The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Public Works 2008-11-201 Â¥-liE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AGENDA 8:30 a.m. November 20,2008 Special Meeting PUBLIC COMMENT ACTION ITEMS: 1. Tree Board Recommendation Landscape study to create a master plan to develop and expand arboretum to the areas around CVB parking south of the river. a. Request to allocate $15,000 for landscape study REPORTS: 1. Report - Estes Park Downtown Transportation Study by PBS&J 2. Verbal Report - Construction project updates from Greg Sievers 3. Verbal Report - Traffic impact fee study by Scott Zurn 4. Verbal Report - Status of Bond Park Master Plan by Scott Zurn 5. Verbal Report - Moraine Avenue crosswalk/CDOT/EPURA plans by Scott Zurn Note: The Public Works Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Cynthia Deats From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9.25 AM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0852 ST. TIME 11/17 09:17 PGS. 1 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 5771590 EP News ERROR 1 4 TOWN of ESTES PARK ESTES PARK Public Works Department COLORADO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20,2008 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Scott Zurn P.E. SUBJECT: Tree Board request for arboretum expansion and master plan development Background: The Tree board is requesting funding to expand the arboretum from the current CVB location across the river and to the areas around the parking area south of the CVB and the river. The expansion of the arboretum would be an added value to the community both as area restoration, but also an expansion of the educational opportunities it would bring to visitors and citizens. The Tree Board believes the area should be planned by a professional landscape architect. The resulting plan could be implemented over time with the money budgeted each year for the Tree City designation. It is estimated several years of funding would create a much more inviting area and establish a natural riverbank environment behind and around the CVB and river areas. CosUBudget Cost: Estimates for a detailed landscape design would be $15,000 This is an unbudgeted item, there is an opportunity to partner with EPURA for development of this area; another option would be to have staff design the landscape plan. Action: Staff recommends: The Public Works Comm. consider the Tree Boards recommendations and make a recommendation to the Town Board concerning funding a landscape study to provide a plan to increase the arboretum and all the benefits that would come from such an expansion. . AREA REQUESTED FOR ARBORETUM EXPANSION )14 * 29 k. 4 h. . 46 4 't, .,~â‚¬ 1>44- 4 h a . 4 1 .F., .4 I:./ $ 2 /. *I. * .â€¢ f */111* ~ 91$ â‚¬r k â€¢,1 7 't -r '1 3 f Â·, af 11 7 - f. f.. .D.4 7 h - + W. I. f~ *f .... *f, 0 .i-, ..0 7 9, .14- A .+ I .. .19.0*f . I â€¢ff f I - 6. i. 4 U ,79-, t.t~ri,â€¢pc, ' 24*, e 1 r. 4 ,./ do b.. 1 - ' <..It.' ' 6 . 2, f. Yt 1 33 314-6.k y-* . t 1 Ir,91:4 . :. ?44 tr . .~. - , 14 47* 6 . ..te~' ~~ .i,''~fl:Mtwai'q 4.Â· - 27'g /1.4 * 1 .4 0- Â· t. + ? Â· ~61 ' FL/4-< Â·Â·Â· 1 72"11- 23-3.Â·40> 1 26 , t '- , Afrs.1 1, , .0 77 1751 2 9. 4<a~e- 'J Â·14-y ' i 1 ... V Ch... \ ... , 1/ d,4,1 , , .194/,rtAÂ© i,. T , , t.[1 11 ;1%61. 22l- <h ./. \ A .4, i 83 irrif L a \' u/ ; , 77 ----' 29â‚¬4.4 .- It - 1 4 -Â¥4 , 2 4.07% ft 1,11: . *. 1 : 1:.1 - 1 .' 4,41.-43. *f-'- .yr - / I ' I -Il , 1 Â¢... 4/Fe: 1, 1,1 '' 34 J) b , - P .C.; i, I,gli-11â€¢ 9- c.&4-.,46 1 .' 4. i 1 L 2. N 1 ~ C.'Â·0 .Â· I U,/,3-/ i L Y / : 4 44. f -44,00* ~ - -UX.% 4 9Â«al-- .... , 25-- * 4 ~ ;,tr 4 â‚¬ 7 . .4 V ...-Alk 7 . 43 Â·r . .,.1 444 4: 4 - h , . 1*Lk. ~ Hy' i *4* 1* . ~ Â° â‚¬7922Â°-Â·,~ -2 :. p. '~'. ' f.5* *Â«7Â»lfi i ~--t;-3Â»4*9*J .....â€ž -ue ~~ ...â€ž3 =: t yÂ©t.x'~ Â·-2, '44 R: 4 1 2, 1, . ikil.l~:}:1....4~.1 1.29,1 - ' 1 , =h. 1 4 4.- / ~FT :lf gi.=-'n:a ;.Â· Â·y t: + 1''i'' -Iffi-A.:Â·-4 7 --1 iN 0 4. . 105 ler>U te-Â«,Â¥J : 4 fl :t . 6 -.I 0 A. Â«f-= z./MI , f... 1 1, ./ " 1 - 11. ... ~ ''%, *%.116 1 , 4 . ?Ot,t{ P.Wâ€¢ %,h- -Â· Â·'9. t; 9. f. ,/ .*API'.IÂ·. 'f./. .. t. . . IT. 1 1 9/ I ..6).~UN*/2. ..Â· ~~:; 32:Â·,10*#S* - V..7 Â· - 94*4 ' f * -4.'IÂ· Â· 4> , '8#tr AtrF.Â£:&-* M~ #11-211 . 9 - *ME-:: ./. I. .r..: i *4 - '4., .3 1 1 -- =jp~oj0' "~;p~ *44~j~) 4 Aili . Â» 1 i F ti + 4 ' 1/ 90=*..WA:iÂ·' 1 -- JI -+ M li- - . ..Ad~i:41'I--~a 7 - >P JÂ¢ir# - 1----.:*41/# F. #,1 - 4.1.19*13~~ 1.; 1,2 5 '4 f -3 l , 1. 1/ 14 " i Y., 3 illEE~~â€¢â€¢&k-f~ i. . /W:.b,4 I /.f,5, / 1 21> j:- .C %17 . - ./. '--=I N,1@ - * A . <On, 4 I - k,FÂ·' . . *. I : /2 2 I - t-I - ~ * I.';Il"j....."Il-F I - . .4 1 ..f 9 lili-a-ly .-4<> 7,8 2<kil-1. rqui 9/7 f#R# ' i .... <I .. 9.-. - -I- .....=Il ....L. g -1 --- 1, 1. 4/ 41>.*,4,Â¥97.3 * triÂ£)6404 i~~ '1 - K TAÂ·~2Â·j , Â£~41?f~ T .,.. , ,.4,.468*1',4 ... 241737~:...3, .I + 4 . I kne 72 ' ,/ 1 - A - $ Pl"h a *.) q.. ' jit. - i J,~ I - t . .4. 11 .2 IF i ra: 7, <litt' r '. :' ' , 1 i 1 4.4 ' *#:77 ,â€¢. Â·f .. '. U. .t Â·-: 'tij. ... 1 1Â·'ju ./ 1Â· rf 2, .' ' ., Â·i, I. t~24. . - 1 ' %' '' , 74 1. -4 *f-, f 4 Â·Â·2'; f. fbr :1 4, # ml - t'lls k. 09 . 2 Â· Â· , Â¥/ L - 44// 4 *. t. 14. '6Â·'trilyÂ·it 4 1. 1 - 4 1 t Â¥9 r - T > 1,42 I t //-4. .O 1 4Â» I .... 4 + 44 .At, r .. '' 1 M. 7 . .r./ J /4 f . . ./ft... > *. I N 3, I. . 07, I *a .,22 4 % i * F r 4 . 1, , tr 66 . 1 , - . .f Â·ani./Al#~ r*.s * 1 ?5Â¥07 11. ' 7F J. . -~ 1~: I I. ...1 9 ./4 - I 4 WIT . A, ... -t ..4 473*11,1, 1 ' 1 -dll~'iÂ·* 0,/: ,, ~* r b I j / 70 q. f : ~3'4:4 ~*i.60:4 4 . .4 d , -7 r *''Y 4. - , AU.' WA I . 1/ b.. 57* rt I- 1 *AL'Aul./46 - ti:.rrÂ·. f,Vil.ZJL I WA.. Â£...j ,-â€¢ 4,14 -1> -brfu"k-,1, 1:-.4 :41#~Ul".4.. 4.:3.-1)1* 6...1,1. ....t '61% M-,--â€ž~ ' 1-2 ,- Â» . *le.... 1 Â·Af.*:i--'*,J'i-4 4 9 3 2 F 01 .Al- 9 1%.''trir.- jf , .4 ' I .rt. - f .- 0 - r Â«-4 - 1-' 91/ZIEDW 4.,.f 10, % - *4 41 1 -- 4L -1 4 . ' , tl .- Wt .M' zao e i *: C'., -. , Â» .14 . 4 3 . / 11 IF I~ ....Ill.. , - ' - .2=2=5- - L 1 , r ' 343 '. 4 + 4. ' 11 . .=' .1.1 f LI~ . '11 4 582&432*z# t lb, 11 L it" C ' . _1 0.2/ -dk -9 576 .ir - 200.- ~*-r,%41â€¢*mrÂ· w 1 1 121,0 1 W 11 /'lk,f,74 1 k .Â£ i - +1, 2 1Â· 1,1:44 1 j 41 14. ..P I . f **67"At/6 #61221*. b 1 94 , - pltf %44Â·*-:r*x + 9 4.,40 1,0 11 .1,411 9 1 /4 . . 'A 4. I - .... Aâ€ž.i,-1-g. liCÂ». *<*.*'At L;4Wi~41 ~ ~" 2111, 1 - . r W. i V 4 3> U 3./ I VV . 4. I. I ./ - 6 -+ /, Ilk It. , /T#A .4, W ut 1' ' .44 6*'*<kl~ ,; 41*41 < ', 1 11' 1 4'm.,ft . //- ~ I 'F 1 I 1 14 f 1 1 -- -MF 9*9-/6,/ f 9.* .: . 4-4,1.- F . u 14 r ' â€¢'rit,i~ S' I 4 *Jf9-14034*42#*-, i. 1.Ef.*f ~*'4'1.~~;~ifil-j,V#&,4~1Â£~f.~*~,1,1.~2WJ#* ' 1, :f'19~:~.-2-':;.4,'47:*1*-Â£*Lâ‚¬D*: *t. . Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study 2. ./ T . -: 9 J T i Do Nor Ut. i.'f./ --'~2-EL . 4 941 4 - Ly . /7.2 .1 ' -4 1 ;- 1.-m#M.t.4~,-4 -14 2 Prepared for: 24 .1. '' . - . a .+47 7Â· - 14 , r. 1 G...Ill 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 i 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 Prepared by: Â£ 4., tf 1 -4 . 20 40:04 4601 0TC Boulevard October 2008 Suite 700 Denver, CO 80237 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Scott Zurn - Town of Estes Park, Public Works Larry Haas - CDOT Region 4, Traffic Engineering 1 FROM: David Sprague, P.E., PTOE DATE: October 20,2008 1 SUBJECT: Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 The Town of Estes Park, Colorado (Town) has identified a need to review the existing circulation in the downtown area. Specifically, the Town is interested in making capital improvements to the local street network in order to re-route a portion of the traffic away from the downtown area to help relieve congestion. This memorandum will identify what improvements may be necessary to improve traffic operations at critical intersections in downtown Estes Park. The Town is more interested in improving operations for the immediate future, next 10 to 15 years, with an eventual plan to make more significant 1 improvements in the future that would serve as long term fixes to the circulation issues in the downtown area. 1 A traffic analysis was conducted for the project area intersections. Several alternatives were analyzed for years 2008 and 2018 to determine the potential impacts of various changes to the street network. There were two main alternatives with several sub-alternatives studied. These alternatives were presented to the 1 Town and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for their input and comments. Three short- range roadway options were identified and moved forward for final analysis. The following is a brief description of the changes to the existing roadway network for the short-range alternatives. â€¢ Option A- 1 -All northbound Moraine Avenue traffic would have to turn right at Rockwell Street, with southbound traffic also allowed to make a left-turn at this location. The northbound right-turn at US 34/36 and Riverside Drive would become channelized by a raised island and the radius of the turn would be improved to allow WB-50 vehicles to make a right-turn without impeding eastbound traffic on US 34/36. A pedestrian signal would be added to assist pedestrian traffic across Moraine Avenue near Weist Drive. â€¢ Option A-2 - This option has the same configuration as Option A-1, except that a second pedestrian signal would be added on Moraine Avenue at the existing mid-block crossing south of Rockwell Street. â€¢ Option A-3 - This option has the same configuration as Option A-2, except that the intersection of Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street would be signalized. Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study October 20,2008 Page 2 of 13 Results of the operational analysis, level-of-service (LOS) and delay (seconds/vehicle),for existing conditions and the three short-range roadway options are shown in Table 1. The results clearly show the existing roadway system is operating poorly with long delays, which is confirmed by the observed long queues at the intersections during the peak traffic periods. This is consistent with intersection and key movements being at or over capacity during the peak period. All of the design options make significant improvements to the Moraine Avenue and US 34/36 and Riverside Drive and US 34/36 intersections. The stop controlled approaches of the Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street intersection will operate poorly (Option A-1 and A-2) unless this intersection is signalized (Option A-3). Table 1 Operations Summary for PM Peak ~ US 34/36 and , US 34/36 and Riverside Drive and Moraine Avenue Riverside Drive Rockwell Street Option 2008 2018 2008 2018 2008 2018 LOS/Delay LOS/Delay LOS/Delay LOS/Delay LOS/Delay LOS/Delay 4 (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) 1 i =>. ~ *ge'*30Â¢" -'Y I y:~, --*T Existing (No *Câ‚¬ 4 F/136 F/174 C/34 D/49 1#74Â· C/24 E/38 4:{ Build) f 4.11 A-1 D/38 D/45 B/19 B/18 ~ F/>>100 F/>>100 A-2 D/38 D/45 B/18 B/18 ~ F/Â»100 F/Â»100 1 A-3 D/38 D/45 B/17 B/17 B/18 D/42 Note: Shaded cells are for unsignalized intersections and the delay is for the worst approach leg. >>100 indicates the worst approach /eg experiences average de/ay that is we// above 100 seconds per vehicle. In addition, the existing roadway configuration has the ability to process a combined 700 northbound to eastbound vehicles at the Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive intersection with US 34/36. If traffic is diverted from northbound Moraine Avenue onto Rockwell Street and then Riverside Drive and no modifications are made to the roadway configuration at the Riverside Drive and US 34/36 intersection, conditions will not improve as this location is already operating near capacity. With improvements recommended in the design options, the roadway system may be able to process between 1,000 and 1,200 northbound to eastbound vehicles during the peak; nearly doubling the number of right-turning vehicles the system is able to process. In addition, at the current growth rate for the area (1.65 percent annually) the improvements may be able to accommodate future traffic volumes for the next 20+ years. It is recommended that the Town take a phased approach to implementing the design elements that make ~ up Option A-3. The following is one possible phased approach to making the improvements in the study area. 1. Make improvements to the northbound right-turn lane at US 34/36 and Riverside Drive. 