Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Technical Review Committee 2021-05-11 (Instructions continued on page 2, Agenda begins on page 3) TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE – TOWN OF ESTES PARK TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:00 p.m. Estes Park, CO 80517 Packet Material: The packet material can be accessed through the following link: Estes Park Technical Review Committee or you may request a paper packet by emailing planning@estes.org or calling (970) 577-3721. Virtual Meeting: The Estes Park Technical Review Committee will participate in the meeting remotely due to the Declaration of Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020 related to COVID-19 and provided for with the adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18, 2020. Procedures for quasi-judicial virtual public hearings are established through Emergency Rule 06-20 signed by Town Administrator Machalek on May 8, 2020 and outlined below. Watch the Meeting Afterwards: After the meeting, a video recording will be available to view at www.estes.org/videos and will be posted within 48 hours of the meeting at the same location. ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT Options for the Public to Provide Input: 1. By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a specific agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/TRCPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 10:00 a.m., Monday, August 24, 2020. All comments will be provided to the Commission for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. 2. By Telephone Message: Members of the public may provide public comment or comment on a specific agenda item by calling (970) 577-3721. The calls must be received by 10:00 a.m., Monday, August 24, 2020. All calls will be transcribed and provided to the Commission for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. 3. Documents to Share: If individuals wish to present a document or presentation, material must be emailed by Monday, August 17, 2020 by 5:00 p.m. to the Community Development office at planning@estes.org. The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. Prepared May 4, 2021 Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/99237357379 Or Join by Telephone: 1. Dial US: +1 877 853 5257 2. Enter Webinar ID: 992 373 57379 followed by # The meeting will also be live-streamed on Town’s Youtube Channel Start Time: The Zoom Webinar will be available beginning at 2:50 p.m on Monday August 24th. Participants wanting to ensure their equipment setup is working should join prior to the start of the meeting 1 1 1 PUBLIC COMMENT DURING TRC MEETING Public participation in the Technical Review Committee is conducted via Zoom (joining information is provided above). Zoom enables attendees to Raise their Hand if they wish to speak. When invited by the Moderator to provide public comment, attendees wishing to speak at that time shall: 1. Click “Raise Hand” button, if joining on the Zoom client, or 2. Press *9 and follow the prompts, if joining by telephone. The Moderator will call upon attendees in turn. When it is your turn, the Moderator will ask you to unmute your microphone and state your NAME and ADDRESS for the record. In order to participate online via Zoom, you must: Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer. Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio experience. MORE INFORMATION: You can access detailed instructions for joining the meeting at http://www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation.” Quasi-Judicial Proceedings (Quasi-Judicial items will be marked as such) Written Testimony Must be submitted by email to planning@estes.org, or by completing the Public Comment form at https://dms.estes.org/forms/TRCPublicComment. Members of the public may provide public comment or comment on a specific agenda item by calling (970) 577-3721. All calls must be received by 4:00 p.m., Monday, August 17, 2020. All comments received will be provided to the Commission and included in the final packet material. Oral Testimony To ensure your ability to provide comments during the meeting, you must register by emailing planning@estes.org or calling (970) 577-3721 by Monday, August 24, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. During the meeting, any individual who did not register to speak on a quasi-judicial item may join public participation by following either the Call-In or Online option previously mentioned. Individuals who do not register prior to the meeting risk being unable to testify due to administrative/technical difficulty during the meeting. Written presentation materials or exhibits must be delivered to planning@estes.org by 5:00 p.m. Monday, August 17, 2020 in order to be presented during the meeting. No other written presentations or exhibits will be accepted during oral testimony by any member of the public. Packet Material The packet material can be accessed through the following link: Estes Park Technical Review Committee or under the Technical Review Committee section at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings or you may request a paper packet by emailing planning@estes.org or calling (970) 577-3721. 2 2 1 AGENDA TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE – TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER. 1. Introductions of TRC Members, ARC members, staff AGENDA APPROVAL. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. December 7, 2020 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Stanley Hotel Film Center Preliminary Package Grand Heritage Hotel Group 2. Carriage House Project Minor Modification change in use of an area within the Carriage House Order of procedure for Hearing: Director Hunt – staff presentation Applicant team – presentation Open public hearing Public Comment – time limits as may be determined by Chair Close Public hearing Applicant response to public comment (if applicable) Board discussion; motion and second; roll-call vote Board members may ask questions at any time prior to the roll-call vote ADJOURN Prepared 05/04/2021 Updated (n/a) 3 3 1 4 4 1 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 7, 2020 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Technical Review Committee of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held Virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 07 day of December 2020. Committee: Town Administrator Travis Machalek (Chair), Public Works Director Greg Muhonen, Fairgrounds and Events Director Rob Hinkle, Member Mike Wisneski, Member John Gagnon Attending: Chair Machalek, Director Muhonen, Director Hinkle, Member Wisneski, Member Gagnon, Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Engineer Jennifer Waters, Engineer David Hook, Utility Coordinator Steve Rusch Absent: Architectural Review Committee Members Jack Cook, Curtis Martin Chair Machalek called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Wisneski/Hinkle) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: Carter Rowley submitted a comment stating this was a great plan and future income source for the town. CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Muhonen/Gagnon) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 5-0. AGENDA ITEM BEING DISCUSSED Director Hunt presented the Carriage House project within the context of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. Three conditions were discussed: Sidewalk/Pedestrian Connectivity: • A new walkway from the Carriage House to the main parking lot south of the Lodge and west of the Hotel to facilitate safe pedestrian movement among core Stanley facilities; • A new walkway from the Carriage House south, linking it to the Aspire Wellness building via a crosswalk on Steamer Parkway (this crosswalk and a small part of the approach link immediately north would be in the Steamer Parkway public right-of-way); The above concept also entails the removal of a previously proposed new walkway just to the east, which would have connected the new parking lot to the Aspire building vicinity; • A new walkway from the west side of the Hotel area down to Steamer Parkway linking to an existing walkway to the south. This existing walkway now (as of July 2020) connects through the new US 34 roundabout to MacGregor Avenue and downtown. If the proposed walkway is added, there will be a direct hard-surface walking path from the Stanley campus to downtown Estes Park. Chair Machalek asked about the comment from the Historic Preservation regarding the conservation of the Grand Lawn. Architect Jack Mousseau answered that they would re-look at the west sidewalk's geometry and blend it in if possible. Owner John Cullen agreed with this request. Traffic: The August Traffic Impact Study has been revised to reflect the TRC's discussion and sub condition. This revision is also called out in the applicants' Final TRC Conditions and the revisions are addressed in the Public Works Engineering Division's comment on those revisions. Director Muhonen stated that, after further review, he did not believe a variance was needed as this project does not deteriorate the delay at the affected intersection. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, page 4-23, defines a nonconforming element. If this nonconforming element exists at less than 2%, nonconformance is not required to be mitigated. Attorney Kramer stated that a Resolution change would not cause any problems. Staff would support the removal of the variance in the Resolution. Other TRC members did not have any objections to this. 5 5 1 Technical Review Committee – December, 7 2020 – Page 2 2 Director Muhonen answered arguably no to Chair Machalek's question if driveway access is treated the same as street access onto public roads for traffic analysis. Water Metering/Backflow prevention: This has been an exceedingly complex technical aspect of the Stanley Lot 1 existing conditions in general and has been so for a long time. The TRC in August identified the issue as one that needs resolution with the Carriage House project and included that as a condition of approval. Utility Coordinator Steve Rusch reported that decades' worth of issues have been resolved. He thanked all involved and positively commented on the thorough documentation by Jack Mousseau. Chair Machalek also thanked the applicant and utility crews for resolving this long- time issue. Staff recommended approval of the accompanying Technical Review Committee Resolution approving the Final Package for the Carriage House Project, with edits. Applicant Response: Attorney Stewart Olive requested that there be no need for Development Agreements with this project. The reason given was to keep any issues with the public attempting litigation. Preliminary development agreements have been satisfied. Director Muhonen noted that timing provisions are still relevant, and sidewalks need to be installed and built before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Amendments requested to the Resolution were: remove B, modify C to make it relevant to the Carriage House, remove the development agreement in A and C. A 10-minute recess was taken at 5:43 to amend the Resolution. Attorney Kramer presented the updated Resolution to the Board. There were no further questions, comments, concerns or objections from the Board, Staff or applicant. It was moved and seconded (Muhonen/Gagnon) to approve the Resolution presented on screen by Attorney Kramer (attached), subject to any scrivener errors. The motion passed 5-0. There being no further business, Chair Machalek adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Travis Machalek, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 6 6 1 7 7 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Technical Review Committee (TRC) From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: May 11, 2021 RE: Stanley Film Center: Preliminary Package (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The TRC will determine by majority vote whether the submitted project materials for the Stanley Film Center meet applicable regulatory requirements for Preliminary Package approval, including regulatory portions of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan, the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development (Chapter 17.44, Estes Park Municipal Code), and other applicable regulations. This meeting and review are for the submitted 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 any revisions to the Preliminary Package and/or detailed additional materials as may be necessary and appropriate. Present Situation: The present TRC agenda item is for the Stanley Hotel Film Center. The project is to be located on the northeast area of Lot 1, Stanley Historic District, almost directly north of (and with a below-grade attachment to) the Carriage House, now nearing renovated completion as a restaurant. Perhaps the best location map among the submitted materials is the aerial-photo cover sheet in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Attachment 6, p.1.) Lot 1 is the “main campus” in the Stanley Historic District complex, and contains most of the well-known buildings and development therein, including the iconic Stanley Hotel. Page 29 in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Attachment 6) is an aerial photo showing the overall Stanley campus with the Film Center outline superimposed. The Film Center – also known at various times as the Performing Arts Center, just the Arts Center, and the Cultural Center, among other labels – has been conceptually planned since at least 1994, when the Stanley Historic District Master Plan (SHDMP) was completed by the Stanley ownership at that time and approved by the Town in 8 8 1 January of that year. The Film Center may be thought of as the last sizeable new structure planned for the Stanley Lot 1 campus. Organic Documents and Regulations The Stanley Historic District Master Plan (SHDMP) 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 9 9 1 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 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. Proposal: Project Recent History: Although the Film Center concept dates back to 1994 if not earlier, the formal submittal and review process leading to this TRC review began on July 18, 2019, when a Pre- Application meeting was held among the Stanley ownership and design team members and staff from various Town departments and allied agencies. The pre-app meeting’s subject was a multi-building project for the east-northeast part of the Stanley Lot 1 campus, including the Carriage House and the adjacent Cultural Arts Center (as it was identified in the SHDMP.) 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. The Carriage House project was approved by TRC in2020, is now under construction, and is nearing completion. Separately from the Carriage House TRC submittal, plans were submitted and permits approved in 2019-2020 for the East Parking Lot, east and north of the Film Center location. Parking lots on the Stanley campus are not in principle designated for any particular use in the complex, although lot(s) closest to any given building will likely serve as primary parking for that building. The East Parking Lot is likely to primarily serve the Film Center and Carriage House. The Film Center proposal now before TRC was formally filed as an application and supporting materials with the Town on December 4, 2020. Between December 2020 and April 2021, the project underwent four rounds of review by staff, with the Stanley team providing updated documents and plans between each round. The result of those successive reviews and design updates is the Preliminary Package now proposed for TRC review and approval. Submitted Materials: The list of attachments that ends this staff report comprises a complete list of submitted materials for TRC. Some documents and plans may be primarily of interest to technically-oriented staff, such as transportation analysis and maneuvering geometrics. Here are the 26 primary documents provided – comprising the heart of the matter that TRC is charged with reviewing: Statement of Development Intent (Attachment 2): This document is just as the title states – a statement of what the applicant team wish to do in this project. The Statement contains summary details about the several spaces in the proposed building and their uses, and points out some of what the applicants consider to be strong points in the project’s planning and design, such as locating the lower part of the building belowground and preserving mature trees and vegetation. 10 10 1 The Technical Review Committee Submission TRC Project Review Request and Project Narrative (Attachment 3): This document describes the project’s design and space usage in more detail. It also includes excerpts from the Stanley Historic District Master Plan (SHDMP) and indicates the design team’s understanding of how the projects meets the SHDMP’s regulations and guidelines. Stanley Hotel Film Center Site Plan, Sheet C-021 (Attachment 4): This sheet from the plan set schematically shows the site layout, building footprint and connectivity to adjacent buildings and areas, and general details on traffic and pedestrian circulation. Film Center Floor Plan (Attachment 5): This document contains not just the diagrammatic plan for each floor of the building with suage space labeling; it also includes a table with details of each use or space within the project. Stanley Film Center Traffic Impact Study (Attachment 6): This engineering study outlines the impacts of the Film Center on the overall transportation system in the immediate vicinity and in the Town and surrounding region. The TRC should find this document to be relatively familiar, as the Traffic Study provided for your first review of the Carriage House in August 2020 began as a study examining the combined traffic impacts of the Film Center and Carriage House. Film Center Architectural Review Committee Letter of Support (Attachment 7): 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 Film Center 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. Colorado Historical Foundation (CHF) Meeting Minutes 2019 (Attachment 8): The SHDMP envisions an important role for the CHF in Stanley project review. Most or all TRC members are aware that CHF holds an easement over the open space in the front (south) part of Lot 1 to preserve the expanse and a historically open area, and takes a keen interest in preserving the historical and architectural heritage of the Stanley campus buildings, including ensuring new building are compatible with the historic ones. The CHF reviewed the Film Center and Carriage House projects in 2019 for their impacts. Staff understands that CHF has no concerns with plan changes since 2019, which have in any case been minor with regard to any matters within CHF’s purview. The Project Review Request and Project Narrative (Attachment 3) contains a July 24, 2019 letter from CHF affirming the validity and acceptance of the design for CHF purposes. Film Center Architectural Renderings (Attachment 9): The architectural renderings are illustrations of the aesthetic as well as technical quality of the proposed Film Center. The building and surroundings are designed to complement the existing Stanley campus structures, meet or exceed the SHDMP design guidelines, and designed to allow the Film Center to stand as an attraction and central draw in its own right. A sizeable number of other documents and sets are also included in your packet (Attachments 10 through 26). These serve as additional background on the project, its 11 11 1 context, its recent history, and some relevant procedural matters, such as the memoranda formally appointing the TRC and ARC. Again, the nine documents above (Attachments 1 through 9) are the core documents sets for TRC’s review and collective form the basis for your review and decision on May 11. 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 Film Center 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 Statement of Development Intent and the Project Review Request and Project Narrative provide a clear and concise picture of the Film Center 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, Traffic Impact, and Drainage studies, and have a key role in reviewing related matters such as pedestrian access to and within the site. Public Works staff are expected to be part of the May 11 TRC meeting. The draft TRC Resolution of Approval (Attachment 1) contains a detailed list of conditions recommended for Preliminary Package approval on May 11; these are discussed in more detail below in the Additional Staff Comments section. The Architectural Review Committee’s narrative and conclusions 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. 12 12 1 The Colorado Historical Foundation has pointed out the contextual historical value of the Stanley main campus, and noted that the Film Center will have a focal purpose as a (future) artifact in its own right. With one recently recommended change in the connection between the Film Center and the Carriage House (discussed further below in Additional Staff Comments), they support the project. Proposed Uses in the Film Center: The following uses are proposed for the Film Center in the Statement of Development Intent (Attachment 2) and/or the Project Narrative Attachment 3.) The proposed Floor Plan set (Attachment 5) provides graphic illustration and confirmation of the narrative use statements Staff wrote a memorandum in March 2021 analyzing the proposed uses in detail; that memorandum is included at Attachment 10. What follows is a summary of that information: • Cultural Arts Center: This use might be thought of as the “core use” in the Film Center. The Project Narrative (Attachment 3, p. 7) indicates the Cultural Center is to be 38,260 sq.ft. Primary uses include a 650-seat concert hall, a Film Discovery Center (a film museum type experience), and a Chocolate Factory Immersive Experience. • Conference Center: The Project Narrative (Attachment 3, p. 7) indicates that 22,510 sq.ft. are to be devoted to the Conference Center. Primary uses include a Creative Center (ballroom type function) and multiple conference rooms. • Stanley Campus Support Functions (storage, utilities, maintenance, etc.): The Project Narrative (Attachment 3, p. 7) indicates the Support Functions areas are to be 19,025 sq.ft. The majority of these support facilities (with the exception of central administrative offices) will be located in the basement of the Film Center. As the name indicates, these functions are to be consolidated for various other buildings on the Stanley campus. Additional staff comments: • The list of recommended Conditions of Approval that comprises the bulk of the approval Resolution (Attachment 1) come from the most recent Public Works / Engineering Division review of materials submitted by the Stanley team in March 2021. The length and content of the conditions may suggest that much remains to be done before the Film Center is ready for building permits, assuming TRC approval. At this time staff would emphasize two aspects: o Although the conditions list is detailed and does contain some items of significance (e.g., a final drainage report, details of the driveway relocation for the Overlook condominium properties to the north, and a few others), much on the list can be addressed with relatively straightforward adjustments to existing plans. o More to the point: As noted elsewhere, another TRC meeting will be needed to confirm Final Package designs for the Film Center. As TRC will 13 13 1 recall from the Carriage House project last year, conditions on details can be satisfied in this latter round of TRC review, assuming nothing is needed that would fundamentally change the Preliminary Package contents or approval thereof. Staff understands this to be the case currently. The next TRC meeting, presumably in June, should be able to address submitted materials in fulfillment of the listed conditions. As with the TRC meetings last year, the Final Package review by TRC should be fairly quick and simple, with only conditions in the Preliminary Resolution needing review and approval at that time. • The Colorado Historical Foundation in recent weeks requested a design change in how the Film Center is to be connected to the Carriage House. There has always been a connecting passage under roof planned for the two buildings, but initial Film Center and Carriage House designs show it as an aboveground, grade-level connector. The CHF request was to redesign this as a belowground connector. As staff understands, one reason for the change is so the visual and historical continuity of the Carriage House as a separate building (one of the oldest on the Stanley campus) is maintained. The Floor Plans sheet (Attachment 5) shows the change having been made. A similar modification to the Carriage House plans (not needing TRC approval) is also being made, assuming TRC approval of the Film Center. • 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. As an important final note: The community can be assured, in staff’s judgment, that this last great piece in the rather intricate Stanley campus jigsaw puzzle is a good conclusion to the major work there. The community and the world will be left with a balanced and well-integrated anchor, visible to much of Estes Park and accessible and welcoming to a variety of visitors from around the country and across the seas Advantages: • The Film Center proposal aligns with the 1994 Stanley Historic District Master Plan. • The proposed development is attractive, complements other development on the Stanley site and in the Town, and will contribute to the economic, social, and environmental well-being of the community as a whole. 14 14 1 Disadvantages: • Some elements of the project, as with any significant project near a residential area, will represent a change in nearby residents’ settled living circumstances. • A certain amount of disturbance during construction activity can be expected. • The project will result in increased traffic and other activity on site and vicinity. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval with conditions of the Film Center Preliminary Package. Finance/Resource Impact: n/a - No direct expenditures or revenue identified at this time. Level of Public Interest Low-medium in the overall community; medium-high in the area adjacent to the Stanley campus. Sample Motion: I move for the approval of TRC Resolution 01-21. Attachments / Exhibits: 1. TRC Resolution 01-21 2. Statement Of Development Intent 3. Stanley Film Center Design_TRC 12-1-2020 4. Stanley Hotel Film Center Site Plan C-021 5. Film Center Floor Plan Update 3-23-2021 6. 20028_Stanley Film Center Traffic Impact Study_updated 2021-03-24 7. Film Center ARC Letter of Support - Final (1) 8. SFC Colorado Historical Foundation Meeting Minutes 2019.07.24 9. 2021.05.07 - Stanley Film Center Renderings 10. Memo - Film Center - Use analysis RAH 2021-03-22 11. Stanley Film Center Landscape Drawings 12. Stanley Hotel Film Center Grading Plan C-311 13. Stanley Hotel Film Center Utility Plan C-551 14. Stanley Film Center Photometric Plan 15. Parking Operations Plan - UPDATE 03-19-2021 16. Parking Operations Plan Graphics 17. C-901 Truck Turning Plan 18. C-902 Bus Turning Plan 19. CSK-14 FC Fire Truck Exhibit 20. Steamer Parkway Sidewalk Plan 21. East Parking Roadway Profile 22. Steamer Parkway Sidewalk Sections 23. Stanley Hotel Film Center Final Drainage Report 3-19-2021 24. Stanley Lot 1 ALTA Survey 25. 04.22.2021 - TRC Appointment Memo (1) 26. 04.22.2021 - ARC Appointment Memo (1) 15 15 1 TRC RESOLUTION 01-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT MASTER PLAN APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE PRELIMINARY PACKAGE FOR THE FILM CENTER PROJECT WHEREAS, the Preliminary Package of the project referenced in the title of this resolution meets the requirements of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan for a preliminary package; and WHEREAS, while adequate for a Preliminary Package, the materials include insufficient detail for the Technical Review Committee (TRC) to determine whether the plans meet the Final Package requirements of the Master Plan and the applicable development agreement with regard to the conditions listed below: NOW, THEREFORE, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The Stanley Film Center project Preliminary Package meets the standards and requirements in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan and Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44, and is approved, conditioned upon submittal, review, and approval of the following items in conjunction with submittal, review, and approval by TRC of the Final Package for the Film Center: 1. Traffic Impact Analysis (updated 2021-03-24): a. In Section 2.0, new information acknowledges the use of the basement lounge in the Carriage House. Trip generation information appears in the hand-written grid attached in the report; these numbers have not been updated to include patio seating or patrons visiting the lounge. The size of 5700 SF includes ground floor, indoor restaurant space and support usage in the basement. Clarify that trip updates in the background traffic volumes reflect additional SF of use on the patio and in the lounge. The Carriage House trips may have been updated in the background scenario with 3 additional vehicles on the Worksheets and in the Figures. In a memorandum, describe the analytical nexus between the Carriage House patio and lounge occupancy with only 3 additional vehicles during peak hours. b. Use the new 2021 transit routes map in the graphic under Section 4.4. c. When construction plans for site improvements are submitted, include the Final TIA. i. Correct error in Figure 5: Movement traffic volume in NBR should be 142 (not 131) for PM. This typo was carried over at least from the previous Traffic Impact Analysis (1/29/21). Since the Synchro 16 16 1 10 Report uses 142, the HCM Control Delay and LOS (compiled in Table 1) should remain good. ii. Include information from the “Round 5” memo [provided under separate cover] describing how Carriage House uses on the patio and lounge affect peak hour traffic. 2. Truck Turning Plan (Sheet C-901) a. On construction plans for site improvements, reference curb and gutter relocation work needed to accommodate semi-truck turning northwest of the hotel. 3. Site Plan C-021 a. Submittal of easement information is acknowledged although the easement documents have not been reviewed by Public Works: i. Vacation of the old and dedication of the new access easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building or grading permits related to the Film Center. ii. The new access must be established and constructed prior to the release of any TCO or CO for the Film Center. b. Access driveway west of Concert Hall and Film Center shall meet applicable public street standards in EPCD, Appendix D. II. Waivers under D. I. D may be requested where necessary. i. The proposed surface width of 24’ is acceptable for TRC consideration but may require adjustment based on final design. A 2’ shoulder is required unless there is curb and gutter. c. Revise as needed to coordinate with revisions requested on other drawings and for the Final Drainage Report. 4. Stanley Hotel Walk Improvements – Concept Plan and Sections a. Response regarding the public sidewalk and adjacent landscaping along the north side of Steamer Parkway is acceptable. Public Works staff consultation resulted in the consensus that the curvilinear sidewalk shown on the concept plan is very appropriate for strolling within the Stanley campus even though it moves in and out of the public ROW. b. An easement parallel to the public ROW shall be established to completely contain the curvilinear sidewalk where it leads outside the public ROW. c. Final Package plan should note that all sidewalk maintenance and snow plowing shall be the responsibility of Stanley. d. Final Package plan should note that all landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of Stanley. e. Key (1) indicates that the two connection walkways would be 6’ wide. The western-most walkway was established at 8’ wide by previous review for the Carriage House. Public Works recommends 8’ width for maintenance access using a skid-steer or a pickup truck. 17 17 1 f. Sections A and B are acceptable to Public Works as long as the design is consistent with the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. i. Sidewalk shall be 8’ wide. g. Where new construction occurs, concrete curb and gutter shall be installed along the north side of Steamer Parkway (including replacement of asphalt curb). h. The new grading, landscaping, and boulder stacks will cut off driver view looking north. Ensure on the Final Plan set that this visual impact jives with the SHD Master Plan. i. The concept design shall provide workable drainage in coordination with the Final Drainage Report. 5. Grading Plan C-311 a. Revise as needed to coordinate with revisions requested on other drawings and for the Final Drainage Report. 6. Utility Plan C-551 a. Revise as needed to coordinate with revisions requested on other drawings and for the Final Drainage Report. 7. Final Drainage Report a. Nyloplast drawings need not be 24:00 x 18.00 in or 10.00 x 7.50 in. Differently-sized sheets are a nuisance for scrolling through the submittal. Format all these using the same size sheets. b. Public Works appreciates the applicant’s effort to locate a prior drainage report which could not be found within Town records or by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying. In lieu of the missing/nonexistent report, use engineering best practices to establish geometry and drainage capacity for existing ponds. c. The Final Drainage Report for Round 4 was submitted to Galloway, the Town’s floodplain and stormwater management consultant, for review and analysis. Galloway’s response consists of these documents which describe the revisions requested for the Final Package: i. Memorandum (4/8/21) [provided under separate cover; copy retained by Town Community Development Dept. and Public Works Dept.] ii. Redline Final Drainage Report Reviewed by Galloway (4/8/21) [provided under separate cover; copy retained by Town Community Development Dept. and Public Works Dept.] d. The revised Final Drainage Report requested for Round 5 shall also be reviewed by Galloway. DATED this ____ day of __________, 2021. 18 18 1 Travis Machalek Chair, Technical Review Committee ATTEST: Karin Swanlund Recording Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 19 19 1 August 1, 2019 Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Stanley Hotel – Film Center Land Use Summary Dear Mr. Hunt, On behalf of Grand Heritage Hotel Group, this letter is being provided as an exhibit to illustrate the intended land uses associated with the Stanley Film Center Project. The Film Center project is currently going through the Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee process, and as part of that process we want to ensure that the building design is within the allowable Land Use limits. The allowable land use is tied to the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Development Standards and Guidelines. Exhibit F of this document provides a Land Use Summary for each Stanley Parcel. The Film Center is located within Parcel 1. The Land Use Summary provides allowable Units/GFA for several uses which will be housed within the new construction of the Film Center. The summary of allowable land uses that apply to this project are as follows: · 25,000 SF – Recreation/Conference Center · 40,000 SF – Cultural Arts Center The current planning of the Film Center follows these allowed uses in its planning as described below: The Conference Center allowed use is planned within the Film Center and includes a Creative Center (ballroom type function), multiple conference rooms throughout the Film Center, circulation, as well as back-of-house support for these functions. Food service to the conference center functions is provided by the kitchen located within the Carriage House. The Cultural Arts Center allowed use is planned within the Film Center to include a 650 seat concert hall including stage, mezzanine, circulation, public and back of house support functions, (the concert hall is a flexible space that can also be utilized as a flat floor exhibit hall or a film/conference venue supporting the Conference Center programs), a Film Discovery Center (a film museum type experience) including storage, public and back of house support functions, and a Chocolate Factory Immersive Experience (a functioning candy factory in which visitors walk through the candy making experience and participate in the creation of their own inventions). In the calculation of area within the Film Center, we recognize that much of the building public circulation and lobby spaces are shared between the Conference Center and Cultural Arts Center uses. As such, we have assigned these areas equitably to each use. Per BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) National Standards, we have calculated areas to include stairs and elevators at their lowest level only. Stairs, elevators and other floor penetrations are not calculated above the lowest floor level at which they occur. This approach is also consistent in the calculation of building occupancy per the International Building Code. There are several outdoor patios at both ground and roof level that are not included within the SF calculations as they don’t count against land use limitations. 20 20 1 Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park August 1, 2019 Page 2 Additionally, the Film Center will contain functions that serve as support facilities (storage, utilities, maintenance, etc.) that will serve the entire Stanley Campus. It is our understanding that these types of uses are a “Use by Right” and do not fall under the Land Use Summary limitations. These functions are being consolidated to this location from numerous locations on the campus to allow for removal of unsightly facilities, provide for more efficient campus operations, and allow for renovation of the Carriage House, which is currently used as the primary storage building on the campus. It should be noted that the majority of support facilities (with the exception of central administrative offices) will be located in the basement of the Film Center, out of public view. This is a primary benefit of relocating these types of uses to this location. Grand Heritage Hotel Group is including this component in the Film Center project at considerable expense and effort with the goal of enhancing the quality of the overall Stanley property through the elimination of unsightly infrastructure. The gross square footage currently being planned in the facility is within the allowable area identified in the Land Use Summary as defined by the different uses shown above. The planned SF related to the three uses located within the Film Center and the Carriage House is summarized as follows: Film Center: · 22,510 SF - Conference Center type uses · 38,260 SF - Cultural Arts Center type uses · 19,025 SF – Stanley Campus Support Functions (not accounted for in the Land Use Summary) We also wish to point out several key elements of the Film Center design that we believe are very positive planning attributes of the project. 1. The 1994 Master Plan illustrates 6 separate new buildings located within Parcel 1that fulfill the Conference Center and Cultural Arts Center allowed uses. Our plan consolidates those to a single building, thus limiting land use impacts in a positive manner. 2. A carefully located, single, consolidated building limits the impact on existing trees and vegetation. Through smart planning, we are able to save more existing mature trees on the site. 3. Approximately 1/3rd of the planned square footage of the Film Center will be located below grade and won’t be visible. 4. The Film Center design will not require a height variance. The building will be designed within current height guidelines. 5. The Colorado Historical Foundation has been a key advisor in the planning and design of the Film Center project. MOA Architecture has met multiple times with CHF representatives and the CHF Board to ensure the design and planning adhere to Historical District best planning practices. The CHF has provided positive support of the current design under separate letter to the Town of Estes Park. It is our hope that this letter helps to clarify our intent to conform to the Land Use Summary requirements of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Development Standards and Guidelines. If you have any questions or would like to discuss our approach, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, MOA Inc. dba MOA ARCHITECTURE Jack M. Mousseau, AIA Principal 303-308-1190 jmousseau@moaarch.com 21 21 1 The Stanley Hotel Film Center Estes Park, CO Technical Review Committee Submission TRC Project Review Request and Project Narrative December 1, 2020 MOA ARCHITECTURE 22 22 1 Film Center TRC Narrative 2 December 1, 2020 December 1, 2020 Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Stanley Hotel – Film Center Technical Review Committee, Preliminary TRC Review Request Dear Mr. Hunt, As you know, the Grand Heritage Hotel Group has been working with the Town of Estes Park Planning Department to identify and develop required documents for the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process for the Stanley Film Center project. This letter serves as our formal request to schedule the Preliminary/Final TRC Reviews. Under separate email, you will find our planning documents, as required for TRC review. As you recall, representatives of Grand Heritage Hotel Group, including Mr. John Cullen (Owner), along with myself representing MOA Architecture met with city officials on July 18, 2019 for the Film Center TRC pre-application meeting. Our submission includes documents as requested during the pre-application meeting. We look forward to scheduling the TRC review in early January and discussing this exciting project with the TRC committee. Sincerely, Jack Mousseau, AIA MOA ARCHITECTURE Cc: Mr. John Cullen Grand Heritage Hotel Group Owner 410-585-4300 jcullen@grandheritage.com 23 23 1 Film Center TRC Narrative 3 December 1, 2020 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center – Design Narrative The creation of an “Arts District” was a critical component of F.O. Stanley’s original vision for the Stanley. The Film and Performing Arts Center is an integral piece in completing that vision. Recognizing the sensitivities involved with the placement of this new building in the Stanley Historic District, the designers for the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center are keen to ensure the creation of a “sense of place” rather than the “sense of time”. The design reflects the sense of the specific place and creates continuity over time rather than contrast and disruption - it is this ‘continuity over time’ that is important to creating and maintaining the character of the historic district. The design approach to the new Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center will be consistent with ‘best practices’ for new construction in historic districts. The placement of the Film and Performing Arts Center draws its influence in harmonizing with the surrounding buildings and site rather than rupture the continuity of architectural character. The Film and Performing Arts Center is set back on the site from the Concert Hall and the Carriage House, making it subversive to these two original buildings. The siting allows these two building to sit “proud” on the site as they face to the south. The Film and Performing Arts Center spans the space between and is set back on the site to bring prominence to the historic buildings. The Film and Performing Arts Center is set into the ground, at the northwest corner by as much as 25’. By sinking the building into the site, we reduce its visible mass and maintain a consistency of building massing to the adjacent Concert Hall and Carriage House. In this manner, the building is again, subversive to the Stanley Hotel itself, which remains the focal point of the campus. Placement of the Film and Performing Arts Center in an orthogonal arrangement that creates a composition with the Stanley Hotel, Lodge Building, the Concert Hall and the Carriage House. The buildings maintain a relatively consistent north/south and east/west axis. The Film and Performing Arts Center maintains this axial arrangement with the design of its roof forms. However, the curved glazing facing to the south recognizes that this building is unique while remaining a comfortable part of the composition. The curved, south facing front porch and glass lobby wall brings a modern character within the composition of buildings, while displaying a traditional style and making a strong statement of its own identity without subverting the character of its setting. The abundance of glazing creates a transparency between the Concert Hall and Carriage House that fits quietly into the space. The roof over the lobby reverts to the traditional, orthogonal geometry of the existing Stanley buildings. The buildings within the Stanley Historic District have a very distinct architectural vocabulary. A language that makes the Stanley, “The Stanley”. Some of these elements include the red roofs, white clapboard siding, front porch approaches and entries, the use of symmetry and composition to break down building scale and fenestration scale and proportion. These elements, used as inspiration in the design of the Film and Performing Arts Center, draw on the influences of the place and harmonize with, rather than rupture, the continuity of architectural character. The alignment of the Film and Performing Arts Center floor levels to the Concert Hall and Carriage House creates a calmness across the site as the buildings balance with the topography. Strong horizontal roof lines and other important horizontal datums fit comfortably together with the composition of buildings. 