFFEE BAR 14 5 5 1 1 1 1 4 DARK HORSE 42 42 10 0 0 1 13 15 DEL'S A&W 42 42 28 11 11 11 15 23 EAST ELKHORN 6220000 1 EAST RIVERSIDE DR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WEST RIVERSIDE DR 22 18 15 8 8 8 16 14 ICE HOUSE 42 26 10 4 4 1 1 13 MACGREGOR N 102 102 82 62 62 62 67 77 MACGREGOR S 20 20 17 14 7 7 6 13 MORAINE AVE. 19 19 11 4 5 5 11 11 MUNICIPAL 179 179 134 89 89 89 57 117 LUMBER YARD 82 73 64 46 28 28 28 50 PARK LANE 19 19 8 8 4 4 4 9 POST OFFICE 76 76 45 1 5 9 20 33 TREGENT PARK 13 8 3 1 1 1 1 4 VIRGINIA DR 14 14 5 5 2 1 1 6 WEST ELKHORN 0000113 1 WEIST DRIVE 8521111 3 WEIST 88 49 10 11 11 22 22 30 TOTAL OPEN SPACES 898 784 515 297 269 282 300 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 AM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM Ed 69:ZI.-Wd 00:ZI. 0 - 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM INd 69:Z-INd 00:Z - INd 64Â£ - INd Â£ 1 0 INd 6947-INd 0047 INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:Z - INd 00:Z Mid 69:8 - INd 00:8 394&3AV 0 0 e 63 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ = PARKING Average Open Space Report - All Week LOCATION NAME AMERICAN 16 11 10 12 14 10 13 BIGHORN 15 9 6446689108158 BIG HORN DRIVE 27 25 20 15 12 12 12 13 15 16 18 22 17 BROWNSFIELD 2111111111121 CHILDRENS 8211112333333 CLEAVE ST 22 17 15 13 13 16 16 16 18 22 27 28 19 COFFEE BAR 6422122233343 DARK HORSE 45 36 10 2 3 2 8 8 9 6 6 9 12 DEL'S A&W 42 41 38 28 19 19 24 33 34 34 36 41 32 EAST ELKHORN 4110000010011 EAST RIVERSIDE DR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 WEST RIVERSIDE DR 19 17 14 9 7 6 10 10 11 17 24 27 14 ICE HOUSE 37 25 10 3 2 3 4 6 10 9 5 8 10 MACGREGOR N 99 98 89 73 62 59 62 67 73 91 94 95 80 MACGREGORS 17 17 14 10 897 7 11 11 10 10 11 MORAINE AVE. 22 17 12 11 7 6 11 13 16 17 13 16 14 MUNICIPAL 145 118 79 49 38 40 44 65 78 76 84 82 75 LUMBER YARD 79 76 71 63 54 49 49 60 54 41 41 38 56 PARK LANE 22 14 4 4 4 6 6 7 8 9 3 3 7 POST OFFICE 63 61 38 13 10 13 20 27 28 32 23 40 31 TREGENT PARK 12 7 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 3 VIRGINIA DR 12 11 5 4 2 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 6 WEST ELKHORN 3111112233342 WEIST DRIVE 864221232334 WEIST 79 59 33 14 12 14 19 24 26 26 22 30 30 TOTAL OPEN SPACES 806 673 480 327 267 272 318 392 431 453 444 503 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 10:00 AM -10:59 A 4 11:00 AM-11:59 PM N 12:00 PM-12:59 PM N 1:00 PM- 1:59 PM Mid 69:Z-INd 00:Z N V\Id 69Â£ - Ed Â£ 0 INd69:*-INd 00:t INd 69:9 - INd 00:9 Mid 69:9 - INd 00:9 INd 69:2 -INd 00:Z INd 69:8 - Mid 00:8 39Â¥hIBAV w e 64 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~"I"~'=~~~ I PARKING Summary Vehicles Parked in Lots/Streets tÂ» 92 .* 9 1 0 0 July 27,2005 595 683 854 957 1015 1004 942 851 796 759 July 28,2005 531 661 795 965 1042 1007 953 893 890 887 798 July 29,2005 760 760 936 1068 1140 1154 1117 1061 934 894 924 July 30,2005 444 770 984 1124 1191: 1210)1153 1079 1109 1099 984 July 31, 2005 468 582 851 1069 1097 1084 1066 Open Space Counts .....i#I-.'.11_36 . July 27,2005 765 677 506 403 345 356 418 509 564 601 July 28,2005 829 699 565 395 318 353 407 467 470 473 522 562 July 29,2005 606 606 430 298 226 212 249 305 432 472 428 442 July 30,2005 922 596 382 242 175 l'EA 213 287 257 267 382 July 31, 2005 898 784 515 297 269 282 300 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 11:00 AM-11:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 PM 12:00 PM-12:59 P 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 ~ INd 697-Wd 00:Z INd 69:Z-Mid 00:E INd 69:C - Wd E | INd 69:C - Wd C Wd69*-MId 00* Mid69:*lld 00* Md 69:9 -Mid 00:9 Nd 69:9 - ~Id 00:9 Mid 69:9 - ~d 00:9 r ~Id 69:9 - ~Id 00:9 Uld 69:4 - ~Id 00:Z 1 2 1~Id 69:L - WWd 00:Z 8:00 AM -9:59 AM 8:00 AM -9:59 AM Mld 69:8 - INd 00:8 INd 69:8 - Wd 00:8 10:00 AM -10:59 AM CO e 65 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC'9 ~ PARKING Location Snapshot - Occupancy Percentage - Turnover Ratio - Open Spaces ~" AVERAGES -" 1 *- PEAK PERIOD LOCATION NAME Occupancy Turnover Open Occupancy Turnover Open Percentage Ratio Spaces Percentage Ratio Spaces AMERICAN LEGION 83.33% 2.92 8 100.00% 3.63 0 BIGHORN 78.05% 1.76 9 95.12% 2.39 2 BIG HORN DRIVE 51.43% 1.40 17 91.43% 2.03 3 BROWNSFIELD 83.33% 3.27 1 100.00% 4.67 0 CHILDRENS PARK 92.31% 3.23 4 100.00% 4.06 0 CLEAVE ST 55.81% 0.86 19 74.42% 1.23 11 COFFEE BAR 85.00% 3.30 3 100.00% 4.25 0 DARK HORSE 87.63% 3.79 12 100.00% 4.59 0 DEL'S A&W 26.19% 0.93 31 90.48% 1.95 4 EAST ELKHORN 83.33% 3.67 1 100.00% 5.17 0 EAST RIVERSIDE DR 83.33% 3.67 1 100.00% 4.50 0 WEST RIVERSIDE DR 63.16% 1.39 14 94.74% 1.87 2 ICE HOUSE 77.27% 3.00 10 100.00% 3.93 0 MACGREGOR N 35.48% 0.96 80 77.42% 1.60 28 MACGREGOR S 65.63% 2.31 11 93.75% 3.00 2 MORAINE AVE 60.00% 2.57 14 97.14% 3.37 1 MUNICIPAL 73.12% 2.13 75 94.27% 2.88 16 OLD LUMBER YARD 34.88% 1.17 56 72.09% 1.72 24 PARK LANE 82.93% 2.88 7 97.56% 3.76 1 POST OFFICE 67.02% 2.93 31 98.94% 4.22 1 TREGENT PARK 85.00% 3.65 3 100.00% 5.30 0 VIRGINIA DR 68.42% 2.37 6 94.74% 3.37 1 WEST ELKHORN 84.21% 3.00 3 94.74% 3.68 1 WEIST DRIVE 83.33% 1.89 3 100.00% 2.67 0 WEIST 75.21% 2.59 30 95.04% 3.51 6 TOTAL 449 103 e 66 of 116 1 vip I REPUBLIC 7 ="' PARKING Occupancy Percentage Ranking Report SURFACE LOT STREET SPACES~~~~ AVERAGE PEAK 1 92.31% AMERICAN LEGION 100.00% 2 1,- O- 87.63% BROWNSFIELD 100.00% 3 â€¢ :A- 85.00% CHILDRENS PARK 100.00% 4- ... 85.00% COFFEE BAR 100.00% 5 84.21% DARK HORSE 100.00% 6 Â· 0 83.33% EAST ELKHORN 100.00% il - 7 =-â€¢ 1 83.33% EAST RIVERSIDE DR 100.00% 8 Â· .. 83.33% ICE HOUSE 100.00% 9 83.33% TREGENT PARK 100.00% 10 , - 83.33% WEIST DRIVE ~ 100.00% 11 'Â·- Â· 82.93% POST OFFICE 98.94% 12 : .. 78.05% PARK LANE ~ 11111~ 97.56% 13 0 77.27% MORAINE AVE ~ 97.14% 1 - 14 75.21% BIGHORN 95.12% 15 73.12% WEIST 95.04% 16 - , - 68.42% WEST RIVERSIDE DR 94.74% 17 -â€¢ â€¢ 67.02% VIRGINIA DR 94.74% 18 65.63% WEST ELKHORN /~ 94.74% 19 63.16% MUNICIPAL 94.27% 20 0-Â· 60.00% MACGREGOR S ~ 93.75% 21 Â· 55.81% BIG HORN DRIVE 1 91.43% 22 : 0- D. 51.43% DEL'S A&W 90.48% 23 Â· 35.48% MACGREGOR N - 77.42% 1 : I ... 34.88% CLEAVE ST ~ 74.42% 25 â€¢ 26.19% OLD LUMBER YARD 72.09% e . . I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING Turnover Ratio Ranking Report SURFACE LOT STREET SPACES- AVERAGE PEAK 379 TREGENT PARK 5.30 2 Â· .. 3.67 EAST ELKHORN I 5.17 3 3.67 BROWNSFIELD 4.67 4- ... 3.65 DARK HORSE 4.59 5 â€¢ :.- 3.30 EAST RIVERSIDE DR 4.50 6 =-â€¢ 1 3.27 COFFEE BAR 4.25 7 ... 3.23 POST OFFICE 4.22 8 0 3.00 CHILDRENS PARK 4.06 9 3.00 ICE HOUSE 3.93 10 -0 â€¢ 2.93 PARK LANE V~ 3.76 11 Â· , 2.92 WEST ELKHORN 3.68 12 Â·- Â· 2.88 AMERICAN LEGION 3.63 13 2.59 WEIST 3.51 14 Â· 2.57 MORAINE AVE'I~ 3.37 15 - 2.37 VIRGINIA DR ~ 3.37 16 2.31 MACGREGOR S 3.00 17 2.13 MUNICIPAL 2.88 .. 18 1.89 WEIST DRIVE ~ 2.67 19 = .- 1.76 BIGHORN 2.39 20 : .0 1- 1.40 BIG HORN DRIVE V 2.03 21 - - 1 1- 1.39 DEL'S A&W 1.95 22 0 1 : - Â·-1 117 WEST RIVERSIDE DR 1.87 23 Â· 0.96 OLD LUMBER YARD 1.72 24 â€¢ 0.93 MACGREGOR N 'w 1.60 25 Â· 0.86 CLEAVE ST 1.23 - REPUBLIC~ ~ m PARKING IÂ¥*TE. Length of Stay Report - By Vehicles LOCATION NAME UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER TOTAL 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS VEHICLES AMERICAN 130 230 224 18 30 38 32 702 BIGHORN 67 78 59 15 32 10 100 361 | BIG HORN DRIVE 61 61 57 9 20 8 27 243 BROWNSFIELD 19 47 15 11 5 1 0 98 CHILDRENS 153 299 164 67 47 26 83 839 CLEAVE ST 32 24 31 5 28 10 57 187 COFFEE BAR 63 140 64 21 10 14 17 329 | DARK HORSE 339 609 607 140 105 23 16 1,839 DEL'S A&W 43 37 101 1 8 7 0 197 EASTELKHORN 16 17 29 5 0 0 0 67 EAST RIVERSIDE DR 20 48 35 5 3 1 0 112 WEST RIVERSIDE DR 23 63 34 26 25 32 61 264 ICE HOUSE 172 192 199 17 43 14 22 659 MACGREGORN 97 117 155 61 88 19 58 595 MACGREGOR S 102 90 96 43 25 5 11 372 MORAINE AVE 85 174 121 38 15 2 13 448 MUNICIPAL 679 678 894 230 265 58 171 2,975 LUMBER YARD 162 147 140 16 26 6 9 506 PARK LANE 149 141 190 38 56 8 10 592 POST OFFICE 281 565 315 123 43 22 28 1,377 TREGENTPARK 97 117 98 13 31 6 1 363 VIRGINIA DR 40 82 55 13 3 10 21 224 WEST ELKHORN 85 109 42 40 2 1 7 286 WEIST DRIVE 42 38 65 2 8 9 6 170 WEIST 338 538 443 24 82 65 75 1,565 TOTAL VEHICLES 3,295 4,641 4,233 981 1,000 395 825 15,370 e 69 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ I PARKING Length of Stay Report - By Percentages LOCATION NAME UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER UNDER OVER 1 HR 2 HRS 3 HRS 4 HRS 5 HRS 6 HRS 6 HRS AMERICAN 19% 33% 32% 3% 4% 5% 4% BIGHORN 19% 22% 16% 4% 9% 3% 28% BIG HORN DRIVE 25% 25% 23% 4% 8% 4% 11% BROWNSFIELD 20% 48% 15% 11% 5% 1% 0% CHILDRENS 18% 36% 20% 8% 5% 3% 10% CLEAVE ST 17% 13% 16% 3% 15% 6% 30% COFFEE BAR 19% 43% 20% 6% 3% 4% 5% DARK HORSE 18% 33% 33% 8% 6% 1% 1% DEL'S A&W 22% 19% 51% 0% 4% 4% 0% EAST ELKHORN 24% 25% 43% 7% 0% 0% 0% EAST RIVERSIDE DR 18% 43% 31% 5% 2% 1% 0% WEST RIVERSIDE DR DR 9% 24% 13% 10% 9% 12% 23% ICE HOUSE 26% 29% 30% 3% 7% 2% 3% MACGREGOR N 16% 20% 26% 10% 15% 3% 10% MACGREGOR S 27% 24% 26% 12% 7% 1% 3% MORAINE AVE 19% 39% 27% 8% 3% 0% 3% MUNICIPAL 23% 23% 30% 8% 9% 2% 5% LUMBER YARD 32% 29% 28% 3% 5% 1% 2% PARK LANE 25% 24% 32% 7% 9% 1% 2% POST OFFICE 20% 41% 23% 9% 3% 2% 2% TREGENT PARK 27% 32% 27% 4% 9% 1% 0% VIRGINIA DR 18% 37% 25% 6% 1% 4% 9% WEST ELKHORN 30% 38% 15% 14% 1% 0% 2% WEIST DRIVE 25% 22% 38% 1% 5% 5% 4% WEIST 22% 34% 28% 2% 5% 4% 5% AVERAGE 21% 30% 28% 6% 7% 3% 5% Paae 70 of 116 - REPUBL,d~ Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii = PARKING Employee Vehicles 7g27/1995.