Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC96-007 Trinity Baptist Church'APPLICATION FOR STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT tlo1plication acceptance
Instructions:
- contact the Department of Highways or your local government to determine your Issuing authority.
1!r - contact the issuing authority to determine what plans and other documents are required to be submitted with your
application.
- complete this form (some questions may not apply to you) b attach all necessary documents and submit It to the
Issuing authority. Submit an application for each access requested. please print or -type
- If you have any questions contact the Issuing authority.
,i 1) Property owner (Permitlse)
Bull Rung County Road
2) Applicant
Trinity Baptist Church, Ben Clark
street address, city, street address, city,
Public Road 19 Vail Road
state 6 zip Phone a state a :Ip Phone e
• Public Road Vail, CO 81637 303/476-1759
3) Address of property to be served by permit (11 known)
4) Legal description of properly:
county subdivision block lot section township range
Eagle I Homestead ]Filing -1 1 5 -15-South 82 W
5) What aisle highway are you requesting access from? 6) What side of the highway?
U.S. Highway 6 o N p(s fa E o w
7) How many feel is the proposed access from the nearest mile post or cross street?
wde
0 feet ( N S E W) from Bull Run
6) Check here 11 you are requesting a
O new access O temporary access O Improvement to existing access change In access use
9) What Is the approximate dale you Intend to begin construction? Spring 1995
10) Do you have knowledge of any State Highway access permits serving this property, of for adjacent properties In which you have a property Interest
O yes bf no If "yes" - what are the permit number(s)? and/or, permit date
11) Does the property owner own or have any Interests In any adjacent property?
yes O no If "yes" - please describe:
All contiguous parcels, Lot 1 & 2 metes and bounds parcels
12) Are there existing or dedicated public atreets, roads, highways or access easements bordering or within tha properly?
yes O no If "yea" - list them on your plans and Indicate the proposed and existing access points.
13) If you are requesting commercial or industrial access please Indicate the types and number of businesses and provide the floor area square
footage of each?
business square footage business square lootal
Baptist Church 1 6000 (Limited Hour Nursery/Day Care( :,'fj osl V 3000
114) It you are requesting agricultural field access
- how many acres will the access carve?
15) It you are requesting residential development access. - what Is the type (single family, apartment. townhouse) and number of units?
Employee Housing Units
number of units
FA
number of un
16) Provide the following vehicle count eylmates for vehicles that will use the access. Leaving property than returning Is two counts. Indicate It
your counts are peak hour volumes 10 or average dally volumes 13
a of passengers cars and light trucks
a of multi unit trucks
a of other vehicles
208
N of single unit vehicles In excess of 301t
11 of farm vehicles (field equipment)
Total Count of All Vehicles
2
210 0 120 enter/90 exit
17) Check with the Issuing authority to determine which of the following documents are required to complete the review of your application.
(plans should be no larger than 24" x 36") e) Property map Indicating other access, bordering roads and streets.
a) Highway and driveway plan and profile. 1) Proposed access design.
b) Drainage plan showing Impact to the highway right-of-way. g) Parcel and ownership maps Including easements.
c) Map and letters detailing utility locations before and after h) Signing and striping plane.
development In and along the right-ol-way. 1) Traffic control plan
d) Subdivision, zoning, or development plan. j) Proof of liability Insurance
If an access permit is Issued to you It will state the terms and conditions for Its use. Any changes In the use of the
permitted access not consistent with the terms and conditions listed on the permit may be considered a violation of
the permit.
THE APPLICANT DECLARES UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN THE SECOND DEGREE, AND ANY OTHER
APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM AND
SUB TTED ATTACHMFNTSA E TO THE BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE TRUE AND COMPLETE.
Applicagnature 190
/1,31,06—
If the applic#1 is not the owner of the property, we require this applicatio I; o to be signed by the broperty owner or
their legally authorized representative (or other acceptable writt e . This signature shall constitute
agreement with this application by all owners -of -Interest unless g. If a permit is authorized, the
property qymer=le lists
Property o r sl # # Date
Cha oard of �oners Pd 1ST61 a-*
Previous editions may be used until supplies are sled C66H form i
_ DOH form 112
August, 1961
Canary • MTCE file
Local Jurisdiction
MTCE Section/Patrol _
Pr "+ No. (if approved)
VARIANCE FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE
THIS FORM MUST ACCOMPANY AN ACCESS PERMIT APPLICATION OR PERMIT FORM.
1. State specific reasons for this variance request. Documents verifying statements may be requested or should be
provided with request. State specific sections of the State Highway Access Code from which this request seeks relief.
(Additional sheets may be attached)
A variance is requested from section 4.7.4 of the access code for the reasons on the
attached sheet.
