Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Public Works 2001-06-21Ir t Vt ck j ~e AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JUNE 21, 2001 8:00 A. M. Preparation date: 6/15/01 *Revision date: i 1.Commercial Truck Traffic on Avalon Dr. - Continued from May PWC Mtg. Request decision on ban request from a neighborhood petition 2.Causeway Pedestrian Underpass Final Design and Construction Management Request approval of Scope of Services 3.Fish Creek/Hwy 36 Intersection Preliminary Engineering Report Request approval of Scope of Services 4.Water Dept.2001 Loop Project Change Order Request approval 5.Stanley Ave. Intersection Project Change Order Request Approval Reports: 1. Misc. Department amo To: Public Works Committee From: Avalon Truck Traffic Task Team Bob Joseph, Bill Linnane, Lowell Richardson, Randy Repola Date: June 19, 2001 Subject: Avalon Truck Traffic Background. In the summer of 2000, the Town was contacted by Laura and Mike Schmidt, 1110 Brook Dr., regarding concerns about excessive speeds on Avalon Drive. In response, Public Works and the Police Department studied speed data on Avalon. As a result, a speed table traffic calming device was installed. Consequently, traffic has slowed down. This past March, the Schmidt's submitted letters requesting the banning of commercial truck traffic on Avalon and a neighborhood petition requesting the prohibition of truck traffic on Avalon was also submitted. The matter was first heard at the Public Works Committee meeting in May. At that time, it was determined that commercial truck traffic should not be relocated to another neighborhood. Staff was asked to research additional alternatives to address the concerns raised by residents of the Avalon Drive area. Since this last PWC meeting the attached letters requesting truck limitations have been received. (Background continued on page 2 and 3) BudqeUCost There is no cost. Recommendation: Rather than relocating commercial truck traffic from one problem area to another, Staff recommends three options for your consideration: 1.) The Town could perform random inspedions of trucks to ensure that they are equipped with fadory installed exhaust systems (this would require training personnel in inspections); 2.) Prohibit truck traffic on Avalon between the hours of 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM from Friday night to Sunday night; or, 3.) Take no action. 1-1 Background: (Continued) The Departments of Community Development, Police and Public Works have studied the various aspeds of the issue and have provided a host of options. The range of responses ranges from leaving conditions as they currently are to the other end of the spedrum, which would be to ban truck traffic. In between these two extremes are options to limit jake brake use during certain times or limit truck traffic during certain times, such as weekends between 10 PM and 8 AM. The following tasks have been performed to analyze the problem: • The Police Department has conduded studies of the speed, traffic counts and types of traffic on both Avalon and Acacia. The average speed is approximately 30 mph and approximately one-third of the traffic is double axle trucks. In addition, the PD has researched traffic accident history from January 1999 to present. During that time there were three accidents on Acacia and two on Avalon. None of the accidents involved trucks. • The PD has measured the traffic noise in decibels and those results are attached. Results range from approximately 46 -58 dB for a sedan to 69 dB for a concrete truck. A new diesel pick-up truck registered 73 dB. • Community Development has researched practices related to zoning and traffic restrictions. Based on this research, restriction of truck traffic is not warranted. • Staff met on site on Wednesday, May 30th, and walked Avalon observing both vehicle and pedestrian uses. On June 4, staff observed the area between 7:25 AM and 7:45 AM. During that time there were three children observed walking along Avalon but no truck traffic. • Public Works has reviewed the engineering standards as they apply to the appropriateness of heavy truck traffic on this residential street. There are basic parameters to consider when addressing the safety of traffic on any given street. Some of these are sight distance, conflid points/turning movements, vehicle and pedestrian counts, and density/zoning. Based on these parameters, Avalon is similar to the other alternate truck routes and presents no more traffic danger than the other routes. •Page 2 1-2 Background: (Continued) • Public Works has researched truck equipment issues related to jake brakes and required mufflers. It has been determined that to prohibit jake brake use would reduce the safety of truck operation on any street. In addition, inquiries have been made to determine if the trucks traveling this area are properly equipped with factory installed exhaust systems. Responses from the truck owners indicate that their vehicles are properly equipped. • The Public Works Dept. has researched the criterion used in other jurisdictions when truck traffic is restrided. As stated in the May meeting, none of the conditions apply to this circumstance. Given all of this collected data and input from the Town's PW, PD and CD departments it is very difficult to justify the relocation of commercial truck traffic from one neighborhood to another. It seems that a solution to the problem would be to focus on reducing the commercial truck traffic noise rather than eliminate it. Random inspection of commercial trucks by Town employees, trained to identify fadory installed exhaust systems, could help serve notice to truck owners that their vehicles need to have appropriate systems installed. •Page 3 1-3 4 Fl fEE~ (7:Rh ri~ iin, •.5-, *2 I-5.6 Il V~ i.~ Mamo 1111 E i JUN 5 2001 1\ ImalLAIFF : 4% f To: Public Works Committee From: John Baudek Subject: Commercial Truck Traffic - Residential Streets Date: June 11, 2001 I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the June committee meeting, but I will be out of state on town business. I am pleased that the Public Works Committee has put this issue on the agenda. Since I will not be able to attend the meeting I have written down some ofmy thoughts on this matter. The commercial truck,traffic issue which has arisen on Avalon, Brook and Acacia Avenues is not something to which there is an easy solution or where local residents and the Fish Creek businesses most likely will be satisfied with any action or lack of action taken by the town. People can argue back and forth who was there first and who should have primacy, but while there certainly is merit on both sides there also is in fact a problem. I do not believe that the town should try to reach a compromise solution just for the sake oftrying to please, in