Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Public Safety Committee 2002-06-27TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AGENDA June 27,2002 7:30 A.M. *Revision Date: June 25,2002 2:25 p.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT Action - * 1. None Reports 1. 25 MPH Speed Limit on Summit - Report *2. Traffic Control at Elementary School *3. 35 MPH Speed Limit on Highway 7 From Lexington to Peakview - C.D.O.T. Traffic Engineer Larry Haas 4. Employee Panic Alarm System - Greg Sievers FIRE DEPARTMENT Action *1. Dannels Fire Station Upstairs Remodel - Approval Requested Reports 1. Emergency Operations Plan 2. Evacuation Procedures "NOTE: The Board of Trustees (or Public Safety Committee) reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared." Estes Park Police Department Memo To: Chairman Steven Gillette and Public Safety Committee Board Members From: Lowell C. Richardson, Chief of Police CC: Town Administrator Richard Widmer Date: 06/26/02 Re: Report on Traffic Issues at Elementary School Background 1 A meeting requested by Principal John Waller and parents concerning students who walk to and from 1 school took place May 13, 2002. The parents' primary concern was for the safety of children due to the 1: large volume of vehicle traffic that occurs daily during the school year. The parents are seeking alternative traffic control measures for controlling pedestrian foot traffic at the elementary school. One request was the staffing of a school crossing guard. At the meeting conclusion it was recommended the parents attend a Public Safety Committee meeting to address their concerns and also, that the Police Department staff would research the traffic concerns for possible solutions. The research revealed in 1998 the Town of Estes Park retained the services of Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig, traffic engineering consultants, to study the traffic issues for the entire school campus area; included in that study was the elementary school. In that study, a series of recommendations were presented to the Town of Estes Park of which several of the recommendations have been implemented over the past five years. The final recommendation made addressed the possible need for a crossing guard that would require an engineering study of vehicle gaps before any action can be initiated. BudgeVCost Unknown Recommendation After reviewing the engineering study and conferring with Public Works Director Linnane, staff is recommending the following: 1. Conduct an engineering study in 2003 of the vehicle gaps located at the crosswalk in front of the elementary school. 2. Involve and include the R-3 School District as a partner in the problem solving process and implementation of solutions concerning student safety at the elementary school. 1 IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS The Town of Estes Park, in cooperation with the Park School District R-3, has initiated efforts ~ to analyze traffic and pedestrian issues adjacent to the Estes Park school campus. All of the school classroom facilities for the Town are housed in four buildings on the school campus, including the Elementary School, Intermediate School, Middle School and High School. This review focuses on two specific issues: (1) vehicle operational characteristics and circulation patterns adjacent to the campus, and (2) pedestrian safety and access to/from the school property. Specific issues investigated in this review include changes to traffic control i measures at adjacent intersections, changes to both vehicle and pedestrian signing and the : addition of new sidewalk, bike/walk lanes and crosswalks. Traffic volumes were recorded during the weeks of May 12,1997 and September 15,1997 by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig and Park School District staff. Traffic volumes were recorded on these dates to document the influence of the opening of the Intermediate School on circulation patterns adjacent to the school campus. Each intersection adjacent to the school campus operates with unsignalized control, i.e., stop signs control traffic on the minor street approaches. Brodie Avenue and Graves Avenue are stop-controlled at their intersections with Community Drive, and both the East and West Community Drive intersections with Manford Avenue are stop-controlled. In addition, at the Manford Avenue/East Community Drive intersection, westbound