HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-10-30 - Special Meeting-Mountain Coaster
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
Prepared: October 23, 2018
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
October 30, 2018
4:00 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall
1. OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
2. AGENDA APPROVAL
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not
exceed three minutes.
4. APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF ESTES MOUNTAIN COASTER (DP 04-2018):
Review of staff’s decision that the Development Plan complies with the Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC)
5. ADJOURN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Randy Hunt, AICP – Director, Estes Park Community Development Dept.
Jeff Woeber, AICP – Senior Planner, Estes Park Community Development Dept.
Date: October 30, 2018
RE: Appeal to Planning Commission of Development Plan #DP 2018-04, approved by
staff Aug. 6, 2018 (Estes Park Mountain Coaster)
Appellant Request:
Appeal of Development Plan
Planning Commission Objectives:
1. Review of staff’s decision that the Development Plan complies with the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC);
2. Conduct a public hearing to consider Town staff’s analysis and findings, appellants’
testimony, applicant’s testimony, and public comment;
3. Approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Development Plan application on appeal
(EVDC §3.8.C.1 and 2; §12.1.C; §12.1.H and I.)
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Planning Commission approve the
Development Plan on appeal, with five (5) conditions as specified by staff in the August 6, 2018
letter of approval (see Attachment 4).
Location:
East Side of Dry Gulch Road., Estes Park, CO, in unincorporated Larimer County within the
Estes Valley Planning Area (see Attachment 3, Vicinity Map).
Legal description (metes & bounds parcel): W 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF SEC 20 & W 1/2 OF SEC 20
LY E OF DRYGULCH RD DESC: BEG AT S 1/4 COR 20-5-72, N 88 25'36" W 683.65 FT, N 1
37' E 361.76 FT, N 85 34' W 581.61 FT TO E ROW DRY GULCH RD, TH ALG SD ROW N 13
25' E 2279.44 FT, N 0 48' E 38.44 FT, N 88 53' 52" (Larimer County Assessor’s record)
Existing Zoning: RE-1 (Rural Estate)
Appellants: Peter E. Langer III / Linda W. Langer / M. Marsha Sypher / William V. Hammel /
Dennis D. Sohocki / Dena L. Sohocki / Janet Lynn Gelhausen / Kathy Ann Kelley / The
Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society
Owner of Subject Property: Yakutat Land Corporation
Planning Commission, October 30, 2018
Appeal of Development Plan #DP 2018-04 (Mtn.
Coaster)
Page 2 of 8
Project Description:
The applicant, Yakutat Land Corporation, submitted a Development Plan application for the
Estes Mountain Coaster (Project) on April 18, 2018.
The Project is generally described as a Mountain Coaster, a gravity-driven ride, approximately
1,960 feet in downhill length, with related infrastructure including a coaster storage building,
ticketing office, restroom facilities, and parking area. Utilities would be extended to serve the
facility, including electric, water and wastewater service. A new driveway access is proposed.
Limited onsite parking would be provided, with the majority of riders being transported by shuttle
from a parking area located near the existing horseback riding facilities near the intersection of
Dry Gulch Road and Highway 34. The location of the base of the coaster is approximately 800
feet to the east of Dry Gulch Road, approximately 0.85 mile north of Highway 34 (Attachments
7, 8). The site is within unincorporated Larimer County, in the Estes Valley Development Code
planning area boundary. The property is entirely in the RE-1 (Rural Estate Residential) Zoning
District.
Appeal of Development Plan Decision:
The Development Plan Application for this project was formally filed with the Community
Development Department on April 18, 2018. Following several rounds of internal staff review,
the Development Plan was approved by staff with conditions on August 6, 2018.
The Notice of Appeal (see Attachment 1) was filed with the Community Development
Department on September 5, 2018, and the Supplement to Notice of Appeal (see Attachment
2) was filed with Community Development on September 26, 2018 (collectively, the “Appeals”).
The September 4, 2018 dates embedded in the headers on both documents are incorrect;
however, staff hereby stipulates that no challenge to the timeliness of appeal is asserted
hereby. It is assumed that the Appeal and Supplement are valid as to timeliness and form.
After examination of the Appeals, staff and legal counsel for the Community Development Dept.
concluded that three different bodies had a public-hearing and decision-making role in the
appeal process: The Board of County Commissioners, the Board of Adjustment, and the
Planning Commission, in that order. The sequence and timing are outlined in a flow chart and
accompanying test (see Attachment 5).
The Appeal and Supplement make many arguments in support of the appellants’ position with
regard to various elements of the project. Many of the arguments are not directly pertinent to the
Planning Commission’s scope of authority in this instance. Moreover, the Appeals’ organization,
while no doubt suited to the overall appeal purpose, do not fall into cleanly divided categories for
the jurisdictions of each respective Board or Commission in the appeal process. This is perhaps
not uncommon in complex appeals; notwithstanding, it is necessary to sift through the full
Appeals in order to find the segments relevant to the Planning Commission’s task today.
Staff would suggest to the Planning Commission that the entirety of both Appeal documents be
read for context. However, our judgment is that the most directly pertinent sections are the
Appeal documents sections headed “ Location and Extent Review” and “Development Plan” (pp.
5-6, Attachment 1); “Conclusion and Request (p. 8, Attachment 1); several parallel arguments in
the Appeal’s Appendix (Attachment 1); and, in the Supplement to Notice of Appeal, certain
Planning Commission, October 30, 2018
Appeal of Development Plan #DP 2018-04 (Mtn.
Coaster)
Page 3 of 8
elements in the section headed “Supplemental to Position on requirement of Planning
Commission Review and Finality of Development Plan (pp. 2-3).
NOTE: It should be made clear at the outset what is not a subject for appeal to the Planning
Commission at this time. The Planning Commission has no scope in this appeal to determine:
a) The Use Classification of the project or property as a Recreation Facility as defined in
EVDC §13.2.34 (Park and Recreation Facilities). On Oct. 2, 2018, the Board of County
Commissioners determined that this is the correct and applicable classification for the
project and property.
b) The appropriateness of the staff’s decision, per Table 3-3 and related sections in EVDC,
to process the application as a staff-level development-plan review rather than a
Planning Commission-level development-plan review. The Development Plan comes
before the Planning Commission as an appeal, not as a de novo or initial Development
Plan review for this project.
The Planning Commission, as always, may elect to receive hearing testimony and public
comment and to entertain such questions and concerns as members deem appropriate in
hearing and discussion on this matter.
However, the decision, motion, and vote of the Commission must be based on whether the
Development Plan meets the criteria for approval as a Park and Recreation Facility in relevant
sections of the EVDC.
Site Data Table:
Site Design Engineer: Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering
Parcel Number: 2520000003
Development Area: ~ 8 acres
Parcel Area: ~ 187 acres (Assessor)
Existing Land Use: Mostly undeveloped;
recreation facility (horse trails) within
defined corridors
Proposed Land Use: Recreation facility
(commercial)
Zoning Designation: RE-1 (Rural Estate)
Adjacent Zoning:
East: RE-1 (Rural Estate Residential) North: RE-1 (Rural Estate)
West: RM (Multi-Family Residential); R-1
(Residential); O (Office); E (Estate); CO
(Commercial Outlying)
South: CO (Commercial Outlying); A
(Accommodations); R (Residential)
Adjacent Land Uses:
East: Undeveloped – wooded upland
(Yakutat Land Corp.)
North: Undeveloped – wooded, grazing
(MacGregor Trust)
West: Mixed Use (large-lot residential,
multi-family residential, church, medical
clinic, office) (various owners)
South: Commercial livery stable;
commercial campground (Sombrero
Stables; KOA)
Planning Commission, October 30, 2018
Appeal of Development Plan #DP 2018-04 (Mtn.
Coaster)
Page 4 of 8
Services:
Water: Town of Estes Park
Electric: Town of Estes Park
Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation
District
Review Criteria:
Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the
standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues
relevant to any particular project.
Please refer to Attachment 8, the Development Plan set for this project.
1. Buildings and Lots. The project site is on a single parcel of approx. 187 acres, per the
Larimer County Assessor’s office. The applicant’s Vicinity Map (Attachment 8, Sheet 1)
shows the boundaries and extent of the parcel. Staff is advised that all Yakutat Land
Corporation holdings in this area total close to 400 acres.
The project entails construction of two new buildings on site: (a) a coaster storage and
track shack (510 sq.ft.) adjacent to the customer loading / unloading platform, and (b) a
combined ticket office and restroom building (840 sq.ft.)
2. Landscaping. (See Attachment 8, Sheet 6, “Landscaping Plan”) The entire parcel is
heavily wooded over most areas. Construction of the coaster and accessory structures
and facilities will require removing two (2) trees on the acreage. The submitted
Landscape Plan shows three (3) new trees and nine (9) new shrubs to be planted in the
parking / building vicinity. The project, including existing natural vegetation, meets or
exceeds the landscaping requirements in Chapter 7 EVDC.
3. Water. Water is to be provided by the Town of Estes Park Water Division. The Division
has outlined several requirements for the development, some of which have been
addressed by the applicant on the Development Plan, and some of which are applicable
to construction and the building permit stage.
4. Fire Protection. Estes Valley Fire Protection District provided comments regarding fire
apparatus access and turning. These comments are adequately addressed on Sheet 7.
Additional Fire-related construction requirements will be addressed at the building permit
stage.
5. Electric. Electric service is to be provided by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power
Division. The Division’s requirements have been met.
6. Sanitary Sewer. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District will provide central sewer
service to the proposed development. All comments have been addressed.
7. Stormwater Drainage. A drainage plans were submitted and reviewed by engineering
staff with the Larimer County Engineering division.
Inasmuch as the driveway crossing traverses the Colorado Hazard Mapping (CHAMP)-
designated floodplain of Dry Gulch, County staff have determined that a County
Planning Commission, October 30, 2018
Appeal of Development Plan #DP 2018-04 (Mtn.
Coaster)
Page 5 of 8
Floodplain Permit is also required, including approval of the County Flood Review
Board. It is Community Development Dept. staff’s understanding that the floodplain
permitting process will conclude in October or November 2018, except for final
permitting, which needs to await construction and submittal of as-built plans, as well as
FEMA action on the Larimer County CHAMP floodplain mapping. Certificate of
Occupancy for the project would need to await final floodplain-permitting closeout.
Staff’s approval includes conditions requiring stormwater and floodplain final approval
and permitting (see Condition 2).
8. Access. Access to the site is proposed to be via a driveway accessing the site from the
east side of Dry Gulch Road, opposite the intersection of Ptarmigan Trail with Dry Gulch.
An existing curb cut on Dry Gulch Road leads to a field gate at the present time. The
project will have an approx. 600-foot driveway into the site, leading to a new 19-space
parking lot to the northeast (see “Parking” below.) The driveway will also be gated to
restrict after-hours access and to manage potential over-use of the parking lot at busy
times.
Traffic and parking plans, including access from Dry Gulch, are outlined in the Traffic
and Parking Study (see Attachment 9). An Operations Plan details the owner’s
proposed traffic-control plans (see Attachment 10, “Estes Mountain Coaster
Operations Plan”).
The Traffic and Parking Study was reviewed by both Town Engineering and County
Engineering. This unusual dual review wa s necessitated by the fact that the
development site is in unincorporated Larimer County, but the access road, Dry Gulch
Rd., is inside the Town boundary. An additional review was performed with CDOT to
determine any impacts on U.S. 34 operations. All revi ewing entities approved the
Study as revised in June (Attachment 9). No impacts requiring changes to U.S. 34 nor
Dry Gulch Road, nor other vicinity streets, were identified.
Present and future multi-modal access (pedestrian and bicycle) are addressed in t he
Study. Dry Gulch Road’s recently improved multi -use pathway along the west side
was identified as adequate for this project; no designated crossing to the east side of
Dry Gulch was identified as necessary. A recommendation that mul ti-modal access
along the U.S. 34 corridor is included.
9. Parking. The applicant has proposed fifty-seven (57) parking spaces. Nineteen (19) are
in the on-site parking lot; the other thirty-eight (38) are to the south, in an existing
parking lot near the intersection of Dry Gulch Road with Big Thompson avenue (U.S.
34). Both areas are owned by the applicant. The south area would have potential
shared-use with the main Sombrero Stables operation, which it already serves.
Additional leased spaces are available at Lakeview Plaza, one block west of Sombrero
on North Lake Avenue.