some small way either or both sides. The situation must be looked at from the perspective ofwhat is good for the community as a whole. Residential areas are by they're very nature special while the commercial areas are the "life blood" ofthe community. We need both and must protect the interest ofboth. One ofthe major considerations ofthe town government must be safety. Are these large trucks, on these residential streets, causing an unacceptable safety situation? Would the possible alternative route/s just move the problem or cause new safety concerns on the alternate route/s? I believe, as I think the committee does, that just moving the traffic from one residential street to another is unacceptable. One point that has been brought up is the use ofincreased police presence to help curb the perceived truck traffic problems. Police presence and observation can be very helpful in defining what the problem is in a specific location or on a short term interim basis to help with a traffic problem, but to expect increased police present to solve a problem, from that point on, with no other changes just is not realistic. Other police priorities come along and the police cannot be there week in and week out and then it looks, incorrectly, that the police are not doing their jobs. Residents have brought up several possible options and I think that two ofthem at least should be considered by this committee. One is the questionable use ofbrake retarders 1-4 ral l- Public Works Committee Page 2 June 11, 2001 commonly referred to as Jake brakes. I feel that if the route being used requires the use of such devices, to make the transition safe, it is very questionable ifthat is the route that these vehicles should be using. Ifthe retarders are being used, but not necessary and they are increasing the noise levels in these residential areas, this is unacceptable. Some communities in Colorado have banned the use of Jake brakes except in emergencies. I am not sure that such a restriction would be warranted here because ofthe steep grade o f some o f our streets, however it might be something to consider on specific residential streets where there has been a problem. The second area is large commercial vehicles using these residential streets in question before 8:00 A.M. on weekends. I would not think that there would be much heavy truck traffic before 8:00 A.M. on weekends, but such traffic would be very disturbing in a residential neighborhood. Trucks having to go around, for example, and use Fish Creek to the causeway before 8:00 A.M. would not seem to be a very large inconvenience, as they would not encounter very much traffic early in the morning, on this route. Some other thoughts: The use of speed bumps that have been installed in this residential area should be evaluated to see ifthey have served the intended purpose or are they just increasing the noise levels in the neighborhood? The residents ofthe area are the ones who can give us the answer to this question. Be very cautious ofany type ofrestriction which would change routes by day of week or odd or even days. From experience I can tell you that this becomes very confusing to people as they can't remember what the specific restriction is for that day and then enforcement becomes very negative. I realize that what I say here somewhat contradict what I have stated earlier about truck restriction for early morning hours on weekends, but what I mean is having different routes for different days of week or different routes on even and odd days ofthe week. It is important for all of the parties involved to try and work together to come up with some solutions which can be implemented while minimizing the negative impact for all concerned. I certainly do not think that what I have stated here is the definitive answer to the traffic problems in this residential area, but it is just given as further input for your committee to consider with all ofthe other input that you have received. 1-5 May 30,2001 Estes Park Public Works Department, Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concern regarding the truck traffic along Avalon Drive. However, I have been deeply troubled since the meeting on May 178. Since my husband and I will not be able to attend next month's meeting, I take this means ofcommunicating with you. Those attending the May 17th meeting (on both sides of the issue) seemed to agree that: 1. Avalon carries a large volume oftraffic. 2. Avalon is used by the industrial trucks to reach Highway 7 (a short cut and therefore added profit). 3. The noise from the trucks is loud and disturbing to the residents. 4. The residents have an understandable fear for the children in the area. 5. The amount ofcommercial traffic has greatly increased. 6. That increase will continue with the growth of construction in the Estes Valley. Not addressed at the May 17th meeting is the additional traffic to be generated when the Dannel's property on Acacia is further developed. Suggestions to consider restricted hours, reduced speed, added signage, restricting jake brakes, and monitoring the area, though helpful and on a positive note, really won't solve our problem. I'd like to emphasize that the truckers seem to know when the ar€a is being monitired. Then the traffic is very light, as was the case early this morning. What route are they using then? Avalon and Brook is the route between Fish Creek and Hwy 7 for many cars, vans, jeeps, sports utility vehicles, campers, trailers and loud pick-up trucks. This is a problem we cannot and are not asking control of. However, the elimination of industrial and commercial trucks would greatly relieve the situation since they are the most offensive on a residential street. If Fish Creek, an arterial road built for such traffic, was used, perhaps the state, county, and city could work together to improve and install traffic lights where Fish Creek and Highway 36 meet. That would make it safer for the truckers, would help control traffic during events in Estes, and would be a great benefit when trying to cross to Mall Road when traffic on 36 is heavy. It was stated that the 18-wheelers carrying gravel from the valley already use Fish Creek. One wonders why the cement and gravel trucks don't ilse the same route. The van lines and other huge delivery trucks use the causeway. Why is it any different for the construction trucks? On the side ofcompromise: 1. Six alternative streets were circled on the map available at the May 17'~ meeting. Currently, Avalon gets the truck traffic six days a week. One day a week for each street would be a way to share the burden. Also, when school is not in session, Brodie to Community to Manford to Hwy 7 could be used. 2. Since some alternative streets were said to be too icy for the trucks in the winter, why not use them during the spring, summer and fall, reserving Avalon for inclement weather. 