HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-30 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1987
2:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Joint Meeting with Planning and Environmental Commission to Discuss
the Vail Village Master Plan
2. Discussion of Policy toward Density Control Variances
3. Discussion of PEC Position on Proposed I-70 Interchange Improvements
4. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
5. Information Update
6. Other
7. Executive Session - Land Acquisition Matters
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1987
2:00 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
2:00 1. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission to Discuss the Vail
Village Master Plan
Action Requested of Council: Offer comments on material
presented.
Background Rationale: A number of Work Sessions have been
h.eld concerning the elements of the Vail Village Master
Plan. This session will cover the implementation of the
Plan once it is adopted. It is the hope of the staff to
initiate the formal review process following this meeting.
4:00 2. Discussion of Policy toward Density Control Uariances
Action Requested of Council: Discuss PEC/TC policy toward
Density Control variances in light of recent decisions.
Background Rationale: Recent decisions allowing additional
density for lodges and balcony enclosures necessitate a
discussion of existing policy toward these areas. Also,
requests for additional dwelling units in the Core area are
now in process - discussion on generally how these will be
handled in light of the Land Use Plan and Uail Village
Master Plan is important. At the meeting staff will
assemble related policies and ordinances we currently have
or are working on.
4:30 3. Discussion of PEC Position on Proposed I-70 Interchange
Improvements
Action Requested of Council: Discuss the letter PEC sent to
the State Highway Department and the ramifications of that
action.
Background Rationale: Copies of the letter and a memo to
the Council on this issue are enclosed in the packet.
4:45 4. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
Peter Patten
4:55 5. Information Update
Ron Phillips
5:OQ 6. Other
5:05 7. Executive Session - Land Acquisition Matters
,
r ;
F,
( -
TO: Town Council and Planning and Environmental
Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 30, 1987
SUBJECT: Joint meeting to discuss the Vail Village Master Plan
To date, the staff, Planning Commmission, Town Council and
public have been involved in a number of work sessions to
discuss the various elements of the Vail Village Plan. These
have included discussions of the general structure of the plan,
the goals, objectives and policy statements, and the specific
sub-areas and sub-area concepts proposed in the Plan. A
variety of input has been received concerning these elements of
the Plan. Amendments amounting to a major rewrite of the draft
that was provided to you last fall are now underway. Given the
comments that have been made, and the changes that are now
being done, staff is comfortable that the basic contents of the
plan are generally acceptable to the Council and Commission.
The goal of this work session is to discuss how the Plan will
be implemented following its adoption. The staff is proposing
a system that will essentially adopt the Plan to enable it to
be used as criteria in the review of development proposals
throughout the Vail Village study area. This process will
generally not add additional levels of review to the
development review process. Rather, it will replace existing
review processes with a new system that incorporates the Vail
Village Master Plan. As per Council and Commission directives,
there are no site specific rezonings involved in this
proposal.
We have attempted to provide you with information that
establishes the general framework with which the system would
develop. As such, it should be recognized that we are presenting a concept, and not a final proposal. Material
provided in your packet includes the following:
1. Vail Village Overlay Zone District (draft)
This document would be the legal means with which the
Vail Village Master Plan is recognized as a tool in
the review of development proposals in this area. It
is the goal of this district to basically replace the
SDD process with a new process which incorporates
more appropriate review criteria.
E
a
2. Impact Fee Memorandum
The implementation of an impact fee has been
discussed throughout the development of this plan.
In this memorandum, we have proposed a system for
implementation in the Village area. The staff is
very interested in a final discussion as to whether
or not the impact fee should be incorporated into the
final rewrite of the Plan.
3. Revised Action Plan
The Action Plan map has been revised based on the
input received from previous work sessions. Also
included is a rewritten introduction that explains
this graphic.
4. Example of a Rewritten Sub-Area
The introduction to the section of the Plan that
includes the 10 different sub-areas has been
modified. In addition, a rewritten sub-area (Willow
Circle) has been included that will be used in our
presentation to outline how the review process will
work. Additional information will be provided during the work session
to explain how this review process will function. We look
forward to meeting with you on Tuesday to discuss these
matters.
k1 /
DRAFT
VAIL VILLAGE OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
Sections:
1. Purpose
2. Uses
3. Development Standards
4. Design Standards
5. Density
6. Development Plan
7. Impact Fees
8. Additional Restrictions
9. Amendment Procedures
1. PURPOSE
It is the purpose of the Vail Village Overlay Zone District
to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development
of land in order to promote its most appropriate use, while
maintaining the unique design characteristics of the Vail
Village area. The two specific purposes of the Vail
Village Overlay District are:
a. To provide for orderly and controlled growth to ensure
the enhancement of the ambiance and character of the
Vail Village area through the continuation of the
building scale and design qualities that distinguish
Vail Village.
b. To establish a means for allowing residential
densities greater than permitted under existing zoning
where appropriate...and when demonstrated to be
consistent with the design standards established in
the Vail Village Overlay Zone District.
2. USES
Permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be as
indicated by a property's underlying zoning.
3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Density control, lot area and site dimensions, setbacks,
height, site coverage, landscaping and site development,
and parking and loading standards shall generally be as
indicated by a property's underlying zoning.
4. DESIGN STANDARDS
Project proposals in compliance with all development
standards prescribed by a property's underlying zoning
shall be reviewed with respect to zoning considerations,
Design Review Guidelines, and the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan (where applicable).
Project proposals requiring variances to any development
standards prescribed in a property's underlying zoning
shall be reviewed by criteria established in the Vail
Village Overlay Zone District. Specific criteria to be
used in the review of any proposals requesting variances to
prescribed development standards include:
a. Compliance with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Vail Village Master Plan
-2-
b. Compliance with the graphic elements of the Vail
Village Master Plan (land use, height, open
space, circulation, and action plan maps)
c. Compliance with the property's sub-area and sub-
area concepts (when applicable)
d. Urban design considerations and architectural and
landscape considerations of the Vail Village
Urban Design Plan (where applicable)
e. Select criteria from section 18.62 of the
Municipal Code (variance criteria):
1) The relationship of the requested variance
to other existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity.
2) The effect of the requested variance on
light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities,
public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
Only those projects demonstrated to be substantially in
compliance with all applicable criteria shall be approved.
With the exception of project proposals requesting
residential densities greater than permitted by a
property's underlying zoning (see section below), the
review process shall be conducted by the Planning and
Environmental Commission. Review and approval of the
Design Review Board shall be required following approval
from the Planning and Environmental Commission.
5. DENSITY
Proposals involving residential density greater than what
is permitted under a property's underlying zoning shall be
reviewed by the criteria outlined above. Planning and
Environmental Commission action on these proposals shall be
advisory, with final approval required from the Town
Council. Additional regulations applicable to any request
for residential density exceeding what is permitted by
underlying zoning shall include:
a. Any units approved through this process shall be
constructed as accommodation units or dwelling
units that are restricted as outlined in Section
17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations.
b. Payment of an impact fee as outlined in Section 7
of the Vail Village Overlay Zone District.
-3-
Project proposals requesting residential densities greater
than permitted by underlying zoning and not in compliance
with condition No. a above shall be reviewed by standard
variance criteria as outlined in Section 18.62 of the
Municipal Code.
General guidelines for floor area ratios are provided for
each sub-area in the Vail Village Master Plan. These
guidelines establish general parameters for acceptable
levels of development for each sub-area throughout the
Village.
6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Before any site preparation, building construction, or
other improvements to parcels within the Vail Village
Overlay district occur, there shall be an approved
development plan for said parcel. Development plans shall
be reviewed as outlined in the Design Standards section of
the Vail Village Overlay Zone District. Final
determination of submittal requirements shall be made by
the staff of the Community Development Department.
Generally, the development plan submitted shall include,
but not be limited to, the following information and data:
a. A stamped survey by a licensed surveyor showing
existing conditions including buildings,
contours, mature trees, and other natural
features.
b. Floor plans and elevations of existing
structures.
c. A proposed site plan showing locations and
dimensions of all buildings and structures, and
principal site development features such as
landscaped areas, recreational facilities,
pedestrian plazas and walkways, delivery areas,
driveways, and parking and loading areas.
d. A vicinity map showing the proposed site in
relation to all adjacent sites and structures.
e. A preliminary landscape plan showing all existing
landscape features to be retained or removed as
well as proposed landscaping and landscaped site
development features such as outdoor recreational
facilities, bike paths and trails, pedestrian
plazas and walkways, water features, and other
elements.
-4-
f. Preliminary building elevations, sections, and
floor plans.
g. Visual analysis of proposed development as
demonstrated with photo overlays, models, or CAD
analysis (to be determined by staff and
applicant).
h. A statistical analysis of all existing and
proposed uses broken down by square foot.
i. Other submittal requirements as determined by the
staff at time of application.
7. IMPACT FEES
An impact fee of $.50 per square foot for all commercial
development and all residential develoment over what is
permitted under existing zoning shall be assessed at the
time a building permit is issued. (See accompanying memo
for additional details on this system.)
8. ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
The Vail Village Overlay Zone District is intended to
provide a flexible system of development review utilizing
the Vail Village Master Plan as a basis for this review.
The adoption of this zone district and master plan is
intended to eliminate the need for special development
district rezonings. Properties within the Vail Village
Overlay Zone District will no longer be eligible to create
new special development districts.
9. AMENDMENT PROCEDURES ,
Amendment procedures similar to those established by the
Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Land Use
Plan.
-5-
~
i .
~
.
~
.
~
.f I&ACTD I I ~ '
1
TOW N OF VAI L
i ~ ~ _
D iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii•
I~: ;laG ~ . ~iN
••~'•"S'.• .~4.C.'.: c!:~
, '•:e• ••:t•.•. ! ~LrLiC. .
la. l• I iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiii~ii ~ ~ t ~
iiii .ii ~iii~~ `4f~(~`Y~~LV •i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
~ . ~ ~7,'' n. ~iiiiiiiiiiiiiii~
'i`Ji~~ ~ ~~~~iiiiiiiiii
YF MEQ~w ..rl.. i"•. I y iiiiiii
0 ~p~p~ii i £ j~, ~•y„~i., J'. EAS MEADOW 0 /
~00
p
~OpQ~O iiii . 1~/iG~.diiii. I,. ~ ii / . ~ /ii/i ~ ~ ~ .
