HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Technical Review Committee 2020-12-07
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY
Monday, December 7, 2020
4:30 p.m.
Estes Park, CO 80517
The Estes Park Technical Review Committee will participate in the meeting remotely due to the
Declaration of Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020 related to
COVID-19 and provided for with the adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18, 2020. Procedures for
quasi-judicial virtual public hearings are established through Emergency Rule 06-20 signed by Town
Administrator Machalek on May 8, 2020 and outlined below.
Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/w/98028011624
1. Dial US: +1 833 548 0276 (toll free)
2. Enter Webinar ID: 980 2801 1624 followed by #
The meeting will also be live-streamed on the Town’s Youtube Channel and will be recorded
and posted to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours.
Public Comment
When the moderator opens up the public comment period for an agenda item, attendees
wishing to speak shall:
1. Click the “Raise Hand” button, if joining online on the Zoom client, or
2. Press *9 and follow the prompts, if joining by telephone.
3. If you are watching live on YouTube, please call the number listed above, and mute your
computer audio for the duration of your remarks.
Once you are announced, please state your name and address for the record.
In order to participate online via Zoom, you must:
• Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer.
• Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio experience.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
Prepared September 28, 2020
NOTE: The TRC reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared.
AGENDA
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Monday, December 7, 2020
4:30 p.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Technical Review Committee Minutes dated August 24, 2020
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Carriage House Final Review Director Hunt
Review and determine by majority vote whether the submitted project materials meet
applicable requirements.
ADJOURN
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 24, 2020
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Technical Review Committee of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held Virtually in
said Town of Estes Park on the 24 day of August 2020.
Committee: Chair Town Administrator Travis Machalek, Public Works
Director Greg Muhonen, Fairgrounds and Events Director
Rob Hinkle, Member Mike Wisneski, Member John Gagnon
Attending: Chair Machalek, Director Muhonen, Director Hinkle, Member
Wisneski, Member Gagnon, Community Development
Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Engineer
Jennifer Waters, Engineer David Hook, Parking and Transit
Manager Vanessa Solesbee, Utilities Coordinator Steve
Rusch, Fire Marshal Kevin Sullivan, Chief Building Official
Gary Rusu
Absent: Architectural Review Committee Members Jack Cook, Curtis
Martin
Chair Machalek called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Wisneski/Muhonen) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 5-0.
Director Hunt instructed viewers to call the Recording Secretary to be added to the
attendee list for public comment.
AGENDA ITEM BEING DISCUSSED
Director Hunt presented the Carriage House project within the context of the Stanley
Historic District Master Plan. He mentioned that the Technical Review Committee (TRC)
process generally parallels the general development review process. At this time, the
Carriage House project has been separated from the rest of Stanley Lot 1, namely the
proposed Film Center. Director Hunt then reviewed the staff report and provided staff
recommendations for the Carriage House project. Director Hunt clarified that this meeting
is to determine a preliminary package and that the TRC will convene to review the final
package, as per the Master Plan.
Director Hunt described the two project elements being reviewed by the TRC at this
meeting: the proposed restaurant use (and facilities support use) of the Carriage House
and the project team's architectural elevations and renderings. Director Hunt confirmed
for the TRC that the proposed restaurant use conforms to the Master Plan. Staff
recommended approval of the project, with conditions to be determined by the TRC.
Director Hunt introduced several recommendations from Public Works related to parking,
traffic circulation and pedestrian connectivity. Finally, he concluded his presentation by
discussing impacts on surrounding residential areas.
Attorney Kramer asked David Hook, Engineering Manager, to provide more information
on public improvements for the record. He answered that sidewalk connectivity is the
primary issue that Public Works is concerned with at this point. Director Muhonen asked
the TRC to consider with specificity which public improvements shall be tied to the project
for approval conditions.
Utilities Coordinator Steve Rusch noted that, at the July 2019 pre-application meeting,
the Utilities Department requested official verification that all buildings on Lot 1 comply
with backflow prevention and water metering.
Technical Review Committee – August 24, 2020 – Page 2
2
Applicant Presentation:
Jack Mousseau, MOA Architecture, walked through a description of the project, the
current status and project timeline, the architectural renderings, and landscape
modifications that have been made to help mitigate viewshed concerns. In addition to
landscaping, berms, approximately six feet in height, are strategically placed at the
parking lot boundary to provide a buffer element for neighbors to the east.
The project team has placed emphasis on preserving the historical character of the
building and specifically asked the TRC for input on the inclusion of dentils on the exterior
molding. Mr. Mousseau presented an aerial view of the Stanley complex, highlighting the
pedestrian connectivity and the Steamer Drive sidewalk requested by Public Works,
suggesting that these public improvements should not be tied to the Carriage House
development agreement as they are 420 feet away from the project.
Discussion:
Concerning the inclusion of dentils in the Carriage House design, TRC Members Gagnon
and Wisneski suggested keeping the building's original character and simplicity.
The pedestrian connectivity issue raised interest and discussion between Mr. Mousseau,
Manager Hook, Mr. Wisneski, Mr. Cullen, and Mr. Olive, the attorney for the Stanley Hotel.
Mr. Wisneski expressed concern about the sidewalk connecting to the private lots of
Stanley Village. Public Works made the case that the Stanley should continue to enhance
campus connectivity to other existing access points as part of this development project.
The applicants stated that the sidewalk requested by Public Works is encumbered by a
separate development agreement (Stanley Lot 4), and further that these off-premises
public improvements are not reasonably related to the project. Mr. Olive cited Supreme
Court case law backing their position.
Mr. Olive also stated that it would be likewise unconstitutional for the Town to include
conditions related to bringing backflow prevention and water metering into full compliance
campus-wide within the Carriage House project's scope. Mr. Cullen stated that 16 out of
the 19 permitted backflow preventers have been located.
Director Muhonen asked Director Hunt for clarification of whether the TRC is reviewing a
development plan for Lot 1 of the Stanley Historic District. Are not all the buildings in the
discussion part of Lot 1? Director Hunt specified that Lot 1 is the Carriage House context,
and the TRC is evaluating a development area within Lot 1. Director Muhonen asked if it
is common practice in land development that an entire lot be required to be upgraded to
comply with current standards? Director Hunt mentioned that it is good industry practice,
though some ambiguity in the Master Plan makes it challenging to use as the guiding
document. Mr. Cullen responded that there is case law that proves that not all buildings
should be required to be brought up to code, based on a one-building permit. Mr. Olive
provided some context of the 1994 proceedings that created the Stanley Historic Overlay
District and emphasized that the Master Plan guidelines were meant to prevail over other
local codes. He specified that the Master Plan was a negotiated agreement and that this
is a vested property right.
Director Muhonen complimented the applicants, stating that he is impressed with the
vision of the project, the high-quality design, and the actions taken to address the issues
raised by the neighbors. He asked for and received additional clarification about
pedestrian connectivity (which was a key goal of the Master Plan). He noted that ADA
connectivity is still an issue for Public Works.
Public Comment:
Ed Hayek/Town Citizen expressed concerns with the project's traffic impact, stating that
without further mitigation, the parking lot design is devastating to specific residential
properties on Findley Court. He stated that headlights from approaching traffic will shine
Technical Review Committee – August 24, 2020 – Page 3
3
directly into his living room and that the berms and landscaping, as designed, would not
completely mitigate the impacts. He requested that the parking lot access be limited to
patrons of the restaurant and future Film Center (instead of diverting traffic to the
perimeter in the future) and that additional berms, landscaping, and hardscaping be
installed where necessary.
Jim and Ruth Kelley/Town Citizens, echoed Mr. Hayek's concerns about screening and
the impact on their quality of life and privacy. They made reference to the photos and
materials that they submitted as public comment. Mr. Kelley asked for the project team
to address parking lot lighting, rooftop seating, and maximum occupancy for the
restaurant.
Cherie Schuch/Town Citizen, noted that John Cullen has worked with them and allowed
them to provide input about the landscaping. She opposes a fence based on personal
preference and wildlife concerns.
Marlene Hayek/Town Citizen, made a further appeal that her property is highly affected
by the project and that a fence should be provided to adjacent property owners if they
desire it.
Ruth Kelley/Town Citizen, commented that if some neighboring residents do not want a
fence, it could taper down before their property. She stated that someone needs to reach
out to her neighbor whose primary residence is in New York. The goal should be to try to
make everyone happy.
Applicant Response:
Mr. Mousseau clarified that there would be no rooftop occupancy on the Carriage House.
Ms. Kasia Bukowski explained that the maximum interior occupancy is 139, which will be
reviewed by the Fire Department at the building permit stage.
Mr. Mousseau and Ms. Kasia Bukowski addressed Mr. Kelley's question related to
lighting, describing the low bollards that will be installed in the parking lot and on the
Carriage House exterior to reduce glare to adjacent properties. Ms. Bukowski provided
additional information about the photometric study that has been conducted and the
lighting requirements in the building code (e.g., points of egress needing overhead
lighting) and development code (Dark sky compliance).
Ms. Bukowski also explained that the building is a Type 5 B building, which reflects the
original construction of the roof minus a section required to be constructed out of metal
studs.
Mr. Mousseau reiterated ongoing work being done to screen the project from adjacent
properties. A dense landscape buffer will be installed on the east side of the parking lot,
which is well beyond what is required. The project team will continue to consider fencing
where appropriate. Mr. Mousseau mentioned that the Colorado Historical Foundation is
adamantly against a fence and suggests that the project team would like to accomplish
as much as possible by installing trees to help sightlines. Mr. Cullen is opposed to a fence
at the property boundary.
TRC Discussion
Director Muhonen asked for clarification of the traffic circulating pattern, citing concerns
from residents on Overlook Lane about excessive through traffic. Mr. Mousseau
described predominating traffic flow from south to north, with patrons exiting the parking
lot on the north side. Director Muhonen and Mr. Mousseau agreed that the design does
not incentivize cut thru traffic. Director Hunt mentioned that the pre-application materials
were routed to CDOT, but there was no response.
Technical Review Committee – August 24, 2020 – Page 4
4
Director Muhonen asked for clarification on the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), namely
whether the traffic impacts satisfy the Town's operational criteria as published in the
Development Code and the Larimer County Urban Streets Standards. He called out Table
1 and asked for clarification from the TIS analyst, Cassie Slade, of whether the project
conforms to operational standards for delay. Ms. Slade stated that the project does
conform to standards for level of service and delay because queues are relatively low and
based on the assumptions for signal timing. Subsequent discussion related to
optimization of signal timing was held, resulting in Director Muhonen's conclusion that the
project is not currently compliant with the level of service requirements, but that
adjustments can be discussed and implemented with Ms. Slade Mr. Fred Lantz. Further
discussion is necessary.
Mr. Gagnon asked what the materials are for the cladding on the air intake units. Mr.
Mousseau replied that the cladding is finished concrete with a pre-cast cap. Ms. Bukowski
specified that they are primarily underground, so only the seat ledge for waiting restaurant
patrons will be visible. Mr. Gagnon asked whether there are other exposed concrete areas
like that around the Stanley campus. Mr. Mousseau replied that there are similar areas
with concrete elsewhere.
Mr. Gagnon asked the project team to confirm that future signage will go through
appropriate review from the Town and TRC, based on the Municipal Code and the Master
Plan. Mr. Gagnon asked whether the screening for the grease hood on the renderings is
illustrative or final. Mr. Mousseau responded that this design is in the permit package and
is slated for approval. Mr. Gagnon asked whether the sidewalk connectivity to the rest of
the campus will be completed with the Film Center's development. Mr. Mousseau said
that this was the original intent but that he will work with Mr. Cullen to resolve an interim
solution.
Chair Machalek and Director Hunt asked Kevin Sullivan, Fire Marshal, to discuss this
application's review status, to which he responded that the review was most likely done
by the previous Fire Marshal.
Director Hinkle asked for clarification about the doors on the south side. Mr. Mousseau
stated that these are not overhead garage doors but swing doors.
Chair Machalek asked Attorney Kramer to provide input about the appropriateness of
adding conditions based on pedestrian and traffic circulation. Attorney Kramer specified
that any conditions must be reasonably related to the Carriage House itself. However, if
any off-site issues in the Stanley Historic District directly impact the Carriage House, the
TRC may raise these concerns, potentially through conditions.
Chair Machalek asked Attorney Kramer for his position on placing conditions based on
the verification of backflow and metering requirements. Attorney Kramer stated that the
Municipal Code requires that when there is development on a lot, the lot should undergo
that kind of review or verification. In his view, it does not constitute a Taking. Attorney
Kramer stated that the TRC might add requirements if there are water issues rationally
related to the Carriage House or substantially unresolved on Lot 1.
Fire Marshal Sullivan asked about the status of the review of fire protection water supply
and fire hydrants by the fire department, as he had not gotten the opportunity to review
the design. Mr. Cullen and Mr. Mousseau stated that extensive review has been done as
part of the East Parking Lot building permit.
Manager Hook clarified that there is an option for egress through existing parking lots in
the middle of the campus from the north side of the Carriage House parking lot. Manager
Hook also commented that the landscaping plan was approved in 2019 as part of the
East Parking Lot review. Still, as the project team began construction, there have been
significant changes to the grading, especially on the lot's east side. He mentioned that
Technical Review Committee – August 24, 2020 – Page 5
5
Public Works recently received a revised a grading plan, but it does not seem to match
as-built grading and berming. Manager Hook wants to ensure that landscaping does not
go in before Public Works has approved the grading.
Chair Machalek brought up noise concerns and asked the applicant to speak to hours of
operation or any noise associated with the patio use. Mr. Cullen mentioned that they
intentionally placed the patio on the south side, away from residents and nothing on the
roof. Hours of operation will comply with Town code and breakfast will be available only
on weekends, mostly indoors.
Chair Machalek asked Utilities Coordinator Rusch to address backflow and metering
compliance. Mr. Rusch stated that the Town departments agreed that this is the
appropriate time to verify compliance across all of Lot 1 since it is the last significant
development on the campus. He specified that this information was given to the applicant
13 months ago, and the applicant has done some work concerning backflow devices.
Attorney Kramer noted that this review of the preliminary package is the first of a two-
stage TRC process. The Master Plan calls for a final package that could involve more
detail. Adding details to the final package would give staff more time to work on the
conditions instead of on the fly. Attorney Kramer did not advise waiting until the building
permit stage but to include this as part of the public process with the TRC. Attorney
Kramer brought up that a similar approach could work for the outstanding pedestrian
connectivity issues.
Director Hunt displayed an email communication related to the status of backflow and
water metering compliance (Page 201 on the packet). Mr. Cullen argued that the TRC
should not be the arbiter of water safety issues on buildings that are unrelated to the
application today. He stated that if the hotel is out of compliance, he will work with the
Water Division to rectify the situation, with Attorney Kramer's involvement if required.
Attorney Kramer clarified that his role is to advise the TRC and mentioned that the water
compliance need not be settled today, as such conditions do not seem fully fleshed out.
Chair Machalek asked for clarification that these water, traffic, and pedestrian connectivity
issues can be revisited in the final package process or wherever appropriate. Attorney
Kramer said that the TRC could include a condition asking for more detail on the plans
that have already been submitted and their expectations for final package approval.
Mr. Cullen requested that he make the building watertight before winter, stating that this
process should not hold up an enclosure permit to ensure the structural integrity of his
property. After some discussion, Director Hunt clarified that under review today is the
building's use as a restaurant and the architectural finalization of the building and that an
enclosure permit can be separated from the TRC process and added to the core and shell
building permit. Director Hunt stressed that approval of an enclosure permit does not
grant permission for the use of the building or for the final exterior finishes, which are
reviewed by the TRC. Chief Building Official Rusu affirmed that work could proceed on
the core and shell permit and enclosure permit, notwithstanding the exterior finishes' final
approval.
Director Muhonen commented that the applicant and the TRC seem to be in general
conceptual agreement about traffic, parking, pedestrian circulation, and water
compliance, but that, crucially, the span and scope needs to be nailed down now so that
there is not ambiguity at any stage of the process.
Director Muhonen suggested a potential third condition: that the staff and applicant agree
that they will submit project documents that show the completed pedestrian routing plan,
edits to the Traffic Impact Study to demonstrate compliance with the Town's level of
service operational requirements and clarification of the specific public improvements
required of the applicant. Attorney Kramer responded that the TRC should not offload
Technical Review Committee – August 24, 2020 – Page 6
6
responsibilities on staff. Attorney Kramer stated that the specific requirement of final
plans and compliance for the final TRC package goes too far. Instead, the conditions
should outline what elements the TRC expects to see integrated and included within the
final package. Chair Machalek was concerned that the TRC would need something
specific on these elements to react to in the final package.