The EVDC Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements Chapter 7 do not specifically
address “Mountain Coaster” or any closely related land uses in §7.11.D. This not-
uncommon situation in our Code resulted in staff and the applicant’s engineering team
Planning Commission, October 30, 2018
Appeal of Development Plan #DP 2018-04 (Mtn.
Coaster)
Page 6 of 8
discussing and agreeing upon submittal of the alternative use-specific Parking plan in
Attachment 9 prepared and sealed/signed by a PE/PTOE Colorado-licensed engineer
with Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC. Alternative parking plans like this
one are typical in Estes Valley and are explicitly authorized for staff review and approval
in EVDC §7.11.E. The Study recommends a minimum of 40 parking spaces. The 57
spaces provided exceed the minimum.
The Study also indicates how and when any necessary additional parking beyond the
proposed number will be triggered. A parking-use study is to be performed no later than
June 2019 – earlier, if requested by staff or owner. Staff would recommend that other
alternatives besides adding to the 19-space parking lot be employed, such as expansion
of the leased area at Lakeview Plaza and/or other shared-use arrangements closer to
U.S. 34; adding new spaces at the coaster site would be a last resort.
The Parking plan and Operations Plan outline shuttle-vehicle arrangements for taking
Coaster customers from the off-site lots to the loading area and vice-versa.
10. Outdoor Lighting. A total of three outdoor freestanding light fixtures are proposed; two
will be at the parking lot, and a third at the driveway near the parking-lot’s west end. All
lighting will be shielded and deflected down in compliance with EDVC §7.9. No
additional lighting on or next to Dry Gulch Road is proposed. There is an existing street
light in the median island on Ptarmigan Trail at Dry Gulch Road. Please see Attachment
11, last seven pages, for lighting cut-sheet details.)
11. Comprehensive Plan. Staff would observe that the Comprehensive Plan is not, and
was not intended to be, a regulatory document. The Plan includes generalized
statements and recommended goals and policies, none of which are in themselves
regulations. EVDC 3.8.D.2 does require than an approved development plan be
“…consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any
other relevant land use, parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans.”
This section does not state that goals, objectives and policies in the Comprehensive
Plan are to be applied as regulations.
With this said, staff asserts that this project in in fact consistent with goals and policies
within the Comprehensive Plan - specifically as follows:
• Ch. 6, Policy 7.1 – Maintain a unique blend of businesses, residents and visitors,
without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley
• Ch. 6, Policy 7.2 – Develop eco-tourism, which relies on a high quality physical
setting and minimal impact on the environment, as a component of the existing
tourism industry.
• Ch. 6, Policy 7.4 – Encourage environmentally clean economic development that
is compatible with adjacent land uses and the natural environment.
This project is also located within the North End Planning Sub-Area. A “Special
Consideration” in the North End Planning Area is as follows: “Extensive development
within the open meadow areas found in the North End Planning Area would significantly
alter not only the visual integrity of the area, but would impact the image of the entire
Estes Valley.”
Planning Commission, October 30, 2018
Appeal of Development Plan #DP 2018-04 (Mtn.
Coaster)
Page 7 of 8
Other North End considerations mention wildlife habitat maintenance, avoiding negative
impacts to steep slopes, preserving existing native vegetation, and locating buildings to
minimize disruption and intrusion. The Mountain Coaster design approaches if not
exceeds all these objectives. No evidence has been submitted to indicate otherwise.
The North End Future Land Use guidelines contain the following statement: “Cluster
development patterns should be utilized to enhance open space opportunities. (Cluster
development groups building sites on a parcel and preserves or leaves open the
remaining land. The Concept allows for savings in development and service costs and
for preservation of open Space.)” [emphasis in the original]
Staff asserts that a single-use recreation facility in a narrow ribbon of land, centrally
located on a 160-acre-plus parcel and occupying less that 5 percent of the land area
therein, is not extensive, preserves as much open space as any development could, and
meets or exceeds the North End’s stated Special Considerations and Future Land Use
objectives.
Location and Extent Review:
The Appeals accurately note that the right-hand column in Table 4-1, headed “Additional
Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated)” has an entry in the Parks and
Recreation Facility row directing one to “§3.13, Location & Extent Review”. That section in
EVDC is titled “Public Facility/Location and Extent Review,” and goes on to detail this separate
specific process in our Code.
The argument is made that this section does apply, or ought to be applied, to the Mountain
Coaster review and/or to Park and Recreation Facilities in general. This would be accurate if the
Mountain Coaster were a publicly owned or operated facility. That is not the case, of course.
Location and Extent Reviews are authorized by Colorado Revised Statutes §30.28-110 et seq.
The Statutes unequivocally state that this type of review is available and applicable only for
public projects, with the exception of private utility projects.
For this reason, the appeal on Location and Extent review requirement is not a topic for
Planning Commission decision and need not be addressed in your discussion, motion, or
findings.
Public Notice:
Written notice of the appeal has been mailed to adjacent property owners in accordance with
EDVC, Section 3.15 General Notice Provisions. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park
Trail-Gazette and the application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The
applicant has also posted a “Development Proposal Under Review” sign on the property.
Public Interest: High
Public interest and comment on this Development Plan and the project has been relatively high.
All comments received by Community Development Dept. staff are available at:
www.estes.org/currentapplications
Planning Commission, October 30, 2018
Appeal of Development Plan #DP 2018-04 (Mtn.
Coaster)
Page 8 of 8
Staff Findings:
Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
1. The Planning Commission is the appellate decision-making Body for the Development Plan.
Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project.
2. The development plan is consistent with the recommendations of the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration
and comment. Concerns and issues that were raised have been addressed or will be
addressed at time of building permit.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Development Plan be approved on appeal
Sample motions:
1. I move to approve Development Plan DP 2018-04 (Estes Park Mountain Coaster),
upholding staff’s decision on appeal, according to findings of fact with findings and
conditions recommended by Staff.
2. I move to continue the appeal of Development Plan DP 2018-04 (Estes Park Mountain
Coaster) to [date certain], finding that… [state reasons for continuing].
3. I move to deny Development Plan DP 2018-04 (Estes Park Mountain Coaster),
reversing and vacating staff’s decision on appeal, finding that … [state findings for
denial].
Attachments:
1. Notice of Appeal
2. Supplement to Notice of Appeal
3. Vicinity Map
4. Development Plan Approval Letter
5. Timeline and Process Outline for Appeal
6. Fact Sheet About the Estes Park Mountain Coaster, July 3, 2018
7. Applicant Statement of Intent
8. Development Plan Set
9. Traffic and Parking Study (summaries only) – full Study available at:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/currentapplications (see “Mountain
Coaster”, Traffic and Parking Study))
10. Estes Mountain Coaster Operations Plan
11. Combined Staff Comments from June 25, 2018 submittal
12. Response to Comments 6/25/2018
Attachment 8
P.O. BOX 19768, BOULDER, COLORADO 80308-2768
PHONE: 303.652.3571 | WWW.FTHTRANSGROUP.COM
June 15, 2018
(Note added to Table 3 on July 20, 2018)
Mr. Cody Walker
Sombrero Ranches, Inc.
1895 Big Thompson Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: Updated Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
The Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group has completed an updated traffic impact study for
the proposed installation of a mountain coaster on the Sombrero Ranch property located in Larimer
County, near Estes Park, Colorado. This study was developed in coordination with the property
owner, design team, Town of Estes Park staff, and Larimer County staff to ensure the study meets the
town and county standards and requirements, including the Estes Valley Development Code. This
update responds to the questions and comments made by the Town and County review staff. It also
includes updates to proposed coaster operations based on additional information gathered after the
initial traffic study submittal.
Sombrero Ranch is located in the northeast corner of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) and Dry Gulch
Road. The proposed project includes a mountain coaster for year‐round recreational use. A vicinity
map is shown in Figure 1. Currently, Sombrero Ranch provides horseback riding experiences for an
average of 200 riders per day during the summer months, in addition to meals for tourists and stables
to house the horses. The project proposes to install a mountain coaster and parking facilities as a
separate project to the north of the existing stables on the Sombrero property.
The purpose of this study is to assist in identifying potential traffic impacts within the study area as a
result of this project. The traffic study addresses existing, short‐term, and long‐term peak hour
intersection conditions on the roadways adjacent to the project site. The information contained in
this study is anticipated to be used by the Town in identifying any intersection or roadway deficiencies
and potential improvements that may be required of the project. This report summarizes our
analyses, findings, and recommendations.
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Page 2
Project Description
The project proposes to install a mountain coaster, associated facilities, and parking. The following
additions will be included within this project:
New 1,960‐foot (downhill length) mountain coaster
New 19‐space parking lot at the base of the mountain coaster
Utilization of existing parking lots on the northwest corner of Dry Gulch Road and Big
Thompson Avenue for auxiliary parking
New shuttle service from the auxiliary parking lots to the base of the mountain coaster
It is anticipated that mountain coaster riders will be drawn from existing Sombrero Ranch horseback
riding visitors, from other tourist locations in Estes Park, and also from locations along the front range.
The proposed site and access plan for the mountain coaster is provided on Figure 2. Refer to the
conceptual site plan and vicinity map for more details. Surrounding land uses include residential to
the west, commercial to the southwest and south, and open space to the east and north.
The project proposes to add a new driveway on Dry Gulch Road at its intersection with Ptarmigan
Trail. 19 new parking spaces are proposed at the mountain coaster base. All remaining parking will
be at the existing auxiliary lots on the northwest corner of Dry Gulch Road and Big Thompson Avenue
(off of North Lake Avenue), and a shuttle will take visitors from these auxiliary lots to the mountain
coaster base. Base and auxiliary parking lots, shuttle operations, and pickup/dropoff locations are
shown in Figures P2, P3, and P4 of the associated parking study (see appendix).
Study Area
Roadways
The study area was developed with consideration of the amount of site traffic to be added to the
surrounding street network and planned access. The existing study area street network consists of
one arterial and one collector roadway. The public roadways that serve the project site are discussed
in the following text:
Dry Gulch Road is a two‐lane, north‐south collector that has been newly reconstructed as it
approaches Big Thompson Avenue. It begins at H Bar G Road to the north, travels south into
Estes Park, and ends at Big Thompson Avenue. This roadway provides access to primarily
residential areas north of Big Thompson Avenue. It is the western border of the project site.
The posted speed limit on Dry Gulch Road is 40 miles per hour (mph) through the study area.
Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) is a two‐lane arterial roadway with a two‐way left‐turn lane
west of its intersection with Dry Gulch Road. This roadway is considered category NRA to the
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Page 3
west, and RA to the east by Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). It provides east‐
west access down the Big Thompson Canyon to Loveland and the front range to the east, and
access for commercial and residential areas of Estes Park to the west. The posted speed limit
is 40 mph. Big Thompson Avenue sustained significant damage in the 2013 floods, and will
be closed to the east for repair for portions of the fall of 2017 and spring of 2018.
Intersections
There are two existing intersections included in the study area:
Dry Gulch Road at Big Thompson Ave (three‐way, side‐street stop‐controlled)
Ptarmigan Trail/Site Access (current three-way, side-street stop controlled; proposed 4-way
side-street stop controlled)
Pedestrian and Bicycle
A 10‐foot wide, attached multi‐use path was recently installed on the west side of Dry Gulch Road.
There is no sidewalk on the east side or bike lanes on Dry Gulch Road. Big Thompson Avenue has
narrow shoulders with no sidewalks on either side in the project area.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Recent peak hour turning movement volumes do not currently exist in the study area. Due to the
current season and pending closure of Big Thompson Avenue, collecting accurate peak hour turning
movement counts is not possible at this time. However, Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) average daily traffic (ADT) and average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts exist on Dry Gulch
Road north of the study intersection and on Big Thompson Avenue to the west and to the east of Dry
Gulch Road. The counts on Big Thompson Avenue to the east of the study intersection are from a
count station that collects continuous data throughout the year. As such, existing peak hour volumes
for the Dry Gulch/Big Thompson intersection were assumed using ADT and AADT information from
the CDOT counts on the three intersection approaches and hourly information from the CDOT count
station. CDOT developed the ADT and AADTs at these locations using a continuous count station
taking counts throughout the year (data from 2014‐2016, which was comparable to 2012 pre‐flood
data), and multi‐day counts in August and Early September (before the flood impacts) 2013 and 2014.
Using this information, it was approximated that the morning peak hour occurs from 11:00 AM to
12:00 PM, and the evening peak hour occurs from 3:00 to 4:00 PM.