Â¢twed,jok..#*ye:.11.#I,M':,M.4,1 'MI:,M,AVA 4 :Mci 1 American Legion 8 16 10 12 12 12 Big Horn 23 25 25 19 9 20 Big Horn Drive 9 5 11 9 3 7 Brownsfield 0 3 1 0 0 1 Childrens 17 20 19 17 18 18 Cleave 18 23 12 9 4 13 Coffee Bar 2 8 9 8 3 1 6 Dark Horse 14 13 12 15 6 12 Del's A&W 0 1 1 1 0 ~ 1 Ice House 4 7 8 5 1 5 East Riverside 0 1 1 0 0 0 Morraine 2 6 3 3 0 3 MacGregor North 0 16 23 15 9 13 MacGregor South 0 0 3 0 0 1 Municipal 65 83 75 45 23 58 Old Lumber Yard 2 5 5 5 0 3 Parklane 1 2 8 4 1 3 Post Office 16 15 12 15 6 13 Tregent Park 0 2 1 1 1 1 Virginia Drive 4 4 5 2 3 4 Weist Lot 21 35 21 26 17 24 Weist Drive 0 0 0 2 1 1 West Elkhom 0 3 1 2 1 1 West Riverside 14 17 22 20 12 17 TOTALS 220 310 288 235 130 _ 237 e 71 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ I PARKING ...TE. Utilization Summary On Street Off Street I Overall I Average Peak Period Average Peak Period Average Peak Period Total Space Count 377 377 989 989 1366 1366 Less - Daily Parkers 170 245 510 673 680 918 - Employees 46 85 191 260 237 345 Total Open Spaces 161 47 288 56 449 103 Occupancy Percentage 57.29% 87.53% 70.88% 94.34% 67.13% 92.46% Turnover - Vehicles Parked 667 930 2415 3246 3082 4176 - Total Spaces 377 377 989 989 1366 1366 Turnover Ratio 1.77 2.47 2.44 3.28 2.26 3.06 The table above illustrates both the On-Street and Off-Street occupancy findings during the last week of July, 2005. Overall, on-street parking is 87.53% occupied and off-street is 94.34% occupied during the peak daytime period. As was shown in the Vehicles Parked/Open Space Summary earlier in this section, the lowest number of open spaces occurred between 2:00pm and 3:00pm on Saturday, July 30th. At this time, there were only 156 available spaces, which is 11% of the total space inventory, not including the spaces at the Visitor's Center. The next busiest day was on Friday, July 2gth as we had 1,154 spaces (84%) occupied between the time frame of 2:00pm and 3:00pm. For the remaining three days, the city was never more than 80% occupied which is what most municipalities across the country try to achieve. Earlier in this section, we included a "Turnover Ratio" ranking report that showed how much each lot turned over during the busiest day of the study and the average number of times each space turned over throughout the week. As you can see on the chart above, the on- street spaces turned over 2.47 times and the off-street spaces turned over 3.28 times during peak periods. On average, each space (1,366) in the city was occupied by 2.26 vehicles, which is a very favorable turnover ratio. As expected, the surface lots turned more frequently than the street spaces. We also included two Length of Stay Reports, one by total vehicles and one by percentages to show how long patrons were occupying the parking spaces. Overall, seventy-nine percent (79%) of the vehicles vacated their space within a three hour time frame. Another e 72 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 = PARKING IV-/ 16% of the vehicles were on the lot from 3 to 6 hours and the remaining 5% of the vehicles occupied a space for over 6 hours. For the entire week, we counted a total of 15,370 license plates which was an average of 3,082 vehicles per day utilizing one of the parking spaces. (Please note that this figure is off 8 vehicles due to the East Elkhorn spaces only being counted on just three of the days.) We also estimated a total of 237 employee vehicles parking in the 1,366 total spaces. The lots having the highest percentage of employees were the Municipal Lot, Weist Lot and Big Horn Lot. The day having the most employee vehicles was on Thursday. Obviously, this number is at best an estimated number due to not having an employee vehicle database to reference. To determine our number, we counted the total number of vehicles having the same license plate parking on one of the lots at least three of the days and a minimum of four hours. Paae 73bf-116 ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING .ver.. 5. OWNER SURVEYS This section contains information that was collected from a survey of the business owners in the area. Some of the owners were unavailable, and in that instance the information was provided by the manager of the business. For the purpose of this report the term "Owners" will include any manager who spoke on behalf of the business. The questions that were asked are as follows: 1) Do you believe there is a parking problem in Estes Park? 2) What complaint do you hear the most in regards to the parking? 3) Where do you currently park? 4) Where do your employees park? 5) Are you in favor of paid parking on the parking lots? 6) Do you believe a shuttle operation from a remote lot 1 mile away would help the parking situation? 7) Would you be willing to ride a shuttle? 8) Would you encourage your employees ride the shuttle? 9) What do you feel needs to be done to improve the parking in Estes Park? Name of Store: Location: Store Hours: Store Square Footage Total Employees Needing Parking Paae 74-0116 ~ REPUBLIC 7 - PARKING Do you believe there is a parking problem in Estes Park? Yes 114 82% No 25 18% 139 100% The first question on the survey; "Do you believe there is a parking problem in Estes Park?" Out of those surveyed, 82% of the owners felt that there is a parking problem, while the remaining 18% felt that there was no problem. NO, 18â€¢6 ige 75 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING ly'rE. What complaint do you hear the most in regards to parking? In conjunction with the first question the owners where then asked, "What complaints do you hear most in regards to parking?" The complaint with the highest percentage was "not enough spaces" at 34%. The other top complaints; 7% said that the 3 hour time limit was too short, 7% said customers complain about having to drive around looking for a space, 6% said the customers have to walk too far, and 6% said that there was inadequate signage directing customers to the parking lots. Finally, 9% of the owners said that they do not hear any complaints about parking. PARKING COMPLAINTS 6.74% 7.25% I Not Enough, I Have to walk to far. O Driving around to find a spot multiple lots. 03 Hour time limit to short. ~ 34.2006 I Signs directing to lots hard to see. 7.25% ~ 6.22% 1~ Here is a list of all of the complaints that were mentioned on the surveys and what percentage of the owners stated them. What complaint do you hear the most in regards to parking? Not enough parking spaces in town. 66 34.20% Have to walk too far from lot. 12 6.22% Driving around to multiple lots to find a space. 14 7.25% 3 Hour time limit too short. 14 7.25% Signs directing too lots hard to see. 13 6.74% ~age 76 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC 7 - PARKING .y.,2. Tickets not universally enforced. 6 3.11% No tickets should be given. 8 4.15% Not enough employee only parking. 3 1.55% Need employee parking close in. 4 2.07% Elderly can't find close spots. 2 1.04% Not enough handicapped spots. 2 1.04% Employees misuse time limits. 5 2.59% Employees/Owners should park farther out. 4 2.07% Spaces too small or hard to back out of. 3 1.55% Roads are too congested to get to lots. 3 1.55% Special Event staff and vendors need to be shuttled in to town. 3 1.55% Long time repeat customers are leaving because of parking. 4 2.07% Tickets should be for locals or employees, not visitors. 1 0.52% Employees should be exempt from 3 hour parking. 1 0.52% Tourist should be using remote lots. 1 0.52% Owners and Locals only complain, customers don't complain. 5 2.59% Double Parking 1 0.52% Do not hear any complaints. 18 9.33% 193 100.00% Survey Responses by Percentage 4.50% j 4.. .,- ...:gy... ..I:'>. .1 4.00% -- 3.50%-/- 3.00%- -1 - ~ 2.50% -~ 2.00%--i -1 ,--1 - 1.50% -1 - ~ r- - --I -- -- - 1.00%-~ _012_It $ 1 93/1 0, un W 3 i $ iii i: 11 Z E 2 9: S f mi.=Pj . 1- Z W 4 S.opual pU. ~6_/,Ma, m~o/no jeed/ a/,/ 5uol Ticketsnot universally enforce Not enough employee only parking Needemployeeparking close . 1 5.1//3,0.2/0 Alle wol idwaxi â€¢q p,notls saa holdwl Slol *'ow@, 6ulsn *q pin.s isunol 5UIM,Ud @Iqnoct . s,Boo ,0, ag p,nows ..401 sious' F Nuo saaioidula Bul>lied 1'04 Â£ wid/00 Aluostejol pIe INMO slau,o,sno ou 1 .0, 0, i.8 01 pal/6.00 01 speol Ige 77 of 116 - REPUBLI~- I PARKING ly... Where do you currently park? Private Space 40 28.78% Walk 9 6.47% Park Farther out to save room for customers. 8 5.76% Park as close as possible. 