2. Install a pedestrian traffic signal on Moraine Avenue for the midblock crossing at Weist Drive. 3. Eliminate northbound traffic at the Moraine Avenue and US 34/36 intersection by ~ diverting the traffic onto the Rockwell Street Bypass. 4. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street. Estes Park Downtown Circu/ation Study October 20,2008 Page 3 of 13 5. Install a traffic signal at the pedestrian crossing on Moraine Avenue south of Rockwell Street. 1 Conceptual level designs for the individual elements of Option A-3 were developed and are contained in Appendix A. Conceptual level cost estimates for each of these design elements were also developed and are presented in Appendix B. The costs are extremely preliminary and are simply meant to provide the Town and CDOT with an overall order of magnitude for the costs to construct each design element. Actual costs would need to be determined through more detailed study and a final design process that ~ would include collection of survey data and better identification of potential right-of-way impacts. It may also be necessary for the Town to conduct public outreach and environmental reviews prior to implementing the changes identified in this memorandum. 1 Table 2 provides a summary of the different design elements and their associated conceptual costs to completely reconfigure the roadway network to match the results of the traffic operational analysis. Actual costs will be determined through the design process and more detailed analysis. Table 2 Conceptual Costs of Option A-3 Elements* Â·23, + Design Elements Â·,Â·p / p Cost 1*98.: Moraine Avenue and Weist Drive Pedestrian Signal $120,000 US 34/36 and Riverside Drive Channelizing Island $75,000 Pedestrian Signal before Rockwell Street $88,000 Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street Traffic Signal $131,000 Moraine Avenue to Rockwell Street Redirect $120,000 Total $534,000 * Locations may contain significant elements not included in the current cost and could require additional funding to complete the project. The Town should conduct a more comp/ete design study for each /ocation to better determine costs. 2.0 INTRODUCTION The Town of Estes Park is located in northern Colorado (see Figure 1). There are four main intersections in the project area, including US 34/36 and Moraine Avenue (also known as US 36) (see Photo 1), Moraine Avenue and Rockwell Street (see Photo 2), Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street (see Photo 3), and US 34/36 and Riverside Drive (see Photo 4). The primary movement of traffic is westbound on US 34/36 then southbound on Moraine Avenue during the morning peak and then reverse in the evening peak (northbound on Moraine Avenue and then eastbound on US 34/36). This creates a heavy westbound left-turn movement from US 34/36 during the morning peak and a heavy northbound right-turn movement from Moraine Avenue during the evening peak. Due to the small northbound right-turn radius at the intersection of Moraine Avenue and US 34/36, Rockwell Street is designated and signed as a northbound truck bypass route. This route takes large vehicles east on Rockwell Street to Riverside Drive, then north on Riverside Drive to rejoin US 34/36. This route is also signed as a bypass route for all traffic to avoid delays through the downtown area. Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study October 20,2008 Page 4 of 13 Figure 1 Project Area Map ~ 0.- -,0. 11 LX _ Cld=5.===(iD=.=484Prili'Buffad ~15:Â·Â·Â·w / 13\\41 :ryÂ¥ 36 ; F<~~ El 4â‚¬0BP' % W,6 7 11 Wilungton . Â£#fipolo,a,tmate,i:f:====bi:AÂ¢=0-iÂ·)42 : I 44~ 11.-1 < 1 ~ 1, Foiest State Park Laporle , . >111'L--0 .1 ,i J 1%~d2513,4EK~f~?y P -i Steamboat &341 2#N~onat,gilllIrr~ evans NZ 1 *---JetimalTS I ~ Oak*85 t.â€¢~j , Fmt Mor 12- Longmont*:m,W 11 55 li â‚¬11 1 Fortdupton .--~ a %* . ~h - te'-i~,iA'~~ghton' h ,~ 91Â·-Â· Silverthome -~~ZI:,r- 1 Frisco God a eN/~ tey-r 0 Breckeonct - Me'. Â¥*4.Elizabeth â€žmass h Casfe Rock - .Le|d~ .W -I ./" 4 Fe'lay I'.mal S - Aspen 4 ' Fal; Strn*....0/ L;ke; 8~,I'tariument Dir- Courtesy Goog/e Maps ~ - .,0.- 0 . . -.' - Photo 1 - WB Approach at US 34/36 and Moraine Avenue. Photo 3 - SB Approach at Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street. - ~Â·"*d */4*"/EABIE"E* .--'a :,0 9.:IFÂ·- 4:. 9.ij2 -=-r-'- , 1Â»-- 7. 4.. I i= /:./19:/ /2*f:fr Â·.4"t .1 ...1/1 . ...R.:..tÂ»: --/PM'.."Me.â‚¬6 - Photo 2 - NB Approach at Moraine Avenue and Rockwell Street. Photo 4 - WS Approach at US 34/36 and Riverside Drive. Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study October 20,2008 Page 5 of 13 For existing conditions, long queues are observed to form on the northbound and eastbound approaches of US 34/36 and Moraine Avenue intersection during the PM peak and many other hours of the day. The northbound right-turn queues are often observed to extend south beyond the Rockwell Street bypass intersection. During the PM peak, the northbound right-turn queue is present during most of, i f not the entire, peak period. At the US 34/36 and Riverside Drive intersection, the northbound right-turn lane is 1 intended to serve as a free right-turn because the lane has a designated receiving lane and the traffic signal provides a green right-turn arrow during all phases of signal operation except during the pedestrian only phase. However, observations of the traffic operations at this location revealed most drivers do not move 1 through the intersection freely, and instead treat this location as a typical right-turn lane and come to a stop before entering the intersection, even under a green arrow condition. The narrow lanes, small right- turn radius, and large volume of pedestrian traffic further contribute to congestion at this location. 1 As a result of the observed traffic issues, the Town has identified a need to review the existing circulation in the downtown area. Specifically, the Town is interested in eliminating the northbound Moraine Avenue I traffic from the intersection with US 34/36. The Town proposes to have all northbound traffic use the existing Rockwell Street Bypass route by making a right-turn onto Rockwell Street, a left-turn at Riverside Drive, and then intersect with US 34/36. The Town has indicated the potential to ultimately ~ create a dual northbound right-turn movement at the intersection of Riverside Drive and US 34/36, as well as looking at creating another northbound bypass further to the south of the existing Rockwell Street location. This memorandum will identify what improvements may be necessary to improve traffic 1 operations at critical intersections in downtown Estes Park for the short-term allowing for longer range planning and project development to occur. 3.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This section describes the methodology used to perform the traffic analysis, the alternatives, and detail on the options selected for final analysis and conceptual design. For the purposes of this study, the analysis was focused on the evening peak when traffic is leaving the National Park, this is the time of day when the northbound right-turn at US 34/36 and Moraine Avenue has the highest traffic volume and the biggest impact to operations. This is also the time period when the re-routing of traffic form northbound Moraine Avenue onto the Rockwell Street Bypass would have the most significant impact to operations. 3.1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES PBSandJ completed a signal timing study for CDOT in the project area in 2003, which provided this study with year 2003 average daily traffic (ADT) counts, peak hour turning movement counts, and Synchro traffic analysis models. New ADT counts were completed at the same locations in January 2008 to develop a growth factor for the study area. However, the ADT counts indicated a significant growth rate and one that was not consistent with other studies done in the area. A meeting was held with the Town and CDOT to discuss the determined growth rate and a preferred approach to be used for this study. Both agencies agreed that the current study should use growth rates that were consistent with other studies completed in the area, in particular the Upper Front Range 2035 Plan. This study identified a 1.65 percent annual growth rate for the Estes Park area and it was agreed upon as the appropriate growth rate to be used for this study. In addition, since the purpose of this study is focused more on short term solutions, the analysis would be performed for the years 2008 to identify existing conditions and 2018 for a short-term horizon year. Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study 1 October 20,2008 Page 6 of 13 The Synchro models from the 2003 study were updated to reflect current signal timing and geometrics. The 2003 peak hour traffic volumes were updated based upon the agreed annual growth rate. Using the 1.65 percent annual growth rate for the study area, the 2003 volumes were adjusted by a growth factor of 1 1.09 to get 2008 volumes and 1.18 for year 2018. 3.2 PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVES ~ The analysis can be broken into two parts; the first part looked at a wide range of alternatives to address ~ the identified issues and the second part took a more in-depth look a short list of preferred alternatives. In the first part of the analysis, a large range of roadway improvement concepts were developed jointly by staff from the Town and CDOT. Several variations of roadway network geometry were analyzed to determine the potential impacts of various changes to the street network. The roadway network variations 1 were based upon two main alternatives (called A and B), with several sub-alternatives within each one. For the proposed alternatives, the peak hour traffic volumes in the existing models were re-distributed according to the street network modifications. This section briefly describes the roadway configuration changes that make up the two main alternatives (A and B). Alternative A maintains two-way operations on all roadways with the exception of Moraine 1 Avenue between Rockwell Street and US 34/36 which would become one-way southbound. The second alternative (Alternative B) looked at creating a one-way couplet system in the downtown area with ~ Moraine Avenue, Rockwell Street, US 34/36, and Riverside Drive. US 34/36 would be one-way westbound between Riverside Drive and Moraine Avenue, Moraine Avenue would be one-way southbound between US 34/36 and Rockwell Street, Rockwell Street would be one-way eastbound between Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive, and Riverside Drive would be one-way northbound between Riverside Drive and US 34/36. 