Full Text
MONUMENT, CO FALL 2023 UTAP SOUTHEAST TEAM TOWN OF MONUMENT WAYFINDING & STREETSCAPE REDESIGN FINAL REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- [This page intentionally left blank] ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 5 8 10 16 18 25 40 41 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION SITE ANALYSIS WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PACKAGES STREETSCAPE DESIGN PROPOSALS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FINAL CONCEPTS TEAM MEMBERS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Accompanied by Madeline Van Den Hoek on a short walk from Town Hall to the historic downtown area, we discussed the objectives of a project intended to re-brand the district and bring more visitors to the eclectic array of shops and eateries that populated the area. It seemed odd to even imagine that, as she described it, folks that have lived in Monument for a long time had never even visited the 4-block stretch of commercial activity. This was a pristine downtown…no chain store or restaurants, but instead an assemblage of locally owned businesses fi ghting the familiarly bland aggregation of “everywhere USA” commercial districts that have chased most places like this into the history books. When we initially met with business owners, there was immediate tension. “Historic Downtown” implied an area of a bygone area. But Downtown Monument had galleries, interior design shops, bookstores, coff ee houses, a brewery or two, good restaurants…breakfast, lunch, or dinner…and to top it all off , ice cream. Some business owners like the historic designation, while others wanted something more modern and hipper, or perhaps more artsy. Hard to make everyone happy, but in the end the name is not what would guide people to downtown. Better signage and better accommodation once they arrive. Simple things like wider sidewalks, street trees for shade, slower traffi c, and better parking. Bike lanes, signage, information kiosks, perhaps more radical changes like one way traffi c…or traffi c directed to create an expanded business district. Over the course of many months, numerous meetings, surveys, and even a tactical urbanism event, the result is a well-considered series of concepts…. maximizing parking while enhancing pedestrian experience. An updated signage program, located to draw and direct visitors and residents alike to a welcoming downtown district. No matter what you call it, it is home to an energized collection of businesses…poised to grow and thrive for years to come! ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVE: Establish a strong, attractive visual and cultural sense of the town of Monument to divert locals, visitors, and passers-by away from I 25. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 PROJECT BACKGROUND & LOCATION INTRODUCTION “The Town was originally called Henry’s Station, but was changed when the railroad was built in 1871. Monument was named for the rock formation to the west and was incorporated in 1879, with Henry Limbach as the fi rst Mayor.” - Our project area of focus primarily looks at the Historic Downtown along 2nd Street between Beacon Lite Road and Front St, as well as the surrounding blocks. As one walks around town, there are plentiful opportunities to take in the wonderful mountain views and learn more about this history of the town through signage and art installations. Monument is located in El Paso County along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains and is part of the Tri-Lakes Area. The town lies at 6,975’ elevation, and enjoys a relatively mild climate spring through fall, with an average annual precipitation of 22” rain and over 100” of snow. In the broader context, Monument is just 20 miles from Colorado Springs and 52 miles from Denver along the I-25 corridor. According to the latest US Census data, 10,399 people call Monument home. REGIONAL MAP TOWN MAP ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 INTRODUCTION PRIMARY AREA OF INFLUENCE: 2ND ST. BETWEEN BEACON LITE RD. AND FRONT ST. 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 MAPPING SIGNAGE SITE ANALYSIS An initial study mapped existing signage around town using GIS. This data was then combined with survey comments and feedback from public meetings regarding potential locations in which additional signage or types of signage would be useful for improving wayfi nding. 