Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Technical Review Committee 2020-08-20COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Technical Review Committee (TRC) From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: August 24, 2020 RE: Stanley Hotel Carriage House (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 meet applicable code requirements, 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 Preliminary Package, per the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Sec. I.C.2 (pp. 5-6.) A later TRC meeting will determinate compliance with the Final (Revised) Package, consisting of substantially the same materials with revisions as may be necessary and appropriate. Present Situation: The present TRC review is for the Carriage House improvements on the Stanley Hotel Campus, and specifically for the interior arrangements for proposed use (primarily restaurant, with accessory uses on the lowest level), and for ht architectural finishes to the renovated building. Some background is in order first, regarding how this proposal fits into the overall Stanley complex and vicinity. Stanley Historic District Master Plan and Subdivision The Stanley Historic District (SHD), as envisioned in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan (“SHDMP” or just “MP”) originally consisted of nine separate lots. Staff does not have access to a title report for the Stanley properties, but it is understood the original subdivision into nine lots was approved and recorded in the 1970s. Exhibit 9 is an aerial photo, serving as a vicinity map for this report, and also used to show the nine lots overlaid and labeled for illustrative purposes. The SHDMP itself was adopted in January 1994, and is still the primary applicable plan for the main Stanley Hotel campus (generally coextensive with Lot 1 [Parcel 1] of the nine lots), and it is also applicable in varying degrees to the other eight lots. 1 The SHDMP 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 Staff has, however, included in this packet the sections of the MP that directly apply to the TRC in terms of authority, duties, and subject matter, as outlined in the Plan itself (see Exhibit 7). These sections are pp. 4 – 11 (creation, jurisdiction, and duties of the TRC) and pp. 16 – 32 (design guidelines overall, and site-specific development standards and design guidelines for Parcel 1.) 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.) Chapter 17.44 is not as elaborate and detailed as the SHDMP; however, and important feature in the Chapter is that it gives certain elements in the MP the weight of Code authority – specifically, the “Design and performance standards” in the MP (Sec. 17.44.060.(a).(3)). Although that exact heading does not appear in the MP, staff understands it to refer to the “Site Specific Development Standards” for the various parcels in the SHD, which are in the SHDMP beginning on p. 27. Other sections of the SHDMP are not specifically referenced in Chapter 17.44 as regulatory, including the MP sections and language identified as “guidelines.” In standard planning and zoning terminology, guidelines are interpreted as advisory but not mandatory. Thus, staff’s analysis herein focuses on regulatory matters. 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. Finally, one element in the SHDMP itself is worthy of attention: the “Exhibit B Stanley Historic District Master Plan”, which is a graphic map drawing appearing on P. 56 (PDF page numbering) of the SHDMP. This map has seemingly caused some confusion over the years regarding whether it is a regulatory document, and the degree to which the map precisely “locks in” features and dimensions shown on it. The text in the MP clearly indicates that Exhibit B is an illustration, not a precise regulatory document. For example, the MP states: “While the Master Land Use Plan graphic is intended to establish appropriate land use areas, land use relationships and overall access, it must be considered as illustrative only.” (p. 7) Elsewhere, the MP indicates: “It must be understood that the Master Plan is illustrative in nature and that all development must be further planned and designed to accommodate site specific opportunities and constraints which were not accounted for as a part of this Master Planning process.” (p. 10) Staff is obliged to conclude that features on Exhibit B are not to be interpreted as mandatory in location or extent. This issue has come up during public comment from 2 time to time, with some citizens having understood that Exhibit B functions as a development plan. This is not the interpretation given in the SHDMP itself. Carriage House: Our principal concern in this review, the Carriage House, is in the east-northeast area of Lot 1. The Carriage House is an existing building on the Stanley campus, and in fact is one of the oldest buildings there. The Carriage House has had a variety of very different uses over the years, ranging from (as the name suggests) housing “horseless carriages” in the early 20th Century – specifically, Stanley Steamer automobiles – through brief use as hotel accommodations, to storage of miscellaneous stuff in recent years. The building was built without a foundation – until recent rehabilitation work began, the frame and siding essentially sat in direct contact with the ground. Work began in early 2020 to rehabilitate the Carriage House structurally. A F&F (footings and foundation) building permit was approved in late 2019 for the building, and construction is now underway and getting close to completion to provide the building with a designed foundation meeting current building codes. The foundation permit, and a parallel permit (not yet approved, pending TRC decision) to allow core-and-shell reconstruction, would also result in shifting the building slightly (12 feet) to the north, and removing a small wing that was added in the mid-20th Century. As this is rehabilitation work necessary for safety, the rehabilitation/reconstruction permits did not need TRC approval; however, there is no permission to occupy the building with a tenant or other use unless/until the TRC acts. Use of the building as a restaurant is part of what is now requested of the TRC. It was understood by the Stanley team and all parties that the foundation work proceeded at the applicants’ risk, understanding that there is no assurance until TRC gives it that a restaurant or any other particular use is confirmed for the building. Other Nearby Changes on Lot 1, Stanley Historic District: East Parking Lot: This new parking lot is currently under construction to the east and north of the Carriage House. As with all parking lots on the Stanley campus, the lot is not designated for any one use or complex of buildings; however, the new parking lot will most likely serve the buildings and uses closest to it – in this case, the Carriage House restaurant (if approved) and the future Arts (Film) Center north of the Carriage House (see below.) The East Parking Lot was reviewed and approved by staff in 2019 through the grading (building) permit process. Questions have been raised by the public as to why the parking lot did not undergo the TRC Review process. While there’s some ambiguous language in the SHDMP on the matter of where the threshold for TRC review lies, the MP has been interpreted by staff since 1994 to not require parking lots as standalone projects to undergo TRC Review. The East Parking Lot, like the Carriage House foundation work, has proceeded under the assumption there was no absolute certainty there would be any occupied Stanley buildings next door to it. Again, all parking at the Stanley can in principle be available to any use on the property. Drainage (Grand) Swale: This swale is a riprap-lined ditch running along the eastern boundary of Lot 1 from Lot 2 down to Steamer Parkway, running more or less 3 parallel to and just outside the single-family lots along the west side of Findlay Court, whose backyards abut Stanley Lot 1 Although there’s been a drainageway in this approximate location for several decades, the ditch was recently altered and improved (mainly in capacity) following a court order to resolve drainage concerns between SHD Lot 1 and Lot 2. Surrounding elements in general, and the TRC’s role in review of them: Although permits for these nearby developments are in place (except the ditch, which is court-ordered) and construction is underway, there is a reasonable role for the TRC in discussing them in context of the requested Carriage House review. The SHDMP makes it clear that the Stanley development elements function together as a design whole. The following sections in the SHDMP serve to show how this is the case: p. 2: “The Stanley Hotel and the associated structures are to remain as the "Crown Jewel" of the site with the surrounding adjacent development providing the necessary support for this overall concept.” p. 2: “The :intent of this document as a part of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan is to … [m]aintain the visual and environmental quality of the property and surrounding areas.” The need to consider projects on the Stanley campus as part of a whole is within the TRC’s charge: p. 2: “Compliance and performance related to these goals and objectives shall be carefully evaluated by the Technical and Architectural Review Committees during project/ parcel review.” [The phrase “these goals and objectives” refers specifically to the page 2 quotes above, and to similar statements elsewhere in the MP.] This approach is underscored by sections such as this one from the opening paragraphs of the SHDMP: p. 1: “The development standards outline the specific criteria established on each parcel regarding setbacks, building height, parking, and other site specific issues that regulate development. The design guidelines also provide guidance regarding site preparation, access, grading, vegetation and landscaping, as well as specific site features.” Inclusion of elements such as parking, access and landscaping – none of which lie within the building’s shell – make it clear that the TRC’s guidance role is not confined only to matters within the shell. This is not to say that the TRC’s role includes revisiting and overriding terms of already approved elements on the Stanley campus, whether those elements are as new as the East Parking Lot or as venerable as the Stanley Hotel itself. However, staff holds that it is fair and reasonable – in fact, expected – under the SHDMP that the TRC would consider how the Carriage House fits in its context and what the surrounding elements contribute to its design and operational character, and vice-versa. The TRC would not vote to approve or disapprove of these surrounding elements, but the TRC would find support in the MP for discussing and providing guidance regarding such elements, as the TRC deems appropriate. Staff is at some pains to make the above points, understanding that the Stanley team may or may not agree that the TRC’s role is broader than review of the Carriage 4 House design and use within the building’s footprint. Staff also understands that some neighbors of the Stanley view the development in northeast Lot 1 as a linked package, not as a set of isolated elements. For permit purposes, each element may need its own review and approval. For planning purposes it’s clear in the SHDMP that elements are linked and that the TRC may reasonably discuss any of them and suggest guidance. The TRC’s actual voting role, in the end, is to review and decide upon the specific application before you, as the section on p. 1 quoted above also makes clear. Proposal: Project History: Although plans for reuse of the Carriage House have been afoot for many years – there have been different ideas suggested at various times… not unlike the variety of prior uses for the building – the current formal application and review history begins with a pre-application meeting on July 18, 2019. The pre-app meeting’s subject was a larger project for the east-northeast part of the Stanley Lot 1 campus, including the Carriage House and the adjacent Cultural Arts Center as identified in the SHDMP. Much attention at the pre-app meeting was focused on the Arts Center (often called the Film Center nowadays), as it was to be the predominant use in the overall project. Later, a decision was made by the Stanley (with staff knowledge and concurrence) to separate the Carriage House project review from the Film Center review and to submit the Carriage House first – hence the less-formidable project before you now. At this time it’s unknown when the Film Center may be forthcoming. As a separate project, it will need to start over with a new pre-app meeting and will have to have its own staff and TRC reviews. Separately from the Carriage House TRC submittal, plans were submitted and permits approved in 2019-2020 for the East Parking Lot and for structural stabilization and renovation of the Carriage House, as noted above. The current submittal is expected to be the next-to-last significant review process for the Carriage House, with only the Final TRC review remaining before building permits, construction, and occupancy. Staff will defer to the applicants for their current expected timeframe for those matters. Submitted Materials: The list of attachments that ends this staff report comprises a complete list of submitted materials for TRC review (not counting earlier iterations of some items, plus some minor items that typically do not need review – e.g., the check and receipt for payment of review fees.) Here are the six primary documents provided – comprising the heart of the matter that TRC is charged with reviewing: Carriage House Interior TRC Narrative: (Exhibit 1) This document is just as the title states – a project narrative. Here is where the bulk of the information is provided on the restaurant use itself. Notwithstanding the “interior” label, the document also touches on some external aspect of the building. Also included in this document are an Aug. 2019 letter exchange between MOA Architecture and Town staff confirming that the proposed use is in accord with the SHDMP, and a 2019 letter from the Colorado Historical Foundation (CHF) (holders of 5 the historical conservation easements on the Stanley property) confirming their preliminary approval of the project. (A 2020 letter from CHF is also included in your packet as Exhibit 6, reaffirming their approval and containing one request for a minor adjustment in design.) The Stanley Hotel Carriage House, Estes Park, CO: Technical Review Committee Submission: (Exhibit 2) This set is the architectural renderings for the proposed finish, including perspective drawings. The set also includes a conceptual site plan for the project (also showing its relationship to the future Film Center and other elements.) A floor plan for the restaurant is on the last page of this document. Parking Operations Plan: (Exhibit 3) This report was originally prepared for the joint Film Center-Carriage House project, as the title indicates. Some of the report has been refocused to deal with just the Carriage House, although much remains in it about the joint project. The Film Center information is relevant and useful for context; for regulatory purposes, the Carriage House parking information is primary. Stanley Hotel Carriage House: Traffic Impact Analysis: (Exhibit 4) This is as the title states. It is focused on traffic impacts for the Carriage House restaurant use. The study does account for impacts on streets in the wider area around the Stanley Campus, including state highways. Carriage House Architectural Committee review: (Exhibit 5) Per the SHDMP (p. 6 et seq.), an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) is also appointed for each Stanley Historic District project meeting requirements for ARC review. This has been done for the Carriage House project, and the ARC has conducted their review per the principles and procedures in the SHDMP. Their letter of review and recommendation to the TRC is included. Staff anticipates at least one ARC member will be available on the Aug. 24 call. Colorado Historical Foundation (CHF) review: (Exhibit 6) The SHDMP envisions an important role for the CHF in Stanley project review, particularly those with actual or potential historical importance or impacts. The Carriage House is not a National Register Historic Building and is not a direct contributing element to the Registered property. However, the building is identified by many (including CHF) as having historic value. A letter of approval and recommendation from CHF is included. A sizeable number of other documents and sets are also included in your packet (Exhibits 7 through 17). These serve as additional background on the project, its context, its recent history, and some relevant procedural matters, such as the memoranda formally appointing the TRC and ARC. Again, the six documents above (Exhibits 1 through 6) are the core documents sets for TRC’s review and collective form the basis for your review and decision on Aug. 24. A final element (Exhibit 18) that needs to be identified is a presentation that the Stanley team prepared for the TRC and provided for the packet. Staff understands the Stanley team wishes to present this material as a slide show during the virtual meeting on Monday. 6 Staff analysis: Beginning with the pre-application meeting in July 2019, and gaining formal momentum in June 2020 with the plan submittal, Town staff and allied agencies have engaged in multiple rounds of review of the materials. The net outcome of the review is the final set of materials in your packet. Community Development Department / Planning Division staff are the lead in staff development reviews in general, and that has been the case for this project. Planning staff members are professionally obligated (as I interpret our Code of Ethics) to provide a staff recommendation to all reviewing bodies on all projects within the respective bodies’ jurisdiction. We would stress that the final decision in such cases is always at the reviewing body’s discretion and best judgment. In that context, staff offers this pair of linked recommendations: • The Carriage House project meets the letter and the intent of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. Staff recommends approval by the TRC. • We recommend that the approval include the conditions as stated at the conclusion of this staff report. Submitted materials – staff comments: The narrative provides a clear and concise picture of the Carriage House project’s purpose. The architectural renderings and site layout provide illustrative proof that the project building and site design are an attractive and functional addition to the Town of Estes Park and the wider public who live, work or visit here. Perhaps more to the point, the architectural design is faithful to the SHDMP standards and guidelines. We would particularly note that the design is complementary to, but does not mimic or attempt to replicate, the other historically significant buildings on the Stanley campus. Staff in the Public Works Department are the primary arbiters of matters in the Parking and Traffic Impact studies. Public Works staff are expected to be part of the Aug. 24 TRC meeting. Our understanding is that technical matters in the two motor-vehicle transportation studies have been resolved to the general satisfaction of Public Works staff. The Architectural Review Committee’s narrative and conclusion in Exhibit 5 are self- explanatory. Staff would note that the ARC has provided valuable input and identified features that are valuable in illuminating the general architectural criteria in the SHDMP. The Colorado Historical Foundation has pointed out the contextual historical value of the Carriage House in its setting and as an artifact in its own right. With one minor suggestion for a rooftop modification, they support the renovation. Staff will honor the CHF’s wishes in the letter and not make the rooftop cresting modification an actual condition. Nevertheless, it is commended to the Stanley team as a helpful recommendation. Additional staff comments: 7 •The Stanley Lot 1 campus is nearing “effective buildout.” By this we mean that, although there is plenty of open space to be seen on Lot 1, the conservation easements over much of the open area mean it will never be developed or changed in any appreciable sense. The Film Center, and a potential modest expansion of the main Hotel to the north and west, are the only remaining elements easily discernible on the campus. Parking is basically maxed out, space-wise. All these observations are supported in the SHDMP. We make this observation to point out that this project means the SHDMP is near completion, with just a few projects left to do. •With that said, the area around the Stanley campus, and to some extent some features on the campus itself, would benefit from additional attention. Not all of this can be clearly identified as the Stanley’s responsibility – some arguably are up to other developers to address, and some may be in the Town’s, CDOT’s, or other governmental agencies’ spheres of interest. But they are worthy of informational attention here. Public Works staff in particular have identified the following: o PW recommends that the Carriage House Restaurant project be required to extend sidewalks and trails from the gatehouse driveway/Steamer Parkway intersection to connect with existing sidewalks along Wonderview Avenue to the west and along Steamer Drive to the east. This recommendation is based on the understanding that the EP community supports and desires walkable travelways and bikeways between key destinations, as evidenced by the adoption of a Master Trails Plan in 2016 and the adoption of a Complete Streets Policy in 2019. Advantages: •The Carriage House proposal aligns with the 1994 Stanley Historic District Master Plan. •The proposed development is attractive, complements other development on the Stanley site and in the Town, and will contribute to the economic, social, and environmental well-being of the community as a whole. Disadvantages: •Some elements of the project, as with any significant project near a residential area, will represent a change in residents’ settled living circumstances. •A certain amount of disturbance during construction activity can be expected. •The project will result in increased traffic and other activity on site and in the vicinity. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval with conditions of the project Finance/Resource Impact: n/a - No direct expenditures or revenue identified at this time. Level of Public Interest Low-medium in the overall community; high in the area adjacent to the Stanley campus. 8 Sample Motion: I move for the approval of the Stanley Carriage House project, finding that the project meets the standards and requirements in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan and Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44, According to staff’s recommendation, and including the following conditions: 1.The plan set as shown and articulated in Exhibits 1 through 6 are incorporated by reference as required conditions of approval and development, with allowance for minor modifications as may be reasonable and necessary during final design and construction; 2.The following conditions are additionally specified: a.All public improvements associated with the Carriage House Restaurant project in public use easements or public right-of-ways shall be addressed in a Development Agreement. b.The Carriage House Restaurant shall not receive a building permit for interior finishes until all public improvements associated with the Carriage House Restaurant project and all private/public improvements associated with the East Parking Lot (currently B-11160) are constructed and accepted by the Town, or properly securitized and addressed in a Development Agreement. c.The Carriage House restaurant shall not receive a TCO or CO to operate in any capacity unless and until all public improvements associated with the Carriage House project and all private/public improvements associated with the East Parking Lot (B-11160) are constructed and approved by the Town, and all other obligations of any/all Development Agreement(s) are fulfilled. Attachments / Exhibits: 1. 2020.05.28 - Carriage House Interior TRC Narrative Document with signature 2. 2020.05.28 - Carriage House Final TRC 3.Parking Operations Plan - UPDATE 07-08-2020 4.20028_Stanley Renovation Traffic Impact Study_updated 2020-07-08 5.Stanley Carriage House - ARC Review 6.CHF - Response to Req. for Review - Carriage House (6.20) 7.Stanley Historic District Master Plan TRC extracts 8.SHD Master Plan Exhibit B (p. 56) 9.SHD 9 lots aerial 10.E. 2020.04.07 - Stanley Carriage House Rev 7 drawings – Consolidated 11.Exhibit D REV 1 – Supplemental civil drawingS (07.15.2020) 12.Staff Round 1 comments - Stanley Carriage House TRC reviews - 2020-06 13.FT_Stanley_Response to Comments letter_2020-07-08_v2 14.Exhibit C.1 – Memorandum by Cassie Slade Re TIA (07.08.2020) 15.Email 2020-08-12 frm MOA 16. 06.04.2020 - TRC Appointments 17. 06.04.2020 - ARC Appointments 18.Carriage House TRC Slides FINAL 9 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Estes Park, CO Technical Review Committee Submission TRC Project Review Request and Project Narrative May 28, 2020 Exhibit 1 Carriage House TRC Narrative 3 May 27, 2020 The Stanley Carriage House – Design Narrative This TRC review package includes the review of the Stanley Carriage House for conformance with surrounding site improvements. The Carriage House has submitted for, and received construction permits for the Footings/Foundation and Building Enclosure via Town of Estes Park Construction Permit B-11186 for the Carriage House Foundation and Enclosure Project. Additionally, the parking and landscape development directly to the east of the Carriage House has submitted for, and received construction permits per Town of Estes Park Construction Permit B-11160 for the East Parking Project. As such, the parking and landscape area to the east of the Carriage House is not part of the TRC approval review. The Stanley Carriage House, where the famous Stanley Steamer vehicles were stored is currently in the process of renovation and reconstruction. Built as a garage in 1905, the approximately 5,000 square- foot building was also briefly used as a 26-room motel in the 1960’s. It has been used as a storage shed ever since then. The Carriage House is the last Stanley building left to be fully renovated and preserved since Grand Heritage Hotel Group bought the hotel 25-years ago. One of the main difficulties with the Carriage House is that F.O. Stanley built it without a foundation underneath and due to the current building codes, renovation of the building required appropriate foundations. In order to preserve the building and allow renovations, the roof has been lifted off the structure and set to the side. A foundation is currently under construction, and once completed, the roof put back on. In this way, the foundation can be added to allow renovations to the building while also preserving the historical core structure. The Carriage House is an important part of the F. O. Stanley legacy and a key goal is to maintain the building substantially as he designed. Historic and recycled materials are being used throughout the project, including historically correct and energy-efficient glass placed where the garage doors to the Carriage House for the Stanley Steamers were once located. But far more than just preserving an important piece of Estes Park and Stanley Hotel history, the project is a large investment in economic development in Estes Park. The main floor of the Carriage House will house a restaurant tenant. Grand Heritage Hotel Group has reached a tenant agreement with the Post Brewery. Post Brewery is associated with The Big Red F Company, formed in 1994 by Chef Dave Query of Boulder. The restaurant is designed to accommodate 129 seats indoors, with an additional 110 seats on an outdoor patio. The restaurant facility has been anticipated in coordination with site infrastructure, parking, and traffic. The restaurant use was included in the Traffic Impact Study for the Stanley Film Center and Carriage House as well as the Parking and Operations Plan for the Stanley Film Center and Carriage House. Those documents are included as part of the TRC review package. Carriage House TRC Narrative 4 May 27, 2020 The Stanley Carriage House – Allowed Use by Stanley Historic District Master Plan The following correspondence to Mr. Randy Hunt, Community Development Director for the Town of Estes Park, describes the Use as Allowed by the Stanley Historic District Master Plan for the restaurant function within the Carriage House. Following MOA Architectures letter is the response received from Mr. Hunt. Carriage House TRC Narrative 5 May 27, 2020 Carriage House TRC Narrative 6 May 27, 2020 Carriage House TRC Narrative 7 May 27, 2020 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center – Colorado Historic Foundation Review MOA Architecture coordinated extensively with the Colorado Historical Foundation on the design of the Carriage House renovation and redevelopment. Following is correspondence provided during their review process. In recent correspondence with Cindy Nasky, Colorado Historical Foundation Director of Preservation Program regarding the exterior Carriage House design and window fenestration, Cindy stated, “I think the windows are appropriate and quite nice.” The following is correspondence of the Colorado Historical Foundations review of the Stanley Film Center and Carriage House renovation/redevelopment design. Carriage House TRC Narrative 8 May 27, 2020 Carriage House TRC Narrative 9 May 27, 2020 T H E S T A N L E Y H O T E L C A R R I A G E H O U S E E S T E S P A R K , C O Te c h n i c a l R e v i e w C o m m i t t e e S u b m i s s i o n M a y 2 8 , 2 0 2 0 E x h i b i t 2 11 2 SHEET INDEX 1 - Cover Sheet 2 - Sheet Index 3 - TRC Review Scope Site Plan 4 - Site Plan 5 - Carriage House Elevations 6 - Carriage House Trimwork South 7 - Carriage House Trimwork East 8 - South Rendering 9 - West Rendering 10 - South Quadrant Rendering 11 - East Quadrant Rendering 12 - Post Restaurant Entry View 13 - Post Restaurant North View 14 - Post Restaurant Floor Plan SHEET INDEX 12 3TRC REVIEW SCOPE SITE PLAN FILM CENTER SERVICE COURTYARD CONCERT HALL CARRIAGE HOUSE EAST PARKING PERMIT# B-11160 FILM CENTER TRC CARRIAGE HOUSE INTERIOR TRC PERMIT # B-11186 13 4SITE PLAN FILM CENTER SERVICE COURTYARD CONCERT HALL CARRIAGE HOUSE 14 5CARRIAGE HOUSE ELEVATIONS OA ARCHITECTURE Stanley Hotel Carriage House EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-201333 E Wonderview Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION4 1/8" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION1 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION3 MOA ARCHITECTURE Stanley Hotel Carriage House EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-201333 E Wonderview Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION4 1/8" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION2 CERTAINTEED LANDMARK COLOR: COTTAGE RED CEDAR BEVELED SIDING CARRIAGE HOUSE ELEVATIONS 15 6CARRIAGE HOUSE TRIMWORK DETAIL 16 7CARRIAGE HOUSE TRIMWORK DETAIL 17 8SOUTH RENDERING 18 9WEST ENTRY 01 19 10SOUTH QUADRANT RENDERING 20 11EAST QUADRANT RENDERING 21 12POST RESTAURANT ENTRY VIEW 22 13POST RESTAURANT NORTH VIEW 23 14POST RESTAURANT FLOOR PLAN 24 Exhibit 3 25 26 27 28 29 30  o  o  o 31  32 33 34    35  36 37 Original Date: April 6, 2020 Updated Date: July 8, 2020 Submitted To: MOA ARCHITECTURE 414 14th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 Submitted By: Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC 1624 Market Street, Suite 202 Denver, CO 80202 The Stanley Hotel: Carriage House Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 4 38 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Updated July 8, 2020  TABLE OF CONTENTS  1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4  2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 5  3.0 Study Considerations ............................................................................................................... 5  3.1  Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 5  3.2  Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................................... 5  3.3  Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................................. 6  4.0  Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 6  4.1  Roadways ............................................................................................................................ 6  4.2  Intersections ....................................................................................................................... 7  4.3  Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................... 8  4.4  Transit ................................................................................................................................. 8  4.5  Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................................................................... 9  5.0  Future Traffic Conditions ....................................................................................................... 10  5.1  Annual Growth Factor and Future Volume Methodology ................................................ 10  5.2  Year 2024 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis ..................................................... 10  6.0  Proposed Carriage House Traffic ............................................................................................ 11  6.1  Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 11  6.2  Trip Distribution and Assignment ..................................................................................... 11  7.0  Future Traffic Conditions with the Reconstruction ................................................................. 12  8.0  Future Multi‐Modal Trips and Facilities .................................................................................. 12  9.0  Parking Operations ................................................................................................................ 12  10.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 13  39 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Updated July 8, 2020  LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary  ..................................................................... 15  Table 2 – Trip Generation Summary ........................................................................................................... 11    LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1 – Vicinity Map and Existing Access ............................................................................................... 16  Figure 2 – Year 2019 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 17  Figure 3 – Year 2024 Background Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 18  Figure 4 – Trip Distribution and Site‐Generated Trip Volumes .................................................................. 19  Figure 5 – Year 2024 Background + Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 20    APPENDIX  Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form  Level of Service Definitions  Existing Traffic Data  Intersection Capacity Worksheets  40 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Updated July 8, 2020    THE STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE RENOVATION  TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY    1.0 INTRODUCTION  The Fox Tuttle Transportation Group prepared this traffic impact study for the proposed reconstruction  of the Carriage House at The Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, CO. The project proposes to renovate the  existing Carriage House to provide a restaurant that will serve the existing hotel guests and future art  district guests. It is understood that this building has not been actively used in 50 years and is located in  the northeast corner of Steamer Parkway and the Main Entrance. Figure 1 includes a vicinity map for the  proposed project.  The purpose of this study is to assist in identifying potential traffic impacts within the study area as a  result  of  this  project.  The  traffic  study  addresses  existing  and  short‐term  (Year  2024)  peak  hour  intersection  conditions  in  the  study  area  with  and  without  the project  generated  traffic.    The  information  contained  in  this  study  is  anticipated  to  be  used  by  the  Town  of  Estes  Park  staff  in  identifying  any  intersection  or  roadway  deficiencies  and  potential  improvements  for  the  short‐term  future conditions. This study focused on the weekday AM and PM peak hours which are typically the  highest traffic volumes for the proposed type of land use.   The traffic impact study is consistent with the requirements of the Town of Estes Park’s standards set  forth in Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (revised 2019). A copy of the  approved  Transportation  Impact  Study  Base  Assumptions  Form  is  attached  in  the Appendix  for  reference.   41 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Updated July 8, 2020  2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION  The Stanley Hotel project proposes to create an Art District that will include a future museum, film  center, and auditorium. It is understood that the new construction of the Carriage House is the first  phase of the overall project and is planned to become a full‐service restaurant with approximately 250  seats and outdoor seating. This traffic study focuses on the reconstruction of the Carriage House and the  other art district amenities will be evaluated in a separate traffic study with the film center submittal.  Access to the site is planned via the existing main entrance on Steamer Parkway and along the existing  internal loop roadway. Figure 1 includes a conceptual site plan for the project.  3.0 STUDY CONSIDERATIONS  3.1 Data Collection   Intersection turning movement volumes were collected by Delich and Associates in August 2019 at six  existing  intersections  during  the  weekday  AM  and  PM  peak  hours.  Per  a  request  from  Colorado  Department of Transportation (CDOT), traffic volumes were gathered on a busy weekend (September  28, 2019) at the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue/Elkhorn Avenue at Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain  Avenue.   Historic daily volumes along Big Thompson Avenue (US 34/US 36), Wonderview Avenue (US 34), and St.  Vrain Avenue within the vicinity of the project site were gathered from the CDOT’s Transportation Data  Management  System  (TDMS).  The  existing  traffic  volumes  are  illustrated  on Figure  2.  The  existing  intersection geometry and traffic control are also shown on this figure. Count data sheets are provided  in the Appendix.    3.2 Evaluation Methodology  The traffic operations analysis addressed the unsignalized intersection operations using the procedures  and methodologies set forth by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 1.  Assumed peak hour factor of  0.90 was applied to the intersections for the existing and future scenarios since the existing 15‐minute  count  data  was  not  available  at  the  time  of  the  analysis.  Study  intersections  were  evaluated  using  Synchro (v10) software.   1  Highway  Capacity  Manual,  Highway  Research  Board  Special  Report  209,  Transportation  Research  Board,  National  Research Council, 6th Edition (2016).    42 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Updated July 8, 2020  3.3 Level of Service Definitions   To measure and describe the operational status of the study intersections, transportation engineers and  planners commonly use a grading system referred to as “Level of Service” (LOS) that is defined by the  HCM.  LOS characterizes the operational conditions of an intersections traffic flow, ranging from LOS A  (indicating  very  good,  free  flow  operations)  and  LOS  F  (indicating  congested  and  sometimes  oversaturated conditions).  These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of  the comfort and convenience associated with traveling through the intersections. The intersection LOS is  represented  as  a  delay  in  seconds  per  vehicle  for  the  intersection  as  a  whole  and  for  each  turning  movement.  A more detailed discussion of LOS methodology is contained in the Appendix for reference.    The  Larimer  County  and  Town  standards  consider  LOS  A  through  C to  be  good  for  the  overall  intersection operations with LOS D as acceptable in peak hours. For individual movements, LOS E and F  may be acceptable for left‐turns or minor streets.    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).  43 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 Updated July 8, 2020  Wonderview Avenue is a bypass route for US 34 that routes north of downtown Estes Park  heading west towards the mountains. This arterial (NR‐A) is a two‐lane arterial with a center  median/turn‐lane within the study area. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Wonderview Avenue  currently serves approximately 6,700 vpd north of Elkhorn Avenue (Year 2019, CDOT). Recently,  a single‐lane roundabout was installed at the intersection of Wonderview Avenue and McGregor  Avenue by CDOT to improve safety, increase capacity, and reduce conflict points between all  road users. The intersection improvements also enhanced the pedestrian crossings on the south  and east legs of the new roundabout with new sidewalks leading to The Stanley Hotel.    Steamer Parkway is the main roadway into and around The Stanley Hotel campus and providing  access to adjacent neighborhoods and the Aspire. This two‐lane local street has a posted speed  limit is 25 mph and will lead the new trips to the main entrance of The Stanley Hotel.   Steamer Drive is a two‐lane north‐south local street that provides access to residential homes  and the Stanley Village shopping center. The posted speed limit is 25 mph and links directly to  Big Thompson Avenue (US 34). It is understood that the intersection with the highway will be  signalized in the future when warranted. Steamer Drive is utilized to access The Stanley Hotel  from Big Thompson Avenue to Steamer Parkway.   4.2 Intersections  The study area includes six intersections that are listed below with the current traffic control and were  analyzed for existing and future background year traffic operations:  1. Steamer Parkway at SW Steamer Parkway (side‐street stop‐controlled)  2. Steamer Parkway at Aspire Access (side‐street stop‐controlled)  3. Steamer Parkway at The Stanley Hotel Main Entrance (side‐street stop‐controlled)   4. Steamer Parkway at Steamer Drive (side‐street stop‐controlled)  5. Big  Thompson  Avenue  (US  34)  at  Steamer  Drive  /  Golf  Course  Access  (side‐street  stop‐ controlled)  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.  44 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 Updated July 8, 2020  4.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities  The  Town  of  Estes  Park  adopted  the  Complete  Streets  Policy  (#851)  in  April  2019  to  “promote  and  encourage the development of a multi‐modal transportation network” that will serve all people driving,  walking,  biking,  and  using  transit.  The  policy  is  implemented  with  every  “street  project”  which  the  Carriage House reconstruction is not considered; however, The Stanley Hotel is committed to adhering  to the guidelines where possible.   The  Stanley  Hotel  has  an  extensive  sidewalk  system  that  connects  various  facilities  and  amenities  around the property that are ADA compliant. On‐site sidewalks and paths link to external sidewalks that  are within a walkable radius (typically between ¼ and ½ mile radius).   Externally, sidewalks exist on the south side of Steamer Parkway along the Aspire property; along the  north side of Big Thompson Avenue from Steamer Drive into downtown; and portions of the south side  of Big Thompson Avenue and east side of Wonderview Avenue. The study roadways currently do not  provide designated bike facilities; however, bicyclists are permitted to ride with traffic on the arterial,  collector and local streets.   4.4 Transit   The Town of Estes Park provides a free shuttle service (named Estes Transit) for the summer months  linking The Stanley Hotel to the downtown area, Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), and other local  attractions.  The  existing  visitor’s  center  on  Big  Thompson  Avenue  is  the  transportation  hub  for  the  shuttles. The Stanley Hotel is serviced by the Gold Route that runs 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 to enter RMNP. This route provides patrons  the  ability  to  transfer  to  other local routes that lead  to  many  other  attractions  and  services  around  town.   The  Estes  Transit  routes,  specifically the Gold Route,  are  shown  on  the  map  to  the right which is beneficial  for  existing  and  future  visitors of The Stanley Hotel  and  the  renovation  of  the  Carriage House.   45 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 9 Updated July 8, 2020  4.5 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis  The existing volumes, lane configuration, and traffic control are illustrated on Figure 2. The results of the  LOS calculations for the study intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service  worksheets and queue reports are attached in the Appendix.  All study intersections are operating at  LOS C or better overall in the AM and PM peak hours. The following intersection currently has one  approach that operates at LOS E or F in one or both peak hours:   Big  Thompson  Avenue  (US  34)  at  Steamer  Drive  /  Golf  Course  Access:    This  currently  unsignalized intersection is calculated to operate at LOS A overall in the AM peak hour and LOS  C in the PM peak hour.  The southbound left‐turn movement operates at LOS E in the AM peak  hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. This delay is caused by the heavy flow of traffic on Big  Thompson Avenue.  The 95th percentile queue was estimated to be two vehicles in the AM peak  hour and up to eight (8) vehicles in the PM peak hour.  Recommendations:  It  is  understood  that  this  intersection  is  planned  to  be  signalized  in  late  2020. Fox Tuttle received a copy of the draft signal design plans and anticipated signal phasing  from the design engineer. The signal timing parameters and cycle length at the intersection of  Elkhorn Avenue and Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain Avenue were assumed to be the same at the  new  signal.  It  was  assumed  the  left‐turns  on  Big  Thompson  Avenue  would  provide  protected+permitted phasing with flashing yellow arrow signal heads and the side‐streets would  operate as split phasing due to the offset alignment.   With  the  new  signal  and  the  listed  assumptions,  the  intersection  is  anticipated  to  operate  overall at LOS A in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. 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. Drivers will be required to wait longer for their assigned green time  rather than with stop‐control when they can proceed when a safe gap in traffic is available.  During the PM peak hour, both side‐street approaches are anticipated to operate below LOS D  due to the split phasing.     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.   46 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 10 Updated July 8, 2020  5.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS  5.1 Annual Growth Factor and Future Volume Methodology  In order to forecast the future peak hour traffic volumes, background traffic growth assumptions were  estimated based on the CDOT 20‐year factors, as well as available historic traffic volumes. Based on this  data, it was assumed there will be an annual growth rate of 2.0% within the study area. Trips associated  with the Alarado Business Park2 located in the northeast corner of Big Thompson Avenue and Steamer  Drive were included in the background volumes. Using these assumptions, the Year 2024 background  traffic is summarized on Figure 3.     5.2 Year 2024 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis  The  study  area  intersections  were  evaluated  to  determine  baseline  operations  for  the  Year  2024  background scenario and to identify any capacity constraints associated with background traffic. The  background volumes, lane configuration, and traffic control are illustrated on Figure 3. It was assumed  that the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access would be  signalized  and  the  intersection  design  and  signal  timing  assumptions  listed  in Section  4.5  were  implemented.     The  level  of  service  criteria  discussed  previously  was  applied to  the  study  area  intersections  to  determine the impacts with the short‐term (Year 2024) background volumes. The results of the LOS  calculations for the intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service worksheets  and  queue  reports  are  attached  in  the Appendix.  The  Year  2024  background  analysis  assumed  the  existing lane configuration and traffic control would remain the same at the study intersections.   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 95th percentile queues for the  southbound approach are estimated to be maintained within the existing storage.       2 Trips gathered from Alarado Business Park Traffic Impact Study. Delich Associate. August 2018. 47 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 11 Updated July 8, 2020  6.0 PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC  6.1 Trip Generation  Delich and Associates worked with The Stanley Hotel design team to understand the trips expected to  be associated with the reconstructed Carriage House. The trips associated with the restaurant were  estimated per rates provided by Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual3.  Per the Base Assumptions Form, a conservative approach was taken by assuming all of the restaurant  trips would be external to The Stanley Hotel. It is anticipated that majority of the trips associated with  the renovated Carriage House will be completed by walk, bike, or transit from The Stanley Hotel or  nearby lodging.   The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 2. Based on information from The Stanley Hotel  design  team,  the  Carriage  House  restaurant  will  not  be  opened  during  the  AM  peak  hour.  For  conservative purposes, no adjustments were made to the trips for internal or multi‐modal trips.  Table 2. Trip Generation Summary  Land Use Size &  Unit  Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour  Rate Total Rate In Out Rate In Out  ITE 932: High‐Turnover  Restaurant 5.7 ksf  112.18  640 In: 5.47  Out: 4.47 *  * In: 6.06  Out: 3.71 35  21  * Not Open for Business at this time  6.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment  The estimated trip volumes presented in Table 2 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.    3  Trip Generation 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017.  48 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 12 Updated July 8, 2020  7.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION   This section discusses impacts associated with the proposed trips associated with the build out scenario  of  The  Stanley  Hotel  Carriage  House  restaurant.  The  site‐generated  volumes  were  added  to  the  projected  Year  2024  background  volumes  and  are  illustrated  on Figure 5.  The  results  of  the  LOS  calculations  for  the  intersections  are  summarized  on Table  1.  The  intersection  level  of  service  worksheets and queue reports are attached in the Appendix. As assumed in the Year 2023 background  conditions, the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access  would be signalized and the intersection design and signal timing assumptions listed in Section 4.5 were  implemented.     As shown on the Level of Service summary table, the Carriage House trips have little to no impact on  the delays and queuing at the majority of the study intersections during the PM peak hour when it is  opened  for  business.  The  southbound  left‐turn  at  the  intersection  of  Wonderview  Avenue  and  SW  Steamer Parkway was projected to begin operating at LOS E in the PM peak hour due to the additional  trips (only account for 7% of the movement volume). The 95th percentile queue for this movement was  estimated to increase by 13 feet (less than one vehicle).     8.0 FUTURE MULTI‐MODAL TRIPS AND FACILITIES   The Carriage House was estimated to generate up to 56 trips in the PM peak hour (35 enter/21 exit). For  conservative purposes, this study assumed all trips were external to The Stanley Hotel and were not  reduced for walking or biking. It is anticipated that the internal and non‐auto trips associated with the  Carriage  House  would  be  between  30%  and  85%  since  the  new  restaurant  will  be  serving  mostly  customers already staying at or visiting The Stanley Hotel. The proposed restaurant is also within ¼ mile  walking distance of the Lodge, the Aspire, and neighboring homes that may visit for a meal. The Carriage  House restaurant has the potential to attract people that live in or visit Estes Park; most of these patrons  are anticipated to utilize a personal vehicle, a Transportation Network Company (TNC) vehicle, or the  Estes Park transit system.  9.0 PARKING OPERATIONS  All lodging accommodations offered on the Stanley Campus host between 350 and 450 guests per night  in the peak season, including guests at The Stanley Hotel, the Lodge and the Aspire.  It is anticipated that  many of the visitors to the Carriage House and future Film and Performing Arts Center will be guests  already parked in the respective guest parking lots.  External attendees for either venue will park in the  49 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 13 Updated July 8, 2020  proposed parking lots are the Film and Performing Arts Center. Refer to the Parking Operations Plan, a  separate document, for the anticipated parking demand and proposed parking management for the  Carriage House and the future Film and Performing Arts Center.  10.0 CONCLUSION  The  project  proposes  to  renovate  and  reconstruct  the  existing  Carriage  House  to  provide  a  new  restaurant. Access to the site is planned via the existing main entrance on Steamer Parkway and along  the existing internal loop roadway. The internal roadway will continue to circulate through The Stanley  Hotel campus. The project plans to provide ADA pedestrian access between existing facilities to the  proposed restaurant.  Vehicular traffic volumes associated with Carriage House renovation project have been analyzed for the  existing and short‐term (Year 2024) scenarios. Using national trip rates, the project is anticipated to  generate up to 639 daily trips, with no trips in the AM peak hour since it will be closed, and 56 trips in  the  PM  peak  hour.  Although  this  traffic  impact  study  assumed  all  of  the  restaurant  trips  would  be  external to The Stanley Hotel, it is anticipated that a high percentage (up to 85%) of the trips would be  internal  or  completed  by  non‐auto  transportation. Regardless,  it  was  determined  that  the  existing  roadways and intersections can accommodate the projected traffic volumes for buildout conditions of  the proposed reconstruction of the Carriage House at The Stanley Hotel.     