Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2010-01-19 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA 07a 7M VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 6:00 P.M., JANUARY 19, 2010 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. ITEM /TOPIC: Citizen Participation. (15 min.) PRESENTER(S): Public 2. ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager's Report. a. Timber Ridge Update. (15 min.) PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler 3. ITEM /TOPIC: Eagle County Airport Update (20 min.) PRESENTER(S): Kent Myers, Air Planners Inc. BACKGROUND: Kent Myers will give an update on the Eagle County Airport to Council and the community and answer any questions. 4. ITEM /TOPIC: Joint meeting of the Town of Vail Planning & Enviornmental Commission and Town Council to hear a presentation from the Ever Vail team. The presentation will include Rob Katz, Vail Resorts CEO, speaking to the vision and need for a new portal. The Team will then do an overview of the proposed project with a focus on the proposed provision of parking and plan for allocation of that parking. The presentation will conclude with a discussion to identify topics to be considered for future hearings. (2 hrs.) PRESENTER(S): George Ruther / Ever Vail Team ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council is not being asked to take any formal action at this time. The staff requests that the Vail Town Council listens to the presentation and provide feedback to the applicant and staff on adidtional thoughts, ideas, and materials to consider and provide for future discussion. BACKGROUND: The Ever Vail project is comprised of multiple applications to establish the entitlements for the redevelopment of the approximate 12.2 acre site. The redevelopment of the area known as Ever Vail is an intricate project with many applications and steps within the development review process. Staff and the Vail Resorts Development Company have scheduled a work session with the Vail Town Council in an effort to communicate the current status of the project in the review process and allow for input at critical junctures to provide direction and input on the proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As the Vail Town Council is not being asked to take any formal action staff does not have a recommendation at this time. 5. ITEM /TOPIC: PEC /DRB Update a. Timber Ridge Update. (15 min.) PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell 6. ITEM /TOPIC: Lionshead Transit Center Recommendation. (60 min.) PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the Lionshead Transit Center memo and report, listen to staff's presentation and provide discussion and direction. BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail and the Vail Reinvestment Authority (VRA) are in the process of studying the feasibility of constructing a Lionshead Transit Center in response to past planning efforts including the Lionshead Master Plan (1998), A Report on the Recommendation of a Preferred Site for the Town of Vail Transit Center (2005), Vail 20/20 (2007), the Lionshead Transit Center White Paper (2008), and the Vail Transportation Master Plan (2009). The VRA has contracted with the 4240 Architecture Team to complete this design study. The purpose of the evening session is to present the recommended revised components of the 113/213 Modified scenario based on the previous input and discussions; further investigation of skier drop -off; scaling down and refining impact of Frontage Rd bus area; and softening the entrance to Lionshead Mall. Staff is requesting that Council provide staff and the design team with direction to bring the recommended components through the Design Development (DD) and entitlement process. Progress of the project since the project kick -off in May has been tracked on the Town of Vail website at http : / /www.vailgov.com /subpage.asp? page id =916 . All formal documentation, memos and presentations are available here for your review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff and the design team with direction to bring the recommended components, as defined above, forward through Design Development and the Town's entitlement process with a maximum total project budget of $15 million; authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations with the Design Team for the completion of Phase III - Design Development and Entitlements; and direct staff to update the Lionshead Master Plan to reflect the recommended components and ultimate long term solution. 7. ITEM /TOPIC: Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010, an emergency ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium of one hundred eighty (180) days in duration on the processing and approval of any application for a permit or license related to the operation of a business that sells medical marijuana pursuant to the authority granted by article XVII, § 14 of the Colorado Constitution; directing the prompt investigation of the Town's regulatory authority over such businesses; and setting details in regard thereto. (15 min.) PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010. BACKGROUND: In the November 2000 general election, the voters of the State of Colorado adopted Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution (Article XVIII, § 14), which authorizes and limits the sale of medical marijuana for use in the treatment of certain debilitating medical conditions. The Town has received inquiries from persons who are interested in opening and operating businesses and cooperatives that would offer medical marijuana for sale or distribution, including the cultivation of marijuana ( "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries "). The Town's current regulations prohibit the operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the Town. The imposition of a moratorium on the processing and approval of applications for Town permits and licenses relating to the operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries will allow Town staff, the Town Attorney and the Council to investigate the Town's regulatory authority over Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010. 8. ITEM /TOPIC: Information Update. (10 min.) PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer 9. ITEM /TOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council. a. Parking Task Force Appointment The Mayor has received interest from several individuals in re: to the opening on the Parking Task Force. Since this is an appointment by the Mayor, is there input from other Councilmembers? (20 min.) PRESENTER(S): Town Council 10. ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment. (9:50 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT OT CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 1, } LESSER, LUTREY & McGLYNN LLP 582 NORTH OAKWOOD TEL 847.295.8800 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS 60045 FAX 847.295.8886 i FREDRIC BRYAN LESSER* s' EDMUND R. McGLYNN, R. (1 DAVID M. LUTREY December 31, 2009 MARK T. CHAVIN JENNIFER J. HOWE ** KATHLEEN M. HOGAN STEPHEN J. RICE* Dick Cleveland, Mayor OF COUNSEL Town of Vail ROBERT M. BOLLMAN ALBERT L. HALL 75 South Frontage Road MELANIE K. RUMMEL* Vail, Colorado 81657 ALSO LICENSED IN WISCONSIN ALSO LICENSED IN MICHIGAN WWW.LLMLEGAL.COM Dear Mayor Cleveland: 3 I represent the Hobart family who own the residence at 16 Forest Road in Vail through their family corporation Deep Powder, Inc. Recently we discovered a problem with the payment of sales tax on short term rentals of the residence. I prepared and filed delinquent returns, the wrong returns at that, with the Colorado Department of Revenue. The Colorado Department of Revenue transmitted the funds to the Town of Vail which was noticed by Sally Lorton. Sally is the most outstanding government employee I have ever had the pleasure of working with. She has been very generous helping me correct the sales tax problem. She also took initiatives to coordinate with the Colorado Department of Revenue and save the family considerable time and effort. 4 ours, ly y d R. McGlynn ERM /erh i to i James R. Cannon 455 Sherman Street #468 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 TELEPHONE 3031321 -7012 i January 5, 2010 e Town of Vail The Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Town Council, The Cannon family thanks you so much for your work relocating Vail Mountain operations. We had a family reunion to celebrate us being on West Forest Road for forty years, and everyone remarked about the quietness of the area. We certainly feel that the town was responsive to our needs. We are looking forward to the redevelopment of the new base area on West Forest, Lionshead, and continuing to be part of this wonderful place. Thank you for your time and effort and stewardship in this matter. t Sincerely, ��l�z� i I Ova" 7M VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager's Report. a. Timber Ridge Update. PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler Ova" 7M VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Eagle County Airport Update PRESENTER(S): Kent Myers, Air Planners Inc. BACKGROUND: Kent Myers will give an update on the Eagle County Airport to Council and the community and answer any questions. ATTACHMENTS: EGE Airport Memo and Attachments 7 1 UWN OF Mtl VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Eagle County Airport update (20 minutes) PRESENTER: Kent Myers, Air Planners Inc. BACKGROUND: Kent Myers will give an update on the Eagle County Airport to Council and the community and answer any questions. ATTACHMENTS: EGE Community Presentation Airport Quick Facts Future Service Outline EGE Air Alliance Members 75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657 p. (866) 650 -9020 (970) 479 -2100 www.vailgov.com 3 -1 -1 \n EGE County Regional Airport j( �allIr — 3 1 2 \n Presentation Overview + Growth and history of the EGE Airport + Supporters of the air service + EGE Airport Economic impacts + The EGE Airport's relative size and traffic levels to other regional airports in the US + Future air service opportunities 3 -1 -3 \n EGE Airport Growth History + In December 1989, America West Airlines initiated commercial service from Phoenix and Los Angeles + By 2004, the EGE Airport became the 3rd busiest airport in Colorado and the 166th busiest of 828 commercial airports in the US + Currently the EGE Airport is served by 4 major airlines + The growth has been made possible via public /private alliances between Vail Resorts which supports the winter service, Eagle County and EGE Air Alliance which targets the summer and fall periods 3 - 1 -4\n EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT ANNUAL GROWTH Other � United l United Express t Northwest oDelta oContinental t America West oAmerican t Total Available Seats 330000 340000 320000 a�nnno 4 z�owo m E 2 0000 N 230000 Q LU 220000 C D 230000 y d 130000 0.7 1 X0000 a c z 140000 120000 FQ 130000 3000D 3000D 40001 2000,0 0 m h rn ti h a?� w� ^a ' ^�� ^n a �� °� '1 3 -1 -5 \n Winter Service Overview * Started in the winter of 1989 -90 * 100% of the financial and marketing cost has been picked up by Vail Resorts except for last winter * During the winter EGE serves 13 non -stops airports * Vail Resorts subsidizes the program between $350- $1.0 mm per winter season and has had losses up to $2.5mm + In addition to the shortfall expense for the airlines, Vail Resorts supports the program with several million dollars in marketing every year 3 -1 -6 \n EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT (EGE) WINTER GROWTH 11l111111111111110thei Unitedf United Express Northwest 1111111111111111111t]elta 1111111111111111111Continental America West DAmerican —*-- Total Available Spats 325000 300000 27`000 r� � 100UU0 N 22;000 QL W 200000 v 1 a a 150000 fi 125000 ti loauuo 6000 50000 25000 0 > o`l' 3 -1 -7 \n Winter 2009 -2010 Air Service To Eagle County Airport - - - - -- } Sea lile - _ - - - - - -- — . Portland ` Minne t ° 5t. Paul o v f r r Detrolt e 1� Chicago <' NY/ Kennedy r f NY / LaGuardia Newark - - - - - Philadelphia San Francisco ► ' - + - - - - - - - P EAGL Deriver- ~ Cincinnati ~ s Washington DC ' -� CQL6le Los Angeles t San Diego r - Charlotte Phoenix >\ ~.* Atlanta AMERICAN Dallas/ � CONTINENTAL Ft. Worth 11 ` DELTA d - - - UNITED Austin s - _ oustpn 7arnpa NON -STOP West Palm $eorh - - - ONE -STOP Miami 3 -1 -8 \n Summer Service Overview + UAX Service to DEN started in 1997 +AA Service to DFW started in June 2003 +The AA service shortfalls and administration costs are funded by the EGE Air Alliance + Eagle County is the first in line for the payout of any shortfalls then followed the private sector +Annual marketing expenses include $30K (hard) from Eagle County and the private sector adds over $1mm of marketing value (pagel) + Because of the success of the program, as of 2008 no more guarantees are required in the summer 3 -1 -9 \n EAGLE COUNTY REGIONALAIRPORT (EGE) SUMMER GROWTH �UALILIAX r Total Available Seats 55000 50000 45600 � ,� 4uuoa fi m Q � LLI 34600 N 25000 20000 15000 � 10000 X000 0 ryoQ ti�ory rvbp ryoob �oo� nro o� � nroa 3- 1 -10 \n Summer 2008 Air Service To Eagle County Airport Seattle a - Minneapolis/ - - - s 5t. Paul, s• w De #roit ' - - T _ �r Boston CHICAGO Salt Lake City " �� s 1 LoGguardia t - - �► ewark Philadelphia Son Fa nci5ta �' _ -` 4... �i. �._ - - - - - - - - a - - - - - - . PENWR Y Cincinnati ashinglon DC EA LE ti _ Kansas City y y X X J ? C[3 Q � ? ms ' ' -9 St. Louis Los Angeles Las Vegas ��i = Charlotte Phoenix _- 1 �• 74tlanto DALLAS/ FL WORTH vs€PJCrrt UNITED t oustorr � � Tampa NON-STOP Ft. Lauderdale — — — ONES 144iami 72 MEN&= 3 -1 -11 \n Fall /Spring Service + UAX Fall /spring service to DEN started in 1999 this was the first time any airline served EGE year round +AA Fall service to DFW started in 2007 +The AA service shortfall and administration costs are funded by the EGE Air Alliance + Eagle County is the first in line for financial support then followed the private sector +The fall service has been a challenge but in 2007 the program achieved a 53% load factor 3 -1 -12 \n EGE Airport Economic Impact • The Eagle County Regional Airport is a major economic machine for the area, every business receives some benefit from the operations. These benefits include direct income, real estate development, employment and lifestyle. • 75% of the passengers are visitors or second homeowners • Over 50% of all winter destination visitors access Eagle County via EGE • 625 full time employee equivalents at the airport • Airline staff • Car rental • Ground transportation • Concessionaires • Vail Valley Jet Center • Airport administration • Security etc 3 -1 -13 \n EGE Airport Economic Impact • 1,642 direct or indirect employee equivalents resulting in $57mm of total salaries paid annually • $447mm in annual direct and indirect output • $6.4mm state and local tax receipts collected /paid by airport tenants 1. All data from the CDOT Division of Aeronautics 2008 Study 2. Direct impacts are benefits on the airport 3. Indirect impacts are benefits off airport - hotels, retail, restaurant etc 3 -1 -14 \n Airport Passenger Traffic Rankings (US Cities) Resort Markets Business Markets • Denver — 4 • Jackson, WY - 143 Salt Lake City — 21 • EGE Airport Reno — 64 Aspen - 168 Colorado Springs — 87 • Burlington, VT— 95 • Steamboat Springs — 201 Lexington, Kentucky — 116 • Montrose — 219 Billings, MT — 122 • Hyannis, MA - 244 Asheville, NC — 144 • Sun Valley — 251 Shreveport, LA — 153 • Gunnison — 271 EGE Airport — 166 • Augusta, GA — 177 • Lansing, MI — 179 Taken from 828 ranked airports- data as of 9/24/09 Data is 12 months ending May of each year Page 2 of the handouts 3 -1 -15 \n Future Air Service Options (handout) 3 -1 -16 \n �ssa „� __ s_� ��,; a ��;, .. _ ,�� �.::�'; R - - f � '.c _ : #' N [� �, ei � .. — �� r =�:� — -' �, � � EGE County Airport Facts and Milestones • The Eagle County Regional Airport is a major economic machine for the region; every business receives some benefit from the operations. These benefits range from direct income to lifestyle. • 2009 will be the 20 year of commercial service • December 1989 America West initiated winter service to LAX and PHX • June 1997 United Express initiated summer service to DEN • June 2003 American Airlines initiated summer service to DFW • September 2007 American Airlines initiated fall service to DFW • 3 rd Busiest airport in the Colorado • 166 Busiest airport in the US • Serves up to 13 non -stop cites with 4 airlines EGE County Regional Airport vs. Other Communities • Asheville, NC — Ranked 144 0 408,000 Population 0 9 Colleges o Manufacturing, health care, tourism and retirement • Shreveport, LA — Ranked 153 0 375,000 Population 0 5 colleges o Health care, film and regional tourism • Eagle County, Colorado - Ranked 166 0 52,000 Population 0 1 College o Tourism, Health Care and Real Estate • Augusta, GA — Ranked 177 0 320,000 Population 0 4 Colleges o Biotechnology, golf tourism and golf manufacturing • Lansing, MI — Ranked 179 0 510,000 Population 0 1 Major University o State Capital o Government, education, manufacturing 2 3 -1 -18 \n Future Air Service Options for EGE Airport Year -round Las Vegas 2- 3x/week — provide outbound service desirable within Eagle County Dallas /Ft. Worth — daily year -round Salt Lake City — twice daily year -round Seasonal summer /fall Chicago through fall NYC - 2x weekly, 8 weeks of summer Miami - 2x weekly, 8 weeks of summer Atlanta - summer daily Houston - summer daily Los Angeles - summer daily Winter San Francisco - daily Washington DC - daily Salt Lake City -daily Mexico City - Saturday Toronto - Saturday London or Munich - Saturday For more information on current and future air service go to www.flvvail.com 3 3 -1 -19 \n Past and Current Members of the EGE Air Alliance 1st Bank Peak Properties Alpine Bank R.A. Nelson American National Bank Ritz - Carlton, Bachelor Gulch Antlers at Vail Robertson and Marchetti Beaver Creek Resort Company Slifer, Smith and Frampton Beaver Creek Resort Merchants Sonnenalp Resort of Vail Bryne Real Estate /Peak Properties Steadman Clinic Colorado Business Bank The Antlers at Vail Colorado Mountain Medical The Resort Company Community Banks of Colorado Town of Avon Cordillera Metro District Town of Gypsum Destination Services Town of Vail Dollar Car Rental US Bank Doug Landin Vail Board of Realtors Eagle County Vail Cascade Resort and Spa East West Partners Vail Plaza Hotel East West Resorts Vail Resorts High Mountain Taxi Vail Valley Jet Center Jim Cargill Vail Valley Partnership Lodge at Beaver Creek Vail Valley Surgery Center Manor Vail Resort VVMC /Shaw Regional Cancer Center Millennium Bank Western Seasons Park Hyatt Beaver Creek Resort and Spa Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa 3 - 1 - 20 \n 1 Ova" 7M VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Joint meeting of the Town of Vail Planning & Enviornmental Commission and Town Council to hear a presentation from the Ever Vail team. The presentation will include Rob Katz, Vail Resorts CEO, speaking to the vision and need for a new portal. The Team will then do an overview of the proposed project with a focus on the proposed provision of parking and plan for allocation of that parking. The presentation will conclude with a discussion to identify topics to be considered for future hearings. PRESENTER(S): George Ruther / Ever Vail Team ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council is not being asked to take any formal action at this time. The staff requests that the Vail Town Council listens to the presentation and provide feedback to the applicant and staff on adidtional thoughts, ideas, and materials to consider and provide for future discussion. BACKGROUND: The Ever Vail project is comprised of multiple applications to establish the entitlements for the redevelopment of the approximate 12.2 acre site. The redevelopment of the area known as Ever Vail is an intricate project with many applications and steps within the development review process. Staff and the Vail Resorts Development Company have scheduled a work session with the Vail Town Council in an effort to communicate the current status of the project in the review process and allow for input at critical junctures to provide direction and input on the proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As the Vail Town Council is not being asked to take any formal action staff does not have a recommendation at this time. ATTACHMENTS: Town Council Memo Ever Vail PEC Review Schedule Ever Vail Parking Memo Vail Resorts Cover Letter Ever Vail Skier Parking Study Ever Vail Fiscal Report Ever Vail Final Report - Retail Analysis Ever Vail Final Submittal Ever Vail Traffic Study Ever Vail Traffic and Circulation Ever Vail Overall Floor Plans Ever Vail Parking Ever Vail Core Area Parking Preliminary Drainage Report Ever Vail Plan Set 1 Ever Vail Plan Set 2 Ever Vail Plan Set 3 Ever Vail Plan Set 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 19, 2010 SUBJECT: Joint work session to the Vail Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission on the current status of the Ever Vail applications, their review, and the process moving forward. I. PURPOSE A joint meeting of the Vail Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission to hear a presentation from the Ever Vail team. The presentation will include Rob Katz, Vail Resorts CEO, speaking to the vision and need for a new portal. The Team will then do an overview addressing the changes made to the plans since last presented. This will include changes resulting from the acquisition of the GLOB property. The presentation will additionally begin to cover the amount of floor area dedicated to various land uses and the required parking associated with those land use areas. Attached to this memorandum is a binder of information entitled Ever Vail: Applications for a Maior Subdivision, Rezoning, Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permits, Maior Exterior Alteration, SDD Amendment & Variance to allow for the redevelopment of the West Lionshead Area (Attachment A). Within this document is a proposed schedule for up coming meetings and topics, a report detailing the parking on the site, and a report from Tom Allender, Resort Planning Director, on the distribution of skiers on the mountain and the potential impacts of Ever Vail on skier distribution and counts. These documents are pertinent to the discussion regarding required parking and its relationship to the proposed land uses. Additionally, an 11 "X17" set of plans has been provided for the project (Attachment B). The presentation will conclude with a discussion to identify topics to be considered for future hearings. II. BACKGROUND The sequence of applications and meetings to create a new base village to be known as Ever Vail began with the amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to include several new parcels and revise the recommendations for West Lionshead (Ever Vail). On February 6, 2007, the Town Council adopted Resolution 4, Series of 2007, containing the proposed Lionshead Master Plan amendments to include several properties comprising Ever Vail and recommendations for those properties. The concepts included the addition of a skier gondola in the location of the old gas station site and the development of mixed use areas, including housing, retail, and office spaces, to create a new portal to the mountain with all the typical skier services. 1 4 -1 -1 \n Another aspect of the text amendment included the possible relocation of the South Frontage Road. Resolution 4, Series of 2007, was adopted by a vote of 5 -1 -0 (Foley opposed). On April 21, 2009, the Town Council endorsed the submittal of the proposed South Frontage Road relocation to the Colorado Department of Transportation by a vote of 3 -1- 1 (Foley opposed and Gordon abstained) On November 4, 2009, the applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, submitted seven development review applications which will be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning and Environmental Commission prior to the conclusion of the review process. Those applications include: • A major subdivision to establish new lot configurations, rights -of -way, easements, etc; • An amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade, to remove the GLOB from the SDD; • A rezoning of the parcels created by the major subdivision to Lionshead Mixed Use -2; • An amendment to the Town Zoning Regulations to include the project within the "commercial core" zone for calculating parking requirements; • A variance for site coverage for the below grade structure; • Several conditional use permits to allow for a new gondola, below grade parking structure, and below grade mountain operations service facility; and • A major exterior alteration to allow for multiple structures to be constructed. On January 11, 2010, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously voted to forward a recommendation of approval, with a condition, for the inclusion of the proposed Ever Vail project within the "commercial core area" designation maps to the Vail Town Council. III. TOPICS TO CONSIDER The following topics were largely identified and provide to the applicant and the Vail Town Council in July of 2008. To date some of these topics have been addressed with the submittal of plans and documents for review and discussion. As staff has become more familiar with the proposal additional topics have been added to the list. • Master Plan compliance • Frontage Road setback of proposed structures • Stream setbacks from Red Sandstone Creek and the treatment proposed for the creek. Including the creation of a stream tract which may ultimately be zoned to Outdoor Recreation district or Natural Area Preservation district and provided to the Town. • Building height with regard to overall experience in the new village. • The creation of a pedestrian experience that will serve as a draw for visitors to this new portal while not cannibalizing the existing portals. • Phasing of public improvements such as the parking structure • Public Parking obligation for existing uses and proposed increase in demand • Land dedications for certain public improvements • Financial contribution towards Simba Run underpass 2 4 -1 -2 \n • Stream tract dedications • Public transit improvements; both operations and construction • Provision of employee housing and its phasing • Forest Service agreement for the new lift line • Impacts on public utilities including ERWSD • Platting and subdivision process and our expectations • The need for additional public parking spaces • Potential unintended consequences of added residential uses adjacent to an "industrial' use (ie. Water district) • Use of easements and rights -of -ways • Differences between easements and rights -of -ways • Economic impacts to community and municipally provided services • Retail analysis of community and potential impacts of "cannibalization" • Critical mass to support a new village • Connectivity to Lionshead and the community The following issues have begun to be discussed and addressed at the early stages of this process: • Frontage Road design and layout including retaining wall along interstate • ROW vacation and the transfer of land • Environmental Impact Report • Traffic Report • Outline of the development review process and construction phasing • Open houses and the public process • Skier demand and on mountain activity ( ie impact on the 19,900 limit) Staff has identified these topics, issues, and concerns, with regard to the establishment of a new portal. Have we captured them all? It will be the outcome of the process that all of these topics, issues, and concerns will be discussed, addressed, and resolved satisfactorily. IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL The Council is not being requested to take any formal action at this work session. The Community Development Department requests that the Vail Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the presentation and provide feedback to the applicant and the staff on additional thoughts, ideas, and materials to consider and provide for future discussion. V. ATTACHMENTS A. Ever Vail: Applications for a Maior Subdivision, Rezoning, Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permits, Maior Exterior Alteration, SDD Amendment & Variance to allow for the redevelopment of the West Lionshead Area dated November 2009, Re- submittal B. Reduced set of proposed plans dated November 2, 2009 3 4 -1 -3 \n M E M O RA N D U M J I ilci To: Planning and Environmental Commission Mauriello planning G ro up From: Mauriello Planning Group, representing Vail Resorts Development Company Date: December 14, 2009 At each Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, certain topics will be addressed specifically. To simplify the process, for each meeting Mauriello Planning Group will provide a brief memo summarizing the topic. More in -depth information can be found within the overall submittal. W EverVail R Schedle The schedule below may change and alter during the process but the general sequence of topics will remain the same. 2009 November 3 Final re- submittal to Town of Vail November 5 Final submittal meeting with Town staff to ensure completeness November 16 Re- submittal of any outstanding information December 14 PEC worksession • Project overview (similar toTC Update) • Review Schedule • Discuss public and parking numbers in detail • Skier parking numbers —Tom Allender December 15 Town Council worksession to update TC on submittal • Truly an update on schedule December 16 DRB worksession • Project Overview • Review of site and landscape plan • Review of general architectural theme (looking for any red flags) December 30 Community Open House — Lodge at Vail 2010 January I I PEC worksession — targeted topic • Parking numbers— wrap -up discussion on parking numbers • Review vehicular circulation • Below Grade vs. above grade • How parking operates Review Schedule 12/14/09 1 4 -2 -1 \n • Skier drop -off • Market Street • Transit Center • Devo • Review pedestrian /bike circulation and connections • Traffic Report presentation — Curtis • Walker Parking report January 14 Town Council - update Begin drafting framework for 51A /DIA January 25 PEC worksession — targeted topic review (TBD) • Circulation follow -up /wrap -up • Review public spaces and plazas, venues • Creek corridor • Amphiteater • Width to height ratios • Environmental presentation on Creeks • Ground level uses and programming • Approach on restaurants and retail • VRD space • Ski school • Bar/music venue • Hotel and conference • Spa • Markets • Market Study presentation by Ford February 8 PEC worksession — targeted topic review (TBD) • Ground level programming and market study wrap -up • Other programming • Hotel • Office • Maintenance facility • Residential uses • Employee housing February 16 Town Council — update February 22 PEC worksession — targeted topic review (TBD) • Other programming wrap -up • Fiscal Impact Analysis March 8 PEC worksession — targeted topic review (TBD) Building bulk and mass ❑ Building height compliance Review Schedule 12/14/09 2 4 -2 -2 \n • Attention to Design Guidelines • 3D model review • Setbacks • LEED impacts to building design and orientation • Zoning compliance review - Variances • Building architecture March 16 Town Council — update March 17 DRB worksession — targeted topic review (TBD) • Building bulk and mass • Building height compliance • Attention to Design Guidelines • 3D model review • Setbacks • Zoning compliance review • Building architecture March 118 Potential Community Open House • Buildings — 3D modeling • Architecture • Uses • Market study • Fiscal analysis March 22 PEC worksession — targeted topic review (TBD) • Building bulls and mass follow -up • Architecture follow -up April 12 PEC worksession — targeted topic review (TBD) • Building bulk and mass follow -up • Architecture follow -up • Phasing Plan review April 20 Town Council — update • Building bulk and mass • Building height compliance • Attention to Design Guidelines • 3D model review • Setbacks • Zoning compliance review • Building architecture April 21 DRB worksession • Building bulk and mass follow -up • Architecture follow -up Review Schedule 12/14/09 3 4 -2 -3 \n April 26 PEC worksession — targeted topic review (TBD) • Phasing Plan wrap -up • Technical application review • Rezoning • Subdivision • Conditional Use Permits • Major Exterior Alteration • Variance • Floodplain modification May 10 Potential PEC final review Zoning, Subdivision, Major Exterior Alt, CUPS (all applications) May 18 Town Council review of rezoning and call -up of other applications SIAIDIA Discussion begins June I Town Council review and discussion of applications SIAIDIA Discussion continues June 15 Town Council review and discussion of applications SIAIDIA Discussion continues July I Potential Community Open House ` Final project review /support July 6 Town Council review and discussion of applications SIAIDIA Discussion continues June 20 Town Council review and discussion of applications SIAIDIA Discussion continues August 3 Potential Town Council approval /first reading (all applications and SIAIDIA) August 17 Potential Town Council approval /second reading (all applications and SIAIDIA) September 7 Back -up final approval date July — December DRB final review of buildings and landscape plan Parking Obligations Review Schedule 12/14/09 4 4 -2 -4 \n Ideas for parking. SOLUTIONS FOR QEOPLE. January 4, 2010 Kjell Anderson, AIA, LEED AP Associate Callison Architects 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, Washington 98101 -2343 Re: Ever Vail Garage Design Review - Vail, Colorado Carl Walker, Inc. Project No. N3- 2008 -344 Dear Kjell, Callison Architects engaged Carl Walker, Inc. to conduct a review of the conceptual garage plans for the Ever Vail project to be constructed in Vail, Colorado (plans dated November 11, 2009). We understand that two parking structures are proposed for this development. They consist of the following: • West Parking Structure Three levels below grade level with a parking capacity of approximately 670 spaces. This facility has a dedicated public entry /exit portal on the north side of the structure and a dedicated residential entry/exit portal on the east side of the structure from the South Frontage Rd. Internal express ramps and single helix park - on -ramps are used for vertical vehicular circulation. • East Parking Structure Three levels below grade level with a parking capacity of approximately 870 spaces. This structure has a dedicated entry/exit portal on the south side of the development from Forest Road for public and resident use. Two internal express ramps are used for vertical vehicular circulation. Each entry and exit lane will have Parking Access and Revenue Control Systems ( PARCS) equipment components to record and maintain daily transactions for transient, resident and monthly patrons. The PARCS equipment will be online with a facility management software system. The PARCS software will be located on a computer in the security /parking office where parking activity, revenue transactions, and facility totals by user groups can be monitored and managed by the parking operations group. Transient patrons will use an automated cashiering system known as Pay -on -Foot (POF). Upon entry, transient patrons will pull a ticket from a ticket dispenser machine at the entry lane to enter the parking structure. When leaving, the transient patron inserts the parking ticket into a centrally- located cashiering station (POF machine) on a primary pedestrian path before returning to their vehicle. The POF machine calculates the parking fee based on the length of stay. The POF machines can accept cash, credit cards, smart cards and 2801 Network Blvd., Suite 101 Frisco, TX 75034 P. 214.619.0700 F. 214.619.0705 www.carlwalker.com 4 -3 -1 \n validations, and can also return change when appropriate. After the patron pays the parking fee, the POF machine would return the patron's parking ticket. The patron inserts their parking ticket into a lag -time exit verifier at the exit lane and the barrier gate opens if the fee has been paid. Due to the parking structure configuration and parking allocation, POF units are located at each public elevator /escalator core on each level. This revenue operation and number of POF units provide a high level of service (LOS). It also reduces traffic delays and congestion on the entry and exit ramps. The current parking design and ramping configuration is acceptable and adequate to accommodate the planned development. However, any future structural changes implemented by the design team could affect the adequacy of the current design. After a review of the proposed parking structures, we have prepared the following comments to improve the level of service (LOS) and functionality of each proposed structure: a) POF represents relatively new technology that may not be well understood by some patrons. Special signage would be required to inform patrons to take their parking tickets with them and to pay for parking in advance of vehicle retrieval. Exit verifiers with credit card capabilities should be located at each exit lane for those transient patrons that do not understand the operation or forget to utilize the POF machines. b) The West Parking Structure has the capacity for two entry lanes and two exit lanes for public use. The center lane is a reversible lane to accommodate peak traffic conditions. The East Parking Structure has two dedicated entry lanes and two dedicated exit lanes for public use. This lane configuration provides a high level of service (LOS) for anticipated visitor parking demand. C) Resident and monthly patrons should use an Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) transponder or tag to enter and exit each parking facility. AVI consists of a transponder or tag that is applied to the windshield or bumper of a vehicle, or is hung from the rearview mirror. The transponder sends a signal to a reader mounted near the lane that automatically opens the gate. It allows access without the driver having to stop or open their window. This mode of operation provides a high LOS at the entry/exit points and improves traffic flow on the inbound and outbound express ramps for each structure. d) One entry lane and one exit lane are "nested" in each parking structure for resident and monthly patrons. Resident and monthly patrons are partitioned from public use. This parking separation reduces traffic in the general public parking areas and improves security for resident and monthly patrons. -2- 4-3-2\n e) Vertical express ramps incorporated in each structure should not exceed 12% slope with transitional ramp blends at the top and bottom of each ramp. This slope design criterion has been followed in both structures. f) PARCS equipment (gates, ticket dispensers, exit verifiers, etc.) should not be located on a slope of more than 2.50. Verify the slopes at PARCS equipment lanes comply with this recommendation. g) Inside vehicle turning radii should not be less than 15' -0 ". Some tight turns may exist due to structural constraints. Where feasible, remove walls and /or other structural components that may conflict with this criterion. h) Van accessible parking requires a minimum headroom clearance height of 8' -2 ". Verify if this is headroom clearance is achievable on the express ramps, drive aisles and in the general parking areas. i) Walls and columns adjacent to the express ramps could slow traffic circulation. Every effort should be made to provide wide drive lanes where possible. j) Vertical express ramps for two -way traffic should not have drives less than 24'- 0 "clear width for straight ramps and 30' -0" clear width for curved ramps. This width requirement would provide a reasonable LOS on the express ramps. k) Based on the length of the express ramps and the flexibility in the parking operations with the PARCS equipment referenced earlier, we believe the vehicular queues are adequate to accommodate the proposed peak traffic demand. 1) A high level of lighting is recommended at entry /exit portals, vertical express ramps, elevator /escalators /stairs, drive aisles, intersections of ramps, and at the PARCS equipment areas. A lighting photometric study for each level should be conducted to ensure appropriate footcandles (FC) have been achieved in the design. AREA INTENSITY (FQ Driving Aisles /Ramps 10 -15 Parking Areas 7 -10 Elevator Lobby/ Landing Areas of Stairs 20 Vehicular Entry /Exits 50* * Daytime intensity should be maintained within 50' of garage footprint for transitional conditions. Please reference our redlined comments sent to you earlier via e -mail for consideration to improve the efficiency, design and functionality of each structure. -3- 4-3-3\n We trust we have responded to your request to review the current design, and that our recommendations are helpful in the design process for this development. Thank you for giving Carl Walker this opportunity to be of service. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Carl Walker, Inc. e — Gregory A. Watts, Senior Parking Specialist /Project Manger 4 -3 -4 \n P-X'FRAORI)I -E C1 E.'�PERIF"NCLS' November 3, 2009 Town of Vail c/o Warren Campbell, AICP 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Ever Vail Submittal Update Dear Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, and Town Staff: Vail Resorts Development Company has submitted updated application materials for the Ever Vail project based on changes to the project site, the recent approval and submission of the South Frontage Road plans to Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), input received in community meetings, and the outcome of a two -day planning retreat spent with Town staff to understand and refine comments. After over two years in the process with the Town we have refined the project accordingly. Two major milestones have occurred since last reviewed by the Town submittal: 1. The approval of the location of the new South Frontage Road. This preliminary approval is a significant step in the Ever Vail review process as it sets the site boundaries and defines the north property line for the project. VRDC has been working with the Town Staff, CDOT, and FHWA to ensure that there is adequate width for the road section desired and to ensure that future 1-70 expansion plans are not constrained by the relocated Frontage Road. As you all know, this new Frontage Road is a vast improvement over the existing road as it includes medians, turn lanes, a separated recreation path, overflow parking lane, etc. While the final CDOT approval process continues, all signs point to a positive outcome. 2. The Glen Lyon Office Building (GLOB) site has been incorporated into the Ever Vail Project. Vail Resorts Development Company is currently under contract to purchase the GLOB site. This is a major addition to the Ever Vail project, allowing for additional Gore Creek frontage and vastly improving the coordination and planning on the west side of Red Sandstone Creek. The result allows for underground rather than above grade parking as previously proposed. There are covenants on the GLOB site that restrict uses to primarily residential and restrict the height and square footage that can be developed there. This additional property provides the opportunity to properly master plan the entire West Lionshead area. In addition to these major milestones, other changes have been made to the Ever Vail plans based on the input we received from the Town and the public. The plans now include: Vald Resorts Developrneiv Conqpanv .970 Pos,t 0i"Fice Box 959, 1 ,57 Road - A o- C4(v4J-o f\h:)20 • A 13,000 sq. ft. facility devoted to children's programming. This facility, run by the Vail Recreation District, includes an iconic indoor /outdoor climbing wall, along with children and family activities focused on after ski programs during the winter months. During the summer months, the Vail Recreation District will base an enhanced day camp program and drop -in activities from here. • A children's ski school space that accommodates the DEVO program currently housed at Golden Peak. The DEVO program and accessible ski school base are served by approximately 50 short -term drop -off parking spaces included within the skier parking facility. • A new outdoor amphitheater that focuses on the natural environment of Red Sandstone Creek. • An approximately 4,000 sq. ft. dedicated meeting space over looking the confluence of Red Sandstone and Gore Creeks. The plans continue to include the extensive list of uses and amenities as previously conceived. There is still a Rock Resort Hotel with 120 rooms and associated conference and meeting rooms of over 8,000 sq. e ft. along with a 20,000 sq. ft. destination spa. Ever Vail will have a 14,000 sq. ft. specialty F market, along with 38,000 sq. ft. of general retail. Ever Vail is envisioned with 6 restaurants, OEM from high -end dining to casual family dining. From a residential _ standpoint, we are now proposing 358 condominium units with approximately 537,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. In addition, there will be 48 employee- housing units, both for -sale and rental units, meeting 80% of our requirement on -site. A portion of the employee units will be restricted to lower income families pursuant to the LEED ND program, well beyond the requirements of the Town of Vail. We will be increasing the amount office space that will be displaced by development, allowing for local businesses to continue operating in Vail. We also remain committed to providing 400 day -skier parking spaces as outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to alleviate parking currently occurring on the Frontage Road and to accommodate the shifting demand for parking as a result of the new gondola. An additional 300 parking spaces are open to the public for skier and retail parking. The project has 1,551 total parking spaces for all uses including private residential, office, and employee parking displaced from other locations in Lionshead. 4 -4 -2 \n Ultimately, Ever Vail is about the mountain. A new gondola will be provided, helping to alleviate congestion at the other mountain portals and creating a much - needed fifth portal. Along with the gondola comes a brand -new, state -of- the -art, completely subterranean mountain operations facility with direct access to the snowcat bridge and access road up Tract K. The details of the project are provided' in the plan sets and written materials and studies provided with the project. i We look forward to presenting and `t reviewing this project with the Town over the next eight months.; Sincerely," Keith Fernandez, President Vail Resorts evelopment Company - -- -- -- - - -- -- t John Guernsey, o -Presi nt Vail R sorts M ,untain Di ision I I 4 -4 -3 \n V.A. Memo To: Mauriello Planning Group From: Tom Allender, Resort Planning Director Date: 12/4/09 Re: Effects of Ever Vail on Skier Distribution and Parking A. Introduction This analysis was prepared by Vail Resorts' Vail /Beaver Creek Resort Planning Department to evaluate the impacts of the Ever Vail project on skier numbers, Vail portal utilization, and skier parking. The analysis utilizes data collected and reported by the Town of Vail and Vail Resorts on existing conditions and parking trends in the Town of Vail. The findings of the analysis is that the Ever Vail project will have a beneficial impact on skier parking and enhance the overall mountain /town experience of locals and guests. B. Background and Existing Conditions Skier Numbers According to data collected by Vail Resort in 2009 the day with the most skiers (for the purpose of this report, "skiers" includes snowboarders) on Vail Mountain was January 10 (a Saturday a full week before Martin Luther King holiday on the 19 with 17,100 skiers. First scans at the four existing Vail portals indicate the following breakdown of portal usage: Golden Peak 17% or 2,907 skiers Vail Village 31% or 5,301 skiers Lionshead 48% or 8,208 skiers Cascade Village 4 % or 684 skiers 1 4 -5 -1 \n r i er` t 31% 48% 17% 4 4% Lift facilities at these portals have a per hour capacity of: Golden Peak 2,400 skiers per hour Vail Village 2,800 skiers per hour Lionshead 4,800 skiers per hour Cascade Village 1,800 skiers per hour Peak morning lift utilization occurs over a 2.5 -hour period; therefore each of the portals is operating in balance between skier usage and lift capacities. Parking Structures The Town has two primary parking structures within the Town of Vail: Vail Village and Lionshead Parking Structures. Land for these parking structures was originally provided to the Town by Vail Resorts. The Town issued bonds to construct these parking structures. User fees and a lift tax collected by the Town on all lift tickets sold by Vail Resorts are used to fund the operation, maintenance, and debt service on these parking structures. Both parking structures provide skier parking and also the bulk of parking serving the commercial square footage of the Villages. In Vail Village, the parking structure also provides parking for many of the residential and lodge uses that were constructed without 2 4 -5 -2 \n or with limited on -site parking. So the existing parking structures serve a mixed -use market of skiers, retail, and restaurants, along with residential and lodging uses. The Vail Village parking structure has a capacity of 1,150 parking spaces and the Lionshead parking structure has a capacity of 1,250 parking spaces. According to a study conducted by RRC on behalf of the Town in 2009, 95 percent of the vehicles parking in the Town's parking structures are primarily skiers and the average number of persons per vehicle was 2.6. When these structures are at capacity, based on this research there is on average of 3,120 persons parking within the Vail Village parking structure and 3,380 persons parking within the Lionshead parking structure (assumes 2.6 people per car from TOV analysis). In the 2008/2009 ski season, the Vail Village parking structure filled a total of 50 days out of a 150 day season (note below that parking on the frontage road resulted on 24 of those 50 days). Overflow Parking on Frontage Road According to studies conducted by the Town of Vail and reported to the Town Council, in the 2008/2009 ski season there were a total of 24 days when cars parked on the Frontage Roads in Vail. The average number of cars parking on the road was 355 cars in 2009. This compares to an average of 483 cars parking on the Frontage Road in 2000. Based on the Town's analysis of 2.6 persons per car and percentage of those parking that are skiing (95 %), there are 877 skiers resulting from the cars parked on the Frontage Road. If we distributed these skiers that are parked on the Frontage road to the portals by their reported preferences, we assume the following: Golden Peak 88 skiers (10 %) Vail Village 324 skiers (37 %) Lionshead 324 skiers (37 %) Cascade Village 140 skiers (16 %) 3 4 -5 -3 \n A f s i7 � r 37% 37% 16 e C. Ever Vail Programming and Parking Programming of Uses The Ever Vail project includes the following program (numbers are approximate and list not comprehensive): • 10,000 sq. ft. of VRD recreation space • 12,000 sq. ft of market • 70,000 sq. ft. of on -site employee housing • 120 room Rock Resorts hotel • 358 dwelling units • 14,000 sq. ft. of restaurant • 52,000 sq. ft. of retail • 33,000 sq. ft. of office • 9,000 sq. ft. of conference /meeting room • 20,000 sq. ft. of spa • Maintenance facility • Parking and Loading facility • Transit /bus stop facility 4 4 -5 -4 \n • New gondola Parkin The underground parking structures developed as part of the Ever Vail project will serve the same types of uses as both the Vail Village and Lionshead Parking Structures - a mix of uses including commercial uses, skiers, and residential uses. The project currently contains approximately 1,551 parking spaces, the majority of which are located in sub - surface multiple level parking facilities located on both sides of Red Sandstone Creek. The general breakdown of parking spaces is: Private residential 480 spaces Commercial /retail 300 spaces Employee parking replacement 310 spaces Skier parking (excess of required) 400 spaces Other parking 61 spaces While the parking provided in Ever Vail is similar in the mixed purposes of the Lionshead and Vail Village Parking Structures, it also contains parking for 100% of the residential uses. Of the approximately 1,551 parking spaces proposed, 700 of the spaces are available to the general public on a daily basis to accommodate skiers and shoppers, similar to the Town's parking structures. Gondola Operation . The new Ever Vail gondola will be a high-speed ondola with cabins holding '• g g up to 8 occupants. The new gondola will have the capacity of moving 2,000 1 4 skiers per hour. The gondola will +� transport skiers to the top of the mountain at Eagle's Nest but will also have a upload and download location at i the base of chair 26 (Pride Express). t Turn Station Chair 26 will be removed to accommodate the new gondola. To return to Ever Vail, skiers will be able download the gondola at this location for a 3.5- minute ride back to Ever Vail. 5 4 -5 -5 \n D. Population, Parking, and Portal Effects from Ever Vail Ever Vail Population The Ever Vail project will have an effect on parking characteristics and portal usage within the Town. Using the table below, with assumptions about occupancy derived from historic M -Trip reports, skier participation from surveys and using the same assumptions derived from the Town's studies, we find that the Ever Vail project will produce a peak population of 2,330 persons and a related skier population of 884. These numbers are derived from the bed base being proposed in Ever Vail including dwelling units, employee housing units, and hotel rooms. Bed Base Units Bed Rooms I Pillows per rm Total Pillows % Rented % occupied % Sking Skier Pop Employee Housing 46 2.5 2 240 95% 95% 26% 61 Hotels Rooms 120 1.0 3 300 74% 75% 71% 118 Residential Dwelling Un115 356 2.5 2 1.790 74% 75% 719 705 Total Possible Population 2,330 Total Skier Population 884 Based upon data developed by the Town of Vail in 2009, there was an average of 355 cars parked on the Frontage Road for a total of 24 days of the ski season. The Ever Vail project is providing 400 parking spaces for use by the general public above and beyond demand created by the Ever Vail project. In addition, there are 300 parking spaces available to the public for commercial uses located within the project, for a total of 700 available parking spaces. Like the Vail Village and Lionshead Parking Structures, and consistent with the Town's recent parking study, 95 % of these 700 spaces will likely be occupied by skiers. The additional 400 parking spaces are intended to alleviate the Frontage Road parking and accommodate the new gondola as stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The addition of these 400 parking spaces, plus the additional 300 retail spaces, accommodates the average need of 355 cars parked on the Frontage Road. In fact, considering the entire 700 total available parking spaces, this parking facility accommodates all but one day of overflow parking as documented in 2009, which was 715 cars parking on the Frontage Road. Portal Effects of Ever Vail One of the effects of removing cars from the Frontage Road and placing them in the Ever Vail below grade parking facilities will be the distribution of skiers to the various Town portals. As stated previously, there were an estimated 877 skiers in 355 cars (on average) that are distributed throughout Vail. Some assumptions were made about which portal those skiers would use based upon their location along the Frontage Road. These skiers are spread across the various portals. Based on removing these cars from the Frontage Road we have to reduce the number of skiers using each portal and assume those skiers are now in Ever Vail parking facilities. Below is the resulting distribution of skiers at the various portals to Vail Mountain (modeling Jan. 10, 2009): Golden Peak 16% or 2,819 skiers Vail Village 27% or 4,907 skiers 6 4 -5 -6 \n Lionshead 44% or 7,884 skiers Ever Vail 10% or 1,761 skiers (bed base + frontage road skiers) Cascade Village 3% or 544 skiers The estimated skier number with the addition of Ever Vail, modeling Jan 10, 2009 would be17,915. 27% 44% i. 16% 3% 'a •e. E. Mountain Effects from Ever Vail Gondola Based on the above analysis the following changes would occur to skier populations of the various portals. Golden Peak -88 skiers Vail Village -324 Lionshead -324 Ever Vail +1,761 Cascade Village -140 For this discussion, it can be assumed that the Cascade Village and Lionshead skiers are going to Eagle Nest resulting in an increase in the Eagles Nest population of 1,297 (1,761- 324 -140). These skiers could then be re- distributed between the following lifts: 7 4 -5 -Tn LIFT Percentage Distribution Over 2.5 Hrs Utilization Ever Vail Gondola 5 67 27 Low Lionshead Gondola 3 40 16 High Chair 8 1 14 6 Low Chair 15 5 67 27 Med Vista Balm 3 40 16 Med Chair 6 1 14 6 Low Chair 7 29 389 156 High Chair 2 53 711 284 High The majority of the increased Eagles Nest skier population will choose either Chair 2 or 7 when leaving Eagle Nest. While these two lifts are currently at a high level of utilization, an additional 284 skiers represents one tenth of the lifts capacity of Chair 2. It should be noted that the increase in the number of skiers at Chair 2 is somewhat overstated. Some percentage of the 324 skiers removed from the Vail Village portal (due to removing parking from the Frontage Road and that are now assumed as using the Ever Vail portal) and that end up at Chair 2, would have arrived there from Mid Vail anyway (i.e., arriving at Mid Vail and skiing down to Chair 2). Additionally as Chair 2 has a large transportation component, skier density on the associated trails is not anticipated to change noticeably. F. Summary of Benefits and Effects to Skier Parking The Ever Vail project as proposed will have very little effect on the number of skiers visiting the various portals to Vail Mountain but will result in a significant reduction in the number of vehicles parked along the Frontage Roads. Based on the current parking capacities proposed in Ever Vail there is only one day that cars may be present on the Frontage Roads based upon the experience in 2009. The town's capacity for parking increases from the 2,400 current parking availability in Lionshead and Vail Village to 3,100, a 22% increase over what exists today. This does not include the other increases in parking supply coming on -line in the Town which include 100 private parking club spaces in Arrabelle, the 125 private club parking spaces at the Front Door, and the 250 quasi - public parking spaces within the Solaris project. G. Effects on Manage -To Number By agreement with the Town of Vail and the Forest Service, Vail Mountain operates with a "manage -to" number of 19,900 skiers. In the last 30 years. The manage -to number was exceeded three times: in 2001 by 239 skiers; in 2004 by 394 skiers; and in 2007 by 367 skiers. Using Jan. 10, 2009 as the model, it is anticipated that Ever Vail would increase the number of skiers on the mountain to 17,915; well within the established manage -to number. 8 4 -5 -8 \n Thompson & Trautz LLC. Ever Vail Fiscal Impact Report Summary Thompson & Trautz LLC has been retained as an independent consultancy to provide analysis as to the potential financial impacts, revenue and expenditures, the planned Vail Resorts development project Ever Vail will have on the Town of Vail. Our analysis is based on information provided from Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, Eagle County Assessor, and various other consultants currently engaged to work on this project. The results of our analysis estimate that the project will generate for the Town of Vail onetime revenue of $31.6 million as well as $7.4 million at build out in ongoing annual revenue that includes $4.7 million from Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Annual Revenues TIF Revenue $ 4,737,318 Sales Tax - Condo Lodging 691,734 Sales Tax - Hotel Lodging 505,890 Sales Tax - Utilities 54,260 Sales Tax - Retail & F &B 837,456 RETT 486,000 F - 7312,658 One Time Revenues RETT $ 9,666,000 Use Tax - Building Materials 16,000,000 Permits & Fees 5,430,000 Traffic Impact Fees 500,000 7 - 31,596,000 We estimate the additional operating and capital costs to the Town of Vail will be less than the estimated annual and one time revenues. A detailed analysis follows with explanation as to the individual components of the revenue and expenditure totals. It is critical to note that all amounts used are in today's dollars and are NOT adjusted to reflect inflation and are pre 2007 recession. The estimated revenues are based upon the project being 100% built out and all commercial spaces occupied as presented. See the enclosed spreadsheet at the end of this document for the calculations. Unless noted occupancies and room rates are annual averages. 4 -6 -1 \n This report does not attempt to address or quantify the obvious significant economic benefit and spin off in the community at large resulting from Vail Resorts Development Company spending in the region of $1.2 billion on materials, labor and services, providing jobs and trade in the community, during the course of construction on the Ever Vail project. Property Tax Revenue The Ever Vail project, upon completion, will increase the assessed property valuation in the impacted area by $102 million. Currently the assessed value of the properties occupying the impacted land is $5.5 million. The project is in the Lionshead TIF District that was formed in 2005. The TIF district has a 25 -year lifecycle starting in 2005 thereby having the capacity to generate revenue through 2030. Based on a TIF mill levy of 46.124 the project is estimated to generate $4.7 million in TIF revenue annually. Once the TIF district expires the incremental property tax revenue to be generated from the Town of Vail's mill levy of 4.979 mills is $511,385. Incremental Assessed Value by Source Actual Value Assessed Value Condominiums $ 966,600,000 $ 76,941,360 Deed Restricted Residential 34,560,000 2,750,976 Hotel (Cost is actual value) 66,000,000 6,960,000 Commercial - Office 12,218,182 3,543,273 Commercial - Restaurant /Clul 17,689,091 5,129,836 Commercial - Retail 44,442,424 12,888,303 $ 1,141,509,697 $ 108,213,748 Current Assessed Value 5,505,440 Incremental Assessed Value $ 102,708,308 Assessed value is the actual value of real property determined by the county assessor multiplied by the assessment rate of 7.96% for residential property and 29% for commercial property. The actual value of the 358 condominium units is based on a sales price of $1,800 per square foot. The assessed value of the 120 hotel units is $200,000 per room which is determined by comparing assessed values of other comparable hotels in Vail, Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch. The County uses an income approach versus a market value approach to determine the assessed value for Hotels. The cost of the proposed hotel will be approximately $66 million but the income approach to determining assessed value produces $24 million which is substantially less than cost or market value. 4 -6 -2 \n The 155,575 square feet of commercial space includes office, restaurant /Club and retail. The commercial space is valued for property taxes by dividing the projected lease rate per square foot by a cap rate of 8.25 %. The lease rate for office and restaurant /club is $30 per square foot and retail $50 a square foot. The cap rate of 8.25% is based upon discussions with the county assessor staff. Sales Tax Revenue Sales tax revenue will be generated by lodging, food and beverage and retail sales. The sales tax rate on all but short term lodging sales is 4% and on short-term lodging revenue it is 5.5 %. The Town of Vail does not collect sales tax for sales made on the mountain; however, a lift tax of 4% is paid to the Town of Vail on passes and lift tickets sales. Total annual sales tax at build out is estimated to be $2 million as follows. Sales Tax by Source (thousands) Condo Lodging $ 692 Hotel Lodging 506 Utilities 54 Retail & F &B 837 2,089 The sales tax on lodging sales is based on the short rental of condominiums and hotel rooms. We estimate that $1.1 million in lodging sales tax will be generated from the proposed lodging. It is estimated that 50% of the condo owners (358 total units) will rent their units at an average daily rate (ADR) of $550 with an estimated occupancy rate of 35 %. The 120 hotel rooms will be rented 60% percent of the time at an ADR of $350. These numbers are based upon what similar properties are experiencing. At this time there are no lodging revenues being generated on the development site. Ever Vail's buildings could generate $54,260 in sales tax on the electric and natural gas used. Based upon other properties the annual gas per room is $843 and electric is $1,050. The 1,531 underground parking structure stalls is estimated to cost $295 per stall for heat and electricity. We estimate the Ever Vail project will generate sales tax revenue of approximately $837,456 on Retail and F &B sales. This estimate is based on the number of people occupying the proposed lodging. We estimate that each lodging guest spends on average $100 a day in retail and F &B. Condos are occupied by 4 people when either used by owners or when used by guests who rent them. Based on prior experience of similar properties owners who are not in the rental pool will use their units 25% of the time and units in the rental pool will rent them 35% of the time. The combined occupancy of the Condos in a rental pool and non - rented condo's is 30 %. Hotel units generate 2 guests per unit and are occupied 60 %. 4 -6 -3 \n The Town currently collects sales tax from approximately 4 businesses on the development site. The sales tax collected from these four businesses has not been subtracted from the projected revenue since that information is proprietary and was not provided to us by the Town. Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenue (RETT) The Town of Vail collects a 1% RETT on all real property sales. Onetime revenue of $9.7 million may be collected on the first sale of all 358 condo units at $1,800 a sq. ft. The resale of the units will generate on average $2.7 million or $27,000 in RETT revenue annually per unit. We project the turnover to be at 5% or 18 units sell a year generating $486,000 in annual revenue. Lift Tax Revenue The Town collects a 4% admission tax on all lift tickets and ski passes sold. We recognize the Ever Vail project will have an impact on lift tax revenue the amount has not been included in this report. Other One Time Revenues Use Tax and Permit Revenues The Town collects a use tax on building materials that is anticipated to generate $16 million in revenue for the town. Permits and impact fees are estimated to generate $5.9 million for the Town. The actual traffic impact fee is estimated to be $2.5 million but anticipates an offset of $2 million. Town of Vail Fiscal Costs Our study projects the Ever Vail project could bring approximately 209,000 additional guests annually to the Town of Vail. These guests, as well as the resources and requirements that development adds, will require the Town to provide additional services. The additional services to be provided are relatively small when you consider the infrastructure of the Town is extensively developed and has the capacity to handle additional service pressures. Additionally, it has to be considered that the Ever Vail project is mitigating most of its impacts with the enhancement of roadways and roundabouts, the addition of sidewalks and other pedestrian ways, and the addition of bus stops and transit facilities. The project is proposed to be governed internally with a metro district with all of the internal improvements, including streets and plazas, to be owned and maintained by the district and the owners. All of these provisions act to reduce reliance on the Town for services. To attempt to quantify any potential service impacts to the Town we reviewed the current budget as well as the projected budgets. We also have asked the Town of Vail's staff to provide 4 -6 -4 \n us with an estimate of what the fiscal impacts of Ever Vail will be and have not received any estimates. Greg Hall the Town's director of public works said that the largest expense would be additional bus service. Other expenses could include additional snow plowing for a larger frontage road and maintenance, landscaping, lighting of medians. Greg Hall, the Town's director of public works did not seem to think the Town's costs would exceed the projected revenues from the project. There will be 3 other major developments opening in the Town of Vail over the next 3 years: Solaris, Ritz, and Four Seasons. The Town's 2010 budget and forecast budget for 2011 — 2014 includes no increase in staffing to service these new projects coming on line. We believe from talking with staff and reviewing the Towns 2010 budget that the projected revenue from Ever Vail will cover any reasonable additional operating or capital costs to the Town of Vail. Should the Town quantify the impacts to the operating and maintenance budgets, we are happy to include them in this report. 4 -6 -5 \n Ever Vail Development Annual Property Tax Revenue Generated from Ever Vail Use of Space No. Of Value Value Actual Assessed Units Sg Ft Per Unit Per Sg Ft Value Value Residential 358 537,000 $ 2,700,000 $ 1,800 $ 966,600,000 $ 76,941,360 Deed Restricted Residential 48 57,600 720,000 600 34,560,000 2,750,976 Hotel 120 200,000 66,000,000 6,960,000 Commercial - Office 33,600 30 364 12,218,182 3,543,273 Commercial - Restaurant /Club 48,645 30 364 17,689,091 5,129,836 Commercial - Retail 73,330 50 606 44,442,424 12,888,303 1,141, 509,697 108, 213, 748 Minus the current assessed value of land and property that now exists 5,505,440 Incremental increase in Assessed Value 102,708,308 Town of Vail Property Tax Revenue (4.979 mills) 511,385 Potential Revenue TI Revenue@ 46.124 Mills From Property Tax $ 4,737,318 Annual SalesTax and RETT Revenues Generated from Ever Vail Sales Tax Revenue Gross Sales Condo Lodging (35% Occupancy, Room Rate $550, Units Rented 179) 12,576,988 $ 691,734 Hotel Lodging (60% Occupancy, Roam Rate $350, Units 120) 9,198,000 505,890 Utilities 1,356,499 54,260 Retail and Food & Beverage (30% Occupancy Condo, 60% Hotel) 20,936,400 837,456 (4 /ppl per Condo, 2 /ppl per Hotel, spending $100 /day in Town) 2,089,340 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 48,600,000 486,000 $ 2,575,340 One Time Revenues from Ever Vail Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 966,600,000 $ 9,666,000 Use Tax on building 16,000,000 Permits & Fees 5,430,000 Traffic Impact Fee 500,000 Total One Time Fees $ 31,596,000 4 -6 -6 \n People & Room Nights Generated People Per Yr People No. Of Rooms Per Room Generated Non Rental Sales Tax Condo (30% Occupancy, 4 people per room) 358 438 156,804 Hotel (60% Occupancy, 2 people per room) 120 438 52,560 People Generated 209,364 Days Per Year Rental Sales Tax No. Of Rooms Per Room Occ Room Nights Condo (50% Rented, 35% Occupancy) 179 128 22,867 Hotel (60% Occupancy) 120 219 26,280 People Nights 49,147 Data Assumptions CONDOMINIUMS # people generated per unit 4 Number of Condo's 358 Percent of condos rented 50% Occupancy rate of condos rented 35% Condominum nightly rental rate $ 550.00 Occupancy rate of condos not rented 25% HOTEL # people generated per unit 2 Number of Rooms 120 Occupancy rate 60% Hotel Rental Rate $ 350.00 Guest Spending Per Day in Vail (not on mountain) $ 100.00 /day Utilities Annual Gas per Room $ 843 Annual Electric per Room $ 1,050 Parking Stalls $ 1,531 Annual per stall Gas & Electric $ 295.00 4 -6 -Tn mmm RESEARCH CONSULTING 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive Suite 850 Denver, Colorado 80209 -3868 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com bbc @bbcresearch.com October 30, 2009 Ms. Becka Green Director of Commercial Leasing Vail Resort Development Company 137 Benchmark Road Avon, CO 81620 Re: Ever Vail Retail Analysis Dear Ms Green: This letter report is in response to your request for an evaluation of retail development opportunities at the Ever Vail site in Vail, Colorado. Development recommendations are made based on market conditions, site considerations and the broader development objectives of the Ever Vail project. Background Ever Vail is a new base village /neighborhood on the west end of Vail Village that will offer a fifth ski lift portal to Vail Mountain. As currently proposed, Ever Vail will have 358 dwelling units, 120 accommodation units (hotel rooms) and 48 employee units. Ever Vail will also provide 77,000 square feet of needed ski area maintenance space (within the underground parking structure) and approximately 50,000 square feet of ski school, children's center and company offices. An underground parking facility will provide 1,551 spaces that service accommodations, day visitors and customers for Ever Vail commercial businesses. Exhibit 1. Ever Vail, Lionshead and the Vail Village Core I EwerVal 1, Va1I Village ,. 