Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DRB130184 FINALMarriott_RI_Submittal Add'l Units.pdf
DRB130184 11 M a rr 'i ott Residence inn (Formerly the Roost Lodge) 9 nil 0 =rim ®� °:: I ■® ■wM: yffi'I_ ��S■!'�� Ivan' �u i:� o::■■ 11 ' u■ i:l INSI '� it""""I """""VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllllVl = — — ,"'�11J � III_� I1111111111111131����11!i�ii!iiii!!!il�!'�� � ,II . ,l�lll�,; — — ,� llllllllll�l,lll = .■aaaar� _- � www� - w ■■ w wi■ �n ■ ■ � n■■w ti u � nii ■ w ■■ ■ � ■i � I �II_�II _ w.. w _ ��I IEe�I_ = I:��.I_I:::®I __ II®�I I::� _ S.L I �w �. _ h �I �_IIIIII • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII !!11111111111114111111,f11 ■a r a ■ �� �� III a""""I'I',,;,If 11 f11111IIJIJJJ1II11 .■ �s . C� t Wit_ �awaawae•laaaaaaaa� ■ ��r � �{i�19111V1., liltll u w '�lul iiilir llil iliiamuiii,-! — �� I�.a_aawaa�. e_ ai ■ t: :u:i ::i,u: :::: :::: :::ii: � ill�:::u�1�I::: 'I:: ISiI`ipu 1 �Ilnh:�sil :i :::::i :::: :::: :::::: iw ■■u� ■um , ■� ■�- ■�.■=-J Il�lllfll�' r -�. �,iu 1 in■� i■u qn nub■. ■n■y■ ,ni I , I ill II 11111 — — — --�_��._—���G ••-•1' .fie, _ �7.1_ .Fe� —�---_--��--�_�-- — i■u u MEMO �. �n nu nu■a n w■■ n Ij i n nn E n n 1 n- p Ia y',.1� ii n n n ■n m u■.n- r' uu _u■■uMEMO _ un uu m a n ■ 1n nn �� n n uu 111 u - nun_ neeeq� •• -■n■n•� m■ uu 'n■■ �'=n uu■ = _I,nuu I7. fI ■■n=!- un n;aal°1 �... nu n w_■n�iesh-mm_a- i@ -w■■ w0 . u■■ ■■v ■un■ ■ u■ n t1 ;-M 'h i.r a w _ -:n m.-�'u■m _ l - -- -- - --�-�=--�_---- - ��-_! -�'• '- �p is ai i.-,�. Major - • r Alteration for Amendments to the Approved Plan Submitted to the Town of May 23, 2013 Residence Xarrioll Mauriello Planning Group Consultant Directory Peter Dumon, President The Harp Group 601 Oakmont Lane, Suite 420 Westmont, IL 60559 pgdumon @theharpgroup.com 630-366-2010 Dominic Mauriello, Principal Mauriello Planning Group PO Box 4777 Eagle, CO 81631 dominic @mpgvail.com 970-376-3318 Ken O'Bryan, President O'Bryan Partnership Architects 620 Main St., Ste. 8 Frisco, CO 80443 KenO @oparch.com 970-668-1133 Karl J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE McDowell Engineering P.O. Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 kari @mcdowelleng.com 970.623.0788 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Previous Approval and Preservation of Vested Rights 6 Current Proposal 7 Zoning Analysis 9 Parking Analysis 10 Exterior Alterations or Modifications 11 Mitigation of Development Impacts 15 Employee Housing Plan 16 Adjacents ZO Appendix A: Enlarged Elevations ZZ Appendix B: Traffic Report 26 3 Introduction The Roost Lodge is currently owned by Timberline Roost Lodge LLC, represented by Kevin Deighan. For the past year, the Roost Lodge has been managed by the Harp Group, who is currently under contract to purchase the property. In 2012, the Town of Vail approved some minor amendments to the previously approved project. At this time, the ; Harp Group is requesting a "Major Exterior Alteration" to allow for some additional amendments to the previously approved plan. These amendments include: 1 . The addition of 24 limited service lodgeI111a units (total of 176 LSLU) 2. Changes to the Employee Housing Units 3. Minor changes to the elevations and floor plans to accommodate the new units In 2006, the Timberline Lodge was approved - for 101 limited service lodge units (aka hotel --- rooms with kitchens), 28 dwelling units, and 3 employee housing units. In 2012, the Town approved the elimination of all dwelling units which were then converted into limited service lodge units (for a total of 152 limited service lodge units), along with changes to the employee housing units (2 employee housing units) to meet the new employee housing requirements. As currently proposed, the project will be a Marriott Residence Inn, with 176 limited service lodge units and 2 employee housing units housing 8 employees. The new hotel rooms are accommodated within the existing mass of the building without any change the the primary roof ridge of the building. The proposal requires the review of a Major Exterior Alteration in the Public Accommodation 2 zone district in accordance with Section 12-7J-12 of the Vail Town Code. Benefits of the project include: Increased Town revenues through lodging and sales tax with the addition of 24 hotel rooms Increased exposure and revenues due to marketing by Marriott Improved average daily rate and access to broad market of guests New hotel will meet the GreenSeal Standard for lodging properties which focuses on waste minimization, energy conservation and management, management of fresh water resources, waste water management, pollution prevention, and organizational commitment like environmentally sensitive purchasing. Improved image of Vail along the 1-70 corridor by redeveloping 40-year old property 4 Improved access and circulation with the addition of right and left turn lanes on Frontage Road Completion of 10 ft. wide bike and pedestrian lane in front of this property and the adjoining two properties to the west '� Provision of a new bus stop enclosure a Provision of public art I% Provision of on-site and off-site employee housing Q l Enhanced neighborhood access with pedestrian path through the property Excess parking to ensure parking needs are not forced into public facilities n 111°,Ih mm ® I®m ® ® ®® ® � mmfm�mmm ® mm ® ®, - ■now■ ■ M MM ELEVATION ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ e2 PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION roe sr.r•o 5 Previous Approval and Preservation of Vested Rights In 2006, the Town of Vail approved the redevelopment of the Roost Lodge. The proposal included the construction of 101 limited service lodge units, 28 dwelling units, 3 employee housing units, and included 169 parking spaces. The project, the Timberline Lodge, was unfortunately affected by the recession and construction of the project never started. Recognizing the challenges of the economy, which made construction J financing difficult to obtain, the Town subsequently passed extensions for somem _ 7 previously-approved projects, including the Timberline Lodge. The extension allowed _. the projects to be exempt from certain ' regulations that were passed subsequent -to these approvals, including provisions of the employee housing regulations requiring on-site employee units, the construction use tax, etc. In 2012, the Town approved a IE Major Exterior Alteration application for minor changes to the previously approved plans. The 2012 approval included provisions to maintain both the 2006 approvals and the 2012 approvals, understanding the pending ownership structure of the project. The 2006 approval expires on June 1 , 2014; however, if any changes are made to the approved plans, the exemptions are no longer permitted, and the project must comply with the current regulations. The 2012 approval expires on November 12, 2015. If the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the current proposal, it will expire in 2016 and will supplant the 2012 approval. Based on the proposed changes to the plan, the Marriott Residence Inn will comply with the current Town of Vail regulations, including the employee housing requirements and the payment of the construction use tax, along with current Building Code requirements. The applicant, the Harp Group, is seeking changes to the project with the property owner's consent. However, the current owner has significant investment in the current vested entitlements for the property which include a significant number of dwelling units and concessions offered by the Town. Should this applicant not take ownership of the project, the current owner wants the assurance of maintaining the existing entitlements which are valid until June 1 , 2014. Therefore, this application includes the condition that should the applicant not take ownership of the property, the prior entitlements remain in effect until June 1 , 2014. This allows the applicant to know exactly what they are purchasing and gives the current owner the assurance that it will not losing any pre-existing entitlements should the real estate transaction not be completed. 6 Current Proposal The Marriott Residence Inn brand provides extended stay suites, which include kitchens, separate sleeping areas, and comfortable seating, along with free hot breakfast and evening social events. The extended stay suites appeal to a wide-range of hotel guests, from business travelers to families, and are priced to fill an underserved niche in the Vail Valley. The proposed Vail Marriott Residence Inn includes 176 limited service lodge units, 2 employee housing units (housing 8 employees), along with 165 parking spaces. The program specifically includes the following: 78 One-bedroom units, ranging in size from 444 sq. ft. to 782 sq. ft. 88 Studio units, ranging in size from 311 sq. ft. to 665 sq. ft. 10 Two-bedroom units, ranging in size from 686 sq. ft. to 962 sq. ft. 2 Type IV-CL dorm-style employee housing units of 1 ,000 sq. ft., housing 8 total employees 20,521 sq. ft. of lobby, lounge, and hotel service 165 parking spaces, with 158 spaces in the structure and additional 7 surface spaces (37 spaces in excess of code requirements) Lj A pool, hot tub, and fitness area Some changes have occurred to the exterior of the building to accommodate the additional lodge service units. These are summarized as follows: 1 . The height of the floor plates have been lowered by 0'- 6" on each of the lower floors and 1'-0" on the fourth floor to account for the additional height needed for the new hotel rooms without changing the existing ridge height; 2. The height of the ridge on the bump out dormers on the south and north elevations has been elevated to match the elevation of the existing roof ridge and to accommodate for the additional rooms added to the fourth floor. The overall massing of the dormers remains the same; however, the fourth floor windows have been sized to fit within the space created by these changes. The siding for these bump-outs has been changed to horizontal siding rather than vertical siding and will match the color of the horizontal siding already specified for the project; 3. Balconies have been added to four rooms on the north and four rooms on the south elevations. These maintain the same form as given to other balconies in the project and help to tie the building aesthetic together; 4. The gables on the west wing of the south elevation have been pulled up to match the existing roof ridge in response to the new hotel rooms added. The original gable dormers on the west wing have been modified to shed dormers and pulled up as well to accommodate for more height on the fourth floor. Also in response to the new rooms on the fourth floor, shed dormers have been added to the gable on the west elevation. These dormers give the new fourth floor rooms the required head space allowing the interior spaces to become usable. 