2. If variance Is temporary, state conditions which will change allowing the access to conform to the access code. If a
date Is known when conformance can be achieved, provide that date.
THIS FORM SUBMITTED BY DATE
ITEMS BELOW THIS LINE ARE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY.
3. Recommendation of local government authority. When local government has issuing authority, this
recommendation must be signed by an authorized official.
(X)
4. Recommendation of the District Traffic and Safety Engineer:
Date
(X) , Date
5. Recommendation of the Section Maintenance Superintendent:
(X)
FINAL ACTION TAKEN BY THE DISTRICT ENGINEER:
Having reviewed this variance request and all materials attached, I hereby:
APPROVE(X)
DENY(X)
this request for variance from the standards of the State Highway Access Code. Date
, Date
c
VARIANCE REQUEST:
Left Turn Decel: (Section 4.7.4) of the access code
Table "A" titled "Requirements of A/D Lanes" indicated that a left turn decel lane is not required for
weekdav or Sunday church uses, but a left turn decel lane is required for total Bull Run traffic. A
variance is requested to not require the left turn decel lane construction because it is not required for
church use, and because the left turn decel lane would require substantial retaining walls and expense
due to the existing steep, high wet slopes on Highway 6 immediately west of Bull Run.
Left Turn Accel: (Section 4.7.5) of the access code
Table "A" also indicates that a left turn accel lane may be required for Sunday church uses. A
variance is requested to not require the construction of the left turn accel lane because the Highway 6
improvement for the Riverwalk project can be re -striped to provide a substantially complete accel lane.
Right Turn Accel: (Section 4.7.3) of the access code
The right turn accel lane is only required for total Bull Run traffic, and is not required for weekday or
Sunday church uses.
0
ON
✓i
I
0.
p U
to
to H
�
U
to
r
O �-
U
U
•c.�
v v
N
>
L. v
O
O N
o •�
U .
• N G
-
v _
1 •y U
�
�
o
Y 3
//o
C. \
�% N
0 C-=
-
C-
U C -G C
V
O 2
-�-
O �'
N —
to
>
X
of U •=
"_
O
�'
.-
:. i
72
v
>
C/] O
'-
Cn
r�
r- T
=
=
kn c_
O
LO U
O
y
v
O L
CJ
to O
C%
U r
�
>L�
vv+
>
�
>
J
O O ,—
\
N�
L U
.►
cyi O
II CD
L
:> >
O
G
M
N
�-
0.
��w/�Y//// U
5O4)
Q
,
WALL
m
D
M
(n
m
Z.
Tm
N
kn
r
1
c
r
H
A�b Efs7'oFBuc�
A -MAI, r�
My
Z
m
Q�
a
NK
1\�
Ifni
ti
u
v
-v
x
rA
rq
@ I F;
2 LFV
t�.
N
C
\h
rn
I
I = �
< rn
� r
c
1 iurr .i rnucom • V
(ONIISIX3)
Nnd lino
x
r
ct
8
rF
rn
—4
C
'-U z
NK
1\�
Ifni
ti
u
v
-v
x
rA
rq
@ I F;
2 LFV
t�.
N
C
\h
rn
I
I = �
< rn
� r
c
1 iurr .i rnucom • V
ALPINE ENGINEERING, INC.
October 20, 1995
Mr. George Roussos
Eagle County Department of Engineering
P.O. Box 179
Eagle, CO 81631
RE: Bull Run Access Permit/Baptist Church
Dear Mr. Roussos:
Please find attached an opinion of probable costs to construct ONLY THE EAST HALF of the A/D
lanes per current access permit. The probable cost estimated to be 5975,410.00. 1t is obvious that the
west half of the lanes would be a lot less to construct than the east half where steep sideslopes exist.
The costs represent the construction required for maintaining the existing highway alignment (which is
the standard practice for A/D lanes construction); and construction of conventional retaining wall
systems. Clearly, a detailed study of optional highway alignments (shifting the highway north away
from the slope) would be desirable to determine if wall heights could be minimized. A detailed
geotechnical and geologic study of the slope would be needed to determine if alternate wall systems
could reduce costs, such as soil nailing, shotcrete, helical -piers, etc.