C1~ O(j p
DOC
c o 0 0 , p . , f~P. g~r~r ~
ri o.. • ~ iiiiiiii ri. ,
J O ~'oO
o oooo~ ge
O o~o
.0 0 OQ~O 60 0 O0
O ,C~~ O O
U606
~ F RE O Uo Q~ O O IL
<S
_~g o~~ goo 0 ~ '$ao
o~°o o°.o° aoo -o°-~n~ 0 00
o o ° / /i • '~j. ` - ,
~g ~ ~ ~ ~
.o 000 ~oo noo doo o
000 060 o 0 0 PµGH o F-i•
~ . - r,o° qo°o o c;'' ~ frzQy` i
~..a'~ .v. . " y" . r . ~ ' ' n . ~ i i i i i i i i i T CT I ~ /
,._raaoe~.~c.. • ••.,:~E ~ , ~,~;';;;;;;~~:~I~:~ # LIN ~'2' %
: . . . . SU ~ LpT ..L.,. ;`5~ . ; .
.
' . u~,~o
.
visioN " 0 . o 3 i
i
t o 00 ~ - %
° -
u g ~ o o~ u o r~-= ncrwF-e c d o0o0
~p`~O
FK GRC~ O~ d v0 W.-0-. i
° 08 0 oi o d o°
~ , o ~ Ql -16LA lh.~' G-.. KQ~ O 0poU i1f ~yp C%~
-r~-~-~- 0O 00 -~-f'-~-f--T~~~--t-~--1- ~ u
• • • ~ _e._~ ;y%`/~ic'~?~
~ - -
V A I L ~.J ~ L L ACg E ~ ti.J C: F=< 9_._ A Y -V~_
-z-~-s-
1---f- t---~-t--~---f-~--~'-1-y-~1-~-~-f
ZC) 1~1 E D I~ T F: I~ T a-s s~~-.-~-~ s• o~`
. ~--0-- -~-+-a-a
-r- ~ ~-y.-r+-+ =~-o - r-t-~-- v- ~-~-+-r-t-r- - - - -
~-o-o-a.-0
-a-~- --a • • • • ~_-~-.~-a-a • • •
3 ~IITS -1--iTi-i-"rf-r-r~-~-~--1-r
- -t--~-~-f-~- ~-1--~-O-t-~-~--f t f-1-~--~-1--~-
~ -
87
IMPACT FEE SYSTEM FOR VAIL VILLAGE
A. WHY should we do it?
l. Offset impacts and additional service/facility demand of
continued growth in Vail Village area, somewhat similar
in concept to the parking fund.
2. Trade-off for Town of Vail with developers wishing to
expand buildings over and above existing allowable
density controls (where the plan allows for it)..
B. HOW would the fees be collected?
1. Fees collected at time of building permit along with
other traditional development fees.
2. Monies collected go into separate fund: "Vail Village
Impact Ftes." Expenditures are approved by Council as
part of the Capital Improvement Program planning and
budgeting process.
C. WHAT would we spend it on?
1. Physical, permanent capital improvements only
predominantly in public areas within the Vail Village
Overlay Zone District (Master Plan study area).
2. Improvements would generally follow an approved
prioritized list.
3. Examples of improvements to be made under the system:
public walkway/recreation paths along Gore Creek;
• intersection improvements to reduce unnecessary
vehicular traffic into pedestrianized areas; brick paver
treatments at key intersections/corners;
relocation/improvement to Siebert Circle; improvements
to the Mill Creek area between Hanson Ranch Road and
Gore Creek Drive; public art projects, etc.
D. WHO would benefit?
1. The businesses in the area would benefit by having more
attractive adjacent public areas, thus increasing the
overall pedestrian traffic throughout the Village
commercial areas.
2. The public (especially the guest) benefits by enjoying
the Village public areas more than currently because
they would become attractions.
d .
VILIAGE MASTER PLAti ~
1MPACT FEE ANAIYSIS
iMFFEES 3/16/87
Permit Elec Plue Mech (f25000 >f25000 Plan Rec. Use VA« VILLA6E 1MPACT FEE , DRB ' Sq. Ft. Value Value Value Value Perait Fee Peroit Fee Check Amenity Tax Elec Plum Mech Fee PTOTAL sqatft' ReNenue =per itifees9 TDTAL ~
-
--------:__=:..z:=:=:_
inor Residential Addition
Sonnanalploriginall SU00 470000 32900 2B200 31600 0 1935 1251 5000 2350 1002 281 564 100 12490 $0.50 $2,500 40.01 111,984.43 ~
livoli 6000 564000 39480 33840 45120 0 2212 1450 6000 1820 1199 338 677 200 14917 $0.50 $3,000 20.11 t17,916.58
Ravshorn 5000 170000 32900 28200 31600 0 1935 1257 5000 2350 1002 282 564 100 12490 $0.50 $2,500 20.01 f14,984.93
Tezas T.H. BU00 152000 52640 45120 60160 0 2196 1811 8000 3160 1594 451 902 100 19510 $0.50 $4,000 20.5i $23,520.38
~
Major Residential Addition
Apollo Park 27000 2536000 171660 152260 103040 0 6616 9300 27000 12690 5345 1523 3048 300 60819 $0.50 113,500 12.21 $74,318.78
'
Manor Vail 26000 2449000 17108D 146640 195520 D 6428 4178 26000 12220 5141 1466 2933 300 58672 f0.50 $13,000 22.21 $11,611.98
A1I Seasons 200110 1880000 131600 112800 150400 0 5300 3445 20000 9400 3963 1128 1256 300 15791 0.50 $10,000 21.82 f55,791.19
Sonnanalp(west) 10000 1880000 131600 112A00 150400 0 5300 3145 10000 9900 3963 1128 2256 300 35191 f0.50 $5,000 ~
Vail Trails e+w 40000 1680000 131600 112800 150400 0 5300 3445 20000 4400 3963 1128 2256 300 45741 f0.50 $10,000 21.81 f55,791.18
Minor Coomercial Addition '
Sonnanalp(original) 2000 140000 9800 8400 11200 0 180 501 2000 700 309 84 168 50 4597 $0.50 11,000 21.81 $5,597.18
,
Sonnanalp(east) 25500 115000 12250 10500 14000 0 902 586 2500 875 383 105 210 100 5661 $0.50 f1,250 22.11 f6,910.80
Eraoeshaioer 900 63000 4410 3180 5040 0 473 307 900 315 147 38 16 50 1306 $0.50 $450 19.51 $2,756.15
Golden Peak House 1000 70000 4900 4200 5600 0 505 328 1000 350 162 42 BA 50 2520 f0.50 $500 ,
Lodge at Vail 7600 252000 11640 15120 20160 0 1112 161 3600 1260 544 151 302 100 1891 $0.50 11,000 22.81 $9,690.78
Nill Creek Court 3500 245000 17150 14700 19600 0 1147 746 3500 1215 530 147 294 100 7688 f0.50 11,750 22.81 $9,438.05
~
Major Coaaercial Addition
Sonnanalp(west) 13000 410000 63100 54600 12800 0 3110 2125 13000 4550 1926 546 1092 200 16709 $0.50 f6,500 24.31 $33,209.68
VVI 15000 1050000 7350D 63000 89000 0 3640 2366 15000 5250 2220 630 1260 300 30665 $0.50 $7,500 24.51 $38,165.18
•
Crossroads 9000 630000 44100 31800 56400 0 2430 1579 9000 3150 1338 378 756 200 18831 $0.50 $4,500 23.91 $23,330.68
f88,150
NOTES:
A! Impact Fee to be assessed only on new commertial space and 6RfA over allawable densities ~
BI Square footage and building valuations are based of U.B.C. stindards
and recently conpleted construction projects.
Couercial space; i10/sq. fL '
Residentiil space: f94lsp. Ft.
G Electrical fees are all calculated at residential ntes
DI Vlan chect fees are calculated at coodercial rates
E1 Electrical, plusbing, and oechanical are assuiied to Ee 7%, 61, and BX of the permit value, respectivly •
fl Building square footages are estitates only ~
3. The Town government benefits through obtaining a fiscal
means by which these projects are completed and by the
increased sales tax revenues generated by a rejuvenated
Village commercial area.
E. HOW would the system be structured?
1.. A flat rate per square foot of new residential or
commercial (includes office) construction (with certain
exceptions) would be assessed to projects constructing
more than the currently allowable density (number of
units or GRFA). We propose a$.50/sq ft fee for the
square footage constructed over the allowable.
2. Certain incentives relating to the use or type of new
construction could be included. Examples of possible
variable fee structures to provide incentives:
a. Although the staff is recommending that all
dwelling units built under the plan would be
" restricted for owner's use as per Section 17.26.075
. of the Subdivision Regulations, if this is not
adopted we would recommend a doubling of the fee
for dwelling units over 2500 square feet. This
would discourage the development of large, luxury
condominiums which would likely not be short-term
rented.
b. Al1ow for a 50% maximum credit against the total
impact fee assessed if, in the final judgement of
the Council, the developer has constructed
significant improvements with direct public benefit
(other than expected improvements typically
associated with the high quality development
standards established for Vail Village such as
brick pavers, lighting and landscaping immediately
adjacent to the building) to off-site public areas.
Flexibility but consistency of this provision would
be critical.
c. A reduction of 25% of the fee for construction of
accommodation units.
d. Employeee dwelling units restricted to such use for
a minimum period of 20 years would be allowed a 50%
reduction per square foot.
e. Meeting rooms and recreation amenities would not be
charged any fee.
F. HOW Much?
We recommend a$.50/sq ft charge (first attachment) 'on
square footage which would not be allowed today. We
chose this number after an analysis of various rates
(remaining attachments) related to other permit costs
and the revenue each would produce. The charts are
based upon the approximate square footage the plan might
generate with the corres-pondiing permit fees including
the impact fee and its percentage of the total. It is
important to note that this fund will not generate
significant amounts of revenue to the Town to the degree
that major projects would be able to be funded by it
alone. However, we feel it is important that the fund
be established to help the Town offset the impacts. of
additional growth and facility needs by either partially
funding projects (i.e. TOV share of a public/private
joint venture) or smaller capital improvements important
to the Village. Other methods of funding the plan's
proposed capital improvements could be: an overall
improvement district for the area; small improvement
districts aimed at a particular project(s); Real Estate
Transfer Tax (for the streamwalk project) and the
Capital Improvement fund itself.