vehicles on Manford Avenue are also required to stop. In conjunction with these vehicle right-of-way assignment controls, other regulatory and guide signs exist along the adjoining streets. For example, school crossing signs are provided at numerous locations. Regulatory speed limit signs also exist along Manford Avenue, Community Drive and Graves Avenue. These signs identify that a school zone exists, dictates the maximum speed in these areas (20 MPH) and specifies the times of the day that this speed limit is in operation (7:30-8:30am and 2:30-4:00pm). Bus circulation routes begin and end at the facilities management building located along the north side of Brodie Avenue near its intersection with Fish Creek Road. A total of ten (10) buses are being used for student pick-up/drop-off each day. A site investigation of vehicle and pedestrian movements/characteristics along Community Drive and Manford Avenue during the morning peak period revealed the following observations: . Community Drive has a high level of vehicle activity, and the area between Brodie Avenue and Manford Avenue has the highest number of conflicting turning movements and vehicle congestion. Vehicle queues were evident during May of this year for southbound left turn movements and northbound right turn movements into the Elementary School parking area. With the opening of the Intermediate School, these traffic volumes have diminished, and in the case of the northbound right turn queue, were not evident. 23 -........."*I-&-M"=9..#Ska#Upic'*Mith)£E././#-44##L.-·I ~~41ZZilE..;22.P~,M.2....Ct /4.• , Between the West and East Community Drive intersections with Manford Drive, vehicle activity was also at a high level; however, a low number of conflicting turning movements and few access locations allows this area to operate relatively smoothly. • The Elementary School principal assisted students with their crossing maneuvers at the Community Drive/Graves Avenue intersection. It is our understanding that this assistance occurs on a frequent basis; however, it is not programmed that the principal or other school employees will provide this service each day. Physical and operational changes to the local street network and existing traffic control adjacent to the school property were investigated to develop a safer operating environment for the traveling public. The following information serves to document the traffic control, signing and striping, and pedestrian access recommendations for the adjacent street system: Convert the Manford Avenue/West Community Drive intersection to an all-way stop- controlled intersection. Currently, only the Community Drive approach (northbound) to the intersection is stop-controlled. Field investigations revealed that the northbound direction of travel experiences queues of 5-6 vehicles on a regular basis while waiting for an appropriate gap in the Manford Avenue travel stream. An all-way stop condition would benefit this movement by creating opportunities for the northbound direction of travel to access Manford Avenue. Average vehicle delay on each approach is expected to be less than four (4) seconds per vehicle with all-way stop control. , Do not realign East Community Drive to the West Community Drive location. Although this action would create a four-legged intersection at this location and would eliminate the two offset "T" intersections, the realignment of East Community Drive is not necessary to provide improved vehicle operations or pedestrian safety in this area. There also is concern that the realignment of these two "T" intersections would create additional "cut-through" traffic between 0.S. 36 and South St. Vrain Avenue. If traffic volumes were to increase due to a realignment, any improvements in vehicle operations may be offset. , Construct a new pedestrian sidewalk along the north side of Manford Avenue between South St. Vrain Avenue and East Community Drive. I Provide a sidewalk along the east side of Community Drive between Manford Avenue and the Elementary School parking area. , Construct an asphalt bike/walkpath between Manford Avenue and the access road to the High School, thereby connecting the existing crosswalks across these streets. , Construct .a sidewalk along the north side of Brodie Avenue and adjacent to the outbound Intermediate School access. 