5. On the east end of the north elevation, shed dormers have been added to accommodate the changes made to the area former two bedroom employee housing unit as it changed to a dorm style unit. Also, the original deck for that unit has been modified to a French balcony without a sliding door to the exterior. 6. Changes in the floor plan along the east-west axis in the middle of the building have been reflected in the north and south elevations. The north elevation of these rooms now have French balconies in place of the original decks and have been pulled out to meet the original deck line. The south elevation rooms still have deck balconies, however on the fourth floor, a French balcony has also been added to the new middle hotel room. The following elevations indicate these changes. (Plans have been submitted along with this application. Appendix A also provides larger plans for reference.) The areas dashed in red are the proposed changes: U Ll P ten 71 F] -1 n F1 El 7_1 F-1 o ❑ , 1E ® ED 6Q, QWL El El � ; m LL o � L L L El L L Lj L El El El El y [I 1 1-1 L_L L L L L C , .. . L L N m 0 0 1 L uj I D -. _. - LI�C_C7❑ C1_[ I _ I.I -1 n n' J� u EE [0 1] W I I.I..ts - F Existing SOUTH ELEVATION ® 0M ID aA Wim 4 a ow® ®ID Q z® ® 1990 ID® ®® SOUTH 'Ymmf I I �I,'L m ®•im,m X7;1 ,:m® �$FiL'i--..:: - ELEVATION Proposed no Im &M MEE [AN Ulff — . g NORTH ELEVATION Existing vw m gni Y IN go III P li i II — — q NEW NORTH ELEVATION Proposed �rl I r � ®��I ExistingI .II® ®� Proposed s 5 WEST ELEVATION - y NEW WEST ELEVATION va ie nze re - The exterior materials will still be very high-end, consisting of stone and simulated wood, with the addition of heavy timber accents. There are no changes to the height, setbacks, site coverage, and landscape area of the previously approved plans. The building complies with the 48' limit as did the previous 2012 approval. 8 Zoning Analysis Address/Legal Description: 1783 North Frontage Road / Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Sub Zoning: Public Accommodation-2 (PA-2) Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential Where the proposal has deviates from the 2012 approval, the change is identified in yellow. Standard Allowed/ 2006 Approval 2012 Approval 2013 Proposal Required Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft. 86,597 sq. ft. 86,597 sq. ft. 86,597 sq. ft. min Density 49 DU 28 du 0 du 0 du Limited Service Unlimited 101 LSLU 152 LSLU 176 LSLU Lodge Units (LSLU) GRFA 129,896 sq. ft. 75,842 sq. ft. 75,031 sq. ft. 82,485 sq. ft. Building Height 48 ft. 48 ft. 48 ft. 48 ft. Site Coverage 56,288 sq. ft. 44,376 sq. ft. 44,376 sq. ft. 44,376 sq. ft. (65%) (51 %) (51 %) (51 %) Landscape 25,979 sq. ft. 38,698 sq. ft. 38,698 sq. ft. 38,698 sq. ft. Area (30%) (44%) (44%) (44%) Setbacks* North 0 ft. - 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. (above-grade) 20 ft. (above-grade) West 0 ft. - 20 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. (above-grade) 20 ft. (above-grade) East 0 ft. - 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. (above-grade) 20 ft. (above-grade) South 0 ft. - 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. (above-grade) 20 ft. (above-grade) Parking 128 spaces 169 spaces 165 spaces 165 spaces Loading 1 berth 1 berth 1 berth 1 berth Employee Housing for 3 Type III EHU 1 Type IV CL 2- 2 Type IV CL dorm Housing 14.56 bedroom unit = units = 8 employees 2.25 employees employees. 1 Type IV CL dorm Housing for 6.56 unit = 4 employees additional Housing for 4.95 employees off-site additional employees off-site * Subject to review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission 9 Parking Analysis As proposed, there are 165 parking spaces provided for the Marriott Residence Inn, with 158 spaces located below grade and an additional 7 surface spaces. As indicated in the analysis below, this exceeds the parking requirement of 128 spaces by 37 spaces. Use Parking Calculation Required Spaces 176 Limited Service Lodge 0.7 spaces per unit 123.2 Unit 2 Employee Housing Units 500>EHU<2,000 sq. ft. then 2 4 spaces Total 127.2 10 Exterior Alterations or Modifications The elimination of dwelling units and the addition of limited service lodge units requires the review of a Major Exterior Alteration by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The review requires the following: 12-7J-13: COMPLIANCE BURDEN.- It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the public accommodation-2 (PA-2) zone district, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. Below is an analysis of the proposal based on the criteria provided in the compliance burden: 1 . The proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Public Accommodation-2 zone district. Applicant Analysis: Section 12-7J-1 : Purpose, of the Vail Town Code provides the purpose of the PA-2 zone district: The public accommodation-2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the same zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. The public accommodation-2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the zone district. The proposal includes amenities commensurate with lodge uses such as spas, a fitness room, guest lounges, and other common area facilities. The proposed Marriott Residence Inn maintains the desirable resort qualities of the PA-2 district by adhering to the prescribed site development standards. The criteria contained in certain development standards of the PA-2 zone district should also be considered. Section 12-7J-6, Setbacks, contains the following pertinent language: 11 At the discretion of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board, variations to the setback standards outlined above may be approved during the review of exterior alternations or modifications (section 12-7A-12 of this article) subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: (G)Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. (H)Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. (1) Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. (J) Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. Previously with the 2006 approval, there was an above-grade encroachment into the west side setback, which the Planning and Environmental Commission approved, allowing the west setback to be reduced from 20 ft. to 15 ft. The above- grade encroachment was removed with the 2012 approval, but there is a below- grade encroachment into this setback for mechanical uses. In addition, the trash enclosure is located in the front setback below grade only. These encroachments were addressed with the 2012 approval and do not change with this current proposal. Because the only setback encroachments are located below-grade, the proposed setback deviations allow the appropriate separation between buildings. There are no riparian areas or geologically sensitive areas in close proximity to the property. The proposed encroachments do not detract from the availability of light, air and open space given the limited encroachment being sought and the limited height of the encroachment. The proposed encroachments allow for creative design solutions to the architecture of the building without arbitrarily following a continuous setback. The proposed Marriott Residence Inn is in compliance with the purpose statement of the Public Accommodation-2 zone district. All proposed uses on the site are permitted uses by the zone district and no conditional use permits are required. 2. The proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood Applicant Analysis: The site is surrounded by residential uses to the east, west and north, and 1-70 right-of-way to the south. Buffer Creek Condominiums are located directly to the west. Hillside Condominiums and Mustang Condominiums are located directly to the north. The Grand Traverse neighborhood is located to the east, with Tract A directly adjacent to the property. Across 1-70 is Donovan Park, along with a single-family and duplex home. 12 The character of the neighborhood should be viewed in the context of what is currently present on and around the --- �� subject site. The Roost Lodge has been in existence since the early 1970s and proven to be compatible with adjacent land uses. Considering the various multi-family buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Roost Lodge, to the west and north , a structure which accommodates multiple limited service lodge units is in keeping with the existing surrounding uses. Also, the development site for the proposed Marriott Residence Inn is comprised of four individual lots in the subject neighborhood. The size of the proposed building is in direct proportion with the size of the development site, which encompasses approximately two acres. Considering the physical state of the existing Roost Lodge, the proposal will have a significant, positive effect on a - the character of the neighborhood - _ - because it will be a brand new, 3 �r1 aesthetically pleasing structure placed on a well landscaped site. 3. The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. Applicant Analysis: According to the Official Land Use Plan for the Town of Vail, the development site has a land use designation of Medium Density Residential. Pursuant to the Vail Land Use Plan, The Medium Density Residential land use designation includes sites for housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as churches,fire stations, and parks and open space facilities. The project also complies with the relevant elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan including the following policies: 1.1 - Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 13 1.3 - The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 - Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 3.1 - The hotel bed base should be preserved and use more efficiently. 