Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVVMC preferred Access design ReviewTo: VVMC From: Public Works Department Date: 9/26/14 Subject: VVMC Preferred Frontage Road Access Review Comments In general we do not support this Frontage Road access configuration; by not consolidating/eliminating access points it does not achieve the local planning efforts as indicated in the Vail Transportation Master Plan Access Management Plan that states the accesses in this area should be consolidated. The ability to use the roundabout as an access seems to be a missed opportunity if not used. Additional alternatives need to be thoroughly vetted. See attached sketch ideas, these plus others need to be looked at by the VVMC team and reviewed by the Town. Other more specific concerns and potential challenges of the proposed Frontage Road access are as follows; Eastern US Bank Access The eastern US bank access will not physically function as a two way access. It only accommodates an entering turning radius of 15’ and a two lane drive lane width of 20’. The drive lane is also partially in the CDOT ROW. The Eastern US Bank Access may cause (maintain) a hardship to the neighboring property (Scorpio), if the Scorpio ever needed to take access off the S. Frontage Road. See section 3.13 of SHAC. The spacing between the two access points is ~85’. It is required to be 150’ on a posted 25 mph hour road. (4.4 SHAC) Entering sight distance is required to be 375’ for commercial/office uses on a 25 mph 4 lane road. This may be difficult since 375’ is the far side of the roundabout. (4.3 SHAC) The proposed 5 parking spaces will not work. They are completely in the ROW and a 6’ walk separated from the back of curb by 10’ or more is desired. (4.3 SHAC) Per SHAC access are to be perpendicular (sometimes allowed at 60-90 degrees) for a minimum distance of 40’. This access is ~15’. VVMC Proposed Access The spacing between the two proposed access points and the roundabout is ~85’. It is required to be 150’ on a posted 25 mph hour road. (4.4 SHAC). The Sebastian loading delivery access is about 120’ from roundabout and we have issues with it, and it has minimal traffic volume. This preferred VVMC access would have much more volume. 150’ may be even too tight of spacing. Entering sight distance is required to be 375’ for commercial/office uses on a 25 mph 4 lane road. This may be difficult since 375’ is well beyond the far side of the roundabout. (4.3 SHAC) Per SHAC 4.9 access are to be perpendicular (sometimes allowed at 60-90 degrees) for a minimum distance of 40’. This access is ~35’. Since the peak right turn movement into the access is greater than 50, a right turn lane is required. This may be accommodated by the anticipated two lanes in the eastbound direction (one a thru lane, one an auxiliary lane). Per SHAC code (4.8) right turn lanes are required to include storage length and taper length, for this project the approximate required storage length 100’+,plus the taper length (90’) would be about 190’+ from Roundabout. There is not room for this length. Roundabout Access It seems not using this option would be a missed opportunity for this project. The restrictions discussed in the VVMC Site Access Alternative Evaluation seem predicated on the position that the proposed VVMC expansion has already been designed, and that the US Bank building can not be modified since there is a 10 year lease in place. In response to some of the constraints mentioned in the evaluation for the roundabout access, we would like to discuss these items in more detail; The necessary 100-125’ queuing could occur on-site, onto/into the parking structure or a redesigned port-cochere entry as anticipated in the VVMC preferred access point. The joint access could possibly be an entry only, with separate exit points The existing parking garage is being demolished which should provide flexibility in its future design. Emergency vehicles are mixed in the preferred design so how is mixing in the roundabout design different. We need to more thoroughly review the need for separate access. US Bank lease constraints should be discussed but the project may not be best served to drive the design of the future 100 year life of the VVMC. The wayfinding difficulty to sign the entrance from the roundabout would seem to be much easier than wayfinding guests to use the roundabout as a U-turn. Recognizing the difficulty of the timing, the Evergreen seemed open to the potential of a modified access for a couple of years, if necessary.