Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2019-01-15
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Prepared: January 8, 2019 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION January 15, 2019 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Study Session Minutes: December 18, 2018 Minutes: December 18, 2018 5. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS 6. ESTABLISH START TIME FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND STUDY SESSIONS 7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1551 S. Saint Vrain Avenue, Estes Park Housing Authority, owner 8. LOCATION AND EXTENT, 543 Elm Road, Larimer County Maintenance Facility 9. DISCUSSION ON FUTURE CODE AMENDMENTS a. Park and Recreation Facility b. Comprehensive Plan Consistency 10. REPORTS 11. ADJOURN Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado December 18, 2018 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of the Estes Valley, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held Rooms 202/203 of Town Hall. Commission: Chair Leavitt, Vice Chair White, Commissioners Schneider, Foster, Murphree, Smith, Theis Attending: Leavitt, Foster, Theis, Murphree, Smith, White, Schneider Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Acting Director Machalek, Senior Planner Woeber, Planner I Becker, Town Board Liaison Norris, Code Compliance Officer Hardin and Recording Secretary Swanlund Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m. He mentioned that this is Russ Schneider’s last meeting as his term is up and he thanked him for his service. There are no applications for a new commissioner as of this point in time. A press release may be needed to get the word out. There were 4 people in attendance. This study session was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel. EVPC By-Laws update Planner Becker reviewed the By-Laws that will be requested in January, stating the main reason for change is to hold meetings later in the day so more people can attend. The IGA is the controlling document of the By-Laws. Suggestions/comments regarding the changes: 1) Include Track Changes in the final draft, send to PC at any time before next meeting 2) Flexible beginning and ending times written into the changes 3) Explanation of how a tie vote works and what it means, especially with a quorum of 4 4) Term limits stated in IGA, not By-Laws 5) Post the IGA close to the By-Laws on-line for reference purposes 6) Have a final draft by the January 15 PC meeting 7) New start time beginning with the May 2019 meeting 8) Using the phrase Land Use instead of Planning for public comment procedures 9) Conflict of interest with other members or immediate relatives, or does it even belong 10) Reference the cite all of the State statutes being used 1450 Big Thompson Development Plan Planner Woeber discussed the plan, which proposes to build 2 small “managers quarters” with garage and storage. In May of 2014 the PC approved a development plan but that plan never moved forward, therefore expiring after 3 years. This will act as a development plan for the entire hotel site, which are uses by right. Approval is needed from the PC for coverage over 50% minor modification on an impervious surface. Drainage was seen to be adequate per public works, which is not stated in Planning Commission Study Session December 18, 2018 – Page 2 the staff report. A statement from public works regarding drainage was requested as the PC is being asked to make an exception to the coverage and could look negligent if drainage were to become a problem in the future. Lunch break 12:00-12:20 Vacation Homes: CCO Hardin reviewed the rough draft of changes for Vacation Homes that were discussed at the last study session. With proper code changes, these can be implemented at any point. The clerk’s office would like to see priority given to the code change regarding how long a home can sit in without being used as a vacation home. It was pointed out that a subsection of the PC, not the entire PC, brought this up for discussion and nothing has been voted on yet. Specific points of discussion: 1) make it very clear that no transfers or permits between properties are allowed 2) minimum of 15 days of rentals per year to keep licenses active, effective 2020 3) signage: what is allowed or not allowed 4) reference where to find the wildlife ordinances (town and county muni code) 5) put deadlines in Ordinance, not Code 6) reference home occupation guidelines in the Bed and Breakfast code Final draft in January, public hearing in February. EVCPAC Update: Norris noted that there is increasing public interest in the Comp Plan. Progress with the EVCPAC is on hold until the IGA questions have been figured out. Both public boards may need to get together to discuss this. It was suggested to keep track of public citizens who are interested. Discussion on the League of W omen Voters meeting on land use, held on December 12. Set up face to face meetings with concerned citizens and Com Dev staff. Send link of EVCPAC documents to PC and have a study session for discussion on comments and questions. Theis commented on the lack of environmental concerns in the new draft of the Comp Plan. IGA Discussion: Do we modify, continue or separate from county? Joint session intended, not scheduled-waiting for new Commissioner to be sworn in, shooting for a date in January 2019. Reversing joint planning would be regressive and the PC should be defending the IGA. Future Study Session Items EVPC By-Laws IGA Parks and Recreation Code Amendment Consistency with Comp Plan Code Amendment Planning Commission Study Session December 18, 2018 – Page 3 There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m. _____________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 18, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Schneider, White, Foster, Smith, Murphree and Theis Also Attending: Acting Director Travis Machalek, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 5 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commission/Staff Introductions Thanks were given to Commissioner Schneider who was attending his final meeting. His appointment is up and he will not be renewing. This leaves a vacancy available to be filled by a town citizen. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of November 13, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Approval of November 13, 2018 Study Session minutes Large Vacation Home, 907 Prospect Park Drive, Jason/Amy Brown, owners Request to increase bedrooms from four to five. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0 with White abstaining. 4. CODE AMENDMENT, CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff recommended this item be continued to the January 15, 2019 Meeting. Foster asked if the November proposal is supported by the town. Machalek stated that it is not, the topic is the same, the edits are different and a new draft can be drawn up if that is what the Commission wants. Foster then suggested withdrawing the proposal. Staff withdrew the proposed code amendment. It will be resubmitted at a future date. No action was taken. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 18, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 5. CODE AMENDMENT, PARK AND RECREATION DEFINITIONS Staff recommended this item be continued to the January 15, 2019 meeting. Woeber stated that there is no acceptable draft for County approval at this time. Foster recommended that this Code Amendment be withdrawn from the agenda as there is no content before the Commission to continue or review. There has been a large amount of public comment and confusion on this subject. Staff recommended withdrawal of the code amendment continuance. It will be resubmitted at a future date. No action was taken. 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1551 S. SAINT VRAIN AVENUE, ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY Staff recommended this item be continued to the January 15, 2019 meeting due to Public Works comments not being addressed by the applicant in time for this meeting. It was moved and seconded (Smith/White) to continue the Development Plan of 1551 S. Saint Vrain for the reasons presented and the motion passed 7-0. 7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1450 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, QUALITY INN Planner Woeber reviewed the Development Plan proposal for the addition of a two-story structure with a garage and storage on the lower level and two one-bedroom “managers’ quarters” apartments on the upper level. The applicant also requested a waiver to the maximum lot coverage standard. A 2014 Development Plan was never completed, therefore a plan for the entire site is requested to be approved with this current application. Public Works will review final construction plans and will take a closer look at the drainage issues. Staff recommended approval of the Development Plan and the Minor Modification request, to allow lot coverage of 54.9% in lieu of the maximum allowable 50%. Commission/Staff Discussion: Clarification of the minor modification waiver was given; the applicant is asking for 54.9% coverage. PC can give up to a 25% waiver on the 50% maximum allowable, this request is for an additional 4.9%. Structure size footprint is 900 square feet, 2 stories high. Applicant Discussion: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering, stated that the impervious coverage is being increased by 1.5% making drainage issues negligible. The owner knows of no current drainage issues. There is a lot of open/green space on the downhill slope from construction site. Public Comment: None RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 18, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 Commission Questions: For approval of the requested lot coverage exception, the PC would like to see Public Works review the drainage prior to construction. Drainage reports should have been in the staff report. Public W orks did not see a problem with it in the pre-application stages. Woeber suggested a drainage letter signed and stamped by an engineer prior to the zoning authorization of the building permit. Theis expressed concerns about approving the entire development plan, stating that future problems could come back on the PC. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Murphree) to approve the Development Plan and Minor Modification Request with the condition of acquiring a letter from a licensed engineer describing the current drainage situation and findings of fact recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0. 8. Public Comment: John Vernon, 3175 Tunnel Road, asked the PC to reject the uncoupling of Development Code from the Comprehensive Plan. Naomi Hawf, Estes Park Housing Authority, stated she is looking forward to the January review of the Peak View Apartments Development Plan, and that all necessary comments should be submitted and be a nonissue. 9. REPORTS: Director Hunt should return to the office by late December. Merry Christmas! There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 2:07 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary Estes Valley Planning Commission Bylaws — Revised Fall 2018 Page | 1 EXHIBIT A (GREEN) [Planning Commission draft: Jan15, 2019] ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS (amended January 15, 2019 ) I. ROLE A. Authority. The Estes Valley Planning Commission (the Commission, EVPC) was jointly established by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners (the County) and the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees (the Town) in 2000. The Estes Valley Planning Commission exercises the authority given to it by the Town Board and the County Commission, as described in the 2000 Intergovernmental Agreement, and all amendments thereto, (the IGA) between the Town and County, outlined below: 1. Perform ail of the duties and responsibilities of a joint planning commission pursuant to the provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). 2. Perform all of the duties and responsibilities and obligations of the Town and/or County planning commissions set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes for the Planning area. 3. The Commission shall have authority and be responsible for the Comprehensive Plan. II. MEETINGS A. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings shall be held once per month on the third Tuesday of the month. The Commission shall on the first meeting of each calendar year designate the time and place for its regular meetings. The Commission also may adopt rules for the length of meetings. Rules shall include provisions that any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Commission meetings and all matters scheduled on the approved agenda for consideration at the meeting which have not been considered by the Commission, shall be continued to the next regular Commission meeting or special meeting and shall be placed prior to New Business on said agenda for such meeting. The continuance of any item on the agenda shall be subject to compliance with Chapter 3 of the EVDC. B. Study Sessions. Regular study sessions of the Commission shall be held as needed, beginning approximately two hours prior to each regular or special meeting, with the exact time depending on agenda content. No official action shall be taken and no quorum shall be required for the study session. The study session shall be open to the public. Unless requested by the Chair, participation in study session shall be limited to the Commission and staff. Estes Valley Planning Commission Bylaws — Revised Fall 2018 Page | 2 C. Consent Agenda: 1. An item may be placed on the consent agenda if it is non-controversial and staff and Applicant have agreed on the findings and conditions of approval. Consent agenda should be verified during the study session. No item that has been advertised for a public hearing shall be placed on the consent agenda. 2. The following procedure shall generally be followed by the Commission when considering consent agenda items: a. Any member, staff or member of the public may request that an item be removed from the consent agenda and be discussed as a full agenda item prior to or during Agenda Approval. The reason for the request shall be stated. b. The item pulled from the consent agenda will be placed at the start of the regular agenda. c. The item which has been removed from consent shall be heard by the Commission, based on the issues raised by the request for removal. 