Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Transportation Advisory Board 2015-2-18 A EP TOWN OF ESTES PARK Transportation Advisory Board Agenda February 25th,2015 Current Members: Bryon Holmes(03/31/16) 12:00 PM—2:00 PM Stan Black(03/31/17) Cory La Bianca(03/31/15) Rooms 202 &203 Kimberly Campbell(03/31/15) Belle Morris (03/31/17) Estes Park Town Hall Ann Finley(03/31/17) Gregg Rounds(03/31/15) 170 MacGregor Ave Amy Hamrick(03/31/16) Thom Widawski(03/31/16) Public Comment Approval of January minutes Chair Kimberly Campbell Shuttle Committee Update Sandy Osterman Projects update Director Greg Muhonen • Downtown Estes Loop Civil Engineer Kevin Ash • Dry Gulch Improvements • Fish Creek Flood Recovery New Member Orientation Amy Hamrick& Cory La Bianca RMNP/CDOT Signage Updates Director Greg Muhonen Recommendation to Trustees Director Greg Muhonen • Transit Hub Parking Structure Other Business Adjourn The mission of the Town of Estes Park Transportation Advisory Board is to advise the Board of Trustees and the Public Works staff on Local and Regional Comprehensive Transportation Planning Policies; Maintenance, Operation and Expansion Programs; and Transportation Capital Projects. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 21st, 2015 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall, in said Town of Estes Park on the 21st day of January, 2015. Present: Kimberly Campbell Ann Finley Stan Black Cory LaBianca Gregg Rounds Thom Widawski Belle Morris Bryon Holmes Also Present:Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works Kevin Ash, Public Works Civil Engineer Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant Sandy Osterman, Shuttle Committee Representative John Ericson, Town Board Liaison Christy Crosser, Grants Specialist Chief Wes Kufeld, Estes Park Police Department Absent: Amy Hamrick Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m. GENERAL DISCUSSION No public was in attendance, so public comment was not heard. Minutes from the November and December meetings and the Special Meeting on 12/3/14 were reviewed by members. It was moved and seconded (Finley/Labianca) to approve all aforementioned minutes, with the motion passing unanimously. The draft bylaws were reviewed and discussed by members. A few minor amendments were proposed. It was moved and seconded (Finley/Rounds) to approve the amended bylaws, with the motion passing unanimously. Ann Finley nominated Kimberly Campbell for committee chair. It was moved and seconded (Finley/LaBianca) to elect Kimberly Campbell as committee chair , with all voting in favor and Kimberly abstaining from the vote. It was moved and seconded (Finley/Morris) for Cory LaBianca to be re-elected as vice-chair and it passed unanimously. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transportation Advisory Committee — January 21st, 2015 — Page 2 Cory LaBianca, Bryon Holmes and Kimberly Campbell have expiring terms on March 31st, 2015. Applications were passed out to these members and each was encouraged to apply for reappointment. Sand Osterman gave a brief update on Shuttle Committee happenings. 2015 will see new logos featured on side of shuttles, new shuttle signage, another trolley will be rented for use on the silver route and the brown route will get larger bus. STAFF UPDATES ON TOWN PROJECTS A brief update was provided on the Downtown Estes Loop project. The Dry Gulch project has been awarded for design to Farnsworth in Fort Collins. The floodplain may cause bigger issue than originally anticipated for the Dry Gulch project, since the floodway comes onto the road, which may cause additional processes and phasing of construction. Obtaining ROW from private property owners could also have an impact on the schedule. An update on the progress of flood recovery projects was also provided. Fish Creek will be completed in two phases - utility work and trail/street work. Utility work has been bid and awarded for design. ROW issues and environmental concerns will take time, construction will probably happen in 2016 with final completion in 2017. MAJOR EVENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION MANAGEMENT Chief Wes Kufeld joined the committee for the major event traffic management plan discussion. Chair Campbell gave a brief overview of the concept. Chief Kufeld said special events take months of planning, including outlying intersections as well as the downtown corridor. Necessary