4
v '
~ VILIAGE NASTER PLAN •
fMPACT FEE ANALYS[S ~ IMPFEES 3116/87 ~
~
Penit Elec Plus Mech <f25000 >f25000 Plan Rec. Use VA ILLA6E IMPACI FEE
~RB PEftMiT Rate NeN X of existing 6ROSS ~
5q. Ft. . Value V+lue Value Value Perait Fee Pen[t Fee Check Asenity iaK Elec Plus Mech Fee TOTAL sq. ft. Revenue penit fees TOTRL
~ sse'sz'assaase'eee:eseeasuaaasxess~szvazv'ae'se'ecszacexe'eoeeena's"""'ri""'e"voa'zzceaszeasv"ceaeeeeszez a
ax'¢"s' cx'zxa'sao'xeee'ez""""e""'i
Minar Residential Additian e caexse
- - - 0
Sonnanalp(original) 5000 470000 32400 28200 37600 0 1935 1257 5000 1350 1002 282 564 100 40.21 $20,916.58
12440 f1.00 f5 000 40.02 f11,489.93
Tivoll 6000 564000 39180 33840 15120 0 2232 1150 6000 2820 1199 338 677 200 14917 f1.00 $6,000
Ratshorn 5000 410000 32900 28200 37600 0 1935 1257 5000 2350 1002 282 564 100 12490 f1.00 $5,000 40.01 $17,499.93
p
TeKas T.N. 8000 752000 52640 45120 60160 0 2196 1811 8000 3760 1544 451 902 200 19520 t1.00 $8,000 41.01 $27,520.38
Major Residential Addition '
~
Apollo Park 27000 2538000 177680 152280 203040 0 6616 4300 27000 12690 5345 1513 3046 300 60819 f1.00 $27,000 44.43 f87,818.78
Manor Vail 26000 2144000 171080 146640 145520 0 6428 4178 26000 12220 5141 1466 2933 300 58672 f1,00 f26,000 44.3% $84,671.98
A1l Seasons 20000 1B80000 131600 112800 150400 0 5300 3445 20000 9400 3963 112A 2256 300 45141 11.00 $20,000 43.71 $65,791.18
J
5onnanalp(rest) 10000 1880000 131600 112800 150400 0 5300 3445 10000 4400 3963 1128 2258 300 35791 $1.00 $10,000 V Vail Trails eFr 20000 1680000 131600 112800 150400 0 5300 3445 20000 4400 3963 1128 2256 300 45791 $1.00 $20,000 43.71 $65,791.18
Minar Couercial Additton
~ Sonnanalpforiginall 2000 140000 9800 8400 11200 0 780 SOI 2000 700 309 84 168 50 4547 $1.00 $2,000 43.5S $6,597.18
5onnanalpleastl 2500 115000 12250 10500 14000 0 902 586 2500 875 383 105 210 100 5661 $1.00 $2,500 44.2x f8,160.80 J
6rasishaner 400 63000 4410 3780 5040 0 473 301 900 315 147 38 76 50 2306 $1.00 $900 39.01 $3,206.15
V 6olden Peak House 1000 70000 4400 4200 5600 0 505 328 1000 350 162 42 84 50 2520 $1.00 11,000 34.71 $3,510.43
lodge at Vail 3600 252000 17640 15110 20160 . 0 1172 761 3500 1260 544 151 302 100 7891 $1.00 $3,600 45.61 511,00.78 ~
Mill Creek Court 3500 145000 17150 14100 19600 0 1147 746 3500 1225 530 141 291 100 7688 $1.00 $3,500 45.5% t11,188.05
V
Major Couercial Addit(an
5onnanalp(rest) 13000 910000 63700 54600 71800 0 3210 2125 13000 4550 1926 546 1041 200 26109 $1.00 $13,000 48.7x $39,708.68
~
V? YYI 15000 1050000 73500 63000 84000 0 3640 2366 15000 5250 2220 630 1260 300 30665 $1.00 $15,000 48.91 $45,665.18
Crossroads 4000 630000 44100 37800 50400 0 1430 1579 9000 3150 1338 318 756 200 18831 $1.00 $9,000 47.81 $27,830.68
~
V • -
$177,500
•
NOTES:
V A1 lmpact fee to 6e assessed only of neN couercial space and 6RFA over a1loMable densities
allowa0te densities •
B1 Square footage and 6uilding veluatians ere 6a5ed of U.B.C. standards ~
V and recently completed construction proJects.
Couercial spacet f70/sq, ft. J
Residential space: f94/sq. ft. `
CI Electrical (ees are all calculated at residential rates
01 Plan check fees are calculated at couercial rates J
E) Electrical, pluo6ing, and secAanical arQ asswed to be Jx, 61, ind 81
of thQ penit vilue, respectivly
J
b
J
V .
V
O
•
~
. :
L, VILlA6E MASTEA PLAN '
1MPACT FEE ANALYSIS
IMPFEES 3/16/87
V
Penit Elet PIus Mech (f25000 >f25000 Plan Rec. Use YA« VILlA6E IMPACT FEE
DRB PERMIT Rate / NeN i of ezisting 6ROSS V
Sq. Ft. Value Value Value Value Penit Fee Penit Fee Check Amenity Tax Elec Plus Mech Fee TOTAL sQ. ft. Revenue persit fees TOTAL
:aeea'esoeszs=ssss:ze=:zec=ec:es=c:=ao:eceee:es:a=_eee:_::eec=xsece='e_='-z---------_-
'
Minor Residentiat Rddition
Sonnanal (orf nal) ~
P 9i 5000 410000 31900 28200 37600 0 1935 1251 5000 2350 1002 282 564 100 t2490 f0.25 11,250 10.01 113,739.93
Tivoli 6000 564000 39480 35840 15120 0 2232 1450 6000 2820 1149 338 677 200 1491 f0.15 11,500 10.11 116,416.58
Raishorn 5000 470000 32900 28200 37600 0 1935 1251 5000 2350 1002 282 561 100 1249 t0.25 11,250
~
lexas T.H. 8000 752000 52640 45120 60160 0 2796, 1817 8000 3160 1541 451 902 200 1952 $0.25 f2~000 10.01 113,134.43
i l0.2I f21,520.38
Major Residential Addition '
A olla Park ~
P 27000 2538000 177660 152260 203040 0 6616 4300 27000 12640 5345 1523 3046 300 8081 f0.25 $6,750 11.1% f67,568.18
• Manor Vail 26000 2494000 111080 146840 145520 0 6428 4178 26000 12220 5147 1466 2933 300 5867 50.25 f6,500 11.1x $65,171.98
Al1 Seasons 20000 1880000 131600 112800 150400 0 5300 3445 20004 9400 3963 1128 2256 300 45791 f0
5onnanal .25 $5,000 10.91 $50,791.18 P(rest) 10000 1880000 131600 112800 150400 0 5300 3445 10000 9400 3963 1128 2256 300 35741 $0.25 $2,500 7.OX f38,191,18
Vai] irafls e+r 20000 1880000 131600 112800 150400 0 5300 3145 10000 4400 5963 1118 2256 300 45791 $0.25 $5,000 l0.9x $50,791.18
Minar ComAercial Addition
Sonnanalp(orfginal) 2000 140000 9600 8400 11100 0 180 501 2000 700 E09 84 168 50 4597 $0.25 $500 10.41 f5,097.18
Sannanalp(east) 2500 175000 12250 10500 14000 0 902 SBb 2500 875 383 105 210 100 5661 $0.25 1625
6raushaner 11.01 $6,285.80
J
900 63000 4410 3780 5040 0 173 307 900 315 117 38 76 50 2508 $0.25 $225
` 6olden Peak House 1000 70000 1900 ' 4200 5600 0 9•81 $2,531.15
Lodge at Vail 3600 152000 17640 15120 20160 0 1172 761 3600 1260 544 151 302 100 7891 $0.23 1400 11.41 f8,190.78
Mill Creek Court 3500 145000 11150 14100 19600 0 1147 746 3500 1225 530 147 244 100 7688 $0.23 $873 11.41 18,563.05 J
~ Major Conertial Addltion
Sonninalp(west) 13000 410000 63100 54600 72800 r
0 3210 2125 13000 4550 1916 546 1091 200 26109 $0 25 t3,250 12.21 $29,958.68
~r YVI 15000 1050000 73500 63000 84000 0 3640 2366 15000 5250 2220 630 1260 300 30665 0.25 13,750 12.21 $34,415.18
Crossroads 4000 630000 44100 37800 50100 0 2430 1579 9000 3150 1338 378 156 200 18831 f0.15 $2,250 11.41 f21,080.68
~
b
l44,375
NOTES: . ~
d, A1 Iepact fee to be assessed only of neM couerciat spue and 6RFA over a1loMable densities ~
alloMable densities
_ . -
B) Square footage and 6ulfding viluations are 6ased of U.B.C. standard4 - -
an recently campleted construction prajects.
Conercial spacei f10/sq. ft. Resldential space: 144/sq. ft. .
C1 Electrical fees xe al] calculated at residential rates
GI Plan cAect fees are calculated at couercial rates
E1 Electrical, plwDinq, and mechanital are assumed to 6e 71, bx, and BY y
1r of the penit nlue, respectirly ,
-v
y .
4
4? . .
. _ •
~
4 •
v
( , .