50 FT# 20028 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study Estes Park, CO 7/8/2020 Intersection and AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Cricital Lane Groups Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS STOP SIGN CONTROL Steamer Pkwy at SW Steamer Pkwy 6 A 6 A 6 A 6 A 6 A 7 A Eastbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A not applicable 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Westbound Left+Through 7 A 7 A 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A Northbound Left 10 A 10 B 10 A 11 B 10 A 11 B Northbound Right 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A Steamer Pkwy at Aspire Access 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A Eastbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A not applicable 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Westbound Left+Through 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A Northbound Left+Right 9 A 10 A 9 A 10 A 9 A 10 B Steamer Pkwy at The Stanley Hotel Main Entrance 4 A 5 A 4 A 5 A 4 A 6 A Eastbound Left+Through 7 A 7 A not applicable 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A Westbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Southbound Left+Right 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 10 A Steamer Pkwy at Steamer Dr.3 A 4 A 3 A 4 A 3 A 5 A Eastbound Left+Right 9 A 9 A not applicable 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A Northbound Left+Through 7 A 7 A 7 A 7 A 7 A 7 A Southbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Big Thompson Ave (US 34) at Steamer Dr. / Golf Course 3 A 18 C Eastbound Left 9 A 9 A Refer to Signal Control Refer to Signal Control Refer to Signal Control Eastbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A Westbound Left 8 A 9 A Westbound Through 0 A 0 A Westbound Right 0 A 0 A Northbound Left+Through+Right 16 C 17 C Southbound Left 40 E >120 F Southbound Right 0 A 0 A Wonderview Ave at SW Steamer Pkwy 2 A 3 A 2 A 4 A 2 A 5 A Eastbound Left 8 A 8 A not applicable 8 A 9 A 8 A 9 A Eastbound Through 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Westbound Through 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Westbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Southbound Left 14 B 26 D 16 C 34 D 16 C 38 E Southbound Right 10 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B SIGNAL CONTROL Elkhorn Ave at Wonderview Ave/ St. Vrain Ave 48 D Eastbound Left 30 C not applicable not applicable not applicable Eastbound Through 40 D Eastbound Right 40 D Westbound Left 69 E Westbound Through 40 D Westbound Right 37 D Northbound Left 65 E Northbound Left+Through 56 E Northbound Right 42 D Southbound Left 40 D Southbound Left+Through 49 D Southbound Right 33 C Big Thompson Ave (US 34) at Steamer Dr. / Golf Course 10 A 12 B 10 A 13 B 10 A 13 B Eastbound Left Refer to Signal Control 4 A 4 A 4 A 4 A 4 A 5 A Eastbound Through+Right 5 A 7 A 5 A 8 A 5 A 9 A Westbound Left 6 A 6 A 6 A 7 A 6 A 7 A Westbound Through 7 A 7 A 8 A 8 A 8 A 8 A 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 59 E 53 D 59 E 53 D 59 E Southbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Note: Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle. Year 2024 Background 2024 Background + Project Trips Table 1 - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary Year 2019 Existing with ImprovementsYear 2019 Existing (weekend peak hour; for informational purposes) Page 1 of 1 20028_LOS_v251 Existing Main Entrance to Remain Full Movement and Stop-Controlled Existing Stanley Hotel PROJECT SITE Stanley Hotel Estes Park Golf Course Carriage House Restaurant Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE VICINITY MAP AND EXISITNG ACCESS STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 7/8/20 CRS 152 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 CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 7/8/20 CRS 253 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 CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 7/8/20 CRS 354 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 7/8/20 CRS 455 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 7/8/20 CRS 556 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 14 Updated July 8, 2020      Appendix:    Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form  Level of Service Definitions  Existing Traffic Data  Intersection Capacity Worksheets           57 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 15 Updated July 8, 2020          Transportation Impact Study   Base Assumptions Form    58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)  Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 16 Updated July 8, 2020  Level of Service   Definitions 66 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. 67 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)  Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 17 Updated July 8, 2020  Existing Traffic Data 68 69 70 The Stanley Hotel Film Center Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)  Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC April 6, 2020  Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Existing   71 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 15 50 17 31 24 Future Vol, veh/h 11 15 50 17 31 24 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 12 17 56 19 34 27 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 29 0 152 21 Stage 1 - - - - 21 - Stage 2 - - - - 131 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1584 - 840 1056 Stage 1 - - - - 1002 - Stage 2 - - - - 895 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1584 - 810 1056 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 810 - Stage 1 - - - - 1002 - Stage 2 - - - - 863 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 5.5 9.1 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)810 1056 - - 1584 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.025 - - 0.035 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 8.5 - - 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - 72 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 8 3 59 8 3 Future Vol, veh/h 27 8 3 59 8 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 30 9 3 66 9 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 39 0 107 35 Stage 1 - - - - 35 - Stage 2 - - - - 72 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1571 - 891 1038 Stage 1 - - - - 987 - Stage 2 - - - - 951 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1571 - 889 1038 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 889 - Stage 1 - - - - 987 - Stage 2 - - - - 949 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 8.9 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)925 - - 1571 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 - 73 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 10 34 8 3 28 Future Vol, veh/h 20 10 34 8 3 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 22 11 38 9 3 31 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 47 0 - 0 98 43 Stage 1 - - - - 43 - Stage 2 - - - - 55 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1560 - - - 901 1027 Stage 1 - - - - 979 - Stage 2 - - - - 968 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1560 - - - 888 1027 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 888 - Stage 1 - - - - 965 - Stage 2 - - - - 968 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.9 0 8.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1560 - - - 1012 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - - 0.034 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 - - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 74 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 20 27 25 35 8 Future Vol, veh/h 2 20 27 25 35 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 22 30 28 39 9 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 132 44 48 0 - 0 Stage 1 44 - - - - - Stage 2 88 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 862 1026 1559 - - - Stage 1 978 - - - - - Stage 2 935 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 845 1026 1559 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 845 - - - - - Stage 1 958 - - - - - Stage 2 935 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 3.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1559 - 1006 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - 0.024 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - - 75 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88 Future Vol, veh/h 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - Free Storage Length 150 - - 150 - 220 - - - 135 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 68 344 6 2 604 100 3 0 1 68 0 98 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 704 0 0 350 0 0 789 1191 347 1092 - - Stage 1 -- - - - - 483 483 - 608 - - Stage 2 -- - - - - 306 708 - 484 - - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -- - - - -6.13 5.53 - 6.53 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -- - - - -6.53 5.53 - 6.13 - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 892 - - 1207 - - 294 187 695 180 0 0 Stage 1 -- - - - - 564 552 - 450 0 0 Stage 2 -- - - - - 679 437 - 563 0 0 Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 892 - - 1207 - - 277 172 695 169 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -- - - - - 277 172 - 169 - - Stage 1 -- - - - - 521 510 - 416 - - Stage 2 -- - - - - 678 436 - 519 - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.5 0 16.2 39.9 HCM LOS C E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)326 892 - - 1207 - - 169 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 0.076 - - 0.002 - - 0.401 - HCM Control Delay (s) 16.2 9.4 - - 8 - - 39.9 0 HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - E A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.2 - - 0 - - 1.8 - 76 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 232 315 40 45 20 Future Vol, veh/h 15 232 315 40 45 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 17 258 350 44 50 22 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 394 0 - 0 642 350 Stage 1 - - - - 350 - Stage 2 - - - - 292 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1165 - - - 438 693 Stage 1 - - - - 713 - Stage 2 - - - - 758 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1165 - - - 431 693 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 431 - Stage 1 - - - - 702 - Stage 2 - - - - 758 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 13.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1165 - - - 431 693 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - - 0.116 0.032 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 - - - 14.4 10.4 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 0.1 77 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 48 84 15 24 99 Future Vol, veh/h 13 48 84 15 24 99 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 14 53 93 17 27 110 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 67 0 244 41 Stage 1 - - - - 41 - Stage 2 - - - - 203 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1535 - 744 1030 Stage 1 - - - - 981 - Stage 2 - - - - 831 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1535 - 699 1030 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 699 - Stage 1 - - - - 981 - Stage 2 - - - - 780 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.4 9.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)699 1030 - - 1535 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 0.107 - - 0.061 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 8.9 - - 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.4 - - 0.2 - 78 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 105 7 7 85 14 1 Future Vol, veh/h 105 7 7 85 14 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 117 8 8 94 16 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 125 0 231 121 Stage 1 - - - - 121 - Stage 2 - - - - 110 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1462 - 757 930 Stage 1 - - - - 904 - Stage 2 - - - - 915 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1462 - 752 930 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 752 - Stage 1 - - - - 904 - Stage 2 - - - - 910 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 9.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)762 - - 1462 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 - - 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - - 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - 79 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 68 38 34 17 14 58 Future Vol, veh/h 68 38 34 17 14 58 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 76 42 38 19 16 64 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 57 0 - 0 242 48 Stage 1 - - - - 48 - Stage 2 - - - - 194 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1547 - - - 746 1021 Stage 1 - - - - 974 - Stage 2 - - - - 839 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1547 - - - 709 1021 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 709 - Stage 1 - - - - 925 - Stage 2 - - - - 839 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.8 0 9.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1547 - - - 941 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 - - - 0.085 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.2 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.3 80 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 37 50 47 35 3 Future Vol, veh/h 9 37 50 47 35 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 10 41 56 52 39 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 205 41 42 0 - 0 Stage 1 41 - - - - - Stage 2 164 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 783 1030 1567 - - - Stage 1 981 - - - - - Stage 2 865 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 754 1030 1567 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 754 - - - - - Stage 1 945 - - - - - Stage 2 865 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 3.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1567 - 961 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.035 - 0.053 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 - - 81 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192 Future Vol, veh/h 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - Free Storage Length 150 - - 150 - 220 - - - 135 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 102 634 3 1 482 122 1 0 2 128 2 213 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 604 0 0 637 0 0 1084 1446 636 1325 1325 - Stage 1 -- - - - - 840 840 - 484 484 - Stage 2 -- - - - - 244 606 - 841 841 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -- - - - -6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -- - - - -6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 972 - - 945 - - 183 131 477 ~ 123 155 0 Stage 1 -- - - - - 359 380 - 534 551 0 Stage 2 -- - - - - 739 486 - 358 379 0 Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 972 - - 945 - - 166 117 477 ~ 113 139 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -- - - - - 166 117 - ~ 113 139 - Stage 1 -- - - - - 321 340 - 478 550 - Stage 2 -- - - - - 735 486 - 319 339 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 0 17.4 197 HCM LOS C F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)294 972 - - 945 - - 113 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.105 - - 0.001 - - 1.131 - HCM Control Delay (s) 17.4 9.1 - - 8.8 - - 197 0 HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.4 - - 0 - - 7.9 - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 82 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 45 405 332 78 106 26 Future Vol, veh/h 45 405 332 78 106 26 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 50 450 369 87 118 29 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 456 0 - 0 919 369 Stage 1 - - - - 369 - Stage 2 - - - - 550 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1105 - - - 301 677 Stage 1 - - - - 699 - Stage 2 - - - - 578 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1105 - - - 287 677 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 287 - Stage 1 - - - - 668 - Stage 2 - - - - 578 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0 23 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1105 - - - 287 677 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 - - - 0.41 0.043 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - - - 26 10.6 HCM Lane LOS A - - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1.9 0.1 83 Queues 2019 Existing (weekend) - Peak Hour 04/02/2020 7: St. Vrain Ave (US 36)/Wonderview Ave (US 34) & Elkhorn Ave (US 34)/Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Expansion Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 186 342 482 400 373 381 324 682 336 179 313 70 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.43 0.66 0.96 0.45 0.57 0.87 0.87 0.62 0.43 0.71 0.15 Control Delay 28.0 40.7 8.3 66.1 40.2 7.5 66.3 56.2 18.7 40.3 49.8 3.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.0 40.7 8.3 66.1 40.2 7.5 66.3 56.2 18.7 40.3 49.8 3.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 92 116 0 230 127 0 257 270 69 118 225 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 148 162 94 #353 176 82 #431 #374 172 192 334 17 Internal Link Dist (ft)471 542 1112 375 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 70 190 440 880 130 235 320 Base Capacity (vph) 420 793 728 418 838 665 374 781 541 420 441 473 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.43 0.66 0.96 0.45 0.57 0.87 0.87 0.62 0.43 0.71 0.15 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 84 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Existing (weekend) - Peak Hour 04/02/2020 7: St. Vrain Ave (US 36)/Wonderview Ave (US 34) & Elkhorn Ave (US 34)/Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Expansion Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 167 308 434 360 336 343 411 494 302 179 264 63 Future Volume (vph) 167 308 434 360 336 343 411 494 302 179 264 63 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1610 3357 1583 1681 1764 1583 Flt Permitted 0.44 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)823 3539 1583 777 3539 1583 1610 3357 1583 1681 1764 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 186 342 482 400 373 381 457 549 336 199 293 70 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 374 0 0 291 0 0 173 0 0 53 Lane Group Flow (vph) 186 342 108 400 373 90 324 682 163 179 313 18 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.5 26.0 26.0 42.5 27.5 27.5 27.0 27.0 27.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s) 39.5 26.0 26.0 42.5 27.5 27.5 27.0 27.0 27.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.22 0.22 0.37 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 390 793 354 413 838 375 374 781 368 420 441 395 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.10 c0.13 0.11 0.20 c0.20 0.11 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.07 c0.23 0.06 0.10 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.43 0.31 0.97 0.45 0.24 0.87 0.87 0.44 0.43 0.71 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 28.3 38.6 37.5 33.2 37.7 35.8 42.8 42.9 38.1 36.5 39.7 33.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 1.7 2.2 35.9 1.7 1.5 22.7 12.9 3.8 3.1 9.3 0.2 Delay (s) 29.5 40.4 39.7 69.0 39.5 37.3 65.4 55.8 41.9 39.7 49.0 33.2 Level of Service C D D E D D E E D D D C Approach Delay (s)38.1 49.0 54.6 44.0 Approach LOS D D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 47.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.0 Sum of lost time (s)19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group 85 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)  Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 19 Updated July 8, 2020  Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Existing  with Signal   86 Timings 2019 Existing - with Signal - AM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 61 310 2 544 90 0 0 88 61 310 2 544 90 0 0 88 pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA NA Free 5 2 1 6 8 4 2 6 6 Free 5 2 1 6 6 8 4 8.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 14.0 24.0 9.5 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0 18.0 57.0 12.0 51.0 51.0 13.0 34.0 15.5% 49.1% 10.3% 44.0% 44.0% 11.2% 29.3% 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min None C-Min C-Min None Min 93.4 90.8 88.2 83.3 83.3 5.5 11.0 116.0 0.81 0.78 0.76 0.72 0.72 0.05 0.09 1.00 0.10 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.08 0.02 0.40 0.06 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: 0.40 Intersection Signal Delay: 7.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 87 Queues 2019 Existing - with Signal - AM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 350 2 604 100 4 68 98 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.08 0.02 0.40 0.06 Control Delay 1.4 3.3 4.0 6.8 0.6 0.2 56.5 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 1.4 3.3 4.0 6.8 0.6 0.2 56.5 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 12 0 69 0 0 49 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m11 181 3 138 8 0 94 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 135 Base Capacity (vph) 710 1454 842 2540 1177 255 442 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 0.10 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.08 0.02 0.15 0.06 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 88 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 Existing - with Signal - AM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88 Future Volume (veh/h) 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 344 6 2 604 0 3 0 1 68 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 676 1352 24 765 2429 7 0 2 154 0 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1833 32 1781 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 1781 1777 1585 1728 0 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 0.0 7.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 7.0 0.0 7.5 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 676 0 1376 765 2429 9 0 0 154 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.10 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 782 0 1376 875 2429 119 0 0 445 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 3.8 0.0 4.9 5.7 7.0 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 0.2 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 0.3 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 3.9 0.0 5.4 5.7 7.2 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 5.1 7.2 88.3 52.4 Approach LOS A A F D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 90.6 15.0 11.1 84.3 5.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 52.0 29.0 14.0 46.0 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 9.0 6.2 3.1 9.5 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.2 0.3 0.1 4.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.5 HCM 6th LOS A 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. 89 Timings 2019 Existing - With Signal - PM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 92 571 1 434 110 0 2 192 92 571 1 434 110 0 2 192 pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA NA Free 5 2 1 6 8 4 2 6 6 Free 5 2 1 6 6 8 4 8.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 12.0 23.0 12.0 23.0 23.0 10.0 29.0 12.0 65.0 12.0 65.0 65.0 10.0 29.0 10.3% 56.0% 10.3% 56.0% 56.0% 8.6% 25.0% 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min None C-Min C-Min None Min 90.3 87.4 86.5 77.5 77.5 5.5 14.1 116.0 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.67 0.67 0.05 0.12 1.00 0.14 0.45 0.00 0.20 0.11 0.02 0.60 0.13 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: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.60 Intersection Signal Delay: 10.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 90 Queues 2019 Existing - With Signal - PM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 637 1 482 122 3 130 213 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.45 0.00 0.20 0.11 0.02 0.60 0.13 Control Delay 4.4 8.9 5.0 8.7 2.2 0.3 59.7 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 4.4 8.9 5.0 8.7 2.2 0.3 59.7 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 120 0 61 0 0 94 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 426 2 128 27 0 151 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 135 Base Capacity (vph) 706 1402 597 2364 1098 177 367 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 0.14 0.45 0.00 0.20 0.11 0.02 0.35 0.13 Intersection Summary 91 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 Existing - With Signal - PM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192 Future Volume (veh/h) 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 634 3 1 482 0 1 0 2 128 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 748 1371 6 541 2391 2 0 4 163 3 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1860 9 1781 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 1781 1777 1585 1645 0 0 1783 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 0.0 15.8 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 0.0 15.8 0.0 6.0 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 748 0 1377 541 2391 7 0 0 166 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.14 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.20 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 752 0 1377 660 2391 71 0 0 369 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 4.0 0.0 6.1 6.4 7.2 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 51.5 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 7.8 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 0.5 0.0 5.6 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.0 0.0 7.2 6.4 7.4 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 59.3 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 6.8 7.4 100.6 59.3 Approach LOS A A F E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.3 90.5 15.8 11.7 83.0 5.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 60.0 24.0 8.0 60.0 5.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 17.8 10.3 3.7 8.0 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.8 0.5 0.1 3.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2 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. 92 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)  Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 20 Updated July 8, 2020  Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Year 2024 Background  93 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 - 94 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 - 95 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 96 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 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 - - 97 Timings 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 67 342 2 601 99 0 0 97 67 342 2 601 99 0 0 97 pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA NA Free 5 2 1 6 8 4 2 6 6 Free 5 2 1 6 6 8 4 8.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 12.5 23.0 12.5 23.0 23.0 10.0 29.0 16.0 57.0 14.0 55.0 55.0 12.0 33.0 13.8% 49.1% 12.1% 47.4% 47.4% 10.3% 28.4% 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min None C-Min C-Min None Min 92.9 90.3 90.4 83.0 83.0 5.5 11.2 116.0 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.72 0.72 0.05 0.10 1.00 0.12 0.27 0.00 0.26 0.09 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: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.43 Intersection Signal Delay: 7.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 98 Queues 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 387 2 668 110 4 74 108 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.27 0.00 0.26 0.09 0.02 0.43 0.07 Control Delay 1.4 3.5 4.0 7.2 1.8 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 1.4 3.5 4.0 7.2 1.8 0.2 57.1 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 15 0 78 0 0 54 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m9 m197 3 158 22 0 100 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 135 Base Capacity (vph) 652 1445 854 2532 1164 201 427 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 0.11 0.27 0.00 0.26 0.09 0.02 0.17 0.07 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 99 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 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 641 1356 25 740 2424 7 0 2 154 0 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1831 34 1781 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 1781 1777 1585 1728 0 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 7.9 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 0.0 7.9 0.0 8.5 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 641 0 1380 740 2424 9 0 0 154 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.12 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 714 0 1380 886 2424 104 0 0 430 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 4.0 0.0 4.9 5.7 7.2 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 0.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.0 0.0 5.4 5.7 7.5 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 5.2 7.5 88.3 52.9 Approach LOS A A F D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.5 90.9 15.0 11.3 84.1 5.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 52.0 28.0 12.0 50.0 7.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 9.9 6.6 3.2 10.5 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.3 0.1 5.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 100 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 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 0.1 101 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 53 93 17 26 110 Future Vol, veh/h 14 53 93 17 26 110 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 59 103 19 29 122 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 75 0 271 46 Stage 1 - - - - 46 - Stage 2 - - - - 225 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 718 1023 Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 812 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 669 1023 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 669 - Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 757 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.4 9.3 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)669 1023 - - 1524 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.119 - - 0.068 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 9 - - 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.4 - - 0.2 - 102 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 116 8 8 94 16 1 Future Vol, veh/h 116 8 8 94 16 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 129 9 9 104 18 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 138 0 256 134 Stage 1 - - - - 134 - Stage 2 - - - - 122 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1446 - 733 915 Stage 1 - - - - 892 - Stage 2 - - - - 903 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1446 - 728 915 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 728 - Stage 1 - - - - 892 - Stage 2 - - - - 897 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 10 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)737 - - 1446 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10 - - 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - 103 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 75 42 38 19 15 64 Future Vol, veh/h 75 42 38 19 15 64 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 83 47 42 21 17 71 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 63 0 - 0 266 53 Stage 1 - - - - 53 - Stage 2 - - - - 213 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1540 - - - 723 1014 Stage 1 - - - - 970 - Stage 2 - - - - 823 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1540 - - - 683 1014 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 683 - Stage 1 - - - - 917 - Stage 2 - - - - 823 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.8 0 9.3 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1540 - - - 929 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - - - 0.094 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - - 9.3 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.3 104 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 41 55 52 39 3 Future Vol, veh/h 10 41 55 52 39 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 46 61 58 43 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 225 45 46 0 - 0 Stage 1 45 - - - - - Stage 2 180 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 763 1025 1562 - - - Stage 1 977 - - - - - Stage 2 851 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 732 1025 1562 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 732 - - - - - Stage 1 938 - - - - - Stage 2 851 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 3.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1562 - 950 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 - 0.06 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 - - 105 Timings 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 102 630 1 479 121 0 2 212 102 630 1 479 121 0 2 212 pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA NA Free 5 2 1 6 8 4 2 6 6 Free 5 2 1 6 6 8 4 8.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 12.0 23.0 12.0 23.0 23.0 10.0 29.0 12.0 65.0 12.0 65.0 65.0 10.0 29.0 10.3% 56.0% 10.3% 56.0% 56.0% 8.6% 25.0% 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min None C-Min C-Min None Min 89.7 86.7 85.7 76.7 76.7 5.5 14.8 116.0 0.77 0.75 0.74 0.66 0.66 0.05 0.13 1.00 0.17 0.51 0.00 0.23 0.12 0.02 0.63 0.15 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 116 Actuated Cycle Length: 116 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.63 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.5% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 106 Queues 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 113 703 1 532 134 3 143 236 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.51 0.00 0.23 0.12 0.02 0.63 0.15 Control Delay 4.8 10.1 5.0 9.3 2.3 0.3 60.1 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 4.8 10.1 5.0 9.3 2.3 0.3 60.1 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 146 0 70 0 0 103 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 49 508 2 146 29 0 163 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 135 Base Capacity (vph) 667 1391 538 2338 1091 177 367 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 0.17 0.51 0.00 0.23 0.12 0.02 0.39 0.15 Intersection Summary 107 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 102 630 3 1 479 121 1 0 2 127 2 212 Future Volume (veh/h) 102 630 3 1 479 121 1 0 2 127 2 212 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 700 3 1 532 0 1 0 2 141 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 710 1357 6 487 2361 2 0 4 177 3 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1861 8 1781 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1758 25 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 113 0 703 1 532 0 3 0 0 143 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1869 1781 1777 1585 1645 0 0 1782 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.99 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 710 0 1363 487 2361 7 0 0 179 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.16 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.23 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 713 0 1363 606 2361 71 0 0 369 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 4.3 0.0 6.8 7.0 7.7 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 51.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 7.8 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 0.6 0.0 6.8 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.4 0.0 8.2 7.0 7.9 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 58.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A F A A E A Approach Vol, veh/h 816 533 A 3 143 A Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 7.9 100.6 58.8 Approach LOS A A F E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.3 89.6 16.7 11.8 82.1 5.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 60.0 24.0 8.0 60.0 5.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 20.9 11.1 4.0 8.9 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.5 0.6 0.1 3.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 108 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 447 367 86 117 29 Future Vol, veh/h 50 447 367 86 117 29 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 56 497 408 96 130 32 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 504 0 - 0 1017 408 Stage 1 - - - - 408 - Stage 2 - - - - 609 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1061 - - - 263 643 Stage 1 - - - - 671 - Stage 2 - - - - 543 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1061 - - - 249 643 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 249 - Stage 1 - - - - 635 - Stage 2 - - - - 543 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.9 0 29.6 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1061 - - - 249 643 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 - - - 0.522 0.05 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - - 34.2 10.9 HCM Lane LOS A - - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 2.8 0.2 109 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Renovation – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)  Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 21 Updated July 8, 2020  Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Year 2024 Background+  Project  110 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 - 111 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 - 112 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 - - - 0.1 113 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 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 - - 114 Timings 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 67 342 2 601 99 0 0 97 67 342 2 601 99 0 0 97 pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA NA Free 5 2 1 6 8 4 2 6 6 Free 5 2 1 6 6 8 4 8.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 12.5 23.0 12.5 23.0 23.0 10.0 29.0 16.0 57.0 14.0 55.0 55.0 12.0 33.0 13.8% 49.1% 12.1% 47.4% 47.4% 10.3% 28.4% 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min None C-Min C-Min None Min 92.9 90.3 90.4 83.0 83.0 5.5 11.2 116.0 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.72 0.72 0.05 0.10 1.00 0.12 0.27 0.00 0.26 0.09 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: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.43 Intersection Signal Delay: 7.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 115 Queues 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 387 2 668 110 4 74 108 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.27 0.00 0.26 0.09 0.02 0.43 0.07 Control Delay 1.4 3.5 4.0 7.2 1.8 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 1.4 3.5 4.0 7.2 1.8 0.2 57.1 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 15 0 78 0 0 54 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m9 m197 3 158 22 0 100 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 135 Base Capacity (vph) 652 1445 854 2532 1164 201 427 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 0.11 0.27 0.00 0.26 0.09 0.02 0.17 0.07 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 116 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 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 641 1356 25 740 2424 7 0 2 154 0 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1831 34 1781 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 1781 1777 1585 1728 0 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 7.9 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 0.0 7.9 0.0 8.5 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 641 0 1380 740 2424 9 0 0 154 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.12 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 714 0 1380 886 2424 104 0 0 430 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 4.0 0.0 4.9 5.7 7.2 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 0.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.0 0.0 5.4 5.7 7.5 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 5.2 7.5 88.3 52.9 Approach LOS A A F D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.5 90.9 15.0 11.3 84.1 5.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 52.0 28.0 12.0 50.0 7.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 9.9 6.6 3.2 10.5 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.3 0.1 5.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 117 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 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 0.1 118 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 53 106 17 26 131 Future Vol, veh/h 14 53 106 17 26 131 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 59 118 19 29 146 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 75 0 301 46 Stage 1 - - - - 46 - Stage 2 - - - - 255 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 691 1023 Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 788 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 637 1023 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 637 - Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 727 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.5 9.4 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)637 1023 - - 1524 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 0.142 - - 0.077 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.9 9.1 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.5 - - 0.3 - 119 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 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 - 120 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 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 - - - 0.4 121 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 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 - - 122 Timings 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 103 630 1 479 134 0 2 213 103 630 1 479 134 0 2 213 pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA NA Free 5 2 1 6 8 4 2 6 6 Free 5 2 1 6 6 8 4 8.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 12.0 23.0 12.0 23.0 23.0 10.0 29.0 12.0 65.0 12.0 65.0 65.0 10.0 29.0 10.3% 56.0% 10.3% 56.0% 56.0% 8.6% 25.0% 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min None C-Min C-Min None Min 89.4 86.3 85.2 76.2 76.2 5.5 15.2 116.0 0.77 0.74 0.73 0.66 0.66 0.05 0.13 1.00 0.17 0.51 0.00 0.23 0.14 0.02 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: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 123 Queues 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 703 1 532 149 3 151 237 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.51 0.00 0.23 0.14 0.02 0.65 0.15 Control Delay 5.0 10.3 6.0 9.5 2.2 0.3 60.5 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 5.0 10.3 6.0 9.5 2.2 0.3 60.5 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 150 0 71 0 0 109 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 514 2 149 31 0 170 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 135 Base Capacity (vph) 664 1384 534 2325 1091 177 367 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 0.17 0.51 0.00 0.23 0.14 0.02 0.41 0.15 Intersection Summary 124 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 07/08/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 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 705 1349 6 482 2345 2 0 4 185 2 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1861 8 1781 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 1781 1777 1585 1645 0 0 1782 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 6.9 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 705 0 1355 482 2345 7 0 0 188 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.16 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.23 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 708 0 1355 601 2345 71 0 0 369 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 4.5 0.0 7.0 7.2 7.9 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 0.2 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 7.8 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 0.6 0.0 7.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.6 0.0 8.5 7.2 8.1 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 58.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A F A A E A Approach Vol, veh/h 817 533 A 3 151 A Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 8.1 100.6 58.6 Approach LOS A A F E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.3 89.1 17.2 11.8 81.5 5.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 60.0 24.0 8.0 60.0 5.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 21.3 11.6 4.0 8.9 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.5 0.6 0.1 3.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 125 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 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 0.2 126 Exhibit 5 127 128 TO: Randy Hunt, Town of Estes Park Planning Department CC: MOA Architecture, The Stanley (Grand Heritage Hotels) FROM: Cindy Nasky, Director of Preservation Programs Colorado Historical Foundation DATE: June 9, 2020 RE: Carriage House – Response to Request for Review The Colorado Historical Foundation appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Carriage House restoration/reconstruction project at the Stanley Hotel. For starters, the Foundation is pleased to see this building being brought back into use at the Stanley Campus. Within the development application, project architect Jack Mousseau remarks that during the design phase for the Carriage House, there has been considerable communication between the design team and the Foundation staff. This statement is true and the Foundation agrees that the Carriage House project, located within the Stanley Historic District, meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and is compatible with the terms of the standard deed of conservation easement. In a July 24, 2019 memo to MOA and Grand Heritage Hotels (Estes Park cc’d), the Foundation outlined some design concerns for both the Carriage House and the proposed Film Center – at that time, the designs were conceptual in form and approval to proceed was pending review of finalized drawings as available. Upon review of the information contained in your recent email of 6.3.2020, the Foundation concurs with the design for the Carriage House with one comment: the cresting along the roofline is not appropriate to the utilitarian nature of the building and we request that an alternative solution to conceal the HVAC system be considered – note that this is a request and not a condition of approval. As for the Film Center, Foundation staff and professional design members of the committee look forward to reviewing the working construction drawings as they are developed and will consider them keeping in mind the design concerns outlined in the July 24 th memo. In regard to the Parking Operations Plan and the Traffic Impact Study, the Foundation is pleased to see that alternatives are under negotiation with ‘several off-site guest properties’ as well as collaboration with public parking properties (including with the Town of Estes Park) for ‘shuttle/trolley’ service. This is imperative for the future health of the property and will assist in the alleviation of pressure for additional on-site parking. Open space is limited, and frankly precious, at the Stanley. One of the Foundation’s concerns for the historic district is not only the reduction of stress on the historic buildings, but also the maintenance of the historic park-like setting and open space on the Stanley campus, particularly the viewshed from the front porch of the hotel toward Long’s Peak. This was inarguably a view that was valued by F.O. Stanley. As ever, the Foundation appreciates Grand Heritage Hotels/The Stanley, MOA Architecture and the Town of Estes Park for their ongoing collaboration and partnership. Should you need clarification or would like to discuss any of these suggestions in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at 303.520.6307. Exhibit 6 129 ) l J January 11, 1994 1. Technical Review a. The applicant and development design team (consultants) shall schedule a pre­ application conference with the Community Development Director prior to submittal of any project proposal. The intent of this initial meeting shall be fourfold: 1) To informally discuss the overall context and development objectives for of the proposed project. 2) To review the standards, guidelines, and criteria for development. 3) To prepare a reasonable schedule for technical review based on the development schedule. 4) To review a sketch (concept) plan prepared by the Parcel owner which illustrates overall site development, general roadway layout, and other major site development components. The sketch plan is intended to be a very preliminary sketch of the proposed development concept and not a formal site plan. b. A Technical Review Committee, appointed by the Town Administrator, will be composed of five members, two public sector and two private sector representatives, plus Town Administrator. The private sector representatives shall be selected from a list approved by the property owners. The private sector representatives shall not have a financial or employment interest in the project. Technical Review Committee members shall be selected from the following list: Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Special Projects Director, Urban Renewal Authority Executive Director, Street/Park Superintendent, practicing architect, practicing engineer, and practicing landscape architect. The Committee shall be selected for their expertise related to the specific proposed project and will serve for the duration of the review of a particular project. The Technical Review Committee has the right, by majority vote, to grant variances or modify the Guidelines based on the applicant's ability to demonstrate innovative approaches, design solutions or future market conditions which the committee feels is advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of the Master Plan and the Guidelines. In no event shall the Technical Review Committee be allowed to grant a variance to the permitted uses or density or square footage in a development parcel. The decision of the Technical Review Committee may be appealed to the Town Board of Trustees. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 4 Exhibit 7 130 I I l l l J l J January 11, 1994 c. At each step, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the Guidelines. The Technical Review Committee and Architectural Review Board may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application. d. Any approval with condition or denial shall be in writing with stated reasons for conditions or denial 2. Preliminary Package All submittals shall be prepared by a qualified land planner (LP), landscape architect (LA), professional engineer (PE), and architect (AR) based on their appropriate area of expertise. Please note the suggested professional designations listed below. The following Preliminary Package (1 11 = 20') shall be required for the entire development parcel: Twenty-one (21) sets of the following are required at the time of submission: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. Statement of Development Intent. Property Survey including topography (2' contour interval), location and sizing of existing trees and utilities. Preliminary site plan. (LP /LA/ AR) Preliminary grading plan. (LA/PE/ AR) Preliminary drainage plan and report. (PE) Preliminary landscape plan. (LA/ AR) Preliminary utility service plan. (PE) Preliminary roadway plan and profile. (PE) Preliminary architectural plan and proposed materials showing typical elevation, schematic floor plan, and style of architecture. (AR) Photo survey of site illustrating proposed development and its relationship to surrounding neighborhood as per Estes Park municipal code 17.44.050 (C) and (D). (LA/ AR) k. Proposed project phasing. (LP/ AR) 1. Preliminary plat if subdivision is proposed. (LP /PE) The Technical Review Committee will meet with the applicant within three weeks of notification of acceptance of receipt of the complete Preliminary Package. During this three-week review period, the Architectural Committee shall meet with the Technical Review Committee to preliminarily evaluate the project. The Technical Review Committee will then issue its findings/ decision within one week after its scheduled meeting with the applicant. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 5 131 l l I J January 11, 1994 Upon approval of the Preliminary Package, the applicant shall submit a final (revised) package for review and approval by the Technical Review Committee. This package shall consist of final development plans, engineering, and site design drawings (consisting of items a-k above, as revised). 3. Architectural Review Upon approval of the Preliminary Package, the applicant shall prepare architectural drawings to be submitted to the Architectural Review Board. The Architectural Review Committee shall be composed of two Colorado licensed architects to determine compliance with the Guidelines. The Architectural Review Committee shall be appointed by the Town Administrator from a list of architects approved by the property owner. 4. Application for Building Permit Upon approval of the Final Package by the Technical Review Committee and the Architectural Review Committee, the proposed project may be submitted for building permit application. All drawings shall be in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, current edition. 5. Final Walk-through A final walk-through shall be performed by the Town to determine compliance with project approval. All deficiencies shall be corrected prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Fees At the time of submittal of the preliminary package, the Town and the applicant shall mutually agree upon a reasonable fee to be paid by the applicant for the outside members of the Technical Review Committee and Architectural Review Committee. 7. Improvement Guarantees All landscaping street utility and site improvements shall be guaranteed as set forth in the Town of Estes Park Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, as applied on a Town-wide basis. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 6 132 l j I . J j January 11, 1994 II. MASTER LAND USE PLAN The Master Plan for the Stanley Historic District responds primarily to the natural and cultural features of the site. In order to develop a realistic plan, it was necessary to understand the limits and capabilities of the site related to the proposed development program. An environmental scan was conducted which reviewed and identified key development opportunities and constraints. While the Master Land Use Plan graphic is intended to establish appropriate land use areas, land use relationships and overall access, it must be considered as illustrative only. The Development Agreement, Development Standards and Design Guidelines have precedence over graphically depicted information. The following statements are provided as guidance to the Technical Review Committee, the Architectural Review Committee, and, in particularly, to the applicant and the planning and design team. A. Environmental Protection 1. Natural Resources ■ Slope • The slope on the 75 acre site varies from very flat (less than 5 % ), on the southeast portion of the Historic District and along the drainage in the western part of the site, to over 25 % in the northwest portion of the site. The steepest slopes also correspond to several large rock outcroppings which exist on the site. The majority of the site is less than 25 % , and is developable in terms of slope constraints. In steeper parts of the site, where the slope is closer to 25 % , special design considerations must be used to ensure minimal disruption to the site. The site generally has a southern aspect, providing opportunities for passive solar applications for heating. Vegetation/Wildlife The entire Stanley Historic District falls within elk and mule deer winter range and migratory routes. While this does not create site specific design limitations in certain areas of the site, it does create the need to consider wildlife in the overall design and development within the site. Design considerations which have been incorporated into the design of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan acknowledge the need to accommodate wildlife. These include: Minimal use of fencing Cluster development which allow for open corridors between development Minimize non-native plant materials Minimize the use of through-streets to reduce through traffic Stanley Historic District Master Plan/7 133 I •. J l j ! ·. 1 I i I I - l January 11, 1994 The native wildlife of Estes Park is considered a major asset of the community by the majority of the residents in the community. Every effort shall be taken to preserve the wildlife which currently migrate through the site. The vegetation on the site consists of Ponderosa Pine, and native dryland shrubs and grasses. Along the Black Canyon Creek on the western portion of the site, willow and other riparian vegetation is present along the bottom of the drainageway. Some exotic introduced species exist immediately adjacent to the Stanley Hotel, but this has been kept to a minimum. Most of the site is open, with few trees. This is most noticeable in the front of the Stanley Hotel, and in the northern portion of the site, directly north of the hotel. The northeastern portion of the site has numerous stands of Ponderosa Pine, which can be used to successfully buffer and screen development. Care shall be taken to preserve as much of the existing vegetation as possible to insure buffering of development to adjoining properties and to limit the visual impact of new development on the site. ■ Floodplain and Drainage The Black Canyon Creek is the only drainageway that exists on the site. A one hundred (100) year floodplain extends through the creek channel, limiting development within the area. Approximately one third of the western portion of the site drains into Black Canyon Creek. The eastern two-thirds of the site sheet flows south and east. A drainageway exists east of the site, along the eastern edge of Steamer Drive. 