HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-12 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1991
1:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
2. Design Review Board Report
3. Town Council/Planning and Environmental Commission Joint Meeting
Regarding Comprehensive Master Transportation and Parking Plan
4. Sales Tax Exempt Group Policy
5. Deck Expansion onto Town Property for Russell's Restaurant
6. Vacation and Abandonment of Easement Located Between Hanson Ranch
Road and Gore Creek Drive and Villa Valhala and Garden of the Gods
7. Vail Village Inn - Special Development District #6 Discussion
8. Joint TOU/Avon Town Council Marketing Board Presentation
9. Information Update
10. Other
11. Executive Session - Legal Matters
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1991
1:00 P.M.
EXPANDED AGENDA
1:00 1. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
Kristan Pritz
1:05 2. Design Review Board Report
Shelly Mello
1:10 3. Town Council/Planning and Environmental Commission Joint
Greg Hall Meeting Regarding Comprehensive Master Transportation Study
Action Requested of Council: Have Council brought up to
speed on the study and make recommendations to it before it
goes to PEC and Town Council for adoptions.
Background Rationale: The Parking and Transportation
Advisory Committee has worked with the consulting firm of
Feldsburg, Holt and Ullevig over the last year on the Town
of Uail's Comprehensive Master Transportation Study. The
Committee has recommended that the plan is complete up to
this point, and would like to update the Council and
Planning Commission on the report and also receive feedback
from the Council and Commission. The report covers five
areas, which include: 1) Vail Village Goods Delivery; 2)
Public Parking Facilities and Operations; 3) Transit Systems
Operations; 4) I-70 Access/Frontage Road Improvements; and
5) Recreation Trails Interface
3:00 2. Sales Tax Exempt Group Policy
Steve Barwick
Action Requested of Council: Town Staff would like
additional direction from the Town Council regarding
qualifications for tax exempt status and enforcement
procedures.
Background Rationale: Certain charitable organizations
are granted tax exempt status when conducting business in
Vail. It is estimated that $45,000-$50,000 of sales tax
revenue is lost annually due to these exemptions. This item
is being brought before Town Council in order to further
clarify certain policies and procedures.
3:30 3. Deck Expansion onto Town Property for Russell's Restaurant
Andy Knudtsen
Action Reauested of Council: Give preliminary approval/
denial to the applicant to proceed through the planning
phase for this project. If conceptual approval is given,
the applicant will proceed with the request, providing
floodplain information and additional survey information.
Background Rationale: The deck would extend off the north
side of Russell's Restaurant onto Town of Vail property
adjacent to Gore Creek. At this time, staff has several
questions about this proposal. Questions include:
1) Will the expansion encroach into the floodplain or the
50-foot Gore Creek stream setback?
2) What are the other Town Departments' Concerns?
3) What landscaping should be added? Should the stream
tract be left open? Should be deck be reduced in size?
4) Are there any easements that cross this parcel in the
area of the deck?
5) How does the deck impact the pocket park?
Staff Recommendation: Community Development staff
recommends that the proposal be allowed to proceed through
the review process, with the understanding that
the applicant address all of the questions listed above.
3:45 4. Vacation and Abandonment of Easement located between
Shelly Mello Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive and Villa Valhala
and Garden of the Gods
Action Requested of Council: Approve request.
Background Rationale: All utility companies involved in
this easement have relinquished any right to use. It
appears that the utilities were vacated in 1967, but the
Town never legally vacated the easement.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the request.
3:50 5. Vail Village Inn - Special Development District #6
Mike Mollica Discussion
Action Requested of Council: Josef Staufer, President and
Managing Director of the Vail Village Inn, has requested to
appear before the Council to discuss the possibility of
modifying Condition No. 7, as listed in Ordinance No. 14,
Series of 1987, Section 11 (See attached).
Background Rationale: Staff has informed Mr. Staufer that
the 8 conditions listed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987,
are still valid and would apply to any redevelopment at the
VVI. Before proceeding through the SDD-Major Amendment
process, Mr. Staufer would like some direction from Council
regarding the conditions, specifically Condition No. 7.
4:10 6. Joint Town of Vail/Avon Town Council Marketing Board
Presentation
7. Information Update
8. Other
9. Executive Session - Legal Matters
-2-
r
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Marsh 11, 1991
AGENDA
1:00 Site Visits
2:00 Public Hearing
Site Visits
1. Air Quality - PEC update on road sanding
practices in the Town of Vail.
Susan Scanlan/Pete Burnett
3 2. Notification of PEC of staff approval of
Minor Amendment to SDD #6 - Vail Village Inn
to allow for the installation of a satellite
dish in a setback.
Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems
3. A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to
establish an additional View Corridor and to
clarify wording in the ordinance. The view
to be protected extends to the east down
Hansen Ranch Road over the Red Lion in front
of Frivolous Sal's.
Applicant: Town of Vail
4. A request for a conditional use permit to
expand the Vail Mountain School, located at
3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2, Vail
Village 12th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Mountain School
1 5. A request for a worksession on setback and
site coverage variances and an exterior
alteration to the Lifthouse Lodge at 555 East
Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier
2 6. A request for a front setback variance for
the Perot residence, located at 64 Beaver Dam
Road/ Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicant: Ross Perot
7. A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the
Municipal Code - Definitions; to add a new
definition for affordable housing unit.
Applicant: Town of Vail
s.
8. A request to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single-
Family District, 18.12 - Two-Family
Residential District and 18.13 - Primary/
Secondary Residential District to allow
affordable housing units as a Conditional
Use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
9. A request to amend Chapters 18.14 -
Residential Cluster District, 18.16 - Low
Density Multiple Family District, 18.18 -
Medium Density Multiple Family District,
18.22 - Public Accommodation District,
18.24 - Commercial Core 1 District, 18.26 -
Commercial Core 2 District, 18.27 -
Commercial Core 3 District, 18.28 -
Commercial Service Center District, 18.29 -
Arterial Business District and 18.36 - Public
Use District, 18.39 - Ski Base/Recreation
District; to allow affordable housing units
as a Conditional Use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
10. A request to amend Chapter 18.58 of the
Municipal Code - Supplemental Regulations to
provide specific development/zoning standards
for affordable housing units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
11. Approval of minutes from February 11, 1991
meeting.
12. Approval of minutes from February 25, 1991
meeting.
13. Date for PEC workshop/dinner. Tentatively
scheduled for April 1, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. at
the Golfcourse Clubhouse.
14. Upcoming joint meetings with Town Council:
a. March 12, 1991 - Master Transportation
Plan.
b. March 19, 1991 - Streetscape Plan.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
MARCH 6, 1991
3:00 P.M.
REVISED 3/6/91
SITE VISITS
12:15 P.M.
11 1. Gramm - Repaint BR
303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Rowhouses
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Sherry Dorward
VOTE: 3-0-1
Denial. Ned Gwathmey abstained.
2 2. Vail Run - New awning & sign BR
1000 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 10 & 11, Block C,
Lionsridge Subdivision.
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Applicant did not appear.
5 3. Blockbuster Video - New sign BR
1031 S. Frontage Road/Cascade Crossing
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
TABLED TO MARCH 20TH MEETING.
4 4. Stott Residence - Deck Addition BR
2339 Chamonix Ln/Lot 11, Blk A, Vail Das Schone #1
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
TABLED TO MARCH 20TH MEETING.
5. Review of Banners BR
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Direction was given to the staff to decide an
allowable amount of signage and then to allow 25$
of that signage for sponsors' names. -
f~
6 6. Breeze Ski Rentals - Sign Variance JK
Montaneros Commercial Condominium Unit #100. 641
W. Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead 3rd.
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
TABLED TO APRIL 17TH MEETING.
12 7. Christiana Remodel JK
356 Hanson Ranch Rd/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village lst
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington
VOTE: 4-0
Motion to approve with the following conditions:
1. When ownership of parking across the street
from north is resolved, applicant will pave
and landscape. Landscape plan for this lot to
be submitted to staff for approval.
2. Aspens to be installed on Christiania Lodge
owned property shall be 2 1/2" to 3" caliper.
The board also recommended the spruce to be
installed on Christiania Lodge owned property be 10
feet to 12 feet in height.
15 8. Stanley - Addition JK
1816 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington
VOTE: 4-0
Motion to approve subject to the following
conditions:
1. Resolution of site coverage interpretation
issue by Community Development Department
staff.
2. new stone work match existing or existing
stone work be removed and all new stone be
installed. If new stone is to be installed,
material must be presented to DRB for review
and approval.
2
1 9. Red Sandstone Elementary School - New facade JK
and minor changes to site. (Conceptual Review)
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Conceptual Review.
9 10. Ski Museum - Plaza Development Review SM
Vail Village Transportation Center
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Conceptual Review.
14 11. Vail Trails East SM
433 Gore Crk Dr./Lot 7-15, Block 4, Vail Village 1st
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
TABLED TO MARCH 20TH MEETING.
8 12. Josey - Addition SM
97 Forest Road/Lot 3, Block 7, Vail Village 1st
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
TABLED TO MARCH 20TH MEETING.
3 13. Buffehr Creek Townhomes - 5 Units on SM
existing portion of Lionsridge, Tract B.
(Conceptual Review)
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Conceptual Review.
14. Review of neon/gas-filled signs SM
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
DRB directed staff to prepare a proposal which will
prohibit neon signage in Town. Will be reviewed at
March 20th meeting. ,
3
x
r
15. Schofield - New Garage AK
1448 Vail Valley Dr/Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley lst
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington
VOTE: 4-0
Approved with the condition that prior to issuance
of building permit, applicant shall obtain a right-
of-way revocable permit form the Town of Vail or
redesign the proposal.
16 16. Lockton - New Single Family Residence AK
3994 Bighorn Road/Lot 2, Gore Creek Park
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Sherry Dorward
VOTE: 3-1-0
Approved with 6 conditions prior to issuance of
building permit, applicant shall:
1. Provide approval from Army Corps of Engineers
to alter wetland condition.
2. Show grading that matches neighbor's driveway
and meets Town of Vail Engineer's approval.
3. Enlarge drainpipe specs to 10".
4. Insure bay window encroachment meets code or
is pulled back.
5. Meet Town of Vail Fire Department requirements.
6. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use
materials other that glass block.
7 17. Peterson/Bossow - Conceptual Review of 250 AK
addition & remodel. 332 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 6,
Block 3, Vail Village 3rd.
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Conceptual Review.
4
f
17 18. Graubart - New Addition AK
4394 Streamside Circle/Lot 9, Bighorn 4th
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington
VOTE: 4-0
Approved with the 4 conditions that prior to
issuance of building permit, applicant shall:
1. Provide topographic survey, showing 100 year
flood plain, referencing to FIRM. This
approval becomes void if new information shows
project violates section 18.69 Town of Vail
Zoning Code.
2. Show proposed drainage plan.
3. Secure right-of-way revocable permit for all
encroachments.
4. Provide signature from owner with 1/2 interest
in Lot 5.
13 19. Manor Vail - Addition AK
595 East Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, C, Block 1, Vail
Village 7th
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Conceptual Review.
10 20. Coldwell Banker Display Box AK
286 Bridge Street/Lots A & B, Block 5A, Vail
Village 1st
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
TABLED AFTER DISCUSSION.
