Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Technical Review Committee 2021-08-27TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE – TOWN OF ESTES PARK TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY Friday August 27, 2021 1:00 p.m. Estes Park, CO 80517 The Estes Park Board Planning Commission 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://us06web.zoom.us/j/87011860742 Or Join by Telephone: 1.Dial US: +1 833-548-0276 (toll free) 2.Enter Webinar ID: 870 1186 0742 followed by # The meeting will also be live-streamed on the Town’s Youtube Channel and 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. To participate online via Zoom, you must: •Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer. •Using earphones with a microphone will significantly 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 August 23, 2021 1 AGENDA TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE – TOWN OF ESTES PARK Friday, August 27, 2021 1:00 p.m. 1.AGENDA APPROVAL 2.PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). 3.CONSENT AGENDA: 1.Technical Review Committee Minutes dated June 22, 2021 4.ACTION ITEMS: 1. Stanley Film Center Final Package Submittal Director Hunt 5.ADJOURN Prepared 08/23/2021 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 22, 2021 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 22 day of June 2021. Committee: Town Administrator Travis Machalek (Chair), 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, Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Engineer Jennifer Waters, Utility Coordinator Steve Rusch, Building Official Gary Rusu, Stuart Olive, Attorney, Jack Mousseau, Architect. Absent: Member Gagnon Chair Machalek called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Muhonen/Wisneski) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 4-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Muhonen/Hinkle) to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 4-0. AGENDA ITEM: TRC Resolution 03-21 Director Hunt explained that the TRC would make a determination on a requested Minor Modification to the Stanley Carriage House Final package approval. This will allow the Stanley to post security for the two north-south walkways from Stanley campus buildings down to Steamer Parkway to receive a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) for the Carriage House tenant finish. A Dec. 7, 2020 condition of the Carriage House approval requires completion and acceptance of the two walkways to issue a TCO. The Carriage House is nearing completion, as are the surrounding site improvements, including the East Parking Lot. On Dec. 2020, at the Final Package hearing for the Carriage House, the Stanley and TRC agreed that two walkways (private sidewalks) would be built in conjunction with the Carriage House project: an east walkway from the Carriage House vicinity down to Steamer Parkway across from the Aspire parking-lot walkway, and a west walkway from the original Hotel down to where the newly linked walkway comes up to Steamer Parkway from the US 34/MacGregor Avenue roundabout. This request (technically corresponding to a Minor Modification in our Development Code) is before TRC. If approved, the security could be posted, and that would allow a TCO (Temporary Certificate of Occupancy) to be issued before the walkway work is completed. No other improvements at the Carriage House building or site would be affected; all those would still have to be finished and signed off by the Town and other agencies before a TCO is issued. DISCUSSION (summarized) Member Muhonen questioned the mechanics between private and public facilities and signatures for the Development Agreement. Attorney Kramer suggested that the Assistant Town Administrator serve as the designated signee to avoid conflict. Attorney Stuart Olive noted that there is a significant incentive to complete the project promptly. A monthly TCO can extend as long as the building permit is active (3 years). Muhonen requested a definitive timeline be set for construction. According to Attorneys Stuart Olive and Dan Kramer, a one-year timeline has been inserted into the Improvement Agreement. The design should be submitted to the Town this summer, and construction would begin after that. Hotel owner John Cullen promised that a better solution for the sidewalk is planned, with an excellent comprehensive design and a reconfiguring of the Great Lawn. This development is a bridge to the next TRC project. PUBLIC COMMENT: None . draf t 3 It was moved and seconded (Wisenski/Hinkle) to approve TRC Resolution 03-21. with the addition that the securitization of option 2A shall only be available once the applicant and the Town have entered into an agreement acceptable to the Town, governing the type, amount and procedures for the security. The motion passed 4-0. DISCUSSION: TRC MEETING DATES Director Hunt discussed possible dates to consider the Film Center final submittal. August would be the earliest, depending on review comments. Future items coming to the TRC could be the Grand Lawn, any adjustments with the Film Center and the East Parking Lot circulation. There being no further business, Chair Machalek adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m. Travis Machalek, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary draf t 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Technical Review Committee (TRC) From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: August 27, 2021 RE: Stanley Film Center: Final Package (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The TRC will determine by majority vote whether the submitted project materials for the Stanley Film Center meet applicable regulatory requirements for Final Package approval, including regulatory portions of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan, the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development (Chapter 17.44, Estes Park Municipal Code), and other applicable regulations. This meeting and review are for the submitted Final Package, per the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Sec. I.C.2 (pp. 5-6.) Present Situation: The present TRC agenda item is for the Stanley Hotel Film Center. This agenda item is for review and approval of the Final Package for the Film Center. The Preliminary Package was approved by TRC on May 11, 2021, with conditions. That approval and conditions are memorialized in TRC Resolution 01-21 (see Attachment 2.) Provided the TRC concurs, this Final Package is the final step in the planning permission steps required to approve the Film Center; future stages include building permits and/or other construction permissions. In line with recent previous Stanley Historic District submittals, the Preliminary Package addressed development-review matters in a conceptual, but thorough, fashion. In the present case, as previously, this fact, and the fact that TRC approved the Film Center Preliminary Package with a list of specific conditions, means that the scope of the Final Package is mostly confined to ensuring that those conditions have been met. Background (summarized from May 11, 2021 Preliminary Package Staff Report): The Film Center project is to be located on the northeast area of Lot 1, Stanley Historic District, almost directly north of (and with a below-grade attachment to) the Carriage House, now nearing renovated completion as a restaurant. Lot 1 is the “main campus” in the Stanley Historic District complex, and contains most of the well-known buildings and development therein, including the iconic Stanley Hotel. The Film Center – also known at various times as the Performing Arts Center, just the Arts Center, and the Cultural Center, among other labels – has been conceptually planned since at least 1994, when the Stanley Historic District Master Plan (SHDMP) was completed by the Stanley ownership at that time and approved by the Town in January of that year. The Film Center may be thought of as the last sizeable new structure planned for the Stanley Lot 1 campus. Organic Documents and Regulations The Stanley Historic District Master Plan (SHDMP or just MP) is a lengthy document (55 text pages and a number of exhibits). In order to keep our focus on the tasks at hand, staff did not include the full MP in this packet; however, it may be read at this link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3nwhu8qvVbcd3RIRndMY3VtbUk Other applicable regulations for the SHD include the Estes Park Municipal Code, and specifically the chapter addressing the SHD in ordinance form. The Chapter is not replicated here, but may be found at: https://library.municode.com/co/estes_park/codes/municipal_code (please see Chapter 17.44 - Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development.) Other sections of the SHDMP are not specifically referenced in Chapter 17.44 as regulatory, including the MP sections and language identified as “guidelines.” A third set of documents applicable to the SHD are three Development Agreements, listed by name and date and incorporated by reference in Chapter 17.44 (see Sec. 17.44.080.) The agreements by and large do not add material with direct bearing on the Carriage House TRC review. They are not linked here for the sake of economy. Proposal: Project Recent History: Although the Film Center concept dates back to 1994 if not earlier, the formal submittal and review process leading to this TRC review began on July 18, 2019, when a Pre- Application meeting was held among the Stanley ownership and design team members and staff from various Town departments and allied agencies. The pre-app meeting’s subject was a multi-building project for the east-northeast part of the Stanley Lot 1 campus, including the Carriage House and the adjacent “Cultural Arts Center” (as it was identified in the SHDMP – now branded as the Film Center.) Separately from the Carriage House TRC submittal, plans were submitted and permits approved in 2019-2020 for the East Parking Lot, east and north of the Film Center location. Parking lots on the Stanley campus are not in principle designated for any particular use in the complex, although lot(s) closest to any given building will likely serve as primary parking for that building. The East Parking Lot is likely to primarily serve the Film Center and Carriage House. The Film Center Preliminary Package was formally filed as an application and supporting materials with the Town on December 4, 2020. After several rounds of review by Town staff and other agencies, the Preliminary Package went to TRC on May 11, 2021, and as noted was approved by Resolution 01-21 with conditions on that date. Executed Resolution 01-21 is included in this packet as Attachment 2. Submitted Materials: Following Preliminary Package approval in May 2021, the Film Center Final Package was formally submitted on June 16, 2021. The Final Package submittal included some background materials from the Preliminary Package for reference; however, most of the submittal consisted of materials developed in response to the TRC’s conditions of approval in TRC Resolution 01-21 (Attachment 2.) The conditions almost entirely address final-design requirements for drainage, traffic circulation, and similar engineering design matters. The list of attachments that ends this staff report includes a complete list of submitted materials in the Final Package for TRC review today, along with a few documents (labeled “legacy” in the file names) that are repeated from the approved Preliminary Package set. The final attachment (Attachment 20) is the presentation the Stanley team has provided for today’s TRC meeting. Staff analysis – Fulfillment of TRC Conditions: As noted, since the conditions in the Preliminary Package Resolution of approval were almost entirely Engineering Division review items, Community Development staff defers to Engineering judgment in reviewing and recommending the items submitted in response. (One additional Final Package item originates in the Planning Division, related to acoustical design of the Auditorium -- see section below headed “Staff analysis – Acoustical Design.”) With respect to conditions in the Preliminary Package approval, the review mostly comes down to three documents, plus attachments that relate directly to them: (a) The conditions of approval themselves, as stated in TRC Resolution 01-21 (Attachment 2); (b) the Stanley’s “Comments to Film Center TRC Resolution 01-21”, dated 2021.06.15 (Attachment 3); and (c) the Public Works response to those comments, dated July 12, 2021 (Attachment 4.) The first document is familiar to TRC. The second document was submitted as part of the Final Package materials. The third document was the result of the First (and only) Round of Review of the Final Package, that review having been performed by the Engineering Division. Rather than replicate the specific technical details in these two documents and related attachments, staff will summarize by noting the following: a. Broadly speaking, the conditions in Res. 01-21 relate to revisions to the Traffic Impact Analysis, changes to the design and location of a driveway and easement for access to Lot 2 of the SHD north of the main campus (Overlook Condo site), finalization of several pedestrian connections on campus, and provision of an acceptable Final Drainage Report. b. The Stanley’s June 15 Comments letter notes their position - that most of the conditions are resolved by provision of revised materials (Traffic Impact Analysis) or new materials (Final Drainage Report). The Comments indicate that the Stanley team believes a few items of information are better addressed at the building-permit stage, via construction plan and civil plan review(s) for the project. c. The Public Works July 12 response indicates that they have concluded that the Stanley’s Comments and the Final Package materials satisfy the conditions. Staff analysis – Acoustical Design: One additional element is noted here for fulfillment at the building-permit stage. Late in the overall review process, staff became aware of a citizen inquiry on how much sound could be expected outside the Film Center during events in the Auditorium. (TRC will recall that the Auditorium has a retractable roof, with potential audible sound outside the building enclosure.) The question for information is a reasonable one. However, the answer depends on an acoustical analysis that’s difficult to make before the actual building design has been completed, and even then, the sound source level and quality inside is an unknown variable. Acoustical engineering is an important element in any auditorium design, but analysis depends on materials used in design and construction, as well as exact dimensions and angle of plane and non-plane surfaces – elements that are not known until final detailed building design is done, and furniture and fixtures are confirmed. Additionally, the acoustical impact depends on the type of sound being generated. The Film Center Auditorium programming is not rigidly specified in the plans, and it’s possible that events could range from lectures (a single individual speaking on stage) to ensemble theater, to full musical performances. Acoustical analysis could anticipate most or all of these performance types, but the results would be quire different depending on type. Finally, a TRC review would need to at least be anchored in some objective measure – how loud is too loud? The Town’s noise ordinance (EPMC Sec. 8.06) does not contain decibel level limits or any other type of quantitative performance standard for noise. The primary applicable stipulation is that noise levels not be “unreasonable.” There are hours-of-operation limits on outdoor amplified sound (“outdoor” in the Code includes buildings open to the sky), and this standard appears to be zero sound during those hours, which run from 10 pm to 10 am (11 pm to 10 am on Friday and Saturday nights.) Acoustical analysis would not help with regulating hours of operation, since the standard is zero sound during the subject hours, which could be achieved only if the Auditorium is empty during those times. For the above reasons, although staff suggests that an acoustical analysis would be worthwhile general information for its own sake, it is difficult to see how the information could be used in regulating noise – even at the building-permit stage, much less the TRC design-approval stage. Therefore, while a condition is recommended to provide the acoustical information at the permit stage, no regulation is recommended here to administer or enforce a standard for it. A condition in draft TRC Resolution 04-21 indicates information is to be provided at the building-permit stage on noise exceeding 85 dBA at the property line. The 85 dBA value is drawn from OSHA standards for employee exposure to noise levels (see https://www.osha.gov/noise.) Although this standard does not correspond to ambient noise from an auditorium, it is used in lieu of a local Estes Park Code standard, which simply does not exist. Again, the standard is informational only and does not regulate noise levels. Attachment 5 consists of an email chain between staff and the Stanley team on the acoustical matter. Staff analysis – Summary and Conclusions: The above actually makes our TRC task today fairly simple, provided the TRC concurs with staff that the remaining issues have been resolved. Staff recommends approval of the Film Center Final Package, via adoption of TRC Resolution 04-21. The staff recommendation and Resolution include a few final conditions to ensure there are no loose ends remaining for the Planning segment of the project. All conditions in your draft TRC Resolution 04-21 are taken from the Stanley’s “Comments to Film Center TRC Resolution 01-21”, dated 2021.06.15 (Attachment 3), except the last one relating to acoustical analysis which follows the recommendation above. Advantages: • The Film Center 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 nearby 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 vicinity. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval with conditions of TRC Resolution 04-21, encompassing approval with conditions of the Film Center Final Package. Finance/Resource Impact: n/a - No direct expenditures or revenue identified at this time. Level of Public Interest Low-medium in the overall community; medium-high in the area adjacent to the Stanley campus. Sample Motion: I move for the approval of TRC Resolution 04-21. Attachments / Exhibits: 1. TRC Resolution 04-21: A Resolution of the Technical Review Committee of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Approving the Final Package for the Film Center Project [draft 2021-08-27] 2. TRC Resolution 01-21 [executed May 11, 2021] 3. Stanley Film Center TRC Resolution- MOA Response 6-15-2021 4. Stanley Film Center_071221 PW Final 5. Emails - Acoustical Comment Stanley Film Center Final Package - 2021-07- 12 6. Stanley Hotel Film Center Site Plan C-021 7. Stanley Hotel Film Center Grading Plan C-311 8. Stanley Hotel Film Center Utility Plan C-551 9. Stanley Film Center Traffic Impact Study_updated 2021-04-14 10. Parking Operations Plan - UPDATE 04-14-2021 11. Drawing C-901 Truck Turning Plan 12. Drawing C-902 Bus Turning Plan 13. Stanley Hotel Film Center Final Drainage Report 14. MIRO RESPONSES - Stanley Hotel Film Center Final Drainage Report- redlines 15. Access Easement Final Recorded 20210331 16. (Legacy) Statement Of Development Intent 17. (Legacy) Stanley Film Center Design_TRC 12-1-2020 18. (Legacy) 2021.05.07 - Stanley Film Center Renderings 19. (Legacy) Film Center ARC Letter of Support - Final (1) 20. 2021.08.23_Stanley Film Center Final TRC Presentation TRC RESOLUTION 04-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT MASTER PLAN APPROVING THE FINAL PACKAGE FOR THE FILM CENTER PROJECT WHEREAS, the Film Center Final Package of the project referenced in the title of this resolution meets the requirements of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan for a (revised) final package; and WHEREAS, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) determines that the materials included in the Final Package satisfy the conditions in TRC Resolution 01-21 approving the Film Center Preliminary 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, Chapter 17.44 of the Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC) and the applicable development agreement(s): NOW, THEREFORE, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Stanley Film Center 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 approved, conditioned upon submittal, review, and approval of the items outlined in Sec. 3 in conjunction with the detailed construction plans, civil plans, and building-permit plans for construction of the Film Center. 2. To the extent they are not in conflict with the final package, all items approved by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) in the Stanley Film Center Preliminary Package are hereby incorporated by reference in this final package approval. 3. The following conditions shall be satisfied in conjunction with submittal, review, and approval of the detailed construction plans, civil plans, and building-permit plans for construction of the Film Center: a. Truck Turning Plan C-901: Site improvement construction plans shall be approved prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Curb and gutter relocation work will be included in the construction plans. b. Access driveway west of Concert Hall and Film Center: If any waivers are necessary, they will be submitted prior to construction documents. Prior to submitting construction documents, the design team will work with Public Works to verify compliance with applicable public standards. 11 c. Final Drainage design: updated information will be provided during the construction documentation phase of the Film Center. d. An acoustical engineering analysis and design, signed and sealed by a Colorado P.E. with expertise in acoustical engineering, will be provided in the final civil-design plan set(s) for the Auditorium section of the Film Center. The plans will identify any design elements that are likely in the engineer’s judgment to result in sound levels exceeding 85 dBA at the point along the Lot 1 property boundary closest to the center point of the retractable roof opening when the roof is retracted to the maximum design opening. This analysis is to be provided for general informational purposes to the Town and public, and is not intended to, and does not serve as, a regulatory standard for purposes of the Stanley Historic District or any noise regulations appertaining thereto. DATED this ____ day of __________, 2021. Travis Machalek Chair, Technical Review Committee ATTEST: Karin Swanlund Recording Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 12 TRC RESOLUTION 01-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT MASTER PLAN APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE PRELIMINARY PACKAGE FOR THE FILM CENTER 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;and WHEREAS,while adequate for a Preliminary Package,the materials include insufficient detail for the Technical Review Committee (TRC)to determine whether the plans meet the Final Package requirements of the Master Plan and the applicable development agreement with regard to the conditions listed below: NOW,THEREFORE,THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The Stanley Film Center project Preliminary Package meets the standards and requirements in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan and Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 1744,and is approved,conditioned upon submittal,review,and approval of the following items in conjunction with submittal,review:and approval by TRC of the Final Package for the Film Center: 1.Traffic Impact Analysis (updated 2021-03-24): a.In Section 2.0,new information acknowledges the use of the basement lounge in the Carriage House.Trip generation information appears in the hand-written grid attached in the report;these numbers have not been updated to include patio seating or patrons visiting the lounge.The size of 5700 SF includes ground floor, indoor restaurant space and support usage in the basement.Clarify that trip updates in the background traffic volumes reflect additional SF of use on the patio and in the lounge.The Carriage House trips may have been updated in the background scenario with 3 additional vehicles on the Worksheets and in the Figures.In a memorandum,describe the analytical nexus between the Carriage House patio and lounge occupancy with only 3 additional vehicles during peak hours. b.Use the new 2021 transit routes map in the graphic under Section 4.4. c.When construction plans for site improvements are submitted,include the Final TIA, i.Correct error in Figure 5:Movement traffic volume in NBR should be 142 (not 131)for PM.This typo was carried over at least from the previous Traffic Impact Analysis (1/29/21).Since the Synchro 10 Report uses 142,the HCM Control Delay and LOS (compiled in Table 1)should remain good. U.Include information from the ‘Round 5”memo [provided under separate cover] describing how Carriage House uses on the patio and lounge affect peak hour traffic. 2.Truck Turning Plan (Sheet C-901) a.On construction plans for site improvements,reference curb and gutter relocation work needed to accommodate semi-truck turning northwest of the hotel. 3.Site Plan C-021 a.Submittal of easement information is acknowledged although the easement documents have not been reviewed by Public Works: 13 i.Vacation of the old and dedication of the new access easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building or grading permits related to the Film Center. ii.The new access must be established and constructed prior to the release of any TCO or CO for the Film Center. b.Access driveway west of Concert Hall and Film Center shall meet applicable public street standards in EPCD,Appendix D.II.Waivers under D.I.D may be requested where necessary. i.The proposed surface width of 24’is acceptable for TRC consideration but may require adjustment based on final design.A 2 shoulder is required unless there is curb and gutter. c.Revise as needed to coordinate with revisions requested on other drawings and for the Final Drainage Report. 4.Stanley Hotel Walk Improvements —Concept Plan and Sections a.Response regarding the public sidewalk and adjacent landscaping along the north side of Steamer Parkway is acceptable.Public Works staff consultation resulted in the consensus that the curvilinear sidewalk shown on the concept plan is very appropriate for strolling within the Stanley campus even though it moves in and out of the public ROW. b.An easement parallel to the public ROW shall be established to completely contain the curvilinear sidewalk where it leads outside the public ROW. c.Final Package plan should note that all sidewalk maintenance and snow plowing shall be the responsibility of Stanley. d.Final Package plan should note that all landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of Stanley. e.Key (1)indicates that the two connection walkways would be 6’wide.The western most walkway was established at 8 wide by previous review for the Carriage House.Public Works recommends 8’width for maintenance access using a skid- steer or a pickup truck. f.Sections A and B are acceptable to Public Works as long as the design is consistent with the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. i.Sidewalk shall be 8’wide. g.Where new construction occurs,concrete curb and gutter shall be installed along the north side of Steamer Parkway (including replacement of asphalt curb). h.The new grading,landscaping,and boulder stacks will cut off driver view looking north.Ensure on the Final Plan set that this visual impact jives with the SHD Master Plan. i.The concept design shall provide workable drainage in coordination with the Final Drainage Report. 5.Grading Plan C-31 1, a.Revise as needed to coordinate with revisions requested on other drawings and for the Final Drainage Report. 6.Utility Plan C-551 a.Revise as needed to coordinate with revisions requested on other drawings and for the Final Drainage Report. 7.Final Drainage Report a.Nyloplast drawings need not be 24:00 x 18.00 in or 10.00 x 750 in.Differently-sized sheets are a nuisance for scrolling through the submittal.Format all these using the same size sheets. 14 b.Public Works appreciates the applicant’s effort to locate a prior drainage report which could not be found within Town records or by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying.In lieu of the missing/nonexistent report,use engineering best practices to establish geometry and drainage capacity for existing ponds. c.The Final Drainage Report for Round 4 was submitted to Galloway,the Town’s floodplain and stormwater management consultant,for review and analysis. Galloway’s response consists of these documents which describe the revisions requested for the Final Package: i.Memorandum (4/8/21)[provided under separate cover;copy retained by Town Community Development Dept.and Public Works Dept.] ii.Redline Final Drainage Report Reviewed by Galloway (4/8/21)[provided under separate cover;copy retained by Town Community Development Dept.and Public Works Dept.1 d.The revised Final Drainage Report requested for Round 5 shall also be reviewed by Galloway. DATED this2 day of FYi ,2021 ATTEST: Kdrin Swanlund Chair,Technical Review Committee Recording Secretary 15 2021.06.15 Design Team’s response to Stanley Historic District Film Center – Development Application Comments to Film Center TRC Resolution 01-21 Public Works Comments dated May 25th, 2021 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Traffic Impact Analysis (updated 2021-03-24) a) In Section 2.0, new information acknowledges the use of the basement lounge in the Carriage House. Trip generation information appears in the hand-written grid attached in the report; these numbers have not been updated to include patio seating or patrons visiting the lounge. The size of 5700 SF includes ground floor, indoor restaurant space and support usage in the basement. Clarify that trip updates in the background traffic volumes reflect additional SF of use on the patio and in the lounge. The Carriage House trips may have been updated in the background scenario with 3 additional vehicles on the Worksheets and in the Figures. In a memorandum, describe the analytical nexus between the Carriage House patio and lounge occupancy with only 3 additional vehicles during peak hours. Response: The Base Form is the original documentation that set the parameters for the traffic study. The hard-written table was not updated in the Appendix, but the trip generation for the Carriage House has been updated to include the lounge and patio. The traffic amendment letter for the Carriage House was added to the Appendix. Note that the traffic study did not include the patio since it was set to the square footage of the Base Form. Similar to the restaurant, it is assumed that the majority of the patrons will already be at the Stanley campus. For conservative purposes the traffic study assumed all of the trips were external to the Stanley Hotel. The 2,900 sq. ft. patio was added to the trip generation for the Carriage House and in the background volumes for the Film Center. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- b) Use the new 2021 transit routes map in the graphic under Section 4.4. Response: The new transit map was included. Thank you for providing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c) When construction plans for site improvements are submitted, include the Final TIA. i) Correct error in Figure 5: Movement traffic volume in NBR should be 142 (not 131) for PM. This typo was carried over at least from the previous Traffic Impact Analysis (1/29/21). Since the Synchro 10 Report uses 142, the HCM Control Delay and LOS (compiled in Table 1) should remain good. 16 P a g e | 2 Response: Thank you for catching the error. The number has been updated with this correction and with trips from the Carriage House patio. ii) Include information from the Round 5 memo describing how Carriage House uses on the patio and lounge affect peak hour traffic. Response: The traffic amendment letter for the Carriage House was included in the Appendix for the Film Center. Addition information was also provided through the Film Center traffic study. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Truck Turning Plan C-901 a) On construction plans for site improvements, reference curb and gutter relocation work needed to accommodate semi-truck turning northwest of the hotel. Response: Acknowledged. Per public works direction, site improvement construction plans shall be approved prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Curb and gutter relocation work will be included in the construction plans. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Site Plan C-021 a) Submittal of easement information is acknowledged although the easement documents have not been reviewed by Public Works. i) Vacation of the old and dedication of the new access easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building or grading permits related to the Film Center. ii) The new access must be established and constructed prior to the release of any TCO or CO for the Film Center. Response: Acknowledged. The new easement location has been recorded and is attached for your records. The easement document was signed by all parties on March 29th and recorded March 31st, 2021. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- b) Access driveway west of Concert Hall and Film Center shall meet applicable public street standards in EPCD, Appendix D. II. Waivers under D. I. D may be requested where necessary. Response: Acknowledged. If any waivers are necessary, they will submitted prior to construction documents. Prior to submitting construction documents, the design team will work with Public Works to verify compliance with applicable public standards as stated above. i) The proposed surface width of 24’ is acceptable for TRC consideration but may require adjustment based on final design. A 2’ shoulder is required unless there is curb and gutter. Response: Acknowledged. The design team will take this into consideration and address requirements listed above during construction plan submittals. 17 P a g e | 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c) Revise as needed to coordinate with revisions requested on other drawings and for the Final Drainage Report. Response: Acknowledged. TRC plans have been updated to include required revisions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Stanley Hotel Walk Improvements – Concept Plan and Sections a) Response regarding the public sidewalk and adjacent landscaping along the north side of Steamer Parkway is acceptable. Public Works staff consultation resulted in the consensus that the curvilinear sidewalk shown on the concept plan is very appropriate for strolling within the Stanley campus even though it moves in and out of the public ROW. Response: Acknowledged. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- b) An easement parallel to the public ROW shall be established to completely contain the curvilinear sidewalk where it leads outside the public ROW. Response: Acknowledged. All required easement documents will be submitted after TRC approval. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c) Final Package plan should note that all sidewalk maintenance and snow plowing shall be the responsibility of Stanley. Response: Acknowledged. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- d) Final Package plan should note that all landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of Stanley. Response: Acknowledged. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e) Key (1) indicates that the two connection walkways would be 6’ wide. The western-most walkway was established at 8’ wide by previous review for the Carriage House. Public Works recommends 8’ width for maintenance access using a skid-steer or a pickup truck. Response: Recommendation is acknowledged. The east connecting sidewalk is currently in for permit and is planned at 8’ in width. The west connecting sidewalk will be considered at 8’ in width. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- f) Sections A and B are acceptable to Public Works as long as the design is consistent with the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. Response: Acknowledged. Historic District Master Plan does not address sidewalk widths. i) Sidewalk shall be 8’ wide. 18 P a g e | 4 Noted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- g) Where new construction occurs, concrete curb and gutter shall be installed along the north side of Steamer Parkway (including replacement of asphalt curb). Noted. The sidewalk design and construction are not intended to impact Steamer Parkway with the exception of crosswalk location(s). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- h) The new grading, landscaping, and boulder stacks will cut off driver view looking north. Ensure that this visual impact jives with the SHD Master Plan. Response: Acknowledged. Grading and landscaping will comply with the SHD Master Plan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i) The concept design shall provide workable drainage in coordination with the Final Drainage Report. Response: Acknowledged. Design will meet all drainage requirements per the final drainage report. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Grading Plan C-311 a) Revise as needed to coordinate with revisions requested on other drawings and for the Final Drainage Report. Response: Acknowledged. Plans have been updated to include revisions required. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Utility Plan C-551 a) Revise as needed to coordinate with revisions requested on other drawings and for the Final Drainage Report. Response: Plans have been updated to include revisions required. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Final Drainage Report a) Nyloplast drawings need not be 24:00 x 18.00 in or 10.00 x 7.50 in. Differently-sized sheets are a nuisance for scrolling through the submittal. Format all these using the same size sheets. Response: Nyloplast drawings have been updated to be 11.00 x 8.50 in. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- b) Public Works appreciates the applicant’s effort to locate a prior drainage report which could not be found within Town records or by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying. In lieu of the missing/nonexistent report, use engineering best practices to establish geometry and drainage capacity for existing ponds. 19 P a g e | 5 Response: Acknowledged. As the development of the drainage report information related to this issue will be time intensive, we request that updated information can be provided during the construction documentation phase of the Film Center. Since this rain garden/pond serves a portion of the Stanley Campus already built and approved by the TOEP, the design team would appreciate the extra time to insure not only the existing volume is sufficient and being treated but any additional flows/volumes added by the Film Center is being treated as well. Since no existing drainage information can be found by the TOEP on the rain garden/ pond we feel that we are going above and beyond standard practice of just adding the additional volume created by the Film Center and is being done as a courtesy to the TOEP. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c) The Final Drainage Report for Round 4 was submitted to Galloway, the Town’s floodplain and stormwater management consultant, for review and analysis. Galloway’s response consists of these documents (attached) which describe the revisions requested for Round 5: i) Memorandum (4/8/21) ii) Redline Final Drainage Report Reviewed by Galloway (4/8/21) Response: Noted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- d) The revised Final Drainage Report requested for Round 5 shall also be reviewed by Galloway. Response: Noted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Galloway Memorandum and Redlines dated April 8th, 2021 REPORT/TEXT: 1. Please provide an updated Final Drainage Report. Updated Final Drainage Report provided. 2. Please change page numbers to the report, starting at page #1 after the table of contents (TOC), and update the TOC accordingly. Page numbers revised. 3. Please replace “CHAMP” in Section I.B. with “Colorado Hazard Mapping Program (CHAMP)”. CHAMP spelled out in text. 4. Please replace “OS3 and OS4” in Section III.A. with “O3 and O4” to match Figure 1. Revised. 20 P a g e | 6 5. Please provide calculations, showing how the imperviousness values of 40% and 24%, respectively, for Basin O3 and Basin O4 in the proposed conditions in Section III.A. of the report were obtained. Calculations provided in appendix. 6. Please change table number in Section IV.B. as well as table reference in text to 3. Table noted changed to table 3. 7. Please add a row to Table 3 (currently named Table 2) in Section IV.B. to include 25- Year rainfall depth. 25-yr rainfall depth added. 8. Please include software version for StormCAD in Section IV.C. Software version provided. 9. Please provide excerpts from a reference report or calculations to prove that the existing pond mentioned in Section V.B. has sufficient capacity to handle the 100-year developed condition runoff. Existing pond mentioned does not serve as a detention pond, functions simply as a passthrough for runoff. Detention provided in Aspire pond. 10. Please make corrections to the report based on additional comments on the Galloway’s redlines document attached. Corrections made. 11. Please note that the elevation 7,500 ft used for the precipitation calculations is okay to use since it produces slightly conservative values, but it should have been about 7,600 ft based on the site survey topography. This is provided for information purposes only and there is no need to adjust the calculations. Noted. 12. Please explain the “actual flat surface area” and “area at design depth” being different in the rain garden calculation sheet for RG1-Revised. They should normally be the same for a vertical (Z=0) rain garden side slope. There is only one vertical wall in this rain garden. Remaining sides are 3:1 slope. FIGURES/MAPS: 1. Please change storm sewer pipe & FES sizes to 30” for the two most downstream segments of the Storm Line A on Figure 3. 21 P a g e | 7 Sizes updated. 2. Please change FES label for Storm Line D to “18” FES” on Figure 3. Label adjusted. 3. Please change FES size label for Storm Line that outfalls into the existing RG1 to 18” and provide riprap basin at this outfall on Figure 3. Label adjusted. 4. Please provide a Discharge Summary Table for design points, and an Inlet Capacity Chart on Figure 3. Discharge summary table provided 5. The drainage swale downstream of Storm Line D on Figure 3 might need to be extended to the bottom of the existing pond or sufficient erosion protection should be provided at the termination of the swale to prevent head cutting. Also, please provide drainage swale design calculations in the report. Swale calculations provided. Rip rap provided for erosion control 6. The existing pond at the downstream of the Storm Line D on Figure 3 might potentially receive more runoff due to the development compared to existing conditions (see also comment #8 under Report/Text section above). Please provide excerpts from a reference report or calculations to prove that this pond along with outlet pipes and downstream storm sewer system have sufficient capacity to handle minor/major storm events, and the runoff from developed conditions can safely be conveyed to the Aspire Detention Pond. Existing pond mentioned does not serve as a detention pond, functions simply as a passthrough for runoff. Detention provided in Aspire pond. STORMCAD MODEL 1. Please provide an updated StormCAD model. Updated StormCAD model provided. 2. All junction headloss coefficients in the StormCAD model were set to “0”, indicating there are no headlosses through junctions or structures. Please revise the StormCAD model based on appropriate headloss coefficients for different types of junctions. Headloss coefficients now provided. 3. Please revise the outfall boundary conditions for the storm sewer lines draining into rain 22 P a g e | 8 gardens or ponds, considering tailwater elevations. Outfall boundary conditions revised. 4. Please update the final drainage report based on the updated StormCAD model results. Final drainage report has been updated based on the StormCAD model results. Attachments: 1. Final Drainage Report with Galloway’s redlines Noted. Responses to these comments are included within the PDF. 23 Stanley Historic District Film Center – Development Application Public Works Comments - Final TRC Review Submittal/Round 5 July 12, 2021 As provided in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan, a Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed and approved the Preliminary submittal for the Film Center Project on May 11, 2021. This approval was conditioned upon submittal, review, and approval of items referenced in the Round 4 comments document prepared by Public Works on April 8, 2021. Specifically, the revisions requested in Round 4 are summarized under these Preliminary TRC conditions: 1. Traffic Impact Analysis 2. Truck Turning Plan (C-901) 3. Site Plan (C-021) 4. Stanley Hotel Walk Improvements – Concept Plan and Sections 5. Grading Plan (C-311) 6. Utility Plan (C-551) 7. Final Drainage Report The following submittal was provided in support of the Final TRC review: The Stanley Hotel: Film & Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Analysis – Fox Tuttle (4/14/21) Stanley Carriage House & Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan – MOA (4/14/21) Amended Access and Parking Easement Agreement (3/31/21) Stanley Hotel Film Center – Truck Turning Plan C-901 – MOA (6/15/21) Stanley Hotel Film Center – Bus Turning Plan C-902 – MOA (6/15/21) Stanley Hotel Film Center – Site Plan C-021 – MOA (6/15/21) Stanley Hotel Film Center – Grading Plan C-311 – MOA (6/15/21) Stanley Hotel Film Center – Utility Plan C-551 – MOA (6/15/21) Final Drainage Report (3/19/21) – S.A. Miro Response to Galloway redlines Design Team’s response to Public Works Comments (5/25/21) – MOA (6/15/21) Final Drainage Report for Stanley Hotel Film Center – S.A. Miro (6/15/21) Stanley Hotel StormCAD Model (6/15/21) Also, Public Works reviewed these items: Design Team’s response to Public Works Comments Round 4 (4/8/21) – MOA (4/14/21) Construction Plans for the East Walkway (now constructed except for pedestrian safety signage) Public Works finds that the TRC Resolution Response submittal for the Film Center is satisfactory for consideration by the TRC for Final approval. As provided in previous comments by Public Works, acknowledged by MOA, further clarification and design issues may be addressed in the Construction Plans for the Film Center. 24 Re: Referral for Comment: Stanley Film Center Final Package Inbox Gary Rusu Mon, Jul 26, 10:49 AM R e pl y to me I also agree with deferring to the finished civil design set. On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:11 AM Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> wrote: Gary, In Film Center review comments, we asked them to provide an acoustical engineering analysis to give us a sense of the sound impacts to neighboring properties when the roof is retracted over the auditorium. This is Jack's response. I think he makes valid points and is basically right, but I wanted to see if this also i s logical for you as CBO. Thoughts? Thanks, RAH ----- Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 (working remotely; email is preferred) main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jack Mousseau <jmousseau@moaarch.com> Date: Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 8:02 AM Subject: RE: Referral for Comment: Stanley Film Center Final Package To: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> 25 Good morning Randy, In reviewing the request for acoustical analysis of the Film Center roof with an acoustical engineer, we believe deferring the analysis to the finished IBC civil design permit set is the best approach. To perform the analysis at this early stage would require many assumptions regarding the composition of the exterior walls, roof assemblies, retractable roof system, final topographical information with elevation contours of the surrounding area, landscape design, etc. We would also need information on the general composition and layout configuration of the retractable roof itself. We would also be amenable to providing analysis information during the design phase of the Film Center, prior to permit documents being provided. This would allow the Town to review the configuration and us to provide the analysis with confidence that the building systems are accurately portrayed. Please let me know if this is an amenable approach to the acoustics analysis request. Kind regards, Jack M. Jack Mousseau Principal | MOA ARCHITECTURE From: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 8:28 AM To: Jack Mousseau <jmousseau@moaarch.com> Subject: Re: Referral for Comment: Stanley Film Center Final Package Jack, Yes, let's do that - makes perfect sense. I myself am open to deferring the analysis to the finished IBC-Civil design set, if that's what's needed to obtain a sensible design to analyze. That would be after the TRC is done, so I imagine a counter-argument would be how the neighbors and the public will know what to expect for sound. But I agree, let's understand the technical elements first and foremost. Thanks, RAH ----- Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 (working remotely; email is preferred) 26 main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 7:43 AM Jack Mousseau <jmousseau@moaarch.com> wrote: I would like to discuss the acoustic request a bit if you have time. A couple of items for discussion include performing an analysis vs. establishing criteria for design. This early in the design of the Film Center, an analysis will include a lot of assumptions that aren’t determined as of yet, vs. establishing design criteria for the building acoustics. I’m reaching out to an acoustical engineer to get their opinion and understand what the analysis would entail this early in the design. Let me talk to the engineer than perhaps we can talk? Thanks. Jack Mousseau Principal | MOA ARCHITECTURE From: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 4:46 PM To: Jack Mousseau <jmousseau@moaarch.com> Subject: Re: Referral for Comment: Stanley Film Center Final Package Jack, That would be the default position, yes. We can discuss further if it raises concerns, however. Thanks, RAH ----- Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 (working remotely; email is preferred) main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org 27 On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:03 AM Jack Mousseau <jmousseau@moaarch.com> wrote: Hi Randy, Thanks for the comments on the Film Center. It appears we now have all comments from our latest submission. Pertaining to your comment on acoustics, am I correct in understanding that we need to have this analysis completed and submitted to you, and then your third-party review of the analysis completed before we hold the Final TRC hearing on the project? Thanks, Jack Mousseau Principal | MOA ARCHITECTURE From: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 4:41 PM To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> Cc: Michael Madachy <mmadachy@estes.org>; Gary Rusu <grusu@estes.org>; Dan Kramer <dkramer@estes.org>; Jennifer Waters <jwaters@estes.org>; David Hook <dhook@estes.org>; Megan Van Hoozer <mvanhoozer@estes.org>; Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>; Steven Rusch <srusch@estes.org>; Karla Sterling <ksterling@estes.org>; Chris Eshelman <ceshelman@estes.org>; Shane Krell <skrell@estes.org>; Joe Lockhart <jlockhart@estes.org>; Vanessa Solesbee <vsolesbee@estes.org>; Tyler Boles <tboles@estes.org>; Eric Rose <erose@estes.org>; James Duell <jduell@estesparksanitation.org>; Ron Duell <rduell@estesparksanitation.org>; Prevention <prevention@estesvalleyfire.org>; Kevin Sullivan <ksullivan@estesvalleyfire.org>; Lea Schneider <lschneider@larimer.org>; pat.kreager@xcelenergy.com; Timothy Bilobran - CDOT <timothy.bilobran@state.co.us>; Rylands - DNR, Chase <chase.rylands@state.co.us>; Cindy Nasky <cindy@cohf.org>; Yost, Cheria <cheri_yost@nps.gov>; John Cullen <jcullen@grandheritage.com>; Jack Mousseau <jmousseau@moaarch.com>; Daniel.Trupp@centurylink.com; Jason Lang <jlang@estes.org>; Mark Tobias - HC <mark.tobias@state.co.us>; Vance, Michael <Michael.Vance@lumen.com>; Saldibar - HC, Joseph <joseph.saldibar@state.co.us>; Shiverdecker, Kathryn <Kathryn.Shiverdecker@tdstelecom.com> Subject: Re: Referral for Comment: Stanley Film Center Final Package All, Planning division has the following comment: 1. Given that the Auditorium is designed with a retractable roof, there is greater potential than would be the case in an enclosed building for sound to escape the three- dimensional building envelope. This possibility is enhanced by the nature of some performances and events in the auditorium, which may perhaps include stage shows, musical events, theatrical performances, and similar. The Film Center is also situated in an area of the Lot 1 campus with residential uses nearby. For these reasons, staff requests that an acoustical design analysis, stamped and signed by a Colorado P.E. 28 with acoustical engineering expertise, be provided in conjunction with the resubmitted plans. This need not entail the finished acoustical design of the auditorium or building, but rather a design analysis that addresses sound "trespass" outside the vertical envelope. Staff will provide the analysis to a credentialled third -party acoustical- engineering individual or team for timely independent review and verification. We note that Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 8.06 (Noises) does not include specific numerical standards for noise limits (e.g., dBA maximums); therefore, the submittal of the design analysis and review thereof are intended as informational, rather than conditional. Thanks, RAH ----- Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 (working remotely; email is preferred) main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 9:25 AM Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> wrote: ATTN: REVIEW AGENCIES The Town of Estes Park Community Development Department has accepted the below referenced application as provisionally complete for review. ALL COMMENTS DUE 5:00 PM ON MONDAY, JULY 12, 2021. PLEASE "REPLY ALL" WITH YOUR COMMENTS. IF NO COMMENTS ARE RECEIVED BY A REVIEWING AGENCY BY THE DEADLINE, STAFF WILL CONSIDER THE OMISSION AN APPROVAL OF THE APPLICABLE APPLICATION ELEMENTS. PROJECT NAME, TYPE, & LOCATION Name: Stanley Hotel Film Center Type: Final Package, Film Center Address: 333 E Wonderview Ave, Estes Park, CO 80517 29 Project Description Summary: Final Package for Development Plan approval, following Technical Review Committee approval of Preliminary Package on May 11, 2021. Project is a single building and associated site improvements for a Cultural Arts Center and Conference Center and auxiliary support space. Primary elements in the final package include: transportation and parking study materials; site plan; utility plan; and several items related to drainage. Applicant Representative: Jack M. Mousseau, MOA Architecture jmousseau@moaarch.com Case Planner, Staff Contact: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director rhunt@estes.org Special Notes: TRC meeting on this project anticipated sometime in summer 2021, depending on review cycles. TRC public hearing will not be scheduled until we have all review comments addressed and the submittal is therefore deemed complete. TRC date will be approx. 2 weeks after notice of completion provided to applicants, subject to TRC members’ and other attendees’ availability. Application materials are attached. 2021.06.08 Film Center TRC Resolution Response.zip Thanks, Charlie -- Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3721 970-586-0249 - fax planning@estes.org -- ----- Gary Rusu Chief Building Official Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3728 email: grusu@estes.org 30 Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.06.16 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.06.16 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 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 SITE PLAN C-021 VA N VA N VA N VA N FILM CENTER FFE VARIES 17' 17' CONCERT HALL CARRIAGE HOUSE DROP OFF BOULDER WALLS EXISTING 10' GAS EASEMENT EXISTING 20' WATER EASEMENT CANOPY RETAINING WALL 6' WALK 6' WALK PATIO EXISTING 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOADING DOCK TRASH AREA 6' WALK OW DNE DNE EXISTING 20' WATER EASEMENT 20' WATER EASEMENT 15' WALK STAIRS SITE WALLS 4' CONCRETE PAN PROPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT STE A M E R P A R K W A Y PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) 8' WALK TO BE INSTALLED WITH CARRIAGE HOUSE PER TRC RAIN GARDEN RAIN GARDEN BOULDER WALLS R40' 19' 9' TYP. 2' CONCRETE PAN EXISTING 80' ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 LEGEND: TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW EXISTING TREES TO BE PROTECTED OW PROPOSED "ONE WAY" SIGN DNE PROPOSED "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN NOTES: 1.THE FILM CENTER PROJECT DOES NOT DISTURB ANY KNOW WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS. 2. ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED OR GUYED AND FENCED TO PROTECT FROM WILDLIFE DAMAGE. NO CHAIN-LINK FENCING SHALL BE ALLOWED TO PROTECT LANDSCAPING FROM WILDLIFE DAMAGE. 3.DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE BY WILDLIFE. 4.THE FILM CENTER WILL BE PARTIALLY UNDER GROUND WHICH WILL HELP ATTENUATE NOISE/SOUND. LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION 06/15/21 31 Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.06.16 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.06.16 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 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 C-311 GRADING PLAN CUT CUT/FILL TABLE (UNADJUSTED) FILL NET (FILL) 3,192 CY NUMBERS ARE TO FINISHED GRADE AND DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR UTILITY SPOILS OR BUILDING EXCAVATION. 8,837 CY 5,645 CY EX SD EX SD EX SD EX S D 24" RCP EX S D 24 " R C P 18 " 24" EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D EX S D EX S D D D D D D VA N VA N VA N VA N FILM CENTER FFE VARIES CONCERT HALL CARRIAGE HOUSE FF=7600 12" RCP 12 " R C P 12 " R C P 8" PVC 4" P V C 18 " R C P 8" PVC 12" PVC 7610 7608 761 2 761 4 761 6761 8 76 2 2 76 2 4 76 2 6 RL 761 4 76 0 6 76 0 8 75 9 6 3.3% 2.7% 759 8 1.4% 1.3 % 1.5% 1.3 % 1.6 % 8" PV C 7626 762 8 30 " R C P 24" R C P 18" R C P 18" RCP 7600 7594 7596 7598 7602 7604 7606 2. 3 % 30 " R C P 12" PVC 760 0 7610 7620 7598 760 276047606 7608 7612 7614 7616 7618 7622 7590 7586 7588 7592 7594 7596 75 8 2 75 8 4 7582 7584 758 6 7586 760 4 7600 7590 7580 758 4 75 8 6 75 8 8 7590 7588 7592 7600 761 0 76 2 0 7592 7594 7596 7598 7602 7604 7606 7608 761 2 761 4 76 1 6 76 1 8 76 2 2 76 2 4 7626 76 2 8 7630 764 0 7620 76 2 2 7620 7618 76 1 8 76 1 6 7600 7610 7620 7626 7628 76 3 0 7640 76 1 4 7610 7606 2.4% RAIN GARDEN 2 7602.32 ME 7600.00 ME 7599.43 ME 12 " P V C 15 " H D P E 15" H D P E 12 " P V C 7590 7600 7586 7588 7592 7594 7596 7598 STE A M E R P A R K W A Y EXISTING 80' ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT EXISTING 10' GAS EASEMENT EXISTING 20' WATER EASEMENT EXISTING 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PROPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT 8' WALK TO BE INSTALLED WITH CARRIAGE HOUSE PER TRC PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) RIPRAP PAD 761 2 RAIN GARDEN 3 7601.46 ME D 8" P V C FF=0.00 FF=0.00 FF=0.00 FF=0.00 FF=0.00 0.00 FF=97.00 FF=97.00 FF=97.00 FF=97.00 FF=97.00 FF=16.00 FF=27.00 96.62 96.31 96.26 98.41 99.35 7600.39 ME 7625.83 ME 7632.93 ME 27.13 27.99 20.46 LP 28.89 TW/BW 7628.45 ME 28.38 28.17 28.37 28.47 28.56 28.27 27.50 26.62 LP 27.33 27.72 28.28 7626.20 ME 0.00 99.48 LP 0.00 15.00 TS 10.00 3.22 BS 5.00 27.93 FS 24.95 LP 7626.32 ME 29.16 29.22 7.00 BW 15.00 TW 15.00 TW 96.11 7598.34 97.12 7598.22 TBC/ME 15.00 20.00 FS 1.02 7599.77 ME 26.13 27.77 FS 28.09 FS 0.00 15.00 99.76 ME2.86 TS 99.76 BS 13.83 BW 15.00 TW 99.47 99.79 7598.92 TBC/ME 96.92 7628.10 ME 7629.12 ME 25.65 26.59 27.36 FF=15.00 16.00 BW 15.00 TW 14.48 BW 7588.00 ME 27.40 TW 23.12 BW 22.86 7627.80 ME 27.80 99.19 LP 28.78 4.1% 7622 7622 7624 7626 7628 4.3%9.3% 23.12 4.8% 26.16 29.59 29.17 27.89 12" PVC 18" RCP 18 " P V C 8" PVC 30" R C P 8" P V C 76 0 4 760 6 76 0 0 76 0 2 12 " H D P E EXISTING POND EXISTING RAIN GARDEN A (EXPANDED) 7.3 %2.8 % 3.6 % 5.0 % 6.2 % 3.0% PROPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT RAIN GARDEN 1 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 5345 5343 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION43.50 PROPOSED STORM LINE D PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE 5345 5343 EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION43.50 EXISTING STORM LINE D EXISTING STORM INLET EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EX SD LEGEND: 06/15/21 32 Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.06.16 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.06.16 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 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 C-551 UTILITY PLAN W W W W W W W W W D D D D SS SS W G G G G SS E E E E E FILM CENTER CONCERT HALL CARRIAGE HOUSE W W W W G G G G G D S S TRAN E W W S S SS SS SS SS S SS SS SS SS SS E E E E E E G G G G G D SS SS E E E E E E W W G E E E E EX E EX E EX W EX W EX W EX W EX FO EX FO EX FO EX E EX E EX EEX E EX SD EX SD EX SD EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX G EX G EX G EX G EX G EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX S S EX S S EX S S EX S S EX SD EX W EX W EX E EX E EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX E EX EEX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX S S EX S S EX SS EX SS EX S S EX S S EX S S EX S S EX S S EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W S EX S D S S 24" RCP S EX S D 24 " R C P 8" P V C 6" PVC 18 " 24" EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX G EX G EX G EX G EX G EX G EX G S EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D EX S D EX S D D D D D D 113 L F ~ 1 8 " R C P @ 1 . 0 0 % 88 LF~18" RCP @ 1.00% 134 LF~24" RCP @ 1.00% 110 LF~30" RCP @ 5.00% SDMH A-50 (4' DIA.) INV. IN=7621.27 INV. OUT=7621.07 SDMH A-40 (6' DIA.) INV. IN=7619.94 INV. IN=7616.75 INV. OUT=7616.25 SDMH A-30 (6' DIA.) INV. IN=7614.91 INV. OUT=7614.21 SD INLET B-20 (18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. IN=7592.61 INV. OUT=7592.61 SDCO B-21 INV. OUT=7592.70 SD INLET A-40INV. IN=7592.07INV. OUT=7592.07SD INLET C-40 (12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. OUT=7597.22 SD FES A-10 (30" FES) INV. IN=7606.00 ELECTRICAL SERVICE RE: MEP PLANS GAS SERVICE RE: MEP PLANS RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT RELOCATED 12" DIP WATER LINE EXISTING TRANSFORMERTO REMAIN EXISTINGFIRE HYDRANT EXISTINGFIRE HYDRANT CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY CONNECT TO EXISTING GAS CONNECT TO EXISTING ELECTRICAL EXISTINGFIRE HYDRANT 20' EXISTINGWATER EASEMENT 10' EXISTINGGAS EASEMENT 20' EXISTINGWATER EASEMENT 30' EXISTINGDRAINAGE EASEMENT RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT 72 LF~6" PVC @ 2.00% SSCO A-20 INV.=7591.54 45 LF~6" PVC @ 2.00% SANITARY SERVICE INV.=7592.44 RE: MEP PLANS 20' WATER EASEMENT 12" RCP 12 " R C P 12 " R C P 8" PVC 18 " R C P 12 " D I P 12 " D I P 12" D I P 8" P V C 8" P V C 4" PVC 8" PVC 8" P V C FIRE LINE RE: MEP PLANS DOMESTIC SERVICE W/ INSIDE SET METER 8" P V C 8" P V C 12" PVC 12" DIP 30 " R C P ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION RE: MEP PLANS 4" PERF. PVC FOUNDATION DRAIN 4" PERF. PVC FOUNDATION DRAIN ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION RE: MEP PLANS 19 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 9 LF~4" PVC @ 0.50% 23 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% REMOVE STORM LINE SDCO B-22 INV. OUT=7592.72 SDCO C-30 INV. IN=7596.97 INV. OUT=7596.97 48 LF~8" PVC @ 0.50% SD INLET B-10 (TYPE C (OVERFLOW)) INV. IN=7592.56 INV. OUT=7592.56 58 LF~12" PVC @ 0.50% PRPOPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT 10 LF~12" PVC @ 2.00% STEA M E R P A R K W A Y PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) SD INLET C-20 (15" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. IN=7596.73 INV. OUT=7596.73 15" H D P E 15 " H D P E 8' WALK TO BE INSTALLED WITH CARRIAGE HOUSE PER TRC 50 LF~8" PVC @ 0.50% 73 LF~12" PVC @ 1.00%RAIN GARDEN 3 WQCV REQUIRED = 519 CU FT WQCV PROVIDED = 650 CU FT EXISTING POND D 50 LF~8" PVC @ 1.50% SD INLET C-11 (12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. OUT=7600.75 SD FES D-10 (18" FES) INV. IN=7588.00 85 LF~18" PVC @ 3.00% SD INLET D-20 (24" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. IN=7593.93 INV. OUT=7590.56 23 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% SDCO D-40 INV. IN=7595.94 INV. OUT=7594.17 46 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% SDCO D-50 INV. IN=7597.98 INV. OUT=7596.17 37 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% SDCO D-60 INV. OUT=7598.17 SD INLET A-60 (15' TYPE R) INV. IN=7622.66 INV. OUT=7622.16 SDMH A-20 (5' DIA.) INV. IN=7608.69 INV. OUT=7608.49 95 L F ~ 3 0 " R C P @ 2 . 6 4 % EXISTING RAIN GARDEN A (EXPANDED)EXISTING WQCV PROVIDED = 1,290 CU FT (EST.)EXPANDED WQCV PROVIDED = 3,250 CU FT 34 LF~8" PVC @ 1.00% CONNECT EXISTING 24" STORM LINE REMOVE STORM LINE SD INLET A-42 (12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. OUT=7617.97 15 LF~12" PVC @ 0.75% SD INLET A-41 (5' TYPE R) INV. IN=7617.85 INV. OUT=7617.35 80 L F ~ 1 8 " R C P @ 0 . 7 5 % CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER EXISTING ROOF DRAIN 12 " H D P E APPROXIMATE TOP OF POND BOUNDARY RAIN GARDEN 2 WQCV REQUIRED = 347 CU FT PROVIDED = 798 CU FT WQCV WSE = 7595.52 EXISTING RAIN GARDEN 1WQCV REQUIRED = 1,523 CU FTPROVIDED = 1,524 CU FTWQCV WSE = 7586.24 RIPRAP PAD PROPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT APPROXIMATE TOP OF POND BOUNDARY SDCO D-30 INV. IN=7594.05 INV. OUT=7594.05 23 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% RIPRAP PAD 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 PROPOSED STORM LINE E PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LINE FO PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC LINE G PROPOSED GAS LINE T PROPOSED TELEPHONE LINE SS PROPOSED SANITARY LINE W PROPOSED WATER LINE COM S D TV W E FO T PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED CLEANOUT PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED WATER VALVE PROPOSED WATER FITTINGS PROPOSED MANHOLES EXISTING STORM LINE EX E EXISTING ELECTRICAL LINE EX FO EXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE EX G EXISTING GAS LINE EX T EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE EX SS EXISTING SANITARY LINE EX W EXISTING WATER LINE COM S D TV W E FO T EXISTING STORM INLET EXISTING CLEANOUT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING WATER VALVE EXISTING MANHOLES EXISTING EASEMENT EX SD LEGEND: 06/15/21 33 Previous Dates: January 29, 2021 & March 24, 2021 Updated Date: April 14, 2021 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: Film & Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Analysis 34 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Updated April 14, 2021  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 ..................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................................. 6 4.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 7 4.1 Roadways ............................................................................................................................ 7 4.2 Intersections ....................................................................................................................... 8 4.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................... 8 4.4 Transit ................................................................................................................................. 9 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 ..................................................... 12 6.0 Proposed Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic ................................................................. 13 6.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 13 6.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment ..................................................................................... 14 7.0 Future Traffic Conditions with Project .................................................................................... 14 8.0 Off‐Peak Analysis ................................................................................................................... 15 9.0 Future Multi‐Modal Trips and Facilities .................................................................................. 