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Page 4
Existing peak hour volumes for the Ptarmigan Trail/Site Access/Dry Gulch Road were assumed using
the same ADT information from the CDOT count station described above as well as Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (ITE) estimates for the Good Samaritan Society
neighborhood and church that Ptarmigan Trail serves. This estimate is likely conservative (high)
because there are two other potential access points for residents of the Good Samaritan
neighborhood, and because Dry Gulch volumes likely dissipate further away from Big Thompson
Avenue. Trip generation rates for 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM were used because
they are assumed to be higher than rates during the mountain coaster peak hours stated above and
are therefore considered conservative. ITE trip generation for this neighborhood is shown in
Table 1.
The existing traffic volumes derived from the CDOT ADT and AADT information and ITE rates are
illustrated on Figure 3.
Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis
In determining the operational characteristics of an intersection, “Levels‐of‐Service” (LOS) A through
F are applied, with LOS A indicating very good operations and LOS F indicating congested operations.
The LOS is represented as a delay in seconds per vehicle for the intersection as a whole and for each
lane movement. A more detailed discussion of LOS methodology is contained in the Appendix for
reference. Criteria contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) was applied for these analyses
in order to determine existing operational performance during peak hour periods.
Dry Gulch Road at Big Thompson Avenue: This side‐street stop‐controlled intersection is
currently operating at LOS A overall in the AM and PM peak hours. In the morning and
afternoon peak hours, the southbound approach operates at LOS B. The 95th percentile queue
is estimated to be 7 feet (less than one vehicle).
Recommendation: No mitigation measures are recommended.
Ptarmigan Trail/(Future Project Access) at Dry Gulch Road: This side‐street stop‐controlled
intersection is currently operating at LOS A overall and for each approach in the AM and PM
peak hours.
Recommendation: No mitigation measures are recommended.
The results of the LOS calculations for the intersection are su mmarized in Table 2. The level‐of‐service
worksheets are attached in the Appendix.
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Page 5
Short‐Term and Long‐Term Traffic Projections
For the purpose of this study, the short‐term analysis year is 2023, and the long‐term horizon year is
2038. ADT volumes in 2005 and 2015 at the Bellevue count station on Big Thompson Avenue were
used to calculate an annual growth rate of traffic. The annual growth rate calculated over those ten
years is 2.3%; however, the actual annual growth rates vary from ‐1% to 13% in those same years.
Because actual grown rate had such significant variability, and because a 2.3% growth rate is higher
than is often used, a 2% annual growth rate was assumed for all roadways. This results in a high
(conservative) assumed growth rate on the Dry Gulch Roadway. This growth rate was applied to
existing derived turning movement volumes over a seven‐year growth horizon for short‐term 2023
volumes, and over a 22‐year growth horizon for long‐term 2038 volumes. The 2023 background
volumes are shown on Figure 4 and the 2038 background volumes are shown on Figure 5.
2023 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis
The level‐of‐service criteria discussed previously was applied to the study area intersection to
determine the LOS with the short‐term background volumes. All of the study movements operate
similarly to the existing conditions, with minor change.
Dry Gulch Road at Big Thompson Avenue: This side‐street stop‐controlled intersection
operates at LOS A overall in the AM and PM peak hours under 2023 baseline conditions. In
the morning and afternoon peak hours, the southbound approach operates at LOS B. The
maximum 95th percentile queue is estimated to be 9 feet (less than one vehicle).
Recommendation: No mitigation measures are recommended.
Ptarmigan Trail/(Future Project Access) at Dry Gulch Road: This side‐street stop‐controlled
intersection will operate at LOS A overall and for each approach in the AM and PM peak hours
under 2023 baseline conditions.
Recommendation: No mitigation measures are recommended.
The results of the LOS calculations for the intersection are su mmarized in Table 2. The level‐of‐service
worksheets are attached in the Appendix.
2038 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis
The level‐of‐service criteria discussed previously was applied to the study area intersection to
determine the impacts with the long‐term background volumes. All of the study movements operate
similarly to the existing and short‐term background conditions, with minor changes.
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Page 6
Dry Gulch Road at Big Thompson Avenue: This side‐street stop‐controlled intersection
operates at LOS A overall in the AM and PM peak hours under 2038 baseline conditions. The
southbound approach operates at LOS B in the AM peak hour, and at LOS C in the PM peak
hour. The maximum 95th percentile queue is estimated to be 18 feet (about one vehicle).
Recommendation: No mitigation measures are recommended.
Ptarmigan Trail/(Future Project Access) at Dry Gulch Road: This side‐street stop‐controlled
intersection will operate at LOS A overall and for each approach in the AM and PM peak hours
under 2038 baseline conditions. The westbound approach operates at LOS B in the AM and
PM peak hours. The 95th percentile queue is estimated to be 6 feet (less than one vehicle) for
the westbound approach.
Recommendation: No mitigation measures are recommended.
The results of the LOS calculations for the intersection are su mmarized in Table 2. The level‐of‐service
worksheets are attached in the Appendix.
Trip Generation
To establish the volume of new trips that will be added to the roadway network with addition of the
mountain coaster project, trip generation estimates were developed based on research completed
and assumptions made by the project team. In addition, supporting evidence was gathered from the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual1, which does not have a land use
category for a facility of this type but has other related recreational land uses.
Due to the lack of traffic studies done throughout the country on mountain coasters or alpine slides,
the project team researched hourly person‐capacity and operational constraints of other existing and
proposed mountain coasters. Person‐capacity of the mountain coaster was estimated using the
following calculations and assumptions:
15 carts in circulation
7.5‐minute ride time (includes 6 minutes of actual cart travel time and 1.5 minutes of loading,
safety talk, and unloading)
2 riders per cart (maximum capacity)
Capacity: 15 carts * 2 people/cart * 1 trip/7.5 minutes * 60 minutes/hour = 240 people/hour
capacity
1 Trip Generation Manual. 10
th Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, DC. 2017.
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Page 7
The number of people per vehicle was estimated based on existing transaction data provided by
Sombrero Ranches for its horseback riding use. The estimates based on the transaction data
averaged over the summer months resulted in a people per vehicle estimate of 3.4. A people per
vehicle rate of 3.0 was assumed as a conservative estimate for this study’s trip generation.
Trip generation: 240 people/hour capacity * 1 car/3 people = 80 cars/hour
The proposed project is expected to draw both primary trips (users who travel to the site for the sole
purpose of riding the mountain coaster) as well as joint trips (users who are also riding horses under
the existing adjacent land use). As the horseback riding usage is not proposed to increase as part of
this project, the joint trip user volume would be included in the existing volumes previously discussed.
However, this analysis assumes all mountain coaster user trips are primary trips to further provide a
conservative analysis and reduce the need for additional assumptions.
Using the methodology and assumptions discussed in this section, the project is anticipated to
generate vehicular trips as summarized in Table 3. Assumptions are described in more detail in
Table 4.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The estimated trips presented in Table 3 were distributed onto the adjacent street network based on
existing traffic characteristics of the area and the proposed land use, as well as directional estimates
based on the existing horseback riding use. This type of project is primarily tourist recreational in
nature, indicating that the majority of users will be tourists staying in town or visiting other sites in
town, with fewer users coming from the front range for a day trip to this specific site.
Although it is possible to access the auxiliary lots without traveling through the intersection of Dry
Gulch Road and Big Thompson Avenue, all project‐generated trips were assumed to travel through
this intersection, providing a conservative analysis. As such, any trips utilizing the N. Lake Ave access
road in lieu of Dry Gulch Road will actually reduce the impact on the Dry Gulch Road/US 34
intersection. The N Lake Ave access road is predicted to have less background traffic on it than Dry
Gulch Road, and therefore less overall traffic with the project. As such, it was not analyzed separately.
In addition, all project‐generated trips were assumed to travel through the project access drive
intersection (Ptarmigan Trail/Project Access and Dry Gulch Road), providing a further conservative
analysis because, in reality, some trips will end at the auxiliary lots in order to utilize the shuttle. The
overall assumed distribution is as follows, as well as presented in Figure 6:
70% to/from Estes Park on Big Thompson Avenue (west)
30% to/from the front range on Big Thompson Avenue (east)
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Page 8
Using these distribution assumptions, the projected site traffic was assigned to the study area
roadway network for the AM and PM peak hours. The project‐generated volumes are shown on
Figure 7.
2023 Background + Project Intersection Capacity Analysis
The project‐generated traffic volumes were added to the 2023 background volumes to analyze
potential site impacts in the short‐term plus project scenario. The 2023 background + project‐
generated traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 8. The LOS criteria discussed in prior sections was
applied to the study intersection to determine impacts with the addition of project‐generated traffic
volumes in the short‐term.
Dry Gulch Road at Big Thompson Avenue: This side‐street stop‐controlled intersection
operates at LOS A overall in the AM and PM peak hours under 2023 + project conditions. In
the morning and afternoon peak hours, the southbound approach operates at LOS B. The
maximum 95th percentile queue is estimated to be 19 feet (about one vehicle).
Recommendation: No mitigation measures are recommended.
Ptarmigan Trail/Project Access at Dry Gulch Road: This side‐street stop‐controlled
intersection will operate at LOS A overall in the AM and PM peak hours under 2023 + project
conditions. In the morning and afternoon peak hours, the westbound approach (project
access drive) will operate at LOS B. The 95th percentile queue is estimated to be 6 feet (less
than one vehicle) for the westbound approach.
Recommendation: No mitigation measures are recommended.
The results of the LOS calculations for the study intersection are summarized in Table 2. The level‐
of‐service worksheets are attached in the Appendix.
2038 Background + Project Intersection Capacity Analysis
The project‐generated traffic volumes were added to the 2038 background volumes to analyze
potential impacts in the long‐term plus project scenario. The 2038 background + project‐generated
traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 9. The LOS criteria discussed in prior sections was applied to
the study area intersection to determine impacts with the addition of site build‐out traffic volumes
in the long‐term scenario.
Dry Gulch Road at Big Thompson Avenue: This side‐street stop‐controlled intersection
operates at LOS A overall in the AM and PM peak hours under 2038 baseline + project
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Page 9
conditions. The southbound approach operates at LOS C in the AM and PM peak hours. The
southbound left turn movement is the lowest level of services movement in any scenario,
operating at LOS D in the PM peak hour. The maximum 95th percentile queue is estimated to
be 38 feet (about two vehicles).
Recommendation: No mitigation measures are recommended. However, due to the LOS D
southbound left turn movement under this scenario, a signal warrant analysis was completed
to determine if the side‐street volumes are approaching traffic signal warrant thresholds.
Utilizing the Peak Hour Signal Warrant from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), this intersection does not warrant a traffic signal even under the highest volume
condition. Signal warrant analysis is shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11.
Ptarmigan Trail/Project Access at Dry Gulch Road: This side‐street stop‐controlled
intersection will operate at LOS A overall in the AM and PM peak hours under 2023 + project
conditions. In the morning and afternoon peak hours, the westbound approach (project
access drive) will operate at LOS B. The 95th percentile queue is estimated to be 7 feet (less
than one vehicle) for the westbound approach.
Recommendation: No mitigation measures are recommended.
The results of the LOS calculations for the study intersection are summarized in Table 2. The level‐
of‐service worksheets are attached in the Appendix.
Auxiliary Lane Needs Analysis
The intersection of Ptarmigan Trail/Project Access and Dry Gulch Road was analyzed to determine
whether an auxiliary left‐ or right‐turn lane was necessary. Larimer County Rural Area Road
Standards state:
“Exclusive turn lanes shall be provided on all arterial roads and collector roads based on the
turning volume requirements of the Colorado State Highway Access Code (most current
version) or when required by the Engineer. For the purposes of determining the criteria for
turn lane warrants the following shall be used: Arterial – NR‐A; Major and Minor Collector –
NR‐B.”
Dry Gulch is listed as “Road” at the project driveway location, and “Major Collector” to the north of
the project according to the County Functional Classification Map. Although the general “Road”
classification may not require an auxiliary lane needs analysis, the FTH team reviewed the State
Highway Access Code for NR‐B Category to be conservative. Section 3.5 (2) in the State Highway
Access Code states:
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Page 10
“The auxiliary lanes required in the category design standards may be waived when the 20th
year predicted roadway volumes conflicting with the turning vehicle are below the following
minimum volume thresholds. The right turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the volume
in the travel lane is predicted to be below 150 DHV. The left turn deceleration lane may be
dropped if the opposing traffic is predicted to be below 100 DHV. The right turn acceleration
lane may be dropped if the adjacent traveled lane is predicted to be below 120 DHV. The left
turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the inside lane in the direction of
travel is predicted to be below 120 DHV.”