24 I.. : ' , Provide new crosswalks at the following locations: -across Manford Avenue on the east side of the West Community Drive intersection. -across Manford Avenue on the west side of the East Community Drive intersection. -across Graves Avenue at Community Drive. : -across Community Drive on the south side of the Brodie Avenue intersection. -across Matthew Circle North at the existing pedestrian/bike path. -across Matthew Circle South at the existing pedestrian/bike path. , Install a separate bicycle lane for westbound Manford Avenue between .East . Community Drive and South St. Vrain Street. , As part of the overall traffic control and pedestrian access recommendations, certain signing changes will be necessary. These include the addition of new signs or the removal of existing signs and are based on the above improvements. Some of the more significant changes are as follows: -Stop signs for eastbound and westbound Manford Avenue at West Community Drive. -School crossing signs for northbound and southbound West Community Drive at Brodie Avenue. -One Way signs and a Do Not Enter sign should be added to the existing stop sign at the outbound Intermediate School access. -Additional School Speed Limit signs have been added at several locations. To determine if a crossing guard is necessary at a particular location, an engineering study of vehicle gaps should be undertaken based on the procedures outlined in Transportation and f Traffic Engineering Handbook by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. If the results of these analyses reveal that a crossing guard is necessary, the criteria set forth in the Manual \ On Uniform Traffic Control Devices for establishing crossing guard supervision should be ' followed. 25 40 1 I ,\ 4% 1*rabLY TOWN OF ESTES PARK -~ ~le< ~*317 , hT@r.14 1,3£4©' 0,10,~..-::..----0-3..G»t.¢19%3>1').42\\Le#?4't%~ 3* - a '*1,4 ;*eol#&#*i&*z&~*.'4~...: =f, C. N 4, --42&36*th-*JAP., 4 -9420-= 31 #*444-«»» FE--~ I,KI- ./%-4,.4 + - Q-.63*801"22 0 Larry Haas, Traffic Engiheer CDOT 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Highway 7 speeds November 19, 2001 Dear Larry: The Public Works Department receives numerous calls every year in regards to the speed limit on Highway 7 in Estes Park. We understand that conditions, traffic counts and warrant studies have all varied over the last 5 years. Your office and ours have discussed and reviewed this matter to the nth degree and will never satisfy everyone, but we'll try. We believe however, that the current Speed Limit signing is very close to the most practical but there is one change we think is needed. From Lexington Lane south to Peak View Drive we request the speed to be posted at 40 or 45 mph. ~SEE 2 /MAQ SHEETS A-,ra cHEp~ I have attached copy of the 1997 Highway 7 Construction Plans with the pre-existing signing schedule highlighted. I have also attached a Town map and highlighted the area of concern in yellow. The northern portion ofHighway 7 (from Hwy. 36 to Lexington Lane- pink) is currently posted at 35mph and we are comfortable with that. The southern portion of Highway 7 (south of Peak View Drive- in green) is posted at 50mph and your traffic engineering analysis supports that. The middle section (3500' in yellow) between the two sections mentioned is currently posted at 35mph. Our rational is this: By comparison; our local-residential streets are posted at 30mph and have narrower widths, tighter curves, restricted visibility and many driveways. Please consider this request if you also find these conditions to be correct. Thank you. Town ofEstes Park Public Wocks Department /1. A. Greg Sieve#s Construction Manager (970) 586-5331 · P.O. BOX 1200 · 170 MAC GRECOR AVENUE · ESTES PARK, CO 80517 · FAX(970) 586-6909 46 mph 651111011 Csee- -s-~.r Z 1 ill/Wil 7 #limil 1 <49,\ A liziftle . + v : 1 lili Iii 7 4 @LOD; ylll# / r. 4 U//iii . J B 6 >9 0 43.3 9 55 ~ ~l~l ' ~~ 448 SP 25 i lilli 0 Jfrfy .Ii i /: 4 011 : 1 L (Di 2 lillii iwil I j flu 50 1 HI, l 'hli gy g d 4*- Il 7 _71[h 1 /8- blll i - ---~D411 ; "lot 1# g ®i 73 lili W 1 '1 -1/ , 8 0 Il:' 4 M - I E h- Va'' R 28 1 y N ~1§ 40 ' . i. 111 It 35 Irh~~ (SHEE-T Kler,6 80,4.J (01-0 00, G..~..... DE. ,--ir , I /4!li /IHI']IL CE) AAI 114IHI: \51 --1W141 i Imt 11 N g001 11:ini: 1> 111 r 7 Ill: 1, 1, §I 11 8@18\ 80 1 1 - R ®i--4 ~ FilmE i 44 / M 2. n/ 744 1 1 1 .3 (21: 1 Ul/, R 31\ 1 4-0 .1 ~f / lu 1 : /2 i f 9\4 - ®i~\\ *Es Liffi,O-Wila - 4- *13% 1 ··- «4.0.6/4/ME:<EpdR#al /58 ffT- ..43 r»:Ca*~u/·tragagip#~iLA,·r-,01 £4,£*tt: 511*19*9244121 PERMANENT SIGNING & STRIPING PLAN |NO REVISIONS~~|~EDI~r--1 |~ COLO. CY-CX 06-0007-04 L /-9Zt j 68'OAY OMSION PROJ. NO. NOE ONDOW SNUSDO £6/LI/1 'A.P.