79 56.83% No answer 3 2.16% 139 100% OWNERS PARKING m Private Space ~ 28.78% I Walk 031 o Park Farther out to save room for customers. ~ ~ 6.47% , Park as close as V 5.76% possible. Paae 78-6f-116 - REPUBL,a ~ I PARKING ...... Where do your employees currently park? No employees 36 26.47% Private Space 6 4.41% Walk 11 8.09% Park Farther out to save room for customers. 6 4.41% Park as close as possible. 77 56.62% 136 100% EMPLOYEE PARKING 4.41% ..7 8.09% m Private Space r. ~\ 4.41% , Walk o Park Farther out to save room for customers , Park as close as possible e 79 ort-16 I REPUBLIC 7 ~ = PARKING ~ ly.reâ€¢ Where do They Park? 25.00% 125, 20.00% 15.00% 1 Employers - 1 Employees 10,00% - 5.00% - - 0.00% - r~ 1 'F 11 1 1 o m 0 , ,&- n 3 â€¢@ f g N 9 E =e E M<-21 2- 6 2 < 1 =34 6 AM r U) r ., -10 C C 06 - -J < 0 . .U'.- m Â£ L Q = a' 9. . co O 6- I = O JO r-a 0 .C 0/ {n 6- CO CO O I. (D t= CO 80|JJO Isod Tregent / Virgiania Avenue W Riverside Drive Weistld ................................... Weist Drive WI- American Browns Field Childrens Park Cleave Street ' Dark H Elkhorn ve Old Lumber Visitor Center ige 80 of 116 - REPUBLIC 7 = PARKING Are you in favor of paid parking on the lots? YES 56 40.88% NO 81 59.12% 137 100% The next issue that the survey addressed was paid parking. When the owners were asked if they were in favor of paid parking on the lots, 59% said that they were not in favor of paid parking and 41% said that they would support paid parking in the lots. In addition, several comments where made by some of the owners. Those comments are listed below: Comments Where would the money go? 2 If it wasn't too much 7 No, it would drive people away 5 Only tourist should pay, not locals 2 Only in a garage 22 For close in lots only 5 On-Street parking only (meters) 3 e 81 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC~ ~ PARKING ...... Shuttle Questions: Do you believe a shuttle operation from a remote lot 1 mile away would help the parking situation? YES 95 69.34% NO 42 30.66% 137 100% Would you be willing to ride a shuttle? YES 72 53% NO 65 47% 137 100% Would you encourage your employees to ride a shuttle? YES 73 63% NO 43 37% 116 100% In conjunction with the question of paid parking on the lots, the owners were asked some questions regarding a shuttle operation. First, they were asked if they felt a shuttle operation could help the parking situation. Most of the owners (69%) felt that a shuttle operation from a remote lot 1 mile away from downtown would indeed help the situation. However, thirty-percent (31%) felt that it would not help solve the problem. The owners were then asked if they would utilize the shuttle and whether they would encourage their employees to utilize the shuttle. Of the owners who support the shuttle, 53% said they would take advantage of the shuttle and 63% of the owners said that they would encourage their employees to utilize the shuttle. Out of the 69% that would support the shuttle, the following comments were made: â€¢ The shuttle needs to run consistently and with frequent stops. â€¢ It should be used for Visitors only. â€¢ It should be used for special events or season only. â€¢ It should be used for employees only. â€¢ It should have operating hours that are a half hour before opening and 1 hour after closing. â€¢ Some owners stated that they support the shuttle but that they would not be able to use it because they need quick access to their vehicle to move merchandise. â€¢ Some feel the shuttle should resemble the trolley. The owners that would not recommend the shuttle to their employees had the following reasons. â€¢ They would not want their older staff to ride. â€¢ They would not want late night employees to ride. â€¢ They have concerns that it would make employees late for work. Paae 82 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ = PARKING ly.... What do you feel needs to be done to improve parking in Estes Park? The final question on the survey "what do you feel needs to be done to improve the parking?" had numerous answers. To begin, 36% of the owners felt that a parking garage was the best solution to the city's parking needs. The following chart illustrates the owner's recommendations for possible locations. GARAGE LOCATIONS Post Office, Cleave Street, 2.04% 4.08% Municipal Lot, ~ 10.20% ~ Weist Lot, In addition, the following comments were made about a parking garage: â€¢ Too expensive to build â€¢ Traffic entering and exiting the garage will cause more problems â€¢ Need to build the garage underground or have a low profile garage â€¢ Need to build more than one garage â€¢ Have a garage with retail space on bottom and sales tax can pay for it â€¢ Build the garage out of downtown The second recommendation from the owners was regarding parking enforcement. A small amount of the owners (20/0) felt that there should be no time limit on any of the parking lots. However, some felt that the time limits should remain and all the lots should have a 3 hour limit. Furthermore, some of the owners felt that we should not ticket patrons who are violators. If the ticketing system must remain in place, then many feel that the ticketing needs to be more consistent and there should not be any exceptions to the rules. Also, some believe that the visitors should not be ticketed at all and it should only be enforced with the locals who violate the parking guidelines. e 83 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 = PARKING The third recommendation from the owners concerned management of existing spaces. For instance, better advertising of existing parking on websites, brochures, etc. Some additional comments are: â€¢ Better signage directing visitors to parking lots â€¢ Use the police to direct visitors to parking lots â€¢ Re-stripe lots to better utilize space â€¢ Use full signs on lots to eliminate visitors having to drive around â€¢ Stop taking parking spaces away in order to add more retail space â€¢ Charge for parking on closer lots and use this money to build a parking structure â€¢ Relocate all RV parking outside of downtown area â€¢ Make parking lot repairs to make lots safer â€¢ No more extension of river-walk â€¢ Lots are not really full, need better utilization before building any new parking spaces take place â€¢ Change traffic flows to parking lots â€¢ Make Elkhorn Pedestrian Only e 84 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING ..... 6. VISITOR SURVEYS The following information has been collected from surveys that were completed by visitors of Estes Park. The majority of the customers who responded to our surveys were conducted in the parking lots surrounding the downtown area; However, some were conducted by walking down the streets of the downtown area and asking visitors. The questions that were asked are as follows: 1) How long did it take you to find a parking space? 2) How many lots did you try to park in before this lot? 3) Would you be willing to pay for parking if it meant quicker access to a parking space? 4) Would you be willing to ride a shuttle from a remote lot 1 mile away from downtown? 5) How often do you come to Estes Park? 6) Please rate the overall parking situation in Estes Park: DATE: TIME OF DAY: # 1N PARTY Adults Kids LICENSE PLATE # LOCATION: e 85 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ I PARKING How long did it take you to find a parking space? 1-4 min 135 56.02% 5-9 min 47 19.50% 10-14min 27 11.20% 15-19 min 16 6.64% 20-24 min 9 3.73% 25 min+ 7 2.90% 241 100.00% How many lots did you try to park in before this lot? 0 Lots 87 36.10% 1 Lot 82 34.02% 2 Lots 45 18.67% 3 Lots 20 8.30% 4 Lots 6 2.49% 5 Lots 1 0.41% 241 100.00% The first question that the visitors were asked was, "how long did it take you to find a parking space?". The majority of the visitors, 56%, found a space within 4 minutes. The second question was, "how many lots did you try to park in?". Out of those that found a space within 4 minutes, 36% of them said they were able to park in the first lot that they tried. The second highest percentage of visitors, 19%, claimed that it took them between 5 to 9 minutes to find a space, and 34% of them tried one lot before the one they found a parking space in. The third highest, 11% of the visitors, claimed that it took 10 to 14 minutes to find a parking space and 18% claimed to have tried 2 other parking lots before finding a space in the third lot. The charts on the next page will show the full results of the first two survey questions. e 86 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 ~ I PARKING ~ ...... How long did it take you to find a space? 60.00%-/ ~ /1 . 50.00% ./ 40.00% -~ 30 00%/ 11 d 1-1 10.00%-c 1 - 27-~1 11 1~~ .~*i- 4 3 Â¢f â‚¬f * 9 4 45 2 0 Time How many lots did you try to park before this one? 40.00% J 35.00% f 30.00% 25.00%-~ 20 00% 15 00% 10.00% 5.00%- -foll'll 000%-- - . 1 . .. ... 