As seen in Figure 9, northbound through volumes are anticipated to be approximately 102 in the
highest peak hour scenario (2038 PM + Project). This is below every base threshold noted above
except one – requirements for left‐turn deceleration. Given that no trips are predicted to make the
southbound to eastbound left turning movement and the speed limit on Dry Gulch is 40 mph, FTH
proposes no left turn auxiliary lane be constructed. The northbound through volume is predicted
to be below the bottom threshold of 150 DHV, therefore no right turn auxiliary lane is required by
the State Highway Access Code. The project driveway is a stop condition at all times serving only
the coaster use, so no acceleration or deceleration lanes on the project drives are necessary.
Auxiliary lanes in the form of a two‐way left turn lane and a recently‐constructed right turn lane are
already provided at the Dry Gulch Road/Big Thompson Avenue intersection.
Future Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
Safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle access to any site is important in a tourist destination town
such as Estes Park. The recent addition of a wide sidewalk/multi‐use path on Dry Gulch Road will
serve pedestrians and bicyclists when they arrive at Dry Gulch Road and may reduce the demand on
the proposed parking shuttle as some users may elect to make the ¾ mile walk from their cars in the
auxiliary lot to the mountain coaster base. However, no pedestrian or bicycle facilities exist along Big
Thompson Avenue. If the Town desires to encourage non‐motorize d modal use in the area, improved
bicycle and pedestrian facilities along this roadway should be installed. Due to the scope of this
improvement, nature of the proposed and existing uses, and proximity to other non‐motorized
facilities, this improvement should not be required as part of the proposed project.
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Page 11
Conclusions
The project is proposing to install a mountain coaster on the Sombrero property on the east end of
Estes Park. Currently, the site provides horseback riding experiences from its existing stables.
Proposed access to the mountain coaster and primary parking lot is via a new driveway opposite
Ptarmigan Trail off of Dry Gulch Road. All additional parking necessary will be provided via a shuttle
from the existing auxiliary lots on the northwest corner of Dry Gulch Road and Big Thompson Road.
This study addresses short‐term (2023) and long‐term (2038) project traffic impacts. It is estimated
that the project will generate approximately 80 AM and 80 PM peak hour trips. It was determined
that the estimated new trips for Sombrero Mountain Coaster will have little impact at the study
intersections on the average day, and do not require mitigation measures.
Sincerely,
FOX TUTTLE HERNANDEZ TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LLC
Alicia Zimmerman, PE, PTOE
Senior Transportation Engineer
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Tables and Figures:
Table 1 – Good Samaritan Neighborhood Trip Generation
Table 2 – Intersection Level‐of‐Service Summary
Table 3 – Project Trip Generation Summary (note added on July 20, 2018)
Table 4 – Trip Generation and Distribution Assumptions
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 3 –Existing Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 – Year 2023 Background Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 – Year 2038 Background Traffic Volumes
Figure 6 – Project Trip Distribution
Figure 7 – Project‐Generated Traffic Volumes
Figure 8 – Year 2023 Background + Project‐Generated Traffic Volumes
Figure 9 – Year 2038 Background + Project‐Generated Traffic Volumes
Figure 10 – AM Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant
Figure 11 – PM Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant
FTH#17074Sombrero Mountain CoasterTraffic Assessment3/18/2018AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour TripsLand Use Size Unit Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Rate Total In OutITE 251 ‐ Senior Adult Housing ‐ Detached46Dwelling Units4.27 196 98 98 0.24 11 4 7 0.30 14 9 5ITE 252 ‐ Senior Adult Housing ‐ Attached34Dwelling Units3.70 126 63 63 0.20 7 2 5 0.26 9 5 4ITE 254 ‐ Assisted Living 24 Beds 2.60 62 31 31 0.19 5 3 2 0.26 6 2 4ITE 560 ‐ Church 150 Seats 0.44 66 33 33 0.01 2 1 1 0.03 5 2 3Subtotal 450 225 225 25 10 15 34 18 16Daily > 450 225 225 AM > 25 10 15 PM > 34 18 16Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition Total Proposed TripsTable 1 ‐ Good Samaritan Neighborhood Trip Generation SummaryAverage Daily Trips17074_trip gen 2018-03-17 - Ex Trip Gen - Ptarmigan
FTH# 17074Sombrero Mountain CoasterTraffic Impact Study6/14/2018Existing 2023 Background 2023 Background + Project 2038 Background2038 Background + ProjectIntersection and AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM PeakLanes Groups Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOSSTOP SIGN CONTROLDry Gulch Rd at Big Thompson Ave1.4A1.5A1.5A1.6A2.5A2.7A1.7A1.9A2.7A3.1A Southbound Left13.2 B 14.3 B 14.3 B 15.8 C 17.5 C 19.1 C 18.6 C 22.1 C 24.4 C 29.6 D Southbound Right10.0 A 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.7 B 10.6 B 11.3 B 11.4 B 12.1 B 11.8 B 13.1 B Eastbound Left8.0 A 8.1 A 8.1 A 8.3 A 8.4 A 8.5 A 8.5 A 8.8 A 8.9 A 9.1 A Eastbound Through0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A Westbound Through0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A Westbound Right0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 APtarmigan Tr at Dry Gulch Rd1.4A1.7A1.4A1.7A2.0A2.9A1.4A1.7A2.0A2.8A Eastbound 8.7 A 8.7 A 8.7 A 8.8 A 8.7 A 8.8 A 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.9 A Westbound 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 10.2 B 10.7 B 0.0 A 0.0 A 10.9 B 11.6 B Northbound 1.0 A 1.7 A 1.0 A 1.7 A 0.6 A 1.3 A 1.0 A 1.7 A 0.7 A 1.4 A Southbound0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 ANote: Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle.Table 2 ‐ Intersection Level‐of‐Service Summary17074_LOS_rev1.xls
FTH#17074Sombrero Mountain CoasterTraffic Impact Study7/20/2018Land Use Size Unit Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Rate Total In OutMountain Coaster 80Vehicles per Hour1.00 80 54 26 1.00 80 36 44 na 350 175 175Subtotal 80 54 26 80 36 44 350 175 175Joint Trip Use Reducton0% 000 000 0 0 0Non‐Auto Use Reduction0% 000 000 0 0 0AM > 80 54 26 PM > 80 36 44 Daily > 350 175 175Source: see report text for trip generation explanation based on anticipated operation. Total Proposed TripsTable 3 ‐ Trip Generation SummaryPM Peak Hour Trips* ‐ Average Daily Trips shown in table are estimated for peak summer days ‐ assumes 100% of peak trip generation for 2 hours per day, 50% for 2 hours per day, 30% for 2 hours per day, and 20% for 4 hours per day. ‐ For Larimer County development needs, an annual average (AADT) was estimated at 126 vehicles per day, due to reduced anticipated demand during non‐summer months. This estimate is based on the adjacent stable horseback riding annual usage patterns, where the annual average number of daily transactions is 36% of the average number of daily transactions for the peak summer weekend days. 350 peak ADT x 0.36 = 126 AADT (note added on July 20, 2018.)AM Peak Hour Trips Average Daily Trips *17074_trip gen 2018-03-17.xls - Coaster Trip Generation
FTH# 17074Sombrero Mountain CoasterTraffic Impact Study3/18/2018Metric Details Source/Basis Use (in this report)240 people/hour usageDuring AM and PM generator peaksSee report text for calculation based on anticipated operations Person‐capacity60,000 annual ridershipSombrero estimate, Snowking previous planning document (60k riders per year), A‐Basin (15k riders per year) previous planning document n/a63% summer ridershipJune‐Aug as percent of annual ridershipSombrero horseback riding percentage uses by month n/a3 people per car Sombrero horseback riding people vs. transactions (3.4 summer average, 4.9 summer max)With people per hour max, determines numbers of cars generated in peak hour80 vehiclesVehicular trips generated in the peak hourAssumes 240 pph based on anticipated operations and 3 people per car based on horseback riding operations and EVDCVehicle trips generated to distribute onto adjacent roadsAM Peak ‐ 67% entering ↑ 33% exiting ↓ AM Peak Trip SplitSimilar to amusement park ITEDistribution patterns to adjacent streetsPM Peak ‐ 45% entering ↑ 55% exiting ↓ PM Peak Trip SplitSimilar to golf course, rock climbing gym, trampoline park, amusement park ITEDistribution patterns to adjacent streets70% trips from Estes ← 30% trips from east → Trip directional split Sombrero estimate Distribution patterns to adjacent streetsOverall Vehicular Traffic GenerationTable 4 ‐ Trip Generation and Distribution AssumptionsAssumptions and Usage_rev1
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT
SITE
AUXILIARY
PARKING EXISTING
SOMBRERO
STABLES
BASE AREA
PARKING
ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION
(STUDY AREA)
BI
G
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
(
U
S
3
4
)DRY GULCH ROADANALYSIS
INTERSECTION
(STUDY AREA)
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
VICINITY MAP
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/2018 AMZ 1
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/2018 AMZ 2
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/2018 AMZ 3
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
YEAR 2023 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/2018 AMZ 4
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
YEAR 2038 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/2018 AMZ 5
100%
To/From Big
Thompson
Ave/US 34
to/from the South
70%
To/From Estes
Park to/from the
West
30%
To/From the East
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/2018 AMZ 6
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/2018 AMZ 7
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
YEAR 2023 BACKGROUND + PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/2018 AMZ 8
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
YEAR 2038 BACKGROUND + PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/2018 AMZ 9
FT Project #Original ScaleDateDrawn byFigure #opurTransporGnoittFOXTUTTLEaHERNANDEZ170744/2/2018AMZ10SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY2038 + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANTUS 34 andDry Gulch RdAM Volumes
FT Project #Original ScaleDateDrawn byFigure #opurTransporGnoittFOXTUTTLEaHERNANDEZ170744/2/2018AMZ11SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY2038 + PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANTUS 34 andDry Gulch RdPM Volumes
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Appendix:
Level of Service Definitions
Intersection Capacity Worksheets
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Parking Study
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Level of Service Definitions
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
In rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traffic
volumes, “Levels of Service” (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good
operation and LOS F indicating poor operation. Levels of service at signalized and
unsignalized intersections are closely associated with vehicle delays experienced in
seconds per vehicle. More complete level of service definitions and delay data for signal
and stop sign controlled intersections are contained in the following table for reference.
Level
of Service
Rating
Delay in seconds per vehicle (a)
Definition
Signalized
Unsignalized
A
0.0 to 10.0
0.0 to 10.0
Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations. Density is
low and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers
are able to maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay.
B
10.1 to 20.0
10.1 to 15.0
Stable vehicular traffic volume flow with potential for some restriction
of operating speeds due to traffic conditions. Vehicle maneuvering is
only slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and
drivers are not subject to appreciable tension.
C
20.1 to 35.0
15.1 to 25.0
Stable traffic operations, however the ability for vehicles to maneuver is
more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory
operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer
vehicle queues cause delays along the corridor.
D
35.1 to 55.0
25.1 to 35.0
Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in
volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in
ability to maneuver and selection of travel speeds due to congestion.
Driver comfort and convenience are low, but tolerable.
E
55.1 to 80.0
35.1 to 50.0
Traffic operations characterized by significant approach delays and
average travel speeds of one‐half to one‐third the free flow speed.
Vehicular flow is unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief
duration. High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridor
signal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at
signalized corridors.
F
> 80.0
> 50.0
Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays
at critical intersections. Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially and
stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of
downstream congestion.
(a) Delay ranges based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual criteria.