manpower for such events includes all officers as well as 20 auxiliary members. Chief Kufeld has found signage has been the most effective tool for traffic control during events. The Police Department currently struggles with manpower needs and cannot dedicate officers or auxiliary to the proposed traffic management plan. Chief Kufeld suggested formation of another volunteer organization dedicated to traffic control, with the Police Department helping to train them. Chair Campbell asked if signage at Community Drive directing traffic to Fairgrounds and school parking would help congestions. Chief Kufeld indicated that awareness and direction to the location of available parking would be beneficial. He also said events in Bond Park cause backups at the Highway 34/36 intersection because many motorists are slowing down to look at event as they drive by. He believes a person physically RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transportation Advisory Committee — January 21st, 2015 — Page 3 standing in the road directing traffic can/will cause another huge backup; it is a delicate balance to avoid creating problems elsewhere. Chair Campbell suggested making the distinction that TAB is taking on parking management and not traffic management, with the primary goal of getting downtown visitors out of their cars as efficiently as possible. Focus on signage with a simple message would be most effective. TAB should discuss what type of message should be delivered through signage, such as directing traffic to free parking areas or indicating that downtown parking was full. Director Muhonen recommended this as a component of the overall downtown parking strategic plan, with effective communication to the motorist being key. Chief Kufeld is supportive, but his department has limited manpower resources, so trained volunteers capable of handling traffic is vital to the success of the plan. The lockup of traffic is concerning on many level, causing road rage and problems getting emergency vehicles through downtown. RV parking and handicap parking are also huge problems. RV parking removed from Visitor Center and Municipal lots would cause complaints, especially from buses dropping off large groups. Chief Kufeld sighted it as more of a traffic issue than a safety issue with large vehicles pulling into the Municipal lot and causing a blockage. If Municipal RV spots are eliminated, they would need to be reallocated somewhere else downtown. Tour buses and RVs need to be a specific component of parking plan. Special event management will be a sub-topic of overall downtown parking strategic plan. TRANSIT HUB PARKING STRUCTURE Director Muhonen reported the south side parking lot is not a viable option for the parking structure in accordance with using grant money. In order to obtain the needed additional 500 parking spaces, structures will be needed on both sides of the river on the Visitor Center campus. At this point the Town needs to decide if the grant money will be used to build on the north side or if the money will be returned to the Feds. Director Muhonen gave an overview of several new options and costs for the north side structure. A smaller building could be built on the north side to utilize the grant money, with the south side site being revisited in the future as a new project. Chair Campbell asked if the board was in favor of recommending the project on the north side, with a show of hands indicating six members were in favor of moving forward RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transportation Advisory Committee — January 21st, 2015 — Page 4 with a structure on the north lot and two opposed. With the majority of the board in support of the original location of project, they will move forward with a recommendation to build a structure with a smaller footprint on the north lot. Chair Campbell proposed appearing along with Director Muhonen at a Town Board meeting to summarize TAB discussion on the project, but that the board hasn't reached consensus. The Transit Hub Parking Structure discussion will continue at the February meeting. With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:09 p.m. -_ /$; 1 (2 us-z4 b r , tom, as TO G� 3P S� Di /1111 N A I. 0 1 2 J�Miles Study area roadway (2 miles outside Estes Park limits) Sign Location Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, CO - Sign Inventory 0 Page Number Study Area Map H J _ • s ��eslead ROCKY MTN y• New Alternative FALL RIVER ♦ lit, ROCKY MOUNTAIN t-1 3.5 (2.5); NATL PARK MATIOMAL►ASK ROCKY MTN ROCKY MTN ENTRANCE 4 (4) 4 MILES 4 MILES NATL PARK NATL PARK BEAVER MEADOWS '�' N v Insta 7 (5) ENTRANCE /h/ Remove - i.