1 3.2.1 OPTIONS FOR FINAL ANALYSIS The results of the preliminary analysis were presented to staff from the Town and CDOT in an effort to screen down the options to a select few that would be carried forward to a more in-depth analysis and 1 conceptual design phase. Both the Town and CDOT agreed the one-way couplet alternative (Alternative B) was probably a more long-term solution and too aggressive to implement in the short-term. After 1 meeting with the Town and CDOT, it was determined that three variations of Alternative A would move forward for further analysis. The three options identified for final analysis include (Appendix A contains figures showing the different design elements of the options). â€¢ Option A-1 - All northbound Moraine Avenue traffic would have to turn right at Rockwell Street, with southbound traffic also allowed to make a left-turn at this location. The northbound right-turn at US 34/36 and Riverside Drive would become channelized by a raised island and the radius of 1 the turn would be improved to allow large commercial (WB-50) vehicles to make a right-turn without impeding eastbound traffic on US 34/36. A pedestrian signal would be added to assist pedestrian traffic across Moraine Avenue near Weist Drive. The signal timing throughout the 1 project area would be optimized for northbound and southbound progression. â€¢ Option A-2 - This option has the same configuration as Option A-1, except that a second ~ pedestrian signal would be added on Moraine Avenue at the existing mid-block crossing south of Rockwell Street. Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study October 20,2008 Page 7 of 13 â€¢ Option A-3 - This option has the same configuration as Option A-2, except that the intersection of Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street would be signalized. 3.2.2 YEAR 2008 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Options A-1, A-2, and A-3 were analyzed for year 2008 conditions based upon the above mentioned changes to the roadway network. The results of the analysis were then compared to existing conditions (no changes to the roadway network) to identify potential benefits to traffic operations. Table 3 summarizes the year 2008 analysis results with the average vehicle delay (seconds/vehicle) and equivalent LOS. For signalized intersections the delay value is for the intersection as a whole, while the average delay for a stop-controlled intersection represents the worst approach leg. The cells containing the results for unsignalized intersections are shaded. For all of the options, both the signalized intersections of US 34/36 and Moraine Avenue and US 34/36 and Riverside Drive show significant improvements in operations compared to the existing roadway configuration. At both intersections, the delay is significantly reduced (as much as 72 percent at Moraine Avenue). The unsignalized intersection of Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street operates at LOS C in existing conditions, but will experience significant increase in delay and degradation in operations (LOS F) in Options 1 and 2. In these options the traffic is rerouted from Moraine Avenue to Rockwell Street and then north on Riverside Drive back to US 34/36. In both of these options northbound and southbound movements are stop controlled. The eastbound left-turn movement (bypass traffic) operates at LOS A because this approach is free flow, but vehicles on the northbound and southbound approaches will have insufficient gaps in the bypass traffic to complete their desired movements. This results in very long delays for these vehicles and the poor overall operations. In Option 3, the intersection of Rockwell Street and Riverside Drive is signalized. The new signalized intersection of Riverside is projected to be at LOS B with overall delay that is below existing conditions levels. Table 3 Year 2008 Intersection Levels of Service and Average Delay -1. 7. ' ~.:.1./.: & (4 4:.. US<34/36 and US 34/36 and Riverside Drive SnE.lit 7 ': P Moraine Avenue Riverside Drive Â» Rockwell Stre*Â» t Option : ~ i LOS/Delay LOS/Delay Pl (sec/veh) (sec/veh) 7, }41' 1 4____. ___-___~ Existing (No Build) F/136 C/34 * ~. i i.. CI24 ..: A-1 D/38 B/19 F/>>100 1.2 A-2 D/38 B/18 :.c*: F/>>100 -Â·-0:KED. A-3 D/38 B/17 B/18 Note: Shaded cells are for unsignalized intersections and the delay is for the worst approach leg. >>100 indicates the worst approach leg experiences average delay that is well above 100 seconds per vehicle. iLOS/De 14*690 &(sec/veh) 3184 Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study October 20,2008 Page 8 of 13 After completing the 2008 analysis, the same options were evaluated with year 2018 traffic to determine how the changes in the roadway network will work in the short term. Table 4 summarizes the year 2018 analysis results. Table 4 Year 2018 Intersection Levels of Service and Average Delay US 34/36 andit River,1*t}riveand US{*4/*and . Moraine: venue Riverside Driv6 Rock*ell Street<i LOS/Delay., LOS/Delay 4 4 Â»LOS/Delay 453/2---Ii-Ililli=.- -3 (sec/veh) *Â«'1'2 (sec/veh) 1?f ff* (hec/veh) Existing (No Build) F/174 D/49 4*ffÂ· E/38 i. 1 D/45 B/18 RuY:-49 F/>>100 .:c ..t. 2 DM5 B/18 4~21 F/>2100.Â®~k Ba'.*p,Â«. 2. 3 D/45 B/17 D/42 Note: Shaded cells are for unsignalized intersections and the delay is for the worst approach leg. >>100 indicates the worst approach leg experiences average delay that is well above 100 seconds per vehicle. The no-build conditions show a degradation for all locations compared to 2008 results, which is expected with additional traffic entering the intersections. Based on the analysis, all of the signalized intersections will continue to operate at LOS D or better during the evening peak and the unsignalized locations will operate at LOS F similar to the 2008 results. Once again, at the stop controlled intersections it is the traffic that is controlled by the stop sign that experience large delays, while the non-controlled movement operates at LOS A. Another important measure of effectiveness that can be used to evaluate the potential benefits of the recommended changes is the volume of vehicles each design option can service while still providing acceptable operations. Under existing conditions, the northbound right-turn at Moraine Avenue and US 34/36 and the right-turn lane at Riverside Drive and US 34/36 serve about 700 vehicles during the peak hour and are near or over capacity. It should be noted both turn lanes are currently near or over capacity and operate at LOS F with significant delays. For Alternative A and based on the recommended changes to this location, primarily making the movement a free right-turn lane by improving the radius of the turn, the lane will be able to serve about 1,000 vehicle per hour. This assumes 300 pedestrian conflicts per hour with the right-turning traffic. Since the combined existing demand for the two intersections is about 700 vehicles per hour in the peak, the new intersection will be able to service the existing 700 vehicles and about 300 (40 percent) more vehicles during the peak hour. It should be noted that if the pedestrian conflicts can be removed from this intersection, such as constructing a pedestrian overpass south of the intersection, the free right-turn lane could serve about 1,200 vehicles per hour, which is more than a 70 percent increase in the number of vehicles the roadway system can service compared to existing conditions. For 2018, the expected demand for the northbound right-turn lane would be approximately 800 vehicles per hour based on the annual growth of 1.65 percent. This is still well below the 1,000 to 1,200 vehicles the lane will be able to service and still operate at acceptable LOS D or better. Table 5 shows the maximum number of vehicles that can be serviced by the right-turn movements at Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive for existing conditions and the proposed improvements ofthe different design options. k'â‚¬f:EÂ· Â·Gitif*342Â·:. ty' Â· ...0Â·pl:1-3~. 4'~ Estes Park Downtown Circu/ation Study October 20,2008 Page 9 of 13 Under existing conditions, the two movements are at or near capacity and can not support additional traffic growth. If the Town were to re-route existing northbound right-turn traffic from Moraine Avenue and US 34/36 to the Riverside Drive intersection and not make roadway improvements to the Riverside Drive and US 34/36 intersection, the system will not serve additional vehicles and will operate poorly. If improvements are made to make the northbound right-turn movement at Riverside Drive and US 34/36 a 1 free right-turn lane then the system will be able to service the existing demand and have room for significant growth to accommodate future traffic volumes more than 20 years into the future or longer, based on current growth rates, if the pedestrian conflicts can be removed from the intersection. Table 5 Maximum Serviceable Vehicles Per Hour 32 US 34/36 anÂ©j e US 34/36 and 10,. 1 Year Maximumik Option,45 Moraine tdÂ¥# ti> Riverside Iliff> Avenue -Â«- 9 - Drive Existing 300 400 700 2008 (No Build) > 2028 1,2,3 N/A 1,000 - 1,200* 1,000 - 1,200* *: Assumes no pedestrian conflicts at Riverside Drive and US 34/36. > 2038* 1 4.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS During the process o f the study, two additional analyses were identified by Town and CDOT staff for inclusion in the final study. The first was to take a look at a possible long-term solution at Riverside Drive and US 34/36 by doing a preliminary analysis of a roundabout at this location. Secondly, the Town wanted to investigate the possibility of putting a pedestrian activated traffic signal at the intersection of Weist Drive and Moraine Avenue to better facilitate pedestrian movements at an existing uncontrolled crossing. 4.1 RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND US 34/36 ROUNDABOUT A year 2028 analysis was performed for a roundabout at the intersection of US 34/36 and Riverside Drive. The roundabout option is the same as Option A-3, except that the intersection of US 34/36 and Riverside Drive would be converted to a roundabout. The roundabout would be considered a long-term solution. For 1 the analysis of this option, year 2028 traffic volumes were used to size the roundabout to operate at LOS D. However, no in-depth analysis was performed to determined conceptual cost estimate and no in-depth operational analysis was performed. The intent of this analysis was to provide the Town and CDOT with a glance at the potential right-of-way impacts and costs to construct this solution. Refer to the Appendix A for a figure showing the size of a roundabout at this location necessary to accommodate 2038 traffic volumes and the associated right-of-way impacts. Based on similar roundabout designs within the State of Colorado, it was estimated this roundabout would costs approximately $2,000,000 in 2008 dollars. 