4 -7 -1 \n Page 2 According to Vail Resort Development Company (VRDC), Ever Vail will target a youthful, family - oriented market and will be the most environmentally - sensitive village project ever completed in the western mountain resorts. The Ever Vail concept is thoroughly presented in other VRDC documents. Study Objectives Over the past few months, VRDC and BBC representatives, along with affiliated planning consultants and town staff, have shared ongoing discussions about how commercial activity, visitor services, retailing and restaurants fit into the Ever Vail concept and what scale and mix of retail offerings make the most market, financial and conceptual sense for this proposed neighborhood. BBC has been asked to recommend a market -based retailing concept with recommendations for development scale and tenant - orientation that can succeed at the Ever Vail site and will successfully support new Ever Vail guests and residents. Ever Vail Retail Objectives In considering a retail strategy for Ever Vail, there are three key project considerations. At a minimum, Ever Vail needs to provide: • Convenient and diverse retail and restaurant services at an appropriate scale for the new 526 unit village residential development; • Necessary skier services (i.e., rentals, ski shops, clothing, restaurants) for persons using Ever Vail for mountain access; and • Successful community gathering and public spaces that help activate the village and support Ever Vail's broader market positioning. Ever Vail's retailing component needs to be of sufficient size to offer choices and foster competition, but small enough to allow individual stores to be successful and to keep supply in -line with demand. The town's requirement that the ground floor of buildings house retail and related visitor services is also a consideration. Resort Retail Trends For many years, ski resort retail sales have tracked well with the growth of destination skier visits, which in turn correlated well with growth in the local bed base. Generally, as the resort bed base grew, skier and visitor activity responded and retail sales expanded in a fairly predictable pattern. In recent years, resort retail performance has become stable and less predictable. Continuing trends in visitor demographics (older and wealthier); expanding down valley competition; changes in national retailing practices; and an increasing presence of second homeowners —as opposed to transient guests —have all combined to alter demand and supply patterns. The dramatic economic downturn of 2008 -2009 has added another layer of uncertainty to resort commercial health, further obscuring functional relationships between visitor activity and retail demand. 4 -7 -2 \n Page 3 Western mountain resorts. Generally, retailing is a responsive /reflective industry: good store operators and restaurateurs continually modify their offerings and services in response to subtle market changes. Retail centers evolve collectively, as each store owner repositions individual businesses. Over the past decade, across western destination resorts, a few broad retailing patterns are evident: • Resident oriented retail and services have migrated down valley away from the core resorts seeking lower costs space, generous parking, convenience and proximity to resident population centers; • Resort lease costs have risen dramatically and property owner tenancy strategies have become more sophisticated. As a result of these fixed cost pressures, there are fewer local start -up stores and less retail /restaurant experimentation. Within most resorts, store diversity has diminished; • Restaurants have notably increased their share of most resort retail centers. Higher -end, "white table cloth" restaurants in particular have increased market share, in part, reflecting an aging visitor demographic; • Sporting goods stores selling recreational hard goods, once an essential element of a ski resort retailing, have placed greater emphasis on soft goods and casual wear, effectively consolidating what were once multiple retail outlets and further limiting the diversity of offerings; • Bars and entertainment, a 1970s and 1980s staple, have lost significant presence in most resorts; • Household goods, kitchen home furnishings and related design services have expanded their presence in -line with increasing second home personal use. This growth will likely slow in response to diminished real estate activity; • High -end jewelry, women's clothing and designer goods have generally increased their share of the resort retail core, but not universally; and • Restrictive community growth policies have dampened commercial development, limiting supply, and fostering higher rents. As a rule, after many years of rapid retail sales growth in the 1980s and early 1990s, the pace of resort community retail growth moderated dramatically in the mid- 1990s. Even during the very expansive real estate markets of the past decade, annual retail sales in most resort communities experienced very low or stable growth rates. 4 -7 -3 \n Page 4 Town of Vail. The national economic challenges of the last year have had dramatic repercussions for all aspects of the resort economy. In Vail, and in virtually all western mountain resorts, all measures of economic activity for 2009 declined significantly. During the winter of 2008 -2009, Vail hotels and lodging sales were down over 22 percent from the prior seasons, retailing was down about 21 percent, while restaurants lost about 7 percent of sales. Vail's overall retail performance, as measured by retail sales tax collection, was nevertheless, stronger than majority of other western mountain resorts. There is no consensus on the likelihood, timing or nature of national or regional economic recovery. Exhibit 2 shows recent sales activity in the four largest Colorado resort communities and documents their comparative size and seasonality patterns over the past two years. Vail's reliance on winter trade, and its more pronounced seasonality are notable. Exhibit 2. Taxable Sales Vail Steamboat Springs Breckenridge Aspen $100 .�. $80 C O $60 g C v $40 $20 $0 May July September November II January March May 2008 2009 Source: State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs; State Sales Tax Collections. Even prior to 2008 -2009, complaints were common that the retail /commercial core of most western ski resorts had lost vitality, store diversity and interest. Down valley competition, homogeneity and gentrification had taken a toll on core area vibrancy. Until last year, employee quality and employee retention were difficult operating challenges for most resort retailers. Even in the most prosperous resorts, retailers and restaurateurs addressed workforce issues by closing earlier and operating fewer hours, often lowering service standards. Very high lease costs discouraged new retailers and exacerbated the homogenization of resort offerings. t Mountain Travel Research, Market Update, July 2009, prepared for the town Vail Office of Economic Development. 4 -7 -4 \n Page 5 Vail retailing has weathered these pressures better than most resorts. The revitalization of Lionshead has been well received and despite the last year's early season economic pressures, the area's commercial core continues to function well. Summer business generally exceeded expectations. The town has reinvested in both Lionshead and Vail Village commercial areas with improved streetscapes, access and loading systems. West Vail's grocery and locally oriented retail is a valuable stabilizing influence that stems some of the down valley leakage. Despite the challenges of the last year, Vail's commercial vacancy rate is low and the town has aggressively and effectively capitalized on its ability to draw upon both regional and destination markets. Vail remains the largest community retail market of all Colorado resorts. The town maintains approximately 630,000 square feet of retail space in three commercial clusters. Each of the town's retailing centers offer sufficient scale and market differentiation to present a cohesive and definable destination. Below, Exhibit 3 shows the distribution of retailers by area and category of use. Exhibit 3. Vail Retail Distribution by Category and Square Feet, 2008 Golden Peak/Vail VillageMW Number Number Number Wategor of Retailers Square Feet of Retailers Square Feet of Retailers Square Feet Lionshead West Vail Food & Beverage 54 205,310 21 58,480 11 26,850 Gallery /Art /Books 14 20,735 0 0 0 0 Clothing /Fur 32 47,591 8 12,945 0 0 Jewlery 12 8,472 2 3,175 0 0 Ski Equipment 14 35,935 16 2/ 2 15,660 Grocery /Liquor 2 1,362 1 992 4 108,153 Gift Shop 6 6,038 3 2,363 0 0 Eyewear 2 1,098 1 325 0 0 Miscellaneous 14 10,210 6 10,227 11 24,616 Total 150 336,751 58 116,341 28 175,279 Source: Town f Vail, design Workshop; Vail Resorts. Exhibit 4 on the following page shows Vail's retail structure by retail category. The dominance of food and beverage and ski shops is notable and typical of most western destination resorts. Conversely, the presence of two major grocery stores is both unusual, by resort standards, and advantageous. 4 -7 -5 \n Page 6 Exhibit 4. 628,371 Vail Retail Space, 2008 Total Square Feet Open Retail (147,795 sq.ft.) Food & Beverage 46% (290,640 sq.ft.) Grocery/Liquor (110,507 sq.ft.) Ski Equipment (79,429 sq.ft.) After many years of construction, Lionshead is now revitalized and again fully functioning. As the Vail Renaissance is completed, the community's retailing environment will expand and continue to evolve. The new retail space at Solaris Plaza, scheduled to come on -line in 2010, will provide over 70,000 square feet of new attractions and services, as well as additional restaurants and retail goods — potentially altering many long- standing town consumer patterns. Ever Vail will enter the market against this backdrop of a large and reasonably healthy retail environment, which continues to change and evolve in response to economic conditions. Ever Vail Site Analysis Ever Vail retail offering will enter a large market with significant competition and with many established retailers. As with all new sites, the Ever Vail location presents both constraints and opportunities. Site advantages. Ever Vail has several positive locational attributes as a retail environment. • New construction. As an entirely new project, Ever Vail can be "right- sized" and carefully designed to provide a market - driven retail environment with appropriate locations and scale for each store category. Most resort retail occurs in retrofitted areas or collections of small stores that often can't optimize space efficiency and character. • Captive bed base. Regardless of competitive considerations, Ever Vail, with over 400 dwelling units, a large hotel and over 100 full -time resident employees, requires convenient retail, entertainment, and food and beverage services in order to provide customary and necessary services to residents, guests and homeowners. The hotel will require internal food and beverage offerings and convenience - retail for their guests. The Ritz- Carlton Residences, Vail Resorts, Inc. at ore Creek Place are conveniently situated just east of Ever Vail and residents and guests of these two projects will be likely to accept Ever Vail as their most convenient retail and restaurant option. This effectively adds an additional 120 units into the immediate Ever Vail market area. Day skiers are expected to use this portal because of convenient parking and quick access to the mountain. 4 -7 -6 \n Page 7 • Mountain portal Ever Vail parking will provide roughly 1500 accommodating residents, hotel and condominium guests, day skiers and visitors who will also require an array of clothing, convenience retail and morning food services. Parking pricing will be similar to other Vail facilities with pricing structures that relies on skiers but also accommodates short -term, inexpensive parking in support of retail are anticipated. The Ever Vail structure has the potential to be the most convenient parking in Vail in terms of close proximity to lifts. • Office space. In addition to mountain support and equipment maintenance operations, Ever Vail will provide 33,000 square feet of office space, approximately 16,000 of which will be used by Vail Resorts, Inc. The maintenance and office worker presence, which will mean over 150 workers a day will be present in the Village, will and provide additional day time vitality and lessen seasonality. • Other attractions. Ever Vail plans a major 20,000 square foot spa, housing for over 100 workers, a multi - season children's center and ski school center. Ever Vail will be an employment center, particularly given the underground mountain support and maintenance area. These functions will add to the liveliness and overall retail support for the area. Site disadvantages. The Ever Vail project also presents challenges as a platform for retail development. • Isolation. Ever Vail is isolated from the rest of town. It is unlikely that Ever Vail will draw a significant share of visitors from Village Core or Lionshead without unique offerings or other attractions. • Lack of skier egress. Skiers will not return to Ever Vail by traditional ski terrain but will have full downloading access via the Ever Vail gondola. Two download collection points are currently anticipated ensuring appropriate flexibility for all levels of skiers. It will be important for Vail Resorts to provide good signage to these download locations in order to support retail trade stores and bars and restaurants that rely on high volume apres ski trade. • Small captive bed base. The 400 units proposed at Ever Vail is a small segment of the town's bed base and can't support all Ever Vail retail on its own. Site physicality /connectivity. The physical attributes of the development also define its commercial /retail development potential. • Configuration. The Ever Vail site is narrow and tightly bounded by Gore Creek on the south and the Vail Frontage Road and I -70 on the north, effectively creating a linear, east to west project. • Contiguity. The western edge of the property has no further urban development potential. Cascade Village, which is approximately one half mile west of the Ever Vail edge, has road and bikeway connections to the project, but offers no substantive retail or market influence. The east pedestrian access crosses Forest Road and requires a 500 -yard walk and then entry to Lionshead through its backdoor —a less than ideal connection. 4 -7 -Tn Page 8 ■ Visibility. Although Ever Vail is visible to the highway, interstate access is a considerable distance away and access will not be entirely intuitive for travelers unfamiliar with the area. ■ Gondola. In most mountain resorts the pedestrian connection between the mountain and parking creates the most promising retail corridor (e.g., Bridge Street in Vail Village). In this instance, the traditional retail corridor between the mountain and visitor parking is dispersed because there are two visitor - parking garages with multiple exits that will likely diffuse pedestrian traffic. At least in winter, the project's major organizing network will likely be the pedestrian connection between the gondola and the surface transit systems. Below, Exhibit 5 offers a simple diagrammatic representation of these concepts. In the winter, the gondola access will be the pedestrian focus. Skiers and guests will enter the area by way of the garage exits or transitions from the transit center. These patterns reinforce a short but concentrated retail corridor along buildings E- 1, E -2 and E -3. Exhibit 5. Ever Vail and Gondola Connections Legend 'Y Garage to Pedestrian Transition Transit to Pedestrian Transition p G� 'yvn w i Primary Retail Corridor .5 +• a Secondary Retail Corridor a � E "5 —jib a 00611104 . ' TR.a aSKT CENTER E ' $ . E -2 J/. N RITZ CARL) 00 1163 RESIDENCES G'Y4 GpF€ L'FiE EK PLACE ERWSD PLANT - Gondola_ — - - - -- ------- In sum, resort - retailing environments are continually responding to broader market changes. Even before the recent economic downturn, western mountain resort retail centers faced difficult market conditions and have struggled to achieve substantive growth for many years. Simply adding new residential units, which the resorts have done consistently for nearly two decades, has not translated into similar levels of retail growth or more diverse, prosperous and active downtowns. A retail component is needed at Ever Vail in order to provide necessary guest and resident services but Ever Vail is in some ways a challenging retail site, and there are other commercial centers in Vail that are well established and will remain well positioned to provide the majority of Vail's retail services. 4 -7 -8 \n Page 9 Current retail market conditions are difficult and simply replicating the standard resort mix of base area tenants, without regard to the limitations of this site or the challenges of the broader market, are unlikely to provide a successful strategy. Ever Vail will likely be the first major new ski village project to face these long standing retailing challenges in combination with the new challenges presented by the economic realities of 2009 and the foreseeable future. Retail Development Strategies BBC considered multiple strategies in evaluating Ever Vail retail prospects. OPTION 1 — Minimalist. In our view, a minimalist retail strategy at Ever Vail would focus on the gondola oriented retail corridor, shown in Exhibit 5, with the intention of filling the basic retail needs of Ever Vail residents and guests. This would require only about 45,000 square feet of space and could satisfy —but perhaps not optimize —the basic requirements of Ever Vail guests and owners. The hotel would supplement some of these public offerings with internal restaurants and shops. In this scenario, Ever Vail would be more of a residential neighborhood and the pedestrian core would be smaller and less commercially ambitious. The downside of this strategy is that: • Owners and guests would have very few restaurant and retailing options, potentially diminishing the attractiveness of the overall project and value of the residential neighborhood; • The seasonality inherent in this strategy would limit retail success and with limited offerings peak period demands might be underserved; and • The concept of youthful, vital public spaces inherent in the Ever Vail plan would be undermined. In sum, a minimalist retailing effort would under serve the area and potentially undermine the overall project's success. A rough measure of the minimal retail requirements associated with residential development and mountain access needs at Ever Vail is set forth in Exhibit 6. 4 -7 -9 \n Page 10 Exhibit 6. Ever Vail Retail Demand —Food and Beverage, Sporting Goods, General Retail Average Annual Annual Lodging Persons Annual Person Retail Sales Occupancy Days ($ millions) Hotel Rooms 120 2.0 60% 52,400 $ 6.29 Condominiums 358 3.5 35% 159,600 19.12 Resident Housing 48 2.0 90% N /A (1) 0.50 Ritz / GC Place / Vail Spa 120 3.5 35% 53,655 6.43 Total Units / Resident Sales 674 $ 32.34 Day Skier Salev $ 2.10 Total Annual EverVail Associated Retail Demand $ 34.44 EverVail Sales Capture Rate 40% Sales per Sq. Ft. $ 300 Supportable Retail Space (Sq. Ft.) 45,900 Note: (1) Employees $5,000 per person per year. (2) Average 300 day skier parking spaces @ 2.6 pers. /space X 140 days X $15 /person in retail spending. See Appendix A for derivation of estimated daily visitor retail spending. Source: BBC Research & Consulting, 2009. Assuming reasonable unit occupancy rates and a conservative retail capture assumption, the development ultimately expected at Ever Vail could support an estimated 45,000 square feet of development, which would be composed largely of restaurants, convenience goods, skiing /recreation equipment and clothing. This represents a retailing model that relies primarily on Ever Vail guests. This strategy would also present difficult seasonality challenges for retail operators. OPTION 2— Additional anchor tenant. In order to expand beyond basic resident /guest services, support a more engaging pedestrian environment and allow less seasonal retail operation. Ever Vail needs a second retail attraction and market anchor —one that expands the market, supports summer business and enhances street level vitality. In our view, the Ever Vail site is too far from the majority of Vail Village accommodations to suggest promoting a large and diverse retailing core that could offer the scale and product diversity necessary to draw large numbers of visitors from elsewhere in Vail, and successfully compete with Lionshead and Vail Village. Instead, after internal discussions about the merits of various alterntive attractions, we support the introduction of a "Fresh Market " — conceptually, a small Whole Foods —at site E -7. The grocer /market would achieve multiple objectives: • Introduce a new retail element into the larger Vail marketplace, which is not entirely duplicative of other offerings; • Introduce an anchor retailer into Ever Vail that will attract patrons from a wide area without cannibalizing other businesses; • Expand the summer attraction for Ever Vail retailers; 4- 7 -10 \n Page 11 • Add a year -round anchor tenant at a location that reinforces the natural pedestrian flows within the Ever Vail complex; and • Significantly expand the Ever Vail market beyond ski - oriented conveniences for Ever Vail residents and guests. The Lot E -7 site offers an excellent location for this store. It is close to the east end of the project and the remainder of Lionshead, and it balances the Ever Vail retail core with a small unique grocery at one end and mountain access on the other. A convenient specialty grocer with on- surface parking and market appropriate goods also allows other locally serving businesses to consider an Ever Vail location, effectively benefiting from the retail synergy typically associated with a grocery anchor. Exhibit 7 on the following page shows Ever Vail and the two retail districts; Market Street District and the Gondola District. Exhibit 7. Ever Vail and the Two Retail �g "`� Districts - Grocery ." p p ii Retail 5pace =Market Street District Market Street' =Gondola District Dist rict w , Grocery t E -5 N51'a'ENfEf ?. F'2 / f RITZ CARLT ©N' RESIDENCES r rnPS 'I ER5^.SD PLAW n o a\ It should also be noted that the success of the grocery and the concept for a diverse locally oriented retail center is in part dependent upon either surface parking and surface access incorporated into the Market Street design, or reliable, convenient structured parking dedicated to Market Street customers. Additional on- street parking would enhance convenience and visibility for the Market Street shops and encourage patrons to make quick stops and more regular visits. 4- 7 -11 \n Page 12 The Market Street shops can accommodate about 20,000 square feet in the storefronts along Market Street ending at the Fresh Market E -7 site. The Fresh Market is designed at 14,000 square feet, suggesting a total addition of 34,000 square feet of retail and restaurants anchored by the grocery. Potential tenants include: additional pizza, sandwiches or similar casual food; liquor store; drug store; as well as any variety of establishments that serve residents, guests and visitors, particularly stores that might otherwise locate down valley. In sum, with the strategies suggested here, we foresee a need for approximately 70- 80,000 square feet of all forms of retail, including grocery, restaurant and general retail trade. Tenant mix. Traditionally, the tenant mix of ski resort retail has been reasonably predictable and reflected the general trends discussed previously. Restaurants tend to dominate spatial requirements followed by ski shops and with recreational apparel. Vail's current tenant mix (see prior Exhibit 3) reflects a strong reliance on food and beverage and a substantial amount of grocery space —the result of having two large grocery stores in west Vail. Beaver Creek, which is in some ways more of a pure resort retail market with only minor outside influences, portrays a more tourist - oriented mix of tenants with a notable absence of groceries, and considerably more apparel and gallery space. Exhibit 8. Retail Sales by Category, Beaver Creek, 2005 -2008 zoos 2006 2007 2008 100010 0 N 0 40% 0 0 rn M O N � M M M o 0 O W 0 0 30% N N O N N o 0 20% co 0 0 0 7 ° 7 O ul 10% 0 0 0 0 ° W oo oo M � M 0% Apparel Gallery Luxury Miscellaneous Restaurant Sporting Goods Source: Vail Resorts Development Company. The growth in restaurant trade, referenced previously, is also evidenced in Beaver Creek. Ultimately, the market will determine the tenant mix at Ever Vail. Given the characteristics previously described, we would expect restaurants and sporting good stores to dominate the retail mix, accommodating 35 percent and 25 percent of the 75,000 square foot total, respectively. With a 14,000 square foot floor plate, the grocery store will absorb about 18 percent of total retail space, leaving about 17 percent for affiliated convenience retail and specialty goods. 4- 7 -12 \n Page 13 Summary • Ever Vail requires a core level of commercial activity, including a mix of restaurants, bars, skier services and general retail, in order to provide basic services for Ever Vail skiers, residents and guests. This basic function could probably be accomplished with 40- 50,000 square feet of retail space, which would largely be ski shops and restaurants. • The proposed hotel requires an internal restaurant and bar, or perhaps two restaurants, to ensure that guests have appropriate services and convenience associated with resort offerings. In this current market, these offerings are likely to include a pool, workout area, sundry shop and spa, which dictate a small amount of in -hotel retail businesses as well. This function could probably be accomplished with 5 -8,000 square feet of hotel retail and restaurants. • The overall Ever Vail experience would benefit from a more robust retail offering, additional attractions, and greater diversity of bars and restaurants than the minimal amount needed to service local guests. The concept of a Fresh Market (specialty grocery) is an attractive anchor prospect as it potentially broadens the market and lessens reliance on winter skiers/ tourists. • We believe that a small unique grocery could anchor a convenience oriented district that would provide services for guests and residents and take advantage of Ever Vail parking, which will be underutilized outside of peak ski season. • In total, the gondola portal and Ever Vail residential, plus the small grocery market, will support an estimated 70- 80,000 square feet of retail development at completion of the project. • Vail Resorts will have to accept low financial returns on retail leasing in the project's initial development stages until the Ever Vail bed base reaches maturity. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this discussion and look forward to seeing a vital and successful Ever Vail project lead the way in the new -era, mountain resort market. Sincerely, Ford C. Frick Managing Director 4- 7 -13 \n APPENDIX A. Derivation of Retail Spending Assumptions Exhibit A -1. Seasonality of Vail Tax Collections (restaurants, grocery and retail sales only) $1.6 $1.4 0 $1.2 Winter = 55% $1.0 a 3 G $ 0.6 d X $0.6 H Summer = 20% $0.4 N $0.2 Base = 25% $0.0 NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT Source: BBC Research & Consulting, 2009. The above data suggests that there is a stable base of sales in restaurants, grocery stores and retail outlets that represent about 25 percent of annual town sales —this business occurs without immediate reliance on seasonal guest- driven activity. Winter visitor sales (November through April) account for about 55 percent of the town's $250 million dollars of annual retail, grocery and restaurant sales. Summer guest contribute about 20 percent of annual sales. 4- 7 -14 \n Page 15 Exhibit A -2 shows a process for estimating daily visitor sales (in the food, grocery and retail sector) by employing the data from Exhibit A -1 with data on destination skier activity. Exhibit A -2 Derivation of Visitor Day Sales Winter Guest Sales Vail Annual Food, Beverage and Retail Trade Sales (exclusive of lodging and utilities)(1) $250M %Attributable to Winter Visitors: 55% %Attributable to Vail Lodge Winter Guests: 85% Vail Lodged Winter Visitors Food, Beverage and Retail Trade Sales $117M Guest Nights Vail Skier Visits 1.65M % Attributable to Vail Lodged Destination Guests (2) 55% Vail Lodged Destination Skier - Visits (1.65M X 0.55) 907,000 Skier Visits per Destination Guest 4.5 Average Length of Stay 5.0 Days Vail Destination Winter Visitor Days (907,000 / 4.5 X 5.0) 1,007,000 Retail Sales /Destination Guest -Day ($117M / 1.OM) $717 /Day Note: (1) Town of Vail Sales Tax Reports. (2) Vail Resorts, 2009. Source: BBC Research & Consulting, 2009. This exercise suggests that Vail lodged, destination guests will spend about $117 per day on Vail grocery, retail trade and food and beverage services. 4- 7 -15 \n Ever V 11 • Re- Submittal to the Town of Vail November 2009 (Revisions to December 2008 submittal) OP s . #'_ ¢ 9 � o t . W p dD = ' oft VAILRESORTS I J I I [CI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY C A L L I S 0 N Mauriello Planning Group 4 -8 -1 \n I. *able of antentf 11. DIRECTORY .............................................................. ............................... a III. EVEILVAILUPDATE - NOVEMBER2 009 ..................... ............................... a A . INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... ............................... 5 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................... ............................... 7 C. PROPOSED CONDITIONS ....................................................................... ............................... 7 D. VISION OF EVER VAIL AND LEED CERTIFICATION ...................................... ............................... 9 E. EVER VAIL ZONING ANALYSIS ............................................................. ............................... 10 F. TOWN OF VAIL SUBMITTAL FOR REVIEW ................................................. ............................... 11 IV. PRELIMINARY #UBDIvISION PLAN ............................. .............................28 A. INTRODUCTION OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REQUEST ..................... ............................... 28 B. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR SUBDIVISION ................... ............................... 28 V . REZONING .............................................................. .............................33 A. INTRODUCTION TO THE REZONING REQUEST .......................................... ............................... 33 B. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A REZONING REQUEST ......................................... ............................... 34 V1. TEXT AMINOMENT .................................................. .............................37 A. INTRODUCTION TO TEXT AMENDMENT .................................................. ............................... 37 B. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT ............................................ ............................... 40 v11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS .................................... .............................43 A. INTRODUCTION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ................................ ............................... 43 B. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ................................. ............................... 43 Vi11. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION ............................... .............................46 A. INTRODUCTION TO THE MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION ............................. ............................... 46 B. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION ......................... ............................... 46 IX. SITE COVERAGE VAU1ANCE ...................................... .............................50 A. INTRODUCTION TO THE SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE ................................. ............................... 50 B. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR REVIEW ............................................................. ............................... 50 X . HOUSING PLAN ....................................................... .............................53 m . ADJACENT ADDRESSES ............................................ .............................58 4 -8 -2 \n II. bredwy Thomas Miller, Director of Development Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. Vail Resorts Development Company P.O. Box 464 137 Benchmark Road 101 A Airpark Dr. Unit 9 Avon, CO 81620 Gypsum, CO 81637 (ph) 970 - 754 -2544 (ph) 970.524.0720 Tmillerl @vailresorts.com Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc Mauriello Planning Group 950 Seventeenth Street Suite 1050 PO Box 1 127 Denver, CO 80202 Avon, CO 81620 (ph) 303.228.2300 (ph) 970.748.0920 dominic @mpgvail.com LandWorks Design, Inc. 3457 Ringsby Court Suite 110 CALLISON Denver, CO 80202 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 (ph) 303.433.4257 Seattle, WA 98101 -2343 (ph) 206.623.4646 Ludvik Electric Electrical 3900 S. Teller Street Alpine Engineering, Inc. Lakewood, CO 80235 P.O. Box 97 (ph) 303.781.9601 Edwards, CO 81632 (ph) 970.926.3373 PCL Construction Services, Inc. 2000 South Colorado Blvd. Megan Ritchie Saffitz Tower Two - Suite 2 -500 Paladino and Company Denver, CO 80222 (ph) 206.522.7600 (ph) 303.365.6500 www.paladinoandco.com Peak Land Consultants, Inc. AMEC Earth & Environmental 1000 Lions Ridge Loop 1002 Walnut, Suite 200 Vail, CO 81657 Boulder, CO 80302 (ph) 970.476.8644 (ph) 303.443.7839 RCLCO BaumbergerStudio 7200 Wisconsin Avenue, 7th Floor 3226 NE 45th Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814 Portland, OR 97213 (ph) 800.706.0671 Rock Resorts 390 Interlocken Crescent Suite 1000 BCER Engineering, Inc. Broomfield, CO 80021 5420 Ward Road, Suite 200 (ph) 303.404.1871 Arvada, CO 80002 -1838 (ph) 303.422.7400 SA Miro, Inc. 4582 South Ulster Street Parkway, Suite 1501 CH2M Hill - CO Shop Consultant Denver, CO 80237 9193 South Jamaica Street (ph) 303.741.3737 Englewood, CO 80112 (ph) 303.771.0900 Specialty Sports Ventures, LLC 299 Milwaukee Street Denver, CO 80206 Ever Vail 3 4 -8 -3 \n Design Workshop Becky Zimmermann, President Vision Engineering Mechanical Consultant 1390 Lawrence Street, Suite 200 Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 2T6 Denver, Colorado 80204 (ph) 604.687.1800 (ph) 303.623.5186 Ford Frick Economics Research Associates 1 101 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 750 BBC Consulting Washington, DC 20036 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 859 (ph) 202.496.9870 Denver, CO 80209 Steve Thompson (ph) 303.321.2547 Thompson and Troutz, LLC PO Box 984 Avon, CO 81620 (ph) 970.949.1413 Ever Vail 4 4 -8 -4 \n III. Ever flail Update - November 2009 A. Introduction On December 2, 2008, . Vail Resorts Development Company submitted applications to Facilitate the development of Ever Vail, in the area commonly referred to as West Lionshead. This followed the rezoning and preliminary subdivision applications that were submitted in March of 2007. After more than two years in the process, gathering input from the various boards, staff members, and the public, we are submitting a revised submittal package for Ever Vail For Final review by the Town of Vail. Two major milestones have occurred since the last submittal: 1. The approval of the location of the new South Frontage Road. This is a significant milestone in the Ever Vail review process, as it sets the site and defines the property line for the project. VRDC has been working with the Town Staff, CDOT, and FHWA to ensure that there is adequate width for the road section desired, and to ensure that Future 1 -70 expansion plans are not impacted by the relocated Frontage Road. This new Frontage Road is a vast improvement over the existing road. The plan includes medians, turn lanes, a separated recreation path, overflow parking lane, etc. While the Final CDOT approval process continues, all signs point to a positive outcome. 2. The Glen Lyon Office Building (GLOB) site has been incorporated into the Ever Vail Project. Vail Resorts Development Company is currently under contract to purchase the GLOB site. This is a substantial addition to the Ever Vail project, allowing For additional Gore Creek frontage and vastly improving the coordination and planning on the west side of Red Sandstone Creek. There are covenants on the GLOB site which restrict uses to primarily residential uses and restrict the height and square footage that can be placed there. This additional property provides the opportunity to properly master plan the entire West Lionshead area. In addition to these major milestones, other changes have been made to the Ever Vail plans based on the input we have received From the Town and the public through this two year review process. The plans now include a 13,000 sq. Ft, facility devoted to k� children's programming. This facility, run by the Vail Recreation District, Z' includes an iconic indoor /outdoor climbing wall, along with children and family activities Focused on after ski programs during the winter months, During the summer months, the Vail q l EVER NAIL - ,REESM MAtA VIEWD -m Recreation District will base enhanced Ever Vail 5 4 -8 -5 \n day camp programs and drop -in activities from here. Along side the VRD space is a children's ski school space that accommodates the DEVO program currently housed at Golden Peak. The DEVQ and ski school are served by approximately 50 short -term drop off parking spaces included within the skier parking Facility. The VRD space is adjacent to a new amphitheater that focuses on the natural environment of Red Sandstone Creek. The plans continue to include the extensive list of uses and amenities as previously conceived. There is still a Rock Resort Hotel with 120 rooms and associated conference and meeting rooms of over 8,000 sq. Ft., along with a 20,000 sq. ft. destination spa. Ever Vail will have a 14,000 sq. ft. specialty market, along with 38,000 sq. ft. of general retail. Ever Vail is envisioned with 6 restaurants, from high -end dining to casual family dining. From a residential standpoint, we are now proposing 358 condominium units with approximately 537,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. In addition, there will be 48 employee housing units, both far -sale and rental units, meeting 80% of our requirement on -site. A portion of the employee units will be restricted to lower income Families pursuant to the LEED ND program, well beyond the requirements of the Town of Vail. Through all of these changes, we remain committed to our participation in the LEED -ND pilot program. We also remain committed to providing 400 day -skier parking spaces, as outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to alleviate parking currently occurring on the Frontage Road and to accommodate the shifting demand For parking as a result of the new gondola. There are a total of approximately 700 parking spaces open to the public For retail and skiers, in addition to a transit center accommodating Town of Vail transit uses and the ECO bus. Finally, we will be increasing the amount office space that will be displaced by development, allowing for local businesses to continue operating in Vail. �i Ultimately, Ever Vail is about the mountain. A new gondola will i 6 be provided, helping to alleviate I l�l► rr congestion at the other mountain I portals and creating a much- needed fifth portal. Finally, mountain operations will receive a brand -new, state of the art, completely subterranean mountain operations facility with T . `' direct access to the snowcat +/ X, 1 A bridge and access road up Tract I{ . In addition to the programming EVER VAIL ±:UMk KAIA.. YEWG 1 -� and physical changes to the plans, we have also provided some additional studies explaining benefits and strengths of the project. The First is a fiscal analysis completed by Steve Thomson, of Thompson and Trautz LLC, providing an in -depth study of the fiscal impacts of Ever Vail on the Town of Vail. This study clearly indicates that Ever Vail will be a short - term and long -term Financial benefit to the Town, with revenues far exceeding the costs to serve the Ever Vail 4 4 -8 -6 \n development. The fiscal analysis states the following (the complete report is provided under separate cover): The results of our analysis estimate that the project will generate for the Town of Vail onetime revenue of $32 million as well as $7 million in ongoing annual revenue that includes $4.7 million from Tax Increment Financing (TIF). We estimate the additional operating and capital costs to the Town of Vail will be less than the estimated annual and one time revenues. Along with the fiscal analysis, BBC Consulting has provided a market analysis, looking at the proposed commercial uses in Ever Vail and documenting the economic sustainability of the project. This study (also provided under separate cover) provides an analysis of the necessary threshold of commercial square footage needed to serve the development and the skier population using the skier and retail parking, while ensuring minimal impacts to existing businesses in Vail Village and Lionshead. Finally, a study completed by Vail Resorts Mountain Operations has been submitted, providing an analysis of skier population, parking, and distribution to the various portals to Vail Mountain and the changes to the current distribution as a result of Ever Vail. Along with these new studies, previous studies have been updated when necessary, and re- submitted for review by the Town of Vail. B. ftsting Conditions Ever Vail is a project proposed on a 12 -acre site in the area known as West Lionshead. The site includes the Vail Professional Building, Cascade Crossing, the Vail Maintenance Yard, the old BP Gas Station, and the Glen Lyon Office Building, along with portions of the existing South Frontage Road. The gas station was demolished and environmental remediation undertaken in preparation for this project, so the site is currently used as parking and construction offices for the contractor for the Ritz Carlton project. The following table provides background information about the current uses on the site: site oeneral Descry tio■ s eclfic Use Vail Professional Building Offices and limited retail 1,938 sf retail 17,987 sf office Cascade Crossing Retail and limited office 8,584 sf retail 1,479 sf restaurant 1,020 sf office Old BP Gas Station Former gas station and auto repair, 3,374 sf repair shop temporarily used for construction staging Glen Lyon Office Building Offices 10,829 sf office Vail Maintenance Yard Maintenance yard and VR employee 245 parking spaces parking C. ftoposed Conditions Ever Vail is a mixed -use project, consisting of residential, commercial, and quasi - public uses. To generally describe the project, the west side of Red Sandstone Creek, including the GLOB site, is Ever Vail 7 4 -8 -Tn significantly lower in scale and steps down west across the site. While the entire site includes substantial underground parking, 400 public skier spaces are also located on the west side, With the majority of the employee housing, along with Free - market residential units, the west side has a residential feel. Limited commercial uses, the VRD space, ski school gathering area, and the indoor /outdoor climbing wall are located at the pedestrian exit of the parking structure, capturing skiers as they exit and enter the structure. The east side of Red Sandstone Creek is the more active village core. With the gondola, Rock Resorts Hotel, 4,000 sq. Ft. of meeting space, and various commercial uses, along with the transit center and skier drop -off, this side of Ever Vail will be the vibrant, mixed -use heart of the project. Anchored on one end with the specialty Food market and on the other end with the gondola surrounded by a large public plaza, Ever Vail will remain active and vibrant all year- round. The Following provides a general summary of the programming proposed based on each building for Ever Vail; EVER VAIL h r .�.. N Y�r Faep�rMaMwi.FGonlia+I LnrC�, a_. -...c .' I I Building General Description Uses and/or Approx. SF W1 Residential 57 du 24 ehu W2A -B Mixed -Use, including 51 du VRD and Skier Services 12 ehu 24,400 sf commercial W2 -B Residential 4 du 1 ehu Ever Vail s 4 -8 -8 \n Building General Description Uses and /or Approx. SF W 3A -D Residential 26 du 4 ehu E1 Mixed -Use 19 du 16,000 sF commercial E2 Mixed -Use 41 du 35 ou 1 ehu 27,000 sf commercial E3 Mixed -Use 36 du 85 au 25,000 sF commercial E4 Gondola NA E5 Mixed -Use, Transit 51 du Center 33,600 sf office 7,400 sF commercial E6 Mixed -Use 29 du 2 ehu 8,600 sF commercial E7 Mixed -Use 44 du 3 ehu 11,800 sF commercial D. Vision of Ever Vaal and L EED Certification The U.S. Green Building Council has developed a LEED For Neighborhood Development f, Rating System. All of the Following information regarding LEED is From their document �' -• entitled LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System. The j AAW U.S. Green Building Council, the - Congress For the New Urbanism, - and the Natural Resources Defense Council —three •" f "*: �► i w organizations that represent some of the nation's leaders among progressive design professionals, builders, developers, and the EVER VAIL "Ir ia.'Fe vc"c environmental community —have come together to develop a national set of standards For neighborhood location and design based on the combined principles of smart growth, new urbanism, and green building. The goal of this Ever Vail q 4 -8 -9 \n partnership is to establish these standards for assessing and rewarding environmentally superior development practices within the rating framework of the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating SystemT"^ The Neighborhood Development rating system is designed to certify exemplary development projects that perform well in terms of smart growth, new urbanism, and green building. Projects may constitute whole neighborhoods, fractions of neighborhoods, or multiple neighborhoods. Smaller, infill projects that are single use but complement existing neighboring uses should be able to earn certification as well as larger and mixed -use developments. Ever Vail has been accepted to be a LEED certified neighborhood development and has received its first review by the USGBC. Ever Vail achieved a LEED Platinum Rating in September 2008 when it completed Final Stage One LEED -ND Review was returned by USGBC. According to USGBC, Ever Vail was the: • 12th LEED -ND project certified • 2nd Platinum LEED -ND project • 1 st LEED -ND project in Colorado /Rocky Mountain Region • LEED -ND project furthest east of the Pacific Ever Vail is a LEED certified plan or LEED Platinum plan, and USGBC has issued Vail Resorts Development Company a letter stating that if the project is built as proposed, it will be able to achieve LEED for Neighborhood Development Stage 2 Certification. L Wer VailZening Analysis For the purposes of the Zoning Analysis, the project is analyzed with respect to the Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 Zone District only. There are additional requirements imposed on the project from the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan that in some cases are more restrictive than zoning. These will be discussed in Subsection G. Ike uireme ■t kloweOXeguhred Proposed Lot Size: 10,000 sq. ft. 12.275 acres / 534,697 sq. ft. Buildable Area: 10,000 sq. ft. 471,947 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front /Side /Side /Rear: 10 ft./ 10 ft/ 10 ft./ 10 ft. Varies Gore Creek: 50 ft. 50 ft. Red Sandstone: 30 ft. 30 ft. Height: Max: 82.5 ft. 82.5 ft. Average: 71.5 ft. 65 ft. Density: Units: 430 units 358 units Units per Acres: 35 units /acre 29.16 units /acre Site Coverage: Above Grade: 70 %/374,288 sq. ft. 47% /254,135 sq. ft. Below Grade: same* 77%/411,000 sq. ft. Ever Vail 10 4- 8 -10 \n Re uiromeet Allowed /te ui1►ed Proposed Landscape Area: 20 %/106,939 sq. ft. 25.94 %/138,319 sq. ft. Loading and Delivery: Max of 5 bays 7 straight -body truck bays 3 trash /recycle /compactor bays 2 semi truck bays Parking: 796 spaces 1,551 spaces (a full analysis is provided in Section VI) * The original adoption of the LRMP did not limit site coverage for underground uses and parking. F. '*wn of Y611114mittal hr Review The development of Ever Vail requires many applications for review by the Town of Vail. The following lists each application submitted, along with a brief description of each application and the reviewing board: Applicmdon lWe Brief Description Revie ng Board* The preliminary subdivision plan which was approved by the PEC in 2007 has since expired. The purpose of the preliminary subdivision plan is to plat the property into Preliminary Lots 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail Subdivision. From the Subdivision Plan previous approval, additional land has been added to PEC final accommodate some utilities. The preliminary subdivision plan includes the relocation of the S. Frontage Road. The Town of Vail has approved a partial Preliminary Plan establishing the north property line of the Ever Vail property. The area of Ever Vail to the west of Red Sandstone is currently zoned ABD and the current S. Frontage Rd. is unzoned. GLOB is currently part of SDD #4, Cascade PEC recommendation Rezoning Village. These areas will be zoned Lionshead Mixed Use TC final - 2, to match the remaining portion of the property, consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Text Amendment Ever Vail is not currently within the Core Area for parking PEC recommendation requirements. The amendment allows for Ever Vail to be TC final within the Core Area, consistent with its intended use. Conditional Use The private parking structure, maintenance facility and the Permits gondola are identified as conditional use permits in the PEC final LMU -2 zone district. Major Exterior The construction of buildings within LMU -2 requires a Alteration PEC final major exterior alteration. In order to maximize the underground parking, a site Site Coverage coverage variance for underground improvements is PEC final Variance requested. The above -grade improvements meet site coverage requirements. *as with any application, the Town Council can call -up the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission Ever Vail 11 4- 8 -11 \n Other applications will be submitted separately and as further refinement of the plan necessitates, including: • Flood plain modification • DRB For individual buildings. G. Master Plan Analysis for Ever Vail The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (LRMP) provides the framework For the Town of Vail to review this application to Facilitate the redevelopment of Ever Vail. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was originally adopted in December of 1998. At the time, the Town recognized that Vail was nearing an important crossroads and that major changes were necessary to remain at a competitive advantage in the ski resort industry. The purpose statement of the LRMP clearly identifies how Vail intended to face this competition head -on: ( Sec. 2.1) This master plan was initiated by the Town of Vail to encourage redevelopment and new development initiatives within the Lionshead study area. Both public and private interests have recognized that Lionshead today lacks the economic vitality of Vail Village, its neighboring commercial district, and fails to offer a world -class resort experience. Lionshead's economic potential has been inhibited by a number of recurrent themes: lack of growth in accommodation units ( "hot beds "'), poor retail quality, the apparent deterioration of existing buildings, an uninteresting and disconnected pedestrian environment, mediocre architectural character, and the absence of incentives for redevelopment. Redevelopment is critical for Vail and Lionshead if the community is to remain a competitive four- season resort. Other resorts are spending millions of dollars to upgrade their facilities in order to attract more visitors year - round. Growth in the number of skiers annually has slowed to one to two percent, intensifying competition for market share. Skiers are spending less time skiing and more time shopping, dining out, and enjoying other off - mountain activities. As a result, the demand for quality retail shopping and a greater diversity of experiences has dramatically increased. All of these are sorely in creed of improvement in Lionshead. Vail, and specifically Lionshead, will fall behind if the community fails to upgrade the quality of its facilities and correct the existing flaws in its primary commercial nodes. This purpose statement reads much like Vail Resorts purpose For the Ever Vail f ^. development. • An increase and diversification in hot beds. This is accomplished through the Rock Resort hotel, along with some w ` dwelling units in a voluntary short -term rental pool. • An increase and diversification in retail offerings, a live music venue and a specialty market /grocer. 4 1U1RVAIL Ever Vail 12 4- 8 -12 \n • Removal of older, deteriorating buildings, including an aging maintenance facility, and the existing strip mall -type use. The new structures will be built to LEED standards, and the new maintenance facility will allow Mountain Operations to have a state -of- the -art, efficient facility to serve their needs in maintaining Vail's premier mountain status. All of this will be done in an exciting and inter - connected pedestrian environment bounded by sophisticated architecture and an extraordinary natural environment. The LRMP provides six policy objectives which further detail this purpose statement: (Sec. 2.3) Renewal and Redevelopment Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. V 7 3tality and Amenities We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements. Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base ( "live beds" or "warm beds ") through new lodging products. Live beds and warm beds are best described as residential or lodging rooms or units that are designed for occupancy by visitors, guests, individuals, or families on a short term rental basis. In order to improve occupancy rates and create additional bed base in Lionshead, applications for new development and redevelopment projects which include a residential component shall provide live beds in the form of accommodation units, fractional fee club units, lodge dwelling units, timeshare units, attached accommodation units (i.e, lock -off units), or dwelling units which are included in a voluntary rental management program and available for short term rental. Further, it is the expressed goal of this Plan that in addition to creating additional bed base through new lodging products, there shall be no net loss of existing live beds within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. Improved Access and Circulation The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traffic must be improved within and through Lionshead. Improved Infrastructure The infrastructure of Lionshead (streets, walkways, transportation systems, parking, utilities, loading and delivery systems, snow removal and storage capacity) and its public and private services must be upgraded to support redevelopment and revitalization efforts and to meet the service expectations of our guests and residents. Creefive financing for Enhanced Private PfIts and ti61ic AWenues Ever Vail 13 4- 8 -13 \n Financially creative and fiscally realistic strategies must be identified so that adequate capital may be raised from all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements. Chapter 3 of the LRMP identifies all of the existing conditions presenting challenges to the objectives of the Town of Vail. Many of these are described in general terms. However, the Maintenance Yard is specifically identified and addressed: (Sec. 3.2.5.3) V ail Associates serylice Yard The Vail Associates service yard, bordered by the South Frontage Road on the east and south and Red Sandstone Creek on the west, currently contains a wide variety of mountain operation functions such as snowcat service and fueling, warehouse storage, and maintenance shops. While the service yard is critical to Vail Associates' mountain operations there is a strong interest on the part of the Town of Vail to see the majority of these facilities relocated on- mountain. According to Vail Associates it may be possible to relocate many of the facilities, but the snow cat service and fueling operations must remain at or near its current location. Specific issues regarding the service yard include: a. Visual Like its neighboring Amoco service station, the service yard is at the western front door to Lionshead. Much of the yard is screened by an existing berm, but the facility is inconsistent with the existing land uses in Lionshead and the desired visual character of a destination resort. As redevelopment occurs in west Lionshead it will become increasingly important to address these visual concerns. b. Access The snow cat fueling and maintenance operations are a significant component of the service yard functions. Snow cats and snowmobiles must cross the South Frontage Road to access the mountain, frequently conflicting with traffic on the frontage road. c. Forest Road Mountain Access Snow cats from the service yard currently access the mountain via Forest Road to the Born Free ski run. Though a pre- existing condition, the presence of the snow cats on Forest Road has long been a consistent complaint of the Forest Road property owners. It is clear that the removal of snow cats from Forest Road is desirable but there is no existing secondary route to the mountain and the alternatives for creating a new access way, while possible, are problematic. The completion of the ski cat access road up Tract K opens up the opportunity to relocate Mountain Operations to the area adjacent to the "Bridge to Nowhere ". Locating Mountain Operations completely below grade minimizes its impacts to adjacent properties (within and adjacent to Ever Vail) and furthers the goals of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This chapter also discusses the existing VR parking situation, with specific reference to the basic ground rule of "no net loss of parking ": (Sec. 3.9.4) Ever Vail 14 4- 8 -14 \n 3.9.4 Vail Associates Employee Parking Vail Associates currently utilizes two large surface parking lots within the study area for its employee parking needs. The North Day Lot (see figure 3 -15), with a capacity of approximately 105 cars, is located behind the Landmark tower and is the site proposed for a transportation facility, employee housing, and other uses contemplated under the zoning on the property (LMU -1). The west day lot, located just west of the Marriott parking structure, has an approximate capacity of 160 cars and represents a significant development opportunity. Parking displaced by redevelopment of these sites must be replaced within the Lionshead study area to satisfy the ground rule requiring no net loss of parking. The displaced parking will be provided in West Lionshead within a parking structure included as part of the Ever Vail project. As part of the submittal, Vail Resorts will be proposing replacement of parking at the Ever Vail site, including the following: • 65 spaces from the North Day Lot (40 spaces remain). • 245 spaces from the West Day Lot and Holy Cross Lot. This equates to a total parking replacement of 310 parking spaces. (Parking for the Mountain Operations Facility is provided for separately.) These spaces are included in the parking calculations provided later in this document. Chapter 4 of the LRMP provides recommendations for the overall study area, and includes a section on the West Lionshead neighborhood: (Sec. 4.1.5) West Lionshead — Residential /Mixed -Use Nub West Lionshead includes the Vail Associates Service Yard, Holy Cross site, Vail Professional Building site, Cascade Crossings site, Glen Lyon Office Building site, former gas station site, and the Eagle River and Water and Sanitation site. This area of Lionshead is generally under utilized and from an aesthetic standpoint is not in keeping with what the Town would like to see Lionshead become as it redevelops in the coming years. The Town of Vail does place a high value on maintaining the office and retail areas in West Lionshead and any redevelopment should reasonably increase the square footage of existing office and have "no net loss" of retail square footage in West Lionshead. With their recent acquisition of additional properties in this area, Vail Resorts has the opportunity to bring lift service to this part of Lionshead. Lift service brings with it great potential for the re- development of this area and in doing so expand all of Lionshead to the west with improved pedestrian connections, new retail and office activity and other improvements. While lift access will certainly energize this area during the winter months, attention should be given to creating a year -round attraction within this area of Lionshead. The master plan recommends that this hub become a residential/ mixed use area with an emphasis on meeting the needs of both the local community and our guests. Appropriate Ever Vail 15 4- 8 -15 \n uses could include high density residential development, lodging, community and visitor based office and retail space, employee housing and parking, bus or transit functions and a ski lift connection to Vail Mountain. The catalyst for this mixed use hub is ski lift access to Vail Mountain. Consideration should be given to integrating employee housing into the redevelopment of West Lionshead in accordance with the Town's employee housing policies and regulations. To the extent possible development patterns in this area should reflect north -south orientation of buildings, visual penetrations to the mountain, and a pedestrian oriented environment. The degree of north -south building orientation may be difficult given the relatively narrow east -west orientation of this area. In addition, the introduction of ski lift access in this location creates a catalyst for a structured public parking facility. All service and delivery demands created by development in this area shall be accommodated on -site. The site will continue to accommodate the existing and potentially expanded functions of the Vail sanitation plant. The mountain service yard could be reduced in size, as some functions can be moved to less central locations. It may also be possible to relocate the entire mountain service yard to a new location in the West Lionshead area which would allow for greater flexibility in the redevelopment of this site. However as the area develops it is critical that new uses be connected to the primary pedestrian corridors and that they be served by the Town of Vail in -town transit system. The above section of the LRMP clearly states the intention for this area to become a residential and mixed use area, to include high density residential development, lodging, office, retail space, employee housing and parking. The uses proposed at Ever Vail clearly align with this intent. While each of these uses will be addressed in later sections of this submittal document, it is clear that Ever Vail meets the recommendations of the LRMP. Chapter 4 also includes the following section on public transportation: (Sec. 4.5.1) Connection to *est Lionshead West Lionshead consists of the Vail Associates Service Yard, Holy Cross site, Vail Professional Building site, Cascade Crossing site, Glen Lyon Office Building site, former gas station site, and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation site. Because it is an area of potentially significant growth, it is important that it be fully integrated into the Town of Vail transit system. The West Lionshead properties are at the outside edge of the acceptable walking distance to the ski yard (1200 feet). With a mixed use development in the area which integrates a ski portal, retail space, office space and residential development, transit service to this area and interconnections to other portals will be critical to develop in the future. In addition, the update of the Vail Transportation Master Plan shall provide direction on the ultimate location of a Lionshead Transit Facility along with needed interconnections between ski portals, regional transit stops, and other transportation modes. The addition of a ski lift in this area would make this area more viable to redevelopment as it would be within the acceptable walking distance of a lift (1,200 feet). (Sec. 4.5.2.1) Relocate the Regional Transit Stop It is recommended that the Lionshead regional transit stop, currently located at the Lionshead Place cul -de -sac, be relocated to the proposed North Day Lot, the Lionshead Ever Vail 16 4- 8 -16 \n parking structure, and West Lionshead. This will provide a Lionshead connection between the regional transit system and the Town of Vail transit system. In addition, visitors and employees coming to Lionshead by regional bus will arrive at a defined portal instead of the current "back door" on Lionshead Place. Finally, this will remove the large regional buses from West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place. It may be possible to locate elements of a regional transit stop in the West Lionshead area in conjunction with a new ski lift and parking facility. However, given its location on the periphery of Lionshead, this area may not be the most viable location for a regional transit stop. Notwithstanding the above, facilities for skier drop -off, private shuttle vans and Town of Vail in -town buses should be included in the design of the ski lift and parking facility. In 2006, the Town of Vail initiated an update of the Vail Transportation Master Plan. In addition, the Town initiated a development competition for the Lionshead Parking Structure redevelopment, which would include a transit facility. It is anticipated that the Transportation Master Plan update along with the conclusion of the Lionshead Parking Structure redevelopment process will provide direction on the ultimate location for a Lionshead Transit Facility and /or the type of transit facilities that may be necessary in West Lionshead. As this section indicates, redevelopment of West Lionshead would be challenging without the addition of a lift. All areas of Ever Vail will be within 1200 ft. of the proposed gondola. This gondola has been designed to be central to the site, to maximize accessibility. In addition, the intent is to maximize public transit and bus access to the site, and facilities have been provided for skier drop -off, private shuttle vans, and regional /in -town buses. Chapter 4 provides direction on the potential realignment of S. Frontage Road: (Sect 4.6.2) South Frontage sood Recommendations outlined below address potential re- alignment of portions of the frontage road, ingress and egress improvements, bicycle/ pedestrian improvements, and visual improvements. For a detailed discussion of capacity and the impacts of future development on the frontage road, see the traffic impact study contained in appendix A. Figure 4 -9 depicts potential redevelopment without the realignment of the Frontage Road while Figure 4 -9a depicts redevelopment with a partial realignment of the Frontage Road. ' otential sealigrent The concept of realigning the South Frontage Road at the western end of the study area grew out of public discussions about land development and traffic flow in West Lionshead. Relative to traffic flow, realignment will remove the conflict that now exists between through- traffic and mountain service vehicles (snow -cats and snowmobiles) entering and exiting the Vail Associates service yard. Realignment will position the road to the north of most new development, thus reducing the potential for conflicting turning movements. Regarding future land use, the realignment of South Frontage Road will allow the west day lot and the service yard to be combined into a contiguous development parcel. This is an important consideration for the development conceptually depicted in figure 4 -9a, and it would be necessary if the service yard property is Ever Vail 17 4- 8 -17 \n used for a secondary public parking facility or other uses. Any existing parking on the West Day Lot must be replaced within the Lionshead study area. Through the Transportation Master Plan update it is anticipated that a significant traffic control device will need to be installed in the West Lionshead area. Such a device may include a round about. Specific considerations regarding realignment are. a. Proposed Alignment The proposed realignment of the South Frontage Road is depicted in figure 4- 9a. Critical design issues include the width of the road and the radius of the curves. Both of these factors will be important in reducing the speed of vehicles entering the Lionshead area and the amount of land consumed by the two curved road sections. Cooperation between property owners, developers, the Town of Vail, and the Colorado Department of Transportation will be necessary to implement the realignment of the Frontage Road. b. West Lionshead Circle Connection It is proposed that West Lionshead Circle connect back to the frontage road at the west side of the Vail Spa. The alignment depicted in figure 4 -9a terminates perpendicular to the frontage road and does not require the acquisition of private property. A new parcel of developable land, suitable for offices or non - resort retail, would be created on the southeast corner of this intersection. C. Forest Road Connection Forest Road could be realigned to cross through the newly created development parcel, providing access to that site and connecting at right angles to the frontage road. Another alternative that should be considered is to connect Forest Road to West Lionshead Circle via the existing Frontage Road right -of -way. d. Transit and Emergency Vehicle Corridor A transit and emergency vehicle corridor should remain in the existing alignment of the frontage road. This connection is necessary to provide a through- transit route to the west end of Lionshead and also keeps in place the existing utility corridor. e. Feasibility of Realignment The ability to realign the frontage road will be heavily influenced by costs, CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation), and the Federal highway administration. Future west Lionshead developments will require significant upgrades and widening of South Frontage Road, potentially including the widening or reconstruction of the bridge over Red Sandstone Creek. The cost of realigning the frontage road is in addition to the mandatory costs of improving the road. Ever Vail 18 4- 8 -18 \n f. Future Frontage Road Re- alignment The opportunity may exist to re- locate the Frontage Road the full length of the West Lionshead planning area. The benefit of this alternative would be to eliminate the "Frontage Road barrier" between the Holy Cross site and the Vail Professional Building. While this alternative would require coordination with other surrounding land owners, it could warrant further study and evaluation in the future. lrw af. =.hr.ax.. fwr,.w YYrIwY.+,wswrW..iwrw.twr.r �� •._w If' W.�Yawa tr►iaww'..Y14M.