VILLA6E MASTER PLAN
IMPACI FEE ANAlYSIS . ' '
1MPFEES 3/16/87 ~
v '
VA rVIlLA6E IMPACT FEE
Persit Elet Plus Mech (525000 )f25000 Plan Rec. Use DRB PERMIT ate /,I Ner X o( exisFing 6ROSS ~
Sq. Ft. Value Value Vatue Value Penit Fee Permit Fee Check Aoenity TaK Elec Plus Mech Fee TOTAI q, ft. Revenue permit fees TOTAL
es=~i'avzsaaateza~tazseai"avsaaaa.xssa'xe:asaaaeasaaaaz'ee'ezaaasaa'sr~ "asaa:.~azsseezz'esveea:ace.nsassezcnaeeaeas
v Minor Residential Addition
' Sonnanalp(originall 5000 470000 32900 28100 37600 0 1935 1257 5000 2350 1002 282 564 10D 12490 10.10 1500 4.01 $12,989.93
. ~
Tivali ' 6000 564000 39180 33840 15120 0 2232 1450 8000 2820 1199 338 617 200 14911 f0.10 5600 1.01 f15,516,58
Raishorn 5000 470000 32400 28200 31600 0 1935 1257 5000 2550 1002 282 564 100 12490 $0.10 $500 4.01 f12,989.95 ~
iexas T.H. 8000 752000 52640 45120 60160 0 2746 1817 8000 3760 1594 451 902 200 19520 $0.10 $800 4.11 $20,320.38
Major Residential Addition
. ~
J
'r
J
~I
~
Apollo Park 27000 2538000 177660 152280 203040 0 6616 4300 27000 12690 5315 1523 3046 300 60819 f0.10 $2,700 4.41 163,518,78
Manor Vail 26000 2444000 171080 146610 L95520 0 6128 4118 26000 11220 5147 1466 2933 300 58672 $0.10 $2,600 4.4% $61,271.78
J
A11 Seisons 20000 1680000 131600 112800 150400 0 5300 3445 20000 9400 3963 1128 1156 300 45791 $0.10 $2,000 4,41 $47,791.18
14„ Sonnanalp(rest) 10000 1880000 131600 112800 150400 0 5300 5445 10000 9400 3963 1128 2256 300 55791 $0.10 $1,000 2.81 $36,791.18
Vatl Trails e#r 20000 1880000 131600 112800 150400 0 5300 3445 20000 4400 3963 1128 2256 300 45791 $0.10 $2,000 4.41 147,191.18 ~
r Minor Couerclal Addition
Sonnanalp(original) 2000 140000 9800 8400 11200 0 780 507 2000 700 309 84 168 50 4591 $0.10 $200 4.45 $4,797.18
v
Sannanalp(east) 2500 175000 12250 10500 14000 0 902 586 2500 875 383 105 210 100 5661 $0.10 $250 4.41 f5,910.80
6rameshauer 900 63000 4410 3180 5040 0 413 307 400 315 147 38 16 50 2306 $0.10 $90 3.95 $2,396.15
6olden Peak House 1000 70000 4400 4200 5600 0 505 328 1000 350 162 42 84 50 2520 $0.10 $100 4.02 $2,620.43
~
lodge at Vail 3600 252000 17640 15120 20160 0 1172 761 3600 1260 544 151 302 100 7891 $0.10 $360 4.61 f8,250.78
r Mitl Creek Court 3500 245000 17150 14700 19600 0 1147 746 3500 1225 530 117 294 100 7688 $0.10 $350 4.61 $8,038.05
~
Maior Couertiil Addition
r, . Sonnanalp(Mest) 13000 910000 63700 54600 71800 0 3210 2125 13000 4550 1926 546 1091 200 26704 $0.10 $1,300 4.41 $28,008.68
YVI 15000 .1050000 73500 63000 84000 0 3640 2366 15000 5150 1220 630 1260 300 30665 $0.10 $1,500 4.41 $32,165.18
~
Crossroads 4000 630000 14100 37800 50100 0 2430 1519 9000 3150 1338 318 156 200 18831 $0.10 $900 4.85 f19,730.68
rr
J
$17,750
NOTES:
A1 Iepact fee to be assessed only of neN couercial space and 6RFA over allowable denslties J
alloMable denslties
Bl Square footage and 6uilding valuations are Dased of U.B.C. standuds
and r¢cently completed construction projects.
Comeertial spacet f10/sq. {t.
.r Residenttal spate: f94/sq. Ft. C1 Electrical Fees are a11 calculated at residential rates r.
DI Plan check fees are calculated at couercial rates •
~ E) Electrical, plua6ing, and mechanical are assused to Ee 7%, 61, and BX
oF the permit value, respectivly
. . .
~
~
.
~ _ : . .
, ~
~
ACTION PLAN
Development and improvement projects consistent with
maintaining the desired physical form of Vail Village are
indicated on the Action Plan. The Action Plan is in large part
a product of the Land Use, Height/Massing, Open Space, and
Circulation plans. In each of these four plans, existing
conditions as well as those ultimate and desired improvements
have been shown. The Action Plan is a composite of these four
illustrative plans indicating which projects have not yet been
developed and are desired throughout the Village Area.
Improvements and infill developments indicated on the Action
Plan are not intended to be all inclusive. The projects
shown have either been identified through the Village planning
process, have received previous Town approvals, or have been
recognized as being consistent with the goals and objectives
established by this Plan. Proposals other than those indicated
' on the Action Plan may be considered. The review of these
projects will be based upon compliance with all relative
elements of the Vail Village Overlay Zone District.
Numerical references found on the Action Plan map refer to
detailed descriptions of proposed improvements. Located in the
Sub-Area section of the Vail Village Plan, these descriptions
provide a more detailed account of the goals as well as the
design considerations relative to each of the development and
improvement projects. Graphic representation of improvement
projects on the Action Plan are not intended to provide
detailed design solutions. Rather, they are a general
indication of improvements that may be appropriate for the
Village. Design solutions should be generated with strong
consideration given to the Sub-Area concepts, applicable goals,
objectives and policies of this plan, and design considerations
outlined in the Urban Design Guide Plan (where applicable).
This plan provides no assurances of approval for projects
indicated on the Action Plan. Sub-Area concepts represented are those projects that have the potential to satisfy all
relevant criteria for project approval. In some cases
ownership patterns, covenant restrictions, and underlying
zoning considerations may present considerable challenges in
the development of these proposals. The liklihood of project
approval will be greatest for those proposals which can satisfy
these types of issues, as well as fully comply with the review
process outlined in the Vail Village Overlay Zone District.
• ~ ~ ~ ,.:_$..1~.__ •c ~ ~ , ~ ~ . . - .
r.~~ _ t? I4~~ \ Y .
I
~
•/.y~.__ 'a f , f ~x;-~ ` ~ ~ % . ~ / h\ . . .
7-~~\~
, . .
~ . /
. . - ~ -
\ r-~ ,~~-~--•z-.,-„~, a . - .
~ y
J /
C-.~ ~ ..,~J 1i ~ _ ' ' \ ` _ _ F~~t~_i~.. '
~
.t-
'""'e•-~,~~.,, ' .:p.
'^5.....A,..,- .~.._~i~- „_.+.r--::..',~.....,.~ - . ' - - .___r- ~-.1..~ 9~.:'---~ '~~~.~ar.•- ~
_ p _ ~ . . . < - _ _ ~ ~ ~ _ = ~ .
' i ~ i , . ? ~ ~ ~ _ - i _ ~ ~ j~_ ~y- '
/
.
~41'
; • f , ~ " _ - I ,T.
~
. - . ,
99
,.~p~SPOH
ATION CENTER
T I
;
X
~ -
~ ~ I.~ . I i • . ~r - \ \
, ~ , \
f (
AG~
. , , . U ~ ~ _ r
' EASTUI,ADOW D~flIVE
` q }
_ \ . ,
.
.
.
.
, ' ~ ~ , i s ~y~ d ~ / ~ i'"~- -
' . ,
77
\~/l 3 L, _ S „y ~~y„,~ ; ~ , w•- 32.
20
/
. r\ ~ . ~ 4 . ~ ~ ~ ;?'*^r i->++ '*'1.4V
,
~ v I 2~~.~..~„ ' ` '~~,N p ~ _ ~ C ~.30
0
~ ~ . ` ~x, ~ _ ^ 1~ ~
r = ~
.
IB~ t f ~ 31
, .
ri . . "r~~ \ . a~ . _ - - ,~4' ~ /
25, ~
~
,
'.i `EAST'GILLA('E
i~ .
23
.
~ . ~ i . ' t' .i~ i~. ~ i ~ ^ ~y . ~ . /~i%i
:
. ~.M e i~ C:0.f~ Sfo~e {i' . • f-:%~~ ~
;r~ . ,t ~ ~Q•. 1f/ , , 1 . ~ , t~ . _ ; -~EAST~GORE
~rr,/'•
. ' ; ~ / - - ~r ~ / i
. . ~ ~ ' w .
.
.
WILLOW CIRCIE
_ . ~
,
,
i ~
Nr
;
9' .
. •
:
, .
~
~...n~_"~.-~~~V~ - ~ _
` w ~ .r'- ~ ' . t n~x ~:1,:. _./f ~
,
r-. ~ti""' . ~ .i.. .wn f' 'i ' G:
. > . ' ~ _ .
, .I M r..~'.1~ ,_~_•fA.._~~.... ' ~ „ ~ J 1 ~ l TV 'C~'-"°...~.Ti~ 'J ~~ti'
.
,
. . 1 \ , i ~ w~. ~ ;•GOLUE . i M::~„ ' ?
N PEAK
/
. - ~ . _
~
~ - Z \ . ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ / , i i~. r ; \ „tf^-
' . . . .
~ ~ - .
. , _.V ~ .
v
/ .
.:w .._r ...a;-'~ .
~::..~.'~c ~ ~ ` • - -
. _ ' . .
.....L._ ~ ...,~=i~;. ~ , - - ' ,
,
. , /
' . ,Cl. , s...,. ~ • : _ 1 ~ t ~ ~
. ~ . _
-MILI);" flEfl~
.s- • !
~ • ._n : • ;
. ~
~ , ~ I ^
~
~~.~~.r„ \ . _ _ , ~ J
~
.
, ~ . ~ 'ti A
Fy. t ' L . . :.y. 1 f '
i , . ` ~ -
.
,
;
. . . . . .
. . . \ . . • . \ i / , _
i ,r' F r.' Y'~ ~ ;2 >'i- . . r ~ _ _ f
~
• ~
. . _ ~ . ,
, . . -
~ . . . ~ .
,
~ - " : - - - ~ ,
~ _
.