4.2 MORAINE AVENUE MIDBLOCK PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL AT WEIST DRIVE Next, a pedestrian signal warrant study was completed at the established pedestrian crossing at Weist Drive and Moraine Avenue. The analysis included the collection of pedestrian volumes for a 12-hour period of a typical weekend day (September 6,2008) and a gap study to identify the number of acceptable Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study October 20,2008 Page 10 of 13 gaps at the location. The data collection and analysis were completed in compliance with the procedures outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition, Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals (MUTCD).The data was collected using a video camera to collect volume data and tubes to measure the gap between vehicles entering the crossing. According to the MUTCD, a signal is warranted i f a crossing has 100+ pedestrians for each of any 4 hours of a day or 190+ pedestrians during any 1 hour of the day. The location must also have fewer than 60 gaps per hour in traffic of adequate length to allow pedestrians to cross during the same time period when the volume criteria are satisfied. In order to identi fy the length of an acceptable gap, the crossing approximately 10 to 15 pedestrians per hour were timed on the video to measure their crossing time from curb to curb. Typically, only pedestrians that appeared to be healthy or without impairment of any kind were identified for use in determining average crossing times. On average for the entire day, pedestrians were taking approximately 15 seconds to complete a curb-to-curb crossing at the location. Thus, a time of 20 seconds was identified as an adequate gap size for pedestrians to accept and cross the roadway to account for the varying walking speeds of all pedestrians and differences in the ability to judge the length of an acceptable gap due to varying speeds between vehicles. Table 6 presents the results of the signal warrant analysis. Although data was collected for 12 hours of the day, only the first 10 hours are shown in the table because the warrant was already satisfied. Based on the results of the analysis, installation o f a traffic signal at the pedestrian crossing should be considered at the Moraine Avenue and Weist Drive pedestrian crossing location. Table 6 Results of Pedestrian Signal Warrant Analysis -3-7 Â·-'-77%-2- -- , -Â·' ~ ..'--,4.75-1;.*ge; ...,Â· .41,3.Â· " Â·1, 1 >21% 1 9 14,4 tGaps Longer PHour of the -:Pedestria#332 -24 7 - 8 am 2 58 No 8 - 9 am 12 37 No 9 - 10 am 49 46 No 10 - 11 am 79 34 No 11 - 12 am 163 36 Yes 12 - 1 pm 194 35 Yes 1-2 pm 253 36 Yes 2-3 pm 367 52 Yes 3-4 pm 329 49 Yes 4-5 pm 220 49 Yes 5.0 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE OPTIONS As a part of this project, conceptual designs were created for the different elements making up the roadway network alternatives that have been previously discussed and analyzed. This section provides a brief description of the main design elements making up the individual improvements being *gvarrantÂ·*i Estes Park Downtown Circu/ation Study October 20,2008 Page 11 of 13 recommended to the roadway network. This section also provides high-level conceptual cost estimates for the improvements. 5.1 DESIGN ELEMENTS 1 The traffic analysis was used to determine what types o f improvements are needed for each o f the options selected for conceptual design. Each option describes the physical changes that are needed to the existing network. Cost estimates for each ofthese options are included in Section 5.2. The conceptual design layout for each option can be found in Appendix A. 5.1.1 MORAINE AVENUE MIDBLOCK PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL AT WEIST DRIVE The Town should install two signal poles and mast arms to control traffic at this location. This signal would need to be connected via fiber optics to the traffic signal at Moraine Avenue and US 34/36. Roadway striping would need to be added to distinguish the crosswalk and identify traffic stop lines. 5.1.2 RIVERSIDE DRIVE and US 34/36 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 1 The intersection of US 34/36 and Riverside Drive would have a channelized island to direct northbound right-turning traffic into the far right lane of eastbound US 34/36. The island would cause pavement and I sidewalk to be cut and removed. The existing traffic signal pole could be relocated onto the newly formed island. If a new pole or twin mast arm configuration are needed then the cost estimate for this option would need to be revised. New curb ramps would need to be constructed to direct the pedestrian movement across Riverside Drive and the right-turn lane. Improvements to the right-turn lane would result in significant re-design of the parking lot located in the southeast corner, as well as the need to reconfigure a significant portion of the sidewalk along US 34/36. This design may result in the need for some retaining wall structures to separate the sidewalk and the parking lot in the southeast corner of the intersection. If walls are needed, the cost estimate for this option needs to be revised. An additional pedestal pole may need to be installed in the southeast corner to facilitate pedestrian movements and to allow for a traffic signal head to help control the right-turn traffic. Refer to Appendix A for conceptual drawings of these improvements. 5.1.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ON MORAINE AVENUE SOUTH OF ROCKWELL STREET The Town should install two signal poles and mast arms to control traffic at this location. This signal would need to be connected via fiber optics to the traffic signal at Moraine Avenue and US 34/36, or to the pedestrian signal at Weist Drive. Roadway striping would need to be added to distinguish the crosswalk and identify traffic stop lines. 5.1.4 RIVERSIDE DRIVE and ROCKWELL STREET INTERSECTION TRAFFIC SIGNAL Traffic signal equipment would be installed at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street. It is estimated that signal poles, traffic signal heads, pedestrian signals, and all other appropriate signal controls will be used. Also, appropriate striping would be installed. It may be possible to move a traffic Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study October 20, 2008 Page 12 of 13 signal pole from the pedestrian crossing on Moraine Avenue and Weist Street to this intersection to reduce costs. 5.1.5 MORAINE AVENUE TO ROCKWELL STREET REDIRECT The northbound traffic on Moraine Avenue would be diverted onto Rockwell Street through the addition of a raised, "pork chop" island. This island would also be used to create a southbound left-turn lane. The sidewalk along the east side of Moraine Avenue would be expanded out where possible to create a larger pedestrian area and would reduce the crossing distance for the crosswalk at Weist Drive. This would allow for the removal of one signal pole and mast arm from the crosswalk and moved to the Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street intersection. The signal pole would be replaced with a pedestal pole for the pedestrian movements. New curb and gutter along with drainage improvements would also need to be installed. 5.1.6 RIVERSIDE DRIVE and US 34/36 ROUNDABOUT This option includes a roundabout at the intersection of US 34/36 and Riverside Drive. This would use a dedicated northbound right-turn lane outside of the roundabout directing traffic onto eastbound US 34/36. The inscribed diameter of the two-lane roundabout would be approximately 180 feet. A roundabout was constructed in an area with similar geographic conditions to Estes Park. That roundabout also had a 180- foot inscribed diameter. The cost estimate from that project was used, along with inflation levels to achieve near market values of the required materials. 5.2 DESIGN COST ESTIMATE Each cost amount is based on estimated quantities and the latest unit cost information available at the time of this memorandum. The estimates may exclude details unknown at the time of the study due to a lack of survey data and well defined right-of-way information. The Town and CDOT should use these values for reference purposes only and should consider the possibility of large oversights such as the need for retaining walls or right-of-way purchase prior to initiating an actual project. Conceptual level cost estimates of the individual options can be found in Appendix B. A summary o f the conceptual level cost estimates is shown in Table 7. Table 7 Conceptual Level Cost Estimates* + 2:77/ /1-f3"",4-/EV?f-;730 71:.29/4~1&#.~- :- ~---242*libÂ£ '. J,i "--,1.:11.1,972Â»Fai*=3*2 Improvements ISÂ¥**cation ~ 2-~4&*57 1% elâ€¢-t;fll Cd*t ESt~~0*fl â‚¬2216&1 Ja:/.* '//"'"WAÂ£.::1. Moraine Avenue and Weist Drive Pedestrian Signal $120,000 US 34/36 and Riverside Drive Channelizing Island $75,000 Pedestrian Signal before Rockwell Street $88,000 Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street Traffic Signal $131,000 Moraine Avenue to Rockwell Street Redirect $120,000 US 34/36 and Riverside Drive Roundabout $2,000,000 * Locations may contain significant elements not included in the current cost and could require additional funding to complete the project. The Town should conduct a more complete design study for each location to better determine costs. -.e" Estes Park Downtown Circu/ation Study October 20,2008 Page 13 of 13 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the projected overall operations, the recommended short-term solution to the congestion problem for the downtown Estes Park area is Option A-3. Option A-3 by far produced the best operational results, as it better addresses the future anticipated queuing problem at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street. It will be critical to insure that the signal timing in the project area is coordinated so that progression will be retained through the closely spaced traffic and pedestrian signals. Based on the operational analysis and discussions with Town and CDOT staff, the Town should approach the improvements in incremental steps based upon available funding and traffic/safety needs. The following is a recommended phased approach to making the improvements in the study area. The order provided is just one possible phased approach the Town can take. The Town has indicated it may consider keeping the intersection of Rockwell Street and Riverside Drive unsignalized and use traffic control officers to restrict movements at this location during the peaks. This approach would be used for an indeterminate duration of time until the Town decides it is necessary to install a traffic signal or can eliminate traffic at this location through other modifications to the roadway network. 1. Make improvements to the northbound right-turn lane at US 34/36 and Riverside Drive. 2. Install a pedestrian traffic signal on Moraine Avenue for the midblock crossing at Weist Drive. 3. Eliminate northbound traffic at the Moraine Avenue and US 34/36 intersection by diverting the traffic onto the Rockwell Street Bypass. 4. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street. 5. Install a traffic signal at the pedestrian crossing on Moraine Avenue south of Rockwell Street. CDOT staff has also indicated the need for the Town to conduct a public outreach program to identi fy environmental issues that need to be cleared prior to shifting traffic from northbound Moraine Avenue on to the Rockwell Street Bypass. 7.0 SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to review the existing circulation in the downtown Estes Park area and to develop and analyze several alternatives that could be recommended to the Town to help relieve congestion. Several alternatives were presented to the Town and CDOT from which the final options were selected. Those final options were analyzed and documented in this memorandum. Conceptual designs and related cost estimates were also included. .i 11.3 19 Appendix A - Conceptual Design Layouts h._f/**# l} l1 .! 5 16 .j 11 ELKHORN AVE. (US 34)~-, , " ''41 9 W .b . . 11 ..V. 4 r - 1.54 -CY m L.-* 11: '1 1,;f'..:.4 . '' 1Â· ~ b L~Z#-1. 90 .1 . b 70/...F P. 77 I .... . f : LANES#. ''14 : â€ž_ r- 5 4 Alk- 6&54Â» . 3 --30' Mast Ai:=billllli 1 -~-*~ tâ‚¬be. laddlll~d - .. tek>Rea~~s i (16 1 1, 2:3'' - l1llillillillillillin -livilillillillillill~ +*t. \I /'fa ':*.' 15 I-/ A. e //1/44///j- #14 i . hÂ« ' 1 -15 21 - ..2,$18. ROCKWELL ST . c.*Yli â€¢.... '. 