There were no further questions or comments. Chair Machalek invited a motion including
conditions. Attorney Kramer interjected to react to Community Development staff
recommendations for the conditions, which included a provision for minor modifications,
stating that it should be clarified to state "as determined by the Community Development
Director." Director Hunt accepted this change. Attorney Kramer noted that any conditions
on a TRC approval must be provided in writing as per the Master Plan. The TRC
committee requested that Attorney Kramer put the conditions into writing at this meeting
for a vote.
CBO Rusu determined that the enclosure permit could be added to the existing core and
shell permit on different points. This would be done administratively between the applicant
and the Community Development Department, as soon as possible. Additionally, the East
Parking Lot's work may continue provided that the applicant coordinates with Manager
Hook on the grading permit.
A 10-minute recess was taken to allow Attorney Kramer to compose a motion in the form
of a resolution. The meeting resumed at 6:45 p.m.
It was moved and seconded (Gagnon/Muhonen) to approve the resolution presented
on screen by Attorney Kramer (attached). The motion passed 4-0, with Member
Wisneski unavailable.
There being no further business, Chair Machalek adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Travis Machalek, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Technical Review Committee (TRC)
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: December 7, 2020
RE: Stanley Hotel Carriage House – Final Package
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
The Technical Review Committee (TRC) will review and determine by majority vote
whether the submitted project materials meet applicable requirements for the Final TRC
Package for the Carriage House project, including: (a) regulatory portions of the Stanley
Historic District Master Plan; (b) the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards
for Development (Chapter 17.44, Estes Park Municipal Code); (c) conditions
established by the TRC as part of the Preliminary package approval; and (d) other
regulations as applicable.
This meeting and review are for the submitted Final Package, per the Stanley Historic
District Master Plan Sec. I.C.2 (pp. 5-6.) Absent additional changes in the approved
plans after the Final Package is approved, no additional TRC review is envisioned in
this Carriage House project review sequence.
Present Situation:
The present TRC review is for the final version(s) of submitted Carriage House
improvements on the Stanley Hotel Campus.
Substantial background detail on this project and the process for Technical Review
Committee review may be found in the Preliminary Package staff report and exhibits,
provided to the TRC for the August 24, 2020 TRC meeting. The Aug. 24 packet may be
found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QxixjmChJqt4N15UvAcPHPyKMacOOhqI/view
TRC Final Package review and approval process – Stanley Historic District Master Plan:
The primary authority for TRC processes in general is contained in the Stanley Historic
District Master Plan (SHDMP), Sec. I.C.1 (pp. 4-6.) The TRC’s membership,
appointment procedure, and voting protocols are outlined in subsection 1 of this section.
The key task at this Final Package juncture is to identify all elements that remain
unresolved from the Preliminary Package approval on Aug. 24, and to determine if they
have been resolved or if outstanding issues remain. The last two sentences of
subsection 2 are the only guidance given in the SHDMP for a Final Package. The
sentences in their entirety read as follows:
“Upon approval of the Preliminary Package, the applicant shall submit a final
(revised) package for review and approval by the Technical Review Committee.
This package shall consist of final development plans, engineering, and site
design drawings (consisting of items a-k above, as revised).” (p. 6)
Items (a) through (k) were submitted prior to the Aug. 24 TRC review, and formed the
elements for TRC’s review at that time.
The above SHDMP language is vague as to whether the (a)-(k) materials are to be
submitted again if there are no revisions to them. A case could be made for doing so.
However, it would seem redundant at best to include new review and decision-making
on materials the TRC had disposed in August. Inasmuch as the focus in the above
section seems to be on revisions or changes from the Preliminary Package, staff
concludes that the Final TRC review should be confined to those areas. We have
advised the applicants accordingly.
Essentially, this brings today’s review subject matter to the three conditions included in
Sec. 3 of the Resolution of Approval adopted by the TRC on Aug. 24 (Attachment 7.)
(The Resolution’s conditions in Secs. 1 and 2 are also applicable to the project, but
would be fulfilled at later stages in the Carriage House project – near the finish of
construction for the most part – and do not need additional action by the TRC.)
The three elements in Sec. 3 – we may call them “subconditions” – can be summarized
as follows:
a. Provisions for pedestrian connectivity on Lot 1, the main Stanley campus
(“walkways”);
b. Edits to the pre-Aug. 24 Traffic Impact Study indicating Town traffic-impact
requirements have been satisfactorily addressed (“traffic impacts”); and
c. Measures to identify and fix deficient conditions in the Lot 1 water distribution
system (“waterlines”).
Since August 24, the Stanley team and Town staff team have worked to bring these
three subconditions to closure. Staff believes and recommends to the TRC that
satisfactory solutions to two of the three subconditions have been arrived at, as
discussed below. The traffic-impacts subcondition has been addressed to the extent it
can be, with a minor fix remaining to be addressed by CDOT and the Town.
Proposal:
The exhibit with filename “Final TRC Conditions Letter 10-27-2020” (Attachment 2) is
the Stanley team’s summary of their proposed solutions to the three Aug. 24
subconditions. Other attachments addressing subconditions are called out below.
Walkways:
The TRC will recall that connecting the Carriage House to other features via “sidewalks”
was discussed at some length in the Aug. 24 hearing. (More precisely, staff suggests
the term should be “walkways”, as in many jurisdictions a “sidewalk” must be in the
public street right-of-way or public access easement.) Several specific locations came
up for discussion.
The Stanley team followed up in early September with a proposal substantially similar to
what’s shown on the aerial photo on p. 3 of Attachment 2. This proposal mirrors the
conceptual consensus from the Aug. 24. Meeting as staff understands it. Key elements
include:
• A new walkway from the Carriage House to the main parking lot south of the
Lodge and west of the Hotel, to facilitate safe pedestrian movement among core
Stanley facilities;
• A new walkway from the Carriage House south, linking it to the Aspire Wellness
building via a crosswalk on Steamer Parkway (this crosswalk and a small part of
the approach link immediately north would be in the Steamer Parkway public
right-of-way);
o The above concept also entails removal of a previously proposed new
walkway just to the east, which would have connected the new parking lot
to the Aspire building vicinity;
• A new walkway from the west side of the Hotel area, west of the Maze on the
photo, down to Steamer Parkway to link to an existing walkway to the south. This
existing walkway now (as of July 2020) connects through the new US 34
roundabout to MacGregor Avenue and downtown. If the proposed walkway is
added, there will be a direct hard-surface walking path from the Stanley campus
to downtown Estes Park. That connection has never been made before.
One link discussed at TRC but not shown on the plan, for what staff believes are valid
reasons, is along Steamer Drive from Steamer Parkway down to Stanley Village’s east
entrance and points south. Staff believes this connection is a matter for a later date. It is
not a necessary component of the Carriage House / Lot 1 projects because: (a) it is not
on or adjacent to Lot 1; and (b) this connection is already required as part of the
approved Development Plan (Phase 2) for Lot 4. When the western part of Lot 4 next to
Aspire is built out, the condition requiring this Steamer Drive pedestrian link will be
invoked.
As noted on the plans, the proposed walkways will be eight feet wide. Although it is
ambiguous whether Codes require anything more than minimum ADA-compliant width
(four feet) – if that – for purely private walkways, staff judges that an 8-foot width for
these walkways will benefit users and provide for potential multiple use is circumstances
warrant.
Slopes, cross-slopes, and other accessibility matters have not been precisely designed,
but staff review indicates these do not appear to be obstacles. Minor adjustments to
walkway alignment can accommodate any marginal changes needed.
With regard to exact alignment, the Colorado Historical Foundation has seen the design
and generally has no concerns. However, CHF asked if the western walkway could be
adjusted in the middle to curve somewhat farther west, so as to preserve the open lawn
in front of the Hotel as much as possible. CHF has not requested this as a condition.
Although the conceptual design on p. 3 need not be changed at this time, staff sees this
request as generally supportable provided slope and cross-slope maximums can be
accommodated. Staff would not recommend a TRC condition to require the curve at this
time. Any adjustments to alignment can be addressed at the final walkway construction-
plan stage.
Traffic Impacts:
The August Traffic Impact Study has been revised to reflect the TRC’s discussion and
subcondition (Attachment 4.) This revision is also called out in the applicants’ Final TRC
Conditions Letter (Attachment 2) and the revisions are addressed in the Public Works
Engineering Division comment on those revisions (Attachment 3.)
The revised Traffic Study is accepted as successfully addressing the TRC’s concerns
and subcondition, with one minor exception – namely, the Level of Service (LOS) on the
northbound approach (south leg) of the US 34 – Steamer Drive intersection. As you
know, a traffic signal is slated to be installed and operational there before end of May
2021. The revised traffic study took into account the signal’s operation for current traffic
plus anticipated near-future traffic, including the Carriage House’s share.
The traffic study indicates satisfactory intersection operation on US 34 in both directions
and on Steamer Drive (north leg or southbound approach.) The northbound approach /
south leg shows low traffic volume, 24-hour and peak-hour estimates, compared to the
other three directions. The south leg is actually akin to a driveway entrance, serving
only the 9-Hole Golf Course parking lot. It is unlikely any additional demand will be
placed on this leg, as the golf course / parking lot land is owned by Bureau of
Reclamation, who have traditionally been reticent about allowing expanded or changed
land uses on their Estes Valley properties.
The revised Traffic Impact Study acknowledges that the south leg does not rise above
LOS E, which is an unacceptable level according to the Town’s longstanding application
of LCUASS (Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards.) Table 2 summarizes
various ways that LOS E could be improved at this leg; all of the solutions involve
geometric changes to the intersection and/or programming changes to the traffic signal.
There are at least two practical difficulties with those potential changes with respect to
the Carriage House project: (a) they are outside the ability of the Stanley, or indeed any
private party, to implement directly, because (b) the intersection and signal are part of
the CDOT state / federal-aid highway system, who would need to review and approve
any proposed changes. Although staff cannot speak for CDOT, it seems highly unlikely
that they would approve a change that would benefit a parking-lot entrance at the
expense of delaying traffic flow on a major arterial highway.
Since the Traffic Impact Study identifies a deficiency that is not and cannot be rectified
by the applicants, the TRC is faced with a stark choice: either deny the Final Package
approval due to non-compliance with Town requirement; or approve the Final Package
with a variance to this specific requirement.
Given this choice, staff is recommending the variance. Although poor LOS on the south
leg is not a good thing, denying the project due to a minor deficiency that the Stanley
cannot correct seems vastly disproportionate. The Carriage House project is on the
whole a significant benefit to the community and our stakeholders. Many worthwhile
projects, especially near the heart of a developed urban area, have small deficiencies
that in principle could keep them from being approved – but that call to mind the old
saying about babies and bathwater. This is one of them.
In the longer run, as development or other factors may necessitate revisiting operation
of the US 34 / Steamer Drive intersection, perhaps alternatives to improve LOS on the
northbound approach will come to the table.
The SHDMP (Sec. I.C.1.b, p. 4) provides TRC authority to grant variances in connection
with review and approval of Stanley Lot 1 projects. Staff is recommending approval of a
variance to address this small difficulty. The variance approval is incorporated in your
recommended motion.
Waterlines:
This has been an exceedingly complex technical aspect of the Stanley Lot 1 existing
conditions in general, and has been so for a long time. The TRC in August identified the
issue as one that needs resolution with the Carriage House project, and included that as
a condition of approval.
In lieu of a detailed description of the problems and solutions here, I will confidently rely
on the skills and the evidence presented by people far more knowledgeable than I on
this matter, in the form of three attached documents. In order, they are: The applicants’
Final TRC Conditions Letter 10-27-2020 (pp. 1-2 and 4-14) (Attachment 2); the
applicants’ Stanley LOT 1 Water and Backflow FINAL Document 11-11-2020
(Attachment 5); and the Town Utilities Department’s Stanley LOT 1 - Water Meter and
Backflow Identification Document. Staff Approval Memo. 11-13-2020 (Attachment 6.)
The key sentence in all of the above material is the last one in the Utilities memo: “Town
Utilities staff is of the opinion that this [waterlines] condition can now be approved and
released from requirements of the Technical Review Committee (TRC).”
Community Development concurs with this conclusion and advises that the Aug. 24
TRC waterlines subcondition has been satisfied.
Advantages:
• The Carriage House proposal aligns with the 1994 Stanley Historic District Master
Plan.
• The proposed development is attractive, complements other development on the
Stanley site and in the Town, and will contribute to the economic, social, and
environmental well-being of the community as a whole.
Disadvantages:
• Some elements of the project, as with any significant project near a residential
area, will represent a change in residents’ settled living circumstances.
• A certain amount of disturbance during construction activity can be expected.
• The project will result in increased traffic and other activity on site and in the
vicinity.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the accompanying Technical Review Committee
Resolution Approving the Final Package for the Carriage House Project.
Finance/Resource Impact:
n/a - No direct expenditures or revenue identified at this time.
Level of Public Interest
Low-medium in the overall community; high in the area adjacent to the Stanley campus.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the Technical Review Committee Resolution approving the
final package for the Carriage House Project, including approval of the Variance
identified in the Resolution.
Attachments / Exhibits:
1. A RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE STANLEY
HISTORIC DISTRICT MASTER PLAN APPROVING THE FINAL PACKAGE FOR THE
CARRIAGE HOUSE PROJECT, AND APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROJECT
[draft]
2. Final TRC Conditions Letter 10-27-2020
3. TRC Final - Public Works conditions have been satisfactorily addressed - 2020-11-18
4. 20028_Stanley Carriage House Traffic Impact Study updated 2020-09-01
5. Stanley LOT 1 Water and Backflow FINAL Document 11-11-2020
6. 6. Stanley LOT 1 - Water Meter and Backflow Identification Document. Staff Approval
Memo. 11-13-2020
7. TRC Preliminary Package Resolution_V2
A RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE STANLEY
HISTORIC DISTRICT MASTER PLAN APPROVING THE FINAL PACKAGE FOR THE
CARRIAGE HOUSE PROJECT, AND APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE
PROJECT
WHEREAS, the final package of the project referenced in the title of this
resolution meets the requirements of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan for a final
package; and
WHEREAS, the final package, considered in conjunction with the previously
approved preliminary package, includes sufficient detail for the Technical Review
Committee (TRC) to determine whether the plans meet the requirements of the Master
Plan and the applicable development agreement with regard to public improvements,
pedestrian connectivity, and water backflow and metering security, for the purposes of
approving a final package.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The Stanley Carriage House project final package meets the standards and
requirements in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan and Estes Park
Municipal Code Chapter 17.44, and is hereby approved.
2. A Variance is hereby approved in conjunction with the final package pursuant to
Sec. I.C.1.b of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan, providing that the
northbound approach at the US 34 / Steamer Drive intersection may for the
project’s purposes remain at the projected Level of Service E, including findings
that the Level of Service deficiency is not significant and that the solution(s) to
improving the projected Level of Service are outside the control or purview of the
applicant.
3. To the extent they are not in conflict with the final package or the Variance in
Section 2, all items approved by the Technical Review Committee in the
preliminary package are hereby incorporated by reference in this final package
approval.
DATED this ____ day of __________, 2020.
Travis Machalek
Chair, Technical Review Committee
ATTEST:
Karin Swanlund
Recording Secretary
October 27, 2020
Mr. Randy Hunt
Community Development Director
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Ave.
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: Stanley Carriage House –TRC Conditions Response and Request for Final TRC Review
Dear Mr. Hunt,
On behalf of Grand Heritage Hotel Group, this letter is being provided as our response to the conditions identified in the
Stanley Carriage House TRC meeting held on August 24th, 2020. We thank the TRC committee for their time and
thoughtful review. The TRC identified three conditions for the Owner to consider in preparation of the Final TRC. The
following is our response to the three conditions. Additionally, this letter serves as our request to schedule the Final TRC
for the Carriage House project. Please let us know the soonest available date to schedule. Time is of the essence.
Condition 1: Pedestrian Connectivity
The TRC discussed desired pedestrian connectivity routes between the Carriage House project and the Town of Estes Park
pedestrian system. The Stanley is willing to ONLY consider pedestrian connectivity improvements within the boundaries
of LOT 1, on the Stanley property. Potential off-site sidewalk improvements identified by the Town of Estes park are not
on property owned by Mr. Cullen (Owner of the Stanley) and are not in the vicinity of the project. However, in the spirit
of cooperation and desire to provide pedestrian connectivity, Mr. Cullen is offering sidewalk improvements in two
locations. Please see Attachment 1 for proposed pedestrian connectivity sidewalks that would be provided by the Owner.
Location 1: This sidewalk system provides internal connectivity of the primary Stanley facilities including the Hotel, the
Lodge, the Concert Hall, the new Carriage House and the Aspire. The sidewalk width will be designed to meet Town of
Estes Park requirements (8’-0”). Although engineering of this sidewalk has not been performed, we believe we can
design it to meet ADA requirements for slope. We will inform the Town of Estes Park if this turns out not to be the case.