2. Cultural Resources The Stanley Hotel is designated as a National Historic District, as well as being listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including a designation as a Place of National Significance. The prominence of the hotel from many locations in the valley makes the hotel a regional landmark. The Manor House and Stanley Hall, both of which are located just to the east of the hotel, provide context for the entire site and support the dominance of the main hotel. It is imperative that any development on the site acknowledge the importance of these structures. The Town of Estes Park has designated several key viewsheds which must be protected from any development. These are designated in the Stanley Historic District Ordinance. Please refer to this ordinance to examine the visual exhibits which further illustrate the protected viewsheds. They include the view of the hotel from the porch of the Visitors Center, and the view along Highway 36 from its intersection with Highway 7 to its intersection with Highway 34 . Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 8 134 I January 11, 1994 B. Circulation The circulation system for the Stanley Historic District consists of the primary public roadway, secondary private roadways that serve the Stanley property, and the adjacent residential development north and east of the Stanley. The primary public road system accesses the site along Highway 34, along the southern boundary of the site. Upon entering the site, there is a "T" intersection. The left turn provides access to the future main access of the Stanley Hotel, as well as a cluster of attached dwelling units located in Parcel 7 along the east side of Black Canyon Creek. The public portion of the road provides access only as far as the attached dwelling units. Permanent access to the future front entry to the Stanley Hotel shall be a private road constructed by the Stanley Hotel and/ or Parcel 2. At the "T" intersection, a right turn provides access to the majority of development within the Historic District. The public road extends to the north and east, providing access to the current entrance of the Stanley Hotel, and to future residential and commercial development along the eastern and northern portions of the site. The public road extends to Steamer Drive, providing a secondary access to the property. A private road system provides access to the Stanley Hotel and associated buildings. This private road also provides access to the site of the potential Cultural Arts Center, which is to be located at the site of the existing Carriage House. Additional private circulation is provided within the Stanley Campus area to future accommodations units north of Stanley Hall. Pedestrian/bike access throughout the site is provided by detached walkways along the roads. Direct access is provided between the commercial development south of the main entry road and the proposed cultural center. Future access may also be provided from the Stanley Hotel campus to the Black Canyon Creek area. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 9 135 j l I . ' I . l January 11, 1994 C. Land Use Land uses have been graphically depicted in the Master plan to illustrate how they may be developed on the site. It must be understood that the Master Plan is illustrative in nature and that all development must be further planned and designed to accommodate site specific opportunities and constraints which were not accounted for as a part of this Master Planning process. Such site specific considerations may include, by illustration only, geotechnical investigations, severe bedrock conditions, architectural programming, and changing market conditions. Detailed design shall be subject to the Development Agreement and Development Standards and Design Guidelines. A variety of land uses are anticipated within the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. The most prominent use on the site will occur at the Stanley Hotel (Parcel 1). The existing operation of the hotel is anticipated to expand, and include ancillary uses such as a recreation center, limited retail and restaurants. An addition to the existing hotel is planned to the west of the existing hotel. Additional accommodations units may be built behind the front facade of the Stanley Hotel Complex buildings. Additional parking to accommodate the expansion of the hotel also will occur behind said front facade. Future parking demand will be met by the phased construction of parking. Construction phasing of parking is to be directly linked to development thresholds. Stanley Hall will be used as a public Performing Arts Center. A Cultural Arts Center is planned for the site east of Stanley Hall. This would include up to 40,000 square feet of space, and would become a public facility. Parking for the Cultural Arts Center would be located to the north and east of the building, and immediately to the south. A commercial/ mixed use development is anticipated south of the Cultural Arts Center, and directly to the north of the existing Stanley Village (Parcel 4). Up to 30,000 square feet of commercial/ office/residential space could be built on this site with up to 20 residential units on the second floor. The buildings would be located along the public roadway, with parking located to the south. An alternate use of Parcel 4 is a residential multi-family with up to 40 dwelling units. Residential development is planned for the northern (Parcel 2) and northeastern areas (Parcel 3) of the Master Plan area. It is anticipated that these units would be attached, with multiple units. A buffer will be provided between these units and the developments to the north and east of the property. A variety of product types are anticipated, with smaller footprints and building masses occurring on the perimeter, and larger footprints being built on the interior of the site. Parcel 2 may have accommodation units. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 10 136 1 i l I ' l . J l January 11, 1994 Office or multi-family development is planned in the southwest comer of the site (Parcel 9), adjacent to MacGregor Avenue. Up to 10,000 square feet of office development may occur, or 14 multi-family units. All access would occur from MacGregor Avenue, with limited curb cuts. No development in this area will be allowed to encroach into the flood plain along Black Canyon Creek. Portions of the site are steep, and design on the parcel must be sensitive to environmental concerns, cut and fill, and wildlife issues. Residential development is planned for Parcel 7 just east of the open space (Parcel 8) where Black Canyon Creek is located. Up to 20 units, or 15 units plus 1 bed and breakfast with 5 bedrooms may be built within the parcel. The units should be sited to mitigate the open space setting which makes up the foreground to the Stanley Hotel. The units should be located to have minimal visual impact on the area as well. Orientation toward Black Canyon Creek and the views to the west are recommended. Two single family lots may be located on Parcel 1. No more than one single family residence will be allowed on each lot. Creation of these lots must be approved through the Town of Estes Park's normal subdivision process and access must be provided at that time. The following land uses are specifically prohibited in the Stanley Historic District: mobile home parks, recreational vehicle parks, commercial storage (including self­ storage) operations, light manufacturing and product assembly, motor vehicle service stations, motor vehicle dealerships or repair operations, commercial amusements including but not limited to go-kart tracks, water slides, miniature golf courses and mazes, commercial kennels, and adult uses. D. Utilities Major utility lines currently exist on the site. The majority of the utilities are located to serve the Stanley Hotel. Water, sewer, and natural gas are all available. A major overhead electric line is in place which extends from north of the site, through the site to the west of the Stanley Hotel, and extends off the site to the southwest. Additional utility lines will be required to be built in order to serve the proposed development within the site. All proposed utilities will be placed underground, and have minimal visual and environmental impact on the site at roads and drainages. All utilities will be installed at the expense of the Developer. E. Signage Signage on all development parcels shall be as permitted and as provided according to the Stanley Historic District Ordinance . Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 11 137 January 11, 1994 I DESIGN GUIDELINES l C l I j j It is understood that The Stanley Historic District has not been subject to final design, engineering, geotechnical analysis, architectural design, or market feasibility analysis. The following guidelines shall apply to all development within the Stanley Historic District as the Technical and Architectural Review Committees deem appropriate. Some of the allowed uses and potential building sites within the Stanley Historic District may be exempted by the Technical and Architectural Review Committees from the application of specific inappropriate guidelines, where such exemptions are consistent with the principles, goals, and objectives set forth in part I and II of the Master Plan. A. Site Planning 1. Buildings shall be sited in a manner that preserves existing land forms. Natural land forms are important in creating the appeal and the special character of the Stanley Historic District. The objective is to fit buildings to their sites in a way that leaves natural massing and features of the landscape intact. The most visually dominant and distinctive natural characteristics of the parcels should be left in their natural condition. Scale buildings so that they do not dominate the site. 2. New construction should be compatible with existing adjacent residential buildings and ~- When planning new construction, analyze the setting for the new building. Look at the siting and mass of other buildings in the residential neighborhood. Notice the setbacks, heights, parking arrangements and building shapes. Observe the building forms and materials of surrounding buildings. Be aware of the elements that are repeated nearby, such as certain roof pitches, window shapes and porch and entrance orientations. New construction should blend with the residential neighborhood without copying other buildings. 3. Grading. Overlot grading for the sole purpose of creating flat building pads is prohibited within the Stanley Historic District. Foundations that step up or down with the natural slope of the site can greatly reduce site disturbances. Extensive grading to create large flat lawn areas is prohibited unless appropriate to grades at building site. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 16 138 I j I . l I January 11, 1994 4. Drainage. Culverts and flow dissipaters are to be constructed in a manner that reflects the natural character of streams in the Rocky Mountain region. River rock and cobbles are required. Use of angular rip-rap and exposed concrete is prohibited. Minor drainageways that are created to collect and convey storm water shall be constructed of materials and revegetated so as to appear natural. 5. Buildings shall be sited in a manner that preserves significant vegetation. New construction and landscaping shall respect and be compatible with natural vegetative patterns. Consult the Landscape Section for additional discussion. 6. Buildings should be sited in a manner that preserves significant views. The primary concerns relate to maintaining views to the site. Projects should be designed so they complement rather than dominate the natural landscape. Views should also be considered in the preparation of a landscape plan, particularly where plant material will be considerably larger at maturity. 7. Site design should not change natural drainage patterns. Site grading should be sensitive to existing land forms and topography in the area so that the natural setting may be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Every effort shall be to minimize the limits of construction on the site and all stock piling of materials and equipment storage shall occur within those limits. Abrupt grade changes on property lines are not permitted. Grade changes within tree driplines should be avoided. When modifications are necessary, surface drainage systems such as swales and detention basins are preferable to underground systems. Drainage designs should avoid the concentration of runoff and acceleration of the rate of runoff. Site design should be executed in a way which will avoid drainage impacts such as erosion and road damage both on-site as well as downstream. Slopes steeper than 3-to-1 shall be stabilized using natural materials and revegetated. Cuts and fills should have good surface drainage and must be revegetated and terraced or controlled by retaining walls to protect against erosion and sedimentation. Silt fencing shall be established in a continuous barrier on all downslope boundaries of the development site prior to earthmoving activity. Additional silt barriers and silt settlement areas shall be established along drainage courses as necessary to prevent erosion and the flow of transported sediments beyond site construction areas. These erosion/ siltation control facilities shall be maintained throughout construction activity until disturbed areas are successfully revegetated. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/17 139 l I . 1 . l I J January 11, 1994 8. Oustering of buildings and parking is encouraged Efficiencies in design result from building clustering when it applies to appropriate building types and land uses. Service needs can be combined in a central location. Access roads and utility services to scattered areas within a site can be reduced and disruption of the natural land forms and vegetation can be minimized through clustering. Building clustering may result in a visually more cohesive design solution. Clustering may also provide more usable open space. B. Building Placement 1. Buildings should respect existing landforms. Buildings should be located so that earthwork can be minimized. Emphasis should be placed on building locations that fit existing contours rather than those that require a building solution that would dominate the site. 2. The alignment of roads and driveways should follow the contours of the site. By meandering roads to follow land forms, it is possible to minimize cuts and fills, preserve natural drainage patterns, and produce roads that are easily negotiated. Efforts should be made to construct roads parallel to contours. When roadways or drives must be located on cross slopes, they are preferred to be cut into the slope rather than placed in a location creating a fill condition. 3. Site design should consider solar access. Building placement and planting materials should accommodate passive solar designs. Maintaining solar access to adjoining building sites, roadways, and parking shall be considered during the review process. 4. Site design must consider the placement and screening of service areas and auxiliary structures. Utility meters and service functions should not be visible on the primary facades of buildings or in front yard areas. Minimize the visual impact of trash storage and pickup areas. Screen trash and service areas with landscaping, berming or fencing. Consider snow accumulation in planning access to trash receptacles and service areas. Auxiliary structures should be architecturally compatible with the rest of the site development. Stanley Historic Dishict Master Plan/18 140 l i , l l I l ' ' I January 11, 1994 5. Site design around intersections must provide a clear view of intersecting streets. In order to allow drivers a safe visibility at intersections, no obstruction in excess of two feet high may be placed within a triangular area formed by the streets at property line and a line connecting them at points 25' from the intersection of the street lines. Trees pruned high enough to permit driver visibility may be permitted. 6. Site design should facilitate pedestrian circulation. Care should be taken to provide pedestrian circulation that is separate from and does not conflict with vehicular circulation. A master pedestrian circulation plan for each parcel shall be developed by the developer at the time of initial development review process. 7. Building Setbacks. The Technical Review Committee may adjust interior line setbacks based upon innovative site design, site planning, and access. Each parcel has perimeter setbacks which shall be maintained. C. Building Design 1. New buildings designed to imitate historic styles of the Stanley Hotel will not be approved. The Town considers that the integrity of the Stanley Hotel historic structures will be compromised by the introduction of new buildings that appear to be older than they really are and, therefore, will not approve historic imitations. The following architectural styles and motifs are prohibited in Stanley Historic District Ordinance: • • • • • • • • • A-frame structures, Geodesic dome structures, Mediterranean motifs, Tudor or mock tudor, Swiss chalets, Highly ornate Victorian, Rustic frontier, Colonial, and Other historical or period design motifs that have a strong connection or association with other regions or which have no historical connection with Estes Park. Stanley Historic T encl Master Plan/ 19 141 l ' I J I January 11, 1994 2. Building designs should attempt to minimize the apparent scale of buildings. Buildings can be made to seem larger or smaller depending on the proportional relationship of the building elements that comprise the building front. Doors, windows, roof shapes, siding, lighting and signs should all be considered carefully in order to create an appropriate scale of development. 3. Rooflines of buildings should be designed to be compatible with surrounding building forms. Clashes in styles and materials should be avoided. The objective in determining roof shape is to establish a visual order to building clusters. The following roof forms are prohibited in Stanley Historic District: • Mansard or fake mansard, • Gambrel, • Curvilinear, • Domed, • Geodesic domes, • Conical, and • A-frames . 4. Roof surfacing materials should be selected to help new buildings blend with their surroundings. The use of similar building materials throughout areas that are seen together provides a very strong link that unifies the varying architectural features of the buildings. Preferred materials are cedar shingles, resawn shakes (to give a less rustic appearance than heavy shakes), standing seam metal roofs in colors that approximate the color of weathered cedar shingles and composition shingles. The following roofing materials are prohibited: ■ Untreated aluminum or metal, • Reflective materials, • Brightly colored roofing materials such as bright red, blue, yellow, or similar colors that are highly visible, ■ Red tile roofs, (tile roofs may be allowed in shades of grays and browns that approximate the color of weathered cedar shingles), Roof color should approximate the color of weathered shingles; however, colors which blend with the background natural materials, such as forest green, are acceptable. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 20 142 1 ; I J .. l January 11, 1994 5. Skylights and solar panels must be designed in an unobtrusive manner. Skylights and solar panels must be designed to fit flush with the roof's surface or up to a maximum of 2' above the roof's surface. No reflective materials may be used unless thoroughly shielded to prevent reflection onto adjoining or nearby properties. The use of alternate energy sources is encouraged, however, the hardware associated with these features should be incorporated as an integral part of the building's design rather than as an add-on which detracts from the building and its surroundings. 6. Allowable Building Height. Care must be exercised in siting structures and orienting roofs so that allowable height of 30 feet as regulated by the Stanley Historic District Ordinance is not exceeded. "Building height" is defined by ordinance as the vertical distance from the average of the finished ground level at the center of all walls of a building to the highest point of the roof surface, exclusive of chimneys, ventilators, pipes and similar apparatus. 7. Facade lengths must be varied. The objective of this requirement is to ensure that buildings do not become overpowering. A change in the planes of walls, changing the direction or providing some variety in the roof form gives diversity and visual interest. Structures must exhibit a prominent shift in the facade of the structure so that no building facade appears unbroken. Each shift shall be in the form of either a change in building facade alignment or a change in roofline height, or a combined change in facade and roofline. 8. Building should be constructed of natural wall materials. The use of natural materials such as redwood and cedar, and accent stone is encouraged. Wall materials should convey a sense of human scale and warmth. Stones should be laid in a manner that conveys the appearance of a structural element rather than as a veneer facing another material. They should not convey an overly urban or industrial character. The following wall materials are prohibited: Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 21 143 l I I ' / " J l l j 1 9. ■ ■ ■ • • • ■ • • ■ • ■ ■ • Thick shake shingles, Ceramic tile, Slump block, Weeping mortar, Plastic or vinyl siding, Used brick, Synthetic stone products, Precast stone or concrete imbedded with stone fragments, Lava rock, Clinkers, Asphalt siding, January 11, 1994 Exposed concrete block (architectural or split-face block may be acceptable), Plywood siding, and Aluminum siding . Exterior wall colors should harmonize with the site and surrounding buildings. On exterior walls the predominant tone should tend toward warm earthy hues, whether in the natural patina or weathered color of the wall surface itself or the color of the paint, stain or other coating. White walls are not permitted. Accent colors on the wall surfaces can enliven buildings; however, their location should be confined to entries and gathering points which do not disrupt the overall harmony of the area. Body trim and accent colors as per Historic Code. In most cases, only one or two accent colors should be used in addition to the base color. Doors may be painted a bright accent color or they may be left natural wood ·finish. Harshly contrasting color combinations should be avoided. Brilliant, luminescent, or day-glow colors will not be approved. The colors found in the landscape around Estes Park, the dark green of forests, the gray-brown of mountains, and the tan of grasses all relate well to wood and stone masonry. Colors indigenous or associated with other parts of the country should be avoided, such as colonial and tropical paint schemes. 10. Exterior alterations and secondary structures are subject to the same guidelines as new construction. 11. Exterior lighting systems should be chosen with care so that glare is not created and light is not cast on neighboring properties. The objective is to provide subdued night lighting illuminating only what needs to be lit to promote safe and pleasant use. Lighting with a number of low intensity sources close to the area requiring illumination will in nearly all cases be more effective than lighting with a remote single source. Generally, exterior lighting should direct light downward and the light sources should not be visible from neighboring property. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 22 144 l I I . I l. l j January 11, 1994 D. Landscaping 1. Landscape plan. Off-site views of building masses shall be substantially softened with plantings of large coniferous trees carefully located to create a natural appearance which blends with existing vegetative patterns. The landscape plan should reflect the landscape character of an area. On those sites where the existing vegetation is considered a significant attribute of the site, the siting and design of buildings shall retain the existing significant vegetation wherever possible. The landscaping should reflect the native vegetation patterns and plant materials. Outward orienting portions of the landscape shall be planted with the same species of plants which are found on the adjacent undisturbed areas. New plantings should blend in with the existing landscape so that several years hence all traces of the site disturbance will have disappeared. Proper landscaping transition to adjacent properties and natural areas should be provided without strong demarcation. All disturbed areas must be revegetated. Landscaped areas should be planned as an integral part of the project and not simply located in left-over space on the site. Landscaping should complement the architecture of adjacent buildings and not hide it. 2. The design of fences and walls should harmonize with the site and the buildings. Walls and fencing can only be used to provide privacy or service area screening. Screening should not dominate the buildings or the landscape. Planting may be integrated with screening schemes in order to soften the visual impact. The tops of screens should generally be maintained horizontal. If the ground slopes, the screen should be stepped. Fencing may be allowed around private areas provided it is attached to the building, does not adversely impact elk or deer migration patterns, and does not adversely impact common open areas. Fencing materials should be compatible with the materials and color of the surrounding or the prevailing building materials and color in adjacent developments. Unacceptable fencing materials include chainlink, plywood, chain and bollard, and slump block. Stanley Historic met Master Plan/ 23 145 l I l I • J . l j January 11, 1994 3. Retaining walls should be compatible in form. scale, and materials with the architectural details and materials of nearby buildings. Retaining walls may not be faced with any material disallowed for buildings. Rock facing on walls should be applied in a manner that makes the rock appear as a structural element rather than a veneer. Specially formed architectural block or stone are encouraged wall materials. Retaining walls over 24 inches high may require railings or planting buffers for safety. Low retaining walls may be used for seating if capped with a surface of at least 12 to 16 inches wide. Retaining walls must be designed to minimize their impact on the site. Retaining walls over 5' tall are discouraged. In situations where a series of walls occur, landscape material shall be planted within benched terraces to soften the appearance of the walls. Architectural block or stone construction material is encouraged. Exposed poured-in-place concrete retaining walls are not acceptable. 4. Site furnishings and paving materials should be selected to complement the architectural style of the building and the paving and site furnishings of surrounding properties. 5. Consider site conditions, drought tolerance, and hardiness when selecting plant species. Soil conditions, exposure, wind, temperatures, and other factors vary. These factors should be considered in the choice of plant materials. Soils tests to determine soil amendment mixes shall be required. Plant species selected should be compatible with the activity of the particular area. Drought tolerant plant species shall be used wherever possible to reduce water demand. Only plant materials acclimated to the Historic District environment shall be used. Select plant material to be tolerant of browsing by elk and deer. 6. Native vegetation shall be encouraged. The use of blue grass turf is not allowed except in Parcel 1 and 4 (retail use). Stanley Historic District Master P' an/ 24 146 CI j C j I .1 j January 11, 1994 7. Significant existing vegetation is an attribute to any site and the vegetation should be protected and retained. Areas that are not disturbed do not have to be revegetated and projects which retain existing vegetation are much more desirable to prospective buyers. In addition, the more areas left undisturbed as a result of construction, the less erosion problems will be produced from the site. Site disturbance shall be minimized in the layout, grading, and drainage design of all development sites, drives, and parking areas. This goal of minimizing site disturbance has been established in order to minimize the impacts of erosion, siltation, and removal of existing vegetation. The removal of significant, mature trees should be avoided. In the event of removal of existing mature trees, a tree replacement plan shall be submitted to the technical review committee. To achieve these goals, site disturbance limits shall be established based on approval site grading plans and fenced, prior to any earthmoving or site preparation activity. Site preparation activity will require fencing constructed of 2" x 4" lumber with horizontal rails set at a maximum 30" height above grade. This fencing is required to accommodate elk and deer, minimizing disturbance to the seasonal passage of wildlife through the site. Builders and developers should avoid the following hazardous situations, all of which can kill trees: • • • • • • • Placing backfill into protected areas or on top of roots of trees to be saved . Felling trees into protected areas . Driving construction equipment into or through protected areas . Bumping into trees with construction equipment and/ or driving over the top of their roots. Stacking or storing supplies in protected areas . Changing site grades which cause drainage to flow into, or to collect in, protected areas. Trenching underground utilities through root zones . Stanley Historic Di 0 frict Master Plan/ 25 147 \ l l _j j January 11, 1994 8. All trees to be removed shall be removed in a manner that will not damage the remaining trees. Any trees that are to remain that are damaged during the clearing operation must be repaired in an approved manner or by a tree expert as soon as final clearing has been completed. After construction is completed, temporary barriers, surplus materials, and all trash, debris and rubbish shall be removed from the site. All backfill shall be clear of building material, stone, and rubbish. Retained existing trees (more mature trees, especially) will undergo "post operative shock" caused by the construction activity. All possible safeguards should be taken to minimize these effects and to provide optimum growth conditions. Foliage feeding and liquid fertilizer root feeding may be appropriate. Branch and foliage thinning may be desirable also. 9. There shall be construction limits set for every project. Any vegetation which is removed without specific approval beyond those established limits of disturbance must be replaced with large specimen plant materials of similar species. 10. Generally the seasons for planting in Estes Park are from April to September. 11. Landscape Maintenance Requirements. All planting areas except native seeded areas shall be irrigated until landscape material is established. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 26 148 l l I l . J ! • I I . J l . J I j SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES PARCEL 1-THE STANLEY HOTEL COMPLEX Site Development Considerations January 11, 1994 The Stanley Hotel Complex, located within Parcel 1 represents the "Crown Jewel" of the Stanley Hotel Historic District. The cultural values this parcel holds for the Town of Estes Park with its historic background, set amidst the rugged Rocky Mountain landscape have been central to the efforts of this and many pervious planning and historic preservation designations. Recognition must be granted to the fact that the economic viability of the hotel complex is a core issue in the preservation of the historical structures that the Historic District has been established to protect. Expansion of these facilities and the thoughtful accommodation of other, new facilities to further enhance the activity base of the Historic District must be considered essential if these structures are to be preserved well into the future. Historic facade viewsheds have been established through the Historic District Ordinance of the Town of Estes Park. As governed by the ordinance, these viewsheds protecting the facades of the Stanley Hotel and Manor House must not be encroached upon by new development. The natural dry land ponderosa pine landscape that defines this setting must be considered an integral identity element in the overall appeal of the region and the hotel complex. The back drop of Ponderosa pine also provides a significant contribution to this setting and, therefore, deserves the greatest consideration possible in proposals of new development. In keeping with the desire to create a Stanley Hotel Campus, land uses, pedestrian circulation and outdoor space scale must contribute to a well integrated built environment setting that encourages activity throughout Parcel 1. Pedestrian-oriented circulation is encouraged and outdoor spaces of pedestrian scale should be created to achieve activity levels that are inviting and varied in concentration. The pedestrian circulation system should provide access radiating outward from Parcel 1 to surrounding development parcels, while providing primary linkages along the east/west axial corridor established by the original Stanley Hotel complex structures. To preserve the setting of the Stanley complex and Parcel 1 vehicular circulation and parking should be integrated into the site . Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 27 149 l I l l l j .l January 11, 1994 In the interest of invoking new activity within Parcel 1, impacts to adjacent development must not be ignored. Building height of new development and removal of existing significant vegetation will not only impact the historical setting of the Stanley complex, but also surrounding development. View opportunities for development Parcels (2 and 3) above Parcel 1 must be accommodated to the greatest extent possible in planning new development in Parcel 1. Traffic and service activity impacts must also be carefully considered in planning. The stipulations set forth in the Town of Estes Park Historic District Ordinance must be carefully considered in all development proposals. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 28 150 j - / I I Parcel 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Land Use: Recommended Uses: Maximum Allowable Development: Maximum Building Floorplate: Maximum Building January 11, 1994 HoteUAccommodations Commercial uses • Hotel, overnight, weekly, and monthly rentals, attached and detached residential, small scale commercial uses, museum, theater, recreation facilities. 75,000 s.f. Stanley Hotel expansion, 14,000 s.f. Manor House expansion, 25,000 s.f. recreation/conference center, 22,800 s.f. accommodations, 5,000 s.f. retail, performing arts center, 40,000 s.f. cultural arts center, surface parking. Two single family detached units. Stanley Hotel Expansion: Recreation/Conference Center: Cultural Center: Manor House Expansion: 33,000 s.f. 25,000 s.f. 40,000 s.f. 7,200 sf. Height: 30 ft. Off-street Parking: Minimum Setback From Property Lines Buildings: Parking/Drives: Street right-of-way and/or private street reservation: Hotel: One and one quarter (1.25) spaces per room. Commercial: Five (5) spaces per 1,000 s.f. Residential: Two (2) spaces per dwelling unit. Rec/Wellness: Three (3) spaces per 1,000 s.f. Arts Center: Five (5) spaces per 1,000 s.f. Minimum setback from perimeter: 25' Minimum building separation: 1 O' Minimum setback from private drives right-of-way: 1 O' 1 O' setback from all property lines 45' width *Note: Mandatory build-to lines have been established on the drive bisecting the Cultural Arts and Performing Arts Centers. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 29 151 I I J - I I ) J January 11, 1994 Parcel 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Historic facade easements as described in the Historic District Ordinance shall not be encroached upon as prescribed in the Ordinance. 2. Preservation and rehabilitation of existing historic structures for reuse shall be fully evaluated by a qualified historical architect prior to proposals for new construction that may displace primary or contributing structures of historic significance. This evaluation shall emphasize potential reuse on existing sites, but shall also consider possible relocation within the historic district. 3. Expansion of the existing historic Stanley Hotel shall be located generally to the west and north of the existing hotel structure. The expansion shall not interfere with or diminish historic views established in the Historic District Ordinance. The expansion shall not exceed a maximum floor plate of 33,000 s.f. and shall generally be located within a designated building envelope extending 275 ft. to the west of the existing hotel structure, setback to the north from the southwest comer, and extending northward approximately parallel with the east wing of the existing hotel structure. Expansion will be subordinate to hotel building. All development will be coordinated with the Colorado Historical Foundation and Colorado Historical Society. 4. Expansion of the historic Manor House shall be located generally to the north of the existing structure. The expansion shall not interfere with or diminish historic views established in the Historic Ordinance. The expansion shall not exceed a maximum floor plate of 7,200 s.f. and shall be in conformance with the facade easement granted to the Colorado Historical Foundation. All development will be coordinated with the Colorado Historical Society and Colorado Historical Foundation. 5. Stanley Hall, designated for use in this plan as a performing arts center shall not be appreciably expanded except for necessary improvements associated with access and service facilities. 6. The proposed cultural arts facility located to the east of Stanley Hall shall be located so as not to diminish the setting established by the existing historic structures in Parcel 1. This facility shall not extend beyond the southern-most facade of the Stanley Hotel structure. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 30 152 l j - a 1 I I j January 11, 1994 7. Additional accommodations structures, Recreation/Conference Center facilities shall be generally located behind the Stanley Hotel complex structures. To mitigate building height impacts to the Stanley complex buildings and adjacent development parcels to the north and east, these structures shall employ foundations that are set into the hillside, accommodating the natural existing slope. The structure shall not exceed 30 feet elevation or the existing Stanley Hotel at its highest point to preserve view opportunities of properties to the north. 8. Two primary access points have been designated from public road right of way for Parcel 1. A. An access point has been designated at the terminus of the public right of way at the southwest of the Parcel to serve the relocated main guest entrance in the westward expansion of the Stanley Hotel. Extension of a private roadway from this point is the responsibility of the Stanley Hotel. 8. A second primary access point is located at the intersection of the existing entry drive to the Stanley Hotel and the public right of way to the southeast of the existing Stanley Hotel. 9. Secondary access points have been designated with the CulturaUPerforming Arts Center, and to the east of the Cultural Arts Center. 10. Parking requirements for expansion of facilities in Parcel 1 shall be met in the following phasing approach: A. The temporary parking lot located on the grass area to the south and east of the Stanley Hotel may be used only as overflow parking until such time as new construction occurs for the addition to the Stanley Hotel, or an addition is added to the Manor House. At such time the temporary lot will be removed and revegetated. The existing parking area to the west of the Stanley Hotel may remain in use. 8. Additional parking for Parcel 1 will occur behind the front facade of the Stanley Hotel complex unless otherwise noted. As an alternative, temporary parking may be constructed at and around the Carriage House (proposed Cultural Arts Center Site), subject to TRC approval. This parking shall be paved, landscaped and screened. The Town shall have no obligation to replace this parking upon construction of the Cultural Arts Center. C. 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. D. Regardless of other phasing considerations, parking facilities immediately south of the Manor House shall be upgraded in circulation capability and landscape improvements without significant capacity increase at the time of any new on site construction/expansion. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/31 153 I l I l ' j J J January 11, 1994 E. Perfonning Arts Center parking shall be shared with existing Stanley Hotel parking, not necessarily tied to the Cultural Arts Center. F. Upon construction of the Cultural Arts Center, pennanent parking facilities shall be provided to accommodate parking based on the total floor area of the Perfonning/Cultural Arts facilities based on Gross Floor Area of the combined facilities. 11. A 50 ft. minimum landscape buffer shall be provided upon development of the Cultural Arts Center adjacent to the property line between Parcel 1 and Parcel 3. Landscape density shall provide effective buffering of Parcel 1 uses (within the character of the natural landscape). 12. Ancillary and support structures shall be generally located north of the front facade of the Stanley Hotel complex. 13. Should Parcel 4 be developed in entirely residential uses, an additional 5,000 s.f. of retail use shall be allowed on Parcel 1. However, this floor area shall be deducted from the allowable floor area of another allowable use designated for Parcel 1, resulting in no net gain in developable floor area. 14. Favorable consideration shall be given by the Technical Review Committee to an applicant who provides a detailed circulation and parking plan prepared by a qualified transportation consultant which clearly delineates the phasing and construction of all proposed access, parking, and related circulation issues. 15. The use of exotic, non-native landscape species previously introduced on Parcel 1, including blue grass lawns, may be used surrounding the Hotel, Hotel expansion, and Manor House, Stanley Hall and proposed perfonning arts center. 16. Section 17.44.060, F of the Historic District Ordinance must be referred to for development of Parcel 1. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/ 32 154 &a m Ia - G) U ; 0cu C U Exhibit 8 155 •;)‘flT r --I-I ________ - :- t ______ /I ‘ N ______ -c !4f a I ovEn -- r / -t ___ *; L%Ltt N :- -‘ :*LM r-iL X ‘--4 7 1 i 1> €I I -I%4 ‘: E : b *2 -: s4 / . • $ / -.t - -- -I //-:49 —---- - k _______ -4-/- Exhibit 9 156 FOR OF 3/ 2 6 / 2 0 2 0 1 1 : 3 6 : 2 6 A M Stanley Hotel Carriage House 333 E Wonderview Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 Grand Heritage SEPTEMBER 03, 2019 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTSFOUNDATIONS & ENCLOSURE PERMIT SET PROJECT DIRECTORY Contractor: Sauders Heath Architect: MOA ARCHITECTURE 414 14th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 303.308.1190 Jack Mousseau jmousseau@moaarch.com Architect's Consultants:Owner:Sheet Index Structural Engineer:Mechanical / Electrical Engineer: S. A. Miro, Inc.BCER 4582 S. Ulster St. Pkwy, Ste 750 Denver, Colorado 80237-2639 303.741.3737 John Karlsberg jkarlberg@samiro.com 5420 Ward Rd Suite 200 Arvada, CO 80002 303.422.7400 Paul Miskowicz pmiskowicz@bcer.com 6380 S. Fiddlers Green Circle Suite 400 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 John Cullen jcullen@grandheritage.com Civil Engineer: S. A. Miro, Inc. 4582 S. Ulster St. Pkwy, Ste 750 Denver, Colorado 80237-2639 303.741.3737 Jason Carr jcarr@samiro.com Grand Heritage Vicinity Map CIVIL C2-512 UTILITY PLAN STRUCTURAL S-001 STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES S-002 STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES S-003 STRUCTURAL SPECIAL INSPECTIONS S-100 FOUNDATION PLAN S-101 LEVEL 1 FRAMING PLAN S-102 ROOF FRAMING PLAN S-201 TYPICAL FOUNDATION AND SOG DETAILS S-211 FOUNDATION DETAILS S-212 STAIR DETAILS S-301 SLAB-ON-DECK/STEEL BEAM DETAILS S-302 TYPICAL STEEL-CONCRETE CONNECTION DETAILS S-311 FRAMING DETAILS S-321 CONCRETE WALL AND FRAMING DETAILS S-401 WALL ELEVATIONS S-402 WALL ELEVATIONS S-501 TYPICAL WOOD DETAILS S-502 WOOD SCHEDULES & DETAILS S-503 WOOD FRAMING DETAILS S-504 EXISTING/NEW ROOF TRUSS ELEVATIONS S-505 EXISTING ROOF TRUSS MODIFICATION DETAILS S-506 EXISTING ROOF TRUSS MODIFICATION DETAILS S-801 MASONRY DETAILS ARCHITECTURAL A2-101 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS A2-102 ASSEMBLIES AND SECTIONS REVISED AND RESUBMITTED MARCH 25, 2020 Architect: 1212 Riverside Avenue, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 490-8044 David Stolte d.stolte@saundersheath.com REV 6 REV 6 Exhibit 10 157 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 2020.03.20 19131.00 FOUNDATIONS & ENCLOSURE PERMIT SET JDC REVISION DATE St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e 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 REV 2 - COMMENTS 2019.10.15 REV 3 - UPDATED AREA WELL 2019.10.24 REV 4 - COMMENTS 2019.11.14 REV 5 - UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REV 6 - BUILDING EXTENSION 2020.03.20 C2-512 UTILITY PLAN (INTERIOR ONLY) FLUSH WITH FLOOR SLAB CONCRETE PAD SHOULD BE LANDSCAPE PLACEMENT 4" RISER PIPE, PVC LARGER THAN RISER PIPE WATER - TIGHT PLUG 6" 6" MI N . 2" T Y P . 6" HARDSCAPE PLACEMENT LONG SWEEP WYE OR TYPE WYE SOLVENT CEMENTED TO MAIN APPROVED SADDLE 1. 2. NOTES: 3. 100 FEET MAXIMUM SPACING. AT ALL BENDS AND EVERY CLEANOUTS SHALL BE LOCATED CLEAN-OUT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO THAT THE SURFACE LOAD WILL NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE MAIN. CONCRETE PAD SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT THE WATER WILL RUN AWAY FROM THE INSTALLATION. W/ 3,000 PSI CONCRETE (6" MIN. AROUND FITTINGS) CONC. ENCASE FITTING FINISHED GRADE (FOR LANDSCAPED AREAS ONLY) 2"-3" ABOVE EXISTING GRADE CONCRETE PAD SHOULD BE CONCRETE SURFACE AND SHALL BE SECURED (JOSAM SERIES 58680, OR APPROVED EQUIV.) WITH SCREWS TO THE COVER'S FRAME. PLUG, COVER SHALL BE FLUSH WITH IRON BODY FERRULE WITH BRASS SCREW 10 SCALE: 1" = 10' 100 NO SCALE 1 C2-512 CLEANOUT DETAIL NO SCALE 2 C2-512 DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION DETAIL TYPE 150, OR EQUIV. SEALANT, WILL-SEAL OPEN-CELLED FOAM FIT I.D. OF HUB DIAMETER OF PLATE TO FOR DOWNSPOUT. PLATE w/ SQUARE HOLE 1/2" THICK CAST IRON CEMENT GROUT BUILDING WALL CRIMP END TO FIT HUB TAPPED TEE BRANCH W/ PLUG 4" FINISHED GRADE 4" PVC PIPE 2" 4"x4" METAL DOWNSPOUT VA N VA N VA N VA N SS SS SS SS SS E E E E G G G G G G G G G G G W W W W G G G G E E E E E FDCO-1 N:1382335.61 E:2995350.13 INV.=7586.96 FDCO-3 N:1382372.54 E:2995407.06 INV.=7587.41 FDCO-8 N:1382375.74 E:2995445.70 INV.=7586.82 31 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 42 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 99 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 12 LF~6" PVC @ 1.00% RD-1 N:1382297.56 E:2995429.78 INV.=7592.12 54 LF~6" PVC @ 1.00 % RD-2 N:1382293.12 E:2995376.06 INV.=7592.66 24 LF~6" PVC @ 1.00 % RD-3 N:1382296.60 E:2995351.34 INV.=7592.96 41 L F ~ 6 " P V C @ 1 . 0 0 % RD-8 N:1382378.64 E:2995444.46 INV.=7594.70 40 LF~6" PVC @ 1.00 % RD-5 N:1382337.89 E:2995353.50 INV.=7593.43 6 LF~6" PVC @ 1.00% 5 LF~6" PVC @ 1.00% CONNECT TO EX. STUB N:1382298.57 E:2995442.08 INV.=7592.00 CONNECT TO EX. STUB N:1382301.39 E:2995451.84 INV.=7586.25 90° BEND N:1382291.11 E:2995351.80 INV.=7592.91 90° BEND N:1382293.27 E:2995353.63 INV.=7586.74 90° BEND N:1382337.44 E:2995347.97 INV.=7593.37 4" PERF. PVC FOUNDATION DRAIN RE: DTL. 1/ A2-102 6" PVC ROOF DRAIN CARRIAGE HOUSE BASEMENT FFE=7587.00 MAIN FLOOR FFE=7600.00 4" P V C 8" PVC FDCO-4 N:1382302.21 E:2995461.76 INV.=7586.30 FDCO-5 N:1382314.65 E:2995450.75 INV.=7586.42 90° BEND N:1382315.47 E:2995460.67 INV.=7586.37 13 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 10 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 10 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 26 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 10 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 13 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 10 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 90° BEND N:1382331.91 E:2995449.32 INV.=7586.50 FDCO-6 N:1382332.73 E:2995459.24 INV.=7586.55 90° BEND N:1382345.20 E:2995458.21 INV.=7586.61 FDCO-7 N:1382344.38 E:2995448.29 INV.=7586.66 90° BEND N:1382338.29 E:2995382.61 INV.=7587.12 FDCO-2 N:1382344.67 E:2995382.08 INV.=7587.15 90° BEND N:1382346.91 E:2995409.18 INV.=7587.29 27 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 33 LF~ 4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 6 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 90° BEND N:1382339.25 E:2995369.98 INV.=7593.59 RD-6 N:1382345.63 E:2995369.45 INV.=7593.66 90° BEND N:1382348.73 E:2995407.02 INV.=7594.03 RD-7 N:1382375.37 E:2995404.82 INV.=7594.30 17 LF~ 6" PVC @ 1.00% 6 LF~6" PVC @ 1.00% 38 LF~6" PVC @ 1.00 % 27 LF~6" PVC @ 1.00% 17 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 03/19/20 158 1. GOVERNING DESIGN CODES: A. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC 2015) w/ 2016 TOWN OF ESTES PARK AMENDMENTS B. SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS (AISC 360-10) MEMBER DESIGN BASIS IS LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD) CONNECTION DESIGN BASIS IS LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD) C. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (ACI 318-14) D. MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES (ASCE 7-10) E. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR MASONRY STRUCTURES (ACI 530-13/ASCE 5-13/TMS 402-2013) F. NATIONAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR WOOD CONSTRUCTION (NDS-2015) 2. SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS AND QUALITY CONTROL: a. SEE "STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS" FOLLOWING GENERAL NOTES FOR INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS. 3. DEFERRED SUBMITTALS: A. DEFERRED SUBMITTALS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT COPIES OF THESE ITEMS TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AFTER REVIEW BY THE ARCHITECT AND/OR ENGINEER OF RECORD: a. PRE-ENGINEERED METAL STAIRS b. EXTERIOR CLADDING 4. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION: A. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE 5-B B. FIRE RESISTIVE RATINGS: 0 HOURS ROOF CONSTRUCTION: 0 HOURS FLOOR CONSTRUCTION: 0 HOURS STRUCTURAL FRAME: 0 HOURS C. COMPONENT FIRE RATING ASSEMBLIES: 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ST R U C T U R A L CO M P O N E N T OR A S S E M B L Y DE S C R I P T I O N RE Q U I R E D FI R E R A T I N G MI N I M U M S I Z E O R TH I C K N E S S R E Q ' D . PROVIDED CONCRETE COVER TO REINFORCING UL A S S E M B L Y NU M B E R RE S T R A I N E D / UN R E S T R A I N E D REMARKS CO N C R E T E TY P E PR E S T R E S S E D ST E E L RE I N F O R C I N G MI L D ST E E L RE I N F O R C I N G AC T U A L S I Z E O R TH I C K N E S S PR O V I D E D SCHEDULE OF FIRE PROTECTION PROVISIONS FLOOR SLAB 2-HOUR N.W.4-1/2" 4-1/2"NA NA D916 RESTRAINED 1-3 HOURS NA NA NA NANANA 1-3 HOURS NA NA NA RESTRAINEDD916NANA STRUCTURAL FRAME STEEL BEAMS, GIRDERS, SPANDRELS X701, X751 X752STEEL COLUMNS STRUCTURAL FRAME SPRAY APPLIED FIRE RESISTIVE MATERIALS (SEE NOTE BELOW) SPRAY APPLIED FIRE RESISTIVE MATERIALS (SEE NOTE BELOW) NORMAL-WEIGHT CONCRETE ON COMPOSITE STEEL DECK G. DESCRIPTION OF LATERAL LOAD-RESISTING SYSTEM: a. THE LATERAL LOAD-RESISTING ELEMENTS THAT PROVIDE LATERAL STRENGTH AND STABILITY OF THE COMPLETED STRUCTURE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. WOOD FRAMED SHEAR WALLS b. THE DIAPHRAGM ELEMENTS WITHIN THE LATERAL LOAD-RESISTING SYSTEM ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. FLOOR CONCRETE SLABS ON STEEL DECK, INCLUDING THE CONNECTIONS OF THE STEEL DECK AND CONCRETE SLAB TO THE LATERAL LOAD-RESISTING ELEMENTS. 2. ROOF WOOD SHEATHING, INCLUDING THE CONNECTIONS OF THE WOOD SHEATHING TO THE LATERAL LOAD-RESISTING ELEMENTS. 3. DRAG STRUTS OF WOOD FRAMING OR STEEL REINFORCING AND ASSOCIATE CONNECTIONS. 4. HORIZONTAL WOOD DIAPHRAGM BRACING AND ASSOCIATED CONNECTIONS. c. SEE DETAILS FOR SPECIAL ERECTION CONSIDERATIONS AND LATERAL LOAD-RESISTING SYSTEM COMPONENTS NOT LISTED HERE. d. TEMPORARY BRACING: DURING BUILDING ERECTION, THE ERECTOR SHALL DETERMINE, FURNISH AND INSTALL ALL TEMPORARY SUPPORTS AND BRACING NECESSARY FOR LATERAL STABILITY OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE UNTIL THE LATERAL LOAD-RESISTING ELEMENTS AND DIAPHRAGMS ARE IN PLACE AND ALL CONNECTIONS ARE COMPLETE. 6. DESIGN LOAD CRITERIA: A. DEAD LOADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. FLOOR LIVE LOADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. ROOF LIVE LOADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. RISK CATEGORY (IBC 1604.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. SNOW LOADS: GROUND SNOW LOAD, Pg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FLAT ROOF SNOW LOAD, Pf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SNOW EXPOSURE FACTOR, Ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SNOW LOAD IMPORTANCE FACTOR, IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THERMAL FACTOR, Ct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. SEISMIC LOADS: SEISMIC IMPORTANCE FACTOR, IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SITE CLASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SD1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN SEISMIC FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM (S) . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN BASE SHEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT, CS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR, R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS PROCEDURE USED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. WIND LOADS: ULTIMATE DESIGN WIND SPEED (3-SECOND GUST), Vult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOMINAL DESIGN WIND SPEED (3-SECOND GUST), Vasd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WIND EXPOSURE CATEGORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMPONENTS AND CLADDING WIND PRESSURES: a. PRESSURE AND SUCTION VALUES: 02 - FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION 5000 PSF 63 PSF 41 PSF 375 PSF 200 PSF AS SHOWN ON PLANS AS SHOWN ON PLANS SEE SNOW AND WIND LOADS BELOW (20 PSF MINIMUM) II - STANDARD OCCUPANCY 70 PSF 50 PSF 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.213 0.063 C 0.170 0.072 B WOOD LIGHT FRAMED WALLS SHEATHED w/WOOD SHEATHING ORDINARY REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS 9.0 KIPS 0.035 4.0 EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE ANALYSIS (ASCE-7 12.8) 175 MPH 138 MPH C ± 0.18 (ENCLOSED) LOCATION/ DESCRIPTION ZONE WIND SUCTION WIND PRESSURE 28.5 PSF ROOF AT EDGES ROOF NOT AT EDGES/CORNERS 2 ROOF AT CORNERS 3 WALLS NOT AT CORNERS 4 WALLS AT CORNERS 51 b. CANOPIES AND OVERHANGS: REFER TO ASCE 7 FOR DESIGN PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE COMPONENT AND CLADDING WIND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. I. SPECIAL LOAD REQUIREMENTS ARE DESCRIBED IN PLAN NOTES OR SPECIFIC LOCATIONS ON THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS. NOTES: 1. VALUES GIVEN ABOVE ARE FOR EFFECTIVE WIND AREAS OF 10 SQUARE FEET OR LESS. VALUES MAY BE REDUCED FOR AREAS GREATER THAN 10 SQUARE FEET IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES GIVEN IN ASCE 7 "MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES". 2. VALUES GIVEN ABOVE WERE DETERMINED AT A MEAN ROOF HEIGHT OF 18.8 FT. WIND PRESSURE VALUES MAY BE REDUCED FOR COMPONENTS AT LOWER ELEVATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES GIVEN IN ASCE 7 "MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES". 3. PRESSURE INDICATES LOAD ACTING TOWARDS SURFACES. SUCTION INDICATES LOAD ACTING AWAY FROM SURFACES. 4. REFER TO ASCE 7 "MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES", TABLE 30.7-2, FOR DEFINITION OF ZONES. 