Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2006-03-07 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session
TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2006 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1 • ITEMlTOPIC: Citizen Participation. (10 min.) 2• ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda. (5 min.) A. 02.07.06 & 02.21.06 Minutes. B. Copper Mountain Fire Inter-Governmental Agreement. 3. Todd Oppenheimer ITEM/TOPIC: East Meadow Drive Streetscape. (15 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve request by staff to negotiate construction contract for East Meadow Drive Streetscape Improvements scheduled for 2006 and 2007. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Department of Public Works and Transportation has received preliminary pricing for the East Meadow Drive Streetscape Improvements from B&B Excavating Inc. and Weitz Construction. Preliminary pricing from both general contractors is favorable to the town and consistent with the construction estimates and project budget. Staff is requesting permission from the Council to complete negotiations with both general contractors to achieve the best possible price and schedule for the work. Staff will return to the Council on March 21, 2006 with a request to enter into a contract with the successful general contractor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the recommendation to negotiate the final construction contract price for the East Meadow Drive Streetscape Improvements. 4. Leslie Fordham A. ITEM/TOPIC: Gore Creek Promenade Pedestrian Bridge Greg Barrie Replacement. (15 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting two items for approval at the evening meeting: 1. Increase the Project budget to an amount to be determined in an addendum to this memorandum. 2. Authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract with B & B Excavating, Inc. to.construct the Gore Creek Promenade Pedestrian Bridge Replacement Project. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: In 2002, staff presented multiple options to the Town Council regarding the existing pedestrian bridge riear the International Bridge. Options ranged from full replacement fo full removal. At the time, the Council recommended replacing the bridge while reusing the existing abutments. In January .2006, staff was directed to proceed with the final design and bidding of the project. Proposals have been solicited from bridge contractors. Please see the attached Memo for additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Depending on the Proposals to be received on Friday, March 3, Staff will recommend approving an appropriate budget and proceeding with the project. B. ITEM/TOPIC: Artwork for Gore Creek Promenade Pedestrian Bridge Replacement ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve AIPP expenditure for pedestrian bridge railing. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town of Vail Public Works department is soliciting proposals to replace the pedestrian bridge at Gore Creek Promenade. If approved, construction will begin in spring, 2006. AIPP would like to enhance the appearance of the bridge by adding artwork to the bridge railings. This project was originally brought to the Town Council and approved in 2002; however, modifications have been made to keep within budget. A jury composed of Vail residents chose the artist. The current proposal combines eight art panels with traditional spindles. The panels depict Vail recreational activities and are made of layered perforated stainless steel. Art in Public Places voted unanimously to approve the artwork shown in the attached drawings. The board is working with the artist to finalize construction details. AIPP has approved spending up to $30,000 on the project. 5. Call Wettstein ITEM/TOPIC: Pine Beetle Mitigation Update. (60 min.) Bill Carlson 6. Russ Forrest ITEM/TOPIC: Town of Vail Vision and Community Plan: Presentation and interview with Design Workshop. (60 min.) BACKGROUND: On Tuesday, February 21 ~, the Town of Vail Community Visioning Selection Committee interviewed four finalists from proposals received in response to the scope of work soliciting assistance with the facilitation and development of the Town of Vail Vision and Community Plan. The Committee identified the Design Workshop team as the top candidate. Design Workshop has extensive experience working in mountain resort communities on similar projects and has been highly successful at their work. The proposal submitted to the Town of Vail was exemplary and illustrated how Design Workshop can bring knowledge and experience to the Vision and- Community Plan process. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Community Visioning Selection Committee recommends that the Town Council listen to the presentation by Design Workshop, ask any questions of the team and provide feedback on the process. , In addition, staff would request that the Town Council approve the budget for the community plan outlined in the staff memorandum by motion. 7. Suzanne ITEMlTOPIC: Award of Construction Mitigation Funding. (20 Sllverthorn min.) BACKGROUND: During the 2006 budget process., the Town Council set aside $50,000 in the Town Manager's budget for the purpose of increasing the viability of Vail's business community during the 2006 construction season. An application process occurred in January with proposals from qualified applicants due February 15. As part of the submission process, applicants were asked to explain how their proposal addresses evaluation criteria developed by the town-appointed Construction Mitigation Group: • Creates excitement and energy • Creates potential for positive economic impact to the retail, restaurant and lodging sectors of the community • Generates sustained visitatiori and interest by guests and locals • Enhances the guest experience • Incorporates matching funds, sponsorships partnerships • Complements other mitigation efforts implemented by Vail Commission on Special Events, Vail Local. Marketing District, Vail Chamber & Business Association, Vail Valley Chamber & Tourism Bureau, Town of Vail, Vail Resorts Development Company, etc. • Includes a communications component to build local and guest awareness Meets town permit process and construction staging requirements The Construction Mitigation Group met on February 16 and again on March 2 to review 4 funding applications and to prepare a recommendation for Town Council funding awards as follows: • $16,000 to Resort Events lnc. for Busker Village activities in LionsHead (and elsewhere where feasible) to be augmented - by $30,000 awarded by the Commission on Special Events for LionsHead-specific busker events. • Up to $12,000 for local radio advertising (KZYR, KTUN, KSKE and JACK) with specifics to be determined by the Construction Mitigation Group radio subcommittee. •:~ $27,000 income guarantee to LMG Inc. for free climbing wall activities in LionsHead with a minimum of $5,000 returned to the town via. merchant participation. Additionally, the Construction Mitigation Group requests Council's support in recommending consideration by the Commission on Special. Events for additional funding of the Busker Village activity to disperse the event more fully throughout Vail. ACTION REQUESTED OF TOWN COUNCIL: Review, approve and/or modify the funding recommendations forwarded by the Construction Mitigation Group. 8. Warren Campbell ITEM/TOPIC: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 39, CROSSROADS, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE A, SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT (SDD) DISTRICT, CHAPTER 9, TITLE 12, ZONING TITLE, TOWN - CODE OF VAIL, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On January 23, 2006, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on a request to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads. The purpose of the new Special Development District is #o facilitate the redevelopment of Crossroads, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive. Upon review of the request, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 5-2-0 (Viele and Lamb opposed) to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, to the Vail Town Council. ~y On February 7, 2006, the Town Council approved the first reading of Ordinance 5, Series of 2006, by a vote of 4-3-0 (Logan, Foley, Slifer opposed). Ori February 21, 2006, the Town Council tabled the second reading of Ordinance 5, Series of 2006, by unanimous vote to the March 7, 2006, hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council tables Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, on second reading to the March 21, 2006 hearing. 9. Warren Campbell ITEMlTOPIC: Resolution No. 3, Series of 2006, a resolution amending certain portions of the Vail Land Use Plan text and map to identify those properties regulated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (20 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve, with modifications, or deny Resolution No. 3, Series of 2006. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On February 7, 2006, the Community Development Department presented an application to the Planning and Environmental Commission to amended certain portions of the Vail Land Use Plan text and map to identify those properties regulated by the LionsHead Redevelopment Master Plan. The Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Town Council by a vote of 6-0-0. Please refer to the staff memorandum to the Vail Town Council dated March 7, 2006, for further details (attached).- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves Resolution No. 3, Series of 2006, as presented. 10. ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report. (10 min.) • TOV/VRD STEERING COMMITTEE FOR COMPREHENSIVE RECREATION MASTER PLAN. Staff met w/Greenplay the week of February 20th and would like to continue to work on the scope of the assessment using a steering committee made up .of two members from the Vail Recreation District (Michelle Hall and Scott Proper) and two members from Council, along w/appropriate staff. Staff is asking for two Council members to volunteer to serve in this capacity. 11. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (9:40 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6 P.M. TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2006, IN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 7, 2006 SUBJECT: Vail Community Vision and Plan Staff: Stan Zemler, Russ Forrest, Suzanne Silverthorne, Rachel Friede, Elisabeth Eckel, Greg Hall I. PURPOSE The purpose of discussion at the March 7, 2006 Town Council evening meeting regarding this topic is to: A. Allow Design Workshop to present its proposal to the Town of.Vail regarding the Vision and Community Plan process. B. Allow Town Council to ask questions of Design Workshop C. Receive direction from the Town Council on executing a contract with Design Workshop. D. Review and approve a budget for the project. II. BACKGROUND In-the process of its extensive redevelopment, the Town has been addressing many planning issues such as circulation, housing, recreation, and land use, which transcend neighborhoods and have regional implications. In the process of undergoing this extensive redevelopment, the Town must understand and clarify its goals and related actions for the next fifteen to twenty years. An understanding of the community's values provides the basis for developing a vision and ultimately a community plan. To provide a foundation for clear decision-making based on community needs, similar resort communities such as Aspen, Whistler, Breckenridge, Park City and Steamboat Springs have developed Community Visions and Community Plans. These visions and plans have helped to define those communities futures based on a shared set of values, identified goals, and prioritized actions. At their December 16'h retreat, the Town Council discussed the need to identify the vision for the future of Vail based on a clear set of community values. The Town Council indicated the need to develop a vision and community plan through the solicitation of community input in order to create a strategic plan to obtain.the publicly held vision for Vail's future. The Council discussed the need to develop recreational, housing, economic, and transportation strategies, all of which are interrelated with land use, and to make sure that these strategies and other polices are integrated with each other. On January 3, 2006, the Vail Town Council approved the following goals for the Community Plan project: • Identify shared values in the community. • Develop a process to create a clear and vivid vision of Vail's future. • Develop an integrated community plan that addresses housing, natural resource management, economy, recreation, public facilities, and other issues critical to the community, which will create an effective coordinated strategy for Vail's future. • Build upon planning processes from other communities and Vail. • Process will be participatory and focus on listening and community involvement On January 17th, 2006, the Town Council approved a scope of work that would solicit a facilitator for community participation and a consultant that would assist Town. Staff in drafting the vision and community plan. The scope of work was published on numerous websites and distributed to known experts in this field. By the. February 8, 2006 deadline, the Town received proposals from ACP Visioning and Planning with Clarion Associates; CDR Associates; Design Workshop; Elk Mountain Planning Group with Stan Clauson; Giffordson Solutions; Intermountain Corporate Affairs; Kennedy, Coulter, Rushing and Watson; Keystone Center; National Civic League; Osprey Group; Rita Schweitz Facilitating and Consulting; RRC Associates; Urban Land Institute; and Winter and Company. Prices ranged from $9,000 to $115,000, which fee included some or all of the tasks requested. The Selection Committee met on February 13, 2006 and proposals were evaluated based on the firm's related experience, physical quality of the proposal, cost, timeliness, overall scope of the proposal, and quality/reputation of the firm. The Committee selected four teams. that seemed best suited to the Town's needs. These teams included ACP Visioning and Planning with Clarion Associates, Design Workshop, The Elk Mountains Planning Group, Inc. with Stan Clauson and Winter and Company. On February 21, 2006, the Selection Committee interviewed the four finalists and unanimously chose to recommend Design Workshop to the Vail Town Council as the consultant team to conduct the Vision and Community Plan process.- Design Workshop has extensive experience in similar projects and their proposal (Attachment A), both physically and substantively, was exemplary. References for Design Workshop have been extremely positive, illustrating a proven record of accomplishment in this type of work. Design Workshop also provided a handout at the interview (Attachment B) that provided additional information related to community participation. On February 27th, staff met .with the Design Workshop team to discuss objectives, goals, general schedule and fees. A revised fee schedule (Attachment C) as well as an updated time schedule (Attachment D) were developed during this discussion. III. BUDGET The Town of Vail has $50,000 budgeted for Master Planning (excluding the West Vail Plan) in the 2006 budget. However, when the budget was drafted, the community plan was not included in this estimate of spending. Comparable budgets from other communities range from $125,000 for six to ten month process to $250,000 for a year to a year and one half process. Staff is proposing asix-month process with a total budget of $125,000. This would require that an additional $75,000 be budgeted for master planning, which would be reflected in the next supplemental budget. The resources anticipated for this process include: A. Facilitation of the community vision and advisory group meetings, B. Consultant services for document preparation and augmenting staff with planning needs for community meetings, C. Limited RRC Associates involvement to refine the State of Vail, D. Publication and copying costs, and E. Promotion and communication costs for advertising public meetings. The proposed budget based on reviewing the proposals is as follows: Vail Community Plan Budget Description Value Assum tions Facilitation & Plan $ 90,100 Based on roposal Refine State of Vail $ 10,000 Based on RRC estimates Communication $ 15,000 Cost for Web, Direct Mail pieces, and other communication costs provided b Suzanne Silverthorne Meetings, Copying, Misc., Contingency $ 10,000 Based on other comparable projects with significant community involvement Total $ 125,100 3 IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL At the March 7th evening meeting, Council will receive a presentation by Design Workshop. Staff recommends that the Council actively listen to the presentation by Design Workshop, ask any questions of the team and provide feedback on the , process. Staff would .ask .for direction from the Town ~ Council on whether to provide a contract to Design Workshop for completion of the Vision and Community Plan. Staff requests the Town Council approve or disapprove the budget by motion, which would result in a $75,000 supplement to master planning. V. NEXT STEPS Proposed next steps include: A. Enter into a contract with the selected facilitation and consulting team. B. Refine the State of Vail Report with RRC Associates. C. Finalize a schedule for the community plan process with the selected consultant. D. Meet with and invite strategic partners to participate in the process. . VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Design Workshop proposal B. Design Workshop handout C. Revised fee schedule D. Revised time schedule 4 ,, 0 Design ~~~orkshop, Inc. C'' Landscape Architecture {~ Land Planning Urban Design i~ Strate6ric Services February 6, 2006 Russ Forrest ,•~ Town of Vail 120 East Main Stz•eet Community Development Department Aspen, Colorado 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 81611 Telephone Re: Vail Community Plan 970 925-8354 Dear Russ: Facsimile 970 920-1387 Thank you for allowing Design Workshop, Inc. the opportunity to submit a proposal for the Vail Conununity Plan. The. importance of this plan to the future of the community is significant, and we look Asheville forward to helping the town craft a great process and develop a concise, action-oriented final document. D enver The Design Workshop team has valuable experience helping communities draw out their vision and Lake Tahoe creating policies to achieve it. I have worked closely with Mammoth Lakes, Whistler, North Lake . Phoenix Tahoe, and indeed Vail during the Lionshead Base Redevelopment planning process ~ Rebecca was l k Ci S L Project Manager for the Edwards Area Community Plan and Eagle County Comprehensive Plan while a t a e ty Senior Planner for Eagle County. She is currently working with the Town of Avon and Douglas County, Santa Fe ° Nevada, bordering the southern coast of Lake Tahoe. With combined experience of over thn-ty years in ; Santiago mountain communities we share the relentless ursuit for excellence in communi develo ment with ~ p ty p ;~ Sao Paulo the Town of Vail. We feel strongly that the most effective way of completing the Vail Community Plan is to ensure the ~~ team can offer the full range of necessary skills -facilitation and consultation. Because the results of the . • facilitation efforts need to be folded into the document, the scope should seamlessly transition from one ~ task to the next with a consistent team. Our team offers excellent qualifications in both the Facilitation and Consultation roles described in the Request for Proposals. Our approach includes a quick initial discovery phase to get up to speed on the direction of all recent and ongoing research and planning efforts such as the State of Vail report. At that point, Design Workshop will be prepared to facilitate two Community Visioning Workshops, lead up to three rounds of Advisory Group Meetings, and work closely with staff to craft a visionary, concise and action-oriented plan. ~. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 303-623-5186 or Rebecca Leonard at 970-925-8354. We look forward to hearing from you. ,~:. Sincerely, DESIGN WORKSHOP, INC 1 ~~ Rebecca Zimmerman Principal and Partner ~'~ ~" ®E~IC~~WO~.KSPI®P ~ _ ~..n ~ w~, C ~~y _ B ~ 4 l 1 p ,t ...,~~ i ~~ About the Firm 131 2 Project Experience i ~ I 3 Project. Team 1291 4 ,Project Scope I3~I cj Project Schedule I as I 6 Fees & Terms 14~ l ~ I.i I DES(GNWORKSHOP .r~ ~ ~.~ 131 ;~~ .i; ~ N F7 ~ ^ ~`, 9 ~ l~5' ~ 1~ ~ ~~ ~~ .V `~ Design Workshop is a landscape architecture, land planning, urban design and tourism planning firm. We've been providing these services for almost four. decades to developers, property owners, government agencies and other clients engaged in improvements to the land. In our years of practice we have evolved a proprietary approach and distinct culture. 1 Our Services Our range of services is comprehensive embracing all of the key disciplines necessary for our planning and design assignments. We also offer capabilities in areas of specialization that provide expanded ease and value for our clientele. Design Workshop is a firm born in the pursuit of ideas. While college classmates, founders Don Ensign and Joe Porter resolved to someday start their own landscape architecture firm.The opportunity came in 1969 when both assumed teaching positions in North Carolina. Early on they were invited to assist private sector clients, often engaging colleagues and students in a collaborative. process they labeled "design workshops:' Offices: Asheville Aspen Denver Lake Tahoe Phoenix Salt Lake City Santa Fe Landscape Architecture Land Planning Urban Design Planning Management Strategic Services Development Strategies Graphic Communication and Design Golf Course Design LEED Compliance These early assignments were the chance to marry the idealism of academia with development realities and to begin a small professional practice.A few years later Don and Joe relocated the fledgling firm to Aspen and quickly earned a reputation for solving the complex problems found in fragile ecosystems and development challenges of the western landscape. Over the next 30 years we've had the opportunity to expand the breadth and sophistication of our firm. Our experience ranges from master plans for counties, planned communities, urban centers and resorts, to detailed design for public parks, residences and roadways. We have continuously honed the collaborative dynamics of the workshops and the pursuit of the ideas and ideals that result in the best solutions for every assignment.This approach remains the hallmark of our firm. Today we express our mandate as a simple prerriise: LVhen environment, economics, art and community are combined in harmony untli the dictates of the land and needs of society, magical places result. Places that lift the spirit. Sustainable places of timeless beauty, enduring quality and untold value -for our clients, for soaety and for the well being of our planet. We call these extraordinary landscapes Legacy Projects. Our practice is dedicated to seeking solutions that move projects "Toward Legacy. " Vail Corrununity Plan 14 I Our Organization Our company structure reflects what we've found to be the best way to deliver our services. Within our profession we are a medium size firm. We are large enough to I~ afford exceptional talent and the substantial technological and management resources to accommodate the largest of projects with the flexibility to work with the most intimately scaled assignments.We have offices throughout the country and internationally. 'o About Process Planning and landscape architectural design are linear processes that build on logic and real conditions. Both inside and out we are committed to the "design workshop" model. Our approach is iterative, engaging all significant constituencies -our clients as well as public agencies, concerned citizens and special interests. We've perfected our communications skills to assure success in public acceptance and approvals. Delivering the highest quality is built into our structure. We have a dedicated quality management team with a full time Director of Quality Management, firm-wide drawing reviewers and a technical editor. A Quality Management coordinator in each office monitors and guides quality assurance and provides resources, training and quality review systems to all staff. Being Recognized One measure of our effectiveness is recognition by the industries we serve and from our peers.We have. received scores of awards for our design and planning accomplishments from organizations including the Urban Land Institute, the Congress of New Urbanism, +~ the American Society of Landscape Architects and the American Planning Association. We are also dedicated to giving back and our people contribute significantly to teaching, professional associations and other professional activities. Clients We are privileged to include among our clients some of the most progressive public and private entities. We work for private developers, conservation organizations and all levels of federal, state and local government. I s I DESIGIVWORKSHOP Pail Palley Retail Market Study Pail, Colorado Breckenridge Retail Market Analysis Breckenridge, Colorado Flathead County Master Plan Flathead County, Montana uge..~ ,R ~,, °~+`~`~ 'y ry a~M1 b' ,. Y. ~,y~. Si$ '4;: ~'€~•`r~,ti ~', ,~;m.. y.: J c. _ ~ The original Vail Village that was developed in the early-1960s is now a benchmark for successful destination retail and worldwide guest satisfaction. Only '/, mile away is LionsheadVillage, which is the second development at the base ofVail Mountain. Built in 1969, it was intended to be a residential village and provide high-speed gondola access to the mountain. Although it was one ofAmerica's first condominium-style developments, the architectural scale and character of Lionshead did not reflect its mountain environment.As a result, it had not achieved the level of charm and financial success that Vail Village enjoyed. Design Workshop was hired to facilitate and lead the redevelopment planning efforts of a publicprivate partnership between the Town of Vail andVail Resorts. The master plan for the 15-acre study area proposed development incentives chat increase residential growth V„1 C'nmmunlty Plan 18 LIONSHEAD BASE REDEVELOPMENT Vail, Colorado ~~ P.B~~~.~~(~~1~ I~lYP~~i~~NCE ~ LI:~NS~IEAD BAS; RED~VLLOPI~'IENT ~ ~, ~•~ .~a ~ y~ 7 ~}~ F r f S n E t~ ~ F '~ .F'r3 .rr-~ J .-~ i ~; ~~ k ,~ s- if : 4 ~ ~ ~ { t ~~ f - ~ ( ~ ll. J~~ r ~ ~ r ~'~ . . ~~~'~2 ~ '~ ~ r~~~~~p~ i 4~. ~ t bAoC ~'~ F Reemapee' ~- r -- - `~ i br ~' e~ -~,:~~~,('~ r'kae~, «~ 1~'?t,o-~eo _ ! ;i.._.._...:7~ I * ~U F ~ , c to ~.: t `~ r `, ~ , ,b„ c. - i ~ r.~ p ' '~ r~r n -- ~ ~ ~ _ '~ .' r ~r ¢ - ..- 1. i ~.~ i.. __ y~c er~ .. ._ ~ ~'- -.. ,. i e r ~ .r - r 1 ® -~ r . •k .Q, 74 r a ~... i - I ~~L~s . • ."'"~ ~( t .J. ~. ~ : i f , i.': ~ '". i f . ~.a, x ._; ,, _ -~~~~ at the village core while also promoting changes to allow ~ ~ ~ ~ = ,~„` • ~ ~:: ~~; ~: ~ far y ~*~a~,~~• the site's architectural character and. pedestrian spaces to ~ ' '~ ~ ~~~` ~~ ~~ ~~ f better suit the ski-village environment.The redevelopment ~ ~ ~ 4 master plan included streetscape design plans, architectural M'' ;e,,,T ~` a ~" massing and facade guidelines, and outlined affordable f~l ~n"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ' - ~ . I' a ~ ~ x- y housing opportunities and various funding mechanisms. '' ~ ~' ,..r ,~ ~~,~: ' The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was '~??"Jf/~~ adopted and implemented in early 1999 and later that ; ;~ :. ~,: ~'` ,~" ~,~~ :~i •- J ~~ ~~rr~ year won the Colorado American Planning Association ''~ J ~ ~ '' ~ 4R • .._ " ' ~• a award for its land-use, zoning and development code ~I ~' ? ty y =~~ ~ ~~' ~' L .. modifications for the Town of Vail. ~ 19 1 DESIGNWORKSHOP ,~ The Avon Town Center West area has always been ~ ~ i >h A Yk _~ ,~ ~~~ ~ :~ thought of as the~future downtown and civic place for the ~t" ~ i ~"~'&~~~"' ~ ~~ ~ ~e~"~~ ;~ Town. However, random development patterns over the -= . `- `'~ = s• '~ - " ~. ' last 25 years have left the area in an inconsistent land-use . ~~ ~ ~,;~; y ~'~ ,:. pattern, with no central core, inadequate infrastructure -s ._ ;~` and unclear circulation. `- ^~ Design Workshop was retained by the Town of ~~ ~ ~ ',• i ~ ,~ . ~ , u,. Avon to develop a redevelopment plan.forTown Center ~ r ^~ West. The future downtown ofAvon will include a new ~~~ ~ •"` ~~`~ ? ~~~~ '~~~`~^"^~ "Main Street," apedestrian-oriented streetscape lined with ,; - ~ ., ,~h;..~ retail and commercial and a variety of housing. The Main `,~ "~ ,, ~ ~ `;"" ,~ ~~ ~ Street streestscape design will provide an identity that ~~. ~~r. i~~ ~~~ ~~ ~T' ~}~~, complements the civic presence of a new Town Hall and ••~~ ~~ ~`~ ~ ~, ~ "'s' reenergized existing Town Park. ~~ ~ ~c ~ -G t~~ . ~~ ~~:r ~~ ~~}{X '~~~" Accom an in the edestrian-oriented street, ,~~.~ ,~ ~, P Y g P ' k~ ~~. the redevelopment envisions a new multi-modal transit ~' ~~~ f center that will offer direct access to future light rail .'~ - and a gondola, which will connect the Town to Beaver Vail Community Plan ~ 10 ~ AVON TOWN CENTER WEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Avon, Colorado ~~ --~ PIzO.9E(_;1' E,rl""1'1~P~9LNCE ~ AVON T(~Ol'N (::ENTER ~1~EST REDLVPL(~Pl~%[ENT PLAN I-- !a ~~~ ,~ ~~ u '~ Creek and Bachelor Gulch ski areas. A 400-space parking garage, new hotel, pedestrian plazas, infill mixed use redevelopment and realigned road network will help bring energy to the Town Center West area. Design Workshop provided extensive public ~~ facilitation including aweek-long charrette with key stakeholders and the community and monthly meetings with the Planning Commission and Town Council. Design Workshop also prepared a project Web site to allow for public comment throughout the process (www avonmainstreet.com). As part of a redevelopment effort, ;i~ we also provided the necessary components to create a sustainable plan, including physical design and master ,ai planning, a retail and residential market investigation report and financial pro forma analysis to balance public and private capital improvements and return. u~ ~: ,~~ ,~ I it I DESIGNWORKSHOP BANFF TOWN CENTER Banff, Alberta, Canada The town of Banff, which is the gateway to Canada's Rocky Mountain National Parks, is a community defined by its scenic landscape. After winning an international design competition, Design Workshop prepared a townscape plan for Banff to enhance the tourist experience during all seasons.The planning process, public involvement and resulting designs were based on and inspired by Banff's rich history and unique set of cultural and social icons. Transportation planning was also central to solving problems in downtown Banff's redevelopment. To better serve domestic and international travelers, Banff commissioned Design Workshop to prepare a plan that addresses auto congestion, improves pedestrian amenities and connections, and accommodates 20 percent of the visitation associated with bus travel tours. Components in the plan include the narrowing of BanffAvenue, a new tour bus station, increased sidewalk width in the core area, boulevard improvements, and a comprehensive visitor graphics program. Vail Community -Plan 112 I i,^ m ~~ '~ ,~i i iGi Jfi !a~ -®~ _--~~ 4'R~.)L(~T E~l?l.I-~1LNC1~~ ~ PiAN~+~+' ~l,®~~'N C~'NT~l~ ~- i3 t DESIGNWORKSHOP ti`e ~ ~ ` ° ~' r R3 .v ~ ~ _ ~~~ ~ a ~ 'kk~~~~,~, a"~ Y3:~a ~~4M WHISTLER COMPREHENSIVE SUSTAINABILITY PLAN As one of the highest-rated mountain resort communities in North America, the Resort Municipality ofWhistler is continually finding ways to improve the quality of the visitor and resident experience.A recent innovation involved replacing their existing Comprehensive Development Plan with a Comprehensive Sustainability PIan.This update will provide a vision to guide the Municipality toward a sustainable future. Design Workshop has been engaged to lead the first phase of work "to define the characteristics of successful destination resorts." Leading amulti-disciplinary team, topics to be addressed include: land use, environment, transportation, housing, utilities, finance, economics, social issues, quality of life, recreation, governance, provisions of goods and services, culture, guest experiences, economic diversity, vision, etc. Conclusions about these characteristics, combined with other work being completed to define sustainability in the context of Whistler, will combine to inform the community vision. Vail Community Plan ~ 14 ~ Whistler, British Columbia, Canada ~Xi a_,~y.~. i~! ?~ 'i The North Lake Tahoe Resort Association (NLTRA) contracted Design Workshop to develop a practical roadmap that addresses the tourism and community challenges facing North Lake Tahoe. In 1995, Design Workshop co-authored the North Lake Tahoe Tourism Development Plan, which has served as a guide for the formation of the Resort Association, tourism investment strategy and fiinding guidelines. In the eight years since the plan was completed, development and economic conditions of North Lake Tahoe have reshaped the travel and tourism industries, prompting the association to rethink its development strategies. Design Workshop led a collaborative effort with a 40-member advisory committee of local conununity leaders, the NLTRA and two other sub-consultants to draft a new master plan for the entire North Lake Tahoe Region that accounts for the evolving regional conditions, increased competition, changing community needs, reduced funding flexibility and new opportunities.The master plan defines long-term strategies and tactics that enhance the community and invest in its future. ~ 15 ~ DESIGNWORKSHOP NORTH LAKE TAHOE,TOURISM & COMMUNITY INVESTMENT MASTER PLAN North Lake Tahoe, California ~"'~v+u-..i~t 13.3 ~ ~ '~ ~ ~~ ~ '1~4 "a4~~ ~ R - ~ ~..?s _ The town of Manunoth Lakes. and the Mammoth Lakes Tourism Commission hired Design Workshop to conduct an evaluation of its visitor services in an effort to reposition itself as a competitive, destination resort community offering year-round attractions. Of primary interest to Mammoth Lakes was identifying an appropriate structure for orchestrating the multiple visitor services which today's destination visitors expect, such as central reservation systems, concierge services, in-town transportation, and activity packaging. Design Workshop led community meetings and public workshops to assess the situation within which visitor activities were currently managed, and subsequently presented alternative management structures found in other successful resort communities. Vail Community Plan The design team is currently working with the town to refine these ideas, finding an appropriate way of expressing them and building upon the framework established to provide the level of detail required.The intent is to provide a graphic document that enhances and protects the uniqueness of the Town of Mammoth Lakes. ~ 16 ~ MAMMOTH LAKES FACILITATION & DESIGN GUIDELINES Mammoth Lakes, California ~Yi ~~ ~ ~ ~Ii `~ ' v :`- - e ,k~. .. u ~ e~ ~°~~~ AVON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Avon, Colorado t•_ ~'~'' :~'e', P ;jai ~V ~ ~ G ~ 2 '. d" YK~ § ~T r ~ ,: After the development of Beaver Creek on the mountain south of town and a major retail center on the outskirts of the community, Avon was faced with trying to maintain -and to some degree create - a distinctive community with a strong central focus. Design Workshop worked with the community to create goals and policies that helped to protect the community from homogenized regional growth, refocus development into the community core, and allow enough flexibility for the creative use of architecture and design. The comprehensive plan had to be in harmony with the Town Center West development the Town was undertaking. In addition, the function of the community as both a workforce community forVail and the only gateway to Beaver Creek helped determine the vision of the community - "a great place to live and a great place to visit". Despite the fact that the two-year planning effort began with one consultant and was finished by Design Workshop, the plan was a supported by the community, Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. 11~ I DESIGNWORKSHOP =~ ~:.~ VAIL/LIONSHEAD RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS Vail, Colorado As part of its plan to redevelop LionsheadVillage;Vail Resorts needed a retail market study to determine successful concepts and an appropriate tenant mix. Design Workshop was hired to study retail in and around Vail Village, which included researching general retail trends, reviewing retail environments in comparable resort communities, profiling Vail visitors and residents, and analyzing local retail sales data. Recommendations were made regarding key elements and tenant mix for the redevelopment of Lionshead. FLATHEAD COUNTY MASTER PLAN Flathead County, Montana Flathead County was the hottest real estate market in the country in 1993. Growth has happened so rapidly that it has outstripped the resources of county government and made the county's 15-year-old Master Plan ineffective.The Cooperative Planning Coalition, a private citizens action, group, hired Design Workshop to help. As the first known privately-sponsored public planning process, Flathead has involved thousands of residents, including members of the business. community, environmentalists, and other special interest groups.A performance-based process will result from this intensive planning exercise. BRECKENRIDGE RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS Breckenridge, Colorado. The resort retail industry throughout North America is experiencing significant changes.Visitors to resort towns are spending more time shopping than almost any other activity. Along with these changes comes the need for resort towns to stay competitive in the retail industry. With plans for new base village. development in Breckenridge, the .town was concerned about the effects of additional retail and how it would affect to the overall health of Breckenridge's retail industry. Design Workshop conducted an in- depth market study to determine the impact of such development.The study included an analysis of existing retail in Breckenridge, visitor and resident profiles, proposed new projects in Breckenridge, and an analysis of economic benefits that might come from new development. After the initial analysis, conclusions were drawn and suggestions were made regarding plans for future retail development. !~ Vail Community Plan ~ ~Q ~1s1 I ~; PROJECT DESCRIPTION CLIENT Arbolera de Vida 30-Acre Mixed-Use and Affordable Sawmill CDC Albuquerque, New Mexico Housing Infill Community Albuquerque, New Mexico Aspen Village Mobile Home Park Mr. Chuck Vidal Pitkin County, Colorado Aspen, Colorado Basalt South 70-Acre Planned-Unit Development Mr. Dave Slemon Basalt, Colorado Aspen, Colorado Blight, Placer Property Denver Water '~ Denver, Colorado Denver, Colorado Broadway I-25 Felsburg Hold & Ullevig Denver, Colorado Englewood, Colorado Boardman 470-Acre Community Plan Oregon Potato Company Boardman, Oregon Boardman, Oregon BT Housing Lot-Income Housing Development BT Housing, Inc. ® Santa Fe, New Mexico Part of Tierra Contenta Community Santa Fe, New Mexico Butterfield Crossing Neighborhood 500-Acm Neighborhood Plan AMCOR Investments Corp. ® Castle Rock, Colorado Englewood, Colorado ® Carbondale Streetscape Streecscape Improvement Plan Town of Carbondale Carbondale, Colorado Carbondale, Colorado ® Castle Rock Land Use Master Plan Town Master Plan Town of Castle Rock Castle Rock, Colorado Castle Rock, Colorado ® Cimarron Park Cimarron Ranch ® Arvada, Colorado Westminster, Colorado Chenoa Community/Land Planning Spring Valley Development ® Garfield County, Colorado Aspen, Colorado ® ~1 Coe Ranch 5300-Acre Residential Development Chevron Land & Dev Co. San Jose, California Huntington Beach, California ® Columbia Industrial Industrial Development Criteria The Rouse Company Columbia, Maryland Columbia, Maryland ^ ® Commons Due Diligence East-West Partners ® Denver, Colorado Beaver Creek, Colorado Community Bible Church Master Plan Stout Architects Jackson, Wyoming Jackson, Wyoming ~y ® Cougar Canyon Ranch Cozy Point Partners Aspen, Colorado Fort Worth,Texas Courtyard on the Glen Scenic Assessment Sierra Bouquet VI, LLC Incline Village, Nevada Incline Village, Nevada Dobson Ranch P.A.D. Community Master Plan Longey Gilbert,Arizona Tempe, Arizona Eaglewood Golf Community T k Site Planning & Design Guidelines Kenneth James Partners; LLC ruc ee, California Northbrook, IL 0 ~ ~ 119 ~ DESIGIVWORKSHOP I'II~JTEC~I' -LISA: C®1~~INI[1NITY PI~~iNNINC ~ PROJECT ~ DESCRIPTION CLIENT Eastern Hills .Alpert Companies Aurora, Colorado Denver, Colorado Echo Farms 650-Acre Planned-Unit Development Rouse Investment Company Wilmington, North Carolina Columbia, Maryland Estrella 9,000-Acre Mixed-Use Planned-Unit American. Continental Goodyear,Arizona Development Phoenix,Arizona Estrella Commercial Center 60-Acre Mixed-Use Center American Continental Goodyear,Arizona Phoenix,Arizona Estrella Equestrian Center Neighborhood Equestrian Center American Continental Goodyear, Arizona Phoenix, Arizona .Estrella Non-Residential Design Guidelines Design Guidelines Sterling Pacific Management Services, Goodyear, Arizona Inc. Estrella Signage Design Guidelines Design Guidelines Sterling Pacific Management Services, Goodyear, Arizona Inc. Flagstaff Urban Mobility Study Urban Mobility Study -Land use in Lima and Associates Flagstaff,Arizona Transportation Corridor Phoenix,Arizona Fox River Village Geneva, Illinois Gauer Estate Vineyard Sonoma County, California Gibraltar Marina Development Gibraltar, Michigan Glendale Land-Use Master Plan Denver, Colorado Granite Ridge Teion Village, Wyoming Gray Ranch Carbondale, Colorado Great Western Park Broomfield, Colorado HiddenValley Goodyear,Arizona High Desert Sustainable Community Albuquerque, New Mexico Historic Granjeno Community Granjeno,Texas Idarado II Telluride, Colorado Job's Peak Ranch Lake Tahoe, California Three-Block Urban Redevelopment 4800-Acre Residential Development 400-t~cre Waterfront Develapment Land-Use Master• Plan Shodeen,Inc. Geneva, Illinois Chevron Land & Development Co. Huntington Beach, California Marina Ventures International Baltimore, Maryland Glendale, Colorado Granit Ridge Townhomes Wilson, Wyoming 500-Acre Planned-Unit Development Mr. Richard Gray Phoenix,Arizona 300-Acre Mixed-Use Development with Park Church Ranch Corporate Center Westminster, Colorado ~~ti 8,000-Acre Mixed-Use Development 1,000-Acre Planned-Unit Development Affordable Development 1,400-Acre Planned-Residential Development American Continental Phoenix,Arizona High Desert Investment Corp. Albuquerque, New Mexico Hunt Realty Dallas,Texas Idarado Mining Company Ouray, Colorado Douglas County Douglas County, Nevada Vail Community Plan ~ 20 ~ 1 p PIS®JIJCT LIS'T': CG1~~I1~~IUNI'I'Y PLANNING PROJECT DESCRIPTION CLIENT Lake Arrowhead 270-Acre Planned-Unit Development Centennial Corporation Lake Arrowhead, California Snowmass Village, Colorado Lake Katherine .Watershed Plan Babcock Foundation Winston-Salem, North Carolina Winston-Salem, North Carolina Las Cruces Village Community Mission,Texas Leawood Falls Kansas City, Kansas . Lighting W Ranch Washoe Valley, Nevada Long Reach Center Columbia, Maryland Long Reach Zone Columbia, Maryland 'Mammoth Redevelopment Mammoth Lakes, California Affordable Development Hunt Realty Dallas,Texas 240-Unit Planned-Unit Development Midland Properties, Inc Kansas City, Kansas Landscape Architecture Lighting W Ranch Sparks, Nevada 60-Acre Auto Park The Rouse Company Zone Plan Columbia, Maryland 800-Acre Industrial Park The Rouse Company Zone Plan Columbia, Maryland Site Planning Town of Mammoth Lakes Mammoth Lakes, California Mariposa Ranch 6,800-Acre Mixed-Use Albuquerque Academy Sandoval County, New Mexico Community Plan Albuquerque, New Mexico Marolt Ranch 100-Unit Planned-Unit Development Marolt Associates Aspen, Colorado Aspen, Colorado Mason Farm 70-Acre Planned-Unit Development Ater &Associates Dona Ana County, New Mexico Santa Fe, New Mexico McAllister Property Community Master Plan Mr. Dale J. Little Flagstaff; Arizona Flagstaff, Arizo na The Meadows Castle Rock Colorado 14,000 Units, 8,000-Acre Mixed-Use Lincoln American Corporation , Community Development Englewood, Colorado Meadows Monument & Signage Castle Rock Development LLC Castle Rock, Colorado , Denver, Colorado Meadows South Castle Rock, Colorado 400-Acre Planned-Unit Development AMCOR Investments Corp. Englewood, Colorado Mesa County & Grand Junction G Zoning Ordinance Revision Ciry/County Development Dept rand Junction, Colorado . Grand Junction, Colorado Mill Creek 1,350-Acre Mixed-Use Development Shodeen Construction Inc Geneva, Illinois , . Geneva, Illinois The Montana Club Bozeman, Montana Winchester Development Palm Desert, California MonumentVillage 500-Acre Planned-Unit Development Mr. Denny Granum Grand Junction, Colorado Gtand Junction, Colorado Monument Valley 100-Unit Planned-Unit Development Mr. Denny Granum Grand Junction, Colorado Grand Junction, Colorado ~ 21. ~ DESIGIVWORKSHOP -~ PROTECT LIST: COi~I1~IUNITY PLANNING ~ ~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION CLIENT Monte Sereno Feasibility Study for Conversion: HMB Partners, Inca Santa Fe, New Mexico 276-Unit Residential to Mixed-Use Denver, Colorado North Las Vegas Community American Nevada Corporation Las Vegas, Nevada Henderson, Nevada . . North Tahoe Marina Master Planning East/West Truckee Tahoe Vista, California Truckee; California Ocean Journey Ocean Journey Denver, Colorado Denver, Colorado. Owen Brown 60-Acre Commercial Center The Rouse Company Columbia, Maryland Columbia, Maryland Owen Brown Center Neighborhood Center The Rouse Company Columbia, Maryland Columbia, Maryland Owl CreekTownhomes Site Planning Snowtass Land Company, Snowmass Village; Colorado Snowmass Village, Colorado Oxbow Community 80-Acre Residential Community Altura West, LCC Albuquerque, New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico Pickwick Village 50-Acre Planned-Unit Development Ward & Ward Raleigh, North Carolina Raleigh, North Carolina, Pine Ridge 240-Acre Residential Planned-Unit 1st National Bank of Denver Craig, Colorado Development Denver, Colorado Pioneer Commerce Center Landscape Architecture Mancuso, Ciro Truckee, California Olympic Valley, California Querencia Querencia Properties Cabo, Mexico Los Cabos, Mexico Rancho Viejo 21,000-Acre Mixed Use Suncor, Inc. Santa Fe, New Mexico 2,500-Acre Phase I Development Phoenix, Arizona Riverbend New Town Master Plan Riverbend Corporation . Raleigh, North Carolina Raleigh, North Carolina The Rocks at Reata Pass Concept Design, Construction Monarch Communities Scottsdale,Arizona Observation . Scottsdale, Arizona Santa Teresa 22,000-Acre Mixed-Use Planned Fairfield Prop./Paseo del Norte Dona Ana County, New Mexico Community Santa Fe, New Mexico Selling Market 14-Acre Farmets' Market The Rouse Company . Columbia, Maryland Columbia, Maryland Selling Center 80-Acre Industrial Park Shodeen, Inc. Columbia, Maryland 500-Acre Mixed-Use Geneva, Illinois Shodeen-Mill Creek Master Plan Planned New Community Snowmass Village Geneva, Illinois Snowmass Village,Colorodo Snowmass Capitol Master Plan Master Plan Snowmass Village Snowmass Village, Colorado Snowtass Village, Colorado Vail Community Plan 122 I PROJECT LIST: C®NII~IiJNITY PLANNING ~ :~ .~ ,. gg~ iY PROJECT DESCRIPTION CLIENT Soda Creek Planned Development Gayno, Inc. Evergreen, Colorado Denver, Colorado South Farm 2,000-Acre Mixed-Use.Planned Sorenson Development, Inc. Lake City, Utah Community Salt Lake Ciry, Utah Spring Lake 70-Acre Planned Unit Development Murchison Family Spring Lake, North California Wilmington, North Carolina St. Albans 4,000-Acre Planned-Unit St. Albans Development Company St. Albans, Missouri Development St. Louis, Missouri Summerlin ..20,000-Acre/12 Village New Howard Hughes Properties Las Vegas, Nevada Community Las Vegas, Nevada ,Sunset Hills 800-Acre Planned-Unit Development Monge Real Estate & Investment Co. Pekin, Illinois Pekin, Illinois Sutherland Farms 865-Acre Mixed-Use Planned-Unit Midland Properties, Inc. Overland Park, Kansas Development Kansas City, Kansas Timberlake 75-Acre Planned-Unit Development Mr. Ken Frank Huntington, West Virginia Huntington, West Virginia Truckee Townhomes Landscape Architecture South Shore Capitol Truckee, California Minden, Nevada Waterloo Center 175-Acre Industrial Park The Rouse Company Columbia, Maryland Columbia, Maryland W/J Ranch 200-Acre Master Plan Lowe Enterprises Community Dev. Woody Creek, Colorado Vienna,Virginia Wickenburg Ranch Community Development Master Plan HMB Partners Inc. Yavapai Counry,Arizona Denver, Colorado Woody Creek Plan 7,452-Acre Community Plan Woody Creek Citizens' Caucus Aspen, Colorado Pitkin County, Colorado Zephyr Heights Multi-Family .Site Planning Tahoe Property Consultants Zephyr Cove, Nevada Zephyr Cove, Nevada ~23~ DESIGNWORKSHOP sT~ t PROJECT DESCRIPTION Avon Town Center West Redevelopment Plan Redevelopment Plan Including Ma Avon, Colorado Investigation and Financi\ nalysis Battlement Mesa Market Investigation Market Investigation and Co \cept Battlement Mesa, Colorado Plan Breckenridge Retail Market Analysis Breckenridge, Colorado Breckenridge Retail/Peak 8 Breckenridge, Colorado Market Study, Retail Analyais and Economic Assessment Analysis of Viability bfRetail/, Commercial Brundage Mountain Operations and Economic Operations Management Analysis, Assessment Development.PlanRnalysis and McCall, Idaho Economic Assessment Calgary Airport Authority Market Investigation Market and Financial Analysis and Feasibility Analysis Calgary,Alberta,Canatia Centennial Airport Land-Use Plan Financial Analysis Denver, Colorado Characteristics of Successful Destination Resort Resort Community Research Communities Whistler, Brith Columbia, Canada ' Circleville Farm/Imbt Property Market Study State College, Pennsylvania Coeur D'Alene Place Market Investigation Coeur D'Alene, Idaho Cornerstone Market Study Montrose/Telluride; Colorado Crested Butte Mountain Resort Mt. Crested Butte, Colorado . CTC Kings Beach Property j Kings Beach, California Deep Creek Mountain Resort .j McHenry, Maryland Retail Concept Plan Market Investigation Market Analysis and Strategy and Financial Analysis Due Diligence Analysis and Market Study Preliminary Site Assessment Residential and Retail Market Analysis Denver Water Lake Dillon Properties Disposition Land Capability Analysis, Land Strategy Planning, Market Value Analysis Summit County, Colorado and Public Facilitation Driggs Industrial Park Market Analysis Driggs, Idaho Eastern Hills Market Analysis Aurora, Colorado Edgemont Highlands Market Investigation Durango, Colorado ! Ferguson Town Center ~ State College, Pennsylvania Market Analysis CLIENT rker Town ofAvon Avon, Colorado The Battlement Mesa Company Parachute, Colorado Town of Breckenridge Breckenridge, Colorado Breckenridge Retail Breckenridge, Colorado Brundage Mountain Resort McCall, Idaho Calgary Airport Authority Calgary, Alberta, Canada Centennial Airport Finance Committee Denver, Colorado .Resort Municipality of Whistler Whistler, British Columbia, Canada MarketAnalysis and Marketing Plan Market Investigation and Development Strategy Market Analysis, Financial Feasibility, Master Planning and Acquisition Strategy John Imbt State College, Pennsylvania Greenstone Homes and Neighborhoods Liberty Lake,Washington Hunt Realty Corporation Dallas,Texas Fortress Investment Newyork, Newyork California Tahoe Conservancy South Lake Tahoe, California Deep Creek Development, LLC McHenry, Maryland Denver Water Board Denver, Colorado Mr. Ned Thomas Driggs, Idaho Alpert Companies Denver, Colorado Tom D. Gordon Construction Durango, Colorado Greenwood Associates, Ltd. State College, Pennsylvania Vail Community Plan ~ 24 I ~~ ~~ ~~~ -~ I'RO PRO ECT .I ;IECT LiS'I,: SrI,RATEGIC .SERVICES ~ ESCRIPTION CLIENT Front Range Resorts Market Study Market Analysis, Marketing and Sales Intrawest Resort Development Group ,Copper Mountain and Winter Park Resorts, Strategy, Development Strategies and Denver, Colorado Colorado Programming Grand Targhee Master Plan Master Plan and Resl Estate Grand Targhee Resort Grand Targhee, Wyoming Development Pro forma and.Market Grand Targhee, Wyoming Feasibility Study • Green Valley Ranch Town Center Concept P lan Mixed-Use Center Concept Plan Green Valley Ranch Aurora, Colorado Denver, Colorado Idarado Legacy Project Market Analysis Market Analysis and Financial The Idarado Mining Company ~_ Telluride, Colorado Feasibility Telluride, Colorado Jackson Hole Central Reservations Strategic Tourism Planning Jackson Hole Central Reservations Planning Jackson Hole, Wyoming Teton Village, Wyoming Jackson Hole Ski Corporation Business Plan Landscape Architecture, Land Jackson Hole Ski Corporation ® Teton Village, Wyoming Planning and Resort Design TetonVillage,Wyoming e La Quinta and Coachella Valley Market Study Regional Market Study City of La Quinta Rdevelopment Agency La Quinta, California La Quinta, California Market Due Diligence Regarding The Depot Market Due Diligence The Depot Hotel at Telluride ® Hotel at Telluride Tellurid C l d Telluride, Colorado e, o ora o ® McClellan National Trends Study Market Analysis and Strategy Anniston-Calhoun County Joint Powers Anniston,Alabama Authority (in support of Matrix Design Group) ® Anniston, Alabama McStain Neighborhoods Denver C l d Survey of Employee Attitude and McStain Neighborhoods , o ora o Understanding Boulder, Colorado Mission Valley Property Due Diligence Analysis Cherokee Investment Partners San Diego, California Denver, Colorado Montrose Market Investigation Retail Concept Plan Market Greenstone Homes and Neighborhoods Post Falls, Idaho Investigation Liberty Lake, Washington North Lake Tahoe Resort Association Tourism Planning and Investment North Lake Tahoe Resort Association v Compensation Survey Cost/Benefit Analysis North Lake Tahoe, California North Lake Tahoe, California q North Lake Tahoe Tourism and Community Tourism Master Plan North Lake Tahoe Resort Association ~? Investment Master Plan North L k T h North Lake Tahoe, California a e a oe, California 1 Ogden Downtown Mall Redevelopment Market Investigation and City of Ogden Ogden, Utah Development Strategy Ogden, Utah Punta Mica Market Analysis Feasibility Studies, Resort and Playground (Intrawest's Real Estate Sales & PuertoVallarta,Mexico Tourism Trends Analysis and Real Marketing Company) :. Estate Analysis Denver, Colorado N Rancho Viejo South Conservation-based Development Rancho Viejo Partnership a- ?. Santa Fe, New Mexico Strategy Santa Fe, New Mexico River Crossing Town Center Market Investigation Greenstone Homes and Neighborhoods Liberty Lake, Washington Concept Plan Liberty Lake, Washington ~ ~ zs ~ DESIGNWORKSHOP ~ PI~O:JECT LIST: STRATEGIC SERVICES ~ ----- PROJECT DESCRIPTION CLIENT River Run Resort Master Plan Master Plan and Entitlements Sun Valley Company Sun Valley, Idaho Sun Valley, Idaho Sanctuary at Snowmass Club SnowmassVillage,Colorado Santa Clara Four Corners Espanola, New Mexico Market Analysis and Resort Sales and Marketing Strategy Land Planning and Economic and Retail Market Analysis Playground (Intrawest's Real Estate Sales & Marketing Company) Denver, Colorado Santa Clara Development Corporation Espanola, New Mexico Sharyland Residential Market Analysis McAllen, Texas Site Assessment for the CTC's Kings Beach Property North Lake Tahoe, California Snowflower II Market Feasibility Steamboat Springs, Colorado Snowmass Village Pricing Analysis Snowmass Village, Colorado South Lake Tahoe Airport Charrette South Lake Tahoe, California Market Analysis Land Planning, Market Feasibility and Financial Analysis Market Feasibility Analysis Market Analysis and Pricing Recommendations Public Facilitation, Master Planning and Alternative Reuse South Pass Community Development Feasibility Visioning, Charrette Design and Study Master Planning Fayetteville, Arkansas Stonehocker Farms Adams County, Colorado Sunrise Resort McNary,Arizona Sun Valley Resort Sun Valley, Idaho Taos Ski Valley Developer Information Package Taos, New Mexico Taylor Investment Texas Market Study Texas Hill Countcy,Texas Teton Village Association Assessment . Jackson Hole,Wyoming TRPA Regional Recreation Plan Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada Vail Racquet Club Vail, Colorado Vail Village Retail Analysis Retail Analysis and Development Strategy Van Sickle California/Nevada Bi-State Park Lake Tahoe RV Market Investigation California/Nevada Market Analysis and Expert Witness Testimony User Survey, Facility Assessment and Master Plan Market Analysis, Master Plan and Entitlements Master Development Planning and Development and Marketing Strategy Demographics and Trends Analysis Market Study Financial Modeling, Programming Strategy and Market Research Recreation Plan Study, Facilities Supp Survey and Facilities Framework Plan Hunt Realty Corporation Dallas,Texas California Tahoe Conservancy South Lake Tahoe, California Landmar Group, LLC Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Brush Creek Development, LLC Snowmass Village, Colorado California Tahoe Conservancy City of South Lake Tahoe South Lake Tahoe, California SouthPass Development, LLC Fayetteville, Arkansas Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP Denver, Colorado White Mountain Apache Tribe McNary,Arizona The Sun Valley Company Sun Valley, Idaho Taos SkiValley, Inc. Taos, New Mexico Taylor Investment Corporation Minneapolis, Minnesota Teton Village Association Teton V illage, Wyoming iy Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Stateline, Nevada Market Feasibility Study and Vail Racquet Club Expansion Recommendations Vail, Colorado Retail Analysis and Development Vail Resorts Strategy Vail, Colorado Market Investigation Nevada State Parks Carson City, Nevada Vail Community Plan ~ 26 ~ 'll'i PROJECT l- l'a'V.~1~~. ~ .I~l:7rl': ,7`~ ~L..'~Y,~ISA~ ~7L' li V :ll~L-' ~.7 West Side Flats Market Analysis St. Paul, Minnesota Whistler Comprehensive Sustainabiliry Plan Whistler, British Columbia, Canada ~~~ ' Whitaker-Bermite Property Santa Clarity, California Wildflower Resort Private Residence Club Feasibility Study Grand Prairie, Texas Wintergreen Resort Wintergreen,Virginia Winter Park Resort Base Area Development Winter Park, Colorado Young Ranch Market Feasibility Analysis Clear Creek County, Colorado DESCRIPTION CLIENT Resort Community Research Due Diligence Analysis Market Analysis, Development Strategy and Financial Analysis The Lander Group Minneapolis, Minnesota Resort Municipality of Whistler Whistler, British Columbia, Canada Cherokee Investment Partners Denver, Colorado Wildflower Resort Company Dallas, Texas RetailAnalysis and Development Wintergreen Resort Strategy Wintergreen,Virginia Economic Impact and Retail Market Winter Park Recreational Association Analysis Winter Park, Colorado Feasibility Study, Political Analysis Young Ranch Partners LLC and Development Strategies and Idaho Springs, Colorado Programming 127 I DESIGNWORKSHOP pI ~, p A REBECCA ZIMMERMAN Principal-in-Charge Your Design Workshop team will consist of Becky Zimmerman, Principal in Charge; Rebecca Leonard, Project Manager; Pam Britton, Facilitation; and Kristen Walsh, Project Planner. While Pam Britton is specified for facilitation assistance, Rebecca Zimmerman and Rebecca Leonard will also play key roles in the facilitation process. Vail Community Plan 130 I Ns, ,ai ~: .yr ~._tl, ,. .. ~-.a .1 .~.. _~- :,~ ~~ ~.. rte. Our comprehensive approach to facilitation of theVail Community Plan integrates the ~ knowledge and experience of Design Workshop's top facilitation professionals. Collectively, Becky Zimmermann, Rebecca Leonard and Pam Britton have worked with numerous public ~ entities facing the same issues and challenges as the Town ofVail. Our well-rounded team will ~ deliver the highest level of facilitation expertise and ultimately strategize a top-notch Community Plan. ~I Q ~ ~ 31 ~ DESIGIVWORKSHOP REBECCA R. ZIMMERMANN Principal Bachelor of Communications; Bachelor of Business Adminis trati o n; Trinity University, San Antonio,Texas ~. Professional Affiliations Urban Land Institute / Recreation Development Council Travel and Tourism Research ~ Association I, Publications ~~ "Resort Survival," Urban ~' Land,August 2003 "Resort Rebound," Urban Land,August 2002 "Tourism Development, Management and Sustainability in a Changing Economy," Union of British Columbia, Canada Conference on Sustainability, Whistler, B.C., 2002 "Resort Trends: How to Predict the Future in an Uncertain Travel Environment," Opening.Speaker, 2001 Resort Forum, Incline Village, Nevada. "Innovative Residential Development," ULI Council Meeting, May 1998 Becky Zimmermann is an owner of Design Workshop and has exceptional experience in community, tourism, economic and marketing-related consulting and planning major projects. She has also been integrally involved in leading community participation processes and facilitation for projects throughout Colorado and the Rocky Mountain West. In the past couple of years alone, she has been involved in resort community planning projects in Sun Valley, Lake Tahoe, Mammoth,Whistler, Taos, Breckenridge, Durango, Jackson Hole and Santa Fe. She has recently facilitated elected officials and stakeholder groups for contentious and difficult issues in Gunnison, Colorado Bozeman, Montana and Ogden, ' Utah. Becky is a frequent keynote speaker for a variety of conferences including the 2002 Union of British Columbia Municipalities Conference on Sustainability and the French Quarter (New Orleans) Business Association Annual Meeting. She also functions as the chairperson of the ULI Recreation Development Council, conference chairperson for the 2006 ULI Golf and Resort Development Conference and as an instructor at the ULI Real Estate School. Related Project Experience Banff Downtown Enhancement, Commercial Business Impact Study: Banff,Alberta, Canada Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan: Colorado Springs, Colorado Snowshoe Mountain Resort Market Analysis: Pocahontas County, West Virginia Teton Village Resort Association Formation:. Teton Village, Wyoming Whistler Comprehensive Sustainability Plan: Whistler, British Columbia Vail Valley Retail Market Study: Vail, Colorado Front Range Ski Resort Market Analysis: Colorado Breckenridge Market Analysis: Breckenridge, Colorado Flathead County Master Plan: Flathead Counry,Wyoming Andorra Tourism and Strategic Plan: Andorra North Lake Tahoe Tourism and Community Invesment Master Plan: North Lake Tahoe, California Vail Community Plan 132 I Bnn~jDowntown Enhancement Banff, Alberta, Canada Education Master of Business Administration; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado Whistler Comprehensive Sustainability Plan Lhistler, British Columbia; Canada Vail Valley Retail Market Study Vail, Colorado REBECCA LEONARD Project Manager Bachelor of Science in Environmental Design in Architecture, Ball State University Certification 1999: American Institute of Certified Planners Professional Affiliations American Planning Association: Small Town and Rural Planning Division and Urban Design and Preservation Division,1995-present Vice President of External Affairs, Colorado Chapter, American Planning Association, 2005-present Board of Directors, Planning Institute of Colorado, 2005- present Board of Directors, Healthy Mountain Communities, 2005- present . Awards and Honors 2005: National Association of Coundes,Achievement Award for the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan 2003: National Association of Counties, Achievement Award for the Eagle County Profile Web site Rebecca Leonard,.a community planner and urban designer with Design Workshop, has outstanding experience in the area of facilitation. She has provided planning and facilitation expertise for upwards of 10 community plans. Her local facilitation experience in the Eagle Valley includes over 12 community meetings and countless advisor group . meetings. Her experience has helped her to develop many unique ways to increase community participation in areas where locals are working long hours and second-home owners place priority in other activities. Rebecca's experience in both the public and private sector of planning has given her insight not often found in the design profession. She has worked on community plans and designs in both capacities and knows how to face the inherent challenges posed by both perspectives. Rebecca believes that an excellent design is one that considers its context in all facets -environment, community, art and economy. Excellent designs lead to great. communities! Related Project Experience Town ofAvon Comprehensive Plan: Avon, Colorado Avon Town Center West Redevelopment Plan: Avon, Colorado Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines: Eagle County, Colorado Eagle County Comprehensive Plan: Eagle County, Colorado Eagle County Profile Web Site: Eagle County, Colorado Edwards Sub-Area Plan: Edwards, Colorado Douglas County Comprehensive Plan: Douglas County, Nevada Avimoi• New Community: Boise, Idaho Landwell East Community: Henderson, Nevada NDOT Landscape and Aesthetic Corridor Plan: State of Nevada Pendleton County Comprehensive Plan: Pendleton County, Kentucky Coal Heritage Corridor Natural Scenic Byway Plan: WestVirginia Goldfields Scenic Corridor Master Plan: Bendigo,Victoria,Austnlia Ft.Thonias Comprehensive Plan: Ft.Thomas, Kentucky 1331 DESIGIVWORI~SHOP Education Master of Urban and Regional Planning, Ball State University fi rr33 i~ PAM BRITTON Facilitation Education Master ofArts, Human Resources Training and Development, BrighamYoung Univecsiry, Summa Cum Laude, Bachelor o£Arts, Organizational Communication, California State University Long Beach, Summa Cum Laude Certification Human Performance Improvement, American Society for Training and Development Corporate Coach, Corporate Coach University Professional Affiliations American Society ofTraining and Development National Speaker's Association Publications Communication Activities for Personal Life Strategies, Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company, 1988 Pamela Britton's professional background includes extensive experience facilitating performance improvement, process re-engineering, critical decision analysis and strategic planning processes with organizations throughout the United States and 11 other countries. Most recently, she facilitated a process implementation work session for the Tien Wah Press (part of Dai Nippon Printing) in Singapore. She has facilitated processes for organizations including'Adcock-Ingram Pharmaceuticals (South Africa), Alaska Airlines, Associates Bancorp, California State University Chancellor's Office, City of Hope Medical Center, City of Ontario, First Data Corporation, Hamilton Hospital (New Zealand), Horace Mann Insurance, House of Fabrics, Jet America Airlines, Marie Callendar Restaurants, MGM Grand Airline, Morrrison & Foerster LLP, Nestles (Australia), and Southern California Hospital Council. Pam was part of the Breckenridge Streetscape Redevelopment project facilitation team last year.As a certified facilitator, she has also taught facilitation skills to a variety of audiences including recently the Roaring Fork Leadership community leadership group. Her bachelor's and master's degrees were both awarded summa cum laude in organizational communication and human resources training and development from California State University Long Beach and BrighamYoung University, respectively. Her publications include: Interact! Communication Activities for Personal Life Strategies, Kendall-Hunt. Her professional presentations include: How to Build a Successful Career Path,ASLA National Convention, San Jose, California, October 2003; Training Across Cultures, ASTD National Convention, Atlanta, Georgia, 1997; Anchoring Learning in Organizations,AIC International Conference, Wellington New Zealand, 1995 Vail Community Plan ~ 34 ~ Yr~ ' PS KRISTEN WALSH Project Planner Education Pennsylvania State University, Bachelor of Landscape Architecture Professional Affiliations American Society of Landscape Architects Awards and Honors 2005: Department Service and Leadership Award 2004: The Ann Pellow Wagner Memorial Scholarship 2002: The Alma Heinz and August Pohland Scholarship N Kristen Walsh is a landscape architect in the Aspen office of Design Workshop. She is a graduate of the Pennsylvania State University College ofArts and Architecture where she received her bachelor's degree in landscape architecture. During that time, Kristen was an active member of the American Society of Landscape Architecture and the local . Landscape Architecture Student Society. She contributed to helping recruit students to the program and helping to increase awareness of what the profession entails.As a result of her efforts Kristen was one of two people to receive the Department Service and Leadership Award. Kristen held athree-year summer internship with amulti-disciplinary firm in Armonk, Newyork. During that time she was exposed to a wide range of project including residential, commercial, retail and office developments. She has participated in public meetings, client and consultant relationships and technical design applications. Since moving from NewYork and beginning at the Aspen office, Kristen has applied her knowledge from her University and the profession to several types of projects. Her collaborative design efforts and her desire to create successful designs that improve the quality of life for users is evident in all her work. She looks forward to becoming a project manager, licensed landscape architect and returning to school to receive a master's degree. Related Project Experience Snowmass Center Redevelopment, Snowmass Village, Colorado Snowmass Mall Redevelopment, SnowmassVillage, Colorado MBIA Headquarters E.etension, North Castle, NewYork* Cross County Shopping Center,Yonkers, NewYork* *Revious experience while with John Meyer Consulting ~ 135 I DESIGNWORK.SHOP Q Q Q CONCEPTUAL APPROACH The principal objective of this Community Plan effort is to develop a practical roadmap for the Town ofVail as they face a critical turning point -from development and expansion to redevelopment and enhancement - by defining a long- term plan to enhance and invest in the future of the community. We facilitated and created the Lionshead Redevelopment Plan, completed in the 1990s This planning effort represents the beginning of what became a defining moment for the Town of Vail. In the half a decade since its completion, the travel and tourism industry has changed, as has the development and economic conditions in Vail. Lionshead redevelopment is underway with the beginning of the "New Dawn" and the construction of the skier bridge, Forest Place, Gore Creek Condominiums, and the Arrabelle Hotel. Now it is time to take another look at the future of the community as a whole. A new plan is needed -one that takes into account these changed conditions, increased competition, community outreach, and defining opportunities for the future. The planning process to create such a plan will be influenced by a number of dynamic circumstances. Among those are: • Changing travel and tourism patterns • International visitation on the rise • Changing trends iri skiing • Increased competition among North American resorts • Baby Boomers nearing retirement age • Increased delays due to I-70 Corridor traffic and congestion PHASE I DATA REVIEW AND PROJECT START-UP In order to begin the Vail Community Plan, the Design Workshop Team will review the previous research conducted. in the State ofVail report and other pertinent documents. In addition, appropriate start up meetings will be held withTowri staff: This will allow the team to digest the value of previous written documents and physical master plans/enhancements that will affect the project, as well as, future planning and design efforts and for the Town staff to meet the consultant Principal-in-Charge, Project Manager, and Facilitators. TASK I. I Project Management Every phase will involve project management from the team's project manager. We strive to ensure quality assurance and quality control through clear communication and dialogue with their clients. Direct communication with the client through memorandums, phone calls and emails will be provided to the client throughout the entirety of the project. A progress report will accompany all billing. Phase I deliverables: Project Kickoff Meeting Notes Inventory and Analysis Summary Base Mapping Data Collection Report Summary Project Check-In Meeting Notes Project Web Site _, •, r-~.......,~:.., Ulm„ ~ 38 ~ e i~ PP~OJECT SCOPE S TASK I.2 Project Kickoff Meeting ' The Design Workshop team will travel to Vail to meet with Town staff (primarily Community Development, but could include other departments) as part of a Project Kickoff Meeting. As part of the Project Kickoff Meeting, goals and objectives will be set with input from Town ' stall: Design Workshop will work with the Town staff to organize the Kickoff Meeting. TASK I.3 Inventory and Analysis After completion of the Project Kickoff Meeting, we propose a site visit to get familiar with the Town of Vail, document conditions, and further understand ' opportunities. and constraints. A physical study is important to supplement the detailed information on ' trends and .characteristics that has be prepared by RRC in the State of Vail report. 