17 10.0 Parking Operations ................................................................................................................ 18 11.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 18 35 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Updated April 14, 2021  LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary  ..................................................................... 19  Table 2 – Evaluated Mitigation Measures for LOS Compliance .................................................................. 10   Table 3 – Trip Generation Summary ........................................................................................................... 14  Table 4 ‐ Off‐Peak Ingress Volumes ............................................................................................................ 16  Table 5 ‐ Off‐Peak Egress Volumes ............................................................................................................. 16  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1 – Vicinity Map and Existing Access ............................................................................................... 20  Figure 2 – Year 2019 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 21  Figure 3 – Year 2024 Background Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 22  Figure 4 – Trip Distribution and Site‐Generated Trip Volumes .................................................................. 23  Figure 5 – Year 2024 Background + Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 24    APPENDIX  Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form  Level of Service Definitions  Existing Traffic Data  Signal Design and Timing  Intersection Capacity Worksheets  36 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Updated April 14, 2021    THE STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER  TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY    1.0 INTRODUCTION  The Fox Tuttle Transportation Group prepared this traffic impact study for the proposed a Film and  Performing Arts Center at The Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, CO. The project proposes to construct an  auditorium,  theater,  meeting  rooms,  minor  retail,  and  supporting  facilities  for  the  art  district.  It  is  anticipated this new facility will serve the hotel guests and visitors. The new amenity is proposed to be  located in the northeast corner of Steamer Parkway and the Main Entrance, near the old Carriage House  that is currently being renovated. 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 typically has the  highest traffic volumes within the Town.   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 form has not been updated, but the trip generation for the Carriage House has been  updated within this traffic analysis. The Appendix includes the amendment letter for the Carriage House  for inclusion of the basement lounge and patio.    37 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Updated April 14, 2021  2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION  The Stanley Hotel proposes to create an Art District that will include a future museum, film center, and  auditorium.  The  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, as well  as a basement lounge that will be the new location of the existing Aiden Sinclair magic show that is  performed  in  the  MacGregor  Lounge  in  the  main  hotel.  Details  on  the  Carriage  House  indoor  and  outdoor spaces and associated trip generation are included in the Appendix. The second phase of the  project is the Film and Performing Art Center which will include an auditorium (600 fixed seats), a small  theater (60 fixed seats) designed as part of the Stanley Horror Center Tour, meeting rooms, supportive  retail, and maintenance space. As part of the project the Concert Hall will be utilized to host pre‐ and  post‐performance activities. This traffic study focuses on the construction of the Film and Performing  Arts Center, but includes the trips associated with the Carriage House renovation.  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.    38 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Updated April 14, 2021  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.   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.  1  Highway  Capacity  Manual,  Highway  Research  Board  Special  Report  209,  Transportation  Research  Board,  National  Research Council, 6th Edition (2016).    39 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 Updated April 14, 2021  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  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  40 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 Updated April 14, 2021  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)  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 Film  and Performing Arts Center 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).  Refer  to Section  9.0  for  the  proposed walkways that will be a part of this project.   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  41 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 9 Updated April 14, 2021  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 seasonal 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  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 Film and Performing Arts Center. Refer to the  Town’s online transit website for the most current bus stops and routing that may differ from this study.  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.  42 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 10 Updated April 14, 2021  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 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  43 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 11 Updated April 14, 2021  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.   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. The background volumes also included the Stanley’s  Carriage House (restaurant, basement  lounge, and  patio). Discussions on the Carriage House square  footage and trip generation are provided in the Appendix.  Using these assumptions, the Year 2024  background traffic is summarized on Figure 3.     2 Trips gathered from Alarado Business Park Traffic Impact Study. Delich Associate. August 2018. 44 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 12 Updated April 14, 2021  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. Since  the Carriage House is anticipated to be completed prior to the Film and Performing Arts Center and was  evaluated  in  a  separate  traffic study,  these  trips  were  added  to  the  background  volumes.  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.   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.   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 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).     45 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 13 Updated April 14, 2021  6.0  PROPOSED FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER 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 new Film and Performing Arts Center. Majority of the proposed land uses are not  contained within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual3 that is typically  used to estimate the proposed traffic. It is anticipated that many of the trips associated with the new  Film and Performing Arts Center will walk and bike from The Stanley Hotel or nearby lodging.   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  Film  and  Performing  Arts  Center  will  be  guests  already  parked  in  the  respective guest parking lots.  External attendees will park in the proposed parking lots are the Film and  Performing Arts Center. These lots are expected to accommodate the average event attendance. Refer  to the Parking Operations Plan for further evaluation and discussion on parking availability and demand.   Museum: It is anticipated that the unique museum (Stanley Horror Center Tours) will be located within  the 60‐seat theater. The development team estimated that the maximum number per tour will be 23  persons  and  the  tours  will  occur  every  30  minutes  from  10:00am  to  11:00pm,  which  equates  to  a  maximum of 46 persons per hour. Conservatively, this would result in 36 trips in each hour [46 persons ÷  2.5 auto occupancy * 2 trip ends]. The museum trips could occur any hour of the operational day and for  the purpose of this traffic study, these trips were assumed to be external trips.    Auditorium  (Large  Events):  The  proposed  auditorium  can  accommodate  up  to  600  persons.  If all  attendees stayed at The Stanley Hotel, then there would be no external trips. However, it was estimated  that approximately 200 attendees would not stay at The Stanley Hotel. It was estimated that this would  equate to 80 entering/exiting trips [200 attendees ÷ 2.5 auto occupancy] for a total of 160 external daily  trips. The majority of the large events are expected to occur in the evening (starting at 8:00pm) and not  occur within the peak hour.   Auditorium (Medium Events): The proposed auditorium is anticipated to host medium sized events that  would most likely attract up to 450 attendees. If 80% of the these were external, then there would be  approximately entering/exiting 150 trips [80% * 450 attendees ÷ 2.5 auto occupancy] for a total of 300  3  Trip Generation 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017.  46 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 14 Updated April 14, 2021  external daily trips. It is unlikely that these medium events would occur during the peak hours, however,  it is anticipated that these events would be the highest external trip generator.   The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 3. Based on information from The Stanley Hotel  design team, the majority of the trips associated with the Film and Performing Arts Center will not occur  during the peak hours, especially the morning peak.   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  Museum (see text  above)  n/a 470 * * * n/a 18 18  Auditorium (see  text above)  Large  Event n/a  160  *  *  *  *  *  *  Med.  Event n/a  300  *  *  *  *  *  *  * Not Open for Business or this activity    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 PROJECT   This section discusses impacts associated with the proposed trips associated with the build out scenario  of The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center. 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.     47 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 15 Updated April 14, 2021  As shown on the Level of Service summary table, the project trips have little to no impact on the delays  and queuing at 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 will continue  to operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour but it is in compliance with the LOS standards. The northbound  approach of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course 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 OFF‐PEAK ANALYSIS   A large single event at the auditorium could have an attendance of 600 persons.  If all attendees are  staying at the Stanley Hotel, there would be no external trips or additional parking demand beyond the  hotel use (those staying at the hotel are also using the auditorium).  For conservative purposes, it was  assumed in the Parking Operations Plan that approximately 200 attendees would not be staying at the  Stanley Hotel.  With an assumed vehicle occupancy of 2.5 persons, it is estimated that there will be  approximately 80 private vehicles (200 attendees/2.5 auto occupancy).    There is a possibility that medium‐sized events occur in the auditorium that would have a larger number  of external attendees.  In this situation, the attendance could be approximately 450 persons with an  assumed  80%  external  attendance.  This  equates  to  approximately 150  private  vehicles  (360  attendees/2.5 auto occupancy).    The performances at the proposed Film Center will start at 8:00 PM and typically end around 11:00 PM.  Traffic data from CDOT’s traffic count database indicated that traffic in the area at 7:00 PM (hour before  event) is an average of 52% of the evening peak hour volume. At 11:00 PM, the traffic is 17% of the  evening peak hour volume. Table 4 provides an estimate of trips at each intersection during the off‐peak  hour before performances begin. It is assumed that the maximum number of external attendees for a  medium‐sized event enter during the hour before the performance.       48 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 16 Updated April 14, 2021  Table 4. Off‐Peak Ingress Volumes  Intersection  PM Peak  Hour Volume  7:00 PM Volume  (52% of peak)  Performance  Trips (Ingress)  Total Off‐ Peak Volume  Percentage  of Peak  Steamer Pkwy at  SW Steamer Pkwy 347 180 98 278 80%  Wonderview Dr. at  Steamer Pkwy 1,130 590 98 688 61%  Steamer Pkwy at  Aspire 277 145 98 243 88%  Steamer Pkwy at  Main Entrance 312 160 150 310 99%  Steamer Pkwy at  Steamer Dr. 225 115 52 167 74%  US 34 at Steamer  Dr. 1,705 890 52 942 55%  As shown in Table 4, the off‐peak volumes with external visitors travel to the Film Center at each of the  study intersections will be less than the PM peak hour. The intersections on Steamer Parkway within the  Stanley  property  are  anticipated  to  operate  similarly  to  the  PM  peak  hour.  The  intersections  on  Wonderview Drive, Steamer Drive, and US 34 are anticipated to operate better than the peak hours  since the volumes are significantly lower in the off‐peak.   Table 5 provides an estimate of trips at each intersection during the off‐peak hour after medium‐sized  performances end and leave the Stanley property.   Table 5. Off‐Peak Egress Volumes  Intersection  PM Peak  Hour Volume  11:00 PM Volume  (17% of peak)  Performance  Trips (Egress)  Total Off‐ Peak Volume  Percentage  of Peak  Steamer Pkwy at  SW Steamer Pkwy 347 60 98 158 45%  Wonderview Dr. at  Steamer Pkwy 1,130 190 98 288 25%  Steamer Pkwy at  Aspire 277 50 98 148 53%  Steamer Pkwy at  Main Entrance 312 55 150 205 66%  Steamer Pkwy at  Steamer Dr. 225 40 52 92 41%  US 34 at Steamer  Dr. 1,705 290 52 342 20%  49 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 17 Updated April 14, 2021  As shown in Table 5, the off‐peak volumes (including external visitors leaving the Film Center) at each of  the study intersections will be significantly less than the PM peak hour. It is anticipated that all the study  intersections will operate better than the peak hours.   9.0 FUTURE MULTI‐MODAL TRIPS AND FACILITIES   The Stanley proposes to provide new walkways  connecting the hotel and the new Film Center  to  Steamer  Parkway,  as  illustrated  in  the  graphic  to  the  right.  The  plans  include  three  walkways leading from the Stanley campus to  the  new  sidewalk  along  the  northside  of  Steamer Parkway.   For  conservative  purposes,  a  portion  of  the  trips from the Film Center auditorium and the  museum  will  be  external  to  the  Stanley  Campus. It was estimated that the museum would generate up to 36 trips in the PM peak hour (18  enter/18 exit) and a total of 470 daily trips. The large auditorium was estimated to attract up to 200  attendees not staying at The Stanley Hotel, which equates to 160 external trips (80 enter/80 exit). The  smaller auditorium was estimated to generate up to 300 daily external trips. Events in both auditoriums  are  not  expected  to  coincide  with  typical  peak  hour  traffic  periods.  Since  the  proposed  Film  and  Performing  Arts  Center  is  within  ¼  mile  walking  distance  of  the  Lodge,  the  Aspire,  and  neighboring  homes  there  is  potential  that  several  external  visitors  will  walk  or  bike.  It  is  anticipated  that  the  non‐auto external trips associated with the Film and Performing Arts Center would be between 25% and  50%. This equates to between 232 and 465 daily trips completed by walking, biking, or transit.   The Film and Performing Arts Center 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.  An on‐site sidewalk system has been developed for the  Film Center that coordinates with existing and currently under construction sidewalk systems on the  Stanley Campus.  These sidewalk systems coordinate with on‐site connections leading to other Stanley  facilities including the Aspire, Concert Hall, Lodge and Main Hotel.  The sidewalk systems also coordinate  with  off‐site  sidewalk  connections  leading  to  the  downtown  core.    Per  city  standard,  sidewalks  associated with the Film Center shall be 8 feet in width.  This coordinates with existing sidewalk widths  and will ensure adequate capacity, as well as a safe walking/biking system.    50 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 18 Updated April 14, 2021  10.0 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 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 Film and Performing Arts Center.  11.0 CONCLUSION  The project proposes to construct a new Film and Performing Arts Center with an auditorium, theater,  meeting rooms, minor retail, and supportive facilities for the art center. 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 Film and Performing Arts  Center.  Vehicular traffic volumes associated with Film and Performing Arts Center 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 930 daily trips, with no trips in the AM peak hour since it will be closed, and 36 trips in  the PM peak hour. It was determined that the existing roadways and intersections can accommodate  the projected traffic volumes for buildout conditions of the proposed Film and Performing Arts Center  at The Stanley Hotel.     51 FT# 20028 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study Estes Park, CO 4/14/2021 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 7 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 B 9 A 11 B Steamer Pkwy at The Stanley Hotel Main Entrance 4 A 5 A 4 A 6 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 10 A 9 A 10 B Steamer Pkwy at Steamer Dr.3 A 4 A 3 A 5 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 5 A 2 A 6 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 38 E 16 C 42 E Southbound Right 10 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B SIGNAL CONTROL Elkhorn Ave at Wonderview Ave/ St. rain 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 14 B 11 B 15 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 11 B 8 A 11 B Westbound Through 9 A 9 A 10 A 10 B 10 A 11 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 61 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 ear 2019 Existing with ImprovementsYear 2019 Existing (weekend peak hour; for informational purposes) Page 1 of 1 20028_LOS_Film Ctr_v3 52 Existing Main Entrance to Remain Full Movement and Stop-Controlled Existing Stanley Hotel PROJECT SITE Stanley Hotel Estes Park Golf Course FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER Restaurant Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE VICINITY MAP AND EXISITNG ACCESS STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 12/3/2020 CRS 1 53 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 puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE YEAR 2019 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 12/3/2020 CRS 2 54 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 puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE YEAR 2024 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 4/14/2021 CRS 3 55 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 puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION & SITE-GENERATED TRIP VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 12/3/2020 CRS 4 56 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 puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE YEAR 2024 BACKGROUND + SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 4/14/2021 CRS 5 57 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated April 14, 2021      Appendix:    Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form  Carriage House Traffic Amendment Letter   Level of Service Definitions  Existing Traffic Data  Signal Design and Timing  Intersection Capacity Worksheets      58 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated April 14, 2021         Transportation Impact Study   Base Assumptions Form    59 60 61 62 63 64 4/14/2021. Refer to Trip Generation Section for most current trip generation. Refer to Carriage House letter in Appendix for updated trips related to the restaurant, lounge, and patio. 65 66 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated April 14, 2021        Carriage House   Traffic Amendment Letter   67       1624 Market Street | Suite 202 | Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.652.3571 | www.FoxTuttle.com   MEMORANDUM    To:  Town of Estes Park: Community Development and Public Works  From: Cassie Slade, PE, PTOE  Date:  April 14, 2021    Project:  Stanley Carriage House – Estes Park, CO (FT #20028)  Subject:   Traffic Amendment Letter – Update with Patio   The Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC had completed a traffic impact study for the renovation of the  Carriage House on the Stanley Hotel property. The Stanley Hotel: Carriage House Traffic Impact Analysis  was completed and submitted on September 1, 2020. The purpose of the renovation was to provide a full‐ service restaurant with approximately 250 seats and outdoor seating. The traffic study had listed the  useable space of the Carriage House as 5,700 square feet based on information provided by a previous  traffic engineer on this project. It was brought to our attention that the square footage in the traffic study  was slightly less than the actual space for the restaurant and basement lounge. Recently, the Town  requested that the patio associated with the restaurant in the Carriage House be included in the traffic  analysis.    The  total  square  footage  of  the  Carriage  House  is  11,400  sq.  ft.  which  includes  the  restaurant  and  basement lounge. Approximately 5,400 square feet (sq. ft.) is support space which does not generate  external trips. The portion of the building opened to visitors is approximately 6,000 sq. ft. including 2,800  sq. ft. for dining, 1,200 sq. ft. for kitchen, and 2,000 sq. ft. for the lounge in the basement.  The basement  lounge is planned to be used for the existing Aiden Sinclair magic show. These performances are a fixture  of the Stanley Hotel and have been occurring for the past seven years. Historically, there have been two  (2) shows per day for five (5) days a week between May 31st and August 31st. The plan with the Carriage  House is to move the magic shows from the MacGregor Lounge (capacity of 200 persons) in the main  hotel to the new space in the Carriage House basement lounge (capacity of 113 persons). With the  reduction in capacity, the Stanley Hotel plans to add a 3rd magic show each day during the summer, which  is still under the existing maximum attendees.    The difference in the square footage for the indoor portion of the Carriage House as utilized in the traffic  impact study is 300 sq. ft. (6,000 sq. ft. – 5,700 sq. ft.).  The patio space is approximately 2,900 sq. ft. which increases the total useable space to 8,900 sq. ft.  (6,000 sq. ft. + 2,900 sq. ft.).      68 Stanley Carriage House – Estes Park, CO    April 14, 2021                              Traffic Amendment Letter        Page 2    Trip Generation  It is understood that most patrons of the Carriage House restaurant and lounge will be visitors already  staying  at  the  hotel  including  the  patio;  however,  the  traffic impact  study  provided  a  conservative  approach and assumed the restaurant patrons would be external to the hotel. The trips associated with  the restaurant were estimated per rates provided by Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip  Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017). Table 1 summarizes and compares the previous and updated trip  generation for the Carriage House restaurant and lounge.    Table 1. Trip Generation Summary and Comparison  Land Use Size &  Unit  Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour  Rate Total Rate In Out Rate In Out  Traffic Study (9/1/2020)          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         Updated Square Footage with Patio        ITE 932: High‐Turnover  Restaurant 8.9 ksf  112.18  673 In: 5.47  Out: 4.47 *  * In: 6.06  Out: 3.71 52  32  Difference in Trips +17 +11  * Not Open for Business at this time  As shown in Table 1, the additional 300 sq. ft. in the building and the 2,900 sq. ft. patio will generate  approximately 17 inbound trips and 11 outbound trips in the PM peak hour.   Attached to this letter is the updated figures for the trip assignment and future total scenario. The capacity  analysis was updated for the PM peak hour with the additional trips associated with the Carriage House  lounge. It was determined that these trips will have no adverse impact on the study intersections and the  previous delays and levels of service will remain the same. The capacity analysis output worksheets and  updated Level of Service table are attached to this letter.   Hopefully the contents of this traffic letter are helpful.  If you have any questions, please give me a call.    Cassie Slade, PE, PTOE  Principal  Attachments:  Figure 4 – Trip Distribution and Site‐Generated Trip Volumes  Figure 5 – Year 2024 Background + Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes  Table 1 – Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary  Intersection Capacity Analysis Worksheets for PM peak hour  69 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 puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION & SITE-GENERATED TRIP VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 4/14/2021 CRS 4 70 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 puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE YEAR 2024 BACKGROUND + SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 4/14/2021 CRS 5 71 FT# 20028 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study Estes Park, CO 4/14/2021 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. rain 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 11 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 ear 2019 Existing with ImprovementsYear 2019 Existing (weekend peak hour; for informational purposes) Page 1 of 1 20028_LOS_v4 72 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 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 6.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 53 112 17 26 141 Future Vol, veh/h 14 53 112 17 26 141 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 59 124 19 29 157 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 75 0 313 46 Stage 1 - - - - 46 - Stage 2 - - - - 267 - 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 - 680 1023 Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 778 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 624 1023 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 624 - Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 714 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.6 9.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)624 1023 - - 1524 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 0.153 - - 0.082 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11 9.2 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.5 - - 0.3 - 73 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 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 147 8 8 113 16 1 Future Vol, veh/h 147 8 8 113 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 163 9 9 126 18 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 172 0 312 168 Stage 1 - - - - 168 - Stage 2 - - - - 144 - 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 - - 1405 - 681 876 Stage 1 - - - - 862 - Stage 2 - - - - 883 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1405 - 676 876 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 676 - Stage 1 - - - - 862 - Stage 2 - - - - 877 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 10.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)685 - - 1405 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - 74 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 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 5.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 106 42 38 40 28 83 Future Vol, veh/h 106 42 38 40 28 83 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 118 47 42 44 31 92 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 86 0 - 0 347 64 Stage 1 - - - - 64 - Stage 2 - - - - 283 - 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 1510 - - - 650 1000 Stage 1 - - - - 959 - Stage 2 - - - - 765 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1510 - - - 598 1000 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 598 - Stage 1 - - - - 882 - Stage 2 - - - - 765 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.4 0 9.9 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1510 - - - 855 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.078 - - - 0.144 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 9.9 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - - 0.5 75 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 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 4.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 54 76 52 39 3 Future Vol, veh/h 10 54 76 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 60 84 58 43 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 271 45 46 0 - 0 Stage 1 45 - - - - - Stage 2 226 - - - - - 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 718 1025 1562 - - - Stage 1 977 - - - - - Stage 2 812 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 678 1025 1562 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 678 - - - - - Stage 1 922 - - - - - Stage 2 812 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 4.4 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1562 - 949 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - 0.075 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.2 - - 76 Timings 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 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 104 630 1 479 140 0 2 213 104 630 1 479 140 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 86.2 86.2 71.6 71.6 71.6 5.5 15.5 116.0 0.74 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.05 0.13 1.00 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.66 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: 0.66 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 77 Queues 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 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) 116 703 1 532 156 3 156 237 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.66 0.15 Control Delay 6.1 9.1 13.0 11.7 2.7 0.0 60.6 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.1 9.1 13.0 11.7 2.7 0.0 60.6 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 168 0 81 0 0 112 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 58 419 4 167 35 0 174 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100 Base Capacity (vph) 627 1383 448 2194 1040 246 309 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 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.50 0.15 Intersection Summary 78 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 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) 104 630 3 1 479 140 1 0 2 139 2 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 104 630 3 1 479 140 1 0 2 139 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 116 700 3 1 532 0 1 0 2 154 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 659 1366 6 489 2185 2 0 4 188 2 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.73 0.73 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1861 8 744 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1760 23 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 0 703 1 532 0 3 0 0 156 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 18.6 0.1 7.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 18.6 4.9 7.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.9 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 659 0 1372 489 2185 7 0 0 191 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.18 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 662 0 1372 489 2185 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 6.1 0.0 6.6 10.6 10.1 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 50.7 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 8.8 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 6.7 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.2 0.0 8.0 10.6 10.4 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A B B F A A E A Approach Vol, veh/h 819 533 A 3 156 A Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 10.4 100.6 59.4 Approach LOS A B F E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 91.1 18.4 13.8 77.3 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 20.6 11.9 4.4 9.9 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.7 0.5 0.1 3.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.2 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. 79 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 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 5.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 447 367 107 130 35 Future Vol, veh/h 60 447 367 107 130 35 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 67 497 408 119 144 39 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 527 0 - 0 1039 408 Stage 1 - - - - 408 - Stage 2 - - - - 631 - 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 1040 - - - 255 643 Stage 1 - - - - 671 - Stage 2 - - - - 530 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1040 - - - 239 643 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 239 - Stage 1 - - - - 628 - Stage 2 - - - - 530 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1 0 34.4 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1040 - - - 239 643 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.064 - - - 0.604 0.06 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - - - 40.7 11 HCM Lane LOS A - - - E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 3.5 0.2 80 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated April 14, 2021        Level of Service   Definitions  81 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. 