Thumbs up for the village

[Guy in Shorts]

From today's Rutland Herald

KILLINGTON — A local developer has received a permit to begin a $100 million project, but the permit conditions might prompt the developer to appeal.

On Monday, the District 1 Environmental Commission issued an Act 250 permit to SP Land Company to allow the developer to begin the first phase of Killington Village. The permit has been a long time coming, and SP Land President Steven Selbo expressed a reserved form of celebration Monday night.

“I’m excited to take this step, is the best way to put it,” Selbo said, noting SP Land filed the permit application in February 2012. “I’m happy we’ve gotten to this step.”

SP Land actually received two permits Monday.

The first was to construct a 1,276-car parking lot and to realign Killington Road and the parking lot of the Killington Grand Resort Hotel.

The second permit allows SP Land to construct 193 residential units; a 32-unit subdivision; 31,622 square feet of commercial and retail space; and a 77,000-square-foot skier services building to replace the Ramshead and Snowlodge base lodges.

The proposed conditions surrounding the second permit have proven the most contentious for SP Land and the three organizations with party status including: Rutland Regional Planning Commission, Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission and Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission.

In January, the three commissions sent a letter to the District 1 Environmental Commission, suggesting that after the completion of phase one, SP Land be compelled to conduct a traffic corridor study along Killington Road, Route 4, Route 100 and Route 103 arteries from Killington to Interstate 89 and I-91.

SP Land objected to this condition, asserting in a letter in January the proposed permit conditions “as a whole are well outside the scope of what is permissible under Act 250.”

During hearings in 2012, the Agency of Transportation, SP Land and the three planning commissions agreed with the findings of a traffic study showing no mitigation measures would be required for phase one.

The Rutland Regional Planning Commission withdrew its support of making the condition mandatory, but the other two planning commissions maintained their collective position.

In issuing the permit, the District 1 Environmental Commission decided to make the study mandatory. SP Land would be obligated to pay for as much as 50 percent of the study, with a cap of $25,000. The Agency of Transportation and the three regional planning commissions would fund the balance of the study.

The scope of the study is unclear; it refers to studying “traffic impacts from the Phase I development upon the Killington Road/US4/VT103 corridors from Killington to I-91 and I-89.” There is no reference to Route 100.

Selbo said he has not decided if he will appeal the decision.

“We’re just letting this sink in right now,” Selbo said. “I’m cautiously optimistic we will find a way to work with everyone.”

SP Land has 15 days from the date the permit was issued to file a motion to alter the permit.

A last-minute suggestion from the Rutland Regional Planning Commission to force SP Land to include 495 units of affordable housing was not included as a permit condition.

[RustyK]

Just say NO to the village!

[Highway Star]

I'll just leave this here:

-----------------------------------------

Every time I see this plan I throw up in my mouth a little bit.....

Here's the full buildout plan, 2300 units. This is ten times the size of phase one (193 units+32 lots):

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/imaging/plan ... 9-2011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have no idea why they would need so much more capacity, I can't imagine how it would be possible to rent all these units or have them occupied near 100%. It also deletes most parking with reasonable lift/lodge access, all that's left is 2/3rds of the KBL lot. Every other lot is at least a 1/4 mile away from a ski lift, or much further.

Here is your new snowshed/ramhead parking lot setup after phase one:

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/imaging/plan ... 20Site.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's pretty clear that SP Land could care less about the day trip market or anybody staying off mountain, and POWDR is doing nothing about it. After seeing several peak days last season with major traffic problems on the access road, this plan will clearly be an unmitigated disaster on a busy day and will not accommidate the load. It is a clear step backwards for Killington's (potential) traffic problems. This WILL hurt their day trip and off mountain market, if they care.

The two biggest problems I have with phase one itself:

- wiping out two huge parking lots with direct lodge access, for only 225 lodging units
- the new base lodge is 200 yards (yes, 600 ft, two football fields) away from the Snowshed Quad.
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/imaging/plan ... 011912.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So let me get this straight. Your (premium, beginner-low intermediate) off mountain customer is:

- Parking in a new lot somewhere below the mountain inn off the access road
- Walking ~200ft over to a shuttle pick up area
- Waiting for then riding a shuttle
- Walking ~200 ft from the shuttle to the lodge
- Walking through the lodge
- Walking 600 ft from the lodge to snowshed quad

Seriously? Why wouldn't they just take up cross country skiing....?

[da Pimp]

This is the beginning of the end for Killington. Rest assured that soon enough the access to the K base will be pay to park, delays from far away parking, and unless you are staying in their f....... village you will be treated as second class citizen even though you are expected to pay full monte for everything.

Everything the Village and Killington does from now on will be designed and executed to make every single visitor leave as much money with them as humanly possible to the point that it is painful and contrary to most customer's wishes and the marketplace in general.

Do you think Killington lost a lot of skier visits in the recent past? This will be a comparative negative landslide over time. POWDR thinks they will replace the lost day trip and "regulars" business with high margin short season village business which was always their stated goal. Somehow that tremendous natural resource called the Green Mountains that is leased from we the people will be lost as we know it today and unless you play their game you are welcome to go elsewhere.

