Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-03-15Prepared: March 11, 2016 * Revised: STUDY SESSION AG ENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:30 a.m. Estes Park Town Hall, Room 202 11:30 Proposed amendment to EVDC regarding vacation home rentals (45) Planner Kleisler 12:15 Break for meal Chair Hull 12:40 Review of Minutes (5) Chair Hull 12:45 Black Canyon Inn Townhomes Amended Development Plan, Minor Subdivision, Preliminary Townhome Subdivision (20) Planner Kleisler 1:05 Proposed amendment to EVDC regarding density regulations for residential and accommodation units (10) Director Chilcott 1:15 Adjourn to meeting Chair Hull Informal discussion among Commissioners concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 11:15. The public is welcome to attend study sessions; however, public comment will not be accepted. Times are approximate. The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Prepared: March 7, 2016 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 2016 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes of February 16, 2016 4. BLACK CANYON INN TOWNHOMES, AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 09-03B, MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT, & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION PLAT; 800 MacGregor Avenue Owner: Sloan Investments, LLC Applicant: Sloan Investments, LLC Request: Revise approved Development Plan 09-03 to convert 19 proposed condominium units to 17 proposed townhome units. Create two lots of record from one existing parcel to allow development on proposed Lot 2 consisting of seven (7) duplexes & three (3) single-family dwellings for a total of 17 units Staff: Phil Kleisler 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO DENSITY REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND ACOMMODATION UNITS Proposed revisions for residential and accommodation density calculations. Revision includes the removal of a requirement to round down when the Net Land Area results in a fraction. 6. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE & ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VACATION HOME RENTALS Continued from February meeting in order to make revisions to draft code language. 6. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – 1. Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Variance Requests – Approved February 22, 2016 B. Estes Park Town Board 1. CBO Birchfield gave an update to the Trustees regarding the 2015 International Building Codes C. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners 1. Creation of Vacation Home Rental Task Force E. Flood Recovery/Mitigation 1. Hydroplant Bank Stabilization, Phase I complete F. Other 7. ADJOURN RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, White, and Klink Also Attending: Interim Director Karen Cumbo, Town Administrator Frank Lancaster, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioners Hills and Schneider Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 40 people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, December 9, 2015 Special Planning Commission meeting. B. Approval of minutes, December 15, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) AND ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE (EPMC) RELATING TO VACATION HOME RENTALS (VHR) Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The Planning Commissioners, Town Trustees, and County Commissioners have had long conversations about vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Development Code Area. He gave a brief overview of the various Board/Commission meetings and public forums. The County Commissioners held their own public forums to gain additional public comment. A recent joint work session with all three boards gave some direction to move forward; however, a proposed new use of vacation homes to parties greater than 8 will be worked through via a task force facilitated by the county. The Chief Building Official, Will Birchfield, spoke at two Town Board Study Sessions regarding the relationship between local building codes and vacation homes. The Town Board recently adopted a local amendment to the building code which will require a life safety inspection of vacation home rentals within the town limits. The county will be updating their building codes within the next few months, and will probably be addressing this topic at the county level. Another joint work session is planned for March 30, 2016. The proposed code amendment was discussed during the study session, and Planner Kleisler would be reviewing the highlights of that discussion. The Planning Commission RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall could choose to vote on the proposed amendment or continue it to the March 15, 2016 meeting. The components of the proposed amendment include the following key issues: Annual Operating Permit Limit. Planner Kleisler stated the Town Board and County Commission requested the Planning Commission discuss this concept and provide a recommendation as to whether or not to pursue a limit on operating permits issued. There has been an increase in the number of vacation home rentals within the past five years. 2010 had 206 vacation home licenses, with the current number being 339. Code compliance for vacation home rentals started to become a priority in 2014, with the hiring of a full-time code compliance officer. One option to consider is to place a valley-wide cap on the number of vacation home rental operating permits issued. Planner Kleisler stated 4.7% (339) of total housing units (7,087) in the Estes Valley are permitted vacation home rentals. If a cap was to be considered, other percentages could be 5% (364 VHRs), 7% (510 VHRs), 10% (729 VHRs) or 25% (1822 VHRs). The statistics presented do not account for any unlicensed units. Planner Kleisler showed a graph of other mountain towns and the percentages of VHRs to total housing. Of approximately ten communities reviewed, only Durango, Colorado has a limit placed on the number of VHRs in their community. The Commissioners want to hear public comment prior to making a decision on placing a limit on the number of VHRs in the Estes Valley. Neighborhood Communication. Planner Kleisler stated section D of the proposed code amendment