82 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated April 14, 2021         Existing Traffic Data    83 84 85 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated April 14, 2021        Signal Design   and Timing  86      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        87 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 88 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 89 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 90 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 91 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 92 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 93 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 94 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 95 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 96 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 97 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated April 14, 2021        Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Existing   98 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - 99 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - 100 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - - - 0.1 101 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - - 102 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - 103 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 0.1 104 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - 105 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - 106 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - - - 0.3 107 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - - 108 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 109 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 0.1 110 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated April 14, 2021        Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Existing  with Signal   111 Timings 2019 Existing - with Signal - AM Peak Hour 09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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) 112 Queues 2019 Existing - with Signal - AM Peak Hour 09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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. 113 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) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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. 114 Timings 2019 Existing - With Signal - PM Peak Hour 09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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) 115 Queues 2019 Existing - With Signal - PM Peak Hour 09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 116 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) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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. 117 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated April 14, 2021        Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Year 2024 Background  118 HCM 6th TWSC 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - 119 HCM 6th TWSC 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - 120 HCM 6th TWSC 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - - - 0.1 121 HCM 6th TWSC 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 - - 122 Timings 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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) 123 Queues 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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. 124 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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. 125 HCM 6th TWSC 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 0.1 126 HCM 6th TWSC 04/14/2021 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 53 112 17 26 141 Future Vol, veh/h 14 53 112 17 26 141 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 59 124 19 29 157 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 75 0 313 46 Stage 1 - - - - 46 - Stage 2 - - - - 267 - 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 - 680 1023 Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 778 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 624 1023 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 624 - Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 714 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.6 9.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)624 1023 - - 1524 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 0.153 - - 0.082 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11 9.2 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.5 - - 0.3 - 127 HCM 6th TWSC 04/14/2021 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 147 8 8 113 16 1 Future Vol, veh/h 147 8 8 113 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 163 9 9 126 18 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 172 0 312 168 Stage 1 - - - - 168 - Stage 2 - - - - 144 - 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 - - 1405 - 681 876 Stage 1 - - - - 862 - Stage 2 - - - - 883 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1405 - 676 876 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 676 - Stage 1 - - - - 862 - Stage 2 - - - - 877 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 10.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)685 - - 1405 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - 128 HCM 6th TWSC 04/14/2021 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 106 42 38 40 28 83 Future Vol, veh/h 106 42 38 40 28 83 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 118 47 42 44 31 92 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 86 0 - 0 347 64 Stage 1 - - - - 64 - Stage 2 - - - - 283 - 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 1510 - - - 650 1000 Stage 1 - - - - 959 - Stage 2 - - - - 765 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1510 - - - 598 1000 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 598 - Stage 1 - - - - 882 - Stage 2 - - - - 765 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.4 0 9.9 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1510 - - - 855 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.078 - - - 0.144 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 9.9 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - - 0.5 129 HCM 6th TWSC 04/14/2021 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 54 76 52 39 3 Future Vol, veh/h 10 54 76 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 60 84 58 43 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 271 45 46 0 - 0 Stage 1 45 - - - - - Stage 2 226 - - - - - 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 718 1025 1562 - - - Stage 1 977 - - - - - Stage 2 812 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 678 1025 1562 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 678 - - - - - Stage 1 922 - - - - - Stage 2 812 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 4.4 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1562 - 949 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - 0.075 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.2 - - 130 Timings 04/14/2021 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 104 630 1 479 140 0 2 213 104 630 1 479 140 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 86.2 86.2 71.6 71.6 71.6 5.5 15.5 116.0 0.74 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.05 0.13 1.00 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.66 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: 0.66 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 131 Queues 04/14/2021 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 116 703 1 532 156 3 156 237 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.66 0.15 Control Delay 6.1 9.1 13.0 11.7 2.7 0.0 60.6 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.1 9.1 13.0 11.7 2.7 0.0 60.6 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 168 0 81 0 0 112 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 58 419 4 167 35 0 174 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100 Base Capacity (vph) 627 1383 448 2194 1040 246 309 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 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.50 0.15 Intersection Summary 132 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 04/14/2021 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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) 104 630 3 1 479 140 1 0 2 139 2 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 104 630 3 1 479 140 1 0 2 139 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 116 700 3 1 532 0 1 0 2 154 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 659 1366 6 489 2185 2 0 4 188 2 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.73 0.73 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1861 8 744 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1760 23 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 0 703 1 532 0 3 0 0 156 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 18.6 0.1 7.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 18.6 4.9 7.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.9 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 659 0 1372 489 2185 7 0 0 191 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.18 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 662 0 1372 489 2185 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 6.1 0.0 6.6 10.6 10.1 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 50.7 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 8.8 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 6.7 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.2 0.0 8.0 10.6 10.4 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A B B F A A E A Approach Vol, veh/h 819 533 A 3 156 A Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 10.4 100.6 59.4 Approach LOS A B F E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 91.1 18.4 13.8 77.3 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 20.6 11.9 4.4 9.9 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.7 0.5 0.1 3.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.2 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. 133 HCM 6th TWSC 04/14/2021 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 447 367 107 130 35 Future Vol, veh/h 60 447 367 107 130 35 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 67 497 408 119 144 39 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 527 0 - 0 1039 408 Stage 1 - - - - 408 - Stage 2 - - - - 631 - 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 1040 - - - 255 643 Stage 1 - - - - 671 - Stage 2 - - - - 530 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1040 - - - 239 643 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 239 - Stage 1 - - - - 628 - Stage 2 - - - - 530 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1 0 34.4 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1040 - - - 239 643 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.064 - - - 0.604 0.06 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - - - 40.7 11 HCM Lane LOS A - - - E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 3.5 0.2 134 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Updated April 14, 2021        Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Year 2024 Background+  Project       135 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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 - 136 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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 - 137 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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 - - - 0.4 138 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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 - - 139 Timings 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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) 140 Queues 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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 141 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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. 142 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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 0.2 143 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 53 123 17 26 152 Future Vol, veh/h 14 53 123 17 26 152 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 59 137 19 29 169 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 75 0 339 46 Stage 1 - - - - 46 - Stage 2 - - - - 293 - 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 - 657 1023 Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 757 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 597 1023 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 597 - Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 688 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.7 9.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)597 1023 - - 1524 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 0.165 - - 0.09 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 9.2 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.6 - - 0.3 - 144 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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 158 8 8 124 16 1 Future Vol, veh/h 158 8 8 124 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 176 9 9 138 18 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 185 0 337 181 Stage 1 - - - - 181 - Stage 2 - - - - 156 - 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 - - 1390 - 658 862 Stage 1 - - - - 850 - Stage 2 - - - - 872 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1390 - 653 862 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 653 - Stage 1 - - - - 850 - Stage 2 - - - - 866 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 10.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)662 - - 1390 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - 145 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 117 42 38 47 31 94 Future Vol, veh/h 117 42 38 47 31 94 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 130 47 42 52 34 104 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 94 0 - 0 375 68 Stage 1 - - - - 68 - Stage 2 - - - - 307 - 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 1500 - - - 626 995 Stage 1 - - - - 955 - Stage 2 - - - - 746 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1500 - - - 570 995 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 570 - Stage 1 - - - - 870 - Stage 2 - - - - 746 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.6 0 10.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1500 - - - 840 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.087 - - - 0.165 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 10.1 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - - 0.6 146 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 61 83 52 39 3 Future Vol, veh/h 10 61 83 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 68 92 58 43 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 287 45 46 0 - 0 Stage 1 45 - - - - - Stage 2 242 - - - - - 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 703 1025 1562 - - - Stage 1 977 - - - - - Stage 2 798 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 660 1025 1562 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 660 - - - - - Stage 1 917 - - - - - Stage 2 798 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 4.6 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1562 - 951 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 - 0.083 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.3 - - 147 Timings 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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 105 630 1 479 146 0 2 213 105 630 1 479 146 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 85.8 85.8 71.2 71.2 71.2 5.5 15.9 116.0 0.74 0.74 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.05 0.14 1.00 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.25 0.16 0.01 0.67 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: 0.67 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.5% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 148 Queues 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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) 117 703 1 532 162 3 164 237 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.25 0.16 0.01 0.67 0.15 Control Delay 6.3 9.4 14.0 12.0 2.7 0.0 60.9 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.3 9.4 14.0 12.0 2.7 0.0 60.9 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 172 0 82 0 0 118 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 426 4 168 37 0 181 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100 Base Capacity (vph) 624 1376 444 2183 1038 246 311 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 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.16 0.01 0.53 0.15 Intersection Summary 149 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center 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) 105 630 3 1 479 146 1 0 2 146 2 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 105 630 3 1 479 146 1 0 2 146 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 117 700 3 1 532 0 1 0 2 162 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 654 1357 6 483 2169 2 0 4 196 2 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.73 0.73 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1861 8 744 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1761 22 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 117 0 703 1 532 0 3 0 0 164 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 2.5 0.0 18.9 0.1 8.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 18.9 5.2 8.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 10.4 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 654 0 1363 483 2169 7 0 0 199 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.18 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.25 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 657 0 1363 483 2169 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 6.3 0.0 6.8 10.9 10.4 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 50.4 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 10.2 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 0.9 0.0 6.8 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.4 0.0 8.2 10.9 10.6 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 60.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A B B F A A E A Approach Vol, veh/h 820 533 A 3 164 A Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 10.6 100.6 60.6 Approach LOS A B F E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 90.6 18.9 13.8 76.8 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 20.9 12.4 4.5 10.0 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.7 0.5 0.1 3.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.8 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. 150 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 64 447 367 114 137 39 Future Vol, veh/h 64 447 367 114 137 39 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 71 497 408 127 152 43 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 535 0 - 0 1047 408 Stage 1 - - - - 408 - Stage 2 - - - - 639 - 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 1033 - - - 253 643 Stage 1 - - - - 671 - Stage 2 - - - - 526 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1033 - - - 236 643 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 236 - Stage 1 - - - - 625 - Stage 2 - - - - 526 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.1 0 36.9 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1033 - - - 236 643 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.069 - - - 0.645 0.067 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - - - 44.3 11 HCM Lane LOS A - - - E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 4 0.2 151 Timings 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 7: St. Vrain Ave (US 36)/Wonderview Ave (US 34) & Elkhorn Ave (US 34)/Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 9 Lane Group Ø1 Ø2 Ø4 Ø5 Ø6 Ø8 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases 1 2 4 5 6 8 Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)13.0 27.0 25.0 12.5 27.0 25.0 Total Split (s)19.0 31.0 34.0 19.0 31.0 32.0 Total Split (%)16% 27% 29% 16% 27% 28% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max Max None C-Max Max Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 116 Actuated Cycle Length: 116 Offset: 114 (98%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.00 Intersection Signal Delay: 0.0 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: St. Vrain Ave (US 36)/Wonderview Ave (US 34) & Elkhorn Ave (US 34)/Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 152 Queues 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 7: St. Vrain Ave (US 36)/Wonderview Ave (US 34) & Elkhorn Ave (US 34)/Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 10 Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary 153 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 7: St. Vrain Ave (US 36)/Wonderview Ave (US 34) & Elkhorn Ave (US 34)/Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 11 HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support turning movements with shared & exclusive lanes. 154 155 Stanley Carriage House & Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Provided for Grand Heritage Hotel Group MOA Architecture April 14th, 2021 156 Executive Summary The Parking Operations Plan is provided at this time for Town of Estes Park planning review of the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Film Center project. It is critical to point out that the parking operations identified in this report illustrate parking needs are accommodated on the Stanley property for all current and proposed facilities identified within this report. This plan illustrates that all facilities, including the recently approved Carriage House and the Stanley Film Center will have parking provided that meets their projected needs. 450 total parking stalls are provided for on-site Guest and Visitor Parking at the Stanley property as identified in this plan. Staff designated parking is not included in the 450 spaces. 53 staff parking spaces are assigned separately and match the needs of current and future staff. The Stanley may relocate all staff parking off site in the future in which case, there would be 53 additional guest and visitor parking spaces available. The Stanley Historic District Master Plan identifies parking requirements for uses on the Stanley campus. Per the Master Plan parking requirements, and the analysis within this report, the Stanley lodging functions will require 240 total parking stalls. 210 stalls remain available for use by the Stanley Film Center and Carriage House restaurant. The analysis illustrates 194 stalls will be required by the Film Center and Carriage House. Of the 450 total stalls, the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center and Carriage House restaurant will have a series of four parking lots that accommodate 132 total vehicles, plus shared parking at the remaining lots on the Stanley campus. As illustrated in this Parking Operations Plan, the parking and transportation needs for the Stanley Film Center are amply provided on the Stanley property. Jack Mousseau, AIA MOA Architecture 157 Project Outline Grand Heritage Hotel Group “GH” proposes to build a Film and Performing Arts Center at The Stanley Hotel site, specifically within the “Arts District”. The creation of an “Arts District” was a critical component of F.O. Stanley’s original vision for the Stanley Hotel Property. The Film and Performing Arts Center is an integral piece in completing that vision. The Arts District at the Stanley will consist of the existing Concert Hall and Carriage House, as well as the new Film and Performing Arts Center. The revitalization of this area will breathe new life into the Carriage House, turning it into a vibrant restaurant in support of the campus. This will bring a sustainable use into the Carriage House, giving it a financially feasible path to its renovation. The Concert Hall will benefit from a gentle connection to the new Film and Performing Arts Center. The connection will allow the Concert Hall to benefit from the restrooms, vertical circulation, ADA access and lobby of the Film and Performing Arts Center. The supporting infrastructure will enable the Concert Hall to function as a 21st Century facility but maintain its historical roots and design. The existing Concert Hall will become a supportive “ancillary” use to the Film and Performing Arts Center, primarily hosting pre and post-performance activities. Simultaneous performances at the existing Concert Hall and the auditorium at the new Film and Performing Arts Center will not occur. The primary features of the Film and Performing Arts Center include an auditorium with 600 fixed seats, a small theater with 60 fixed seats designed as part of the Stanley Horror Center Tour (a museum like experience) and various meeting rooms. The remainder of the facility includes minor retail and support facilities for the film and performing arts functions as well as maintenance and operations facilities for the Stanley property. The existing Carriage House will be renovated into a full-service restaurant. Approximately 250 seats are planned for the restaurant including outdoor patio dining. The primary use of the new auditorium for performing arts will occur during off-peak tourism season so as not to conflict with peak season hotel guest and visitor parking demands. The off- peak season spans the months of October thru May. During these months, it is estimated that that two to three events will be held monthly in the auditorium with an average attendance of 400 persons. Typically, these events will occur on weeknights between the hours of 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm. It is also anticipated that four events per year will be at full capacity (600 attendees). The Stanley Horror Center will be a unique program located in the basement level of the Film and Performing Arts Center. The maximum number of persons per tour is 23 with tours occurring every 30 minutes from 10:00 am to 11:00 pm. Parking Fees and Access Control Parking for hotel guests is provided as part of their payment for lodging at the time a booking is made. Parking charges for Film Center performance events will occur as a part of ticket pre- sales. Day visitors or event visitors not associated with an auditorium performance are required to pay for on-site parking at a rate of $10 per vehicle. Parking fees are charged between the hours of 10:00 am and 4:00 pm. Fee collection occurs at the parking control pavilion at the entrance to the property. Restaurant visitors are anticipated to primarily visit after 4:00 pm and would not be charged for parking. Restaurant visitors arriving during parking fee collection hours will be reimbursed parking fees. Because the Stanley property (with the exception of the Aspire) has a controlled access point for guests and visitors, guests and visitors must identify the reason for their visit (lodging, 158 performance event, restaurant, etc.), payment is collected if it hasn’t been provided as part of lodging or ticket sales, and then the vehicle is directed to available and appropriate parking areas, dependent on the reason for the visit. Direct interface with a parking control person at the entry to the Stanley property will identify if the vehicle is arriving for lodging, an auditorium event or other function. This system allows the Stanley to regulate visitors by directing them to available parking, ensure adequate parking is available, and anticipate parking contingency needs as necessary. The parking control point is typically manned during the peak visitor season (June 15th to August 15th, then again through the month of September). It is not typically manned during off peak season. Town of Estes Park Resort Property Agreements In earlier versions of the Parking and Operations Plan, it had been identified that the Stanley was in negotiation with several off-site guest properties which wish to provide shared lodging/ticket presales for events at the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center. Agreements with these properties would reduce on-site parking requirements by use of a shared shuttle service between resort properties. Rather than negotiate property agreements, the Stanley Hotel will control and operate a private guest shuttle independently. The Stanley will operate the shuttle through a third-party operator using the TIXR phone app. This approach will allow any user to purchase a shuttle ticket using the TIXR app and schedule a pickup. The app then sends the user information, location, and pick-up time to the shuttle. The direct app locational information will allow the shuttle to operate without need for a set route, rather it will operate based on passenger location and demand much like an Uber. Depending on the location of an event at the Stanley (Film Center, Concert Hall, Main Hotel, etc.) the shuttle may drop at different locations. For a Film Center event, the shuttle would drop at the east entry of the Film Center. For an event at the existing Concert Hall, Lodge or Main Hotel, the shuttle would drop at the SW corner of the Concert Hall. Graphic 1.0 – Estes Park Lodging Map & Bike Routes 159 Alternative Means of Site Access The expected number of patrons forecast to walk or bike to the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center will be provided in the Traffic Impact Study. Pedestrian and bike routing in the Town of Estes Park and on the campus are illustrated on Graphics 1.0 and 2.1. On-site sidewalk systems provide a continuous, ADA-compliant path of travel from ADA parking to the entrance of the Carriage House as well as the Film and Performing Arts Center. New sidewalks, that have been agreed to be provided by the Stanley in discussions with the Town of Estes Park are shown on diagram 2.2. On-site sidewalks and paths tie to an off-site network of sidewalks within a walkable radius (20 minutes) of the Film and Performing Arts Center. The 20-minute walkable radius was discussed and agreed to by representatives of the Town of Estes Park Planning Department, as well as the Town of Estes Park Public Works representative for Parking and Transit Management. Graphic 3.0 and 4.0 depict the 20-minute walk zone in relationship to the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Transit 2021 plan. The 20-minute walk zone was derived from an online distance mapping service Walkscore.com. The algorithms utilized by the site align with the latest academic research regarding street walkability. More detailed information can be found at: https://www.walkscore.com/professional/research.php The running slopes connecting accessible parking spaces and entrances to the Film and Performing Arts Center are designed to be as flat as possible, with the maximum running slope of 5%. The remaining pedestrian sidewalks and paths will be designed as accessible to the maximum extent feasible. That approach is in line with Sidewalk Design Criteria outlined in Pedestrian Facilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The expected number of patrons forecast to take private transportation (e.g., Uber, Lyft, Estes Park Shuttle, etc.) to the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center will also be provided in the Traffic Impact Study. 160 Graphic 2.1 – Sidewalk Location Diagrams Graphic 2.2 – New Sidewalk Location Diagram 161 Graphic 3.0 – 20 Minute Walk Zone Diagram 162 Graphic 4.0 – Estes Transit 2021 Diagram Stanley Parking Lot Descriptions The Stanley Hotel property has a number of guest and visitor parking lots that serve the various buildings and uses on the property including the Hotel and Lodge (guest lodging), the Concert Hall and new Film and Performing Arts Center, the Carriage House Restaurant, and the Aspire Lodge and Spa. Additionally, staff designated parking is provided separately and matches the needs of current and future staff. Graphic 5.0 illustrates the parking lot locations and stall counts on the Stanley Campus. Additionally, it identifies handicap parking stalls per lot. The guest and visitor parking distributed to the various uses is as follows: • Stanley Hotel and Lodge Parking Lots o The hotel has a series of five lots that accommodate 250 total vehicles. • Stanley Aspire Lodging and Spa Parking Lots o The Aspire parking lot accommodates 66 vehicles. • Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center and Carriage House Restaurant Parking Lots o The film and performing arts center and Carriage House restaurant will have a series of four lots that accommodate 132 total vehicles. Of these, 4 stalls in Lot H- 1 are handicap compliant per the requirements of the ADA, 2010 code and will 163 serve the Carriage House with direct ADA connectivity. The stall locations and connectivity is identified in the Carriage House and East Parking permit documents • Total on-site Guest and Visitor Parking Spaces – 450 spaces* *Staff designated parking is not included in the 450 spaces. 