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 SITE ANALYSIS SIDEWALK: 5’ - 6’ PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 7’ - 10’ PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 4’-6” - 9’-6” PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 4’ - 6’ PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 5” - 8’ PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 4’-6” - 5’ PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 4’-6” - 7’ PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 4’-6” - 5’ PARKING: 7 SIDEWALK: 4’-6” - PARKING: 7 SIDEWALK: 4’-6” - 5’-6” PARKING: 7 SIDEWALK: 4’-6” - 5’ PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 4’-6” - 5’ PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 4’-6’ - 5’ PARKING: 7 SIDEWALK: 4’-6” - 5’ PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 4’-6” - 5’ PARKING: 7 SIDEWALK: 4’-6” - 5’ PARKING: 6 SIDEWALKS RANGING FROM 4’ UP TO 10’ AND 98 EXISTING PARALLEL PARKING SPACES ON 2ND ST. (ORIGINALLY 66) EXISTING CONDITIONS: When we initially started this project the streetscape looked a little diff erent than it’s current state. Initially, this area had 66 parallel parking spaces. Throughout the project’s duration, the street was re-striped and maxes out parallel parking spaces at 98 with dedicated bike lanes separating the parking from the two driving lanes. This arrangement eases parking issues but creates greater safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists with limited sight lines at intersections and driveways into/out of parking lots. MAPPING THE STREETSCAPE ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 INITIAL SIGNAGE PACKAGES WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PACKAGES Our initial set of wayfi nding signage designs includes an array of styles, signage types, and creative re-imagining of existing signs to spark a discussion and gather input on what residents would like to see represent their town. Through a series of community meetings and two digital surveys, we have helped narrow in on the favorite schemes. While not all of these elements are visible or fully incorporated into these designs yet, we recommend the fi nal designs fully encompass the following best practices: • Simple and easy to read font in appropriate size and color contrast • Use of icons and imagery • Braille and/or tactile maps • Auditory cues and signals with haptic feedback • RFID torch and digital wayfi nding technology • Change in texture of hardscape as visual and tactile cue of transition to a new zone or type of area (seating/signage area, crosswalk, etc.) ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PACKAGES ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PACKAGES M O N U M E N T M O N U M E N T Historic Downtown Historic Downtown DISTILLERY DISTILLERY SCULPTURE GARDENS SCULPTURE GARDENS BREWERY BREWERY DINING DINING MONUMENT MONUMENT H i s t o r i c D o w n t o w n H i s t o r i c D o w n t o w n D I S T I L L E R Y D I S T I L L E R Y B R E W E R Y B R E W E R Y D I N I N G D I N I N G M O N U M E N T S a n t a F e B i k e T r a i l M O N U M E N T H i s t o r i c D o w n t o w n ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PACKAGES ---PAGE BREAK--- WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PACKAGES 14 A major part of the strategy to capture traffi c off I-25 is recommending the addition of CDOT Tourism Oriented Directional signs to make drivers aware of the Historic Downtown Monument area. As part of our study, we mapped out potential areas within the vicinity along I-25 and exits along this corridor. The proposed signs are shown with both text or custom logo options, although the logo shown is not indicative of the fi nal design selection. ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PACKAGES ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 INITIAL STREETSCAPE CONCEPTS STREETSCAPE DESIGN PROPOSALS We began by manually measuring a typical cross section of the streetscape in Historic Downtown Mounument and spot checking along the length of the street to get an understanding of current conditions. Then we consulted a variety of resources, including ADA guidelines and the National Association of City Transporation Offi cials (NACTO) Global Street Design Guide to get a sense of best practices to incorporate in the concepts. We created a series of simplifi ed streetscape alternatives and select a handful that would best utilize the width available. The current streetscape as well as three iterations proposed were 3D modeled in SketchUp and captured in a video fl ythrough to demonstrate some initial options to the public. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 STREETSCAPE DESIGN PROPOSALS A still from the Streetscape model video fl y-through of Iteration 1. See the full video on youtube: ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 SURVEY FEEDBACK COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Our fi rst survey was extremely successful with the collection of 347 responses received between November 2nd - 30th, 2022. Quick Facts: • All responses were from Monument residents • 8.8% Responses from Business Owners in Downtown Monument • 96% were aware of the Historic Downtown • Majority support keeping the area branded as Historic Downtown Monument over re- branding • Two Wayfi nding schemes were eliminated due to lack of support or strong criticism Signage Wants: • “simple” • “readable” • “fi ts into monuments mountain community vibe” aesthetic. • “Modern but not too modern/Traditional feel” Signage Concerns: • Being too modern-trendy, funky. • Readability and universal design • Feeling too “big city like” • Being too “old fashioned” ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Which streetscape option(s) would you prefer? 57 votes 43 votes 47 votes 42 votes None of the Above ---PAGE BREAK--- UPDATED STREETSCAPE CONCEPTS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 20 After the survey and a public meeting, we incorporated some of the feedback we heard and proposed a fourth alternative after taking a closer look at the measurements and possibilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 PUBLIC MEETINGS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT This entire process was heavily informed by public meetings, both in person and virtual. We also received a lot of robust feedback from the local business community and interested residents. Along the way, we also spoke with two residents with a specialty in wayfi nding signage and landscape architecture who shared their expertise. • March 8, 2022 Workshop with Business & Community Leaders • May 5, 2022 with internal stakeholders • August 12, 2022 with internal stakeholders • October 5, 2022 with the Downtown Merchants Association • November 17, 2022 with Monument Downtown Design Standards Group & Downtown Merchants Association • February 1, 2023 with the general public • June 8, 2023 with the general public ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Diagram drawn by a local landscape architect during a public meeting to demonstrate a potential streetscape design. ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 SURVEY FEEDBACK COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT After a series of meetings and revisions to the design schemes, we shared a second public survey. While still successful, we received far fewer responses than the initial round, but still a lot of detailed open-ended feedback. In total there were 64 complete responses received between June 8th - July 10th. Quick Facts: • 12.5% Non-Residents / 87.5% Residents • 12.5% responses from Business Owners • This survey focused on narrowing down between options and looking more closely at the details, including color options. • There was a clear favorite amongst the three presented signage packages. • Overall, people preferred the two-way streetscape option. • Most of the open ended comments for streetscape design revolved around the same topics of circulation, namely: • one-way versus two-way • bike lanes • accessibility and pedestrian safety • favor or opposition to parking on street ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 FINAL CONCEPTS ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 FINAL CONCEPTS SIGNAGE PACKAGES OPTION 1 9’ 6.5’ 8’ 4.75’ 6’ 5.5’ 12”-18” Front View Back View Update Signage & Banners on existing street lamp posts • 19.44% (14) Votes • Overall liked in current color but a few voted for Terra Cotta, Dark Green, Teal, and Marine Likes: • Natural color palette and minimalist design • Aesthetically pleasing • Feels more traditional • Mountain town feel • Warm and easy to read • Modern but historic Dislikes: • Shape of the archway • Nothing special about it • No indication of lighting being included ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 FINAL CONCEPTS 15’ clearance (min 14’) 20’ ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 FINAL CONCEPTS SIGNAGE PACKAGES OPTION 2 8’ 4’ 5’ 6’-7’ Wraparound built in bench extending 14” out 6’ 12”-18” 18” - 24” Signage area approx 5’-6’ W x 3’H • 30.56% (22) Votes • Overall liked in current color but a few voted for Dark Green, Copper, Olive Sage, and Marine Likes: • Natural color palette and bold text • Design of the sign including Monument Rock • Fits the look of Monument • Modern rustic • Warm and easy to read • Unique with artistic character Dislikes: • Benches on the signs • Still somewhat generic • Too ostentatious of an entry • Metal work doesn’t really look like the Monument ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 