24 24 1 Film Center TRC Narrative 4 December 1, 2020 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center – Land Use Summary The allowable land uses on the Stanley property are tied to the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Development Standards and Guidelines. The graphic below is the land use summary from the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. 25 25 1 Film Center TRC Narrative 5 December 1, 2020 The Master Plan provides a Land Use Summary for each Stanley Parcel. The Film Center is located within Parcel 1. The Land Use Summary provides allowable Units/GFA for several uses which will be housed within the new construction of the Film Center. The summary of allowable land uses that apply to this project are as follows: · 25,000 SF – Recreation/Conference Center · 40,000 SF – Cultural Arts Center · 5,000 SF - Retail 26 26 1 Film Center TRC Narrative 6 December 1, 2020 The current planning of the Film Center follows these allowed uses in its planning as described below: The Conference Center allowed use is planned within the Film Center and includes a Creative Center (ballroom type function), multiple conference rooms throughout the Film Center, circulation, as well as back-of-house support for these functions. Food service to the conference center functions is provided by the kitchen located within the Carriage House. The Cultural Arts Center allowed use is planned within the Film Center to include a 650 seat concert hall including stage, mezzanine, circulation, public and back of house support functions, (the concert hall is a flexible space that can also be utilized as a flat floor exhibit hall or a film/conference venue supporting 27 27 1 Film Center TRC Narrative 7 December 1, 2020 the Conference Center programs), a Film Discovery Center (a film museum type experience) including storage, public and back of house support functions, and a Chocolate Factory Immersive Experience (a functioning candy factory in which visitors walk through the candy making experience and participate in the creation of their own inventions). In the calculation of area within the Film Center, we recognize that much of the building public circulation and lobby spaces are shared between the Conference Center and Cultural Arts Center uses. As such, we have assigned these areas equitably to each use. Per BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) National Standards, we have calculated areas to include stairs and elevators at their lowest level only. Stairs, elevators and other floor penetrations are not calculated above the lowest floor level at which they occur. This approach is also consistent in the calculation of building occupancy per the International Building Code. There are several outdoor patios at both ground and roof level that are not included within the SF calculations as they don’t count against land use limitations. Additionally, the Film Center will contain functions that serve as support facilities (storage, utilities, maintenance, etc.) that will serve the entire Stanley Campus. It is our understanding that these types of uses are a “Use by Right” and do not fall under the Land Use Summary limitations. This has been confirmed with the Town of Estes Park Planning Department. These functions are being consolidated to this location from numerous locations on the campus to allow for removal of unsightly facilities, provide for more efficient campus operations, and allow for renovation of the Carriage House, which is currently used as the primary storage building on the campus. It should be noted that the majority of support facilities (with the exception of central administrative offices) will be located in the basement of the Film Center, out of public view. This is a primary benefit of relocating these types of uses to this location. Grand Heritage Hotel Group is including this component in the Film Center project at considerable expense and effort with the goal of enhancing the quality of the overall Stanley property through the elimination of unsightly infrastructure. The gross square footage currently being planned in the facility is within the allowable area identified in the Land Use Summary as defined by the different uses shown above. The planned SF related to the three uses located within the Film Center and the Carriage House is summarized as follows: Film Center: · 22,510 SF - Conference Center type uses · 38,260 SF - Cultural Arts Center type uses · 19,025 SF – Stanley Campus Support Functions (not accounted for in the Land Use Summary) We also wish to point out several key elements of the Film Center design that we believe are very positive planning attributes of the project. 1. The 1994 Master Plan illustrates 6 separate new buildings located within Parcel 1 that fulfill the Conference Center and Cultural Arts Center allowed uses. Our plan consolidates those to a single building, thus limiting land use impacts in a positive manner. 2. A carefully located, single, consolidated building limits the impact on existing trees and vegetation. Through smart planning, we are able to save more existing mature trees on the site. 3. Approximately 1/3rd of the planned square footage of the Film Center will be located below grade and won’t be visible. 4. The Film Center design will not require a height variance. The building will be designed within current height guidelines. 28 28 1 Film Center TRC Narrative 8 December 1, 2020 5. The Colorado Historical Foundation has been a key advisor in the planning and design of the Film Center project. MOA Architecture has met multiple times with CHF representatives and the CHF Board to ensure the design and planning adhere to Historical District best planning practices. The CHF has provided positive support of the current design under separate letter to the Town of Estes Park. 29 29 1 Film Center TRC Narrative 9 December 1, 2020 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center – Programming Summary The following is a summary of program areas for the Film Center. 30 30 1 Film Center TRC Narrative 10 December 1, 2020 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center – Colorado Historic Foundation Review The following is correspondence of the Colorado Historical Foundations review of the Stanley Film Center design. 31 31 1 Film Center TRC Narrative 11 December 1, 2020 32 32 1 Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.03.19 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.03.19 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 SITE PLAN C-021 VA N VA N VA N VA N FILM CENTER FFE VARIES 17' 17' CONCERT HALL CARRIAGE HOUSE DROP OFF BOULDER WALLS EXISTING 10' GAS EASEMENT EXISTING 20' WATER EASEMENT CANOPY RETAINING WALL 6' WALK 6' WALK PATIO EXISTING 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOADING DOCK TRASH AREA 6' WALK OW DNE DNE EXISTING 20' WATER EASEMENT 20' WATER EASEMENT 15' WALK STAIRS SITE WALLS 4' CONCRETE PAN PROPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT STE A M E R P A R K W A Y PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) 8' WALK TO BE INSTALLED WITH CARRIAGE HOUSE PER TRC RAIN GARDEN RAIN GARDEN BOULDER WALLS R40' 19' 9' TYP. 2' CONCRETE PAN EXISTING 80' ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 LEGEND: TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW EXISTING TREES TO BE PROTECTED OW PROPOSED "ONE WAY" SIGN DNE PROPOSED "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN NOTES: 1.THE FILM CENTER PROJECT DOES NOT DISTURB ANY KNOW WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS. 2. ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED OR GUYED AND FENCED TO PROTECT FROM WILDLIFE DAMAGE. NO CHAIN-LINK FENCING SHALL BE ALLOWED TO PROTECT LANDSCAPING FROM WILDLIFE DAMAGE. 3.DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE BY WILDLIFE. 4.THE FILM CENTER WILL BE PARTIALLY UNDER GROUND WHICH WILL HELP ATTENUATE NOISE/SOUND. LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION 03/19/21 33 33 1 March 23 2021 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 PA R K , C O LO R A D O 32’64’0’ BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 34 34 1 March 23 2021 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 PA R K , C O LO R A D O 32’64’0’ LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 35 35 1 March 23 2021 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 PA R K , C O LO R A D O 32’64’0’ LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 36 36 1 March 23 2021 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 PA R K , C O LO R A D O 32’64’0’ LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN 37 37 1 The Stanley Film Center - Building Area Take-Off 03.23.2021 Total Area of Net Area Gross SPACE CATEGORY # of Ea. Sp. Sub-Total Area Location Spaces (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) 1.00 PUBLIC LOBBY / CONCESSIONS PLANNED NSF GSF Floor Level COMMENTS: .01 Public Lobby / Concessions 1 6,100 6,100 7,320 Level 2 .02 Public Lobby Restrooms 2 700 1,400 1,680 Level 2 .03 Ticketing / Gift Shop 1 250 250 300 Level 2 .04 Basement Public Connector to Carriage House 1 2,000 2,000 2,400 Basement Level .05 Basement Public Film Gallery 1 2,000 2,000 2,400 Basement Level .06 Basement Public Restrooms 1 500 500 600 Basement Level Sub-Total 12,250 14,700 2.00 AUDITORIUM / THEATER PLANNED NSF GSF Floor Level COMMENTS: .01 Auditorium / Theater 1 7,440 7,440 8,928 Level 2 1,200 person capacity auditorium/theater - 600 fixed seats .02 Auditorium / Theater Mezzanine 1 1,720 1,720 2,064 Level 3 mezzanine Space - seating and standing option .03 Auditorium / Theater VIP Lounge 1 1,047 1,047 1,256 Level 3 .04 Stage 1 1,200 1,200 1,440 Level 2 .05 Auditorium / Theater Support 1 1,600 1,600 1,920 Level 2 .06 Auditorium / Theater Support - Band Manager 1 270 270 324 Level 3 .07 Auditorium / Theater Support - Dressing/Green Rooms 4 275 1,100 1,320 Level 3 Sub-Total 14,377 17,252 3.00 FILM MUSEUM / DISCOVERY CENTER PLANNED NSF GSF Floor Level COMMENTS: .01 Film Museum & Discovery Center Public Lobby / Gallery 1 3,200 3,200 3,840 Level 1 public exhibits, tour gathering point, .02 Film Museum & Discovery Center 1 6,075 6,075 7,290 Level 1 rotating exhibits, film collections, archives .03 Discovery Center for Kids - Chocolate Factory 1 2,500 2,500 3,000 Level 2 factory on display for tours - Willy Wonka type experience .04 Discovery Center for Kids - Party Room 1 500 500 600 Level 2 factory on display for tours - Willy Wonka type experience .05 Film Museum & Discovery Center Ticketing 1 225 225 270 Level 1 .06 Film Museum Storage / Film Archive 1 2,100 2,100 2,520 Level 1 Additional space can be provided from building support if needed .07 Meeting / Sound Editing Studio 1 650 650 780 Level 1 20 People .08 Meeting / Video Editing Studio 1 650 650 780 Level 1 20 People .09 Small Theater 1 1,500 1,500 1,800 Level 1 seats 60 people, inside Discovery Center .10 Film Museum & Discovery Center Restrooms 2 500 1,000 1,200 Level 1 .11 Film Museum & Discovery Coat Check 1 300 300 360 Level 1 .12 Event Center Restrooms 2 500 1,000 1,200 Level 2 .13 Concession / Event Room 2 600 1,200 1,440 Level 2 Sub-Total 20,900 25,080 NSF 4.00 CONFERENCE / EVENT CENTER PLANNED NSF GSF Floor Level COMMENTS: .01 Warming / Catering Kitchen 2 100 200 240 Level 2 .02 Creative Events / Sound Stage 1 2,500 2,500 3,000 Level 2 .03 Event Center Restrooms 2 500 1,000 1,200 Level 2 - Sub-Total 3,700 4,440 5.00 SUPPORT SPACES PLANNED NSF GSF Floor Level COMMENTS: .01 Building and Campus Support / Storage 1 8,000 8,000 9,600 Level 1 basement or walkout level / 15' Clear Ceiling .02 Laundry 1 - - - Level 1 Included in building and campus storage .03 Break Room 1 - - - Level 1 Included in building and campus storage .04 Employee lockers/showers/restroom 2 - - - Level 1 Included in building and campus storage .05 Building Manager Offices 2 - - - Level 1 Included in building and campus storage .06 Outdoor Equipment Storage 1 - - - Level 1 Included in building and campus storage .07 Administrative Offices and Training 1 3,000 3,000 3,600 Level 3 located on level 3 with exterior views Sub-Total 11,000 13,200 6.00 BUILDING SERVICES PLANNED NSF GSF Floor Level COMMENTS: .01 Electrical 1 400 400 480 Level 1 basement or walkout level .02 Mechanical 1 800 800 960 Level 1 basement or walkout level .03 Fire / Water Entry 1 300 300 360 Level 1 basement or walkout level .04 IT Server Room 1 200 200 240 Level 1 basement or walkout level .05 Building Service / Trash / Recycle 1 - - - Level 1 exterior location .06 Loading Dock 1 - - - Level 1 basement or walkout level .07 Shipping / Receiving 1 500 500 600 Level 1 basement or walkout level .08 Custodial Closet 3 50 150 180 Levels 1, 2 & 3 .09 Basement Level Service Corridor to Carriage House 1 2,000 2,000 2,400 Basement Level - - Sub-Total 4,350 5,220 NSF NSF Subtotal PLANNED NSF 66,577 79,892 GSF COMMENTS: Circulation Factor for NSF to GSF Assumed 20% GSF Total Area PROPOSED 79,892 1 38 38 1 Date: January 29, 2021 Updated Date: March 24, 2021 Submitted To: MOA ARCHITECTURE 414 14th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 Submitted By: Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC 1624 Market Street, Suite 202 Denver, CO 80202 The Stanley Hotel: Film & Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Analysis 39 39 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Updated March 24, 2021  TABLE OF CONTENTS  1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4  2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 5  3.0 Study Considerations ............................................................................................................... 5  3.1  Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 5  3.2  Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................................... 6  3.3  Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................................. 6  4.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 7  4.1  Roadways ............................................................................................................................ 7  4.2  Intersections ....................................................................................................................... 8  4.3  Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................... 8  4.4  Transit ................................................................................................................................. 9  4.5  Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................................................................... 9  5.0 Future Traffic Conditions ....................................................................................................... 11  5.1  Annual Growth Factor and Future Volume Methodology ................................................ 11  5.2  Year 2024 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis ..................................................... 12  6.0 Proposed Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic ................................................................. 13  6.1  Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 13  6.2  Trip Distribution and Assignment ..................................................................................... 14  7.0 Future Traffic Conditions with Project .................................................................................... 14  8.0 Off‐Peak Analysis ................................................................................................................... 15  9.0 Future Multi‐Modal Trips and Facilities .................................................................................. 17  10.0 Parking Operations ................................................................................................................ 18  11.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 18  40 40 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Updated March 24, 2021  LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary  ..................................................................... 19  Table 2 – Evaluated Mitigation Measures for LOS Compliance .................................................................. 10   Table 3 – Trip Generation Summary ........................................................................................................... 14  Table 4 ‐ Off‐Peak Ingress Volumes ............................................................................................................ 16  Table 5 ‐ Off‐Peak Egress Volumes ............................................................................................................. 16  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1 – Vicinity Map and Existing Access ............................................................................................... 20  Figure 2 – Year 2019 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 21  Figure 3 – Year 2024 Background Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 22  Figure 4 – Trip Distribution and Site‐Generated Trip Volumes .................................................................. 23  Figure 5 – Year 2024 Background + Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 24    APPENDIX  Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form  Level of Service Definitions  Existing Traffic Data  Signal Design and Timing  Intersection Capacity Worksheets  41 41 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Updated March 24, 2021    THE STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER  TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY    1.0 INTRODUCTION  The Fox Tuttle Transportation Group prepared this traffic impact study for the proposed a Film and  Performing Arts Center at The Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, CO. The project proposes to construct an  auditorium,  theater,  meeting  rooms,  minor  retail,  and  supporting  facilities  for  the  art  district.  It  is  anticipated this new facility will serve the hotel guests and visitors. The new amenity is proposed to be  located in the northeast corner of Steamer Parkway and the Main Entrance, near the old Carriage House  that is currently being renovated. Figure 1 includes a vicinity map for the proposed project.  The purpose of this study is to assist in identifying potential traffic impacts within the study area as a  result  of  this  project.  The  traffic  study  addresses  existing  and  short‐term  (Year  2024)  peak  hour  intersection  conditions  in  the  study  area  with  and  without  the project  generated  traffic.    The  information  contained  in  this  study  is  anticipated  to  be  used  by  the  Town  of  Estes  Park  staff  in  identifying  any  intersection  or  roadway  deficiencies  and  potential  improvements  for  the  short‐term  future conditions. This study focused on the weekday AM and PM peak hours which typically has the  highest traffic volumes within the Town.   The traffic impact study is consistent with the requirements of the Town of Estes Park’s standards set  forth in Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (revised 2019). A copy of the  approved  Transportation  Impact  Study  Base  Assumptions  Form  is  attached  in  the Appendix  for  reference.   42 42 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Updated March 24, 2021  2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION  The Stanley Hotel proposes to create an Art District that will include a future museum, film center, and  auditorium.  The  construction  of the  Carriage  House  is  the  first  phase  of  the  overall  project  and  is  planned to become a full‐service restaurant with approximately 250 seats and outdoor seating, as well  as a basement lounge that will be the new location of the existing Aiden Sinclair magic show that is  performed in the MacGregor Lounge in the main hotel. The second phase of the project is the Film and  Performing Art Center which will include an auditorium (600 fixed seats), a small theater (60 fixed seats)  designed as part of the Stanley Horror Center Tour, meeting rooms, supportive retail, and maintenance  space.  As  part  of  the  project  the  Concert  Hall  will  be  utilized  to  host  pre‐  and  post‐performance  activities. This traffic study focuses on the construction of the Film and Performing Arts Center, but  includes the trips associated with the Carriage House renovation.  Access to the site is planned via the existing main entrance on Steamer Parkway and along the existing  internal loop roadway. Figure 1 includes a conceptual site plan for the project.  3.0 STUDY CONSIDERATIONS  3.1 Data Collection   Intersection turning movement volumes were collected by Delich and Associates in August 2019 at six  existing  intersections  during  the  weekday  AM  and  PM  peak  hours.  Per  a  request  from  Colorado  Department of Transportation (CDOT), traffic volumes were gathered on a busy weekend (September  28, 2019) at the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue/Elkhorn Avenue at Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain  Avenue.   Historic daily volumes along Big Thompson Avenue (US 34/US 36), Wonderview Avenue (US 34), and St.  Vrain Avenue within the vicinity of the project site were gathered from the CDOT’s Transportation Data  Management  System  (TDMS).  The  existing  traffic  volumes  are  illustrated  on Figure  2.  The  existing  intersection geometry and traffic control are also shown on this figure. Count data sheets are provided  in the Appendix.    43 43 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Updated March 24, 2021  3.2 Evaluation Methodology  The traffic operations analysis addressed the unsignalized intersection operations using the procedures  and methodologies set forth by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 1.  Assumed peak hour factor of  0.90 was applied to the intersections for the existing and future scenarios since the existing 15‐minute  count  data  was  not  available  at  the  time  of  the  analysis.  Study  intersections  were  evaluated  using  Synchro (v10) software.   3.3 Level of Service Definitions   To measure and describe the operational status of the study intersections, transportation engineers and  planners commonly use a grading system referred to as “Level of Service” (LOS) that is defined by the  HCM.  LOS characterizes the operational conditions of an intersections traffic flow, ranging from LOS A  (indicating  very  good,  free  flow  operations)  and  LOS  F  (indicating  congested  and  sometimes  oversaturated conditions).  These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of  the comfort and convenience associated with traveling through the intersections. The intersection LOS is  represented  as  a  delay  in  seconds  per  vehicle  for  the  intersection  as  a  whole  and  for  each  turning  movement.  A more detailed discussion of LOS methodology is contained in the Appendix for reference.    The  Town  of  Estes  Park  defers  to  the  City  of  Loveland’s  Level  of  Service  Standards  provided  in  LCUASS.  Majority  of  the  study  intersections  would  be  considered  “minor  intersections”  with  the  exception of the intersection of Big  Thompson  Avenue  (US  34)  at  Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access  that would be classified as “major  intersection.” Refer to the defined  Level of Service standards listed in  LCUASS as shown to the right.  1  Highway  Capacity  Manual,  Highway  Research  Board  Special  Report  209,  Transportation  Research  Board,  National  Research Council, 6th Edition (2016).    44 44 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 Updated March 24, 2021  4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS  4.1 Roadways  The  study  area  boundaries  are  based  on  the  amount  of  traffic  to  be  generated  by  the  project  and  potential impact to the existing roadway network.  The study area was defined in coordination with the  Town  staff  and  CDOT  and  is  outlined  in  the  Transportation  Impact  Study  Base  Assumptions  Form  provided by Delich and Associates (located in the Appendix). The primary public roadways that serve the  project site are discussed in the following text and illustrated on Figure 1.  US 34 (Big Thompson Avenue/Elkhorn Avenue) is a four‐lane arterial roadway with a center  median and left‐turn lane that is CDOT facility. US 34 provides east‐west access down the Big  Thompson Canyon to Loveland and the front range to the east, and access for commercial and  residential  areas  of  Estes  Park  to  the  west.  In  Estes  Park,  the  highway  turns  north  onto  Wonderview  Avenue  to  bypass  the  downtown  area.  West  of  Wonderview  Avenue/St.  Vrain  Avenue,  Big  Thompson  Avenue  becomes  Elkhorn  Avenue  with  a  classification  of  Non‐Rural  Arterial (NR‐C) through downtown Estes Park and a speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). East  of  Wonderview  Avenue/St.  Vrain  Avenue,  this  highway  is  classified  as  Non‐Rural  Principal  Highway  (NR‐A)  with  a  posted  speed  limit  of  35  mph.  Elkhorn  Avenue  currently  serves  approximately 13,000 vehicles per day (vpd) west of Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain Avenue and  Big Thompson Avenue 18,000 vpd east of the same intersection (Year 2019, CDOT).  Wonderview Avenue is a bypass route for US 34 that routes north of downtown Estes Park  heading west towards the mountains. This arterial (NR‐A) is a two‐lane arterial with a center  median/turn‐lane within the study area. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Wonderview Avenue  currently serves approximately 6,700 vpd north of Elkhorn Avenue (Year 2019, CDOT). Recently,  a single‐lane roundabout was installed at the intersection of Wonderview Avenue and McGregor  Avenue by CDOT to improve safety, increase capacity, and reduce conflict points between all  road users. The intersection improvements also enhanced the pedestrian crossings on the south  and east legs of the new roundabout with new sidewalks leading to The Stanley Hotel.    Steamer Parkway is the main roadway into and around The Stanley Hotel campus and providing  access to adjacent neighborhoods and the Aspire. This two‐lane local street has a posted speed  limit is 25 mph and will lead the new trips to the main entrance of The Stanley Hotel.   Steamer Drive is a two‐lane north‐south local street that provides access to residential homes  and the Stanley Village shopping center. The posted speed limit is 25 mph and links directly to  Big Thompson Avenue (US 34). It is understood that the intersection with the highway will be  45 45 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 Updated March 24, 2021  signalized in the future when warranted. Steamer Drive is utilized to access The Stanley Hotel  from Big Thompson Avenue to Steamer Parkway.   4.2 Intersections  The study area includes six intersections that are listed below with the current traffic control and were  analyzed for existing and future background year traffic operations:  1. Steamer Parkway at SW Steamer Parkway (side‐street stop‐controlled)  2. Steamer Parkway at Aspire Access (side‐street stop‐controlled)  3. Steamer Parkway at The Stanley Hotel Main Entrance (side‐street stop‐controlled)   4. Steamer Parkway at Steamer Drive (side‐street stop‐controlled)  5. Big  Thompson  Avenue  (US  34)  at  Steamer  Drive  /  Golf  Course  Access  (side‐street  stop‐ controlled, signalized in the near‐term)  6. Wonderview Avenue (US 34) at SW Steamer Parkway (side‐street stop‐controlled)  The existing lane configuration at each of the study locations is illustrated on Figure 2.  Note that the  counts were gathered on a busy weekend at the signalized intersection of Big Thompson Avenue at  Wonderview Avenue/St. Vrain Avenue for informational purposes. This intersection was not included in  the study area, but the existing conditions were evaluated per the request of CDOT.  4.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities  The  Town  of  Estes  Park  adopted  the  Complete  Streets  Policy  (#851)  in  April  2019  to  “promote  and  encourage the development of a multi‐modal transportation network” that will serve all people driving,  walking, biking, and using transit. The policy is implemented with every “street project” which the Film  and Performing Arts Center is not considered; however, The Stanley Hotel is committed to adhering to  the guidelines where possible.   The  Stanley  Hotel  has  an  extensive  sidewalk  system  that  connects  various  facilities  and  amenities  around the property that are ADA compliant. On‐site sidewalks and paths link to external sidewalks that  are  within  a  walkable  radius  (typically  between  ¼  and  ½  mile  radius).  Refer  to Section  9.0  for  the  proposed walkways that will be a part of this project.   Externally, sidewalks exist on the south side of Steamer Parkway along the Aspire property; along the  north side of Big Thompson Avenue from Steamer Drive into downtown; and portions of the south side  of Big Thompson Avenue and east side of Wonderview Avenue. The study roadways currently do not  46 46 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 9 Updated March 24, 2021  provide designated bike facilities; however, bicyclists are permitted to ride with traffic on the arterial,  collector and local streets.   4.4 Transit   The Town of Estes Park provides a free  seasonal shuttle service (named Estes  Transit)  for  the  summer  months  linking  The  Stanley  Hotel  to  the  downtown  area,  Rocky  Mountain  National Park (RMNP), and other local  attractions.  The  Town’s  parking  structure located at 691 N. St. Vrain &  US  Highway  36  is  the  transportation  hub for the shuttles. The Stanley Hotel  is  serviced  by  the  Gold  Route  that  circulates  the  Town  connecting  to  the  medical  center,  conference  center,  other  lodging,  events  complex,  and  the  visitor  center.  The  Gold  Route also travels up US 34 to the Fall River Visitors Center. This route provides patrons the ability to  transfer to other local routes that lead to many other attractions and services around town.  The Estes  Transit routes, specifically the Gold Route, are shown on the map to the right which is beneficial for  existing and future visitors of The Stanley Hotel and the Film and Performing Arts Center. Refer to the  Town’s online transit website for the most current bus stops and routing that may differ from this study.  4.5  Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis  The existing volumes, lane configuration, and traffic control are illustrated on Figure 2. The results of the  LOS calculations for the study intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service  worksheets and queue reports are attached in the Appendix.  All study intersections are operating at  LOS C or better overall in the AM and PM peak hours. The following intersection currently has one  approach that operates at LOS E or F in one or both peak hours:   Big  Thompson  Avenue  (US  34)  at  Steamer  Drive  /  Golf  Course  Access:    This  currently  unsignalized intersection is calculated to operate at LOS A overall in the AM peak hour and LOS  C in the PM peak hour.  The southbound left‐turn movement operates at LOS E in the AM peak  hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. This delay is caused by the heavy flow of traffic on Big  Thompson Avenue.  The 95th percentile queue was estimated to be two vehicles in the AM peak  hour and up to eight (8) vehicles in the PM peak hour.  47 47 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 10 Updated March 24, 2021  Recommendations:  It  is  understood  that  this  intersection  is  planned  to  be  signalized  in  late  2020.  Fox  Tuttle  received  a  copy  of  the  final  signal  design  plans  and  CDOT  approved  signal  phasing from the design engineer, Lantz Associates (refer to Appendix). The signal timing was  utilized within this study for all scenarios. The eastbound left‐turn on Big Thompson Avenue is  planned to be protected+permitted phasing with flashing yellow arrow signal heads and the  side‐streets will operate as split phasing due to the offset alignment. With the new signal, the  intersection  is  anticipated  to  operate  overall  at  LOS  B  in  both  peak  hours.  The  northbound  approach (Golf Course Access) was estimated to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour,  which is related to the split phasing and cycle length.   Compliance with LCUASS: The overall LOS and majority of movements are in compliance with  the Level of Service standards. The southbound left‐turn/through lane is estimated to operate at  LOS E in the PM peak hour which is in compliance with the standards as well. The northbound  approach does not meet the Level of Service standards since both peak hours are estimated to  operate at LOS F.   The following mitigation measures were evaluated to determine if LOS E or D could be achieved  on the northbound approach:   Table 2. Evaluated Mitigation Measures for LOS Compliance   Mitigation  Measure  Result on Northbound  Approach  Peak  Hour  Advantages Disadvantages  Add Green Time  to NB by taking  from EB/WB  Remains LOS F   No amount of green time  improves LOS due to cycle  length and split phasing.  AM  PM   Cost effective   Adds delay to mainline   Does not comply with LOS standards  Remove Split  Phasing   LOS D AM  PM   Complies with  LOS Standards   Expensive   Changes Signal Design   Requires realigning side‐street lanes and  possibly separating SB left‐turn and  through  Reduce Cycle  Length to 100sec   LOS E  AM  Cost effective  May not provide progression on Big  Thompson   Adds delay to mainline   Does not comply with LOS standards  Reduce Cycle  Length to 75sec  LOS E  PM  Operate “Free” LOS E   LOS F  AM  PM   Cost effective   Complies with  LOS Standards  in AM   May not provide progression on Big  Thompson   Adds delay to mainline   Does not comply with LOS standards in PM  48 48 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 11 Updated March 24, 2021  As shown in Table 2, the only available option to achieve LOS D on the northbound approach  would require significant geometric changes and a redesign of the signal.   The  side‐street  approaches  currently  need  to  operate  split  phasing  due  to  the  offset  lane  alignment. Based on the approved signal timing plans, the northbound approach is allocated 14  seconds (8 sec. green + 4 sec. yellow + 2 sec. red) and the cycle length is 116 seconds. Therefore,  northbound drivers could wait up to 102 seconds if they arrive on red, which equates to LOS F.  Without the removal of the split phasing, the northbound approach is anticipated to operate at  LOS F in the existing and future scenarios.    Note  that  the  signal  may  increase  the  delay  for  the  northbound approach,  but  the  signal  provides a safer situation for drivers to turn onto Big Thompson Avenue since the allocated  green time is not shared with the opposing approach.   For  informational  purposes,  the  intersection  of Elkhorn  Avenue  at  Wonderview  Avenue/St.  Vrain  Avenue was evaluated for a peak hour on a busy weekend. The analysis indicated that the intersection  currently operates overall at LOS D. The westbound left‐turn, northbound left‐turn, and northbound  left/through movements were calculated to operate at LOS E during the weekend peak. The estimated  queues will extend beyond the existing storage on the westbound left‐turn and northbound right‐turn. It  is  understood  that  this  traffic  study  did  not  have  to  evaluate this  intersection  beyond  the  existing  conditions.   5.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS  5.1 Annual Growth Factor and Future Volume Methodology  In order to forecast the future peak hour traffic volumes, background traffic growth assumptions were  estimated based on the CDOT 20‐year factors, as well as available historic traffic volumes. Based on this  data, it was assumed there will be an annual growth rate of 2.0% within the study area. Trips associated  with the Alarado Business Park2 located in the northeast corner of Big Thompson Avenue and Steamer  Drive were included in the background volumes. Using these assumptions, the Year 2024 background  traffic is summarized on Figure 3.     2 Trips gathered from Alarado Business Park Traffic Impact Study. Delich Associate. August 2018. 49 49 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 12 Updated March 24, 2021  5.2 Year 2024 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis  The  study  area  intersections  were  evaluated  to  determine  baseline  operations  for  the  Year  2024  background scenario and to identify any capacity constraints associated with background traffic. Since  the Carriage House is anticipated to be completed prior to the Film and Performing Arts Center and was  evaluated  in  a  separate  traffic study,  these  trips  were  added  to  the  background  volumes.  The  background volumes, lane configuration, and traffic control are illustrated on Figure 3. It was assumed  that the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access would be  signalized  and  the  intersection  design  and  signal  timing  assumptions  listed  in Section  4.5  were  implemented.     The  level  of  service  criteria  discussed  previously  was  applied to  the  study  area  intersections  to  determine the impacts with the short‐term (Year 2024) background volumes. The results of the LOS  calculations for the intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service worksheets  and  queue  reports  are  attached  in  the Appendix.  The  Year  2024  background  analysis  assumed  the  existing lane configuration and traffic control would remain the same at the study intersections.   The study intersections are shown to operate similarly to the existing conditions with LOS B or better  overall in the AM and PM peak hours in Year 2024 Background. As presented in the existing conditions,  the new signal at Big Thompson Avenue and Steamer Drive/Golf Course Access will result in the side  street approaches operating below LOS D in one or both peak hours. The northbound approach will not  comply  with  the  LOS  standards.  The  95th  percentile  queues  for  the  southbound  approach  were  estimated to be maintained within the existing storage. The 95th percentile queues for the northbound  approach were estimated to be one vehicle or less. Refer to Section 4.5 and Table 2 for discussion on  options evaluated to bring the northbound approach in compliance with the LOS standards. The same  conclusions were made for the Year 2024 Background scenarios.   The  southbound  left‐turn  at  the  intersection  of  Wonderview  Avenue  and  SW  Steamer  Parkway  was  projected to begin operating at LOS E in the PM peak hour and is in compliance with the LOS standards.  The  95th  percentile  queue  for  this  movement  was  estimated  to  increase  by  13  feet  (less  than  one  vehicle).     50 50 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 13 Updated March 24, 2021  6.0  PROPOSED FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRAFFIC  6.1 Trip Generation  Delich and Associates worked with The Stanley Hotel design team to understand the trips expected to  be associated with the new Film and Performing Arts Center. Majority of the proposed land uses are not  contained within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual3 that is typically  used to estimate the proposed traffic. It is anticipated that many of the trips associated with the new  Film and Performing Arts Center will walk and bike from The Stanley Hotel or nearby lodging.   All lodging accommodations offered on the Stanley Campus host between 350 and 450 guests per night  in the peak season, including guests at The Stanley Hotel, the Lodge and the Aspire.  It is anticipated that  many  of  the  visitors  to  the  Film  and  Performing  Arts  Center  will  be  guests  already  parked  in  the  respective guest parking lots.  External attendees will park in the proposed parking lots are the Film and  Performing Arts Center. These lots are expected to accommodate the average event attendance. Refer  to the Parking Operations Plan for further evaluation and discussion on parking availability and demand.   Museum: It is anticipated that the unique museum (Stanley Horror Center Tours) will be located within  the 60‐seat theater. The development team estimated that the maximum number per tour will be 23  persons  and  the  tours  will  occur  every  30  minutes  from  10:00am  to  11:00pm,  which  equates  to  a  maximum of 46 persons per hour. Conservatively, this would result in 36 trips in each hour [46 persons ÷  2.5 auto occupancy * 2 trip ends]. The museum trips could occur any hour of the operational day and for  the purpose of this traffic study, these trips were assumed to be external trips.    Auditorium  (Large  Events):  The  proposed  auditorium  can  accommodate  up  to  600  persons.  If all  attendees stayed at The Stanley Hotel, then there would be no external trips. However, it was estimated  that approximately 200 attendees would not stay at The Stanley Hotel. It was estimated that this would  equate to 80 entering/exiting trips [200 attendees ÷ 2.5 auto occupancy] for a total of 160 external daily  trips. The majority of the large events are expected to occur in the evening (starting at 8:00pm) and not  occur within the peak hour.   Auditorium (Medium Events): The proposed auditorium is anticipated to host medium sized events that  would most likely attract up to 450 attendees. If 80% of the these were external, then there would be  approximately entering/exiting 150 trips [80% * 450 attendees ÷ 2.5 auto occupancy] for a total of 300  3  Trip Generation 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017.  51 51 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 14 Updated March 24, 2021  external daily trips. It is unlikely that these medium events would occur during the peak hours, however,  it is anticipated that these events would be the highest external trip generator.   The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 3. Based on information from The Stanley Hotel  design team, the majority of the trips associated with the Film and Performing Arts Center will not occur  during the peak hours, especially the morning peak.   Table 3. Trip Generation Summary  Land Use Size &  Unit  Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour  Rate Total Rate In Out Rate In Out  Museum (see text  above)  n/a 470 * * * n/a 18 18  Auditorium (see  text above)  Large  Event n/a  160  *  *  *  *  *  *  Med.  Event n/a  300  *  *  *  *  *  *  * Not Open for Business or this activity    6.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment  The estimated trip volumes presented in Table 3 were distributed onto the study area roadway network  based on existing traffic characteristics of the area, existing and future land uses, and the relationship of  this project to the greater Estes Park community.  The overall assumed distribution and trip assignment  are is illustrated in Figure 4.    7.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT   This section discusses impacts associated with the proposed trips associated with the build out scenario  of The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center. The site‐generated volumes were added to the  projected  Year  2024  background  volumes  and  are  illustrated  on Figure 5.  The  results  of  the  LOS  calculations  for  the  intersections  are  summarized  on Table  1.  The  intersection  level  of  service  worksheets and queue reports are attached in the Appendix. As assumed in the Year 2024 background  conditions, the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course Access  would be signalized and the intersection design and signal timing assumptions listed in Section 4.5 were  implemented.     52 52 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 15 Updated March 24, 2021  As shown on the Level of Service summary table, the project trips have little to no impact on the delays  and queuing at the study intersections during the PM peak hour when it is opened for business. The  southbound left‐turn at the intersection of Wonderview Avenue and SW Steamer Parkway was continue  to operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour but it is in compliance with the LOS standards. The northbound  approach of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) at Steamer Drive / Golf Course will continue to not comply  with the LOS standards. The 95th percentile queues for this approach were estimated to be one vehicle  or less. Refer to Section 4.5  and Table 2 for discussion on options evaluated to bring the northbound  approach in compliance with the LOS standards. The same conclusions were made for the Year 2024  Background + Project scenarios.  8.0 OFF‐PEAK ANALYSIS   A large single event at the auditorium could have an attendance of 600 persons.  If all attendees are  staying at the Stanley Hotel, there would be no external trips or additional parking demand beyond the  hotel use (those staying at the hotel are also using the auditorium).  For conservative purposes, it was  assumed in the Parking Operations Plan that approximately 200 attendees would not be staying at the  Stanley Hotel.  With an assumed vehicle occupancy of 2.5 persons, it is estimated that there will be  approximately 80 private vehicles (200 attendees/2.5 auto occupancy).    There is a possibility that medium‐sized events occur in the auditorium that would have a larger number  of external attendees.  In this situation, the attendance could be approximately 450 persons with an  assumed  80%  external  attendance.  This  equates  to  approximately 150  private  vehicles  (360  attendees/2.5 auto occupancy).    The performances at the proposed Film Center will start at 8:00 PM and typically end around 11:00 PM.  Traffic data from CDOT’s traffic count database indicated that traffic in the area at 7:00 PM (hour before  event) is an average of 52% of the evening peak hour volume. At 11:00 PM, the traffic is 17% of the  evening peak hour volume. Table 4 provides an estimate of trips at each intersection during the off‐peak  hour before performances begin. It is assumed that the maximum number of external attendees for a  medium‐sized event enter during the hour before the performance.       