�91 3: New InstallIlailiiiiiii r, ROCKY MTN 9 (6) - _ NATL PARK ROCKY MTN . -----. 4 _ « •ALLENSPARK •�' ( ) (4� — 1111111111 ♦ NATL PARK INFi' 2.5 2 New Install ROCKY MTN ROCKY MTN •\ *4r Remove _. NATL PARK a'Z., 3 MILES NATL PARK 3.5 (2.5) ~"' �� iye 3 MILES /� / Exi tin to Remain• °1yrnp"s . h, Remove 1 ewTnstal`I'- - Estes g G•• t1Fig is �'. Park S 30 ROCKY MTN , �' o, '� NATL PARK I -�'�+[stn 4:0 -JO V a •WEST �rrAse _ _ r asr ---�..— ___..,,„„ s 3s• , . , 7 (4.5) ,-• 9 (6) Q,or 1::::- �~ t t , 11111..1.1.11P-:r ROCKY MTN ROCKY MTN I ��, , _ t NATL P.--A: tTN `= J�eiFsrPs T ' 2.5 (2) � $ RK c NATL PARK - i NATL PARK , 3.5 (2.5) % 3 1 ti t:• Existing to Remain .1 0 </ r c "�,,4^ t• ew Insta `-r • 'I 4- YMCA MILES U a a' �'o,l� LYONS , �, New Insta - IJ p 4: ., �. o I. LandelsSt • Ot r ,r ROCKY MTN ' � R K .' $ • ROCKY MTN 1, 'r'. -. • ":s NATIONAL PARK �� Remove 4. YMCA 2 MILES ��+�� M`''� Existing to Remain 00 ._ i -- e . 7 (5) •Remove -,7004,0� ; - ROCKY MTN olnt LtoydLn _ A 2.5 (2) • st: Remove New Install 11404- / , ., ,, . -0 .,;cdy Lt. 7 (5) PARK ' t R1RoCK4 (3) ♦RemoveNATL PARK ^''`I'a''dl'f a Yc. ✓ohp+cJJCn N New Install _ in ,;? A N 0 1 2 Miles Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, Co - Sign Inventory 6 in lettering sign dimension in feet (4 in lettering sign dimension in feet) Estes Park Page 1 of 3 4.5 . • ! t ROCKY MTN • • , --,..-_:rtf ' . Trail•Ridge 'Road 7111111111111111 unting 1 AT E WAY • • , 2.5 (2) ID to Grand Lake ohibited NAIL PARK WEST. MOCZT MOUNTAIN VATiOlybN►ltic, -New nsta ROCKY MOUNTAIN Closed NATIONAL ARK Antler P• 10 Fall River Remove r collecting: •.... For Season a +F f"""'•FK Visitor Center r ESTABLISHED is 101D •' P►ohibeted • NISI TON ' vTtx • .l . 1' 1 lb ANNI BABY- *1. } ..} 6OO FEET i - Existing to Remain 'P ---------� Existing to Remain xisti g to Remain ` 1- "` - Existing to Remain • Existing to Remain / . • CLOSED _ - FORS SEASON / ar k GATE WAY Existing to Remain Fallor River Center M V S Visit . L1000 FT. .4. . " F"FALL '` N .__ �; y ar CLOSED .JiTi- FOR Existing to Remain SEASON illiiiii ill Existing to Remain ryam_ lb. Existing to Remain • 0 1 2 Miles Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, CO - Sign Inventory 6 in lettering sign dimension in feet (4 in lettering sign dimension in feet) US 34 West of Estes Park Page 2 of 3 s; l - ♦ ROCKY = �� MOUNTAIN ROCKY MTN �._ NATIONAL PgRK y` I `� ,1 ESTES PgRK 4.5 (2.5) 1' —�� BUSINESS DISTRICT ESTES PARK M \ 'y Remove BUS S. DI S T. \, , �' _ . New Install w frt • 1.- - 1� ! 1 - • • .�` _ 1 ‘. '.) t 4 ) - % i.0J • id yi - e \5 ' • • / J-.I -1 Iti lc 1 '4 J v lyus� 7 ' 4 7. 0 ilk 4_ 0 1 2 Miles Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, CO - Sign Inventory 6 in lettering sign dimension in feet (4 in lettering sign dimension in feet) SH 7 South of Estes Park Page 3 of 3 < 120 > �< 117 1.5 1.5 21.9 T 44.8 T 6 >I< 24.4 T 22.9 7.4 T 9 >r 5.5>r 29.9 T 6 T 45.3 >I< 16.9 > m mM n I M CO ---) V 0' ___i ._\_\ /I\ -\x_ t � .:,- o -\x-_ ,Au oliAr FD /A, LID\ 1 -x t 4 _ 7�,1 ,7) N,00 H \ LI-I A- 16 jii_ ._D _ ._D� � � � � � � �� T T' x N ini 4 c•! J, v L 8.1 1 6 1 8 i 27.7 1 6 1 24.5 i 39.7 >I L 22.1 i 44.3 1 6 39.5 1 8.1 A 3.8" Radius, 1.5" Border, White on Green; Standard Arrow Custom 9.0" X 6.0" 180°; "ROCKY MOUNTAIN" E; "NATIONAL PARK" E; 3.8" Radius, 1.5" Border, White on Green; Standard Arrow Custom 9.0" X 6.0" 90°; "ESTES PARK" E; "BUSINESS DISTRICT" E; Table of distances between letter and object lefts. C= 1R O C I Y MOUNT A I NI 7.4 14.5 6.0 6.2 6.0 5.7 12.0 7.1 6.5 6.3 6.0 4.9 7.2 2.6 4.7 16.9 NATI ON A L P 21.9 6.0 6.4 5.6 2.6 6.5 6.0 7.3 10.4 6.0 7.2 6.4 4.8 22.9 1.5 117.0 1.5 4 ESTES P n R ICt 8.1 14.0 5.6 6.1 5.6 5.6 10.8 6.0 7.3 6.3 4.9 39.7 BUSI NESS DI STRI CT 22.1 6.3 6.3 6.4 2.6 6.3 5.6 6.0 10.8 6.4 2.5 6.0 5.7 6.3 2.6 5.6 4.4 8.1 4 r Jen Imber<jimber@estes.org> ESTES L PARK Transit Hub Greg Muhonen <gmuhonen@estes.org> Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:04 PM To: Greg Muhonen <gmuhonen@estes.org>, Amy Hamrick <amy@kindcoffee.com>, Ann Finley <aynee8@hotmail.com>, Belle Morris <bellesmorris@hotmail.com>, Boulder Brook <kcampbell@boulderbrook.com>, Bryon Holmes <holmesbryon@hotmail.com>, Cory LaBianca <camoonbeam@aol.com>, Estes Shuttle <estesparkshuttle@aol.com>, Jen Imber<jimber@estes.org>, John Ericson <jericson@estes.org>, Kevin Ash <kash@estes.org>, Stan Black <stan@rmpac.org>, Thomas Widawski <thom@veruscommercial.com> Cc: Anirudh Chopde <anirudh.chopde@walkerparking.com>, Ginny Gerhart <ginny@spaceintoplace.com>, Kate Rusch <krusch@estes.org>, McFarland Steve <stevemcfar@yahoo.com>, Brian Wells <bwells@estes.org>, David.Beckhouse@dot.gov, Larry Squires <Larry.Squires@dot.gov> TAB Members, I have attached the updated transit hub parking garage layout options for the north site. If you print them I recommend 11x17. My assignment from the Trustees after our last update was to return with an option that could be built for no more than $900k over the remaining budget of $3.7M. The idea was to see what could be built if they opted to put the Lot 4 sales proceeds into this project. This has been a tough request to fulfill. Redesign costs are significant, as are the additional utility relocates triggered by rotating the building on the north lot. The first page of the attachment is the screening matrix that will probably feel overwhelming to read and digest. I found it helpful to focus on the 4 key screening criteria shown on the rows for items 6, 10, 25, and 27 (highlighted). In our application to FTA, the Town proposed to build a 300 space intercept lot. Only Opt 2 and 3 have sufficient geometry to physically accomplish this with a single-phase, three level structure. This is not buildable with the current funding. More than one phase will be required. Row 11 shows how all the options could meet the 300 space test if 4 levels are built. We only have funding for two levels in the first phase. Rows 6 and 27 reveal that the budgeted funds could build 42 (Opt 1C), 62 (Opt 3C), or 96 (Opt south site) new parking stalls in phase 1. The shortfall below the required 300 would have to come in a future phase/project. In the calculations for estimating the cost of the two-level projects, I backed out the cost of the $300k fancy stairs. It did not make sense to me to build a short version to reach one level above the ground. The spreadsheet assumes the Town would build them when the third and possibly fourth levels are built. That would be part of a new future funding request. I would still like to build the Ph 1 project on the south site and achieve 96 new parking spaces with the available funds. This is the most cost-effective option (cost per stall--row/item 7) available with our Phase 1 budget. If the BoR can complete the NEPA in 7 months, the start of construction at the south site work would only be 2 months later than starting the Option 3 work while setting us up for 294 new spaces vs 202 (affordable Opt 3C) upon the future completion of the third and forth floors. Given the substantial amount of utility relocation work required on the north site, it is estimated that the actual completion date would be the same. See rows/items 25 and 30. I will share all this information with FTA and see if they would be willing to reconsider the south site, understanding the myriad of issues that challenge all the north site options. I am looking forward to hearing your comments at our meeting Wed February 25th. We will need to provide a written recommendation to the Board of Trustees by March 4th for their March 10 meeting. Gregor] r Mukonen, Public Works Director Town of Estes f ark,CO We value: RAPPORT—RESPECT—RELATIONSHIP Public Works Department Town of Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure Project Options Screening Summary(revised 23 Feb 2015) o . 0° oa IV ORIGINAL DESIGN OPTION 1 OPTION 1B OPTION 1C OPTION 2 OPTION 2A OPTION 2B OPTION 3 OPTION 3A OPTION 3B OPTION 3C SOUTH SITE SOUTH SITE ITEM NO EVALUATION CRITERIA Add Traffic Signal Original Design Original Design Option 1A with Rotate Parallel wNC Rotate Parallel wNC Option 2 with Rotate Parallel winner Rotate Parallel w/river Option 3 with Option 3A with Length-255' Length=255' REMARKS Length=240' Second Floor Notched Shorten 40'to 200' Third Level Removed Lengthen 15'to 255' Shorten 40'to 200' Third Level Removed Le then 15'to 255' Shorten 40'to 200' Third Level Removed Third Level Removed Third Level Removed 1 Surface Lot Parking Spaces Provided(not in struct) 39 77 84 84 110 110 110 112 112 112 112 41 41 Existing north lot contains 153 spaces 2 Ground level Parking