0 ' TASK I,4 Base Mapping 0 The Design Workshop team will work directly with ~' the Community Development Department to develop appropriate base mapping (ArcView) for all proposed ~.~ charrettes/open houses/work sessions, and to include in ~ the final Community Plan. Base mapping would include current roads, natural features, parcels, zoning, etc. We will work with the Town Staff to create a final base map 1 so that the maps used in discussions are of the same base information and accurary. ' TASK I.5 Discovery and Data Collection The Design Workshop team will review and summarize all necessary data, reports and studies, as provided by the Town of Vail and other key stakeholders. These documents may include the State of Vail Report, Town of Vail Code, Development Standards Handbook, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Streetscape Master Plan, VailVillage Master P1an,Town of Vail Land Use Plan, Comprehensive Open Lands P1an,VailVillage-Urban Design Guide,Town ofVail Housing Needs Assessment, _ and Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment. This will allow our team to understand existing and future development patterns of the study area, socio- economic trends, historic and cultural aspects, traffic and pedestrian circulation, connectivity, parking, public transit, ~ ~39~ DESIGNWORKSHOP ~ PROTECT SCOPE , TASK I.5 development trends and other key information relating to the project. A Data Collection Report will be completed highlighting the key elements of previous plans as they relate to this project._ TASK I.6 Project Check In The Design Workshop team will conduct a Project Check In with Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, and Staff to discuss the next steps and to discuss areas of concern by all parties. Specifically, we propose to discuss the Data Collection Report, Inventory ' and Analysis and next steps. TASK I.'J Project Web Site As part of the overall scope, the Design Workshop team proposes to provide information to the town for posting on their website where the community and stakeholders can review up to date project information. The web site will also include an area for the community and stakeholders to provide additional comments and suggestions. All information to be placed on the web site will be approved through the Community Development Department prior to uploading. The web site will be updated as needed based on the specific task being completed. PHASE II CREATING THE VISION Phase II deliverables: Project Management Building on the information discovered in Phase One, the Up to Three Alternative Future Design Workshop team will begin the process of helping Scenarios the community articulate a vision for its future. This will Two Community Visioning Workshops and Meeting Notes include: Summary of Input from • developing a series of alternatives based on the Workshops project Check-In Meeting Design Workshop team's knowledge of resorts and Notes their lifecycles and information gathered in Phase I; project Web Site • creating presentation materials that help depict the current conditions and trends in easy to understand terms, facilitating two public meetings aimed at helping the town articulate the preferred future for the town; and, Vail C'nmmunity Plan 140 I 0 ®~ ~;;.. ?iiz:: ~.i~i ~~:' ~~. ~~. P.ld~~,/7J1~r1 ~71~®Pl~ PIIASE II summarizing this vision in a powerful and succinct statement. TASK 2.I Scenario Development We know that the best way to get people talking about the future is to show them what future scenarios may look like.The use of graphics and text together, compared to text only, will better engage the community. These future scenarios will quickly focus dialogue on which aspects of each are seen as positive and which are seen as negative. The Design Workshop team will create up to three alternative future scenarios and illustrate the physical; economic, social, and environmental conditions that may accompany such a future. This will be completed by using the teams experience in planning and design for resort communities, working with the Town staff to map future conditions with the most appropriate visualization tools, and understanding performance measures as they relate to each alternative. TASK 2.2 First Community Visioning Workshop Design Workshop realizes that a successful community plan involves creating an environment for honest and creative dialogue from a broad cross-section of the community. Recognizing that the participant's time is limited, the techniques used can help focus the dialogue into productive working concepts and avoid time-consuming ranting that can overpower a meeting. The Design Workshop team will work with Town staff to ensure that they invite all applicable community stakeholder groups to participate in the process. Stakeholder may include, but are not limited to the following: • Vail Recreation District • Vail Resorts • Vail Valley Medical Center • Vail Valley Foundation • Vail Valley Chamber and Tourism Bureau • Eagle County • ECO Transit • U.S. Forest Service • CDOT Q ~ ~ ai ~ DESIGNWORKSHOP J PROTEC`T' SCOPE TASK 2.2 We have developed a process that has successfully built consensus in many resort communities. The process involves getting quick buy-in on the community's values as they are distilled from documents reviewed in Phase One, summarizing the alternative future scenarios and related performance measures, and rating the success of each alternative future scenario on its ability to meet the community's values. The team of professional facilitators, planners, landscape architects, economists, and urban designers will be present during the Community Visioning Workshop to provide two-way dialogue on each alternative. TASK 2.3 Second Community Visioning Workshop For the second community visioning workshop, the Design Workshop team will use proven techniques to flesh out a series of goals aimed at reaching the preferred future scenario defined during the first community visioning workshop. A memo summarizing the findings of Task 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 will be completed within this phase. TASK 2.¢ Project Check In The Design Workshop team will conduct a Project Check In with Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, and Staff to discuss the input gathered at the Community Visioning Workshops: The Design Workshop team will facilitate the meeting to ensure consensus is reached on the preferred future scenario and collect input on the stated goals. TASK 2. S Project Web Site Update The Design Workshop team will provide information produced and discussed at the ComrnunityVisioning Workshops to the Town. to place on the Town's website. The supporting materials on-line will be clearly labeled. In addition, there will be a place for submitting additional comments on the. work presented. All information to be placed on the web site will be approved through the Community Development Department prior to uploading. -- ., .-. ---__~. nt..... 142 ~ ® + a 0 i 1 p P.~LV,~L' C.T SLUP~ ~ . PxASE III COMMUNITY PLAN Phase III deliverables: Project Management We realize that the real specialists are those that live and Three Rounds of Advisory work in the community everyday. Therefore, to build on Group Meeting (up to 18 the consensus reached in Phase Two, we will work with meetings) Town staff to develop a series of advisory groups. These Draft Community Plan groups will help flesh out the vision and identify specific Project Check In action plans for the goals identified in Phase II. Project Web Site _ _ Final Community Plan TASK 3. I Implementation Techniques Identification Once the preferred future scenario is determined in Task 2.3, the Design Workshop Team will begin to enhance the imagery and performance analysis. Working with the Town staff implementation techniques will be explored and conflicting recommendations in existing town documents will be identified. The Design Workshop team will prepare a presentation of this research for use in the First Round ofAdvisory Group meetings TASK 3.~ First Round ofAdvisory Group Meetings Working with the Town staff, the Design Workshop team will identify up to six advisory groups and their potential members. These could include: • Housing, • Economic Development, • Environment and Open Space; • Transportation; • Land Use and Development; and • Service Providers. A full day of meetings will be scheduled whereby each advisory group gets 1.5 hours to discuss the preferred future scenario and refine the general goals. The Design Workshop team will ensure that goals for each Advisory Group are consistent with goals developed by the other Advisory Groups. For all Advisory Group meetings, the Design Workshop team will work with Town staff to coordinate meeting times, locations, invitations, agendas and meeting summaries. 43 I DESIGNWORKSHOP ~ PROTECT SCOPE . TASK 3.3 Second Round of Advisory Group Meetings Another full day of meetings will be scheduled whereby each advisory group gets 1.5 hours to begin identifying potential objectives or implementation techniques. The goal of these meetings will be a toolbox of implementation of techniques. . TASK 3.¢ Third Round of Advisory Group Meetings The Design Workshop team will work with the Town Staff to schedule the third round of Advisory Group meetings. These will be held in one full-day session allowing 1.5 hours per advisory group to help create a specific Action Plan including schedules and resources needed. TASK 3.5 Draft Community Plan The Design Workshop team will refine the vision based on all input from the CommunityVisioningWorkshops and Advisory Group Meetings. The vision will be expressed. in plans, sketches, photo imagery, and descriptive text. In addition, goals and implementation steps will be identified and articulated in the body of the text of the draft Community Plan. The draft plan will be concise, direct, action-oriented, and user-friendly. TASK 3.6 Project Check In The Design Workshop team will conduct a Project Check In with Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, and Staff to present the draft Community ' Plan and gather input. The Design Workshop team will facilitate the meeting to ensure consensus is reached on the draft plan. TASK 3.'J Project Web Site Update The Design Workshop team will provide information including the materials presented at the Advisory Group Meetings, Draft Community Plan and Final Community Plan to the Town staff to post on the project web site. TASK 3.8 Final Action Plan The Design Workshop team will make changes to the plan based on input from the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, and Stafl: 1441 nt B Designing an effective public process will be key to achieving your objectives. Two crucial steps to implement the public process element of this project are Process Design and Facilitation Methodology. The techniques used to conduct the Community Visioning Workshop and Advisory Group Meetings MUST create focus, consensus, energy, and positive behavior in the sessions. Following are some detailed descriptions of strategic approaches Design Workshop will use to achieve successful processes and outcomes. I. PROCESS DESIGN There are five key steps in the design of a public process: • identify/understand fully the overall project purpose • identify/understand the individual session products • identify/understand the participants • identify/understand the probable issues • design the facilitation processes necessary to achieve the desired outcomes Specifically, the Design Workshop/Town of Vail project team would complete the steps in the following manner for the Vail .Community Plan: Step 1: Purpose Define and articulate the overall project purpose.This would include identifying the project's critical success factors, the role of stakeholder input and how the process would build consensus. Step 2: Products Identify specific and measurable products to be achieved from the Community Visioning Workshops and Advisory Group Meetings. Step 3: Participants Identify participants/stakeholders and determine how/ when the stakeholder groups will interact individually and together. Step 4: Probable issues Discuss probable issues that would arise in the Community Visioning Workshops and Advisory Group Meetings. Step S: Process Design facilitation process options for the Town ofVail's review and approval. DESIGN~WORKSHOP II. FACILITATION METHODOLOGY There are four crucial elements to a successful facilitation event: • Keeping a group focused and on track • Building consensus, buy-in, commitment for action and lasting partnerships • Keeping participation energetic, enjoyable, balanced, and positive • Dealing with contentious or dysfunctional behavior Specifically, the following methods can be used to implement each of the four elements: Element 1: Keeping a group focused and on Crack • Establish the purpose, objectives, and scope at the onset of the meeting. • Post the agenda and check off items as they are accomplished. • Post a time schedule for the session and have clocks visible. • Post other visual aids that communicate the focus of the session. • Establish a "parking lot" to capture ideas that.aren't relevant to the current discussion. • Start each activity with a very well thought out focus question. • Use participants' names to interrupt politely if they have gotten off subject, put his or her comment in the "parking lot," and remind group of the issue at hand. • Review, Preview, BigView periodically throughout the session to remind participants what has been discussed, what is coming up next, and how both fit .into the overall objective of the session. Element 2: Building consensus, buy-in, commitment for action and lasting partnerships • Get to know participants prior to the start of the session. Introduce the concept of"positions vs. interests" to help participants remain open-minded to options rather than get locked into specific positions. As necessary, remind participants about positions and interests. • Define consensus as the willingness to support a position (whether one agrees with it totally or not). • Determine if agreement is required on a particular issue. Disagreements are an essential part of group decision making.Agreement on a particular issue may not be necessary to meet the objectives of a session. Participants can "agree to disagree." • Delineate alternatives by listing, comparing and contrasting based on factors such as how much the alternative will cost, how long will it take, what the benefits are, who benefits, what risks are involved, etc. • Ranking techniques can be used to prioritize options.The ranking process should begin with criteria for evaluating the options (benefits, costs, risks, etc.). • Weighted scoring is a type of ranking technique that allows more important criteria to be given greater weight in the ranking. • Forced choice pits each option against every other option and asks the question, "If you were forced to choose between these two options, which would you choose?"Those with the most overall points then become the priority options for consideration. • Minimum change is a useful technique when most participants are comfortable with options but some are still resisting.The question is posed:"What is the minimum amount of change to this option that you would require to be comfortable accepting it?" • Other ranking techniques include grading, high/ medium/low and cost benefit analysis. Element 3: Keeping participation energetic, enjoyable, balanced, and positive • Ensure communication when announcing the event is positive and enthusiastic. • Have a pleasant environment for the session including refreshments, adequate space to move around, comfortable seating and pleasant visual aids. • Greet the participants prior to starting. • Warm the group up at the start of the session by giving them an easy and non-threatening question to answer or activity to do that eases individuals into the session. • Mix the group up by using a seating strategy or activity that breaks up "cliques" • Display energy and enthusiasm among the facilitation team. • Encourage physical involvement by allowing Vail Community Plan 12 participants to write, draw, stand up, place dots, etc. • Use a variety of discussion techniques to mix things up and balance the input including brainstorm and evaluate, round-the-room, dyad discussion, discussion and report, trading roles and others. • Watch the non-verbal signals of those who are not .speaking. Make openings for them to contribute to the discussion. • Be prepared to interrupt politely if someone is dominating the discussion and reduect the conversation. • Use graphic facilitation strategies to capture ideas in a picture form and to write comments/ideas on large facilitation sheets. • Use energizer activities periodically to refresh the group. • Take regular breaks. • Reframe negative comments so they can be recorded positively ("I don't want..." becomes "I do want... "). • Don't allow personal attacks. • Acknowledge everyone's comments with equal enthusiasm. Element 4: Dealing with contentious or nonproductive behavior • Prevent it.This is the most important strategy for dealing with nonproductive behavior.The pre-work of understanding the participants, the issues and anticipating potential friction points positions the facilitation team to prevent nonproductive behavior. • Know the participants including those not in favor of holding the session, those who feel they have something to lose if the outcome of the discussion isn't what they want, those not on favorable terms with one another and those who are "negative" or tend to point out problems rather than contribute to solutions. • Knowing the participants might cause one to implement prevention strategies like controlling seating, establishing ground rules, interacting with some individuals prior to the event, paying attention to warning signs from certain individuals, constructing break-out groups in particular ways or approaching certain individuals during a break. • Deal with mild nonproductive behavior before it escalates. Silence, folded arms, arriving late or leaving early can all be relatively mild signs of dissatisfaction. It is better to let the individual express their concern early. • Treat nonproductive behavior as a sign that an individual is asking for help. It doesn't help to be threatened by nonproductive behavior: It is a person's way of indicating they don't like what is going on. Don't make the problem worse by embarrassing or attacking the individual. 13 I DESIGNWORKSHOP III. SESSION AGENDA TEMPLATE This basic agenda would be tailored/expanded to achieve the desired outcomes that are identified for each public session. Note: Steps 1-5 set the stage for the session and all together typically take not more than 15 minutes. Typically, Steps 1-5 are provided in a PowerPoint presentation so that .the same information is provided to each group. The bulk of the session is spent in steps 6-8. 1. Welcome/Introduction -Introduce participants and session leaders; present the agenda/schedule for the session. Explain why the facilitation is taking place. 2. Purpose and Objectives -Introduce the goal of the session including products or measurable results to be achieved. 3. Scope -Define the boundaries of the project/process including issues on which decisions have already been made and issues on which participants will have input. 4. Roles and .Responsibilities -Identify/discuss the roles and responsibilities of participants and process leaders. 5. Background -Review key events and circumstances, both past and present, relevant to the project. Typically, we add images derived from successful plans to help get the stakeholder group energized about the topic. 6. Critical Success Factors -Engage the group in identifying the major controllable factors that will affect success of and satisfaction with this project. 7. Key Issues -Engage the group in exploring the key project issues and arriving at the session products that were targeted. 8. Wrap-up -Review the issues, decisions, and actions that the group decided upon; preview next steps in the overall process; conduct a satisfaction and commitment exercise; adjourn. Vail Community Plan ~ 4 ~ Our comprehensive approach to facilitation of theVail Community Plan integrates the knowledge and experience of Design Workshop's top facilitation professionals. Collectively, Becky Zimmermann, Rebecca Leonard and Pam Britton have worked with numerous public entities facing the same issues and challenges as the Town of Vail. Our well-rounded team will deliver the highest level of facilitation expertise and ultimately strategize a top-notch Community Plan_ DESIGNWORKSHOP ~_ ~ _ , . `-~: " "~ " t Pamela Britton's professional background includes extensive experience facilitating performance "~- - 'a;, `;unprovement, process re-engineering, critical decision analysis and strategic planning processes with _ ~~ :organizations throughout the United States and 11 other countries. Most recently, she facilitated ~~>~;;1;~ ~ ~-' " " ,~a process implementation work session for the Tien Wah Press (part of Dai Nippon Printing) in ''`:Singapore. She has facilitated processes for organizations including:Adcock-Ingram Pharmaceuticals a< ..,~". .x_.`~,:~•_'" :;(South Africa), Alaska Airlines, Associates Bancorp, California State University Chancellor's Office; 'x ~. a~ ~Ciry of Hope Medical Center, City of Ontario, First Data Corporation, Hamilton Hospital ., ~' :~ '~ ` "'~`~'~ ~' New Zealand ,Horace Mann Insurance, House of Fabrics, et America Airlines, Marie Callendar ~'`•'; .'Restaurants, MGM Grand Airline, Morrrison & Foerster LLP, Nestles (Australia), and Southern Pam Britton ~ " California Hospital Council. Pam was .part of the Breckenridge Streetscape Redevelopment project facilitation team last year. As a certified facilitator, she has also taught facilitation skills to a variety of Facilitation audiences including recently the Roaring Fork Leadership community leadership group. Her bachelor's and master's degrees were both awarded sununa cum laude in organizational communication and human resources training and development from California State University Long Beach and BrighamYoung University, respectively. Her publications include: Interact! Communication Activities for Personal Life Strategies, Kendall-Hunt. Her professional presentations include: How to Build a Successful Career Path,ASLA National Convention, San Jose, California, October 2003; Training Across Cultures, ASTD National Convention, Atlanta, Georgia, 1997; Anchoring Learning in Organizations,AIC International Conference, Wellington New Zealand, 1995 Becky Zimmermann is an owner of Design Workshop and has exceptional experience in community, tourism, economic and marketing-related consulting and planning major projects. She has also been integrally involved in leading community participation processes and facilitation for projects throughout Colorado and the Rocky Mountain West: In the past couple of years alone, she has been involved in resort community planning projects in Sun Valley, Lake Tahoe, Mammoth,Whistler,Taos, Breckenridge, Durango, Jackson Hole and Santa Fe. She has recently facilitated elected officials and stakeholder groups for contentious and difficult issues in Gunnison, Colorado Bozeman, Montana and Ogden, Utah. Becky is a frequent keynote speaker for a variety of conferences including the 2002 Union of British Columbia Municipalities Conference on Sustainability and the French Quarter (New Orleans) Business Association Annual Meeting. She also functions as the chairperson of the ULI Recreation Development Council, conference chairperson for the 2006 ULI Golf and Resort Development Conference and as an instructor at the ULI Real Estate School. Rebecca Leonard Project Manager Becky Zimmermann Principal Rebecca Leonard, a community planner and urban designer with Design Workshop, has outstanding experience in the area of facilitation. She has provided planning and facilitation expertise for upwards of 10 community plans. Her local facilitation experience in the Eagle Valley includes over 12 community meetings and countless advisor group meetings. Her experience has helped her to develop many unique ways to increase community participation in areas where locals are working long hours and second-home owners place priority in other activities. Rebecca's experience in both the public and private sector of planning has given her insight not often found.in the design profession. She has worked on community plans and designs in both capacities and knows how to face the inherent challenges posed by both perspectives. Rebecca believes that an excellent design is one that considers its context in all facets -environment, ~_r.. community, art and economy. Excellent designs lead to great conununities! DESIGIVWORKSHOP Attachment C Task 1.1 Task 1.2 Task 1.3 Task 1.4 Task 1.5 Task 1.6 Task 1.7 Project Management Project Kickoff Meeting Inventory and Analysis Base Mapping Discovery and Data Collection Project Check In Project Web Site PIC 5275 4 4 2 2 8 PM 5125 40 4 4 4 8 8 4 PA ;75 24 8 Facilitator ;725 4 2 2 Planner 575 4 4 12 24 8 Graphic 585 8 Totals 68 16 12 16 44 tfi 20 Town Staff 80 8 20 12 24 10 24 Totals 148 24 32 28 66 26 44 20 72 32 .8 52 8 192 178 370 $5,500 $9,000 $2,400 $1,000 $3,900 $680 S 22,480 hrsNvk 22 Task 2.1 Scenario Development 12 24 12 32 8 88 80 168 Task 2.2 1st Community Visioning Workshop 12 12 4 t2 12 4 56 60 116 Task 2.3 2nd Community Visioning Workshop 12 12 4 12 12 4 56 60 116 Task 2.4 Project Check In 8 8 16 30 46 Task 2.5 Project Web Site Update 4 4 8 24 32 44 60 8 36 60 16 224 254 478 $12,100 $7,500 $600 $4,500 $4,500 $1,360 $ 30,560 hrs/wk 20 Task 3.1 Implementation Techniques Identification 12 8 8 16 44 90 134 Task 3.2 1st Round of Advisory Group Meetings 12 4 12 2 30 a0 70 Task 3.3 2nd Round of Advisory Group Meetings 12 4 12 2 30 40 70 Task 3.4 3rd Round of Advisory Group Meetings 12 4 12 2 30 40 70 Task 3.5 Draft Community Plan 4 24 8 4 32 16 88 80 168 Task 3.6 Project Check In 8 8 30 38 Task 3.7 Project Web Site Update 4 4 8 24 32 Task 3.8 Final Action Plan 4 t2 8 4 24 16 68. 60 128 8 96 24 28 112 38 306 404 710 $2,200 $12,000 $1,800 $3,500 $8,400 $3,230 $ 31,130 hrsMrk 27 . Project Total Labor Hours: 72 228 64 72 224 62 722 836 1558 Project Total Labor Costs: $19,800 $28,500 $4,800 $9,000 $16,800 $5,270 S 84,170 Project Total Expenses (Estimaq o~ 7R-: $. 5,892 Project Total: $ 90,062 Attachment D Mar A r Ma Jun Jul Au Se Oct 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 ~ 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 7 14 21 28 7 74 21 28 Task 1.1 Project Management ~ ~ ~ rc~~~~~ ~ ~~" ~ - ~,e. - '~ - - ~- ,., ~F ~ _ _ • Task 1.2 Project Kickoff Meeting Task 1.3 Inventory and Analysis - i , . ~ Task 1.4 Base Mapping Task 1.5 Discovery and Data Collection ~ ~ Task 1.6 Project Check In i/~ €,,, ~ Task 1.7 Project Web Site ~ s ~ Task 2.1 Scenario Development ~ ~~~ i _ - ~' I Task 2.2 1st Community Visioning Workshop , ~ ~ ~ / Task 2.3 2nd Community Visioning Worksho ;~ ~ Task 2.4 Project Check In ~ Task 2.5 Project Web Site Update ~ - v~ ~ t P o, Task 3.1 Implementation Tech. (dent. ,,~ ~~ ~, i 1st Round of Advisory Group I O Task 3.2 Meetings ~. 2nd Round of Advisory Group ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " 0 ~ Task 3.S Meetings ~ ~j ~" ~ U /, ~~ 3rd Round of Advisory Group ~. ~ ' - , a :, . ~ 0 Task 3.4 Meetings / /h ,. . Task 3.5 Dratt Community Plan ,. ~ ~ ~ - '~ Task 3.6 Project Check In f~ Task 3.7 Project Web Site Update ' ~ i //// O Task 3.8 Final Action Plan ~, ,,,,y/~, yu„~, y~4~J -,,~ Sby~ ~ Town Council/Planning and . Environmental Commission Project Check In Community Visioning Workshop Advisory Group Meetings O Shoulder Seasons Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 7, 2006 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the~Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Rod Slifer. Members present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Farrow Hitt, Mayor Pro-Tem Kent Logan Greg Moffet Kim Ruotolo Mark Gordon Kevin .Foley Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney -- Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Rob Levine, general manager of the Antlers Lodge, spoke in support of utilizing the conference center proceeds to maintain year-round economic viability. Mark Gordon introduced a moment of silence in remembrance of Loretta Scott King. The second item on the agenda was the Introduction of Mt. Buller Guests. Vail Valley Exchange Board Member Rick Sackbauer thanked the town for its financial support of the program and introduced visiting skiers from Mt. Buller, Australia, one of Vail's sister cities. Instructor/chaperone Geoff Walker introduced the visiting secondary students and thanked all involved with the Vail Valley Exchange for their generosity. The third item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of 01.03.06 & 01.17.06 Minutes. b. Sculpture for Bighorn Park. • Vote to approve $35,000 AIPP expenditure for the "Community Stone" sculpture. Moffet moved to approve the consent agenda with Ruotolo seconding. Foley stated he would be casting a no vote as he did not agree with funding any park improvements until a public park was developed in the LionsHead area. The motion passed 6-1, Foley opposed. The fourth. item on the agenda was an appeal of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's (DRB) approval of a separation request application pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail DRB's approval of a separation request application, pursuant to Chapter 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail . Town Code, to allow for the physical separation of a primary and secondary residence, located at 95 Forest Road/Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1. Planner Bill Gibson reported that on December 21, 2005, the DRB approved a separation request application, pursuant to Chapter 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to allow for the physical separation of a primary and secondary residence, located at 95 Forest Road/Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1. The Vail Town Council "called-up" this DRB action. Additionally, H.R. and Margaret B. Perot, Susan R. Frampton, and Forest Interriational, LLC had also filed an appeal of the DRB action. Representing the appellants, Jim Wear argued a separated duplex represented two separate primary residences as opposed to one single family residence and a small caretaker unit. Harry Frampton questioned setting the precedent of allowing two separate houses to be built on a single family lot. Attorney Rob Sperberg argued the proposed homes would maintain the character of the neighborhood and would not be an "eyesore" to adjacent property owners. Project architect Mike Suman argued a split development was the most environmentally sensitive way to redevelop the property. DRB Chairman Margaret Rogers clarified the DRB's position, explaining its decision was based on physical impediments to development on the parcel. Estaquio Cortina spoke in support of the appellants. Moffet stated he believed the DRB made the right decision as the site is constrained. Moffet moved to uphold the DRB determination with Ruotolo seconding. Gordon clarified separations are rarely. approved. Logan and Foley stated they did not believe a separation met the spirit and intent of primary/secondary residential zoning. Slifer verbally recognized he could be fair and impartial in a decision on the appeal, and thus he had no conflict of interest as to voting. Town Attorney Matt Mire asked Slifer to make this statement for the record as he was a business partner with Harry Frampton, one of the appellants.. The motion passed 4-3, with Slifer, Logan and Foley opposed. The fifth item on the agenda was a review of recommendations for minor modifications of the Parking Task Force for the remainder of the 2005-2006 season. In introducing the item, Public Works Director Greg Hall said the Parking Task Force was established to provide direction to Council regarding parking operation policies. In addition to other meetings during the summer, the task force meets annually after the Martin Luther King holiday to. evaluate the results of operational changes implemented, review trends and determine if any significant changes need to be addressed and to recommend tweaks to the operating policies if needed. As a result of the meeting, .the Parking Task Force recommended the following changes to the parking policies for the remainder of the 2005-2006 season. a. The number of shopper parking spaces be reduced in the Village from 60 to 40 and the number of shopper spaces in LionsHead be reduced from 30 to 20. The pricing structure implemented for the shopper parking created greater turnover of the spaces and decreased the number of spaces required to meet the demand. b. That vehicles over 19'-0 be restricted from the Village value lot. The value lot was designed with less than adequate dimensions when it was built in 1990. Limiting the size to 19' will accommodate almost 98% of all personal vehicles. The vehicles which exceed this dimension are the largest of the 15 passenger vans and the oversized pickup trucks with crew cabs and full beds. Hitt moved to approve the modifications with Moffet seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The sixth item on the agenda was a discussion and direction from Council on pursuing a joint Vail Recreation District (VRD) and Town of Vail (TOV) Comprehensive Recreation Master Plan. On January 10, the VRD approved an expenditure of up to $30,000 to jointly fund with the TOV a comprehensive recreation master plan. If Council wished to move in this direction, a supplemental appropriation from RETT 'of $30,000 was suggested by staff. Zemler stated he believed it was a good time for collaboration to set a path for recreational opportunities over the next ten to 15 years. Logan and Gordon said they did not believe the opportunity could have happened at a better time. Logan moved to approve with Gordon seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The seventh item on the agenda was a discussion of framework for the process involving disbursement of Conference Center tax collections. Stan Zemler asked Council to discuss initial review criteria and provide ideas for a citizen outreach process to be used to create community consensus regarding the various options available. In November 2005, Vail's electorate defeated an increase in the lodging tax to supplement taxes approved in 2002 to build and operate a conference center. The ballot question also contained a provision to rescind the 2002 taxes if the issue failed. Therefore, on December 20, 2005, Council approved second reading of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2005, which rescinded the 2002 taxes, ahalf-cent sales tax and 1.5 percent lodging tax, effective January 1, 2006. The remaining action required to bring closure to the issue is to determine a refund methodology for disbursement of the remaining $7.7 million in conference center funds or prepare a ballot question to determine how such revenues shall be used. Hitt and Ruotolo questioned utilizing the funds for recreational amenities, as the tax was intended to provide year-round economic vitality. Moffet moved to direct staff to not pursue determining how to refund the tax collections with Ruotolo seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Moffet then moved to direct staff to pursue methods to increase hotel occupancy with Ruotolo seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Bill Jewitt said he believed the individuals who paid the tax should be refunded. He then encouraged Council to not pursue using the fund for additional marketing efforts. The eighth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006. Text amendment (Commercial Service Center/CSC Zone District) for Crossroads. Senior Planner Warren Campbell introduced First Reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006, an ordinance amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Commercial Service Center (CSC) District to add "bowling alley" as a conditional use to the District and to add a definition of a "bowling alley" to the Vait Town Code. On January 23, 2006, the PEC voted 7-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval for a proposed text amendment to the Commercial Service Center (CSC) District to add "bowling alley' as a conditional use and to add a definition fora "bowling alley" to the Vail Town Code. The Community Development Department recommended Council approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006, on first reading. Moffet moved to approve the ordinance on first reading with Hitt seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The ninth item on the agenda was the First Reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, an ordinance establishing Special Development District (SDD) No. 39, Crossroads. Campbell reported that on January 23, 2006, the PEC held a public hearing on a request to establish SDD No. 39, Crossroads. The purpose of the new SDD is to facilitate the redevelopment of Crossroads, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive. Upon review of the request, the PEC voted 5-2-0 (Viele and Lamb opposed) to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to establish SDD No. 39, Crossroads, to Council. The Community Development Department recommended Council approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, on first reading. George Knox,' Robert Aikens, Kel Purcell, Paul Ferzacca, Kaye Ferry, Ron Byrne, Kay Graybill, Peter Cook, Stan Cope, Johannes Faessler, Gina Gnsafi, John Reimers and Nathan Nottingham spoke in support of the project. Gwen Scalpello, Judy Gold, Anne Reilly Bishop (representing the Village Plaza Homeowner's Association), Merv Lapin, Cathie Douglas, Bill Rey, Ernie Sheller, Jonathon Staufer and Wendy LoSasso spoke against the project. Gwen Scalpello encouraged Council to pay detailed attention to traffic issues if the project were to be approved. Representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, Jim Lamont stated his board had not taken a.formal position, although several questions remained in need of answers. Rick Scalpello encouraged Council to view the past regular electiori results as a litmus test for community approval of the project. Moffet moved to approve the ordinance but stipulated the. second reading should not occur until an acceptable Developer Improvement Agreement (DIA) was reached, .with Gordon seconding. Hitt encouraged on-site employee housing and questioned the availability and operational details of the on-site parking as he believed a need exists for more public parking in town. Moffet asked that parking guidelines be included in the DIA. Developer representative Dominic Mauriello explained the parking spaces would be leased and the applicant would encourage public accessibility. Foley questioned increased floor plates (taller ceilings) and the employee housing requirement for the project. Ruotolo encouraged the employee housing be placed on-site. Gordon spoke irr support of the project, although expressed concern over the loss of 8150, "Nail's only true live music venue." Logan stated the project utterly disregards 'the underlying zoning. He then congratulated project developer Peter Knobel for putting himself in such an advantageous negotiating 'position. "This community is not getting quid-pro-quo for the value of the upzoning." Slifer asked that a true visual representation of the project be provided to demonstrate how high the building would be. "If he doesn't want to build one, it may mean he is thinking the same thing." Mire clarified the Developer Improvement Agreement is separate from the ordinance. The motion passed 4-3, Slifer, Logan and Foley opposed. The tenth item on the agenda was the Second reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2006 - an ordinance vacating a certain part of the system of Public Ways of the Town of Vail, Colorado, i.e., a parcel of land located within chute road right-of-way, Lot P-3, Vail Village Fifth Filing, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado as recorded March 17, 2004, at Reception Number 871030 at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. Mire explained the town received this portion of right-of-way with the creation of the Founders Garage plat from Vail Resorts. The western portion was then to be deeded to the Mill Creek condominium association. The streetscape design for the Mill Creek Court property has been finished and the cost sharing agreement is completed. It is now known how much of the western portion of the property can be vacated. Moffet moved to approve with Ruotolo seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Hitt was not present. The eleventh item on the agenda was the Second reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006, an ordinance amending Chapter 4, Districts Established, Section 12-4-1, . Designated, Vail Town Code, to allow for the establishment of the Public Accommodation - 2 (PA-2) District. Chief Planner George Ruther reported on January 9, 2006, the Town of Vail PEC voted 6-0-0 (Gunion absent) to forward a 4 recommendation~of approval for a proposed text amendment to the Vail Town Code. On January 17, 2006, Council approved Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 upon first reading. The only requested change to the ordinance is a typographical error. The Community Development Department recommended Council approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006, on second reading. Wendy Erb expressed concern approval of the ordinance would allow development to overwhelm the surrounding neighborhood. Moffet moved with Logan seconding. Ruotolo clarified use by right allowed for a building 48 feet tall on the property. Kaye Ferry expressed concern that the introduction of kitchens on the property would encourage long term use of a public accommodation unit. Representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, Jim Lamont stated the town needed to look more closely at its development standards. Anne Reilly Bishop asked Council deny the ordinance and revisit the rezoning rules as the project may affect the quaintness of her neighborhood. "I am fearful we are changing the quality of life here." Greg Beamis questioned the size of the project. "The size and scale of this is out of proportion for our neighborhood." Marv Nevar said ,Council should use more discretion before approving the ordinance. Phyllis Nixon stated the scale of the project was too large. Gwen Scalpello said the proposed zoning should also contemplate potential parking shortages it may cause. Diana Donovan stated Council should better inform concerned citizens about town processes. She also said she believed height measurements have been modified by the town without the public's knowledge. "It is making a huge difference on heights in town." Property developer Kevin Deighan stated adequate notice was provided to surrounding neighborhoods. The motion passed 5-2, Foley and Logan opposed. The twelfth item on the agenda was the Second reading.of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2006, an ordinance amending the official zoning map for the Town of Vail in accordance with Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 5, Zoning Map; Rezoning Lots 9-12, Buffher Creek Re-subdivision, from Public Accommodation (PA) district to Public Accommodation- 2 (PA-2) district. On January 9, 2006, the PEC held a public hearing on the request to amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail. Upon consideration of the request, the Commission unanimously approved a motion recommending approval of the rezoning request to Council. On January 17, 2006, Council approved Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2006 on first reading. No revisions have been made to the ordinance since first reading. The Community Development Department recommended Council approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2006, on second reading. Moffet moved with Ruotolo seconding a motion to approve. During the public comment period, Wendy Erb asked council to reject the ordinance because it would grant the applicant increased size and density opportunities. The motion passed 5-2, Foley and Logan opposed. The thirteenth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. • Peer Resort/Community Trips Update. Staff asked Council to provide further direction on arranging a peer resort trip. • Update on Vail Recreation District (VRD) Repayment of 50% Cost share for 2001 Dobson Door Expansion. Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer reported on September of 2001, the town's Chief Building Official notified both the Vail Recreation District (VRD) and the Town of Vail (TOV) that the previous occupancy load for the Dobson at 3,000 had been calculated incorrectly. This mitigation was to cost approximately $100,000 and would provide occupancy up to 1,500. Both boards agreed to this improvement and to jointly fund the improvements, with the town paying the up-front costs and billing the VRD back, for its co-share. The total cost came to about $106,000. A balance of $53,068 was first billed to the VRD in February 2002 but no payments were made. Staff met with VRD's new director and finance consultant during the spring of '05 and an agreement was made to proceed with the payment of this balance in a ten year, no interest note (identical to the gymnastics arrangement). The '05 payment has been received. Through additional access improvements; Dobson capacity is now again at 3,000. The fourteenth item on the agenda was Adjournment. Moffet moved with Hitt seconding a motion to adjourn at approximately 10:45 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. 6 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 21, 2006 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Rod Slifer. Members present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Farrow Hitt, Mayor Pro-Tem Kent Logan .Greg Moffet Kim Ruotolo Mark Gordon Kevin Foley Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Ski Valet owner Tommy Neyens appeared before the Council to question why he was informed by a town code enforcement officer to remove a business sign he's been using to promote ski wax .specials. Zemler stated the matter would be researched. The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. A. Recommendation from RFP process/interviews for Community Visioning. B. Creation of an Economic Advisory Council is proposed to make recommendations to the Vail Town Manager and Vail Town Council regarding economic issues and short and long-term economic strategies. Council is requested to approve and/or modify the purpose of the Economic Advisory Council. Moffet moved with Hitt seconding a motion to approve Item B. It was decided Item A. would be voted on during the March 7 meeting. Kaye Ferry asked if applications for the Advisory Council would be accepted. Zemler answered yes. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The third item on the agenda was Artwork for Gore Creek Promenade Pedestrian Bridge. Moffet moved to table the item as well as the lease renewal for the Red Sandstone ElemeOtary School (Item 4) until March 7, 2006, with Ruotolo seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was the Lease renewal for the Red Sandstone Elementary School. The Vail Gymnastics Center was placed on what is currently part of the Red Sandstone leasehold estate. As such the leased premises must be divided into two separate leased premises. In addition, the initial 30 year term of the school's lease has recently expired. The fifth item on the ,agenda was the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-2-2, DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO CREATE A DEFINITION FORA "BOWLING ALLEY" AND SECTION 12-7E-4, CONDITIONAL USES, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION OF A "BOWLING ALLEY" AS A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER DISTRICT. On January 23, 2006, the Town of Vail PEC voted 7-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval for a proposed text amendment to the Commercial Service Center (CSC) District to add "bowling alley" as a conditional use and to add a definition fora "bowling alley" to the Vail Town Code. On February 7, 2006, Council approved the first reading of Ordinance 4, Series of 2006, by a vote of 7-0-0. Hitt moved to approve with Moffet seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The sixth item on the agenda was Second Reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (SDD) NO. 39, CROSSROADS, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE A, SDD, CHAPTER 9, TITLE 12, .ZONING TITLE, TOWN CODE OF VAIL. On January 23, 2006, the Town. of Vail PEC held a public hearing on a request to establish SDD No. 39, Crossroads. The purpose of the new SDD is to facilitate the redevelopment of Crossroads, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive. Upon review of the request, the PEC voted 5-2-0 (Viele and Lamb opposed) to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to establish SDD No. 39, Crossroads, to the Vail Town Council. On February 7, 2006, Council approved the first reading of Ordinance 5, Series of 2006, by a vote of 4-3-0 (Logan, Foley, Slifer opposed). Due to a publication error on the part of .the Vail Daily, the Community Development Department recommended Council table Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, on second reading until the March 7, 2006, hearing. Moffet moved with Hitt seconding a motion to table. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The seventh item on the agenda was Resolution No. 2, Series 2006, A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Vail Initiating Annexation Proceedings; Finding the Annexation Petition to Be in Substantial Compliance. Mire explained this is the first step for the pending Front Door exchange parcel annexation. This step is perfunctory, in that the requirement of substantial compliance is at a facia level only; i.e., the annexation petition on its face must include the recitations required by the statute, which it does. The hearing on April 4, 2006, should this Resolution pass, will be held to determine if the proposed annexation complies with the Colorado Revised Statutes and to establish eligibility for annexation. Foley asked that a photograph be presented so as to make the property in question easier to visualize. Moffet moved with Gordon seconding a motion to' approve. Representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, Jim Lamont asked for a detailed timeline of the annexation process to allow for public comment. Representing Vail Resorts, Munsy Ayers Esq. explained the Resolution facilitated the determination of whether the property was eligible to be annexed. The, motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Hitt expressed concern the former British Petroleum service station property recently acquired by Vail Resorts has become a construction staging area. Forrest reported he would follow up. The eighth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. • Lodging Occupancy Forecast. Assistant Town Manger .Pam Brandmeyer reported April bookings were beginning to improve. • Conference Center Proceeds Meetings. Zemler announced roundtable discussions (20 people per topic session) hosted by the Vail Town Council and Town Manager would be held in March to begin gathering ideas for use of the $7.7 million in conference center funds. The meeting schedule is as follows: Lodging Group, 3 to 5 p.m., March 8, Vail Golf Clubhouse; Neighborhood Group, 6 to 8 p.m., March 14, Vail Golf Clubhouse; General Public, 6 to 8 p.m., March 15, Vail Town Council Chambers; Community Partners, 3 to 5 p.m., March 22, Vail Golf Clubhouse; and Retail/Restaurant, 3 to 5 p.m., March 28, Vail Golf Clubhouse. The roundtable discussions will be augmented by public solicitation of ideas via news releases, Vail-Mail and the town's web site. The ninth item on the agenda was an Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. § 24-6- 402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of property interests and to determine positions, develop a strategy or instruct negotiators regarding the disposition of real property. Conference with Attorney and receive legal advice on specific legal questions. Re: Crossroads redevelopment project. Moffet moved to enter executive session with Hitt seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. No decisions were made. The tenth item 'on the agenda was Adjournment. Moffet moved with Logan seconding a motion to approve. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:55. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. INTERGOVERNMENTAL MUTUAL AID ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, for fire and emergency mutual aid resporse, ("the Agreement"), is made effective this day of , 2006, by and between the Copper Mountain Consolidated Metropolitan District, a Colorado special district (the "District"), and the Town of Vail, a Colorado municipal corporation (the "Town"), collectively referred to herein as the "Parties". WHEREAS, this Agreement is made for the purpose of securing the benefits of mutual aid for the protection of life and property from any fire related incident whose mutual aid would be beneficial; and WHEREAS; it is recognized by the Parties to this Agreement that the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of their respective jurisdictions would be best served by providing back-up fire response and protection services, should the need arise; and WHEREAS, the Parties hereto wish to have the ability of securing the assistance of the other in the event of an incident requiring such assistance; and WHEREAS, the Parties will, in good faith, make an attempt to assist the other based on their needs and specific requests pursuant to the terms herein; and WHEREAS, such Intergovernmental Mutual Aid Agreements are authorized and provided for by the provisions of C.R.S. 29-5-101, et seq., and C.R.S. 29=1-201, et seq., respectively. WITNESSETH NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, and promises contained herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows: I. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of clarity, the following definitions are hereby established for use in this Agreement. A. Assisting Fire Department: the Fire Department responding to a request for aid from a Party to this Agreement. B. An Incident: may include, but shall not be limited to: structure fires, wildland fires, vehicle fires, motor vehicle crashes, medical emergencies, hazardous materials incidents, or any other type of incident that may require emergency service personnel to prevent or minimize potential loss of life or damage to property or resources. C. Fire Department: the organization within a jurisdiction providing fire suppression, fire protection, and life safety services. 1 D. Contractual Response Area: for the Town will extend along the Interstate 70 . corridor from the Town of Vail jurisdictional boundary east to Milepost 195 at Wheeler Junction Exit of I-70; for the District will extend west along the Interstate . 70 corridor to Milepost 187 WB to the emergency vehicle turn-around. E. Jurisdiction: the legally established boundaries of the Parties. F. Party: shall be any governmental entity who .agrees to the conditions of this Agreement and becomes a signatory thereto. G. Requesting Fire Department: the Fire Department requesting aid under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Parties agree that in the event there are Incidents in the Response Area served by either Party which are beyond its. control, that the other Party to this Agreement, subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, shall aid and assist the Requesting Fire Department by causing and permitting the Assisting Fire Department's firefighters and equipment to be used in combating emergency situations within the Contractual Response Area. The need for such aid and assistance shall . be determined by the Requesting Fire Department, subject, however, to the following conditions: A. Either Party shall be excused from making its equipment or firefighters .available to the Requesting Fire Department in the event of the need for the firefighters or equipment within the requested Party's Response Area or. if they are otherwise committed as determined in the sole discretion of the requested Party. No Party shall be liable to another Party for failure to respond to Incidents due to limited manpower or equipment, prior response obligations, or failure to maintain equipment in proper working order. B. This Agreement shall not be construed to be an Agreement for the benefit of anyone not a Party hereto. Nor shall this Agreement be construed to require either Party to provide any type of mutual aid assistance outside of its own jurisdiction absent an express request for mutual aid from the-other Party hereto. C. It is the intent of this Agreement to make available between the Parties additional resources for response to Incidents of a complex or unusual nature, Incidents which infrequently occur in areas which may be initially attacked more efficiently by a Party other than the Party within whose Jurisdiction the Incident occurs, and Incidents occurring when a Requesting Fire Department is responding to multiple Incidents or otherwise temporarily limited in its available resources. No Party shall rely on the secondary resources to be made available under this Agreement to supply their primary level of service to meet ordinary types and frequencies of Incidents occurring within their Jurisdiction. 2 III. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION A. It is mutually agreed by and between the Parties that personal injury to firefighters shall be covered as set forth in C.R.S. 29-5-108 through 29-5-109, as amended. B. Any liability accruing under the provisions of Article 10, Title 24, C.R.S., on account of the negligent act of an Assisting Fire Department firefighter, shall be imposed upon the Requesting Fire Department and not the Assisting Fire Department. However, the Requesting Party shall be responsible for the negligent acts of the firefighters of an Assisting Fire Department only if performed at the scene of the emergency situation and performed at the specific direction of the Fire Chief of the Requesting Fire Department or the Incident Commander. In no event shall the Requesting Fire Department be liable for willful, wanton, or reckless acts of employees of the Assisting Fire Department. C. Each Party hereto shall. maintain adequate insurance on their Fire Department apparatus and equipment and be fully responsible for damage to their own equipment, except as provided in paragraph 3D. Each Party hereto will also maintain Liability Insurance with a limit of at least $1,000,000 each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage to cover General Liability, Auto Liability, and Public Officials Liability, including Errors and Omissions, however, such . coverages shall not be deemed to waive the defenses and limitations provided under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act found at Article 10, Title 24, C.R.S. The insurance company shall be properly licensed to do business in the State of Colorado. Each party shall cause its insurance company to provide a certificate of insurance to the other party, which shall provide that the policies of insurance required under this paragraph may not be canceled or altered without giving both parties at least thirty (30) days prior written notice. (1) Each piece of the fire apparatus of each Party hereto shall be rated according to its certified capacity or annual tested capacity if said capacity is less than its certified capacity. This information will be provided to each Party to this Agreement. D. In the event of damage to or loss of apparatus or equipment by reason of action at a mutual aid Incident, nothing herein shall be construed to require either party's insurance company to waive subrogation, or to prevent either parry from asserting a claim for compensation based upon the negligence or other wrongful conduct of the other party, provided, however, that neither party shall proceed to judicial resolution of such claim without first entering into mediation of the issue. Upon a written request for mediation by either parry, a mutually agreed-upon third person will be selected to serve as mediator. If the parties are unable to agree upon responsibility for replacement or repair costs within sixty days of the initial written request for mediation, either party may initiate litigation. In the event of litigation hereunder, the venue shall be exclusively in the district court of the county in which the alleged loss or damage occurred. 3 IV. INCIDENT COMMAND The firefighters of the Assisting Fire Department will work under their own officers, as the circumstances may allow, and the equipment, furnished will be operated by the firefighters of the Fire Department furnishing the equipment, unless specifically released by the appropriate officer. The overall command of the forces engaged in controlling a particular Incident shall be retained by the Incident Commander of the Requesting Fire Department. V. PLAN OF ACTION The amount and type of assistance to be dispatched, methods of dispatching and communications, methods of requesting aid, Response Areas and the names and ranks of persons authorized to send and receive such requests, together with lists of equipment and the minimum number of personnel which will be utilized pursuant to the agreement shall be developed by the Chiefs of the Fire Departments. Such details shall be recorded in a Plan, which shall be reviewed and approved by the governing body of each Party. The Plan shall be updated on an annual basis and signed by the Chiefs of the Fire Departments. Copies of the current Plan shall be retained by each of the Fire Departments and' each Fire Department shall ensure all of its officers, firefighters and governing bodies are knowledgeable of its conditions. Copies shall also be furnished to appropriate County agencies. VI. LIMITATIONS No Party to this Agreement shall be required to make resources, equipment or personnel, or other form of assistance available or render any service to the Requesting Party when, by doing so, would impair the Party's ability to provide effective emergency services within its own jurisdiction. The Party requested to provide aid shall determine, in its sole discretion, what resources, services or personnel, if any, can be reasonably provided. VII. MISCELLANEOUS When any Fire Department responds to an Incident reported to be in its Response Area and finds, subsequently, that the Incident is within the Response Area or Jurisdiction of another Fire Department, it shall take- appropriate action and, by any available expedient means, immediately notify the Fire Department in whose Jurisdiction the Incident occurs. Until relieved by the appropriate officer from the Fire Department in the Jurisdiction in which the Incident occurs, the responding Fire Department shall, for the purposes of this Agreement only, be deemed to be an Assisting Fire Department. VIII. CHARGES FOR SERVICES All services and assistance provided by one Party to another under this Agreement shall be provided at no cost for use of equipment of personnel unless there are 4 avenues for reimbursement from any third-party source. This Agreement shall not be construed so as to impair any party's ability to obtain compensation or reimbursement pursuant to any other agreement with anon-party or any County, State, or Federal assistance program or agreements or as provided under Section 30-10-513, C.R.S. X. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This is the entire agreement of the parties, and any amendments to this Agreement shall be reduced to writing and approved by the Parties before becoming effective. TERM AND TERMINATION The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on the execution. of this Agreement by the parties hereto and shall end on December 31, 2006. This Agreement shall automatically be renewed for successive one (1) year terms, beginning January 1, 2007. Either Parry may terminate its participation in this Agreement without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice directed to the governing body of each Party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado Municipal corporation By: Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor COPPER MOUNTAIN CONSOLIDATED METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, a Colorado special district By: ATTEST: Thomas J. Malmgren, Chairman ATTEST: By: By: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 5 Norma L. Sundin, District Clerk-Treasurer MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Suzanne Silverthorn, Community Information Officer Members of the Construction Mitigation Group SUBJECT: Construction Mitigation Funding DATE: 3-7-06 BACKGROUND During the 2006 budget process, the Town Council set aside $50,000 in the Town Manager's budget for the purpose of increasing the viability of Vail's business community during the 2006 construction season. An application process occurred in January with proposals from qualified applicants due February 15. As part of the submission process, applicants were asked to explain how their proposal addresses evaluation criteria developed by the town-appointed Construction Mitigation Group (see attachment for list of members): Evaluation Criteria • Creates excitement and energy • Creates potential for positive economic impact to the retail, restaurant and lodging sectors of the community • Generates sustained visitation and interest by guests and locals • Enhances the guest experience • Incorporates matching funds, sponsorships partnerships • Complements other mitigation efforts implemented by Vail Commission on Special Events, Vail Local Marketing District, Vail Chamber & Business Association, Vail Valley Chamber & Tourism Bureau, Town of Vail, Vail Resorts Development Company, etc. • Includes a communications component to build local and guest awareness • Meets town permit process and construction staging requirements Four proposals were submitted: • BUSKER VILLAGE, 12 to 5 pm, 3 days per week, June 17-Sept. 3 $22,624 funding request submitted by Diane Moudy, Resort Events Inc. Coupled with another $30,000 allocated by the Commission on Special Events, the $52,624 would be used to present 3 to 5 cirque-type entertainers, 5 hours per day, 3 days per week, and 1 management person working to ensure perfection; all performances would be free to the public. Proposal includes $6,350 for signage. CLIMBING WALL in LionsHead, 10 am to 6 pm June 17-Sept. 3 $27,375.87 funding request for free activity submitted by Charlie Alexander, LMG Inc. • PARENTS HANDBOOK/KZYR RADIO ADVERTISING, May 15-Nov. 15; $12,250 cross-promotional campaign submitted by Alan Sandberg, publisher of The Parents Handbook and Tony Mauro, general manager of KZYR radio. • MEADOW DRIVE WEEKEND OF WORDS, June 23-25; $15,000 funding request submitted by Meadow Drive Business Association. EVALUATION PROCESS . The Construction Mitigation Group met on February 16 and again on March 2 to review the applications and prepare a recommendation to be forwarded to the Town Council. During the February 16 review, the group expressed initial support for the Busker Village concept, the climbing wall proposal and a potential radio advertising campaign. The Parents Handbook proposal was eliminated and modifications were requested of the Meadow Drive Weekend of Words event to more fully satisfy the evaluation criteria. (See meeting notes from February 16). The four applicants were asked to return on March 2 with additional detail and/or program modifications. Additionally, the Vail Commission on Special Events reviewed the Busker Village proposal at its February 21 meeting. RECOMMENDATION The Construction Mitigation Group recommends Town Council consideration of the following funding requests: • $16,000 to Resort Events Inc. for Busker Village activities in LionsHead (and elsewhere where feasible) to be augmented by $30,000 awarded by the Commission on Special Events for LionsHead-specific busker events. • Up to $12,000 for local radio advertising (KZYR, KTUN, KSKE and JACK) with specifics to be determined by the Construction Mitigation Group radio subcommittee. • $27,000 income guarantee to LMG Inc. for free climbing wall activities in LionsHead with a minimum of $5,000 returned to the town via merchant participation. Additionally, the Construction Mitigation Group requests Council's support in recommending consideration by the Commission on Special Events for additional funding of the Busker Village activity to disperse the event more fully throughout Vail. Attachments Meeting Notes Funding Proposals Construction Mitigation Group List 2 d CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION WORKING GROUP March 2, 2006 Meeting Notes Those attending: Bob Boselli, Nicole Hoffman, Ewing, Meredith Giersch, Rayla Kundolf, Rob Levine, Steve Rosenthal, Richard tenBraak, Joe Walker, Paul Witt, Stan Zemler Staff & Guests: Charlie Alexander, Sarah Akeroyd, John Buckley, George Chalberg, Ben Hohman, Kaye Ferry, Kelli McDonald, Diane Moudy, Alan Sandberg, Leonard Sandoval, Suzanne Silverthorn, Mike Vaughan, Jamie Wilson Review of Modified Construction Mitigation Proposals RADIO • KZYR, June 1 to Sept. 15 300 commercials (30 sec.) 15 interviews and 3 remotes = $7,650 • NRC Broadcasting (KTUN, KSKE, JACK), June 12-Sept. 30 500 commercials, interviews and DJ reads = $7,100 Considerations • Weekend advertising is a must. • When is target guest market most likely to be listening? • Consider stair-step approach; don't play ads at the same time on multiple . stations. • What is most efficient way for repetition to drive success? • Do we give up on May? Group Consensus • Radio subgroup (Kelli McDonald, John Buckley, Sally Rosenthal) to continue with .negotiations based on $12,000 budget (if approved by Council) and report back to the full group with schedule and messaging at the next meeting. CLIMBING WALL • 10 a.m. to 6 p:m. June 17-Sept. 3 in LiorisHead Detailed budget for free activity: $15,000 labor for 1,000 hours $ 3,000 insurance (includes listing TOV as additionally insured) $ 1,000 marketing $ 8,400 marketing fee $27,400 total costs for summer 2006 complimentary to the public Considerations • Per operator; mixing free tokens, plus $2 charge becomes too complicated and adds $7,000 to the operating cost. • Location may be a challenge; requires 40 feet in length. Sundial Plaza location is too small. Efforts are underway to explore the west side of LionsHead (near the bus stop) as well as Lazier Arcade. • Activity could accommodate as many as 200 kids a day during peak. • Merchants should be asked to participate in some way. • Could Vail Chamber facilitate token sales? Group Consensus • Keep working with the Town of Vail and Vail Resorts to identify a space that works within LionsHead. • Recommend Town Council guarantee $27,000 to LMG Inc. for free climbing wall activities in LionsHead with a minimum of $5,000 returned to the town via merchant participation. BUSKER VILLAGE • 12 to 5 p.m., 3 days per week, June 17-Sept. 3 Detailed budget: $ 6,350 Busker Village signage $35,749.20 Performers $10,524.80 Management fees $52,624 Total needed for 10 wk program CSE funds $30,000 (for use in LionsHead only) TOV funding request $22,624 Considerations • Are budgeted signs essential to the program's success? • Could Buskers perform in other areas of town? • Would Commission on Special Events entertain additional funding to disperse the event more fully throughout Vail? • How will activity be marketed? Group Consensus • Removal of $6,350 for signs from budget request • Recommend Town Council funding of $16,000 for Busker Village activities in LionsHead (and elsewhere where feasible) to be augmented by $30,000 awarded by the Commission on Special Events for LionsHead-specific busker events. MEADOW DRIVE WEEKEND OF WORDS • June 23-25 Application has been withdrawn. Discussion of Measurements • Keep track of climbing wall participants daily/weekly/monthly. • Survey merchants regarding direct impact of radio campaign, climbing wall and buskers. New Business • Vail Economic Council; letter of interest/qualifications due by noon, March 21, • Discussions on Conference Center fund reallocation ideas are taking place in March.. Next Meeting 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. Thursday, March 23. 