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT:
Pat Herrington Jim Shearer (PEC)
Ned Gwathmey
George Lamb
Sherry Dorward
5
STAFF APPROVALS:
Potato Patch Townhomes - Change in approved plan.
Lot 6, Block 2, Potato Patch
Gottieb Addition - 62 sq. ft. addition. Bedroom expansion on north
side of building. Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village 13th
6
- - ~
town ofi uaii
75 south frontage road
veil, Colorado 81657
(303) 479-2113
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Counci%i~~
FP.OM: Steve Barwick
DATE: March 8, 1991
RE: Tax Exempt Groups
Please find attached a brief explanation of the Town's current situation regarding
tax exemptions for groups visiting Vail and our recommendations on the matter.
Also attached is a list of the policies of others ski towns. As you can see, the
enforcement level varies dramatically from town to toy>>n.
Since this matter may impact group Uusiness activity and involve a sizable amount
of revenue, we felt that Council should provide the staff with additional guidance.
SHB/ds
• TOWN OF VAIL
TAX EXEMPT POLICY
The Town of Vail is losing sales tax revenues because area
businesses are granting tax-exempt status to organizations that are
not tax-exempt.
We estimate that the total amount of sales tax from lodging
that is exempted is about $ 45,000 per year. The amount of lost
revenue from businesses granted tax-exemption in error is difficult
to estimate.
Recommended Solutions
1. Enforce our current policy, requiring the Town's written
consent for all tax-exempt sales. If a tax-exempt sale is
granted without the Town's consent, the vendor is liable .for
the tax.
2. Change our ordinance so that a tax-exempt organization does
not have to have a Colorado or Federal tax-exempt number in
order to get tax-exempt status.
3. Create a new consent form to obtain additional information from
tax-exempt organizations.
4. Train local businesses about granting exemption from sales tax.
5. Clarify our policy by giving specific examples of guest types
that would be exempt from tax.
Questionable Organizations and Activities that are currently
receiving tax-exempt status
1. Fund raisers i.e. Crystal Ball
2. Ski clubs
3. Professional seminars
4. Private universities
5. Non-profit groups
6. Church groups
TOWN OF VAIL
SURVEY OF TAX EXEMPTION
ENFORCEMENT IN SKI AREAS
ENFORCEMENT AND APPLICATION PROCEDURES
AVON No application for tax-exemption required
and no enforcement of policy.
STEAMBOAT No application for tax-exemption required
and no enforcement of policy.
BEAVER CREEK No application for tax-exemption required
and no enforcement of policy.
BRECKENRIDGE Each vendor must have a affidavit signed by
the organization on file for proof of tax
exemption. If, discovered during an audit,
that a group did not fill out an application,
then the vendor is responsible for the tax.
KEYSTONE Each group claiming tax-exempt status must
have a Colorado Certificate of Exemption
letter to the area accountant prior to group
arrival. Each group must pay with an
organization's draft. No exceptions.
No application is required to be filled out.
State of Colorado Enforcement of tax-exemption policies
is through auditing procedures. Each group
must always pay on the organization's draft
and they must have a Co. tax-exempt number.
No application is required to be filled out.
' APPLICATION & AFFIDAVIT FOR TAX-EXEMPTION
ORGANIZATION NAME
ADDRESS
GROUP PHONE NUMBER
EXEMPT NUMBER state Federal
LODGE NAME
DATES OF STAY
NUMBER OF PERSONS AT LODGE
PURPOSE OF VISIT
1
All of the following statments must be true for the purchase to qualify as tax-exempt
TRUE FALSE
The purchase is included under and is part of the regular religious,
U governmental or charitable functions and activities of the organization.
I I I I The transaction is billed directly to the organization and payment is made
I_J t-J from an organization draft . Purchases by an individual do not qualify
for the exemption even though the individual will be reimbursed by the
organization or governmental agency.
The participants at the event have not and will not reimburse the
organization in any way for the event such as by payment of a fee or
contribution or purchase of a ticket, etc.
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-TAXABLE SALE TO TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATION
The undersigned declares, under penalties of perjury, that the tangible personal property or tax-
able service purchased without payment of otherwise applicable Town of Vail tax(es) from:
(Name of vendor)
is to be paid from the tax-exempt organization's fund and that said organization has not and will
not receive any reimbursement through either direct payment ,collection or "donation" from any
person(s) for the use or consumption of said tangible personal property of services.
Print Name Title
Signature Date
Town of Vail Approval Yes No Date
To verify CO exemption number: 866-5600 Ext. 240
~~i
VAIL VILLAGE INN
Village Inn Plaza Condominiums
The Mayor and Towa Council
Vail Municipal Building
Vail 81657
Match 5, 1991
Dear Mr. Mayor, Gentlemen and Ladies of the Council:
This letter is to request an addition to the Council Work Session Agenda
for Tuesday, March 12, 1991, in order to discuss the following:
1. The proposed face-lift for the existing lobby building of the
Vail Village Inn.
2. How such a proposed face-lift would relate, if at all, to re-
quirement 7, Section 11, SDD 6. More specifically, the require-
went that Vail Village Inn, Inc. shall reimburse the Town of
Vail for expenses incurred in facilitating the relocation of
the ski museum of an amount not to exceed X75,000.00.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerel ,
Jo S er
Pre~s'de nd Managing Director
cc: rf/jjs-gc
100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5622
FAX (303) 476-4661
.
~ +
ti w ,
- ORDINANCE N0. 14
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0, 1, SERIES OF 1985_
TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
- FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 6; ADOPTING AN AMENDED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASE IU OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
N0. 6, ELIMINATING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; CHANGING THE HEIGHT
REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT N0. 6; CHANGING THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND MODIFYING
THE BUILDING BULK STANDARDS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 6; PROVIDING DIFFERENT
PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE IV AND V
OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 6; AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL of the Town of Vail as -
follows:
Section 1, Legislative Intent is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to
read as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Intent
A. In 1976, the Town Council of the Town of Vaii passed Ordinance No. 7,
Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6 to insure the
unified and coordinated development of a critical site as a whole and in a manner
suitable for the area in which it was situated.
B. Special Development District No.6 provided in Section 14 that the Town
Council reserved the right to abrogate or modify Special Development District No. 6
for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance in conformity with the zoning
code of the Town of Vail.
C. In 1985, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance #1, Series
of 1985, providing certain amendments to the development plan for SDD N0. 6.
D. Application has been made to the Town of Uail to modify and amend certain
sections of Special Development District No. 6 which relate to Phase IV and which
make certain changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 6
as they relate to Phase IV.
E. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has reviewed
the changes submitted by the applicant and has recommended that Special Development
District No. 6 be so amended.
F. The Town Council considers that the amendments provide an even mare
unified and more aesthetically pleasing development of a critical site within the
Town and that such amendments are of benefit to the health, safety and welfare of
the inhabitants of the Town of Vail.
. - .i
Section 2. Section 18.50.020 Purpose is hereby amended to read as follows:
A Special Development District is established to assure comprehensive
development and use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the
general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation
amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning~Ordinance of the Town.
Ordinarily, a special development district will be created only when the
development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council, PTanning
Commission and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the
special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning.
Section 18.50.040 Development Plan Contents is hereby amended to read as
follows;
The proposed development plan shall include, but is not limited to, the
following data as supplemented by exhibits provided by consultants Royston,
Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 for Phases I, II, III, and as
supplemented by the exhibits of the development plan and the environmental impact
report as prepared by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, (plans dated February 19, 1987,
revised April 14 and April 22, 1987), and as given final approval through passage
of second reading of this ordinance by the Town Council on May 19, 1987 for Phase
IV and Phase V. This approval recognizes that Phase IU may be constructed in two
phases with the first phase to be referred to as Phase IV and the final phase to be
referred to as Phase V.
Section 3. Section 18.50.040 E is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. For Phases I, II, and III, a volumetric model as amended by consultants
Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 of the site and proposed
development documented by photographs at a scale of 1 inch equals 16 feet or
larger, portraying the scale and relationship of those phases of the development to
the site and illustrating the form and mass of structures in said phases of the
development. For Phases IV and V, a volumetric model as amended by Gordon Pierce, F
Architect, of the site and the proposed development at a scale of 1 inch equals 20
feet, portraying the scale and relationship of the development on Phases IV and V,
to the site and illustrating the form of mass of structures in said phase.
Section 4. Section 18.50.050 Permitted uses in Special Development No. 6 is hereby
repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as follows:
18.50.050 Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in phases I,~II, III, IV and V of Special Development
District 6 shall be in accordance with the approved development plans on file in
•
< < ~ r
- the Town of Vail Community Oeveiopment Department.
Section 5. Section 18.50.060 Conditional Uses in Special Development District No. 6
is hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as follows:
18.50.060 Conditional Uses
Conditional Uses for Phases I, II, III, IV and V of Special Development
District No. 6 shall be as found in Section 18.22.030 of the Vail Zoning Code and
as below: A. A popcorn outside vending wagon that conforms in appearance with
those existing in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II.
Except, no office uses, except those clearly accessory to a principal use will
be allowed on the Plaza level of Phases
IV and V. .
Section 6. Section 18.50.110 Distance Between Buildings is hereby amended to read
as follows:
18.50.110 Distance Between Buildings
For Phases I, II and III the minimum distance between buildings on adjacent
sites shall be as indicated in the development plan, but in no case shall be less
than 50 feet. For Phase IV AND V, the minimum distance between buildings on
adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the development plan as submitted by Gordon
Pierce, Architect, (dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 17, 1987).
Section 7. Section 18.50.120 Height is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. For Phases I, II, and III the al]owable heights shall be as found on the
development plan, specifically the site plan and height plan dated 3/12/76.
B. -For Phases IV and V, the maximum building height shai.i be as set forth in
the approved development plan by Gordon Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987,
revised April 14 and April 17, 1987).
Section 8. Section 18.50.130 Density is hereby amended to read as follows:
The Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) of all districts in the Special
Development District shall not exceed 120,600 square feet. There shall be a
minimum of 148 accommodation units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA devoted to
accommodation units in Phase IV and U of Special Develoment District 6.
Section 9. Section 18.50.130 Building Bulk is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.50.130 Building Bulk
Building bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for building elements,
requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines for Phases I, II
and III shall be indicated on the development plan submitted by consultants
Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1975. For Phases IV and V,
building bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for building elements,
requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines shall be as
indicated as per the approved development plans submitted by Gordon R. Pierce,
Architect (dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 22, 1987).
Section 10. Section 18.50.180 Parking and Loading is hereby repealed and reenacted
with amendments as follows:
18.50.180 Parking and Loading
Following the completion of Phases IV and V, there shall be not less than 12
surface parking spaces, 324 underground parking spaces, and 37 underground valet
parking spaces as are existing and as provided on the development plan submitted by
Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987). The proposed site plan
dated February 19, 1987-reflects the interim parking plans between the development
of Phases IV and V.
Section 11 is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as
follows:
Section 11. Conditions of approval for the development plan of Phases IV and V of
SDD6 as submitted by Gordon Pierce (dated February 9, 1985, revised April 14 and
April 22, 1987), shall be as follows:
1. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in and do not
remonstrate against an improvement district for improvements to the
intersection of Vaii Road and Meadow Drive if and when one is formed.
2. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in and do not
remonstrate against establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phases IV and U to
a future commercial expansion at the Sonnenalp Lodge site if and when it is
developed.
3. The developer receive approval from the State Highway Department for
reconfiguration of the pull-off area from the Frontage Road to the entrance to ,
the hotel prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase V.
4. The developers and/or owners of Phase IV agree to transfer by general warranty
deed to the Town of Vail free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, such
condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq. ft. in size and to be located as
indicated on the plans and specifications submitted with the application.
There shall be no provisions placed on the condominium unit restricting the
Town of Vail's use of the unit or the subsequent subdivision and/or sale of
the unit.
-4-
~J
5. No grading permit, building permit or demolition permit relating to Phases IV
or V of Special Development District No. 6 shall be issued until such time
that reasonable evidence is provided the Town of Vail staff that construction
financing for the improvements to be constructed as part of Phases IV or V has
been obtained.
6. Restrictions on any units in Phases IV or V which would be condominiumized
shall be as outlined in Section 17.26.075 of the Vail Municipal Code and any
amendments thereto.
7. Upon the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any phase of
SDD~16 subsequent to Phase IV, the developer and/or owner of said phase shall
reimburse the Town of Vail for expenses incurred in facilitating the
relocation of the ski museum (into Phase IV) of an amount not to exceed
X75,000.
8. Any remodel or redevelopment of the remaining portion of SDD6 commonly
referred to as Phase V shall include parking as required by Ordinance 1,
Series of 1985.
Section 12.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the valildity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 13.
The repeal or the repeal and reenaction of any provisions of the Vail Municipal
Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof,
any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
~
.
. ~ ~ - J - .
• ~ .
"c~ ~ -
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 5th day of Mav, 1987
and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 19th
day of Mav 1987 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Order d p lshe 'n ul~his 8th day of Mav 1987.
V ~ / / /
Paul R.~ Joh"~ ton,rMayor
A ST: ,G
a~1t.1,1~J~.6WI~~il.~.v~u,C.~~[,r~.J
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in
full this 19th day of Mav 1987.
' A
•
1 n
Paul R. ~hf~ston, Mayor
ST:
a~
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP
3/8/91
TOPIC -QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS vago i ~f ~
8/8/89 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements for Marijke Brofos will be circulating petitions when Larry
(request: Lapin) annexation. gets them to her. Larry is holding off so annexation
will occur closer to end of next year far tax purposes.
5/1 AMEND CODE, 12.04.240, STREET CUT GREG/LARRY: Per Council direction, proceed. Proposed ordinance being redrafted after joint meeting with
PERMITS Public Service and Holy Cross.
7/11 BIKES/ROLLER BLADES AND SKATES/ KEN/LARRY: Should bicycles, roller blades, etc. be Researching appropriate ordinances for application to be
SKATEBOARDS ~ prohibited from highly pedestrianized areas in discussed in May, 1991.
the Village and Lionshead, and also including
the parking structures?
7/27 UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN LARRY/GREG: Work with Holy Cross Electric to Revised estimate of costs to property owners to be
EAST VAIL establish special improvement district(s) for mailed. Undergrounding may occur in fall of '91 or
undergrounding utilities in East Uail. spring of '92.
9/20 LIONS RIDGE FILING 4 RON: Homeowners Assn. would like Town to buy Ron contacted Jim Fritze about tax abatement if Town takes
common area for back taxes and penalties. ownership. Tax liability only about $5,500. County
Attorney says no tax abatement is possible for a property
such as this.
11/27 HERITAGE CABLEVISION RON: Schedule meeting with Ron/Larry/Lynn Johnson Will do. Lynn Johnson is out of town for a few weeks.
to discuss limited franchise agreement.
12/18 MILLRACE CONDO. ASSN. LETTER KRISTAN: Respond. Vail ,Ventures will respond in writing to our letter.
1/11/91 SNOW DUMP RON/GREG: Workout site acquisition with VA. Final negotiations on land lease underway. Design
Complete design. has begun.
1/11J91 AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE LAND KRISTAN: Locate all Agriculture open parcels. All located.. There are approximately 12 .pieces privately
owned not including VA parcels. Council will review at
Work Session, March 19, 1991.
1/11/91 OLD TOWN SHOPS/HOLY CROSS LARRY/GREG: Environmental investigation. Drilling completed. Waiting for final lab reports.
SITES
2/5/91 CHUCK ANDERSON/YOUTH ROB/RON: Are we 2 or 3 years behind on this? Last year nominations were solicited twice and none
' RECOGNITION (request: Rose) Let's be prepared to award this spring. reeived. Rob will proceed. Process has been outlined
by VMRD.
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP
3/8/91
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS aa~o ~ ~f ~
2/5/91 AUSTRIA HOUSE PARKING LOT LARRY/MIKE BRAKE: Research policy for encroach- Staff to seek Council direction on encroachment issue
(request: Lapin) ment on Town of Vail property. during March 19 Work Session, after Larry, Ken & Mike
Mike discuss.
i
2/26/91 COUNTY-WIDE SALES TAX LARRY: Can this issue be voted at the regular Copy of the bill requested. Summary says
RE: TRANSPORTATION municipal election in November? election can be held any November.
2/26 CD'S STEVE THOMPSON: Are any of the Savings and Loan No. ~
(request: Gibson) institutions where we are banking on the RTC
"hit" list?
RECD MAR 1 9 19 91
~
,~iu,l
111 South Frontage Road • Vail, Colorado 81657
Mar ch 18, f'~'91
cr u F:un F'hi1 1 i p~ M Town Manager .
To~•:n of 'Jai .l
75 S. F'runta~e f~:d.
'Jail, Cu 8167
Dear Counci 1 Merr~ber-s,
Rt. a special meeting of the t?ail F:esnr-t r-"tssec i ~t i nn >nar-d nt
Directors , Thy crsday March 7th wie revi et•:ed al 1 a~~ai 1 ab 1 e
rel acati nn si. tes for thFa ,r'ai 1 F:esor-i: Rssnci at i nn ~•:i th sp~:ci al
considera'tinn n•t tt-,c F'i'tEcin Cre~=E: Farb:: cnrrimercial space.
The F'itk:in Cr-eei:: space t•:as fo~_cnd ~.cndesirable fc+r tt-:e foll.nr•:ing
reason:
1 . F'hysi cal. 1 y ton s:iia7. 1 an~:J rio space. fur e::pansi un. .
Hi Qt-IP_r tJ! lI 1 d-nut cost rer~±ii red ti loin d=?-:e ',?'•?1 =pace-
InarlE~ycfuate parE~:i.rig.
4. 1'n<~deq~cate a•vai l rafJl e pl ~oi;e ser~,ri ce.
Q~ct of killsi Hess traffic f i or•1.
Rl1 other spaces considered had prohibiti~ae rental and CRf`1
costs.
For these reasor-:s we coot 1 ~.cde ti-~at the best pussi bl e 1 nca~t i on i s
the Vai 1 Vi 1 .l age inn =.pace.
R= stated before, the membership is committed to raising the
necessary funds for 'tl-:e move as loriy as the toaan will grant us
an initial ~ year ter:r: at na cost increase from that now being
paid with 1ti years to fnl.low t~eith a CF'I annual increase not to
e>:ceed 7°I. per year-.
We look: •forward 'tn your- approval.
F:egar-ds ,
~
William H. 1`liller
Cheri rmar~
Wf-~1~1/ 1 j r
CENTRAL RESERVATIONS 1-800-525-3875
GROUP SALES / BUSIIVESS OFFlCE (303) 476-1000 Denver Line 595-9488
.J =M HEYHR
Illlilllllllllilllt111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
F.O. Box 404
Conifer, CO 80433
January 4, 1991
Chief of Police
TOWN OF VAIL POLICE DEPARTMENT
Vail, Colorado
Dear Chief
I am writing to compliment and thank your staff for their
helpful and friendly attitude in a recent situation I
experienced while passing through Vail.
During the height of the dust-past Christmas Holidays I was
forced to leave my sick motorhome in Vail, having come from
Grand Junction headed toward home in Conifer. After being told
by ail of the gas stations in the valley that they had no place
to keep our motorhome and no one available to work on it until
after the holidays, I was at wit's end. I stopped in at the
Police headquarters to ask for a lace, anyplace, where the unit
could be left for several days_ The duty sargent CI believe his
name was Dan Moison> directed me to an outlying lot and made
arrangements to preclude my being ticketed for the next few
days. This was done at the height of the activity that _
accompanies the Holidays, but despite that the sargent was
concerned, friendly and a bright light on an otherwise dim day.
On Christmas five I returned to attempt minor repair (timing
adjustment>, was unsuccessful, and was again forced to leave the
motorhome for another two days until the overworked folks at
West Vail Conoco could come and retrieve it. I again contacted
the Police to explain the situation and was received by a
different duty sargent who was as sympathetic and concerned as
the first.
As I write this I am struck by the parallel to the Mary and
Joeseph in Bethlehem story. The Vail Police staff were the good
innkeepers in my version; my heartfelt thanks to all of them,
and a Merry Christmas! My family and friends will make it a
point to visit Vail more often in the future as a direct result
of their kindness.
Cordial ,
/Ji m H~yer
(,c: ayor s Office, Town of Vail
F E L S B U R G
H 0 L T &
U L L E V I G Q
DRAFT
VAIL TRANSPORTATION STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' Prepared for:
Town of Vail
' 75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
i
1
Prepared by:
' Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
5299 DTC Boulevard, Suite 400,
Englewood, Colorado 80111
' (303)721-1440
In association with:
TDA Colorado, Inc.
' FHU Reference No. 89-091
March, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
' RELATIONSHIP TO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 1
VAIL VILLAGE DELIVERIES 2
Background 2
Goals and Objectives 2
Concept Alternatives 2
' Close-in Centralized Options : 2
Decentralized Options 4
Recommendations/Priorities 4
PARKING 7
Background 7
' Goals and Objectives 7
Travel Demand Management (TDM) Options 9
Future Parking Supply Requirements 9
' Parking Rate Structure 10
Special Parking Provisions 11
TRANSIT 13
In Town Shuttle System Characteristics 13
' Goals and Objectives 13
Shuttle System Alternatives 13
In Town Shuttle Recommendations/Priorities 17
Outlying Bus System Characteristics 17
Goals and Objectives 17
Route Structure Modification and Coverage Expansion Options 17
' Recommendations/Priorities : 19
Down Valley Bus Service 19
I-70 ACCESS/FRONTAGE ROADS/LOCAL CIRCULATION 22
Background 22
Goals and Objectives 22
I-70 Crossing Location 22
West Vail Interchange Alternatives 23
West Vail Interchange Recommendations/Priorities 25
' Main Vail Interchange Alternatives 25
Main Vail Interchange Recommendations/Priorities 29
Frontage Road System 29
Separation of Conflicting Travel Modes 30
TRAIL SYSTEM INTERFACE 34
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
' 1. Existing Goods Delivery System 3
' 2. Recommended Goods Delivery System 5
3. Parking Supply/Demand Characteristics 8
' 4. In-Town Shuttle Bus Route 14
5. In-Town Shuttle Directional Peak Hour Demand 16
' 6. Golden Peak Area Concept Plan 18
' 7. Recommended West Vail Bus Routes 20
8. Recommended East Vail Bus Routes 21
9. Recommended West Vail Interchange Improvements 24
10. Recommended Main Vail Interchange Improvements 28
' 11. Frontage Road Concept Plan 31
12. Core Area Concept Plan 32
13. Proposed Vail Recreation Trails Implementation Plan 35
' 14. Central Vail Recreation Trails Implementation Plan 36
' LIST OF TABLES
' l . In-Town Shuttle Comparison I S
2. West Vail Traffic Volume-to-Capacity Summary 23
' 3. Main Vail Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Summary 26
4. Implications and Consequences of Main Vail Interchange Alternatives 27
' INTRODUCTION
This Executive Summary highlights the technical analyses, alternatives evaluation and major
recommendations of the Vail Comprehensive Transportation Plan developed over cone-year planning
period under the direction and guidance of the Vail Parking and Transportation Advisory Committee.