Structure Spaces Provided 82 73 65 65 88 65 88 64 57 64 57 83 83 3 Second level Parking Structure Spaces Provided 89 70 70 0 98 70 0 99 70 0 0 99 0 4 Third level Parking Structure Spaces Provided 64 64 48 48 68 46 68 69 46 69 46 74 74 + i 5 Total Spaces Provided at this Site(Ph 1) 254 284 265 364 291 266 344 285 245 F 297 198 South site increases 94%with 2 story,191%with 3 story 6 Number of New Parking Spaces Provided Ph 1 101 131 112 42 211 138 113 191 132 92 , J 96 7 Project Cost per New Parking Space Created Ph 1 $42,048 40 528.014.52 $39,307 36 $41,336 77 $32.361.59 $41,094.06 $53,707 12 $70,760 55 $29,133.66 646,260 99 Assumes rebid=previous low bid full amenities 8 Phase 2 Expansion Potential Add 4th level Add 4th level Add 4th level Add 3rd&4th level Add 4th level 4th level • Add 3rd&4th level 4th level 4th level Add 3rd&4th level Add 3rd&4th level 4th level Add 3rd&4th level Future variance required to add 4th level. 9 Phase 2 Additional Spaces 89 70 70 140 98 70 196 99 70 198 140 99 198 10 Total Potential New Spaces(Ph 1+Ph 2)(4 levels) 190 • 201 182 182 208 �i 290 202 202 294 294 11 Total Spaces Provided at this Site(Ph1+Ph2) 343 354 335Ali I= 361 355 355 396 396 Ali Special Use Permit Special Use Permit Special Use Permit Special Use Permit Special Use Permit Special Use Permit Special Use Permit Special Use Permit Special Use Permit Special Use Permit Special Use Permit Special Use Permit Special Use Permit 12 Impact to Bureau of Reclamation Land SUP processed in3weeks.Allow 6-12 months for new NEPA.Bole will Oversee NEPA.Budget$75k to$100k. Required for Utility Redesign Required for Utility Redesign Required for Utility Redesign Required for Utility Redesign Required for Utility Redesign Required for Utility Redesign Required for Utility Redesign Required for St Wat Redgn Required for St Wat Redesign Requited for Utility Redesign Required for St Wet Redesign Required New NEPA Required New NEPA 13 Safety/Access Delay to Shuttle Bus 16 sec=LOS B 96 sac=1.5 minutes 96 sac=15 minutes 96 sec=1.5 minutes 96 sec=15 minutes 96 sac=1.5 minutes 96 sec=1.5 minutes 80 sec=13 minutes 80 sec=1.3 minutes Delay per TlS.Remedies:install traffic signal al West Access(VC site),move shuttles to south lot,move parking Peak Period Left Turn Exit W Access structure to south lot,build future access east al Steamer Dr.No funding dusts for$300k traffic signal or roundabout. 14 Safety/Access Daley to Guests 55 sec=LOS F 96 sec=1.5 minutes 96 sec=1.5 minutes 96 sec=1.5 minutes 96 sec=1.5 minutes 96 sac=1.5 minutes 98 sac=1.5 minutes Not measured.Assume 1.3 min Not measured.Assume 1.3 min New Traffic Impact Study would be required for NEPA evaluation of south site. Peak Period Left Turn Exit E Access 15 Visual Impact from Adjacent Highway(Ph1) rsethre Structure 10'setbacsSbucture 50'setback to 3 Level Structure 50'setback to 2 Level Structure 90'setback to 3 Level Structure 90'setback to 3 Level Structure 9• 0'setback to 2 Level Stmct. 105'setback to 3 Level Structure 105'setback t03 Level Structure 105'setback to 2 Level Structure 105'setback to 3 Level Structure 20'setback to 3 levels,l visible 20'setback to 3 levels,l visible South site is approximate 10'below Hwy 36 road surface 16 Bid Ref Cost(Full Amenities 240'x 125'bldg) $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 South Site total cost not bid.Estimate only based on information received from lowest bidder for VC site. 17 Structure Cost per square foot $58 98 $58.98 $58 98 $58.98 $58 98 $58.98 $58 98 $58 98 $58.98 $58.98 $58 98 $58 98 $58.98 18 Traffic Signal Cost $325,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 19 Change in Structure Length 0 0 -40 -40 15 -40 15 15 -40 15 -40 15 15 20 Ph 1 Cost Change due to revised structure length 0 0 -$353,885.47 -$353,885.47 $132,707.05 -$353,885.47 $132,707.05 $132,707.05 -$353,885.47 $132,707.05 -$353,885.47 $132,707.05 $132,707.05 Use$24/sf per comments from lox bidder 21 Cost Change due to delay of third level $0 00 $0.00 $0 00 -$1,037,261 39 $0 00 $0.00 -$1,240,008 27 $0 00 $0 00 -$1,240,008 27 -$1,037,261 39 -$1,240,008 27 Use$30/sf per comments from low bidder.Deduct$300k for delaying decorative stairs to future phase 22 Cost to Relocate Additional Existing Utilities/Shop $0.00 • $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $170,000.00 $170,000.00 $170,000.00 -$160.000.00 -$160,000.00 Three utilities conflict with structure at VC site(sewer,storm