2 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION WORKING GROUP February 16, 2006 Meeting Notes Those attending: Bob Boselli, Nicole Hoffman-Ewing, Meredith Giersch, Rayla Kundolf, Rob Levine, Steve Rosenthal, Pam Stenmark, Richard tenBraak, Joe Walker, Paul Witt, Stan Zemler Staff & Guests: Charlie Alexander, Cathy Alexander, Sarah Akeroyd, John Buckley, Kelli McDonald, Sybill Navas, Brian Powell, Alan Sandberg, Suzanne Silverthorn, Jamie Wilson Announcements • John Buckley from Peeples Ink (the contractor for the Vail Local Marketing District public relations campaign) announced the Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council will recommend $20,000 in additional 2006 funds to support a PR campaign to generate favorable story placement by the Front Range media. The additional funds would come from the Vail Local Marketing District and would support a targeted Front Range PR campaign similar to what occurred in 2005. • It was announced that Blue Creek Productions had withdrawn its funding application for the construction mitigation funding. • If a vote is required during review of the funding applications, no one associated with a proposal is eligible to vote (Rayla Kundolf). Review of Funding Applications o MEADOW DRIVE WEEKEND OF WORDS, June 23-25 . . $15,000 funding request Event would be staged throughout Vail Village Inn Plaza and would host several activities with bestselling and well known poets, authors, photographers and artists. Also; includes food and wine booths and musicians. During the event, there would be an opportunity for children and parents to meet and purchase books of their favorite author from the local school and library summer reading lists. The event would replace the Festival of Words that has been held at Beaver Creek in the past. Evaluation Sugaestions o Reconsider structure of event. For example, Friday evening isn't likely to generate additional business as most stores will be closed. No need to include Sunday on event schedule, as Farmers' Market takes care of Sunday's need. To better meet criteria of "sustained visitation and interest," consider 3 to 4 consecutive Saturdays for the event as an alternative approach. o Review staging requirements. Special Events Coordinator isn't sure there's room to stage outdoor event in that location. Will construction noise be a factor? o Develop a rain plan. Event needs arain/weather plan. o Develop a marketing plan. Targeted marketing plan should be developed and presented as part of the proposal to show the likelihood of the event's success. o Compare. cost per day versus other applications.for responsible return on investment. • PARENTS HANDBOOK & KZYR MARKETING CAMPAIGN May 15-Nov 15 $12,250 funding request Proposal includes cross promotion of Vail activities and events in summer issue of Parents Handbook (40,000 distribution) and related advertising on KZYR 97.7 FM radio to include. update segments, interviews and live remote broadcasts. Evaluation Sugqestions o. Consider restructuring .proposal to focus on KZYR advertising campaign. o No interest expressed in Parents Handbook involvement. • FREE CLIMBING WALL at Sundial Plaza in LionsHead Mall 10 am to 6 pm June 17-Sept. 3 $27,375.87 funding request Evaluation Sugqestions o Consider reducing Town of Vail subsidy request by charging a $2 fee (regular price $10); sell $2 tokens to businesses so free climbing can be offered to customers. o Invite the entire business community to participate; don't limit token sales to LionsHead businesses: o Provide detailed budget of expenses. o Consult with Fire Department to make sure proposed location meets access regulations. o Determine if there is any additional liability on public property. o Determine how transactions would take place: BUSKER VILLAGE 12 to 5 gm 3 days per week June 17-Sept 3 $22,624 funding reauest Coupled with another $30,000 allocated by the Commission on Special Events, the $52,624 would be used to present 3 to 5 cirque-type entertainers, 5 hours per day, 3 days per week, and 1 management person working to ensure perfection; all performances would be free to the public. Also includes $3,700 for signage. Evaluation Sug estions , o Unclear regarding $30,000 Special Events Commission funding dedicated to LionsHead entertainment (see above for clarification). o Consult with Special Events Commission re: "What is the appropriate level of entertainment?" o Consider Busker performances in other parts of town above and beyond the $30,000 LionsHead allocation. Evaluation Summary • Climbing wall has merit and meets evaluation criteria, especially if it incorporates partnership from business community. Town subsidy could be reduced. Revisit amount that would need to be guaranteed from the Town of Vail and make sure there is adequate space in LionsHead to accommodate the amenity. 2 • Radio advertising on KZYR 97.7 The Zephyr meets evaluation criteria and has potential to promote special events, etc. Kelli McDonald and Sally Rosenthal will work with Alan Sandberg to explore a $10,000 package that would include radio remotes, 30 sec. spots, etc. • Busker Village has merit and meets evaluation criteria. Consult with Commission on Special Events to get clear on cost and adequate programming levels. • Meadow Drive Weekend of Words does not currently meet evaluation criteria, particularly as it relates to "generates sustained visitation and interest." There is likely to be funding available to help fund a project for Meadow Drive so long as it meets the evaluation criteria. An amended application would be reconsidered by the Construction Mitigation Group at its next meeting. • Parents Handbook proposal does not meet evaluation criteria. Next Meeting 8:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. Thursday, March 2 Community Development Conference Room 3 ff 0 ACTIVITY TOWN OF VAIt 2006 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION FUiVDING APPLICATION FORM PROPOSED DATE(S) ~ J~ u ~ ~.i~i r~ ~~:0. TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTED- - PRODUCING ENTITY Contact Name ~'1 Address ~b ~ ~~" Ord ~3y~.~up I ~7 ~1 dEt,ti~ t 5(~~r'~ 4- .1...~'I Cs I nom. ~~~~ DESCRIBE WHERE ACTIVITY WILL BE LOCATED,-~I~-~~ ~' 1( ~~~f ~ ~v DESCRIBE IN-KIND SERVICES REQUIRED FRCN1 TOWN OF VAIL `~ Please print or type ail information Use addi#ionai pages #o supplerr:ent responses if Headed BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EVENT n DESCRIBE HOW FRra~GRA~ ifi/1LL ~iiEE T AiVD EXCEED EVALUA T IOiV CRITERIA ~~~ ~ ~~ 2-~ ~z ~~ ~~ REQUIRED ATTACFlME1VTS • Detailed Event Budget ® Producing Entity Experience & Qualificatrons Busker Village Basic designed busker villa a si Wage ~ $ 6,350.00 Quali professional Performers- National and Regional- $1191 per day $ 35,749.20 Mana ement fees includes 3 da per week mgr, scheduling, booking fees, insurance,auditions etc... $ 10,524.80 Total needed for 10 wk program- excluding July 4th weekend $52,624.00 CSE Funds $30,000 Lionshead Mitigation Funds $22,624 Buskers-Details 3 days per week-12-5pm quality cirque type entertainers, 5hrs day one management person working to ensure perfection all performances will be free to the public BUSKER VILLAGE INTRODUCTION The Busker Village, is an extraordinary public event that celebrates the invaluable human experiences of wonder, surprise and humor! Most special events are a series of performances/exhibits strung together with a theme, a title and variety of peripheral activities. The Busker Village is most definitely not a passive event! The event will be familiar to the general audience in content, i.e. comedy, variety & circus arts, theatre, fireworks, parades, etc. However, this is an event that is thoroughly singular in form and context because it is designed to be experiential, an event that engages it audience in a dynamic theatrical adventure. In order to describe the Busker Village you could compare it to many similar artforms. It is similar to a street performance (buskering) as you might see in Boulder, San Francisco, New York, or~ Denver. It is like a comedy festival, but with a slight alternative twist & much broader boundaries. tt may remind you of circus or variety arts but think of it as a multi-ring Le Cirque du Soleil experience that will last for an entire weekend! And finally, while we all have seen spectacles, parades, ceremonies, it would be best to think of this event as the Europeans call it: "les animation" i.e. spontaneous activities that create shear astonishment. Most importantly the Busker Village is a rare opportunity to celebrate humor, spontaneity, and the chance to see the world with a great deal more joy. OVERVIEW Because of Vail's special profile as a world class resort destination, we feel it is important to create a experience that distinguishes itself from other mountain events. Clearly, .the Busker Village, which celebrates "foolery" through unadulterated comic, physical. and zany performance spanning from the sublime to the ridiculous, is an experience without parallel. Unlike more generic experiences, the stars are the performers and the experiential environment they help to create. This is by no means a static event, but rather a potent atmosphere choreographed to bring a highly charged visual and aural experience to its audience. The performances will be designed to intrigue and involve the public, encouraging movement and exploration as they sample and taste an array of talent and activities. Given the .layout and physical space of LionsHead, the Festival plan will focus on creating non-stop attractions and spectacles in set locations, as well as creating movement throughout the Villages. Audiences will be surprised to encounter performers just about anywhere, including restaurants, shops, hotels, on the gondolas, shuttle buses and perhaps even scaling the sides of buildings. Resort Entertainment/ Resort Events will develop the overall concept and plan, producing and managing all facets of the performances. The key to this event, is its ability to adapt to the available space. PROGRAM The atmosphere of Lionshead will take on a new energy. The streets will become a place in which to marvel at and interact with the talent of theatrical street performers from around the world. a) Outdoor Productions World re-known jugglers, magicians, fire-eaters and sword- swallowers will work along side some of the most intriguing environmental performance artists on earth. Highwire walkers, giant performing "slinkys", pyrotechnicians, stilt troupes, trapeze aerialists and amorphous characters are just a few of the spectacles visitors may witness in just a few hours. These performances have the ability to move and inspire, but most importantly they leave lasting impressions. (NOTE: Performances will be schedules at multiple staging areas, throughout the day and into the evening. Times to be set in consultation with the Lionshead Merchants Association 2) WORKSHOPS: This unique "antic arts those wishing to learn skills as: juggling, balancing, character wire-walking, and SITE DESIGN & __ } ~lK ~ ~~ - ~: academy" will be created for such unique performance ~_ ~' ~.~ ; magic, teeter-board ~~ study, yo-yoing, fire eating, ~. ~ " ~ assorted other stupid tricks. DECOR To enhance this } t 4 7 visually stimulating ~ ; ... Event we will employ unique decor elements _: ;4"'~~ that make a bold statement and enhance Lionsheads intrinsic _ design. These elements will serve to compliment the atmosphere of the Event, act as informational signage to help draw the public through the construction zones and various areas of Lionshead Our designers in consultation with the Lionshead Merchants Association will create an identity and an environment for the Event, melding the overall theme, color and style to work within Lionsheads present atmosphere. Site design elements such as a banner program, totems and set pieces would be created to work with our promotional/advertising campaign and collateral pieces, e.g. invitations, posters, The Vail guide, etc. s°~ A MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL PROPOSAL PRESENTED BY KZYR- THE ZEPHYR TO THE TOWN OF VAIL CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION WORKING GROUP After meeting last week with a subcommittee regarding KZYR's participation in the Town Of Vails Construction Mitigation effort this summer, we have the following suggestions for your review. Communication with guests and locals is the key to overcoming the challenges related to Vail's Billion Dollar Renewal. By working with the Town of Vail staff and their representatives, we can create energy and excitement about visiting the Vail this summer. KZYR-The Zephyr radio can create the potential for positive economic impact for the entire Vail business community. We can enhance the guest experience by providing timely information and we will complement other construction. mitigation efforts. The evaluation criteria outlined by the Construction Mitigation working group can be accomplished through the radio programming listed below. Thank you for considering the following proposal: Dates • June 1St to September 15th Commercial Schedule • June l St -June 14th • June 15 -August 14th • August 16th -September 15th Total Commercial Schedule Interview Schedule • June 1St -September 15cn Total Interview Value Live Remote Broadcast Proposal • June 1St -September 15tH (40) :30 commercials (200) :30 commercials (60) :30 commercials (300) :30 commercials @ 17.00 per = $5,100 (1) Live interview per week (Time TBD) (15) interviews @ 50.00 per = $750 (3) 3-Hour Remote Broadcasts (Date/Time TBD by Committee) Total Live Remote Broadcast Proposal (3) Remotes @ 600.00 per = $1,800 TOTAL PROPOSED COST: $7650.00 KZYR-The Zephyr radio, is very excited to be part of this unique time in the Town of Vail's history. Feel free to contact us at any time, and thank you for your consideration. } ~~ KTUN, The Eagle,1O1.7 & 95.3 JACK fm, playing what we want, 92.3 & 92.7 KSKE, Ski Country, 104.7 2/28/06 Town of Vai12006 Construction Mitigation Funding Application Form Activity Name: NRC Broadcasting 2006 Town of Vail Summer Construction Radio Campaign Proposed dates: 6/12/06-9/30/06 Total Funding Requested: $7,100 Producing Entity: NRC Broadcasting Inc. PO Box 7205 Avon CO 81620 Ben Hohman ph# 390-1139, fax 476-0236, email benjin~vail.net Brief Description of Event: Summer Radio campaign to generate. awareness and get the message out about Town of Vail Construction, activities and events. Describe where activity will be located: On the Radio stations . Describe in kind services required from TOV: None Describe how program will meet and exceed evaluation criteria: ^ Generate positive p/r ^ Generate awareness ^ Create branding and consistent message for the summer...3 1/2 months ^ Send motivating message to visitors, merchants, employees, suppliers, residents ^ Manage key messages immediately and with frequency ^ Multi level marketing campaign, interviews, commercial spots, live dj updates, weekly community calendar information ^ Ability to change your message immediately ^ Reach 2x as many people 3x as often as the newspaper ^ Get your message to people who need to hear it...frequently o Our 3 stations have 71 % of the local radio market plus we reach I-70 corridor including 26% of Aspen, 30% of Glenwood and 34% of Summit County ^ Radio is immediate and intrusive...the most powerful medium to reach summer people on the go ^ Added value of radio schedule and bonus schedule...plus TOV govt rate Ben Hohman NRC Broadcasting, Inc. Phone: (970) 390-1139 Fax: (970) 476-0236_ benji~~vail.net ~ .r ....g KTUN, .The Eag1e,101.7 ~ 95.3 JACK fm, playing what we want, 92.3 ~ 92.7 KSKE, Ski Country, 104.7 2/28/06 Town of.Vail 2006 Construction Mitigation Funding Application Form Page 2. Attachments: Detailed Budget: Station June July Aug. Sept. KTUN 300 600 600 600 KSKE 400 700 700 700 JACK 400 700 700 700 Total 1,100 2,000 2,000 2,000 $7,100 Schedule TBD Suggested: M-F am drive and pm drive, 2x daily, :20 branding TOV-and :10 weekly tag for current info Total of 400 :30 commercials using TOV Gov't rate of $18 Min. of 100 bonus ads schedule as inventory is available including weekends Live dj liners update immediately Weekly community calendar updates Interview scheduled as needed with merchants, event organizers... Producing Entity Experience & Qualifications: NRC Broadcasting owns and operates 13 radio stations in Western Colorado and 4 stations in Denver. NRC Broadcasting is the only locally owned and operated radio group in Denver. NRC Broadcasting has owned the local stations since 2003. Holli Snyder, General Manager of the Vail group and Ben Hohman, account executive. have both worked in the radio market and for the local stations since 1994. Ben Hohman NRC Broadcasting, Inc. Phone: (970) 390-1139 Faz: (970) 476-0236 benjiLvail.net 1 i ~owxo~v~~ TOWN OF VAIL 2006 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION FUNDING APPLICATION FORM Please print or type all information. Use additional pages to supplement responses if needed ACTIVITY NAME: "Meadow Drive Weekend of Words" PROPOSED DATE(S): Friday, June 23nd 6 to 9 pm, Saturday, June 24'~ 12 to 4 pm and Sunday, June 25"' 12 to 4 pm TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTED: $15,000 PRODUCING ENTITY: Meadow Drive Business Association Contact Name: Lourdes Ferzacca or Rayla J Kundolf Address: PO Box 1978, Vail, Colorado 81658 Phone: Lourdes 476-4403 or Rayla 477-0600 Fax # Lourdes 476-6930 or Rayla 477-0601 E-Mail: lourdesferzacca(c~yahoo.com or mastersgallervvail(c~yahoo com BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EVENT : "Meadow Drive Weekend of Words" will be a three day event that incorporates a book fair with art, music, poetry and books for all ages DESCRIBE WHERE ACTIVITY WILL BE LOCATED: The activities will be located throughout the Vail Village Inn Plaza (100 East Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado) Permission granted by Sally Hanlon (WI Association President) There will be a section in the Plaza that will be enclosed by a white picket fence, decorated with shrubbery and flowers to create a summer garden where people can come and sit, enjoy the food, taste the wine, read and bask in the ambience. DESCRIBE IN-KIND SERVICES.REQUIRED FROM TOWN OF VAIL: One Security person at $25.00 an hour. Trash Pick for all three days of the event. DESCRIBE HOW PROGRAM WILL MEET AND EXCEED EVALUATION CRITERIA The "Meadow Drive Weekend of Words" will take the place of the Festival of Words that was held in the Vail Valley for 5 years in Beaver Creek. Using a similar format The "Meadow Drive Weekend of Words" will create excitement and energy by hosting several events with bestselling and well known Poets, Authors, Photographers, and Artists. Most of these authors will be from the Colorado area. We will be inviting Bestselling authors Diana Mott. Davidson, Clive Clussler, John Dunning, T.A. Barron, Sandy Fergusson Fuller, John Fielder 8 John Ward to name a few. Also several publishers have expressed interest in this event. T The attraction of these authors and events will have a positive economic impact to the area retail,.restaurantavd lodging sectors of the community, (especially the Meadow Drive area that has been strongly hit by several years of construction). It is the intent of the Meadow Drive Business Association to sustain visitation and interest by guest and locals by continuing this event for years to come. During the event there will be an opportunity for children and parents to meet and purchase books of their favorite author from the local school 8~ library summer reading lists. Meadow Drive Business Association would like to incorporate this event along with other Town of Vail events. Meadow Drive is currently working on matching funds, sponsorships, and partnerships and in-kind donations with several local businesses, organizations and developers on Meadow Drive. These include lodging from local hotels, fencing, shrubbery and flowers. Meadow Drive Business Association will be providing tents, chairs and tables. Food will be provided by Meadow Drive Restaurants, and Wine from Colorado Vineyards. There will be an opportunity for publishers to help with advertising though their co-op advertising programs. The Meadow Drive Weekend of Words" will complement other mitigation efforts implemented by Vail Commission on Special Events, Vail Local Marketing District, VCBA, WCTB, TOV, 8~ Vail Resorts. With a strong marketing and event planning backgrounds of Deb Luginbuhl (winner of 6 Emmy Awards) and Robert Aikens (owner of Verbatim Booksellers & former board member of The Southern California Booksellers Association and The Mountain & Plains Booksellers Association, the event will meet all town permit process and construction staging requirements. ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED OF THE APPLICANT • Detailed Event Budget. Exp_ Co-coordinator: $1,000.00 Entertainment (musicians): $1,500.00 Advertising: T.V., Radio, Print $3,000.00 Misc.: $1,200.00 Sponsorship $2,500.00 Insurance $ 300.00 Author Stipend $5,000.00 M.C. $ 500.00 Total $15,000.00 **** based on in-kind sponsorship In Kind Services Town of Vail (Security & Trash) $ 2,000.00 Meadow Drive Business Assoc. $ 3,000.00 Sponsorships Unknown at this time Publishers/Authors Co-op advertising • Producing Entity Experience ~ Qualifications Vail Farmers' Market Spirit on Meadow Drive (Christmas) Monday Night at the Movies ./ 0 eems~,~, _ ~~ iI4C i ~\ D~~K~ ,~ February 15, 2006 TRUE.LOCAL_R,4D10. 'fFSE Z€P1iYR VAIt Construction Mitigation Funding Request Presented to the Vail Town Council by The Parents Handbook to the Vail Valley and KZYR-The Zephyr radio The Parents Handbook to the Vail Valley, in conjunction with KZYR-The Zephyr Radio, is proposing an aggressive marketing campaign to assist the Town of Vail in successfully increasing the viability of Vail's business community by enhancing the guest experience during the 2006 construction season. This mazketing proposal covers the time period from May 15, 2006 - November 15, 2006. Communication with visitors, whether they are year-round residents, part-time second home owners, or destination visitors, is paramount to mitigating construction related challenges for the business community of Vail. The Pazents Handbook to the Vail Valley and KZYR Radio will work together to coordinate the creative enunciation of the. message that the Vail's Billion Dollar Renewal is cause for celebration. By combining the resources of print media and radio, we can offer a cohesive presentation to help positively influence community and visitor perception of Vail. This goal will be accomplished through two complimentary marketing philosophies: 1) a "top of mind" awareness campaign to encourage individuals and families to visit the Town of Vail whenever possible, and 2) a dynamic action campaign to invite visitors to the Town of Vail to experience unique and fun special events. Our coordination of the proposed marketing efforts will be designed to support and compliment the other mitigation efforts. To ensure this, we will seek guidance and input from the Vail Town Council, the Construction Mitigation Working Group, Town of Vail Staff, the Vail Local Marketing District, the Vail Chamber and Business Association, Vail Resorts Development Company, the Vail Valley Chamber and Tourism Bureau, and the Vail Commission on Special Events. We will provide timely progress reports to the above-mentioned organizations and make these updates available to all interested parties. In short, it is our opinion that special events, streetscapes, street hosts, and colorful banners by themselves will not translate into positive economic impact and increased visitation. We believe that people need to constantly and consistently be given a reason to come. Focused marketing is a vital component of our community's construction mitigation and if executed correctly, will secure a tremendous return on investment for the Town of Vail. e .!~ ~~~ ~r ~. ~ HANDBO®K~ S What will this marketing anuroach create for the Town of Vail? 1. Excitement and energy within the town of Vail 2. Enhanced community and visitor perception 3. The potential for positive economic impact on the retail, restaurant; and lodging community 4. Sustained visitation by guests and locals . 5. Tazgeted mazketing messaging to compliment the other Construction Mitigation efforts 6. Increased awareness from guest and locals 7. Secured Return On Investment (ROI) to the Town of Vail and the Vail Business Community What is the estimated cost for this marketing anoroach? The cost for this in-depth, six-month marketing proposal is $12,250.00: $ 2,042.00 per month. In conclusion... The Parents Handbook and KZYR radio aze very excited to be a part of this lucrative era in the Town of Vail's history. We believe that powerful communication with guests and locals is the key to overcoming the challenges related to Vail's Billion Dollar Renewal. We applaud the Town. of Vail for its pro-active approach to construction mitigation. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Respectfully, Alan M. Sandberg Publisher The Parents Handbook to the Vail Valley The Parents Handbook to Summit County Valuemedia c !vail.net (970) 390-3533 Director of Sales Cool Radio LLC KZYR-The Zephyr radio Tony Mauro = General Manager Cool Radio LLC KZYR-The Zephyr radio tony~~kzyr.com (970) 926-7625 . • 11 Come Celebrate the Renewal of Vail! I layout is for Illustration only, final concepts and content will be at the discretion of the Town of Vail. i Come celebrate with us! Part of Vail Resorts' "Nail's New Dawn" initiative and the centerpiece of redevelopment in LionsHead, The Arrabelle at Vail Square will replace the Sunbird Lodge and the old Gondola Building. [t will include a 36-room Rock Resort luxury hotel, 67 condominiums, restaurant and retail space, as well as a public plaza that will serve as a community gathering place in the summer and an outdoor ice rink in the winter. Open daily, throughout the Summer season, is a construction themed outdoor children's museum featuring giant tinker toys, interactive mechanical exhibits, Lego building zones, and educational displays all presented in fun, bright childlike colors. It's an outdoor children's construction museum that will attract and hold a child's attention and sense of wonder. Kids and adults alike will have an opportunity to explore and learn how things are built through engaging exhibits and _ Mb•f, '~ ~ ,hfnlLh a ~ . , Rminr. trpnf •Y ~~~ ~' . . . ~ - Vail Vlilage , `~^'`* ~ ~' 5 . 1 , 1 y I `'_ p4 -+M1YF ~' ::1 `` yµ 1 ~"~,~ .gin TT ~ ~y. " ~ (~ '""~ Liorfs~head , ~~ f'4 ` ALT ~lll~ A _) h X^13 Ali .., {'Y V ....Ae+.. ~ F ~ iF _ . ~ ~',t~~5"' ire"" nk C}` f*3.4v 'cSf.+7.~nN ydu... M7 f,~_} T.,E .`1.. S r." ~'-c a rr~ .ey' (~'~ rTayi" ~,"" °'~t. •.o..rw.:m~.~y++v` .• , x~ , w h ~'L^?~ti ,~,ysg ,?w' t'~1'^a-.~,..~r~~+ ",`'~'r'+^sr ^wiC6~k'"4a s4?„'5,:~ vC 7~! i 1 F ~ .; -'V ~uY4rryi .t..f. wry4 . .. ,a., rm'.+.tro ~"~'_.... 1 1. Vall's Front Door Protect 6. Crossroads 10. Lionshead Streetscape 2. Vail Village 5treetscape 7. Vail'Plaza Hotel & Club 11. Arabelle at Vail Square 3. Vail Parking Structure B. Four Seasons 12. Gore Creek Place 4. One Willow Bridge Road 9. Lionshead Parking 13. North Day Lot 5. Sonnenalp Structure 4 \ summer 2006 \ yvwW.theparentshandbook.com _ 1 ~ ~ i ~~1 ~' .J . tti t F ~ , ~ 7,.5^ r" ~ i P ~ ~ F r t:•i"L. ~.: ~ '!~i a~ 1~ ~ 'f'*.:{Ta'K".+'.J.~~~'~1~bi z'`~ yy! r i`Y, ~_~x} z ~ ~., i ~' 7~ ~ ~ . • ~/~\ ^ F 1wI 1~ ~ A J~ ( YI y 1 ~,I, q Knu~ ~'~i t3 h. ~' n'Si '< a-tlr ~p~"'h 4~r~j i y}"1 fir W:w.~a Rv~d .9 :~ .p .t ~`K ( ~ ~, ..? TEL ~ d a i .. { x.. :f 'fly , ~tA. ~:; • ~ sk.1 s, r .d~~` l.t~ i.f~~ Y -~) .: 1 Arabelle at Vail Square is scheduled to open Fall 2007 displays. The museum is hosted by our friendly guides who welcome our small guests and invite them into our world by explaining how exhibits work and encouraging them to explore the attraction. Exhibits include explanations and demonstrations of wind, water and solar power; the history of homes, a framed house where the kids can complete the plumbing; demonstrations of fulcrums and pulleys and more. There are even work areas where kids and their 'yM ~. ~ :~ z ~t ~+~ ~ 2 i . M 9~ 1?~ yyr~_~~~+ 'd~ ~~~ f fly ' ryt. S t ~5 i& : ~ s o ti ,~rJlyr,~li`~/'-;~~;6„z?i {~r(i~k"•i~ +fU% ~nx'°'ass. Y ~. } b t'• ~~.~~'^•~a.nIRI°~ v.r..n ~•Y ~h`~ 9` New Vail Front Door Development ~ ,<~ ~.. v x .~ ru-'' ~~: ~. 4 ,. a ~ ,,~~i1~;~1 _ ''mss - - ~~_ ~, &3 ?~~i,~~,d~~!l~it~.e~`"! ,°pP 1 Y~~~"~-~l',~~RI~`:.!n.`1A' p4 ' A 7 i ~C I z 1 .t u~ e` r~ "'''tC' ,. '.5 Sj A r ~ ~ ~,~' ~ www.theparentshandbook.com /summer 2006 / 5 i~ TOWN OF VAS, CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION WORKING GROUP Appointed by the Vail Town Manager in March 2005, the Construction Mitigation Working Group meets regularly to assess community construction impacts and to recommend actions to minimize those impacts. Specifically, the purpose of the group is "to create strategies to mitigate construction related challenges by creating a fun and unique experience for visitors in which we celebrate Vail's Renewal." Actions include on- street activities (hosts), overall appearance, shaping community and visitor perceptions, wayfinding, managing key messages and marketing collaboration. Appointees Bob Boselli Covered Bridge Store, Marble Slab, Vail T-shirts Meredith Giersch Kelly Liken Nicole Hoffman-Ewing Rucksack, General Store Rayla Kundolf Masters Gallery Rob Levine Antlers at Vail Steve Rosenthal Colorado Footwear Pamela Stenmark Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council Richard tenBraak Manor Vail Paul Witt Vail Resorts Development Co. Joe Walker Specialty Sports of Vail Stan Zemler Town of Vail Staff ~ Organizational Support Town of Vail: Scott Bluhm, Leonard Sandoval; Todd Oppenheimer, Suzanne Silverthorn, Kris Friel, Jamie Wilson Vail Chamber & Business Association: Sarah Akeroyd, Kaye Ferry Vail Local Marketing District:. John Buckley MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 7, 2006 SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Crossroads East One LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC. Planner: Warren Campbell The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council tables Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006 to the March 21, 2006, hearing. 1 MEMaRANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 7, 2006 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 3, Series of 2006, a resolution amending certain portions of the Vail Land Use Plan and amending the Vail Land Use Map to identify those properties regulated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. On February 7, 2006, the Community Development Department presented an application to the Planning and Environmental Commission to amend certain portions of the Vail Land Use Plan text and map to identify those properties regulated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The Commission forwarded a recommendation o~ approval to the Town Council by a vote of 6-0- 0. This application is regarding an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan text and map to designate the land area included within the boundaries of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as being regulated in terms of land use by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This amendment will bring the Vail Land Use Plan up to date with the Town's currently adopted master plans. Vail Village is similarly designated in the Vail Land Use Plan as being the "Village Master Plan" land use and regulated by the Vail Village IViaster Plan. Attached. to this memorandum is a copy of Resolution No. 3, Series of 2006, and the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February 13, 2006. Text which is to be deleted is shown is skireeg# and text to be added is indicated as bold italics. The Community Development Department recor~~mends that the Vail Town Council approves Resolution No. 3, Series of 2006, as presented. The Town Council can vote to approve, approve with modifications, or deny Resolution No. 3, Series of 2006. RESOLUTION NO. 3 Series'of 2006 A RESOLUTION AMENDING A CERTAIN SECTION OF THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR ADDITION OF THE LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, DELETION OF THE TOURIST COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION, AMENDMENTS TO VAIL LAND USE PLAN MAP, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, on November 18, 1986, the Vail Town Council (the "Town Council") adopted the Vail Land Use Plan (the "Master Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Master Plan was initiated by the Town of Vail to direct future land use decisions within the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, Section 8-3, Vail Land Use Plan, outlines a procedure for amending the Master Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8-3, Vail Land Use Plan, the Community Development Department has proposed an amendment to the Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Lionshead Redevelopment Plan was adopted on December 15, 1998, to regulate and guide redevelopment within the area proposed for amendment; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission has held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on February 13, 2006, and has forwarded a recommendation of approval of the amendment to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this amendment is to amend the language and map of the Master Plan to allow for the incorporation of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan land use designation; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the proposed amendment improves and enhances the effectiveness of the Master Plan without negatively affecting the goals, objectives, and policies prescribed by the Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. The Town Council of the Town of Vail hereby amends the Vail Land Use Plan as follows: The amendments to the text of the Vail Land Use Plan are indicated in BOLD ITALICS (additions) and f-TA~16S (deletions). (in part) re ivf iiromonfo ff LRMP -Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Included in this category are those properties which are identified as being included in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan boundaries. Properties located within this land use category shall be encouraged to redevelop, per the Master Plan recommendations, as it has been found that it is necessary in order for Vail to remain a competitive four-season resort. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient and an aesthetically-pleasing guest experience. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (LRMP) land use category may include skier and resort services, ski lifts, ski trails, base facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales, clubs, public plazas, open spaces, parking and loading/delivery facilities/structures, public utilities, residential, lodges, accommodation units, deed restricted employee housing, retail businesses, professional and business offices, personal services, and restaurant uses. The area within the red border in the following image is the portion of the existing Vail Land Use Plan Map proposed to be amended through this Resolution. 2 The area within the red border in the following image is the portion of the Vail Land Use Plan Map which is proposed to be amended through this Resolution to identify the parcels regulated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Land Use Designation. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2006. Rodney Slifer, Mayor, Town of Vail ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 13, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to review the Vail Land Use Plan map, pursuant to Section 8-3, Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan area, and setting forth .details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0098) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan text and map to designate the land area included within the boundaries of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as being regulated in terms of land use by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Staff is asking the Commission to listen to a presentation on the proposed Vail Land Use Plan text and map amendments. Upon completion of the presentation, staff is requesting that Commission. engages in a discussion with the staff and provide their input and feedback on the proposal and then forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council on the proposed text and map amendments. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan text and map to designate the land area included within the boundaries of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as being regulated in terms of land use by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The purpose of this meeting is to allow the staff to present revised Vail Land Use Plan text and a revision to the Vail Land Use Plan Map. III. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail Land Use Pan was adopted on November 18, 1986, with the purpose of articulating land use goals and guiding future decisions regarding land use within the Town. Accompanying the Plan is a map which identifies in a spatial format the location of the Land Use Categories identified in the Plan. The Vail Land Use Plan and map have been updated several times. Most recently, in association with the Vail's Front Door project. Section V of this memorandum will go into greater detail on the contents of the Plan. IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Vail Land Use Plan Amendments Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is advisory to the Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on Land Use Plan amendments. Staff.• The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goats and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a. Vail Land Use Plan amendment. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Vail Land Use Plan (in cart The Vail Land Use Plan was initiated in 1985 and adopted in 1986 by the Vail Town Council. The main purpose of the Land Use Plan is two-fold: 1. To articulate the land use goals 'of the Town. 2. To serve as a guide for decision making by the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future land use decisions may be made within the Town of Vail. The goals, as articulated within the Land Use Plan, are meant to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. In conjunction with these 2 L goals, .land use categories are defined to indicate general types of land uses which are then used to develop the Vail Land Use Map. The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature, but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Where the land use categories and zoning conflict, existing zoning controls development on a site. The Vail Land Use Plan contains the following goals: 1.0 General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, ,commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.5 Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.8 Recreational and public facility development on National Forest lands maybe permitted where no high hazards exist if.' a) Community objectives are met as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. b) The parcel is adjacent to the Town boundaries, with good access. c) The affected neighborhood can be involved in the decision- making process. 1.9 National Forest land which is exchanged, sold or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain as open space and not be zoned. for private development. 3 a 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. ,1.11 Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 2.0 Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational. options to improve year-round tourism. 2.6 An additional golf course is needed. The Town should work with the down valley communities to develop a public golf course as well as other sports facilities to serve the regional demand for recreational facilities. 2.7 The- Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 2.8 Day skiers need for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions. such as: a) Increased busing from out of town. b) Expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals. c) Continuing to provide temporary surface parking. d) Addition of structured parking. 4 3.0 Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented business and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More nighttime businesses, on-going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. 4.0 Village Core /Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved thorough implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character, small town .feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 4.4 The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be enhanced through: a) Installation of a new type of people mover. b) Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk, alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza. c) New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses. 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5 5.2 Quality time-share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Sub-section 8.3.C of the Vail Land Use Plan outlines the amendments procedures for proposed changes to the Plan. The amendment process is one which is intended to assure the Plan's effectiveness with periodic updates to reflect current thinking and changing market conditions. The process includes amendments which may be initiated in any of the following three ways: A. By the Community Development Department B. By the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council C. By the Private Sector Pursuant to Sub-section 8.3.C.2, in part, (an application initiated by the private sector), "Such applications will be considered at a meeting with the PEC. At the PEC public hearing, a recommendation shall be made to the Town . Council, whereupon a decision shall then be rendered. To change the by this procedure, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate how, conditions have changed since the Plan was adopted, how the Plan is in error, or how the addition, deletion, or change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general. Such decision may include approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Amendments may be requested for changes to the goals and policies and/or Land Use Plan map. If such request is approved, such change shall be made to the Plan document and/or map. If such request is denied, no such request that is substantially the same as that previously denied shall be considered for a period of one year." An amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan shall be approved by the Vail Town Council upon passage of a resolution. VI. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS To change the Vail Land Use Plan it will be the responsibility of staff to clearly demonstrate 1) how conditions have changed since the Plan were adopted; 2) how the Plan in error OR 3) how the addition, deletion, or change to the Plan are in concert with the Plan in general. 6 The Planning Department Staff is proposing text and map amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan in order to bring the Plan up to date with the currently. adopted Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed amendments are intended to facilitate the redevelopment of Lionshead through the use of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Staff is initiating three amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan. The amendments include: A text amendment to add language describing the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Land Use Category; 2. A text amendment to delete the obsolete Tourist Commercial Land -Use Category; and 3. An amendment to the Plan map to delineate the area regulated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Chapter VI of the Vail Land Use Plan establishes a number of different land use categories. Currently, there is not a category for those areas regulated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Staff is proposing to add a definition of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan -LRMP Land Use Category. The purpose of the amendment is to expand on the existing land use categories to more accurately reflect the type and nature of land uses typically associated with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. In addition, Staff is proposing to delete the Land Use Category description for Tourist Commercial. The existing Tourist Commercial Land Use Category will be replaced by the proposed Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan -LRMP Land Use Category. The staff is proposing the following master plan text amendment language. Text to be added is shown in bold italics and text to be' deleted is shown in s#fiteugl~: LRMP -Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Included in this category are those properties which are identified as being included in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan boundaries. Properties located within this land use category shall be encouraged to redevelop, per the Master Plan recommendations, as it has been found that it is necessary in order for Vail to remain a competitive four-season resort. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient and an aesthetically- pleasing guest experience. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (LRMP) land use category may include skier and resort services, ski lifts, ski trails, base facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales, clubs, public plazas, open spaces, parking and loading/delivery facilities/structures, public utilities, residential, lodges, accommodation units, deed restricted employee housing, retail businesses, professional and business offices, personal services, and restaurant uses. 7 n = 3Ee° ° ?m^ ~i " "cE-ee/der-EIaT -tri " r r '~ z ~ `~ } ~' ~' ~f * ^ z i r i , , iv v aC e$-zn - crr ca - eb4 ara --~ r ie- sirvr rv - r e i M1 Ht~i-~/~e- ~F ~ ~ ~ T r ~,~ ~' ~ • •+ ,.~ ~ ~ e ? E-aEEES r- o Applicable portions of the existing Land Use Plan Map (Attachment A) and the proposed amended map (Attachment B) have been attached for reference. A map of the existing Lionshead Study.Area (Attachment C) from the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is attached for reference. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental forwards a recommendation of approval of the proposed Land Use Plan amendments to the Vail Town Council. The staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined below: "To change the Master Plans it will be the responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate 7) how conditions have changed since the Plans were adopted; 2) how the Plans are in error OR 3) how the addition, deletion, or change to the Plans are in concert with the Plans.in general." Specifically, the staff finds that the conditions of the Town and. Lionshead have changed since the adoption of the Land Use Master Plan and that the proposed changes are in concert with the stated goals and objectives of the planning documents comprising Vail's Comprehensive Plan. Should the Planning and Environmental choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, staff recommends the Commission makes the following finding part of the motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the conditions of the Town and Lionshead have changed since the adoption of the Vail Land Use. Plan. Specifically; the Commission finds that the adoption of the Vail Land Use Plan preceded- tine adoption of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Further, the proposed amendments are in concert with the plan in general as the amendments will help to articulate the land use goals of Town and can be used to guide decision making around the states goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan. " VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Existing Land Use Plan Map (in part) B. Proposed Land Use Plan Map (in part) C. Lionshead Redevelopment Study Area 8 / ~~ vARK ws BRGpCTREE 800 B 930 BS Vail Land Use Plan -Existing Land Use Plan Map BlK f souR vAw 501 2 ~ B95 ~ 1021 7RACTG - '--:G Sati USTOt~r~ 9Q9 9211 ;.. 0 7 0 91> -~ i 599 ~ d ~ 910 ~ A - 9 1020 5W 10 B23 506 ~ 91B 909 ~ it TRAGfD 915 876 10a 911 90S t2 / I B86 I ~ 007 901 / 9B3 9W i BREAKAWAY / D sy Z c~ .+ (enlarged portion of TOV Land Use Plan Map) INPIATTEO PHASE III PHASE II P1U9EI 046 ~' BOS PIMSE N 005 9UN VA0. ~ PYNSE V D. PARKING l L Vail Land Use Plan - Revised Land Use Plan Map SA D NDSTGN ~j5 BLK 1 - PARK 915 I BROOKTREE I 980 INPUTTEO SOLAR VAIL 501 _ B BS ~ 933 93t 1 09 PHASE 111 PHASE II PNASEI 865 825 005 ~ PHASE IV 2 3 885 % i, g~ 4 SlN4 VAIL 7 895 8B1 _ ~ . ~- 102(1 TRAGIC 8QB B24 921 ~ -~-.:p 8 `ui I ~ ~;. 5 880 _ PH~E V _ 7 i ' _ _~ VANTAGE ~ E ~ LIOMS POINT PRIDE ICNSMEAD PARKING STRUCTURE _ -i -- -. - ~ \ 81]~ OB B ,. r ~ - 1 1 ~ VAIL INTERNATIONAL ;` 8131 Ci B ~ A i 9 1 SANDSTONE TOT LOT 635 .. ~ ~ 810RTH DAV / - .- ', PARKING LO S18 508 3D5 \ 125 3gp 4 1020 I B23 BB 6 10 884 - _ .. 1 ~ VAIL OLO ` ~ S VAIL 2 f U EVERGREEN 1 919 909 _ ~ / „•` 1 1 LIF"fHOU9E pOBSON 2 / ~ TRACTD 915 I 11 076 ~/ 1 lAN0MAP1( I SH INNt 701 ~ 810 50D 921 ~'~II.Ii tHl t ~. :. ICE ARENA ~( 5 ~ 1 \ 1023 805' 911 OB 4 - ~ 'NS ~ 818 EN21AN F\ 555 ~ d 110N9HEAD TRAGIC ARCADE 7 3B0 321 _ rc t ~ 8B3 B07 BOt 907 2 1 8 VAIL SPA .~5 - ONTANERO9 C ~ 3 TREETOPS 531 8 LION HS EAD ~ ur_`L 380 LIBRARY ` ; I BREAKAWAY 1 ~ fiB6 2 4`~ ESTSTAR CAL CENTER 5 MFDI WEST gg3 .. 710 t~..Ll- ~ LION'6 SQUARE LIONSHEAD H 5 CENTER 530 CTJ 10 P f BANK BCORPIC ~2 281 E 0.2 101 ~ 108 A .. NORTH MARRIOTT 7 - 635 MARK 714 _ 1 TRACT C \ _ e BKAAL HGUBE AIPHG. 272 ~ _ ~ti11P_ - VAIL ASSOC MAINT. 9HOP WEST ': '~~-I'i O A~~ Ty,~D UNPLATTED LION'g 90UARE ~ \ '_ G 161 ~ TRACTB 8 'r' ~_ 252 ~ ~ ~ _ BB2 DAV LOT ~ ~ 3 B80 A LODGE fi80 DOLA TRA 1 7 232 8 5 162 3 p 1~ 122 UNPLATTFD 8 D TRACTA >d7 3B1 r.1Rrl S . 2 2 182 ~, / ~ \ Tao _ '~ J24 ~ ~~ 4 a 392 3 5 g xa ~ 372 TRACT B v T SEWER PLFNT RACT C 848 RACT B 2 401 SKIER BRIDGE 4 dOB ~ 1 61 275 ~ 3 3u 333 aoA 123 285 ~ 37 38 193 153 12J B34 AMOCO 880 2 6 3 d 30a 3 -- 8 7 5 855 2 8 695 875 825 5 163-_ I 42.1"'- \ft~ ~~'K ~~`~ a 1 2 9 2J ~ 27 156 10 1p 256 154 785 748 735 815 4 ~"" V . 376 ~ ~ 20A 304 32d 274 ~~ 9"P 1 e . 28 W ~ 7 °'° 5 ~- dS6 O Low Density Residential 185 a , 15 eao ,. 13 12 798 798 758 11 738 B 0 8 5 3 2 ; 6 708 E98 836 618 5~ 5~ ~, TRADTA O Medium Density Residential 8 '°° ,a I! 688 8 5 ~ 440 4°8 O Resort Accommodations and Services 17 7 ' 127 (enlarged portion of TOV Land Use Plan Map) O Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan • Community Office N Open Space w~ E O Ski Base s - Semi-Public MAP NOT TO SCALE O Transition Area (02/13/06) f,~ %~~ ~' ~ .a ~-`, c3 /- ~ Q ~ CASCADE LIFT O ~ ~ U ~ oQ0 ^ a f ^O d /I ~ / /\~I \~~ GONDOLA LIFT LINE ~ C/ ~ v~ ~j/ , LIONSHEAD STUDY AREA BOUNDARY / ` / / /~~ 1 O i /'% ,~- o / , ~O "~r~(~'y(I~~~ O OQ ~ ~ _ _ __ _ T.O.V. USFS BOUNDARY LWE, / ~~j, '~V J ! .:. ~ D o-' ~ / O o /~O~ ~ ~ /~~ CASCADE _ p ~ d Q \~~ ' a ' `p ri. ,. ~ ~ VILLAGE ~~ ~ ~ :t ~ !~ ~ ~ , ~ j ~~,, _"" I _~ / SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD CONNECTION TO LJ '~ ~ CASCADE VILLAGE AND WEST VAIL "~L~) ~ `ND) 9MD9lOfE ~~ fr~~ ~ > ~' .: ~ ~~ ~ ' ~ n: 3 nn- ~~T~'77 f~ ~7.r ~ ~ -~ ' . ~ }} .. ~ came ~` _ '','1 ~ ~ ~ /~ 1! VAIL ROUND-A-BOUT Lie-~- _ ~~i-70 R.O.W. MAPA °'m` - ~ _ - - --- - - -__- - STUDY AREA D ~IONSHEAD ? REDEVELOPMENT 3 M T R P DESIGNWORRSHOP .~. .m 1~M J February 28,2006 Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Merrtbers, As members of the Vail lodging community, we would like to commend you on your recent discussion and vote regarding the future of the Conference Center funds at the February 7 council meeting. We applaud your direction to the staff to explore the use of those funds in ways that will specifically increase lodging occupancy: As you know, the vast majority of the Conference Center funds were raised by Vail lodging properties in the form of a lodging tax, as well as that portion of the sales tax also collected by the lodges. As the discussion of the future of those funds evolves over the next few months, wa would like to be involved and informed. Please let us know how we can help. Sincerely, Rob Le Vine Antlers at Uail Pain, Stenmark Evergreen. Lodge S pe Lodge Tower ,, ,- A~~.. Dave -ease Marriott'sVail Mtn. Resort: ~~~~ ill Anderson Lionsquare Lodge ~~ 06 cCleary Manor Vail '~ ~~~`l~G~~h~ eo ght _ Ei•ank Johnson Wolf g T elinig es ina orts Vail Mtn Lodge and. Spa Lod eat Vail. f[~. L4. LUVO IU: I IHUI UULUtt( RJJU61AItJ G®tder Assocdc~es IttC. 44 UHon 8oulevob. Mite 300 lakewnod, CO lJSA 80228 Ti'e' (3031980-0540 FCOe (~3) 985.2080 www.gddetcom Fe'~uaty 24, 2005 NU. 2j9~ -N. 1 D+irRef:. 063 2115 Car+don Condominium Associa$~ c/o Richard Cmstafson P.O. Box 1063 'Vail, Colorado 81658 Attention: IV)r Richard ~fson RE: REVIEW OF BOUY.DER RETAIIVINC WALL, VAIlr, VII.LAGE WEST. COLORADO Dear Dick We have performed a review of the boulder walls t'bat have been ywr building as outlined in ot,r y c°nstructed an propert}- adjacent to visit to our ~o~ tO ou dated Feb''"~Y 13, 2006. Our review included a Y property on February 21, 2005, to view the walls, and a "desktop" analysis of estimated stability. Observations Dnring Site Visit Access was not avaiable to the walls themselves, so ow site activities were con5ned to viewing and photographing the walls from yow pay and public access areas. Attached are several of the photos we obtained, showi>~g the general ~g~~ of the walls and associated is hidden by snow cover. fill, although much We were not able to verify the dirmensioas of the boulder walls or adjacent slopes due to snow ~,~ cad lack of access. However, we were able to look at your photos taken without snow cover. From these photos, h is apparent that there are two tiers of boulder walls at the east stacked two bdgh on the lower tier sad three high on the ~ with boulders appear to be substantiall uPP~ tier. The boulders on the lower tier that t$e u Y ~8~ than 2 feEt in diameter, bat we were aot able to verify this. It appear Peer tier has boulders stacked three high. A p~ which appears to have been taken new the west sad ofthewalls/fill appears to show three tiers of boulders. The lower two tiers a each stacked two bonldecs high. The apparel third tier may also have two bail PP~r to be although it is unclear, as there appears to be additional boulders on the slope chow ~ s~ ~`~' Results of Stability pnal~ We performed a series of computer based stability analyses to estimate approximate factors of safety for the wails as designed. Since ~ information of actual waA dirttensioas and sl were available to us, om analysis ways based on the drawin _ °~ COIIfig'~ona Walls' ;prepared by HTM Canstraction Company far Dantas Builders, dated September O~pOSg This drawing (copy attached) is oa file with the Town of Vail. The a ero~-seetian that was used in our sEab~ity analysis, which is dimeasi ~~ Figure 1 shows the HTM. Also attached are the plots of the stability a~lyses for each of the~casy es des bed b~~ ~ ~ A ~~' ~ AitSfRti(tp, EuRO'E. [+WR1N AIAEf~jt q~ SOtRN AIY~RlCd1 rtts. L4. 1UUb IU: I IHM uU~utn HJJV61HItJ Nv. L~Y~ r. L Carrion Condominium Association Mr. Richard Gustafson _Z_ Febmary 24, 2006 063 ZI15 The circles shown in Figure 1 represent tl~ boulders as indicated it1 the deli ricer noted that the design drawing ells for boulders of two-foot nominal ~ ~' It should be diameter is neodcd to a[Iow far the 6-foot wall height and the l-foot t~~p~aindic~ated an, the drawing.. Alsq the conditions observed during our site visit indicate that the actual boulder configuration varies from that shown oa the design drawing. For piuposes of the stability evaluation, tl~ boulder walls was modeled a9 trapezoidal sections, with, assumed strength pmperries ~ described below. Several cases were considea~ed is the stability analysis. For same of the cases, to check global stability of the wall tiers, the "boulder mass" was ~~ to be a solid unit, as might be obtained if the boulders were tied together by doweling for example, ether cases examined the potential for failures to occur between the boulders, through the face of the wall. In these ca little strength was modeled between boulders at an estimated contact ~' s zone of very assumed actual co~adition that the boulders are not anchored to the sl point location, reflecting . ope a to each other. No information was available to us regarding the strengths of soil materials at the site. The report, Soi! and Foundation Inuestigatiorr for Proposed Residence, Lot 40, Yail Yllage West, Filing 1, 1797 Alpine Drive, Town of Yoii; Eagle County, Colorado, describe3 soils within I.ot 40 (which is the west ofthe two lots with the boulder walls) as silty, gravelly sand wiW cobbles. Soi stre~agth par-arrzeters used in the analyses were generalized fmm published data for compacted soils of this type. These soil strength values are based on the assumption that the retained fill was compacted in accordance with the xeguinment appearing in Note 2 of the HTM drawing. do~tiisoiooms~usausznnsotacnt:w GolderAssoceat9s 't'he following table descnbes the configuration of each of the cases analyzed, and. the resulting calculated factors of safety. rtn. L4. [uuo iu: ~ ~Hm UULUCR HJJU~IHICJ IV V. L)Y~ r. ) Carrion Coadaminiuai Association February 24, 2006 ~~ Ricbud ~~~ -3- 063-2115 cenaally, a factor of safety of 1.5 ar greater is considered appropriate for "critical" earth construction applications, such as support for a sOcvct<ual foundation or walls immediately uphill of rPSidences. Ia less critical applications, such as cuts and fills far roads, lesser factors of safety may be acceptable, but are rarely considered acceptable at less than 1.25. None of the cases we analyzed meet a factor of safety of 1.5. Factors of safety for failure of the full walls/fiil height and for failures through the un-reinforced boulder wall were less than 1.2 Tire stability analyses" described here assumed fully-drained groundwater conditions in the retained fill. The drawing does not show nay indication of drainage provisions behind the boulder walls, The observed com(guration of the boulder ways is such that they will be relatively &+ee draining. However, seasonal groundwater' seepage and snow melt could enter the Si1], soil the retained fill becomes saturated, actual Factors of safety could be lowaSe ~~ ~ Y our analyses. Based on the results described above, it is our opinion that the designed configuration for the boulder walks and associated fill, as pr~eseated oa the HTM drawing, does not meet standard practice for a safe retaining wall However, the actual as-bw'lt configuration should be verified if possible by actual measurements. These measurements shauid be compared to appropriate City of Vail Standards, in addition to the HTNI design. Variations from the H'fM design could mean that the actual existing conditions are eitb~et less safe, or more safe, than indicated by ow analyses. It should be noted that there are also other potential failure modes that could affect safety of the structuue, including overturnia6 or sliding of the boulder wall, and we have not examined these as part of this study. However, we believe drat the analyses d~s~r'bed above are the most pertinent for the wall design,; as presented is t>a± HI1VI drawing. Recon>bneadations Wa believe drat it is appropriate to verify the configuration of the actual, as-built walls and fill structure, and compare these conditions to the assumptions we have made herein. If this verification indicates that the walls do not meet appropriate factor of safety criteria far slope stabU.ity, then measures should be uade<taken to replace or remediate the structure to a safe condition. The following steps are advised: 1. ?slut field measurements of the configuration of the walls and fill, including height of t]he boulder walls, slopes of the soil surfaces between boulder wall tiers, size of the boulders, horizontal distances between the wa71 tiers, slope of the fill and existing ground below the toe of the walls, slope of the fill and eaasting ground above the wa11s, and battex yr face eagle of the boulder walls. 2. verify from const<uction inspection records that the retained fill was compacted as specifiied on the design drawing. ff the fill was not adequately compacted, the actual factors of saf~y oould be less than those calculated. 1~or example the calculated safety factor for Case 1 described above could be reduced to less than 1.1 fix as inadequately~ompacted fill of similar materials. 3. Re-evaluate calculated factors of safety based oa the results found in the first two steps. TLese calcnlatians will form the basis for design of remedial measures. ao~x~isoioaa6~zuscur<~rsaaL~za~a.ooc Golder Associates r~~. L~+. LUDO IU: ILr-m uVlUtn HJJVt,1HItJ NU.1j`/7 r. 4 Cordon Condominium Association Febniaty 24, ?A06 Richard Gustafson ~- 063-2115 4. A design should be prepared to either replace the. existing walls, or modify the walls and fill in such a way as to obtain a s~vcture with adequate safety. The following strategies may be among the choices available: a. Excavation and removal of th,e exssting boalder walls, a4d replacement with appr'oPriatelY retaining walls. Replacement walls could be of various types, including .stacked rank (if adccluately engineered), mechanically stabilized earth (MSS, ar rCinfa~ced concrete. b. Removal of the bouldear walls and retained fill, r~gcading to ~~ ~ slope between the Lot 39 and 40 residences, and construction of a "deck structure" similar to those used at other nearby residences for driveway access from Alpine Drive. a In place stabr7ization of the existing walls and 511, utilizing tiebacks ~ similar Bound improve eat strategy. Please Iet us know if we can be of further assistance in the veri&cation of existing conditions of the walls/fill, or evaluation of proposed remedial design alternatives. "Phis letter report has been prepared to be consistent with that level of effort and care provided by orbs members of our profession, working in the same area and at this time, under similar constraints of access; schedule, data availability, and budget. No other warranty is expressed or implied. We trust this r+ePott meets your cume'aut needs for the project, Please cell if these are questions. Sincerely, GOLDEIt ASSOCIATES INC. y Desseaberger, p.E, P.G. Associate NCD/Fl?FUkag Francis $. Harrison, P.E, Associate iw~xusa~oaasnuscttstr,~saa+trt~~r~sosnoc G®Ide-ABSOCi~s MEMORANDUM February 28, 2006 To: Vail Town Council Stan Zemler Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp From: Sally Lorton Re: January Sales Tax On the reverse side please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $20,000.00 in January sales tax to bring January collections to $2,573,354.00. If so, we will be up 14.80% or $331,810.00 from budget and up 13.07% or $297,387.00 from January 2005. Ski season (November -January) would reflect an increase of 10.9% or $573,795.00. January lift tax is up 2.5% or $14,541.00 and the ski season (November -January) reflects an increase of 13.8% or $154,532.00. Attached please find updated 2005 worksheets. onth 995 996 997 998 999 000 Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet 2/2812006 2001 2002 2003 004 005 U06 Budget CO//aCf%OnS Chenpe % Change Budpar /rom /rom Verlsnce 2005 Budget January 1,894,597 1,935,782 2,052,569 2,115,359 2,066,459 2,034,529 2,210,547 2,073,481 1,997,091 2,225,841 2,275,967 2,241,544 2,553,354 311,810 12.19% 13.91% February 1,816,107 1,993,389 2,089,673 2,153,121 2,021,486 2,223,670 2,366,321 2,281,833 2,111,163 2,362,825 2,429,377 2,379,495 March 2,139,298 2,240,865 2,580,992 2,368,077 2,415,202 2,545,573 2,568,871 2,699,664 2,372,942 2,344,178 2,785,101 2,360,716 April 791,092 966,993 874,427 1,107,334 952,843 926,771 1,043,431 870,675 871,468 992,157 915,554 999,157 Mayes 324,681 318,920 329,783 382,718 370,864 388,121 448,234 414,248 428,919 411,595 458,770 414,499 June 590,685 594,907 630,366 633,400 692,811 721,774 751,439 657,707 742,755 732,113 834,913 737,278 July 893,483 963,717 1,043,637 1,107,882 1,130,883 1,235,470 1,157,867 1,044,966 1,075,532 1,128,514 1,166,183 1,136,476 August 867,125 990,650 1,073,430 1,183,926 1,050,004 1,038,516 1,124,275 1.,084,318 1,029,446 994,445 993,985 1,001,461 September 645,902 630,453 637,831 - 735,608 806,600 817,313 747,766 713,574 679,208 757,033 795,807 762,374 October 461,791 473,573 472,836 515,531 536,204 547,201 486,570 484,425 508,092 532,537 566,173 536,294 November 611,147 601,208 707,166 656,596 582,260 691,445 571,783 642,293 591,269 623,646 713,117 628,046 December 1,994,540 2,068.851 2,254,709 2,070,834 1,883,805 2,062,205 1,933,940 2,139,417 2,171,098 2,362,095 2,549,032 2,378,760 Total 13,030,448 1 3, 719, 308 14, 747,419 15,030, 386 14,509,421 15,232, 588 15,41 1,044 15,106,801 14,578,983 15,466,979 16,483,979 15,576,100 onth 994 995 996 997 998 ' - 1999 Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet 2/28/2006 2000 2001 2002 003 004 udget ~ 2005 Collections udget Vedence Change liom 2004 % Change /ram Budget January 1,805,707 1,894,597 1,935,782 2,052,569 2,115,359 2,066,459 2,034,529 2,210,547 2,073,481 1,997,091 2,225,841 2,118,488 2,275,967 157,479 2.25% 7.43°,6 February 1,814,495 1,816,107 1,993,389 2,089,673 2,153,121 2,021,486 2,223,670 2,366,321 2,281,833 2,111,163 2,362,825 2,248,865 2,429,377 180,512 2.82% 8.03% March 2,250,656 2,139,298 2,240,865 2,580,992 2,368,077 2,415,202 2,545,573 2,568,871 2,699,664 2,372,942 2,344,178 2,231,117 2,785,101 553,984 18.81% 24.83% April 794,668 791,092 966,993 874,427 1,107,334 952,843 926,771 1,043,431 870,875 871,468 992,157 844,305 915,554 71,249 -7.72% 8.44% May 287,315 324,681 318,920 329,783 382,718 370,864 388,121 448,234 414,248 428,919 411,595 391,744 458,770 67,026 11.46% 17.11°~ June 548,820 590,685 594,907 630,366 633,400 692,811 721,774 751,439 657,707 742,755 732,113 696,803 834,913 138,110 14.04% 19.82% July 892,830 893,483 963,717 1,043,637 1,107,882 1,130,863 7,235,470 1,157,867 1,044,966 1,075,532 1,128,514 1,074,085 1,166,183 92,098 3.34% 8.57% August 891,566 867,125 990,650 1,073,430 1,183,926 1,050,004 1,038,516 1,124,275 1,084,318 1,029,446 994,445 946,482 993,985 47,503 -0.05% 5.02% September 725,205 645,902 630,453 637,831 735,608 806,600 817,313 747,766 713,574 679,208 757,033 720,521 795,807 75,286 5.12% 10.45% October 408,405 461,791 413,573 472,836 515,531 536,204 547,201 486,570 484,425 508,092 532,537 506,853 566,173 59,320 6.32% 11.70% November 594,491 611,147 601,208 707,166 656,596 582,260 691,445 571,783 642,293 591,269 623,646 593,567 713,117 119,550 14.35% 20.14% December 1,992,855 1,994,540 2,068,851 2,254,709 2,070,834 1,883,805 2,062,205 1,933,940 2,139,417 2,171,098 2,362,095 2,248,170 2,549,032 300,862 7.91% 13.38% Total 13,007,013 13,030,448 13,719,308 14,747,419 15,030,386 14,509,421 15,232,588 15,411,044 15,106,801 14,578,983 1'5,466,979 14,621,000 16,483,979 1,862,979 6.58% 12.74% onth Town of Vail Conference Center Lodging Tax (1.5% 2/28/2006 2005 2003 2004 Budget Co/%ctions ) Worksheet Budget Variance hange from 2004 Change from Budget January 258,035 304,140 276,303 308,876 32,573 1.56% 11.79% February 314,645 354,159 321,744 365,380 43,636 3.17% 13.56% March 342,984 333,006 302,527 411,648 109,121 23.62% 36.07% April 64,246 87,147 79,171 70,286 (8,885) -19.35% -11.22% May 15,964 18,027 16,377 21,375 4,998 18.57% 30.52% June 54,153 56,662 51,476 67,652 16,176 19.40% 31.42% July 84,422 94,611 85,951 95,628 9,677 1.07% 11.26% August 81,820 82,900 75,312 75,384 72 -9.07% 0.10% September 42,569 48,706 44,248 53,744 9,496 10.34% 21.46% October 25,131 28,707 26,080 26,467 387 -7.80% 1.48% November 29,089 33,037 30,013 34,027 4,014 3.00% 13.37% December 260,232 289,276 262,798 303,159 40,361 4.80% 15.36% Total 1,573,290 1,730,378 1;572,000 1,833,626 261,626 5.97% 16.64% onth Town of Vail Conference Center Retail Tax (.5%) Worksheet 2/28/2006 2005 Budget 2003 2004 Budget Co/%ctions Variance Change from 2004 Change from Budget January 233,274 267,013 245,637 272,007 26,370 1.87% 10.74% February 250,236 283,480 260,830 291,278 30,448 2.75% 11.67% March 283,013 284,547 258,952 334,839 75,887 17.67% 29.31 April 99,694 115,624 109,419 107,530 (1,889) -7.00% -1.73% May 46,376 46,172 45,406 52,017 6,611 12.66% 14.56% June 83,981 83,918 80,741 97,133 16,392 15.75% 20.30% July 122,562 130,300 124,611 135,725 11,114 4.16% 8.92% August 1 19,843 115,092 109,760 1 14,970 5,210 -0.1 1 % 4.75% September 78,107 87,126 83,472 92,746 9,274 6.45% 11.11 October 57,330 60,325 58,721 64,399 5,678 6.75% 9.67% November 67,602 71,641 68,792 82,695 13,903 15.43% 20.21 December 253,449 276,725 260,659 298,848 38,189 7.99% 14.65% Total 1,695,467 1,821,963 1,707,000 1,944,187 237,187 6.71 % 13.89% TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS March 1, 2006 Sales Tax 2006 is off to a good start with lots of snow and estimated sales tax collections of $2.6 million for the month, up 13% from January of last year which was the previous high. Meanwhile, the consumer price index rose at a much lower rate of 4% from January 2005 to January 2006. Preliminary information indicates continued strength in remittances from utilities and the lodging sector with smaller, but still significant, gains in the retail and food and beverage (F&B) categories. The strength in lodging is throughout town, while retail and F&B in LionsHead are essentially flat with last year. Construction Permit Fee Revenue Construction permit volume is also significantly higher than last year with construction permit fee revenue of $123,235 for the first two months of the year compared with $51,435 for the same period last year. Included in this year's revenue is $86,980 from three large redevelopment projects -Gore Creek Place, Sonnenalp, and Vail Plaza Hotel. Construction permit fees include building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and sprinkler permits. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) RETT collections for January and February 2006 are $728,938 compared with $698,626 for the same period in 2005, an increase of 4.3%. Last year was favorably impacted by several major transactions which were not repeated in this time period in 2006 (the sale of the Chateau to the Four Seasons developer; sales of Crossroads units; and sales of Vail Mountain Lodge timeshares). 060301 Revenue Highlights - 1 - !f t TOWN OF YAI~ Department of Public Works & Transportation MEMO To: Town Council From: Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Re: Public Way Permit Fees Date: March 7`h, 2006 Background The Town of Vail currently regulates the construction activity within the Town's Public Way thru Public Way Permits as directed in the Town of Vail Municipal code Title 8. _ J 1 "1-3-2: DEFINITIONS, GENERAL: ...STREET.• Includes any public way, highway, street, avenue, boulevard, parkway, alley or other public thoroughfare. Each of these words includes the others, and if the context permits, also includes. "sidewalk"... " "8-1-1: DEFINITIONS: ...PUBLIC WAY.• Means. and includes a public street, easement, right of way, highway, alley, way, place, road, or bike path; and any nonexclusive utility easement. " "8-1-2: PERMIT REQUIRED: It is unlawful for any person to make any tunnel, opening, boring or excavation of any kind in or under the surface of a street without first securing a permit from the Town for each separate undertaking; ... " "8-1-3: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT,• FEE: ...1. Fee Required.• Each application for a permit shall be accompanied by a permit fee as determined by Public Works, as provided in subsection 8-1-35A of this Chapter... " "8-1-35: FEES: A. Fees Determined. Upon receipt of a properly completed application, public wot°ks shall determine the amount of the fee which shall be paid by the holder of any permit under this chapter°, which fee shall cover the cost of restoring the street involved in such' work. The fees to be charged for the basic permit fee, pavement cuts; replacement ofpaving, and utilities permit shall be as currently adopted by the town council and shall be set forth on the schedule of fees maintained in the public works depat•tmerit... " The current Public Way Permit fee structure is a flat fee of $150.00 per permit. Each permit is valid for the duration of the project or until the end of the year in which the permit is processed or whichever is more restrictive. Currently the fee is a flat rate, it is not relative to the impact of the construction activity, nor to the Town's staff time in coordinating the effort, nor does it account for pavement degradation due to street cuts and excavation. Request The Public Works department proposes to change the fee structure for Public Way Permit in order to: 1. Equity: Create a more equitable fee among small and large projects. 2. Pavement Degradation: To account for pavement degradation and recover a portion of future street maintenance expenditures 3. Public Way Use: To have a means for cost recovery of the Town's losses and Public impacts when construction activity occurs within the Public Way during the construction and non-construction seasons as defined by Title 8 and the "Vail Village and Lionshead Village Construction Information Handout". Equity Currently the flat rate fee structure is inequitable. For example; -Scenario: A single family home developer in East Vail. Typically this would require .at least one small street cut to connect a utility service to the home. This type of construction typically has minimal impact to the public, requires a couple of hours of Town staff time, and has a small impact on the life cycle of the street. In this case the developer would be required to pay a one time permit fee of $150. -Scenario: A $150 million dollar demolition and redevelopment of a major hotel/condo complex. Typically this would require staging and traffic control within the Public Way for up to an entire year and numerous large utility relocations and service cuts in a street. This type of construction typically has a significant impact to the public, may require a couple hundred hours of Town staff time, and would have a more significant impact on the life cycle of the street. In this case the developer would also be required to pay a one time permit fee of $150. Pavement Degradation Currently the Public way fee structure does not permit the Town to recover future costs of street maintenance due to pavement degradation each time a street is cut. The .life cycle of a street is based on many factors including daily loading, weather; and pavement structure/strength. The latter, pavement strength is dependent on design and quality of construction. Each time a pavement structure is cut, patched or compromised in some way (i.e. a street cut for a utility) the life cycle of the pavement decreases. The cost of this shorter life cycle is passed on to maintenance dollars. A street cut fee would offset some of these maintenance costs. Public Way Use Currently the Town of Vail Code and the "Vail Village and Lionshead Village Construction Information Handout" defines allowable construction hours throughout the Villages and the entire Town. In general these two documents together do not allow construction activity within the Public Way during the winter ski season and during the peak summer season within the Public Way within the villages. The use of the Public way is permitted by the Public Works Department thru a Public Way permit. This coordination effort requires a significant amount of staff time and'the resulting use typically has an impact on the public. The Public Works department requires that all construction activity that must encroach within the Public way occur within the allowable construction season. However many times, especially recently, due to poor construction planning or other schedule delays, requests are made to extend construction activity into the non-construction season. This results in an inordinate amount of staff time to resolve the problem and the allowance of such work typically has great impact on the public. Therefore staff proposes a fee structure beset up that gives an incentive for developers to pre-plan in more detail in order to contain construction activity within the allowable construction season. Summary Most communities within Colorado have fees for construction activity within the Public Way in order to offset the costs of coordination, inspection, administration, pavement degradation and public impact. (See attached spreadsheet.) Staff believes we need to reevaluate our current flat rate fee schedule and update it to be more equitable, accountable for pavement degradation, and provide cost recovery means for direct Town costs and public impact. Attached is a copy of one fee structure with examples that may be suitable. Please review, comment and provide direction on such a policy. A lication Fee Occu anc Fee Street Cut Fee Ins ection Fee Warrant Ara ahoe Co $4.20/sgft ABC/sgyd Douglas Co $100 min permit fee $67/bore pan,HCR/each 2 yr $0.17-0.95/Ift trench C&G,walk/Ift Ea le Co $150 $0.0911ft Jefferson Co Pitkin Co $500 Aspen $295 $330 + $1.85/s ft/month $60/inspection Aurora $0.30/sgft C&G, walk $0.3711ft 2 yr curb cut $SOlea $175/1 501ft long cut Avon and 1 trans cut $50/additional trans cuts Basalt $300, $150 renewal Boulder $56.30 fee MtrllEgpmt storage $3.55/sgft <3yrs old C&G, walk $0.90/Ift 2 yr $37.55 + trench $0.6911ft $75/month/item Breckenrid e $100 2 r $6529.69/$200,000 valuation of Castle Rock $98.44 residential 2 yr $65/inspection be and 2 Centennial $35 $50/day <10,000 ADT $180/day >10,000 ADT $3.50/sgft <5yrs old $2.501sgft 5 -20yrs old $50/day <5,000 ADT Pothole $118/ea Colorado Springs $180/day >5,000 ADT Trench <1001ft $118, 2 yr 100-5001ft $154, >5001ft $309/block Intersections $3091ea Per lane/day different C&G,walks/Ift Denver $50 fees for $0.35/sgft-$50 min HCR,curb 2 yr CBD/Arterial/Local cuts/each Duran o - Ea le En lewood Frisco $50 Inspection fee $45/1,000 sgft Ft Collins $70 $3.50/sgft 1-100 $2.5015gft 101-500 $2.00/sgft 501-3,000 $1.50/sgft >3,000 sgft Glenwood S rin s Grand Junction $60 1 r Greenwood Village $25 $16/day $23.50/sgyd (width is $54/hr 2 yr er lane disturbed G sum YP $500 paved surface 2 r y $300 un aved Lakewood Littleton Loveland $SD local $500 arterial $2.50/sgft >5yrs old $7.50/s ft <5 rs old $1.50/sgft-$50 min Parker $50 min $50/ bore and pothoe 2 yr $0.55/Ift trench Silverthorne Steamboat S rin s CBG,walks $40 first Telluride $40 $40-50/cut 1001ft $10 ea add 1 yr 501ft curb cuts $SOleach Winter Park $50%cut involving major 2 yr road work $0.50/Ift Vail $150 ~" 2 r PERMITS TABLE OF CONTENTS General Time Work May Be Performed Permit Fee Structure Right of Way Use-Street Cut Permit Exemptions to Permit Fees Warranty General Right of Way Use-Street Cut Permits are permitted through the Public Works Department. All requests are subject to approval. ~ Requests for use and excavation within Town right-of--ways, easements, Town owned land may be granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 All expenses of the installation and repair of the street or public way shall be borne by the perrxiittee. Any damage not documented during apre-construction inspection shall be repaired by the permittee at the permittee's sole expense. 2 The permittee shall be responsible for repairing all damage to the street resulting from cutting the pavement and/or excavation of or boring under a street. The repairs shall be in compliance with these Rules and. Regulations, Title 8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and with the Totivn's Standard .Specifications. Any traffic control devices which are affected by any work done in the roadway shall be repaired or replaced in conformance ~-ith criteria. set forth in the ManLial on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streetsand Highways (MUTCD). 3 Any roadway surface will only be cut and/or excavated as described in the permit. 4 Right of Way Use-Street Cut Permits: issued by the Town of Vail Public Works Department or their representatives arc required when permitted work encroaches onto Town right-of--way, easements,_Townownwi land. 5 The permit application shall show allanticipated work, including but not limited to: work zone, staging area, traffic control; dimensions of street cut. 6 PermitApplications"shall be submitted for approval to the Public Works Department at a minimum of 24 hours prior to anticipated start of construction. 7 Definitions Construction Seasuii - As defined by the Town of Vail Municipal Code and the "Vail" Village and Lionshead Village Construction Information Handout". Franchise Agreement - An Agreement between the Town of Vail and certain private utility companies, specifying terms and conditions for use of the Town's public right-of--way or other public lands. Non-Construction Season - As defined by the Town of Vail Municipal Code and the "Vail Village and Lionshead Village Construction Information Handout". Pothole - A locate in-the pavement section that shall be cored with a circular coring saw with a maximum diameter often inches (10") Right of Way Use-Street Cut Permit - A document, with or without conditions specified by the Town of Vail, which allows a Developer, Contractor to construct improvements, stage, occupy the public right-of--way, easements or Town land. Street Cut - A cut made in the ground or pavement in any Town Rights-of--Way, easements or Town owned land, including excavation, backfilling and paving. Street Moratorium -Roadways that have been reconstructed, overlayed within the past five (5) years. Street Platform -The finished surface of a roadway, "sidewalk or bike path and five feet (5') from the edge of finished surface. Warranty Period -The period of time that the Developer or Contractor is responsible for the material and workmanship defects in the public :improvements, until written notification by the Town of final acs e~tance of the public improvements. Time Work May Be Performed Work authorized by a permit shall be performed between the hours of seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) P.M.; IVlonday through Friday, unless the permittee obtains written consent f r~ ~n~ Public Works to do the work earlier or later than the stated hours or on a weekend. A. Winter Months Prohibition; Exception: No Street Cut Permit shall be issued so as toaIlow,excavation~ in the~publfc right-of-way or pavement cut between November 15 and April 1S, except in an emergency and in accordance with the I ~ ~ 11 ~, wing: Public Works may issue a permit for a street opening or pavement cut . between November 1.5 and December 15 if it is determined that special or unforeseen circumstances require the issuance of the permit or if the applicant for the pennif is a public utility. If Public Works determines that an extension should be allowed, the applicant may be required to comply with any of the following additional. items: a. Post an additional sum to pay the costs of cold-patching the cut, maintenance of the cut, or possible damage to the public way that may occur over the winter; or b. To temporarily cold-patch the excavation; or c. To do any other reasonable thing that Public Works determines is necessary to protect the public way until the excavation is permanently closed. In addition, any applicant requesting an extension shall agree to provide a permanent patch or closure for the street cut the following summer when the ground and weather permit the same. 2. In rio event shall a permit be issued after December 15 except in the case of an emergency or upon specific approval by a resolution of the Town Council. (1997 Code: Ord. 20(1981): Ord. 43(1978) § 2: Ord. 7(1971) § 4(J)) B. Vail Village and Lionshead Village Prohibitions 1. Work hour restrictions in the Vail Village and Lionshead Village are subject to the "Vail Village and Lionshead Village Construction Information Handout". Fee Structure Right of Way Use-Street Cut Permit .~~: There will be a fee of $SO.OO~for the issuance of any. Right of way Use- Street Cut Permit. In addition, a per square foot charge will be assessed due to public inconvenience, property'degrad<<ti~n. inspection and cost recovery according t~ the following..... Right of Way Use (Min S50) Construction Season (April 15 - November 15) Single Lane Closure: $0.15 / 1ftJ day Two I ane .Closure: $0.45 / 1`ft /day Three I ~uic Closure: $1.50 / lft /day Sidewalk/Bike Path Closure: $0.15 / lft /day Paved Surface (non traffic)': $0.25 / sgft /month Non-P:«-ed Surface: $0.05 /sgft /month Non-Construction Season* (November 15 -April 15, and dates specified in the "Vail Village?and Lionshead Village Construction Information Handout") *Any requested closr~res during the noii-construction season requires approval from the Town Manager Single Lane Closure: $1.00 / lft /day Two Lane Closure: $3.00 / lft /day Three Lane Closure: $6.00 / lft /day Sidewalk/Bike Path: $0.50 / lft /day Paved Surface (non traffic): $1.00 /sgft /month Non-Paved Surface: $0.20 /sgft /month Street Cut: (Min $50.00) Non-Moratorium Streets ACC/PCC: Brick Paver: Pothole (each): Moratorium Streets - ACC/PCC: Brick Paver: Pothole (each): P 't F $0.30 per square foot $1.00 per square foot $50.00 per pothole $8.00 per square foot $15.00 per square foot $200.00 per pothole Exemptions to ermi ees 1. Franchisee and their subcontractors will be required. to obtain a Right of Way Use-Street Cut Permit but any additional fees may be waived if stated in the franchise agreement with the Town of Vail"and/or as approved by the Director of Public Forks. 2. Public Utility Companies and their subcontractors will be required to obtain a Right of Way Use-Street Cut Perrrlit but any additional fees may be waived if approved by the Director of Public Works. 3. Town sponsored commuuitypro_jects; and certified charitable organizations, will be required to obtain the required permit but fees may be waived if approved by the Director of Public Works. 4. The Director of Public Works nay waive any portion of or all fees if the nature ~:~f the work is deemed a public benefit upon the acceptance of a written agreement, timeline and schedule. ~. '~s per Title 8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, where the permittee is required. to reconstruct overlay the roadway due to the limits of their disturbance, he Director of Public Works may waive any portion or all of ......the fees. Warranty 1 The permittee shall maintain the area of the street cut for two (2) years after final acceptance in accordance with Town Code, and shall hold the Town, the agencies thereof, and their officers and employees harmless from any all loss and damage which may arise out of or be connected with the work.performed under any permit issued hereunder. 2 The permittee shall, guarantee to repair or replace any defective work. This guarantee is part of the permittee's promise of performance. The permittee is required to provide a performance bond issued by an acceptable surety company. The permittee's guarantee and bond shall continue for a period of two (2) years after the work has been finally accepted by the Town. `Special needs and circumstances may require that the guarantee period extend for more than two (2) years, and' should this occur, the special perrnii conditions or detail specifications will note that difference. APPLICATION FOR RIGHT OF WAY USE-STREET CUT PERMIT PRJ#: Town of Vail PW#: Public Works Dept Parcel #: 1309 Elkhorn Dr Bldg Permit #: B - Vail, CO 81657 WARNING: Inclusion of false information in this permit application establishes an automatic denial for a Right of Way Use- Street Cut Permit and forfeiture of application fees. By signing this permit, the applicant declares he/she has read all contents of this document, Town of Vail Roadway Standards and chapters of Title 8 -Public Ways and Property, of the Vail Municipal Code and is fully aware of its requirements and agrees to pay all applicable fees. Application Fee: $50.00 Company Company Name: Phone: City/State/ Company Address: Zip: Contractor License Number: Email::::....... w, ..... Contact Contact Name: <~.° Phone: ROW Use Location: Requested ROW Requested ~~~:.. Use Dates: to ..Work Times: Purpose Tor Request: Street Cut Dimension (if applicable): ^ Underground Utility Installation ^ Landscaping Length: ^ Temp Site Access ^ Construction Staging Width(min 4'): ^ Roadway Construction ^ Other (explain): Total Square Footage: Requested ROW Use: - ^ Single Lane Closure -.lft of closure (including taper) ^ Two Lane Closure - lft of closure (including taper) ^ Three Lane Closure - lft of closure (including tape) • ` -° - ^ SidewalkBike Path - Ift of closure ^ Other (ezplairi): 1. Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan, and work`site/staging plan with thissapplication. Traffic Control Plan shall be in ct~mpliance with the MUTCD and shall show streets with''names, adjacent ..intersections, advanced warning signage, taper lengths; ~affer'space and'work zone dimensions. No full street closi[re5 are allowed. 2. Applicant must contact Public Works Department at 479-2198 24 hours prior to commencing of work. Failure to notify the Town will result in forfeiture of bond money. 3. Applicant is responsible for obtaining approvals from all utility companies having an existing utility line within the project site, applicant has option of routing application through the Public Works office to obtain the necessary Town of Vail signatures. Please allow up to one week to process. Xcel Enery (800-922-1987) Qwest (800-922-1987) Coritcast (800-922-1987) Holy Cross Electric (800-922-1987) Eagle River Water & Sanitation District (970-477-5453) Town of Vail Electric (970-479-2158) Town of Vail Irrigation (970-479-2158) Print Applicant Name Applicant Signature Date F:\PW\Specifications\RDWY Standards\Permit Application.doc For Town of Vail use ONLY: ^ Approved ^ Denied ^ Pending Approved Work Dates:_ Approved Work.Times:_ Flaggers Required?: Approved By: Fee Schedule: ROW Use: (Min $50.00) Construction Season (April 15 -November 15) . Single Lane : $0.15 x Days x Ift = $ Two Lane : $0.45 x Days x lft = $ Three Lane : $1.50 x Days x ""'` 'Ift = $ (including taper length) Sidewalk/Bike Path $0.15 x Days x Ift = $ Paved Surface (non traffic): $0.25 x Months x sgft _ ~ $ -. Non-Paved Surface: $0.05 x Months x sgft _ $ Non-Construction Season* (November`IS =Ap ril IS) *Any requested closures during the non-construction season requires approval from the;Town Mannger Single Lane :$1.00 x Days x Ift = $ Two Lane : $3.00 x Days x lft = $ Three Lane : $6.00 x Days x ,.. Ift = $ (including taper length) Sidewalk/Bike Path $0.50 x -:Days x ``1'ft = $ Paved Surface (non traffic): $1.00 x Months x sgft - $ ~- Non-Paved Surface: $0?0 x Months x `°. sgft' _ ,t$` Street Cut: (Min $50.00) April 15 -.No vember 15 . Non-Moratorium Streets ;,: ACC/PCC: $0.30 x sgft = $ ..Brick Paver: $1:00 `x sgft ,- $ ,, Pothole (each): $50.00 x ~ #potholes' _ $ - 'Moratorium Streets ACC/PCC: $8.00:: x sgft = $ Brtck'Paver: $15.00 x sgft = $ Pothole (each): ~S~`(SO x "' #potholes = $ ZbG'W Application/Inspection Fee: $ 50.00 Total Permit Fee: $ Warranty Bond Amount: Area: Paved Surface $10.00 x sgft = $ Non-Paved Surface $5.00 x sgft = $ Perimeter: Paved Surface $10.00 x Ift = $ Non-Paved Surface $5.00 x Ift = $ Total Warranty Bond Amount: $ F:\PW\Specifications\RDWY StandardslPennit Application.doc CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT VAIL. COLORADO ~~~~ pendeiad Blb Plan Sib Ran Gredlnp Phn Cmanpede PuE& ImpMangnb Phn Idn6aaPeAlaae Pebinp Lava' 3, Publlc Reamme as MatlmrYal Room Perkiry Lerel; Rea, Reebu2na, RebO, ke pink FmMy EnbrteinnxaCampleR iMemn aMBoedpNry PedcVp lrvp 1, Pmnoriede, peeteunweM pelel IoEby Lml, Condo Laael t and lae9ry Do Y Cortlo LseIP Corko Le~d9 corbo level/ CaMO lewl9 Canto Lew B NaM EleraO'm Ean Ekveevl SouN Ebvetlon wen BavNm eumeq xegm pooi Ran ~mo~ICPade) 6110dh10 HeKprt Rool Plan (erdW9bdel Sun SealyP~ Stle Plan-Beaver CreeM loe phY Over Setberk Omnvp BARNES COY Attachment B ARCHITECTS DECEMBER 12, 2005 1. ' Archi ~ ~ p VILLAGE INN p~ ~L II~ / I i i ~~~ {~ v ~~ `~2t,~ t~'S ~L .t ~., Ytu' ~~ ~ ~ w ~, z ~ ~ ~~ -~." ' ~` y~~, ~ ~+~~w x <; r,7 S~P~ S~ ~I JU S~SS CNgLFT r __ __ -- ~ ~~~ ~~ / ~ a 0 +® CROSSROADS VAIL, COLORADO ~` ~I f P ~7 m O -- off/ ~yNE ~ •~~~~i ~~~ MEpDC~ ~ 1'lr~a.~ ,~ "~, i, ~y_r~ J S WILL ~~E ~~ UND ,~ ~~ , . CROSSROA G~ a T1~4StiVIPR~VEMENTI~ i ~1 ~~ _ f Ja~,~e AGREED Tb BYVILLAGE ;_ ''TO BE F~iVDED BY ON~~ , CENTER ~VILLOW~~E ' -_ ~j ~ G ~~, i CROSSROADS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PU1N BARNES COY ,..~~ ARCHITECTS DECEMBER 12, 2005 /. ~,~ TO ~ ONSTRUCTED BY ,N OF VAIL AND OTHERS .- 1, ' Archit ®• ~~ •• / ~_ e ^~. '` ' TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY TOWN OF VAIL ~~, t °_ _.-. _ _. - -. "-~ I ~.. ~ ~_-_ ~ ~ a~• • CROSSROADS VAIL, COLORADO PLAZA SITE PLAN WIfH ICE RINK sak: r=mff LEGEND ~~~~ E%ISRNG DECIDUOUS TREES %~6~ E%IS11NC SPRUCE TREES DECIDUOUS TREES 35-40' SPRUCE IAEES ''' ]W.~ 20'-25' EVERGREEN TREES ORNAMENTAL TREES\SHRUBS SHRUB PIAN'TINGS PERENNIALS/ GROUND COVER PLANTING SCHEDULE SYM SCIENTIFlC NAME COMMON NAME OTY SIZE AEMARNS DECIDUOUS TREES M Populus tremuloides OUAHING ASPEN 17fi 2.5'-3.0" Bk8 Staked SPRUCE TREES PA Picea abies COLORADO SPRUCE pg 2D'-25 BkB Staked PA Picea shies COLORADO SPRUCE 1D 35'-40' BgB Slaked PB Pinus arislalo BRISTIECONE PINE 6 20'-25~ BA:B Slaked ORNAMENTAL TREES SHRUBS AG Acer ginnele GINNAIA MAPLE 18 }15 48' Hl. PA Amelanchier elnifollo 545KATOON SERVICEBERRY 40 /5 18'-24' Ht. CI Caryopterle inwnc Blue Mlst' BLUE MIST SPIRFA 22 ~5 18'-24' Ht. CH Cotaneester horizoMalls SPREADING COTONEASTER 68 ~'5 18'-24' Ht. PO Physscaryus opufolious 'Oisblo OLABLD NINEB4RN 14 ~5 18'-24' Ht. PF Potentille }rutlcwe POTENRLLA 57 ~5 18'-24' Ht. CC Comus stolon. colarsdense COLORADO DOGWOOD 13 ~5 18"-24' Ht. GB Domua 98fiC80 ~BOIeY avLEY DDCxrooD a g5 16'-za' Ht. CS Comus stolon. 'IasnG ISANTI DOGWOOD 21 ~5 iB'-24' Ht. RA Ribea eureum COL-EN CURRANT 36 g5 16'-24' Ht. PC Prunus cistene PURPLE-LEAF 54NDCHERRY 16 M5 18'-24' Ht. JS Junipercus scapulorum TABLE i0P BLUE JUNIPER 36 ~5 IB'-24' Sp. PM Pinus mugo 'Mops' MINIANRE MUGO 125 15 18'-24' Ht. 1. FINAL PERENNUL ANO GROUND COVER SELECTION TD BE COORDINATED N4lF1 L/JIDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 2. TERRACE PWREAS SNALL HAYE A MINIMUM SOIL DEPTH OF JO' FOR SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS AND 36" FOR TREE. CROSSROADS VAiL, COLORADO LEGEND ~,~ EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREES ~~~~ EXISTING SPRUCE TREES ~ \ DECIDUOUS TREES ~ JS'-40' SPRUCE TREES - 20'-25' EVERGREEN TREES ORNAMENTAL TREES\SHRUBS SHRUB PIAMINCS PERENNIALS/ GROUND COVER =- ~~~ @l~~ 1 ~FRGNigGE ROAD / ,I,.. --~`"~ ~ ~~ AREAS OVER 30D S.F. ON-SITE - 18,027 S0. FT. ~/~ i ~ AREAS UNDER 300 S.F. ON-SITE SSA 50. Ff. TOTAL ON-SITE SOFTSCAPE iB,5B1 S0. FT. ON-SITE HAROSCAPE - 28,611 50. FT. y,,^; ~ OTAL ON-51 ANfKf~oE Ap ~ A71a ao R / ~ OfF-SITE UNDSCAOING = 16,852 50. Fi. LANDSGIPE AREAS ~: I~=~~ BARNES COY ARCHITECTS DECEMBER 32, 2005 --- i i i ' lao w os n ee es a p7 n n as eo r n ee a r n a n !I fl21 PUBLK;PARKINGSPACES 11s1 uP _- _ - - ! ~ ~ ~ n1 I i 1~ ~ in na I loe Im a lop 1a 1ro e' 1m In I ' J II8 I ~ li .. I /. I I• _ ~' Env N~ i 7,, 117 ~ i ' ~ / ~L~ I ELEV LOBBY ~~ ~ ~~ } 7 3 1 6 8 7 ~ p i6 ~~ t3 it 1e 10 17 fe Ip 7p 21 72 W _ BOWLING ALLEY /' ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~ PRNATE PARKING SPACES `ABOVE 1 ~ ,t ( (// mwm wrro 121 >a 8 30 31 n 97 J1 ~ b 97 91 >o w H u u M 16 b /1 b w SO I a, ~ 171 ~,~ I - - -. - -_ _ ~..' I _____ __ _________ ______ I II 1 II 127 ~ - - - - -_ - - l1 1) ~. I I, I, ~. I 121 S1 ~ bs S/ 86 el n Se m eD n 87 e9 61 pp SS n gp Sp 70 71 n 19 11 7a 1, I 1, I mrim cavm 1 ~ I 1sa PARKING I CONTROL ~ II ~ I 126 GATE ~ PRIVATE PARKING SPACES I, I i' 1 li I ~ !t ~ I n ~a77 n 7e eo n 6t n er m M n a eo w n ~ a w ob w ~ ea M lab lot 102 Id :1 , 17e ~ I~ - _ _- __- - I ~ to - __ - ~~ It ' . ~ ,~ IlG 1. i 177 SS 1% ~10 7H 112 1N 1M 116 1N 117 7M 140 150 1n 167 167 164 166 161 to 1SS 16o uuaim A1pB1m 11 ~ 11 I~ - ~ .__- -._-- -- 11 ~ 1131 ` I 1 i ~ 4 ~ 1 i ' hu j i ' , t~ ~ I 1 I~ I bb 7e* ' . I .1 13j ~ , _ ~. i I I t~l I m n I 1 I I I ~ I i i I I I I ` 1' 1' i ~ 7611 Ip0 Iid 7p1 1M tDs I I, 1 I I I Ip2 1w tg ,~ --------- I ~~/ ~ . ~~ PUBLICPARKINOSPACES ,126. ~i ro IBI xs lae ~~ 1n 1M 1n no I71 n: m n/ 1n m 27] / % e ' teo 1e1 162 ~, lu 1a 166 lee In lee \\ z72 ' 721 ~ ~ i / ~ ~'- Pl18LIC PARKING SPACES tle 2tp i ,~' :n ~~~ ~~ /~ /~ /~ /~ ~10 /2 ~17 ~f1 ~ 216 ~ 716 /. ~. TJ7 i PUBLIC RFC7AMAIC CROSSROADS VAIL, COLORADO GARAGE LEVEL 5a1! 1116' =1'd 110 tw +a 1 `t07 1 338 TOTAL PARKING SPACES RINK MECHANICAL BARNES COY ARCHITECTS DECEMBER 12, 2ag5 1. / ARhit [c -~- - 00 -_: CX~b, 6 c \ -=_ ~r ~.- o~ 6C ,. `' ~ ~ J o /~ l,+ "' ~i > i~ 0 w Z U /W ~./ \ g J_ ~I I I~ ~;~ ~~ i IIj ~ I~ 1 ~ ii 4 ,` P ~ Goer ~'+~.~~ri i I L -- ~1 x - ~ '1 '~~' ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ ,, ~, ~.~ ~, I _.- _ _ __ --- _._ _ ~n ~w ii ~ ~' , , X91 ~~~-` 0.C ~~I-6C e L4~ ~,~ X68 ®® 0 0 ~~~; _~~~ ~~ \ ~ ~ i a;,l m ' ~. ~ . ~ ° R -- o ~ r~. w , i, ~ ~ I ~ Z ; ~ 0 `- ~ ~ ~ ~~ + ~ I ~ U ~ U ~ m W mm W ~ ~(~ ~ In i ~ _ ~ ° ~ " w w o . ~ 9 _ ~~ 81 ~~ , k n _ -~, - -__ ~., ~ - ~ I ,M \ 1 A - = ~~ \ Q . _ z ~ Q J z a 3 ~ ~ a PiEPI1ttD ulnm TND DREDr svExMSax a Q Z ~ Il:~NQ p0 RFC! f ~ Q J PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR pG~•~'• lf,- ~ ~ N 0 ~ U PROPOSED MAJOR C0Ni0UA ~ 37953 ~ - - - - - uM175 OF CONSiRUCnON :~ P: U ------ IXISIINC MINOR CONTOUR : oAf ''•....•'' G~~ ~S a lON~l f - - - IXISnNG MAJOR CONTOUR 20 10 O 2O 40 SCRLE: 1' - 20' SNEET 4 OF 14 nwonn J RNiaPOR, P.E DA1D C0l0RAO0 P.E N0. S1B97 Joe No 39393 00 ~ „~ ~ ~1wr ~ n . . PRiPNED uKaR nc oeecr srFxMSd a ~ m 6.5 7q' Roadw¢ NOTES: EfAIC md. yZ 2W ~~ mw ~wNa a ~ w =' m al 12~ Travel 12' 12~ 12' Tr¢vel 1. YERiICAL AUGNNENT TO MATCH EMISDNG. 2. ALL SAWCUT JdNrS ANO SEAMS TD BE INFRAAW SEALED. PROPOSED FLOW LWE PROPOSED TOP BACK OF CURB R•~DO Nfg~fr ~ ~~•1•,~Cff9 o~ ¢:c ~ S ~U' ~K W ~a> F z r m W W m p i~m~~~~FOF Travel Travel A' PROPOSED UP OF WT1ER ~ J7953 ; ~ o ~ a w ~ LL a Bike ¢ne ROAD CENTERLINE W ~"~~'~ '~?~ 4 i~aa $ai ~€ tfi' ffSIDNpL fa o~aaaaooa Cenler Median q' 12' 2D 10 0 20 40 TMO7NY d HALWWF, P.E OATE E x0 ares3 ~ P ~ Median 7um . . ' FOR IID ON E11Alf 0/ A FIIOIfF10X0 SCALE: 1' = 20' Lane ° J p ~ J Q ~ W ~~~ SOUTH FRONTAG E RD. TYPICAL SECTION ~ ~ o ---- - ---= e ~ _e==_-= ---------- aa~ ~=:3=~~=~a~== --- ate==. ---------- - a ~~~ W J _ _ __ - -__ ____________ . ' a ~ Z O i $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ " SOUTH FRONTAGE RD N ~ . ~ DESCN ro Maa EIUSDNG ANO/OR $ I _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ - ( 7 8 NNAE _ MODIFILA710N5 BY YAL PLAZA HOTEL _ _ _ _ - ~-~- ~ i ~ii ~ Fr y ./ REDEVELOPMENT PLANS W ~~~yyy{{r W ~ • . " NEW ACCESS NEW ACCESS " -+ NEW ACCESS IMPROVEMENT TO z ~ g~ EXISTING ACCESS - w ~ ~': _. r.:, _ ~~~ , _ W L ~' .. ,~ ~ ~ .~~ ~ °~ ~ w ~~ ~ ~ t y= at.i~, .°. ' ~ - ,. : ~ ~ : ~ _, :L ~°: ~~ ~ '~ ` ~ H E%ISDNG VAI VILLAGE INN I 55 .. _ .. , - _ J -- . - - . . r f ~ ~ y ~ i ~ ' ~(// ~ , ,: , , ~ ~ ' A ~/ ~ ~- ' - = ~z - m _ d w SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD PLAN & RIGHT FLOWLINE PROFILE .;~ Z 0 s v, 8200 6200 Z _ ~ ~ ry \ p II ~ 2 ' : \ ~ r r 8195 _ _ _ ~ 8195 '° m m ---- --- ~ ~ a a ~ m °w o N N a ~ 2~ Y 8190 8190 ~ ' w o 8185 8185 ~ j p w ~ F ~~ ~ 1 8180 Q Z 8 80 ~~ ~ a F o_ ¢ ~ 0 0~ ° J w _ ~ VI J ~ ~ 0_ U U SHEET 7 OF 14 10+00 11+OD 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 18+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+OD 21100 22t00 ~oervo. 39393.00 ~ PROPOSED FLOW UNE 20 10 0 20 40 PROPOSED TOP BACK OF CURB SCAIE: 1' = 20' PROPOSED UP OF GUTTER - - - ~ I1N115 OF CORSTRUCDON FIEPNlD urom n¢ DFaEOF sPERN9oM a ~pO RCC/f ~~A j~~~t9(^ `` 37953 ~:c O'•, :~W Af'~S~ONAIE~~\~ ~ h ~~ ~z wwo wcn~ s z ¢ ~~ F ~ m ~K~ ~m F ~ rc ~ < ~ ~~ N ~ ~N~ ~w rc tt i ~ O~ ~ ~~iai~aooi / 1 I w . M _ l ~ I ~ nuomr a xuavar G~h mawo v.E. Ro. a~vs~ Ftlt NID 011 BE11NF 6 A BYOHfFHq ~<~ t0 <L p~ ~ ~ ~ 6 tNi1 a ~~~ a W ~/ U J a UO~ ~ l / J ~~ _ 1 -- I N Y ~ 0#00 , + _ 11 0 I ~~ ~~ -~~r, ~ 1i. b"ay J~ ~ <~ ~ ,~ ~ I V~ty~ y *^,,~ ~ ~ H~ ...J fr I • 13x00 - -~ _ 3x00 ~ 8 ~ [j~~j~~]1 RI ~ ~~ z ~ g~ W S • . Ff{ (W~ h a 16 V _ I ~~I~ ~ I m z 0 5 8180 - 8180 Z N ~ S I 0 ° \ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8175 8175 m > m j m U U ~ a w __ y~ y~ < ~ Z ~ Y 8170 8170 = ' w o U 8165 _ 8165 J D ~ ~ J ~ F- Di li ~ 8160 8160 o w a a V O Q of 8155 8155 ~ ~ Z ~ Q > ~ ~ Q J a _ ~ ~ 8150 8150 U SHEE 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+OD T B OF 14 JOB Na. 39393.00 sae: uLS•=ra CONGO UNITN UNITC /~ CONGO UNITE CONDO UNRE CONGO UNRF aSOed, NL(erBdldO(prNlN MiI REtlVfIw12 NONd $NNAg N• apd (~L, a rad,~,na rm UwImN • qe wadle~' DID TYnEa Nwns a boNd< {end fphm'IMI nNeel Badods M93tl Pa mweUdia w'd hadig Afld~k'pa wedlwed Sdrc dmmd Ne ~ wl edxP~ampelme s ~u,ge•moale r eoeasan I lretewtr.l ra aFn ~ znw 9adNNe syen And~ddc•pe wmula~ m~9le dsdlnp seenM ~ ldx Pme hmen eEpk ASe~ant Bled Sldrq I r ceded caw errs a wEF ra Pre NN9e CdlmawM and mmn Oeae1 TrEer Bawm 6 daGN6w/slad mmN.gaa aM Eadlg ~~ ~4~ Atginld Swdtavw Smdl'modWerlh detl and demdJled AteESdNC' pa weeerel' Wd A'dem NIN raetl South Frontage Road ThTen" rtoak, ahme Lmp kNN NORTH ELEVATION sme, u16'=r~• CROSSROADS REDEVELPOMENT VAIL, WLORADO BARNES COY ARCHITECTS DECEMBETY 12, 2005 Cdnms wlh del tmnNtla'6 and hrxhq, oapMlmn Nntih - ShbSEme- - Smd'npAle wNh9N wmr drwd pds ~ ~'N-T~e9Nm Erma wtth sled 6tlntr+dFS Ym MdAy xd . Bi8a po9s, ~. apKF¢kdc'pe waEeef' 5 paM Syden MA and ~_ ~ Grysmasmne TdeMefnld Medlars' metlde, aEOrt ~uEh'esd GNOW PoN CONING DOIX ~ OryEEASbitle~ TtlIUIEe Gtld Rmrede a Nee leMs 1, Archit s -- ---....-- --.r~.- -- - Yek: u1s•=r~' coNDDLevxa CONDO LEVEL/ u.~ coNDO Loeev, coNOO tEVEL+ _. _.ev_D~on~plN@pocg _ _ .. - . e+re ~ DIAIDNG LEVEL 1, _.Fl~TAl4 D~pMENM~ - _ .. - . elre a~ DIAIRIG LEVEL? ANO RETIJL PV7A .. - .. - .. - .. - .. - Liye'nwlpewNkt!d R1ell aannl>xu ~' r Flheamn[BaN Stling A}A~fiY • Pe •eiCae7' doiAle peNkp eem d %# ACn Astea $ Mp4' 66e wwwgeid Nede A'pea ///~~~ Dnsrd lYMeBUnsd &apsh w~twl masffircwd hmoy vakl Ctlw aeanw e ~"" fnLms wih psl maielsrs stl daorg, wrarff ksn mih ~ antwa~gew®mam' .. mad smn wbl nevi p~ ii - _ . ~~. - 'lsge' nwdle wM pal 1' 1- - _ pY YslAme~ l Taraeedl tae Inty kid p7 Yea S~ne~ Whtlarsl0ms- _ _TdiNf~d . , - .. - _ .. _ . MW Detl WadaSbel 'ISq~ NeAk Yrameb iro opriy nin DmwwWe! Dlm Ine6 5•LypFy ZRK IfMhERS ^ E70W~'f Rlmny~TrthrfgpM bans r,ICinh~d 6egittes ken MIO, eti bnhepabc EAST ELEVATION Sak: US6' • 1'-0' CROSSROADS REDEVELPOMENT VAIL, COLORADO SediOn - Fbor Datum Heights Sale 1' = 16U' WA ABfAENO PUV30~ 0'lY BARNES COY ARCHITECTS DECEMBER 12, 2005 1. e Archit s MVdaal Dan MeW Oad YkoEa5led, PraeM Inm aDaY9 min 6' ppla edmnr tends heema wNh sma hahmedes km faa~, xA arba pods. Nhammet load sung - (Let lhak.)and trkn boards I ern stp smne 'lags' modlle with seek -. mLaadaa.Jpra PMPY R7N Plum Cmidx BI ~d SOOre' Telula GdE 'lags' ModA6 PmnrsNae 0 Vhm ~ 1~~ Nsal aed Mood a Sad daasd um asang mn s hpa Ftiacae%Boad SNdlg ~ Let 6 hat.) ant Mm amra coNOOUaRO wafvrle TeM.akle Cda tAknlry m~ 8dmry'ikrtaagPCrt beaf6 wM Red tsWSfad6iian flNSl,aa MBe patr. ghkuHc'peweetliaeC ~dYanmd Ekaymeaw/ HedeAWaa ~~6~~ ~vu i n nLVn i lura - ra. Hppruvea - I'IaRdl ca cw~ sae: ulc=ra vMdmal Doom ~ wrrl,da' ~e Hauser wm oae raa>e a sar, aa0k saNsq aem wl Wxald YwWaakq mM ai4+~A'.tlanh~ ClJNDO UNRB a=ppa ,~~~, COta10 UNR I,1 ~~.gaxrs! CONCO UNRJ thsswpeid NrrJe Wfmm CONDO UNRL Rndfrioenwkhmad cdunmswXh~4d "~~ DesdlknberBmnal ~ 9a6enwl sea ~Aax, ' mnstlkm and hmoq Peg roa Sald4os ~~ PalM DaW Bmlm- and a ~ ~~,~ ~~1- cal~NS wltli latl ~ ~ i ` ~t -r' , -_ r f6aQAlaABIU SdhJ ~~ I e~)~ ' ~ ~. I ~k ~~ i CONDO UNRP CONDO UNITP Wxa bL ~ ._. ~,~ .. _ - -. -o i)~.. r~do»sl uuoN F~emra'a BosdSidkq (rot lhae)end trhl ay5hd9ae- idnde Goltl ayShd Stae- iaAMeGfI NelalOtl WaodaAea', Aaaaed iaoapeip ml - .. - .. - .. - ~ ~ .. - .. - ~ . - - CpAO UNRV-2 CONDO UNRV-7 pR.q~~. 7e6,aldefWa •~•~ a6oelahM Intl ~~. Rsglmtl Saa6lale •~•~k~y~ whae pDNde,p7a BIIWVI[E70 PNWNG IkY95 Sbn9ae~ RaglonY Saddore 'lar9e'moJk wah ad end dlndfaYltl ardhd50ale~ Tdaltlefda ~ eFate fold 71aYm'modse, aEaR ltbMkLd PIrnlNdel VIOm ILNIS Paredaea Ram lneti nNal tlsaudpala CROSSROADS REDEVELPOMENT VAIL, COLORADO SOUTH ELEVATION Sae: 1116' = t'-0' BARNES COY ARCHITECTS DECEMBER 12, 2005 awed ante ~ e dmtha w1 maa mnna]hN as hNdng Wd~lk"Pe wetlhad' dwbk ~9 sen wl elge 9we+yma^ 0 tips tik slay plsrd Nee'c 1. ' Archit s WEST ELEVATION - PEC Approved -March 26 2D05 Sok', 1/16'=1'ff a pYdlWrk' PIe NPiheled dDlde SkdFg eWIP W~ dpe Wlar AYeN ltrge adenuagadMeese Dead lanha aa~a fl BadeNS d aetl mnnNha ntl dadN ~ rew a®na e Comms Mm etatl mNellasad dada M1pQhIhaP AnM ~'a~ w sk~aNN 'Aaf modlle wM ~ nael dyad pmS hdmq~ lYrdr eygvt hems NM etetl balstradN Imi finMh, ad dnhe-pois. Dr sdd SLxe TeNNMe Gdtl Tkdkm'mdule, ahme idhy kd C6NOPlf01 - IOA04aG000 WM'nGrk' pe weWMeY duhk sdrdil0 asanN/ die yWe e~9we l ape aEe9Nw wsd vee6 )U~ Dese171'MCBSa~i h UNRG CONDO UNRN CONOOUNR Y-7 CONDO UNITV-i aedo~Wmd Bdmie-Tmher AMNIet' NaNhlRL F6emNnl9itd 9drg maeWuaed 6redlp ds+a NU Aad tleMmaM (letllvQ.) N'd em mumaEa kn Mid, ad eEUe Wtrr ! c4k Ola Dnd enax paN MedaA'fdn fuNarne Nlh 1dd eeNemGWn ed daily Ryyyyi ~ NeeVeed F6mfenaN BosE Skk9 ~IMm M1e11 Ddd Nth oasts (wC 9lntr.lad Mm ,, i r'~~aas k~ 1 ~ horde. gAml Ms>adsdea~ .:r TdNide GdE DY SLd ~te~ ~ j ~i ', 6 ® T ~ I 1 PmmeNtle IeAs _ . - .. - - _ .. _ .. - .. _ jp~.Np~ _ ~wL AhOOa)M'd ~ Pnmena0e8Pkd Uvtle EoNI dY Steil SIDrc~ eypg~. Tdald`lbla ~yy~yy~pa 'NN1aa' aadel•, 'SmeM'ermdde Nlh smd ehae lobEy ked R„yd~yph~ CROSSROADS REDEVELPOMENT 4AIL, COLORADO pY SLd Aae~ J ielai0e WU PNSWNG lE4El3 PNread l Pm lereh Dry5dd51ox~ WEST ELEVATION rdwrkewa 'Ntedar mmdlle, sak: Y16'-fff due ~1'ky Section -Floor Datum Heights Salo. r=lsv raaaaFAa~ aaPUSS plv BARNES COY ARCHITECTS DECEMBER 12, 2005 1. Archit s 1 CROSS VAIL, COLOWNw EOUINO% MVt 20 ! SFP 10, 10.OOam SOUR F21MU01: 105' SqM EIEVARDN: 1P JUNE 21, IO:000m saAR ulJUlx: Ilv SgAR ElEVA710N: 59 ... EOUINO% MAA 20 8 SEP 20, 72:OOpm SOUR RIYUOk 17Y SOUR ELFVA710N: S1' JUNE 21, 12:OOpm sauR uluun{: nc SOUR EIEYAlION: 7A' BARNES COY JUNE 21, 2:OOpm SOUVi EIJEV~N?81.4 ARCHITECTS DECEM4ER 12, 2005 1. ' Ar[hit is EOUIND% NYA 20 k SEP 20, 2:OOpm SOUR uIMU07: 211' SDUA EUtiATION; K' OECEMAEA 21,y1:Wpm SOUR AZIYVIN: 104 SgAR DEVAlION: 17 OECEMOFA 11,~11:OOpm SOUR AZIYU01: 174 SOUR ELEVARON: 1T SUN STUDY SUMMER AND WINTER SOLSTICE PLAN NR ucEYaPn 2t, 1o:ooem SOYA RIMUIX: 150' SOLVi EUEYARON: 21' Crossroads Redevelopment ~. ~~~~ : - .O ~I '~ 1 ~ ~ -::, ~t ~qq .. i~r, l' J °~ -'~~ _~~ _ i --. ~ -y ..~„ .,~ s Tt'TT ~~ ~''` y '. ~ "- ',1 ~, . j z._ ~~ ~S j ~, i Applications for Special Development District, Text Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit December 12, 2005 Mauriello Planning Group Attachment C t 1 Owner and Consultant Directory Owner/Applicant: Peter Knobel Crossroads East One, LLC 143 East Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81620 Civil Engineer JR Engineering 2620 East Prospect Road, Suite 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-491-9888 Planning Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 1127 Avon, CO 81620 970-748-0920 Design Architect Barnes Coy Architects PO Box 763 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 631-537-3555 Production Architect Davis Partnership 0225 Main Street, Unit C101 Edwards, CO 81632 970-926-8960 Traffic Consultant rox rtiggms transportation PO Box 19768 Boulder, CO 80308-2768 303-589-9011 Revenue Consultant Steve Thompson Innovative Financial Strategies 34215 Highway 6, Suite 205 Edwards, Colorado 81631 970-926-0818 Construction Management English & Associates, Inc. 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 970-479-7500 s Table of Contents Chapter Pale 1 I. Introduction 1 II. Existing Conditions 4 III. Detailed Project Description and Zoning Analysis 9 A. Project Site and Ownership 9 B. Proposed Uses 9 C. Building Design 10 D. Commercial Floor Areas 11 E. Residential Floor Areas 11 ' F. Parking 11 G. Parking Leasing 12 H. Access and Circulation 12 I. Loading and Delivery 13 J. Density 13 K. Building Height 13 L. Setbacks 14 M. Site Coverage 15 N. Landscape Area/Streetscape 15 O. Employee Housing 16 P. Text Amendment for Bowling Alley 17 Q. Off-Site Public Improvement Plan 17 R. Condominium Rental Program 18 IV. Public Benefits of Project 21 ' V. Special Development District -Standards and Criteria 22 VI. Conditional Use Permit -Review Criteria 27 VII. Text Amendment for Bowling Alley -Review Criteria 30 VIII. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Direction 32 1 1 I. Introduction A. Summary of Request "Bringing people back to Vail" is a slogan the project team developed early during ' the brainstorming of the program and design of the Crossroads redevelopment plan. That statement truly reflects what this plan will achieve for the Town of Vail. In considering the numerous development scenarios for this site, the owner envisioned a project that gives back to the community by providing uses, spaces, and facilities that are needed to spark the economy of the Town and which might not otherwise ever be developed unless funded by the Town government. This exceptional project will act as an anchor within the Vail Village and will attract locals and guests year-round resulting in a vibrant retail experience throughout the East Meadow Drive area and the village as i a whole. The proposed project will generate millions of dollars in property and sales tax revenues for the Town coffers. We believe the old saying "if you build it they will come" describes exactly what this project will do for Vail. ' This proposed reinvestment in the Vail Village will also help Vail compete with other local and regional resorts that are spending tens of millions of dollars to update and ' redevelop. These significant improvements to the economy and infrastructure of Vail will help Vail and the ski area maintain its #1 ranking as a ski destination. ' The Crossroads redevelopment project is being submitted as a Special Development District (SDD) to implement "creativity and flexibility" as stated in the purpose of an SDD. The proposal removes one of the Town's largest eyesores and replaces it with world-class architecture and a list of public amenities and benefits that is not rivaled by any other protect in the Town. The public amenities and benefits include: • Outdoor Ice Skating Rink for public skating in winter/water-recreation feature in the spring and summer months; ' New public plaza of i/z-acre (24,000 sq. ft.) in the heart of Town for public gatherings and events that occupies approximately 20% of the property; • Public accessible restrooms at the pedestrian level; ' 46,692 sq. ft. of new high quality retail and restaurant space at the pedestrian level and one floor above; ' 3-screen state of the art movie theater; • 14,396 sq. ft. sports cafe/arcade and 10-lane bowling alley; 1 Crossroads Redevelopment 1 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Relocated loading and delivery docks (Frontage Road access) available to adjacent properties; • New streetscape and pedestrian improvements on all sides of site including landscape medians in the South Frontage Road; • Buffering of I-70 highway noise from the pedestrian areas south of the project. The project also includes the construction of 65 to 73 residential dwelling units (depending on final unit configuration, but with no change in GRFA) in a world-class structure where the building mass and height is concentrated along the South Frontage Road in what appears as a series of buildings. This project is giving the Town the opportunity to reverse the downvalley trend and bring locals and guests back to Vail. This can be achieved without the Town spending a dime. This is the first project in Vail that truly gives back to the community more than it takes. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 2 II. Existing Conditions A. Zone District ' The Crossroads property is zoned Commercial Service Center (CSC). The Crossroads property is the only site in Town that was originally zoned CSC in 1969 (later the Gateway Building and the West Star Bank Building were rezoned CSC, both are SDD's). 1 The CSC zone district was created in 1969 (Ordinance No. 7) and was amended in 1973 to read as it does today. The zone district, as with the property itself, has not been updated in over 30 years. ' Subsequent to the zoning of the Crossroads property in 1990 the Town ado ted the Vail P Village Master Plan. The master plan recommended uses and intensity of uses exceeding that of the zoning on the property. For example, the master plan recommended that three-quarters of the Crossroads property be developed as High Density Residential and one-quarter of the property be developed as Mixed Use commercial. The plan also recommended buildings heights at 5-6 stories along the South Frontage Road and 3-4 stories along Meadow Drive. The CSC zone district was never amended to reflect these recommendations of the Master Plan. The proposed Crossroads project implements these policies rather than blindly following the outdated development parameters of the CSC zone district. The proposed project maintains the underlying zoning but utilizes the creativity and flexibility vested in the Special Development District to encourage and permit deviations from the underlying district in light of the public benefits being proposed and in light of the direction provided in the Vail Village Master Plan. ' B. Existing Development and Uses The Crossroads property was originally developed in the 1970's as a mixed use commercial and residential development. The current uses on the site generate a total of $180,000 in annual property tax. The following is breakdown of the current uses on-site: • 43,653 sq. ft. retail/restaurant/bar • 6,295 sq. ft. in two movie theaters • 13,520 sq. ft. office space • 106 surface parking spaces • 92 structured parking spaces • 22 Condos Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Crossroads Redevelopment ~ Mauriello Planning Group, LLC - ~-= --- Existing West Building Fronting Meadow Drive Existing North Building and Parking Lot ~~ ~~~ ~ ~. Y .=4:~.y.}'' i,vc~ii uuuvery trucxs tnat can oe removes rrom street Crossroads Redevelopment g Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Existing Frontage Road Elevation III. Detailed Project Description and Zoning Analysis A. Project Site and Ownership The Crossroads property, located at 143 East Meadow Drive, contains 2.643 acres of land. The site is bounded on the north by the South Frontage Road and I-70, on the east by Village Center Road, on the south by East Meadow Drive, and on the west by the Vail Village Inn. The site is now owned by two LLC's managed by Peter Knobel. All of the condominiums are either owned by the applicant or are under contract for sale to the applicant. ' B. Proposed Uses The plan was developed as a package that provides substantial benefits and revenues to the Town, needed outdoor plaza and gathering spaces, and entertainment uses that create excitement and activity within the village. The following is a breakdown of the proposed uses (approximate): • 39,251 sq. ft. of retail area on pedestrian level and one floor above; • 7,441 sq. ft. of restaurant and bar area on pedestrian level and one floor above; • 14,396 sq. ft. of arcade and 10-lane bowling alley; • 11,500 sq. ft. of theater space with 3-screens and 396 seats; • 24,000 sq. ft. plaza with winter ice rink and summer water feature; • 65 to 73 dwelling units containing 198,767 sq. ft. of GRFA. ~ rzi Example of Retail Character Crossroads Redevelopment q Mauriello Planning Group, LLC The following is the list of uses as characterized by the CSC zone district: ' Retail Shops Use by Right • Restaurants Use by Right ' Bars and Nightclubs Use by Right • Professional Offices Use by Right ' • Outdoor Skating Rink Accessory Use • Bowlin Alle (text amendment) Conditional Use g y • Movie Theaters Conditional Use • Meeting Rooms Conditional Use • Multiple Family Residential Conditional Use • Private Parking Club Conditional Use C. Building Design h T e proposed architectural theme of the building has been re-designed based on comments received through the planning process. Since the Planning and ' Environmental Commission unanimous vote (Apri125, 2005) to recommend approval of the project the building mass and design has been further reduced and refined. The GRFA proposed is approximately 12,000 sq. ft. less than the Apri12005 plan. We ' believe the changes have improved the overall project design. The proposed building design and materials were developed with careful consideration ' of the alpine mountain environment, location of the property on the periphery of the village and bordering Interstate 70, and the high quality of architectural treatment that the town strives for. The desi n is characterized as a forward lookin ex ression of E g g p uropean alpine heritage and more contemporary forms. Images of lodges, ski chalets and village centers of Austria and Switzerland that hold such timeless be t d h , au y an c arm, gave inspiration to the appearance of the project. The vernacular of the project reflects features of craftsman revival style. Architectural details yield the look of ' handcraftsmanship; exposed beams, rafter tails, log columns, and braces turn construction details into built-in ornamentation that tie the design back to the earth and to the history of the log and timber architecture of the west. One important aspect of this building includes simple roof forms that are oriented north south, thus breaking the overall massing into a collection of smaller forms. The continuous movement and undulations of the ground plane and facade create visual appeal and are sympathetic to the scale of a mountain village. ' Crossroads Redevelopment 10 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ~' D. Commercial Floor Areas The commercial floor area can be divided into six categories: retail, restaurant, bowling/arcade/sports bar, and theater. The gross floor areas are approximately: Retail: 39,251 sq. ft. Restaurant/Bar: 7,441 sq. ft. Sub-total 46,692 sq. ft. Theaters (including concessions, restrooms, BOH): 11,500 sq. ft. Bowling/Arcade: 14,396 sq. ft. Sub-total 25,896 sq. ft. Total Gross Floor Area (excluding circulation) 72,588 sq. ft. E. Residential Floor Areas The gross residential floor area of the site which does not include common areas such as circulation, parking, and pool areas is approximately 198,767 sq. ft. (a reduction from April 2005 approval by PEC). The residential floor area will remain the same while the number of units will depend on final unit configuration and layout. Residential floor area is an area of deviation from the underlying zoning however is consistent with the designation of High Density Residential per the Vail Village Master Plan adopted 20 years after the zone district was established. F. Parking Below is a table documenting the parking requirements for the proposed Crossroads redevelopment. The proposed development plan includes a total of 334 parking spaces to meet the parking requirements of the project including the 93 space private parking club. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 11 Use # of Units/S . Ft. Code Ratios Total Dwellin Units 73 1.4 102.20 Retail net 90% 35,326 0.0023 81.25 Theater seatin 3,397 0.006060606 20.59 Restaurant seatin 7,441 0.004 29.76 Bar seatin 2,232 0.004 8.93 Arcade/Bowlin 4,735 0.0023 10.89 Total 253.62 5% reduction 12.68 Net Re wired Parkin 240.94 Parkin Provided 334.00 Parkin Club Parkin 93.06 Note: Parking Calculation assumes 73 units as the worst case scenario. ' The parking lot will be operated with a fee structure that will allow the public to park on-site. This private parking facility will essentially free up parking within the ' municipal parking structures thus improving the Town's ability to accommodate skier and Vail Village parking. G. Parking Club ' The owner of Crossroads will utilize the surplus parking spaces provided on-site as part of a parking club where parking spaces will be leased and/or sold. It is anticipated that owners within the building will purchase additional parking spaces as ' well as other owners of property within the area. As currently planned the parking club will utilize all of the parking not required for the planned uses on the site. ' Similar to other parking clubs in the Town, these parking spaces will allow persons who would have otherwise parked within the public parking structures, to park at Crossroads. The net impact will be to decrease demand on the Town's facilities. In any case, since the club spaces are in excess of the Town's requirements, the club will not tmpact the ability of the proposed uses to have adequate parking. K Access and Circulation ' The primary vehicular access point for the project is located along Village Center Road near the current curb-cut. The street alignment, grades, and stacking space are drastically improved over the existing condition. There is a pone cochere for the residential condominiums accessed from the South Frontage Road for dropping off and picking up of guests. According to the traffic report provided, the adjacent roads ways will still operate within acceptable levels of service. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 12 LJ I. Loading and Delivery ' The Zoning Regulations require a certain number of loading berths be provided based on the uses being proposed. For amixed-use facility such as the Crossroads ' redevelopment project, the maximum number of loading spaces that the regulations require is five loading berths. The proposed plan provides five formal loading berths and opportunity for 1 additional UPS style loading spaces within the pone cochere. ' All of the loading for the site is accessed directly from the South Frontage Road per the Vail Village Master Plan direction and Town policy. The entire loading facility is enclosed thus reducing the noise of trucks being unloaded and eliminating any visual ' concerns. The loading and delivery facility will operate as part of the overall Vail Village dispersed loading program. 1 J. Density ' Density is expressed as the number of residential dwelling units per acre of land. The proposed development plan includes 69 residential units (76 units in Apri12005 PEC approval) but the requested density is range from 65 - 73 without changing the GRFA. ' That results in a proposed density of 27.6 dwelling units/acre (assuming 73 untts are constructed). The CSC zone as currently codified district allows 18 dwelling units/acre (the Vail Village Master Plan suggests the site should be developed at high density residential). By way of comparison, the CC2 zone district (across the street at Village Center) allows 25 dwelling units per acre, the PA zone district (Sonnenalp) ' allows 25 dwelling units per acre, the Vail Village Inn underlying zoning allows 25 dwelling units per acre, and the density allowed in Lionshead is 35 dwelling units/acre. The Vail Village Master Plan indicates the Crossroads site as being suitable for high ' density. This is an area where the proposed plan deviates from the underlying zoning however meets the intent of the Vail Village Master Plan. K. Building Height The Crossroads redevelopment plan was developed around the idea of creating a large urban plaza in the center of East Meadow Drive. The concept was to extend the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road into the Crossroads site ' in order to provide a venue for community events and gathering spaces for the general public. Additionally, the project was conceived as a retail center and a family entertainment complex. These community aspects of the project have required that the mass of the buildings be forced to the edges of the property on the north, east, and west. The result of creating this large urban plaza is the buildings are taller on the edges of the property. The proposed Crossroads building varies in height on the ' lower end from 58' at the peak of the building along Meadow Drive (approximately 37' from the eave line). By way of comparison, the existing peak along Meadow Drive Crossroads Redevelopment 13 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC is approximately 50' and the eave line is approximately 45'. The perceived height ' along Meadow Drive will be less than the existing building due to the revised pitch of the roof. The height of the northwest corner of the building closest to the VVI Phase 3 building is proposed at approximately 81.9' from finished grade. Byway of ' comparison, the elevation of the uppermost ridge on the VVI building is 8,251' whereas the ridge of the proposed Crossroads structure closest to VVI is at 8,259.0' for a difference of 8.7'. When you consider that there is an increase of 6' in the based t grade along the South Frontage Road from the west side of the Crossroads building and the upper most ridge of the VVI Phase 3 building the actual difference in building height is only 2.7'. ' The hi hest eak of the buildin the central eak of the buildin as measure from g P g ~ P g) finished grade along the South Frontage Road is proposed at approximately 87.57' and ' the eave line is at approximately 60'. ' The highest peak on the building measured from historic grade is 99.91' on the central building form. ' The Vail Village Master Plan supports the concept of allowing taller buildings along the periphery of the Village adjacent to the South Frontage Road. The Town has implemented this concept with its approval of the Vail Plaza Hotel and the Four ' Season's project with buildings in the 89' to 99' height range. This is an area where the proposed plan deviates from the underlying zoning but complies with intent of the Vail Village Master Plan. L. Setbacks i 1 1 1 The building setbacks, as proposed, vary greatly over the site. Setbacks range from 150' along Meadow Drive to 0' in other areas. In order to develop a creative design for this site that responds to the topography and to the adjacent uses and to implement the Vail Village Master Plan policies, the standard 20' was used as a guideline. What emerged from the design is amulti-faceted building without continuous flat or straight walls along any property line. The only portion of the site where there is an adjacent property owner is along the west property line. Great care was taken in this area to provide generous setbacks where adjacent buildings exist especially at upper levels of the building. The other approach that was used on this project was to vary setbacks as the building moves up in height similar to the step- backs found in the Lionshead guidelines. Along the west property line, the proposed plan meets or exceeds the 20' setback except in the area where the loading dock is located. Setbacks are an area of deviation from the underlying zoning. Crossroads Redevelopment 14 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ' M. Site Coverage Site coverage is a measure of building footprint to total lot area. A strict ' interpretation of the definition of site coverage would also include improvements located below grade such as structured parking. Under the strict interpretation of site coverage the proposed plan is near 100% building coverage due to the subsurface ~, improvements. If subsurface improvements are excluded and the site is looked at from the pedestrian's perspective the site development is proposed at approximately 67.5% (77,720 sq. ft.). The CSC zone district limits site coverage to 75% of the total site area so the project is well below the standard (due to the extensive plaza space provided onsite). N. Landscape Area/Streetscape ' The Crossroads redevelopment project is located within the urbanized area of the Town. The site today contains only a minimal level of landscape treatment. The proposed plan was developed with the Town's pedestrianized character in mind and the Town's desire for a large public plaza as expressed in the Streetscape Master Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. As such the bulk of the open areas on the site are ,~ high quality hadscape areas rather than landscaped areas. The new Crossroads meets the requirement for total landscape and softscape. u Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 15 O. Employee Housing 1 1 1 1 1 1 The Town of Vail has required the owners of new and redeveloped projects to provide employee housing for the incremental increase in the number of employees generated by a project. The Town, to-date, has never codified this requirement or the formula used by staff to determine the requirement. We have applied the formula traditionally used by the Town staff to this project while taking a credit for the existing uses located on the property. The formula below generates the need for 6 employee beds. The applicant will provide deed restrictions for dwelling units located within the Town of Vail reflecting the required number of beds prior to the issuance of a TCO on the project. For this calculation, the worst case scenario of 73 units was assumed even though the request allows for 65 to 73 total units. S . Ft. or Units Formula Gross Em to ees Retail/Service Commercial 22116 0.0050 110.58 Groce 6240 0.0015 9.36 Restaurant/Loun e/Kitchen 5549 0.0050 27.745 Ni ht Club 7000 0.0050 35 Professional/Office 13520 0.0050 67.6 Bank 2748 0.0025 6.87 Multi le-Famil Units 22 0.4000 8.8 Theater' 600 0.0050 3 Total 268.955 Proposed Crossroads Develo ment S . Ft. or Units Formula Gross Em to ees Retail/Service Commercial 39,251 0.0050 196.255 Restaurant/Loun a 9,673 0.0050 48.365 Multi le-Famil Units 73 0.4000 29.2 Arcade'` 1000 0.0050 5 Theater'' 1000 0.0050 5 Bowlin 1000 0.0050 5 Total 288.82 Net Increase in Gross Employees 19.865 30% Reduction FactorlTotal to provide housing for 5.96 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 16 i 1 P. Text Amendment for Bowling AIZey The zoning code does not currently define a bowling alley or list it as a permitted or conditional use in any zone district. The proposal includes an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to provide a definition of a bowling alley and list a bowling alley as a conditional use in the CSC zone district. The proposed definition is as follows: BOWLING ALLEY: A recreation and entertainment facility where the sport of bowling takes place. A bowling alley may also include accessory entertainment facilities and uses such as eating and drinking facilities, retail shops, night clubs, arcade facilities, billiards, ping pong, darts, meeting rooms, and similar uses. Q. Off-Site Public Improvement Plan In addition to the public benefits presented in the following section, a public improvement plan has been provided. This plan clearly delineates the offsite improvements being proposed by the applicant and the financial responsibility for 1 each area shown on the plan. Purpose and Intent: In addition to all of the other public benefits and amenities (i.e., ' theater, bowling alley, loading and delivery, ice rink, public plaza, restrooms, improved TOV revenues, etc.) resulting from the' redevelopment of the Crossroads ' property, this document identifies all of the physical public improvements and financial contributions being proposed with the project in its proposed form. ~ Proposed Improvements: u 1. Frontage Road Medians -The applicant proposes to design, construct, plant, and install irrigation in the proposed South Frontage Road medians as shown on the proposed Public Improvement Plan, subject to CDOT approval. Once completed and accepted by the Town of Vail, the Town of Vail will be responsible for maintaining the medians and supplying water for irrigation. 2. Roadway Improvements -The applicant proposes to remove the existing turn- lane to Village Center Road and provide curb and gutter along the Crossroads frontage of S. Frontage Road. Additionally, the applicant proposes to narrow Village Center Road, install curb and gutter along the entire Crossroads frontage, provide streetscape pavers, and snowmelt the entire street as shown on the public improvement plan. The heating system will be installed by the applicant but the Town of Vail will provide the heat source and fund the operation of this snowmelt system. See plan for details. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 17 1 1 C. 3. Sidewalks -The applicant proposes to design and construct sidewalks (with snowmelt) along the Crossroads frontage of Village Center Road and S. Frontage Road as shown on the proposed plan. The applicant will assume the operating cost of snow melting these sidewalks. All sidewalk maintenance will be the responsibility of the Town. 4. streetscape Improvements -The applicant proposes to design and construct the streetscape improvements located outside of the Crossroads property as shown on the public improvement plan. The applicant also proposes to design and install the snowmelt system within the public right-of-way. The Town of Vail will be responsible for the ongoing operation of the snowmelt system and shall provide its own heat source for the system. A portion of the streetscape improvements are within an area of responsibility of the Swiss Chalet/One Willow Place project. The One Willow Place project shall be responsible for paying its required share of these streetscape improvements. Some areas of streetscape improvements encroach upon adjacent properties. If the Town obtains permission for these streetscape improvements on these properties, Crossroads will fund and construct these improvements as indicated in the plan. Crossroads Plaza -The applicant will construct all of the plaza and streetscape improvements shown on the Crossroads property. This plaza will contain a snowmelt system operated and maintained by the applicant. The plaza and ice rink will be open to public access. Art In Public Places -Upon approval of the Crossroads project by the Town of Vail, the applicant will work with the AIPP board to establish a public art program for the Crossroads project. Some of the public art improvements may be in the form of other streetscape improvements already indicated in the public improvement plan (i.e., paver material and design, benches, water features, light fixtures, etc.). The applicant proposes to fund at least $1.1 in public art improvements. R. Condominium Rental Program Intent: The condominium rental program is being developed by input and direction from Stan Cope who has more than 30 years of experience with successful rental programs. The rental program is focused on three main goals, which have proven successful for Stan at the Lodge Tower, as well as numerous other high quality, tourist oriented properties: 1. Owner asset management; 2. Owner rental income; and 3. Owner's personal usage and satisfaction. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 18 1 When these three goals can be achieved, condo owners in a large condominium projects will rent units voluntarily. Currently, 75% of the units in the Lodge Tower rent and the renting owners yield 63% of the gross rental revenue. In summary, the key to achieving the above goals is to emulate the management of a fine, high quality, luxury hotel. The management program is a hospitality program above all else. On-site management and management offices are a necessity. Top level services need to be provided to renting guests and owners alike. Great service and a first class property will attract the kind of clientele that not only can afford a fine resort but will respect the property of others. Owners become proud of being part of the resort and have confidence that their asset is being well cared for while producing a painless, welcome income to off-set their ownership expenses. The level of service to be offered includes daily or twice daily maid service, 24-hour desk and concierge, bell and valet staff, local transportation service, pre-arrival activity, ski and grocery service and premium rental equipment. An in-house maintenance staff not only quickly provides for guests needs but corrects problems in units before they become a major problem and expense to the renting owner. Owners become confident that their arrival will be hassle free and as enjoyable as a vacationing guest in spite of a renting guest occupying their unit the night before. The final piece to encourage owners to rent is creating a financial structure that strongly rewards owners that rent. The cost sharing structure between the Homeowners' Association and the Rental Program needs to be an integrated program that equitably balances all of the services being offered to owners and renters alike. Properly and efficiently designed, owners will be financially rewarded for renting instead of carrying the service costs for all owners, as is the case in many condominium hospitality programs. Strategies for successful asset and rental management: Client asset management. Condo owners are reluctant to rent their homes if they perceive that their asset is at risk from damage, theft, or other property degradation. When there is proper staffing to allow for daily inspections of property and proper assurance of damage replacement, condo owners feel more comfortable renting their homes. Crossroads will employ an adequate staff to insure proper property supervision and inspection to the highest level of quality. Daily maid service is made available to owners and automatically provided for guests in order to provide convenient service to the guests as well as a supervision mechanism for the management of the property. If the property is managed at the highest level of quality then owners feel comfortable Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 19 allowing their asset to be utilized. Crossroads plans to manage the property at the highest level of quality with 24-hour on-site management, security, and client services. 