' The purpose of this document is to summarize the important aspects of the planning process and to
present consolidated background information on the range of alternatives considered and the final
recommendations made.
' A companion document, "Vail Transportation Study, Final Report", presents detailed information on
the entire technical work program as well as complete documentation of the field inventories and
committee meetings. The full report should be consulted to obtain any needed information not
' contained in this summary.
The Executive Summary is organized into five sections covering the following topics:
' o Vail Village Goods Delivery
o Public Parking Facilities and Operations
o Transit System Operations
o I-70 Access/Frontage Road Improvements
o Recreation Trails Interface
Each section presents a brief background on existing conditions, a statement of goals and objectives,
summary information on the alternatives considered, and documentation of the Parking and
Transportation Advisory Committee's recommendations for short-range implementation and for the
long-range concept plan.
RELATIONSHIP TO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
' While the Vail Comprehensive Transportation Plan documents long-range concept plans and short-
range improvement projects for the Town, the planning process also recognizes the role of the Town's
Plan within the greater regional context. It is recognized that transportation to and from Vail involves
multi-agency cooperation throughout the Vail Valley, adjacent counties, and the Front Range.
Vail is supportive of a broad range of alternative transportation modes which address resident,
employee, and visitor needs. These alternatives should be compatible with environmental constraints
' and should encourage reductions in travel demand as a means to reduce the need to expand the
transportation supply.
' Monitoring and updating activities are recommended which will allow future regional transportation
decisions to be incorporated into the Vail Comprehensive Transportation Plan. These regional
transportation decisions may include expanded mass transportation services throughout the Vail Valley
' as well as new technologies implemented regionally and statewide.
1 1
' V RIE
VAIL VILLAGE DELI E S
' Background
Goods delivery and various service functions within Vail Village have resulted in significant and
' undesirable vehicular conflicts with pedestrians which is partially the result of inadequate service and
delivery facilities such as alleys. Designated loading zones are located sporadically throughout Vail
Village as shown in Figure 1, providing approximately 31 truck parking spaces. Larger vehicles are
currently prohibited in the Village from 8:30 AM to 10:30 AM and from 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM during
ski season, and all delivery vehicles must pass through Check-point Charlie. Approximately 185,000
square feet of floor space exist in Vail Village which generates an estimated 160 to 200 vehicular trips
per day during ski season of various deliveries and service functions. Approximately 25 to 30
' delivery parking spaces are required to accommodate delivery demand during peak conditions.
Goals and Obiectives
' Basic planning objectives relative to the goods and services delivery system are ordered in the
following hierarchy:
' o Pedestrianization should be emphasized as a priority. Ideally, therefore, all trucks and service
vehicles should be eliminated from the Village core.
o If this is not feasible, the number and size of trucks in the Village core should be reduced.
o Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street should not carry any vehicular traffic.
Future demand estimates indicate that approximately 35 to 40 delivery and service parking spaces are
required to accommodate delivery demand during the peak season. These new loading zones should
be located in response to both environmental constraints as well as pedestrian retail space needs.
Concert Alternatives
' Five delivery system alternatives were identified which addressed, in varying degrees, reducing
vehicle/pedestrian conflicts in the Village. Two of the alternatives involved a subsurface tunnel
system and were dropped from consideration due to their constructability, liability, and cost
implications. Two other alternatives involved a centralized facility to receive deliveries located either
' near the Village or at a remote site. The remote site centralized option was dropped from further
consideration since it was determined that if a centralized system is to occur, aclose-in site would
be more desirable since some of the benefits of centralization would be lost if located away from the
Village. The fifth alternative involved a decentralized system which consists of modifications to the
current delivery scheme. The Close-in centralized alternative and the decentralized alternative were
evaluated in more detail.
' Close-in Centralized Options
Issues concerning the centralized alternative include the following:
' o Best location.
o Size of the "small vehicle" fleet.
' o Responsibility and involvement of the Town of Vail.
o Aesthetics
' 2
r - ~
r ~,M, r r' r
r
F E L S B U A G
H 0 L T &
U L L E V I G' ~ ~ ~ Meadow p~ ~r.
` ~
/ / m
. ~ 5 7 co / .
0 4 ~ \re, Cre
1
~ 1 2 3 O D 9
O- ~
Of"
sore Creek D~ GteeK
11 12 t 6 G°f e
~ 20
10
13 17
1
a~
. ~ Hens°n
a ,9
15 14 18
1
~
r
Legend
. Figure 1
Vehicle Loading Zones
Delivery ~ stem
Private Service Access Areas Existing Goods Delivery Sy
~
Not to Scale
' o Impacts on the natural and man-made environments.
o Compatibility with surroundings.
' o Size of facility (large enough to accommodate maneuvering of single unit trucks).
o Feasibility of land acquisition.
' Four potential site locations were identified for aclose-in facility in which the docking area would
be covered or concealed below ground. These locations include the Christiania Parking lot, Garden
of the Gods parking lot east of Garden of the Gods (located northeast of the Hanson Ranch Road/Nail
Valley Drive intersection), Golden Peak tennis court, and just south of the Lodge South Tower. It
' was determined that if a centralized system were implemented, the Christiania site would be the most
desirable since it is located closest to the Village area, is less disruptive to the surrounding area and
it would be one of the least expensive alternatives to implement. A Cushman or "small vehicle" fleet
of 7 vehicles would be required.
Decentralized Options
Three areas were discussed as potential locations for new truck loading zones under the decentralized
delivery system which include the Mill Creek area between Gore Creek Drive and Hanson Ranch
Road, the area south of Hanson Ranch Road between Cyranos and Christiania, and a lower level
' loading area beneath the existing Christiania parking lot. In addition, conversion of existing short-
term parking areas along Gore Creek Drive and Hanson Ranch Road were discussed as potential
truck-only loading zones.
' Recommendations/Priorities
The Vail Village goods delivery plan is illustrated in Figure 2, and consists of a modified
' decentralized delivery strategy. Elements of the plan are as follows; prioritized by short-term and
long-term actions.
' Short Term:
o The Bridge Street loading zone, the Mill Creek loading zone on Hanson Ranch Road behind
' the Red Lion, and Gore Creek Drive loading zone near the Lodge at Vail would be removed.
o Loading zones on Willow Bridge Road near Check-Point Charlie and along the north side of
the Mill Creek Court Building would be retained for delivery purposes (approximately 19
' spaces including 2 handicapped parking spaces).
o Additional loading areas would be provided along Gore Creek Drive next to the Christiania
lot (approximately 4 spaces including 2 handicapped parking spaces), along Hanson Ranch
Road just south of the Christiania lot (approximately 6 spaces including 2 handicapped
parking spaces), and along the south side of Hanson Ranch Road between Cyranos and
' Christiania (approximately 6 spaces).
o All private service access areas would be retained.
4
~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
F E L S B U R G
HOLT ~
U L L E V I G 1
~ Mew
~w p~
~
~ ~ \ ~
Retaln Existing ~ 5 7
Losdinp Zonea ~ 4 ~ ' c
d ~ 1
m ~ p~ RetaM Exlatlnp ~
m 8 h 8 / • Loading Zonea .
k pr.
Gore Cros
1
11 12 16 G~eeK ~ .
10 \ G°~e
Remove Gore Creek Drlve \ 20 •
and 8rld4e Street Potential-ftifun
Loading Zonea 13 17 ~ Truck Dock Facility ~ Convert 16 Mlnuts
1 Parklnq Zones
\ • to DeliMery
Loading Zonea.
O a
19 • ~ Ne~sOn
15 14
18 ~
! ,
Construct New Loading
Legend ~ Zone Area
k•''~~~~=~~~~~~~ Delivery Vehicle Loading Zones m,~
Private Service Access Areas ~ Figure 2
Recommended Goods Delivery System
Not to Scale
e
' Approximately 35 spaces can be provided under this alternative at a cost of approximately $75,000
to $100,000 plus land acquisition. The major cost component is the development of a truck parking
' area off of Hanson Ranch Road next to Cyranos. Protection and enhancement of Mill Creek will be
an integral component of this improvement. The implementation of this short-term recommendation
does not prohibit the future implementation of a centralized delivery strategy. Because of the
' relatively low cost of implementing the short-term alternative, it is recommended as an immediate
solution to be further evaluated after operating experience is gained.
Long Term:
o The Christiania lot should be retained for a potential goods delivery loading area including
the potential of converting it to a centralized loading facility to transfer cargo to smaller
' delivery vehicles.
o Immediate actions should be taken to resolve land ownership issues associated with the
Christiania lot/Nail Associates as it pertains to future Town right-of-way needs. This will
allow the long-term solution to be implemented more quickly if the short-term solution
provides minimal benefits relative to the environmental and cost consequences.
' As a simple, two-level parking/loading area, the long-term alternative would cost approximately
$750,000 to $850,000 plus land acquisition and provide approximately 17 truck loading spaces. As
a centralized delivery facility including warehousing facilities and a small vehicle fleet, the total costs
' are estimated to be $1.4 to $1.7 million plus land acquisition.
i
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
6
t PARKING
' Background
The major components of the existing parking supply which are critical include the Transportation
' Center, LionsHead, and Ford Park which provide approximately 2,750 public parking spaces with the
recent Transportation Center expansion. During the peak skiing periods, these parking facilities are
filled to capacity and temporary overflow parking (typically the Frontage Road) are utilized to
whatever extent necessary. Not only are revenues lost, but visitor convenience and safety are also
' compromised. Prior to the expansion of the Transportation Center expansion, the parking
supply/demand characteristics were such that overflow parking occurred approximately 14 days per
year. The expansion is estimated to decrease this overflow to approximately 6 days per year.
' A detailed analysis of existing and future parking demand characteristics was conducted and is
summarized in Figure 3. It will be noted that for four different parking demands the existing public
parking supply of 2,750 spaces will result in increasing frequency of overflow parking.
Under existing demand conditions overflow parking will occur 6 days per year while future demand
conditions will result in overflow parking of:
' 0 10 days per year if travel demand management strategies are instituted by the time the ski
area expands to its approved limits,
0 26 days per year if no travel demand management occurs by the time the ski area expands to
its approved limits, and
0 34 days per year if the full potential expansion of the ski area occurs. (This level of
expansion could not occur until an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared.)