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Intersection Capacity Worksheets
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
03/17/2018 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 459 232 25 26 46
Future Volume (Veh/h) 49 459 232 25 26 46
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 56 522 264 28 30 52
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 292 898 264
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 264
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 634
vCu, unblocked vol 292 898 264
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 96 94 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 1270 470 775
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 56 522 264 28 30 52
Volume Left 56 0 0 0 30 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 28 0 52
cSH 1270 1700 1700 1700 470 775
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.31 0.16 0.02 0.06 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft)300055
Control Delay (s) 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 10.0
Lane LOS A B A
Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 11.2
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Dry Gulch & Ptarmigan Tr
03/17/2018 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 15 10 64 58 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 15 10 64 58 0
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 16 11 70 63 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 155 63 63
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 155 63 63
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 98 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 830 1002 1540
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 16 81 63
Volume Left 0 11 0
Volume Right 16 0 0
cSH 1002 1540 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0
Control Delay (s) 8.7 1.0 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.7 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
03/17/2018 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 525 265 28 30 53
Future Volume (Veh/h) 56 525 265 28 30 53
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 64 597 301 32 34 60
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 333 1026 301
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 301
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 725
vCu, unblocked vol 333 1026 301
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 95 92 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 1226 422 739
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 64 597 301 32 34 60
Volume Left 64 0 0 0 34 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 32 0 60
cSH 1226 1700 1700 1700 422 739
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.35 0.18 0.02 0.08 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft)400077
Control Delay (s) 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 10.3
Lane LOS A B B
Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 11.7
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Dry Gulch & Ptarmigan Tr
03/17/2018 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 16 18 66 67 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 16 18 66 67 0
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 17 20 72 73 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 185 73 73
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 185 73 73
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 98 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 794 989 1527
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 17 92 73
Volume Left 0 20 0
Volume Right 17 0 0
cSH 989 1527 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0
Control Delay (s) 8.7 1.7 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.7 1.7 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
03/17/2018 2023 - AM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 527 266 28 30 53
Future Volume (Veh/h) 56 527 266 28 30 53
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 64 599 302 32 34 60
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 334 1029 302
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 302
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 727
vCu, unblocked vol 334 1029 302
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 95 92 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 1225 421 738
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 64 599 302 32 34 60
Volume Left 64 0 0 0 34 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 32 0 60
cSH 1225 1700 1700 1700 421 738
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.35 0.18 0.02 0.08 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft)400077
Control Delay (s) 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 10.3
Lane LOS A B B
Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 11.8
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Dry Gulch & Ptarmigan Tr/Project Access
03/17/2018 2023 - AM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 17 0 0 0 11 73 0 0 66 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 17 0 0 0 11 73 0 0 66 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
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) 0 0 18 0 0 0 12 79 0 0 72 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 175 175 72 193 175 79 72 79
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 175 175 72 193 175 79 72 79
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 98 100 100 100 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 783 713 990 748 713 981 1528 1519
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 18 0 91 72
Volume Left 0 0 12 0
Volume Right 18 0 0 0
cSH 990 1700 1528 1519
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)1010
Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 1.0 0.0
Lane LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS A A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
03/17/2018 2023 - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 64 603 304 32 35 61
Future Volume (Veh/h) 64 603 304 32 35 61
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 73 685 345 36 40 69
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 381 1176 345
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 345
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 831
vCu, unblocked vol 381 1176 345
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 94 89 90
cM capacity (veh/h) 1177 372 698
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 73 685 345 36 40 69
Volume Left 73 0 0 0 40 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 36 0 69
cSH 1177 1700 1700 1700 372 698
Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.40 0.20 0.02 0.11 0.10
Queue Length 95th (ft)500098
Control Delay (s) 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 10.7
Lane LOS A C B
Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 12.6
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Dry Gulch & Ptarmigan Tr/Project Access
03/17/2018 2023 - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 18 0 0 0 21 76 0 0 77 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 18 0 0 0 21 76 0 0 77 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
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) 0 0 20 0 0 0 23 83 0 0 84 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 213 213 84 233 213 83 84 83
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 213 213 84 233 213 83 84 83
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 98 100 100 100 98 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 735 674 975 699 674 976 1513 1514
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 20 0 106 84
Volume Left 0 0 23 0
Volume Right 20 0 0 0
cSH 975 1700 1513 1514
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)2010
Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 1.7 0.0
Lane LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 1.7 0.0
Approach LOS A A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
03/20/2018 2023+Project - AM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 94 527 266 44 38 71
Future Volume (Veh/h) 94 527 266 44 38 71
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 107 599 302 50 43 81
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 352 1115 302
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 302
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 813
vCu, unblocked vol 352 1115 302
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 91 88 89
cM capacity (veh/h) 1207 373 738
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 107 599 302 50 43 81
Volume Left 107 0 0 0 43 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 50 0 81
cSH 1207 1700 1700 1700 373 738
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.35 0.18 0.03 0.12 0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft)7000109
Control Delay (s) 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 10.5
Lane LOS A C B
Approach Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 12.4
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Dry Gulch & Ptarmigan Tr/Project Access
03/20/2018 2023+Project - AM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 17 26 0 0 11 73 54 0 66 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 17 26 0 0 11 73 54 0 66 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
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) 0 0 18 28 0 0 12 79 59 0 72 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 204 234 72 222 204 108 72 138
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 204 234 72 222 204 108 72 138
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 98 96 100 100 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 749 661 990 716 686 945 1528 1446
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 18 28 150 72
Volume Left 0 28 12 0
Volume Right 18 0 59 0
cSH 990 716 1528 1446
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)1310
Control Delay (s) 8.7 10.2 0.6 0.0
Lane LOS A B A
Approach Delay (s) 8.7 10.2 0.6 0.0
Approach LOS A B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
03/20/2018 2023+Project - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 89 603 304 43 48 91
Future Volume (Veh/h) 89 603 304 43 48 91
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 101 685 345 49 55 103
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 394 1232 345
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 345
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 887
vCu, unblocked vol 394 1232 345
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 91 84 85
cM capacity (veh/h) 1165 343 698
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 101 685 345 49 55 103
Volume Left 101 0 0 0 55 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 49 0 103
cSH 1165 1700 1700 1700 343 698
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.40 0.20 0.03 0.16 0.15
Queue Length 95th (ft)70001413
Control Delay (s) 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 11.0
Lane LOS A C B
Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 13.3
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Dry Gulch & Ptarmigan Tr/Project Access
03/20/2018 2023+Project - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 18 44 0 0 21 76 36 0 77 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 18 44 0 0 21 76 36 0 77 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
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) 0 0 20 48 0 0 23 83 39 0 84 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 232 252 84 252 232 102 84 122
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 232 252 84 252 232 102 84 122
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 98 93 100 100 98 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 714 641 975 678 658 953 1513 1465
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 20 48 145 84
Volume Left 0 48 23 0
Volume Right 20 0 39 0
cSH 975 678 1513 1465
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)2610
Control Delay (s) 8.8 10.7 1.3 0.0
Lane LOS A B A
Approach Delay (s) 8.8 10.7 1.3 0.0
Approach LOS A B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
03/17/2018 2038 - AM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 76 710 358 38 41 71
Future Volume (Veh/h) 76 710 358 38 41 71
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 86 807 407 43 47 81
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 450 1386 407
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 407
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 979
vCu, unblocked vol 450 1386 407
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 92 85 87
cM capacity (veh/h) 1110 312 644
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 86 807 407 43 47 81
Volume Left 86 0 0 0 47 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 43 0 81
cSH 1110 1700 1700 1700 312 644
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.47 0.24 0.03 0.15 0.13
Queue Length 95th (ft)60001311
Control Delay (s) 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 11.4
Lane LOS A C B
Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 14.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Dry Gulch & Ptarmigan Tr/Project Access
03/17/2018 2038 - AM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 23 0 0 0 15 98 0 0 89 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 23 0 0 0 15 98 0 0 89 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
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) 0 0 25 0 0 0 16 107 0 0 97 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 236 236 97 261 236 107 97 107
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 236 236 97 261 236 107 97 107
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 97 100 100 100 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 713 658 959 668 658 947 1496 1484
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 25 0 123 97
Volume Left 0 0 16 0
Volume Right 25 0 0 0
cSH 959 1700 1496 1484
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)2010
Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 1.0 0.0
Lane LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS A A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
03/17/2018 2038 - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 811 410 44 47 81
Future Volume (Veh/h) 87 811 410 44 47 81
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 99 922 466 50 53 92
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 516 1586 466
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 466
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1120
vCu, unblocked vol 516 1586 466
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 91 80 85
cM capacity (veh/h) 1050 263 597
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 99 922 466 50 53 92
Volume Left 99 0 0 0 53 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 50 0 92
cSH 1050 1700 1700 1700 263 597
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.54 0.27 0.03 0.20 0.15
Queue Length 95th (ft)80001814
Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 12.1
Lane LOS A C B
Approach Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 15.8
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Dry Gulch & Ptarmigan Tr/Project Access
03/17/2018 2038 - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 25 0 0 0 28 102 0 0 104 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 25 0 0 0 28 102 0 0 104 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
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) 0 0 27 0 0 0 30 111 0 0 113 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 284 284 113 311 284 111 113 111
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 284 284 113 311 284 111 113 111
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 97 100 100 100 98 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 658 612 940 613 612 942 1476 1479
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 27 0 141 113
Volume Left 0 0 30 0
Volume Right 27 0 0 0
cSH 940 1700 1476 1479
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)2020
Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 1.7 0.0
Lane LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 1.7 0.0
Approach LOS A A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
03/20/2018 2038+Project - AM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 113 710 358 54 49 90
Future Volume (Veh/h) 113 710 358 54 49 90
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 128 807 407 61 56 102
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 468 1470 407
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 407
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1063
vCu, unblocked vol 468 1470 407
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 88 80 84
cM capacity (veh/h) 1094 275 644
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 128 807 407 61 56 102
Volume Left 128 0 0 0 56 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 61 0 102
cSH 1094 1700 1700 1700 275 644
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.47 0.24 0.04 0.20 0.16
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 0 0 19 14
Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 11.6
Lane LOS A C B
Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 15.1
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Dry Gulch & Ptarmigan Tr/Project Access
03/20/2018 2038+Project - AM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 23 26 0 0 15 98 54 0 89 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 23 26 0 0 15 98 54 0 89 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
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) 0 0 25 28 0 0 16 107 59 0 97 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 266 295 97 290 266 136 97 166
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 266 295 97 290 266 136 97 166
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 97 96 100 100 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 682 610 959 639 633 912 1496 1412
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 25 28 182 97
Volume Left 0 28 16 0
Volume Right 25 0 59 0
cSH 959 639 1496 1412
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)2310
Control Delay (s) 8.9 10.9 0.7 0.0
Lane LOS A B A
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 10.9 0.7 0.0
Approach LOS A B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
03/20/2018 2038+Project - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 112 811 410 54 60 112
Future Volume (Veh/h) 112 811 410 54 60 112
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 127 922 466 61 68 127
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 527 1642 466
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 466
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1176
vCu, unblocked vol 527 1642 466
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 88 72 79
cM capacity (veh/h) 1040 241 597
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 127 922 466 61 68 127
Volume Left 127 0 0 0 68 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 61 0 127
cSH 1040 1700 1700 1700 241 597
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.54 0.27 0.04 0.28 0.21
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 0 0 28 20
Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.7 12.7
Lane LOS A D B
Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 17.2
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Dry Gulch & Ptarmigan Tr/Project Access
03/20/2018 2038+Project - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 25 44 0 0 28 102 36 0 104 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 25 44 0 0 28 102 36 0 104 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
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) 0 0 27 48 0 0 30 111 39 0 113 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 304 323 113 330 304 130 113 150
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 304 323 113 330 304 130 113 150
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 97 92 100 100 98 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 639 582 940 596 597 919 1476 1431
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 27 48 180 113
Volume Left 0 48 30 0
Volume Right 27 0 39 0
cSH 940 596 1476 1431
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)2720
Control Delay (s) 8.9 11.6 1.4 0.0
Lane LOS A B A
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 11.6 1.4 0.0
Approach LOS A B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Traffic Impact Study
June 15, 2018
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Parking Study
P.O. BOX 19768, BOULDER, COLORADO 80308-2768
PHONE: 303.652.3571 | WWW.FTHTRANSGROUP.COM
April 2, 2018
Mr. Cody Walker
Sombrero Ranches, Inc.
1895 Big Thompson Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: Sombrero Mountain Coaster Parking Recommendations
Sombrero Ranch, located in the northeast corner of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) and Dry Gulch
Road, is proposing to develop a project that includes a mountain coaster for year‐round
recreational use to be constructed north of the existing stables. A vicinity map is shown in Figure
P1. The project proposes to install a mountain coaster and primary parking facilities to the north
of the existing stables on the Sombrero property, with auxiliary parking facilities to the west of
the existing stables. 19 new parking spaces are proposed at the mountain coaster base. All
remaining parking will be at the existing auxiliary lots on the northwest corner of Dry Gulch Road
and Big Thompson Avenue (off of North Lake Avenue), and a shuttle will take visitors from these
auxiliary lots to the mountain coaster base.