-NNU\£00\ 3 i I Public Works Engineering Memo To: Public Safety Committee From: Greg Sievers CC: Bill Linnane; Lowell Richardson Date: June 24,2002 Re: Employee Panic Alarm system This multi-departmental project was budgeted and constructed in 2001 and 2002. the electronics were paid for last year and installed with the Police Communications Office remodel project. The software creates "character generation" on the dispatcher monitor that identifies a request for emergency 1 response at a given location within the Municipal Building. Employees can use a hidden Call Button in the event of the need for Police Assistance. The system is silent and only generates the 'call' in ~ dispatch. (much like bank alarms) Employee have been coached on the use of these buttons. Currently there are 7 zones in the building: 1. Finance 2. Police lobby 3. Administration 4. Engineering 5. Planning 6. Board Room 7. Advertising The Police Department has response protocol in place for these alarms, Chief Richardson will field your inquires on that. • Page 1 & MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Fire Chief Scott Dorman I)ate: June 25,2002 Subject: Upstairs remodel (Dannels Fire Station) Background: When the Dannels Fire Station was built in 1996 the second floor was left unfinished for use as future quarters for firefighters. Currently, the second floor area is being used as a makeshift weight room. Because of increased call volume, expanded services provided and the desire to reduce response times, we are preparing for the eventuality of having firefighters working shifts at the fire station. This preparation includes: constructing sleeping areas, bath/shower facilities, kitchen facilities, fitness area and a lounge. Additionally, the members of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department would like to investigate the possibility of installing a fire pole. Budget: Estimated value: $45,000; cost approximately $15,000. There will be no immediate budget impact to the Town of Estes Park. Materials are either being donated or purchased at a reduced rate by the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department Inc. The members of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department will donate all of the labor. The only budget impact to the Town of Estes Park will be costs for water department fees ($2300) which can be budgeted in the year 2003 and possibly the Upper Thompson Sanitation Department fees ($1280). These figures are based on the number of water fixture units for a kitchen and one bath. Recommendation: Staff recommends remodeling the upstairs, area of the Dannels Fire Station thus providing a much needed fitness area and shower facilities in addition to preparation for future living quarters. Staff also recommends honoring the request of the volunteers in allowing the installation of a fire pole. The installation of a fire pole would not only provide for a quicker response from the upstairs to the main floor, but would also supply a secondary means of egress. GENERAL EVACUATION GUIDELINES This Emergency Operations Plan details incidents, both manmade and natural in scope that could possibly impact the residents of the Town of Estes Park and of the Estes Valley. Public safety is the primary concern in any type of event. In most cases, removing the population at risk is a matter of removal from the immediate threat and those areas that are susceptible to the progression of the event. There is the possibility that an event, such as a major wildfire, could exceed the possibility of safe haven in the immediate area. Should an event threaten the Estes Park population at large, the following procedures must be considered by the incident commander. 1. The threat must be assessed, to include its path of destruction and those variables that could affect its direction and growth. It is this assessment that will dictate the safest possible escape/evacuation routes for the population. 2. Notification of the need for evacuation, or the known potential and warning for evacuation will be accomplished initially through utilization of the EWE (early warning and evacuation) systems. This notification should include the evacuation routes that are available.