53 53 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 16 Updated March 24, 2021  Table 4. Off‐Peak Ingress Volumes  Intersection  PM Peak  Hour Volume  7:00 PM Volume  (52% of peak)  Performance  Trips (Ingress)  Total Off‐ Peak Volume  Percentage  of Peak  Steamer Pkwy at  SW Steamer Pkwy 347 180 98 278 80%  Wonderview Dr. at  Steamer Pkwy 1,130 590 98 688 61%  Steamer Pkwy at  Aspire 277 145 98 243 88%  Steamer Pkwy at  Main Entrance 312 160 150 310 99%  Steamer Pkwy at  Steamer Dr. 225 115 52 167 74%  US 34 at Steamer  Dr. 1,705 890 52 942 55%  As shown in Table 4, the off‐peak volumes with external visitors travel to the Film Center at each of the  study intersections will be less than the PM peak hour. The intersections on Steamer Parkway within the  Stanley  property  are  anticipated  to  operate  similarly  to  the  PM  peak  hour.  The  intersections  on  Wonderview Drive, Steamer Drive, and US 34 are anticipated to operate better than the peak hours  since the volumes are significantly lower in the off‐peak.   Table 5 provides an estimate of trips at each intersection during the off‐peak hour after medium‐sized  performances end and leave the Stanley property.   Table 5. Off‐Peak Egress Volumes  Intersection  PM Peak  Hour Volume  11:00 PM Volume  (17% of peak)  Performance  Trips (Egress)  Total Off‐ Peak Volume  Percentage  of Peak  Steamer Pkwy at  SW Steamer Pkwy 347 60 98 158 45%  Wonderview Dr. at  Steamer Pkwy 1,130 190 98 288 25%  Steamer Pkwy at  Aspire 277 50 98 148 53%  Steamer Pkwy at  Main Entrance 312 55 150 205 66%  Steamer Pkwy at  Steamer Dr. 225 40 52 92 41%  US 34 at Steamer  Dr. 1,705 290 52 342 20%  54 54 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 17 Updated March 24, 2021  As shown in Table 5, the off‐peak volumes (including external visitors leaving the Film Center) at each of  the study intersections will be significantly less than the PM peak hour. It is anticipated that all the study  intersections will operate better than the peak hours.   9.0 FUTURE MULTI‐MODAL TRIPS AND FACILITIES   The Stanley proposes to provide new walkways  connecting the hotel and the new Film Center  to  Steamer  Parkway,  as  illustrated  in  the  graphic  to  the  right.  The  plans  include  three  walkways leading from the Stanley campus to  the  new  sidewalk  along  the  northside  of  Steamer Parkway.   For  conservative  purposes,  a  portion  of  the  trips from the Film Center auditorium and the  museum  will  be  external  to  the  Stanley  Campus. It was estimated that the museum would generate up to 36 trips in the PM peak hour (18  enter/18 exit) and a total of 470 daily trips. The large auditorium was estimated to attract up to 200  attendees not staying at The Stanley Hotel, which equates to 160 external trips (80 enter/80 exit). The  smaller auditorium was estimated to generate up to 300 daily external trips. Events in both auditoriums  are  not  expected  to  coincide  with  typical  peak  hour  traffic  periods.  Since  the  proposed  Film  and  Performing  Arts  Center  is  within  ¼  mile  walking  distance  of  the  Lodge,  the  Aspire,  and  neighboring  homes  there  is  potential  that  several  external  visitors  will  walk  or  bike.  It  is  anticipated  that  the  non‐auto external trips associated with the Film and Performing Arts Center would be between 25% and  50%. This equates to between 232 and 465 daily trips completed by walking, biking, or transit.   The Film and Performing Arts Center has the potential to attract people that live in or visit Estes Park;  most of these patrons are anticipated to utilize a personal vehicle, a Transportation Network Company  (TNC) vehicle, or the Estes Park transit system.  An on‐site sidewalk system has been developed for the  Film Center that coordinates with existing and currently under construction sidewalk systems on the  Stanley Campus.  These sidewalk systems coordinate with on‐site connections leading to other Stanley  facilities including the Aspire, Concert Hall, Lodge and Main Hotel.  The sidewalk systems also coordinate  with  off‐site  sidewalk  connections  leading  to  the  downtown  core.    Per  city  standard,  sidewalks  associated with the Film Center shall be 8 feet in width.  This coordinates with existing sidewalk widths  and will ensure adequate capacity, as well as a safe walking/biking system.    55 55 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 18 Updated March 24, 2021  10.0 PARKING OPERATIONS  All lodging accommodations offered on the Stanley Campus host between 350 and 450 guests per night  in the peak season, including guests at The Stanley Hotel, the Lodge and the Aspire.  It is anticipated that  many of the visitors to the Carriage House and Film and Performing Arts Center will be guests already  parked  in  the  respective  guest  parking  lots.    External  attendees  for  either  venue  will  park  in  the  proposed parking lots near the Film and Performing Arts Center. Refer to the Parking Operations Plan, a  separate document, for the anticipated parking demand and proposed parking management for the  Carriage House and the Film and Performing Arts Center.  11.0 CONCLUSION  The project proposes to construct a new Film and Performing Arts Center with an auditorium, theater,  meeting rooms, minor retail, and supportive facilities for the art center. Access to the site is planned via  the  existing  main  entrance  on  Steamer  Parkway  and  along  the  existing  internal  loop  roadway.  The  internal  roadway  will  continue  to  circulate  through  The  Stanley  Hotel  campus.  The  project  plans  to  provide ADA pedestrian access between existing facilities to the proposed Film and Performing Arts  Center.  Vehicular traffic volumes associated with Film and Performing Arts Center project have been analyzed  for the existing and short‐term (Year 2024) scenarios. Using national trip rates, the project is anticipated  to generate up to 930 daily trips, with no trips in the AM peak hour since it will be closed, and 36 trips in  the PM peak hour. It was determined that the existing roadways and intersections can accommodate  the projected traffic volumes for buildout conditions of the proposed Film and Performing Arts Center  at The Stanley Hotel.     56 56 1 FT# 20028 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study Estes Park, CO 3/34/2021 Intersection and AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Cricital Lane Groups Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS STOP SIGN CONTROL Steamer Pkwy at SW Steamer Pkwy 6 A 6 A 6 A 7 A 6 A 7 A Eastbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A not applicable 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Westbound Left+Through 7 A 7 A 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A Northbound Left 10 A 10 B 10 A 11 B 10 A 11 B Northbound Right 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A Steamer Pkwy at Aspire Access 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A Eastbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A not applicable 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Westbound Left+Through 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A Northbound Left+Right 9 A 10 A 9 A 10 B 9 A 11 B Steamer Pkwy at The Stanley Hotel Main Entrance 4 A 5 A 4 A 6 A 4 A 6 A Eastbound Left+Through 7 A 7 A not applicable 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A Westbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Southbound Left+Right 9 A 9 A 9 A 10 A 9 A 10 A Steamer Pkwy at Steamer Dr.3 A 4 A 3 A 5 A 3 A 5 A Eastbound Left+Right 9 A 9 A not applicable 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A Northbound Left+Through 7 A 7 A 7 A 7 A 7 A 7 A Southbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Big Thompson Ave (US 34) at Steamer Dr. / Golf Course 3 A 18 C Eastbound Left 9 A 9 A Refer to Signal Control Refer to Signal Control Refer to Signal Control Eastbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A Westbound Left 8 A 9 A Westbound Through 0 A 0 A Westbound Right 0 A 0 A Northbound Left+Through+Right 16 C 17 C Southbound Left 40 E >120 F Southbound Right 0 A 0 A Wonderview Ave at SW Steamer Pkwy 2 A 3 A 2 A 5 A 2 A 6 A Eastbound Left 8 A 8 A not applicable 8 A 9 A 8 A 9 A Eastbound Through 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Westbound Through 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Westbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Southbound Left 14 B 26 D 16 C 38 E 16 C 42 E Southbound Right 10 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B SIGNAL CONTROL Elkhorn Ave at Wonderview Ave/ St. rain Ave 48 D Eastbound Left 30 C not applicable not applicable not applicable Eastbound Through 40 D Eastbound Right 40 D Westbound Left 69 E Westbound Through 40 D Westbound Right 37 D Northbound Left 65 E Northbound Left+Through 56 E Northbound Right 42 D Southbound Left 40 D Southbound Left+Through 49 D Southbound Right 33 C Big Thompson Ave (US 34) at Steamer Dr. / Golf Course 10 B 13 B 11 B 14 B 11 B 15 B Eastbound Left Refer to Signal Control 5 A 5 A 6 A 6 A 6 A 6 A Eastbound Through+Right 5 A 7 A 5 A 8 A 5 A 8 A Westbound Left 7 A 9 A 8 A 10 B 8 A 11 B Westbound Through 9 A 9 A 10 A 10 B 10 A 11 B Westbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Northbound Left+Through+Right 88 F 101 F 88 F 101 F 88 F 101 F Southbound Left+Through 52 D 60 E 53 D 59 E 53 D 60 E Southbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Note: Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle. Year 2024 Background 2024 Background + Project Trips Table 1 - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary ear 2019 Existing with ImprovementsYear 2019 Existing (weekend peak hour; for informational purposes) Page 1 of 1 20028_LOS_Film Ctr_v257 57 1 Existing Main Entrance to Remain Full Movement and Stop-Controlled Existing Stanley Hotel PROJECT SITE FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER Restaurant Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX VICINITY MAP AND EXISITNG ACCESS STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 12/3/2020 CRS 158 58 1 Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX YEAR 2019 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 12/3/2020 CRS 259 59 1 Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX YEAR 2024 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 3/24/2021 CRS 360 60 1 Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TRIP DISTRIBUTION & SITE-GENERATED TRIP VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 12/3/2020 CRS 461 61 1 Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX YEAR 2024 BACKGROUND + SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL FILM AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 3/24/2021 CRS 562 62 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC December 3, 2020      Appendix:    Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form  Level of Service Definitions  Existing Traffic Data  Signal Design and Timing  Intersection Capacity Worksheets      63 63 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC December 3, 2020         Transportation Impact Study   Base Assumptions Form    64 64 1 65 65 1 66 66 1 67 67 1 68 68 1 69 69 1 70 70 1 71 71 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC December 3, 2020        Level of Service   Definitions 72 72 1 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. 73 73 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC December 3, 2020        Existing Traffic Data   74 74 1 75 75 1 76 76 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC December 3, 2020        Signal Design and Timing  77 77 1      6  61 6 3  3  3 3    6   [   [    [   [    61 6 .#06<#551%+#6'5..% 9GUVPF%KTENG #TXCFC%1  Ä  Ä HCZ HTGFNCPV\"EQOECUVPGV %$ 6 ( 0 $ 3  3 5 2 9 , ' ( '  % <  3+ $ 6 , 1 *  6 ( 4 8 ( 1 & ( 75 $ ) ) , &  6 , * 1 $ /  / ( * ( 1 ' 6, * 1 $ /  + ( $ '  / ( '  : , 7 +  % $ & . 3 / $ 7 ( 38 / /  % 2 ;  6 , = ( 6, * 1 $ /  + ( $ '  / ( ' &2 1 7 5 2 / / ( 5 3( ' ( 6 7 5 , $ 1  3 8 6 +  % 8 7 7 2 1 9, ' ( 2  ' ( 7 ( & 7 2 5 75 $ ) ) , &  6 , * 1 $ /  3 2 / (   0 $ 6 7 $ 5 0 67 5 ( ( 7  / , * + 7 )<$ )<$ 3( ' ( 6 7 5 , $ 1  + ( $ ' 5 &$ / /  8 7 , / , 7 <  1 2 7 , ) , & $ 7 , 2 1  & ( 1 7 ( 5  2 ) &2 / 2 5 $ ' 2 &$ / /    % 8 6 , 1 ( 6 6  ' $ < 6  , 1  $ ' 9 $ 1 & (  % ( ) 2 5 ( <2 8  ' , *   * 5 $ ' (  2 5  ( ; & $ 9 $ 7 (  ) 2 5  7 + ( 0$ 5 . , 1 *  2 )  8 1 ' ( 5 * 5 2 8 1 '  0 ( 0 % ( 5 87 , / , 7 , ( 6          6, * 1 $ /  + ( $ ' 6        3  3        ;   6 5   /    ;     54 2 ? 6, * 1 6 6, * 1 67 5 ( ( 7  1 $ 0 (  6 , * 1 6 6W H D P H U  ' U %L J  7 K R P S V R Q  $ Y H (6 7 ( 6  3 $ 5 .  + $ 6  $  1 ( :  6 7 5 ( ( 7  1 $ 0 ( 67 $ 1 ' $ 5 '    & 2 1 7 $ & 7  7 2 : 1  ) 2 5 35 2 3 ( 5  / $ < 2 8 7  $ 1 '  $ 3 3 5 2 9 $ /  6W H D P H U  ' U 21 (  6 , * 1 21 (  6 , * 1 7: 2  6 , * 1 6        78 78 1 LANTZ ASSOCIATES, LLC 13335 W 72nd Cir Arvada, Co 80005 303-887-3714 303-423-4949 fax FredLantz@comcast.net August 13, 2020 David Hook Engineering Manager Town of Estes Park RE: Progression Analysis Big Thompson Ave Dear David, You requested a progression analysis along Big Thompson Ave as part of the Steamer Dr and Big Thompson Ave traffic signal project. Big Thompson Ave/Elkhorn Ave have traffic signals at US 34 & US 36 (Big Thompson Ave & St Vrain/Wonderview); Elkhorn & the Pedestrian Crossing west of US 34/36; Elkhorn & Riverside; and Elkhorn & Moraine. These traffic signals are in a progressive system managed by a CDOT master controller. The system is a time-based system allowing each intersection to maintain traffic signal timing in coordination with the others based upon accurate local clocks. The clocks at the intersections are reset by the master controller at CDOT to maintain the accuracy of the clocks. The new intersection of Steamer Dr and Big Thompson Ave is at the eastern end and needs to be added to the progressive system. The progressive timings at the intersections of 34/36, the midblock pedestrian crossing, Riverside, and Moraine should remain the same and the intersection of Steamer Dr and Big Thompson Ave will be added by progressing it with the 34/36 intersection. This will enable all of the intersections along Big Thompson Ave/Elkhorn Ave to operate as a progressive system. The system presently operates with 5 separate time of day programs. In the controllers these are timing plan 4, timing plan 5, timing plan 6, timing plan 7 and timing plan 20. Plans 4-7 run a 116 sec cycle length. Plan 20 allows the traffic signals to run free at nighttime, resting in green on Big Thompson/Elkhorn and changing to the side street and left turns based upon demand from the detectors. The plans operate at the following times: • Plan 4 – 7 am to 3 pm, Mon-Thur • Plan 5 – 3 pm to 8 pm, Mon-Thur • Plan 6 – 7 am to 4 pm, Fri-Sun • Plan 7 – 4 pm to 8 pm, Fri-Sun • Plan 20 (Free) – 8 pm to 7 am Sun-Sat In order to add Steamer Dr to the system, we need to calculate an offset from the adjacent intersection of US 34/36. The attached document shows the time-space diagram for each timing 79 79 1 Page 2 August 13, 2020 Progression Analysis Big Thompson Ave at Steamer Dr LANTZ ASSOCIATES plan for Steamer Dr as it relates to US 34/36. The existing times are shown at US 34/36 along with the existing offset for the timing plans. The Steamer Dr timing is estimated based upon projected traffic at the intersection when the traffic signal is put into operation. Pedestrian crossing times are not considered at Steamer Dr because a pedestrian wanting to cross Big Thompson Ave will have to push the pedestrian pushbutton and the green time on Steamer Dr will be extended to accommodate the walk/don’t walk time. The green time on Big Thompson Ave is long enough to accommodate the pedestrian walk/don’t walk time. The green time for the phases at Steamer Dr based upon the 116 sec cycle is as follows (green + yellow + red): • SB 26 seconds • NB 14 seconds • EBLT 14 seconds • EB 76 seconds • WB 62 seconds The progression analysis indicates that the Offset for Steamer Dr will be as follows for each timing plan. • Plan 4 – 84 seconds • Plan 5 – 32 seconds • Plan 6 – 9 seconds • Plan 7 – 52 seconds As with any traffic signal, the timing should be field checked once the traffic signal is operating and fine tuned as necessary. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, Fred Lantz, PE Attachment 80 80 1 St V r a i n / W o n d e r v i e w St e a m e r D r 11 6 s e c → Ea s t Bi g T h o m p s o n A v e - T i m i n g P l a n 4 19 s e c 31 s e c 19 s e c 31 s e c 19 s e c 35 m p h → 31 s e c 11 4 s e c 19 s e c 25 s → 31 s e c 76 s e c 35 m p h ← 84 s e c 76 s e c 56 s ← 14 s e c 62 s e c 14 s e c 62 s e c 81 81 1 Big Thompson Ave Time-Space 197.04 feet/inch 39.91 seconds/inch 116 seconds Type of Diagram: Scale: Cycle Length: Timing Plan: Timing Plan 4 St Vrain/Wonderview Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds) Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6) 114 seconds Lead Lead Split-Lag+Permitted Split-Lead+Permitted None None No No No No 31( 2) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 31( 6) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 34( 4) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 32( 8) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour 109 feet from the left margin Cycle length: Offset reference point: Offset: Phase: Exclusive Ped Phase: on Red: Through Split: Split: Pedestrian Split: Design Speed: ( 5)19 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 1)19 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 4)34 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 ( 8)32 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds Left-Turn Left-Turn Right-Turn East West North South Steamer Dr Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds) Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6) 84 seconds Lead None Split-Lag Split-Lead None None No No No No 76( 2) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 62( 6) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 14( 4) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 26( 8) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour 1555 feet from St Vrain/Wonderview Cycle length: Offset reference point: Offset: Phase: Exclusive Ped Phase: on Red: Through Split: Split: Pedestrian Split: Design Speed: ( 5)14 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 4)14 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 ( 8)26 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds Left-Turn Left-Turn Right-Turn East West North South Z:\Fredlantz On My Mac\Lantz\Steamer Dr And Us 34\Big Thompson Ave Timing.Dgm Thursday, August 13, 2020, 11:53:59 AM 1 of 182 82 1 St V r a i n / W o n d e r v i e w St e a m e r D r 11 6 s e c → Ea s t Bi g T h o m p s o n A v e - T i m i n g P l a n 5 19 s e c 30 s e c 19 s e c 30 s e c 17 s e c 32 s e c 35 m p h → 63 s e c 17 s e c 32 s e c 24 s → 35 m p h ← 32 s e c 76 s e c 56 s ← 76 s e c 14 s e c 62 s e c 14 s e c 83 83 1 Big Thompson Ave Time-Space 197.04 feet/inch 39.91 seconds/inch 116 seconds Type of Diagram: Scale: Cycle Length: Timing Plan: Timing Plan 5 St Vrain/Wonderview Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds) Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6) 63 seconds Lead Lead Split-Lag+Permitted Split-Lead+Permitted None None No No No No 30( 2) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 32( 6) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 31( 4) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 36( 8) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour 109 feet from the left margin Cycle length: Offset reference point: Offset: Phase: Exclusive Ped Phase: on Red: Through Split: Split: Pedestrian Split: Design Speed: ( 5)17 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 1)19 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 4)31 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 ( 8)36 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds Left-Turn Left-Turn Right-Turn East West North South Steamer Dr Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds) Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6) 32 seconds Lead None Split-Lag Split-Lead None None No No No No 76( 2) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 62( 6) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 14( 4) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 26( 8) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour 1555 feet from St Vrain/Wonderview Cycle length: Offset reference point: Offset: Phase: Exclusive Ped Phase: on Red: Through Split: Split: Pedestrian Split: Design Speed: ( 5)14 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 4)14 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 ( 8)26 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds Left-Turn Left-Turn Right-Turn East West North South Z:\Fredlantz On My Mac\Lantz\Steamer Dr And Us 34\Big Thompson Ave Timing.Dgm Thursday, August 13, 2020, 12:00:37 PM 1 of 184 84 1 St V r a i n / W o n d e r v i e w St e a m e r D r 11 6 s e c → Ea s t Bi g T h o m p s o n A v e - T i m i n g P l a n 6 30 s e c 24 s e c 30 s e c 38 s e c 35 m p h → 43 s e c 16 s e c 38 s e c 24 s → 9 s e c 76 s e c 35 m p h ←76 s e c 56 s ← 14 s e c 62 s e c 14 s e c 62 s e c 85 85 1 Big Thompson Ave Time-Space 197.04 feet/inch 39.91 seconds/inch 116 seconds Type of Diagram: Scale: Cycle Length: Timing Plan: Timing Plan 6 St Vrain/Wonderview Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds) Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6) 43 seconds Lead Lead Split-Lag+Permitted Split-Lead+Permitted None None No No No No 30( 2) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 38( 6) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 36( 4) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 26( 8) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour 109 feet from the left margin Cycle length: Offset reference point: Offset: Phase: Exclusive Ped Phase: on Red: Through Split: Split: Pedestrian Split: Design Speed: ( 5)16 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 1)24 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 4)36 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 ( 8)26 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds Left-Turn Left-Turn Right-Turn East West North South Steamer Dr Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds) Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6) 9 seconds Lead None Split-Lag Split-Lead None None No No No No 76( 2) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 62( 6) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 14( 4) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 26( 8) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour 1555 feet from St Vrain/Wonderview Cycle length: Offset reference point: Offset: Phase: Exclusive Ped Phase: on Red: Through Split: Split: Pedestrian Split: Design Speed: ( 5)14 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 4)14 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 ( 8)26 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds Left-Turn Left-Turn Right-Turn East West North South Z:\Fredlantz On My Mac\Lantz\Steamer Dr And Us 34\Big Thompson Ave Timing.Dgm Thursday, August 13, 2020, 12:09:43 PM 1 of 186 86 1 St V r a i n / W o n d e r v i e w St e a m e r D r 11 6 s e c → Ea s t Bi g T h o m p s o n A v e - T i m i n g P l a n 7 24 s e c 38 s e c 24 s e c 38 s e c 16 s e c 46 s e c 35 m p h → 91 s e c 16 s e c 46 s e c 32 s → 35 m p h ← 52 s e c 76 s e c 56 s ← 14 s e c 62 s e c 14 s e c 87 87 1 Big Thompson Ave Time-Space 197.04 feet/inch 39.91 seconds/inch 116 seconds Type of Diagram: Scale: Cycle Length: Timing Plan: Timing Plan 7 St Vrain/Wonderview Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds) Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6) 91 seconds Lead Lead Split-Lag+Permitted Split-Lead+Permitted None None No No No No 38( 2) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 46( 6) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 28( 4) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 26( 8) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour 109 feet from the left margin Cycle length: Offset reference point: Offset: Phase: Exclusive Ped Phase: on Red: Through Split: Split: Pedestrian Split: Design Speed: ( 5)16 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 1)24 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 4)28 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 ( 8)26 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds Left-Turn Left-Turn Right-Turn East West North South Steamer Dr Full: 1 x (= 116.0 seconds) Start of arterial phase yellow (?2 & ?6) 52 seconds Lead None Split-Lag Split-Lead None None No No No No 76( 2) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 62( 6) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 14( 4) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 26( 8) Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 35.0 35.0 28.0 28.0 miles/hour 1555 feet from St Vrain/Wonderview Cycle length: Offset reference point: Offset: Phase: Exclusive Ped Phase: on Red: Through Split: Split: Pedestrian Split: Design Speed: ( 5)14 Y:3.0 R:1.0 Min:0.0 ( 4)14 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 ( 8)26 Y:4.0 R:2.0 Min:0.0 seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds seconds Left-Turn Left-Turn Right-Turn East West North South Z:\Fredlantz On My Mac\Lantz\Steamer Dr And Us 34\Big Thompson Ave Timing.Dgm Thursday, August 13, 2020, 12:17:39 PM 1 of 188 88 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC December 3, 2020        Intersection Capacity Worksheets: Existing   89 89 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 15 50 17 31 24 Future Vol, veh/h 11 15 50 17 31 24 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 12 17 56 19 34 27 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 29 0 152 21 Stage 1 - - - - 21 - Stage 2 - - - - 131 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1584 - 840 1056 Stage 1 - - - - 1002 - Stage 2 - - - - 895 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1584 - 810 1056 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 810 - Stage 1 - - - - 1002 - Stage 2 - - - - 863 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 5.5 9.1 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)810 1056 - - 1584 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.025 - - 0.035 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 8.5 - - 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - 90 90 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 8 3 59 8 3 Future Vol, veh/h 27 8 3 59 8 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 30 9 3 66 9 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 39 0 107 35 Stage 1 - - - - 35 - Stage 2 - - - - 72 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1571 - 891 1038 Stage 1 - - - - 987 - Stage 2 - - - - 951 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1571 - 889 1038 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 889 - Stage 1 - - - - 987 - Stage 2 - - - - 949 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 8.9 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)925 - - 1571 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 - 91 91 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 10 34 8 3 28 Future Vol, veh/h 20 10 34 8 3 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 22 11 38 9 3 31 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 47 0 - 0 98 43 Stage 1 - - - - 43 - Stage 2 - - - - 55 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1560 - - - 901 1027 Stage 1 - - - - 979 - Stage 2 - - - - 968 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1560 - - - 888 1027 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 888 - Stage 1 - - - - 965 - Stage 2 - - - - 968 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.9 0 8.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1560 - - - 1012 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - - 0.034 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 - - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 92 92 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 20 27 25 35 8 Future Vol, veh/h 2 20 27 25 35 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 22 30 28 39 9 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 132 44 48 0 - 0 Stage 1 44 - - - - - Stage 2 88 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 862 1026 1559 - - - Stage 1 978 - - - - - Stage 2 935 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 845 1026 1559 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 845 - - - - - Stage 1 958 - - - - - Stage 2 935 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 3.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1559 - 1006 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - 0.024 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - - 93 93 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88 Future Vol, veh/h 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - Free Storage Length 150 - - 150 - 220 - - - 135 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 68 344 6 2 604 100 3 0 1 68 0 98 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 704 0 0 350 0 0 789 1191 347 1092 - - Stage 1 -- - - - - 483 483 - 608 - - Stage 2 -- - - - - 306 708 - 484 - - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -- - - - -6.13 5.53 - 6.53 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -- - - - -6.53 5.53 - 6.13 - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 892 - - 1207 - - 294 187 695 180 0 0 Stage 1 -- - - - - 564 552 - 450 0 0 Stage 2 -- - - - - 679 437 - 563 0 0 Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 892 - - 1207 - - 277 172 695 169 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -- - - - - 277 172 - 169 - - Stage 1 -- - - - - 521 510 - 416 - - Stage 2 -- - - - - 678 436 - 519 - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.5 0 16.2 39.9 HCM LOS C E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)326 892 - - 1207 - - 169 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 0.076 - - 0.002 - - 0.401 - HCM Control Delay (s) 16.2 9.4 - - 8 - - 39.9 0 HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - E A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.2 - - 0 - - 1.8 - 94 94 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 232 315 40 45 20 Future Vol, veh/h 15 232 315 40 45 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 17 258 350 44 50 22 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 394 0 - 0 642 350 Stage 1 - - - - 350 - Stage 2 - - - - 292 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1165 - - - 438 693 Stage 1 - - - - 713 - Stage 2 - - - - 758 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1165 - - - 431 693 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 431 - Stage 1 - - - - 702 - Stage 2 - - - - 758 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 13.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1165 - - - 431 693 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - - 0.116 0.032 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 - - - 14.4 10.4 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 0.1 95 95 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 48 84 15 24 99 Future Vol, veh/h 13 48 84 15 24 99 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 14 53 93 17 27 110 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 67 0 244 41 Stage 1 - - - - 41 - Stage 2 - - - - 203 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1535 - 744 1030 Stage 1 - - - - 981 - Stage 2 - - - - 831 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1535 - 699 1030 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 699 - Stage 1 - - - - 981 - Stage 2 - - - - 780 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.4 9.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)699 1030 - - 1535 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 0.107 - - 0.061 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 8.9 - - 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.4 - - 0.2 - 96 96 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 105 7 7 85 14 1 Future Vol, veh/h 105 7 7 85 14 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 117 8 8 94 16 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 125 0 231 121 Stage 1 - - - - 121 - Stage 2 - - - - 110 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1462 - 757 930 Stage 1 - - - - 904 - Stage 2 - - - - 915 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1462 - 752 930 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 752 - Stage 1 - - - - 904 - Stage 2 - - - - 910 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 9.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)762 - - 1462 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 - - 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - - 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - 97 97 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 68 38 34 17 14 58 Future Vol, veh/h 68 38 34 17 14 58 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 76 42 38 19 16 64 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 57 0 - 0 242 48 Stage 1 - - - - 48 - Stage 2 - - - - 194 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1547 - - - 746 1021 Stage 1 - - - - 974 - Stage 2 - - - - 839 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1547 - - - 709 1021 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 709 - Stage 1 - - - - 925 - Stage 2 - - - - 839 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.8 0 9.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1547 - - - 941 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 - - - 0.085 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.2 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.3 98 98 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 37 50 47 35 3 Future Vol, veh/h 9 37 50 47 35 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 10 41 56 52 39 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 205 41 42 0 - 0 Stage 1 41 - - - - - Stage 2 164 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 783 1030 1567 - - - Stage 1 981 - - - - - Stage 2 865 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 754 1030 1567 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 754 - - - - - Stage 1 945 - - - - - Stage 2 865 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 3.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1567 - 961 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.035 - 0.053 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 - - 99 99 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192 Future Vol, veh/h 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - Free Storage Length 150 - - 150 - 220 - - - 135 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 102 634 3 1 482 122 1 0 2 128 2 213 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 604 0 0 637 0 0 1084 1446 636 1325 1325 - Stage 1 -- - - - - 840 840 - 484 484 - Stage 2 -- - - - - 244 606 - 841 841 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -- - - - -6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -- - - - -6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 972 - - 945 - - 183 131 477 ~ 123 155 0 Stage 1 -- - - - - 359 380 - 534 551 0 Stage 2 -- - - - - 739 486 - 358 379 0 Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 972 - - 945 - - 166 117 477 ~ 113 139 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -- - - - - 166 117 - ~ 113 139 - Stage 1 -- - - - - 321 340 - 478 550 - Stage 2 -- - - - - 735 486 - 319 339 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 0 17.4 197 HCM LOS C F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)294 972 - - 945 - - 113 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.105 - - 0.001 - - 1.131 - HCM Control Delay (s) 17.4 9.1 - - 8.8 - - 197 0 HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.4 - - 0 - - 7.9 - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 100 100 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour 07/07/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 45 405 332 78 106 26 Future Vol, veh/h 45 405 332 78 106 26 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 50 450 369 87 118 29 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 456 0 - 0 919 369 Stage 1 - - - - 369 - Stage 2 - - - - 550 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1105 - - - 301 677 Stage 1 - - - - 699 - Stage 2 - - - - 578 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1105 - - - 287 677 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 287 - Stage 1 - - - - 668 - Stage 2 - - - - 578 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0 23 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1105 - - - 287 677 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 - - - 0.41 0.043 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - - - 26 10.6 HCM Lane LOS A - - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1.9 0.1 101 101 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC December 3, 2020        Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Existing  with Signal   102 102 1 Timings 2019 Existing - with Signal - AM Peak Hour 09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 61 310 2 544 90 0 0 88 61 310 2 544 90 0 0 88 pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm 5 2 6 8 4 2 6 6 4 5 2 6 6 6 8 4 4 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 14.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0 30.0 14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0 26.0 12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4% 22.4% 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead Lag Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min Min 91.7 90.7 80.3 80.3 80.3 5.5 11.0 11.0 0.79 0.78 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.24 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.02 0.41 0.36 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 116 Actuated Cycle Length: 116 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.41 Intersection Signal Delay: 8.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 103 103 1 Queues 2019 Existing - with Signal - AM Peak Hour 09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 350 2 604 100 4 68 98 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.24 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.02 0.41 0.36 Control Delay 1.8 2.3 9.0 8.1 1.0 0.2 56.7 7.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 1.8 2.3 9.0 8.1 1.0 0.2 56.7 7.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 16 0 77 0 0 49 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m9 38 4 153 13 0 94 26 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100 Base Capacity (vph) 643 1452 710 2449 1136 242 305 382 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.24 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.02 0.22 0.26 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 104 104 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 Existing - with Signal - AM Peak Hour 09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88 Future Volume (veh/h) 61 310 5 2 544 90 3 0 1 61 0 88 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 344 6 2 604 0 3 0 1 68 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 642 1381 24 731 2307 7 0 2 154 0 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1833 32 1031 3554 1585 1296 0 432 1781 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 68 0 350 2 604 0 4 0 0 68 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1865 1031 1777 1585 1728 0 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 6.6 0.1 8.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.0 6.6 0.1 8.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 642 0 1405 731 2307 9 0 0 154 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.11 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.26 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 671 0 1405 731 2307 119 0 0 307 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.0 0.0 4.3 7.2 8.6 0.0 57.5 0.0 0.0 50.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 30.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.1 0.0 4.8 7.2 8.9 0.0 88.3 0.0 0.0 52.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A F A A D A Approach Vol, veh/h 418 606 A 4 68 A Approach Delay, s/veh 4.8 8.9 88.3 52.4 Approach LOS A A F D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 93.4 16.0 12.1 81.3 6.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 9.0 56.0 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 6.2 3.3 10.3 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 0.2 0.1 4.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 105 105 1 Timings 2019 Existing - With Signal - PM Peak Hour 09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)92 571 1 434 110 0 2 192 Future Volume (vph)92 571 1 434 110 0 2 192 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Free Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Free Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 6 8 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)13.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0 Total Split (s)14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0 Total Split (%)12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4% Yellow Time (s)3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s)5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min Act Effct Green (s)88.6 87.6 74.2 74.2 74.2 5.5 14.1 116.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.76 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.05 0.12 1.00 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.45 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.01 0.60 0.13 Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 116 Actuated Cycle Length: 116 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.60 Intersection Signal Delay: 10.9 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 106 106 1 Queues 2019 Existing - With Signal - PM Peak Hour 09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 637 1 482 122 3 130 213 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.45 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.01 0.60 0.13 Control Delay 5.1 7.7 12.0 10.2 2.2 0.0 59.7 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 5.1 7.7 12.0 10.2 2.2 0.0 59.7 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 133 0 66 0 0 94 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 340 3 140 26 0 151 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100 Base Capacity (vph) 693 1406 504 2265 1060 237 306 1583 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.45 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.01 0.42 0.13 Intersection Summary 107 107 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 Existing - With Signal - PM Peak Hour 09/01/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192 Future Volume (veh/h) 92 571 3 1 434 110 1 0 2 115 2 192 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 634 3 1 482 0 1 0 2 128 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 712 1392 7 551 2271 2 0 4 162 3 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.75 0.75 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1860 9 791 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1755 27 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 0 637 1 482 0 3 0 0 130 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1869 791 1777 1585 1645 0 0 1783 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 15.1 0.1 6.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 15.1 2.4 6.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.98 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 712 0 1399 551 2271 7 0 0 164 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.14 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.21 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 732 0 1399 551 2271 113 0 0 307 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.1 0.0 5.6 8.4 8.7 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 51.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 5.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.2 0.0 6.6 8.5 9.0 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 59.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A F A A E A Approach Vol, veh/h 739 483 A 3 130 A Approach Delay, s/veh 6.4 9.0 100.6 59.8 Approach LOS A A F E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 92.8 16.7 12.7 80.1 6.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 9.0 56.0 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.1 10.3 4.0 8.6 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.9 0.4 0.1 3.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 108 108 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC December 3, 2020        Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Year 2024 Background  109 109 1 HCM 6th TWSC 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 17 55 19 34 27 Future Vol, veh/h 12 17 55 19 34 27 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 19 61 21 38 30 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 32 0 166 23 Stage 1 - - - - 23 - Stage 2 - - - - 143 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1580 - 824 1054 Stage 1 - - - - 1000 - Stage 2 - - - - 884 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1580 - 792 1054 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 792 - Stage 1 - - - - 1000 - Stage 2 - - - - 850 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 5.5 9.