3. The incline on Acacia was stated to be hard on the truck gears, but shouldn't be a factor going down hill on the return trip. (When viewing the incline on Acacia and Avalon from the corner, it doesn't appear that Avalon is any less steep. Sorry, but I don't see that argument as valid). 1-6 It seems very unfair that this neighborhood has to take the brunt of this situation. Quality of life and peace of mind are at least equally, or even more, important than profit. Please help us solve our problem now, so that it doesn't have to be addressed again as the situation worsens. Respectfully submitted, /39*1 >AL? Mona Whitney 1747 Avalon Drive Estes Park, CO Copies to: John Baudek Rich Widmer Bill Linnane Randy Repola Bob Joseph Sue Doylen Jeff Barker 1-7 Mike and Laura Schmidt 1110 Brook Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-1808 Mr. Bill Linnane Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 May 21, 2001 Dear Mr. Linnane: Thank you for the consideration you have already given to the industrial traffic problems in our neighborhood. We appreciate the fact that you are willing to consider all the options to preserve the peace and safety in our neighborhood. We did not purchase a house on a through street, and we did not purchase a house in an industrial zone. We may as well have, though, because Avalon, Brook and Acacia are being used as arterial roads for industrial traffic. This has apparently been the traffic pattern of the industrial businesses on Fish Creek for quite some time, so everyone is hesitant to reroute these trucks. While the trucks' traffic patterns haven't changed, the frequency of their trips through our neighborhood has. Mrs. Tippin, a longtime neighborhood resident, referenced this increase in volume and noise pollution in the letter that was presented at the Public Works meeting on May 17; she said that what was once a peaceful neighborhood now is a noisy and dangerous one due to all of the truck traffic. Even the owners of the Fish Creek businesses admit that they are going back and forth much more than they used to. So, while industry and community may have once been able to coexist peacefully in our neighborhood, they no longer can. Change has already happened in the neighborhood; industrial truck traffic has increased to a hazardous level. And now more change is required to deal with this problem. Rather than just maintaining status quo, we would like to seek a compromise that makes our neighborhood more livable while still allowing the business owners on Fish Creek to maintain their profit margins. Neither Brook nor Avalon is zoned industrially, yet industrial traffic has free reign of these streets. Acacia is zoned appropriately to take industrial traffic, yet it is not being considered as a route for the heavy trucks due to the grade of the road; business owners mentioned at the Public Works meeting on May 17 that the incline of Acacia is hard for their trucks to take going uphill. Why not downhill? Why not restrict all southbound industrial traffic on Avalon, routing the trucks instead to Acacia for their return trips to Fish Creek? Surely it wouldn't cause too much of a financial hardship for business owners to go two blocks further south before turning to head east to head back to Fish Creek. As for the hardship caused by asking the truck drivers to take Fish Creek to the Causeway, we're having a hard time seeing where 2-1/2 extra miles, or 3-1/2 to 4 extra minutes, would bankrupt these businesses. What if they were told that they had to use this route before 8am and on weekends? How much money could this possibly cost them? We know it would buy us quite a bit of peace of mind. As for the argument that it is safer for these trucks to go through our neighborhood than it is for them to go along Fish Creek and the Causeway, this is insane. The reason we don't want to reroute these trucks to Brodie is because we don't want to endanger the schoolchildren, yet it's 1-8 been determined that it's safer for the trucks to take a route through a neighborhood filled with children than it is for them to take arterial roads designated for heavy traffic. Where is the logic in this? The attitude seems to be that it is better to allow an existing hazard to continue than it is to upset status quo. At the meeting, Kearney mentioned that, as far as he knows, none of his drivers have ever had an accident in our neighborhood. So what? If you found out that your child had waded in a dangerous part of the river at a friend's house several times, would you allow him to continue to do so once you were aware of his dangerous habit? No. You would tell him to stay out of the river. And what if the child said, "But I haven't fallen in yet!" What would your reply be? We know what ours would be: "So what? You only have to fall in once to drown." And you only have to hit one child with a 25-ton truck to have a vehicular homicide and a tragedy of immeasurable proportions on your hands. We would have a responsibility to keep our child out of the river in the aforementioned situation. And the City has a responsibility to keep these 25-ton trucks off the streets where our children walk and ride their bikes. At the Public Works meeting, one of the business owners joked that, if his trucks used Country Club, they'd "end up owning that house at the bottom of the hill." (The implication being that the Country Club hill is too steep for a big truck to navigate safely and that a truck would surely lose control and run into the house at the bottom of the hill at some point.) Ha ha. We don't find this particularly amusing, considering the fact that we live at the bottom of an incline that Kearney admitted to having to use his Jake Brake to negotiate safely. How long before one of them "owns" our house? We hope for their sake that they never do because they'd have a terrible time reselling it due to the low property values in this "industrial" neighborhood of ours. The business owners on Fish Creek are being treated as if they are in the majority on this issue. This is a bit puzzling when you look at the number of people concerned enough to attend the Public Works meeting on May 17 and the number of people who have asked the City for help in resolving this matter. Three business owners attended the Public Works meeting. Nine neighborhood residents attended the meeting. Twenty- seven neighborhood residents signed the petition asking for some sort of change. We are not talking about a couple of neighborhood whiners. We are talking about a significant number of residents who feel that a change is needed in our neighborhood. We would of course love to ban the trucks entirely from the neighborhood. However, since it seems that this is not going to happen, we suggest the following compromise: • Before 