Location 2: This sidewalk system provides connectivity between an existing sidewalk at the north end of the Black
Canyon Creek residential community, (the property line of Stanley LOT 1), to the Stanley Hotel. All of this proposed
sidewalk improvement is located on Stanley LOT 1. No work, including widening of the existing sidewalk outside of the
LOT 1 property line is included or considered. Completing this sidewalk system provides a continual sidewalk
connection between the Stanley property and the Town of Estes Park downtown core. This sidewalk will then tie into the
sidewalk system proposed in Location 1 above. With this proposal, there is sidewalk connectivity provided between all of
the Stanley facilities and the Town of Estes Park downtown core. The sidewalk width will be designed to meet Town of
Estes Park requirements (8’-0”).
Condition 2: Water Meters and Backflow Preventors
The TRC discussed the Town of Estes Park Public Work Department desire to attach a condition of TRC approval for the
Carriage House with overall LOT 1 improvements to water metering and backflow preventors to all LOT 1 buildings.
The Stanley Owner considers this overreach of authority and is not in agreement with making this a condition of the TRC
approval. That said, the Owner has been, and will continue to work and coordinate with the Department of Public
Mr. Randy Hunt
Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park
October 27, 2020
Page 2
Works to identify and improve water meters and backflow preventors that are out of Public Works compliance. Much, if
not all the investigation and improvements for compliance has been completed as of 10-27-2020. The Owner had/has
hired Estes Park Plumbers to conduct a full review of LOT 1 Stanley properties and has improved identified
meters/backflow preventors that were out of compliance. MOA ARCHITECTURE has provided a WATER METERING
AND BACKFLOW PREVENTOR SITE AND BUILDING MAPPING document to the TOEP Water Department, attention to
Mr. Steve Rusch. This document has been reviewed and coordinated and the resulting document is at tached.
Condition 3: Traffic Impact Study
The TRC requested clarification of the LOS at the signalized intersection of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer
Drive/Golf Course Access. First, the intersection in question is not adjacent to or in proximity to the Carriage House site.
While the TRC conversation was interesting and educational, it truly has no bearing or relationship to this project. The
TIS prepared for the Carriage House clearly illustrates that the existing roadways and intersections can accommodate the
projected traffic volumes for buildout conditions of the proposed reconstruction of the Carriage House at the Stanley
Hotel.
The project proposes to renovate and reconstruct the existing Carriage House to provide a new restaurant. Access to the
site is planned via the existing main entrance on Steamer Parkway and along the existing internal loop roadway. The
internal roadway will continue to circulate through The Stanley Hotel campus. The project plans to provide ADA
pedestrian access between existing facilities to the proposed restaurant.
Vehicular traffic volumes associated with Carriage House renovation project have been analyzed for the existing and
short‐term (Year 2024) scenarios. Using national trip rates, the project is anticipated to generate up to 639 daily trips,
with no trips in the AM peak hour since it will be closed, and 56 trips in the PM peak hour. Although this traffic impact
study assumed all of the restaurant trips would be external to The Stanley Hotel, it is anticipated that a high percentage
(up to 85%) of the trips would be internal or completed by non‐auto transportation. Regardless, it was determined that
the existing roadways and intersections can accommodate the projected traffic volumes for buildout conditions of the
proposed reconstruction of the Carriage House at The Stanley Hotel.
The following excerpt from the TIS are clarifications (sections 3.3, and 4.5) from the update Traffic Impact Study as
requested by the conditions of the TRC. The full TIS update has been provided to the Town of Estes Park for review.
It is our hope that this letter helps to clarify our intent to adequately address the three conditions identified by the TRC
and in conformance with the Historic District Master Plan Development Standards and Guidelines. If you have any
questions or would like to discuss our approach, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
MOA Inc. dba MOA ARCHITECTURE
Jack M. Mousseau, AIA
Principal
303-308-1190
jmousseau@moaarch.com
38Proposed Sidewalk Locations
PROPOSED SIDEWALK BY
STANLEY - location 2
RECENTLY COMPLETED
C-DOT SIDEWALK
PROPOSED SIDEWALKS
BY STANLEY - location 1
KS
1
KSKS
1
By
Number
Sheet Name
DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION
ING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE
CATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF MOA ARCHITECTURE
St
a
n
l
e
y
H
o
t
e
l
E
a
s
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
11
00
33
3
E
W
o
n
d
e
r
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
E
s
t
e
s
P
a
r
k
,
C
O
8
0
5
1
7
SION
11
C-011
SITE PLAN
08/13/20
Proposed sidewalks as shown are all within Lot 1 site boundaries. No sidewalks outside
of Lot 1 site boundaries will be considered.
This section of
sidewalk included
in East Parking
develoment would not
be construted. Dual
crosswalks are a safety
concern.
East Parking sidewalks
currently under
construction.
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 1 | P a g e 10-20-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
WATER METERING AND BACKFLOW PREVENTOR
SITE AND BUILDING MAPPING
The map to the left identifies water lines within LOT
1 of the Stanley Historic District, along with water
line sizes and access points by GPS coordinates.
This document identifies locations and information
associated with all water meters and backflow
preventors located within LOT 1 of the Stanley
Historic District. LOT 1 encompasses the majority of
the Stanley Historic District, including the following
buildings:
1. The Concert Hall
2. Street Access to Valves
3. The Lodge
4. The Stanley Hotel (also serves various other
facilities including Dorm 1, Dorm 2,
Engineering, the Presidents Suite, and the
Caretakers House)
5. The Ice House
6. Landscape island along Steamer Parkway
Several of the buildings within LOT 1 are new or
newly renovated. The water meters and backflow
preventors served from these buildings are
currently recorded by the Town of Estes Park Water
Department. Thus, they are not included in this
study. They include:
• The Carriage House
• The Pavilion
PAVILION
CARRIAGE HOUSE
4
5
3 2 1
DORM 1
DORM 2
ENGINEERING
CARETAKER
PRESIDENT
S
6
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 2 | P a g e 10-20-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
1 - THE CONCERT HALL
The Water meter and backflow preventor are located in the basement of the Concert Hall, in a
Valve Room located on the north side of the basement. The room is accessed through a restroom.
The Valve Room is excavated space with exposed foundation and earth on the floor and north wall.
This is the irrigation supply valve. The Backflow Equipment Assembly is identified in the photo
below (labeled symphony hall):
Photos of the assembly for irrigation and the reduced pressure backflow preventor are provided on
the page 3.
1
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 3 | P a g e 10-20-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 4 | P a g e 10-20-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
2 - STREET ON NORTH SIDE OF CONCERT HALL – GPS 2491
The photo below is taken from the north side of the Concert Hall. Several Corp Stops are located
within the street. The one on the left-hand curb (1) is a 4” fire line to the concert hall. (2) is a 6” x
6” wet tap on the 6” main feeding the fire hydrant. There is an 8” main line wet tap isolation valve
(3) in the center of the street. This will remain. (4) this is an abandoned corporation stop and will
be filled with flow fill.
2
1
3
2
To the left is a photo of a 1 ½” Corp Stop
Valve located 6’ to the north of the north
wall of the Concert Hall.
4
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 5 | P a g e 10-20-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
3 – THE LODGE
The photo below is taken inside the valve room in the basement of the Lodge, accessed from the
east side of the building. Upon entering the basement, the room is to the right. The backflow
assembly is pictured below. A photo of the double check reduced pressure zone assembly is
provided on page 6.
3
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 6 | P a g e 10-20-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 7 | P a g e 10-20-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
4 – THE STANLEY HOTEL
The photos below are taken within the mechanical room of the main Stanley Hotel. The room is
located in the northwest area of the building, behind the kitchen. Below are the main backflow
preventor assembly and fire control valves.
The backflow preventor assembly and fire control valve serve the Main Stanley Hotel as well as the
Engineering Building, Dorm Buildings, Presidents Building and Caretaker Building. These building
locations are identified on page 1.
Photos of the reduced pressure zone assembly and fire control valve assembly are provided on
page 8.
4
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 8 | P a g e 10-20-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 9 | P a g e 10-20-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
5 – THE ICE HOUSE
The photo below is taken inside the Ice House, on the east wall. The water meter shown in the
assembly below. A permanent plug is being placed in the copper line.
Page 10 illustrates the irrigation backflow device. This will be removed and replaced with a
reduced pressure valve.
5
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 10 | P a g e 10-20-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 11 | P a g e 10-20-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
6 – LANDSCAPE ISLAND ALONG STEAMER PARKWAY
This landscape island received irrigation water via hose from the Aspire building irrigation system.
There is a hose bib directly across Steamer Parkway from the island. The hose bib is located after
the irrigation pressure relief valve, located in the valve room of the Aspire Building.
6
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Updated September 1, 2020
3.3 Level of Service Definitions
To measure and describe the operational status of the study intersections, transportation engineers and
planners commonly use a grading system referred to as “Level of Service” (LOS) that is defined by the
HCM. LOS characterizes the operational conditions of an intersections traffic flow, ranging from LOS A
(indicating very good, free flow operations) and LOS F (indicating congested and sometimes
oversaturated conditions). These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of
the comfort and convenience associated with traveling through the intersections. The intersection LOS is
represented as a delay in seconds per vehicle for the intersection as a whole and for each turning
movement. A more detailed discussion of LOS methodology is contained in the Appendix for reference.
The Town of Estes Park defers to
the City of Loveland’s Level of
Service Standards provided in
LCUASS. Majority of the study
intersections would be considered
“minor intersections” with the
exception of the intersection of Big
Thompson Avenue (US 34) at
Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access
that would be classified as “major
intersection.” Refer to the defined
Level of Service standards listed in
LCUASS as shown to the right.
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
4.1 Roadways
The study area boundaries are based on the amount of traffic to be generated by the project and
potential impact to the existing roadway network. The study area was defined in coordination with the
Town staff and CDOT and is outlined in the Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form
provided by Delich and Associates (located in the Appendix). The primary public roadways that serve the
project site are discussed in the following text and illustrated on Figure 1.
US 34 (Big Thompson Avenue/Elkhorn Avenue) is a four‐lane arterial roadway with a center
median and left‐turn lane that is CDOT facility. US 34 provides east‐west access down the Big
Thompson Canyon to Loveland and the front range to the east, and access for commercial and
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 9 Updated September 1, 2020
691 N. St. Vrain & US Highway 36 is the transportation hub for the shuttles. The Stanley Hotel is serviced
by the Gold Route that circulates the Town connecting to the medical center, conference center, other
lodging, events complex, and the visitor center. The Gold Route also travels up US 34 to the Fall River
Visitors Center. This route provides patrons the ability to transfer to other local routes that lead to many
other attractions and services around town. The Estes Transit routes, specifically the Gold Route, are
shown on the map to the right which is beneficial for existing and future visitors of The Stanley Hotel
and the renovation of the Carriage House.
4.5 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis
The existing volumes, lane configuration, and traffic control are illustrated on Figure 2. The results of the
LOS calculations for the study intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service
worksheets and queue reports are attached in the Appendix. All study intersections are operating at
LOS C or better overall in the AM and PM peak hours. The following intersection currently has one
approach that operates at LOS E or F in one or both peak hours:
Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access: This currently
unsignalized intersection is calculated to operate at LOS A overall in the AM peak hour and LOS
C in the PM peak hour. The southbound left‐turn movement operates at LOS E in the AM peak
hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. This delay is caused by the heavy flow of traffic on Big
Thompson Avenue. The 95th percentile queue was estimated to be two vehicles in the AM peak
hour and up to eight (8) vehicles in the PM peak hour.
Recommendations: It is understood that this intersection is planned to be signalized in late
2020. Fox Tuttle received a copy of the final signal design plans and CDOT approved signal
phasing from the design engineer, Lantz Associates (refer to Appendix). The signal timing was
utilized within this study for all scenarios. The eastbound left‐turn on Big Thompson Avenue is
planned to be protected+permitted phasing with flashing yellow arrow signal heads and the
side‐streets will operate as split phasing due to the offset alignment. With the new signal, the
intersection is anticipated to operate overall at LOS B in both peak hours. The northbound
approach (Golf Course Access) was estimated to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour,
which is related to the split phasing and cycle length.
Compliance with LCUASS: The overall LOS and majority of movements are in compliance with
the Level of Service standards. The southbound left‐turn/through lane is estimated to operate at
LOS E in the PM peak hour which is in compliance with the standards as well. The northbound
approach does not meet the Level of Service standards since both peak hours are estimated to
operate at LOS F.
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 10 Updated September 1, 2020
The following mitigation measures were evaluated to determine if LOS E or D could be achieved
on the northbound approach:
Table 2. Evaluated Mitigation Measures for LOS Compliance
Mitigation
Measure
Result on Northbound
Approach
Peak
Hour
Advantages Disadvantages
Add Green Time
to NB by taking
from EB/WB
Remains LOS F
No amount of green time
improves LOS due to cycle
length and split phasing.
AM
PM
Cost effective Adds delay to mainline
Does not comply with LOS standards
Remove Split
Phasing
LOS D AM
PM
Complies with
LOS Standards
Expensive
Changes Signal Design
Requires realigning side‐street lanes
and possibly separating SB left‐turn
and through
Reduce Cycle
Length to 100sec
LOS E AM Cost effective May not provide progression on Big
Thompson
Adds delay to mainline
Does not comply with LOS standards
Reduce Cycle
Length to 75sec
LOS E PM
Operate “Free” LOS E
LOS F
AM
PM
Cost effective
Complies with
LOS Standards
in AM
May not provide progression on Big
Thompson
Adds delay to mainline
Does not comply with LOS standards
in PM
As shown in Table 2, the only available option to achieve LOS D on the northbound approach
would require significant geometric changes and a redesign of the signal.
The side‐street approaches currently need to operate split phasing due to the offset lane
alignment. Based on the approved signal timing plans, the northbound approach is allocated 14
seconds (8 sec. green + 4 sec. yellow + 2 sec. red) and the cycle length is 116 seconds. Therefore,
northbound drivers could wait up to 102 seconds if they arrive on red, which equates to LOS F.
Without the removal of the split phasing, the northbound approach is anticipated to operate at
LOS F in the existing and future scenarios.
Note that the signal may increase the delay for the northbound approach, but the signal
provides a safer situation for drivers to turn onto Big Thompson Avenue since the allocated
green time is not shared with the opposing approach.
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 11 Updated September 1, 2020
For informational purposes, the intersection of Elkhorn Avenue at Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain
Avenue was evaluated for a peak hour on a busy weekend. The analysis indicated that the intersection
currently operates overall at LOS D. The westbound left‐turn, northbound left‐turn, and northbound
left/through movements were calculated to operate at LOS E during the weekend peak. The estimated
queues will extend beyond the existing storage on the westbound left‐turn and northbound right‐turn. It
is understood that this traffic study did not have to evaluate this intersection beyond the existing
conditions.
5.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
5.1 Annual Growth Factor and Future Volume Methodology
In order to forecast the future peak hour traffic volumes, background traffic growth assumptions were
estimated based on the CDOT 20‐year factors, as well as available historic traffic volumes. Based on this
data, it was assumed there will be an annual growth rate of 2.0% within the study area. Trips associated
with the Alarado Business Park2 located in the northeast corner of Big Thompson Avenue and Steamer
Drive were included in the background volumes. Using these assumptions, the Year 2024 background
traffic is summarized on Figure 3.
5.2 Year 2024 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis
The study area intersections were evaluated to determine baseline operations for the Year 2024
background scenario and to identify any capacity constraints associated with background traffic. The
background volumes, lane configuration, and traffic control are illustrated on Figure 3. It was assumed
that the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access would be
signalized and the intersection design and signal timing assumptions listed in Section 4.5 were
implemented.
The level of service criteria discussed previously was applied to the study area intersections to
determine the impacts with the short‐term (Year 2024) background volumes. The results of the LOS
calculations for the intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service worksheets
and queue reports are attached in the Appendix. The Year 2024 background analysis assumed the
existing lane configuration and traffic control would remain the same at the study intersections.
2 Trips gathered from Alarado Business Park Traffic Impact Study. Delich Associate. August 2018.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:16 AM Jennifer Waters <jwaters@estes.org> wrote:
Hi Randy,
The following information allows Public Works to find that its conditions have been
satisfactorily addressed in support of the next TRC meeting planned for December 7.
Several staff discussions and previous Public Works comments support these
conclusions.
• Traffic Impact Analysis by Fox Tuttle (updated 9/1/20)
• MOA ARCHITECTURE letters (9/3/20 and 10/27/20)
SUMMARY
Condition 1. Pedestrian connectivity. The sidewalks shown in yellow on a map in the
MOA letter dated 10/27/20 are acceptable. The specific descriptions of Locations 1 and
2, indicating 8' sidewalk widths, are acknowledged.
Condition 2. Water meters and backflow preventers (not Public Works issue).