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)792 1054 - - 1580 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 0.028 - - 0.039 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 8.5 - - 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - 110 110 1 HCM 6th TWSC 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 9 3 65 9 3 Future Vol, veh/h 30 9 3 65 9 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 33 10 3 72 10 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 43 0 116 38 Stage 1 - - - - 38 - Stage 2 - - - - 78 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 880 1034 Stage 1 - - - - 984 - Stage 2 - - - - 945 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 878 1034 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 878 - Stage 1 - - - - 984 - Stage 2 - - - - 943 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 9 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)912 - - 1566 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 - 111 111 1 HCM 6th TWSC 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 11 37 9 3 31 Future Vol, veh/h 22 11 37 9 3 31 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 24 12 41 10 3 34 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 51 0 - 0 106 46 Stage 1 - - - - 46 - Stage 2 - - - - 60 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1555 - - - 892 1023 Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1555 - - - 878 1023 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 878 - Stage 1 - - - - 960 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.9 0 8.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1555 - - - 1008 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - - 0.037 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 112 112 1 HCM 6th TWSC 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 22 30 28 39 9 Future Vol, veh/h 2 22 30 28 39 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 24 33 31 43 10 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 145 48 53 0 - 0 Stage 1 48 - - - - - Stage 2 97 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 847 1021 1553 - - - Stage 1 974 - - - - - Stage 2 927 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 828 1021 1553 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 828 - - - - - Stage 1 953 - - - - - Stage 2 927 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 3.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1553 - 1002 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - 0.027 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - - 113 113 1 Timings 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 67 342 2 601 99 0 0 97 67 342 2 601 99 0 0 97 pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Free 5 2 6 8 4 2 6 6 Free 5 2 6 6 6 8 4 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 14.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0 14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0 12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4% 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead Lag Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min 90.5 90.5 79.2 79.2 79.2 5.5 11.2 116.0 0.78 0.78 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.05 0.10 1.00 0.13 0.27 0.00 0.28 0.10 0.02 0.43 0.07 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 116 Actuated Cycle Length: 116 Offset: 84 (72%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.43 Intersection Signal Delay: 8.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 114 114 1 Queues 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 387 2 668 110 4 74 108 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.27 0.00 0.28 0.10 0.02 0.43 0.07 Control Delay 3.0 3.1 9.5 8.9 1.1 0.2 57.1 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 3.0 3.1 9.5 8.9 1.1 0.2 57.1 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 28 0 91 0 0 54 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m25 m120 5 178 15 0 100 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100 Base Capacity (vph) 582 1448 677 2414 1125 250 305 1583 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.27 0.00 0.28 0.10 0.02 0.24 0.07 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 115 115 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 67 342 6 2 601 99 3 0 1 67 0 97 Future Volume (veh/h) 67 342 6 2 601 99 3 0 1 67 0 97 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 380 7 2 668 0 3 0 1 74 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 601 1379 25 699 2271 7 0 2 154 0 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.75 0.75 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1831 34 997 3554 1585 1296 0 432 1781 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 0 387 2 668 0 4 0 0 74 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1864 997 1777 1585 1728 0 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 0.0 7.5 0.1 9.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 7.5 0.1 9.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 601 0 1405 699 2271 9 0 0 154 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.12 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.29 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 612 0 1405 699 2271 119 0 0 307 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.4 0.0 4.5 7.6 9.3 0.0 57.5 0.0 0.0 50.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 30.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.5 0.0 4.9 7.6 9.6 0.0 88.3 0.0 0.0 52.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A F A A D A Approach Vol, veh/h 461 670 A 4 74 A Approach Delay, s/veh 5.0 9.6 88.3 52.9 Approach LOS A A F D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 93.4 16.0 13.3 80.1 6.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 8.0 56.0 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 6.6 3.4 11.7 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.5 0.2 0.0 5.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 116 116 1 HCM 6th TWSC 09/01/2020 2024 Background - AM Peak Hour 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 256 348 44 50 22 Future Vol, veh/h 17 256 348 44 50 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 19 284 387 49 56 24 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 436 0 - 0 709 387 Stage 1 - - - - 387 - Stage 2 - - - - 322 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1124 - - - 401 661 Stage 1 - - - - 686 - Stage 2 - - - - 735 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1124 - - - 394 661 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 394 - Stage 1 - - - - 674 - Stage 2 - - - - 735 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 14.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1124 - - - 394 661 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - - 0.141 0.037 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - - - 15.6 10.7 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.5 0.1 117 117 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.6 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 - 118 118 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 - 119 119 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 96 42 38 35 24 77 Future Vol, veh/h 96 42 38 35 24 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 39 27 86 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 81 0 - 0 323 62 Stage 1 - - - - 62 - 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 1517 - - - 671 1003 Stage 1 - - - - 961 - Stage 2 - - - - 783 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1517 - - - 623 1003 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 623 - Stage 1 - - - - 892 - 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)1517 - - - 876 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.07 - - - 0.128 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 9.7 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.4 120 120 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 50 71 52 39 3 Future Vol, veh/h 10 50 71 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 56 79 58 43 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 261 45 46 0 - 0 Stage 1 45 - - - - - Stage 2 216 - - - - - 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 728 1025 1562 - - - Stage 1 977 - - - - - Stage 2 820 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 690 1025 1562 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 690 - - - - - Stage 1 926 - - - - - Stage 2 820 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 4.3 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1562 - 948 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 - 0.07 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.2 - - 121 121 1 Timings 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 103 630 1 479 136 0 2 213 103 630 1 479 136 0 2 213 pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Free 5 2 6 8 4 2 6 6 Free 5 2 6 6 6 8 4 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 14.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0 14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0 12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4% 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead Lag Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min 86.4 86.4 71.9 71.9 71.9 5.5 15.3 116.0 0.74 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.05 0.13 1.00 0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.65 0.15 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 116 Actuated Cycle Length: 116 Offset: 32 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 122 122 1 Queues 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 703 1 532 151 3 152 237 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.65 0.15 Control Delay 6.0 9.0 13.0 11.6 2.7 0.0 60.5 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.0 9.0 13.0 11.6 2.7 0.0 60.5 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 167 0 80 0 0 109 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 416 4 165 35 0 171 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100 Base Capacity (vph) 628 1386 450 2198 1040 246 308 1583 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.49 0.15 Intersection Summary 123 123 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 103 630 3 1 479 136 1 0 2 135 2 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 103 630 3 1 479 136 1 0 2 135 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 2 150 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 661 1370 6 491 2193 2 0 4 184 2 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.74 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1861 8 744 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1759 23 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 114 0 703 1 532 0 3 0 0 152 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1869 744 1777 1585 1645 0 0 1782 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 18.5 0.1 7.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 18.5 4.7 7.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.7 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 661 0 1376 491 2193 7 0 0 187 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.17 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 664 0 1376 491 2193 113 0 0 307 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.0 0.0 6.5 10.4 10.0 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 6.6 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.1 0.0 7.8 10.4 10.3 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 59.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A B B F A A E A Approach Vol, veh/h 817 533 A 3 152 A Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 10.3 100.6 59.1 Approach LOS A B F E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 91.4 18.1 13.8 77.6 6.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 8.0 56.0 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.5 11.7 4.4 9.8 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.7 0.5 0.1 3.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 124 124 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 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 0.2 125 125 1 The Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center – Estes Park, CO Traffic Impact Study (FT #20028)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC December 3, 2020        Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Year 2024 Background+  Project       126 126 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 17 55 19 34 27 Future Vol, veh/h 12 17 55 19 34 27 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 19 61 21 38 30 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 32 0 166 23 Stage 1 - - - - 23 - Stage 2 - - - - 143 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1580 - 824 1054 Stage 1 - - - - 1000 - Stage 2 - - - - 884 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1580 - 792 1054 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 792 - Stage 1 - - - - 1000 - Stage 2 - - - - 850 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 5.5 9.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)792 1054 - - 1580 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 0.028 - - 0.039 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 8.5 - - 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - 127 127 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 137 8 8 107 16 1 Future Vol, veh/h 137 8 8 107 16 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 152 9 9 119 18 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 161 0 294 157 Stage 1 - - - - 157 - Stage 2 - - - - 137 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1418 - 697 889 Stage 1 - - - - 871 - Stage 2 - - - - 890 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1418 - 692 889 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 692 - Stage 1 - - - - 871 - Stage 2 - - - - 884 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 10.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)701 - - 1418 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - 128 128 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 96 42 38 33 23 77 Future Vol, veh/h 96 42 38 33 23 77 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 107 47 42 37 26 86 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 79 0 - 0 322 61 Stage 1 - - - - 61 - Stage 2 - - - - 261 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1519 - - - 672 1004 Stage 1 - - - - 962 - Stage 2 - - - - 783 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1519 - - - 624 1004 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 624 - Stage 1 - - - - 893 - Stage 2 - - - - 783 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.3 0 9.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1519 - - - 881 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.07 - - - 0.126 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - - 9.7 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.4 129 129 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 49 69 52 39 3 Future Vol, veh/h 10 49 69 52 39 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 54 77 58 43 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 257 45 46 0 - 0 Stage 1 45 - - - - - Stage 2 212 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 732 1025 1562 - - - Stage 1 977 - - - - - Stage 2 823 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 695 1025 1562 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 695 - - - - - Stage 1 927 - - - - - Stage 2 823 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 4.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1562 - 949 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 - 0.069 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.2 - - 130 130 1 Timings 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 103 630 1 479 134 0 2 213 103 630 1 479 134 0 2 213 pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Free 5 2 6 8 4 2 6 6 Free 5 2 6 6 6 8 4 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 14.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0 14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0 12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4% 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead Lag Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min 86.5 86.5 71.9 71.9 71.9 5.5 15.2 116.0 0.75 0.75 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.05 0.13 1.00 0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.14 0.01 0.65 0.15 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 116 Actuated Cycle Length: 116 Offset: 32 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 131 131 1 Queues 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 703 1 532 149 3 151 237 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.14 0.01 0.65 0.15 Control Delay 6.0 9.0 13.0 11.6 2.7 0.0 60.5 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.0 9.0 13.0 11.6 2.7 0.0 60.5 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 166 0 80 0 0 109 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 416 4 165 35 0 170 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100 Base Capacity (vph) 628 1387 451 2200 1040 246 308 1583 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.14 0.01 0.49 0.15 Intersection Summary 132 132 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 103 630 3 1 479 134 1 0 2 134 2 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 103 630 3 1 479 134 1 0 2 134 2 213 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 114 700 3 1 532 0 1 0 2 149 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 662 1371 6 492 2195 2 0 4 183 2 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.74 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1861 8 744 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1759 24 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 114 0 703 1 532 0 3 0 0 151 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1869 744 1777 1585 1645 0 0 1782 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 18.4 0.1 7.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 18.4 4.7 7.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.99 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 662 0 1377 492 2195 7 0 0 186 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.17 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 665 0 1377 492 2195 113 0 0 307 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.0 0.0 6.4 10.3 10.0 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 50.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 6.6 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.1 0.0 7.8 10.4 10.2 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 59.2 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A B B F A A E A Approach Vol, veh/h 817 533 A 3 151 A Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 10.2 100.6 59.2 Approach LOS A B F E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 91.5 18.1 13.8 77.7 6.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 8.0 56.0 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.4 11.6 4.4 9.8 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.7 0.5 0.1 3.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 133 133 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 12/03/2020 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 447 367 100 126 33 Future Vol, veh/h 57 447 367 100 126 33 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 145 - - 310 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 63 497 408 111 140 37 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 519 0 - 0 1031 408 Stage 1 - - - - 408 - Stage 2 - - - - 623 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1047 - - - 258 643 Stage 1 - - - - 671 - Stage 2 - - - - 535 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1047 - - - 243 643 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 243 - Stage 1 - - - - 631 - Stage 2 - - - - 535 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1 0 32.5 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1047 - - - 243 643 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.06 - - - 0.576 0.057 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - - - 38.2 10.9 HCM Lane LOS A - - - E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 3.3 0.2 134 134 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 53 117 17 26 142 Future Vol, veh/h 14 53 117 17 26 142 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 59 130 19 29 158 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 75 0 325 46 Stage 1 - - - - 46 - Stage 2 - - - - 279 - 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 - 669 1023 Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 768 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 611 1023 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 611 - Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 702 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.6 9.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)611 1023 - - 1524 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 0.154 - - 0.085 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.2 9.2 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.5 - - 0.3 - 135 135 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 148 8 8 118 16 1 Future Vol, veh/h 148 8 8 118 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 164 9 9 131 18 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 173 0 318 169 Stage 1 - - - - 169 - Stage 2 - - - - 149 - 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 - - 1404 - 675 875 Stage 1 - - - - 861 - Stage 2 - - - - 879 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1404 - 670 875 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 670 - Stage 1 - - - - 861 - Stage 2 - - - - 873 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 10.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)679 - - 1404 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.5 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - 136 136 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 107 42 38 42 31 88 Future Vol, veh/h 107 42 38 42 31 88 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 119 47 42 47 34 98 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 89 0 - 0 351 66 Stage 1 - - - - 66 - Stage 2 - - - - 285 - 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 1506 - - - 646 998 Stage 1 - - - - 957 - Stage 2 - - - - 763 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1506 - - - 594 998 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 594 - Stage 1 - - - - 879 - Stage 2 - - - - 763 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.5 0 10 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1506 - - - 848 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.079 - - - 0.156 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 10 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - - 0.6 137 137 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 57 78 52 39 3 Future Vol, veh/h 10 57 78 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 63 87 58 43 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 277 45 46 0 - 0 Stage 1 45 - - - - - Stage 2 232 - - - - - 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 713 1025 1562 - - - Stage 1 977 - - - - - Stage 2 807 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 672 1025 1562 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 672 - - - - - Stage 1 920 - - - - - Stage 2 807 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 4.5 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1562 - 950 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 - 0.078 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.3 - - 138 138 1 Timings 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 104 630 1 479 142 0 2 213 104 630 1 479 142 0 2 213 pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Free 5 2 6 8 4 2 6 6 Free 5 2 6 6 6 8 4 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 14.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0 14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0 12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4% 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead Lag Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min 86.0 86.0 71.4 71.4 71.4 5.5 15.7 116.0 0.74 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.05 0.14 1.00 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.67 0.15 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 116 Actuated Cycle Length: 116 Offset: 32 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.67 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) 139 139 1 Queues 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 116 703 1 532 158 3 160 237 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.67 0.15 Control Delay 6.2 9.3 13.0 11.9 2.7 0.0 60.9 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.2 9.3 13.0 11.9 2.7 0.0 60.9 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 171 0 81 0 0 115 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 423 4 167 36 0 177 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100 Base Capacity (vph) 625 1380 447 2189 1039 246 310 1583 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.52 0.15 Intersection Summary 140 140 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 104 630 3 1 479 142 1 0 2 142 2 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 104 630 3 1 479 142 1 0 2 142 2 213 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 116 700 3 1 532 0 1 0 2 158 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 657 1362 6 486 2177 2 0 4 192 2 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.73 0.73 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1861 8 744 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1760 22 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 0 703 1 532 0 3 0 0 160 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1869 744 1777 1585 1645 0 0 1782 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 18.8 0.1 7.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 18.8 5.0 7.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 10.2 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 657 0 1367 486 2177 7 0 0 195 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.18 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 660 0 1367 486 2177 113 0 0 307 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.2 0.0 6.7 10.7 10.2 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 50.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 6.8 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.3 0.0 8.1 10.8 10.5 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 60.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A B B F A A E A Approach Vol, veh/h 819 533 A 3 160 A Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 10.5 100.6 60.1 Approach LOS A B F E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 90.9 18.7 13.8 77.1 6.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 8.0 56.0 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.8 12.2 4.4 9.9 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.7 0.5 0.1 3.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.5 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. 141 141 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 03/24/2021 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Stanley Hotel Film and Performing Arts Center Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Synchro 10 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.7 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 447 367 107 133 37 Future Vol, veh/h 61 447 367 107 133 37 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 68 497 408 119 148 41 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 527 0 - 0 1041 408 Stage 1 - - - - 408 - Stage 2 - - - - 633 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1040 - - - 255 643 Stage 1 - - - - 671 - Stage 2 - - - - 529 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1040 - - - 238 643 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 238 - Stage 1 - - - - 627 - Stage 2 - - - - 529 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1 0 35.3 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1040 - - - 238 643 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.065 - - - 0.621 0.064 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - - - 42.1 11 HCM Lane LOS A - - - E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 3.7 0.2 142 142 1 143 143 1 144 144 1 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. 145 145 1 • 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. 146 146 1 19RENDERING - SOUTH APPROACH 01 147 147 1 20RENDERING - SOUTH APPROACH 02 148 148 1 21RENDERING - VIEW LOOKING EAST 149 149 1 22RENDERING - VIEW LOOKING NORTH 150 150 1 23RENDERING - VIEW LOOKING WEST 01 151 151 1 24RENDERING - VIEW LOOKING WEST 02 152 152 1 25 UPDATED VIEW LOOKING WEST This rendering has been updated to illustrate the current separation of the Carriage House from the Film Center 153 153 1 26QUADRANT RENDERING - SOUTH 154 154 1 27QUADRANT RENDERING - EAST 155 155 1 28QUADRANT RENDERING - WEST 156 156 1 29QUADRANT RENDERING - NORTH 157 157 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: File: Stanley Historic District – Film Center - 2021 TRC From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: March 22, 2021 RE: Examination of Uses proposed for the Stanley Film Center project This memorandum summarizes the proposed uses within, and consequent to development of, the Stanley Film Center. The analysis and summary rely on the following documents, all of them submitted by the Stanley team to the Town on December 4, 2020: • Statement of Development Intent – Re: Stanley Hotel – Film Center Land Use Summary (dated Aug. 1, 2019) • Stanley Film Center Design_TRC 12-1-2020 – s TRC Project Review Request and Project Narrative (dated Dec. 1, 2020) The submitted document were reviewed against (land) uses as outlined in the following regulatory plans and codes: • The adopted Stanley Historic District Master Plan (January 11,1994) • Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 17.44 - Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development • Estes Park Development Code, Chapter 13 – Definitions • A Planner’s Dictionary, Planning Advisory Service Report 521/522 (American Planning Association, c, 2004) [consulted for general background] The following uses are proposed for the Film Center in the Statement of Development Intent and/or the Project Narrative. Following each use is my discussion of each use, and whether and how it fits within the regulatory context per the preceding sources. • Conference Center – This use is specifically called out as allowable under the Stanley Historic District Master Plan (SHDMP) for Lot 1 (p. 29). The SHDMP (p. 29) provides that up to 25,000 sq.ft. of space on Lot 1 may be allocated to the Conference Center. The Project Narrative (p. 7) indicates that 22,510 sq.ft. are to be devoted to the Conference Center in the Film Center project. Although other Stanley Lot 1 facilities may generally serve as conference or meeting space from time to time, this proposal would provide the only designated Conference Center by title. Thus, I conclude that this use is allowable under the regulatory documents at the size and scale identified. • Cultural Arts Center – This use might be thought of as the “core use” in the Film Center, and for years has been considered as the primary component of development in the northeast part of Lot 1. This is also an allowable use in the SHDMP on Lot 1 (p. 29). The square footage cap is set at 40,000 (p. 29); the Project Narrative (p. 7) indicates the Cultural Center is to be 38,260 sq.ft. There is no other space on Lot 1 identified on the SHDMP or other Stanley regulatory documents as “cultural center” space. Thus, I 158 158 1 conclude that this use is allowable under the regulatory documents at the size and scale identified. • Stanley Campus Support Functions – This category is more difficult to analyze, both because the term itself is broad and generic and because the Statement of Development Intent, in identifying this category (p. 2), indicates that “[t]hese functions are being consolidated to this location from numerous locations on the campus…” It is not clear that all of the Film Center’s support-function space is comprised of relocated current Stanley functions – it seems logical that at least some of the support space will consist of functions supporting the Film Center itself, which of course would not yet exist elsewhere. However, staff would agree with the Statement of Development Intent’s statement that “these types of uses are a ‘Use by Right’ and do not fall under the Land Use Summary limitations.” The SHDMP does not appear to have many specifics about support uses, except to note that they exist and are ancillary to the primary uses on the campus. The EPDC Sec. 13.3.5 (Definitions) states that: Accessory Use shall mean a use of land or a building that is customarily and clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and that is ordinarily located on the same site or lot as such principal use. From the more specific terms and description for support uses in the Building Area Take-Off table in the Narrative (p. 9), it seems apparent that the support uses meet this definition for the Film Center. Thus, I conclude that these support uses are allowable under the regulatory documents at the size and scale identified. More specific use information than the three broad categories above can be found in the aforementioned Building Area Take-Off table, which has utility for both Building Code analysis and planning use classification. In addition to the Narrative, the Take-Off table is included in the attached Stanley Film Center Plan and Use Graphics document. A revised and updated version of the attachment (not expected to change the Take-Off table) is expected prior to or in conjunction with the finished TRC submittal, presumably in the next few weeks or so. The Take-Off table lists six broad Space Categories and 38 specific Space sub-categories within the six main categories. Staff has considered each sub-category and the associated square footage within the overall scope and context above. It would be possible to discuss each sub-category in this memo – but not especially useful, as nearly all sub-categories are appropriate and logical within the hierarchy as organized, and pose no specific questions or ambiguities in use categorization for the Stanley Master Plan and other regulations. • One line-item among the 38 sub-categories is noted as possibly ambiguous: item 3.03, “Discovery Center for Kids – Chocolate Factory”. The Comments section for this item reads: “factory on display for tours – Willy Wonka type experience.” This tantalizing but not very specific description could mean a lot of things - some of them a bit sketchy in the land-use classification arena. (A place where the garbage chute leads to a fiery furnace, as Veruca and her father experience to their dismay during the movie, does not seem to match any of our zoning definitions. The Wonkavator poses a similar regulatory enigma.) This ambiguity notwithstanding, this particular Chocolate Factory generally seems to have characteristics corresponding to restaurant, experiential museum, entertainment, 159 159 1 and retail uses – all of which are elements of longstanding history on the Stanley campus. The relatively minuscule footprint of the Factory (2,500 sq.ft.) adds credibility to the minor impact of this use, whatever its classification(s). The Chocolate Factory is noted here as an element that staff will touch on with the TRC, to ensure that no Film Center uses present surprises or difficult-to-fathom land use puzzles for the community. At this time, staff is satisfied that the Chocolate Factory poses no challenge to TRC approval, although we are looking forward to those building plans when they arrive. Summary: This examination of Stanley Film Center’s land-use categorizations leads me to conclude that there’s little to no reason to view any noted elements in the proposal as questionable under applicable zoning regulations. Attachment: Stanley Film Center Plan and Use Graphics.pdf 160 160 1 LANDSCAPE NOTES L-100 1. 1. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED AS NATURAL-APPEARING LAND FORMS, WITH CURVES THAT BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT UNDISTURBED SLOPES. ABRUPT ANGULAR TRANSITIONS AND LINEAR SLOPES SHALL BE AVOIDED. 2. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY GRADING SHALL BE REVEGETATED WITHIN ONE (1) GROWING SEASON AFTER CONSTRUCTION, USING A SUBSTANTIAL MIXED STAND OF NATIVE OR ADAPTED GRASSES AND GROUND COVERS. THE DENSITY OF THE REESTABLISHED GRASS VEGETATION AFTER ONE (1) GROWING SEASON SHALL BE ADEQUATE TO PREVENT SOIL EROSION AND INVASION OF WEEDS. 3. ALL PORTIONS OF THE SITE WHERE EXISTING VEGETATIVE COVER IS DAMAGED OR REMOVED, THAT ARE NOT OTHERWISE COVERED WITH NEW IMPROVEMENTS, SHALL BE SUCCESSFULLY REVEGETATED WITH A SUBSTANTIAL MIXED STAND OF NATIVE OR ADAPTED GRASSES AND GROUND COVERS. 4. ON MAN-MADE SLOPES OF 25% OR GREATER, PLANT MATERIALS WITH DEEP ROOTING CHARACTERISTICS SHALL BE SELECTED THAT WILL MINIMIZE EROSION AND REDUCE SURFACE RUNOFF. ALL MAN-MADE SLOPES GREATER THAN 50% TO BE MULCHED AND NETTED TO ENSURE ADEQUATE STABILIZATION AND REVEGETATION. 5. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STOCKPILED AND CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION OR LANDSCAPING, SUCH AS CUT-AND-FILL SLOPES. 6. NO TREES OR VEGETATION SHALL BE REMOVED OUTSIDE THE APPROVED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. 7. CONIFER TREES SHALL BE SIZED AS 50% EIGHT FEET TALL AND 50% AT SIX FEET TALL AT PLANTING. DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE SIZED AS 50% AT FOUR-INCH CALIPER AND 50% AT TWO-INCH CALIPER PLANTING. SHRUBS SHALL BE 5 GALLON CONTAINER OR LARGER AT PLANTING. 8. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN SPECIFICATIONS FOR NUMBER 1 GRADE, AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE QUALITY STANDARDS OF THE COLORADO NURSERY ACT, TITLE 35, ARTICLE 26, C.R.S., AS AMENDED. 9. ALL LANDSCAPES SHALL INCLUDE A PROPERLY FUNCTIONING AUTOMATED SPRINKLER SYSTEM WITH INDIVIDUAL DRIP LINES FOR NON-TURF AREAS.” 10. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY, GROWING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULAR IRRIGATING, PRUNING, WEEDING, MOWING, FERTILIZING, REPLACEMENT OF PLANTS IN POOR CONDITION AND OTHER MAINTENANCE OF ALL PLANTINGS AS NEEDED. 11. ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED OR GUYED AND FENCED TO PROTECT FROM WILDLIFE DAMAGE. NO CHAIN-LINK FENCING SHALL BE ALLOWED TO PROTECT LANDSCAPING FROM WILDLIFE DAMAGE. 12. DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE BY WILDLIFE. ESTES PARK NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW THE LANDSCAPE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. ANY SUBSTITUTION OR ALTERATION SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. OVERALL PLANT QUANTITY AND QUALITY SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL PLANT QUANTITIES. GRAPHIC QUANTITIES TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER WRITTEN QUANTITIES. 3. THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INSPECT AND TAG ALL PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO SHIPPING TO THE SITE. IN ALL CASES, THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE MAY REJECT PLANT MATERIAL AT THE SITE IF MATERIAL IS DAMAGED, DISEASED, OR DECLINING IN HEALTH AT THE TIME OF ONSITE INSPECTIONS OR IF THE PLANT MATERIAL DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SPECIFIED STANDARD IDENTIFIED ON THE PLANS AND IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR INSPECTION AND APPROVAL OF ALL MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 4. THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE MAY ELECT TO UPSIZE PLANT MATERIAL AT THEIR DISCRETION BASED ON SELECTION, AVAILABILITY, OR TO ENHANCE SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT MATERIAL SIZES WITH OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PURCHASING, SHIPPING OR STOCKING OF PLANT MATERIALS. SUBMIT CHANGE ORDER REQUEST TO OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPROVAL IF ADDITIONAL COST IS REQUESTED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. RE-STOCKING CHARGES WILL NOT BE APPROVED IF THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR MATERIAL CHANGES. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WARRANTY ALL CONTRACTED WORK AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR SPECIFICATIONS. 6. 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. 7. IN NO CASE SHALL IRRIGATION BE EMITTED WITHIN THE MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM BUILDING OR WALL FOUNDATIONS AS STIPULATED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. ALL IRRIGATION DISTRIBUTION LINES, HEADS AND EMITTERS SHALL BE KEPT OUTSIDE THE MINIMUM DISTANCE AWAY FROM ALL BUILDING AND WALL FOUNDATIONS AS STIPULATED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 8. LANDSCAPE MATERIAL LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER IRRIGATION MAINLINE AND LATERAL LOCATIONS. COORDINATE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SO THAT IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PLANTING OF TREES OR OTHER LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. 9. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING POSITIVE DRAINAGE EXISTS IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS. SURFACE DRAINAGE ON LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL NOT FLOW TOWARD STRUCTURES AND FOUNDATIONS. MAINTAIN SLOPE AWAY FROM FOUNDATIONS PER THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS BETWEEN WALKS AND CURBS SHALL DRAIN FREELY TO THE CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ON THE GRADING PLAN. IN NO CASE SHALL THE GRADE, TURF THATCH, OR OTHER LANDSCAPE MATERIALS DAM WATER AGAINST WALKS. MINIMUM SLOPES ON LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE 2%; MAXIMUM SLOPE SHALL BE 25% UNLESS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED ON THE PLANS OR APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 10. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS, AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPACTED OR DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF 8” - 12” AND AMENDED PER SPECIFICATIONS. 11. ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE ORGANIC SOIL PREPARATION AT 5 cu.yrds/1,000sf OR AS NOTED IN THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. 12. TREES SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN DRAINAGE SWALES, DRAINAGE AREAS, OR UTILITY EASEMENTS. CONTACT OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR RELOCATION OF PLANTS IN QUESTIONABLE AREAS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 13. THE CENTER OF EVERGREEN TREES SHALL NOT BE PLACED CLOSER THAN 8' AND THE CENTER OF ORNAMENTAL TREES CLOSER THAN 6' FROM A SIDEWALK, STREET OR DRIVE LANE. EVERGREEN TREES SHALL NOT BE LOCATED ANY CLOSER THAN 15' FROM IRRIGATION ROTOR HEADS. NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IF TREE LOCATIONS CONFLICT WITH THESE STANDARDS FOR FURTHER DIRECTION. 14. ALL EVERGREEN TREES SHALL BE FULLY BRANCHED TO THE GROUND AND SHALL NOT EXHIBIT SIGNS OF ACCELERATED GROWTH AS DETERMINED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 15. ALL TREES ARE TO BE STAKED AND GUYED PER DETAILS FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING STAKES AT THE END OF 1 YEAR FROM ACCEPTANCE OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. OBTAIN APPROVAL BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO REMOVAL. 16. ALL TREES INSTALLED ABOVE RETAINING WALLS UTILIZING GEO-GRID MUST BE HAND DUG TO PROTECT GEO-GRID. IF GEO-GRID MUST BE CUT TO INSTALL TREES, APPROVAL MUST BE GIVEN BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO DOING WORK. 17. ALL TREES IN SEED OR TURF AREAS SHALL RECEIVE MULCH RINGS. OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR ANY TREES THAT WILL NOT BE MULCHED FOR EXCESSIVE MOISTURE REASONS. 18. SHRUB, GROUNDCOVER AND PERENNIAL BEDS ARE TO BE CONTAINED BY SPADE CUT EDGER. EDGER IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN ADJACENT TO CURBS, WALLS, WALKS OR SOLID FENCES WITHIN 3” OF PRE-MULCHED FINAL GRADE. EDGER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO SEPARATE MULCH TYPES UNLESS SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS. 19. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND PERENNIAL FLOWER BEDS ARE TO BE MULCHED WITH MIN. 4'' DEPTH SHREDDED CEDAR LANDSCAPE MULCH OVER SPECIFIED GEOTEXTILE WEED CONTROL FABRIC. NO WEED CONTROL FABRIC IS REQUIRED IN GROUNDCOVER OR PERENNIAL AREAS. AT SEED AREA BOUNDARIES ADJACENT TO EXISTING NATIVE AREAS, OVERLAP ABUTTING NATIVE AREAS BY THE FULL WIDTH OF THE SEEDER. 20. EXISTING TURF AREAS THAT ARE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION, ESTABLISHMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD SHALL BE RESTORED WITH NEW SOD TO MATCH EXISTING TURF SPECIES. DISTURBED NATIVE AREAS WHICH ARE TO REMAIN SHALL BE OVER SEEDED AND RESTORED WITH SPECIFIED SEED MIX. 21. CONTRACTOR SHALL OVER SEED ALL MAINTENANCE OR SERVICE ACCESS BENCHES AND ROADS WITH SPECIFIED SEED MIX UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS. 22. ALL SEEDED SLOPES EXCEEDING 25% IN GRADE (4:1) SHALL RECEIVE EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPROVAL OF LOCATION AND ANY ADDITIONAL COST IF A CHANGE ORDER IS NECESSARY. 23. WHEN COMPLETE, ALL GRADES SHALL BE WITHIN +/- 1/8” OF FINISHED GRADES AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. THESE NOTES ARE INTENDED TO DESCRIBE THE TREATMENT OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATIONS DURING THE FIRST GROWING SEASON ONLY. SUBSEQUENT SEASONS MAY REQUIRE DIFFERENT TASKS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR READING AND UNDERSTANDING THE SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT MANUALS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PERFORMING ALL TASKS AND MAINTAINING THE STANDARDS OUTLINED IN THESE NOTES AND THOSE ITEMS IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. IN THE CASES OF CONFLICTING INFORMATION, THE HIGHER STANDARD WILL BE EXPECTED OF THE CONTRACTOR. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL AS STATED IN LOCAL CODES SHALL APPLY. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO TURN OVER SEED LABELS UPON INSPECTION. SEED AND SEED LABELS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND BE SUBJECT TO TESTING PROVISIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL SEED ANALYSIS. 