�e -rr Canawwer [e«v �� Vail Resorts has been working successfully with CDOT on the complete re- alignment along the full length of the planning area and the Town has made the application to CDOT for the road relocation. The next step in the process is approval by the FHWA, which also appears to be progressing favorably. A traffic study by Kimley -Horne and Associates has been submitted to Further address the S. Frontage Road alignment. Related to the issue of transportation, Chapter 4 of the LRMP provides direction on Public Parking and potential locations, including the Following: (Sec. 4.8.3.3.) West Lionshead The construction of a new public parking facility at the west end of Lionshead has been a planning consideration since the completion of the Vail Transportation Master plan in ] 99 1. This site is currently undeveloped (except for the Vail Associates maintenance yard) and is large enough to meet projected parking demand. It is well located in relation to the potential new eastbound 1 -70 access ramps. The viability of a new public parking facility in this location would be enhanced by bringing lift service to this area. The construction of a new public parking facility would address the existing deficiency of off-street parking on peak drays and the shifting demand of parking created by the introduction of a new ski lift in West Lionshead. It is anticipated that the new public parking structure would contain approximately 400 public parking spaces, which would be in excess of any parking requirements generated by proposed development. The update of the Vail Transportation Plan should provide final direction on the location and quantity of additional public parking spaces in the Town of Vail. The location of additional public parking should consider where parking is most optimal for both guests and employees, year round utilization, mountain operations, and overall traffic circulation. Ever Vail 19 4- 8 -19 \n Given the location for this parking facility, it had been assumed that regular transit or shuttle service would be necessary because of its distance from the retail core area and the ski yard (greater than a 1200 -foot walking radius). However, the location of the parking structure would be proximate to the new lift and as such the need for regular shuttle service would be minimized. However, some provisions for bus stops and /or a transit facility should be considered for the parking structure. Vail Resorts is proposing 400 public skier parking spaces, in compliance with the recommendations of the LRMP. Ultimately, nearly 700 spaces will be available for public parking. (Section 4.8.4) 4.8.4 Parking for Employee Housing The unit -to- parking space ratio for employee housing should be reduced to maximize the housing opportunities in west Lionshead. During the master planning process, the Vail Town Council toured several employee housing complexes in Keystone Resort that averaged .25 cars per bed (one parking space per four -bed unit). Most of these complexes at Keystone are removed from the core and depend on a bus transit system to carry employees to and from work. Yet, Keystone property managers have not observed a parking shortage. Likewise, at the Rivers Edge employee housing project in Avon, a parking ratio of .75 cars per bed has been more than adequate and the parking lot is underutilized. At this time, Vail Resorts is not requesting a reduction in the parking requirements for employee housing. However, a reduction would allow for a greater number of public parking. Employee Housing is also a primary subject of Chapter 4 of the LRMP, and the West Lionshead neighborhood is identified as a potential site: (Sec. 4.9.4.3) 4.9.4.3 West Lionshead West Lionshead includes the Vail Associates Service Yard, Holy Cross site, Vail Professional Building site, Cascade Crossings site, Glen Lyon Office Building site, former gas station site and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation site. All redevelopment in West Lionshead will need to conform to the Town's housing policies and requirements. In order to create activity and vibrancy in West Lionshead it is appropriate to include some dispersed employee housing opportunities for permanent local residents in proposed developments in the area consistent with these policies. Perhaps the most promising locations to replace the Sunbird affordable housing project and to conform to the Town's housing policies and requirements for new employee housing generation in Lionshead are the North Day Lot, Vail Associates service yard, and Holy Cross site. However, housing is not the only use these three properties will need to support. The Ever Vail Housing Plan is submitted in another section of this document. The current Town of Vail regulations for employee housing require that a minimum of 50% of the required employee housing be constructed on -site. At this time, Vail Resorts is proposing to exceed this requirement. In addition, Vail Resorts is proposing a variety of unit types, including rental and for -sale, to serve both individuals and families. Beyond the requirements of the Town, Vail Resorts is proposing a portion Ever Vail 20 4- 8 -20 \n of the employee housing will be restricted to lower income families, based on Area Median Income restrictions pursuant to the LEED ND application. Chapter 4 also discusses the priority of the Town of Vail to encourage the provision of Live Beds: (Sec. 4.13) Vve `eds The maintenance, preservation, and enhancement of the live bed base are critical to the future success of Lionshead and as such, special emphasis should be placed on increasing the number of live beds in Lionshead as the area undergoes redevelopment. The Lionshead area currently contains a large percentage of the Town's overall lodging bed base. The bed base in Lionsheacl's consists of a variety of residential and lodging products including hotels, condominiums, timeshares and hybrids of all three. The vast majority of live beds in Lionshead are not accommodation units in hotels, but instead, in dwelling units in residential condominiums such as the Vail 21, Treetops, Antlers Lodge, Lion Square Lodge, Lifthouse Lodge, Landmark Tower and Townhomes, Lionshead Arcade, and Montaneros, all of which have some form of rental /property management program that encourages short term rental of dwelling units when the owners are not in residence. It has been the experience in Lionshead that condominium projects which include a voluntary rental management program have occupancy rates which exceed the occupancy rate of hotel products, and therefore tend to provide more live beds and produce more lodging tax revenues to the Town. As stated previously, Vail Resorts has also placed a priority on live beds, and the development includes Rock Resorts hotel and all dwelling units in a voluntary short -term rental pool. It is Chapter 5 of the LRMP that focused on detailed plan recommendations for specific areas within the Lionshead study area, and provide direction for the redevelopment of West Lionshead: (Sec. 5.17) West Lionsheacl Inclucles the Vail Associates service Yard, Holy Gross Sift, Vail FrefeWonal Nuilding Site, Cascade Crossings Site, IlNen ,yon Office Building Site, former gas Station Sits and the Nagle River Water and Sanitation Site. South Frontage Road Improvements and Vehicular Access Planning for West Lionshead must consider two different scenarios: the realignment of South Frontage Road and its retention in the existing alignment. While the introduction of lift service is viable in either of these Frontage Road alternatives, site design will vary depending upon what happens to the Frontage Road alignment. See Figures 4 -9a, and 4 -9b for the Frontage Road realignment alternatives. Notwithstanding these different Frontage Road scenarios, there should be an increase of existing office square footage and "no net loss" of retail square footage as a result of the redevelopment of these parcels. Furthermore, service and delivery for West Lionshead shall occur underground or be hidden from public view. Service and delivery truck turning maneuvers Ever Vail 21 4- 8 -21 \n should not negatively impact traffic flow on the South Frontage Road. With a realignment of vehicular access points, attention should be given to the location of service and parking areas. a. Retention of Existing Frontage Road Alignment If the Frontage Road remains in its current location the Maintenance Yard /Holy Cross parcels, the Vail Professional Building site, and /Cascade Crossing and the Glen Lyon Office Building site all remain viable development sites. The most viable site for a public parking facility would be the Maintenance Yard /Holy Cross parcels. While other lift locations are feasible, the old gas station site is a viable location for a base terminal. This location would require a grade separated pedestrian crossing over the Frontage Road to the Maintenance Yard /Holy Cross parcels. A strong east -west oriented pedestrian corridor with ground floor retail uses would be necessary to create a strong connection between this area and the rest of Lionshead. Under this Frontage Road scenario the Vail Professional Building site and Cascade Crossing could be developed as a contiguous parcel. In keeping with Policy Objective 2.3.4, Improved Access and Circulation, of the Plan, opportunities for public transportation and vehicular circulation improvements shall be explored in conjunction with any future redevelopment of the sites. Possible opportunities for improvements may include, an improved mass transit stop, relocated /reduced /shared points of entry /exiting, restricted access points, acceleration/ deceleration lanes, greater sight distances, dedicated turning lanes, landscaped medians and skier drop -off. In the redevelopment of Cascade Crossing and the Glen Lyon Office Building site under the current configuration of the Frontage Road, the bus stops in front of said properties shall be enhanced with, for example, shelters, benches, and landscaping. Pedestrian connections shall be improved from the bus shelters, across the South Frontage Road and to and from the surrounding buildings to provide safe and attractive pedestrian crossing and connections. Improvements may include crosswalks, walkways, pedestrian crossing warning lights, medians, and signage. The Frontage Road will be relocated, so the above recommendations are no longer applicable to the project. While the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recognized that relocation was a possibility, the extent to which it could be relocated was not understood at the time. With Vail Resorts' purchase of the Vail Professional Building, Cascade Crossing, and now GLOB, the Frontage Road will be relocated along the entire West Lionshead area. The potential road relocation is discussed below: b. Frontage Road Realignment The greatest benefit of this realignment alternative is that it results in one very large and contiguous development parcel and in doing so integrates the Maintenance Yard /Holy Cross site with the West Day Lot by removal of the barrier created by the existing Frontage Road alignment. It also creates the best pedestrian environment in creating an extension of the Lionshead Retail area in that it provides the potential to establish a convenient and desirable pedestrian connection to the rest of Lionshead. Ever Vail 22 4- 8 -22 \n With this alternative the most viable site for a public parking facility would still be the Maintenance Yard /Holy Cross parcels. With the re- location of the Frontage Road lift access out of the old gas station site would not require a grade separated pedestrian crossing to the Maintenance Yard /Holy Cross parcels. However, a grade separated crossing over the Red Sandstone Creek would be needed to link the Holy Cross site with the Vail Professional Building site. This alternative would also present the opportunity for enhancing Red Sandstone Creek to make it more accessible to the community and an aesthetically pleasing water feature. Enhancements might include; streambank stabilization/ beautification, natural stream drop structures, interactive low flow areas and general improvements for wetlands and wildlife habitiat. Any modification or enhancement to the creek corridor would be subject to U.S. Army Corp of Engineers approval. A strong east -west oriented pedestrian corridor with ground floor retail uses would be necessary to create a strong connection between this area and the rest of Lionshead. In keeping with Policy Objective 2.3.4, Improved Access and Circulation, of the Plan, opportunities for public transportation and vehicular circulation improvements shall be explored in conjunction with any future redevelopment of the Frontage Road and interior roads within the redevelopment of the West Lionshead sites. Possible opportunities for improvements may include improved mass transit stops, relocated /reduced /shared points of entry /exiting, restricted access points, acceleration/ deceleration lanes, roundabouts at major intersections, greater sight distances, dedicated turning lanes, landscaped medians and skier drop -off. As the submitted plans indicate, the enhancement of Red Sandstone Creek is a large part of the Ever Vail project, with the ultimate goal of making it an amenity to both the project and the entire Town of Vail. As the plans for Red Sandstone Creek progress, a flood plain modification permit will be submitted to the Town for stream bank improvements, and all plans will be subject to review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (Sec. 5.17.2) Pedestrian and Dike Access As compared to a separate, free - standing portal, West Lionshead is considered a part of the greater Lionshead area. In order for this area to be successful, it is important to have a strong pedestrian connection with the rest of Lionshead. Streetscape improvements including bike lanes or trails and sidewalks should be incorporated in any redevelopment along West Lionshead Circle and the South Frontage Road to improve the viability of mixed uses in West Lionshead. Improvements to street lighting, walking surfaces, trails, seating areas and public art that facilitate safe and attractive pedestrian and bike movement are strongly encouraged. Said improvements may necessitate the need for access easements through the sites. In the redevelopment of West Lionshead, pedestrian and bike connections shall be made to integrate with the rest of Lionshead and Cascade Village. There is an existing recreation path that runs across the southwest corner of the Glen Lyon Office Building site. If the site redevelops the recreation path shall be enhanced to meet town recreational path standards and to provide a safe and attractive pedestrian and bike Ever Vail 23 4- 8 -23 \n experience. The improvements shall include a public easement over the path where necessary. A strong connection both towards Lionshead and Cascade Village has been integral to the planning process of Ever Vail. The design of the pedestrian connections, along with the layout of the buildings and public plazas have been designed to enhance this connection. (Sec 5.17.3) 'reservelon of Existing Office and Retail space There shall be an increase in office space and no net loss of retail space in West Lionshead. Opportunities for increasing the square footage of office and retail beyond the existing conditions in West Lionshead shall be evaluated during the development review process. Currently, West Lionshead offices and businesses offer a variety of local services and amenities, which is important to preserve with the redevelopment of West Lionshead. During the winter months, the proposed ski lift in West Lionshead and the associated parking will generate significant pedestrian traffic and activity. However, consideration should be given to how West Lionshead can be an active and vibrant place year- round. One way this can be accomplished is the reinforcement of a well- crafted program of specialty retailers, offices, and restaurants that attract both tourists and local residents. Also, quality architecture and the creation of appealing outdoor spaces in and of itself will encourage people to visit this area. An active program of public art, residential units that are used for "artists in residence" or a culinary school are examples of uses that could create a catalyst for activity. In conjunction with any application to develop a new ski lift, a market study which analyzes the appropriate amount of office /retail square footage shall be included in the redevelopment of West Lionshead. Currently, approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of office exists on the site, and approximately 14,000 sq. ft. of retail exists. The project will increase the office square footage to approximately 34,000 sq. ft. of office. Retail will be substantially increased, with a total of approximately 52,000 sq. ft. of retail uses. In addition, there will be substantial restaurant uses on the site, and a 20,000 sq. ft. destination spa. (Sec. 5.17.4) Relationship to Red sandstone Greek and *ore Greek Red Sandstone Creek and Gore Creek abut the Glen Lyon Office Building site, former gas station site, Holy Cross site and the Vail Professional Building site. Any redevelopment of these parcels should consider how the creeks can be enhanced and made an amenity of this redevelopment area. A substantial stand of mature trees exists on the banks of the two creeks, with low lying brush on the shores. Every effort shall be taken to preserve the substantial trees and natural steep slopes along the banks of both creeks. While the natural riparian corridor of these streams needs to remain protected and preserved, the physical and visual relationships and references between adjacent development and the stream tract should be strengthened. Improved public access and utilization of Gore Creek and Red Sandstone Ever Vail 24 4- 8 -24 \n Creek for fishing and other recreational purposes is strongly encouraged to create a catalyst for activity and enjoyment of the streams. As stated above, the relationship to both Red Sandstone Creek and Gore Creek is a significant consideration in the planning of Ever Vail. (Sec 5.17.5) Architectural Improvements The architectural design guidelines (Chapter 8) discuss several transition tools that can be used to adapt an existing building to the new character and architectural quality desired for Lionshead. Given the high visibility of the buildings in West Lionshead and the extent to which they influence the quality of the experience of passers -by, all future development of the sites should be closely scrutinized for compliance with the applicable architectural design guidelines. For properties that are east of Red Sandstone Creek, in West Lionshead, higher densities and building heights may be appropriate, particularly to encourage the development of employee housing. However, any development must meet the overall character and visual intent of this master plan and be compatible with the adjacent existing development of the Marriott and the Vail Spa. ' « 0,10 e Notwithstanding the height allowances of the underlying zone districts, building r height and massing shall be responsive IKUrI Y91. YKH leor++W Vsnww WYf ! Nr.s.+n urrrm = m . to the Gore Creek and Red Sandstone -- - Creek corridors, in that buildings shall gradually "step down" of the creek sides. Building height and massing shall also "step down" towards the Interstate, and at the western end of Lionshead. Figure 5 -25 provides a general depiction of how building height shall gradually lower at the western end of this study area. The intent of these height standards is that building height reduces by entire floor levels in the locations as generally depicted on Figure 5 -25. Notwithstanding the height allowances depicted on Figure 5 -25, which depicts building height in an east/" west orientation, building height and massing shall also "step down" in a north/ south orientation. Notwithstanding the height allowances depicted on Figure 5 -25, buildings fronting directly along Gore Creek and the western end of Lionshead shall express no more than three to four levels before "stepping back" to taller building mass. Can the Interstate side of this area, building design shall be articulated to avoid large expanses of shear /unbroken wall planes. The additional height limitations are intended to ensure that the buildings step down, both as the buildings move towards the west and towards Gore Creek. As indicated in the submitted plans, the Ever Vail 25 4- 8 -25 \n buildings on the west are substantially lower than the buildings on the east, meeting the intent of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Due to the complications in the way the Town measures height, a very small area of the buildings on the west side does not comply with the maximum heights shown on Figure 5 -25, but in general, all buildings step down and meet the average heights. (Sec. 5.17.6) Redevelopment Considerations for Olen 1yon Office Building Tito Consistent with its location at the western edge of West Lionshead and with respect to the extensive frontage along Gore Creek, it is appropriate to recognize certain development limitations and opportunities regardless of the underlying zone district. Height Building heights shall be consistent with Figure 5 -25, West Lionshead Building Massing and Height Limitations. Notwithstanding the height limitations set forth in Figure 5 -25, the maximum height for buildings on the Glen Lyon Office Building site shall not exceed 56 feet. Residential Land Use and Density Existing physical improvements on the Glen Lyon Office Building site include a three -story building with 10,829 square feet of general office space and a surface parking lot. Because of the site's physical location along Gore Creek, it's accessibility to Lionshead Village, and the adjacent potential redevelopment including a ski -lift and activity center, it may be appropriate to introduce a mix of uses on site. If residential uses are proposed, the use shall be consistent with the Master Plan goal to increase the number of 'Live Beds' in Lionshead. Residential density on the site should be studied and proposed in a manner that is compatible with the character and scale of adjacent uses and Gore Creek. Residential uses should be located on the basement or garden level and second floor and above in buildings on -site. If residential uses are proposed on the street level or first floor, the vitality of the pedestrian and bike experience shall be considered along with the function and character of the adjacent uses and structure design. The mixture of land uses on the Glen Lyon Office Building site shall maintain a balance between residential, office/ commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Office Land Use Consistent with the Master Plan requirement for an increase of office space, the existing 10,829 square feet of office space shall be replaced and increased on -site. Employee Housing All (100 %) of the employee housing requirements associated with the Glen Lyon Office Building site, as required by the Vail Town Code, shall be met on -site. Landscape PMservation and Adationship to Red sandstone and fore Greeks The Glen Lyon Office Building site borders on the Red Sandstone Creek along the east property line and the Gore Creek along the south property line. The redevelopment of the Glen Lyon Office Building site should consider how the creeks can be enhanced and made an amenity of the area. Ever Vail 26 4- 8 -26 \n A substantial stand of mature trees exists on the banks of the two creeks, with low lying brush on the shores. Every effort shall be taken to preserve the substantial trees and natural steep slopes along the banks of both creeks. While the natural riparian corridor of these streams needs to remain protected and preserved, the physical and visual relationships and references between adiacent development and the stream tract should be strengthened. Improved public access and utilization of Gore Creek and Red Sandstone Creek for fishing and other recreational purposes is strongly encouraged to create a catalyst for activity and enjoyment of the streams. The addition of the GLOB site has allowed for a much more comprehensive planning approach to the West Lionshead area than could have been considered before. As the submitted plans indicate, Vail Resorts intends to comply with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recommendations for this site, along with the private covenants that also run with the property. Height has been limited to 56 ft. on the GLOB site, and all of the employee housing requirement has been met on -site. It is the intent of the applicant that Ever Vail not only comply with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, but to actually further its objectives by becoming a redevelopment project that, through its architecture and pedestrian orientation, along with sustainable, green building principles, can be an example for all redevelopment projects in Vail. As each application to facilitate the development of Ever Vail is addressed in more detail, please refer back to this section in consideration of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Ever Vail 27 4- 8 -27 \n [V. Weliminary:ubdiyision Nan A. `troduction of #he'relininary ftbdivision 11equest Vail Resorts is submitting a request for a preliminary review of a major subdivision to facilitate the redevelopment of West Lionshead. The Ever Vail subdivision creates new development parcels and allows for the relocating of South Frontage Road. The major subdivision will include a substantial portion of the West Lionshead area, including the sites of the Vail Professional Building, Cascade Crossing, the Vail BP, Glen Lyon Office Building and the Holy Cross lot, along with the Frontage Road right -of -way. Some of these properties are currently unplatted. B. Revbw Criteria for a Preliminary Plan for subdivision 1. the oxteet to *hick the proposed subdivision 1s consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlimd In the 'fail comprehensive plan and Is compatible *it` the idevelopment objectives of the town; 41111111111 Our Analysis: To be the Premier Mountain Resort Community... We share this vision with the Town of Vail. It is our intent to further this vision through the addition of world -class facilities in a new mixed use village, called Ever Vail. This subdivision will enable the redevelopment of Ever Vail. This vision is further supported by stated development objectives of the Town of Vail. The purpose statement of the Lionshead Mixed Use -2 Zone District states: The Uons`ead mixed Use '1, district Is Intended to'rovide Sites for a mixture of ■ultiple46mily dwellings, 1edgos, hotels, fractional fee slobs, timeshares, lodge dwelling Units, hstourants, offices, Skier Services, light Industrial activities, and commercial establishments In a Blustered, Unified development. Lionshead mixed use 2 district, in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private Ever Vail 28 4- 8 -28 \n redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public, off site, improvements adiacent to redevelopment projects. Public amenities which will be evaluated with redevelopment proposals taking advantage of the incentives created herein may include: streetscape improvements, pedestrian /bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, ancl similar improvements. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan provides the framework for the Town of Vail to review this major subdivision application to facilitate the redevelopment of Ever Vail. A complete analysis of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is included in a previous section of this overall document. The preliminary plat approval of this major subdivision allows Vail Resorts to move forward in the development of the Ever Vail into the mixed -use hub desired by the Town of Vail and described by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 2. the Meet to *hich the proposed su`divlsion compiles *ith all of the standards of this titlo, as *ell .s, Mt not limited to, title 12, MZoning lkegslatioW, of this code, and ot`er pertinent regulations &at the planning and environmental commission deems applicable; and Our Analysis: The proposed subdivision complies with all of the Town's codes. Each parcel created by this subdivision meets the minimum lot area requirements of 10,000 sq. ft. This plat is being submitted in conjunction with a rezoning request so that the entirety of Parcels 1 and 2 will be zoned Lionshead Mixed Use -2. The total area of the Ever Vail subdivision is 12.275 acres or 534,697 sq. ft. Of the total area, 10.834 acres is defined as "buildable" or areas not within the flood -plain or with slopes in excess of 40 %. Both parcels being created by the subdivision will be treated as one parcel for the purposes of zoning and development standards. Parcel 1: Parcel 1 is the eastern portion of the Ever Vail site, encompassing the parcels currently platted as Tracts A and B, South Frontage Road Subdivision (which is to be vacated by the proposed Ever Vail plat). It also encompasses the current portion of the Frontage Road right -of -way along this portion. It is 7.322 acres (318,949sq. ft.). Approximately 6.3% of Parcel 1 consists of slopes in excess of 40% (20,196 sq. ft.) and 9,574 sq. ft. are with in the floodplain. Subtracting the total area of the site with slopes in excess of 40% minus the areas in the floodplain (excluding the areas which overlap) from the total site area leaves a 6.652 acres or 289,737 sq. ft of buildable area. It should be noted that many of the areas current at 40% slope or greater is a condition created by man with previous grading of the site as far back as the 1800's. Parcel 2: Parcel 2 is the western portion of the Ever Vail site, just to the West of Red Sandstone Creek, and is the current location of the Vail Professional Building and Cascade Crossing (zoned ABD), along with the portions of the existing Frontage Road along this site. Parcel 2 now includes the Ever Vail 29 4- 8 -29 \n Glen Lyon Office Building site. Parcel 2 is 4.953 acres (215,748 sq. ft.) with 25,589 sq. ft. with excess of 40% slopes and 9,479 sq. ft. in the floodplain. This equates to a total of 4.182 acres or 182,180 sq. ft. of buildable area. It should be noted that many of the areas current at 40% slope or greater is a condition created by man with previous grading of the site as far back as the 1800's. 3. the extent to *hick the proposed subdivision presents a `armonious, convenient, *orkable relationship among land Uses aonsiste ■t with municipal development Objective,; and Our Analysis: Ever Vail provides a unique opportunity for redevelopment. The existing uses in the area vary from office uses to more industrial uses. The proximity of the site to both the ski mountain and Gore Creek creates remarkable opportunities to capitalize on these assets, while providing uses and services that the Town desires and needs. The relocation of the S. Frontage Road furthers these opportunities by creating a site that can fit these uses while minimizing impacts to adjacent properties. Moving the S. Frontage Road to a location along side 1 -70 consolidates these major thoroughfares, thus minimizing the effects of traffic on nearby properties and provides a more efficient vehicular corridor. The proposed uses within Evervail are consistent with municipal objectives and present a unique development opportunity within the Vail community. A. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding areal and Our Analysis: The proposed subdivision will allow for uses consistent with the zoning on the property and compatible with the surrounding area. The subdivision allows for the redevelopment of a Brownfield area (the former gas station site and the Vail Maintenance yard) that will have a positive effect on the surrounding area. The subdivision further allows for improvements and enhancements to Red Sandstone Creek, allowing for it to become an even greater amenity to the Town of Vail while preserving and repairing the riparian area. Direct neighbors to Ever Vail include the following: • East: Vail Spa is currently a multi - family residential project, with limited office uses included. It is currently zoned Lionshead Mixed Use - 1, which allows for development consistent with the uses proposed at Ever Vail. • West: The Glen Lyon neighborhood, including the Cascade Resort, is the nearest neighbors to the west and is separated by significant distance (right -of -way and stream tract). Future development and redevelopment in this area will likely be enhanced by the proposed development occurring at Ever Vail, including the new gondola. • South: The ERWSD building is the nearest neighbor to the south, along with the stream tract and Tract K. Vail Resorts continues to work with the ERWSD to ensure that all of their concerns are addressed. Ever Vail 30 4- 8 -30 \n • North: Ever Vail will generally be bound by the relocated South Frontage Road and 1 -70 right -of -way to the north. 5. the agent to *hick the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause `efficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or remature extension of public facilitiek or result in a Oleapfrogn pattern of development; and Our Analysis: The major subdivision is necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of the Ever Vail area. As a result, this subdivision is highly efficient as public utilities already exist in the site. Because Ever Vail is a redevelopment project, it does not result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. The project is more consistent with in -fill development patterns. It is taking an existing, underutilized area and redeveloping it to a better use. The realignment of the S. Frontage Road will allow vehicular traffic to flow more efficiently through the area. 6. the extent to *hick the unity lines are sized to serve the planted ultimate population of the service area to avoid O1ure 16i disruption to upgrade undersized lines; and Our Analysis: High capacity utility lines already exist in the area and since this area was already considered in the master planning of the area, proper planning of utility capacity was already undertaken. Any impacts to the utilities will be mitigated by Vail Resorts Development Company. 7. The extent to *high the proposed subdivision proyidee for the growth of an orderly Viable community and serves the `est interests of the community as a whole; and Our Analysis: The re- alignment of the S. Frontage Road will allow for development to occur in a more logical pattern, along with consolidating and minimizing the impacts of the traffic associated with the S. Frontage Road and 1 -70. The alignment of the S. Frontage Road parallel to 1 -70 has been successful in other parts of Town and allows for an efficient flow of traffic. In addition, the properties in the Ever Vail area are a mix of unplatted, metes and bounds legal descriptions and platted lots. The proposed subdivision will allow this area to be developed in a more orderly pattern. The subdivision is one step in the overall process to allow for the redevelopment of the West Lionshead area into Ever Vail. The subdivision allows for the provision of public parking, a new ski lift and mixed -use hub for the Vail community. The applicant believes that this redevelopment serves the best interest of the community as a whole. 8. The extent to T#hich the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, ImIlliluding, `ut not limited to, *ater quality, Ever Vail 31 4- 8 -31 \n air quality, ■oise Vegetation, riparian arridors, ` insides and other desirable ■atMI features; Our Analysis: This major subdivision request will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment. The site is currently developed with commercial uses and quasi - industrial uses on the site. All development proposals on the site will be completed with the utmost concern for the protection of the natural environment in the area, as we consider natural areas amenities to the guests of Ever Vail. As other included applications indicate, we are hoping to improve the riparian characteristics of Red Sandstone Creek, which borders the property to the east of the Vail Professional Building. The applicant hopes to make the creek a great asset to the area and to do so, will ensure that there are no adverse impacts to the natural environment. As stated previously, the project is in the LEED -ND Pilot Program, details of which can be found in another section of this submittal. Ever Vail 32 4- 8 -32 \n V. Rezoning A. Introduction to the Rezoning Request Vail Resorts is submitting a request for a rezoning from ABD to LMU -2 for Parcel 2, created by the Ever Vail Subdivision. The site is currently zoned Arterial Business District and is the site of the Vail Professional Building and Cascade Crossing, located at 953 and 1031 Frontage Road. With the addition of the Glen Lyon Office Building site, Vail Resorts is also requesting that this site be rezoned from SDD #4 to Lionshead Mixed Use - 2. In addition, Vail Resorts is also requesting to zone the portion of the S. Frontage Road right -of -way, which is currently unzoned, to LMU -2. The end result will be the entirety of the Ever Vail Subdivision zoned Lionshead Mixed Use - 2. The majority of the site is already zoned Lionshead Mixed Use - 2, including the Vail Maintenance Facility and the old gas station site (see below). Existing Zoning Conditions: N. - .. INWGITES AAEX 1 MPG TF9MFC RFNi1Y CURRENTLY FDNE65dUH� �20NLD21CNfSMEkD WXEi1 -W'SEd CD17.T AST- pG -Ww'v RQICA US WEACLRREHnY CURRENTLY UN2DNE0 ZMED ARTERML BUSINESS DISTRICT Proposed Zoning Conditions: 7 c; - WDrCRTES Aft- ""POSED a[i USES Ever Vail 33 4- 8 -33 \n B. Review Criteria for a Rezoning 16quesf 1. the agent to Y#hich the Kona district amendme ■t Is Wnsisteg with all The applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined In the Vail comprehenive plan and Is compatible "h the derelopmest Ajectives of the town; and Our Analysis: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan provides the framework for the Town of Vail to review this rezoning request from Arterial Business District to Lionshead Mixed Use -2, including the zoning of the Frontage Road right -of -way. Recently, the Town of Vail approved the inclusion of the Glen Lyon Office Building into the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The rezoning of these properties furthers the adopted goals and policies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. A complete analysis of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan in included in a previous section of this submittal. 2. The extent to *hick the Kona district amendment 1s suitable voth the existing and potential land uses on the site and misting and potential surrounding land uses as set out In the town's adoplyd plmning documents; and Our Analysis: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan indicates these properties to be a part of the West Lionshead mixed -use development. The property to the east, which includes the current maintenance facility, is currently zoned Lionshead Mixed Use - 2. The proposed site is bounded by 1 -70 to the North. The re- alignment of the Frontage Road will allow this area to become one cohesive development and the zoning of Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 to the property is more suitable than the current zoning designations. In addition, the rezoning is suitable with the surrounding land uses: • East: Vail Spa is currently a multi - family residential project, with limited office uses included. It is currently zoned Lionshead Mixed Use - 1, which allows for development consistent with the uses proposed at Ever Vail. • West: The Glen Lyon neighborhood, including the Cascade Resort are the nearest neighbors to the west, is separated by significant distance (right -of -way and stream tract). Future development and redevelopment in this area will likely be enhanced by the proposed development occurring at Ever Vail, including the new gondola. • South: The ERWSD building, is the nearest neighbor to the south. Vail Resorts continues to work with the ERWSD to ensure that all of their concerns are addressed. • North: Ever Vail is generally bounded by the relocated South Frontage Road and 1 -70 right - of -way to the north. Ever Vail 34 4- 8 -34 \n 3. The oxillent to *h1ch the apne district amendment presents a ` armonious, convenient, * orkable relatiomshlp among land wsw conistent with municipal derelopmea objectives; and Our Analysis: The rezoning of these properties to Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 will allow for a more harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship in the proposed redevelopment of the West Lionshead area. Cascade Crossing and the Vail Professional Building are the only properties zoned Arterial Business District in the Town of Vail. The Glen Lyon Office Building is substantially physically separated from the remainder of SDD #4. Rezoning them to Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 allows for redevelopment which meets the town's development objectives as outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Zoning Regulations, Vail 20/20, etc. A. The meant to *hick the "ne district ame ■d■ent provides for the growth of an orderly Viable community and does mot constitute spot Toning as the amendment servos the best Interests of the community as a*hole; and Our Analysis: As the adjacent area to the east is zoned Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 and this area is part of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area, it is clear that this does not constitute a spot zoning. This amendment will help to allow the redevelopment of the West Lionshead area into a mixed use hub, serving the needs of guests and residents alike. 5. The extent to vhic` the stone district amendment results In adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural onvironme ■t, hwuding, but mot limited to, *ater quality, air quality noise, Vegetation, riparian corridors, `illsides and other desirable natural features; and Our Analysis: This rezoning request will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment. The site is currently developed with commercial uses on the site. All development proposals on the site will be completed with the utmost concern for the protection of the natural environment in the area, as we consider it an amenity to the guests of West Lionshead. As future applications will indicate, Vail Resorts is hoping to improve the riparian characteristics of Red Sandstone Creek, which borders the property to the east of the Vail Professional Building. Vail Resorts hopes to make the creek a great asset to the area and to do so, we will ensure that there are no adverse impacts to the natural environment. An Environmental Impact Report has been submitted with this application to provide further clarification on this criterion. 6. the extent t0 *hich fie Kona district amendment Is consistent *tb the purpose statement of the proposed Kona district; and Our Analysis: The purpose statement of the Lionshead Mixed Use -2 Zone District is as follows: Ever Vail 35 4- 8 -35 \n The Lionshead mixed use 2 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple - family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, light industrial activities, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead mixed use 2 district, in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public, off site, improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. Public amenities which will be evaluated with redevelopment proposals taking advantage of the incentives created herein may include: streetscape improvements, pedestrian /bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. The application of Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 to this site, as part of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area, is consistent with the above purpose statement. The rezoning will further the goals of the Town of Vail, and ensure consistency with the Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 Zone District. 7. the oxteot to *hick the KoN district amendment demonstrates `ow conditions `ave changed lime the Koning +esignatio■ of the subject property *as adopted and M ■o longer appropriate; and Our Analysis: The Arterial Business Zone District was originally adopted in 1982. At the time, the entire Vail Valley was a different place. The population of the entire county in 1980 was just under 15,000. Today, it's estimated to be over 50,000. Beaver Creek Mountain opened in 1980. The Lionshead Parking Structure was completed in 1980. The Vail Professional Building was constructed in 1985, and Cascade Crossing was constructed in 1990. Twenty -five years ago, the idea of a "billion dollar" renewal of Vail was unfathomable. Arterial Business District was not a zone district applied to a property which would be envisioned to become a mixed use hub, with a parking structure and ski lift. The ABD Zone District is primarily a zone district intended for strip mall development. This site is no longer appropriate for this out -dated form of development. Furthermore, the designation of the Glen Lyon Office Building as part of SDD #4 is no longer appropriate for the site. Due to the physical separation from the remainder of SDD #4, and its proximity to Ever Vail, a zoning designation of Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 is more appropriate so that the entire site can be planned as one development site. Ever Vail 36 4- 8 -36 \n V'I. Text Amendment A. Introduction to Text Amendment Section 12 -1 -19 is requested to be amended to include the Ever Vail Subdivision to be within the Core Area Parking requirements, Specifically, this section would be amended as follows (text to be deleted is indicated in strike - through; text to be added is indicated in bold): 12- 14 -19. CORE AREAS IDENTIFIED: Tables 1 and 2 (core area parking maps 1, and II, and III respectively, attached to the ordinance codified herein, and available for inspection in the office of the town clerk) shall be used to identify properties within Vail`s commercial core areas for parking purposes. In addition to the text amendment, the Fallowing map will be included in the amendment (Final map to be coordinated with Town Staff): Core Area Parking Map III Ewer Vail CT. E SECT- F -' SECT. 12 SECT. 7 TOWN SUJTH 5 5 t {. Y1 aQ t 0. y1 N W F Commercial Core Area Recognizing Ever Vail as a mixed -use development and as an additional Village of Vail, the Core Area parking requirements are more applicable For the Following reasons: • Availability of public parking in close proximity; • People accessing residential and retail and skiing are only making a single trip and need only one parking space or less (mixed use); • Destination skiers do not always hove a car and are shuttled to hotels /residence; • Availability of share car; Gondola access to the mountain; • Access to in town shuttle and other bus routes. Ever Vail 37 4- 8 -37 \n One of the recommendations of the planning process associated with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was to look at the parking requirements of the Vail Village and Lionshead areas to study the Town's parking requirements and the needs of these areas. During the summer of 1999, the Town hired the firm of Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig to conduct an in -depth analysis of parking generation in Vail's commercial core areas. The primary purpose of the study was to determine the influence of external factors (mixed uses, transit /pedestrian trips, hourly variations in business activity) on parking generation. In 2000, the Town adopted the Core Area Parking Requirements for certain areas of Town - Vail Village and Lionshead. At the time, the redevelopment of West Lionshead into Ever Vail was not a consideration. Ever Vail will be a mixed use development, emphasizing alternative means of transportation, and an extension of the Lionshead Area. Including Ever Vail in the Core Area Parking Requirements is not an across the board reduction in parking requirements. For some uses, the parking requirements are actually more stringent. The Core Area Parking Requirements reflect what historically has occurred in the core areas and more accurately reflect the needs of the core areas. Unlike all other properties with in Lionshead, Ever Vail is saddled with parking requirements beyond those of the Town Code. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recommends an additional 400 publicly available skier parking spaces to be located within Ever Vail. In addition, in conformance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Ever Vail will be the site to accommodate the replacement parking for the North Day Lot and the West Day Lot, which is an additional 310 parking spaces. As a result, a total additional obligation of 710 parking spaces are provided beyond the code requirements of 798 spaces, for a sum total of 1508 parking spaces. As currently designed, Ever Vail will include a total of 1551 parking spaces. The following table breaks down the parking as proposed (using Core Area Parking Requirements): Use Cede Requirement air PAlic or Private Total Spaces Other Obligation 'rovlded Residential Code Requirement Private 489.3 Commercial Code Requirement Public 308.2 Skier Parking Other Obligation Public 400 Replacement Parking Other Obligation Quasi - public 310 TOTAL (Code Requirement + Obligation): 1,507.5 TOTAL PROVIDED: 1,551 spaces Ever Vail 38 4- 8 -38 \n Comparison of Core Area Parking Requirements to Non -Core Area Parking Requirements: Parking Analysis hitmw ammy Ceuta Aiii'N Ise M1 ltadme 1w C@m Aires lmamN ltat wide Change if du >2000 sf, 2.5 Dwelling Units 358 1.4 per unit 501.20 375.90 / if du <2000, 2 895.00 671.25 -44.0% .4 per au + .1 per 100 sq. ft. of Accom. Units 120 .7 per unit 84.00 63.00 GRFA 48.00 36.00 75.0% <500 sf, 1.5 / if EHU 48 1.4 per unit 67.20 50.40 less than 200 sf, 2 72.00 54.00 -6.7% Hotel 1 per 330 sf 1 per 120 of Conference 5,156 seating area 15.62 11.72 seating floor area 42.97 32.23 -63.6% Meeting 1 per 165 sf 1 per 120 of Room 3,840 seating area 23.27 17.45 seating floor area 32.00 24.00 - 27.3% 1 per 250 of seating floor 1 per 120 sf of Restaurant 14,293 area 57.17 42.88 seating floor area 119.10 89.33 -52.0% 2.3 per 1000 sf 1 per 300 sf of net Retail 52,620 net floor area 121.03 90.77 floor area 175.40 131.55 -31.0% VRD /Ski 1 per 1000 sf 1 per 250 sf net School* 15,690 net floor area 15.69 11.77 floor area 62.76 47.07 -75.0% 1 per 1000 sf 1 per 300 sf of net Spa* 20,710 net floor area 20.71 15.53 floor area 69.03 51.78 - 70.0% 2.7 for 1000 sf 1 per 250 sf net Office 33,600 net floor area 90.72 68.04 floor area 134.40 100.80 - 32.5% estimated need estimated need of Maint. Facility 1 of 50 spaces 50.00 50.00 50 spaces 50.00 50.00 0.0% OF TOTAL: 1046.61 797.46 TOTAL: 1700.66 1288.00 -38.4% Ever Vail 39 4- 8 -39 \n L &evlsw Qrferia for @ Text Amendment The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations provide the criteria for review of a text amendment. For the purposes of this application, each criterion will be addressed below: 1. the extent to *hick the text amendment furthers the gemeral and specific purposes of theKoning 1►egulftions; and Our Analysis: The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, in Section 12 -1 -2: Purpose, describes the general purpose of the regulations as follows: 12 -1 -2: PURPOSE: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Section 12 -1 -2 also provides the specific purposes of the regulations as follows: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. In addition, Section 12 -10 -1 of the Zoning Regulations provides the purpose of the Parking and Loading Chapter: 12 -10 -1: PURPOSE: In order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on street parking areas, off street parking and loading facilities shall be provided Ever Vail 40 4- 8 -40 \n incidental to new structures, enlargements of existing structures or a conversion to a new use which requires additional parking under this chapter. The number of parking spaces and loading berths prescribed in this chapter shall be in proportion to the need for such facilities created by the particular type of use. Off street parking and loading areas are to be designed, maintained and operated in a manner that will ensure their usefulness, protect the public safety, and, where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their impact. In certain districts, all or a portion of the parking spaces prescribed by this chapter are required to be within the main building in order to avoid or to minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking and of separate garage or carport structures. While many of the purpose statements are not necessarily applicable to this particular code amendment, it is important to note that it does further many of them. Including Ever Vail into the core area for parking requirements means that the parking provided will more adequately meet the demand. This demand has been established by numerous studies completed by the Town. Parking will almost entirely be provided below -grade or in structured parking, minimizing the visual and aesthetic impacts of parking. Most importantly, this amendment promotes adequate and appropriately located off street parking facilities. 2. the extent to *hick the text Omeodment *ould better 1mplemeif and better achieve the applicable dements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined In &*Vail comprehensive plan On4l 1s compatible "h the derelepmeg •bjoctives of the town; and Our Analysis: A complete analysis of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan has been included in a previous section of this submittal document and provides support for this amendment. 3. The oxte ■t to *hick the text Omondmei* +em•nstrates `ow conditions `avo substantially changed Since the Odoptio■ Of the Subject regulation and `ow the existing regulatio■ Is N longer appropriate or Is Inapplicable; and Our Analysis: While this text amendment is considered independent of the other applications submitted for Ever Vail, it is necessary to consider the development as a whole to understand why the Core Area Parking Requirements are more applicable to this site. The Core Area Parking Requirements as codified today were reviewed and adopted in 1999 and 2000, immediately following the adoption of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan in 1998. While it was understood that the West Lionshead area was likely to redevelop in some manner, the properties were owned by a number of different entities, and it was not thought that this area would be under single ownership and could be developed in a more comprehensive manner. More importantly, neither a ski lift, nor a public parking structure were considered for this site at the time of adoption. In the nearly 10 years since the adoption of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the Core Area Parking Requirements, many factors have changed. In conjunction with the Ever Vail 41 4- 8 -41 \n Ever Vail Parking Structure, Vail Resorts is planning many transit uses on -site, which will allow in -town buses and the ECO Bus system to provide service to this site. Finally, Vail Resorts is moving forward with the LEED for Neighborhood Development certification process. To be certified, Ever Vail will be a multi -modal transit community, where all forms of transportation will be encouraged and, in some cases, mandated. The intent is to maximize public transit to the site and the proposal includes: • Bus drop- off /pick up on the east side of the site. • Skier drop -off spaces on the east side, along with substantial short -term drop -off spaces in the west side parking structure to accommodate DEVO drop -off. • Extensive connections to Town pedestrian and bicycle networks. • Hotel shuttle drop -off and pick -up locations onsite. A. The extent to *hick The text amendment provides a `armonious, convenient, *orkable relationship among land use 1►egulcItions consistent*ith municipal development •bjectires; and Our Analysis: The proposal to include Ever Vail in the Core Area parking requirements furthers the Town's goals of providing parking adequate to serve the uses of the development. In addition, the amendment allows for additional parking to be provided for the public, rather than allocated for private use. Maximizing public parking is a stated goal of the Town of Vail. 5. such ether factors and criteria the rimming and ccvirocmental coamission and /or council 4leem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Our Analysis: Not applicable. Ever Vail 42 4- 8 -42 \n I rI. Conditional Ose Ponits A. Introduction of 11 Conditional Use'ermife We are submitting a request for conditional use permits to allow for the following uses: • Private parking structure (including transit facilities) • Maintenance Facility • Gondola These uses are all conditional uses listed in the Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 Zone District. A conditional use is further regulations by Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code. The purpose of this chapter is as follows: 12 -16 -1: PURPOSE; LIMITATIONS: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. B. Revbw Criteria for a Conditional Use Permit I. telationship and `pact of the me on development objective, of the town. Our Analysis: To be the Premier Mountain Resort Community... We share this vision with the Town of Vail. It is our intent to further this vision through the addition of world -class facilities in Ever Vail. This vision is further supported by stated development objectives of the Town of Vail. The purpose statement of the Lionshead Mixed Use -2 Zone District states: The Lionshead mixed use 2 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple - family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge Ever Vail 43 4- 8 -43 \n dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, light industrial activities, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead mixed use 2 district, in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public, off site, improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. Public amenities which will be evaluated with redevelopment proposals taking advantage of the incentives created herein may include: streetscape improvements, pedestrian /bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan provides the framework for the Town of Vail to review the conditional use permit applications. This LRMP is discussed in a previous section of this document and should be referenced in support of this section. Each of the conditional uses proposed are specifically identified in the LRMP as priorities for this site. These uses are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. _. Effect of the we on light and air, distribution of population, transportation faalitles, stilitie*achools, parks and irecreatio■ facilities, and otheir public faalitles and public facilities ■eeds. Our Analysis: The addition of the public /private parking structure will have positive effects on the above criteria. The addition of a new portal onto the ski mountain will serve to disperse skiers, allowing additional choices for their point of entry onto the mountain, as the study of skier distribution indicates (see study under separate cover). The new gondola and the parking structure are integral in the ability to serve the population by providing both a new lift and the parking necessary to serve the new lift. In addition, this will help to alleviate congestion in lift lines in the Village and Lionshead, by providing skiers with an additional choice to park to access the mountain as well as substantially reducing parking which occurs on the Frontage Road. The maintenance facility is completely subterranean and is a much needed improvement to an outdated facility. Ever Vail 44 4- 8 -44 \n S. Wed upon baffic *th particular reference I* congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow `►om the streets and parking areas. Our Analysis: We are working with CDOT in the re- alignment of the Frontage Road and CDOT is very supportive of the proposed re- alignment. In addition, we are providing several transit stops to serve the parking and the overall West Lionshead area. The ski lift will be in close proximity to the proposed parking structure, allowing for skiers to safely walk from the parking structure to the proposed ski lift. Having a gondola to service the skiers parked in the public parking structure allows for less impact on the Town's transportation system. In addition, with Mountain Operations below grade, there is no impact of the snow cats on the public road system. �. Mect upom the charmer of the area In *hic` 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 parking structure is an integral part of the proposed mixed -use hub that Ever Vail is envisioned to become. The maintenance facility will be completely subterranean and have no impact to surround uses, which is a substantial improvement over the existing facility. Ever Vail 45 4- 8 -45 \n T 11. A pior 1hoolorAteration A. `troduction to the iOcior ExteriorAltoration In the Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 Zone District, a Major Exterior Alteration is required for the following types of projects: 12 -71 -7: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. However, any project which adds oddiffonal dwelling =its, accommodation snits, tractional fee club units, timeshare units, any project Vfth adds more San one thousand 7,000) square feet of commercial floor area or eommon space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12 -3 -6 of this title. Any project which requires a conditional use permit shall also obtain approval of the planning and environmental commission in accordance with chapter 16 of this title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. L Revlsw Qriteria for Se Aoaior ExtoriorAlteratlon The Lionshead Mixed Use -2 Zone District does not supply criteria for review as in the case of a Special Development District. However, it does offer a description of the "compliance burden ". 12 -71 -8: COMPLIANCE BURDEN: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead mixed we = district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elememift of the Lionshead redevelopment ■ader plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the ■eighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail eomprehensive plan. 1 . Purpose of the LMU -2 zoce Ustrict Our Analysis: The Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone district was created in 1999, as the implementation phase of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. It intended to create incentives for properties to redevelop. The purpose of the LMU -2 zone district is as follows: The Lionshead mixed use 2 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple - family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, Ever Vail 46 4- 8 -46 \n lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, light industrial activities, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead mixed use 2 district, in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public, off site, improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. Public amenities which will be evaluated with redevelopment proposals taking advantage of the incentives created herein may include: streetscape improvements, pedestrian /bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. All the uses proposed at Ever Vail are listed in the Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 Zone District as permitted or conditional uses. As stated in the purpose statement and as a stated goal of Ever Vail, the goal is "to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area." The redevelopment of West Lionshead into Ever Vail is consistent with the purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 Zone District. 2, llonshead Redevelopment Master'lan Compliance Our Analysis: A complete analysis of Ever Vail's compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan has been provided in a separate section of this submittal document and should be referenced with respect to this section. 3. Character of the Nelghbor`ood Our Analysis: The existing uses in the West Lionshead area could be considered light industrial - the VR maintenance facility, old gas station, and the ERWSD treatment facility. While the maintenance facility will remain at Ever Vail, the facility will be relocated to an underground location, greatly improving the character of the neighborhood. Ever Vail 47 4- 8 -47 \n Direct neighbors to Ever Vail include the following: • East: Vail Spa is currently a multi - family residential project, with limited office uses included. It is currently zoned Lionshead Mixed Use - 1, which allows for development consistent with the uses proposed at Ever Vail. • West: The Glen Lyon neighborhood, including the Cascade Resort are the nearest neighbors to the west, and other than the Glen Lyon Office building, is separated by significant distance (right -of -way and stream tract). Future development and redevelopment in this area will likely be enhanced by the proposed development occurring at Ever Vail, including the new gondola. • South: The ERWSD building is the nearest neighbor to the south. Vail Resorts continues to work with the ERWSD to ensure that all of their concerns are addressed. • North: Ever Vail will generally be bound by the relocated South Frontage Road and 1 -70 right -of -way to the north. The proposed development at Ever Vail will vastly improve the character of the neighborhood. The existing strip mall development will be eliminated, and anew sustainable, economically vibrant, and aesthetically pleasing development will replace it. Existing Conditions: 4. Other Applicable IlemeNts of the 'fail ampre`ensive Fan Our Analysis: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan has been covered in depth in previous sections of this submittal and is incorporated here by reference. The Vail Land Use Plan, which was originally adopted in 1986, also includes goals that are applicable to this project. Ever Vail 48 4- 8 -48 \n 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. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 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 to improve facilities for day skiers. 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 market place 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. Now over 30 years old, the Town of Vail Land Use Plan is outdated in general, but many of the concepts of the plan are applicable to development today. Ever Vail 49 4- 8 -49 \n IX. Site &yerageTariaoce A. `troduction to Se site Coverage variance In 1999, when the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was written, it clearly stated that underground improvements did not count towards site coverage. A subsequent amendment to the definition of site coverage in the zoning regulations added underground improvements to the calculation of site coverage. The definition from the Zoning Code is as follows: SITE COVERAGE: The ratio of the total building area of a site to the total area of a site, expressecl as a percentage. For the purposes of calculating site coverage, "building area of a site" shall mean that portion of a site occupied by any building, carport, Porte- cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway constructed at, helow or above grade as measured from the exterior face of the sheathing of the perimeter walls or supporting columns. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet (4') from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. Following an issue with the Landmark's request for a site coverage variance, the Town amended the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, removing the statement that aBalo*arade dieyelopment is not mounted as mite @overage " . It is clear from the original Master Plan language that below grade improvements were not to be included in the calculation of site coverage, specifically to allow parking to be located in below -grade structures and to maximize the number of parking spaces to be constructed. This definition of site coverage has not been applied uniformly to projects since the amendment. However in some cases, the Town staff has required variances from this requirement. In the Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 Zone District, site coverage is limited to 70% of site area, or in the case of Ever Vail, site coverage is limited to 374,288 sq. ft. As proposed, Ever Vail will exceed this limitation by 36,712 sq. ft., or a total of 77% site coverage. However, when reviewing site coverage as originally intended by looking only at above grade improvements, the site coverage of Ever Vail is 47% or 254,135 sq.ft., well below the 70% limitation. As a result, a site coverage variance is requested to allow for site coverage to exceed 70% (below grade only.) The most significant reason for the variance is the added direction by the Town to include 400 skier parking spaces onsite to address both the overflow parking that occurs on the Frontage Road as well as the gondola needs. But for this requirement, there would be no need for the site coverage variance. B. sevlsw Crferia for teviow Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Ever Vail 50 4- 8 -50 \n 1. So relatiomAip,f the requested Vgriance to othel►oxisting or potential uses and structures In therlcinity. Our Analysis Direct neighbors to Ever Vail include the following: • East: Vail Spa is currently a multi - family residential project, with limited office uses included. It is currently zoned Lionshead Mixed Use - 1, which allows for development consistent with the uses proposed at Ever Vail. • West: The Glen Lyon neighborhood, including the Cascade Resort are the nearest neighbors to the west, and other than the Glen Lyon Office building, is separated by significant distance (right -of -way and stream tract). Future development and redevelopment in this area will likely be enhanced by the proposed development occurring at Ever Vail, including the new gondola. • South: The ERWSD building is the nearest neighbor to the south. Vail Resorts continues to work with the ERWSD to ensure that all of their concerns are addressed. • North: Ever Vail will generally be bound by the relocated South Frontage Road and 1 -70 right -of -way to the north. Because the site coverage variance is for underground improvements only, it is important to list the uses proposed underground: • Vail Mountain Operations • Loading and Delivery • Parking These uses are proposed to be located underground because of the undesirable impacts of having them located above - grade. Locating the uses below -grade minimizes the impacts these uses will have on adjacent properties. Section 12- 71 -16, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, requires that "at least one - half the required parking shall be located with the main building" for sites such as Ever Vail in the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Zone District. Additionally, Section 4.8.d of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recommends that "Parking should be visually inconspicuous. Parking should be structured below ground whenever possible ". To meet the parking requirements of the Town's zoning regulations and the goals of the Town's master plans Vail Resorts is proposing to construct the majority of the new parking below grade. Until the January 2006 adoption of Town code amendments clarifying the definition of site coverage, below grade parking structures were not interpreted by the Town as Ever Vail 51 4- 8 -51 \n site coverage. Because the variance is for underground improvements only, there is no significant negative impact on adjacent uses or structures in the vicinity. 2. the degree to *high relief from the strict or literal Interpretatio■ and enforcement of a specified regulation Is ■esessary to achieve "mpati`ility and uniformity of troatme ■t among ,ices In the rici■lty, or to attain the objectives of this title *thoot grant of special privilege. Our Analysis Approval of the proposed site coverage variance will allow Vail Resorts to construct a below grade parking structure in conformance with the intent and goals of both the Town's zoning regulations and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Recently, a similar variance was approved to allow for the parking structure at the Landmark. As a result, this variance is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniform treatment of sites in the vicinity, and the approval of this request is not a grant of special privilege. 3. the effect of the requested rarianceM light and air, distri`ugon of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and publiesafety. Our Analysis Unlike the case of the Landmark noted above, this site coverage variance is necessary to provide adequate public facilities, specifically the additional parking proposed by Vail Resorts and recommended by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Over 45% of the parking provided in Ever Vail is above and beyond the requirements of the Town Code. Vail Resorts recognizes their obligation to provide additional parking, but the result of that obligation is to provide public parking far beyond the requirements of the uses located on -site. The least impactful method of providing this parking is to provide it below grade. A. Suck other factors and arlteria as the mmmIssion deems applicable to the proposed rarianco. Our Analysis The site coverage variance is only necessary for the below -grade improvements. The above -grade site coverage is well below the 70% requirement. In addition, the project complies with the landscape area requirements. Ever Vail 52 4- 8 -52 \n X. Mousing Plan I. CALCULATION METHOD A. Existing Conditions Site Existing S . ft. Cascade Crossing Retail 8,584 sq. ft. Restaurant 1,479 sq. ft. Office 1,020 sq. ft. Vail Professional Building Office 17,987 sq. ft. Retail 1,938 Vail BP Retail 3,374 sq. ft. Glen Lyon Office Building Office 10,829 sq. ft. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Any development that includes uses such as business offices, professional offices, accommodation units, general retail, grocery, liquor and convenience, recreational amenity, real estate offices, conference facilities, health clubs, eating and drinking establishments, service oriented businesses, or similar uses. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A development that includes at least one dwelling unit, including single - family dwellings, two - family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, fractional fee club units, lodge dwelling units, attached accommodation units, and timeshare units. B. Net NOW aommersial Development for Ivor Vail Retail 52,620 sq. ft. Restaurant 14,292 sq. ft. Spa 20,370 sq. ft. Office 33,600 sq. ft. Skier Service /VRD 15,590 sq. ft. Conference 8,996 sq. ft. Hotel 120 rooms Total Commercial Linkage Requirements: 75.13 employees C. NOt Ne* teddential Development for Ever Ifail Residential Development Increase = Inclusionary Zoning Ever Vail 53 4- 8 -53 \n Inclusionary Zoning requirement = 10 percent of net new residential sq. ft. Net Now GRFA 534,400 sq. ft. so soon RAM (10% of net new) SP required 53,440 sq. ft. D. Mitigation Method Commercial Linkage - The total employee housing requirement is to house 75.13 employees for the commercial linkage requirement. This will be partially accomplished through the construction of rental, deed - restricted, dorm -style employee housing. A total of 14 units, with 16,776 sq. ft. will fulfill 91% of the commercial linkage requirement. Currently, the intent is that all of employee housing for the commercial linkage requirement will be rental units. The remainder will be fulfilled through the purchase of off -site units. Inclusionary - The total employee housing requirement is 53,440 sq. ft. for the inclusionary requirement. This will be partially fulfilled through the 34 for -sale, deed restricted units proposed on -site. Approximately 41,080 sq. ft. will be provided, or approximately 76% of the total inclusionary requirement. The remainder will be fulfilled through the purchase of off -site units. 