5. THE VALUES ABOVE DO NOT APPLY TO CHIMNEYS, TANKS, ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, SIGNS OR OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES. 6. CLADDING AND COMPONENTS SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR MAXIMUM PRESSURE AND SUCTION ACTING INDEPENDENTLY. 1. FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA: A. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA WAS TAKEN FROM RECOMMENDATIONS SET FORTH IN GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NO. 1192076 BY EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC, DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2019. a. ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING PRESSURES USED FOR DESIGN: ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING PRESSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION RESISTING SLIDING EQUALS 0.50. D. MINIMUM FROST DEPTH IS THREE FEET. BOTTOM OF FOOTINGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FROST DEPTH BELOW GRADE. a. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE FOR ON-SITE SOIL MATERIAL (DOES NOT INCLUDE HYDROSTATIC OR SURCHARGE LOADS): AT-REST CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACTIVE CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PASSIVE CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. FOOTINGS: A. SPREAD FOOTINGS SHALL BEAR ON UNDISTURBED SOIL OR COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL GOOD FOR A SAFE BEARING PRESSURE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING PRESSURE GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 1 ABOVE. B. AREAS OF LOOSE OR SOFT SOIL MATERIAL ENCOUNTERED AT THE BOTTOM OF FOOTING EXCAVATION SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE FOOTING EXTENDED TO MATERIAL WITH ADEQUATE BEARING CAPACITY, OR, THE REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE REPLACED WITH NON-EXPANSIVE STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. REFER TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS FOR DESCRIPTION OF ACCEPTABLE STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL. C. MINIMUM ISOLATED FOOTING DIMENSION IS 3'-0. MINIMUM CONTINUOUS FOOTING WIDTH IS 2'-0. MINIMUM FOOTING THICKNESS (ISOLATED OR CONTINUOUS) IS 1'-0. D. EARTH CUTS SHALL NOT BE USED AS FORMWORK FOR FOOTINGS. 3. BUILDING PAD PREPARATION: A. ALL EARTHWORK AND SITE PREPARATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. ALL EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL OPERATIONS SHALL BE OBSERVED AND APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. B. UNSUITABLE SOILS ENCOUNTERED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SPECIFIED EXCAVATION SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTED PER PARAGRAPH B ABOVE. C. DO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW THE BOTTOM OF EXISTING FOOTINGS. EXCAVATIONS ADJACENT TO EXISTING FOOTINGS SHALL BE OBSERVED AND APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. D. ROUGH GRADE TOP OF SUBGRADE TO +0",-1.5" TOLERANCE FROM SPECIFIED ELEVATION. 4. SLAB-ON-GRADE AND FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS A. PROVIDE A GRANULAR SUB-BASE MATERIAL BELOW SLABS-ON-GRADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. FINE GRADE TOP OF SUB-GRADE TO +0",-3/4" FROM SPECIFIED ELEVATION. B. VAPOR BARRIER: PROVIDE A VAPOR BARRIER ON TOP OF SUB-BASE AND DIRECTLY BELOW THE SLAB-ON-GRADE AT FLOORS SCHEDULED TO BE FINISHED WITH WATER-SENSITIVE FINISHES. REFER TO THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE VAPOR BARRIER MATERIAL. C. ISOLATION JOINTS: PROVIDE 3/8"WIDE ISOLATION JOINT AT THE EDGES OF ALL SLABS-ON-GRADE ABUTTING VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION (COLUMNS, WALLS, GRADE BEAMS, ETC.) D. SLIP JOINTS: PROVIDE SLIP JOINTS AT THE TOP OF ALL PARTITION WALLS SUPPORTED BY THE SLAB-ON-GRADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. E. PERIMETER DRAIN: PROVIDE A PERIMETER DRAIN AROUND THE BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. FOUNDATION WALLS HAVE NOT BEEN DESIGNED TO RESIST HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE. F1 F0 W1 W0 C1 C0 S0 S0 NW NW 4,000FOUNDATIONS (WALLS, PILASTERS) FOOTINGS DESCRIPTION OF CONCRETE USE CONCRETE TYPE F0 W0 C1 DESCRIPTION OF CONCRETE USE AND / OR EXPOSURE FREEZE-THAW (ACI 318, 19.3.1) PERMEABILITY (ACI 318, 19.3.1) CHLORIDES (ACI 318, 19.3.1) SULFATES (ACI 318, 19.3.1) EXTERIOR EXPOSURE (FLOORS, ROOFS) 28-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSI) NW 3,500INTERIOR SLABS-ON-GRADE NW 3,500NORMAL WEIGHT TOPPING ON METAL DECK NOTES: 1. NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE (NW): 145 PCF, STONE AGGREGATE. 2. LIGHT-WEIGHT CONCRETE (LW): 110 PCF, LIGHT-WEIGHT COARSE AGGREGATE. FOUNDATIONS (FOOTINGS, WALLS) INTERIOR EXPOSURE (ALL CONCRETE) EXTERIOR EXPOSURE (VERTICAL CONCRETE ONLY) F2 W1 C1 S0 NOTES: 1. REFER TO ACI 318, CHAPTER 19 DEFINITION OF EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATIONS. 2. CONCRETE USED IN POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE IN ANY EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO A CHLORIDE ION CONTENT OF 0.06% OR LESS (ACI 318, 19.3.2). 4,000 1. CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE: A. ALL CONCRETE WORK INCLUDING FABRICATION AND PLACEMENT OF REINFORCING SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS GIVEN IN ACI 318 AND ACI 301 (REFERENCED EDITIONS) EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BY THE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. B. CONCRETE MIXES SHALL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS GIVEN IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. C. CONCRETE STRENGTH: CONCRETE MIXES USED ON THE PROJECT SHALL ATTAIN 28-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS AS FOLLOWS: S0 03 - CONCRETE D. DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS: CONCRETE MIXES USED ON THE PROJECT SHALL BE PROPORTIONED TO SATISFY THE FOLLOWING DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS: E. ALL CONCRETE IN CONTACT WITH ON-SITE SOILS SHALL CONTAIN TYPE I/II CEMENT. F. ALL REINFORCING STEEL IN CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 60,000 PSI AND SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A615 OR ASTM A706. REINFORCING SHOWN AS GRADE 75 SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 75,000 PSI AND MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF ASTM A615. G. CONCRETE REINFORCING USED IN WELDED APPLICATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A706 WITH A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 60,000 PSI. H. MECHANICAL REINFORCING COUPLERS SHALL BE ZAP SCREWLOCK MANUFACTURED BY BARSPLICE PRODUCTS, INC. (ICC REPORT ER-5461) OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. COUPLERS SHALL BE ZINC COATED WHERE USED IN PARKING STRUCTURES AND STRUCTURES CONTAINING LIQUIDS. COUPLERS SHALL BE CAPABLE OF DEVELOPING 125% OF THE SPECIFIED YIELD STRENGTH OF THE REINFORCING. I. WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHALL BE SUPPLIED IN SHEETS ONLY AND SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A185. J. STEEL PLATES EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A36 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS OR DETAILS. HEADED ANCHOR STUDS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A108, 60,000 PSI MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH. REINFORCING BARS WELDED TO PLATES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A706, GRADE 60. K. REINFORCING DETAILING: a. ALL REINFORCING SHALL BE DETAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 318 AND ACI 315 "DETAILS AND DETAILING OF CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT". b. CONCRETE COVER: UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR IN DETAILS, PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING CONCRETE COVER TO REINFORCING: i. AT ENDS WALLS AND GRADE BEAMS, TERMINATE TOP REINFORCING WITH STANDARD HOOKS UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE ON PLANS OR DETAILS. k. REINFORCING AROUND OPENINGS IN WALLS: UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLAN OR IN DETAILS, PROVIDE 2-#5 BARS (ONE BAR EACH FACE) AT EACH SIDE OF OPENING (CIRCULAR OPENINGS SHALL BE CONSIDERED SQUARE WITH EQUIVALENT OPENING WIDTH EQUAL TO DIAMETER OF CIRCULAR OPENING). EXTEND #5 BARS PAST EDGES OF OPENING A DISTANCE OF 24". EXCEPTIONS: RECTANGULAR OPENINGS WITH THE LARGEST OPENING DIMENSION LESS THAN 8" AND CIRCULAR OPENINGS LESS THAN 8" IN DIAMETER DO NOT NEED ADDITIONAL REINFORCING AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. MULTIPLE OPENINGS SHALL BE SPACED A MINIMUM OF 32" (CLEAR) APART TO QUALIFY FOR THIS EXCEPTION. WHERE UNIFORMLY SPACED WALL OR SLAB REINFORCING IS INTERRUPTED BY THE OPENING, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REINFORCING AT EACH EDGE EQUAL TO HALF THE AREA OF INTERRUPTED REINFORCING. SIZE OF ADDITIONAL BARS AT EACH EDGE SHALL MATCH THE SIZE OF INTERRUPTED REINFORCING. SPACE THE ADDITIONAL BARS AT 3" ON CENTER STARTING 1" FROM THE SIDE OF THE OPENING AND EXTEND THE BARS PAST THE EDGES OF THE OPENING THE LENGTH OF A CLASS 'B' SPLICE. L. WELDING OF REINFORCING IS NOT ALLOWED UNLESS DETAILED OR AUTHORIZED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. M. PLACING OF REINFORCING: a. PROVIDE ALL ACCESSORIES NECESSARY TO SUPPORT REINFORCING AT POSITIONS SHOWN ON PLANS AND TO MAINTAIN REQUIRED CONCRETE COVER. b. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BARS AND SUPPORTS AS NECESSARY TO SECURE REINFORCING IN PLACE DURING CONCRETE PLACEMENT. c. ALL STIRRUPS SHALL HAVE A #3 SPACER BAR AT ALL CORNERS OVER LENGTH OF STIRRUP SPACING WHERE NO OTHER LONGITUDINAL REINFORCING BAR IS PRESENT. d. WET-STABBING OF REINFORCING OR EMBEDS INTO PREVIOUSLY PLACED CONCRETE IS NOT ALLOWED. N. CONTROL JOINTS IN CONCRETE: a. PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS IN CONCRETE WALLS AT A MAXIMUM SPACING OF 30'-0 ON CENTER. SEAL CONTROL JOINTS EXPOSED TO EARTH OR WEATHER WITH JOINT SEALANT. b. PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS IN SLABS-ON-GRADE AT A MAXIMUM SPACING OF 12'-0 ON CENTER UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLAN OR IN DETAILS. COORDINATE JOINT LOCATIONS WITH FLOOR FINISHES AND LOCATE JOINTS AT COLUMN CENTERLINES, AT ENDS AND CORNERS OF WALLS, RE-ENTRANT CORNERS AND LOCATIONS PRONE TO CRACKING WHERE POSSIBLE. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A PLAN LOCATING CONTROL JOINTS TO ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. O. CONSTRUCTION JOINTS: a. LOCATE CONSTRUCTION JOINTS AT CONTROL JOINT LOCATIONS WHERE POSSIBLE. MAINTAIN REQUIRED CONCRETE COVER. b. SLABS, BEAMS, AND JOISTS SHALL NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTION JOINTS IN A HORIZONTAL PLANE. ANY STOP IN CONCRETE WORK MUST BE MADE AT THIRD POINT OF SPAN WITH VERTICAL BULKHEADS AND HORIZONTAL KEYS, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. ALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE AS DETAILED OR APPROVED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. c. FOR CONCRETE POURED ON METAL DECK, LOCATE CONSTRUCTION JOINTS FIVE FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF PARALLEL STEEL BEAMS OR GIRDERS, OR, HALFWAY BETWEEN ADJACENT BEAMS, WHICH EVER IS LESS. d. ALL REINFORCING SHALL BE CONTINUOUS THROUGH CONSTRUCTION JOINTS, OR, PROVIDE DOWEL BAR SPLICERS CAPABLE OF DEVELOPING THE STRENGTH OF THE REINFORCING. LAP SPLICE DOWEL BAR EXTENSION AND DOWEL BAR SPLICER TO REINFORCING USING CLASS 'B' LAP SPLICES. P. CONCRETE TOLERANCES: TOLERANCES SHALL CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS GIVEN IN ACI 117 AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: a. ALIGNMENT OF WALLS AND COLUMNS: 1. FOR HEIGHTS 100 FEET OR LESS ADJACENT TO STONE OR BRICK VENEER. +0.50" OR -0.50" FROM THEORETICAL PLAN LOCATION. 2. ALIGNMENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADJACENT STORIES SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.50". b. ALIGNMENT OF WALLS SUPPORTING STRUCTURAL STEEL: 1. FOR HEIGHTS 100 FEET OR LESS: ± 0.75" FROM THEORETICAL PLAN LOCATION. c. LATERAL ALIGNMENT 1. EDGES OF SLABS AND BEAMS SUPPORTING STRUCTURAL STEEL OR PRECAST FRAMING: + 0.75, -1.00" d. LEVEL ALIGNMENT: 1. ELEVATION OF TOP OF SLABS POURED ON METAL DECK. • AT COLUMNS, WALLS AND OTHER VERTICAL SUPPORTS: +0.75", -0.75" FROM SPECIFIED ELEVATION. • OVER FLOOR FRAMING: SET SCREEDS AND ADJUST AS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIED UNIFORM SLAB THICKNESS OVER BEAMS, ALLOWING FOR BEAM CAMBER AND DEFLECTION. ADDITIONAL SLAB THICKNESS BETWEEN BEAMS DUE TO DEFLECTION OF METAL DECK IS ACCEPTABLE. Q. CONCRETE PLACEMENT: a. CONSOLIDATE ALL CONCRETE DURING PLACEMENT AND THOROUGHLY WORK AROUND REINFORCING AND EMBEDDED ITEMS AND INTO CORNERS OF FORMS FOLLOWING ACI RECOMMENDATIONS. R.WHEN CONCRETE PLACEMENT IS INTERRUPTED, NOTIFY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR RECOMMENDATIONS. UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE, PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION JOINT BY ROUGHENING THE CONCRETE SURFACE TO AN AMPLITUDE OF 1/4". COAT THE JOINT SURFACE WITH SPECIFIED BONDING AGENT PRIOR TO POURING THE CONCRETE. CONCRETE COVER REINFORCEMENT LOCATION COVER (IN) CONCRETE CAST AGAINST EARTH & PERMINENTLY EXPOSED TO EARTH CONCRETE EXPOSED TO EARTH OR WEATHER: - NO. 6 THROUGH NO. 18 BARS - NO. 5 BAR, W31 OR D31 WIRE AND SMALLER 3 CONCRETE WALLS NOT EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR IN CONTACT WITH GROUND: - NO. 14 AND NO. 18 BARS - NO. 11 BAR AND SMALLER 2 1 1/2 1 1/2 3/4 c. SPLICES OF REINFORCING BARS ARE PERMITTED ONLY AS DETAILED OR AUTHORIZED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. LAP SPLICES, WHERE PERMITTED, SHALL BE CLASS 'B' LAP SPLICES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. d. REINFORCING WALLS NOTED AS CONTINUOUS SHALL BE LAP SPLICED WITH CLASS 'B' LAP SPLICES AS FOLLOWS: 1. TOP REINFORCING BARS - AT MIDSPAN 2. BOTTOM REINFORCING BARS - OVER SUPPORTS e. SPLICE WIRE FABRIC REINFORCING BY LAP SPLICING ONE FULL MESH PLUS 2" AT SIDE AND END LAPS, BUT NOT LESS THAN 6" . LAP SPLICES SHALL BE WIRE TIED. f. MAKE ALL REINFORCING BARS CONTINUOUS AROUND CORNERS OR PROVIDE CORNER BARS OF EQUAL SIZE AND SPACING. SEE DETAILS FOR REINFORCING AT WALL INTERSECTIONS AND CORNERS. SPLICE CORNER BARS WITH CLASS 'B' LAP SPLICES UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. g. AT LOCATIONS WHERE ALL REINFORCING WITHIN A STRUCTURAL ELEMENT WILL BE SPLICED, THE SPLICES MUST BE STAGGERED UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE IN DETAILS OR SCHEDULES. OTHERWISE, STAGGER ADJACENT SPLICES WHERE POSSIBLE. h. REINFORCING BAR DEVELOPMENT AND LAP SPLICE LENGTHS: REFER TO DEVELOPMENT LENGTH AND LAP SPLICE SCHEDULE SHOWN BELOW FOR MINIMUM SPLICE AND DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS TO BE USED FOR DETAILING. DEVELOPMENT AND SPLICE LENGTHS (IN.) CONCRETE COVER = 0.75 IN. BAR SIZE CONCRETE STRENGTH = 3500 PSI CONCRETE STRENGTH = 4000 PSI CLASS 'A'/ DEVELOPMENT LENGTH CLASS 'B'CLASS 'A'/ DEVELOPMENT LENGTH CLASS 'B' TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER No. 3 12 12 16 16 12 12 16 16 No. 4 20 15 26 20 18 14 24 18 No. 5 29 22 38 29 27 21 35 27 No. 6 40 30 51 40 37 28 48 37 No. 7 64 49 83 64 60 46 78 60 No. 8 79 61 103 79 74 57 96 74 No. 9 96 74 124 96 90 69 116 90 No. 10 115 89 150 115 108 83 140 108 No. 11 135 104 176 135 126 97 164 126 No. 14 178 137 231 178 166 128 216 166 Bar Size CONCRETE STRENGTH = 5000 PSI CONCRETE STRENGTH = 6000 PSI TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER No. 3 12 12 16 16 12 12 16 16 No. 4 17 13 22 17 15 12 20 16 No. 5 24 19 32 24 22 17 29 22 No. 6 33 25 43 33 30 23 39 30 No. 7 53 41 69 53 49 37 63 49 No. 8 66 51 86 66 60 46 79 60 No. 9 80 62 104 80 73 56 95 73 No. 10 96 74 125 96 88 68 114 88 No. 11 113 87 147 113 103 79 134 103 No. 14 149 114 193 149 136 104 176 136 CONCRETE COVER = 1.50 IN. BAR SIZE CONCRETE STRENGTH = 3500 PSI CONCRETE STRENGTH = 4000 PSI TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER No. 3 12 12 16 16 12 12 16 16 No. 4 16 12 21 16 15 12 19 16 No. 5 20 15 26 20 18 14 24 18 No. 6 24 18 31 24 22 17 29 22 No. 7 39 30 51 39 37 28 48 37 No. 8 49 38 64 49 46 36 60 46 No. 9 61 47 79 61 57 44 74 57 No. 10 75 57 97 75 70 54 91 70 No. 11 89 69 116 89 83 64 108 83 No. 14 121 93 157 121 113 87 147 113 Bar Size CONCRETE STRENGTH = 5000 PSI CONCRETE STRENGTH = 6000 PSI TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER TOP BAR OTHER No. 3 12 12 16 16 12 12 16 16 No. 4 13 12 17 16 12 12 16 16 No. 5 17 13 22 17 15 12 20 16 No. 6 20 15 26 20 18 14 24 18 No. 7 33 25 42 33 30 23 39 30 No. 8 41 32 54 41 38 29 49 38 No. 9 51 39 66 51 47 36 61 47 No. 10 63 48 81 63 57 44 74 57 No. 11 75 57 97 75 68 52 89 68 No. 14 101 78 131 101 92 71 120 92 NOTES: 1. LENGTHS SHOWN ARE SPLICE/DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS IN INCHES FOR UNCOATED BARS IN NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE PER ACI 318-14. REINFORCE BAR YIELD STRENGTH, FY = 60KSI. 2. FOR LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE, DIVIDE LENGTH BY FACTOR PER ACI 318-14 TBL 25.4.2.4. 3. FOR EPOXY COATED BARS, MULTIPLY LENGTH BY FACTOR PER ACI 318-14 TBL 25.4.2.4. 4. IN THE CALCULATION OF CB, CONCRETE COVER IS ASSUMED TO CONTROL. IF THE BAR CENTER-TO- CENTER SPACING IS LESS THAN 1.0*DB + 2*COVER, LENGTHS NEED TO BE CALCULATED SEPARATELY PER ACI 318-14 §25.4.2. 5. TOP BARS ARE ANY HORIZONTAL BAR WITH MORE THAN 12" OF FRESH CONCRETE PLACED BELOW IT. 6. FOR GRADE 75 AND GRADE 80 REINFORCING BARS, MULTIPLY LENGTH BY 1.25 AND 1.33, RESPECTIVELY. 7. VALUES IN TABLE ARE VALID FOR SINGLE BARS AND BUNDLES OF TWO. FOR BUNDLES OF THREE OR MORE, BARS ARE TO BE PLACED AND DEVELOPED PER ACI 318-14 §25.6. 8. MECHANICAL COUPLERS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR TENSION LAP SPLICED BARS PROVIDED THAT THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ACI 318-14 §25.5.7. CLASS 'A'/ DEVELOPMENT LENGTH CLASS 'B'CLASS 'A'/ DEVELOPMENT LENGTH CLASS 'B' CLASS 'A'/ DEVELOPMENT LENGTH CLASS 'B'CLASS 'A'/ DEVELOPMENT LENGTH CLASS 'B' CLASS 'A'/ DEVELOPMENT LENGTH CLASS 'B'CLASS 'A'/ DEVELOPMENT LENGTH CLASS 'B' HOOKED BAR DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS (IN.) BAR SIZE CONCRETE STRENGTH (PSI) 3500 4000 5000 6000 No. 3 8 7 6 6 No. 4 10 9 8 8 No. 5 13 12 11 10 No. 6 15 14 13 12 No. 7 18 17 15 14 No. 8 20 19 17 15 No. 9 23 21 19 17 No. 10 26 24 22 20 No. 11 29 27 24 22 No. 14 34 32 29 26 NOTES: 1. LENGTHS SHOWN ARE HOOKED BAR DEVOLPMENT LENGTHS (Ldh) IN INCHES FOR UNCOATED BARS IN NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE PER ACI 318-14.REINFORCE BAR YIELD STRENGTH, FY = 60KSI. 2. HOOKS SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE BACK SIDE OF THE HOOK IS AT THE FAR SIDE OF THE JOINT OR CONCRETE SECTION WHILE MAINTAINING MINIMUM CONCRETE COVERS. 3. FOR LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE, DIVIDE LENGTH BY FACTOR PER ACI 318-14 TBL 25.4.3.2.. 4. FOR EPOXY COATED BARS, MULTIPLY LENGTH BY FACTOR PER ACI 318-14 TBL 25.4.3.2. 28.5 PSF 28.5 PSF 64.2 PSF 64.2 PSF 70.2 PSF 117.7 PSF 177.2 PSF 70.2 PSF 85.6 PSF NW 4.000EXTERIOR WALLS 1. CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS A. ALL CONCRETE MASONRY WORK INCLUDING FABRICATION AND PLACEMENT OF REINFORCING SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS GIVEN IN ACI 530 AND ACI 530.1 (REFERENCED EDITIONS) EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BY THE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. B. MASONRY BLOCK UNITS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C90 (LIGHTWEIGHT BLOCK). C. MORTAR USED IN MASONRY CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C270 AS FOLLOWS: a. EXTERIOR WALLS AND INTERIOR BEARING WALLS: TYPE S b. FOUNDATION WALLS AND WALLS EXPOSED TO EARTH: TYPE M c. INTERIOR, NON-BEARING WALLS: TYPE O (OR TYPE S) D. GROUT USED IN MASONRY CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C476 AND SHALL DEVELOP 3,000 PSI (MINIMUM) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN 28-DAYS WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH C1019. E. MASONRY SHALL DEVELOP 1,500 PSI (MINIMUM) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (f'm) IN 28 DAYS WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. F. ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 60,000 PSI AND SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A615 OR ASTM A706. G. REINFORCING USED IN WELDED APPLICATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A706 WITH A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 60,000 PSI. H. HORIZONTAL JOINT REINFORCING SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A951 (LADDER-TYPE) WITH CROSS WIRES AT 16" ON CENTER. SIDE RODS SHALL BE #9 SIZE AND SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A82. I. STEEL PLATES EMBEDDED IN GROUTED MASONRY SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A36 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS OR DETAILS. HEADED ANCHOR STUDS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A108, 60,000 PSI MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH. REINFORCING BARS WELDED TO PLATES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A706, GRADE 60. J. REINFORCING DETAILING: a. ALL REINFORCING SHALL BE DETAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 530 AND ACI 530.1. b. VERTICAL REINFORCING SHALL EXTEND THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE WALL AND SHALL BE GROUTED IN PLACE. c. CONTINUOUS REINFORCING MAY BE SPLICED AS REQUIRED USING BARS OF LONGEST PRACTICAL LENGTH. HORIZONTAL REINFORCING SHALL BE CONTINUOUS AROUND WALL CORNERS AND INTERSECTIONS. d. WHERE REQUIRED, REINFORCING SPLICES SHALL BE SHOWN ON REINFORCING SHOP DRAWINGS AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE: 04 - MASONRY MASONRY LAP SPLICE SCHEDULE BAR CENTERED IN CELL 6" BLOCKBAR SIZE 8" BLOCK 10" AND 12" BLOCK ALL BLOCK SIZES BAR AT EDGE OF CELL 32 24 48 40 56 NOTES: 1. VALUES APPLY ONLY FOR MASONRY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (f'm) OF 1,500 PSI. 2. LAP LENGTHS IN TABLE ABOVE ARE GIVEN IN INCHES. 3. VALUES ONLY APPLY WHEN A SINGLE BAR IS WITHIN CELL. 4. PROVIDE MECHANICAL SPLICES FOR #8 BARS AND LARGER. 7 6 4 5 3 e. VERTICAL REINFORCING SHALL BE DOWELED INTO FOUNDATION OR SLAB SUPPORTING MASONRY. PROVIDE DOWELS OF ADEQUATE LENGTH FOR DEVELOPMENT LENGTH INTO FOUNDATION AND LAP SPLICE PROJECTION ABOVE. FOR MASONRY SUPPORTED ON SLABS, PROVIDE DOWELS EMBEDDED INTO SLAB WITH STANDARD HOOKS. DOWEL SIZE AND SPACING SHALL MATCH VERTICAL REINFORCING. K. MINIMUM WALL REINFORCING: a. REINFORCE MASONRY WALLS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. WHERE NOT SHOWN, REINFORCE WALLS (INCLUDING PARTITION WALLS) WITH #5 VERTICAL BARS AT 48" ON CENTER MAXIMUM SPACING. b. PROVIDE 1-#5 BAR AT ALL CORNERS, ENDS OF WALLS, EACH SIDE OF OPENINGS AND EACH SIDE OF CONTROL JOINTS. c. PROVIDE HORIZONTAL JOINT LADDER-TYPE REINFORCING AT 16" ON CENTER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS. PROVIDE PREFABRICATED JOINT REINFORCING ASSEMBLIES FOR CORNERS AND INTERSECTIONS. LAP SPLICE JOINT REINFORCING 8" KEEPING CELL OPENING CLEAR OF CROSS WIRES. d. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HORIZONTAL JOINT REINFORCING IN BED JOINT ONE MASONRY COURSE ABOVE OPENINGS. EXTEND JOINT REINFORCING A MINIMUM OF 2'-6" PAST EDGE OF OPENINGS. e. PROVIDE BOND BEAMS IN MASONRY WALLS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. WHERE NOT SHOWN, PROVIDE BOND BEAMS WITH 2-#5 BARS AS FOLLOWS: 1. AT TOP COURSE OF PARAPETS, 2. IN ONE OF THE UPPER THREE COURSES OF ALL WALLS, 3. UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE IN LINTEL SCHEDULE, OVER THE TOP OF ALL OPENINGS GREATER THAN 24" WIDE, EXTENDING 2'-6" PAST EDGE OF OPENING. L. OPENINGS IN WALLS: a. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR LOCATIONS OF OPENINGS THROUGH MASONRY WALLS. PROVIDE LOOSE LINTEL OR BOND BEAM OVER TOP OF OPENINGS GREATER THAN 24" WIDE. M. REINFORCING PLACEMENT: a. ALL REINFORCING SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM GROUT COVER OF ONE BAR DIAMETER. b. BARS CENTERED IN CELLS SHALL BE HELD SECURELY IN PLACE. BARS NOTED AS "EACH FACE" SHALL BE SECURED IN PLACE AT 4'-0" ON CENTER (VERTICAL) USING PREFABRICATED REBAR POSITIONERS. N. CONTROL JOINTS: a. UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE ON STRUCTURAL OR ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS AT A MAXIMUM SPACING OF 30'-0" ON CENTER IN EXTERIOR WALLS AND 40'-0 ON CENTER IN INTERIOR WALLS. O. GROUTING: a. FILL ALL BLOCK CELLS CONTAINING REINFORCING WITH GROUT. b. FILL ALL VOIDS AND CELLS WITH GROUT FOR A DISTANCE OF 24" BELOW AND 16" EACH SIDE OF ALL BEAM AND LINTEL REACTIONS OR OTHER CONCENTRATED LOADS UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. c. FILL ALL VOIDS AND CELLS OF MASONRY BLOCK SUPPORTING SLABS OR STEEL DECK FOR A DISTANCE OF 8" BELOW BEARING ELEVATION. d. UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE IN DETAILS, GROUT CELLS CONTAINING ANCHORS OR EMBEDMENTS PLUS ADJACENT CELLS BELOW, ABOVE AND EACH SIDE. e. FILL ALL CELLS BELOW GRADE WITH GROUT. f. FILL ALL CELLS ABOVE ROOF LEVEL WITH GROUT AT PARAPETS. g. WHERE A CHANGE IN WALL THICKNESS OCCURS, GROUT THE TOP COURSE OF THE THICKER WALL. h. GROUT BEAM AND JOIST POCKETS WHERE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN FIRE RATING OF WALL. P. SLIP JOINTS: PROVIDE SLIP JOINTS AT THE TOP OF ALL NON-LOAD BEARING WALLS. UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS, BRACE TOP OF WALLS TO STRUCTURE ABOVE USING L4x4x1/4" BY 12" LONG EACH SIDE OF WALL AT 8'-0" ON CENTER. ATTACH ANGLES DIRECTLY TO FRAMING ABOVE, OR USE L3x3x1/4" ANGLE FRAMING AS HANGERS AND KICKERS AS REQUIRED TO SUSPEND L4x4x1/4" FROM FRAMING ABOVE. Q. MAINTAIN SUPPORT OF MASONRY LINTELS FOR A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS OR UNTIL MASONRY HAS REACHED STRENGTH SUFFICIENT TO SAFELY SUPPORT IMPOSED LOADS. R. MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RUNNING BOND UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. 2. ANCHORED VENEER: A. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS OR PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS, ANCHOR BRICK OR STONE VENEER TO BACKING AS DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. B. ANCHORS: VENEER ANCHORS SHALL BE ADJUSTABLE, TWO-PIECE ANCHORS WITH A MINIMUM W1.7 WIRE SIZE. SUBMIT ANCHOR INFORMATION TO ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. C. ANCHOR SPACING: LOCATE ANCHORS AT THE FOLLOWING MAXIMUM SPACING: a. UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS, LOCATE ANCHORS AT 24" ON CENTER VERTICAL AND 16" ON CENTER HORIZONTAL MAXIMUM SPACING. b. FOR SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORIES D, E AND F: LOCATE ANCHORS AT 16" ON CENTER VERTICALLY AND 16" ON CENTER HORIZONTALLY MAXIMUM SPACING. c. REFER TO SECTION 01-GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, PARAGRAPH 6.F IN THE GENERAL NOTES FOR SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY. D. BACKING SUPPORT OF VENEER: COLD-FORMED FRAMING USED AS BACKING FOR ANCHORED VENEER SHALL BE 18 GAGE MINIMUM, GALVANIZED, SPACED AT 16" ON CENTER. SCREWS USED TO FASTEN ANCHORS TO STUDS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SHANK DIAMETER OF 0.190". E. RELIEF ANGLE SUPPORTS: UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS, STEEL RELIEF ANGLES SHALL BE GALVANIZED AND HAVE A MINIMUM LEG THICKNESS OF 3/8". PROVIDE A MINIMUM CLEAR GAP OF 3/8" BETWEEN BOTTOM OF ANGLE AND TOP OF VENEER BELOW. 32 24 48 40 56 32 24 48 40 56 32 24 48 40 56 4. POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS INTO CONCRETE: A. PROVIDE POST-INSTALLED, CONCRETE ANCHORS AS SHOWN IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. B. ANCHORS SUPPORTING FIRE-RESISTANCE RATED FRAMING (FIRE-PROOFED STRUCTURAL FRAMING), SHALL BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING AS INDICATED ON PLANS AND DETAILS: a. HILTI HDA UNDERCUT OR KWIK BOLT TZ ANCHORS b. SIMPSON TORQ-CUT OR STRONG-BOLT 2 ANCHORS c. POWERS ATOMIC+ UNDERCUT OR POWER-STUD+ SD1 d. RED HEAD TRUBOLT+ WEDGE ANCHOR BY ITW ANCHOR INSTALLATION SHALL BE INSPECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL INSPECTIONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 2, SECTION 01-GENERAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE GENERAL NOTES AND SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH CEMENTITIOUS SPRAY-APPLIED FIRE PROOFING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. C. ANCHORS SUPPORTING NON-FIREPROOFED STRUCTURAL FRAMING SHALL BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING AS INDICATED ON PLANS AND DETAILS: a. HILTI HDA UNDERCUT OR KWIK BOLT TZ ANCHORS b. SIMPSON TORQ-CUT OR STRONG-BOLT 2 ANCHORS c. POWERS ATOMIC+ UNDERCUT OR POWER-STUD+ SD1 d. RED HEAD TRUBOLT+ WEDGE ANCHOR BY ITW ANCHOR ISTALLATION SHALL BE INSPECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL INSPECTIONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 2, SECTION 01-GENERAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE GENERAL NOTES. D. ANCHORS SUPPORTING MISCELLANEOUS FRAMING SHALL BE AS SHOWN IN THE PLANS AND DETAILS. IF NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, THE ANCHORS SHALL BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: a. HILTI KWIK BOLT TZ b. SIMPSON STRONG-BOLT 2 c. POWERS POWER-STUD+ SD1 d. RED HEAD TRUBOLT+ WEDGE ANCHOR BY ITW E. ANCHORS SUPPORTING ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENTS, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING AS INDICATED ON PLANS AND DETAILS: a. HILTI HDI b. SIMPSON DROP-IN c. POWERS STEEL DROP-IN d. RED HEAD MULTI-SET II DROP IN. F. ANCHORS ATTACHING LIGHT-GAGE STEEL FRAMING TO CONCRETE SHALL BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING AS INDICATED ON PLANS AND DETAILS: a. HILTI LOW-VELOCITY X-U UNIVERSAL POWDER DRIVEN TRACK FASTENERS b. SIMPSON PDPA POWDER DRIVEN FASTENERS c. POWERS POWDER ACTUATED FASTENERS d. RAMSET TRUE EMBEDMENT (TE) POWER DRIVEN FASTENER G. PRIOR TO ANCHOR INSTALLATION, LOCATE EXISTING REINFORCING WITHIN CONCRETE SUBSTRATE. DO NOT DAMAGE EXISTING REINFORCING DURING INSTALLATION. CONTACT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IF ANCHOR LOCATION CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING REINFORCING. H. PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION: THE CONTRACTOR MAY SUBMIT ALTERNATE ANCHORS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROVIDED THE ACCOMPANYING PRODUCT DATA IS SATISFACTORY TO THE ENGINEER FOR COMPARISION TO THE SPECIFIED ANCHORS. 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 3/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 5 : 1 7 P M S-001 STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 3/26/2020 159 06 - WOOD 1.GENERAL: A. FOUNDATION PLATES OR SILLS SHALL BE BOLTED TO THE FOUNDATION WITH NOT LESS THAN 5/8” DIA. “L” BOLTS EMBEDDED AT LEAST 7” INTO THE CONCRETE AND SPACED NOT MORE THAN 4’-0” O.C. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TWO BOLTS PER WALL SEGMENT LOCATED WITHIN 12” OF EACH END OF THE WALL. BOLTS SHALL BE ASTM F1554 GRADE 36. B. ALL WOOD IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE OR MASONRY SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED. C. ALL WOOD, INCLUDING WOOD SHEATHING, LESS THAN 8” FROM EXPOSED EARTH SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED. D. ALL LAG BOLTS SHALL HAVE LEAD HOLES DRILLED THE SAME DIAMETER FOR THE SHANK AND 50% OF THE SHANK DIAMETER FOR THE THREADED PORTION. LUBRICATE THREADS BEFORE INSTALLATION. E. DOUBLE TOP PLATES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM LAP LENGTH OF 4’-0” FASTEN WITH 2 ROWS OF 16d NAILS AT 6” O.C. UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE. F. PROVIDE DOUBLE JOISTS UNDER ALL PARTITIONS RUNNING PARALLEL TO JOISTS AND SOLID BLOCKING BETWEEN JOISTS UNDER ALL PARTITIONS RUNNING PERPENDICULAR TO JOISTS. G. ALL POSTS, MULTIPLE STUDS, AND COLUMNS AT UPPER LEVELS SHALL HAVE MATCHING AND ALIGNED POSTS, MULTIPLE STUDS, AND COLUMNS AT EACH LEVEL OF FRAMING BELOW, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. TIGHT FITTING, SOLID BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN LEVELS UNDER ALL SUCH POSTS, MULTIPLE STUDS AND COLUMNS. H. ALL POSTS, MULTIPLE STUDS, AND COLUMNS SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. I. FRAMING SHALL NOT BE NOTCHED, CORED, OR OTHERWISE CUT OR REDUCED IN SIZE UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DETAILED OR APPROVED. J. NAILING REQUIREMENTS NOT SPECIFIED ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FASTENING SCHEDULE, TABLE 2304.9.1 IN THE IBC. K. 2” MINIMUM CLEARANCE FROM FRAMING MATERIALS TO MASONRY AT ALL TRUE MASONRY FLUES. L. FASTENERS IN PRESSURE TREATED & FIRE RETARDENT-TREATED WOOD SHALL BE HOT DIPPED ZINC-COATED GALVANIZED OR STAINLESS STELL PER IBC 2304.9.5. 2. DIMENSIONAL LUMBER: A. ALL STRUCTURAL FRAMING LUMBER SHALL BE VISUALLY-GRADED, DOUGLAS FIR – LARCH SPECIES MARKED BY A LUMBER GRADING OR INSPECTION AGENCY THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY AN ACCREDITATION BODY THAT COMPLIES WITH DOC PS 20 OR EQUIVALENT. B. ALL SAWN LUMBER SHALL BE STAMPED WITH THE GRADE MARK AS SPECIFIED BELOW. Fb, PSI Fv, PSI E, PSI Fc, PSI DESIGN BASIS ALL LUMBER U.N.O………..900……………180………1,600,000……..…1,350 DF - L NO. 2 AS INDICATED ……………1000……………180………1,700,000……..…1,500 DF - L NO. 1 3. STRUCTURAL COMPOSITE LUMBER: A. STRUCTURAL CAPACITIES AND DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR PREFABRICATED STRUCTURAL COMPOSITE LUMBER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AND MONITORED IN ACCORANCE WITH ASTM D 5456 B. ALL ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE PRODUCTS OF ‘TRUSJOIST A WEYERHAUSER PRODUCT’ AND ARE DESIGNATED BY THE MANUFACTURERS STANDARD PRODUCT NUMBERS. C. THE INTENT OF THE DESIGN IS FOR THESE ITEMS TO BE ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE SURROUNDING STRUCTURE TO BEHAVE AS A SYSTEM. WHETHER SHOWN OR NOT, PROVIDE ACCESSORY ITEMS (BLOCKS, CLIPS, STIFFENERS, STRAPS, ETC.) DESIGNED BY THE MANUFACTURER TO ENSURE A COMPLETE SYSTEM. D. STRUCTURAL COMPOSITE LUMBER FROM OTHER MANUFACTURERS MAY BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL. APPROVAL WILL ONLY BE GIVEN IF IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE STRNEGTH AND STIFFNESS OF THE MEMBER IS EQUAL TO, OR GREATER THAN, THE SPECIFIED PRODUCT, OR MEETS THE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA NOTED IN THE DRAWINGS. E. ALL ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS SHALL HAVE DESIGN VALUES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: TRADE NAME ABBREVIATION GRADE CODE EVALUATIONS MICROLAM LVL 2.0E ICC ES ESR-1387 TIMBERSTRAND LSL 1.55E ICC ES ESR-1387 TIMBERSTRAND RIM SL RIM 1.3E ICC ES ESR-1387 PARALLAM PSL 2.2E ICC ES ESR-1387 4. WOOD STRUCTURAL PANELS: A. WHEN USED STRUCTURALLY, PANELS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR TYPE IN DOC PS1 OR PS2. EACH PANEL OR MEMBER SHALL BE IDENTIFIED FOR GRADE AND GLUE TYPE BY THE TRADEMARKS OF AN APPROVED TESTING AND GRADING AGENCY. B. SHEATING FOR ROOFS, WALLS, AND FLOORS SHALL BE SPAN-RATED EXPOSURE 1 PANELS UNLESS EXTERIOR PANELS ARE REQUIRED FOR LONG-TERM EXPOSURE TO WEATHER OR MOISTURE. C. STAGGER ALL WOOD PANEL JOINTS. APPLY SHEETS WITH FACE GRAIN PERPENDICULAR TO JOISTS AND RAFTERS. D. FLOOR SHEATHING SHALL BE TONGUE AND GROVE, GLUED AND NAILED TO JOISTS. E. REFER TO SHEARWALL SCHEDULE AND PLAN NOTES FOR THICKNESS AND NAILING OF SHEATHING AT SHEAR WALLS, FLOORS, AND ROOFS. F. USE RINK SHANK NAILS FOR ATTACHMENT OF FLOORS AND ROOF SHEATHING. 5. JOIST HANGERS AND CONNECTORS: A. JOIST HANGER CAPACITIES SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1761. B. HANGERS AND CONNECTORS CALLED FOR ON THE DRAWINGS ARE AS MANUFACTURED BY THE SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY. CONNECTORS BY OTHER MANUFACTURERS MAY BE USED IF THE LOAD CAPACITY IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE CONNECTOR SPECIFIED. USE MANUFACTURER'S FURNISHED NAILS, SCREWS, AND BOLTS. C. JOIST HANGERS AND CONNECTORS SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH A COATING OR MATERIAL AS RECOMMENDED BY SIMPSON STRONG-TIE FOR THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE HANGER OR CONNECTOR WILL BE USED. THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CURRENT SIMPSON CATALOG. D. ALL "GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE INSTALLER" AS FOUND IN THE CURRENT SIMPSON CATALOG MUST BE FOLLOWED. 6. FASTENINGS: A. NAILING OF ALL FRAMING AND SHEATHING SHALL BE PER TABLE 2304.9.1 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. B. NAILS AND STAPLES SHALL CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F 1667. C. BOLTS, LAG SCREWS, AND WOOD SCREWS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI- ASME STANDARD B18.6.1. D. NAILS, STAPLES, AND WOOD SCREWS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM AVERAGE BENDING YIELD STRENGTHS AS FOLLOWS: 80 KSI FOR SHANKS DIAMETERS LARGER THAN 0.177" BUT NOT LARGER THAN 0.254"; 90 KSI FOR SHANK DIAMETERS LARGER THAN 0.142" BUT NOT LARGER THAN 0.177"; 100 KSI FOR SHANK DIAMETERS OF 0.142" OR LESS. E. BOLTS HALL BE ASTM A36 STEEL AND HAVE A MINIMUM BENDING YIELD STRENGTH OF 45 KSI. F. LAG SCREWS AND BOLTS SHALL BE FULL BODY DIAMETER. REDUCED BODY DIAMETER LAG SCREWS AND BOLTS ARE NOT ALLOWED. G. WOOD SCREWS SHALL HAVE AN UNTHREADED SHANK. TAPPING SCREWS WITH THREADS THE FULL LENGTH OF THE SHANK ARE NOT ALLOWED. H. PROVIDE LEAD HOLES FOR LAG SCREWS, WOOD SCREWS, AND DRIFT PINS PER SECTION 11 OF THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE NATIONAL DESIGN SPECIFICATION FOR WOOD CONSTRUCTION (NDS). I. BOLT HOLES IN WOOD SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1/32" TO A MAXIMUM OF 1/16" LARGER THAN THE BOLT DIAMETER. J. A METAL PLATE, METAL STRAP, OR WASHER SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN ALL NUTS AND HEADS OF ALL BOLTS AND LAG SCREWS. 14 - CONVEYING EQUIPMENT 1. ELEVATORS: A. THE ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM FLOOR, ELEVATOR HOISTWAYS, ELEVATOR PITS, FLOOR AND WALL BLOCKOUTS WERE DESIGNED USING INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM DRAWINGS, SKETCHES AND DESIGN DATA SUPPLIED BY THYSSENKRUPP DATED JANUARY 07, 2020 THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ELEVATOR CONSULTANT AND MANUFACTURER. B. DOCUMENTATION: REACTIONS FROM ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ON MACHINE ROOM FLOOR, ELEVATOR PITS AND SUPPORT BEAMS WERE PROVIDED BY OTHERS AND ARE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. C. DIVIDER BEAMS: PROVIDE DIVIDER BEAMS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DIVIDER BEAMS AS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT GUIDE RAILS BETWEEN FLOORS IF VERTICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN DIVIDER BEAMS SHOWN EXCEEDS MAXIMUM DISTANCE ALLOWED. D. HOIST BEAMS: IF HOIST BEAMS ARE REQUIRED BY THE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER AND ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS, PROVIDE HOIST BEAMS AT TOP OF ELEVATOR SHAFTS AND CONNECT TO ADJACENT STRUCTURAL FRAMING. SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF HOIST BEAM FRAMING FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO BEAM INSTALLATION. E. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY PURCHASED ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT AGAINST THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EQUIPMENT LOCATION, SIZE, LOADS, OPENINGS, HOISTWAY AND PIT REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS. REPORT DIFFERENCES TO THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. F. REDESIGN: IF A REVIEW OF THE ELEVATOR SUBMITTAL REVEALS REDESIGN OF THE MACHINE ROOM FLOOR, HOISTWAY, PIT OR SUPPORT BEAMS IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR THE REDESIGN EFFORT. G. MODIFICATIONS: NO MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM FLOOR, HOISTWAY, PIT OR SUPPORT BEAMS TO ACCOMMODATE PURCHASED EQUIPMENT WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER. H. LIMITATIONS: ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS IS LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 1. ELEVATOR PITS INCLUDING SUMP PIT AND ELEVATOR DIVIDER BEAMS 2. MACHINE ROOM CONSTRUCTION: FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION, MACHINE BEAMS AND HOIST BEAMS. 3. ELEVATOR SHAFT CONSTRUCTION: SHAFT OPENINGS IN FLOOR AND ROOF LEVELS INCLUDING EDGE FRAMING, GUIDE RAIL SUPPORT FRAMING AT FLOORS AND BETWEEN FLOORS WHERE FLOOR TO FLOOR DISTANCES EXCEED 14'-0" AND SUPPORT OF ELEVATOR HOIST MACHINERY LOCATED IN SHAFTS. 4. ALL OTHER EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES REQUIRED FOR ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER. 22, 23, 26 - MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL TRADES 1. PRECEDENCE: A. STRUCTURAL FRAMING COMPONENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STEEL FRAMING, CONCRETE FRAMING, REINFORCING, POST-TENSIONING CABLES AND EMBEDMENTS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL (MEP) ITEMS. STRUCTURAL FRAMING COMPONENTS SHALL NOT BE MOVED, ADJUSTED OR OTHERWISE MODIFIED FROM THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO ACCOMMODATE OTHER DISCIPLINES WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. 2. COORDINATION: A. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY PURCHASED EQUIPMENT AND REQUIRED OPENINGS THROUGH FLOORS, ROOF AND WALLS ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DESIGN INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. B. DIFFERENCES OR CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. C. PENETRATIONS: THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT COORDINATED AND DIMENSIONED DRAWINGS SHOWING ALL MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS THROUGH CONCRETE FLOOR AND ROOF SLABS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AT LEAST THREE WEEKS PRIOR TO STARTING THE WORK. 3. EQUIPMENT: A. THE FLOOR AND ROOF FRAMING IS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHOWN ON PLANS. DIFFERENCES IN ACTUAL EQUIPMENT LOCATION, SIZE OR WEIGHT MAY REQUIRE REDESIGN OF THE FRAMING AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR. B. PROVIDE 4" HIGH CONCRETE PADS UNDER FLOOR MOUNTED MEP EQUIPMENT. REINFORCE PADS WITH #4 BARS AT 12" O.C. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. C. PROVIDE CONCRETE PADS UNDER ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT ONLY AS SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. 4. SLEEVES AND CORE DRILLING: (CONCRETE ON METAL DECK) A. SLEEVES AND CORE DRILLING THROUGH CONCRETE SLABS ON METAL DECK ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS: a. PENETRATIONS SHALL NOT EXCEED 6" IN DIAMETER b. EDGE OF PENETRATION SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 2" CLEAR FROM EDGE OF BEAM FLANGE. c. MULTIPLE PENETRATIONS SHALL BE SPACED A MINIMUM OF 1 CORE DIAMETER APART USING THE LARGER PENETRATION DIAMETER. d. LOCATE SLAB REINFORCING PRIOR TO MAKING PENETRATION AND ADJUST PENETRATION LOCATION TO AVOID REINFORCING. IF PENETRATION LOCATION CANNOT BE ADJUSTED, OBTAIN ENGINEER'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO MAKING PENETRATION. e. A MAXIMUM OF THREE PENETRATIONS WITH MINIMUM SPACING MAY BE GROUPED WITHOUT ENGINEER'S APPROVAL. NO MORE THAN FOUR PENETRATIONS ARE ALLOWED BETWEEN ADJACENT FLOOR BEAMS UNLESS APPROVED BY ENGINEER. 5. ELECTRICAL CONDUIT: (CONCRETE ON METAL DECK) A. ELECTRICAL CONDUIT IS ALLOWED IN CONCRETE SLABS ON METAL DECK SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS: a. CONDUIT O.D. SHALL NOT EXCEED 1". MINIMUM CLEAR DISTANCE BETWEEN CONDUITS IS 2". b. NO MORE THAN THREE CONDUITS MAY BE BUNDLED IN ONE GROUP. BUNDLED CONDUITS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 12" CLEAR BETWEEN GROUPS. c. CONDUIT MAY NOT CROSS WITHIN FLOOR SLAB THICKNESS. d. CONDUIT SHALL REST DIRECTLY ON METAL DECK AND WILL BE SECURELY FASTENED DOWN. 6. SUPPORT OF EQUIPMENT: A. SUPPORT OF MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL ITEMS SUSPENDED FROM CONCRETE FLOOR AND ROOF SLABS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR INCLUDING DETERMINING THE NUMBER AND POSITION OF FASTENERS. THE FOLLOWING FASTENERS ARE APPROVED FOR USE IN CONCRETE: a. POWDER ACTUATED FASTENERS: HILTI UNIVERSAL KNURLED SHANK FASTENER (X-U) WITH 1-1/4" EMBEDMENT. IN POST-TENSIONED DECKS, USE 3/4" MAXIMUM EMBEDMENT. b. DRILLED ANCHORS: HILTI DROP-IN CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHOR (X-GN) WITH 1-1/2" EMBEDMENT. IN POST-TENSIONED DECKS, USE POWERS 3/8" MINI DROP-IN ANCHOR WITH EMBEDMENT NO MORE THAN 3/4". c. EMBEDDED ANCHORS: USE HILTI HCI-WF OR HIS-MD AS APPROPRIATE OR UNISTRUT P3300 SERIES CONCRETE INSERT. d. DO NOT SUSPEND LOADS GREATER THAN 1,000 LBS. FROM CONCRETE DECK. PROVIDE SUPPORT FRAMING BETWEEN MAIN STRUCTURAL FRAMING. e. THE CONTRACTOR MAY SUBMIT MANUFACTURER'S DATA FOR ALTERNATE FASTENERS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 7. PRE-POUR OBSERVATION: A. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR REVIEW OF MEP ITEMS EMBEDDED IN FLOOR AND ROOF SLABS PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE. NOTIFICATION SHALL OCCUR AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO POUR. 8. OBSERVATION BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER DOES NOT RELIEVE CONTRACTOR FROM MEETING REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. 30 - INSTRUCTIONS AND COORDINATION 1. COORDINATION: A. ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. B. CONFLICTS WITHIN THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS OR BETWEEN THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS, GENERAL NOTES AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR RESOLUTION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH MODIFICATIONS OR ADJUSTMENT. C. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO COORDINATE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASED WITH INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EQUIPMENT LOCATION, SIZE, WEIGHT, OPENINGS AND SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS. REPORT DIFFERENCES TO THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. D. EXISTING CONDITIONS: THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN PREPARED USING AVAILABLE INFORMATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS. NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS AGAINST INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENT OR OTHER SOURCES. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPARE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TO THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DIFFERENCES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 2. SUBSTITUTIONS: A. SUBSTITUTIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE ARCHITECT AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROPER INFORMATION NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE SUBSTITUTION AND COMPENSATION FROM THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT THE EVALUATION PROCESS. 3. QUALITY CONTROL: A. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A LOG OF DISCREPANCIES NOTED BY THE INDEPENDENT TESTING AGENCY FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. EACH ITEM IN THE LOG SHALL BE REFERENCED BY AN ITEM NUMBER WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE DISCREPANCY, THE DATE THE DISCREPANCY WAS NOTED, A DESCRIPTION OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN AND THE DATE OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION. B. A LETTER OF ENGINEER'S STATEMENT USED TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CANNOT BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL ITEMS NOTED IN THE DISCREPANCY LOG ARE ADDRESSED TO THE ENGINEER'S SATISFACTION. C. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETINGS: THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT THE FOLLOWING PRECONSTRUCTION MEETINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS: a. DRILLED PIER INSTALLATION b. CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION c. POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION d. SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION e. LOAD-BEARING, PRECAST CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION f. LOAD-BEARING CONCRETE MASONRY CONSTRUCTION g. PRIOR TO DETAILING OF STRUCTURAL STEEL 4. STRUCTURAL STEEL ERECTION EACH MEETING SHALL BE ATTENDED BY THE ARCHITECT AND/OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THE INDEPENDENT TESTING AGENCY AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AFFECTED SUBCONTRACTORS. EXPLANATION OF SECTION DIAGRAM USED (PLAN SHEET) EXPLANATION OF SECTION DIAGRAM USED (DETAIL SHEET) SECTION IDENTIFICATION STRUCTURAL SHEET WHERE SECTION IS DRAWN SECTION IDENTIFICATION STRUCTURAL SHEET WHERE SECTION IS DRAWN STRUCTURAL SHEET WHERE SECTION IS FIRST CUT ABBREVIATIONS A.B. @ ADDN'L ANCH. APPROX. ARCH. AVG BLDG. BLK. BM. BOD BOT. OR B. BRG. BTWN. BW CANT. C-C CEIL. OR CLG. C.I.P. C.J. CL OR CLR C.M.U. CL CLR. COL. CONC. CONN. CONSTR. CONT. CONTR. CTR. OR CNTR. CTR'D. DBL. DEPR DET OR DTL DIA. DIAG. DIM. DN. DP DWG. DWL. EA. E.F. E.J. E. OR ELECT'L EL. OR ELEV. ENGR EQ. ES EW E-W EXC EXIST. EXP. EXT. FAB FDN F.F. FIN. FLG. FLR. FS FT. FTG. GA. GALV. GC OR GEN CONTR GLU-LAM GR OR GRD H.A.S. HORIZ.-HOR. HT. I.D. I.F. IN INCL INFO INT JT. K LB OR # LG. -ANCHOR BOLT(S) -AT -ADDITIONAL -ANCHOR -APPROXIMATE -ARCHITECT OR ARCHITECTURAL DOCUMENTS -AVERAGE -BUILDING -BLOCK -BEAM -BOTTOM OF DECK -BEARING -BOTTOM -BETWEEN -BUTT WELD -CANTILEVER -CENTER TO CENTER -CEILING -CAST IN PLACE -CONTROL JOINT OR CONSTRUCTION JOINT -CLEAR -CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT -CENTER LINE -CLEAR -COLUMN -CONCRETE -CONNECTION -CONSTRUCTION -CONTINUE OR CONTINUOUS -CONTRACTOR -CENTER -CENTERED -DOUBLE -DEPRESSION -DETAIL -DIAMETER -DIAGONAL -DIMENSION -DOWN -DEEP OR DEPTH -DRAWING(S) -DOWEL -EACH -EACH FACE -EXPANSION JOINT -ELECTRICAL -ELEVATION -ENGINEER -EQUAL -EACH SIDE -EACH WAY -EAST-WEST -EXCAVATE -EXISTING -EXPANSION -EXTERIOR -FABRICATION -FOUNDATION -FAR FACE OR FINISHED FLOOR -FINISH -FLANGE -FLOOR -FAR SIDE -FOOT-FEET -FOOTING -GAGE OR GAUGE -GALVANIZED -GENERAL CONTRACTOR -GLUE LAMINATED -GRADE -HEADED ANCHOR STUD -HORIZONTAL -HEIGHT -INSIDE DIAMETER -INSIDE FACE -INCH -INCLUDE -INFORMATION -INTERIOR -JOINT -KIP = 1000 LBS. -POUND(S) -LONG L.L.H. L.L.V. LOC. LT.-LGT. LWC MACH MAS MATL. MAX. M.B. MECH. MEMB. MEZZ. MFR. OR MFRR. MID. MIN. MISC MTL NF NO. NS N-S N.T.S. O.C. OR O/C O.D. O.F. O.H. OPNG. OPP OPP HD P.C. OR P/C PCF PEN PL PERP. P.L. PLF PLYWD PP PRELIM PSI R. OR RAD. R RE: REINF. REQ'D. SCHED. SECT SHTHG SH OR SHT SIM. SLV SLH SOG SP OR SPCS SPCG SPEC. SQ. STD. STIFF. STL. STRUCT. SYMM. T. T AND B T AND G THK THK'ND TOC TOF TOPG TOS TR TYP. U.N.O. VERT. W/ W/O WD W.P. WT.-WGT. W.W.F. OR W.W.M. X-BRACE -LONG LEG HORIZONTAL -LONG LEG VERTICAL -LOCATION -LIGHT -LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE -MACHINE -MASONRY -MATERIAL -MAXIMUM -MACHINE BOLT -MECHANICAL -MEMBRANE -MEZZANINE -MANUFACTURER -MIDDLE -MINIMUM -MISCELLANEOUS -METAL -NEAR FACE -NUMBER -NEAR SIDE -NORTH-SOUTH -NOT TO SCALE -ON CENTER -OUTSIDE DIAMETER -OUTSIDE FACE -OVERHANG -OPENING -OPPOSITE -OPPOSITE HAND -PRECAST -POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT -PENETRATION -PLATE -PERPENDICULAR -PROPERTY LINE -POUNDS PER LINEAL FOOT -PLYWOOD -PANEL POINT OR PARTIAL PENETRATION -PRELIMINARY -POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH -RADIUS -RISER (STAIR) -REFERENCE -REINFORCED OR REINFORCING -REQUIRED -SCHEDULE -SECTION -SHEATHING -SHEET -SIMILAR -SLEEVE OR SHORT LEG VERTICAL -SHORT LEG HORIZONTAL -SLAB ON GRADE -SPACES -SPACING -SPECIFICATION -SQUARE -STANDARD -STIFFENER -STEEL -STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURAL -SYMMETRICAL -TOP OR TREAD (STAIR) -TOP AND BOTTOM -TONGUE AND GROOVE -THICK OR THICKNESS -THICKENED -TOP OF CONCRETE -TOP OF FOOTING -TOPPING -TOP OF STEEL, TOP OF SLAB -TRUSS -TYPICAL -UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE -VERTICAL -WITH -WITHOUT -WOOD -WORKING POINT -WEIGHT -WELDED WIRE FABRIC -CROSS BRACING 4.ENGINEERING DESIGN PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR: A.THE CONTRACTOR OR RESPONSIBLE SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE PROJECT JURISDICTION PERFORM ENGINEERING DESIGN OF THE FOLLOWING BUILDING COMPONENTS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOAD DETERMINATION, COMPONENT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN AND CONNECTION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN: a.PREFABRICATED STEEL STAIRS b.EXTERIOR WALL ENCLOSURES c.SUPPORT OF MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT THE ENGINEERING DESIGN SHALL CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF SUPPORTING THE BUILDING COMPONENTS FROM THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND INCLUDE ALL BRACING NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN STABILITY OF THE AFFECTED STRUCTURAL FRAMING. B.CORRECTIVE MEASURES DUE TO ERRORS OR DEFECTS IN CONSTRUCTION: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT PLANS, DETAILS AND CALCULATIONS FOR PROPOSED CORRECTIVE MEASURES FOR REVIEW BY ARCHITECT AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. WHEN REQUIRED, THE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS SHALL BE SEALED AND SIGNED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE PROJECT JURISDICTION. 5.INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRACTOR: A.TEMPORARY BRACING: DURING ERECTION OF THE BUILDING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN AND PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY BRACING TO WITHSTAND ALL LOADS TO WHICH THE STRUCTURE MAY BE SUBJECTED, INCLUDING LATERAL LOADS AND STOCKPILES OF MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT. BRACING SHALL BE LEFT IN PLACE AS LONG AS NECESSARY FOR SAFETY AND UNTIL ALL STRUCTURAL FRAMING AND FLOOR AND ROOF DIAPHRAGMS ARE IN PLACE WITH CONNECTIONS COMPLETED. B.STORAGE: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STOCKPILE MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT IN A MANNER THAT EXCEEDS THE LOAD CAPACITY OF THE STRUCTURE OR CAUSES DAMAGE OR EXCESSIVE DEFLECTION OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS. C.BACKFILL OF FOUNDATION WALLS: DO NOT PLACE BACKFILL AGAINST FOUNDATION WALLS UNTIL TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALLS ARE ADEQUATELY BRACED. ADEQUATE BRACING INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING: a.SLAB ON GRADE THAT HAS REACHED 75% OF ITS DESIGN STRENGTH INCLUDING COMPLETION OF DELAY OR POUR STRIPS. b.ELEVATED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE FLOOR CONSTRUCTION THAT HAS REACHED 75% OF ITS DESIGN STRENGTH INCLUDING COMPLETION OF DELAY OR POUR STRIPS c.ELEVATED PRECAST FLOOR CONSTRUCTION WHERE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PRECAST AND WALL ARE COMPLETED AND CONCRETE TOPPING IS IN PLACE AND HAS REACHED 75% OF ITS DESIGN STRENGTH. d.ELEVATED STRUCTURAL STEEL-FRAMED FLOOR CONSTRUCTION WHERE FRAMING CONNECTIONS TO THE WALL ARE COMPLETE AND CONCRETE TOPPING IS IN PLACE AND HAS REACHED 75% OF ITS DESIGN STRENGTH. 6.DRAWING NOMENCLATURE: EXPLANATION OF SECTION CUT CALL-OUT: MINIMUM DECK SECTION PROPERTIES DECK GAGE (YIELD STRESS) DECK TYPEUSE Ip (IN4/FT) 18 (50)0.559 0.558 0.5040.495COMPOSITE DECK 2 VLI MINIMUM NUMBER OF BOLTS PER CONNECTION NUMBER OF BOLTS FRAMING MEMBER SIZES 2 3 W14, W16, W18, S15, S18, C15, MC18 4 W21, W24, S20, S24 5 W27, W30 6 W33, W36 7 W40, W44 05 - STEEL 1. STRUCTURAL STEEL: A. REFERENCE STANDARDS: STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE DETAILED, FABRICATED AND ERECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AISC MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION AND THE AISC CODE OF STANDARD PRACTICE (REFERENCED EDITIONS) WITH EXCEPTIONS NOTED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. B. OSHA REQUIREMENTS: a. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL ADDITIONAL BOLTS, ANCHORS, STIFFENERS, STABILIZERS, BRIDGING, BRACING, OPENING CLOSURES, ETC. AS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT OSHA REGULATIONS. b. ALL RIGGING FOR SAFETY CABLES, LIFTING DEVICES, AND TEMPORARY BRACING SHALL BE CONNECTED TO ANGLES, PLATES OR OTHER MEMBERS DESIGNED AND DETAILED BY THE STEEL SUPPLIER AND SHALL BE SHOP WELDED TO STRUCTURAL MEMBERS. DO NOT PROVIDE HOLES IN STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR CONNECTION OF RIGGING CABLES, LIFTING DEVICES OR TEMPORARY BRACING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL OF ALL ADDED MEMBERS WHERE THEY INTERFERE WITH OTHER WORK OR ARE EXPOSED TO VIEW. C. MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS: STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING DESIGNATIONS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS OR IN THE SPECIFICATIONS: a. WIDE FLANGE SHAPES:ASTM 992, GRADE 50 b. ANGLES, CHANNELS AND PLATES:ASTM A36 OR ASTM A572, GRADE 50 c. ROUND HSS SECTIONS:ASTM A500, GRADE "B" (FY=42 KSI) d. RECTANGULAR HSS SECTIONS:ASTM A500, GRADE "B" (FY=46 KSI) e. STRUCTURAL PIPES:ASTM A53, GRADE "B" (FY=35 KSI) f. HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTS:ASTM A325 OR ASTM A490 g. ANCHOR BOLTS:ASTM F1554, GRADE 36 (WELDABLE) h. HIGH-STRENGTH ANCHOR BOLTS:ASTM F1554, GRADE 105 i. HEADED ANCHOR STUDS (H.A.S.):ASTM A108 AND AWS D1.1 j. DEFORMED BAR ANCHORS (D.B.A.):ASTM A496, GRADE 70 AND AWS D1.1 k. WELDING ELECTRODES:AWS D1.1 E70 SERIES l. GALVANIZED FINISH:ASTM A123 D. SHOP PRIMING OF STEEL: STRUCTURAL STEEL SCHEDULED TO BE SPRAYED WITH FIRE RESISTIVE MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE SHOP PRIMED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL OTHER STEEL SHALL BE PAINTED WITH FABRICATOR'S STANDARD, RUST-INHIBITING PRIMER. OMIT PRIMER ON SURFACES ENCLOSED IN CONCRETE, SURFACES TO BE WELDED, CONTACT SURFACES IN SLIP CRITICAL CONNECTIONS AND TOPS OF BEAMS IN COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION. E. CONNECTIONS: a. PROVIDE SIMPLE SHEAR BEAM CONNECTIONS AS SHOWN ON THE STEEL CONNECTION SHEET(S) ON THE DRAWINGS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. b. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL CONNECTIONS SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATE CONNECTIONS AND FOR CONNECTIONS NOT COMPLETELY DETAILED OR NOT INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. c. SELECT CONNECTIONS TO SUPPORT THE REACTIONS SHOWN ON PLANS AND DETAILS. REACTIONS ARE GIVEN AS SERVICE LOADS USING ASD LOAD COMBINATIONS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. WHERE REACTIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, PROVIDE CONNECTIONS TO SUPPORT A SERVICE LOAD OF 8.0 KIPS FOR ASD DESIGN OR A FACTORED LOAD OF 14.0 KIPS FOR LRFD DESIGN. d. BOLTED CONNECTIONS: 1. MINIMUM CONNECTION REQUIREMENT: USE 3/4" DIAMETER, ASTM A325 HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS. 2. FOR ALL HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTED CONNECTIONS, APPROPRIATE NUTS AND HARDENED WASHERS SHALL BE PROVIDED PER PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 3. ALL CONNECTIONS SHALL BE TYPE N (BEARING OR SNUG-TIGHTENED) CONNECTIONS UNLESS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS AS TYPE SC (SLIP CRITICAL) OR PRETENSIONED (WITH TENSION CONTROL BOLTS). 4. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TWO BOLTS FOR ALL CONNECTIONS EXCEPT AS NOTED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE: e. WELDED CONNECTIONS: 1. ALL WELDERS SHALL HAVE EVIDENCE OF PASSING THE AWS STANDARD QUALIFICATION TESTS. 2. WELD SIZES AND LENGTHS ARE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. WELD SIZES ARE THE NET EFFECTIVE SIZE REQUIRED. INCREASE WELD SIZE IF GAPS EXIST AT FAYING SURFACE. MINIMUM FILLET WELD SIZE IS 3/16". 3. WELDS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. 4. GROOVE WELDS SHALL BE FULL PENETRATION WELDS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. BACKING BARS AND RUNOFF TABS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER WELDING IS COMPLETE. f. HEADED ANCHOR STUDS: WELD STUDS TO PLATES AND EMBEDDED ITEMS IN FABRICATOR'S SHOP WHERE POSSIBLE. FOR COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION, FIELD WELD CONNECTORS THROUGH METAL DECK. PROVIDE WELDING WASHERS AT DECK GAGES LIGHTER THAN 22 GAGE. WELDS SHALL DEVELOP FULL STRENGTH OF CONNECTORS. WELDING FERRULES MUST BE REMOVED PRIOR TO INSPECTION AND PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE. g. ANCHOR BOLTS: PROVIDE ANCHOR BOLTS WITH HEX NUT TACK WELDED TO EMBEDDED END OF BOLT. F. GALVANIZING OF STEEL: a. ALL STEEL PERMANENTLY EXPOSED TO WEATHER INCLUDING STRUCTURAL SHAPES, PLATES AND FASTENERS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY HOT-DIP GALVANIZING OR PAINTED WITH A HIGH PERFORMANCE PAINT SYSTEM PER PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. b. GALVANIZING: 1. STRUCTURAL STEEL SHAPES AND PLATES SHALL BE GALVANIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A123 AND SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COATING THICKNESS OF 3.9 MILS. FASTENERS SHALL BE GALVANIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A153 AND SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COATING THICKNESS OF 1.7 MILS. FIELD WELDING AND OTHER DAMAGE TO GALVANIZING SHALL BE TOUCHED UP WITH ZINC RICH PAINT WITH A MINIMUM DRY FILM THICKNESS OF 4.0 MILS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A780. METAL DECK PERMANENTLY EXPOSED TO WEATHER SHALL BE PROTECTED BY A GALVANIZED FINISH (G90 THICKNESS, MINIMUM) IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A653. c. STEEL LINTELS SUPPORTING ANCHORED VENEER SHALL BE GALVANIZED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS OR IN SPECIFICATIONS. G. FIELD MODIFICATION OF STEEL: STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL NOT BE CUT IN FIELD OR MODIFIED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. SPLICING STEEL MEMBERS IS NOT PERMITTED EXCEPT WHERE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR WHERE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. WHERE APPROVED, SPLICES SHALL NOT OCCUR AT LOCATIONS OF MAXIMUM STRESS AND SHALL DEVELOP THE FULL CAPACITY OF THE MEMBER. SPLICE DETAILS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE WORK. 2. COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION: A. COMPOSITE BEAMS ARE DESIGNED FOR UNSHORED CONSTRUCTION. BEAMS SHALL BE FABRICATED WITH THE CAMBER INDICATED ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. BEAMS WITHOUT SPECIFIED CAMBER SHALL BE ERECTED WITH INCIDENTAL CAMBER ORIENTED UPWARDS. B. COMPOSITE DECK LAYOUT SHALL BE CONTINUOUS OVER THREE OR MORE SUPPORTS. PROVIDE DECK SHORING FOR OTHER LAYOUTS AS REQUIRED BY THE DECK MANUFACTURER. C. SET SCREEDS AND ADJUST AS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM UNIFORM CONCRETE THICKNESS OVER BEAMS AND GIRDERS, ALLOWING FOR CAMBER AND DEFLECTION. INCREASED SLAB THICKNESS BETWEEN BEAMS DUE TO DECK DEFLECTION IS ACCEPTABLE. MINIMUM UNIFORM SLAB THICKNESS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THICKNESS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE FIRE RATING SPECIFIED IN COMPONENT FIRE RATING ASSEMBLIES PARAGRAPH IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION GIVEN IN GENERAL NOTES. D. THE NUMBER OF SHEAR STUDS REQUIRED FOR EACH COMPOSITE BEAM IS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND IS BASED, IN PART, ON THE DECK TYPE(S) SPECIFIED IN THE STEEL DECK SECTION IN THESE GENERAL NOTES. ADDITIONAL SHEAR STUDS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR ALTERNATE DECK TYPES. 3. ARCHITECTURALLY EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL (AESS): A. STRUCTURAL STEEL NOTED AS AESS ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS CATEGORY 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. REFER TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS FOR DETAILING, FABRICATION AND ERECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR AESS. B. FABRICATION OF AESS SHALL HAVE WELDS GROUND SMOOTH, MILL MARKS REMOVED AND PIECE MARKS HIDDEN. SURFACE PREPARATION SHALL CONFORM TO SSPC SP-3 POWER TOOL CLEANING. C. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, FIELD WELDS EXPOSED TO VIEW SHALL BE MADE CONTINUOUS AND GROUND SMOOTH WITH BACKING BARS AND RUNOFF TABS REMOVED. 4. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL STEEL: A. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL STEEL IS DEFINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION AS STEEL ITEMS OTHER THAN THE MAIN SUPERSTRUCTURE FRAMING (COLUMNS, BEAMS, JOISTS, GIRDERS, TRUSSES AND LATERAL BRACING). B. THE STEEL SUPPLIER SHALL PROVIDE ALL MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL STEEL ITEMS NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE INTENT OF THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS WHETHER OR NOT THE ITEMS ARE SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. SUCH ITEMS MAY INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: EDGE ANGLES, CLOSURE PLATES AND DECK SUPPORT FRAMING. C. DECK OPENINGS: FLOOR AND ROOF OPENINGS ARE SHOWN ON ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, AND OTHER DISCIPLINE DRAWINGS. IF OPENINGS ARE NOT SHOWN, LOCATED OR DIMENSIONED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS, REFER TO DRAWINGS LISTED ABOVE FOR REQUIRED INFORMATION. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL OPENINGS THROUGH FLOOR AND ROOF DECK SHALL BE FRAMED USING MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMES OR REINFORCING AS FOLLOWS: a. DECK SUPPORTING CONCRETE: 1. FOR OPENINGS WITH THE LARGEST DIMENSION LESS THAN 24", PROVIDE 1-#5 BAR IN CONCRETE ABOVE DECK FLUTES ON EACH SIDE OF OPENING. EXTEND REINFORCING A MINIMUM OF 24" BEYOND EDGES OF OPENING OR PROVIDE A STANDARD HOOK. OPENINGS SHALL BE SPACED A MINIMUM OF 24" CLEAR. IF SPACING REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE MET, THE OPENINGS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ONE LARGE OPENING AND A STEEL FRAME AROUND OPENINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS DESCRIBED BELOW. 2. FOR ALL OTHER OPENINGS, PROVIDE A STEEL FRAME AROUND OPENING PER TYPICAL OPENING FRAME DETAIL PROVIDED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. b. ROOF DECK (NO CONCRETE TOPPING): 1. NO ADDITIONAL DECK SUPPORT FRAMING IS REQUIRED FOR OPENINGS WITH THE LARGEST DIMENSION LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 10". OPENINGS IN THIS CATEGORY MUST BE SPACED A MINIMUM OF 24" APART (CLEAR) WHEN OPENINGS ARE NOT ALIGNED PARALLEL TO DIRECTION OF FLUTES. IF SPACING REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE MET, THE OPENINGS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ONE LARGE OPENING AND A DECK SUPPORT FRAME SHALL BE PROVIDED AS DESCRIBED BELOW. 2. FOR ALL OTHER OPENINGS, PROVIDE A STEEL FRAME AROUND OPENINGS PER TYPICAL OPENING FRAME DETAIL PROVIDED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. a. STEEL DECK PROPERTIES LISTED IN TABLE ABOVE CONFORM TO DECK PRODUCED BY VULCRAFT. STEEL DECK FROM OTHER SUPPLIERS MAY BE SUPPLIED PROVIDED SECTION PROPERTIES ARE SIMILAR, LOAD CAPACITY IS EQUIVALENT, CONSTRUCTION SPANS ARE EQUAL OR GREATER, AND SUBSTITUTION IS APPROVED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. b. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SHEAR STUDS IF ALTERNATE DECK TYPE REQUIRES MORE STUDS THAN SPECIFIED FOR COMPOSITE BEAMS TO MEET LEVEL OF COMPOSITE ACTION ACHIEVED USING ORIGINAL DECK TYPE. D. INSTALLATION: a. DECKING SHALL BE 3-SPAN CONTINUOUS (FOUR SUPPORTS) AS A MINIMUM UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. b. DECK SHALL BEAR A MINIMUM OF 1-1/2" AT SUPPORTS. c. ROOF DECK ENDLAPS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 2" d. STEEL DECK SHALL BE FASTENED TO SUPPORTS PER INSTRUCTIONS ON THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS BUT NOT LESS THAN REQUIRED BY SDI. e. DECK SHALL NOT BE SHORED DURING PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE UNLESS APPROVED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. E. OPENINGS THROUGH STEEL DECK: SEE REQUIREMENTS GIVEN IN THE MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL STEEL SECTION IN THESE GENERAL NOTES. F. HANGERS SUPPORTING DUCTWORK OR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED FROM STEEL ROOF DECK. ATTACH HANGERS DIRECTLY TO MAIN ROOF FRAMING OR PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS STEEL FRAMING CONNECTED TO MAIN ROOF FRAMING. 1. STAIR DESIGN: A. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COMPLETE DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS FOR ALL STAIR CONSTRUCTION NOT SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. STAIR AND LANDING FRAMING SHALL BE DESIGNED AND DETAILED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE PROJECT JURISDICTION. REFER TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. B. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: a. STAIRWAY FRAMING, LANDINGS AND ALL SUPPORT FRAMING SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR DEAD LOADS, SEISMIC LOADS AND LIVE LOADS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REFERENCED BUILDING CODE. b. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR STAIRWAY WIDTHS AND CLEARANCES. MINIMUM HEADROOM CLEARANCES SHALL COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE REFERENCED BUILDING CODE. c. ALL REQUIRED EMBEDDED PLATES AND ANGLES SHALL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE STAIR DESIGN. d. THE STAIR MANUFACTURER SHALL PROVIDE ALL FRAMING, CONNECTIONS AND ACCESSORIES AS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT STAIRS FROM THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. CONNECTIONS TO PRIMARY FRAMING SHALL BE LOCATED AND DETAILED TO PROPERLY TRANSFER FORCES TO THE PRIMARY FRAMING WITHOUT CAUSING OVERLOAD OR DISTORTION OF THE SUPPORTING ELEMENTS. W8, W10, W12, S8, S10, S12, C8, C9, C10, C12, MC8, MC9, MC10, MC12, MC13 In (IN4/FT)Sp (IN3/FT) Sn (IN3/FT) a. PROVIDE STANDARD SIMPLE SHEAR BEAM CONNECTIONS AS SHOWN IN THE AISC STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL (REFERENCED EDITION) SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. 5.STEEL DECK: A.REFERENCE STANDARDS: STEEL DECK SHALL BE DESIGNED, FABRICATED AND ERECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS OF THE STEEL DECK INSTITUTE (SDI). B.ALL STEEL DECK AND DECK ACCESSORIES SHALL BE FABRICATED FROM SHEET STEEL CONFORMING TO ASTM A653 WITH G60 GALVANIZED FINISH. MINIMUM DECK YIELD STRESS SHALL CONFORM TO THE VALUES GIVEN IN THE TABLE OF MINIMUM DECK SECTION PROPERTIES. C.SPECIFIED STEEL DECK SHALL EXHIBIT THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM SECTION PROPERTIES: EDIT TABLE OR ADD/DELETE DECK TYPES TO FIT PROJECT REQUIREMENTS 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 3/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 5 : 2 2 P M S-002 STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 3/26/2020 160 1.Inspection of reinforcing steel. and placement. 2.Inspection of reinforcing steel welding in accordance with Table 1705.2.2, Item 2b. 3.Inspection of anchors cast in concrete prior to and during placement of concrete where allowable loads have been increased or where strength design is used. 5.Verifying use of required design mix. 6.At the time fresh concrete is sampled to fabricate specimens for strength tests, perform slump and air content tests, and determine the temperature of the concrete. 7.Inspection of concrete placement for proper application techniques. 8.Inspection for maintenance of specified curing temperature and techniques. 9.Inspect formwork for shape, location and dimensions of the concrete member being formed. TABLE 1705.6 REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION OF SOILS PERIODICALLY DURING TASK LISTED 1.Verify materials below shallow foundations are adequate to achieve the design bearing capacity. 2.Verify excavations are extended to proper depth and have reached proper material. 3.Perform classification and testing of compacted fill materials. 4.Verify use of proper materials, densities and lift thicknesses during placement and compaction of compacted fill. 5.Prior to placement of compacted fill, observe subgrade and verify that site has been prepared properly. 1705.5 Wood construction -Inspect prefabricated wood structural elements and assemblies in accordance with Section 1704.2.5. 1705.1.1 Special cases -Perform inspections required by the building official for special cases. CONTINUOUS DURING TASK LISTEDVERIFICATION AND INSPECTION TASK x- x- x- -x x- TABLE 1705.3 REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION OF CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION x- VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION CONTINUOUS PERIODIC REFERENCED STANDARD IBC REFERENCE ACI 318: 20, 25.2, 25.3, 26.5.1-26.5.3 1908.4 ---AWS D1.4 ACI 318: 26.5.4 x-ACI 318: CH. 19, 26.4.3, 26.4.4 -x x-- x-1908.9 -x -x 1908.10 ACI 318: 26.10.1 ACI 318: 26.4.7-26.4.9 ACI 318: 26.4.5 ASTM C 172 ASTM C 31 ACI 318: 5.6, 5.8 1908.6, 1908.7, 1908.8 1904.1, 1904.2, 1908.2,1908.3 CONTINUOUS PERIODICVERIFICATION AND INSPECTION TASK (with IBC reference, where applicable) 1704.2.5 Inspection of fabricators -Inspect structural load-bearing members and assemblies where fabrication is being performed at a fabricator's shop per the special inspection requirements of this schedule. 1704.2.5.1 Fabrication and implementation procedures -Verify fabricator's fabrication and quality control procedures. 1705.2.1 Steel construction -Provide inspections per Table of Minimum Requirements for Inspection of Structural Steel Buildings. 1705.2.3 Steel construction -Inspect welding of cold-formed steel framing members such as studs and joists per Table 1705.2.3. 1705.3 Concrete construction -Provide inspections per Table 1705.3. Post-installed anchors in concrete: 2.Verify hole diameter and depth, method of drilling using appropriate bit, and hole preparation as recommended by anchor manufacturer. 1705.4 Masonry construction -Provide inspection and verification of masonry construction as follows: 1705.5.1 High load diaphragms -Inspect high-load diaphragms as follows: 3.Verify nail or staple diameter and length, number of fastener lines and spacing between fasteners in each line and at edge margins. 1705.6 Soils -Provide inspections per Table 1705.6. 1705.14 Sprayed fire-resistant materials -Inspect sprayed fire-resistant materials as follows: 1.Inspect surface preparation for compliance with the approved fire- resistance design and the approved manufacturer's written instructions. 1705.15 Mastic and intumescent fire-resistant coatings -Inspect mastic and intumescent fire-resistant coatings in accordance with AWCI 12-B. -- -- -- -- - -- -- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x - x 4.Measure average thickness per ASTM E605 and Section 1705.14.4. 1.Verify anchor description including product name, diameter and length. 3.Verify installation locations including anchor distance to edge of concrete and anchor spacing. 1.Verify grade and thickness of sheathing. 2.Verify nominal size of framing members at adjoining panel edges. 2.Verify minimum ambient temperature before and after application. 3.Verify ventilation of area during and after application. 5.Verify density of material for conformance with the approved fire- resistant design and ASTM E605. 6.Test cohesive/adhesive bond strength per IBC Section 1705.14.6. SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR STANDARD BUILDINGS SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR STANDARD BUILDINGS x- 4.Inspection of anchors post-installed in hardened concrete x-ACI 318: 17.8.2 ACI 318: 17.8.2 VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION TASK (with IBC reference)CONTINUOUS PERIODIC 1705.12.1 Structural steel -Special inspection in accordance with Section 1705.12.1 and AISC 341. 1705.12.2 Structural wood -Inspect structural wood as follows: 1.Inspect field gluing operations of elements of the seismic-force- resisting system. x x x 1711.12.1 Reinforcing and prestressing steel -Test and verify reinforcing steel as follows: 2.For ASTM A 615 reinforcing steel that is to be welded, verify tests to determine weldability have been performed in accordance with Section 26.6.4 of ACI 318. 1705.13.1 Structural Steel -Test structural steel in accordance with the quality assurance plan requirements of AISC 341.- - - - 2.Where specified fastener spacing of the sheathing is 4 inches o.c. or less, inspect nailing, bolting, anchoring, and other fastening of components within the seismic-force-resisting system, including: a.wood shear walls b.wood diaphragms c.drag struts d.braces e.shear panels f.hold-downs ACI 318 1.9.2 Reinforced Concrete -Inspection of the placement of the reinforcement and concrete for special moment frames. SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR SEISMIC RESISTANCE x ACI 530-11 TABLE 1.19.1 LEVEL A QUALITY ASSURANCE MINIMUM TESTS None MINIMUM INSPECTION Verify compliance with the approved submittals 1.Structures with empirically designed masonry, glass unit masonry or masonry veneer designed in accordance with ACI 530-11, Chapters 5, 6 or 7 in Risk Category I, II or III shall be inspected and verified per Table 1.19.1 -- 2.Structures with masonry designed in accordance with chapters other than 5, 6 or 7 in ACI 530-11 in Risk Category I, II or III shall be inspected and verified per Table 1.19.2 -- 3.Structures with masonry designed in accordance with chapters other than 5, 6 or 7 in ACI 530-11 in Risk Category IV shall be inspected and verified per Table 1.19.3 REFERENCEINSPECTION REQUIREMENT Material identification procedures Review of material test reports and certifications Section 6.1 of Code of Standard Practice MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS AISC 360, N5.2 Quality Control (QC) Inspector Qualifications AISC 360, N4.1 Quality Assurance (QA) Inspector Qualifications AISC 360, N4.2 NDT Personnel Qualifications AISC 360, N4.3 Inspections performed in fabricator's shop: Shop welding inspections performed prior, during, and after welding Nondestructive testing of shop welded joints Shop bolting inspections performed prior, during, and after bolting Shop cut and finished surfaces Shop heating for straightening, cambering and curving Tolerances for shop fabrications AISC 360, N5.4 AISC 360, N5.5 AISC 360, N5.6 AISC 360, N2, M2 AISC 360, N2, M2.1 Section 6 of Code of Standard Practice Inspections performed in field: Field welding inspections performed prior, during, and after welding Nondestructive testing of field welded joints Field bolting inspections performed prior, during, and after bolting Placement and fastening of composite steel deck Installation of steel headed stud anchors Field cut surfaces Field heating for straightening Tolerances for field erection Inspection of erected steel for conformance to project documents AISC 360, N5.4 AISC 360, N5.5 AISC 360, N5.6 AISC 360, N6 AISC 360, N6 AISC 360, N2, M2.2 AISC 360, N2, M2.1 Section 7.13 of Code of Standard Practice AISC N.7 Submittal of inspection and testing reports AISC 360, N5.2 Submittal of certificate of compliance AISC 360, N7 - - - 1705.11.1 Structural wood -Inspect structural wood as follows: 1.Inspect field gluing operations of elements of the main windforce- resisting system. x x 2.Where specified fastener spacing of the sheathing is 4 inches o.c. or less, inspect nailing, bolting, anchoring, and other fastening of components within the main windforce-resisting system, including: a.wood shear walls b.wood diaphragms c.drag struts d.braces e.hold-downs - STANDARD BUILDING SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS (per IBC Section 1704.2): Provide inspections required in the Schedule of Special Inspections for Standard Buildings. STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS WIND RESISTANCE SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS (per IBC Section 1705.11): In addition to the inspections required in the Schedule of Special Inspections for Standard Buildings, provide special inspection and testing for wind resistance for the following systems: Special Inspection: 1. Conduct special inspection of the wind force-resisting systems in structures constructed of structural wood framing or cold-formed steel light-gage framing in the following areas: a. In wind Exposure Category B, where Vasd as determined in accordance with IBC Section 1609.3.1 is 120 mph or greater. b. In wind Exposure Category C or D where Vasd as determined in accordance with IBC Section 1609.3.1 is 110 mph or greater. 2. Conduct special inspection of roof and wall cladding in structures in the following areas: a. In wind Exposure Category B, where Vasd as determined in accordance with IBC Section 1609.3.1 is 120 mph or greater. b. In wind Exposure Category C or D where Vasd as determined in accordance with IBC Section 1609.3.1 is 110 mph or greater. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REQUIREMENTS: The contractor shall notify the structural observer 48 hours in advance of the required structural observations for scheduling purposes. Failure by the contractor to meet this requirement may require removal of any subsequent work for observation. Structural observations shall be performed at the following stages of construction: 1. Foundation construction: a. After placement of reinforcing and prior to placement of concrete for lateral element foundations. 2. Steel construction: a. After first tier has been erected and plumbed, and bolt tightening and joint welding is in progress. b. After first floor level of steel deck is in place, welded shear studs are in place and slab reinforcing placement is in progress. c. After roof level steel deck is in place. 3. Concrete construction: a. After placement of first level column and wall reinforcing and prior to closing of forms. b. For concrete moment frames, after or during placement of beam reinforcement and prior to closing of beam forms. c. After placement of first level of slab reinforcing and prior to placement of slab concrete. 4. Masonry construction: a. After placement of first lift of reinforcing and prior to first lift of grouting. 5. Wood construction: a. After installation of shear wall hold-downs and prior to installation of sheathing. b. After installation of shear wall sheathing. c. After completion of the first level of floor or roof sheathing. 6. Cold formed steel construction: a. After installation of shear wall hold-downs and prior to installation of sheathing. b. After installation of shear wall sheathing. c. After completion of first level of floor or roof sheathing. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WIND RESISTANCE (per IBC Section 1704.6.2): The owner shall employ a registered design professional to perform structural observations of structures where Vasd as determined in accordance with IBC Section 1609.3.1 exceed 110 mph and where one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The structure is classified as Risk Category III or IV in accordance with IBC Table 1604.5. 2. The height of the structure is greated than 75 feet above the base. 3. When so designated by the registered design professional responsible for the structural design. 4. When such observation is specifically required by the building official. This Statement of Special Inspections is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) Sections 1704 and 1705. Special Inspections and Structural Observations applicable to this project: • Special Inspections for Standard Buildings (per IBC 1704.2)REQUIRED • Special Inspections for Seismic Resistance (per IBC 1705.12)NOT REQUIRED • Special Inspections for Wind Resistance (per IBC 1705.11)REQUIRED • Structural Observations for Seismic Resistance (per IBC 1704.6.1)NOT REQUIRED • Structural Observations for Wind Resistance (per IBC 1704.6.2)REQUIRED This Statement of Special Inspections is intended to apply only to items within the scope of work of the Structural Engineer. See Statement of Special Inspections prepared by the design professional in responsible charge for additional special inspection requirements applicable to other disciplines. The following Schedules of Special Inspections summarize the Special Inspections and Tests required. Special Inspectors shall refer to the approved plans and specifications for detailed special inspection requirements. Any additional tests and inspections required by the approved plans and specifications shall also be performed. Special Inspections and Testing shall be performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, this statement and IBC Sections 1704 and 1705. The owner shall retain and directly pay for the special inspections and testing as required by IBC section 1704.2. Interim Special Inspection Reports shall be submitted to the Building Official and the Registered Design Professional in Responsible Charge in accordance with IBC Section 1704.2.4. A Final Report of Special Inspections shall be submitted to the Building Official and the Registered Design Professional in Responsible Charge in accordance with IBC Section 1704.2.4. This Statement of Special Inspections has been developed with the understanding that the Building Official will: • Review and approve the qualifications of the Special Inspectors who will perform the inspections. • Monitor special inspection activities on the job site to assure that the Special Inspectors are qualified and are performing their duties as called for in this Statement of Special Inspections. • Review submitted inspection reports. • Perform inspections as required by IBC Section 110 and the local building code. Structural Observations, when required, will be performed by a registered professional engineer from S. A. Miro, Inc. At the conclusion of the work included in the permit, the structural observer shall submit to the Building Official a written statement that the site visits have been made and identify any reported deficiencies that, to the best of the structural observer's knowledge, have not been resolved. Structural Observation does not include or waive the responsibility for the Special Inspections included in this Statement of Special Inspections or the inspections required by IBC Section 110. VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION TASK (with IBC reference)CONTINUOUS PERIODIC SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR WIND RESISTANCE STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES 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 3/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 5 : 2 6 P M S-003 STRUCTURAL SPECIAL INSPECTIONS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 3/26/2020 161 A B C E D C A 3 1 2 19 ' - 1 1 " 19 ' - 1 1 " 33 ' - 2 " 5 S-211 5 S-211 5 S-211 6 S-211 5 S-211 8" 9' - 2 " 8" 6 " F5.0 (84'-10") F5.0 (85'-6") S-201 3(TYP.) (TYP.) 86'-11" F.D. 87'-0" EDGES OF AREAWELL SLAB (TYP.) 89'-5 3/8" SILL 12 S-211 9'-7"8" (SIM.) SIM 4 B 87'-0" 86'-0" 85'-5" 84'-10" 84'-10"85'-0" F3.0 (83'-0") 2'-0" 7 5/8" 4'-0 3/8" 3'-10 3/8" 7 5/8" 2'-0" 10 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 7 3 / 4 " 1' - 6 " 1 ' - 0 " FDN STEP FDN STEP FDN STEP FDN. STEP FDN STEP FDN. STEP 86'-0" 86'-0" 86'-0" T.O. FDN 7'-11" 4' - 2 1 / 4 " T.O. FDN T.O. FDN T.O. FDN T.O. FDN. T.O. FDN T.O. FDN T.O. FDN T.O. FDN T.O. FDN T.O. FDN T.O. FDN 1 S-212 HSS7x5x3/8 HSS7x5x3/8 HSS5x5x1/2 2 S-211 5 S-211 5 S-211 1'-4" 10" 1'-4" 1' - 4 " 10 " 1' - 4 " T.O. SLAB T.O. SLAB T.O. SLAB 85'-0" 10" RETAINING WALL, #5 @ 12" O.C. HORIZONTAL, #5 @12" O.C. VERTICAL 10" RETAINING WALL, #5 @ 12" O.C. HORIZONTAL, #5 @12" O.C. VERTICAL 86'-11" F.D. 86'-5" 85'-10" 6'-2" 5' - 1 1 " 10 ' - 7 " 3 3/8" 9'-10"10"9'-4"8" 9' - 6 " 1' - 0 " 32 ' - 2 " 73 ' - 0 " 6" 8"6" 6" 8" 6" 2 S-201 2 S-2012 S-201 2 S-201 2 S-201 ~ RE: ARCH. FOR ALL RAMP LOCATIONS ~ RE: ARCH. FOR ALL RAMP LOCATIONS 2 S-201 ~ RE: ARCH. FOR ALL RAMP LOCATIONS 1' - 5 " 10 ' - 7 " T.O. FDN. 86'-0" 5 S-211 10 S-211 10" CMU BLOCK WALL ~ RE: 6/S-211 4 S-201 84'-10" T.O. FDN 1'-4" SQ. PILASTER TOP OF PILASTER SHALL BE 6" LOWER THAN LOWEST FLOOR LEVEL ~ TYP. 3' - 6 " ( T Y P . ) 1' - 4 " 10 " 1' - 4 " TY P . U. N . O . 10 " 8' - 6 " 10 " 6 ' - 8 " 26 ' - 6 " 5 S-211 85'-0" T.O. FDN (SIM.) 87'-0" 7" 3" 10 " 3' - 6 " F T G . ( T Y P . ) 1' - 4 " 10 " 1' - 4 " TY P . U. N . O . 21'-7"38'-2"10" 2' - 6 " 11 ' - 6 " 1'-4" SQ. PILASTER 12 S-211 3" 3'-4" DOOR OPNG. 7 S-211 22'-8"10" HSS5x5x1/2 1'-4" SQ. PILASTER12 S-211 F4.0 (83'-0") 4'-3" 16 ' - 8 " 6'-8"6'-6" 1'-6" DEEP SUMP PIT 1'-4" 83'-0" TOP OF FTG. 11 S-201 COL. T.O. SLAB S-100 1 ELEVATION 95'-11" 45'-5"14'-4"12'-8"23'-6" 6" 8" 6" 6" 8" 6" 6" 8" 6" 85'-0" T.O. FDN. 3'-6" 85'-0" T.O. FDN. 4' - 0 " FOUNDATION STEP FOUNDATION STEP 86'-0" 85'-0" T.O. FDN 6" 8"6" 87'-0" EDGES OF AREAWELL SLAB (TYP.) 88'-0" SILL TYP. 86'-0" 6" 6" 8' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 2' - 2 1 / 2 " 6" 86'-0"8'-2" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " (VERIFY) DOOR OPENINGS. AT 8'-3" (TYP.) 3" 1'-8"11'-7" 1' - 5 " 8' - 4 " XXXX'-XNOTES: 1. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATION NOTED THUS: ON PLAN. 2. SLAB ON GRADE SHALL BE 4" THICK NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE CONSTRUCTED OVER A VAPOR BARRIER. PLACE THE VAPOR BARRIER OVER A 4" THICK LAYER OF GRANULAR MATERIAL, RE: SPECIFICATIONS. REINFORCE SLAB WITH 6x6-W2.9xW2.9 W.W.F., UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLAN. WELDED WIRE FABRIC TO BE PLACED AT THE CENTER OF SLAB THICKNESS USING SLAB BOLSTERS OR EQUIVALENT AT 4'-0 O.C. 3. RE: DETAIL 1/S-201 FOR SLAB ON GRADE JOINTING REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS AT A MAXIMUM SPACING OF 13 FEET O.C. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLAN. PROVIDE THICKENED SLAB BENEATH ALL CMU WALLS WHERE NO FOUNDATION IS SHOWN. 4. FX ON PLAN INDICATES FOOTING TYPE/MARK. SEE FOOTING SCHEDULE ON SHEET THIS SHEET FOR SIZE AND REINFORCEMENT. 5. TOP OF FOOTING ELEVATION = 86'-0 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLAN. 6. RE: DETAIL 7/S-201 AND GENERAL NOTES FOR CAST IN PLACE WALL JOINTING REQUIREMENTS. 7. RE: CONCRETE REINFORCING SPLICE SCHEDULE ON SHEET S-001. 8. RE: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR SIZE, DEPTH, AND LOCATION OF SLAB RECESSES. RE: DETAIL 2/S-201 FOR STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS. 9. PROVIDE 4" THICK CONCRETE HOUSEKEEPING PADS UNDER ALL FLOOR MOUNTED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. RE: ARCHITECTURAL AND MEP DRAWINGS FOR SIZE AND LOCATION. REINFORCE PAD WITH #4 BARS AT 12" O.C. EACH WAY. 10. DENOTES SLAB STEP ~ RE: 2/S-201. 11. RE: 8/S-201 FOR FOOTING STEP DETAIL. 12. RE: S-801 FOR TYPICAL MASONRY DETAILS. 2'-0"x2'-0"x1'-0" REMARKSFOOTING SIZE REINFORCING FOOTING SCHEDULE MARK F2.0 F4.0 NOTES: 1. FOOTINGS SHALL BE CENTERED UNDER COLUMNS UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE. 2. REINFORCING INDICATED SHALL BE EACH-WAY, BOTTOM UNLESS NOTED L.W. ~ LONGWAY, S.W. ~ SHORTWAY. (4) #4 EACH WAY 4'-0"x4'-0"x1'-3" (6) #5 EACH WAY F5.0 5'-0"x5'-0"x1'-6" (7) #5 EACH WAY 3'-0"x3'-0"x1'-0"F3.0 (7) #4 EACH WAY SHEET S-101 3" #4x @ 12" O.C. 3" 23'-6"12'-8" 10"12'-2"6'-0"10" WALL 4' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 13 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 87'-0" 100'-0" FOUNDATION WALL (2) #5 X12'-0" TOP & BOT. FUTURE WALL OPENING WALL REINF. ~ RE: 5/S-211. EXTEND THROUGH FUTURE OPENING SLAB ON GRADE BEYOND WALL FOOTING FORM 1/2" DEEP x3/8" WIDE GROOVE IN WALL (INSIDE AND OUT- SIDE FACES OF WALL) 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 7 : 3 4 : 1 5 A M S-100 FOUNDATION PLAN St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS 3/16" = 1'-0" FOUNDATION PLAN 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE REVIEW COMMENTS R2 2019.10.15 AREAWELL WALL CHANGES R3 2019.10.24 UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.09 S-100S-100 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 WALL ELEVATION WITH FUTURE OPENING .07 04/07/2020 162 E D C A 3 1 2 19 ' - 1 1 " 19 ' - 1 1 " 33 ' - 2 " 95'-11" (VERIFY) 45'-5"14'-4"12'-8"23'-6" 3'-0" C.L. BEAM CONNECTION 8 S-212 5 S-211 6 S-211 FLOOR DECK, SEE PLAN NOTE 2. EL E V A T I O N S-401 2 S-40 2 1 S-401 1 S-40 2 2 ELEVATION EL E V A T I O N ELEVATION 4 do do do do do do do do do do do do do W8 x 1 0 W8 x 1 0 W16x31 [63]W24x55 [60]W24x68 [60] (1 7/8") W18x35 [36] W16x31 [31] W1 2 x 1 6 [ 1 8 ] W1 2 x 1 6 [ 1 8 ] W1 2 x 1 6 [ 1 2 ] W1 6 x 3 1 [ 2 8 ] W14x30 [18] W1 0 x 1 2 [ 6 ] W1 2 x 1 4 [ 6 ] B W8x10 [6]W12x16 [16] W1 2 x 2 2 [ 2 0 ] 1' - 0 " 9'-0"5'-4"3'-8" 9" 7' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 7' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 8' - 0 " 7' - 1 0 " 10 " 5 1 / 2 " 4' - 2 1 / 4 " 7'-6 1/2" 4'-10 3/4" W8 x 1 0 [ 6 ] S-40 2 3 EL E V A T I O N 24 24 70 38 46 18 34 22 59 60 65 79 15882 51 34 8'-3 5/8"8'-6 3/4" 37S-311 1 2 S-311 6 S-212 9 S-212 3 S-311 HSS4x4x1/4 HSS4x4x1/4 5 S-311 5 S-311 TYP. 4 S-801 4 S-801 4 S-801 4 S-801O.H. 6x6 6x6 6x6 6x6 PROVIDE 'SIMPSON' CB COLUMN BASE W/ BLACK POWDER CONT. AT 6x6 POSTS, TYP OF 4 11 S-211 TYP'SIM' TYP @ GLAZING 11 S-211 11 S-211 11 S-211 11 S-211 'SIM' TYP @ GLAZING SIM 73 ' - 0 " SIM COORDINATE T.O. AREA WELL WALL ELEVATIONS WITH CIVIL GRADES TYP. COORDINATE T.O. AREA WELL WALL ELEVATIONS WITH CIVIL GRADES TYP. 10 S-211 W1 2 x 1 6 [ 1 8 ] 24 W1 2 x 1 6 [ 1 8 ] 24 7'-11" HSS5x5 BELOW 7 S-211 5 S-211 5 S-211 11 S-211 TYP. 5 S-211 11 S-211 BELOW ~ RE DETAIL 6 & 9/S-212 6" 10 ' - 6 " 19 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 6 " 32 ' - 2 " 19 ' - 1 1 " 19 ' - 1 1 " 33 ' - 2 " 16 ' - 6 " 16 ' - 8 " 10'-3" W8 x 1 0 4'-9 1/2" 4'-9 1/2" (G A L V . ) 19W4 1 1/4"x1/8" GALV. BAR GRATING W8 x 1 0 4'-9 1/2" 4'-6 1/2" (G A L V . ) 19W4 1 1/4"x1/8" GALV. BAR GRATING 10'-0" 9'-5" 7" 3" SLOPE DOWN 93'-10" 99'-7 1/2" 4" 1 S-212 20 9' - 7 3 / 8 " 6' - 7 " 16 ' - 1 1 5 / 8 " W1 4 x 2 6 [ 2 6 ] 22 W12x14 [14] W12x19 [22] W12x16 [16] W14x26 [28]24 2018 23 1'-0"8'-11"5'-10" 3" FLOOR DECK, SEE PLAN NOTE 2. 4'-3" DECK SPAN HSS 5x5 BELOW 3'-11"6'-3" 6x6 WOOD POST (ABOVE) 6x6 WOOD POST (ABOVE) 3'-11"6'-3" 6x6 WOOD POST 6x6 WOOD POST11 S-211 2"8" 21'-7"38'-2" 11'-7" 10" 6' - 8 " 26 ' - 6 " 10 " 99'-4" T.O. LEDGE 99'-10 1/4" 100'-0"8" 6" SL A B SL O P E DN . 7 S-801 EXTENT OF METAL STUD WALL FRAMING 6"10'-9"10'-9"10'-9"5'-5"6x6 POSTS 4x4 POST 4x4 POST 8'-8" 5' - 9 " 5' - 9 " F2 (98'-0) F2 (98'-0) 6' - 0 " 8'-3" HIGH OPNG. 7" 8'-3" HIGH OPNG. 4"x @12" O.C. 4'-6" 12 S-201 XXXX'-XNOTES: 1. TOP OF FLOOR SLAB ELEVATION = 100'-0 UNLESS NOTED THUS: ON PLAN. 2. FLOOR SLAB SHALL BE 4-1/2" NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE ON 2" DEEP, 19 GAGE GALVANIZED COMPOSITE FLOOR DECK. (6-1/2" TOTAL THICKNESS, 3 SPAN DECK MINIMUM). REINFORCE SLAB WITH 6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WELDED WIRE FABRIC. 3. FRAMING NOMENCLATURE: BEAM SIZE NUMBER OF STUDS 17 BEAM CAMBER (IN.) BEAM REACTION IN KIPS (FACTORED) REACTION APPLIES AT EACH END OF BEAM UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. W18x35 [56] (2") DESIGN LOADS: DEAD LOADS: 1. FLOOR FINISH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 PSF 2. 4-1/2" NW CONCRETE ON 2" DEEP FLOOR DECK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 PSF 3. ADDITIONAL CONCRETE DUE TO DECK DEFLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 PSF 4. MECHANICAL, CEILING, LIGHTS AND SPRINKLERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 PSF 5. STEEL FRAMING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACTUAL TOTAL 89 PSF +ACTUAL LIVE: 1. DINING, ASSEMBLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 PSF (NOT REDUCIBLE) 4. SHEAR STUDS SHALL BE 3/4"DIA.x3-1/2" (IN PLACE LENGTH) HEADED ANCHOR STUDS WELDED TO BEAM FLANGE. RE: DETAIL 9/S-301 FOR LAYOUT AND SPACING OF STUDS. 5. BEAMS SHALL BE FABRICATED SUCH THAT AFTER ERECTION ANY CAMBER DUE TO ROLLING OR SHOP FABRICATION IS UPWARD. 6. SEE GENERAL NOTES FOR CONNECTION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. 7. BEAMS ARE EQUALLY SPACED BETWEEN GRIDS OR COLUMNS UNLESS DIMENSIONED OTHERWISE. 8. INDICATES FLOOR PENETRATION. COORDINATE OPENING SIZE AND LOCATION WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL DRAWINGS AND MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR. RE: DETAILS AND GENERAL NOTES FOR STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT DRAWINGS OF ALL MISCELLANEOUS FLOOR PENETRATIONS NOT SHOWN ON PLAN FOR ARCHITECT'S AND ENGINEER'S APPROVAL. 9. SEE GENERAL NOTES FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL CONDUIT PLACED IN SLAB AND CORE DRILLING PENETRATIONS THROUGH SLAB. 10. RE: DETAIL 2/S-301 FOR TYPICAL DECK SUPPORT AT COLUMNS. 11. PROVIDE A TEMPORARY FLOOR OPENING FOR PLACEMENT OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INTO BASEMENT OF BUILDING. AFTER INSTALLATION IS COMPLETE, PLACE NEW BEAM FRAMING AND NEW 2" DEPP, 19 GA. GALVANIZED COMPOSITE FLOOR DECK WITH 6x6 W2.9xW2.9 WELDED WIRE FABRIC REINFORCEMENT. FILL OPENING WITH NORMAL-WEIGHT CONCRETE WITH A COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3,500 PSI AT 28 DAYS. PROVIDE LIGHT GAGE CLOSURE PLATES AS REQUIRED TO PREVENT LEAKAGE OF CONCRETE. 12. SEE SHEET S-302 FOR TYPICAL STEEL BEAM TO CNCRETE WALL CONNECTIONS U.N.O. 3/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 1 FRAMING PLAN 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 4/ 6 / 2 0 2 0 5 : 5 1 : 5 2 P M S-101 LEVEL 1 FRAMING PLAN St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS 23816JOHNM.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO REGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.09 04/07/2020 163 E D C A 3 1 2 RELOCATED EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE 19 ' - 1 1 " 19 ' - 1 1 " 33 ' - 2 " 5 S-501 2 S-321 5 S-501 5 S-501 TYP TYP 4 B W1 0 x 1 2 SA F E T Y B E A M 3 S-503 4 S-503 4 S-503 5 1/2" x 21" GLULAM(2 ) 1 3 / 4 x 1 1 7 / 8 L V L (2 ) 1 3 / 4 x 1 1 7 / 8 L V L (2)1 3/4x11 7/8 LVL (2 ) 1 3 / 4 x 1 1 7 / 8 L V L 7 S-503 ABOVE 6 S-503 6 S-503 5 S-503 PROVIDE 'SIMPSON' HU412(MIN) HANGER PROVIDE 'SIMPSON' HU412(MIN) HANGER TYP PROVIDE 'SIMPSON' HU412 (MIN) HANGER TYP PROVIDE 'SIMPSON' BA HANGER 5 S-503 114'-5 1/2" T.O. SHTG.113'-2" T.O. SHTG. TYP 6x12 DF#1 6x12 DF#1 6x12 DF#1 6x12 DF#1 2x8 DF#2 RAFTERS AT 16" O.C. 8 S-503 TYP 45'-5"14'-4"12'-8"23'-6" 10 S-503 PROVIDE 'SIMPSON' CC COLUMN CAP AT POSTS, TYP OF 4 (2) 1x8 RIDGE MEMBER (4) 2x12 CEILING JOISTS BELOW @ 16" O.C. (NOT SHOWN) RAFTERS EXIST. TRUSS TYPE T4 (4 TOTAL) TRUSS TYPE T3 (3 TOTAL) TRUSS TYPE T2 TRUSS TYPES T1 & T1A (35 TOTAL) (7 TOTAL) TRUSS TYPE T5 (3 TOTAL) TRUSS TYPE T6 (5 TOTAL) TRUSS TYPE T7 TRUSS TYPE T8 RAFTERS EXIST. TRUSS AND RAFTER SPACING @ 16" O.C. (+/-) CEILING JOISTS BELOW @ 16" O.C. (NOT SHOWN) 3/4" SHEATHING 2x 1 2 @ 1 ' -4" O . C . W1 2 x 1 9 W1 2 x 1 9 (1 1 3 ' -0 1 / 4 " ) (1 1 3 ' -0 1 / 4 " ) W12x19 (113'-0 1/4") 2x 1 2 @ 1 ' -4" O . C . 2x 1 2 @ 1 ' -4" O . C . (2 ) 2 x 1 2 @ 1 ' -4" O . C . 2x12 2x12 6x6 BELOW 6x6 BELOW 3/4" PLYWOOD SHEATHING, SEE PLAN NOTES. OVERFRAMED MANSARD ROOF (SHADED AREA) 95'-11" (VERIFY) 4"10'-2"13'-0" 16 ' - 8 " 16 ' - 6 " 19 ' - 1 1 " 19 ' - 1 1 " 73 ' - 0 " OVERFRAMED DORMER ~ RE: ARCH. FOR GEOMETRY 8'-8"10" 1' - 8 " 5 ' - 9 " 5' - 9 " 1 ' - 8 " 111'-9" T.O. SHEATHING W8 x 1 0 2x10 @ 16" O.C. 4x4 POST 4x4 POST 5 S-502 9'-6" 7' - 5 " 7' - 5 " 11 S-502 9 S-502 112'-1" TOP OF EXIST. DOUBLE TOP PLATE EXISTING 2x6 RAFTERS (TYP.) 1 S-321 6' - 2 " 27 ' - 0 " 10'-9"10'-9"10'-9"5'-5" EXISTING OR NEW 2x6 RAFTERS @ 16" O.C. (TYP.) FRAME PORTION OF ROOF WITH RECLAIMED EXISTING LUMBER OR NEW, ROUGH SAWN LUMBER AS REQUIRED. 1 S-503 9 S-502 1 S-503 9 S-503 9 S-503 6x6 BEL OW 6x6 BEL OW 7 S-502 7 S-502 2x12 2x12 (4) 2x12 2x 1 2 @ 1 ' -4" O . C . (2) 2x12 2x12 2x12 (2 ) 2 x 1 2 @ 1 ' -4" O . C . (2) 2x12 (2) 2x12 (2) 2x12 (2) 2x12 (1 1 1 ' -6 3 / 4 " T . O . S . ) 12 S-503 S-501 9 (ACCESS HATCH) 8 S-801 9 S-506 9 S-506 2x 8 @ 1 ' -4" O . C . PLAN NOTES FOR RELOCATED ROOF FRAMING: 1. ROOF CONSTRUCTION CONSISTS OF COMPOSITE SHINGLES OVER A WATERPROOF MEMBRANE OVER 1/2" THICK SHEATHING OVER AN INSULATION LAYER WITH SLEEPERS. PROVIDE A ROOF UNDERLAYMENT LAYER BELOW THE INSULATION AND ABOVE ANOTHER LAYER OF 1/2" THICK SHEATHING PLACED OVER THE EXISTING 1" THICK GAP BOARD SHEATHING. 2. NEW SHEATHING SHALL BE PLYWOOD OR O.S.B. EQUIVALENT, APA RATED (STRUCTURAL 1) WITH A SPAN RATING OF 48/24. FASTEN SHEATHING WITH 10d NAILS AT 6" O.C. AT PANEL EDGES AND 12" O.C. AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. PANEL EDGES AND NAILING AT EDGES ARE TO BE STAGGERED BETWEEN THE TWO LAYERS OF NEW SHEATHING. 3. SEE TYPICAL HEADER SCHEDULE ON SHEET S-401 FOR FRAMING OVER WINDOWS AND DOORS NOT SHOWN ON PLAN. 4. OUTRIGGERS OR RAKES ARE NOT SHOWN ON PLAN. SEE DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 5. SEE DESIGN LOADS THIS SHEET AND GENERAL NOTES ON SHEET S-001 FOR DEFLECTION CRITERIA USED FOR JOIST DESIGN. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL ROOF FRAMING WITH MECHANICAL PENETRATIONS. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FRAMING AS REQUIRED WHERE PENETRATION INTERRUPTS TYPICAL ROOF FRAMING. DESIGN LOADS: 1. COMPOSITE ROOFING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 PSF 2. PAPER FELT / SNOW SHIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 PSF 3. NEW SHEATHING (x2 LAYERS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 PSF 4. SLEEPERS (4'-0" O.C.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 PSF 5. 4" INSULATION (1.5 PSF / IN. THICKNESS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 PSF 6. EXISTING SKIP SHEATHING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 PSF 7. WOOD TRUSSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 PSF 8. MECHANICAL, LIGHTS, SPRINKLERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 PSF TOTAL: 24.5 PSF LIVE LOADS: 1. SNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50.0 PSF 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 9 : 5 4 : 2 3 A M S-102 ROOF FRAMING PLAN St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS 3/16" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE REVIEW COMMENTS R2 2019.10.15 UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.07 FLAT ROOF PLAN NOTES: 1. ROOF CONSTRUCTION CONSISTS OF WATERPROOF MEMBRANE OVER INSULATION OVER A ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ON TOP OF 3/4" SHEATHING ON TOP OF ROOF JOIST FRAMING. 2. ROOF SHEATHING SHALL BE PLYWOOD OR O.S.B. EQUIVALENT, APA RATED (STRUCTURAL 1) WITH A SPAN RATING OF 48/24. FASTEN SHEATHING WITH 10d NAILS AT 6" O.C. AT PANEL EDGES AND AT 12" O.C. AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. 3. DENOTES FUTURE CUPOLA AT ROOFTOP, ROOF SYSTEM HAS BEEN DESIGN FOR AN ADDITIONAL 8,000# LOADING. OVERFRAMED MANSARD ROOF FRAMING PLAN NOTES: 1. OVERFRAMED ROOF CONSTRUCTION CONSISTS OF COMPOSITE SHINGLES OVER A WATERPROOF MEMBRANE OVER 1/2" THICK SHEATHING OVER 2x6 RAFTER FRAMING. 2. ROOF SHEATHING SHALL BE PLYWOOD OR O.S.B. EQUIVALENT, APA RATED (STRUCTURAL 1) WITH A SPAN RATING OF 48/24. FASTEN SHEATHING WITH 10d NAILS AT 6" O.C. AT PANEL EDGES AND AT 12" O.C. AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. DEAD LOADS:1. WATERPROOF ROOF MEMBRANE: 2. INSULATION: 3. ROOF UNDERLAYMENT: 4. 3/4" SHEATHING: 5. (2) 2x12 JOISTS AT 16" O.C.: 6. MECH., CEILING, LIGHTS, SPRINKLERS: TOTAL: 5.0 PSF 6.0 PSF 1.0 PSF 3.0 PSF 9.0 PSF 8.0 PSF 32.0 PSF LIVE LOADS:1. SNOW:50.0 PSF DEAD LOADS:1. COMPOSITE SHINGLES: 2. SNOW SHIELD: 3. 1/2" SHEATHING: 4. 2x6 RAFTERS AT 16" O.C.: TOTAL: 2.0 PSF 1.0 PSF 2.0 PSF 1.5 PSF 6.5 PSF LIVE LOADS:1. SNOW:50.0 PSF 04/07/2020 164 GRID GRID GRID TYPICAL SLAB CONTROL JOINT SEE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LOCATIONS OF CONTROL JOINTS 1/4" T/ 4 SUBBASE ~ RE: PLAN NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS PREPARED SUBGRADE OR UNDISTURBED SOIL. SEE BUILDING PAD OVER-EXCAVATION DETAIL VAPOR BARRIER (IF REQ'D.) ~ RE: SPECIFICATIONS AND ARCH. DRAWINGS. PROTECT BARRIER FROM PUNCTURE SLAB REINF., CONT. THROUGH JOINT CONTROL JOINT ~ RE: SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF JOINT SL A B T H I C K N E S S 'T ' R E : P L A N TYPICAL SLAB CONSTRUCTION JOINT LOCATE UNDER PARTITION WHEN POSSIBLE SEE SPECS. FOR POUR LIMITATIONS SUBBASE ~ RE: SPECS. 1" x 2" CONT. KEY, ~ RE: SPECS VAPOR BARRIER (IF REQ'D.) ~ RE: SPECIFICATIONS AND ARCH. DRAWINGS. PROTECT BARRIER FROM PUNCTURE STOP SLAB REINF. AT JOINT FILL WITH JOINT SEALANT 'T ' APPLY BOND BREAKER FULL LENGTH AND DEPTH OF THE JOINT T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN SUBBASE AND SUBGRADE ~ RE: TYPICAL S.O.G JOINT DTL VAPOR BARRIER (IF REQ'D.) ~ RE: SPECIFICATIONS AND ARCH. DRAWINGS. PROTECT BARRIER FROM PUNCTURE 1'-0"6" 'T ' 'H ' # 5 @ 12" O.C. 3'-0" SLAB REINF. RE: PLAN NOTE: PROVIDE CONTROL JOINT IN CONCRETE 5'-0" FROM SLAB STEP WHEN 'H' IS 4" OR GREATER. # 5 x CONT. NOTE: PROVIDE SLAB STEP REINF. BARS ONLY AT LOCATIONS WHERE 'H' IS 4" OR GREATER T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN 3/8" EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL TUBE COLUMN SLAB CONSTRUCTION OR CONTROL JOINTS ~ RE: TYP. S.O.G. DETAIL 1/S-201 CONC. CAST SEPARATELY FROM SLAB ON GRADE COLUMN BASE PLATE 6" MIN LENGTH VARIES VERTICAL REINF. NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. ALL SPLICES FOR VERTICAL REINF. SHALL BE CLASS B SPLICES. CORNER BARS ~ SIZE AND SPACING TO MATCH HORIZ. WALL REINF. (TYP.) HOOK MAIN WALL REINF. AT END OR PROVIDE CORNER BARS AS REQ'D. SPLICE BAR SIZE AND SPACING TO MATCH HORIZ. WALL REINF. (TYP.) RE: SCHEDULE CLASS 'B' LAP SPLICE RE: SCHEDULE CLASS 'B' LAP SPLICE (TYP.) STD. HOOK (TYP.) STD. HOOK ADD REINFORCING TO ALL OPENINGS THRU ALL GRADE BEAMS AS SHOWN (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) LENGTH DEVELOPMENT MAXIMUM OPENING SIZE 26"Ø OR 3'-0"x3'-0" ~ NO OPENINGS IN BOTTOM OR TOP 3'-0" OF GRADE BEAM WITHOUT ENGINEERS APPROVAL PIPING PENETRATIONS THROUGH OPENING SHALL ACCOMMODATE DIFFERENTIAL MOVEMENT ADD DIAGONAL BARS AT ROUND OPENINGS BY OPENING BARS INTERRUPTED BY OPENING BARS INTERRUPTED 1/2 NUMBER OF BARS INTERRUPTED BY OPENING PLUS ONE ~ TYP. EACH EDGE OF OPENING PLACE CONTROL JOINTS AT 30'-0" O.C. (MAX.) ALL KEYWAYS BEGIN AND END 1'-0"± FROM TOP AND BOTTOM OF POUR PLACE CONSTRUCTION JOINTS AS REQUIRED ~ SEE GENERAL NOTE N.a FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. 3"7 1/4"18", 20", 24' 1 1/2"5 1/2"12", 14", 16" 1 1/2"3 1/2"8", 10" DTW KEY SCHEDULE SOIL SIDE OF WALL SEALANT ~ RE: SPECS. CONTROL JOINT WxDx1'-6" LONG KEY AT 3'-0" O.C. SOIL SIDE OF WALL CONSTRUCTION JOINT T RE: SCHEDULE CLASS 'B' LAP SPLICE WALL THICKNESS T 1/2" 3/4"3/4" W BASE PLATE 3/4"x12"x1'-0" W/ 4 - 3/4" DIA.x14" LONG ANCHOR BOLTS W/ PLATE WASHER & DOUBLE NUTS @ BOT. SCHEDULE RE: 1" GROUT 4" RE: SCHEDULE FOOTING DIMENSION, FOOTING REINFORCING, ~ RE: SCHEDULE PAINT ALL BELOW-SLAB STEEL W/ BITUMINOUS PAINT 1/4" HSS6x6 COLUMN T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN T.O. FTG. RE: PLAN POUR SLAB BLOCKOUT DOWN TO COVER BASE PL. RE: PLAN FOR STEP LOCATION RE: DETAILS FOR FOOTING DEPTH AND REINFORCING 1 1 T.O. FOOTING RE: PLAN T.O. FOOTING RE: PLAN 1'-0" #5x @ 9" O.C. CLASS 'B' SPLICE CLASS 'B' SPLICE PROVIDE STD. HOOK 87'-8" 6" DP. x20 GA. STUDS @ 16" O.C. EXTERIORINTERIOR 3'-0" END OF INSULATION INTO INTERIOR 4" SLAB 4" MIN. INSULATION PROVIDE STYROFOAM HIGHLOAD 40 INSULATION BY DOW CHEMICAL CO. SCHEDULE RE: T.O. FOOTING RE: PLAN 4- #4x VERT. 4- #4 x CIRCULAR TIES @ EQ. SPEC. RE: PLAN 4x4 POST SITE PAVEMENT TOP OF PILASTER TO MATCH TOP OF FINISHED GRADE FTG. SCHED. RE: ROUND PILASTER DIAMETER TO MATCH COLUMN COVER ROUND COLUMN COVER, RE: ARCH. DRWGS SIMPSON POST BASE (GALVANIZED) 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 7 : 4 1 : 2 4 A M S-201 TYPICAL FOUNDATION AND SOG DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS S-201S-100-P 3/4" = 1'-0" 1 TYPICAL S.O.G. JOINT DETAILS S-201S-100 3/4" = 1'-0" 2 TYPICAL DEPRESSED SLAB OR SLAB STEP S-201S-100 3/4" = 1'-0" 3 TYPICAL SLAB-ON-GRADE BLOCKOUT AT STEEL COLUMN S-201 3/4" = 1'-0" 9 TYPICAL CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL DETAIL ~ T ≥ 10" S-201 3/4" = 1'-0" 10 FOUNDATION WALL OPENING REINFORCING DETAIL - ELEVATION S-201 3/4" = 1'-0" 7 TYPICAL CONC. FOUNDATION WALL JOINT PLAN DETAIL U.N.O. S-201S-100 3/4" = 1'-0" 4 COLUMN AT FOOTING DETAIL 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.07 S-201 1/2" = 1'-0" 8 TYPICAL FOOTING STEP S-201S-100 3/4" = 1'-0" 11 FOUNDATION WALL AT MECH. CONDENSER ROOM S-201S-101 3/4" = 1'-0" 12 PILASTER DTL. AT ENTRY COLUMNS 04/07/2020 165 GRID GRID U.N.O. 1'-6" U.N.O. 10" U.N.O. 1'-6" BASEMENT RETAINING WALL CONCRETE SLAB ON METAL DECK, PLACE PRIOR TO BACKFILLING FOUNDATION WALLS BASEMENT RETAINING WALL FOOTING ~ RE: PLAN 100'-0" T.O. FOOTING RE: PLAN CVR. 2" CLR. 6"4" 4 1 / 2 " C O N C . 2" D E C K W1 2 6 1 / 2 " CVR. 2" CLR. 2" C L R . 3" C L R . #5 @ 9" O.C., TOP & BOT.#4 @ 9" O.C. TOP & BOT. 4" S L A B 1' - 0 " #5 @ 9" O.C. HORIZ. INSIDE FACE & OUTSIDE FACE WATER DRAINAGE MAT & PROTECTION BOARD PERIMETER FOUNDATION DRAIN, RE: ARCH.#5x @ 9" O.C. 4' -0" #5x @ 9" O.C. 4' -0" #5 @ 9" O.C. VERTICAL I.F. #5 @ 9" O.C. VERTICAL O.F. SLAB-ON-GRADE S-211 9 T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN EMBED PLATE 3/4x12x1'-2" WITH (4) 3/4"DIA.x8 3/16" H.A.S. 4' - 8 " LOUVER OPENING, RE: MECH. #5 @ 12" O.C. VERTICAL #5 @ 12" O.C. HORIZONTAL 87'-0" 86'-11" RE: PLAN PERIMETER DRAIN, RE: DTL. 5/S-211 89'-5 3/8" T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN GROUTED BOND BEAM @ TOP OF BLOCK WITH (2) #4 HORIZ. 10" CMU WITH #5 @ 16" O.C. VERT. IN GROUTED CELLS T.O. FOOTING RE: PLAN OPENING LOUVER 1 1/4" 95'-4" (VERIFY WITH LOUVER) W8x10 ~ RE: 10/S-211 19W4 BAR GRATING ~ RE: PLAN L3x3x5/16" xCONT. WITH 1/2" Ø x3" EMBED. EXPANSION ANCHORS @ 1'-6" O.C. (TYP.) #5x @ 12" O.C. 3' - 6 " 100'-0" 101'-4" PROVIDE JOINT IN GRATING @ BEAM (2) #5 HORIZ. (TYP.) P/C SEAT ~ RE: ARCH. SEAT SUPPORT ANGLE & CONN. BY P/C MANUF. 10"RE: PLAN 8" WALL REINFORCING ~ RE: DETAIL 5/S-211 WALL FOOTING ~ RE: DETAIL 5/S-211 6"6" (2) #5 HORIZ. 1'-0" WOOD FRAMED WALL RE: PLAN AND ELEVATIONS 2x SILL PLATE AND ATTACHMENT, RE: 1/S-503 CLASS 'B' SPLICE CONCRETE WALL RE: PLAN AND ELEVATION WALL DOWEL MATCH WALL REINFORCING SIZE AND SPACING AT 'SIM.'TYP. 10" 6" 10" #4 xCONT. #4x @ 12" O.C.3' - 0 " SLAB-ON-GRADE ELEVATOR SILL L4x4x3/8xCONT. W/ 5/8" Øx 4" EXP. ANCHORS @ 12" O.C 1 1/2"#4 x @ 12" O.C. 2'-0" 2' - 0 " MASONRY WALL BEYOND 8" CMU W/ #5 AT 16" O.C. #5 x 5'-0" AT 16" O.C. #5 @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY SLAB-ON-GRADE ~ RE: PLAN 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT #5 x DOWELS @ 12" O.C., TYP. #5 x DOWELS @ 12" O.C. #7 @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY, TOP & BOT ELEVATOR RE: PLANRE: PLAN RE: PLAN 2'-0" 10" #5 @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY 10" 1'-4" 1'-6" DEEP SUMP PIT BEYOND FOUNDATION WALL RE: PLAN STEEL BEAM RE: PLAN SLAB ON METAL DECK RE: PLAN OVERPOUR SLAB AT FOUNDATION WALL #5x @ 12" O.C. (EPOXT COATED) 2'-0" 2'-0" (2) #4xCONT. GLAZING AT 'SIM' RE: ARCH U.N.O. 1'-4"10" U.N.O. 1'-4" BASEMENT RETAINING WALL BASEMENT WALL FOOTING ~ RE: PLAN T.O. FOOTING RE: PLAN CVR. 2" CLR. 2" CLR. 3" CLR. 1'-0" #5 @ 12" O.C. HORIZ. BOTH SIDES WATER DRAINAGE MAT & PROTECTION BOARD PERIMETER FOUNDATION DRAIN, RE: ARCH.#5x @ 12" O.C. #5x @ 12" O.C. #5 @ 12" O.C. VERTICAL I.F. #5 @ 12" O.C. VERTICAL O.F. SLAB-ON-GRADE T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN 3'-10" 5'-10"10" 4" 6" FTG. REINF. ~ RE: 5/S-211 #4 xCONT. #4 x5'-0" @ 12" O.C. #4 x @ 12" O.C. CONCRETE SLAB ON METAL DECK, PLACE PRIOR TO BACKFILLING FOUNDATION WALLS 100'-0" 10" 4 1/2" CONC. 2" DECK W12 6 1/2" EMBED PLATE 3/4x12x1'-2" WITH (4) 3/4"DIA.x8 3/16" H.A.S. TOP OF DOOR ELEV., RE: ARCH. BASEMENT FOUNDATION WALL BEYOND 100'-0" 2" 8" 3'-6" 8" (2) #5 HORIZ. TOP #5 @ 12" O.C. HORIZ. #5@ 12" O.C. x5'-8: LONG VERTICAL SLOPE DN. SECTION BEYOND @ BARRIER WALL 6" 4" 99'-10 1/4" 4" 6" 100'-0" 6" #4 @ 12" O.C. #4x @12" O.C. #4x @12" O.C. 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " DOOR THRESHOLD SECTION SHOWN, SEE DETAIL 8/S-212 FOR WALL CONDITION BEYOND 4' - 0 " 4' - 0 " FOOTING DIM. ~ RE: SCHEDULE SCHEDULE RE: 2" EQ. EQ. 2" 2" 8" T.O. FOOTING RE: PLAN 1'-4" SQ. PILASTER FOOTING REINF. ~ RE: SCHEDULE (4) #5x VERT. (4) #4 TIES SPACED AS SHOWN T.O. SLAB ELEV. RE: PLAN HSS COLUMN ~ RE: PLAN SLAB STEP @ SOME LOCATIONS BASE PLATE & ANCHOR BOLTS ~ RE: 4/S-201 87'-0" 1'-6" (VERIFY) 10'-6" LOUVER OPENING 1'-0" 4'-9 1/2" CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL BEYOND (2) #8 HORIZONTAL xCONT. TOP & BOT., EXTEND BARS 3'-4" BEYOND EDGES OF OPENING #6 xCONT. HORIZ. #4 TIES @ 6" O.C. #3 SINGLE LEG STIRRUPS @ 6" O.C. BAR GRATING 100'-0" SINGLE PLATE CONNECTION WITH (2) 3/4" Ø A307 BOLTS GALVANIZED EMBED PLATE 1/2x12x1'-0" WITH 1/2" Ø HD.A.S. @ 9" O.C. EACH WAY WITH 5" EMBED CONT. L3x3x5/16" SUPPORT ANGLE WITH 1/2" Ø x3" EMBED EXPANSION ANCHORS @ 18" O.C. (TYP.) AREA WELL SLAB AND FOUNDATION ~ RE: DETAIL 6/S-211 6 1/2" T.O. FOOTING RE: PLAN 1'-0" RE: 5/S-211 FOR FOOTING REINF. WALL FINISH PROVIDE GAP FOR P/C SEAT, BEYOND ~ RE: ARCH. AREAWELL WALL BEYOND ~ RE: 6/S-211 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 3/ 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 5 7 : 2 1 P M S-211 FOUNDATION DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS S-211S-100 3/4" = 1'-0" 5 BASEMENT FOUNDATION WALL SECTION S-211S-100 3/8" = 1'-0" 6 SECTION THROUGH AREA WELL S-211S-211 3/4" = 1'-0" 9 TOP OF FOUNDATION WALL DETAIL 23816JOHNM.