4. THE SEEDBED SHALL BE WELL SETTLED AND FIRM, BUT FRIABLE ENOUGH THAT SEED CAN BE PLACED AT THE SEEDING DEPTH SPECIFIED. THE SEEDBED SHALL BE REASONABLY FREE OF WEEDS. SOILS THAT HAVE BEEN OVER-COMPACTED BY TRAFFIC OR EQUIPMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WET, SHALL BE TILLED TO BREAKUP ROOTING RESTRICTIVE LAYERS AND THEN HARROWED, ROLLED OR PACKED TO PREPARE THE REQUIRED FIRM SEEDBED. 5. AT THE RISK OF THE OWNER, SEEDING MAY OCCUR ANY TIME WHEN WEATHER CONDITIONS PERMIT EXCEPT WHEN THE GROUND IS FROZEN. IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED THAT SEEDING OF NON-IRRIGATED DRYLAND GRASSES OCCUR BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND MAY 1 TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NATURAL MOISTURE. 6. SEED SHALL BE DRILL SEEDED IN MANNER SUCH THAT AFTER SURFACE IS RAKED AND ROLLED, SEED SHALL HAVE 1/4" OF COVER. ACCOMPLISH SEEDING BY 'RANGELAND' TYPE DRILLS. ANY FURROWS LEFT BY DRILL SEEDING SHALL BE LEFT IN PLACE TO DISCOURAGE EROSION AND ENCOURAGE SEED AND SOIL CONTACT. WHEN USING A DRILL TYPE SEEDER, THE SEEDER SHOULD COVER THE AREA TWICE. THE FIRST PASS AND SECOND PASSES SHOULD BE PERPENDICULAR TO EACH OTHER. EACH PASS OF THE SEEDER SHOULD APPLY APPROXIMATELY ½ OF THE REQUIRED SEEDING RATE. 7. HYDRO OR HYDRAULIC SEEDING MAY BE USED IN AREAS WITH GREATER THAN 3:1 SLOPES THAT ARE NOT SUITED FOR DRILLING. SEEDING AND MULCHING SHALL NOT OCCUR IN ONE APPLICATION. SEED RATES SHALL BE TWO TIMES DRILL SEED RATES. 8. BROADCAST SEED SHALL BE HAND RAKED OR DRAGGED TO A DEPTH AS REQUIRED BY THE SEED. THE SEED RATE SHALL BE INCREASED BY THREE TIMES THE DRILL SEED RATES. 9. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 2 ½ TONS PER ACRE AND SHALL BE ATTACHED BY AN APPROVED METHOD SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE OF MULCH USED. MULCH SHALL BE SPREAD UNIFORMLY, IN A CONTINUOUS BLANKET, AFTER SEEDING IS COMPLETE. MULCH SHALL BE CLEAN, WEED AND SEED FREE, LONG STEMMED GRASS OR HAY, OR LONG STEMMED STRAW OF OATS, WHEAT OR RYE. AT LEAST 50% OF MULCH, BY WEIGHT, SHALL BE TEN INCHES OR LONGER. MULCH SHALL BE SPREAD BY HAND OR BLOWER-TYPE MULCH SPREADER. MULCHING SHALL BE STARTED ON THE WINDWARD SIDE OF RELATIVELY FLAT AREAS OR ON THE UPPER PART OF A STEEP SLOPE AND CONTINUED UNIFORMLY UNTIL THE AREA IS COVERED. THE MULCH SHALL NOT BE BUNCHED. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SPREADING, THE MULCH SHALL BE ANCHORED TO THE SOIL BY A V-TYPE WHEEL LAND PACKER OR A SCALLOPED-DISK LAND PACKER DESIGNED TO FORCE MULCH INTO THE SOIL SURFACE A MINIMUM OF 3 INCHES. ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE MULCHED AFTER SEEDING ON THE SAME DAY AS THE SEEDING. HYDRO MULCH IS REQUIRED ON SLOPES EXCEEDING 3:1. APPLICATION OF EROSION CONTROL NETTING IS REQUIRED ON SLOPES EXCEEDING 3:1 WHERE SURFACE DRAINAGE IS PRESENT. 10. FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEEDED AREAS WILL NOT BE GRANTED UNTIL OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IS SATISFIED WITH GERMINATION AND A FULL STAND OF GRASS IS IN A VIGOROUS GROWING CONDITION, WITH CONSISTENCY AND COMPLETION OF COVERAGE. DURING THIS TIME, CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WATERING, MOWING, SPRAYING, WEEDING, FERTILIZING, AND ALL RELATED WORK AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT SEEDED AREAS ARE TURNED OVER IN A VIGOROUS GROWING CONDITION. PROVIDE ALL SUPERVISION, LABOR, MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT TO MAINTAIN SEEDED AREAS. 11. NON-IRRIGATED NATIVE SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE MOWED A MINIMUM OF THREE TIMES DURING THE FIRST YEAR. ONE MOWING SHALL OCCUR IN THE SPRING OF THE YEAR, SIX WEEKS AFTER THE GRASSES BEGIN GROWING, OR BEFORE WEEDS REACH AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF EIGHT INCHES, OR BEFORE WEEDS BEGIN TO FLOWER, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. THE SECOND MOWING SHALL OCCUR THE FIRST WEEK OF JULY. THE THIRD MOWING SHALL OCCUR IN THE FALL, AFTER GRASSES HAVE COMPLETED GROWING AND DEVELOPED SEED HEADS. ADDITIONAL MOWINGS MAY BE REQUIRED TO CONTROL WEED GROWTH. ADDITIONAL MOWINGS MUST BE PRE-AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER, AT LEAST ONE WEEK BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. MOWING SHALL BE RESCHEDULED IF THE GROUND IS WET, AND A POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR CAUSING SURFACE DAMAGE FROM EQUIPMENT. 12. SEEDED AREAS SHALL, AFTER ONE YEAR, CONTAIN A DOMINANT VEGETATION OF GRASS. THERE SHALL BE NO LARGE CONTINUOUS BARE SPOTS GREATER THAN NINE SQUARE FEET. IF ON SITE INSPECTIONS DETERMINE THAT GERMINATION OF ANY SEEDED AREA DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THESES NOTES OR LOCAL CODES, RE-SEEDING MAY BE REQUIRED. 13. THE TYPE OF SEED MIX USED WILL DEPEND UPON THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: TEMPORARY VS. PERMANENT REVEGETATION; TIME OF YEAR; SOIL TYPE AND SLOPE. AS A GENERAL RULE, TEMPORARY REVEGETATION WILL UTILIZE ANNUAL GRASSES WHILE PERMANENT REVEGETATION SHOULD UTILIZE PERENNIAL GRASSES. DRYLAND SEEDING ESTABLISHMENT 1. THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING PRIOR TO START OF ANY WORK SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. 2. THESE PLANS SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR PERMITTING UNLESS STATED FOR SUCH USE IN THE TITLE BLOCK. 3. DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO BE PRINTED ON 24 X 36 PAPER. PRINTING THESE DRAWINGS AT A DIFFERENT SIZE WILL IMPACT THE SCALE. VERIFY THE GRAPHIC SCALE BEFORE REFERENCING ANY MEASUREMENTS ON THESE SHEETS. THE RECIPIENT OF THESE DRAWINGS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS RESULTING FROM INCORRECT PRINTING, COPYING, OR ANY OTHER CHANGES THAT ALTER THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. 4. VERIFY ALL PLAN DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFY ANY DISCREPANCIES. 5. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. 6. SUBMIT A CHANGE ORDER FOR APPROVAL FOR ANY CHANGES TO WORK SCOPE RESULTING FROM FIELD CONDITIONS OR DIRECTION BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE WHICH REQUIRE ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER PRIOR TO PERFORMANCE OF WORK. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A STAKED LAYOUT OF ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR INSPECTION BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND MAKE MODIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED. ALL LAYOUT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT FOR USE BY THE CONTRACTOR. 8. IF A GEOTECHNICAL SOILS REPORT IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, NORRIS DESIGN RECOMMENDS A REPORT BE AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER AND THAT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT ARE FOLLOWED DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AS A BASIS FOR THE BID. IF THE OWNER ELECTS TO PROVIDE A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE REPORT AND SUBMIT AN APPROPRIATE CHANGE ORDER TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IF ADDITIONAL COSTS ARE REQUESTED. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT SITE CONDITIONS ARE SIMILAR TO THE PLANS, WITHIN TOLERANCES STATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, AND SATISFACTORY TO THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO START OF WORK. SHOULD SITE CONDITIONS BE DIFFERENT THAN REPRESENTED ON THE PLANS OR UNSATISFACTORY TO THE CONTRACTOR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR CLARIFICATION AND FURTHER DIRECTION. 10. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PAY FOR, AND OBTAIN, ANY REQUIRED APPLICATIONS, PERMITTING, LICENSES, INSPECTIONS AND METERS ASSOCIATED WITH WORK. 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES OR PENALTIES ASSESSED TO THE OWNER RELATING TO ANY VIOLATIONS OR NON-CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, JURISDICTIONAL CODES, AND REGULATORY AGENCIES. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION OF ALL UTILITY LOCATES PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. REFER TO ENGINEERING UTILITY PLANS FOR ALL PROPOSED UTILITY LOCATIONS AND DETAILS. NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IF EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITIES INTERFERE WITH THE ABILITY TO PERFORM WORK. 13. UNLESS IDENTIFIED ON THE PLANS FOR DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST TO REPAIR UTILITIES, ADJACENT OR EXISTING LANDSCAPE, ADJACENT OR EXISTING PAVING, OR ANY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR THEIR SUBCONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS DURING INSTALLATION, ESTABLISHMENT OR DURING THE SPECIFIED MAINTENANCE PERIOD. ALL DAMAGES SHALL BE REPAIRED TO PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOGGING ANY DAMAGES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION AND DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD. 14. ALL WORK SHALL BE CONFINED TO THE AREA WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. ANY AREAS OR IMPROVEMENTS DISTURBED OUTSIDE THESE LIMITS SHALL BE RETURNED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR REQUIRES A MODIFICATION TO THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, WRITTEN PERMISSION MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO ANY DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE OF THE LIMITS OF WORK. 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIR OF ANY OF THEIR TRENCHES OR EXCAVATIONS THAT SETTLE. 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN TO THE APPROPRIATE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES AND THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IF THEIR WORK AND OPERATIONS AFFECT OR IMPACT THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. OBTAIN APPROVAL PRIOR TO ANY WORK WHICH AFFECTS OR IMPACTS THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES OR PENALTIES ASSESSED TO THE OWNER RELATING TO THIS REQUIREMENT DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD. 17. SIGHT TRIANGLES AND SIGHT LINES SHALL REMAIN UNOBSTRUCTED BY EQUIPMENT, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, PLANT MATERIAL OR ANY OTHER VISUAL OBSTACLE DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD AND AT MATURITY OF PLANTS PER LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 18. NO PLANT MATERIAL OTHER THAN GROUND COVER IS ALLOWED TO BE PLANTED ADJACENT TO FIRE HYDRANTS AS STIPULATED BY JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 19. COORDINATE SITE ACCESS, STAGING, STORAGE AND CLEANOUT AREAS WITH OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 20. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING TEMPORARY SAFETY FENCING AND BARRIERS AROUND ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS WALLS, PLAY STRUCTURES, EXCAVATIONS, ETC. ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR WORK UNTIL SUCH FACILITIES ARE COMPLETELY INSTALLED PER THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 21. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTION OF THEIR MATERIAL STOCK PILES AND WORK FROM VANDALISM, EROSION OR UNINTENDED DISTURBANCE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD AND UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE IS ISSUED. 22. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KNOW, UNDERSTAND AND ABIDE BY ANY STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. IF A STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN IS NOT PROVIDED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, REQUEST A COPY BEFORE PERFORMANCE OF ANY SITE WORK. 23. MAINTAIN ANY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES THAT EXIST ON SITE FOR FULL FUNCTIONALITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN ANY NEW STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE SCOPE OF WORK TO FULL FUNCTIONALITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES OR PENALTIES ASSESSED TO THE OWNER FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD. 24. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREVENT SEDIMENT, DEBRIS AND ALL OTHER POLLUTANTS FROM EXITING THE SITE OR ENTERING THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM DURING ALL DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS THAT ARE PART OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES OR PENALTIES ASSESSED TO THE OWNER RELATING TO THESE REQUIREMENTS DURING THEIR CONTRACTED COURSE OF WORK. 25. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PREVENT ANY IMPACTS TO ADJACENT WATERWAYS, WETLANDS, OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS RESULTING FROM WORK DONE AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES OR PENALTIES ASSESSED TO THE OWNER RELATING TO THESE STANDARDS DURING THEIR CONTRACTED COURSE OF WORK. 26. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENTS SHALL INSURE THAT ALL LOADS OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPORTED TO OR EXPORTED FROM THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE PROPERLY COVERED TO PREVENT LOSS OF MATERIAL DURING TRANSPORT. TRANSPORTATION METHODS ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF WAYS SHALL CONFORM TO JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINES OR PENALTIES ASSESSED TO THE OWNER RELATING TO THESE REQUIREMENTS. 27. THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT IS PROHIBITED AT THE JOB SITE UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IN A DESIGNATED AREA. THE DISCHARGE OF WATER, WASTE CONCRETE, POLLUTANTS, OR OTHER MATERIALS SHALL ONLY OCCUR IN AREAS DESIGNED FOR SUCH USE AND APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 28. THE CLEANING OF CONCRETE EQUIPMENT IS PROHIBITED AT THE JOB SITE EXCEPT IN DESIGNATED CONCRETE WASHOUT AREAS. THE DISCHARGE OF WATER CONTAINING WASTE CONCRETE IN THE STORM SEWER IS PROHIBITED. 29. THE USE OF REBAR, STEEL STAKES, OR STEEL FENCE POSTS TO STAKE DOWN STRAW OR HAY BALES OR TO SUPPORT SILT FENCING USED AS AN EROSION CONTROL MEASURE IS PROHIBITED. 30. OPEN SPACE SWALES: IF SWALES ARE EXISTING ON SITE AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE MODIFIED AS PART OF THE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE CONVEYANCE OF WATER WITHIN THE SWALES DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DIVERSION OR PUMPING OF WATER IF REQUIRED TO COMPLETE WORK. ANY SWALES DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPAIRED/RESTORED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION. IF THE SWALE NEEDS TO BE DISTURBED OR MODIFIED FOR ANY REASON, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO DISTURBANCE. 31. DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY PONDS: IF DETENTION PONDS AND WATER QUALITY PONDS ARE EXISTING ON SITE AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE MODIFIED AS PART OF THE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO THE PONDS, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND SPILLWAYS DURING CONSTRUCTION. ALL PONDS, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND SPILLWAYS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN OPERABLE CONDITIONS AT ALL TIMES. ANY POND OR SPILLWAY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPAIRED/RESTORED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION. IF THE POND NEEDS TO BE DISTURBED OR MODIFIED FOR ANY REASON, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO DISTURBANCE. 32. MAINTENANCE ACCESS BENCHES: IF MAINTENANCE BENCHES OR ACCESS ROADS EXIST ON SITE AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE MODIFIED AS PART OF THE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO THE BENCHES OR ACCESS ROADS DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY BENCHES OR ACCESS ROADS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPAIRED/RESTORED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL EXISTING BENCHES AND ACCESS ROADS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. IF ACCESS NEEDS TO BE BLOCKED FOR ANY REASON, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INTERRUPTION OF ACCESS. 33. LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS OR PROCEDURES SHALL SUPERSEDE THESE PLANS, NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEN MORE STRINGENT. NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IF CONFLICTS OCCUR. GENERAL NOTES GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES CONT.GENERAL NOTES CONT. 1. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SITE GRADING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE ALL WALKS, WALLS, PARKING LOT, AND OTHER HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS BASED ON THE DESIGN CONTAINED IN THIS SUBMITTAL. ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED SHALL TO BE MARKED AS SO AND THE OWNER SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO REMOVAL. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY TREE LOCATIONS AND TAKE MEASURES TO PROTECT THE EXISTING TREES ON THE SITE FROM ANY DAMAGES DURING THE PROGRESS OF WORK. 3. ALL ADJACENT LANDSCAPE, UTILITIES, SIGNS AND HARDSCAPE SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 4. IF UNEXPECTED CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING DEMOLITION, NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY FOR RESOLUTION. 5. 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. 6. EXISTING TREES WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH ARE GREATER THAN 4" DBH, SHALL BE PRESERVED DEMO NOTES DATE: SHEET TITLE: DATE: SHEET TITLE: CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : ST A N L E Y H O T E L F I L M C E N T E R 33 3 E W O N D E R V I E W A V E . ES T E S P A R K , C O 8 0 5 1 7 MB JB 04/17/2020 PRELIM. LANDSCAPE PLAN-01 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 P 303.892.1166 www.norris-design.com R 161 161 1 PLANT SCHEDULE L-101 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 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 'CANADA RED' 2" CAL. B&B 2" CAL. B&B WSB WAC MTN TWI IBC POT MCK WESTERN SNOWBERRY WAX CURRANT MOUNTAIN NINEBARK TWINBERRY HONEYSUCKLE IRIQUOIS BEAUTY CHOKEBERRY PINK BEAUTY POTENTILLA MCKAY'S WHITE POTENTILLA SYMPHORICARPOS OCCIDENTALIS RIBES CEREUM PHYSOCARPUS MONOGYNUS LONICERA INVOLUCRATA ARONIA MELANOCARPA 'MORTON' POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA 'PINK BEAUTY' POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA 'MCKAY'S WHITE' #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. BCJ TTJ GBS GGS RHM TAN BLUE CREEPER ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER TABLE TOP BLUE ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER DWARF GLOBE BLUE SPRUCE DWARF GLOBE GREEN SPRUCE RH MONTGOMERY SPRUCE TANNENBAUM MUGO PINE JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'MONAM' JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'TABLE TOP' PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA GLOBOSA' PICEA PUNGENS 'ROUNDABOUT' PICEA PUNGENS 'RH MONTGOMERY' PINUS MUGO 'TANNENBAUM' #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #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. #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) CMO YFC RAB WRO TWS RTD WSC CHEYENNE MOCKORANGE YELLOW FLOWERING CURRANT TALL BLUE RABBITBRUSH WILD ROSE TALL WESTERN SAGEBRUSH ISANTI RED TWIG DOGWOOD WESTERN SAND CHERRY PHILADELPHUS LEWISII 'BLIZZARD' RIBES AUREUM ERICAMERIA NAUSEOSA SSP. NAUSEOSA VAR. SPECIOSA ROSA WOODSII ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA CORNUS SERICEA 'ISANTI' PRUNUS BESSEYI #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. EVERGREEN TREES PON VAN PONDEROSA PINE VANDERWOLF'S PYRAMID PINE PINUS PONDEROSA PINUS FLEXILIS 'VANDERWOLF'S PYRAMID' 6' HT. B&B 6' HT. B&B 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% CONTACT : ARKANSAS VALLEY SEED 4300 MONACO ST, DENVER, CO 80216 OR APPROVED EQUAL CONT. SIZE MATURE HEIGHT AND SPREAD 35' X 15' 25' X 20' QTY. 7 6 7 11 15 31 43 55 51 45 19 28 110 41 11 126 167 181 134 100 276 252 10 27 52 17 4 17 13 18 13 3' X 5' 3' X 5' 3' X 4' 5' X 5' 3' X 4' 3' X 3' 3' X 3' 2' X 8' 3' X 7' 4' X 4' 4' X 4' 6' X 4' 15' X 6' 2' X 2' 2' X 2' 2' X 2' 1' X 1' 18" X 18" 18" X 18" 3' X 2' 7' X 6' 6' X 6' 4' X 6' 4' X 4' 8' X 8' 6' X 4' 2' X 6' 40' X 25' 20' X 10' DATE: SHEET TITLE: DATE: SHEET TITLE: CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : ST A N L E Y H O T E L F I L M C E N T E R 33 3 E W O N D E R V I E W A V E . ES T E S P A R K , C O 8 0 5 1 7 MB JB 04/17/2020 PRELIM. LANDSCAPE PLAN-01 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 P 303.892.1166 www.norris-design.com R 162 162 1 G SDSD SDSD SD D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSD SD SDSDSD SD SD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD 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 SD SD SD SD SD W W W S S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS E E E E G G G G G G G G SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SD SDSD SD SD SDSD 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 SD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSD W W W G G E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W D 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 D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D 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 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 SD SD SD SD SD D SDSDSDSDSD SS SS SS W G G G G G G SS E E E E E E E E VA N VA N VA N VA N RESOD ALL DISTURBED AREAS 5-WLC 7-PCS 1-CAN 6-POT 9-BGG 3-BCJ 7-MNS 1-CAN 6-MCK 11-BGG 3-BCJ 6-PCS 5-WSC 9-PCS 5-IBC 3-TTJ 5-YAR 12-GBS 15-PCS 1-TTJ 12-WLC 2-IBC 9-RTD 3-ASP 6-YFC 13-PCS 15-BGG 3-CAN 3-TWI 12-WLC 3-PCS 5-TAN 12-THG 3-POT 23-PCS 3-MCK 18-BGG 10-BCJ 5-RHM 60-THG 6-YFC 5-WAC 5-MNS 7-WSB 13-PON 9-YAR LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK FILM CENTER MAIN ENTRANCE CARRIAGE HOUSE RESTAURANT COURTYARD CONCERT HALL 3-TTJ 3-BCJ 2-BCJ 5-RTD 5-TTJ 3-MCK 6-BGG 9-MNS 3-RHM 9-WLC 5-IBC 9-LUP 3-PCS 44-THG 5-YAR 16-LUP 10-YAR 5-MNS 3-WAC 3-YFC 3-WAC 8-WLC 8-LUP RESEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS 8-VAN 24-THG 5-GGS 5-PCS 5-WSC 5-IBC 5-MNS 3-BCJ 3-IBC 26-BGG 6-LUP 5-GGS 39-THG 18-WLC 21-GGS 6-POT 10-MNS 3-BCJ 6-BCJ 9-WLC 8-MNS 15-YAR 5-LUP 7-PCS 5-IBC 5-BGG 6-PCS 9-THG 12-WLC 3-GBS 1-ASP 8-GGS 6-LUP 10-WLC 10-YAR 16-MNS 24-WLC 2-VAN 3-WRO 5-GGS 11-YAR 5-BGG 14-YAR 3-TAN 6-WRO 14-THG 9-MCK 6-RAB 15-LUP 6-YAR 21-THG 5-MCK 7-YFC 14-GGS 6-POT 16-BGG 10-MNS 10-CMO 9-IBC 3-POT 1-CAN 3-WRO 10-BGG 18-THG 9-IBC 6-PCS 3-RHM 8-MNS 23-LUP 3-POT 22-GGS 6-MCK 31-BGG 23-YAR 13-POT 16-BGG 10-WLC 3-GBS 6-MCK 20-GGS 18-YAR 13-BGG 4-POT 3-MCK 7-LUP 11-WLC 3-RHM 22-BGG 20-LUP 11-THG 28-YAR 4-BCJ 3-MNS 23-PCS 6-TWI 5-WLC 22-BGG 19-LUP 5-WLC 4-TTJ 7-MTN 3-RHM 5-GBS 4-RAB 5-TWI 3-VAN 3-RTD 3-ASP 3-TAN3-TWI 18-RAB 20-RHM 6-MTN11-MNS 15-YAR 4-MCK 5-RAB 9-RAB14-TWI 5-YFC 11-POT 4-WLC 51-BGG2-WRO 2-RAB 5-PON 6-MCK 7-YAR 3-GBS 3-BCJ 3-WRO 3-MNS 4-TWS 5-YAR 3-RAB 4-RHM 7-GGS 2-GBS 3-TTJ 13-WLC 3-WSC 5-BCJ 2-MTN 3-GGS 5-RAB ENHANCED BOULDER EDGE, TYP. ENHANCED BOULDER EDGE, TYP. LANDSCAPE PLAN L-200 0 NORTH SCALE:1"=20'-0" 10'20'40' ORNAMENTAL TREE DECIDUOUS SHRUBS EVERGREEN SHRUBS NATIVE SEED MIX COBBLE MULCH SPADE CUT EDGER LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN LIMIT OF WORK PERENNIALS EVERGREEN TREE LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE: SHEET TITLE: DATE: SHEET TITLE: CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : ST A N L E Y H O T E L F I L M C E N T E R 33 3 E W O N D E R V I E W A V E . ES T E S P A R K , C O 8 0 5 1 7 MB JB 04/17/2020 PRELIM. LANDSCAPE PLAN-01 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 P 303.892.1166 www.norris-design.com R SOD LANDSCAPE MULCH 163 163 1 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L-300 NOTE: 1. IF IRRIGATION HEAD IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO MULCH BEDS, OFFSET HEAD INTO GRASS AREA TO ENSURE STABLE SUPPORT. 432 1 6" 4" TYPICALLY IRRIGATED TURFGRASS OR DRYLAND SEED VERTICAL SPADE CUT EDGE FILLED WITH SPECIFIED MULCH, TAPER EDGE OF BED SO MULCH IS DEEPER AGAINST SPADED EDGE. SPECIFIED DEPTH OF MULCH (TYPICALLY WOOD MULCH 3"-4" DEEP) PLANTING BED IRRIGATION HEADS SHOULD BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO MULCH BEDS, OFFSET HEAD INTO GRASS AREA TO ENSURE STABLE SUPPORT. 1 2 3 4 5 SPADE CUT EDGER SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 5 COLORADO GREEN MOSS ROCK, NATURALLY SET BOULDER SO THAT A MINIMUM 1/4 OF BOULDER IS BELOW FINISH GRADE SPECIFIED MULCH, CRUSHER FINES OR COBBLE, REFER TO PLAN 3" MINIMUM ROAD BASE COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD PROXY DENSITY UNDISTURBED GRADE 1 2 3 4 LANDSCAPE BOULDER SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1. THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPROVE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF ALL BOULDERS PRIOR TO PLACING. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SAMPLE OR PHOTOS FOR APPROVAL. 3 4 1 2 PERENNIAL PLANT LAYOUT SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" ON CENTER SPACING NOTES: 1. WHEN PLANTED ON A CURVE, ORIENT ROWS TO FOLLOW THE LONG AXIS OF AREAS WHERE PLANTS ARE MASSED. SPECIFIED MULCH AMENDED PLANTING BED TILLED TO A DEPTH OF 6" CENTER OF PLANT 1 2 3 1 2 3 SECTION PLAN PLAN ON CURVE NOTE: 1. BROKEN OR CRUMBLING ROOT-BALLS WILL BE REJECTED. 2. CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN NOT TO DAMAGE THE SHRUB OR ROOT-BALL WHEN REMOVING IT FROM ITS CONTAINER. 3. ALL JUNIPERS SHOULD BE PLANTED SO THE TOP OF THE ROOT-BALL OCCURS ABOVE THE FINISH GRADE OF THE MULCH LAYER. 4. DIG PLANT PIT TWICE AS WIDE AND AS HIGH AS THE CONTAINER. 5. PRUNE ALL DEAD OR DAMAGED WOOD PRIOR TO PLANTING, DO NOT PRUNE MORE THAN 20% OF LIMBS. SHRUB PLANTING SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" SET SHRUB ROOT-BALL 1" HIGHER THAN FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE (TOP OF MULCH) SPECIFIED MULCH TILL IN SPECIFIED SOIL AMENDMENT TO A DEPTH OF 8" IN BED BACKFILLED AMENDED SOIL UNDISTURBED SOIL 1 2 3 4 5 6 2X CONTAINER WIDTH 1X CONTAINER HEIGHT 3 4 5 6 2 1 2X ROOT BALL DIAMETER 120° 120° PRUNING NOTES: 1. ALL PRUNING SHALL COMPLY WITH ANSI A300 STANDARDS. 2. DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND BROKEN BRANCHES. SOME INTERIOR TWIGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES MAY BE PRUNED. HOWEVER, DO NOT REMOVE THE TERMINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. STAKING NOTES: 1. STAKE TREES PER FOLLOWING SCHEDULE, THEN REMOVE AT END OF FIRST GROWING SEASON. a. 1-1/2" CALIPER SIZE - MIN. 1 STAKE ON SIDE OF PREVAILING WIND (GENERALLY N.W. SIDE). b. 1-1/2" - 3" CALIPER SIZE - MIN. 2 STAKES - ONE ON N.W. SIDE, ONE ON S.W. SIDE (OR PREVAILING WIND SIDE AND 180° FROM THAT SIDE). c. 3" CALIPER SIZE AND LARGER - 3 STAKES PER DIAGRAM. 2. WIRE OR CABLE SHALL BE MIN. 12 GAUGE, TIGHTEN WIRE OR CABLE ONLY ENOUGH TO KEEP FROM SLIPPING. ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. NYLON STRAPS SHALL BE LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE 1-1/2" OF GROWTH AND BUFFER ALL BRANCHES FROM WIRE. TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 PLACE MINIMUM 1/2" PVC PIPE AROUND EACH WIRE, EXPOSED WIRE SHALL BE MAXIMUM 2" EACH SIDE 6'-0"UNTREATED WOOD POST, MINIMUM 1.5" DIAMETER, ALL SHALL BE DRIVEN OUTSIDE ROOTBALL AND IN UNDISTURBED SOIL TREE WRAP TO BE INSTALLED ONLY FROM OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30, DECIDUOUS ONLY, WRAP FROM BASE OF TRUNK TO BOTTOM LIMB PLANT TREE SO THAT TOP MOST MAJOR ROOT IS 1"-2" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE 2'-0" RADIUS MULCH RING, VENTERED ON TRUNK, 3" DEPTH, DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK, FINISHED GRADE REFERENCES TOP OF MULCH 1:1 SLOPE ON SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE ROPES AT TOP OF ROOTBALL SHALL BE CUT, REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP, NON-BIODEGRADABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE TOTALLY REMOVED GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS GALVANIZED WIRE, MINIMUM 12 GAUGE CABLE,TWIST WIRE ONLY TO KEEP FROM SLIPPING 4-6" HIGH WATER SAUCER IN NON-TURF AREAS BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAXIMUM 20%, BY VOLUME, ORGANIC MATERIAL, WATER THOROUGHLY WHEN BACKFILLING 2'-0" STEEL T-POST, ALL SHALL BE DRIVEN BELOW GRADE AND OUTSIDE ROOTBALL IN UNDISTURBED SOIL PLACE SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL FIRMLY, DO NOT COMPACT OR TAMP, SETTLE SOIL WITH WATER TO FILL ALL AIR POCKETS PLACE ROOT BALL ON UNDISTURBED SOIL TO PREVENT SETTLEMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 PLAN VIEW - THREE STAKES PRE V A I L I N G W I N D 1 2 3 5 6 ENHANCED BOULDER EDGE SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" AMENDED SOIL, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS MULCH, 4" DEPTH MIN. COLORADO GREEN MOSS ROCK, TYP. BURY TWO-THIRDS OF BASE COURSE FOR STABLE FOUNDATION. NO MORE THAN 12" OF BOULDER SHALL BE VISIBLE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. COMPACTED CLASS 6 GRAVEL TO PROVIDE STABILITY, COMPACT IN 6" MAXIMUM LIFTS UNDISTURBED SOIL FINISHED GRADE / ADJACENT EDGE TREATMENT, RE: LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL PLAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SMALL SAMPLE OR PHOTOS OF BOULDERS FOR APPROVAL. 2. BOULDERS SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 24"X24"X36" AVE. 16" - 24" MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVE FINISHED GRADE 3 4 6 6" MIN. 5 1 2 7 ADJACENT LANDSCAPE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS STANDARD CONCRETE SLAB, REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR APPROPRIATE THICKNESS AGGREGATE BASE SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 95% STANDARD PROXY DENSITY EXPANSION JOINT ADJACENT PAVING OR CURB, FLUSH WITH CONCRETE PAVING, REFER TO CIVIL PLANS 1 2 3 4 5 6 CONCRETE PAVING SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1. PROVIDE A 25 SF MOCK-UP OF CONCRETE PAVING FOR EACH FINISH SPECIFIED. MOCK-UP SHALL INCLUDE CONTROL JOINTS. MOCK-UP NOT REQUIRED FOR STANDARD BROOM FINISH. 2. ALL CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 2,500 / 4,000 PSI AT 28 DAYS. 3. EXPANSION JOINTS AT 200' O.C. MAXIMUM OR WHERE NOTED. 4. CONTROL JOINTS SHALL BE SPACED AT APPROXIMATELY 5'-0" - 6'-0" O.C. SECTION 1 1/2" 2"8" REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR THICKNESS 4 3 1 2 5 6 4 DATE: SHEET TITLE: DATE: SHEET TITLE: CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : ST A N L E Y H O T E L F I L M C E N T E R 33 3 E W O N D E R V I E W A V E . ES T E S P A R K , C O 8 0 5 1 7 MB JB 04/17/2020 PRELIM. LANDSCAPE PLAN-01 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 P 303.892.1166 www.norris-design.com R 164 164 1 Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.03.19 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.03.19 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 C-311 GRADING PLAN CUT CUT/FILL TABLE (UNADJUSTED) FILL NET (FILL) 3,252 CY NUMBERS ARE TO FINISHED GRADE AND DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR UTILITY SPOILS OR BUILDING EXCAVATION. 8,896 CY 5,644 CY EX SD EX SD EX SD EX S D 24" RCP EX S D 24 " R C P 18 " 24" EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D EX S D EX S D D D D D D VA N VA N VA N VA N FILM CENTER FFE VARIES CONCERT HALL CARRIAGE HOUSE FF=7600 12" RCP 12 " R C P 12 " R C P 8" PVC 4" P V C 18 " R C P 8" PVC 12" PVC 7610 7608 761 2 761 4 761 6761 8 76 2 2 76 2 4 76 2 6 RL 761 4 76 0 6 76 0 8 75 9 6 3.3% 3.8% 759 8 1.4% 1.3 % 1.5% 1.3 % 1.6 % 8" PV C 7626 762 8 30 " R C P 24" R C P 18" R C P 18" RCP 7600 7594 7596 7598 7602 7604 7606 2. 3 % 30 " R C P 12" PVC 760 0 7610 7620 7598 760 276047606 7608 7612 7614 7616 7618 7622 7590 7586 7588 7592 7594 7596 75 8 2 75 8 4 7582 7584 758 6 7586 760 4 7600 7590 7580 758 4 75 8 6 75 8 8 7590 7588 7592 7600 761 0 76 2 0 7592 7594 7596 7598 7602 7604 7606 7608 761 2 761 4 76 1 6 76 1 8 76 2 2 76 2 4 7626 76 2 8 7630 764 0 7620 76 2 2 7620 7618 76 1 8 76 1 6 7600 7610 7620 7626 7628 76 3 0 7640 76 1 4 7610 7606 2.4% RAIN GARDEN 2 7602.32 ME 7600.00 ME 7599.76 ME 12 " P V C 15 " H D P E 15" H D P E 12 " P V C 7590 7600 7586 7588 7592 7594 7596 7598 STE A M E R P A R K W A Y EXISTING 80' ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT EXISTING 10' GAS EASEMENT EXISTING 20' WATER EASEMENT EXISTING 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PROPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT 8' WALK TO BE INSTALLED WITH CARRIAGE HOUSE PER TRC PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) SWALE 761 2 7. 3 % RAIN GARDEN 3 7601.46 ME D 8" P V C FF=0.00 FF=0.00 FF=0.00 FF=0.00 FF=0.00 0.00 FF=97.00 FF=97.00 FF=97.00 FF=97.00 FF=97.00 FF=16.00 FF=27.00 96.62 96.31 96.26 98.41 99.35 7600.39 ME 7625.83 ME 7632.93 ME 27.13 28.25 20.46 LP 28.33 TW/BW 7628.45 ME 28.81 28.17 28.37 28.47 28.56 27.71 26.91 25.80 LP 27.95 28.14 28.36 7626.20 ME 0.00 99.48 LP 0.00 15.00 TS 10.00 3.22 BS 5.00 27.93 FS 24.95 LP 7626.32 ME 29.14 29.27 7.00 BW 15.00 TW 15.00 TW 96.11 7598.34 97.12 7598.22 TBC/ME 15.00 20.00 FS 1.02 7599.77 ME 26.13 27.77 FS 28.09 FS 0.00 15.00 99.76 ME2.86 TS 99.76 BS 13.83 BW 15.00 TW 99.47 99.79 7598.92 TBC/ME 96.92 7628.10 ME 7629.12 ME 25.65 26.59 27.36 FF=15.00 16.00 BW 15.00 TW 14.48 BW 91.47 7590.00 ME 27.12 TW 23.12 BW 22.86 7627.80 ME 27.80 99.19 LP 28.78 4.1% 7622 7622 7624 7626 7628 4.3%9.3% 23.12 3. 6 % 26.16 29.59 28.87 27.25 12" PVC 18" RCP 18 " P V C 8" PVC 30" R C P 8" P V C 76 0 4 760 6 76 0 0 76 0 2 12 " H D P E EXISTING POND EXISTING RAIN GARDEN A (EXPANDED) 7.3 %2.8 % 2.1% 2.0% 6.2 % 3.0% PROPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 5345 5343 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION43.50 PROPOSED STORM LINE D PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE 5345 5343 EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION43.50 EXISTING STORM LINE D EXISTING STORM INLET EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EX SD LEGEND: 03/19/21 165 165 1 Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.03.19 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.03.19 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 C-551 UTILITY PLAN W W W W W W W W W D D D D SS SS W G G G G SS E E E E E FILM CENTER CONCERT HALL CARRIAGE HOUSE W W W W G G G G G D S S TRAN E W W S S SS SS SS SS S SS SS SS SS SS E E E E E E G G G G G D SS SS E E E E E E W W G E E E E EX E EX E EX W EX W EX W EX W EX FO EX FO EX FO EX E EX E EX EEX E EX SD EX SD EX SD EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX G EX G EX G EX G EX G EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX S S EX S S EX S S EX S S EX SD EX W EX W EX E EX E EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX E EX EEX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX S S EX S S EX SS EX SS EX S S EX S S EX S S EX S S EX S S EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W EX W S EX S D S S 24" RCP S EX S D 24 " R C P 8" P V C 6" PVC 18 " 24" EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX E EX G EX G EX G EX G EX G EX G EX G S EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D EX S D EX S D D D D D D 113 L F ~ 1 8 " R C P @ 1 . 0 0 % 88 LF~18" RCP @ 1.00% 134 LF~24" RCP @ 1.00% 110 LF~30" RCP @ 5.00% SDMH A-50 (4' DIA.) INV. IN=7621.27 INV. OUT=7621.07 SDMH A-40 (4' DIA.) INV. IN=7619.94 INV. IN=7616.75 INV. OUT=7616.25 SDMH A-30 (6' DIA.) INV. IN=7614.91 INV. OUT=7614.21 SD INLET B-20 (18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. IN=7592.61 INV. OUT=7592.61 SDCO B-21 INV. OUT=7592.70 SD INLET A-40INV. IN=7592.07INV. OUT=7592.07SD INLET C-40 (12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. OUT=7597.53 SD FES A-10 (30") INV. IN=7606.00 ELECTRICAL SERVICE RE: MEP PLANS GAS SERVICE RE: MEP PLANS RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT RELOCATED 12" DIP WATER LINE EXISTING TRANSFORMERTO REMAIN EXISTINGFIRE HYDRANT EXISTINGFIRE HYDRANT CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY CONNECT TO EXISTING GAS CONNECT TO EXISTING ELECTRICAL EXISTINGFIRE HYDRANT 20' EXISTINGWATER EASEMENT 10' EXISTINGGAS EASEMENT 20' EXISTINGWATER EASEMENT 30' EXISTINGDRAINAGE EASEMENT RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT 72 LF~6" PVC @ 2.00% SSCO A-20 INV.=7591.54 45 LF~6" PVC @ 2.00% SANITARY SERVICE INV.=7592.44 RE: MEP PLANS 20' WATER EASEMENT 12" RCP 12 " R C P 12 " R C P 8" PVC 18 " R C P 12 " D I P 12 " D I P 12" D I P 8" P V C 8" P V C 4" PVC 8" PVC 8" P V C FIRE LINE RE: MEP PLANS DOMESTIC SERVICE W/ INSIDE SET METER 8" P V C 8" P V C 12" PVC 12" DIP 30 " R C P ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION RE: MEP PLANS 4" PERF. PVC FOUNDATION DRAIN 4" PERF. PVC FOUNDATION DRAIN ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION RE: MEP PLANS 19 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 9 LF~4" PVC @ 0.50% 23 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% REMOVE STORM LINE SDCO B-22 INV. OUT=7592.72 SDCO C-30 INV. IN=7597.28 INV. OUT=7597.28 48 LF~8" PVC @ 0.50% SD INLET B-10 (TYPE C (OVERFLOW)) INV. IN=7592.56 INV. OUT=7592.56 58 LF~12" PVC @ 0.50% PRPOPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT 10 LF~12" PVC @ 2.00% STEA M E R P A R K W A Y PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) PROPOSED 6' WALK (EAST PARKING) SD INLET C-20 (15" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. IN=7597.04 INV. OUT=7596.54 15" H D P E 15 " H D P E 8' WALK TO BE INSTALLED WITH CARRIAGE HOUSE PER TRC 50 LF~8" PVC @ 0.50% 58 LF~12" PVC @ 0.93% RAIN GARDEN 3 WQCV REQUIRED = 548 CU FT WQCV PROVIDED = 650 CU FT EXISTING POND D 35 LF~8" PVC @ 1.00% SD INLET C-11 (12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. OUT=7601.33 SD FES D-10 (18") INV. IN=7592.47 92 LF~18" PVC @ 0.74% SD INLET D-20 (24" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. IN=7593.15 INV. OUT=7593.15 16 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% SDCO D-40 INV. IN=7593.30 INV. OUT=7593.30 43 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% SDCO D-50 INV. IN=7593.52 INV. OUT=7593.52 32 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% SDCO D-60 INV. OUT=7593.68 SD INLET A-60 (10' TYPE R) INV. IN=7622.66 INV. OUT=7622.16 SDMH A-20 (5' DIA.) INV. IN=7608.69 INV. OUT=7608.49 95 L F ~ 3 0 " R C P @ 2 . 6 4 % EXISTING RAIN GARDEN A (EXPANDED)EXISTING WQCV PROVIDED = 1,290 CU FT (EST.)EXPANDED WQCV PROVIDED = 3,250 CU FT 34 LF~8" PVC @ 1.00% CONNECT EXISTING 24" STORM LINE REMOVE STORM LINE SD INLET A-42 (12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) INV. OUT=7617.97 15 LF~12" PVC @ 0.75% SD INLET A-41 (5' TYPE R) INV. IN=7617.85 INV. OUT=7617.35 80 L F ~ 1 8 " R C P @ 0 . 7 5 % CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER EXISTING ROOF DRAIN 12 " H D P E APPROXIMATE TOP OF POND BOUNDARY RAIN GARDEN 2 WQCV REQUIRED = 338 CU FT PROVIDED = 798 CU FT WQCV WSE = 7595.52 EXISTING RAIN GARDEN 1WQCV REQUIRED = 1,503 CU FTPROVIDED = 1,524 CU FTWQCV WSE = 7586.24 DRAINAGE SWALE PROPOSED 24' ACCESS EASEMENT APPROXIMATE TOP OF POND BOUNDARY SDCO D-30 INV. IN=7593.23 INV. OUT=7593.23 15 LF~4" PERF. PVC @ 0.50% 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 PROPOSED STORM LINE E PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LINE FO PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC LINE G PROPOSED GAS LINE T PROPOSED TELEPHONE LINE SS PROPOSED SANITARY LINE W PROPOSED WATER LINE COM S D TV W E FO T PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED CLEANOUT PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED WATER VALVE PROPOSED WATER FITTINGS PROPOSED MANHOLES EXISTING STORM LINE EX E EXISTING ELECTRICAL LINE EX FO EXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE EX G EXISTING GAS LINE EX T EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE EX SS EXISTING SANITARY LINE EX W EXISTING WATER LINE COM S D TV W E FO T EXISTING STORM INLET EXISTING CLEANOUT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING WATER VALVE EXISTING MANHOLES EXISTING EASEMENT EX SD LEGEND: 03/19/21 166 166 1 CARRIAGE HOUSE RENOVATION UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT CONCERT HALL AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AAAA AA AA CC CC CC CC CC CC EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE CC CC EE EE AA AA AA DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 17.3 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 15.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 17.2 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 7.9 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 16.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 11.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 17.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 10.5 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.8 6.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 18.9 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 11.4 2.4 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 3.8 5.6 10.1 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 7.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 2.7 6.6 5.0 1.5 2.6 0.2 2.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.5 1.1 2.0 18.4 1.1 4.1 16.8 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.5 4.2 2.3 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 14.2 4.6 1.9 18.6 1.3 9.2 7.3 4.2 15.5 4.6 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 3.5 3.7 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 14.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 3.7 1.6 8.3 17.9 8.0 1.6 2.6 1.3 1.7 8.5 2.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.6 2.7 12.6 1.0 1.4 2.7 3.2 2.7 3.8 8.4 1.7 0.7 16.2 2.5 0.1 1.8 19.6 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 4.6 5.5 5.8 3.0 2.2 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.0 18.1 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 12.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.4 0.4 0.1 0.7 5.9 0.6 8.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.4 6.4 0.3 1.3 1.1 0.3 12.8 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.5 10.6 7.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 11.4 14.9 14.4 4.4 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 16.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 11.1 9.9 14.3 9.3 4.1 3.6 2.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 6.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 12.4 0.9 0.7 10.1 13.6 5.7 0.9 1.4 1.3 3.2 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 16.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.4 0.2 1.1 6.2 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.5 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 18.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.7 5.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.7 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 3.0 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.5 12.2 0.2 0.0 9.1 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10.6 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 6.0 11.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.2 6.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 11.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 13.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 11.8 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.8 0.7 0.1 0.7 5.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.5 2.8 0.2 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 St a n l e y F i l m C e n t e r T R C TJE 2020.04.22 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 . GJA REVISION DATE . TYPICAL ISO-FOOTCANDLE CONTOURS 3.0fc 0.5fc 0.1fc E-100 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN 04/21/20 167 167 1 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 St a n l e y F i l m C e n t e r T R C TJE 2020.04.22 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 . GJA REVISION DATE . TYPE AA PROPOSED BOLLARD NOT TO SCALE TYPE CC PROPOSED RECESSED DOWNLIGHT NOT TO SCALE TYPE DD PROPOSED RAIL LIGHT AT CARRIAGE HOUSE NOT TO SCALE E-101 LUMINAIRE CUTSHEETS TYPE EE PROPOSED BUILDING MOUNTED AREA LIGHT NOT TO SCALE 04/21/20 168 168 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 1 Stanley Carriage House & Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Provided for Grand Heritage Hotel Group MOA Architecture March 19th, 2021 169 169 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 2 Executive Summary The Parking Operations Plan is provided at this time for Town of Estes Park planning review of the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Film Center project. It is critical to point out that the parking operations identified in this report illustrate parking needs are accommodated on the Stanley property for all current and proposed facilities identified within this report. This plan illustrates that all facilities, including the recently approved Carriage House and the Stanley Film Center will have parking provided that meets their projected needs. 450 total parking stalls are provided for on-site Guest and Visitor Parking at the Stanley property as identified in this plan. Staff designated parking is not included in the 450 spaces. 53 staff parking spaces are assigned separately and match the needs of current and future staff. The Stanley may relocate all staff parking off site in the future in which case, there would be 53 additional guest and visitor parking spaces available. The Stanley Historic District Master Plan identifies parking requirements for uses on the Stanley campus. Per the Master Plan parking requirements, and the analysis within this report, the Stanley lodging functions will require 240 total parking stalls. 