The following additions will be included within this project:
New 1,960‐foot (downhill length) mountain coaster
New 19‐space parking lot at the base of the mountain coaster
Utilization of two existing parking lots on the northwest corner of Dry Gulch Road and Big
Thompson Avenue for auxiliary parking: one immediately west of Dry Gulch (called the
“triangle lot” in this report) associated with a small existing on‐site office owned by
Sombrero Ranches, and one utilizing spaces in the Lakeview Plaza parking lot
New shuttle service from the auxiliary parking lots to the base of the mountain coaster
This memorandum summarizes our analyses of current parking requirements, likely parking
demand, and parking recommendations.
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Parking Study
April 2, 2018
Page 2
Parking Requirements and Demand
The City of Estes Park and surrounding areas provide parking standard requirements in the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC). The intent of the code standard is to provide adequate parking
for all uses to prevent impacts on the adjacent streets. The EVDC states the following
requirements for off‐street parking:
a) Shall be based on EVDC 7.11.D Parking Schedule table – Amusement Parks use is listed as
“See EVDC 7.11.E”
b) EVDC 7.11.E states that a parking study should be completed for uses not included or
without specific rates in the parking schedule table. Parking studies must include estimates
of demand based on recommendations of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
recommendations or similar (Urban Land Institute ‐ ULI, etc), and should include other
reliable data collected from uses that are the same or comparable with the proposed use.
The proposed land use does not have analogs in ITE, ULI, or the EVDC to estimate the number of
spaces based on national or local data. As such, the project team studied similar mountain
coaster sites across the country and gathered data from the nation’s leading mountain coaster
manufacturer to determine how many parking spaces similar coasters demand. Many mountain
coasters are installed at the base of a ski area or larger adventure park (Copper Mountain and
Steamboat are two examples) and do not have dedicated parking. In most cases, the staff at
these coaster locations direct guests to park in the large ski area lots and ride the ski area shuttle
to the coaster the same as a skier would to arrive at the ski area base. As a result, little is known
from these locations about parking demand of the mountain coaster specifically. However, there
are three US locations of mountain coasters of similar length and person‐capacity that are not
associated with ski areas or full adventure parks (one of which is the manufacturer’s busiest
mountain coaster location in the country). In addition, all three of these locations are near the
entrance to Great Smokey Mountain National Park (the country's most popular national park),
furthering the analog use and context to Estes Park. These locations and their parking capacity
are listed in Table P1 below.
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Parking Study
April 2, 2018
Page 3
Table P1 – Mountain Coaster Parking Peer Comparison
Peer Coaster Location Number of
Spaces
Rowdy Bear Coaster ‐ Gatlinburg, TN Approx. 30
Smokey Mountain Alpine Coaster ‐
Pigeon Forge, TN 33
Gatlinburg Mountain Coaster ‐
Gatlinburg, TN 38
Due to the relative consistency of the three closest analog uses, Fox Tuttle Hernandez (FTH)
recommends 40 parking spaces be included in the Sombrero mountain coaster project. The total
number of spaces proposed is 57 (see “Parking Operations” below for breakout and description),
which satisfies the recommendation of 40 parking spaces, with 17 additional. However, because
of the relatively low number of analog mountain coasters in the country and lack of ITE or ULI
data, FTH also recommends a phased approach where additional parking spaces are secured in
the future when/if the following conditions are met:
If parking congestion has been observed by Town or Coaster staff, a parking utilization
study of the 57 spaces designated for coaster use should be completed between one and
three months after the coaster opens, and during the summer months. If the coaster is
not open for a full month its first summer, the study can be completed during June of the
next summer. The study should include observation of parking space utilization once per
hour between the hours of 11 and 4 on a Saturday and a Sunday with good weather.
If the parking utilization study shows that the 57 spaces are more than 85% occupied for
two hours or more (one hour on each day, or two hours on the same day),
recommendations shall be made by a traffic engineer for number of additional parking
spaces necessary to accommodate actual parking demand.
If the parking study shows less than 85% occupancy, then the coaster will continue
operation with the original spaces available.
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Parking Study
April 2, 2018
Page 4
Bike Parking
Per the EVDC section 7.11, bicycle parking (bicycle racks) facilitating locking shall be provided to
accommodate one (1) bicycle per twenty (20) parking spaces. FTH recommends installing bicycle
racks to accommodate eight (8) bicycles at the base of the mountain coaster. Bicycle parking
racks should be permanently mounted and should provide two points of contact for each bicycle.
Bicycle “Inverted U” (not wave) racks or “staple‐style” racks are examples of appropriate bicycle
parking.
ADA Parking
Per the EVDC Section 7.11, Table 7‐3, two (2) accessible parking spaces are required per 26‐50
parking spaces, and three (3) are required per 51‐75 spaces. In each scenario, one is required to
be van‐accessible. Given that two are required for the 40 recommended parking spaces, two
have been provided in the proposed base area parking lot to ensure these spaces are in the
closest proximity to the coaster. To accommodate the additional ADA space required for 51‐75
spaces, an ADA space has also been provided in the "triangle lot". An extra ADA space is included
in the Lakeview Plaza parking lot so that there is at least one ADA space provided in each parking
location.
Parking Operations
The mountain coaster parking operations are anticipated to include 57 total spaces for coaster
customer use:
19 spaces in the new proposed lot at the coaster base (includes 2 ADA spaces).
26 spaces in the “triangle lot” immediately west of Dry Gulch at 1855 N Lake Ave (includes
1 ADA space) ‐ this lot is being redesigned with 32 spaces, 6 of which will remain in use by
Sombrero Ranches for stable parking.
12 spaces in the Lakeview Plaza lot (1751 N Lake Ave, in previous Mountaintop Physical
Therapy location) allocated as part of the new secondary ticket office lease (includes 1
ADA space).
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Parking Study
April 2, 2018
Page 5
To transport patrons from the auxiliary lots, a shuttle (15 passenger van, small shuttle bus, or
equivalent) will run between the “triangle lot”, the Lakeview Plaza lot, and the base area parking.
The shuttle headway will be adjusted as needed after operations begin but is anticipated to run
approximately every 15 minutes during peak hours and every 30 minutes or as needed during off
peak hours. Mountain Coaster staff will be available to direct customers to the base area from
each lot. The shuttle route and auxiliary lot locations are shown in Figures P2, P3, and P4.
Conclusion
FTH recommends that the Sombrero Mountain Coaster project develop parking facilities in a
phased approach, with Phase 1 available on opening day, and Phase 2 implemented in the near‐
term future (within three months of opening) if necessary. Specific parking facility
recommendations are summarized in Table P2, below.
Table P2 – Parking Facility Recommendations
Facility Requirement
Parking on Opening Day
40 spaces
(57 provided – 19 in base lot,
38 in auxiliary lots)
ADA Accessible Parking at Base Lot on Opening Day
2 spaces,
including 1 van accessible
(4 provided – 2 in base lot,
2 in auxiliary lots)
Bicycle Parking on Opening Day 8 spaces
Additional Parking in Phase 2 (if necessary) Per engineer’s
recommendations
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Parking Study
April 2, 2018
Page 6
Sincerely,
FOX TUTTLE HERNANDEZ TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LLC
Alicia Zimmerman, PE, PTOE
Senior Transportation Engineer
Sombrero Mountain Coaster Parking Study
April 2, 2017
Tables and Figures:
Table P1 – Mountain Coaster Parking Peer Comparison
Table P2 – Parking Facility Recommendations
Figure P1 – Vicinity Map
Figure P2 – Parking and Shuttle Context
Figure P3 – Base Area Parking
Figure P4 – Auxiliary Parking
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT
SITE
AUXILIARY
PARKING EXISTING
SOMBRERO
STABLES
BASE AREA
PARKING
BI
G
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
(
U
S
3
4
)DRY GULCH ROADOriginal ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
VICINITY MAP
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER PARKING STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/18 AMZ P1
N.T.S.
Auxiliary
ParkingSHUTTLE ROUTEBase Area
Parking
Bi
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
(
U
S
3
4
)
N
L
a
k
e
A
v
e Dry Gulch RdPtarmi
g
a
n
Trail
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
PARKING AND SHUTTLE CONTEXT
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER PARKING STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/18 AMZ P2
N.T.S.
SHUTTLE ROUTEBase Area Parking
- 19 Spaces Proposed for Coaster
Shuttle Pickup/Dropoff
Ptar
m
i
g
a
n
Trail
Dry Gulch RdOriginal ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
BASE AREA PARKING
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER PARKING STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/18 AMZ P3
N.T.S.
Lakeview Plaza Auxiliary Parking
- 12 Spaces Designated for Coaster
"Triangle Lot" Auxiliary Parking
-32 total spaces
-26 allocated to Coaster useSHUTTLE ROUTEShuttle Pickup/Dropoff
Shuttle Pickup/Dropoff
Bi
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
(
U
S
3
4
)
N
L
a
k
e
A
v
e Dry Gulch RdOriginal ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
o purTransporGnoitt
FOX TUTTLE
a
HERNANDEZ
AUXILIARY PARKING
SOMBRERO MOUNTAIN COASTER PARKING STUDY
17074 NTS 4/2/18 AMZ P4
N.T.S.
Exhibit I- Estes Mountain Coaster Operations Plan
I. Project outline
a. Horseless Trailride, LLC “HTR” proposes to build a 2,000-foot-long alpine coaster, The
Estes Mountain Coaster, on privately owned property in Estes Park, Colorado. To
accommodate the volume capacity of the ride, HTR will provide 57 parking spaces for
projected guest levels. Based on historical data of coasters throughout North America
with similar volume capacities, 57 spaces is a conservative allotment. Most other
facilities are fully functional offering only 30 to 40 spaces. The estimated hours of
operation during the summer months are between 9/10 AM in the morning and 8/9 PM
in the evening. The coaster is anticipated to operate only during daylight and dusk and
will not need additional lighting for nighttime operation. The anticipated winter hours
are also during daylight, and will close closer to 5 PM.
II. Lot Descriptions
a. Base lot
i. This lot sits at the base of the coaster, and can host 19 vehicles
b. Triangle lot
i. This lot is located on the northwest corner of highway 34 and Dry Gulch road. At
maximum capacity it can accommodate 26 vehicles for HTR use.
c. Office lot/Lakeview Plaza Auxiliary Parking
i. This lot is located up N Lake avenue in the Lakeview Plaza strip mall. Here HTR
has access to 12 parking spaces.
III. Traffic Flow
a. The Base lot serves as the primary lot. All 19 spaces, on site, shall be filled prior to any
traffic getting directed into the auxiliary lots. A sign attendant will be stationed on the
northwest corner of Big Thompson Avenue and Dry Gulch Road, while a stationary
sandwich board sign will sit on the northeast corner. The primary function of these signs
is to direct traffic, from both directions, off of Highway 34 down Dry Gulch Road to the
base lot entrance. A sign shall be posted at the entrance on Dry Gulch Road to indicate
the lot location.
b. Once the 19 spots in the base lot are filled, an employee from the bathroom kiosk will
radio down to the sign attendant, and the sign attendant will relocate to the N Lake
Avenue access point, to direct traffic down toward the Triangle lot. Once in the triangle
lot, a parking attendant will help guest select a parking spot and inform them of the
shuttle system. This attendant will keep a close eye on the available number of spaces
and shall constantly collaborate with the Bathroom kiosk employee at the base lot to
gauge parking availability.
c. When the triangle lot fills up, traffic will be directed up N Lake avenue toward the Office
lot. Only 6 vehicles shall be directed up to that lot to park, long term. 6 additional
vehicles will be permitted to temporarily park, visit our office for ticketing/shuttle info,
and then depart from the lot to free up the spaces.
d. When vehicles depart from the Base lot, the Triangle attendant shall begin sending
guests up there, behind a shuttle. If the spaces begin opening, prior to ever filling the
whole lot, the sign attendant will simply remain on the northwest corner of Big
Thompson Avenue and Dry Gulch Road. Only when the Base lot is at capacity shall the
attendant relocate.
IV. Shuttle Details
a. The project requires a minimum of 4 shuttles. Each shuttle will be similar, in kind, to the
Ford E-450 shuttle van. Three shuttles will be based in the triangle lot, and 1 out of the
Office lot.
b. Triangle lot route
i. The rout will begin at the Triangle lot with the van parked along the North West
property line. After loading, the shuttle will pull ahead, make a right-hand turn
onto N Lake Avenue. It then turns left onto the access road toward highway 34.