8am and on weekends, the trucks would take Fish Creek to the Causeway, staying out of our neighborhood. This would at least ensure that the children could walk safely to the bus stop, and that we would not be awakened at 6am or on Saturday mornings by thundering dump trucks. • The trucks would not be allowed to go south on Avalon at any time of day. To return to Fish Creek, they would have to take Acacia, which is zoned appropriately to accommodate them, or the Causeway. This would resolve a lot of the noise and speed problems in the neighborhood since it would ensure that no 25-ton trucks would be traveling downhill on Avalon at rates of speed that require the application of Jake Brakes. It would also cut the danger to children walking south on Avalon from the bus stop between 3:30 and 4:00 1-9 While this compromise is not ideal for us, it would at least lessen the severity of the industrial traffic pollution in our neighborhood. Please consider it as a means of keeping that child out of the river, at least for a couple of hours a day. Sincerely, u~ 7 Of e 12.. 045'-1 --,Cl- PmAA,/tkn# ult Mike Schmidt and Laura Schmidt CC: Randy Repola Bob Joseph Mayor Baudek Encl.: Excerpts from Noise Pollution Clearing House article Excerpts from 1995 Denver Noise Survey, Analysis of Denver Noise Control Ordinance Various newspaper articles pertaining to neighborhood noise pollution 1-10 MEMORANDUM June 12, 2001 TO: ATA REPOLA FROM: DC FILSINGER RE: AVALON/ACACIA TRUCK TRAFFIC Random vehicle counts have been conducted on Avaton and Acacia Streets. Studies were also done utilizing the Traffic Counter (TRAF-MAN). The results are as follows: VISUAL SURVEYS June 7 Thursday 0755-0910 Westbound trucks from Acacia to Avalon to CO 7 7 Kearney Trucks 2 Fairbanks 2 unk Eastbound trucks from Avalon to Acacia 1 Suburban Propane 3 Kearney 1 unk 1200-1300 Westbound trucks from Acacia to Avalon to CO 7 7 Kearney 2 Suburban Eastbound trucks from Avalon to Acacia 3 Kearney lunk 1500-1600 Westbound trucks from Acacia to Avalon to CO 7 1 Kearney Eastbound trucks from Avalon to Acacia 1 Kearney Eastbound trucks from Avalon to Brook 1 unk 1-11 June 9 Saturday Surveys were conducted from 0800-0900, 1200-1300 and 1500-1600. No trucks were observed on Avalon during these time periods. June 12 Tuesday 0910-1010 Eastbound trucks on Acacia 1 Kearney No Eastbound or Westbound on Avalon 1310-1410 Westbound trucks from Acacia to Avalon to CO 7 2 unk 1 Suburban Eastbound trucks from Avalon to Acacia 3 Kearney 1-12 TRAFMAN STUDY: ACACIA The Trafman was utilized to conduct a speed/axle study on 0530 and 053100 (20 hour period) on Acacia. The study indicated that the average speed was 27.5 mph and the 85% speed was 32.5mph. Ofthe total of 86 vehicles counted, 27 ofthem were 2+ axle trucks (31%). 15 ofthese were westbound trucks. AVALON The Trafman was utilized to conduct a speed /axle study on 061401 (25 hour period) on Avalon. This study indicated that the average speed was 24.8 mph and the 85% speed was 31.2 mph. Of the total of455 vehicles southbound, 115 (25%)of them were 2+ axle trucks. Of the 439 vehicles northbound, 146 (33%) were 2+ axle trucks. 1-13 CO 36 @ FISHCREEK ROAD Line of sight/visibility potential at the intersection of 36 and Fish Creek was studied with the following results: For a vehicle stopped on Fish Creek Road intersecting CO 36 the line of sight for westbound vehicles on CO 36 is approximately 875 feet. From the point which was established as first visibility it takes slightly less than 10 seconds for the westbound vehicle to cross FishCreek Road intersection (@ the speed limit of 50 mph). A test was conducted for a vehicle (sedan) to turn left from Fish Creek Road (westbound) and achieve a speed of 30 mph. Under normal acceleration this maneuver took 7 seconds. 1-14 MEMORANDUM June 12, 2001 TO: ATA Repola FROM: DC Filsinger RE: Avalon Truck Traffic DECIBEL METER READINGS On June 12, 2001 the decibel meter was used to measure the noise generated by the truck traffic on Avalon. Notations were also made with respect to other vehicles on the roadway. All measurements were taken at an approximate distance of 25 feet from the noise source. The results are as follows: Westbound Trucks: A dump truck towing a trailer carrying heavy equipment: 69 db Large Suburban flatbed with crane: 63 db Eastbound Trucks: Concrete truck (Kearney) 69 db Dump truck (Kearney) 62 db Concrete truck (Kearney) 57 db The average ambient reading in the area was 40 db Passenger cars ranged from 46-58dbs with an average of 50 db Pickup Trucks ranged from 46-67 dbs with an average of 60 db A new (01) diesel pickup (eastbound) registered the high of 73 db None of the trucks observed utilized their jake brakes. A majority of the noise measured appeared to be engine noise There was no evidence of excessively loud exhaust systems. 1-15 Community Development emo To: Randy Repola From: Bob Joseph ~zttl CC: Bill Linnane, Lowell Richards Date: 6/11/2001 Re: Industrial / Heavy Commercial Zoning The 13 acres zoned Industrial and Heavy Commercial located on Acacia Drive were originally annexed into the Town with industrial zoning. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for the industrial and heavy commercial services this area provides. Furthermore, the Comp Plan recognizes that it is not practical to propose relocation of these businesses to other areas of the valley. Therefore the Comp Plan and the new Estes Valley zoning retains this pocket of zoning despite the potential conflicts with the residential neighborhoods tbat have grown up around this use. Within this area there are six parcels zoned Heavy Commercial that remain undeveloped. It would be inconsistent with the zoning and the intent of the Comp Plan to prohibit or significantly restrict truck access to these properties. Significant restrictions on truck access to these properties would negatively impact the intended use of these properties and their value in providing essential community services. 