FINAL CONCEPTS EST. 1879 EST. 1879 HISTORIC HISTORIC MONUMENT MONUMENT HISTORIC HISTORIC MONUMENT MONUMENT EST. 1879 EST. 1879 Update Signage & Banners on existing street lamp posts 12’ 15’ clearance (min 14’) 22’ 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 FINAL CONCEPTS 4.5’ 5’ Analog sign with wraparound bench Digital sign with wraparound bench Signage area 48” W x 30”H on both ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL CONCEPTS SIGNAGE PACKAGES OPTION 3 • 50% (36) Votes • Overall widest variety of opinions on the color but low consensus between current (Sand), Dark Green, Terra Cotta, Dusty Blue, Gold, Marine, Teal, and Clover Likes: • Lighted Signs • Bike Rack, Exercise Stations, Signs with Seating • Stone materiality • Clean and Modern Design • Clear and Easy to Read • Will age well Dislikes: • Gateway logo • Not as distinct as Option 2 • Seems a bit stark • Might seem large in certain spaces • Not as simple as it could be 12’ 5.75’ 6.75’ 4.5’ 1’ 8.75’ Side view Front View 5.5’ 5.5’ 2’ 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 FINAL CONCEPTS 4.5 5.5 Same Dimensions as above but with Bike rack instead of bench extending out on side view. 5.5’ Wide x 1.25’ Deep x 8.75’ Tall with Bike Rack extending out 2-3’ on side/back of sign. 8.75’ 1.25’ ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 FINAL CONCEPTS 15’ clearance (min 14’) 24’ ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 FINAL CONCEPTS STREETSCAPE ONE-WAY SIDEWALK: 16’-5” - 17’ PARKING: 4 SIDEWALK: 14’ - 15’-6” PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 16’-9” - 21’-9” PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 12’ PARKING: 4 SIDEWALK: 15’-6” - 16’ PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 13’-6” PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 15’-6” - 16’-9” PARKING: 3 SIDEWALK: 13’ - 13’-5” PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 13’-6” PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 13’-9” - 14’-6” PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 15’-6” PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 12’-6” - 22’ PARKING: 3 SIDEWALK: 15’ PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 13’ - 13’-6” PARKING: 4 SIDEWALK: 13’-6” PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 15’-9” - 18’-6” PARKING: 5 SIDEWALKS RANGING FROM 12’ UP TO 22’ AND POTENTIAL FOR UP TO 12 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES ON 2ND ST. (SUBJECT TO CODE REVIEW) NOTE: SIDEWALK WIDTHS INCREASE AT CORNERS BY 9’ DUE TO PARALLEL PARKING SPACE WIDTH. ADDITIONAL SPACE NOT INCLUDED IN MEASUREMENTS LISTED BELOW. PARKING SPACES ARE 9’ WIDE DUE TO THE ONE-WAY TRAFFIC BUT COULD BE REDUCED TO 8’ TO GAIN AN ADDITIONAL 2’ OF SIDEWALK SPACE. ITERATION 5: ONE-WAY HYBRID BIKE RACK BIKE RACK This new design was created based on survey and public meeting feedback. It features one-way traffi c, maintains parallel parking on both sides of the street, but incorporating 15’-25’ site lines at every intersection and driveway into/out of parking lots along 2nd St. to improve pedestrian safety. This version does not include bike lanes and recommends dedicated bike lanes on 3rd street. Sidewalks here range between 12’ to 22’ plus an additional 9’ at curb bulb outs at intersections. This option received 19 votes. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL CONCEPTS 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 STREETSCAPE TWO-WAY FINAL CONCEPTS BIKE RACK BIKE RACK SIDEWALK: 13’-14’ PARKING: 4 SIDEWALK: 12’ - 13’-6” PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 14’-6” - 20’-6” PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 9’-6” - 10’ PARKING: 4 SIDEWALK: 14’-6” - 15’ PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 11’ PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 13’ PARKING: 3 SIDEWALK: 10’ PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 11’ PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 12’ - 12’-6” PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 12’-6” - 13’ PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 10’- 10’-6” PARKING: 3 SIDEWALK: 12’-6’ PARKING: 5 SIDEWALK: 11’ - 11’-6” PARKING: 4 SIDEWALK: 11’ - 11’-6” PARKING: 6 SIDEWALK: 13’-6” - 15’-6” PARKING: 5 SIDEWALKS RANGING FROM 9’-6” UP TO 20’-6” AND POTENTIAL FOR UP TO 12 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES ON 2ND ST. (SUBJECT TO CODE REVIEW) NOTE: SIDEWALK WIDTHS INCREASE AT CORNERS BY 8’ DUE TO PARALLEL PARKING SPACE WIDTH. ADDITIONAL SPACE NOT INCLUDED IN MEASUREMENTS LISTED BELOW. ITERATION 6: TWO-WAY HYBRID This new design was created based on survey and public meeting feedback. It features two-way traffi c, maintains parallel parking on both sides of the street, but incorporating 15’-25’ site lines at every intersection and driveway into/out of parking lots along 2nd St. to improve pedestrian safety. This version does not include bike lanes and recommends dedicated bike lanes on 3rd street. Sidewalks here range between 9’-6” to 20’-6” plus an additional 8’ at curb bulb outs at intersections. This option received 32 votes. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL CONCEPTS 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 FINAL CONCEPTS ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK Ultimately, none of these schemes present exactly what will be built out, but work to combine elements of what the community has requested or come to consensus on in a digestible and simplifi ed format. A detailed survey of the streetscape as well as review of utilities, municipal code requirements, and ADA standards must be undertaken to detail each block by block segment of 2nd Street to determine the best course of action. At a prior public meeting it was determined the safest course of action would be to shift protected bike lanes to nearby residential streets rather than prioritize it on 2nd as currently only folks who a serious bikers utilize the bike lanes on 2nd anyway as it does not feel safe for general recreational cyclist traffi c. Given the feedback, this may need to be re-visited by giving up some of the added sidewalk space to create bike lanes protected by the parking lanes. At the end of the last survey we left an fi eld for open-ended comments and questions, and received the following. • A one way street does not fi t with the rest of the town of monument • There aren’t enough alternatives to make 2nd street a one-way. • Lighting is needed at the Santa Fe Trail intersection as it’s hard to see pedestrians at night • Great designs • The supposed plan here to have bikes merge with street traffi c through downtown? Theoretically that seems like the only option but it also doesn’t seem safe for leisurely riders. • 105 and Beacon Lite intersection needs stop sign or light • How would traffi c fl ow with a one way street? That would put a lot of traffi c on 3rd street. I do not like the one-way idea at all. • The entire streetscape needs updating and more shops to draw people to the downtown area which although is historic off ers very little. We don’t plan on visiting often. • Angle parking would be better. • Wish ToM cared about the east side. JCP will be nothing but traffi c lights stopping the traffi c and will look like COS. • What would be the traffi c impact to surrounding streets or neighborhoods? • What would handicap parking spots look like? Would they be able to accommodate handicap vehicles with side (both) and rear (trunk) entry for those in wheelchairs? • How will delivery trucks fi t in any plan? • What will the new semi truck route be? • Need to consider separated bike lanes on other streets ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 FINAL CONCEPTS OPINION OF COST Ultimately, none of these schemes present exactly what will be built out, but work to combine elements of what the community has requested or come to consensus on in a digestible and simplifi ed format. A detailed survey of the streetscape as well as review of utilities, municipal code requirements, and ADA standards must be undertaken to detail each block by block segment of 2nd Street to determine the best course of action. The preliminary opinion of cost is a starting point for further discussion and may vary signifi cantly with on-the-ground circumstances and fi nal design selections. 9/29/2023(ML) SITE PREPARATION UNIT UNIT COST QTY ITEM TOTAL QTY ITEM TOTAL REMARKS Concrete Removal SF 2.00 $ 15700.00 31,400.00 $ 15700.00 31,400.00 $ Existing Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter Asphalt Removal SF 3.50 $ 35000.00 122,500.00 $ 28000.00 98,000.00 $ Existing Roadways to narrow + buffer Subtotal 153,900.00 $ 129,400.00 $ PAVING & STREETSCAPE UNIT UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL REMARKS Concrete Sidewalks - Pedestrian SF 12.00 $ 45000.00 540,000.00 $ 44000.00 528,000.00 $ 4" depth - standard concrete Alt. Textured Paving Along Sidewalk Edges SF 30.00 $ 12000.00 360,000.00 $ 12000.00 360,000.00 $ Allowance Asphalt with Surface Course & Base Course SF 11.50 $ 6000.00 69,000.00 $ 6000.00 69,000.00 $ Allowance to repair 2' buffer along demo edges Striping & Markings on Asphalt LF 1.50 $ 600.00 900.00 $ 3600.00 5,400.00 $ Parking & Road Markings Curb and Gutter for Asphalt Areas LF 30.00 $ 4500.00 135,000.00 $ 4500.00 135,000.00 $ Allowance Detectable