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO REGISTERED S-211S-100 3/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION AT ELEVATOR PIT REVISION DATE REVIEW COMMENTS R2 2019.10.15 AREAWELL WALL CHANGES R3 2019.10.24 UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 S-211S-101 3/4" = 1'-0" 11 THRESHOLD DETAIL S-211S-100 3/4" = 1'-0" 7 BASEMENT FOUNDATION WALL SECTION S-211S-100 3/4" = 1'-0" 12 COLUMN @ PILASTER DETAIL S-211S-100 3/8" = 1'-0" 10 SECTION THROUGH AREA WELL 3/26/2020 166 D C C D C 3 3 4" 100' 0" 87' 0" DRAINAGE MAT. 1/2" W.P. AND 4" 6 1/2" 4" 1/2" 6 1/2" 5'-6" 4" 1'-0" 1'-0" 4" SLAB 6'-10" 7" 3" 6" SOIL FILL 10" 23'-0"14'-4" SLAB FTG. S-212 3 S-212 4 S-212 5 6 S-212 9 S-212 87' 0"1'-0" STAIR REINFORCING #4 @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY WALL REINFORCING ~ RE: 7/S-211 EL. VARIES 10'-1"8" 103' -6" 6" 6" SLAB, RE: 7/S-211 FOR REINF. CONC. WALL REINF. W/ #5@12" O.C. HORIZ. & VERT. #4 x DWLS. @ 12"O.C. 3' -6" S-211 7 (SIM.) 4" 1/2" 6 1/2" EXTERIOR CONC. STAIR AND LANDINGTREAD, RE: ARCH. 100' 0" RE: ARCH. RISER HEIGHT, 5'-6" 4" TOPPING 1/2" W.P. AND DRAINAGE MAT SLAB 6 1/2" L4x4x5/16" SUPPORT ANGLES BEYOND ~ RE: DETAIL 3/S-212 CONC. WALL BEYOND 1" 93'-10'' 6 1/2" SLAB DRANAGE BOARD 1/2" W.P. AND 4" 4" 7" 3" RE: ARCH. 10" FOUNDATION WALL EXTERIOR CONC. STAIRS 18 GA. CLOSURE PL. W/ POWER DRIVEN FASTENERS @ 12" O.C.BREAK FILL L4x4x5/16" xCONT. SUPPORT ANGLE WITH 1/2" Ø EXPANSION ANCHORS WITH 3 1/2" EMBED. @ 1'-6" O.C. (TYP.) RISER, RE: ARCH. CONC. WALL BEYOND 4" 6 1/2" TOOLED JT. W/ SEALANT INTERIOR FLOOR SLAB 6 1/2" W12 BEAM L4x4x5/16 SUPPORT ANGLE CONC. WALL BEYOND 100' 0" 6" SHEATHING 5'-10"10" 10" SLAB 6 1/2" STRUCT BOARD 1/2" W.P. AND DRAINAGE RE: DTLS. 1 & 3. STAIR SLAB AND STEPS, LANDING, 5" 3'-6" 4 1/2" 6 1/2" VERT. L 3x3x1/4 @ 16" O.C. #4 x @ 12" O.C.2' - 6 " 12 " EL. VARIES RE: DTLS. 1 & 2 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 COPE LEG. OF VERT. ANGLE AROUND L 4x4 BACK FACE OF VERT. LEG OF L 4x4 CONT. L 4x4x5/16 CONT. L4x4x5/16" WITH 1/2" Ø EXPANSION ANCHORS @ 18" O.C. DRILL AND EPOXY #4 @ 12" O.C. (2' -4" LONG W/ 6" EMBED.) TOOLED JOINTS W/ SEALANT 100' 0" 20 GA. PLATE CLOSURE #4 @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY 1' - 6 " 1' -6" 8" 8" WALL REINFORCING ~ RE: 7/S-211 #4 @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY COLD-FORMED STEEL STUD WALL, SEE DETAIL 8/S-212 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 6" SHEATHING 5'-10"10" 6 1/2" TOOLED JOINTS W/ SEALANT (TYP.) 4" DRAINAGE MAT 1/2" W.P. AND 6 1/2" 6" 6" CONT. L 4x4x5/16 #4 @ 12" O.C. #4 CONT. SITE PAVING/SIDEWALK 1' -6" 1' -6" CONT. L4x4x5/16" WITH 1/2" Ø EXPANSION ANCHORS @ 18" O.C. DRILL AND EPOXY #4 @ 12" O.C. (2' -4" LONG W/ 6" EMBED.) COLD-FORMED STEEL STUD WALL, SEE DETAIL 8/S-212 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WALL REINFORCING ~ RE: 7/S-211 10" 6 1/2" 3 AREA WELL FRAME WALL WITH 600S162-54 METAL STUDS @ 16" O.C. SEE PLAN, SHEET S-101 FOR EXTENT OF WALL WALL REINFORCING ~ RE: DETAIL 5/S-211 DOWEL ~ RE: DETAIL 5/S-211 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 4/ 6 / 2 0 2 0 5 : 5 1 : 5 7 P M S-212 STAIR DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS 23816JOHNM.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO REGISTERED S-212S-100 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 FULL STAIR SECTION S-212S-212 3/4" = 1'-0" 4 TOP OF STAIR DETAIL S-212S-212 3/4" = 1'-0" 3 STAIR TRANSITION DETAIL S-212S-212 3/4" = 1'-0" 5 SLAB STEP DETAIL S-212S-101 3/4" = 1'-0" 6 SECTION THROUGH STAIR S-212S-101 3/4" = 1'-0" 9 SECTION THROUGH LANDING REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.09 S-212S-101 3/4" = 1'-0" 8 WALL SECTION AT AREA WELL .07 04/07/2020 167 GRID GRID DECK SPAN GRID GRID GRID A A A A A A SLAB REINF. #4x @ 18" O.C. ONLY WHERE OVERHANG IS GREATER THAN 3" ~ NOT REQ'D AT OPENINGS EDGES WITHOUT STEEL BEAMS BEAM CL #4xCONT.RE: PLAN FOR BEAM SIZE T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN 3' - 0" CONTINUE DECK OVER OPENING AND CUT OPENING IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO INSTALLING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, ETC. SECTION AT DECK PARALLEL TO BEAM BEAM CL SECTION AT DECK PERPENDICULAR TO BEAM SEE "SECTION AT DECK PARALLEL TO BEAM" FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. STEEL BEAMS, PROVIDE #4 IN FIRST DECK FLUTE ~ EXTEND 3'-0" PAST OPENING AT OPENING EDGES WITHOUT 1" C L E A R RE: PLAN RE: PLAN SLAB OPENING BLOCKOUT SLAB OPENING BLOCKOUT STEEL COLUMN ~ RE: PLAN L4x4x5/16 ~TYP NOTES: 1. PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR ALL DECK WITH UNSUPPORTED EDGE EXCEEDING 6". 2. CONTRACTOR MAY SUBMIT ALTERNATE METHODS OF DECK SUPPORT AT COLUMNS FOR APPROVAL. 3. SUPPORT SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION LOADS. T.O. ANGLE FLUSH WITH T.O. BEAM ~ TYP L3x3x1/2 ~ TYP TYP 2 1/ 2 "CLR . 3/16 TYP 3/16TYP CONSTRUCTION JOINT WF GIRDER ~TYP. WF BEAM ~TYP. CONSTRUCTION JOINT TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT OF SLAB-ON-DECK CONSTRUCTION JOINTS NOTE: CONSTRUCTION JOINTS ARE SHOWN FOR RELATIVE LOCATIONS. ACTUAL JOINT PLACEMENT AND SLAB POUR SEQUENCE TO BE COORDINATED WITH THE ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION JOINT LAYOUT FOR THE ENGINEER'S REVIEW. MINIMIZE NUMBER OF JOINTS. PROVIDE #4x4'-0" @ 18" O.C. ACROSS JOINTS U.N.O. GIRDER SPAN +6 " T Y P I C A L 1/ 8 G I R D E R S P A N POUR #4 POUR #3 POUR #1POUR #2 E.Q.E.Q.E.Q.E.Q. +6 " T Y P I C A L 1/ 8 G I R D E R S P A N POUR STOP GAGE SCHEDULE SLAB THICKNESS 'T'<3"4" 5" 6" 7" 8" 9"10" 11" 12" OVERHANG DISTANCE, 'OH' T <= 4 20 18 18 16 14 12 12 12 10 10 4" < T <= 5 1/4"16 16 14 14 12 12 12 10 10 - 5 1/4" < T <= 6 1/2"14 14 12 12 12 12 10 10 - - 1-12 SLAB REINF. #4x @ 18" O.C. ONLY WHERE OVERHANG DISTANCE IS GREATER THAN 3" RE: PLAN POUR STOP RE: SHED. FOR GAGE #4xCONT. RE: PLAN FOR BEAM SIZE PROVIDE CELL CLOSURE WHERE DECK IS PERP. TO BEAM T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN 3' - 0" DIST "OH" OVERHANG 2" MIN.1/2 " M I N RETURN LIP AT 16 GA. AND LIGHTER ONLY METAL DECK STEEL BEAM ~ RE: PLAN ~ TYP. STEEL COLUMN RE: PLAN W.W.F. #4x5'-0" @ 18" O.C. ~ TYP. OVER GIRDERS SHEAR STUDS ~ RE: PLAN FOR QUANTITY AND SIZE ~TYP. CONCRETE SLAB ON METAL DECK 1/2" COLUMN CAP PLATE ~ R E : P L A N SL A B TH I C K N E S S T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN 1" C L R 'D ' / 2 OPENING NOTES: 1. STUDS SHOWN ARE IN ADDITION TO THOSE SHOWN ON PLAN. 2. ADDITIONAL STUDS/REBAR NOT REQUIRED AT UNTOPPED ROOF DECK. 3. OBTAIN ENGINEER APPROVAL BEFORE MODIFYING OPENINGS OR ADDING NEW OPENINGS. 'D ' / 2 RE: PLAN 'W' RE : P L A N 'H ' Ø RE: PLAN RE: PLAN CONCRETE ON METAL DECK WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN 1 1/2" CORNER RADIUS, TYP. CONCRETE ON METAL DECK WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN #3 x 5'-0" @ 9" O.C. EACH WAY CENTERED OVER OPENING. HOOK BARS AT SLAB EDGE. 2 STUDS PER FOOT 2'-6" MIN. 2 STUDS PER FOOT 2'-6" MIN. CIRCULAR OPENING RECTANGULAR OPENING 'D ' T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN 'D ' #3 x 5'-0" @ 9" O.C. EACH WAY CENTERED OVER OPENING. HOOK BARS AT SLAB EDGE. 2 STUDS PER FOOT 2'-6" MIN. 2 STUDS PER FOOT 2'-6" MIN. T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN 'D ' / 2 OPENING NOTES: 1. STUDS SHOWN ARE IN ADDITION TO THOSE SHOWN ON PLAN. 2. ADDITIONAL STUDS/REBAR NOT REQUIRED AT UNTOPPED ROOF DECK. 3. OBTAIN ENGINEER APPROVAL BEFORE MODIFYING OPENINGS OR ADDING NEW OPENINGS. 'D ' / 2 RE: PLAN 'W' RE : P L A N 'H ' Ø RE: PLAN RE: PLANCONCRETE ON METAL DECK WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN 1 1/2" CORNER RADIUS, TYP. CONCRETE ON METAL DECK WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN #3 x 5'-0" @ 9" O.C. EACH WAY CENTERED OVER OPENING. HOOK BARS AT SLAB EDGE. 2 STUDS PER FOOT 2'-6" MIN. 2 STUDS PER FOOT 2'-6" MIN. CIRCULAR OPENING RECTANGULAR OPENING 'D ' 'D ' #3 x 5'-0" @ 9" O.C. EACH WAY CENTERED OVER OPENING. HOOK BARS AT SLAB EDGE. 2 STUDS PER FOOT 2'-6" MIN. 2 STUDS PER FOOT 2'-6" MIN. 3/8" THICK STIFFENER PLATE TOP AND BOT. OF OPENING EACH FACE, CENTERED ON BEAM WEB OPENINGS 3/8" MIN. STIFFENER PLATE TOP AND BOT. OF OPENING EACH FACE, CENTERED ON BEAM WEB OPENINGS 3/16TYP. 4 PLACES SECTION A WEB BEYOND T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN 1" MIN. EQUAL SPA. XX STUDS [XX] (X") (X " ) [ X X ] NUMBER OF STUDS FOR BEAM ARE INDICATED THUS ON FRAMING PLAN INDICATES REACTION (KIPS) AT EACH END OF BEAM INDICATES THE AMOUNT OF CAMBER (INCHES) INDICATES REACTION (KIPS) THIS END OF BEAM ONLY. X X X COLUMN OR BEAM CL NOTE: MULTIPLE LINE SPCG. ONLY ALLOWED ON BMS. W/ FLANGE THICKNESS 0.3" OR GREATER DOUBLE LINE SPACING W/ FLANGE WIDTH < 5 3/4" TRIPLE LINE SPACING PLAN 4" M I N 24" MAX. 4 1/2" MIN. 1'-4" MAX 1'-4" MAX 4" MIN 24" MAX. 4 1/2" MIN. 3" MIN.3" MIN. 1 3/8" MIN. 1 3/8" MIN. NOTE: NUMBER PER BEAM IS INDICATED THUS: [XX] ON FRAMING PLANS 1 3/8" COLUMN OR BEAM FLANGE 3" MIN. WF OR HSS COLUMN ~ RE: PLAN 3" MIN. CENTER WWF MID-HEIGHT OF SLAB DEPTH ABOVE FLUTES SECTION A T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN WF BEAM ~ RE: PLAN CONCRETE SLAB ON METAL DECK ~ RE: PLAN CL OF BEAM SPAN W.W.F. SHEAR STUD ~ LOCATE IN THE FLAT PART OF THE DECK RIB THAT IS FARTHEST FROM THE CL OF THE BEAM SPAN DECK RIB STIFFENER RE: PLAN T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN SLAB REINF. ~ RE: PLAN DECK MFR. TO PROVIDE DECK CLOSURES AND FILLERS AS REQ'D. CELL CLOSURES AT HIGH HATS ONLY #4x5'-0" @ 18" O.C. ~ TYP. AT CHANGE IN DECK DIRECTION T.O. SLAB RE: PLAN STEEL BEAM ~ RE: PLAN SHEAR STUD #4 CHAIR BARS TYP. SHEAR CONNECTION ~ RE: GENERAL NOTES 1" CLR. 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 3/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 6 : 0 9 P M S-301 SLAB-ON-DECK/STEEL BEAM DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS S-301 3/4" = 1'-0" 4 TYPICAL SLAB OPENING DETAIL S-301 3/4" = 1'-0" 2 TYPICAL DECK SUPPORT AT COLUMNS S-301 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT PLAN S-301 3/4" = 1'-0" 5 INTERIOR EDGE OF SLAB DETAIL WITH POUR STOP S-301 3/4" = 1'-0" 3 TYPICAL TOP OF COLUMN CONNECTION DETAIL S-301 3/4" = 1'-0" 6 TYPICAL UNREINFORCED STEEL BEAM WEB OPENING DETAIL S-301 3/4" = 1'-0" 11 TYPICAL REINFORCED STEEL BEAM WEB OPENING DETAIL S-301 3/16" = 1'-0" 8 TYPICAL SHEAR STUD AND FRAMING NOMENCLATURE S-301 3/4" = 1'-0" 9 TYPICAL SHEAR STUD SPACING DETAIL S-301 3/4" = 1'-0" 10 TYPICAL BEAM SECTION S-301 3/4" = 1'-0" 7 TYPICAL GIRDER SECTION 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 3/26/2020 168 2" HOLE 2"6"6"2" 2" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 2" EMBED PL TYPE F 18-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. PL. 3/4"x1'-4"x2'-10" 2" HOLE 2"6"6"2" 2" 6" 6" 6" 6" 2" PL. 3/4"x1'-4"x2'-4 2"1'-0"2" 2" 4" 8" 4" 2" PL. 3/4"x1'-4"x1'-8" EMBED PL TYPE E 15-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. EMBED PL TYPE D 8-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. RE: SCHEDULE GAGE DIMENSION 6" 5/8" 5/ 1 6 " 2 3/4" Ø ERECTION BOLTS (HORIZ. SLOTTED HOLES) BUILT-UP TEE RE: SCHEDULE AND PLATE DETAIL EMBED PL. RE: SCHEDULE RE: PLATE TYPES FOR STUDS TOP OF BEAM AND EMBED PL. 3 3/4" "A" 2 1/4" MIN. RETURN TOP AND BOTTOM 1/4 RE: NOTE 1 2"10"2" 2" 4" 6" 4" 2" 2" 9" 2" 2"5"5"2" 2" 8" 2" 2"10"2" PL. 3/4"x1'-0"x1'-2"PL. 3/4"x1'-1"x1'-2" PL. 3/4"x1'-2"x1'-6" EMBED PL TYPE A 4-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. EMBED PL TYPE B 6-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. EMBED PL TYPE C 8-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. TEE DETAIL DO NOT WELD TOP OF TEE TO EMBED PLATES, RE: NOTE 1 EMBED PLATE SCHEDULE -10" WALL AND THICKER NOTE: 1. WELD FULL HEIGHT OF TEE EACH SIDE AND "2xWELD SIZE" RETURN TOP ONLY. 2. IF SHIMS ARE USED INCREASE THE WELD SIZE BY THICKNESS OF THE SHIMS (3/16" MAX. SHIM). 3. EMBED PLATE SETTING TOLERANCES ~ ± 1" VERT., ± 1 1/2" HORIZ. 4. FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS. 5. COORDINATE REQUIREMENTS FOR NAIL HOLES WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR 6. AVAILABLE STRENGTHS ARE BASED ON A MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE OF 12" FROM STUDS TO END OF CONCRETE (SIDE EDGE DISTANCE ON ONE SIDE ONLY), 12" FROM STUDS TO TOP OF CONCRETE (TOP EDGE DISTANCE) AND NO EDGE AT BOTTOM OF PLATE (LARGE BOTTOM EDGE DISTANCE). WHEN THESE ARE VIOLATED RE: 5/S-302 AT TOP OF WALL AND 8/S-302 AT WALL CORNERS. 7. AVAILABLE STRENGTHS ARE BASED ON A MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH OF 4000 PSI. 8. AVAILABLE STRENGTHS FOR PLATE SETTING TOLERANCE OF ± 4" HORIZ. PROVIDED. 9. AVAILABLE STRENGTHS BASE ON ANCHORS IN UNCRACKED CONCRETE. 10. WHERE TWO EMBEDS MEET AT A CORNER OR SIMILAR SITUATION, STAGGER ONE EMBED VERTICALLY 1" TO AVOID CONFLICTS. 11. WHERE TWO EMBEDS MEET ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF A WALL OR SIMILAR SITUATION, STAGGER THE EMBED WITH THE LIGHTER REACTION HORIZONTALLY 1" TO AVOID CONFLICTS. 25 k 40 k 50 k 60 k 70 k 90 k 125 k 10" 16" 18" 24" 27" 30" 36" 6"x0'-6" 6"x0'-8" 6"x0'-10" 8"x1'-0" 8"x1'-2" 8"x1'-4" 9"x1'-6" 5/16" 5/16" 5/16" 5/16" 3/8" 3/8" 3/8" AVAILABLE STRENGTH (LRFD)MAX. BEAM DEPTH TEE GAGE AND HEIGHT EMBED PLATE TYPE TOP OF WALL EMBED PLATE TYPE WELD "A" 4" TOLERANCE AVAILABLE STRENGTH (LRFD) SEE NOTE 8 15 k 15 k 30 k 30 k 30 k 70 k 90 k A BT A CT B DT C ET D ET E FT F N/A WHERE OCCURS U.N.O 12" MIN. TO TOP OF WALL OR OPENING 5/16 5/16 PL. 3/4"x1'-4"x2'-10" EMBED PL TYPE FT 18-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. 2" HOLE 2" 6" 6" 6" 6" 5" 3" 2"6"6"2" PL. 3/4"x1'-4"x2'-4" 2" HOLE 2" 6" 6" 6" 5" 3" 2"6"6"2" PL. 3/4"x1'-4"x1'-8"6"6" 2"1'-0"2" 2" 4" 7" 4" 3" EMBED PL TYPE ET 15-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. EMBED PL TYPE DT 9-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. PL. 3/4"x1'-2"x1'-6"2"10"2" 3" 4" 5" 4" 2" 5"5" 2"5"5"2" 3" 8" 2" PL. 3/4"x1'-1"x1'-2" 2" 7" 3" 2"10"2" PL. 3/4"x1'-0"x1'-2"TYP. ALL PLATE TYPES 12" MIN. EDGE DISTANCE BUILT-UP TEE RE: 1/S-302 FOR PLATE DETAILS, SCHEDULE, AND WELDS T.O. BEAM AND EMBED PL. EMBED PL. RE: PLATE TYPES TOP OF WALL OR OPENING WHERE OCCURS, MAY NOT ALIGN W/ TOP OF EMBED/BEAM RE: PLATE TYPES FOR STUDS NOTE: RE: 1/S-302 FOR INFORMATION NOT SHOWN EMBED PL TYPE BT 6-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. EMBED PL TYPE AT 4-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. EMBED PL TYPE CT 9-3/4"Øx 8 3/16" H.A.S. TOLERANCE 2 1/4" ~ COULD RANGE FROM 3/4" TO 3 3/4" WITH CONCRETE 3" MIN SELECTION CONNECTION AND EMBED PLATE PER 1/S-302 CL. BEAM AND CONN./EMBED REPLACE STUDS NEAREST CORNER WITH #6x4'-0" A706 BARS OR DBA HEADED STUDS PER 1/S-302 PLAN VIEW 8" (MIN) RE: PLAN PLAN NORTH 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 3/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 4 6 : 1 4 P M S-302 TYPICAL STEEL-CONCRETE CONNECTION DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS N.T.S.S-302 1 TOP STEEL BEAM TO CONCRETE CONNECTION - 10" WALL AND THICKER N.T.S.S-302 5 TOP OF WALL CONCRETE CONNECTION - 10" WALL AND THICKER S-302 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 8 CORNER CONNECTION - 10" WALL AND THICKER 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 3/26/2020 169 PL. 3/4"x10"x1'-8" 2"6"2" 2" 5" 6" 5" 2" EMBED PL 9-#7x 7'-0" D.B.A. 1' - 8 " 10" STEEL BEAM RE: PLAN TEE CONNECTION EMBED PL RE: DETAIL RE: GEN NOTES LAP SPLICE #7x7'-0" D.B.A., TYP OF 8 RE: 1 / S-302 CONCRETE WALL RE: PLAN U-BAR AT WALL END, MATCH SIZE AND SPACING OF HOR. WALL REINFORCING 1 1/2" 1 1/2" 1/2" 4" 2" 3 " 3 " 3 " 3 " 3 " 2 " 1' - 7 " 1/4 3 SIDES STEEL BEAM RE: PLAN PL1/2"x7 1/2"x1'-7" SHEAR PLATE 1"Ø BOLT, TYP OF 6 STEEL BEAM RE: PLAN 2" 5 " 5" 2 " 1 1/2" 4" 1 1/2" PL3/4"x7"x1'-2" CAP PLATE 3/4"Ø BOLT, TYP OF 4 STEEL POST RE: PLAN STEEL BEAM RE: PLAN SLAB ON METAL DECK RE: PLAN STEEL BEAM RE: PLAN PL3/4"x7"x1'-2" CAP PLATE 3/4"Ø BOLT, TYP OF 4 STEEL POST RE: PLAN SECTION STEEL BEAM, TYP RE: PLAN 1/2" THICK STIFFENER PLATE, EA. SIDE, CENTER OVER COLUMN 2" 4 " 4" 2 " 1 1/2"4"1 1/2" STEEL BEAM RE: PLAN PL1/2"x7"x1'-0" CAP PLATE 3/4"Ø BOLT, TYP OF 4 STEEL POST RE: PLAN SECTION B-B (AT SIM) HSS POST, AT SIM RE: PLAN 3/4"Ø BOLT, AT SIM, TYP OF 4 PL1/2"x7"x1'-0" CAP PLATE, AT SIM 1/2" STIFFENER PLATE, EA. SIDE OF BEAM, AT SIM, CENTER OVER POST SLAB ON METAL DECK RE: PLAN HSS4x4x1/4 PL1/2"x5"x0'-5" HSS3-1/2x3-1/2x5/16x0'-6" STEEL BEAM RE: PLAN 3/4"Ø BOLT, TYP OF 2 HSS POST, RE: PLAN A A SECTION A-A B B HSS POST, RE: PLAN 1/4 1/4 1/2" STIFFENER PLATE, EA. SIDE OF BEAM, AT SIM, CENTER OVER POST SLAB ON METAL DECK RE: PLAN 1/4 1/4TYP. AT SIM HSS POST, AT SIM RE: PLAN 1/4 PLAN NORTH 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 7 : 4 9 : 1 2 A M S-311 FRAMING DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS S-311S-101 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 END OF WALL EMBED PLATE 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED S-311S-101 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 BEAM SPLICE DETAIL S-311S-101 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 BEAM OVER POST DETAIL S-311S-101 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 5 POST ON STEEL BEAM CONNECTION REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.07 1/4 04/07/2020 170 'SIMPSON' H2.5 AT EACH TRUSS 'SIMPSON' A35 @ 12" O.C. 'SIMPSON' LTP4 CLIP @ 9" O.C. 2' - 0 " 6" EXISTING DOUBLE PLATE ROOF BLOCKING 5/8"Ø J-BOLT, W/ 12" EMBEDMENT, @ 2' - 0" O.C. ALTERNATE: USE 5/8"Ø EXP. BOLTS W/ 5" EMBED. @ 2'-0" O.C. #4 SINGLE LEG STIRRUPS @ 8" O.C. ABOVE OPENINGS BEAM REINFORCEMENT RE: ELEVATIONS CONCRETE HEADER BEAM 112'-1" 4" EXISTING 2x6 RAFTER NOTE: RE: DETAIL 1/S-503 FOR OVERHANG CONSTRUCTION 'SIMPSON' H2.5 AT EACH TRUSS 'SIMPSON' A35 @ 12" O.C. 'SIMPSON' LTP4 CLIP @ 9" O.C. EXISTING DOUBLE PLATE ROOF BLOCKING RE: 1/S-321 WALL REINFORCEMENT RE: ELEVATIONS CONCRETE WALL RE: PLAN AND ELEVATIONS 112'-1" EXISTING 2x6 RAFTER NOTE: RE: DETAIL 1/S-503 FOR OVERHANG CONSTRUCTION SECTION PLAN SPLICE CLASS 'B' POUR BREAK ST A G G E R S P L I C E S ST A G G E R S P L I C E S AT LOCATIONS WHERE REINFORCEMENT AT WALL BELOW IS LARGER THAN REINFORCEMENT AT WALL ABOVE PROVIDE CLASS 'B' LAP SPLICE OF SMALLER BAR OR DEVELOPMENT LENGTH OF LARGER BAR, WHICHEVER IS GREATER ~ RE: GENERAL NOTES FOR BAR DEVELOPMENT AND SPLICE LENGTHS SINGLE SLEEVES 4" MIN. BETWEEN EQ.EQ. BAR SPACING 1'-0" O.C. ~ TYP. HORIZ. BAR SPACING 1'-0" O.C. ~ TYP. VERT. UP TO 8 SLEEVES IN A GROUP ~ 4x2 PATTERN (SHOWN) OR 3x3 EQ. EQ. AND ADJACENT SLEEVES ~ E.W. 1'-4" MIN. BETWEEN GROUP WALL REINFORCING 8" MAX. SLEEVE Ø IN ANY ONE DIRECTION MAX. OF 4 SLEEVES 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 7 : 5 0 : 1 2 A M S-321 CONCRETE WALL AND FRAMING DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS S-321S-102 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 CONCRETE HEADER BEAM S-321S-102 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 ROOF CONNECTION AT CONCRETE WALL S-321 3/4" = 1'-0" 3 REINFORCEMENT SPLICE DETAILS S-321 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 TYPICAL REINFORCEMENT AROUND SLEEVES IN WALLS 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.07 04/07/2020 171 LEVEL 1 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 112'-1" E D C A TY P 9' - 8 1 / 2 " 5'-6 1/4"12'-10 1/2"5'-2 3/4"12'-8"5'-3 3/4" 3'-9 3/4" 8'-10 3/4" 5'-3 3/4"12'-8"5'-2 3/4"12'-10 1/2"5'-6 1/4" 45'-5"14'-4"36'-2" SW1 SW1 SW1 SW1 SW1SW1 HD1 HD1 HD1 HD1 HD1 HD1 HD1 HD1 HD1 HD1 HD1 HD1 B 45'-5"14'-4"12'-8"23'-6" (+/-) 8'-10" (+/-) 10'-2" TRUSS TYPE T4 TRUSS TYPE T8 5 1/8" x 18" GLULAM w/(2) TRIMMERS & 2 KINGS 5 1/8" x 18" GLULAM w/(2) TRIMMERS & 2 KINGS LEVEL 1 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 112'-1" EDC 4'-1 1/2"6'-4"15'-4"3'-10"15'-9 1/2" 45'-5"14'-4" HD2 (+/-) 10'-2" 45'-5"14'-4" TRUSS TYPE T4 9' - 8 1 / 2 " BW1 HD28' - 2 " SEE DTLS. 8/S-212 & 12/S-503. METAL STUD FRAMED WALL SW2 PROVIDE HEADER AS NOTED IN SCHEDULES, PROVIDE FULL BEARING TO HEADER FROM GIRDER, PROVIDE MINIMUM (3) TRIMMERS (3) KINGS 5 S-501 12 S-503 4343 1 2 NOTES: 1. RE: S-501 AND S-502 FOR WALL DETAILS AND SCHEDULES. 2. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WALL DIMENSIONS AND OPENINGS ARE COORDINATED WITH ARCHITECTURAL WALLS. 3. INDICATES WALL TYPE. RE: 1/S-502 FOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE. WALL TYPE IS TO APPLY TO ENTIRE WALL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLAN. 4. INDICATES HOLDDOWN. RE: 3/S-502 FOR HOLDDOWN SCHEDULE. SWX HDX LEVEL 1 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 112'-1" CAB HD2 HD1 12'-8"23'-6" 4"10'-2"13'-0" 6x 6 P O S T 6x 6 P O S T 9' - 8 " 9' - 8 " 2'-8" FUTURE OPENING 10'-0"10'-10" FUTURE OPENING 10'-0"2'-8" HD2 W12 ROOF BEAM W12 ROOF BEAM 113'-0 1/4" T.O. STEEL SW2 BW1 BW1 11 S-503 11 S-503 KEY NOTES (COLD-FORMED FRAMED WALLS) WALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE 600S162-54 STUDS AT 16" O.C. SHEATHED WITH 15/32" OSB ON EXTERIOR FASTENED WITH #10 SELF DRILLING SCREWS AT 8" O.C. AT PANEL EDGES. PROVIDE LIGHT GAGE BLOCKING AT PANEL EDGES. FASTEN SHEATHING TO INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS WITH #10 SELF DRILLING SCREWS AT 12" O.C. FASTEN BOTTOM TRACK TO SLAB USING 5/8" DIA. BY 4-1/2" EMBEDMENT EXPANSION ANCHORS AT 48" O.C. WALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE 600S162-54 STUDS AT 16" O.C. SHEATHED WITH 15/32" OSB ON INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SIDES FASTENED WITH #10 SELF DRILLING SCREWS AT 8" O.C. AT PANEL EDGES. PROVIDE LIGHT GAGE BLOCKING AT PANEL EDGES. FASTEN SHEATHING TO INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS WITH #10 SELF DRILLING SCREWS AT 12" O.C. FASTEN BOTTOM TRACK TO SLAB USING 5/8" DIA. BY 4-1/2" EMBEDMENT EXPANSION ANCHORS AT 24" O.C. HOLD DOWN AT ENDS OF WALL SEGMENT SHALL BE SIMPSON HTT4 TENSION TIE FASTENED TO ONE 600S162-54 STUD AND ONE 5/8" DIA. BY 12" EMBEDMENT ANCHOR BOLT. HOLD DOWN AT ENDS OF WALL SEGMENT SHALL BE SIMPSON HTT5 TENSION TIE FASTENED TO TWO 600S162-54 STUDS AND ONE 5/8" DIA. BY 14" EMBEDMENT ANCHOR BOLT. 1 2 3 4 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 7 : 5 1 : 4 7 A M S-401 WALL ELEVATIONS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS S-401S-101 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 WALL 5 ELEVATIONS S-401S-101 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 WALL 1 ELEVATION RE: 1/S401 FOR NOTES. 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.07 S-401S-102-P 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 WALL 3 ELEVATION RE: 1/S401 FOR NOTES. 04/07/2020 172 LEVEL 1 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 112'-1" 312 19'-11"19'-11"33'-2" 4 SW2 HD2 HD2 HD2 HD2 HD1 HD1 HD2 HD2 HD2 HD1 19'-11"19'-11"33'-2" 9' - 8 1 / 2 " 9' - 8 1 / 2 " 2' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 6' - 1 0 " 2' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 6' - 1 0 " 2' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 6' - 1 0 " 4'-4 3/4"6'-4 1/2"5'-11 3/4"3'-2"3'-2"5'-11 3/4"6'-4 1/2"4'-4 3/4"4'-5"6'-4"10'-8"6'-4 1/2"5'-4 1/2" HD1 SW1 SW1 SW1 SW2SW2 LEVEL 1 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 112'-1" 3 12 4'-9"12'-4" 2'-10" 2'-10" 12'-4"4'-9" #5@12" O.C., VERT #5@12" O.C., VERT #5@12" O.C., VERT #5@12" O.C., HOR #5@12" O.C., HOR #5@12" O.C., HOR #8xCONT. BEAM REINF.,ABOVE OPENING, TYP. #4 STIRRUPS @ 8" O.C. WALL DOWELS MATCH SIZE AND SPACING OF WALL REINFORCEMENT Ld L d 1 S-321 1 S-321 9' - 9 " 9' - 9 " 19'-11"19'-11" 4" TOP OF CONCRETE WALL 2 S-321 2 S-321 2 S-321 NOTES: 1. RE: GENERAL NOTES FOR CONCRETE AND REINFORCING INFORMATION. 2. RE: PLAN FOR WALL THICKNESS AND LOCATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WALL DIMENSIONS AND OPENINGS ARE COORDINATED WITH ARCHITECTURAL WALLS. 4. PROVIDE STANDARD HOOK FOR ALL HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT AT WALL ENDS AND OPENINGS. 5. 'Ld' INDICATES DEVELOPMENT LENGTH. SEE GENERAL NOTES FOR LENGTHS. 6. RE: S-311 FOR REINFORCING SPLICE AND WALL PENTRATION DETAILS. LEVEL 1 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 112'-1" 34 SW1 33'-2" 2'-2 1/2"12'-8 1/2"18'-3" BW1 HD1 HD1 9' - 8 1 / 2 " 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 7 : 5 4 : 0 4 A M S-402 WALL ELEVATIONS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS S-402S-101 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 WALL 4 ELEVATION S-402S-101 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 WALL 6 ELEVATION RE: 1/S-401 FOR NOTES 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.07 S-402S-101 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 WALL 2 ELEVATION RE: 1/S-401 FOR NOTES 04/07/2020 173 GRID MAX BORED HOLE Ø IS 40% OF STUD WIDTH (60% MAX ALLOWED IF STUD IS DOUBLED ~ NO MORE THAN TWO SUCCESSIVE DOUBLED STUDS ALLOWED) 2x4 - 1 3/8"Ø (40%), 2 1/8"Ø (60%) 2x6 - 2 3/16"Ø (40%), 3 5/16"Ø (60%) CENTER HOLES IN STUD MAX NOTCH DEPTH IS 25% OF STUD WIDTH 2x4 - 7/8" MAX. 2x6 - 1 3/8" MAX. MAX BORED HOLE Ø IS 60% OF STUD WIDTH 2x4 - 2 1/8"Ø 2x6 - 3 5/16"Ø MAX NOTCH DEPTH IS 40% OF STUD WIDTH 2x4 - 1 3/8" MAX. 2x6 - 2 3/16" MAX. TYPICAL NOTES FOR BEARING WALLS: 1.HOLES SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN THE SAME STUD AS A CUT OR NOTCH. 2.CONTACT ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CUTTING OR NOTCHING TO VERIFY SIZE AND LOCATION IF HOLES GREATER THAN 20% STUD WIDTH OR NOTCHES GREATER THAN 10% STUD WIDTH ARE REQUIRED IN TWO OR MORE CONSECUTIVE STUDS. EXTERIOR OR BEARING WALL NON-BEARING PARTITION WALL STUD FACE 5/8" MIN TO EQ EQ LENGTH OF WALL (BETWEEN CORNERS OR DEMISING WALLS) SPLICE LENGTH (MINIMUM) NAILS ALONG SPLICE LENGTH OVER 30' OVER 20' OVER 10' LESS THAN 10' 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 18-16d 10-16d 6-16d 4-16d TOP PLATE SPLICE CENTERED OVER STUD ~ TYP. DOUBLE TOP PLATE NAILS BETWEEN SPLICE LOCATION PER SCHEDULE ~ STAGGERED SPLICE LENGTH PER SCHEDULE NOTE: DO NOT SPLICE TOP PLATES WITHIN 6'-0" OF ENDS OF WOOD SHEARWALLS 'SIMPSON' MST 37 STRAP TIE ACROSS BEAM 16d NAILS AT 4" O.C. STAGGERED BOTH SIDES OF BEAM WOOD OR GLU-LAM BEAM ~ RE: PLAN FOR SIZE AND LOCATION 2x KING STUD DBL. 2x TRIMMER MIN. 16d NAILS @ 12" O.C. STAGGERED 2x STUD WALL ~ RE: PLAN DBL. 2x TOP PLATE 3 4 5 1 2 4 6 3 4 4 9 8 7 1 WOOD STUDS AT WALL ENDS, INTERSECTING WALLS, JAMBS OF OPENINGS, AND @ 16" O.C. 2 2x BLOCKING AT MID-HEIGHT OR AT 5'-0" O.C. MAX 3 WOOD HEADER ~ RE: HEADER SCHEDULE 4 MINIMUM SINGLE TRIMMER AND JAMB STUD AT OPENINGS ~ RE: HEADER SCHEDULE FOR ADDIT. INFORMATION 5 RE: GENERAL NOTES FOR NAILING REQUIREMENTS 6 ANCHOR BOLTS IN TREATED WOOD SILL PLATE AT FOUNDATIONS. 7 CONT. DOUBLE TOP PLATE. SPLICE ~ RE: TYP. DETAIL 8 FRAMING CLIP. ONLY OCCURS IS SHEATHING DOES NOT EXTEND OVER SILL/TOP PLATES 9 SIMPSON A34 ~ TYPICAL AS SHOWN 10 11 DOUBLE SILL PLATE WHERE GYP-CRETE FLOOR TOPPING OCCURS. 12 ROOF TRUSSES ROOF SHEATHING ~ RE: PLAN NOTES 1 5 10 11 12 18 9 11 1 2x WOOD STUDS @ 16" O.C. MAX 2 SOLID BLOCKING IF SHEATHING PANEL JOINT OCCURS 3 WOOD LINTEL 4 ROOF SHEATHING ~ RE: PLAN NOTES 5 7 ANCHOR BOLTS IN TREATED WOOD SILL PLATE AT FOUNDATIONS. 8 9 BUILT-UP STUD POSTS AS REQUIRED FOR STRAP HOLDOWN 10 EDGE ATTACHMENT AT SHEATHING EDGE DOUBLE TOP PLATE 6 HOLDOWN ANCHOR ~ RE: HOLDOWN SCHEDULE 1 2 2 3 3 11 SHEAR WALL SHEATHING ~ RE: SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE 667 ROOF TRUSSES 10 12 NOTE: SEE TYPICAL WOOD STUD EXTERIOR/BEARING WALL DETAIL FOR INFORMATION SHOWN BUT NOT DENOTED 12 4 85 12 HOLDDOWN ~ RE: ELEVATIONS AND HOLDDOWN SCHEDULE 9 EDGE ATTACHMENT (E) WOOD TRUSS ~ RE: PLAN WALL SHEATHING EDGE ATTACHMENT NEW 2X6 TOP PLATE STUD WALL ~ RE: PLAN AND TYPICAL DETAILS 'SIMPSON' H2.5 AT EACH TRUSS 'SIMPSON' A35 AT EACH TRUSS TO TOP PLATE 'SIMPSON' LTP4 CLIP ~ RE: SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE FOR SPACING 2x BLOCKING COLD ROOF AND OVERHANG ~ RE: ARCH EXIST. DOUBLE 2xTOP PLATE TRUSS TYPE T4 BOT. CHORD. REMOVABLE SECTION OF CEILING JOIST, RE: DETAIL OF ROOF ABOVE TYP. 2" 1'-4"1'-4"1'-4" EXIST. CEILING JOIST 1' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 2" 2"2" PLAN OF CEILING JOISTS DETAIL 16 GA. PLATE x 3" WIDE & 6" LONG W/ (2) 1/4" SCREWS EXISTING RAFTER 2x4 HANGER TO MATCH EXISTING EXISTING CEILING JOIST HINGE -3'-0" 85° 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 9 : 4 8 : 2 8 A M S-501 TYPICAL WOOD DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS S-501 1" = 1'-0" 6 TYPICAL STUD NOTCHES AND HOLES S-501 1" = 1'-0" 7 TYPICAL TOP PLATE SPLICE S-501 1" = 1'-0" 8 TYPICAL BEAM POCKET S-501 3/4" = 1'-0" 1 TYPICAL WOOD STUD EXTERIOR/BEARING WALL S-501 3/4" = 1'-0" 3 TYPICAL WOOD STUD SHEAR WALL FOR SHEAR PIERS S-501S-102 1" = 1'-0" 5 WOOD TRUSS AT WOOD STUD WALL 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.07 S-501S-102 3/4" = 1'-0" 9 ACCESS MATCH PLAN & SECTION 04/07/2020 174 WALL TYPE WALL SCHEDULE WALL SHEATHING, APA-RATED BLOCKING & STUD SIZE @ PANEL EDGES STUD SIZE 2x 2x 2x6 DF#2 STUD SPACING 16" O.C. NAIL SIZE & SPACING @ ALL PANEL EDGES 10d @ 6" O.C. SILL PLATE ATTACHEMENT ANCHOR BOLT & SPACING SILL PLATE SIZE REMARKS 5/8" Ø @ 48" O.C. 5/8" Ø @ 24" O.C. 2x 2x NOTES: 1. SEE SHEARWALL GENERAL NOTES 2. EQUIVALENT FASTENER TABLE MAY BE USED, SEE SCHEDULES 3. SEE TYPICAL SHEARWALL FRAMING DETAILS. 4. DO NOT RECESS ANCHOR BOLT NUT AND WASHER INTO SILL PLATE. EMBED 7" INTO CONCRETE. 5. LOCATE ANCHOR BOLTS 10" FROM EACH END OF EACH SILL PIECE WITH A MINIMUM OF (2) ANCHOR BOLTS PER PIECE. 6. LOCATE ANCHOR BOLTS 5" FROM END OF CONCRETE WALLS AND WALL STEPS. BW1 15/32" OSBSW1 2x6 DF#2 16" O.C. BLOCKING CONNECTION TO TOP PLATE BELOW A35 @ 24" O.C. A35 @ 12" O.C. 8d @ 6" O.C.15/32" OSB RE: 1/S-501 RE: 3/S-501 2x10d @ 4" O.C.5/8" Ø @ 24" O.C.(2) 2x15/32" OSB BOTH SIDESSW2 2x6 DF#2 16" O.C. A35 @ 12" O.C., H2.5 @ EA. RAFTER, LTP4 @ 9" O.C. RE: 3/S-501 HOLDOWN SCHEDULE MARK HOLDOWN ANCHORAGE STUD HD1 HDU4 PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS (2) 2x6 NOTES: 1. BUILT UP MEMBER SCHEDULE MAY BE USED. HD2 HDU14 PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS 4x6 NOTES: 1. RE: S-501 FOR ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS. 2. GLULAM GRADE TO BE 2.0E-2600Fb. ROUGH OPENING WIDTH HEADER SIZE TYPICAL EXTERIOR HEADER SCHEDULE JAMB STUDS KING STUDS JAMB STUDS R.O. ≤ 4'-6"(3) 2x8 2 1 4'-6" ≤ R.O. ≤ 7'-8"(1) 6x12 2 2 7'-8" ≤ R.O. ≤ 12'-4"(3) 1.75x14 LVL2 3 3 BUILT-UP MEMBER FASTENER SCHEDULE FASTENER MAX WIDTH 3 1/2" 2-PLY 10d (0.128"x3") 1/2"Ø A307 BOLTS MAX WIDTH 5 1/4" 3-PLY 1/4"x3 1/2" SDS 1/4"x6" SDS 3 3/8" TRUSSLOK 5 3/8" TRUSSLOK MAX WIDTH 5 1/4" 2-PLY MAX WIDTH 7" 3-PLY MAX WIDTH 7" 2-PLY MAX WIDTH 7" 4-PLY 2" 2" (3) ROWS @ 12" O.C.NOT ALLOWED (2) ROWS @ 16" O.C. w/ WASHERS EA. SIDE, MAX HOLE = 9/16"Ø (2) ROWS @ 12" O.C.NOT ALLOWED (2) ROWS @ 12" O.C.NOT ALLOWED (2) ROWS @ 12" O.C.NOT ALLOWED (2) ROWS @ 12" O.C.NOT ALLOWED 2" NOTES: 1. SCHEDULE APPLIES TO 2x LUMBER, 3x LUMBER, 4x LUMBER, LVL, LSL, PSL, AND GL. EACH DIAGRAM ABOVE SHOWS ONLY ONE OPTION FOR FASTENING ANY ALLOWABLE OPTION MAY BE USED. 2" 2" A 4'-0"10"8'-8" 111'-9" W8x10 CAP PL 3/8x5x0'-5" WITH (2) 5/8" Ø THREADED STUDS WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE 1/4" PL x3"x0'-4" HIGH SIDE PL (BOTH SIDES) WITH (2) 5/16" Ø x1 1/2" LONG LAG SCREWS4x4 POST DETAIL AT POSTS EXISTING RAFTERS EXISTING 2x6 TOP PLATE NEW 2x6 PLATE NEW WALL STUDS 2x10'S @ 16" O.C. 3/4" SHEATHING SIMPSON FACE MOUNT JOIST HANGER NEW 2x10 LEDGER. CONNECT TO EACH STUD WITH (3) 1/4" Ø SDS SCREWS AT EACH STUD WITH 3" EMBED. NEW 2x TRIM 2x4 PARAPET WALL 2x10 EDGE 2x10 OUT-RIGGERS @ 16" O.C. SIMPSON TOP MOUNT JOIST HANGER W8x10 SEE ADJACENT DETAIL @ 4x4 POST GRID A OR C 113'-1 3/4" T.O. SHEATHING 6'-8" 2x6 STUD WALL 2x6 @ 16" O.C. 2x4 @ 16" O.C. DETAIL "B" DETAIL "B"DETAIL "A" 2x10 ROOF JOISTS @ 16" O.C. SLOPE TO MATCH EXIST. ROOF DETAIL "B" 1" = 1'-0" DETAIL "A" 1" = 1'-0" GRID 2x10 AT 16" O.C.(ALIGN JOIST WITH WALL STUD) 2x BLOCKING, TOE NAIL TO TOP PLATE DOUBLE 2x6 TOP PLATE (4) 10d NAILS 2x4 BLOCKING 1/2" SHEATHING 2x4 @ 16" O.C. (ALIGN WITH JOISTS) EXTEND 2x4 VERTS. PER ARCH. 2x6 @ 16" O.C. 2x4 BOT. PLATE 1/2" SHEATHING (4) 10d NAILS NOTE: FOR CONNECTION INFORMATION AND OVERHANG CONSTRUCTION, RE: DETAIL 1/S-503. 4 113'-1 3/4" T.O. SHEATHING 6'-8" 2x6 STUD WALL 2x6 @ 16" O.C. 2x4 @ 16" O.C. DETAIL "B" 9/S-502 DETAIL "B"DETAIL "A" SLOPE TO MATCH EXIST. ROOF 2x4 (FLAT) 2x 4 2x 4 REQUIRED AS TYP. 1'-4" LOCATE JOIST TIGHT TO 2x6 RAFTER 2x12 JOISTS @ 16" O.C. BLOCKING WITH JOIST HANGERS 112'-1" DOUBLE 2x12 DETAIL "B" 1" = 1'-0" DETAIL "A" 1" = 1'-0" GRID 2x BLOCKING DOUBLE 2x6 TOP PLATE 2x4 @ 16" O.C. (ALIGN WITH JOISTS) 3/4" SHEATHING FOR TOP OF WALL, RE: DETAIL "B", 9/S-502 2x12 JOISTS 2x12 BLOCKING WITH SIMPSON FACE MOUNT HANGERS 2x BLOCKING 16" O.C. 2x4 (FLAT) VERT. 2x4 @ 16" O.C. (2) 10d NAILS NOTE: FOR CONNECTION INFORMATION AND OVERHANG CONSTRUCTION, RE: DETAIL 1/S-503. 4 DETAIL OF TOP PLATE 112'-1" TOP BEYOND 113'-1 3/4" 2x6 REFTER, RE: DETAIL 11/S-502 COPE FLANGE & WEB FOR ROOF SLOPE 2x6 STUDS ADJACENT TO 6x6 POST SECTION W12 2x BLOCKING 2x6 TOP PLATES POST CAP PLATE 1/2"x5 1/2"x0'-6" WITH (2) 3/4" Ø THREADED STUDS WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE 1/4" SIDE PLATES: 1/4"x4" x0'-6" HIGH WITH (2) 1/2" Ø THROUGH BOLTS 2x NAILER 2x12 JOIST WITH SIMPSON TOP FLANGE HANGERW12 BEAM SEE DETAIL 6x6 POST WITH STEEL CAP PLATE 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 3/ 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 9 : 2 5 : 1 8 A M S-502 WOOD SCHEDULES & DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS NO SCALES-502 1 WALL SCHEDULE - WOOD N.T.S.S-502 3 SCHEDULES N.T.S.S-502 4 BUILT-UP MEMBER FASTENER SCHEDULE 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 S-502S-102 1" = 1'-0" 5 ENTRY CANOPY SECTION S-502S-102 1/2" = 1'-0" 9 MANSARD ROOF FRAMING DETAILS S-502S-102 1/2" = 1'-0" 11 MANSARD ROOF FRAMING DETAIL S-502S-102 1" = 1'-0" 7 ROOF SECTION AND DETAIL 3/26/2020 175 GRID EDGE ATTACHMENT 2x FULL DEPTH BLOCKING ROOF JOIST ~ RE: PLAN WALL SHEATHING ~RE: SHEARWALL SCHEDULE EDGE ATTACHMENT DOUBLE 2x TOP PLATESTUD WALL ~ RE: PLAN AND TYPICAL DETAILS 'SIMPSON' H2.5 AT EACH ROOF JOIST 'SIMPSON' A35 AT EACH ROOF JOIST TO TOP PLATE 'SIMPSON' A35 CLIP ~ RE: SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE FOR SPACING RE: ARCH. 2x4 SOFFIT FRAMING DBL. 2x BLOCKING OR 3x BLOCKING COLD ROOF ~RE: ARCH. (E) ROOF TRUSS ~ RE: PLAN 'SIMPSON' HUC212-3 MAX AT EA TRUSS ROOF SHEATHING ~ RE: PLAN NOTES 2x BLOCKING ROOF BEAM ~ RE: PLAN WALL SHEATHING, SHEATH PER 'BW1' REQUIREMENTS ~ RE: WALL SCHEDULE 2x BLOCKING EDGE ATTACHMENT NEW TRUSS VERT ~RE: TRUSS ELEVATIONS ROOF JOIST ~ RE: PLAN NEW TRUSS DIAGONAL ~ RE: TRUSS ELEVATIONS 'SIMPSON' A35 AT 24" O.C. ROOF JOIST ~ RE: PLAN ROOF SHEATHING ~ RE: PLAN NOTES ROOF BEAM ~ RE: PLAN 'SIMPSON' ITS1.81/11.88 TYP DOUBLE BOND BEAM W/ (2) #5 x CONT. EA. 5/8" Ø SIMPSON STRONG-BOLT 2 EXPANSION ANCHORS @ 24" O.C. (STAGGERED) DEPTH 5" EMBED 8" CMU WALL WITH #5 @ 2'-0" O.C. VERT. ROOF SHEATHING ~ RE: PLAN NOTES ROOF JOIST ~ RE: PLAN T.O. SHEATHING RE: PLAN NOTES (2) 1 3/4"x11 7/8" LEDGER DOUBLE BOND BEAM W/ (2) #5 x CONT. EA. 5/8" Ø SIMPSON STRONG-BOLT 2 EXPANSION ANCHORS @ 24" O.C. (STAGGERED) DEPTH 5" EMBED 8" CMU WALL WITH #5 @ 2'-0" O.C. VERT. ROOF SHEATHING ~ RE: PLAN NOTES ROOF JOIST ~ RE: PLAN (2) 1 3/4"x11 7/8" LEDGER 'SIMPSON' ITS1.81/11.88 TOP FLANGE HANGER T.O. SHEATHING RE: PLAN NOTES 2x FRAMING ROOF SHEATHING ~ RE: PLAN SAFETY BEAM ~ RE: PLAN 2x8 PRESSURE TREATED SILL PLATE W/ 5/8" DIA .x 5" SIMPSON TITEN HD AT 48" O.C. 2x10 RIM W/ SIMPSON A35 CLIP @ 24" O.C. DOUBLE BOND BEAM W/ (2) #5xCONT. EA. 8" CMU WALL WITH #5 @ 1'-4" O.C. VERT. NOTES: 1. AT SIMILAR SECTION SAFETY BEAM IS NOT PRESENT OR ROOF FRAMING IS RUNNING PERPENDICULAR 2. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE THE ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF SAFETY BEAM WITH THE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER T.O. SHEATHING RE: PLAN T.O. SAFETY BEAM RE: MANUFACTURER 2" C L R . 113'-6" T.O.S. GLULAM BEAM ~ RE: PLAN 'SIMPSON' CC04 POST CAP HSS COLUMN ~ RE: PLAN1/4 T.O. SHTG. RE: PLAN NOTES ROOF SHEATHING ~ RE: PLAN NOTES 2 12 WOOD BEAM ~ RE: PLAN WOOD RAFTER ~ RE: PLAN ROOF SHTG. ~ RE: PLAN NOTES 2'-0" MAX 2x10 LEDGER w/(2) 1/4"Ø SDS SCREWS AT EA. STUD 3" EMBEDMENT MINIMUM ~ RE: PLAN PROVIDE 12d TOE-NAILS AT 12" O.C. INTO BEAM 2x BLOCKING LIGHT GAGE FRAMED WALL ~ RE: PLAN WALL SHEATHING ~RE: SHEARWALL SCHEDULE STUD WALL BEYOND ~ RE: PLAN AND TYPICAL DETAILS (3) 11 7/8" LVL HEADER AT FUTURE OPENING WITH (2) TRIMMERS AND (2) KING STUDS AT ONE JAMB AND (1) TRIMMER AND 6x6 POST AT OTHER JAMB PROVIDE 2x6 STUDS ABOVE FUTURE OPENING BEAM AT 16" O.C. 'SIMPSON' A35 AT EA. PARAPET STUD GRID 2x BLOCKING DOUBLE 2x6 TOP PLATE 3/4" SHEATHING VERT. 2x4 @ 16" O.C. (2) 10d NAILS 112'-1 109'-8 NOTE: SEE DETAIL 11/S-502 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 1'-4"1'-4" 3/ 4 " S H E A T H I N G 1 1 / 2 " W1 2 SINGLE PLATE CONN., PROVIDE (2) 3/4" Ø A325 BOLTS DOUBLE 2x12 POST TOP CAP PLATE ~ RE: 8/S-502 2x NAILER 2x12 WITH SIMPSON TOP FLANGE HANGER W12 BEAM 6x6 POST CONNECT TRACK TO EXIST. TOP PLATES W/ #10 TRAX SELF-DRILLING SCREWS @ 16" O.C. WALL STUDS, RE: DTL. 8/S212 3 EXISTING DOUBLE TOP PLATE 112'-1 TRUSS BRNG. 6" 4" EXISTING ROOF TRUSS CONT. 16GA. TOP TRACK WALL SHEATHING, 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 8 : 0 7 : 3 2 A M S-503 WOOD FRAMING DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED S-503S-102 1" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION AT NEW ROOF FRAMING NO SCALES-503 2 NOT USED S-503S-102 1" = 1'-0" 3 NEW BEAM AT EXISTING ROOF TRUSSES S-503S-102 1" = 1'-0" 4 SECTION AT ROOF BEAM S-503S-102 3/4" = 1'-0" 5 FLOOR JOIST BEARING AT MASONRY WALL S-503S-102 3/4" = 1'-0" 6 FLOOR JOIST BEARING AT MASONRY WALL S-503S-102 3/4" = 1'-0" 7 SECTION AT ELEVATOR HOIST BEAM REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.07 S-503S-102 3/4" = 1'-0" 8 SECTION AT HSS POST AND GLULAM BEAM CONNECTION S-503S-102 1" = 1'-0" 10 SECTION AT LOW ROOF S-503S-401 1" = 1'-0" 11 ROOF SECTION AT FUTURE OPENING S-503S-102 1" = 1'-0" 9 ROOF FRAMING DETAIL S-503S-102 3/4" = 1'-0" 12 WALL SECTION AT STEEL STUDS 04/07/2020 176 2 31 2 31 2 31 2 31231 2 31 2 31 2 31 2x4 (E) 1x 6 ( E ) 1x 6 ( E ) 2x6 (E)2x6 (E) 1x6 (N,E) 2x6 (E)2x6 (E) 1x6 (N,E) (O.H.) (O.H.) (O.H.) (O.H.) FIELD VERIFY S-505 2 S-505 1 S-505 3 S-505 1 S-505 2 S-505 3 S-505 5 S-505 5 19'-11" (+/-)19'-11" (+/-) 39'-10" (FIELD VERIFY) 6'-6"6'-0"6'-0"6'-6" NOTE: SEE DETAIL 1/S-504 FOR INFORMATION REGARDING DIAGONAL MEMBERS. ROOF LEVEL 112' - 1" SEE NOTE LAP SPLICE BOTTOM CHORD S-505 6 SEE NOTE (2) 1x8 HIP RIDGE MEMBER 2x4 (N) 2x6 (E) 2x4 (E) 1x 6 ( E ) 1x 6 ( E ) 2x6 (E)2x6 (E) 1x6 (N,E) 2x6 (E)2x6 (E) 1x6 (N,E) (O.H.) (O.H.) S-505 2 S-505 1 S-505 3 S-505 4 S-505 3 S-505 5 EXISTING (2) 1x8 RIDGE MEMBER 19'-11" (+/-)19'-11" (+/-) 39'-10" (FIELD VERIFY) 6'-6"6'-0"6'-0"6'-6" NOTE:SEE DETAIL 1/S-505 FOR ADDL. INFORMATION ROOF LEVEL 112' - 1" SEE NOTE LAP SPLICE BOTTOM CHORD S-505 6 (F I E L D V E R I F Y ) 12 ' - 0 " VERIFY FIELD 5 1/2" 1' - 0 " NEW 5 1/2" WD. x 19 1/2" GLULAM BM. S-505 8S-505 7 FIELD VERIFY 2x4 (N) 2x6 (E) (2)1x8 (N) S-505 2 FACE OF NEW GLULAM BM. 1x 6 ( E ) 1x 6 ( E ) 2x6 (E)2x6 (E) 1x6 (N,E) 2x6 (E)2x6 (E) 1x6 (N,E) (O.H.) S-505 2 S-505 1 S-505 5 19'-11" (+/-)19'-11" (+/-) 39'-10" (FIELD VERIFY) 6'-6"6'-0"6'-0"6'-6" NOTE:SEE DETAIL 2/S-505 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ROOF LEVEL 112' - 1" SEE NOTE LAP SPLICE BOTTOM CHORD S-505 6 VERIFY FIELD 5 1/2" 1' - 0 " S-505 8S-505 7 FIELD VERIFY (2) 1x8 (N) 2x4 (E) 2x4 (N) NEW 5 1/2" WD. x 19 1/2" GLULAM BM. 2x6 (E) S-505 3 S-505 3 S-505 2 (O.H.) FACE OF NEW GLULAM BM. (2) 1x8 HIP RIDGE MEMBER (E) 1x 6 ( N ) 2x6 (E)2x6 (E) 2x6 (E) (O.H.) S-505 1 19'-11" (+/-)19'-11" (+/-) 39'-10" (FIELD VERIFY) ROOF LEVEL 112' - 1" LAP SPLICE BOTTOM CHORD S-505 6 (2) 1x8 HIP RIDGE MEMBER (E) 1x 6 ( N ) 1x6 (N)1x6 (N) 2x8 (N) VAIRES VAIRES VE R I F Y FI E L D (TYP.) 1'-4" LOCATION OF VERTICAL MEMBERS VARIES (TYP.) LOCATION VARIES TO P C H O R D H E I G H T (4 T R U S S E S ) DI S T . T O T O P CH O R D V A R I E S 2x6 (E) 2x6 (E) S-505 1 S-505 2 S-505 10 (2) 1x8 (N) S-505 11 S-505 2 (O.H.) S-505 10 (O.H.) S-505 12 S-505 12 (O.H.) (2) 1x8 (N) 2x4 (E) 1x 6 ( E ) 1x 6 ( E ) 2x6 (E)2x6 (E) 1x6 (N,E) 2x6 (E)2x6 (E) 1x6 (N,E) (O.H.) (O.H.) (O.H.) (O.H.) FIELD VERIFY S-505 2 S-505 1 S-505 3 S-505 4 S-505 1 S-505 2 S-505 3 S-505 5 S-505 5 EXISTING (2) 1x8 RIDGE MEMBER 19'-11" (+/-)19'-11" (+/-) 39'-10" (FIELD VERIFY) 6'-6"6'-0"6'-0"6'-6" NOTE: AT TRUSS TYPE T1A WHERE DIAGONAL MEMBERS ARE MISSING, ADD NEW 1x6 DIAGONAL BRACE MATCHING EXISTING DIAGONALS. SEE DETAILS 2 & 5/S- 505 FOR JOINT CONNECTIONS ROOF LEVEL 112' - 1" SEE NOTE LAP SPLICE BOTTOM CHORD S-505 6 SEE NOTE (F I E L D V E R I F Y ) 12 ' - 0 " 2x4 (N) 2x6 (E) (2 ) 1 x 6 ( N ) 2x6 (E)2x6 (E) 2x6 (E) 19'-11" (+/-)19'-11" (+/-) 39'-10" (FIELD VERIFY) ROOF LEVEL 112' - 1" S-505 6 (2) 1x8 HIP RIDGE MEMBER (E) (2 ) 1 x 6 ( N ) 1x6 (N) 2x8 (N) VAIRES VARIES VE R I F Y FI E L D (TYP.) 1'-4" LOCATION OF VERTICAL MEMBERS VARIES (TYP.) LOCATION VARIES TO P C H O R D H E I G H T (5 T R U S S E S ) DI S T . T O T O P CH O R D V A R I E S 2x6 (E) VERIFY FIELD FACE OF NEW GLULAM BM. 5 1/2" 1' - 0 " S-505 8 1x8 (N) NEW 5 1/2" WD. x 19 1/2" GLULAM BM. 2x6 (E) 1x8 (N) S-505 1 S-505 2 S-505 10 S-505 11 S-505 12 1x8 (N) S-505 9 S-505 10 (O.H.) LAP SPLICE BOTTOM CHORD 2x12 (N) 2x 6 ( N ) 2x12 (N)2x12 (N) 2x6 (N) (O.H.)(O.H.) MATCH EXIST. S-506 1 S-506 1S-506 5 S-506 5 19'-11" (+/-)19'-11" (+/-) 39'-10" (FIELD VERIFY) 6'-0"6'-0" ROOF LEVEL 112' - 1" 2x 6 ( N ) 2x6 (N) S-506 3 S-506 7 (2) 1x8 HIP RIDGE MEMBER (TYP.) S-506 3 (O.H.) (O.H.) S-506 7 (V E R I F Y I N F I E L D ) 5' - 4 " ( + / - ) NOTE: PLACE TRUSSES SIDE BY SIDE IN PLACE OF ORIGINAL ROOF FRAMING 1 - (N), 1 - (E) (2)2x6 1 - (N), 1 - (E) (2) 2x6 (2) 2x12 (N) 10'-0"10'-0" 2x6 (N) 2x6 (N) S-506 4 2x12 (N)2x12 (N) 1-(E) 1 - (N)2x10 (N) (O.H.) S-506 7 S-506 1 S-506 5 19'-11" (+/-)19'-11" (+/-) 39'-10" (FIELD VERIFY) ROOF LEVEL 112' - 1" VERIFY FIELD 5 1/2" 1' - 0 " S-506 8 S-506 5 MATCH EXIST 2x12 (N) 2x12 (N) 2x 6 ( N ) (2) 2x12 S-506 3 S-506 3 (O.H.) (O.H.) VE R I F Y FI E L D NEW 5 1/2" WD. x 21" GLULAM BM. FACE OF NEW GLULAM BM. 2x 6 ( N ) (2) 2x6 6'-0"6'-0" 10'-0"10'-0" 2x10 (N)2x10 (N) (2) 2x12 S-506 4 TRUSS FRAMING NOTES: 1. NOMENCLATURE: TRUSS FRAMING NOTED (E) IS EXISTING FRAMING. TRUSS FRAMING NOTED (N) IS NEW FRAMING. ALL NEW FRAMING SHALL BE ROUGH SAWN ARCHITECTURAL LUMBER INDICATED AS (R.S.). 2. ALL NEW FRAMING SHALL BE ROUGH SAWN DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER, SELECT STRUCTURAL. 3. PREFERRED CONNECTORS: ALL TRUSS JOINTS SHALL BE REINFORCED WITH NEW CONNECTORS AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS. SCREW CONNECTORS SHALL BE TrussLOK SCREWS OR APPROVED EQUAL. SCREW LENGTH SHALL BE 3-5/8” FOR CONNECTING ROUGH SAWN 2X LUMBER AND 2-1/2” FOR CONNECTING ROUGH SAWN 1X LUMBER TO 2X LUMBER. THE NUMBER OF SCREWS AT EACH JOINT ARE SHOWN IN THE DETAILS WITH A MINIMUM SPACING OF 3 1/2” TO ADJACENT SCREWS, 1-3/4” CLEAR DISTANCE TO LUMBER EDGES, AND 1 1/4" WHERE ROWS ARE ALIGNED AND 5/8" WHERE ROWS ARRE STAGGERED. ALL TRUSS JOINTS SHALL BE JOINED WITH A MINIMUM OF TWO SCREWS. 4. ALTERNATE CONNECTORS: ALTERNATE TRUSS JOINT CONNECTORS SHALL BE 1/2" DIAMETER A307 BOLTS WITH WASHERS AND NUTS. BOLT LENGTH SHALL BE AS REQUIRED TO PENETRATE THE THICKNESSES OF THE JOINED MEMBERS WITH SUFFICIENT LENGTH TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TWO THREADS PAST THE NUT. ALTERNATE BOLT CONNECTORS CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR HEAVY DUTY CONNECTOR SCREWS WHERE NECESSARY ON A 1 TO 2 BASIS (ONE BOLTS SUBSTITUTED FOR 2 SCREWS) WITH A MINIMUM OF TWO BOLTS PER CONNECTION. SPACE BOLTS AT 2” O.C. MINIMUM TO ADJACENT BOLTS AND 2” CLEAR TO LUMBER EDGES. 5. CONNECTOR SCREWS MAY REQUIRE PREDRILLING TO PREVENT SPLITTING OR OTHER DAMAGE TO LUMBER. DETERMINE IF PREDRILLING OF LUMBER IS NECESSARY BY INSTALLING SCREW CONNECTORS WITHOUT PREDRILLING INTO SAMPLE JOINTS CONSTRUCTED OF SCRAP LUMBER MATCHING TYPICAL TRUSS JOINTS. CONSTRUCT A MINIMUM OF 10 SAMPLE JOINTS WITH DIFFERING GEOMETRY AND NUMBER OF SCREWS. PROVIDE PHOTOS TO EOR FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO CONINUING ROOF RECONSTRUCTION. 6. INSPECTION OF EXISTING FRAMING: PRIOR TO REINFORCEMENT WORK ON THE EXISTING ROOF FRAMING, THE EXISTING FRAMING SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND FRAMING CONTRACTOR TO IDENTIFY MEMBERS REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED DUE TO DAMAGE OR DEFECTS. SEE PARAGRAPHS 7 AND 8 FOR DESCRIPTIONS OF MEMBERS REQUIRING REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR AND METHODS OF REPAIR. 7. DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE LUMBER: EXISTING MEMBERS THAT ARE DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW LUMBER OF A SIZE MATCHING THE ORIGINAL. EXAMPLES OF DAMAGE OR DEFECTS THAT REQUIRE MEMBER REPLACEMENT INCLUDE BROKEN OR SPLIT LUMBER AND MEMBERS WHERE KNOTS LOCATED AT JOINTS MAKE THE MEMBER SUBJECT TO SPLITTING IF THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF NEW SCREWS WERE TO BE INSTALLED. 8. REPAIR OF LUMBER CONTAINING KNOTS: KNOTS THAT COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF LUMBER TO RESIST LOAD WILL REQUIRE REPAIR. REPAIR MAY INCLUDE MEMBER REPLACEMENT, THE ADDITION OF STEEL MENDING PLATES OR ADDING ADDITIONAL LUMBER MEMBERS TO SPLICE OVER THE DEFECTIVE AREA. THE METHOD OF REPAIR WILL BE DETERMINED DURING THE FRAMING INSPECTION. 9. ACCEPTANCE OF REPAIR WORK: PRIOR TO INSTALLING REINFORCED ROOF SEGMENTS ONTO NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE REPAIRED SEGMENTS SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED. SEGMENTS MAY NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL REPAIRS AND REINFORCEMENT WORK IS COMPLETE AND ACCEPTED. 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 4/ 6 / 2 0 2 0 1 0 : 3 7 : 1 9 A M S-504 EXISTING/NEW ROOF TRUSS ELEVATIONS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e MKH 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET JMK 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED (35 TRUSSES THUS) (7 TRUSSES THUS) (3 TRUSSES THUS) (3 TRUSSES THUS) REVISION DATE REVISION 6 2020.03.25 S-504 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 TRUSS TYPE T2 - ELEVATION S-504 3/16" = 1'-0" 5 TRUSS TYPE T5 - ELEVATION S-504 3/16" = 1'-0" 6 TRUSS TYPE T6 - ELEVATION S-504 3/16" = 1'-0" 3 TRUSS TYPE T3 - ELEVATION S-504 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 TRUSS TYPE T1 & T1A - ELEVATION S-504 3/16" = 1'-0" 7 TRUSS TYPE T7 - ELEVATION S-504 3/16" = 1'-0" 4 TRUSS TYPE T4 - ELEVATION S-504 3/16" = 1'-0" 8 TRUSS TYPE T8 - ELEVATION (2 TRUSS THUS) (4 TRUSSES THUS) (1 TRUSS THUS) (5 TRUSSES THUS) S-504 3/16" = 1'-0" 9 TRUSS FRAMING NOTES REVISION 7 2020.04.07 04/07/2020 177 EXISTING 2x6 RAFTER (TOP CHORD) EXISTING 1x6 DIAGONAL BRACE w/ NEW 1X6 SISTERED TO EXIST. PROVIDE (4) TussLOK STRUCTURAL SCREWS TYP AT LAP CONNECTIONS PROVIDE TrussLOK STRUCTURAL SCREWS AT 6" O.C. STAGGERED EXISTING 2x6 BOT. CHORD EXISTING 2x6 RAFTER (TOP CHORD) TO P P L A T E 2x 6 N E W NEW 2x6 WALL STUD E X I S T . T O P P L A T E S 4" D O U B L E 2 x 6 NEW FULL 2x BLOCKING AND NEW BOTTOM CHORD EXTENSION 2'-0" MIN. NEW 2x BLOCKING NEW BOTTOM CHORD EXTENSION PROVIDE (4) 1/2"Ø THRU BOLTS ENSURE NEW BOTTOM CHORD EXTENSION CONTINUES TO UNDERSIDE OF SKIP SHEATHING EXISTING OVERHANG PROVIDE 12 TrussLOK STRUCTURAL SCREWS OR PROVIDE (4) 1/2" Ø THRU BOLTS EXISTING & NEW 2x4 TOP CHORD EXIST. 2x6 RAFTER (TOP CHORD) EXIST. 1x6 VERT. PROVIDE (6) TrussLOK STRUCTURAL SCREWS TYP AT LAP CONNECTIONS PROVIDE TrussLOK STRUCTURAL SCREWS AT 8" O.C. STAGGERED ENSURE NEW 2x4 IS SNUG TIGHT TO TOP CHORD EXISTING 2x6 RAFTER (TYP.)EXISTING (2) 1x8 RIDGE MEMBERS (CONT.) 'SIMPSON' LSTA 15 CENTERED ON RIDGE BEAM (3) 3" WOOD TOE SCREWS EA. RAFTER, PROVIDE (2) ON ONE SIDE AND ONE ON OTHER TYP. AT CONTRACTORS OPTION, STRAPS MAY BE INSTALLED ON TOP OF EXISTING SKIP SHEATHING PROVIDE 16d NAILS INTO RAFTERS BELOW EXISTING 2x6 BOTTOM CHORD (CEILING JOIST) EXISTING 1x6 VERT. EXISTING AND NEW 1x6 DIAG. BRACE PROVIDE (6) TrussLOK STRUCTURAL SCREWS TYP AT LAP CONNECTIONS PROVIDE TrussLOK STRUCTURAL SCREWS AT 8" O.C. STAGGERED TYP. VARIES ENSURE MINIMUM 4'-0" LAP LENGTH EXISTING 2x6 BOT. CHORD (CEILING JOIST) EXISTING 2x6 BOT. CHORD (CEILING JOIST) PROVIDE (12) TrussLOK SCREWS OVER LAP LENGTH EXISTING 1x6 NEW OR EXISTING 1x6 (R.S.) NEW 1x8 (R.S.) EXISTING 2x6 CEILING JOIST WORK POINT SLOPE VARIES PROVIDE (10) 1/4"Ø SDS SCREWS AT 3" O.C. TYP.PROVIDE (4) 3" WOOD SCREW AT VERT TO BOTTOM CHORD CONNECTION PROVIDE (4) SDS SCREWS AT DIAGONAL CONNECTION 1 1 / 2 " 2" 4" 4 " 1 1 / 2 " 1/ 2 " 1' - 1 " NEW 2x12 (R.S.) FIT BETWEEN EXIST. RAFTER & CEILING JOIST WORK POINT @ INSIDE CORNER EXISTING & NEW SHEATHING EXISTING 2x6 RAFTER NEW SHEATHING ROOF LEVEL 112' - 1" NEW ROOF FRAMING ~ RE: PLAN NEW GLULAM BEAM ~ RE: PLAN TRUSS HANGER ~ RE: FRAMING DETAILS NEW 14 GA. W/ PLATE & 10 SCREWS AS SHOWN NEW 1x8 EA. SIDE (ROUGH SWAN) SLOPE VARIES EXISTING 2x6 CEILING JOIST TYP 3 1/2" TYP 1" NEW 14 GA. PLATE EA. SIDE w/(8) 1/4"Ø SDS SCREWS AS SHOWN (3) 5/8"Ø THRU BOLTS NOTE: ALL SCREWS SHALL BE STAGGERED ON EITHER SIDE TO ENSURE MINIMUM ON 1 3/4" BETWEEN SCREWS 1 1/2" 3" 1 1/2" 1 1/2" 1" EXISTING 2x6 CEILING JOIST EXISTING 1x6 NEW 1x8 (R.S.) SLOPE VARIES WORK POINT NEW 1x6 (R.S.) SLOPE VARIES PROVIDE (10) 1/4"Ø SDS SCREWS AT 3" O.C. TYP. PROVIDE (6) 1/4"Ø SDS SCREWS AT 3" O.C. TYP. (2) 1/2"Ø THRU BOLTS AS SHOWN EXISTING 2x6 RAFTER NEW 2x8 TOP CHORD (R.S.) EXISTING & NEW SHEATHING NEW 1x6 (R.S.) VERTICAL PROVIDE (2) 1/2"Ø BOLTS AT VERT TO TOP CHORD CONNECTION PROVIDE (3) TrussLOK SCREWS AT CHORD TO CHORD CONENCTION 5/ 8 " M I N 3 1/2" MIN 1'-0" MIN NEW 2x8 BLOCK, ENSURE BLOCK IS SNUG TIGHT TO TOP CHORD w/(4) TrussLOK SCREWS. 3 1/2" SYMMETRIC ABOUT ENSURE SISTERED DIAGONAL IS SNUG TIGHT TO TOP CHORD (2) NEW 1x6 (R.S.)(2) NEW 1x6 (R.S.) SLOPE VARIES PROVIDE (4) TussLOK STRUCTURAL SCREWS TYP PROVIDE TrussLOK STRUCTURAL SCREWS AT 6" O.C. STAGGERED NEW 2x8 (R.S.) TOP CHORD NEW 1x6 (R.S.) NEW 1x6 (R.S.) EXISTING 2x6 CEILING JOIST NEW 1x6 (R.S.) SLOPE VARIES SLOPE TO MATCH TRUSS T1, T1A TY P 1 1 / 2 " 1 1/2" 3" 1 3/4" 1/2"Ø THRU BOLTS AS SHOWN 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 8 : 1 6 : 1 5 A M S-505 EXISTING ROOF TRUSS MODIFICATION DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e MKH 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET JMK 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 2 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 1 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 3 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 4 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 5 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 6 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 7 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 8 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 9 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 10 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 11 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL S-505S-504 1" = 1'-0" 12 TRUSS JOINT REINFORCEMENT DETAIL REVISION DATE REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.07 04/07/2020 178 5" 5"TY P 1 1 / 2 " 4" 4 " TY P 1 1 / 2 " BOTTOM CHORD ~ RE: ELEVATIONS TRUSS TOP CHORD ~ RE: ELEVATIONS EXISTING DOUBLE TOP PLATE NEW SINGLE TOP PLATE EXTEND BOTTOM CHORD TO FACE OF TOP PLATES AT A MINIMUM TYP 1 3/4" 2 1/2" TRUSS BOTTOM CHORD ~ RE: ELEVATIONS TRUSS TOP CHORD ~ RE: ELEVATIONS 1/4" STEEL PLATE w/(16) 1/2"Ø DIA. THRU BOLTS. PROVIDE FULL THICKNESS 2x SPACER BETWEEN STEEL PLATES NEW 2x6 STUD FRAMING PL. 1/2"THK. x 6" x 0'-8" EA. SIDE OF TRUSS w/(4) THRU BOLTS EA. SIDE OF TRUSS 8" 3"TYP 1 1/2" 2 1/2" 1 1/2" 3'-1" 1/4" 1/ 2 " 1/ 2 " 3/16TYP. SECTION SECTION 3'-6 1/8" 30.25° NOTE: PLATE ANGLE SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH EXISTING TRUSSES PRIOR TO FABRICATION TRUSS TOP CHORD ~ RE: ELEVATIONS TRUSS VERT ~ RE: ELEVATIONS 14 GA. PLATE x SHOWN w/ (8) TrussLOK SCREWS 1" 3" 1" 1 1 / 2 " 3 " 3 " 3 " 1 1 / 2 " 6" EQ EQ TRUSS TOP CHORD ~ RE: ELEVATIONS TRUSS DIAGONAL ~ RE: ELEVATIONS 14 GA. PLATE x SHOWN w/ (16) TrussLOK SCREWS 3" 8" 3" 1 1/2" 5" 1'-8 3/4" 36.19° TRUSS BOTTOM CHORD ~ RE: ELEVATIONS TRUSS DIAGONAL ~ RE: ELEVATIONS CUT SINGLE BOTTOM CHORD TIGHT TO DIAGONAL 4'-0" 4" 4 " 8"3" 3" 3" 3" PROVIDE (2) 1/2"Ø THRU BOLTS AT ALL DIAGONAL AND VERTICAL TRUSS MEMBER CONNECTIONS TRUSS VERT ~ RE: ELEVATIONS TRUSS DIAGONAL ~ RE: ELEVATIONS PROVIDE (8) 1/2"Ø THRU BOLTS AT BOTTOM CHORD SPLICE 1 1/2" 1 1/2" TRUSS TOP CHORD ~ RE: ELEVATIONS TRUSS DIAGONAL ~ RE: ELEVATIONS TRUSS TOP CHORD ~ RE: ELEVATIONS (8) 1/2"Ø THRU BOLTS AT CHORD TO CHORD CONNECTION (5) 1/2"Ø THRU BOLTS, AT CHORD TO STEEL PL CONNECTION 1'-6" EQ E Q E Q E Q TYP 1 3/4" TYP 3 1/2" 2x12 BLOCKING ON EITHER SIDE OF THE TOP CHORD MEMBER ATTACH WITH 22 TrussLOK SCREWS ON EA. SIDE. 2" 1 1/2" 7" 1 1/2" TYP 1 1/2" 1'-8 5/8" 49.31° 30.25° TYP 4" (2) 1/2"Ø THRU BOLTS AT CHORD,PL,AND DIAGONAL CONNECTION 2" 2 " 2 " 2 " 2 " 14GA PLATE ON EITHER SIDE OF DIAGONAL EXTENDING TO TOP OF TRUSS AND AS SHOWN DOWN CHORD/DIAGONAL PROVIDE 2X BLKG, BETWEEN STEEL PLATES NOTE: ALL ANGLES TO BE FIELD VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO FABRICATION (6) 1/2"Ø THRU BOLTS, AT DIAGONAL TO STEEL PL CONNECTION 1'-5 1/4" 1'-4" 6 3/4" TRUSS BOTTOM CHORD ~ RE: ELEVATIONS TRUSS TOP CHORD ~ RE: ELEVATIONS TRUSS DIAGONAL ~ RE: ELEVATIONS PROVIDE TrussLOK SCREWS THROUGH SANDWICHED TRUSS VERT ON EITHER SIDE STAGGERED AT 3" O.C. GLULAM BEAM ~ RE: ROOF PLAN TRUSS VERT ~ RE: ELEVATIONS TRUSS VERT ~ RE: ELEVATIONS 1 1/2"2"2"2" EQ E Q E Q E Q TYP 4" AT THIS CONNECTION LOCATION 1 1/2" ALL FASTENERS SHOWN ARE 1/2"Ø THRU BOLTS. NOTE: PROVIDE 14GA PLATE ON EITHER SIDE OF TOP TRUSS CHORD MEMBER, AS SHOWN BELOW 'SIMPSON' HGU5.25-SDS GIRDER HANGER EQ EQ EQ TYP 1 1/2" 3" 3" 3" 1 1/2" 2"2"2" ROOF RAFTER NEW SHEATHING & EXIST. SKIP SHEATHING 2x6 RAFTER ATTACH RAFTERS TO TOP CHORD OF TRUSS TYPES T3 & T7 WITH SIMPSON H2.5 CONN. TRUSS TYPE T3, T7 TOP CHORD (9 TRUSSES TOTAL) ATTACH RAFTERS TO TOP CHORD OF TRUSS TYPES T4 & T8 WITH SIMPSON H6 CONN. TRUSS TYPE T4 & T8 TOP CHORD (2 TRUSSES TOTAL) 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 8 : 5 7 : 3 1 A M S-506 EXISTING ROOF TRUSS MODIFICATION DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET Checker 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED S-506S-504 1" = 1'-0" 1 T4/T8 TRUSS CONNECTION DETAIL S-506S-504 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 T4/T8 TRUSS CONNECTION DETAIL S-506S-504 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 T4/T8 TRUSS CONNECTION DETAIL S-506S-504 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 5 T4/T8 TRUSS CONNECTION DETAIL S-506S-504 1" = 1'-0" 7 T4/T8 TRUSS CONNECTION DETAIL S-506S-504 3/4" = 1'-0" 8 T8 TRUSS CONNECTION DETAIL REVISION DATE REVISION 7 2020.04.07 S-506 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 9 RAFTER CONN. TO TRUSS TYPES T3, T4, T7 & T8 04/07/2020 179 WA L L BE L O W TY P . OP E N I N G AB O V E TY P . 1 1 BOND BEAM REINF. ~ TYP. RE: WALL SECT. FOR REINF. CORNER BAR VERT. BARS IN GROUTED CELLS LAP SPLICE RE: SCHEDULE LAP SPLICE RE: SCHEDULE 0" 40 B A R Ø 0" 0" 0" 0" BAR SIZE DOWEL LENGTHEMBED LENGTH LAP SPLICE LENGTH MASONRY WALL REINFORCING EMBED / SPLICE SCHEDULE (f'm=1500psi) NOTES: 1. IF EMBED LENGTH CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, PROVIDE STANDARD HOOK AT BOTTOM OF DOWELS. 2. DOWEL SPACING SHALL MATCH SIZE AND SPACING OF VERTICAL WALL REINFORCING. 3. DOWEL LENGTH BASED ON EMBEDMENT INTO 4000 PSI CONCRETE. 4. MINIMUM MASONRY COVER IS 3.5". #7 #8 #6 #4 #5 2'-8" 2'-3 3'-0" 1'-6" 2'-0" 6'-4" 8'-10" 4'-8" 2'-1" 2'-7 9'-6" 12'-3" 7'-3 4'-0" 5'-0" CMU WALL CONCRETE WALL DO W E L L E N G T H NOTES: 1. FILL SILLS WITH GROUT TO SILL DEPTH SHOWN IN SILL DETAILS. 2. EXTEND SILL A MINIMUM OF 8" BEYOND CLEAR OPENING ON EACH END. VERTICAL WALL REINF. PER WALL SCHED. ~ TYP. 2-#5 USE AT OPENINGS IN 12" WALLS WITH WIDTHS OF 9'-0" OR LESS U.N.O. TYPE S1 LOCATE HORIZ. REINF. TIGHT TO VERT. REINF. OR PROVIDE 4" CLEAR WHERE WALL REINF. IS CENTERED IN WALL. ~ TYP. 2-#5 TYPE S2 TYPE S3 2-#5 TYPE S4 2-#5 2-#5 2-#5 USE AT OPENINGS IN 8" WALLS WITH WIDTHS OF 9'-0" OR LESS U.N.O. USE AT OPENINGS IN 12" WALLS WITH WIDTHS GREATER THAN 9'-0" U.N.O. USE AT OPENINGS IN 8" WALLS WITH WIDTHS GREATER THAN 9'-0" U.N.O. SI L L 8" 4" SILL 8" 8" NOM. 4" 8" 4" 1'-4" SILL 8" NOM. 4" 8" 4" 1'-4" SILL (3) BOND BEAMS W/ (2)-#5xCONT. SLAB ON METAL DECK RE: PLAN FOR SIZE, REINFORCING, AND ORIENTATION CMU WALL ~ RE: PLAN NOTE: ANCHORS ARE LIMITED TO ONE PER MASONRY CELL L6x3-1/2x5/16xCONT. SUPPORT ANGLE 1/2"Ø HILTI KWIK BOLT TZ, 4" MIN. EMBEDMENT @ 16" O.C. LAP SPLICE MASONRY CONTROL JOINT ~ RE: GENERAL NOTES FOR REQUIREMENTS TYPICAL BOND BM. TYPICAL BOND BM. PROVIDE BEARING PAD OR BOND BREAKER AT CONTROL JOINT TYPICAL HORIZONTAL REINF. ~ RE: GENERAL NOTES DOWELS TO MATCH SIZE AND SPACING OF CMU WALL REINF., U.N.O. TYPICAL VERT. REINFORCING TYPICAL SILL REINFORCING FINISH FLOOR TYPICAL JAMB REINFORCING SHALL BE FULL HEIGHT SPLICE (TYP) MASONRY LAP 4" HEIGHT BOND BEAM SECTION 1 MASONRY LINTEL SCHEDULE OPENING WIDTH WALL THICKNESS BOND BEAM HEIGHT REINFORCING 2-#51'-4"8"0 ft - 9 ft NOTES: 1. LAP ALL VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL REINFORCING AS NOTED IN GENERAL NOTES. 