1 1-16 ---4,1 Menlo Park Noise Ordinance (Information from internet) ON THIS PAGE: • The Noise Ordinance 79---1 • Activity, Places, Hours and Exemptions V • Enforcement and Metering THE NOISE ORDINANCE In April 1999, the City of Menlo Park enacted an ordinance to specifically address the sources of noise and to protect residents from the intrusion of unreasonable noise that may interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of their life or property. A pamphlet was prepared (cover art shown above) and mailed to all Menlo Park postal addresses. The entire contents of that pamphlet are incorporated on this page, with some additional information and links. Please email us below with any questions. WHAT NOISE IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE LAW? ----» The law does not make any noise or sound illegal. In fact, even loud noise may not be illegal under the provisions of the law. To be in violation of the law, the noise must either be excessively annoying, loud or unusual or violate the noise levels, times or sources as identified in the ordinance. The ordinance identifies the maximum noise levels permitted within the City of Menlo Park. A violation can be citied under Municipal Code section 8.06.030 Based on measurable units of sound called Decibel Levels, or dBA, the law prescribes the maximum noise limits for all sources of sound measured from a residential property as: 50 dBA for "Nighttime hours" (10 PM - 7 AM), 60 dBA for "Daytime hours" (7 AM_:_10 The noise limits for all sources of sound emitting from one multi-family unit into another, such as through common (shared) walls or doors in apartments, condominiums, or duplexes, are: 35 dBA for Nighttime hours (10 PM - 7 AM) 45 dBA for Daytime hours (7 AM - 10 PM) EXAMPLES OF NOISE LEVELS 50 dBA = Noise level of a typical television. 60 dBA = 30 feet away from a car traveling 30 MPH. 85 dBA = A food processor on high or a gas- powered lawn mower idling. WHAT NOISES ARE COVERED BY THE ORDINANCE? The provisions of the law regulate all sources of noise in Menlo Park city limits from residential, business or other activities. Examples of sound sources regulated by this law include: Amplified music, loudspeakers, radios, televisions, stereos, musical instruments, powered toys or models, swimming pools or spas, industrial machinery, manufacturing equipment, pile drivers, air compressors, paint sprayers, motors, pumps, blowers, air conditioners, cooling towers, ventilating fans, fork lifts, ladders, tractors, domestic animals, domestic concerts, mechanical equipment, human voices, electrical appliances, vacuum cleaners, powered equipment, chain saws, beepers, ~motor vehicles, and attached 99*ment not operated on a street. Construction activity is regulated by time, dBA level and persons performing the work. Contractors are advised of the noise ordinance, permitted work hours and maximum level of 85 dBA when they receive their building permits. Notices about noise ordinance days, times and levels must be posted at the construction job site. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum Date: June 18, 2001 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane C /./~-2 SUBJECT: Causeway Underpass Final Design Scope of Services BACKGROUND The underpass project is scheduled to be constructed in the spring/summer of 2002. CDOT is funding part of the project with Federal Enhancement money. They have scheduled a tentative advertisement date of January 2002, therefore, Final Design must be complete by December 2001. Cornerstone Engineering has recently completed the preliminary engineering report that was presented at the May Public Works Committee meeting. They have submitted a Final Design and Construction Management Scope of Services cost of $68,136. This is less than 10% of the estimated construction cost SCOPE/BUDGET Budget (engineering and Construction): $324,000 CDOT $300,000 Town Cost of Final Design/Construction Management $ 68,136 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Cornerstone's Final Design Scope of Services of $68,136. BL/lb 2-1 CORNE?STONE Estes Park, CO 80517 437 South St. Vrain (970) 586-2458 Fax (970) 586-2459 /7,1 ENGINEERING & 2:G:.. U SURVEYING, INC. E-mail: ces@frii.com June 8, 2001 Bill Linnane Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Scope of Engineering Services For U.S. Highway 36 Pedestrian Underpass at Community Drive and Stanley Park Trail Extension. Dear Mr. Linnane: This letteroutlines the Scope of Services and Cost of Engineering Services associated with the design of the U.S. Highway 36 Pedestrian Underpass at Community Drive and Stanley Park Trail Extension. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Highway Pedestrian Underpass and Stanley Park Trail Extension is the continued development of the Lake Estes Trail system within the Town of Estes Park. The proposed underpass and trail extension is to provide safe pedestrian access from the Lake Estes Trail system across Highway 36 to Stanley Park and the Park R-3 School District complex. The project corridor will include regrading approximately 830 feet of Highway 36 and 200 feet south on community Drive to facilitate the placement of the pedestrian underpass. The project also includes approximately 3,800 linear feet of concrete pedestrian trail from Highway 36 through Stanley Park and the east edge of the Park R-3 School District complex to Brodie Avenue near Fish Creek Road. Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES) performed a preliminary design evaluation for the stated project. The information and recommendations from the evaluation were compiled in a report titled 'Preliminary Design Evaluation of U. S. Highway 36 Pedestrian Underpass at Communitv Drive and Stanley Park Trail Extension." The major component of the design, based on recommendations for Phase I from the preliminary design evaluation, are as follows: 2-2 Bill Linnane June 8, 2001 Page 2 • U.S. Highway 36 Raise U.S. Highway 36, above the proposed underpass, approximately 4.8 feet. With the high point being approximately 60 feet east of community Drive. The increased highway elevation is transitioned over 830 feet along U.S. Highway 36 and approximately 200 feet south along Community Drive. Placement of approximately 900 linear feet of type 3, W-beam guard rail along the modified section of highway. , Bicycle/ Pedestrian Underpass An 8 foot high by 12 foot wide concrete box underpass, approximately 60 feet east of Community Drive. The underpass would be approximately 45 feet long and include portals for installing electric lights and a storm water drainage system. The underpass would provide safe access from the Lake Estes Trail under U.S. Highway 36 to Stanley Park and the Park R-3 School District Complex. • Stanley Park Trail Extension 3,800+/- linear feet of 10 foot wide concrete pedestrian/bicycle trail. The trail will extend from the south end of the pedestrian underpass along the northern and western edge of Stanley Park and the Park R-3 school district complex to Brodie Ave. near Fish Creek Road. SCOPE OF WORK A. Preliminary Design Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES) will prepare a preliminary design forthe workoutlined above. The preliminarydesign will include grading plan, storm water management plans, project survey control plan, construction traffic control plan, cross-sections and structural plans with the necessary details. All design information shall be presented in a format (written and computer) to CDOT per their current standards for the FIR (Field Inspection Review). Besides the FIR plans other design information to be included are hydraulic information, geotechnical, asphalt design, wetland information and construction phasing. 