2. Client rental income. Condominium management can be an expensive non-deductible expense for condo owners. The Crossroads rental program will be structured similar to that of the Lodge Tower where the overall condominium ownership expense can easily be offset by the income generated by the rental program. Additionally, condominium owners can expect net rental income reaching 63% of the total revenues from renting one's ' condominium. 3. Personal usage and satisfaction. Probably the most important aspect of a rental program is flexibility. Some owners will purchase a condominium in Vail for personal use as a higher priority to rental income. Having ones home available when one wants to use it is extremely important to the success of a rental program. An owner does not want to feel trapped by committing to certain days or weeks. To create flexibility owners are asked to set aside dates they think they may be in Vail and dates they know they will not. Owners are able to check back frequently with changes to schedules. Additionally, management staff stays in close contact with owners when bookings are being made to make sure the owners usage is not being infringed upon. ' Based on Stan's experience working at the Lodge Tower, we believe that at least 50 of the 70 proposed condominiums will be successfully rented. This exceeds the predictions utilized in the revenue analysis prepared by Steve Thompson who assumed only 30% of the units would be rented. Amore detailed management program will be developed in the coming months. Key Elements of Rental Program: • 24 hour front desk and concierge • High level of service to unit owners • Fee structure allowing those participating in rental program to offset management and maintenance fees and obtain rental income • Daily maid service available/required • Full-time management/rental staff located on-site • Food service delivery available from on-site restaurants • Full-time on-site security • Active marketing program for rental units locally and nationally • Participation in national condo rental/exchange club Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 20 V' r 1 IV. Public Benefits of Project As stated in the introduction, the list of public benefits being proposed by this project is extensive. Not only are the direct community benefits such as the ice rink and the entertainment complex included in the list, but also the more indirect benefits of redevelopment in and of itself. The list below includes all of the direct and indirect public and community benefits this project has to offer the Town of Vail: • New 24,000 sq. ft. public plaza with winter ice skating/summer pop-jet fountain • Public restrooms at pedestrian level and within garage • New high quality retail and architecture in heart of Vail • Implementation of streetscape master plan recommendations • Enclosed loading and delivery facility for public use • New bus stop • New landscape medians in S. Frontage Road Public Amenities: • 3 screen movie theater with stadium seating • 10-lane bowling alley and family arcade • $1.1 million in public art Revenue Increase: • Increase in annual revenue to the Town from $179,236 to $1.29 million. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 21 V. Special Development District -Standards and Criteria ' "The ur ose of the s ecial develo ment district is to encoura e flexibilit and r 'v' p p p p g y c eats rty m the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail " comprehensive plan. ' The following design criteria are used by the Town in the evaluation of a Special Development Distrtct. The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan adequately addresses each of these criteria. Below is a summary of how the project implements each of these criteria. Please note that the entire application and submittal materials for the Crossroads Redevelopment address the criteria below to addition to the summary provided. A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Our Analysis: ' The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan was designed to be compatible with the mountain environment and the new trends alpine architecture. While the site is not located in the area regulated by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, most of the recommendations and goals of that plan are tmplemented by the proposed development plan. The site is located on the periphery of the village adjacent to the South Frontage Road. The Vail Village M Pl d aster an recommen s taller buildings be concentrated along the Frontage Road and step down toward the village core. The proposed structures follow this guideline. The site is also being redeveloped in the context of recent 1 approvals made by the Town on adjacent sites. The Vail Plaza Hotel and the Four Season projects have both been approved following the same general concept of taller buildings along the Frontage Road. However, the Crossroads ' project, unlike the other two, focuses more of the building bulk and mass along the Frontage Road in order to maintain a large public plaza (1/2-acre in area) along the south side of the site. The proposed plan provides generous setbacks to adjacent development located to the west of the site and the buildings are oriented to help maintain views in the area. The building was also designed to appear as several building forms. The roof ridges were turned north south to prevent a long conttnuous roof ridge running ' Crossroads Redevelopment 22 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 1 I; f east west across the site which has been fairly common on other redevelopment projects. There are no major flat roofs proposed on this structure. The materials are of the highest quality and include Telluride Gold stacked stone, strip sandstone (laid on side), wood-like siding, dark zinc roof and siding elements, timber arches and bracing, rolled logs, heavy deck rails, planter boxes, and proportional glazing. The proposed materials are such high quality that maintenance is minimally required. The building was designed to stand the test of time and to respond to the Rocky Mountain climate and harsh conditions. A statement from the Lionshead Master Plan sums up our belief about new Vail architecture: "the architectural language...should strive to reinterpret its heritage and look to the future, instead of simply mimicking the past." The design of the building also creates an identity to stimulate visual interest and help anchor the East Meadow Drive area of Vail as a sought after destination. The design will help draw people to back to Vail and East Meadow Drive in particular. The proposed development plan is compatible with the area. The site is located across the street from the Sonnenalp redevelopment project and adjacent to the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment project. While the proposed building will not be the same scale as the existing three to six-story structures that make up the remainder of the Vail Village Inn (VVI), the plan recognizes the long-term need to redevelop the remaining portions of the VVI to a scale and quality reflective of current trends. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Our Analysis: The East Meadow Drive area is characterized by residential, lodging, and commercial development. The Vail Village Master Plan recognizes this area of Town as mixed-use commercial and high density residential. The proposed redevelopment plan responds to the uses already developed in the neighborhood and also provides a high quality mix of uses along East Meadow Drive. The proposed project provides an increase in retail and restaurant space, new movie theaters, bowling alley, and arcade which do not exist to this degree of quality in Vail, new public plaza spaces and amenities, and high quality residential development. The proposed uses will anchor this portion of the Vail Village and generate activity that will not only benefit the retail shops at Crossroads but all of the businesses in the surrounding area. The parking provided on this site will generate pedestrian traffic to all areas of East Meadow Drive and the village core. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 23 The proposed project creates a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship ' with surrounding uses and activities. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. Our Analysis: The proposed redevelopment plan meets or exceeds all of the parking and loading standards found in Chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations. Please refer to other sections of this report and the proposed development plan for details on parking and loading. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail ' Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. Our Analysis: The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan complies with all relevant master planning documents and Town policies. The plan also complies with relevant sections of the Urban Design Guide Plan; however, this plan is not applicable to this site. Please refer to section VII of this report for a comprehensive review of the Town's master planning documents and policies that are implemented by this plan. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Our Analysis: There are no natural or geologic hazards existing or mapped by the Town on the Crossroads site. F D i . es gn Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and ' sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Our Analysis: The Crossroads site has been developed for more than 30 years and therefore there are no natural features on the site and little in terms of vegetation. The ' proposed project was designed to reflect mountain alpine architecture, the alpine climate, and quality demanded by the Town. The project was also developed around the master plan direction and the community desire to ' extend a public plaza into the site. The proposed plan includes a large open plaza (nearly 20% of the area of the entire site). This 1/2-acre plaza will 1 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 24 i~ 1 1 1 1 improve the Town's ability to accommodate outdoor gatherings and events. The proposed landscape plan introduces additional trees and vegetation in meaningful locations throughout the site to improve the aesthetics of the site and the surrounding area. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Our Analysis: The Crossroads project has been designed to address three major issues within the Town: availability and adequacy of parking; pedestrian circulation and gathering; and loading and delivery. Along-standing goal of the Town is to remove loading and delivery entering the Crossroads site through E. Meadow Drive and require access directly to the South Frontage Road. The proposed plan includes a new, enclosed loading dock facility that is accessed directly from the South Frontage Road. The loading facility includes five loading berths, the maximum required by the Town Code for amixed-use facility. The loading dock also includes a trash facility for the project. The loading dock provides access to grade on the west side of the site to allow for use by merchants on adjacent sites. All of the parking for the site is accessed from Village Center Road. All of the parking is located below grade. The control gate for the site is located deep within the garage to prevent cars from stacking into Village Center Road. Cars exiting the facility cue within the parking structure, thus preventing any blocking of traffic on Village Center Road. Additionally, there is a pone cochere along the South Frontage Road for residential guests arriving at the site. The pone cochere will provide temporary pick-up for guests and valet parking. A traffic report is included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project. This report indicates that all roadways adjacent to the site have excess capacity upon completion of this redevelopment project. There is no need for major roadway improvements due to the traffic generated for the proposed uses on-site. There is no vehicular access proposed to the East Meadow Drive frontage of the site. The pedestrian improvements associated with this site are extensive. Pedestrian access is provided on all adjacent roadways and between the VVI project and the Crossroads site. The applicant is proposing a significant public plaza on the site that will allow for pedestrian traffic and public gatherings. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 25 1 1 ii [~ 1 H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Our Analysis: The Crossroads project is currently developed with buildings, structured parking, and surface parking. There is very little existing landscaping on the property. The site is located within an urban setting which presents challenges in terms of providing landscape areas and materials. Retail, plaza areas and gathering places, and pedestrian walks all compete with landscape improvements. However, the proposed redevelopment plan for Crossroads provides significant landscape materials in strategic locations which do not interfere with retail store fronts or needed gathering spaces. The proposed hardscape areas of the site provide an aesthetic quality not currently existing in the area. The proposed development plan and landscape plan optimize the site as a gathering space, a recreation complex, and as a place to sit and view the surrounding urban fabric. I. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Our Analysis: The project is proposed to be developed in one phase. Permits for demolition and excavation will be pursued prior to a full building permit being issued for the project. A condominium plat will be required prior to CO of the project. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 26 VI. Conditional Use Permit -Review Criteria Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Plannin and Environmental g Commission (I'EC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed conditional uses of a major arcade, bowling alley, movie theaters, meeting rooms, and multiple-family dwellings: A. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Our Analysis: The proposed conditional uses will have little, if any, negative impact on the ' above referenced issues. The proposed redevelopment plan provides residential density within the urban core of Vail adjacent to the Town's transportation center, along the in-town shuttle route, and adjacent to the South Frontage Road (the major vehicular traffic route through the town). Adequate parking is being provided on the site to serve the uses proposed and help relieve the Town's parking storage at key times of the year. Given the types of uses being proposed there is no tmpact on the need for schools and parks within the Town. The proposed site for which the conditional uses are being proposed ' provides extensive recreational amenities including a large public plaza, an outdoor ice rink, a bowling alley, and a recreation and entertainment complex. All of the necessary public facilities are already in place to serve the proposed ' project as the project is a redevelopment of an urban in-fill site. Any modifications to public utilities or facilities are being accommodated in the proposed development plan. B. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Our Analysis: The proposed redevelopment plan will improve the overall traffic and circulation around and on the site. Loading and delivery is being located along the South Frontage Road where it will have the least impact to the pedestrianized areas surrounding the site. Pedestrian safety is being improved with the addition of sidewalks and public plaza spaces. All parking is being ' located underground and all pedestrian areas are being heated so there is no need for traditional snow removal from the site. The parking areas and access ways are all being developed within the Town's standards to allow for sufficient flow and maneuverability. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 27 C. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Our Analysis: The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan was designed to be compatible 1 with the mountain environment and the new trends in alpine architecture. While the site is not located in the area regulated by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, most of the recommendations and goals of that plan are ' implemented by the proposed development plan. The site is located on the periphery of the village adjacent to the South Frontage Road. The Vail Village Master Plan recommends taller buildings be concentrated along the Frontage ' Road and step down toward the village core. The proposed structures follow this guideline. The site is also being redeveloped in the context of recent ' approvals made by the Town on adjacent sites. The Vail Plaza Hotel and the Four Season projects have both been approved following the same general concept of taller buildings along the Frontage Road. However, the Crossroads project, unlike the other two, focuses more of the building bulk and mass along the Frontage Road leaving a large public plaza (1/2-acre) along the south side of the site. The proposed plan provides generous setbacks to adjacent development located to the west of the site and the buildings are oriented to help maintain views in ' the area. The building was also designed to appear as several building forms. The roof ' ridges were turned north south to prevent a long continuous roof ridge running east west across the site which has been fairly common on other redevelopment projects. There are no major flat roofs proposed on this structure. The ' materials are of the highest. quality and include Telluride Gold stacked stone, strip sandstone (laid on side), wood-like siding, dark zinc roof and siding elements, timber arches and bracing, rolled logs, heavy deck rails, planter boxes, and proportional glazing. The proposed materials are such high quality that maintenance is minimally required. The building was designed to stand the test of time and to respond to the Rocky Mountain climate and harsh conditions. ' A statement from the Lionshead Master Plan sums up our belief about new Vail architecture: "the architectural language...should strive to reinterpret its heritage and look to the future, instead of simply mimicking the past." The design of the building also creates an identity to stimulate visual interest and help anchor the East Meadow Drive area of Vail. The design will help draw people to back to Vail and specifically East Meadow Drive. Crossroads Redevelopment 28 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC The proposed development plan is compatible with the area. The site is located across the street from the Sonnenalp redevelopment project and adjacent to the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment project. 1 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 29 VII. Text Amendment for Bowling Alley -Review Criteria Before acting on a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall evaluate the following criteria: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations. Our Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow bowling alleys to exist within the Town of Vail. Bowling alleys are common within most communities and should be accommodated within the Town of Vail. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town. Our Analysis: ' The proposed amendment will allow bowling alleys to be considered subject to a conditional use permit within the CSC zone district. The Vail Land Use plan specifically recommends the establishment of "entertainment facilities" within the Vail ' Village to promote evening activities. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the Zoning Regulations and the Land Use Plan. ' 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable. Our Analysis: r-, J This criterion is not applicable to the proposed amendment. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Our Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow bowling alleys to be considered subject to a conditional use permit. The text amendment will allow the PEC to evaluate the Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 30 relationship of the proposed bowling alley with respect to adjacent uses and the a Town's development standards. The proposed amendment will allow for a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among land use regulations. w 1 1 I~ 1 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 31 1 1 ~J 1 1 VIII. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Direction The Town's master planning documents have been analyzed with respect to the proposed redevelopment project. Below is a list of the Town's guiding documents followed by a list of goals and objectives that are consistent with the proposed redevelopment plan. Items listed in italics are of particular importance to the proposed redevelopment plan. A. Vail Land Use Plan 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.5 Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas. 2. Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more effectively. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. Crossroads Redevelopment 32 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 2. S The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year- round tourism. 3. Commercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs . 3. S Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time busznesses, on-going events and sanctzoned "street happenzngs"should be encouraged. 4. Village Core/Lionshead; 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality). 5. Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as approprzate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential rowth should ke ace with the market lace demands or a ull ran e g ~P p P f f g ' of housing types. S.5 The existin em to ee-housin base should be reserved an g p y g p d upgraded. ' Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites th h t th i roug ou e commun ty. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 33 ii s t 6. Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 34 i ~~ 1 r f t B. Urban Design Guide Plan -Limited Applicability The VVMP designates those areas that are subject to the Urban Design Guide Plan. As shown on the map below, only the frontage (first 10' or so) of the Crossroads property is subject to the Urban Design Guide Plan policies. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 35 Master Plan Terms 1 C. Vail Village Master Plan (VVMP) The Vail Village Master Plan was adopted in 1990. The plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use regulations and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors. The Master Plan taken as a whole is a general guide for .. development and redevelopment activtties in the Vail area. 1. Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan found in the VVMP recommends mixed-use commercial and medium/high density residential uses for the Crossroads site. The high density residential development is recommended along the South Frontage Road, along a portion the Village Center Road, and adjacent to the Vail Village Inn project. The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan matches this recommended development pattern. The proposed plan is consistent with these designations. See map below. r t ~~ ~ 4-. -~ ~, ,~ t;. f - Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 36 VVMP -Land Use Plan t 1 2. Open Space Plan The Open Space Plan recommends that a plaza space be created in the current parking lot of the Crossroads site. The proposed redevelopment includes a plaza that is larger than that proposed by the VVMP. See map below. 3. Parking and Circulation Plan The Parking and Circulation Plan indicates the need for a pedestrian connection to the VVI project and to the Town's parking structure. Additionally, the plan recommends a sidewalk along the Crossroads frontage of the South Frontage Road. The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan provides for all of these pedestrian connections as well as pedestrian improvements to E. Meadow Drive and Village Center Road. The proposed redevelopment plan implements this plan. Building Height Plan The Building Height Plan recommends taller buildings along the South Frontage Road and lower buildings along East Meadow Drive. The building height plan is a guiding plan and does not constitute a zoning limitation. The proposed plan concentrates the taller portions of the buildings along the South Frontage Road and has limited building mass elsewhere on the site due to the proposed pedestrian plaza which takes up nearly 40% of the site. The proposed building heights are consistent with the approvals granted to the Vail Plaza Hotel and the Four Season Hotel site. The proposed redevelopment plan is consistent with the intent and guidance provided by the building height plan. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 37 VVMP -Open Space Plan 1 D 5. Action Plan Policy 1-6 states that the Crossroads property should be improved with the addition of a new pedestrian plaza where the current parking area is located today. The policy also requires that all parking requirements be met on-site and loading and delivery to the site be accessed from the South Frontage Road. The policy recommends a strong building edge on East Meadow Drive with the necessary and U customary streetscape improvements. The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan implements this policy to the fullest extent. All of the required parking is located below grade, a new pedestrian plaza is being created, the loading and delivery functions are accessed from the South Frontage Road, and the streetscape around the entire project is being improved. a Policy 1-7 states that Village Center Road should be redeveloped in order to help prevent cars from accessing the pedestrian areas of Vail. The policy also requires that pedestrian access improvements be made to this road. The proposed redevelopment plan for Crossroads implements this plan by narrowing the roadway and providing sidewalks for pedestrians. A significant landscape buffer is also being provided. 6. Goals Goals for the Vail Village area are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for future development of the Village. The goals, along with the established objectives and a policies are to be used in evaluating a proposal during the development review process. The following goals, objectives, and policies are consistent with the proposed redevelopment plan: D G l 1 h oa # Encourage igh quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.1.1 Policy: Development and improvement projects approved in the Village shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 38 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public a improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a _ whole. •~' 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughout the Village and allow fbr development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.1.1 Policy: The zoning code and development review criteria shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short-term, overnight accommodations. ' 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial ' activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal-zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the ' needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policy: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other ' amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. Crossroads Redevelopment 39 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 2.5.2 Policy: The Town will use the maximum. flexibility possible in the interpretation of building and fire codes in order to facilitate building renovations without compromising life, health and safety considerations. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village . 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other im rovements p . 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.2 Policy: Public art shall be encouraged at appropriate locations throughout the Town. 3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 3.2.1 Policy: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. 3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.3.1 Policy: The Town encourages a regulated program of outdoor street activity in predetermined locations throughout the Village. 3.3.2 Policy: Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be enco r ed i i l i fill d l u ag n commerc n a or re eve opment projects. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 40 t 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. ' 4.1.1 Polic Active recre f y anon acilities shall be preserved (or relocated to accessible locations elsewhere in the Village) in any development or redevelopment of property in Vail Village. 4.1.2 Policy: The development of new public plazas, and improvements to existing plazas (public art, streetscape features, seating areas, etc.), shall be strongly encouraged to reinforce their roles as attractive people places. 4.1.4 Policy: Open space improvements including the addition of accessible green space as described or graphically shown in the Vail Village Master Plan D and/or Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction with private infill or redevelopment projects. 4.2 Objective: Improve and expand the opportunity for active and passive recreational activity throughout the Village. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. t 1 5.1.1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the Zoning Code. 5.1.3 Policy: Seek locations for additional structured public and private parking spaces. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 41 1 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. 5.2 Objective: Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. 5.2.2 Policy: The Town shall facilitate and encourage the operation of private shuttle vans outside of the pedestrianized core area. 5.4 Objective: Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors throughout the Village. 5.4.1 Policy: The Town shall work with the Colorado Division of Highways ,~ toward the implementation of a landscaped boulevard and parkway along the South Frontage Road. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. 6.2 Objective: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. 6.2.1 Policy: Development projects and other improvements in Vail Village shall be reviewed by respective Town departments to identify both the impacts of the proposal and potential mitigating measures. 6.2.2 Policy: Minor improvements (landscaping, decorative paving, open dining decks, etc.) may be permitted on Town of Vail land or right-of-way (with review and approval by the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission when applicable) provided that Town operations such as snow removal, street maintenance and fire department access and operation are able to be maintained at current levels. Special design (i.e. heated D pavement), maintenance fees, or other considerations may be required to offset impacts on Town services. e Crossroads Redevelopment 42 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 'I D. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations (UDGP) As discussed in "B" above, only the extreme periphery of the Crossroads project is located within the area covered by the UDGP. Therefore, only the edges of the protect along East Meadow Drive and Village Center Road are to be considered. Below is the list of Urban Design Considerations found in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Each of these criteria is being implemented in some form by the proposed redevelopment plan. 1. Pedestrianization/Vehicle Penetration The Design Considerations recommend differing levels of pedestrianizationroithin the Vail Village. The goal of the plan is to create a pedestrian circulation system that is interconnected and pleasant for the pedestrian. The design plan recognizes, that "vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets" and therefore a " totally car-free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village." Many streets within the Village have car, delivery, and bus traffic. For instance, Gore Creek Drive is used for access to the Gasthoff Gramshammer and the Sitzmark Lodge by delivery vehicles and guest vehicles and Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road are used for access by delivery vehicles and guest cars to the Bridge Street Lodge and other residential properties. All of the guest or visitor parking for the Crossroads project enters the site from Village Center Road at a location which does not interfere with the movement of pedestrians along East Meadow Drive. All of the loading and delivery for the project is accessed directly from the South Frontage Road as suggested by the VVMP. The redevelopment of this site allows for new pedestrian access and plazas that will help to improve the life and energy along this important retail corridor. 2. Streetscape Framework The design plan recommends that streets be framed by buildings, storefronts, and landscape/open space improvements. The proposed redevelopment plan pfovides for a street framework with a mixture of arcades, pedestrian walks, plazas, and storefronts. The proposed plan implements many of the goals of the proposed and adopted Streetscape Master Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan including the redevelopment of the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road. 3. Street Enclosure The Urban Design Plan recommends that streets in the Vail Village be framed by buildings to create a comfortable and safe experience for pedestrians and shoppers. Enclosing street with buildings, as with Bridge Street, creates visual interest and stimulates the retail experience. The proposed redevelopment plan for Crossroads Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 43 1 i ~. 1 i~ balances the needs for enclosure with the Town's desire for a large plaza area for events. 4. Street Edge The Design Plan recommends that buildings within the village form a strong but irregular edge to the street. The plan encourages buildings to be located at or near property lines in order to give strong definition to the pedestrian corridors. The plan also recommends breaks in buildings along a street to create visual interest. The proposed redevelopment plan provides an irregular edge to the street and creates a new pedestrian plaza and gathering place. The proposed buildings are set back in certain areas to create new plaza spaces and essentially expand the pedestrian corridor. 5. Views No adopted view corridors exist in the area on or adjacent to the Crossroads property. 6. Service and Delivery The design plan recommends that service and delivery areas be located in areas where they have the least impact on pedestrian ways. The plan also recommends that these service areas be located underground where feasible. The proposed redevelopment plan provides loading and delivery areas within the building with direct access to the South Frontage Road as recommended by the Vail Village Master Plan. 7. Sun/Shade A sun/shade analysis has been provided with the application materials. The . parameters and standards found in the design plan are generally applicable to the Village Core area (areas zoned CC1) and is less applicable to other areas, such as areas zoned CSC. Given the location of the Crossroads property on the north side of East Meadow Drive, the impacts of shade are minimal to the neighborhood. The proposed plan was laid out to capture sun and therefore the proposed retail and restaurant areas are located with great solar access. E. Streetscape Master Plan The adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan recommends the development of pedestrian improvements along the north side of East Meadow Drive and to the intersection with Willow Bridge Road. Additionally, the plan recommends changes to Village Center Road to reduce traffic from wandering into the pedestrianized areas of Crossroads Redevelopment 44 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 town. The primary recommendation of the plan is to create a "special events venue" at Q the intersection of Willow Bridge Road and Meadow Drive. The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan implements the recommendations of the newly adopted changes to the streetscape plan. In support of the Town's recommendation to create a special event venue, the Crossroads prolect proposes to nearly triple the size of the plaza with the development of a pedestrian plaza on the Crossroad property. The Crossroads project will significantly enhance the streetscape of Vail. 1 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 45 Environmental Impact Report For Crossroads Redevelopment ~-_ - _ :~. - _ - -~,~ ~ - ~° ~~-r-```` ' •~~, ,4~. .Y ~ _ - ~~ ~ alb ~ ~-_- - __ _ - ~ _ ~ ~;~- - € ~ 4 ~z •~ ~ - i * _ f.- ~..,, a _ _ ~ _ , ., ~. .17 ~ ~ -r ~~ ..~ ~ - - '. ~- - - •~: F~ 9 `ham -- I I .i t ~~ib _ _ _- Special Development District and Conditional Use Permit Applications December 2005 Mauriello Planning Group Attachment D e Environmental Impact Report For Crossroads Redevelopment Special Development District and Conditional Use Permit Applications December 2005 This report was prepared by: Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 1127 Avon, Colorado 81 620 970-748-0920 Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. 523 I South Quebec Street Greenwood Village, CO 801 I I Fox Higgins Transportation Group PO Box 19768 Boulder, CO 80308 h P Geotech PO Drawer 1887 Siiverthorne, CO 80498 970-468- 1989 JR Engineering 2620 East Prospect Road, Suite 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-49 I -9888 Steve Thompson Innovative Financial Strategies 342 15 1lighway 6, Suite 205 Edwards, Colorado 8 163 I 970-926-0818 ' Purpose of this Report: This report has been prepared pursuant to Tale 12, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 12, Environmental Impact Reports, of the Vail Town Code. The requirement for this report is derived from Section 12-9A-5, Submittal Requirements, found in the Special Development District section of the Zoning Regulations. This report addresses site conditions and potential impact of the proposed Special Development District and conditional uses proposed for the Crossroads redevelopment. Subject Property and Ownership: The property being considered in this report is a portion of Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village ' First Filing currently occupied by Crossroads of Vail Condominiums and the existing commercial development. The site has a total area of 2.643 acres (I 15, 12J.08 sq. ft.). The commercial properties and residential properties are currently owned by the applicant (some of the residential properties are under contract for purchase). Existing Conditions of Site: The Crossroads property is located in the Vail Village First Filing in Vail, Colorado. The subject property is designated by the Town of Vail Land Use Plan as being subject to the Vail Village Master Plan. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the site as appropriate for mixed-use and medium/high density residential. The zoning of the property is Commercial Service Center. The subject property is currently developed with: • Retail and Restaurant 43,650 sq. ft. • Theater 6,300 sq. ft. ' Office • Storage 13,500 sq. ft. 7>000 sq. ft. • Condominiums 22 units • Surface Parking 106 spaces • Structured Parking J2 spaces The subject property is adjacent to three existing roadways; South Frontage Road to the north, Village Center Road to the east, and East Meadow Drive to the south. The site is not located adjacent to any water bodies, live creeks, and streams. ' The existin im g provements are over 30 years old and in a state of physical decline. Crossroads Redevelopment Page I Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i :. ~~w y ,. vi f '~ ~~ r '.~ ". ~ ~i ~,. a ~~ -~_~~ ~~ L~-' Overview of Project: ~ a ' y~ ,~ ~_.~. The proposed redevelopment of the Crossroads site Includes the demolition of all of the existing Improvements and replacement with the following (approximates): • 334 below grade structured parking spaces • 3-Screen theater (I I ,625 sq. ft.) • I O-lane bowling alley/sports bar/arcade (I 4,396 sq. ft.) • 46,692 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant uses • Public plaza of %z-acre containing an ice rink/summer water feature • 70 residential dwelling units Refer to application materials and plans for a complete analysis and quantitative summary of the proposed project. The project is proposed to begin construction In the spring of 2007 and be completed in a 2-year timeframe. Crossroads Redevelopment Page 2 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC i Hydrologic and Biotic Conditions: Due to the developed condition of the site, there are no wetlands or wildlife on the site. There are several existing Aspen, Evergreen, and Cottonwood trees on the property. Atmospheric, Noise, and Odor Conditions: The atmospheric, noise, and odor conditions for the proposed development on the site are analyzed in detail in the Alr, Noise, and Odor Impact Assessment, prepared by Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. included in the appendix of this report. This report concludes that the proposed development of the subject property will have little ' long-term and short-term impacts on the atmospheric, noise, and odor conditions of the site and surrounding area. The report also states that the proposed building will provide a highway noise buffer to village area. Geologic Conditions: There are no eolo is hazards or conditions ma ed b the Town that affect the sub ect 9 9 pp Y ~ property. The Crossroads site and this area of the Town of Vail is not mapped by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation District. Soil and Vegetation Characteristics: ' The entire site, except for some small pockets of landscaping are either covered with buildings or pavement. A subsoil study was performed by HP Geotech on November 10, 2003. The study and results are contained in the appendix of this report. The report finds the site suitable for development. The vegetation located on the subject property is shown on the topographic survey submitted with the applications. There are limited areas containing vegetation. The vegetation that exists on the site was likely planted by the previous developer 20+ years ago. Vegetation is generally limited to Aspen, Evergreen, and Cottonwood trees and areas of grass. r Visual Conditions: ' The Town of Vail does not regulate views in this area of the Town. Therefore, potential Impacts to private views on surrounding land are not a criterion that the Town uses to evaluate a development proposal in this area. Crossroads Redevelopment Page 3 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC The proposed structures to be developed on the subject property have been designed 1 with high c~uallty materials and design to reflect the mountain character of the area. Setbacks are provided around the property to reduce the Impacts of building on adjacent properties. The redevelopment of this property will Improve the visual ' condition of the site and the area. The proposed building will be visible from public streets and adjacent properties. Land Use Conditions: The proposed land use conditions of the property are indicated on the proposed development plan. The proposed land uses are Included in the overview of the project ' section of this report. ' Circulation and Transportation Condltlons: The circulation and transportation conditions for the proposed development on the site are analyzed in detail In the Traffic Report, prepared by Fox fllggins Transportation Group Included In the appendix of this report. This report concludes that the proposed traffic generated by the development of the subject property can be accommodated within the existing roadway system without appreciably increasing the level of service of the surrounding roadways. Refer to the report provided for a full detail of traffic counts >• and level of service considerations. ' Population Characteristics: The site Is currently developed with 22 dwelling units of various configurations. If It Is ' assumed that the existing dwelling units are occupied as a full-time residence, 22 dwelling units would produce a population of 52.8 persons (according to the Town overview provided on its web page which predicts household size at a 2.4 persons). The proposed development is expected to have approximately 70 dwelling units and if It Is assumed these are occupied on a full-time basis, a population of 168 persons can be ' expected. The likelihood of a full-time population is very low given resort context and location of the site. Economic Impacts: ' The Town of Vail revenue and economic Impacts of the proposed redevelopment are included in the report provided In the index. Crossroads Redevelopment Page 4 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ' Alternative Development Scenarios: ' A variety of development scenarios were studied for this site. Many of the development scenarios were not pursued due to the lack of community benefit or economic feasibility. The proposed alternative leverages dollars from the residential development on this site to make the necessary economic (theaters, retail, and recreation uses) and physical amenities (public plaza with ice rink and streetscape improvements) to the Town ' possible. Analysis of Impacts: The analysis of impacts of the proposed development ~s included in the reports found in ' the appendix of this report. It should be noted that there may be slight variations in the program numbers used by consultants included in this report. These variations are minimal and do not affect the overall conclusions of this report. It is the conclusion of ' this report and the attachments that: I . The impacts to the environment and adjacent uses from the proposed development will be minimal with no adverse impacts proposed; 2. The proposed amen~t~es offset any impacts to the community with regard to building height and mass; ~' 3. Alternative development scenarios have been considered and evaluated and impacts from the proposed development plan are no greater than those on alternative development scenarios; 4. Short-term impacts to the area are related to construction activities will be present. These impacts can be minimized by adhering to Town of Vail ' regulations and employing best management practices during the construction of this project. Long-term impacts of the proposed development due to the increase in vehicle trips will be minimal and within state and local standards; 5. There will be no irreversible environment I a changes from implementation of the ' proposed development plan; and 6. The proposed development program will have economic growth inducing impacts. The new development will improve the revenues to the Town in terms of sales tax and property tax and will attract additional visitors to the Vail Village which will help to invigorate the economy of the Town. Crossroads Redevelopment Page 5 ' Maunello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix Revenue Analysis Alr, Nolse, and Odor Impact Assessment Traffic Report Drainage Report Solis and Foundation Investigation Crossroads Redevelopment Page 6 Maunello Planning Group, LLC ' The following includes projections and comparisons to what existed or what was generated from the development site in 2003 and 2004. Property Tax Revenue from Residential and Commercial Development The current development is made up of 22 individually owned condominiums with a total 1 square footage of approximately 27,091 and assessed value of 913,240. Property tax revenue currently paid to the Town of Vail, using the base assessment rate of 4.69 mills is $4,283. The assessment rate used for residential property is 7.69% of actual value. The proposed development will be made up of 70 condominiums with a total square footage of 198,767. Using an average sales price of $769 - $1,000 a square foot the proposed ' condos would generate in the range of $55,100 - $71,700 in Town of Vail property tax revenue. The commercial portion of crossroads is currently 65,092 square feet and generates $24,085 in property tax for Vail. Commercial space is assessed by Eagle County based upon the value of the lease with the tenant. The new development will include 72,088 square feet of commercial space. The estimated property tax revenue for Vail from this space is estimated to be between $20,900 and $38,600, which is based upon a mixed use lease rate of $10 per sq. ft. for underground space and between $30 and $60 per sq. Ft. for above ground space. The average rate per square foot assessed by Eagle County in 2004 for all Crossroads properties was $29 per square foot. 1 Sales Tax Revenue from Retail, Food and Beverage, and Lodging The current retail establishments in crossroads generate approximately $111,000 in sales ' tax revenue for the Town of Vail. Total existing retail square footage is approximately 25,814 square feet including 6,240 for the market. The balance of the retail square footage is made up of 3,712 vacant space, 11,702 is leased to galleries and the balance, 4,160 to other types of shops. The present retail establishments in crossroads is generating on average $4.14 per square foot in sales tax for the Town. Galleries of the type in crossroads generally do not generate much sales tax for the Town of Vail since most of the art sold is shipped out of Town, thus avoiding application of the local sales tax. The proposed development would include approximately 19 retail stores totaling 39,251 square feet and a 3,275 square foot convenience grocery market. Based upon a survey (using sales tax data from the Town of Vail) of what Vail Village retail stores currently generate in sales tax per sq. ft., we estimated that stores in the new development could generate between $13 ~ and $20 in sales tax per sq. ft. There must be a good mix of retail stores to generate the estimated sales tax. The estimated sales tax from the 21 retail ' Crossroads is currently generating $13 per sq. ft. in sales tax from retail stores excluding the present galleries. '' h stores, t e market and concession sales at the theaters are between $514,200 and $789,000. The restaurant and bar/night clubs in crossroads make up 12,549 sq. ft. in the present development and generate $40,000 in sales tax. There are 188 seats in the two crossroads restaurants. The new development would include 3 restaurants with a total of 300 seats, a bar and restaurant associated with the arcade with 136 seats and a bar serving the ' nightclub and bowling alley with 110 seats. The estimated annual sales tax revenue from restaurants and bars in the new development is estimated to be between $90,000 - $120,000 or $300 - $400 per seat2. The $300 - $400 per seat in sales tax revenue is based upon a survey of what similar restaurants and bars with a liquor license are currently generating in Vail Village. The 22 condominiums that exist today are owned individually. If a condo owner in the past rented out their unit it was not part of a formal on-site rental program. The owners of the proposed 70 condominiums will have an opportunity to rent out their units on a short-term basis. A front desk will be provided to accommodate this function. Therefore, we estimate that there will be sales tax generated for the Town from the rental of the condominiums. The assumptions used to estimate sales tax generated has been ' adapted over time from the Lionshead Redevelopment Plan done in 2000. The assumptions are as follows: average daily rental rate of $800, occupancy rate of between 15% and 25% (generates between 4,380 and 6,388 room nights), and a 7.4% sales tax on ' lodging revenue. Based on these assumptions this generates sales tax from lodging ranging from $226,900 - 378,000. The guests staying in the 70 condos will generate sales tax from retail purchases and restaurant and bar use. The assumptions used to estimate the amount of sales tax generated from the condos include: average spending per person a day, $100 -$140 ' (excluding lodging), 4 people per room at a 30% occupancy (generates 30,660 visitor nights), a 4.5% sales tax rate, 20% ofnon-lodging expenses are spent out of the Town of Vail.. Based upon the above assumptions annual sales tax generated from guests in the condos generates between $110,376 and 154,526 using $100 and $140 per day spending, respectively. To account for possible duplication in our estimates this number has been cut in half since these revenues may be counted twice, in the estimate of what specific retail and restaurants may generate and in what the guests staying in the condos may generate from retail and restaurant spending. ' The guest-spending rate of $100 a day on all but lodging is made up of $125 in winter and $70 in summer. Approximately, 70% of the Towns sales tax is generated in the winter, months of November through April. The winter rate includes the value of a lift ticket, which the Town gets 4% on all sales of lift tickets used on Vail mountain. The Vail Valley Tourism and convention bureau estimates that the average guest spends $171 ' in winter and $92 in summer per day on non-lodging expenses, this averages out to be $147 per day. RRC Associates estimates that $127 in winter and $66 in summer is spent ' '` The Town of Vail Sales tax department calculates what restaurants and bars yield in sales tax per seat. ' per day, per person, averaging $100 a day. RRC's winter estimate is made up of $41 spent on retail, $26 on food & beverage, and $60 for a lift ticket. Other Commercial Amenities The proposed development includes a new theatre complex with 4 screens with 640 seats and a bowling alley and arcade. This projection does not try to project the financial opportunities these amenities may bring to the Town. These amenities should help to support the other commercial activities, and build synergy within the area. Real Estate Transfer Tax & Other Revenues The other revenues that will be enerated from the redevelo m n g p e t of cross roads include ' Real Estate Transfer Tax and building revenues. The amount of one time transfer tax generated from the sale of the condominiums ranges from $1,811,000 to $2,355,000. There will be ongoing transfer tax revenue when units are sold. 1 r ~^~^ r~^ ~^ ^~ . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revenues by Type and Use Fourth Revision Property Tax Current Proposed Proposed Change Change Conservative Aggressive Conservative Aggressive Residential 4,283 55,100 71,700 50,817 67,417 Commercial 24,085 20,900 38,600 17,700 14,515 Total from Property Tax 28,368 76,000 110,300 68,517 81,932 Sales Tax Retail 110,890 514,200 789,000 403,310 678,110 Restaurants & Bars 39,978 90,000 120,000 30,000 80,022 Lodging 226,900 378,000 226,900 378,000 Retail & F& B From Lodging 55,200 77,250 55,200 77,250 Total from Sales Tax 150,868 886,300 1,364,250 715,410 1,213,382 179,236 962,300 1,474,550 783,927 1,295,314 12/8/2005 Revenue Summary Crossroads ver 4 12-05 (3).xls 10:58 AM Crossroads Development Comparison by Square Footage by Use Retail Grocery Store Restaurants Office /Service Bar/Night Club W/ Bowling Theatres Bank Condos Storage Bowling Alley Family Entertain/ Arcade Arcade Bar /Restaurant Current Number Sq. Ft. Proposed Number Sq. Ft. 17 19,574 19 39,251 1 6,240 2 with 188 Seats 5,549 3 with 140 Seats 7,441 25 14,764 1 7,000 2 with 350 Seats 6,295 3 with 396 Seats 11,000 1 2,748 22 27,091 70 198,767 7,202 1 9,035 1 1,672 1 with 160 seats 3,689 96,463 270,855 1 1 1 REPORT AIR, NOISE, AND ODOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT VAIL CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT VAIL, COLORADO FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Prepared for: Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 1127 Avon, Colorado 81620 Prepared by: Greystone Environmental Consultants 5231 South Quebec Street Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 November 2005 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS _~.~_ _A~ ~__..... __v--___.-~- __ __w._~:~-~~ ~ ~ ~_~~.,- ~ _~..~.~~.~ ~. ' Summa 1.0 ry of Report ....................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................... l -1 ' 2.0 Analysis of Air Quality .................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Existing Air Quality and Atmospheric Conditions ..........................................................2-1 2.2 Air Quality Regulations ................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1. Colorado Air Emission Source Regulations .......................................................2-2 2.2.2. Colorado Air Quality Regulations for Demolition Activities .............................2-2 2.3 Town of Vail Air Elision Source Regulations .............................................................. 2-3 2.4 Potential Impacts to Air Quality from Demolition .......................................................... 2-3 ' 2.4.1. Emissions of Fugitive Dust ................................................................................. 2-3 2.4.2. Asbestos-Containing Material ............................................................................ 2-3 2.4.3. Lead-Based Paint ................................................................................................ 2-3 2.5 Construction Phase Impacts ............................................................................................. 2-4 ' 2.5.1. Earth-Moving and Material Handling Activities ................................................ 2-4 2.5.2. Unpaved Travel Surfaces .................................................................................... 2-5 ' 2.5.3. Paved Travel Surfaces ........................................................................................ 2.5.4. Tailpipe Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Earth-Moving Equipment ................... 2-5 2-5 2.5.5. Summary of Impacts During Construction Phase .............................................. 2-5 ' 3.0 2.6 Noise Operation Phase Impacts .................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................. 2-6 3-1 3.1 Existing Noise Background ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 3.3 Noise Regulations in the Town of Vail ............................................................................ Noise Impacts During Construction Phase ...................................................................... 3-1 3-2 3.4 Noise Impacts from Operation Phase .............................................................................. 3-3 3.5 Noise Mitigation from Operation Phase .......................................................................... 3-3 ' 4.0 Odor . ............................................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Colorado Odor Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Vail Odor Regulations ..................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Odor Impacts During Construction Phase ....................................................................... 4-1 ' 4.4 Operation Phase Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-1 5.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 5-1 ' TABLES Table 1 Typical Construction Noise Levels .................................................................................. 3-2 Table 2 Predicted Noise Near Construction Activities ................................................................. 3-2 Table 3 Typical Automobile Noise Levels ................................................................................... 3-3 1 ' 1739-Vail-Crossroads-EIR_(11.21.05) 1 SUMMARY OF REPORT ' This report describes an evaluation of impacts to air, odor, and noise for Vail Crossroads shopping center redevelopment project. The report was developed to describe local atmospheric conditions, including existing air, noise and odor, applicable local and state regulations, potential construction and operation ' impacts, and mitigation measures. Short-term impacts to air quality may occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts ' would result in temporary increases in levels of airborne particulates and tailpipe emissions. Impacts are predicted to be small and can be successfully mitigated. Impacts to air quality from the operation phases are expected to be insignificant. ' Short-term impacts to noise will occur during the construction phase of the project. Operation of heavy equipment will result in noise levels typical of construction. However, the anticipated noise is predicted to ' be within the limits set by the Town of Vail. Noise will also occur from increased vehicle traffic associated with the operation phase of the project; however, impacts are not expected to be significant relative to existing ambient noise levels. Odor impacts are expected to be limited to the construction phase of the project. Temporary odors may result from diesel exhaust and short-term construction. Odor impacts would also be related to meteorological conditions that would affect dispersal of the exhaust. 1 1 1739-Vail-Crossroads-EIR_(11.21.05) 11 Vail Crossroads Environmental Report 1 t 1 0 INTRODUCTION This report is intended to be an element of an Environmental Impact Report developed pursuant to Title 12 of the Vail Town Code, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 12, Environmental Impact Reports (EIR). The elements required of the EIR covered by this report include: • Local atmospheric conditions, such as air shed characteristics • Potential air emissions • Any potential changes in or impacts to air quality • Other environmental conditions such as noise and odor • Any potential changes in or impacts to noise or odor The impacts to air, noise, and odor that are associated with the redevelopment of Vail Crossroads are assessed in this report. A summary of the project is provided below. The Vail Crossroads redevelopment project is the complete removal of the existing development and the construction of new residential, office, and retail space and a subsurface parking area. Existing development includes commercial office and retail space and residential dwelling units currently housed in two multi-story buildings. The western building includes a full basement level and the eastern building includes two below-grade parking levels. Asphalt surrounds the buildings. The existing uses include an above ground parking structure containing 80 parking spaces; large surface parking lots containing another 118 parking spaces; office, retail, and restaurant space encompassing 71,000 square feet; 22 dwelling units encompassing 35,000 square feet; and atwo-screen movie theater. The proposed use includes the construction of a building and site that will be approximately six stories high along the South Frontage Road and an additional two-stories coming out of the grade on the retail frontage of the building. The proposed use includes a subsurface parking area with parking to serve the proposed uses and a parking club; 70 dwelling units; approximately 75,000 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses, including a 3-screen movie theater; and outdoor public plaza which include an ice rink in the winter and water feature in the summer; and other streetscape improvements. The total surface disturbance of the project is approximately 2.6 acres. Refer to the development plans for a more detailed breakdown of uses and improvements. The property is bounded by East Meadow Drive to the south, Village Center Road to the east, Frontage Road to the north and by the Village Inn Plaza Condominiums to the west. The Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor is approximately 200 feet north of the project. Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-ElR_(11.21.05) 1-1 Environmental Report 1 2.0 ANALYSIS OF AIR QUALITY ----__~ This section of this report discusses existing air quality for the project area, regulations for the control of air pollutant emissions, and potential air quality impacts from the construction and operation of the ' project. 2.1 EXISTING AIR QUALITY AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS 1 Air quality concerns in the Western Slope Air Quality Region of Colorado are primarily associated with elevated ambient air concentrations of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometers (PMio) during the winter months. These elevated levels of PMio are related to seasonal sources such as wood stoves, fireplaces and road sanding. They are also related to atmospheric inversions where dense, cold air within mountain valleys becomes trapped below a warmer layer of air. Little or no air moves during inversions and pollutants within the trapped air cannot disperse out of the valley. ' Inversions typically occur during the winter and usually do not last for more than a week. Inversions can also occur during the early morning hours at other times of the year, but usually break up shortly after sunrise. ~; When inversions are not present, wind patterns in the Vail valley would be primarily down-valley and up- valley and would follow the predominant geographical features. Down-valley winds would typically occur during the morning, and up-valley winds would typically occur in the afternoon. ' Controlled and uncontrolled burns that take place during seasons other than winter can also affect ambient concentrations of PMio, as well as other regulated air pollutants. The state regulatory standards or thresholds for concentrations of PMio in ambient air are: • 150 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3) for 24-hour averages, and • 50 pglm3 for annual averages. All Colorado communities are currently in attainment of all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (CDPHE 2004). Attainment means that the area is in compliance with the federal Clean Air Act. Standards for air quality are stricter in nonattainment areas than in attainment areas. ~~ Monitoring data for Vail were reviewed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that ambient concentrations of PMio have been monitored in Vail since 1993 at 846 Forest Road (EPA 2004). ' Over this period, monitoring has shown that EPA standards have not been exceeded and has shown a decreasing trend in both 24-hour maximum and annual average concentrations. Records for monitoring of other criteria pollutants -nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SOZ), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, and lead -were not found for Eagle County. ~' In addition to emissions of PM~o, combustion sources such as vehicles, gas heaters, and wood stoves can also produce emissions of other regulated pollutants such as NOx, CO, SOZ, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In general, air quality issues that are associated with these pollutants are limited to heavily populated and industrial areas where numerous emission sources can generate high ambient concentrations. Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-EIR_(11.21.05) 2-1 Environmental Report 1.0 Analysis of Air S Air quality near the proposed site would also be affected by the proximity of Interstate-70 (I-70), which is near the proposed Vail Crossroads redevelopment project in Vail. Commercial and non-commercial vehicle traffic on I-70 may contribute both fugitive dust (PMio) and tailpipe emissions (NOx, CO, SO2, and VOCs) to the local ambient air. 2.2 AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS Colorado air quality regulations cover most activities that generate emissions of air pollutants. These regulations are enforced by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division. 2.2.1. Colorado Air Emission Source Regulations Some large construction projects are required . to file an Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) for 1 construction sources that would generate fugitive dust (Colorado Air Quality .Control Commission; Regulation Number 3, Part A.II). Activities that would be exempt from this rule include "disturbance of surface areas for the purposes of land development, which do not exceed 25 contiguous acres and which do not exceed six months in duration." Vail Crossroads redevelopment project is not exempt from this ' rule because of the anticipated length of construction. The construction phase for this project is anticipated to be longer than 6 months. An APEN must therefore be filed with CDPHE. The APEN must include a dust control plan that addresses how dust will be kept to a minimum at the construction site. The developer must prevent visible emission, off-property transport, and off-vehicle transport of particulate matter for the sites' activities, haul roads, and haul trucks. 2.2.2. Colorado Air Quality Regulations for Demolition Activities General impacts to air quality from demolition are regulated under Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulations 1, 3, 8, and 19. CDPHE enforces these regulations. • Regulation 1.III.D.2.h regulates emissions of fugitive dust from demolition. • Regulation 3.II, which covers the criteria for filing APENs, may require an APEN to be filed for demolition that involves asbestos. Whether an APEN is required, CDPHE will require compliance for demolition that involves asbestos under Regulation 8, Part B. Regulation 8, Part B specifies the procedures and notifications required for asbestos abatement and removal. This rule will affect demolition of any structure that contains asbestos. • Regulation 8, Part C regulates emissions of lead. Although this regulation does not address demolition specifically, it is applicable to any source that has the potential for emissions of lead. • Regulation 19 regulates abatement of lead-based paint. This regulation would apply if the structures are occupied by children or are target housing (in general, target housing means it was constructed before 1978 other than azero-bedroom dwelling or any housing for the elderly or a person with a disability). If the structures that are proposed for demolition do not meet these criteria, then this regulation would not be applicable. If the structures meet these criteria, then abatement, under controlled conditions to reach certain clearance levels for lead in soil, may be ~ required. Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-EIR_(11.21.05) 2-2 Environmental Report ' 2.0 Analysis of Air 2.3 TOWN OF VAIL AIR EMISSION SOURCE REGULATIONS Title 5, Chapter 3, Air Pollution Control, of the Vail Town Code regulates air quality in Vail. In general, these rules regulate the use of solid fuel burning devices, gas appliances, and gas log fireplaces in dwelling units, accommodation units, restricted dwelling units, and common areas. Devices that burn ~ solid fuel are required to be certified in addition to other specific requirements listed in these rules. 