drainage,electric). Elect conflicts at south site. 23 Redesign Cost $50,000.00 $200,00000 $225,000.00 $250,00000 $300,000.00 $300,00000 $300,000.00 $350,000.00 $300,000.00 $350,000.00 $300,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000 00 24 Revised Protect Cost(Ph 1 only Full Amenities) $5,683,340.98 $5,508,340.98 $5,179,415.51 $4,167,154.13 $5,911,063.03 $5,424,415.51 $4,671,054.76 $6,181,063.03 $5,424,415.51 $4,941,054.76 $4,387,154.13 $5,681,063.03 $4,441,054.76 25 Redesign Delay 2 months 2.25 mouths 2 5 months 5 months(new P&Z) 5 moths(new P&Z) 5 months(new P&Z) 5 months(new P&Z) 5 mouths(new P&Z) mouths(new P/Z&NEPA) 7 months(new P/Z&NW 26 Land Required from Others? ..... Yes(EP San temp const esmt) Yes(EP San) Yes(EP San temp cant esmt) Yes(EP San temp cant esmt) Yes(EP San temp const esmt) Yes(EP San temp const esmt) y of Rec Special Use Pemn 27 Ph 1 Project Budget Deficit(lo be paid by Town) $415,491.13 • $919,391.76 $1,189,391 76 $635,491.13 $689,391 76 South Site total cost not bid.Estimate only based on information received from lowest bidder fcr VC site. 28 Estimated Bid Advertisement Date March 2015 May 2015 May 2015 June 2015 December 2015 August 2015 December 2015 August 2015 August 2015 August 2015 August 2015 October 2015 October 2015 29 Estimated Start Construction Date July 2015 • September 2015 September 2015 October 2015 April 2016 December 2015 April 2016 December 2015 December 2015 December 2015 December 2015 February 2016 February 2016 30 Estimated Completion Date May 2016 July 2018 July 2016 August 2016 February 2017 October 2016 February 2017 October 2016 October 2016 October 2016 October 2018 December 2016 December 2016 31 Citizen Transp Advisory Board Ranking tlue to cost,poor yield& Reject due to cost,poor yield& Relecl due to c t t tlue to poor yieltl& Reject due to sgnRcant time 32 Staff Ranking(1=preferred) I Reject due to high Phase 1 cost Reject due to signlflcanect due to high Ph elect due to high Phase 1 cliff 3 2 �,,, gesled traffic circulation congested lraic circulation congested delay&cost 33 Trustee Ranking LEGEND: Significant Benefit Add Traffic Signal Marginal stacking room at cut Marginal stacking r.. Signature stair delayed to Ph2 ..y- ...:,-.y .'- -,- -. . Signature stairs delayed to Ph2 'ggers new Parks Shop Triggers new Parks Shop Superior circulation separates bus Superior separation of bus and and garage traffic garage traffic.Better Ph 1 cost. Good Buses use west entry only Congested garage entry conflicts garage entry Congested garage entry Triggers locate of del Triggers locate ofelect Triggers locate of elect SI lure stairs delayed to Ph2 Triggerslocate of elect Signature stairs delayed to Ph2 conflicts with bus circulation with bus circulation conflicts with bus circulation ggers re primaryggers re primary ggers re primary a gna y re primary gna y Tolerable Triggers reloc of greenhouse Triggers reloc of primary elect Pax Triggers relac of greenhouse 15 ground level spaces req'd for 15 ground level spaces req'd for displaced seasonal parking displaced seasonal parking NOTES: 1 Signal design consultant and construction contractor could be procur-ed during 10 month structure construction period. 2 Could omit traffic signal from original design and move shuttle operation to south lot. 3 Option 3 requires demolition of Parks shop and relocation into new parking structure 4 Parking space count estimates will change during final design revisions. 5 Options 1-4 accommodate potential for shuttles to reach future intersection upgrade at Steamer Drive via future driveway extension east thru EP San property. 6 Existing north lot contains 153 spaces. Existing south lot contains 94+8=102 spaces. 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I W1 a :v YZN m ILL ��C2 agfo-> ii N a-N�3p"ig; F, 1 Ili xU 0 1 E 411416 STOP BAR - WHITE, 24" WIDE �' '' "" CHANNELIZING LINES _ "' WHITE, 8" WIDE ("lint-. " ' 1111(.,- 17I n P1 P1 CENTER LINES, SOLID \ `S tia 7. CENTER LINES, SOLID SCALE: 1"='-C' DOUBLE YELLOW, 4" WIDE DOUBLE YELLOW, 4" WIDE h+ 1'x8' WHITE _ -T' V E - CROSSWALK (TYP.) Q,- ' STOP BAR !/' D ,-'"WHITE, 24" WIDE _Jul 0 O ati bb � ' zI PROPOSED it** \ 0`'4 O rsm PARKING � 1 GARAGE ,e ,, o r � Ym � ov O E LANE I PARKING LANES -'',-' do- FIR 1 WHITE, 4" WIDE Q Ct ~ - U (TYP.) C - _i 0 0 H ,' U) CO w Z U 5 r / HQ > A %o /, CL �� it i_ < 1111;6. IP ,, .4' ,� v \o _ram w 1'x8' WHITE irik moo° ��� `/ � 7 H gl CROSSWALK / T W k (TYP.) A-.