3.3 - Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 - Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 5.1 - Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 -Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives,provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 - Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. - The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. The Vail Land Use Plan recognizes the existing zoning on the property as controlling the density and land uses. The project is consistent with the Town's stated goal of increasing hotel beds within the Town. 14 Mitigation of Development Impacts Section 12-7J-14, Mitigation of Development Impacts, of that Vail Town Code states the following: The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. In the previous review of the proposed project, the following items were approved as mitigation of the development impacts and are still included in the project as currently proposed: Employee Housing: When the project was originally approved in 2005 and 2006, employee housing units were provided as part of the mitigation of development impacts. At the time, 3 Type-III employee Housing Units were proposed, which housed a total of 5 employees in 1 ,380 sq. ft. of GRFA. With the current requirements for employee housing, 2 employee housing units are proposed, housing a total of 8 employees in 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. Additionally, 6.56 employees will be housed either off-site or through a fee-in-lieu. Bike Path/Sidewalk Improvements: A 10 ft. wide bike path is proposed in front of the property and extends west adjacent to other properties and ends at Buffer Creek Road, completing the path recently constructed by the Town. Traffic Impact Fee: A traffic impact fee of $6,500 per net increase peak hour vehicular trip will be paid. This fee will be offset by any Frontage Road improvements, sidewalk improvements, and construction of the transit stop. A revised Traffic Report has been submitted with this application. Art in Public Places: The current proposal is to integrate public art into the proposed transit shelter. The applicant will continue to work with AIPP to develop the plan for public art. 15 Employee Housing Plan Section 12-23-8: Administration, of the Vail Town Code requires the submittal of an Employee Housing Plan for all projects subject to development review. Because of the proposed changes to allow for the Marriott Residence Inn, an Employee Housing Plan is required and provided below: 1 . Calculation Method: The calculation of employee generation, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation method by which the applicant proposes to meet the requirements of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: The existing Roost Lodge consists of 72 accommodation units and 1 dwelling unit. Because no new dwelling units are proposed, there are no credits given for the existing unit, nor is there any Inclusionary Zoning requirement. However, this inclusionary credit shall remain with the property should at a future date there be an application to establish a dwelling unit on the property. The proposed Marriott Residence Inn includes 176 limited service lodge units, for a total of 104 net new limited service lodge units (accommodation units and limited service lodge units are treated the same for employee generation rates). Commercial Linkage Calculation: Use Calculation Total Employees 104 net new limited service lodge 0.7 employees per new unit 72.8 units Mitigation Rate of 20% 14.56 Therefore, the proposed project will need to provide employee housing for 14.56 employees. As is required by the Vail Town Code, the applicant will meet the on- site employee housing requirement of 50% (55% will be met on-site). The remaining requirement will be met by either a payment in-lieu or through the provision of off-site units provided prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the project. 2. Plans: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with section 12-23-3, "Size And Building Requirements", of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan has been provided with this submittal. The on-site employee housing units are provided as follows: 16 Unit Type Number of Units GRFA Number of Employees Housed Dorm style unit 1 1 ,000 sq. ft. 4 Dorm style unit 1 1 ,000 sq. ft. 4 Total 2 2,000 sq. ft. 8 3. Lot Size: The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. 4. Schedules: A time line for the provision of any off site EHUs; Applicant Analysis: The off-site EHUs, if any, will be provided prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or, in the case that no temporary certificate of occupancy is issued, then prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. 5. Off Site Units: A proposal for the provision of any off site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; Applicant Analysis: Section 12-23-6: Methods of Mitigation, of the Vail Town Code, requires a minimum of 50% of employees to be housed in on-site units. For the Marriott Residence Inn, 55% (8 employees) of the employees required to be housed will be housed in on-site units, while the remaining 45% (6.56 employees) will be housed in off-site units or a fee-in-lieu will be provided to the Town. As currently proposed 8 employees are being housed on-site therefore leaving on a requirement for 6.56 off-site employees to be housed. 6. Off Site Conveyance Request: A request for an off site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. 7. Fees In Lieu: A proposal to pay fees in lieu shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; and Applicant Analysis: As is permitted by 12-23-6: Methods of Mitigation, of the Vail Town Code, 55% of the employees required to be housed will be housed in on-site units, while the remaining will be housed in off-site units or a fee-in-lieu will be provided to the Town. 8. Written Narrative: A written narrative explaining how the employee housing plan meets the purposes of this chapter and complies with the town's comprehensive plan. 17 Applicant Analysis: Section 12-23-1 : Purpose and Applicability, of the Vail Town Code provides the purpose of the Commercial Linkage Requirements: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new commercial development and redevelopment in the town provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such commercial development and redevelopment. The mitigation rates were established by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Nexus study. These rates are based on a survey of various properties in mountain communities. However, these rates have significant flaws in the case of this proposed project and as a result, the proposed employee mitigation far exceeds what is reasonable based on the stated goals of this chapter. The operator has indicated that the staffing of the project will fluctuate to a certain degree based on maximum occupancy from 30 full time equivalent employees to a high of 38 full time equivalent employees. However, the Town employee generation rates would suggest that a project of this size with 176 limited service lodge units would generate 123 direct full time equivalent employees or 53 more than will be necessary to operate this property. In reality, the Town's formula should be 0.175 employees per limited service lodge unit. If this rate were applied to this project, it would generate a requirement to house only a total of 3.64 employees rather than the 14.56 currently required. That is 104 net new units x 0.175 employees per unit x 20% mitigation rate = 3.64 employees. Only 1 .82 employees would be required to be housed on-site. All that said, the applicant is not formally requesting a deviation from the employee housing generation rates in order to ensure an expeditious approval process. The Administrator does have the authority under section 12-23-2 to adjust or lessen the employee housing requirements on a case by case basis. Should the Town decide to adjust the generation rates or mitigation rate at a future date, the applicant reserves the right to seek an amendment to the employee housing plan to take advantage of any changes to the program. The Town Vail Land Use Plan offers the following goals with regard to employee housing: 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 18 The Town of Vail Land Use Plan indicates that "limited incentives" were to be provided by the Town to private entities providing employee housing. In the case of the Marriott Residence Inn, no incentives were provided. The proposal complies with these statements from the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. 19 Adjacents BUFFER CREEK CONDOMINIUM KARP, KAREN L. ASSOCIATION, INC. PO BOX 2174 1860 MEADOW RIDGE ROAD UNIT 10, VAIL, CO 81658 VAIL, CO 81658 DUYOS, VIVIAN S. & JORGE R. TONKIN, ADAM D. & ALYSON L. 1434 SARRIA AVE 1920 S GILPIN ST CORAL GABLES, FL 33146 DENVER, CO 80210-3308 BEMIS, GREGORY MARKA W. MOSER PO BOX 3438 BOX 902 VAIL, CO 81658 VAIL, CO 81658 CAPSTONE TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION FARQUHAR, JERRY L. & DEBORAH R. DALE BUGBY 1879 MEADOW RIDGE RD 635 N FRONTAGE RD STE 3, VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL, CO 81657 GUERRIERO, RANDALL GRAND TRAVERSE AT VAIL ASSOCIATION 1859 MEADOW RIDGE RD UNIT C 1412A MORAINE DR VAIL, CO 81657-3905 VAIL, CO 81657 NECE LLC GRAND TRAVERSE AT VAIL ASSOCIATION PO BOX 4175 KAREN NULLE & ASSOCIATES EAGLE, CO 81631 P.O. BOX 839, EDWARDS, CO 81632 MERRIMAN, DANNY C., JANE M. & ADAM G. 1859 MEADOW RIDGE RD A LAVIN, LOUISE MILLER VAIL, CO 81657-3905 2166 RIDGEWOOD RD AKRON, OH 44313 ERB, WENDY ELAINE 1819 MEADOW RIDGE RD G FITE, KENNETH DAVID & IRMAK AYSE VAIL, CO 81657 17 MOCKINGBIRD LN CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE, CO 80113-4813 GUNION, JOHN F. & MARGARET M.A. - ETAL 1819 MEADOW RIDGE RD E MONASHEE ASSOCIATES LLC VAIL, CO 81657 17 WHITE OAK LN WESTON, CT 06883 TURNIPSEED, JASON & COLETTE 591 S UNVERSITY BLVD TOWN OF VAIL DENVER , CO 80209 75 S FRONTAGE RD W VAIL, CO 81657-5096 PICKING, HOWARD M., III & ADELLE C. 100 LONGVIEW LN HELMUT REISS TRUST JOHNSTOWN, PA 15905 1401 LAVENDER LN LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 CARNEY, JOHN M. 2001 CROCKER RD STE 420 HAGERMAN, PHILIP R. & JOCELYN K. WESTLAKE, OH 44145-6967 15171 PINEWOOD TRL LINDEN, MI 48451-9058 20 MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP, LLC CDOT POST OFFICE BOX 4777 4201 E. ARKANSAS AVENUE EAGLE, CO 81631 DENVER, CO 80222 YARDE, CRAIG 1895 MEADOW RIDGE RD VAIL, CO 81657-4948 21 Appendix A: Enlarged Elevations Changes to the North Elevation: mja R C� �it p l n rt t w ;Na ��1 lir« ,��� ��� ����� �1a Existing n'❑C�7�I�I a,®I® ��'��l � v° l CI I 11 i ❑L'1_LI-U I I-1 u 01 r u a 3 NORTH ELEVATION jm .'- lls R -P ' n Proposed 1fl � ����91M ❑ ❑❑ ❑ Pn 1111 ❑ -1IJ El y NEVI NORTH ELEVATION Existing LLL 1111 Ill 1111 1111 1111 HH,Ill 1111 Ill ill ill, H, 11 1111 11 1111 11 1111 11 Hill ill 11 "Ill I I'll 11 I'll 11 ill, 11 1111 I'll 11 HHHH,I Hill 1111 ill 11 Hill I Proposed 22 Changes to the North Elevation (cont.): m - „m I®® T®FJ® �® ®® ® I m n — Existing 31 tin g ® � ELEVATION m m ® Proposed 66,0, ® �.