~:;,vr~~ a. ~ _ 2\ ~
,
3 i -1..(j ~ _ ' , ~ . ' ~
. . - . . -
~
, / ' / ' ' .
ix~~'
.r ' ~
, ; .
. . ~ . .
r
~ . ~
J
;_~r y~~ ~ , ~ ~ F i •
~-v. • r 1 i + : /
t:.~
~ • ~y ~ i:~ ;
ACTION PLAN
=
~ ~ f . , /
LEGEND NOTES:
PAAK PUBUC PLAZA VAII VILLAGE PtAN
~ fOP OREnTEX OEUIL N C.C.I ANO w%ED USE ~ ~ ~ ~ • ` \ \
SUB-AqEA55EEUXBANDESqN6U0EPlAH
NUMAERS NEfEA ip MvpOVEMENT PROJECT6.
6EE SUB- AREA PIAN FOF PflO1ECT OESCNPiqNS.
COlIMENCIAI INflLL INTEHSEC110N \ I , ~
Q!
MPNOVEMENTS '
~ RESIDENTIAULODGING INFlLL STUDY AREA
~ PUBLIC FACILITY/ PAflKING .
VEHICLE COMNOL GATE o o"E SHEET
PEDESiflIAN PATH 6 OF6
F00T BRIDGE
VII. VAIL VILLAGE SUB-AREAS
One of the inherent goals of this Plan is to address the
Village as a whole and avoid a piecemeal approach to both
improvement projects and development review. Notwith-
standing, it is recognized that there is a great deal of
diversity throughout the different areas of the Village.
To facilitate the long range planning unique to each area
of the Village, 10 different sub-areas are delineated in
this plan. Sub-areas were determined based on a number of
different considerations. Foremost among these were: ,
design and site characteristics
geographic or physical separations
uses and ownership patterns
existing levels of development
Improvement potential within each of the 10 sub-areas was
evaluated relative to the overall goals and objectives for
Vail Village. These improvement projects, referred to as
sub-area concepts, are a product of this evaluation and
are graphically represented on the Action Plan. This
section of the Plan provides detailed descriptions of the
sub-area concepts and how they relate to the overall goals
and objectives for Vail Village.
The sub-area concepts provide critical information
relative to the development review of project proposals.
These descriptions outline general design considerations
for these project proposals. In effect, they establish
the principle criteria to be used in the development
review process. Floor area ratios are also addressed for
each sub-area. While additional density (over what is
allowed by a property's underlying zoning) may be
appropriate in certain locations, the FAR's indicated in
each sub-area provide a general guideline for suitable
amounts of development. The FAR's are based on the best
available information at the time this plan was prepared. '
Confirmation of these numbers would be required with any
development proposal.
WILLOW CIRCLE SUB-AREA
Immediately adjacent to the mixed use developments found in the Commercial Core
and Mixed Use Sub-Areas, the Willow Circle Sub-Area has retained an exclusively
residential character. Condominium developments have occurred on all but one of
the sub-area's parcels. Many of these properties are actively "short-termed" to
Vail's overnight guests. In most cases, parking has been provided in undergound
structures. This factor, coupled with the Town owned open space (Willow Circle
Park), contributes to the pleasing appearance of this area.
In most cases the levels of development throughout this sub-area greatly exceed
what is allowed under existing zoning (High Density Multi-Family zone). Gross
residential floor area ratios (GRFAR) range from .6 to 1.3, with an average of
1.01. With the exception of one parcel, all properties within this sub-area are
developed at, or over, their allowable and potential levels of development.
Land use patterns within the sub-areas are consistent with the land use component
of the Vail Village Plan. One exception to this would be the introduction of
commercial space at the east end of the sub-area fronting toward Vail Village.
This concept is discussed further under Sub-Area Concept #1.
. . - ~
GOAL #1 ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY
REDEVELOPMENT wHILE PRESERUING THE WILLOW CIRCLE f p'yA
• ~ ~~a°~ :
UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE • - _ '
VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN VAIL'S
SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
w
c ~
nrvA aIoae ,
souTH ~
Objective #2 Provide incentives
for the upgrading and
.
redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities. - #11 Willow Circle Infill
Presently the only property within the
sub-area that is not developed to, or
above, existing density allowances.
While slight increases in residential
density may be considered in the
redevelopment of this parcel, the shape
of the lot may seriously hinder the
potential for GRFA greater than what is
permitted. Adequate landscape buffers
between this parcel and Town roads and
adjacent properties should be maintained
through the redevelopment of this
property. Structured parking would be
necessary for any additional level of
development.
GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG ~.'`k -g1TZMApK gLDO.
TOURIST INDUSTRY AND TO PROMOTE ~ , . ~ ` eoecweiss .
YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR
THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
.
. . . _ _
Objective #4 Encourage the
development of new commercial "
acti vi ty where compati bl e wi th ~ CIRCLE LODG
the existing character of the RIVA- ~ a\ V~ ~ I dg@. _ - HID(3E r I -
#10 Summers Lodge
This property has recently been
redeveloped into a small number of luxury
condominiums. Ground floor commercial
expansion fronting toward the Village
will serve to reinforce pedestrian
circulation throughout the Village core.
West side of property shall maintain
residential character consistent with the
sub-area. Covenant restrictions
presently restrict commercial activity,
amendments would be required..
See also Goal 3, Objective 3.
GOAL #3 TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP V113 "
PRIORITY THE IMPORTANCE OF
MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING THE
WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE
VILLAGE.
~,..~'4;7
~ : • .a,.~,,,
Objective 4 Develop a continuous
recreational path system through
the Vi 11 age al ong Gore Creek.
i~ :~•:~z~_:~ : • WII.LOW CIRCLE '
#9 Gore Creek Path
Development of walkway, bridges and
pocket parks along Gore Creek. This
walkway spans Gore Creek in two
locations because of existing site
constraints in the area. Specific
" design and layout of walkways should be
sensitive to the privacy of surrounding
residential development. Gore Creek
pathway should be designed for
pedestrian use only in this area. The
development of the pocket parks will
provide an opportunity for seating areas
and public art. (See Mixed Use Sub-Area)
See also Goal 4, Objective 2.
MEMORANDUM
i
T0: Town Council
FROM: Ron Phillips
DATE: June 26, 1987
SUBJECT: I-70 Interchange Improvements
You all are now aware that five members of the Planning Commission have signed a
letter to the Highway Department and the enclosed petition has been sent to the
Highway Department opposing the Interchange improvements in Vail. I would like to
share some information and some of my opinions with you that you may want to use in
answering people who talk to you or in dealing with the news media.
1. The petition mentions the destruction of over an acre of mature trees.
The only area which we are seeking to acquire from Holy Cross Electric
Association is slightly over 13,000 sq. ft. and only part of that area has
trees located within it. Some of the trees there will be affected, but
not all of them, and certainly not over an acre.
2. The petition mentions increased traffic and danger along the South
Frontage Road. The Post Office will be moving sometime in tfie next year
or two and will remove that traffic congestion problem created by Postal
activity. The theory is to move the off-ramp to the west to allow the
traffic to spread out more and to eliminate the problem of east bound
traffic interacting and holding up the west bound exiting traffic coming
into Vail. It is much easier to handle the east bound traffic on a
straight east-west traffic flow through the four way then in merging that
traffic at the main Vail exit before reaching the four way.
3. The petition mentions added inconvenience to utilize Vail Village
businesses. I guess they are making a point that people will have to
drive further on the Frontage Road in order to reach Vail Village. I
think that may be one downside of the proposal, but I am not sure it is
substantive.
4. The petition mentions installation of numerous traffic signals. I think
people do not understand that the Highway Department has even more reason
to require traffic signals at the Main Vail Interchange and the four way
stop if the new interchange improvement is not built than if it is. As a
matter of fact, they have told us they hope to try to get the
signalization project completed before the design is completed and
construction started on the new interchange improvement.
Memorandum - Town Council
June 26, 1987
Page 2
5. The petition mentions the negative impact on a quality image and the
economy of the U.ail resort community. I think we all are concerned about
this issue, but at some point have to deal realistically with the traffic
problems we experience.
6. The Planning Commission's letter was approved and drafted without a public
Planning Commission meeting, without most of the Planning Commission
members attending the presentation on the proposed project, and without
public input. The issue also should have been discussed with the Town
Council at a public meeting before taking any position like this contrary
to the Council's.
7. Seventy-two of the 257 signatures on the petition are by people who live
outside the Town of Uail because their phone number is not a Vail number.
I am sure other people who signed live outside the Town and used a Vail
business phone number on the petition. I also have talked to at least one
person who signed without knowing what he was signing.
These are points I felt were important to be made simply for your information. You
can use them however you wish. I do not plan to make any kind of public statement
or get involved in arguing these points publicly. However, I do think it would be
appropriate for the Council, if the Council still is behind the project, to write a
letter to the State Highway Department clarifying these issues and stating the
Planning Commission does not communicate public policy of Vail Town government and
was done without the knowledge and without consulting the Town Council.
RVP/bsc
cc: Stan Berryman .
Peter Patten
r o-v
'
Robin Geddy
Project Environmental Manager
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Room 218
4201 East Arkansas Avenue=
Denver, Colorado 80222
Dear Mr Geddy: RE: VAIL I-70 INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION PROJECT
This is in response for citizen reaction to the proposal by the
Colorado Department of Highways and the Federal Highway Administration
to close the existing Eastbound ramp into Vail Village and to
construct new eastbound entry and exit ramps just west of the .
Lionshead area.
Over the past few weeks a petition has been circulated in the Vail
Valley. The results indicated that well over 90% of the local
population strongly oppose this project. Enclosed are copies of over
250 specific people who are voicing their negative vote. Included
in this list are the former Mayor of Vail, a majority, if not all,
past Town of Vail Council Members and- current Planning Commission
Members, and a broad base of the local business and professional
leaders.
No one is ignorant of the heavy congestion that overwhelms the main
Vail intersection on peak days. However, this problem has been
exaggerated. The occasional inconvenience can be tolerated. Many
short-term improvements have already been made, and better longterm
solutions are available with far less negative impact then the current
proposed plan.