1 - It 1 0 Lots 1 Lot 2 Lots 3 Lots 4 Lots 5 Lots Number of Lots ige 87 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 - = PARKING - Ivsre. Would you be willing to pay for parking if it meant quicker access to a parking space? YES 111 46.06% NO 126 52.28% NOT SURE 4 1.66% 241 100.00% The third question asked was, "would you be willing to pay for parking if it meant quicker access to a parking space?" The results showed that 52% said that they would not be willing to pay while 46% said they would be willing to pay for parking. Would you be willing to pay for parking if it meant quicker and easier access? NOT SURE, 1.66% YES, 46.06% r'a~>i ~, NO, 52.28% 11~ iw.:EL- Page 88 of 116 Would you be willing to ride a shuttle from a remote lot one mile away from downtown? YES 137 56.85% NO 102 42.32% NOT SURE 2 0.83% 241 100.00% For the next question, "would you be willing to ride a shuttle from a remote lot one mile away from downtown?", 56% said that they would ride a shuttle while 42% said that they would not ride a shuttle. Would you be willing to ride a shuttle from a remote lot one mile away from downtown? NOT SURE, 0.83% NO, 42.32% ~ - ~ YES, 56.85% . ige 89 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING Paid Parking Breakdown The surveys were broken down even further by separating the results on the question "would you be willing to pay for parking?". Based on those that were willing to pay for parking and those that were not willing to pay, the results are the following: On those that are willing to pay for a parking space, 51% of them found a space within 1 to 4 minutes and out of those, 32% got a space in the first lot they attempted to park in. In addition, 68% of those willing to pay for parking are also willing to ride a shuttle from a remote lot 1 mile away from downtown. These same visitors, 74%, rated the overall parking situation in Estes Park as Good to Fair. Furthermore, 49% of these visitors visit the Estes Park area at least one time a year, 23% visit 2-4 times a year and 10% are residents. Of those that are not willing to pay for a parking space, 60% of them found a space within 1-4 minutes and 29% found a space between 5-14 minutes. In conjunction, 43% found a space in the second lot that they attempted to park in. The number that found a space in the first lot they attempted was 35%. In addition, of those that were not willing to pay for parking, 51% said they would not ride a shuttle while 48% said they would. These same visitors, 41Â°/0, rated the overall parking situation as Good. Furthermore, 38% of those that oppose paid parking visit Estes Park at least once a year and 24% between 2 and 4 times a year, while 23% said they visit more than 5 times a year. The residents accounted for 13%. Shuttle Breakdown The surveys were broken down even further by separating the results on the question "would you be willing to ride a shuttle?". Below are the results of those who said they would be willing to ride a shuttle and those that are not willing to ride a shuttle. Of the 56% that are in support of a shuttle operation, 61% were able to find a parking space within 1 to 4 minutes and 18% within 5-9 minutes. In addition, 37% found a space in the first lot they attempted to park in and 35% in the second lot that they attempted to park in. In addition, 52% of those that are in support of a shuttle are also in support of paid parking. Furthermore, these visitors ranked the overall parking as follows: 16% Excellent, 39% Good, 26% Fair, and 16% Fair. In connection with the overall rating, 45% of the visitors visit the Estes Park area at least once a year, 24% 2-4 times a year, 19% 5 times or more and 9% are residents. Of the 42% that are not in support of a shuttle operation, 51% were able to find a space within 1 to 4 minutes, 21% in 5 to 9 minutes and 11% in 10 to 14 minutes. In addition, 37Â°/0 found a space in the first lot they attempted to park in, 34% in the second lot attempted and 16% in the third lot. Subsequently, out of those that do not support the shuttle, 63% also do not support paid parking while 35% do support paid parking. Furthermore, these visitors rated the parking situation in Estes Park as follows: 9% Excellent, 42% Good, 36% Fair, and 11% Poor. The majority of these visitors, 410/0, visit the area once a year. Those that visit between 2 to 4 times a year made up 260/0,5 times or more was 17% and 15% are residents. e 90 of 116 I REPUBLIC V ~ I PARKING ~ How often do you come to Estes Park? 0-1.X'Sy___ 106 43.98% 2-4 x's yr 62 25.73% 5+ x's yr 44 18.26% Resident 29 12.03% No Answer 0 0.00% 241 100.00% How often do you come to Estes Park? 45 00% 40 00%-~f 35.00%- L 30.00% -~ 25.00%- 20.00% / 4 15 00% 10 00%- 5 00% 0 00%_/ -:@WAÂ¢=01/& 0-1 x's yr 2-4 x's 5+ x's yr Resident year ige 91 of 116 1 " ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING .V.r.. Please rate the overall parking situation in Estes Park? Excellent 32 13.28% Good 96 39.83% Fair 76 31.54% Poor 35 14 52% No Answer 2 0.83% 241 100.00% Overall Rating i 40 00%*t l 35.00%- 1 30 00%-~ 25.00%- 1 / 20 00% - 1 15.00% -~ 10.00%- 1 / 5.00%- 7*1'41'P 1 -'=h=.mul,leall/Pr.... 0.00% . h..t Excellent Good Fair Poor No Answer I Seriesl 13.28% 39.83% 31.54% 14,52% 0.83% . ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING 7. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Re-stripe the Weist Parking Lot to eliminate the lost spaces due to large vehicles. 2. Create a uniform signage program and install additional signage at key areas of the city. 3. Develop an employee parking program. a. Designate outlying lots for employee parking b. Eliminate the "3 Hour" parking c. Create a parking policy and institute enforcement program. 4. Create "short term employee spaces" so the employees have quick and easy access to their vehicles. a. Implement an employee valet parking service on the Weist Parking Lot. b. Create a few short term employee spaces on a couple of the core downtown lots. 5. Implement a transit system to shuttle visitors from the Fairgrounds to downtown. a. Promote use of the Fairgrounds for RV parking 6. Create an employee shuttle bus program from the Fairgrounds to downtown. OTHER OPTIONS A. Institute a golf cart shuttle service for patrons parking on MacGregor Avenue North. B. Install multi-space meters on the Children's Park Lot, Dark Horse Lot and Coffee Bar Lot and create paid parking program. C. Study the feasibility of a parking structure. e 93 of 116 - REPUBLIC~ ~ I PARKING .r.... 1. Reconfigure the Weist Parking Lot The current layout on the Weist Parking Lot has a total of 121 spaces plus another 150 feet of space for RV parking. Unfortunately, because of the existing layout, a big portion of this lot does not get utilized efficiently. Therefore, our first recommendation that should be done immediately, is to re-stripe the middle section of the lot that currently contains 26 parking spaces. During the study, there were many times in which the only spaces remaining were in this section. However, because the spaces are only seven and a half feet wide, many of the spaces were not accessible due to larger vehicles parking over the lines. On Saturday, between the period of 1:00pm and 8:00pm, this lot was completely full with the exception of this area. Unfortunately, because of the high number of oversized vehicles, these spaces could not be used. The width of these spaces are not the only problem. The length of the stalls are also a problem as they are only 15 feet. Typically, trucks and vans (both mini and conversion) are 16 to 19 feet in length. Currently, the middle section is only 30 feet wide which by industry standards, is six feet short. During our visit, we noticed on numerous occasions, vehicles struggling to back out of a space on the north side of the lot because the vehicles in the middle section were sticking out to far. The RV Parking spaces on the south side of the lot next to the rock wall are underutilized as we did not see one RV parked in this area throughout the entire study. Because of the configuration of the middle section, we believe patrons would rather park in other lots to avoid having their RV damaged. Therefore, we believe it makes most sense to remove the RV parking spaces from the Weist Lot and move the middle section ten feet (10') closer to the rock wall. The stalls should be lengthened by 3 feet on each side and the width extended from 7 1/2 feet to 8 1/2 feet. In addition, another two stalls could be added on the west side of the bay which would give the lot an additional 2 spaces. With the number of lost stalls due to the current configuration and the addition of two more spaces, the lot could easily handle six to eight more vehicles. The total expense of graying out the existing spaces, re-striping new spaces and painting arrows on the ground would be approximately $175 to $225 by a professional striping company. We have included on the next page both the current layout and the proposed configuration. e 94 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 I"' PARKING IVE". Existing Layout RV PARKING -1-1 4 3 = = = = == 0 = $ == = = = = 2 ' >Â»--h I=1-111Â»11111 I I Proposed Layout == R 4 -I- - = = = D >- C== 411111111111 it e 95 of 116 1 I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING 2. Signage Program During the study process, Republic Parking System identified a number of areas where additional traffic signage would be helpful to managing the vehicular traffic. For instance, in certain areas of the city, there is no signage directing the customers to other parking lots once the close-in lots become full. During the survey process, first time visitors to Estes Park stated they were confused on exactly where to go for the best and most convenient parking. Republic Parking System worked with a professional sign company in Denver to figure out the best way to improve the current graphics plan. One thing they recommended was to keep it simple and use one theme throughout the city. Currently, there are several different types of signs which we believe go unnoticed. When customers first drive into the city, the first type of sign they see is the type shown below that is located at the entrance of the Municipal Lot. A \ ' O 2/61 /Fil 1 - Â£'- P : -r 1 Nk '40% .2-/r $ \, *4.4 '.2.