2. PLAN S A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with Section 12 -24 -3, Building Requirements. See submitted plans 3. LOT SI Z E The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment. Not Applicable A. SCHEDULES A timeline for the provision of any off -site EHUs. Deed restrictions for off -site units will be provided prior to TCO of the project. 5. OFF-SITE UNITS A proposal for the provision of any off -site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal. The applicant is proposing to meet more than the requirecl 50% of employee housing on- site; providing 80% of the requirement on -site. The remaining requirement will be met off - site, as is allowed by the Town Code. Providing off -site units will afford a benefit to the Town of Vail, as it will immediately have employee units in place. Ever Vail 54 4- 8 -54 \n 6. OFF;ITE CONVEYANCE tEQUEST A request for an off -site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request. Not Applicable 7. AE S•I N4I E U A proposal to pay fees -in -lieu shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal. There will be no fee -in -lieu. 8. *ITTEN NARRATIVE A written narrative explaining how the employee housing plan meets the purposes of the Chapter and complies with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. A. Chapter 12 -24 -1 The purpose of Chapter 12 -24 -1 is as follows: The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure that new residential development and redevelopment in the Town of Vail provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such residential development and redevelopment. Chapter 12 -23 -1: The purpose of Chapter 12 -23 -1 is as follows: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new commercial development and redevelopment in the town provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such commercial development and redevelopment. As indicated, the applicant is proposing to meet approximately 80% of the employee housing requirement on -site, exceeding the Town's minimum requirement of 50 %. It is the intent of Vail Resorts that Ever Vail is a vibrant community within the Town, with a mix of residents. With the mix of unit types, and both for -sale and rental housing, Ever Vail will be providing for employee housing at a variety of income levels, mitigating the impact of both residential and commercial development. In addition to meeting the Town's requirements, Vail Resorts will be restricting the occupancy of some of the employee units to lower income residents by using County AMI standards for affordability. B. Lionshead tedevelopment Aster Fan. Ever Vail was recently included in to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The following is taken from Chapter 4 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan: Ever Vail 55 4- 8 -55 \n 4.9 Housing Recent community surveys and grass -roots planning efforts such as Vail Tomorrow have identified the lack of locals' housing as the most critical issue facing the Vail community. Early in the Lionshead master planning process, west Lionshead was identified as an opportunity area to implement some of the community's housing goals, particularly relating to employee housing. These opportunities and associated issues are outlined below. 4.9.1 No Net Loss of Employee Housing Ground rule number five of the master plan states that there shall be no net loss of employee housing in Lionshead as redevelopment occurs. 4.9.2 Visual Issues The financial realities of affordable housing often require cost reducing measures, generally involving the quality of detailing, planning, and architectural design. Given the strong desire to make these housing projects feasible, it is recommended that some latitude be granted to affordable housing developers. However, it is also important that financial realities not be used as an excuse to produce unsightly, poorly designed, substandard products. Employee housing does not need to match the architectural sophistication of a five star resort development, but it does need to be good quality construction and design. Rivers Edge in Avon is a good example of an attractive yet affordable employee housing project. 4.9.3 Policy Based Housing Opportunities The first means of implementing housing goals in Lionshead is through policy based requirements such as the employee generation ordinance currently being pursued by the Vail Town Council. As required by a future ordinance, all development and redevelopment projects, as a prerequisite to project approval, should provide housing for employees generated and to the extent possible this housing should be located in the Lionshead area. At the time of the adoption of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the practice of the Town of Vail was to require mitigation of the employees generated by a project. Neither the Town nor the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan ever anticipated the current requirements. As result, the employee housing provided by the Ever Vail development clearly exceeds the expectations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and is therefore in compliance. The Town Vail Land Use Plan offers the following goals with regard to employee housing: Ever Vail 56 4- 8 -56 \n 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. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Ever Vail complies with these statements from the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. Specifically, integrating the employee housing at Ever Vail into the project allows for employee housing to be slope -side and near their employment. Ever Vail 57 4- 8 -57 \n z. AaacentAddreWe 210312109003 210107200001 GLEN LYON OFFICE BUILDING TOWN OF VAIL C/O ANDREW D. NORRIS C/O FINANCE DEPT 1000 S FRONTAGE RD W STE 200 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL, CO 81657 210312100005 000934 FRONTAGE RD 210107216001 000846 FOREST RD VAIL CORPORATION EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DIST PO BOX 959 846 FOREST RD AVON, CO 81620 -0959 VAIL, CO 81657 210312100004 001031 FRONTAGE RD 210107200001 SOHO DEVELOPMENT LLC TOWN OF VAIL 950 17TH ST STE 1600 C/O FINANCE DEPT DENVER, CO 80202 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 210312100002 000953 FRONTAGE RD SOHO DEVELOPMENT LLC 210107218002 950 17TH ST STE 1600 TOWN OF VAIL DENVER, CO 80202 75 S FRONTAGE RD W VAIL, CO 81657 210312124001 000923 FRONTAGE RD W VAIL CORP 210107218001 PO BOX 7 TOWN OF VAIL VAIL, CO 81658 75 S FRONTAGE RD W VAIL, CO 81657 210312100010 TOWN OF VAIL 210107217004 000825 FOREST RD C/O FINANCE DEPT GORE CREEK PLACE LLC 75 S FRONTAGE RD PO BOX 7 VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL, CO 81658 210312109004 SUB:GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION 210107217002 000728 LIONSHEAD CIR LOT:39 -2 VAIL CORP ROBERT J. ROSEN 2005 QPRT PO BOX 7 NANCY ROSEN 2005 QPRT VAIL, CO 81658 1 127 LAKE AVE GREENWICH, CT 06831 000710 LIONSHEAD CIR VAIL SPA CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 210312109005 009345 FRONTAGE RD 710 W LIONSHEAD CIR HAGOPIAN & PENNINGTON,LLC VAIL, CO 81657 C/O BRENTWOOD ASSOC & T.M. PENNINGTON 1 1 150 SANTA MONICA BLVD 1200 DANN PETER - Registered Agent LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 PO BOX 5480 AVON, CO 81620 210312109002 TOWN OF VAIL 001000 LIONS RIDGE LOOP C/O FINANCE DEPT VAIL RUN RESORT COMMUNITY 75 S FRONTAGE RD 1000 LIONS RIDGE LOOP VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL, CO 81657 Ever Vail 58 4- 8 -58 \n William I Fleischer - Registered Agent 2103 - 014 -01 -068 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP TELLEEN, DANIEL E. VAIL, CO 81657 122 E MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 210107217002 RCR Vail LLC 2101 - 063 -03 -015 PO Box 959 JOSEPH O. BROUGHTON TESTAMENTARY TRUST Avon, CO 81620 240 ASH ST DENVER, CO 80220 210107222004 ACCP INVESTMENT I LLC 2101 - 063 -03 -016 11270 LONGWATER CHASE CT BROUGHTON, JOSEPH O., JR & LINDA K. FT MYERS, FL 33908 240 ASH ST DENVER, CO 80220 210107222003 3 GCP INC 2101 - 063 -03 -014 AV CHAPULTEPEC 18 RICHARD E. & MARTHA GRIFFITH DEAN TRUST, MEXICO DF 06640 RICHARD E. & MARTHA GRIFFITH DEAN TRUSTEES MEXICO PO BOX 970 TONGANOXIE, KS 66086 210107222002 MARK GREENHILL REV TRUST - ELIZABETH GREENHILL SIMBA RUN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION REV TRUST- MARK GREENHILL FAMILY Farrow Hitt DESCENDANTS TRUST 1 100 N FRONTAGE RD 153 SHERIDAN RD VAIL, CO 81657 WINNETKA, IL 60093 BREAKAWAY WEST ASSOCIATION 210107222001 L.G. Johnson CAREY, ROBERT B. P.O. Box 1743 6912 E HUMMINGBIRD LN VAIL, CO 81658 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 SANDSTONE 70 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, 210107222007 INC. SHARE SYNDICATE XIII LLC Vail Tax & Accounting, Inc. C/O JANE IVY BOX 5940 PO BOX 511 AVON, CO 81620 VAIL, CO 81658 SANDSTONE 70 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, 210107222008 INC. JANICE SAUVAGE TRUST NO 1 PO BOX 1679 8650 W TROPICANA AVE 208 AVON, CO 81620 LAS VEGAS, NV 89147 CDOT 4201 E. ARKANSAS AVENUE 210107222006 DENVER, CO 80222 SCHICIANO, KENNETH 43 HIGHGATE RD MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP, LLC WELLESLEY, MA 02481 POST OFFICE BOX 1 127 AVON, CO 81620 210107222005 5 GCP INC AV CHAPULTEPEC 18 COL DOCTORES MEXICO DF MEXICO Ever Vail 59 4- 8 -59 \n Traffic Impact Study Vail Resorts'Ever Vail Prepared for: Town of Vail © Kin ley -Honi and Associates, Inc. 2009 4 -9 -1 \n T R A F F I C I M P A C T S T U D Y Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Vail, Colorado Prepared for Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates,. Inc. 990 S. Broadway Street Suite 450 Denver, Colorado 80209 CF (303) 228 -23009 (303) 446 -8678 FAX X355 I `: oN aN,4t E����� October 2009 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for zvhich it zvas prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without zvritten authorization and adaptation by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -2 \n TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .... ............................... i APPENDICES ........... i LIST OF TABLES ....... ii LIST OF FIGURES .......................... ............................... iii 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......... ............................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ................ 7 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................... ................. .............. 10 3.1 Existing Roadway Network ............................ 3.2 Existing Study Area ....................... 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes ....................-----........................................................ .............................10 3.3 Future Conditions ............................................................................................. ................... ..........12 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS .......................................... ............................... 18 4.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................. ................. ............18 4.2 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................. ............................... 21 4.3 Traffic Assignment and Total (Background Pius Project) Traffic ............ ............................... 21 5.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ............. I .............................. .-----. .....................---- -..... 35 5.1 Analysis Methodology ................................................................................... ......................... . ..... 35 5.2 Key Intersection Operational Analysis ....................................................................................... 36 5.3 Auxiliary Turn Lane Recommendations ..................................................... ............................... 46 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. ............................... 50 APPENDICES Appendix A - Conceptual Site Plan Appendix B - Existing Traffic Volumes Appendix C - 2025 Traffic Volumes Appendix D - Trip Generation Worksheets Appendix E - Intersection Analysis Worksheets Kinzley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Page i 4 -9 -3 \n LIST OF TABLES Table 1- Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Traffic Generation ........................................... ............................... 19 Table 2 - Day Skier Parking and Transit Center Traffic Generation ................. ............................... 20 Table 3 - Level of Service Definitions .................................................................... ............................... 35 Table 4 - Background LOS Results ...................... ... 37 Table 5 - South Frontage Road & Forest Road Roundabout Sidra LOS Results ............................ 39 Table 6 - South Frontage Road & Forest Road Roundabout Rodel LOS Results ........................... 39 Table 7 - Forest Road & West Lionshead Circle LOS Results ............................ ............................... 40 Table S - South Frontage Road & Proposed Access A LOS Results .................. ............................... 41 Table 9 - South Frontage Road & Proposed Access B LOS Results .................. ............................... 42 Table 10 - South Frontage Road & Proposed Access C LOS Results ................ ............................... 42 Table 11 - South Frontage Road & Proposed Access D LOS Results ................ ............................... 43 Table 12 - Forest Road & Proposed Access E LOS Results ................................ ............................... 44 Table 13 - Forest Road & Proposed Access F LOS Results ................................. ............................... 45 Kiniley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Page ii 4 -9 -4 \n FIST OF FIGURES Figure1- Vicinity Map .................................................•........................................... ............................... 8 Figure 2 - Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... .............................11 Figure 3 - 2015 Background Traffic Volumes ......................................................... .............................14 Figure 4 - 2015 Future Laneage and Control .......................................................... .............................15 Figure 5 - 2015 Relocated Background Traffic Volumes ...................................... .............................16 Figure 6 - 2025 Background Traffic Volumes ......................................................... .............................17 Figure 7 - Trip Distribution West Side without Simba Run Underpass .......... ............................... 22 Figure 8 - Trip Distribution East Side without Simba Run Underpass ............ ............................... 23 Figure 9 - Trip Distribution West Side with Simba Run Underpass ................ ............................... 24 Figure 10 - Trip Distribution East Side with Simba Run Underpass ................ ............................... 25 Figure 11 - Traffic Assignment West Side without Simba Run underpass ..... ............................... 26 Figure 12 - Traffic Assignment East Side without Simba Run underpass ....... ............................... 27 Figure 13 - Traffic Assignment Skier Parking /Transit Center without Simba Run underpass.. 28 Figure 14.- Traffic Assignment West Side with Simba Run underpass ........... ............................... 29 Figure 15 - Traffic Assignment East Side with Simba Run underpass ............. ............................... 30 Figure 16 - Traffic Assignment Skier Parking /Transit Center with Simba Run underpass ........ 31 Figure 17 - 2015 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes without Simba Underpass ............... 32 Figure 18 - 2025 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes with Simba Run Underpass ............ 33 Figure 19 - 2025 Future Laneage and Control ...................................................... ............................... 49 Kiniley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Page iii 4 -9 -5 \n 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vail Resorts currently plans a redevelopment project, Ever Vail, within the West Lionshead Village area in Vail, Colorado. The conceptual plan consists of redevelopment of two separate parcels located west of the West Lionshead Circle intersection along South Frontage Road. With redevelopment of these parcels, a realignment of South Frontage Road is proposed to align South Frontage Road adjacent to Interstate 70 (I -70). The frontage road is proposed to have an 80 -foot right -of -way width through this segment adjacent to Interstate 70 (I -70). According to the Vail Transportation Master Plan this has been discussed as part of the Frontage Road planning with preliminary acceptance from CDOT. With realignment of South Frontage Road, a realignment of Forest Road is also proposed where Forest Road will intersect South Frontage Road at the approximate existing western intersection of West Lionshead Circle in a roundabout. With this realignment and due to roadway geometrics, it is proposed that West Lionshead Circle intersect with Forest Road in a T- intersection south of the roundabout, with a southbound to eastbound left turn lane that provides approximately 75 feet of storage. The entire Ever Vail project is anticipated to include approximately 358 residential units, 103,595 square feet of external retail, 33,600 square feet of offices, a hotel with 120 rooms, and 48 units of employee housing. Redevelopment of the two parcels is also anticipated to include a parking garage on the western portion of the site, of which 400 of the parking spaces will be reserved for public parking. A transit center for 13 skier drop- off /pick -up spaces and four (4) transit buses is proposed on the east side of the development site. A new gondola is also proposed on the east site. At: the request of CDOT and to maintain consistency with the Vail Transportation Master Plan and plan for other future growth in the area, analysis has been completed for the 2015 near term and 2025 long term horizons. The purpose of this study is to identify project traffic generation characteristics, to identify potential project traffic related impacts on the local street system, and to develop mitigation Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 1 4 -9 -6 \n measures required for identified impacts. The following key intersections have been included for evaluation in this study: • South Frontage Road & West Lionshead Circle (existing alignment) • South Frontage Road & Forest Road (future alignment), • West Lionshead Circle & Forest Road (future alignment), and • All proposed access driveway intersections. Regional access to the West Lionshead area is provided by I -70. Primary access to the site is provided by South Frontage Road. Direct access to the western portion of the site is proposed from one full movement access driveway along South Frontage Road (Access A), and one three - quarter access driveway along South Frontage Road (Access B). Direct access to the eastern portion of the site is proposed from one three- quarter access driveway along South Frontage Road (Access C), one exit only access driveway on South Frontage Road (Access D), and two access driveways along Forest Road. The two access driveways along Forest Road (Access E and F) will provide full turning movements. The Ever Vail development is expected to generate approximately 3,930 daily weekday driveway trips. Of these, 251 trips are expected to occur during the weekday morning peak hour, while 385 trips are expected during the weekday afternoon peak hour. The retail trip generation rate was directly applied based on the Vail Transportation Master Plan, which included a reduction of 65 percent to take into account those who visit the shops and restaurants who are already skiing and staying in the Ever Vail and Lionshead area to account for internal capture and eliminate double counting of trips. Kimley -Hord and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 2 4 -9 -Tn Distribution of site traffic on the street system was based on the area street system characteristics, existing traffic patterns, anticipated surrounding development areas, and the proposed access system for the project. This distribution was developed in accordance with recommendations provided by Town of Vail representatives. For the 2015 near term analysis, it was assumed that the Simba Run underpass had not been constructed. To be consistent with the Vail Transportation Master Plan, the long term 2025 analysis assumes that the future Simba Run Underpass improvements are completed, which provides the most conservative analysis. The background traffic volumes and trip distributions both account for these two scenarios. Assignment of project traffic was based upon the trip generation described previously and the distributions developed. Based on the analysis presented in this report, Kimley -Horn believes the proposed Ever Vail Redevelopment project will be successfully incorporated into the future roadway network. The proposed project development and expected traffic volumes resulted in the following recommendations: South Frontage Road Recommendations • With redevelopment of the proposed project, South Frontage Road will be realigned adjacent to Interstate 70 between the existing western intersection of West Lionshead Circle and the western project boundary where the road will resume its current alignment. In conjunction with this realignment, Forest Road will be realigned to the approximate location of the current western intersection of West Lionshead Circle with South Frontage Road in a roundabout. Due to roadway geometries, West Lionshead Circle is proposed to terminate in a T- intersection with Forest Road approximately 200 feet south of the future roundabout. These improvements are consistent with the Vail Transportation Master Plan. • According to the Vail Transportation Master Plan, South Frontage Road is recommended to be widened along the project frontage to include one through lane in each direction with continuous eastbound and westbound acceleration/ deceleration lanes. According to the Access Code, deceleration lanes are generally required. However, acceleration lanes are not Kinxdey -Horii and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 3 4 -9 -8 \n warranted along South Frontage Road due to the existing 25 mile per hour posted speed limit. Based on recommendations included in the Vail Transportation Master Plan, acceleration lanes will be constructed to provide continuous acceleration/ deceleration lanes along South Frontage Road adjacent to project frontage. In addition, along the north side of South Frontage Road, a bike lane is proposed. • Through lane transitions for eastbound and westbound traffic around the proposed left turn lanes along South Frontage Road are recommended to be constructed in accordance with the State Highway Access Code as required by CDOT. Since the speed limit of South Frontage Road is 25 miles per hour, the through lane transition lengths will follow the redirect taper of 15 to 1. Access A & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations • According to the State Access Code, a westbound to southbound left turn lane is warranted at the intersection of Access A (western west side full movement access) with South Frontage Road based on traffic volume projections with development of the proposed project. According to the code, this left turn deceleration lane should provide 175 feet of storage with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. • According to the State Access Code, an eastbound to southbound right turn deceleration lane is warranted at the intersection. of Access A (western west side full movement access) with South Frontage Road based on projected traffic volumes with development of the project. This eastbound lane should be constructed to provide 150 feet for a full lane width with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. • It is recommended that a left turn acceleration lane be designated along westbound South Frontage Road (west of Access A) proposed with the project to help facilitate northbound to westbound left turn movements exiting the development onto westbound South Frontage Kiniley -Horii ajzd Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopnient Page 4 4 -9 -9 \n Road. This westbound left turn acceleration lane should be constructed to provide 90 feet of full lane width with an additional 7.5 to 1. taper. • It is recommended that separate northbound left and right turn lanes be constructed to facilitate more efficient egress movements onto South Frontage Road. This northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1 -1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Access B & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations • According to the State Access Code, a westbound to southbound left turn deceleration lane is warranted (will be constructed) at the intersection of Access B (eastern west side access) with South Frontage Road based on traffic volume projections with development of the proposed project. According to the code, this left turn deceleration lane should provide 90 feet of storage with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. • In accordance with the Vail Transportation Master Plan, an eastbound to southbound right turn deceleration lane will be constructed at the intersection of Access B (eastern west side access) with South Frontage Road with development of the project. This eastbound lane should be constructed as a continuous acceleration/ deceleration lane from Access A. • It is recommended that the right -out only northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1 -1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Access C & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations • According to the State Access Code, a westbound to southbound left turn deceleration lane is warranted at the intersection of Access C (western east side access) with South Frontage Road based on traffic volume projections with development of the proposed project. According to the code, this left turn deceleration lane should provide 90 feet of storage with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 5 4- 9 -10 \n • As recommended in the Vail Transportation Master Plan and in accordance with the State Access Code, an eastbound to southbound right turn deceleration lane is warranted at the intersection of Access C (western east side access) with South Frontage Road based on projected traffic volumes with development of the project. This eastbound lane should be constructed as a continuous acceleration/ deceleration lane from Access B. • It is recommended that the right -out only northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1 -1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Access D & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations • It is recommended that the right -out only northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1 -1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Access E and Forest Road Recommendations • It is recommended that the proposed western Access E driveway along Forest Road operates with stop control on all approaches, with STOP (R1 -1) signs placed according to guidance provided in the MUTCD. Access F and Forest Road Recommendations • It is recommended that the proposed Access F driveway along Forest Road operates with stop control on the driveway approach with STOP (R1 --1) signs placed according to guidance provided in the MUTCD. General Recommendations • All on -site and off -site signing and striping improvements should be incorporated into the Civil Drawings, and conform to Town of Vail and CDOT standards, as well as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - 2003 Edition (MUTCD). KitnleJ -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' aver Vail pedevelopnient Page 6 4- 9 -11 \n 2.0 INTRODUCTION Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley -Horn) has prepared this report to document the results of a Traffic Impact Study of future traffic conditions associated with a proposed redevelopment of the West Lionshead Village area to be named Ever Vail in Vail, Colorado. The vicinity map illustrating the Ever Vail project site location is shown in Figure 1. The conceptual plan consists of redevelopment of two separate parcels located west of the West Lionshead Circle intersection along South Frontage Road. With redevelopment of these parcels, a realignment of South Frontage Road is proposed to align South Frontage Road adjacent to Interstate 70 (I -70). The project team has discussed this with and obtained preliminary acceptance from CDOT. The entire Ever Vail project is anticipated to include approximately 358 residential units, 103,595 square feet of external retail, 33,600 square feet of offices, a hotel with 120 rooms, and 48 units of employee housing. Redevelopment of the two parcels is also anticipated to include a parking garage on the western portion of the site, of which 400 of the parking spaces will be reserved for public parking. A transit center for 13 skier drop -off /pick -up parking spaces and four (4) transit bus loading /unloading is proposed on the east side of the development site. A new gondola is also proposed on the east site. The development area is identified on Figure 1. Approximately 21,970 square feet of the retail will be located on the west side of the development and 81,625 square feet will be located on the east side. Of the residential units, 138 condos and 41 employee housing units are proposed on the west side, while 220 condos and 7 employee housing units are proposed on the east side. All 33,600 square feet of office space will be located on east side of the development. The public parking will be located on the west side. The 120 room hotel is proposed to be located on the east side of the development. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 7 4- 9 -12 \n Ill <=> H NTS 096094.004 Resort O K L-1 Resat Q��ON n P a a C� p Resort Ln �OA� Resort � N�AGF J Q N Resort Resort A� 0 � Resort O R4D0� LO WEST <lok �PGF l.� NS Maintenance Site EAp Q Resat Resort Resort O OLdZ POD RO Pfl SO��,r Fg Resort Eagis River Water and FOREST ROAD Sanitation ()kVet FIGURE 1 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO VICINITY MAP - EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK T J�� c n d —Horn A and Associates, Inc. As requested by CDOT and to maintain consistency with the Vail Transportation Master Plan and plan for other future growth in the area, analysis has been completed for the 2015 near term and 2025 long term horizon. The current site plan illustrating the development and access locations is shown in Appendix A. The purpose of this study is to identify project traffic generation characteristics, to identify potential project traffic related impacts on the local street system, and to develop mitigation measures required for identified impacts. The following key intersections have been included for evaluation in this study: South Frontage Road & West Lionshead Circle (existing alignment) • South Frontage Road & Forest Road (future alignment), • West Lionshead Circle & Forest Road (future alignment),. and • Alt proposed access driveway intersections. Regional access to the West Lionshead area is provided by I -70. Primary access to the site is provided by South Frontage Road. Direct access to the western portion of the site is proposed from one full movement access driveway along South Frontage Road (Access A), and one three - quarter turning movement access driveway along South Frontage Road (Access B). Direct access to the eastern portion of the site is proposed from one three - quarter turning movement access driveway along South Frontage Road (Access C), one exit-only access driveway on South Frontage Road (Access D), and two access driveways along Forest Road. The two access driveways along Forest Road (Access E and F) will provide full turning movements. KimIey -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 9 4- 9 -14 \n 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Existing Roadway Network The proposed development is to be located along South Frontage Road west of the western intersection of West Lionshead Circle and South Frontage Road. Primary access to the site is expected to be provided by South Frontage Road. In the site vicinity, South Frontage Road currently provides a single through lane in each direction with a 25 mile per hour posted speed limit. According to the State Highway Access Category Assignment Schedule, the segment of South Frontage Road adjacent to the site is categorized F -R. 3.2 Existing Study Area The existing site is comprised of a service yard, storage . facility, the existing South Frontage Road, and parking for the resort. South Frontage Road is currently located south of the Vail Resorts Maintenance site (storage facility and service yard) but it will be relocated and realigned to the north side of the site with redevelopment of the four parcels. South Frontage Road will reconnect with the existing roadway alignment at the western project boundary. 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes Existing afternoon peak hour traffic volumes were collected during the peak season at the study intersections in the project area, which includes West Lionshead Circle and South Frontage Road and Forest Road with South Frontage Road for the Vail Transportation Master Plan. The existing peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 2. The existing traffic volume figure from the Vail Transportation Master Plan is included in Appendix S- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/VaiI Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 10 4- 9 -15 \n NORTH NTS 096094.004 R SF� N�AGF LLJ FR � LIONS R1DG� LOOP WEST L / ONSHeAO eyPG 0 O A GE ROAD SO�y'SH FRONT FOREST ROAD 2 E n 20(30) 30(15) M E - - -_ -- 255(575) —30(110) L -- 10(15)ronto Sou 71F Road 425(390) --j _ N1 N O p 0 0 0 rfl O Vi O 4 O LEGEND: 91 Study Area Key Intersection A Project Access Drive <-- XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume FIGURE 2 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO EXISTING PEAK SEASON TRAFFIC VOLUMES � a n d —Horn A and Associates, Inc. 3.3 Future Conditions As required by CDOT, the existing traffic volumes from Figure 2 were grown at an annual growth rate of 0.5 percent (0.5%) to obtain the 2015 background traffic volumes without the proposed roadway improvements that are recommended in the Vail Transportation Master Plan and are to be included in the development of the Ever Vail project. 2015 background traffic volumes at the existing intersection of West Lionshead Circle and South Frontage Road and intersection of Forest Road and South Frontage Road are illustrated in Figure 3. With development of the proposed project, South Frontage Road will be realigned and improved adjacent to the project site. According to the Vail Transportation Master Plan, this realignment has been discussed as part of the Frontage Road planning with preliminary acceptance from CDOT. With realignment of South Frontage Road, a realignment of Forest Road is also proposed where Forest Road will intersect South Frontage Road at the approximate current western intersection of West Lionshead Circle in a roundabout. Forest Road will likely assume some of the existing alignment of South Frontage Road next to the Ritz Carlton site. With the roadway realignments, due to roadway geometries, it is proposed that West Lionshead Circle intersect with Forest Road in a T- intersection approximately 200 feet south of the roundabout. Direct access to the Ever Vail development is proposed as follows: • Western West Side Access Driveway (Access A) - Full Turning Movements • Eastern West Side Access Driveway (Access B) - Three - Quarter Turning Movements Western East Side Access Driveway (Access C) - Three- Quarter Turning Movements • Eastern East Side Access Driveway (Access D) - Northbound Right Only • Parking Garage Access Driveway (Access E) - Full Turning Movements • Forest Road Access Driveway (Access F) - Full Turning Movements Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 12 4- 9 -17 \n The proposed access locations for the Ever Vail development site are shown in Figure 4. This figure also illustrates the proposed realignment of South Frontage Road and Forest Road and the 2015 intersection lane configurations and control anticipated with the realignment. The 2015 background traffic volumes from Figure 3 were relocated to account for the recommended improvements to the adjacent street network proposed in the Vail Transportation Master Plan and associated with the proposed Ever Vail development. The relocated 2015 background traffic volumes are presented in Figure 5. Future traffic volumes with realignment of South Frontage Road were obtained from the Vail Transportation Master Plan (Felsburg Holt & Ullevig). These future long term traffic volume estimates were developed as part of a Frontage Road study being conducted by the traffic consultant for the Town of Vail, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig. These future traffic volumes take into account development that is under construction, development that is already approved, development that was recently submitted to the Town for consideration, and potential development that might more efficiently utilize a given parcel of land. These background traffic estimates included redevelopment of the Lionshead Parking Structure and North Day Lot. Also included in background traffic estimates is the relocation of Vail Resorts' employee parking that is currently provided on the Vail Resorts Maintenance Site. With this redevelopment project, these employees are anticipated to be relocated to the future parking structure on the west side of the development. They are anticipated to access this parking structure from the western South Frontage Road access driveway (Drive A). The future background traffic volumes for 2025 are shown in Figure 6. Kiniley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 13 4- 9 -18 \n o,. NORTH J NTS 096094.004 co p p0 LO O NSN�' PO L� R19G LO WEST S NSy � �a �O AQ 5a �y�N f¢O FOREST ROAD 2 E m m 21(31) ui ui 31(15) n <-- 267(602) Z — 31(115) L' -- 10(l 5 Sou v I 15(10)— Road o I 445(408) _ n o � m � vi o ti LEGEND: 1 Study Area Key Intersection • A Project Access Drive <— XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume FIGURE 3 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO 2015 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS Kimley —Horn and Associates, Inc. LEGEND: zmmmz�mn� NORTH 1 Study Area Key Intersection NTS 096094.004 A Access Drive STOP Stop — Controlled Intersection Approac;n Roundabout 1 ICA 0 2 F E F 8 ,4 FULL MOVEMENT C EXIT ONLY S. Frontage Road S. Frontage Road S. Froritacie Road S. Frontage Road STOP � � STOP � � STOP � � STQP E FULL w O F MOV MOVEMENT y MOVEMENT Z � C dOlS dOlS Wes Forest , Forest Lionshend Rood � Rood � � Circle STOP � va O FIGURE 4 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO 2015 FUTURE LANES AND CONTROL Pin an d —Horn A and Associates, Inc. LEGEND: 61 Study Area Key Intersection N<Z>FRTH NTS 096094.004 . A Project Access Drive F XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume f IF C i'Y'�. M.- .?r •A�E�l��333i:TJ!FuW ... :_ :_ :_ :_ : : (1 — E ... ............... e3« ......... A B C D F— 287(601) <— 267(601) <-- 287(601) <— 287(601) S. Frontage Road S. Fronts a Rood S. Froriccle Road S. Frontage Road 371(253) 371(253) 371(253) 371(253) E F 1 2 53(146) N r� <-- 14(10) 72(51) 246(466) n 58(41) L � 78(57) z West S. Fronto a Road Lionshead � Circle 11(12) 57(62) 340(232) — T 30(20) n n m w �a `o ° o e� FIGURE 5 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO 2015 RELOCATED BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES � Kir Horn and d As Associates, inc. 01 Study Arco Key Intersection <Z> F=t A Project Access Drive NTS 096094.004 ume <-- xx (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Vol �ila In AIL C S. Frortoge Rood S. Frontage Roccl s. rrontccle Road S. Frontage Road 1 D40(705) 1040(7C5) 1040(70.5) 1040(705) S. Frontcqe Road Lionshecd 15l 100(105) 740l Circle FIGURE 6 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO 2025 RELOCATED BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES phl and Associctes, Inc. — 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 4.1 Trip Generation Site - generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation. Rates and equations are applied to the proposed land use to estimate traffic generated by the development during a specific time interval. The acknowledged source for trip generation rates is the Trip Generation Report' published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE has established trip rates in nationwide studies of similar land uses. For this study, Kimley- Horn used the ITE Trip Generation Report average rate equations that apply to Residential Condominium/ Townhome (230), Specialty Retail (814), Apartment (220), Hotel (330) and General Office Building (710) for traffic associated with the redevelopment. Although restaurant areas are anticipated, the development areas are not known at this time. The anticipated trip generation for the site was based on information provided by the Town of Vail in the Vail Transportation Master Plan. The Vail Transportation Master Plan did not identify specific rates for restaurant use, but instead developed an overall retail area rate. These rates were directly applied from this Transportation Master Plan based on actual observed and anticipated trip making characteristics of residential and retail developments within core areas of Vail. The section pertaining to projected future traffic volumes with anticipated trip generation rates from the Transportation Master Plan is provided in Appendix D. Table 1 summarizes the estimated traffic generation for the proposed Ever Vail development. The trip generation worksheets are included in Appendix D. These calculations illustrate the equations used, directional distribution of trips, and number of daily trips based on the published ITE rates. 5 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation: An Information Report, Seventh Edition, Washington DC, 2003. Kiniley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/VaiI Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page IS 4- 9 -23 \n Table 1 - Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Traffic Generation Vehicles Trips Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total West Side Residential 552 8 38 46 37 18 55 Retail 330 5 3 8 13 16 29 Employee Housing 60 1 4 5 4 2 6 West Side Subtotal 942 14 45 1 59 1 54 1 36 1 90 East Side Residential 880 12 61 73 59 29 88 Retail 1,224 18 11 29 47 59 106 Employee Housing 14 0 1 1 1 0 1 Hotel 500 27 10 37 22 28 50 Office 370 46 6 52 9 41 50 East Side Subtotal 1 2,988 1 103 1 89 1 192 1 138 157 295 Ever Vail Total 3,930 117 134 251 192 193 385 Day Skier Parkin In addition to the aforementioned development, the parking garage on west side of the development is also anticipated to accommodate a total of 400 public parking spaces for day skier use. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that 35 percent of the 400 public parking spaces would fill during the morning peak hour resulting in 140 trips entering the parking structure in the morning peak hour. It was assumed that 35 percent of the 400 public parking spaces would vacate during the afternoon peak hour resulting in 140 trips exiting the parking structure during the afternoon peak hour. In addition, it is anticipated that Ski School pick -ups and drop -offs will occur. It is anticipated that 150 vehicles will enter and exit during both the morning peak hour and the afternoon peak hour for the Ski School use. Employee Parking Vail Resorts employee parking is also being relocated to the site. This parking will be relocated to this site from the Ritz Carlton site and Vail Operations Maintenance. The employees are not anticipated to be creating any peak hour trips during the peak winter season. These employee Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 19 4- 9 -24 \n shifts are set up so that they arrive prior to the skier arrivals and depart either before or after the afternoon peak hour. Transit Center A transit center is proposed on the east side of the Ever Vail development. The transit center will provide an area for 13 skier drop -off and pick -up parking spaces, as well as loading /unloading areas for four (4) Eco Buses and the Vail Transit Service. Passenger vehicles and transit buses will access the transit center at Access C and exit the site at Access D. The skier pick -up and drop -off parking spaces are anticipated to tarn over on average every 10 minutes. This equates to 6 vehicles using one pick -up and drop -off parking space (6 in and 6 out per space). This equates to 156 peak hour trips created by these spaces. In addition, based on the transit routes identified from the Town of Vail through the North Day Lot and Lionshead Transit Center projects, the transit center is anticipated to be used by six (6) Eagle County (ECO) Buses and 62 Town of Vail buses. Table 2 summarizes the estimated driveway trips for the day skier parking and transit center. Table 2 - Day Skier Parking and Transit Center Traffic Generation Vehicles Trips Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Day Skier Parking on West Creek 400 parking spaces 290 150 410 150 290 410 Transit Center Skier PU /DO 78 78 156 78 78 156 ECO Buses 6 6 12 6 6 12 Vail Center 62 62 124 62 62 124 Transit Center Subtotal 146 146 292 146 146 292 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 20 4- 9 -25 \n 4.2 Trip Distribution Distribution of site traffic on the street system was based on the area street system characteristics, existing traffic patterns and volumes, and the proposed access system for the project. The directional distribution of traffic is a means to quantify the percentage of site- generated traffic that approaches the site from a given direction and departs the site in the same direction. This distribution was developed in accordance with recommendations provided by the Town of Vail. Distributions have been prepared separately for the scenarios with and without the Simba Run underpass of Interstate 70 (1 -70). Without the Simba Run underpass, it is assumed that the trip distribution would be 40 percent to and from the west and 60 percent to and from the east. With the Simba Run underpass, it is assumed that the trip distribution would be 50 percent to and from the east and west. These trip distributions are based on information provided by Town of Vail staff. Distributions have also been prepared separately for the west side and east side of the development due to the proposed access for each of the parcels. Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the expected project distribution for the west side and the east side without the Simba Run underpass. Figure 9 and Figure 10 illustrate the west side and east side distribution with the Simba Run underpass. 4.3 Traffic Assignment and Total (Background Plus Project) Traffic Traffic assignment was obtained by applying the distributions to the estimated traffic generation of the development shown in Table 1. Figures 11, 12 and 13 illustrate the traffic assignment for the west side and the east side and the skier parking/ transit center, respectively, without the Simba Run underpass. Figures 14, 15, and 16 illustrate the traffic assignment for the west side and the east side of the development and the skier parking /transit center, respectively, with the Simba Run underpass. Site project traffic volumes were then added to the background volumes to represent estimated traffic conditions for the near term 2015 and long term 2025 horizon. Figure 17 illustrates the background plus project traffic volumes for the 2015 horizon without the Simba Run underpass. Figures 18 illustrates the background plus project traffic volumes for the 2025 horizon with the Simba Run underpass. Kinzley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopnient Page 21 4- 9 -26 \n LEGEND: M iV O RTH N75 496094.004 61 Study Area Key Intersection A Project Access Drive <-- XX %(XX %) Fntering(Exiting) Percentage of Vehicles 1 '0 o z F Gdo C E F B �o A 8 C D <-- (z4 %) <--- 30 %(20 %) <-- 60 %(20 %) l� 30% L� 30% S. Frontage Road S. Fronts a Read S. Frontage Road S. Fronto a Road 24% (307) (80%) (80%) —� 20R N n 207 <-- 60% S. Fronto a Road l� (20;0 7� FIGURE 7 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO WEST SIDE TRIP DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS — Kimley —Horn �� and Associates, Inc. LEGEND: min N O F=F7 1 NITS 096094.004 I♦ 1 Study Area Key Intersection . A Project Access Drive <-- XX %(XX %) Entering(Exiting) Percentage of Vehicles O�o Q 2 �RG� F Cdo C CA B f6 ' 9� &9�9Q9R 6�6R &9E w �o A B C D <-- (407) <-- (407) <— (407) 57{40%) 5% S. Frontage Rood l� S. Frontage Rood Z— !71 Frontage Road � S. Frontage Rood 407 40% 35% 35%(5 %) —> E N F 2 n 83 % +15 %* 6: 5% o S5% West S. Frontage Road �- Licnshead +(157) - (2 %) m Circle {2%) > I (857) ----3 (57) —N1 35% m a 0 0 � v= -Trips between Motel Porte— Cochere and Valet Parking FIGURE 8 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO EAST SIDE TRIP DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS Kimley -Horn Man and Associates. Inc. ZE LEGEND: °® NOFRTH Nrs 096094.004 l Study Area Key Intersection 0 A Project Access Drive <-- XX %(XX%) Entering(Exiting) Percentage of Vehicles 1 D 2 F C B 5 A B C D <-- (25 %) <— 25 %(25x) E— 50%(257) F— 5os(257) L 257 25% Lr S. Frontage Road S. Frontage Road S. Frontage Rood 25% (25 %) (757) (757) —3 25% 25% o v 1 507 S. Frontage Road (25 %) (50x) FIGURE 9 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO WEST SIDE TRIP DISTRIBUTION WITH SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS can a n d A -Horn and Associates, Inc. LEGEND: � ® NORTH NTS 096094.004 01 Study Area Key Intersection . A Project Access Drive <-- XX %(XX %) En tering(Exiting) Percentage of Vehicles 5 D z a� � F C 1- 43 B h A B C D (509) (50%) (507) 57(50 59 S. Frorta a Road S. Frontage Rood �_ S. Frontage Road S. Fronts a Road 50% 50% 45% 45%(5 %)� 5% N N N D 2 K 839 +15%" 'a m --5% o � <---- 29 85% 5% ° 45% West �- S. Fronto a Road t� Lianshead Circle {2� I (85 %) -..- (5 %) f 45% a rn v� o v W -Trips between Hotel Porte— Cochere and Valet Parking FIGURE 10 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO EAST SIDE TRIP DISTRIBUTION WITH SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS nn Kimley -Horn J�� and Associates, Inc. LEGEND: NORTH NTS 096094.004 91 Study Area Key Intersection A Project Access Drive XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume t D Z GR F VAT V�SN 1:100� E e A B C D 9(7) 13(23) 17(39) <-- 17(39) 4(16) — 4(16) S. Frontage Road S. Frontage Road S. Frorta a Road - 5. Frontage Road 7I 3(11) 14(11) 36(29) 36(29) � 3(11) 7: � n a E - -- 8(32) S. Fronto a Road 9(7) <D I I 27(22) —j FIGURE 11 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO WEST SIDE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS n � Kimley —Harr, ��� and Associates, Inc. LEGEND: NORTH NTS 096094.004 61 Study Area Key Intersection 0 A Project Access drive <-- XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume 7 Q 2 F e A B C D <— 36(63) 36(63) 36(63) <— 41(70) S. Frontage Road L S. Fronts a Road S. Fronts a Road X5(7) S. Frontage Road 41(55) � 41(55) 36(48) 40(56) -- "-j 5(7) m n a n E F 1 2 a 101(135) 5 5(7) m <-- 2(3) 88(117) 5(7) 57(76) ,I. 4 \1 l� West S. Frontacie Road `" Uonshead 13(24) -- 4 2(g) Circle 2(3) > I 76(133) 4(8) } I/ 36(48) a w n a n m m v o o a FIGURE 12 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO EAST SIDE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS can Kimley —Horn and Associates, Inc. LEGEND: 01 Study Area Key Intersection . A Project Access Drive 2 ��SN <-- XX (XX) AM(PM) Peals Hour Traffic Volume F E E ®� NORTH NTS 096094.004 8 A B C D –60 –(116) +114 –(26) +114 –(26) +114 –(26) Z— 174(90) � l� S. Frontage Road S. Franta a Road S. Frontage Road S. Frontage Road z -116 -(60) _ -26 +(114) -26 +(114) -26 +(114) 116(60) Q o 0 n m s Y Q +114 -(26) - 5. Frontage Road !r 71 -26 +(114) ( �S A s C D l� S. Frontage Road S. Frontage Road S. Frontage Road v— 67(67) [71 S. Fronts a Road �. ---> —> –79 –(79) — j –79 –(79) H - N 79(79) � a W U Z Q S. Fronts e Road �.- 51(51) +16 +(16) FIGURE 13 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO DAY SKIIERITRANSIT CENTER TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS _ Kimley -Horn �w and Associctes. Inc. zr m"'� LEGEND: oRTH NTS 096094.004 1 Study Area Key Intersection . A Project Access Drive <--- XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume 1 U 2 F B A B C 7D 11 (9) <- 15(23) <-- 18(36) 18(38) S. Frontage Road 4(14) S. Franto a Road 4(14) S. Frontage Road L- 4(14) — 11 (9) 34(27) � 34(27) 4(14) 4(14) �y ri N <— 7(27) S. Frontage Rood 11(9) tD 23(18) --- > FIGURE 14 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO WEST SIDE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT WITH SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS Kimley —Horn and Associates, Inc. LEGEND: °RTH NTS 096094.004 7 Study Area Key Intersection . A Project Access Drive XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Voiume 7 a 2 �� a IF CL O �R ® n e k A B C D 45(79) 45(79) 45(79) 50(86) S. Fronts a Road S. Fronts a Rood S. Franta a Rood X5(7) S. Fronto a Road 52(69) 52(69) --- > 46(62) 50(70) 5( e cv F F 1 2 n 101(135) r 5(7) M 17— 00 <-- 2(3) B8(117) 5(7) 46(62) West S. Frontage Road Lions ---71 13(24) 2(3) <D Circle 2(3) I 78(133) 4(8) _ 46(62) n n o a o `o 0 L FIGURE 15 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO EAST SIDE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT WITH SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS can and Associates, and Associotes, Inc. LEGEND: is l Study Area Key Intersection • A Project Access Drive V <-- XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume F C Effi9A` E � NORTH NTS 096094.004 8 A KO C D <- -75 -(145) +70 -(70) <-- +70 -(70) <— +70 -(70) S, Fronts a Road 145(75) S. Frpn to a Rood IS. Fronia a Road S. Franto a Road z Y --145 -(75) -70 +(70) -70 +(70) -70 +(70) f)" 145(75) a a Q N N n h h LL r � V r +70 -(70) a S. Fronto e Road Z- -70 +(70) �i 1 A B C D �-- -— <— 59(59) 59(59) S. Frontage Road S. Frontage Road S. Frontage Road �- S. Frontage Rood ry -67 -(87) � -87 -(87) LLJ - � 87(87) ry Z W U f ~ S. Frontp a Road �- 59(59) fD FIGURE 16 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO DAY SKIIERITRANSIT CENTER TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT WITH SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS Kimley —Hare ��� and Associates, Inc. LEGEND: <=> N TS 096094.004 61 Study Area Key Intersection 0 A Project Access Drive 1 E XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume Q 2 F C B A 8 C D E-- 272(555) 450(661) E-- 454(677) E — 526(751) 178(106) L� 4(16) 72(74) S. Frontage Road S. Franto a Road S. Fronts a Road S. Frontage Road 299(259) 400(433) 338(365) 342(373) 119 {71)� N 3(11) ° r 64(86)' "may a �i Oi Q N W b O � E TO 1 2 101(135) N 5(7) v� N 17- 53(146) W <-- 16(13) n 160(166) E - -- 373(479) r� 58(41) L �- 135(133) West S. Frontage Road Liunsheod 13(24) 62(61) :tD Circle 13(15) > I 133(195) 351(392) � `( co y 9 O O LL FIGURE 17 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO 2015 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC WITHOUT SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS Kimicy —Horn and Associates, Inc, NORTH LEGEND: r1TS 096094.004 1 Study Area Key Intersection • A Project Access Drive t <-- XX (XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume U 2 F C d�.�pt+� raxius 5� E B A B C D 415(795) 565(885) E--- -- 570(900) <— 630(965) L� 350(90) L� 5(15) 65(65) S. Fronts a Road (�I S. Frontage Road S. Fronts a Rood S. Frontage Rood 945(710) — j 1025(650) 960(775) 965(785) 150(90) n 5(75) 90(95) E F 1 2 N U1 C5 105(135) o 5(10) w 50(230) 15(20) f f 210(205) 435(580) `� N � 105(70) L� 135(130) West S. Frontage Road Lionshead 15(25) _ 75(70) �D m Circle 15(20) — > 175(235) 695(605) I - _.� m 345(260) N in N OD M FIGURE 18 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO 2025 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC WITH SIMBA RUN UNDERPASS Kirnley —Horn and Associates, Inc. It is important to note that the 2025 background plus project traffic volumes at the roundabout (Intersection #1) in Figure 17 do not exactly match the 2025 roundabout volumes from the Vail Transportation Master Plan. The 2025 peak hour volumes at the roundabout at the intersection of South Frontage Road and Forest Road from the Vail Transportation Master Plan include the Ever Vail project traffic and were used as the basis for this study. However, discussions with Felsburg Holt & Ullevig and the Town of Vail revealed that all Ever Vail project traffic was assigned to the south leg of the roundabout (Forest Road) within the Transportation Master Plan study. Likewise, at the time of that study, it was assumed that Ever Vail would generate 580 peak hour trips instead of the anticipated 385 peak hour trips. as identified within this study. Since the Ever Vail project includes driveways along South Frontage Road, traffic volumes were redistributed through the roundabout as appropriate. Therefore, this site specific study addresses the actual anticipated traffic movements in and around Ever Vail based on the proposed access driveway locations. In addition, there is a strong possibility based on traffic volumes anticipated at the eastern West Lionshead Circle intersection with South Frontage Road that this intersection will require the northbound left turn to be restricted in the future. This was identified when studying the inclusion of skier pick -up and drop -off occurring at the North Day Lot. The 80 vehicles per hour anticipated to be making this northbound left turn at this intersection were rerouted to the northbound left turn movement at the proposed Ever Vail roundabout (street interconnectivity will exist). The westbound right turn movement at the western. West Lionshead Circle intersection with the Forest Road extension included this relocated traffic volume and the westbound through movement through the roundabout was decreased by this traffic volume. KimIey -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 34 4- 9 -39 \n 5.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Kimley- Horn's analysis of traffic operations in the site vicinity was conducted to determine potential capacity deficiencies in the 2015 and 2025 development horizon at the identified key intersections. The acknowledged source for determining overall capacity is the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manua2 5.1 Analysis Methodology Capacity analysis results are listed in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular street or highway during a specific time interval. It ranges from A (very little delay) to F (long delays and congestion). For intersections and roadways in this study area, Town of Vail recommends intersection LOS C as the minim threshold for acceptable operations. Table 3 shows the definition of level of service for unsignalized intersections. Table 3 - Level of Service Definitions Level of Unsignalized Intersection Average Total Delay Service (sec/veh) A <_10 B >I0 and 515 C >15 and <25 D >25 and 5 35 E >35 and <_ 50 F >50 Definitions provided from the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 2000_ 2 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Washington DC, 2000. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/VaiI Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 35 4- 9 -40 \n Study area intersections were analyzed based on average total delay analysis for unsignalized intersections. Under the unsignalized analysis, the level of service (LOS) for a two -way stop controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Level of service for a two -way stop - controlled intersection is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Level of service for a four -way stop controlled intersection is defined for each approach and for the intersection. Level of service for a roundabout is determined by the computed or measured average control delay and is defined for each lane. Level of service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. 5.2 Key Intersection Operational Analysis Calculations for the level of service at the key intersections identified for study are provided in Appendix E. Level of service for the two -way stop controlled intersections was calculated using Synchro analysis software with the LOS calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Level of service for the roundabout was calculated using Sidra and Rodel analysis software, as requested by Town of Vail staff. Although the Rodel program developers recommend an analysis based on a 50 percent confidence level, an 85 percent confidence level was used in the analysis as requested by the Town of Vail. The critical gap and follow -up gap times were adjusted in the analysis for the northbound to westbound left turning vehicles at the proposed full movement access driveways to account for the future acceleration lane along South Frontage Road. These gap times were adjusted based on the procedure contained in the Highway Capacity Manual using equations 17 -1 and 17 -2 for two -stage gap acceptance. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 36 4- 9 -41 \n 2015 Background Analysis As required by CDOT traffic study guidelines, 2015 background analysis was conducted for the existing intersections of South Frontage Road with West Lionshead Circle and Forest Road. In the background year of 2015, without the realignment of South Frontage Road or the addition of Ever Vail project traffic, all movements of both intersections are expected to operate with acceptable levels of service during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4. Table 4 - Background LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Scenario (sec/veh (sec/veh) 2015 Background South Frontage Road/West Lionshead Circle Westbound Left/Right 149 B 24.8 C South Left 8.6 A 8.4 A 2015 Background South Frontage Road/Forest Road Eastbound Left 8.0 A 9.0 A Westbound Left 8.4 A 8.3 A Northbound Left/Through/Right 14.8 B 18.7 C Southbound LeftlThroughRight 19.1 C 23.5 C Kinney -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/VaiI Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 37 4- 9 -42 \n South Frontage Road & Forest Road With realignment of South Frontage Road, a realignment of Forest Road is also proposed. With this realignment, the future intersection of South Frontage Road with Forest Road is anticipated to be a roundabout. With development of this project, West Lionshead Circle is anticipated to intersect with the realigned Forest Road in a T- intersection approximately 200 feet south of the roundabout. Based on the analysis results, this roundabout will provide a northbound to eastbound right turn bypass lane from Forest Road onto eastbound South Frontage Road. Sidra Analysis As requested by Town of Vail staff, this future roundabout intersection has been analyzed using Sidra analysis software. With this configuration, all movements at the future intersection of South Frontage Road with Forest Road are anticipated to operate acceptably throughout the long term 2025 horizon during both AM and PM peak hours evaluated with or without the Simba Run underpass. Table 5 provides the results of the Sidra level of service at this future roundabout. Kinzley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 38 4- 9 -43 \n S Table 5 - South Frontage Road & Forest Road Roundabout Sidra LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Scenario (sec/veh) (sec/veh) 2015 Total without Simba 4.5 A 6.7 A West Approach - Left 7.7 A 12.3 B West Approach - Through 2.0 A 2.0 A West Approach - Right 3.8 A 3.8 A South Approach - Left 11.3 B 11.9 B South Approach - Right 4.2 A 4.9 A East Approach - Left 10.5 B 14.0 B East Approach - Through 3.2 A 6.7 A 2025 Total with Simba 4.7 A 7.4 A West Approach - Left 12.5 B 12.4 B West Approach - Through 2.2 A 2.1 A West Approach - Right 4.0 A 3.9 A South Approach - Left 14.0 B 19.1 B South Approach - Right 6.9 A 12.1 B East Approach - Left 10.5 B 12.4 B East Approach - Through 3.1 A 4.8 A Rodel Anal As requested by Town of Vail staff, this future roundabout intersection has also been analyzed using Rodel analysis software. The roundabout is anticipated to operate acceptably at LOS A during both peak hours of the long term 2025 horizon. Table 6 provides the results of the Rodel level of service at this future roundabout. Table 6 - South Frontage Road & Forest Road Roundabout Rodel LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Scenario sec/veh) (sec/veh) 2025 Total with Simba 4.5 A 8.2 A Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 39 4- 9 -44 \n Forest Road & West Lionshead Circle The future T- intersection of Forest Road with West Lionshead Circle is anticipated to operate with stop control along West Lionshead Circle. As such, all movements at this future intersection are anticipated to operate acceptably during both AM and PM peals hours throughout the long term 2025 horizon. Table 7 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection. Table 7 - Forest Road & West Lionshead Circle LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Delay Scenario (sec /veh) t DS (sec/veh) LOS 2015 Total without Simba Westbound Left/Right 9.6 A 10.7 B Southbound Left 7.6 A 7.8 A 2025 Total with Siinba Westbound Left/Right 11.3 B 115 B Sauthbound Let 8.1 A 8.3 A With development of the project, it is recommended that a southbound left turn lane be constructed along Forest Road at West Lionshead Circle. The maximum vehicle queue length for the southbound to eastbound left turn at the access driveway is anticipated to be 25 feet (as shown in the 2025 analysis in Appendix E). Therefore, the 75 -feet of storage provided in the current design is expected to accommodate the southbound left turn vehicle queues. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 40 4- 9 -45 \n South Frontage Road & Proposed Access A Access A will provide full turning movements to and from the west side of the Ever Vail development along South Frontage Road. As such, all movements at this future intersection along South Frontage Road are anticipated to operate acceptably during both AM and PM peak hours throughout the long term horizon. Table 8 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection. Table 8 - South Frontage Road & Proposed Access A LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Scenario (sec/veh) (sec/veh) 2015 Total without Simba Westbound Left 8.9 A 8.3 A Northbound Left 13.5 B 15.2 C Northbound Right 11.0 B 11.5 B 2025 Total with Sirnba Westbound Left 13.6 B 10.3 B Northbound Left 16.7 C 16.2 C Northbound Right 15.1 C 14.0 S *Delay and LOS shown are modeled without right turn acceleration lane. Actual operations are anticipated to be better than reported. It is recommended that separate northbound left and right turn lanes be provided along the access driveway approach to South Frontage Road. It is also recommended that a left turn acceleration lane be designated along South Frontage Road at this proposed full movement access driveway to help facilitate northbound to westbound left turn movements exiting the development onto westbound South Frontage Road. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 41 4- 9 -46 \n South Frontage Road & Proposed Access B Access B is anticipated to provide three - quarter turning movement access to and from the west side of the site along South Frontage Road. This future T- intersection with South Frontage Road is anticipated to operate acceptably during both AM and PM peak hours throughout the long term 2025 horizon. Table 9 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection. Table 9 - South Frontage Road & Proposed Access B LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Scenario (sec/veh) (sec/veh) 2015 Total without Sirnba Westbound Left 8.2 A 8.4 A Northbound Rig 11.0 B 11.3 B 2025 Total with Sirnba Westbound Left 10.9 B 10.1 B Northbound Ri ht 13.1 B 11.9 B South Frontage Road & Proposed Access C Access C is anticipated to provide three - quarter turning movement access to and from the east side of the Ever Vail development along South Frontage Road. This future T- intersection with South Frontage Road is anticipated to operate acceptably during both AM and PM peak hours throughout the long term 2025 horizon. Table 10 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection. Table 10 - South Frontage Road & Proposed Access C LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Scenario (sec/veh) (sec/veh 2015 Total without Sirnba Westbound Left 8.5 A 8.6 A Northbound Rig 10.3 B 10.6 B 2025 Total with Sirnba Westbound Left 11.7 B 10.5 B Northbound Rig 12.8 B 11.8 B Kiniley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 42 4- 9 -47 \n South Frontage Road & Proposed Access D Access D is anticipated to provide right -out only access from the east side of the Ever Vail development site along South Frontage Road. This future T- intersection with South Frontage Road is anticipated to operate acceptably during both AM and PM peak hours throughout the long term 2025 horizon. Table 11 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection. Table 11- South Frontage Road & Proposed Access D LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Scenario (sec/veh) (sec/veh) 2015 Total without Simba Northbound Right 10.4 B 10.6 B 2025 Total with Simba Northbound Rig ht 157 1 C 1 13.7 1 B Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 43 4- 9 -48 \n Forest Road & Proposed Access E Access to the east side of the development site will be provided by a full movement access along Forest Road. It is expected that this intersection will operate with all -way stop control. With development of this project, it is recommended that all movements at this future access are anticipated to operate acceptably during both AM and PM peak hours throughout the long term 2025 horizon. Table 12 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection. Table 12 - Forest Road & Proposed Access E LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Scenario (sec /veh) (sec/veh) 2015 Total without Simba 8.0 A 8.4 A Eastbound Approach 7.5 A 7.8 A Westbound Approach 8.1 A 8.3 A Northbound Approach 7.1 A 7.3 A Southbound Approach 8.3 A 9.0 A 2025 Total with Simba 8.5 A 8.8 A Eastbound Approach 7.7 A 8.0 A Westbound Approach 8.9 A 9.0 A Northbound Approach 7.5 A 7.7 A Southbound Approach 8.5 A 9.3 A Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 44 4- 9 -49 \n Forest Road & Proposed Access F Access to the east side of the Ever Vail development site will be provided by a full movement access street along Forest Road. With development of this project, it is anticipated that all movements at this future access are anticipated to operate acceptably during both AM and PM peak hours throughout the long term 2025 horizon. Table 13 provides the results of the level of service at this intersection. Table 13 - Forest Road & Proposed Access F LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Delay Scenario Delay LOS (sec /veh) LOS 2015 Total without Simba Eastbound Approach 0.8 A 1.0 A Southbound Approach 9.