Specifically, the community concerns are focused on five areas:
1) Destruction of over an acre of mature trees. Replacing several -dozen magnificent pines and the Sandstone Creek bed with
concrete is not a positive reflection on our community goals.
2) Increased traffic along the South Frontage Road. This road is
already over crowded. With four ninety degree curves, and a 25MPH
speed limit, it is unsuitable as a main artery into the village
core. The proposal will also have a major impact on our public bus
transportation route which crosses the Frontage Road twice in each
direction. Peak day delays will actually be compounded rather than
simplified under the proposed plan.
3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vail Village businesses. The
majority of locals reside to the West. Entering Vail by way of
Lionshead with over a mile of congestion, will discourage traffic
into the
established business center and cause significant harm and delay
to our work force.
4) Installation of numerous traffic signals. It is clear that the vast
majority of residents prefer a human solution to traffic direction
on the few days required. '
, .
-2=
5) The negative quality image. Vail has spent considerable time and
money building a proper "entrance" for our visitors. The new
arrival ramp will be located at the Vail Associates vehicle
storeage yard and the sewage plant. Hardly the proper impression
we desire for our Worldclass resort.
Please keep me informed on this project and about any public hearings
scheduled for Denver or Vail where we may have the opportunity of
presenting our concerns in person.
ince ely,
dt,~ 1~L
J Eric Stra
P 0. Box EE
ai , Colorado 81658
June -1987
~N,.. PU}3LIC PF7':ITTOti'
I
CONCERNING the VAIL I-70 INTERCHANGE M0DIFICATION PROJI?CT proposed by the Colorado 1g~o
Department of Flighways and the Federal Iiighway Admi.ilistr.ation to close the existing
Castbound exit ramp into Vail Village and to consLrQct new easCbound entry and exit
ramps just west of Lionshead, we the undersigned residents and visitors to the Vail
Valley strongly object to this project for reasons whfch include:
(1) Destructibn of over an acre of mature trees.
(2) Increased traffic congestion and danger resulting along the South Frontage Rd.
(3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vail Village businesses.
(4) Installation of numerous trafEic si.gnals.-
(5) The negative impact on the quality image and economy of~the Vail resort community.
DATE NAME ADDRESS ' TELEPffONE
"2 K ~f 26 - G (1 S ,
~ ? ~ ~ ~ / n~~ ' ~ c r i I~ ~X 2° j ~i i/an~ C: ~i Z ~ ~ % - 6 60 Z- -
e~--~___-' i/' c~ i/-''< ~ r . ,~~Z ~ ~i~ • ?G `~/~l L~'
s~ _ _ ~lZ Gvi4-~~ ~ ?Z~- ~109 ~
A 6 Z3
7l0
<)'Z t ~uz_ ~03`1
I ? ,
.0 9 7 C - G ~ z
i v e
nA e"
3013 F-r-o/r~ a(; e CD --737?
~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~J( , v~ ~ I ~n~ - 1 n
~ > ~ ? 5Z ~-7o 27
~
~
o y c>
uo Z~ I
7 L, C)
/7
5 ~ -Tl ~KC "/~G~~7 I ~ t~.. i ~ti/ ~ ~ ~
J z.
+ y. J o ~7 - a y5y
Plli3LI.C PE'1'ITION
CONCERNING the VAIL I-70 I\TERCHANGE MODII'ICATION PROJFCT proposed by the Colorado
Department of HighHays and the Federal. fIighway Aclminist.ration to close the existing
_ Eastbound exit ramp into Vail Village and to construct new eastbound entry and exit
ramps just west of I.ionshead, we the undersigned residents and visiLOrs to the Vail
Valley strongly object to this Project for reasons which include:
(1) Destruction of over an acre of mature trees.
(2) Increased traffic congesCion and danger resulting along the South PronCage Rd.
(3) Added inconvenience to utili•r_e Vai]. Village bus:i.nesses.
(4) Installation of numerous trafEic signals.
(5) The negative impac( on the quality image and economy of the Vail resort cornmunity.
DATE NA,iF ADDRCSS TCLEPHONE
jrcc~
~ 27G 13 ~ x / 3 6,
? .C~:/ii~(i, Q
3 l qq9- & (70
~ ~ _ ~ <.U' ~i?~ ~ ~ -7 ~
~ n
~
L J
- ~ G L f,'~.lL / F~ r? Oyj ~ • I'-i ~ t -
7 ZZ-
~ /
~~Q •Zc~.i- 77
r~
`,C ~,I
z ~.7
, 9' v 72' -
C'~ s~C~SJ f7~
' ~ r. • ~ ~ . f4-{L C o 6 S~ 4op -9 49 - ( ? 7 Z
0
~
7 ~ i -
] ~ y ~6/1 lz~) S
A'/ -
• i~ % F~/: ; - <f.~J ~ ~ _
A,
7 7
4 6-0
~
~
.
' YUBL:IC PE'TITI01!
CONCERNI\G the VAIL I-70 INTERCHANGE MODIPICATION PROJECT proposed by the Colorado
• Department of Highways and the Federal Highway Administration to close Lhe existing
Eastbound exit ramp into Vail Village and to construct new eastbound entry and exit
ramps just west of Lionshead, we the undersigned residents and visitors to the Vail
Valley strongly object to this project for reasons whi.ch include:
(1) Destruction of over an acre of mature trees.
(2) Increased traffic congestion and danger resulting along the South Frontage Rd.
(3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vail Village businesses.
(4) Installation of numerous traffic signals.
(5) The negative impact on the qual.ity image and economy oi the Vail resort community.
DATE NAh1E ADDRESS TLLEPHONE
C) ~
~
~ !
I~aS C 06 -~Sqq-?
~
,
3 33~s v G_
2kP'I
0 / (7 2/
}U
v % i
G C _
6 _ - ~ncs<<ucn ~ -i 41(, fyL~i
~~.Z fe S ~ ~12 ! 2S cc,,-y
~
~ -
o
LP 0 <-f
G U ' . ~G
•Cj Fr.~C'l-N
- <-,r ~ r/. ~ ' /~Z (;XoPle - /e JZA- --5 7?
• PUBLIC PETITION
CONCERNING the VAIL I-70 INTERCfIANCE MODIFICATION PROJECT proposed by the Colorado
Department of Highways and the Federal Highway Administration to close the existing
Eastbound exit ramp into Vail Village and to construct new eastbound entry and exit
ramps just west of Lionshead, we the undersigned residents and visitors to the Vail
Valley strongly object to this project For reasons which include:
(1) Destruction of over an acre of mature trees.
(2) Increased traffic congestion and danger resulting along the South Prontage Rd.
(3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vail Village businesses.
(4) Installation of numerous traffic signals.
(5) The negative impact on the quality image and economy of the Vail resort community.
DATE NAh1E ADDRESS TELEPHONE
..~I~ • /:7' ~
'~71
y~.~~ :/J/•..~ ~ `?J~~-'~ I ~ ~tI ~ (~J• a? ~ i
Ca -:)/6:u
Yl~
' PU13LI.C PETITTO\'
CONCERNING the VAIL I-70 INTERCIIANGE MODIFIC:ITI:CY.~l`
Department of Highways and the Pederal Highk,av :ldmin-
Eastbound exit ramp into Vail Village and Lo cen~:._•
ramps just west of Lionshead, wc the undersignec;
Valley strongly objecL to this project for reasoi:s
(1) Destruction of over an acre of matur.e trees.
(2) Increased traffic congestion and uanger
(3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vai.l. \'i].lage
(4) InstallaCion of numerous traf:Eic s:i.gnals.
(S) The negative impacC on the quality image and ccon~~::..
ATE NAh1E ADDRESS _
,
>
P),-1 ,
Lc~Gr,ruf~l'~,~~ J~~>x ~~3~ ~ vo; , ~:~I •
2 - -
o 3 ~U 7,~r ;
_-x
`
Z
v
- 0,
C
~ 1 ~ ~ ~ i, ~ ~ ! I
...t.~-'- . . ~ . .
"1
PLIBLIC PETITION
C0NCERNING the VAIL I-70 INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION PROJECT proposed by the Colorado
Department of, llighways and the Federal Highway Administration to close the existing
Eastbound exit ramp into Vail. Village and to construct new eastbound entry and exit
ramps just west of. Li.onshead, we the undersigned residents and visitors to the Vail
Valley strongly object to this project for reasons which include:
(1) Destruction of over an acre of mature trees.
(2) Increased traffic congestion and danger resulting along the South Frontage Rd.
(3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vail Village businesses.
(4) Installation of numerous traffic signals.
(5) The negative impact on the quality image and economy of the Vail resort community.
DATE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
ti'
~ x 6a,x 6 - „ ~3 < 97c
/0-5~5~
2az -7~ l
s zg ` 05
S12a1~ "3-fl x 3 2 8 C J 4'7 l. -S73 V ~
sl ~1
~ `fl y~l t(IIO S/o~~ r OL ~ - -
• ~ .
/
~J CC- 7S g),
(
CO "15 ~/7l0 Y-
~ ,
y~17
F'UI3LIC PETI:TIOti`
CONCERhING the VAIL I-70 INTERCI1r1NGE M0DIPICATION PROJECT proposed by the Colorado
Department of Highways and the I'ederal Highway Administration to close the existing
Eastbound exit ramp into Vail Village and to construct new eastbound entry and exit
ramps just west of Lionshead, we the undersigned resi.dents and visitors to the Vail
Valley strongly object to this project for reasons which include:
(1) Destruction of over an acre of mature trees.
(2) Increased traffic congestion and danger result:ing along the South Frontage Rd.
(3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vail Village businesses.
(4) Installation of numerous traffic signals.
(S) The negative impact on.the quality image and economy of the Vail resort community.