Condition 3. Traffic Impact Study (TIS). Inclusion of LCUASS Table 4 -2 in the
updated study is acknowledged. The analysis by Fox Tuttle summarized in "Table 2.
Evaluated Mitigation Measures for LOS Compliance" is adequate for documenting the
quandary associated with LOS for the golf course access at the new signalized
intersection (Steamer Drive and State Highway 34). In Attorney Stewart Olive's letter
dated 9/30/20, the reference to 5% is probably erroneous and should be 15% since it is
acknowledged that up to 85% of the trips to the Carriage House restaurant will probably
be completed through internal Stanley campus access. The TIS, however, assumes that
all the restaurant trips would originate externally relative to the Stanley campus.
Please contact me if any further discussion is necessary prior to the TRC meeting on
December 7.
Jennifer Waters, EIT
Version 1 Date: April 6, 2020
Version 2 Date: July 8, 2020
Version 3 Date: August 21, 2020
Updated Date: September 1, 2020
Submitted To:
MOA ARCHITECTURE
414 14th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Submitted By:
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC
1624 Market Street, Suite 202
Denver, CO 80202
The Stanley Hotel:
Carriage House
Traffic Impact Analysis
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Updated September 1, 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 5
3.0 Study Considerations ............................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................................. 6
4.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 6
4.1 Roadways ............................................................................................................................ 6
4.2 Intersections ....................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................... 8
4.4 Transit ................................................................................................................................. 8
4.5 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................................................................... 9
5.0 Future Traffic Conditions ....................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Annual Growth Factor and Future Volume Methodology ................................................ 11
5.2 Year 2024 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis ..................................................... 11
6.0 Proposed Carriage House Traffic ............................................................................................ 12
6.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 12
6.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment ..................................................................................... 13
7.0 Future Traffic Conditions with the Reconstruction ................................................................. 13
8.0 Future Multi‐Modal Trips and Facilities .................................................................................. 13
9.0 Parking Operations ................................................................................................................ 14
10.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 14
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Updated September 1, 2020
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary ..................................................................... 15
Table 2. Evaluated Mitigation Measures for LOS Compliance .................................................................... 10
Table 3 – Trip Generation Summary ........................................................................................................... 12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map and Existing Access ............................................................................................... 16
Figure 2 – Year 2019 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 17
Figure 3 – Year 2024 Background Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 18
Figure 4 – Trip Distribution and Site‐Generated Trip Volumes .................................................................. 19
Figure 5 – Year 2024 Background + Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 20
APPENDIX
Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form
Level of Service Definitions
Existing Traffic Data
Signal Design and Timing
Intersection Capacity Worksheets
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Updated September 1, 2020
THE STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE RENOVATION
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Fox Tuttle Transportation Group prepared this traffic impact study for the proposed reconstruction
of the Carriage House at The Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, CO. The project proposes to renovate the
existing Carriage House to provide a restaurant that will serve the existing hotel guests and future art
district guests. It is understood that this building has not been actively used in 50 years and is located in
the northeast corner of Steamer Parkway and the Main Entrance. Figure 1 includes a vicinity map for the
proposed project.
The purpose of this study is to assist in identifying potential traffic impacts within the study area as a
result of this project. The traffic study addresses existing and short‐term (Year 2024) peak hour
intersection conditions in the study area with and without the project generated traffic. The
information contained in this study is anticipated to be used by the Town of Estes Park staff in
identifying any intersection or roadway deficiencies and potential improvements for the short‐term
future conditions. This study focused on the weekday AM and PM peak hours which are typically the
highest traffic volumes for the proposed type of land use.
The traffic impact study is consistent with the requirements of the Town of Estes Park’s standards set
forth in Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (revised 2019). A copy of the
approved Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form is attached in the Appendix for
reference.
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Updated September 1, 2020
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Stanley Hotel project proposes to create an Art District that will include a future museum, film
center, and auditorium. It is understood that the new construction of the Carriage House is the first
phase of the overall project and is planned to become a full‐service restaurant with approximately 250
seats and outdoor seating. This traffic study focuses on the reconstruction of the Carriage House and the
other art district amenities will be evaluated in a separate traffic study with the film center submittal.
Access to the site is planned via the existing main entrance on Steamer Parkway and along the existing
internal loop roadway. Figure 1 includes a conceptual site plan for the project.
3.0 STUDY CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 Data Collection
Intersection turning movement volumes were collected by Delich and Associates in August 2019 at six
existing intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Per a request from Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT), traffic volumes were gathered on a busy weekend (September
28, 2019) at the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue/Elkhorn Avenue at Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain
Avenue.
Historic daily volumes along Big Thompson Avenue (US 34/US 36), Wonderview Avenue (US 34), and St.
Vrain Avenue within the vicinity of the project site were gathered from the CDOT’s Transportation Data
Management System (TDMS). The existing traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 2. The existing
intersection geometry and traffic control are also shown on this figure. Count data sheets are provided
in the Appendix.
3.2 Evaluation Methodology
The traffic operations analysis addressed the unsignalized intersection operations using the procedures
and methodologies set forth by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 1. Assumed peak hour factor of
0.90 was applied to the intersections for the existing and future scenarios since the existing 15‐minute
count data was not available at the time of the analysis. Study intersections were evaluated using
Synchro (v10) software.
1 Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, 6th Edition (2016).
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Updated September 1, 2020
3.3 Level of Service Definitions
To measure and describe the operational status of the study intersections, transportation engineers and
planners commonly use a grading system referred to as “Level of Service” (LOS) that is defined by the
HCM. LOS characterizes the operational conditions of an intersections traffic flow, ranging from LOS A
(indicating very good, free flow operations) and LOS F (indicating congested and sometimes
oversaturated conditions). These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of
the comfort and convenience associated with traveling through the intersections. The intersection LOS is
represented as a delay in seconds per vehicle for the intersection as a whole and for each turning
movement. A more detailed discussion of LOS methodology is contained in the Appendix for reference.
The Town of Estes Park defers to
the City of Loveland’s Level of
Service Standards provided in
LCUASS. Majority of the study
intersections would be considered
“minor intersections” with the
exception of the intersection of Big
Thompson Avenue (US 34) at
Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access
that would be classified as “major
intersection.” Refer to the defined
Level of Service standards listed in
LCUASS as shown to the right.
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
4.1 Roadways
The study area boundaries are based on the amount of traffic to be generated by the project and
potential impact to the existing roadway network. The study area was defined in coordination with the
Town staff and CDOT and is outlined in the Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form
provided by Delich and Associates (located in the Appendix). The primary public roadways that serve the
project site are discussed in the following text and illustrated on Figure 1.
US 34 (Big Thompson Avenue/Elkhorn Avenue) is a four‐lane arterial roadway with a center
median and left‐turn lane that is CDOT facility. US 34 provides east‐west access down the Big
Thompson Canyon to Loveland and the front range to the east, and access for commercial and
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 Updated September 1, 2020
residential areas of Estes Park to the west. In Estes Park, the highway turns north onto
Wonderview Avenue to bypass the downtown area. West of Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain
Avenue, Big Thompson Avenue becomes Elkhorn Avenue with a classification of Non‐Rural
Arterial (NR‐C) through downtown Estes Park and a speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). East
of Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain Avenue, this highway is classified as Non‐Rural Principal
Highway (NR‐A) with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Elkhorn Avenue currently serves
approximately 13,000 vehicles per day (vpd) west of Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain Avenue and
Big Thompson Avenue 18,000 vpd east of the same intersection (Year 2019, CDOT).
Wonderview Avenue is a bypass route for US 34 that routes north of downtown Estes Park
heading west towards the mountains. This arterial (NR‐A) is a two‐lane arterial with a center
median/turn‐lane within the study area. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Wonderview Avenue
currently serves approximately 6,700 vpd north of Elkhorn Avenue (Year 2019, CDOT). Recently,
a single‐lane roundabout was installed at the intersection of Wonderview Avenue and McGregor
Avenue by CDOT to improve safety, increase capacity, and reduce conflict points between all
road users. The intersection improvements also enhanced the pedestrian crossings on the south
and east legs of the new roundabout with new sidewalks leading to The Stanley Hotel.
Steamer Parkway is the main roadway into and around The Stanley Hotel campus and providing
access to adjacent neighborhoods and the Aspire. This two‐lane local street has a posted speed
limit is 25 mph and will lead the new trips to the main entrance of The Stanley Hotel.
Steamer Drive is a two‐lane north‐south local street that provides access to residential homes
and the Stanley Village shopping center. The posted speed limit is 25 mph and links directly to
Big Thompson Avenue (US 34). It is understood that the intersection with the highway will be
signalized in the future when warranted. Steamer Drive is utilized to access The Stanley Hotel
from Big Thompson Avenue to Steamer Parkway.
4.2 Intersections
The study area includes six intersections that are listed below with the current traffic control and were
analyzed for existing and future background year traffic operations:
1. Steamer Parkway at SW Steamer Parkway (side‐street stop‐controlled)
2. Steamer Parkway at Aspire Access (side‐street stop‐controlled)
3. Steamer Parkway at The Stanley Hotel Main Entrance (side‐street stop‐controlled)
4. Steamer Parkway at Steamer Drive (side‐street stop‐controlled)
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 Updated September 1, 2020
5. Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access (side‐street stop‐
controlled, signalized in the near‐term)
6. Wonderview Avenue (US 34) at SW Steamer Parkway (side‐street stop‐controlled)
The existing lane configuration at each of the study locations is illustrated on Figure 2. Note that the
counts were gathered on a busy weekend at the signalized intersection of Big Thompson Avenue at
Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain Avenue for informational purposes. This intersection was not included in
the study area, but the existing conditions were evaluated per the request of CDOT.
4.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The Town of Estes Park adopted the Complete Streets Policy (#851) in April 2019 to “promote and
encourage the development of a multi‐modal transportation network” that will serve all people driving,
walking, biking, and using transit. The policy is implemented with every “street project” which the
Carriage House reconstruction is not considered; however, The Stanley Hotel is committed to adhering
to the guidelines where possible.
The Stanley Hotel has an extensive sidewalk system that connects various facilities and amenities
around the property that are ADA compliant. On‐site sidewalks and paths link to external sidewalks that
are within a walkable radius (typically between ¼ and ½ mile radius).
Externally, sidewalks exist on the south side of Steamer Parkway along the Aspire property; along the
north side of Big Thompson Avenue from Steamer Drive into downtown; and portions of the south side
of Big Thompson Avenue and east side of Wonderview Avenue. The study roadways currently do not
provide designated bike facilities; however, bicyclists are permitted to ride with traffic on the arterial,
collector and local streets.
4.4 Transit
The Town of Estes Park
provides a free shuttle service
(named Estes Transit) for the
summer months linking The
Stanley Hotel to the
downtown area, Rocky
Mountain National Park
(RMNP), and other local
attractions. The Town’s
parking structure located at
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 9 Updated September 1, 2020
691 N. St. Vrain & US Highway 36 is the transportation hub for the shuttles. The Stanley Hotel is serviced
by the Gold Route that circulates the Town connecting to the medical center, conference center, other
lodging, events complex, and the visitor center. The Gold Route also travels up US 34 to the Fall River
Visitors Center. This route provides patrons the ability to transfer to other local routes that lead to many
other attractions and services around town. The Estes Transit routes, specifically the Gold Route, are
shown on the map to the right which is beneficial for existing and future visitors of The Stanley Hotel
and the renovation of the Carriage House.
4.5 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis
The existing volumes, lane configuration, and traffic control are illustrated on Figure 2. The results of the
LOS calculations for the study intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service
worksheets and queue reports are attached in the Appendix. All study intersections are operating at
LOS C or better overall in the AM and PM peak hours. The following intersection currently has one
approach that operates at LOS E or F in one or both peak hours:
Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access: This currently
unsignalized intersection is calculated to operate at LOS A overall in the AM peak hour and LOS
C in the PM peak hour. The southbound left‐turn movement operates at LOS E in the AM peak
hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. This delay is caused by the heavy flow of traffic on Big
Thompson Avenue. The 95th percentile queue was estimated to be two vehicles in the AM peak
hour and up to eight (8) vehicles in the PM peak hour.
Recommendations: It is understood that this intersection is planned to be signalized in late
2020. Fox Tuttle received a copy of the final signal design plans and CDOT approved signal
phasing from the design engineer, Lantz Associates (refer to Appendix). The signal timing was
utilized within this study for all scenarios. The eastbound left‐turn on Big Thompson Avenue is
planned to be protected+permitted phasing with flashing yellow arrow signal heads and the
side‐streets will operate as split phasing due to the offset alignment. With the new signal, the
intersection is anticipated to operate overall at LOS B in both peak hours. The northbound
approach (Golf Course Access) was estimated to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour,
which is related to the split phasing and cycle length.
Compliance with LCUASS: The overall LOS and majority of movements are in compliance with
the Level of Service standards. The southbound left‐turn/through lane is estimated to operate at
LOS E in the PM peak hour which is in compliance with the standards as well. The northbound
approach does not meet the Level of Service standards since both peak hours are estimated to
operate at LOS F.
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 10 Updated September 1, 2020
The following mitigation measures were evaluated to determine if LOS E or D could be achieved
on the northbound approach:
Table 2. Evaluated Mitigation Measures for LOS Compliance
Mitigation
Measure
Result on Northbound
Approach
Peak
Hour
Advantages Disadvantages
Add Green Time
to NB by taking
from EB/WB
Remains LOS F
No amount of green time
improves LOS due to cycle
length and split phasing.
AM
PM
Cost effective Adds delay to mainline
Does not comply with LOS standards
Remove Split
Phasing
LOS D AM
PM
Complies with
LOS Standards
Expensive
Changes Signal Design
Requires realigning side‐street lanes
and possibly separating SB left‐turn
and through
Reduce Cycle
Length to 100sec
LOS E AM Cost effective May not provide progression on Big
Thompson
Adds delay to mainline
Does not comply with LOS standards
Reduce Cycle
Length to 75sec
LOS E PM
Operate “Free” LOS E
LOS F
AM
PM
Cost effective
Complies with
LOS Standards
in AM
May not provide progression on Big
Thompson
Adds delay to mainline
Does not comply with LOS standards
in PM
As shown in Table 2, the only available option to achieve LOS D on the northbound approach
would require significant geometric changes and a redesign of the signal.
The side‐street approaches currently need to operate split phasing due to the offset lane
alignment. Based on the approved signal timing plans, the northbound approach is allocated 14
seconds (8 sec. green + 4 sec. yellow + 2 sec. red) and the cycle length is 116 seconds. Therefore,
northbound drivers could wait up to 102 seconds if they arrive on red, which equates to LOS F.
Without the removal of the split phasing, the northbound approach is anticipated to operate at
LOS F in the existing and future scenarios.
Note that the signal may increase the delay for the northbound approach, but the signal
provides a safer situation for drivers to turn onto Big Thompson Avenue since the allocated
green time is not shared with the opposing approach.
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 11 Updated September 1, 2020
For informational purposes, the intersection of Elkhorn Avenue at Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain
Avenue was evaluated for a peak hour on a busy weekend. The analysis indicated that the intersection
currently operates overall at LOS D. The westbound left‐turn, northbound left‐turn, and northbound
left/through movements were calculated to operate at LOS E during the weekend peak. The estimated
queues will extend beyond the existing storage on the westbound left‐turn and northbound right‐turn. It
is understood that this traffic study did not have to evaluate this intersection beyond the existing
conditions.
5.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
5.1 Annual Growth Factor and Future Volume Methodology
In order to forecast the future peak hour traffic volumes, background traffic growth assumptions were
estimated based on the CDOT 20‐year factors, as well as available historic traffic volumes. Based on this
data, it was assumed there will be an annual growth rate of 2.0% within the study area. Trips associated
with the Alarado Business Park2 located in the northeast corner of Big Thompson Avenue and Steamer
Drive were included in the background volumes. Using these assumptions, the Year 2024 background
traffic is summarized on Figure 3.
5.2 Year 2024 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis
The study area intersections were evaluated to determine baseline operations for the Year 2024
background scenario and to identify any capacity constraints associated with background traffic. The
background volumes, lane configuration, and traffic control are illustrated on Figure 3. It was assumed
that the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access would be
signalized and the intersection design and signal timing assumptions listed in Section 4.5 were
implemented.
The level of service criteria discussed previously was applied to the study area intersections to
determine the impacts with the short‐term (Year 2024) background volumes. The results of the LOS
calculations for the intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service worksheets
and queue reports are attached in the Appendix. The Year 2024 background analysis assumed the
existing lane configuration and traffic control would remain the same at the study intersections.