� IBIQ& Cl n IF f1 III ffM -1 F1 7 71 m ®IE m m © L Ll Ll Li L D Q L LJ u a Li 0 Ll Lj ,_Lq g L- J r i _Fin 1-1i q NEW NORTH ELEVATION Existing Proposed 23 Changes to the South Elevation: I m El [D El 71 �J, nC e 1 'm ❑ 11 U ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑Q 1—:1 C7 ❑ ❑ ❑❑ J El E0.1 €5 0® ® ED E al- s lbl4tL ,wad iIIM ID IE 99 Ul IE I_I _ n'orU 0U 0r-1 rJC1�_Q:� Irl F -1 m ID .,® mII;;,• E0 v.b ;< Existing r SOUTH ELEVATION ❑ C - ri - rr� T 1 r^"rt U -1 L ED ® ® &J C Li ELI _ ❑ U 1 U ❑ ❑ ❑❑ I 1 �a�F� Grr 4" ® ® ® JaQ;m ❑❑ _❑ ❑J�eL1�( J1I �ul �u �IR I I. I "1 � - >� » �� ® ® �.:: ® Proposed � NEW SOUTH ELEVATION IL ,7F r Existing rE x U.. Proposed -- JAL Oil f r - Existing '' �. Proposed 24 . &f0 N 99 .i ii6 • L. III mYl�l-ii �I�IIIIIIA�@1p9111 •� Il;mll9 1919p1�Im��Ilia°'I�I�I =9k 9191 99=99''=�9. ali!° no yii°iil A.31—'- � � . .... i;i l�11'1 ii�ii; A'Il IIIIIII ��Yinl mlu ll. u u ■■■■■■ MMI ■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■Y■ III,• ■■■■■■ �NN mill IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII is�!! IIIIIIIII IIIIIIA IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII uu u■u■ a._ o■: ■■■■■■ uu Illuu III ■■■■■. ��uu� u■u■ eyes-�_® u■u■ �UU- IN ■u u■ y r i� Illlla-s+B+f 111111111 uuuuu �: o —■I■■—!tom�.!A i����■■■■■■ 1—■■■■ ■■I■ ■■■■■■— sI ■Y.■ o�� �,S�e _��-�......Ate.—...■ ■.Y■ ■..... u u— �\' B— YYYOI■u u■�. u u =u u— ■u u■ ■i YYin Yin. •Y mYm�nn�nYin Yr.� -- Y■in■mYin YiiY.�nYin Y��.iii.i iY in Yi Y■in■mYmYnn iiiY inY���.i ilia Yi 1 Iiu Yinln . - _� -.:n Yi�l iul wYiu�iuliuliu Yi it lull it iu Yi�l iul wliuYiuliulN IiIL'•. 11111'': '�II�I ;�'�:rr:',r:',r: r.rr::,r:' r. I IIIIIII _- = IIIIIII 1 : . .: ::. :: ..::1111 111111 NONE 11.1;9 IIIIIII (IIIIIII e-==®Q �II�IIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII i ;: uu ■u u■ a 6 m: ■UU■ uYY III YYU III ■u u■ i� uu ■u u. •®- Y� nnu un YYU ■u u■ I =_ IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII a � IIIIIIIIII IIIIIII Illilll III IIIIIIIIII ..I■ ...... _mom � ...... I■YY II■I ...... d1 Alill uuuuu iiiiiiiiiiiiR a uu ��` �A���-i�u■■u�1 un.. !,:=..Y.—.a>.�►■ �ee =®e?�......Imo,—Y.Y Y_ I . ' ■ II.9�-■ae_�..A-A.u.■u.as—u Y Y ••• • Appendix B: Traffic Report 26 Transportation Impact Study for Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment y ' 11411 May 21, 2013 PREPARED FOR: The Harp Group 601 Oakmont Lane,Suite 420 Westmont, IL 60559 Contact: Peter Dumon, President PREPARED BY: McDowell Engineering, LLC 936 Chambers Court, B4 PO Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 970.623.078 Contact: Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE Project Number:M1095 ADO 6_60 S s 0 �o ° m° O ° D Q° f+ "J "S%ON A\ Statement of Engineering Qualifications Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE is a Transportation and Traffic Engineer for McDowell Engineering, LLC. Ms. McDowell Schroeder has over sixteen years of extensive traffic and transportation engineering experience. She has completed numerous transportation studies and roadway design projects throughout the State of Colorado. Ms. McDowell Schroeder is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado and has her certification as a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 2 Transportation Impact Study for Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM................................................................................................7 3.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS..............................................................................................................10 3.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.......................................................................................................................10 3.2 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH.........................................................................................................................10 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC...................................................................................................................................13 4.1 TRIP GENERATION.............................................................................................................................................13 4.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION...........................................................................................................................................15 4.3 SITE CIRCULATION.............................................................................................................................................15 4.4 TRIP MODE SPLITAND ASSIGNMENT....................................................................................................................15 5.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS....................................................................................................22 5.1 SITE ACCESS AUXILIARY TURN LANES....................................................................................................................22 5.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................23 5.3 ENTERING SIGHT DISTANCE ................................................................................................................................24 5.4 ACCESS PERMITTING .........................................................................................................................................25 5.5 MULTIMODAL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES................................................................................................25 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................26 7.0 APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................................27 Tables and Figures FIGURE1:AREA MAP.........................................................................................................................................4 FIGURE 2:CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN..................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 3:YEAR 2013 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES..................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 4:YEAR 2035 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT SIMBA RUN.................................................11 FIGURE 5:YEAR 2035 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SIMBA RUN .......................................................12 TABLE 1:TRIP GENERATION...............................................................................................................................14 FIGURE 6:ASSIGNED PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC WITHOUT SIMBA RUN.......................................................17 FIGURE 7:ASSIGNED PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC WITH SIMBA RUN..............................................................18 FIGURE 8:YEAR 2013 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................................................................................19 FIGURE 9:YEAR 2035 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS.........................................20 FIGURE 10:YEAR 2035 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS..............................................21 TABLE 2:AUXILIARY TURN LANE REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT SIMBA RUN:..........................................................22 TABLE 3:AUXILIARY TURN LANE REQUIREMENTS WITH SIMBA RUN:.................................................................23 TABLE 4:TOTAL TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE.......................................................................................................24 M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 3 1.0 Project Description The Marriott Residence Inn, a proposed 1.9 acre redevelopment, is located near the intersection of the Interstate 70 North Frontage Road and Buffehr Creek Road within the Town of Vail. This new all-suites hotel will replace the existing Roost Lodge located on the property. The southern boundary of the property abuts the Frontage Road and starts approximately 250 feet north east of the Buffehr Creek Road intersection with the Frontage Road. The property is also bordered on the north by Meadow Ridge Road, but is does not and is not anticipated to take access from it due to the grade differential. The location of this property in relation to the surrounding area can be seen in Figure 1. Figure 1:Area Map Op w f SITE mlwle any AD 400` WLSY Vail 173 z:s.. c c, �dh i73� pd O � �bya 5:e�hert5 Park 5?�e ]Inc 92712 Nokia 2012'M soft Corpmmio M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 4 The proposed redevelopment is expected to include a Marriott Residence Inn, it's associated support facilities and employee housing. Specifically, the Marriott Residence Inn project is currently anticipated to consist of: • 176 Hotel Suite Rooms • Lobby, Library, Lounge and Associated Guest Facilities • 2 Employee Housing Units A concept plan of the proposed development can be seen in Figure 2. The site is currently occupied by the Roost Lodge, which includes a 72-room hotel and 1 employee housing unit. The Marriott Residence Inn redevelopment has an assumed build out completion year of 2013. Analysis has been performed for existing conditions, background and total conditions for short-term Year 2013 as well as for the long-range planning Year 2035. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 5 • V) N Z ¢ w o - ---- A ID VA z u C4 Q � '— ^ O N U N co V — c*4 Go UW` X . lC L O ro ® .. >. ' w �— m ci V o t _ LLI ` — V ^ o O Z = 2 Z O �o U �' ■i % ■�. o �, � O � V _ c, 12 .. c z -o ccz < < < NNI 3DN3CIIS3 �1 101 �1 �] VW 11VA X CL w 0 11- U V H V CL O CD o O o O w z WLLJ, I Q n o � Do 00 o — o m 0o O LLJ 0 z � W f— D W U) W � � U o o II I II O LLJ QO > w z mW � � � ° oO y QQ � = Qz � Q J � w Q � w w O � CDC:) 0oo W > z W > J z Q U) u z U LnLnOO II �� - � Q > � W W Q zz I— Q � W J O zLLJ oo � 0 00 °�° O � � : � W W z w oo = Q I— � � W LLJ C) � � I— OW o000 � z 0 Q W 0 z C� z zz O (n z O o0 0000000 c� Q Q > Q Q Q O � W LLJ Q Q Q tY Q O z CD CD cN — I I CD7CD cn cn c� _ z m cn cn o v w cn � _ — W W (n m — W O Q Q J N N °� oo O O z O O I— U O O o O Off- O �' m O z �' � z ♦— O �' O L-i LLJ O O I I S 0 LL-Q � Q Q C D 0 (� 0 O (/� W � � C� Q CD Q — O C D C U C D U _ � � 00 00 � o' � z cn z cn c� z z z z = cn z w cn o W m v Q z cn z z cn z z o ,� v '— `D /� H1�ON Nb ld z Q � z w w U WHO 1= O w a- LL- z ❑ cn cn cn cn cn z w cn cn o cn cn cn - � - � � - - - � ooQ v z � cn � . o U — LLJ - � - - owoQ / r � wxwxww X W Q x w O x � — � x O w wQOx LLJ — x LLJ xW z x W x x � > Ol J / Lo'� cr) z W z W z z W W z I— W z W W a- cn W Q LL- cn W S W z cn W z W z W W z W LLJ El- 0 IY D w ° 00 w CD CD CD CD O O O O O O N - 00 00 D% I I ° CD ° L �r '�? �? ° 0o CO I O ° o � N ° ° / l--D CD O CD r"-) 0o O 00 CD CD o0 0 � / z O o 00 Qw co oN010 co o' I I I / ¢ ■ w U N W �O � I I C� �/ S� O Q o ?0- • LCD I o l- C-)N O O (n w 0 P ❑� I cn cn � � W � cn cn � � = 0' � Q o o � o I O o o � " T �� Y a 1 N �r� O 00 00 / p� 00 00 6 o N � � II II �LQ � mNCi L7 'S ° is O °w o � Z Of / 0°0 00 ter? ° ® � C ■ � II 0- \ I- co O o is Q ■ °O O O O Ln O T W O O O � � rs / Y O 00 CO O CD CD / c~i)olo 00 is C-D cam ° O N �/n dD BAs v. P ��.... 