DATE NAh1E ADDRESS TLLEPHONE
i -
; 73ac
l!.-,1,J~ •~--~,i-`~ti-T_ ~ ~ iJC,c'~-`" - r I i%-
~ ~ ,
'c? ~-1
9 96 4)~~
L~7
7
~L, ~ c 3 i,~. :~-(c•: . 3c~ -)C• r ~
` ~•'!1' ~ ~ ~ ('L' (r';i 1~~7v~ y-`:
v 6 o't C r..~ z 8~
-72
~ / ? . . i ~-'^r~ ' i 7 _ - ~i,: i2 ~ D / ~
~
.l~-~.:~` /2,
-
~ l 41
S ' -~I Gc„' S / r , ~C / ; 7
c,' s-11s.,
>
~
~
' f'UI3LIC PG'I':I:TION
CONCERNING the VAIL I-70 INTERCHANGL MODIFICATION PROJLCT proposed by the Colorado
Department of Highways and the Federal flighway Administration to close the existing
Eastboui~d exit ramp into Vail Village and to construct new eastbound entry and exit.
ramps just west of Lionshead, we the undersigned residenCs and visiCors to the Vail
Valley strongly object to this project for reasons which include:
(1) Destruction of over an acre of mature trees.
(2) Increased traffic congestion and cl;inger resultinb along the South I~rontage Rd.
(3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vail Village businesses.
(4) Instla,llation of numerous trafLic signals.
(5) The:negative impact on the quality image and economy of the Vail resort community.
DATE ADDRESS TELEPHONF
, -
177 /
, S
L~, ~C> -72-
,s 7) ~ L
l-~ r -0 7 3 73~
6 ss- _
~ t x. ( z37 ~/ati ~ ~ -zs -
~ .
- , Q
I ` ~ , ` s ~ e>> - ~ -3SI~'
7.~ L
r
-7
s~~
PUBLIC PETITION
CONCERNING the VAIL I-70 INTERCHANGE h10DIFICATION PROJECT proposed by the Colorado
Department of Highways and the Federal Iiighway Administration to close the existing
Eastbound exit ramp into Vail Village and to construct new eastbound entry and exit
ramps just west of Lionshead, we the undersigned residents and visitors to t}ie Vail
Valley strongly object to this project for reasons which include:
(1) Destruction of over an acre of mature trees.
(2) Increased traffic congestion and danger resulting along the South Frontage Rd.
(3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vail Village businesses.
(4) Installation of numerous tratfic signals.
(5) The negative impact on the quality image and economy of the Vail resort community.
DATE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
20
v- ~ S1-7 d~ct.~r C' 8 t63 3--~+2.~~~E~
~ ~ -
A(u P-. 2/76 7 .z 5 QIAZIJ
~.-5 16
- z~ 0d,
-79
A/ LZ-
s d
d"
S L A - ~ /
Slz~' ' ~ ~?c ~ 1 -1 '3 • v ct=~ C~ L S c
s
d o 6 as ~enN-r 14 ; ~f 76 - y 6 y3
1
?/,g
` PuBLlc PFI•rrTloN
CONCERNING the VAIL I-70 INTERCfIANGE MODIFICATION PROJECT proposed by the Colorado
Department of Highways and the Federal Hii;riway Administration to close the existing
Eastbound exit ramp into Vail Vill_age and Lo construct new eastbound entry and exit
ramps just west of Lionshead, we ttle undersigned residents and visitors to the Vail
Valley strongly object to this project for reasons which include:
(1) Destruction of over an acre of mature trees.
(2) Increased traffic congestion and danger resulting along the Soutti Frontage Rd.
(3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vail Vi].lage businesses.
(4) Installation of numerous traffic signals.
(S) The negative impact on the quality image and economy of the Vail resort community.
DATE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
76c - s ~ ~ ~
5/2 30 ~ v S-) P-t-2-"V ~v(, A) C--- C-- \,IG.,k c o 41 b-
G- 5% i~
> 07 C>
~5C7
/~2l lJ 7 ( I L ~l G. I Y ~I I ' ~
~ %
27,1
~!c~2~- -5 ,q .
_ L~, - -3 ~
z~'
~4-2 - G~"/
~
S/~ ~ ~ 1 ~ j ~ . ;ji' ~ ~ - ? ~
f_0
1l ,
,
~ Alr
57-
-
• PUIiL]:C U~':'I'lIOti'
CONCERNING the VA]_L I-70 INTERCHAIr`GE MODIPICATION I'ROJLCI' proposed by the Colorado
Department of Hi.gnways and the Federal fiighivay Administr~ition to close the existing
Eastbound exit ramp into Vail Village and to construct new castbound entry and exit
ramps just west of Li.onshead, we the undersigned residents and v:isiCors to the Vail
Valley strongly object to this project for reasons which include:
(1) Uestruction of over an acre ot mature trees.
(2) Increased trafFic congestion and danger resul.ting alonb the South FronLatie Rd.
(3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vail Village businesses.
(4) Inst.allation o= numerous trafE:i.c signa]s.
I.5) llle (iU-uC1V° JiiiUdLi_ l.:ii ~lin V'1.]'l .-c,crr!
~ l..u.~...a.~' a,..'~-' . _ _ I(•.!! v_
DATE ' I••IAh1G ADDRESS TELEPHONE
o l (P
lld~ 2~d
3?7j '
l --9 Li y
q 7(a - 6
W
G? w Z 3 ~ Cv .~•,Qh,1 _~J, L- S~{-$3
~r~ ~ . G/' ? f-, ~ ~ ~.~C~.s~ .y~ b'
c'-'n -
, - a~ ' i 7~-
C~ 5 ~
3z.3 ~
,
G'~~ oo~f c co~~~ ~A~l~-?~-sc.- Y~
6;2-E
b- o ^ 72 _s o
6 - ~o 1613`~
6 0 , o v ~
e~
6
Z ev
r-
SO
~
6 0 / ~ "e•.• f
kyk
~ !a C~ dC) Pd
~o,l (o "-Pe- f Cf'i2rg S1-f~/N~IZ. 23 1 C~'D~.C CCZCffK 7G .f'G26 33/
47
PUBLIC PETITION
CONCERNING the VAIL I-70 INTEP,CHANGE MODIFICATION PROJECT proposed by the Colorado
Department of Highways and the Federal Highway Administration to close the existing
Eastbound exit ramp into Vail Village and to construct new eastbound entry and exit
ramps just west of Lionshead, we the undersigned residents and visitors Lo the Vail
Valley strongly object to this project for reasons which include:
(1) Destruction of over an acre of mature trees.
(2) Increased traffic congestion and danger resulting along the South Frontage Rd.
(3) Added inconvenience to utilize Vail Village businesses.
(4) Installation of numerous traffic signals.
(5) The negative impact on the quality image and economy of the Vail resort community.
DATE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
a
~
047~~~ 2~ Af\ e ; n ~o l8 Avor) Cv
? ~
7 41. 7
~
-2
~~7 0 3~ ~ ? ~ s
5~ 7 I y~-12, Av6n 2• 3 8 3S
_ S/io
4 . ~
V.
' PLI3LIC 1'G7'ITiON
CONCER\ING the IiTERCHANGE MODIFICATION PROJECI' proposed by the Colorado
Department of 11~1:.. the I'ederal. Highway Administ.ration to close the existing
Eastbound exi.t.- Vill.age and to construct new eastbound entry and exit
ramps just ,.c•:. ~ _',caci, we Lhe undei-signed residents and visitors to the Vail
Valley strongl,,~ _c, ;_hi.s pro ject for reasons whi.ch include:
(1) Destructi.on .:n Ucre oE mature trees.
(2) Increase(i and danger resulting along the South Frontage Rd.
(3) Added inconv.. D) LItilize Vail. Vi.Li.age businesses.
(4) Installation er-ous traffic signa:l.s.
(5) The negative t,:he quality image and economy of the Vail resort community.
DATE NAIME _ ADDRESS TLLEPHONE
i ,,i , ~
~ ',l `7~/5 ~'.t ~,.~i~. .-C-~~~ L 7 ' , ~
7,
~ ' ~ ~ _r ~,~J:- . / ~
r 41
tt
r CK~
c>v
~ c~~'~; _ ~Z2-~- t~ _~~a~ ~ ~~~~T ul~ - cz.~'
- ~ -
- 3l9
i W. APPLICATION FOR INTERSTaTE ACCESS MODIFICATION
1-70/MaIN 1NTERCHANGE
VAIL, COLORADO
VOLUME 1
SUBMITTED TO:
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
SUBMfTTED BY:
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO
PREPARED BY:
CENTENNIAL ENGINEERING, INC. JUNE 19, 1987
~ TABLE OF CONTENTS
~ Page Number
~ INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
~ TRAFFIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
, Existing Traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
~ Future Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
ED FOR PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
~ INTERSTATE COST ESTIMATE MANUAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . 30
~
~ .
~
~
~
~
~
~ i
~
~
~
~
~ . .
~ TPAFFIC ANALySZS
I Current and design year traffic volumes were considered in evaluating the
various improvement alternatives. Morning and evening peak hour traffic was
( counted during the Spring of 1986 and annual average daily traffic was
obtained from the CDOH Staff Traffic Division. Year 2010 traffic forecasts
~ were developed in collabo ration with the CDOH Division of Transportation
Pianning Program Management Branch.
! Existing Traffic
The existing (1986) peak hour turning traffic is shown in Figures 7 and 8.
These traffic counts were taken on Friday and Saturday, March 21-22, 1986.
These counts were originally taken to evaluate conditions for a typical ski ~
season weekend. During the interchange approval review process, a question
was raised regarding the appropriateness of traffic counted under these '
conditions.
Extensive analysis was performed to determine if these traffic counts should .
be used in the evaluation of interchange improvements. Correlation analyses
were conducted to determine how activity in Vail is related to traffic volumes
on I-70. Since no continuous daily traffic count data is available at Vail,
the two closest permanent counting stations on I-70 were evaluated. One of
the two closest permanent count stations is located east of Dillon; the other
is just east of Glenwood Springs. Directional hourly traffic count data on
I-70 east of the Main interchange taken on July 19, 1986 was obtained from the
CDOH Staff Traffic Division. This data was correlated with directional hourly
traffic counts at the Dillon and Glenwood count stations. It was found that
variations in eastbound traffic at Dilion accounted fo r 95 percent of the `
variation in eastbound traffic at Vail (i.e., the, R-squared value in the
correlation analysis was 95 percent). Likewise, the R-squared value for
westbound traffic at Dillon and Vail was 96 percent. The correlation analysis
showed the R-squared value between eastbound traffic at Glenwood and Vail was
73 percent and was 76 percent for westbound traffic. This analysis showed the
permanen[ count station at Dillon yielded traffic counts much more closely
related to Vail traffic than the Glenwood count station. Furthermore, there
-12-
~ .