2 Trips gathered from Alarado Business Park Traffic Impact Study. Delich Associate. August 2018.
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 12 Updated September 1, 2020
The study intersections are shown to operate similarly to the existing conditions with LOS B or better
overall in the AM and PM peak hours in Year 2024 Background. As presented in the existing conditions,
the new signal at Big Thompson Avenue and Steamer Drive/Golf Course Access will result in the side
street approaches operating below LOS D in one or both peak hours. The northbound approach will not
comply with the LOS standards. The 95th percentile queues for the southbound approach were
estimated to be maintained within the existing storage. The 95th percentile queues for the northbound
approach were estimated to be one vehicle or less. Refer to Section 4.5 and Table 2 for discussion on
options evaluated to bring the northbound approach in compliance with the LOS standards. The same
conclusions were made for the Year 2024 Background scenarios.
6.0 PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC
6.1 Trip Generation
Delich and Associates worked with The Stanley Hotel design team to understand the trips expected to
be associated with the reconstructed Carriage House. The trips associated with the restaurant were
estimated per rates provided by Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual3.
Per the Base Assumptions Form, a conservative approach was taken by assuming all of the restaurant
trips would be external to The Stanley Hotel. It is anticipated that majority of the trips associated with
the renovated Carriage House will be completed by walk, bike, or transit from The Stanley Hotel or
nearby lodging.
The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 3. Based on information from The Stanley Hotel
design team, the Carriage House restaurant will not be opened during the AM peak hour. For
conservative purposes, no adjustments were made to the trips for internal or multi‐modal trips.
Table 3. Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Size &
Unit
Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Total Rate In Out Rate In Out
ITE 932: High‐Turnover
Restaurant 5.7 ksf 112.18 640 In: 5.47
Out: 4.47 * * In: 6.06
Out: 3.71 35 21
* Not Open for Business at this time
3 Trip Generation 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017.
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 13 Updated September 1, 2020
6.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
The estimated trip volumes presented in Table 3 were distributed onto the study area roadway network
based on existing traffic characteristics of the area, existing and future land uses, and the relationship of
this project to the greater Estes Park community. The overall assumed distribution and trip assignment
are is illustrated in Figure 4.
7.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION
This section discusses impacts associated with the proposed trips associated with the build out scenario
of The Stanley Hotel Carriage House restaurant. The site‐generated volumes were added to the
projected Year 2024 background volumes and are illustrated on Figure 5. The results of the LOS
calculations for the intersections are summarized on Table 1. The intersection level of service
worksheets and queue reports are attached in the Appendix. As assumed in the Year 2024 background
conditions, the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access
would be signalized and the intersection design and signal timing assumptions listed in Section 4.5 were
implemented.
As shown on the Level of Service summary table, the Carriage House trips have little to no impact on
the delays and queuing at the majority of the study intersections during the PM peak hour when it is
opened for business. The southbound left‐turn at the intersection of Wonderview Avenue and SW
Steamer Parkway was projected to begin operating at LOS E in the PM peak hour due to the additional
trips (only account for 7% of the movement volume) and is in compliance with the LOS standards. The
95th percentile queue for this movement was estimated to increase by 13 feet (less than one vehicle).
The northbound approach will continue to not comply with the LOS standards. The 95th percentile
queues for this approach were estimated to be one vehicle or less. Refer to Section 4.5 and Table 2 for
discussion on options evaluated to bring the northbound approach in compliance with the LOS
standards. The same conclusions were made for the Year 2024 Background + Project scenarios.
8.0 FUTURE MULTI‐MODAL TRIPS AND FACILITIES
The Carriage House was estimated to generate up to 56 trips in the PM peak hour (35 enter/21 exit). For
conservative purposes, this study assumed all trips were external to The Stanley Hotel and were not
reduced for walking or biking. It is anticipated that the internal and non‐auto trips associated with the
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 14 Updated September 1, 2020
Carriage House would be between 30% and 85% since the new restaurant will be serving mostly
customers already staying at or visiting The Stanley Hotel. This equates to between 17 and 48 trips
completed by walking, biking, or transit. The proposed restaurant is also within ¼ mile walking distance
of the Lodge, the Aspire, and neighboring homes that may visit for a meal. The Carriage House
restaurant has the potential to attract people that live in or visit Estes Park; most of these patrons are
anticipated to utilize a personal vehicle, a Transportation Network Company (TNC) vehicle, or the Estes
Park transit system.
9.0 PARKING OPERATIONS
All lodging accommodations offered on the Stanley Campus host between 350 and 450 guests per night
in the peak season, including guests at The Stanley Hotel, the Lodge and the Aspire. It is anticipated that
many of the visitors to the Carriage House and future Film and Performing Arts Center will be guests
already parked in the respective guest parking lots. External attendees for either venue will park in the
proposed parking lots near the Film and Performing Arts Center. Refer to the Parking Operations Plan, a
separate document, for the anticipated parking demand and proposed parking management for the
Carriage House and the future Film and Performing Arts Center.
10.0 CONCLUSION
The project proposes to renovate and reconstruct the existing Carriage House to provide a new
restaurant. Access to the site is planned via the existing main entrance on Steamer Parkway and along
the existing internal loop roadway. The internal roadway will continue to circulate through The Stanley
Hotel campus. The project plans to provide ADA pedestrian access between existing facilities to the
proposed restaurant.
Vehicular traffic volumes associated with Carriage House renovation project have been analyzed for the
existing and short‐term (Year 2024) scenarios. Using national trip rates, the project is anticipated to
generate up to 639 daily trips, with no trips in the AM peak hour since it will be closed, and 56 trips in
the PM peak hour. Although this traffic impact study assumed all of the restaurant trips would be
external to The Stanley Hotel, it is anticipated that a high percentage (up to 85%) of the trips would be
internal or completed by non‐auto transportation. Regardless, it was determined that the existing
roadways and intersections can accommodate the projected traffic volumes for buildout conditions of
the proposed reconstruction of the Carriage House at The Stanley Hotel.
FT# 20028 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study
Estes Park, CO
7/8/2020
Intersection and AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Cricital Lane Groups Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
STOP SIGN CONTROL
Steamer Pkwy at SW Steamer Pkwy 6 A 6 A 6 A 6 A 6 A 7 A
Eastbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A not applicable 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Westbound Left+Through 7 A 7 A 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A
Northbound Left 10 A 10 B 10 A 11 B 10 A 11 B
Northbound Right 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A
Steamer Pkwy at Aspire Access 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A
Eastbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A not applicable 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Westbound Left+Through 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A
Northbound Left+Right 9 A 10 A 9 A 10 A 9 A 10 B
Steamer Pkwy at The Stanley Hotel
Main Entrance 4 A 5 A 4 A 5 A 4 A 6 A
Eastbound Left+Through 7 A 7 A not applicable 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A
Westbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Southbound Left+Right 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 10 A
Steamer Pkwy at Steamer Dr. 3 A 4 A 3 A 4 A 3 A 5 A
Eastbound Left+Right 9 A 9 A not applicable 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A
Northbound Left+Through 7 A 7 A 7 A 7 A 7 A 7 A
Southbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Big Thompson Ave (US 34) at
Steamer Dr. / Golf Course 3 A 18 C
Eastbound Left 9 A 9 A Refer to Signal Control Refer to Signal Control Refer to Signal Control
Eastbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A
Westbound Left 8 A 9 A
Westbound Through 0 A 0 A
Westbound Right 0 A 0 A
Northbound Left+Through+Right 16 C 17 C
Southbound Left 40 E >120 F
Southbound Right 0 A 0 A
Wonderview Ave at SW Steamer
Pkwy 2 A 3 A 2 A 4 A 2 A 5 A
Eastbound Left 8 A 8 A not applicable 8 A 9 A 8 A 9 A
Eastbound Through 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Westbound Through 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Westbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Southbound Left 14 B 26 D 16 C 34 D 16 C 38 E
Southbound Right 10 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B
SIGNAL CONTROL
Elkhorn Ave at Wonderview Ave/ St.
Vrain Ave 48 D
Eastbound Left 30 C not applicable not applicable not applicable
Eastbound Through 40 D
Eastbound Right 40 D
Westbound Left 69 E
Westbound Through 40 D
Westbound Right 37 D
Northbound Left 65 E
Northbound Left+Through 56 E
Northbound Right 42 D
Southbound Left 40 D
Southbound Left+Through 49 D
Southbound Right 33 C
Big Thompson Ave (US 34) at
Steamer Dr. / Golf Course 10 B 13 B 11 B 13 B 11 B 14 B
Eastbound Left Refer to Signal Control 5 A 5 A 6 A 6 A 6 A 6 A
Eastbound Through+Right 5 A 7 A 5 A 8 A 5 A 8 A
Westbound Left 7 A 9 A 8 A 10 A 8 A 10 B
Westbound Through 9 A 9 A 10 A 10 A 10 A 10 B
Westbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Northbound Left+Through+Right 88 F 101 F 88 F 101 F 88 F 101 F
Southbound Left+Through 52 D 60 E 53 D 59 E 53 D 59 E
Southbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Note: Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle.
Year 2024 Background 2024 Background + Project Trips
Table 1 - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary
Year 2019 Existing
with ImprovementsYear 2019 Existing
(weekend peak
hour; for
informational
purposes)
Page 1 of 1 20028_LOS_v3
Existing Main
Entrance to
Remain Full
Movement and
Stop-Controlled
Existing
Stanley Hotel
PROJECT SITE
Stanley Hotel
Estes Park
Golf Course
Carriage House
Restaurant
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
T r a n s p o r o puGrnoiatt
FOX TUTTLE
VICINITY MAP AND EXISITNG ACCESS
STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO
20028 NTS 7/8/20 CRS 1
Big T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
(
U
S
3
4
)
St
e
a
m
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Steam
e
r
Pkwy
Wo
n
d
e
r
v
i
e
w
Av
e
St. Vrain Ave
Data on Peak
Weekend.
Informational
Purposes Only.
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
T r a n s p o r o puGrnoiatt
FOX TUTTLE
YEAR 2019 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO
20028 NTS 7/8/20 CRS 2
Big T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
(
U
S
3
4
)
St
e
a
m
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Steam
e
r
Pkwy
Wo
n
d
e
r
v
i
e
w
Av
e
St. Vrain Ave
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
T r a n s p o r o puGrnoiatt
FOX TUTTLE
YEAR 2024 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO
20028 NTS 7/8/20 CRS 3
Big T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
(
U
S
3
4
)
St
e
a
m
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Steam
e
r
Pkwy
Wo
n
d
e
r
v
i
e
w
Av
e
St. Vrain Ave
20%
To/From West
Wonderview Ave
40%
To/From South
Wonderview Ave
35%
To/From East
Big Thompson
Ave
5%
To/From West
Big Thompson
Ave via Steamer
Drive
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
T r a n s p o r o puGrnoiatt
FOX TUTTLE
TRIP DISTRIBUTION & SITE-GENERATED TRIP VOLUMES
STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO
20028 NTS 7/8/20 CRS 4
Big T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
(
U
S
3
4
)
St
e
a
m
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Steam
e
r
Pkwy
Wo
n
d
e
r
v
i
e
w
Av
e
St. Vrain Ave
Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure #
T r a n s p o r o puGrnoiatt
FOX TUTTLE
YEAR 2024 BACKGROUND + SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO
20028 NTS 7/8/20 CRS 5
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated September 1, 2020
Appendix:
Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form
Level of Service Definitions
Existing Traffic Data
Signal Design and Timing
Intersection Capacity Worksheets
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated September 1, 2020
Transportation Impact Study
Base Assumptions Form
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated September 1, 2020
Level of Service
Definitions
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
In rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traffic
volumes, “Levels of Service” (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good
operation and LOS F indicating poor operation. Levels of service at signalized and
unsignalized intersections are closely associated with vehicle delays experienced in
seconds per vehicle. More complete level of service definitions and delay data for signal
and stop sign controlled intersections are contained in the following table for reference.
Level
of Service
Rating
Delay in seconds per vehicle (a) Definition
Signalized Unsignalized
A
0.0 to 10.0
0.0 to 10.0
Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations. Density is
low and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers
are able to maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay.
B
10.1 to 20.0
10.1 to 15.0
Stable vehicular traffic volume flow with potential for some restriction
of operating speeds due to traffic conditions. Vehicle maneuvering is
only slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and
drivers are not subject to appreciable tension.
C
20.1 to 35.0
15.1 to 25.0
Stable traffic operations, however the ability for vehicles to maneuver is
more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory
operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer
vehicle queues cause delays along the corridor.
D
35.1 to 55.0
25.1 to 35.0
Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in
volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in
ability to maneuver and selection of travel speeds due to congestion.
Driver comfort and convenience are low, but tolerable.
E
55.1 to 80.0
35.1 to 50.0
Traffic operations characterized by significant approach delays and
average travel speeds of one-half to one-third the free flow speed.
Vehicular flow is unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief
duration. High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridor
signal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at
signalized corridors.
F
> 80.0
> 50.0
Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays
at critical intersections. Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially, and
stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of
downstream congestion.
(a) Delay ranges based on Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition, 2016) criteria.
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated September 1, 2020
Existing Traffic Data
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated September 1, 2020
Signal Design
and Timing
6
61
6
3
3
3
3
6
[
[
[
[
61
6
.#06<#551%+#6'5..%
9GUVPF%KTENG
#TXCFC%1
Ä
Ä
HCZ
HTGFNCPV\"EQOECUVPGV
%$
6
(
0
$
3
3
5
2
9
,
'
(
'
%
<
3+
$
6
,
1
*
6
(
4
8
(
1
&
(
75
$
)
)
,
&
6
,
*
1
$
/
/
(
*
(
1
'
6,
*
1
$
/
+
(
$
'
/
(
'
:
,
7
+
%
$
&
.
3
/
$
7
(
38
/
/
%
2
;
6
,
=
(
6,
*
1
$
/
+
(
$
'
/
(
'
&2
1
7
5
2
/
/
(
5
3(
'
(
6
7
5
,
$
1
3
8
6
+
%
8
7
7
2
1
9,
'
(
2
'
(
7
(
&
7
2
5
75
$
)
)
,
&
6
,
*
1
$
/
3
2
/
(
0
$
6
7
$
5
0
67
5
(
(
7
/
,
*
+
7
)<$
)<$
3(
'
(
6
7
5
,
$
1
+
(
$
'
5
&$
/
/
8
7
,
/
,
7
<
1
2
7
,
)
,
&
$
7
,
2
1
&
(
1
7
(
5
2
)
&2
/
2
5
$
'
2
&$
/
/
%
8
6
,
1
(
6
6
'
$
<
6
,
1
$
'
9
$
1
&
(
%
(
)
2
5
(
<2
8
'
,
*
*
5
$
'
(
2
5
(
;
&
$
9
$
7
(
)
2
5
7
+
(
0$
5
.
,
1
*
2
)
8
1
'
(
5
*
5
2
8
1
'
0
(
0
%
(
5
87
,
/
,
7
,
(
6
6,
*
1
$
/
+
(
$
'
6
3
3
;
6
5
/
;
54
2
?
6,
*
1
6
6,
*
1
67
5
(
(
7
1
$
0
(
6
,
*
1
6
6W
H
D
P
H
U
'
U
%L
J
7
K
R
P
S
V
R
Q
$
Y
H
(6
7
(
6
3
$
5
.
+
$
6
$
1
(
:
6
7
5
(
(
7
1
$
0
(
67
$
1
'
$
5
'
&
2
1
7
$
&
7
7
2
:
1
)
2
5
35
2
3
(
5
/
$
<
2
8
7
$
1
'
$
3
3
5
2
9
$
/
6W
H
D
P
H
U
'
U
21
(
6
,
*
1
21
(
6
,
*
1
7:
2
6
,
*
1
6
LANTZ ASSOCIATES, LLC
13335 W 72nd Cir
Arvada, Co 80005
303-887-3714
303-423-4949 fax
FredLantz@comcast.net
August 13, 2020
David Hook
Engineering Manager
Town of Estes Park
RE: Progression Analysis Big Thompson Ave
Dear David,
You requested a progression analysis along Big Thompson Ave as part of the Steamer Dr and Big
Thompson Ave traffic signal project. Big Thompson Ave/Elkhorn Ave have traffic signals at US 34
& US 36 (Big Thompson Ave & St Vrain/Wonderview); Elkhorn & the Pedestrian Crossing west of
US 34/36; Elkhorn & Riverside; and Elkhorn & Moraine. These traffic signals are in a progressive
system managed by a CDOT master controller. The system is a time-based system allowing each
intersection to maintain traffic signal timing in coordination with the others based upon accurate
local clocks. The clocks at the intersections are reset by the master controller at CDOT to maintain
the accuracy of the clocks.
The new intersection of Steamer Dr and Big Thompson Ave is at the eastern end and needs to be
added to the progressive system. The progressive timings at the intersections of 34/36, the midblock
pedestrian crossing, Riverside, and Moraine should remain the same and the intersection of Steamer
Dr and Big Thompson Ave will be added by progressing it with the 34/36 intersection. This will
enable all of the intersections along Big Thompson Ave/Elkhorn Ave to operate as a progressive
system.