3. Only one motion shall be required for all consent items. D. Special Meetings. Special Meetings may be held at any time upon call by the Chair. The Chair shall call a special meeting upon request by the Board of County Commissioners or County Manager, upon request by the Town Board or Town Administrator, or upon request by a majority of the membership of the Commission. Notice of at least three (3) calendar days shall be given to each member of the Commission, including the time, place, and purpose of the Special Meeting. E. Cancellation of Meetings. Regularly scheduled meetings of the Commission may be canceled or rescheduled for good cause by the Chair. F. Meeting Procedures. For matters requiring action by the Commission, the procedure generally shall be as follows: staff report, applicant presentation, open public hearing, close public hearing, applicant rebuttal, moving, discussion, and action by the Commission. Discussion may occur throughout the procedure. G. Open Meetings. All meetings and action of the Board shall be in full compliance with State Statutes governing open meetings. It is the responsibility of the Staff Liaison to be familiar with these statutes and regulations. H. Public Comment: The Chair may allow public comment at the beginning of each meeting by any person desiring to speak on any land use matter not on the agenda. The Commission shall not take action on any matter raised by public comment. All public comment shall be relevant to land use matters and shall not be more than three minutes in duration per person. Estes Valley Planning Commission Bylaws — Revised Fall 2018 Page | 3 III. MEMBERS AND QUORUM A. Membership. The membership, residency, attendance, terms, vacancy and removal for members of the Commission shall be as stated in the IGA. B. Quorum. A quorum for transaction of business shall consist of four (4) members. In a meeting where a quorum is not present, all scheduled matters shall be rescheduled for hearing at the next regular Commission meeting or at a special meeting. C. Action. Action by the Commission shall be by majority vote of the members attending any regular or special meeting at which a quorum is present, unless otherwise provided in these Bylaws or required pursuant to State Statute or pursuant to the IGA. Any motion voted on by the Commission which ends a tie, the motion shall be deemed denied. D. Recommendations for Appointment. Upon request by the Town Board and/or Board of County Commissioners, the Commission shall make recommendations for appointments to the Board. IV. OFFICERS A. Officers. There shall be a Chair and a Vice-Chair for the Commission. Each shall serve for a one-year term. The Community Development Department administrative assistant or designee shall serve as Recording Secretary. The Commission may appoint such other officers as the Commission deems necessary for the conduct of its business. Such other officers may be non- members of the Commission. B. Elections. Officers shall be elected by majority vote of the members annually at the first regularly scheduled meeting of each year. Officers shall be members of the Board. Notification of who is elected Chair and Vice-Chair shall be sent to the Town Clerk and County Commission. C. Chairperson responsibilities: 1. Preside at all meetings; 2. Ensure that all meetings are conducted with decorum and efficiency; 3. Call special meetings in accordance with the by-laws; 4. Sign any documents prepared by the Commission for submission to the Town or County Board or departments; 5. See that decisions of the Board are implemented; 6. Represent the Board in dealings with the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners or other organizations. The Chair has the same right as any other member of the Commission to vote and address all matters before the Commission. Estes Valley Planning Commission Bylaws — Revised Fall 2018 Page | 4 D. Vice-Chairperson responsibilities: 1. Preside over meetings or perform other duties of the Chair in the event the Chair is absent or unable to act; 2. Assist the Chair as requested. E. Chair Pro Tern responsibilities: 1. In the event the Chair and the Vice-Chair are both absent or unable to act, a member shall be designated by the other members of the Commission to temporarily perform the responsibilities of the Chair. F. Recording Secretary responsibilities: 1. Sign or attest the signature of the Chair or Vice-Chair on the documents of the Commission as may be necessary; 2. Prepare and keep the minutes of all meetings of the Commission in an appropriate designated file; 3. Give and serve all notices required by State Statute, Town or County regulations or the bylaws; 4. Prepare the agenda in consultation with Chair, or designee, for all meetings of the Commission; 5. Be custodian of Commission records; 6. Inform the Board of correspondence relating to business of the Board and attend to such correspondence. G. Removal from Office. Any officer may be removed from office by a majority vote of the members of the Commission in attendance at a meeting, provided that at least thirty days’ notice has been given to all members that removal of the officer will be considered at such meeting. H. Officer Vacancies. If any office is vacant, the members of the Commission shall elect a member to fill the office for the remainder of the term. V. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. By-laws. These by-laws may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission by a majority of the membership of the Commission. Any amendments shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. B. Documentation. All maps, plats, correspondence, and other documentation shall be filed in the office of the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department and adequate materials sent to the Commission members. Any materials presented at a hearing or meeting by the Applicant or public shall become part of the official record and at the discretion of the Chair may or may not be returned. Estes Valley Planning Commission Bylaws — Revised Fall 2018 Page | 5 VI. COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN AND COUNTY POLICIES A. Compliance with Town and County Policies: In addition to these Bylaws the Commission and all members are subject to and shall comply with all relevant adopted policies of the Town and the County. VII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. Conflict of Interest. All members of the Commission are subject to the standards of conduct under the State of Colorado Code of Ethics, Sections 24-18-101 et seq C.R.S., Political XXIX of the Colorado Constitution (Amendment 41) or any other applicable policies of the Town and/or the County. .At the time of introduction of an individual item on the Commission Agenda in which the member has a conflict of interest, the member shall state that he or she has a conflict of interest and then abstain from participating and voting on the matter. A member having a conflict of interest on any matter shall not influence other members of the Commission at any time with regard to said matter. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Robin Becker – Planner I Date: January 15, 2019 RE: Development Plan – Peak View Apartments Applicant Request: Approval of a Development Plan for a residential development project consisting of workforce and attainable housing units . Planning Commission Objective s: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). 2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicant’s testimony, public comment, and Town staff’s findings and analysis; and 3. Approve or deny the Development Plan application. Location: 1551 South Saint Vrain Ave. north of Peak View Dr. and east of S. St. Vrain and south of Tranquil Lane. Vicinity Map: See Attachment #1 Owner/Applicant: Estes Park Housing Authority Applicant’s Representative: BAS1S Architecture PC, Steve Lane Project Description: Present Situation: The subject property is 4.047 acres in size and is currently developed with a four-unit apartment building. The site is zoned RM (Multi -family Residential). Proposal: Development of two multi-family residential buildings . The two buildings will have a combined twenty-six (26) units . The 26 units will be a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom units with all units being attainable or workforce housing as defined in EVDC . The redevelopment of the site is to take advantage of the 38-foot height allowance in the RM, Multi-family Residential zone district. While this provision allows for three stories, the buildings will have a stepped down design so only the middle of the buildings will be three stories. A lot consolidation to ensure adequate site requirements was approved on November 19th 2018 and has been recorded. One waiver has been requested for the project, this waiver pertains to parking. Planning Commission, January 15, 2019 Peakview Apartments Development Plan Page 2 of 5 Alternate Parking Plan Requested: Per EVDC Table 7.11.D, each one-bedroom unit would require 1.5 spaces and each unit with two or more bedrooms would require 2 spaces. Based on the unit mix of (6) 1- bedroom, (10) 2-bedroom and (10) 3-bedroom ; (49) spaces would be required to serve the residents. Additionally, 1 space per .25 is required for guest parking which results in (7) spaces for a total of (56) required. This proposal provides (52) spaces based on existing and proposed multi-family projects while providing an outbuilding for bike parking. The rationale for this alternate parking plan request matches that discussed in the Comprehensive P lan Policy 5.8 suggesting “regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements.” Staff finds this proposal valid and acceptable. Site Data Table: Consultant: Steve Lane, BAS1S Architecture PC Parcel Number: 2531305935, 2531305936, 2531305937 (Currently Waiting on new Parcel Number) Development Area: 4.047 acres Existing Land Use: Multi -family Residential Proposed Land Use: Multi -family Residential Zoning Designation: RM, Multi -family Residential Adjacent Zoning: East: E-1, Estate and RM, Multi -family Residential North: R, Residential, R-2 Two-family Residential West: R, Residential, A, Accommodation, E, Estate South: A, Accommodation Adjacent Land Uses: East: Country Club Estates , single-family residential North: Tranquil Vail Subdivision, single- family residential West: Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condos, Meyers Addition 1970 Division, Condo and single-family residential South: Meyers addition, Ridgeview Condos and single-family residential Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Estes Park Sanitation District Review Criteria: Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project. 1. Buildings and Lots. Two multi-family residential buildings are proposed. These building are proposed with three levels . The units are proposed to be a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom units . The buildings and site meet height restrictions, lot coverage, and setback requirements. The applicant met with many of the neighbors on September 26th 2018, prior to the Neighborhood and Community Meeting code amendment becoming mandatory. The result of this meeting was neighborhood input and the request of additional fencing on Planning Commission, January 15, 2019 Peakview Apartments Development Plan Page 3 of 5 the southwest corner ; this fencing has been shown on the Development Plan. Further concerns were addressed regarding parking lot screening and lighting. 2. Landscaping. The project is required to plant a minimum of 1 tree for each 25 lineal feet of arterial street frontage and 1 shrub for each 10 lineal feet of street frontage. The application meets this requirement. A minimum buffer of 8 evergreen trees and 11 shrubs per 100 linear feet of district boundary between residential and multi-family residential zoning is required. All required boundary minimum buffers have been met. 3. Water. Water is to be provided by the Town of Estes Park Water Division. The Division has outlined numerous requirements for the development, some of which have been addressed by the applicant on the Development Plan, and the remainder of which are applicable to construction and the building permit stage. 4. Fire Protection. Estes Valley Fire Protection District provided comments regarding hydrants , FDC locations , and all-weather surface for driveway parking. All have been addressed by the applicant. Additional requirements related to fire sprinklers and alarms will be addressed at the building permit stage. 5. Electric. Electric service is to be provided by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division. The Division’s requirements have been met. 6. Sanitary Sewer. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District, who will provide central sewer service to the proposed development, had comments pertaining to easement access, line locations, cleanout locations and manhole locations. All comments have been addressed. 7. Stormwater Drainage. A drainage study was submitted and reviewed by Engineering staff with the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department. Onsite detention is proposed, at the southwest and northeast corners of the property where water will be treated and controlled at the release rate. Public W orks has no objection. 8. Access. Access has been reviewed by Public Works and has outlined numerous requirements for the development, some of which have been addressed by the applicant on the Development Plan, and some of which are applicable to construction and the building permit stage. They are below: 1. Construction activities are subject to Town codes and standards, including but not limited to: EP Municipal Code (e.g. Title 12) and the Estes Valley Development Code (e.g. Appendix D and all other cross -referenced codes and standards); a pre- construction meeting with Public W orks will be required prior to commencing construction. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits within this development, a copy of the approved Colorado Department of Transportation access permit for the proposed access on SH 7 shall be submitted to the Town. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits within this development, Public W orks will review final construction plans to determine compliance with applicable Town codes and standards. Planning Commission, January 15, 2019 Peakview Apartments Development Plan Page 4 of 5 9. Sidewalk/Trail. The applicant will need to coordinate with CDOT to satisfy all CDOT requirements for the installation of curb and gutter. The applicant has proposed an 8’ trail along Highway 7. 10. Parking. The applicant has proposed 52 parking spaces. Please see “Alternate Parking Plan” discussion above. Use Requirement Proposed Household Living Multi -Family Dwelling (excluding employee housing) (EVDC 7.11) *Efficiency or 1-bedroom unit:1.5 spaces (6 proposed) 9 spots 52 proposed (no designation or assigned parking per unit) Household Living Multi -Family Dwelling (excluding employee housing) (EVDC 7.11) 2- bedroom or larger unit: 2 spaces + (.25 guest spaces per unit) (10 proposed) 22.5 required Household Living Multi -Family Dwelling (excluding employee housing) (EVDC 7.11) 2- bedroom or larger unit: 2 spaces + (.25 guest spaces per unit) (10 proposed) 22.5 required 11. Outdoor Lighting. All lighting will be shielded and deflected down in compliance with EDVC §7.9. 