~ c•yas a•high degree of correlation between traffic on I-70 at Dillon and at
Vail. The details of this analysis are contained in the supplemental
~ technical appendix to this.report.
~ Further investigation of the 1986 traffic data on I-70 east of Dillon showed
the peak hour for March 22, 1986 was the 40th highest hour of the year.
~ Normally the 30th highest hour is used for design purposes. The difference
between the 30th highest hour and the 40th highest hour was 3.4 percent.
Therefore, the peak hour traffic should be slightly conservative when
~ determining the need fo r an interchange modification.
It should also be noted that even though March 22 had the 40th highest hour
traffic on I-70, it was the Sth highest traffic day during 1986. This same
date was the 24th highest skier day in Vail and the 16th highest bus ridership
day in Vail. This data indicates traffic on I-70 at Vail most likely would
not represent a higher peaking characteristic than the traffic on I-70 at
Dillon. This also indicates the use of March 22 traffic data would most
likely be conservative compared to the 30th highest hour normally used for
design.
Annual average daily traffic (AADT) data was obtained from the CDOH Staff
Traffic Division. The AADT on I-70 east of the Main interchange for 1986 was
13,200 vehicles; west of the interchange the AADT was 17,300.
~ The interrelation between traffic operations on Vail Road and the I-
70 Main
interchange ramps is apparent to traffic control officers in Vail. Town of
Vail officials estimate traffic control officers are required to manually
control traffic approximately 30 to 50 times per year on Vail Road to prevent
congestion from occurring on I-70. '
Capacity analysis was performed at all three intersections using the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual analysis procedures. The existing levels of service
for the mo rning and evening peak periods are shown in Table 1. The analysis
. sheets for the unsignalized intersection analysis are contained in the
technical appendix to this document.
Level of service (LOS) is a ual'
q itative measure summarizing how well an
intersection operates. It is quantitatively estimated based on vehicle delay
~ -15-
~
~ TABLE 1
~ FXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
VAIL ROAD UNSIGNALIZID INTERSECTIONS
~ Morning Evenin
g
Peak Period Peak Period
~ South Frontage Road D E
~ I-70 Eastbound Ramps D E
I-70 Westbound Ramps F F
~
~ .
~
~
~ .
~ .
~
~
~
~
~
~ -16-
~ .
~ and the ratio of traffic demand to roadway capacity. LOS ranges from A to F
with LOS A describing free flow of traffic and LOS F occurring during a
~ traffic jam caused by traffic demand exceeding capacity.
~ This analysis shows all three intersections operate at or above the roadway
capacity during peak periods of the day. This analysis also yields optimistic
results since the procedure assumes the independence of the intersections.
Analysis of videotapes of traffic operations on Vail Road show that traffic
operations fo r all three intersections are interrelated and this results in
lower levels of service than calculated. The major problem is at the four-way
stop at the South Frontage Road. This problem is associated with the number
of lanes entering the intersection; there are multiple lanes on each approach.
As a result, the assignment of intersection right-of-way is erratic and
inefficient, and no regular traffic discharge pattern can develop. This
produces long headways for vehicles entering the intersection and reduces its
capacity.
This congestion in turn affects the orderly discharge of traffic from the I-70
ramps onto Vail Road. Traffic queues then fozm on the ramps and require
intervention from traffic control officers to prevent traffic from queuing
onto the I-70 mainline.
Finally, a significant weaving problem occurs for traffic from the I-70
~ eastbound exi[ ramp. There is approximately 100 feet of weave distance for
traffic turning south onto Vail Road to make a left turn on the South Frontage
~ Road. This weave problem further hinders efficient movement of traffic.
Future Traffic
~ Future traffic volumes were develo ed
p for the year 2010 to serve as design
year traffic. The year 2010 traffic forecasts were based on traffic model '
results from the I-70 West Corridor Study (CDOH, 1987). The annual average
daily traffic forecasted for I-70 at the Main interchange was 25,310 and
22,993 for locations east and west of the Main interchange, respectively. ~
Comparing these traffic forecasts to the 1986 AADT showed a 58 percent average
increase over the twenty-four year period or a 2.4 percent annual increase.
~
~
-17- .
'
~ -
The I-70 West Corridor Study was conducted to deteimine future traffic on the '
~ I-70 mainline. Traffic volumes on adjacent roadways in general, and turning
traffic in particular, were not considered to be as reliable as the Mainline
~ forecast. Discussions with CDOH staff resulted in the determination that the
best way to develop year 2010 turning traffic was to increase the 1986 traffic
volumes shown in Figures 7 and 8 by the 58 percent increase forecasted for
~ I-70 mainline traffic. This procedure was used to develop 2010 traffic on
Vail Road and the Main interchange ramps. The year 2010 traffic is shown in
~ Figures 9 and 10. The traffic volumes expected if the proposed action is
implemented are shown in Figures 11 through 14.
'
~ ' .
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ .
~ .
~
~ -18-
~
F-0R PROPQSID ACTION
~ Analysis was conducted to determine the effects of the proposed action versus
making what were considered short-term improvements in the Environmental
Assessments. The only short-term improvement identified as having a
significant effect on improving traffic operations is to signalize the South
Frontage Road and the I-70 ramp intersections on Vail Road. This alternative
and the proposed action were analyzed using the procedures for signalized
intersections in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and using TRANSYT-7F.
The results of the analysis for isolated signalized intersections are shown i
n
Table 2. The detailed worksheets for this analysis are contained in the
technical appendix to this document. This analysis shows the existing
configuration can not serve the traffic needs through the year 2010. The
intersection at the,eastbound I-70 ramps is shown to fail during the evening
peak hour. This problem is effectively eliminated by the proposed action.
It should also be noted that congestion will be experienced at the South
Frontage Road intersection under both the existing configuration and the
proposed action alternatives during the evening peak hour. This
oversaturation is associated with the high demand for the westbound right-
turning movement at the South Frontage Road intersection. This potential for
congestion could result in queues on the South Frontage Road but will not ~
affect interstate or interchange ramp operations. To solve this problem might
require relocation of the eastbound I-70 entrance ramp to serve traffic from
the nearby parking garage or some other appropriate action. This issue is not
considered further in this study.
Table 2 also indicates signalizing the existing configuration could
effectively serve the short-term transportation needs at the interchange.
This conclusion is somewhat misleading since the traffic signals on Vail Road
do not operate independently.
To determine the effects of the interaction of all the traffic signals on Vail
Road at the interchange, a TRANSYT-7F analysis was performed. The resul[s of
this analysis are summarized in Table 3. From this analysis it was shown that
queuing problems can be expected between the Eas[bound I-70 ramps and the
-25-
TABLE 2 ,
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
ON VAIL ROAD bURING PEAK PERIODS
1986 2010
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Confi uration Action Configuration Action
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
South Frontage Road B B B B C D* B D*
11.1 11.7 10.2 11.3 22.2 37.5 13.5 35.6
I-70 Eastbound Ramps B B - - B F* - - '
7:6 11.7 9.8 >60
Proposed New Ramps - - B B - - B B
9.8 9.9 13.6 13.9
I-70 Westbound Ramps 13 B B B D C D C
12.6 10.5 12.6 10.5 28.3 15.2 28.3 15.2
LEGEND: B= Level of Service
11.1 = Average delay per vehicle.
* Critical movements are shown to be oversaturated.
i
~ - TABLE 3 «
~ TRANSYT-7F ANALYSIS OF 1986 CONDITIONS
Total
Delay Total Fuel Speed Queues at or Above
(Sec./Veh.) Stops (GA/Hr.) (Mile/Hr.) Capacity
Southbound left turn
- AM 21.40 3"1022 31.15 5.97 at South Frontage
Existing Road
Configuration
PM 40.88 3,724 49.00 5.63 Northbound movement
at Eastbound Ramps
~ Am 13.23 1,766 19.07 8.84 None
Proposed
Action
PM 18.78 2,318 26.11 7.68 None
-27- }
~ . .
Frontage Road. These queuing problems will be effectively eliminated by
the proposed action. The TRANSYT-7F computations are contained in the
~ technical appendix to this report.
The final part of this analysis involved consideration of traffic operations
at the Main interchange ramp junctions on I-70. The results of this analysis
are shown in Table 4. The ramp junctions are shown to operate acceptably for
both the existing configuration and the proposed action. The worksheets for
this analysis are also contained in the technical appendix.
~
~ -28-
a Am
:
TABLE 4 '
LEVEL OF SERVICE AT I-70 RAMP J UNCTIONS*
1986 2010
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Confi uration Action Configuration Action
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Eastbound Exit Ramp A/A A/B A/A A/B A/B B/C A/B B/C
Eastbound Existing
Entrance Ramp A/A A/B A/A A/B A/A B/C A/A B/C
Eastbound ProPosed
Entra • nce Ramp - - A/A A/A - - A/A B/B
N
t0
I '
Westbound Exit Ramp B/B A/A C/C A/B
Westbound Entrance
Ram p A/B A/A B/B A/B
LEGEND: A/B = Freeway/Merge or Diverge
* Assumes 4-lane freeway and 1-lane ramps.
Same level of service as existing conditions.
,
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
June 22, 1987
2:00 PM Site Visits
3:00 PM Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of June l.
2. Request for exterior alteration and a conditional use
permit in order to expand an outdoor dining deck at
Blu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive
Applicant: Blu's Restaurant
3. A request for a density variance and a side setback
variance to enclose a deck on Lot 27, Vail Village
Filing #2.
Applicant: Albert D. Weiss
4. A request for a setback variance in order to relocate
a pool building at the Ramshorn Condominiums on Lot
A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing.
Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership
5. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial
Core II for expansion of common office space at the
Antlers Condominiums. •
Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association
6. A request to amend Section 17.26.075 of the
Subdivision Regulations related to owner restriction
for the conversion of lodges to condominiums.
Applicants: Mr. Dave Garton and Mr. Tim Garton
7. A request to amend Section 18.54.050 C.13 concerning
the physical connection in the design of
primary/secondary and duplex residential units.
Applicant: Town of Vail