Goals and Obiectives
The following are the goals and objectives relative to parking needs.
' o Identify travel demand management techniques to reduce current and future demands for
parking including ride-share incentives, pricing controls, and transit service improvements.
' o Provide an adequate public parking supply to accommodate future demands associated with
the approved ski area expansion recognizing that maximum peak demands cannot be
economically satisfied. Up to 15 days of overflow demand are considered acceptable by the
Town as a reasonable balance between serving the majority of the peak parking demands with
a feasible and affordable investment.
' o Provide reasonably priced public parking to serve the visitor.
o Provide price discounted parking to serve Vail resident and employee needs.
' o Provide limited premium service parking at a price commensurate with the value provided.
o Identify candidate expansion areas for additional public parking to accommodate long-term
' demands associated with the potential ski area expansion.
7
F E L S B U R G ~ - _ _
- -
H 0 L T &
U L L E V I G 1 \
X3.8 ~ P~rkin4 Demand Curves
O Existing
O Approved Ski Area Expansion with TDM
~..t
O3 Approved Ski Area Expansion
3.~ ®Potential Ski Area Expansion
_y _
O ~ ~ ~
z.B ~ Existing Parking Supply - 2750 Spaces
n
z. ~ -
1.B O1
~ ~ 6 10 26 34
1 4 - , .-i-_._.- , --r----~-~ - , -
5 15 25 35 45 ~~5 6:~
Number of Days Parking Demand Occurs or is Exceeded
Figure 3
Parking Supply/Demand Relationships
North
o Locate arkin areas for charter buses recreational vehicles, and other over-sized vehicles.
p g
' o Maintain an adequate revenue stream to fund implementation of on-going maintenance and
operations.
' o Provide a simple and easily understood pricing structure which is efficiently administered.
Travel Demand Management (TDMI Options
' A wide variety of travel demand management measures exist for reducing travel and parking
demands, but most are oriented toward commuter travel in major metropolitan areas. Three options,
however, have potential application to Vail. These options include modified parking pricing, transit
' improvements, and discounts for ride-share groups. Collectively, these measures could reduce
parking demand from 14 to 22 percent if successfully implemented resulting in 10 days of overflow
conditions under the approved ski area expansion demand. Figure 3 illustrates the supply/demand
' characteristics for various demand scenarios.
Future Parking Suonly Requirements
' The Town Parking Plan consists of a short-range component (consistent with the approved ski area
expansion) and a generalized long-range component. The short-range parking supply plan consists
of the following elements:
' o The Town of Vail should encourage private sector involvement to actively pursue travel
demand management techniques to reduce the growth in parking demand.
1 0 Up to 15 days of overflow parking demand is deemed to be acceptable by the Town in
recognition of the excessive capital costs required to meet absolute peak demands.
Approximately half of the days will result in very little to minor overflow conditions while
the top 7 days of activity will constitute the most serious overflow conditions.
o As a consequence, the formal public parking supply of 2,750 spaces to be in place upon
completion of the expansion of the VTC is sufficient to meet the Town's immediate and
short-term future parking needs.
In the longer range future it is recognized that the possibility of ski area expansion beyond the
currently approved levels could occur along with continued general growth of the Town. Therefore,
the Parking and Transportation Advisory Committee adopted the following long-term parking concept
plan:
o The existing Ford Park parking area (east end of park) should be considered for a possible
two-level parking facility with the second level provided below existing grade.
o The existing West Day lot should also be considered, in conjunction with Vail Associates, for
a possible two-level parking facility with the second level partially depressed below existing
grade.
':;Approximately 400 to 500 additional parking spaces could be provided at a cost of approximately $2.5
to $3.0 million.
9
' Parkins Rate Structure*
The Town of Vail currently charges patrons to park at the LionsHead and Transportation Center
garages during ski season (parking is free in the summer). Charging is primarily oriented towards
visitors as local residents and employees obtain parking passes for the duration of the ski season. The
1' pricing structure varies depending on the duration of the parked vehicle and it ranges from free if
parked for less than an hour-and-a-half to $7.00 fora 24-hour period. The Town also sells parking
passes and coupons for the two structures which include the premium Gold Pass, the discount Blue
Pass and other discount coupon options. The use of the Blue Pass and coupons is restricted during
peak demand periods.
To meet the Town's objectives, a major revision of the basic rate structure, premium service program,
' and discount parking program are recommended. The following parking rate structure is recom-
mended for the Town of Vail.
' Time Interval Price
0 -1-1/2 Hours $ 0.00
1-1 /2 to 2 Hours $ 2.00
2 to 3 Hours $ 3.00
3 to 4 Hours $ 4.00
4 to 5 Hours $ 5.00
5 to 7 Hours $ 6.00
7 to 9 Hours $ 7.00
9 to 11 Hours $ 8.00
11 to 13 Hours $ 9.00
' 13 to 15 Hours $10.00
15 to 24 Hours $12.00
The Gold Pass should be continued as the premium service program, but price levels should be
' increased and reviewed annually to better reflect the costs incurred to provide guaranteed parking.
The following is recommended for the premium service Gold Pass program.
o Price set at $750.00 plus a $25.00 deposit.
o Limited to a maximum of 150 Gold Passes.
o Guaranteed space availability and unlimited entry/exit.
' o No restrictions on use.
o Gold Passes valid to the following November 1.
The following are recommendations for the Discount Parking program and Ford Park.
1
* Many of the recommendations presented in this section have been implemented by the Town
of Vail for the 1990/ 1991 season.
i 10
Coupons:
' o Coupons will be sold for $3.00 each up to a maximum of 100 coupons per individual and may
be purchased in any quantity.
o Coupons are valid to the following November 1.
o Coupons are valid at both VTC and LionsHead any day and at any time.
o At the VTC, Leve14 and Leve15 will be reserved exclusively for coupon holders (226 spaces).
o If Levels 4 and 5 fill, then coupon holders will use LionsHead.
o If Levels 4 and 5 do not fill, then general parkers will be allowed to use Levels 4 and 5
provided that the rest of the VTC is full.
' o Coupons may be purchased by those individuals who have a valid drivers license with a Vail
address or verification of employment by a Vail business.
Blue Passes:
o Blue Passes will be sold for $400.00 plus a $25.00 deposit to anyone wishing to purchase them.
o Blue passes are valid to the following November 1.
o Blue Passes may be used at the VTC at any time on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday (except between Christmas and New Years Day) and after 3:00 P.M. on Friday,
Saturday and Sunday.
o Blue Passes may be used at LionsHead any day and at any time.
o Blue Passes allow unlimited entry/exit during the valid time periods defined above.
Ford Park:
' o Ford Park will be free and available on a first come, first serve basis on Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday.
o Ford Park will be available to Coupon and Blue Pass holders or to general parkers fora $5.00
flat fee (payable upon entry) on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
Special Parkine Provisions
The area adjacent to the LionsHead structure has been used to park over-sized vehicles. Demand
levels have typically been approximately 30 to 35 vehicles with peak demands of approximately 50
' vehicles. It is recommended that this area continue to be used for over-sized vehicles. The potential
exists for the Performing Arts Group to erect a building on this site at which time a replacement site
will need to be identified. Some possible.sites include the following which would require negotiations
with the entities involved.
11
' o Safeway Area in West Vail
o Vail Mountain School
o Golf Course
o Ford Park
o Athletic Field Parking Area
' o Red Sandstone School -Lower Lot
Overflow parking demands of oversized vehicles can be accommodated in the same fashion as
overflow demands for general parking or arrangements can be made to park oversized vehicles at one
' of the above mentioned sites.
' 12
' TRANSIT
' In Town Shuttle Svstem Characteristics
This free bus service operates year-round and carries over 2.2 million riders annually between Golden
Peak and West LionsHead Circle as shown in Figure 4 with the peak winter ridership near 30,000
riders per day. The shuttle operates 20 hours a day from 6:30 A.M. to 2:30 A.M. with up to 14
vehicles in use during the afternoon rush. During peak periods, ridership and consequently dwell
times, increase significantly causing poor operations and a significant drop in average system speed
1 to 5 or 6 MPH from an estimated 10 to 12 MPH. During the 1989-90 ski season, it was estimated that
the system was seriously overloaded between 27 to 30 days. Given the "Approved Expansion" growth
scenario as mentioned in the previous section, an 18 percent increase in system capacity would be
needed to maintain the "status quo". Otherwise, overloading is estimated to occur about 62 days per
ski season with the existing system.
Goals and Obiectives
o Provide increased passenger capacity on the In-Town Shuttle.
o Improve operational characteristics at physical bottlenecks.
' o Identify along-term concept plan for passenger demands beyond 2010.
Shuttle Svstem Alternatives
' Shuttle alternatives to alleviate existing and anticipated overload conditions can be classified as either
elevated "fixed guideway" or "at-grade" alternatives. Previously, an automated mono-rail "fixed
guideway" system was recommended as the most appropriate replacement solution costing an
estimated $30 to $34 million. This system was estimated to provide a 30 percent improvement in line
capacity which would reduce the future number of overloaded days from 62 to 20.
The best "at-grade" alternative was determined to be the use of special high-capacity buses designed
specifically for short-haul shuttle service similar in concept to those used on the 16th Street Mall in
Denver. This vehicle is oriented towards standees with low floors, high ceilings and multiple wide
' doors which contribute to quicker loading and less dwell time. Special provisions to allow all ski
equipment to be brought on board safely which would further lessen dwell times. The system would
effectively operate as a "moving sidewalk" which is the kind of service required along the shuttle
' route.
The high capacity bus system as described would result in a 35 percent increase in capacity for a cost
of $7.5 million (see Table 1). Under the "Approved Expansion" growth scenario, the shuttle system
' would be overloaded only 14 days per year.
In comparing the elevated and special bus system, it can be seen that the special bus would be
significantly more cost effective. However, stipulating that the elevated system serves the same route
as the existing at-grade bus system puts it at a disadvantage. Amore practical application of an
elevated people mover would be a truncated route between the Covered Bridge and the LionsHead
Gondola. With fewer stations (approximately four) and the ability to carry skis on board, this system
' could increase line capacity 55 percent over the existing system for an estimated price of $24 million.
The system would be overloaded approximately 6 days per year. Figure 5 illustrates the comparison
between shuttle systems superimposed with the existing demand and approved expansion demand
' curves.
' 13
r . . . ~ . . . . ~ . . . . . . .