~f.!7 %4. 4 '<Mkt) : .r~; t..4 i ~0~~4- 1. :*fr 1 ' ...-&/ . Â·- , 4/ 1 9 '25 .. .6 1 ,,..: t .-41% -0. Pll 0 1 ~ I : -/ .*/*ID , ,.fâ€¢fm 04 V . ...2-%04 LI ..7 , f 6- 1-3244 293 ""(*MY**pl k 43 161 - I illillifflillfilillililllillilll A M:%1 '...1 ~ 2EHU 1-\ 4 4 .' -21- ...7 . 1 -k-4 ..- b .~43/---dizili~ A . 11 531 - 315~ 1 I t. ~f*P....1 4 - -b ' . E . ' 1 1 1 - 1 7 I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING As the patron proceeds further down Elkhorn Avenue, this type of sign becomes more difficult to find as more of the traditional type of parking signs (green reflective letters on white background) have been installed throughout the city. However, in talking to the visitors, a majority of them did notice these signs and proceeded directly to the parking lot in which the sign was intended. Because this type of sign is noticeable, we are recommending using the architectural sign shown on the previous page but changing it to a white background with the green reflective lettering. The areas we feel these signs should be installed are shown on the next few pages. Children's Park Entrance Currently, a high number of vehicles pull into the Children's Park entrance located off of East Riverside Drive. They will circle the lot numerous times with the hope of finding a parking space. If they are unsuccessful, they exit out of the lot and proceed north towards Elkhorn Avenue and either continue north towards Park Lane or turn left and go west down Elkhorn Avenue. When patrons were asked about this, many stated they were unaware of any parking lots south of Elkhorn Avenue. Therefore, we recommend placing a sign just to the south of the Children's Park entrance stating additional parking down Riverside Drive. 1/4 1' I 'kit W .R 67. 'P4 +U - 4 .1*4 '.1 U - '4 - ;..Â· Â· .4 It ~ 4 4 if ... 0.4 1.- 41 Â£ 1-Â·:u./4/.....6 1% 7 1 :.6:--'42{AGE*14 4 11' '4Â£4.zinÂ·'2!~ik, 1 -c, . , 5 :t .iÂ·i:Â§4'A '(* le.*../9 ep , Â» 9 Â¢lt Â·I K:7 , 1. 1 p f _ - 4.---- - Â»Â·*14~42Â£-.[ i ~ ,:,.. -.,2.~ ~6'>'~A'*lit~, ' . / -- J*-EL-* - ...A . ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING ...TE. 1 1 11 1 1 1 t.P I , 1 4. 4/ b.%4*tâ„¢ ./ h .: ....96 â€¢ I 4. 1 + -'Pi. , 2 WA. 1 'Z + I g .071Â§ - I + ;... 1 , 1 ARKING C , 48 1 1 r. *11 i ;v ; -=i f. -= : I ' i:j-:w 11% 11...,1 11; 41, ; : . 7 .' :.. 1 *: ~Â· 24?f - :16 I 1 j 4. 1 Once they arrive at the intersection of East Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street, we then recommend installing a sign directing them to the Dark Horse and Post Office Lot's. 1 1 Â·.t i: 4Â· 9 Â· 9 , .:3 -1, ~'- 4 y 372 2 .r , ' 1 4,1 1 . 1 72*r Â·11 1,1 / I : 724- 3/IMMI'l~Fiw 54â€¢ I. &i1 I -Â»ef.# 9**A *.,..';Â· - il I : 1 . 3 *f 1 Ny I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING ...rEM West Riverside Drive The next area that could use directional signage is at the south exit of the Post Office Lot. Many of the visitors we spoke to said they were unaware of any parking spaces along West Riverside Drive and therefore, turned left out of the lot and proceeded north towards Elkhorn Avenue. Although some patrons felt these spaces created too long of a walk, others said they would have utilized the space had they been aware of them. - ..,-.-'.6t~4~ 1 0, Ut. Â·30Â·17* .8444/.Â£.189--90 Â·iblk/*. 6/ fjw..8 :..9-~6. 2: ' r 1,6 --v....." "IN -./ 1 + Â£- I. Â»b 9 7.' Fil~ - Â¥ /1 4-1 .- . . .. MA.,9.M~ .- 11 ~~P".-W'*'.*-.7:-JÂ·-= --=7.-1-- --i 1 - -ill//2/=W---P'--AF.../...imill.- - -*92:11- v L-63///2- not j ~.St - e Q , ./ . ~ 449Â¥*''t :fi?,t:./Wik ... - - 1....u....&,-L Moraine Avenue/Elkhorn Avenue Intersection Another area that could be improved is at the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Elkhorn Avenue. Currently, the sign on the street light shows parking to the west and south. Unfortunately, unless you are familiar with the city, there is no signage indicating parking on Big Horn Drive. In speaking with the sign company, they recommend removing the parking sign from the street pole and placing a larger sign showing parking in all three directions. 11 --6--FH-Il 1 N, I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING ..... , , K,1 0 "%... it 1 , 16- 1 . 19 li- r .t 1 1 4Â§.r 34.71 Â·3 - 1 ~' -Â© ", i, f i --4/ : 2.Â® , 0-4 1 1- - 1 1 Mil.~ L 1 14 .. 1 4- 1 1 / 11 -* I -f E-fi*. , ./.-1 - As you proceed west on Elkhorn Avenue, the sign on the south side of the street clearly shows parking on the Weist Lot. However, the sign on the north side of the street goes virtually unnoticed because it blends in with the shops and his hidden behind trees. Therefore, we recommend moving this sign to the south side of the street and continuing with the signage theme. . 1739#MI.Z. 2 .... 1 R. I' 1 21 1 t 41.1 - =-,tr,Â¥4@ ' It 41 1 4--iMP 2 li iff f Â¥-1 r f . 9%1*44 . .4... . 0/t.w . * t'J: NT 'Â·~;:1~2%0; :; t, r' Â·Â· . 1 ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING .rer.. MacGregor Avenue North One other area that could be improved is at the start of MacGregor Avenue North. We recommend installing two signs on this drive, one at the start of the spaces and one further north on the east side of the street. 1 Â· t.*19&#4*#:ts ' 3:~4-Â· A-f:,.'ME'.I,~,k.f,:w,T ri $.i:,3Jl~i3 ,Â·n' i : 1 li 1 fi . ., 9 I 03: . pi IM; I < 1. VA: 7 . 4-"; - 4 1 ,Â£:4 4 3 ... Ad .4 . 1 411 'titill:.1 1 111 -1 â€¢ 1+ IL- 44-, .. 1 lili'/ lili" UP dill ' 12........1 twA. 1 - 74;1:i 1- - REPUBL,d~ Illlllllllilllllllllilllllllllilllllllllllllllllllliliiiiiiiiii = PARKING Ill-/ 3. Develop an Employee Parking Program A. Designate Employee Parking Lots The results from the Store Owner and Visitor surveys told us that one of the main reasons patrons feel there is a parking problem in Estes Park is because there is not enough parking spaces. Of all the complaints the store owners say they hear, 34.20% gave this as their reason. This was twenty-five percent higher than the next most common reason which was "they do not hear any complaints". However, based on the results of our car counts, it would appear that this statement is not true as the average occupancy for the entire city was just over sixty-seven percent (67.13%) during the week of the study. Even at the peak period of 2:00pm on Saturday July 30th, there were still 156 total parking spaces not being utilized. In looking at the results of the study, both the surveys and car counts, it is easy to understand why patrons have this perception. Although 56% of the patrons can find a space within one to four minutes, the other 44% say it takes anywhere from 5 to 25 minutes. Although they eventually find a parking space, the patrons have to drive to two or more lots to find any openings. In most instances, patrons will drive to the lot that is closest to their destination. Since so many of the shops are right on the main drive (Elkhorn), they usually drive to the lots that are the most visible, in this case, the Municipal, Coffee Bar, Children's Park and American Legion lots. Once these lots filled up, they then proceeded to the next closest lot which are the Dark Horse Lot, Post Office Lot, Weist Lot and the street spaces along Park Lane, Virginia Drive, Moraine Avenue and MacGregor Avenue South. If patrons were able to find a parking space on their first or even second attempt, they would most likely have a different perception. It is important to remember that spaces were open, just hard to find. Although increasing signage will help to correct this problem, another thing that would greatly help is designating employee parking lots. In looking at the results of the store owner surveys, almost 57% of the owners say they park as close as possible to their store. In addition, 56.62% say their employees park as close as possible. Obviously, with this type of attitude, the close-in and most desirable spaces will always fill up first making it appear there is not enough of a parking space