The system presently operates with 5 separate time of day programs. In the controllers these are
timing plan 4, timing plan 5, timing plan 6, timing plan 7 and timing plan 20. Plans 4-7 run a 116
sec cycle length. Plan 20 allows the traffic signals to run free at nighttime, resting in green on Big
Thompson/Elkhorn and changing to the side street and left turns based upon demand from the
detectors. The plans operate at the following times:
• Plan 4 – 7 am to 3 pm, Mon-Thur
• Plan 5 – 3 pm to 8 pm, Mon-Thur
• Plan 6 – 7 am to 4 pm, Fri-Sun
• Plan 7 – 4 pm to 8 pm, Fri-Sun
• Plan 20 (Free) – 8 pm to 7 am Sun-Sat
In order to add Steamer Dr to the system, we need to calculate an offset from the adjacent
intersection of US 34/36. The attached document shows the time-space diagram for each timing
Page 2
August 13, 2020
Progression Analysis
Big Thompson Ave at Steamer Dr
LANTZ ASSOCIATES
plan for Steamer Dr as it relates to US 34/36. The existing times are shown at US 34/36 along with
the existing offset for the timing plans. The Steamer Dr timing is estimated based upon projected
traffic at the intersection when the traffic signal is put into operation. Pedestrian crossing times are
not considered at Steamer Dr because a pedestrian wanting to cross Big Thompson Ave will have to
push the pedestrian pushbutton and the green time on Steamer Dr will be extended to accommodate
the walk/don’t walk time. The green time on Big Thompson Ave is long enough to accommodate
the pedestrian walk/don’t walk time.
The green time for the phases at Steamer Dr based upon the 116 sec cycle is as follows (green +
yellow + red):
• SB 26 seconds
• NB 14 seconds
• EBLT 14 seconds
• EB 76 seconds
• WB 62 seconds
The progression analysis indicates that the Offset for Steamer Dr will be as follows for each timing
plan.
• Plan 4 – 84 seconds
• Plan 5 – 32 seconds
• Plan 6 – 9 seconds
• Plan 7 – 52 seconds
As with any traffic signal, the timing should be field checked once the traffic signal is operating and
fine tuned as necessary.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Fred Lantz, PE
Attachment
St
V
r
a
i
n
/
W
o
n
d
e
r
v
i
e
w
St
e
a
m
e
r
D
r
11
6
s
e
c
→
Ea
s
t
Bi
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
-
T
i
m
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
4
19
s
e
c
31
s
e
c
19
s
e
c
31
s
e
c
19
s
e
c
35
m
p
h
→
31
s
e
c
11
4
s
e
c
19
s
e
c
25
s
→
31
s
e
c
76
s
e
c
35
m
p
h
←
84
s
e
c
76
s
e
c
56
s
←
14
s
e
c
62
s
e
c
14
s
e
c
62
s
e
c
Big Thompson Ave
Time-Space
197.04 feet/inch 39.91 seconds/inch
116
seconds
Type of Diagram:
Scale:
Cycle Length:
Timing Plan:Timing Plan 4
St Vrain/Wonderview
Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds)
Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6)
114 seconds
Lead Lead Split-Lag+Permitted Split-Lead+Permitted
None None
No No No No
31( 2)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
31( 6)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
34( 4)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
32( 8)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour
109 feet from the left margin
Cycle length:
Offset reference point:
Offset:
Phase:
Exclusive Ped Phase:
on Red:
Through Split:
Split:
Pedestrian Split:
Design Speed:
( 5)19
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 1)19
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 4)34
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
( 8)32
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
Left-Turn
Left-Turn
Right-Turn
East West North South
Steamer Dr
Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds)
Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6)
84 seconds
Lead None Split-Lag Split-Lead
None None
No No No No
76( 2)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
62( 6)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
14( 4)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
26( 8)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour
1555 feet from St Vrain/Wonderview
Cycle length:
Offset reference point:
Offset:
Phase:
Exclusive Ped Phase:
on Red:
Through Split:
Split:
Pedestrian Split:
Design Speed:
( 5)14
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 4)14
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
( 8)26
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
Left-Turn
Left-Turn
Right-Turn
East West North South
Z:\Fredlantz On My Mac\Lantz\Steamer Dr And Us 34\Big Thompson Ave Timing.Dgm Thursday, August 13, 2020, 11:53:59 AM 1 of 1
St
V
r
a
i
n
/
W
o
n
d
e
r
v
i
e
w
St
e
a
m
e
r
D
r
11
6
s
e
c
→
Ea
s
t
Bi
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
-
T
i
m
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
5
19
s
e
c
30
s
e
c
19
s
e
c
30
s
e
c
17
s
e
c
32
s
e
c
35
m
p
h
→
63
s
e
c
17
s
e
c
32
s
e
c
24
s
→
35
m
p
h
←
32
s
e
c
76
s
e
c
56
s
←
76
s
e
c
14
s
e
c
62
s
e
c
14
s
e
c
Big Thompson Ave
Time-Space
197.04 feet/inch 39.91 seconds/inch
116
seconds
Type of Diagram:
Scale:
Cycle Length:
Timing Plan:Timing Plan 5
St Vrain/Wonderview
Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds)
Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6)
63 seconds
Lead Lead Split-Lag+Permitted Split-Lead+Permitted
None None
No No No No
30( 2)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
32( 6)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
31( 4)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
36( 8)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour
109 feet from the left margin
Cycle length:
Offset reference point:
Offset:
Phase:
Exclusive Ped Phase:
on Red:
Through Split:
Split:
Pedestrian Split:
Design Speed:
( 5)17
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 1)19
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 4)31
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
( 8)36
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
Left-Turn
Left-Turn
Right-Turn
East West North South
Steamer Dr
Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds)
Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6)
32 seconds
Lead None Split-Lag Split-Lead
None None
No No No No
76( 2)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
62( 6)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
14( 4)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
26( 8)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour
1555 feet from St Vrain/Wonderview
Cycle length:
Offset reference point:
Offset:
Phase:
Exclusive Ped Phase:
on Red:
Through Split:
Split:
Pedestrian Split:
Design Speed:
( 5)14
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 4)14
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
( 8)26
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
Left-Turn
Left-Turn
Right-Turn
East West North South
Z:\Fredlantz On My Mac\Lantz\Steamer Dr And Us 34\Big Thompson Ave Timing.Dgm Thursday, August 13, 2020, 12:00:37 PM 1 of 1
St
V
r
a
i
n
/
W
o
n
d
e
r
v
i
e
w
St
e
a
m
e
r
D
r
11
6
s
e
c
→
Ea
s
t
Bi
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
-
T
i
m
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
6
30
s
e
c
24
s
e
c
30
s
e
c
38
s
e
c
35
m
p
h
→
43
s
e
c
16
s
e
c
38
s
e
c
24
s
→
9
s
e
c
76
s
e
c
35
m
p
h
←76
s
e
c
56
s
←
14
s
e
c
62
s
e
c
14
s
e
c
62
s
e
c
Big Thompson Ave
Time-Space
197.04 feet/inch 39.91 seconds/inch
116
seconds
Type of Diagram:
Scale:
Cycle Length:
Timing Plan:Timing Plan 6
St Vrain/Wonderview
Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds)
Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6)
43 seconds
Lead Lead Split-Lag+Permitted Split-Lead+Permitted
None None
No No No No
30( 2)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
38( 6)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
36( 4)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
26( 8)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour
109 feet from the left margin
Cycle length:
Offset reference point:
Offset:
Phase:
Exclusive Ped Phase:
on Red:
Through Split:
Split:
Pedestrian Split:
Design Speed:
( 5)16
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 1)24
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 4)36
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
( 8)26
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
Left-Turn
Left-Turn
Right-Turn
East West North South
Steamer Dr
Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds)
Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6)
9 seconds
Lead None Split-Lag Split-Lead
None None
No No No No
76( 2)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
62( 6)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
14( 4)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
26( 8)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour
1555 feet from St Vrain/Wonderview
Cycle length:
Offset reference point:
Offset:
Phase:
Exclusive Ped Phase:
on Red:
Through Split:
Split:
Pedestrian Split:
Design Speed:
( 5)14
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 4)14
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
( 8)26
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
Left-Turn
Left-Turn
Right-Turn
East West North South
Z:\Fredlantz On My Mac\Lantz\Steamer Dr And Us 34\Big Thompson Ave Timing.Dgm Thursday, August 13, 2020, 12:09:43 PM 1 of 1
St
V
r
a
i
n
/
W
o
n
d
e
r
v
i
e
w
St
e
a
m
e
r
D
r
11
6
s
e
c
→
Ea
s
t
Bi
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
-
T
i
m
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
7
24
s
e
c
38
s
e
c
24
s
e
c
38
s
e
c
16
s
e
c
46
s
e
c
35
m
p
h
→
91
s
e
c
16
s
e
c
46
s
e
c
32
s
→
35
m
p
h
←
52
s
e
c
76
s
e
c
56
s
←
14
s
e
c
62
s
e
c
14
s
e
c
Big Thompson Ave
Time-Space
197.04 feet/inch 39.91 seconds/inch
116
seconds
Type of Diagram:
Scale:
Cycle Length:
Timing Plan:Timing Plan 7
St Vrain/Wonderview
Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds)
Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6)
91 seconds
Lead Lead Split-Lag+Permitted Split-Lead+Permitted
None None
No No No No
38( 2)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
46( 6)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
28( 4)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
26( 8)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour
109 feet from the left margin
Cycle length:
Offset reference point:
Offset:
Phase:
Exclusive Ped Phase:
on Red:
Through Split:
Split:
Pedestrian Split:
Design Speed:
( 5)16
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 1)24
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 4)28
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
( 8)26
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
Left-Turn
Left-Turn
Right-Turn
East West North South
Steamer Dr
Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds)
Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6)
52 seconds
Lead None Split-Lag Split-Lead
None None
No No No No
76( 2)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
62( 6)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
14( 4)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
26( 8)
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour
1555 feet from St Vrain/Wonderview
Cycle length:
Offset reference point:
Offset:
Phase:
Exclusive Ped Phase:
on Red:
Through Split:
Split:
Pedestrian Split:
Design Speed:
( 5)14
Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0
( 4)14
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
( 8)26
Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
Left-Turn
Left-Turn
Right-Turn
East West North South
Z:\Fredlantz On My Mac\Lantz\Steamer Dr And Us 34\Big Thompson Ave Timing.Dgm Thursday, August 13, 2020, 12:17:39 PM 1 of 1
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated September 1, 2020
Intersection Capacity Worksheets:
Existing
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 15 50 17 31 24
Future Vol, veh/h 11 15 50 17 31 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 17 56 19 34 27
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 29 0 152 21
Stage 1 - - - - 21 -
Stage 2 - - - - 131 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1584 - 840 1056
Stage 1 - - - - 1002 -
Stage 2 - - - - 895 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1584 - 810 1056
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 810 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1002 -
Stage 2 - - - - 863 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 5.5 9.1
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 810 1056 - - 1584 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.025 - - 0.035 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 8.5 - - 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 8 3 59 8 3
Future Vol, veh/h 27 8 3 59 8 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 30 9 3 66 9 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 39 0 107 35
Stage 1 - - - - 35 -
Stage 2 - - - - 72 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1571 - 891 1038
Stage 1 - - - - 987 -
Stage 2 - - - - 951 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1571 - 889 1038
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 889 -
Stage 1 - - - - 987 -
Stage 2 - - - - 949 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 8.9
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 925 - - 1571 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 10 34 8 3 28
Future Vol, veh/h 20 10 34 8 3 28
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 22 11 38 9 3 31
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 47 0 - 0 98 43
Stage 1 - - - - 43 -
Stage 2 - - - - 55 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1560 - - - 901 1027
Stage 1 - - - - 979 -
Stage 2 - - - - 968 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1560 - - - 888 1027
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 888 -
Stage 1 - - - - 965 -
Stage 2 - - - - 968 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 4.9 0 8.7
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1560 - - - 1012
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - - 0.034
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 - - 8.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 20 27 25 35 8
Future Vol, veh/h 2 20 27 25 35 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 22 30 28 39 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 132 44 48 0 - 0
Stage 1 44 - - - - -
Stage 2 88 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 862 1026 1559 - - -
Stage 1 978 - - - - -
Stage 2 935 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 845 1026 1559 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 845 - - - - -
Stage 1 958 - - - - -
Stage 2 935 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 3.8 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1559 - 1006 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - 0.024 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 8.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - -
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88
Future Vol, veh/h 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - Free
Storage Length 150 - - 150 - 220 - - - 135 - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 68 344 6 2 604 100 3 0 1 68 0 98
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 704 0 0 350 0 0 789 1191 347 1092 - -
Stage 1 -- - - - - 483 483 - 608 - -
Stage 2 -- - - - - 306 708 - 484 - -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -- - - - -6.13 5.53 - 6.53 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -- - - - -6.53 5.53 - 6.13 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 892 - - 1207 - - 294 187 695 180 0 0
Stage 1 -- - - - - 564 552 - 450 0 0
Stage 2 -- - - - - 679 437 - 563 0 0
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 892 - - 1207 - - 277 172 695 169 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -- - - - - 277 172 - 169 - -
Stage 1 -- - - - - 521 510 - 416 - -
Stage 2 -- - - - - 678 436 - 519 - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.5 0 16.2 39.9
HCM LOS C E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 326 892 - - 1207 - - 169 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 0.076 - - 0.002 - - 0.401 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 16.2 9.4 - - 8 - - 39.9 0
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - E A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.2 - - 0 - - 1.8 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 232 315 40 45 20
Future Vol, veh/h 15 232 315 40 45 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 17 258 350 44 50 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 394 0 - 0 642 350
Stage 1 - - - - 350 -
Stage 2 - - - - 292 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1165 - - - 438 693
Stage 1 - - - - 713 -
Stage 2 - - - - 758 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1165 - - - 431 693
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 431 -
Stage 1 - - - - 702 -
Stage 2 - - - - 758 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 13.2
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1165 - - - 431 693
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - - 0.116 0.032
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 - - - 14.4 10.4
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 0.1
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 48 84 15 24 99
Future Vol, veh/h 13 48 84 15 24 99
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 53 93 17 27 110
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 67 0 244 41
Stage 1 - - - - 41 -
Stage 2 - - - - 203 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1535 - 744 1030
Stage 1 - - - - 981 -
Stage 2 - - - - 831 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1535 - 699 1030
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 699 -
Stage 1 - - - - 981 -
Stage 2 - - - - 780 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.4 9.2
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 699 1030 - - 1535 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 0.107 - - 0.061 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 8.9 - - 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.4 - - 0.2 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 105 7 7 85 14 1
Future Vol, veh/h 105 7 7 85 14 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 117 8 8 94 16 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 125 0 231 121
Stage 1 - - - - 121 -
Stage 2 - - - - 110 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1462 - 757 930
Stage 1 - - - - 904 -
Stage 2 - - - - 915 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1462 - 752 930
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 752 -
Stage 1 - - - - 904 -
Stage 2 - - - - 910 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 9.8
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 762 - - 1462 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 - - 0.005 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - - 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 68 38 34 17 14 58
Future Vol, veh/h 68 38 34 17 14 58
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 76 42 38 19 16 64
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 57 0 - 0 242 48
Stage 1 - - - - 48 -
Stage 2 - - - - 194 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1547 - - - 746 1021
Stage 1 - - - - 974 -
Stage 2 - - - - 839 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1547 - - - 709 1021
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 709 -
Stage 1 - - - - 925 -
Stage 2 - - - - 839 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 4.8 0 9.2
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1547 - - - 941
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 - - - 0.085
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.2
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.3
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 37 50 47 35 3
Future Vol, veh/h 9 37 50 47 35 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 10 41 56 52 39 3
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 205 41 42 0 - 0
Stage 1 41 - - - - -
Stage 2 164 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 783 1030 1567 - - -
Stage 1 981 - - - - -
Stage 2 865 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 754 1030 1567 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 754 - - - - -
Stage 1 945 - - - - -
Stage 2 865 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9 3.8 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1567 - 961 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.035 - 0.053 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 - -
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192
Future Vol, veh/h 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - Free
Storage Length 150 - - 150 - 220 - - - 135 - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 102 634 3 1 482 122 1 0 2 128 2 213
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 604 0 0 637 0 0 1084 1446 636 1325 1325 -
Stage 1 -- - - - - 840 840 - 484 484 -
Stage 2 -- - - - - 244 606 - 841 841 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -- - - - -6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -- - - - -6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 972 - - 945 - - 183 131 477 ~ 123 155 0
Stage 1 -- - - - - 359 380 - 534 551 0
Stage 2 -- - - - - 739 486 - 358 379 0
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 972 - - 945 - - 166 117 477 ~ 113 139 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -- - - - - 166 117 - ~ 113 139 -
Stage 1 -- - - - - 321 340 - 478 550 -
Stage 2 -- - - - - 735 486 - 319 339 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 0 17.4 197
HCM LOS C F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 294 972 - - 945 - - 113 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.105 - - 0.001 - - 1.131 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 17.4 9.1 - - 8.8 - - 197 0
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - F A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.4 - - 0 - - 7.9 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 45 405 332 78 106 26
Future Vol, veh/h 45 405 332 78 106 26
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 50 450 369 87 118 29
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 456 0 - 0 919 369
Stage 1 - - - - 369 -
Stage 2 - - - - 550 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1105 - - - 301 677
Stage 1 - - - - 699 -
Stage 2 - - - - 578 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1105 - - - 287 677
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 287 -
Stage 1 - - - - 668 -
Stage 2 - - - - 578 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0 23
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1105 - - - 287 677
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 - - - 0.41 0.043
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - - - 26 10.6
HCM Lane LOS A - - - D B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1.9 0.1
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated September 1, 2020
Intersection Capacity Worksheets:
Existing
with Signal
Timings 2019 Existing - with Signal - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
61 310 2 544 90 0 0 88
61 310 2 544 90 0 0 88
pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm
5 2 6 8 4
2 6 6 4
5 2 6 6 6 8 4 4
8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0
14.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0 30.0
14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0 26.0
12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4% 22.4%
3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lead Lag Lag Lag
Yes Yes Yes Yes
None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min Min
91.7 90.7 80.3 80.3 80.3 5.5 11.0 11.0
0.79 0.78 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.05 0.09 0.09
0.11 0.24 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.02 0.41 0.36
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
Minimum Split (s)
Total Split (s)
Total Split (%)
Yellow Time (s)
All-Red Time (s)
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 116
Actuated Cycle Length: 116
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.41
Intersection Signal Delay: 8.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Queues 2019 Existing - with Signal - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 350 2 604 100 4 68 98
v/c Ratio 0.11 0.24 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.02 0.41 0.36
Control Delay 1.8 2.3 9.0 8.1 1.0 0.2 56.7 7.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 1.8 2.3 9.0 8.1 1.0 0.2 56.7 7.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 16 0 77 0 0 49 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) m9 38 4 153 13 0 94 26
Internal Link Dist (ft) 859 801 142 412