F E L S B U R G
H 0 L T &
U L L E V I G 1
i INTERSTATefOEAST
s. FRONTAGE ROAD _ INTERSTATE 70 WEST
~ ~
i I ~ p p
~ / ATBf ~
~ CQNCERT HALL f
~ ~ • PLAZA f
~ ~ /
/ ~ ~ LIONSHEAD PARKING t
~~~I A CROSSROADS
LIONSHEAD MALL i~ • STRUCTURE PLAZP
MARRIOTT'S MARK MEDICAL '
RESORT ~ •DOBSONICE • CENTERI CROSSROADS
• ARENA • • -~~~~'~~~\VAIL TRANSPORTATIOIJ CENTER
LIBRARY ~ I~
• VAIL ~ ~
DEPARTMENT \ •
• ~ -_`j
COVERED BRIDGE ~
VAIL VILLAGE ~ •
I
^ •
\ r
Legend ~
II~IIIII~I~I Restricted Areas
GOLDEN PEAK
•
Figure 4
In-Town Shuttle Bus Route
Not to Scale
' Table 1
In-Town Shuttle Comparison
Special Elevated
' Operation Parameters Low-Floor Bus People Mover
1. Route Length (miles) 3.5 2.2
' 2. Service Area
Between Mariott Mark Gondola/LHV
And Gold Peak Covered Bridge
' 3. Ski Placement on board on board
4. Avg. System Speed (mph) 7.5 10.7
5. Line Capacity (pphpd) 1,720 1,950 (I)
' 6. Max # Vehicles in service @ Peak 14 8-10 (2)
7. Vehicle Unit 35' to 40' bus 32' 2-car train
' 8. Estimated Development Cost
Vehicles @ 16 = @ 10 =
$4,000,000 $ 3,550,000
Other $3.450.000(3) $20.450.000(4)
Total $7,450,000 $24,000,000
Source: TDA using Lea Elliot reports for Town of Vail dated 2/ 16/87 & 3/22/90.
' (1) Optimal capacity, assumes 4-station, dual platform system. (Stations would be established
based upon a more detailed operations and feasibility study.)
' (2) 10 vehicles for 7-station scheme, 8 vehicles for 4-station scheme.
(3) Includes an allowance for expanded maintenance facilities for special buses, minor roadway
improvements, engineering, and contingencies.
' (4) Includes fixed facilities, engineering and contingencies.
15
F E L S B U R G -
HOL T ~ .~B
U L L E V I G
~.5 Line C~~ity of Svstem Options
1O 4 Dual Station People Movers (8-10 vehicles)
;?_;1
y ~ ~ ~ O2 Special Shuttle Coach (14 vehicles)
~
o ~ O3 10 Station People Mover (20 vehicles)
~ o. = 1 ®Existing Shuttle Bus (14 vehicles)
y l. B _ 2 ti \1~
U ~
R3 ~ 1. F~ -
4 ~ U
L 1~
Rs `
a, j O _ y` _
o t Approved Ski
_ ~ ~ ~ _ Area Demand
.
a ~ ~ 20 Existing Demand
O
0..1 6 14 2 g
O. ?
0 i -~---r---- ~ - i ~ i -1----~-~
10 3U I 50 ~ - 70 ___.~..~91I ( 11U ~1~C1 ~ 1.50
~%0 ~ 0 ~i0 f!0 1(10 l 20 1~U
Number of Days Ridership Demand Occurs or is Expected
Figure 5
In-Town Shuttle Directional Peak Hour Demand
North .
' In-Town Shuttle Recommendations/Priorities
' For the next ten to twelve years, it is recommended to pursue the high-capacity bus alternative where
the required fleet could be acquired over atwo-season period as replacements for vehicles scheduled
for retirement. In addition, a new turn around area should be provided at the Golden Peak Area as
' shown in Figure 6. Consideration should also be given to relocating the LionsHead turn-around such
that the special bus would not travel in mixed traffic along the frontage road.
Beyond year 2005, there may be a need to grade separate the shuttle and it is suggested to conduct
' a follow-up technical study at that time to determine the appropriate alignment, station envelop and
technology.
' Outlvine Bus Svstem Characteristics
Five other bus routes originating at the Transportation Center serve the remainder of Vail. This
' system provides a high degree of mobility to the Town, but there are certain problems and concerns
which include excessive crowding on the East Vail route, poor service between the north and south
sides of I-70 in West Vail, a general desire to expand service throughout Town, and a need to improve
and expand service to Ford Park in conjunction with the revised parking program.
Goals and Obiectives
The following describe the Town's objectives concerning the outlying bus routes:
o Revise the basic route structure to more efficiently serve West Vail and East Vail.
o Identify additional service areas for future transit coverage.
o Improve frequency of service where ridership demands warrant.
Route Structure Modifications and Coverage Expansion Options
The most appropriate service concept for West Vail is an "opposing loop" configuration in which one
route would circulate clockwise along the frontage roads, and another route would circulate counter-
' clockwise. This configuration would allow riders to cross I-70 without having to transfer at the VTC.
During the summer months it will be possible to incorporate the existing Sandstone route into the
opposing loop system as well. However, during the peak winter season, the opposing loop service is
recommended to remain on the frontage road and be supplemented with a separate Sandstone route
as it currently exists.
The East Vail route should be structured such that combining it with the golf course route should
' occur only in the evening after the peak period rather than combining them during the midday period
as well, which is the current practice.
' Several coverage expansion possibilities within the Town were evaluated which include Lions Ridge
Loop, Chamonix Lane, Ford Park, Lupine Road/Columbine Drive and Main Gore Circle North in
East Vail. It was found that geometric improvements are required along Lions Ridge Loop and
' Chamonix Lane before service can be provided there. Providing service to Lupine Road/Columbine
Drive would add travel time to the route with no significant increase in ridership. Ford Park will
require-exclusive service on Fridays, .Saturdays and Sundays in conjunction with the parking
programmed to occur there, and Main Gore Circle North should be served simply because it routes
' the East Vail bus back to the Transportation Center quicker via Bighorn Road rather than back down
Meadow Drive.
' 17
' FELSBURG
H 0 L T &
U L L E Y I G 1
~ ~ ~ ,
.
~ ~
Tennis Courts ~ Bus , Manor Vail
' ~,~~~\til~,~\~,,:~.~•~~~~~~~~ Loading ¦
Area r,
' Golden Peak
House /
L
W
Golden
Peak o
,,1~, t-,
~t• ~ ~
Pedestrian Area ~ \ f;:
~
'
Legend
L`a~`~'°;~ Landscaped Areas
~~~~~~~j Parking Spaces Golden Peak
Bus Traffic Flow Ski School
' General Traffic Flow
1 Figure 6
N
Golden Peak Area Concept Plan
Not to Scale
' Recommendations/Priorities
The following define the recommended improvements to the outlying bus routes prioritized by short-
term and long-term actions.
' Short-term:
o Combine the West Vail routes as opposing clockwise and counter-clockwise routes utilizing
the north and south frontage roads, as shown in Figure 7. During the peak winter season,
' ridership demands on the existing Sandstone route will require that service on this route be
provided separately from the opposing loop service.
' o Reroute the East Vail route such that it extends along Main Gore Drive to Bighorn Road, as
shown in Figure 8.
' o Maintain separate East Vail and golf course routes throughout the day and combine these into
one route after the evening peak period.
o Provide continuous service between Ford Park and the Transportation Center on Fridays,
' Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
o Frequency of service for the revised transit system structure is recommended to be:
' - West Vail Opposing Loops - 15 Minutes
Sandstone Route Winter Service - 20 Minutes.
- East Vail Route - 15 Minutes
- Golf Course Route - 30 Minutes
- Combined East Vail/Golf Course Route (late evening) - 30 Minutes
' - Ford Park Weekend Service - 15 Minutes
Recommended frequencies will need to be adjusted as ridership demands increase including peak
' hours, late night, and seasonal variations.
Long-term:
' o Expand service to Chamonix Lane and Lions Ridge Loop pending future roadway
improvements to these roadways.
' Down Vallev Bus Service
The need does exist to provide transit service to/from Down Valley communities. Many Vail day
skiers residing Down Valley utilize the transit system. In addition, a significant number of employees
' working in Vail also reside Down Valley who rely on the transit service.
Eagle County has been providing Down Valley transit service until 1990 at which time it discontinued
' service. The Town of Avon then initiated continuing this service during the 1990-91 ski season with
Town funds and other contributions. The Town of Vail has contributed $90,000 to maintain this
service during the 1990-91 ski season. Amore permanent solution for Down Valley service will need
to be established in the future in cooperation with both public agencies and private sector
beneficiaries.
19
i r s ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
F E L S B U R G
H 0 L T &
U ~ ~ E Y ' G , REO $AND$IUNE ROAD
VAIL VIEW DRIVE . Win ter service to this area
r
~ provided via separate
1 ~SAND$IONE Sandstone Route as it currently exists.
1 .PEEN ~'.I IIP
~`I
t :1
1 :1
,11111 ('.RE11( 1-- :1
TIMBER SIMBA. ~1
RI GE RUN yAIL RUN BRE ANAWAV WESI RE.11 SANIIS ILINE ROAM
'-------1' ;1 • PF.DEST RIAN OVERPASS
• VAIL OAS $CHONE C '1
~ ,SAFE WAY - --11--.. REII SANDSTONE SCHOOL
~ .n•RO'O ~ ~ .
PONT AOE ~ IN7ERSTAT FW7EgS7A7 D
INN AI VAIL wl •.I vnn. ''•N.f E 70 EAST E ~ wESi IO~f ROM V 1 C
, MAL
••"•~t• VAIL PRUFE$SIONA
?/11;-,
1 ` 0 WESIHAVEN BUILDING
1 DRIVE ~
1••• ,.•PO'O MAI iFRMORN CASCADE TO/FROM VTC ~
••.•'•'O(r, / l VILLAGE 1
v ~ •PON? 1
•••5 f •CONF:E~••~
CNAMONI%-FRO:-AGE ~ D MAIL PLAZA
• PTARMIGAN :1 MARRIOTT$
MARH IIE`.11RT
fffrrr"www-FFI"~---
1`~- $TRE AMSIDE 7f •1
•Y
•'f. UNDERPASS f:~ ~
INTERMOUNTAIN .1~
r -
.1 INTERMOUNTAIN
P BRIDGE 1;
.1 t;
1•
l1 1•
1:
/i:
'v'.
Legend
MEADOW CREEK
Clockwise Route
Counter-Clockwise Route
Figure 7
Recommended West Vail Bus Routes
Not to Scale
f E L S 8 U R G
H 0 L T &
U L L E V 1 G 1
BOOTH FALLS
FALLS OF VAIL
VAIL MOUNTAIN ~ '
~ SCHOOL
BALD MOUNTAIN ROAD ~D~ L. _
~ --f i
T o v sr+oPS a eus BARN - _ INTERSTATE Tp WEST
IrJ 1 tM~ In ~ e iU BAST
~
Qr?
•••'1 ASPEN LANE
_---5_FRON7AGE ROAD -
.
PITKIN CREEK PARK EAST VAIL
TYROLEAN WREN ~ ~ ~
FORA PARK .VAIL EAST CONDOS
APOLLO PARK
BET TV FORD LUPINE~~ C LUMBINE/BIGHORN ROAD
1610 SUNBURN DRIVE • GOLF CLUB HOUSE BIGHURN ROAD ` ~ •
ALPiI/E .