210 stalls remain available for use by the Stanley Film Center and Carriage House restaurant. The analysis illustrates 194 stalls will be required by the Film Center and Carriage House. Of the 450 total stalls, the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center and Carriage House restaurant will have a series of four parking lots that accommodate 132 total vehicles, plus shared parking at the remaining lots on the Stanley campus. As illustrated in this Parking Operations Plan, the parking and transportation needs for the Stanley Film Center are amply provided on the Stanley property. Jack Mousseau, AIA MOA Architecture 170 170 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 3 Project Outline Grand Heritage Hotel Group “GH” proposes to build a Film and Performing Arts Center at The Stanley Hotel site, specifically within the “Arts District”. The creation of an “Arts District” was a critical component of F.O. Stanley’s original vision for the Stanley Hotel Property. The Film and Performing Arts Center is an integral piece in completing that vision. The Arts District at the Stanley will consist of the existing Concert Hall and Carriage House, as well as the new Film and Performing Arts Center. The revitalization of this area will breathe new life into the Carriage House, turning it into a vibrant restaurant in support of the campus. This will bring a sustainable use into the Carriage House, giving it a financially feasible path to its renovation. The Concert Hall will benefit from a gentle connection to the new Film and Performing Arts Center. The connection will allow the Concert Hall to benefit from the restrooms, vertical circulation, ADA access and lobby of the Film and Performing Arts Center. The supporting infrastructure will enable the Concert Hall to function as a 21st Century facility but maintain its historical roots and design. The existing Concert Hall will become a supportive “ancillary” use to the Film and Performing Arts Center, primarily hosting pre and post-performance activities. Simultaneous performances at the existing Concert Hall and the auditorium at the new Film and Performing Arts Center will not occur. The primary features of the Film and Performing Arts Center include an auditorium with 600 fixed seats, a small theater with 60 fixed seats designed as part of the Stanley Horror Center Tour (a museum like experience) and various meeting rooms. The remainder of the facility includes minor retail and support facilities for the film and performing arts functions as well as maintenance and operations facilities for the Stanley property. The existing Carriage House will be renovated into a full-service restaurant. Approximately 250 seats are planned for the restaurant including outdoor patio dining. The primary use of the new auditorium for performing arts will occur during off-peak tourism season so as not to conflict with peak season hotel guest and visitor parking demands. The off- peak season spans the months of October thru May. During these months, it is estimated that that two to three events will be held monthly in the auditorium with an average attendance of 400 persons. Typically, these events will occur on weeknights between the hours of 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm. It is also anticipated that four events per year will be at full capacity (600 attendees). The Stanley Horror Center will be a unique program located in the basement level of the Film and Performing Arts Center. The maximum number of persons per tour is 23 with tours occurring every 30 minutes from 10:00 am to 11:00 pm. Parking Fees and Access Control Parking for hotel guests is provided as part of their payment for lodging at the time a booking is made. Parking charges for Film Center performance events will occur as a part of ticket pre- sales. Day visitors or event visitors not associated with an auditorium performance are required to pay for on-site parking at a rate of $10 per vehicle. Parking fees are charged between the hours of 10:00 am and 4:00 pm. Fee collection occurs at the parking control pavilion at the entrance to the property. Restaurant visitors are anticipated to primarily visit after 4:00 pm and would not be charged for parking. Restaurant visitors arriving during parking fee collection hours will be reimbursed parking fees. Because the Stanley property (with the exception of the Aspire) has a controlled access point for guests and visitors, guests and visitors must identify the reason for their visit (lodging, 171 171 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 4 performance event, restaurant, etc.), payment is collected if it hasn’t been provided as part of lodging or ticket sales, and then the vehicle is directed to available and appropriate parking areas, dependent on the reason for the visit. Direct interface with a parking control person at the entry to the Stanley property will identify if the vehicle is arriving for lodging, an auditorium event or other function. This system allows the Stanley to regulate visitors by directing them to available parking, ensure adequate parking is available, and anticipate parking contingency needs as necessary. The parking control point is typically manned during the peak visitor season (June 15th to August 15th, then again through the month of September). It is not typically manned during off peak season. Town of Estes Park Resort Property Agreements In earlier versions of the Parking and Operations Plan, it had been identified that the Stanley was in negotiation with several off-site guest properties which wish to provide shared lodging/ticket presales for events at the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center. Agreements with these properties would reduce on-site parking requirements by use of a shared shuttle service between resort properties. Rather than negotiate property agreements, the Stanley Hotel will control and operate a private guest shuttle independently. The Stanley will operate the shuttle through a third-party operator using the TIXR phone app. This approach will allow any user to purchase a shuttle ticket using the TIXR app and schedule a pickup. The app then sends the user information, location, and pick-up time to the shuttle. The direct app locational information will allow the shuttle to operate without need for a set route, rather it will operate based on passenger location and demand much like an Uber. Depending on the location of an event at the Stanley (Film Center, Concert Hall, Main Hotel, etc.) the shuttle may drop at different locations. For a Film Center event, the shuttle would drop at the east entry of the Film Center. For an event at the existing Concert Hall, Lodge or Main Hotel, the shuttle would drop at the SW corner of the Concert Hall. Graphic 1.0 – Estes Park Lodging Map & Bike Routes 172 172 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 5 Alternative Means of Site Access The expected number of patrons forecast to walk or bike to the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center will be provided in the Traffic Impact Study. Pedestrian and bike routing in the Town of Estes Park and on the campus are illustrated on Graphics 1.0 and 2.1. On-site sidewalk systems provide a continuous, ADA-compliant path of travel from ADA parking to the entrance of the Carriage House as well as the Film and Performing Arts Center. New sidewalks, that have been agreed to be provided by the Stanley in discussions with the Town of Estes Park are shown on diagram 2.2. On-site sidewalks and paths tie to an off-site network of sidewalks within a walkable radius (20 minutes) of the Film and Performing Arts Center. The 20-minute walkable radius was discussed and agreed to by representatives of the Town of Estes Park Planning Department, as well as the Town of Estes Park Public Works representative for Parking and Transit Management. Graphic 3.0 and 4.0 depict the 20-minute walk zone in relationship to the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Transit 2020 plan. The 20-minute walk zone was derived from an online distance mapping service Walkscore.com. The algorithms utilized by the site align with the latest academic research regarding street walkability. More detailed information can be found at: https://www.walkscore.com/professional/research.php The running slopes connecting accessible parking spaces and entrances to the Film and Performing Arts Center are designed to be as flat as possible, with the maximum running slope of 5%. The remaining pedestrian sidewalks and paths will be designed as accessible to the maximum extent feasible. That approach is in line with Sidewalk Design Criteria outlined in Pedestrian Facilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The expected number of patrons forecast to take private transportation (e.g., Uber, Lyft, Estes Park Shuttle, etc.) to the Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center will also be provided in the Traffic Impact Study. 173 173 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 6 Graphic 2.1 – Sidewalk Location Diagrams Graphic 2.2 – New Sidewalk Location Diagram 174 174 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 7 Graphic 3.0 – 20 Minute Walk Zone Diagram 175 175 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 8 Graphic 4.0 – Estes Transit 2020 Diagram Stanley Parking Lot Descriptions The Stanley Hotel property has a number of guest and visitor parking lots that serve the various buildings and uses on the property including the Hotel and Lodge (guest lodging), the Concert Hall and new Film and Performing Arts Center, the Carriage House Restaurant, and the Aspire Lodge and Spa. Additionally, staff designated parking is provided separately and matches the needs of current and future staff. Graphic 5.0 illustrates the parking lot locations and stall counts on the Stanley Campus. Additionally, it identifies handicap parking stalls per lot. The guest and visitor parking distributed to the various uses is as follows: • Stanley Hotel and Lodge Parking Lots o The hotel has a series of five lots that accommodate 250 total vehicles. • Stanley Aspire Lodging and Spa Parking Lots o The Aspire parking lot accommodates 66 vehicles. • Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center and Carriage House Restaurant Parking Lots o The film and performing arts center and Carriage House restaurant will have a series of four lots that accommodate 132 total vehicles. Of these, 4 stalls in Lot H- 1 are handicap compliant per the requirements of the ADA, 2010 code and will 176 176 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 9 serve the Carriage House with direct ADA connectivity. The stall locations and connectivity is identified in the Carriage House and East Parking permit documents • Total on-site Guest and Visitor Parking Spaces – 450 spaces* *Staff designated parking is not included in the 450 spaces. 53 staff parking spaces are assigned separately and match the needs of current and future staff. The Stanley may relocate all staff parking off site in the future in which case, there would be 53 additional guest and visitor parking spaces available. FUNCTION SPACES ON-SITE Stanley Hotel/Lodge 252 Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center 132 Stanley Aspire 66 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 450 Graphic 5.0 - Total parking spaces provided on the Stanley Property Lot Designation Parking Count A 49 B 66 C-1 34 C-2 29 177 177 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 10 Film and Performing Arts Center - Vehicle Trip Generation as Related to Parking Needs The primary uses of the Film and Performing Arts Center, the auditorium, and the Stanley Horror Center, were analyzed in a separate Traffic Impact Study to determine vehicle trip generation, which in turn helps develop the needs for parking. A large single event at the auditorium could have an attendance of 600 persons. If all attendees are staying at the Stanley Hotel, there would be no external trips or additional parking demand beyond the hotel use (those staying at the hotel are also using the auditorium). However, the base assumption is that approximately 200 attendees would not be staying at the Stanley Hotel. Therefore, these attendees would arrive/depart in 80 private vehicles (200 attendees/2.5 auto occupancy). The events would typically occur in the evening (starting at 8:00 pm). Beyond the large auditorium events, there could be medium sized events in the auditorium that would have a larger number of external attendees. Under this assumption, attendance could be approximately 450 persons. At 80% external attendance, there would be approximately 150 private vehicles (360 attendees/2.5 auto occupancy). Parking Requirements Based on the Stanley Historic District Master Plan The Stanley Historic District Master Plan identifies parking requirements and are summarized as follows in relationship to the Film and Performing Arts Center. Arts Center – five (5) spaces per 1,000 SF Recreation/Wellness/Conference – three (3) spaces per 1,000 SF Commercial/Retail/Restaurant – five (5) spaces per 1,000 SF As a mixed-use facility, the Film and Performing Arts Center houses many including the Arts Center, a Conference Center, retail area and the Carriage House restaurant. The square footage for each of these dedicated functions, along with the parking requirement based solely on that single use is identified as follows: Arts Center Functions – 38,260 SF at 5/1000 parking = 191 stalls Conference Center Functions – 22,510 SF at 3/1000 parking = 68 stalls Retail/Restaurant Functions – 9,000 SF at 5/1000 parking = 45 stalls TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON INDIVIDUAL USES = 304 stalls C-3 5 D 35 E 34 F 32 G 44 H-1 18 H-2 38 J-1 11 J-2 31 J-3 24 TOTAL AVAILABLE 450 178 178 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 11 Recognizing that there will be significant shared parking between these uses, this direct calculation method for each individual use is inappropriate. This was anticipated within the Stanley Historic District Master Plan in recognition of the shared uses on the property and a desire to limit parking on the property in favor of dedicated open space. Page 31 of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan states: “At such time that the Cultural Arts Center is constructed, a joint use for parking for the Stanley Hotel and the Cultural Arts Center may become a part of the overall parking plan for the Cultural Arts Center.” Additionally, peak hours of operation for the different uses listed will vary significantly. As an example, the auditorium in the Film and Performing Arts Center will have peak use between the hours of 8:00 pm and 11:00 pm. The conference center functions are anticipated to have peak use between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm. The peak utilization of these spaces, and thus, the associated parking needs do not overlap. The Parking Operations Plan has built in assumptions to help guide expected building operations and related parking needs. Anticipated Hours of Operation Arts Center Auditorium Functions - 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm Conference Center Functions - 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Stanley Horror Center Tour Functions 10:00 am to 11:00 pm Retail/Restaurant Functions - 7:00 am to 10:00 pm* (*restaurant hours may vary on weekends or with significant events but will typically be as stated here) All lodging accommodations offered on the Stanley Campus host between 350 and 450 guests per night in peak season. These include guests at the Stanley Hotel, the Lodge and the Aspire. It is anticipated that many of the visitors to the Film and Performing Arts Center will be Stanley Hotel and Aspire guests already parking in the respective guest lots. Attendees not staying at the Stanley Hotel or Aspire will park in the Film and Performing Arts Center lots. These lots are expected to accommodate the average event attendance. Anticipated Percentage of Patrons Utilizing Lodging and Other Uses Lodging and Arts Center Functions – 450 attendees with 20% using lodging Lodging and Conference Center Functions – 300 attendees with 80% using lodging Lodging and Stanley Horror Center Tour Functions – 46 person per hour with 30% using lodging Lodging and Retail/Restaurant Functions – 250 patrons with 40% using lodging Parking Needs Parking needs for lodging guests are currently adequately provided for. With between 350 and 450 guests per night during peak season, the 318 parking spaces provided at the Hotel, Lodge and Aspire provide adequate parking resources. The Stanley property provides the following numbers of lodging rooms: Stanley Hotel 99 rooms The Lodge 40 rooms The Aspire 53 rooms TOTAL ROOMS = 192 179 179 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 12 The Stanley Historic District Master Plan parking requirement for hotel/lodging is 1.25 spaces per room. Based on a total room count of 192, the parking requirement for lodging on-site is 240 spaces. There is a significant anticipated reduction in project parking requirements based on shared parking assumptions between activities at the Stanley property. Shared parking is expected to occur between the lodging, the Film and Performing Arts Center and the Carriage House restaurant. Film Center Functions – 191 stalls (20% are provided for with lodging) = 153 spaces needed Conference Center Functions – 68 stalls (80% are provided for with lodging) = 14 stalls needed Retail/Restaurant Functions – 45 stalls (40% are provided for with lodging) = 27 stalls needed In summary, parking requirements based on shared use assumptions are as follows: FUNCTION SPACES REQUIRED Lodging 240 Film Center 153 Conference Center 14 Retail/Restaurant 27 TOTAL PARKING NEED 434 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED ON-SITE - 450 SPACES The above parking requirements assume that parking requirements for each function on the Stanley property are occurring simultaneously and utilizing all parking spaces per their requirement. Given the expected hours of operation for each function, it is unlikely that this would occur. For instance, the auditorium will be scheduled for performances between 8:00 pm and 11:00 pm. The conference center will complete operation at 6:00 pm. Events utilizing the conference center beyond 6:00 pm are anticipated to be auditorium patrons attending a pre or post performance event. Simultaneous use of these two functions is not anticipated. Parking Contingencies Should additional parking be needed due to infrequent, significant events, arrangements will be made for the utilization of off-site public parking and shuttle services. All major events requiring utilization of shuttle services are anticipated to be scheduled for weeknights in off-peak season with events scheduled from 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm. In this event, shuttle services would be provided typically from 6:00 pm to 12:00 am. The anticipated/desired Level of Service for shuttle/trolley (i.e., headways) would be as follows: • Every 15 minutes: 90 minutes before to 30 minutes before the beginning of an event • Every 5 minutes: 30 minutes before to 15 minutes after beginning of an event • Every 30 minutes: 15 minutes after the beginning of an event to 15 minutes before the end of an event • Every 10 minutes: 15 minutes before the end of an event to 30 minutes after the end of an event 180 180 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 13 The Carriage House restaurant will NOT require private or public shuttle bus connectivity to augment parking provided on site. The Film and Performing Arts Center will operate on a ticket pre-sale system so the number of attendees for events will be known ahead of time. Very little walk-up ticket sales are expected. If necessary, in the event of a sold-out feature performance, GH will notify and coordinate with public parking properties including the Town of Estes Park, along with the towns seasonal shuttle system and private shuttle services ahead of the event to ensure adequate parking as well as shuttle transport systems are in place. Because most performances will occur outside of peak tourist season, the likelihood of this occurring and the frequency of occurrence will be very low. Public parking areas that can be utilized include the Town of Estes Parking public parking structure and the Events Complex. The Estes Park Visitor Center offers guests parking, with the new Estes Park Parking Structure hosting 415 spots, restrooms and access to all five town shuttles, including the downtown trolley, as well as the Rocky Mountain National Park hiker shuttle. Located at 500 Big Thompson Avenue, the visitor center is near the Stanley property. The largest parking area is the Park & Ride stop located at the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park at 1209 Manford Avenue, just east of Highway 7 and south of Highway 36. The Stanley Hotel will control and operate a private guest shuttle independently. There is currently no negotiation with off-site resorts. The Stanley will operate the shuttle through a third- party operator using the TIXR phone app. This approach will allow any user to purchase a shuttle ticket using the TIXR app and schedule a pickup. The app then sends the user information, location, and pick-up time to the shuttle. The direct app locational information will allow the shuttle to operate without need for a set route, rather it will operate based on passenger location and demand much like an Uber. Depending on the location of an event at the Stanley (Film Center, Concert Hall, Main Hotel, etc.) the shuttle may drop at different locations. For a Film Center event, the shuttle would drop at the east entry of the Film Center. For an event at the existing Concert Hall, Lodge or Main Hotel, the shuttle would drop at the SW corner of the Concert Hall. Film Center Service, Loading and Bus Access The Film Center design accommodates a service and loading yard on the east side of the building. Accessed through the new East Parking Lot development, the service and loading will accommodate deliveries, service vehicles, trash, etc. The service and loading area will typically host vehicles including pick-up trucks, 35-foot box trucks, trash removal vehicles, etc. Turning radius design throughout the Stanley property will accommodate these vehicles. Upon limited occasions, semi-truck access will be required. This would occur when significant performances are scheduled at the Film Center. On those occasions, there are 7 parking stalls that will need to be coned-off to accommodate semi-truck deliveries. These stalls are identified on Graphic 6.0 – Truck Turning Plan. Bus route access for town buses are identified on Graphic 7.0 – Bus Turning Plan. This is the town transit bus path. Bus path for performing artists would be similar but would park at the service/loading area. 181 181 1 The Stanley Film and Performing Arts Center Parking Operations Plan Updated 01-29-2021 14 Graphic 6.0 – Truck Turning Plan Graphic 7.0 – Town Bus Turning Plan 182 182 1 Aug. 2019 S T A N L E Y H O T E L E S T E S PA R K , C O LO R A D O THE STANLEY CAMPUS - PARKING & OPERATIONS 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 STANLEY FILM CENTER STANLEY LOT 1 STANLEY LOT 2 STANLEY LOT 4 RIDGLINE RESORT ESTES PARK RESORT 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 T h o m p s o n A v e 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 PUBLIC PARKING MAP GRAPHICS SUPERIMPOSED ON A GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE. GRAPHIC 1.0 ALL DAY 3 HOUR PARKING (MAY-SEPTEMBER) BIKE PATH RIVER MAIN ROAD NETWORK 1 HOUR PARKING (MAY-SEPTEMBER) PARKING AND CIRCULATION 183 183 1 Aug. 2019 S T A N L E Y H O T E L E S T E S PA R K , C O LO R A D O ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND BUILDING ACCESS ROUTE ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND BUILDING ACCESS ROUTE SHUTTLE DROP OFF ZONE BIKE RACKS ACCESSIBLE SHUTTLE BICYCLEPEDESTRIAN GRAPHIC 2.1 184 184 1 Aug. 2019 S T A N L E Y H O T E L E S T E S PA R K , C O LO R A D O Proposed Sidewalk Locations sidewalk agreed to in Carriage House TRC RECENTLY COMPLETED C-DOT SIDEWALK sidewalk agreed to in Carriage House TRC, regrade with fill from Film Center site and to meet accessible grade requirements Proposed sidewalk as shown is within Lot 1 site boundaries. No sidewalks outside of Lot 1 site boundaries will be considered. Sidewalk will be 8’ in width. New detached sidewalk along south boundary of Lot 1 - sidewalk to be approximately 8’ off of street curb Undulating 15’ wide landscape buffer on north side of sidewalk, landscape on south side between sidewalk and curb Extend landscaping from sidewalk intersection, west to existing landscape GRAPHIC 2.2 185 185 1 Aug. 2019 S T A N L E Y H O T E L E S T E S PA R K , C O LO R A D OGRAPHIC 3.0 STANLEY FILM CENTER FOR INFORMATIONAL PUPORSES ONLY. THIS IMAGE USES THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK MAP AND WALK-SCORE.COM 2 0 M I N UTE W A LK ZON E STANLEY HOTEL 20 MINUTE WALK ZONE FROM THE STANLEY FILM WALK ZONE CENTER POINT 186 186 1 Aug. 2019 S T A N L E Y H O T E L E S T E S PA R K , C O LO R A D O STANLEY FILM CENTER FOR INFORMATIONAL PUPORSES ONLY. THIS IMAGE USES THE TOWN OF ESTES TRANSIT MAP AND WALK-SCORE.COM GRAPHIC 4.0 FIRST TRIP: NOON FINAL DEPARTURES: 5:30 p.m. SAT & SUN ONLY FIRST TRIP: 10 a.m. FINAL DEPARTURES: 6:30 p.m. FIRST TRIP: 10 a.m. FINAL DEPARTURES: 6:30 p.m. FIRST TRIP: 10 a.m. FINAL DEPARTURES: 6:30 p.m. FIRST TRIP: 10 a.m. FINAL DEPARTURES: 10:30 p.m. 20 MIN UTE WALK ZO NE 2 0 MIN UTE WAL K ZO N E STANLEY HOTEL 20 MINUTE WALK ZONE FROM THE FILM CENTER WALK ZONE CENTER POINT 187 187 1 Aug. 2019 S T A N L E Y H O T E L E S T E S PA R K , C O LO R A D O 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 PARKING 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 GRAPHIC 5.0 HC - HANDICAP 483 REGULAR SPACES 20 HANDICAP SPACES 503 TOTAL SPACES 188 188 1 Aug. 2019 S T A N L E Y H O T E L E S T E S PA R K , C O LO R A D OGRAPHIC 6.0 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 E a s t P a r k i n g SSM 2020.09.30 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 ASI-08 JDC REVISION DATE 2020.09.08 TRUCK TURNING PLAN C-901 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 500 189 189 1 Aug. 2019 S T A N L E Y H O T E L E S T E S PA R K , C O LO R A D OGRAPHIC 7.0 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 St a n l e y H o t e l E a s t P a r k i n g 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 7 190 190 1 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 E a s t P a r k i n g SSM 2020.09.30 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 ASI-08 JDC REVISION DATE 2020.09.08 TRUCK TURNING PLAN C-901 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 500 STEA M E R P A R K W A Y CONCERT HALL HOTEL PROPOSED FILM CENTER CARRIAGE HOUSE VA N VA N VA N VA N CURB AND GUTTER TO BE RELOCATED WITH THE FILM CENTER PROJECT. NO SEMI-TRUCKS WILL BE REQUIRED UNTIL FILM CENTER IS OPERATIONAL. THE STANLEY HOTEL SHALL CONE OFF 7 PARKING STALLS PRIOR TO SCHEDULED EVENTS THAT WILL REQUIRE A SEMI- TRUCK DELIVERY WB-62 - Interstate Semi-Trailer 48 27.9 Max 65° Horiz Max 10° Vert 39 4 2.5 23.5 4 17.4 4.2 WB-62 - Interstate Semi-Trailer Overall Length 69.000ft Overall Width 8.500ft Overall Body Height 13.500ft Min Body Ground Clearance 1.334ft Max Track Width 8.500ft Lock-to-lock time 6.00s Max Steering Angle (Virtual)28.40° 191 191 1 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 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 E a s t P a r k i n g SSM 2020.09.30 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 ASI-10 JDC REVISION DATE 2021.02.04 BUS TURNING PLAN C-902STEA M E R P A R K W A Y CONCERT HALL PROPOSED FILM CENTER CARRIAGE HOUSE VA N VA N VA N VA N CITY-B U S - C i t y T r a n s i t B u s 40 7 25 TOWN BUS Overall Length 40.000ft Overall Width 8.500ft Overall Body Height 10.500ft Min Body Ground Clearance 1.158ft Track Width 8.500ft Lock-to-lock time 5.00s Max Steering Angle (Virtual)41.40° 192 192 1 CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.DATE: SHEET: SCALE: 1"=30' 19051 JDC SSM 03/15/21 CSK-14 FIRE TRUCK TURNING EXHIBIT STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 FILM CENTER Estes Pa r k F i r e T r u c k R40' PROPERTY LINE 41.5' 8.33'16.54'4.5' Estes Park Fire Truck - L71 Overall Length 40.15' Overall Width 8.00' Overall Body Height 5.94' Min Body Ground Clearance 1.56' Track Width 8.0' Lock-to-lock time 5.00s Max Wheel Angle 45.00° 7605 7620 7635 7650 7665 7605 7620 7635 7650 7665 0+00 0+30 0+60 0+90 1+20 1+50 1+74.16 193 193 1 Stanley Hotel Walk Improvements CONCEPT • ENHANCED, WELCOMING STREETSCAPE • IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TO DOWNTOWN • NATIVE, HARDY PLANTINGS WITH YEAR ROUND INTEREST • ACCENT ROCK OUTCROPPINGS Stanley Hotel Steame r P a r k w a y SW S t e a m e r P a r k w a y PROPOSED 6’ WALK CONNECTION TO TOWN PROPOSED NATIVE PLANTINGS PROPOSED BOULDER ACCENTS PROPOSED 8’ STEAMER PARKWAY WALK PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BERMS EXISTING STREET LIGHTS TO BE PRESERVED PROPOSED DRAINAGE SWALES EXISTING DRAIN INLETS EXISTING STORM INLETS PROPOSED CROSSWALKS EXISTING ROW/PROPERTY LINE NOTE: PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL AND LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. KEY 1 1 1 2 2 23 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 10 11 11 11 10 10 9 9 9 A B 0 8040 160N 194 194 1 VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=5' HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=30' CENTERLINE PLAN CENTERLINE PROFILE 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 E a s t P a r k i n g SSM 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 Revision 8 JDC REVISION DATE 2020.02.07 C-331 CENTERLINE PLAN AND PROFILE 75 9 0 76 0 0 76 1 0 762 0 75 9 0 VAN VAN VAN VAN 10 + 0 0 11+ 0 0 12+ 0 0 13+0 0 14+0 0 15+ 0 0 16 + 0 0 16 + 5 8 CARRIAGE HOUSE -A-A 76 0 0 761 0 7620 75 9 4 75 9 6 75 9 8 76 0 2 76 0 4 76 0 6 76 0 8 761 2 761 4 7616 7618 7622 7624 7620 762 2 762 4 76 2 6 76 2 8 761 0 760 4 76 0 4 76 0 6 76 0 8 761 2761 4761 6 76 1 8 7600 7602 75 8 2 75 8 4 75 8 6 75 8 8 75 9 2 75 9 4 75 9 6 75 9 8 76 0 2760 4 76 0 6 76 0 8 761 2761 4 76 1 6 761 8 76 2 2 76 2 4 76 2 676 2 8 7598 76 0 0 75 9 0 7618 762 0 7622 D D 12 " P V C 12 " R C P 12" RC P 8" P V C 18" RC P 4" PVC 12 " P V C 8" P V C 75 9 6 - B-B C1 C2 C3 L1 C4 L2 6" PV C 8" P V C 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 NOTES: 1.SEE SHEET C-001 FOR CIVIL NOTES AND LEGEND. ALIGNMENT LINE TABLE LINE # L1 L2 LENGTH 19.54' 20.51' BEARING S5°10'50"W S51°31'59"W START POINT (N,E) (1382461.29,2995630.40) (1382231.23,2995518.06) END POINT (N,E) (1382441.83,2995628.64) (1382218.47,2995502.00) ALIGNMENT CURVE TABLE CURVE # C1 C2 C3 C4 RADIUS 100.00' 405.50' 80.00' 310.50' LENGTH 60.20' 243.98' 70.17' 244.11' DELTA 34°29'30" 34°28'26" 50°15'13" 45°02'41" STARTING (N,E) (1382629.81,2995335.55) (1382636.83,2995394.43) (1382525.15,2995607.23) (1382441.83,2995628.64) ENDING (N,E) (1382636.83,2995394.43) (1382525.15,2995607.23) (1382461.29,2995630.40) (1382231.23,2995518.06) EXISTING GRADE @ CL OF DRIVE FINISHED GRADE @ CL OF DRIVE 7587 7590 7593 7596 7599 7602 7605 7608 7611 7614 7617 7620 7623 7626 7629 7632 7635 7638 7587 7590 7593 7596 7599 7602 7605 7608 7611 7614 7617 7620 7623 7626 7629 7632 7635 7638 76 2 5 . 2 6 10+00 76 2 5 . 0 3 10+20 76 2 5 . 3 3 76 2 3 . 4 7 10+50 76 2 3 . 8 7 76 1 9 . 4 3 10+80 76 2 2 . 0 8 76 1 7 . 4 8 11+10 76 2 0 . 3 0 76 1 7 . 0 6 11+40 76 1 8 . 5 1 76 1 7 . 0 3 11+70 76 1 6 . 7 3 76 1 7 . 0 2 12+00 76 1 4 . 9 4 76 1 7 . 0 0 12+30 76 1 2 . 9 4 76 1 6 . 7 4 12+60 76 1 0 . 5 3 76 1 6 . 2 3 12+90 76 0 7 . 7 2 76 1 3 . 2 8 13+20 76 0 4 . 7 2 76 0 6 . 8 4 13+50 76 0 1 . 9 6 76 0 4 . 5 7 13+80 75 9 9 . 6 5 76 0 2 . 5 0 14+10 75 9 7 . 7 9 75 9 9 . 8 7 14+40 75 9 6 . 2 4 75 9 6 . 5 0 14+70 75 9 4 . 9 7 75 9 3 . 9 6 15+00 75 9 3 . 9 4 75 9 2 . 5 6 15+30 75 9 3 . 0 6 75 9 2 . 1 3 15+60 75 9 2 . 5 9 75 9 1 . 9 9 15+90 75 9 2 . 5 3 75 9 1 . 6 5 16+20 75 9 2 . 8 8 75 9 1 . 5 9 16+50 16+80 -5.95% -10.0 0 % -5.50% 8.33% 1.00% -3.24% 1.46% PV I S : 1 0 + 3 0 . 0 0 PV I E : 7 6 2 5 . 0 2 PV I S : 1 0 + 3 1 . 5 0 PV I E : 7 6 2 5 . 1 5 PV I S : 1 0 + 5 4 . 6 3 PV I E : 7 6 2 5 . 3 8 PV I S : 1 6 + 5 8 . 5 0 PV I E : 7 5 9 3 . 0 0 HIGH PT STA: 12+28.94 HIGH PT ELEV: 7615.00 PVI STA: 12+73.94 PVI ELEV: 7612.33 L=90.00 K=22.24 BV C S : 1 2 + 2 8 . 9 4 BV C E : 7 6 1 5 . 0 0 EV C S : 1 3 + 1 8 . 9 4 EV C E : 7 6 0 7 . 8 3 LOW PT STA: 15+18.83 LOW PT ELEV: 7594.30 PVI STA: 14+81.33 PVI ELEV: 7595.52 L=75.00 K=33.14 BV C S : 1 4 + 4 3 . 8 3 BV C E : 7 5 9 7 . 5 8 EV C S : 1 5 + 1 8 . 8 3 EV C E : 7 5 9 4 . 3 0 LOW PT STA: 14+38.97 LOW PT ELEV: 7597.85 PVI STA: 13+93.97 PVI ELEV: 7600.32 L=90.00 K=20.00 BV C S : 1 3 + 4 8 . 9 7 BV C E : 7 6 0 4 . 8 2 EV C S : 1 4 + 3 8 . 9 7 EV C E : 7 5 9 7 . 8 5 LOW PT STA: 16+08.92 LOW PT ELEV: 7592.50 PVI STA: 15+90.00 PVI ELEV: 7592.00 L=100.00 K=21.29 BV C S : 1 5 + 4 0 . 0 0 BV C E : 7 5 9 3 . 6 2 EV C S : 1 6 + 4 0 . 0 0 EV C E : 7 5 9 2 . 7 3 24' DRIVE LANE 19.5 PARKING 6' WALK BOULDER WALL 17.5' PARKING 24' DRIVE LANE 17.5' PARKING 6' WALK17.5' PARKING 2.0% 2.0% 2% 2% SCALE: 1"=20' SECTION A-A SCALE: 1"=20' SECTION B-B 02/07/20 Plans previously reviewed and approved in connection with Town of Estes Park Building Permit No. B-11160 , approved on 11-15-2019" 195 195 1 Stanley Hotel Walk Improvements NOTE: SECTIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY 8’ SIDEWALK STACKED BOULDERS EXISTING GRADE AND NEW LANDSCAPE PLANTING NEW GRADING AND PLANTING BUFFER SECTION A ROADWAY ROADWAY 8’ SIDEWALK 6’ LANDSCAPE BUFFER (EXISTING GRADE) LANDSCAPE BUFFER & VEGETATED SWALE ENHANCED GRADING AND CONTINUATION OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND BOULDERS EXISTING LANDSCAPE MEDIAN SECTION B 0 16’8’32’ 196 196 1 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR Stanley Hotel Film Center March 19, 2021 Prepared by: S. A. Miro, Inc. Consulting Engineers 4582 South Ulster St. Pkwy. Suite 750 Denver, Colorado 80237 (303) 741-3737 S. A. Miro Job No. 19-051 Jason D. Carr, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 33854 For and on behalf of S. A. Miro, Inc. 03/19/21 197 197 1 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report I hereby certify that this report (plan) for the final drainage design of Stanley Hotel Film Center was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) for the owners thereof and meet or exceed the criteria in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. Jason D. Carr, P.E. State of Colorado No. 33854 For and on behalf of S. A. Miro, Inc. 03/19/21 198 198 1 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report Table of Contents I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 0 Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 Description ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 II. VICINITY MAP ....................................................................................................................... 0 III. MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ..................................................................... 1 Major Basin Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 Sub-Basin Description .................................................................................................................................... 1 IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................. 2 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints .......................................................................................... 2 Hydrologic Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Hydraulic Criteria ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Water Quality Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 3 Detention Criteria .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Waivers from Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 3 V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN .............................................................................................. 3 General Concept ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Water Quality / Detention Features ............................................................................................................... 3 Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................. 4 VI. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 4 VII. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 4 VIII. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 5 Appendix A – Drainage Plans (Figures 1 through 3) Appendix B – Rational Calculations (Peak Runoff, Precipitation) Appendix C – Rain Garden Analysis, Inlet Sizing, StormCAD Analysis (Design Procedure Forms, Capacity Charts, Profile Reports) Appendix D – NRCS Soil Report (Custom Soil Report) 199 199 1 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 0 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Location The site is located northwest of the intersection of Steamer Parkway and Findley Court in Estes Park, CO. The proposed Film Center will be located between the existing Concert Hall and the existing Carriage House. A proposed drop off area will be added north of the film center off the existing northern parking lot and a loading dock will added along the western edge of the existing eastern parking lot. Description The existing site consists of native vegetated areas consisting of grasses, shrubs and trees. The site generally slopes toward the southeast, with slopes ranging from 2% to over 30%. There is currently a drainage ditch, known as the Grand Ditch, along the eastern lot line. The Grand Ditch conveys detained stormwater runoff from the condo development north of the project to an area drain south of the site just north of Steamer Parkway. The entire project site including the existing Carriage House, existing Concert Hall, and the proposed Film Center is approximately 5.48 acres and will be 65% impervious in the post-construction condition. The site is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area per the 2019 CHAMP map. Per the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Resource Report for this site, the site consists largely of Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes, which has a hydrologic group classification of “D”. A copy of the soil report is included in Appendix D of this report. II. VICINITY MAP 200 200 1 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 1 III. MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS Major Basin Description The approved Final Drainage Report for the Stanley Carriage House Parking Addition by S.A. Miro, Inc. dated September 9, 2019 revised August 12,2020 herein referred to as the report was referenced to assist in analyzing the drainage patterns. Another previous report titled Final Drainage Report for the Aspire Wellness Complex at The Stanley by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc, dated April 24, 2015 herein referred to as the Aspire Drainage Report, was referenced to assist in analyzing historic drainage patterns. The existing drainage plan and basin summary from the report are included in Appendix A. The majority of runoff for the site flows to the south and east via sheet flow and is captured in the existing Grand Ditch, ultimately discharging to an existing detention pond located south of Steamer Parkway, east of the Aspire development. The existing drainage patterns described above will be maintained in the proposed condition. The proposed development lies within existing Basin OS3 and OS4 as identified by the Aspire Drainage Report. The report states that the existing detention pond was built to anticipate an imperviousness of 40% at full buildout for these basins. Basin O3 and Basin O4 are currently at 28% and 16% impervious, respectively, as shown on the existing drainage map, Figure 1, included in Appendix A. The development proposed with this project will increase this imperviousness of Basin O3 and Basin O4 to 40% and 24%, respectively, which is within the anticipated buildout condition, 40% impervious, described in the Aspire Drainage Report. Sub-Basin Description The proposed development affects existing Basins B1 and B2 as shown in the report. Basin B1 and B2 have each been split in two for a total of seven revised basins to meet the design requirements for existing Rain Garden 1. The remaining areas of the project have been sub-divided into new basins, as depicted in the Proposed Drainage Plan, Figure 3, included in Appendix A. A detailed description of the existing and proposed sub-basins is presented in Tables 1 and 2 below: Table 1: Existing Sub-Basins Sub- Basin Area (acres) Imperviousness A1 0.29 89% B1 0.57 19% B2 0.61 2% B3 0.26 85% B4 0.69 89% B5 0.09 90% 201 201 1 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 2 Table 2: Proposed Sub-Basins Sub-Basin Area (acres) Imperviousness A1 0.30 95% B1-1 0.43 32% B1-2 0.25 38% B2 0.16 90% B3 0.26 92% B4 0.68 85% B5 0.12 90% B6 0.14 100% C1 1.21 56% C2 0.16 75% C3 0.26 36% C4 0.68 90% C5 0.12 39% C6 0.39 50% C7 0.15 25% C8 0.16 43% IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The proposed drainage improvements were designed utilizing the criteria specified in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards (addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals – Volumes 1, 2 and 3), in conjunction with the Mile High Flood Control District (MHFD) Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (Manual) and standard engineering practices to support the proposed site development. This drainage report also refers to the Aspire Drainage Report for information associated with the existing detention pond and the report for information regarding the existing drainage basins. Hydrologic Criteria The design rainfall and runoff calculation method used is the Rational Method for the 5-year minor and 100-year major storm events. The hydrologic soil group in this area is Type D. One-hour precipitation was determined utilizing the method and charts identified in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. The results are included in Table 2 below. Please refer to Appendix B for detailed calculations. 202 202 1 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 3 Table 2: One-Hour Point Rainfall Depths Return Period One-Hour Point Rainfall (inches) 2-Year 0.83 5-Year 1.18 10-Year 1.40 50-Year 1.96 100-Year 2.22 Hydraulic Criteria Larimer County refers to the latest MHFD design recommendations and tools for design of water quality elements. The proposed rain garden design follows the standards outlined by MHFD for at- grade bioretention systems. Stormwater flows were calculated using a proprietary spreadsheet. Pipe flows were analyzed using StormCAD hydraulic modeling software. Additional information on the methods utilized is contained in the appendix. Water Quality Requirements The existing Aspire Detention Pond was not designed to provide water quality for Basin O3 and O4, therefore water quality treatment must be provided for the impervious improvements proposed as a part of this project. The design will keep two existing rain gardens in place and add two additional rain gardens which have been designed in compliance with Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards and Volume 3 of the Manual. One of the rain gardens located south of the Concert Hall, Rain Garden A, will be regraded to provided additional water quality volume for runoff from his project. The rain gardens will outfall to existing inlets along Steamer Parkway and ultimately to the Aspire Detention Pond. Please refer to the rain garden details located within the appendix for additional information on the design elements of these treatment areas. Detention Criteria This project is not required to detain runoff on-site, as the existing Aspire Detention Pond has been designed and constructed to capture 100-year runoff from this basin. Waivers from Criteria No variances are being requested at this time. V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN General Concept The proposed site development will maintain a similar rate of runoff to existing conditions for storm events less than or equal to the water quality storm event, due to the detention and treatment for these smaller storm events in the one existing and three proposed rain gardens. Water Quality / Detention Features The existing rain garden, Rain Garden 1, that was constructed as part of the report will continue to provide water quality treatment for its tributary drainage basins. Due to increased impervious area added as part of this project existing Basin B1 was split into two basins, Basin B1-1 and B1-2 and 203 203 1 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 4 Basin 2 was split into two basins, Basins B2 and B6. Site constraints prohibit any revisions to be made to the existing Rain Garden 1 so a new rain garden, Rain Garden 2, is proposed to accommodate the increased runoff from Basins B1-1 and B2. An additional rain garden is being proposed to capture and treat the runoff from the proposed improvements for the Film Center. Rain Garden 3, located south of the Film Center, will capture and treat runoff for Basins B6, C6-C8. An existing rain garden south of the Concert Hall, Rain Garden A, will be regraded to capture and treat runoff from Basin C1-C5. These two rain gardens will outfall to drainage swales leading to the existing pond north of Steamer Parkway. Runoff will pass through the existing pond via two existing 15” outlet pipes, ultimately discharging to the Aspire Detention Pond. These BMPs have been designed per Volume 3 of Mile High. Runoff to these BMPs will permeate through a growing media mix and be captured by a perforated underdrain. This underdrain is connected to an area inlet where a restrictor plate will be installed on the inside wall of the inlet basin to restrict flow within the underdrain to drain the WQCV in 12 hours as defined by criteria defined by Mile High. The grate of the area inlet will be set at the WQCV water surface elevation allowing the WQCV to drain through the growing media/underdrain for treatment while allowing storm events larger than the WQCV to flow unobstructed through the area inlet and directly to the existing storm infrastructure. All rain gardens ultimately discharge to the existing Aspire detention pond. Detention for on-site flows will occur off-site at the existing Aspire Detention Pond. Maintenance The proposed storm drainage system and the water quality features will be maintained by the Owner. All maintenance shall be done to sustain the level of performance and on a schedule consistent with the maintenance recommendations (Chapter 2) in the Manual. VI. CONCLUSIONS Although the proposed development of the site will increase the overall imperviousness of the site, the total imperviousness of the major basin remains below the planned final imperviousness of 40%. The four on-site rain gardens, two existing and two proposed, will provide water quality treatment for on-site runoff. The existing Aspire Detention Pond is understood to have capacity to meet the detention requirements for the site. This drainage report was prepared in compliance with current Larimer County Storm Drainage Criteria and the Manual standards and regulations. VII. REFERENCES 1. S.A. Miro, Inc., Final Drainage Report for Stanley Carriage House Parking Addition, September 9, 2019 revised August 12, 2020. 