2-3 Bill Linnane June 8, 2001 Page 3 B. Final Design CES will revise the preliminary plans per the comments of the Town of Estes Park and CDOT from the FIR plan review. RMC will submit the revised plans, specifications and estimate(PS & E) for the Final Office Review (FOR). CES will also submit the PS & E to a peer engineering consulting firm for additional quality assurance review. The PS & E will be revised per the Town and CDOT comments. The PS & E will then be submitted for final clearance. C. Construction Bidding Upon final clearance and construction authorization, CES will advertise the approved bid package for construction. Also CES will manage pre-bid questions, job walk, addendums and bid opening. COSTS The cost for the services outlined above are listed in Table 1. The total cost for the design bidding and construction related Engineering Services is $68,136. CES is pleased to have the opportunity to provide this scope of work, and we look forward to the project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. IR#Lit/6419. - Michael S. Todd, P.E. Principal 2-4 TABLE 1 U.S. HIGHWAY 36 PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS AND STANLEY PARK TRAIL EXTENSION PRELIMINARY DEIGN PERSONNEL HRS. RATE/HR. TOTAL COST Principal 30 $90.00 $2,700.00 Project Manager 40 $70.00 $2,800.00 Project Engineer 120 $60.00 $7,200.00 Engineering Technician 80 $50.00 $4,000.00 Surveyor 8 $55.00 $440.00 Survey Crew 10 $110.00 $1,100.00 AutoCadd Technician 180 $50.00 $9,000.00 Clerical 30 $32.00 $960.00 Geotechnical Consultant $6,000.00 Wetlands Consultant $500.00 TOTAL PRELIMINARY DESIGN $34,700.00 FINAL DEIGN PERSONNEL HRS. RATE/HR. TOTAL COST Principal 40 $90.00 $3,600.00 Project Manager 40 $70.00 $2,800.00 Project Engineer 120 $60.00 $7,200.00 Engineering Technician 80 $50.00 $4,000.00 AutoCadd Technician 180 $50.00 $9,000.00 Clerical 80 $32.00 $2,560.00 Peer Review of Plans $2,500.00 TOTAL FINAL DESIGN $31,660.00 PROJECT BIDDING PERSONNEL HRS. RATE/HR. TOTAL COST Principal 4 $90.00 $360.00 Project Manager 8 $70.00 $560.00 Project Engineer 10 $60.00 $600.00 Clerical 8 $32.00 $256.00 TOTAL PROJECT BIDDING $1,776.00 SUMMARY OF COST PRELIMINARY DESIGN $34,700.00 FINAL DESIGN + $31,660.00 PROJECT BIDDING $1,776.00 TOTAL COST FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES $68,136.00 2-5 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: June 19, 2001 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane GL SUBJECT: Fish Creek/Highway 36 Intersection Reconstruction Project Preliminary Engineering Report BACKGROUND Larry Haas, CDOT Safety Engineer, informed Staff that CDOT money is available to reconstruct the Fish Creek intersection in order to bring it into compliance with CDOT engineering standards. It is an unsafe intersection due to its geometry, and CDOT would like to reconstruct the intersection in order to improve safety. The new intersection would be more of a standard "T"/perpendicular intersection similar to the Highway 34/36 "Sheep" intersection. CDOT would like to incorporate this project into the Causeway Pedestrian Project scheduled to begin spring 2002. Cornerstone Engineering is the engineering company for the underpass project therefore they have been asked to submit a Scope of Services cost for a preliminary report for the intersection. This report will include a cost estimate which will help CDOT determine if there will be enough money available to completely reconstruct the intersection and proceed with the project If the cost estimate is favorable, Cornerstone will be asked for a Final Design and Construction Management Scope of Services. The Town is not being asked for any money; we are only being asked to contract with the engineering firm, pay the invoices and be 100% reimbursed for all expenses. The Cornerstone Preliminary Report Scope is for $12,980. COST/BUDGET No cost to the Town. The Public Works Department budget would need to be supplemented by $12,980. CDOT would reimburse the Town 100% of the cost RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Cornerstone's Scope of Service of $12,980 to be 100% reimbursed by CDOT. BL/lb 3-1 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region 4 W~ 0 71 1 Loveland Residency · 1~ 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland, Colorado 80537 (970) 667-4670 / Fax (970) 669-0289 June 7,2001 /1 Mr. Bill Linnane STE M405-008 Town of Estes Park Fish Creek Rd Path P.O. Box 1200 13582 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Bill, As per our conference call on 6/5/01 with you, Kerry Prochaska, Larry Haas, and myself, CDOT would like to add the design and construction of the Fish Creek Rd., Mall Rd., and US 36 intersections to project STE M455-008, Fish Creek Rd. Path. The design would include the reconfiguration ofthd Fish Creek Rd/US 36 intersection to a standard looking and operational intersection. Create eastbound and westbound left turn lanes on US 36 for Mall Road and Fish Creek Road. This is your authorization to include this intersection into the project design. Please submit a cost estimate for design and construction as soon as possible. Based on the forthcoming cost estimate, CDOT willlook into encumbering state funds for the additional work. If the cost estimate is more than the available funding, we may have to reevaluate the scope of this additional work. Call me at 667-4670, ext. 5108, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~JIT4*. ~ u-»Vuju Wendy Turner ' Project Manager CC: Project File 3-2 CORNE?STONE Estes Park, CO 80517 437 South St. Vrain (970) 586-2458 Fax (970) 586-2459 ENGINEERING & 2/7. SURVEYING, INC. E-mail: ces@frii.com t« June 8,2001 Mr. Bill Linnane Public Works Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Scope of Services and Cost of Engineering Services for the Phase I, Preliminary Design Evaluation for the Highway 36 Intersection with Fish Creek Road and Mall Road, and Guard Rail Replacement Dear Bill: Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (CES) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following scope of services for the Phase I, Preliminary Design Evaluation for the Highway 36 Intersection with Fish Creek Road and Mall Road, and guard rail replacement. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Highway 36 intersection with Fish Creek Road and Mall Road, located at the east end of Lake Estes, has become a source of numerous traffic accidents due to inadequate lane configuration. The intent of the design evaluation is to adjust the intersection configuration. CES will review the physical constraints and provide an evaluation with recommendations for reconfiguration of the intersection. CES will specifically evaluate the approach to Highway 36 from Fish Creek Road and Mall Road and widening of Highway 36 to provide a center turn lane. The guard rail along Lake Estes Highway 36 causeway is to be replaced with guard rail meeting the "Roadside Design Guide" standards as set by AASHTO. The preliminary design evaluation will include: • Base map survey of approximately 2400 feet of Highway 36,200 feet of Mall Road, 500 feet of Fish Creek Road and the adjoining affected area. Preparation of a plan and profile of Highway 36, Fish Creek Road and Mall Road. • Determination of construction costs for the project. • Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) approval of the design concepts. 3-3 SCOPE OF WORK Task 1: Data Acquisition 1. Easements. Righ-of-Ways and License Agreements - CES will research easements, right-of-ways and license agreements critical to the proposed highway modifications. 2. Survey - A field traverse and topographic survey will be performed of the project area to establish a solid framework for all right-of-ways, utilities and other monuments gathered during the field survey. Vertical control for the project will involve the establishment of various project benchmarks. Task 2: Highway Geometries A plan of Highway 36, Mall Road and Fish Creek Road will be prepared on the base map collected during the data acquisition phase. The plan view will indicate Highway 36 lane configurations, shoulders, guard rail, retaining walls and clear zones. Additionally, the plan will detail the horizontal geometrics ofthe Highway 36, Mall Road and Fish Creek Road intersection. Existing and proposed profiles will be prepared for the intersections of Mall Road, Fish Creek Road and Highway 36 with emphasis placed on Town of Estes Park, Colorado Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration standards for grades, vertical curves, slopes, and stopping sight distances. Task 3: Design Summary CES will prepare a Design Summary. The summary will include the following information: 1. A summary of the highway geometrics. 2. A narrative outlining the proposed improvements for the intersection and roadway. 3. Development of project costs. 4. Project right-of-way, license agreements and utility needs. 5. Recommendations on resolving definite problem areas related to the project. Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. anticipates completion o f the Design Summary by June 20,2001. The summary and preliminary design will be forwarded to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and comment. As necessary, the Design Summary will be revised to incorporate comments from CDOT and the Town of Estes Park. Upon completion of the Design Summary a scope of services will be prepared for the Phase II, final design and constructed related services for the CDOT approved project. The phased approach will allow for interim comments to determine a complete scope of the project prior to a final scope of services. 3-4 COSTS The total cost for the CES Preliminary design evaluation is $12,980. A breakdown of the design costs are included in Table 1. CES is pleased to have the opportunity to provide this scope o f work, and we look forward to the project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 9««211- £22_- Michael S. Todd. P.E. Principal 3-5 TABLE 1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN EVALUATION HIGHWAY 36 GUARD RAIL AND MALL ROAD/FISH CREEK ROAD INTERSECTION COST OF ENGINEERING SERVICES Task 1: Data Acquisition Personnel Hours Rate/Hour Total Cost Principal 5 $90 $450 Project Manager 6 $70 $420 Project Engineer 6 $60 $360 Survey Crew 17 $110 $1,870 AutoCadd Technician 14 $50 $700 Clerical 11 $30 $330 Subtotal Data Acquisition $4,130 Task 2: Highway Geometrics Personnel Hours Rate/Hour Total Cost Principal 15 $90 $1,350 Project Manager 14 $70 $980 Project Engineer 14 $60 $840 AutoCadd Technician 56 $50 $2,800 Subtotal Highway Geometrics $5,970 Task 3: Design Summary Personnel Hours Rate/Hour Total Cost Principal 8 $90 $720 Project Manager 12 $70 $840 Project Engineer 12 $60 $720 Clerical 20 $30 $600 Subtotal Design Report $2,880 Summary of Costs Subtotal Hydraulic Analysis $4,130 Subtotal Highway Geometrics $5,970 Subtotal Design Report $2,880 Total Preliminary Design Evaluation $12,980 3-6 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: June 19, 2001 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane 1 SUBJECT: Water Department 2001 Loop Project Change Order Request BACKGROUND The 2001 Loop Project includes a section of water main that begins at the intersection of Columbine Drive and High Drive in Beaver Point It extends west to the west portion of Ramshorn Village. From there it jogs south along the west portion of Ramshorn Village where it reconnects to the water main within the Blue Arrow R.V. Park. The attached Cornerstone Engineering letter itemizes the change order. Work is complete and Chairman Barker was informed of the extra work approximately three weeks ago. Work included: 1) Extra service line connections to Ramshorn 2) Extra service line length to 1161 High Drive 3) One extra fire hydrant on High Drive 4) Extra asphalt quantities for Ramshorn Village and extra flow-fill for the crossing of Highway 36 service road to the Park. COST/BUDGET Cost of change order: $9,019.38 Budget: Not included The change order can be funded from the $50,000 under-budget bid amount for this project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends and requests approval of the change order. BL/mjs 4-1 CORNE?STONE (970) 586-2458 437 South St. Vrain Estes Park, CO 80517 Fax (970) 586-2459 ENGINEERING & //C SURVEYING, INC. E-mail: ces frii.com June 5,2001 Mr. Bill Linnane Director of Public Works Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Change Order Explanation Dear Bill: On May 30, 2001 you received a notice to expect a change order of approximately $12,000.00 from Weinland Construction, Inc. for the 2001 Town of Estes Park Water Looping Projects - Beaver Point Project. The notice was an estimate to keep you informed of forthcoming changes in the project. The first phase of the 2001 Water Looping Projects included three projects at Mary's Lake,Road, Blue Arrow Campground, and Rams Horn Village to High Drive. The final costs for the Mary's Lake Road and Blue An-ow Campground portions of the project are within the bid price. An increase of $9,019.38 has occurred on the Rams Horn to High Drive portion of the project. The \ change order amount includes the $3,500.00 that we informed you of in our letter dated April 30, 2001. A breakdown o f the costs and explanations follow: • Three additional services were discovered in Rams Horn Village. Cost for the service connections and associated 3/4" copper pipe is $2,484.00 • Service to 1161 High Drive required an additional 105 feet ofcopper pipe. The additional pipe was necessary based on the final location of the easement to cross the National Park Service property and field location of the existing service line. Cost for the modification is $2,283.75. • A fire hydrant was added on High Drive at the Water Department's descretion. Cost for the fire hydrant is $2,734.00 • Flow fill and asphalt quantities were greater than anticipated on the Highway 36 crossing. Total cost increase is $1,517.63. 