GARDENS
N
I--' • STREAMSIDE CIRCLE
NATURE
r CENTER
1448 VAIL VAI L EY UHIVE
~'CER FIELD ~ ~ -
i:L~LDEN PEAn ~ ~ • ~ '
P7 AHMIGAN ~
~ JUNIPIERGORE-
ROAD WEST r ? TARMIGAN ~ ~ VAIL RACQUET
ROAp EAST TIMBER FALLS CLUB BIGHORN F'
~ PARK ~ ~
MOUNTAIN MEADOWS,,,
i
~ ~
Legend
East Vail Bus Route
_ i./~
Golf Course Bus Route i `
MEADOW LANE EAST
- - Ford Park Bus Route
Figure 8
Recommended East Vail Bus Routes
Not to Scale ~
I-70 ACCESS/FRONTAGE ROADS/LOCAL CIRCULATION
' Background
Three freeway interchanges along Interstate 70 currently provide access to the Town. Two of the
' three, the West Vail interchange and the Main Vail interchange, are heavily utilized as they are
located near activity centers and are oriented towards Down Valley motorists and day skier use. Both
interchanges are characterized by close spacing of ramp intersections and frontage roads which
together with excessive traffic demands cause excessive delays during peak conditions.
' The three interchanges are interconnected by a frontage road system which serves inter-community
trip-making and which provides access to major parking areas. The segment of I-70 between the
West Vail and Main Vail interchanges is paralleled by frontage roads on both sides while east of the
Main Vail interchange I-70 is paralleled by a single frontage road which crosses from the south side
to the north side and back to the south side at the East Vail interchange.
' Goals and Obiectives
The following reflects the Town goals regarding access to I-70.
o Provide additional capacity for crossing I-70 between West Vail and Main Vail.
' o Relieve existing congestion and accommodate future demand at the West Vail and Main Vail
interchanges, especially at the ramp terminals and at nearby adjacent intersections on the
frontage roads.
' o When possible, increase intersection spacing and reduce traffic conflict points at interchange
areas.
' o Document the implications of alternative demand responsive traffic control options (traffic
signals and/or manual officer control).
' o Enhance safety characteristics along the frontage road system by providing exclusive turn
lanes at major intersections.
o Provide improvements which emphasize pedestrian priorities in key local circulation areas and
' which separate conflicting travel modes.
o Provide significant areas in the frontage road cross-section to develop meaningful aesthetic
' and landscape improvements.
I-70 Crossing Location
' Providing additional capacity for crossing I-70 between West Vail and Main Vail is a major goal. The
travel demand analysis indicated that approximately 40% of the traffic volume at the West Vail
interchange and approximately 25% of the traffic volume at the main Vail interchange is crossing I-70
' as opposed to entering or exiting the freeway. Therefore, a significant improvement in traffic
operations and levels of service can be achieved at each interchange if an intermediate crossing of
I-70 is provided. In addition, I-70 is currently crossed at-grade by a significant number of
' pedestrians. Thus, another crossing of the freeway will serve pedestrian needs as well.
' 22
' The preferred location for an underpass has been identified near the Simba Run condominiums,
though both frontage roads would need to be lowered. Since the I-70 interchanges currently serve
' as the only I-70 crossings between West Vail and Main Vail, providing this additional crossing will
relieve the interchange areas and is an important consideration when evaluating interchange
alternatives. The planning level cost estimate for constructing a new underpass in this location is
' approximately $2.0 million exclusive of any right-of-way major drainage requirements, and frontage
road revisions.
West Vail Interchange Alternatives
Six interchange alternatives were considered for West Yail which included a single point diamond
interchange, relocation of ramps and/or frontage roads, traffic control changes and turning
' restrictions. Four of the six alternatives were eliminated from consideration due to financial,
operational and/or physical constraints. The remaining two alternatives are similar in that they entail
relocating the west leg of the north frontage road between Wendy's and the Texaco service station to
' intersect Chamonix Road to the north. The only difference between the remaining two alternatives
is the specific location of the westbound on-ramp at Chamonix Road. A revised traffic control
scheme is inherent in this configuration. The relocated North Frontage Road would be stop sign
controlled at Chamonix Road while the reconfigured intersection of Chamonix/North Frontage Road,
' and westbound entrance ramp to I-70 would operate as a 3-way stop controlled intersection.
On the south side of the interchange, the option to relocate the eastbound on-ramp is recommended.
' Intersection capacity analyses were conducted to determine the impact of relocating this on-ramp as
well as the proposed improvements along the north side of the interchange. Results are shown as a
volume-to-capacity ratio, which compares peak hour traffic volumes to the capacity of the roadway,
and are shown in Table 2. These analyses for the proposed modifications reflect turning lane
' additions as shown in Figure 9.
These modifications will require the approval of the Colorado Department of Highways and the
' Federal Highway Administration in view of the typical geometries.
Table 2
' West Vail Traffic Volume-to-Capacity Summary
Future
Demand/
' Existing Future (1) Existing Future
Demand/ Demand/ Network w/ Demand/
Existing Existing Underpass Future
' Intersection Network ?~igtw~rk Qnly Network
Chamonix/N. Frontage Road 1.41 1.67 1.41 (2) 1.03 (2)
' Chamonix/S. Frontage Road 1.20 1.42 1.18 0.87
(1) Future demand is based upon approved ski area expansion levels.
' (2) Demand responsive traffic control (traffic signal or manual control).
' 23
F E L S B U R G
H 0 L T &
U L L E Y I G 1
~ ~I
wendys Texaco Demand responsive
' control will be
required in the future.
~ N. Frontage Rd. ~
' -
~ 11'
1
1
0
r
U
i
J
S. Frontage Rd. -1 ~ J
r
Legend
~ Lane /or Indicated Movement
' i Stop Sign
' Figure 9
Recommended West Vail Interchange Improvements
Not to Scale
' /
24
' West Vail Interchange Recommendations/Priorities
' Given the results in Table 2, the following is recommended for the West Vail interchange.
o As a first priority, construct an I-70 underpass in the vicinity of Simba Run connecting the
' North and South Frontage Roads.
o Realign the west leg of the North Frontage Road between Wendy's and the Texaco service
' station forming two "T" intersections with Chamonix Road.
o Realign the westbound on-ramp to line up with the east leg of the North Frontage Road.
' o Realign the eastbound ramp such that access to it is via the South Frontage Road.
o Demand responsive control will be required at the Southern "T" intersection during peak
periods.
o Add exclusive turn lanes at all intersections as shown in Figure 9.
' Construction costs for the West Vail improvements as shown in Figure 9 are estimated to be
approximately $225,000 plus engineering and contingencies.
' Main Vail Interchange Alternatives
Eight alternatives were considered at the Main Vail interchange which consisted of closing Vail Road,
a single-point diamond interchange, variations of ramp modifications and additions, and an additional
nearby I-70 underpass. Five of the alternatives were eliminated from further consideration due to
adverse impacts on the 4-way stop intersection or forcing traffic through pedestrian corridors.
' Three interchange alternatives were then analyzed in more detail which are described as follows:
o New exit/entry to eastbound I-70 near the VA shops and only right turns would be allowed
' at the eastbound Main Vail ramp onto westbound South Frontage Road.
o North Frontage Road would be severed from the interchange and extended easterly
' connecting with Vail Valley Road via a new I-70 underpass.
o The east ramps would be relocated to the existing underpass located near Booth Falls creating
an elongated split diamond or two half diamond interchanges.
Table 3 shows the volume-to-capacity ratios at key intersections for each alternative. It can be seen
that the Booth Falls elongated split diamond would result in the best overall intersection operations.
' Table 4 summarizes the other key issues such as right-of-way, institutional approvals, physical
impacts and construction costs. Taking all these issues into account it was determined that the Booth
Falls split diamond alternative was the best solution as shown in Figure 10.
25
Table 3
Main Vail Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Summary
Future
Demand on Future
Existing Future Existing Future Demand Future
Demand/ Demand/ Network w/ Demand/ Vail Valley Demand/
Existing Existing Underpass VA Shops Connection/ Booth Falls
intersection Netwgrk Netwgrk Onlv Ramps Underpass Solit Diamond
Vail Road/North Ramps (Left Turns) 1.16 1.33 1.21 1.21 0.96 0.77 (I )
Vail Road/South Frontage Road/ 0.94 (2) 1.11 (2) 1.09 (2) 0.90 (2) 1.02 (2) 0.92 (2)
South Ramps
South Frontage Road/VA Shops Area - - - 0.89 (2) - -
South Frontage Road/Nail Valley Drive 1.14 1.26 1.26 0.74 (2) (3) 0.76 (2) (3) 0.85 (2) (3)
(1) All way stop control along East Frontage Road/westbound off-ramp intersection near Booth Falls.
N
(2) Demand responsive traffic control required (manual control or traffic signal).
(3) Intersection modification required (lower South Frontage Road).
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Table 4
Implications and Consequences of Main Vail Interchange Alternatives
Planning
Alternative/Phase R/W implications Anbrovals Reouired Physical implications Level Cost (11
VA Shops Ramps R/W required in the VA shops I-70 access approval is New intersection on SFR at VA $1.2M
area. required, has been pre- shops with restricted movements at
viously granted, and is Vail Road and EB exit ramp.
still valid. Approval may Modifications at Main Vail
be conditioned on the interchange.
installation of traffic
signal equipment.
Vail Valley R/W required along with No I-70 access approval Retaining walls required for $2.OM
Connection/ slope easements north of required for NFR extension. portions of NFR extension of I-70.
Underpass I-70. Standard review of I-70 Walls would be approximately
bridge construction is 40-feet in height with approxi-
required. mately 20-feet above the grade of
I-70.
Booth Falls Minimal or no R/W required I-70 access approval Minor relocations of EFR north of $O.SM
Split Diamond at Booth Falls. required for Booth Falls. I-70 and local street access may
Currently FHWA policy be needed at Booth Falls.
prohibits half diamonds.
(1) Costs do not include land acquistion nor improvements to the frontage roads beyond the interchange area.
F E L S B U R G
H 0 L T &
U L L E V I G 1
North Frontage Road
Remove Ramps
2 I-70
N I l
~ ~
South Frontage Road
m
0
o=
Figure 10
Recommended Main Vail Interchange Improvements
Not to Scale
' Main Vail Interchange Recommendations/Priorities
The following are recommendations regarding the Main Vail interchange to relieve traffic congestion
prioritized by short-term and long term actions.
' Short-Term:
o As a first priority, construct an I-70 underpass in the vicinity of Simba Run connecting the
' North and South Frontage Roads.
o Conduct a controlled test in which the east Main Vail ramps would be closed and sign easterly
oriented traffic to use the East Vail interchange. Results of this will indicate how well the
Long-range solution will work.
Long-Term:
o Relocate the east ramps to the Booth Falls underpass. The westbound off-ramp/East Frontage
Road intersection will require all-way stop traffic control.
o Continue to manually control the 4-way stop intersection during peak periods or install traffic
signals.
' o Depress and modify the South Frontage Road in the vicinity of Vail Valley Drive and
manually control the intersection during peak hours or install a traffic signal.
' o Retain as possible future options, the extension of the North Frontage Road under I-70 to
connect with Vail Valley Drive, and the addition of new ramps to I-70 in the VA shops area.
o Traffic signal control versus manual control at high volume intersections remains an issue.
In the future some form of demand responsive control will be required on the South Frontage
Road at Vail Road and at Vail Valley Drive even if the east ramps of the Main Vail
interchange are relocated.