12. Comprehensive Plan. This project is consistent with goals and policies within the Comprehensive plan. Specifically, as follows: • Policy 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges • Policy 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community • Policy 3.1 Encourage infill of older core areas in order to reduce infrastructure costs and to stabilize residential neighborhoods. • Policy 7.1 Maintain a unique blend of businesses, residents and visitors, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. This project is also located between the Fish Creek/ Little Prospect Planning Sub-Area, which recognizes multifamily residential zoning uses along Highway 7. It states that development along Highway 7 should identify sites within the neighborhood for affordable housing, and require that future development provide a visual buffering between adjacent residential uses . This development meets both these recommendations . Furthermore, the Fish Creek/ Little Prospect Mountain- Future Land Use area includes a variety of single family and multifamily residential uses, generally including less dense development patterns on the steep portions of the area and more intensive single family and multi- family development closes t to the community core. This Planning Commission, January 15, 2019 Peakview Apartments Development Plan Page 5 of 5 area includes the widest variety of residential land use types, ranging from affordable, small single family lots to large estate lots. This project is consistent with the goals and objectives of this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Public Notice: Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners in accordance with EDVC, Section 3.15 General Notice Provisions. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette and the application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The applicant has also posted a “development proposal under review” sign on the property. Public Interest: Low There has been little public interest on this project. One public comment did come in concerning access and traffic off of Highway 7. During the public meeting, concerns including neighborhood safety, lighting, and building/land buffering were expressed. Meetings with the neighbors and the Housing Authority has resulted in favorable communication. All public comments received are available at: www.estes.org/currentapplications Staff Findings: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the Development Plan. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project. 2. The development plan is consistent with the recommendations of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Concerns and issues that were raised have been addressed or will be addressed at time of building permit. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Peakview Apartment Development Plan with no conditions . Sample motion: 1. I move to approve the Peakview Development Plan application according to findings of fact with finding [state findings for approval] 2. I move to continue the Peakview Development Plan application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3. I move to deny the Peakview Development Plan application, finding that … [state findings for denial]. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Development Plan Set 5. Building Elevations & Floorplans 6. Public Comments This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 40 80Feet 1 in = 87 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity D evel opm en t Vicinity Map Printed: 1/9/2019Created By: Robin Becker Project Location Peak View Workforce Apartments Development Plan Statement of Intent October 17, 2018 Project Location The proposed project is located at 1551 South Saint Vrain Avenue in Estes Park. The property, consists of three parcels defined by meets and bounds, totaling 1.6 acres: parcel numbers 2531305935, 2531305936 and 2531305937. The zoning of all three parcels is R‐M Residential Multi‐family. A four‐unit apartment building currently exists on parcel 253105936 – this structure is to be removed to accommodate the proposed project. Owner The property is owned by the Estes Park Housing Authority. There are no lienholders. Project Description EPHA is seeking to make use of the development incentives in the Estes Valley Development Code to provide Workforce housing in the Estes Valley. Twenty‐six units are planned in two buildings with a mix of one, two and three bedroom units. The buildings will take advantage of the 38‐foot height limit to allow three‐stories, however, only the middle section of each building will be three‐stories – the design steps down to two‐stories at each end to assist with scale transition to surrounding neighborhoods. One hundred percent of the units in both buildings will be either Workforce or Attainable. A covenant agreement will be prepared and submitted for review by the Town Attorney that will include the prohibition of nightly rentals. The covenant agreement will be in place for a minimum of 50 years. Since all three parcels are zoned R‐M and will be combined into one lot this project is a Use‐by‐Right. As a multi‐family development along a major artery, the proposed development is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive plan, specifically: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. 5.4 Encourage redevelopment of existing substandard areas. 5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. Site Access and Parking Access to the property is from South St Vrain Ave/State Highway 7. Two drive access points currently exist, at the northeast and southeast corners of the property. The plan proposed would eliminate the northeastern access. The southeastern access would be widened and paved for two‐way traffic per the EVDC standards. A center turn lane currently exists on Highway 7. A traffic impact study was prepared for the development and concludes that, due to low expected impact, no further improvements ‐ turn lanes, etc are warranted. Per EVDC Table 7.11.D, each one‐bedroom unit would require 1.5 spaces and each unit with two or more bedrooms would require 2 spaces. Based on the unit mix of (6) 1‐bedroom, (10) 2‐bedroom and (10) 3‐ bedroom; (49) spaces would be required to serve the residents. Additionally, 1 space per 0.25 is required for guest parking which results in (7) spaces for a total of (56) required. This development proposes (52) spaces, based in large part on recent parking studies associated with existing and proposed multi‐family projects in the Estes Valley that suggest that the number of spaces noted in Table 7.11.D is well above that required. This results in un‐used parking spaces and therefore excess paving, unnecessary stormwater impact and less area for planting/greenspace. Note that the Comprehensive plan policy 5.8 suggests “Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements.” Specific to this housing type a case can be made that this parking requirement would qualify. Pedestrian/Bike Access Internal pedestrian access from parking areas is provided as well as a new 8‐foot wide sidewalk along Highway 7. This sidewalk has been detached from the street for increased pedestrian comfort + safety. An outbuilding (unfinished/unheated) is proposed at the entry to the project that will house a bicycle/gear storage area for the residents. Utilities Utility service is provided via private service lines from existing utility mains adjacent to the project site. Electrical and water service is provided by the Town of Estes Park. Two new 75Kva transformers are proposed in the northwest corner of the site. Service lines to the new buildings will be underground. All existing overhead lines will be unaffected and remain in place. Water service will be provided via an existing 6‐inch line that extends under Highway 7 from the main on the east side of the highway. Each building will be provided with a 6‐inch fire line for automatic fire suppression, off of which a domestic tap will be provided. The existing fire hydrant at the southeast corner will remain. Sanitary sewer services are provided by Upper Thompson Sanitation. UTSD has an easement and sewer main along the west and north lines. As requested in the pre‐application conference, access to that easement is provided at the northwest end of the parking area. The north building will be served by service(s) connecting to the main along the north property line. The south building will be served by a 6‐inch line to the main along Highway 7. The latter will require a waiver from the UTSD Board to allow for 13 units to be serviced by one 6‐inch service. This waiver will be pursued concurrently. Natural gas is provided by Excel Energy. It is expected that each unit will be individually metered. Trash removal will be provided by Waste Management. The project includes common 2‐yard containers located within a structure near the entry to the site. Postal service is currently provided by mailboxes along Highway 7. The project proposes to integrate a wall‐mounted postal cluster box into the side of the storage/trash collection structure. Stormwater + Drainage Historically, stormwater runoff drains toward the eastern edge of the site to a swale along S. Saint Vrain Avenue. Detention is proposed to comply with Estes Valley Development Code and the Larimer County Addendums to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Manual. Sizing of the proposed detention basin was based on the Modified FAA Method. The required detention volume for the 100‐year storm is 4,074 cubic feet. The Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for the 1.61‐acre drainage area was determined to be 987 cubic feet. Based on existing and proposed site topography, two detention basins are proposed to provide for the required detention volume for the 100‐ year storm. Outlet control will be provided by a concrete weir or an orifice plate. The proposed development is expected to increase the peak stormwater discharge rates from the site and tributary drainage area by 1.0, 1.7, and 2.4 cfs for the 2‐year, 10‐year and 100‐year storm events, respectively. Detention was sized to capture the 100‐year storm runoff and release it at rates that the downstream infrastructure can accommodate. Stormwater runoff will be captured and directed into the proposed detention basins using type R inlets, curb cuts, and swales. Off‐site runoff flows will be routed around the perimeter of site in shallow swales. A detailed drainage report is included in this submittal. Fire Protection As noted above, a fire hydrant exists at the driveway entry in the southeast corner of the site. Each building will be provided with fire suppression (NFPA 13R system). The parking has been configured to allow for emergency vehicle turn‐around and access to the buildings as required in the International Fire Code. Finally, siding materials for the buildings will be ignition‐resistant throughout – anticipated as fiber cement. Lighting A photometric study was performed and is included with the application. The photometric plans shows that there will be no light trespass beyond the property lines. Furthermore, per the EVDC, all light fixtures will be dark‐sky compliant. Proposed exterior light fixtures include wall mounted fixtures at each apartment entry and patio door as well as recessed lighting in the roofs over stairways. Site lighting includes (3) parking poles (low height, full cutoff) located centrally to the site to provide safe access to parking, but located away from neighboring properties. Walkway/path lighting is proposed as bollard lighting (dark sky) sufficient enough to get pedestrians from car to building safely without an excessive amount of lighting. All site lighting fixtures will be on time‐clock control to provide a dark site during the latest night hours. Landscaping + Open Space The site is only lightly vegetated, so only a limited number of trees are slated to remain. However, there is one very substantial evergreen in the middle of the site that is to be protected. New landscaping includes the District Buffer to screen the single‐family lots to the west and north, perimeter parking lot landscaping at parking edges along property lines, the arterial street buffer, internal parking lot landscaping and that required by the EVDC for multi‐family developments. All landscaping will be provided with irrigation. Per EVDC 4.3.D + Table 4‐3 multi‐family projects are required to set aside 15% of gross land area for private open areas (as further outlined in 7.4). Open areas on this project consist of gathering areas between buildings and to the west of building 2 (north building) along with the area dedicated to the bike trail/sidewalk, totaling in excess of the required 10,485 square feet. Neighborhood Outreach The EPHA Board held a neighborhood outreach meeting on the property in the evening of September 26, 2018. A notice via mail was sent out to all property owners within 500‐feet of the project. The site was also posted with a ‘development proposal’ sign. The proposed new building corners were staked on the property and a brief presentation was made to review the site plan, building plans and elevations. Input from neighbors was received including a request for additional fencing in the southwest corner to discourage trespassing. Additional concerns expressed including parking lot screening and site and building lighting. It was noted that the west edge of parking would be dug into the hillside and that the western property line would be provided with a landscape buffer. It was also noted that all light fixtures would be dark sky compliant. Another concern expressed related to balconies on the north side of the north building – there are none proposed. The spaces along the north edge of this building are primarily bedrooms. Overall the project was generally well received by those in attendance. Schedule Presuming project approvals are attainable, EPHA would like to begin construction in late Spring/early Summer of 2019. Completion of construction would be late 2019/early 2020. EPHA may consider phasing construction such that building 1 (south) would be constructed first, allowing the residents of the existing project to move in before the existing building is demolished to make room for building 2 (north); or building the entire project as one phase. Waivers Requested 1. EVDC 7.11.G.3 – staff waiver from providing the full number of guest parking spaces. S S S S S S S S SSSSSSSX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X XX10' BUILDING SETBACK 10' BUILDING SETBACK 10' BUILDING SETBACK 25' BUILDING SETBACK OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP 50305 0 2 0 5020 50205010 50105010FF= 5020.1 WWWWWWWWWGGG GGGGGGGW 6inDIPW 6inDIPW 6inDIPW 6inDIPW 6inDIPPROPOSED ASPHALT PARKING 32 SPACES PROPOSED ASPHALT PARKING 20 SPACES PROPOSED 6" SEWER SERVICE PROPOSED 6" SEWER SERVICE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED 6" WATER SERVICE PROPOSED (2) 75 KVA TRANSFORMER COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY No. 7(AKA SOUTH SAINT VRAIN AVE.)EXISTING SEWER MAINEXISTING WATER MAINEXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE4.0 %8.0% FF= 5018.1 2%4 % 4 % 1. 4 %1.4%2%4 % 4 % 4 %2%1.64%8%FF= 5018.1FF= 5019.1FF= 5019.1 161 6 16161614 12 10 08181818202022241414141610PROPOSED 6" SEWER SERVICE SITE DISTANCE600'±500'±R25.00 R25.00 R25.00 R5.0019.5'(TYP.)19.5'(TYP.)9'(T Y P . ) 9'(T Y P . ) 19 . 5 ' (T Y P . ) 19 . 5 ' (T Y P . )9'(TYP.)9'(TYP.)8' 5' 8' 8' 8'60 LF 12" CPP @ 2%18171651 L F 1 2 " C P P @ 8 % 58 LF 1 5 " C P P @ 3. 5 % 40 LF 1 2 " C P P @ 6 . 