$ 1 A 10.4 B 2025 Total with Simba Eastbound Approach 0.9 A 0.9 A Southbound Approach 11.0 B 11.0 B Kindey -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopnxent Page 45 4- 9 -50 \n 5.3 Auxiliary Turn Lane Recommendations The State Highway Access Category Assignment Schedule categorizes the segment of South Frontage Road adjacent to the site as F -R. In the site vicinity, South Frontage Road provides one lane of travel in each direction with a 25 mile per hour posted speed limit. As such, auxiliary turn lane requirements at the existing intersections of South Frontage Road with West Lionshead Circle and the proposed access driveway are recommended based on requirements provided in the State Highway Access Code for category F -R roadways with a 25 mile per hour speed limit. According to the Access Code, a left turn deceleration lane plus taper with storage length is required for any access with a projected peak hour ingress volume greater than 25 vehicles per hour (vph). A right turn deceleration lane plus taper is required for any access with a projected peak hour ingress turning volume greater than 50 vph. Based on the 25 mile per hour posted speed limit, acceleration lanes would not be required. As such, auxiliary turn lane requirements are as follows: Access A & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations • According to the State Access Code, a westbound to southbound left turn Iane is warranted at the intersection of Access A (western west side full movement access) with South Frontage Road based on traffic volume projections with development of the proposed project. According to the code, this left turn deceleration lane should provide 175 feet of storage with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. • According to the State Access Code, an eastbound to southbound right turn deceleration lane is warranted at the intersection of Access A (western west side full movement access) with South Frontage Road based on projected traffic volumes with development of the project. This eastbound lane should be constructed to provide 150 feet for a full Iane width with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. • It is recommended that a left turn acceleration lane be designated along westbound South Frontage Road (west of Access A) proposed with the project to help facilitate northbound to Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' ,Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 46 4- 9 -51 \n westbound left turn movements exiting the development onto westbound South Frontage Road. This westbound left turn acceleration lane should be constructed to provide 90 feet of full lane width with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. It is recommended that separate northbound left and right turn lanes be constructed to facilitate more efficient egress movements onto South Frontage Road. This northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1 -1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Access B & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations • According to the State Access Code, a westbound to southbound left turn deceleration lane is warranted (will be constructed) at the intersection of Access B (eastern west side access) with South Frontage Road based on traffic volume projections with development of the proposed project. According to the code, this left turn deceleration lane should provide 90 feet of storage with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. • In accordance with the Vail Transportation Master Plan., an eastbound to southbound right turn deceleration lane will be constructed at the intersection of Access B (eastern west side access) with South Frontage Road with development of the project. This eastbound lane should be constructed as a continuous acceleration/ deceleration lane from Access A. • It is recommended that the right -out only northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1 -1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Access C & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations • According to the State Access Code, a westbound to southbound left turn deceleration lane is warranted at the intersection of Access C (western east side access) with South Frontage Road based on traffic volume projections with development of the proposed project. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' .laver Vail .Redevelopment Page 47 4- 9 -52 \n According to the code, this left turn deceleration Iane should provide 90 feet of storage with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. • As recommended in the Vail Transportation Master PIan and in accordance with the State Access Code, an eastbound to southbound right turn deceleration lane is warranted at the intersection of Access C (western east side access) with South Frontage Road based on projected traffic volumes with development of the project. This eastbound lane should be constructed as a continuous acceleration/ deceleration Iane from Access B. • It is recommended that the right -out only northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1 -1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Access D & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations • It is recommended that the right -out only northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1 -1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Figure 19 illustrates the proposed realignment of South Frontage Road and Forest Road and the 2025 intersection lane configurations and control anticipated with the realignment. Kirnley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 48 4- 9 -53 \n LEGEND: J ffigm kn Imo! Q FiT H 01 Study Area Key Intersection NT5 096094.004 0 A Access Drive STOP Stop— Controlled Intersection Approach Roundabout 1 Q 2 F Cdo� E B A FULL MOVEMENT [j C p EXIT ONLY S. Fronts a Road S. Frontage Rood S. Fronts a Rand S. Frorta a Road STOP � � STOP � � STOP T � STOP E FULL w 0 FULL N Z MOVEMENT V MOVEMENT U d a O dais 4- d37js + Wes - TTT 111 Forest Fores 1 Lionshead Road � Road � � Circl STOP o do FIGURE 19 EVER VAIL, VAIL, CO 2025 FUTURE LANES AND CONTROL a n d —Horn A — and Associates, Inc. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis presented in this report, Kimley -Horn believes the proposed Ever Vail Redevelopment project will be successfully incorporated into the future roadway network. The proposed project development and expected traffic volumes resulted in the following recommendations: South Frontage Road Recommendations • With redevelopment of the proposed project, South Frontage Road will be realigned adjacent to Interstate 70 between the existing western intersection of West Lionshead Circle and the western project boundary where the road will resume its current alignment. In conjunction with this realignment, Forest Road will be realigned to the approximate location of the current western intersection of West Lionshead Circle with South Frontage Road in a roundabout. Due to roadway geometrics, West Lionshead Circle is proposed to terminate in a T- intersection with Forest Road approximately 200 feet south of the future roundabout. These improvements are consistent with the Vail Transportation Master Plan. • According to the Vail Transportation Master Plan, South Frontage Road is recommended to be widened along the project frontage to include one through lane in each direction with continuous eastbound and westbound acceleration/ deceleration lanes. According to the Access Code, deceleration lanes are generally required. However, acceleration lanes are not warranted along South Frontage Road due to the existing 25 mile per hour posted speed limit. Based on recommendations included in the Vail Transportation Master Plan, acceleration lanes will be constructed to provide continuous acceleration/ deceleration lanes along South Frontage Road adjacent to project frontage - In addition, along the north side of South Frontage Road, a bike lane is proposed. • Through lane transitions for eastbound and westbound traffic around the proposed left turn lanes along South Frontage Road are recommended to be constructed in accordance with Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 50 4- 9 -55 \n the State Highway Access Code as required by CDOT. Since the speed limit of South Frontage Road is 25 miles per hour, the through lane transition lengths will follow the redirect taper of 15 to 1. Access A & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations • According to the State Access Code, a westbound to southbound left torn lane is warranted at the intersection of Access A (western west side full movement access) with South Frontage Road based on traffic volume projections with development of the proposed project. According to the code, this left turn deceleration lane should provide 175 feet of storage with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. • According to the State Access Code, an eastbound to southbound right turn deceleration lane is warranted at the intersection of Access A (western west side full movement access) with South Frontage Road based on projected traffic volumes with development of the project. This eastbound lane should be constructed to provide 150 feet for a full lane width with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. • It is recommended that a left turn acceleration lane be designated along westbound South Frontage Road (west of Access A) proposed with the project to help facilitate northbound to westbound left turn movements exiting the development onto westbound South Frontage Road. This westbound left turn acceleration Iane should be constructed to provide 90 feet of full lane width with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. + It is recommended that separate northbound left and right turn lanes be constructed to facilitate more efficient egress movements onto South Frontage Road. This northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1-1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Access B & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations Kiniley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail RedeveIopnient Page 5.1 4- 9 -56 \n • According to the State Access Code, a westbound to southbound left turn deceleration lane is warranted (will be constructed) at the intersection of Access B (eastern west side access) with South Frontage Road based on traffic volume projections with development of the proposed project. According to the code, this left turn deceleration lane should provide 90 feet of storage with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. • In accordance with the Vail Transportation Master Plan, an eastbound to southbound right turn deceleration lane will be constructed at the intersection of Access B (eastern west side access) with South Frontage Road with development of the project. This eastbound lane should be constructed as a continuous acceleration/ deceleration lane from Access A. • It is recommended that the right -out only northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1 -1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Access C & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations • According to the State Access Code, a westbound to southbound left turn deceleration lane is warranted at the intersection of Access C (western east side access) with South Frontage Road based on traffic volume projections with development of the proposed project. According to the code, this left turn deceleration Iane should provide 90 feet of storage with an additional 7.5 to 1 taper. • As recommended in the Vail Transportation Master Plan and in accordance with the State Access Code, an eastbound to southbound right turn deceleration Iane is warranted at the intersection of Access C (western east side access) with South Frontage Road based on projected traffic volumes with development of the project. This eastbound lane should be constructed as a continuous acceleration/ deceleration lane from Access B. • It is recommended that the right -out only northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1 -1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 52 4- 9 -57 \n Access D & South Frontage Road Intersection Recommendations • It is recommended that the right -out only northbound approach should operate with stop control and be posted with an R1 -1 "STOP" sign in accordance with MUTCD requirements. Access E and Forest Road Recommendations • It is recommended that the proposed western Access E driveway along Forest Road operates with stop control on all approaches, with STOP (R1 -1) signs placed according to guidance provided in the MUTCD. Access F and Forest Road Recommendations • It is recommended that the proposed Access F driveway along Forest Road operates with stop control on the driveway approach with STOP (R1 -1) signs placed according to guidance provided in the MUTCD. General Recommendations • All on -site and off -site signing and striping improvements should be incorporated into the Civil Drawings, and conform to Town of Vail and CDOT standards, as well as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - 2003 Edition (MUTCD). Kinzley -Horii and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail Redevelopment Page 53 4- 9 -58 \n APPENDIX A Conceptual Site Plan Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail 4- 9 -59 \n / ".� \� '� �. of - � � 3 ,•� - a .� ., as L- ✓'� �_ d k..W'� kv A \ -- A \\N" N j m ..... .... .... ..... . NX f Q 0 i " .4 � t iiii� � ��- � \ \ � ❑�� � \, 4 X7 A x ^may T 0 ♦ t S- f W > LU F i _ f W l N Z N w ID U I b W y \ \� ♦ 4 - .,.. V co Z a a m a 23 Cl ' .� 4- 9 -60 \n 0 V �Y 9 v r T� � e } ' XM I , o y \;y ; W o ¢ Y Y Q W 4m � O ix g U i1 0 (7 U z a z z a a z U O Q a U w '< U Z Z W N 4W U Q O Y W O Y Y LU co 4 9 61 \n APPENDIX B Existing Traffic Volumes Kirnley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail 4- 9 -62 \n 30 m a`�i m IN�i4 �i5 a LL CD a n o n \ \ 1 y d +! f OZb 25 'n n ca ca O C U C m ID T a a C G W In Lr d ¢'.a U LU - C II II II II V S I W �0 ¢ N J X X } 0 0 1 I RRY 0 N ♦5 i 0 w ill4, n!' n tt e0 5 saly�ed �.A�. a 1 T P a. + ry —N, aBegn ©hest 5 1I � PH lleh A A F 1 o , 1 °OFF �+ ° A l tr � h peatlsual'I.3 ® � c ' - 3 aw» �\gb9 peegsuol�M O r l N'1F In f s' pa � 6 AN N 1 j00z] � m � 0 f 05S fSZZJ n 'g6 N ���� �e3 ti N o 0 9 B Sc} 6'� S @ %�� s ° b � IL 00l f91 Obi � sS 10e1 } �+ 0 08 ] 1 Og OS L SLI ° m jSC Aj , O C OL 1061 N —' n x�CD O 4- 9 -63 \n APPENDIX C 2025 Traffic Volumes from Vail Transportation Master Plan Kirnley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail 4- 9 -64 \n n w N C J0 E = C1 U 4i ii . MII� m N V � J M oab o z r`_ 8 r, 0 Lo M4 d m _ +� tL . m rNii Y ca �Ob2 II E3 II Lo c N _ O N Im X ® <� S 0 4 ® ZO ( : L f-06 Play p p�p N �.y0 4r1 i � B rr ! "�° W Ay lal�a� e6A11� ©�e5c 0 ds�a5[o�ePa® rn 1F �s�� S �\ ©pii JIM pa h cP Pe a�suo�d s� \� day SCR - Peaysuoll m @ �i E ' f. � peaysuo!l'M Z � o Ogg �5 y }I sS ! s fON '�OB I rrR Sd \ e ® m I i L. Oh S �'� 3 p� B nr q s+c� X 004 ,O f Q£Z� f ISBN � ESL SZb ♦. h /l, ill N O N / / IIJ( d aF� 3 lwi2a ^ ^� S 4- 9 -65 \n APPENDIX D Trip Generation Worksheets Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail 4- 9 -66 \n Vail Transportation Master Plan Update IV. PROJECTED 2025 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Traffic Volume Forecasts Projected traffic demands along the Frontage Road system are key to assessing and mitigating future transportation conditions. As mentioned, the PM peak hour traffic is generally heavier than the AM peak hour, with a few pattern exceptions. As such, year 2025 traffic forecasts have focused on the PM peak hour time period for analysis, with exceptions being the Main Vail and West Vail Roundabout Interchanges where cursory-level AM peak hour forecasts were developed as well. The total PM peak hour forecasts were developed with the use of a travel demand model utilizing the TRAFFIX software package. The model was developed by estimating the amount of additional PM peak hour trips for each development and redevelopment proposal, and then assigning these new trips to the street system. Forecasts then resulted from the additive nature of the new trips in combination with the existing traffic which was increased modestly (0.5% per year) to year 2025. The AM peak hour traffic was developed by applying an approximate 35 percent flat growth factor to the existing AM peak hour; the 35 percent was based on the level of growth resulting from the 2025 PM peak hour projections (as compared to existing traffic levels). Table 3 shows the trip generation rates that were used, and Figure 5 shows the trip distribution assumptions that were used in this analysis. Trip rates were based on a combination of sources including the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation and the Lionshead Transportation Master Plan. ITE trips rates were primarily applied to development located away from the Vail base areas. Because of the heavy transit use and the fact that much of the development is mixed and close -in (lending itself to trips made via walking), the trip generation rates used in this study are less than the ITE rates because the ITE data are intended for more typical suburban settings where commuter activity is prominent. At peak times in Vail, tourist activity is prominent. The close -in trip generation rates used in this analysis are in line with ITE's Recreational /Home category. Areas where the close -in residential trip rates were applied are shown in Figure 6. A 20 percent reduction in trip generation rates was applied for the close -in areas. The increased retail uses within the villages were also subject to reduced trip generation rates as compared to ITE's shopping center category data. A PM peak hour trip reduction of 65 percent was applied due to the following reasons: The retail and commercial activity, being located at the base of the ski area, is heavily dependent upon people who are already in the village for skiing purposes. There are many units located close to the new retail uses which tends to induce walking trips to rather than vehicular trips. >► Mnay other units outside a reasonable walk are connected with a very high frequency(5 -7min) of transit service. 1 Many of the employees of the retail uses are typically discouraged to drive themselves to work, in part due to the parking fee at the structures. A cursory-level evaluation of existing retail trips was conducted by reviewing the level of traffic turning into the structures today. During the PM peak hour, the outbound traffic contains a significant amount of skier trips, so it is not appropriate to include these outbound traffic with respect to gauging trip generation Nd 3ri;t„ I3t,il t, I10 I,'I LZI ULI_IrV I G Page 22 4- 9 -67 \n Vail Transportation Master flan update rates. Inbound PM peak hour traffic contains trips associated with retail and some other uses, so while it is not 100 percent retail traffic, it does serve as an upper limit. At the Lionshead Parking Structure, 150 inbound PM peak hour trips exist current; the Lionshead Village contains approximately 150,000 square feet of retail- related use. At the Village Structure, 310 vehicles entered during the PM peak hour; that village contains approximately 300,000 square feet of retail /commercial. These traffic numbers represent a 45 to 50 percent reduction in ITE shopping center trip rates if they were all retail- related, but they are not. Other trip types that are part of the inbound movements to the structures include: ► Library trips (which is open until 6:00 PM on weekends, later on weekdays) ► Dobson Ice Arena trips (which typically has a full schedule including hockey events, figure skating, lessons, and public skating) ► Adventure Center trips. The Adventure Center provides other recreation including tubing, ski biking, snowmobiling, snowshoeing, and a trampoline, and it is remains open until 9:00 PM on weekend nights. Residential uses. Several residential complexes within the villages are not able to adequately park their own overnight guests, so the parking structures are used instead. At Lionshead, staff estimates that approximately 100 vehicles are parked overnight at peak times related to selected residential uses. At the Village Structure, between 200 and 300 vehicles are parked overnight related to some of the residential uses there. ► Special events. Both villages routinely host evening events such as concerts, festivals, exhibits, and other attractions. All of these attract trips beyond the retail/commercial attraction. As such, the true retail trip rate is even less that the 45 to 50 reduction quoted above. As such, using rates that equate to a 65 to 70 percent reduction for the new retail development is not inconsistent with current trip- making trends in Vail. Again, Appendix E shows the trip estimates for each of the development areas. In total, all of the considered development could generate an additional 2,800 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. The following summarize some of the bigger trip generators: ► West Vail — the net increase in square footage and residential units could generate a total of 470 additional trips during the PM peak hour. This would be above and beyond the estimated 800 to 1000 trips per hour generated by the West Vail development today. ► Timber Ridge is estimated to generate an additional 180 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. 1 West Lionshead (Ever Vail) has the potential of generating an additional 580 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. ► Lionshead Parking Structure redevelopment is estimated to generate 275 trips during the PM peak hour. ► The Lionshead Village area (excluding the Lionshead parking structure) is projected to generate an additional 490 PM peak hour trips given the collective development. The Vail Village area redevelopment is projected to generate an additional 260 PM peak hour trips given the collective development potentials. 1tcsLT WA_ NIC, 4 - 9 - 68 \n Page23 LO r - Al,f cn 'PH IWA cz LU 0 - � 1 X, ._ Aea4s4pa7 Pea"U011"PA F Vi 7 0.2 1� wso o o. r t G F ie rn co co 0 4- 9 - 69 \n Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Table 3. Trip Generation Rates Trip G�neratrc�n'Rates (per Dllfor Res, per, I'.10{#,51= ,otheruurse) Use ICE Va�> Remote l�a�l- Closeln f)a�ly a Dally P Daffy Pak Residential — New 5.86 0.54 5 0.5 4 0.4 Residential — Replace NA NA 0.75 0.08 0.6 0.06 Commercial - Office 11.01 1.49 11 1.49 11 1.49 Commercial — Retail 42.94 3.75 42.94 3.75 15 1.3 Hospital 17.6 1.18 17.6 11 NA NA Figure 7 shows the 2025 total PM peak hour traffic projections at the Town's roundabout intersections and many of the Frontage Road cross - streets. In general, future PM peak hour traffic flows along the frontage roads are projected to increase an estimated 30 to 40 percent over existing traffic flow levels at peak times. The interchanges will experience a greater concentration in traffic with the additional trips. Major cross- streets will still include Vail Valley Drive, both parking structure access points, and West Vail accesses (if access modifications are not constructed). Moderately traveled cross- streets include all of the Lionshead Circles, Village Drive, and Forest Road (given laver Vail redevelopment and if left intact). B. Traffic Operations Similar to the existing conditions LOS analysis, the roundabout intersections were analyzed for ideal conditions as well as for snow conditions using the same factors and adjustments mentioned before. Figure 8 shows the results of the PM peak hour analyses. Noticeable capacity deficiency highlights include: 1 Main Vail Interchange — The north roundabout is projected to operate at a LOS F during the PM peak hour. The south roundabout is projected to function at LOS D, but several approaches are expected to operate at LOS E or LOS F. West Vail Interchange -- Both roundabouts are projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. 1 U L €_.I- V I G 4- 9- 70 \n Page 25 O t N ` H . r-4 O O N M LO H N Lf) PL, W H N m N L N 4 N� N d bo P. LO r"t c N y c O d� u�j f N — cco L � IHfs o O E� R H H N x _(n 00 M CO 00 Cq m co m Go LO co G♦ I--f t W d O ;n A N G cn G m ° y Ln CD V. N `D N N `fl w N O N 00 [f? t L,' y .Z Qi N 14 q m 0 0 CD CD w° a U c 000 N N 0 N m n o .a a1 U tzt y tZ2 'N 4 LY * O �2 O 05 0 O � Q1 w 4) t z O O O w o y v O -42 P-4 Q m a3 i� v ++ .. o o s. p� [q W ^�' N— W rL O cn �1 � N * C D O A > E� 4- 9 -71 \n Kimsey -Hom . - - -... and MsWatm, Inc. Project Ever Vail - West Side Subject Trip Generation for Residential CondominiumlTownhouse Designed by CDR Date October 21, 2009 Job No. 096094004 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Vail Transportation Master Plan Residential Con dominiumlTownhouse - New Independant Variable - Dwelling Units (X) X = 138 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends AM Peak Hour - Table 3. Trip Generation Rates Applied 75% factor to ITE trip rate of 0.44 Directional Distribution: 17% ent. 83% exit. T = 0.33 * X T = 46 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.33 * 138.0 8 entering 38 exiting 8 + 38 = 46 PM Peak Hour - Table 3. Trip Generation Rates Directional Distribution: 67% ent. 33% exit. T = 0.4 * X T = 55 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.4 * 138.0 37 entering 18 exiting 37 + 18 = 55 Daily - Table 3. Trip Generation Rates Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting T = 4 * X T = 552 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 4 * 138.0 276 entering 276 exiting 276 + 276 = 552 4- 9 -72 \n KirnleyAom and Associates, Inc. Project Ever Vail - West Side Subject Trip Generation for Commercial - Retail Designed by CDR Date October 21, 2009 Job No. 096094004 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION Vail Transportation Master Pla Commercial Retail Independant Variable -1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area (X) X = 21.970 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends AM Peak Hour - Table 3. Trip Generation Rate The 65 percent reduction applied to the ITE rate similar to PM peak hour Directional Distribution: 61% ent. 39% exit. (T) = 0.35 (X) T = 8 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.35 * (22.0) 5 entering 3 exiting 5 + 3 = 8 PM Peak Hour - Table 3. Trip Generation Rate Directional Distribution: 44% ent. 56% exit. (T) = 1.3 (X) T = 29 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 1.3 * (22.0) 13 entering 16 exiting 13 + 16 - 29 Daily - Table 3. Trip Generation Rate Directional Distribution: 52% ent. 48% exit. (T) = 15 (X) T = 330 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 15 * (22.0) 172 entering 158 exiting 172 + 158 = 330 4- 9 -73 \n ® Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Project Ever Vail - West Side Subject Trip Generation for Apartment Designed by CDR Date October 21, 2009 Job No. 096094004 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition, Average Rate Land Use Code - Apartment, (220) Independant Variable - Dwelling Units (X) 41 Total Units, of which 20 percent not working = 9 units able to make trips X = 9 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between _7 and 9 a.m. (page 328) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 20% ent. 80% exit. T = 0.51 (X) T = 5 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.51 9.0 1 entering 4 exiting 1 + 4 = 5 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 329) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 65% ent. 35% exit. T = 0.62 (X) T = 6 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.62 * 9.0 4 entering 2 exiting 4 + 2 = 6 Weekday (Pace 327) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting T = 6.65 (X) T = 60 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 6.65 * 9.0 30 entering 30 exiting 30 + 30 = 60 4- 9 -74 \n Kimsey -Horn ................. and Associates, Inc. Project Ever Vail - East Side Subject Trip Generation for Residential Condomini um/Town house Designed by CDR Date October 21, 2009 Job No. 096094004 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Vail Transportation Master Plan Residential Condominium/Townhouse - New Independant Variable - Dwelling Units (X) X = 220 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends AM Peak Hour - Table 3. Trip Generation Rates Applied 75% factor to ITE trip rate of 0.44 Directional Distribution: 17% ent. 83% exit. T = 0.33 * X T = 73 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.33 * 220.0 12 entering 61 exiting 12 + 61 = 73 PM Peak Hour - Table 3. Trip Generation Rates Directional Distribution: 67% ent. 33% exit. T = 0.4 * X T = 88 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.4 * 220.0 59 entering 29 exiting 59 + 29 = 88 Daily - Table 3. Trip Generation Rates Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting T = 4 " X T = 880 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 4 * 220.0 440 entering 440 exiting 440 + 440 = 880 4- 9 -75 \n KidepHom ... and Associates, Inc. Project Ever Vail - East Side Subject Trip Generation for Commercial - Retail Designed by CDR Date October 21, 2009 Job No. 096094004 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION Vail Transportation Master Pla Commercial Retail Independant Variable -1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area (X) X = 81.625 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends AM Peak Hour - Table 3. Trip Generation Rate The 65 percent reduction applied to the ITE rate similar to PM peak hour Directional Distribution: 61% ent. 39% exit. (T) = 0.35 (X) T = 29 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (f) = 0.35 * (81.6) 18 entering 11 exiting 18 + 11 - 29 PM Peak Hour - Table 3. Trip Generation Rate Directional Distribution: 44% ent. 56% exit. (T) = 1.3 (X) T = 106 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 1.3 * (81.6) 47 entering 59 exiting 47 + 59 = 106 Daily - Table 3. Trip Generation Rate Directional Distribution: 52% ent. 48% exit. (T) = 15 (X) T = 1224 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 15 * (81.8) 636 entering 588 exiting 636 + 588 W 1224 4- 9 -76 \n KirnleyHom 1' � .............. and Associates, Inc. Project Ever Vail - East Side Subject Trip Generation for Apartment Designed by CDR Date October 21, 2009 Job No. 096094004 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition, Average Rate Land Use Code - Apartment, (220) lndependant Variable - Dwelling Units (X) 7 Total Units, of which 20 percent not working = 2 units able to make trips X = 2 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (page 328) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 20% ent. 80% exit. T = 0.51 (X) T = 1 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.51 * 2.0 0 entering 1 exiting 0 + 1 = 1 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 329) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 65% ent. 35% exit. T = 0.62 (X) T = 1 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.62 * 2.0 1 entering 0 exiting 1 + 0 = 1 Weekday (page 327) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting T = 6.65 (X) T = 14 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 6.65 * 2.0 7 entering 7 exiting 7 + 7 = 14 4 9 77 \n EM ..... F.1 ... and Assoc€ates, Inc. Project Ever Vail - East Side Subject Trip Generation for Resort Hotel Designed by CDR Date October 21, 2009 Job No. 096094004 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition, Average Rate Equations Land Use Code - Resort Hotel (330) Independant Variable - Rooms (X) X = 120 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (page 654) (T) = 0.31 (X) Directional Distribution: 72% ent. 28% exit. (T) = 0.31 * (120) T = 37 Average Vehicle Trip Ends 27 entering 10 exiting 27 + 10 = 37 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 655) (T) = 0.42 (X) Directional Distribution: 43% ent. 57% exit. (T) = 0.42 (120) T = 50 Average Vehicle Trip Ends 22 entering 28 exiting 22 + 28 = 50 No Trip Generation Studies for Peak Hour of the Generator, Saturday or Daily 10/21/2009 4- 9 -78 \n NIA wieyHorn an Asssx�atea, Inc. Project Ever Vail - East Side Subject Trip Generation for Office Building Designed by CDR Date October 21, 2009 Job No. 096094004 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation - Manual 8th Edition, Average Rates Land Use Code - General Office Building (710) Independant Variable - 1000 Square Feet (X) X = 33.600 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Ad'acent Street Traffic One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (Page 1204 Directional Distribution: 88% ent. 12% exit. (T) = 1.55 (X) T = 52 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 1.55 * (33.6) 46 entering 6 exiting 46 + 6 = 52 Peak Hour of Adi:acent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 1205 Directional Distribution: 17% ent. 83% exit. (T) = 1.49 (X) T = 50 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 1.49 " (33.6) 9 entering 42 exiting 9 + 41 = 50 Weekday (page 1203) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 50% ent. 50% exit. (T) = 11.01 (X) T = 370 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 11.01 * (33.6) 185 entering 185 exiting 185 + 185 = 370 Saturday, Peak Hour of Generator (page 1207) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 54% ent. 46% exit. (T) = 0.41 (X) T = 14 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.41 * (33.6) 8 entering 6 exiting 8 + 6 = 14 4- 9 -79 \n APPENDIX E Intersection Analysis Worksheets KimIe f -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail resorts' Ever Vail 4- 9 -80 \n Sidra Analysis Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail 4- 9 -81 \n Movement Summary Page 1 of 1 SIDRA INTERSECTION Movement Summary Ever Vail Redevelopment 2015 AM Total Without Simba Run Underpass Roundabout Vehicle Movements Deg of Aver 95% Aver Mov ID Turn Dem Flow %HV Satn Delay Level of Back of Prop. Eff. Stop Speed (veh /h) (v /c) (sec) Service Queue Queued Rate (mph) South Approach 3L L 83 2.4 0.223 11.3 LOS B 36 0.53 0.73 22.5 8R R 127 2.3 0.222 4.2 LOS A 36 0.53 0.49 24.0 Approach 211 2.4 0.222 7.0 LOS A 36 0.53 0.59 23.3 East Approach 1L L 147 2.0 0.482 10.5 LOS B 121 0.50 0.64 22.4 6T T 405 2.0 0.482 3.2 LOS A 121 0.50 0.38 24.2 Approach 552 2.0 0.482 5.2 LOS A 121 0.50 0.45 23.6 West Approach 5L L 67 1.5 0.203 7.7 LOS A 33 0.30 0.58 21.7 2T T 392 2.0 0.203 2.0 LOS A 33 0.30 0.23 24.9 211 R 72 1.4 0.203 3.8 LOS A 33 0.29 0.42 24.2 Approach 531 1.9 0.203 2.9 LOS A 33 0.30 0.30 24.3 All Vehicles 1294 2.0 0.482 4.5 LOS A 121 0.42 0.41 23.9 Symbols which may appear in this table: Following Degree of Saturation # x = 1.00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow * x = 1.00 due to minimum capacity Following LOS # - Based on density for continuous movements Following Queue # - Density for continuous movement Site: 2015 AM Total WO SIMBA K: \DEN_TPTO \096094004 - Ever Vail \Sidra \2009 \South Frontage Road & Forest Road.aap Processed Oct 30, 2009 11:00:29AM A0751, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Large Office Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.1.061208.34 Copyright 2000 -2006 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd . www.sidrasolutions.com 4- 9 -82 \n about:blank 10/30/2009 Intersection Summary Page 1 of 1 SIDRA INTERSECTION Intersection summary Ever Vail Redevelopment 2015 AM Total Without Simba Run Underpass Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows - Total 1294 veh /h 1553 pers /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2.0% Degree of Saturation 0.482 Effective Intersection Capacity 2685 veh /h 95% Back of Queue (ft) 121 ft 95% Back of Queue (veh) 4.8 veh Control Delay (Total) 1.63 veh -h/h 1.96 pers -h /h Control Delay (Average) 4.5 s /veh 4.5 s /pers Level of Service LOS A Level of Service (Worst Movement) LOS B Total Effective Stops 531 veh /h 637 pers /h Effective Stop Rate 0.41 per veh 0.41 per pers Proportion Queued 0.42 0.42 Travel Distance (Total) 501.0 veh -mi /h 601.2 pers -mi /h Travel Distance (Average) 2044 it 2044 ft Travel Time (Total) 21.0 veh -h /h 25.2 pers -h /h Travel Time (Average) 58.4 secs 58.4 secs Travel Speed 23.9 mph 23.9 mph Operating Cost (Total) 323 $/h 323 $/h Fuel Consumption (Total) 26.0 gal /h Carbon Dioxide (Total) 246.0 kg /h Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.404 kg /h Carbon Monoxide (Total) 19.58 kg /h NOX (Total) 0.546 kg /h SHORA SOLUTIONS Site: 2015 AM Total WO SIMBA K:\DEN_TPTO\096094004 - Ever Vai1\Sidra\2009\South Frontage Road & Forest Road.aap Processed Oct 30, 2009 11:00:29AM A0751, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Large Office Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.1.061208.34 Copyright 2000 -2006 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd www.sidrasolutions.com 4- 9 -83 \n about:blank 10/30/2009 O U O D N C) CV QL Li 0 66 '135 U) w CD N N South Approach 4- 9 -84\n Movement Summary Page 1 of 1 SIDRA .. .TE TI Movement Summary Ever Vail Redevelopment 2015 PM Total Without Simba Run Underpass Roundabout Vehicle Movements Deg of Aver 95% Aver Mov ID Turn Dem Flaw o /oHV Level of Sack of Prop. Eff. Stop Satn Delay Speed (veh /h) (v /c) (sec) $ervice Queue Queued Rate (mph) South Approach 3L L 212 1.9 0.416 11.9 LOS B 78 0.64 0.79 22.3 8R R 173 1.7 0.415 4.9 LOS A 78 0.64 0.57 23.7 Approach 384 1.8 0.415 8.8 LOS A 78 0.64 0.69 22.9 East Approach IL L 145 2.1 0.684 14.0 LOS B 242 0.82 0.85 21.6 6T T 521 1.9 0.685 6.7 LOS A 242 0.82 0.77 23.3 Approach 665 2.0 0.685 8.3 LOS A 242 0.82 0.79 22.9 West Approach 5L L 66 1.5 0.219 12.3 LOS B 38 0.33 0.65 22.4 2T T 426 2.1 0.218 2.0 LOS A 39 0.32 0.23 24.8 2R R 74 1.4 0.219 3.8 LOS A 39 0.32 0.42 24.1 Approach 566 1.9 0.218 3.4 LOS A 39 0.32 0.31 24.4 All Vehicles 1615 1.9 0.685 6.7 LOS A 242 0.60 0.60 23.4 Symbols which may appear in this table: Following Degree of Saturation # x = 1.00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow * x = 1.00 due to minimum capacity Following LOS # - Based on density for continuous movements Following Queue # - Density for continuous movement Site: 2015 PM Total WO SIMBA K:\DEN_TPTO \096094004 - Ever Vail \Sidra\2009\Sou th Frontage Road & Forest Road.aap Processed Oct 30, 2009 11:01:47AM A0751, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Large Office Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.1.061208.34 Copyright 2000 -2006 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd www.sidrasolutions.com 4- 9 -85 \n about:blank 10/30/2009 Intersection Summary Page 1 of 1 SIDRA INTERSECTION Intersection Summary Ever Vail Redevelopment 2015 PM Total Without Simba Run Underpass Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows - Total 1615 veh /h 1938 pers /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 1.9% Degree of Saturation 0.685 Effective Intersection Capacity 2357 veh /h 95% Back of Queue (ft) 242 ft 95 Back of Queue (veh) 9.5 veh Control Delay (Total) 3.00 veh -h /h 3.60 pers -h /h Control Delay (Average) 6.7 s/veh 6.7 s /pers Level of Service LOS A Level of Service (Worst Movement) LOS B Total Effective Stops 963 veh /h 1156 pers /h Effective Stop Rate 0.60 per veh 0.60 per pers Proportion Queued 0.60 0.60 Travel Distance (Total) 630.6 veh -mi /h 756.7 pers -mi /h Travel Distance (Average) 2062 ft 2062 ft Travel Time (Total) 27.0 veh -h /h 32.4 pers -h /h Travel Time (Average) 60.1 secs 60.1 secs Travel Speed 23.4 mph 23.4 mph Operating Cost (Total) 418 $/h 418 $/h Fuel Consumption (Total) 34.1 gal /h Carbon Dioxide (Total) 322.7 kg /h Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.537 kg /h Carbon Monoxide (Total) 26.69 kg /h NOX (Total) 0.732 kg /h Site: 2015 PM - total WO SIMBA K:\DEN_TPTO\096094004 - Ever Vail\Sidra\2009\South Frontage Road & Forest Road.aap Processed Oct 30, 2009 11:01:47AM A0751, Kirnley -Horn and Associates, Large Office Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.1.061208.34 Copyright 2000 -2006 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd www.sidrasolutions.com 4- 9 -86 \n about:blank 10/30/2009 CD U �- O L N NG] ACV CL N 0 68 133 -f--+ 0 (� - 2 - ) W N * r N� South Approach 4- 9 -87 \n Movement Summary Page 1 of 1 SIDRA ' INTERSECTION Movement Summary Ever Vail Redevelopment 2025 AM Total With Simba Run Underpass Roundabout Vehicle Movements Deg of Aver 95% Aver Mov ID Turn Dem Flow %HV Satn Delay Level. of Back of Prop. Eff. Stop Speed (veh /h) (v /c) (sec) Service Q Queued Rate (mph) South Approach 3L L 136 2.2 0.405 14.0 LOS B 65 0.70 0.93 21.8 8R R 120 1.7 0.405 6.9 LOS A 65 0.70 0.81 23.4 Approach 255 2.0 0.405 10.7 LOS B 65 0.70 0.87 22.5 East Approach 1L L 147 2.0 0.264 10.5 LOS B 55 0.48 0.65 22.5 6T T 473 1.9 0.264 3.1 LOS A 55 0.47 0.36 24.2 Approach 619 1.9 0.264 4.9 LOS A 55 0.47 0.43 23.8 West Approach 5L L 82 2.4 0.451 12.5 LOS B 93 0.39 0.66 22.3 2T T 755 2.0 0.452 2.2 LOS A 94 0.38 0.26 24.6 2R R 375 1.9 0.451 4.0 LOS A 94 0.37 0.44 24.0 Approach 1212 2.0 0.451 3.4 LOS A 94 0.38 0.34 24.2 All Vehicles 2086 2.0 0.452 4.7 LOS A 94 0.45 0.43 23.9 Symbols which may appear in this table: Following Degree of Saturation # x = 1.00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow * x = 1.00 due to minimum capacity Following LOS # - Based on density for continuous movements Following queue # - Density for continuous movement 5-DR.A SOLUTIONS Site: 2025 AM Total W SIMBA K:\DEN_TPT0\096094004 - Ever Vail\Sidra\2009\South Frontage Road & Forest Road.aap Processed Oct 30, 2009 11:03:28AM A0751, Kimsey -Horn and Associates, Large Office Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.1.061208.34 Copyright 2000 -2006 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd www.sidrasolutions.com 4- 9 -88 \n about:blank 10/30/2009 Intersection Summary Page 1 of 1 T Intersection Summary Ever Vail Redevelopment 2025 AM Total With Simba Run Underpass Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows - Total 2086 veh /h 2503 pers /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2.0% Degree of Saturation 0.452 Effective Intersection Capacity 4620 veh /h 95% Back of Queue (ft) 94 ft 95% Back of Queue (veh) 3.7 veh Control Delay (Total) 2.74 veh -h /h 3.29 pers -h /h Control Delay (Average) 4.7 s /veh 4.7 s/pers Level of Service LOS A Level of Service (Worst Movement) LOS B Total Effective Stops 903 veh /h 1084 pers /h Effective Stop Rate 0.43 per veh 0.43 per pers Proportion Queued 0.45 0.45 Travel Distance (Total) 807.6 veh -mi /h 969.2 pers -mi /h Travel Distance (Average) 2044 ft 2044 ft Travel Time (Total) 33.8 veh -h /h 40.6 pers -h /h Travel Time (Average) 58.4 secs 58.4 secs Travel Speed 23.9 mph 23.9 mph Operating Cost (Total) 525 $/h 525 $/h Fuel Consumption (Total) 42.7 gal /h Carbon Dioxide (Total) 404.0 kg /h Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.666 kg /h Carbon Monoxide (Total) 32.78 kg /h NOX (Total) 0.908 kg /h S SOLUTIONS Site: 2025 AM Total W SEMBA K:\DEN TPTO \096094004 - Ever Vail\Sidra \2009\South Frontage Road & Forest Road.aap Processed Oct 30, 2009 11:03:28AM A0751, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Large Office Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.1.061208.34 Copyright 2000 -2006 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd www.sidrasolutions.com 4- 9 -89 \n about:blank 10/30/2009 CD U U) M R-r- O 17MO C�D -6--j _0 M Zn s O 345 135 C) (� N South Approach 4- 9 -90 \n Movement Summary Page 1 of 1 SIDRA TE CT Movement Summary Ever Vail Redevelopment 2025, PM Total With Simba Run Underpass Roundabout Vehicle Movements Deg of Aver 950/0 Aver Mov ID Turn Dem Flow %HV Satn Delay Level of Back of Prop. Eff. Stop Speed (veh /h) (v /c) (sec) Service Q a Queued Rate (mph) South Approach 3L L 364 1.9 0.695 19.1 LOS B 224 0.91 1.19 20.3 8R R 158 1.9 0.695 12.1 LOS B 224 0.91 1.16 21.5 Approach 521 1.9 0.695 17.0 LOS B 224 0.91 1.18 20.6 East Approach IL L 141 2.1 0.410 12.4 LOS B 96 0.75 0.79 22.0 6T T 609 2.0 0.410 4.8 LOS A 99 0.74 0.57 23.5 Approach 750 2.0 0.410 6.3 LOS A 99 0.74 0.61 23.2 West Approach 5L L 76 2.6 0.383 12.4 LOS B 78 0.37 0.65 22.3 2T T 658 2.0 0.383 2.1 LOS A 79 0.37 0.25 24.7 211 R 283 2.1 0.382 3.9 LOS A 79 0.36 0.43 24.0 Approach 1017 2.1 0.383 3.3 LOS A 79 0.37 0.33 24.3 All Vehicles 2288 2.0 0.695 7.4 LOS A 224 0.62 0.62 23.0 Symbols which may appear in this table: Following Degree of Saturation # x = 1.00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow * x = 1.00 due to minimum capacity Fallowing LOS # - Based on density for continuous movements Following Queue # - Density for continuous movement 3 .A" 0LUT 1 i...$ Site: 2025 PM Total W SIMBA K: \DEN_TPTO \096094004 - Ever Vail \Sidra \2009 \South Frontage Road & Forest Road.aap Processed Oct 30, 2009 11:04:15AM A0751, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Large Office Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.1.061208.34 Copyright 2000 -2006 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd www.sidrasolutions.com 4- 9 -91 \n about:blank 10/30/2009 Intersection Summary Page 1 of 1 SIDRA W INTERSECTION Intersection Summary Ever Vail Redevelopment 2025 PM Total With Simba Run Underpass Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows - Total 2288 veh /h 2746 pers /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2.0% Degree of Saturation 0.695 Effective Intersection Capacity 3294 veh /h 95% Back of Queue (ft) 224 ft 95% Sack of Queue (veh) 8.8 veh Control Delay (Total) 4.71 veh -h /h 5.65 pers -h /h Control Delay (Average) 7.4 s /veh 7.4 s /pers Level of Service LOS A Level of Service (Worst Movement) LOS B Total Effective Stops 1409 veh /h 1691 pers /h Effective Stop Rate 0.62 per veh 0.62 per pers Proportion Queued 0.62 0.62 Travel Distance (Total) 892.5 veh -mi /h 1071.0 pers -mi /h Travel Distance (Average) 2060 ft 2060 ft Travel Time (Total) 38.9 veh -h /h 46.7 pers -h /h Travel Time (Average) 61.2 secs 61.2 secs Travel Speed 23.0 mph 23.0 mph Operating Cost (Total) 601 $/h 601 $/h Fuel Consumption (Total) 48.7 gal /h Carbon Dioxide (Total) 461.1 kg /h Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.770 kg /h Carbon Monoxide (Totil) 38.17 kg /h NOX (Total) 1.045 kg /h SIDRA SOLUTIONS Site: 2025 PM Total W SIMBA K:\DEN_TPTO\096094004 - Ever Vail \Sidra \2009 \South Frontage Road & Forest Road.aap Processed Oct 30, 2009 11:04:15AM A0751, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Large Office Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.1.061208.34 Copyright 2000 -2006 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd www.sidrasolutions.com 4- 9 -92 \n about:blank 10/30/2009 O U O J� o 0 NCD L17N CL ch Ul 0 260 130 U 0 {� W N N South Approach 4- 9 -93 \n Rodel Analysis Kimsey -Horn and Associates, Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail 4- 9 -94 \n WIN I IN 0" E <m> 4.27 7.03 7.92 TIME PERIOD min 90 <n> 10.05 11. 72 09.49 TIME SLICE min Is (n> 3.66 6.25 7.62 RESULTS PERIOD min 15 75 PAID <m) 28-96 30-48 26.82 TIME COST $/hi- I5.00 PHI <d> 29.67 09�33 33.44 FLOW PERIOD min 15 75 DIA <n) 45.72 45.72 45.72 PLOD TYPE peu/veh UEH GRAD SEP 0 0 0 FLOW PEAR am/op/pm AM LEG NAME PCU VEH TURNS <lGt exit, 2nd,.U) FLOF CL PLOW RATIO PLOW TIME Forest Rd 1.05 ilg 125 0 1-00 85 0-75 1.125 0.75 15 45 75 ill) Frntage 1.05 435 TIE 0 1.00 85 0.?5 1.129 43.75 15 45 ?G ES Frntage 1.05 345 695 75 1.00 85 0.75 1.125 0.75 15 45 25 malmail FLOU -jeh 235 570 1115 AUEDEL a cs CAPnCITY Vch 603 1822 1979 LOS SIG A AUE DELAY miw; 0.16 0.05 0.07 LOS Um IG A MAX DELAY nini� 0.24 0.06 0.10 AUE QUEUE Vch 1 0 1 UEHIC HRS 2.4 MAX QUEUE ue h 1 1 2 COST 36 .......... AM LEG NUMBER I Forest Rd ------------- ......... .. ......... ................... - - - - - - - ------------ -------------------- ........... ....... ... ......... TIME ORB FLOW CAP CHIC FLOW UC END QUEUES 95X QUEUES EXIT PLO SLICES v/slica v/glice RATIO Qeht: vehs veh/slice 0 15 44.23 1?7.17 144.45 0,250 0,33 0-86 90.05 15 30 52.82 161.44 172.86 0.327 0.48 1.25 167.77 30 45 64.68 140.32 211.53 0.461 0.84 2.16 131.04 45 60 64.68 140.98 211.94 0.462 0.85 2.19 132.12 60 75 52.82 161.21 173.46 0.328 0.49 s 1.29 108.10 75 90 44-23 176.90 145.12 0.250 0-34 0.96 90.46 I KIN D 1. 4 1 6 AM LEG NUMBER 2 WD 1�rnl ale TIME ARR FLMI CAP CIRC FLOW VC END QUEUES 95✓ QUEUES EXIT SLICER V/slice V/�Jico V/sIice RATIO velm Vella veil /;lice 0 15 107-28 465-11 37.43 0.231 0.30 0.78 150.91 15 30 129.10 459.41 44.85 0.279 0.39 1.01 180-67 30 45 156.90 451.79 54.83 0.347 0.53 1.38 221.02 45 60 156.90 451-62 55.04 :0.347 0.53 1.38 221-57 60 ?5 128.10 459.0 45.17 0.279 0.39 1.02 181.47 75 90 10?.28 464.88 37.74 0.231 0.30 0.79 151.77 RiI ..... . . . . . . . . . . . LEG NUMBER 3 Eu Frntage TIME ARR F1.011 CAP CIRC FLOW UC END QUEUES 95% QUEUES EXIT FLOW SLICES Q/Zlice V/slice v/slice RATIO uejlz; uehs velVslicc 0 15 209.86 SOi.12 25.34 0.419 0.72 1.86 119.06 15 30 260-59 497,33 30.32 0.504 1.01, 2.59 142.55 30 45 306.9 492.16 3?.13 0.624 1.63 4.12 174.45 45 60 306.91 492.1.3 37.16 0.624 1.65 4.15 174.78 60 75 250.59 497.29 30.37 :0.504 1.02 2.63 143.05 75 90 209.86 601.09 25.43 0.419 0.72 1.88 119.69 E (n) 4.27 7.03 7 - 99 TIME PERIOD min 90 (n) 10 OS 11.72 0049 TIME SLICE mill is (n) 3:66 6.25 7:62 RESULTS PERIOD min 15 75 RAD <0 28.96 30.48 26.82 TIME COST $/Iu- 15,00 PHI (d) 29.67 08.33 33.44 FLOW PERIOD min 15 75 DIA <0 45-72 45.72 45.72 FLO14 TYPE pcu/veh UEN GRAD SEP 0 0 0 FLOW PEAK an/op/pm PH LEG NAME PCU UFH TUNNS <lst exit. 2nd..U> FLOF CL FLOW RATIO FLOV TIME Forest Rd 1.05 145 335 0 1.00 85 0.75 1.125 0.75 is 45 ?S UB Frotage 1.65 560 130 0 1.00 85 0.75 1.125 0.75 IS 45 75 EB Frntage 1.05 260 605 70 1.00 85 0.75 1.125 0.75 15 45 75 LOW vela 480 690 935 f AVEDEL s 8.2 CAPACITY veh 655 1665 1983 LOS 21C A AUF DELAY nips 0.40 0.06 0.06 LOS UNSIG MAX DELAY rains 0.70 0.08 0.03 AVE QUEUE veh 3 1 1 UENIC HRS 4. MAX QUEUE veh 5 1 1 COST S 72 -------------- ........................................... PM LEG NUMBER i Forest Ed TIME ARR FLMI CAP CIRC PLO14 OC END QUEUES 95v- QUEUES EXIT FLOW SLICES v/slice v/slice v/slice RATIO velis veh8 veh/slice 0 15 90.34 i86.93 126.62 0-493 0.92 2.36 73.17 15 30 iO?.Sg 173.25 151-57 0-623 I.59 4.01 87.57 30 46 132.12 154.59 185.55 0.855 4.73 11.05 107.20 45 60 132.12 154.45 185.79 0.855 5.20 12.04 107.35 60 75 107.88 173.03 151.95 0.623 1.72 4.33 87.90 75 90 90-34 186.64 127.18 0.484 0.96 2.46 73.49 WN 0A PH LEG NUMBER 2 UB Prntage - - --------- -- ------- TIME ARR Fb%l CAP CIRC FLOU UC END QUEUES 95z QUEUES EXIT FLOW SLICES V/slite V/slice V/slice RATIO vehs vells veh/slice 0 15 129,87 435.93 75.58 0.298 0.42 1.10 140.53 15 30 155.07 424.45 90.56 0.365 0.57 1-49 168.23 30 45 189,93 410.12 109.37 0.463 0.86 2-21 205.26 45 60 189-93 408.68 111.16 0-465 0.86 2.23 206-29 60 75 165.07 422.20 93.36 :0.367 0.58 1-52 169.84 75 90 129.87 434.99 76.75 0.299 0.43 1.12 141.51 P" LEG NUMBER 3 Eli Frntage TIME ARIA PLOW CAP CIRG FLOW UC END QUEUES 957 QUEUES EXIT FLOW SLICES v/slice V/slice v/,-;lice BATIO veha velm vah/slice 0 15 175-98 501.84 24.39 0.351 0.54 1-40 180.60 15 30 210 14 498.19 29.19 0.422 0.73 1-88 216-27 30 45 25?.36 493.22 35.73 0.522 1.08 2.77 263.18 4S 60 257,36 493.10 35-78 0.522 1.09 2.78 265-28 60 ?5 210.14 498.13 29.2? 0.422 0.73 1.90 219.56 75 90 175.98 501.76 24.50 0.351 0.54 1.41 182.30 Synchro Analysis Kimley -Horn and Associates, ,Inc. 096094.004/Vail Resorts' Ever Vail 4- 9 -99 \n Ever Vail 2015 AM Background 1: West L.ionshead Circle & South Frontage Road 8/28/2009 t 1 Lane Configurations► Sign Control Stop.... Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume {vehlh) 31 ... _..... Peak Hour Factor 0.92 6 - 9 - 2 --- . ........... 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 H�ttrt�_ilow rate {vph) ., ��� �3 - 410 114 `40 312 Pedestrians __...... . bane Wdt (ft -.:. ._..__.. Walking Speed (ftls) _.... Fercen# Blockage...__.. Right turn flare {veh) f�adian ._..... Rafsed Median storage veh} 0 Ustreatn argr�al pX, platoon unblocked uC . coal lic n . uQlume..__:::802 41 Q 524 .....::.... :._ vC1, stage 1 conf vol 410 ; C2,. sta - e 2 conf r�ol 392 :: vCu, unblocked vol 802 410 524 tC .stn le. s 0 4 6 4 1 ..::W:;:W <; tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 _..._....3.5 .......3.3 2 PO queue free /0 90 9 rm m. a 6 96 - . .. ca Volurfieotai -° 57 3 .._.4 LQ ....... l4 ._.._....4I3 Volume Left 34 0 0 40 0 Vslume_Rr ht.:..........__... :_...._ ...._.... __ ....................__ .:wrv: °- - °...__..:_ .W..Q W.._... ......._ ...............P.... „ .., - p..,:,. ......... _ ... ................ _, ----- ----- .- -:- -::::: cSH 420 1700 1700 1043 1700 Vo]u.meo .Ca aci 0 13 07 _.._......_ ................ p_._.........,...._... _......,........_.........._... ... a .. . Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 0 0 3 0 Control.:Dela .... :.:.:::::::::::: s 14:..9 .......Q.O ...._..0..0......:,.8.6 ........Q _. € € €w Lane LOS B A _ ................._ -_ Approach =(s) Approach LOS B Average Delay 1.3 lrfersectron Capacity U #iliza #ion 36 5% CCU Level of Service A __.._....._......_m. Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 1 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 - 9 - 100 \n Ever Vail 2015 PM Background 1 West Lionshead Circle & South Frontage Road 8/28/2009 Lane Configurations . .......... ................. ... Sign Corgi #rol Stop free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% _.... -.- Volume : (uehlh) . . 15 3 I 34Q 1 .. Q5 . 28 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 . 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate „(vph)... ... ._. - ,34 ....37 ....,x;.14 ......_ :28...__..,,, 539.. - ..,,, , Pedestrians ,Lane Width Walking Speed (ft/s) _ . '66 _ ...._._.... Pe ' Ic a .... . . ........ .. ........ Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) 0 pX, platoon unblocked - - u:C conflJctin volume 965 370 484 €Tmm:`'' :J��:.�_.- �WW:...:W.::� -: -:W . -_ __... ........ ..- ...... _.....__ .._..... vC1, stage 1 conf vol 370 v:G2. -:s a .e.2.conf vol:.:..- 5:9:6i ....- ... ................_........_ �.. ._.............._......_....... vCu, unblocked vol 965 370 484 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 - 22 p0 queue free % 58 _ 95 97 .. ............................ ....... €x297 ... ..675:::::::: - :`- € 1:079 P Uofume :Totaf_: W - =E EH 2 ..... :.039.,..._ Volume Left 125 0 0 28 0 olurne:Ri ht......W =WW W W 34 Q 14W 0 ..d._._ . D.: .:- cSH 337 1700 1700 1079 1700 W::: .............. : 1Lol t Ca a i Y: - 0 47 0 22 0 07 0 03 0 32 urn.e . o ......__...._ ................ Queue Length 95th (ft) 60 0 0 2 0 Centrol Dela s 24 8 0 :0 0 0 8- L) 0 Lane LOS C A Approach pe_py 8 _ . 4 :._ ....... -::;<m Approach LOS C Average Delay 3.5 ... ...........__..___. lfkersect[onapaci(j±,Util�zaton :` 41. ' ... ICU of Serv(ce - , - ::.. A..: ..... ::.. . Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Pagel Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -101 \n Ever Vail 2015 AM Background 2: South Frontage Road & Forest Road 8/28/2009 -- t to o 4 / Lane Configurations r�r Sign Con #rol Free Fee Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% ...................................................... ............................... Volume (vellh) _ ?:5 445 15 10 267 31 5 ...,. 5 10 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 ... 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate {vph� : 1,`fi 484 16 11 290 34 5 5 19 40 5 5 Pedestrians - - -- --- - - - - -- banelV3d #h {... Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent F3bckage _.... -- �r Right turn flare (veh) Nfedian ...... pe..... _.. Rased atse �Rd Median storage veh) 0 0 al Upstream sign pX, platoon unblocked _.. wG, conflictingolume .... X 8 862 ...,.. 4 $42 845 294 _... _..__ . - vC1, stage 1 conf vol 516 516 312 312 vE2, stage,? conf vo�., _ 320 346 530 533 __...... ... . .. vCu, unblocked vol 324 500 836 862 484 84 845 290 tC srn e ? l 9:w ..m - -:� .. - 7 1 -__ 6 : :, tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF 3 5 PO queue free % 99 99 98 98 98 86 98 99 oM capacEty (vehJh....W..._ 1236 1064 _..:._ 289 .... 583 285 749 o Ulu meW Total W W _�.6 .... _4:84 1 B 11 20 34 _ 22 51 ry Volume Left 16 0 0 11 0 0 5 40 Vol.uroe:eRr _._._._._.._° T °::::0 0 ...... _............__... 9..._._.,.,._. ...__.,..,_ ..................._ . __......._ ..........:.... -_.::� 6_._.W � W44 ::.- �4' �' 1- �........:: �- . .. . . ... ...... '� �e �:._:..........: cSH 1236 1700 1700 1064 1700 1700 388 305 :- ,,;:.........W ..._ .................... Uolume. . . to aci..., ©03 0 28 0 07 0 01 017 0..02 W -O 06 01 p_. .n. W ..,._ -.- .....; ._m.- �. ..:m- mm......:�:_a_: -.. Queue _ Length 95th (ft) . r.�� ,....0 0 ,.:.. 1 _....0 0 4 15...:,:. 14 8 1s 1 Lane .. _....___...__ _ ......:,.. _..___._.,.,_..----- .__,.,... LOS A A B C .... ....... . ... .. 0 0 3........ 14 8 :,;19 1 ......... ... ...,..._. .: Approach LOS B C Average Delay 1.6 IC�terseetion Capacity Ut�l�zatian 36 9% ICU Level of Serv[ce A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 2 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -102 \n Ever Vail 2015 PM Background 2: South Frontage Road & Forest Road 8/28/2009 -• �*-- 4 - t Lane Configurations t w r m m _ ign Control Free Free Stop Step Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlhj 10 408 [0 15 602 15 Sr 5 15 26_ 5 m ......... .......... ........ ..... . Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ... 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 .... .. ... .... Hourly 56 rate (�Ph):_. _11 443 ......... :16 -..:.6 .. _.,. 16 ........ .� 6 , ....... 5 .. 6.;. 28 5 Pedestrians Lane 111ldth (ft) _ _ Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Bfocka�e.......:mmm:_ ;. Right turn flare (veh) Medan e - m =- = Raised.:.. Raised .m., _....._gip _,. m .. m ....:;. , , , : ,.,.,. ,... ..: ....... _ ................ Median storage veh) 0 0 U` stream s� nal ft P 1 _;: pX, platoon unblocked u€ conf�cfirtgvolume 671 454 1160 1 168 443 1171 1163 654 vC1, stage 3 conf vol 465 465 687 687 v 2 2 fv l . 6 703 484 a_- 95....._ �.. _........., vCu, unblocked vol 671 454 1160 1168 443 1 �7m...: 1 1163 654 tG in 1e s` 1 - - -- ' - =4 1 7 1 6.5 6 5 6 2 tC, 2 stage ( 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 2 2 2 3 5 4 0 3 3 3 5 4. 0 3 3 0 queue free /0 99 ._....__ _..__.. _ ._.- 99 ._.__._ 92 ..._W ._ .......... _�:.:.,� .. , . 9 p q o 97 87 98 9 cMapa[ty [e /b) __. 920 1106. 214 _614 214 228 466 ome_.ta m ° °__< 17 443 11 f6 654 1E 38 3...... Volume Left 11 0 0 16 0 0 16 28 Uolun7 2 � 0 1 - 0 17 00 �1 300 233 � cS H 9 700 � � .. ..:.. ............ ..: .... 0 170 700 11 6 _�._._._. ____... .._._._._,...._.... ._r .... _;... ._. �r Uolumeto.:Ca aci 0 01 0 26 0 01 0 0 f 0,38 ...r_:..0:01ro0 E3 017 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 15 control ®elay O �_ __. 9 U 0 0 8 3 - 0( i g 0 0 18 7 23 5 s_s _- _._._._._ Lane LOS A A C C 40"0 s _e_.........._...0 -2 _..0.2 :. ...:.: 18.7..._::23.5..: --;: -. ............. . . ..... . . .. . . . . . . . ..:.:..: Approach LOS C C - Average Delay 1.5 lnte,sectron Capacity El�zation 41 - Z °fo ICIJ euel of Sear ce A..... Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 2 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -103 \n Ever Vail 2015 AM Total w/o Simba 2: West Lionshead Circle & Forest Road 10122!2009 I Lane Configurations '►` Si n. C:or trz ........ m ` 'e_.......Sto Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volame {vehlh : 5 3 14Q 37 ....... 5 _.. _.,:- Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 .W:.W::..523 ...::.152... 9 Pedestrians ne U1lidth .... Walking Speed (ftls) Perce� #= BIo�kaT a ........ _.::: ::::::-- ::::::.::::::.::::::.:. Right turn flare {veh) Median... .:. ......_ ....... ...._ ..... ...... .... . ..... .........:: Median storage veh) ..................................................................... ............................... . l� streins� naCft:.. ...,.:... :.._,_'' WW- W�ssss "= pX, platoon unblocked uG, on lict�ng al [r ze__ 44 X56 vC1, stage 1 conf vol �rG2sta- e2�crrtl"�ot......�m�m�m� vCu, unblocked vol 415 155 158 W 41 e = W W = W;se = = =W s . sry ....Wsssss'ss ='. tC, 2 stage (s) tF: s....._...._.... �._.._... � ....a....a ...................._ .,.5_ ;..... _.:.:.......:...........:::::::::................._....._..__........._..._................ W.:e: W:-........_ W: W:.. W..........-e, �m::. n...... W::,:,;:..... .- .....:W:::::........,:,:::::- p0 queue free % 99 94 97 W. W ::::::::::::::::.:::::: :::::.::::: W- - t v 'hIh 7 C �....._......��_ .�..�...._....r_w_:__�..pa...� . __...89'1��W��'- x:422......._. ......... t ..... � ,. -: V"J" fr�me�ota n. m - w.....,..:: Volume Left 5 0 40 0 VtumeWli h1 WWW: WdWW cSH 851 1700 1422 1700 Ut�l ueue Length 95th (ft) 6 0 2 0 Q C rol Cela s 9 5 -- €00 7 Lane LOS A A roach .i31. : & 96 0 0 Approach LOS A Average Delay 2.1 tnters�ct�on..Ca ..act :Ul:iiizatian .......... 6 .1° : C Level Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 2 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -104 \n Ever Vail 2015 PM Total w/o Simba 2: West Lionshead Circle & Forest Road 10/22/2009 t t ZIV 1 0 WE N FIN M- Lane Configurations i n Control StopFree Grade w 0% Volume wehfh r 5 1.46 208 .'.....5.... 26 ....... Peak Hour Factor .. 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 226 28 190 Pedestrians Dine VIlid #h ft �,,,,..W..__.._.......a.�_..�, �.. � _._... � .....:..:::::....... W::.:_,:...,.,.. ....................._......... ........._._..._.__mmmq.: Walking Speed {ftls) P,i lint 9tocka a Right turn flare (veh) _. Median storage veh} U' streat ral ft ......... m` = €W m pX, platoon unblocked W::rrdW �G�_ft[tin 47..6 X29 ::::::::::::::.�.. .= :::::::m::::::: � .�_�...� ...- m��ma�.- :::- ::::m- �::�: -:. W m ....._��_ , -: vC1, stage 1 confvol ......_..�...�..... ,� .. 9- _ . vCu, unblocked vol 476 229 232 tC, 2 stage (s) dWeirtle r= daee ....._3.63= - 22F =:€ -w _ PO queue free %° 99 80 98 536 8 LO..... 1.336 �.a..a_n. �Pm.m:m1�:�.::..�? n�!� ....._... �.._.,.____.. _...........__._......._d...... __...._..._... _ ............... . _ w _._ ...___.._..._._.....___.___.._ '�%1urnemotal__. -- w.p -- W:.: W -WW W.:.;= ::.W:W:: W W _ =:W .:.:.:.:.:.:.: m _: :232.__.........28... _:91..._..._.W- W::::: W:W- ::::WW:,::.W::W:;:W W:WW::::W....._ Volume Left 5 0 28 0 Q ------------------ 0 cSH 797 1700 1336 1700_ 1/o ume . :c _...... _.....0..21 ...0;..1:4 .._ 0.OZ 'W;:= ; rr vaeee ..................... r =n' .. .0 _ .:.....::..... Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 0 2 0 Con r 1 Dela. s° >.: 0- 0.0. ...._.......7.:8...:.....:.1 :0;. Lane LOS B A A prc�aca Defep Cs)7 d 0 .. __ .. . Approach LOS .- Average Delay 3.2 fn #ersec #ron Ca acs U #ilizatron 33,9 ICU .level,:of:5.ery A ........ __. _..._.. -- - - - - -- P..._{Y _ ......................... _ Analysim____.__.....___._. s P ___.____ . _ r.._..._..__...._..... ..._.._......_......_....._.._. - :..... eriod (rein) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 2 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -105 \n Ever Vail 2025 AM Total w/ Simba 2: West Lionshead Circle & Forest Road 10/22/2009 t Lane Configurations ► -__ ' »M Frye Fray...._.. Sign on #rc�l_....... _.__.m- Shop _,.,- m ., Grade 0% 0% 0% .._ ................ olume ueh {h e..''e. 0 250 187 0 180 138 -:, ....:. ...__....._....._ . Peak Hour Factor 0.92 „ 0.92 0. 0:, 92 0.92 0.92 T 1ourly flag a e (v�{?).... » 0 272 7 9 150 ....: Pedestrians banewl ' 0 ,::: ..- ......,.,::m____ ,:m-. Walking Speed {ftls) Perc loc �.:.�m:. -::. =m Right turn flare (veh) Median: e..... _., . .........._None' : : :.T m .::.::::::.:.::::.::.:::.:.:. m:::::- m: ::,:,:,:,:,::,:,::,:,:.:::::: ,:,: ____ ...._.........._.._.._....__._. _ ....- __........_.......__.... -. Median storage veh) Uptram s�gnl O - pX, platoon unblocked �rC . conrctrn .moorrt = = :745 ..... :203 _ : :.:::::::::::.:::::::_,:,:,:,:, :203 .......__ :; :::::: :::::.:::::,:::::::_::,:::::::: mm� -� -�m �::::::.:m.-- :::.mm.:m. vC1, stage 1 conf vol :,. - m : ::::.:.:.:::::::::::::: :::::::: v:G2 ..�t� A e.2_�r�nfmu�f..... � �� ° °_m =iasi € =asi'== i= T..mT. == � =. = rm� =`.�`T ���- ��i ::: ::: .::�- ::: : :,:,.::< =:. ...__...�........_.l�.......�__ _......... _ .......... ......_........................ ....... :: : ..: :: : :..... ". ............:::= m:- ;:::... : ".....:. _:T -:m vCu, unblocked vol 745 203 203 i lr� ..�[r1 .e.. s. �_..._. �_ x"....._..:._.. m.......... 6. �=_=: 6�2.. ". "......__:: °iiiiie :�ivie � =�i e4 <1ii : °_iTTi =i =� = � ;€:���= �ms= ii= :eiTe °ie= `i`iviii � °i vim::'. dWd .....`�aa . _�.e. -, __. .._,_e. -m ._.... .- .__ .�.e,.,.. ..__ .,w.� tC, 2 stage (s) t s .,_.e....,. ..�.. -...,; ,3.��° -ii ........ ......m .......2.2 ........==- �e �° '�= _ ° €`m� €. €.��.... °ie�'�����ii .......'. ..�,......... " .............. ore: o,., __. ,...:::::.:.mm.::::::,: p0 queue free % 100 68 86 ............ ................ ............ Nf. pct ...:vehli = ry » :.._ ._.327.. 831... ' : _ .. :.1.368 ,.,.,__....: :.,. W - `_ _` = :W y ° - =W w .::::.:- '0Ite Taal._ ro _...._ __....2 .__....2i]3 .._..6.._.._ 5�} _..W, . .._ ..W.. Tmm._m._____. w p WW _ - W W:: W::: WWW.:: W:..: W: :::::W::::W:::W::W..:::WW:: -::: :W:: W::::::::: W::::::::::. -:: WW- W- =:W:;= - :::W::: W- W:::- - -:::: W:..:W WW ::::::WWW —W W::::::::: :::::.:. : Volume Left 0 0 196 0 ui7lurn . a ::.:W -::: W ::: ::::::. :::W.:W-- ::::::- ::WW.W :: W::: W::::: ::::::::::WWW:::::::::::::W:.;W .._.2.72. pe;�eW W -.0 =€ -- - ":- r� W= � -:; W= .._......":.." W.._ �......_...._._..._...._..,...... m.,..___ .......:.:.:::: W-: W:: W.::::_:::::::: WW:::..-::::: W- W_ W: W::, W::::-::- W::::::-:- �;::::::-.:::-=::-: �. W::::::::::::::::-:,-:::: �, �.: �:-:.: m-:::::-::::::::-:::ee:.:e �::::. :::rWW::W.- .:;:::::::W= :- :. -;�. W -::.:; - cSH 837 1700 1368 1700 yr fi eµto.t a -- i 2. �......1;2 . 0. 1�W- rv'..f3 fl......s ". -.? - : :.W= .` W ° °iie: m 0. Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 0 12 0 CntrQ_C� lay (s) . __.._.._ ?.:._. :0 8.1 0 n .... :_ Lane LOS B A roaoh Dela x..1.3 .. - -- fl 4.6 Approach LOS B Average Delay 5.7 m,- :_... _.._....... ,_........� .................... ;....._......_.. tntersectt�n C.a -acct LJtltzatian 45 3% lC1J Level of Service A ;;;;; - = ��_ P Y . Anal sis Period min -__ y { ) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 2 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 - 9 - 106 \n Ever Vail 2025 PM Total w/ Simba 2: West Lionshead Circle & Forest Road 10/22/2009 t Lane Configurations ', '► sign CQr.trol .....m. _._.... :... St6p Fryere..:... Grade 0% 0 0% VptUrrie {vets #h 20 20 5 -.. :175 _ Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 m.::.:. Hot,ri 3 .._._ ........ ....... ._..__.._ ..... _.___..--- ...____ -- . - - - -. _ Pedestrians Lane Walking Speed (ftls) Per...ent..Biac 11 Right turn-hare €i ... _:::,:: ................. _ . . : .��..���. .. - ,. �:_W:::::::.::W;:W::: n flare (veh) _...... ...... ......... _...e.._......eW - Median ... yeti =e ee-W; None`:ry-W =;; Median storage veh) U stream s� pX, platoon unblocked e.. _..... _ . 277 ......... vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2 een1 vCu, unblocked vol 889 274 277 -; e ._ W _.. . --- = : : =W =6 C, 2 stage W _ W 4..1. :._W W W W= W =W i viW'ss °sss asiWW =W =`W - WWWe t (s) - Wd d :: e:: W:- :::W:::::.- ................ ..........._.... __........._................._. W._.e.._.._.__. ..__...........5..._....._....r ::::::::., W : .::............::.:::.::::::::: 2. ti...::::;:::...........:::::::::._.......:::::::::._....._.:::e::::._......:::::: :W......._...::::::::.......::: = :::._...,..tl::::; -:. p0 queue free % 98 67 - 85...... 7 .. _ ....4___ ... :. W W. rWW e Wr:e e r e ::drW =n :e:dW ::: tl e e _., ..... .............:.:::::::...:::::. .................. _......_ __........�._.._..____�_.....�. �___...._......___..........._....._..._._....... �._.._..__.. ___.._..___._...._.....__._.... _..__......._ W U1urrtTc�fT_... _.....277 -...90 234 W - m m -, ::::::��::: � -: Volume Left 5 0 190 Q - 11Itam [ ht.. a ...e..a.......250 5... w...: 0 ......_.. 0 cSH 735 1700 1286 1700 Uo1ume o.Ga a r 016 15 :: ", :`:: Queue Length 95th (ft) 39 0 13 0 OOi = = :��� Lane LOS B A ,.,... -- -------- __. _....._ ..............:........_.. pproacti -- Approach LOS B MENMa! m: Average Delay 5.0 raterso G t 7 /a I::C1J .L -evel of: Serv► ce :.::::::::::.: Y :::: W:.:.:.:.ect.::.:?� T.: ��rapat,v�IT[���:�gr�::::::m::- : -::::: �7...: -..... _ _ ................_...�. _.., _.... _ _ .................._........._ _.......... ............................... _........ ....... Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 2 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -107 \n Ever Vail 2015 AM Total w/o Simba 3: South Frontage Road & Access A 10/30/2009 , fe Lane Configurations Sign Control Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0 % Volume {vehlh} 299 "I k9 178 X72 69 - =1 D4. _. _ Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rite (vphj 325 X29 193 296 75 113 ...... Pedestrians Lane Width - O:. Walking Speed (ftls} . ....... ....__.......... Right turn flare (veh) Medan t e : Raised Median storage veh) 5 Upstream signal.O.. pX, platoon unblocked y � cp;t7fil�ct�r I m 4 4 . ... i .. C}OS .... ::.. _.._: _ . VC1, stage 1 conf vol 325 - - vG2 sta e 2.. car�f .. . ..... . .. . ... .. ... ................. ... - ........6$3........ :..... : .; vCu, unblocked vol 454 1008 325 ............. 4 :::::::::: ::::.:::5 4 6 2- ...: . tC, 2 stage (s) 4.4 s €; 2 2 PO queue free % 83 85 84 cM capcity 11.0601 716 1%oiu me Total ..._. X25 .... f 29 x:93.....296.......:_. 78 .....:.:.1 Volume Left 0 0 193 0 75 0 Uohf RG ht D 12J 4 :::.:: -:::: 0 0 11 � .............................. cSH 1700 1700 1106 1700 501 716 Volume t "' Capacity.......:: 0 19 0 OS 0 17 0 17 0 15 0 16 ......._. ...._... ......... ......... .. _. Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 16 0 13 14 ontrolpefays) fl0 0;:0 5 9 .. 0 0 13 5 11 0..., . Lane LOS A B B Approach LOS B Average Delay 3.5 ...... . ........ ......... ....... ... Intersection Capacity Utilization 39:4 %. , ' ICU ;LeveLof Service ... A Analysis Period (min) 15 User Entered Value Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 3 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 - 9 - 108 \n Ever Vail 2015 PM Total w/o Simba 3: South Frontage Road & Access A 10/30/2009 �t7:: ; ;e : �:�•�:� �;.:� ° E�:��a�$�,. »..e�1�L= °8°T� ° - �� BA! 1 g � mm m m �m �mm� :, - �..;.... M.. ,, . » » ».�.. � ...a.�... .».. : " ��n .........en ................... ........,_w....m_.. ...,..,.__... zec�' °�°�= - s°."a�'`xa:�a .:::✓sn.. sz^tt:9as Lane Configurations r • '� � t Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Vofum (uehlh. }:. .. 259 ...?; 555 ".. "..'123 185 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flew rake {uph) 282 7,7 115 fiO3 134 ; Pedestrians 1;o'n" dth ( ) :........ . Walking Speed (ftls) PercentBlocka e Right turn flare (veh) Nledian Raised __..... Median storage veh) 5 llstream signet (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting �,1 vC1, �, _. stage 1 conf vol 282 .. .... ............. vC2, stage 2 conf uql 834 vCu, unblocked vol 359 1115 282 tC srn le tC, 2 stage (s) 4.4 p0 queue free % 90 73 ""'"' 3 . ". ".... eM Ca ackt vehlh- 487 757 ..._......-... A...... 1 20 0 ._. y..( ......_.._..- .�..........:..... � MR W k N N I NA Valtarne Tatal ..:_ 282 - -- " -,77. 115 .:.._03. 134- ...20_...... Volume Left 0 0 115 0 134 0 Unlume „ftight ... _.�.. 0 77 0 0 1 7....;207_.. cSH 1700 1700 1200 1700 487 757 Volume,to rapacity. 0 ' 0 05 . 0 .. ... ... 0 35 ..:0 27 .,...0 27 _.. .. Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 8 0 28 27 ontrof DeE s 0 (� 00 8, 30 0 15 2 `'11 5 a .Y(} Lane LOS A C B Approach Delay. {)...:.:.. 0 3 .. 12 9 . Approach LOS B 1n wa • :e t Average Delay 3.7 Intel eeflon;Capaclty Utt{rzatian......... 42 ?% ICU Level :of Service A . ......... ......... .. Analysis Period (min) 15 User Entered Value Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 3 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 - 9 - 109 \n Ever Vail 2025 AM Total w/ Simba 3: South Frontage Road & Access A 10/30/2009 Lane Configurations 0 tt Si n n.j ...... .... ................... Free '�".�:�'��;��'$ 0.10" . .... . . ... ..... . F . .......... . . . t 9. ...... ... .. . ........... .... ....... Grade 0% 0% 0% Vol " :,-,vbh'/h) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 . . . . . . . . . . H ...................... ".7 rate .... . . .. .. .. .. .. .... '9 ...... .. .. .. .. .. Pedestrians L' 4 0" W" dfl ( ""')�'�'��'���'��;�'��'�:, ............................. ........................................... Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare (veh) ....... .... . m6di . ........... ............ Ra ised ` Me storage ' v e h Upst ................. I. ... ........ ".'f t . . . .. .. ... ...................... . . . ... .. ... .. .............. .......... ..... . . ......................... .. . .. ..... ...... .. px, platoon unblocked . . . . .. .... ........... 1660 ..... .............. ... . 6 . . .......... . . ................. ..... . . .... ..... .............. 595 . ....... ... .. . . ... ...................... .... . . VC1, stage 1 Gonf vol 1109 M� .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .......... stag --1----.111 . .. Vol ............ .. .... . . .. vCu, unblocked 1190 1660 595 sf6 4 .. ... . . .... ....................... . ... . . .. . . . .. ............. . .... . ...... . ... . .. ......... ... . . ... .. .... . ....... ........ . .. .......................... .. ..... .. .. .... . .. . .. . . .......... ........ . .... ..... ........................ ...... tC, 2 stage (s) 4.4 . ... ......... .. ........ . ........... . . .. . . .............. . . ..... ..... ......... .................... PO queue free % 72 77 79 c ��S99(� 447 . ....... .... .. �,pap' q j �ty (V e h � M 0211 MORRO% MOM IN 0 - 9 - NO S W- - E 9 V oIijjiie- T6f 685, 505 ... ............... . . .. . . . ........ ................... Volume Left 0 0 163 0 0 92 0 .......................... V ............ . . ................. 0 0 ..... .. cSH 1700 1700 582 1700 1700 399 447 t—— C ap a ci t y - 4 0 0 .3 2 ...... ...... ............... , Q ueue " Length 95th (ft) 0 0 -,"I'll 11-1- 2 1 -1 .2 9 0 -'-� 0 22 ...... C bntrol T Lane LOS B C C App . ........ ............................ . .. Approach LOS C Average Delay 2.6 I' f S"" ;X` :eve �w 'erms'- ...... . ...... .. P/c T L' sectidh!C40 : 5&9.' CU': ........... . .. ... .... Analysis Period (min) 15 . . . ........ .................... ... . .......... .. ..... . ........ U ser It n ie e d' Va Baseline SynGhro 6 Report Page 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -11 \n Ever Vail 2025 PM Total w/ Simba 3: South Frontaue Road & Access A 1 0/30/ 2 009 .r-�'• r sef•:eG1f =:;. �.:��°°:°��''w'.:- �:F�µ�1:� s°" �!E�'�T�if�C�� m 'f�:;e ...:- :._..w�.� :�, �.�.. ..._..»»» ...............<...».,.........,............».,., m.,. a�, a.: ax...».... ......................... -.�^ -: .n_m_� �Hruee°a4_......a. o as.° m_ � et+ 9..... a.............».,,...:.... a............... a^. c...........»:............-..».. xs:.. ..., » ». ».¢. ».....,. »... » » ».. ».. Lane Configurations, tt S'igr� Control Free Free Stop ... Grade Volume {vehlh) 710 90 90 795 E55 155 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ........ .... ...... Hourly fkow rate(vp72 ... -_:98 ....... 9 .8 168 ....... 168 ..... Pedestrians Dane Width (ft) !' ; Walking Speed (ftls) Pereent;Blockage Right turn flare (veh) ............. Nledian.�Ype Rased Median storage veh) 5 ..... ......... ................ �lpsm trea signal " pX, platoon unblocked vC - coriflicfrng volume, 870 .... X44 435 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 821 vet stage 2 conf vol 628 vCu, unblocked vol 870 1448 435 .... ........ ........ .......... fC sin 1e s tC 2 stage (s) 4.4 p0 queue free % 87 66 70 cM capacity (e_hlh) 771, 490 569 ... .. ........ . W _ .._...._.........._.._......___ Volurrme::Total 514 ........355 9:8 " 432: € - 43 :......_.18 ......... 1.68....... ::.., Volume Left 0 0 98 0 0 168 0 U.olum ... R�gfat - „_ 0 .._..g8 .._..... 0 ....._... 0 ......... 0 ......... ? ..... X68...._. cS H 1700 1700 71 1700 1700 7 490 569 .... .... - -, Volume to Ca acct 0 3p 0 21 Q 13 0 2a 0 25 0 34 0 30 p_.. Y ........... .......... Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 11 0 0 38 31 Control `C�elay (s) 0.0 0 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 16 2 14 0 Lane LOS B C B Approach 0 X 0 :. 0 ..... 1 1 1. 1 .. Approach LOS C �l�t�l "�EtF�[imu�eEk1�17tcim: ;•-°�° � � m � �°�°m � ° .� � ��� � � _ °°- �� g m r -. w�„ ° Average Delay �mmm mmm � 2.8 �� m .. .............. .... 1ritersectian Capacity lJtihza., 46 1.'% ICl1 Level of Service A . .... Analysis Period (min) 15 User Entered Value Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 3 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -111 \n Ever Vail 2015 AM Total w/o Simba 11: South Frontage Road & Access B 10/30/2009 4— l r m EBB " ... . , �L� ww 0 N B N NOW Lane Configurations Sign Con #rol ....;... Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 1F�blume '(vehlh), 400 4 450 0 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate X35. 3 4 Pedestrians Lane Wldth (�) ...: Walking Speed (ftls) percent- .Slocge. _ Right turn flare (veh) Median:.tyPQ.....:: Raised Median storage veh) 0 upstream signal O pX, platoon unblocked vC confl�c #irr volume 438 ..... 933 435. __........ ..9 _.. VC1, stage 1 conf Vol 435 v2, stage 2nl�f vol, - 98 vCu, unblocked Vol 438 933 435 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tC, single {s).........= = 41 6 4 6 _.. .... _._. #C, 2 stage (s) 5.4 t (s) _...... ....___ . : .2 33 p0 queue free % 100 100 96 cM ca acit vehlh _ 1122 ti4 -, -,__ 62I, 'V . l of 4 5 "Y' 4 m -_o a ma_ a.1.......: .. ........ ....... Volume Left 0 0 4 0 0 Volume _ ............._..... _ ........_..._..__.. ....___.._...._ .......:........ ......._..._..... ... cSH 1700 1700 1122 1700 621 Volume to Capacity 0 26 0,00 0 00 0 `29 .. 0 04 Q .: , ueue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 3 C`ontral delay.:O 04 0 0 8 2 0 0 �..Q Lane LOS A B Approach Delay L) 11 0 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.3 m lritersecfion Gapac�ty a #�I�zation 31 1 % ' IC Level of Service A ........ Analysis . Period (rein) 9 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 7 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -112 \n Ever Vail 2015 PM Total w/o Simba 11: South Frontage Road & Access B 10/30/2009 (���:IaLI�.� µ•ms.. =.�..�..:..��. ��.� r::.:.:.:..�;�,e m:.�m_.e�± �,.�'� ��j.�" �:: „.�..,,;.,..w,.;.ri.. �,.....:: _R.. � ...�:- r..:...�. Lane Configurations r Si, n Control Free Free Stop 9 Grade 0% 0% 0% i/olumeaveh -Ih) �L33 11 661 8 . Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Houfly flow rate (vph):::...4' 12 17 -:7-1 , -- 0 . 20 Pedestrians Lane Width. _..... ..... ........ ... . ........ . . ....:: Walking Speed (ft/s) Percetyt Blackae Right turn flare (veh) ISedran Raised ... Median storage veh) 0 Upstream signal �� ?... . - =. pX, platoon unblocked SIG, cortfihct�ng volume........ -- 483 1224 471 VC1, stage 1 conf Vol 471 vc2 sta e 2 conf Vol } 753 g VCu, unblocked Vol 483 1224 .. 471 tc, single (s3 4 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 _. Z'35 ..... 33 1-1 p0 queue free % 98 100 97 �cm capacity (vehlh)......... 1,080 2 593 .... ; ..... . TAE m N NE Uolunie_TotaC_.�. 471 €2.......17 718 20 Volume Left 0 17 0 0 Volume Rlht . 0 1 0 0 20 cSH 1700 1700 1080 1700 593 Volume .. to Capacity 0 28 0 41 4;02 0;:42 0 03 .., Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 0 3 Con trpi Delay:: s - 0 0 0 0 .. 8 4 0 0 11 3 _.... Lane LOS A B A roach Approach LOS B t ry µM : ��tal . �. b . :. ,• -: � .. S :.:n.. mm �-°=, ' 11 I Average Delay 0.3 Ir tersec #ton Capacity - ;Utilization 38 1: lCll Level of Service A . :.. Analysis Period (min} 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 7 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -113 \n Ever Vail 2025 AM Total wl Simba 11: South Frontage Road & Access B 10/30/2009 PRO «„ �;.. £ :?�� a? � ""' .�,�c::.^° »w »^ - ;;��° m� m�_'��� mm:��.°��:�m . - � _ m�: °'m��:�m� Y =�«� �°g;W: - :::...� � � _ n�� e m Tm:.Pm... � �._,.:, m �� Lane Configurations ��� . tt _ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% m - 0% - 0% Volume {vehlh }; 0 25 1025 .._....: ........:: � .. ...6g5... ._... Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly #low rate (vph m 114 5 .. .. 5.. 614 a z Pedestrians ne Width (ft.= ........ Walking Speed (ft/s) PercentBlock Right turn flare (veh) m Ype......:: _ Raised .. _ Median storage veh) 0 ptrea„ U" rn signal {ft} pX, - platoon unblocke d C confhctingolme.......... 1120 135 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1117 yC2 stage 2 conf voT . ...... ....... . vCu, unblocked vol 1120 1435 560 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF 3 3 p0 queue free % 99 100 94 CM capac�ty..weh]h� .......: 620 166 , .;472 � µ Volume 743 377 _ ....:.... 50.... 307 , 27 = ::. Volume Left 0 0 5 0 0 0 U oluma Right 0 W::::..� 0 ....... r?....... 0 27 _...._: cS H 1700 1700 620 1700 1700 472 1lolume o Capacity 0 44 0 22 0 01 0 [8 018 06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 0 0 5 Control DeEay.,(s) 0 0 0 0 10 9 0 0 0 0 13 1, Lane LOS _ , B B fpproach Delay (s} 00 01 131 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.2 lrttersaction Capacity Utilization 38 5% lGU Level of Service A . Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 7 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -114 \n Ever Vail 2025 PM Total w/ Simba 11: South Frontage Road & Access B 1 0/30/ w:y a ;ia.:..»...... � .�,.,._— .,_.a�.aL °, rr. , a .:..., �.... � � _ � �. �.. :: y µ:';^»:;.r^�2 ».,= :✓,-»:» �� �mAm rt .«.r^'....""""w::.: ..a ^a m m °�. °„'°"e;'r a S »•z:. » ^,;:.». »tom »»»� »::xF; .e � : e , ,.. � .... _ �.� •mow �. `� � _.�1�7��� =S.L�� ��.T m I� I: w:.:�:I�B:F�.�_ m m �:�:�:::ry :� Lane Configurations, mmm ' mm mtt Si n Control Free )=ree Stop 9 .. Grade 0 %° 0% 0% Vo7ume:(vehlh) 85 Q... 15...:5 885 4 .. 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 ... 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rao (vph).... 924:6 16 962- 0 22 ...... .. .. Pedestrians Lane 1111idth..O. m... .. Walking Speed (fus) Percent loc Blrage _:...... _..__. Right turn flare (veh) Median type ..._... Raised Median storage veh) 0 Upstream Cigna[ {ft) -' pX, platoon unblocked C conftrctin volume 940 -- 1`446470 -- vC1,s fa ge 1 conf vol 932 2, stage 2_oor�f �rol W .. .. 514 vCu, unblocked vol 940 1446 470 tC sirt le s 4 1 6 8 6 9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 35 33 p0 queue free % 98 100 96 cM capacity (vehl)) 7 2 5 _... - -- 182 540 -- µ- W - mm m m RE. mm µ w e we 1/OT nl a1 ".` u -,a- Tot _,:.:_..::::::::.:- 6 f6 324 ... 16 4$1 4$1 22 ......... Volume Left 0 0 16 0 0 0 Volume Fri ht fl -6 _.._m. �. .. 0 0 - 22 g .......... cSH 1700 1700 725 1700 1700 540 Volume:ao Capacity...... 0 36 0 19 ...0 02 ....0 28 t} 28 0 04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 0 3 Control belay :O O Q 0 0 10 7 11 9 Lane LOS B B Approach DefaY .(s). _ ; ....�,:�....... 0 2 ,, ::. � 1 9 Approach LOS B wm NEW Average Delay 0.2 I ntersection „Capaclfy Utllrzat�on 34 0% , ICU;'Level of Service A _. Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 7 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -115 \n Ever Vail 2015 AM Total w/o Simba 4. South Frontage Road & Access C 10/30/2009 _ Lane Configurations r Pree Sto gn Control Free...... p. .. Grade 0% 0% 0% Uo[cme`(vehlh) 338 84 72 454 p 4.....'. .. ... Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 Hou rly flow rate (vph).,..... 367 4.93 0 4...... J.1 ........ 78 Pedestrians ... .... alking Speed (ft/s) Po rcentSlock ge ................ . Right turn flare (veh) Median „type,..:.. ... .: ........ .Raised Median storage veh) 5 Upstraam stgnl eft) ...W:.. ...._... .._.. ... . pX, platoon unblocked vC confl�ctm volume X59.....: 0017 367 . vC1, stage 1 confvol 367 uC2 s #a0e 2 card rql 650 vCu, unblocked vol 459 1017 367 ... ........ ......... #o, 5�ng9e �s }.:...._ .... ..... _�. .._._... . tC, 2 stage (s) 4.4 .._..._.. PO queue free % 93 100 99 eM ca[ ...... ity (uahlh} . ..11 d2 . 1(o3.Cr1.To #a1.. :...... .�7 .... 1 7S _. =43 .........._.. Volume Left 0 0 78 0 0 Vo[ume cSH 00 1700 1102 1700 678 Volttrne,to Capacity.:... 0 22 ..0 05 07.... 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 6 0 0 ...... ......... ......... ......... ............... . Controj 0 0 (# 0 8 5 0 4 10 3 Lane LOS A ..... B pr a, ?.0.3 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.7 intersection Capacity .j i zation 28' 4 °/fl 1CU Level of Service , :...... A .... Analysis Period (min) 15 .. - Entered Value . User e - ,. Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 4 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -116 \n Ever Vail 2015 PM Total w/o Sirnba 4: South Frontaue Road & Access C 10/30/2009 R . f J ,jy �ry���1 ��-y( ��T�dt�. .. ��.:, �, � T �.. ,�- �q° s• e m m°���w x y µm =:; � wn,�. 8" ..... »,.... ... _.e,..y,�,. -..._ a v.x.r....... „.S58SS ., ____....�.. 2a' x;�.s...,..,_....,u_.. .,.._� ....,•.,..ew.m.,_.m_� s: � .e �Y5 Lane Configurations r r Sign Control free . Free Stop . . .. .: ......... Grade 0% 0% 0% V61Ome wehlh) 365 86 74 6 7 7 .... 0 ..... 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly f[ow rate (uph} 397 93 S0 736 0 9 Pedestrians Lane 11Urdth ( } .... . _... Walking Speed (ftls} Percent Biockage Right ......... turn flare (veh) IVled�arit e_... , Median storage veh) 5 Usiream si nal (ft). pX, platoon unblocked C, confil,ict�ng volume 490 1 293 39 , ; _... vC1, stage 1 confvol 397 uC2 stage 2 pouf vo.�.; . 897 vCu, unblocked vol 490 1293 397 �! 1 *5 4 B 2 tC, 2 stage (s) 4.4 tF �s� . ee ...::.........: 2 3 5 Pd queue fr 93 100 99 cM capacity (ui1 ..... 1073 472 653 V–p6h- e Total, 397. 93 :' : 80 . 7.35 = 9 Volume Left 0 0 80 0 0 V61d Right, - .� 93 9 cSH 1700 1700 1073 1700 653 Uolumeto Capacity 0 23 0 43 0. 05„ 0 07 ....0 0� . .. .............................. .......... Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 6 0 1 Control ©elay (s) 0 0 0 0 8 5 0 0 10 6 Lane LOS A B Approach Deny -_ -. ,0 '0 . .0 9 111 ...:.......... Approach LOS B ww° � � •°;;�. �� � . �g mm �,;�. ;-� q �;.;;: Average Delay 0.6 ittersecfion Capacity:tJtilizafion 39.0 °10 iCl1 =Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * Laser Entered Value Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 4 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4- 9 -11Tn Ever Vail 2025 AM Total wl Simba 4: South Frontage Road & Access C 10/30/2009 _ :.......:.......:...w.... � •�.�'�� � -�B �n_ : - �.1� �tT��� �: :-#��31�..�::: �I.B m�mw,n__.= ��- .. ._,.M- ::��:��.� .. � _. Lane Configurations Sign Control Free " Free Stop Grade 0 %° 0% 0 Volume (veh /h): 960 9Q '65. 57p 0 ... . 5 .. Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ............ ............................... . ouriy flaw rate (vph) 1043 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) - Walking Speed (ft/s) PercenfiBlockae Right turn flare (veh) N7dEan.:Yp ... -_... Ra i 's ed....._..: ........ a ......... ........ - .-- .- ....- ...- ..- ......... -::.: Median storage veh) 5 ............................. ............................... . Upstream sigr�ef (ff }._.___. ..._... W -. -. - p5 plat,00n unblocked uC, corlfl�cting_volume:; 1,43..... '571 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1092 vC2 stage 2 conf vol X51 ..... ..... -. - vCu, unblocked vol 1141 1543 571 :... 4.1 4......_6 9W_.... tC, 2 stage (s) 4.4 tF (s).....:.. PO queue free %° 88 100 99 cull capacity (�ehlh} . 608 - Ad` IV Volume Ta #al,:..... 69,6...4.4 71 310 Volume Left 0 0 71 0 0 0 VQlumeRight__._. cSH 1700 1 700 608 ' 1 ' 700 1700 464 Volume to Capacity 0 41 0 26 0 12 018 0 1$ 0 01 Queue Length 95th ft 6 0 10 0 0 1 Cdntrol - ts� ..- 0 0 ...- - .... 0 11 7 0 0 .._...; 6... Z. .. -.. Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s)... = 0 0 1 2 12 8 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.5 trtersecfion Capacity tJtilizafon " 39 7% ICU;Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 User Entered Value Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 4 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -118 \n Ever Vail 2025 PM Total w/ Simba 4: South Frontage Road & Access C 10/30/2009 —* s � - ° °�.. ° � _.... .�;�-- ::�,.:.:..:: :::_ . �: °�: m °° m° mmµ •awws :mom mm° �VflD�fe'r�leCl�: °: °�° ..B�... »... Lane Configurations 0 tt Si n Control Free Free St Grade 0 %0 0% 0% . .............................._ ........................ Volume= ;i(vehlh) 775 95 _t5 __.....900....... 0 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph).:.: 842 ...... 103 71 9.78.. ... _ Pedestrians .................... Lane Width ` ....... Walking Speed (ftls) Pe e Right turn flare (veh) hed�ar� fype = Fa�sed Median storage veh) 5 Upstream signal (ft) .:.. pX, platoon unblocked uC donfil�cttrlg,►ro�ple; 946, , __.., -,_ _. .. - vC1, stage 1 conf vol 894 vC2, vCu, unblocked vol 946 1524 473 W tC, 2 stage (s) 4.4 p0 queue free % 90 100 98 cull capacity s " "'phlh� m: 721 478 538 .mom ° ° ..�� .� .....•.: �lolumeTotal 552 _3S4 ?1 ............. 489 �t489 31 Volume Left 0 0 71 0 0 0 1�olurneRight ...... ` ... 0 �t)3 ...:_ 0 _....;.. 0..... _ 0 ._....... ?.�. ..? cSH 1700 1700 7 1 1700 1700 538 Vo1um to Capacity...`... Q;,33 0 23 0 10 0129 0 29 0 �2 .. . Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 8 0 0 2 Control Delay.(s).... 0 0 0 0 [0..5... 0 Lane LOS LOS B B _ . ........... .....: .,:: , ppr h L0S B �� �r�c 1�wwrn�-� , :� • =�m� �� �.� ,:::.�...:_.�� v .,� � � _..M.� µ...��KK... � e� °° ° m ®° m° Average Delay 0.4 .... Capacity Utilization 34 7 % ICU `Level of Service A Analysis. Period (min) 15 user Entered Value Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 4 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -119 \n Ever Vail 2015 AM Total w/o Simba 16: South Frontage Road & Access D 10/30/ Aver� .� a a•r w Lane Configurations tt .:.:9 n Control Free Free.......stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume Fvehlh) 342 0 0 5 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 "" .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flaw rate (vph) 372 0 0 672 0 ...:1 Pedestrians Lane Wdth tft Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent lockage ....... . ...... Right turn flare (veh) ;; :::: Medlars =t a Ra lsed .:; M edian storage veh) 0 Upstream signal (ft) _ pX, platoon unblocked v.G, cOnf[rC>fir volume ; 372 943 186 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 372 2, sta df e2 conf vol 572 ...... .... ........... vcu, unblocked vol 372 ... 943 186 tC a►€a le s tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 PO queue free % 100 100 80 C M capacity (vela�h) � � _ ;.� 1183 X87 :825 idl�lit%� 4S ^ ^����.i... 5�.'3�^��i+ '? ie! i� «�.« °'" �." '�"�'•�F'«,^«% ».,Y• ®m "°°a,W. '°".«' � �w „�„„�.,` W F„�� m�m m.mm Valu.me Total....... 1.$0 186 572.. 16 f ..:_....._ W:.___.._..........._....._ ....... ........._...........,.,....._. Volume Left 0 0 0 0 ........:...... .................. 1:61,...... -> cSH 1700 1700 1700 825 Volume to Capacity. 95th (..::. 0 11 .....0.1 ....fl 0:20 Queue Lft) 0 0 0 18 ontrot _DelaY.(s) 0 4 0:. ......:0. Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s)........; - .OD 0 0 10 4 Approach LOS B Average Delay 1.5 m m m Intersectron Utilization , 3.1,.0 %...... ICU -Level of „service A,, Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 8 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -120 \n Ever Vail 2015 PM Total w/o Simba 16: South Frontage Road & Access D 10/30/2009 ryYw�- 7]�.( '.�'.�'. � •:�:�: =� -- �-, °. �Ea�: ° �m . mom ^® °^�°«s�'°.e.^ mm:LY,.µ.^. ". I�al°.: ° ^YvY; °m° °:;I.:.".."�....'•';IL, ^we�L'.1::> ::::F"� ».2.'."". Lane Configurations tt t S:i n Control Frae Flee Stop.._. Grade 0% 0% 0% Volumes (velh) 373 0 0 751 0 149 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 [ourly flow rate (vPh) 4Q5 Q Q S16 0 162 ...:::: Pedestrians Lane Width (..... . Walking Speed (ftls) ?ercn Blockage ..- .Right turn flare (veh) Median a Ra[Sed .._.....SIP _ _.. Median storage veh) 0 UPstrea pX, platoon unblocked ........:........ C ...confiictm ti glum .......... €..; VC1, stage 1 conf Vol 405 uC2, stage 2 eanf vol 816 . vCu, unblocked Vol 405 1222 203 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 t (s }....... .. .....: ...._2. 2 .. .. 3 5 3 3 �. PO queue free % 100 ... 100 80 eM capacity (vh]h) 115Q . ,.._ . MI UaLume:Iotal...... ._....: 2Q3.... 2Q3 81B ...62 . �. - -::_ _.._.... .W . ......... .............. .. Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right.:.:: 0 Q 0 62 ... . 00 1700 170Q 804 Volume to Capacity....... 0 2 .. 0: � .. 0' 48 020 .... Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 19 Control I e Y'. {.5)..... Lane LO _ _ ____ __. , ._...___ ._..... _. -_ -._ . B Approach l]elay.�). 0:o Q ..Q 6 Approach LOS B Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity tJti ijzation 42'9% ICU, "Level of Serlice A .. . Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 8 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -121 \n Ever Vail 2025 AM Total w/ Simba 16: South Frontage Road & Access D 10/30/2009 REINS ..: - qq m..vdm RON, w. Lane Configurations tt tt Sign Control Free Free Stop ... " " Grade 0% 0% 0% 1%olume (vehlh) 965 0 0 630 0.... 150 " Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly f19w rate - (!!PIS) 1D4 ;{f 0 .,..: _ E385 0 .- : .- ... ::..... _- Pedestrians Lane Width O. Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blocfcage ........... . . Right turn flare (veh) a bdiaz type .....::.. .. Rained ......... Median storage veh) 0 �pstrearn signal (ft)... pX, platoon unblocked cor�faictm .. volume. 1449 1;391 524 is vC 1, stage 1 conf vol 1049 1tCZ, stage 2 „conf Via ...:......... .342 ....:.... vCu, unblocked vol 1049 1391 524 4 1::,......, i 8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 t (s} 2 PO queue free % 3 5 3 3 _.... 100 100 67 e capactt (vehlh) -.9 177 498 _... Y m _._..._.. _ UoL me l... ::.... 524 524 342.... 342 1. 3.. _.- _ . -- Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volurrie Right ............. 0 0 0 0 ........10 cSH 1700 1700 woo 1700 498 Ualume to Capacity.. . 0 31 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 35 Control Deay..(s)...... _!0 0 ..... .0.0...., I L ane LOS C #pproach Delay_ (s)..._ 0 0 0 15 7 Approach LOS C PAN MM m Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity U #El�zation ; 42 6% IGtJ Levelof Service A.; . . -_ Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 8 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -122 \n Ever Vail 2025 PM Total wl Simha 16: South Frontage Road & Access D 10/30/2009 m Lane Configurations tt tt Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0% 0% . ......... ......... ...... ..... ....... ......... . .. ...... ......... ........_ ......... ......... ......... ...... ......... Volume (Y e hlh) 785 0 0 �!6� .... ." Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vpft) 853 0 0 1049 0 ..... ". -163 Pedestrians ... ...... ....... ......... .......... Walking Speed (ftls) Percenf Blockage ...: .............. Right turn flare (veh) Med..... .... l ed .. . . ... )___; .. ......... ... ... .... ...... _.. Median storage veh 0 Upstream algae[ (ft) pX, platoon unblocked ....... _.... ........_ ...................... ........................ . . :: vC confitcttr� olUme 853 137#:.,. 42.7. :;.:: ........ ..... . .. .._g__..__..- .- .-- . -__ -. -.- . - - -_- _.... _.._...._............ .................._....._...... vC1, stage 1 conf vol 853 .... 5 24 C2 eta e 2 cans vol 524 vCu, unblocked vol 853 1378 427 sm e s tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF s 2 2 p0 queue free % 100 100 72 - ca aci veh7h 782 197 576 ... Uolum,Total...:'. 42-7. =524 `24...._.6 ... ......... ....... ". ........." . ..........................._. ". .." Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 .... .. ............ ................. ......... V_alume Ri ht.... 0 0 4 0 t63 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 576 Volume Capacity... 0 "25 0.2. 0 .`3 1 ... Q 31 0 28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 29 Control lela 04 00 b 0 fl 0 13 7 Lane LOS B A roach Delay.(s) �'0 0 0 13 .? Approach LOS B Average Delay 1.1 Intersecf�on Capacity Utilization 37 7% , ICU-Level of 5ervrce A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 8 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -123 \n Ever Vail 2015 AM Total w/o Simba 5: Forest Road & Access E 10/22/2009 Lane Configurations , Si n Control 5to Sfo Sty Sto n .,. -; p _: ............. p Volume (vph) 0 13 0 58 16 101 0 0 46 87 0 0 P mom ::- -: -::m , _H : vur Fa OC.._...._w. 0 2 0:92 O J2 Q.92, : : = :eQ 92 ....� 9... ... :�2 : :...... :Q_92 :- .mm..0.... .,m0 ..92:...::.0..:92 0.92 Hourl flow rate v.h_ -_ -------- ---- __W�� -_.:..W_- O _..._- .- .W :. _...._A� .._ : -, -.. �...... m_... m m.:.._. y (p) 0 95 0 0 Volume Total (vph) 14 190 50 95 63 _0 .......� .r�..... Volume Right (vph) 0 110 50 0 : :: ...._........... w ....... . Departure Headway (s) 0 5 4 25........_0:,,57 .9 0 23 4..0 3 4.6 . : :. : > :..... : : :� :. De ree mUtilizataon .x _....0.02... ....0.05 0.:1:2 __ ......_._ .a.._ ......_, _ .............. 0.21 __.......... ......_.................._..... _...._.._...........................e...., d......._..................._.._.... a.,....._....,...... m...._ ..m........_........._........_ ..............__...... _..................._.....a_ ....._. -_ u.- .._W,. _..._........�_�.......� w ..... ................... ...... Capacity (vehlh) 768 871 868 735 : _.._.7. l_ __.._....8.3 ...............__.. _._....._.............__., .._..m..._ __ A 8 -____..,.._....__. T._...._.._..._...._.._..........._....._ ........................._.__ ............._..___...._....... .:....... ........ .. w . ...:......................_..__. Approach Delay (s) 7.5 .1 7.1 8.3 ........................................ ............................... W == A W= W WW W- W WW WA `-= viA W iiT ° a m vi T _m "Tm T -- W. W�- W W.:. .W .....W � _W..., HCM Level of Service A w .e a ::::::W::: :: ,�. _W::= :W :_. =. :W. :. :W ; : :.: W :: a W .e ; - .e .. lnters c r nri WWW.:.., ..:::e : : : : : : :- W :; : : : :.W a tt......._.. _..._... 3,..1�........,_......... _J.GU..L�Imot aru�ce. : :- : : : :.- : : :. :..- A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 5 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -124 \n Ever Vail 2015 PM Total w/o Simba 5: Forest Road & Access E 1 Lane Configurations S "r Con ral Sto Sto Sto Sto _. 9�_ ..............._...........................::........ .......,...,..:................ __ ...._. _.... ......._......_..:..:.._...__.. _... __.. _ ........... :................_ ...._......_.............. _ .._........_. ......_... :...................: p.................... ___..._. P rr,. r,,. m .............. m_.,..,..............,............ _.___....------ .._______.....__ Volume (vph) 0 15 0 41 13 135 0 0 50 154 0 0 Pale H. - 0 92 Q2 0", 92 0 92 002 0 92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 16 0 45 14 147 0 0 54 167 0 0 Volume Total (vph) 16 205 54 167 loT�z»: : =: 4.5: W = =W: C3 1:fi7 : --- ::::,.._.. _ ............... Volume Right (vph) 0 147 54 0 _.. _._....0.0:3 ......0 3.5 ......x0 :57.... _D :23 - € -` ---- € € €€ - - -- € €€ € € €€ = m . o�, �o.,. ��� �) rrrr o, o, o._ o., mn��____ mm. �rm. �m.._ r.. �. m., d ...................... dd...................,.... �....... w_ �r_ r_ �..._ r_- o-.-.-.-...__.:_ r.. r. �. o- o.:.. rr_.. o___..... �. m__.................. m... ...._____.....___.._........_.. __.. ___.._........_._ Departure Headway (s) 4.7 4.1 4.0 4.7 3 .....f3s06: e 0 22...,._ .. .. Capacity (vehlh) 709 830 832 728 W _. p^ w T .. .... . ......... . ....... 7.8 8 ...m...T_ 3 ... _ ._ m._ mmmm._. �mmmm__- r_W._��._W�_WWW_�W_rW___._���.W Approach Delay (s) 7.8 8.3 7.3 9.0 roach_LaS :m A A ..W -__ .A........A _....._. __....... W:...... m� mm ;_ -- --- -- -..w ........: WWeeWP rdv�wie� -- �.��€ �..._......� �.........�._ ......................... HCM Level of Service A W - tite;<s ° etion a acs Utilization 39 $Q!� ICU L6vei of Service1 ...._ .. _.._....._. r�.rr edW�m �:W ry Analysis Period (min) 15 _.. ._. Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 5 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -125 \n Ever Vail 2025 AM Total w/ Simba 5: Forest Road & Access E 10/22/2009 Lane Configurations _.._ rgr� Gon #rot _ Stop .., toP Stap ;:.. Stop ... Volume (vph) 0 15 0 105 15 105 0 0 85 90 0 0 Peak Hour Fetor 0 92 0 92 O ...0.92 D 92 ._..,, 0 92 - - __0 92 0 92 Q 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 16 0 114 16 114 0 0 92 98 0 0 Volume Total (vph) 16 245 92 98 Valumeleft. v' .. W= 1 = 8 - =- m =m Volume Right (vph) 0 114 92 0 0..[13 ...,_ " .15....._.0.. 7 ..... :..2 Had :. ..:.:::............ .:..:: _..................._ ......_...___..._.........._.,. .._... .......__........._ .....,.......:..........._....: ......... Departure Headway {s} 4.6 4.2 4.0 4.8 M,M.........._.... r ......................_....__ .29__,.._0.1.d.. =AA 3.._ .._..._......_......_........._ - :W -- Capacity (vehlh) 727 814 828 698 MroC,.Clela M 5 Approach Delay (s) 7.7 8.9 .A...._........._I...._.._:..A. .:a__.. ,w.._ ............................................................ ............................... . : HCM Level of Service A In 1etron act ; .t! #ilzatrorr:e Level =# rv[c Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 5 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 - 9 - 126 \n Ever Vail 2025 PM Total wl Simba 5: Forest Road & Access E 10/22/2009 .� 4-, mis Lane Configurations , m Sign Cofro......__ Stop m:. -:; mSop Sto - S to Volume (vph) 0 20 0 70 20 135 0 0 85 155 0 0 R 9EcH" "'FE Factor Q 92 0 ..... 92 {v ....:0 92 0 92 0 92.:.:.. 0 9 2. 0 92 0 9 092 Hourly flow rate ph) 0 22 0 76 22 -- ' -- Q 0 0 92 168 0 0 Volume Total (vph) 22 245 92 168 ..� _........_0...: ..........7.5 ................:0 ..:.1:t'x8 . _..__ ,.: �.:..... �........... � .............._.................. �:........_........... �_,.... �..._........,.,.... �... ::,�::::............:::��: -�.., ;:.: ,:-:;-:-::::: �:::::::::.;�;:- es- ;�-= e;e.e e:�ea::�- =::e .... Volume Right (vph) 0 147 92 0 _ = ...._... ..... ......_ .... 26' �0W57 0 �3 -- :° Departure Headway (s) 4.9 4.3 4.2 4.9 1e_11lllafrL] ..._.Q..03 .......0.29 ._ 17 ......0.2 .......e _ _. Capacity (vehlh) 679 791 801 698 GQn #roh (eta W= : W= We m a e 7 =7a _.._ ._ _ _..._..... d.......eS O...a....._. ,........_...n,.._.__.... 9. _._...._...... p :.:..:_.._...:::W. W.--------- -..:n_m:.:.a.__ .... T m ------:..:.e-----::- dd_.W,rWW Approach Delay (s) 8.0 9.0 7.7 9.3 � ___ � . .................... rr, r r r _.....__�_...P.,._n..__�... ... P�___.....,......_ ............. w......__...._...._..._____........_..........,.__.....__.._..__.........,...._.._.. ___.._...__..._.....__N.._p...: ��.:.:�: �: W::: ::::::.::::::::::::�- .- W:::.W -: d�� W -. e:.:�:..... m........_w.....__.m a .. -.W: W.: W -WW W�:.:: =W -- --- :::::: = W W e e p v eevie P e T Wa W= "- _ ............... p:._......____......._......__ _...._ .. __... _ ......_..3...._....._ ._ ,...... _ .....,............._......w.... , . SM HCM Level of Service A tterection Ca litt§ AM Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 5 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -127 \n Ever Vail 2015 AM Total w/o Simba 6: Forest Road & Access F 10/22/2009 ... ymW _ 9 — ma 0. ;e Lane Configurations Sign Control..;.•:: Free Fie Stop_...... .. _ ......... ... ...... . .. .......... .. Grade 0% 0% 0% 1flume (vehlh 13 13 E60 5 ........ 15._.. Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hour1 flew rate v h _�. .. m. 174 5 $ ..... :._ 1�. :W... ................. Pedestrians ............................. Lane Width tt =- ................... . . . ................. . ...:..._.....:m.::-:: Walking Speed (ftts) Percent. l3locka - e _. Right turn flare (veh) Median storage - v ' - 6h th strearnmslaw pX, platoon unblocked ___ ___.._ ...................__.... �C" c�nfhc �roltrm� = =�1�9 -i- � =� ....�...3 3 177_. ... ....��:.. :, _..... ........ ..... .:..._..: vC1, stage 1 conf vol v. 2- 2 ; = : G..sska . ..... .........: Q.-. �.__..._....__........._-..__-----.........-.._.._......._......................._......----......, ............................... ... ..... ..::::,;: > m::::::-:,:,...-:,:,:,:::::::,:,:-:-::::::: m::,:, :::::::::,::::: <:::::::::m,:,:, :- vCu, unblocked vol 179 349 177 .._...... _......_ :.... e.. :.::� . -:.:.. �.:.....:::: 6.4..:_.:...._6.2:. :._ ........: .....:.....:.:. ........._ ........ ....................... tC, 2 stage (s) r e 2x = W ` i ` vie e; ie ... .3 � ...........3.3 .....r . __.. m. -�::� .m.m .�. :�.:::.. : ::- ,:,: <::: _;:::m,:,:::,:,:.:::::ro::: -- p0 queue free % 99 99 98 e e e .. m ..n .....x.59 .......:24 Volume Left 14 0 8 • �w ��..:a �:a.. W::::.. �..:: �W- �:::.: W::: ro:: :::.;::::m:�.:� :: �W :::: ::::::::.::. ::. =.WWW:::::: -., cSH 1396 1700 779 . LUftecE: seL• L:, 9.... v...,: L ............._:.. � ...,...,,.,,Y.,..,..;..:,.s.L• tell: f�- 1x,> i!_. �_, x,- a- a> a- L«: v«: 11._.::. L.... 9..........,...........,.. t.,..,..,..,. ............,...,..,.,...,.,... ._..................,....,...............,........,.,.... ,..........,.,..,..,..,..,..... Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 2 _ _ .__....w .. ..W.._ ........................_ 9 8 8 Lane LOS A A A roh.Cela s 0 8 0:3. ......9 8 Approach LOS A Average Delay 1.0 ...................: 1nt rsecton Qapac� U #ilizat�o„,.: 27 $� /o ICU Level of Ser►rce A,... Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 6 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -128 \n Ever Vail 2015 PM Total w/o Simba 6: Forest Road & Access F 10/22/2009 ,r ! Lane Configurations p Y ....__.. ....._.........._ .............. ..... ...... ............_... .......... .......... ... . sign Cr�ntral Free Free :` ..... Stop m .......... mm::: Grade 0% 0% 0% 1lolume 24 ......... Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate DWI??):..... ?: ?...: 3.83,.. 4 ....... 23 Pedestrians Walking Speed (ftls) 'ercert SLoeka :TViT :'' : .... ._. _..... Right turn flare (veh) None... :: :... Median storage veh) U :_stream�� nal ft pX, platoon unblocked y Qn sta ftRCtcngolu.. vC 1, ge 1 conf vol --- vCu, unblocked vol 190 451 186 tC, 2 stage (s) .- .: > . {I �) « h:',.°.'I'.° .. - .,Tff�> x - 6..eU.`. t« a• : `= .�:;.;.,.:... »u L .;. >'K S:ic.- t.. -^v.. e ¢v:^v " -•- :::>-:�'- ' .: ..: :........................... :..................................... ........ .. .. ....- :.,.... > -(.::» e ; ::::6::'.-:>:.�.i.......LL[. P. c:t. _........,.,........... P..:;:::»;:: � �.;.:::::.'::: :::::::�:.:.:�'.::.:-:::::::.:. p0 queue free % 98 97 97 W . - -: -' -- --------------- -'-- - - -; -; �-- - - - - -- 5 _:.: - - - -W: W .: . ::::::::::::- v "h /h _1384. , M.c pct. WW;W= :::::::::W: -:556W ....6. _..........-- - - - - -- W Volume Left 26 0 14 VV uirie=Ri`' h�t� W d�Wr W eW W W� -e W = €W =O.W= W W =� Peep A�e� m23 : :rm:;er "rr.::WmrW ::-"'"" W ...:.::.:.: T.:-::....: .::.::::- ::::::- ::::::::::: -::: cS H 1384 1700 709 tY Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 4 W n r t vela W W= W- IO t Oi :; i °1e "4 Lane LOS A B - - - - - - - -- .. - ... - - -. A ch_D .....'1.0.4 ..:::. �"``" V'='' W_ �V"`" �` �'; :4V=�`'''W :�'��' `''''�' : : :`W=' ��=='`W' "'W " "e: ";'W_'`W s ... ............ 7. Approach LOS B Average Delay 1.3 Irtters�cfon C as Utiiiation 34Io ICU Level of Senece A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 6 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -129 \n Ever Vail 2025 AM Total wl Simba 6: Forest Road & Access F 10/22/2009 Lane Configurations�� n..Contr Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehl)t7.. 25 235 205 10 15 20 ...... ............................ . Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 k{oorly f1Qw rafee (vph)_.._ 27 255 223 ......:. �. 16 22 Pedestrians bane 11Vldth ,(... _ _ Walking Speed (ftls) �....._ PetcentA6lockagc - -. .._. ._. . .. .....m. Right turn flare (veh) _.. p- :.::::::::::: Median storage veh) iJ strea'm :::::::::: _..__.......� naT. ft ........_.._.._ _ ._... pX, platoon unblocked r .ccrfl�c #in vofurrre W: 34 vC1, stage 1 conf vol - vCu, unblocked vol 234 538 228 -- fG €" ,...__d.......... _....._.._........4..1........ : : ..................... ; :. 2.::..-::.........:...::r::..___......__......................__..........._.. __..._.._.................._... tC, 2 stage (s) 2 2 {.._ }........... .... p_...... �.......... .._.........._..........._..... _ .. ......__...._ .............. �..... ___......__w....- ....__........ .,.- .......,Wr, r m �- : ., : .e,.,e.e,.,.. m .... p0 queue free % 98 97 97 : :: :: :: ::W: �4 V.I - WdW: d��m =:m.:: urr►eT t [1WWWe .... .... .... ...._...28:........ 34 ........35..._....: m W : W Volume Left 27 0 16 1�afume f�fg�i�tt..,, � -: cSH 1334 1700 636 Vtilufne. #oW.Oa aci _ 2 ..._ ::: -.e 0.0_ _ ...._.._0...1.4 ....:..0.06 : Queue Length 95th (f) 2 0 5 Cdnrpt dela :. ............_.... D 9 0..0 1.1:. °Q °WW _. ....... _........,......._......... Lane LOS A B Approach LOS B Average Delay 1.2 (� #ersectjon Capaci#y U #U�zat�on 38 � °la ICCJ: of Serufce ....... A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 6 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -130 \n Ever Vail 2025 PM Total w/ Simba 6: Forest Road & Access F 10/22/2009 Lane Configurations _- ., Si n Control m' :- -m Free d :a Ftee Stap ........ .......... =: Grade 0% 0% 0% V Iume' �ehh 2 235 205 10 15 0 : ... 2 .................._...:: :: Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 :: H9urly 25 23 ... :: i6_.....::.. Pedestrians Lin Vlhclth ::: ...: ... e ................. :.. .. .. . . . . ...... .. . . . . . . :.:-: ::::- :::::::::.:.:::::.�:.:.:.. Walking Speed (fUs) I ..eo cent 8locka a ........ :: :::: :::,::::m.:::: Right turn flare (veh) a il Dane - dar� TT: TTT:: : :: ::m.:- -: :: : :.:.:.:::.:::.... .:: ,.-::: .::::::.::::-:- : :: :: :: :: :: :: :.::,:,::::.:,::.: ;.:::: �.,.::,::,:,.::,::,:::,-::::::- .:,:: ::. :::: :m: :: :::::::m,:,:::,mm:- Median storage veh) #........_.........n....... ...w. p pX, platoon unblocked tiG cartflEctir�o Mme ._._23A m i`'m` =m -iT 538 __..._._.-.._._ g..__� - - - -: mmm �.m: —. -- - -: -: -- m : --- ---------- - ---- ------ --- :- :- ::: - -: -- vC1, stage 1 conf vo[ 0 - estm vCu, unblocked vol 234 538 228 tC, 2 stage (s) _....).._ ...................._........._.. ............................... .._.. :....., ,. p....,..._................... ............_...._......._..... p0 queue free % 98 97 97 ca ac�l Yehlt 1334 X94 X11 -- .2�4 Volume Left 27 0 16 Volume 11 . ... . ........................ �...._�..._........... t...d.. °� Wiir�° >� eli� =� -= �=" 0' s._.... _........_............_........ _..._... _..._::.._..__.:...: ........::::::: ::::.:- ::- :- .:::::::::::::�::�: == :e:::::::T:. -. -. �:::.:.:.:m�e _-_:.:.......: W : :::= := °::: °: °: °....._...._...a _...:: .- . -. -. -_ r __.,.. cSH 1334 1700 636 1/t f�imeto. a eci 0..02 0,14 Queue Length 95th (fit) 2 0 5 -F�on r Lane LOS A B - ......... Approach LOS B Average Delay 1.2 ........................ Irilersect�on Capa�ty Utilization 38 5% fCV Level of Service ...:...... A:;. _m.. .. Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Page 6 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 4 -9 -131 \n M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Mauriello Planning Group, representing Mauriell Planning Group Vail Resorts Development Company Date: January 11, 2010 At each Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, certain topics will be addressed specifically. To simplify the process, for each meeting Mauriello Planning Group will provide a brief memo summarizing the topic. More in -depth information can be found within the overall application. Circulation This memorandum covers the circulation elements of the Ever Vail plan. Input from our civil engineers, the Town, our traffic expert, and our parking experts have all been incorporated in to the design of Ever Vail. Access and circulation is key to the success of any major development project. At Ever Vail the plan accommodates pedestrian, vehicular, transit, and bicycle circulation in a well thought out plan. The Ever Vail plan addresses many of the access and circulation issues that exist in the other core areas to ensure an efficient function. Overall Circulation Plan F LEGEND: TRANSIT - PASGEIJGERCAR © PEDESTRIAN E - 7 ' Y BICYCLE PATH 7F GDVERED BIGYtLE RACKS '�� CROP -OFF AREA � � E 6 r _- / 1 HorEL sRUrne E -Y { Y RITZ CARLTON PARKING ENTRANCE HO _ - i I P I5 F I - GORE ORxI('. I / VAIL Q EVER VAIL CIRCULATION DIAGRAM 110 ° ^• °° Major Exlenor Alteration & Conditional Use Permlt November 2, 2909 Core Area Parking Requirements 1/11/10 1 4- 10 -1 \n *Vehicular Circulation and Traffic The following provides a brief analysis of the vehicular circulation and traffic for the Ever Vail project. A complete Traffic Impact Study, authored by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., has been provided in the submittal materials. Vehicular Access Points f LEGEND: MARKET LOADING _ z RETAIL 6�.. FOOOBEVERAGE /t - IY it, SPA MARKET RESIDENTIAL f +4 I _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING &� ', ANIEST U � HOTEL CURIE ' HOTEL MEETING ROOMS AMENITY SPACE DREEK$IDE PlAZ4 /{' / /f/ - OFFICE &HITHEATERP GW PUBLIC PN'N�t PARKING �\ \\�' SERVICCWECHANILAL _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS ov�.ae AE STREET MAO ft O� nrvo e�CNrar ON ..(. „R PdPZA / 4 wESa FEaAll Lano.ING � . � E•2 E 3 RITZ \ yP EARL4ON NEwu /! �- WESTSYDE cere.e." Flowea . ° -� AUTO COURT .. ENn � i =LnuT e -. CEMRAL _ __� PLAZA �f N / 1 0 GORE GREEK `\\ - � / / ^ " /'O ucervtERL NE lwca€utsetaacN EVER VAIL GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANS 1 ^ •^ Major Exterior Alteration& Conditional Use Permit) January 4.2010 There are 6 vehicular access points into the Ever Vail site. Access Points A, B, C, and D occur off the relocated South Frontage Road, while Access Points E and F occur on the Forest Road extension. (As the Frontage Road realignment has been reviewed and approved previously, an in -depth analysis of Frontage Road plans is not included in this memorandum.) The Frontage Road access points have been designed and spaced according to CDOT standards, and in some cases are designed beyond CDOT standards. In addition, the relocated South Frontage Road adjacent to 1 -70 allows for improved operations and efficiency of the accesses as unsignalized "T" intersections. Access Point A is the access into public parking (400 skier spaces, Devo, and retail). Access Point B is the access to private residential parking and hotel shuttle drop -off. Access Point C is the access to the proposed Market Street. Market Street is designed for maximum flexibility. Currently, Market Street will handle two -way traffic, but has the ability to be converted to one -way traffic, or portions can be completely closed to vehicular traffic for special events. Market Street serves as the access into the transit center, skier drop -off, the hotel porte- cochere, and resident check -in. Market Street exits back onto the Frontage Road via Access Point D, which is a right -out exit only access. Market Street also exits onto the Forest Core Area Parking Requirements 1/11/10 4- 10 -2 \n Road extension, via Access Point E, which is a full movement intersection. Access Point E is also the main access point for in -town buses. Finally, Access Point F provides the main access into the parking structure on the east portion of the site. Beyond this access point on the Forest Road extension, the roadway turns into a private drive, accessing the ERWSD lower parking lot, the Ever Vail loading and delivery structure, and Mountain Operations space. Due to the nature of vehicles on this section of road, the road has been designed to accommodate large delivery trucks needed for both Ever Vail and to service ERWSD. According to the Traffic Impact Study, based on the proposed Ever Vail design, approximately 3,930 daily weekday trips will be generated by the project. Of these, 251 trips are expected to occur during the weekday morning peak hour, while 385 trips are expected to occur during the weekday afternoon peak hour. The Traffic Impact Study indicates that the Ever Vail project will be successfully incorporated into the future roadway network and all accesses and the Frontage Road /Forest Road roundabout will operate acceptably. Specific recommendations of the Traffic Report have been incorporated into the design of Ever Vail. Parking Areas, Skier Drop -Off, and Access As presented previously, there are approximately 1,551 parking spaces currently proposed at Ever Vail. The vast majority of the spaces are located entirely underground. Access to the parking spaces occurs in three primary areas: two on the west side and one on the east side. This spacing allows for compliance with CDOT standards and minimal impacts to the level of service for the Frontage Road. Right and left turn lanes have been provided at the parking structure access points along the South Frontage Rd. While not necessary according to CDOT Access Standards, acceleration lanes have also been provided. Access A is devoted to public skier parking spaces (400 spaces), along with some commercial (31 spaces) and employee parking (38 Parking Access Points spaces). (There are an additional 7 spaces that F LEGEND: may be devoted to the club.) Access B is devoted to private residential uses „ � B. Private o .�� (188 spaces). Access F is m �R .E» d &I devoted to both A w-_ A•Public See commercial public spaces (257 spaces) and private y. uses (238 spaces); however, once in the structure, a separate lane is devoted to 4 private uses. Access F also includes parking devoted to employees (280 spaces),�� hotel (63 spaces) along R«. F. Mixed with some remainder for the club (29 spaces). There ,� {�” ` I EVER V AIL GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANS 1 + Majof Exl9Ror Alla tign dCaMilanal llf�Perrna� are additional spaces within January4 ,2010 the transit center and Market Street (20 spaces). Core Area Parking Requirements 1/11/10 3 4- 10 -3 \n Included in the 1,551 parking spaces are approximately 64 short -term spaces currently designated on the Ever Vail plans. Of these, 14 spaces are located within the transit center. These 14 spaces are intended to function as skier drop -off spaces during peak hours, and as short -term shopper spaces during off -peak hours. These spaces are located approximately 600 ft. from the gondola, making these spaces the most convenient drop off spaces of any currently existing with the Town of Vail. Along with these spaces, an additional 50 spaces within the western structure are currently designated as short - term spaces. These spaces have been identified as DEVO drop -off, as all DEVO functions will be relocated to Ever Vail, relieving the existing congestion at Gold Peak. On non -DEVO days, these spaces will be short -term skier drop -off and /or shopper parking. Provided along with this memorandum, is a report by Carl Walker Parking, outlining the interior design of the parking structures and recommendations to improve internal efficiency, which have been incorporated into the Ever Vail plans. These recommendations include a pay -on -foot system which will help improve efficiency and allow for a high level of service, along with reducing traffic delays and congestion on the entry and exit ramps. Transit Circulation Ever Vail has been designed to incorporate transit uses within the site. As currently proposed, a 4 -bus bay transit center has been included on the eastern portion of the site. These bus bays are intended to Transit Connections LEGEND: -TOV IwTa»n sI T ROUTE 6ROUTE & ST TOV WEST VAIL - EASTBOUND _ ROUTE 6 STOP Q TOV WEST VAIL - WESTBOUN ROUTE &ROUTE & STS D � ki " TOV IN -TOWN SHUTTLE ROUTE & $TaPa v - � Win STOP UNDER STUDY FOR UTU FRE IMPLEMENTATION ` I ■ RLT a )� i Mr wall ,-I r �— .�� aGE - � % 4 VAIEpESORTS EVER VEHICULAR I CIRCULATION DIAGRAM 9 ' _ _• I Major Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Pennit I November2.2009 Core Area Parking Requirements 1/11/10 4 4- 10 -4 \n serve ECO Transit and the red /green line haul Town bus route. These four bays will be more than adequate to serve these uses; however, due to the flexibility of Market Street, any overflow of transit uses can be accommodated on Market Street, with no impact to the Frontage Road system. Of note, this transit center is located directly below the proposed office uses at Ever Vail, allowing local employees to take advantage of the regional transit system. This type of transit - oriented development is a key component of the Ever Vail sustainability plan. In addition to the transit center, the in -town bus route will be extended to Ever Vail. In order to keep this loop efficient, the Town has requested that the bus route be located on the eastern portion of the site, using Access Points E and D, along with the roundabout, as its access into the site. A bus stop located generally in front of the proposed market has been provided. Finally, on the western portion of the site, a location for hotel shuttle drop -off has been provided. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Similarly to Vail Village and Lionshead, the pedestrian and bicycle circulation within Ever Vail has been key to the design of this primarily pedestrian village. In addition to the circulation within Ever Vail, the connections to the remainder of the community have been key in the design. Ever Vail's location make it a key connection between Cascade Village and Lionshead Village, and the existing Gore Creek Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation LEGEND: © PE�ElTRIAN BICYCLE PATH Y u �`�-- II LT +0 r i s �� I � `�—— [AGE EVER VAIL PEDESTRIAN I CIRCULATION DIAGRAM 8 =- Major Exterior Alteralion & Conditional Use Permit November2,2009 Core Area Parking Requirements 1/11/10 5 4- 10 -5 \n Recreation Path allows Ever Vail to take advantage of existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. In addition, the north side of the Frontage Road will be adequately sized to accommodate cyclists. A second, separated, mixed -use, 12 ft -wide path has been approved along the south side of Frontage Road along the entire Ever Vail site, allowing for multiple points of entry into Ever Vail. Improvements will be made to the path which crosses Gore Creek, allowing for a much more gentle grade than exists today. Improvements to the pedestrian connection along the south side of West Lionshead Circle between Ever Vail and Lionshead in front of the Ritz and the Mariott have already been completed or are currently under construction. Improvements to the north side of West Lionshead Circle are contemplated under redevelopment scenarios for the Vail Spa and already approved at Strata and is currently listed as a project in the Urban Renewal Plan for Lionshead. The recreation path in front of Gore Creek Place has already been completed and provides for a more serene alternative pedestrian route into Lionshead. Conclusions Meeting the needs for all modes of transportation has been a challenging endeavor but the result is an efficient and well thought out plan for addressing the goal of making ever Vail fit in seamlessly with the current transportation facilities within the Town. The plan builds upon many of the successes in the other villages while resolving some of the shortcomings. This is first redevelopment project in Vail to significantly address all of these modes of transportation including significant parking available to the public, transit, efficient mountain access, and skier drop -off. Core Area Parking Requirements 1/11/10 6 4- 10 -6 \n 1 ` LEGEND: MARKET LOADING RETAIL FOOD /BEVERAGE z -. _ SPA MARKET RESIDENTIAL /O _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING _ _ HOTEL MARKET LI SHEAD ESCALATORY VATOR ' CIRC _ HOTEL MEETING ROOMS FROM mi OsE PKC �_ / ., dl /l AMENITY SPACE CREEKSIDE PLAZA _ OFFICE &HITHEATER PUBLIC IFFIIE PARKING RESTAURA NT SERVICE /MECHANICAL cwLDREN's IHEY _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS SKI SCHOOL VAIL PARKS r./1 oa ! AND RECREATION MAE > sPA RETAI \ STREET PLAZA s WEST RETAIL LOADING / II-0 R C ' ij o = HOTEL PORTE SPA / COCHERE ' y E -2 �� I` G XX RITZ RESIDENTIAL PARKING - (- V ms s' — 8 E ee �'1t4 { CARLTON ENTRANCE �OTELM Al Fz MIXED USE r i / L HOTEL NOTE EETING ROOMS ` ......PARKING PARKING ENTRANCE �' RESTA RANT GARI�G /. / i ✓ i !✓ / \ ENTRY - RESIDENTIAL =� _ -2t LOADING AND WASTE �'f� GAS REGULATOR ING 0 � CENTRALOAD WE Ti .� �� ( -1 I;; DOGKBELOW E3 1— H C,t N - CRE—KE AUTO GO KT \ 1 I - AMENITY ENTRANC ESCnLATOR FROM PLFZA ERWSD 9 ✓ i �ossr � FEUrr�E �� RESTAURANT III CENTRAL i PLANT, > PL �t AZA I - - w� o � ". O TAVRAN EO W _ r h - BE - W. ELEVAT R(�&SEO L GGRE CREEK i GORE CREEK l MI SERA CENTERLINE Y CREEKSETBACK = _ - -_- i 50 CREEK SETBACK i � � / CREEK CENTERLINE EL —OR AND ESCALATOR � FROM MIXED USE PARKING 0 20 40 80 1 VAILRESORTS EVER VAIL GROUND LEVEL I FLOOR PLANS 1 D ELOPME•!f CCMFAHV Major Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I January 4, 2010 LEGEND: RETAIL FOOD/BEVERAGE SPA MARKET RESIDENTIAL \ !\ _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING � _ HOTEL \ HOTEL MEETING ROOMS AMENITY SPACE _ OFFICE PUBLIC PARKING f _ SERVICE /MECHANICAL ' _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS E -2 _ - SPA W NRS STORAGE • is.aw.ss ` MIXED -USE ENTRANCE LANES MIXED USED PARKING � Nxw s NH J / PARKING ENTRANCE \J ,,e LOADI, G DOCK MIXED USED PARKING — s _?. I6 D /!' BELOW ENTRY RAMP a� \ RAMP TO P2 RESIDENTIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL ENTRY RAMP — J ' — dR2 KSl E EA ED 4 $iA P"H NER C .n ✓' \ c er �r! - MOUNTA r' 1 OPE RAT I NS , BELOW � F 3PK� - REa 1y, \, soaACE � f W -2 RESIDENTIAL W -3 RESIDENTIAJ% ` F. ! �� _ l 0 20 40 . 1 d0 VAILRESORTS EVER VAIL P1 PARKING I FLOOR PLANS 2 Major Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I January 4, 2010 LEGEND: 'MIXED -USE ELEVATOR/ESCALATOR RETAIL TO SURFACE FOOD /BEVERAGE a A _ SPA -_ - - - MARKET RESIDENTIAL ?, _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING PPF`�NG ` _ HOTEL i roe HOTEL MEETING ROOMS AMENITY SPACE - - , " - E' - E _ OFFICE PUBLIC PARKING IINT SERVICE /MECHANICAL CS _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS (SPA E -2 MIXED USE PARKING RAMP AND TICKETING GATES - WITHREVERSIBLELANE 1 mx aas saa.E CENTRAL LOADING DOCK — —.. — — - - — — — — MOUNTAIN y , 1EN TRI �.,; OPERATIONS N MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS LOADING BAV 1XE EPPRK _ , , V' R E _ s � EnN�� i rl o� W_ i MIXED USE ELEVGTOAESCAILATOR TO GROUND LEVEL \ � ' 0 20 40 80 1 VAILRESORTS EVER VAIL P2 PARKING I FLOOR PLANS 3 Major Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit January 4, 2010 LEGEND: RETAIL r ' M IXE D - U SE ELEVATOR TO FOOEBEVERAGE SURFACE SPA MARKET RESIDENTIAL r l _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING,i _ r MIXED USE j y T HOTEL sURFACOR TO HOTEL MEETING ROOMS os �- AMENITY SPACE OFFICE PUBLIC ------ PARKING SERVICE /MECHANICAL • ' r � iA e r _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS E" — — —� l E2PkG °� 1 � _ 99CICDFHOLISE `�� y! - � MOUWTAIN < r — OFP ATTONS t /'� ,— ED�6EPA�K \N`i � `I LOWEI�LEVE� 1 r P , i J � +< MIXED USE r � TO GROUND LEVEL 0 20 40 80 160 VAILRESORTS EVER VAIL P3 PARKING I FLOOR PLANS 4 11 EL1111FVr ComFAUV Major Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit January 4, 2010 M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Mauriello Planning Group, representing Mauriello Planning Group Vail Resorts Development Company Date: December 14, 2009 At each Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, certain topics will be addressed specifically. To simplify the process, for each meeting Mauriello Planning Group will provide a brief memo summarizing the topic. More in -depth information can be found within the overall application. PARKING Parking in Ever Vail is the primary driver in the design of the site and defines the underground improvements. As P1 currently proposed, Ever Vail will be constructed with a total of 1,551 parking spaces, including the following: • Public Skier Parking: 400 spaces �.. i e Public Commercial Parking: 308 spaces • Private Residential Parking: 489 spaces • Employee Replacement Parking: 318 spaces • Other Parking: 36 spaces The total parking available for public parking is 708 spaces, P2 utilized similarly to the other public parking structures. ,.- The remaining spaces are private spaces. While it is difficult to identify from the site plan, the •;- building floor plans paint a clearer picture of how parking functions on the Ever Vail site. The majority of the parking, both public and private, is located entirely . "- underground, and covers almost the entire site. In fact, _ the only area of the site that does not include parking is _ the Red Sandstone Creek corridor. While this is a topic for another day, we are requesting a site coverage variance P3 for underground improvements, due to the extensive underground parking structure. Other underground improvements include the centralized loading and delivery structure, and the entire Mountain Operations facility. For the purposes of this analysis, parking has been divided into two main categories: parking obligations and parking requirements. The former are the obligations as outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and other planning documents. The latter are the requirements of Chapter 12 -10 of the Zoning Regulations. Parking 12/14/09 4- 12 -1 \n Parking Obligations The first parking obligation outlined by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is a recommendation for approximately 400 public parking spaces in Ever Vail beyond the requirements of the Chapter 12 -10 of the Zoning Regulations. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, these 400 parking spaces serve two specific needs: • the existing deficiency of off - street parking on peak days • the shifting demand of parking created by the introduction of a new ski lift in West Lionshead (from Sec 4.8.3.3, LRMP) The need for these 400 spaces is further reinforced by the Vail Transportation Master Plan, adopted in 2009. The VTMP identifies a range of 300 to 500 parking spaces to be located in West Lionshead, beyond the zoning requirements (pg. 50, VTMP). It also clearly identifies an issue with locating too many parking spaces in West Lionshead, due to the limited ski terrain these public parking spaces access. In response to this issue of public parking in West Lionshead, Tom Allender of Vail Resorts Mountain Operations completed an analysis of the distribution of skiers on Vail Mountain, both before and after the development of Ever Vail. The findings of this analysis indicate that Ever Vail will have very little effect on the number of skiers visiting the other portals to Vail Mountain, but will result in a significant reduction in the number of vehicles parked along the Frontage Road. Based on parking capacities in Ever Vail, there is only one day that cars may be present on the Frontage Roads based upon the experience of the 2008/2009 ski season. (Pg. 8, Allender Memo 11/2/09) Based on the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the Vail Transportation Master Plan, and the research of Vail Resorts Mountain Operations, the 400 public parking spaces is the appropriate number of parking spaces needed to resolve the issue of parking on the Frontage Road and to serve the proposed gondola. The second parking obligation identified by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is found in Ground Rule #4, which states: "There will be no net loss to the Vail community of either locals' housing or parking spaces (public and private) now existing in Lionshead" (Sec. 2.4, LRMP). Ever Vail includes an additional 318 parking spaces identified as "replacement parking." This parking will replace the spaces displaced (and not replaced) by development at the North Day Lot, the West Day Lot, and the Holy Cross Lot. In summary, beyond the Parking Requirements outlined by Chapter 12 -10 of the Zoning Regulations, there are an additional 718 parking spaces (400 public skier spaces + 318 employee replacement parking spaces) being provided at Ever Vail, based on the obligations outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the Vail Transportation Master Plan. * Parking Requirements Chapter 12 -10, Off - Street Parking and Loading, of the Zoning Regulations provides parking requirements for uses as a site is developed. There are two parking requirement schedules: Commercial Core Area Parking Requirements (12- 10 -10 -A) and those properties outside of the Commercial Core Area (12- 10- 10 -B). The current adopted Commercial Core Area maps include all of Vail Village and Lionshead. As part of this application, Vail Resorts is requesting a Text Amendment to include Ever Vail within the Commercial Core Area. The Commercial Core Area parking requirements were adopted based on the concept of shared parking facilities and areas served by mass transit. The following table indicates the proposed uses and the parking required to serve those uses: Parking 12/14/09 4- 12 -2 \n Use Quantity Core Area Parking Requirements Result 25% Reduction Dwelling Units 358 1.4 per unit 501.20 375.90 Accom. Units 120 .7 per unit 84.00 63.00 EHU 48 1.4 per unit 67.20 50.40 Hotel Conference 5,156 1 per 330 sf seating area 15.62 11.72 Meeting Room 3,840 1 per 165 sf seating area 23.27 17.45 Restaurant 14,293 1 per 250 of seating floor area 57.17 42.88 Retail 52,620 2.3 per 1000 sf net floor area 121.03 90.77 VRD /Ski School 15,690 1 per 1000 sf net floor area 15.69 11.77 Spa 20,710 1 per 1000 sf net floor area 20.71 15.53 Office 33,600 2.7 for 1000 sf net floor area 90.72 68.04 Maint. Facility 1 estimated need of 50 spaces 50.00 50.00 TOTAL: 1046.61 797.46 The total number of parking spaces proposed to meet the requirements of the Commercial Core Area to serve the uses on -site is 798 parking spaces. These spaces include both publicly accessibly spaces (commercial uses = 308.2 spaces) and private spaces (residential uses = 489.3 spaces). There are a few things to note about the parking requirements: 1. Parking requirements for some uses are not listed specifically or are set by the Planning and Environmental Commission. In Evervail, these uses include the Spa (proposed at 1 space per 1000 sf of net floor area) and the VRD /Ski School Space (also proposed at 1 space per 1000 sf of net floor area). 2. There is a code requirement for a 25% reduction in parking requirements when parking facilities are proposed to include more than 1,000 parking spaces. Therefore, the reduction has been applied to each individual use (except the Maintenance Facility which has an estimated need of 50 spaces, the 310 replacement spaces, and the 400 skier spaces). Conclusions As currently proposed, Ever Vail will be constructed with a total of 1,551 parking spaces. To put that number into context, the Vail Village Structure has approximately 1,300 spaces, serving 300,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses, and some private residential uses. The Lionshead Parking Structure has approximately 1,200 spaces, serving 150,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses (most private residential uses in Lionshead are parked) (pg. 15, VTMP). Ever Vail will include approximately 120,000 gross sq. ft. of commercial space. Studies by the Town of Vail indicate that generally 95% of cars parked in the parking structures are skiers. As a result, the 1,551 parking spaces at Ever Vail are more than adequate to serve the project and will likely eliminate future parking on the Frontage Road in the long -term, with 708 parking spaces available to the public on any given day (includes skier public parking and commercial public parking). Parking 12/14/09 4- 12 -3 \n M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Mauriello Planning Group, representing Mauriello Planning Group Vail Resorts Development Company Date: January 11, 2010 At each Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, certain topics will be addressed specifically. To simplify the process, for each meeting Mauriello Planning Group will provide a brief memo summarizing the topic. More in -depth information can be found within the overall application. Core Area Parking Requirements Parking in Ever Vail is the primary driver in the design of the site and Core Area Parking Map I defines the underground improvements. As currently proposed Vail Village Ever Vail will be constructed with a total of 1,551 parking spaces, including the following: - • Public Skier Parking: 400 spaces T __ • Public Commercial Parking: 258 spaces • Private Residential Parking: 489 spaces _ • Employee Replacement Parking: 318 spaces }' • VR Maintenance Employees: 50 spaces commercial core Area • Other Parking: 36 spaces Vail Resorts Development Company, as part of the Ever Vail Core Area Parking Map 11 submittal, is proposing a text amendment for inclusion into the Core Lionshead Area Parking Requirements. The text amendment has no impact on = -1 the 400 public skier spaces or on the 318 Employee Replacement - — - Parking. Background of the Core Area Parking Requirements LZ The Core Area Parking Requirements were adopted in 2000,_ 0 following the recommendation of the Lionshead Redevelopment Commercial Core Area Master Plan and based on research into appropriate parking Core Area Parking Map III generation rates in specialized, mixed -use areas such as the village Ever Vail cores of Vail. In 1999, the firm of Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig (FHU) (Proposed) conducted an in -depth analysis of parking generation in Vail's r - 1 ,:_ commercial core areas. FHU incorporated a variety of factors, such as skier visits, parking structure transactions, land uses per square, foot, parking turnover ratios, and traffic counts, into a model to = ='`' provide a more accurate assessment of parking generation. The model was based on characteristics of Vail's core areas, including mixed -uses, transit /pedestrian trips, hourly variations in business activity, etc. In general, the Core Area Parking Requirement is a°"�� 30% reduction of the parking requirements of the remainder of the Town of Vail. Core Area Parking Requirements 1/11/10 1 4- 13 -1 \n As part of the Ever Vail submittal, Vail Resorts Development Company is requesting inclusion into the Core Area Parking Requirements. This request is based on the reality that Ever Vail will become an additional village core and ski portal, and therefore shares the same characteristics of Vail Village and Lionshead. Like the other core area, there are hourly variations in the various uses proposed in Ever Vail. Ever Vail, like Vail Village and Lionshead, is a mixed -use, transit- and pedestrian- oriented development. Ever Vail will be served by the in -town shuttle on the eastern portion of the site. In addition, Ever Vail will be served by the regional transit system and includes an enclosed transit center with 4 bus bays, used by both ECO Transit and the red and green Town bus routes. Pedestrian connections between Ever Vail and both Lionshead Village and Cascade Village are existing and in some cases will be improved. Ever Vail is accessible via three bicycle and pedestrian path systems: • an on- street bicycle lane on the north side of Frontage Road, • a separated recreation path on the south side of Frontage Road, and • the existing Gore Creek recreation Path. Based on the previous analysis provided by FHU, there were approximately 4,723 parking spaces in the existing core areas of Vail Village and Lionshead. Of these, approximately 2,500 spaces were publicly available, while the remainder were private parking spaces. Ever Vail will add approximately 1,551 parking spaces to the existing supply (a 30% increase in overall supply). Approximately 658 of these total spaces will be publicly available (a 26% increase in public spaces). C Core Area Parking Requirements The Core Area Parking Requirements are applicable to the uses proposed on the Ever Vail site. The following provides a comparison of the parking requirements under the Core Area Parking Requirements and the non -Core Area Parking Requirements: Table 1: Parking Calculations under Core Area and Non -Core Area Use Quantity Core Area Result Non -Core Area Result %Change Dwelling Units 358 1.4 per unit 501.20 if du >2000 sf, 2.5 / if du <2000, 2 716 30% Accom. Units 120 .7 per unit 84.00 .4 per au + .1 per 100 sq. ft. of 120 30% GRFA (max 1 per au) EHU 48 1.4 per unit 67.20 <500 sf, 1.5 / if less than 2000 sf, 2 96 30% Hotel Conference 5,156 1 per 330 sf seating area 15.62 1 per 120 of seating floor area 42.97 64% Meeting Room 3,840 1 per 165 sf seating area 23.27 1 per 120 of seating floor area 32.00 27% Restaurant 14,293 1 per 250 of seating floor area 57.17 1 per 120 sf of seating floor area 119.10 52% Retail 52,620 2.3 per 1000 sf net floor area 121.03 1 per 300 sf of net floor area 175.40 31% VRD /Ski School 15,690 1 per 1000 sf net floor area 15.69 set by PEC (calc'd at 1/1000) 15.69 N/A Spa 20,710 1 per 1000 sf net floor area 20.71 set by PEC (calc'd at 1/1000) 20.71 N/A Office 33,600 2.7 for 1000 sf net floor area 90.72 1 per 250 sf net floor area 134.40 33% Maint. Facility 1 50 spaces 50.00 set by PEC (calc'd at 50 spaces) 50.00 N/A TOTAL: 1,046.61 TOTAL: 1,522.27 31% For the purposes of this analysis, all DUs and EHUs are assumed to be at 2,000 sq. ft. The Non -Core Area requirements are based on size of units, so the calculation may vary based on final unit layout. Core Area Parking Requirements 1/11/10 4- 13 -2 \n It is important to note that some of the uses proposed in Ever Vail do not have a defined parking requirement and in those cases, the parking requirements are set by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The VRD and Ski School space, along with the spa, have been proposed at a rate of 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of net floor area, similar to other projects recently approved in the Town of Vail. Chapter 12- 10 -12, Credit for Multiple Use Parking Facilities, also allows for a reduction to the parking when a single parking facility serves a variety of uses. The credit is based on a sliding scale, based on the total number of parking spaces provided. This additional reduction has been applied to other projects within the core areas of Vail in a similar fashion. In the case of Ever Vail, a 25% reduction is allowed (both under Core Area Parking Requirements and Non -Core Area Parking Requirements.) This equates to the following: Table 2: Comparison of Total Core Area and Non -Core Area Requirements with Reduction Core Area Parking Requirement with Non -Core Area Parking Requirement Percent Change Reduction with Reduction (Decrease from CA to Non -CA) 797.46 1,154.20 30.9% *Vail Resorts Mountain Operations has identified the need for 50 spaces so no reduction has been taken for this use under either the Core Area Parking Requirements or the Non -Core Area Parking Requirements. Neither the Core Area Parking Requirements, nor the 25% credit for multiple use is applicable to the parking obligations as outlined by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. As a result, no reductions or credits are requested for the 400 public skier spaces or the 318 replacement spaces. To provide an analysis of the overall parking requirements, including the parking obligations as outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the following table outlines Core Area Parking Requirement, compared to Non -Core Area Parking Requirements, with the obligation of the 400 public skier spaces, along with the 318 replacement parking spaces: Table 3: Comparison of Total Parking Requirements and Obligations under Core Area and Non -Core Area Requirements Core Area Parking Non -Core Area Percent Change Requirement Parking Requirement Parking for Proposed Uses 798 1,155 31% Parking Based on Obligations of LRMP 718 718 0% Total Parking 1,516 1,873 19% * Conclusions The text amendment to include Ever Vail into the Core Area Parking Requirements results in approximately a 30% decrease in parking requirements for the uses proposed on -site. Based on the total parking requirements and obligations, there is an overall 19% decrease in the total amount of parking proposed on -site, based on Core Area Parking Requirements. Due to the characteristics of Ever Vail, it is more appropriate to be within the Core Area Parking Requirements. Core Area Parking Requirements 1/11/10 4- 13 -3 \n PRELIMII ARY DRAII AGE REPORT FOR EVER VAIL VAIL, COLORADO OCTOBER 2008 Updated October 2009 4- 14 -1 \n PRELIMII ARY DRAII AGE REPORT FOR EVER VAIL VAIL, COLORADO OCTOBER 2008 Updated October 2009 Prepared for: Vail Resorts Development Company P.O. Box 959 Avon, CO 81620 Prepared by: Alpine Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 97 Edwards, CO 81632 (970) 926 -3373 4- 14 -2 \n TABLE OF COI TEI TS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Project Description ...................................................................... ............................... l 3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..............................1 4. Developed Conditions .................................................................. ..............................2 5. Water Quality .............................................................................. ..............................3 6. Downstream Impact ..................................................................... ..............................3 7. Floodplain .................................................................................... ..............................4 8. Soils .............................................................................................. ..............................4 9. Erosion and Sediment Control ..................................................... ..............................6 10. Exhibits: Exhibit A - FEMA Floodplain Map Exhibit B - Water Quality Vault Details Exhibit C - Sediment Control Details 11. Figures: Figure 1 — U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soils Map Figure 2 — U.S. Forest Service Soils Map 12. Maps Sheet 1 — Historic Drainage Area Map Sheet 2 — Developed Drainage Area Map Sheet 3 — Offsite Drainage Area Map October 2009 Preliminary Drainage Report for Ever Vail- 14 - 3 \n 1 VICINITY MAP > "=600' I -70 WEST DENVER EXIT 176 (VAIL) SOUTH LIONSHEAD FRONTAGE CIRCLE MAINTENANCE ROAD SITE P9RKING STRUCTURE �_ o a a ,r a .a VA IL Q GORE tP CREEK o E ERWS'DD o RITZ {� EYER VAIL BP GAS FOREST o SITE STATION GORE ROAD GLEN LYON LOT CREEK OFFICE (VACANT) PLACE B UILDING a 4- 14 -4 \n 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTIOI Ever Vail is located in the west end of Lionshead in Vail, Colorado. The proposed site is 12.34 acres not including the proposed South Frontage Road. The existing commercial development is proposed to be redeveloped into a mixed -use development that will include a new gondola, office, retail, hotel and residential space and a large amount of underground parking. This report preliminarily addresses drainage issues regarding the site. 3. EXISTII G COI DITIOI S Red Sandstone Creek runs through the site in a north -south direction. It flows from the north under Interstate 70 through an 84" diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and continues through the development site for 325 feet in an open channel to two 14- foot concrete box structures under the existing South Frontage Road. It then flows to Gore Creek for 175 feet in an open channel. Gore Creek is the southern boundary of a portion of the site. Interstate 70 is the northern boundary of the project. A portion of the development site is currently the Vail Mountain Maintenance yard where snowcats and other Vail Resort's equipment are stored and maintained and where an employee parking lot is located. There is some drainage area north of Interstate 70 that is directed to the site by a 24" CMP culvert under Interstate 70 and is diverted west in the Interstate 70 right -of -way to Red Sandstone Creek. The existing Vail Professional Building and shopping center development areas are west of Red Sandstone Creek and south of Interstate 70. Interstate 70 provides a October 2009 Preliminary Drainage Report for Eve4 V44 5\n 1 drainage boundary for this portion of the proposed development although an existing 24" CMP does discharge a small drainage area from north of Interstate 70 to this area of the project. The Glen Lyon office building and associated parking exist in the southwest corner of the site. Some runoff from the Vail Professional Building and shopping center outfalls to this site and then flows to Gore Creek. There is a vacant lot that was formerly a BP gas station that fronts on Red Sandstone Creek on the west and Gore Creek on the south. This site generally does not have any offsite drainage area affecting it. 4. DEVELOPED COI DITIOI S The project proposes to relocate the South Frontage Road to be adjacent and parallel to Interstate 70. Drainage from Interstate 70 will be captured by a proposed storm sewer system in the relocated South Frontage Road. Historic drainage patterns will be maintained in the developed project by generally directing drainage to Gore Creek or Red Sandstone Creek in their historic drainage directions. The existing box culverts in the South Frontage Road at Red Sandstone Creek will be removed and allow restoration of Red Sandstone Creek in this area. A concrete arched culvert is proposed to span Red Sandstone Creek adjacent to Interstate 70 where the relocated South Frontage Road is proposed to cross Red Sandstone Creek. October 2009 Preliminary Drainage Report for Eves )44 1 .6 \n 2 5. WATER QUALITY There are currently no known water quality devices in place on the existing development sites except at the Maintenance site where one was constructed a few years ago in conjunction with the paving of the existing employee parking lot. The proposed development site will have water quality devices to treat runoff from vehicular areas. The relocated South Frontage Road is proposed to have water quality structures adjacent to the road that will treat pollutants from the relocated South Frontage Road. One example of potential water quality vaults would be the Contech Vortechs products. Details of these vaults may be found in Appendix A. The development site itself is proposed to have parking structures underneath the majority of the project. It is expected that mechanical piping will convey surface runoff through the parking structures to Red Sandstone or Gore Creek. Therefore, water quality treatment for the site runoff would potentially be treated by a water quality device within the parking structures by the mechanical system for areas receiving vehicular traffic. A water quality structure is proposed on the west end of the Glen Lyon office building site to treat runoff from this portion of the development. The location of this structure has been shown preliminarily on the developed drainage area map. 6. DOWI STREAM IMPACT The existing site is generally developed commercial property. The proposed development may increase impervious areas somewhat. Storm sewer outfalls will generally be diverted directly into Red Sandstone or Gore Creek. A conceptual storm October 2009 Preliminary Drainage Report for Eve4 V fl_ Tn 3 sewer layout has been provided on Sheet 2 of the maps at the end of this report. The drainage basins for Red Sandstone and Gore Creek are quite large in comparison to the proposed development site. The peak runoff from the development site is expected to be much earlier than the overall drainage basin and would therefore not increase the peak runoff in the overall drainage basin. Therefore, detention of stormwater is not recommended for this site and no downstream impact as a result of stormwater flows from the proposed development is expected. 