Warnings for Curb Ramps EA 300.00 $ 65.00 19,500.00 $ 65.00 19,500.00 $ Trash & Recycle cans EA 300.00 $ 20.00 6,000.00 $ 20.00 6,000.00 $ Bike Rack EA 1,000.00 $ 3.00 3,000.00 $ 3.00 3,000.00 $ optional allowance Benches EA 1,200.00 $ 20.00 24,000.00 $ 20.00 24,000.00 $ optional allowance, 6' L Subtotal 1,157,400.00 $ 1,149,900.00 $ STREETSCAPE LANDSCAPING UNIT UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL REMARKS Irrigation System SF 2.00 $ 1600.00 3,200.00 $ 1500.00 3,000.00 $ Permanent install but only intended for use during 1-3 years of establishment and periods of severe drought Tree Plantings 1 - 1.5 caliper EA 400.00 $ 46.00 18,400.00 $ 30.00 12,000.00 $ Tree and Installation Shade Tree Plantings EA 700.00 $ 26.00 18,200.00 $ 20.00 14,000.00 $ Tree and Installation Tree Grates EA 7,000.00 $ 54.00 378,000.00 $ 35.00 245,000.00 $ Allowance Plants for Bed Areas & Boxes SF 12.00 $ 1700.00 20,400.00 $ 1700.00 20,400.00 $ Asst. Waterwise Shrubs, Grasses, Perennials and Annuals, and Seeding Decorative Landscape Boulders ton) EA 800.00 $ 6.00 4,800.00 $ 8.00 6,400.00 $ Boulder, Movement, and installation labor Large Rocks (12-18" - 40-80lb) EA 50.00 $ 60.00 3,000.00 $ 60.00 3,000.00 $ Raised Planter Boxes EA 1,000.00 $ 40.00 40,000.00 $ 40.00 40,000.00 $ Large Rectangular Blend of Squeegee & Imported Amended Soil CY 80.00 $ 300.00 24,000.00 $ 250.00 20,000.00 $ To promote drainage within planter beds Subtotal 510,000.00 $ 363,800.00 $ Subtotal 1,821,300.00 $ 1,643,100.00 $ Survey 36,426.00 $ 32,862.00 $ Mobilization (10%) 182,130.00 $ 164,310.00 $ Architectural / Engineering Fees (10%) 182,130.00 $ 164,310.00 $ Contractor Overhead & Profit (10%) 182,130.00 $ 164,310.00 $ Contingency (20%) 364,260.00 $ 328,620.00 $ Concept Total 2,768,376.00 $ 2,497,512.00 $ This cost estimate is based upon preliminary conceptual design and planning and should be used for information only for purposes of determining an order of magnitude. The estimate was completed without actual engineering and is subject to change. The estimate should be refined as more detailed design stages provide accurate quantities. Prices are subject to change with time and other industry related factors. ONE-WAY STREETSCAPE TWO-WAY STREETSCAPE Preliminary Opinion of Cost: "Monument Streetscape Design" ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 FINAL CONCEPTS OPINION OF COST The wayfi nding signage concept opinions of cost are based off very preliminary estimates of approximate size and conceptual materiality. These estimates will vary signifi cantly based on the fi nal dimensions, construction details, and quantities needed per type of sign. These estimates include a fairly large contingency percentage to factor in some of these unknowns. It is important to note that these represent a ballpark cost for one sign of each type, not a lump sum for a set of signs. Additionally, as noted at the bottom, this estimate can not be used for construction and should be further detailed based on the Town’s needs. 10/2/2023(ML) OPTION 1 UNIT UNIT COST QTY ITEM TOTAL REMARKS Single Post Wayfinding - Small EA 1,200.00 $ 1.00 1,200.00 $ Single Post Wayfinding - Medium EA 1,500.00 $ 1.00 1,500.00 $ Single Post Wayfinding - Large EA 1,800.00 $ 1.00 1,800.00 $ Double Post Wayfinding - Small EA 4,500.00 $ 1.00 4,500.00 $ Double Post Wayfinding - Large EA 6,500.00 $ 1.00 6,500.00 $ Light Post Signage (does not include Light Posts) EA 650.00 $ 1.00 650.00 $ Gateway Sign EA 22,000.00 $ 1.00 22,000.00 $ Subtotal 38,150.00 $ Mobilization (10%) 3,815.00 $ Architectural / Engineering Fees (10%) 3,815.00 $ Contractor Overhead & Profit (10%) 3,815.00 $ Contingency (33%) 12,589.50 $ Concept Total 62,184.50 $ OPTION 2 UNIT UNIT COST QTY ITEM TOTAL REMARKS Single Post Wayfinding - Small EA 1,200.00 $ 1.00 1,200.00 $ Single Post Wayfinding - Medium EA 1,500.00 $ 1.00 1,500.00 $ Double Post Wayfinding EA 5,500.00 $ 1.00 5,500.00 $ Stone Base Wayfinding - Small EA 9,500.00 $ 1.00 9,500.00 $ Analog (Digital not quoted) Stone Base Wayfinding - Large EA 11,500.00 $ 1.00 11,500.00 $ Analog (Digital not quoted) Light Post Signage (does not include Light Posts) EA 650.00 $ 1.00 650.00 $ Gateway Sign EA 29,000.00 $ 1.00 29,000.00 $ Subtotal 58,850.00 $ Mobilization (10%) 5,885.00 $ Architectural / Engineering Fees (10%) 5,885.00 $ Contractor Overhead & Profit (10%) 5,885.00 $ Contingency (33%) 19,420.50 $ Concept Total 95,925.50 $ OPTION 3 UNIT UNIT COST QTY ITEM TOTAL REMARKS Exercise Wayfinding EA 3,200.00 $ 1.00 3,200.00 $ Sitting Wayfinding EA 4,200.00 $ 1.00 4,200.00 $ Stone Base Wayfinding - Small EA 9,500.00 $ 1.00 9,500.00 $ Stone Base Wayfinding - Large EA 