53 staff parking spaces are assigned separately and match the needs of current and future staff. The Stanley may relocate all staff parking off site in the future in which case, there would be 53 additional guest and visitor parking spaces available. FUNCTION SPACES ON-SITE Stanley Hotel/Lodge 252 Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center 132 Stanley Aspire 66 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 450 Graphic 5.0 - Total parking spaces provided on the Stanley Property Lot Designation Parking Count A 49 B 66 C-1 34 C-2 29 164 Film and Performing Arts Center - Vehicle Trip Generation as Related to Parking Needs The primary uses of the Film and Performing Arts Center, the auditorium, and the Stanley Horror Center, were analyzed in a separate Traffic Impact Study to determine vehicle trip generation, which in turn helps develop the needs for parking. A large single event at the auditorium could have an attendance of 600 persons. If all attendees are staying at the Stanley Hotel, there would be no external trips or additional parking demand beyond the hotel use (those staying at the hotel are also using the auditorium). However, the base assumption is that approximately 200 attendees would not be staying at the Stanley Hotel. Therefore, these attendees would arrive/depart in 80 private vehicles (200 attendees/2.5 auto occupancy). The events would typically occur in the evening (starting at 8:00 pm). Beyond the large auditorium events, there could be medium sized events in the auditorium that would have a larger number of external attendees. Under this assumption, attendance could be approximately 450 persons. At 80% external attendance, there would be approximately 150 private vehicles (360 attendees/2.5 auto occupancy). Parking Requirements Based on the Stanley Historic District Master Plan The Stanley Historic District Master Plan identifies parking requirements and are summarized as follows in relationship to the Film and Performing Arts Center. Arts Center – five (5) spaces per 1,000 SF Recreation/Wellness/Conference – three (3) spaces per 1,000 SF Commercial/Retail/Restaurant – five (5) spaces per 1,000 SF As a mixed-use facility, the Film and Performing Arts Center houses many including the Arts Center, a Conference Center, retail area and the Carriage House restaurant. The square footage for each of these dedicated functions, along with the parking requirement based solely on that single use is identified as follows: Arts Center Functions – 38,260 SF at 5/1000 parking = 191 stalls Conference Center Functions – 22,510 SF at 3/1000 parking = 68 stalls Retail/Restaurant Functions – 9,000 SF at 5/1000 parking = 45 stalls TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON INDIVIDUAL USES = 304 stalls C-3 5 D 35 E 34 F 32 G 44 H-1 18 H-2 38 J-1 11 J-2 31 J-3 24 TOTAL AVAILABLE 450 165 Recognizing that there will be significant shared parking between these uses, this direct calculation method for each individual use is inappropriate. This was anticipated within the Stanley Historic District Master Plan in recognition of the shared uses on the property and a desire to limit parking on the property in favor of dedicated open space. Page 31 of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan states: “At such time that the Cultural Arts Center is constructed, a joint use for parking for the Stanley Hotel and the Cultural Arts Center may become a part of the overall parking plan for the Cultural Arts Center.” Additionally, peak hours of operation for the different uses listed will vary significantly. As an example, the auditorium in the Film and Performing Arts Center will have peak use between the hours of 8:00 pm and 11:00 pm. The conference center functions are anticipated to have peak use between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm. The peak utilization of these spaces, and thus, the associated parking needs do not overlap. The Parking Operations Plan has built in assumptions to help guide expected building operations and related parking needs. Anticipated Hours of Operation Arts Center Auditorium Functions - 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm Conference Center Functions - 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Stanley Horror Center Tour Functions 10:00 am to 11:00 pm Retail/Restaurant Functions - 7:00 am to 10:00 pm* (*restaurant hours may vary on weekends or with significant events but will typically be as stated here) All lodging accommodations offered on the Stanley Campus host between 350 and 450 guests per night in peak season. These include guests at the Stanley Hotel, the Lodge and the Aspire. It is anticipated that many of the visitors to the Film and Performing Arts Center will be Stanley Hotel and Aspire guests already parking in the respective guest lots. Attendees not staying at the Stanley Hotel or Aspire will park in the Film and Performing Arts Center lots. These lots are expected to accommodate the average event attendance. Anticipated Percentage of Patrons Utilizing Lodging and Other Uses Lodging and Arts Center Functions – 450 attendees with 20% using lodging Lodging and Conference Center Functions – 300 attendees with 80% using lodging Lodging and Stanley Horror Center Tour Functions – 46 person per hour with 30% using lodging Lodging and Retail/Restaurant Functions – 250 patrons with 40% using lodging Parking Needs Parking needs for lodging guests are currently adequately provided for. With between 350 and 450 guests per night during peak season, the 318 parking spaces provided at the Hotel, Lodge and Aspire provide adequate parking resources. The Stanley property provides the following numbers of lodging rooms: Stanley Hotel 99 rooms The Lodge 40 rooms The Aspire 53 rooms TOTAL ROOMS = 192 166 The Stanley Historic District Master Plan parking requirement for hotel/lodging is 1.25 spaces per room. Based on a total room count of 192, the parking requirement for lodging on-site is 240 spaces. There is a significant anticipated reduction in project parking requirements based on shared parking assumptions between activities at the Stanley property. Shared parking is expected to occur between the lodging, the Film and Performing Arts Center and the Carriage House restaurant. Film Center Functions – 191 stalls (20% are provided for with lodging) = 153 spaces needed Conference Center Functions – 68 stalls (80% are provided for with lodging) = 14 stalls needed Retail/Restaurant Functions – 45 stalls (40% are provided for with lodging) = 27 stalls needed In summary, parking requirements based on shared use assumptions are as follows: FUNCTION SPACES REQUIRED Lodging 240 Film Center 153 Conference Center 14 Retail/Restaurant 27 TOTAL PARKING NEED 434 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED ON-SITE - 450 SPACES The above parking requirements assume that parking requirements for each function on the Stanley property are occurring simultaneously and utilizing all parking spaces per their requirement. Given the expected hours of operation for each function, it is unlikely that this would occur. For instance, the auditorium will be scheduled for performances between 8:00 pm and 11:00 pm. The conference center will complete operation at 6:00 pm. Events utilizing the conference center beyond 6:00 pm are anticipated to be auditorium patrons attending a pre or post performance event. Simultaneous use of these two functions is not anticipated. Parking Contingencies Should additional parking be needed due to infrequent, significant events, arrangements will be made for the utilization of off-site public parking and shuttle services. All major events requiring utilization of shuttle services are anticipated to be scheduled for weeknights in off-peak season with events scheduled from 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm. In this event, shuttle services would be provided typically from 6:00 pm to 12:00 am. The anticipated/desired Level of Service for shuttle/trolley (i.e., headways) would be as follows: • Every 15 minutes: 90 minutes before to 30 minutes before the beginning of an event • Every 5 minutes: 30 minutes before to 15 minutes after beginning of an event • Every 30 minutes: 15 minutes after the beginning of an event to 15 minutes before the end of an event • Every 10 minutes: 15 minutes before the end of an event to 30 minutes after the end of an event 167 The Carriage House restaurant will NOT require private or public shuttle bus connectivity to augment parking provided on site. The Film and Performing Arts Center will operate on a ticket pre-sale system so the number of attendees for events will be known ahead of time. Very little walk-up ticket sales are expected. If necessary, in the event of a sold-out feature performance, GH will notify and coordinate with public parking properties including the Town of Estes Park, along with the towns seasonal shuttle system and private shuttle services ahead of the event to ensure adequate parking as well as shuttle transport systems are in place. Because most performances will occur outside of peak tourist season, the likelihood of this occurring and the frequency of occurrence will be very low. Public parking areas that can be utilized include the Town of Estes Parking public parking structure and the Events Complex. The Estes Park Visitor Center offers guests parking, with the new Estes Park Parking Structure hosting 415 spots, restrooms and access to all five town shuttles, including the downtown trolley, as well as the Rocky Mountain National Park hiker shuttle. Located at 500 Big Thompson Avenue, the visitor center is near the Stanley property. The largest parking area is the Park & Ride stop located at the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park at 1209 Manford Avenue, just east of Highway 7 and south of Highway 36. The Stanley Hotel will control and operate a private guest shuttle independently. There is currently no negotiation with off-site resorts. The Stanley will operate the shuttle through a third- party operator using the TIXR phone app. This approach will allow any user to purchase a shuttle ticket using the TIXR app and schedule a pickup. The app then sends the user information, location, and pick-up time to the shuttle. The direct app locational information will allow the shuttle to operate without need for a set route, rather it will operate based on passenger location and demand much like an Uber. Depending on the location of an event at the Stanley (Film Center, Concert Hall, Main Hotel, etc.) the shuttle may drop at different locations. For a Film Center event, the shuttle would drop at the east entry of the Film Center. For an event at the existing Concert Hall, Lodge or Main Hotel, the shuttle would drop at the SW corner of the Concert Hall. Film Center Service, Loading and Bus Access The Film Center design accommodates a service and loading yard on the east side of the building. Accessed through the new East Parking Lot development, the service and loading will accommodate deliveries, service vehicles, trash, etc. The service and loading area will typically host vehicles including pick-up trucks, 35-foot box trucks, trash removal vehicles, etc. Turning radius design throughout the Stanley property will accommodate these vehicles. Upon limited occasions, semi-truck access will be required. This would occur when significant performances are scheduled at the Film Center. On those occasions, there are 7 parking stalls that will need to be coned-off to accommodate semi-truck deliveries. These stalls are identified on Graphic 6.0 – Truck Turning Plan. Bus route access for town buses are identified on Graphic 7.0 – Bus Turning Plan. This is the town transit bus path. Bus path for performing artists would be similar but would park at the service/loading area. 168 Graphic 6.0 – Truck Turning Plan Graphic 7.0 – Town Bus Turning Plan 169 TRUCK TURNING PLAN C-901 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 500 Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.06.16 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.06.16 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 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 STEA M E R P A R K W A Y CONCERT HALL HOTEL PROPOSED FILM CENTER CARRIAGE HOUSE VA N VA N VA N VA N CURB AND GUTTER TO BE RELOCATED WITH THE FILM CENTER PROJECT. NO SEMI-TRUCKS WILL BE REQUIRED UNTIL FILM CENTER IS OPERATIONAL. THE STANLEY HOTEL SHALL CONE OFF 7 PARKING STALLS PRIOR TO SCHEDULED EVENTS THAT WILL REQUIRE A SEMI- TRUCK DELIVERY WB-62 - Interstate Semi-Trailer 48 27.9 Max 65° Horiz Max 10° Vert 39 4 2.5 23.5 4 17.4 4.2 WB-62 - Interstate Semi-Trailer Overall Length 69.000ft Overall Width 8.500ft Overall Body Height 13.500ft Min Body Ground Clearance 1.334ft Max Track Width 8.500ft Lock-to-lock time 6.00s Max Steering Angle (Virtual)28.40° 06/15/21 170 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 BUS TURNING PLAN C-902 Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.06.16 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.06.16 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 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 STEA M E R P A R K W A Y CONCERT HALL PROPOSED FILM CENTER CARRIAGE HOUSE VA N VA N VA N VA N CITY-B U S - C i t y T r a n s i t B u s 40 7 25 TOWN BUS Overall Length 40.000ft Overall Width 8.500ft Overall Body Height 10.500ft Min Body Ground Clearance 1.158ft Track Width 8.500ft Lock-to-lock time 5.00s Max Steering Angle (Virtual)41.40° 06/15/21 171 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR Stanley Hotel Film Center June 15, 2021 Prepared by: S. A. Miro, Inc. Consulting Engineers 4582 South Ulster St. Pkwy. Suite 750 Denver, Colorado 80237 (303) 741-3737 S. A. Miro Job No. 19-051 Jason D. Carr, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 33854 For and on behalf of S. A. Miro, Inc. 06/15/21 172 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report I hereby certify that this report (plan) for the final drainage design of Stanley Hotel Film Center was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) for the owners thereof and meet or exceed the criteria in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. Jason D. Carr, P.E. State of Colorado No. 33854 For and on behalf of S. A. Miro, Inc. 06/15/21 173 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report Table of Contents I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 1 Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Description ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 II. VICINITY MAP ....................................................................................................................... 1 III. MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ..................................................................... 2 Major Basin Description ................................................................................................................................. 2 Sub-Basin Description .................................................................................................................................... 2 IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................. 3 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints .......................................................................................... 3 Hydrologic Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Hydraulic Criteria ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Quality Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 4 Detention Criteria .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Waivers from Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 4 V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN .............................................................................................. 4 General Concept ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Water Quality / Detention Features ............................................................................................................... 4 Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................. 5 VI. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 5 VII. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 5 VIII. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 6 Appendix A – Drainage Plans (Figures 1 through 3) Appendix B – Rational Calculations (Peak Runoff, Precipitation) Appendix C – Rain Garden Analysis, Inlet Sizing, StormCAD Analysis (Design Procedure Forms, Capacity Charts, Profile Reports) Appendix D – NRCS Soil Report (Custom Soil Report) 174 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 1 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Location The site is located northwest of the intersection of Steamer Parkway and Findley Court in Estes Park, CO. The proposed Film Center will be located between the existing Concert Hall and the existing Carriage House. A proposed drop off area will be added north of the film center off the existing northern parking lot and a loading dock will added along the western edge of the existing eastern parking lot. Description The existing site consists of native vegetated areas consisting of grasses, shrubs and trees. The site generally slopes toward the southeast, with slopes ranging from 2% to over 30%. There is currently a drainage ditch, known as the Grand Ditch, along the eastern lot line. The Grand Ditch conveys detained stormwater runoff from the condo development north of the project to an area drain south of the site just north of Steamer Parkway. The entire project site including the existing Carriage House, existing Concert Hall, and the proposed Film Center is approximately 5.48 acres and will be 65% impervious in the post-construction condition. The site is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area per the 2019 Colorado Hazard Mapping Program (CHAMP) map. Per the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Resource Report for this site, the site consists largely of Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes, which has a hydrologic group classification of “D”. A copy of the soil report is included in Appendix D of this report. II. VICINITY MAP 175 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 2 III. MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS Major Basin Description The approved Final Drainage Report for the Stanley Carriage House Parking Addition by S.A. Miro, Inc. dated September 9, 2019 revised August 12,2020 herein referred to as the report was referenced to assist in analyzing the drainage patterns. Another previous report titled Final Drainage Report for the Aspire Wellness Complex at The Stanley by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc, dated April 24, 2015 herein referred to as the Aspire Drainage Report, was referenced to assist in analyzing historic drainage patterns. The existing drainage plan and basin summary from the report are included in Appendix A. The majority of runoff for the site flows to the south and east via sheet flow and is captured in the existing Grand Ditch, ultimately discharging to an existing detention pond located south of Steamer Parkway, east of the Aspire development. The existing drainage patterns described above will be maintained in the proposed condition. The proposed development lies within existing Basin O3 and O4 as identified by the Aspire Drainage Report. The report states that the existing detention pond was built to anticipate an imperviousness of 40% at full buildout for these basins. Basin O3 and Basin O4 are currently at 28% and 16% impervious, respectively, as shown on the existing drainage map, Figure 1, included in Appendix A. The development proposed with this project will increase this imperviousness of Basin O3 and Basin O4 to 36% and 23%, respectively, which is within the anticipated buildout condition, 40% impervious, described in the Aspire Drainage Report. Calculations for the full build out imperviousness of the existing basins O3 and O4 are located within Appendix B. Sub-Basin Description The proposed development affects existing Basins B1 and B2 as shown in the report. Basin B1 and B2 have each been split in two for a total of seven revised basins to meet the design requirements for existing Rain Garden 1. The remaining areas of the project have been sub-divided into new basins, as depicted in the Proposed Drainage Plan, Figure 3, included in Appendix A. A detailed description of the existing and proposed sub-basins is presented in Tables 1 and 2 below: Table 1: Existing Sub-Basins Sub- Basin Area (acres) Imperviousness A1 0.29 89% B1 0.57 19% B2 0.61 2% B3 0.26 85% B4 0.69 89% B5 0.09 90% 176 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 3 Table 2: Proposed Sub-Basins Sub-Basin Area (acres) Imperviousness A1 0.30 95% B1-1 0.43 32% B1-2 0.25 38% B2 0.16 90% B3 0.26 92% B4 0.68 85% B5 0.12 90% B6 0.14 100% C1 1.21 56% C2 0.16 75% C3 0.26 36% C4 0.68 90% C5 0.12 39% C6 0.39 50% C7 0.15 25% C8 0.16 43% IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The proposed drainage improvements were designed utilizing the criteria specified in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards (addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals – Volumes 1, 2 and 3), in conjunction with the Mile High Flood Control District (MHFD) Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (Manual) and standard engineering practices to support the proposed site development. This drainage report also refers to the Aspire Drainage Report for information associated with the existing detention pond and the report for information regarding the existing drainage basins. Hydrologic Criteria The design rainfall and runoff calculation method used is the Rational Method for the 5-year minor and 100-year major storm events. The hydrologic soil group in this area is Type D. One-hour precipitation was determined utilizing the method and charts identified in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. The results are included in Table 3 below. Please refer to Appendix B for detailed calculations. 177 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 4 Table 3: One-Hour Point Rainfall Depths Return Period One-Hour Point Rainfall (inches) 2-Year 0.83 5-Year 1.18 10-Year 1.40 25-Year 1.69 50-Year 1.96 100-Year 2.22 Hydraulic Criteria Larimer County refers to the latest MHFD design recommendations and tools for design of water quality elements. The proposed rain garden design follows the standards outlined by MHFD for at- grade bioretention systems. Stormwater flows were calculated using a proprietary spreadsheet. Pipe flows were analyzed using StormCAD version 10.03.02.04 hydraulic modeling software. Additional information on the methods utilized is contained in the appendix. Water Quality Requirements The existing Aspire Detention Pond was not designed to provide water quality for Basin O3 and O4, therefore water quality treatment must be provided for the impervious improvements proposed as a part of this project. The design will keep one existing rain garden in place, expand one existing rain garden, and add two additional rain gardens which have been designed in compliance with Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards and Volume 3 of the Manual. One of the rain gardens located south of the Concert Hall, Rain Garden A, will be regraded to provide additional water quality volume for runoff from this project. The rain gardens will outfall to existing inlets along Steamer Parkway and ultimately to the Aspire Detention Pond. Please refer to the rain garden details located within the Appendix C for additional information on the design elements of these treatment areas. Detention Criteria This project is not required to detain runoff on-site, as the existing Aspire Detention Pond has been designed and constructed to capture 100-year runoff from this basin. Waivers from Criteria No variances are being requested at this time. V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN General Concept The proposed site development will maintain a similar rate of runoff to existing conditions for storm events less than or equal to the water quality storm event, due to the detention and treatment for these smaller storm events in one existing and three proposed rain gardens. Water Quality / Detention Features The existing rain garden, Rain Garden 1, that was constructed as part of the report will continue to provide water quality treatment for its tributary drainage basins. Due to increased impervious area added as part of this project, existing Basin B1 was split into two basins, Basin B1-1 and B1-2, and 178 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 5 Basin 2 was split into two basins, Basins B2 and B6. Site constraints prohibit any revisions to be made to the existing Rain Garden 1 so a new rain garden, Rain Garden 2, is proposed to accommodate the increased runoff from Basins B1-1 and B2. An additional rain garden is being proposed to capture and treat the runoff from the proposed improvements for the Film Center. Rain Garden 3, located south of the Film Center, will capture and treat runoff for Basins B6, C6-C8. An existing rain garden south of the Concert Hall, Rain Garden A, will be regraded to capture and treat runoff from Basin C1-C5. Rain Garden A will outfall to a drainage swale leading to the existing pond north of Steamer Parkway, and Rain Garden 3 will outfall directly to the existing pond discharging to a riprap pad. This existing pond does not provide water quality or detention, but will remain in place conforming to historic drainage patterns. Runoff will pass through the existing pond via two existing 15” outlet pipes, ultimately discharging to the Aspire Detention Pond. The 15” outfall pipes are adequate in size to pass the incoming flow, as shown in Appendix C. These BMPs have been designed per Volume 3 of the MHFD manual. Runoff to these BMPs will permeate through a growing media mix and be captured by a perforated underdrain. This underdrain is connected to an area inlet where a restrictor plate will be installed on the inside wall of the inlet basin to restrict flow within the underdrain to drain the WQCV in 12 hours as defined by the MHFD manual criteria. The grate of the area inlet will be set at the WQCV water surface elevation allowing the WQCV to drain through the growing media/underdrain for treatment while allowing storm events larger than the WQCV to flow unobstructed through the area inlet and directly to the existing storm infrastructure. All rain gardens ultimately discharge to the existing Aspire detention pond. Detention for on-site flows will occur off-site at the existing Aspire Detention Pond. Maintenance The proposed storm drainage system and the water quality features will be maintained by the Owner. All maintenance shall be done to sustain the level of performance and on a schedule consistent with the maintenance recommendations (Chapter 2) in the Manual. VI. CONCLUSIONS Although the proposed development of the site will increase the overall imperviousness of the site, the total imperviousness of the major basin remains below the planned final imperviousness of 40%. The four on-site rain gardens, one existing, one improved, and two proposed, will provide water quality treatment for on-site runoff. The existing Aspire Detention Pond is understood to have capacity to meet the detention requirements for the site. This drainage report was prepared in compliance with current Larimer County Storm Drainage Criteria and the Manual standards and regulations. VII. REFERENCES 1. S.A. Miro, Inc., Final Drainage Report for Stanley Carriage House Parking Addition, September 9, 2019 revised August 12, 2020. 2. Larimer County Engineering Department, Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards, June 20, 2005 3. Mile High Flood District, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Current Edition 4. Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, Final Drainage Report for the Aspire Wellness Complex, April 24, 2015 5. NRCS, Custom Soils Report for Estes Park Area, May 31, 2019 179 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 6 VIII. APPENDIX A – Drainage Plans (Figures 1 through 3) B – Rational Calculations (Peak Runoff, Precipitation) C – Rain Garden Analysis Inlet Sizing StormCAD Analysis (Design Procedure Forms, Capacity Charts, Profile Reports) D – NRCS Soil Report (Custom Soil Report) 180 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix A Drainage Plans (Figures 1 through 3) 181 J: \ J o b s \ 1 9 0 5 1 S t a n l e y C a r r i a g e H o u s e \ 0 4 C i v i l D e s i g n \ D r a i n a g e \ D r a i n a g e P l a n . d w g FI G 1 - 4/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 FIG. 1 OV E R A L L B A S I N M A P LEGEND: INTERMEDIATE YEAR COMPOSITE C 100 YEAR COMPOSITE C BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (ACRES) 45 43 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING STORM SEWEREX SD FLOW DIRECTION ARROW BASIN BOUNDARY B 0.52 0.82 0.73 TRIBUTARY (ac.) AREABASINS TRIBUTARY IMPERVIOUSNESS EX. BASIN SUMMARY ACTUAL (%) O3 13.2 28 DRAWING NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N RE V . CL I E N T N A M E : PR O J E C T N A M E : DR A W I N G T I T L E : CHECKED BY: DATE: MIRO JOB NUMBER NUMBER CLIENT JOB FI L E P A T H : GR A N D H E R I T A G E H O T E L G R O U P CA R R I A G E H O U S E P A R K I N G E X P A N S I O N ES T E S P A R K , C O L O R A D O Know what's below. Call before you dig. NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SSM SSM JDC 09/09/19 19051 S.A. MIRO INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4582 South Ulster Street Pkwy. Suite 750 Denver, CO 80237 ph. 303-741-3737 fax 303-694-3134 9/ 9 / 2 0 1 9 TO W N S U B M I T T A L 1 IMPERVIOUS AREA 80 SCALE: 1" = 80' 800 NOTE: INFORMATION ON BASIN O4 & O3 PROVIDED FOR IN "FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT" BY VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, DATED APRIL 24, 2015 O4 17.5 16 STEA M E R P A R K W A Y O4 17.5 AC 0.58 0.42 CONCERT HALL 76057610 7615 76207620 762 0 CARRIAGE HOUSE STANLEY HOTEL 7590 7595 76 0 0 7605 7610 7615 7620 7625 763 0 7635 75 8 0 75 8 5 758 5 76057610 7580 7585 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7615 76 0 0 7605 7610 STE A M E R P A R K W A Y PROJECT SITE 8.2 % 8.2 % 5.6 % 7.1 % 4.2% 10.8 % 9.1 % 16 . 7 % APPROXIMATE GRAND SWALE FLOWLINE EXISTING POND SERVING CONDO DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ASPIRE DETENTION POND O3 13.2 AC 0.58 0.42 7585 7590 7595 7600 760 5 7580 7580 7615 7620 7625 7625 7625 7630 7635 THE LODGE 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 LEGEND: INTERMEDIATE YEAR COMPOSITE C 100 YEAR COMPOSITE C BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (ACRES) 45 43 43 45 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWEREX SD PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED INLETS FLOW DIRECTION ARROW BASIN BOUNDARY DESIGN POINT DESIGNATION (cfs) Q-5TRIBUTARY (ac.) AREABASINS TRIBUTARYDESIGN POINT DIRECT RUNOFF INLET CAPACITY CHART (cfs) Q-100 D B 0.52 0.82 0.73 XX EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY FIG. 2 PR O P O S E D B A S I N M A P DRAWING NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N RE V . CL I E N T N A M E : PR O J E C T N A M E : DR A W I N G T I T L E : CHECKED BY: DATE: MIRO JOB NUMBER NUMBER CLIENT JOB FI L E P A T H : GR A N D H E R I T A G E H O T E L G R O U P CA R R I A G E H O U S E P A R K I N G E X P A N S I O N ES T E S P A R K , C O L O R A D O Know what's below. Call before you dig. NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SSM SSM JDC 09/09/19 19051 S.A. MIRO INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4582 South Ulster Street Pkwy. Suite 750 Denver, CO 80237 ph. 303-741-3737 fax 303-694-3134 9/ 9 / 2 0 1 9 TO W N S U B M I T T A L 1 PROPOSED BASIN SUMMARY 1 B2 0.61 INLET CAPACITY (CFS) 0.33 1.74 2.75 2 B1 0.57 0.34 1.91 5.40 3 B3 0.26 0.74 1.60 5.40 5 A1, B1-B5 0.72 4.38 11.97 13.55 2 AS I - 0 6 8/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 0 FROM "FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE PARKING ADDITION", DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 REVISED AUGUST 12, 2020 STE A M E R P A R K W A Y A1 0.29 0.87 0.76 B1 0.57 0.65 0.19 B4 0.69 0.85 0.76 EX S D EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D STEAMER P A R K W A Y CARRIAGE HOUSE CONCERT HALL 7590 7595 76 0 0 7605 7610 7615 7620 7625 763 0 7635 75 8 0 75 8 5 758 5 7605 7610 7580 7585 7590 7595 7600 7605 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7615 76 0 0 7605 7610 B2 0.61 0.59 0.05 B3 0.25 0.83 0.73 D SDMH A-30 (4' DIA.) SD INLET B-20 (18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) 1 2 3 5 SD FES A-10 (18" FES) SD INLET A-20 (5' TYPE R) SD INLET A-40 (5' TYPE R) SD INLET A-50 (18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) CONNECT TO EX. INLET EX. INV. OUT ≈ 7576.8 GRAND DITCH FLOWLINE D B5 0.09 0.85 0.77 RAIN GARDEN 1 WQCV REQUIRED = 1,519 CU FT PROVIDED = 1,524 CU FT 7595 7600 7605 76 1 0 76 1 5 76 2 0 7625 76 2 5 7595 7600 12" PVC 12" RCP 12" RCP 12 " R C P 12" PVC 4" P V C 8" PVC 18 " R C P 7615 7620 7625 7625 7630 7635 760 0 760 5 7620 762 0 76 0 5 7610 7615 759 5 760 0 759 0 7615 SDMH A-15 (4' DIA.) 8" PVC 4 LEGEND: INTERMEDIATE YEAR COMPOSITE C 100 YEAR COMPOSITE C BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (ACRES) 45 43 43 45 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWEREX SD PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED INLETS FLOW DIRECTION ARROW BASIN BOUNDARY DESIGN POINT DESIGNATION D B 0.52 0.82 0.73 XX EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.06.15 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.04.13 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 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 FILM CENTER DRAINAGE PLAN FIG. 3 40 SCALE: 1" = 40' 400 RUNOFF SUMMARY Design Point Tributary Basin(s)Tributary Area (ac.) Direct Runoff (CFS/5-yr) Total Runoff (CFS/5-yr) Direct Runoff (CFS/100-yr) Total Runoff (CFS/100-yr) B1-1 0.43 0.43 1.7 B2 0.16 0.49 1.02 B1-2 0.25 0.31 1.08 1 B1-1, B1-2, B2 0.41 0.31 0.80 1.08 2.10 B3 0.26 0.82 1.69 2 DP-1, B3 0.67 0.82 1.62 1.69 3.79 B5 0.12 0.37 0.77 3 DP-2, B5 0.79 0.37 1.99 0.77 4.56 4 Foundation drain outfall N/A 5 Rain Garden 1 Outfall 0.79 1.99 4.56 C1 1.21 2.17 5.89 C4 0.68 2.09 4.36 6 C1, C4 1.89 2.17 4.26 5.89 10.25 C2 0.16 0.39 0.89 C5 0.12 0.17 0.58 8 DP6, C2, C5 2.17 0.39 0.56 0.89 1.47 C3 0.26 0.26 0.94 7 DP8, C3 2.43 0.82 2.41 9 C6 0.39 0.70 2.03 B6 0.14 0.48 0.94 C7 0.39 0.14 0.66 10 B6, C7 0.53 0.14 0.62 0.66 1.60 11 Rain Garden A Outfall N/A 8.80 12 Rain Garden 3 Outfall N/A 4.45 15' TYPE R C8 0.16 0.65 0.37 A1 0.30 0.87 0.76 EX S D EX S D EX S D EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D D D EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D EX S D EX S D CARRIAGE HOUSE CONCERT HALL D 2 3 24 " R C P 24" RCP CONNECT TO EX. INLET EX. INV. OUT ≈ 7576.8 GRAND DITCH FLOWLINE D EXISTING RAIN GARDEN 1 WQCV REQUIRED = 1,523 CU FT PROVIDED = 1,524 CU FT WQCV WSE = 7586.24 12" RCP 12 " R C P 12 " R C P 12" PVC 4" P V C 8" PVC 18 " R C P 7600 7605 7610 761 5 76 2 0 76 2 5 76 0 0 7605 76 0 5 76 0 5 7625 FILM CENTER D D D B4 0.69 0.84 0.76 C1 1.21 0.71 0.50 C3 0.26 0.62 0.31 C2 0.16 0.79 0.66 B5 0.09 0.84 0.77 B1-1 0.47 0.56 0.19C4 0.66 0.84 0.77 B3 0.26 0.82 0.7230 " R C P 24" R C P 18" R C P 18" RCP 7605 30" FES CLEANOUT 18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN 18" FES 5' TYPE R 5' TYPE R STE A M E R P A R K W A Y 7625 7630 7635 7640 7585 75 9 0 7595 76 0 0 7605 7610 7615 7620 76 3 0 7580 7590 759 5 76 0 0 760 5 76 1 0 761 5 7620 7625763 0 7635 7585 4" PVC 4" PERF. PVC 7 4 5 B2 0.16 0.84 0.77 6 12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN B1-2 0.12 0.56 0.19 RAIN GARDEN 2 WQCV REQUIRED = 347 CU FT PROVIDED = 798 CU FT WQCV WSE = 7595.52 C6 0.39 0.73 0.54 C7 0.15 0.58 0.24 THE LODGE 15" NYLOPLAST DRAIN 18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN 758 0 75 8 0 7585 7579 757 9 7581 75 8 1 7582 75 8 2 7583 7584 758 1 758 2 758 3 758 4 7585 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7615 7620 7590 7595 7600 760 5 7605 7605 7610 7615 7620 7625 761 5 762 0 762 5 763 0 15 " H D P E 15" H D P E EXISTING INLETS EXISTING ROOF DRAIN CONNECTIONS TYPE C (OVERFLOW)(OVERFLOW DRAIN) C5 0.12 0.66 0.40 RAIN GARDEN 3 WQCV REQUIRED = 519 CU FT PROVIDED = 650 CU FT 8 10 ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION 6' DIA. CONNECT EXISTING STORM LINE 6' DIA. EXISTING POND 12 " H D P E 12" PVC EXISTING INLET EXISTING INLET EXISTING INLET EXISTING RAIN GARDEN A 75 9 7 75 9 8 75 9 9 7627 6' WALK TO BE INSTALLED WITH CARRIAGE HOUSE PER TRC D 24" NYLOPLAST DRAIN EXISTING AREA INLET 5' TYPE R 12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION EXISTING OUTLET STRUCTURE 8" PVC 12" PVC 18" RCP 30" R C P 18" PVC 18" FES CLEANOUT CLEANOUT CLEANOUT CLEANOUT 8" PVC 4" PERF. PVC 4" PERF. PVC 4" PERF. PVC 4" PERF. PVC D D D D D D 1 9 B6 0.14 0.68 0.45 11 REGRADE WQ POND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WQCV REQUIRED = 1,770 CU FT EXISTING WQCV PROVIDED = 1,290 CU FT (EST.) TOTAL WQCV PROVIDED = 3,250 CU FT 12 37.5% 7600 7605 7605 06/15/21 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix B Rational Calculations (Peak Runoff, Precipitation) 185 Designer: Company:2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr Date:1-hour rainfall depth, P1 (in) =0.83 1.18 1.40 1.69 1.96 2.22 3.14 Project:a b c Location:Rainfall Intensity Equation Coefficients =28.50 10.00 0.786 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr Overland Flow Length Li (ft) U/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) D/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) Overland Flow Slope Si (ft/ft) Overland Flow Time ti (min) Channelized Flow Length Lt (ft) U/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) D/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) Channelized Flow Slope St (ft/ft) NRCS Conveyance Factor K Channelized Flow Velocity Vt (ft/sec) Channelized Flow Time tt (min) Computed tc (min) Regional tc (min) Selected tc (min)2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.89 3.92 4.38 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.66 0.97 1.18 1.46 1.72 1.97 2.83 0.23 0.30 0.37 0.50 0.55 0.61 0.69 8.10 8.39 8.39 2.38 3.41 4.05 4.88 5.66 6.42 9.08 0.24 0.43 0.64 1.05 1.34 1.70 2.69 0.28 0.34 0.41 0.53 0.58 0.64 0.71 7.20 7.20 7.20 2.51 3.59 4.26 5.15 5.97 6.76 9.56 0.18 0.31 0.44 0.68 0.87 1.08 1.69 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 5.09 5.09 5.09 2.79 3.98 4.73 5.71 6.62 7.50 10.60 0.33 0.49 0.60 0.75 0.89 1.02 1.48 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.88 3.71 3.71 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.56 0.82 1.00 1.25 1.47 1.69 2.44 0.69 0.73 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.86 4.85 5.79 5.79 2.69 3.84 4.56 5.50 6.38 7.23 10.23 1.29 1.93 2.38 3.02 3.58 4.15 6.04 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 4.26 4.26 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.25 0.37 0.45 0.57 0.67 0.77 1.11 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.90 2.67 2.67 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.33 0.48 0.58 0.71 0.83 0.94 1.35 0.44 0.49 0.55 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.77 6.27 7.01 7.01 2.53 3.63 4.30 5.19 6.02 6.82 9.65 1.34 2.17 2.84 3.98 4.89 5.89 8.93 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.74 0.76 0.79 0.83 6.15 6.33 6.33 2.62 3.74 4.44 5.36 6.22 7.04 9.96 0.25 0.39 0.49 0.64 0.76 0.89 1.32 0.26 0.33 0.40 0.52 0.57 0.63 0.70 10.59 11.18 11.18 2.13 3.05 3.62 4.37 5.07 5.74 8.12 0.15 0.26 0.37 0.59 0.75 0.94 1.48 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 3.37 3.37 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 1.41 2.09 2.56 3.21 3.79 4.36 6.31 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.54 0.59 0.65 0.71 4.77 5.11 5.11 2.78 3.98 4.72 5.70 6.61 7.48 10.59 0.10 0.17 0.24 0.37 0.47 0.58 0.91 0.39 0.45 0.50 0.60 0.64 0.69 0.75 2.19 2.19 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.42 0.70 0.93 1.35 1.67 2.03 3.10 0.18 0.24 0.32 0.46 0.52 0.59 0.67 5.01 5.01 5.01 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.64 7.53 10.64 0.07 0.14 0.22 0.39 0.51 0.66 1.06 0.33 0.39 0.45 0.56 0.61 0.66 0.73 3.23 3.23 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.15 0.25 0.34 0.52 0.65 0.80 1.24 D D D D D D 84.9 90.0 100.0 56.3 75.3 35.8 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3 0.69 0.12 0.14 1.21 0.16 0.26 18.61 21.77 C8 0.16 D 43.5 10.00 0.020 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 17.42 C7 0.15 D 24.9 30.00 0.050 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 19.76 C6 0.39 D 50.5 10.00 0.050 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 10.70 C5 0.12 D 39.5 20.00 0.020 58.00 0.020 20 2.83 0.34 20.76 C4 0.68 D 90.0 50.00 0.020 0.00 0.020 20 2.83 0.00 13.39 91.00 0.020 100.00 0.020 20 2.83 0.59 17.09 90.00 0.020 69.00 0.100 20 6.32 0.18 9.00 95.00 0.050 189.00 0.080 15 4.24 0.74 10.70 160.00 0.100 0.00 0.030 20 3.46 0.00 0.033 0.00 0.010 12.47 80.00 0.020 0.00 0.050 20 4.47 0.00 0.065 20 5.10 0.950.065 290.00178.00 161.00 0.121 55.00B1-1 0.43 10.28 10.70 B3 0.26 D 92.5 130.00 0.053 0.00 0.049 20 4.42 0.00 19.54 B2 0.16 D 90.0 160.00 Cells of this color are for calculated results based on overrides Ryan J. Humphrey S.A. Miro, Inc. 3/19/2021 Stanely Hotel Film Center Estes Park, CO Version 2.00 released May 2017 20 2.00 0.00 20.98 B1-2 0.25 D 38.0 144.00 0.120 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 0.026 20 3.22 0.28D32.0 0.060178.00 Rainfall Intensity, I (in/hr) 4.51 0.46 10.33200.051125.00 Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Calculation of Peak Runoff using Rational Method Overland (Initial) Flow Time Channelized (Travel) Flow Time Time of ConcentrationRunoff Coefficient, C Subcatchment Name Area (ac) NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group Percent Imperviousness A1 0.30 D 94.6 Select UDFCD location for NOAA Atlas 14 Rainfall Depths from the pulldown list OR enter your own depths obtained from the NOAA website (click this link) Cells of this color are for required user-input Cells of this color are for optional override values 186 7,600 FT COULD BE USED BASED ON SITE SURVEY DATA. 7,500 FT ACCEPTABLE AS IT RESULTS IN A MORE CONSERVATIVE VALUE 187 Stanley Hotel Pond Area 100% 19051 Landscape Area 2% 4/12/2021 Paved Area 100% DAT Roof Area 90% A pond A landscape A paved A roof A remaining 1 A total (ft2)(ft2)(ft2)(ft2)(ft2)(acres) O3 Sub-basins C1 23,504 29,243 1.21 56% C2 1,692 4,402 1,025 0.16 75% C3 7,541 3,963 0.26 36% C4 29,409 0.68 90% C5 3,017 2,240 0.12 39% C6 8,337 5,614 3,184 0.39 50% C7 4,881 1,485 0.15 25% C8 3,941 2,891 0.16 43% B6 5,948 0.14 100% Ex. O3 433,936 9.96 28% O3 Proposed 52,913 53,546 35,858 433,936 13.23 36% O4 Sub-basins A1 722 12,317 0.30 95% B1-1 805 13,073 4,962 0.43 32% B1-2 6,976 4,043 0.25 38% B2 7,093 0.16 90% B3 883 10,652 0.26 92% B4 1,382 4,546 23,630 0.68 85% B5 5,263 0.12 90% Ex. O4 652,192 14.97 16% O4 Proposed 2,187 26,200 55,604 12,356 652,192 17.18 23% 1 Area remaining is the area of the exisitng basin, taken at the existing impervious condition Calculated By: Existing Offsite and Onsite combined basins Area and Impervious Calculations Project Information Jurisdiction Impervious Value Basin Designation Impervious- ness Project Name: Miro Project No: Revised Date: Page 1 of 1J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Offsite basin calcs.DAT.xls 188 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix C Rain Garden Analysis Inlet Sizing StormCAD Analysis (Design Procedure Forms, Capacity Charts, Profile Reports) 189 Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =83.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.830 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.28 watershed inches 3 2 D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area = 64,780 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =1,503 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical)Z = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =1075 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =1382 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)Top =1665 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=1,524 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =0.2 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =1,503 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =1 7/16 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. January 28, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Carriage House & Film Center Rain Garden 1-Revised Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. January 28, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Carriage House & Film Center Rain Garden 1-Revised UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO RG 1 - UD-BMP_v3.07 (2).xlsm, RG 1/28/2021, 2:34 PM Rain garden has one vertical wall and a 3:1 slope on the remaining sides 190 Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =48.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.480 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.16 watershed inches 3 2 D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area = 25,933 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =347 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical)Z = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =249 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =798 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)Top =798 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=798 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =347 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =7/16 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT SA Miro, Inc. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden - 2 Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT SA Miro, Inc. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden - 2 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO RG 2 - UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 3/19/2021, 12:43 PM 191 Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =65.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.650 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.20 watershed inches 3 2 D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area = 108,055 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =1,831 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical)Z = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =1405 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =1719 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)Top =2555 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=2,137 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =0.2 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =1,831 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =1 9/16 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. February 16, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden Ex Pond Revisions Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. February 16, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden Ex Pond Revisions UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO Ex Pond Revisions - UD-BMP_v3.07 (2).xlsm, RG 2/16/2021, 11:55 AM 192 Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =53.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.530 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.17 watershed inches 3 2 D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area = 36,281 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =519 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical)Z = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =385 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =650 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)Top =650 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=650 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =519 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =1/2 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden 3 Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden 3 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO RG 3 - UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 3/19/2021, 12:32 PM 193 Figure B-1 – Typical Rain Garden Plan and Sections 194 195 196 Figure B-2. Geomembrane Liner/Underdrain Penetration Detail Figure B-3. Geomembrane Liner/Concrete Connection Detail 197 Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb BACK =20.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)BACK =0.050 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)BACK =0.020 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line CURB =9.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown CROWN =12.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope X =0.030 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)W =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition O =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)STREET =0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm MAX =10.0 12.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm MAX =6.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion allow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)local =0.00 0.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 4.6 5.3 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate o (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate o =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)ratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)f (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)w (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)o (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening o (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches vert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches throat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)p =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)f (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)w (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)o (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.26 0.32 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.58 0.68 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)a =3.2 4.4 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.3 1.9 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Basin B1-2 H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 198 Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb BACK =12.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)BACK =0.040 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)BACK =0.018 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line CURB =9.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown CROWN =12.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope X =0.039 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)W =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition O =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)STREET =0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm MAX =6.0 12.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm MAX =6.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion allow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)local =0.00 0.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 3.6 6.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate o (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate o =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)ratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)f (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)w (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)o (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening o (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches vert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches throat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)p =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)f (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)w (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)o (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.18 0.38 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.46 0.77 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)a =1.8 5.6 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.7 1.6 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Basin B3 Inlet H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) W o W P CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 199         !"## $ %&'(()*"! +,-./0.12345.637101893-7:1;32<=56!>! ?@?? ?@A? B@?? B@A? C@?? C@A? D@?? D@A? E@?? E@A? A@?? ?@?? ?@?A ?@B? ?@BA ?@C? ?@CA ?@D? ?@DA ?@E? ?@EA ?@A? ?@AA ?@F? ?@FA ?@G? ?@GA ?@H? ?@HA ?@I? ?@IA B@?? B@?A B@B? JK L K M N O P Q R M S T U VWKXQRSOU YPZ[LZKTOQBH\Q]OK^XK_XQ`_KOWQa^ZWOQJKLKMNOPQJbK_O AREA INLET B-20 BASIN B4 (RG1) See previous drainage plan for rain garden capacities, overflow path, and WQCV. 200 Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb BACK =14.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)BACK =0.024 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)BACK =0.013 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line CURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown CROWN =12.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope X =0.025 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)W =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition O =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)STREET =0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm MAX =6.0 12.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm MAX =5.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion allow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)local =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 4.0 6.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate o (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate o =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)ratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)f (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)w (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)o (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening o (C) =15.00 15.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches vert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches throat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)p =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)f (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)w (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)o (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.21 0.38 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.38 0.57 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.64 0.79 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)a =3.7 11.0 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =2.3 6.2 cfs Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Inlet C1 CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 201 Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb BACK =8.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)BACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)BACK =0.018 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line CURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown CROWN =8.5 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope X =0.030 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)W =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition O =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)STREET =0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm MAX =6.0 8.5 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm MAX =6.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion allow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)local =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 3.1 4.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate o (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate o =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)ratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)f (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)w (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)o (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening o (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches vert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches throat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)p =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)f (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)w (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)o (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.14 0.21 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.40 0.51 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.95 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)a =1.2 2.4 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.4 0.9 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Basin C2 Inlet H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 202 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 2' x 2' Steel Bar / MAG Grate Inlet Capacity Chart EXISTING RAIN GARDEN A 100-YR RUNOFF = 8.8 CFS 203         !"## $ %&'(()*"! +,-./0.12345.637101893-7:1;32<=56!>! ?@?? ?@A? B@?? B@A? C@?? C@A? D@?? D@A? E@?? E@A? A@?? ?@?? ?@?A ?@B? ?@BA ?@C? ?@CA ?@D? ?@DA ?@E? ?@EA ?@A? ?@AA ?@F? ?@FA ?@G? ?@GA ?@H? ?@HA ?@I? ?@IA B@?? B@?A B@B? JK L K M N O P Q R M S T U VWKXQRSOU YPZ[LZKTOQBH\Q]OK^XK_XQ`_KOWQa^ZWOQJKLKMNOPQJbK_O RAIN GARDEN 2 100-YR RUNOFF = 2.65 CFS 204 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 24" Standard Grate Inlet Capacity Chart RAIN GARDEN 3 100-YR RUNOFF = 4.15 CFS 205         !"## $ %&'(()*"! +,-./0.12345.637101893-7:1;32<=56!>! ?@?? ?@AB ?@B? ?@CB D@?? D@AB D@B? D@CB A@?? A@AB A@B? ?@?? ?@?B ?@D? ?@DB ?@A? ?@AB ?@E? ?@EB ?@F? ?@FB ?@B? ?@BB ?@G? ?@GB ?@C? ?@CB ?@H? ?@HB ?@I? ?@IB D@?? D@?B D@D? JK L K M N O P Q R M S T U VWKXQRSOU YPZ[LZKTOQDA\Q]OK^XK_XQ`_KOWQa^ZWOQJKLKMNOPQJbK_O BASIN B6 (AREA INLET C-30) 100-YR RUNOFF = 0.94 CFS 206 Worksheet for 15" outfall 1 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data 0.013Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.053Channel Slope in15.0Diameter cfs6.63Discharge Results in7.0Normal Depth ft²0.6Flow Area ft1.9Wetted Perimeter in3.6Hydraulic Radius ft1.25Top Width in12.4Critical Depth %46.8Percent Full ft/ft0.010Critical Slope ft/s11.76Velocity ft2.15Velocity Head ft2.73Specific Energy 3.085Froude Number cfs15.98Maximum Discharge cfs14.86Discharge Full ft/ft0.011Slope Full SupercriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss %0.0Average End Depth Over Rise %46.8Normal Depth Over Rise ft/sInfinityDownstream Velocity ft/sInfinityUpstream Velocity in7.0Normal Depth in12.4Critical Depth ft/ft0.053Channel Slope ft/ft0.010Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 4/12/2021 [10.03.00.03] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterGrand Ditch Cross Sections.fm8 207 Worksheet for 15" outfall 2 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data 0.013Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.080Channel Slope in15.0Diameter cfs6.30Discharge Results in6.1Normal Depth ft²0.5Flow Area ft1.7Wetted Perimeter in3.2Hydraulic Radius ft1.23Top Width in12.2Critical Depth %40.5Percent Full ft/ft0.010Critical Slope ft/s13.51Velocity ft2.84Velocity Head ft3.34Specific Energy 3.865Froude Number cfs19.65Maximum Discharge cfs18.27Discharge Full ft/ft0.010Slope Full SupercriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss %0.0Average End Depth Over Rise %40.5Normal Depth Over Rise ft/sInfinityDownstream Velocity ft/sInfinityUpstream Velocity in6.1Normal Depth in12.2Critical Depth ft/ft0.080Channel Slope ft/ft0.010Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 4/12/2021 [10.03.00.03] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterGrand Ditch Cross Sections.fm8 208 Scenario: Base Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2/5/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-05 FC West.stsw 30" RCP 30" RCP 24" RCP 18" RCP 18" RCP 12" PVC 18" PVC 6" PVC 12" PVC 8" PVC STORM LINE A STORM LINE A-40 STORM LINE A-20 STORM LINE A-22 STORM LINE D RD B1 TO RG2 8" P V C 8" PVC 209 Profile Report Profile: STRM A Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/12/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw 210 Profile Report Profile: STRM A-20 (B6 & B7 to RG3) Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/18/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw 211 Profile Report Profile: STRM A-22 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/18/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw 212 Profile Report Profile: STRM A-40 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/12/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw 213 Profile Report Profile: RD Connection B1 to RG2 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2/17/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw 214 Profile Report Profile: STRM D Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/18/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw 215 FlexTable: Conduit Table Elevation Ground (Stop) (ft) Hydraulic Grade Line (Out) (ft) Depth (Normal) / Rise (%) Flow / Capacity (Design) (%) Capacity (Full Flow) (cfs) Velocity (ft/s) Flow (cfs) Manning's nDiameter (in) Slope (Calculated) (ft/ft) Length (User Defined) (ft) Invert (Stop) (ft) Stop NodeInvert (Start) (ft) Start NodeLabel 7,595.507,596.0258.965.31.584.811.030.0108.00.01033.77,595.50RG-2 OUTFALL7,595.84RD CONNECTION8" PVC 7,597.007,596.4140.534.54.645.361.600.01012.00.01072.67,596.00O-17,596.73SD INLET C-2012" PVC 7,630.567,621.1479.997.610.506.7710.250.01318.00.010113.37,619.94SDMH A-407,621.07SDMH A-5018" RCP 7,625.577,615.9451.151.822.627.2711.720.01324.00.010133.87,614.91SDMH A-307,616.25SDMH A-4024" RCP 7,630.567,617.9127.216.29.103.781.470.01318.00.00780.37,616.75SDMH A-407,617.35SD INLET A-3118" RCP 7,628.197,622.4779.997.610.506.7710.250.01318.00.01088.57,621.27SDMH A-507,622.16SD INLET A-6018" RCP 7,626.437,618.1529.418.83.093.010.580.01312.00.00714.87,617.85SD INLET A-317,617.97SD INLET A-3212" PVC 7,625.667,624.0759.566.36.575.554.360.01012.00.0209.97,622.66SD INLET A-607,622.86RD CONNECTION12" PVC 7,615.407,609.2924.112.891.6512.8211.720.01330.00.050110.67,608.69SDMH A-207,614.21SDMH A-3030" RCP 7,608.887,606.7128.417.666.5710.2111.720.01330.00.02694.67,606.00SD FES A-107,608.49SDMH A-2030" RCP 7,599.197,597.2970.584.51.113.570.940.0108.00.00547.97,596.73SD INLET C-207,596.97SDCO C-308" PVC 7,599.907,597.5770.684.61.113.570.940.0108.00.00550.07,596.97SDCO C-307,597.22SDCO C-408" PVC 7,589.627,588.5033.724.418.238.524.450.01318.00.03085.07,588.00O-37,590.56SD INLET D-2018" PVC 7,600.007,601.5086.7104.51.945.822.030.0108.00.01549.07,600.00O-47,600.75SD INLET C-118" PVC Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16666/15/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw 216 FlexTable: Manhole Table Headloss Coefficient (Standard) Headloss Method Hydraulic Grade Line (In) (ft) Hydraulic Grade Line (Out) (ft) Flow (Total Out) (cfs) Elevation (Invert Out) (ft) Elevation (Invert in 1) (ft) Elevation (Rim) (ft) Elevation (Ground) (ft) Label 0.820Standard7,617.917,617.4811.727,616.257,619.947,630.567,630.56SDMH A-40 0.280Standard7,622.507,622.3110.257,621.077,621.277,628.197,628.19SDMH A-50 0.280Standard7,617.917,617.881.477,617.357,617.857,626.437,626.43SD INLET A-31 0.000Standard7,624.167,624.164.367,622.86(N/A)7,625.907,625.90RD CONNECTION 1.010Standard7,624.077,623.3910.257,622.167,622.667,625.667,625.66SD INLET A-60 0.650Standard7,615.657,615.3611.727,614.217,614.917,625.577,625.57SDMH A-30 1.010Standard7,618.407,618.280.587,617.97(N/A)7,620.477,620.47SD INLET A-32 0.100Standard7,609.687,609.6411.727,608.497,608.697,615.407,615.40SDMH A-20 0.100Standard7,597.297,597.271.607,596.737,596.737,599.197,599.19SD INLET C-20 1.010Standard7,597.897,597.690.947,597.22(N/A)7,599.487,599.48SDCO C-40 0.650Standard7,597.577,597.440.947,596.977,596.977,599.907,599.90SDCO C-30 1.010Standard7,596.557,596.321.037,595.84(N/A)7,597.187,597.18RD CONNECTION Absolute7,603.337,602.322.037,600.75(N/A)7,604.007,604.00SD INLET C-11 Absolute7,591.377,591.374.457,590.56(N/A)7,597.007,596.00SD INLET D-20 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 6/15/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw 217 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix D NRCS Soil Report (Custom Soil Report) 218 United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service May 31, 2019 219 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 220 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 221 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12 Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties..............14 50—Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes.............................14 References............................................................................................................17 4 222 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 223 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 224 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 225 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 226 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44 7 0 3 2 0 44 7 0 3 4 0 44 7 0 3 6 0 44 7 0 3 8 0 44 7 0 4 0 0 44 7 0 4 2 0 44 7 0 4 4 0 44 7 0 4 6 0 44 7 0 4 8 0 44 7 0 5 0 0 44 7 0 3 2 0 44 7 0 3 4 0 44 7 0 3 6 0 44 7 0 3 8 0 44 7 0 4 0 0 44 7 0 4 2 0 44 7 0 4 4 0 44 7 0 4 6 0 44 7 0 4 8 0 44 7 0 5 0 0 456120 456140 456160 456180 456200 456220 456240 456260 456120 456140 456160 456180 456200 456220 456240 456260 40° 23' 2'' N 10 5 ° 3 1 ' 1 ' ' W 40° 23' 2'' N 10 5 ° 3 0 ' 5 4 ' ' W 40° 22' 56'' N 10 5 ° 3 1 ' 1 ' ' W 40° 22' 56'' N 10 5 ° 3 0 ' 5 4 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 45 90 180 270 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:963 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 227 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties Survey Area Data: Version 4, Sep 10, 2018 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 30, 2010—Oct 7, 2017 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report 10 228 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 229 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 50 Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes 2.8 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 2.8 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 230 An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 13 231 Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties 50—Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2lsst Elevation: 7,500 to 8,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 41 to 44 degrees F Frost-free period: 95 to 105 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Cathedral and similar soils: 45 percent Ratake and similar soils: 40 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Cathedral Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Slope alluvium derived from granite and gneiss Typical profile A - 0 to 3 inches: gravelly sandy loam Bw1 - 3 to 10 inches: very gravelly coarse sandy loam Bw2 - 10 to 18 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sandy loam R - 18 to 28 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 9 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.01 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Other vegetative classification: Ponderosa pine/antelope bitterbrush (PIPO/ PUTR2) (C1120) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 232 Description of Ratake Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Slope alluvium derived from granite and gneiss over residuum weathered from granite and gneiss Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: gravelly sandy loam Bw - 7 to 15 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Cr - 15 to 24 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 9 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Other vegetative classification: Ponderosa pine/antelope bitterbrush (PIPO/ PUTR2) (C1120) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Rock outcrop Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Rock pediments Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Hydric soil rating: Unranked Chasmfalls Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Pediments Ecological site: Loamy Park (R048AY222CO) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 233 Custom Soil Resource Report 16 234 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 17 235 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 18 236 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR Stanley Hotel Film Center March 19, 2021 Prepared by: S. A. Miro, Inc. Consulting Engineers 4582 South Ulster St. Pkwy. Suite 750 Denver, Colorado 80237 (303) 741-3737 S. A. Miro Job No. 19-051 Jason D. Carr, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 33854 For and on behalf of S. A. Miro, Inc. 03/19/21 REVIEWED BY: GALLOWAY DATE: APRIL 8, 2021 237 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report I hereby certify that this report (plan) for the final drainage design of Stanley Hotel Film Center was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) for the owners thereof and meet or exceed the criteria in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. Jason D. Carr, P.E. State of Colorado No. 33854 For and on behalf of S. A. Miro, Inc. 03/19/21 238 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report Table of Contents I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 0 Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 Description ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 II. VICINITY MAP ....................................................................................................................... 0 III. MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ..................................................................... 1 Major Basin Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 Sub-Basin Description .................................................................................................................................... 1 IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................. 2 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints .......................................................................................... 2 Hydrologic Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Hydraulic Criteria ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Water Quality Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 3 Detention Criteria .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Waivers from Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 3 V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN .............................................................................................. 