't -22=47* W --......bj.'00...-r + I+Â·#4- ti q .0&,1. t: .,..40Â£:-6 ./.Ii& - 1 -04* C '9 1. 1- " f~ 4 1 * hy..9* #le':9* 40 I i.e'. GRAPHIC SCALE 4 2O4.W.~1190-240...~0 ..- (IN FEET ) 321&!:,11*__ 4-Â·Â»4 y Moraine Ave.- Between Elkhom Ave. & Rockwell St. 1 Interim Design :402- '1~~ Â· h. :#44.'- - I f 1 K. 3 3 - Â· Â·,t - -,-k. r 13â€¢.AÂ· - ~~~~~~ i t- N* 9# li 79#'ll /4. Â· Â·-â‚¬*Â¥+ . .u:<' 032...t' ~Â· EXISTING. CROSSWALK ~JS ~;~' ~* : t. I.: TO Â·BE>fit*DIOV r 44 L.Â»72Â· , 49..:,42:j.: . 04- t.Â· 2-1 ... 1., e '15:1 TAPER 1 0' , 14 ':- , 4. A dRUNALd//-71:I-K.* :- F i tr %, 1 ..7 4,1 1-9 .,A:f. A .1 ;7141 50' 4/in"APFA~t -0# 1'~~~ mt I f A -1.1.LL- 21'; m jill-07/ 2&1/////Iiii 'r' . .,0 . .. .4.. m ..: I-*lu , 2 1 O -9 ~cilli- N.:0.4 --mi 'A-/9.li"~1 bA P ..97,9, , 3, . I - 1- K ft_ .,e 2 " 7 ' 1. 'A â€¢*, â€¢ 4 14.7 %4 49* . 0 . 6. .44/i 4* C fieÂ·~ .lmeiaL.#trilish'.::# >bwÂ·yv L 131, i I Â¥472 4/JI . t.-2-' 1 # / fF* 923. ./.~ :- b. U L Elkhorn Ave. (US 34) & Riverside Dr. Channelizing Island I ..it- I 7143 I f .9 & 4 1 I #.: p .... 1 11-,AM- . '4/ 'e - . 1 - a .. - - i 1 . 1, f< WB-50 + ..:. I. ' 24* &.. O A 1- 5. 1- 1 i*~ tep,. ' "2-Â·Â·-EXISTING CROSS~AL~v- .... (\19 ~~0~~~0~~I . - 15..13 r. ' Moy;p--' I VE. 98.- 2 , 7% ....twwv'* I .5 S Fl~ 15:1 TAPER 4. e i , &'Alt ,~150' 1 ..4 9â„¢r A- i / ' .-71 i ... 1Â¢ - rn \ 0 2 ..1 .. /9 . - 0 -n ' 1 -- 46 2 0 ON ~ :. * f rn U-2 t.Â»Â· * i opt\Ul*fl~ g I *30 - . . 36h.,2 ' . 1 / 'He \ 2$ \ 1,"/p4 \f 9 St 1, . -% Wo . 1 tz 1. 7 . - Â¢lty E q e ./- 2 41 .#& 6. le - .>'. ''.'34 '0. r 1/9 .a- 19 3 -S: *1 ' F=., 7- R CAL -r~- ~~.. i i. 4 Elkhorn Ave. (US 34) & Riverside Dr. Channelizing Island y' ~ -i--Il- ..d.I-"'WI</J"& i"m + a..., , . 1 . -51&.tay 9 ./ 2- â‚¬'immu, - , f 04 i 4 U - Â£ I - 1. i -- 7,*elÂ· i $ ... f. . ...3.V . Â·-4 22'+2 ~ 1.2- .1 . " 77Â·.~.Â·0 . E-- *.>93.-Â·ma 0 ./:/0.-- '*7 , 1 48 1 Â·j: Â· ..A diwililic + ..6, -~ir,1 1- . 1 I. .- Â·Â·.29 1/./ I Ik .* 4 .t U.L 1 Â·WÂ·'Â·Â·Â· ..Â· Â· .2!3ISa~-e- I.---1.2 ., - 1 1 <fic ~226 " - ..' 5 48 Â· 64:*z i- 1 N . 41.Â·*1141Â· =i-:/3.~ 51 A-Ity 3%~ 10 4 Â¥ 9 20 -G.*7 Pedestrian Signal - Moraine Ave. before Rockwell St. ~ , 3 ' fli, i 22Â·f -2*-1 f Â¥>: 2 1 0 4 â‚¬44 'r- --~~ 2 7 ~~L h I %Â£. . , â€¢ da..14. u ' iF // - Re lod~*,1 2 Most A#ny from Holi he Ave.' 4 t% 9.1, - it - : %.I /- %Â£1#.- . . - VÂ»Y A , 2.-'I..#-1'.. ./ 5/3 ~- *I Ay -10.29 ~N k .* ./Al . I.,I' .rE 1/'* 1%~- 3 I h /11"'lle 1. .. '34#Nf., I. li -=a.- 1.Et 124 - Ar 4 17 I (2:1; Q - 7""iMPHi C SCALE -"ll#& f~~m g N 0 (IN FEET) - .2 1. I tel. 14/'/'-- 437-1, ad...u~. 4//I#la- I .6 It b. .*~ Traffic Signal at intersection of Rockwell St. & Riverside Dt. f~'4~ y 7 p . .- - I :-/ &5*.Â©124... 4 29.i . a- W 11 1, J. - n.f ~ AVJ-ICI;S 34 ) 4- : 7 -E . IP ..1. ...2/ . +' Â·*h Â·{-4..Di. </:- :4 . 1 :i. 1 ,-TVS. / 1 .. 1 - ./ 1 " 7 --I. 49 L - 1. I . 4 & -4%.0 9 - 3 ft ' ~,/ I. - A A: r, 4 I. i. - LAAES'. lim Â· G t a.Â· . . 1 ..U ..i . i 1~ I . i til --/1 1...4 4~ 4'IL 44Â·2- - f Â·Â·AM-- I t~L I . /5/6 - 'I i,1 11 Â·VÂ· $..2. ./ I. Â·0 - 4 1 114: 9.~7 .../- , :. By.. - % 44 - 2 0 D.. 444< ft. 4 - 1 > 444 -- - 49 4-*Â£ 2"/.$ ...9/IM~L 0 ?% 4 M~ 3 i lA N , I , \\ 07,4, 67* ,-- 3/A .* '61 I.j: ROCKWELL ST. 11- . . / 1- . A- e #44%34*.i 4,4/8/t SCALE 0 10 20 4 Â»t. U m y 1 '' 2-4, WA 1. --=LMeka.. . (IN FEET} .- 1 Moraine Ave.- Between Elkhorn Ave. & Rockwell St. ~ . 1 6.- 4 -1~KE-1....&/ - - -48 ,. I A iÂ· ~:~~-. 44Â· f I ~iÂ·~i=.f"la: .ih.P 4 MORAINE AVE. ~.Â·- *.RHORN AVE. CUS 341~~~=- 1 Wg-50 1 Ct'6. I r . GER CAR L 44 / 1 L 4 1.* -*& . r .. :*95 ;4-T L - 8 W.V *l . 4 41. -1. W ~ LANES*. A 4 N 4 9 T K 14** It 4.1 F 1 *A r ...6 t. 14 .tkn' 1 . 3 '4 1 - v. AAMI ial ..6 .AL 4 . #& -C- .... I./. RV 1 - 1 Â·13. f . '*AM,5.3Â¥49. pâ‚¬, i.r . 0*Â» Â· 7, h J 1 --~ "â€žMâ€ž'*7 ---~ -- -- 7 W, 2.- . 2 % 2 LU'. - *Z - I - ,-4 I. 2% %2 U 4 l -rm ~ 4.- - r A,- S GR*** SCALE 4- 4*. 21%_ - 0 1,0 2,0 L ~ 7 8-50 lificil......2 U 36 4%., (IN FEET) * f':dill*Ubi", 0- ~p Moraine Ave.- Between Elkhorn Ave. & Rockwell St. - .21 4*7 - 1 1 1 1 yr 1-m . 41 ...2 I I Â· i: I. m ' .1 1* a . 1 $ 2 i .Â·.Â· . LI . e - . , A. . I. N ' I. .27 I Â·. 0 -V'. 6 4 ur,f~. ' 64Â·Â·91> 41.1 I .. . . D.*0 74 34 11 5.1Â· 4 7,4 .. .4 1, . Â· Â·X, , , H.I .-.-,1. 5 . I i. . 4 - ..1-, , 1.' -1 ., ... =*': 7 . I :Â·/*Il.' r c. le . 9â€ž: 1 . , I I COS 3. 4 .0 , 54Â·Â·' K Â· .NE Â· 1 Jes0 . . r .....Il./ 0 ; ' 7 .....-'.-('(&-. e.dilli.".liall"''.'m/#- D. . 2 -3 \ '.'I , 2912- -.-1--lm .idit .f j . 9=--- 0 . 4 - 0 # i 9 =I 1 - - -- - S.. 1 / .2 41 vÂ·.-n i ..e 1 L Â·.2./-1 1 0 e- . .. 424,<7~,0...&.U...O.. . e Â·091, iâ€¢Â·f 4,~- Â¢K â€ž- ~:~Â·Â·~ Â· :77.E:i--q... r r# 4-v 4- , - . I . ... .8 1,9 -t.. ./ 6.2 16 -1.1 - t , ... Â£.% . ~ 4 t - *4",71'="30 9.. rb W 4 3 -Â· .> : 4 - 1, f 13 4 -4 - . .2 . t. 9- GRAPHIC SCALE 25 i IN-FEE* f 40, . . m Wâ‚¬*[2 M 50./1 = 4 . 'al,1 0.; ..t -47 I. 0 ./. 13.. 4 m ./.WNÂ£ 9... .- 30 v . '. f . . 1 -3 -:1 ..~7 -1 , . .. .11- . :D - Al N + 4*2 ./. 1 t .- 41 t'.1 4 ~L- 4 ./9 460 t.,4 . 31 '. I - 41 4 3-- Â· .4 4 Â·Â·iel-~Roundabout at intersection of Elkhorn Ave. & Riverside Dr. '49. Â·4:0. 11+ 3 Appendix B - Conceptual Cost Estimates 1 #mial.'*59*t â‚¬%=.6. -} .~i l..E 1, ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN AREA IMPROVEMENTS CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE 30-Apr-08 Moraine Ave. - US 34 to Rockwell - Interim ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL Mobilization L S 1 $6,946.55 $6,947 Survey LS 1 $2,083.97 $2,084 Traffic Control L S 1 $3,473.28 $3,473 Erosion Control L S 1 $2,431.29 $2,431 503-00036 Drilled Caisson (36 Inch) LF 39 $300.00 $11,700 613-00300 3 Inch Electrical Conduit LF 300 $16.00 $4,800 613-70250 Luminaire High Pressure Sodium (250 Watt) EACH 3 $430.00 $1,290 614-70150 Pedestrian Signal Face (16) (Countdown) EACH 2 $610.00 $1,220 614-70336 Traffic Signal Face (12-12-12) EACH 4 $790.00 $3,160 614-72860 Pedestrian Push Button EACH 2 $215.00 $430 614-72886 Intersection Detection System (Camera) EACH 1 $5,182.89 $5,183 614-81130 Traffic Signal-Light Pole Steel (1-30 Foot Mast Arm) EACH 1 $15,000.00 $15,000 614-81150 Traffic Signal-Light Pole Steel (1-50 Foot Mast Arm) EACH 1 $22,000.00 $22,000 614-86245 Controller (Type 170E) EACH 1 $11,000.00 $11,000 627-00001 Pavement Marking Paint GAL 2 $35.00 $70 627-30210 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Xwalk-Stopline) SF 121 $11.00 $1,331 Sub-TOTAL $92,000 30% Contigency $28,000 TOTAL $120,000 ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN AREA IMPROVEMENTS ~ CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE 30-Apr-08 Moraine Ave. - US 34 to Rockwell St. Redirect & Pedestrian Signal ~ ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL Mobilization L S 1 $3,510.40 $3,510 LS 1 $1,053.12 $1,053 Survey $1,755.20 $1,755 LS 1 Traffic Control Erosion Control LS 1 $1,228.64 $1,229 ~ 202-00019 Removal of Inlet EACH 2 $1,500.00 $3,000 202-00203 Removal of Curb and Gutter LF 290 $6.50 $1,885 202-00206 Removal of Concrete Curb Ramp SY 16 $33.00 $528 202-00220 Removal of Asphalt Mat SY 500 $6.50 $3,250 ~ 202-00250 Removal of Pavement Marking SF 46 $2.00 $92 202-00250 Removal of Pavement Marking SF 50 $2.00 $100 210-00050 Reset Fire Hydrant EACH 1 $2,700.00 $2,700 304-06004 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) SY 500 $5.00 $2,500 ~ 503-00018 Drilled Caisson (18 Inch) LF 4 $145.00 $580 503-00042 Drilled Caisson (42 Inch) LF 50 $320.00 $16,000 603-01240 24 Inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe LF 68 $90.00 $6,120 604-19105 Inlet Type R L5(5 Foot) EACH 2 $5,300.00 $10,600 ~ 608-00000 Concrete Sidewalk SY 332 $50.00 $16,600 608-00010 Concrete Curb Ramp SY 32 $125.00 $4,000 609-21020 Curb and Gutter Type 2(Sectionll-B) LF 315 $18.00 $5,670 614-84000 Traffic Signal Pedestal Pole Steel EACH 1 $1,000.00 $1,000 ~ 614-86245 Controller (Type 170E) EACH 1 $11,000.00 $11,000 627-00001 Pavement Marking Paint GAL 3 $35.00 $105 627-30205 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Word-Symbol) SF 62 $15.00 $930 627-30210 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Xwalk-Stopline) SF 100 $11.00 $1,100 ~ Sub-TOTAL $95,000 30% Contigency $29,000 TOTAL $120,000 ~ ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN AREA IMPROVEMENTS CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE 30-Apr-08 Pedestrian Signal before Rockwell St. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL Mobilization LS 1 $5,096.34 $5,096 Survey L S 1 $1,528.90 $1,529 Traffic Control L S 1 $2,548.17 $2,548 Erosion Control L S 1 $1,783.72 $1,784 503-00036 Drilled Caisson (36 Inch) LF 28 $280.00 $7,840 613-00300 3 Inch Electrical Conduit LF 100 $16.00 $1,600 613-70250 Luminaire High Pressure Sodium (250 Watt) EACH 2 $430.00 $860 614-70150 Pedestrian Signal Face (16) (Countdown) EACH 2 $610.00 $1,220 614-70336 Traffic Signal Face (12-12-12) EACH 5 $790.00 $3,950 614-72860 Pedestrian Push Button EACH 2 $215.00 $430 614-81125 Traffic Signal-Light Pole Steel (1-25 Foot Mast Arm) EACH 1 $12,000.00 $12,000 614-81135 Traffic Signal-Light Pole Steel (1-35 Foot Mast Arm) EACH 1 $17,000.00 $17,000 614-86245 Controller (Type 170E) EACH 1 $11,000.00 $11,000 627-30210 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Xwalk-Stopline) SF 66 $11.00 $726 1 Sub-TOTAL $68,000 30% Contigency $20,000 TOTAL $88,000 1 ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN AREA IMPROVEMENTS ~ CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE 30-Apr-08 Riverside Dr. & Rockwell St. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL Mobilization LS 1 $7,724.77 $7,725 ~ L S 1 $2,317.43 $2,317 Survey Traffic Control L S 1 $3,862.38 $3,862 Erosion Control LS 1 $2,703.67 $2,704 ~ 210-00840 Reset Traffic Signal Pole EACH 1 $1,000.00 $1,000 503-00036 Drilled Caisson (36 Inch) LF 50 $300.00 $15,000 613-00300 3 Inch Electrical Conduit LF 300 $16.00 $4,800 613-70250 Luminaire High Pressure Sodium (250 Watt) EACH 2 $430.00 $860 ~ 614-70150 Pedestrian Signal Face (16) (Countdown) EACH 2 $610.00 $1,220 614-70336 Traffic Signal Face (12-12-12) EACH 8 $790.00 $6,320 614-72860 Pedestrian Push Button EACH 2 $215.00 $430 614-72886 Intersection Detection System (Camera) EACH 1 $6,200.00 $6,200 ~ 614-81115 Traffic Signal Light Pole Steel (1 15 Foot Mast Arm) EACH 1 $10,000.00 $10,000 614-81125 Traffic Signal-Light Pole Steel (1-25 Foot Mast Arm) EACH 1 $12,000.00 $12,000 614Â·81130 Traffic Signal-Light Pole Steel (1-30 Foot Mast Arm) EACH 1 $15,000.00 $15,000 614-86245 Controller (Type 170E) EACH 1 $11,000.00 $11,000 ~ 627-30205 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Word-Symbol) SF 86 $14.50 $1,247 627-30210 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Xwalk-Stopline) SF 75 $10.05 $754 Sub-TOTAL $100,000 I 30% Contigency $31,000 TOTAL $131,000 ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN AREA IMPROVEMENTS CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE 30-Apr-08 US 34 & Riverside Dr. Channelizing Island ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL Mobilization LS 1 $4,374.86 $4,375 Survey L S 1 $1,312.46 $1,312 Traffic Control L S 1 $2,187.43 $2,187 Erosion Control L S 1 $1,531.20 $1,531 202-00010 Removal of Tree EACH 5 $300.00 $1,500 202-00019 Removal of Inlet EACH 1 $1,150.00 $1,150 202-00200 Removal of Sidewalk SY 200 $15.00 $3,000 202-00203 Removal of Curb and Gutter LF 200 $6.00 $1,200 202-00206 Removal of Concrete Curb Ramp SY 8 $33.00 $264 202-00220 Removal of Asphalt Mat SY 195 $6.50 $1,268 210-00050 Reset Fire Hydrant EACH 1 $2,700.00 $2,700 210-00840 Reset Traffic Signal Pole EACH 1 $1,000.00 $1,000 304-03005 Aggregate Base Course (Class 