Realignment of the road would require roadway realignment east of the end of the proposed lanes to
line back up with the existing highway. Wetlands and floodplain issues may restrict movement of
lanes much further north (toward the Eagle River), so that a significant alignment may not be possible
at all. A realignment would likely require obtaining additional right-of-way on the north side of the
highway for future A/D lanes for access points north of the highway. Example: Lone Pine Trailer
Park.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Glenn Palmer, PE
GP/mm
cc Phil Scott
Edwards Business Center • P.O. Box 97 • Edwards, Colorado 81632 • (970) 926-3373 • Fax (970) 926-3390
BULL RUN OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
U.S. HIGHWAY 6 ACCEL/DECEL LANES
L Embankment
1/2 (4x24) 700 divided by 27 x 5.0 $/CY
$6,250.00
(1250) CY
2. Excavation
1/2 (35)(17) 700 divided by 27 x 5.0 $/CY
$38,575.00
(7715) CY
;. Excavation with Haul
(7715 - 1250) CY x 10 $/CY
$64,650.00
4. Topsoil Remove/Replace
700 x 2(20) 8/12 divided by 27 x 4 $CY
$2,765.00
S. Retaining Wall
A. Excavate and backfill (with haul)
cannot stockpile material on-site.
10 x 25 x 600 divided by 27 x 12 $/CY
$66,700.00
B. Soil nailing/shoring
450 x 18 x 25 $/SF
$202,500.00
C. Subdrain 550 if x 7 $/LF
$3,850.00
D. Retaining Wall (concrete facing -
no architectural facing)
550 x 18 x 38 $/LF
$376.200.00
6. Base Course
42 x 18/12 x 670 divided by 27 x 1.9 t/CY x 17 $/TON $50,495.00
7. Asphalt
40 x 4/12 x 670 divided by 27 x 2 x 45 $/T $29,777.00
ie
8.
Asphalt Overlay
60 x 1.5/12 x 670 divided by 27 x 2 x 45 $/T
$16,750.00
9.
Lane striping
$2,500.00
10.
Traffic Control (this is what was bid for
Eagle Vail A/D x 3/2)
$25,950.00
11.
Extend Culvert
$1,500.00
12.
Surveying
$9,000.00
13.
Retaining Wall Structural Design
$3,500.00
14
Soils Testing
$8,000.00
15.
Civil Design
$20,000.00
Subtotal
5928;962.00
5% Contingency
$46,448.00
TOTAL (EAST HALF OF LANES ONLY)
59;5,410 00
m �N
L
I
I
I
II
I
�a
I
I
I
A
X
U. S. (o PAOp05EO QET hwi6C HE/!o'f'T5.
SeGT/oN row w*u. 80TT0 I #E-/
,4
50
48 O
g
60
4(0 18
C
6 q
#Y 24
p
60
Y/ 23
E
5a
38 16
F
40
36 s
AVEea� w4Lc. HUI&HT = 18`+ </y Ex�v)
erf y �q&
S
15
ALP_ INE
ENGINEERING INC
Edwards Business Center OP.O. Box 97CEdwards, Colorado 816320303-926-33730Fax 303-926-3390
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
REMARKS:
/f/i � %-l!G l�ro►i /r� GiI�AG r�i /5
5/phi .S• -G AelA6W.'
tiz4ce 4 f
r 5voo v� w = 750 LIP040 _ 42 15F
3Ap X
FAF
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET:
REMARKS:
/f/i � %-l!G l�ro►i /r� GiI�AG r�i /5
5/phi .S• -G AelA6W.'
tiz4ce 4 f
r 5voo v� w = 750 LIP040 _ 42 15F
3Ap X
THE DQYVER POST
AssocIatsd Press I Christophe TwwInson
The dogs are trained to trackle; one
on. the avalanche patrol at Aspen skipIs on
resort.
DPS `very careftil
:urred last month, when a
iverenthusiastic" parent
rent a flier home with stu-
ftchell Montessori School,
eats to vote for the tax in -
e flier was paid for by pri-
x. But sending it home as
acket of official school ma.
embled by school staff, was
ritz said he has offered an
Mitchell parent, who op -
tax increase, a chance to
ssenting flier home with stu-
fore the election. The parent
according to Moskowitz
bmplaint alleges one other
-violation of the campaign re-
.iw. Tancredo said an anony-
iller, claiming to be a teacher
at Middle School, told him that
i -hike campaign was discussed
ail during a staff meeting in
ctober, held during school
Ei
Wednesday, November 1, 1995
wallwood9, Glen..
of recycled
a burning issue
At that meeting, Tancredo said,
Grant Principal Elmer Manzanares
gave teat:hers voter registration lists
for the school's attendance area and
told teachers to call parents of Grant
students. Tancredo said he later veri-
fied the anonymous caller's account
of the meeting through another per-
son who attended.
But Moskowitz said Manzanares
denied those allegations. Manzanares
did not return phone calls yesterday.
Having teachers and principals call
parents raises concerns, Tancredo
said, because parents might worry
that an unenthusiastic response could
lead to reprisals against their chil-
dren.