3 General Concept ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Water Quality / Detention Features ............................................................................................................... 3 Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................. 4 VI. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 4 VII. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 4 VIII. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 5 Appendix A – Drainage Plans (Figures 1 through 3) Appendix B – Rational Calculations (Peak Runoff, Precipitation) Appendix C – Rain Garden Analysis, Inlet Sizing, StormCAD Analysis (Design Procedure Forms, Capacity Charts, Profile Reports) Appendix D – NRCS Soil Report (Custom Soil Report) Update 239 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 0 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Location The site is located northwest of the intersection of Steamer Parkway and Findley Court in Estes Park, CO. The proposed Film Center will be located between the existing Concert Hall and the existing Carriage House. A proposed drop off area will be added north of the film center off the existing northern parking lot and a loading dock will added along the western edge of the existing eastern parking lot. Description The existing site consists of native vegetated areas consisting of grasses, shrubs and trees. The site generally slopes toward the southeast, with slopes ranging from 2% to over 30%. There is currently a drainage ditch, known as the Grand Ditch, along the eastern lot line. The Grand Ditch conveys detained stormwater runoff from the condo development north of the project to an area drain south of the site just north of Steamer Parkway. The entire project site including the existing Carriage House, existing Concert Hall, and the proposed Film Center is approximately 5.48 acres and will be 65% impervious in the post-construction condition. The site is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area per the 2019 CHAMP map. Per the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Resource Report for this site, the site consists largely of Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes, which has a hydrologic group classification of “D”. A copy of the soil report is included in Appendix D of this report. II. VICINITY MAP Colorado Hazard Mapping Program (CHAMP) Update page #s started at 1 & TOC accordingly 240 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 1 III. MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS Major Basin Description The approved Final Drainage Report for the Stanley Carriage House Parking Addition by S.A. Miro, Inc. dated September 9, 2019 revised August 12,2020 herein referred to as the report was referenced to assist in analyzing the drainage patterns. Another previous report titled Final Drainage Report for the Aspire Wellness Complex at The Stanley by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc, dated April 24, 2015 herein referred to as the Aspire Drainage Report, was referenced to assist in analyzing historic drainage patterns. The existing drainage plan and basin summary from the report are included in Appendix A. The majority of runoff for the site flows to the south and east via sheet flow and is captured in the existing Grand Ditch, ultimately discharging to an existing detention pond located south of Steamer Parkway, east of the Aspire development. The existing drainage patterns described above will be maintained in the proposed condition. The proposed development lies within existing Basin OS3 and OS4 as identified by the Aspire Drainage Report. The report states that the existing detention pond was built to anticipate an imperviousness of 40% at full buildout for these basins. Basin O3 and Basin O4 are currently at 28% and 16% impervious, respectively, as shown on the existing drainage map, Figure 1, included in Appendix A. The development proposed with this project will increase this imperviousness of Basin O3 and Basin O4 to 40% and 24%, respectively, which is within the anticipated buildout condition, 40% impervious, described in the Aspire Drainage Report. Sub-Basin Description The proposed development affects existing Basins B1 and B2 as shown in the report. Basin B1 and B2 have each been split in two for a total of seven revised basins to meet the design requirements for existing Rain Garden 1. The remaining areas of the project have been sub-divided into new basins, as depicted in the Proposed Drainage Plan, Figure 3, included in Appendix A. A detailed description of the existing and proposed sub-basins is presented in Tables 1 and 2 below: Table 1: Existing Sub-Basins Sub- Basin Area (acres) Imperviousness A1 0.29 89% B1 0.57 19% B2 0.61 2% B3 0.26 85% B4 0.69 89% B5 0.09 90% O3 and O4 (per Figure 1) Provide calculations in the report, showing how these values were obtained. 241 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 2 Table 2: Proposed Sub-Basins Sub-Basin Area (acres) Imperviousness A1 0.30 95% B1-1 0.43 32% B1-2 0.25 38% B2 0.16 90% B3 0.26 92% B4 0.68 85% B5 0.12 90% B6 0.14 100% C1 1.21 56% C2 0.16 75% C3 0.26 36% C4 0.68 90% C5 0.12 39% C6 0.39 50% C7 0.15 25% C8 0.16 43% IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The proposed drainage improvements were designed utilizing the criteria specified in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards (addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals – Volumes 1, 2 and 3), in conjunction with the Mile High Flood Control District (MHFD) Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (Manual) and standard engineering practices to support the proposed site development. This drainage report also refers to the Aspire Drainage Report for information associated with the existing detention pond and the report for information regarding the existing drainage basins. Hydrologic Criteria The design rainfall and runoff calculation method used is the Rational Method for the 5-year minor and 100-year major storm events. The hydrologic soil group in this area is Type D. One-hour precipitation was determined utilizing the method and charts identified in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. The results are included in Table 2 below. Please refer to Appendix B for detailed calculations. 3 242 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 3 Table 2: One-Hour Point Rainfall Depths Return Period One-Hour Point Rainfall (inches) 2-Year 0.83 5-Year 1.18 10-Year 1.40 50-Year 1.96 100-Year 2.22 Hydraulic Criteria Larimer County refers to the latest MHFD design recommendations and tools for design of water quality elements. The proposed rain garden design follows the standards outlined by MHFD for at- grade bioretention systems. Stormwater flows were calculated using a proprietary spreadsheet. Pipe flows were analyzed using StormCAD hydraulic modeling software. Additional information on the methods utilized is contained in the appendix. Water Quality Requirements The existing Aspire Detention Pond was not designed to provide water quality for Basin O3 and O4, therefore water quality treatment must be provided for the impervious improvements proposed as a part of this project. The design will keep two existing rain gardens in place and add two additional rain gardens which have been designed in compliance with Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards and Volume 3 of the Manual. One of the rain gardens located south of the Concert Hall, Rain Garden A, will be regraded to provided additional water quality volume for runoff from his project. The rain gardens will outfall to existing inlets along Steamer Parkway and ultimately to the Aspire Detention Pond. Please refer to the rain garden details located within the appendix for additional information on the design elements of these treatment areas. Detention Criteria This project is not required to detain runoff on-site, as the existing Aspire Detention Pond has been designed and constructed to capture 100-year runoff from this basin. Waivers from Criteria No variances are being requested at this time. V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN General Concept The proposed site development will maintain a similar rate of runoff to existing conditions for storm events less than or equal to the water quality storm event, due to the detention and treatment for these smaller storm events in the one existing and three proposed rain gardens. Water Quality / Detention Features The existing rain garden, Rain Garden 1, that was constructed as part of the report will continue to provide water quality treatment for its tributary drainage basins. Due to increased impervious area added as part of this project existing Basin B1 was split into two basins, Basin B1-1 and B1-2 and 3 this Appendix C ,, one , expand one existing rain garden, add 25-Year depth as well include software version 243 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 4 Basin 2 was split into two basins, Basins B2 and B6. Site constraints prohibit any revisions to be made to the existing Rain Garden 1 so a new rain garden, Rain Garden 2, is proposed to accommodate the increased runoff from Basins B1-1 and B2. An additional rain garden is being proposed to capture and treat the runoff from the proposed improvements for the Film Center. Rain Garden 3, located south of the Film Center, will capture and treat runoff for Basins B6, C6-C8. An existing rain garden south of the Concert Hall, Rain Garden A, will be regraded to capture and treat runoff from Basin C1-C5. These two rain gardens will outfall to drainage swales leading to the existing pond north of Steamer Parkway. Runoff will pass through the existing pond via two existing 15” outlet pipes, ultimately discharging to the Aspire Detention Pond. These BMPs have been designed per Volume 3 of Mile High. Runoff to these BMPs will permeate through a growing media mix and be captured by a perforated underdrain. This underdrain is connected to an area inlet where a restrictor plate will be installed on the inside wall of the inlet basin to restrict flow within the underdrain to drain the WQCV in 12 hours as defined by criteria defined by Mile High. The grate of the area inlet will be set at the WQCV water surface elevation allowing the WQCV to drain through the growing media/underdrain for treatment while allowing storm events larger than the WQCV to flow unobstructed through the area inlet and directly to the existing storm infrastructure. All rain gardens ultimately discharge to the existing Aspire detention pond. Detention for on-site flows will occur off-site at the existing Aspire Detention Pond. Maintenance The proposed storm drainage system and the water quality features will be maintained by the Owner. All maintenance shall be done to sustain the level of performance and on a schedule consistent with the maintenance recommendations (Chapter 2) in the Manual. VI. CONCLUSIONS Although the proposed development of the site will increase the overall imperviousness of the site, the total imperviousness of the major basin remains below the planned final imperviousness of 40%. The four on-site rain gardens, two existing and two proposed, will provide water quality treatment for on-site runoff. The existing Aspire Detention Pond is understood to have capacity to meet the detention requirements for the site. This drainage report was prepared in compliance with current Larimer County Storm Drainage Criteria and the Manual standards and regulations. VII. REFERENCES 1. S.A. Miro, Inc., Final Drainage Report for Stanley Carriage House Parking Addition, September 9, 2019 revised August 12, 2020. 2. Larimer County Engineering Department, Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards, June 20, 2005 3. Mile High Flood District, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Current Edition 4. Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, Final Drainage Report for the Aspire Wellness Complex, April 24,2015 5. NRCS, Custom Soils Report for Estes Park Area, May, 31, 2019 the MHFD Manual the MHFD How do we know the existing pond has sufficient capacity to handle 100-yr runoff due to developed site? Provide excerpts from a reference report or calculations to prove it can handle 100-yr developed condition runoff. one , one improved, leave space 244 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 5 VIII. APPENDIX A – Drainage Plans (Figures 1 through 3) B – Rational Calculations (Peak Runoff, Precipitation) C – Rain Garden Analysis Inlet Sizing StormCAD Analysis (Design Procedure Forms, Capacity Charts, Profile Reports) D – NRCS Soil Report (Custom Soil Report) 245 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix A Drainage Plans (Figures 1 through 3) 246 J: \ J o b s \ 1 9 0 5 1 S t a n l e y C a r r i a g e H o u s e \ 0 4 C i v i l D e s i g n \ D r a i n a g e \ D r a i n a g e P l a n . d w g FI G 1 - 4/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 FIG. 1 OV E R A L L B A S I N M A P LEGEND: INTERMEDIATE YEAR COMPOSITE C 100 YEAR COMPOSITE C BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (ACRES) 45 43 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING STORM SEWEREX SD FLOW DIRECTION ARROW BASIN BOUNDARY B 0.52 0.82 0.73 TRIBUTARY (ac.) AREABASINS TRIBUTARY IMPERVIOUSNESS EX. BASIN SUMMARY ACTUAL (%) O3 13.2 28 DRAWING NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N RE V . CL I E N T N A M E : PR O J E C T N A M E : DR A W I N G T I T L E : CHECKED BY: DATE: MIRO JOB NUMBER NUMBER CLIENT JOB FI L E P A T H : GR A N D H E R I T A G E H O T E L G R O U P CA R R I A G E H O U S E P A R K I N G E X P A N S I O N ES T E S P A R K , C O L O R A D O Know what's below. Call before you dig. NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SSM SSM JDC 09/09/19 19051 S.A. MIRO INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4582 South Ulster Street Pkwy. Suite 750 Denver, CO 80237 ph. 303-741-3737 fax 303-694-3134 9/ 9 / 2 0 1 9 TO W N S U B M I T T A L 1 IMPERVIOUS AREA 80 SCALE: 1" = 80' 800 NOTE: INFORMATION ON BASIN O4 & O3 PROVIDED FOR IN "FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT" BY VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, DATED APRIL 24, 2015 O4 17.5 16 STEA M E R P A R K W A Y O4 17.5 AC 0.58 0.42 CONCERT HALL 76057610 7615 76207620 762 0 CARRIAGE HOUSE STANLEY HOTEL 7590 7595 76 0 0 7605 7610 7615 7620 7625 763 0 7635 75 8 0 75 8 5 758 5 76057610 7580 7585 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7615 76 0 0 7605 7610 STE A M E R P A R K W A Y PROJECT SITE 8.2 % 8.2 % 5.6 % 7.1 % 4.2% 10.8 % 9.1 % 16 . 7 % APPROXIMATE GRAND SWALE FLOWLINE EXISTING POND SERVING CONDO DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ASPIRE DETENTION POND O3 13.2 AC 0.58 0.42 7585 7590 7595 7600 760 5 7580 7580 7615 7620 7625 7625 7625 7630 7635 THE LODGE 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 LEGEND: INTERMEDIATE YEAR COMPOSITE C 100 YEAR COMPOSITE C BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (ACRES) 45 43 43 45 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWEREX SD PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED INLETS FLOW DIRECTION ARROW BASIN BOUNDARY DESIGN POINT DESIGNATION (cfs) Q-5TRIBUTARY (ac.) AREABASINS TRIBUTARYDESIGN POINT DIRECT RUNOFF INLET CAPACITY CHART (cfs) Q-100 D B 0.52 0.82 0.73 XX EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY FIG. 2 PR O P O S E D B A S I N M A P DRAWING NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N RE V . CL I E N T N A M E : PR O J E C T N A M E : DR A W I N G T I T L E : CHECKED BY: DATE: MIRO JOB NUMBER NUMBER CLIENT JOB FI L E P A T H : GR A N D H E R I T A G E H O T E L G R O U P CA R R I A G E H O U S E P A R K I N G E X P A N S I O N ES T E S P A R K , C O L O R A D O Know what's below. Call before you dig. NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SSM SSM JDC 09/09/19 19051 S.A. MIRO INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4582 South Ulster Street Pkwy. Suite 750 Denver, CO 80237 ph. 303-741-3737 fax 303-694-3134 9/ 9 / 2 0 1 9 TO W N S U B M I T T A L 1 PROPOSED BASIN SUMMARY 1 B2 0.61 INLET CAPACITY (CFS) 0.33 1.74 2.75 2 B1 0.57 0.34 1.91 5.40 3 B3 0.26 0.74 1.60 5.40 5 A1, B1-B5 0.72 4.38 11.97 13.55 2 AS I - 0 6 8/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 0 STE A M E R P A R K W A Y A1 0.29 0.87 0.76 B1 0.57 0.65 0.19 B4 0.69 0.85 0.76 EX S D STEAMER P A R K W A Y CARRIAGE HOUSE CONCERT HALL 7590 7595 76 0 0 7605 7610 7615 7620 7625 763 0 7635 75 8 0 75 8 5 758 5 7605 7610 7580 7585 7590 7595 7600 7605 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7615 76 0 0 7605 7610 B2 0.61 0.59 0.05 B3 0.25 0.83 0.73 D SDMH A-30 (4' DIA.) SD INLET B-20 (18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) 1 2 3 5 SD FES A-10 (12") SD INLET A-20 (5' TYPE R) SD INLET A-40 (5' TYPE R) SD INLET A-50 (18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) CONNECT TO EX. INLET EX. INV. OUT ≈ 7576.8 GRAND DITCH FLOWLINE D B5 0.09 0.85 0.77 RAIN GARDEN 1 WQCV REQUIRED = 1,519 CU FT PROVIDED = 1,524 CU FT 7590 7595 7600 7605 76 1 0 76 1 5 76 2 0 7625 76 2 5 7595 7600 12" PVC 12" RCP 12" RCP 12 " R C P 12" PVC 4" P V C 8" PVC 18 " R C P 7615 7620 7625 7625 7630 7635 760 0 760 5 7620 762 0 76 0 5 7610 7615 759 5 760 0 759 0 7615 SDMH A-15 (4' DIA.) 8" PVC 4 FROM "FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE PARKING ADDITION", DATED SEPTERMBER 9, 2019 REVISED AUGUST 12, 2020. LEGEND: INTERMEDIATE YEAR COMPOSITE C 100 YEAR COMPOSITE C BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (ACRES) 45 43 43 45 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWEREX SD PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED INLETS FLOW DIRECTION ARROW BASIN BOUNDARY DESIGN POINT DESIGNATION D B 0.52 0.82 0.73 XX EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.03.19 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.03.19 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 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 FILM CENTER DRAINAGE PLAN FIG. 3 40 SCALE: 1" = 40' 400 15' TYPE R C8 0.16 0.65 0.37 A1 0.30 0.87 0.76 EX S D EX S D EX S D EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D D D EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D EX S D EX S D CARRIAGE HOUSE CONCERT HALL D 1 2 3 24 " R C P 24" RCP CONNECT TO EX. INLET EX. INV. OUT ≈ 7576.8 GRAND DITCH FLOWLINE D EXISTING RAIN GARDEN 1 WQCV REQUIRE ,503 CU FT PROVIDED = 1,524 CU FT WQCV WSE = 7586.24 12" RCP 12 " R C P 12 " R C P 12" PVC 4" P V C 8" PVC 18 " R C P 7600 7605 7610 761 5 76 2 0 76 2 5 76 0 0 760 5 7625 FILM CENTER D D D B4 0.69 0.84 0.76 C1 1.21 0.71 0.50 C3 0.26 0.62 0.31 C2 0.16 0.79 0.66 B5 0.09 0.84 0.77 B6 0.14 0.68 0.45 B1-1 0.47 0.56 0.19C4 0.66 0.84 0.77 B3 0.26 0.82 0.7224 " R C P 24" R C P 18" R C P 18" RCP REGRADE WQ POND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WQCV REQUIRED = CU FT EXISTING WQCV PROVIDED = 1,290 CU FT (EST.) TOTAL WQCV PROVIDED = 3,250 CU FT 7605 24" FES CLEANOUT 18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN 12" FES 5' TYPE R 5' TYPE R STE A M E R P A R K W A Y 7625 7630 7635 7640 7585 7590 7595 76 0 0 7605 7610 7615 7620 76 3 0 7580 7590 759 5 76 0 0 760 5 76 1 0 761 5 7620 7625763 0 7635 7585 4" PVC 4" PERF. PVC 7 4 5 9 B2 0.16 0.84 0.77 6 12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN B1-2 0.12 0.56 0.19 RAIN GARDEN 2 WQCV REQUIRED = CU FT PROVIDED = 798 CU FT WQCV WSE = 7595.52 C6 0.39 0.73 0.54 C7 0.15 0.58 0.24 THE LODGE 15" NYLOPLAST DRAIN 18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN 758 0 75 8 0 7585 757 9 757 9 7581 75 8 1 7582 75 8 2 7583 7584 758 1 758 2 758 3 758 4 7585 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7615 7620 7590 7595 7600 7605 760 5 7605 7610 7615 7620 7625 761 5 762 0 762 5 763 0 15 " H D P E 15" H D P E EXISTING INLETS EXISTING ROOF DRAIN CONNECTIONS TYPE C (OVERFLOW)(OVERFLOW DRAIN) C5 0.12 0.66 0.40 RAIN GARDEN 3 WQCV REQUIRED = CU FT PROVIDED = 650 CU FT 8 10 ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION 6' DIA. CONNECT EXISTING STORM LINE 6' DIA. EXISTING POND 12 " H D P E 12" PVC EXISTING INLET EXISTING INLET EXISTING INLET EXISTING RAIN GARDEN A 75 9 7 75 9 8 75 9 9 762 7 DRAINAGE SWALE 8' WALK TO BE INSTALLED WITH CARRIAGE HOUSE PER TRC D 24" NYLOPLAST DRAIN EXISTING AREA INLET 5' TYPE R 12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION EXISTING OUTLET STRUCTURE 8" PVC 12" PVC 18" RCP 24" R C P 18" PVC 18" CLEANOUT CLEANOUT CLEANOUT CLEANOUT 8" PVC 4" PERF. PVC 4" PERF. PVC 4" PERF. PVC 4" PERF. PVC D D D D 03/19/21 1,770 519 347 ED = 1, 30" 30" 18" 18" FES Provide riprap basin? Provide Discharge Summary Table at Design Points, and Inlet Capacity Chart here Include design calculations for drainage swale in the report. Ensure erosion is not a concern. Swale might need to be extended to the bottom of existing pond or provide erosion protection to prevent head-cutting. Since there is potentially more runoff contributing to this pond based on developed conditions, compared to existing conditions, new calculations should prove that this pond along with outlet pipes and downstream storm sewer system have sufficient capacity to handle minor/major storm events, and developed runoff can safely be conveyed to the Aspire Detention Pond. 30" Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix B Rational Calculations (Peak Runoff, Precipitation) Designer: Company:2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr Date:1-hour rainfall depth, P1 (in) =0.83 1.18 1.40 1.69 1.96 2.22 3.14 Project:a b c Location:Rainfall Intensity Equation Coefficients =28.50 10.00 0.786 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr Overland Flow Length Li (ft) U/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) D/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) Overland Flow Slope Si (ft/ft) Overland Flow Time ti (min) Channelized Flow Length Lt (ft) U/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) D/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) Channelized Flow Slope St (ft/ft) NRCS Conveyance Factor K Channelized Flow Velocity Vt (ft/sec) Channelized Flow Time tt (min) Computed tc (min) Regional tc (min) Selected tc (min)2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.89 3.92 4.38 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.66 0.97 1.18 1.46 1.72 1.97 2.83 0.23 0.30 0.37 0.50 0.55 0.61 0.69 8.10 8.39 8.39 2.38 3.41 4.05 4.88 5.66 6.42 9.08 0.24 0.43 0.64 1.05 1.34 1.70 2.69 0.28 0.34 0.41 0.53 0.58 0.64 0.71 7.20 7.20 7.20 2.51 3.59 4.26 5.15 5.97 6.76 9.56 0.18 0.31 0.44 0.68 0.87 1.08 1.69 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 5.09 5.09 5.09 2.79 3.98 4.73 5.71 6.62 7.50 10.60 0.33 0.49 0.60 0.75 0.89 1.02 1.48 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.88 3.71 3.71 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.56 0.82 1.00 1.25 1.47 1.69 2.44 0.69 0.73 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.86 4.85 5.79 5.79 2.69 3.84 4.56 5.50 6.38 7.23 10.23 1.29 1.93 2.38 3.02 3.58 4.15 6.04 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 4.26 4.26 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.25 0.37 0.45 0.57 0.67 0.77 1.11 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.90 2.67 2.67 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.33 0.48 0.58 0.71 0.83 0.94 1.35 0.44 0.49 0.55 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.77 6.27 7.01 7.01 2.53 3.63 4.30 5.19 6.02 6.82 9.65 1.34 2.17 2.84 3.98 4.89 5.89 8.93 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.74 0.76 0.79 0.83 6.15 6.33 6.33 2.62 3.74 4.44 5.36 6.22 7.04 9.96 0.25 0.39 0.49 0.64 0.76 0.89 1.32 0.26 0.33 0.40 0.52 0.57 0.63 0.70 10.59 11.18 11.18 2.13 3.05 3.62 4.37 5.07 5.74 8.12 0.15 0.26 0.37 0.59 0.75 0.94 1.48 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 3.37 3.37 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 1.41 2.09 2.56 3.21 3.79 4.36 6.31 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.54 0.59 0.65 0.71 4.77 5.11 5.11 2.78 3.98 4.72 5.70 6.61 7.48 10.59 0.10 0.17 0.24 0.37 0.47 0.58 0.91 0.39 0.45 0.50 0.60 0.64 0.69 0.75 2.19 2.19 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.42 0.70 0.93 1.35 1.67 2.03 3.10 0.18 0.24 0.32 0.46 0.52 0.59 0.67 5.01 5.01 5.01 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.64 7.53 10.64 0.07 0.14 0.22 0.39 0.51 0.66 1.06 0.33 0.39 0.45 0.56 0.61 0.66 0.73 3.23 3.23 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.15 0.25 0.34 0.52 0.65 0.80 1.24 D D D D D D 84.9 90.0 100.0 56.3 75.3 35.8 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3 0.69 0.12 0.14 1.21 0.16 0.26 18.61 21.77 C8 0.16 D 43.5 10.00 0.020 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 17.42 C7 0.15 D 24.9 30.00 0.050 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 19.76 C6 0.39 D 50.5 10.00 0.050 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 10.70 C5 0.12 D 39.5 20.00 0.020 58.00 0.020 20 2.83 0.34 20.76 C4 0.68 D 90.0 50.00 0.020 0.00 0.020 20 2.83 0.00 13.39 91.00 0.020 100.00 0.020 20 2.83 0.59 17.09 90.00 0.020 69.00 0.100 20 6.32 0.18 9.00 95.00 0.050 189.00 0.080 15 4.24 0.74 10.70 160.00 0.100 0.00 0.030 20 3.46 0.00 0.033 0.00 0.010 12.47 80.00 0.020 0.00 0.050 20 4.47 0.00 0.065 20 5.10 0.950.065 290.00178.00 161.00 0.121 55.00B1-1 0.43 10.28 10.70 B3 0.26 D 92.5 130.00 0.053 0.00 0.049 20 4.42 0.00 19.54 B2 0.16 D 90.0 160.00 Cells of this color are for calculated results based on overrides Ryan J. Humphrey S.A. Miro, Inc. 3/19/2021 Stanely Hotel Film Center Estes Park, CO Version 2.00 released May 2017 20 2.00 0.00 20.98 B1-2 0.25 D 38.0 144.00 0.120 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 0.026 20 3.22 0.28D 32.0 0.060178.00 Rainfall Intensity, I (in/hr) 4.51 0.46 10.33200.051125.00 Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Calculation of Peak Runoff using Rational Method Overland (Initial) Flow Time Channelized (Travel) Flow Time Time of ConcentrationRunoff Coefficient, C Subcatchment Name Area (ac) NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group Percent Imperviousness A1 0.30 D 94.6 Select UDFCD location for NOAA Atlas 14 Rainfall Depths from the pulldown list OR enter your own depths obtained from the NOAA website (click this link) Cells of this color are for required user-input Cells of this color are for optional override values This could be 7,600' based on site survey data, but it is okay to use 7,500' since it is slightly conservative. Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix C Rain Garden Analysis Inlet Sizing StormCAD Analysis (Design Procedure Forms, Capacity Charts, Profile Reports) Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =80.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.800 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.26 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 69,604 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =1,523 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =1114 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =1382 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =1665 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=1,524 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =1,523 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =7/8 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Carriage House & Film Center Rain Garden 1-Revised Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Carriage House & Film Center Rain Garden 1-Revised UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO RG 1 - UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 3/19/2021, 1:20 PM should be same for vertical wall? Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =48.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.480 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.16 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 25,933 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =347 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =249 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =798 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =798 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=798 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =347 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =7/16 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT SA Miro, Inc. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden - 2 Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT SA Miro, Inc. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden - 2 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO RG 2 - UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 3/19/2021, 12:43 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =53.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.530 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.17 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 36,281 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =519 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =385 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =650 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =650 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=650 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =519 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =1/2 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden 3 Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden 3 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO RG 3 - UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 3/19/2021, 12:32 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =64.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.640 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.20 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 106,036 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =1,770 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =1357 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =3000 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =3500 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=3,250 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =1,770 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =15/16 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Existing Rain Garden A Revisions Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Existing Rain Garden A Revisions UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO RG A - UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 3/19/2021, 12:39 PM Bioretention T-3 November 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District B-15 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Figure B-1 – Typical Rain Garden Plan and Sections T-3 Bioretention B-16 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 T-3 Bioretention B-18 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Bioretention T-3 November 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District B-19 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Figure B-2. Geomembrane Liner/Underdrain Penetration Detail Figure B-3. Geomembrane Liner/Concrete Connection Detail Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =20.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.050 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.020 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =9.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =12.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.030 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)SW =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition SO =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =10.0 12.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =0.00 0.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 4.6 5.3 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.26 0.32 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.58 0.68 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =3.2 4.4 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.3 1.9 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Basin B1-2 H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =12.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.040 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.018 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =9.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =12.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.039 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)SW =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition SO =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =6.0 12.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =0.00 0.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 3.6 6.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.18 0.38 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.46 0.77 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =1.8 5.6 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.7 1.6 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Basin B3 Inlet H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) W o W P CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =14.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.024 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.013 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =12.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.025 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)SW =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition SO =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =6.0 12.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =5.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 4.0 6.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =15.00 15.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.21 0.38 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.38 0.57 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.64 0.79 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =3.7 11.0 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =2.3 6.2 cfs Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Inlet C1 CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =8.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.018 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =8.5 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.030 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)SW =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition SO =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =6.0 8.5 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 3.1 4.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.14 0.21 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.40 0.51 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.95 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =1.2 2.4 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.4 0.9 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Basin C2 Inlet H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1         !"