3) CY 240 $40.00 $9,600 304-06004 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) SY 60 $5.00 $300 403-34841 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (100) (PG 64-22) TON 33 $70.00 $2,310 503-00018 Drilled Caisson (18 Inch) LF 4 $145.00 $580 503-00036 Drilled Caisson (36 Inch) LF 15 $280.00 $4,200 603-01240 24 Inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe LF 32 $90.00 $2,880 604-19105 Inlet Type R L5(5 Foot) EACH 1 $53.00 $53 608-00000 Concrete Sidewalk SY 100 $50.00 $5,000 608-00010 Concrete Curb Ramp SY 18 $125.00 $2,250 609-21020 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section 11-B) LF 215 $18.00 $3,870 613-00300 3 Inch Electrical Conduit LF 50 $16.00 $800 614-70336 Traffic Signal Face (12-12-12) EACH 2 $790.00 $1,580 614-84000 Traffic Signal Pedestal Pole Steel EACH 1 $1,000.00 $1,000 627-00001 Pavement Marking Paint GAL 3 $35.00 $105 627-30205 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Word-Symbol) SF 16 $15.00 $240 627-30210 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Xwalk-Stopline) SF 160 $11.00 $1,760 Sub-TOTAL $58,000 30% Contigency $17,000 TOTAL $75,000 ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN AREA IMPROVEMENTS ~ CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE 30-Apr-08 US 34 & Riverside Dr. Roundabout ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL Roundabout (Priced from Similar Geographic & Geometric Data)I EA I 1 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Sub-TOTAL $1,500,000 30% Contigency $500,000 TOTAL $2,000,000 ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN AREA IMPROVEMENTS CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE 30-Apr-08 Project Cost Summary Option 1 Moraine Ave. - US 34 to Rockwell - Interim $120,000 Moraine Ave. - US 34 to Rockwell St. Redirect & Pedestrian Signal $120,000 US 34 & Riverside Dr. Channelizing Island $75,000 Total $195,000 Option 2 Moraine Ave. - US 34 to Rockwell - Interim $120,000 Moraine Ave. - US 34 to Rockwell St. Redirect & Pedestrian Signal $120,000 US 34 & Riverside Dr. Channelizing Island $75,000 Pedestrian Signal before Rockwell St. $88,000 Total $283,000 Option 3 Moraine Ave. - US 34 to Rockwell - Interim $120,000 Moraine Ave. - US 34 to Rockwell St. Redirect & Pedestrian Signal $120,000 US 34 & Riverside Dr. Channelizing Island $75,000 Pedestrian Signal before Rockwell St. $88,000 Riverside Dr. & Rockwell St. Traffic Signal $131,000 Total $414,000 Option 4 Moraine Ave. - US 34 to Rockwell - Interim $120,000 Moraine Ave. - US 34 to Rockwell St. Redirect & Pedestrian Signal $120,000 US 34 & Riverside Dr. Roundabout $2,000,000 Pedestrian Signal before Rockwell St. $88,000 Riverside Dr. & Rockwell St. Traffic Signal $131,000 Total $2,339,000 Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt Media From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: December 8,2008 Subject: Meeting Cancellation - Public Works The Public Works Committee meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 25, 2008, has been cancelled. " . AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 8 a.m. Thursday, January 22,2009 PUBLIC COMMENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO TOWN BOARD: 1. Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church Easements â€¢ To accept the dedication of electrical and drainage easements - presented by Scott Zurn 2. Stone Bridge Estates Easement â€¢ To accept the dedication of a drainage easement - presented by Scott Zurn REPORTS: 1. Annual Street System Report - Verbal report with attachment presented by Greg Sievers 2. Final Report on the Riverside Drive intersection and Fall River, Phase 4 - presented by Greg Sievers 3. Update on the Tree Board's Annual Tree Symposium - Report presented by Scott Zurn 4. Alternative Transportation in the Park and Public Lands Grant - Report by Scott Zurn Note: The Public Works Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. l Cynthia Deats From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:43 AM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 1065 ST. TIME 01/19 11:35 PGS. 1 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 6353677 Reporter Herald 5771590 EP News ERROR 5861691 Channel 8 1 I~Il Town of Estes Park Public Works Department ..L- 4 Public Works Committee Memo TO: Public Works Committee From: Scott Zurn Date: January 22,2009 Title: Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church Easements BACKGROUND: Attached are copies of the electrical and drainage easements for Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church and Lots 16-19 of the Lake View Tracts Subdivision; all of which is owned by the Archdiocese of Denver. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting the dedication of drainage and electrical easements of Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church and Lots 16-19 of the Lake View Tracts Subdivision from the Archdiocese of Denver. fil Page 1 of 3 Our Lady of the Mountains Owned by St. Walters Church RECEPTION#: 20080074677, 12/04/2008 at Electrical Easement 08:44:29 AM, 09/03/08 1 OF 3, R $16.00 TD Pgs: 0 Scott Doyle, Larimer County, CO GRANT OF EASEMENT f Archdiocese of Denver, a Colorado corporation sole, as trustee and for the benefit of Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Parish, a separate public iuridic person under the 1983 Code of Canon Law o f the Roman Catholic Church hereby grants unto The Town of Estes Park, a permanent 10 feet electric easement, including the perpetual right to enter at any time that it may see fit to construct and maintain its electric utility, through and along a course under the following described easement, located in the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to wit: A permanent 10 foot wide electric easement located on a parcel of land described as Owned by St. Walters Church, Lake View Tracts of the Town of Estes Park, State of Colorado, located in the southwest 91, Section 19, T5N, R72W of the 6* P.M., with the centerline ofthe 10 foot wide electrical easement being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the south east corner of said St. Walters Church parcel, said point being on the westerly right-of-way of Hillside Lane; thence leaving said right-of-way along the southern property line of said St. Walters Church parcel, South 57Â°52'00" West a distance of 30.85 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said southerly property line, North 56Â°46'48" West a distance of 32.34 feet; thence North 33Â°36'14" West a distance of49.74 feet; thence South 58Â°07'31" West a distance of 100.22 feet to the POINT OF TERMINATION, with alllines extended and foreshortened to meet the existing perimeter. Said easement containing 1,823 square feet more or less. Considering the northerly property line of said St. Walters Church bears South 57Â°52'00" West, with all bearings relative thereto. (See exhibit A) Together, with the right to enter upon said easement, survey, construct, maintain, operate, control and use said public electrical easement with all fixtures and devises and to - remove objects interfering therewith. The grantor Our Lady of the Mountain's Catholic Church reserves the right to cultivate, use, and occupy said easement for any purposes consistent with the rights and privileges above granted. In case of the permanent abandonment of said easement, all right, title, and interest herein shall end, cease, and terminate. MOE OVE'-9 , -1 1(01-q<A 73~ tfornerstrrte- E.74Â£neâ‚¬Â·0114 +54/vey;nt DEC 1 2 2008 ~ t#~ /69,2 BID 760,@304 ,4'e. :5Li.; 12' 2Â£20 Page 2 of 3 Our Lady of the Mountains Owned by St. Walters Church Electrical Easement 09/03/08 WITNESS my hand and official seal this / ~ 91 day ofNovember, 2008. Archdiocese of Denver, a Colorado corporation sole, trustee and for the benefit of Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Parish, a separate public juridic person under the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church By:514=212, MON*Ng,fTH0MAKS71*4*~0, V.G. Attorneyieffact for Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop 1300 S. Steele St. Denver, Co 80210 Reviewed and Approved: Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Parish By RED - 6. CO>k'- Rev. Gregory Cioch The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn before me this /744 day of November, 2008, by Monsignor Thomas S. Fryar, V.G., as attorney in fact for Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop. My Commission Expires: 06-30-2009 * Nal-Â«abuz .t'.,1'.1,11"â€ž Notary Public + k. 4..4 10 - V Y NOT,4 4 u:i- â€¢7â€¢ I f r '. /74 +1 42 0 14.4.0.0.... 04' ..'Ill-. Aâ€¢- r,1-~.I ~Â»0'W'-f 0 3 Z 2 2 m - 1-1.-1 LL O OZ LU 2 22 OO 0-0 HILLSIDE LANE S 32'08'00" E 313.07' ifÂ· / We ~DZ 111 0 2 4 Z M Z 1 1 1 me E y &4 liU 00 1-1- 0 Mifi LU 0 800 3% U |-- Ld L6 38:E 9 2 4, 1= In h '4~\1 1 0 t= 5 - 0 250* 0 kz Wa-< 5% M 00 > .- n 0 w <Â¥- & M U. 0 F! 5 1-Â«00Â¤ 0- Zt!2W 0 0 *68 2LL 81 91 Â» O 05 Z k w m , Wko=3!z Zom * D LU BID@00 000(/)1-0 OZ WO O LU M S 32'08'00" E 313.07' ,- D z 2= Z 1-<0 @gtr -1-W 1.- mE/1- Gil.. 9> 62 h-I 22 EL CkS CL QI LLI D W zil- 9 in O 'ONI 'ONIANAMOS 610Â¥81 M3IA 31Â¥1 01 11 : 69*328-%2)(ra) L I909 '03 'NNVd SUSMi 60/[0'60 :EUVC -tdo:Aa SCALE 1"=60' 019*INHOO SY#137WV~MS~~~ 103 N:S=&:=NIA= NOI1dlbIDS30 03H0VLLV 3 '99.Oc 81 30 1NIOd 0 5&19# 1,99.[0 N dONd I.LVNIAbl31 HOBAHO WALTER CHURCH, AS 0Mp'1UGUJese3 leouto@[3\stu@tuasemo,09011 0 alld U.S. HIGHWAY No. 34 TRACTS EXHIBIT A S 57'52' 0" W 417.40' OF BEARING .*'Llt 3 â€ž00,Zg.LS N LORADO Page 1 of 3 Our Lady of the Mountains Lot 16, Lake View Tracts RECEPTION#: 20080074678,12/04/2008 at Electrical easement 1 OF 3, R $16.00 TD Pgs: 0 08:44:30 AM, 09/03/08 Scott Doyle, Larimer County, CO GRANT OF EASEMENT ir Archdiocese of Denver. a Colorado corporation sole, as trustee and for the benefit of Our Ladv of the Mountains Catholic Parish, a separate public iuridic person under the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church hereby grants unto The Town of Estes Park, a permanent 10 feet electric easement, including the perpetual right to enter at any time that it may see fit to construct and maintain its electric utility, through and along a course under the following described easement, located in the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to wit: A permanent 10 foot wide electric easement located on a parcel of land described as Lot 16, Block 3, Lake View Tracts ofthe Town of Estes Park, State of Colorado, located in the southwest M, Section 19, T5N, R72W of the 6# P.M., with the centerline pf the 10 foot wide electrical easement being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northeast corner of said Lot 16, said point being on the westerly right-of-way of Hillside Lane; thence along said westerly right-of-way, South 09Â°50'00" East a distance of 38.37 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said right-of-way, North 56Â°46'48" West a distance of 39.06 feet to a point on the northerly property line of said Lot 16, said point being the POINT OF TERMINATION with all lines extended and foreshortened to meet existing perimeter. Said easement containing 390 square feet more or less. Considering the east line of said Lot 16 bears South 09Â°50'00" East, with all bearings relative thereto. (See exhibit A) Together, with the right to enter upon said easement, survey, construct, maintain, operate, control and use said public electrical easement with all fixtures and devises and to remove objects interfering therewith. The grantor Our Lady of the Mountain's Catholic Church reserves the right to cultivate, use, and occupy said easement for any purposes consistent with the rights and privileges above granted. In case of the permanent - abandonment of said easement, all right, title, and interest herein shall end, cease, and terminate. ~SCEDVE'~3 v, le tar,1 73 : tornÂ«>Tone Etâ„¢eelinj + 5~(veyi, ~1~ DEC 1 2 2008 ~ | 1691 8 309 71,0,*504 Al/e 5,-id-8 200 2 1. /1: 0,1 r . n Page 2 of 3 Our Lady of the Mountains Lot 16, Lake View Tracts Electrical easement 09/03/08 f WITNESS my hand and official seal this /7* day of November, 2008. Archdiocese of Denver, a Colorado corporation sole, trustee and for the benefit of Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Parish, a separate public juridic person under the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church By5~ AL... 71 - /A MON~IGN(* THOMAS Skib@?YX-R, V.G. Attorn*Â·indact for Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop 1300 S. Steele St. Denver, Co 80210 Reviewed and Approved: Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Parish By ~20. \jUUL/VLJ Rev. Gregory Cioch The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn before me this / 7~6 day of November, 2008, by Monsignor Thomas S. Fryar, V.G., as attorney in fact for Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop. My Commission Expires: 04- 30- 0-00 9 5$1412&4#_ Notary Public 90*LUttUst,rfer, tiA +1-1,0 .11, 3444:%{CRE: 2 8].w 1. .9 1 .. 