2.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO AIR QUALITY FROM DEMOLITION Potential .impacts to air quality from demolition will depend on the type of materials contained in the structures and on the demolition operating procedures. Older buildings may contain asbestos and lead- ' based paints. Operating procedures that would minimize the generation of fugitive dust would be recommended during demolition. 2.4.1. Emissions of Fugitive Dust It is recommended that the Control Measures and O eratin Procedures under Re ulation 1.III.D.2.h be P g g implemented, wherever feasible and economically reasonable, to minimize generation of fugitive dust j during demolition. The measures and procedures cited in this regulation include: • Wetting down, including pre-watering of the work surface, • Removal of dirt and mud deposited on improved streets and roads, and • Wetting down, washing, or covering haulage equipment when necessary to minimize emissions of fugitive dust during loading and transit. Fugitive dust from some demolition may be difficult to control. The general strategy for demolition should consider minimizing generation of fugitive dust. 2.4.2. Asbestos-Containing Material Existing structures scheduled for demolition were constructed in 1970. Structures built before 1979 have the potential to contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM). Because of the age of the structures, there is potential that they were constructed using ACM. If asbestos is found in the structures, CDPHE will require an inspection followed by abatement before demolition can begin. Asbestos is not considered a hazardous waste and is handled as a solid waste, but must be disposed of at landfills that accept asbestos. After asbestos has been properly abated, it is not considered an issue for impacts to ambient air. However, in addition to precautions before demolition, special precautions must also be taken during demolition. 2.4.3. Lead-Based Paint r Structures built before 1978 have the potential to contain lead-based paint. Because of the age of the structures, there is potential that they were constructed using lead-based paint. If the structures scheduled for demolition contain lead-based paint, it is expected that demolition would generate insignificant emissions of lead because the lead would predominantly remain in the refuse material, where it would be retained on the painted surfaces or in large flakes of paint that would not disperse into the air. Abrasive Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-EIR_(11.21.05) 2-3 Environmental Report i L~ 1 2.0 Anahsis of Air activities, such as sanding or sawing of materials coated with lead-based paint, may, have the potential to result in s1na11 amounts of emissions of lead. In general, emissions of lead that result from demolition of structures that contain lead-based paint may not be specifically regulated; however, precautions are recommended for these activities. It is recommended, if feasible, that the Control Measures and Operating Procedures under Regulation I.III.D.2.h be implemented. In addition, appropriate health and safety measures must be taken during demolition to protect worker exposure to any potential hazardous air pollutant emissions. 2.5 CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS During the construction phase of Vail Crossroads redevelopment, sources of air pollution will include fugitive dust from earth-moving and material handling, vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved surfaces, and tailpipe emissions from diesel-powered earthmoving equipment. Impacts from these sources will be limited to the construction period and are not expected to affect the overall air quality of the area. Emissions of dust will vary day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific activity, and meteorological conditions. Emissions will not be continuous and will have a definable beginning and end. In addition, because of the small area of the site where construction will occur and because these impacts can be minimized by applying control measures, it is expected that any impacts will be minimal and should not exceed Colorado's ambient air quality standards. 2.5.1. Earth-Moving and Material Handling Activities Fugitive dust will be generated from rough grading, excavation, cut-and-fill operations, and material storage and handling. These emissions can result from both the transfer of materials and from wind erosion. Material that would typically be susceptible to wind erosion would be dry or freshly disturbed surfaces. Subsoil and foundations were investigated for the Vail Crossroads project. A summary of subsurface conditions is presented here to characterize soil and existing fill. The investigation of the subsoil and foundations for the proposed commercial and residential development of Crossroads (HP Geotech, 2003) characterizes the existing fill as typically loose to medium dense and consisting of a mixture of clay, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Below the fill, the subsoil consist of dense, slightly clayey to clayey, sandy gravel with cobbles and boulder to the varying depths explored in the borings. Thick sandy clay Tense was encountered at one boring. Drilling was difficult in the dense gravel and fill with auger equipment due to the presence of cobbles and boulders. Practical drilling refusal was encountered in several borings. Medium dense, silty to very silty sand was found below the gravel in one boring. It will likely be necessary to control wind-blown dust by wet suppression for the type of loose particle sand, silt and sandy clay described here. The investigation did not report the potential for radon gas, however in the subsurface strata of mountain terrain radon is likely, but low. Radon is therefore not considered a concern. Fugitive dust from material handling and excavations can be managed to comply with local regulations. Emissions of fugitive dust from the type of construction described here are commonly controlled by wet suppression, wind speed reduction via wind barriers, covering storage piles and slopes, compaction of soil, and by minimizing the disturbance of storage piles. Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-EIR_(11.21.05) 2-4 Environmental Report 2.0 AnalvsisofAirQaaiity 2.5.2. Unpaved Travel Surfaces Emissions of fugitive dust are also generated when a vehicle travels across an unpaved surface. The force of the wheels on the road surface pulverizes surface materials, and particles are lifted and dropped from the rolling wheels. Mechanical turbulence created by the vehicles is also a factor in generating fugitive dust plumes. The quantity of emissions is a factor of both surface silt and water content and vehicle weight. Emissions of fugitive dust from unpaved road surfaces are also caused by wind erosion. The heavily traveled unpaved surfaces such as on-site access roads, parking lots, and laydown areas can be watered as necessary to minimize dust generation during the construction phase. A schedule of surface treatment such as regular watering will reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent. Surface improvements, such as paving or adding gravel or slag to an unpaved road will decrease dust emissions. Limiting vehicle speed, weight, and the number of vehicles on the road will also control emissions from unpaved roads. Rain and snowfall can also act as natural mitigation measures. 2.5.3. Paved Travel Surfaces Emissions of dust from paved roads occur when vehicles travel over loose material that has been deposited on the paved surface and then is re-entrained. Traffic passing from unpaved surfaces to paved roadways can create both mud and dirt deposits on the paved surface (referred to as "track out"), generating additional emissions of road dust. Again, the quantity of emissions is a factor of surface ~ material, silt and water content, and vehicle weight. Control measures for paved surfaces are typically both preventative and mitigative. Preventative control measures prevent material from being deposited onto the surface. These measures include minimizing "track out" by periodic washing of the unpaved or paved surfaces of intersections, gravelling road entryways, washing vehicle wheels, and covering truckloads. Mitigative measures attempt to remove material that has been deposited on road surfaces, such as using street sweepers to periodically clean paved surfaces or water flushing. Other control measures can include limiting vehicle speed and weight and the number of vehicles on the road. Because of the limited scope of roads at construction sites, mitigative measures can be used successfully. ' 2.5.4. Tail i e Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Earth-Movin pP 9 Equipment Tailpipe emissions from diesel-fueled earthmovmg equipment may result m a temporary increase of concentrations of PMio and other pollutants in ambient air. Diesel exhaust from heavy equipment may accumulate in the area during inversions and contribute ashort-term local impact to air quality. High exhaust velocities and temperatures will augment dispersal of pollutants in tailpipe emissions, thus, ground-level concentrations of these pollutants near the proposed development site will be minimal. 2.5.5. Summary of Impacts During Construction Phase In summary, emissions of fugitive dust will be generated from earth moving and material handling, vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved surfaces. Tailpipe emissions will be generated from diesel-fueled construction equipment. Dust emissions can be mitigated by wet suppression, soil compaction, minimizing disturbance of storage piles, adding gravel to or paving unpaved surfaces, limiting vehicle speed, weight, and the number of vehicles on the road, minimizing "track out," and street sweepers. Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-E1R_(11.21.05) 2-5 Environmental Report s ~I 1 r IJI 2.0 Analysis ofAir Fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions will be limited to the construction period. It is expected that impacts from fugitive dust and tailpipe emission will be minimal because construction areas are small and control measures can be applied. 2.6 OPERATION PHASE IMPACTS Operation of Vail Crossroad redevelopment project may have a small impact on local air quality because of the anticipated small increase in vehicular traffic, boilers, emergency generators, and cooling and cooking exhaust associated with the project. A small increase in the local population is expected along with a small rise in vehicle traffic in the area. This additional vehicle traffic may result in slight increases in fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. Roads will be paved to mitigate fugitive dust emissions from vehicle traffic. Paved roads can also be cleaned periodically to reduce the accumulation of surface material that would generate fugitive dust. Tailpipe emissions from the additional vehicles may also result in slight increases of PM,o as well as of other pollutants, but the additional impact on local air quality is expected to be minimal relative to contributions from vehicle traffic on I-70 and general vehicle traffic in the Town of Vail. No wood-burning devices will be associated with the project. It is anticipated that small boilers and emergency generators will be associated with the project. Depending on the size and operating schedules of this equipment, it may be necessary to file one or more APENs with the State of Colorado. Boilers with a capacity of 5 million British thermal units Btu per hour will require an APEN. Emergency generators with a horsepower (hp) rating greater than 260 or that operate more than 250 hours per year or with a horsepower rating of more than 180 and that operate more than 100 hours per year also require an APEN. All combustion flue gases would be vented through devices that meet standard practice for air pollution control. Overall, this equipment should not significantly alter the local air quality. Cooking exhaust will be properly vented in accordance with industry standards. Exposed soil areas will be revegetated as construction progresses, mitigating emissions of fugitive dust during operation. Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-EIR_(11.21.05) 2-6 Environmental Report 3.0 NOISE This section of this report discusses existing background noise for the project area, regulations for the control of noise, and potential noise impacts from the construction and operation of the project. 3.1 EXISTING NOISE BACKGROUND Noise standards and sound measurement equipment have been designed to account for the sensitivity of human hearing to different frequencies. This varying sensitivity is accommodated by applying "A- Weighted" correction factors. This correction de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. The primary assumption is that the A- weighted decibel (dBA) is a good correlation to a human's subjective reaction to noise. In general, an urban residential area at night is 40 dBA; a residential area during the day is 50 dBA; a typical construction site is 80 dBA; a subway train at 20 feet is 90 dBA; and a jet takeoff at 200 feet is 120 dBA. ' The project will be located approximately 200 feet south of I-70. An analysis of noise in the Vail area (Washington 2001) estimated existing and future noise levels throughout the Vail Valley. Assuming that the primary source of noise in this area is I-70, this analysis estimated that the maximum 1-hour average noise level near the proposed location is currently 61.9 dBA and is expected to increase to 63.9 dBA by the year 2020. ' 3.2 NOISE REGULATIONS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL Title 5, Public Health and Safety, Chapter 1 (5-1-7, Noise Prohibited) of the Vail Town Code (Vail 2004) regulates sources of noise. The Crossroads Redevelopment project is zoned as Commercial Service Center. The Commercial Service Center District is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town, together with limited multiple-family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the District. The regulated noise level for sources located on private property is established at the boundary of the property. Sources in all residential areas, except areas zoned for high density multiple-family (HDMF) development, are limited to a maximum of 55 decibels from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and 50 decibels from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Construction is allowed up to 90 decibels from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. These rules also regulate noise from motor vehicles. These rules apply at all times. Vehicles less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, are limited to 80 decibels at a distance of 25 feet. Vehicles greater than 10,000 pounds are limited to 90 decibels at a distance of 25 feet. It is unlawful for any person to idle or permit the idling of the engine of any truck or any motor vehicle for a period in excess of 20 minutes. It is also unlawful for any person to permit any idling of an engine of any unattended truck or any motor vehicle except for refrigeration vehicles within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1, Lionshead Mixed Use 2, ` Commercial Core 1 or the Commercial Core 2 zone Districts of Vail. A permit is required for a business or corporation to operate sound-amplifying equipment Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-EIR (11.21.05) 3-1 Environmental Report i, 1 t 3.0 Noise 3.3 NOISE IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE Table 1 presents typical noise levels for construction equipment at a distance of 15 meters (45 feet) (Crocker 1982). These values assume the equipment is operating at full power. TABLE 1 ~ TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Equipment Category Noise Level at 45 ft (dBA) Dum Truck 88 Portable Rock Drill 88 Concrete Mixer Truck 85 Pneumatic tool 85 Grader 85 Front-End Loader 84 Mobile Crane 83 Excavator 82 Backhoe 81 Dozer 78 Generator 78 The typical noise 45 feet from a construction site would be approximately 85 dBA because the construction equipment can be spread throughout a construction site and may not be operating concurrently. This value and the data presented above indicate that there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise that will be limited to the construction phase of the project. The propagation of noise depends on many factors including atmospheric conditions, ground cover, and the presence of any natural or man-made barriers. As a general rule, noise decreases by approximately 6 dBA with every doubling of the distance from the source (Bell 1982). Therefore, noise levels at various distances from the construction site can be predicted and are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 PREDICTED NOISE NEAR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Distance from Construction Site (meters) Predicted Noise Level (dBA) 15 85' 30 79 60 73 120 67 240 61 Values calculated from typical noise level at 15 meters from a construction site. Noise generated by the project would occur only during construction and the activities will be intermittent. Noise from construction will not be generated during nighttime hours. Noise from construction will be temporary and will briefly add to existing highway noise. Construction will be completed in a timely manner. As long as construction takes place within the prescribed regulatory period of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., the resulting noise should be within the local noise limit of 90 decibels for construction. Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-E1R_(11.21.05) 3-2 Environmental Report ' 3.0 Noi.ce 3.4 NOISE IMPACTS FROM OPERATION PHASE ' The impacts to noise during the operation phase will be related predominantly to increased automobile traffic. Table 3 (USDOT 1995) presents typical noise levels for automobiles at a distance of 15 meters (45 feet) at speeds ranging from 50 miles per hour (mph) to 70 mph. TABLE 3 TYPICAL AUTOMOBILE NOISE LEVELS t 1 L Speed (mph) Noise at 45 ft (dBA) 50 62 55 64 60 65 65 66.5 70 68 The increase in the population may result in a slight rise in traffic along Town of Vail roads. Traffic noise is a combination of traffic density and vehicle speed. The resulting increase in vehicle noise from traffic, which would be much less dense and slower than the highway traffic, would be barely perceptible over the existing ambient noise that is dominated by vehicle noise from I-70 and general traffic in the Town of Vail. Moreover, construction of the 100-foot tall building along Frontage Road may act as a barrier to noise generated from I-70. 3.5 NOISE MITIGATION FROM OPERATION PHASE The increase in noise caused by operation of the proposed development project is predicted to be minimal and barely perceptible over existing ambient noise. Therefore, noise mitigation is not necessary. South of the project location, the project structures will act as a barrier for noise generated by I-70 and frontage road traffic. ' Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-EIR (I 1.21.05) 3-3 Environmental Report 4.0 ODOR _._~.,~w___w_.____-~-~____~_m~--3- ~.__. _ _ __ _-~_ . This section of this report discusses regulations for the control of odor, and potential noise impacts from the construction and operation of the project. 4.1 COLORADO ODOR REGULATIONS Colorado Air Quality Control Regulation No. 2.A.1 regulates odors in residential and commercial areas. This regulation states, "it is a violation if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with seven (7) or more volumes of odor free air." 4.2 VAIL,ODOR REGULATIONS The Town of Vail evaluates odor associated with construction and development under Title 12, Zoning ' Regulations, Chapter 12, Environmental Impact Reports, of the Vail Town Code. 4.3 ODOR IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE a Temporary impacts to odor from the construction phase may result from exhaust gases from diesel equipment or from short-term construction activities such as roofing applications. As with air pollutant emissions from this equipment, dispersal of odors would be augmented by high exhaust velocities and temperatures and would also be related to various meteorological factors, such as wind speed and wind direction, that would limit or enhance dispersal of these odors. Because construction is expected to occur during the daytime when there would be better conditions for odor dispersal, potential impacts to odor from construction would be limited. 4.4 OPERATION PHASE IMPACTS The activities associated with operation of the redevelopment project in Vail are not expected to result in any significant impacts to odor. The types of activities that may be related to minimal sources of temporary odor would include storage of garbage, food preparation and handling, and exhaust gases from ' additional vehicle traffic. Sewage from the development will be handled by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District sewage treatment plant, thus eliminating the potential for odors related to sewage at each location. 1 Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-EIR_(11.21.05) 4-1 Environmental Report ' 5.0 REFERENCES Bell, Lewis H. 1982. Industrial Noise Control, Fundamentals and Applications, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York. ' Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Pollution Control Division. 2004. Attainment/Maintenance Plans for Colorado Communities [Web page]. Located at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/attainmaintain.asp. Accessed: March 18, 2004. Crocker, M.J., Kessler, F.M. 1982. Noise and Noise Control, Volume II. CRC Press, Inc., Chemical Rubber Company, Cleveland, OH. ' Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (HP Geotech). 2003. Subsoil Study for Foundation Design Proposed Commercial and Residential Development Crossroads of Vail, Vail, Colorado. November 10. ' U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and ' Abatement Policy and Guidance, June. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. AirData, Monitor Summary Report, Eagle County, Colorado [Web page]. Located at http:/huww.epa.~ov/air/data/monsum.html?co~08037 Eagle%20Co-~-CO. Accessed: March 18, 2004. E.PA. 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary ' Point and Area Sources, section updates (2002) [Web page]. Located at: http://www. epa. gov/ttn/chief/ap42/. Vail Town Code (Vail). 2004. Title 5, Public Health and Safety, Chapter 1 (5-1-7, Noise Prohibited), Vail Colorado. [Web page]. Located at: http://66.113.195.234/CO/VaiUindex.htm. Accessed: March 29, 2004. Washington Infrastructure (Washington). 2001. 2001 Noise Study. Prepared for the Town of Vail. L 1 Vail Crossroads 1739-Vail-Crossroads-EIR_(11.21.05) 5-1 Environmental Report ' .CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO U dated TRAI'FIC IMPACT STUDY P 1 _ _ ..Vf•Ilaye~ , __ ; .. , __ .. -__.,., .• , _... _ . ~ `°` .. Il. , A _ I ~..,` ~ LJ i J I ~ o . / ._ i -t._ ,,_ ~__ ~ ;- ~_- r- - ~'' "- ., .. ~ ~ ~~ . ~' 1 i~ I / j _ Iw • ~ /%- ~ s ~ -~ f / ->t.~~- • ~/ t ~ ~- ~ pr. -a- ~S .. ~, -' ., ~• ~, _-E • ,- t~L -a., _ ~.... ~ , -' = - -- •~ Project Site Boundary PREPARED FOR: CROSSROADS EAST ONE, LLC C/O MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP P.O. Bax 1 1 27 AVON, CO 81 620 1 I Fox TRANS P O R T A T I O N G R^ U P Vs ,.~ °~ : tt! 3~,3 6 rn °~ PREPARED BY: J^ ANN HIGGINS, AICP STEVEN G. TUTTLE, P.E. TE: NOVEMBER 8, 2005 FH PROJECT #04008 P. D. Box 1 9768, BOULDER, CD 803D8-2768 PHONE: 303.652.3571 FAX: 303.772.2329 Crossroads Redevelopment Project (FH#04008) Updated Traffic Impact Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. 3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 5 3.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDTIONS ...................................................................... 5 3.1 Circulation Network ...........................................................................................5 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................... 5 3.3 Intersection Capacity Analysis .......................................................................... 6 4.0 FUTURE YEAR BACKGROUND ANALYSIS ....................................................... 7 4.1 Future Year Background Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 7 4.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis .......................................................................... 7 5.0 SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 8 1 5.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................. 8 5.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................................................... 10 5.3 Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................................................ 10 5.4 CDOT Access Spacing Standards .................................................................. 11 5.5 CDOT Auxiliary Lane Warrant Analysis .......................................................... 12 5.6 Intersection and Roadway Impacts ................................................................. 12 5.7 Site Access and Circulation ............................................................................ 13 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 14 Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 November 8, 2005 (rev) Crossroads Redevelo ment Pro'ect FH#04008 U dated Traffic Im act Stud P 1 C ) P P Y 1 ' LIST OF TABLES Table 1 -Winter Evening Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary ..............16 Table 2 -Weekday Trip Generation Estimate ...............................................................17 Table 3 - I-70 S. Frontage Road Auxiliary Lane Summary ..........................................18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. 19 ' Figure 2 -Site and Access Plan ................................................................................... 20 Figure 3 -Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................... 21 ' Figure 4 - Year 2007 Background Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 22 Figure 5 - Year 2025 Background Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 23 Figure 6 - Net Site Added Traffic Volumes ................................................................... 24 Figure 7 -Year 2007 Background + Net Site Added Traffic Volumes ........................... 25 Figure 8 -Year 2025 Background + Net Side Added Traffic Volumes .......................... 26 t ~1 ~~ CDOT Review Comments Level of Service Definitions Intersection Capacity Worksheet APPENDIX Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 November 8, 2005 (rev) Crossroads Redevelo ment Pro'ect FH#04008 U dated Traffic Im act Stud P 1 C ) A P Y 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This traffic impact study has been prepared by the Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC for the proposed Crossroads Redevelopment Project in Vail Village. The purpose of this study is to identify any potential traffic impacts and to recommend traffic mitigation measures that may be needed with development of the site as proposed. This study is an update to the traffic impact study prepared by Fox Higgins dated ' August 4, 2005. Since completion of the prior traffic study, comments from CDOT were received on the study in a letter dated September 12, 2005 by Devin Drayton. A copy of the comment letter is contained in the Appendix for reference. This updated study ' addresses CDOTs comments. A primary CDOT comment related to the need for more information to support the ' assumptions made in the study. This study includes support and back up information for all assumptions including but not limited to trip generation, reduction factors, site traffic distribution, and background growth factors. In addition, review and approval of ' all assumptions in the traffic study were undertaken by the Town's consulting traffic engineer prior to use in the study. We feel the information contained in this study is soundly based. This study reviews existing, 2007 near term, and 2025 long term future traffic conditions with the proposed site development. Since the proposed development and adjacent roadway network experience peak traffic demands during the winter evening peak periods, the winter PM peak hour was analyzed for site specific impacts. The project involves the redevelopment of the existing Crossroads mixed-use site located on the southwest corner of the S. Frontage Road and Village Center Road intersection. The renovated land uses are very similar to existing uses with slight increases in site square footages. The mix of retail and residential • uses on site is anticipated to generate approximately 70 new one-way trips occurring during the weekday evening peak hour period. It was determined that the existing street network ' with planned modifications can sufficiently serve the net site added traffic volumes with minimal effects. The removal of the separate eastbound right-turn lane and restriping the northbound approach to allow for a separate left-turn and shared left-right turn lane ' at the Village Center Road / S. Frontage Road intersection will result in acceptable operations and only slight increases in vehicle delays over existing conditions. However, the Town prefers striping on Village Center Road at the South Frontage Road intersection to remain as is today with separate turn lanes. Town staff would also prefer that a pork chop type median section be introduced at this intersection on S. Frontage Road to provide better separation of left-turning vehicles and storage in the median for ' northbound left-turn movements. The following key points summarize our findings. Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 November 8, 2005 (rev) Crossroads Redevelo ment Pro'ect FH#04008 Updated Traffic Impact Study P 1 ~ ) ' net increase in traffic by this project to the adjacent roadway system is negligible when considering the high traffic volumes along the Frontage Road • adjacent intersections will continue to operate at a level of service A overall which is at or similar to existing operations ' other than the changes proposed in the plan (largely restriping/signing), no roadway improvements are necessary to accommodate the proposed ' redevelopment based on intersection operations and capacities (i.e., roundabout or other capacity improvements are not required) traffic counts applied in this study represent aworst-case (higher than average) ' condition and therefore the report should be considered very conservative in its evaluation (i.e., 90% of the year traffic volumes will be dramatically less) ' number of vehicles queuing on Village Center Road will increase slightly due to the high volumes of traffic traveling past the intersection on the S. Frontage Road ' (i.e., largely traffic to and from the Town's parking structure) • CDOT access code criteria warrants are met for an eastbound right-turn ' deceleration and westbound left-turn deceleration lane at S. Frontage Road / Village Center Road intersection; a westbound left-turn lane exists; the existing eastbound right-turn lane is planned for removal based on Town staff requests to reduce unnecessary traffic access to the village area; based on CDOT warrant criteria, a variance request to remove the eastbound right-turn deceleration lane at Village Center Road would be necessary ' CDOT minimum access s acin re uirements alon the Fronta a Road f 1 • p g q g g o 50 ' feet are satisfied at all but the truck delivery access due to its close proximity to the parking garage access to the west; because the right-turn only drop-off and pick-up access points essentially act as one driveway and are spaced in excess of 150 feet from the Village Center Road to the east and parking garage access ' to the west, the drop-off and pick-up access points meet CDOT spacing requirements; delivery access well experience such low traffic volumes and is not anticipated to result in interruptions in traffic flows along the Frontage Road; in ' either case, a variance request for the delivery access location will be required based on CDOT access spacing 1 Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 November 8, 2005 (rev) ' Crossroads Redevelo ment Pro'ect FH#04008 U dated Traffic Impact Stud p 1 ~ ) P Y 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southwest corner of the I-70 South Frontage Road / ' Village Center Road intersection. A vicinity map is shown on Figure 1. The site is currently occupied by a mix of uses and planned for redevelopment with similar uses that enhance the vitality of this area. ' The proposed site access is similar to existing with the exception of a truck delivery access and pick-up/drop-off access planned along S. Frontage Road. The planned redevelopment of the Crossroads site will result in similar traffic characteristics when compared to existing uses. The site and access plan is shown on Figure 2. 1 3.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDTIONS 3.1 Circulation Network The site is located within the Vail Village retail area and the ski area. Access to the site currently exists via a driveway connection to Village Center Road located approximately 200 feet south of S. Frontage Road. The location of the primary site access will remain with the redevelopment project. The Village Center Road and S. Frontage Road intersection is controlled by a stop sign on the side street approach. S. Frontage Road is a five-lane roadway (two-way center left-turn lane in median) with a- posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). Village Center Road is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 15 mph. Village Center Road connects to Meadow Drive where vehicular access is limited and pedestrian accessibility is strongly encouraged. Two outbound lanes (separate left-turn and right-turn) exist along Village Center Road at the S. Frontage Road intersection. 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour traffic volumes used in this analysis were obtained in part from the Town's Transportation Master Plan Update'. Since completion of the master plan, updated existing traffic volumes were collected in December 2004 on a peak winter weekday when the adjacent roadways are experiencing peak conditions. Traffic volumes were also collected in January 2005 during the Martin Luther King holiday weekend to sample ultra peak traffic conditions. After review of the existing traffic volumes and through discussions with the Town's transportation engineer at FHU, it was determined that the higher traffic volume scenario at the Frontage Road /Village Center Drive intersection occurred during the December 2004 weekday counts. ' Transportation Master Plan Update -Traffic Model, Washington Infrastructure Services, July 2002. Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 November 8, 2005 (rev) Crossroads Redevelo ment Pro'ect FH#04008 U dated Traffic Im act Stud P 1 ~ ) P P Y Therefore, Fox Higgins was directed to use the peak weekday counts for this study to ' represent aworst-case higher traffic volume scenario analysis. Since the site access intersection was only counted during the January 2005 counts, the weekday peak hour traffic volumes at the site access point along Village Center Road were estimated based on the same distribution patterns observed in January 2005. It should be noted that the December 2004 counts on Village Center Road may be higher than normal due to construction traffic activity taking place at the time of the count. 3.3 Intersection Capacity Analysis The site access intersection and the intersection of S. Frontage Road /Village Center Road were reviewed to determine baseline or existing operations and identify any capacity constraints. The existing evening peak hour volumes areaover 40% higher than the morning peak hour volumes at the Frontage Road /Village Center Road intersection. Therefore, only the evening peak hour period was analyzed to represent the higher side street and mainline traffic conditions. In determining the operational characteristics of an intersection, "Levels of Service" (LOS) A through F are applied, i with LOS A indicating very good operations and LOS F indicating congested operations. The intersection LOS is represented as a delay in seconds per vehicle for the ' intersection as a whole and for critical turning movements. Criteria contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)2 was applied to the study area intersections in order to determine existing levels of service during the weekday evening peak hour period. ' Median width along the Frontage Road allows cleft-turning vehicle from the side street approach intersections to conduct atwo-step movement by crossing the eastbound Frontage Road traffic then merge into the westbound traffic flows when adequate gaps occur. This movement is commonly seen at the parking structure access just to the east of Village Center Road as vehicles exit the structure to merge into the Frontage Road traffic. The intersection capacity software allows for a modeling of this traffic movement by selecting the median type and number of vehicles that can store in the median. The existing two-way left-turn lane in the median area of Frontage Road west of Village Center Road has space for at least two vehicles to stage in the median '` opening. Modeling the Frontage Road /Village Center Road intersection in this manner will result in more accurate vehicle delays and levels of service to those currently ,~ occurring at the intersection. The results of the LOS calculations are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service worksheets show the traffic volumes and are attached for reference. The 2 Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2001. Synchro v. 6 software utilized. ,~ Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 November 8, 2005 (rev) ' Crossroads Redevelo ment Pro'ect FH#04008 U dated Traffic Im act Stud P 1 ~ ) A P Y data in Table 1 illustrates that the intersections are currently functioning at acceptable levels during the peak hour periods (LOS A range overall) with the all of the individual approaches also operating acceptably (LOS A-D). Worst-case vehicle queue lengths are also shown in the table. For comparison purposes, 20 feet is typically used for standard vehicle length plus any gapping in between queuing vehicles. The side street left-turn approach at Village Center Road to the S. Frontage Road intersection is expected to experience the highest vehicle delays as this approach to a 5-lane facility is required to yield to all oncoming traffic at the intersection. Average vehicle queue lengths of 25 feet or approximately one vehicle, with operations in the LOS C range occur on the side street left-turn approach at the Frontage Road/Village Center Road intersection. This queue length and LOS are expected at the side street approaches to higher volume streets such as the S. Frontage Road corridor as vehicles entering this corridor must yield to all oncoming traffic. No improvements are warranted to the existing street system. All vehicle queues are typical and are not backing into any existing access points away from the S. Frontage Road /Village Center Road intersection. t 4.0 FUTURE YEAR BACKGROUND ANALYSIS 4.1 Future Year Background Traffic Volumes The existing traffic volumes discussed in the previous section were used as a basis for forecasting the short term (Year 2007) and long term (Year 2025) background and site- added scenarios. It is anticipated that the project site will be built out and occupied within the next two years or by Year 2007. ' The Town's transportation plan and past modeling efforts identify that minimal traffic increases, if any, are anticipated in the next 20 years adjacent to the site. Any traffic increases are most likely associated with site redevelopments such as this one that result in slight increases in turning movement volumes at primary access intersections. Annual growth rate projections contained in the Transportation Plan Update for the S. Frontage Rd. were utilized to forecast the short and long term background traffic growth in the study area. Based on these forecasts, a 5% increase was assumed over the next 20 years and applied to the existing volumes to forecast the future year background volumes. The Year 2007 and Year 2025 background winter weekday evening peak hour traffic volumes were calculated based on the growth rate, and are shown on Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively. 4.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis 'I. Intersection capacity analyses were conducted with the Year 2007 and Year 2025 background winter weekday peak hour traffic volumes using the HCM methodology Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 November 8, 2005 (rev) ii e r Crossroads Redevelopment Project (FH#04008) Updafed Traffic Impact Study previously described. The intersection LOS calculation worksheets are attached in the Appendix. The intersection LOS are summarized for each location in Table 1. The data in the level of service summary table illustrates that, with the forecast Year 2007 and Year 2025 background PM peak hour volumes, study area intersections will continue to operate acceptably (LOS A overall). The existing lane configuration at both study area intersections was applied to the future year background scenarios. 5.0 SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS 5.1 Trip Generation Trip generation estimates and comparisons were made to determine the traffic characteristics of the existing uses and the proposed uses of the site. The weekday trip rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual3 were applied to estimate traffic for the site. Demolition and replacement of existing uses is planned. For comparison purposes, the following assumptions were used to estimate traffic generation of the site development. Existing Land Uses: • 50,000 square feet of retail space • 13,520 square feet of office space • movie theater with 350 seats • 22 vacation condominium units • surface parking on south side of building • 31 leased parking spaces Crossroads Redevelopment Land Uses: • 40,620 square feet of retail space • 5,000 square feet of quality restaurant space • 21,500 square foot area for ice rink • 14,600 square feet of bowling alley/bar space • movie theater with 405 seats • 68 vacation condominium units • parking garage under building with 100 spaces available for lease Although the planned ice rink is not expected to generate new trips to the area, the ITE trip rates for ice skating rinks were applied to this use. The ITE ice rink use is more of an enclosed stand-alone facility oriented for sports and entertainment with spectator seating, locker rooms, arcades, and refreshments. The ice rink planned on the site is a 3 Trip Generation 7~' Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 November 8, 2005 (rev) 1 i 1 1 1 Crossroads Redevelopment Project (FH#04008) Updated Traffic Impact Study small outdoor seasonal use of plaza space in the winter, where it will be a water fountain in the summer. The ice rink will primarily attract pedestrian traffic from the village area. Given this, a reduction from the ITE trip rate of 75% was applied to more accurately estimate actual vehicular traffic generated by the ice rink versus foot traffic in the winter. The 100 rental parking spaces on site are anticipated to be leased to adjacent merchants/ businesses to meet employee parking demands. It was assumed that the leased parking spaces would be assigned to adjacent merchants, and would have minimal turnover during the 4-5:00 P.M. peak hour period based on hours of operation and work schedules. The ITE trip rates for spark-n-ride facility with a 50% multi-use factor for little turnover were applied to the leased parking spaces to estimate traffic for this use. This should be a conservative traffic generation considering the adjacent business employee trips are currently occurring and this would be somewhat of a double counting. Because the site is within a pedestrian friendly commercial core area with access to transit, there will be a reduction in actual vehicular trips to/from the site due to transit and pedestrian activity. This is a common occurrence experienced at many core areas in mountain communities referred to as multi-purpose or multi-use trip making. The multi-use trip factors applied to this development are contained in the trip generation table. Slightly higher multi-use trip factors are applied to retail uses to account for pass- by type traffic attraction (whether pedestrian or vehicular) in this core area. The period analyzed in this study is during the highest traffic periods of the year on a peak winter weekday. During this peak period, less primary trips are made in the Vail village area as parking is limited. Instead, more trips are linked to one another, where a skier will also dine or shop after skiing before leaving the area. By assuming 60-70% of all the site traffic is new to the area during the highest period of the day, a conservative estimate is being made especially when considering the availability of free transit adjacent to the site. The interaction between mixed uses has been documented by the Town in the past. In fact, the Town concluded that a 30% reduction in parking spaces for uses in the village area is acceptable to meet demands. The factors applied in this analysis to account for the multi-use factors are consistent with Town data in the development revisions for the adopted parking requirements. It is important to note that application of the factors listed above has also been verified by comparing fhe existing site's driveway volumes to the existing uses. The existing site uses are generating almost exactly the traffic estimated for the existing uses when application of the multi-use factors are made. To further justify the use of trip reduction factors, data collected in Steamboat Springs, Breckenridge, Park City, and other ski towns have evidenced a 30% to 70% reduction in trips when compared to the rates contained in the ITE trip generation manual. This is due to shuttle services provided from airport to resort destination, shuttle and bus service from site to Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 9 November 8, 2005 (rev) 1 1 1 r 1 Crossroads Redevelopment Project (FH#04008) Updated Traffic Impact Study community, pedestrian circulation network provided to/from the site to the ski areas that promotes walkability and non-vehicular modes of access, and mix of complimentary uses on many of the sites studied. In addition, the reduction factors applied in this study were reviewed and agreed upon by the Town's traffic engineer prior to application for this site. Based on the above assumptions, the net site trip generation has been calculated and is presented in Table 2. When compared to the existing uses currently on site, it is estimated that the proposed land uses will result in a net increase in traffic from the existing uses of approximately 660 daily one-way trips with 70 trips occurring during the winter weekday evening peak hour period. 5.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment The estimated traffic volumes presented in Table 2 were distributed onto the adjacent street network based on existing and anticipated land use and traffic patterns in the area. These distribution percentages have been verified by existing turning movements at the site access driveway on Village Center Road, as well as the turning volumes at S. Frontage Road and Village Center Road. Site distribution percentages for the net new trips to the area are as follows: ^ Oriented to/from the west along the S. Frontage Rd. = 55% ^ Oriented to/from the east along the S. Frontage Rd. = 40% ^ Oriented to/from the south along Village Center Rd. = 5% The net site added traffic volumes were assigned to the study area roadway network and intersections according to the percentages shown above. The site generated traffic volumes were then assigned to the study area intersections and are presented on Figure 6. 5.3 Intersection Capacity Analysis The site generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2007 and Year 2025 baseline traffic volumes to determine any impacts associated with the development of the project. The Year 2007 and Year 2025 PM peak hour volumes with net site added trips are illustrated on Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively. The Town has requested that modifications to the existing S. Frontage Road section be made as part of this project. The modifications include constructing a raised median section along the entire site frontage, as well as the elimination of a separate eastbound ' right-turn lane at the Village Center Road intersection. In addition, the outbound (northbound) approach on Village Center Road at the Frontage Road intersection may be restriped as part of this development to allow for a shared left-right lane and a separate left-turn lane, similar to the exiting approach to the public parking structure Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 10 November 8, 2005 (rev) ~. Crossroads Redevelopment Project (FH#04008) Updated Traffic Impact Study east of this intersection. The intersection was analyzed with and without these land geometry modifications to determine the sensitivity to the intersection operations with forecast traffic volumes. The study area intersection levels of service were calculated using the HCM methodology discussed previously with the addition of site generated peak hour traffic volumes and roadway modifications to the Year 2007 and 2025 background volumes. The results are shown in Table 1. Intersection level of service worksheets are attached in the Appendix. The two-step left-turn lane modeled in the existing conditions at the Frontage Road /Village Center Road intersection would also occur in the proposed conditions. The data in the level of service summary table illustrates that, with the forecast future weekday peak hour volumes which should be considered conservative, the study area intersections will continue to operate acceptably overall (LOS A). Increases in side street vehicle delays at the Village Center Road / S. Frontage Road intersection will occur, but the overall intersection will function acceptably. Vehicle queue lengths will increase at the northbound left-turn approach to the intersection, but worst case queuing will be contained within turn lane lengths and will not extend into adjacent access points. 5.4 CDOT Access Spacing Standards The S. Frontage Road corridor is within the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and thus requires compliance with CDOT access code criteria4. The State has established criteria for roadways to enhance safety and access along their corridors. The CDOT criteria becomes effective on an existing use if the use changes its site traffic by 20% or more. Because the net site added traffic is anticipated to increase by more than 20%, the CDOT access code criteria would apply to the proposed site expansion. In Section 4.4 of the Code, it is noted that minimum spacing between access points to the Frontage Road is based on the sight distance criteria. The sight distance criteria for a roadway with a posted speed of 25 mph is 150 feet. Therefore, the minimum spacing between edges of access points or intersections is 150 feet based on CDOT criteria. Because the right-turn only drop-off and pick-up access points essentially act as one driveway and are spaced in excess of 150 feet from the Village Center Road to the east and parking garage access to the west, the drop-off and pick-up access points meet ' CDOT spacing requirements. The delivery access is the only access point that does not meet the minimum 150-foot spacing requirement based on its close proximity to the ' a State Highway Access Code, State of Colorado, August 31, 1998. Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 11 November 8, 2005 (rev) ~L~ t-,' ' Crossroads Redevelo ment Pro'ect FH#04008 U dated Traffic Im act Stud p 1~ ) P P Y ,~ existing parking garage access to the west. The delivery access will experience such low traffic volumes and is not anticipated to result in interruptions in traffic flows along the Frontage Road. However, CDOT access spacing requirements well not be met, and thus a variance request for the delivery access location will be required. 5.5 CDOT Auxiliary Lane Warrant Analysis The forecast traffic volumes at the site access intersections along the Frontage Road and the Village Center Road intersection were reviewed to determine auxiliary lane requirements based on current CDOT access code criteria. The CDOT criteria for assigned category ratings of F-R or Frontage Road require left-turn deceleration lanes with peak hour volumes above 25 vehicles when the posted speed limit is less than 40 miles per hour. Right-turn deceleration lane warrants are met when greater than 50 vehicles conduct aright-turn into the access point during a peak 60-minute period. CDOT design criteria fora 25 mph roadway designated as a Frontage Road requires deceleration lanes to include vehicle storage and a taper ratio of 7.5:1. The auxiliary ' lane summary at the site accesses and Village Center Road intersection along the S. Frontage Road are listed in Table 3. A review of the forecast 2025-plus-site generated peak hour volumes and the CDOT warrant criteria determined that turn lanes will not be warranted at the delivery access nor the ingress only drop-off/pick-up access along the Frontage. At the intersection of S. Frontage Road /Village Center Road, both right-turn and left-turn deceleration lanes are warranted. A left-turn deceleration lane currently exists in the median area which serves as a two-way left-turn lane and is in excess of the required 160 feet in length. The eastbound right-turn lane exists today, but Town staff has requested this lane be removed to discourage traffic from turning south onto Village Center Road. Should an eastbound right-turn lane be constructed at Village Center Road, it should be 190 feet in length (90-foot taper and 100-foot full width lane) to meet CDOT design standards. A variance request for the removal of the eastbound right-turn lane would be required based on CDOT warrant criteria. Again, the site vicinity intersections are projected to operate efficiently with the proposed lane configuration modifications at adjacent intersections (no eastbound right-turn lane at Village Center Road). 5.6 Intersection and Roadway Impacts If the existing lane configuration and striping remains in place with development of this site (ie. separate eastbound right-turn lane), the overall intersection delays are expected to increase by 30% from baseline operations. The northbound left-turn queue length will increase to 40 feet with 2025 background-plus-site volumes from existing 25 feet r queue. If only the eastbound right-turn lane is removed as desired by Town staff and the northbound approach remains with separate left and right lanes, the intersection delay is projected at 1.9 seconds overall in 2025 with 26 seconds of delay and 45-foot queue lengths in the northbound left-turn lane. With restriping of the northbound Fox Hi ins Trans ort ti gg p a on Group, LLC Page 12 November 8, 2005 (rev) ' Crossroads Redevelo ment Pro'ect FH#04008 U dated Traffic Im act Stud P 1 ~ ) P P Y approach to allow for a separate left-turn and shared left-right turn lanes along with removal of the separate eastbound right-turn lane, the capacity of the northbound left- turn movement is increased and vehicle delays/queues are reduced to levels similar to those experienced today. The planned modifications with removal of the eastbound right-furn lane and restriping of the northbound approach will result in the best operations with site added traffic, as only slight increases over existing operations is anticipated. The restriping of the northbound approach would result in similar intersection operations as currently occurs at the parking structure exit just to the east of Village Center Road where two outbound left-turn lanes are permitted. r Another consideration related to the removal of the exclusive eastbound right-turn lane at the Village Center Road / S. Frontage Rd. intersection is a possible future restriction ' of private vehicular traffic on Meadow Drive to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment. The Town of Vail has concerns that the exclusive right-turn lane along the Frontage Road encourages some traffic (those not familiar with Vail Village) to turn onto ' Village Center Road looking for parking or routes into the Village center. In a scenario where Meadow Drive is pedestrian/transit only and serving high volumes of pedestrians, these vehicles would need to turn around to head back to the Frontage Rd. This movement may potentially cause conflicts with pedestrian or other traffic particularly if drivers are unfamiliar about the area and their route. As identified previously, side street approach delays are expected at multi-lane roadway intersections. The net site added volumes will be sufficiently served by the adjacent street network without resulting in additional modifications. 1 Li There has been some discussion regarding modifying the traffic control of the S. Frontage Road and Village Center Road intersection from side street stop control to modern roundabout control. This intersection has physical limitations to the north and on the corners due to the existing I-70 eastbound on-ramp, development on the existing south side, and slopes to the south on Village Center Road. Traffic volumes on Village Center Road are less than 10% of the total approach volumes on S. Frontage Road during the peak hour periods. Typically, roundabouts are constructed at intersections that have more of a balanced approach flow. In addition, the side street approach delays are not considered out of the ordinary or requiring improvements to the intersection. 5.7 Site Access and Circulation The proposed access and circulation plan will provide for acceptable access for all modes of traffic. The pick-up and drop-off access along the S. Frontage Road is anticipated to function acceptably as minimal traffic volumes of less than 5 vehicles in an hour are forecast to utilize this access point. The primary vehicular site access is along Village Center Road approximately 200 feet south of S. Frontage Road. This Fox Higgins Transportation Group, LLC Page 13 November 8, 2005 (rev) ii Crossroads Redevelopment Project (FH#04008 Updated Traffic Impact Stud Y accesses the site's parking garage under the building. This is the same access driveway location currently serving the existing site uses. A right-turn delivery only access is proposed along S. Frontage Road on the site's ' western boundary. Traffic volumes from deliveries are expected to be low and not to occur when the adjacent roadway is experiencing peak traffic conditions. The delivery access is within close proximity to an existing access to the Vail Village Inn. As noted on the site plan on Figure 2, the proposed median on the S. Frontage Rd. should be extended west to restrict movements at the truck access to right-in and right-out. This will minimize any potential conflicts at the access location. There may be 1 or 2 delivery vehicles accessing the site during the morning peak period on a typical weekday. During the morning peak hour, traffic volumes on the adjacent street network are significantly less than the weekday and Saturday afternoon peak period. A comment was made by CDOT relating to delivery trucks that may exit destined to the west and be forced to make a u-turn at intersections east of the site. Delivery routes will be planned in advance based on accessibility along the route. The delivery trucks will also serve areas to the east, and thus, will plan their route accordingly. The event of a u-turn along the Frontage Road will be rare to none. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Crossroads project involves the redevelopment of a building containing a mix of uses in the Vail village area. The site is located on the southwest corner of the S. Frontage Road /Village Center Road intersection. This traffic study reviews existing, short term Year 2007 future, and long term Year 2025 future traffic conditions at the site ' access and adjacent intersections during peak winter weekday evening periods. The mix of retail and residential uses on site is anticipated to generate approximately 70 new one-way trips occurring during the weekday evening peak hour period. The new traffic 1 increases associated with redevelopment of the site were reviewed. It was determined that the existing street network with planned modifications can sufficiently serve the net site added traffic volumes with minimal effects. The removal of the separate eastbound ,, right-turn lane and restriping the northbound approach to allow for a separate left-turn and shared left-right turn lane at the Village Center Road / S. Frontage Road intersection will result in acceptable operations and only slight increases in vehicle delays over existing conditions. The following key points summarize our findings. • net increase in traffic by this project to the adjacent roadway system is negligible ' when considering the high traffic along the Frontage Road ' adjacent intersections will continue to operate at a level of service A overall which is at or similar to existing operations Fox Hi ins Trans ortation Grou LLC Pa e 14 99 P P> g November 8, 2005 (rev) Crossroads Redevelopment Project (FH#04008) Updated Traffic Impact Study • other than the changes proposed in the plan (largely restriping/signing), no roadway improvements are necessary to accommodate the proposed redevelopment based on intersection operations and capacities (i.e., roundabout or other capacity improvements are not required) • traffic counts applied in this study represent aworst-case (higher than average) condition and therefore the report should be considered very conservative in its evaluation (i.e., 90% of the year traffic volumes will be dramatically less) • number of vehicles queuing on Village Center Road will increase slightly due to the high volumes of traffic traveling past the intersection on the S. Frontage Road ' (i.e., largely traffic to and from the Town's parking structure) • CDOT access code criteria warrants are met for an eastbound right-turn deceleration and westbound left-turn deceleration lane at S. Frontage Road / Village Center Road intersection; a westbound left-turn lane exists; the existing eastbound right-turn lane is planned for removal based on Town staff requests to ~, reduce unnecessary traffic access to the village area; based on CDOT warrant criteria, a variance request to remove the eastbound right-turn deceleration lane at Village Center Road would be necessary • CDOT minimum access spacing requirements along the Frontage Road of 150 feet are satisfied at all but the truck delivery access due to its close proximity to the parking garage access to the west; because the right-turn only drop-off and pick-up access points essentially act as one driveway and are spaced in excess of 150 feet from the Village Center Road to the east and parking garage access to the west, the drop-off and pick-up access points meet CDOT spacing requirements; delivery access will experience such low traffic volumes and is not anticipated to result in interruptions in traffic flows along the Frontage Road; in either case, a variance request for the delivery access location will be required based on CDOT access spacing 1 ' Fox Hi ins Trans ortation Grou LLC Pa e 15 99 P P. g November 8, 2005 (rev) 1 1 1 1 1 1 FH#04008 Crossroads Retlevelopment Project Traffic Impact Study FOX ,,.««»e...r~o.. a»o~. Table 1 -Winter Evening Peak Weekday Level of Service Summary Intersection and 'Existing Critical Movements Delay LOS Queue (a) STOP SIGN CONTROL S. Frontage Rd. !Village Ctr. Rd. 1.3 A -- Westbound Left Northbound Left Northbound Right 9.8 19.9 11.5 A C B 5 feet 25 feet 10 feet Village Ctr. Rd. /Site Access 2.6 A -- Eastbound Lefi Northbound Left 9.9 0.5 A A 5 feet 0 feet 11/9/2005 - 2007 + Site Gen. Traffi c Intersection and Year 2007 Background w/ Existing Lane Config, wl _ EB Ri o ght (b)' w/o EBR and.w/ NB Restripe (c) - Critical Movements Delay LOS Queue (a) Delay LOS , Queue' (a) Delay LOS Queue (a) Delay ~ LOS Queue (a) STOP SIGN CONTROL S. Frontage Rd. /Village Ctr. Rd. 1.3 A -- 1.7 A -- 1.8 ~ A -- 1.7 ~ A -- Westbound Left Northbound Left Northbound Right 9.9 20.6 11.6 A C 8 5 feet 25 (eel 10 feet 10.1 22.9 11.8 8 C B 5 feet 35 feet 15 /eet 10.1 23.9 12.4 8 C B 5 feet 35 feet 15 feet 10.1 21.1 15.9 8 C C 5 feet 20 feet 25 feet Village Ctr. Rd. /Site Access 3.4 A -- ~ Eastbound left Northbound Left 10.5 0.9 B A 15 feet 0 feet 1 ' • 2025 + Site Gen. Traffic' ' ' Intersection and Year 2025 Background wl Existing Lane Cdnfig. wlo EB Ri ght (b) w/o EBR and wl NB Restripe (c)': Critical Movements Delay. .LOS Queue (a) Delay .. LOS "Queue (a) .Delay " tOS Queue (a) .Delay ~ LOS Queue (a)' STOP SIGN CONTROL S. Frontage Rd. /Village Ctr. Rd. 1.4 A -- 1.9 A -- 1.9 ~ A -- 1.9 ~ A -- Westbound Lefi Northbound Left Northbound Right 10.1 21.9 11.8 B C 8 5 feet 30 feet f0 feet 10.3 24.7 12.0 B C B 10 feet 40 (eel 15 feet 10.3 25.8 12.7 B D B 10 feet 45 feet 15 feet 10.3 22.4 16.6 B C C 10 feet 25 feet 30 feet Village Ctr. Rd. /Site Access 3.3 A -- ~ Eastbound Left Northbound Left 10.7 0.8 8 A 15 feet 0 feet Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle. (a) Vehicle queue is worst-case 95%ile queuing expected in the peak hour. (b) Assumes separate EB right turn lane is removed and now shares w/ through lane with site development. (c) With restriping NB approach outside lane for shared Left-right vs separate right AND wish removal of separate EB right-turn. 16 04008 rev LOS.xIs r r iris r irr ~ r r r irr r rr r r r r r~ r FH#04008 Crossroads Redevelopment Project Traffic Impact Study 11/9/2005 Ft~X -~ ~TwnHn r.o w-rnr i o w B wo ur Table 2. Weekday Tria Generation Comparison V ITE . ` ;:Multi-Use. Average D aily Trips :,_ P:M..Pea,k~H ourTrigs .~- Code Land Use Size ' Unit ;Factor (a) Rate Total In .Out Rate Total In Out Existing Uses: 814 Specialty /General Retail 50.00 1,000 S.F. 0.6 44.32 1330 665 665 2.71 81 35 46 444 Movie Theater w/ matinee 350 Seats 0.6 1.76 370 185 185 0.07 15 11 4 715 Office (single tenant) 13.52 1,000 S.F. 0.6 11.57 94 47 47 1.73 14 2 12 260 Condo -recreation home 22 Dwelling Units 0.7 3.16 49 24 25 0.26 4 2 2 g0 Public Parking (b) 31 Spaces 0.5 4.50 70 35 35 0.62 10 2 8 Existing Land Use Traffic Totals: 1913 956 957 124 52 72 Renova ted Uses: 814 Specialty /General Retail 40.62 1,000 S.F. 0.6 44.32 1080 540 540 2.71 66 28 38 931 Quality Restaurant 5.00 1,000 S.F. 0.6 89.95 270 135 135 7.49 22 15 7 465 Ice Skating Rink (c) 21.50 1,000 S.F. 0.25 23.60 127 64 63 2.36 13 6 7 437 Bowling Alley /Bar 14.60 1,000 S.F. 0.6 33.33 292 146 146 3.54 31 11 20 444 Movie Theater w/ matinee 405 Seats 0.6 1.76 428 214 214 0.07 17 12 5 260 Condo -recreation home 68 Dwelling Units 0.7 3.16 150 75 75 0.26 12 5 7 g0 Public Parking (b) 100 Spaces 0.5 4.50 225 113 112 0.62 31 7 24 Renovated Land Use Traffic Totals: 2572 1287 1285 192 84 108 Net Difference btwn. Existing and Renovated: 659 331 328 68 32 36 (a) Interaction between on-site uses, as well as walking/transit trips from general village and Vail area; consistent with studies conducted in Vail area. (b) At least 50% of spaces are to be leased to adjacent merchants/businesses and are expected to experience little to no turnover during the peak hour period. (c) Skating rink will be in operation for only 5 months out of the year or 40% of the time. 04008 rev tgen.XLS r ~w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ r~ ~ FH#04008 Crossroads Redevelopment Protect Traffic Impact Study 1119/2005 FOX r-A..~,PO-,,.,~~.. o-a..P Table 3. I-70 South Frontage Road Auxiliary Lane Summary ... ,t. Length in Feet I Forecast CDOT- Peak Design Peak ~ ~" . Houc ~ CDOT `' Total .Speed ~ ; Hour a Volume Warrant- ,Storage BaY ~ Lane- 'Intersection ;Limit ~ .Movement/Auxiliary Lane Volume= Warrant Satisfied. Lane Taper~z! :.Length; S. Frontage Rd. /Site Delivery 25 mph Eastbound Approach /Right-Turn Decel. 1 > 50 no -- -- -- S. Frontage Rd. /Site Inbound Access only 25 mph Eastbound Approach /Right-Turn Decel. 5 > 50 no -- -- -- S F t Rd /Vill C Rd Eastbound Approach /Right-Turn Decel. 100 > 50 yes 100 90 190 . ron age . enter age . 25 mph Westbound Approach /Left-Turn Decel. 70 > 25 yes 70 90 160 tft Category rating F-R applied to all lanes per CDoT criteria cZt Lane taper ratios: 7.5:1 for 25 mph speed limit 04008 auxiliary lane.xls I R A N 6 P 0 w T A T I O Nr, R o u v CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY VICINITY MAP FH Project # 04008 Original Scale 1"=850' Date 11/08/05 Drawn by SGT Figure # 1 r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ r ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ eta a Rd '-~ a -__ -._._ -> b ---___________, -._ ~~ --__. _._ 1 --.. _ --- - -_ N _ _ -_____ --- Delivery Acce`ss-©nly -_....\ .._., Y. ,- 1 P ~ 1 _' ',Vail' ~' ~ -•~ ::-;~ Iii/"~ / ~i !~ i ~ r ~ d it/~ ~~~/ _~ r , ~~ /,/ i~ ~~ ',. i //~ 1 /' \,\ ..<<,-- l'~F ~'~`- - Vii/ ~~/,V ~---- _. ~, <, %s=,,:,---sue •,..- -_..---..~._ ~~ .. ,~ %~!~ :: ~___ s I ~~ / J/J` s ~f ;h ,; i ~ /, ~!~ ~~///!` _,_~ f :! ~, ~f `11 ~~j ~lt~ ~ ~ ~/~,~, ---.. ~ ~/~ji~--' - -- ', ~~ _~ .,_ Median Modifications / Additions ----_ ~-- T R A N 9 P O R T A T I o N c, R o u v CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY SITE AND ACCESS PLAN FH Project # 04008 Original Scale 1"=75' Date 11/08/05 Drawn by SGT .Figure # 2 LEGEND ~ XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N I 1 708 --- ~ ~ 1 124 73 ~ sTO~ ~ 48 ~~ M ~ ~ ~v~ T R A N 9 P O R T A T I O N G R O u P CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING WINTER WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FH Project # 04008 Original Scale 1"=160' Date 11/08/05 Drawn by SGT Figure # 3 LEGEND ~ XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N J 725 y ~- 1150 75 ~ sro~ R ~ 50 ^o T R A M e v o R T A T I O N G R O U P CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY YEAR 2007 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES FH Project # 04008 Original Scale 1"=160' Date 11/08/05 Drawn by SGT Figure # 4 LEGEND ~ XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N ^ a 750 ~ s oa -- 1 180 80 ~ ~ ~ 55 ~~ o ,n ~ T R A N H P O R T A T I o N ci R o u e CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY YEAR 2025 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES FH Project # 04008 Original Scale 1 "=160' Date 11/08/05 Drawn by SGT Figure # 5 LEGEND ~ XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N P -5 _ -5 20 ~ s~o~p ~ 15 ~~ n ~" oa ;~ ~..