## $ %&'(()*"! +,-./0.12345.637101893-7:1;32<=56!>! ?@?? ?@A? B@?? B@A? C@?? C@A? D@?? D@A? E@?? E@A? A@?? ?@?? ?@?A ?@B? ?@BA ?@C? ?@CA ?@D? ?@DA ?@E? ?@EA ?@A? ?@AA ?@F? ?@FA ?@G? ?@GA ?@H? ?@HA ?@I? ?@IA B@?? B@?A B@B? JK L K M N O P Q R M S T U VWKXQRSOU YPZ[LZKTOQBH\Q]OK^XK_XQ`_KOWQa^ZWOQJKLKMNOPQJbK_OAREA INLET B-20 BASIN B4 (RG1)See previous drainage plan for rain garden capacities, overflow path, and WQCV. 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 2' x 2' Steel Bar / MAG Grate Inlet Capacity Chart EXISTING RAIN GARDEN A 100-YR RUNOFF = 8.8 CFS         !"## $ %&'(()*"! +,-./0.12345.637101893-7:1;32<=56!>! ?@?? ?@A? B@?? B@A? C@?? C@A? D@?? D@A? E@?? E@A? A@?? ?@?? ?@?A ?@B? ?@BA ?@C? ?@CA ?@D? ?@DA ?@E? ?@EA ?@A? ?@AA ?@F? ?@FA ?@G? ?@GA ?@H? ?@HA ?@I? ?@IA B@?? B@?A B@B? JK L K M N O P Q R M S T U VWKXQRSOU YPZ[LZKTOQBH\Q]OK^XK_XQ`_KOWQa^ZWOQJKLKMNOPQJbK_O RAIN GARDEN 2 100-YR RUNOFF = 2.65 CFS 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 24" Standard Grate Inlet Capacity Chart RAIN GARDEN 3 100-YR RUNOFF = 4.15 CFS         !"## $ %&'(()*"! +,-./0.12345.637101893-7:1;32<=56!>! ?@?? ?@AB ?@B? ?@CB D@?? D@AB D@B? D@CB A@?? A@AB A@B? ?@?? ?@?B ?@D? ?@DB ?@A? ?@AB ?@E? ?@EB ?@F? ?@FB ?@B? ?@BB ?@G? ?@GB ?@C? ?@CB ?@H? ?@HB ?@I? ?@IB D@?? D@?B D@D? JK L K M N O P Q R M S T U VWKXQRSOU YPZ[LZKTOQDA\Q]OK^XK_XQ`_KOWQa^ZWOQJKLKMNOPQJbK_O BASIN B6 (AREA INLET C-30) 100-YR RUNOFF = 0.94 CFS Scenario: Base Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2/5/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-05 FC West.stsw 30" RCP 30" RCP 24" RCP 18" RCP 18" RCP 12" PVC 18" PVC 6" PVC 12" PVC 8" PVC STORM LINE A STORM LINE A-40 STORM LINE A-20 STORM LINE A-22 STORM LINE D RD B1 TO RG2 8" P V C 8" PVC Profile Report Profile: STRM A Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/12/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Profile Report Profile: STRM A-20 (B6 & B7 to RG3) Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/18/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Profile Report Profile: STRM A-22 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/18/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Profile Report Profile: STRM A-40 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/12/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Profile Report Profile: RD Connection B1 to RG2 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2/17/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Profile Report Profile: STRM D Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/18/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw FlexTable: Conduit Table Elevation Ground (Stop) (ft) Hydraulic Grade Line (Out) (ft) Depth (Normal) / Rise (%) Flow / Capacity (Design) (%) Capacity (Full Flow) (cfs) Velocity (ft/s) Flow (cfs) Manning's nDiameter (in) Slope (Calculated) (ft/ft) Length (User Defined) (ft) Invert (Stop) (ft) Stop NodeInvert (Start) (ft) Start NodeLabel 7,595.507,595.9058.965.31.584.811.030.0108.00.01033.77,595.50RG-2 OUTFALL7,595.84RD CONNECTION8" PVC 7,597.007,596.4141.335.84.475.221.600.01012.00.00958.07,596.00O-17,596.54SD INLET C-2012" PVC 7,630.567,621.1479.997.610.506.7710.250.01318.00.010113.37,619.94SDMH A-407,621.07SDMH A-5018" RCP 7,625.577,615.9451.151.822.627.2711.720.01324.00.010133.87,614.91SDMH A-307,616.25SDMH A-4024" RCP 7,630.567,617.4827.216.29.103.781.470.01318.00.00780.37,616.75SDMH A-407,617.35SD INLET A-3118" RCP 7,628.197,622.4779.997.610.506.7710.250.01318.00.01088.57,621.27SDMH A-507,622.16SD INLET A-6018" RCP 7,626.437,618.1529.418.83.093.010.580.01312.00.00714.87,617.85SD INLET A-317,617.97SD INLET A-3212" PVC 7,625.667,623.3859.566.36.578.954.360.01012.00.0209.97,622.66SD INLET A-607,622.86RD CONNECTION12" PVC 7,615.407,609.2924.112.891.6512.8211.720.01330.00.050110.67,608.69SDMH A-207,614.21SDMH A-3030" RCP 7,608.887,606.7128.417.666.5710.2111.720.01330.00.02694.67,606.00SD FES A-107,608.49SDMH A-2030" RCP 7,599.197,597.5070.584.51.113.570.940.0108.00.00547.97,597.04SD INLET C-207,597.28SDCO C-308" PVC 7,599.907,597.7570.684.61.113.570.940.0108.00.00550.07,597.28SDCO C-307,597.53SDCO C-408" PVC 7,593.587,593.4162.771.79.065.586.500.01318.00.00791.47,592.47O-37,593.15SD INLET D-2018" PVC 7,600.007,601.61(N/A)130.11.565.822.030.0108.00.01035.57,600.98O-47,601.33SD INLET C-118" PVC Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16663/19/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw FlexTable: Manhole Table Headloss Coefficient (Standard) Headloss Method Hydraulic Grade Line (In) (ft) Hydraulic Grade Line (Out) (ft) Flow (Total Out) (cfs) Elevation (Invert Out) (ft) Elevation (Invert in 1) (ft) Elevation (Rim) (ft) Elevation (Ground) (ft) Label 0.000Standard7,617.487,617.4811.727,616.257,619.947,630.567,630.56SDMH A-40 0.000Standard7,622.317,622.3110.257,621.077,621.277,628.197,628.19SDMH A-50 0.000Standard7,617.817,617.811.477,617.357,617.857,626.437,626.43SD INLET A-31 0.000Standard7,623.747,623.744.367,622.86(N/A)7,625.907,625.90RD CONNECTION 0.000Standard7,623.397,623.3910.257,622.167,622.667,625.667,625.66SD INLET A-60 0.000Standard7,615.367,615.3611.727,614.217,614.917,625.577,625.57SDMH A-30 0.000Standard7,618.287,618.280.587,617.97(N/A)7,620.477,620.47SD INLET A-32 0.000Standard7,609.647,609.6411.727,608.497,608.697,615.407,615.40SDMH A-20 0.000Standard7,597.087,597.081.607,596.547,597.047,599.197,599.19SD INLET C-20 0.000Standard7,598.007,598.000.947,597.53(N/A)7,599.487,599.48SDCO C-40 0.000Standard7,597.757,597.750.947,597.287,597.287,599.907,599.90SDCO C-30 0.000Standard7,596.327,596.321.037,595.84(N/A)7,597.187,597.18RD CONNECTION Absolute7,602.227,602.222.037,601.33(N/A)7,604.007,604.00SD INLET C-11 Absolute7,594.147,594.146.507,593.15(N/A)7,595.517,595.51SD INLET D-20 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/19/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix D NRCS Soil Report (Custom Soil Report) United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service May 31, 2019 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12 Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties..............14 50—Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes.............................14 References............................................................................................................17 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44 7 0 3 2 0 44 7 0 3 4 0 44 7 0 3 6 0 44 7 0 3 8 0 44 7 0 4 0 0 44 7 0 4 2 0 44 7 0 4 4 0 44 7 0 4 6 0 44 7 0 4 8 0 44 7 0 5 0 0 44 7 0 3 2 0 44 7 0 3 4 0 44 7 0 3 6 0 44 7 0 3 8 0 44 7 0 4 0 0 44 7 0 4 2 0 44 7 0 4 4 0 44 7 0 4 6 0 44 7 0 4 8 0 44 7 0 5 0 0 456120 456140 456160 456180 456200 456220 456240 456260 456120 456140 456160 456180 456200 456220 456240 456260 40° 23' 2'' N 10 5 ° 3 1 ' 1 ' ' W 40° 23' 2'' N 10 5 ° 3 0 ' 5 4 ' ' W 40° 22' 56'' N 10 5 ° 3 1 ' 1 ' ' W 40° 22' 56'' N 10 5 ° 3 0 ' 5 4 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 45 90 180 270 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:963 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties Survey Area Data: Version 4, Sep 10, 2018 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 30, 2010—Oct 7, 2017 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report 10 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 50 Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes 2.8 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 2.8 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties 50—Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2lsst Elevation: 7,500 to 8,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 41 to 44 degrees F Frost-free period: 95 to 105 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Cathedral and similar soils: 45 percent Ratake and similar soils: 40 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Cathedral Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Slope alluvium derived from granite and gneiss Typical profile A - 0 to 3 inches: gravelly sandy loam Bw1 - 3 to 10 inches: very gravelly coarse sandy loam Bw2 - 10 to 18 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sandy loam R - 18 to 28 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 9 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.01 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Other vegetative classification: Ponderosa pine/antelope bitterbrush (PIPO/ PUTR2) (C1120) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Description of Ratake Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Slope alluvium derived from granite and gneiss over residuum weathered from granite and gneiss Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: gravelly sandy loam Bw - 7 to 15 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Cr - 15 to 24 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 9 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Other vegetative classification: Ponderosa pine/antelope bitterbrush (PIPO/ PUTR2) (C1120) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Rock outcrop Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Rock pediments Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Hydric soil rating: Unranked Chasmfalls Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Pediments Ecological site: Loamy Park (R048AY222CO) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Custom Soil Resource Report 16 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 17 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 18 August 1, 2019 Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Stanley Hotel – Film Center Land Use Summary Dear Mr. Hunt, On behalf of Grand Heritage Hotel Group, this letter is being provided as an exhibit to illustrate the intended land uses associated with the Stanley Film Center Project. The Film Center project is currently going through the Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee process, and as part of that process we want to ensure that the building design is within the allowable Land Use limits. The allowable land use is tied to the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Development Standards and Guidelines. Exhibit F of this document provides a Land Use Summary for each Stanley Parcel. The Film Center is located within Parcel 1. The Land Use Summary provides allowable Units/GFA for several uses which will be housed within the new construction of the Film Center. The summary of allowable land uses that apply to this project are as follows: · 25,000 SF – Recreation/Conference Center · 40,000 SF – Cultural Arts Center The current planning of the Film Center follows these allowed uses in its planning as described below: The Conference Center allowed use is planned within the Film Center and includes a Creative Center (ballroom type function), multiple conference rooms throughout the Film Center, circulation, as well as back-of-house support for these functions. Food service to the conference center functions is provided by the kitchen located within the Carriage House. The Cultural Arts Center allowed use is planned within the Film Center to include a 650 seat concert hall including stage, mezzanine, circulation, public and back of house support functions, (the concert hall is a flexible space that can also be utilized as a flat floor exhibit hall or a film/conference venue supporting the Conference Center programs), a Film Discovery Center (a film museum type experience) including storage, public and back of house support functions, and a Chocolate Factory Immersive Experience (a functioning candy factory in which visitors walk through the candy making experience and participate in the creation of their own inventions). In the calculation of area within the Film Center, we recognize that much of the building public circulation and lobby spaces are shared between the Conference Center and Cultural Arts Center uses. As such, we have assigned these areas equitably to each use. Per BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) National Standards, we have calculated areas to include stairs and elevators at their lowest level only. Stairs, elevators and other floor penetrations are not calculated above the lowest floor level at which they occur. This approach is also consistent in the calculation of building occupancy per the International Building Code. There are several outdoor patios at both ground and roof level that are not included within the SF calculations as they don’t count against land use limitations. Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park August 1, 2019 Page 2 Additionally, the Film Center will contain functions that serve as support facilities (storage, utilities, maintenance, etc.) that will serve the entire Stanley Campus. It is our understanding that these types of uses are a “Use by Right” and do not fall under the Land Use Summary limitations. These functions are being consolidated to this location from numerous locations on the campus to allow for removal of unsightly facilities, provide for more efficient campus operations, and allow for renovation of the Carriage House, which is currently used as the primary storage building on the campus. It should be noted that the majority of support facilities (with the exception of central administrative offices) will be located in the basement of the Film Center, out of public view. This is a primary benefit of relocating these types of uses to this location. Grand Heritage Hotel Group is including this component in the Film Center project at considerable expense and effort with the goal of enhancing the quality of the overall Stanley property through the elimination of unsightly infrastructure. The gross square footage currently being planned in the facility is within the allowable area identified in the Land Use Summary as defined by the different uses shown above. The planned SF related to the three uses located within the Film Center and the Carriage House is summarized as follows: Film Center: · 22,510 SF - Conference Center type uses · 38,260 SF - Cultural Arts Center type uses · 19,025 SF – Stanley Campus Support Functions (not accounted for in the Land Use Summary) We also wish to point out several key elements of the Film Center design that we believe are very positive planning attributes of the project. 1. The 1994 Master Plan illustrates 6 separate new buildings located within Parcel 1that fulfill the Conference Center and Cultural Arts Center allowed uses. Our plan consolidates those to a single building, thus limiting land use impacts in a positive manner. 2. A carefully located, single, consolidated building limits the impact on existing trees and vegetation. Through smart planning, we are able to save more existing mature trees on the site. 3. Approximately 1/3rd of the planned square footage of the Film Center will be located below grade and won’t be visible. 4. The Film Center design will not require a height variance. The building will be designed within current height guidelines. 5. The Colorado Historical Foundation has been a key advisor in the planning and design of the Film Center project. MOA Architecture has met multiple times with CHF representatives and the CHF Board to ensure the design and planning adhere to Historical District best planning practices. The CHF has provided positive support of the current design under separate letter to the Town of Estes Park. It is our hope that this letter helps to clarify our intent to conform to the Land Use Summary requirements of the Stanley 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 The Stanley Hotel Film Center Estes Park, CO Technical Review Committee Submission TRC Project Review Request and Project Narrative December 1, 2020 MOA ARCHITECTURE Film Center TRC Narrative 2 December 1, 2020 December 1, 2020 Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Stanley Hotel – Film Center Technical Review Committee, Preliminary TRC Review Request Dear Mr. Hunt, As you know, the Grand Heritage Hotel Group has been working with the Town of Estes Park Planning Department to identify and develop required documents for the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process for the Stanley Film Center project. This letter serves as our formal request to schedule the Preliminary/Final TRC Reviews. Under separate email, you will find our planning documents, as required for TRC review. As you recall, representatives of Grand Heritage Hotel Group, including Mr. John Cullen (Owner), along with myself representing MOA Architecture met with city officials on July 18, 2019 for the Film Center TRC pre-application meeting. Our submission includes documents as requested during the pre-application meeting. We look forward to scheduling the TRC review in early January and discussing this exciting project with the TRC committee. Sincerely, Jack Mousseau, AIA MOA ARCHITECTURE Cc: Mr. John Cullen Grand Heritage Hotel Group Owner 410-585-4300 jcullen@grandheritage.com Film Center TRC Narrative 3 December 1, 2020 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center – Design Narrative The creation of an “Arts District” was a critical component of F.O. Stanley’s original vision for the Stanley. The Film and Performing Arts Center is an integral piece in completing that vision. Recognizing the sensitivities involved with the placement of this new building in the Stanley Historic District, the designers for the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center are keen to ensure the creation of a “sense of place” rather than the “sense of time”. The design reflects the sense of the specific place and creates continuity over time rather than contrast and disruption - it is this ‘continuity over time’ that is important to creating and maintaining the character of the historic district. The design approach to the new Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center will be consistent with ‘best practices’ for new construction in historic districts. The placement of the Film and Performing Arts Center draws its influence in harmonizing with the surrounding buildings and site rather than rupture the continuity of architectural character. The Film and Performing Arts Center is set back on the site from the Concert Hall and the Carriage House, making it subversive to these two original buildings. The siting allows these two building to sit “proud” on the site as they face to the south. The Film and Performing Arts Center spans the space between and is set back on the site to bring prominence to the historic buildings. The Film and Performing Arts Center is set into the ground, at the northwest corner by as much as 25’. By sinking the building into the site, we reduce its visible mass and maintain a consistency of building massing to the adjacent Concert Hall and Carriage House. In this manner, the building is again, subversive to the Stanley Hotel itself, which remains the focal point of the campus. Placement of the Film and Performing Arts Center in an orthogonal arrangement that creates a composition with the Stanley Hotel, Lodge Building, the Concert Hall and the Carriage House. The buildings maintain a relatively consistent north/south and east/west axis. The Film and Performing Arts Center maintains this axial arrangement with the design of its roof forms. However, the curved glazing facing to the south recognizes that this building is unique while remaining a comfortable part of the composition. The curved, south facing front porch and glass lobby wall brings a modern character within the composition of buildings, while displaying a traditional style and making a strong statement of its own identity without subverting the character of its setting. The abundance of glazing creates a transparency between the Concert Hall and Carriage House that fits quietly into the space. The roof over the lobby reverts to the traditional, orthogonal geometry of the existing Stanley buildings. The buildings within the Stanley Historic District have a very distinct architectural vocabulary. A language that makes the Stanley, “The Stanley”. Some of these elements include the red roofs, white clapboard siding, front porch approaches and entries, the use of symmetry and composition to break down building scale and fenestration scale and proportion. These elements, used as inspiration in the design of the Film and Performing Arts Center, draw on the influences of the place and harmonize with, rather than rupture, the continuity of architectural character. The alignment of the Film and Performing Arts Center floor levels to the Concert Hall and Carriage House creates a calmness across the site as the buildings balance with the topography. Strong horizontal roof lines and other important horizontal datums fit comfortably together with the composition of buildings. Film Center TRC Narrative 4 December 1, 2020 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center – Land Use Summary The allowable land uses on the Stanley property are tied to the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Development Standards and Guidelines. The graphic below is the land use summary from the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. Film Center TRC Narrative 5 December 1, 2020 The Master Plan provides a Land Use Summary for each Stanley Parcel. The Film Center is located within Parcel 1. The Land Use Summary provides allowable Units/GFA for several uses which will be housed within the new construction of the Film Center. The summary of allowable land uses that apply to this project are as follows: · 25,000 SF – Recreation/Conference Center · 40,000 SF – Cultural Arts Center · 5,000 SF - Retail Film Center TRC Narrative 6 December 1, 2020 The current planning of the Film Center follows these allowed uses in its planning as described below: The Conference Center allowed use is planned within the Film Center and includes a Creative Center (ballroom type function), multiple conference rooms throughout the Film Center, circulation, as well as back-of-house support for these functions. Food service to the conference center functions is provided by the kitchen located within the Carriage House. The Cultural Arts Center allowed use is planned within the Film Center to include a 650 seat concert hall including stage, mezzanine, circulation, public and back of house support functions, (the concert hall is a flexible space that can also be utilized as a flat floor exhibit hall or a film/conference venue supporting Film Center TRC Narrative 7 December 1, 2020 the Conference Center programs), a Film Discovery Center (a film museum type experience) including storage, public and back of house support functions, and a Chocolate Factory Immersive Experience (a functioning candy factory in which visitors walk through the candy making experience and participate in the creation of their own inventions). In the calculation of area within the Film Center, we recognize that much of the building public circulation and lobby spaces are shared between the Conference Center and Cultural Arts Center uses. As such, we have assigned these areas equitably to each use. Per BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) National Standards, we have calculated areas to include stairs and elevators at their lowest level only. Stairs, elevators and other floor penetrations are not calculated above the lowest floor level at which they occur. This approach is also consistent in the calculation of building occupancy per the International Building Code. There are several outdoor patios at both ground and roof level that are not included within the SF calculations as they don’t count against land use limitations. Additionally, the Film Center will contain functions that serve as support facilities (storage, utilities, maintenance, etc.) that will serve the entire Stanley Campus. It is our understanding that these types of uses are a “Use by Right” and do not fall under the Land Use Summary limitations. This has been confirmed with the Town of Estes Park Planning Department. These functions are being consolidated to this location from numerous locations on the campus to allow for removal of unsightly facilities, provide for more efficient campus operations, and allow for renovation of the Carriage House, which is currently used as the primary storage building on the campus. It should be noted that the majority of support facilities (with the exception of central administrative offices) will be located in the basement of the Film Center, out of public view. This is a primary benefit of relocating these types of uses to this location. Grand Heritage Hotel Group is including this component in the Film Center project at considerable expense and effort with the goal of enhancing the quality of the overall Stanley property through the elimination of unsightly infrastructure. The gross square footage currently being planned in the facility is within the allowable area identified in the Land Use Summary as defined by the different uses shown above. The planned SF related to the three uses located within the Film Center and the Carriage House is summarized as follows: Film Center: · 22,510 SF - Conference Center type uses · 38,260 SF - Cultural Arts Center type uses · 19,025 SF – Stanley Campus Support Functions (not accounted for in the Land Use Summary) We also wish to point out several key elements of the Film Center design that we believe are very positive planning attributes of the project. 1. The 1994 Master Plan illustrates 6 separate new buildings located within Parcel 1 that fulfill the Conference Center and Cultural Arts Center allowed uses. Our plan consolidates those to a single building, thus limiting land use impacts in a positive manner. 2. A carefully located, single, consolidated building limits the impact on existing trees and vegetation. Through smart planning, we are able to save more existing mature trees on the site. 3. Approximately 1/3rd of the planned square footage of the Film Center will be located below grade and won’t be visible. 4. The Film Center design will not require a height variance. The building will be designed within current height guidelines. Film Center TRC Narrative 8 December 1, 2020 5. The Colorado Historical Foundation has been a key advisor in the planning and design of the Film Center project. MOA Architecture has met multiple times with CHF representatives and the CHF Board to ensure the design and planning adhere to Historical District best planning practices. The CHF has provided positive support of the current design under separate letter to the Town of Estes Park. Film Center TRC Narrative 9 December 1, 2020 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center – Programming Summary The following is a summary of program areas for the Film Center. Film Center TRC Narrative 10 December 1, 2020 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center – Colorado Historic Foundation Review The following is correspondence of the Colorado Historical Foundations review of the Stanley Film Center design. Film Center TRC Narrative 11 December 1, 2020 19RENDERING - SOUTH APPROACH 01 20RENDERING - SOUTH APPROACH 02 21RENDERING - VIEW LOOKING EAST 22RENDERING - VIEW LOOKING NORTH 23RENDERING - VIEW LOOKING WEST 01 24RENDERING - VIEW LOOKING WEST 02 25 UPDATED VIEW LOOKING WEST This rendering has been updated to illustrate the current separation of the Carriage House from the Film Center 26QUADRANT RENDERING - SOUTH 27QUADRANT RENDERING - EAST 28QUADRANT RENDERING - WEST 29QUADRANT RENDERING - NORTH T H E S T A N L E Y H O T E L F I L M C E N T E R F I N A L T E C H N I C A L R E V I E W C O M M I T T E E A u g u s t 2 7 , 2 0 2 1 E S T E S P A R K , C O 2 FILM CENTER SERVICE COURTYARD CONCERT HALL CARRIAGE HOUSE PROJECT SCOPE SITE PLAN EAST PARKING FILM CENTER CARRIAGE HOUSE 3LEVEL B1 FLOOR PLAN 32’64’0’ BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 4LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 32’64’0’ LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 5LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 32’64’0’ LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 6LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN 32’64’0’ LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN 7TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Previous Dates: January 29, 2021 & March 24, 2021 Updated Date: April 14, 2021 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: Film & Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Analysis The trip generation for the Carriage House has been updated to include the lounge and patio. The traffic amendment letter for the Carriage House was added to the Appendix. For conservative purposes the traffic study assumed all of the trips were external to the Stanley Hotel. The 2,900 sq. ft. patio was added to the trip generation for the Carriage House and in the background volumes for the Film Center. 8EASEMENT RELOCATION The new easement location has been recorded and provided to TOEP. The easement document was signed by all parties on March 29th and recorded March 31st, 2021. 9SITE PLAN UPDATES Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.06.16 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.06.16 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 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 SITE PLAN C-021 06/15/21 TRUCK TURNING PLAN C-901 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 500 Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.06.16 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.06.16 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 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 06/15/21 Per public works direction, site improvement construction plans shall be approved prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Curb and gutter relocation work will be included in the construction plans. If any waivers are necessary, they will submitted prior to construction documents. Prior to submitting construction documents, the design team will work with Public Works to verify compliance with applicable public standards as stated above. 10SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS Stanley Hotel Walk Improvements CONCEPT • ENHANCED, WELCOMING STREETSCAPE • IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TO DOWNTOWN • NATIVE, HARDY PLANTINGS WITH YEAR ROUND INTEREST • ACCENT ROCK OUTCROPPINGS Stanley Hotel Steame r P a r k w a y SW S t e a m e r P a r k w a y PROPOSED 6’ WALK CONNECTION TO TOWN PROPOSED NATIVE PLANTINGS PROPOSED BOULDER ACCENTS PROPOSED 8’ STEAMER PARKWAY WALK PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BERMS EXISTING STREET LIGHTS TO BE PRESERVED PROPOSED DRAINAGE SWALES EXISTING DRAIN INLETS EXISTING STORM INLETS PROPOSED CROSSWALKS EXISTING ROW/PROPERTY LINE NOTE: PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL AND LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. KEY 1 1 1 2 2 23 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 10 11 11 11 10 10 9 9 9 A B 0 8040 160N Response regarding the public sidewalk and adjacent landscaping along the north side of Steamer Parkway is acceptable. Public Works staff consultation resulted in the consensus that the curvilinear sidewalk shown on the concept plan is very appropriate for strolling within the Stanley campus even though it moves in and out of the public ROW. An easement parallel to the public ROW shall be established to completely contain the curvilinear sidewalk where it leads outside the public ROW. 11GRADING AND UTILITY PLANS Grading Plan was revised as needed to coordinate with revisions requested on other drawings and for the Final Drainage Report. Utility Plan was revised as needed to coordinate with revisions requested on other drawings and for the Final Drainage Report. Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.06.16 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.06.16 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 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 C-311 GRADING PLAN CUT CUT/FILL TABLE (UNADJUSTED) FILL NET (FILL) 3,192 CY NUMBERS ARE TO FINISHED GRADE AND DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR UTILITY SPOILS OR BUILDING EXCAVATION. 8,837 CY 5,645 CY 06/15/21 Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.06.16 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.06.16 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 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 C-551 UTILITY PLAN 06/15/21 12FINAL DRAINAGE REPORTFINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR Stanley Hotel Film Center June 15, 2021 Prepared by: S. A. Miro, Inc. Consulting Engineers 4582 South Ulster St. Pkwy. Suite 750 Denver, Colorado 80237 (303) 741-3737 S. A. Miro Job No. 19-051 Jason D. Carr, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 33854 For and on behalf of S. A. Miro, Inc. 06/15/21 Public Works appreciates the applicant’s effort to locate a prior drainage report which could not be found within Town records or by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying. In lieu of the missing/ nonexistent report, use engineering best practices to establish geometry and drainage capacity for existing ponds. As the development of the drainage report information related to this issue will be time intensive, we request that updated information can be provided during the construction documentation phase of the Film Center. Since no existing drainage information can be found by the TOEP on the rain garden/ pond we feel that we are going above and beyond standard practice of just adding the additional volume created by the Film Center and is being done as a courtesy to the TOEP. Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. The Planning Commission 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. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Jim Kelley For Against Neutral Film Center If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. We request no variances be given to the Stanley for this project relevant to building height and the removal of trees and vegetation as detailed in the Stanley Master Plan. Because the parking lot was not governed by a TRC; the removal of trees (mature ponderosa) was not adhered to. We hate to see the remaining trees cut down for the proposed Film Center. These mature trees are the only barrier to sight of the buildings and roads for the properties due East of the future project. In accordance with the Stanley Master Plan building heights will not exceed 30 ft in height. (page 21, Para 6 Stanley Master Plan) . In accordance with the Stanley Master Plan; Significant existing vegetation is an attribute to any site; the vegetation should be protected and retained. (page 8, para 2, page 25 Para 6.)