11,500.00 $ 1.00 11,500.00 $ Light Post Signage (does not include Light Posts) EA 650.00 $ 1.00 650.00 $ Gateway Sign EA 29,000.00 $ 1.00 29,000.00 $ Subtotal 58,050.00 $ Mobilization (10%) 5,805.00 $ Architectural / Engineering Fees (10%) 5,805.00 $ Contractor Overhead & Profit (10%) 5,805.00 $ Contingency (33%) 19,156.50 $ Concept Total 94,621.50 $ Reconstruct Entry Sign EA 33,000.00 $ 1.00 33,000.00 $ At HWY 105 and 2nd St. The following option is only indicated in Option 2 but could be considered separately for any design scheme if desired. Please note that mobiilization, architectural/engineering fees, contractor overhead & profit, and contingency fees would apply in addition. These cost estimates are preliminary and were based on designs without dimensions. This cost estimate is based off quantity one per sign, and in reality there may be economies of scale if producing multiple of the same sign type. This cost should be used for information only and is not to be used for construction or installation. These cost estimates are preliminary and were based on designs without dimensions. This cost estimate is based off quantity one per sign, and in reality there may be economies of scale if producing multiple of the same sign type. This cost should be used for information only and is not to be used for construction or installation. Preliminary Opinion of Cost: "Monument Wayfinding Design" These cost estimates are preliminary and were based on designs without dimensions. This cost estimate is based off quantity one per sign, and in reality there may be economies of scale if producing multiple of the same sign type. This cost should be used for information only and is not to be used for construction or installation. ---PAGE BREAK--- 41 jeffrey wood UTA Field Supervisor TEAM MEMBERS michelle lazarz MLA Research Assistant tayler heffelfinger MArch Research Assistant daniel levy MLA Research Assistant aletha spang MLA Research Assistant justin trammell MArch Research Assistant jade orr MLA Research Assistant charlotte francisco MLA Research Assistant & graham oden MArch Research Assistant ---PAGE BREAK--- ABOUT UNIVERSITY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 42 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS University Technical Assistance is a clinical teaching practice of the University of Colorado Denver, College of Architecture and Planning. Our mission is to provide students with real world experiences in design and planning as they provide communities and neighborhood with preliminary concepts that aid in securing both support and funding for community projects. UTA strives to enhance the quality of community life - through collaboration, applied research and innovative design - for the betterment of all residents. In the process, students’ educational experience is enhanced by taking what is learned in the classroom and academic studio and employing it in projects of public and civic interest. Communities benefi t through conceptual design work that is continuously being improved through research and innovation. Moreover, together we become partners in the design thinking process, thus expanding our mutual and individual capacities to further envision projects of signifi cant public impact. University Technical Assistance is one of a small number of design centers established within universities in the mid-sixties that remains in existence. Today, UTA is going strong, providing around 70 design and planning students each year with experience working with real clients on projects that provide a public good. Hundreds of communities and neighborhoods throughout Colorado, have received assistance with an estimated 3000 projects over 50 years. What distinguishes UTA from other design centers is its roots in community develop- ment and a fundamental principle of engaging residents in the design and planning process. We’ve assembled a collection of projects over the past 50 years that rep- resents what faculty, staff and students have accomplished in partnership with the thousands of residents who envisioned creating healthier, more vibrant places to live. ---PAGE BREAK--- [This page intentionally left blank] ---PAGE BREAK--- CONTACT US TO LEARN MORE [EMAIL REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] architectureandplanning.ucdenver.edu/utap MAILING ADDRESS University Technical Assistance College of Architecture and Planning University of Colorado Denver Campus Box 126, P.O. Box 173364 Denver, CO 80217-3364 PHYSICAL ADDRESS University Technical Assistance College of Architecture and Planning University of Colorado Denver 1250 14th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202