~ T R A M a v o R T A T I O N C3 R O U P CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY NET SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FH Project # 04008 Original Scale 1"=160' Date 11/08/05 Drawn by SGT Figure # 6 LEGEND ~ XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N I 720 ~ .~ 1 145 95 ~ sroP ~ 65 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ;~ v ^ ~- T R A M H P O R T A T I O N G R O U P CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY YEAR 2007 + NET SITE ADDED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FH Project # 04008 Original Scale 1"=160' Date 11/08/05 Drawn by SGT Figure # 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~F. r ~. ~ ~ ~J ~ ~A ~i- ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ LEGEND ~ XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 745 ~ Sro -- 1175 100~~;~70 '~Y o o i ~~ ~~ T R A N H P O R T A T I o N G R O U P ~ CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY YEAR 2025 + NET SITE ADDED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FH Project # 04008 Original Scale 1"=160' Date 11/08/05 Drawn by SGT Figure # 8 1 y l t APPENDIX CDOT Review Comments Level of Service Definitions Intersection Capacity Worksheets 1 of 18 w 1 1 1 t CDOT Review Comments ' 2 of 18 STATE C bEPARTh9ENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1~ Traftio ~ 5alety Section 222 South 6~" Street, Room 1 tm Grand Jundlon, Colorado $1501 ~'~ (970) 2d6~7230 September l2, 2005 Timothy Halopoff, PE ~~ 2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 190 Fort Collins CO, SOS25 Re: Stgte Aighwsi~y Accevs Permit Application Ref #s OS-1179 T~raltc 1<mpaet Study -Review comments Crossroads Redevelopmen# project / i ~ The purpose ofthi~~lt3tiCt"'xs C~"hrf6rYtt-yc~tY~tlt~t£DOT-witi~ed-a~ddi~tional-infi~rmatioron toproccss this _ . . permit. This application review process has ended until we receive. responses to C_`AO`l"s cpmmentc_ r Once we receive your cornm~ents addressing our concerns, the 45 day review process will start aver. R3 Traffic Comments 1 The stud does itot include the re aired executive summ Y q ary. 2) Redevelopment will cause a 50°lo increase in traffic from current conditions. 3) We need much .more detail and backup for all the assumptions in this study ~ including trip generation, trip distribution, traffic growth, mode split; etc. We need a copy of the Town's ~.l~x"anspoTtatiori .Master k'1an 4) This proposal will require 3 yr 4 access permits, depending on .how we permit the franc door drop . off road (2 1-ways ox 2 2-ways)- The town will be the permittee for Village Center Road and the property owner will be fire permittee for the rest. 5} The study indicates that the Town requested lane changes at the Frontage RoadNillage Center Road intersection and the study evaluates the operational impact of these changes. Regardless of the source, C1~OT retains the right to approve intersection lane changes on our system. 6) The study does ript nddress SF~AC requirements such w nurnbar, iype, and spacing of sccess points - this information must be added far our consideration. 7) The proposed delivery access is erra,luated as a right-in, right-out but it will be very near to a tncdian. opening so it will likely operate as a full movement access. The study should address the options of closing this nrtedian op~ing az~d should address how the out of direction vehicles will return to their original route (location acid operations ofU-turns, etc}. 8) The appendix pages should be numbered X of Y so we know if we have all the sheets. If I can be of any further assistance please call. Sincerely, '~ Devin Drayton Region 3 Access Tecbuailc:is~a Devin,Drayton~,3a dat.state.co.us Cc: Steve TuttlE Pl; Fage ] o£ l '~..f i0 w n 1 1 Level of Service Definitions HCM LOS Definitions 4 of 18 r ~X -- TRANSPORTATION GROUP LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS In rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traffic volumes, "Levels "~ of Service" (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good operation and LOS F indicating poor operation. Levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections are closely associated with vehicle delays experienced in seconds per vehicle. More complete level of service definitions and delay data for signal and stop sign controlled intersections are contained in the following table for reference. 1 r l Level Delay in seconds per vehicle (a) of Service Rating Signalized Unsignalized Definition Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations. Density is low A 0.0 to 10.0 0.0 to 10.0 and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers are able to maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. Stable vehicular traffic volume flow with potential for some restriction of B 10.1 to 20.0 10.1 to 15 0 operating speeds due to traffic conditions. Vehicle maneuvering is only . slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and drivers are not subject to appreciable tension. Stable traffic operations, however the ability for vehicles to maneuver is more C 20.1 to 35.0 15 1 to 25 0 restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory operating . . speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer vehicle queues cause delays along the corridor. Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in volume D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35 0 could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in ability to . maneuver and selection of travel speeds due to congestion. Driver comfort and convenience are low, but tolerable. Traffic operations characterized by significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one-half to one-third the free flow speed. Vehicular flow is E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0 unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief duration. High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridor signal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at signalized corridors. Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays at F > 80.0 > 50.0 critical intersections. Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of downstream congestion. (a) Delay ranges based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual criteria. 5of18 1 r t L 1 t Intersection Capacity Worksheets ~, 6 of 18 1 i 1 r 1 1 1 t HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8/4/2005 1: Site Access & Village Ctr. Rd. ~' ~ ~ ? 1 ~ ,Movement ' EBL EBR NBL r, NBT - SBT . . -- -. .,4SBR ~ : - -. Lane Configurations ~ ~' '~ Sign Control Stop;. Free- Free Grade 0% _ 0% 0% Volume.(veh/h),- _ 63 _ 5 ~- 5 78 67 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 . w- Hourly:flow rate~(vph) ,. -~66 ' 5 _ :5 82 71 57 Pedestrians - _. _ .. Lane Widfh (ft) - ... . - u ,. ,, - , . Walking Speed (ft/s) _... Percent, Blockage 4 ` . _ _ •. . . ,,. Right turn flare (veh) _ .__. .._ _ . _. Median type ~ _, ~._ _ .~ .. . ~ None ~ w . _., _ , . ; , _ _., . _ . _ Median storage veh) . .. _.. , . _.. , Upstream signal (ft)n _ _ . ' __.. -~ _ :... r _ _ , pX, platoon unblocked ~C, conflicting,volume 192 -- ~ 99 ~ __ 127 vC1, stage 1 conf vol _ vC2 stage 2 conf vof ` ._ vCu, unblocked vol 192 99 127 _ tC single (s) .~A - - -.. _ . .._. 6 4 ~ .. _ 6.2 p_ 4.1~ _ _ - . _ tC, 2 stage (s) - . - . tF (s) - ~ -d-_ - 3:5 ". ` - 3.3 - 2.2 - ,,_ ... -.. _ _ p0 queue free % 92 99 100 ,cM capacity (veh/h) 794 ,957 1459 _ _ .'. . ~ Direction, Lame",# ` EB:1 NB 1 `. SB 1 ... .. Volume:Total;" . ~ ~ 72' , 87 12Z Volume Left 66 5 0 volume Ri ht > . _ __ . g..._ ...._,~_ ___ ~ r 5 w 0 5T- _ .. -: ., . cSH 805 1459 1700 Volume to Ca acct P.. Ya .__.~ __._ : , 0.09 0.00 0:07 ~ _ , " ,, . _ _ _ Queue Length 95th (ft) . , 7 0 0 .... _ - _ Control Delay^(s) T ~ . 9:9 .~ 0 5 ; 0.0„ -. _ . , .. . _ , Lane LOS .. _..._A. A _....~__ _ A -_.. . ... , - Approach Delay (s) ,, 9.9 0 5 0 0 ~: _ - Approach LOS A Intersection Summary' , . _ w -- ~~ f~ : `~ . ~e . Average Delay 2.6 . '.Intersection Ca acif Ut __. _.. P . . Y ilizafion 18.7% _ , . . ICU Leve l,.of Service A Analysis Period (min) .. _._ _._ .. r .. - - . - -- 15 _ #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vail TIS Fox Higgins Transportation Group Existing -Winter PM Peak 7of18 1 1 t 1 fl r HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8/4/2005 3: S. Frontage Rd. & Village Ctr. Rd. "'- ~ '1~ ~ Movement EB`T EBR WE3L V`,!BT NBL 'NBF~ °: Lane Coniiyurations ~~ ~ ~ T~ ~ ~ Sigri;Contr©I, Free Free Stop _. - . Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) - 708 73 48 1124 73 68 ~:~ -' ~ " - Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0. 95 0.95 _ 0.95 0.95 0.95 ~., Hourly~flovir rate (vph) ~. 745 " _ 77 51 1183 77 72 .. Pedestrians _.. _. Lane Width (ft) _.. • Walking Speed (ft/s) ~ : _ _ . Percent Blockage. .M. - Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL , ;,.. , Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) _ _ „.. - .: pX, platoon unblocked vC; conflicting volume ~._ 822 1438 373 : `' _ - _ vC1, stage 1 conf vol 745 _ vC2, stage 2 conf vol 693 • i "~ : vCu, unblocked vol 822 1438 _ 373 ~ . - _ __ tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 .. ti - - ~ tC, 2 stage (s) _ 5.8 ~ . . tF (s} . 2.2 3.5 3:3' _. ., . - ~. p0 queue free %° _. 94 76 89 - V.. _ cM capacity (veh/h) 803 __ 317 625: .. .. ., Direction .Lane # - EB 1 EB`2 EB 3 WB 1 'WB 2 V1,B \l_ _-NB 1" NB 2 `._ _ _ _ __ - _ _. Volume Total 373 373 77 51 _ ` 592 592 77 72 Volume Left 0 0 0 51 _ 0 . 0 77 0 Volume Right. .____ .. 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 72 cSH 1700 1700 1700 803 1700 1700 317 -_ 625 ._~ ~ ,_ _ volume to Capacity ~... _ 0.22 _ 022 0.05 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.24: - 0.11 ` -- ' Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 5 0 0 23 10 . ,~. „_ Control Delay (s) _ 0.0 . _ __, 0.0 0.0 _ 9.8 0.0 0.0 - 19.9 - 11.5 Lane LOS A _ C _~ B __ Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 15.9 , - w Approach LOS _ C _.. ,n.,~. _,._w_. Intersection Summary _ _ _ _ ...__ -_- 1 Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Ut ilization 41".8% ICU Level of Ser vice • A ~•. - -. Analysis Period (min) 15 _ :. #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vail TIS Fox Higgins Transportation Group Existing -Winter PM Peak 8 of 18 ~~ HCM Unsignalized I ntersection Capacity Ana lysis 8/4/2005 3: S. Frontage Rd. & Village Ctr. Rd. ,a -~ Movement ~' ~ ~ -EBT ~ EBR. WBL ~WBT NBL~ NBR .~ ~ > Lane Configurations j ~ ~ ~ j Sign Control ~ frees _ Free Stop - - . - - Grade 0% 0% 0% _ _ _ Volume (veh/h) .. 725 _, 75 50 1150 75 70 _ Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 _"_... _ , Hourly flow rate (vph) - 763: 79 ' ~ 53 ` 1211 79 74 - Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) ._ _ _ _ _. __ _. ~.._ . _._ r Percent Blockage . , _ . _ _ . - _. _ _ __ _ .. Right turn flare (veh) __ _ . _ _ _ Median t _e _- _. __ - TWLTL __V__. _ __.. ._ _... , ~ . r Median storage veh) ~ 2 Upstream sigrial (ft)_ __ _. w _. ~ _ _ µ _ .... .. u __: _ __ _ __. _. ~ ' pX, platoon unblocked vC conflictmg.volume 842 1.474 _. __ -__ _ 382 ~ ' , vC 1 sta e 1 conf vol ~ _ .. - 763 vC2 stage 2 conf vol 711 ° vCu, unblocked vol 842 1474 T " 382 tC, single (s) 4.1 . 6.8 _ -- 6.9 r. tC 2 stage (s) ._ - . . . 5 8 _ . _ . _.. . tF (s)_~.. __..... _._ . .. _ 2.2., 3 5 _ 3.3 . p0 queue free % 93 74 88 _ 'cM capacity_(veh/h) 789 ., 309 ~. 616, ,,. ~ ' nirar-tinn ~1 anc~~ff FR 1 FR ~ FR ~' VA/R 1 lA/R' ~ 1AIR '~" :AIR 1 hIR 7 . ,Volume Total ° 382 382 79 ' 53 605 605 ' :79 - :: ,- 74 , Volume Left 0 0 , 0 53 0 0 79 ._ __. 0 Volume Right ,y - ' 0 :T 0 79 , 0 ` 0 v - 0 ' 0 ,. 74 _ cSH 1700 1700 1700 789 _ 1700. 1700 309 _ _ 616 .. _ Volume to Capacity 0 22 _ 0 22 0.05 0 07 0 36 :: 0 36 ' 0.26+ ._, 0 12 _~~ Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 5 0 0 25 10 Control Deia s .. ` _ _., w ` 00 _ _ ,~ _.. 0~0 ' _ ,w. 0.0 ~' ,. _ _ 9 9 ~ _. ~ 0.0 ._ 0 0~: _ 20.6 `.. __ . ~._ ... _. < < . _. _ . 11.6• ~ ~ ' Lane LOS A C B Approach Delay (s) _ _. _ 0:0 . __ ,.~_. _ v ~ 0 4 ` 16 3 ' : Approach LOS ..._ __. _ ..~ _ _ _ _ M1 C _ __ Intersection Summary Average Delay 1 3 Intersection Capacity Utilization„ 42 6% ICU Level of Service - ~ A~ • ~ ~ Analysis Period (min) _ 15 ~~ _ }~~ ~j f~ l _. .. _,- -_ - _ __.. _ _ _ - -- _ __ _ #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vail TIS Fox Hi ins Trans ortation Grou 99 P P 9of18 Year 2007 Background -Winter PM Peak n U HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8/4/2005 1: Site Access & Village Ctr. Rd. Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT ''SBT ''- SBR Lane Configurations ~ ..~ ~' _ '~, Sign Control. .: . Stop . . ~ : Free Freer Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h)' _ 100 10 ~-_ ~ ~ ~- Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly,flowrate (vpii) . 105: 11 11 _ 84. _._ 79 - 89 Pedestrians _ _ _ • Lane Width (ft) _. - - - _ Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage ~ .._ '- __. - Right turn flare (veh) Median type ~ . ;~_ . None • -, . _. z .. . _ ..__._ ~ ~ ~ ~ -_ _ ~ ~ _ _ Median storage veh) .. _ . ~ - _ _ _. ___... _. _,, .. ... _ _ _ . _ - - ~ - .. . _ U stream si nal ft P . 9 ,( )' , _ _ _ _.._. _ _ .__.._ ._ .. _ _ _ _ ,. . _.. .__.__ ~. ..., s ' .__ ' - ' pX, platoon unblocked vC coriflicting volume 229 ' 124 T68 ~ ° vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vole - vCu, unblocked vol 229 124 168 tC; single (s) 6.4 . 6.2 4 1 : ~ . . tC, 2 stage (s) • _ _. _ _ _ . - ~ _ _ tF s ~.) .: 3.5. .. 3:3 <:- .2.2 , ` ~,_ _ - - - ., - - _ . p0 queue free % . . 86 99 .. . 99 _ _ .-._ :. .. r _ cM-capacity-(veh/h) ~ 754 927.. 1409' ; . R_. _..~ .. .;__._. Direction„ Lane`# EB 1 iVB 1 SB 1 ~ , Volume Total 1.16:. 95, 168 Volume Left 105 _ 11 0 ..._ .- _ Volume Right 11 0 89 ~ ~_. - _ _ _. _ .., _ _ cSH 767 1409 1700 - Volume to Ca aat '- ~ P Y . - ... _ .. <. 0;15 0.01 .e , 0.:90. _.~, _.r .. ._ ~ J-r~ ~ ' .. _ .. . Queue Length 95th (ft) .. _ _ _ 13 .. _ _ _ _ 1 0 _ ~ ~ ~ _ Control-:Delay (s) . ~ 10:5 0.9 0.0 - - -- Lane LOS - B A . __ _ Approach Delay (s) . _ .. 10.5 _v.,. _. 0.9 . , .. ~.~. 0.0 .__ _ . ~. „~ - - _ .. - . - ~~~~ _ ~-µ -~~`~ . - Approach LOS B ,. Intersection Summary T _ _____~. ~ _ T _.._ ~_ ~_ ___ ___.___.~ __~ ~.. --------_----, Average Delay 3 -t - .Intersection,Capacityaltilization 2 5.4% __:~ ICU Level of Service A: rM Analysis Period (min) 15 #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vail TIS Fox Higgins Transportation Group Year 2007 + Site -Winter PM Peak, Existing Configuration 10 of 18 HCM Unsignalized I ntersection Capacit y Analysis 8/4/2005 3: S. Frontage Rd. & Village Ctr. Rd. ~--- -fl ~ ~ Movement .EBT. EBR 1NBL WBT NBL NBR =,. Lane Confi urations ' Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) _ 720 95 ~ 65 1145 95 _ > _ 85 _ n_ . . Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 _ • _ Hourly. flow rate (vph) ~ 758. -, ; 100 '~~.68- 1205 ~•~ '~- 100 ~ -~~ 89 ~ ~ .. -- ~ ~ ' ~~ Pedestrians .. ~ _ Lane•Width (ft):' ~, - Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage ;. Right turn flare (veh) E • Median type .. T1IVLTL . , ,. Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) >"- ~ _ - __ pX, platoon unblocked _ __ __ .. ._ _ wC, co°nflicting volume ~ 858 .1497 T 379, ` vC1, stage 1 conf vol 758 vC2, stage 2 conf vol "~ ~ _~ . _ 739 "._ v _._ _ . .: .. __ .,.. ~ ~ vCu, unblocked vol _ 858 1497 379 _ _ .. a tC, sirigle .(s) tC, 2 stage (s) ~ .. 4,1 _ 6 8 : 5 8 ,3 6.9" _ _. __ _ _. ...' . tF (s) ,-, , 2.2 3 5 ~. •, 3,.3 ~:,~. - p0 queue free % ~ 91 67 _ 86 cM capacity (veh/h) ~ 779 • ~ 299 619 ,_~_ __ . Direction„L`ane # ~ . _~," EB~1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB,3' NB 1 - NB 2 ,. Volume Total 37 9 379 ' 100..; 68 603 603 100 89 Volume Left . 0 0 0 68 0 0 100 0 Volume Ri ht 0 0 ;,1..00 . ~ _ . 0 •. 0 _ ... 0 0 _.. _. _ 89' ~~"° cSH 1700 1700 1700 _ 779 __ 1700 1700 299 619 Volume to Capacity;.. • 0.22 .0.22 0:06 0.09 0 35 `0 35 ` 0 33 _ 0 14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 7 0 0 36 13 _ Control Delay (s) , : ' _ 0:0, ` _ ` 0.0 ~ ~0.0 . ".. .10 1 0 0 _ ~0 0' : _. .~._ 22 9 w..~.._ , _ _._~. .n._.~ . __~ _w. .__._ 11 8 = Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) ~ 0:0 . "B- 0 5 ---- ~-- -~_ _ ..---C- " 17.7 _ --. B.______.,__.~ _::._.~...___ r __~ _ ~.. Approach LOS C ,,__ ,Intersection Sarnmary _._.__.. .__.._. _ _.._.~_ ~_ __ _ __ _~ _..,.. ______.__. .-_ _-- -_~... ~,,.,, y ~$ Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Util¢atiorr . 4 ._a._ . 3.6% ` _ _. __ <_ ... ' . ICIJ Leve .~ .__.. .. _ Lof Service , _.__ _- -.~-._ ~____ .~_. _ . _ _. _ _. ~ A. - - Analysis Period (min) 15 _ _ _.. ((~~ #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vail TIS Fox Higgins Transportation Group Year 2007 + Site -Winter PM Peak, Existing Configuration 11 of 18 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8/4/2005 3: S. Frontage Rd. & Village Ctr. Rd. ~ ~ ~ ~ _._ n. Movement ~ : _ . EBT EBR WBL- WBT ~ ~ NBL `*,NBR : - 1, Lane Configurations ~'F, ~ ~~ ~ ~ Sign Control Free. Free . Stop w Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) ' - 720 95 65 1.145 _ 95 85 . . _ . v_ -. __. .. Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 _ 0.95 0.95 0.95 _ Hourly flow rate (vph) 758 1.00' 68 1 205- 100 89, _ ~ Pedestrians . _ Lane Width (ft) , Walking Speed (ft/s) Percerit Blockage _. Right turn flare (veh) _ ` Median type _ TWLTL . ._ _ _ - -- _ Median storage veh) 2 1 _ Upstream signal (ft) ~ ~ _ _ ~ a _ r _ _ __ - -_~ , __.__ '~ ° - ~ _ .. . pX, platoon unblocked . vC, conflicting volume 858 . ~ .. -. 1b47 429`` _ . ,..... ,W _ _ . _. .. _._. __ - - -- . .. ; vC1, stage 1 conf vol _ 808 ' vC2, stage 2'conf bol w 739 vCu, unblocked vol . 858 1547 429 _ _. _ __-_ _. tC; single (s) 4.1 ' ' 6.8 6.9: tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 - _- tF (s} 2.2 3.5 3.3: p0 queue free % 91 65 84 cM capacity (veh/h') 779 , 289 574.,- __ _ .. ~..' Direction, Larie # _ ~ .EB 1 EB 2 ._-WB 1 . !NB 2 WB 3. NB 1 : NB 2 ~ ~ ~.,° Volume Total • 505 .. -353 68 • - 8 03 603 100 89 Volume Left 0 0 68 . 0 0 _ _ 100 _ _.- 0 Right, -. ;a, Volume .~. ~~ 0 . , 100 ~ ~. ; 0 ~; . ,_ 0. .~ . ~.0~. ~. ; 0 ,~ _ -._ 89 ~ ~. , cSH 1700 1700 779 1700 1700 289 _ 574 Volume to Capacity. ~, 0.30 0.21 X0:09 _ 0:35 ~ 0 35 ~ _ 0 35 -; -0 16 - _ • Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 7 0 0 37 14 _ Control Delay.(s) , ~ 0.0 - 00': __. _ , 10 1 _ 0.0:., _ , . 0.0- ~ ~ _ 23.9• '. _ ~ -- - _ _ - _ _ 12 4 ~ __ - > : _ ~ Lane LOS B C-- ___ ._ ._ ..- ... . _ __ _ . _ B .._. _ Approach Delay (s), 0.0 0 5 ' . 18 5 r .~ , . _ _. _. Approach LOS C _ _ Intersection Summary- ~ , Average Delay 1 8 intersection.Capacity Utilization 43:6%; ICU Level _..__ _.. of Service' ~ _~__ ~ A~: ..:. ~: ' Analysis Period (min) 15 #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vail TIS Year 2007 + Site -Winter PM Peak, w/o EB Right Fox Higgins Transportation Group ', 12 of 18 f t 1 ~I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8/4/2005 3: S. Frontage Rd. & Village Ctr. Rd. ~ ~ ~ ~--- Lane Configurations ~'~ -~ ~~ ~-~ Sign Control Free Free , Stop . , . Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 720 95 65 1145: ~_ , .., - 95 85 '' ~` Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate" (vph) .758 ~ .100 68 ' 1205. 100 89 ' Pedestrians _. _._ Walking Speed (ft/s) ___ Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) _. Median type - ~. - ,. ,, TINLTL . :._ Median storage veh) 2 __,- Upstream signal (ft) :-„ _ .. _ - ~ pX, platoon unblocked ~~ vC, conflicting volume ~ , .::858 ~ , 1547 429. ;: . ~ ~ . , vC1, stage 1 conf vol 808 vC2, stage_2 .conf vol 739 .. vCu, unblocked vol 858 1547 429 tC, single.(s) 4.1.. 6.8 6.9 , tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF s _ O 2.2 _ ,, 3.5 3.3 __ -. `. p0 queue free % 91 65 84 ..... cM capacity. (veh/h) -: 779 289 574 ..~ _. .. Direction, Lane # EB 1 ' : EB 2 WB 1 WB 2' WB 3 NBy1 '~ .NB 2~ ~~~ Volume Total ." 505 • , . 353 68 : .603 603 67 1'23 _ - Volume Left 0 0 68 0 0 67 33 Volume_ Right ~ 0 100 ~ 0 0 0 .0 __ _ _.. 89„" ; ~ - cSH 1700 1700 779 1700 1700 289 _.. . .. __ 453 - Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.21 -, 0':09` ` . 0.35 0.35 0:23 . 0".2Z - - ~ . ~ .. ueue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 . - 7 0 0 2 _. .. _ _-- 27 Control Dela s 0.0 0.0 . 10:1 0 0- ~0.0~ 21.1 , ___, 1.5.9:~•~ ` -v ... , Lane LOS ~ B C ~ C~ ._._.- Approach Delay (s) 0.0 . 0:5, ... _. A .:, .. _ 17.7. . ~ _ ...-.. -- ~ Approach LOS C r. _~ _~. --- Intersection :Summary ,~ . ; Average Delay 1.7 _ ... P Y ,.Uti s tl ... ~ lization;. : - 43.7% . :. _ __ - ....- _ _ ..... _ _:.~___.. A. ICU Level of,Service ~ , : .: m Anal s s Per od min Y ( ) 15 _ .. - #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vail TIS Fox Higgins Transportation Group Year 2007 + Site -Winter PM Peak, w/o EBR & w/NB Restripe 13 of 18 HCM Unsignalized I ntersection C apacity Anal ysis 8/4/2005 3: S. Frontage Rd. & Village Ctr. Rd. ~ ~ -~ t ~ Movement :.~ , ,:-. ; Ei3T _.. ~:~EBR _ -- - 1NBl.' : WBT' NBL; NBR' _- _~ ~, Lane Configurations ~~ ~ ~ ~~ -~ ~ Sign Control Free .: Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh%h) 750 _ 80~ 55 ,1180 80 75 ` Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 789 . -. 84 58 1242 84 . 79 , Pedestrians _ . ~ Lane Width (ft) -. , ~_ - - . Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage .-. ~ _ _. _ . _ : , Right turn flare (veh) Median; type, _ .. , . TWLTL . , . ; Median storage veh) . _ ~ ~ 2 , _ _y _ - . Upstream signal (ft)° - , - .;-. . ... „: . ,.. - ~ , pX, platoon unblocked 'vC, conflicting volume . ~ ` - 874. 1526 395 . , ,,. . _. vC1 stage 1 conf vol ,..._ ~.. ~ - 789 vC2, stage 2 conf vof ' , 737 vCu, unblocked vol _ 874 1526 395 tC, single (s)_ ,. -- - 4;1 6.8 6.9 - tC 2 stage (s) _. 5.8 tF (s~- .. ._. _~ . _ _ _. 2.2 3.5 3.3 _. p0 queue free % . . , 92 72 87 cM capacity (veh/h)_ . -, 768 ~ 296 604 - irect6~ ion; Lane # ~ EB 1 EB.2.~ ~EB 3 `VUB 1 1NB 2 WB 3 ': NB 1 N6 2~ ~ ~ ~ -` Volume Total. :;~ 395 395, 84 58 621r ' ' .621', 84 79 Volume Left ._ . 0 _ _ _ 0 0 58 0 0 84 0 Volume Right _. y 0 0 84 0, 0 0 -r0; _. 79 ; cSH 1700 1700 1700 768 1700 1700 296 604 Volume to Capacity 0 23 _ 0 23 6:05 m:~0.08 0 37 ~ 0.37 0:28 - _... , - 0 13' _ ; ' Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 6 .: 0 0 ~ 29 . 11 Control`Dela _ s - - 00 - - _., ~ 0.0.r 0.0 10.1 -0:0 0.0 ` 21:9 ` 11.8'' a Lane LOS _ B C 13 -- - Approach Delay (s) - 0.0 ~ ~ - ~ _ 0.4 17.1 Approach LOS - C Intersection Summary„~. __ __: ~ .z .. ___ _._..... ~ - ~ _ ~.... ,____ . -~ ' Average Delay 1 4 , Intersecfion Capacit Utilization ; _- ,4 Y ... 3.7% ,.. ICU Level . of Service, ` ___. r.,, . A Analysis Period (min) 15 ~ ~- 1 r ,: ; ._ ~__ - - _ u _. _ 1 #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vail TIS Fox Higgins Transportation Group 14 of 18 Year 2025 Background -Winter PM Peak HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8/4/2005 II 1: Site Access & Village Ctr. Rd. ' ~ ~ ~ ~ i Movement... EBL EBR NBL NBT ~ SBT ' .SBR ~ ` ~ " ~'~- i. Lane Configurations ~ ~ '~ Sign Control Stop . Free t=ree Grade 0% _ ___ . 0%. 0% Uolume.(veh/h) ' 100 10 _. 10 _ ., ~ 90 85 ., ~ 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 . Hourly flow rate (vph) _. 105 . ; ° 11 . 1.1 _ 95 89 : 89 .. °: Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) _ : _ --- Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent .Blockage ~ . _ ~~. Right turn flare (veh) Median type ,_ Norie _ Median storage veh) ,Upstream si nal ft _ _ _ _ 9 . O~__ _ .. pX, platoon unblocked ....__, __,___..__ ,_.. _._ ~, __ 'vC, conflic ing volume ° _..... ~ _ 250 ~ w _.. - _ 134 _ _. 179. ~ _. '" ... c _.. . - -~ - `` t vC 1, stage 1 conf vol _ vC2; stage 2 conf vol _ __ _' = ._ ~_ . .. _ vCu, unblocked vol 250 134 _ 179 _ tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) _ .. 6;4 6.2 .~_ ,, 4.1 _ _. _ . _ F„ ,. .., tF (s) .~ _ _:~. ~ 3z5 _~3.3 ~ _n 2 2 p0 queue free % 86 99 ~ 99 _ _,. .__ ;cM capacity (veh/h) 733 915 1397 D~Irec'tion, ~an'e# ~ ~ EB1 NB 1. <_SB 1 ~ ~ ~ x ,_ V olumeTotal 116 105 179-'° - .- _ ., _ - - - Volume Left - 105 11 _~ 0 Volume Right ~, ~~~ ~~ 1.1 0 89 ;;~~~ cSH 746 1397 1700 - Volume to Capacity _ Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.1.6 14 0 01 1 ...0.11 0 _ '. : Control. Delay (s)_ ~ . 10::7 _. ... 0 8 __~ _ 0 0 _: ,~ .~ - . ; ,: . . _~~ 4_.,. .... .. - :- : ~ 1 Lane LOS Y _ Approach Delay (s) ~ ~ _.. .. B .._.. 10:7 _A __ 0 ~8 ~ ~... ~.... __ 0 0 _ .. .. . w _ . r 4v . _ .~___ . .:. ,, _. Approach LOS __ B __._._. . _.._ _ ._ . .. ~~ ~ ntersection Summary:: .-. ;. . .. ~ , ~ ~~`" ~"" Average Delay 3 3 ..Intersection Capacit Ut ~.., _._: _ Y.. ilization 25.9% .~ , _. ICU Level~of,Service . . ~ ~ -. ~ A : . Analysis Period (min) _ 15 _ _ .. _ #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vail TIS Fox Higgins Transportation Group Year 2025 + Site -Winter PM Peak, Existing Configuration 15 of 18 n t i ~~ 1 it HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8/4/2005 3: S. Frontage Rd. & Village Ctr. Rd ~ ~ i~ ~-- --~--~----._- .__-T.__ Movement .~._. -EBT EBR ~, V1/BL'" 1NBT -~.-. NBL _ ~__ .....r ,_, ~..,._____. ,~__._._ _.~.__ NBR" ' - .~ Lane Configurations ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Sign Control Free Free _- Stop` _.. ;_ ` .~ Grade 0% 0% 0% _ _ ,Volume (veh/h) ~ - 745 ~ 4100 70 " 1175 100. ,. . ~90 w~ ' " Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 0.95 __ _ . Hourly flow rate (vph) `~ . 784 ' f105 ~ 74 _ 4237 _ 105 __. _. 95 Pedestrians . _... _. _ Lane Width (ft) - " - . Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage : ._ .__ _ . . _.. a - . .. _ _ _ Right turn flare (veh) __. Median type____ ~ TWLTL ; - ;: Median storage veh ) _ ~~~~ ~ 2~ _ Upstream si nal ft ~- ~ - pX, platoon unblocked 'vC, coriflicfing volume s " 889 1550 , 392 ' " , vC1, stage 1 conf vol . . _7g4..._ vC2, stage 2 corif vol - ~ 766 vCu, unblocked vol 889 1550 392 _ tC single (s) x___ _ 4.1 6.8 6 9 ." ., . ; tC 2 stage (s) _ _ 58.. _ _ __ tF(s) " . __.... . _ ; ~~ 2.2 - .. _ 35_. __ : ,_ _ 33 u-. ;. _, ~ . p0 queue free % __ 90 _ 63 _ 84 ._ _ cM' capacity (veh/h) ._ . 758 287- 607, Volume Total" _ ..__ _ 392 _ _ 392 ' 105. . il . _ 74 ~ 618 ` 61 8 105 95 Volume Left 0 0 _ - 0 -.. _ ... 74 0 . 0 105 ___ _ 0 Volume Ri ht, _ _._.__ ... _ 9 _ .. - 0 ___ ... _ 0 105 .. 0 0 0 __. . ;: 0. 95 . cSH 1700 1700 1700 _ _ 758 _ 1700 _ 1700 _ _ _ 287 _ __ _._ 607 Volume to Capacity _,_~ _._ 0.23 ,0.'23 0.06 010 0 36 0 36 § 0.3Z 0;16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 8 0 0 41 14 Control Delay (s) _ ~ 0:0 -___ _ 0'.0 _ _ _ _ 0 0 103. ~ 0.0 0 0 X24'.7 : 12 0._ ; ' Lane LOS _ . _._ _._. __. _. 8... , _. _ .. ___ . _,~ ~ C._ B ~.:.~ _ ___ ~.~._ _.u -- A roach Dela x s ,;, __ 0.0 7 W _._ ~u .0 6 ~ . __, _ .-- -~... '- 18 Z" . ,_~. _ _,_ Approach LOS C _ - - '~ Intersection S~uminary .. ; ; -. Average Delay 1.9 , .ter ; t .,Intersection Capacit Uti lization 44 7% ICU Level of Se ~iice _ . A. Analysis Period (min) . 15 ,. . _ _ __ ~ . . ,. #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vail TIS Fox Higgins Transportation Group Year 2025 + Site -Winter PM Peak, Existing Configuration 16 of 18 i i' ~' ~°? ~~ ~~ 0 I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8/4/2005 3: S. Frontage Rd. & Village Ctr. Rd. Lane Configurations ~'~ ~ ~Q ~ Sign Control Free ~ _. _ Free ~ Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) . _ 745 _ 100 _.. 70 _ 1.175. < 100:: __ 90 .. •. - ~,. -~ v ` Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 _ 0.95 _ Hourly-flow rate (vph) 784 105 74 1237 - - 105 x. ' 95 -` Pedestrians Lane Width:{ft) ,, _ .. , . ,, _ .. _ . Walking Speed (ft/s) .v. _ .. _ . Percent Blockage _._ - .. _ . _ _ _. „ Right turn flare (veh) Median. t e Y _ __ . ~ -_ , .TINLTL - ;- __ . ~ - ..; ~ ::~ .. Median storage veh) ~ 2 , Upstream'signal.(ft)._::._ ;. , . . _ .. ,-- ' pX, platoon unblocked __ _ _._ . C,_conflictin volume. 9 - __ .j. __ ~ _889 _ ~~ _ __ ;1 603 ` _ _~ ._ _,_.w _ _ ._.._.. 445, ~°~ :: T .~ vC1, stage 1 conf vol . 837 vC2, sta e 2 conf vot ' 9 ~ 766 ' _ _ ._ vCu, unblocked vol 889 1603 445 tC, single (s) ~ 4..1 , 6.8 . ~ 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) _ __ . . 5 8 tF (s). _..__ . _ _ ~ ~;2.2 3.5 ° - _ _ . 3.3, ,~, v ~ . p0 queue free % _ . 90 ..__ ._...fi2__ _..83 _ . cM capacity. (veh/h) ' _. y758 , , 277 ;:. 56,1, - Directiori,.Lane<# ~ EB 1 ' EB 2 WB 1 VN~ 2 WB 3 NB 1 BNB 2'~ ~ ~ ~~~ ?'! Volume Total `~ 523 367 74 ;. 618 618 105 95 Volume Left 0 0 74 0 0 105 0 Volume Right 0 1-05 0 0 0 _.. - - __ ~ 0 95 .. . cSH 1700 1700 758 1 700 1700 277 561 Volume to Ca~ aci - _ __ - P .. tY`i _" ` _ ___._ _ 0..31 .__._ 0 .22 _~__ _0..^10 _ __ _. 0.36 . _...._ ___r . 0 36 _ __ 0 38 :, 0 17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 _ 0 8 0 0 43 15 ._ ._ _ ;Control Delay (_s) a_ ..,_ _.a.~'~0 ~ _ ~~~~_ ~ _10,3 _ r ~ 0 0 ._ _ __,. 0 0 ~ ~ .. _ ___-_ _._---- _--_ ~25 8 ~ 12.7 '- ~. .° .~: . -:~ Lane LOS B _ _ _.._ _. .,D.___.. _B ... _ _.~-.____ _.__.... . ._. _ ~, A roach Dela s ~ pP_ y ... 0~:0 _ 0 6 .,. X19 6 ~ ~, ~ : Approach LOS __ _ _ __ . _ . _ _ . .____. - _ 1.~_ C !Intersection Summary -.____ _ r - - -- ,--- - - --- __ _ ~ _Y _._._ __----~---~--~- , .~~`' Average Delay 1.9 _ .._ ~_ __ ~,_ Intersection Capacity, Uti a lization ..- ~ 44,7%° _ „ _ ---- . _ :" ICU'tevel`ofService _ ``°` ' A; ~ ; Analysis Period (min) 15 #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vail TIS Fox Higgins Transportation Group Year 2025 + Site -Winter PM Peak, w/o EB Right 17 of 18 -fl ~ V ~ HCIVI Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8/4/2005 3: S. Frontage Rd. & Village Ctr. Rd. vC1, stage 1 conf vol 837 vC2, stage 2 conf vol ~ ~ -766 vCu, unblocked vol 889 1603 445 tC, single (s) - ~ 4 1 ~ . 6.8 6.9 : tC, 2 stage (s) __ _. . , ~ _... _.. 5.8 _ _...._ x _. __._ _ . .. tF (s) 2 2 =.r: ..: _ 3 5 _ :: 3 3 :, p0 queue free % 90 ... . . _- 62 . ,., ~ . _ . 83 cM capacity (veh/h) ~ ~. ~ - ;,, ~~~ , 758 277 ='. , 561 ;~ ` Movement ~'. ~ EBTm -. EBR 1NBL WBT ~ - `NBL . NBR.. ~ ~ ~ r`°'~ Lane Configurations Q'~ ~ ~~ ~~ Sign. Control Free ~ .a. ~.~. .. Free _ : _,. _ Stop. _ . ... __ _ . ~ v ~ Grade ~% 0% 0% _... , . .. - - Volume (veh/h) ~ 745 100 70 ~ __ _ . 1175 , .:100. .. 90 - Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 95 Hourly flow rate {vph) .784 -.105 _ 74 1237 ,,105 _ _ 95~ Pedestrians . Lane W'idth' (ft) . x _ . ~ _.__ ~ _ _ , _. _ <, ____ , - - v ~ .. . , Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage _. , , . _ ~__. , .. . _s_ . __ _ .. ~ ,• _....: - - . _..: Right turn flare (veh) _ . _ Median type __ =; ~ . _. TVVL-T L ~- , _ Median storage veh) . . _ ~ 2 Upstream sgrial (ft) .. _. __. __ .._ _~ _ _ _.. ,. ... pX, platoon unblocked _. m_ _ vC; conflicting volume . . _. _.~. _... 889 " __ ~. ~ ._ __._._ _. 1603 _ , .k.____~. _... _.,~.W~_._-,_ . _ _.... _ _._ ._._ .. _.~,~-- 445 -;- Volume Total 523 367 74 618 618 70 _._ 130 ., Volume Left _ 0 0 74 _ 0 0 70 35 __ Volume, Right ~ -~ .0 _ _..._ .105 _ __, _._ ; ` 0 , ~ « .__~_..__ 0 __ .,_ 0 .. _._~ 0, - _.___r. ~__,_,__.. __ __ _ . 95 cSH 1700 1700 758 _ V1700 _ 1700 277 439 ~ _~~ __ ~ _ _ _ ._ Volume to Capacity >_ _ 0._31 _. 0 22 __ 0:10 __ _._ 0.36 .- _~. _a_ 0 36•. _. M__. 0.25 ' ~_._.__~.,_ ry~__ .- --__-._ ~_ . _ .. 0.30' '` Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 8 0 0 25 31 Control.. Delay (s) _ _ '_0.0 . 0.0 ,a. 10.3 F . 0 0 0 0 ~ 22 4 16 6 . - _ Lane LOS __ __ .. . B _ .._,. _ ~ _ .a ~...., . , C,.:~~ s _M.C,.~_ _ _ ..._ _:~ _ _..~.._ _ . ~._..__r_ . _..:... Approach Delay (s) _ 0.0 . '. 0:6 ?~ .18.6. :. , . , . . Approach LOS _ . C lnfie'rse"ctiori~Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersectior Capacity Utilization `~; 44.8% ; ICU Level of Servi ce ' ~~ w A~. , . Analysis Period (min) _._.,__. _._. _.. .,. _ _ ...._ __~, 15 ._ ~ _ _.-- ... _ ._~,_,__,__ . _~__._ __....._F___.. _~_ ._ _ .~_._.__._ .__ _.._.__~~..... _ #04008 -Crossroads Redevelopment Vait TIS Fox Higgins Transportation Group Year 2025 + Site -Winter PM Peak, w/o EBR & w/NB Restripe 18 of 18 i i i i i i I 11 I ~~ I~ I ~i I i~ I Crossroads Redevelopment PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT Prepared for: Crossroads, LLC Mr. Michael English & Peter ICnobel, Owners - - _ One Crossroads - --- _ ' Vail, Colorado 81657 Prepared by: . - -. ~. JR Engineering _ - -~ -•~ 262Q_ E. Prospect Road, Suite 190 -_ •Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 - - - - - - -_ _- _ .~ ~ (970) 491-9888 _ - - - _ _ ~.:. _-December 7, 2005 Timothy J. Halopoff, P.E. Job Nwnber 39393.00 ~~ Exp. 10/31 /2007 ~Q,P,o~ SG!SrF~ y,~w F '• O V ': :~ 37953 .,:: ,~ ~S/ONd1.~Q~ December 7, 2005 Mr. Chad Salli Town of Vail Department of Public Works -Engineering 1329 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 RE: Crossroads Drainage Report Dear Chad: We are pleased to submit to you for your review and approval this revised preliminary Drainage Report for Crossroad Redevelopment Project. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the Town of Vail drainage criteria and the Urban Drainage Criteria Manual where applicable. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this preliminary submittal. Please, feel free to contact me with any questions or comments that you may have. Sincerely, L ' -ti Timothy J. Ha opoff, .E. Lead Project Engineer L 1 i' ,~ 1 ,~ i i i 1. INTI8ODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The Crossroads Property is located in Lot P, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing, in the Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. The Crossroads Property is bounded on the south by East Meadow Drive, on the east by Village Center Drive, on the north by the South Frontage Road, and on the west by the Vail Village Inn property. A location map is provided in Appendix A. 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics The project site includes approximately 2.64 acres of land. The majority of the Crossroads Property is developed and covered with impervious surfaces (i.e. asphalt, concrete, rooftop) with a relatively small portion of the area being landscaped and covered in native grasses. As a part of this project a portion of East Meadow Drive, Village Center Road, and South Frontage Road along the south, east and north property frontages, respectively, are anticipated to be reconstructed to accommodate drainage improvements. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report this report defines the proposed drainage plan for Crossroads. The plan includes consideration ofall on-site and if applicable, tributary off-site runoff. The plan addresses the hydrologic ramifications associated with the development of the Crossroads Property and identifies the proposed storm facilities that will allow this project to develop without impacting downstream properties. 1.4 Design Criteria This report was prepared to meet or exceed the submittal requirements established in the Town of Vail Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual" (UDFCD) dated June, 2001 developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments has been utilized. Drainage and Erosion Control Report Crossroads Devclopmcnt August 9th, 2004 Pagc 1 1.5 Master Drainage Basin The Crossroads property lies within the study area of the "Drainage Report for the Vail Streetscape Drainage Improvements" completed by Muller Engineering Company, Inc., dated January 17`", 1992. This study was used as a guidance tool to check the exiting conditions and to develop the proposed conditions. Z. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE For this analysis, based on existing topography, the Crossroads property was considered as one historic drainage basin labeled H-l, slightly modified from that suggested in the Muller report.(refer attached drawings). The Rational Method was then used to determine the 10- year, 25-year and 100-year historic flows for each basin. Basin H-1 consists of 3.75 acres and encompasses the entire Crossroads property as well as small portions of the adjacent roads and property. Flows in this basin primarily consist of on-site flows via overland flow in a southerly direction to East Meadow Drive at slopes that range from 4.0% within the paved parking areas to 60% along the grassed sloped area just south of the South Frontage Road. Secondary flows consist of gutter flows in the south and west direction along Village center Road and East Meadow Drive. Once these flows concentrate in the southwestern portion of the basin, they are conveyed westerly into existing inlets and storm sewer which eventually outfalls into Gore Creek. Any overflow flow continues westerly along East Meadow Drive to Vail Road and then eventually into Gore Creek. The Rational Method was used to determine the ] 0-yr, 25-year and 100-yr historic flows at Design Point 1 to be 11.3 cfs, 13.7, and l 8.3 cfs, respectively. 3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN 3.l Method The Rational Method was used to determine the ] 0-year, 25-year and 100-year flows for the sub-basins indicated in this drainage report. According to the Town of Vail code the Storm Sewer drainage facilities are requird to be designed to convey the 25-year peak flow. However due to the relatively small basin areas and small flows the drainage facilities were able to be designed for the 100 yr storm. The hydrologic calculations are found in Appendix B of this report. Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 2 Crossroads Development August 9th, 2004 3.2 General Flow Routing The proposed flow routing will convey storm drainage flows from the site south to Gore Creek. The Frontage Rd. flows will be carried into a new storm sewer located along Crossroads western property line. These flows will then enter into the existing storm sewer system along the western portion of East Meadow Drive and daylight into Gore Creek via Vail Rd. The storm drainage flows from Village Center Rd., a portion of East Meadow Drive, and Willow Bridge will enter a proposed storm sewer sytem running along the north side of East Meadow Drive east of Willow Bridge Rd. and then run along the west side of Willow Bridge Rd., ultimately daylighting at Gore Creek. The on-site storm drainage flows will flow to the adjacent streets and enter the aforementioned storm sewer systems. (See Drawing) 3.3 Proposed Drainage Plan A qualitative summary of the drainage patterns within each sub-basin and at each design point is provided in the following paragraphs. Certain basins are combined for discussion purposes where practicable, and discussed relative to the design point to which the sub- basins drain. Discussions of the detailed design methodologies for the drainage facilities identified in this section are included in the following sections. Please refer to the drainage plan included with this report for basin locations. Basin A, totaling about 1.85 acres, is located along the north side of the Frontage Rd. The runoff basin A flows will be conveyed via overland flow to the Frontage Rd. and gutter flow to design points 1, where they will enter an inlet and be directed into the proposed stone sewer system along the western Crossroads property line. Basin B, totaling about 1.27 acres, is located along the south side of the Frontage Rd. and includes the northern portion of the Crossroads site. The runoff basin B flows will be conveyed via overland flow to the Frontage Rd. and gutter flow to design points 2, where they will enter an inlet and be directed into the proposed storm sewer system along the western Crossroads property line. Basin D, totaling about 0.12 acres, is located along the northwest side of the Crossroads site. The runoff basin D flows will be conveyed via a swale to design points 3, where they will enter an inlet and be directed into the proposed storm sewer system along the western Crossroads property line. Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 3 Crossroads Development August 9th, 2004 Basin E, totaling about l .43 acres, encompasses the majority of the Crossroads site including the middle and southwestern portion of the site. The runoff basin E flows will'be conveyed via overland flow and gutter flow to design points 4, where they will enter an inlet and be directed into the existing storm sewer system along the western portion of East Meadow Drive. Basin C, totaling about 0.70 acres, is located along the south side of the Frontage Rd., and includes the east side of Village Center Rd. The runoff basin C flows will be conveyed via overland and gutter flow to design points 5, where they will enter an inlet and be directed into the proposed storm sewer system along East Meadow Drive. Basin F, totaling about 0.45 acres, is located along the eastern side of the Crossroads site, and includes the west side of Village Center Rd. The runoff basin F flows will be conveyed via overland and gutter flow to design points 6, where they will enter an inlet and be directed into the proposed storm sewer system along East Meadow Drive. Basin H, totaling about 0.12 acres, is located along the southeastern side of the Crossroads site, and includes a portion of the north side of East Meadow Drive. The runoff basin H flows will be conveyed via overland and gutter flow to design points 8, where they will enter an inlet and be~directed into the proposed stone sewer system along East Meadow Drive.' Basin I, totaling about 0.33 acres, is located along a portion of the south side of East Meadow Drive. The runoff basin I flows will be conveyed via overland and gutter flow to design points 7, where they will enter an inlet and be directed into the proposed storm sewer system along East Meadow Drive. Basin G, totaling about 0.45 acres, is located along the southeastern portion of the Crossroads site. The runoff basin G flows will be conveyed via overland and gutter flow to design points 9, where they will enter an inlet on East Meadow Drive and be directed into the proposed storm sewer system along Willow Bridge Rd. Basin J, totaling about 0.23 acres, is located along the west side of Willow Bridge Rd. The runoff basin J flows will be conveyed via overland and gutter flow to design points l 2, where they will enter an inlet and be directed into the proposed storm sewer system that crosses Willow Bridge Rd. near Gore Creek Bridge. uramage ana t:rosion Control Report Page 4 Crossroads Development August 9th, 2004 i 1 !~i Basin K, totaling about 0.34 acres, is Located along the east side of Willow Bridge Rd. The runoff basin K flows will be conveyed via overland and gutter flow to design points 11, where they will enter an inlet and be directed into the proposed storm sewer system that crosses Willow Bridge Rd. near Gore Creek Bridge. 3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions The Rational Method was used to determine the 10-year, 25-year and l 00-year peak runoff values for each sub-basin. Runoff coefficients were assigned using the USDCM Manual. The Rational Method is given by: Q = C~CIA (1) where Q is the maximum rate of runoff in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, C~ is the storm frequency adjustment factor, C is the runoff coefficient, and I is the rainfall intensity in inches per hour for a stone duration equal to the time of concentration. The frequency adjustment factor, Cf, is 1.0 for the initial ] 0-year storm and 1.00 for the major 100-year stone. The runoff coefficient is dependent on land use or surface characteristics. The rainfall intensity is selected from Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the Town of Vail. In order to utilize the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves, the time of concentration is required. The following equation is used to determine the time of concentration where t~ is the time of concentration in minutes, t; is the initial or overland flow time in minutes, and t, is the conveyance travel time in minutes. The initial or overland flow time is calculated with the USDCM Manual equation: t; _ [ 1.87(1.1 - CC,)L0'S]/(S)°~;' (3) where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the average slope of the basin in percent, and C and Cf are as defined previously. In order to compute the peak Q at a junction where a confluence occurs, let QA, TA, I„ correspond to the tributary area with the longer time of concentration, and Q,~, T,t, I~ Drainage and Erosion Control Report Crossroads Development August 9th, 2004 Page 5 l 1 I ' correspond to the tributary area with the shorter time of concentration and T, 1 QY~ 1~ P ~I correspond to the peak Q and time of concentration. Ifthe tributary areas have the same time ofconcentration, the tributary Q's are added directly to obtain the combined peak Q. QP = Qn ~" Qt; TI, = TA = TB If the tributary areas have different times ofconcentration, the smaller of the tributary Q's must be corrected as follows: (1) The usual case is where the tributary area with the longer time of concentration has the larger Q. In this case, the smaller Q is corrected by a ratio of the intensities and added to the larger Q to obtain the combined peak Q. The tabling is then continued downstream using the longer time of concentration. QP-Qn+Qa*In/la TP=TA (2) In some cases,, the tributary area with the shorter time of concentration has the larger Q. In this case, the smaller Q is corrected by a ratio of the times ofconcentration and added to the larger Q to obtain the combined peak Q. The tabling is then continued downstream using the shorter time ofconcentration. QP - QD + QA * T[3~n TP = TB All hydrologic calculations associated with the sub-basins shown on the attached drainage plan are included in Appendix B of this report. 4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 4.1 Allowable Street Capacity The theoretical street and gutter capacity was calculated using Manning's equation for open channel flow. Allowable gutter flows and maximum street capacities for both the initial and major storms were estimated and evaluated based on the specifications set forth in the USDCM Manual. During the 100 year storm, runoffwas contained within the road section. See the street capacity calculations in Appendix C. uramage ana troswn Control Report Page 6 Crossroads Development August 9th, 2004 ~~ 4.2 Inlet Sizing Most inlets were sized using the computer program created by USDCM is used for all inlets. Computer output files for the inlet sizing are provided in Appendix D of this report. All inlets were designed to intercept the 100-year peak flows. Al] inlet locations are shown on the utility plans for the construction of this project. Inlet sizing calculations are located in Appendix D. 4.3 Storm Sewer System Far the storm pipe design, the computer program StormCAD, developed by Haestad Methods, Inc. was used. The software uses the rational method to route flows through the pipe such that we do not assume that all inlets are peaking at the same time. The user inputs the area of the tributary basin and its respective coefficient of runoff as well as the time of concentration for the basin. The software is then given an IDF table to calculate flows and route the flows through the pipe network. StormCAD considers whether a storm pipe is under inlet or outlet control and if the flow is uniform, varied, or pressurized and applies the appropriate equations (Manning's, Kutter's, Hazen-Williams, etc). StormCAD also takes into account tailwater effects and hydraulic losses that are encountered in the storm structures. StormCAD calculates the losses through an inlet or manhole by allowing the user to assign a coefficient for the equation, Where hL =headloss K =headloss coefficient V =average velocity (ft/s) g =gravitational constant (32.2 ft/sZ) The storm pipe design was performed for the complete construction of the Crossroads development and all calculations are provided in Appendix E of this report. vramage anu trosion ~ontro! Keport Crossroads Development August 9th, 2004 Page 7 r i t 6. EROSION CONTROL 6.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled on-site by use of silt fences, straw bale barriers, inlet protection, sediment traps, gravel construction entrances, and seeding and mulch. The measures are designed to limit the overall sediment yield increase due to construction as required by the Town of Vail and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Enviromnent (CDPHE). During overlot and final grading the soil will be roughened and furrowed perpendicular to the prevailing winds. Straw bale dikes will be placed along proposed swales. Erosion control effectiveness, rainfall performance calculations and a construction schedule are provided in Appendix H. The developer will be required to obtain a CDPHE construction storm water discharge permit and remain incompliance with it. 6Z Dust Abatement During the performance of the work required by these specifications or any operations appurtenant thereto, whether on right-of--way provided by the City or elsewhere, the contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials, and means required. The Contractor shall carry out proper efficient measures wherever and as necessary to reduce dust nuisance, and to prevent dust nuisance that has originated from his operations from causing harm to any public or private dwellings, or causing nuisance to any persons. The Contractor will be held liable for any damage resulting from dust originating from his operations under these specifications on right-of--way or elsewhere. Erosion control effectiveness, rainfall performance calculations and a construction schedule will be provided during final submittal. 6.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets It is unlawful to track or cause to be tracked mud or other debris onto city streets orrights-of- way unless so approved by the Engineer. Wherever construction vehicles access routes or intersect paved public roads, provisions must be made to minimize the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles tracking onto the paved surface. Stabilized construction entrances are required per the detail shown on the Erosion Control Plan, with base material consisting of 6" coarse aggregate. The contractor will be responsible for clearing mud tracked onto city streets on a daily basis. 6.4 Maintenance All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices must be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Straw uramage ana trosion Control Report Grossroacls Development August 9th, 2004 Page 8 i bale dikes or silt fences will require periodic replacement. Sediment traps (behind straw bale barriers) shall be cleaned when accumulated sediments equal approximately one-halfoftrap i storage capacity. Maintenance is the responsibility of the developer. 6.5 Permanent Stabilization A vegetative cover shall be established within one and one-halfyears on disturbed areas and soil stockpiles not otherwise permanently stabilized. Vegetation shall not be considered established until a ground cover is achieved which is demonstrated to be mature enough to control soil erosion to the satisfaction of the City Inspector and to survive severe weather conditions. urainage anu tros~on Control Report Page 9 Crossroads De~~elopme~~t August 9th, 2004 7. REFERENCES 1. Town of Vail Town Code 2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2001, and Volume 3, dated September l 999. uramage and trosion (;ontrol Report Page 10 Crossroads Development August 9th, 2004 ~~ ^ J APPENDIX A MAPS AND FIGURES Drainage and Erosion Control Report April 13, 2004 Trail Head Property Appendices ~~ APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS Drainage and Erosion Control Rcport April 13, 2004 Trail Head Property Appendices r ~i r r r r r HISTORIC FLOWS Drainage and Erosion Control Report August 9t , 2004 Crossroads Redevelopment Appendices JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 8525 HISTORIC RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS 8~ % IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: Crossroads ar Vail PROJECT NO: 39393.OU COMPUTATIONS BY: TEK DATE: 6/4/2004 Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual HISTORIC ANALYSIS AVG 0.85 Runoff coefficient Impervious C 0.95 0.84 0.30 0.16 DESIGN POINT SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (sq.ft) ROOF AREA (sq.ft) PAVED AREA (sq.ft) LANDSCAPE AREA (sq.ft) °~, Impervious H-1 3.75 163,451 39,900 97,551 26,000 1 total 3.75 163,451 39,900 97,551 26,000 - Calculated C coefficients 8~ % Impervious are area weighted C = E (Ci Ai) / At Ci =runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai =areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n = number of different surfaces to consider At =total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's 3939300historicflow. xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION -10 YR LOCATION: Crossroads ar Va// PROJECT NO: 39393.00 CONPUTA'nONS BY: TEK DATE: 6/4/2004 10-yr storm C/ = 1.00 EQUATIONS: tc=ti+tt tl = ~~ .87 (1.1 - C.Cif ` LU.S) / $ 1l'J tt = LNeI. Velocity from Manning's Equation with R=0.1 final tc =minimum of ti + tt and urbani2ed basin check min. tc = 5 min. due to limits of IDF curves 3939300historicflow.xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd.. Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - 25 YR LOCATION: Crossroads ar Vuil PROJECT NO: 39393.00 coHrurnru>NSUV: TEK DATE: 6/4/2004 25-yr storm Cf = 1.00 SUB-BASIN DATA DESIGN SUBBASIN(s) Area INITIAL (OVERLAND TIME (tl) C C Length Slo e ti TRAVEL TIME I GUTTER OR CHANNEL FLOW (tt) tc CHECK FINAL (URBANIZED BASIN) tc REMARKS PONIT (1) (aC) (2) 3) (k) (4) p (%) (5) (min) (6) Length (k) (7) Slope (%) (8) n Manning rough. Vel. (k/s) (9) tl (min) (10) tc = ti + tt (11) Total L (k) (12) c=(1!180)+10 (min) (min ) (13) (14) ~ H-1 3.75 0 85 0 85 225 . . 8.0 3.6 100.00 5.0 0.035 2.1 0.81 4.4 325 11.8 5 0 . tC.)UA f IpNS: tC=ti+tt ti=[1.87(1.1 -CCT)LusJ/$ ~;a tt = L/Vel. Velocity from Manning's Equation with R=0.1 final tc =minimum of ti + tt and urbanized basin check min. tc = 5 min. due to limits of IDF curves 3939300historicflow.xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION -100 YR LOCATION: Crossroads al Vail PROJECT NO: 39393.00 c•o+nNUrAnoys Itv: TEK DATE: 6/4/2004 100-yr storm CI = 1.00 SUB-BASIN DATA DESIGN SUBBASIN(s) Area INITIAL (OVERLAND TIME (ti) C C Len th Slo e ti TRAVEL TIME /GUTTER OR CHANNEL FLOW (tt) L tc CHECK FINAL (URBANIZED BASiN) tc REMARKS PONIT (1) (ac) (2) (3) g (ft) (4) p (%) (5) (min) (6) ength (h) (7) Slope (%) (8) n Manning rough. Vel. (fUs) (9) tt (min) (10) tc = ti + tt (11) Total L (h) (12) c=(1/180)+10 (min) (min) (13) (14) 1 H-1 3 75 0 85 0 85 . . . 225 8.0 3.6 100.00 5.0 0.035 2.1 0.81 4.4 325 11.8 5.0 EQUATIONS: tc=ti+tt ti=[1.87(1.1 -CC,)L°SJ/S'r' tt = L/Vel. Velocity from Manning's Equation with R=0.1 final tc =minimum of ti + tt and urbanized basin check min. tc = 5 min. due to limits of IDF curves 3939300historicflow.xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (Town of Vail, 10-Yr Storm) LOCATION: Crossroads ut Vuil PROJECT NO: 39393.00 coMru rn noNS t~v: TEK DATE: 6/4/2004 70 yr storm, Cf = 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL Design Point Tributary Sub-basin A ac ( ) C Ct tc (min) i (in/hr) Q (2) (cfs) 1 H-1 3.75 0.85 5.0 3.55 11.28 Q=CfCiA Q =peak discharge (cfs) C =runoff coefficient CI =frequency adjustment factor i =rainfall intensity (in/hr) from Town of Vail IDF curve A =drainage area (acres) 3939300historicflow.xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (Town of Vail, 25-Yr Storm) LOCATION: Crossroads ut Vuil PROJECT NO: 39393.00 COMPU'I'AIIONS 13Y: TEK DATE: 6/4/2004 25 yr storm, Cf = 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL Design Point Tributary Sub-basin A (ac) C Cf tc (min) i (in/hr) O (25) (cfs) ~ Fi-1 3.75 0.85 5.0 4.30 13.66 Q=CfCiA Q =peak discharge (cfs) C =runoff coefficient C, =frequency adjustment factor' i =rainfall intensity (in/hr) from Tov~n of Vail IDF curve A =drainage area (acres) 3939300historicflow.xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (Town of Vail, 100-Yr Storm) LOCATION: Crossroads at Vail PROJECT NO: 39393.00 C'OMPI!'rAIIONS OY: TEK DATE: 6/4/2004 100 yr storm, Cf = 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL Design Point Tributary Sub-basin A (ac) C Cf tc (min) i (in/hr) 0 (100) (cfs) 1 Fi-1 3.75 0.85 5.0 5.75 18.27 Q=CfCiA D =peak discharge (cfs) C =runoff coefficient Cf =frequency adjustment factor i =rainfall intensity (in/hr) from Town of Vail IDF curve A =drainage area (acres) 3939300historicflaw. xls ' SUMMARY HIBTORIG ®RAI(VACaE ~IJIVIIVIARY TABLE Design Tributary Area C (10) C' (25} C (100) tc (10) tc (25) tc (100) Sub-basin Point (ac) (min) (min) (min) 1 H-1 3.75 0.85 0.85 0.85 5.0 5.0 5.0 Q(10)tot (cfs) Q(25)tot (cfs) Q(100)tot (cfs) 11.3 13.7 18.3 Page 8 r J r r r r r r r r r r r i r i DEVELOPED FLOWS Drainage and Erosion Control Report August 9t , 2004 Crossroads Redevelopment Appendices JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 8525 PROPOSED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS 8 % IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: Crossroads u! Vuil PROJECT NO: 39393.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: TEK DATE: 8/2/2004 Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Design Criteria Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Roof/Paved Surfaces Landscape Surfaces Runoff coefficient C 0.95 0.30 DESIGN POINT SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (sq.ft) ROOF AREA (sq.fi) PAVED AREA (sq.ft) LANDSCAPE AREA (sq.ft) % Impervious Avg. Runoff Coeffecient C 1 A 1.85 80,586 0 29,265 51,321 36% 0.54 2 B 1.27 55,321 21,950 24,140 9,231 83% 0.84 3 D 0.12 5,227 1,185 0 4,042 23% 0.45 4 E 1.43 62,291 37,750 22,350 2,191 96% 0.93 5 C 0.70 30,492 0 18,000 12,492 59% 0.68 6 F 0.45 19.602 5,900 11,300 2,402 88% 0.87 7 I 0.33 14,375 4,400 9,475 500 97% 0.93 8 H 0.12 5,227 0 4.500 727 86% 0.86 9 G 0.45 19,602 2,150 16,500 952 95% 0.92 11 K 0.34 14,810 3,000 10,800 1,010 93% 0.91 12 J 0.23 10,019 2,200 7,200 619 94% 0.91 total 7.29 317,553.79 78,535.00 153,530.00 85,488.79 - Ca{culated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted C=E(CiAi)/At Ci =runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai =areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n =number of different surfaces to consider At =total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's 3939300f1ow.xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd.. Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 60525 STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - 10 YR LOCATION: Crossroads aJ Vai! PROJECT NO: 39393.00 c•omrtnnnous uv: TEK DATE: 8/2/2004 10-yr storm Cf = 1.00 EQUATIONS: tC=ti+tt tl=(1.87(1.1 -CCr) Lus~~S ut tt = LNeI. Velocity from Manning's Equation with R=0.1 final tc = minimum of ti + tt and urbanized basin check min. tc = 5 min. due to limits of IDF curves tc CHECK (URBANIZED BASIN) FINAL to REMARKS Total L (k) (12) tc=(U180)+10 (min) (13) (min) (14) i 780.00 14.3 7.5 520.00 12.9 5.0 ) 330.00 11.8 5.0 i 330.00 11.8 5.0 i 520.00 12.9 5.0 i 300.00 11.7 5.0 280.00 11.6 5.0 220.00 11.2 5.0 260.00 11.4 5.0 360.00 12.0 5.0 320.00 11.8 5.0 3939300flow.xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - 25 YR LOCATION: Crossroads at Voi! PROJECT NO: 39393.00 COMPIJTAT101iS eY: TEIC DATE: 8/2/2004 25-yr storm Cf = 1.00 SUB-BASIN DATA DESIGN SUBBASIN(s) Area INITIAL (OVERLAND TIME (ti) C Length Slope ti TRAVEL TIME /GUTTER OR CHANNEL FLOW (tt) L n th Sl to CHECK (URBANIZED BASIN) FINAL to REMARKS PONIT (1) (ac) (2) (3) (h) (4) (%) (5) (min) (6) g e (h) (7) ape (%) (8) n Manning rough. Vel. (fUs) (9) tt (min) (10) tc = ti + tt (11) Total L (N) (12) tc=(U160)+10 (min) (13) (min) (14) 1 2 A B 1.85 1 27 0.54 0 84 70 33.0 2.8 710.00 2.4 0.020 2.5 4.75 7.5 780.00 14.3 7.5 3 4 D E . 0.12 4 . 0.45 80 0 10.0 10.0 2.0 0.0 440.00 330.00 2.4 10.0 0.020 0.035 2.5 2.9 2.94 1.89 5.0 1.9 520.00 330.00 12.9 11.8 5.0 5.0 1. 3 0.93 30 2.0 1.4 300.00 1.0 0.020 1.6 3.11 4.5 330.00 11.8 5.0 5 6 ~ F 0.70 45 0 0.68 40 5.0 2.9 480.00 6.0 0.020 3.9 2.03 4.9 520.00 12.9 5.0 7 8 I . 0.33 0.87 0.93 60 60 10.0 10.0 1.5 1.2 240.00 220.00 8.0 5.0 0.020 0.020 4.5 3.6 0.88 1.02 2.4 2.2 300.00 280.00 11.7 11 6 5.0 5 0 9 H G 0.12 0.45 0.86 0.92 20 60 5.0 10.0 1.2 1.2 200.00 200.00 5.5 1.0 0.020 0.020 3.8 1.6 0.88 2.07 2.1 3.3 220.00 260.00 . 11.2 11.4 . 5.0 5.0 11 K 0 12 J .34 0.23 0.91 0.91 60 80 10.0 f0.0 1.3 1.5 300.00 240.00 2.0 2.0 0.020 0.020 2.3 2.3 2.20 1.76 3.5 3.2 360.00 320.00 12.0 11.8 5.0 5.0 EQUATIONS: tc=ti+tt ti=[1.87(1.1 -CC,)L°'S]/S'" tt = Wei. Velocity from Manning's Equation with R=0.1 final tc =minimum of ti + tt and urbanized basin check min. tc = 5 min. due to limits of IDF curves 3939300f1ow.xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fon Collins, CO 80525 STANDARD FORM SF•2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION -100 YR LOCATION: Cioscroads a! !-'oi! PROJECT NO: 39393.(IU cotiNUrnrlons uv: TF.K DATE: 8/2/20(M 100-yr storm C/ = 1.00 SUB-BASIN DATA DESIGN SUBBASIN(s) Area INITIAL !OVERLAND TIME (tl) C Length Slo e ti TRAVEL TIME !GUTTER OR CHANNEL FLOW (tt) L h tc CHECK (URBANIZED BASIN) FINAL tc REMARKS PONIT (1) (ac) (2) (3) (k) (4) p (%) (5) (min) (6) engt (h) (7) Slope (%) (8) n Manning rough. Vel, (ft/s) (9) tt (min) (10) tc = ti + tt (11) Total L (tt) (12) tc=(1/180)+10 (min) (13) (min) (14) 1 A 1.85 0.54 70 33 0 2 8 710 0 2 l3 1.27 84 0 80 . 10 0 . 2 0 . 0 44 2.4 0.020 2.5 4.75 7.5 780.00 14.3 7.5 3 4 ~ E 0.12 1 43 . 0.45 0 . 10.0 . 0.0 0.00 330.00 2.4 10.0 0.020 0.035 2.5 2.9 2.94 1.89 5.0 1.9 520.00 330.00 12.9 11.8 5.0 5.0 . 0.93 30 2.0 1.4 300.00 1.0 0.020 1.6 3.11 4.5 330.00 11.8 5.0 5 C 0 70 6 7 F 1 . 0.45 0.68 0.87 40 60 5.0 10.0 2.9 1.5 480.00 240.00 6.0 8.0 0.020 0.020 3.9 4.5 2.03 0.88 4.9 2.4 520.00 300.00 12.9 11.7 5.0 5.0 8 9 H G 0.33 0.12 0 45 0.93 0.86 60 20 10.0 5.0 1.2 1.2 220.00 200.00 5.0 5.5 0.020 0.020 3.6 3.8 1.02 0.88 2.2 2.1 280.00 220.00 t 1.6 11.2 5.0 5.0 . 0.92 50 10.0 1.2 200.00 1.0 0.020 1.6 2.07 3.:1 260.00 11.4 5.0 11 12 K J 0.34 0.91 60 10.0 1.3 300.00 2.0 0.020 2.3 2.20 3.5 360.00 12.0 5.0 0.23 0.91 80 10.0 1.5 240.00 2.0 0.020 2.3 1.76 3.2 320.00 11.8 5.0 EQUATIONS: tc = ti + tt tt = lNel. Velocity from Manning's Equation with R=0.1 final tc =minimum of ti + tt and urbanized basin check min. tc = 5 min. due to limits of IDF curves 39393000ow.xls i i i i r i RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (Town of Vail, 10-Yr Storm) LOCATION: Croscrnar/s ur Vuil PROJECT NO: 39393.00 co~lvurnnoxs uv: TEK DATE: 8/212004 10 yr storm, Cf = 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL Design Point Tributary Sub-basin A (ac} C C( tc (min) i (in/hr) O (10) (c(s) 1 A 1.85 0.54 7.5 3.10 3.07 2 B 1.27 0.84 5.0 3.55 3.79 3 D 0.12 0.45 5.0 3.55 0.19 4 E 1.43 0.93 5.0 3.55 4.71 5 C 0.70 0.68 5.0 3.55 1.70 6 F 0.45 0.87 5.0 3.55 1.39 7 I 0.33 0.93 5.0 3.55 1.09 B H 0.12 0.86 5.0 3.55 0.37 9 G 0.45 0.92 5.0 3.55 1.47 11 K 0.34 0.91 5.0 3.55 1.09 12 J 0.23 0.91 5.0 3.55 0.74 Q=CrCiA Q =peak discharge (cfs) C =runoff coefficient CI =frequency adjustment factor i =rainfall intensity (in/hr) from Town of Vail IDF curve A =drainage area (acres) 3939300flow.als JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 19( Fort Collins, CO 80525 ~~ 1' r r r r r i i RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (Town of Vail, 25-Yr Stormj LOCATION: Crossroads at Yail PROJ ECT N0: 39393.00 royrurnTto~sav: TEK DATE: $!2/2004 25 yr storm, Cf = 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL Design Point Tributary Sub-basin A (ac) C C( tc (min) i (in/hr) O (25) (cfs) 1 A 1.85 0.54 7.5 3.75 3.72 2 B 1.27 0.84 S.D 4.30 4.60 3 D 0.12 0.45 5.0 4.30 023 4 E 1.43 0.93 5.0 4.30 5.70 5 C D.70 0.68 5.0 4.30 2.06 6 F 0.45 0.87 5.0 4.30 1.68 7 t 0.33 0.93 5.0 4.30 1.32 8 H 0.12 0.86 5.0 4.30 0.44 9 G 0.45 0.92 5.0 4.30 1.78 11 K 0.34 0.91 5.0 4.30 1.32 12 J 0.23 0.91 5.0 4.30 0.90 Q=C~CiA Q =peak discharge (cfs) C =runoff coefficient Cr =frequency adjustment factor i =rainfall intensity (in/hr) from Town of Vail IDF curve A =drainage area (acres) 39393000ow.xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 19C FoR Collins, CO 8052: i J i r i RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (Town of Vail, 100-Yr Storm) LOCATION: Crossroads u- Fail PROJECT NO: 39393.00 co~nrt:rnnonssv: 'fEK DATE: 8/Zi2004 100 yi storm, C/ = 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL Design Point Tributary Sub-basin A (ac) C Cf tc (min) i (in/hr) 0 (100) (cts) 1 A 1.85 0.54 7.5 5.00 4.96 2 B 1.27 0.84 5.0 5.75 6.15 3 D 0.12 0.45 5.0 5.75 0.31 4 E 1.43 0.93 5.0 5.75 7.62 5 C 0.70 0.68 5.0 5.75 2.75 6 F 0.45 0.87 5.0 5.75 2.25 7 I 0.33 0.93 5.0 5.75 1.76 8 H 0.12 0.86 5.0 5.75 0.59 9 G 0.45 0.92 5.0 5.75 2.38 11 K 0.34 0.91 5.0 5.75 1.77 12 J 0.23 0.91 5.0 5.75 1.20 Q=CtCiA Q =peak discharge (cfs) .. C =runoff coefficient C, =frequency adjustment factor i =rainfall intensity (in/hr) from Town of Vail IDF curve A =drainage area {acres) 39393008ow.xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 19C Fort Collins. CO 8052: SUMMARY Design Point ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 Tributary I Area Sub-basin A 1.85 0.54 0.54 0.54 7.5 7.5 B 1 ~27 0.84 0.84 0.84 5.0 5.0 ~ 0.12 0.45 0.45 0.45 5.0 5.0 E 1.43 0.93 0.93 0.93 5.0 5.0 C 0 70 . 0.68 0.68 0.68 5.0 5.0 F 0.45 0.87 0.87 0.87 5.0 5.0 i 0.33 0.93 0.93 0.93 5.0 5.0 Fi 0~ 12 0.86 0.86 0.86 5.0 5.0 G 0.45 0.92 0.92 0.92 5.0 5.0 K 0.34 0.91 0.91 0.91 5.0 5.0 ~ 0.23 0.91 0.91 0.91 5.0 5.0 TOTAL ~ 7.29 PROPOSED DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE C (10) C (25) C (100) tc (10) tc (25) tc (100) (min) Q(10}tot (cfs) Q(25)tot (cfs) Q(100)tot (cfs) 7.5 3.1 3.7 5.0 5.0 3.8 4.6 6.1 5.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 5.0 4.7 5.7 7.6 5.0 1.7 2.1 2.8 5.0 1.4 1.7 2.3 5.0 1.1 1.3 1.8 5.0 0.4 0.4 0.6 5.0 1.5 1.8 2.4 5.0 1.1. 1.3 1.8 5.0 0.7 0.9 1.2 19.6 23.7 31.7 Page 9 SnowMelt LOCATION: Crossroudsat 6ui/ PROJECT NO: 39393.00 co~+roTnnossnv: TEK DATE: 812'2004 SNOW MELT PEAK RUNOFF (Town of Vail, 25-Yr, 100-Yr Storm) Design Point Tributary Sub-basin Area (ac) SnowMelt cfs/acre 25 YR SnowMelt cfslacre 100 YR p(25)tot (cts) Q(100)tot (cts) 1 A 1.85 0.067 0.080 0.1 0.1 2 t3 1.27 0.067 0.080 0.1 0.1 3 D 0.12 0.067 0.080 0.0 0.0 4 E 1.43 0.067 0.080 0.1 0.1 S C 0.70 0.067 0.080 0.0 0.1 6 F 0.45 0.067 0.080 0.0 0.0 7 I 0.33 0.067 0.080 0.0 0.0 8 H 0.12 0.067 0.080 0.0 0.0 9 G 0.45 0.067 0.080 0.0 0.0 11 K 0.34 0.067 0.080 0.0 0.0 12 J 0.23 0.067 0.080 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 7.29 0.5 0.6 Page 8 APPENDIX C r r r STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS Drainage and Erosion Control Report August 9t , 2004 Crossroads Redevelopment Appendices li ~I ~I r r i II GUTTER CONVEYANCE CAPACITY ~ Project = 39393. Inlet ID = DP-7 South Frontage Rd. (North Side '~ -__ T _-___-- Street Top of Curb or ~ _ ____ _ ____ Allowable Depth i~ W ~ -TX -~ Crown ~- ~ ~ ~ d ~~ ~y. x -~- ~ ~ a .\' / ~ -L----L--1-- G'~ n Discharge in the Gutter Qo = 5.0 cfs Width (Cannot Be Less Than Any Grate Width} W = 2.00 ft Depression, if Composite Gutter a = 2.0 inches Transverse Slope S - ~- 0.0200 ft/ft Longitudinal Slope So = 0.0240 fUft ig's Roughness n = 0.020 Cross Slope SW = 0.1033 ft/ft Spread Width T = i0.9 ft Depth without Gutter Depression y = 2.6 inches Depth with a Gutter Depression d = 4.6 inches r Conveyance Calculations by HEC-22 Method d for Side Flow on the Street (T - W) T - 8.9 ft X- arge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Qx = 2.1 cfs Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) Eo = 0.57 arge within the Gutter Section W Q„, = 2.9 cfs Flow Rate by HEC-22 Method QT = 5.0 cfs auivalent Street Transverse Slope Se = 0.0675 fUft ow Area AS = 1.4 sq ft ow Velocity VS = 3.7 fps 'd roduct p VS"d = 1.4 ft`/s NOTE: V, d product should be less than 6.0 for minor event and less than 8.0 for major event. 3939300-UD-DP-1.xls, Street Hy 8/2/2004, 1:20 PM GUTTER CONVEYANCE CAPACITY Project = 39393 Inlet ID = DP-2 South Frontage Rd. (South Side) Top of Curb or -T -` Street ~_ W _ ~ ~ T _ _ Allowable Depth ' x i Crown II \ / d {- ~ - ~ ~ ~. a ~ ~, ign Discharge in the Gutter Qa = 6.1 cfs er Width (Cannot Be Less Than Any Grate Width) W = 2.00 ft er Depression, if Composite Gutter a = 2.0 inches et Transverse Slope Sx = 0.0200 fUft et Longitudinal Slope So = 0.0240 fUft Wing's Roughness n = 0.020 Cross Slope S,„ = 0.1033 fUft Spread Width T = 11.9 ft Depth without Gutter Depression y = 2.9 inches Depth with a Gutter Depression d = 4.9 inches r Conveyance Calculations by HEC-22 Method d for Side Flow on the Street (T - W) Tx = 9.9 ft arge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T~ Qx = 2.9 cfs Fiow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) Eo = 0.53 arge within the Gutter Section W QW = 3.2 cfs Flow Rate by HEC-22 Method QT = 6.1 cfs auivalent Street Transverse Slope Se = 0.0638 fUft ow Area AS = 1.6 Sq ft ow Velocity VS = 3.9 fps •d product V,•d = 1.8 ft`/s NOTE: Vs'd product should be less than 6.0 for minor event and less than 8.0 for major event. 3939300-UD-DP-2.xls, Street Hy 8/2/2004, 1:21 PM 1~ ~I ~I r r r C' GUTTER CONVEYANCE CAPACITY Project = 39393 Inlet ID = bP•5 Village Center Rd. (East Side) ~--- -- --T-------- ---; Street Top of Curb or ~_.W _~_______-I-__ __,,.i Crown Allowable Depth ~~ ~ •. H ~.~, sX d ~~ ~ ~ ~. / a ~.• ~~ ; _L____1___1_ n Discharge in the Gutter p - - 2.8 cfs Width (Cannot Be Less Than Any Grate Width) W = 2.00 ft Depression, if Composite Gutter a = 2.0 inches Transverse Slope S, = 0.0200 fUtt Longitudinal Slope So = 0.0600 ft/ft cg's Roughness n = 0.020 Cross Slope S - W - 0.1033 fUft Spread Width T = 6.1 ft Depth without Gutter Depression y = 1.5 inches Depth with a Gutter Depression d = 3.5 inches utter Conveyance Calculations by HEC-22 Method r r t pread for Side Flow on the Street (T - W) T - x- 4.1 ft ischargeoutside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Q„ = 0.4 cfs utter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) Eo = 0.84 scharge within the Gutter Section W QW = 2.4 cfs ~tal Flow Rate by HEC-22 Method QT = 2.8 cfs auivalent Street Transverse Slope S@ = 0.0900 fUft ow Area AS = 0.5 sq ft ow Velocity V = 5 5.1 fps 'd product Vs'd = .: 1.5 ft`/s NOTE: V,'d product should be less than 8.0 for minor event and less than 8.0 for major event. 3939300-UD-DP-S.xls, Street Hy 8/2/2004, 1:23 PM JL__ GUTTER CONVEYANCE CAPACITY. -1 Project = 39393 Inlet ID = DP-6 Village Center Rd. (West Side) ~. ___ Street Top of Curb or ';,~_ W __~_____ T __~ Allowable Depth ~ x Crown --~ - H ~ y` -~-- I d I I ai _1----i---~-- .