4-2 The items listed above will be paid per contract unit prices. A change order form regarding this adjustment will be sent to you. If you have questions or need further information please do not hesitate to contact me. sincerdy, A A, Cornel:At o~k~~g~eering & Surveying, Inc. Principal cc: Bob Goehring, Town of Estes Park Water Department 4-3 ?Public Works Engineering C O To: Public Works Committee Fron·c Greg Sievers CC: Bill Unnane Date: June 5,2001 Re: Stanley Avenue & Highway 7 widening The Stanley AvenueANoodstock Drive at Highway 7 widening project was completed on time. The original contract amount with Kitchen & Company is $53,752. The final cost of the projed induding additions and changes is $58,287.05. The overrun total is $4,535.05. During the course of construdion, -some field dedsions were made by staff to construct and replace underground utilities. to avoid the need to excavate within the new roadway and new asphalt in the future. Those items are outline in the attached VanHom Engineering letter. Some of these Rems were specifically provided for certain properties and owners. • The Light & Power Department has agreed to reimburse the project $3,251 for 6 conduits placed under Stanley Avenue near the stop sign. This cost indudes the assodated flow-fill and asphalt patching. • Lot 34A had the old steel water service and 4" day sewer service lines excavated, exposed and abandoned and a new 6' PVC sewer and W copper water service lines installed for future use. The total of those private utilities is $3,214, which also induded flow-fill and asphalt patching. This property is currently for sale by the Park National Bank Staff recommends pladng this cost on the lot, to be paid by the new owner upon request of a building permit or redevelopment plan. • A new 18" culvert was added. It crosses under Stanley Avenue from the existing manhole south toward Lot 33. This culvert can provide a drainage ouUet for future improvements to that property. Staff also recommends that the $2,987 cost of this improvement (that included flow-fill and asphalt patching) be tied to that lot, to be paid upon the proposal of any future redevelopment of the property. The total possible reimbursement on this project is $9,452. Final project cost after reimbursement is $48,835.05 • Page 1 5-1 'a'.5.u/,.,21 4./.7:Ii,.Ll /1\\ 1 5 .11·if:kk -- ~ --- ... LAND SURVEYS- . - - 4,- - C - SUBDIVISIONS - --=--...„ --I } DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING A VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SANITARYENGINEERING MUNICIPALENGINEERING WILLIAM G. VAN HORN - COLO. PE & PLS 9485 /4 ·9 - June 6,2001 Mr. Greg Sievers Town o f Estes Park 170 Mc Gregor Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Stanley Avenue/highway 7 Intersection Invoice for Payment Dear Greg, Attached is my spread sheet for. the invoicing received from Kitchen and Company for final payment on the above referenced project. I have carefully examined the invoices and certify a total payment in the amount of $58,287.05, This is above the contract amount of $53,752.00 by S4,535.05. I have enclosed a change order in that amount. As you are aware, at the direction of Town staff, several items were added to the project after the project was bid. The cost for these items, along with such other items as encountering poor soil conditions which required undercutting areas o f the road and backfilling with suitable soils resulted in the overage. However, there are three items of construction which were dorie to assure that the new road is not cut up in the near future which carl appropriately be charged to other entities. These are: • Water and sewer service to lot 34A of the Amended Plat of White Meadow View Place Addition (the lot south of the intersection) in the amount of S3214.00 ($2069 for water and $1145 for sewer). • A culvert installation in the amount of S2987.00 to sen'ice future storm drainage for the benefit of the Owners of Lot 32A of the Amended Plat of White Meadow View Place Addition when that lot is further developed. • Electrical conduits under the intersection for future Town Light ahd Power use in the amount of $3251.00 to be billed to Town Light and Power. These items total $9,452, leaving the net costs for the intersection project at $48,835.05. Sincerely yours, VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. 4424 . 1~o »p~-\- ~ohn A. Spooner, P. E. 1043 Fish Creek Road · RO. Box 456 · Estes Park. Colorado 80517. · 970-586-9388 · Fax 970-586-8101 5-2 ·4. . -. ' . 000000000000000000000000 LOO 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 000) 0 0) 0 0) 0 0 0 Ul NO 8888 MW ME?MME**MMMEA Fit Wi 248%*d fi ~79 MENE W Z 4- r A 9- 4- M 10 h M N q N N 0 0 N 00 00 1.0 t.0 0 t.0 (9 0, C) N tr)(nOUD 62 3 44 r.- ca w ,_-<a ct-in N '4 in la (N-44 ,_- 3- Cri € N A- r-- 44 64 44 €4 64 (4 - 4 44 00 0 0 0 0 (.4 40> 4/> ,> 69.- €/7 €/> (04 i.0 >5 0 Z< O t.O 0000000000000 t.nt.D (9 000000©00 O 9- O 00 5 0 N co O LO (9 LO N tr) O 0 0, h t.0 44 0 1 W LO OLD 1- r N 9 - M LO N 09 N T N N C) CO O r- <1 1.0 O.N.¥-OON e} r.- 4/> i/> (/) (/9 co~ t') CN~ ") (A &9) W W (N- C•f co- N r (9 N U W€4 69 (la 64 64 (4 - S 69 + 64 €/> 69 000000000000000 LO O 00000000 1.0 0900 Ui Odd dO Li di Ui OC)ON „Nr EQO O N 09 LD Chi 1.1 O (/) r- CD CO (.O 0 Al M ~/> ta Wher-Vt-hol to -<ain £4 0 0 Dm - 0 N (4 69 0, N ca W r (,9 09 @h -Eig:22*~p.(V--~I--I-*289 -3°29% e <<< zzz D>000 80585501&1&5333&522289&333 0 Z LL U. --- 3 I O M O 4 O W --1 > d 8% 00 (0 (aD= E 0 z 0:Qaf 51 I 5 4!w if D: &~5- _, W UJ U)H-Z 22 5 2-= 52 82= 22 2 (D ,rozE,6 acc/2 9 5 EW Z OJILI ZLLI UN:Z-4 Z<0-71- 412 088* *a 8=*gam== O(NO (49-= ;2<27 oztozp Zfgc/2~LLI ~2 ~*g<,li<m <32~Drzowwt~(qw „J>0-Zm z« 1 EUDPOR 22 0 :GELuo~*OJZ 1-F-- U.1 -Z 2 * gl 1YE wg on .x Ellf lma 22 << 2%~E#§3Ei~zz99*BEE jz ~ r° E cs E 9 3 2 M 3 3 % 5 3- Q M *@ 3 - B K E 2 £2 ck= 0 22 ENE % * C. 1 3/23"/%89/Ge)$2%<328# DZ< 1-JOfs ;32 ENGE 05>u- 0 Z jfeXOODJU 3391~000030:acoof XDUJ<W 0 0 05 0 0 DW OWOO <0.a.ZO. a. 0 0<IIN LI-1-00,- WOOC.Qf 1- 0 0 5-3 90'LgE'892 ZSL'£91 :14101 C]NV 6/5/2001 lt'Z'99$ 1.1.0'ZE (%91) 043 RACT ITEM UNIT EQU~TI AMOUNT REMOVAL (INCLUDING SAW curs~ F URB AND AND REMOVAL $8.00 AVATION $8.00 $1:.E 0.00 0.00 intersection pay HIGHWAY 7/STANLEY AVENUE/WOODSTOCK DRIVE INTERSECTION 0'09€S MOSIABBdnS i 06ed A-60t (1.NROPIV 1VNOLUCC]V) KITCHEN AND COMPANY PAY RE©EST b ONIC]VUD 1 d SnONIW NOE 013=IVE!1 NOI10n SNI MIM 1HO n 133 CLEARING AN 3NOO 11¥HdSV 3AOZI