00 �JVV c ° O CJQQ� (�� `GJ , , A 6.02 a Q7. , ,�• •. Ln A 5.70 C) CD ' '1 ' 0 o CD o� o o o! O O O o �Q0 `b �QQ a CD O NO // O O Lc-) C � - d / O o I A N v. o 0 0 o CD N � II ICI / .. ° . 0000 � oo O CZj 0 ° C-D Q0 II 1 / cO O oo C-D o / �O ��' 0 10 OL+8 00 CD 11 CD cD L3 3: Of 0DLLl a 4 ° 8 00g '�� I . I D ic:V. O O / v� O OLq O N of O a l O O �Y CD tl) O r7 N N O O ° }j O� N \ I`7 M O O / . , a. v °O 0) °O O� r� r7 ° I I I II / aR °� m hI o o J 1 \ \ cP \ OIL CD �j $ '�' � O 00 00 Of 60 oo 0 � I 1 z° a �l vi o0 °/ ' as * ' �';= \ �' U�w N N '-,- O O Oj� J. Q - 00 00 / o \� t ✓ cfl ❑ 1❑ z CD II I l 0 . � �t 00 � � � O=3 co / ° moo°. . . w r— I i �w0 a' O CD C-D C14 cf� II II J o) cn LLJ � 6 �' I O LLJ � > ,�o I Z� �� v• 00 w m z L-q Lq LL 12 0 O C� (n 00 00 566 cD 0 w I I oo. w /` - 0O Lo O u / X00 6C6 W I I I 0 �.�� Orn 0 O O "= N • �O OQ00� co, O p�rp ICI ❑ ❑ z ��, I I O I o .• X60 1110000 � � . ._. .__ � � �j cn cn w z o z \ z W ~J LLJ CD CD LLJ (j N O w O O CD SAO ?�w,Jo III I I -- z c l � ��'�� O o O I I fil I I I I I I `� '.; Q I �h� o C) w M ° o I rn , :. °� �GJ w cl-j 00 CD I I I I�fiI�I I I III � �, � Qw � � ° � I rnrn 00'86 Off' a w � �� I I IIII I VIII s :f �� � = � 6 CD 0 o I I ��e o 6� z af m o - --- I II IIIIIII I� , cn ° wzo DD O 00 a0o coo 0°0 I o _'1' Q ;' d H 6' � Q LLJ II II II II. I I, I w I �D O I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I�� 111 N 6 0• 1 I Oo v7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I s��6� cn = O II II ,y II CD s� o I I I I I IIIIII ' O III IIII III LLI . O O �: X06 ,`C� OS 00 I ► O O .• oyo t N I I I U, ... o6� :. .0 tx _ III I I I I I I III - ° �' �u 0. � 6 Y 0 Zw Z /yam _ ty " / ^ v N� o ^ cn ��' ° CD ° • . CD c) N II II Ua w 000 c06 z� Ln y GJ cl- cD 9 ,� CD x OO ¢ �f� � . w o6�LrS Q o � M c�Mco Lo LLj III N 1111111 I CD m o cn ow w� L7 I w J 68 w Q III cn w .- o � � W I F > I Oo o Lo m �J i cn cn (" z O 3 N w 00 0 I I I I I I I I d..° O O v II II Q c� cnW I °A � U 0' I I O Q LLJ O I IIII = U r C, O (n cn co ' � J LLJ w _ �,° I I cn ��00 O� Z •- � CT o0 d' O� J 00 r- z II I U I� C57 Cn CT 00 O N W I I O Cn c ICI of w ■ I Q IJ CD O 0' �' O� _ o O S I �� a ono Q s e-- S --- ~- -----• ----- --- — `' ` W r 9 is • 6 U z w MEN ME M � ° 6� � cn LLj J �O Q C) Q°O cl � C:) �cn O °'°'� CT 6) LcS G-)0-) LLJ ��Q �� J �C� O � I O �c�� m CD w LLJ / LLJ w N O 2.0 Existing Conditions 2.1 Description of Existing Transportation System Interstate 70 North Frontage Road: The 1-70 North Frontage Road provides the primary local connection along the north side of Interstate 70 between the West Vail and Vail Village Interchanges. In the vicinity of the -�•�x project site, this two-lane facility is classified as Access Category F-R, Frontage Road by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. There are no existing auxiliary turn lanes at the two accesses to the property. CDOT and the Town of Vail completed an Access Management Plan Map for this roadway as part of their Vail Transportation Master Plan Update in 2009. Buffehr Creek Road: Buffehr Creek Road is a local two-lane roadway providing access to Chamonix Lane and residential development north of the development property. Buffehr Creek Intersects the North Frontage Road 250 feet to the southwest of the development property. The posted speed limit on this roadway is 25 mph. Meadow Ridge Road: Meadow Ridge Road is a short, cul-de-sac roadway that forms the northwest boundary of the proposed redevelopment. The subject property does not take access from Meadow Ridge Road, nor is it expected to do so in the future due to the grade differential between the property and the road. Pedestrian, Transit and Bicycle Facilities: The sole existing bicycle/ pedestrian facility in the vicinity of the Marriott Residence Inn redevelopment is the North Recreation Path, which connects the Vail Village and West Vail Interchanges along the north side of the North Frontage Road. The path is contiguous across the frontage of the - site and consists of a widened asphalt - shoulder. A concrete path with curb and gutter exists to the east of the project site and west of Buffehr Creek Road. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21, 2013 Page 7 Both the Red and Green West Vail bus routes travel along the North Frontage Road adjacent to the redevelopment site. There is a bus stop for the westbound routes at the southwest corner of the property. Year 2013 Background Traffic Volumes: Year 2013 traffic conditions are based on traffic counts provided by the Town via the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update, 2009 at the intersection of the North Frontage Road with Buffehr Creek Road. CDOT and the Town agreed that this data could be used for the Marriott Residence Inn's traffic analysis. The Town of Vail is planning on additional traffic data collection in 2013. Refer to the Appendix for this data and correspondence with CDOT and the Town of Vail. The assumed Year 2013 Background Volumes are based on data taken from both Figure 2: Existing Volumes and Figure 7: 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections of the Master Plan Update. As the Figure 2 volumes were derived from data collected in 2004 and 2005, Year 2013 background volume growth was linearly interpolated using Years 2005 and 2025 as the starting and finishing years, respectively. Per Town staff, there are no other development projects that should impact these volumes. Background evening volume projections for Year 2013 can be seen in Figure 3. Long-term background projections and the Simba Run Underpass are discussed in Section 3.0. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 8 Figure 3: Year 2013 Background Traffic Volumes 1 445 r 491 y Wl � r 4f k V 1 W f t- - f + AI C D O W ELL LEGEND: PM Volumes= XX ENGINE E RI N G. t 1c, �. TRAkSPORTATMN ENGiNEER1NO CONSULTANTS Turning Movements Project Number: M1095 (NTS) Prepared by: KJS Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Vail,Colorado 3.0 Future Traffic Projections 3.1 Capital Improvement Projects Per the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update, 2009 (Master Plan Update), the North Frontage Road is anticipated to remain a two-lane facility through the long term planning horizon. However, the Master Plan Update anticipates the construction of an eastbound left turn deceleration lane to Buffehr Creek Road prior to Year 2035. The Town of Vail and its' Master Plan Update anticipates the construction of the Simba Run Underpass of 1-70 some time prior to the long term planning horizon. CDOT and the Town of Vail are currently working on the environmental review process for this project. This underpass, expected to be located to the west of the Lionshead Village, would provide an additional connection between the parts of Vail north of 1-70 and those south of the interstate. Per the Master Plan Update, the likely result of this underpass on project-generated traffic would be to increase the portion of traffic headed to or from the east on the North Frontage Road. CDOT staff has requested that this potential underpass not be included when distributing project-generated traffic, however town of Vail staff has indicated that they would like to see the effect of the underpass on project-generated traffic. Both alternatives have been included in this study. 3.2 Background Traffic Growth Long-term background growth along the North Frontage Road is based on the Year 2025 volume projections provided in the Master Plan Update. Correspondence with Town staff regarding the anticipated growth rates can be found in the Appendix. Per Town staff, ...these projections represent a build out scenario study with 2025 selected as full build out. This was done during the boom in Vail and a lot of large developments were on the table going thru the process. Many of those have been stopped or delayed. We suggest using the 2025 data with a modest growth rate of 0.5% from 2025 to 2035. This methodology was used for Year 2035 conditions. The resulting projected Year 2035 background traffic volumes without the addition of the Simba Run underpass volumes can be seen in Figure 4. If the Simba Run underpass is constructed, the Master Plan Update indicates that the background traffic utilizing the North Frontage Road will increase significantly under 2035 conditions. The projected Year 2035 background volumes with the Simba Run underpass can be seen in Figure S. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21, 2013 Page 10 Figure 4: Year 2035 Background Traffic Volumes without Simba Run Underpass 1 583 i 662 y � r 4f k V 1 W f t- dw - f T P � i s it C D O W ELL LEGEND: ENGINEERING.t 1c, PM Volumes= XX �. TRAkSPORTATMN ENGiNEER1NO CONSULTANTS Turning Movements Project Number: M1095 (NTS) Prepared by: KJS Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Vail,Colorado Figure 5: Year 2035 Background Traffic Volumes with Simba Run Underpass 1 951 r i 836 y Fz ' � r 4f dw k V 1 W f t- - f P � i C D O W ELL LEGEND: E N G I N E E RI N PM Volumes= XX t��. �. TRAkSPORTATMN ENGiNEER1NO CONSULTANTS Turning Movements Project Number: M1095 (NTS) Prepared by: KJS Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Vail,Colorado 4.0 Project Traffic 4.1 Trip Generation The proposed Marriott Residence Inn is anticipated to consist of: • 176 Hotel Suite Rooms (all with kitchens) • Lobby, Library, Lounge and Associated Guest Facilities • 2 Employee Housing Units The proposed facility is best defined by the ITE Trip Generation Manual criteria as an All-Suites Hotel. This land use if differentiated from a regular hotel room because of the inclusion of limited kitchen facilities in each room. Suites with kitchen facilities generate less vehicle trips than a regular hotel room, as people tend to stay in their suite to cook rather that going out to eat for every meal. The all-suites hotel land use also accounts for ancillary land uses such as the lobby, library and lounge for guests. As there is no Saturday trip generation data available for the All-Suites Hotel Land Use, CDOT directed the use of Land Use #310, Hotel, for all Saturday estimates. The two employee residence dwelling units are best classified by Land Use #230, Condom inium/Townhome. Per the Trip Generation Manual, this site would be expected to generate a total of 874 external trips over the course of an average weekday. This site would be expected to generate 1,453 trips over the course of the average Saturday. This equates to an additional 280 trips during the average weekday and 857 average Saturday trips from the existing development. Included within this would be a total of 129 Saturday peak hour trips, 70 morning peak hour trips and 73 evening peak hour trips, including all modes of travel. Refer to Table 1 for trip generation calculations and further breakdown of these trips. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 13 25[ \ � @ ` \ /§ 3 ® f / -I c 4 ) ) /} af )! - - j[! Ft: \ af ; f ® � - � C) A : 4.2 Trip Distribution The distribution of project-generated vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways is influenced by several factors including the following: • The location of the site relative to other commercial facilities and the roadway network. • The configuration of the existing and proposed adjacent roadway network • Relative location of neighboring population centers Based upon the above factors, it is assumed that approximately forty percent (40%) of site generated traffic will travel to or from the east on the North Frontage Road and sixty percent (60%) will travel to or from the west on the North Frontage Road under short term conditions. Without the construction of the Simba Run underpass, a similar distribution as the short term conditions can be expected in Year 2035. Under long term conditions with the assumption that the Simba Run underpass is constructed, distribution can be expected to follow a fifty percent (50%) easterly and fifty percent (50%) westerly distribution. The modified directional distribution pattern is due to the increased accessibility of points east of the project site as a result of the underpass. 4.3 Site Circulation The Transportation Master Plan and Access Management Plan Map provide guidance for the access points to the subject property. These documents specify that the easternmost access will be ingress only and the westernmost access will be egress only. Per Section 4.4(1) of the State Highway Access Code, 2002, (Access Code) the minimum distance between access points should be at a minimum equal to the design sight distance along the highway. Given a 35 mph posted speed limit on the North Frontage Road, the two access points should be a minimum of 250 feet apart. 4.4 Trip Mode Split and Assignment Given the available bicycle/pedestrian routes and adjacent transit stop for the local bus system, it can be assumed that a portion of site generated trips will be made by modes other than passenger car. The limited parking in Vail also encourages people to use alternative modes of transportation. An assumed multimodal reduction of ten percent (10%) would result in the reduction of the volume automobile trips by 11 trips during the Saturday noon peak hour, 6 trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 6 trips during the weekday evening peak hour. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 15 Following the removal of non-vehicular trips from the project generated traffic, the anticipated volume of vehicular trips at each site access can be calculated. The anticipated assignment of trips on the roadway system is determined by applying the external trip generation expected for this site and its corresponding mode split to the estimated trip distribution. The resulting projections of site generated traffic without the Simba Run underpass can be seen in Figure 6. The resulting long term assignment with future completion of the proposed Simba Run underpass can be seen in Figure 7. The short term total traffic anticipated at each intersection in question is the sum of the estimated Year 2013 background traffic (Figure 3) traffic with Figure 6, and can be seen in Figure 8. Similarly, Year 2035 total peak hour volumes without the Simba Run underpass are the combination of Figure 4 traffic data with the project trip assignment of Figure 6 and can be seen in Figure 9. Year 2035 total traffic volumes assuming construction of the Simba Run can be seen in Figure 10. As only evening peak hour data was available from the Master Plan Update, all volumes in Figures 8 - 10 only represent the evening peak hour. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 16 Figure 6: Assigned Project Generated Traffic without Simba Run Underpass 1 N 2 L26/14/12 to wr n N ti O * € 39/20/18 MJ 39/20/18 20/12/14 41 tips` • ,'r' 74 - - S � r r 44& 1 ° 2 4f P � i Z s r - C D O W ELL LEGEND: E N G I N E E RI N SAT/AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX/XX t��. �. TRAkSPORTATMN ENGiNEER1NO CONSULTANTS Turning Movements Project Number: M1095 (NTS) Prepared by: KJS Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Vail,Colorado Figure 7: Assigned Project Generated Traffic with Simba Run Underpass 00 00 1 2 L33/17/15 A. aq� i 33/17/15 MJ .0 133/17/15 mm� 26/15/18 fte -... Y4j F# J _ tips` • ,'r' 74,,r - - S � r r 1 ° 2 4f P � i Z s r - C D O W ELL LEGEND: ENGINE E RI N G.t��. SAT/AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX/XX �. TRAkSPORTATMN ENGiNEER1NO CONSULTANTS Turning Movements Project Number: M1095 (NTS) Prepared by: KJS Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Vail,Colorado Figure 8: Year 2013 Total Traffic Volumes 1 2 L12 N 445 445 Ao.s * € r 18 NJ i 509 y 505 S � r r 1 e 2 4f - P Z s A C D O W ELL LEGEND: ENGINE E RI N G. PM Volumes= XXo t��. TRANGP7RfATEpN EREND CONSULTANTS Project Number: M1095 1095 (NTS) Turning Movements Prepared by: KJS Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Vail,Colorado Figure 9: Year 2035 Total Traffic Volumes Without Simba Run Underpass 1 2 L12 N 583 583 Ao. 18 NJ 680 *` t y i y 676 S � r r 44& 1 ° 2 4f ov ,! rT P � i Z s Or C D O W ELL LEGEND: ENGINEERING.t 1c, PM Volumes= XX �. TRANBPORTATEON ENGiNEER1NO CONSULTANTS Turning Movements Project Number: M1095 (NTS) Prepared by: KJS Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Vail,Colorado Figure 10: Year 2035 Total Traffic Volumes With Simba Run Underpass 2 L15 J m 40M 951 951 1 1 J Ao, Wr F 15 NJ i - 851 y 854 S � r r 44& 1 ° 2 4f _ a 1 f P � i Z s dw C D O W ELL LEGEND: ENGINEERING.t IC' PM Volumes= XX �. TRAkSPORTATMN ENGiNEER1NO CONSULTANTS Turning Movements Project Number: M1095 (NTS) Prepared by: KJS Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Vail,Colorado 5.0 Transportation Impact Analysis 5.1 Site Access Auxiliary Turn Lanes Without the Simba Run Underpass: As the North Frontage Road is a State Highway facility of Access Category F-R, Frontage Road (Speed Limit 35 mph), the need for auxiliary turn lanes to and from the site should be addressed. Per Section 3.13(4)(c-d) of the State Highway Access Code, 2002 (Access Code), as the North Frontage road has a posted speed less than 45 mph, acceleration lanes are generally not required and were not assessed further. At the proposed eastern site (ingress) access there is the potential for two auxiliary deceleration lanes, the eastbound left and westbound right movements. Neither lane currently exists. A westbound right turn deceleration lane is required on a facility of this type when the anticipated peak hour volumes exceed 50vph. Anticipated right turn volumes entering the eastern site access range from 12-26vph. The volume range is given because the traffic volume is expected to vary over the morning, evening and Saturday peak hour traffic. None of these peak hour volumes meet CDOT's threshold, and therefore no westbound right turn lane should be required at this access. An eastbound left turn deceleration lane would be required at the eastern if peak hour volumes expected to use this movement exceed 25vph. Saturday peak hour volumes are projected at 39vph for the eastbound left ingress movement. A deceleration lane will be required at this location. Refer to Table 2, Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirements for a breakdown of expected conditions. Table 2:Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirements without Simba Run: Turning Maximum Peak Hour Lane Required? Turn Lane Movement Turning Volume Length (from Figure 6) Westbound 26 vph No N/A Right <50vph turning Eastbound 39 vph Yes 43'Storage, Left >25vph turning 10:1 Taper The Access Code also details the required auxiliary turn lane lengths. Per Section 4, the auxiliary eastbound left lane should consist of a 10:1 taper and 43 feet of storage, for a total distance of 163 feet. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 22 With the Simba Run Underpass: The forecasted traffic patterns with the construction of the Simba Run underpass, would anticipate a 15-33vph traffic volume range for both the westbound right and eastbound left movements. The volume range is given because the traffic volume is expected to vary over the morning, evening and Saturday peak hour traffic. The peak 33vph at the eastbound left turn is less than that of the 39vph anticipated without the construction of the Simba Run underpass. Therefore, the required turn lane length is slightly shorter. Table 3 illustrates the Access Code's turn lane requirements for the site accesses. Table 3:Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirements with Simba Run: Turning Maximum Peak Hour Lane Required? Turn Lane Movement Turning Volume Length (from Figure 7) Westbound 33 vph No N/A Right <50vph turning Eastbound 33 vph Yes 41'Storage, Left >25vph turning 10:1 Taper As can be seen in Table 3, per Table 4-8 of the Access Code, the primary change created by assuming the construction of the Simba Run underpass is a nominal reduction in the required storage space of the eastbound left turn lane from 43 feet to 41 feet. 5.2 Level of Service Analysis An HCM 2010 site access analysis was performed for both short term Year 2013 and long term Year 2035 conditions. This analysis assumes that the single deceleration lane explored as part of Section 5.1 will be constructed. The western egress access was anticipated to have both a left and right turn lanes. Table 4 summarizes the total level of service (LOS) and delays. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 23 Table 4: Total Traffic Level of Service PM Level of Service Intersection (Seconds of Delay) Control Movement 2013 2035 Without Simba Run West Site Access and SB Stop SB B(15) C(20) N Frontage Road SBL C(20) D(30) SBR 8(11) 8(13) East Site Access and No EBL A(8) A(9) N Frontage Road Control With Simba Run West Site Access and SB Stop SB N/A E(47) N Frontage Road SBL F(76) SBR C(19) East Site Access and No EBL N/A 8(11) N Frontage Road Control As can be seen in Table 4, both of the site access intersections are anticipated to operate satisfactorily following the completion of the redevelopment through the long term planning horizon when the Simba Run interchange is not assumed to have been built. The addition of significant background traffic resulting from the construction of the Simba Run underpass would likely significantly degrade the side street Level of Service for left turning vehicles leaving the project site. However, even under these conditions, the ninety-five percentile queues at the access are anticipated to remain under one vehicle in length. 5.3 Entering Sight Distance As the redeveloped site is expected to be a commercial facility with minimal multi- unit truck trips, Per Table 4-3 of the Access Code, the appropriate design vehicle for entering sight distance is a single-unit truck. Per Table 4-2 of the Access Code, the entering sight distance at the western (egress) access should be greater than 455 feet. From the existing western access there appears to be in excess of 500 feet to the west of the access and in excess of 700 feet east of the access. Entering sight distance exceeds Access Code requirements. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 24 Eastbound sight distance at the western site (egress) access t5 Westbound sight distance at the western site (egress) access 5.4 Access Permitting Given that estimated traffic volumes at the site are expected to increase in excess of twenty percent over the existing volumes and the existing accesses will be reconstructed, revised State Highway Access Permits will be required for the two site accesses. 5.5 Multimodal Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The applicant shall incorporate multimodal facilities in the site design as the project progresses in the Town's review and entitlement process. These plans shall be coordinated for connectivity with the North Frontage Road bicycle and pedestrian route, as well as the transit system. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 25 6.0 Recommendations and Conclusions The Marriott Residence Inn redevelopment anticipates replacing the existing Roost Lodge, adjacent to the Interstate 70 North Frontage Road in Vail, with a 176-room all-suite hotel and associated employee housing. As part of this effort, it is expected that the two existing site accesses will be reconstructed and reconfigured. To comply with the CDOT and the Town of Vail's Access Management Plan Map and the Town's Transportation Master Plan, the site's western access shall be used for egress only and the eastern access shall be used for ingress only. Per the Access Code, a minimum distance of 250 feet between access points shall be maintained along the Frontage Road. The anticipated volumes turning left into the site are projected to exceed the requirements set forth by the Access Code for the construction of an eastbound left turn deceleration lane at the eastern site access. This lane should have 43 feet of storage space and a 120 foot, 10:1 transition taper. The expected increase in vehicular demand upon the two site accesses as well as the proposed change in access design will necessitate the need for revised State Highway Access Permits at both site accesses. Pedestrian/bicycle connectivity via the North Recreation Path, as well as transit access, should be maintained or enhanced in conformance with Town of Vail criteria. M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 26 7.0 Appendix Reference Documents 1. St" Edition Trip Generation Manual. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008. 2. Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001. 3. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2009. 4. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, 2010. 5. Vail Transportation Master Plan Update and Access Management Map. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig and Town of Vail, 2009 6. State of Colorado State Highway Access Code. CDOT, Rev. 2002 Included Documents 1.TIS Assumptions - Correspondence with Town of Vail and CDOT 2.Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Volume Projections 3.HCM 2010 Level of Service Calculations i. West Site Access ii. East Site Access M1095 Marriott Residence Inn Redevelopment May 21,2013 Page 27 Kari McDowell Schroeder From: Tom Kassmel Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:45 PM To: 'Kari McDowell Schroeder'; Babler, Alisa Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) Thanks,that works for the Town. From: Kari McDowell Schroeder [mailto:kari @mcdowelleng.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:10 PM To: Tom Kassmel; Babler, Alisa Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) Tom, Alisa is out of the office until the 16th. Therefore, we went ahead and included two alternatives in the traffic report— with and without the Simba Run underpass. Hopefully this satisfies both CDOT and the Town's requests. Thanks! Kari From: Tom Kassmel [mailto:TKassmel @vailgov.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 1:15 PM To: 'Babler, Alisa'; Kari McDowell Schroeder (kari @mcdowelleng.com) Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) It may seem counterintuitive, but the more conservative approach would be to use the numbers with Simba Run. Simba Run actually pushes more traffic to this particular section of Frontage Rd. 2025 Peak Hr PM with Simba at the Roost: 905 (WB) 795 (EB) 2025 Peak Hr PM no Simba: 555 (WB) 630(EB) The Town would agree with the conservative approach and ask for volumes with Simba Run. Sorry to keep batting this back and forth, I just now looked as the numbers. From: Babler, Alisa [ma i Ito:Alisa.Babler @ DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 11:17 AM To: Tom Kassmel Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) I'd say we stick to not assuming Simba Run is funded for the study. It's the more conservative approach. Otherwise, I don't have any other comments. Alisa Babler Permit Unit Engineer Please note, effective October 8, 2012, 1 will have a new email address: alisa.bablerPstate.co.us CDOT, Region 3 Traffic & Safety Section 970-683-6287 970-683-6290 (fax) Alisa.babler @dot.state.co.us From: Tom Kassmel [mailto:TKassmel 0)vailgov.com1 Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:47 AM To: Babler, Alisa Subject: FW: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) From: Tom Kassmel Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:44 AM To: 'Babler, Alisa'; Kari McDowell Schroeder; alisa.babler(a)state.co.us Cc: Blender, Emmalee Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) Few comments below in red. From: Babler, Alisa [mailto:Alisa.Babler @ DOT.STATE.CO.US1 Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:30 AM To: Kari McDowell Schroeder; alisa.babler@)state.co.us Cc: Tom Kassmel; Blender, Emmalee Subject: RE: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) Kari, I'm good with this approach. I would not include Simba Run in the study. I don't think it is funded, in which case it shouldn't be included in the study. Thanks Alisa Alisa Babler Permit Unit Engineer Please note, effective October 8, 2012, 1 will have a new email address: alisa.bablerCd)state.co.us CDOT, Region 3 Traffic &Safety Section 970-683-6287 970-683-6290 (fax) Alisa.babler @dot.state.co.us 2 From: Kari McDowell Schroeder fmailto:kari(amcdowelleng.coml Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:26 PM To: alisa.babler @state.co.us; Babler, Alisa Cc: Tom Kassmel Subject: Roost Lodge redevelopment in Vail (Traffic Methodology) Alisa, The Roost Lodge is looking to redevelop in Vail. The site currently has a 72-room hotel with one employee housing unit. The site is to remain generally the same, but be remodeled to an Marriott Residence Inn with 152 all-suite hotel rooms and four on-site employee housing apartments. This yields almost 1,000 vpd and 80+/-vph. These volumes will require a CDOT Level 2 Traffic Study on the 1-70 Frontage Road. I do not have a proposed site plan to share with you yet. The site was previously studied in 2006 by Fox Higgins. Per conversations with Dan Roussin, I believe that an access permit was issued. The project was not constructed. I am proposing the following methodology for this analysis: Traffic counts and projections: • Vail's 2009 Access Management Plan (AMP) and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) have traffic volumes for the frontage road and projections to Year 2025. 1 would like to use these volumes for the study, as the project- generated traffic is going to determine the need for auxiliary lane improvements, not the through traffic on the frontage road. • The Town of Vail is going to be obtaining new traffic counts in January 2013. We would propose to do a quick comparison of the frontage road traffic volumes at that time to determine if there have been major impacts to the transportation system. • The traffic growth rate for the frontage road is not available on CDOT's website. I would propose that we use the growth rate from the TMP and apply it forward to Year 2035.The growth rate from 2009 to 2025 is very high since the study was developed as a build out scenario study with 2025 selected as full build out. This was done during the boom in Vail and a lot of large developments were on the table going thru the process. Many of those have been stopped or delayed. We suggest using the 2025 data with a modest growth rate of 0.5%from 2025 to 2035. Once we have updated traffic numbers over this winter we can re assess the projection as needed. Background infrastructure improvements and future development: • The Town of Vail has identified the Simba Run underpass as a future $20 Million infrastructure project. Their 2011 CIP classifies this project as a low priority. I would like to know if we should include this connection under 1-70 in our long term analysis. Tom—Do you have input on this issue?Simba Run is moving forward (slowly), CDOT and the Town are about to release a joint RFP for a PEL within the next couple months for completion next year. • There are no know developments that are going to impact the Roost Lodge site. Trip generation: • We are proposing to use ITE Land Use Code#311—All Suites Hotel for the weekday/am/pm analysis. This land use does not have Saturday data. Therefore, we are proposing to use#310—Hotel for the weekend analysis. In addition, the four employee units would be analyzed as#220—Apartments. Can you confirm what Hotel and EHU rates were used in the approved Fox Higgins study, we should be consistent with those. 