~Qw.:~~~~~QX/;~; ~,~\ \~ c ~~ ~~ . Sx n Discharge in the Gutter Qo = 2.3 cfs Width (Cannot Be Less Than Any Grate Width) W = 2.00 ft Depression, if Composite Gutter a = 2.0 inches Transverse Slope S, = 0.0200 fUft Longitudinal Slope So = 0.0600 fVft ig's Roughness n = 0.020 Cross Slope SW = 0.1033 fUft Spread Width T = 5.3 ft Depth without Gutter Depression y = 1.3 inches Depth with a Gutter Depression d = 3.3 inches r Conveyance Calculations by HEC•22 Method id for Side Flow on the Street (T - W) T - x- 3.3 ft arge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Qx = 0.3 cfs r Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) E - o' 0.89 arge within the Gutter Section W Q„, = 2.0 cfs Flow Rate by HEC-22 Method QT = 2.3 cfs auivalent Street Transverse Slope Se = 0.0942 ft/ft ow Area As = 0.5 sq ft ow Velocity p VS = 5.1 fps ;'d roduct VS'd = 1.4 ft`Is NOTE: V,'d product should be less than 6.0 for minor event and less than 8.0 for major event. 3939300-UD-DP-6.xls, Street Ny 8/2/2004, 1:24 PM 1~ ~I ~I ~I r ~~ GUTTER CONVEYANCE CAPACITY -1 Project = 39393 Inlet ID = DP-7 East Meadow Drive (South Side) -~- --- Top of Curb or ~ _ _ _ _ _ it Street .;~ Allowable Depth i~ TX Crown -~ - r ~~~ :\~\i~ ~Qw;•\y. y ! -'c; ~ a~ --L---- --- -- SX n Discharge in the Gutter Q, = 1.8 cfs Width (Cannot Be Less Than Any Grate Width) W = 2.00 ft Depression, ii Composite Gutter a = 2.0 inches Transverse Slope Sx = 0.0200 fUft Longitudinal Slope So = 0.0260 fUft cg's Roughness n = 0.020 3utterCross Slope Sw = 0.1033 ft/ft Hater Spread Width T = 6.0 ft Hater Depth without Gutter Depression y = 1.5 inches Hater Depth with a Gutter Depression d = 3.5 inches gutter Conveyance Calculations by HEC-22 Method >pread for Side Flow on the Street (T - W) Tx = 4.1 ft )ischarge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Q% = 0.3 cfs gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) E - 0.85 )ischarge within the Gutter Section W ' QW = 1.5 cfs otal Flow Rate by HEC-22 Method QT = 1.8 cfs quivalent Street Transverse Slope Se = 0.0905 ft/ft low Area As = 0.5 sq ft low Velocity Vs = 3.4 fps ,'d product NOTE: V~'d product should be less than 6.0 for minor event and less than 8.0 for major event. 3939300-UD-DP-7.xls, Street Hy 8/2/2004, 1:26 PM ~I 1~ 1~ r 1 r r r r East Meadow -North - 100YR Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet WB-West Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Mannings Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel Slope 0.020000 fUft Discharge 2.40 cfs Options Current Roughness Method Improved Loner's Method Open Channel Weighting Method Improved Loner's Method Closed Channel Weighting Method Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficient 0.017 Water Surface Elevation 100.08 tt Elevation Range 99.83 to 100.18 Flow Area 1.0 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 12.50 ft Top Width 12.48 ft Actual Depth 0.25 ft Critical Elevation 100.11 ft Critical Slope 0.009631 fUft Velocity 2.31 fUs Velocity Head 0.08 ft Specific Energy 100.17 ft Froude Number 1.41 Flow Type Supercritical Roughness Segments Start End Station Station Mannings Coefficient 0+00 O+OS 0.016 0+05 0+09 0.020 0+09 0+18 0.016 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (fq 0+00 100.10 0+05 100.00 0+07 99.83 0+09 100.00 0+18 100.18 Project Engineer: JR Engineering x:13930000.a11\3939300\haestads\3939300.tm2 JR Engineering FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 08/04/04 10:26:02 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1.203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 East Meadow- North - 100 YR Cross Section for Irregular Channel f J i Project Description Worksheet WB-West Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.017 Channel Slope 0.020000 fUft Water Surface Elevation 100.08 ft Elevation Range 99.83 to 100.18 Discharge 2.40 cfs 100.20 ------- ------,..-------_~...----..----- ~~ 99.80 ~--- ' ------------- -- ----------- ~--- __ ;.. 0+00 0+02 0+04 0+06 0+08 0+10 0+12 0+14 0+16 0+18 V:1 i H:1 NTS Project Engineer: JR Engineering x:\3930000.a11\3939300\haeslads\3939300.fm2 JR Engineering FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 08/04/04 10:25:01 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 r r r r r r r r r r r r r i i Willow Bridge -West - 100YR Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet WB-West Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Mannings Formula Sotve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/it Discharge 2.40 cfs Options Current Roughness Method Improved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting Method Improved Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weighting Method Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficient 0.017 Water Surface Elevation 100.08 ft Elevation Range 99.83 to 100.18 Flow Area 1.0 ft' Wetted Perimeter 12.50 ft Top Width 12.48 ft Actual Depth 0.25 ft Critical Elevation 100.11 ft Critical Slope 0.009631 ft/ft Velocity 2.31 fUs Velocity Head 0.08 ft Specific Energy 100.17 ft Froude Number 1.41 Flow Type Supercritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 O+OS 0.016 O+OS 0+09 0.020 0+09 0+18 0.016 Natural Channel Poinls Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 100.10 0+05 100.00 0+07 99.83 0+09 100.00 0+18 100.18 Project Engineer: JR Engineering x:\3930000.all\39393001haestads13939300.fm2 JR Engineering FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 08/04/04 10-26:47 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 r r r r r r r r r r r r i r Willow Bridge -West - 100 YR Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet WB-West Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.018 Channel Slope 0.020000 fUft Water Surface Elevation 100.04 ft Elevation Range 99.83 to 100.18 Discharge 1.20 cfs 100.20:;----..`--- ---------~~ . - ------- 99.80 ------- _ 0+00 0+02 0+04 0+06 0+08 0+10 0+12 0+14 0+16 0+18 V:1 H:1 NTS Project Engineer: JR Engineering x:\3930000.all\3939300\haestads\3939300.fm2 JR Engineering FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 08/04/04 10:20:50 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 M r r Willow Bridge -East - 100YR Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet WB-West Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Mannings Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Discharge 2.40 cfs Options Current Roughness Method Improved Loner's Method Open Channel Weighting Method Improved lotter's Method Closed Channel Weighting Method Norton's Method Results Mannings Coefficient 0.017 Water Surface Elevation Elevation Range 100.08 ft 99.83 to 100.18 Flow Area 1.0 (t= Wetted Perimeter 12.50 ft Top Width 12.48 ft Actual Depth 0.25 ft Critical Elevation 100.11 ft Critical Slope Velocity 0.009631 fUft 2.31 ft/s Velocity Head 0.08 ft Specific Energy 100.17 ft Froude Number 1.41 Flow Type Supercritical Roughness Segments ____ Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+05 0.016 O+OS 0+09 0.020 o+os o+1a o.o1s Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft~ 0+00 100.10 0+05 100.00 0+07 99.83 o+os 1 oo.oa 0+18 100.18 x:13930000.all\3939300\haestads13939300.fm2 JR Engineering Project Engineer: JR Engineering 08/04/04 10:26:30 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA FlowMaster v7.0 (7.0005] +1.203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r i Willow Bridge -East - 900 YR Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet WB-West Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.018 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 100.07 ft Elevation Range 99.83 to 100.18 Discharge 1.90 cfs 100.20:_--~- ---- - -.-..-------- .. -- -- ------------ - 99.80 ' - - ---- --- -• 0+00 0+02 0+04 0+06 0+08 0+10 0+12 0+14 0+16 0+18 V:1 I~ H:1 NTS Project Engineer: JR Engineering x:\3930000.all139393001haestads\3939300.fm2 JR Engineering FlowMaster v7.0 (7.0005] 08/04/04 10:22:02 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 r r r r r r r r r r r r r APPENDIX D INLET CALCULATIONS Drainage and Erosion Control Report August 9t , 2004 Crossroads Redevelopment Appendices 1 u n 1 fl 100-YR MAJOR STORM EVENT Drainage and Erusion Control Report August 9 , 2004 ' Crossroads Redevelopment Appendices COMBINATION INLET ON A GRADE Project: 39393 Inlet ID: DP-1 South Frontage Rd. (North Side) Wp L WP -y<----~C---~ <------- Cu~- Flow Direction H ~_. ~'rrer ~ot`b r r r r i r i i ype of Grate Type = Vane Grate ength of a Single Unit Grate L° = 3.00 ft fdth of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W fromStreet Hy) W - Z.00 ft logging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical value = 0.5) Co G = 0.50 logging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical value = 0.1) Co C = 0.10 oval Depression, if any (not part of upstream Composite Gutter) aw~i = 0.0 inches otal Number of Units in the Combination Inlet No = 2 gn Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) Q° = 5.0 cfs r Depth for Design Condition Ya = 4.6 inches Length of Inlet Grate 8 Curb Opening L = 6.00 ft of Grate Flow to Design Flow ~ E° = 0.57 Velocity Vs (from Street Hy) V6 = 3.71 fps hover Velocity V,: Check Against Flow Velocity Va V° is: greater than Vs ~r No-Clogging Condition eption Rate of Gutter Flow R, = 1.00 eption Rate of Side Flow Rx (fromStreet Hy) R - 0 72 eption Capacity O; = 4.4 cfs Clogging Condttlon ig Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Coef = 1.50 ig Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Clog = 0.38 e (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet 4 = 3.75 ft ~tion Rate of Side Flow Rx (fromStreet Hy) R - 0.47 Interception Capacity Q, _ , :. 3.9 cfs Tier Flow = Q,-Q, (to be applied to curb opening) Ct,,,,s = 1.1 cfs itent Slope S` (based on grate carry-over) S° = 0.0675 fUft ed Length Lt to Have 100% Interception LT = 10.90 ft ng Coefficient Coef = 1.25 ng Factor for Multlple-unit Curb Opening Inlei Clog = 0.06 ie (Unclogged) Length L - ° 5.63 ft No-Clogging Condition ~e Length of Curb Opening Inlet (must bey LT) L = 6.00 ft ption Capacity O, = 0.4 cfs Clogging Condition Interception Capacity Q, = 0.4 cfs Over Flow = f~„s-Q, = Qb = 0.7 cfs e Percentage = Q/Q° = C% = B(i:0 3939300-UD-DP-1.xls, Combo-G 8/2/2004, 1:20 PM GR~4TE INLET IN Q SUMP Project = 39393 Inlet ID = DP-3 West Property Line (Landscape Drain) W Wo ~ Cum Gutter E---- Flow 1 ~ Lo -~ Le Clogged ~, L ength of a Unit Grate Lo = 2.00 ft Vidth of a Unit Grate Wo = 2.00 ft area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values = 0.6-0.9) A = 0.75 ;logging Factor for a Single Inlet (typical value = 0.5) Co = 0.50 irifice Coefficient (typical value = 0.67) C d - 0.67 Jeir Coefficient (typical value = 3.00) C - W- 3.00 ocal Depression, if any (not part of upstream Composite Gutter) a,a~a; = 6.0 inches otal Number of Units in the Grated Inlet No . 1 ana i of Grate Inlet in a Sump„(G^Ic~latedl eslgn Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) p - o- 0.3 cfs ~ater Depth for Design Condition Ya = 6.8 inches ~tal Length of Grated Inlet(s) L = 2.0 ft saWeir apacity as a Weir without Clogging Q„,; = 7.7 cfs 'ogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.00 ogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.50 apacity as a Weir with Clogging OWa = 6.4 cfs an Orifice apacity as an Orifice without Clogging Qo; = 12.2 cfs apacity as an Orifice with Clogging Qoa = 6.1 cfs i aci for D~cian with Gloaaino ~a = 6.7 cfs ~pture Percentage for this Inlet = Qe / Qo = C% = 100 00 . Note: Unless additional ponding depth or spilling over the curb is acceptable, a capture percentage of less than 100% in a sump may indicate the need for additional inlet units. 3939300-UD-DP-3.xls, Grate-S 8/2/2004, 1:22 PM ' COMBINATION INLET ON A GRADE Project: 39393 Inlet ID: DP-5 Village Center Rd. (East Side) Wp L WP ' Curb Fi rM,~.. Flow Direction r fitter ~ ~h ' Design Information (Inn~tl f Type o Grate Type = Vane Grate _ Length of a Single Unit Grate - L, = 3.00 ft ' Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W fromSfreet Hy) Clogging Factor for a Single Unii Grate (typical value = 0.5) W = C G = 2.00 ft 0 50 Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical value = 0.1) o Co C = . 0. i0 Local Depression, if any (not part of upstream Composite Gutter) ab~; = 0.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Combination Inlet No = 1 Crate Ana~sia (-ai plat d- Design Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) Q° = 2.8 cfs Water Depth for Design Condition Ya = 3.5 inches ' otal Length of Inlet Grate & Curb Opening L = 3.00 ft Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow ~ E° = 0.84 Flow Velocity Vs (from Street Ny) V6 = 5.14 fps ' Spash-over Velocity V°; Check Against Flow Velocity Ve V° is: less than Vs Under No-Clogging Condition Interception Rate of Gutter Flow R; = 1.00 Interception Rate of Side Flow Rx (fromStreef Hy} R - 0.28 ' Interception Capacity Q; = 2.5 cfs Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlei Clogging Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Coef = Ciog = 1.00 0 50 Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet L° - . 1.50 ft Interception Rate of Side Flow Rx (from Street Ny) R, = 0.07 Actual Interception Capacity Q, = 2.4 cfs Carry-Over Flow = (~-Q, (to be applied to curb opening) 4°.~ = 0.4 cfs orb ~. enin~ An~Y~-((`at-~,~,--'Mt'rit Equivalent Slope Sb (based on grate carry-over) S, = 0.0900 ft/ft Required Length ~ to Have 100% Interception Lr = 7.91 ft Clogging Coefficient Coef = 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple-unit Curb Opening Inlet Effective (Unclogged) Length Clog = L° = 0.10 2.70 ft Under No-Clogging Condition Effective Length of Curb Opening Inlet (must be< LT) L = 3.00 ft I nterception Capacity Q; = 0.1 cfs Under Clogging Condition Actual Interception Capacity Q, = 0.1 cfs ' Carry-Over Flow = 4,,,b-Q. = Ca ture P r nt = / Qb = 0.3 cfs p e ce age Q, Q° = C% _ , 89.3 3939300-UD-DP-S.xls Combo-G , 8/2/2004, 1:23 PM 1 1 ~I ~I r ~I COMBINATION INLET ON A GRADE ~ Project: Inlet ID: Vtrp L Wp <--------D(--~-~C---~ Cua~ ~ 1H 'r ~~„~.. )!'loM1V Direction ~~ , ~rrrQr ~ ' ` s of Grate Type = Vane Grate Ith of a Single Unit Grate L, = 3.00 ft h of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W fromStreet Hy) W = ° 2.00 tt aging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical value = 0.5) C; G = 0.50 ging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical value = 0.1) C; C = 0.10 it Depression, if any (not part of upstream Composite Gutter) aa~i = 0.0 inches I Number of Units in the Combination Inlet No = 1 gn Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) q, = 2.3 cfs r Depth for Design Condition Ya = 3.3 inches Length of Inlet Grate 8 Curb Opening L = 3.00 ft of Grate Flow to Design Flow ~ E - 0.89 Velocity Vs (from Street Hy) V, = 5.08 fps hover Velocity V°: Check Against Flow Velocity V, V° is: greater than Vs ~r No•Clogging Condition .eption Rate of Gutter Flow R; = 1.00 eption Rate of Side Flow Rx (fromStreet Hy) Rx = 0.30 eption Capacity q; _ 2.1 cfs r Clogging Condition iing Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Coef = .1.00 ing Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Clog = 0.50 ive (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet L, = 1.50 ft eption Rate of Side Flow Rx (fromStreet Hy) R, = 0.08 d Interception Capacity q, = 2.1 cfs •Over Flow = q,-Q, (to be applied to curb opening) q = 0 2 f ~,,,b . c s r i r dent Slope Sa (based on grate carry-over) S, = 0.0941 fUft ~ed Length Lr to Have 100% Interception Lr = 6.05 ft ng Coefficient Coef = 1.00 ng Factor for Multiple-unit Curb Opening Inlet Ctog = 0.10 ue (Unclogged) Length L, = 2:70 ft No-Clogging Condition re Length of Curb Opening inlet (must be<_ Lr) L = 3.00 ft ption Capacity O; = 0.1 cfs Clogging Condition Interception Capacity q, _ 0.1 cis wer Flow = 4°.e-Q, = qe = 0.1 cfs e Percentage = Q,/q, = C% = 95.7 3939300-UD-DP-6.xls, Combo-G 8/2/2004, 1:24 PM II GRATE INLET ON A GRADE ~I Project• 39393 Inlet ID: DP-8 East Meadow Drive (North Side) Curb Gutter 4-- Flow of Grate Type = Bar P-1-7/8 ith of a Unit Grate L° = 3.00 ft h of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Street Hy) W° = 2.00 ft Bing Factor for a Unit Graie (typical value = 0.5) C° = 0.50 1 Depression, if any (not part of upstream Composite Gutter) ai~ai = 0.0 inches Number of Units in the Grated Inlet No = 1 ysis ~(;alculatedl gn Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) Q° = 0.7 cfs r Depth for Design Condition Yd = 2.6 inches Length of Grate Inlet L = 3.00 ft of Grate Flow to Design Flow Eo E° = 1.00 Talent Street Transverse Slope Se (from Street Hy) S° = 0.1033 ft/ft Velocity Vs (from Street Hy) VS = 3.20 fps hover Velocity V°: Check Against Flow Velocity VS V° is: greater than Vs ~r No-Clogging Condition eption Rate of Gutter Flow R~ = 1.00 eption Rate of Side Flow Rx (from Street Hy) R - X 0.52 ;eption Capacity Q~ = 0.7 cfs Clogging Condition ig Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Coef = 1.00 ig Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Clog = 0.50 e (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Le = 1.50 ft ~tion Rate of Side Flow Rx (from Street Hy) RX = 0.18 Interception Capacity Qe = 0.7 cfs )ver Flow = Q; Qa = Qb = 0.0 cfs a Percentage = Q°/Q° = C% = 100.0 3939300-UD-DP-8.xls, Grate-G 8/2/2004, 1:25 PM `~- Lo ~' ~ Clogged L t ~i ~~ ~~ r ~ COMBINATION INLET ON A GRADE -11 Project: 39393 Inlst ID: DP-7 East Meadow Drive (South Side) WP L wP -NC----~*<---~ ------ Cum r^ g ~rtter ~~ ~,.. Flaw Direction of Grate Type = Vane Grate h of a Single Unit Grate .. L, = 3.00 ft ~ of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W fromStreef Hy) W - 2.00 ft iing Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical value = 0.5) C; G = 0.50 ding Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical value = 0.1) Co C = 0.10 Depression, if any (not part of upstream Composite Gutter) a,,~°; = 0.0 inches Number of Units in the Combination Inlet No = 1 gn Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) Q, = 1.8 cfs r Depth for Design Condition Ya = 3.5 inches Length of Inlet Grate & Curb Opening L = 3.00 ft of Grate Flow to Design Flow ~ E° = 0.85 Velocity Vs (from Street Hy) V, = 3.38 fps hover Velocity V,: Check Against Flow Velocity V6 V° is: greater than Vs ~r No-Cloggtng Condition .eption Rate of Gutter Flow R, = 1.00 :eption Rate of Side Ftow Rx (from Street Hy) R„ = 0.46 ;eption Capacity O; = 1.6 cfs Clogging Conditlon ig Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Coef = 1.00 ig Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Clog = 0.50 e (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet L° = 1.50 ft ~tion Rele of Side Flow Rx (from Street Hy) R - ,- 0.15 Interception Capacity Q, _ . 1.6 cfs Ayer Flow = (~-Q, (to be applied to curb opening) 4,,,b = 0.2 cfs lent Slope $, (based on grate carry-over) S° = 0.0905 ft/ft ~ed Lenglh tr to Have 100% Interception Lr = 4.85 ft ng Coefficient Coef = 1.00 ng Factor for Multiple-unit Curb Opening Inlet Clog = 0.10 ve (Unclogged) Length L° = 2.70 ft No-Clogging Condition ie Length of Curb Opening Inlet (must be_< Lr) L = 3.00 ft ption Capacity Q; = 0.1 cfs Clogging Condition Interception Capacity Q, = 0.1 cfs Ower Flow = Qt,,,~-Q, = Qb = ~ 0.1 cfs e Percentage = Q,IQ° = C% = 94.4 3939300-UD-DP-7.xls, Combo-G 8/2/2004, 1:26 PM GRATE INLET ON A GRADE Project: 39393 Inlet ID: DP-9 East Meadow Drive (North Side) r r r r r r r r r r r `~~ Curb Gutter F- iF1mv Lo Clogged Ls L 'ype of Grate ength of a Unit Grate Vidth of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Street Hy ) :logging Factor for a Unit Grate (typical value = 0.5) ocal Depression, if any (not part of upstream Composite Gutter) otal Number of Units in the Grated Inlet iesfgn Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy ) Vater Depth for Design Condition otal Length of Grate Inlet ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow Eo quivalent Street Transverse Slope Se (from Street Hy) low Velocity Vs (from Street Hy ) pash-over Velocity V°: Check Against Flow Velocity VS No-Cloggtng Condition ption Rate of Gutter Flow ~tion Rate of Side Flow Rx (from Street Hy ) ~tion Capacity Clogging Condition ig Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet ig Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet e (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet ~tion Rate of Side Flow Rx (from Street Hy) Interception Capacity rer Flow = Q; Qe = Percentage = Qe/Q° _ Type = Bar P-1-7/8 L° = 3.00 ft ~N° = 2.00 ft C° = 0.50 a,°~ai = 0.0 inches No = 1 Q° = 2.4 cfs Yd = 3.9 inches L = 3.00 ft E° = 0.73 Se = 0.0811 ft/ft VS = .3.08 fps V° is: greaterthan Vs Rf = 1.00 RX = 0.47 Q; = 2.1 cfs Coef = 1.00 Clog = 0.50 Le = 1.50 ft Rx = 0.15 Qe = : ' 1:9 cfs Qe = _. _ , 0.5 cfs C% _ . 77.4 Wo 3939300-UD-DP-9.xls, Grate-G 8/2/2004, 1:26 PM h GRATE INLET ON A GRADE II Project• 39393 Inlet ID: DP-11 Willow Bridge Rd. (East Side) Cads lmv of Grate Type = Bar P-1-7/8 th of a Unit Grate L, = 3.00 ft i of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Street Hy) W - o- 2.00 ft ~ing Factor for a Unit Grate (typical value = 0.5) C° = 0.50 I Depression, if any (not part of upstream Composite Gutter) a,~a, = 0.0 inches Number of Units in the Grated Inlet No = 1 vela (Calculated) gn Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) qo = 1.9 cfs r Depth for Design Condition Yd = 3.6 inches Length of Grate Inlet L = 3.00 ft of Grate Flow to Design Flow Eo Eo = 0.80 Talent Street Transverse Slope Se (from Street Hy) Se = 0.0864 ft/ft Velocity Vs (from Street Hy) VS = 3.01 fps hover Velocity Vo: Check Against Flow Velocity VS Vo is: greater than Vs r No-Clogging Condition eption Rate of Gutter Flow Rr = 1.00 eption Rate of Side Flow Rx (from Street Hy) R - x- 0.50 eption Capacity Q, = 1.7 cfs nder Clogging Condition logging Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Coef = 1.00 logging Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Clog = 0.50 ~ective (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet L° = 1.50 ft terception Rate of Side Flow Rx (from Street Hy) R - x - 0.17 ctual Interception Capacity Qa = 1.6 cfs arty-Over Fiow = Q°-Qe = Ctb = `:: 0.3 cfs ~pture Percentage = Qa/Gt° = C% _ 83.1 3939300-UD-DP-11.x1s, Grate-G 8/2/2004, 1:28 PM ~~' ClaBged Lo ~ L ~ r r r h GRATE INLET ON A GRADE -ll Project: 39393 Inlet ID: DP-12 Willow Bridge Rd. (West Side) Wo ~~ Curb Gutter ~- FtoM1v Lo ~ Clogged ~ ~. L 'ype of Grate Type = Bar P-1-7/8 ength of a Unit Grate ~ L, = 3.00 ft Ilidth of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Street Hy) W - o- 2.00 ft :logging Factor for a Unit Grate (typical value = 0.5) C° = 0.50 oval Depression, if any (not part of upstream Composite Gutter) a;°~e, = 0.0 inches otal Numberof Units in the Grated Inlet No = 1 ,na ysi~ (Galelatedl esign Discharge on the Street (from Streef Hy) Q° = 1.2 cfs later Depth for Design Condition Ya = 3.2 inches ~tal Length of Grate Inlet L = 3.00 ft atio of Grate Flow to Design Flow Eo E° = 0.91 quivalent Street Transverse Slope Se (from Street Hy) S° = 0.0961 ft/ft ow Velocity Vs (from Street Hy) VS = 2.92 fps gash-over Velocity V°: Check Against Flow Velocity VS V° is: greater than Vs nder No-Clogging Condition terception Rate of Gutter Flow R, = 1.00 ten:eption Rate of Side Flow Rx (from Street Hy) R = x 0.54 terception Capacity Q; = 1.2 cfs r Clogging Condition i ing Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Coef = 1.00 ing Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Clog = 0.50 ve (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet LQ = 1.50 ft :ption Rate of Side Flow Rx (from Street Hy) R, = 0.19 1 Interception Capacity Q° = 1.1 cfs Over Flow = Qo Q° = Qb = - • ' 0.1 cfs re Percentage = Q°/Q° = C% = 93.0 3939300-UD-DP-12.x1s, Grate-G 8/2/2004, 1:28 PM APPENDIX E r r r r r r i STORM PIPE AND SWALE CALCULATIONS Drainage and Erosion Control Report August 9t , 2004 Crossroads Redevelopment Appendices Scenario: Base _ DP-1 I ~~ d DP-2 N d MH-1 Q;h MH-2 A p_7 DP-3 MH-3 ~~ it MH-4 co d Title: Crossroads at Vail x:\3930000.a11\3939300\haestads\3939300.stm 08/04!04 09:55:44 AM a1 Project Engineer: JR Engineering JR Engineering StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003] ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Scenario: Base JR Custom Label Section Size Descriptio Sectio Shape Materia ConsUucte Sfope (ft/ft) Length (ft) Total Syste Flow {cfs) Design Capacit (cfs) Upstrea Invert Elevatio {h) ownstrea Invert Elevation (ft) ydrauli Grade Line In (ft) Hydrauli Grade line Out (ft} Average Velocity (fUs) P-1 18 inch Circula GMP 0.0135 74.00 5.00 6.61 8,181.00 8,180.00 4,181.97 5,181.17 4.11 P-2 18 inch Circula CMP 0.0922 90.00 11.10 17.28 8,179.80 8,171.50 9,180.67 3,172.93 10.38 P-3 18 inch Circula CMP 0.0450 44.40 11.10 12.08 8,171.30 8,169.30 4,172.43 3,170.66 7.75 P-4 18 inch Circula CMP 0.0528 53.00 11.10 13.08 8,169.10 8,166.30 3,170.16 4,167.69 8.30 P-5 18 inch Circula CMP 0.0526 163.50 11.40 13.05 8,166.10 8,157.50 9•,167.19 3,158.83 8.32 P-6 18 inch Circula CMP 0.0600 10.00 11.40 13.94 8,157.30 8,156.70 3,158.33 9,157.73 8.80 P-7 15 inch Circula CMP 0.0208 12.00 0.30 5.05 8,167.50 8,167.25 8,167.71 3,167.69 2.26 Title: Crossroads at Vail x:\3930000.a11\3939300\haestads\3939300.stm Project Engineer: JR Engineering JR Engineering StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003] 08/04!04 09:26:55 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1_203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Profile Scenario: Base Profile: Storm Sewer West- Main Label: DP•1 Label: OP-2 Rim: 8,184.70 ft Rim: 8,185.00 fl Sump:8,179.70 ft , __~, Sump 8,178.30 fl ' _ ._ _.._ .... 6.185.00 ,.... _w /.......... ,, _ _ . ... ... .... .. 1 80.00 Label: P-1 Up. Invert 8,181.00 ft ;~ On. Invert 8,180.00 ft ~ L: 74.00 ft ~ Sze: 18 i nch Label: MH-1 S: 0.0135ft/ft Rim: 8,175.00 ft / \ Sump: 8,171.30 ft __. ... ......,_. ~ Label: MH-2 _........ . _....., _. _,. _. _,..... __ _ ... ...... ..... .. 8 7500 1 L b l P Rim 8.172.80 ft a : e -2 Up. Invert 8,179.80 ft ~~ Sump: 8,169.10 ft Label: MH-3 ~ Dn. Invert: 8,171.50 ft ~ Rim: 8.171.50 ft L:90.OOft ''- Sump:8,166.tOft Size: 18 i nch S: 0.0922 Wft ~-- ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ -~ ° 8,170.00 FJevation (ft) Label: P-3 Up. Invert 8.171.30 ft ~--• Dn. I overt 8,169.30 R / L: 44.40 ft Size: l8 inch S: 0.0450 R/ft Label P-4 . ' Up. Invert8,169.10ft ~ ~ ~ ~ 8,165.00 Dn. Invert 8,166.30 ft L 53.00 ft Size: l8 i nch S: 0.0528 ft/R Label: MH-4 Rim: 8.160.70 ft Sump: 8.157.30 R . .. / Label: O-1 P-5 Label Rim: 8,160.00 ft 8,160.00 . Up. Invert 8,166.10 ft Sump: 8,156.60 ft Dn. Invert 8.157.50 ft L: 163.50 ft ' ~ ~ Sze: 18 inch S 0.0526 Nft 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 ... .4+00 8,155.00 Label: P-6 5+00 Up. I overt 8,157.30 ft Dn. Invert: 8,156.70 ft L: 10.00 ft Size: 18 i nch S: 0.0600 Nft Project Engineer: JR Engineering StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003) Page 1 of 1 Station (ft) Title: Crossroads at Vail x:13930000.aft139393001haestads\3939300.stm JR Engineering 08/04/04 09:23:43 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +7-203-755-1666 Profile Scenario: Base Profile: Storm SewerWest -Lateral .. _ 8,175.00 Label: MH-3 Label: DP-3 gym: 8,171.50 ft Rim: 8,170.50 ft ~ ~ ~ 8,166.10 ft Sump: 8,166.00 ft __ _. 8,170.00 ~~ ~ Label: P 7 Up. Invert 8,167.50 ft 8,165.00 0+00 Dn. Invert 8,167.25 ft 1+00 L: 12.00 ft Size: 15 inch S: 0.0208 ftfft Station (ft) Title: Crossroads at Vail x:\3930000.a11\3939300\haestads\3939300.stm JR Engineering 08/04/04 09:26:30 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Bevation (ft) Project Engineer: JR Engineering StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003] Page 1 of 1 ~ - i~ ~ _ ~^ __ ~ _ a~-- ~ - ~ --~ ~-- v ~-~~_--~-~^ - ~~.._:.~-~ -- ~ - ~ --- ~ it Scenario: Base DP-5 DP-6 _.~~--~_.~_- d Title: Crossroads x:\3930000.ai1\3939300\haestads\3939300-em.stm Project Engineer: JR Engineering JR Engineering StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003] 08/04/04 10:06:29 AM ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Scenario: Base JR Custom Label Section Size Descriptio Sectio Shape Materia Constructe Slope (fUft) Length (ft) Total Syste Flow (cfs) Design Capacit (cfs) Upstrea Invert Elevatio (ft) ownstrea Invert Elevation (ft) ydrauli Grade Line In (ft) Hydrauli Grade Line Out (ft) Average Velocity (fVs) P-8 15 inch Circula CMP 0.0388 60.50 2.80 6.90 8,175.10 8,172.75 3,175.65 9,173.30 5.33 P-9 15 inch Circula CMP 0.0495 207.00 5.10 7.79 8,172.00 8,161.75 3,172.74 3,163.06 6.77 P-10 18 inch Circula CMP 0.0244 67.50 7.50 8.90 8,161.50 8,159.85 9,162.56 3,161.01 5.64 P-11 24 inch Circula CMP 0.0101 174.00 9.90 12.29 8,159.15 8,157.40 9,160.51 5,158.76 4.35 P-12 15 inch Circula CMP 0.0100 25.00 1.80 3.50 8,162.20 8,161.95 9,163.06 9,163.06 2.87 TIUe: Crossroads x:\3930000.a11\39393001haestads\3939300-em.stm Project Engineer: JR Engineering JR Engineering StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003] 08/04/04 09:53:39 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1668 Page 1 of 1 Profile Scenario: Base Profile: Storm Sewer -East Meadow Main __ La becoP.S _ _ .. .... ...... ... _.... . Rim: 8.178.10 N _.. .._ .. .. . .... .. ......_. .. _...._.... ....... ........... ....., _.... ....._.... .... ._. ........._ ..... ...... _..... 6.180.00 Sum p: 8,173.60 R La be1:OP-6 Rim: 8.175 .75 N Sump: 8.171.2 5 N ~- \ ... .. .. ~ ~ 8.175.00 ..'-> Le bel:P-8 Up.lnvert: 8.175.10N ``~~~ On. Inven' 8,172.75 N ~ ~ ~ 8.170.00 L: 60.50 N Site: 15 inch S: 0.0306 NIR ~_ La be I:DP•8 Rim~8,164.75 fl ...,,.. ., ._ ................... ... .. Sump: 8.760.25 N.. ..... ..... ... .. ..... ..... ... ... _ _.. 8.765.00 ' Up. Inven. 8,172.00 R La be I~DP-9 Dn. Inve n: 8,161.75N ~._ Rim:8.162.85 N ... L: 207 DON ', Sum p: 8.157.65N ' Size: 15 inch '~~-- 5: 0.0495 N/N '. _.._._.___,` -`~---__.__. ~ Le be l:Oyt ~~ '! ~~~-- „_ ~"~---i__ Sum p: 8,157AON .... / ' - 8.7 60.00 ' ~La bal:P•10 ~z - Up. love rt: 8.161.SDN - - . Dn. Inven: 6.159.85 N L. 87.50 N La bet r~.11 Size: iB inch Up Inve n~ 8.159.15 N 5: 0.0244 NIN Dn.lnven: B,157.dON L: 174 DON 0.00 7.00 2.00 Size: 24 inch ~ ~ 8.7 55.00 3.00 4.00 5. 0.0101 IVN 500 6.00 Station (N) Eleva tun (N) Title: Crossroads z:\3930000.a11\3939300\haestads\3939300-em.stm Project Engineer: JR Engineering JR Engineering StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003) 08/04/04 09:54:25 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +~-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Profile Scenario: Base Profile: Storm Sewer -East Meadow Lateral ............................ . _. _ _ .8,170.00 Title: Crossroads x:\3930000.a It\3939300\haestads\3939300-em.stm 08/04/04 09:54:41 AM ©Haestad Melhods, Inc. Label: DP-7 Rim: 8,165.20 ft Label: DP-8 Sump: 8,160.70 ft Rim: 8,164.75 ft Sump: 8,160.25 ft ~_ 0+00 Label: P-12 Up. Invert: 8,162.20 ft Dn. Invert: 8,161.95 ft L: 25.00 ft Size: 15 inch S: 0.0100 ftlft Station (ft) 8,165.00 8,160.00 1+00 JR Engineering 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Elevation (ft) Project Engineer: JR Engineering StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003] Page 1 of 1 ice- i•- ice- ~-- is--- i~_ i•--- ice- ~ w~r~ ~' r o :~s~ ~_ ~ i~ i• ~ Scenario: Base a3 ,_ `. DP-12 DF ~,~ p 4 , ,- __ __ ~, -- 4 _ _ __ R13 Title: Crossroads x:\3930000.alI\3939300\haestads\3939300-wb.stm Project Engineer: JR Engineering JR Engineering StormCAD v5.5 (5.5003] 08/04/04 10:02:35 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ~- ~- fifE- fE- ~-- fifiiii~-- ~- i•.-~\ tiiiiiR,.- ~-,~c~~s,-:, ~-,-~~~ fit_ ~_ ~ ~~ ~ Scenario: Base JR Custom Label Section Si Sectio Sh Materia Constructe Length Total Design Upstrea ownstrea ydrauli Hydrauli Average ze Descriptio ape Slope f (ft) Syste Capaci Invert Invert Grade Grade Velocity ( t/ft) Flow (cfs) Elevatio Elevation Line In Line Ou (fUs) (cis) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) P-13 15 inch Circula CMP 0.0114 22.00 1.80 3.73 8,156.00 8,155.75 9,156.70 3,156.70 3.01 P-14 15 inch Circula CMP 0.0200 25.00 3.00 4.95 8,155.50 8,155.00 9,156.20 3,155.70 4.22 Title: Crossroads Project Engineer: JR Engineering x:13930000.a11\3939300\haestads\3939300-wb.stm JR Engineering StormCAO v5.5 [5.5003] 08/04/04 10:03:58 AM ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Profile Scenario: Base Profile: Storm Sewer-Willow Bridge Label: DP-11 Rim: 8,159.00 ft :. __ Sump: 8,154.50 ft Label: Q3 8,160.00 Rim: 8,158.00 ft Sump: 8,155.00 ft _. ~~ V ,, - _ ~ _ ~ _ ... .. 8,155.00 1. Label: P-13 Up. Invert 8,156.00 ft Dn. Invert 8,155.75 ft L: 22.00 ft Size: 15 inch S: 0.0114 ft/ft 0+00 Label: P-14 Up. Invert 8,155.50 ft Dn. Invert 8,155.00 ft L: 25.00 ft Size: 15 inch S: 0.0200 ftfft 8,150.00 1+00 E]evation (ft) Station (ft) Title: Crossroads x:13930000.a11\3939300\haestads\3939300-wb.stm JR Engineering 08/04/04 10:05:43 AM ©Haestad Methods. Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury. CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Label: DP-12 Rim: 8,159.00 ft. _ Sump: 8,154.00 ft Project Engineer: JR Engineering StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003] Page 1 of 1 t ~, ~I ~~ U w 2 ZW NZ IIiK ~ ydy~_ as =]~K wv,€wzrcd IV rcwwwr . =amQ~~~o~ jn ~Ky1~KFN ho ~nw~'~ao: ~nrcrci¢r~o Fwaawa~u,~ ~- zxn ~nzwo o~anaaaooa ~~ ~_ ~ ~o~ o a~ _~ W a rn o U SJ{'TH ~"_ ~ N~J i ~ ~' `\ 8 i ~ f ~ ® w 6~_ - z j ' '''----~ ,1 ~ 'I z ~ g ~u (!+~ xW ~ 1~~'1y s ~ ~~ 1~~ 1 ~ ! w I ~~ ~ j ~ ~' r>;~~ b I' J t ~ . .~-~ 12 ~~'~~ 1 -r~ i ~` w,'i' V I m !- ~ i i W ! 1', m ~ ;1 ~~ ~ _~:7 ~ ~ ,' a ~ ~~~ I 0 p j ~~ ~•~ ~ I~ i r, .,~7 j 1' ! ~ ~ i ~~ ~ `~ ? ° I arc ~ ~'r"a n iI ~ j i „ r. S v in r Vr -~" a + ~ \ ®a /~~ ~~ 0 ~ M Q \ Y Y ~1 ~`''~ T W W o (ell ~ ~ _ _ - ,rte°~~ a 9 ~ ~ a~ ~ r r ~' rl E / ~ `~ '~ m m m S? v u ~ w ~ °w ~' G ~ it ~/ _ ~ / > m V7 Z Q O Q ~ a ~ o Q' 0 J_ ~ U ~ U 30 IS 0 30 60 ~ ~ U ~ SCAIE: I' = 30' _ SHEE7 1 OF 1 ,ioe No. 39393.00 6 e LJ i 1 ` ~ _ I ~-~_ I ~ _ ' ~~ _ IQ -____~ _`\` d ~~~ ~~~ ''~~. ~m ` '®- ~ n; i ~~ ~„ U~ NW NR ~Wwdr aa=w=W~jj- FZ}rcWWW~2 ~m~~~~ F sa a °a N~Op~NT~N D~aw~0ap N aKZK}VO FWaaWa~yl ~~aaaaooa 0' JAN Q~ ~ 007 w 6 rn ¢ pp~ w ~U~ a UO~ z a ~ ~ z ~ ~ $g,~ W~ s~ ~+ w ti ~ a Z m w w H ~ ~ m 'm m a a ~ Zo z w I I ~ Z < U 2 > ] ~ w J_ ~~ Q Q 1 m ~ W Q ~ Q ~ Z O Q 0 ~ (n ~ (/) W 0 ~ ~ O U O 0_ a ~ SHEET 1 OF 1 ~ aoe No. 39393.00 - -- OftAINAGE SUB BASIN BOUNDARY 10 DESIGN POINT ~~~ BASIN IDENTIFlCA710N 1'U ~~ RUNOFF COEFFICIENT AREA IN ACRES 30 15 0 30 60 SCAI£: I' = 30' t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HP HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc P. (~. llrawer 1887 Silverthome, Colorado 80498 Phone: 970-468-1989 F,u: 970-46i-~d91 email: h}~ee~,4~:Lhp;;eutech.cr,m SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CROSSROADS OF VAIL VAIL, COLORADO JOB NO. 403 338 NOVEMBER 10, 2003 PREPARED FOR: ENGLISH & ASSOCIATES ATTN: MICHAEL ENGLISH 12 VAIL ROAD, SUITE 700 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 Glenwoi~d Springs 970-94.5-7988 • Parker 303-341-7119 Colorado Springs 719-63.3-SS62 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............................. . PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................. SITE CONDITIONS ........................................ . FIELD EXPLORATION ...................................... SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................. . FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ... ..................... . DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS ...................................... FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ................... . FLOOR SLABS ...................................... . UNDERDRAINSYSTEM ................................ 7 SITE GRADING ...................................... $ SURFACE DRAINAGE .................................. 9 LIMITATIONS ........................................... 10 FIGURE 1 ='LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY PITS FIGURE 2 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS FIGURE 3 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS FIGURE 4 -LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE S -GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 6 -GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 7 -GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 8 -TYPICAL UNDERDRAIN DETAIL 403 338 ~tecr~ ii 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed commercial and residential development at the Crossroads of Vail, Vail, Colorado. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for foundation design. The findings from our field exploration and recommendations are presented in this report. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation design. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION At the time of our study design plans for the proposed construction had not been developed. We understand that an underground parking structure may be located on the site with one or two levels below grade. We assume excavation for the proposed development will have a maximum cut depth of two levels or about 15 to 20 feet below the existing ground surface. For the purpose of our analysis, foundation loadings for the structure were assumed to be moderate to heavy. When building location grading and loading information have been developed, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The project site is currently occupied by two multi story buildings as shown on Figure 1. The buildings typically consist of a combination of residential and retail space. The western building includes a full basement level and the eastern building includes two 403 338 tech -2- below-grade parking levels. The buildings are generally surrounded with asphalt pavement for surface parking. A retaining wall exists along the northern pavement boundary and the ground slopes up to the north above the wall and the eastern building to the south frontage road for Interstate 70. The ground surface across the site generally slopes down towards the southwest. The topographic survey provided indicates about 30 feet of relief between the northeast and southwest corners of the property. The project is bordered by the south frontage road to the north, by East Meadow Drive to the east and south, and by Village Inn Plaza Condominiums to the west. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on October 15 and 29, 2003. Five exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by struck-mounted Longyear BK-51HD drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 13/e inch spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depth with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. Phis test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative ' density or consistency of the subsoils. Small disturbed samples of the auger cuttings were also taken. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figures 2 and 3. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS hic to s of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fi ores Grap g g ' 2 and 3. An explanation of the symbols used on the logs is shown on Figure 4. All of our exploratory borings were drilled in areas paved with asphaltic concrete. The 403 338 H -3- thickness of the asphalt ranged from about 4 to 6 inches. Man-placed fill was found beneath the asphalt at all boring locations to depths ranging from approximately 2 to 12 feet. The fill is typically loose to medium dense and consists of a mixture of clay, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Below the fill in Borings 1 through 4, the subsoils consist of dense, slightly clayey to clayey, sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders to the depths explored in Borings 1 through 3 and to a depth of about 23 feet in Boring 4. An 18 inch thick sandy clay Tense was encountered in Boring 3 at a depth of about 13 feet. Drilling in the dense gravel and man-placed fill with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders. Practical drilling refusal was encountered in Borings 2, 3 and 5 at the depths indicated on Figures 2 and 3. Medium dense, silty to very silty sand was found below the gravel in Boring 4 and below the fill in Boring 5. The sand was gravelly in Boring 4 and below a depth of 27 feet in Boring 5. ' Piezometers consisting of 2 inch schedule 40 PVC pipe were installed in Borings 1, 3, 4 and 5. The bottom 10 feet of pipe consisted of factory slotted (0.020 inch) well ' screen. Silica sand (10/20) was placed around the pipe to approximately 2 feet above the well screen. A 3 to 5 feet thick bentonite seal was placed above the sand. The remainder of the borings were backfilled with auger cuttings. 7-plugs was installed at t the tops of the PVC pipes. Bolted well covers were set with concrete at the surface of ' each piezometer. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, percent passing the No. 200 sieve, gradation analyses and liquid and plastic limits. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples and small disturbed samples (minus 0.75, 1 and 1.5 inch fractions) of the on-site soils are shown on Figures 5, 6 and 7. Results of the laboratory testing are summarized on Figures 2 and 3. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The existing man-placed fill encountered in our exploratory borings displayed variable densities. These soils tend to settle differentially under load and over time and are not 403 338 ~tecn 0 r~ w r u Cl -4- suitable to support foundations and floor slabs. The granular portions of these soils may be suitable for use as foundation backfill or structural fill provided organic material, construction debris and rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter are removed. A representative of H-P Geotech should observe the existing fill soils during excavation to determine suitability. RESIGN RECOMII~NDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the proposed structures be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) For buildings constructed over abelow-grade parlang level, footings placed on the undisturbed natural gravel soils (encountered in Borings 1 through 4) should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 5,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings greater than 4 feet wide and 3,000 psf for smaller width footings. For a similar condition, footings placed on the undisturbed natural sand soils (encountered in Borings 4 and 5) should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf for footings greater than 4 feet wide and 2,000 psf for smaller width footings. For buildings constructed over a crawlspace or slab-on-grade floor, footings placed on the undisturbed natural gravel soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. For a similar condition, footings placed on the undisturbed natural 1 t sand soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 403 338 c~tecri 1 1 ~~ L' -5- 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet (or 4 feet for higher bearing pressures) for continuous walls and isolated pads for buildings constructed over below-grade parking. For buildings constructed over a crawlspace or slab-on-grade, the footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. The bottom of the footing should be embedded a minimum of 2 feet below the top of slab grade. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 48 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this azea. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural granular soils. If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures less than 20 feet high which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils and 45 pcf for backfill consisting of imported free-draining granular material. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the structures and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition 403 338 Gec~tect~ 1 fl ~~ 1 u 1 1 -6- should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granulaz soils and 35 pcf for backfill consisting of imported free-draining granular material. Backfill materials may consist of granular soils excluding rock larger than 6 inches in diameter. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surchazge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor dry density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor dry density: Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. Imported free-draining granular wall backfill should be relatively well-graded and contain less than 5 % passing the No. 200 sieve and have a maximum size of 6 inches. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.45. Passive pressure of compacted bacldll against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf for moist backfill and 200 pcf for buoyant 403 338 Gec~tecti i~ 1 1 L~ u t -7- conditions. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular material compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor dry density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils, exclusive of existing fill and topsoil, are suitable to support lightly to moderately loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standazd Proctor dry density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site gravels devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Free water was encountered during our exploration and it has been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be kept at least 2 feet above the high groundwater level and be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. Atypical underdrain detail is shown of Figure 8. 403 338 c~tecl~ 1 1 LJ ~1 -8- The underdrain should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining gravel. The drainpipe should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 2 feet below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet or a sump where the water can be removed by pumping. If sumps and pumps are used, backup pumps should be provided. If the building foundation is constructed below the groundwater level, lateral drains should be placed below the building slabs to connect the underslab gravel with the underdrain system. The lateral drains should be adequately spaced to provide proper drainage for the groundwater encountered in the building configuration. Floor slabs should be provided with blow out plugs to prevent hydrostatic pressure build up below slabs. Free-draining gravel used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 2.5 feet deep. A wall drain system consisting of a geocomposite or 1 foot of clean gravel should be placed adjacent to below grade construction walls. The wall drain system should connect into the underdrain and extend to within 1 to 2 feet of the ground surface. SITE GRADING There is a risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site due to the relatively extensive cut depths. The deep excavation for the proposed parking structure should be carefully planned and designed. Limiting cut depths and sloping cuts to a stable grade should help reduce the risk of slope instability. For excavation cuts less than 20 feet high, we recommend either sloping the cuts in accordance with OSHA regulations for Type C soil or providing shoring. Sloping of the excavation may not be feasible without crossing over property lines. Cuts greater than 20 feet high may need to be shored. Temporary shoring systems consisting of soldier piles and lagging, soil nails and shotcreting, or bracing could be used to retain deep cuts. Any temporary or permanent shoring system which extends beyond the property boundary will require proper easements. 403 338 ~tect~ 1 1 t 1 1 -9- Shoring contractors familiar with conditions in the area should be contacted to provide specific design and cost information. We can provide parameters, additional analysis and design review for the shoring as the project progresses. Free water was encountered in the borings at the depths shown on Figures 2 and 3. It is likely that the water levels will be elevated in the spring and early summer. Excavations made in the fall and winter when water levels are typically lower should lower the risk of potential slope instability Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor dry density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor dry density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the excavation exceeding 20 % grade. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the proposed construction has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor dry density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90 % of the maximum standard Proctor dry density in landscape areas. 403 338 ~, -10- 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the buildin should be g sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved ' areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved azeas. Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the ' on-site finer-grained soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at ' least 10 feet from foundation walls. LIl~IITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty ' either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the ' locations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered ' during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. ' This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We aze not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to ' verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations ' presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation 403 338 ,.., ~tect, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 -11- bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectively Submitted, H]EPWC?RTH - P WLAK GE()TECH1vICAL, INC. :!!`, ~;~ ~`~ George W. Benecke III, E.I Reviewed by: Ronald J. Uhle, P Associate 403 338 c~cea, '" r_ -'~ ------- ,t';~: ,' ~, .-_ ~ -'~failfVal~y.R~est Hea~tM ~"~.eafxneri# Units - ~ •`<"` N ~ ~--,~ - - - - as area _ ~ ,- ~ _ !/ -- ` _ -- _ _ j: ~ ~ ,, '~ T, _ _ ~~ oY" - ~~r~, r _ ,,..- ~_• HIV _ ~ , _.. , ~ 1 ~,~ ~ ~_ ~_ ~~ ,; ,~% ; , ~ ~ 2010 ~ ~ ~:. ~= =,,~~-_=,~ ~ ~ ~_ - 11 ~- '.. t' 1 _ ~ ~" ~1 \ ti r _- - - ~ ~~ ~ .~ ,,_ 2010 . r 5T ~ ~. \ ~ ~YSUSf ~ i ,~ 2008/09/1.0 - _ 4 - _ .. :. \ _ - ' ~ ~ -_ /FF ~~' .~~~ _ ~r~e~ . _ ~fl08109/10 _ _- ~ _ _ w•c __~• ~ ~ ' • .. , , ~ ~ * ,yam "~. _ . ~ , C ~~ - ~~~~~~ - -~! Lodgepol~~e Units =limber Sab ~ \~~ = ~ ~ -- ~ ~ ' T ~`_: ~~ ~ i~ ~f"''° J 'F • ~ ~ - .F~~AepQn Treatments -, : - , ~ tr _ ~- \ ~~ ;C > " - ~VaiiValleyCE-20U'WUI ."~--_ ~ x:.r `. •_ ~ ,~ .~/ ~ , ,,.,~, _Hand Trea 8rd~dcast Rx i~t.i/it ~ 111 `~ ~ ~ - - - i er \~ ~ r _ \ _:, ' ~~ ~ ~ t ~;r ~ Z .aka t . ~. _ Bnoadca~~d stn i ~ ~ ~ - _ -.2 3 ; Q Q ~5~ 0: 5.• ~ ~ ' 1 (~ ' . , 1: $ ~ - ~y 2 ~ ~ I ~ Vc+ - ~, ~. ~ ~ _ -. . 7 389E ~ ~ 1 , ~, '' . ~ ~ ~ '~~ Year Project Type Cost 2006 Greenhill Fuels Hazard Reduction $ 92,000.00 2006 WFH 202 Aspen Enhancement $ 36,000.00 2006 WFH 203 Aspen Enhancement $ 20,000.00 2006 WFH 201 Aspen Enhancement $ 52,000.00 2006 Private Land Fuels Hazard Reduction $ 50,000.00 2006 Town of Vail Fire Prevention $ 44,000.00 2006 TOTAL $ 300,000.00 2007 WFH 209 Aspen Enhancement $ 40,000.00 2007 WFH 207 Aspen Enhancement $ 10,000.00 2007 WFH 206 Aspen Enhancement $ 6,000.00 2007 WFH 204 Aspen Enhancement $ 23,000.00 2007 WFH 205 Aspen Enhancement $ 17,000.00 2007 WFH 208 Aspen Enhancement $ 14,000.00 2007 WFH 617 Aspen Enhancement $ 11,000.00 2007 WFH 618 Aspen Enhancement $ 22,000.00 2007 WFH 619 Aspen Enhancement $ 14,000.00 2007 Private Land Fuels Hazard Reduction $ 50,000.00 2007 Town of Vail Fire Prevention $ 43,000.00 2007 TOTAL $ 250,000.00 Year Project Type Cost 2008 WFH 514 -Phase 1 Fuels Hazard Reduction $ 53,000.00 2008. WFH 515 -Phase 1 Fuels Hazard Reduction $ 150,000.00 2008 Private Land Fuels Hazard Reduction $ 50,000.00 2008 Town of Vail Fire Prevention $ 47,000.00 2008 TOTAL $ 300,000.00 2009 WFH 514 -Phase 2 Pile Burning $ 47,000.00 2009 WFH 515 -Phase 2 T; Pite Burning $ 133,000.00 2009 WFH 620 Aspen Enhancement $ 25,000.00 2009 Private Land Fuels Hazard Reduction $ 50,000.00 2009 Town of Vail Fire Prevention $ 45,000.00 2009 TOTAL $ 300,000.00 2010 WFH 514 & 411 Aspen Enhancement -Broadcast Burn $ 10,000.00 ' ~> 2010 WFH 515 & 412 Aspen Enhancement -Broadcast Burn $ 25,000.00 2010 WFH 313 Aspen Enhancement -Broadcast Burn $ 26,000.00 2010 Private Land Fuels Hazard Reduction $ 50,000.00 2010 Town of Vail Fire Prevention $ 45,000.00 2010 TOTAL $ 156,000.00 Project TOTAL $ 1,306,000.00 Project CSFS Contribution Steven's Grand Funds $ 100,000.00 Project USES Contribution Appropriated Fuels Funds $ 150,000.00 TOV Cost $ 1,056,000.00 h Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Gregg Barrie Department of Public Works Date: March 7, 2006 Re: Gore Creek Promenade Pedestrian Bridge Background At the January 17, 2006 Town Council Work Session, Staff was directed to proceed with final design and bidding for the replacement of the Gore Creek Promenade pedestrian bridge. The recommendation for replacement was based on concerns that the existing bridge is underrated for the large crowds seen during special events. Using what is known about typical "twin-tee" construction, engineers estimate that the bridge can safely carry approximately 30 pounds per square foot, or approximately 50 people. Standard pedestrian bridge live loading criteria is 85 pounds per square foot. Therefore, it is likely that this bridge is significantly underrated. It is important to note that the existing bridge is in relatively good condition and in no danger of collapsing under typical daily loads. Access to the bridge has typically been restricted during Special Events such as the Duck Race and the Teva Mountain Games in order to avoid overloading, however this continues to be difficult. In addition, if the improvements to the whitewater park.move forward, the potential for overloading increases since the bridge is a prime viewing spot for spectators. Back in January of_ 2002, eight options were presented to the Town Council regarding the existing bridge. The options ranged from full replacement to full removal of the bridge. At the time, the Council recommended replacing the bridge while reusing the existing abutments and an engineering firm was hired to complete construction drawings for the project. Those drawings were finalized in mid-February, and a Proposal Package was distributed to interested contractors on February 17. The Proposal Process This coming spring, part of the Village Streetscape work is focused on the Gore Creek Promenade area. With this in mind, Staff looked at ways to utilize the on-site contractors while still seeking competitive proposals for the bridge work. Therefore, the bridge replacement work was divided into two project scopes: the Site Work Scope and the Bridge Replacement Scope. The Site Work is similar in nature to the Village Streetscape work (excavation, stone veneer work, electrical work, and the snowmelt system), and pricing will be provided by B & B Excavating, with most of the work being performed by the Streetscape subcontractors. For the Bridge Replacement work, Proposals have been solicited from several bridge contractors. Staff proposes that both Scopes should be performed as part of'the Village Streetscape Phase II work, where the Bridge Scope contractor will perform as a subcontractor on the existing contract with B & B Excavating, Inc. ,~" 4 Project Cost Prior to soliciting Proposals for the Bridge, StafF had been in contact with three interested contractors. Unfortunately, only one Proposal was submitted for the Bridge Scope work on March 3. B & B Excavating submitted pricing for the Site Work Scope, based on similar work as the Village Streetscape Phase II contract. The item below, "Construction" includes both Scopes. Construction: $ 272,000 Contingency (5%): $ 13,000 Engineering: $ 10,000 Bridge Total: $ 295,000 The 2006 Budget currently includes $125,000'for the Project. Therefore, moving forward with this project will require a budget increase of $170,000 to a Project budget of $.295,000. In addition, the Art in Public Places Board has approved $30,000 for the installation of the artistic railing .panels. Please see the attached for drawings and pictures. ~, If the art panels are approved, the Total. Project Cost is as follows: Bridge Total $ 295,000 Art Panels $ 30,000 Project Total $ 325,000 At the January 17th Work Session, when Staff was directed to proceed with design and bidding, the project estimate was $320,000, based on the preliminary proposal. For reference, the Memorandum from 7anuary 17th is attached. Scheduling If the decision is made to move forward with the project, construction will be coordinated with the Village Streetscape work on the Gore Creek Promenade. The start time will be dependant on the delivery of the steel bridge structure. Once started, it is estimated that the project should be completed in approximately three weeks. Pedestrian access will be provided to the Gore Creek Promenade shops and restaurants from both the Children's Fountain and Willow Road accesses. Action Requested by Council Staff is requesting two items: 1. Increase the Project budget to $ 295,000 2.. Authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract with B & B Excavating, Inc. to construct the Gore Creek Promenade Pedestrian Bridge Replacement Project. X' Art Panels constructed of layers popper ugn'L rxture to matcn village View from International Bridge of perforated stainless steel. Streetscape bollard fixture Scale 1"= 5' Color "Mocha" Stone pillar to match International Bridge ~ A ~~i~ ~ iuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~uiiiuiuuiiiiiiiiiiiuiiuuiuii~iiiiiiiiiu ;i~+ Railing constructed of tubular steel w/ 1" square pickets. Color "Brevity Brown" Bridge structure and deck edging to match rail - 2" x 3" Top Rail Steel Angle Frame Elevation B View from Upstream Scale 1"= 5' Layered Perforated Presented by: Art in Public Places Steel Art Panel February 2006 2 1/2" Square Post and Bottom Rail Concrete Bridge Deck Bridge structure and deck edging color to match rail "Brevity Brown" Rail Section Scale 34" = 1' ~ Gore Creek Promenade Pedestrian Bridge Replacement Project Railing Design and Layout Artwork by: Lisa Fedon ~, Elevation B t ' ,, N ~ , .~:, .~'7 ~J (j} ~~~ j ~ -~ Elevation A ~ ~ ;1 ~~ ~ -~ i~ `~~ ~' ~~ ~ ~~ % ~ r ,.~ ~~~ ~ ~,-~- ' ':~~ l~ ;, . n Plan View Scale: 1"= 20 RICHARD L. GUSTAFSON PO Box 1063 Vail, CO 81658 Mr. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road W Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Rod: March 7, 2006 Please accept this letter and enter it into the official public record for Town of Vail public meeting of March 7, 2006. I will be traveling to a business meeting in Atlanta, GA at the time of the meeting and therefore am unable to attend in person. I return on March 11th and will be available for questions and further input. My neighbors and I are concerned for our health and safety as a result of the recent construction of retaining walls built behind our residence at 1826 Alta Circle (lot 41, Vail West first filing and the safety of other adjoining properties. The ffollowing are the reasons for our concern: 1. A local engineer alerted me to the fact that the retaining walls being built between the new houses on lot 39 and 40 were not built to safe engineering standards. 2. The lots in question (39 and 40) have been specifically identified and included by hazard studies requiring very careful scrutiny before construction. Many Highland Meadows hazard studies, (given to Town Manager) have been conducted regarding hazardous debris flow studies since 1982. I have copies of the original study as well as several supporting studies that support the concern for the area in question. 3. I reviewed copies of the original construction plans for the retaining walls submitted to the town, currently on file with the planning department. I found that: a. The walls were not built in the proposed approved location; b. The walls were not built to the approved height; c. The walls were not constructed in the manner specified in the original engineer's proposed construction design filed in April, which were apparently approved by the planning staff, these appear not to have been asite-specific design. d. Christopher Todd signed a second drawing on September 30th. If that drawing was to be the plan for the walls' construction it was filed after the fact and could not have been approved by the staff in advance of construction. If this drawing was to be a signoff drawing, it appears the "engineer" has never seen the site. e. No drainage system has been included in the completed construction. The first engineer's design, submitted to the Town by the builder and approved by the planning department (however inadequate) at least includes drainage behind the walls. The second does not address drainage at all. 4. Our residences have been dry and safe for over 30 years and until this year we have never had serious concerns about our safety and welfare. 5. I find it difficult to believe Mr. Todd would have ever signed off on the job with such a simplistic "cartoon" like drawing that does not include any data or calculation, if he had seen the project. 6. If Todd's drawing is to be a "signoff' documents submitted to the Town`s planning department it does not even represent the actual "as-built" walls, nor does it include any soil, stress, nor compaction calculations. 7. Our insurance agents have recommended we purchase a Difference in Conditions flood insurance policy with a premium costing over $10,000 per year to protect our property from the potential danger caused by the construction of the walls. One of our other neighbors is in the process of purchasing such insurance for $4,000.00 per year for her protection. 8. We have hired Golder Associates, a highly respected and recommended international engineering and geology firm to review the construction of the walls. They have made a visual inspection of the walls and used the original soil tests, and drawings submitted by the builder to develop their analysis. The engineers have recommended a further sturdy of fill soils, compaction, drainage, and the walls construction as soon as the weather permits. (A copy of their report and calculations are attached.) This site study should be done as soon as possible because of the risk caused by the heavy snow load this year. From their calculations, the walls have been built to a lesser than safe standard and should be re- engineer, removed, and/or replaced with proper engineered construction. This report is subject to verification by the recommended on-site studies. It is a common practice for many builders to hire engineers, who do not practice in the mountains, to sign off on projects that they have never seen. Local engineers refuse to accept the responsibility for judging the local soil conditions. It appears to me that when the Town condones and encourages such behavior, it also assumes responsibility for the results. It is important that all engineer's calculation be obtained and checked against those of Golder Associates. All calculation should include the methods used to determine the soil load factors of the fill, the results caused by excessive moisture in the soil, the effects of no drainage system, and the strength of the retaining walls. If no data exists, new data must be generated Several previous hazard studies specifically include lots 39 and 40 within designated hazard areas therefore they should be subject to the Town Hazard Ordinances. They require the Town to be responsible for the protection of adjoining properties, private and public, resulting from its approval process. It further has a duty to verify the competency of those engineers designing and signing off on projects. I understand that the Town of Vail staff believes that they have covered themselves by having an engineer sign off on the construction. However, I believe that the Town staff and elected officials have a duty, moral and/or legal, to accept the responsibility for the health and safety of those citizens affected by their approvals Now that you are aware of the problems, we request the following action: 1. Review all previous hazard studies for the Highland Meadows area and apply the Town's hazard ordinances to lots 39 and 40. 2. Locate, secure, and supply us with copies of data and calculation of all engineering reports regarding the construction of the walls, if any. 3. Please provide me with an affidavit indicating the actual time and date that Mr. Todd visited and inspected the job site and any new soil tests. 4. Conduct a complete on-site review of the walls' construction by a comaetent and qualified engineer and geologist familiar with this area to include: on-site testing of the fill soils, compacting procedures, and the adequacy of the proper drainage plans. And provide copies to us. If, after the Golder Associates' recommended studies have been completed, and it is determined that the construction of the walls is safe, with no potential drainage problem, and that our families and property will be relatively safe from mud, and rock slide danger resulting from faulty construction, we will accept the current design. If however, serious concerns still remain about the construction, we will pursue any and all legal recourse available to protect our families and our property. Our attorney's letter has been delivered to you. Our engineers will be available for tes mon and review on a prescribed date, given sufficient notice, of course. ~~ L. ~',*~stlafson, President ium Association s BO ZTLDER RETAINING -z-,~-~..-.. , '~"~' .... - i T~YALL FOR SINGLE WALLS UP TO 6 FEET HIGH EXISTING GRADE 6' 12" lmPervious Backfli l \Gronular, pervious backfr//, depending on site condition Ft7ter Fabric, M/rafl I40N or equivalen t " - ~ PERIMETER DRAIN LOCATION ' AND DETA/L, DEPENDING ON SOIL AND GROUND WATER ' Compacted backfi/l CONOI nON~ ,~'`s,a~besy„o~~.~ .,,~, P ~Tir' p 9,~ a 31 ' q -oa ~~~ ' ~ Q ~ ~~ s~Q~ A1- ~ NaTFs ~; ; : - =_: ' t• THE BOULDER RETAINING WALL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH BOULDERS GREATER THAN 2 FEET FOR ;DRY:-.STACK WALLS THE ROCKS WILL HAVE AS MUCH FLAT SURFACE AREA AS ,, , '~ :POSSIBLE, TO ;INCREASE THE FRICTION SURFACE BETWEEN THE BOULDERS ~, ~4 ' 2. Tt1E 80TTOM:BOULDERS S/•IA/~, BE TF/E LARGEST AND SHALL BE PLACED ON NA71VE; ~' uk 5 `' ~, APPRO~RBED SOIL, FREE- FR0,1/ TOPSOIL AND ORGANICS, OR ON COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL, ~ ~ BY THEENGINEER. ~ .<< ~ yrt 3. THE SUCCESS/VE'_BOULDER LAy~S SHALL BE OFFSET HORIZONTALLY BY A MINIMUM OF 57X -~, - . INC~lES FOR; EACH VERTICAL. FOOT. ~_` ' ~ALL~' . '^~,.4., A .M/N~MUIt/ OF ONE FOpT OF UNDISTURBED SO/L COVER St-I,gLL BE PROVIDED IN FRONT OF THE ~ _TF1E cOMPACnarv of THE Sot: BACKFlLL SHOULD BE TESTED BY THE ENGINEER OR IT CAN 8 .6~c~tF7~ `~~° a.FAN, cRUSHea t~stcrv Musr 6E.. Roc:K - -~ -- E N>. ~~ ~~'~' AFAR ~°~~AQ THE CONSTRUCAON OF THE BOULDER WALL R 5~ ~ '~`'~"' " nON OF THE SOIL AND GROUND WATER WATER ~ L y r; ~'i t - ti~3 ;~'.yC~ . ~:,a '~~ "`' ' c o ~~~. ~ .~~~ ~ ~. ~~: Bow t ~ :~~ ~. ~ s~~~ ~ .RET~G A'ALL ,~~ ~ ~rs ~ ~. , E11tCS 04189 Ivry ~. ~ ~ ' a# ,~ yr`.~.',_;~x~ °u"°° aurwc ~ T.S. - 1 •..1~. ,; -~= ,: .J .~ • ~ ~ =. BO ULI1.~R RETA`ININO FOR TWO TIER WALLS s° 12' 2' f 6' min. 2 1 ~- mi O COMPACTED, GRANULAR BACKf1LL SEE NOTE' ,~5 12" PERIMETER DRAIN LOCATION AND DETAIL, DEPENDING ON 2 SO/L AND GROUND WA IFR 1 ~- rm/ CONDITIONS t NOTE'S ~.~~ ~~~~~i+yfy~ mow.`°~ P~ Fpm` .~'` ~~ ~ 4^~¢~~~~~- -~ 29528 1 -~, .~ ,~,~. Driveway 'INSTALL FlL TER FABRIC (M/RAF] 140N OR EQUIVALENT) BEHIND THE BOULDERS ~~ 1. 7NE BOULDER RETAINING WALL SHALL BE CONSTI4UCTE"D W17H BOULDERS GREATER INAN 2 FEET. FOR DRY STACK WALLS, 7NE ROCKS WILL HAVE AS MUCH FLAT SURFACE AREA AS POSSIBLE, TO INCREASE THE FRICTION SURFACE BETWEEN TPlE' BOULDERS 2. THE BOTTOM BOULDERS SHALL BE THE LARGEST AND SHALL BE PLACED ON NA71VE, UNDISTURBED SO/L, FREE Fl?OM TOPSOIL AND ORGANICS, OR ON COMPACTED STRUCTURAL. f7LL, APPROVED BY 7NE ENGINEER. 3. 7NE SUCCESSIVE BOULDER LA yp~S SHALL BE OFFSET HOR/ZONTALL Y BY A M/NIMUM OF S!X INCHES FOR EACH VERTICAL FODT. 4. A M/NIMUM OF ONE FOOT OF UNDISTURBED SOIL COVER SHALL BE PROVIDED IN fRONT OF 7NE WALL. 5. THE COMPAC110N OF THE SO/L BACKf7LL SHOULD BE TESTED BY THE ENGINEER OR lT CAN BE BACKFILLED W17H CLEAN, CRUSHED ROCK. 6. 7NE ABOVE DES/GN MUST BE REVIEWED, AND THE CONS7RUC7)ON OF Tf~IE BOULDER W,gLL INSPECTED, BY THE DESIGNER AFTER VER/FJCA 770N OF 7NE SO/L AND GROUND WATER {M1~A TER COND/170NS. _ .,;~°, CiVII./GBOTSCffi~1ICAL J LKP ~ Engineering, Inc. tel (970) 926-9088Edfax (970) 2839089 BOULDER RETAINING 1~ALL SPIs'CI/7.ATTy8 Rls'SIDEIIfCl LO75 39 ~ tq VM NLLAGiE NEST 1787 4 1797 ALPINE DR/4E" EAGY.E L101/NTY, G1GiLA4AD0 04189 N. T.S 2 ._.. ~~ _-' 6' max ;DER R.~1TAI.11TI1VG yVA T.T, ' FOR THREE 71ER WALLS 'YJC~ . Driveway 6' i rz' ~ 4-6 . max ' m/n: 2 1 s' . 12' 2-6 max ' m/n. 2 1~ m! -~, -~- o 1' ml~ O COMPACTED. / GRANULAR BACICFILL SEE NOTE ~-5 12' PER/MEIER DRAIN LOCA7TON AND DETAIL, DEPENDING oN SOIL AND GROUND WATER 1 ~- m CONDITIONS. INSTALL FlLTDi FABRIC (M1RAFl 140N OR EQUIVALENT) BEHIND THE BOULDERS qpQ R~~i Off' •.f00oYf1 ~~ `., .\. ` PET .e ~'' s -~ : .29526 i~ -~ p~ ~ ~ F Cd~1/ f~f wof~f~~ 1~ ----- NOTES: J. THE BOULDER RETAINING WALL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH BOULDERS GREATER THAN 2 FEET. FOR L)RY STACK WAL1.5; 7NE ROCKS WILL HAVE AS MUCH FLAT SURFACE AREA AS POSSIBLE, 7~7 /N(2tEA5E THE FRICTION SURFACE BETN~E'EN 7NE BOULDER 2 THE 80TTOM BOULDERS SHALL . BE THE LARGEST AND SHALL BE PLACED ON NA TINE; UNDISTURBED SO/4 FREE FROM 7i7PSOIL AND ORGANICS, OR ON COMPACTED S1RUCIURAL fIL[f APPROVED BY THE' ENGINEER. 3. JHE SUCCESSTVE BOULDER LAYERS SHALL BE OFFSET HORIZONTALLY BY A MINIMUM OF STX INCHES FOR EACH VERTICAL FOOT. 4. A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT OF UNDISTURBED SOIL COVER SHALL BE PROVIDED IN FRONT OF THE WALL. 5. 7NE COMPACTION OF THE SOIL BACKFlLL SHOULD BE TESTED BY THE ENGYNEDi OR lT CAN BE BACKfTLLED WfTH CLEAN, CRUSHED ROCK. 6. THE ABOVE DESIGN MUST BE RENEWED, AND THE GbNSTRUC710N OF' 7NE BOULDER WALL INSPECTID, BY THE DESIGNER AFTER VER/F7CA7ION OF INE SO/l AND GROUND WATER WATER • _ CONDITIONS: :;~: .~~%' ;, ~ctva./caorsct~cer. BOULDER RETAINING itALL o,~.-. y _ t~ .. ~~ ~'ngineering, Inc. SPI~CULATl~ RBSIDIsNC1~ ' . - P O Boil 2837 Ed LOTS 39 ~ 4a, NAIL NtL1GE NEST ~~ . wards, CO 81832 tsl (970) _928-9088 fax. (970) 928-9089 1787 ~ 1797 ALPINE DR/YE 1• arurrvc . ~~ G~OUN7 l~QL0~4D0 NTS ~~3 Notes: 1. On site material maybe used for backfiliing walls. Compact backtill to 95% of ASTM D•698 w(th optimum moisture 42°!°. 2, largest boulders shall be at the bottom of the wall. Decrease boulder size as the wall is constructed. DOUBLE TIER BOULDER WALL NTS V~po~Rf Q'S~ off: Q~~ ~ ~ ~; o o~ o o °y 38549 y;'- `Q6SS~O1oni~6~G~ 5`~o`os / HTM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 15969 S. Golden Road Golden, CO 80401 Phone: 303-9743007 ~~, ~ ° ~ Fax:303-974-3007 ~~'awri of Vaii • ~ . SINGLE TIER BOULDER WALL r~'~' ' ~S s ~ ~ .. Properod For, Dantas 6uildars TYPICAL SECTIONS PreJec! Number . ao-os-ii Sale: NTS BOULDER~AINING WALLS Drawn by: WDL Oa1o: CheUced by: CLT P1OJacb 7787 $ q~@g-ALPINE DRIVE LOT 39 8 40, VAIL VILLAGE WEST, F'pura Number. September 30, 200 FILING 1 1 of 1 3 min. 11- / I ~On Sile Material n w~ ,: .: _. y.- F . , c f~.i ~4 ' i ~. ~~ .k ~ ` ~ <' .l ,1 r ~ ~~ ~ {~~~~~-Pry '~. x~ t3s} r _! I t: i.. ~ i~ ~ w ~ rv~,~ s ti "_~ b' ~k b " "`~ , i. Fi~~ f ~ ~l~tr ~ ~IJ _ k~ s~ r ~ ,F 'I ~' E ~f i 1 s ~ ~y-1r ~ ~ s-,