would require property owners to post a notice of current regulations on the site of each VHR. Included in this posting would be items such as contact information, maximum number of occupants and vehicles allowed, safety information, quiet hours, information about the town’s local leash law, refuse disposal and wildlife protection standards. Staff sees this as a way to positively communicate between property owners and renters. Planner Kleisler stated the proposed amendment would require property owners/managers to post the operating permit number on the VHRs advertising web page and on printed advertising. Staff would provide a basic form for owners/managers to complete and post on site. This form could look different, depending on whether the property was within the town limits or in unincorporated Larimer County. Planner Kleisler stated neighbor notification is being proposed, which would require a written notice to neighbors within 100 feet, providing owner and local contact name, contact information, and other information pertinent to the VHR. Proof of mailing would be required. Any updates to the previously mentioned information would constitute a new mailing. Parking. Planner Kleisler stated the current allowance under the VHR ordinance is no more than three vehicles. Public comment has expressed a desire to revert the current restrictions back to what is allowed for a non-VHR in a single-family residential zone, which would allow more vehicles on larger lots. If the Planning Commissioners choose to allow this portion of the proposed amendment, some VHRs would be allowed additional vehicles if the driveway and other off-street designated parking areas are large enough. Staff recommends to retain the current prohibition of on-street parking for VHRs. There is also a limitation in this chapter concerning the placement and storage of recreation vehicles on the site, as well as the occupants of the principal structure RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall needing to belong to the occupants. In other words, people not staying at the VHR could not park their car there for an extended period of time. Planner Kleisler stated Larimer County staff held two public forums in Estes Park, and from those forums came various recommendations from County staff relating to the annual renewal processes. They recommended an annual mass mailing during the renewal period; a comment period for adjacent neighbors, and if comments brought forth related to legitimate land use issues, some sort of review process would be triggered (conditional use permit or something similar). Planner Kleisler stated the Town Clerk’s office would most likely be responsible for those mailings. Currently, the Town does not have the staff to operate this process, and staff has contacted County staff to further discuss the issue. Perhaps properties that receive a confirmed violation could trigger a reevaluation of the property during the renewal process. Meetings with the property owner/manager/local contact could occur with Town staff, with the Community Development Director then providing direction moving forward (conditions of approval, revocation, etc.). The property owner would have the right to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. Staff sees this process as a cleaner approach to the issue rather than an annual mass mailing. Staff and Commission Discussion Comments included but were not limited to: • If properties that receive citations are confirmed, why wait until the annual renewal period to evaluate the property. Addressing the issues immediately would make more sense, and waiting until the year is up is not the normal way to address violations. • It is very important in residential zoning that VHRs match what the full-time residents can do. • The number of renters and number of vehicles should be the same as the full-time property owners/long-term renters. • Parking issue seems unworkable, unless enforcement took place. The biggest issue would be to retain the prohibition of off-street parking for VHRs. Public Comment Chair Hull stated that because the Planning Commission is limiting the proposed code amendment to VHRs for eight or fewer occupants, no public comment will be taken regarding VHRs for nine or more occupants. Bettye Harrison/town resident is a member of the Estes Park Vacation Renters Association. She requested the Commission not move forward with the requirement for neighbor notices, as this could be used as a method for unfounded complaints. The initial intent was a best-practice and common courtesy for neighboring property owners to know who to contact about problems before contact the local authorities. If required, the notification should only be used for notification, not an outlet for comments. The Association was concerned that the annual licensing process would become part of the complaint process, placing undue burden on staff, police, and the court system. She stated onerous rules and regulations would damage the tourist industry in the Estes Valley if a license was revoked mid-year after reservations were already confirmed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Guests to the area make reservations (VHR, flights, car rentals, etc.) far in advance and Estes Park would feel negative consequences to its tourism industry. The Association believes if neighbors are allowed to comment prior to the issuance of an operating permit, the property owner is essentially guilty before proven innocent. The Association encouraged focusing on an enforceable noise ordinance. They do not support a limit on the number of units allowed. NOTE: Planner Kleisler stated the proposed neighbor notification is intended to be a courtesy notification, with no comment period allowed as part of this process. Complaints would not be accepted as part of this process. Heidi Welsch/out of state vacation home owner stated the proposed amendment is a balanced solution. She wanted to go on record stating such in case the County Staff/Commissioners did not agree. If the neighbor notification could generate objections to the VHR, a major backlash could occur. She related requiring this type of neighbor notification to being stricter than having a registered sex offender in the neighborhood. Registered sex offenders