supply. By designating several of the outlying lots as "employee parking lots" and getting buy in from the owners to use these lots, it would relieve the pressure on the parking inventory in the middle of downtown. Based on the car counts during this week of the study, it would appear that the best lots to designate as employee parking lots would be as follows: Del's A&W Lot - During the study, this lot was only occupied 26% of the time, which was the lowest of the 25 parking areas. On average, only one employee vehicle was found to be parking in this lot and it is currently striped for 42 vehicles. Old Lumber Yard - This lot was the second most under utilized location in the city as the average occupancy was just 34.88%. At its peak period (6:00pm on Thursday, July 28% there were 24 open spaces. This lot is currently striped to handle 86 vehicles. e 102 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 i PARKING IÂ¥'r!,0 MacGregor Avenue North - This strip of spaces can hold 124 vehicles, yet only 35% of them are occupied on an average basis. At its peak period, there were only 96 vehicles parked along this street. We found an average of 13 employee vehicles in this area. Municipal Lot - Although this was a very popular parking lot for both employees and visitors of Estes Park, we did not see this lot become completely full during any of the days. The average occupancy for the week was 73.12%. This lot had the highest number of employees as the average for the week was 58. On Thursday, we found a total of 83 employee vehicles. West Riverside Drive - For the most part, these spaces are utilized by employees and should continue to be used as such. These spaces are the furthest south and not desirable by visitors of Estes Park. On average, we found just 7 daily parkers and 17 employees using these spaces. There are a total of 38 spaces in this area. Weist Lot - Although this lot came close to filling on four of the five days, the average occupancy was just 75.21%. It was a very popular lot for employees as we saw an average of 24 per day and had a maximum of 35 on Thursday. We recommend using the west portion of this lot for an employee valet service which could handle 30 to 35 employee vehicles. During the study, our counts showed there to be an average of 237 employee vehicles parked at one of the 25 locations. However, on Thursday, we found 310 employee vehicles which was the highest total for the week. If we assume that 310 spaces need to be available to satisfy the total number of employee and store owner vehicles, these six lots would more than cover the demand. To better illustrate this, we have included a chart below showing the total spaces available on each lot. Parking Total Number of Spaces Location Available for Employees Dels A&W 43 Old Lumber Yard 86 MacGregor Avenue North 124 Municipal Lot 83 * Weist Lot 35 ** West Riverside 38 Total Spaces 409 Total Number of Employees 310 * Spaces Available for Visitors 99 * Peak number of employees found during study ** Total available spaces with employee valet service e 103 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING B. Eliminate the "3 Hour" parking policy One of the more common complaints the store owner's told us they hear from patrons in regards to the parking is that the "3 Hour" time limit on a few of the lots is too short. Many of the comments made to our staff was that the town was driving away customers who would most likely spend more money shopping if they weren't so worried about getting a parking ticket. Although this may be a perception by some visitor's, it was never mentioned to our staff during the study. In looking at the Length of Stay Report - By Percentages, it appears the majority of the patrons park less than three hours, regardless if there is a 3 hour limit or not. Overall, seventy-nine percent (79%) of the 15,370 total vehicles we saw during the five days left their parking space within three hours. When comparing the busiest locations in relation to their occupancy and turnover ratio, the percentage of patrons leaving the lots are relatively the same. For instance, the Dark Horse and Coffee Bar Lots have "3 Hour" spaces and the percentage of patrons leaving within three hours on these lots are 84% and 82% respectively. The Tregent Park and American Legion Lots do not have any "3 Hour" parking spaces and the percentage of patrons leaving these lots within three hours is 86% and 84% respectively. The lot that had the highest average occupancy during the week was Children's Park Lot. For the five days, 74% of the patrons left within three hours which is below the previously mentioned four lots. However, because we found an average of 18 employee's parking in this lot, these numbers are skewed and most likely would have been over 80% had one-third of this lot not been occupied by employees. Therefore, it is our opinion that since the majority of the patrons park less than 3 hours, whether or not it is enforced with "3 Hour" signs, that the 3 hour policy be eliminated and the signs removed. This would not only please the store owner's but also give visitors additional time to shop. However, this can only happen if an employee program is created and enforced (detailed in the next section), and certain lots be designated as employee parking lots. C. Create a Parking Policy and Institute an Enforcement Program In order to provide convenient parking to the visitors of Estes Park and eliminate the store owners perception that the city has a parking problem, the lots and streets should be monitored on a daily basis. Along with creating designated employee parking lots and eliminating the "3 Hour" spaces, a parking policy should be established. When putting together the policy, it should specifically address the areas that are designated as "Visitor" spaces and the areas designated as "Employee and Visitor" spaces. Based on the areas mentioned in section A on the previous pages, we have put together the following chart that outlines each of the recommended areas. e 104 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING VISITOR ONLY SPACES VISITOR & EMPLOYEE SPACES PARKING LOT TOTAL SPACES PARKING LOT TOTAL SPACES AMERICAN LEGION 48 DEL'S A&W 43 BIGHORN LOT 41 MACGREGOR NORTH 124 BIG HORN DRIVE 35 MUNICIPAL LOT 279 BROWNSFIELD 6 OLD LUMBER YARD 86 CHILDRENS PARK 52 WEST RIVERSIDE 38 CLEAVE ST 43 C0FFEE BAR 20 TOTAL SPACES 570 DARK HORSE 97 EASTELKHORN 6 EAST RIVERSIDE DR 6 ICE HOUSE 44 MACGREGORSOUTH 32 MORAINE AVE 35 PARKLANE 41 POST OFFICE 94 TREGENT PARK 20 EMPLOYEE VALET SPACES VIRGINIA DR 19 WEST ELKHORN 18 WEIST LOT 22 WEIST DRIVE 18 WEIST 99 TOTAL SPACES 774 As you can see on the chart, we have designated 774 spaces that we feel should only be used for visitors of Estes Park. The policy should then stipulate the rules and regulations for these 774 spaces. For example, any employee or store owner parking their vehicle in one of these spaces while they are at work will result in the vehicle being ticketed and/or towed at the owner's expense. A citation policy should then be agreed upon that monitors violators of the parking policy. After the parking policy is created, it is then very important to set up a method of enforcement. A fair and consistent enforcement plan is vital to maintaining enough parking spaces for the visitors of Estes Park and ensuring the success of the parking plan. Our recommended staffing plan includes two enforcement personnel to continuously monitor the 774 visitor parking spaces. The two enforcement personnel would work between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm Wednesday through Sunday. The enforcement personnel would continuously walk each of the "Visitor Only" locations and electronically chalk tires with a Klancy handheld ticket writer. Based on our experience with these types of handheld ticket writer's, we have found that our employee's can typically e 105 of 116 I REPUBLIC 7 = PARKING ...r.. check 100 parking spaces per hour. Therefore, having two full time enforcement personnel on duty will allow you to check approximately 1,600 parking spaces per day. Since we have designated 774 spaces in the enforcement area, each space would be checked two times per day. It is our recommendation that the enforcement personnel have specific routes they would be required to follow. When putting together the routes, it is important to utilize each officer's time while ensuring they are not having to back track along an area that was already checked. Obviously, the time it takes each personnel to complete their route will vary depending on the number of vehicles parked and total tickets written during the route. Obviously, having the Klancy handheld ticket writer will help in electronically tire-chalking each automobile in the parking lots and streets; print warning violations; keep fresh and accurate information; and maintain an accurate database of information. An important part of any enforcement program is the penalty phase of the program. After a license plate is found on one of the visitor parking lots/streets over a 3 hour time frame and a total of three times, a parking violation will be issued. Upon the issuance of a parking violation, a systematic tracking of the violation must be in place. Any repeat offenders who continuously disregard the Town of Estes Park parking policies should then be dealt with as specified in the parking policy. Republic Parking System recommends the following structure of penalties: 1. First Ticket - Warning without Fee 2. Second Ticket - $10.00 Fee 3. Third Ticket - $25.00 Fee 4. Fourth Ticket - Tow Vehicle is previously assessed fines are not paid The utilization of the Klancy technology can provide you with access to a collection agency which specializes in the collections of unpaid parking fees. It is our understanding that the Klancy handheld ticket writer machines have been purchased and therefore, have included just the costs of administering this program. ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM Estimated Costs EXPENSES Payroll - Violations Audit Clerk (4 hours x $12/hr x 2 days x 22 weeks) $2,112 - 2 Enforcement Personnel (8 hours x $12/hr x 5 days x 22 weeks) $10,560 Total Payroll $12,672 Payroll Taxes $1,394 Insurance - Workers Compensation $760 Uniforms $300 Supplies $440 Total Estimated Costs $15,566 Paae 106 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC~- ~ PARKING .V.TE. 4. Create Short Term Employee Spaces A. Implement Employee Valet on the Weist Parking Lot As mentioned in both the survey results and the last section, over half of the store owners stated that they and their employees park as close as possible to their store. When questioned about the shuttle service, although many (69.34%) believe it would help the parking situation, a big concern with the shuttle was not having their vehicle close enough to their business. The common theme to why these questions were answered this way was because of the necessity to move merchandise from one location to another and the handling of the proceeds at the end of the day. Since this was obviously a concern to many of the store owners, we believe it is important to create a few short term parking spaces in key areas of the city. O u r fi rst recommendation is to create an employee valet service on the west side of the Weist Parking Lot. With the current configuration of the parking spaces, the west end of the lot has a large area of open space in the middle that could easily be utilized by stacking the vehicles "New York" style. Our recommendation is to hire a valet attendant to work between the hours of 9:00am and 8:00pm Wednesday through Sunday. This person would control the 22 spaces on the far west end of the lot, 12 spaces on the south side and 10 spaces on the north side. In the morning, employees would leave their vehicle with the attendant and the cars would be parked in each of the 22 spaces. Once these spaces became filled, the attendant would then begin parking the vehicles in the middle of the lot by stacking them in front of the other vehicles. By having the ability to park the vehicles in this style, you could create an additional 10 to 15 spaces without actually losing any current parking spaces. In addition, the vehicles would be close to the employee's place of business in the event they need to move merchandise or run to the bank. We have listed below the costs of running this type of valet service. In addition to the regular costs associated with a normal valet service, we have listed the price of an attendant booth to house the employee and vehicle keys for security purposes. Employee Valet Service Estimated Costs Total Days (22 weeks x 5 days) 110 EXPENSES Payroll - Attendant (11 hoursx $12.00/hourx 110days) $14,520 Payroll Taxes $1,597 Insurance - General Liability $220 - GKLL $1,250 - Valet Insurance $2,000 - Workers Compensation $871 Supplies $325 Telephone $300 Uniforms $300 Auto Damage $2,000 $350 Signage Costof Attendant Booth $7,500 Total Estimated Costs $31,233 Paae 1076 1-18 - REPUBLIC 7 I PARKING B. Create short term employee spaces In addition to the valet service, we believe a few short term parking spaces should be created on a few of the close-in parking lots. Again, this would help solve their problem of having quick access to their business to handle any immediate needs. Our recommendation is to install signage on the lot that reads "Short-term Employee Spaces - 30 minute limit". A policy for these spaces would need to be created and strictly enforced by the enforcement personnel listed in the previous section. Based on the results of the car counts, we believe these spaces should be created in the following areas: Big Horn Lot 3 Spaces Post Office Lot 3 Spaces Virginia Drive 3 Spaces e 108 of 116 1 ~ REPUBLIC 7 - PARKING ...rt. 5. Visitor Shuttle Program This section discusses the option of a shuttle bus program for visitors as well as those with high profile vehicles wishing to visit downtown. One challenge for the Town of Estes Park is to provide parking for recreational vehicles and trailers. Currently, there are some parking spaces designated for RV and trailer parking in the Municipal Lot as well as the Weist Lot. During the study days, no trailers were counted or observed in the Weist lot designated area. This may be due to the inconsistent space sizes for the middle of that lot. If vehicles park outside the designated parking area, a vehicle with a large turn radius will not be able to perform the necessary turn maneuvers to position their trailer or RV into the designated parking spaces. Another option, which would also open up additional parking for visitors, is to commence a shuttle operation to originate at the fairgrounds and drive a continuous loop with stops at the bus cut-out in front of the city offices and at a designated point near the post office parking lot. In our study, we determined that this route could be accomplished within 15 minutes. For example, a shuttle leaving the fairgrounds at 9:00am would arrive at the bus cut out at city hall at 9:06, leave city hall after a two minute wait at 9:08 and arrive at the post office at 9:10. It could then leave the post office lot at 9:12 and be back at the fairgrounds at 9:14, ready to begin the route again by 9:15. This would allow the Town of Estes Park to establish a specific timetable for the three destinations of the shuttle. Below is a map of the proposed shuttle route. 1 2/, 1~ ~ ~1 PUBLIC PARKING MAP j f il - 11 '01.4*24 /7 /4 4 0 1 /4 - ' 7 1 Y CÂ» U:-/.00â‚¬,/,m - 0,1.-- 4( I PARKING il =-%14 1-4 ' ft 09â‚¬f 11 \4 \% 0 //1 619- / Skh, 4\ ~ 1 inch equall 600 - 1 1< t~ fo--7-)- 1 f -1 LAKE ESTES 1. m i'#?- 4/504% ..ff -F .i 1 517/37 :=6 . 1 13-Â» . 1 : I 1 .. f77-nonrn>. 42 b/J - -. mlillal il ___1 Â« NA .. v ,in-Â·-Â·r=-m ir .~~ 'b.\ 49%, 1/4 Â·f Imf With regard to shuttles, there are charter companies in the Denver area with the business model to provide this specific type service on an as needed basis. They can provide vehicles to accommodate from 14 to 50 passengers and could be contracted for a few of the busier weekends or events on a trial basis at a per hour or per event cost. In addition, a shuttle could be purchased or leased by the Town of - REPUBLIC~ ~ = PARKING ...... Estes Park to be used for this purpose. We would recommend operating this shuttle on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday from May to September. A sample operating budget, assuming a 3 year lease for a 15 passenger shuttle, is shown below. Town of Estes Park Estimated Shuttle Costs 2006 season Thur - Sun from May - September Total days 88 Payroll - 1 Driver 8:30am - 8:30pm (12 hrs x $12.00/hr) $ 12,672.00 Payroll Taxes (11% of payroll) $ 1,393.92 Workers Compensation (6.0% of payroll) $ 760.32 Shuttle Van Insurance $ 7,425.00 Shuttle Lease (1150/month) $ 13,800.00 Gasoline ($2.50 x (4 miles/ 12 miles gallIon) x 23 trips) $ 1,686.67 Shuttle Maintenace ($50/oil chg / 3,000 miles) $ 300.00 Uniforms 2 drivers $ 250.00 Supplies logs, etc $ 150.00 Total Estimated Costs $ 38,437.91 ... ellOof116 I REPUBLIC 7 ~ = PARKING ~ ly'll- 6. Employee Shuttle Program This recommendation focuses on providing an employee parking shuttle operation to originate at the fairgrounds and drive a continuous loop with stops at the bus cut-out in front of the city offices and at a designated point near the post office parking lot. In our study, we determined that this route could be accomplished within 15 minutes. For example, a shuttle leaving the fairgrounds at 9:00am would arrive at the bus cut out at city hall at 9:06, leave city hall after a two minute wait at 9:08 and arrive at the post office at 9:10. It could then leave the post office lot at 9:12 and be back at the fairgrounds at 9:14, ready to begin the route again by 9:15. This would allow the Town of Estes Park to establish a specific timetable for the three destinations of the shuttle. Below is a map of the proposed shuttle route. -- f 'll B Â· tt PUBLIC PARKING MAP ~ 0 --U-,227- 9/1Â«42 -2- 4- ~ 4 &5/ /~$$~ h PARKING j hih 4 / \11 -,1 4 11 4 , 44 --1-Â»2/ B. /16 0.