4 I t Â·.E : 4 Â· 6 0.1. f.45.2 U*G f j le ... 6, 11 't., '6:..> Â·r' 'â€¢..nâ€žÂ·sÂ·~* ekÂ· .2 Or r.c., %. 31,<9 06 3 EXHIBIT A /- POINT OF 4' COMMENCEMENT . LA . CD . LA - POINT OF \~/4 TERMINATION \\ PROPOSED 44 10' ELECTRIC j f EASEMENT ,~ ~'*- POINT OF TRUE BEGINNING : N 56Â°46'48" W j 39.06' . i '00 LOT 16 LAKE VIEW TRACTS OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK ' LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ro e N SCALE 1"=40' JOB Nor 205.040 NOTE: EXHIBIT A THIS-EXHIBIT DOES NOT ELECTRIC EASEMENT CORNERSTONE REPRESENT A MONUMENTED LOT 16 SURVEY IT IS INTENDED ONLY TO LAKE VIEW TRACKS DEPICT THE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION. TOWN OF ESTES PARK 04O1NmUNG & 0~434* SURVE~[NO, INC 1 692 BIG THOMPSON N~ ~/ (970) 586-2458 SUITE 200 BY: DPL DATE: 09/03'08 ESTES PARK, CO. 8051 7 '4<%Â§#f FAX (970) 586-2459 BASES OF BEARING S 09'50 286.1' HILLSIDE LAN E '00" Â£ po,1.g s .t'Ctz Page 1 of 5 Lot 16,17,18 & 19 RECEPTION#: 20080074675, 12/04/2008 at 08:44:27 AM, Lake View Tracts 1 OF 5, R $26.00 TD Pgs: 0 Drainage Easement Scott Doyle, Larimer County, CO 09/03/08 GRANT OF EASEMENT Archdiocese of Denver, a Colorado corporation sole, as trustee and for the benefit of Our Lady ofthe Mountains Catholic Parish, a separate public iuridic person under the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church hereby grants permanent public drainage easements, located on aportion of Lots 16,17,18 & 19 Lake View Tracts Subdivision of a part of Lot 4 Stanley Meadows Addition to the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Lot 16 COMMENCING at point hereinafter referred to as Point"A" (as shown on attached Exhibit A), with said point being the southeast corner of said Lot 16 and also being on the intersection of the northerly right-of-way of Vista Lane and the westerly right-of-way of - Hillside Lane and being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along westerly right-of-way of Hillside Lane North 09Â°50'00" West a distance of 15.00 feet; Thence leavin'g said right-of-way, parallel to and 15 feet north ofthe northerly right-of- way of Vista Lane (Vista Lane right-of-way being 30 feet in width after verification with Town ofEstes Park Public Works Department August 13,2008), To a point that bears South 75Â°59'44" West a distance of 140.29 feet more or less to a point on the westerly property line of said Lot 16; Thence along said westerly property line of Lot 16, South 26Â°57'00" East a distance of 15.18 feet more or less to a point on said northerly right-of-way of Vista lane; Thence along said northerly right-of-way, To a point that bears North 76Â°04'02" East a distance of 135.80 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement containing 4,097.7 square feet more or less. Together with; COMMENCING at a point hereinafter referred to as Point"B"(as shown on attached Exhibit A), with said point being the northeastern corner of said Lot 16 and also being the westerly right-of-way of Hillside Lane and being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along the northern property line of said Lot 16, South 57Â°52'00" West a distance of 80.52 feet; Thence leaving said northern property line, South 32Â°08'00" East a distance of 54.72 feet; Thence North 57Â°52'00" West a distance of 37.04 feet; Thence South 49Â°33'50" East a distance of 30.45 feet more or less to a point on the eastern property line of said Lot 16, said point also being the westerly right-of-way of Hillside Lane; Thence along said westerly property line, North 09Â°50' West a distance of 90.55 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement containing 2,075.5 square feet more or less. ~MÂ©EDÂ¥[23\- RETAr A 70 5 DEC 1 2 2008 ~:~ - /692 .Bil TAontp 504 /4've / OOrnerstonâ‚¬ 893{neer i'Â¤ 9 6tift/ey,*g Swite .20>r Â£5* 4 '12 r k C O *ner,-7 Page 2 of 5 Lot 16,17,18 & 19 Lake View Tracts Drainage Easement 09/03/08 Lot 17 COMMENCING at point hereinafter referred to as Point "C" (as shown on attached Exhibit A), said point being the northwest corner of said Lot 17; Thence along the westerly property line of said Lot 17, To a point that bears South 04Â°10'00" East a distance of 92.83 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence 35 feet from and parallel to the Vista Lane right-of-way, South 89Â°40'43" East a distance of 55.00 feet; Thence South 00Â°00'00" East a distance of 20.00 feet to a point 15 feet from the northerly right-of-way of Vista Lane; Thence parallel to and 15 feet north of said northerly right-of-way, To a point that bears North 80Â°28'34" East a distance of 204.52 feet more or less to a point on the easterly property line of said Lot 17; Thence along said easterly property line, South 26Â°57'00" East a distance of 15.18 feet more or less to a point on the northerly right-of-way of Vista Lane; Thence along said northerly right-of-way, To a point that bears South 82Â°17'11" West a distance of 263.58 feet more or less to apoint on the westerly property line of said Lot 17; Thence leaving said right-of-way along said westerly property line, North 04Â°10'00" West a distance of 35.47 feet more orless to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement contains 5,038 square feet more or less. Lot 18 COMMENCING at the aforementioned Point "C" (as shown on attached Exhibit A), said point being the northeast corner of said Lot 18; Thence along the easterly property line of said Lot 18, South 04Â°10'00" East a distance of 92.83 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving said easterly property line, 35 feet from and parallel to the Vista Lane right-of-way, To apoint thatbears North 77Â°19'12" West a distance of 55.57 feet; Thence South 17Â°22'06" West a distance of 20.00 feet to apoint 15 feet from the northerly right-of-way of Vista Lane; Thence parallel to and 15 feet north of said northerly right-of-way, To a point that bears North 54Â°35'22" West a distance of 208.58 feet more or less to a point on the westerly property line of said Lot 18; Thence along said westerly property line, South 59Â°07'00" West a distance of 16.38 feet more or less to a point on the northerly right-of-way of Vista Lane; Thence along said northerly right-of-way, To a point that bears South 60Â°16'21" East a distance of 284.22 feet more or less to a point on the easterly property line of said Lot 18; Thence leaving said right-of-way along said easterly property line, North 04Â°10'00" West- a distance of 35.47 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement contains 5,435 square feet more or less. Lot 19 A 30 foot wide drainage easement, the centerline of which being described as follows: Page 3 of 5 Lot 16,17,18 & 19 Lake View Tracts Drainage Easement 09/03/08 COMMENCING at point hereinafter referred to as Point "D" (as shown on attached Exhibit A), said point being the northwest corner of said Lot 19 and the southerly right-of- way of US Highway 34, thence along the northern property line of said Lot 19, North 57Â°52'00" East a distance of 61.52 feet to the centerline of said 30 foot drainage easement and TRUE POINT OF BEGINNG; Thence leaving said northern property line, South 05Â°38'51" West a distance of 96.48 feet more or less to a point of the western property line of said Lot 19, being the easterly right- of-way of Vista Lane and the POINT OF TERMINATION with all lines extended and foreshortened to meet existing perimeter. Said easement containing 2,894.3 square feet more or less. Together with: COMMENCING at the aforementioned Point "D" (as shown on attached Exhibit A), said point being the northwest corner of said Lot 19 and the southerly right-of-way of US Highway 34, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along the northern property line of said Lot 19, North 57Â°52'00" East a distance of 15.01 feet; Thence leaving said northern property line, parallel to and 15 feet east of the easterly right- of-way of Vista Lane (Vista Lane right-of-way being 30 feet in width after verification with Town ofEstes Park Public Works Department August 13, 2008), to a point that bears South 33Â°56'49" East a distance of 176.19 feet more or less to apoint onthe southerly property line of said Lot 19; Thence along said southerly property line of Lot 19, South 59Â°07'00" West a distance of 15.02 feet more or less to a point on the easterly right-of-way of Vista Lane; Thence along said easterly right-of-way, to a point that bears North 33Â°56'49" West a distance of 175.86 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement containing 2640.4 square feet more or less. Considering the north property line of said Lots 16 & 17 as bearing North 57Â°52'00" East, with all bearings relative thereto. Continued on following page... Page 4 of 5 Lot 16,17,18 & 19 Lake View Tracts Drainage Easement 09/03/08 WITNESS my hand and official seal this / 7' day of November, 2008. Archdiocese of Denver, a Colorado corporation f sole, trustee and for the benefit of Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Parish, a separate public juridic person under the 1983 Code of Canon Law ofthe Roman Catholic Church C 1/WL MONSI((NORyfIOMAS S.~Eq~/9.G. Attorney m,faet for Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop 1300 S. Steele St. i Denver, Co 80210 Reviewed and Approved: Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Parish By Rle . 6. G.DeÂ£/1,- Rev. Gregory Cioch The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn before me this / 794 day of November, 2008, by Monsignor Thomas S. Fryar, V.G., as attorney in fact for Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop. My Commission Expires: 06-30 - 2009 Notary Public temme' + t,4 -, /~*51'ti.*p.Â·:r -1- 7, *<*-â€ž 0.-3- +r: G E - .1- .'' Wh (~toLE.t~f Â· rf"fÂ¢,111,1%1' 1 HILLSIDE LANE : S 09'50'00" E 286 1' 59.06 W 0262 m b a.as . o m 1 1-2. W in Z * b A 19 m:Sag .4 23 ~ 21 - \ -N -BR Z,-Z 1,9 tok / 19 2~ ,r &~ i Mps' -5 k Lu in h 0 01 -M~~\4 7% h Lu Â· 1-In r-\ 2 - k old S P En :6 3 C. Z 01'1>:f -O . i -0 r\ 1'00 9 4. in u 0. Z (NI lo O < u.100 fl )-0 CO .O 1 ZZ obE 28 I 1 X e LU Z @t~ E. 228 mb in- %1-8 - 0 1 ME 04'10'00"E 128.3 <OOZ 35.47' ,_Wr 92.83' k. ZOO. LUZE b.i.1.~E ~ % M 153 -07 1,2 3 ., i Â·- \ , "' i th' 2 V 03 kie~ 'do 4 8 py-7 1- tz w 31 9 0 ZÂ» E tab 1 0.0 m EW -6 Ed ;v k LU *; â„¢ 8 0 1 I i g. -1 6 0= . 