Loading...
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