2. Larimer County Engineering Department, Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards, June 20, 2005 3. Mile High Flood District, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Current Edition 4. Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, Final Drainage Report for the Aspire Wellness Complex, April 24,2015 5. NRCS, Custom Soils Report for Estes Park Area, May, 31, 2019 204 204 1 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report J:\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx 5 VIII. APPENDIX A – Drainage Plans (Figures 1 through 3) B – Rational Calculations (Peak Runoff, Precipitation) C – Rain Garden Analysis Inlet Sizing StormCAD Analysis (Design Procedure Forms, Capacity Charts, Profile Reports) D – NRCS Soil Report (Custom Soil Report) 205 205 1 Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix A Drainage Plans (Figures 1 through 3) 206 206 1 J: \ J o b s \ 1 9 0 5 1 S t a n l e y C a r r i a g e H o u s e \ 0 4 C i v i l D e s i g n \ D r a i n a g e \ D r a i n a g e P l a n . d w g FI G 1 - 4/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 FIG. 1 OV E R A L L B A S I N M A P LEGEND: INTERMEDIATE YEAR COMPOSITE C 100 YEAR COMPOSITE C BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (ACRES) 45 43 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING STORM SEWEREX SD FLOW DIRECTION ARROW BASIN BOUNDARY B 0.52 0.82 0.73 TRIBUTARY (ac.) AREABASINS TRIBUTARY IMPERVIOUSNESS EX. BASIN SUMMARY ACTUAL (%) O3 13.2 28 DRAWING NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N RE V . CL I E N T N A M E : PR O J E C T N A M E : DR A W I N G T I T L E : CHECKED BY: DATE: MIRO JOB NUMBER NUMBER CLIENT JOB FI L E P A T H : GR A N D H E R I T A G E H O T E L G R O U P CA R R I A G E H O U S E P A R K I N G E X P A N S I O N ES T E S P A R K , C O L O R A D O Know what's below. Call before you dig. NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SSM SSM JDC 09/09/19 19051 S.A. MIRO INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4582 South Ulster Street Pkwy. Suite 750 Denver, CO 80237 ph. 303-741-3737 fax 303-694-3134 9/ 9 / 2 0 1 9 TO W N S U B M I T T A L 1 IMPERVIOUS AREA 80 SCALE: 1" = 80' 800 NOTE: INFORMATION ON BASIN O4 & O3 PROVIDED FOR IN "FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT" BY VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, DATED APRIL 24, 2015 O4 17.5 16 STEA M E R P A R K W A Y O4 17.5 AC 0.58 0.42 CONCERT HALL 76057610 7615 76207620 762 0 CARRIAGE HOUSE STANLEY HOTEL 7590 7595 76 0 0 7605 7610 7615 7620 7625 763 0 7635 75 8 0 75 8 5 758 5 76057610 7580 7585 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7615 76 0 0 7605 7610 STE A M E R P A R K W A Y PROJECT SITE 8.2 % 8.2 % 5.6 % 7.1 % 4.2% 10.8 % 9.1 % 16 . 7 % APPROXIMATE GRAND SWALE FLOWLINE EXISTING POND SERVING CONDO DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ASPIRE DETENTION POND O3 13.2 AC 0.58 0.42 7585 7590 7595 7600 760 5 7580 7580 7615 7620 7625 7625 7625 7630 7635 THE LODGE 30 SCALE: 1" = 30' 300 LEGEND: INTERMEDIATE YEAR COMPOSITE C 100 YEAR COMPOSITE C BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (ACRES) 45 43 43 45 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWEREX SD PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED INLETS FLOW DIRECTION ARROW BASIN BOUNDARY DESIGN POINT DESIGNATION (cfs) Q-5TRIBUTARY (ac.) AREABASINS TRIBUTARYDESIGN POINT DIRECT RUNOFF INLET CAPACITY CHART (cfs) Q-100 D B 0.52 0.82 0.73 XX EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY FIG. 2 PR O P O S E D B A S I N M A P DRAWING NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N RE V . CL I E N T N A M E : PR O J E C T N A M E : DR A W I N G T I T L E : CHECKED BY: DATE: MIRO JOB NUMBER NUMBER CLIENT JOB FI L E P A T H : GR A N D H E R I T A G E H O T E L G R O U P CA R R I A G E H O U S E P A R K I N G E X P A N S I O N ES T E S P A R K , C O L O R A D O Know what's below. Call before you dig. NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SSM SSM JDC 09/09/19 19051 S.A. MIRO INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4582 South Ulster Street Pkwy. Suite 750 Denver, CO 80237 ph. 303-741-3737 fax 303-694-3134 9/ 9 / 2 0 1 9 TO W N S U B M I T T A L 1 PROPOSED BASIN SUMMARY 1 B2 0.61 INLET CAPACITY (CFS) 0.33 1.74 2.75 2 B1 0.57 0.34 1.91 5.40 3 B3 0.26 0.74 1.60 5.40 5 A1, B1-B5 0.72 4.38 11.97 13.55 2 AS I - 0 6 8/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 0 STEA M E R P A R K W A Y A1 0.29 0.87 0.76 B1 0.57 0.65 0.19 B4 0.69 0.85 0.76 EX S D STEAMER P A R K W A Y CARRIAGE HOUSE CONCERT HALL 7590 7595 76 0 0 7605 7610 7615 7620 7625 763 0 7635 75 8 0 75 8 5 758 5 76057610 7580 7585 7590 7595 7600 7605 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7615 76 0 0 7605 7610 B2 0.61 0.59 0.05 B3 0.25 0.83 0.73 D SDMH A-30 (4' DIA.) SD INLET B-20 (18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) 1 2 3 5 SD FES A-10 (12") SD INLET A-20 (5' TYPE R) SD INLET A-40 (5' TYPE R) SD INLET A-50 (18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN) CONNECT TO EX. INLET EX. INV. OUT ≈ 7576.8 GRAND DITCH FLOWLINE D B5 0.09 0.85 0.77 RAIN GARDEN 1 WQCV REQUIRED = 1,519 CU FT PROVIDED = 1,524 CU FT 7590 7595 7600 7605 76 1 0 76 1 5 76 2 0 7625 76 2 5 7595 7600 12" PVC 12" RCP 12" RCP 12 " R C P 12" PVC 4" P V C 8" PVC 18 " R C P 7615 7620 7625 7625 7630 7635 760 0 760 5 7620 762 0 76 0 5 7610 761 5 759 5 760 0 759 0 7615 SDMH A-15 (4' DIA.) 8" PVC 4 FROM "FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE PARKING ADDITION", DATED SEPTERMBER 9, 2019 REVISED AUGUST 12, 2020. 208 208 1 LEGEND: INTERMEDIATE YEAR COMPOSITE C 100 YEAR COMPOSITE C BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (ACRES) 45 43 43 45 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWEREX SD PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED INLETS FLOW DIRECTION ARROW BASIN BOUNDARY DESIGN POINT DESIGNATION D B 0.52 0.82 0.73 XX EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY Date Drawn By Checked By: Project Number Sheet Name Copyright: ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOA ARCHITECTURE SSM 2021.03.19 19125.00 STANLEY HOTEL FILM CENTER TRC JDC REVISION DATE 2021.03.19 St a n l e y H o t e l F i l m C e n t e r 33 3 E W o n d e r v i e w A v e E s t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 FILM CENTER DRAINAGE PLAN FIG. 3 40 SCALE: 1" = 40' 400 15' TYPE R C8 0.16 0.65 0.37 A1 0.30 0.87 0.76 EX S D EX S D EX S D EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D D D EX SD EX SD EX S D EX S D EX S D EX S D CARRIAGE HOUSE CONCERT HALL D 1 2 3 24 " R C P 24" RCP CONNECT TO EX. INLET EX. INV. OUT ≈ 7576.8 GRAND DITCH FLOWLINE D EXISTING RAIN GARDEN 1 WQCV REQUIRE ,503 CU FT PROVIDED = 1,524 CU FT WQCV WSE = 7586.24 12" RCP 12 " R C P 12 " R C P 12" PVC 4" P V C 8" PVC 18 " R C P 7600 7605 7610 761 5 76 2 0 76 2 5 76 0 0 760 5 7625 FILM CENTER D D D B4 0.69 0.84 0.76 C1 1.21 0.71 0.50 C3 0.26 0.62 0.31 C2 0.16 0.79 0.66 B5 0.09 0.84 0.77 B6 0.14 0.68 0.45 B1-1 0.47 0.56 0.19C4 0.66 0.84 0.77 B3 0.26 0.82 0.7224 " R C P 24" R C P 18" R C P 18" RCP REGRADE WQ POND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WQCV REQUIRED = CU FT EXISTING WQCV PROVIDED = 1,290 CU FT (EST.) TOTAL WQCV PROVIDED = 3,250 CU FT 7605 24" FES CLEANOUT 18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN 12" FES 5' TYPE R 5' TYPE R STE A M E R P A R K W A Y 7625 7630 7635 7640 7585 7590 7595 76 0 0 7605 7610 7615 7620 76 3 0 7580 7590 759 5 76 0 0 760 5 76 1 0 761 5 7620 7625763 0 7635 7585 4" PVC 4" PERF. PVC 7 4 5 9 B2 0.16 0.84 0.77 6 12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN B1-2 0.12 0.56 0.19 RAIN GARDEN 2 WQCV REQUIRED = CU FT PROVIDED = 798 CU FT WQCV WSE = 7595.52 C6 0.39 0.73 0.54 C7 0.15 0.58 0.24 THE LODGE 15" NYLOPLAST DRAIN 18" NYLOPLAST DRAIN 758 0 75 8 0 7585 757 9 757 9 7581 75 8 1 7582 75 8 2 7583 7584 758 1 758 2 758 3 758 4 7585 7590 7595 7600 7605 7610 7615 7620 7590 7595 7600 7605 760 5 7605 7610 7615 7620 7625 761 5 762 0 762 5 763 0 15 " H D P E 15" H D P E EXISTING INLETS EXISTING ROOF DRAIN CONNECTIONS TYPE C (OVERFLOW)(OVERFLOW DRAIN) C5 0.12 0.66 0.40 RAIN GARDEN 3 WQCV REQUIRED = CU FT PROVIDED = 650 CU FT 8 10 ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION 6' DIA. CONNECT EXISTING STORM LINE 6' DIA. EXISTING POND 12 " H D P E 12" PVC EXISTING INLET EXISTING INLET EXISTING INLET EXISTING RAIN GARDEN A 75 9 7 75 9 8 75 9 9 762 7 DRAINAGE SWALE 8' WALK TO BE INSTALLED WITH CARRIAGE HOUSE PER TRC D 24" NYLOPLAST DRAIN EXISTING AREA INLET 5' TYPE R 12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION EXISTING OUTLET STRUCTURE 8" PVC 12" PVC 18" RCP 24" R C P 18" PVC 18" CLEANOUT CLEANOUT CLEANOUT CLEANOUT 8" PVC 4" PERF. PVC 4" PERF. PVC 4" PERF. PVC 4" PERF. PVC D D D D 03/19/21 1,770 519 347 ED = 1, Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix B Rational Calculations (Peak Runoff, Precipitation) Designer: Company:2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr Date:1-hour rainfall depth, P1 (in) =0.83 1.18 1.40 1.69 1.96 2.22 3.14 Project:a b c Location:Rainfall Intensity Equation Coefficients =28.50 10.00 0.786 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr Overland Flow Length Li (ft) U/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) D/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) Overland Flow Slope Si (ft/ft) Overland Flow Time ti (min) Channelized Flow Length Lt (ft) U/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) D/S Elevation (ft) (Optional) Channelized Flow Slope St (ft/ft) NRCS Conveyance Factor K Channelized Flow Velocity Vt (ft/sec) Channelized Flow Time tt (min) Computed tc (min) Regional tc (min) Selected tc (min)2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.89 3.92 4.38 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.66 0.97 1.18 1.46 1.72 1.97 2.83 0.23 0.30 0.37 0.50 0.55 0.61 0.69 8.10 8.39 8.39 2.38 3.41 4.05 4.88 5.66 6.42 9.08 0.24 0.43 0.64 1.05 1.34 1.70 2.69 0.28 0.34 0.41 0.53 0.58 0.64 0.71 7.20 7.20 7.20 2.51 3.59 4.26 5.15 5.97 6.76 9.56 0.18 0.31 0.44 0.68 0.87 1.08 1.69 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 5.09 5.09 5.09 2.79 3.98 4.73 5.71 6.62 7.50 10.60 0.33 0.49 0.60 0.75 0.89 1.02 1.48 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.88 3.71 3.71 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.56 0.82 1.00 1.25 1.47 1.69 2.44 0.69 0.73 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.86 4.85 5.79 5.79 2.69 3.84 4.56 5.50 6.38 7.23 10.23 1.29 1.93 2.38 3.02 3.58 4.15 6.04 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 4.26 4.26 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.25 0.37 0.45 0.57 0.67 0.77 1.11 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.90 2.67 2.67 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.33 0.48 0.58 0.71 0.83 0.94 1.35 0.44 0.49 0.55 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.77 6.27 7.01 7.01 2.53 3.63 4.30 5.19 6.02 6.82 9.65 1.34 2.17 2.84 3.98 4.89 5.89 8.93 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.74 0.76 0.79 0.83 6.15 6.33 6.33 2.62 3.74 4.44 5.36 6.22 7.04 9.96 0.25 0.39 0.49 0.64 0.76 0.89 1.32 0.26 0.33 0.40 0.52 0.57 0.63 0.70 10.59 11.18 11.18 2.13 3.05 3.62 4.37 5.07 5.74 8.12 0.15 0.26 0.37 0.59 0.75 0.94 1.48 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 3.37 3.37 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 1.41 2.09 2.56 3.21 3.79 4.36 6.31 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.54 0.59 0.65 0.71 4.77 5.11 5.11 2.78 3.98 4.72 5.70 6.61 7.48 10.59 0.10 0.17 0.24 0.37 0.47 0.58 0.91 0.39 0.45 0.50 0.60 0.64 0.69 0.75 2.19 2.19 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.42 0.70 0.93 1.35 1.67 2.03 3.10 0.18 0.24 0.32 0.46 0.52 0.59 0.67 5.01 5.01 5.01 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.64 7.53 10.64 0.07 0.14 0.22 0.39 0.51 0.66 1.06 0.33 0.39 0.45 0.56 0.61 0.66 0.73 3.23 3.23 5.00 2.80 4.00 4.75 5.73 6.65 7.53 10.65 0.15 0.25 0.34 0.52 0.65 0.80 1.24 D D D D D D 84.9 90.0 100.0 56.3 75.3 35.8 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3 0.69 0.12 0.14 1.21 0.16 0.26 18.61 21.77 C8 0.16 D 43.5 10.00 0.020 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 17.42 C7 0.15 D 24.9 30.00 0.050 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 19.76 C6 0.39 D 50.5 10.00 0.050 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 10.70 C5 0.12 D 39.5 20.00 0.020 58.00 0.020 20 2.83 0.34 20.76 C4 0.68 D 90.0 50.00 0.020 0.00 0.020 20 2.83 0.00 13.39 91.00 0.020 100.00 0.020 20 2.83 0.59 17.09 90.00 0.020 69.00 0.100 20 6.32 0.18 9.00 95.00 0.050 189.00 0.080 15 4.24 0.74 10.70 160.00 0.100 0.00 0.030 20 3.46 0.00 0.033 0.00 0.010 12.47 80.00 0.020 0.00 0.050 20 4.47 0.00 0.065 20 5.10 0.950.065 290.00178.00 161.00 0.121 55.00B1-1 0.43 10.28 10.70 B3 0.26 D 92.5 130.00 0.053 0.00 0.049 20 4.42 0.00 19.54 B2 0.16 D 90.0 160.00 Cells of this color are for calculated results based on overrides Ryan J. Humphrey S.A. Miro, Inc. 3/19/2021 Stanely Hotel Film Center Estes Park, CO Version 2.00 released May 2017 20 2.00 0.00 20.98 B1-2 0.25 D 38.0 144.00 0.120 0.00 0.010 5 0.50 0.00 0.026 20 3.22 0.28D 32.0 0.060178.00 Rainfall Intensity, I (in/hr) 4.51 0.46 10.33200.051125.00 Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Calculation of Peak Runoff using Rational Method Overland (Initial) Flow Time Channelized (Travel) Flow Time Time of ConcentrationRunoff Coefficient, C Subcatchment Name Area (ac) NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group Percent Imperviousness A1 0.30 D 94.6 Select UDFCD location for NOAA Atlas 14 Rainfall Depths from the pulldown list OR enter your own depths obtained from the NOAA website (click this link) Cells of this color are for required user-input Cells of this color are for optional override values Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix C Rain Garden Analysis Inlet Sizing StormCAD Analysis (Design Procedure Forms, Capacity Charts, Profile Reports) Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =80.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.800 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.26 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 69,604 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =1,523 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =1114 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =1382 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =1665 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=1,524 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =1,523 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =7/8 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Carriage House & Film Center Rain Garden 1-Revised Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Carriage House & Film Center Rain Garden 1-Revised UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO RG 1 - UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 3/19/2021, 1:20 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =48.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.480 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.16 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 25,933 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =347 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =249 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =798 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =798 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=798 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =347 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =7/16 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT SA Miro, Inc. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden - 2 Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT SA Miro, Inc. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden - 2 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO RG 2 - UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 3/19/2021, 12:43 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =53.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.530 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.17 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 36,281 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =519 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =385 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =650 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =650 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=650 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =519 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =1/2 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden 3 Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Rain Garden 3 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO RG 3 - UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 3/19/2021, 12:32 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =64.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.640 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.20 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 106,036 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =1,770 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =1357 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =3000 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =3500 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=3,250 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =1,770 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =15/16 in Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Existing Rain Garden A Revisions Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) NAT S. A. MIRO, INC. March 19, 2021 Stanley Hotel - Film Center Existing Rain Garden A Revisions UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO YES NO RG A - UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 3/19/2021, 12:39 PM Bioretention T-3 November 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District B-15 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Figure B-1 – Typical Rain Garden Plan and Sections T-3 Bioretention B-16 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 T-3 Bioretention B-18 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Bioretention T-3 November 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District B-19 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Figure B-2. Geomembrane Liner/Underdrain Penetration Detail Figure B-3. Geomembrane Liner/Concrete Connection Detail Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =20.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.050 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.020 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =9.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =12.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.030 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)SW =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition SO =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =10.0 12.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =0.00 0.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 4.6 5.3 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.26 0.32 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.58 0.68 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =3.2 4.4 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.3 1.9 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Basin B1-2 H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =12.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.040 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.018 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =9.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =12.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.039 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)SW =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition SO =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =6.0 12.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =0.00 0.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 3.6 6.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.18 0.38 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.46 0.77 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =1.8 5.6 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.7 1.6 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Basin B3 Inlet H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) W o W P CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =14.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.024 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.013 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =12.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.025 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)SW =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition SO =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =6.0 12.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =5.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 4.0 6.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =15.00 15.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.21 0.38 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.38 0.57 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.64 0.79 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =3.7 11.0 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =2.3 6.2 cfs Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Inlet C1 CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =8.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.018 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =8.5 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.030 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)SW =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition SO =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =6.0 8.5 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth = 3.1 4.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.14 0.21 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.40 0.51 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.95 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =1.2 2.4 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.4 0.9 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) STANLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE Basin C2 Inlet H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1         !"## $ %&'(()*"! +,-./0.12345.637101893-7:1;32<=56!>! ?@?? ?@A? B@?? B@A? C@?? C@A? D@?? D@A? E@?? E@A? A@?? ?@?? ?@?A ?@B? ?@BA ?@C? ?@CA ?@D? ?@DA ?@E? ?@EA ?@A? ?@AA ?@F? ?@FA ?@G? ?@GA ?@H? ?@HA ?@I? ?@IA B@?? B@?A B@B? JK L K M N O P Q R M S T U VWKXQRSOU YPZ[LZKTOQBH\Q]OK^XK_XQ`_KOWQa^ZWOQJKLKMNOPQJbK_OAREA INLET B-20 BASIN B4 (RG1)See previous drainage plan for rain garden capacities, overflow path, and WQCV. 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 2' x 2' Steel Bar / MAG Grate Inlet Capacity Chart EXISTING RAIN GARDEN A 100-YR RUNOFF = 8.8 CFS         !"## $ %&'(()*"! +,-./0.12345.637101893-7:1;32<=56!>! ?@?? ?@A? B@?? B@A? C@?? C@A? D@?? D@A? E@?? E@A? A@?? ?@?? ?@?A ?@B? ?@BA ?@C? ?@CA ?@D? ?@DA ?@E? ?@EA ?@A? ?@AA ?@F? ?@FA ?@G? ?@GA ?@H? ?@HA ?@I? ?@IA B@?? B@?A B@B? JK L K M N O P Q R M S T U VWKXQRSOU YPZ[LZKTOQBH\Q]OK^XK_XQ`_KOWQa^ZWOQJKLKMNOPQJbK_O RAIN GARDEN 2 100-YR RUNOFF = 2.65 CFS 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 24" Standard Grate Inlet Capacity Chart RAIN GARDEN 3 100-YR RUNOFF = 4.15 CFS         !"## $ %&'(()*"! +,-./0.12345.637101893-7:1;32<=56!>! ?@?? ?@AB ?@B? ?@CB D@?? D@AB D@B? D@CB A@?? A@AB A@B? ?@?? ?@?B ?@D? ?@DB ?@A? ?@AB ?@E? ?@EB ?@F? ?@FB ?@B? ?@BB ?@G? ?@GB ?@C? ?@CB ?@H? ?@HB ?@I? ?@IB D@?? D@?B D@D? JK L K M N O P Q R M S T U VWKXQRSOU YPZ[LZKTOQDA\Q]OK^XK_XQ`_KOWQa^ZWOQJKLKMNOPQJbK_O BASIN B6 (AREA INLET C-30) 100-YR RUNOFF = 0.94 CFS Scenario: Base Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2/5/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-05 FC West.stsw 30" RCP 30" RCP 24" RCP 18" RCP 18" RCP 12" PVC 18" PVC 6" PVC 12" PVC 8" PVC STORM LINE A STORM LINE A-40 STORM LINE A-20 STORM LINE A-22 STORM LINE D RD B1 TO RG2 8" P V C 8" PVC Profile Report Profile: STRM A Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/12/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Profile Report Profile: STRM A-20 (B6 & B7 to RG3) Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/18/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Profile Report Profile: STRM A-22 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/18/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Profile Report Profile: STRM A-40 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/12/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Profile Report Profile: RD Connection B1 to RG2 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2/17/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Profile Report Profile: STRM D Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/18/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw FlexTable: Conduit Table Elevation Ground (Stop) (ft) Hydraulic Grade Line (Out) (ft) Depth (Normal) / Rise (%) Flow / Capacity (Design) (%) Capacity (Full Flow) (cfs) Velocity (ft/s) Flow (cfs) Manning's nDiameter (in) Slope (Calculated) (ft/ft) Length (User Defined) (ft) Invert (Stop) (ft) Stop NodeInvert (Start) (ft) Start NodeLabel 7,595.507,595.9058.965.31.584.811.030.0108.00.01033.77,595.50RG-2 OUTFALL7,595.84RD CONNECTION8" PVC 7,597.007,596.4141.335.84.475.221.600.01012.00.00958.07,596.00O-17,596.54SD INLET C-2012" PVC 7,630.567,621.1479.997.610.506.7710.250.01318.00.010113.37,619.94SDMH A-407,621.07SDMH A-5018" RCP 7,625.577,615.9451.151.822.627.2711.720.01324.00.010133.87,614.91SDMH A-307,616.25SDMH A-4024" RCP 7,630.567,617.4827.216.29.103.781.470.01318.00.00780.37,616.75SDMH A-407,617.35SD INLET A-3118" RCP 7,628.197,622.4779.997.610.506.7710.250.01318.00.01088.57,621.27SDMH A-507,622.16SD INLET A-6018" RCP 7,626.437,618.1529.418.83.093.010.580.01312.00.00714.87,617.85SD INLET A-317,617.97SD INLET A-3212" PVC 7,625.667,623.3859.566.36.578.954.360.01012.00.0209.97,622.66SD INLET A-607,622.86RD CONNECTION12" PVC 7,615.407,609.2924.112.891.6512.8211.720.01330.00.050110.67,608.69SDMH A-207,614.21SDMH A-3030" RCP 7,608.887,606.7128.417.666.5710.2111.720.01330.00.02694.67,606.00SD FES A-107,608.49SDMH A-2030" RCP 7,599.197,597.5070.584.51.113.570.940.0108.00.00547.97,597.04SD INLET C-207,597.28SDCO C-308" PVC 7,599.907,597.7570.684.61.113.570.940.0108.00.00550.07,597.28SDCO C-307,597.53SDCO C-408" PVC 7,593.587,593.4162.771.79.065.586.500.01318.00.00791.47,592.47O-37,593.15SD INLET D-2018" PVC 7,600.007,601.61(N/A)130.11.565.822.030.0108.00.01035.57,600.98O-47,601.33SD INLET C-118" PVC Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16663/19/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw FlexTable: Manhole Table Headloss Coefficient (Standard) Headloss Method Hydraulic Grade Line (In) (ft) Hydraulic Grade Line (Out) (ft) Flow (Total Out) (cfs) Elevation (Invert Out) (ft) Elevation (Invert in 1) (ft) Elevation (Rim) (ft) Elevation (Ground) (ft) Label 0.000Standard7,617.487,617.4811.727,616.257,619.947,630.567,630.56SDMH A-40 0.000Standard7,622.317,622.3110.257,621.077,621.277,628.197,628.19SDMH A-50 0.000Standard7,617.817,617.811.477,617.357,617.857,626.437,626.43SD INLET A-31 0.000Standard7,623.747,623.744.367,622.86(N/A)7,625.907,625.90RD CONNECTION 0.000Standard7,623.397,623.3910.257,622.167,622.667,625.667,625.66SD INLET A-60 0.000Standard7,615.367,615.3611.727,614.217,614.917,625.577,625.57SDMH A-30 0.000Standard7,618.287,618.280.587,617.97(N/A)7,620.477,620.47SD INLET A-32 0.000Standard7,609.647,609.6411.727,608.497,608.697,615.407,615.40SDMH A-20 0.000Standard7,597.087,597.081.607,596.547,597.047,599.197,599.19SD INLET C-20 0.000Standard7,598.007,598.000.947,597.53(N/A)7,599.487,599.48SDCO C-40 0.000Standard7,597.757,597.750.947,597.287,597.287,599.907,599.90SDCO C-30 0.000Standard7,596.327,596.321.037,595.84(N/A)7,597.187,597.18RD CONNECTION Absolute7,602.227,602.222.037,601.33(N/A)7,604.007,604.00SD INLET C-11 Absolute7,594.147,594.146.507,593.15(N/A)7,595.517,595.51SD INLET D-20 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/19/2021 StormCAD [10.03.02.04]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center2020-02-17_FC West.stsw Stanley Hotel Film Center Miro Job No. 19-051 Final Drainage Report \\Kuiper.miro.local\Civil\Jobs\19051 Stanley Carriage House\04 Civil Design\Drainage\Film Center\Drainage Report.docx Appendix D NRCS Soil Report (Custom Soil Report) United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service May 31, 2019 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12 Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties..............14 50—Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes.............................14 References............................................................................................................17 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44 7 0 3 2 0 44 7 0 3 4 0 44 7 0 3 6 0 44 7 0 3 8 0 44 7 0 4 0 0 44 7 0 4 2 0 44 7 0 4 4 0 44 7 0 4 6 0 44 7 0 4 8 0 44 7 0 5 0 0 44 7 0 3 2 0 44 7 0 3 4 0 44 7 0 3 6 0 44 7 0 3 8 0 44 7 0 4 0 0 44 7 0 4 2 0 44 7 0 4 4 0 44 7 0 4 6 0 44 7 0 4 8 0 44 7 0 5 0 0 456120 456140 456160 456180 456200 456220 456240 456260 456120 456140 456160 456180 456200 456220 456240 456260 40° 23' 2'' N 10 5 ° 3 1 ' 1 ' ' W 40° 23' 2'' N 10 5 ° 3 0 ' 5 4 ' ' W 40° 22' 56'' N 10 5 ° 3 1 ' 1 ' ' W 40° 22' 56'' N 10 5 ° 3 0 ' 5 4 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 45 90 180 270 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:963 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties Survey Area Data: Version 4, Sep 10, 2018 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 30, 2010—Oct 7, 2017 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report 10 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 50 Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes 2.8 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 2.8 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties 50—Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2lsst Elevation: 7,500 to 8,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 41 to 44 degrees F Frost-free period: 95 to 105 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Cathedral and similar soils: 45 percent Ratake and similar soils: 40 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Cathedral Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Slope alluvium derived from granite and gneiss Typical profile A - 0 to 3 inches: gravelly sandy loam Bw1 - 3 to 10 inches: very gravelly coarse sandy loam Bw2 - 10 to 18 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sandy loam R - 18 to 28 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 9 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.01 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Other vegetative classification: Ponderosa pine/antelope bitterbrush (PIPO/ PUTR2) (C1120) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Description of Ratake Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Slope alluvium derived from granite and gneiss over residuum weathered from granite and gneiss Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: gravelly sandy loam Bw - 7 to 15 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Cr - 15 to 24 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 9 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Other vegetative classification: Ponderosa pine/antelope bitterbrush (PIPO/ PUTR2) (C1120) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Rock outcrop Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Rock pediments Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Hydric soil rating: Unranked Chasmfalls Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Pediments Ecological site: Loamy Park (R048AY222CO) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Custom Soil Resource Report 16 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 17 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Technical Review Committee (TRC) From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: May 11, 2021 RE: Stanley Carriage House: Minor Modification (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 to approve a requested Minor Modification to the Stanley Carriage House Final package approval, in order to allow a change in use for an approx. 850 sq.ft. space in the Carriage House basement, southwest corner, from a Lounge to a Theater. Present Situation: The Preliminary Package and Final Package for the Carriage House project were approved by TRC in August 2020 and December 2020 respectively. In the application documents submitted to TRC for the Carriage House project, the basement included areas both public – mostly associated with the restaurant use on the main floor – and private, for use of the Stanley organization and/or the restaurant tenant of the building. The primary public space in the basement, in the southwest corner, was originally designated in the Carriage House TRC submittal as a “Bar/Lounge” area. Staff understood this to be just what that label indicates – a place where patrons could gather in small groups, enjoy refreshing drinks and light food, and visit in quiet(er) surroundings. When building plans were submitted in late December for the Carriage House, some documents still carried the “Lounge” label for this space. However, others indicated the space had been designated as a “Theater.” While there are some overlapping characteristics between a (larger) lounge and a (smaller) theater, they are distinctive and different land uses. Staff questions about the use of this space were augmented with the appearance of a news story in the Loveland Reporter-Herald newspaper on January 25, 2021 (Attachment 9.) The latter part of this article outlined activities in the space that seemed potentially at odds with a low-key lounge atmosphere. Statements in the article seemed possibly disquieting regarding scope and scale of the basement use, such as “… now finishing construction with the new Post restaurant and Aiden Sinclair Theater underneath it…”, or “… bringing three additional performers to live year round here and increase the performances from two shows a day to as many as five…” Staff is not under any illusions that media accounts are automatically 100 percent accurate with regard to what’s really happening (due to source errors, reporting or editing issues, or both.) Nevertheless, this sounded like it could be seriously different from the lounge concept. Staff engaged in dialog with the Stanley team over several weeks toward resolving this issue. Some of the dialog is reflected in attachments, such as the MOA Architecture letter dated Jan. 30, 2021 (Attachment 6), and the staff analysis of Theater or Lounge use, dated Feb. 22,2021 (Attachment 7.) After discussion, two key points emerged: a. The theater use in this case was not dramatically different from the lounge use (the idea was going from a larger lounge to a smaller theater); and b. Nevertheless, because the TRC approval specified a Bar/Lounge in this space, a TRC approval would be necessary to change it to a Theater. Proposal: Basically, the requested Minor Modification is a simple as changing a label on various plans, and confirming that some interior-design details on the basement space are compatible with the new Theater label. The details are best seen on the Seating Diagram (Attachment 4.) One such feature is the construction of the Stage area on the south wall. Stages can also be present in Lounge uses, but typically a lounge stage is not intended to serve as the type of attention-centering, focus-drawing element that one finds with a theater stage. Discussions with the Stanley team seem to make it clear that this stage will be the attention-focusing type, as the draw will be illusionist performances on stage. These points are elaborated upon in Attachment 7. It does appear that some of the newspaper article could be interpreted as artful salesmanship, rather than hardcore statistically projected information. For example, it’s staff’s understanding that increasing from two shows per day to five is not necessarily a prediction, so much as an aspiration. It’s also staff’s understanding that the Lounge use was already projected in original planning to be busy. For example, the amount of seating, as measured by number of tables and chairs, did not change when the Theater use was contemplated. No significant changes are proposed here for other parts of the Carriage House basement, including the private space areas – commonly known as “back of house” operations areas in the hospitality industry. (Note: The March 14 email from MOA Architecture also refers to a requested “approval of basement level connection to the Stanley Film Center.” This request is more centrally part of the Film Center application, and has been discussed in today’s Film Center Preliminary Package staff report and attachment materials. On the Carriage House side of the basement connection, the changes are minimal and do not trigger modifications that, in staff’s judgment, lead to the necessity of a Minor Modification. If the Film Center Preliminary Package is approved, appropriate changes may be made to the Carriage House building permit plans to address this modification.) Just as important as labeling a use accurately, it’s equally important, if not more so, to account for changes in the “phenomena of use” that go along with a different use itself. Important use phenomena include things like traffic generation, parking, noise, external lighting, and the like. Some of these differences are minimal or nonexistent for an interior, below-grade space, such as exterior lighting. In this case, staff’s primary question was whether the Theater use would result in additional traffic demands on site or in the vicinity. In response, the Stanley team has provided a Traffic Impact Study addendum, establishing that any changes in traffic demand are not sizeable and do not lead to the need to reconsider Level of Service in the system. Advantages: • The change is primarily technical in terms of plan labeling, and seems to generate fewer concerns than the Lounge vs. Theater terminology might imply to some. Disadvantages: • There could be unanticipated impacts if future changes in programming for the Theater space result in increased traffic demand, parking congestion, or similar phenomena. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the Minor Modification for use within the Carriage House. Finance/Resource Impact: n/a - No direct expenditures or revenue identified at this time. Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move for the approval of TRC Resolution 02-21. Attachments / Exhibits: 1. TRC Resolution 02-21 2. APPLICATION Minor Modification Carriage House basement 333 E Wonderview 2021-03-16 3. Email - Stanley Carriage House - MM from MOA - 2021-03-14 4. lounge seating diagram 2021-02-17 evening 5. 090 - Basement Floor Plan_CS 6. Stanley Carriage House Permit Modifications 1-30-2020 7. Planning - Theater or Lounge use in the Carriage House project - 2021-02-22 8. 20028_Carriage House Traffic Amendment Letter_2021-03-24 9. Loveland Reporter-Herald article 2021-01-25 - A film center and museum in Estes Park dedicated to the horror… TRC RESOLUTION 02-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT MASTER PLAN APPROVING A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE FINAL PACKAGE FOR THE CARRIAGE HOUSE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Final Package for the project referenced in the title of this resolution was approved by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) on December 7, 2020; and WHEREAS, since the TRC approval on December 7, subsequent planning and design by the Stanley development team has led to reconsideration of venue programming and design of an area in the Carriage House in the basement level, southwest section; and WHEREAS, the Stanley development team specifically has determined interest in changing use of this area from a Lounge as shown in TRC-approved plans, to a Theater; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this request, Stanley ownership has properly submitted an application, dated and signed 03-14-2021, for a Minor Modification to the approved Final Package plan set, accompanied by appropriate plans and text materials; and WHEREAS, Town staff and allied reviewing agencies have examined the requested Minor Modification, and determined that any impacts to land use, transportation, demand on utilities or other services, are likely to be minimal, and that review of the "Traffic Amendment Letter - Update with Patio" supports the conclusion that impacts to transportation are likely to be minimal since the increase in trip generation does not affect the Level of Service results; and WHEREAS, TRC approval of the Minor Modification would be necessary in order to complete the tenant finish as a Theater, to close out the Building Permit(s), and to issue a final Certificate of Occupancy; and WHEREAS, staff have reviewed the Minor Modification and determined that a favorable staff recommendation on the request is in order: NOW, THEREFORE, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Stanley Carriage House project Final Package Minor Modification, changing the designation of the southwest room in the basement level from a Lounge to a Theater, is hereby approved. 2. The approved Minor Modification specifically approves changed plans as identified on the following submitted plan sheets: a. Stanley Hotel Carriage House, Sheet A-090: Basement Level Floor Plan – Revision Addendum 1, dated 2020.07.15 [for seating diagram illustration]. b. Stanley Hotel Carriage House, Sheet A-090: Basement Level Floor Plan – Revision ASI 07, dated 2021.03.17 [for elements other than the seating diagram illustration]. c. This approval is not intended to, and does not, prohibit reasonable alterations or rearrangement of seating within the designated space. DATED this ____ day of __________, 2021. Travis Machalek Chair, Technical Review Committee ATTEST: Karin Swanlund Recording Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney o IlU\Y7[ Ii ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT 144R 162021 APPLICATION Submittal Date:3/3 ‘A•IZ1JllliI[•]IoPre-App Q Boundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map o Development Plan 0 ROW or Easement Vacation 0 Preliminary MapoSpecialReview0StreetNameChangeTimeFinalMap o Preliminary Subdivision Plat 0 Rezoning Petition 0 Supplemental Map o Final Subdivision Plat 0 Annexation RequestoMinorSubdivisionPlat0Extension _______________________________ J Amended Plat Other:Please specify ITRCM1fbrM0nltb0 I Project Name Stanley Carriage House Project Description Basement use change request Project Address 333 E Wonderview Aye,Estes Park,CO 80517 Legal Description Parcel ID # Lot Size ____________________________ Area of Disturbance in Acres ______________________ Existing Land Use Carriage House Basement Lounge Proposed Land Use Carriage House Basement Theater Existing Water Service Town H Well None H Other (specify) __________ Proposed Water Service ETown H Well U None H Other (specify) __________ Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD H UTSD H Septic H None Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD H UTSD H Septic Is a sewer lift station required?H Yes No Existing Gas Service XceI H Other H None Existing Zoning ___________________________ Proposed Zoning ___________________________________ Site Access (if not on public street)Public Street Are there wetlands on the site?H Yes No Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted.Complete?E Yes H No Iiiii’p.mIEyIrni.ininii.i Name of Primary Contact Person Jack Mousseau Complete Mailing Address 414 14th Street,Suite 300 Denver,Co 80202 Primary Contact Person is Li Owner E Applicant H Consultant/Engineer E Application fee H Digital Copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to E Statement of intent planning@estes.org —P r; H 2 copies (folded)of plat or plan ______ —0 H 11”X 17”reduced copy of plat or plan H Sign Purchase ($10) Please review the Estes Park Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements,which may include ISO calculations,drainage report,traffic impact analysis,geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report,wetlands report,andlor other additional information. Town of Estes Park .P.O.Box 1200 ..170 MaCGregor Avenue a Estes Park,CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone:(970)577-3721 ..Fax:(970)586-0249 www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Revised 2D20.D4.23 ks Record Owner(s)John Cullen Mailing Address Phone 333 E Wonderview Aye,Estes Park,CO 80517 Cell Phone 410-585-4300 Fax Email jcuLLen@grandheritage.com Applicant Jack Mousseau Mailing Address 414 14th Street,Suite 300 Denver,CO 80202 Phone 303-915-0482 Cell Phone 303-915-0482 Fax Email jmousseaumoaarch.com Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Contact Information APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Park Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at ww.estes.org/plann i ngforms All requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans,Special Reviews, Rezoning,Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats,Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot,and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed.This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:uui Cutlen Applicant PLEASE PRINT:Jack Mousseau Signatures: Record Owner John CuLten Date 03-14-2021 Applicant Jack Mousseau Date 03-14-2021 Revised 2020.04.23 ks APPLICANT CERTIFICATION 0 I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. 