--S - ( _ a ';79 �a A BARRICADE (BY OWNER) Bs 1___I m LL 61- Z O ie U cc CHANNELIZING LINES o o WHITE, 8" WIDE ° PA s (HATCHES = 2' O.C.) o z z O — C z NOTES:CO m m w O 1. TYPICAL PARKING SPACES IS 9' X 18' UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. BM 2. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (SIGNAGE) SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE PROJECT NO: 23-7422.00 WITH SECTION 614 OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAWN BY: 7 CHECKED BY: < — STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION. 9 SHEET TITLE 6• A 3. ALL PAVEMENT MARKING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 627 PAVEMENT OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - STANDARD MARKING & z SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION. SIGNAGE PLAN LL Z C-600 LL 1 12 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 Copyright 2013.All rights reserved.No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission from Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers,Inc. ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Figure 1 . 1 CAR COUNT D 9'-0"90°STANDARD SPACE • EXISTING STANDARD ACCESSIBLE VAN RV TOTAL - PARKING ACCESSIBLE SURFACE LOT 139 8 2 4 153 4.46. • - L -Aler 0 lir:!11 I. PROPOSED 4' . STRUCTURED1#111 PARKING qllIllr"FillIlliC- GROUND LEVEL 66 5 2 0 73 _ SECOND LEVEL 70 0 0 0 70 • , , TOP LEVEL 64 0 0 0 64 4, _ \\\ TOTAL 200 5 2 0 207 SURFACE \\ PARKING \\ SURFACE LOT 75 0 2 0 77 \\ MIPAI NET GAIN 136 -3 2 -4 131 0 .,. - TOTAL STALLS 275 5 4 0 284 \\ \ \\ .01 e NORTH SITE \\ _ . . . *+ ° I OPTION 1 \\\ l[ '� . . : _ - \\\\ GROUND LEVEL \ • 4 �� \\ ONLYS \ ("..-'- BUSES \\ g G \ I -0 , I,� � © r -0 N • TRUEI,,,,/�111.1" / .6 00 - O .0 NORTH /0::\\\ - 0 50' 100' SCALE: 1" = 50'-0„ iii❑uL❑1❑ 2015 ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE4114 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Figure 1 .1 B 7 . 7' CAR COUNT 7,♦ 9'-0"90"STANDARD SPACEI ` DOSING STANDARD ACCESSIBLERV TOTAL / ' PARKING ACCESSIBLE SURFACE LOT 139 8 2 4 153 le' 4 i tt • - , -., , . a I STRUCTURED • /, 1 PARTINGk r il, - ♦ GROUND LEVEL 59 5 1 0 65 ♦ + SECOND LEVEL 70 0 0 0 70 TOP LEVEL 46 0 0 0 46 ♦z•\ /i v` \ \ 1 TOTAL. 175 5 1 0 181 - r'i♦'\ '�\ • \ le .'1 SURFACE -0d PARKING \ SURFACE LOT 82 0 2 0 64 - NET GAIN 118 1 4 112 %: 11,♦ II TOTAL STALLS 257 5 3 0 265 �, .• \\, \�_--- .,- \� \ d v 4 T V I I \`' .� _ 7 MN ,� OPTION 1 B \\ ,' GROUND LEVEL 4 c i I , ' .....••••••• J \ , IC . 7\ ,r-fr- ' \ \ li/ , . ___.k.._ _.... L -- ,`.\ \\ ‘ • sismilphor zo<:, \ \ / 1 ts , k. 4 i gir-- _ _. . \ Ns ,.. , „ O • 0. ll: _____ es i ..--...41, „..\ \ , .."\ \ .-• 4. --.....1_ \ r 1r . ,sm, ----:_l i 2/1 i L_ . ♦ y I TRUE ' 4. / \ \ . V .!! de ?'1. _ . , i . # if .* 1 '::,.,,1._:,...il, . ' 4- I OD ♦♦ • � ����� + ' ���"��.�' L__ __ :' + NORTH 7 er 0 50' 100' # c (0,0r. �' T SCALE: 1"=50'-0" I I February 17,2015 ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE Aii# WALKER Figure 2.1 PARKING CONSULTANTS _ ; - •CAR COUNT - 9%0 90•STANDARD SPACE _ r�T /. EXISTING VAN , PARKING STANDARD ACCESSIBLEACCESSIBLE RV TOTAL V\ ' , SURFACE LOT 139 8 2 4 153 + i PROPOSED ` ..~ - STRUCTURED A. PARKING ` GROUND LEVEL 81 5 2 0 88 1 / SECOND LEVEL 98 0 0 0 98 ' �' \ TOP LEVEL 68 0 0 0 68 + f- ':' - \, TOTAL 247 5 2 0 254 SURFACE � d 1 PARKING - ` SURFACE LOT 111 0 2 0 113 Q /` \\ \ \ \ NETGAW 219 -3 2 -4 214 "/ -\� , \ TOTAL STALLS 358 5 4 0 987 -. \ ' \ \.'\\ ' ‘ \\ ; ff ' I NORTH SITE rillillir V" .I.111\l '- \ \ ,�;. \ \�, � . .,\ OPTION 2 ;��\ \', . \'� ! ` �- , GROUND LEVEL IA -->" E? Om. pikiyiet 111111141111611Wilmill"1111.111141111110- - \\ \ - —lot of ff / _.,.. --\q‘.,\ \-,....\\ . -- ___, .... Ir ....7\ d lit 001 V _ 2_, V----- , \ \ \ \:.--k__-_- -7::::::\j-\ - -_,' iWilriiiitlirlIAP, V#\\\.) dl '-;'.t .'7 00 1 \2 A.:___-\-- \--__,.. \A , ,• \ \\ \ , ... oio, , \„...___ \ \ _1,A --____\__viv‘ \ . , 7 ,, \ . . .. , . mlimorim. ip. it.. -_A_ ----_\_ -\ v_ --- \--- -"" __,.Ii..lI Ifi ... 000 %,../ - \ \ - \ \ \ r2 _\_____\_. c' A\ \` 1 ' , 1 ` ,.`'- - 11 /" / _ / ` ; "\ -�_ TRUE TI • I G, _ `-' -� NORTH.... - Y� •,- �"- --1 ---1 0 50' 100' Vit,/. ..„,.,/ _ SCALE: 1"=50'-0" J L i a. I I February 17,2015 ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Figure 2. 