3 Trip distribution: • The previous study identified approximately 60%of traffic from the west and 40%of traffic from the east. We would propose to use the same trip distribution for our analysis. • The AMP identifies that the site's eastern access is a one-way in and the western access is a one-way out. See attached. • We are anticipating that the site traffic will trigger the need for an eastbound left deceleration lane at the eastern site access. Please confirm that this approach looks acceptable. I would appreciate any feedback before we start the analysis. Thanks! Kari Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE Transportation / Traffic Engineer CDOWELL i1IlEEl1 .11C. TnwM3PIMXIr AT9 13N ENISIiN[EFUNM CewfuLTAMTi Eagle • Broomfield • Grand Junction 970.623.0788 • 303.949.4748 • 303.845.9541 fax kari(&mcdowellena.com www.mcdowelleng.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. 4 N U 4 d cz i Jaen 30 (1) (3) 0 J� Nrtn /'fJ 7 7 LL � Q O _00 �� � ��� U U cq Cz 99 f��� ., U �Oab 25 cn U) � _Ile � o > cz o o L \ O) Y Y U O (c; N m m J L F- 10 om ;N O O + Q d C C U) N C\j � .r p U X a_ Q U - w w CO CY)Ho?� o o W X X L X X J ' LL 0— CO O S SZ 9Z 1 O 0 cu 01, s � o� • a, 2 co � B �ul�laecl / N � _ py aalua�a U F°CeS�Pd 6a011 q 5 ardSto�ePd \ s- oz p6 Pa I1en QedS ® �� �� ° !/Cc� N 0 O�� 6, O 6 \ �, 0In �lk 0 SO J �e \ tir R pea4s!��ed SO y R �e5 \� B uOj7 \ 0000 O`Q. OOcn l �1 od C',LQ4fl aloa!O Peausuo!I 3 ® r 0 Goy 9 O n ® R t 3 aloa!o Peaysuo!-l•M O e OQ * O C 9 N� '4243-P N CV c9✓� io Lo SO eta c� ✓ 1 ] S 00 '- o � Oti 2 9 100 ] n os B CO CO 0 moss lsaa � 0 C) O N�Cv O o � O LO N O * C\, moo G 13]� dss [os] os [gel 10091 o R r foci]os Q 09 G [sL] T O 1 / s��]oo I o G [os] r�OD M � 0 X60 ���1—NNO^� ll�<Op� j �0� 506, (" �� !�6 00� C� CO ��� cp� y 8 s a�-> w z a LA �9, Y' MW `�����° l0 J �� z P.. N 4v U CD i O lIz o U j Q O_ U L C o U U OL E � 4- �Og = N z 0 Lo Lo F- 6 � \ o CZ io -C- C/) O _� Y J CD CD Cl. N /O Z x O j° 0 rn CD X B N �9� 0 J S �I Cn �o�o to Co O � ® 2� OL No aO�4 rL0 06 O r" 0. Cu s rn� M Cn to//e���a� �G�►� �O O B 6ul�laed �j. aalueo a FoCeS�Pd '_ 6alli� B O 0 rdstO�eQ,d rn � OOS� � 60 Pa I!Ln O 0 c°o o e a � 0 0 ��30 Mry 3��� Os01S o Ot. 000 / 0 o � s Stir � o pea4sUO CY B aloa! ® Vt 1, peausuo!l:3 ,r zs 6A S rs G01 i tGt os S 00 aloa!o �� �� �.�VAe� 009 peaysuo!l.m O �o �n�F Lro) C) 6LQ Co N 0 X006 '1O a� B S�o�' ZIO o � M o, 9�/may 00,E 00� g ��' Oct R�oo� 0 oce 0 soa Lo0) szt, �sG t�, �on' �� T� / u7 u7 O 0 0 \p \p 00) \ m NcD�ry� \ �00 s(5) L 0 © ° v w z LO cn c 4v T = CZ CM U U > CL LL ° i C U i U) CO CO cz -0 U U E E ILEE E oss o , LO F– m 2 0 C L-- = � E v cz ° 0- w cz I� CL Q J L iii U �gl � �Obl u u u u N o O O °' W X X ® aF CV M� 000M cz X S0l o CO J a� �ObS ii � } o cn 0 O �<D � S �� pao3 O�� 0� cu �L�� 00 o O B J Sd Q) `N�®� sos , 0 rn Bul�laed co I pJaa Fo O S �r3O r ]ua0 a61011 B O Ip� PH I!LA QedSe� /� �k `9cJO�i9 O Q A� O 25 0 °j� Oo�s S'�O� ��zo o Q 5 °mss � o � oL dQ pea4sUOad / '�S�Q `��pea• `fie �s � D CeQ B p\ o i 0 !/ 810a10 ��5� ��A //���OAS peausuo!J 3 r ® Gp 000 mod. O e�' r X00 tCte 3 aloa!0 ��er 9 /9 peaysuo!�M 0 LQ e / �O J ENE ���copo 3Q � ti�g� /,ti mss,, i � h ® V`Z \�A - - To 0 �n `�0 J� SOS � _ (s) '0 0 0 r°cMy� 0 `mss 8a(09g) g�O -^ 6 SO�y B� e W �s8ti I X S aye O --Ole �5 00 `' e S` `9�9 ��- ^^ cv / O �C—v on C\, 00! y u1 * M Oi9 o O pt. 00 1 2 25 S �� x-06 � ESL (SS) g`�� oSO� (0s)osl R�soG (s9) D T (opt)slz —soa (so 0 (oss)sal 0 �—S G (oz 0 ssa s h rnLO(.0 LO QQ LO o LO L^Op�� SSt9 r/� QQ O-�/ OOHS S, OIQ o s 0 z60s��� �J/J > .� �� z MATCHLINE SEL SHT, 3 4 ¢ c J IL ti mw�+ Gw no Ift 4ec zk 1 4�id r , ,. 4; O n O • I c � _rill -. 4 oZ W Q � a q X1`0 w +� `- 6 K ►, t r 4w .t 'V? *' y rt ID IL pq CiO _ � `�� __— -_ + ♦' �`-'d Vii I '1HS 33S 3NI-1 3iVW _ C111\ �wws� �.x� 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 Total Conditions 7: North Frontage Road&East Site Access •ter '� ' �`• Lane Group SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations t Volume(vph) 0 0 18 505 445 12 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 40 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length(ft) 25 120 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.996 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd. Flow(prot) 0 0 1770 1863 1855 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow(perm) 0 0 1770 1863 1855 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 35 Link Distance(ft) 128 150 638 Travel Time(s) 2.9 2.9 12.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 20 549 484 13 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 20 549 497 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left R NA Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed(mph) 15 9 15 9 Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 2013 Conditions Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Total Conditions 5: North Frontage Road&West Site Access •ter '� ' �`• Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations r* t t Volume(veh/h) 14 22 0 509 445 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 15 24 0 553 484 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1037 484 484 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1037 484 484 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 94 96 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 256 583 1079 Direction, Lane# SE 1 SE 2 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 15 24 553 484 Volume Left 15 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 24 0 0 cSH 256 583 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.04 0.33 0.28 Queue Length 95th(ft) 5 3 0 0 Control Delay(s) 19.9 11.4 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay(s) 14.7 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 2013 Conditions Synchro 8 Report Page 1 2035 Total Conditions without Simba Run Underpass Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: North Frontage Road&East Site Access •ter ,� '� '`• Lane Group SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations t Volume(vph) 0 0 18 676 583 12 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 40 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length(ft) 25 120 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.997 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd. Flow(prot) 0 0 1770 1863 1857 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow(perm) 0 0 1770 1863 1857 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 35 Link Distance(ft) 128 150 638 Travel Time(s) 2.9 2.9 12.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 20 735 634 13 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 20 735 647 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left R NA Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed(mph) 15 9 15 9 Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 2035 Total Conditions without Simba Run Underpass Synchro 8 Report Page 1 2035 Total Conditions without Simba Run Underpass HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: North Frontage Road&West Site Access •ter ,� '� '`• Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations r t t Volume(veh/h) 14 22 0 680 583 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 15 24 0 739 634 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1373 634 634 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1373 634 634 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 91 95 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 161 479 949 Direction, Lane# SE 1 SE 2 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 15 24 739 634 Volume Left 15 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 24 0 0 cSH 161 479 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.05 0.43 0.37 Queue Length 95th(ft) 8 4 0 0 Control Delay(s) 29.7 12.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D B Approach Delay(s) 19.4 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 2035 Total Conditions without Simba Run Underpass Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2035 Total Conditions with Simba Run Underpass 7: North Frontage Road&East Site Access •ter '� ' �`• Lane Group SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations t Volume(vph) 0 0 15 854 951 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 40 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length(ft) 25 120 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.998 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd. Flow(prot) 0 0 1770 1863 1859 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow(perm) 0 0 1770 1863 1859 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 35 Link Distance(ft) 128 150 638 Travel Time(s) 2.9 2.9 12.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 16 928 1034 16 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 16 928 1050 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left R NA Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed(mph) 15 9 15 9 Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 2035 Total Conditions with Simba Run Underpass Synchro 8 Report Page 1 2035 Total Conditions with Simba Run Underpass HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: North Frontage Road&West Site Access •ter ,� '� '`• Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations r t t Volume(veh/h) 18 18 0 851 951 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 20 20 0 925 1034 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1959 1034 1034 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1959 1034 1034 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 72 93 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 70 282 672 Direction, Lane# SE 1 SE 2 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 20 20 925 1034 Volume Left 20 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 20 0 0 cSH 70 282 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.07 0.54 0.61 Queue Length 95th(ft) 25 6 0 0 Control Delay(s) 75.5 18.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F C Approach Delay(s) 47.1 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 2035 Total Conditions with Simba Run Underpass Synchro 8 Report Page 1