- 03"01â€¢~r 7 4 0, f / 1 F. C -19 4* 4 4 FNO 4 P * STOPUOHI .4~ 9. /=7*004 .i'_.â‚¬,~00. n~~UNM *I Â·. . MOR. CEMOCKY 11 [] -loR' Ce,rTER \1<0,< C L''Ls 1 1. ..A,n-<--. 13 16 Q\\ i 1 incli equall 600 feet I i // m,>Z=6:::P \4 4,~ ~itt)3 kikiÂ«--Â« < - 7 WR Z.1/ LAKE ESTES 45=6= d-1(7 AJJ'W" 44--1_ --. 4 7490.9=3*-- & 6: 1 . 1 ./ ttÂ«.4/T" ; 9 44# WEr . 1 .......1 /k ~ 21 : M.,-7-~~11~ '/ '43 :. , ' F2#4 f m 'CL!1 1; 4 *4 \:\ ir:-,r=H~I jf '34%>.. 020, 3%:X With regard to shuttles, there are charter companies in the Denver area with the business model to provide this specific type service on an as needed basis. They can provide vehicles to accommodate from 14 to 50 passengers and could be contracted for a few of the busier weekends or events on a trial basis at a per hour or per event cost. In addition, a shuttle could be purchased or leased by the Town of Estes Park to be used for this purpose. As shown in the visitor shuttle option, we would recommend operating this shuttle on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday from May to September. We would also recommend running the employee shuttle for a longer duration, until midnight, as some employees work later shifts. In addition, we would need to designate a small number of spaces at the A&W lot, Ige 111 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING ~ ly.11. MacGregor North and the Old Lumberyard Lot as late night employee parking to accommodate those employees working in establishments closing after midnight. A sample operating budget for the employee shuttle, assuming a 3 year lease for a 15 passenger shuttle, is shown below. Town of Estes Park Estimated Shuttle Costs 2006 season for Employees Thur - Sun from May - September Total days 88 Payroll - 1 Driver 7:00am - 12:00am (17 hrs x $12.00/hr) $ 17,952.00 Payroll Taxes (11% of payroll) $ 1,974.72 Workers Compensation ( 6.0% of payroll) $ 1,077.12 Shuttle Van Insurance $ 7,425.00 Shuttle Lease (1150/month) $ 13,800.00 Gasoline ($2.50 x (4 miles/ 12 miles gallIon) x 68 trips) $ 4,986.67 Shuttle Maintenace ($50/oil chg / 3,000 miles) $ 300.00 Uniforms 2 drivers $ 250.00 Supplies logs, etc $ 150.00 Total Estimated Costs $ 47,915.51 Paae 112 of 116 1 I REPUBLIC 7 I"' PARKING ..... Other Options Golf Cart Shuttle Service An option to our recommendations would be to devise a plan and route for a transportation cart service for MacGregor Avenue North. This street has 124 designated parking spaces proceeding north from the city hall offices. During the study dates, many of these spaces were not utilized. This may be due to lack of signage, addressed elsewhere in this document, or distance from the central business district. Assuming no employee parking area is designated elsewhere in the parking system, the transportation cart may serve as an option to designate employee parking in the on-street parking spaces in this area. This plan calls for a modified golf cart, similar to the one shown below, to shuttle employees and/or visitors to the city hall near Park Avenue from the spaces on MacGregor Avenue North. This cart could drive a continuous loop during the peak season to shuttle people to/from their vehicles. - 1 1 k 1 IlIJ--fl 06-- - We would recommend operating this cart during the hours of 8:30am - 8:30pm Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday during the months of May - September. An estimated cost to operate this shuttle is also shown below. Cart & Ride Program Estimated Costs Total Event Days 88 EXPENSES Payroll - Cart Operator 12 hours x $12.00/hr x 88 events $ 12,672.00 Payroll Taxes $ 1,393.92 Insurance - Workers Compensation $ 760.32 - General Liability $ 750.00 Unifoms $ 150.00 Supplies $ 120.00 Cost of Cart $ 10,000.00 Fuel and Maintenance $ 440.00 Total Estimated Costs $ 26,286.24 ~ REPUBLIC 7 ~ PARKING ~ ly.rE- Paid Parking While it does not appear to be necessary at this time, paid parking on certain lots is an option. Based on the responses from the visitors of Estes Park, 46% would be willing to pay for parking if it meant quicker access to a parking space. This option would be recommended for the lots with the highest turnover and/or the most popular close-in parking locations. Based on the study results, the lots we would recommend beginning this program on are: Children's Park, Coffee Bar and Dark Horse. Several options exist in the parking industry for facilitating paid parking on a surface lot. Of note are stand alone pay and display machines and manual slot box operations. Both of these options would require personnel to ensure the monies are collected and the machine or slot box are operating correctly. Pay and display machines are electronic units that are installed on a parking lot, typically in a central location, that allow a patron to purchase a parking pass for a specified time period and amount. The customer then places that pass or receipt on their dash for verification by parking enforcement personnel. The parking enforcement officer can do a quick visual check of the parking lot to ensure each person has paid the correct rate for the specified time by examining the receipt on the dash. An example of a pay and display machine and sample receipt are shown below. The estimated cost of a machine such as the one shown is $17,000 including installation near an available electricity source and periodic maintenance. 8 6.1' Ilâ€¢e #. 1 ~ ~1>Â¢,7-i "0 12' Te,/ Feâ€¢,n JAN 06. 2001 18.00 PM Place tnil recept lace up on clash 01 ve,hi=;c 49/ Slot box operations are manual and are also installed near a central location on a parking lot. These boxes require the patron to fold dollar bills and/or coins and place the posted parking fee in the numbered slot corresponding to the parking space the person parked in. A sample of a slot box is shown on the next page. 'age 114 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC 7 - PARKING ~ ly.-I ~:rrirrâ€¢rr:- :Wars:01:2 P A .â€¢\ H .:W=:C R : 6 2 6 1 E 4 - 10 .h.k .:: affill Parking enforcement officers then open the box and verify payment based on the amount of money in each numbered slot. They then go to the parking space and double check that no cars are in any spaces not paid. Once the parking enforcement officer has done their box check, they "reset" the box by clearing the money into a hopper to be picked up and later deposited. The cost of a slot box is estimated to be $1,500.00 including installation and periodic maintenance. ige 115 of 116 ~ REPUBLIC V - PARKING ...TE. Parking Structure One of the questions posed to the Store Owners was "What do you feel needs to be done to improve the parking in Estes Park". Although some were totally against the idea, 36% said that a parking garage was the best solution. Many felt that this would alleviate the problem altogether and could be paid for by sales tax generated by proceeds. Although it may make sense to study the feasibility of a new parking structure on a few of the key lots in the city, such as the Weist Lot, Big Horn Lot or Municipal Lot, one thing that should be considered is the high cost of building parking garages. In Denver, the average cost of building an above ground structure is between $15,000 and $18,000 per parking space. For below ground structures, this cost can grow to as much as $22,000 per space. Based on where Estes Park is located, it is probably safe to assume that the cost is at least 20% higher which means the cost of an above ground structure could run between $18,000 and $22,000 per space. For discussion purposes, lets assume a 300 space garage is constructed on the Weist Parking Lot. The cost of building the structure would be approximately $6,000,000 if you multiply 300 spaces by $20,000 per space. The average costs of running parking garages in downtown Denver is between $275 and $350 per space, depending on the hours and method of operation. Please note that this number does not include any depreciation or amortization costs. If we use $300 per space as an average, the annual costs to operate the garage would then be approximately $90,000. Lets then assume the city will charge patrons $1.00 to park in the garage and the garage turns 1.5 times per day during the peak season. Over a period of 110 days (22 weeks x 5 days (Wednesday - Sunday)), the garage could generate $49,500 in parking revenues. Since the garage would not be needed during the late fall and winter months, you could save on operating costs by shutting the garage down completely. Using this scenario, even by cutting your operating costs in half would only get you to a breakeven point. Again, this does not include the cost of the money to build the parking structure. If you consider that the shuttle service we recommended in the previous section only costs approximately $50,000 per year, you could operate the shuttle for 120 years before it meets the cost of a parking structure. e 116 of 116