7. FLOODPLAII There is a FEMA floodplain on both Gore Creek and Red Sandstone Creek. The FEMA floodplain map is included in Exhibit B of this report. Modifications to the Red Sandstone Creek will include the relocated South Frontage Road crossing. The area where Red Sandstone Creek passes under the existing South Frontage Road in box culverts will also be revised since the box culverts will be removed. There are no floodplain impacts on Gore Creek expected as a result of the proposed development. Floodplain modeling of modifications to Red Sandstone Creek will be submitted in a separate report by others. 8. SOILS In order to assess hydrologic conditions at each of the development sites, actual soil types were obtained from the "Soil Survey of Aspen — Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties" prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and the "Draft Soil Survey of the Holy Cross Soil Survey - White River and Arapaho National Forests, Colorado — Parts of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, October 2009 Preliminary Drainage Report for Eve4 Vf44_ g\ 4 Pitkin and Summit Counties" prepare by the U.S. Forest Service. There are four hydrologic soil groups (A, B, C, or D) that soils may be classified into as a means of estimating runoff from precipitation. They are grouped according to their runoff — producing characteristics from long- duration storms. Please refer to Figure 1 for Soils Maps and Tables 1 and 2 for soil names and hydrologic soil groups. TABLE 1 SOIL COI SERVATIOI SERVICE SOILS SUMMARY Map Symbol Soil I ame Hydrologic Soil Type 45 Forsey B TABLE 1 U.S. FOREST SERVICE SOILS SUMMARY Map Symbol Soil I ame Hydrologic Soil Type 104A Cryoborolls — Cryaquolls B - D ML Made Land All impervious Group B soils have a moderate infiltration rate and consist mainly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately course texture. Made Land (ML) is man -made material, including buildings, pavement, fill, and other disturbed areas. It is mostly impervious. For the development site, the following soils are present: The Maintenance site consists of Made Land. It is primarily buildings and paved parking lot. There is an existing paved parking lot on the west end of the site. The Professional Buildings consists of Made Land. There are some trees along the perimeter of this site, but the majority of the site is existing parking lot. The vacant lot consists of October 2009 Preliminary Drainage Report for Eve4 Vil_ 9\n 5 Forsey soils, however there were several impervious buildings, parking areas, and from field observation, there is a lot of man -made fill present. There are a few trees at the perimeter of this site, but no other vegetation present. The Glen Lyon office building is primarily building and paved parking. The soils are primarily Forsey and there are some landscape areas and trees on the site. 9. EROSIOI Al D SEDIMEI T COI TROL A sediment control plan will be prepared for the project to limit the transportation of sediments to Gore Creek and Red Sandstone Creek during construction. Devices that may be used during construction to prevent sediment -laden runoff from leaving the site included stabilized construction entrances, silt fence, straw bales, stone outlet structures, sediment traps and a removable pumping station. Details of these devices may be found in Exhibit C. October 2009 Preliminary Drainage Report for Eve4 Vf1- 1 0 \n 6 EXHIBIT A FEMA FLOODPLAII MAP 4- 14 -11 \n NOTES TO USERS LEGEND I WHITE RIVER , •. w Nnnnv •' "°` • ••`••• •, . AL FOREST I I o I y s , i w mM.r r. Ku _ Po � - - — - — - — - • I °' a a NAnONAL F FORR EST „ ,m ^ FIRM - FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP F.AGLEC011NTY, ' - COLORADO 0.nix'.n. \a£AS PANELNR90riln .a,..a.,. I I , oic ie� P L RATE- 4- 14 -12 \n EXHIBIT B WATER QUALITY VAULT DETAILS 4- 14 -13 \n w •�� /, &IVIE^Ll STORMWATER SOLUTIONS INC. Hydrodynamic Separation Products C )D ' S' VOrtechs� VortSentry° VortSentry HS 4- 14 -14 \n Vo rtec h s® High performance hydrodynamic separation The Vortechs system is a high - performance hydrodynamic separator that effectively removes finer sediment, oil and grease, and floating and sinking debris. Its swirl concentrator and flow controls work together to minimize turbulence and provide stable storage of captured pollutants. The design also allows for _ HIGH FLOW CONTROL easy Inspection and unobstructed maintenance SWIRL CHAMBER - ------------- � � 1' access. With comprehensive lab and field testing, i ' 1 the system delivers proven results and site - specific solutions. —A OUTLET PIPE Precast models can treat peak design flows up INLET PIPE to 25 cfs; cast -in -place models handle even greater flows. A typical system is sized to provide e an 80% load reduction based on laboratory - verified removal efficiencies for varying particle size distributions such as 50- micron sediment particles. OUTLET CHAMBER — LOW FLOW CONTROL How does it work? FLOATABLES CHAMBER FLOATABLES BAFFLE WALL Water enters the swirl chamber at a tangent, inducing a gentle swirling flow pattern and enhancing gravitational separation. Sinking pollutants stay in the swirl chamber while floating pollutants are stopped at the baffle wall. Typically Vortechs systems are sized such that 80% or more of runoff through the system will be controlled exclusively by the low flow control. This orifice effectively reduces inflow velocity and turbulence by inducing a slight backwater appropriate to the site. During larger storms, the water level rises above the low flow control and begins to flow through the high flow control. The layer of floating pollutants is elevated above the influent pipe, preventing re- entrainment. Swirling action increases in relation to the storm intensity, which helps prevent re- suspension. When the storm drain is flowing at peak capacity, the water surface in the system approaches the top of the high flow control. The Vortechs system will be sized large enough so that previously captured pollutants are retained in the system even during these infrequent events. As a storm subsides, treated runoff decants out of the Vortechs system at a controlled rate, restoring the water level to a dry- weather level equal to the invert of the inlet and outlet pipes. The low water level facilitates easier inspection and cleaning, and significantly reduces maintenance costs by reducing pump -out volume. Vortechs • Proven performance speeds approval process • Treats peak flows without bypassing • Flow controls reduce inflow velocity and increase residence time • Unobstructed access simplifies maintenance • Shallow system profile makes installation easier and less expensive • Very low headloss • Flexible design fits multiple site constraints V1 Vortechs 9 1 4- 14 -15 \n CDS° Patented continuous deflection separation (CDS) technology Using patented continuous deflective separation technology, the CDS system screens, separates and traps debris, sediment, and oil and grease from stormwater runoff. The indirect screening capability of the system INTERNAL allows for 100% removal of floatables and neutrally buoyant material DIVERSION without blinding. Flow and screening controls physically separate WEIR OUTLET PIPE captured solids, and minimize the re- suspension and release of previously � MW trapped pollutants. Available precast or cast -in- place, offline units INLET PIPE can treat flows from 1 to 300 cfs. Inline units can treat up to 6 cfs, �) OIL BAFFLE and internally bypass flows in excess of 50 cfs. The pollutant removal: capability of the CDS system has been proven in the lab and field. How does it work? SEPARATION SCREEN Stormwater enters the CDS unit's diversion chamber where the diversion ! STORAGE weir uides the flow into the unit's separation chamber and pollutants r- y " SUMP g p p � ._„1. are removed. All flows up to the system's treatment design capacity enter -- .✓ T the separation chamber. Swirl concentration and screen deflection forces floatables and solids to the center of the separation chamber where 100% of floatables and neutrally buoyant * 11P 410 debris larger than the screen apertures are trapped. Stormwater then moves through the separation screen, under the oil baffle and exits the A A 0 +� system. The separation screen remains clog free due to continuous deflection.. During flow events exceeding the design capacity, the diversion weir bypasses excessive flows around the separation chamber, so captured pollutants will not wash out. ti W ' b CDS • Removes sediment, trash, and free oil and grease • Patented screening technology captures and retains 100% of floatables, including neutrally buoyant and all other material greater than the screen aperture • Operation independent of flow • Performance verified through lab and field testing • Unobstructed maintenance access • Customizable /flexible design and multiple configurations available • Separates and confines pollutants from outlet flow • Grate inlet available • Multiple screen aperture sizes available CDS 4- 14 -16 \n Vo rt S e n t ry° Hydrodynamic separation with internal bypass The VortSentry is a hydrodynamic separator with a small footprint that makes it an effective treatment option for projects where space is at a premium and effective removal of floating and sinking pollutants is critical. The internal bypass ensures treatment chamber velocities remain low, which improves performance and eliminates the risk of - -_ resuspension. _ In addition to standalone applications, the VortSentry is an ideal �— pretreatment device. The system is housed inside a lightweight concrete manhole structure for easy installation (often without the use of a crane) and unobstructed maintenance access. FLOW PARTITION INLET APERTURE OUTLET PIPE How does it work? INLET PIPE Stormwater runoff enters the unit tangentially to promote a� gentle swirling motion in the treatment chamber. As stormwater� HEAD EQUALIZING circles within the chamber, settleable solids fall into the sump and TREATMENT BAFFLE are retained. Buoyant debris and oil and grease rise to the surface CHAMBER BAFFLE OUTLET FLOW CONTROL and are separated from the water as it flows under the baffle wall. Treated water exits the treatment chamber through a flow control TREATMEW orifice located behind the baffle wall. CHAMBER During low -flow conditions all runoff is diverted into the 1 treatment chamber by the flow partition. At higher flow rates, a portion of the runoff spills over the flow partition and is diverted` around the treatment chamber, filling the head equalization chamber. This collapses the head differential between the treatment chamber and the outlet, resulting in a relatively constant flow rate in the treatment chamber even with a substantial increase in total flow through the system. This further reduces the potential for resuspension or washout of captured pollutants. VortSentry • Treatment and internal bypass in one structure • Compact design ideal for congested sites • Unobstructed maintenance access ` • Round, lightweight construction for easy installation 4- 14 -17 \n VortSentry° HS Engineered performance and installation simplicity GRATE The VortSentry HS system employs a helical flow pattern that enhances FRAME trapping and containment of pollutants and provides effective removal of GRATE INLET settleable solids and floating contaminants from urban runoff. HEAD EQUALIZING FLOW PARTITION With the ability to accept a wide range of pipe sizes, the VortSentry HS can BAFFLE treat and convey lows from small to large sites. A unique internal by y g q yp OUTLET design means higher flows can be diverted without the use of external PIPE INLET PIPE bypass structures. The design of the VortSentry HS minimizes adverse SECONDARY velocities or turbulence in the treatment chamber. This helps to prevent the INLET washout of previously captured pollutants even during peak conditions. The VortSentry HS is also available in a grate inlet configuration, which is PRIMARY INLET ideal for retrofits. OUTLET FLOW CONTROL How does it work? TREATMENT � Low, reactive storm flows are directed into the treatment chamber through CHAMBER the primary inlet. The tangentially oriented downward pipe induces a p swirling motion in the treatment chamber that increases capture and - containment abilities. Moderate storm flows are directed into the treatment chamber through the secondary inlet, which allows for capture of floating trash and debris. The secondary inlet also provides for treatment of higher flows without significantly increasing the velocity or turbulence in the treatment chamber. This allows for a more quiescent separation environment. Settleable solids and floating pollutants are captured and contained in the treatment chamber. Flow exits the treatment chamber through the outlet flow control, which manages the amount of flow that is treated and helps maintain the helical flow patterns developed within the treatment chamber. Flows exceeding the system's rated treatment flow are diverted away from the treatment chamber by the flow partition. Internal diversion of high flows eliminates the need for external bypass structures. During bypass, the head equalizing baffle applies head on the outlet flow control to limit the flow through the treatment chamber. This helps prevent re- suspension of previously captured pollutants. VortSentry HS • Helical flow pattern enhances trapping and containment of pollutants High treatment and bypass capacities • Compact footprint ideal for congested sites • Lightweight design easy to install • Available in both inline and grate inlet configurations • Quick manufacturing turnaround time 4- 14 -18 \n Available Models Refer to the following tables for our standard models, sizes, and treatment capacities. Drawings and specifications are available at contechstormwater.com. We encourage you to contact your local stormwater consultant for site - specific design assistance. In many cases our products can be customized to fit your particular project's needs. Local regulations may impact design requirements. 11I • • PMIU20 15 4 1.2 3.7 1.1 0.7 19.8 2.0/1.5 0.6/0.5 0 5 0.4 PMIU20 15 4 4 1.2 3.5 1.1 0.7 19.8 2.0/1.5 0.6/0.5 0.5 0.4 PMSU20 15 5 1.5 4.4 1.3 0.7 19.8 2.0/1.5 0.6/0.5 1.1 0.8 PMSU20 20 5 1.5 5.0 1.5 1.1 31.1 2.012.0 0.6/0.6 1.1 0.8 PMSU20 25 5 1.5 5.3 1.6 1.6 45.3 2.0/2.5 0.6/0.8 1.1 0.8 PMSU30 20 6 1.8 5.5 1.7 2.0 56.6 3.0/2.0 0.9/0.6 2.1 1.6 PMSU30 30 6 1.8 6.5 2.0 3.0 85.0 3.0/3.0 0.9/0.9 2.1 1.6 PMSU40 30 8 2.4 7.8 2.4 4.5 127.4 4.0/3.0 1.2/0.9 5.6 4.3 PMSU40 40 8 2.4 8.8 2.7 6.0 169.9 4.0/4.0 1.211.2 5.6 4.3 PSWC30 20 6 1.8 5.3 1.6 2.0 56.6 3.0/2.0 0.9/0.6 1.9 1.5 PSW30 30 varies varies 6.3 1.9 3.0 85.0 3.0/3.0 0.9/0.9 5.8 4.4 PSWC30 30 6 1.8 6.3 1.9 3.0 85.0 3.0/3.0 0.9/0.9 2.1 1.6 PSWC40 30 7 2.1 7.7 2.3 4.5 127.4 4.0/3.0 1.2/0.9 1.9 1.5 PSWC40 40 7 2.1 8.8 2.7 6.0 169.9 4.0/4.0 1.211.2 1.9 1.5 a, PSW50 42 varies varies 8.8 2.7 9.0 254.9 5.0/4.2 1.5/1.3 1.9 1.5 c - w PSWC56 40 8 2.4 8.8 2.7 9.0 254.9 5.6/4.0 1.711.2 1.9 1.5 O PSW50 50 varies varies 9.5 2.9 11.0 311.5 5.0/5.0 1.5/1.5 1.9 1.5 PSWC56 53 8 2.4 10.1 3.1 14.0 396.4 5.6/5.3 1.7/1.6 1.9 1.5 PSWC56 68 8 2.4 11.8 3.6 19.0 538.0 5.6/6.8 1.712.1 1.9 1.5 PSWC56 78 8 2.4 12.8 3.9 25.0 707.9 5.6/7.8 1.7/2.4 1.9 1.5 PSW70 70 varies varies 13.0 4.0 26.0 736.2 7.0/7.0 2.112.1 3.9 3.0 PSW100 60 varies varies 11.0 3.4 30.0 849.5 10.0/6.0 3.0/1.8 6.9 5.3 PSW100 80 varies varies 13.0 4.0 50.0 1415.8 10.0/8.0 3.0/2.4 6.9 5.3 PSW100 100 varies varies 15.0 4.6 64.0 1812.3 10.0/10.0 3.0/3.0 6.9 5.3 1. Structure diameter represents the standard inside dimension of the concrete structure. Offline systems will require additional concrete diversion components. 2. Water Quality Flow is based on 80% removal of a particle size distribution with an average particle size of 125 microns. This flow also represents the maximum flow prior to which bypass occurs. Test results are based on use of a 2400 micron screen. Cast -in -place system are available to treat higher flows. Check with your local representatives for specifications. Notes: Systems can be sized based on a water quality flow (e.g. 1 inch storm) or on a net annual basis depending on the local regulatory requirement. When sizing based on a water quality storm, the required flow to be treated should be equal to or less than the listed water quality flow for the selected system. Systems sized based on a water quality storm are generally more conservatively sized. Additional particle size distributions are available for sizing purposes upon request. Depth below invert is measured to the inside bottom of the system. This depth can be adjusted to meet specific storage or maintenance requirements. Contact our support staff for the most cost effective sizing for your area. 4- 14 -19 \n Vortechs Swirl Chamber Quality Model Diameter Le• • w' Storage ft m ft m 50 lim 110 Jim 200 1000 3 0.9 9 2.7 0.21 /5.9 0.59/16.7 0.98/27.8 1.6 45.3 0.7 0.5 2000 4 1.2 10 3.0 0.36/10.2 1.0/28.3 1.7/48.1 2.8 79.3 1.2 0.9 3000 5 1.5 11 3.4 0.59/16.7 1.7/48.1 2.7/76.5 4.5 127.4 1.8 1.4 4000 6 1.8 12 3.7 0.78/22.1 2.2/62.3 3.7/104.8 6.0 169.9 2.4 1.8 5000 7 2.1 13 4.0 1.1/31.1 3.1/87.8 5.2/147.2 8.5 240.7 3.2 2.4 7000 8 2.4 14 4.3 1.4/39.6 4.1/116.1 6.7/189.7 11.0 311.5 4.0 3.1 9000 9 2.7 15 4.6 1.8/51.0 5.2/147.2 8.5/240.7 14.0 396.4 4.8 3.7 11000 10 3.0 16 4.9 2.3/65.1 6.5/184.1 10.7/303.0 17.5 495.5 5.6 4.3 16000 12 3.7 18 5.5 3.3/93.4 9.3/263.3 15.3/433.2 25.0 707.9 7.1 5.4 1. Water Quality Flow is based on 80% removal for a particle size distribution (PSD) with an average particle size as listed. Particle size should be chosen based on antici- pated sediment load. 2. Peak Treatment Flow is maximum flow treated for each unit listed. This flow represents an infrequent storm event such as a 10 or 25 yr storm. Standard Vortechs System depth below invert is 3' for all precast models. Cast -in -place system are available to treat higher flows. Check with your local representatives for specifications. VortSentry Swirl Chamber Typical Depth Water Quality Flow' Max. Size Sediment Model Diameter - • 1 Jim Inlet/Outlet Storage VS30* 3 0.9 5.8 1.8 0.26 7.4 12 300 0.8 0.6 VS40 4 1.2 7.0 2.1 0.58 16.4 18 460 1.4 1.1 VS50* 5 1.5 8.0 2.4 1.1 31.1 18 460 2.2 1.7 VS60 6 1.8 8.9 2.7 1.8 51.0 24 600 3.1 2.4 VS70* 7 2.1 9.7 3.0 2.7 76.5 30 750 4.3 3.3 VS80 8 2.4 10.1 3.1 3.9 110.4 36 600 5.6 4.3 * Denotes models may not be manufactured in your area. Check with your local representative for availability. 1. Water Quality Flow is based on 80% removal of a particle size distribution with an average particle size of 110 microns. This flow also represents the maximum flow prior to which bypass occurs. VortSentry HS Swirl Chamber Typical Depth Water Quality Flow' Max. Size Sediment Model Diameter Below Invert 240 lim Inlet/Outlet Storage HS36* 3 0.9 5.6 1.7 0.55 15.6 18 460 0.5 0.4 HS48 4 1.2 6.8 2.1 1.2 34.0 24 600 0.9 0.7 HS60* 5 1.5 8.0 2.4 2.2 62.3 30 760 1.5 1.1 HS72 6 1.8 9.2 2.8 3.7 104.8 36 900 2.1 1.6 HS84* 7 2.1 10.4 3.2 5.6 158.6 42 1050 2.8 2.1 HS96 8 2.4 11.5 3.5 8.1 229.4 48 1200 3.7 2.8 * Models may not be manufactured in your area. Check with your local representative for availability. 1 . Water Quality Flow is based on 80% removal of a particle size distribution with an average particle size of 240 microns. This flow also represents the maximum flow prior to which bypass occurs. Notes: Systems can be sized based on a water quality flow (e.g. 1 inch storm) or on a net annual basis depending on the local regulatory requirement. When sizing based on a water quality storm, the required flow to be treated should be equal or less than the listed water quality flow for the selected system. Systems sized based on a water quality storm are generally more conservatively sized. Additional particle size distributions are available for sizing purposes upon request. Depth below invert is measured to the inside bottom of the system. This depth can be adjusted to meet specific storage or maintenance requirements. Contact our support staff for the most cost effective sizing for your area. 4 - 14 - 20 \n Customer Support Installati CONTECH Stormwater Solutions' products are some of the easiest to install in the industry. We provide comprehensive installation details and instructions, as well as full technical support on every project. Maintenance e of CONTECH • s s products is cost an efficient We • comp range of services that can be tailored to your specific site needs. r � r ji r i Support �'•►�:�: STORMWATER • Drawings and specifications are available at contech storm water. com. - so �u- _ • Site - specific design support is available from our engineers. 800.925.5240 contech storm water. com C)2007 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions CONTECH Construction Products Inc. provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. CONTECH's portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, stormwater and earth stabilization products. For information on other CONTECH division offerings, visit contech - cpi.com or call 800.338.1122 Nothing in this catalog should be construed as an expressed warranty or an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. See the CONTECH standard quotation or acknowledgement for applicable warranties and other terms and conditions of sale. The product(s) described may be protected by one or more of the following US patents: 5,322,629; 5,624,576; 5,707,527; 5,759,415; 5,788,848; 5,985,157; 6,027,639; 6,350,374; 6,406,218; 6,641,720; 6,511,595; 6,649,048; 6,991,114; 6,998,038; 7,186,058; related foreign patents or other patents pending. Vortechs, VortSentry, VortSentry HS, and CDs are trademarks, registered trademarks, or licensed trademarks of CONTECH Construction Products Inc. A �e�raeo iJ PAPER NOTE VORTECHS SYSTEMS INSTALLED IN A BYPASS CONFIGURATION REQUIRE AN UPSTREAM DIVERSION STRUCTURE THAT SHALL BE DETAILED BY THE CONSULTING ENGINEER WITH ELEVATION AND WEIR WIDTH DATA PROVIDED BY CONTECH STORMWATER SOLUTIONS. 2743 SEALANT EXTRUDED BUNA N SEAL 456 ALU .,n Ea'il .IL.. ' , -152 CONCRETE TYP 559 610 A 90° + `, 1 ORIFICE WEIR ` 914 A SEALANT PLAN VIEW B - B TOP AND _ 1 L...L.. L..: .4;' I ',dN'.. SIDES SEALED TO VAULT 1 CONCRETE REINFORCED FOR MS18 (HS20) LOADING BUTYL B - RUBBER B i SEALANT WEIR 2134 TYP INLETINVERT I _ .. I OUTLETINVERT 914 I I 914 914 TYP II TYP TYP II MINIMUM 152 N _ COMPACTED GRAVEL 3 SECTION A - A N O Ln O O O O N _ S IP� II NT C I:p,ra:; 914 9. 63:1 4T[t ':. " 4�I:1' §EE S II x 111 i;��, SIZE I n �� III, :::!N 7 i ;Lt ED T I r'4:1',IC �L i.:;ri 1.1 !Iliw 1fl. :!!ali �i L _ : V CI aR 1 = di: SF14g :Ji a lP.l.. , 3 E -r r_ 1 l'��u (877 fj ,4iJ: I:il.iY�4i0 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES This CADD file is for the purpose of specifying stormwater treatment equipment to be furnished by CONTECH Stormwater Solutions and may only be transferred to other documents p exactly as provided by CONTECH Stormwater Solutions. Title block information, excluding the CONTECH Stormwater Solutions logo and the Vortechs Stormwater Treatment System � designation and patent number, may be deleted if necessary. Revisions to any part of this CADD file without prior coordination with CONTECH Stormwater Solutions shall be considered unauthorized use of proprietary information. V N w u�ewu� STANDARD DETAIL � a �� n STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM _ STORMWATER VORTECHS MODEL 1000 METRIC SOLUTIONS U.S. PATENT No. 5,759,415 contechstormwater.com I DATE: 4/5/06 1 SCALE: NONE FILE NA E: STDIKM DRAWN: GMC I CHECKED: NDG EXHIBIT C SEDIMEI T COI TROL DETAILS 4- 14 -23 \n 50' Min. 3 ' o Earth Mountable Berm (Optional) x �1 10' rn a MIRAFI 140N Filter Cloth ` y 5 w 0 y/j\ \\ � �./ / % � , � /i�� /�� \ / /%\ / / SECTION Edge of Pavement 50' Min. 10' E Min. 4 Existing Ground ° m U O °Do �� 0Q) Oo 2" Crushed Sceened Rock O °O O O° O 0 ��OQP- 0 o OOOO 0 O O OQ� o Existing Ground PLAN STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTION NOTES Scale: 1" = 10' -0" 1. STONE SIZE — USE 2" CRUSHED SCREENED ROCK. 2. LENGTH — AS REQUIRED, BUT NOT LESS THAN 50 FEET. 3. THICKNESS — NOT LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES. 4. WIDTH — TEN (10) FOOT MINIMUM, BUT NOT LESS THAN THE FULL WIDTH AT POINTS WHERE INGRESS OR EGRESS OCCURS. 5. FILTER CLOTH — WILL BE PLACED OVER THE ENTIRE AREA PRIOR TO PLACING OF STONE. 6. SURFACE WATER — ALL SURFACE WATER FLOWING OR DIVERTED TOWARD CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE PIPED ACROSS THE ENTRANCE. IF PIPING IS IMPRACTICAL, A MOUNTABLE BERM WITH 5:1 SLOPES WILL BE PERMITTED. 7. MAINTENANCE — THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS —OF —WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL STONE AS CONDITIONS DEMAND AND REPAIR AND /OR CLEANOUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT —OF —WAY MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. SCE SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL PAVING OF ENTRANCE COMMENCES. 8. WASHING — WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS —OF —WAY. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITH STONE AND WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE. 9. PERIODIC INSPECTION AND NEEDED MAINTENANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED AFTER EACH RAIN. EDWARDS BUSINESS CENTER P.D. BOX 97 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 (970) 926 -3373 FAX (970) 926 -3390 4- 14 -24 \n 10� MAXIMUM CENTER TO 36" MINIMUM LENGTH FENCE POST, 4 � CENTER DRIVEN A MINIMUM OF 16" INTO GROUND ii IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII. 16" MINIMUM HEIGHT OF GEOTEXTILE CLASS F 8" MINIMUM DEPTH IN GROUND FLOW FLOW PERSPECTIVE VIEW 36" MINIMUM FENCE POST LENGTH FILTER CLOTH FENCE POST SECTION MINIMUM 20" ABOVE GROUND FLOW UNDISTURBED GROUND EMBED GEOTEXTILE CLASS F A MINIMUM OF 8" VERTICALLY INTO THE GROUND FENCE POST DRIVEN A MINIMUM OF 16" INTO THE GROUND CROSS SECTION POSTS SECTION B SECTION A � M---STAPLE STAPLE X JOINING TWO ADJACENT SILT FENCE SECTIONS (TOP VIEW) Construction Specifications 1. Fence posts shall be a minimum of 36" long driven 16" minimum into the ground. Wood posts shall be 11/2" x 11/2" square (minimum) cut, or 13/4" dia. (minimum) round and shall be of sound quality hardwood. Steel posts will be standard T or U section weighting not less than 1.00 pond per linear foot. 2. Geotextile shall be fastened securely to each fence post with wire ties or staples at top and midsection and shall meet the following requirements for Geotextile Class F: Tensile Strength 50 Ibs /in (min.) Test: MSMT 509 Tensile Modulus 20 Ibs /in (min.) Test: MSMT 509 Flow Rate 0.3 gal ft / minute (max.) Test: MSMT 322 Filtering Efficiency 75% (min.) Test: MSMT 322 3. Where ends of geotextile fabric come together, they shall be overlapped, folded and stapled to prevent sediment bypass. 4. Silt Fence shall be inspected after each rainfall event and maintained when bulges occur or when sediment accumulation reached 50% of the fabric height. SILT FENCE DETAIL EDWARDS BUSINESS CENTER P.O. BOX 97 N.T.S. = EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 (970) 926 -3373 FAX (970) 926 -3390 4- 14 -25 \n v1YM�✓AI Ai /�y FLOW ';.yY� �1:� J .... VERTICAL FACE STANDARD SYMBOL SBD - BEDDING DETAIL a«an� j ANGLE FIRST STAKE TOWARD PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE u ' FLOW .. c *►`ui ,�� . ' ` BOUND BALES PLACED ON CONTOUR �C�� Lr,`g ✓ 2 RE —BARS, STEEL PICKETS, OR 2 "x2" STAKES :::: .......... 1 1/2' TO 2' IN GROUND, DRIVE STAKES FLUSH WITH BALES. ANCHORING DETAIL CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 1. BALES SHALL BE PLACED AT THE TOE OF A SLOPE OR ON THE CONTOUR AND IN A ROW WITH ENDS TIGHTLY ABUTTING THE ADJACENT BALES. 2. EACH BALE SHALL BE EMBEDDED IN THE SOIL A MINIMUM OF (4) INCHES, AND PLACED SO THE BINDINGS ARE HORIZONTAL. 3. BALES SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED IN PLACE BY EITHER TWO STAKES OR RE —BARS DRIVEN THROUGH THE BALE. THE FIRST STAKE IN EACH BALE SHALL BE DRIVEN TOWARD THE PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE AT AN ANGLE TO FORCE THE BALES TOGETHER. STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN FLUSH WITH THE BALE. 4. INSPECTION SHALL BE FREQUENT AND REPAIR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE MADE PROMPTLY AS NEEDED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5. BALES SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFULNESS SO AS NOT TO BLOCK OR IMPEDE STORM FLOW OR DRAINAGE. STRAW BALE DIKE = _= EDWARDS BUSINESS CENTER P.O. BOX 97 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 (970) 926 -3373 FAX (970) 926 -3390 4- 14 -26 \n FLOW FLOW EARTH DIKE STONE O 00 0 0 0 0 2' IN. 0 O 0 COP 0 0 00 6" MIN. L� EVEL CREST � L =6' � 2' MIN. cx) 00 F!�Fi 2 "x10 "x12' BAFFLE BOARD 12" MIN. 6" MIN. O O 4" MIN. J GROUND LINE STONE EMBEDDED PROFILE STANDARD SYMBOL CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 1. THE STONE SHALL BE CRUSHED STONE. GRAVEL MAY BE USED IF CRUSHED STONE IS NOT AVAILABEL. THE STONE SHALL MEET AASHTO DESIGNATION M43 SIZE NO. 2 OR 24. 2. THE CREST OF THE STONE DIKE SHALL BE AT LEAST SIX INCHES LOWER THAN THE LOWEST ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE EARTH DIKE AND AND SHALL BE LEVEL. 3. THE STONE OUTLET STRUCTURE SHALL BE EMBEDDED INTO THE SOIL A MINIMUM OF FOUR INCHES. 4. THE MINIMUM LENGTH, IN FEET, OF THE CREST OF THE STONE OUTLET STRUCTURE SHALL BE SIX. 5. THE STONE OUTLET STRUCTURE SHALL BE INSPECTED AFTER EACH RAIN, AND THE STONE SHALL BE REPLACED WHEN THE STRUCTURE CEASES TO FUNCTION AS INTENDED DUE TO SILT ACCUMULATION AMONG THE STONE, WASHOUT, CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC DAMAGE, ETC. 6. THE BAFFLE BOARD SHALL BE EXTENDED ONE FOOT INTO THE DIKE, STAKED AND EMBEDDED 4 INCHES INTO EXISTING GROUND. STONE OUTLET STRUCTURE EDWARDS BUSINESS CENTER P.O. BOX 97 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 (970) 926 -3373 FAX (970) 926 -3390 4 14 27 \n SMALL RIPRAP / \ 2" STONE---,. o ° a a Jr V MIN. a >A 1' MIN. 4t L= 4xD.A. UNDISTURBED AREA X J 1 �r � 1 1n 1' MAX. PROFILE 4' MIN. 2 1 2 FLT 1 F o 1 2" STONE WEIR CREST (OPTIONAL) SMALL RIPRAP 0 FILTER CLOTH 2' APRON EXCAVATE FOR REQUIRED STORAGE CROSS SECTION A -A OPTION: A ONE FOOT LAYER OF 2" STONE MAY BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE RIPRAP IN PLACE OF THE EMBEDDED FILTER CLOTH. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 1. AREA UNDER EMBANKMENT SHALL BE CLEARED, GRUBBED AND STRIPPED OF ANY VEGETATION AND ROOT MAT. THE POOL AREA SHALL BE CLEARED. 2. THE FILL MATERIAL FOR THE EMBANKMENT SHALL BE FREE OF ROOTS AND OTHER WOODY VEGETATION AS WELL AS OVER —SIZED STONES, ROCKS, ORGANIC MATERIAL OR OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL. THE EMBANKMENT SHALL BE COMPACTED BY TRAVERSING WITH EQUIPMENT WHILE IT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED. 3. ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE 2:1 OR FLATTER. 4. THE STONE USED IN THE OUTLET SHALL BE SMALL RIPRAP 4 " -8" ALONG WITH A 1' THICKNESS OF 2" AGGREGATE PLACED ON THE UP —GRADE SIDE ON THE SMALL RIPRAP OR EMBEDDED FILTER CLOTH IN THE RIPRAP. 5. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED AND TRAP RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS WHEN THE SEDIMENT HAS ACCUMULATED TO 1/2 THE DESIGN DEPTH OF THE TRAP. 6. THE STRUCTURE SHALLL BE INSPECTED AFTER EACH RAIN AND REPAIRS MADE AS NEEDED. 7. CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A MANNER THAT EROSION AND WATER POLLUTION IS MINIMIZED. 8. THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE AREA STABILIZED WHEN THE DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED. SEDIMENT TRAP EDWARDS BUSINESS CENTER P.O. BOX 97 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 (970) 926 -3373 FAX (970) 926 -3390 4- 14 -28 \n 2 EAC H DUMP STRAPS EXPANSION RESTRAINT (1 /4" NYLON ROPE, 2" FLAT WASHERS) INSTALLATION DETAIL . -,`. BAG DETAIL DUMP STRAP 1" REBAR FOR BAG REMOVAL FROM INLET DUMP STRAP TH S I LTSAC K f "M �o OPTIONAL METAL HANGING FRAME FOR TRAFFIC \o�= 41 CONDITIONS 4 v o �' 4 4 :D v 4' v. 4 . . SILT SACK _- EDWARDS BUSINESS CENTER P.O. BOX 97 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 (970) 926 -3373 FAX (970) 926 -3390 4 14 - 29 \n REMOVABLE PUMPING STATION ❑ ❑K AND CHAIN FOR REMOVAL ' Perforated (removable) ._._ • • F 12' - 36' p i p e wrapped w/ 1/2' hardware cloth and Geotextile Class 'C' o 0 ° �. ANTICIPATED WATER c SURFACE ELEV,- 3 MIN, I, 0 Cam : �". " "€ 1 __ ....... 0 0 0 0 � CLEAN GRAVEL 0 -' .. ........ __ PERFORATED 48' PIPE WRAPPED WITH 112' HARDWARE CLOTH WEIGHT AS NECESSARY c 0 -" TO PREVENT FL❑ATATIO OF CENTER PIPE 8' min, Construction Specifications 1, The outer pipe should be 48' d I a, or shall, In any case, be at least 4' greater in diameter than the center pipe, The outer pipe shall be wrapped with 1/2' hardware cloth to prevent backflll material from entering the perforations, 2, After installing the outer pipe, backfill around outer pipe with 2' aggregate or clean gravel, 3, The inside stand pipe (center pipe) should be constructed by perforating a corrugated or PVC pipe between 12' and 36' in diameter. The perforations shall be 1/2' X 6' slits or 1' diameter holes 6' on center, The center pipe shall be wrapped with 1/2' hardware cloth first, then wrapped again with Geotextile Class C, 4, The center pipe should extend 12' to 18' above the anticipated water surface elevation or riser crest elevation when dewatering a basin, EDWARDS BUSINESS CENTER P.O. BOX 97 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 (970) 926 -3373 FAX (970) 926 -3390 4- 14 -30 \n FIGURES 4- 14 -31 \n FRIULI. • ............... 1 � 353C) 346C 393B 353C 346C 353C 15 � j 353C ��. 395D 3678 315( 346B 346C 281C 34 b 348C �f 9 T 351C Area covered by U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soils Map 381 381B 351C SCALE: 1 " = 2000' 4 - 14 - 33 \n Figure 2 — U.S. Forest Service Soils Map MAPS 4- 14 -34 \n ' � - i � ,; '�. WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIz m _ Z LEGEND /; a ' 81142 - / - l -- a _j LLI 811319 Z (r I ��IQ l t \ Z /' �/✓ %' r �< ✓ w r ✓ s /' 'ii - ✓�/ '��� // ~��`'`� � ����� e ���F `" I N � -j I�' ng \ - i � �/ ga _ SHEET - W III Z LEGEND rL rS ! uz f / y /f/ — E 0C) Q y{ d'W LU } W Q� Z ------------------------ Z a afir � it I .. ..... . . . ---------------- \ 'r SHEET r g �' LEGEND z 11 11 11 a ak' z w v I I O C -- W Jw 0 �_- - Q ZwW t �QO J W }W � �W < fl� Q J i w LL 4 O zz YK r ' l 4 SHEET j M t VAILRESORTS EVER VAIL I Major Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Application OEYELOPMENT COMPANY November 2, 2009 ♦ tS sy . . F y Iow 1' AG. ` t ARABELLE 1 cm GGRE CREEK •t .•• j S,�SC..('�' fir' �• e N� 1 � _ 11• PRELIMINARY PLAN \ / EVER VAIL A RESUBDIVISION OF SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD SUBDIVISION,A LOT 54, GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF THE SW %> OF SECTION 6, A PART OF THE NW % OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. AND A i V - PORTION OF THE NE T OF SECTION TO TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH RANGE 81 WEST, OF THE 6TH P.M., OF VAIL, COUNTY OF TO - -� OF EACLE, STATE OF COLORADO XA- Via; T' UNPLAIED -El ., D \\ {� PLC EVER VAIL PRELIMINARY PLAT 3 �� 5 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 PRELIMINARY PLAN m EVER VAIL — BUILDABLE AREA _ _ A RESUBDIVISION OF SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD SUBDIVISION, LOT 54, GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF THE SW %4 OF SECTION 6, A PART OF THE NW % OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. AND A PORTION OF THE NE %4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH RANCE 81 WEST, OF THE 6TH P.M., TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF �� E ,wE a a000 PraH EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO it n .,, .�a� c rocn on c_asae� LLS c—INum b v 7 I LINI III I-L—LI 11 . • °.• °• f �� o� cas cx¢H cuce - sc «Pw <a� GI B EVER VAIL BUILDABLEAREA 4 •° �• 15 Mdjor Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit November2, 2009 ' r a - -= " — T ✓ � / , � fi -� fir.._ o. 25 so. 1 O�o VAtLl':cs' i = "rs Q EVER VAIL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 5 _• ��• 5 fvf�djor Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 1 ,�. •t t ! •L �S'� -P' }tti+�.�' .r � a ,. T� �4- �. .�.• "tea �.. • `ta• .� ' M,�.•y� _ ' _ _ _ _ �'�� a c!' .. (fie /. � . •• ��wwtttF a �.AP s / x _j it���l � #' pY — it R • s i 4 EVER VAIL AERIAL SITE PLAN - PROPOSED 6 �• 5 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2009 i'T� co PLAZA PR POSED ( I ]ROUNDABOUT xO TRANSIT CENTER .J •� t � J `` FR —CLOCK TOWER -,• " ��0 DROP OFF , g %RED. CONNECTION \ Tb/ IyIQNS LAD � ST LIONSHEAD CI&CI a � SN PO E q, T I PROPOSED FRONTAGE ROAD BRIDGE I CLIMBING WALL TOWER ,/ f ❑ROP OFF SO PEDESTRIAN BRID / \ HOTEL ENTRY j g✓ E r �� ^' RESIDENTIAL GARAGE ENTRANCE •�. -. 0 / Y^7:'1 GARAGE ENTRY , ... Y� J� 7. m MIXED USE GORE C EEK PARKING ENTRANCE .� ' / G� D ROP OFF '� ✓S GAS REGULATOR '.,il _ .�` \/ • \�� F[ �PLAZAAL ENTRANCE Y ' PROPOSED SNOW— �. / ® I �' STORAGE �W'1. ,_ 8i D '� m.C'�. O E -4 _J. -i JIIW PED./BIfE PATH- 2 1 4 ® •. / ,, 1 tl ' .y V ✓SCR `£`R, -: • . ®. r /Ifi] / PROPOSED GONDOLA o. zs sO. 1 o70 v „ .moo. A Xks EVER VAIL ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN 7 4 15 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 LEGEND: © PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATH ITZ i a — j X - - a•\ V — CAD LAGE 0. 25 Son 1 0�0 VAIL ;. __ EVER VAIL PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION DIAGRAM 8 _•° +�• 5 fv�`djor Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 LEGEND AREA S TUD ED E STOPS_� FCC ECO TRANSIT- EASTBOUND -WEST Vag EASTSOUNO ROUTE 8 STOPS -TOV I—OWN SHUTTLE - -- TOVWESTVAIL- EASTBOUND ROUTE 8 STOPS TOV WT VAIL- WESTBOUND J T ROUTE $ ES STOPS I R TOWN SHUTTLE EVER CENTER iCL STOP UNDER STUDY FOR / ROUTE B T ROUTE g S . �! rx � \� ■ FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION / 4- - -- — / RLTO err` � ����� � — � -, � � l / •� � #J � ■ `. — • �► r — o, o=s� ff X500 / CAD $\�° /�//�- I I / • u / - / i I LAGE // _ __ - - -- 0. 25 50 1 0 00 J) EVER VAIL VEHICULAR CIRCULATION DIAGRAM 9 _•« + ^• 5 N�`djor Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 LEGEND: © TRANSIT PASSENGER CAR PEDESTRIAN '� I BICYCLE PATH M1 COVERED BICYCLE RACKS - / DROP -OPF AREA X HOTELSHUTTLE PG�R _ /ic E -'j 4�'� ■ RITZ �ARLTON PARKING ENTRANCE 1 O -Z E -z o ER So PLA o z r °z �oNDd�A W -3 , /r'•. GORECRE�Ir 0 25 50 1� O�o VAILRESORTS EVER VAIL CIRCULATION DIAGRAM 10 _— — 4 -15 0*r Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 �. - �� f 241 o re *xc wrwr or ms v Aw is rxe vw•oixo or we po- aonos. D—M c � AopN nx .1 I—A ANO sih W1 " .' Ercauineo As rxe aaoacc\ Q 25 6Q t� O�o VAILRESORTS EVER VAIL PROPOSED GRADING PLAN _•" ` °" AM F£WNG N< 15�idr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit November 2, 2009 LEGEND: ' FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS R pP� w I 111 p 5 II FIRE RACCESS, 150 LENGTH MAX 150 LENGTH E 7 AREA BEYOND 150' FIRE FIGHTER V ACCESS E -5 NSIT CENTER 9,�. Oy/ RITZ IDENCE RES IDENCES ''' fi Qr 'CPpE T I Ii J \ O� �' i � ♦� �' R E ` P WSD tr s / d� -.00m 0 25 50 100 200 VAIL+ _ _ Q EVER VAIL FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS DIAGRAM 92 15 M' dr Exterio r Al teration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2009 5 1 � I r' /�P -'Q tP % FROG E,5 �' C E-6 ° oPo a RITZ CARLTON Q W -2 E So , ' W -, P W-111 NT E W -3 O W -3 =� ���� SHAD MOU NTA I N O RAT IO S(SELOW)SHOWN E W 0 2s 50 l��o. VAtt_RESC( T S EVER VAIL PHASING PLAN 13 �•,L .a. 5 M'a�`jbr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 A� z T BOUNOARL' LINE ..� ROPER7Y L SETBACK SITE EASEMENT SITE AREA: 534,700 SF 12.275 ACRES � h '"' omoom 10 BUILDING SETBACK - z L OHT NOPs ONAOE EASEMENT PROPERTr LINE C— SOUNOARL' LINE •' m ' _ a m�v � _� - ... YEAR FLOOD PLAIN WET CREEK NEEs BUILDING ETB 0 25 50 t� O�o VAILRESORTS EVER VAIL OVERALL SITE AREA 14 ''." �.<<, o. a 15 MjdrExterior Alteration &Conditional Use Permit I November2,2009 A� z ,I w SITE COVERAGE: o EAST: 167,904 SF WEST: 86,231 SF (RESIDENTIAL 'omoom BRIDGES INCLUDED) 1 m ^. s ,mom 0 25 50 loo ~ 0 VAILRESORTS EVER VAIL SITE COVERAGE ABOVE GRADE 15 '' ." �. '.a. 15 M*r Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 A� z �I SITE COVERAGE: o EAST: 268,725 SF WEST. 142,275 SF �5 ALL ABOVE GRADE AND GARAGE EXTENTSINCLUDED o ! m ^. s r� � a zs sa t o70 4 VAILRESORTS EVER VAIL SITE COVERAGE BELOW GRADE 16 '' ." �•,,,,,„ 5 M'$jfir Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 urvos enaen summn v a.ow � — f o J .n ii F l f UNDSCAPE AREA SUM— SITE EVER VAIL LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS PLAN 17 4 15 ' dr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 LEGEND: MARKET LOADING RETAIL _ FOOD /BEVERAGE SPA MARKET RESIDENTIAL , N A GE� OPO v / _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING - , F¢O 1 - ST 7 Jv s E LI SHEAD ' HOTEL - TOR -' CIRC$E °� �_ _ HOTEL MEETING ROOMS FEOMMIXEO USE PKG" r fir' fF i` AMENITY SPACE CREEKSIDE PLAZA f e _ ,✓ l .1 &HITHEATER _ OFFICE PUBLIC l IYo 'P,N`'\S�✓ / p �� PARKING \ \ \\\ \" f NT / SERVICE /MECHANICAL n�� � / CHILDREN 'S /\ u ue -i _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS sK scHOOL Pa �a STREER KP _ ��- f RKs AND RECREATION T / i z f otaJ PLAZA I/ / 4 WEST RETa L LOADING - ;r4oner� o SPA E -2 - ER � RITZ RES PARKING 1 / E. EECARLTON ENTRANCE ; ' / -_ FE ]HOTEL XEDGSE ,�. ` 4 F I O PA NDE I G E- _ ENTRY REGDENTAL LOAD E 2 NO - / ��,� ✓ I I I i � WASTE GAS REGULATOR a "AUTD'aOURT v , �.. s � ' Ta i I - LOADING WEST SIDE �e 4 '� - camcs oe ea AMENILY ENTRANC ERWSD ` J\ 2 \`N ,� '/ a rL \. { ^ J i ��\ CPLIAZAL PLANT LbXG S r w INIILA W� - �� - -- �. n 1 �T, s' - ELEVaTGes o G6RE CREEK RE CE T NE CK ED M�rEO'GGE2�cING ' so' CREEK SETBACK i KcENTERL NE FROM MIXED USE PA KNOG 0. 20 40. 8 0�0 VAIL EVER VAIL GROUND LEVEL I FLOOR PLANS 18 „s °� 16 M*r Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I January4, 2010 LEGEND: RETAIL _ FOOD /BEVERAGE - ' - d• SPA MARKET RESIDENTIAL !' EMPLOYEE HOUSING HOTEL \ / 7 _ HOTEL M EETIN G RO OMS AMENITY SPACE / /\ t _ OFFICE E•5 PUBLIC f., ` OF IM PARKING C , ' SERVICE /MECHANICAL _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS - J E = —r dr H €� L eN Ho LaooLTERancE SPACE JAL �T Ll I VAIL� ?i.S��_ �, s (� EVER VAI L LEVEL 2 I FLOOR PLANS g �• �� 4- 16 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2,2009 LEGEND: RETAIL _ FOOD /BEVERAGE - 1 SPA MARKET RESIDENTIAL !' , r f EMPLOYEE HOUSING _7 - - l\ ^NAY HOTEL _ HOTEL MEETING ROOMS AMENITY SPACE _ OFFICE E - � es � fff PUBLIC ! ,,C,{�,`� � PARKING /> F • ' TIAL ' SERVICE /MECHANICAL - - ^'�, 5 _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS , ,� J �✓ l a � E- 2 r,—r E N —L r - N f - E TA R WowT r r - - -- EVER VAI L LEVEL 3 1 FLOOR PLANS 20 �� 4 16 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2009 LEGEND: RETAIL _ FOOD /BEVERAGE " SPA MARKET RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING HOTEL "C R 5 AL _ HOTELMEETING ROOMS AMENITY SPACE `J OFFICE PUBLIC EE_5� � PARKING T nA SERVICE /MECHANICAL E L MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS ; 3nA a E2 l RESio AL 1 \RW, wL RE IoENn RE AL ! I VA EVER VAIL LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLANS 21 �• •�• 'BMWr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 LEGEND: RETAIL _ FOOD /BEVERAGE SPA MARKET RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING - '7 / / L( Es❑ ry HOTEL _ HOTEL MEETING ROOMS AMENITY SPACE �9! _ OFFICE PUBLIC AL � / PARKING .y • SERVICElMECHANICAL _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS E-3 TA v� \` E RES NAT " uJ NTw� - \ _- _- _- _- - - - - -- �0 (a EVER VAI L LEVEL 5 I FLOOR PLANS 22 • �• 16 for Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 LEGEND: RETAIL _ FOOD /BEVERAGE SPA MARKET RESIDENTIAL V EMPLOYEE HOUSING - HOTEL _ HOTEL MEETING ROOMS AMENITY SPACE OFFICE EEs EiuT AL PUBLIC PARKING EoE 11A ' SERVICE /MECHANICAL _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS � Ee EV AL RESio �ynL r \ III rzE_sgEN�mL- � i, (a EVER VAI L LEVEL 6 1 FLOOR PLANS 23 • �• -16 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 LEGEND: RETAIL _ FOOD /BEVERAGE SPA 1 _ 1 MARKET RESIDENTIAL _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING HOTEL HOTEL MEETING ROOMS / n AMENITY SPACE _ OFFICE M - PUBLIC PARKING Y _ SERVICE /MECHANICAL - _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS , - E -Z., , p q S — ' �Rt'ssiorzacE g EOUSE ENTRANCE LaNEs MIXED U SED RAMPPARKNG � _ � ,ww� , P ARKING ENTRANCE \ \ \ \ \\ 4onDiNc Docx_ �,, 7 BELOW MPTO RES PA RKING RESIDENT ENTRY RAMP — = I aR ��Hlq P A, i R ' W2IPG MOOUNAIIN T OP NS , BELOW " I _ v E 1 �. W ,"G Yp i 1 ro � I �S1P PP — ftE P ro ��� / \\ 7 --:- w2 RES w- 3RESOENT, 0. 20 40. 8� 0160 Q EVER VAIL P1 PARKING I FLOOR PLANS 24 ox -16 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I January 4, 2010 LEGEND: RETAIL - TO SU I _ FOOD /BEVERAGE SPA j MARKET RESIDENTIAL _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING T�EeP f 1 HOTEL \ L E DEV T.— _ HOTELMEETING ROOMS 0 AMENITY SPACE _ OFFICE PUBLIC PARKING - SERVICE /MECHANICAL x `` _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS SPA E-2 � -- MxEGUsEPaFKNN G G _� -- WITH R E O T GKET NHTES - - -- - - -- WITH REVERSIBLE LANE ENT L _ MOUNTAIN -2 OPERATIONS _ i = MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS LOADING J d I E- - - - -_- _ _ _ i W -3 / M - TO GROUND LEVEL 20 40 8� 0160 {� EVER VAIL P2 PARKING FLOOR PLANS �� 16 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I January 4, 2010 LEGEND: } RETAIL MIXED USE ELE _ OU E FOOD /BEVERAGE r,t SPA I _ MARKET RESIDENTIAL _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING HOTEL ELE x } _ s HOTEL MEETING ROOMS AMENITY SPACE _ OFFICE e PUBLIC - PARKING W �fh SERVICE /MECHANICAL 1 _ MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS - - - - < i ! _. eACKOFH 4SEI R - T ` - -- S - . ... �r s M.U NTM N bPERmioNS LT MIXED USE ELEATORIESCALATOR M(pEO USE P� ( b R LE L i ( a. l TO GROUND LEVEL 0. 20 40. 8 0160 VAIL EVER VAIL P3 PARKING I FLOOR PLANS 26 ox - 16 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I January4, 2010 R 0 1 EHU W 3 .EHU W RES. PARKING LEVEL 1 PARKING LEVEL FRONTAGE ROAD EHU LOADING EHU EHU RES. RESIDENTIAL PKG. -RES. LEGEND: PARKING LEVEL 3 MIXED USE PKG. RES` - MIXED USE PKG. RETAIL GORE CREEK FOOD /BEVERAGE SPA A SECTION THROUGH W -1 & W -3 LOOKING EAST MARKET RESIDENTIAL _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING _ HOTEL _ HOTEL MEETING ROOMS _ AMENITY SPACE IE'EST OFFICE _. CREEKSIDE PUBLIC PARKING zi;l? aS� RES SERVICE /MECHANICAL RES. MOUNTAIN OP ERATIONS RESRES. FRONTAGE ROAD RES. RET "'L FHB KEY PLAN PARK NG LEVEL 2 PARKING LEVEL 3 GORE CREEK RESIDENTIAL \ RES.AMENITV '�._ MIXED USE PKG. MIXED USE PKG. - - r e y� B SECTION THROUGH W -2 LOOKING EAST SCALE 1`=20' �� 0 R) 2U 10 AO VAIL RESOR FS Q EVER VAI L SITE SECTIONS 27 -16 MWr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 VAIL BEYONDKB & REC. W 2 E -2 E3 W BRiDCE PEDESTRIA �RE RES. �. R ES. RES. HTL. CST RMS. HTL. CST RMS.. HTL, CST RMS. r BRiDCE BEYON RES. RETAIL AMENITY I RES. CREEKS IDE�- RETAIL MOUNTAIN CPS YARD AMPHITHEATER STAGE P RESIDENTIAL PARKING RESID /MIXED USE VALET DROP -OFF AMENITY LEGEND: P2 2 MIXED USE PARKING VALET PKG. RETAIL RED SANDSTO FOOD /BEVERAGE SPA C SECTION THROUGH CREEKSIDE AMPHITHEATER MARKET RESIDENTIAL _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING _ HOTEL E-1 HOTEL MEETING ROOMS -_® W-2 RES. AMENITY SPACE W -2 RES. RES. OFFICE RES. RES. PUBLIC RES. RES. PARKING RES. RES. RETAIL RES. SERVICE /MECHANICAL RETAIL RESTAURANT I RETAIL MTN OPS YARD ._ - MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS P -1 RES PKG. RES.AMENITY RESTAURANT E -1 LOeev MTN.OPS P -2 MIXED USE PKG. P -3 MiXEO USE PKG. -- RED SANDSTONE CREEK KEY PLAN D SECTION THROUGH RED SANDSTONE CREEK ` SCALE 1 - 20 0 10 2U 20 AO VAIL Q EVER VAI L SITE SECTIONS 28 -- �• •�• 4-16 Wor Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 FRONTAGE RD. ES E -3 I! f - JJ J • Q REc. Z 'I RES. I ] T p I P'P� RES. I 7 tt u "n`'` u u i u u i OFFICE i 1 T. RMS. LEGEND: TRANSIT I y ry OR ATRM. OLTERRACE RETAIL CENTER RETAIL 14ROPL Es HOTELCONF. P -1 HOTEL & kE5 PKG FOOD /BEVERAGE P -2 MIXED USE PKG LOADING DOCK SPA P -3 MIXED USE VALET PKG. HOTEL BACKOFHOUSE MARKET RESIDENTIAL _ EMPLOYEE HOUSING _ HOTEL E SECTION THROUGH MARKET STREET PLAZA _ HOTEL MEETING ROOMS _ AMENITY SPACE _ OFFICE PUBLIC E -5 E -6 PARKING -: - SERVICE /MECHANICAL RES. MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS RES. J RES. RES. RES. RES. L, RES. ®° RES KEY PLAN FRONTAGE RD. TRANSIT CENTER RETAIL _ RETAIL EHU MARKET ST FOREST RD. P -1 HOTEL & RES. PKG P -2 MIXED USE PKG F SECTION THROUGH MARKET STREET SCALE 1`=20' �� 0 R) 1 10 AO VAILU Soh I s EVER VAI L SITE SECTIONS 29 �• ,.o. a 16 Maj6r Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 y JALb �.J J 0 23 3l, 11)1) VAILRESG A�ox , ",�k„' EVER VAIL LANDSCAPE PLAN 30 4 16 W)''6r Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 3 � ,-4 >> r j ® ° TjjJTJ 4 J VAIN. �� wo„k�g EVER VAIL WEST SIDE I ENLARGED SITE PLANS 31 - -- 4 16 MMOr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 \ y sp to J Eneuxeu n � Z1p IX � VAILRESOR, rS .�o. wo„k�g EVER VAI L HIGH STREET I ENLARGED SITE PLANS 32 4- 16 Mr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 Ism. w.w: �J 4QMm > > J smmawwr 'J rop�aw.Rw� ✓�Y�M�KC tl� � 1 ' `� E I I >> > wawa '- 1 > u 1 � _ \.� o —a ,o VAlLRESc ��4aw wo„k�g EVER VAI L RED SANDSTONE CREEK I ENLARGED SITE PLANS 33 4 16 Mr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 _______ _____ __ g yI eq .✓ I \ \ 67 -- �"� ----- 0120- ____ r - -- -- `� \` \ l�✓I / 'd_. -' - y _ I; i' ____ r : 6114 --i ♦f __- ✓ _ VAIL _ _ Q EVER VAI L INTERPOLATED TOPO PLAN I BUILDING HEIGHTS 34 4-16 M�dr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2009 E- E -5 E -6 MARKETSTREET PL A 1^" �{'/ �• ; ,~ zx:. _ I s -3 XN 1 � z RITZ f CARLTON I GI 60 1 lL E -3 N36I 3s i ' E -3 .1 W -2 1 < Gz3 ;: CREEKSIDE - ��' PLAZA &I - � WEST SIDE �- AMPHITHEATER AUTOCOURT 111 r CENTRAL T PLAZA ERWSD - ` U PLANT W -1� ��f 1 E4 ' 11 : > \ GGNDG A,z -A DI . �a ; \ 56' MAX. k -47' MAX. \ HT. 1 \ \ W -3 —1 \ HT. GORE CREEK 15 1� ' \\ r42' MAXI • 1 a ±''1,0 37'M HT 24' MA_X: -\ 'HT. - - - -- H - may' (a EVER VAIL ROOF PLAN I BUILDING HEIGHTS 35 "'�• 4- 17 M* r Exterior Alteration &Conditional Use Permit I November2,2009 WEST -49FTMAXAVG. HEIGHT WEST -6OFT MAX AVG. HEIGHT N EVER VAIL AVERAGE HEIGHT SUMMARY PER BUILDING I BUILDING HEIGHTS 36 17 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 EAST 71FT MAX AVG. HEIGHT EKERK&|L AVERAGE HEIGHT SUMMARY PER BUILDING | BUILDING HEIGHTS 37 �' Exterior Alteration x Conditiona Use Permit /wmmmbe,u.20m WEST 49FT MAX AVG. HEIGHT WEST 60FT MAX AVG. HEIGHT EAST 71 FT MAX AVG. HEIGHT CONT'D GONTD EVER VAIL OVERALL AVERAGE HEIGHT SUMMARY I BUILDING HEIGHTS 38 17 MW r Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2009 SLOP METAL ROOFS ( ) STONE j C STONE CLAD CHIMNEY COMMERCIA N / EXIT GTONECLAD WALLS EMPLOYE HOD$ NG FLATS --- COMP PANELGVGTEM rrw r IV rr�+ r rn rr r - r 1v „ -- -- — r w r IV r r r r r n r N ORTH •• ROA NE° ME PA EM STONE CLAD WALLS STONE CLAD PLANTERS DYNAMIC RIDGE LINES � RESIDENTIAL AAREXIT GL STAIRWAYS CAN OPY AT DAV GK ER E MPLOYE E FLATS PED EGTRIAN ENTRANCE ALLEY LEVEL T RELLIS g TERRAGELEVEL0E- .. \ UPPER LEVEL L OFTG - 1. rr �. \ F f • • ELEVATIO 0 10 20 20 AU V AILRESGR - IS Q EVER VAIL W1 I BUILDING ELEVATIONS 39 �•L .o. - 17 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 ST ONE GLAD AND BASE STONE GNONEYS GLASS AND PANEL CLI MBING DOOR GLASS AND PAN 2 SYSTEM STUCCO SYSTEM � STONE WALLSAT BASE A OMPOGNE STUCCO 1 META PANEL SYSTEM ROOF 4 ,z GLOP RETAIL PA L GN GABLE ROOFS E GLA u- 1 ELEVATION A -W2 NORTH ED Q ,z SLOPE BELL G @ R TER EES RED SANDSTONE GREED PASSAGE TG GREEKS GE PLAZA WALL SYSTEM STONE RETAIL BASE r f1:7: � - r t r .� ELEVATION C - W2 SOUTH 0 10 2U 20 AU VAIL ?i.;'�:r_r; �:_ Q EVER VAIL W2 I BUILDING ELEVATIONS 40 �• �• 4 17 ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2009 STONE CHIMNEYS /WALLS SLOP NO METAL ROOFS i 2 � 0 —. ELEVATI NORTH STONE CLAD IES LLS T_NHo_E RESIDEN STA R LANG N @ ONE AT STAIRWAYS ELEVATION B- W3 SOUTH VAILRESGRTS Q EVER VAI L W3 I BUILDING ELEVATIONS 41 �• •�• 4 17 W*r Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 GLASS & PANEL SYSTEM .. BE NIE GLASS BRIDGE CENTER CONNECTOR STONE BALE GABLED RIDGE LINES ` FS� A. p s �Wpp �,��u -,. r - — -- — • r 1 • SO ELEVATI • • E �l I n� RESTAURANT WALL STONE BASE STUCCO W /PUNCHED STONECM�MNEVS- GPEN NGL _. ■ nn 00 ❑o m M mm w fil �o ELEVATI • STONE CHIMNEYS STONE BALE- L C OMPOSITE PANELS LTGNEGLAGBALE B LLPANEL PE GELTRAN— T S STUCCO METAL ONIE= PASSAGE ROOF PANELS STUCC . , � om at o p r ❑ n — rr me ¢a n n q [ ❑. n ELEVATI • U 1U 2U vale -- E Q EVER VAIL E1 & E2 I BUILDING ELEVATIONS 42 �• �� -17 for Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 PRIMARILY GABLE ROOFS STUC W'OPN NGS MOTEL ENTRY W, HEAVY TIMBER PORTE CGCHERE ST ONE BABE STONE CHIMNEYS ` �� 1 "T �P TI ► _ r r �I n ELEVATI •' • ON wrGrri EX ABLEO ENDS UPPER D AINSSTUCCO STUCCO WITH PUNCHED OPENINGS SURFACES @ LOWER LEVELS STONE BASE - 11.1111_ I D ILI] ®® ❑ T m l F1 -1 _. fQl 7ODm ELEVATI mow • •� 0 10 2U 20 AU VAIL - Q EVER VAI L E3 I BUILDING ELEVATIONS 43 - 17 ftr Ext erior Alteration &Conditional Use Permit I November2,2009 TRELLB @ OFF T ACES IARIETY OF P DN BEET OPENINGS E CH CCO CONNECTOR BU AND CASE TRANSIT ENTER T � r T rrr�r Mll - r - ELEVATI •• TH (FRONTAGE ROA GLA PUNCHED OPENINGS IN STUCCO SURFACES Ds I F-1 LUMBERED E.,R"S,ON TWO STORY STONE BASE STONE INCLUDES OFFICE OVER RETAIL BASE PUNCHED STUCCO WITH CONNECTOR BRIDGE T r-71, ww - -- - I - -- n TT"T '1 ' — �r ELEVATI SO UTH 0 10 2U 20 AU VA Q EVER VAIL E5 I BUILDING ELEVATIONS 44 �..LLa. - 17 NP,'�6r Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2009 R OOF — PEDEST E m�e STU CCO RE TTAE BAS° METAL BALCONIES .. 1 � j i F r \ rr r rIII • GABLED Roo RES TERRACE FACNGSTREET RETA BASE SISTEM- STONEBASE STONE GNAD MNE B� TIOLEIELEMPLOIEE STDCCG DENTAL UN MODS NG UNITS RESI DENT I AL BRIDGEE TONE BASE A - -- - - -- f< r -- f e n r n _ Il r n _ r fI0 e n r INN ELEVATION B E6-E7 EAST (F OREST ROAD 0 10 2U 20 AU VAILRESORTS g EVER VAI L E6 -E7 I BUILDING ELEVATIONS 45 ' 1. . �•«� +�• 4 -17 WOr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 GLASS &FRAAME STONE SAGE@ ! -- SYSTEM RETAIL ENTRY STONE CLADDING 7 �ff 7 ELEVATI STONE RETAIL BASE STUCCO W/ PUNCHED CONCRETE TILE ROOES� STONE CLAD CHIMNEYS GL@GRSESIO ENTIAL STONERETAILBAGE- OPENINGS SYSTEM BRIDGE M GLASS NEL PANEL BALCON EG SYSTEM �r � —_ —, o a, o o _ • �Ir I � P-'� 0 0 00 — 0 171 - - -- t•� 1710 0 1] rim o m TrI - - A- - 9 - AAA ��3 _ -�� - -� ,� i- VAIL Q EVER VAIL E6 -E7 I BUILDING ELEVATIONS 46 o� - 17 MWr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 •1^ �� : gy p s r EQUINOX SUMMER SOLSTICE WINTER SOLSTICE MAR 20/SEPT 22 12 N OON JUN 21 12 NOON •• MAR 20/SEPT 22 3PM JUN 21 3PM DEC 21 3PM VAILRESOR rs EVER VAIL SUN /SHADE ANALYSIS 47 r� �� / i • ` � ar �:ar � j- ate. � ,, �a ©� ' , 1 F �y 1 ,�� �/ L' ' _- _ _ - -��•• �" � .. ,Liµ, + _ +�• , � .t r 2009 A Lul KEY PLAN n ion zoo aon NT �. r V - 1 H:0.8V —t 1H:1V 111:0.6V 1H:0.6V I SECTION D -D SECTION A -A SECTION B -B SECTION C -C ('j EVER VAIL WIDTH -TO- HEIGHT I VAILVILLAGE 48 —11 — - 17 IMMOr Ext erior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2009 ly I ? 1HAV - - -_— 1H:0.8V I I L SECTION A -A SECTION B -B KEY PLAN u' mn zoo ann VAILRESORTS Q EVER VAIL WIDTH -TO- HEIGHT I LIONSHEAD 49 �• •�• 17 MT6r Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 s a I 0 — 1H - - . - .0.6V I SECTION C -C KEY PLAN 11 nxr 2001 x001 EVER VAIL WIDTH -TO- HEIGHT I LIONSHEAD 50 �� 11 MWr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 I' 1 n 1H:1V 1H: VI El 0 SECTION D -D SECTION E -E KEY PLAN n ion zoo aon {� EVER VAI L WIDTH -TO- HEIGHT I LIONSHEAD 51 �� �M�dr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 1H:1. RES - E, RESDENT— E,aESOEN- l EBaESOEN,a �r� { �I cENT_L �nzneEVOHO � � f f �,. ' -- � X71 (. f 1 �A�' � s a as, EESC—ORS T. ^ R.E, STREET BEYOND SKIER ' VIEW A -COMPRESSION VIEW D - COMPRESSION iH:0.6V — E3xO,E 1H:1.7V (fl ' E-5 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL BRIDGE TO SPA E-3 �r HOTE cEN,aa P aE OHO MRKET �aKE, S,aEE, VIEW B - COMPRESSION VIEW E - RELEASE E-1 RESIDENTIAL V r 1h "eE. EzaESOE�,a� 1H:1.4 E3HO,E n KEY PLAN D VIEW C - RELEASE {� EVER VAI L WIDTH -TO- HEIGHT I EVER VAIL 52 OH 4- 17 MA'd r Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2,2009 / AM � (� EVER VAI L OVERALL SITE AERIAL 13D MASSING VIEWS 53 °� 4 17 MWr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November2, 2009 L ' �'_I' ,.. a -., � �` • r t" T.� Wi P AERIAL OF WEST SIDE ALONG GORE CREEK AERIAL LOOKING SOUTHWEST i L - r AERIAL LOOKING NORTH FROM MOUNTAIN AERIAL LOOKING SOUTHEAST VAILRESc =Rrs Q EVER VAI L 3D MASSING VIEWS 54 �• •�• 4 - 17NWr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2009 y i =l i fT Ilk ���� `� 1 � � // � "dH � =-ivy _ , � ' �'W a e. ms's-, .�3 .�I/ �{���� � �+•- I - �� ' ` � CREEKSIDE PLAZA & AMPHITHEATER RED SANDSTONE CREEK LOOKING NORTH �7. / . F r /' , MARKET STREET PLAZA CENTRAL PLAZA VAIL i -! - SOR i S Q EVER VAI L 3D MASSING VIEWS 55 �• •�• 4 17 MRgor Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2009 yj E -7 E -5 7 E G TRANSIT CENTER /J ..ro.✓ S FR y t / o'. , 6 RK i �+ o IIkKETSTREET '! E - 2 i �l RITZ CARLTON r9 J ✓. � l o � , A / E3 v A HOTEL f b � E -2 ERWSD WE DE _ ( PLANT VENTRAL f o RT PLAZA I •6 E. ARE CREEK ,n 0 20 ao ao iso (a EVER VAIL KEY PLAN RENDERING VIEWS 56 • �� B ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2009 b s:� OL 7 lie r EVER VAIL WEST SIDE VIEW A ftr Exterior Alteration & Conditional Use Permit I November 2, 2 009 c ^... N ,� '�_ � �; 'r �t� x'444 6 • y, AR RIVAL EVER VAIL CREEKS IDE ftr Exterior Alteration Conditional Use Permit I 00• ..i ir�l ' i • X � � I � { �! - _ �I�. �� � � •,� �� •�� : � � _ _ � ; i� Vii ��•�- � _� - _ I All �, 4 a.� ..- ►Drll1 �� �� , �:�9 r I �. dil �r '�D � � � l � , :'. wi' /,,gym? r,l .. e� _ ra r - , , �r . t v r.,, 46':aii d 4 _ 3. -♦ - s a s t ice. Ql ♦ / � .,,�' `� ,`r / YY ?? JF ow �( ,e 1; � /}� RJ �\���'�° .t'i, i i.� L i' {}� ��1�/�� ..'S -. � • S4Ir F'i'1 11� UN ._IIt l 1 i Is l i lt .. _ 110 1 ` lit a ro Of old lir A ll AMP L 4 —�► r, y A� A SSM Ab WAS 11• ark _ '1�; � •� ' � ,.Y ` � 1. y� ��, � - r t I( AL _, —` � �� � ` ice ► �� ,,� ., JEW EVER VAIL MARKET STREET PLAZA VIEW E 61 W '. "a! «� `� its ' � . �� •. � • ' ��_ ' ,� � �i�� Fir V HIM Nq a� �}�. �,_ `�'� •` RP �!+, �� -• � •tie "� ": �, � �,! �r j� i lk � m PW nu lip s • r �, A, 01 i, Ow o i l .-- � II� � � � '�I y! A! , s'' ■.�[r ■ it t ?� .a . ` y� �.$ 11� � � � P � � I � I �� �_ . jOp1���111����� �. � • .:,,., , ��"a;= "1�t;G•w �.' t, t � � iE 4ira �" _ , -� `\ Icy .�• pp ,J w- III I- I , Af ; 3 ► `- W l .` "- ..� N Y di�: '� �A��I • �i�l�'s" , +'4 � � T�,L` � -t1 V��l�, i _ - If��, '�' t_ _ i� �. k �' u �' ' '•�- ;'I� X'' , .:� ?Y .c � • � Aw;.,�y„ s ,_t- .�y�%.i Ysi (N� LNG 'i�._. My .Ir" 4 ICS - .r a l�►W. . 11 _ �� + " + °.a1�. 9 �- ._. '•. .rte_. {.r � � _ 1 , .! i� w � i � • �a tip ,.f` � �.�� • :7 .+f .Y �� yi{. 1*" .• _ *, t. -4A - s �, a M-11 r mod► '44 J ` I 1 - •• _.f •* , All . . __..7 -� �` � 11 a• a y :'�. J ' � a.�a � �_ - � _ A • �� a te — r�• ovia" or VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: PEC /DRB Update a. Timber Ridge Update. PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell ATTACHMENTS: DRB Meeting Results January 6, 2010 PEC Meeting Results January 11, 2010 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING January 6, 2010 OY f�1+PCouncil Chambers f�r1+P 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 PROJECT ORIENTATION 2:OOpm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Mike Dantas Pete Dunning Tom DuBois Brian Gillette Libby Plante PUBLIC HEARING — TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:OOpm 1. Shirt Off My Back DRB090609 / 5 minutes Rachel Final review of a sign 288 Bridge Street, Unit C -2 /Lot D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Shirt Off My Back, represented by Pat Somers ACTION: Approved MOTION: Plante SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 4 -0 -0 2. Joe's Deli DRB090617 / 10 minutes Rachel Final review of changes to approved plans (sign lighting) 288 Bridge Street/Lot D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Joseph Joyce ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Plante VOTE: 4 -0 -0 CONDITION: 1. The applicant shall place the light fixture on a flat stone directly above the business identification sign, not in the sandstone band. 3. Kirwood Residence DRB090616 / 10 minutes Bill Final review of an addition (connect garage to house) 1464 Aspen Grove Lane /Lot 10, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing 1 Applicant: Jeff and Brenda Kirwood, represented by Berglund Architects ACTION: Approved MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 4 -0 -0 4. Ritz - Carlton Residence DRB090611 / 10 Minutes Warren Final review of changes to approved plans (Frontage Road design) 728 West Lionshead Circle /Lot 2, West Day Subdivision Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Corp., represented by Mauriello Planning Group ACTION: Approved with condition MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 4 -0 -0 CONDITION: 1. The applicant shall provide a construction Letter of Credit or Cash Deposit in the form of a Developer Improvement Agreement (DIA) with the Town of Vail in the amount of 125% of construction costs, for those portions of work not to be initially completed but are a part of the approved plan. The DIA shall be executed prior to June 30, 2010. The DIA shall be executed for a period of time not to exceed two (2) years from the date of the filing. At the completion of the two (2) years, the final improvements will either need to have been constructed by the applicant or the Town will utilize either the Letter of Credit or Cash Deposit to complete the Page 1 5 -1 -1 \n work. The necessary permits to construct the remaining improvements shall be submitted a minimum of four (4) months prior to the expiration of the DIA for review by Town Staff. STAFF APPROVALS Payne Residence DRB090509 Warren Final review of a minor exterior alteration (deck) 1620 Buffehr Creek Road, Unit C -12 /Valley Condos Applicant: Linda Payne, represented by Wayne Ward Peters Residence DRB090603 Warren Final review of changes to approved plans (siding, entry railings) 2955 Bellflower /Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Jack Snow Kestenbaum Residence DRB090607 Rachel Final review of a minor exterior alteration (lighting) 675 Lionshead Place /Lot 1, Lionshead Filing 6 Applicant: Joseph Kestenbaum, represented by John Froberg Bridge Street Apparel DRB090610 Rachel Final review of a sign 288 Bridge Street, Unit C -4 /1-ot D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Bridge Street Apparel, represented by Pat Somers Winters Residence DRB090613 Bill Final review of a minor exterior alteration (sunroom) 4094 Lupine Drive, Unit A /Lot 5, Bighorn Subdivision Applicant: Tom Winters, represented by Rick Craven Espejo Residence DRB090614 Rachel Final review of an addition (living room) 600 Vail Valley Drive, Unit A9 /Unplatted Applicant: Melita Espeio, represented by Beth Levine Jeannie Thoren's Women's Ski Center DRB090621 Rachel Final review of a sign 520 East Lionshead Circle, C8 /1-ot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Applicant: Rob Dale Teneblatt Residence DRB090622 Bill Final review of a minor exterior alteration (window) 767 Potato Patch Drive /Lot 34, Vail Potato Patch Applicant: William & Anna Teneblatt, represented by Beth Levine Zug Residence DRB090623 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (roof) 1548 Spring Hill Lane /Lots 1 & 2, Vail Valley Filing 2 Applicant: D. Brooks Zug, represented by Jay Nobrega The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Page 2 5 -1 -2 \n PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 11, 2010 1:OOpm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Luke Cartin Sarah Paladino Rollie Kjesbo Michael Kurz Bill Pierce Tyler Scheidman David Viele Swearing in of new members by the Town Clerk, Lorelei Donaldson 5 minutes Site Visits: Timber Ridge — 1280 North Frontage Road 40 minutes 10 minutes 1. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12 -13 -4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit Type, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for increased Gross Residential Floor Area for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 1550 Matterhorn Circle /Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090039) Applicant: Wolfgang Mueller Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. Approval of this variance request is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review application. Bill Gibson gave a presentation of the staff memorandum. The applicant had nothing to add to the presentation. There was no public comment. The Commissioners expressed their support for the application as an improvement to the proposal. 80 minutes 2. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12- 10-19, Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, to amend the core area parking maps to include "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead) within the "Commercial Core" designation, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080065) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Recommendation of approval with condition(s) MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 4 -0 -2 (Carlin and Viele recused) CONDITION(S): Page 1 5 -2 -1 \n 1. That this recommendation for the inclusion of Ever Vail within the commercial core area parking map is contingent upon the approval of the remaining applications which will cause the project to receive its full entitlements. Commissioners Cartin and Viele recused themselves due to conflicts of interest. Warren Campbell gave a presentation of the staff memorandum. Tom Miller, Vail Resorts Development Company, gave a presentation summarizing the current application and the status of the Ever Vail project as a whole. Curtis Rowe, Kimley -Horn Associates consulting traffic engineer, presented an overview of the traffic impact report. Rob McConnell, Carl Walker Associates parking consultant, presented an overview of the proposed public and private parking plans. Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group representing the applicant summarized the proposal for a new skier parking facility and discussed the request for a core area parking designation. Commissioner Kjesbo asked if there was any discussion about a round -a -bout on the west end of Ever Vail. Dominic Mauriello discussed the ability to construct a round -about in the proposed Frontage Road design submitted to CDOT with the future Simba Run underpass. Commissioner Kjesbo asked if a round -a -bout will be needed if the underpass was not constructed. Greg Hall, Public Works Director, did not have the traffic data with him, but will bring back additional information to the Commission at a later hearing. Commissioner Pierce asked how the applicant will facilitate future changes in land use that may require greater parking than the uses currently proposed. Dominic Mauriello described how the parking could be managed to always insure adequate parking for all the obligations on the site. He continued by described their initial proposed ticket or pass system for the parking use, rather designating a specific parking space to a specific commercial or residential unit. Commissioner Pierce asked about the pedestrian connections between Ever Vail and Lionshead. Dominic Mauriello indicated that more detail will be provided when the proposed architectural plans are discussed at a future hearing. He noted how they are contemplating how to not just design the pedestrian connections, but to create a reason, or draw, for pedestrians to walk to Ever Vail. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, outlined the next Staff level meetings scheduled with the applicant with regard to the function of the transit facility. Page 2 5 -2 -2 \n Greg Hall made the distinction between a core area development, like Ever Vail, and other non - core area mixed use developments such as West Vail. Commissioner Kjesbo asked about Simba Run cost estimates. Greg Hall gave the current estimate, approximately $20 million, and outlined the unknown elements of financing opportunities. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Home Owner's Association, asked for clarification about what items are scheduled for discussion at future public hearings. He noted a Town Council member's opinion that the need for another village core has not been established. He noted also that an economic impact analysis should be completed. Commissioner Kurz agreed with need for an economic analysis and believes that Staff is working on such a report. He believes that Ever Vail is physically designed as a new core area and supports the proposed core area parking designation. Commissioner Schneidman believes Ever Vail is a logical extension of Lionshead. Commissioner Kjesbo believes Ever Vail is a commercial core area and he hopes it will bring future sales tax and economic growth to the community. Commissioner Pierce believes Ever Vail is a commercial core area and the core area parking designation is appropriate. 60 minutes 3. A request for a work session on a proposed Development Plan, pursuant to section 12- 61 -11, Development Plan Required, Housing Zone District, to allow for the redevelopment of a five (5) acre portion of the Timber Ridge Village Apartments, with up to 352 new deed - restricted employee housing units, located at 1280 North Frontage Road/ Lots C1 -05, Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090038) Applicant: Timber Ridge Affordable Housing Committee Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to January 25, 2010 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6 -0 -0 George Ruther gave a presentation of the staff memorandum. The presentation highlighted the adopted agreement between the Vail Town Council and Timber Ridge LLC, the developer. Commissioner Pierce summarized by stating that the agreement suggests that the Vail Town Council was aware and accepting of the density being proposed on the eastern 5.2 acre portion of the site. Rick Pylman and Mark Donaldson gave a presentation on the changes made to the architectural and site plans since the last Commission hearing and the open house held on December 30, 2009. There were changes to the road along the length of the front of the project. Private vehicular traffic was eliminated and the fire land, bike path, and pedestrian circulation will all occur on the same paved surface. The retaining walls on the north side have been modified to reduce the steepness on the site on the rear of the structure. There were some height changes made to the wings of the structure which extend out towards the Frontage Road to shift height from the east end next to Savoy Villas to the west end of the site. The result was a better relationship between the proposed project and Savoy Villas. Attention was directed to a board showing the sketch up models of the proposal. A comment from the open house was addressed with regard to the provision of the 5,000 s.f. health facility on the site. It was clarified that the Page 3 5 -2 -3 \n developer felt that in project of the proposed density and occupancy that the facility was necessary and warranted. On the site plan changes to the transit were highlighted. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowners Association, expressed a two part concern. The first was that this project would take a financial burden off the Town with regard to the debt on the project. He further highlighted a concern that the Town has yet to hear if the mortgage holder would sign off on the redevelopment on a portion of the site. He stated that the viability of the proposal has not been determined prior to the submittal of an application. Concern over the statements made regarding keeping costs low because it is an affordable project, but also saying that the size and scale of the project needs to be as proposed. He asked where else in Vail would we allow a project of this scale and bulk in Vail. He stated concerns over the amount of landscaped open area to provide any softening to the size of the proposed structure. He does not believe this is the bulk and mass of a project we should be proposing. Another concern was the timing of the application. He is hearing that other affordable projects are struggling to maintain higher occupancies. He is disturbed by the number of footprints in the snow heading south across the interstate and the continued ignoring of the issue. Asked if the Housing District allowed for the mitigation of off -site impacts with the proposed project, specifically with regard to the movement of people across the interstate. George Ruther stated that the Code did permit for the mitigation of the off -site impacts. Jim Lamont, requested that the official review process include an analysis of the flow of pedestrians to the south and potential ways to mitigate and /or create safer methods for crossing the interstate. He further inquired as to why a Tax Increment Financing district was not being applied to the property and project as the occupants will be working in the villages and the mountain. The finances generated from a TIF district should be used to fund the Simba Run underpass. There needs to be a physical improvement to get people to the south side of the interstate and that burden should be on the project. The project should be held to the same standard that is being applied to the Ever Vail project. The populous to be housed in this project is an extension of the base villages. Steve Lindstrom, representing the Housing Authority, stated that the Board was not party to the application, but does have some opinions. The Board is in support of the well thought out review and implementation of an affordable project. A connection across the interstate is vital. He agreed with the Chair that the presentation needs to be improved to sell the project and tell the story. Kaye Ferry, citizen, stated that George Ruther's presentation highlighted that the Vail Town Council has accepted the density of the project when they issued the RFP and RFQ. She is in support of the project. The economy will return and the need will return. We can not plan on the current situation continuing indefinitely. Commissioner Pierce asked Tom Kassmel and Greg Hall, from the engineering department, what opportunities existed for landscaping islands in the Frontage Road. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, stated that it could be possible, however, it will shift the road to the north into the site to accommodate and will cause increased costs to the Town with regard to maintenance and snow plowing. Commissioner Pierce asked how the parking garage operated within the project. Mark Donaldson provided an explanation. Page 4 5 -2 -4 \n Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the ability to provide a curve to the fire lane across the front of the project to achieve a greater ability to provide larger pockets of landscaping verse a row. He also had a suggestion to shift some of the mass on the west end of the project as there is still some symmetry in that area. It appears there are many small offsets (two feet) in the facade, he suggest that maybe fewer offsets of a greater amount would have a greater positive impact on the facade. Robin Bellerby, of Humphreys and Partners Architects, described that the thought behind the proposal was to create four different "fingers" coming out to the south. Commissioner Schneidman inquired as to the durability of the project with all the intricate detail depicted in the elevations. Mark Donaldson explained that the materials being selected were those which have a long life and are durable. Commissioner Cartin inquired into the provision of the dumpsters on site. He further inquired as to the snow loading on the north side of the structure as it will not receive much sun light. He also pointed out that the 20 feet of open space between the Frontage Road and the fire lane will be used quite extensively for snow storage. Mark Donaldson responded. Commissioner Kurz stated that the project was indeed a tough nut to crack. He believes the pedestrian connection to the south side of the interstate is important and the question should be asked even though he does not know the answer. He encourages the applicant to continue working on aspects to mitigate and mask the size and bulk of the structure. Commissioner Viele stated that he is comfortable with making a recommendation, but is uncomfortable with the provisions of the Housing District allowing for the Commission to determine the large majority of the zoning parameters. He would ask that Council reaffirm that they desire the Commission to determine all these parameters. He is concerned with the fact that a project of this scale, bulk, and mass of the structure is not found in Vail. Commissioner Kjesbo agreed with the comments of Commissioner Viele. He does not believe this project would be approved elsewhere in Vail. Commissioner Viele added that he feels the design team has done a good job with the program being provided to them. He cannot offer any better way to complete the program provided. The building as proposed is efficient. George Ruther took a step back and reminded the Commission that the Town adopted a policy of providing 30% of the work force housing within the Town of Vail. He highlighted the current deficiency and how the regulations and zone districts were established to try and address the policy and goal. He concluded that with the project as proposed the number of units address the bed deficiency in Vail is still 450 beds. This is the perspective of the Vail Town Council in addressing the current deficiency of 749 beds to make up the 30% goal. Page 5 5 -2 -5 \n 5 minutes 4. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to January 25, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of a new special development district, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Units 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 (Vail Rowhouses) /Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090037) Applicant: Christopher Galvin, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes 6. A request for a work session on a major exterior alterations, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known as "Ever Vail' (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed -use structures including but not limited to, multiple - family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial /retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht-of-way/U n platted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to January 25, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes 7. A request for final review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -5, Conditional Uses: Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building), Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a public or private parking lot (parking structure); a vehicle maintenance, service, repair, storage, and fueling facility; a ski lift and tow (gondola), within "Ever Vail' (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht-of-way/U nplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080063) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to January 25, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes 8. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to 12 -3 -7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of properties from Arterial Business District and unzoned South Frontage Road West right -of -way which is not zoned to Lionshead Mixed Use -2, properties known as "Ever Vail' (West Page 6 5 -2 -6 \n Lionshead), located at 953 and 1031 South Frontage Road West and South Frontage Road West right -of -way, (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080061) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to January 25, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes 9. A request for a final review of a variance from 12- 71 -14, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, to allow for additional site coverage below grade, within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 934 (BP Site), 953 (Vail Professional Building), 1031 (Cascade Crossing) S. Frontage Road / Unplatted; 862 (VR Maintenance Shop) and 923 (Holy Cross Lot) S. Frontage Road / Tracts A and B, S. Frontage Road Subdivision; 1000 (Glen Lyon Office Building) S. Frontage Road / Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090035) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to January 25, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes 10. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of the Glen Lyon Commercial Site, Development Area D, (Glen Lyon Office Building) from the District for incorporation into the properties known as "Ever Vail' (West Lionshead), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54 Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090036) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to January 25, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes 11. A request for a work session to discuss a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of public buildings and grounds (West Vail fire station), located at 2399 North Frontage Road /Parcel A, Resub of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090019) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to January 25, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes 12. A request for a final recommendation for the adoption of the Frontage Road Lighting Master Plan, an element of the Vail Transportation Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090014) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to February 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 Page 7 5 -2 -Tn 5 minutes 13. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will implement sustainable building and planning standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to January 25, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 14. Approval of December 13, 2009 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6 -0 -0 15. Information Update • Joint Work Session —Town Council Meeting, January 19, 2010 —Ever Vail Development Application Process • Required Training —Town Council Meeting February 2, 2010 16. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6 -0 -0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published January 8, 2010, in the Vail Daily. Page 8 5 -2 -8 \n Ova" 7M VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Lionshead Transit Center Recommendation. PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the Lionshead Transit Center memo and report, listen to staffs presentation and provide discussion and direction. BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail and the Vail Reinvestment Authority (VRA) are in the process of studying the feasibility of constructing a Lionshead Transit Center in response to past planning efforts including the Lionshead Master Plan (1998), A Report on the Recommendation of a Preferred Site for the Town of Vail Transit Center (2005), Vail 20/20 (2007), the Lionshead Transit Center White Paper (2008), and the Vail Transportation Master Plan (2009). The VRA has contracted with the 4240 Architecture Team to complete this design study. The purpose of the evening session is to present the recommended revised components of the 113/213 Modified scenario based on the previous input and discussions; further investigation of skier drop -off; scaling down and refining impact of Frontage Rd bus area; and softening the entrance to Lionshead Mall. Staff is requesting that Council provide staff and the design team with direction to bring the recommended components through the Design Development (DD) and entitlement process. Progress of the project since the project kick -off in May has been tracked on the Town of Vail website at http : / /www.vailgov.com /subpage.asp ?pagee id =916 . All formal documentation, memos and presentations are available here for your review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff and the design team with direction to bring the recommended components, as defined above, forward through Design Development and the Town's entitlement process with a maximum total project budget of $15 million; authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations with the Design Team for the completion of Phase III - Design Development and Entitlements; and direct staff to update the Lionshead Master Plan to reflect the recommended components and ultimate long term solution. ATTACHMENTS: Traffic Counts LHTC Report Memo ar 912 (111) ` _ Ap `, jift r r t Y 7 , (SEE N 11,45 ,1673) () # (SEE.NO 122 (22 . o 1 << XX (XX) = AM (PM) PEAK HOUR MOVEMENTS (ALL VEHICLES) YY (YY) = AM (PM) PEAK HOUR MOVEMENTS (HEAVY BUSES ONLY) ZZ (ZZj = AM (PM) PEAK HOUR MOVEMENTS (LIGHT BUSES ONLY) XX (XX) = AM (PM) PEAK HOUR MOVEMENTS (PEDESTRIANS) STUDY WAS CONDUCTED ON DECEMBER 30, 2009 FROM 8:00 TO 11:00 AND 2:30 TO 5 :30 AM PEAK HOUR FOR VEHICLE MOVEMENTS BEGINS AT 9 :00 PM PEAK HOUR FOR VEHICLE MOVEMENTS BEGINS AT 2 :30 AM PEAK HOUR FOR PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BEGINS AT 8 :30 PM PEAK HOUR FOR PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BEGINS AT 3 :15 PEDESTRIAN DISTRIBUTION NOTES: (AM BASEL ON MANUAL BOARD COUNT, PM BASED ON MANUAL BOARD COUNT AND VIDEO ANALYSIS) 1. AM PM GARAGE 781 515 r "SUBWAY" AREA 214 } ti 5� 121 N one trC�m AV BUS DROP OFF AREA 140 37 2. AM PM GARAGE 64 } N � 1335 "SUBWAY" AREA 11 468 BUS DROP OFF AREA 47 423 EAST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE RIDIC AM / PM PEAK HOUR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS` -1 -1 \n R idgeview Data Collection (33) {VV Nc IF } 39 (277) X 227 (94) , y , 06 _ is fy g XX (XX = AM (PM) PEAK HOUR MOVEMENTS (ALL VEHICLES) YY (YY) = AM (PM) PEAK HOUR MOVEMENTS (BUSES ONLY) XX XX = AM (PM) PEAK HOUR MOVEMENTS (PEDESTRIANS) IBC.. yo -So /. STUDY WAS CONDUCTED ON DECEMBER 30, 2009 FROM 8:00 TO 11:00 AND 2 :30 TO 5:30 AM PEAK HOUR FOR VEHICLE MOVEMENTS BEGINS AT 8:30 PM PEAK HOUR FOR VEHICLE MOVEMENTS BEGINS AT 3:30 AM PEAK HOUR FOR PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BEGINS AT 8:00 PM PEAK HOUR FOR PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BEGINS A T 3 :30 WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE RIDIC AM l PM PEAK HOUR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIAN 1 - 2\n R idgeview Data Collection . FELSBURG rOHOLT & ` ULLEVIG lstgns e Gate & Gondola Attendant O Coo 7s W. Meadow Drive 647(93) Medical 6 1 3 7) 67 {509) Mtt Center O 114(13 6) 46(87) t11Try` Main Mall 54(64) Entrance 0 196(2145).: 1899(814)s 148(67) Ds?bs E. Lionshead Circle 40(571) D v rO 55(172) 7c 95(1119) Hail Plaza Q 600(150) a 1100(633) NQ s s1 n ;, � 51TRCt,' ._iv ; ";;.`... ,�_ 7(94) . :. 175(25) 19(8) ( ) . ,._ S. Frontage Road 1 47 1 -70 — LEGEND XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Pedestrian Movements Figure 9 Peak Hour Pedestrian Movements NOT TO SCALE (Sunday, February 16, 1997) North Lionshead Transppr[alinn Maiysis 97 -015 4728/97 6 -1 -3 \n r r+ r +��� 'y i� e i' ✓� �''tl�i ry.' Ar y Y j � �"• �µ •"`.: . r :f �1JUA� to I ,, , �, 1��,:ir. � r 1 f f � '� �/ . di � r>% .., • <.� ^ @ f .�i� January 19, 2010 Vail Town Council Evening Session Refinements to (Scenario 1 B + 2B Transit Only) Presentation 6-2- 1\n AIWPIINI� 4 2 4 0 Co Why Are We Here Today? Part 01: Review What We Heard from Town Council on 11/17/09 & 12/01/09 Part 02: Recent Progress - Additional Studies Undertaken (Scenarios 1 B / 213) Part 03: Relative Cost Summary / Selection Criteria / Recommendations Part 04: Next Steps / Town Council Direction 6 -2 -2 \n 2 Part 01 Recap of What We Heard on 11/17 & 12/01 Town Council Work Sessions Town Council Comments (Additional Studies Undertaken for the Following Areas:) • Frontage Road/ ECO Transit Modifications: • Skier Drop -off Modifications: • East Mall Plaza Modifications: • Concert Hall Plaza Modifications: • Auxiliary Building Modifications /Elevators & Public Restrooms 6 -2 -3 \n 3 Previous Scenario Recommendations for Advancement Scenario 1 B + Scenario 2B (revised) �4 I � r Concert Hall Plaza Improvements Lek Turn @ ELCfSFR Add ECO to North Side of LHPG t t .. a R f F - _ -- - - OM Skier drop -off in LHPG East Mall improvements Southwest Portal Building 6 -2 -4 \n 4 Part 02- Additional Studies Frontage Road / ECO Transit Modifications Frontage Road / ECO Transit Modifications Town Council Comments: • Minimize Impact to Existing Vegetation Along SFR • Investigate Bus Pull -outs Along SFR • Investigate Bus Pull -off Lanes Like at CHP • Minimize Pedestrian Conflicts with LHPG 1 _ • Investigate Walk at West End of structure • Initial Improvements Could Be Expandable _ 5 6 -2 -5 \n 5 (Previously Submitted) Frontage Road / ECO Transit Modifications ECO bus bays Elevator 16 stops] for (4 -6) + ADA access+ Restroorns + existing Bypass lane - L a � `` 9 stair tower 4 Bus shelters + \ `- intermediate landscaping/ benches 8179' Maintain minimum slope from east to ti s west along bus pullout lane �\ Stone retaining wall & sidewalk Future South • Frontage Road expansion Surface level Top deck view from the west i I pedestrian 6 6 -2 -6 \n crosswalk (Option O I : Single Lane - 4 Bus Bays) Frontage Road / ECO Transit Modifications 20+/- Lost Trees ji �7- possible restroorns waiting area 717 6 - 2 - 7 \n A (Option 02: Dual Lane - 4 Bus Bays) Frontage Road ECO Transit Modifications ................. 34+/- Lost Trees ................................................................................................................... ----------- - ------- . . . . . . . ...... possible restrooms F 60' / waiting area lu.��,iil�l � �ill�,.i, � f t. Extent of i. ct Per Optio Fr ontage Rf•• ECO Transit •• • f J R Option 01 Option 1 ■ rr, �, • ■ W ■ ■ Approx. extent of Option 01 i ■ ■ ■ Option 02 requires infill to s' bus i a' allow for buses along north Perspective Section pullout lane sidewalk side of LMPG view from the northwest Pedestrian Circulation Comparison Frontage Road ECO Transit Modifications • '• GE 'O D i ■ ■114�R■IAAI! ■�I�•!4!9!! ■i[7A ■■ ®may_ . — Around the Perimeter _, ■ � ii y :I� ������ ■ ,r1ry 'tom °.'41,# � '' ■ NI RO a+:iL� ■CQC��. +rJJ'� d'l[o1 zai -- waiting 7��. 11■■■ ■MiiiiYiiYYiiYi�Yiiil�lr}i1�Yii . �a rir ■rte ■J■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■i■ -ti � ramp onto t op de o r On •• of ` Eliminate 3 pub lic parking space Pr t NW Corner of LHPG Fr ontage Ri.• ECO Transit Modificatio r e I WIN mzmmllk Ell _iq�L- 3 parking spaces t M - k� 1 6.,.x' i ■ ■�.`;. _ alb■■ Relative Costs by Option Frontage Road / ECO Transit Modifications Previous ECO /SFR Design Option 01: Option 02: Single Lane Dual Lane ELC /SFR Intersection ELC /SFR Intersection ELC /SFR Intersection $0.5 -0.6m $0.5 -0.6m $0.5 -0.6m LHPG Code Upgrades LHPG Code Upgrades LHPG Code Upgrades $2.5 - 2.9m $0.28 - 0.3m $0.65 - 0.77m ECO Improvements ECO Improvements ECO Improvements $4.6 - 5.4m $2.3 - 2.6m $2.72 - 3.Om Atrium Building Type 1 Transit Structure Transit Structure $2.0 - 2.3m $0.8 -1.0 m $0.8 - 1.0m SFR Improvements @LHPG Entry SFR Improvements @ LHPG Entry SFR Improvements @ LHPG Entry $0.75 - 0.85m $0.75 - 0.85m $0.75 - 0.85m ECO /SFR (Original) ECO /SFR (Option 01) ECO /SFR (Option 02) Total Costs Total Costs Total Costs $10.35 - 12.05m $4.63 -5.35m $5.42 - 6.22m * *includes elevators in * *does not include * *does not include �z Atrium Building ** etts ** elevators ** Pros & Cons - Option 01 Frontage Road / ECa Transit Modifications r - 5t3C1T{� FRONTAGE ROAD waiting XTT - r, w Single Lane PROS CONS • Minimizes loss of trees as compared to Option 2 and • Longer walk to Lionshead from easternmost bus original concept Less Independent Bus Operations / Movements • Subject to final design potentially maintains near - continuous buffer of trees between Frontage Road and • Increased potential for vehicular conflicts structure. • does not allow for dedicated service route lanes. • Allows for future expansion to the south and east at additional cost. • Provides shared restrooms for transit / info building / skate park / day skiers. • Does not trigger code upgrades to parking structure • Lowest cost option 6 - 2 -13\n 13 Pros & Cons - Option 02 Frontage Road / ECa Transit Modifications I L walking ry \ I V i I 1I I� I II �I 1 I Dual Larne PROS CONS • Minimizes loss of trees as compared to original • More tree loss than Option 1. concept. • Option does not preserve continuous buffer of trees • Allows for future expansion by extending transit between Frontage Road and structure. facility to the east at additional cost. • Triggers mechanical ventilation code upgrades to • Provides shared restrooms & direct connections for parking structure. transit / info building / skate park / day skiers. • Costs more than Option 1. • Slightly shorter (55') walk to Lionshead. • More Independent & Flexible ECO Operations • Potential for 5th Bus to Reside • Buffers Passengers from Frontage Road / provides 6 - 2 -14 \n 14 solar gain benefits Transit Operations Comparison Frontage Road / ECO Transit Modifications LSC Transportation Consultants Comments: Pros / Cons for 2 proposed ECO options from a transit operator / passenger perspective: Option 01 - Single Lane Option 02 - Dual Lane • This is long enough to accommodate 2 buses • If the landscape island is eliminated, buses on at one time that can be completely independent the inside lane can be positioned so that both of each other, and drivers can snug up in busy buses can enter and exit independently from times to accommodate 4. each other, thereby improving the flexibility and efficiency of the transit system. • At 4 buses, driver will need to pull forward as far as possible regardless of who arrives first, and • Buses on the outside lane can be positioned so will sometimes be blocked from departing until that the western bus can depart when a bus is in the bus in front departs. the eastern position, but the eastern bus cannot enter when a bus is in the western position. • It will not be possible to sign specific stop locations for specific routes. • This layout would allow signage for some ECO routes to always use the outside lane, and others • A con of this is the longer walk distance. to always use the inside lane, which helps the passenger to find the bus. • As drivers will need to pull as far east as possible and then wait for passenger that may • Walk distance (and thus overall loading time) be waiting in the building to walk that long would be better under this option. distance to the bus, this could delay ECO routes unduly. Overall, the Dual Lane option is the preferred one from the perspective of a 6 2 15\n transit passenger and the operator. Part 02 - Additional Studies Skier Drop -off Modifications Skier Drop -off Modifications: - -- -� Town Council Comments: y • Investigate the Use of Existing Access _ from East Side to Middle Deck of LHPG V 1 .w L • Provide Skier Drop -off in East Mall Area Utilizing Entire Plaza x � r 6- 2 -16 \n 16 Existing Conditions / Conflicts - 12/30/2009 Skier D •• • AIV 12t30f2DQ9 14:42:25 12t3DlZOD9 15' 3S' 39 i 1 r� { _ A ., _ - 4-`G;:" 12f31fZQQ9 16:Q533�'4 12f3Q12D09 16:D9:S3 fir' �- .�-, `�R�.� :� � - • -�- � �� 4 ,,.. e � (Previously Submitted -west in / West out) Skier Drop -off Modifications -- _ - - SOUTH FRC VAGE FOAD enter /exit from west chute r - -� .._ _ LIONSkEAD PARKING GARAGE V]( � VAIL I TF.RNATi0N CONfDO% .22 sl. new driveways 1 retaining wall - T 5 r r E CASTli4J � 5 HFAL 7 CrRr�L LIMON 21 ICEAREN.A - CCN UN, i`. Lf L1NSHEAI7 LO DUE.' P j CnNlx)5 LIDNSHEAD LIONSHEAD f �� 1 ARIA V K — 1 LIP,f:Af + + "r' i ! -" pedestrians convert e) short term stalls �� vehicles t06skier8a1rop off (Pre Submitted - West In / West Out) Skier Drop -off Modifications .r, at grade exit r HC HC HE E} Pedestrian Movement • � eonerete Q y barriers °� I I _ I _ I I _ I_ • — l —� I Vehicular Movements — Teo.w hlculuj In/Out From West we HC we I I I I / • passage ■ J� ■ ■ ■ � s • ■ 44 SKIER Ago OFFJSHORT �•• • • • • • •> ■ ■ ■ ■ TERM PARKING concrete barriers Fa-- �• -s -l. (e� enclosed �immc SpaOP �rnr I I I I I I I I i r EXISTiNC AUX LIARY BUILDING ��~ I LL. FIN. FtfOR =Rr47A I I I I I aaa I i .\ — —_ -- - --- � Lionshead Parking Garage E} Stairs to Middle & Upper Levels z - ifi , ^tti Lowest Level (Option 01- East In/ East Out) Skier drop -off Modifications 506TH f ROMME ROAD - r�~ s l6 tKX4SHMDPAl VK.GARAGIF - existing L; patterns remain VANTAW _ POINT �..,;, adjacent to Charter f _ .Bus Lot exlsting —��- �— ►�- .�. —►�� grades untouched, l9UiWSt9f /.t7 C . LE 5 , DORSON ti TIRSON r ICE ARENA - zr' t,�,R�Crrc EJ _IC,N511EA13 lt1RGt r,l � � rCli�'S IJC]P -0�t',FAEi 0ONSHEAD ARC A E _ m w on on pedestrians convert e) short term stalls —, vehicles to off (Option 01- East In / East Out) Skier Drop -off Modifications 7. I grade change I � 1 I I I 7_ 1 E) Pedestrian Movement ■ Vehicular Movements — '3 In /Out From East a I I SkierDfop l 2 ■■■i■■ ■ ■ ■■E.J soon � 4 Moveable Boundaries Based on Drop -off Needs I I I Lionshead Parking Garage Middle Level 6- 2 -21 \n 21 j E) Stairs to Middle & Upper Levels (Option 02- Short Term Parking 1 Skier Drop -off at East Mall) I' l l f -- Skier Drop -off Modifications a � r � r C I � - PARKING . ' AUXILIARY BUILDING 2 ups t� 4 VAIL 21 * r r She /top Y Y " TREETOP CONDOS Z r emet9encY vehicle acc ess 14 surface stalls Ep <...`. 22 6 - 2 - 22\n Skier Drop -off / Short Term Parking Relative Costs by Option Skier Drop -off Modifications Previous Design: Option 01: Option 02: (West In / West Out) East In / East Out East Mall Parking West In /West Out East In / East Out Demo / Prep Site $0.8 - 1.0m $0 - 100k $.075 -.086m Vehicle Hardscape (snowmelt) $.75 -.86m Vehicle Hardscape (AC paving) $.17 -.20m Retaining Walls $.23 -.26m Softscape / Planters $0.25 - 0.29m Option 02 —(East Mall Parking) Total Costs $1.475 — 1.70m * *does not include add'I. east mall 23 6 - 2 - 23\n ped. & transit improvements ** Pros tic Cons —Skier Drop Off Option 01 (East In / East Out) Skier Drop -off Modifications FrIONTAa Rom IKW%HFAp F AL —1 3` S Z F'IP.Vi u VA,1C x. ; l y [ _,� Skier drop -off in LHPG East in/ East Out PROS CONS • Minimal cost to implement. • Point of access & Drop -off Locations are not intuitive • Expandable depending on future needs. • Drop -off location on second level requires users to climb stairs. • Takes skier drop -off / short term uses out of East Mall - If Enforced. • Does not allow redirected access from ELC where illegal skier drop off will still occur / adds to congestion - confusing • Will Require Enforcement 6- 2 -24 \n 24 Pros & Cons — Skier Drop Off Option 02 (East Mall Parking) Skier Drop -off Modifications ruxILawrauiGOiNG PROS — • Location is closest possible drop -off point to snowfield. • Location is where users are accustom to dropping off. VAIL 21 a ` TREETOP CONDOS CONS _ ;' • Location will bring more vehicles down East Lionshead --� ' 14surface I Circle — add to vehicle /pedestrian congestion & conflicts. stalls • • Significant cut and fill and retaining walls required for parking lot is costly. • Most expensive solution. f ; o `, r� • Cannot achieve flow- through parking layout = congestion. } w • Numerous conflicts with LHMP. t '* • Location will create a less desirable pedestrian entry gateway into Lionshead. -Significant hardscape ~ Not Expandable. ti ��" •� 'Trying to achieve "Deer Valley Experience" in 1/3 the area. Qeer Valley Base 2 - 25 \n 25 u.rs��• A .�. Part 02 - Additional Studies East Mall Plaza Modifications East Mall Plaza Modifications: Town Council Comments: z - �. r • Should Act As A Gateway Not As A Large Open Plaza _ • Provide More Significant rr; Land sca pe/Softsca pe Improvements & Less Hardscape • Character Should Feel More Like Slifer Square Entry to Village • East Mall Not Primarily Envisioned to Support Special Events • Investigate Relocating Hotel Shuttles to Top Deck of LHPG 6- 2 -26 \n 26 Li©nshead East Mall - Existing Conditions East Mall Plaza Modifications Vehicular Hardscape: 52% Pedestrian Hardscape: 25% S oft scape: 23% I AUXILIARY BUILDING existing conditions ipplw - T ve VAIL 21 3 J TREETOP CONDOS HEAD r _ AIDE 27 1 w 2 z >c - Material Comparison (Option 02- Short Term Parking 1 Skier Drop -off at East Mall) _ _ Skier Drop -off Modifications - - -�� Vehicular Hardscape: 54% �✓ '�, ; Pedestrian Hardscape: 26% PARKING ! %: Softsca pe: 20% AUXILIARY bUILUINIL3 -_ ., VAI!_ 21 spas' � r TREETOP CONDOS � f- i' 8140' 14surface AD stalls E a Skier Drop -off / Short Terris Parking 28 Slifer Square @ Vail Village Entry - Existing Conditions East Mall Plaza Modifications Vehicular Hardscape: 23% Pedestrian Hardscape: 35% Softscape: 42% r- _ . a • # i I ii F 29 6 - 2 - 29\n Material Comparison Slifer Square Overlay into Lionshead - Character & Scale Comparison East Mall Plaza Modifications VAiL 21 r - TREETOP CONDOS AD s y E -C 30 6 - 2 - 30 \n Character & Scale Comparison Lionshead East Ma — Pre vious Design (w /put skier d rop -off driveway) ; East Mall Plaza Modifications - Vehicular Hardscape: 41% Pedestrian Hardscape: 36% PARKING Softscape: 23% I ir' AUXILIARY BUILDING ups r V'AI L 21 c: . TREETOP T ��', i� CONDOS =AD 7E _ - ' 31 - F'J' Kid ' . •. • r _ _ 9 +i�� - �~ VIP. 1 t 4 • ..Fla! 6 y .` a ai,u V M 7 a iai PeyglI r y+ i .�. +'� � +•a�'�aaw+ .� Cap r M O T w jr f a Li onshead New r -r t (Phase /P hase E ast M Plaza Modificatio .t y L _ LIONSHE P ARKING GAR A UXILIARY Phase 1: bus bays primary pedestrian walking & waiting areas site i ISM 4 T gr ad i ng VAIL 21 Phase 2: •.YYL � `,G W �. rcrri R !dear iiiiiillllll lan dscap i ng / ramp I �'���� �ir�n '�titiY�os•� furnishin n�■A�Rr %v OR • r .. sC��YtH: Y�I aY•r �.;aYY�F CONDO LIONSHEAD ARCADE 33 r •.k1 61_ fYY 'QY• rr i1dY.ig. •' MULMi i a Material Comparison by Area / Concept East Mall Plaza Modifications Area / Concept Vehicular Hardscape Pedestrian H a r dscape So Lionshead - East Mall: Existing Conditions 52% 25% 23% Lionshead - East Mall: Short Term Parking / 54% 26% 20% Skier Drop -off Lionshead - East Mall: Previous Design — w /out new 41% 36% 23% driveway into LHPG Lionshead - East Mall: 41% 29% 30% Revised "Concept" Vail Village — Slifer Square: Existing Conditions 23% 35% 42% * *study boundaries are established by area of "visual impact" exiting from parking structures ** 6- 2 -34 \n 34 Relative Costs by Option East Mall Plaza Modifications Option 01: Option 02: Previous East Mall Scope East Mall Parking East Mall Pedestrian Previous East Mall East Mall Parking Demo / Prep Site $3.4 - 4.Om $4.1 - 4.75m ** $0.24 - 0.27m * *Cost Increase Primarily Attributed to: More extensive Ped. Hardscape (snowmelt) retaining walls & more extensive $0.9-1.04m snow melted vehicular hardscape ** Vehicle Hardscape (AC paving) $0.75 - 0.86m Retaining Walls $0.32 - 0.36m Softscape / Planters $0.75 - 0.86m Site Furnishings $0.2 - 0.23m Option 02 -(East Mall Pedestrian) Total Costs 35 6 -2 -35n $3.16 -3.62m Part 02 - Additional Studies Concert Hall Plaza Modifications Concert Hall Plaza Modifications: Town Council Comments: • Study Should Include Some Minimal K 14 Improvements (Functional) to CHIP " • All Existing Uses to Remain'' - Concert Hall Plaza =' F Montaneros —6 I y , Previously submitted CHP design 6- 2 -36 \n 36 Revised Concept Concert Hall Plaza Modifications Tie in snowmelt to Landmark -w r underground f - snowmelt —p- - vault - — _ - -- = T CONCERT HALL PLAZA snowmelt all shaded \ pedestrian M areas Tie in snowmelt to Arrabelle Driveway I T h i 1 i •�f' ',E � yti. •.. MONTANEROS . - -: VEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE � 7 6 - 2 1�7 \n Relative Costs by Option Concert Hall Plaza Modifications Previous CHP Scope Revised CHP scope Previous CHP Revised CHP $1.0 -1.15m $.65 -.75m CONCERT HALL PLAZA l \ ¢ f .M MONTANEROS wl` 6- 2 -38 \n 38 Pros & Cons Concert Hall Plaza Modifications i r F cnxeniuu r t. L MIXIfANF�S 1 Previously submitted CHP Design Concert Hall Plaza Improvements PROS PROS • Creates a more significant Guest Portal & Pedestrian • Establishes a safe / snowmelted pedestrian corridor Environment throughout CHP & connects with existing snowmelt sidewalks to North & South • Increases Transit Capacity by 2 Bus bays • Maintains all existing functional uses CONS • Functional improvements due to relocation of ECO buses • Eliminates Short Term Parking / Skier Drop -off / L &D • Costs less $$ • Costs More $$ CONS • Makes CHP Redevelopment Less Likely Due to $$ Expended • Passengers from loading zone must cross dedicated bus lane • Less significant aesthetic improvements 6- 2 -39 \n 39 Part 02 - Additional Studies Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms Auxiliary Building Modifications/ \" Elevators &Public Restrooms: Town Council Comments: • Investigate the Viability to Re -skin & Revitalize Existing Building ' y e • Investigate the Phasing Potential to Provide New Elevators & Public Restrooms Within / Adjacent / Or On Replacement Site • Keep Elevators Visible and Easy to Find WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 6- 2 -40 \n 40 Existing Building Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms Existing Building Statistics Concrete + Wood Glu -lam structural system 28+ years old Current Uses include: • Retail (Subway) i • Public Restrooms Rec. youth services program Building Area ,t YF i �� max= • 3,968 SF ground floor 4!*k? Ci°CfINiga 1,375 SF mezzanine • �' ;� 5,343 SF tota ILI '1 ' pr o &, `Y Outdated electrical and mechanical systems may require ' {ab.tYllV� K,y upgrades Es Monolithic roof form with Concrete, metal and glass facade 6 - 2 - 41\n Dated Aesthetics 41 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms A , - 1 1 � I ,,,� "dated" exterior (form, massing and materials) I`S(I 4Mz YAp A :�LUAaRM pl- ,u' +iS \ demolish cylindrical fascia _ r demolish sloped glazing ' t and sill - 4 . ®. 6- 2 -42 \n 42 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms 1 i - - I replace existing roof with I new high performance roof add lift dormers to breakup mass and monotony of ' sloped roof rOp UG fl aiHN(. FJ - M�j. iY_' TO O C �N7'P� fhyf 6r ; extend roofline to provide Syr Cc +, Xr -N GF F' -mrs� jai 1i exterior cover 6f i9' F'N. FL. • a O 0 q oo u n17 , provide new full height glazing between structural bays — move entrances to r1*p 1 L. ;' - this location 6- 2 -43 \n 43 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms - f E e 7 Raise mezzanine floor T -0" to provide more interior =vr 1* F" W4 4 40 - volume to ground floor rtiry�ei �A 9 0.n o Cr I F r trR - z _ -•_a JJ1 ? ' _ public areas rhea ne14Y +». m�ref L _______ I �__�_J I I Y o Demolish ground floor interior partitions 1 , r I I 1 , 1 1 1 , 1 -- -- - - -:- t�rl.FL. 6- 2 -44 \n 44 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms \ D Existing -� h Uses to Remain Provide minimal "temporary" improvements to mezzanine uses c Public Spaces -ToV Re- program existing ground Info Center/ Public 4 floor space with new uses Restrooms ! Etc. 6- 2 -45 \n 45 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms - f e 7 " demolish mezzanine floor to provide additional interior volume I`- tI,LFT �,�+� ���,� and light to ground floor public cv -s c F.�!94 wq_ areas ------------------------- - - - - -' Public Spaces -ToV Info Center/ Public 4 Restrooms / Etc. r 6- 2 -46 \n 46 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms - fi existing configuration 6- 2 -47 \n 47 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms e H _ demolish west most structural bay 6- 2 -48 \n 48 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms 4 L provide temporary enclosure and support 6- 2 -49 \n 49 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms A f i ilc{ v 51 I -- 6 --- - y add z new passenger elevators, open air landings and roof structure - align with existing stair 6- 2 -50 \n s0 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms {f. 3 G? ' 1 ' demolish cylindrical fascia, sloped glazing and sill 6- 2 -51 \n 51 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms Add lift dormers to break up mass of sloped roof Extend roofline to provide exterior cower r4 ' Add new full height glazing F between structural bays 1 4-- w _ e +` transform old to new with form, massing and materials 6- 2 -52 \n 52 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications Elevators & Public Restrooms Possi ble vehicle access to/from day skier parking Pedestrian access to/from short term & day skier parking down from V1, 41 u pper levels ToV Info Center / Waiting Area elevator entry Public Restrooms Relocated VRID Spaces upper plaza/ New bus waiting Structure ---- - -------- .4 �A 6- 2 - 53 \n 53 Aesthetic & Functional Alterations Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms 6-2-54\n 54 Relative Costs by Option Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms Previous Southwest Portal Options 01 & 02: Option 03: Building Full Renovations New Elevators / New Restrooms / Limited Renovations Demo &New Bldg. Demo & Exterior Demo / Patch & Repair $1.8 -2.Om $1.3- 1.45m $.12 -.14m Elevators /Enclosure Elevators Elevators / Landings $1.4- 1.7m $0.9 - 1.05m $1.52 - 1.75m Escalators /Enclosure Interiors (Opt. 01) Interiors (Opt. 02) Interiors (Restrooms /Patch & Repair Only) $3.1 - 3.6m $1.2 -1.35m $1.4 -1.6m $0.45 -.52m Hard /Softscape Hard /Softscape $0.2 - 0.3m Hard /Softscape $0.2 - 0.3m $0.1 - 0.2m SW Portal Bldg (Original) Total Costs $6.5 -7.6m SW Portal Bldg (minus (Option 01 - (Option 02 - ( Option 03) escalators/ with reduced preserve raise mezzanine) Total Costs elevator costs /enclosing 2 nd mezzanine) Total Costs & 3' fl.s @ 1,700 add'I. sf / Total Costs $2.19 - 2.61 m providing 2 sets of restrooms) $3.6 -4.15m $3.8 -4.4m * *Cost does not include required Total Cost @ 4,2005f @ 4,4005f maintenance and improvements to $4.1 -4.6m @ 4,250sf s existing building ( glazing, roofing, interiors, etc.) ** Pros & Cons Auxiliary Building Modifications (Various Options) Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms x — � - _ - — - -. - e / Renovation to existing Auxiliary Building PROS CONS • Aesthetically improve to southwest corner of structure. • Existing building limits extent of aesthetic improvements /design flexibility. • Improved building frames views to entry plaza and provides landmark/way finding device. Establishes view Maybe more costly than new building corridor per masterplan. • Locates elevator and restrooms in the "right" location. • Allow existing tenants to remain 6- 2 -56 \n 56 Pros & Cons— Revised Southwest Portal Building (Option 02) Auxiliary Building Modifications / Elevators & Public Restrooms Previous SW Portal Building Design (minus escalators) PROS CONS • Starting with a new building affords design flexibility. • As currently designed, does not provide new location for VRD program. • Aesthetic improvements to southwest corner of structure. • Improved building frames entry plaza - view corridor • Locates elevator and restrooms in the "right" location. 6- 2 -57 \n 57 Part 03 Relative Cost Summary for Various Components & Options Frontage Road/ ECO Transit Modifications: Component Cost Range • - Previous Design: ................................................ ............................................... _ ........................... _ ............................................................................................ ................ ...... $10.35 - 12.05m - Revised Concept (Option 01): ................................. _ ..... _ ............................ _ ........ _ .............. ........................................................................................... $4.63 - 5.35m - Revised Concept (Option 02): ............................................................................................................................................................. ............................... $5.42 - 6.22m • Skier Drop -off Modifications: - East In / East Out: ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... $0.0 - 0.1 m - West In / West Out: .................................................. _ .................................... _ .......................................................................................................................... ........... _ ........ _ $0.8 - 1.Om - East Mall Plaza Parking (parking improvements only): $1.475 - 1.7m • East Mall Plaza Modifications: - Previous Design: .............................................................................................................................._........_......................................................................... ............................... $3.4 - 4. Om - East Mall Parking ................................................ ............................................................................. _ ........ _ ....... . ............... ................................................................................. $4.1- 4.75m - Revised Concept. ...................................................................................._..._..................................._........................_..._............................................._..._ ........._........_............ $3.16 - 3.62m • Concert Hall Plaza Modifications: - Previous Design: ......... . .......................................... _ ... __ .................... _ .... .... _.__ .............. .............. .......... ....................... __. ..... _.. ...... ..... ........... .............. .......... ......... $1.0 - 1.15m - Revised Concept. ......... . .................................................................._....._..._....._......._..._.............._......................__..._...................................................... ............................... $0.65 - 0.75m • Auxiliary Building Modifications /Elevators & Public Restrooms: - Previous Design (Southwest Portal Building): ..................................................................................... ............................... $6.5 - 7.6m - SW Portal Bldg (minus escalators / with reduced elevator costs / enclosing 2nd & 3rd fl.s @ 1,700 add'l. sf /2 sets of restrooms ........................ ......... __ ... _ ... _ $4.1- 4.6m - New Concept (Opt. 01- Addition & Renovation preserve Mezzanine): ................. $3.6 - 4.15m - New Concept (Opt. 02 - Addition & Renovation raise Mezzanine): .................... $3.8 - 4.4m - New Concept (Opt. 03 - New elevators & Restrooms /Ltd Alterations: $2.19 - 2.61 m 6- 2 -58 \n 58 Part 03 Criteria For Decision Making Recommendations Were Analyzed Based on Numerous Criteria, Including: • Resolution of Project Goals & Givens • Improvement to Overall Transit Service • Cost • Ability to be Implemented in Short Term • Ability for LHPG & CHP to Redevelop • Ability to be Incrementally Phased • Impact to Neighbors and Community • Throw away Improvements Upon Next Increment of Growth • Master Plan Implications • Urban Design - Qualitative Improvements 6- 2 -59 \n 59 Part 03 Recommendations for Advancement Modified Scenario 1 B Modified Scenario 2B I CONCERT — / - -� = PUSZf - 4 1 � � e16NTAw Add FCO to North Side of LHPG -Option 02 (dual lane) X Concert Hall Plaza Improvements Left Turn @ ELC /SFR i r� A I� Skier drop -off in LHPG Portions of East Mall improvements & Auxiliary Building Replacement - Modified Southwest Portal Bldg. west in/west out Masterplan Amendments 6- 2 -60 \n 60 Part 03 Cost Summary for Recommended Components • Frontage Road ECO Transit Modifications: Component Cost Range] ,ante Revised Concept (Option 02): $5.42-6.22m • Skier Droo-off Modifications: - West In lWest Out: .... . ...... ..... ..... .. ..... ..... . ...... ....... ...... .... ....... ...... . . ..... . .................. $0.8 - 1.0m • East Mail Plaza Modifications: 4.Om - Revised Concept: $3.16-3.62m • Concert Hall Plaza Modifications. Revised Concept: - - ----- . ..... . $0.65 - 0.75m • Auxiliary Building Modifications /Elevators & Public Restrooms: - Pro*vini!c Op-q.;nn ( Pnrml Ry.tildinn)- - SW Portal Bldg (minus escalators / with reduced elevator costs enclosing 2nd &3rd fl-s @ 1,700 add sf 12 sets of restrooms . ..... $4.1 4.6m Jvk'vw Vi 6 Jvicdd. ucino .. - L*. New Concept (Opt. 02 - Addition & Renovation with Mezz. Demo.): $3.8 - 4.4m New Conce�, 61 total recommended project costs: $14.13 - 16.19m Part 04 Next Steps /Town Council Direction Proposed Next Steps: • Direction from Council to proceed with a recommended scenario. • Direction from Council to set the project budget at $15 million. • Direction from Council to have staff enter into negotiations with 4240 for Phase III Design Development and Entitlements, with the contract presented to Council for approval on Feb. 16th. • Direction from Council to have staff update the Lionshead Master Plan to reflect the recommended scenario and recognize the ultimate long term solution needed to be a similar concept to 4A, whether it be on top a new parking structure or within a new development at some time in the future when needed. Proposed Timeline: • With this direction the anticipated timeline (subject to change) for this project will be: • Design Development and Entitlement Process and Approvals (Feb - April) • Construction Documents prepared. (May -July) • Construction 2010 (Phasing To Be Determined As Needed) 6- 2 -62 \n 62 7�e god 6- 2 -63 \n 63 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Tom Kassmel, Public Works Department DATE: January 19, 2010 SUBJECT: Lionshead Transit Center Feasibility Design Study I. SUMMARY The Town of Vail and the Vail Reinvestment Authority, are in the process of studying the feasibility of constructing a Lionshead Transit Center in response to past planning efforts including the Lionshead Master Plan (1998), A Report on the Recommendation of a Preferred Site for the Town of Vail Transit Center (2005), Vail 20/20 (2007), the Lionshead Transit Center White Paper (2008), and the Vail Transportation Master Plan (2009). The VRA has contracted with the 4240 Architecture Team to complete this design study. Since the kick -off with public and stakeholder group charettes on May 20, 2009, the design team has completed the following: • Established the givens, goals and measurable criteria of the project (6/2/09) • Outlined the current conditions, defined study areas, and tested "carrying capacity" of various study areas to accommodate program components. (6/16/09) • Transit analysis determining what transit elements need to fit now and in the future (7/7/09) • Presented 10 Scenarios for review with a recommendation for move 4 forward; Scenario's 1 B, 2B, 213/4A Hybrid, 4A (8/4/09) • Presented refined scenarios for 1B, 2B, 2B /4A Hybrid, 4A. It was recommended that staff refine, phase and scale back the 1 B /2B scenario, to minimize immediate construction costs. (11/17/09) • Presented a more detailed phasing plan, refining the 113/213 Modified scenario and discuss strategies to value engineer the key components of the recommended scenario. (12- 01 -09) The purpose of the evening session is to present the recommended revised components of the 113/213 Modified scenario based on the previous input and discussions had regarding; further investigation of skier drop -off, scaling down and refining impact of Frontage Rd bus area, and softening the entrance to Lionshead Mall. Staff is requesting that Council provide staff and the design team with direction to bring the recommended components through the design development (DD) and entitlement process. Progress of the project since the project kick -off in May has been tracked on the Town of Vail website at http : / /www.vaiIgov.com /subpage.asr)?page id =916 . All 6 -3 -1 \n formal documentation, memos and presentations are available here for your review. II. REVIEW OF DIRECTION As a result of the site visit and discussion by Council and Staff on 12/1, the key issues that became evident and the resulting investigation resulted in the following: • Minimize impact to the mature trees along the Frontage Rd., look at consolidating the buses on the west side and bus pull -offs. o Report shows 2 options to minimize tree impact and provides pros and cons. • Further investigate a transit connection walk along the west side of the parking structure instead thru the parking structure o Report shows 2 options to access a walk along the West side of the parking structure • Utilize the existing short term access and publicize it as skier drop -off before creating a new entrance into parking structure. o This area is currently signed for skier drop -off, and the report discusses pros and cons of 3 skier drop -off locations including the above. • Reinvestigate placing shuttles on top of the parking structure o We investigated the structural capacity of the deck for typical shuttle buses and it has been deemed undersized for shuttle buses. • Investigate the possibility of creating the Deer Valley skier drop off experience in the Lionshead mall entrance bus stop area, utilizing all of the Town's property, and a potential `Quick' access into the structure along E. LH Circle. • Report shows a design option and discusses pros and cons • The attached traffic /pedestrian counts, as well as the photos in the report, illustrate the pedestrian vehicle conflicts that exist today. • Soften the E. LH bus stop area /LH mall entrance to be a gateway similar to Slifer Square, instead of a large multi -use plaza. o A comparison of existing, previously proposed, Slifer Square and new concept are shown • Investigate best utilization (remodel /tear down) of the existing auxiliary building to accommodate elevators, bath rooms, existing uses, information, etc o Comparison of major /minor remodels, and a tear down are provided. • Keep elevators visible and easy to find. o Each option provides visible elevators • Make minor improvements to Concert Hall plaza, maintaining all existing uses. o Minimal improvement option is shown to increase safety and pedestrian experience. III. RECOMMENDATION 6 -3 -2 \n Part 03 Cost Summary for Recommended Components • Frontage Road ECO Transit Modifications: Component Cost Range] ,ante Revised Concept (Option 02): $5.42-6.22m • Skier Droo-off Modifications: - West In lWest Out: .... . ...... ..... ..... .. ..... ..... . ...... ....... ...... .... ....... ...... . . ..... . .................. $0.8 - 1.0m • East Mail Plaza Modifications: 4.Om - Revised Concept: $3.16-3.62m • Concert Hall Plaza Modifications. Revised Concept: - - ----- . ..... . $0.65 - 0.75m • Auxiliary Building Modifications /Elevators & Public Restrooms: - Pro*vini!c Op-q.;nn ( Pnrml Ry.tildinn)- - SW Portal Bldg (minus escalators / with reduced elevator costs enclosing 2nd &3rd fl-s @ 1,700 add sf 12 sets of restrooms . ..... $4.1 4.6m Jvk'vw Vi 6 Jvicdd. ucino .. - L*. New Concept (Opt. 02 - Addition & Renovation with Mezz. Demo.): $3.8 - 4.4m New Conce�, 61 total recommended project costs: $14.13 - 16.19m IV. PHASING / COSTS & STRATEGY Construction Year Project Budget 2010 • North Frontage Road Transit Facility / $5.8 m Frontage Road intersection Improvements (CDOT minimum only - Not Ultimate Section with Median and Walls) • Skier Drop -Off $0.9 m • Southwest Portal Building $4.2 m (Elevators -No escalators) $10.9 m 2011 & Beyond (All or phased) • East Mall Streetscape $3.4 m • Concert Hall Plaza $0.7 m $4-1—M Total Project Cost: $15.0 m The above project budgets are within the available TIF and Federal dollars funding and can be budgeted thru the Vail Reinvestment Authority. Each will undergo value engineering as we go through the Design Development phase. The final construction budgets and contracts will be approved by Council /VRA. V. DESIGN APPROACH FOR PHASE III (DESIGN DEVELOPMENT) Overall Design Approach: The overall design approach for Phase III (Design Development) will be based on the following considerations: • Maximize transit and streetscape program(s) to a maximum budget of $15m, the mid range estimates in the Recommended Components table. • Develop the overall design comprehensively as a "complete" functional design to include all transit, LHPG alterations, Streetscape and Auxiliary Building related improvements. Establish the overall project scope and character of the transit and streetscape improvements to a DD level of development. • Develop the design scope and implementation strategies to be delivered in phases. • Provide updates to the Lionshead Redevelopment Masterplan as required. • Develop the project design to the DD level and through Entitlements process, including all entitlements approvals so as to allow for incremental implementation as deemed appropriate. 6 -3 -4 \n Detailed Design Approach: Within each of the recommended project components, the design team will pursue the following detailed activities within the DD / Entitlements Phase: • Transit Improvements: Including the ECO relocation, code upgrades to LHPG, relocation of skier drop -off within the LHPG, and Frontage Road improvements, meet with staff, fire and building departments and pre - construction contractors to develop a comprehensive renovation and construction plan, based on general scope as presented on 1/19. Additional Value Engineering studies will be performed to maximize scope within budget. • Refinements to East Mall and Concert Hall Plaza Streetscape: Further design refinements to East Mall and Concert Hall Plaza streetscape area as generally defined in 1/19 Town Council Packet. We would envision meeting(s) with adjacent neighbors, Town Planners, Events Planners, PEC / DRB, and TC, Winston & Associates, etc. as required to facilitate design development and entitlements approvals. The phasing of these improvements will be critical, especially in the East Mall, so as to accommodate the Town's desired construction timing when considering the Lionshead Master plan, adjacent development, and the desire to improve the circulation and gateway into Lionshead. • Auxiliary Building & Vertical Circulation: Further design refinements to the Auxiliary Building as generally defined in 1/19 Town Council Packet. We would envision meeting(s) with adjacent neighbors, Town Planners, VRD, existing tenants, PEC / DRB, and TC, Winston & Associates, etc. as required to facilitate design development and entitlements approvals. VI. RECOMMENDED STRATEGY We recommend moving forward with the Design Development phase of this project, which will include Master Plan amendments, for all of the above components with a maximum total project budget of $15 million ( —$5 million Federal/ $10 million TI F); and also to proceed with Final Design and Construction Documents for the 2010 construction components ($10.9 million) when appropriate so the final design can be completed by April /May of 2010. This strategy would allow the transit, skier drop -off, and Auxilary Building /Vertical Circulation components to be entitled and constructed in 2010, utilizing the Federal Transit funding; while the remaining streetscape components could be brought to a Design Development level, with construction drawings not needed to be completed until 2011 or until deemed necessary or prudent. This phased construction approach will allow more time to evaluate the state of the future economy, to have additional TIF revenue, and possibly understand future needs and development impact better. Having DD level plans and Town entitlements approvals ready provides direction for the long term for staff and future developments impacted by proposed improvements. 6 -3 -5 \n VII. NEXT STEPS In order to move this project forward, and secure available Federal Funding, the following next steps and direction are requested: • Direction from Council to proceed with Design Development level completed documents and secure entitlement approvals for recommended components as outlined above. • Direction from Council to set the total project budget for up to $15.0 million, and anticipate supplementing the VRA Budget with $10.9 million in 2010 and up to $4.1 million in 2011. • Direction from Council to have staff enter into negotiations with 4240 Architecture for Design Development and Entitlements for the recommended components as outlined above and with anticipation to expand that to Final Design and Construction Documents for the Year 2010 components. The contract will be presented to Council /VRA for approval on February 16 • Direction from Council to have staff update the Lionshead Master Plan to reflect the recommended scenario and recognize the ultimate long term solution needed to be a similar concept to 4A, whether it be on top a new parking structure or within a new development at some time in the future when needed. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Provide staff and the design team with direction to bring the recommended Components, as defined above, forward thru Design Development and the Town's Entitlement process with a maximum total project budget of $15 million, authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations with the Design Team for the completion of Phase III - Design Development and Entitlements, and direct staff to update the Lionshead Master Plan to reflect the recommended components and ultimate long term solution. 6 -3 -6 \n Ova" 7M VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010, an emergency ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium of one hundred eighty (180) days in duration on the processing and approval of any application for a permit or license related to the operation of a business that sells medical marijuana pursuant to the authority granted by article XVII, § 14 of the Colorado Constitution; directing the prompt investigation of the Town's regulatory authority over such businesses; and setting details in regard thereto. PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010. BACKGROUND: In the November 2000 general election, the voters of the State of Colorado adopted Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution (Article XVIII, § 14), which authorizes and limits the sale of medical marijuana for use in the treatment of certain debilitating medical conditions. The Town has received inquiries from persons who are interested in opening and operating businesses and cooperatives that would offer medical marijuana for sale or distribution, including the cultivation of marijuana ( "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries "). The Town's current regulations prohibit the operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the Town. The imposition of a moratorium on the processing and approval of applications for Town permits and licenses relating to the operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries will allow Town staff, the Town Attorney and the Council to investigate the Town's regulatory authority over Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010 ORDINANCE NO. 2 Series of 2010 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS IN DURATION ON THE PROCESSING AND APPROVAL OF ANY APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT OR LICENSE RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF A BUSINESS THAT SELLS MEDICAL MARIJUANA PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY ARTICLE XVIII, § 14 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION; DIRECTING THE PROMPT INVESTIGATION OF THE TOWN'S REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER SUCH BUSINESSES; AND SETTING DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado (the "Town "), is a home rule Town duly existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado and its home rule charter (the "Charter"); and WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council ") have been duly elected and qualified; and WHEREAS, in the November 2000 general election, the voters of the State of Colorado adopted Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution (Article XVIII, § 14), which authorizes and limits the sale of medical marijuana for use in the treatment of certain debilitating medical conditions; and WHEREAS, the Council is aware that staff has received inquiries from persons who are interested in opening and operating businesses and cooperatives that would offer medical marijuana for sale or distribution, including the cultivation of marijuana ( "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries "); and WHEREAS, the Town has no current land use or business regulations permitting the operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, and in fact, the Town's current regulations prohibit the operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the Town; and WHEREAS, the Council is aware of potential state legislation that will be considered by the Colorado Legislature during its 2010 legislative session, and any such legislation may impact the Town's regulatory authority over Medical Marijuana Dispensaries; and WHEREAS, the Council is aware of potential federal legislation (H.R. 2835) removing marijuana from the substances banned by the federal Controlled Substances Act in certain circumstances and amending the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and any such legislation may impact the Town's regulatory authority over Medical Marijuana Dispensaries; and WHEREAS, the Council is also aware of the pendency of the case of Frasher, et al. v. City of Centennial, Arapahoe County District Court Case No. 09 CV 1456, regarding the local regulation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within the City of Centennial and which may also have some bearing on the regulatory authority over Medical Marijuana Dispensaries; and WHEREAS, the imposition of a moratorium on the processing and approval of applications for Town permits and licenses relating to the operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries will allow Town staff, the Town Attorney and the Council to investigate the Town's regulatory authority over Medical Marijuana Dispensaries; and WHEREAS, one hundred eighty (180) days is a reasonable length of time for the Town to properly investigate the Town's regulatory authority over Medical Marijuana Dispensaries; and Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010 7 -1 -1 \n WHEREAS, Section 4.11 of the Charter provides that an ordinance may be passed as an emergency measure for the preservation of the public property, health, welfare, peace or safety, upon unanimous vote of all members of the Council present or a vote of five (5) members of the Council, whichever is less; and WHEREAS, proprietors of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries will not be unduly prejudiced by the imposition of such a temporary moratorium. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO that: Section 1 . Findings and Intent The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by reference and adopted as findings and determinations of the Council. Section 2 . Temporary Moratorium Upon the adoption of this Ordinance, a moratorium is imposed upon the processing and approval by the Town of applications for permits and licenses related to Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Town staff is directed to refuse to process, review or approve any such applications for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries during the moratorium. Section 3 . Investigation and Evaluation During the moratorium, Town staff, working with the Town Attorney, shall investigate and evaluate the regulatory authority of the Town over Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, including the impact of applicable court rulings and the proposed state and federal legislation, and determine whether the Town must allow Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within its boundaries, and if so, what regulations should govern such Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Section 4 . Police Power Finding The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Emergency Ordinance is necessary and proper to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity, and improve the order, comfort and convenience of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5 . Authority The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that it has the power to adopt this Ordinance pursuant to: (i) the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act, Article 20 of Title 29 C.R.S.; (ii) Part 3 of Article 23 of Title 31, C.R.S. (concerning municipal zoning powers); (iii) C.R.S. § 31 -15 -103, C.R.S. (concerning municipal police powers); (iv) C.R.S. § 31 -15 -401 (concerning municipal police powers); (v) C.R.S. § 31 -15 -501 (concerning municipal power to regulate businesses); (vi) the authority granted to home rule municipalities by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and (vii) the powers contained in the Town of Vail Home Rule Charter. Section 6 Emergency Declared; Effective Date; Expiration Pursuant to § 4.11 of the Charter, the Council finds, determines and declares that passage of this Emergency Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public property, health, peace and safety to prevent the processing and approval of any application for a Town permit or license relating to the operation of a Medical Marijuana Dispensary until the Town has had a reasonable opportunity to: determine the extent of the Town's regulatory authority over Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and investigate and evaluate the impact, if any, that potential state and federal legislation and court rulings have on the Town. The Council further determines that the adoption of this Ordinance as an emergency ordinance is in the best interest of the citizens of the Town. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence immediately upon adoption of this Ordinance and shall expire one hundred eighty (180) days thereafter, unless repealed prior to that date or extended, if necessary, as determined by the Town Council. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010 7 -1 -2 \n Section 7. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 9. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED AND FINALLY PASSED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL this 19 day of January, 2010. Dick Cleveland, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010 7 -1 -3 \n Ova" 7M VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Information Update. PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer ATTACHMENTS: VEAC Memo Frontage Road Parking Pass Sales Arosa Drive Dubplex Subsidy Guest Satisfaction Survey MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Vail Economic Advisory Council (VEAC) SUBJECT: Timber Ridge DATE: January 19, 2010 The Vail Economic Advisory Council heard a presentation from Timber Ridge LLC today at the regularly scheduled monthly meeting. After listening to the presentation and asking questions, a motion was made by Rob LeVine and seconded by Greg Moffet for the VEAC to take a position of endorsing this project to the Vail Town Council. A vote was taken and the decision was unanimous by all 14 members in attendance. Michael Kurz, a member of the Planning and Environmental Commission, recused himself from the vote. 1 8 -1 -1 \n Frontage Road parking passes sold as of January 13, 2010 92 Yellow -West Vail and Wendy's lot. 16 Green - Middle Creek 8 -2 -1 \n MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 19, 2010 SUBJECT: Arosa Drive Duplex Subsidy The Vail Town Council requested information regarding the total cost of the Arosa Drive Duplex. Following is information regarding the cost of purchasing the property, costs associated with removing the previous dwelling unit, previous design costs, as well as the cost of constructing the current duplex. The Town of Vail will sell both halves of the duplex in June, 2010, recouping $800,000 of its total expenditures. Arosa Drive Duplex Unit A Unit B Total Cost Year Land Acquisition $75,000 $75,000 $150,000 1995 Site Studies (Enviro, Arch, Hazard, Etc.) $11,976 $11,976 $23,951 1999 Demolition of A -Frame $24,500 $24,500 $49,000 1999 Viele Construction Contract $390,652 $390,650 $781,304 2010 Estimated Closing Costs $865 $872 $1,737 2010 Advertising /Marketing $500 $500 $1,000 2010 Sales Price $395,000 $405,000 $800,000 2010 Total Subsidy $108,493 $98,500 $206,992 8 -3 -1 \n MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Town of Vail Staff SUBJECT: Guest Satisfaction Surveys DATE: January 19, 2010 The Town of Vail Staff is working with Vail Mountain Operations to obtain weekly reports on four categories of guest service relative to the Town of Vail. These four categories are: Ease of parking/ Timeliness of buses/ Friendliness /helpfulness of bus drivers and Guest service personnel. The scale is 1 to 5, 1= extremely dissatisfied and 5= extremely satisfied. The questions are posed as: "On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being extremely dissatisfied and 5 being extremely satisfied, how satisfied were you with ease of parking today," "how satisfied were you with the timeliness of the buses today ", etc. The methodology involves hand held machines that are a palm based device with a hard outer shell utilizing a program called Enterware that holds the surveys for the Vail Mountain surveyors to use. There is a quota of approximately 201 customer satisfaction surveys every week. Surveyors can skip questions if the customer does not know how to rate or has not interacted with anyone in that department. That sometimes makes the sample size on questions smaller, especially on guest service personnel since many people don't interact with them. The most recent surveys are attached and will be in your packets each Council meeting throughout the ski season. 1 8 -4 -1 \n 2009 -2010 Vail Guest Satisfaction Ease of Parking 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.1 • 'r 11/29 12/6 12/13 12/20 12/27 1/3 1/10 1/17 1/24 1/31 2/7 2/14 2/21 2/28 3/7 3/14 3/21 3/28 4/4 -A--09/10 3.6 3.6 3.1 3.7 3.1 • 08/09 3.2 2.8 3.4 3.5 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.4 4.2 3.6 3.7 4.2 3.4 3.8 3.5 3.5 - 07/08 3.2 3.5 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.9 3.4 3.6 3.2 Sample Size (09/10) 98 96 89 68 78 Running total mean 09/10 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.4 Vail GuestSAT_0910.xls Caution with sample sizes less than 30 Printed 01/06/2010 Chart 2 8 -4 -2 \n 2009 -2010 Vail Guest Satisfaction Timeliness of Buses IL 46 a * s � '� --- • - - - --� _ ®. aA °;, • V,*: 11/29 12/6 12/13 12120 12127 1/3 1/10 1117 1/24 1/31 2/7 2/14 2/21 2/28 3/7 3/14 3/21 3/28 4/4 ---Ar--09/10 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.6 4.5 f • • 08/09 4.4 4.0 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 - - - 07/08 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.7 Sample Size (09/10) 105 92 92 85 91 Running total mean 09/10 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4 Vail GuestSAT_0910.xls Caution with sample sizes less than 30 Printed 01/06/2010 Chart 3 8 -4 -3 \n 2009 -2010 Vail Guest Satisfaction Friendliness /Helpfulness of Bus Drivers 4.7 -- -i -W - .A a.7, v ■" E A .; 11/29 12/6 12/13 12/20 12/27 1/3 1/10 1/17 1/24 1/31 2/7 2/14 2/21 2/28 3/7 3/14 3/21 3/28 4/4 - X09/10 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.7 W - - 08/09 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.8 - - - 07/08 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Sample Size (09/10) 99 85 84 79 90 Running total mean 09/10 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Vail GuestSAT_0910.xls Caution with sample sizes less than 30 Printed 01/06/2010 Chart 4 8 -4 -4 \n 2009 -2010 Vail Guest Satisfaction Guest Service Personnel 4.a• V4.4 4,6 ti f i 11/29 12/6 12/13 12120 12127 1/3 1/10 1117 1/24 1/31 2/7 2/14 2/21 2/28 3/7 3/14 3/21 3/28 4/4 ---Ar--09/10 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.7 f • • 08/09 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.8 - - - 07/08 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.8 4.8 Sample Size (09/10) 146 156 164 172 175 Running total mean 09/10 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.6 Vail GuestSAT_0910.xls Caution with sample sizes less than 30 Printed 01/06/2010 Chart 19 8 -4 -5 \n Ova" 7M VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council. a. Parking Task Force Appointment The Mayor has received interest from several individuals in re: to the opening on the Parking Task Force. Since this is an appointment by the Mayor, is there input from other Councilmembers? PRESENTER(S): Town Council