3 % S 6 i n S 6 i n S 6in S 6in R5.00 R25.00 R5.00 R5.00 R5.00 R5.00 R5.00 R5.00 TOW 22 BOW 20 TOW 24 BOW 21 TOW 28 BOW 21 FF= 5025.50 FF= 5023.5 FF= 5022.5 FF= 5021.5 FF= 5021.5 PROPOSED 13 UNITS (12,324 SF) PROPOSED 13 UNITS (12,324 SF) TOW 30 BOW 24 TOW 28 BOW 25 TOW 27 BOW 25.5 ZONED R2- RESIDENTIAL LOT 1 TRANQUIL VALE SUBDIVISION ZONED R- RESIDENTIAL LOT 2 TRANQUIL VALE SUBDIVISION ZONED R- RESIDENTIAL LOT 3 TRANQUIL VALE SUBDIVISION ZONED R- RESIDENTIAL LOT 4 TRANQUIL VALE SUBDIVISION ZONED A- ACCOMMODATIONS PARCEL No. 2531305931 PROPOSED 6" WATER SERVICE 15' UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT (BOOK 1684 PAGE 147) EXISTING 8" SEWER MAIN R5.00 R5.00 R4.50 6' TOP WIDTH SWALE W/ 4:1 SIDE SLOPES 6' TOP WIDTH SWALE W/ 4:1 SIDE SLOPES PROVIDE ACCESS TO SEWER MAIN FOR UTSD MAINTENANCE S 89°06'39" E 137.09' (S89°07'E 137.01') N 89°21'20" W 104.94' (N89°07'W 105.00') N 51°09'29" E 1 59.39'(S 51° 15' 20" W 159.4 9') N 5 1 ° 2 1 ' 3 4 " W 1 5 9 . 8 5 ' ( S 5 1 ° 1 4 ' 4 0 " E 1 6 0 . 0 0 ' ) N 5 1 ° 2 0 ' 0 1 " W 1 7 8 . 1 3 ' ( S 5 1 ° 1 4 ' 4 0 " E 1 7 7 . 9 0 ' ) N 89°16'30" W 32.85' (N89°07'W 32.81')170.88'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CH=N 25°23'54" EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER=2815.00'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''L=170.91'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''D=3°28'43"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""165.05'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CH=N 21°59'19" EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER=2815.00'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''L=165.07'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''D=3°21'36"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""TENNANT STORAGE/ BIKE STORAGE T R A S H HYDRANT @ SH7 &TRANQUIL LANE320'±HY D R A N T @ S H 7 & TR A N Q U I L L A N E 120' ± X P R O P O S E D 6 - F O O T S I D E W A L K P R O P O S E D 6 - F O O T S I D E W A L K14.4±20.4±22.1±14.4±12.45.2 13.05.2 10.626.6 6.911.9 6.951.9 4.213.4 50.3 4.213.4 26.7 12.45.2 13.05.2 10.629. 4 7.7 10.30.010.1 0.09.26.911.96.913.16.911.9 PROPOSED 8-FOOT SIDEWALKPROPOSED BLOCK WALL PROPOSED BLOCK WALL POSTAL CLUSTER BOX TO BE LOCATED ON SIDE OF STORAGE PROPOSED SIGN 16' PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER SUBJET PROPERTYTO ESTESPARKTO ALLENSPARKPEAK VIEW D R .STATE HIGHWAY No. 7 SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE EXISTING EASEMENT AS NOTED EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR W EXISTING WATER LINE S EXISTING SEWER LINE G EXISTING GAS LINE 5020 EXISTING TELEPHONE PED EXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING TREE (TYP.) S 6in PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE W 6inDIP PROPOSED WATER SERVICE PROPOSED ELECTRIC SERVICE X X X X X X EXISTING FENCE EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) PROPOSED DRAIANGE FLOW ARROW TOW 30 BOW 24 DENOTES "TOP OF WALL" & "BOTTOM OF WALL" ELEVATIONS EPHA - PEAK VIEW APARTMENTS SITEPLAN ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY SHEET TITLE: BY:REVISION:DATE: CLIENT: SHEET 2 SHEET 1833.001 JOB NO.MST DATE SCALE APPROVED BY AS SHOWN OCT 2018 JLR JLR MST DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY PROJECT TITLE: 2019 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1692 BIG THOMPSON AVE. SUITE 200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 PH: (970) 586-2458 FAX: (970) 586-2459R Know what's below. Call before you dig. CALL 3-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. SCALE 1"=1000' VICINITY MAP MAP TAKEN FROM TOWN OF ESTES PARK DIGITAL MAP THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING ALL THE OWNERS AND LIENHOLDERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ANY OTHER ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, PERTAINING THERETO. Estes Park Housing Authority By: Print Name: OWNERS STATEMENT: Utilities: Water Town of Estes Park Electric Town of Estes Park Sewer Upper Thompson Sanitation District Gas Excel Telephone Century Link AVERAGE SLOPE = ~7.0% ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM NET DENSITY (UNITS/SF): GROSS/NET LAND AREA - 69,899± SF 1.605± ACRES BASE ZONE DENSITY 8 UNITS PER ACRE * 2.0 RESIDENTIAL WORKFORCE UNITS = 16 UNITS PER ACRE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL WORKFORCE UNITS ALLOWED (16*1.605) = 26 UNITS TOTAL NUMBER PROPOSED = 26 UNITS ("ATTAINABLE" OR "WORKFORCE" ONLY) SITE LAND AREA COVERAGE STATISTICS COVERAGE % LOT (GROSS LAND AREA - 69,899± SF) EXISTING LOT COVERAGE Existing Buildings (To be removed)3340 sf 4.78% PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE Buildings 10366 sf 14.83% Parking/Drives 20930 sf 29.94% Sidewalks/Entryways 3849 sf 5.51% Patios 700 sf 1.00% Trash Enclosure 567 sf 0.81% TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 36,412 sf 52.09% TOTAL OPEN SPACE 33,487 sf 47.91% SITE STATISTICS: PARKING CALCULATIONS: 2-BEDROOM OR LARGER UNIT: 2 SPACES + 0.25 GUEST SPACE PER UNIT 45 TOTAL REQUIRED 56 49PROPOSED STANDARD PARKING STALL MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING (EVDC 7.11) EFFICIENCY OR-1 BEDROOM UNIT: 1.5 SPACES + 0.25 GUEST SPACE PER UNIT 10.5MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING (EVDC 7.11) (20 UNITS *2.25) (6 UNITS *1.75) 2PROPOSED ADA VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL 1 52PROPOSED PARKING STALLS 1)ZONING - RM- RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY 2)SETBACKS - 15 FEET FROM STREETS (25 FEET FROM ARTERIAL), 10 FEET FROM REAR AND 10 FEET FROM SIDES. 3)ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DOWNCASTING; (REFER TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER (EVDC) 7, SECTION 7.9 ). ALL STREET LIGHTS WILL NOT EXCEED 15 FT IN HEIGHT. 4)ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE RESEEDED OR SODDED WITH NATIVE GRASSES/WILDFLOWER MIX. ALL NEW TREES AND SHRUBS WILL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHFUL CONDITION. ALL AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED. 5)TRASH ENCLOSURES WILL BE SCREENED WITH A SOLID FENCE AND ANIMAL RESISTANT. 6)CONTRACTORS MUST CALL UTILITIES NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO PRIOR TO EXCAVATING (1-800-922-1987). 7)THE BUILDING HEIGHT WILL BE WITHIN THE LIMITS SET FORTH IN THE REVISED HEIGHT MEASUREMENT PROVISION OF THE EVDC. 8)ALL INTERSECTIONS SHALL HAVE STOP SIGNS INSTALLED TO M.U.T.C.D. STANDARDS. 9)ALL REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED OR GUARANTEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVDC 7.12 AND 10.5.K PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 10)THE OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE A.D.A., I.B.C. AND EVDC 7.11.J REQUIREMENTS. 11)APPROVAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN CREATES A VESTED RIGHT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S., AS AMENDED. 12)THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS A SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND DOES NOT SHOW ALL THE DESIGN ELEMENTS NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT ANY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS. 13)CONTOURS ARE 2' INTERVAL. 14)CONDUITS, METERS, VENTS AND OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING OR PROTRUDING FROM THE ROOF SHALL BE SCREENED, COVERED OR PAINTED TO MINIMIZE VISUAL IMPACT. 15)(IFC SECTION 503.2.1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS SHALL HAVE AN UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH OF NOT LESS THAN 20 FEET. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY SIGNED AND/OR MARKED "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL SIGN/TRAFFIC STANDARDS. THE FIRE DISTRICT WILL FIELD LOCATE ALL SIGNAGE.ACCESS ROADS LESS THAN 26 FEET WIDE SHALL BE MARKED AS FIRE LANES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD. A. ACCESS ROADS AT LEAST 26 FEET BUT LESS THAN 32 FEET WIDE SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD MARKED AS A FIRE LANE. B. ACCESS ROADS AT LEAST 32 FEET WIDE NEED NO HAVE FIRE LANE MARKINGS. GENERAL NOTES: PLANVIEW SCALE 1" = 20' 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 24 T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO JLRAGENCY COMMENTS 11/02/201811/09/2018 EPHA PEAK VIEW APARTMENTS JLRAGENCY COMMENTS 11/19/201811/26/2018 JLRADD CURB & GUTTER ALONG HWY 712/05/2018 PROPOSED ADA CAR ACCESSIBLE STALL APPROVAL: APPROVED BY THE ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION THIS DAY OF , 20__. BOB LEAVITT, CHAIR 1)A PRIVATE WATER LINE EXTENSION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR DOMESTIC SERVICE FIRE PROTECTION. THIS INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE INSTALLED; TESTING PERFORMED/PASSED AND ACCEPTED BY THE DIVISION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. ANY PROJECT PHASING OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. PHASED INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS WITHIN THE PHASE. 2)CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW, APPROVAL AND SIGNATURES BY THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. NO INSTALLATION OF ANY PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALLOWED UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN SIGNED. ALONG WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS PROVIDE THE CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE FIRM OR PERSON ACTING AS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR THE PROJECT. 3)CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS MUST INCLUDE: ·PLAN AND PROFILE TO SHOW POTENTIAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN WATER AND OTHER UTILITIES INCLUDING CULVERTS, SHOW UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATIONS WHEN UTILITY IS NOT IN ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. ·METERING/TAP LOCATION PLAN (DRAWING) INDICATING TAP LOCATIONS AND SIZES, WATER METER LOCATIONS AND SIZES, AND BUILDINGS SERVED BY EACH. 4)ALL WATER LINE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE WATER UTILITY POLICIES AND STANDARDS. 5)BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES WILL BE REQUIRED AT SOME LOCATIONS, CONTACT THE CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL SPECIALIST AT 970-577-3625 TO DISCUSS AND REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO POTENTIAL HAZARDS ON THE PROPERTY. 6)THE EXISTING WATER SERVICE LINE(S) MUST BE ABANDONED AT THE TAP WHEN THE NEW PROPOSED FIRE SPRINKLER/SERVICE LINES ARE PLACED IN SERVICE. 7)FOR ANY STRUCTURE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM, A DETAILED DRAWING MUST BE TURNED IN TO THE WATER DIVISION NOTING: ·LOCATION, SIZING AND TYPE OF BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE(S) ·ENGINEERED FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, PIPE SIZE BASED ON NFPA TABLE 10.10.2.1.3, FIRE FLOW PRODUCED AT A MAXIMUM VELOCITY OF 10FT/SEC. WATER DEPARTMENT NOTES: 2" 4" 6" 8" 10" PIPE SIZE FLOW RATE 12" 100 GPM 390 GPM 880 GPM 1560 GPM 2440 GPM 3520 GPM 8)SPILL CONTROL METHOD MUST BE SHOWN FOR PROPER DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGE FROM THE RELIEF VALVE, INDICATING LOCATION AND SIZING OF DRAINAGE CAPABLE OF ACCOMMODATING THE DISCHARGE THAT COULD OCCUR. 9)FIRE SUPPRESSION LINES REQUIRE BOTH A CHLORINATION AND PRESSURE TEST, CONDUCTED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WATER DIVISION PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE. ANY FIRE SUPPRESSION LINE SERVICING A BUILDING FROM THE WATER MAIN IS A PRIVATE SERVICE LINE AND MUST BE NOTED AS SUCH ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE SUBDIVISION PLAT. FUTURE REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE REQUIRED ON THIS SERVICE IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. FIRE SUPPRESSION LINES REQUIRE A STATE CERTIFIED FIRE LINE INSTALLER AND MUST HAVE THE APPROPRIATE FORMS COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED TO THE ESTES VALLEY FIRE MARSHALL. 10)ALL CONSTRUCTION AND PROCESSES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE (2009 EDITION), THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2009 EDITION) AND TOWN OF ESTES PARK CODES AND STANDARDS. 1)PLEASE SCHEDULE A REQUIRED MEET AT SITE WITH JOE LOCKHART, LINE SUPERINTENDENT AT (970)577-3613. 2)ALL TRENCHING AND CONDUIT WILL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED BY THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK LIGHT AND POWER DIVISION. THIS WILL BE INVOICED TO THE DEVELOPER. 3)SERVICE LINE TRENCHING & CONDUIT (BETWEEN THE METER AND THE BUILDING) TO BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY DEVELOPER TO TOWN SPECIFICATIONS. 4)LIGHT AND POWER REQUIRES ONE 1½” ORANGE PVC SPARE CONDUIT FROM THE JUNCTION BOX/TRANSFORMER INTO THE BUILDING AT LIGHT AND POWER'S EXPENSE. 5)UTILITY PEDESTALS MUST BE SPACED AT A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT APART. 6)TRANSFORMERS CANNOT BE PLACED MORE THAN 250 FEET FROM THE BUILDING BEING SERVICED. 7)ALL NEW METER CANS MUST HAVE A BYPASS. 8)ALL INFRASTRUCTURES MUST BE PAID IN ADVANCE TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. NO BUILDING PERMITS WILL BE APPROVED BY LIGHT & POWER UNTIL SUCH TIME. 9)ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST BE UNDERGROUND. 10)ALL OTHER MATERIAL WILL BE PURCHASED FROM & INSTALLED BY THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. 11)ALL TOWN OF ESTES PARK LIGHT AND POWER LINES, (PRIMARY/SECONDARY) MUST HAVE A 20 FT. UTILITY EASEMENT. THIS EASEMENT CAN BE SHARED BY WATER, PHONE AND CABLE. 12)WATER MUST BE AT LEAST 4FT FROM ELECTRIC. 13)ALL SERVICES MUST BE ON THE OWNER'S PROPERTY OR BE WITHIN A DESIGNATED EASEMENT. 14)THE SIZE OF THE SERVICE MUST BE SHOWN ON THE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. 15)ALL EXISTING LINES MUST BE SHOWN ON THE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. 16)TRANSFORMERS/JUNCTION BOXES MUST BE IN AN EASEMENT, OR IF POSSIBLE ON THE PROPERTY LINE. 17)ALL PRIMARY LINES MUST BE 4FT DEEP WITH RED WARNING TAPE AT 2FT. 18)ALL SUBDIVISION MUST BE DESIGNED BY AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER. 19)ALL PIPES MUST BE SCHEDULE 40 GRAY PVC PIPE. ALL CONDUIT MUST BE PUT INTO A PIPE RACK. THERE MUST BE 2-2INCH, 2-4INCH AND 2-6INCH CONDUITS IN A PRIMARY TRENCH. 20)TOWN MUST HAVE OWNERSHIP OF ALL ROAD CROSSINGS. 21)ON UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC SERVICES, IT WILL BE THE ELECTRICIAN'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DIG THEM INTO THE TRANSFORMERS OR PEDESTALS. 22)THE ELECTRICIAN WILL NEED TO SCHEDULE WITH L&P TO UNLOCK AND OPEN TRANSFORMERS OR PEDESTALS. 23)ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT ELECTRIC SERVICES WILL BE CONNECTED BY LIGHT & POWER WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION & FEES ARE PAID. 24)PERMANENT METER SOCKETS MUST BE PERMANENTLY MARKED WITH ADDRESS OR UNIT NUMBER. 25)ALL SPARE CONDUITS WILL BE PROVIDED BY LIGHT AND POWER AND TO BE INSTALLED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THEIR COST. LIGHT AND POWER WILL NOT REIMBURSE CONTRACTOR OR DEVELOPER FOR CONDUIT OBTAINED ELSEWHERE. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT NOTES: 1551 SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ESTES PARK, COLORADO APPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO THIS ______ DAY OF ___________________________, 20__ A.D. TOWN ENGINEER TOWN ENGINEER Building Average Grade at Building SOUTH BUILDING 5023.75 BUILDING HEIGHT TABLE: Average Roof Ridge Elevation 5060.95 SOUTH BUILDING 5019.10 5055.30 LEGEND: Building Height (Stories) 37.2-feet (3) 36.2-feet (3) JLRCORRECT NEIGHBORING SUB. NAME01/10/2019 M:\CES_Jobs\205_BASIS_ARCH\205_146_1551 S Saint Vrain\Development\1551 Sout Saint Vrain-Site.dwg, 1/10/2019 12:25:05 PM, JLR S S S S S S S SSSSSSX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP 50305 0 2 0 5020 50205010 50105010WWWWWWWGGG GGGGGW 6inDIPW 6inDIPW 6inDIPW 6inDIP161 6 16161614 12 10 08181818202022241414141610S 6 i n S 6in ZONED R2- RESIDENTIAL LOT 1 TRANQUIL VALE SUBDIVISION ZONED R- RESIDENTIAL LOT 2 TRANQUIL VALE SUBDIVISION ZONED R- RESIDENTIAL LOT 3 TRANQUIL VALE SUBDIVISION ZONED R- RESIDENTIAL LOT 4 TRANQUIL VALE SUBDIVISION ZONED A- ACCOMMODATIONS PARCEL No. 2531305931 S 89°06'39" E 137.09' (S89°07'E 137.01') N 89°21'20" W 104.94' (N89°07'W 105.00') N 51°09'29" E 159.3 9'(S 51°15'20" W 15 9.49') N 5 1 ° 2 1 ' 3 4 " W 1 5 9 . 8 5 ' ( S 5 1 ° 1 4 ' 4 0 " E 1 6 0 . 0 0 ' ) N 5 1 ° 2 0 ' 0 1 " W 1 7 8 . 1 3 ' ( S 5 1 ° 1 4 ' 4 0 " E 1 7 7 . 9 0 ' ) N 89°16'30" W 32.85' (N89°07'W 32.81')170.88'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CH=N 25°23'54" EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER=2815.00'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''L=170.91'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''D=3°28'43"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""165.05'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CH=N 21°59'19" EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER=2815.00'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''L=165.07'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''D=3°21'36"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""PP - Pinus ponderosa (Ponderosa Pine) (49 TOTAL) SS - Malus (Spring Snow Crabapple) (9 TOTAL) AM - Acer ginnala (Amur Maple) (10 TOTAL) WP - Populus alba (White Poplar) (3 TOTAL) BO - Quercus macroarpa (Bur oak) (3 TOTAL) EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (4 TOTAL) EPHA - PEAK VIEW APARTMENTS LANDSCAPE PLAN ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY SHEET TITLE: BY:REVISION:DATE: CLIENT: SHEET 2 SHEET 2833.001 JOB NO.MST DATE SCALE APPROVED BY AS SHOWN OCT 2018 JLR JLR MST DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY PROJECT TITLE: 1551 SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ESTES PARK, COLORADO 2019 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1692 BIG THOMPSON AVE. SUITE 200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 PH: (970) 586-2458 FAX: (970) 586-2459R Know what's below. Call before you dig. CALL 3-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. PLANVIEW SCALE 1" = 20' 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 24 T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO JLRAGENCY COMMENTS 11/02/201811/09/2018 EPHA PEAK VIEW APARTMENTS JLRAGENCY COMMENTS 11/19/201811/26/2018 LANDSCAPING NOTES: 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 (SECTION 7.2.C1) 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. (SECTION 7.2.C2) 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 (SECTION 7.5.D4) 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% WILL BE MULCHED AND NETTED TO ENSURE ADEQUATE STABILIZATION AND REVEGETATION. (SECTIONS 7.2.C3 AND 4) 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. (SECTION 7.2C5) 6)NO TREES OR VEGETATION SHALL BE REMOVED OUTSIDE THE APPROVED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. (SECTION 7.3.D1) 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. (SECTION 7.5.D2D) 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. (SECTION 7.5.D.2E) 9)ALL LANDSCAPES SHALL INCLUDE A PROPERLY FUNCTIONING AUTOMATED SPRINKLER SYSTEM WITH INDIVIDUAL DRIP LINES FOR NATURAL AREAS." (SECTION 7.5.D5) SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO BE TEMPORARY FOR PLANT ESTABLISHMENT. SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO BE IN PLACE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 18 MONTHS. 10)REQUIRED LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY, GROWING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. HE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULAR IRRIGATING, PRUNING, WEEDING, MOWING, ERTILIZING, REPLACEMENT OF PLANTS IN POOR CONDITION AND OTHER MAINTENANCE OF ALL PLANTINGS AS NEEDED. (SECTION 7.5.J1) 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. (SECTION 7.5.12) 12)DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE BY WILDLIFE. 13)IF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RESULTS IN THE DEATH OF TREES SHOWN AS "TREE TO BE PROTECTED" WITHIN A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS AFTER THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN RELEASED, THE TREE SHALL BE REPLACED PURSUANT TO EVDC 7.3(D)(5). Idaho fescue Flanders poppy Blue flax Gaillardia Rocky Mtn. penstemon Black-eyed susan Blue grama Sandberg bluegrass Western wheatgrass Sheep fescue Slender wheatgrass 3Festuca idahoensis 27.20TOTAL Papaver rhoeas 0.1 Linum lewisii 0.5 Gaillardia aristata 1 Penstemon strictus 1.5 0.1Rudbeckia hirta Bouteloua gracilis v. Hachita 2 2Poa sandbergii Pascopyrum smithii v. Rosanna 7 Festuca ovina v. Covar 3 7Elymus trachycaulus v. Pryor PLS/ACRE POUNDSBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAME SEED MIX PLANTING LEGEND: BM - Berberis mentorensis (Red Leaf Barberry) (3 TOTAL) PF - Potentilla fruticosa (Native Potentilla) (12 TOTAL) PM - Pinus mugo (Mugo Pine) (8 TOTAL) JOG - Juniperus chinensis "Old Gold" (Old Gold Juniper) (8 TOTAL) 164 TOTAL REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TREES SHRUBS TOTAL REQUIRED:90 221 NORTH PROPERTY LINE THIS DETAIL IS TYPICAL IN INTENT ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST HIS ? SQUARE, OPEN TO THE SKY, AND NOT COVERED BY ANY PAVING OR GRATING. NOTE: THIS DETAIL ASSUMES THAT THE PLANTING SPACE IS LARGER THAN 8 FT. TREE PLANTING DETAIL - B&B TREES IN ALL SOIL TYPES ???????A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS AFTER WORK TO ACCOMMODATE ALL CONDITIONS. UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE PLANTING.??? ? ? ??? ? ?? ? ? ? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? DECIDUOUS TREES: WRAP TRUNK W/4" TREE WRAP FROM BOTTOM UP TO FIRST BRANCH & SECURE. STAKE & GUY USING 2 STAKES SPACED 180°. EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. THE TERMINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT MAY BE PRUNED; HOWEVER, DO NOT REMOVE SOME INTERIOR TWIGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES LEADERS, AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHEN EVER IN THE NURSERY, AND ROTATE TREE MARK THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TREE HIGHER IN SLOWLY DRAINING SOILS. SET TOP OF ROOT BALL FLUSH TO MAINTAIN THE MULCH WEED-FREE FOR MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. 3 IN. MULCH. DO NO PLACE GRADE OR 1-2 IN. POSSIBLE. ? 5 FT. DIAM. MIN. 8 IN. ? ?? MULCH RING ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ??? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??? ?? ? REMOVE ALL TWINE , ROPE AND BURLAP FROM TOP HALF OF ROOT BALL THE ROOT BALL, CUT THE WIRE BASKET AND REMOVE. IF PLANT IS SHIPPED WITH A WIRE BASKET AROUND ? SO THAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL OR TAMPED SOIL. PLACE ROOT BALL ON UNEXCAVATED ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ??? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ??? ?? EVERGREEN TREES: STAKE & GUY USING 3 STAKES @ 120° AROUND TREES. NO SPRAYING OR WRAPPING MAINTAIN UNDER ALL TOPO CONDITIONS APPROVED STAKE MATERIAL HARDWOOD STAKES OR OTHER 1.5 x 1.5 IN. TWIST WIRE TO TIGHTEN. GALVANIZED WIRE OR CABLE PLASTIC HOSE 0.5 IN. DIAM. DO NOT COVER THE TOP OF THE ROOT FLARE IS NOT VISIBLE SHALL BE REJECTED. OF THE ROOT BALL. TREES WHERE THE TRUNK THE TRUNK FLARE IS VISIBLE AT THE TOP EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED SUCH THAT BEYOND EDGE OF ROOT BALL. 4 IN. HIGH EARTH SAUCER 4 ft. ? ? ?? ? ??? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 6 ft. BALL WITH SOIL. NOTE: PROTECT TREE WITH 5' TALL WIRE FENCING 1'-6" ABOVE GROUND. FENCE TO REMAIN UNTIL PLANT CAN SURVIVE WILDLIFE DAMAGE. EXCAVATE TREE PIT TO 2X BALL DIAMETER. DISTRICT BUFFER (274 LF)22 30 EAST PROPERTY LINE ARTERIAL STREET FRONTAGE (336 LF)13 34 SOUTH PROPERTY LINE PARKING PERIMETER LANDSCAPING (60 LF)2 6 WEST PROPERTY LINE DISTRICT BUFFER (159 LF)13 17 ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS PARKING LOT INTERIOR LANDSCAPING (17,825 SF)9 18 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE LANDSCAPING (18,587 SF)18 56 WELL-GRADED GRANULAR WALL ROCK 0.25 in TO 1.5 in LESS THAN 10% FINES β ALLAN BLOCK WALL BATTER FROM VERTICAL FINISHED GRADE ALLAN BLOCK UNIT 4 in EXPOSED WALL HEIGHT EMBEDMENT DEPTH 4 inTOE DRAIN PIPE VENTED TO DAYLIGHT 12 in RETAINED SOIL FILTER FABRIC TO BE PLACED BETWEEN TOPSOIL AND WALL ROCK TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DETAIL NOT TO SCALE PARKING PERIMETER LANDSCAPING (87 LF)3 17 PARKING PERIMETER LANDSCAPING -ARTERIAL STREET (150 LF)8 30 PARKING PERIMETER LANDSCAPING (65 LF)2 13 JLRCORRECT NEIGHBORING SUB. NAME01/10/2019 M:\CES_Jobs\205_BASIS_ARCH\205_146_1551 S Saint Vrain\Development\1551 Sout Saint Vrain-Landscape.dwg, 1/10/2019 12:26:51 PM, JLR BAS1S.com Estes Park, Colorado 805171692 Big Thompson Avenue, Suite 100A2.0 Sheet No: 303.848.3740 Sheet Title: Date: A R C H I T E C T U R E P. C. Architecture, P.C. Issue: © BASIS FLOOR PLANSEstes ParkPeak View Housing1551 S. St. Vrain AveEstes Park, CO 8051710/17/2018 Development Plan __ of __18 RISERS (6 27/32")1234567UP 18 RISERS (6 27/32")12345678910UP 18 RISERS (6 27/32")123456789 10 UP 18 RISERS (6 27/32")RE FRE FW/DW/D DW DW W/D RE FDW W/D F RE DW W/D FRE DW 30'-1/2"11'-10 1/2"13'-5"24'-11 1/4"13'-4 1/2"11'-11 1/2"13'-5"13'-4 1/4"30'-1/2" 162'-4 3/4"36'19'-4 1/4"16'-7 3/4"29'-11 1/4"38'-9"24'-11 1/4"38'-9"30'-1/2" BEDROOM 1 DECK BEDROOM 2 BATH LIVING ROOM CL CL KITCHEN BEDROOM 3 CL DECK BEDROOM 2 LIVING ROOM DINING BEDROOM 1 KITCHEN GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE DECK DECK LIVING ROOM BEDROOM STAIRSSTAIRS UTIL.ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY LIVING ROOM CL BATH DINING BEDROOM 3 WALKWAY CL CL BATHDINING STAIRS BATH BATH GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. CL CL BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 BATH CLBATH GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE CL UTIL.DINING UTIL. LIVING ROOM CL. KITCHEN GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE KITCHEN CL DINING GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE KITCHEN CL BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BATH CL CL BATH WALKWAY WALKWAY 2 BDRM 901 SF 3 BDRM 1070 SF 1 BDRM 766 SF 3 BDRM 1070 SF 2 BDRM 947 SF DECK1112131415 16 17 18 UP 18 RISERS (6 27/32")123456789 10 11 12 UP 18 RISERS (6 27/32")1234567UP 18 RISERS (6 27/32")RE FW/D DW RE FDW W/D W/D FRE DW W/D FRE DW RE FDW W/D 30'-1/2"38'-9"24'-10 3/4"38'-8 1/4"30'-1/2"36'162'-4 3/4" DECK STAIRS ENTRY DECK STAIRS ENTRY WALKWAY DECK WALKWAY ENTRY CL CL KITCHEN BEDROOM 3 CL BEDROOM 2 LIVING ROOM DINING BEDROOM 1 BATH BATH GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. LIVING ROOM BEDROOM 3 CL CL KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 BATH CL BATH GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE CL UTIL.DINING ENTRY BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BATH LIVING ROOM CL CL BATHDINING GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE KITCHEN CL DINING GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE KITCHEN CL BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BATH CL CL STAIRS 2 BDRM 901 SF 3 BDRM 1070 SF 3 BDRM 1080 SF 2 BDRM 954 SF UTIL. DECK KITCHEN DINING BEDROOM CL BATH LIVING ROOM 1 BDRM 743 SF GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. DECK RE FRE FW/D DW DW W/D FRE DWW/D 103'-2" 39'-2"24'-10 3/4"39'-1 1/4"32'-11"DECK DECK STAIRSSTAIRS DN DN DECK DINING LIVING ROOM CL CL KITCHEN BEDROOM 3 CL BEDROOM 2 LIVING ROOM DININGBEDROOM 1 KITCHEN DINING BATH BATH GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. CL CL BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 BATH GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. BATH KITCHEN BEDROOM CL BATH LIVING ROOM 2 BDRM 928 SF 1 BDRM 743 SF 3 BDRM 1079 SF GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. N N N 1 1/8" = 1'-0" First Floor 2 1/8" = 1'-0" Second Floor 3 1/8" = 1'-0" Third Floor UNIT SCHEDULE FLOOR TYPE SF # OF UNITS FIRST FLOOR: 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 2 BEDROOM 901 SF 2 3 BEDROOM 1070 SF 2 SECOND FLOOR: 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 2 BEDROOM 901 SF 2 3 BEDROOM 1070 SF 2 THIRD FLOOR: 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 2 BEDROOM 928 SF 1 3 BEDROOM 1079 SF 1 BAS1S.com Estes Park, Colorado 805171692 Big Thompson Avenue, Suite 100A2.1 Sheet No: 303.848.3740 Sheet Title: Date: A R C H I T E C T U R E P. C. Architecture, P.C. Issue: © BASIS FLOOR PLANSEstes ParkPeak View Housing1551 S. St. Vrain AveEstes Park, CO 8051710/17/2018 Development Plan __ of __ 8 910UP18 RISERS (6 27/32")1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UP18 RISERS (6 27/32")1234567891011UP18 RISERS (6 27/32") DWRE F W/D W/D RE FDW W/D RE FDW W/D RE FDW DW REF W/D 166'-1/4"36'31'-8 3/4"38'-9"24'-11 1/4"38'-8 3/4"31'-10 1/2" STAIRSSTAIRS ENTRY WALKWAY WALKWAY ENTRY CLBEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 CL DINING LIVING ROOM ENTRY BATH BATH GASW.H.GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. KITCHEN PTRY CL CL BEDROOM 3 BATH BEDROOM CL ENTRY BATH GAS W.H.GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. DINING KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 LIVING ROOM GAS W.H.GAS FURNACE BEDROOM UTIL. CL BATH CL. KITCHEN LIVING ROOM DINING CL CL BEDROOM 3 BATH BEDROOM CLBATH GAS W.H.GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. DINING KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 LIVING ROOM PATIO ENTRY CL BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 1 CL DINING LIVING ROOM BATHBATH GASW.H.GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. KITCHEN PTRY 2 BDRM 947 SF 3 BDRM 1071 SF 1 BDRM 743 SF 3 BDRM 1071 SF 2 BDRM 947 SF PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO12131415161718UP18 RISERS (6 27/32") 8 910UP18 RISERS (6 49/64")1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UP18 RISERS (6 27/32")DWRE F W/D W/D RE FDW W/D RE FDW W/D RE FDW DW REF W/D 166'-1/4" 31'-8 3/4"38'-9"25'-1/4"38'-7 3/4"31'-10 1/2"10'-7 3/4"12'-11 3/4"12'-4 3/4"DECK DECK STAIRSSTAIRS WALKWAY WALKWAY DECK DECK CLBEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 CL DINING LIVING ROOM BATH BATH GASW.H.GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. KITCHEN PTRY CL CL BEDROOM 3 BATH BEDROOM CLBATH GAS W.H.GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. DINING KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 LIVING ROOM GAS W.H. GAS FURNACE BEDROOM UTIL. CL BATH CL. KITCHEN LIVING ROOM DINING CL CL BEDROOM 3 BATH BEDROOM CLBATH GAS W.H.GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. DINING KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 LIVING ROOM DECK CL BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 1 CL DINING LIVING ROOM BATHBATH GASW.H.GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. KITCHEN PTRY 2 BDRM 947 SF 3 BDRM 1071 SF 1 BDRM 743 SF 3 BDRM 1071 SF 2 BDRM 947 SF ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY REFW/D RE FDW W/D RE FDW W/D DW 39'-1 1/4"25'-1/4"33'-7"5'-6 1/2" 103'-2 3/4"6'-11 1/4"29'-3/4"36'10'-9 3/4"10'-9"12'-4 3/4"DECK STAIRSSTAIRS ENTRY WALKWAY DECK ENTRY DINING KITCHEN LIVING ROOM GAS W.H.GAS FURNACE BEDROOM UTIL. CL BATH CL. KITCHEN LIVING ROOM DINING DN DECK CL CL BEDROOM 3 BATH BEDROOM CLBATH GAS W.H.GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. DINING KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 LIVING ROOM GAS W.H.GAS FURNACE CL UTIL. CLBEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 CL BATH BATH DN 2 BDRM 944 SF 1 BDRM 743 SF 3 BDRM 1079 SF DECK N N N 1 1/8" = 1'-0" First Floor 2 1/8" = 1'-0" Second Floor 3 1/8" = 1'-0" Third Floor UNIT SCHEDULE FLOOR TYPE SF # OF UNITS FIRST FLOOR: 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 2 BEDROOM 947 SF 2 3 BEDROOM 1071 SF 2 SECOND FLOOR: 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 2 BEDROOM 947 SF 2 3 BEDROOM 1071 SF 2 THIRD FLOOR: 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 2 BEDROOM 944 SF 1 3 BEDROOM 1079 SF 1 BAS1S.comEstes Park, Colorado 805171692 Big Thompson Avenue, Suite 100A2.2Sheet No:303.848.3740Sheet Title:Date:A R C H I T E C T U R E P. C.Architecture, P.C.Issue:© BASISFLOOR PLAN &ELEVATIONSEstes ParkPeak View Housing1551 S. St. Vrain AveEstes Park, CO 8051710/17/2018DevelopmentPlan__ of __27'-6 1/2"24'-3"11'-7 1/2" 15'-11"15'-11" 8'-4"POSTALCLUSTERBOXBIKE STORAGEBIKE STORAGESTORAGE LOCKERSMAINTENANCESTORAGETRASHMain FloorEL: 100'-0"Main FloorEL: 100'-0"125BOARD & BATTENEXISITNG GRADEPOSTALCLUSTERBOXMain FloorEL: 100'-0"Main FloorEL: 100'-0"125BOARD & BATTENEXISITNG GRADEMain FloorEL: 100'-0"ASPHALT SHINGLESTYP., U.O.N.EXISITNG GRADET.O. WallEL: 109'-2 3/4"Main FloorEL: 100'-0"T.O. WallEL: 109'-2 3/4"Main FloorEL: 100'-0"125BOARD & BATTENMain FloorEL: 100'-0"EXISITNG GRADEN11/4" = 1'-0"First Floor21/4" = 1'-0"South Elevation31/4" = 1'-0"East Elevation41/4" = 1'-0"North Elevation51/4" = 1'-0"West ElevationMAIN FLOOR: 571sf BAS1S.com Estes Park, Colorado 805171692 Big Thompson Avenue, Suite 100A3.0 Sheet No: 303.848.3740 Sheet Title: Date: A R C H I T E C T U R E P. C. Architecture, P.C. Issue: © BASIS ELEVATIONSEstes ParkPeak View Housing1551 S. St. Vrain AveEstes Park, CO 8051710/17/2018 Development Plan __ of __ 12 8 12 8 12 812'-1/4"37'-3 1/2"EXISITNG GRADE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL LIGHT FIXTURE EXISITNG GRADE 36" HIGH RAILING ASPHALT SHINGLE, TYP. U.O.N. 8" LAP SIDING BOARD & BATTEN 2'x4' HARDIE PANELS METAL ROOF Main Floor EL: 97'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 116'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 107'-3 1/4" Main Floor EL: 99'-0" Main Floor EL: 100'-0" Main Floor EL: 102'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-3 1/4" Second Floor EL: 112'-3 1/4" Third Floor EL: 120'-6 1/2" T.O. Wall EL: 121'-4 1/2" T.O. Wall EL: 129'-7 3/4" 12 8 12 8 12 8 12 8 LIGHT FIXTURE 36" HIGH RAILING 8" LAP SIDING BOARD & BATTEN 2'x4' HARDIE PANELS METAL ROOF Main Floor EL: 97'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 116'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 107'-3 1/4" Main Floor EL: 97'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 116'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 107'-3 1/4" EXISTING GRADE 12 8 12 8 124 12 2 36" HIGH RAILING METAL ROOF 8" LAP SIDING 2'x4' HARDIE PANELS LIGHT FIXTURE Main Floor EL: 102'-0" Second Floor EL: 112'-3 1/4" T.O. Wall EL: 121'-4 1/2" 12 8 Main Floor EL: 102'-0" Second Floor EL: 112'-3 1/4" T.O. Wall EL: 121'-4 1/2" 121 12 3 12 8 12 8 12 8 2x HORIZ. SCREENING 36" HIGH RAILING ASPHALT SHINGLE, TYP. U.O.N. 8" LAP SIDING BOARD & BATTEN 2'x4' HARDIE PANELS LIGHT FIXTURE 2'x4' HARDIE PANELS Main Floor EL: 97'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 116'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 107'-3 1/4" Main Floor EL: 99'-0" Main Floor EL: 100'-0" Main Floor EL: 102'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-3 1/4" Second Floor EL: 112'-3 1/4" Third Floor EL: 120'-6 1/2" T.O. Wall EL: 121'-4 1/2" T.O. Wall EL: 129'-7 3/4" 1 1/8" = 1'-0" South Elevation 2 1/8" = 1'-0" East Elevation3 1/8" = 1'-0" West Elevation 4 1/8" = 1'-0" North Elevation BAS1S.com Estes Park, Colorado 805171692 Big Thompson Avenue, Suite 100A3.1 Sheet No: 303.848.3740 Sheet Title: Date: A R C H I T E C T U R E P. C. Architecture, P.C. Issue: © BASIS ELEVATIONSEstes ParkPeak View Housing1551 S. St. Vrain AveEstes Park, CO 8051710/17/2018 Development Plan __ of __ 12 8 12 8 12 8 12 813'-7 1/2"37'-1/4"EXISITNG GRADE 36" HIGH RAILING ASPHALT SHINGLE, TYP. U.O.N. 8" LAP SIDING BOARD & BATTEN 2'x4' HARDIE PANELS 2x HORIZ. SCREENING LIGHT FIXTURE METAL ROOF Main Floor EL: 99'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 118'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 109'-3 1/4" Third Floor EL: 119'-6 1/2" Third Floor EL: 120'-6 1/2" Second Floor EL: 110'-3 1/4" T.O. Wall EL: 128'-7 3/4" T.O. Wall EL: 129'-7 3/4" Main Floor EL: 101'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 120'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 111'-3 1/4" Main Floor EL: 100'-0" 12 8 12 8 12 8 12 8 122 FIBER CEMENT PANELS METAL ROOF BOARD & BATTEN 8" LAP SIDING Main Floor EL: 99'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 118'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 109'-3 1/4" Main Floor EL: 99'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 118'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 109'-3 1/4" 12 8 12 8 12 8 12 2 METAL ROOF BOARD & BATTEN 8" LAP SIDING Main Floor EL: 101'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 120'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 111'-3 1/4" Main Floor EL: 101'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 120'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 111'-3 1/4" BOARD & BATTEN 8" LAP SIDING ASPHALT SHUNGLE, TYP., U.O.N. 2' x 4' HARDIE PANELS Main Floor EL: 101'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 120'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 111'-3 1/4" Main Floor EL: 100'-0" Third Floor EL: 120'-6 1/2" Second Floor EL: 110'-3 1/4" T.O. Wall EL: 129'-7 3/4" Third Floor EL: 119'-6 1/2" T.O. Wall EL: 128'-7 3/4" Main Floor EL: 99'-0" T.O. Wall EL: 118'-4 1/2" Second Floor EL: 109'-3 1/4" 1 1/8" = 1'-0" South Elevation 2 1/8" = 1'-0" East Elevation3 1/8" = 1'-0" West Elevation 4 1/8" = 1'-0" North Elevation 1 Jes Reetz To:Robin Becker Cc:Planning commdev Subject:Peak View Apartments Landscape Cost Estimate Robin, Below is the cost estimate for the required landscaping at the Peak View Apartments: (86) trees @ $500 ea. = $43,000 (171) shrubs @ $50 ea. = $8,550 TOTAL $51,550 Thank you, Jes Jes ReetzJes ReetzJes ReetzJes Reetz Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. 1692 Big Thompson Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 ph:(970) 586-2458 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission, and any attachments, may contain information which is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission or any attachment and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. SPECIAL NOTE TO CLIENT: Please DO NOT FORWARD this transmission to anyone else. Appendix B: Rainfall Intensity Data Appendix C: Rational Method Calculations Appendix D: Detention Basin Volume Calculations Appendix E: Culvert Calculations DELICH Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018 ASSOCIATES intersections using the volumes shown in Figure 3. Calculation forms and a description of level of service (LOS) are provided in Appendix B. The key intersections were analyzed using the unsignalized intersection techniques from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (2010 HCM). Acceptable operation is defined (Loveland criteria) as level of service (LOS) C or better overall for intersections. On CDOT Highways, overall LOS D is acceptable. At major intersections, any leg can operate at LOS D and any movement can operate at LOS E. At minor intersections, any leg can operate at level of service E and any movement can operate at level of service F. There is no LOS limit at driveway intersections. A description of level of service at unsignalized intersections is provided in Appendix B. The Loveland Motor Vehicle LOS Standards are also provided in Appendix B. As can be seen in Table 1, the key intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing control and geometry. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The Peak View Apartments will occur on a parcel currently occupied by a four unit residential building (four-plex). The building will be razed. A schematic of the site plan is shown in Figure 4. The Peak View Apartments will connect to SH7 via the South Driveway. The North Driveway will be abandoned. The Peak View Apartments will consist of 26 apartment dwelling units. Trip Generation, 10th Edition, ITE, land use Low-Rise Apartment (Code 220) was used to determine the trip generation. The calculated trip generation is shown in Table 2. The calculated trip generation is: 156 daily trip ends, 13 morning peak hour trip ends, and 18 afternoon peak hour trip ends. ANALYSIS The trip distribution for the assigned traffic was based upon the existing traffic counts and is 80 percent from/to the north and 20 percent from/to the south. The trip distribution is shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the peak hour site generated traffic assignment. The background peak hour traffic was determined by factoring the through traffic on SH7 by the 20-year CDOT factor of 1.19 (1.0475 for 5 years). Figure 7 shows the short range (2023) background traffic at the SH7/Country Club and SH7/Avalon intersections. Figure 8 shows the year 2023 total peak hour traffic at the SH7/Country Club, SH7/Avalon, and SH7/South Driveway intersections. Based upon the SHAC, no additional auxiliary lanes are required at the South Driveway. As stated earlier, a center two-way left- turn lane currently exists on SH7. Table 3 shows the peak hour operation at the SH7/Country Club, SH7/Avalon, and SH7/South Driveway intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. This peak hour operation is considered to be acceptable. It is respectfully requested that no further traffic studies be required for the Peak View Apartments. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or require additional information. Pending review by CDOT staff, this memorandum can be used to prepare the Access Permit Application for the Site Access serving the Peak View Apartments. 7 36 Country Club Peak View AvalonS . S t. V r ain SCALE: 1"=1000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018 EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018 South Driveway North Driveway Avalon Country ClubSTOP STOPSTOPSTOP- Denotes Lane _ Two-way Continuous Left-turn LaneSH7 AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018 South Driveway North Driveway 0/0336/2770/1211/4270/0 0/0 Avalon188/39724/22305/2503/428/231/2 0/0308/2520/1189/3980/2 0/0 Country Club205/4126/15328/2685/58/9 7/7 SH7 DELICH Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018 ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 Recent Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM SH7/North Driveway (stop sign) EB LT/RT A A NB LT A A OVERALL A A SH7/Country Club (stop sign) WB LT/RT B B SB LT A A OVERALL A A SH7/Avalon (stop sign) WB LT/RT B B SB LT A A OVERALL A A SH7/South Driveway (stop sign) EB LT/RT A B NB LT A A OVERALL A A SCALE: 1"=60' SITE PLAN Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018State Highway 7S outh Drive w ay North Driveway DELICH Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018 ASSOCIATES TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartment 26 DU EQ 156 EQ 3 EQ 10 EQ 11 EQ 7 7 Country Club Peak View Avalon80%20%SCALE: 1"=200' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018 AM/PM SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018 South Driveway Avalon2/98/61/22/98/6 2/1 Country Club8/6SH72/9 AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2023) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018 Avalon204/42224/22323/2723/428/231/2 Country Club221/4376/15346/2905/58/9 7/7 SH7 AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2023) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018 South Driveway Avalon206/43124/22331/2783/428/231/2 1/2326/2762/9205/4248/6 2/1 Country Club223/4466/15354/2965/58/9 7/7 SH7 DELICH Peak View Apartments TIS, October 2018 ASSOCIATES TABLE 3 Short Range (2023) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM SH7/Country Club (stop sign) WB LT/RT B B SB LT A A OVERALL A A SH7/Avalon (stop sign) WB LT/RT B B SB LT A A OVERALL A A SH7/South Driveway (stop sign) EB LT/RT B C NB LT A A OVERALL A A APPENDIX A DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 8/23/2018 Observer:Vickie Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: Estes Park R = right turn Intersection: SH7/Country Club S = straight L = left turn Time Northbound: SH7 Southbound: SH7 Total Eastbound: North Driveway Westbound: Country Club Total Total Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east/west All 7:00 0 65 0 65 1 25 0 26 91 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 4 95 7:15 0 76 1 77 1 19 0 20 97 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 9 9 106 7:30 0 92 0 92 0 37 0 37 129 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 5 5 134 7:45 0 110 1 111 3 45 0 48 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 163 # 8:00 0 74 1 75 1 63 0 64 139 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 3 142 # 8:15 0 52 3 55 2 60 0 62 117 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 120 # 8:30 0 66 0 66 1 52 0 53 119 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 8 8 127 # 8:45 0 54 1 55 2 45 0 47 102 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 5 5 107 # 7:30-8:30 0 328 5 333 6 205 0 211 544 0 0 0 0 7 0 8 15 15 559 PHF n/a 0.75 0.42 0.75 0.5 0.81 n/a 0.82 0.86 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.58 n/a 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.86 4:00 0 58 1 59 4 74 0 78 137 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 5 5 142 4:15 0 65 1 66 3 84 1 88 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 155 4:30 0 70 1 71 4 99 0 103 174 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 9 9 183 4:45 0 56 1 57 3 100 0 103 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 162 # 5:00 0 75 0 75 4 126 0 130 205 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 3 208 # 5:15 0 67 3 70 4 87 1 92 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 164 # 5:30 0 66 0 66 6 83 0 89 155 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 5 5 160 # 5:45 0 57 1 58 4 76 0 80 138 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 3 141 # 4:30-5:30 0 268 5 273 15 412 1 428 701 0 0 0 0 7 0 9 16 16 717 PHF n/a 0.89 0.42 0.91 0.94 0.82 0.25 0.82 0.85 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.35 n/a 0.56 0.44 0.44 0.86 DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 8/23/2018 Observer:Vickie Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: Estes Park R = right turn Intersection: SH7/Avalon S = straight L = left turn Time Northbound: SH7 Southbound: SH7 Total Eastbound: South Driveway Westbound: Avalon Total Total Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east/west All 7:00 0 61 0 61 1 26 0 27 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 92 7:15 0 69 0 69 2 23 0 25 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 102 7:30 0 83 0 83 3 36 0 39 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 131 7:45 0 102 2 104 7 38 0 45 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 158 # 8:00 0 70 1 71 10 55 0 65 136 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 6 6 142 # 8:15 0 50 0 50 4 59 0 63 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 118 # 8:30 0 52 1 53 2 53 0 55 108 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 15 15 123 # 8:45 0 48 0 48 2 45 0 47 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 102 # 7:30-8:30 0 305 3 308 24 188 0 212 520 0 0 0 0 1 0 28 29 29 549 PHF n/a 0.75 0.38 0.74 0.6 0.8 n/a 0.82 0.87 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.25 n/a 0.78 0.81 0.81 0.87 4:00 0 55 1 56 6 70 0 76 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 136 4:15 0 57 2 59 5 79 0 84 143 1 0 0 1 0 0 8 8 9 152 4:30 0 66 0 66 6 98 0 104 170 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 6 6 176 4:45 0 50 3 53 2 98 0 100 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 160 # 5:00 0 68 1 69 6 122 0 128 197 1 0 0 1 1 0 6 7 8 205 # 5:15 1 64 0 65 8 78 1 87 152 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 5 6 158 # 5:30 0 61 3 64 4 81 0 85 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 154 # 5:45 0 54 2 56 4 73 0 77 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 137 # 4:30-5:30 1 248 4 253 22 396 1 419 672 2 0 0 2 2 0 23 25 27 699 PHF 0.25 0.91 0.33 0.92 0.69 0.81 0.25 0.82 0.85 0.5 n/a n/a 0.5 0.5 n/a 0.82 0.89 0.84 0.85 APPENDIX B HCM 2010 TWSC Recent AM 3: SH7 & North Driveway Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 336 211 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 336 211 0 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 - 50 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 391 245 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 636 245 245 0 - 0 Stage 1 245 - - - - - Stage 2 391 - - - - - 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 442 794 1321 - - - Stage 1 796 - - - - - Stage 2 683 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 442 794 1321 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 442 - - - - - Stage 1 796 - - - - - Stage 2 683 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1321 ---- HCM Lane V/C Ratio ----- HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ---- HCM 2010 TWSC Recent PM 3: SH7 & North Driveway Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 277 427 1 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 277 427 1 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 - 50 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 322 497 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 819 497 498 0 - 0 Stage 1 497 - - - - - Stage 2 322 - - - - - 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 345 573 1066 - - - Stage 1 611 - - - - - Stage 2 735 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 345 573 1066 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 345 - - - - - Stage 1 611 - - - - - Stage 2 735 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1066 ---- HCM Lane V/C Ratio ----- HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ---- HCM 2010 TWSC Recent AM 5: SH7 & Country Club Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 8 328 5 6 205 Future Vol, veh/h 7 8 328 5 6 205 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 - - - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 9 381 6 7 238 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 636 384 0 0 387 0 Stage 1 384 - - - - - Stage 2 252 - - - - - 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 442 664 - - 1171 - Stage 1 688 - - - - - Stage 2 790 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 439 664 - - 1171 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 439 - - - - - Stage 1 688 - - - - - Stage 2 785 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.9 0 0.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 536 1171 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.033 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.9 8.1 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - HCM 2010 TWSC Recent PM 5: SH7 & Country Club Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 9 268 5 15 412 Future Vol, veh/h 7 9 268 5 15 412 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 - - - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 10 312 6 17 479 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 829 315 0 0 317 0 Stage 1 315 - - - - - Stage 2 514 - - - - - 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 340 725 - - 1243 - Stage 1 740 - - - - - Stage 2 600 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 335 725 - - 1243 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 335 - - - - - Stage 1 740 - - - - - Stage 2 592 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.8 0 0.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 480 1243 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.039 0.014 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 12.8 7.9 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - HCM 2010 TWSC Recent AM 7: SH7 & Avalon Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 28 305 3 24 188 Future Vol, veh/h 1 28 305 3 24 188 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 - - - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 33 355 3 28 219 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 630 356 0 0 358 0 Stage 1 356 - - - - - Stage 2 274 - - - - - 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 446 688 - - 1201 - Stage 1 709 - - - - - Stage 2 772 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 436 688 - - 1201 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 436 - - - - - Stage 1 709 - - - - - Stage 2 754 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.6 0 0.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 675 1201 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.05 0.023 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10.6 8.1 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.1 - HCM 2010 TWSC Recent PM 7: SH7 & Avalon Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 23 250 4 22 397 Future Vol, veh/h 2 23 250 4 22 397 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 - - - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 27 291 5 26 462 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 806 293 0 0 295 0 Stage 1 293 - - - - - Stage 2 513 - - - - - 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 351 746 - - 1266 - Stage 1 757 - - - - - Stage 2 601 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 344 746 - - 1266 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 344 - - - - - Stage 1 757 - - - - - Stage 2 589 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.5 0 0.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 682 1266 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.043 0.02 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10.5 7.9 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 - HCM 2010 TWSC Recent AM 9: SH7 & South Driveway Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 308 189 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 308 189 0 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 - 50 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 358 220 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 578 220 220 0 - 0 Stage 1 220 - - - - - Stage 2 358 - - - - - 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 478 820 1349 - - - Stage 1 817 - - - - - Stage 2 707 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 478 820 1349 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 478 - - - - - Stage 1 817 - - - - - Stage 2 707 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1349 ---- HCM Lane V/C Ratio ----- HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ---- HCM 2010 TWSC Recent PM 9: SH7 & South Driveway Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 0 0 252 398 1 Future Vol, veh/h 2 0 0 252 398 1 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 - 50 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 0 0 293 463 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 756 463 464 0 - 0 Stage 1 463 - - - - - Stage 2 293 - - - - - 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 376 599 1097 - - - Stage 1 634 - - - - - Stage 2 757 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 376 599 1097 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 376 - - - - - Stage 1 634 - - - - - Stage 2 757 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1097 - 376 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.006 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 14.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 Table 4-2 Loveland (GMA and City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Intersection Component Major Intersection134 Minor Intersection234 Driveway Overall (City Limits) LOS C LOS C No Limit Overall (GMAs) LOS D LOS D No Limit Any Leg LOS D LOS E No Limit Any Movement LOS E LOS F No Limit 1 Includes all signalized and unsignalized arterial/arterial and arterial/major collector intersections 2 Includes all unsignalized intersections (except major intersections) and high volume driveways 3 There are no LOS standards for I-25 Interchanges 4 On State Highways, overall LOS D is acceptable APPENDIX C HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total AM 5: SH7 & Country Club Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 8 354 5 6 223 Future Vol, veh/h 7 8 354 5 6 223 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 - - - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 9 412 6 7 259 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 688 415 0 0 417 0 Stage 1 415 - - - - - Stage 2 273 - - - - - 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 412 637 - - 1142 - Stage 1 666 - - - - - Stage 2 773 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 409 637 - - 1142 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 409 - - - - - Stage 1 666 - - - - - Stage 2 768 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.4 0 0.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 505 1142 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.035 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 12.4 8.2 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total PM 5: SH7 & Country Club Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 9 296 5 15 446 Future Vol, veh/h 7 9 296 5 15 446 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 - - - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 10 344 6 17 519 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 900 347 0 0 350 0 Stage 1 347 - - - - - Stage 2 553 - - - - - 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 309 696 - - 1209 - Stage 1 716 - - - - - Stage 2 576 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 305 696 - - 1209 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 305 - - - - - Stage 1 716 - - - - - Stage 2 568 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.4 0 0.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 446 1209 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.042 0.014 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.4 8 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total AM 7: SH7 & Avalon Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 28 331 3 24 206 Future Vol, veh/h 1 28 331 3 24 206 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 - - - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 33 385 3 28 240 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 682 387 0 0 388 0 Stage 1 387 - - - - - Stage 2 295 - - - - - 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 415 661 - - 1170 - Stage 1 686 - - - - - Stage 2 755 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 405 661 - - 1170 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 405 - - - - - Stage 1 686 - - - - - Stage 2 737 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 0 0.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 647 1170 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.052 0.024 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10.9 8.2 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.1 - HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total PM 7: SH7 & Avalon Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 23 278 4 22 431 Future Vol, veh/h 2 23 278 4 22 431 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 - - - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 27 323 5 26 501 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 878 326 0 0 328 0 Stage 1 326 - - - - - Stage 2 552 - - - - - 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 318 715 - - 1232 - Stage 1 731 - - - - - Stage 2 577 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 311 715 - - 1232 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 311 - - - - - Stage 1 731 - - - - - Stage 2 565 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.8 0 0.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 648 1232 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.045 0.021 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10.8 8 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 - HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total AM 9: SH7 & South Driveway Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 2 1 326 205 2 Future Vol, veh/h 8 2 1 326 205 2 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 - 50 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 2 1 379 238 2 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 621 240 241 0 - 0 Stage 1 240 - - - - - Stage 2 381 - - - - - 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 451 799 1326 - - - Stage 1 800 - - - - - Stage 2 691 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 451 799 1326 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 451 - - - - - Stage 1 800 - - - - - Stage 2 690 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.5 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1326 - 494 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.024 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - 12.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total PM 9: SH7 & South Driveway Peak View Apartments 10/02/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1 2 276 424 9 Future Vol, veh/h 6 1 2 276 424 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 - 50 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 1 2 321 493 10 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 824 498 503 0 - 0 Stage 1 498 - - - - - Stage 2 326 - - - - - 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 343 572 1061 - - - Stage 1 611 - - - - - Stage 2 731 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 342 572 1061 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 342 - - - - - Stage 1 611 - - - - - Stage 2 730 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.1 0.1 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1061 - 363 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.022 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - 15.