1- 1 - Â·03 -r. 1900 41 - 00 4 0 * 0 I 2. 9 -0 g X E - S 0 ZN W La $ 1 lei 0 1 0 01 I O 0 -Ir b * a ZI + 5 Â» 0 i @9 0 .6 e e z k i 02 '63 'ar- S 6 4 L -.n M i W '- 'O 61 9 (/ 6 3-1 4% c v 4~4 a: 9 0 0, 0 5 4 0 67 w -L 6 Ob* 1 331 41Â» 66 115 Â£ a & 0 .9 -7,- .i C Z II â‚¬ le,<54 0 b Z 9 9 4 ZZ . 2 tf1 6 d 3081 r.lizE 09,2-999 (04: ~ NOSdMOILL DIE! 269 11NO 3Abln 031N30InNO 31VOS 011ON 69Â¥8-999 (046) XÂ¥3 Â£1909 -03 *)Rilldj 1=2 gO/Â£0/Ot 31Â¥0 hilr:Ae HOV11V 3H1 10 82 0Â¥ 0002 TRUE PO 3NVI VISIA NOJLS#WINHOO $136& L 'Z L 9L 101 JMI ' >IhIVd S31S3 :IO NM01 ep rio â‚¬EP~ * â‚¬0 S 32'08 5 0,40# %Â¢1 61. 1N3M30 Ll 101 1 M3IA 3>IV1 19 1 M â€žll,Ll.Ze S 089'agE 0'mlusweS,3 â€¢0eum,aswelue,03\0,0-9027:8 all=1 S>10Â¥Wl MEIIA 3>IV-I 93 39Â¥NIVBCI EXHIBIT A ~â€¢.69 S - - ~ 39VNI 3 .00,00.00 S TRUE POINT OF LAKE VIEW TRACTS' TERMI ATI ~~ Town of Estes Park Public Works Department GULI & Public Works Committee Memo TO: Public Works Committee From: Scott Zurn Date: January 22,2009 Title: Stone Bride Estates Easement BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the drainage plan for the new subdivision, Stone Bridge Estates, with the drainage easements highlighted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting the dedication of a drainage easement on the Stone Bridge Estates subdivision. II 1 I.-*0-9002 .09 = .1 LO Le-989 (OL6) :*Dj - 88[6-989 (0Â£6) al'04d 600Z/LO/10 dip Lt908 00 'Mmd s@ls3 - PDOH 4@010 VS!3 Â£*0 1 'ON 'f'Obld 31Â¢OS ONING[GINIDNE NaIOH NVA 31Â¥0 NMVBO \ \ 94% 93 A \\ 20 \ \ \6 \ & \\ ''44% ,.1 / k i Ne . a.: 2 \ 00 23 Â· - 82 @ e \ A m m . P m R S fic#o. Vi 41 Wr 11, ul : 4 Â§8 .:lAul 0% ~Â·04 O 11 4. 44! \ .Sit, OW 6 -\ El E- (/1 0 4 )7 * -\ 4 1 \ 1 H d Â« 44:4 2/ ~ 00 \ B. M~ , ul t.ve r '' , 044 '* i, Aa,i/2. 4 --0/ib h A -. L.L.24 C BM $0 91 /Q//< %%' 1 9 \2 '801>r .2.14- % ~lf :C A '0. : 14 34 ,%%/8 teÂ» %% /19( E m 4% m t \2, ~ 14~ ~ ~= 16 ~~ Z ~ , >Â·-:4%**i' .fpK#â‚¬14>qk V, h m i, r. â‚¬*Â¢â‚¬0, ) 4:6217 5 \ /22 I & 41.5Â« 4,4 R %.&e .+/Â¢1. C N U .6 *9 22 0% 4, 0 0 0 $ ,~Eke*1.:r~e: 4 4 6 4 le .4,4 6 23%% ' 3(~@j ~1%. 11 %47 0. 3/\1 Leb E f 1 /9. Q OQ 1~ U vi . 4 m 1 0 ' 24% Â° E :4 me&/ kill Â¥ 5 ~ . ,*61#1 /. W \ 5 g 8 0 7 8 4 NB,2 /8 b 1 1 0, 9% 1, O 0*Q ' a V 1 0 \,/ .:>:. .- 0 Eâ€¢ 0 .1 1- 1 rfÂ¢,fuN4844# 86.Â£1 ACROSS LOT 3, TONE LOCATED WI EXHIBIT A PUBLIC DRAINAGE EA A PORTION OF T E NO TRO S L.* UP 43 0,ts QUARTER OF SEC -O â‚¬ *0 -0 -0 40 -0 -O 0~~0122y 0- O- tEGAKE r- 1Â§ B (D N r- h Â© 00 0 92 M C)@44:G al.-I.......=...- 2.1 Lf) 91-ON 01.091~A CD Â©91- 01 (9 0 n * h 02 -- - -1 r US- .r C) h C>CD O C) 4- CO 1- Â»(De CDr- r-NCNIC\ILDO e 09 ee,4 60 066Â»060 0000000000 00-0-00-00-0-00 500 1ri 050050 1.D OONOC\10000 h r r- r- C\I c\1 Gl N N CO (9 (9 (9 ............. 1- E Ekes 33, -0 ~.2 C) 32 6 - 9 N q " 9 aa o N rl E N 021: z@ i. 0 - 252= 0,-MO R 0 M v.00 d h g Y CO U M m 'r// 00 0000000000 0 - 00 Q9 69 09 egug ug W) egego) LU Z . - (01~000>Orâ„¢(94'10 (0 NOOC>Or- Nertu,(Or-00 -1 1 - 0000Â©0000>C,c,c,c,c,c>c>c,c,000000 000 g 1,U 00'C'C>C>C>C,C,C,C,C,C,C,C)C,oooÂ©00000 , r."r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-NONâ„¢NNN NNâ„¢ O Â»Z 1- LU 2.49 39.04 41.53 1.10% $34 20 ~103,2~9 52% %96 663~~$ 0Â£6t'$ %061 2..94 90'017 :17.9 %98 297'EZ :$ 9. 1., %907 Â£9 2* 2*0* .9.9 2.82 36.21 $30 00 $200,000 $1 ~866 80% %*+ 06 8Â£$ %028 *L-Gt, 99 Et' 6f'Z %1.â‚¬ 821/9 000'06~ 91'69$ %01/1. zeÂ·99 92.9* '9.9 %â‚¬Z 069'39L$ 000'001$ 00.28$ %00. L 98'99 .9.9. #9 9 9*9'9178'1$ 000'OtÂ¢17$ %0Â£Â£ sel!Ul 91 LE L 86ed 6001/6 I./ L SleAe!S 6819 Xq pejedeld *rial / local ES totrlmi ee %inc. ~ Z99' 000'00â‚¬$ 0099$ %0 L -1. 92*9 LE.917 #9-9 L EZE't'VES %Dll /9.917 9*'Lf .Â£9 L69'911$ 02~~ %00.0 ,#.8/ L.Z, 4/ 9 000'09â‚¬$ 0Â£9Â£$ %00.0 1Â£99 92'9* .9 9 20-year review - vs. street system ~~~~~~ '0~/00~~~< go- Lg tzÂ·et zgÂ·z 00.Li;$ %00.0 â‚¬Z-Â£9 ZZ'St :09 OF ESTES 0.75 33.38 34.13 0.75 33.85 â‚¬Z'â‚¬9 ZZ'Gt' to-8 MILES HUTF STREET DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES Activities Percentage 1 Assist Water during leaks 2 Bark Beetle/Burner 7% 3 Bollard's & Delineation 4 Concrete Repairs 5 Crackseal 6 Culvert Maintenance (Town Owned) 3% 7 Curbs 8 Ditch work 9 Drainage 4% 10 Equipment Maintenance-Cleaning, etc. 11 Landscaping 12 Painting 5% 13 Parking Lot Maintenance 5% 14 Potholes-Hot/Cold Mix 7% 15 R.O.W. Maintenance 16 Road Kills-Elk & Deer 17 Sand Storage Building Maintenance 18 Shop Maintenance-Organize, etc. 19 Shouldering 2% 20 Sidewalk Repairs 21 Signs-Repair/Install/Maintain/Reflectivity 14% 22 Snow Fence 2% 23 Snow Removal-Ice sanding 10% 24 Stripping-Parking Lots, etc. 5% 25 Sweeping 18% 26 Thermal Taping 27 Traffic Control-Special Events, etc. 8% 28 Train Employees-Safety 29 Trash Can/Seasonal Install & Repair 30 Tree Trimming 31 Vehicle Maintenance 32 Yard-Storage, Maintenance, etc. 3% TOTAL 93% 1/21/2009 ,r ESTES EM.Â® PARK COLORADO Public Works Engineering Memo TO: PWC & Scott Zum From: Greg Sievers Date: January 22,2009 Re: Riverside / Elkhorn Intersection & Traffic improvements Project Closure Report â€¢ 2008 Capital Project Budget - traffic improvements (page 174) $100,000 â€¢ 2008 Parks Budget - Dairy Queen planters (page 164) $100,000 â€¢ Bids received from 3 local contractors â€¢ Low bid was received from Mountain Concrete, ( requested to withdraw) $103,178.64 â€¢ Next lowest bid was accepted from Cornerstone Construction Concepts $110,402.00 â€¢ Project was approved by Town Board on October 29,2008 â€¢ TB approved Contract total (includes 10% contingency) $121,442.00 â€¢ Final payment in full to Cornerstone Construction Concepts $126,116.40 â€¢ Additional sidewalk construction costs covered by Parks budget $ 4,674.40 â€¢ Payment to-date for the (hardscape) planters & parking area $ 23,986.00 â€¢ Project construction was completed on time (3 weeks) November 26,2008 â€¢ Final approval for the intersection was issued on December 2,2008 â€¢ Final landscaping will be completed in May 2009 CDOT will refine the timing/pedestrian/phasing sequence in June 2009 following further monitoring. . 4 - Public Works Engineering ESTES MELÂ®PARK COLORADO Memo TO: PWC & Scott Zurn From: Greg Sievers Date: January 15, 2009 Re: Fall River Trail Phase 4 Project STATUS Report â€¢ 2007-8 combined LCOS Project Budget (page 217) $ 350,000 â€¢ Bids received from 10 northern Colorado contractors September 4,2008 â€¢ Low bid from Cornerstone Concrete Co. of Estes Park was $303,202.00 â€¢ Project was approved by Town Board September 9,2008 â€¢ Project is Substantially Complete on (only seeding remains) December 22,2008 â€¢ Payment to date to Cornerstone Concrete $279,095.00 â€¢ Final approval (to date) was issued on; December 22,2008 â€¢ Spring 2009 - following seeding & minor contract revisions 0 - estimated final cost $301,000 1&~ Town of Estes Park Public Works Department ..El m Public Works Committee Memo TO: Public Works Committee From: Scott Zurn Date: January 22,2009 Title: Tree Board's Tree Symposium Update BACKGROUND: At the December, 2008, meeting of the Tree Board, it was resolved to explore the possibility of holding the annual Tree Symposium at the Holiday Inn, due to comments received at last year's symposium. The consensus indicated the Town Hall Board Room was too crowded. On December 18, 2008, several members of the Tree Board conducted a site tour with Julie Nikolai at the Holiday Inn. Attached is the memo which sums up the results of the meeting, including specific quotes from the Holiday Inns sales representative, Rebecca Pena. At the January 9,2009, Tree Board meeting, board members voted to hold this year's Tree Symposium at the Holiday Inn. The Tree Symposium will be held on May 6,2009. Also attached is the updated Pine Beetles Locations in the Estes Region Map. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A Holiday Inn information: At a meeting on December 18, 2008, Scott Zurn, Chuck Levine, Scott Roederer, Sandy Burns and Barb Boyer Buck met with Julie Nikolai and Rebecca Pena from the Holiday Inn to discuss the possibility of having the Tree Symposium there. We were shown the space which would be available (see below, Ballrooms D, E, F in pink). These can be used as separate rooms, seating up to 80 people each comfortably, or combined into one large, or two smaller spaces. This space will be available for us to use on May 6 until 9 p.m. at night, if necessary, and as early as the night before for set-up if we desire. Vendor tables can be set up in the "prefunction" space immediately outside of the ballrooms (highlighted in pale yellow). The Holiday Inn restaurant can prepare a lunch to be available that day; perhaps a buffet that is quick. Hopefully this means we won't lose people over the lunch hour. r' U -4 6 *40Â©% El CO:mt'VAnD lilli ll .-4 4,1, ' 101 0 F k .cd -~=6~'NKI 1 7 rv,In U r.zz- 1 Tulwl I id e=1-)*~ Hal=/m, b --, 4 1 - 1-7 -1~'~trv- f : 0.1 5 FF-lua 1 . 1- ' Â¢ 1 .1-" Â£ 9 , 0 Fliff *24'CI =# r 11; r 0 7~ M h -A . ~.Av=v~=J â€¢ *111! ~ Main Parking Lot r,r i 1 9' I ' tiia.qi Â£ 1111*CCâ€¢ i 3 6 i % - = / 1 : 3 1 14=.L c :A â€¢ -- *ALES OFF Cf Lam e 10- Â¥.UDEV i :_2-3 ' *r- LÂ©68'Â¢ " " ./ 1 ill A 6.~ 1.*4# >-g..7 1 PORTE ' 1,- ft < f /1.-f f # 4 0 01010 1 ... f /7/ \ lf) 10 A p f 2 -ff Â« 3.- â„¢111 1 Â£0 4 9 , fl 1 - - & I * 1* lak / 1 .- -- f f \ 1 .~ 2 i /7 # 3: -1~~ f 0 1 0 7 11 L U k N fÂ« 2 1 1 0 Z 1 LO 1 0 LL .. r- / . 1- - 0 U] 14 f j 1 f '~ E w 1 6, W of 1 --\J LU M r i )4 1 0 os 0 , 2 0---9 0 m LILI f 4-\U r 2 1 Z N jtx- ~h-~-- //4 \ 1 .\ 0. r -2\ ; ful / 0 ? u f /,9 1- - & f m M 2 1 2 / 1 1 25 6 /1 / 5 7 1 a.x\ > 1/ E / B 1. S . f I.. ./ 1.1 c i }i R #< ' i ~ L-*<62-- I * 0 + b itÂ· '1-f \ 1\ 2, I - / 04\ -/ d .\\ 4 , h J f 9.<7 Â» (D K C L >1 O -- - 'h LL /m 2 0 -2 ~ 5* 6 * 2 16. b - A O 8 2 0 0 05 Â¢9 * E- 1 0 r * 0 I * 2\ 4 - ~ -- m LL L CD 0 5 1 07 . j f - I . .5 * R CD *2 - A = 1 ./- E L ..%, 3 f - * O <D .-/- -- - 92* --1 R 0 - 05 /jr 1 $ I Cto-E 1 U 0 5 > CD 1 * f 1 % (10 W O / / C ; h 1 / 2 ./ ~---%-+-: // 3 . J A i 2,% /4 i > . j T / \O / a r----- -A'---- C - j 2 44Â« L.w O . O A U - . L., oXllgO uosdu,10416!8 McGraw Ranch Rd Will * ~ Â·'eell/Ae 885Â£-ZE (OZ.6) swoM 01'qnd >ped sals3 JO UMol :uogleulloiuI alepdn 18 peluoo ~ >lkIVd 53153 Wonderview Â» i Z AN\H / 99 AMI-4 14001 311338 3Nld >11Â¥d Sals3 30 NMol *8 038Vd3ad 60-61-1 GS 930!AMBS SID 1 ~| Town of Estes Park Public Works Department 11/ 0 Public Works Committee Memo TO: Public Works Committee From: Scott Zurn Date: January 22,2009 Title: Alternative Transportation in the Parks and Public Lands Grant BACKGROUND: The Town of Estes Park applied for $200,000 from the US Department of Transportation/Federal Transit Administration to conduct an assessment and needs study on a mass transit/parking system that would encompass the Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park. Federal funds were initially awarded to Rocky Mountain National Park and have been transferred to the Town of Estes Park within the past week. This funding will pair with $10,000 to be contributed by RMNP and $40,000 contributed by the Town of Estes Park for a total of $250,000 to conduct this study. The proposal for the planning of this transit system will include: â€¢ A demonstration of need based on existing environmental conditions, visitor mobility and visitor experience â€¢ A methodology of assessments of these needs â€¢ And a methodology of assessments of the operational efficiency and financial sustainability of the alternatives Staff expects a formal award letter from the US Department of Transportation/Federal Transit Administration within the next couple of weeks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A