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100
Base Capacity (vph) 643 1452 710 2449 1136 242 305 382
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.24 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.02 0.22 0.26
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 Existing - with Signal - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88
Future Volume (veh/h) 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 344 6 2 604 0 3 0 1 68 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 642 1381 24 731 2307 7 0 2 154 0
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1833 32 1031 3554 1585 1296 0 432 1781 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 68 0 350 2 604 0 4 0 0 68 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1865 1031 1777 1585 1728 0 0 1781 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 6.6 0.1 8.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.0 6.6 0.1 8.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 642 0 1405 731 2307 9 0 0 154 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.26 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 671 0 1405 731 2307 119 0 0 307 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.0 0.0 4.3 7.2 8.6 0.0 57.5 0.0 0.0 50.4 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 30.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.1 0.0 4.8 7.2 8.9 0.0 88.3 0.0 0.0 52.4 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A A A F A A D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 418 606 A 4 68 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.8 8.9 88.3 52.4
Approach LOS A A F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 93.4 16.0 12.1 81.3 6.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 9.0 56.0 8.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 6.2 3.3 10.3 2.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 0.2 0.1 4.5 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Timings 2019 Existing - With Signal - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)92 571 1 434 110 0 2 192
Future Volume (vph)92 571 1 434 110 0 2 192
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Free
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Free
Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 6 8 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)13.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0
Total Split (s)14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0
Total Split (%)12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4%
Yellow Time (s)3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s)88.6 87.6 74.2 74.2 74.2 5.5 14.1 116.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.76 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.05 0.12 1.00
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.45 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.01 0.60 0.13
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 116
Actuated Cycle Length: 116
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.60
Intersection Signal Delay: 10.9 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Queues 2019 Existing - With Signal - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 637 1 482 122 3 130 213
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.45 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.01 0.60 0.13
Control Delay 5.1 7.7 12.0 10.2 2.2 0.0 59.7 0.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 5.1 7.7 12.0 10.2 2.2 0.0 59.7 0.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 133 0 66 0 0 94 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 340 3 140 26 0 151 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 859 801 142 412
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100
Base Capacity (vph) 693 1406 504 2265 1060 237 306 1583
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.45 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.01 0.42 0.13
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 Existing - With Signal - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192
Future Volume (veh/h) 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 634 3 1 482 0 1 0 2 128 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 712 1392 7 551 2271 2 0 4 162 3
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.75 0.75 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1860 9 791 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1755 27 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 0 637 1 482 0 3 0 0 130 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1869 791 1777 1585 1645 0 0 1783 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 15.1 0.1 6.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 15.1 2.4 6.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.98 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 712 0 1399 551 2271 7 0 0 164 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.21 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 732 0 1399 551 2271 113 0 0 307 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.1 0.0 5.6 8.4 8.7 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 51.6 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 5.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.2 0.0 6.6 8.5 9.0 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 59.8 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A A A F A A E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 739 483 A 3 130 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.4 9.0 100.6 59.8
Approach LOS A A F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 92.8 16.7 12.7 80.1 6.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 9.0 56.0 8.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.1 10.3 4.0 8.6 2.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.9 0.4 0.1 3.5 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated September 1, 2020
Intersection Capacity Worksheets:
Year 2024 Background
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 17 55 19 34 27
Future Vol, veh/h 12 17 55 19 34 27
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 19 61 21 38 30
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 32 0 166 23
Stage 1 - - - - 23 -
Stage 2 - - - - 143 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1580 - 824 1054
Stage 1 - - - - 1000 -
Stage 2 - - - - 884 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1580 - 792 1054
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 792 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1000 -
Stage 2 - - - - 850 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 5.5 9.2
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 792 1054 - - 1580 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 0.028 - - 0.039 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 8.5 - - 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 9 3 65 9 3
Future Vol, veh/h 30 9 3 65 9 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 33 10 3 72 10 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 43 0 116 38
Stage 1 - - - - 38 -
Stage 2 - - - - 78 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 880 1034
Stage 1 - - - - 984 -
Stage 2 - - - - 945 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 878 1034
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 878 -
Stage 1 - - - - 984 -
Stage 2 - - - - 943 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 9
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 912 - - 1566 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 11 37 9 3 31
Future Vol, veh/h 22 11 37 9 3 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 24 12 41 10 3 34
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 51 0 - 0 106 46
Stage 1 - - - - 46 -
Stage 2 - - - - 60 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1555 - - - 892 1023
Stage 1 - - - - 976 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1555 - - - 878 1023
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 878 -
Stage 1 - - - - 960 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 4.9 0 8.7
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1555 - - - 1008
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - - 0.037
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 8.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 22 30 28 39 9
Future Vol, veh/h 2 22 30 28 39 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 24 33 31 43 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 145 48 53 0 - 0
Stage 1 48 - - - - -
Stage 2 97 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 847 1021 1553 - - -
Stage 1 974 - - - - -
Stage 2 927 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 828 1021 1553 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 828 - - - - -
Stage 1 953 - - - - -
Stage 2 927 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 3.8 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1553 - 1002 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - 0.027 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 8.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - -
Timings 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
67 342 2 601 99 0 0 97
67 342 2 601 99 0 0 97
pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Free
5 2 6 8 4
2 6 6 Free
5 2 6 6 6 8 4
8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
14.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0
14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0
12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4%
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lead Lag Lag Lag
Yes Yes Yes Yes
None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min
90.5 90.5 79.2 79.2 79.2 5.5 11.2 116.0
0.78 0.78 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.05 0.10 1.00
0.13 0.27 0.00 0.28 0.10 0.02 0.43 0.07
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
Minimum Split (s)
Total Split (s)
Total Split (%)
Yellow Time (s)
All-Red Time (s)
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 116
Actuated Cycle Length: 116
Offset: 84 (72%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.43
Intersection Signal Delay: 8.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Queues 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 387 2 668 110 4 74 108
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.27 0.00 0.28 0.10 0.02 0.43 0.07
Control Delay 3.0 3.1 9.5 8.9 1.1 0.2 57.1 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.0 3.1 9.5 8.9 1.1 0.2 57.1 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 28 0 91 0 0 54 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) m25 m120 5 178 15 0 100 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 859 801 142 412
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100
Base Capacity (vph) 582 1448 677 2414 1125 250 305 1583
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.27 0.00 0.28 0.10 0.02 0.24 0.07
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 67 342 6 2 601 99 3 0 1 67 0 97
Future Volume (veh/h) 67 342 6 2 601 99 3 0 1 67 0 97
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 380 7 2 668 0 3 0 1 74 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 601 1379 25 699 2271 7 0 2 154 0
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.75 0.75 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1831 34 997 3554 1585 1296 0 432 1781 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 0 387 2 668 0 4 0 0 74 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1864 997 1777 1585 1728 0 0 1781 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 0.0 7.5 0.1 9.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 7.5 0.1 9.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 601 0 1405 699 2271 9 0 0 154 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.29 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 612 0 1405 699 2271 119 0 0 307 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.4 0.0 4.5 7.6 9.3 0.0 57.5 0.0 0.0 50.5 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 30.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.5 0.0 4.9 7.6 9.6 0.0 88.3 0.0 0.0 52.9 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A A A F A A D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 461 670 A 4 74 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.0 9.6 88.3 52.9
Approach LOS A A F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 93.4 16.0 13.3 80.1 6.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 8.0 56.0 8.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 6.6 3.4 11.7 2.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.5 0.2 0.0 5.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 256 348 44 50 22
Future Vol, veh/h 17 256 348 44 50 22
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 19 284 387 49 56 24
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 436 0 - 0 709 387
Stage 1 - - - - 387 -
Stage 2 - - - - 322 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1124 - - - 401 661
Stage 1 - - - - 686 -
Stage 2 - - - - 735 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1124 - - - 394 661
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 394 -
Stage 1 - - - - 674 -
Stage 2 - - - - 735 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 14.1
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1124 - - - 394 661
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - - 0.141 0.037
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - - - 15.6 10.7
HCM Lane LOS A - - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.5 0.1
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 53 93 17 26 110
Future Vol, veh/h 14 53 93 17 26 110
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 59 103 19 29 122
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 75 0 271 46
Stage 1 - - - - 46 -
Stage 2 - - - - 225 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 718 1023
Stage 1 - - - - 976 -
Stage 2 - - - - 812 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 669 1023
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 669 -
Stage 1 - - - - 976 -
Stage 2 - - - - 757 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.4 9.3
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 669 1023 - - 1524 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.119 - - 0.068 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 9 - - 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.4 - - 0.2 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 116 8 8 94 16 1
Future Vol, veh/h 116 8 8 94 16 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 129 9 9 104 18 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 138 0 256 134
Stage 1 - - - - 134 -
Stage 2 - - - - 122 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1446 - 733 915
Stage 1 - - - - 892 -
Stage 2 - - - - 903 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1446 - 728 915
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 728 -
Stage 1 - - - - 892 -
Stage 2 - - - - 897 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 10
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 737 - - 1446 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - 0.006 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10 - - 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 75 42 38 19 15 64
Future Vol, veh/h 75 42 38 19 15 64
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 83 47 42 21 17 71
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 63 0 - 0 266 53
Stage 1 - - - - 53 -
Stage 2 - - - - 213 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1540 - - - 723 1014
Stage 1 - - - - 970 -
Stage 2 - - - - 823 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1540 - - - 683 1014
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 683 -
Stage 1 - - - - 917 -
Stage 2 - - - - 823 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 4.8 0 9.3
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1540 - - - 929
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - - - 0.094
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - - 9.3
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.3
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 41 55 52 39 3
Future Vol, veh/h 10 41 55 52 39 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 46 61 58 43 3
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 225 45 46 0 - 0
Stage 1 45 - - - - -
Stage 2 180 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 763 1025 1562 - - -
Stage 1 977 - - - - -
Stage 2 851 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 732 1025 1562 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 732 - - - - -
Stage 1 938 - - - - -
Stage 2 851 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9 3.8 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1562 - 950 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 - 0.06 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 - -
Timings 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
102 630 1 479 121 0 2 212
102 630 1 479 121 0 2 212
pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Free
5 2 6 8 4
2 6 6 Free
5 2 6 6 6 8 4
8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
14.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0
14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0
12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4%
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lead Lag Lag Lag
Yes Yes Yes Yes
None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min
86.9 86.9 72.4 72.4 72.4 5.5 14.8 116.0
0.75 0.75 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.05 0.13 1.00
0.18 0.50 0.00 0.24 0.13 0.01 0.63 0.15
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
Minimum Split (s)
Total Split (s)
Total Split (%)
Yellow Time (s)
All-Red Time (s)
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 116
Actuated Cycle Length: 116
Offset: 32 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.63
Intersection Signal Delay: 11.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.5%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Queues 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 113 703 1 532 134 3 143 236
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.50 0.00 0.24 0.13 0.01 0.63 0.15
Control Delay 5.8 8.7 13.0 11.3 2.4 0.0 60.2 0.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 5.8 8.7 13.0 11.3 2.4 0.0 60.2 0.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 162 0 79 0 0 103 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 55 409 3 163 30 0 163 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 859 801 142 412
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100
Base Capacity (vph) 632 1394 454 2210 1041 246 306 1583
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.50 0.00 0.24 0.13 0.01 0.47 0.15
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 102 630 3 1 479 121 1 0 2 127 2 212
Future Volume (veh/h) 102 630 3 1 479 121 1 0 2 127 2 212
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 700 3 1 532 0 1 0 2 141 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 666 1379 6 497 2212 2 0 4 175 2
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.74 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1861 8 744 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1758 25 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 113 0 703 1 532 0 3 0 0 143 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1869 744 1777 1585 1645 0 0 1782 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 18.1 0.1 7.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 0.0 18.1 4.4 7.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.99 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 666 0 1385 497 2212 7 0 0 178 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 670 0 1385 497 2212 113 0 0 307 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.8 0.0 6.2 10.0 9.7 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 51.1 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 6.4 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.9 0.0 7.6 10.0 10.0 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 59.4 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A B A F A A E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 816 533 A 3 143 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.3 10.0 100.6 59.4
Approach LOS A A F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 92.0 17.6 13.8 78.2 6.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 8.0 56.0 8.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.1 11.1 4.3 9.7 2.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.7 0.4 0.1 3.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 447 367 86 117 29
Future Vol, veh/h 50 447 367 86 117 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 56 497 408 96 130 32
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 504 0 - 0 1017 408
Stage 1 - - - - 408 -
Stage 2 - - - - 609 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1061 - - - 263 643
Stage 1 - - - - 671 -
Stage 2 - - - - 543 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1061 - - - 249 643
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 249 -
Stage 1 - - - - 635 -
Stage 2 - - - - 543 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.9 0 29.6
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1061 - - - 249 643
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 - - - 0.522 0.05
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - - 34.2 10.9
HCM Lane LOS A - - - D B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 2.8 0.2
The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study
(FT #20028)
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated September 1, 2020
Intersection Capacity Worksheets:
Year 2024 Background+
Project
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 17 55 19 34 27
Future Vol, veh/h 12 17 55 19 34 27
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 19 61 21 38 30
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 32 0 166 23
Stage 1 - - - - 23 -
Stage 2 - - - - 143 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1580 - 824 1054
Stage 1 - - - - 1000 -
Stage 2 - - - - 884 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1580 - 792 1054
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 792 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1000 -
Stage 2 - - - - 850 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 5.5 9.2
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 792 1054 - - 1580 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 0.028 - - 0.039 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 8.5 - - 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 9 3 65 9 3
Future Vol, veh/h 30 9 3 65 9 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 33 10 3 72 10 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 43 0 116 38
Stage 1 - - - - 38 -
Stage 2 - - - - 78 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 880 1034
Stage 1 - - - - 984 -
Stage 2 - - - - 945 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 878 1034
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 878 -
Stage 1 - - - - 984 -
Stage 2 - - - - 943 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 9
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 912 - - 1566 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 11 37 9 3 31
Future Vol, veh/h 22 11 37 9 3 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 24 12 41 10 3 34
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 51 0 - 0 106 46
Stage 1 - - - - 46 -
Stage 2 - - - - 60 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1555 - - - 892 1023
Stage 1 - - - - 976 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1555 - - - 878 1023
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 878 -
Stage 1 - - - - 960 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 4.9 0 8.7
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1555 - - - 1008
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - - 0.037
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 8.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 22 30 28 39 9
Future Vol, veh/h 2 22 30 28 39 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 24 33 31 43 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 145 48 53 0 - 0
Stage 1 48 - - - - -
Stage 2 97 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 847 1021 1553 - - -
Stage 1 974 - - - - -
Stage 2 927 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 828 1021 1553 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 828 - - - - -
Stage 1 953 - - - - -
Stage 2 927 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 3.8 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1553 - 1002 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - 0.027 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 8.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - -
Timings 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
67 342 2 601 99 0 0 97
67 342 2 601 99 0 0 97
pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Free
5 2 6 8 4
2 6 6 Free
5 2 6 6 6 8 4
8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
14.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0
14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0
12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4%
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lead Lag Lag Lag
Yes Yes Yes Yes
None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min
90.5 90.5 79.2 79.2 79.2 5.5 11.2 116.0
0.78 0.78 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.05 0.10 1.00
0.13 0.27 0.00 0.28 0.10 0.02 0.43 0.07
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
Minimum Split (s)
Total Split (s)
Total Split (%)
Yellow Time (s)
All-Red Time (s)
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 116
Actuated Cycle Length: 116
Offset: 84 (72%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.43
Intersection Signal Delay: 8.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Queues 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 387 2 668 110 4 74 108
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.27 0.00 0.28 0.10 0.02 0.43 0.07
Control Delay 3.0 3.1 9.5 8.9 1.1 0.2 57.1 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.0 3.1 9.5 8.9 1.1 0.2 57.1 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 28 0 91 0 0 54 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) m25 m120 5 178 15 0 100 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 859 801 142 412
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100
Base Capacity (vph) 582 1448 677 2414 1125 250 305 1583
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.27 0.00 0.28 0.10 0.02 0.24 0.07
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 67 342 6 2 601 99 3 0 1 67 0 97
Future Volume (veh/h) 67 342 6 2 601 99 3 0 1 67 0 97
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 380 7 2 668 0 3 0 1 74 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 601 1379 25 699 2271 7 0 2 154 0
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.75 0.75 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1831 34 997 3554 1585 1296 0 432 1781 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 0 387 2 668 0 4 0 0 74 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1864 997 1777 1585 1728 0 0 1781 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 0.0 7.5 0.1 9.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 7.5 0.1 9.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 601 0 1405 699 2271 9 0 0 154 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.29 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 612 0 1405 699 2271 119 0 0 307 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.4 0.0 4.5 7.6 9.3 0.0 57.5 0.0 0.0 50.5 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 30.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.5 0.0 4.9 7.6 9.6 0.0 88.3 0.0 0.0 52.9 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A A A F A A D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 461 670 A 4 74 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.0 9.6 88.3 52.9
Approach LOS A A F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 93.4 16.0 13.3 80.1 6.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 8.0 56.0 8.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 6.6 3.4 11.7 2.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.5 0.2 0.0 5.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 256 348 44 50 22
Future Vol, veh/h 17 256 348 44 50 22
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 19 284 387 49 56 24
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 436 0 - 0 709 387
Stage 1 - - - - 387 -
Stage 2 - - - - 322 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1124 - - - 401 661
Stage 1 - - - - 686 -
Stage 2 - - - - 735 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1124 - - - 394 661
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 394 -
Stage 1 - - - - 674 -
Stage 2 - - - - 735 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 14.1
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1124 - - - 394 661
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - - 0.141 0.037
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - - - 15.6 10.7
HCM Lane LOS A - - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.5 0.1
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 53 106 17 26 131
Future Vol, veh/h 14 53 106 17 26 131
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 59 118 19 29 146
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 75 0 301 46
Stage 1 - - - - 46 -
Stage 2 - - - - 255 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 691 1023
Stage 1 - - - - 976 -
Stage 2 - - - - 788 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 637 1023
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 637 -
Stage 1 - - - - 976 -
Stage 2 - - - - 727 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.5 9.4
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 637 1023 - - 1524 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 0.142 - - 0.077 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.9 9.1 - - 7.6 0
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.5 - - 0.3 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 137 8 8 107 16 1
Future Vol, veh/h 137 8 8 107 16 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 152 9 9 119 18 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 161 0 294 157
Stage 1 - - - - 157 -
Stage 2 - - - - 137 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1418 - 697 889
Stage 1 - - - - 871 -
Stage 2 - - - - 890 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1418 - 692 889
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 692 -
Stage 1 - - - - 871 -
Stage 2 - - - - 884 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 10.3
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 701 - - 1418 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - 0.006 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - - 7.6 0
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 96 42 38 33 23 77
Future Vol, veh/h 96 42 38 33 23 77
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 107 47 42 37 26 86
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 79 0 - 0 322 61
Stage 1 - - - - 61 -
Stage 2 - - - - 261 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1519 - - - 672 1004
Stage 1 - - - - 962 -
Stage 2 - - - - 783 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1519 - - - 624 1004
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 624 -
Stage 1 - - - - 893 -
Stage 2 - - - - 783 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 5.3 0 9.7
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1519 - - - 881
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.07 - - - 0.126
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - - 9.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.4
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 49 69 52 39 3
Future Vol, veh/h 10 49 69 52 39 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 54 77 58 43 3
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 257 45 46 0 - 0
Stage 1 45 - - - - -
Stage 2 212 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 732 1025 1562 - - -
Stage 1 977 - - - - -
Stage 2 823 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 695 1025 1562 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 695 - - - - -
Stage 1 927 - - - - -
Stage 2 823 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 4.2 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1562 - 949 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 - 0.069 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.2 - -
Timings 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
103 630 1 479 134 0 2 213
103 630 1 479 134 0 2 213
pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Free
5 2 6 8 4
2 6 6 Free
5 2 6 6 6 8 4
8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
14.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0
14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0
12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4%
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lead Lag Lag Lag
Yes Yes Yes Yes
None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min
86.5 86.5 71.9 71.9 71.9 5.5 15.2 116.0
0.75 0.75 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.05 0.13 1.00
0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.14 0.01 0.65 0.15
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
Minimum Split (s)
Total Split (s)
Total Split (%)
Yellow Time (s)
All-Red Time (s)
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 116
Actuated Cycle Length: 116
Offset: 32 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.9%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Queues 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 703 1 532 149 3 151 237
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.14 0.01 0.65 0.15
Control Delay 6.0 9.0 13.0 11.6 2.7 0.0 60.5 0.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.0 9.0 13.0 11.6 2.7 0.0 60.5 0.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 166 0 80 0 0 109 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 416 4 165 35 0 170 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 859 801 142 412
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100
Base Capacity (vph) 628 1387 451 2200 1040 246 308 1583
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.14 0.01 0.49 0.15
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34)
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 103 630 3 1 479 134 1 0 2 134 2 213
Future Volume (veh/h) 103 630 3 1 479 134 1 0 2 134 2 213
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 114 700 3 1 532 0 1 0 2 149 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 662 1371 6 492 2195 2 0 4 183 2
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.74 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1861 8 744 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1759 24 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 114 0 703 1 532 0 3 0 0 151 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1869 744 1777 1585 1645 0 0 1782 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 18.4 0.1 7.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 18.4 4.7 7.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.99 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 662 0 1377 492 2195 7 0 0 186 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 665 0 1377 492 2195 113 0 0 307 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.0 0.0 6.4 10.3 10.0 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 50.9 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 6.6 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.1 0.0 7.8 10.4 10.2 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 59.2 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A B B F A A E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 817 533 A 3 151 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 10.2 100.6 59.2
Approach LOS A B F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 91.5 18.1 13.8 77.7 6.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 8.0 56.0 8.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.4 11.6 4.4 9.8 2.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.7 0.5 0.1 3.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
09/01/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway
Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 447 367 100 126 33
Future Vol, veh/h 57 447 367 100 126 33
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 63 497 408 111 140 37
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 519 0 - 0 1031 408
Stage 1 - - - - 408 -
Stage 2 - - - - 623 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1047 - - - 258 643
Stage 1 - - - - 671 -
Stage 2 - - - - 535 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1047 - - - 243 643
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 243 -
Stage 1 - - - - 631 -
Stage 2 - - - - 535 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1 0 32.5
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1047 - - - 243 643
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.06 - - - 0.576 0.057
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - - - 38.2 10.9
HCM Lane LOS A - - - E B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 3.3 0.2
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 1 | P a g e 11-11-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT
LOT 1
WATER METERING AND
BACKFLOW PREVENTOR SITE
AND BUILDING MAPPING
Prepared by
MOA ARCHITECTURE
With coordination by the
Town of Estes Park Water Division
and
Estes Park Plumbers
November 11, 2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 2 | P a g e 11-11-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
WATER METERING AND BACKFLOW PREVENTOR
SITE AND BUILDING MAPPING
The map to the left identifies water lines within LOT
1 of the Stanley Historic District, along with water
line sizes and access points by GPS coordinates.
This document identifies locations and information
associated with all water meters and backflow
preventors located within LOT 1 of the Stanley
Historic District. LOT 1 encompasses the majority of
the Stanley Historic District, including the following
buildings:
1. The Concert Hall
2. Street Access to Valves North of the Concert
Hall
3. The Lodge
4. The Stanley Hotel (also serves various other
facilities including Dorm 1, Dorm 2,
Engineering, the Presidents Suite, and the
Caretakers House)
5. The Ice House
6. Landscape island along Steamer Parkway
7. The Carriage House (newly renovated)
Several of the buildings adjacent to LOT 1 are new
or newly renovated. The water meters and
backflow preventors served from these buildings
are currently recorded by the Town of Estes Park
Water Department. Thus, they are included in this
study for information only. They include:
· The Pavilion
· The Aspire
PAVILION
CARRIAGE HOUSE
4
5
3
2
1
DORM 1
DORM 2
ENGINEERING
CARETAKER
PRESIDENT
6
7
THE ASPIRE
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 3 | P a g e 11-11-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
1 - THE CONCERT HALL
The Water meter and backflow preventor are located in the basement of the Concert Hall, in a
Valve Room located on the north side of the basement. The room is accessed through a restroom.
The Valve Room is excavated space with exposed foundation and earth on the floor and north wall.
This is the irrigation supply valve. The Backflow Equipment Assembly is identified in the photo #1
below (labeled symphony hall):
Photos of the assembly for irrigation and the reduced pressure backflow preventor are provided on
photos #2 and #3.
1
Photo 1 – Concert Hall Backflow Equipment Assembly
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 4 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Photo 2 – Concert Hall the assembly for irrigation and the reduced pressure backflow
preventor
Photo 3 – Concert Hall the assembly for irrigation and the reduced pressure backflow
preventor
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 5 | P a g e 11-11-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
Photo #4 below is taken from the north side of the Concert Hall. Several Corp Stops are located
within the street. The one on the left-hand curb (1) is a 4” fire line to the concert hall. (2) is a 6” x
6” wet tap on the 6” main feeding the fire hydrant. There is an 8” main line wet tap isolation valve
(3) in the center of the street. This will remain. (4) this is an abandoned corporation stop and will
be filled with flow fill.
2
1
3
2
Photo #5 to the left shows a 1 ½” Corp Stop
Valve located 6’ to the north of the north wall
of the Concert Hall.
4
Photo 4 – Street utilities just north of the Concert Hall
Photo 5
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 6 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 7 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 8 | P a g e 11-11-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
3 – THE LODGE
Photo #6 below is taken inside the valve room in the basement of the Lodge, accessed from the
east side of the building. Upon entering the basement, the room is to the right. The backflow
assembly is pictured below. A photo of the double check reduced pressure zone assembly is
provided in photo #7.
3
Photo 6
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 9 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Photo 7 – The Lodge double check reduced pressure zone assembly
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 10 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 11 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 12 | P a g e 11-11-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
4 – THE STANLEY HOTEL
Photos #8 and #9 below are taken within the mechanical room of the main Stanley Hotel. The
room is located in the northwest area of the building, behind the kitchen. Below are the main
backflow preventor assembly and fire control valves.
The backflow preventor assembly and fire control valve serve the Main Stanley Hotel as well as the
Engineering Building, Dorm Buildings, Presidents Building and Caretaker Building. These building
locations are identified on page 1.
Photos of the reduced pressure zone assembly and fire control valve assembly are provided in
photos #10 and #11.
4
Photo 8
Photo 9
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 13 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Photo 10 – The Stanley Hotel reduced pressure zone assembly and fire control valve
assembly
Photo 11 – The Stanley Hotel reduced pressure zone assembly and fire control valve
assembly
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 14 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 15 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 16 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 17 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 18 | P a g e 11-11-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
5 – THE ICE HOUSE
Photo #12 below is taken inside the Ice House, on the east wall. The water meter shown in the
assembly below. A permanent plug is being placed in the copper line.
Photo #13 and #14 illustrate the irrigation backflow device. This will be removed and replaced with
a reduced pressure valve. Photo #15 shows the installed water meter inside the Ice House.
5
Photo 12
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 19 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Photo 13 – The Ice House irrigation backflow device
Photo 14 – The Ice House irrigation backflow device
Photo 15 – Installed water meter inside Ice House
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 20 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 21 | P a g e 11-11-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
6 – LANDSCAPE ISLAND ALONG STEAMER PARKWAY
This landscape island received irrigation water via hose from the Aspire building irrigation system.
There is a hose bib directly across Steamer Parkway from the island. The hose bib is located after
the irrigation pressure relief valve, located in the valve room of the Aspire Building.
6
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 22 | P a g e 11-11-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - LOT 1
7 – THE CARRIAGE HOUSE
The Carriage House utility plan is provided on the following pages. The water meter and backflow
preventer system have been permitted and approved as part of the Carriage House renovation
project. The information is provided here for information only.
7
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 23 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 24 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 25 | P a g e 11-11-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT
THE PAVILION
The Pavilion is outside of the Stanley Historic District, LOT 1. The utility distribution plan is
provided on the following page for information only.
PAVILION
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 26 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 27 | P a g e 11-11-2020
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT
THE ASPIRE
The Aspire is outside of the Stanley Historic District, LOT 1. The utility distribution plan is
provided on the following page for information only.
THE ASPIRE
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 28 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Stanley Historic District LOT 1 – Backflow and Meter Location Document 29 | P a g e 11-11-2020
Inter-Office Memorandum
To: Randy Hunt. Community Development Director
From: Steve Rusch. Utilities Coordinator
Date: 11/13/2020
Re: Stanley LOT 1 - Water Meter and Backflow Identification Document
The Water Division of the Utilities Department has worked closely with Jack
Mousseau of MOA Architecture, John Cullen of the Stanley Hotel and Andre
Fereday of Estes Park Plumbers to identify, simplify and correct as needed, all
metering and backflow prevention on incoming water service lines on Lot 1 of the
Stanley Historic District.
This work has been completed and verified as conforming to local and State
regulations.
Mr. Mousseau has accurately completed, signed and stamped thorough
documentation detailing the findings.
Town Utilities staff is of the opinion that this condition can now be approved and
released from requirements of the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
A RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE STANLEY
HISTORIC DISTRICT MASTER PLAN APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE
PRELIMINARY PACKAGE FOR THE CARRIAGE HOUSE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the preliminary package of the project referenced in the title of this
resolution meets the requirements of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan for a
preliminary package, except to the extent that conditions are required as described
below; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary package includes insufficient detail for the Technical
Review Committee (TRC) to determine whether the plans meet the requirements of the
Master Plan and the applicable development agreement with regard to public
improvements, pedestrian connectivity, and water backflow and metering security, for
the purposes of approving a final package.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
The Stanley Carriage House project preliminary package meets the standards
and requirements in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan and Estes Park Municipal
Code Chapter 17.44, and is approved conditioned upon the following:
1. The plan set as shown and articulated in Exhibits 1 through 6 are incorporated
by reference as required conditions of approval and development, with
allowance for minor modifications as may be reasonable and necessary, as
determined by the Community Development Director, during final design and
construction.
2. The following conditions are additionally specified:
a. All public improvements associated with the Carriage House Restaurant
project in public use easements or public rights-of-way shall be addressed
in a Development Agreement to the satisfaction of the Town.
b. The Carriage House Restaurant shall not receive a b uilding permit for
interior finishes until all public improvements associated with the Carriage
House Restaurant project and all private and public improvements
associated with the East Parking Lot (currently B-11160) are constructed
and accepted by the Town, or properly secured and addressed in a
Development Agreement to the satisfaction of the Town.
c. The Carriage House restaurant shall not receive a TCO or CO to operate
in any capacity unless and until all public improvements associated with
the Carriage House project and all private and public improvements
associated with the East Parking Lot (B-11160) are constructed and
approved by the Town, and all other obligations of any and all
Development Agreement(s) are fulfilled.
3. The plans included in the final package of documents for TRC review shall
include elements satisfactorily addressing pedestrian connectivity, an edit to
the traffic impact study documenting compliance with the Town’s traffic impact
requirements, and water backflow and metering security.
DATED this ____ day of __________, 2020.
Travis Machalek
Chair, Technical Review Committee
ATTEST:
Karin Swanlund
Recording Secretary