are not required to notify the neighbors that they are living in the neighborhood. She saw this as potentially being very damaging for neighborhood relationships. She was opposed to limiting the number of VHRs. When she purchased her home, she had the legal right to use it as a VHR, and her property rights would be violated if the rules changed. She was concerned about deed restrictions being placed on homes regarding the right to use them as VHRs. She stated she was confused about the complaint process, and whether or not one violation could result in the revocation of a license. NOTE: Commissioner Klink reminded the audience the Planning Commission is the recommending body, and public comments should also be addressed at the upcoming Town Board and County Commission meetings. Eric Blackhurst/local realtor agreed with Ms. Welsch regarding the notification process allowing comment. He questioned whether or not staff or the Commission has given question to covenant controlled areas. There are a number of developments in the Estes Valley that were built specifically to be VHRs. He stated the vacation rental business began in the 1870s. In 1998 a 1% growth cap was proposed and defeated. Second-home owners make up about 42% of the Estes Valley population. He was concerned about code enforcement not being effective unless the officers were working nights, weekends, and holidays. Mr. Blackhurst questioned the criteria for complaints and hearings; would an operating permit run with the property via a deed restriction, and if so, who would be monitoring the deeds; if inspections are required, who will be conducting the inspections and will they take place in a timely manner so the property owners can be issued their operating permit. Using your property as a VHR is currently a use by right and not subject to review. He suggested that before the Commission makes a recommendation to the Town Board and County Commission, they consider the unintended consequences. There are people in the Estes Valley that make their living selling and/or managing property and are very familiar with how it all works. It is not an easy process that can be controlled by a part-time code compliance officer. VHRs are important to the economic fabric of our community and for those that have invested in property in the Estes Valley. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Kaylyn Kruger/Estes Area Lodging Association representative stated this group supports the comments made by the Estes Park Vacation Renters Association. Durango Steele/local property owner agreed with Mr. Blackhurst’s comments. She is a realtor and understands the importance of property rights. She stated the majority of VHR owners have never had a complaint on their property. She was concerned that special regulations were being considered for VHRs that were a use by right, considering it discrimination. Estes Park has historically been a vacation destination. She cautioned the Commission about placing a cap on the number of VHRs allowed, since it could become a legal issue. Mick Scapella/out-of-town vacation home owner stated as a VHR owner, he has been made to feel like a criminal. The property rights of neighbors seem to supersede his rights since he has a vacation rental. If a property is being managed properly and consistently, there shouldn’t be any problems. He stated it would be a burden on him to have to notify neighbors, as he already knows them and doesn’t have any problems with them, nor they with him. He cares about this community but would be willing to sell and find a community that wants him. Seth Smith/local business owner, property manager, and realtor stated putting cap on the number of VHRs allowed would drastically change the supply and demand, and the unintended consequences would be huge. He stated what should be considered is a response to violations, e.g. enforcement. VHRs are a part of Estes Park neighborhoods and property management plays a big part. He was supportive of the proposed information sheet. Mike Richardson/president of the Estes Park Board of Realtors (EPBOR) stated most of the 54 members of this board have lived in the area for quite some time. They work hard to protect home ownership and property investment. He stated the problem is not the lack of code regulations, but lack of enforcement. Placing more restrictions on VHRs is not the answer. The common denominator with those both for and against VHRs has been code enforcement, or lack thereof. No one wants to live next to an out-of-control VHR, but knowing what the actual number of complaints received is to help assess the effectiveness of code enforcement. Estes Park has always been a tourist town. If we cannot accommodate our guests, they will not come. Mr. Richardson stated there are two different types of overnight guests; some prefer hotels and others prefer VHRs. The EPBOR is opposed to limiting the number of VHRs. The Board would be willing to share their knowledge regarding VHRs. He reiterated the need for more code enforcement, not more code regulations. Warren Clinton/local accommodations facility owner stated there is a need for VHRs. His motel has 31 units and can accommodate 138 people. He consistently received inquiries from potential guests wanting accommodations for large groups. He stated he feels comfortable hosting groups up to 20 people, but any larger than that is not beneficial to his facility as a whole. Last summer he requested his front desk staff to track how many calls they received requesting group accommodations. From the beginning of May to the middle of June, over 70 inquiries were from RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall people inquiring about group accommodations (25-60 guests). Many visitors to the Estes Park area want a home-like atmosphere that VHRs provide. Neil Standard/local resident stated he moved to Estes Park from the Blackhawk/Central City area. He lived in that area when gaming was approved, and many property owners began building VHRs to rent on weekends. He stated his subdivision increased their dues to hire an attorney, placed a cap on the number of VHRs in the subdivision, signed an agreement with the local Sheriff’s office regarding complaints, etc. The ordinances being proposed are to protect VHR owners, and needs to be presented as such. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Comments from Commissioners were as follows: • Commissioner Klink was opposed to placing a cap on the number of VHRs. He was concerned about the unintended consequences to placing a limit on the number of VHRs in the Estes Valley. Although having a VHR is a use by right, there are still restrictions for properties in designated zone districts. • Commissioner White stated use by right does not mean rights are open ended. She stated it would be very difficult to put a cap on the number of VHRs because we really don’t know how many are out there. We know how many licensed VHRs there are, but do not know how many unlicensed homes are in the Estes Valley. A cap would be something to reconsider after we have more information as to how many VHRs are in the Estes Valley. She would consider placing a cap if we reach a tipping point. Information regarding enforcement is limited because the process of submitting a complaint and the follow-up/resolution process is unclear and lacking. • Commissioner Moon would support a valley-wide cap. He does not see it as violating property rights, and the idea of limiting a certain level of use is not different than zoning. He was opposed to seeing a high number of VHRs in the community. If a cap were placed on VHRs, it could be revisited on an annual basis, but would allow some control over how large the VHR business becomes. • Commissioner Murphree was concerned about how you could tell some property owners something was allowed, but telling others it wasn’t allowed. America is the land of the free, and placing a cap on VHRs is not a viable decision. • Chair Hull was opposed to placing a cap on VHRs. All property owners pay property tax and have property rights. Of all other communities researched, only one has a cap. She stated VHRs have become an international issue, and are not specific to Estes Park. Good enforcement is the key. NOTE: Planner Kleisler stated the number of complaints to police for noise or nuisance from vacation rentals is low. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Kleisler stated the next steps would be to finish drafting the code revisions, including changes to the notification process, and route the revised code amendment to the affected agencies/departments. If the Commission chooses to continue this item to the March meeting, the staff report and ordinance would be available approximately one week prior to the March 15th meeting. With the joint work session scheduled for March 30th, there would be time for the Town Board and County Commission to review the draft prior to their next meetings. He stated this joint meeting is separate from the task force the county is facilitating. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Klink) to continue the proposed code amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code and Estes Park Municipal Code relating to vacation home rentals to the next regular meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) RELATING TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING REGULATIONS. Town Administrator Frank Lancaster addressed the Planning Commission, stating this is a project that has been in the works for quite a while. Although it is a minor code revision, it is important to help alleviate seasonal housing needs. The current code allows an employer to house their employees on their property, but they have to be their employees, employed at that location. Staff is requesting to remove that restriction. There are currently three businesses wanting to add employee housing, but may not need all of the housing units and would be willing to lease them to other businesses for their seasonal employees. Some businesses need seasonal housing for their employees but do not have the facilities capable of providing it. Mr. Lancaster stated this proposed code revision is a way to look at the bigger picture of the critical need for employee housing, and provides a good opportunity for business owners that have the space for employee housing and also helps those that don’t, by allowing other businesses employees to rent from them. Staff and Commission Discussion All comments from the Commissioners were in favor of the proposed code amendment. There was general consensus among the Commission that making small moves to address immediate housing needs is beneficial. Public Comment Rita Kurelja/Executive Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority stated she supports the amendment. There is a very large number of housing units that are needed each summer, in addition to the ever-present need for full-time affordable housing. It is having a major impact on our community, and creates businesses that are short-staffed. Businesses would have a better rate of returning staff each year if they could be assured of finding housing. She stated it is important to maintain development code provisions to build and provide housing for the local workforce. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Eric Blackhurst/Chair of the Estes Park Housing Authority was supportive of the proposed code amendment. It is not a big change, but it is a start. He suggested offering density bonuses in other code amendments. The recent housing study reflected there were approximately 700 unfilled jobs in the Estes Valley in November, which is one of the slower months. Most of these positions were due to lack of housing. The proposed code amendment is an opportunity to begin making a different in the housing issue. Steve Lane/local architect was supportive of the proposed amendment. One of his clients is a business owner wanting to use his property for employee housing. He asked for and received clarification that the density calculation in the CO-Commercial Outlying zone district would be removed and replaced to be strictly determined by Floor Area Ratio calculations. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion There was staff discussion regarding the required deed restriction that will be a part of this code amendment. Town Attorney White stated there is a legal rule that states you cannot tie up property for more than 20 years. The purpose of the deed restriction with this proposed code amendment is to not allow property owners to turn the employee housing units into short-term rentals and/or rentals to the general public. Commissioner Klink suggested making the deed restriction thirty years instead of twenty. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to recommend approval of the code amendment to EVDC Section 5.2.C.2.a and Section 13.3 (definition of Employee Housing) the Town Board and County Commissioners, increasing the deed restriction requirement in Section 5.2.C.2.a.(4) to thirty years instead of the current twenty year restriction and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 5. REPORTS A. Planner Kleisler reported the Board of Adjustment will hold a special meeting on Monday, February 22, 2016. An 8 a.m. study session will precede the meeting at 9 a.m. B. Planner Kleisler reported there was no Planning Commission meeting in January. C. Planner Kleisler reported the Town Board acted on the following applications/projects: 1. Amended Plat of lots in the Little Prospect Mountain Addition - Approved 2. Estes Park Medical Center Wellness Training Center Special Review - Approved 3. Stonebridge Supplemental Condominium Map #9 - Approved 4. Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Special Review and Amended Plat - Approved 5. Riverview Pines Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Approved 6. New fee structure for building permit fees and development review fees - Approved D. Planner Kleisler reported the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners acted on the following: 1. Mountain Meadow Preliminary Subdivision Pat – Approved 2. Centennial Hills Amended Plat – Approved RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3. Voeks Legal Lot Appeal - Continued to March, 2016 (Note: This appeal will likely be continued to a later date due to the non-receipt of the necessary paperwork) E. Planner Kleisler reported Aaron Tulley began work last February 8, 2016 as a Flood Recovery Planning Technician. This is a one year grant-funded position. F. Planner Kleisler reported there will be a Trails Master Plan meeting in the Town Board Room on Thursday, February 18, 2016. This plan may be recommended to be incorporated into the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by reference. G. Planner Kleisler reported the first meeting of the Downtown Plan Steering Committee will be held Friday February 29, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in Town Hall, Rooms 202 and 203. This is a public meeting, but no public comment will be taken. H. Commissioner Murphree conveyed his thanks to Mr. Blackhurst and Mrs. Kurelja for the great work being done with the Housing Authority. He is thankful they are providing a need in the community. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:22 p.m. ___________________________________ Betty Hull, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: March 15, 2016, 1:30 PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: Amend Development Plan 09-03 to convert 19 proposed condominium units to 17 townhome units. Create two lots of record from one existing parcel to allow development on proposed Lot 2 consisting of seven (7) duplexes & three (3) single-family-style dwellings. STAFF OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); and 2. Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); 2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicants testimony, public comment, and Town staff’s findings and recommendations; and 3. Provide a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees of approval or denial of the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision application. LOCATION: 800 MacGregor Avenue OWNER/APPLICANT: Sloan Investments, LLC CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Primary Contact: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying STAFF CONTACT: Philip Kleisler, Planner II REPORT SUMMARY: The Black Canyon Inn Development Plan was approved in 2009 for a mix of multi-family, duplex and single family accommodation units. The lower portion of this project has been built and is currently in operation. The site Black Canyon Inn Townhomes, Amended Development Plan 09-03B, Minor Subdivision Plat, Townhomes Subdivision Plat. Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, 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, March 15, 2016 Page 2 of 11 Black Canyon Inn DP 09-03B, Preliminary Townhome Plat, Minor Subdivision includes a mix of accommodation units, a restaurant, employees units, pool, an outdoor pavilion, and an office. Through this application, the applicant proposes to convert the upper portion of the site to a townhome subdivision and decrease the density from 19 units to 17 units. The site is accessed via a private internal drive, which also provides access to a small condominium development and a single-family dwelling. Enhancements to the site include the construction of a public sidewalk along MacGreggor Avenue and the dedication of an emergency access easement to the Overlook Condominiums to the south to ensure adequate fire protection. The application package includes four components: an amended development plan to reduce the number of units; a Minor Subdivision to separate the upper (vacant) land from the developed condominium area; a Preliminary Townhome Plat applicable only to the newly created vacant lot; and a Variance to construct an overflow employee lot within a river setback . The Variance requests will be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment following all other land use approvals. Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and finds that if revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable regulations. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application, subject to conditions described in the staff report. CONTENTS SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE: ............................................................................. 3 REVIEW PROCESS:............................................................................................. 3 REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: ................................................................... 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS: ........................................................................................... 