1A CAR COUNT 7' 9'-0"90°STANDARD SPACE D\\\` /-- EXISTING STANDARD ACCESSIBLE ESN RV TOTAL - PARKING ACCESSIBLE • - SURFACE LOT 139 8 2 4 153 PROPOSED STRUCTURED 11P" • PARKING •� :cft. "/ 1 GROUND LEVEL 54 5 1 0 60 - SECOND LEVEL 68 0 0 0 68 • _ /- , TOP LEVEL 41 0 0 0 41 ,;_ •� •♦ TOTAL 163 5 1 0 169 - r ,/\ ' + r r r/♦\\ I SURFACE - • }+ \ PARKING - - - .01 SURFACE LOT 109 0 2 0 111 / I \ ....7 11 NET GAIN 133 -3 1 -4 127 / \\ TOTAL STALLS 272 5 3 0 280 - /,♦ \_ ._ iniililig.. ,re4::‘,.#. „7,1„ \.. \ _ • \\ /V \\ 00#..."\\ -/ \ \\\ .,S\ I NORTH SITE " - ,/ \ \ OPTION 2A . \\ 2. I GROUND LEVEL — - •V\\°\\ 1.,,:jogioA y • X\0, X• •*******1\\ \ 1 ,03 0 ..7.. 1 \ •/***1 \\ rp ci co %b - I \b' b. I_______j, a' X \ RaMP "\2,00\: \ ir___ X \ t ... i, ' ♦ oio \ + % \\ 4.0*******\\\ \ \1 , .......,... \\\ \ \ IN TRUE 0\ : •..0.1#1 ) .4, 4 .' '/;;''' ... • .01 • • OOP ♦♦/ OO _----•a•• 1-Oe .. NORTH 1 I 0 — 50' 100' I I ' I SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" I I Febru o-❑1❑, 2015 ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Figure 3.1 ',CAR COUNT [(\ y 9'-0'90'STANDARD SPACE ) /' EXISTING VAN - PARKING STANDARD ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE RV TOTAL SURFACE LOT 139 8 2 4 153 • PROPOSED / '► STRUCTURED 4 ` PARKING 1 GROUND LEVEL 72 5 2 0 79 _ +" i SECOND LEVEL 99 0 0 0 99 i * 1 ` TOP LEVEL 69 0 0 0 89 `, r : , 1 TOTAL 240 5 2 0 247 � j \ %\ . SURFACE PARKING .>�� -.. SURFACE LOT 110 0 2 0 112A\\ \ \ < < , NET GAIN 211 4 2 4 206 . '.,/"5\\\ \ \ TOTAL STALLS 350 5 4 0 359 i '�\ \ ' \ 4,Fr ,/. , \\r \ �� � NORTH SITE v„_ l __�. \ \ OPTION 3 • ,r \\. �� \ b \ GROUND LEVEL .„ \ , ii.• • x \ i 1 !--- \\\ �' \ \ 258.-0"t i - WP�� • • , ...,, \ . d _ o i ._.11 °, _ i , 9IG r 1„rilit , -40 , \ N �_..: • ai 17U5 I 1 . 1 L_ILLJ_ , ii i i 1 : j 1, .: s ; ,. . , , t--- , .1 Vj ._ ._ •I 11 • . -„_;;„ 1 i ert, I. '�/\ 4 :j r��� TRUE "Halan."- ' \> d I f 1. 1 ' ' A1,1111° I � I ll I I I IJ11 Is 1, PARKS E ; , ,,• �p - - - - tit SHOP SHOP 1 ,/ U - ` _�= � 1_ J NORTH 'moo ,� �__�_ L, o I\ ' r - \ _ 0 50' 100 _. _ . . r. I I SCALE: 1"=50'-0" I I February 19,2015 ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Figure 3.1A r- ,' CAR COUNT \-.4 , 9'-0'90'STANDARD SPACE I ' iiiii ' /' EXISTING VAN PARKING STANDARD ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE RV TOTAL 1yt 1 SURFACE LOT 139 8 2 4 153 PROPOSED sV'• -/ , t STRUCTURED I PARKING / 1 GROUND LEVEL 50 5 2 0 57 i ,'s SECOND LEVEL 88 0 0 0 88 • '-- ,` TOP LEVEL 41 0 0 0 41 ' • • TOTAL 159 5 2 0 188 • ,'/.: ' SURFACE 4� %!!•" \ S. d • 1 ' , PARKING ;,r\\\ \ P `\ \•10" \ I SURFACE LOT 110 0 2 0 112 \ % ' NET GAIN 130 -3 2 -4 125 - a \ \ /\ TOTAL STALLS 289 5 4 0 278 ♦ '�A \ ` \ ` \ v,, \ \ - . \ -, , . '%\',\ \ �. \ l NORTH SITE o01: � v \\ ,• ",.7,, OPTION 3A R L \ \ \, b / GROUND LEVEL \ L_------------- -` \ \ :: , ,7 200'-o't a- —f • r— ..e. \\ . \ \ \ , \ p ; + w°'""-" ;Amax pOl, ,\\ / a�� Jsle� s I - I\\ ;'i:'; I.\ © I / / 4 0. \ .. q [I It.) I Li HI � \ • + 1 a \ 1.. , , ," 1 _ , I1(1 // I , 1 SHOP lIJTiJiJTJiirT :h �- _- - ° NORTH ' )......\ -1- I 0 _ 50' 100' - -�""�' r � SCALE: 1"=50'-0" 11 I I February 19,2015 ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Figure 8. 1 f 1 11111011100,60. . . - . . --- - --. - . MATCH EXISTING MATCH SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALK REALIGNED SIDEWALK/ FIRE ACCESS TURNAROUND STRUCTURAL DESIGN WILL ACCOMMODATE MOUNTABLE _ �' -_ E%ISTING ELECTRICAL CURB - VAULT I c - GRAVEL ACCESS 4119 PARKING ' _ REALIGNED I ___ SIDEWALK 6 i 1 MATCH R EXISTING 616�4' 22 /l♦I• • SOUTH gTE K /, N 8 ACCESS SURFACE PARK G W/ Irr i : D% � GROUND LEVEL fig Irr4111L011111111111111111 •I / SLOPEUP I O,z41 \ �_ I ' GRAVEL ACCESS �_ ROADWAY _ __ FUTURE AR ' _� PANELS SURFACE BARKING Ilip�_ o RAMP UP \kikk\iiiiiii„ MOTORGVCLE ' I '`=-., PARKIN ,, ,I • CAR COUNT MATCH • LLj/9'-0"90°STANDARD SPACE •� slDewALK EXISTING STANDARD ACCESSIBLE ESN TOTAL 0 —I RE I STAMPED PARKING ACCESSIBLE SURFACE \ PARKING 90 2 2 94 FUTURE ART PANELS /1� PROPOSED V/TRUE STRUCTURED PARKING GROUND LEVEL 77 5 2 84 REALIGNED SECOND LEVEL 99 0 0 99 , ROADWAY TOP LEVEL 74 0 0 74 TOTAL 250 5 2 257 1 2�08 51. 20 i 14.83 a2oo 1 NORTH SURFACE 38 0 0 38 _I�i' L603_ PARKING O -CFO 0 50' 100' 283 1575 LOW-BOY TRAILER 53 FEET NET GAIN 198 3 0 201 e FEET TRACTOR WIDTH .8.50 LOCK TO LOCK TIME .6.0 SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" TOTAL STALLS 288 5 2 295 TRAILER WIDTH 850 STEERING ANGLE 223 TRACTOR TRACK 850 ARTICULATING ANGLE 700 ;� + TRAILER TRACK 850 December 11, 2014