0 In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement,I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). 0 I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC,and that,prior to filing this application,I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Park Development Code is available online at: http://www.estes.org/DevCode 0 I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EPDC. 0 I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete,inaccurate,or submitted after the deadline date. 0 I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. 0 The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. 0 I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. 0 I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Park Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void.I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:John Culten Applicant PLEASE PRINT:Jack Mousseau Signatures: Record Owner John CuLlen Date 3/14/2021 Applicant Jack Mousseau Date 3/14/2021 Revised 2020.04.23 ks Stanley Carriage House - Modification to TRC Approval Inbox Jack Mousseau <jmousseau@moaarch.com> Sun, Mar 14, 12:19 PM Repl y to all Randy, Please find attached our application for the requested modifications identified as follows in the basement of the Stanley Carriage House. The will be modifications to the TRC approval of the Stanley Carriage House. We ask that these modifications be reviewed in conjunction and during the same meeting as the Stanley Film Center TRC, as there is continuity between the two projects. APPROVAL OF PERFORMANCE FUNCTIONS AS AN ALLOWED USE WITHIN THE EXISTING A-2 BASEMENT: We are seeking TRC approval for theater type performances as an allowed use in the area in question. The Stanley team asks the TRC to amend the Carriage House approval to allow for theater type functions (illusionist and comedy performances, music, movies, etc.) in the basement space, in addition to its current function as a lounge. This does not require any changes in the building plan or current code compliance. We wish to make it understood, the lounge space is designed under the code requirements and occupancy classification of an A-2 assembly space. The requested allowed use to permit performance type functions will not necessitate a change in code classification or occupancy. We wish the space to remain an A-2 occupancy classification. Thus, no additional occupants are being sought within the space. We do not view this as a change in use by code classification, only in terms of the function by which the Town of Estes Park is determining are allowed within the space. APPROVAL OF BASEMENT LEVEL CONNECTION TO THE STANLEY FILM CENTER As you know, the submitted plans for the Stanley Film Center illustrate an “at grade” connection between the Film Center and the Carriage House Buildings. In discussions with the Colorado State Historical Preservation Office, we have agreed to eliminate the at grade physical connection between the two buildings to allow the Carriage House to stand independently from the Film Center. This better complies with the U.S. Department of the Interior historical preservation guidelines. In doing so, we now need to replace the above grade connection with a basement level connection between the Film Center and the Carriage House. This will necessitate the relocation of the pedestrian at grade connectivity functions alongside the already planned support functions in the below grade location. This includes circulation, code required exiting and restrooms, mechanical and electrical support space, and visitor amenities along the circulation path. These functions will be designed and constructed as a component of the Stanley Film Center. However, their connection to the Stanley Carriage House may require review during this modification request. It is my understanding that this application requires a $300 application fee as a staff minor modification, which will be provided this coming week to your department. Kind regards, Jack Mousseau, AIA 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 Street, Suite 300 | Denver, CO 80202 | P. 303.558.4976 Denver, CO | Casper, WY C. 303.915.0482 facebook.com/moaarch MAU-1 DOAS-1 T MAU-1 DOAS-1 MAU-1 DOAS-1 UP DN UP 3 A-201 4 A-201 E 1 3 A 3 A-301 3 A-301 D 2 2 A-301 2 A-301 4 C 4 A-310 1 A-301 1 A-301 B A-451 7 A-451 4 1 2 3 A4 A-351 5 A-311 4 A-301 4 A-301 9 A-312 7 A-311 1 A-310 8 MECH CHASE ABOVE CMU BLOCK WALL BELOW MECHANICAL LOUVER; RE: WALL SECTION 33 ' - 2 " 19 ' - 1 1 " 19 ' - 1 1 " 1" / 1 ' - 0 " 1" / 1 ' - 0 " 1" / 1 ' - 0 " 1" / 1 ' - 0 " MECH ROOM B06 TI STORAGE B08 T.O. SLAB 86' - 5" T.O. SLAB 85' - 10" . 86' - 6" A-401 1 THEATER B02 ELECTRICAL B07 LOBBY B01 MEN'S RESTROOM B04 WOMEN'S RESTROOM B05 SHOP/BAR B03 B.O.H. B02A JANITOR B01A 02 B 04 A 05 A 02A 02C 03 A 08 A 06 A 07 A 07 B MECH CONDENSER ROOM B07A ELEVATOR B10 P6 T.O. SLAB 87' - 0" T.O. SLAB 87' - 0" A-411 1 T.O. SLAB 85' - 10" 01B 8" C L R 9' - 10 1/8" 8' - 0 3/4" 1' - 3" CFR3CFR3 CFR3 C6-cs BOH HALL B01B 105 10 4400.1S 10 4400.1S 105 105 105 105 106 107 107 10 4400.05 MECHANICAL WELL MECHANICAL WELL 113 114 117 P6-wsci A-412 4 OPH DN 1 A-201 2 A-201 T.O. PLATFORM 106 3 3/4"5' - 8 5/8" 1' - 0 5 / 8 " 6' - 4 7 / 8 " 8' - 7 " 14 ' - 9 7 / 8 " 11 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 12 ' - 0 7 / 8 " 13 ' - 4 5 / 8 " 106 106 108 118 BLOCKOUT TO 9'-0" AFF 6' - 0"13' - 0" 45' - 5"27' - 0"23' - 6" 5 6 105 106 A-412 4 A-412 1 SIM A-411 4 A4 A-351 SIM C4 A-351 2 A-310 105 10 A-312 6 A-311 3 A-310 8 A-312 01A 11 A-313 120 120 120 123 A-356 B3 C3 A-356 ADD 1 C1 A-354 2' - 3 3/4" ADD 1 4' - 5 3/8" ADD 1 STOREFRONTS, CURTAINWALLS, WINDOWS, AND LOUVERS (PREFIXED WITH 'L') DOOR OPENING / BORROWED LIGHT SYSTEM ASSEMBLY TYPE: FLOORS, WALLS, CEILINGS, AND ROOFS FLOOR PLAN: TAG IDENTIFIERS 20 0 A 1 1 1 EQUIPMENT / ACCESSORY / MATERIAL INDENTIFIER (ALSO ON INTERIOR ELEVATIONS) 1. EXTERIOR BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRID CENTERLINE, EXTERIOR FACE OF SHEATHING/OUTSIDE FACE OF FOUNDATION. 2. INTERIOR BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRID CENTERLINE AND FACE OF STUD FRAMING AT NEW CONSTRUCTION AND FACE OF WALL AT EXISTING CONSTRUCTION. 3. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR ALL WALL MOUNTED EQUIPMENT, CASEWORK AND ACCESSORIES. NO EXCEPTIONS. 4. ALL INTERIOR FRAMED WALL ASSEMBLIES TO BE TYPE P3, UNO. 5. ALL INTERIOR MASONRY WALL ASSEMBLIES TO BE TYPE M8, UNO. 6. ALL INTERIOR FRAMED FURRED WALL ASSEMBLIES TO BE TYPE FR3, UNO. 7. ISOLATE PERIMETER OF NON-BEARING WALL BOARD PARTITIONS ON SLAB ON GRADE AT INTERSECTIONS WITH EXTERIOR WALL AND/OR BEARING WALLS – PROVIDE ¼”SPACE VERTICAL SLIP JOINT TRIM EDGES WITH L-TYPE EDGE TRIM AND SEAL WITH ACOUSTIC SEALANT. 8. LOCATE TYPICAL HINGE SIDE DOOR JAMB 4”FROM FINISH WALL TO EDGE OF DOOR OPENING AT HOLLOW METAL FRAMES. COORDINATE SIZE OF CASING WITH OFFSET FOR WOOD FRAMES TO ENSURE THAT STANDARD CASING CAN BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO SETTING THE FRAME. 9. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM FINISHED CLEARANCE OF 18”TO THE STRIKE SIDE JAMB ON THE PULL SIDE OF ALL PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE DOORS. 10. THEATER SOUND AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS ARE NOT A PART OF THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT AND SHALL BE DESIGNED BY TENANT, OR TENANTS ENGINEERS, AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF CORE AND SHELL.TENANT SHALL PROVIDE SYSTEMS COMPLIANT WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES. GENERAL NOTES SHEET SPECIFIC GENERAL INFORMATION AND/OR INSTRUCTION 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 7/ 1 5 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 0 0 : 5 8 P M A-090 BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR 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 Author 05.04.2020 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 7 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Checker 1/4" = 1'-0" BASEMENT PLAN2 SHEET SPECIFIC IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS DIRECTLY REFERENCED TO CORRESPONDING ARCHITECTURAL SPECIFICATION SECTIONS IN THE PROJECT MANUAL. THE DECIMAL AND SUFFIX NUMBERS / LETTERS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED IN SPECIFICATIONS. REFERENCE KEYNOTES 10 4400.1S FIRE EXTINGUISHER AND CABINET ASSEMBLY - SEMI-RECESSED TYPE 10 4400.05 FIRE EXTINGUISHER AND WALL MOUNT BRACKET NUMBERING IS GROUPED BY TYPE / PHASE OF WORKSHEET OF NON-ARCHITECTURAL ITEMS OR INFORMATIONAL / INSTRUCTIONAL NOTATION. SOME NUMBERS MAY BE SKIPPED ON ANY GIVEN DRAWING SHEET. SHEET KEYNOTES 102 METERS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, RE: MECH, PLUMB, ELECT 105 EXPOSED CONCRETE WALL 106 RE: MEP SHEETS FOR EQUIPMENT LAYOUT 107 MECHANICAL LOUVERS; RE: MECH 108 PLUMB FOR ROUGH IN LOCATIONS 110 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION 111 PLUMBING PIPE; RE: PLUMB 113 MOP SINK 114 CENTER WALL ON GRIDLINE/COLUMN 115 FLUSH OUT FINISH SURFACE WITH EXTRA LAYER OF SHEATHING THIS SIDE 116 FLUSH OUT EXTERIOR FINISH SURFACE WITH EXTRA 1" OF INSULATION THIS SIDE 117 ALIGN TO BYPASS GYP BD ON SIDE INDICATED BY NOTE 118 AREA FLOOR DRAIN, RE: PLUMB 119 ROOF OVERFLOW DRAIN LAMBSTOUGUE, RE: PLUMB 120 CUSTOM BUILT-IN BOOKCASE. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALLOWANCE 121 LOW WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS; RE: ELEC 122 EXISTING FYPON COLUMNS BY OWNER 123 CUSTOM BUILT-IN BENCH, CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALLOWANCE ADD 1 REVISION DATE ADDENDUM 1 2020.07.15 18 singles at high top table 10 seat at leatherette 10 seats at loose tables 12 seats at 2-top tables 12 seats at 2-top tables 24 seats at 4-top tables 86 seats total LOUNGE MAU-1 DOAS-1 T MAU-1 DOAS-1 MAU-1 DOAS-1 UP DN UP 3 A-201 4 A-201 E 1 3 A 3 A-301 3 A-301 D 2 2 A-301 2 A-301 4 C 4 A-310 1 A-301 1 A-301 B A-451 7 A-451 4 1 2 3 A4 A-351 5 A-311 4 A-301 4 A-301 9 A-312 7 A-311 1 A-310 8 MECH CHASE ABOVE CMU BLOCK WALL BELOW MECHANICAL LOUVER; RE: WALL SECTION 33 ' - 2 " 19 ' - 1 1 " 19 ' - 1 1 " 1" / 1 ' - 0 " 1" / 1 ' - 0 " 1" / 1 ' - 0 " 1" / 1 ' - 0 " MECH ROOM B06 TI STORAGE B08 T.O. SLAB 86' - 5" T.O. SLAB 85' - 10" . 86' - 6" A-401 1 LOUNGE B02 ELECTRICAL B07 LOBBY B01 MEN'S RESTROOM B04 WOMEN'S RESTROOM B05 BAR B03 B.O.H. B02A JANITOR B01A 02 B 04 A 05 A 02A 02C 03 A 08 A 06 A 07 A 07 B MECH CONDENSER ROOM B07A ELEVATOR B10 P6 - a T.O. SLAB 87' - 0" T.O. SLAB 87' - 0" A-411 1 T.O. SLAB 85' - 10" 01B 8" C L R 9' - 10 1/8" 8' - 0 3/4" 1' - 3" CFR3CFR3 CFR3 C6-cs BOH HALL B01B 105 10 4400.1S 10 4400.1S 105 105 105 105 106 107 107 10 4400.05 MECHANICAL WELL MECHANICAL WELL 113 114 117 P6-wsci A-412 4 OPH DN 1 A-201 2 A-201 T.O. PLATFORM 106 3 3/4"5' - 8 5/8" 1' - 0 5 / 8 " 6' - 4 7 / 8 " 8' - 7 " 14 ' - 9 7 / 8 " 11 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 11 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 13 ' - 7 " 106 106 118 BLOCKOUT TO 9'-0" AFF 6' - 0"13' - 0" 45' - 5"27' - 0"23' - 6" 5 6 105 106 A-412 4 A-412 1 SIM A-411 4 A4 A-351 SIM C4 A-351 2 A-310 105 10 A-312 6 A-311 3 A-310 8 A-312 01A 11 A-313 120 120 120 123 A-356 B3 C3 A-356 ADD 1 C1 A-354 2' - 3 3/4" ADD 1 4' - 5 3/8" ADD 1 5' - 7 " 15' - 2" ADD 4 ADD 4 124 124 ASI 07 ASI 07 3' - 1 1/4" 5' - 1 1 / 4 " 1' - 6"1' - 6" 02D 2' - 9 3 / 4 " 2' - 6"5' - 3 7/8" 125 126 127 128 1292' - 7 " 1' - 3" A-451 10 11 P6-a P6 - a ASI 07 A-451 12 1' - 3" STOREFRONTS, CURTAINWALLS, WINDOWS, AND LOUVERS (PREFIXED WITH 'L') DOOR OPENING / BORROWED LIGHT SYSTEM ASSEMBLY TYPE: FLOORS, WALLS, CEILINGS, AND ROOFS FLOOR PLAN: TAG IDENTIFIERS 20 0 A 1 1 1 EQUIPMENT / ACCESSORY / MATERIAL INDENTIFIER (ALSO ON INTERIOR ELEVATIONS) 1. EXTERIOR BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRID CENTERLINE, EXTERIOR FACE OF SHEATHING/OUTSIDE FACE OF FOUNDATION. 2. INTERIOR BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRID CENTERLINE AND FACE OF STUD FRAMING AT NEW CONSTRUCTION AND FACE OF WALL AT EXISTING CONSTRUCTION. 3. PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR ALL WALL MOUNTED EQUIPMENT, CASEWORK AND ACCESSORIES. NO EXCEPTIONS. 4. ALL INTERIOR FRAMED WALL ASSEMBLIES TO BE TYPE P3, UNO. 5. ALL INTERIOR MASONRY WALL ASSEMBLIES TO BE TYPE M8, UNO. 6. ALL INTERIOR FRAMED FURRED WALL ASSEMBLIES TO BE TYPE FR3, UNO. 7. ISOLATE PERIMETER OF NON-BEARING WALL BOARD PARTITIONS ON SLAB ON GRADE AT INTERSECTIONS WITH EXTERIOR WALL AND/OR BEARING WALLS – PROVIDE ¼”SPACE VERTICAL SLIP JOINT TRIM EDGES WITH L-TYPE EDGE TRIM AND SEAL WITH ACOUSTIC SEALANT. 8. LOCATE TYPICAL HINGE SIDE DOOR JAMB 4”FROM FINISH WALL TO EDGE OF DOOR OPENING AT HOLLOW METAL FRAMES. COORDINATE SIZE OF CASING WITH OFFSET FOR WOOD FRAMES TO ENSURE THAT STANDARD CASING CAN BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO SETTING THE FRAME. 9. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM FINISHED CLEARANCE OF 18”TO THE STRIKE SIDE JAMB ON THE PULL SIDE OF ALL PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE DOORS. 10. THEATER SOUND AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS ARE NOT A PART OF THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT AND SHALL BE DESIGNED BY TENANT, OR TENANTS ENGINEERS, AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF CORE AND SHELL.TENANT SHALL PROVIDE SYSTEMS COMPLIANT WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES. GENERAL NOTES SHEET SPECIFIC GENERAL INFORMATION AND/OR INSTRUCTION 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/ 1 8 / 2 0 2 1 4 : 5 0 : 0 2 P M A-090 BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR 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 Author 05.04.2020 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 7 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Checker 1/4" = 1'-0" BASEMENT PLAN2 SHEET SPECIFIC IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS DIRECTLY REFERENCED TO CORRESPONDING ARCHITECTURAL SPECIFICATION SECTIONS IN THE PROJECT MANUAL. THE DECIMAL AND SUFFIX NUMBERS / LETTERS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED IN SPECIFICATIONS. REFERENCE KEYNOTES 10 4400.1S FIRE EXTINGUISHER AND CABINET ASSEMBLY - SEMI-RECESSED TYPE 10 4400.05 FIRE EXTINGUISHER AND WALL MOUNT BRACKET NUMBERING IS GROUPED BY TYPE / PHASE OF WORKSHEET OF NON-ARCHITECTURAL ITEMS OR INFORMATIONAL / INSTRUCTIONAL NOTATION. SOME NUMBERS MAY BE SKIPPED ON ANY GIVEN DRAWING SHEET. SHEET KEYNOTES 102 METERS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, RE: MECH, PLUMB, ELECT 105 EXPOSED CONCRETE WALL 106 RE: MEP SHEETS FOR EQUIPMENT LAYOUT 107 MECHANICAL LOUVERS; RE: MECH 108 PLUMB FOR ROUGH IN LOCATIONS 110 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION 111 PLUMBING PIPE; RE: PLUMB 113 MOP SINK 114 CENTER WALL ON GRIDLINE/COLUMN 115 FLUSH OUT FINISH SURFACE WITH EXTRA LAYER OF SHEATHING THIS SIDE 116 FLUSH OUT EXTERIOR FINISH SURFACE WITH EXTRA 1" OF INSULATION THIS SIDE 117 ALIGN TO BYPASS GYP BD ON SIDE INDICATED BY NOTE 118 AREA FLOOR DRAIN, RE: PLUMB 119 ROOF OVERFLOW DRAIN LAMBSTOUGUE, RE: PLUMB 120 CUSTOM BUILT-IN BOOKCASE. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALLOWANCE 121 LOW WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS; RE: ELEC 122 EXISTING FYPON COLUMNS BY OWNER 123 CUSTOM BUILT-IN BENCH, CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALLOWANCE 124 INSTALL STEPNPULL SNPE-B, BLACK FINISH PER MANUFACTURE 125 36" UNDER COUNTER REFRIDGERATOR 126 24 UNDER COUNTER DISHWASHER 127 OVER HEAD STORAGE 128 DASH LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF WALL BELOW 129 FLIP-UP COUNTER ADD 1 REVISION DATE ADDENDUM 1 2020.07.15 ADDENDUM 4 2021.02.16 ASI 07 2021.03.17 ASI 07 January 30, 2020 Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Stanley Hotel – Carriage House Permit B-11186 Dear Mr. Hunt, I am writing to follow up on our meeting of January 29, 2020 concerning amendment to the Carriage House Foundation and Enclosure Documents, Permit #B-11186. Thank you and Gary Rusu for meeting with MOA and Saunders/Heath Construction to discuss minor modifications to the Carriage House design and an amendment to the construction permit currently in hand. I wanted to summarize the modifications and reasoning behind them for your records. Addition of north exterior stair An exterior stair was added to provide egress from the basement of the Carriage House per code requirements. It was originally intended to accommodate the stair within the footprint of the Carriage House, however interior tenant planning and code separation of two stairs within the basement made the addition of the stair adjacent to the north exterior wall the preferred design solution. The stair adds 100 SF of space outside the existing footprint and roof covering of the Carriage House. We consider this an extremely minor modification. Addition of north extension and elevator The added north extension follows the roof footprint of the existing Carriage House and does not extend beyond the existing building configuration. The north extension was originally intended to be added as a component of the future Film Center project. At that time, the extension was conceived as a two-story building connecting Carriage House with Film Center. The current north addition is a single-story element containing exit stair, elevator accessing the basement and a lobby space. The north extension element is significantly reduced in height and mass and is in better context to the original Carriage House building. Window and siding (to be submitted as Addendum No. 2) As part of the restoration efforts, the design team will submit fenestration detailing and specifications and exterior skin, weatherproofing and insulation information. The team will illustrate compliance with the current energy codes. This modification does not change the non-occupancy nature of the Foundation and Enclosure permit. Other minor modifications Additional minor modifications to the permitted Carriage House documents include reduction in width of the foundation wall, providing basic electrical service to allow for installation of the elevator and addition of an area well supplying fresh air to the basement mechanical room. Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park January 30, 2020 Page 2 As discussed with yourself and Gary Rusu with SafeBuilt, the modifications constitute a minor modification the permitted documents and can be reviewed as an addendum to the permitted set. We appreciate your time yesterday and look forward to your review of the modifications. Sincerely, MOA Inc. dba MOA ARCHITECTURE Jack M. Mousseau, AIA Principal 303-308-1190 jmousseau@moaarch.com Theater / lounge use in the Carriage House project, Stanley Historic District Lot 1: Planning division comments February 22, 2021 1. The following Planning comments were provided on Feb. 8, 2021, to the applicants and other design team members in connection with the lounge v. theater aspect: a. Basement use. The plans indicate that a theater is proposed for the basement of the Carriage House. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) which oversees development in the Stanley Historic District did not approve of a theater at this location, but they did approve a bar/lounge area. I understand that the architect intended to show a lounge and not a theater in the basement, which is meaningful as those are different land and building uses. If a lounge is indeed the intended use of a portion of the basement, please clearly revise all submitted plans to show information relevant to a lounge and not a theater. b. Seating schematic. Please provide a seating schematic for the area of the basement expected to feature live entertainment. If none is proposed, please explain why. 2. EPDC Sec. 13.1 provides as follows: “For words, terms and phrases used in this Code that are not defined below or elsewhere in this Code, Staff shall have the authority and power to interpret or define such words, terms and phrases.” Neither “theater” nor “lounge” appear as defined use terms in the EPDC. Therefore, staff is obliged to interpret the proposed use and space in the Carriage House according to reasonable standard definitions or classifications of those uses in the planning profession. The analysis in this set of comments follows that Code requirement. 3. The following definitions are taken from A Planner’s Dictionary, Planning Advisory Service Report 521/522 (American Planning Association, c, 2004). This is the successor publication to A Survey of Zoning Definitions, cited in EPDC Sec. 13.1: a. Lounge – see Bar Bar: “An establishment or part of an establishment used primarily for the sale or dispensing of liquor by the drink.” (Camden, ME); “A commercial establishment open to the general public which sells and serves intoxicating beverages for consumption on the premises.” (Lancaster, OH). b. Theater: “An establishment for the performing arts with open-air seating for audiences. Such establishments may include related services such as food and beverage sales and other concessions.” (King County, WA); “A building or part of a building devoted to showing motion pictures, or for dramatic, dance, musical, or other live performances.” (Garrett, IN). 4. It’s my (Randy Hunt’s) judgment and conclusion that the facility in the basement of the Carriage House is a theater, and not a lounge, given that a single use label needs applied to the facility. To the extent it could be both, my judgment and conclusion is that it is primarily a theater, and that any bar or lounge elements are subordinate in function to the theater use. 5. I base this conclusion on the following points: a. The word “primarily” in the definition of “bar” (Camden); b. The fact that the facility is devoted to “live performances” (Garrett); c. The fact that the facility includes “related services such as … beverage sales” (King County). 6. The design and physical characteristics of the facility space (Plan Sheet A-090, provided Feb. 17, 2021, by MOA Architecture) bear out the above conclusions, as follows: a. The facility has a raised platform or stage, to which it can be reasonably expected patrons’ attention will be drawn and focused. b. The rear (north) side of the facility’s design that shows substantial seating arrayed toward the stage or platform (“18 singles at high top table”), elevated above the main floor with the seeming intent to provide clear visual/auditory attention focused on the stage or platform. c. The open-floor seating does suggest ability to face and focus elsewhere than the stage. A 4-top table most commonly has legs and size that keep everyone from crowding to one side of the table, if they want or need table space for drinks or other items. However, this does not seem sufficient to overcome the design elsewhere in the facility orienting one’s attention to the stage. d. There is also the curious fact that a space labeled “lounge” does not have a same-room service area to sell or dispense drinks. Presumably one has to go upstairs for a drink or refill. This facility’s arrangement is more akin to a theater where service is located elsewhere so as not to detract from the focal point on stage. Most bars in America have an actual bar. (To be fair, in the U.K. and perhaps elsewhere, a separate room to obtain drinks is a feature in many pubs that have a British lounge room for quieter pursuits… however, the British lounge does not often have entertainment in the room either.) 7. The fundamental concept behind the above specific findings: a. A lounge is intended, per definitions and per common usage, to be a place where one can engage in quiet conversation with one’s table-mates or others nearby in the room. Some lounges do have live entertainment, sometimes on stages or platforms. However, the lounge expectation is that one can still have a conversation during the performance, and possibly not focus on the performance at all. b. By contrast, a theater is designed to draw and hold one’s attention to the act on the stage. If a conversation with one’s table-mates happens, it is expected to be short and to allow primary attention to soon return to the stage. Indeed, most stage performers would find it disconcerting, if not insulting, if patrons’ attention was mostly focused on others in the room and not on the performer. c. I would suggest that an illusionist performance on stage is specifically aimed at capturing and holding one’s close scrutiny at all times during the act. Most viewers find illusionists entertaining because they want to figure out how the trick is performed. No viewer is going to find that out (assuming the illusionist is good) if the viewer’s attention is half or more focused elsewhere in the room. 8. Potential next steps. Staff envisions three options: a. The basement facility could be redesigned so it is clearly a lounge with characteristics as outlined herein for same. This would entail submittal of a different set of building plans for that area; preparation and review would take a certain amount of time; but the use approval is not at issue, since TRC last year approved a bar/lounge use in the building. b. The Stanley team could return to TRC to amend the Carriage House approval to provide for a theater in the basement space, rather than a lounge. This may not require any changes in the building plans, but TRC scheduling may take time (weeks, not months.) c. The basement area could be pulled from the current building-permit review (“grayed out”) on resubmitted plans, and a separate permit submitted along the lines of either a. or b. above. This would presumably enable a faster approval of the current building-permit submittal and a quicker commencement of construction, although construction staging would have an additional timeline to consider for the basement space, however that may be resolved. The above comments are given under my authority as Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park. Randy Hunt       1624 Market Street | Suite 202 | Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.652.3571 | www.FoxTuttle.com   MEMORANDUM    To:  Town of Estes Park: Community Development and Public Works  From: Cassie Slade, PE, PTOE  Date:  March 24, 2021   Project:  Stanley Carriage House – Estes Park, CO (FT #20028)  Subject:   Traffic Amendment Letter    The Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC had completed a traffic impact study for the renovation of the  Carriage House on the Stanley Hotel property. The Stanley Hotel: Carriage House Traffic Impact Analysis  was completed and submitted on September 1, 2020. The purpose of the renovation was to provide a full‐ service restaurant with approximately 250 seats and outdoor seating. The traffic study had listed the  useable space of the Carriage House as 5,700 square feet based on information provided by a previous  traffic engineer on this project. It was brought to our attention that the square footage in the traffic study  was slightly less than the actual space for the restaurant and basement lounge.   The  total  square  footage  of  the  Carriage  House  is  11,400  sq.  ft.  which  includes  the  restaurant  and  basement lounge. Approximately 5,400 square feet (sq. ft.) is support space which does not generate  external trips. The portion of the building opened to visitors is approximately 6,000 sq. ft. including 2,800  sq. ft. for dining, 1,200 sq. ft. for kitchen, and 2,000 sq. ft. for the lounge in the basement.  The basement  lounge is planned to be used for the existing Aiden Sinclair magic show. These performances are a fixture  of the Stanley Hotel and have been occurring for the past seven years. Historically, there have been two  (2) shows per day for five (5) days a week between May 31st and August 31st. The plan with the Carriage  House is to move the magic shows from the MacGregor Lounge (capacity of 200 persons) in the main  hotel to the new space in the Carriage House basement lounge (capacity of 113 persons). With the  reduction in capacity, the Stanley Hotel plans to add a 3rd magic show each day during the summer, which  is still under the existing maximum attendees.    The difference in the square footage for the Carriage House as utilized in the traffic impact study is 300  sq. ft. (6,000 sq. ft. – 5,700 sq. ft.).  Trip Generation  It is understood that most patrons of the Carriage House restaurant and lounge will be visitors already  staying at the hotel; however, the traffic impact study provided a conservative approach and assumed the  restaurant  patrons  would  be  external  to  the  hotel.  The  trips  associated  with  the  restaurant  were  Stanley Carriage House – Estes Park, CO    March 24, 2021                              Traffic Amendment Letter        Page 2    estimated per rates provided by Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th  Edition, 2017). Table 1 summarizes and compares  the  previous and updated trip generation for the  Carriage House restaurant and lounge.    Table 1. Trip Generation Summary and Comparison  Land Use Size &  Unit  Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour  Rate Total Rate In Out Rate In Out  Traffic Study (9/1/2020)          ITE 932: High‐Turnover  Restaurant 5.7 ksf  112.18  640 In: 5.47  Out: 4.47 *  * In: 6.06  Out: 3.71 35  21  Updated Square Footage          ITE 932: High‐Turnover  Restaurant 6.0 ksf  112.18  673 In: 5.47  Out: 4.47 *  * In: 6.06  Out: 3.71 37  22  Difference in Trips +2 +1  * Not Open for Business at this time  As shown in Table 1, the additional 300 sq. ft. will generate approximately two (2) inbound trips and  one (1) outbound trip in the PM peak hour.   Attached to this letter is the updated figures for the trip assignment and future total scenario. The capacity  analysis was updated for the PM peak hour with the additional trips associated with the Carriage House  lounge. It was determined that these trips will have no adverse impact on the study intersections and the  previous delays and levels of service will remain the same. The capacity analysis output worksheets are  attached to this letter.   Hopefully the contents of this traffic letter are helpful.  If you have any questions, please give me a call.    Cassie Slade, PE, PTOE  Principal    Attachments:  Figure 4 – Trip Distribution and Site‐Generated Trip Volumes  Figure 5 – Year 2024 Background + Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes  Intersection Capacity Analysis Worksheets for PM peak hour  Big T h o m p s o n A v e ( U S 3 4 ) St e a m e r D r i v e Steam e r Pkwy Wo n d e r v i e w Av e St. Vrain Ave 20% To/From West Wonderview Ave 40% To/From South Wonderview Ave 35% To/From East Big Thompson Ave 5% To/From West Big Thompson Ave via Steamer Drive Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puGrnoiatt FOX TUTTLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION & SITE-GENERATED TRIP VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 3/24/2021 CRS 4 Big T h o m p s o n A v e ( U S 3 4 ) St e a m e r D r i v e Steam e r Pkwy Wo n d e r v i e w Av e St. Vrain Ave Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puGrnoiatt FOX TUTTLE YEAR 2024 BACKGROUND + SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES STANLEY HOTEL CARRIAGE HOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - ESTES PARK, CO 20028 NTS 3/24/2021 CRS 5 HCM 6th TWSC 03/24/2021 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 1: SW Steamer Parkway & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 53 106 17 26 131 Future Vol, veh/h 14 53 106 17 26 131 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 59 118 19 29 146 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 75 0 301 46 Stage 1 - - - - 46 - Stage 2 - - - - 255 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 691 1023 Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 788 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1524 - 637 1023 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 637 - Stage 1 - - - - 976 - Stage 2 - - - - 727 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.5 9.4 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)637 1023 - - 1524 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 0.142 - - 0.077 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.9 9.1 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.5 - - 0.3 - HCM 6th TWSC 03/24/2021 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 2: Aspire Access & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 137 8 8 107 16 1 Future Vol, veh/h 137 8 8 107 16 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 152 9 9 119 18 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 161 0 294 157 Stage 1 - - - - 157 - Stage 2 - - - - 137 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1418 - 697 889 Stage 1 - - - - 871 - Stage 2 - - - - 890 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1418 - 692 889 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 692 - Stage 1 - - - - 871 - Stage 2 - - - - 884 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 10.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)701 - - 1418 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - HCM 6th TWSC 03/24/2021 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 3: Steamer Parkway & Stanley Main Entrance Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 35 24 77 Future Vol, veh/h 96 42 38 35 24 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 39 27 86 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 81 0 - 0 323 62 Stage 1 - - - - 62 - 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 1517 - - - 671 1003 Stage 1 - - - - 961 - Stage 2 - - - - 783 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1517 - - - 623 1003 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 623 - Stage 1 - - - - 892 - 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)1517 - - - 876 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.07 - - - 0.128 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 9.7 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.4 HCM 6th TWSC 03/24/2021 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 4: Steamer Drive & Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 50 71 52 39 3 Future Vol, veh/h 10 50 71 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 56 79 58 43 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 261 45 46 0 - 0 Stage 1 45 - - - - - Stage 2 216 - - - - - 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 728 1025 1562 - - - Stage 1 977 - - - - - Stage 2 820 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 690 1025 1562 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 690 - - - - - Stage 1 926 - - - - - Stage 2 820 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 4.3 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1562 - 948 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 - 0.07 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.2 - - Timings 03/24/2021 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR 103 630 1 479 136 0 2 213 103 630 1 479 136 0 2 213 pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA NA Free 5 2 6 8 4 2 6 6 Free 5 2 6 6 6 8 4 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 14.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 30.0 14.0 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 26.0 12.1% 65.5% 53.4% 53.4% 53.4% 12.1% 22.4% 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead Lag Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min None Min 86.4 86.4 71.9 71.9 71.9 5.5 15.3 116.0 0.74 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.05 0.13 1.00 0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.65 0.15 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 116 Actuated Cycle Length: 116 Offset: 32 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Queues 03/24/2021 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 703 1 532 151 3 152 237 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.65 0.15 Control Delay 6.0 9.0 13.0 11.6 2.7 0.0 60.5 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.0 9.0 13.0 11.6 2.7 0.0 60.5 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 167 0 80 0 0 109 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 416 4 165 35 0 171 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)859 801 142 412 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 220 100 Base Capacity (vph) 628 1386 450 2198 1040 246 308 1583 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.49 0.15 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 03/24/2021 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 5: Golf Course Access/Steamer Drive & Big Thompson Ave (US 34) Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 103 630 3 1 479 136 1 0 2 135 2 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 103 630 3 1 479 136 1 0 2 135 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 2 150 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 661 1370 6 491 2193 2 0 4 184 2 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.74 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1861 8 744 3554 1585 548 0 1097 1759 23 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 114 0 703 1 532 0 3 0 0 152 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1869 744 1777 1585 1645 0 0 1782 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 18.5 0.1 7.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 18.5 4.7 7.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.7 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 661 0 1376 491 2193 7 0 0 187 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.17 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 664 0 1376 491 2193 113 0 0 307 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.0 0.0 6.5 10.4 10.0 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 6.6 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.1 0.0 7.8 10.4 10.3 0.0 100.6 0.0 0.0 59.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A B B F A A E A Approach Vol, veh/h 817 533 A 3 152 A Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 10.3 100.6 59.1 Approach LOS A B F E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 91.4 18.1 13.8 77.6 6.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 8.0 56.0 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.5 11.7 4.4 9.8 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.7 0.5 0.1 3.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th TWSC 03/24/2021 2024 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 6: Wonderview Ave (US 34) & SW Steamer Parkway Synchro 10 ReportStanley Hotel Carriage House Traffic Impact Study - Estes Park, CO 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 A film center and museum in Estes Park dedicated to the horror-film genre has been given new life thanks to an extension of a state grant for tourism projects. Construction of the second phase of the $40 million center at the iconic Stanley Hotel that feeds off the Stanley’s haunted history — including its role in the novel and subsequent 1980 film “The Shining” — will begin this spring, hotel owner John Cullen said. The project’s green light came after Thursday’s unanimous vote by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade’s Economic Development Commission extended its funding deadline because of shutdowns and restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The film center and museum had been part of an $86 million statewide tax- increment financing deal with the commission through the 2015 Regional Tourism “Through four years after that, we refined the program, finalized the architecture and started Phase 1 construction,” Cullen said. “Then COVID hit.” He explored selling the tax credits to a bonding company and reaping the proceeds, “but we found out the bond market was really in disarray if not dysfunctional during COVID. “Coming to our rescue is Live Oak Bank out of North Carolina. It specializes in these types of facilities, community-oriented projects,” Cullen said. “We were supposed to close a year ago, but no development got financed or closed on in the last nine months, especially in hospitality.” Public and private entities in Northern Colorado appealed to the state commission to extend the grant program in October, and last week’s approval gave Cullen’s financing plan with Live Oak the green light. “That extension allows me to go ahead and start the closing process, which we expect in the next four to five weeks,” Cullen said. “We hope to commence construction in March or April — which will take 18 months.” The entire project’s original cost five years ago was $25 million but has swelled closer to $40 million, he said. The 80,000-square-foot museum and interactive film center is to include “tours, event space and an educational college specializing in the horror-film genre,” Cullen said. “I expect it to be one of the major tourist and arts facilities in Northern Colorado, attracting a regional as well as worldwide audience,” he said, also mentioning that it will be a year-round tourist draw to the mountain village in Larimer County that bustles in summer and fall but suffers a distinct economic slowdown in winter. The project is located on the east end of the Stanley property, attached to the carriage house and concert hall. The first phase — a 5,000-square-foot restaurant with large patio and a 2,000-square-foot theater — is to open in July, Cullen said. “We’re now finishing construction with the new Post restaurant and Aiden Sinclair Theater underneath it,” he said. “This is quite a project. It started as a $4 million project and then went to $8 million, but that’s not unusual for me, increasing the scope.” The restaurant will be part of a chain of Post Brewing Co. chicken-and-beer eateries run by Boulder-based Big Red F Restaurant Group, joining locations in Boulder, Longmont, Lafayette, Fort Collins, Denver and Colorado Springs as well as in Kansas City, Missouri. The Estes Park location was originally announced in late 2019 and slated for a mid-2020 opening until the pandemic put the project on hold. When it opens, it will employ 75 to 100 people, said Dave Query, the chain’s owner, and will duplicate the other Post restaurants’ menu instead of adopting themes from the film center’s horror-movie theme. “Bloody chicken wouldn’t play well with our customers,” he quipped. “John and I have been talking about this in many iterations,” Query said. “Our first emails back and forth were in 2017.” Query worked with longtime Stanley architect Jack Mousseau to maintain the structure’s historic integrity. Cullen said Query and his wife “are going to be integral parts of this project.” The theater is named after Aiden Sinclair, an illusionist associated with the Los Angeles-based Magic Castle group who has been performing at the Stanley for seven years, Cullen said. “He just bought a house and moved full-time to Estes Park, and he’s bringing three additional performers to live year round here and increase the performances from two shows a day to as many as five,” Cullen said. “They do magic, impressions and more.” Cullen and Query hope the project will provide a needed boost to Estes Park’s economy, which has had to rebound in the past 44 years from floods, government shutdowns and, in 2020, a pandemic and a pair of huge forest fires. “John is really changing the entire landscape up there,” Query said. “He is a tireless guy with innovative ideas and so passionate not only about the Stanley but Estes Park. We hope the overflow and residual business will be a big help up there. A high tide lifts all boats.” © 2021 BizWest Media LLC NOTICE On Tuesday, May 11, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. a virtual meeting will be held by the Estes Park Technical Review Committee for the Stanley Historic District. The Committee will review the following, for the property and purpose(s) described below: a.Stanley Historic District – Film Center project – Preliminary Package b.Carriage House project – Minor Modification – change in use of an area within the Carriage House Legal Description Lot 1, Stanley Historic District, Estes Park, Colorado 333 E. Wonderview Ave Type and Intensity of Use a.Applicant requests approval of a Preliminary Package, incorporating a Development Plan and associated materials, for development (architectural design and construction) of the Stanley Film Center in the northeast part of Lot 1 (main campus area) of the Stanley Hotel complex. The Film Center complex is to be approx. 74,000 square feet in area, comsisting of conference space, cultural-center (theater) facilities, and support / auxiliary functional space. The Film Center building will be on three levels, with lower level built below grade (buried.) b.Applicant requests approval for the Carriage House project to change the use of a basement Lounge area to a Theater area. This change will have little if any practical impact on operations in the Carriage House facility, and is done primarily to provide for relocation of performance entertainment (an illusionist act) in the building. Little if any construction lateration will be entailed, with little to no impact on external elements such as traffic and parking. The property is currently zoned A (Accommodations) with SHD (Stanley Historic District) zoning overlay. Owner: JWC Stanley Holding Applicant: MOA Architecture Any person may comment on any matter to be considered. The public hearing may be conducted electronically. Advance registration for testifying is preferred to ensure an orderly hearing. Information for participation will be provided in the published agenda, which will be available at https://estespark.colorado.gov/boardsandmeetings. For more information, please visit https://estespark.colorado.gov/currentapplications, or contact the Community Development Department at planning@estes.org, or 970-577-3721. Please check the website two days prior to the meeting for notice of any changes, such as meeting continuances. PUBLISH: Estes Park Trail-Gazette Friday, April 23, 2021