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION (EVPC) MEETING DATE & LOCATION: January 15, 2019, 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST : Applicant requests approval of a Location and Extent Review, for redevelopment of an existing County Road and Bridge Depar tment Satellite Maintenance Facility. Staff recommends the Planning Commiss ion approve the location and extent review. PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). 2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicant’s testimony, public comment, and Town staff’s findings and analysis; and 3. Take action on the location and extent review request. LOCATION: 543 Elm Road, approximately ⅓ mile north of the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Elm Road in unincorporated Larimer County. VICINITY MAP: See Attachment 1. OWNER /APPLICANT : Larimer County Facilities Department STAFF CONTACT: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner BACKGROUND, DISCUSSION: Larimer County has had a Satellite Maintenance Facility for their Road and Bridge Department in place on the subject property since the late 1950s. The shop and associated s tructures and infrastructure have become outdated and are somewhat in disrepair. The Board of Larimer County Commissioners (BOCC) has recently approved funding for a new facility, at this same location. Larimer County has two adjacent parcels at this location. The parcel to the north of the County Road and Bridge facility contains a State of Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) maintenance facility, which has been established since the late 1970s. Larimer County has leased this property to the State. The two parcels need to be reconfigured for the redesign of the County facilities, as well as to enable CDOT at some point to take ownership of their parcel (“CDOT parcel”), at which time they will also replace their existing facilities, similar to what the County has applied to do. The reconfigured parcels are currently going through a Boundary Line Adj ustment (BLA) process, which is scheduled to be taken to the BOCC for review and possible action on February 4, 2019. The future CDOT parcel will be 5.0± acres in size. Larimer County Road and Bridge Maintenance Facility Location and Extent Review Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION , JANUARY 15, 2019 LOCATION AND EX TE NT REVIEW, COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE FACILITY PAGE | 2 The redevelopment of the CDOT facility will also involve a Location and Extent review by the EVPC. CDOT staff have stated this application is being put together now, and will be submitted in the near future. Staff notes there is an existing road over the CDOT parcel, Range View Road. This is a County Road, which is privately maintained by a property association which is comprised of residential owners to the west and north of the County parcels. Range View Road is to be realigned somewhat, and will be constructed to intersect with Elm Road approximately 400 feet to the north of its exis ting intersection with Elm Road. It will then extend approximately 600 feet along the northern boundary of the CDOT parcel and align with the existing location of Range View Road at that point. This redevelopment of the County facilities, the redevelopment of the CDOT facilities, the BLA, along with the related realignment of Range View Road which would involve vacating that portion of the road currently on the CDOT parcel, can all generally be seen as different parts of an overall project. However, staff emphasizes these are all separate and distinct applications and approvals. The one process that has generated questions to staff at this time has been the realignment of Range View Road, which does not necessarily directly affect this current County Loc ation and Extent review. The road project will involve the following: Dedication of the new right-of-way, along the northern portion of the CDOT parcel, as explained above. This will require review and approval of the BLA by the Larimer BOCC. Road and intersection design of the new road alignment, with engineered plans and profiles, drainage improvements, etc. to be approved by Larimer County Engineering prior to construction. Prior to CDOT moving forward with redevelopment of the CDOT parcel, the existing portion of Range View Road on that parcel will need to be formally vacated by approval of the Larimer BOCC. PROPOSAL: Larimer County will continue to operate this facility as it has been in the past, for various road maintenance equipment storage, along with necessary fueling, washing, and storage of fuel, sand and salt. The existing facilities are planned to be removed, with the following new improvements proposed to be constructed: Main shop building Covered storage building Sand/salt storage building Enclosed wash bay Fuel site See attached site plan. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION , JANUARY 15, 2019 LOCATION AND EX TE NT REVIEW, COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE FACILITY PAGE | 3 Site access, via Elm Road, is to be reconfigured and improved. Drainage improvements are being proposed, with an onsite drainage detention pond to be located on the property. Landscaping will be installed, including revegetation of disturbed areas , with retaining walls and terracing as necessary. Note: Staff has not required a formal Landscaping Plan, with the site containing a forested and heavily vegetated area which buffers it from residential uses to the west. Street frontage and perimeter landscaping around parking lots is exempt in sites zoned I- 1, per the EVDC Sections 7.5 F. and G. Staff notes existing land uses and zoning to the north, south, and east of the subject site are Industrial. This County facility proposes more than adequate parking for County staff, per EVDC Parking Standards . The facility is not open to the public and will be fenced and gated. The facility typically has two full-time employees, and one seasonal employee. SITE DATA TABLE: Parcel Number: 3526300938 and 3526300939 (To change upon BLA recordation) Parcel Area: 10.0± Acres (Upon BLA recordation) Existing Land Use: County Road and Bridge Maintenance Facility Proposed Land Use: Redevelopment of County Road and Bridge Maintenance Facility Zoning: I-1, Restricted Industrial Adjacent Zoning: East: I-1, Restricted Industrial North: I-1, Restricted Industrial West: E-1, Estate South: E-1 Estate and I-1, Restricted Industrial Adjacent Land Uses: East: Light Industrial, Concrete/Asphalt North: CDOT Maintenance Facility West: Low Density Residential South: Low Density Residential, Town Fleet Vehicle Facility Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District REVIEW CRIT ERIA: The following is from the EVDC, Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.13 Public Facility/Use Location and Extent Review: A. Purpose. This Section implements §30-28-110(1), C.R.S., and is intended to provide an opportunity for review of the location and extent of specified public facilities and uses sought to be constructed or authorized within the Estes Valley, especially as to whether such public use is consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and this Code. B. Applicability. 1. Applicable to Specified Public Uses. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION , JANUARY 15, 2019 LOCATION AND EX TE NT REVIEW, COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE FACILITY PAGE | 4 a. Location and extent review shall apply to the construction or authorization of all public safety facilities, trail heads, major utilities (whether publicly or privately owned) and all other public uses not specifically exempt from this Section. These public uses are listed in Chapter 4, "Zoning Districts," (Tables 4-1 and 4-4) with the notation under the "additional regulations" column that Public Facility/Use Location and Extent review may be applicable. b. Location and extent review shall also apply to the acceptance, widening, removal, extension, relocation, narrowing, vacation, abandonment, change of use, or sale, lease or acquisition of any land for any public use subject to this Section. 2. Exemption for Town Public Uses Located Within Town Limits. Location and extent review shall not apply to any public road, park, trail, public street, way, ground, space or utility, or any other public facility or use other than a public building or structure, that is to be constructed, financed or owned by the Town of Estes Park on property located within the jurisdictional limits of the Town. C. Procedure for Location and Extent Review. 1. Public Uses. a. A proposed development plan shall be submitted to the EVPC for approval, pursuant to the development plan approval process set forth in §3.8 of this Chapter, prior to the construction or authorization of any public use that is subject to location and extent review. b. Failure of the EVPC to act within thirty (30) days after the date of official submission of the development plan shall be deemed an approval, unless a longer period is granted by the submitting board, body or official. c. If the EVPC disapproves the development plan, it shall communicate its reasons to the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, depending on the location of the proposed project. The respective Board is authorized to overrule such disapproval by a majority vote of its entire membership. Upon overruling, the Board may proceed with construction or authorization of the project, as applicable. d. If the project is not required to be authorized or financed by the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, or other County or Town official or board, the EVPC's disapproval may be overruled by the body or official having jurisdiction over the authorization and financing of the project. A vote to overrule by such body shall be by a majority vote of its entire membership. In the case of a utility owned by an entity other than a political subdivision, the EVPC's disapproval may be overruled by the Public Utilities Commission by not less than a majority of its entire membership. (Ord. 05-18 , §1(Exh. A)) D. Standards for Review. The EVPC and Boards shall review the extent and location of the proposed public use for its consistency with the goals, policies and objectives stated in the Comprehensive Plan and for its compliance with this Code. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. Staff finds the application for the proposed rebuild of the Larimer County Satellite Maintenance Facility complies with the Procedure under Section 3.13.C of the EVDC. 2. Staff finds the Location and Extent application is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives stated in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, noting the County’s facilities, existing and planned, are within the primary Industrial area within the Estes Valley. Expansion or significantly greater impacts than what now exists are unlikely at this facility in the foreseeable future. The current County facilities well predate the Comprehensive Plan. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION , JANUARY 15, 2019 LOCATION AND EX TE NT REVIEW, COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE FACILITY PAGE | 5 3. This Location and Extent approval is contingent on review and approval of the associated Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA), to create the subject 10.0 acre parcel as proposed. Recor dation of the BLA plat will be necessary prior to Community Development’s zoning authorization for a building permit, chiefly because without that new/adjusted property line, the main shop structure would not meet minimum required setback distances and would not be in compliance with the EVDC. 4. The applicant is required to pull any applicable building permit or permits from the Larimer County Building Department. AGENCY COMMENTS: Prior to building permit authorization, requirements stipulated by various review agencies must be met. The Larimer County Engineering Department requires the applicant to submit signed, stamped construction plans and drainage report, a CDPHE, WQCD Construction Activity Permit, as well as a Development Construction Permit prior to construction. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District comments indicate there may be additional requirements when final construction documents are processed, prior to any construction. The Town of Estes Park Utilities Department has several requirements regarding electric lines, existing and proposed, being underground. A new water service line is also proposed, and Utilities has specifications for capping existing lines and installing new. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District will require floor plans of proposed structures, an external sand/oil separator for the wash bay, and meeting specification for capping existing lines and extending new ones. The applicant has been forwarded all memos and emails from the above agencies. No other comments had been received at this writing. PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the EVDC , a legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette, and adjacent property owners were mailed notices. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on December 20, 2018, at the Estes Park Library. The meeting was lightly attended by area property owners, who had general questions about the project. No attendees expressed opposition to the Location and Extent Review application. Staff has ans wered three verbal inquiries from area property owners, none of whom indicated they were opposed to the project or Location and Extent Review. Otherwise, staff has not received any written comments or opposition regarding the location and extent review application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Com mission approve the Location and Extent Review application as submitted by the applicant. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION , JANUARY 15, 2019 LOCATION AND EX TE NT REVIEW, COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE FACILITY PAGE | 6 SAM PLE MOT IONS FOR THE LOCATION AND EXTENT REVIEW APPLICATION: 1. I move to approve Larimer County’s application for a Location and Extent review , for the County Satellite Maintenance Facility at 543 Elm Road, with staff findings . 2. I move to continue Larimer County’s application for a Location and Extent review, for the County Satellite Maintenance Facility at 543 Elm Road, to the next regularly scheduled meeting. (State reasons for continuance.) 3. I move to deny Larimer County’s application for a Location and Extent review, for the County Satellite Maintenance Facility at 543 Elm Road finding that … (state findings for denial). Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application 3. Letter of Request 4. Development Plan 5. Building Elevations and Diagrams