' Frontage Road Svstem
' The modifications recommended for the West Vail and Main Vail interchanges will require that
certain modifications be made to the I-70 frontage roads serving these interchanges. In addition,
existing traffic counts and anticipated future travel demand levels will require that several
improvements be implemented in order to maximize the efficiency of the existing street system.
The major objectives of the frontage road improvement recommendations include:
' o Provision of exclusive and separated areas for bicycle and pedestrian use to enhance the users
experience and to improve safety.
' o Provision of significant landscape areas and user amenities along the entire length of the
frontage road system.
o Provision of additional crossing capacity of I-70 (as discussed previously) in order to relieve
traffic congestion at the West Vail and Main Vail interchange areas.
' 29
o Provision of turn lanes (primarily left turn lanes) to reduce congestion and to improve safety
at critical intersections serving the West Vail and Main Vail interchanges as well as at major
access points to LionsHead and Vail Village.
Figure 11 documents the conceptual improvement plan for the I-70 frontage roads. Major elements
' of the concept plan include:
o On-street, 6-foot bike paths are provided along the entire frontage road system throughout
' the Town of Vail.
o New landscaped areas and center turn lanes are recommended to occur along approximately
4.5 miles of the frontage roads.
' o Special safety improvements and exclusive left turn lanes are recommended for 23
intersections; 19 of these intersections currently have no such provisions.
Upon adoption of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, 50-scale functional drawings will be prepared which
will document specific locations and dimensions for implementing the Frontage Road Concept Plan.
Until these more detailed drawings are completed, the planning level cost estimate for implementing
' the plan is approximately $4.5 to $5.0 million.
Senaration of Conflictin¢ Travel Modes
The Town of Vail is characterized by an extensive system of multi-modal transportation facilities
including pedestrian-only areas, bicycle paths, shuttle transit system, and numerous recreational trails
of all types. In order to fully implement a total system of separated facilities for each of these various
user groups requires that:
o Sufficient width and right-of-way be made available to adequately serve each travel mode.
o Control points be defined which maintain, and where necessary, enforce the desired degree
of separation among modes.
o Where joint use of a right-of-way by more than one travel mode is unavoidable, proper
delineation, adequate signing, and physical control elements must be provided.
' These principles are especially applicable in the core area of Vail which generally extends from
LionsHead to Golden Peak. This area is served by the In-Town Shuttle and is the area where
pedestrian activity is highest, auto access to private properties occurs, and goods delivery by truck
is significant.
To provide basis for future improvements geared toward enhancing the desired pedestrian
' environment, a conceptual framework plan has been prepared for the core area as shown in Figure
12. Three key elements of the core area concept are described below.
' Pedestrianization and pedestrian priority are proposed to occur along significant portions of East
Meadow Drive and West Meadow Drive from west of the library to the VTC. Separation of
pedestrian areas from the In-Town Shuttle consist of delineated walkways and busways with improved
geometrics and widening in constricted locations. The area lying easterly of Vail Road along East
' Meadow Drive will require approximately 30 feet of width to properly implement. A special design
analysis is currently underway to specifically identify pedestrian improvements on 20-scale drawings.
30
' FELSBUAG
' MOLT &
U l l E V I G
I
0
c
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ t ~ `a
' m m ~ ro ~ ~ W
m ~ m ~ y °
o r m ro ° o m
° ~ ~ r m ~ m y ~
m
J ro D ° ~ ~Y o
m o
' _ v V O
ro ` J y 1 Q ? j e
E m ~ o o{? ~ Ci U p a m ~ m • O
v ~ h ~
~ t y ~ ~
U m 0~ 0~ J v ro
.~~'l.. 0 3 2 m m
' N
~ • m m m ~ C ~
• 0 3 ~ E ~
• • m ~ m A Bi
~i m ~ v`) y \jQl' ~ 9hor
' 8i•? o _ ro Qp~ 2 n9a
~~`~~••0y~ m m ]eV m
P ~
a~ ~ ~ ¢ D
~~°ca4g\s9 Pa 3 ~
,r
yo
Legend
' 4-Thru Lanes, Center Left Turn Lane or Landscaping, 6-Foot Bikepath Both Sides
2-Thru Lanes, Center Left Turn Lane or Landscaping, 6-Foot Bikepath Both Sides
' 2-Thru Lanes, 6-Foot Bikepath Both Sides
• Provide Exclusive Left Turn Lanes
' ~ ~ Figure 11
Frontage Road Concept Plan
' North /
31
r ¦i¦ r ~ ~ r rl~ ~ ¦¦s ~ w r s w~ r•
F E L S B U R G
MOLT b
U L L E V I G 1
.Pedestrian Bridge ~
,,aa ~ ~
(1V• Parking Structure ~
0 ~ ` 5 • Ice Arena
l <o~~ag pd• ¦ ¦
-w1 ` gage Lionshead Mall Library ¦ ¦ Hospital I~
V`~•~to~ Meado P
wS
k~'Y.
N
I
` Ford Park
See also Goods ,
Delivery Plan ~ ~ _ ~ ~
apt Val12Y • ¦ Athletic FI91d
Golden Peak
Legend
uunnnumm~ Pedestrian Priority Area
Potential 1-Way Auto Route
~ Control Points
Figure 12
V ~ Core Area Concept Plan
North /
' Control points will remain necessary to insure that the core area system functions properly. It is
proposed that the existing Check Point Charlie be relocated southerly to Willow Road to reduce the
' volume of traffic on Willow Bridge Road exiting Vail Village and to insure that the goods delivery
is adequately controlled. A second control point is also being evaluated as a part of the special
pedestrian area design analysis. This control point, if needed, would be located on Village Center
' Road between the frontage road and East Meadow Drive.
The third element of the core area concept plan consists of a potential long-range revision of traffic
~ flow on Vail Valley Drive from the frontage road past Golden Peak and to the Ford Park area. To
implement the concept, a new connection is required between Vail Valley Drive and the frontage road
including a bridge across Gore Creek. Further analysis is required to determine the physical and
financial implications of constructing this connection. However, if such a connection should prove
to be feasible and politically acceptable, Vail Valley Drive could be converted to one-way traffic flow
to the east. The potential advantages of this revised circulation pattern include:
' o Roadway widths to accommodate auto traffic could be reduced if traffic flow was in one
direction only.
o The width gained from the conversion to one-way traffic flow could be used for a separated
bicycle/pedestrian path thereby eliminating or minimizing the need for acquiring additional
right-of-way.
' o Auto traffic would be directed away from the core area, away from the 4-way stop
intersection on Vail Road, and toward the East Vail interchange; all of which are historic
Town objectives.
' o The existing grade up Vail Valley Drive to the frontage road would no longer be an issue and
the non-standard traffic control at this intersection could be corrected.
' o Preliminary estimates of volume to capacity ratios indicate that the intersection of Vail Valley
Drive and the frontage road would be less than 0.35 and the new intersection created at Ford
Park and the frontage road would be less than 0.60; both of which result in excellent traffic
' operations.
This concept would require extensive environmental analysis, preliminary engineering analysis, and
extensive public review prior to being implemented. However, the concept has sufficient merit to
warrant further investigation.
l
' 33
' TRAIL SYSTEM INTERFACE
0
The Town of Vail has adopted a Recreation Trail Master Plan' which specifies a broad range of trail
types designed for various user groups. In addition, the trails plan locates certain trail types along
the frontage roads and several Town streets. The trails inventory also identifies problem areas which
' includes areas that are congested, areas where pedestrian and non-pedestrian uses should be separated,
and areas where geometric deficiencies exist. As such, several additional off-road "bypass" trails were
recommended along the Valley and are included in the Implementation Plan as illustrated in Figures
13 and 14.
Because of the strong community support for a separated trail from Vail Pass to Dowd Junction and
the concern with bike traffic through the West Vail interchange, the following areas have been
identified as important additions to the Recreation Trail Master Plan in order to ultimately provide
a fully separated system.
One section of bike trail would begin just south of the LionsHead skier bridge and would traverse
easterly south of Gore Creek crossing Beaver Dam Road near Vail Road and continuing alongside and
just south of Vail Road until meeting with the existing trail just south of the Lodge Tower South.
Another section of bike trail would be located south of the golf clubhouse and would begin off of
Ptarmigan Road extending east to the end of Sunburst Drive where it would meet the existing off-
street trail. These new sections of trail would relieve Meadow Drive and Vail Valley Drive of bicycle
' traffic.
There are also several shorter sections of trail which should be constructed to provide better
continuity without having to continually cross Gore Creek or use the Frontage Road. Three such
' sections are located in East Vail and one is located just west of Donovan Park to Stephen`s Park.
Meadow Drive and Vail Valley Drive currently exhibit safety problems and are two priority areas
' requiring improvement. These issues are being addressed in the special design analysis currently
underway in the Village area.
' The construction costs of these additional trails is estimated to be in the range of $1,000,000. The
feasibility of implementing these improvements will be evaluated in detail as a part of the Parks and
Open Space Master Plan and the Main Vail Trails Feasibility Study.
' Recreation Trail Master Plan, May, 1988, Winston Associates.
' 34
' FELSBURG
' IIOIT b
U L L E V I G
See Figure 14 for Detail of Central Vail
' Liona Head
Red Sandafone parking Garage
Pedestrian Bridge
Lions Heed Mell Transportation
' / / Central Vail Exit Center
East Vail Exit
r Ford Perk - /
• ~ • phi
t~~
Donovan Park . \ ~ qeY ' Q~0
' ;1 Ice Arena tit ..~.::r•~° s~
Buffer Creek Park and Library ~•••J~ ++(iolt Clubbouee ^ ~ ~0
Vail Village 'r;'•.
0~• Gold Penk
ew 3ki Base Facilities
pce Athletic CIS\`,
West Veil Exit ~e Fields A \l
~ ~Go ao
ifs or ~r
I • - ~ '
A~:
/r+.
,r .
' y•` Legend
Frontage Road Bike/Pedestrian Lanes
On-Street Trail
Oft Street Trail
' Pedestrian Path
Gore Creek
New Trai! Segments for Improved Off-Street Continuity
1
Figure 13
Proposed Vai! Recreation Trails Implementation Plan
Not. to Scale
35
-
~Sa~~~
~ `
,~.T
~`E~~G
Pedps~rlar~.~3r.¦...r...rr.rrrr.rrrrrrrr• r r
....err •.r•rrr S«UCt~uA rrrrrrrrrr•• ,
• ..:fir •rr• parklnp AT81~ •rrr
' .~1Cl8 •rrrrrrr~rrrrrrr rrurr~r•rrrrC/rrrrr~urrarrrr••rrr•urrrrrrrr r~rrrrr rsrrrrrr
• :
' ' ~ sheadM 'n' 1 9 ~ ~ for Ps k j
~
,
• ~ -
: . ? `
S the 6 '
• t;'%~~
~ '
i
~ •r. ~e9end ad Bike/Pedestrian La
ta9e R°
rrrrr Fron
- pn-Street Trail
-
1~
Off Street Trail
:~1~ F~g~re
Pedestrian Path .t ntatl0n Phan
-Gore Creek Street C°ntinu~ v its ImP~eme
imPrOyed pff reat1On Tra
~-70 ~ 1/aii Rey
e,r„ Trait Segrrients for Gentra
N
rv