Blame it all on Rotten Otten when ASC sold off all that land including base lodge and parking turf. Blame it all on POWDR for quietly snuggling up to SP Land hoping that they will finally get their way with the business the way they WANT it to be, not what it NEEDS to be in order to be successful. Solimano and team have done it right for a year, but I suspect that SP Land and POWDR will be designing restrictions and changes that they cannot overcome with sound operational performance.

[tt431]

Yes to the Village!

[GSKI]

My K village fear is they take out all the public KBL parking and use it for condos and condo parking to help sell the "exclusivity" factor and then stick the rest of us down below Ramshead in satellite parking lots with shuttle buses. This would add 1/2 hr to getting to the KBL lodge if they even keep KBL lodge there! I worry they would relocate the lodge down to Snowshed and make that the "base" of the mountain. Then you would have to have everybody load up Snowdon and traverse over to the K1 and Snowdon lifts. Seems I bit of a stretch I hope. This is my ultimate nightmare especially on a powder day!

[Bubba]

It is my belief that part of the deal between Powdr and SP Land is that while each will cooperate with the other, neither will challenge the other's plans in the approval process. If so, this is really where the deal may break down eventually as the business interests of each party collide with the other's.

[Highway Star]

This is the beginning of the end for Killington. Rest assured that soon enough the access to the K base will be pay to park, delays from far away parking, and unless you are staying in their f....... village you will be treated as second class citizen even though you are expected to pay full monte for everything.

Everything the Village and Killington does from now on will be designed and executed to make every single visitor leave as much money with them as humanly possible to the point that it is painful and contrary to most customer's wishes and the marketplace in general.

Do you think Killington lost a lot of skier visits in the recent past? This will be a comparative negative landslide over time. POWDR thinks they will replace the lost day trip and "regulars" business with high margin short season village business which was always their stated goal. Somehow that tremendous natural resource called the Green Mountains that is leased from we the people will be lost as we know it today and unless you play their game you are welcome to go elsewhere.

Blame it all on Rotten Otten when ASC sold off all that land including base lodge and parking turf. Blame it all on POWDR for quietly snuggling up to SP Land hoping that they will finally get their way with the business the way they WANT it to be, not what it NEEDS to be in order to be successful. Solimano and team have done it right for a year, but I suspect that SP Land and POWDR will be designing restrictions and changes that they cannot overcome with sound operational performance.

I don't think POWDR is under any illusions about how much business it is possible to lose or where and how their skier demographics break out. They control most of the on mountain lodging through a rental pool and offer packaged lift ticketing, which they are well aware of. Then you have off mountain vacationers buying multiday passes, day trippers (paying walkup or discount prepurchase prices), and pass holders. They should even be able to tell where you park based on where your pass/ticket is scanned. Very possible to track.

Again, I don't see any massive pent up demand for slopeside lodging or slopeside shopping. I doubt they are full except for peak periods. The people who rent or own the new village units will be the ones currently in Mountain Green, Grand Summit or Trail Creek. There will be a slight shift in those who stay in off mountain premium properties, to the now more available base area properties, while the massively reduced access will slightly increase demand for slopeside.

Question is, how tolerant is the skiing public to the access issue...? I've skied out west at several places where the access is a joke, you have to pay $35 a day to park near a lodge and lift. Many major eastern resorts have built base developments that require a shuttle ride or pay parking, and people tolerate it.

Killington, however, does not require a shuttle for 80%+ of its visitors on any given peak day - which is a huge strength in the appeal of the resort. I'm curious how important this is to the average customer. Is it a make or break issue? For what percent of the off mountain visitors will this drive them off to visit somewhere else, or reduce their days at Killington?

I'm concerned that SP Land is not run by skiers - they don't have years of experience transporting gear and a family a few hours to a mountain in order to pay hundreds of dollars to participate in a recreational sport (skiing) that *might* be fun on any given day. The bar is very high for skiing as a sport. If you make it (even more) painful for people to visit your mountain, what happens.....? There won't be more visits to Killington as a whole, and quite possibly less.

From what I can tell on this, SP Land's plan only benefits themselves, while actually damaging POWDR's resort business from reduced visits and the rest of Killington's economy by reduced visits and pulling customers away from the existing businesses.

[Bubba]

While I agree with the complaints about relocating the bulk of the parking and making it inconvenient for day skiers or those who drive to the mountain for whatever reason, I would disagree with one aspect of the analysis being made. That is that all these new units will significantly add to the rental pool. While that may be theoretically true, the price of these ski in/out or village center condos will, in all probability, be so high as to keep them out of the rental market. Using Top Ridge and the Lodges as a basis for analysis of the village, what percentage of those units (all of them in the $500K range or higher) are in the rental market? I doubt it's very high since people in that market price range aren't going to simply rent their places out on a regular basis and risk damage. They can afford to buy without the subsidy presented by rental income so they won't necessarily add their units into the market. That being the case, with day skier parking being remotely located, there will be less business for the retail stores and restaurants in the village as well. This all goes back to why I have concluded that I am in favor of "a village", not "this village". This plan basically sucks for everyone except SP Land.