After making a left onto 34, the shuttle will take another left onto dry gulch
road. Once the shuttle reaches the coaster access area, an automated gate
opens, allowing the shuttle to pass through. It them follows the access road up
to the base lot do dismount passengers. Once cleared, the shuttle maneuvers
through the base parking lot and returns to the Triangle lot. Upon arrival, the
shuttle drives down the North West side of the lot, turning eastward behind the
existing office space, and reversing back toward the North to re-position itself
for the next departure.
c. Ticketing office route
i. The route will be identical to the triangle lot, except the shuttle will begin and
end, curbside, in front of the leased office space.
d. Frequency
i. Shuttles are anticipated to run every 15 minutes
V. Signage and Wayfinding
a. The primary parking signs will be the sign attendant holding an arrow shaped sign that
will be pointed toward the access driveway. The sandwich board sign will have an arrow
that points toward the lot as well. Both signs will read, “Coaster Parking”. Both signs will
be relocated to the N Lake avenue access point when the Base lot fills.
b. Coaster parking signs will also be located in the ticket office lot, and the Triangle lot.
There will be one sign on the south facing wall of the leased office space in the Lakeview
Plaza strip mall, one on the east facing wall (front of the building) and one on the strip
mall AD board stating, “Coaster Parking”. Further, there will be a coaster parking sign
located in the Triangle lot, on an existing sign post.
c. Parking attendants will be critical for managing parking flow. Their clear communication
with each other will help the guest traffic flow seamlessly between lots.
VI. Contingencies
a. If all spots are reserved at all locations, guests will be able to purchase their tickets at
the Office lot location and will be asked to return at another time. At no point will
excess vehicles be permitted to park in any lot.
MEMORANDUM
PO Box 2729 | 323 West Main St. Suite 201 Frisco, CO 80443
Office: 970.668.3398 | www.segroup.com
DATE: 6/25/2018
PROJECT: Estes Mountain Coaster
SUBJECT: Response to Comments to Development Application
LOCATION: Estes Park, CO
DISCUSSION:
The following memo provides a response to all the comments received with respect to the
Development Application for the Estes Mountain Coaster, submitted on April 18, 2018.
This memo is part of an updated submittal that includes:
• An updated Statement of Intent (Exhibit A)
o New information includes mention of lighting, an entrance gate, an overview of
operations, and a description of wildlife-sensitive design parameters
• An updated Development Plan Set (Exhibit B)
o Updated information is in response to specific comments from referral agencies
• An updated Parking and Traffic Study (Exhibit C)
o Updated information is in response to specific comments from Public Works
• An additional Noise Study (Exhibit H)
• An Operations Plan (Exhibit I)
• A compilation of comments received in response to the April 18, 2018 submittal (Exhibit
J)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS:
The following lists each response to the many comments received by various Town Staff and
referral agency staff. We have listed where the comment came from, who made it, and where it
is revised in the updated submittal.
The May 1st memo from Kristin Cannon (Colorado Parks and Wildlife):
The Statement of Intent (Exhibit A) has been revised to describe elements of the coaster design
that are more wildlife-friendly.
The May 1st memo from Kristin Cannon (Colorado Parks and Wildlife):
Ms. Cannon mentions that a refuse management plan should be developed. This project does
not intend to provide a dumpster on the project. It will utilize small trash canisters in the
bathrooms and a bear resistant canister outside the ticket office and at the coaster track
building. These will be emptied as necessary, stored inside the ticket office and removed as
necessary to the dumpsters at the triangle lot which is the main parking area for this project.
There are dumpsters already in place at this location.
The May 4th memo from David Menzies and Lea Schneider (Larimer County Department of
Health and Environment):
This project triggers the need for a Construction Storm Water Management Permit and this will
be obtained prior to construction. No food service is proposed. The applicant understands the
requirements for controlling fugitive dust during construction activities. No changes are needed
to address this in the updated submittal.
The May 7th memo from David Hook (Town of Estes Park Public W orks):
The curb and gutter section has been revised to more closely align with a CDOT Type 2
(Section IIb) curb and gutter. These are revised in the updated Development Plan Set (Exhibit
B).
The May 2nd memo from Steve Rusch (Town of Estes Park Utilities Coordinator):
The easement has been corrected to be a public utility easement. These are revised in the
updated Development Plan Set (Exhibit B). There is proper separation between the utilities.
Any crossings will be detailed in the construction documents. The property has secretarial
ascent and will be formerly included into the NCWCD at its next board meeting.
The May 4th memo from Eric Fried (Larimer County Building Official):
The applicant understands the requirements for installation, operation, and maintenance of the
mountain coaster as it relates to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division
of Oil and Public Safety, Amusement Rides and Devices section. The applicant understands
that building permits will be required for the coaster storage building, ticketing office, and
restroom. The applicant understands that structures are subject to requirements of the 2015 IBC
and related codes. The applicant understands that electric work will require a permit from the
Colorado Electrical Board and that the Estes Valley Fire Protection District will need to be
contacted for Fire Code requirements. No changes to the application need to be made in
response to these comments.
The May 8th memo from Traci Shambo Larimer County Engineering Department:
Floodplain Comments: This project is currently working with Eric Tracy to schedule a pre-app
floodplain meeting. This portion of the project will take a few months and will be adjusted as
necessary to meet the Floodplain Review Board and FEMA requirements.
Drainage Erosion Control Comments: A Construction Storm Water Management Plan will be
prepared as a separate document from the drainage report and will be included as a sheet
within the construction documents.
Final Construction Plans: These items will all be addressed with the final construction plans. A
construction plan for the coaster track will be addressed at that time.
Fees and Permits: This is a good summary of the required permits. Thank you. The Army Corp
Permit has already been approved.
No changes to the application need to be made in response to these comments.
The May 4th memo from Todd Krula (Upper Thompson Sanitation District):
The only note of concern that will not be addressed through construction documents or post
construction is #7 in reference to an exclusive easement for UTSD on the new main lines. A
portion of the new emergency access and public utility easement has been noted to be
dedicated to UTSD. This will be done by separate document with the additional agreements
that the improvements as shown on the development plan will be allowed.
The email from Jeff Woeber dated June 1st (Community Development Department)
Outdoor lighting was unintentionally omitted from the site plan. There will be three street lights
installed on the project. Two around the parking area and one at the intersection near the
parking area. The loading area near the ticket office will be lighted by wall sconces on the
building. All lighting will be shielded and downcast per Section 7.9 of the EVDC. All lighting will
be manually controlled and will be turned off at night when the coaster is closed. They will turn
on in the evening by photosensor (when on) but can be manually shut off at night. The changes
to the application will be made in the Statement of Intent (Exhibit A) and the Development Plan
Set (Exhibit B).
The next set of comments is in response the Parking and Traffic concerns raised by David Hook
of Public Works. These are addressed as comments (in red) and in the updated Parking and
Traffic Study (Exhibit C).
Estes Park Mountain Coaster Traffic and Parking
Response to Comments
2018‐06‐13
Town of Estes Park Public Works Comments (from David Hook and Kelly Stallworth)
A. GENERAL
1. It is our understanding that:
1. This plan review is based on the development plan and traffic study for this project that were
distributed by the Planning Division on 4‐20‐18.
2. PW is responsible for review regarding matters pertaining to Town streets.
3. The primary access for the new development will be via a proposed private access road in
unincorporated Larimer County that connects to Town public Right‐of‐Way (Dry Gulch Road).
4. The proposed road connection with Dry Gulch Road will require a right‐of‐way permit from PW.
2. PW concludes that:
1. The Updated Traffic Impact Study dated 3‐22‐18 did not address all of PW concerns from the
pre‐application meeting and staff has additional questions on the data and information presented in the
traffic study.
B. REVISE & RESUBMIT
1. PW recommends that the traffic study be revised and resubmitted to address the following:
1. Clarify that the existing CDOT traffic count data used to develop traffic volume projections were
from summer time periods when US 34 was open to traffic.
Response: The existing (background) traffic data was based on CDOT AADT volumes, which were
calculated by CDOT from summer counts (August and first week of September) during 2013 and 2014,
periods during which FTH believes US 34 roadways were open. In addition, annual counts during 2014 ‐
2016 were utilized, and were compared to previous years’ counts to confirm that they didn’t vary
significantly.
To provide additional data for consideration, FTH completed a “threshold”/worst case analysis
on the US 34/Dry Gulch intersection, in which 2014 summer weekend volumes were applied to the
scenario with the poorest operation (Future Long Term‐2038 PM Peak Hour). This additional analysis
was completed with and without project volumes. In this threshold analysis worst‐case scenario, the
intersection delay is 3.8 seconds without the project and 6.2 seconds with the project in an unsignalized
condition. The southbound left turn approach in both scenarios is at LOS F, and the intersection would
meet signal warrants with and without the project (if the southbound right turn lane is included in the
minor road approach volume). However, per my discussion with Kelly Stallworth, designing for this
“threshold” worst case scenario is not generally considered best practice, as it can cause early or
unnecessary installation of additional facilities. If the town is concerned about these future summer
weekend scenarios or the potential need for a signal to accommodate the southbound left turns, FTH
suggests revisiting the intersection operations in 5 years to determine actual levels of project‐generated
and background traffic, and summer weekend traffic is in fact peaking as this scenario calculates. See
attached Synchro printouts for “threshold” analysis.
2. Address the details of the operations of the two parking lots (on‐site & off‐site; shuttles; direct
arrival/departure; trip distribution between the two; which lot is the primary destination for parking and
how do customers know that; what customers are to do when the first lot they arrive at is full;
wayfinding signage; etc). [Rephrased from our pre‐app meeting comment email.]
Response: This submittal includes an operations plan written by the owner with more details on shuttle
routing, frequency, staffing of various lots, procedures, and wayfinding.
The transfer of customers from one lot to another lot (from the Auxiliary lots to the Base lot, for
example) will be completed primarily by shuttles. Shuttles will run every 10 to 15 minutes max, so
additional trips between lots will be minimal. In addition, the traffic analysis assumed ALL project‐
generated trips travel through the analyzed intersections, when in fact not all will travel through those
intersections (being intercepted at the Auxiliary Lot first if the Base Lot is full). In effect, any additional
inter‐lot trips have already been accounted for at the analyzed intersection because of this assumption.
The Base Lot (up at the coaster base) is the primary lot and will hold the first 19 cars. After that, the
auxiliary lots (“Triangle Lot” and “Lakeview Plaza Lot”) will be utilized. It is likely that these two auxiliary
lots will not be utilized every day, as demand on many days may not exceed the Base Lot’s capacity.
3. Address the traffic impacts of traffic going to/from the off‐site parking via Town
streets. [Rephrased from our pre-app meeting comment email.]
Response: See response to #2, above. In short, these trips will primarily be shuttle trips, which are
anticipated to be less than 10 per hour. Most shuttle and/or customer trips between the lots will travel
from the off‐site parking through the Dry Gulch/US 34 intersection because it is shorter and the coaster
staff will direct them on this route. This is accounted for in the traffic analysis, which assumes ALL trips
go through the Dry Gulch/US 34 intersection. However, if customer trips do travel via Lake Ave, Lone
Pine Dr, and Raven Avenue, the volumes are anticipated to be low with little impact on those roadways.
4. Clarify that auxiliary lanes are not required at Ptarmigan/Dry Gulch (NB/SB/WB; RT/LT).
Response: Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards state that “Exclusive turn lanes shall be provided
on all arterial roads and collector roads based on the turning volume requirements of the Colorado State
Highway Access Code (most current version) or when required by the Engineer. For the purposes of
determining the criteria for turn lane warrants the following
shall be used: Arterial – NR‐A; Major and Minor Collector – NR‐B.”