2. JAMB AND SILL REINFORCING SHALL BE THE SAME SIZE AS THE TYPICAL WALL REINFORCING AND PLACED IN ADDITION TO THE TYPICAL WALL REINFORCING. 3. WHERE JAMB DIMENSION IS LESS THAN 32", PROVIDE (2)-#5 VERTICAL IN EACH CELL. 4. JAMB DIMENSION BETWEEN OPENINGS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 24" UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DETAILED BY THE EOR. 2-#52'-0"8"9 ft - 16 ft RE: 3/S-801 FOR DECK SUPPORT EDGE ANGLE STEEL BEAM ~ RE: PLAN GROUT BEAM POCKET SOLID 3/4" BEARING PL. SIZE FOR BEAM REACTION SHOWN ON PLAN BOND BEAM WITH (2) #5 BOTTOM 3/4"Ø x 6" H.A.S. @ 8" O.C., MAX, SEE BEARING PLATE DETAIL GROUT SOLID MIN. 4 COURSES BELOW BOND BEAM UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE GROUT POCKET SOLID CONTINUOUS EDGE ANGLE BEAM REACTION 60K OR LESS 80K OR LESS 5 1/2"x1'- 0 PLATE DIMENSIONS REQUIRED BEARING PLATE SIZE 100K OR LESS 40K OR LESS 5 1/2"x0'- 8 5 1/2"x1'- 4 5 1/2"x1'-10 T.O. SLAB RE: PLANCLR 1" 8" MAX 8" MAX3 3/4" 5 1/2" TYP 1 1/2" 3/4"Ø x6" H.A.S., TYP BEARING PLATE DETAIL (8" CMU) CMU WALL ~RE: PLAN FOR REINF. 1/4 3 1/4 3 TYP 1/4 1/43 SIDES, TYP 1/2" STIFFENER PLATE, EA. SIDE 3 1/2" (2) #5 CONT. 100'-0" 95'-3" 4'-9" DO O R O P E N I N G EL E V . D O O R OP E N I N G 6 1/2" (2) #5x W/ HOOK @ NORTH END #4x @ 8" O.C. #4x @ 8" O.C. SOLID GROUTED BEAM OVER LOWER LEVEL DOOR OPENING 3' - 0 " 2' - 3 " W16 BMS. WALL REINF., RE: 2/S-211 9'-0" (2) #5x W/ HOOK @ NORTH END 9'-0" (2) #5 TOP, INTERRUPT @ BEAM POCKETS 2X12 JOISTS @ 1'-4" O.C. WALL REINF., RE: 2/S-211 2-#5 HORIZ. BOTTOM 2 COURSES 113'-1 3/4 T.O. SHTG. LEDGER & CONNS., RE: 8/S-503 108'-3" T.O. OPNG. BOTTOM 3 COURSES SOLID GROUT ELEVATOR SHAFT ELEVATOR DOOR OPNG. PLAN NORTH 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 4/ 7 / 2 0 2 0 8 : 2 5 : 0 2 A M S-801 MASONRY DETAILS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e Fo u n d a t i o n a n d E n c l o s u r e JAK 02.06.2020 19-050 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 PERMIT SET NPS S-801 3/4" = 1'-0" 1 TYPICAL TYPICAL CMU REINFORCING DETAIL S-801 3/4" = 1'-0" 2 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE MASONRY SILL DETAILS S-801 3/4" = 1'-0" 3 DECK SUPPORT AT CMU WALL S-801 1/4" = 1'-0" 5 TYPICAL WALL REINFORCING ELEVATION AT OPENINGS 23816J OHN M.KARLBERG PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER COLORADO R EGISTERED S-801S-101 3/4" = 1'-0" 4 FLOOR BEAM AT MASONRY WALL REVISION DATE UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REVISION 6 2020.03.25 REVISION 7 2020.04.07 S-801S-101 3/4" = 1'-0" 7 MASONRY BEAM DETAIL AT LEVEL 1 S-801S-102 3/4" = 1'-0" 8 MASONRY BEAM DETAIL AT ROOF LEVEL 04/07/2020 180 DN DN UP E 1 3 4 A2-101 6 A2-101 5 A2-101 7 A2-101 A 95' - 11" 33 ' - 2 " 39 ' - 1 0 " ROUGH OPENINGS TO BE COVERED WITH SHEATHING AND BUILDING PAPER. REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR DIMENSIONS, TYP. TEMPORARY DOORS INSTALLED IN ROUGH OPENING RAIN LEADER, TYP 4 A2-102 D 2 MECHANICAL AREA WELL. RE: STRUC FOR COVER 4 C 59' - 9"36' - 2" 5 A2-102 B SLAB FLOOR OPEN TO BELOW MECHANICAL AREA WELL. RE: STRUC FOR COVER FUTURE METAL STAIREXTERIOR STAIR RE: STRUC 32' - 4 1/8"27' - 4 7/8" REV 6 REV 6 REV 6 RAIN LEADER, TYP REV 6 ROOF DRAIN CHASEREV 6 REV 6 E 1 3 A 95' - 11" 33 ' - 2 " 39 ' - 1 0 " SLAB FLOOR PERIMETER DRAIN, RE: CIVIL 3 A-301 LOUVER OPENING, RE: STRUC FLOOR DRAIN D 2 3' - 1" 4 C 5 A2-102 B 39 ' - 1 0 " LOUVER OPENING, RE: STRUC FLOOR DRAIN MAIN DISTRIBUTION PANEL, RE: ELEC . 86' - 5" . 85' - 10" . 87' - 0" . 87' - 0" 1" / 1 ' - 0 " 1" / 1 ' - 0 " 1" / 1 ' - 0 " 1" / 1 ' - 0 " 8' - 6 " 17 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 0 " FUTURE METAL STAIR SUMP PIT LOCATION . 83' - 0" 21' - 3"38' - 6"36' - 2" . 87' - 0" . 87' - 0" 6' - 1 0 " 26 ' - 4 " REV 6 FUTURE OPENING LEVEL 1 100' -0" 1 3 4 B.O. (E) TRUSS 112' -1" 4' - 5 1/4"6' - 3 1/2"18' - 4 1/2"6' - 3 1/2"9' - 10 13/16"6' - 2 7/8"9' - 7 1/16"6' - 3 1/2"5' - 7" 2 4 6' - 9 1 / 2 " 2' - 1 0 1 / 4 " REV 6 LEVEL 1 100' -0" EA B.O. (E) TRUSS 112' -1" 4 A2-102 RAIN LEADER, TYP RE: PLAN FOR LOCATIONS DC 5 A2-102 B TEMP DOORS INSTALLED AT ROUGH OPENING 8' - 0 " 4' - 2 1/16"6' - 2 7/8"15' - 4 11/16"3' - 10" 9' - 6 " REV 6 FUTURE OPENINGS LEVEL 1 100' -0" E B A B.O. (E) TRUSS 112' -1" 4 A2-102 95' - 11" RAIN LEADER, TYP RE: PLAN FOR LOCATIONS CONTINUOUS GUTTER D 5 A2-102 B TEMP DOORS INSTALLED AT ROUGH OPENINGS 5' - 3 11/16"12' - 7 1/4"5' - 4 9/16"12' - 7 5/8"5' - 4 9/16"12' - 7 1/4"5' - 3 11/16"12' - 9 3/8"5' - 6 13/16"5' - 6 13/16"12' - 9 3/8" 9' - 8 " ENTRY CANOPY REV 6 LEVEL 1 100' -0" 134 B.O. (E) TRUSS 112' -1" 33' - 2"39' - 10" RAIN LEADER, TYP RE: PLAN FOR LOCATIONS 24 4' - 11"12' - 0"6' - 0"12' - 0"4' - 11" 2' - 2 15/16" 12' - 7 5/8" 9' - 6 " REV 6 PLAN NORTH 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 3/ 2 5 / 2 0 2 0 5 : 5 1 : 1 3 P M A2-101 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e 03.20.2020 19131.00 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 3/32" = 1'-0" LEVEL 1 PLAN2 3/32" = 1'-0" BASEMENT PLAN1 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION5 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION7 1/8" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION6 1/8" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION4 FOUNDATIONS & ENCLOSURE PERMIT SET ROOF PLAN GENERAL NOTES: 1. PROVIDE ICE AND WATER SHIELD AT ALL EDGES, RIDGES, AND EAVES 2. PROVIDE SNOW GUARDS AT ALL GUTTER EAVES 3. ALUMINUM GUTTER AND LEADERS TO HAVE 2-LOOPS OF SELF REGULATING HEAT CABLE, TYP. REVISION DATE REV 3 - UPDATED AREA WELL 2019.10.24 REV 2 - COMMENTS 2019.10.15 REV 4 - COMMENTS 2019.11.14 REV 5 - UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REV 6 - BUILDING EXTENSION 2020.03.25 iU CO \N Nf (\ e-f l fi 181 LEVEL 1 100' -0" 1 BASEMENT 87' -0" 3 B.O. (E) TRUSS 112' -1" A2-102 3 24 REV 6 5/8" GRID EXISTING RAFTER EXISTING SKIP SHEATHING BUILDING PAPER R30 POLYISO INSULATION, 2 STAGGERED LAYERS OSB NAIL BASE SCREWED THROUGH RIGID INSULATOIN TO RAFTERS ROOFING PAPER SHINGLES OSB SHEATHING, PAINT UNDERSIDE BLACK BEFORE INSTALLATION EXISTING JOIST WOOD STUD FRAMING OSB SHEATHING K STYLE GUTTER AND LEADER WOOD FASCIA AND SOFFIT BUILDING PAPER B.O. FASCIA 111'-6" AFF VIF (EXISTING RAFTER LENGTH) 1' - 4" ICE AND WATER SHIELD GUTTER APRON SNOW GUARD SPACED PER MFR RECOMMENDATIONS MAINTAIN 3-1/2" CLEAR FOR FUTURE CLADDING IECC 2015 R -30ci PROVIDED R -30ci IECC 2015 R13 + 3.8ci PROVIDED R13 + 6.5ci TO BE ADDED AT A LATER PHASE 1/ 2 " NOTE: SOFFIT WIDTH DEFINED BY EXISTING RAFTER EXTENSION WOOD BLOCKING RE : S T R U C T U R A L RE: STRUCTURAL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ADHERED TO INSULATION. PERFORATED PIPE, 1/8" PER FOOT SLOPE MIN. FOUNDATION RE: STRUCTURAL 9"7" 2" (R10) EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE INSULATION WITH DRAINAGE CHANNELS ADHERED TO WATERPROOFING MEMBERANE GRID 6" MIN 4" 1 3/8" 9" MIN 3" IECC 2015 R 10ci PROVIDED R10ci BASEMENT 87'-0" 20 MIL HDPE MEMBRANE W/ WELDED SEAMS; EXTEND UNDER DRAIN TO LINE TRENCH. 1/4"X1-1/2" STAINLESS STEEL TERMINATION BAR; FASTEN AT 12" O.C. 60 MIL DAMPROOFING MEMBRANE LAPPED OVER SHEET MEMBRANE FLASHING AND HDPE MEMBRANE 18" WIDE 40 MIL SELF-ADHERED MEMBRANE FLASHING LAPPED OVER TERMINATION BAR LEVEL OF FINISHED FLOOR AT BASEMENT LEVEL 1 100' -0" 1 BASEMENT 87' -0" B.O. (E) TRUSS 112' -1" A2-102 2 RAIN LEADERS TIED TO STORMWATER 12' - 1" 13' - 0" PERIMETER DRAIN A2-102 1 GRAVEL FLOOR 2' - 2" ROUGH OPENING FRAMING, RE: STRUC SHEATHING AND BUILDING PAPER TO COVER ROUGH OPENINGS FOR FUTURE DOORS AND WINDOWS. 6"4" LEVEL 1 100' -0" 1 BASEMENT 87' -0" 3 B.O. (E) TRUSS 112' -1" 24 A2-102 3 OPEN TO AREA WELL OPEN TO AREA WELL REV 6 E 1 3 4 A2-101 6 A2-101 5 A2-101 7 A2-101 A 7" / 1 ' - 0 " 7" / 1'-0" 7" / 1 ' - 0 " 7" / 1'-0" GUTTER 4 A2-102 95' - 11" D 2 4 C 7" / 1'-0" 73' - 0" 5 A2-102 B 7" / 1 ' - 0 " 7" / 1'-0" 7" / 1 ' - 0 " 7" / 1 ' - 0 " 2" / 1 ' - 0 " REV 6 REV 6 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 3/ 2 5 / 2 0 2 0 5 : 5 1 : 1 7 P M A2-102 ASSEMBLIES AND SECTIONS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e 03.20.2020 19131.00 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1/8" = 1'-0" BUILDING SECTION4 1 1/2" = 1'-0" ROOF ASSEMBLY / TOP OF WALL DETAIL2 1 1/2" = 1'-0" WALL ASSEMBLY / FOUNDATION DETAIL11/2" = 1'-0" WALL SECTION3 FOUNDATIONS & ENCLOSURE PERMIT SET 1/8" = 1'-0" BUILDING SECTION 25 REVISION DATE REV 5 - UPDATED FOOTPRINT 2020.02.07 REV 6 - BUILDING EXTENSION 2020.03.25 3/32" = 1'-0" ROOF PLAN6 iU CO \N Nf (\ e-f l fi 182 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 5 C A D \ P l a n s a n d D e t a i l s \ C a r r i a g e H o u s e \ C 0 1 1 - S I T E - P L A N . d w g C 0 1 1 - 7 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 0 SITE PLAN C-011 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 St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e SSM 2020.07.15 19125.00 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 100% Construction Documents JDC REVISION DATE 2020.07.15 Co r e S h e l l C o n s t r u c t i o n D o c u m e n t s CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONA NO SCALE CONCRETE PAVEMENT COMPACTED SUBGRADE 6" NO SCALE 1 C-011 PAVEMENT SECTIONS 4" CDOT CLASS 6 BASE COURSE VA N VA N VA N VA N CARRIAGE HOUSE EXISTING15' SANITARYEASEMENT EXISTING 50' ACCESS,DRAINAGE AND UTILITYEASEMENT 2 STEPS 12' PATIO 12' PATIO 12' PATIO 6'15.79' LIMITS OF CARRIAGE HOUSE IMPROVEMENTS 5' 9.06' 10 SCALE: 1" = 10' 100 LEGEND: PROPOSED 6" CONCRETE PAVEMENT A 1 C-011 Exhibit 11 183 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 5 C A D \ P l a n s a n d D e t a i l s \ C a r r i a g e H o u s e \ C 2 4 1 - E R O S - P L A N . d w g C 2 4 1 - 7 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 0 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-241 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 St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e SSM 2020.07.15 19125.00 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 100% Construction Documents JDC REVISION DATE 2020.07.15 Co r e S h e l l C o n s t r u c t i o n D o c u m e n t s VA N VA N VA N VA N CARRIAGE HOUSE 76 0 0 7605 7610 7596 7597 7598 75 9 9 76 0 1 7602 7603 7604 7606 7607 7608 7609 7611 7612 7613 EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D EX S D EX S D EX S D EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD 12" PVC 12" RCP 8" PVC 4" P V C EX S D EX S D EX S D EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX S D EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D EX SDEX SD EX SDEX SD EX S D 4" PERF. PVC 6" PVC SMC SMC IP IP CW SSA CF VTC EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PATH X X X X X X X X X X 760 0760 5 760 1760 2760 3760 4760 6760 7 7597 7598 7599 7598 7599 75 9 7 75 9 8 7595 7594 7596 7597 7595 7593 7594 7600 7599 7601 7602 7603 7604 759 7 7598 7599 759 9 CF CF CF EXISTING SWALE SF SF 759 7 7598 7599 7598 7599 7598 X X X SF 10 SCALE: 1" = 10' 100 LEGEND: X INLET PROTECTION FLOW DIRECTION ARROW SEED, MULCH AND CRIMP SILT FENCE VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA IP VTC SF CW SMC CF CONSTRUCTION FENCE STABILIZED STORAGE AREASSA LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION 184 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 5 C A D \ P l a n s a n d D e t a i l s \ C a r r i a g e H o u s e \ C 3 1 1 - G R A D - P L A N . d w g C 3 1 1 - 7 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 0 GRADING PLAN C-311 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 St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e SSM 2020.07.15 19125.00 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 100% Construction Documents JDC REVISION DATE 2020.07.15 Co r e S h e l l C o n s t r u c t i o n D o c u m e n t s CUT CUT/FILL TABLE (UNADJUSTED) FILL NET (FILL) NUMBERS ARE TO FINISHED GRADE AND DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR UTILITY SPOILS 34 CY 48 CY 14 CY VA N VA N VA N VA N 2.0% 2. 0 % 2. 0 % 2.0% 2.0% 2. 0 % 2.0% 7.9% 15.9% 0. 5 % 0.5% 1. 2 % 1.4% 5.7 % 759 7 7598 7599 760 0760 5 760 1760 2760 3760 4760 6760 7 7597 7598 7599 7598 7599 75 9 7 75 9 8 7595 7594 7596 7597 7595 7593 7594 7600 7599 7601 7602 7603 7604 7598 7599 759 7 7598 7599 CARRIAGE HOUSE 759 9 76 0 0 7605 7610 7596 7597 7598 75 9 9 76 0 1 7602 7603 7604 7606 7607 7608 7609 7611 7612 7613 2.5% EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D EX S D EX S D EX S D EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD 7599.77 ME 7599.66 TW/BW 7598.16 ME 7598.85 BW 7599.70 TS 7600.00 7598.56 BS/ME 7599.16 ME 7599.10 BS 7599.70 TS 7599.82 7599.89 7599.89 7599.76 7599.76 7599.76 TW 7600.00 TW 7598.73 BW 7600.00 7599.82 7600.00 7600.00 7600.00 7600.00 7600.00 7596.53 7597.73 BW ??? ME 7599.12 ME 7599.80 7599.80 FF=7600.00 7600.00 7600.00 7600.00 7598.62 BW 7599.80 TW 7599.80 TW 12" PVC 12" RCP 8" PVC 4" P V C 7599.10 BS/ME 7599.70 TS 7598.82 BS/ME 7599.70 TS 7599.00 ME 7598 7599.44 HP/ME 1.8% 7597.72 ME 7596.93 ME 7596.31 ME 7595.68 ME EX S D EX S D EX S D EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX S D EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D EX SDEX SD EX SDEX SD EX S D 4" PERF. PVC 6" PVC 7600.00 2. 0 % 2. 0 % 2.0%2.0% 8. 2 % 10 . 2 % 7600.00 7600.00 7600.00 7600.00 7600.00 7600.00 7600.00 10 SCALE: 1" = 10' 100 5345 5343 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION43.50 MATCH EXISTING TOP OF WALL AT FINISHED GRADE BOTTOM OF WALL AT FINISHED GRADE 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: ME TW BW TOP OF STAIR BOTTOM OF STAIR TS BS 185 Round 1 comments for Stanley Carriage House proposal (June 2020) NOTE from Community Development staff: Any comments from an earlier round of review may have been addressed or superseded by a subsequent resubmittal and analysis. Please see most recent submittal for updated information. Stanley Historic District Carriage House – Development Application Public Works Comments June 19, 2020 Summary This review of a development application by Public Works (PW) is for a restaurant proposed in the Carriage House building on the campus of the Stanley Historic District Subdivision. Although the building is under review for tenant finishes, the submittal includes additional documents to facilitate review of the impacts of this proposed project. As required in the Stanley HD Master Plan, the restaurant addition will be considered by a Technical Review Committee (TRC) for a Final Review. The following documents were distributed on June 3, 2020, for review: A. TRC Project Review Request and Project Narrative (5/28/20) B. The Stanley Film Center Parking Operations Plan (4/17/20) C. The Stanley Hotel Film & Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Analysis (4/6/20) D. TRC Submission Renderings/Elevations/Drawings - 14 sheets (5/28/20) E. Foundations & Enclosure Permit Set – 26 sheets (through 4/7/20, Revision 7) Existing building permits include: B-11160 for East Parking and Grading (updated for grease vault, June 2020); Final Drainage Report (9/9/19) B-11186 for Carriage House Foundation and Enclosure G-005-19 for Carriage House Stockpile Public Works requests revision of documents B. (Parking Ops Plan), C. (TIA), and the drawings associated with existing permit B-11160. Revised documents and plans shall be submitted to Public Works for re-review prior to consideration by a TRC. Analysis A. TRC Project Review Request and Project Narrative • • Review of Carriage House “for conformance with surrounding site improvements” is acknowledged. • • “Parking and landscape area to the east of the Carriage House is not part of TRC approval review” is acknowledged. • • The outdoor patio, which connects the Carriage House restaurant with the surrounding site, has been considered relative previously approved infrastructure and construction plans. B. The Stanley Film Center Parking Operations Plan • • “Simultaneous performances at the existing Concert Hall and the auditorium at the new Film Center will not occur” is acknowledged. • • “Primary use of the new auditorium for film and performing arts will occur during off-peak tourism season so as not to conflict with peak season and visitor parking demands” is acknowledged. Page 2 | Public Works Comments—Stanley Carriage House Exhibit 12 186 •• What technical resources are available to the “parking control person” at the entry to “ensure adequate parking is available?” Confirm if parking control at the gatehouse is proposed to be seasonal or year-round (year-round is implied in the report). • Graphic 1.0: o It appears this graphic is free-standing without reference or description within the narrative; edit narrative as appropriate. o Provide a legend to explain colors and linework. o The red/black linework appears to be identifying a few sidewalks and trails. Expand the linework to represent all sidewalks and trails to accurately represent the quantity and location of pedestrian and bike facilities within the frame of the graphic. o Confirm the parking lot information is accurate (the new 2020 parking map is available). o Provide an explanation of the derivation of the 20 Minute Walk Zone. o The 20 Minute Walk Zone circle seems to be drawn very small, thus understating the distance a patron may be able to walk in 20 minutes. Many Town employees park in the parking structure and walk to Town Hall in well less than 15 minutes, a walking distance of about 2000'. Edit the circle as appropriate. • Pedestrian and bicycling patrons expected to be addressed in TIS. See related comment in the TIA section below. • ADA-compliant travel paths throughout the Stanley campus, with max running slope of 5%, is acknowledged. • Downtown Estes Park is within walking distance of the Stanley campus using existing crosswalks and paths. Many tourists consider distances beyond ¼ mile to be walkable. Provide an explanation of the derivation of the ¼ mile walkable distance used in the report narrative. • Not all of the Stanley Hotel parking areas are marked with striping. Will these areas be excluded from parking in the future? • Update parking space counts by indicating the number of handicap accessible spaces. Confirm that the Carriage House Restaurant will have a sufficient number of ADA stalls as required by ADA standards. Confirm the location of these stalls and the associated ADA travel path. • Confirm how, if at all, private or public shuttle bus traffic will be needed to service the Carriage House Restaurant as an addition to the Stanley Hotel campus. • This Operations Plan shall be updated and resubmitted with the proposed Film Center when appropriate. C. The Stanley Hotel Film & Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) • • Typos to be corrected: Steamer Parkway (page 4), Bear River Multi-Family Development (page 4), Big Thompson (page 7). • • The Carriage House should be referenced as new construction as the space has not been actively used in 50 years. Truly, only the Concert Hall currently exists. Correct references to renovating the Concert Hall. • • 1.0: LCUASS is being actively updated since 2019. Update Chapter 4 references and confirm compliance with latest version. Page 3 | Public Works Comments—Stanley Carriage House 187 • • Sections 4, 5, and 6: Our understanding in approving the Base Assumption Form (BAF) for the TIA was that pedestrian and shuttle issues were being addressed via the Parking Operations Plan (see attached email dated 9-26-19) to provide a full multi-modal analysis of the proposed project. Accordingly, the TIA does not contain details of an analysis of alternative modes of transportation. However, the Parking Operations Plan contains the following statements in the Alternative Means of Site Access section: (1) “The expected number of patrons forecast to walk or bike to the Stanley Film Center will be provided in the Traffic Impact Study,” and (2) “The expected number of patrons forecast to take private transportation (e.g. Uber, Lyft, Estes Park Shuttle, etc.) to the Stanley Film Center will also be provided in the Traffic Impact Study.” Since neither study has the details we expected regarding full multi-modal analysis, resolve this conflict between both reports and revise accordingly. • • 4.1: Wonderview Avenue – update section with information about the existing Wonderview/MacGregor intersection roundabout. • • 4.1: Wonderview Avenue: update the section to reflect that west of Wonderview/St. Vrain is actually US36 (Elkhorn Ave), not US 34 Business Route (Big Thompson Ave). • • 4.1: Steamer Drive – update the section to reflect that Steamer Drive also provides access to the Stanley Hotel campus via Steamer Parkway. • • 4.3: Acknowledge Complete Streets adoption by Town and its implications for TIS info. • • 4.4: Transit – Shuttles will be using the western end of the parking structure starting in 2020. Is the Stanley still on the Silver Route? Update transit map. • • 4.5: This intersection will probably be signalized in late 2020. • • 5.2 and Table 1: Confirm that the forecasts for this report take into account the forecasted traffic and proposed mitigation improvements associated with the Alarado Business Park, a new development on the north (NE) corner of US 34/Steamer Drive intersection. TIS, memo amendments, and Traffic Signal Warrant Study were all completed by Delich Associates in 2018 and 2019 and available upon request from PW. Identify/explain/resolve conflicts between reports. Address why the Carriage House Restaurant project and/or the Film Center project should not share in the effort to mitigate traffic impacts at the US 34/Steamer Drive intersection. • • 5.2: Update Year 2024 info for signalized intersection at “Big Thompson at Steamer/Golf Course.” • • 6.1: The Parking Operations Plan identifies a Conference Center use for the hours of 8a to 6p, but the TIA does not appear to account for the traffic generation associated with this use. Resolve this apparent omission. • • 7.0: Update for signalized intersection. • • This TIA shall be updated and resubmitted with the proposed Film Center when appropriate. Page 4 | Public Works Comments—Stanley Carriage House 188 D. TRC Submission Renderings/Elevations/Drawings - 14 sheets • • Sheet 3 – Carriage House Interior TRC will ultimately be assigned a different permit number as B-11186 applies only to the Foundation and the drawings reviewed in support of the permit. E. Foundations & Enclosure Permit Set – 26 sheets • • Sheet Index – Cloud Rev 7 for affected drawings. B-11160 • • Update drawings as needed for B-11160 to reflect design changes currently proposed. Address the new building shape and patios/walkways around the building, including ADA travel path between the parking lot and building entrances. • • Provide details to supplement the general grading plan in the Carriage house area that was provided in the East Parking Lot plans. • • Final Drainage Report – Confirm that the new building shape/size and provision of extensive patios and walkway areas around the building do not alter any of the assumptions and conclusions of the Final Drainage Report submitted in association with the East Parking Lot (B-11160). The drainage report does not appear to address these amenities. • • Update Erosion Control Plan as needed (in B-11160 also) to include construction activity and site disturbance related to the Carriage House project. PW recommended Stipulations for TRC consideration: • • PW recommends that the Carriage House Restaurant project be required to extend sidewalks and trails from the gatehouse driveway/Steamer Parkway intersection to connect with existing sidewalks along Wonderview Avenue to the west and along Steamer Drive to the east. This recommendation is based on the understanding that the EP community supports and desires walkable travelways and bikeways between key destinations, as evidenced by the adoption of a Master Trails Plan in 2016 and the adoption of a Complete Streets Policy in 2019. • • PW recommends that all public improvements associated with the Carriage House Restaurant project in public use easements or public right-of-ways be addressed in a Development Agreement. • • PW recommends that the Carriage House Restaurant not receive a building permit for interior finishes until all public improvements associated with the Carriage House Restaurant project and all private/public improvements associated with the East Parking Lot (currently B-11160) are constructed and accepted by PW or properly securitized and addressed in a Development Agreement. • • PW recommends that the Carriage House Restaurant not receive a TCO or CO to operate in any capacity unless and until all public improvements associated with the Carriage House Restaurant project and all private/public improvements associated with the East Parking Lot (B-11160) are constructed and approved by PW and all other obligations of any/all Development Agreement(s) are fulfilled. Re: Request for Review: Carriage House Restaurant facility, Stanley Hotel campus Inbox x Vanessa Solesbee 189 to me, David, Jennifer all Good Evening Randy, David, Jennifer and I spoke this morning regarding this project and David shared his comments with me on the Parking Ops Plan and TIS. I reviewed both as well and have very minor comments (both of which support comments made by David): Parking Ops Plan I can confirm that all of my comments from November 2019 have been addressed except one (regarding the reference to "parking control person"). I think a bit more is needed on this item to clarify what is meant by "parking control person" and/or parking controls. TIA (Section 4.4 Transit) This section still needs to be updated per my emailed comments on April 15. Jack Mousseau did email me last week and ask for information about the 2020 routes and I directed him to our website. Thank you and please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions! Best, Vanessa -- Vanessa Solesbee, CAPP Parking & Transit Manager Public Works Department Town of Estes Park Re: Request for Review: Carriage House Restaurant facility, Stanley Hotel campus Inbox x Steven Rusch Randy, As everyone copied on this email is well aware, The Town of Estes Park Utilities Department has required the the entirety of Lot 1 must bring all water metering and backflow protection into compliance as a condition of approval of any Certificates of Occupancy or Temporary Certificates of Occupancy for this project. Our Department is willing to allow permit approval to allow processes to keep moving forward. It is 190 acknowledged and appreciated that the property owner has hired Estes Park Plumbers to accomplish this, and the work has begun. Once this is resolved entirely, signed off by the plumber and approved by the Utilities Department, COs and/or TCOs can be reviewed for approval. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions or for further discussion. Best, Steve Rusch Utilities Coordinator. Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. Suite 140. PO Box 1200. Estes Park, CO 80517 Direct: 970.577.3625 Mobile: 970.481.8417 RE: Request for Review: Carriage House Restaurant facility, Stanley Hotel campus Inbox x James Duell <jduell@estesparksanitation.org> Hello Randy Hunt, As per review of the Carriage House Restaurant Facility the Estes Park Sanitation District has the following comments: 1. The District comments are limited to Review for compliance with Stanley Master Plan and Standard regulatory requirements as there are no detailed tenant finish drawings are available for review. 2. The development will be installing a Fats, Oil and Grease interceptor. Staff has met with project contractors, engineers and excavation companies to ensure the sewer line and interceptor will be installed as per our requirements. Their comments are part of the changes to G-002-20 grading permit. 3. Wastewater flow shall be towards Steamer Drive – not through Stanley Village. 4. Irrigation water shall be metered independently. Our requirements per a previous landscaping review have not changed. 5. Fees associated with the project are unknown at this time. Determination of fees will be during building permit review. Thank you – James Duell, Estes Park Sanitation District From: Randy Hunt [mailto:rhunt@estes.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 3:35 PM 191 To: Karin Swanlund; Planning commdev; Gary Rusu; David Hook; Jennifer Waters; Megan Van Hoozer; Steven Rusch; Shane Krell; Cliff Tedder; Joe Lockhart; Chris Thomas; James Duell; Kevin Sullivan; Reuben Bergsten; Dan Kramer; Cindy Nasky; Catherine Rosset; Vanessa Solesbee Cc: John Cullen; Jack Mousseau; Kasia Bulkowski Subject: Request for Review: Carriage House Restaurant facility, Stanley Hotel campus 192 Jack Mousseau, AIA ... [Message clipped] View entire message Jack M. Mousseau AIA, A4LE, LEED AP Principal M O A A R C H I T E C T U R E moaarch.com 414 14th facebook.com/moaarch 193 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study  Response to Comments  July 8, 2020      Page 2    analysis of the proposed project. Accordingly, the TIA does not contain details of an  analysis of alternative modes of transportation. However, the Parking Operations Plan  contains the following statements in the Alternative Means of Site Access section: (1)  “The expected number of patrons forecast to walk or bike to the Stanley Film Center  will be provided in the Traffic Impact Study,” and (2) “The expected number of patrons  forecast to take private transportation (e.g. Uber, Lyft, Estes Park Shuttle, etc.) to the  Stanley Film Center will also be provided in the Traffic Impact Study.” Since neither  study  has  the  details  we  expected  regarding  full  multi‐modal  analysis,  resolve  this  conflict between both reports and revise accordingly.   Response:  A discussion on multi‐modal and TNC use was added to the traffic study.   Comment 5. 4.1:  Wonderview  Avenue  –  update  section  with  information  about the  existing  Wonderview/MacGregor intersection roundabout.   Response:  Updated text to discuss the new roundabout.  Comment 6. 4.1: Wonderview Avenue: update the section to reflect that west of Wonderview/St.  Vrain is actually US36 (Elkhorn Ave), not US 34 Business Route (Big Thompson Ave).   Response:  Updated text.  Comment 7. 4.1: Steamer Drive – update the section to reflect that Steamer Drive also provides  access to the Stanley Hotel campus via Steamer Parkway.   Response:  Updated text.  Comment 8. 4.3: Acknowledge Complete Streets adoption by Town and its implications for TIS info.   Response:  The Complete Streets Policy was discussed.   Comment 9. 4.4: Transit – Shuttles will be using the western end of the parking structure starting in  2020. Is the Stanley still on the Silver Route? Update transit map.   Response: The discussion on the transit routes was updated with the 2020 map, which  was not available at the time of the first submittal.    Comment 10. 4.5: This intersection will probably be signalized in late 2020.   Response:  The analysis was updated to include a signal at the intersection of Big  Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access for the existing and  future scenarios. The following assumptions were made since the signal design and  194 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study  Response to Comments  July 8, 2020      Page 3    timings were not provided: the golf course access would be realigned with Steamer  Drive and include one left‐turn pocket and one through/right‐turn lane; Steamer Drive  would add one southbound through lane; the signal timing parameters and cycle  length  at  the  intersection  of  Elkhorn  Avenue  and  Wonderview  Avenue/St.  Vrain  Avenue were assumed to be the same at the new signal; and the left‐turns on Big  Thompson Avenue would provide protected+permitted phasing.   Comment 11. 5.2  and  Table  1:  Confirm  that  the  forecasts  for  this  report  take  into  account  the  forecasted traffic and proposed mitigation improvements associated with the Alarado  Business Park, a new development on the north (NE) corner of US 34/Steamer Drive  intersection.  TIS,  memo  amendments,  and  Traffic  Signal  Warrant Study  were  all  completed by Delich Associates in 2018 and 2019 and available upon request from PW.  Identify/explain/resolve conflicts between reports. Address why the Carriage House  Restaurant project and/or the Film Center project should not share in the effort to  mitigate traffic impacts at the US 34/Steamer Drive intersection.   Response:  It was confirmed with Matt Delich that the background volumes include  the trips associated with the Alarado Business Park.  In regard to a contribution towards the signal cost, the carriage house restaurant goes  by square footage and by revenue are less than 2.5% of the total space of The Stanley  Hotel. Most of the guests going to that restaurant are already there and have been  going to The Stanley Hotel for a long time. It is not anticipated that the Carriage House  itself will be a destination for down valley visitors. Effectively, there is little to no  increase in visitors since the Carriage House patrons are expected to already be at The  Stanley Hotel. Note, that this TRC review does not include the Film Center, nor does  the revised TIS.  As such, the Film Center does not pertain to the review or question as  it is currently a future, potential project and has not been submitted for planning  review. The Carriage House does not front either US 34 or Steamer Drive and the hotel  has agreed to improve multi‐modal connectivity adjacent to the project property.   In the traffic impact study, it was assumed that all of the Carriage House trips were  external per the Base Assumptions Form. If this were the case, then the estimated  trips would account for 1.3% of all the traffic traveling through the intersection of US  34 and Steamer Drive in Year 2024 in the PM peak hour. It is anticipated that the  majority of the restaurant trips will actually be people already visiting or staying at  The  Stanley  Hotel,  which  would  bring  the  trips  associated  with the  restaurant  traveling through the future signalized intersection to less than 0.3%. Also, the signal  at US 34 and Steamer Drive was warranted without the volume from the Carriage  House per the Signal Warrant Study conducted by Delich Associates (August 2019).   195 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study  Response to Comments  July 8, 2020      Page 4    Comment 12. 5.2: Update Year 2024 info for signalized intersection at “Big Thompson at Steamer/Golf  Course.”   Response:  See response to comment 10.  Comment 13. 6.1: The Parking Operations Plan identifies a Conference Center use for the hours of 8a  to 6p, but the TIA does not appear to account for the traffic generation associated with  this use. Resolve this apparent omission.   Response:    Not  applicable  to  the  Carriage  House.  Any  conference  center  will  be  included in the Film Center traffic study at a later date.   Comment 14. 7.0: Update for signalized intersection.   Response:  See response to comment 10.  Comment 15. This  TIA  shall  be  updated  and  resubmitted  with  the  proposed  Film  Center  when  appropriate.   Response:  A separate traffic impact study  will be completed for  the Film Center  submittal at a later date.     Note that the updated traffic study focuses on the Carriage House only and does not include the Film and  Performing Arts Center. A separate traffic study will be submitted for this portion of the project at a later  date.  \CRS   196 1624 Market Street | Suite 202 | Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.652.3571 | www.FoxTuttle.com MEMORANDUM  To: Town of Estes Park, Department of Public Works  From: Cassie Slade, PE, PTOE  Date: July 8, 2020  Project:  Stanley Historic District Carriage House Traffic Impact Study  Subject:  Response to Comments  Fox  Tuttle Transportation  Group  received  comments  “Stanley  Historic  District  Carriage  House  –  Development Application, Public Works Comments” dated June 19, 2020 from the Town of Estes Park in  reference to the submittal of the Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center traffic impact study (dated  April 6, 2020). We appreciate your thorough review. The responses for the traffic related comments are  listed below:   Comment 1. Typos to be corrected: Steamer Parkway (page 4), Bear River Multi‐Family Development  (page 4), Big Thompson (page 7).   Response:  Updated text.   Comment 2. The Carriage House should be referenced as new construction as the space has not been  actively used in 50 years. Truly, only the Concert Hall currently exists. Correct references  to renovating the Concert Hall.  Response:  Updated discussion on Carriage House. Removed Concert Hall and Film  Center for this traffic study. Future traffic study will be provided for the Concert Hall  and Film Center per discussions with Town staff.   Comment 3. 1.0: LCUASS is being actively updated since 2019. Update Chapter 4 references and  confirm compliance with latest version.   Response: The updates do not impact the traffic impact study. This update complies  with the latest version of LCUASS that is in the process of being updated.   Comment 4. Sections 4, 5, and 6: Our understanding in approving the Base Assumption Form (BAF)  for the TIA was that pedestrian and shuttle issues were being addressed via the Parking  Operations  Plan  (see  attached  email  dated  9‐26‐19)  to  provide  a  full  multi‐modal  Exhibit 14 197 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study  Response to Comments  July 8, 2020      Page 2    analysis of the proposed project. Accordingly, the TIA does not contain details of an  analysis of alternative modes of transportation. However, the Parking Operations Plan  contains the following statements in the Alternative Means of Site Access section: (1)  “The expected number of patrons forecast to walk or bike to the Stanley Film Center  will be provided in the Traffic Impact Study,” and (2) “The expected number of patrons  forecast to take private transportation (e.g. Uber, Lyft, Estes Park Shuttle, etc.) to the  Stanley Film Center will also be provided in the Traffic Impact Study.” Since neither  study  has  the  details  we  expected  regarding  full  multi‐modal  analysis,  resolve  this  conflict between both reports and revise accordingly.   Response:  A discussion on multi‐modal and TNC use was added to the traffic study.   Comment 5. 4.1:  Wonderview  Avenue  –  update  section  with  information  about the  existing  Wonderview/MacGregor intersection roundabout.   Response:  Updated text to discuss the new roundabout.  Comment 6. 4.1: Wonderview Avenue: update the section to reflect that west of Wonderview/St.  Vrain is actually US36 (Elkhorn Ave), not US 34 Business Route (Big Thompson Ave).   Response:  Updated text.  Comment 7. 4.1: Steamer Drive – update the section to reflect that Steamer Drive also provides  access to the Stanley Hotel campus via Steamer Parkway.   Response:  Updated text.  Comment 8. 4.3: Acknowledge Complete Streets adoption by Town and its implications for TIS info.   Response:  The Complete Streets Policy was discussed.   Comment 9. 4.4: Transit – Shuttles will be using the western end of the parking structure starting in  2020. Is the Stanley still on the Silver Route? Update transit map.   Response: The discussion on the transit routes was updated with the 2020 map, which  was not available at the time of the first submittal.    Comment 10. 4.5: This intersection will probably be signalized in late 2020.   Response:  The analysis was updated to include a signal at the intersection of Big  Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access for the existing and  future scenarios. The following assumptions were made since the signal design and  198 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study  Response to Comments  July 8, 2020      Page 3    timings were not provided: the golf course access would be realigned with Steamer  Drive and include one left‐turn pocket and one through/right‐turn lane; Steamer Drive  would add one southbound through lane; the signal timing parameters and cycle  length  at  the  intersection  of  Elkhorn  Avenue  and  Wonderview  Avenue/St.  Vrain  Avenue were assumed to be the same at the new signal; and the left‐turns on Big  Thompson Avenue would provide protected+permitted phasing.   Comment 11. 5.2  and  Table  1:  Confirm  that  the  forecasts  for  this  report  take  into  account  the  forecasted traffic and proposed mitigation improvements associated with the Alarado  Business Park, a new development on the north (NE) corner of US 34/Steamer Drive  intersection.  TIS,  memo  amendments,  and  Traffic  Signal  Warrant Study  were  all  completed by Delich Associates in 2018 and 2019 and available upon request from PW.  Identify/explain/resolve conflicts between reports. Address why the Carriage House  Restaurant project and/or the Film Center project should not share in the effort to  mitigate traffic impacts at the US 34/Steamer Drive intersection.   Response:  It was confirmed with Matt Delich that the background volumes include  the trips associated with the Alarado Business Park.  In regard to a contribution towards the signal cost, the carriage house restaurant goes  by square footage and by revenue are less than 2.5% of the total space of The Stanley  Hotel. Most of the guests going to that restaurant are already there and have been  going to The Stanley Hotel for a long time. It is not anticipated that the Carriage House  itself will be a destination for down valley visitors. Effectively, there is little to no  increase in visitors since the Carriage House patrons are expected to already be at The  Stanley Hotel. Note, that this TRC review does not include the Film Center, nor does  the revised TIS.  As such, the Film Center does not pertain to the review or question as  it is currently a future, potential project and has not been submitted for planning  review. The Carriage House does not front either US 34 or Steamer Drive and the hotel  has agreed to improve multi‐modal connectivity adjacent to the project property.   In the traffic impact study, it was assumed that all of the Carriage House trips were  external per the Base Assumptions Form. If this were the case, then the estimated  trips would account for 1.3% of all the traffic traveling through the intersection of US  34 and Steamer Drive in Year 2024 in the PM peak hour. It is anticipated that the  majority of the restaurant trips will actually be people already visiting or staying at  The  Stanley  Hotel,  which  would  bring  the  trips  associated  with the  restaurant  traveling through the future signalized intersection to less than 0.3%. Also, the signal  at US 34 and Steamer Drive was warranted without the volume from the Carriage  House per the Signal Warrant Study conducted by Delich Associates (August 2019).   199 The Stanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study  Response to Comments  July 8, 2020      Page 4    Comment 12. 5.2: Update Year 2024 info for signalized intersection at “Big Thompson at Steamer/Golf  Course.”   Response:  See response to comment 10.  Comment 13. 6.1: The Parking Operations Plan identifies a Conference Center use for the hours of 8a  to 6p, but the TIA does not appear to account for the traffic generation associated with  this use. Resolve this apparent omission.   Response:    Not  applicable  to  the  Carriage  House.  Any  conference  center  will  be  included in the Film Center traffic study at a later date.   Comment 14. 7.0: Update for signalized intersection.   Response:  See response to comment 10.  Comment 15. This  TIA  shall  be  updated  and  resubmitted  with  the  proposed  Film  Center  when  appropriate.   Response:  A separate traffic impact study  will be completed for  the Film Center  submittal at a later date.     Note that the updated traffic study focuses on the Carriage House only and does not include the Film and  Performing Arts Center. A separate traffic study will be submitted for this portion of the project at a later  date.  \CRS   200 Re: Stanley - East Parking Layout, island modification Inbox x Jack Mousseau Aug 12, 2020, 4:16 PM (4 days ago) Reply to all Hi Randy and David, Just to confirm, the tree in discussion here will be removed today. We will not be reconfiguring the already permitted and approved parking lot layout. There have been no requested changes to the parking lot configuration that is currently permitted and under construction. We have modified earth work along its eastern edge at the request and result of conversations with Findlay Court residential neighbors. None of the earthwork modifications required any change to parking layout. The general contractor will continue with the permitted construction, including placement of concrete beginning next week. We will submit earthwork modifications tomorrow. As for consideration of this parking lot in the Carriage House TRC. The parking lot and Carriage House are two separate issues. One in for TRC review of the exterior enclosure and restaurant, the other already permitted for construction. The intended use of the Carriage House and its “context” have not changed since the east parking was submitted for permit, and approved. We would expect the TRC discussions and findings to reflect that. It was considered at that time. As for proportionality and scale, the parking operations plan identifies the parking needs on the Stanley campus and parking use in context with the Carriage House. Please clarify if your intent with “context”, “scale and proportionality” have different intent. Kind regards, Jack Mousseau, AIA Principal MOA ARCHITECTURE 303-915-0482 From: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 1:23 PM To: Jack Mousseau Cc: David Hook; Chris Schilling; John Cullen; EDWARD HAYEK; Kasia Bulkowski; Shane A. Marquez Subject: Re: Stanley - East Parking Layout, island modification Exhibit 15 201 All, I wasn't there for the walk through, but if the tree is aged to the point of questionable viability, I can't argue that a reconfiguration just to spare it is warranted. We agree that the current parking-lot plans can be followed through to completion per the approved design drawings, but I caution that that does not mean issues regarding parking can't be considered by the TRC. Each new project submitted for review has a context, and that context is important in planning and land use. We (society) couldn't make much progress if we held to a principle that once something is built and approved for use, it can't ever be reconsidered again if development around it warrants that. The Sydney Opera House or the Eiffel Tower (or the Stanley Hotel itself) may be exceptions, as they are iconic... but a parking lot isn't iconic. Naturally, proportionality and scale count also. 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 main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 1:08 PM Jack Mousseau <jmousseau@moaarch.com> wrote: Hi all, It is our understanding that in today’s site walk, the reconfiguration of the island within the east parking lot was discussed. This is the island we were contemplating reconfiguring to save a large, existing tree. It is our understanding that those on site weren’t concerned with the removal of this tree due to its current aged condition. It is also understood that any change in the layout of the parking lot per the permit, would be problematic. Thus, we are not going to change the configuration of the island or parking lot from its permitted layout and landscape design, and this tree will be removed. Please understand, the East Parking project is not under review of the upcoming TRC for the Carriage House. The East Parking is currently under a permit provided by the Town of Estes Park and construction will be ongoing based on those approved documents. Kind regards, 202 Jack Mousseau, AIA ... [Message clipped] View entire message Jack M. Mousseau AIA, A4LE, LEED AP Principal M O A A R C H I T E C T U R E moaarch.com 414 14th facebook.com/moaarch 203 Exhibit 16 204 Memo _g_® - TOWN OF ESTES PARI'-._ TOWN ADMINISTRATOR To: From: File: Stanley Historic District -Carriage House -2020 TRC Town Administrator Machalek Date: RE: June 4, 2020 Appointment of Architectural Review Committee in Connection with the Stanley Hotel Carriage House Preliminary Package (accepted for processing by Community Development Dept. on June 3, 2020) In accordance with the adopted Stanley Historic District Master Plan (January 11,1994), Sec. I.C.3 (p. 6): As Town Administrator, I hereby appoint the following members to serve on the Architectural Review Committee, each to serve for the duration of the Stanley Hotel Carriage House technical review process through final disposition of said project and process: a.Jack A. Cook 111, AIA. CCCA-Principal, Fentress Architects b.Curtis Martin, AIA, LEED AP -Design & Construction Team Manager, Kaiser Permanente Facilities-Design & Construction 7�� Travis Machalek Town Administrator Town of Estes Park Cc: Jack A. Cook 111 Curtis Martin Dan Kramer, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Karin Swanlund, Administrative Assistant, Community Development Department Randy Hunt, Director, Community Development Department Exhibi t 17 205 T H E S T A N L E Y H O T E L C A R R I A G E H O U S E E S T E S P A R K , C O Te c h n i c a l R e v i e w C o m m i t t e e R e v i e w A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 2 0 E x h i b i t 1 8 206 2VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST 207 3VICINITY PLAN 20 MIN W A L K Z O N E DESIGNATED BIKE LANES 20SDSSD D S D S D S D J K J K JK 20 MIN WALK ZONE FROM THE STANLEY FILM CENTER WALK ZONE CENTER POINT FUTURE STANLEY FILM CENTER STANLEY LOT 1 STANLEY LOT 2 STANLEY LOT 4 RIDGLINE RE- SORT ESTES PARK RE- SORT SAFEWAY SHOPPING & RESTAURANT CENTER 1 Hour Parking (May-Sept) 3 Hour Parking (May-Sept) All Day Parking Electric Car Charger Shuttle Stop (June-Sept) Restrooms Visitor Info Mo r a i n e A v e E R i v e r s i d e D r Weist Dr Big Horn Dr Spruce Dr Cleave St Big Thompson Ave N Saint Vrain Ave Big Thompson River E Wonderview AveMacGregor Ave E Elkhor n A v e Fall River Virginia Dr Park Ln Big Thompson River W Elkhorn Ave W Wonderview AveVirginia DrBig Horn Dr Black Canyon Creek W Riverside Dr Fall River Steamer Dr 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 6 1817 7 5 4 3 2 1 VISITOR CENTERTOWN HALL EVENTS COMPLEX PARK-N-RIDE 0.5 MILES EVENTS COMPLEX PARK-N-RIDE Overnight parking in designated locations allowed by permit only. Visit estes.org/parking for more information. #Lot Name Spaces RV 1 Events Complex Park-n-Ride 454 √ 2 Parking Structure 415 3 Visitor Center 151 √ 4 Town Hall 279 √ 5 MacGregor Ave 84 6 East Riverside 44 7 Virginia 30 8 Riverside Post Office 94 9 99 10 West Riverside 38 11 Davis 43 12 Weist 141 13 Big Horn 77 14 Tregent 17 15 Spruce 41 16 Performance Park 81 17 Bond Park 77 18 Brownfield’s 6 4th st N Saint Vrain A v e S S a i n t V r a i n A v e Manford Ave TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC PARKINGRMNP Fall River Entrance LovelandGlen Haven Boulder RMNP Beaver Meadows Entrance SEE INSET INSET MAP Revised 05/23/2019 FOR INFORMATIONAL PUPORSES ONLY. THIS IMAGE USES THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUB- LIC PARKING MAP GRAPHICS SUPERIMPOSED ON A GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE. ALL DAY 3 HOUR PARKING (MAY-SEPTEMBER) BIKE PATH RIVER MAIN ROAD NETWORK 1 HOUR PARKING (MAY-SEPTEMBER) PARKING AND CIRCULATION STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE 208 4TRC REVIEW SCOPE SITE PLAN FILM CENTER SERVICE COURTYARD CONCERT HALL CARRIAGE HOUSE EAST PARKING PERMIT# B-11160 FUTUREFILM CENTER CARRIAGE HOUSE INTERIOR TRC PERMIT # B-11186 209 5PROJECT TIMELINES CARRIAGE HOUSE PROJECT TIMELINE Stanley East Parking Permit Submittal - 07/01/2019 Stanley East Parking Permit Received - 11/20/2019 CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION Stanley Carriage House and Film Center Pre-App Meeting - 07/18/2019 Stanley Carriage House Foundation and Enclosure Submittal - 08/06/2019 Stanley Carriage House Foundation and Enclosure Permit Received - 11/18/2019 CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION Stanley Carriage House Shell Package Submittal - 05/04/2020 Stanley Carriage House Shell Package Permit Received - Pending Stanley Carriage House TRC Submittal - 05/27/2020 Stanley Carriage House TRC Review - 8/24/2020 Stanley Film Center Submittal - Pending Stanley Film Center TRC - Pending 210 6SITE PLAN - CARRIAGE HOUSE G G G G SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S W S SS SS SS SS SS SS S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS E E E E E G G G G G G G G SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD W W W G G E E E E E E E VA N VA N VA N VA N 17-YAR5-BGG4-MCK6-BGG3-YAR 4-THG3-GBS3-MTN 8-BGG3-TWS 3-MTN9-BGG5-THG 3-RHM5-IBC 9-YAR 15-THG 6-MCK 3-RHM 8-BGG 3-GBS 1-YFC9-BGG5-YAR 6-THG1-YFC4-BGG 7-IBC6-BGG5-POT 2-ASP 12-WLC 8-THG3-RHM 1-YFC8-GBS 6-GBS17-WLC 20-PCS 12-WLC 22-PCS 13-YAR 12-SIL 25-BGG3-WSC21-YAR 9-PCS 25-PCS 2-RAB 3-RAB LIMIT OF WORK CARRIAGE HOUSE 3-POT 6-TWS 5-YFC 7-POT 13-PCS 12-PCS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e MB 04.20.2020 19125.00 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 Permit Submittal JB, DJ REVISION DATE 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 P 303.892.1166 www.norris-design.com L-200 0 NORTH SCALE:1"=20'-0" 10'20'40' 1. 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 4" CAL. B&B, AND 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 2" CAL. B&B 2. ALL IRRIGATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE COORDINATED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. OWNER'S APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY SITE DISTURBANCE. AS-BUILT IRRIGATION PLANS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETENESS. NOTES ORNAMENTAL TREE DECIDUOUS SHRUBS EVERGREEN SHRUBS NATIVE SEED MIX LANDSCAPE MULCH SPADE CUT EDGER LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN LIMIT OF WORK PERENNIALS EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED LANDSCAPE PLANLANDSCAPE PLAN PLANT LIST ORNAMENTAL TREES DECIDUOUS SHRUBS - SMALL (2'-5' SPREAD) EVERGREEN SHRUBS PERENNIALS ASP QUAKING ASPENPOPULUS TREMULOIDES 2" CAL. B&B SIL MTN IBC POT MCK SILVER BUFFALOBERRY MOUNTAIN NINEBARK IRIQUOIS BEAUTY CHOKEBERRY PINK BEAUTY POTENTILLA MCKAY'S WHITE POTENTILLA SHEPERDIA ARGENTEA PHYSOCARPUS MONOGYNUS ARONIA MELANOCARPA 'MORTON' POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA 'PINK BEAUTY' POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA 'MCKAY'S WHITE' #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. GBS RHM DWARF GLOBE BLUE SPRUCE RH MONTGOMERY SPRUCE PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA GLOBOSA' PICEA PUNGENS 'RH MONTGOMERY' #5 CONT. #5 CONT. WLC YAR PCS WALKER'S LOW CATMINT MOONSHINE YARROW POWIS CASTLE SAGE NEPETA X FAASSENII 'WALKER'S LOW' ACHILLEA 'MOONSHINE' ARTEMISIA 'POWIS CASTLE' #1 CONT. #1 CONT. #1 CONT. ORNAMENTAL GRASSES BGG THG BLUE GRAMA GRASS TUFTED HAIR GRASS BOUTELOUA GRACILIS DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA #1 CONT. #1 CONT. DECIDUOUS SHRUBS - MEDIUM (5'-7' SPREAD) YFC RAB TWS WSC YELLOW FLOWERING CURRANT TALL BLUE RABBITBRUSH TALL WESTERN SAGEBRUSH WESTERN SAND CHERRY RIBES AUREUM ERICAMERIA NAUSEOSA SSP. NAUSEOSA VAR. SPECIOSA ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA PRUNUS BESSEYI #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. MULTI-COLOR HIGH ALTITUDE MIX 20 - 40 LBS. 2 - 4 LBS. 3 - 6 LBS. 3 - 6 LBS. 5 - 10 LBS. 6 - 12 LBS. 15% 15% 25% 30%EPHRAIM CRESTED WHEATGRASS CANADA BLUEGRASS, RUBENS CHEWINGS FESCUE PERENNIAL RYE SHEEP FESCUE, MEKLENBERGER TOTAL 100% % OF TOTAL 10% COMMON NAMELBS. PER ACRE 1 - 2 LBS.ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILDFLOWER MIX5% CONTACT : ARKANSAS VALLEY SEED 4300 MONACO ST, DENVER, CO 80216 OR APPROVED EQUAL QTY. 2 12 6 12 15 10 20 9 41 68 101 80 38 8 5 9 3 COBBLE MULCH G G G G SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S W S S SS SS SS SS SS SS S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS E E E E E G G G G G G G G SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD W W W G G E E E E E E E VA N VA N VA N VA N 17-YAR5-BGG4-MCK6-BGG3-YAR 4-THG3-GBS3-MTN 8-BGG3-TWS 3-MTN9-BGG5-THG 3-RHM5-IBC 9-YAR 15-THG 6-MCK 3-RHM 8-BGG 3-GBS 1-YFC9-BGG5-YAR 6-THG1-YFC4-BGG 7-IBC6-BGG5-POT 2-ASP 12-WLC 8-THG3-RHM 1-YFC8-GBS 6-GBS17-WLC 20-PCS 12-WLC 22-PCS 13-YAR 12-SIL 25-BGG3-WSC21-YAR 9-PCS 25-PCS 2-RAB 3-RAB LIMIT OF WORK CARRIAGE HOUSE 3-POT 6-TWS 5-YFC 7-POT 13-PCS 12-PCS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e MB 04.20.2020 19125.00 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 Permit Submittal JB, DJ REVISION DATE 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 P 303.892.1166 www.norris-design.com L-200 0 NORTH SCALE:1"=20'-0" 10'20'40' G G G G SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S W S S SS SS SS SS SS SS S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS E E E E E G G G G G G G G SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SD SDSDSD SD SDSDSD SD SD SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD W W W G G E E E E E E E VA N VA N VA N VA N 17-YAR5-BGG4-MCK6-BGG3-YAR 4-THG3-GBS3-MTN 8-BGG3-TWS 3-MTN9-BGG5-THG 3-RHM5-IBC 9-YAR 15-THG 6-MCK 3-RHM 8-BGG 3-GBS 1-YFC9-BGG5-YAR 6-THG1-YFC4-BGG 7-IBC6-BGG5-POT 2-ASP 12-WLC 8-THG3-RHM 1-YFC8-GBS 6-GBS17-WLC 20-PCS 12-WLC 22-PCS 13-YAR 12-SIL 25-BGG3-WSC21-YAR 9-PCS 25-PCS 2-RAB 3-RAB LIMIT OF WORK CARRIAGE HOUSE 3-POT 6-TWS 5-YFC 7-POT 13-PCS 12-PCS St a n l e y H o t e l C a r r i a g e H o u s e MB 04.20.2020 19125.00 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 Permit Submittal JB, DJ REVISION DATE 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 P 303.892.1166 www.norris-design.com L-200 0 NORTH SCALE:1"=20'-0" 10'20'40' 1. 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 4" CAL. B&B, AND 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 2" CAL. B&B 2. ALL IRRIGATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE COORDINATED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. OWNER'S APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY SITE DISTURBANCE. AS-BUILT IRRIGATION PLANS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETENESS. NOTES ORNAMENTAL TREE DECIDUOUS SHRUBS EVERGREEN SHRUBS NATIVE SEED MIX LANDSCAPE MULCH SPADE CUT EDGER LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN LIMIT OF WORK PERENNIALS EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED COBBLE MULCH G G G G SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S WSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEE EGGGGGGGG SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSSSDSD SD SDSD SD SDSD SD SDSD SD SDSD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD W W WGGEE E E EEE VANVANVANVAN17-YAR5-BGG4-MCK6-BGG3-YAR 4-THG3-GBS3-MTN 8-BGG3-TWS3-MTN9-BGG5-THG3-RHM5-IBC9-YAR 15-THG6-MCK 3-RHM8-BGG 3-GBS 1-YFC9-BGG5-YAR6-THG1-YFC4-BGG7-IBC6-BGG5-POT2-ASP12-WLC 8-THG3-RHM1-YFC8-GBS6-GBS17-WLC20-PCS 12-WLC 22-PCS13-YAR12-SIL25-BGG3-WSC21-YAR9-PCS 25-PCS 2-RAB 3-RABLIMIT OF WORK CARRIAGE HOUSE3-POT 6-TWS 5-YFC 7-POT13-PCS 12-PCS Stanley Hotel Carriage House MB 04.20.2020 19125.00 333 E Wonderview Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 Permit Submittal JB, DJ REVISION DATE 1101 Bannock StreetDenver, Colorado 80204P 303.892.1166www.norris-design.com L-200 0 NORTH SCALE:1"=20'-0" 10'20'40' 1. 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 4" CAL. B&B, AND 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 2" CAL. B&B 2. ALL IRRIGATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE COORDINATED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. OWNER'S APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY SITE DISTURBANCE. AS-BUILT IRRIGATION PLANS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETENESS. NOTES 211 7SITE PLAN - EAST PARKING G 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 E E E E E E G G G G G D SS SS E E E E E E E E W W G E E VA N VA N VA N VA N L-300 6 L-300 5 L-300 7 EXISTING LANDSCAPE BED TO REMAIN 3-GLS5-YAR 3-RGB 9-BGG 2-RGB7-TWI2-CAN 8-POT 8-TWI3-RGB 6-MTN 3-TTJ1-ASP 3-UFS8-MCK 4-BRS 1-WIL 1-CMM3-BCJ 5-WAC 3-BCJ 8-WSB 9-POT 3-ASP7-MTN 3-TTJ 3-UFS 3-MTN 5-BCJ3-MCK 5-WSC 5-GBS4-TTJ 3-GGS8-TWI 3-YFC 14-LUP 3-TLS 3-UFS 4-IBC 7-TLS 3-GBS3-TLS3-POT 3-WSC7-RGB 6-WSC 1-CAN 5-CMO 9-MCK3-WSC8-UFS 20-BGG STEAMER PARKWAY 3-CMO 3-GGS 3-WSC 5-WSC 15-MTN 5-IBC BOULDER AREA, RE: CIVIL LANDSCAPE BOULDERS, TYP. PHASE 1 LIMIT OF WORK FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1 LIMIT OF WORK FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 7-RAB 20.0' WATER EASEMENT 12-TTJ3-MCK6-CMO 3-YFC3-RGB 7-CMO6-POT 10-WSB4-IBC 5-RAB 3-WSC1-RAB5-RGB 7-SIL6-GBS 3-TWI3-TWS 5-YFC 5-TTJ5-RMS 3-ASP 5-RTD 5-DAW3-RTD 5-RTD 3-RMS5-TLS5-UFS 3-RMS5-TWI 6-RAB5-WSB 3-CMO 6-RTD8-POT3-WSC 3-BCJ3-YFC5-YFC 3-TWS 4-ASP6-GGS 3-CMO10-BGG 8-YAR 6-TTJ3-PKC6-TWS6-MCK 3-RTD6-POT 5-RGB5-POT 2-RMW 4-TWI6-YFC3-RGB1-RBE 5-RTD 3-TWS10-BGG 6-WAC 5-TLS3-YFC1-WIL11-POT 7-CMO 7-TWS 7-YAR4-PCS 4-RMS 3-WSC3-TWS4-WSC 8-WAC9-BRS10-RTD3-UFS 8-SIL 8-BCJ6-TWI 6-CMO5-IBC3-YFC 5-RAB3-TWS8-RAB 3-TLS 4-SIL 1-CMM5-SIL8-TWI6-RAB 10-TWS8-SIL 7-TTJ3-RAB6-MTN10-BGG9-IBC 7-WLC 5-LUP OVERSEED ALL AREAS OF DISTURBANCE 9-MTN 6-RTD 23-BGG6-WLC 7-YAR 12-SIL3-YFC5-GGS 6-RGB 7-LUP 13-IBC5-CMO 5-SIL3-CMM7-RAB 4-PCS 1-DAW39-THG 7-RMW 14-RMW 13-RMW9-RTD 1-DAW 52-THG 3-WIL 26-BGG7-RMW 9-DAW 8-MCK 6-TTJ 24-LUP 10-YAR17-THG 3-ASP EXISTING GRAND SWALE BIO-RETENTION POND, RE: CIVIL BI-RETENTION POND, RE: CIVIL SPADE CUT EDGER, TYP. 3-SIL 1-ASP 8-GLS 1-PKC 1-PKC 8-IBC 10-GLS 1-ASP 5-TTJ 4-ASP 3-ASP 2-ASP 60-PON 10-RTD ENHANCED BOULDER EDGE, TYP. 7-DAW3-WIL 13-RMW 2-WIL 10-MCK7-RTD38-BGG 3-GGS 3-DAW 12-WLC21-LUP 15-WSB 10-YAR 3-MTN 3-GBS5-PCS 6-WSC5-MTN 4-WLC 15-BGG11-YAR 6-WRO 7-MTN8-THG 11-DAW 11-RTD9-RMS 7-RMW31-BGG 38-BGG 21-MNS22-YAR 12-WLC 1-1/2" IRRIGATION METER TO BE SET INSIDE BUILDING. 3-WRO 2-YFC 9-MNS 10-WLC 10-MNS 5-RGB BIKE RACK (6 SPOTS MINIMUM) KEYSTONE RIDGE, OR APPROVED EQUAL MODEL: ATLANTA BIKE RACK, 8-BIKE CAPACITY COLOR: BURGUNDY OR APPROVED EQUAL 9-THG 3-BCJ 6-PCS St a n l e y H o t e l E a s t P a r k i n g MB 2020.02.07 19125.00 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 Permit Submittal JB, DJ REVISION DATE 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 P 303.892.1166 www.norris-design.com L-200 0 NORTH SCALE:1"=30'-0" 15'30'60' 1. 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 4" CAL. B&B, AND 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 2" CAL. B&B 2. ALL IRRIGATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE COORDINATED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. OWNER'S APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY SITE DISTURBANCE. AS-BUILT IRRIGATION PLANS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETENESS. 3. EXISTING TREES LOCATED WITHIN 25' OF PROPERTY LINE THAT ARE GREATER THAN 4" DBH SHALL BE PRESERVED. NOTES LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANT LIST ORNAMENTAL TREES DECIDUOUS SHRUBS - SMALL (2'-5' SPREAD) EVERGREEN SHRUBS PERENNIALS ASP CAN QUAKING ASPEN CANADA RED CHERRY POPULUS TREMULOIDES PRUNUS VIRGINIANA 'SHUBERT' 2" CAL. B&B 2" CAL. B&B RMS RMW WSB WAC SIL MTN TWI IBC POT MCK GLS ROCKY MOUNTAIN SUMAC ROCKY MOUNTAIN STREAMBANK WILLOW WESTERN SNOWBERRY WAX CURRANT SILVER BUFFALOBERRY MOUNTAIN NINEBARK TWINBERRY HONEYSUCKLE IRIQUOIS BEAUTY CHOKEBERRY PINK BEAUTY POTENTILLA MCKAY'S WHITE POTENTILLA GROW LOW SUMAC RHUS GLABRA 'CISMONTANA' SALIX MONTICOLA SYMPHORICARPOS OCCIDENTALIS RIBES CEREUM SHEPERDIA ARGENTEA PHYSOCARPUS MONOGYNUS LONICERA INVOLUCRATA ARONIA MELANOCARPA 'MORTON' POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA 'PINK BEAUTY' POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA 'MCKAY'S WHITE' RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO LOW' #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. BCJ TTJ GBS GGS BLUE CREEPER ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER TABLE TOP BLUE ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER DWARF GLOBE BLUE SPRUCE DWARF GLOBE GREEN SPRUCE JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'MONAM' JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'TABLE TOP' PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA GLOBOSA' PICEA PUNGENS 'ROUNDABOUT' #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. PCS WLC YAR LUP MNS POWIS CASTLE SAGE WALKER'S LOW CATMINT MOONSHINE YARROW LUPINE MAY NIGHT SALVIA ARTEMISIA 'POWIS CASTLE' NEPETA X FAASSENII 'WALKER'S LOW' ACHILLEA 'MOONSHINE' LUPINUS SALVIA SYLVESTRIS #1 CONT. #1 CONT. #1 CONT. #1 CONT. ORNAMENTAL GRASSES BGG THG BLUE GRAMA GRASS TUFTED HAIR GRASS BOUTELOUA GRACILIS DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA #1 CONT. #1 CONT. DECIDUOUS SHRUBS - MEDIUM (5'-7' SPREAD) DECIDUOUS SHRUBS - LARGE (7'-9' SPREAD) CMO TLS YFC BRS RAB WRO TWS UFS RTD WSC DAW RGB CHEYENNE MOCKORANGE THREE LEAF SUMAC YELLOW FLOWERING CURRANT BOULDER RASPBERRY TALL BLUE RABBITBRUSH WILD ROSE TALL WESTERN SAGEBRUSH URAL FALSE SPIREA ISANTI RED TWIG DOGWOOD WESTERN SAND CHERRY DWARF ARCTIC WILLOW ROSE GLOW BARBERRY PHILADELPHUS LEWISII 'BLIZZARD' RHUS TRILOBATA RIBES AUREUM RUBUS DELICIOSUS ERICAMERIA NAUSEOSA SSP. NAUSEOSA VAR. SPECIOSA ROSA WOODSII ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA CORNUS SERICEA 'ISANTI' PRUNUS BESSEYI SALIX PURPUREA NANA BERBERIS THUNBERGII 'ROSE GLOW' #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. RBE CMM PKC WIL RED BERRIED ELDER COMMON MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY PEKING COTONEASTER DRUMMOND WILLOW SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA CERCOCARPUS MONTANUS COTONEASTER LUCIDUS SALIX DRUMMONDIANA #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. MULTI-COLOR HIGH ALTITUDE MIX 20 - 40 LBS. 2 - 4 LBS. 3 - 6 LBS. 3 - 6 LBS. 5 - 10 LBS. 6 - 12 LBS. 15% 15% 25% 30%EPHRAIM CRESTED WHEATGRASS CANADA BLUEGRASS, RUBENS CHEWINGS FESCUE PERENNIAL RYE SHEEP FESCUE, MEKLENBERGER TOTAL 100% % OF TOTAL 10% COMMON NAME LBS. PER ACRE 1 - 2 LBS.ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILDFLOWER MIX 5% 25 3 CONTACT : ARKANSAS VALLEY SEED 4300 MONACO ST, DENVER, CO 80216 OR APPROVED EQUAL FOWL BLUEGRASS 14%CANADA WILDRYE 14%TICKLEGRASS14%TUFTED HAIRGRASS 12%NEBRASKA SEDGE 8%FOWL MANNAGRASS 5%SMALL WINGED SEDGE 5%CREEPING SPIKERUSH 5%BEAKED SEDGE5%SMALL FRUITED BULRUSH 5%BALTIC RUSH4%THREE SQUARE BULRUSH 4%WOOLY SEDGE3%MEADOW RUSH1%AQUATIC SEDGE 0.5%DAGGER LEAF RUSH 0.5% PBSI MOUNTAIN WETLAND MIX % OF TOTALCOMMON NAME LBS. PER ACRE 100%TOTALCONTACT : PAWNEE BUTTES SEED 605 25TH ST. GREELEY CO 80631 OR APPROVED EQUAL 10 - 20 LBS. 14%14%14%12%8%5%5%5%5%5%4%4%3%1%0.5%0.5% 1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.2 - 2.4 lbs.0.8 -1.6 lbs.0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.4 - 0.8 lbs.0.4 - 0.8 lbs.0.3 - 0.6 lbs.0.1 - 0.2 lbs.0.05 - 0.1 lbs.0.05 - 0.1 lbs. EVERGREEN TREES PON PONDEROSA PINE PINUS PONDEROSA 6' HT. B&B60 ORNAMENTAL TREE DECIDUOUS SHRUBS EVERGREEN SHRUBS NATIVE SEED MIX LANDSCAPE MULCH SPADE CUT EDGER WETLAND SEED MIX LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN PHASE 1 LIMIT OF WORK EXISTING BED TO REMAIN SLEEVES FOR IRRIGATION EXISTING GRAND SWALE PERENNIALS EXISTING TREE NOT IN PHASE 1 LIMIT OF WORK EVERGREEN TREE PARKING ISLAND AREA TOTAL PARKING LOT AREA TOTAL ISLAND AREA PERCENTAGE OF PARKING LOT AREA 47,852 SF 4,794 SF 10% 24 63 38 19 52 61 49 48 56 47 21 25 51 17 20 19 50 80 71 40 230 125 45 26 36 13 48 9 38 25 77 44 37 42 1 5 5 10 G L-3006L-3005 L-3007 EXISTING LANDSCAPE BED TO REMAIN 3-GLS5-YAR3-RGB9-BGG 2-RGB7-TWI2-CAN 8-POT8-TWI3-RGB 6-MTN3-TTJ1-ASP3-UFS8-MCK 4-BRS1-WIL1-CMM3-BCJ5-WAC3-BCJ8-WSB9-POT3-ASP7-MTN3-TTJ3-UFS3-MTN 5-BCJ3-MCK5-WSC 5-GBS4-TTJ3-GGS8-TWI 3-YFC14-LUP 3-TLS3-UFS 4-IBC 7-TLS3-GBS3-TLS3-POT3-WSC7-RGB6-WSC1-CAN 5-CMO9-MCK3-WSC8-UFS20-BGG STEAMER PARKWAY 3-CMO3-GGS3-WSC 5-WSC 15-MTN5-IBCBOULDER AREA, RE: CIVIL LANDSCAPEBOULDERS, TYP.PHASE 1 LIMITOF WORKFUTUREDEVELOPMENT PHASE 1 LIMITOF WORKFUTUREDEVELOPMENT7-RAB20.0' WATEREASEMENT12-TTJ3-MCK6-CMO3-YFC3-RGB 7-CMO6-POT10-WSB4-IBC5-RAB 3-WSC1-RAB5-RGB7-SIL6-GBS 3-TWI3-TWS5-YFC5-TTJ5-RMS 3-ASP 5-RTD 5-DAW3-RTD5-RTD3-RMS5-TLS5-UFS3-RMS5-TWI 6-RAB5-WSB3-CMO6-RTD8-POT3-WSC3-BCJ3-YFC5-YFC3-TWS 4-ASP6-GGS3-CMO10-BGG 8-YAR 6-TTJ3-PKC6-TWS6-MCK3-RTD6-POT 5-RGB5-POT2-RMW4-TWI6-YFC3-RGB1-RBE5-RTD3-TWS10-BGG6-WAC5-TLS3-YFC1-WIL11-POT7-CMO7-TWS7-YAR4-PCS4-RMS 3-WSC3-TWS4-WSC8-WAC9-BRS10-RTD3-UFS8-SIL8-BCJ6-TWI 6-CMO5-IBC3-YFC5-RAB3-TWS8-RAB 3-TLS4-SIL1-CMM5-SIL8-TWI6-RAB10-TWS8-SIL7-TTJ3-RAB6-MTN10-BGG9-IBC 7-WLC5-LUP OVERSEED ALL AREAS OF DISTURBANCE9-MTN 6-RTD 23-BGG6-WLC7-YAR 12-SIL3-YFC5-GGS6-RGB7-LUP13-IBC5-CMO 5-SIL3-CMM7-RAB 4-PCS1-DAW39-THG 7-RMW14-RMW 13-RMW9-RTD1-DAW52-THG3-WIL 26-BGG7-RMW 9-DAW 8-MCK6-TTJ24-LUP10-YAR17-THG3-ASP EXISTING GRAND SWALE BIO-RETENTION POND, RE: CIVILBI-RETENTION POND, RE: CIVILSPADE CUTEDGER, TYP.3-SIL1-ASP 8-GLS 1-PKC1-PKC8-IBC 10-GLS1-ASP 5-TTJ4-ASP 3-ASP2-ASP60-PON 10-RTD ENHANCEDBOULDER EDGE, TYP.7-DAW3-WIL 13-RMW 2-WIL 10-MCK7-RTD38-BGG 3-GGS 3-DAW 12-WLC21-LUP15-WSB10-YAR 3-MTN3-GBS5-PCS6-WSC5-MTN4-WLC15-BGG11-YAR 6-WRO7-MTN8-THG 11-DAW11-RTD9-RMS7-RMW31-BGG38-BGG 21-MNS22-YAR12-WLC1-1/2" IRRIGATIONMETER TO BE SETINSIDE BUILDING.3-WRO 2-YFC9-MNS 10-WLC 10-MNS 5-RGBBIKE RACK (6 SPOTS MINIMUM)KEYSTONE RIDGE, OR APPROVED EQUALMODEL: ATLANTA BIKE RACK, 8-BIKE CAPACITYCOLOR: BURGUNDY OR APPROVED EQUAL 9-THG3-BCJ6-PCS Stanley Hotel East Parking MB 2020.02.07 19125.00 333 E Wonderview Ave Estes Park, CO 80517Permit Submittal JB, DJ REVISION DATE1101 Bannock StreetDenver, Colorado 80204P 303.892.1166www.norris-design.com L-200 0 NORTH SCALE:1"=30'-0" 15'30'60' 1. 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 4" CAL. B&B, AND 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 2" CAL. B&B 2. ALL IRRIGATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE COORDINATED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. OWNER'S APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY SITE DISTURBANCE. AS-BUILT IRRIGATION PLANS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETENESS. 3. EXISTING TREES LOCATED WITHIN 25' OF PROPERTY LINE THAT ARE GREATER THAN 4" DBH SHALL BE PRESERVED. PBSI MOUNTAIN WETLAND MIX % OF TOTALCOMMON NAME LBS. PER ACRE 100%TOTALCONTACT : PAWNEE BUTTES SEED 605 25TH ST. GREELEY CO 80631 OR APPROVED EQUAL 10 - 20 LBS. 14%14%14%12%8%5%5%5%5%5%4%4%3%1%0.5%0.5% 1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.2 - 2.4 lbs.0.8 -1.6 lbs.0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.4 - 0.8 lbs.0.4 - 0.8 lbs.0.3 - 0.6 lbs.0.1 - 0.2 lbs.0.05 - 0.1 lbs.0.05 - 0.1 lbs. EVERGREEN TREESPON PONDEROSA PINE PINUS PONDEROSA 6' HT. B&B60 ORNAMENTAL TREEDECIDUOUS SHRUBSEVERGREEN SHRUBSNATIVE SEED MIXLANDSCAPE MULCHSPADE CUT EDGERWETLAND SEED MIXLEGENDEXISTING TREE TO REMAINPHASE 1 LIMIT OF WORKEXISTING BED TO REMAINSLEEVES FOR IRRIGATIONEXISTING GRAND SWALEPERENNIALSEXISTING TREE NOT IN PHASE1 LIMIT OF WORKEVERGREEN TREE PARKING ISLAND AREA TOTAL PARKING LOT AREA TOTAL ISLAND AREA PERCENTAGE OF PARKING LOT AREA 47,852 SF 4,794 SF 10% 24633819526149485647212551172019508071402301254526361348938257744374215510 G L-3006L-3005 L-3007 EXISTING LANDSCAPE BED TO REMAIN 3-GLS5-YAR3-RGB9-BGG 2-RGB7-TWI2-CAN 8-POT8-TWI3-RGB 6-MTN3-TTJ1-ASP3-UFS8-MCK 4-BRS1-WIL1-CMM3-BCJ5-WAC3-BCJ8-WSB9-POT3-ASP7-MTN3-TTJ3-UFS3-MTN 5-BCJ3-MCK5-WSC 5-GBS4-TTJ3-GGS8-TWI 3-YFC14-LUP 3-TLS3-UFS 4-IBC 7-TLS3-GBS3-TLS3-POT3-WSC7-RGB6-WSC1-CAN 5-CMO9-MCK3-WSC8-UFS20-BGG STEAMER PARKWAY 3-CMO3-GGS3-WSC 5-WSC 15-MTN5-IBCBOULDER AREA, RE: CIVIL LANDSCAPEBOULDERS, TYP.PHASE 1 LIMITOF WORKFUTUREDEVELOPMENT PHASE 1 LIMITOF WORKFUTUREDEVELOPMENT7-RAB20.0' WATEREASEMENT12-TTJ3-MCK6-CMO3-YFC3-RGB 7-CMO6-POT10-WSB4-IBC5-RAB 3-WSC1-RAB5-RGB7-SIL6-GBS 3-TWI3-TWS5-YFC5-TTJ5-RMS 3-ASP 5-RTD 5-DAW3-RTD5-RTD3-RMS5-TLS5-UFS3-RMS5-TWI 6-RAB5-WSB3-CMO6-RTD8-POT3-WSC3-BCJ3-YFC5-YFC3-TWS 4-ASP6-GGS3-CMO10-BGG 8-YAR 6-TTJ3-PKC6-TWS6-MCK3-RTD6-POT 5-RGB5-POT2-RMW4-TWI6-YFC3-RGB1-RBE5-RTD3-TWS10-BGG6-WAC5-TLS3-YFC1-WIL11-POT7-CMO7-TWS7-YAR4-PCS4-RMS 3-WSC3-TWS4-WSC8-WAC9-BRS10-RTD3-UFS8-SIL8-BCJ6-TWI 6-CMO5-IBC3-YFC5-RAB3-TWS8-RAB 3-TLS4-SIL1-CMM5-SIL8-TWI6-RAB10-TWS8-SIL7-TTJ3-RAB6-MTN10-BGG9-IBC 7-WLC5-LUP OVERSEED ALL AREAS OF DISTURBANCE9-MTN 6-RTD 23-BGG6-WLC 7-YAR 12-SIL3-YFC5-GGS 6-RGB 7-LUP 13-IBC5-CMO 5-SIL3-CMM7-RAB 4-PCS 1-DAW39-THG 7-RMW 14-RMW 13-RMW9-RTD 1-DAW 52-THG 3-WIL 26-BGG7-RMW 9-DAW 8-MCK 6-TTJ 24-LUP 10-YAR17-THG 3-ASP EXISTING GRAND SWALE BIO-RETENTION POND, RE: CIVIL BI-RETENTION POND, RE: CIVILSPADE CUTEDGER, TYP.3-SIL1-ASP 8-GLS 1-PKC1-PKC8-IBC 10-GLS1-ASP 5-TTJ4-ASP 3-ASP 2-ASP60-PON 10-RTD ENHANCEDBOULDER EDGE, TYP. 7-DAW3-WIL 13-RMW 2-WIL 10-MCK7-RTD38-BGG 3-GGS 3-DAW 12-WLC21-LUP 15-WSB 10-YAR 3-MTN 3-GBS5-PCS 6-WSC5-MTN 4-WLC 15-BGG11-YAR 6-WRO 7-MTN8-THG 11-DAW11-RTD9-RMS7-RMW31-BGG38-BGG 21-MNS22-YAR12-WLC1-1/2" IRRIGATIONMETER TO BE SETINSIDE BUILDING.3-WRO 2-YFC 9-MNS 10-WLC 10-MNS 5-RGBBIKE RACK (6 SPOTS MINIMUM)KEYSTONE RIDGE, OR APPROVED EQUALMODEL: ATLANTA BIKE RACK, 8-BIKE CAPACITYCOLOR: BURGUNDY OR APPROVED EQUAL 9-THG3-BCJ 6-PCS Stanley Hotel East Parking MB 2020.02.07 19125.00 333 E Wonderview Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 Permit Submittal JB, DJ REVISION DATE 1101 Bannock StreetDenver, Colorado 80204P 303.892.1166www.norris-design.com L-200 0 NORTH SCALE:1"=30'-0" 15'30'60' 1. 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 4" CAL. B&B, AND 50% OF DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE 2" CAL. B&B 2. ALL IRRIGATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE COORDINATED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. OWNER'S APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY SITE DISTURBANCE. AS-BUILT IRRIGATION PLANS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETENESS. 3. EXISTING TREES LOCATED WITHIN 25' OF PROPERTY LINE THAT ARE GREATER THAN 4" DBH SHALL BE PRESERVED. NOTES LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANT LISTORNAMENTAL TREESDECIDUOUS SHRUBS - SMALL (2'-5' SPREAD)EVERGREEN SHRUBSPERENNIALSASPCANQUAKING ASPENCANADA RED CHERRY POPULUS TREMULOIDESPRUNUS VIRGINIANA 'SHUBERT'2" CAL. B&B2" CAL. B&BRMSRMWWSBWACSILMTNTWIIBCPOTMCKGLSROCKY MOUNTAIN SUMACROCKY MOUNTAIN STREAMBANK WILLOWWESTERN SNOWBERRYWAX CURRANTSILVER BUFFALOBERRYMOUNTAIN NINEBARKTWINBERRY HONEYSUCKLEIRIQUOIS BEAUTY CHOKEBERRYPINK BEAUTY POTENTILLAMCKAY'S WHITE POTENTILLAGROW LOW SUMAC RHUS GLABRA 'CISMONTANA'SALIX MONTICOLASYMPHORICARPOS OCCIDENTALISRIBES CEREUMSHEPERDIA ARGENTEAPHYSOCARPUS MONOGYNUSLONICERA INVOLUCRATAARONIA MELANOCARPA 'MORTON'POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA 'PINK BEAUTY'POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA 'MCKAY'S WHITE'RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO LOW'#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.BCJTTJGBSGGS BLUE CREEPER ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPERTABLE TOP BLUE ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPERDWARF GLOBE BLUE SPRUCEDWARF GLOBE GREEN SPRUCE JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'MONAM'JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'TABLE TOP'PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA GLOBOSA'PICEA PUNGENS 'ROUNDABOUT'#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.PCSWLCYARLUPMNS POWIS CASTLE SAGEWALKER'S LOW CATMINTMOONSHINE YARROWLUPINEMAY NIGHT SALVIA ARTEMISIA 'POWIS CASTLE'NEPETA X FAASSENII 'WALKER'S LOW'ACHILLEA 'MOONSHINE'LUPINUSSALVIA SYLVESTRIS #1 CONT.#1 CONT.#1 CONT.#1 CONT.ORNAMENTAL GRASSESBGGTHGBLUE GRAMA GRASSTUFTED HAIR GRASS BOUTELOUA GRACILISDESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA #1 CONT.#1 CONT.DECIDUOUS SHRUBS - MEDIUM (5'-7' SPREAD)DECIDUOUS SHRUBS - LARGE (7'-9' SPREAD)CMOTLSYFCBRSRABWROTWSUFSRTDWSCDAWRGB CHEYENNE MOCKORANGETHREE LEAF SUMACYELLOW FLOWERING CURRANTBOULDER RASPBERRYTALL BLUE RABBITBRUSHWILD ROSETALL WESTERN SAGEBRUSHURAL FALSE SPIREAISANTI RED TWIG DOGWOODWESTERN SAND CHERRYDWARF ARCTIC WILLOWROSE GLOW BARBERRY PHILADELPHUS LEWISII 'BLIZZARD'RHUS TRILOBATARIBES AUREUMRUBUS DELICIOSUSERICAMERIA NAUSEOSA SSP. NAUSEOSAVAR. SPECIOSAROSA WOODSIIARTEMISIA TRIDENTATASORBARIA SORBIFOLIACORNUS SERICEA 'ISANTI'PRUNUS BESSEYISALIX PURPUREA NANABERBERIS THUNBERGII 'ROSE GLOW'#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.RBECMMPKCWIL RED BERRIED ELDERCOMMON MOUNTAIN MAHOGANYPEKING COTONEASTERDRUMMOND WILLOW SAMBUCUS RACEMOSACERCOCARPUS MONTANUSCOTONEASTER LUCIDUSSALIX DRUMMONDIANA #5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.#5 CONT.MULTI-COLOR HIGH ALTITUDE MIX 20 - 40 LBS.2 - 4 LBS.3 - 6 LBS.3 - 6 LBS.5 - 10 LBS.6 - 12 LBS.15%15%25%30%EPHRAIM CRESTED WHEATGRASSCANADA BLUEGRASS, RUBENSCHEWINGS FESCUEPERENNIAL RYESHEEP FESCUE, MEKLENBERGER TOTAL 100%% OF TOTAL10%COMMON NAME LBS. PER ACRE1 - 2 LBS.ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILDFLOWER MIX 5%253 CONTACT : ARKANSAS VALLEY SEED 4300 MONACO ST, DENVER, CO 80216 OR APPROVED EQUAL FOWL BLUEGRASS 14%CANADA WILDRYE 14%TICKLEGRASS 14%TUFTED HAIRGRASS 12%NEBRASKA SEDGE 8%FOWL MANNAGRASS 5%SMALL WINGED SEDGE 5%CREEPING SPIKERUSH 5%BEAKED SEDGE 5%SMALL FRUITED BULRUSH 5%BALTIC RUSH 4%THREE SQUARE BULRUSH 4%WOOLY SEDGE 3%MEADOW RUSH 1%AQUATIC SEDGE 0.5%DAGGER LEAF RUSH 0.5% PBSI MOUNTAIN WETLAND MIX % OF TOTALCOMMON NAME LBS. PER ACRE 100%TOTALCONTACT : PAWNEE BUTTES SEED 605 25TH ST. GREELEY CO 80631 OR APPROVED EQUAL 10 - 20 LBS. 14%14%14%12%8%5%5%5%5%5%4%4%3%1%0.5%0.5% 1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.2 - 2.4 lbs.0.8 -1.6 lbs.0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.4 - 0.8 lbs.0.4 - 0.8 lbs.0.3 - 0.6 lbs.0.1 - 0.2 lbs.0.05 - 0.1 lbs.0.05 - 0.1 lbs. EVERGREEN TREESPON PONDEROSA PINE PINUS PONDEROSA 6' HT. B&B60 ORNAMENTAL TREEDECIDUOUS SHRUBSEVERGREEN SHRUBSNATIVE SEED MIXLANDSCAPE MULCHSPADE CUT EDGERWETLAND SEED MIXLEGENDEXISTING TREE TO REMAINPHASE 1 LIMIT OF WORKEXISTING BED TO REMAINSLEEVES FOR IRRIGATIONEXISTING GRAND SWALEPERENNIALSEXISTING TREE NOT IN PHASE1 LIMIT OF WORKEVERGREEN TREE PARKING ISLAND AREA TOTAL PARKING LOT AREA TOTAL ISLAND AREA PERCENTAGE OF PARKING LOT AREA 47,852 SF 4,794 SF 10% 24633819526149485647212551172019508071402301254526361348938257744374215510 L-300 6 L-300 5 L-300 7 EXISTING LANDSCAPE BED TO REMAIN 3-GLS5-YAR 3-RGB 9-BGG 2-RGB7-TWI2-CAN 8-POT 8-TWI3-RGB 6-MTN 3-TTJ1-ASP 3-UFS8-MCK 4-BRS 1-WIL 1-CMM3-BCJ 5-WAC 3-BCJ 8-WSB 9-POT 3-ASP7-MTN 3-TTJ 3-UFS 3-MTN 5-BCJ3-MCK 5-WSC 5-GBS4-TTJ 3-GGS8-TWI 3-YFC 14-LUP 3-TLS 3-UFS 4-IBC 7-TLS 3-GBS3-TLS3-POT 3-WSC7-RGB 6-WSC 1-CAN 5-CMO 9-MCK3-WSC8-UFS 20-BGG STEAMER PARKWAY 3-CMO 3-GGS 3-WSC 5-WSC 15-MTN 5-IBC BOULDER AREA, RE: CIVIL LANDSCAPE BOULDERS, TYP. PHASE 1 LIMIT OF WORK FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1 LIMIT OF WORK FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 7-RAB 20.0' WATER EASEMENT 12-TTJ3-MCK6-CMO 3-YFC3-RGB 7-CMO6-POT 10-WSB4-IBC 5-RAB 3-WSC1-RAB5-RGB 7-SIL6-GBS 3-TWI3-TWS 5-YFC 5-TTJ5-RMS 3-ASP 5-RTD 5-DAW3-RTD 5-RTD 3-RMS5-TLS5-UFS 3-RMS5-TWI 6-RAB5-WSB 3-CMO 6-RTD8-POT3-WSC 3-BCJ3-YFC5-YFC 3-TWS 4-ASP6-GGS 3-CMO10-BGG 8-YAR 6-TTJ3-PKC6-TWS6-MCK 3-RTD6-POT 5-RGB5-POT 2-RMW 4-TWI6-YFC3-RGB1-RBE 5-RTD 3-TWS10-BGG 6-WAC 5-TLS3-YFC1-WIL11-POT 7-CMO 7-TWS 7-YAR4-PCS 4-RMS 3-WSC3-TWS4-WSC 8-WAC9-BRS10-RTD3-UFS 8-SIL 8-BCJ6-TWI 6-CMO5-IBC3-YFC 5-RAB3-TWS8-RAB 3-TLS 4-SIL 1-CMM5-SIL8-TWI6-RAB 10-TWS8-SIL 7-TTJ3-RAB6-MTN10-BGG9-IBC 7-WLC 5-LUP OVERSEED ALL AREAS OF DISTURBANCE 9-MTN 6-RTD 23-BGG6-WLC 7-YAR 12-SIL3-YFC5-GGS 6-RGB 7-LUP 13-IBC5-CMO 5-SIL3-CMM7-RAB 4-PCS 1-DAW39-THG 7-RMW 14-RMW 13-RMW9-RTD 1-DAW 52-THG 3-WIL 26-BGG7-RMW 9-DAW 8-MCK 6-TTJ 24-LUP 10-YAR17-THG 3-ASP EXISTING GRAND SWALE BIO-RETENTION POND, RE: CIVIL BI-RETENTION POND, RE: CIVIL SPADE CUT EDGER, TYP. 3-SIL 1-ASP 8-GLS 1-PKC 1-PKC 8-IBC 10-GLS 1-ASP 5-TTJ 4-ASP 3-ASP 2-ASP 60-PON 10-RTD ENHANCED BOULDER EDGE, TYP. 7-DAW3-WIL 13-RMW 2-WIL 10-MCK7-RTD38-BGG 3-GGS 3-DAW 12-WLC21-LUP 15-WSB 10-YAR 3-MTN 3-GBS5-PCS 6-WSC5-MTN 4-WLC 15-BGG11-YAR 6-WRO 7-MTN8-THG 11-DAW 11-RTD9-RMS 7-RMW31-BGG 38-BGG 21-MNS22-YAR 12-WLC 1-1/2" IRRIGATION METER TO BE SET INSIDE BUILDING. 3-WRO 2-YFC 9-MNS 10-WLC 10-MNS 5-RGB BIKE RACK (6 SPOTS MINIMUM) KEYSTONE RIDGE, OR APPROVED EQUAL MODEL: ATLANTA BIKE RACK, 8-BIKE CAPACITY COLOR: BURGUNDY OR APPROVED EQUAL 9-THG 3-BCJ 6-PCS 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 6/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 9 4 : 1 0 : 1 9 P M St a n l e y H o t e l E a s t P a r k i n g MB 2020.02.07 19125.00 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 Permit Submittal JB, DJ REVISION DATE 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 P 303.892.1166 www.norris-design.com LANDSCAPE PLAN L-200 0 NORTH SCALE:1"=30'-0" 15'30'60' PBSI MOUNTAIN WETLAND MIX % OF TOTALCOMMON NAME LBS. PER ACRE 100%TOTALCONTACT : PAWNEE BUTTES SEED 605 25TH ST. GREELEY CO 80631 OR APPROVED EQUAL 10 - 20 LBS. 14%14%14%12%8%5%5%5%5%5%4%4%3%1%0.5%0.5% 1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.4 - 2.8 lbs.1.2 - 2.4 lbs.0.8 -1.6 lbs.0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.5 - 1.0 lbs0.4 - 0.8 lbs.0.4 - 0.8 lbs.0.3 - 0.6 lbs.0.1 - 0.2 lbs.0.05 - 0.1 lbs.0.05 - 0.1 lbs. EVERGREEN TREES PON PONDEROSA PINEPINUS PONDEROSA 6' HT. B&B60 ORNAMENTAL TREE DECIDUOUS SHRUBS EVERGREEN SHRUBS NATIVE SEED MIX LANDSCAPE MULCH SPADE CUT EDGER WETLAND SEED MIX LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN PHASE 1 LIMIT OF WORK EXISTING BED TO REMAIN SLEEVES FOR IRRIGATION EXISTING GRAND SWALE PERENNIALS EXISTING TREE NOT IN PHASE 1 LIMIT OF WORK EVERGREEN TREE PARKING ISLAND AREA TOTAL PARKING LOT AREA TOTAL ISLAND AREA PERCENTAGE OF PARKING LOT AREA 47,852 SF 4,794 SF 10% 24 63 38 19 52 61 49 48 56 47 21 25 51 17 20 19 50 80 71 40 230 125 45 26 36 13 48 9 38 25 77 44 37 42 1 5 5 10 212 8CARRIAGE HOUSE ELEVATIONS MOA ARCHITECTURE04.20.2020 Stanley Hotel Carriage House EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-201333 E Wonderview Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION4 1/8" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION1 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION3 MOA ARCHITECTURE04.20.2020 Stanley Hotel Carriage House EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-201333 E Wonderview Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION4 1/8" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION2 CERTAINTEED LANDMARK COLOR: COTTAGE RED CEDAR BEVELED SIDING CARRIAGE HOUSE ELEVATIONS 213 9 HISTORIC VIEW HOTEL LODGE CONCERT HALL CARRIAGE HOUSE HISTORICAL CONTEXT 214 10HISTORIC PHOTOS 215 11POST RESTAURANT ENTRY VIEW 216 12POST RESTAURANT SOUTHWEST VIEW 217 13POST RESTAURANT NORTH VIEW 218 14 MEMO TO: MOA Architecture, The Stanley (Grand Heritage Hotels) CC: Town of Estes Park Planning Department FROM: Cindy Nasky, Director of Preservation Programs Colorado Historical Foundation DATE: July 24, 2019 RE: Proposed Film Center at The Stanley Introduction: A special meeting of the Preservation Easement Committee of the Colorado Historical Foundation was held at 10:00 am on July 10, 2019 in the offices of MOA Architecture, 414 14th Street in Denver. The purpose of the meeting was to review the conceptual plans for the Stanley Film Center, to be located within the Stanley Historic District. The Colorado Historical Foundation holds three deeds of easement on this property. Following the presentation, the Committee agreed that, conceptually, the proposed project is acceptable in terms of location and massing per the standard easement language and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for new buildings within historic districts. The committee offers the following design suggestions for consideration: Materials and Building Design (Overall) • Simplification – The historic buildings within the district are simple in ornament and detail; the new building roofline, planes and fenestration are quite complex (“busy”) and thus draw attention. Consider simplifying the new roofline and the fenestration to be less mimicking of the original buildings. • Gapping - The original pattern of “Hotel/Manor/Concert/Carriage” is a series of buildings and gaps and the current detailing of the proposed film center fills that last gap. In addition to the complexity of both the massing and the fenestration, the mimicking of the color palette (with the white walls and red roofs) contributes to that lack of separation and the unwanted “filling of the gap.” Therefore, if this color scheme is applied, the connections to the adjacent buildings will need to provide a strong visual sense of gapping. • Connections - According to Secretary of the Interior Standards for new buildings and infill, connection of new building should be light and a ‘soft touch’ to the historic buildings – the current connection to the Concert Hall is more successful than the connection to the Carriage House – consider a more transparent material or smaller scale for the new connection. • East elevation – The east elevation of the new building feels quite contemporary and busy; calm down the elements by ‘flattening’ out and/or eliminating extra planes. Currently, it feels institutional. – consider a simple plane for the façade and a form and mass that complements the building’s other components. • “Ground” – Visually ground the new buildings so that they feel rooted – like the hotel and manor house bases – consider different materials as the ‘base,’ either extending the same wall or using a material different from the historic materials. • Carriage House Exterior Walls – The Carriage House walls will be rebuilt due to severe alteration and structural compromise over the years (namely garage to motel transition). The finished design should reflect not only the historic ‘pattern’ of the garage doors on the south elevation (main façade), but also the historic horizontal wood siding, corner detail and coursing rail where the garage doors hung. • Carriage House Terrace - Handrail as proposed is too “solid” and visually abrupt – if possible, there should not be a fence/rail/wall here as it interrupts the visual access to the building and introduces an element that was never there. The rock wall at the bottom was not historic (visually there was never such a sharp line). Landscaping and Hardscaping • Site Entry – Change the contour of easternmost parking lot and/or add a berm to alleviate the parking lot site-line upon entrance to The Stanley. Perhaps direct drainage more to the center island for water quality instead of to basins at the side of the parking area or to make the basins smaller. • Planting Density & Visual Buffers – there seemed to be a lot of planting clusters associated with the new parking area. Traditionally, the site was open space with native grasses, groupings of forbs (herbaceous flowering plants), hardy trees and topography. • The Retaining Wall - The courtyard introduces new hardscape elements; suggested simplification in a simple wall designed as part of the architecture as was done historically and with recent modifications to the original buildings. The proposed terrace conflicts with the simplicity of the historic entry approach. Consider integrating the stairs with the terrace wall and landscape. Conclusion: Following the presentation, the committee consensus was that the location and massing as proposed were excellent. The above suggestions are offered as ways to further enhance the design success of this addition to the historic district. We encourage their consideration and implementation. Foundation staff and professional design members of the committee look forward to reviewing the working construction drawings for the Film Center as they are developed. The Foundation appreciates The Stanley, MOA Architecture and the Town of Estes Park for their partnership and recognizes that there are other stakeholders with competing interests at play in this project. As always, if you need clarification or would like to discuss any of these suggestions in more detail, please contact Cindy Nasky, Director of Preservation Programs at the Foundation. “I think all is going well there and we’ve done a really good job of preserving the core elements of the building and preserving what could be saved. The basement function and the restaurant tenancy will give it to economic life that will self preserve it for the long run.” Cindy Nasky Colorado Historical Foundation August 10, 2020 CHF SUPPORT 219 15CURRENT CONSTRUCTION STATUS East Side of Carriage House 220 16CURRENT CONSTRUCTION STATUS Sout/East Sides of Carriage House 221 17CURRENT CONSTRUCTION STATUS North Side of Carriage House 222 18 Lower Parking Lot Looking South CURRENT CONSTRUCTION STATUS 223 19 Upper Parking Lot Looking North CURRENT CONSTRUCTION STATUS 224 20POST RESTAURANT FLOOR PLAN 225 21RESTAURANT PERMITTED USE BY ZONE 226 22EAST QUADRANT RENDERING 227 23SOUTH QUADRANT RENDERING 228 24CARRIAGE HOUSE EAST 229 25CARRIAGE HOUSE SOUTH 230 26CARRIAGE HOUSE WEST 231 27TIS & PARKING OPERATIONS PLANS Original Date: April 6, 2020 Updated Date: July 8, 2020 Submitted To: MOA ARCHITECTURE 414 14th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 Submitted By: Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC 1624 Market Street, Suite 202 Denver, CO 80202 The Stanley Hotel: Carriage House Traffic Impact Analysis 232 28STANLEY CAMPUS PARKING DIAGRAM HC LOT A 49 LOT E 32, 2 HC LOT F 30, 2 HC LOT G 44 LOT H-1 14, 4 HC LOT H-2 38 LOT J-1 11 LOT J-2 29, 2 HC LOT B 62, 4 HC STAFF PARK- ING 53 LOT C-1 34 LOT C-2 28, 1 HC LOT D 35 LOT C-3 5 HC LOT J-3 24 STEAMER PARKWAY FI N D L E Y C O U R T HC - HANDICAP 483 REGULAR SPACES 20 HANDICAP SPACES 503 TOTAL SPACES 233 29 ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND BUILDING ACCESS ROUTE ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND BUILDING ACCESS ROUTE SHUTTLE DROP OFF ZONE BIKE RACKS ACCESSIBLE SHUTTLE BICYCLEPEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK LOCATION DIAGRAM 234 30REQUESTED SIDEWALK LOCATIONS 235 236 Carriage House TRC Narrative 3 May 27, 2020 The Stanley Carriage House – Design Narrative This TRC review package includes the review of the Stanley Carriage House for conformance with surrounding site improvements. The Carriage House has submitted for, and received construction permits for the Footings/Foundation and Building Enclosure via Town of Estes Park Construction Permit B-11186 for the Carriage House Foundation and Enclosure Project. Additionally, the parking and landscape development directly to the east of the Carriage House has submitted for, and received construction permits per Town of Estes Park Construction Permit B-11160 for the East Parking Project. As such, the parking and landscape area to the east of the Carriage House is not part of the TRC approval review. The Stanley Carriage House, where the famous Stanley Steamer vehicles were stored is currently in the process of renovation and reconstruction. Built as a garage in 1905, the approximately 5,000 square- foot building was also briefly used as a 26-room motel in the 1960’s. It has been used as a storage shed ever since then. The Carriage House is the last Stanley building left to be fully renovated and preserved since Grand Heritage Hotel Group bought the hotel 25-years ago. One of the main difficulties with the Carriage House is that F.O. Stanley built it without a foundation underneath and due to the current building codes, renovation of the building required appropriate foundations. In order to preserve the building and allow renovations, the roof has been lifted off the structure and set to the side. A foundation is currently under construction, and once completed, the roof put back on. In this way, the foundation can be added to allow renovations to the building while also preserving the historical core structure. The Carriage House is an important part of the F. O. Stanley legacy and a key goal is to maintain the building substantially as he designed. Historic and recycled materials are being used throughout the project, including historically correct and energy-efficient glass placed where the garage doors to the Carriage House for the Stanley Steamers were once located. But far more than just preserving an important piece of Estes Park and Stanley Hotel history, the project is a large investment in economic development in Estes Park. The main floor of the Carriage House will house a restaurant tenant. Grand Heritage Hotel Group has reached a tenant agreement with the Post Brewery. Post Brewery is associated with The Big Red F Company, formed in 1994 by Chef Dave Query of Boulder. The restaurant is designed to accommodate 129 seats indoors, with an additional 110 seats on an outdoor patio. The restaurant facility has been anticipated in coordination with site infrastructure, parking, and traffic. The restaurant use was included in the Traffic Impact Study for the Stanley Film Center and Carriage House as well as the Parking and Operations Plan for the Stanley Film Center and Carriage House. Those documents are included as part of the TRC review package. 237 Carriage House TRC Narrative 4 May 27, 2020 The Stanley Carriage House – Allowed Use by Stanley Historic District Master Plan The following correspondence to Mr. Randy Hunt, Community Development Director for the Town of Estes Park, describes the Use as Allowed by the Stanley Historic District Master Plan for the restaurant function within the Carriage House. Following MOA Architectures letter is the response received from Mr. Hunt. 238 Carriage House TRC Narrative 5 May 27, 2020 239 Carriage House TRC Narrative 6 May 27, 2020 240 Carriage House TRC Narrative 7 May 27, 2020 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center – Colorado Historic Foundation Review MOA Architecture coordinated extensively with the Colorado Historical Foundation on the design of the Carriage House renovation and redevelopment. Following is correspondence provided during their review process. In recent correspondence with Cindy Nasky, Colorado Historical Foundation Director of Preservation Program regarding the exterior Carriage House design and window fenestration, Cindy stated, “I think the windows are appropriate and quite nice.” The following is correspondence of the Colorado Historical Foundations review of the Stanley Film Center and Carriage House renovation/redevelopment design. 241 Carriage House TRC Narrative 8 May 27, 2020 242 Carriage House TRC Narrative 9 May 27, 2020 243 244 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. Edward A Hayek For Against Neutral Carriage House. If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. 245 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. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. Stanley Carriage House Technical Review Committee Meeting Comment.docx 16.25KB IMG_2423.jpg 128.93KB IMG_2431.jpg 126.88KB IMG_2435.jpg 151.66KB Scan0034.pdf 472.55KB 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. To The Technical Review Committee Uploaded please find our Public Comment letter and supporting photos. Briefly, our submission request is three-fold. 1)restrict through traffic in this parking lot. 2)Revise improve berms to be effective screening from noise and headlights. 3) Effective screening to hide the obnoxious utility box. Thank you. 246 Stanley Carriage House Technical Review Committee Meeting Comment. We appreciate the opportunity to address the TRC regarding this Carriage House development. We feel there should have been an initial public input TRC meeting regarding all aspects of this project. The parking lot plan is devastating in its impact on our home. Lights from traffic in either direction shine directly into our living room as currently designed. Even though the project is only feet from our home, there was never solicitation of neighbor input. We have met with representatives from Public Works at the work site and home. Should you need validation of what we are saying, we believe they can substantiate the massive impact this project as designed will have on our home. We have also attached several photographs to demonstrate this intrusion from our living room. Some berms are included along with a promise of significant vegetation. It appears they will be inadequate to provide screening of traffic flow unless significantly higher. In addition, Estes Park Utilities installed a huge, obnoxious, electrical box just beyond our lot line. Our request of the TRC is three-fold. 1) That an approved traffic plan for this parking lot restrict travel into the parking lot, to lot parking, or servicing the Carriage House and proposed Film Center only, not as a conduit for through traffic to other areas of the Stanley Campus. 2) Revise/improve the berm in progress to be effective, including the addition of hardscape when necessary, as was used by the Stanley for their guests at the Aspire. 3) Provide berm/fencing/vegetation that totally and effectively hides the view of the Electrical box from the East. Each is addressed in following paragraphs. Traffic Plan The Current Applications documentation for the Carriage House doesn’t specifically address traffic through the parking lot. Our concern stems from depictions of structures once the film center is built. In those renditions, the street currently carrying traffic to the upper campus areas appears to be eliminated. If that is the case, where will the traffic go? Traffic should continue to be routed to the interior of the campus. The noisy Harley’s and loud trucks are going to the Stanley, and for the benefit of the Stanley. The noise should not be rerouted to the perimeter to be borne by neighbors who derive no benefit. Can you imagine what a group of Harley’s charging up the hill would sound like from a deck a few feet away? It would be unlivable. Please restrict traffic in any approved plan. Parking Lot Operations Screening. When the Carriage House project was announced in the newspaper, I inquired of Community Development if there was any associated parking, as we had heard nothing. Learning of this massive and intrusive project, I sent notification to all the HOA neighbors alerting them to the project. Mr. Cullen was included, as he owned two homes on Findley Ct. He responded with a letter to the neighborhood (copy attached w/other recipients address removed) implying he would spend money to make sure the development was properly screened from the neighbors. This generous offer used the Aspire as an example of what he could do, and stated he was willing to replicate that type of full and natural 247 landscaping along the entire border between the Stanley and Findley Ct. (Note that the Aspire used fencing hardscape in areas to provide protection). Specific issues. To the Southwest, the natural grade has been raised several feet for the parking lot, and the berm moved to the East away from the parking, rendering the berm useless in line of sight protection from any oncoming headlights. (See the picture of me on a ladder by the Electrical box and the construction trailer in the background where parking and traffic will occur). It will take at least eight feet of hardscape to shield this traffic, trees and vegetation are welcome and desirable but they can’t effectively screen at the level of density required here. To the Northwest, The project manager stated there will be a berm in this area to join the berm existing across from our property to one farther North. We are concerned by the fact that all the other berm areas have been at least partially completed, but there has been no material added here. Please view photo again on a ladder that implies the berm or other hardscape should be at least eight feet high to shield headlights coming from the North. The berm directly behind us would appear adequate to shield headlights of vehicles head in parking there. It is the traffic traveling through the parking lot in either direction we are concerned about. (We do question whether the quality of the material would support any kind of vegetation, another reason we stress hardscape). We also stress hardscape as a solid deterrent to Stanley customers being able to access our properties. One can imagine someone having had a good time, deciding to relieve themselves in the bushes before getting into their car for a trip home. We request a continuous area behind neighboring homes of some combination of berm and fencing approximately eight feet high, softened by vegetation, including some significant trees, as proposed in the original landscape plan. Earlier in the project, we had several interactions with Jack Mousseau, of MOA Architecture, as requested by Mr. Cullen. In those discussions several attractive solutions using a combination of materials were proposed. We ask that use of hardscape, such as fencing, to be an option if necessary, to render an effective screening barrier. Due to elevation increase as you move up Findley Ct., and given that the view is up to the mountains, not Safeway, more large trees would appear to be desirable and not an issue as has been suggested. Electrical Box. As stated previously sufficient berm/fencing/vegetation to totally hide this obnoxious box from the neighborhood. Photos speak for themselves. We invested significant retirement assets to live in such a beautiful area. We were not naïve, visiting with the Community Development Director at the time, and reviewed the Stanley Historic District Master Plan with him. The language in the document regarding views and screening from Stanley operations, the protections of a Technical Review Committee, plus the attachment of a development plan showing significant open space between any residential units and parking for the Cultural Arts Center, made us comfortable moving forward with the purchase of our retirement home. (Note that this was not a predetermined parking lot as has been stated. When the Wellness Center proposal was criticized for cutting off wildlife movement, the Stanley rendered a site plan that labeled the area the Upper Wildlife Corridor. 248 A realtor from the time has stated, residential lots on Findley Ct. were sold with rosy picture of open area downplaying any potential for development.) We respectfully ask this Technical Review Committee to help mitigate the impact of this project on our homes by incorporating our requests into a final approved operating plan. In relation to the total project, these additions are minimal, but will substantially accomplish promised objectives. While minimal for the developer, they have a huge impact on our enjoyment of our home for the rest of our lives. Thank you. Ed and Marlene Hayek 611 Findley Ct. 249 250 251 252 253 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 Carriage House. 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. TRC Development Plan. Power Point 08142020 pptx.pptx 9.56MB 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. I’ve been coming to Estes Park since the early 1960’s; my parents lived here for almost 20 years after they retired. We bought our home on Findley Ct. August, 2019, largely because of the beautiful views of the Rockies from our home, which faces west. Our great room, master bedroom, dining room, and kitchen are all on the west side of our home, affording these beautiful views. We had elk and deer migrate through our yard regularly. All of this was until dump trucks starting bringing of dirt, rock, and debris on Dec 22, 2019. We did our due diligence in asking all the questions about the possibility of anything being built behind our home on the Stanley, and were assured there were no plans. We were stunned to find out that there was now a plan for a parking lot directly behind our homes, with head-in parking. It was then that we learned about the Stanley Master Plan. There is in fact no mention or depiction of a parking lot in the 1994 Master Plan. Only a wildlife corridor. 254 8/17/2020 1 TRC Development Plan Aug 24, 2020 Ruth and Jim Kelley’s comments 641 Findley Ct, Estes Park, CO Mitigation Concerns Mitigation of Traffic Flow Limit traffic Limit traffic direction Mitigate presence of the parking lot with Hardscape and Landscape Vehicle Lights Sounds Prohibit Trespassing Fencing How did we get here? Stanley Master Plan Jan 11, 1994 255 8/17/2020 2 Traffic Flow Concern – The proposed parking lot will become a major thoroughfare to the Stanley Campus and Overlook Residents Mitigation Suggestion – Make the parking lot available to one way traffic only. Landscape / Hardscape Mitigation The following slides will be used to demonstrate or help explain the view from our property at 641 Findley Ct as it is today on top of the existing berm. The purpose of the ladder is to show if an additional berm/fence of at least 6 ft tall was placed on top of the existing berm, what the resulting view would be for us. For this demonstration a 6 ft household ladder was placed on the berm with a level and a laser pointer. The purpose of the pointer is to show a level point of reference to the home. Even with the addition of a six foot barrier (fence) a clear view of the parking lot is still evident from the main floor of our home. 256 8/17/2020 3 Landscape / Hardscape Mitigation This is a picture of a 6ft Step Ladder with a leveled level and a laser pointer aimed approximate mid point to our home. The ladder was placed on top of the existing “berm” to demonstrate our view of the parking lot as it existed this day. Prior to this picture taken it was relayed to us that the lot was at final grade. With additional sub fill and concrete, the parking lot would be raised an additional 6 inches to finished grade. Landscape / Hardscape Mitigation The circled point on the deck joist demonstrates a line of site on top of the leveled 6ft step ladder. For sake of argument; any landscaping/hardscape i.e. earth berm, fencing additional plantings will need to be higher or in addition to any existing berm to block lights and visual passing traffic as demonstrated by the following slides. (The following pictures provided were taken from the main level of our home.) 257 8/17/2020 4 Landscape / Hardscape Mitigation This is a 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee. Clearly, a typical pickup or high profile van would be more visible. As demonstrated without additional barriers of berm, fencing and landscaping this car is clearly visible from our home’s main level. Landscape / Hardscape Mitigation •Without additional barriers of earth berm, fencing and landscaping the above pictures demonstrate our views of a vehicle approaching a head in parking position behind our home. Headlights are visible up until all the way in. (remember the lot elevation will be raised approximately 6 inches for sub fill and finished concrete) With the additional concrete surface, a vehicle of this size and type which is very common, will be seen entirely until the headlights are turned off. •Additionally, any loud merriment, doors slamming, beeping car locks and car alarms will be heard and seen by us without abatement. •Additionally, trespassers from the parking lot will be more apt to look for and find areas to relieve themselves (and possibly seen by us) rather than walk the long distance to an indoor restroom. 258 8/17/2020 5 Landscape / Hardscape Mitigation The above pictures depict the existing hardscape (fencing) and landscaping installed at the Aspire. To mitigate our new “Downtown Chicago Experience” from the sights, sounds and trespass of the Stanley’s patrons; as recommended previously by John Cullen, the same hardscape and landscape should be installed facing the affected properties, continuously, from the lower end and to the upper end and exit of the parking lot. An approved plan should be installed to be able to report sick or dead vegetation for treatment or replacement. The town of Estes Park should hold the Stanley accountable to maintain said hardscape and landscape to the existing town guidelines and standards. If there are no existing guidelines one should be installed to maintain said property and landscape to a highly attractive standard in an effort to mitigate the negative effects this parking lot provides the home owners or subsequent future buyers. Fencing should be a minimum of 8ft from the existing berm surface(on our property and adjacent properties) to block 80-90% of anticipated vehicle lights and views of high profile vehicles . (Supporting documents offering to mitigate the parking lot with additional fencing and landscaping by John Cullen, Jack Mousseau and Stewart Olive can be provided. Documents and acknowledged conversations offering the above mitigation plans were presented by John Cullen to the affected home owners via email dated Dec 31, 2019. Additional supporting confirmations of mitigation offers were extended and accepted by Jack Mousseau of MOA Architecture (agent for John Cullen) Jan 22, 2020, April 6, 2020, April 13, 2020 and Stewart Olive, Attorney for John Cullen , Apr 13, 2020. ) Landscape / Hardscape Mitigation Summary How’d we get here? According to John Cullen via an email dated Dec 31, 2019 John Cullen writes, “The parking lot depending on weather should be completed by early May. “ (False) John Cullen writes, “The parking lot was part of the 1986 and 1994 master plan.” (False) 259 8/17/2020 6 Landscape / Hardscape Mitigation The parking lot was originally slated to be completed by early May as stated by John Cullen in an email to the Stanley View members dated Dec 31, 2019. With no advance warning or notice with the advent of dumping of fill beginning Dec 22, 2019; we had no clue as residents this project was approved and was moving forward. Thank you John Cullen. Thank you town of Estes Park. The delay of this unwanted project has impacted us quite adversely with noise, dust, dirt and an ugly back yard landscape for far longer than the anticipated completion date of early May. There have been no offers to mitigate this unacceptable situation or no updates to the affected homeowners adjacent to the property regarding an updated time line or date of completion. There has been absolutely no communication by anyone attached or responsible for this project to the residents affected, until now with this TRC; which in our opinion should have been scheduled prior to the building permit being submitted back in July 2019, per guidelines within the Stanley Master Plan. This entire situation has been compounded with the advent of the Covid pandemic limiting our abilities to travel and get away from this continuing sustained construction project. Landscape / Hardscape Mitigation Unobstructed views & sounds of continuous construction activity (all pictures from week 8/9/2020) 1. Construction equipment parked and left for days 2. This is new- a trash dumpster positioned behind our house for days 3. Daily loud earth moving equipment action (sounds like a tank with the accompanying beep beep beep !!!) 4. Hidden behind this berm, ironically is the bull dozer in picture 3. This property coincidently belongs to John Cullen, which coincidently is not nearly affected by the parking lot with no head in parking designed to park behind his house and no view of cars assin b . 260 8/17/2020 7 Landscape / Hardscape Mitigation As John Cullen states in his email dated Dec 31, 2019, “The parking lot was part of a 1986 and 1994 master plan.” This is not true. To the Right: Exhibit B from the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines dated Jan 11,1994. The highlighted area in yellow is the location of the current parking lot. As evident from the Master Plan this parking lot was not part of the Master Plan. Furthermore neither was the Carriage house Restaurant/Pub, or the Aspire. While the Carriage house remains; its purpose, location and footprint have all been greatly modified to adapt to the new commercial use. 261 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. Mark Campbell For Against Neutral Carriage House. 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. Hello, I live on Findley Court next to the Carriage House Film Center development. I am concerned about being able to have adequate ingress and egress in and out of Findley Court during peak times for residents, deliveries and emergency services etc. For example if traffic gets backed up on Steamer Parkway will we be able to get in and out of our neighborhood? Other than that it looks like a nice addition to the Stanley. Thank you for your time and dedication to Estes Park. Mark Campbell 262 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. Gayle White For Against Neutral 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. Thank you for taking comments. Our only concern is noise-related. Serving alcohol often results in noise that caries quite a distance, especially if there is any outdoor seating or access for customers. We simply request that the TRC review outdoor access for patrons and how noise will be minimized during operations. How noise-drift is prevented is a design factor and we ask that it be addressed if it has not already been addressed. We suggest things like (1) outside access with food and beverage be limited, (2) no outdoor stages/entertainment areas be provided, (3) bands or other entertainment be limited to indoors with closed doors to limit noise in nearby neighborhoods. There are many residences just over the rocks from the Stanley Hotel that could be adversely impacted. Thanks for taking public comments. Our comments are not intended to preclude the Stanley Hotel from progressing, just to ensure any designs limit noise from drifting into adjacent neighborhoods at night. 263