[Knut]

The two biggest problems I have with phase one itself:

- wiping out two huge parking lots with direct lodge access, for only 225 lodging units
- the new base lodge is 200 yards (yes, 600 ft, two football fields) away from the Snowshed Quad.
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/imaging/plan ... 011912.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So let me get this straight. Your (premium, beginner-low intermediate) off mountain customer is:

- Parking in a new lot somewhere below the mountain inn off the access road
- Walking ~200ft over to a shuttle pick up area
- Waiting for then riding a shuttle
- Walking ~200 ft from the shuttle to the lodge
- Walking through the lodge
- Walking 600 ft from the lodge to snowshed quad

Seriously? Why wouldn't they just take up cross country skiing....?[/quote][/quote]

I just scaled the hike from the shuttle drop off area to the Snowshed qaud 1057' +/-.
1120' to Ramshead!
Great marketing tool...buy slopeside so you dont have to walk a quarter of a mile each way

[Stormchaser]

I just scaled the hike from the shuttle drop off area to the Snowshed qaud 1057' +/-.
1120' to Ramshead!
Great marketing tool...buy slopeside so you dont have to walk a quarter of a mile each way

I had no idea the walk would be increased to a quarter mile from the shuttle drop off point. I find that a lot to ask of their customer base...

[Bubba]

Try this:

Mom and Dad and two young kids drive to Killington for a day of skiing. They're here for the weekend but not staying in the village. They have to get their kids into ski school by 9:00 AM. They either:

a. Park remotely, carry their equipment to the shuttle, drag the kids and equipment into the Skier Services Building, get the kids into classes and out to the hill. In order to do this they must plan on arriving in the parking area around 8:00 - 8:15 at the latest.

b. Dad drops Mom and the kids off, then drives back to the remote parking, waits for the shuttle, gets back to the Skier Services Building in time to find Mom totally frazzled having had to handle the kids by herself.

c. Valet parks the vehicle for $10 - $30 (TBD) in order to avoid the inconvenience.

That was Saturday. Now they have to do it again Sunday.

Question: When will they return to Killington?

[Ski_the_Moguls]

Yes to the Village!

This is, without a doubt, the most politically controversial thing ever written on Kzone.

[Stormchaser]

Try this:

Mom and Dad and two young kids drive to Killington for a day of skiing. They're here for the weekend but not staying in the village. They have to get their kids into ski school by 9:00 AM. They either:

a. Park remotely, carry their equipment to the shuttle, drag the kids and equipment into the Skier Services Building, get the kids into classes and out to the hill. In order to do this they must plan on arriving in the parking area around 8:00 - 8:15 at the latest.

b. Dad drops Mom and the kids off, then drives back to the remote parking, waits for the shuttle, gets back to the Skier Services Building in time to find Mom totally frazzled having had to handle the kids by herself.

c. Valet parks the vehicle for $10 - $30 (TBD) in order to avoid the inconvenience.

That was Saturday. Now they have to do it again Sunday.

Question: When will they return to Killington?

Plan on an even earlier arrival time if they need to purchase tickets, rentals, etc....and that's for a 9 am start. Might be easier for the family to sleep in the car in the parking lot if they plan on first chair.

[Highway Star]

While I agree with the complaints about relocating the bulk of the parking and making it inconvenient for day skiers or those who drive to the mountain for whatever reason, I would disagree with one aspect of the analysis being made. That is that all these new units will significantly add to the rental pool. While that may be theoretically true, the price of these ski in/out or village center condos will, in all probability, be so high as to keep them out of the rental market. Using Top Ridge and the Lodges as a basis for analysis of the village, what percentage of those units (all of them in the $500K range or higher) are in the rental market? I doubt it's very high since people in that market price range aren't going to simply rent their places out on a regular basis and risk damage. They can afford to buy without the subsidy presented by rental income so they won't necessarily add their units into the market. That being the case, with day skier parking being remotely located, there will be less business for the retail stores and restaurants in the village as well. This all goes back to why I have concluded that I am in favor of "a village", not "this village". This plan basically sucks for everyone except SP Land.

https://www.google.com/#psj=1&q=killing ... l&start=10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would guess that 75%+ of these units will see rental use. There are just not that many people looking to outright purchase a premium resort property at Killington without offsetting some of that cost with a rental income.

Now, seriously, if you had roughly $.5-1M in free cash to drop on a resort property, that you were going to visit a 5-10 times a year and leave unoccupied otherwise, where would it be......?

- Vail/Summit County
- Snowbird/Park City
- Tahoe
- Jackson
- Anywhere else out west with reasonable airport access
- Stowe
- Okemo
- Stratton
- Sugarbush
- Killington......?

This is an EXTREMELY competitive portion of the market, in particular because if you can afford the property, you can also affort to travel to it. The logistics become much more flexible. For example - Stowe from NYC every other weekend through the season? Park a dedicated car at the Burlington airport and cab it to the airport in NYC and take a $200, 70 minute flight. Leave all your gear and clothes at the property.

Now, why would anyone drive to Killington if they could fly to Stowe or out west?