Moskowitz said the plaintiffs are
trying to further their anti -public
schools beliefs. "I'm just glad there
are so few people who think like
this." he said.
Alan Gottlieb's e-mail address is
alangot@rmii.com
tires
ByMichael Booth
,,,tic
Staff Writer Of Ip11-
A bold new idea to dispose
lions of used tires has caught fire on
the Western Slope, but not in the way
state highway officials had hoped.
An experimental retaining wall
built of shredded and compressed
tires near Glenwood Springs
cOntinued to burn yesterday
burst-
ing into flames Monday, Colorado
Department of Transportation
spokesman Dan Hopkins said.
The fire near the Hanging Lake
section of Interstate -70 in Glenwood
Canyon was under control yesterday,
and state officials planned to bring in
a crane today to take apart the huge
blocks of tires piece by piece in order
to quash the burn. The state also
hired a contractor to build a pumping
system to take water out of the near-
by Colorado River to the top of the
tire wall, cascading the water down
from above.
State workers will take control of
the fire today. the Glenwood Springs
fire department that first respond
to the flames had to be pulled ba
for normal city work -
The fire apparently started during
a lightning storm two weeks ago .
when a bolt hit the wall, which is
clearly visible from the westbound
lanes of I-70 at the Hanging
area. officials speculate the fire
smoldered out of sight before going
up in flames Monday.
Fire is a surprise threat to the 300"
foot wide 60 to wa w got
—rig of 125,000 old tires, Hopkins said -
Planners had worried about stability,
and had noticed a bow in the wall af-
ter spring runoff.
The project, aimed at blocking a
scar in the hillside caused by con-
struction, cost $750 000 or half the
cost of a conventions wa
"obviously this has raised some
questions about the experiment. It's
certainly unexpected," he said.
Travelers had complained the wall
was ugly, and state officials planned .
eventually to cover it with dirt and
landscaping. After the bulging prob-
lem, they decided to leave it open un-
til they could prove it was stable. But
ed leaving it uncovered p tobably al -
the
back lowed the lightning start
fire, Hopkins
sV
I pus
Or
0%
i
ioh
stria
o;sn::
;:L u;
03W.
1agi a
apls
I.
2
3
4.
5.
21
7.
BULL RUN OPINI 6 AOCOSTS
U.S. HIGHW CEL/DECEL LANES
Embankment
-
1/2 (4x24) 700 divided by 27 x 5.0 $ICY
$6,250.00
(1250) CY
Excavation
1/2 (35x17) 700 divided by 27 x 5.0 $ICY
$38,575.00
(7715) CY
Excavation with Haul
$64,650.00
(7715 - 125 0) CY x 10 S/CY
Topsoil Remove/Replace
$2,765.00
700 x 2(20) 8/12 divided by 27 x 4 $CY &1eNwo0C1 Sp -12 k4fi ( V -t + GaS4 .
45X 1$ X 84�SF
(meg, p0
/,V 0O•
Retaining Wall
A. Excavate and backfill (with haul)
\� cannot stockpile material on-site.
;
la'x 25 x 600 divided by 27 x 12 $/CY
- $66,700.00
B. Soil nailinJshoring
$202,500.00
450 x 18 x 25 S/SF
'
$3,850.00
C. Subdrain 550 if x 7 $2F
i
D., Retaining Wall (concrete facing -
no architectural facing)
t
I
- $3,76,200.00
550 x 18 x 38 $/LF
Base Course
42 x 18/12 x 670 divided by 27 x 1.9 t/CY x 17 $/TCN
550,495.00
Asphalt
40 x 4/12 x 670 divided by 27 x 2 x 45 SIT
$29,777.00
/��Sf/�� �� GVGrS /`t c�U�P�/>> ��PGi�✓G{�� G*i��I COS1�
a
8.
Asphalt Overlay
60 x 1.5/12 x 670 divided by 27 x 2 x 45 $/T
$16,750.00
$2,500.00
9.
Lane striping
10.
Traffic Control (this is what was bid for
$25,950.00
`
Eagle Vail A/D x 3/2)
I
$1, 500.00
11.
Extend Culvert
I
$9,000.00
12.
Surveying
13.
Retaining Wall Structural Design
$3,500.00
'
$8,000.00
14
Soils Testing
$20,000.00
15.
Civil Design
0
919 �o f 2 • dD
Subtotal
S46,448.00
45,1 9 ec► �oa
5% Contingency
TOTAL (EAST HALF OF LANES ONLY)
S, g }s*00
5q 2, (00966
/��Sf/�� �� GVGrS /`t c�U�P�/>> ��PGi�✓G{�� G*i��I COS1�
k
R'