Dry Gulch is listed as “Road” at the project driveway, and “Major Collector” to the north of the project
according to the County Functional Classification Map. Therefore, although the general “Road”
classification may not require an auxiliary lane needs analysis, the FTH team reviewed the State Highway
Access Code for NR‐B Category to be conservative. 3.5 (2) in the State Highway Access Code states: “The
auxiliary lanes required in the category design standards may be waived when the 20th year
predicted roadway volumes conflicting with the turning vehicle are below the following minimum volume
thresholds. The right turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the travel lane is
predicted to be below 150 DHV. The left turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the opposing traffic
is predicted to be below 100 DHV. The right turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the adjacent
traveled lane is predicted to be below 120 DHV. The left turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the
volume in the inside lane in the direction of travel is predicted to be below 120 DHV.” As seen on
figure #9 of the traffic study, northbound through volumes are anticipated to be approximately 102 in
the highest peak hour scenario (2038 PM + Project). This is below every base threshold noted above
except one – requirements for left‐turn deceleration. Given that no trips are predicted to make the
southbound to eastbound left turning movement and the speed limit on Dry Gulch is 40 mph, FTH
proposes no left turn auxiliary lane be constructed. The northbound through volume is predicted to be
below the bottom threshold of 150 DHV, therefore no right turn auxiliary lane is required by the State
Highway Access Code. The project driveway is a stop condition at all times serving only the coaster use,
so no acceleration or deceleration lanes on the project drives are necessary.
5. Table 2 ‐ fix intersection name ( Ptarmigan/Dry Gulch)
Response: Correction made.
Larimer County Comments (from Traci Shambo)
1. Dry Gulch Road adjacent to the site, and the proposed access point, is under the Town’s jurisdiction
and they will need to review the application for Access and Right‐of‐Way permitting.
Response: Town is reviewing plans and reports.
2. The next major road/intersection approximately 1,000 feet south of the proposed access is HWY 34,
which is under CDOT jurisdiction. They should have the opportunity to review and comment on this
application as it relates to the operation of the Highway 34 & Dry Gulch Road intersection.
Response: Plans and reports are being submitted to CDOT for their information and comment.
3. The total average daily trip ends and the percent primary/pass by trips need to be assessed so that
the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees for the new use can be calculated. The fee is based on new
average weekday trip end generation for new development. An addendum to the traffic study could
include this information.
Response: The project assumes 0% pass‐by trips to give a conservative analysis, given the number of
assumptions necessary for a relatively unknown generator type. Average daily trip estimates have now
been added to Table 3 – Trip Generation Summary.
4. The traffic study states that 40 parking spaces are required and that 19 spaces will be provided at this
site and the remainder of the spaces will be provided on the adjacent property that has an existing
horse riding recreational use. The operational plan includes using a shuttle service. Additional detail is
needed on the feasibility of the shared parking as follows:
Per EVDC Section 7.11.F, parking spaces shall be provided on the same parcel as the use. Can additional
detail and justification be provided on the reasons that additional parking to serve this use cannot, or
should not, be provided at this site. Can the existing and proposed spaces serve both uses during peak
hours?
Response: Due to the relatively few analog uses in the country for this land use and resulting potential
for lower parking and traffic demand than this conservative analysis shows, the owner desires to provide
a smaller footprint parking lot at the base and utilize existing parking for demand above what the base
lot can handle. This also gives the environmental benefit of not adding impervious surface area,
reducing soil disturbance, and reducing materials demands while utilizing existing facilities. This
approach was approved in concept by Randy Hunt early in the development process.
What is the daily parking needs for the horse riding use? Does the horse rising site have additional
capacity to share their parking spaces or is their parking lot already full on most days during peak
months? It seems that both uses have similar hours of operation and that the horse riding parking lot is
likely to be full with horse rising patrons when additional parking is needed for the coaster. Can both
lots serve the combined total number of patrons during peak months?
Response: The horse use has been considered a separate use, and the parking facilities will remain
completely separate. The “Triangle Lot” across Dry Gulch from the stables will have 26 spaces dedicated
to the Coaster use with no stables use allowed. The shuttle will operate for coaster patrons only.
Anecdotal evidence indicates that the current stables parking demand is not exceeding capacity.
Will the coaster property offer overflow parking for the horse use as well. Will the shuttle serve to
transfer patrons between uses to adjust for the space availability? How will patrons know where to park
and when a lot is full?
Response: See above response.
Currently both properties are under the same ownership. How can the off‐site parking agreement be
managed in the event one of properties sells? Should a shared parking agreement be recorded with the
development plan to ensure that the parking needs would be met even if one lot is sold?
Response: A formal shared parking agreement will be developed if the Town requires.
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
06/02/2018 2038 - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 117 1409 712 59 63 110
Future Volume (Veh/h) 117 1409 712 59 63 110
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 133 1601 809 67 72 125
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 876 2676 809
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 809
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1867
vCu, unblocked vol 876 2676 809
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 83 31 67
cM capacity (veh/h) 771 105 380
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 133 1601 809 67 72 125
Volume Left 133 0 0 0 72 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 67 0 125
cSH 771 1700 1700 1700 105 380
Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.94 0.48 0.04 0.69 0.33
Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 0 0 0 88 35
Control Delay (s) 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.6 19.0
Lane LOS B F C
Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 46.3
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Big Thompson Ave/US 34 & Dry Gulch Rd
06/02/2018 2038+Project - PM Peak Hour
Sombrero Ranch Coaster Synchro 9 Report
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 142 1409 712 70 76 141
Future Volume (Veh/h) 142 1409 712 70 76 141
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 161 1601 809 80 86 160
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 889 2732 809
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 809
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1923
vCu, unblocked vol 889 2732 809
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 79 9 58
cM capacity (veh/h) 762 94 380
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 161 1601 809 80 86 160
Volume Left 161 0 0 0 86 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 80 0 160
cSH 762 1700 1700 1700 94 380
Volume to Capacity 0.21 0.94 0.48 0.05 0.91 0.42
Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 0 0 0 130 51
Control Delay (s) 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.4 21.2
Lane LOS B F C
Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 66.3
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Chapter 4 – Road Design and Technical Criteria
Section 4.9 Intersections
Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards Page 4-9
October 22, 2007
roundabout at an intersection. Roundabout analysis and design standards should
generally conform to the Federal Highway Administration’s: Roundabout, An
Informational Guide and as directed by the Engineer.
4.9.1.2 Location of Intersection
For intersection definitions and location criteria refer to Chapter 10.
4.9.1.3 Lane Alignment
All lanes shall be in alignment through each intersection, with a maximum of a 2-foot
shift.
4.9.1.4 Angle of Intersection
Crossing roadways should intersect at 90 degrees whenever possible. In no case
shall they intersect at less than 80 degrees or more than 100 degrees.
4.9.1.5 Horizontal Alignment and Vertical Profile
4.9.1.5.A Horizontal
The horizontal alignment of roads through an intersection shall be designed in
conformance with Table 4-1. Intersections may be placed on horizontal curves,
provided that the tangent lengths given in Table 4-1 are provided on the minor
road and the required sight distance is met.
4.9.1.5.B Vertical
The road profile grade shall not exceed 4 percent on the approach to the
intersection, as measured along the centerline of the road for a minimum
distance equal to the tangent length for the road classification. The profile grade
within the intersection shall not exceed 3 percent.
4.9.1.5.C Prevailing Road Grade
The grade of the road with the higher classification shall prevail at intersections.
The lesser road shall adapt to the grade of the major road. Grading of adjacent
property and driveways shall adapt to the road grades. W hen roads are of equal
classification, the Engineer shall determine which road grade prevails.
4.9.1.6 Auxiliary Lanes
a. Exclusive turn lanes shall be provided on all arterial roads and collector roads
based on the turning volume requirements of the Colorado State Highway
Access Code (most current version) or when required by the Engineer. For
the purposes of determining the criteria for turn lane warrants the following
shall be used:
County Functional Classification State Highway Access Code
Arterial NR – A
Major and Minor Collector NR – B
b. The design of the turn lanes shall meet the requirements of the Colorado
State Highway Access Code (most current version).
JACKSON
ALBANY (WY)
WELD
BOULDER
LARAMIE (WY)
GR AND
Windsor
Wellington
Fort Collins
Loveland
Johnstown
Berthoud
Timnath
34
36
36
7
7
3434
34
36
60
402
3434
1
1
1
392
56
34
34
14
14
392
14
14
14
14
14
80C
74E
74E
37
80C
37
82E
21
23
19
84
78
72
82
72 19
17
15
9
69B
47
18E
37E
59
63
67
43
63E
43
51B
43
31
31 8E
27E 6
23E4
2E
2
13
1
21
14
19
6C
10
17
15
10
23
12
23
16
2129
29
17
711
16
3E
18
3
9
9
20E
19
23E
23H
20
18
25E
27 25E
23
24H
19
28
17
7
5
92
17
15
11 9
21
19
13
5
68 68
74
70
66
64
62
64
60
66E
58
3
1
1
48
52
5656
17
54
19
9
50E
9E
21
21C
50E
48
50
52E
18E
99
103
80C
15 13
44H
23H
26
42E
3
13 11
30
23 38E
3
5
40
44
36
38E
38E
11C
9
41
52E
52E
27
27
44H
63E
63E
69
68C
69
103
103
80C
89
80C
59
67J
73C
86
86
67J
74E
80C
80
25
25
25
25
25
34
36
36
3434
34
36
3434
287
287
287
287
34
34
287
287
287
287
Road Functional Classification
Legend
Functional Classification
Arterial
Major Collector
Min or Collector
Local
Highways
Roads
Lake
City
Cou nty
Tax Exempt Lands
OTHE R
Comm unity College
National Forest
National Pa rk
Natu ral A rea
Open Space
Oth er Federal
Protected A rea
Public R ecrea tional Facility
University
Wildlife A rea
0 4 8 12 162Miles
.
2/1 5/2 018
All data and information supplied is for informational purposes only. U ser expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of such information is at the sole risk of User. The information provided by Larimer County is without warranty, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy of the data and information contained herein. Under no circumstances shall Larimer County be liable for actual, incidental, special or consequential damages that result from the use of the information by the User, its agents or assigns.
P:\Common\PubWorks\Exor\ADMIN\GIS Maps\Projects\Exor Public Maps\mxds\10.4\Functional Classification (36x48).mxd
State Highway Access Code, August 31, 1998
Page 34 of 62
3.5Auxiliary Turn Lanes
(1)Auxiliary lanes are required as described within each category in Section Three. In addition,
auxiliary lanes may also be required where any of the following subsections require.
(2)If necessary, for specifically identified and documented safety and operation reasons, a right turn
acceleration lane may be required when, a) for any access where a high traffic volume on the highway
or using the access and the lack of acceptable gaps in traffic make use of an acceleration lane
necessary for vehicles to safely and efficiently enter the highway traffic flow through the use of
available short gaps in traffic, or b) where necessary for public safety and traffic operations based upon
site and roadway specific conditions such as horizontal and vertical curves, or c) the posted speed is
greater than 40 MPH.
(3)If necessary, for specifically identified and documented safety and operation reasons, a left turn
acceleration lane may be required when unique location factors such as; highway speed and traffic
density, access volume, the volume of commercial trucks, the influence of nearby access, existing
highway auxiliary lanes close to the access, nearby traffic control devices, available stopping sight
distance, and where other topographic and highway design factors exist that determine the need.
(4)For those access locations that have a high percentage of trucks using the access, it may be
required that each auxiliary lane be built to full length and width according to table 4-6 and the transition
taper length shall extend beyond the full length.
(5)The auxiliary lanes required in the category design standards may be waived when the 20th year
predicted roadway volumes conflicting with the turning vehicle are below the following minimum volume
thresholds. The right turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the travel lane is predicted
to be below 150 DHV. The left turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the opposing traffic is predicted
to be below 100 DHV. The right turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the adjacent traveled lane is
predicted to be below 120 DHV. The left turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the
inside lane in the direction of travel is predicted to be below 120 DHV.
3.6CATEGORY F-W - Interstate System, Freeway Facilities
Functional Characteristics and Category Assignment Criteria
(1)This category is appropriate for use on highways that have the capacity for high speed and
relatively high traffic volumes over medium and long distances in an efficient and safe manner. They
provide for interstate, interregional, intra-regional, intercity and, in larger urban areas, intracity travel.
Interstate freeways are typical of this category.
Access Granting Criteria Including Category Related Access Location, Operation and Design Standards
(2)All opposing traffic movements shall be separated by physical constraints such as grade
separations and non-traversable median separators. Access to the roadway, when allowed, shall
consist of directional ramps, shall be suitably spaced and designed to provide the minimum differential
between the speed of the through traffic stream and the speed of the merging or diverging vehicles.
Location and design of access shall be determined on an individual basis by the Department in
accordance with its authority under section 43-3-101 et seq., C.R.S., as amended, this Code, and the