4 STAFF REVIEW: ................................................................................................... 5 STAFF FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 10 RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................... 10 Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 15, 2016 Page 3 of 11 Black Canyon Inn DP 09-03B, Preliminary Townhome Plat, Minor Subdivision SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE: The project site is accessed directly from MacGregor Avenue, approximately 2,000 feet north of the Wonderview Avenue intersection. The site borders similar accommodation uses along the south (Overlook Condominiums), and single and multi-family uses to the east. Parcel Number: 35233-15-056 Lot Area: 4.0 acres Existing Land Use: Residential; and High Intensity Accommodations: Resort/Lodge Cabins Proposed Land Uses: Same Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Estes Park Sanitation District Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowed: 50% Proposed: 34% Hazards/Physical Features Mapped in the project vicinity? Wildfire Hazard No Geologic Hazard No Wetlands No Streams/Rivers Yes Ridgeline Protection No Wildlife Habitat Yes – Report on file REVIEW PROCESS: This application package includes: Development Plan (§3.8): A Development Plans shall comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC and demonstrate consistency with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommending Body: Town Staff Decision-Making Body: Estes Valley Planning Commission Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat (§3.9): Per §3.9.E of the EVDC, all subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, “Subdivision Standards,” and all other applicable provisions of this Code. Recommending Body: Estes Valley Planning Commission Decision-Making Body: Estes Park Town Board of Trustees A B Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 15, 2016 Page 4 of 11 Black Canyon Inn DP 09-03B, Preliminary Townhome Plat, Minor Subdivision Minor Subdivision (§3.9.D): Per §3.9.D of the EVDC, all subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, “Subdivision Standards,” and all other applicable provisions of this Code. Recommending Body: Estes Valley Planning Commission Decision-Making Body: Estes Park Town Board of Trustees Variance (§3.6): Per §3.6.C of the EVDC, all variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 3, “Standards for Review,” and all other applicable provisions of this Code. Recommending Body: Town Staff Decision-Making Body: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Memos are included as part of this staff report.  Estes Park Sanitation District email dated January 28, 2016;  Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 15, 2016;  Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 19, 2016;  Town of Estes Park Community Development memos dated February 19, 2016 (three memos); and  Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 19, 2016. PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail- Gazette. Town staff mailed notices to property owners within 500 feet of the property directly notifying these owners of the public hearings. No written public comments have been received for this application package. Staff received one (1) phone call from an adjacent property owner with concerns about potential trespassing onto neighboring properties. Staff recommended a meeting with the applicant and neighbor, but has not received further communication from the neighboring owner. Written comments received after the posting of this report will be posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications and summarized in the staff presentation. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 15, 2016 Page 5 of 11 Black Canyon Inn DP 09-03B, Preliminary Townhome Plat, Minor Subdivision STAFF REVIEW: Use, Density and Dimensional Standards The site plan demonstrates compliance with density and dimensional standards, vehicular access/circulation requirements, and pedestrian amenities/linkage requirements. Use (EVDC §4.4) Two uses are proposed: Resort/Lodge Cabins and Residential. The Resort/Lodge Cabins, High Intensity use is defined as: A tract of land under single ownership and management with guest rooms or guest units available for temporary rental. The guest rooms may be contained in a main “lodge” building and/or contained in a detached, freestanding “cabin” structure. Guest rooms/units in a resort lodge/cabin use may contain full kitchen facilities in lieu of “limited kitchen facilities” if such rooms comply with all conditions set forth in §5.1.P of this Code. Depending on market demand, some units may be built and sold as a long-term residential use. This mix is similar to Mary’s Lake Lodge. Lot Coverage (EVDC §4.3) Lot coverage represents those parts of the site that are covered by development that prevents or impedes the passage or absorption of stormwater (e.g. buildings, sidewalk streets). The site plan proposes 34% lot coverage, which complies with the maximum standard of 50%. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards (EVDC §7.2) The grading plan demonstrates compliance with general grading standards such as limits on raising/lower natural grade and design of stormwater basins. A Limits of Disturbance has been added to the development plan. The existing slope and natural features (e.g. rock outcroppings) presents challenges when planning the site layout. Similar to the original development plan, the applicant made efforts to avoid trees and rock outcroppings to the extent feasible. Due to topography the site plan does require numerous retaining walls Landscaping and Buffers (§7.5) The site is heavily wooded, which in many instances provides natural screening from adjacent property views. The existing trees exceed the amount of landscaping required, though some additional perimeter landscaping is required (Site Plan Sheet 7). Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 15, 2016 Page 6 of 11 Black Canyon Inn DP 09-03B, Preliminary Townhome Plat, Minor Subdivision Wildlife Habitat (EVDC §7.8) The applicant received approval for a wildlife plan with the initial development plan approval. This investigation was prepared by Christopher Roe, Certified Wildlife Biologist, with Roe Ecological Services, LLC. This purpose of this assessment was to determine the potential impacts of the proposed development on wildlife making use of the property, and the area as a whole. Specifically, the assessment looked at potential impacts to: 1. Elk and deer loafing and foraging activity. 2. Elk and deer movement across the property. 3. Elk and deer calving/fawning habitat 4. Other potential wildlife species impacts, including potential bear problems. The assessment offers three suggested recommendations for minimizing potential impacts: 1. Timing restrictions on certain development activities to further reduce potential impacts on elk and/or deer calving/fawning; 2. Possible fence removal/fence design modifications along the north fence line to facilitate wildlife movement; 3. Installation of bear-proof trash enclosures and/or dumpsters. Exterior Lighting (EVDC §7.9) Neither internal pedestrian lighting nor parking lot lighting is proposed at this time. The applicant has indicated a desire to construct bollard lighting, which is permitted. Off-Street Parking and Loading (EVDC §7.11) Convenient parking is provided for each unit. Some units include an attached garage and one (1) additional space in the driveway. Other units, such as units 10 and 11, provide spacing in a small detached lot connect by a paved sidewalk. The site plan is two (2) parking spaces short of the 35 spaces required. The deficiency is due to Units 22-25 on the south portion of the lot. The addition of two spaces on the south portion of the site would require the reduction of a unit and additional site disturbance in an area that includes mature trees and rock outcroppings. The Planning Commission may approve this deficiency through a Minor Modification (listed in staff findings below). The original development plan was approved with the same number of parking spaces in this area. Adequate Public Facilities (EVDC §7.12) Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. The design for public facilities will be finalized with construction plans. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 15, 2016 Page 7 of 11 Black Canyon Inn DP 09-03B, Preliminary Townhome Plat, Minor Subdivision Sewer The existing sewer main will be extended to serve this development. The Estes Park Sanitation District did not have notable concerns with the proposal. Water and Electric Service Adequate water and electric service are available to serve the site. A portion of the existing water main will be replaced due to proposed driveway grading. There were no concerns expressed by the Estes Park Utilities Department. Drainage. Given the very limited changes to the site plan, the applicant resubmitted the original drainage report dated March 25, 2009. The site is located at the top of a drainage basin with no additional offsite flows entering the area of proposed development. The flows empty into Black Canyon Creek at the western edge of the site. The Public Works Department has provided written comments requesting more details on the 2009 drainage plan, including (i) an update to the report demonstrating compliance with current Town standards and (ii) a basin map visually depicting the sub-basins described in the report. Fire Protection. Improvements to fire protection are proposed. Two (2) fire hydrants will be installed and an emergency access easement is now recorded that provides secondary emergency access to the site via the Overlook Condominiums to the south. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District expressed no concerns with the site plan. Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment (§7.13) As with the original submittal, loading areas will be screened from public view through landscaping and building placement. The applicant is aware of the Town of Estes Park wildlife ordinance. Street Design and Construction Standards (Appendix D) The following table lists the requested minor modifications. Pursuant to Appendix D.I.D, Town Engineer shall have the authority to grant Minor Modifications to Street Design and Construction Standards. Through written comments, the Town Engineer has approved both Minor Modifications. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 15, 2016 Page 8 of 11 Black Canyon Inn DP 09-03B, Preliminary Townhome Plat, Minor Subdivision Section Requirement Decision-making Body Status Appendix D.II.E.2 Limits vehicle trips to 120 per day on a cul- de-sac. Town Engineer Approved Appendix D.III.B.8.b.(1) Allows driveway openings to be spaced up to 150 feet apart from another driveway. Town Engineer Approved Subdivision Standards (§10) The proposed development plan describes the layout and use of the property. The Preliminary Subdivision plat describes lots for commonly owned areas such as roads and stormwater ponds, and lots for individually owned townhouses. Homeowners Association Required. All new townhome projects shall establish a mandatory homeowners association for the maintenance of common property and facilities. The applicant is working with an attorney to mirror the HOA declarations with that the Black Canyon Inn. Where Allowed. Townhome projects are allowed only in the R-1, R-2, RM, A, and A-1 zone districts; the subject property is zoned A. Outlot. Common townhome property and facilities must be placed in a platted outlot and owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The outlot should be dedicated as a blanket utility and drainage easement with the final plat. Minimum Lot Size. Townhome projects must comply with the minimum lot size for the underlying zone district. This means that before subdivision, the “parent” lot must comply with the minimum lot size for the district in which the parcel is located. In this instance, that equates to 40,000 square feet (the minimum lot size for the A Accommodations district). The proposed lot is 176,281 square feet, thus complying with this review standard. Each townhome unit may be constructed on a smaller lot, subject to approval of the Decision-Making Body. The applicant has designed the lot sizes to comply with the maximum 80% lot coverage for individual lots. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 15, 2016 Page 9 of 11 Black Canyon Inn DP 09-03B, Preliminary Townhome Plat, Minor Subdivision Lot Impervious Coverage Max. Permitted 9 56% 80% 10 44% 80% 11 32% 80% 12 44% 80% 13 43% 80% 14 35% 80% 15 43% 80% 16 65% 80% 17 67% 80% 18 66% 80% 19 65% 80% 20 46% 80% 21 53% 80% 22 45% 80% 23 53% 80% 24 54% 80% 25 45% 80% Setbacks. All townhome projects must include platted building envelopes, which may include “zero setback” for lots interior to the site. Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage. Townhome projects are limited to a cumulative FAR and Lot Coverage not to exceed that established for the underlying zone district. The A Accommodations district does not have a maximum FAR, but does have a maximum Lot Coverage of 50%; the overall lot coverage is 34%. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter Six of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan includes Community- Wide Policies that address issues such as land use, community design, scenic and environmental quality and economics. Staff finds the proposed development advances several adopted Community-Wide Policies, including:  6.2 Protect the scenic character and quality of the open space and gateway experience to the Valley and Rocky Mountain National Park.  6.9 Protect existing vegetation by minimizing disturbance outside of the building envelope, except as required for wildfire protection.  2.2 Locate and design buildings to fit the land.  6.6 Ensure new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental quality within the Valley. The project also appears to advance a development guideline of the North End Planning Area Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 15, 2016 Page 10 of 11 Black Canyon Inn DP 09-03B, Preliminary Townhome Plat, Minor Subdivision  NE 3. Development should allow for wildlife migration. Fences should reflect traditional construction and design using natural materials. Staff Comment: The recommendations of the submitted wildlife report are consistent with this guideline. STAFF FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 3. The requested Minor Modifications to Appendix D.II.E.2 and Appendix D.III.B.8.b.(1) relieves practical difficulties in developing the site. 4. The requested Minor Modification to parking standards (§7.11) results in less visual impact. 5. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the staff report. 6. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the proposed Development Plan. 7. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Preliminary Plat and Minor Subdivision applications. The Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-making Body for the Preliminary Plat and Minor Subdivision applications. 8. Approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code. 9. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the April 26th Town Board agenda requires an April 15th submittal of a revised application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the application package, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Estes Park Sanitation District email dated January 28, 2016; Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 15, 2016 Page 11 of 11 Black Canyon Inn DP 09-03B, Preliminary Townhome Plat, Minor Subdivision b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 15, 2016; c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 19, 2016; d. Town of Estes Park Community Development memos dated February 19, 2016 (three memos); and e. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 19, 2016. 2. Continued compliance with original reports, including but not limited to: a. Wildlife Impact Assessment dated March 24, 2008 (updated on April 20, 2009); b. Drainage Report dated March 25, 2009; and c. Traffic Impact Study dated March 25, 2009. SAMPLE MOTIONS: 1. I move to recommend APPROVAL (or denial) of the Black Canyon Inn Preliminary Townhome Plat and Minor Subdivision application, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. 2. I move to APPROVE (or deny) the Black Canyon Inn Amended Development Plan 09-03B. Page 1 To: Jes Reetz, Planner From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II Date: February 19, 2016 RE: Development Plan: Black Canyon Inn (EVDC) This written analysis includes only those EVDC provisions that apply to this development proposal. 1. Zoning Use a. Per our conversations, this application is being reviewed as both residential (Multi-family) and High-intensity Accommodations (Resort/lodge Cabin). When there are conflicts between to the requirements for these two uses, the more restrictive shall apply (§1.8.A.1). – no action required. 2. Density and Dimensional Standards a. Comment on why you are adding 1,560 square feet to the density calculations (Table 4-5). If this is your steep slope calculations please label it as such. b. In an effort to minimize curb cuts, please comment on the need for a driveway to Unit 9 (Table 4-7). 3. Pedestrian Linkages a. Provision shall be made in the design of all developments for non- vehicular circulation systems, including but not limited to sidewalks, pathways and bikeways (Table 4-8). The application proposes to delete the sidewalk as proposed in the current development plan (DP 09-03). Comment of what conditions have changed since the previous development plan approval that no longer makes it possible to install sidewalks. b. Comment on the feasibility of slightly rotating units 9/10 to allow for a sidewalk to unit 9 that stays clear of the rock outcropping. c. Unit 11 does not appear to have any connection to a proposed parking lot. Community Development Memo Page 2 d. Please consider moving the bicycle rack close to Units 9/10 to not obstruct pedestrian access to the sidewalk/stairs. 4. Grading a. Angular turns of a rock retaining wall should be avoided. The current plan relies on bends and not sharp turns (e.g. parking lot for units 9/10). b. It appears that the Limits of Disturbance layer is turned off on sheets 2-6. Once showed on the plan, staff will review the location with any eye towards preserving sensitive areas (e.g. rock outcroppings) and significant trees. 5. Parking a. Any fraction as a result of the parking calculation of one-half (1/2 ) or less shall be rounded down, while any fraction over one-half (1/2) shall be rounded up (§7.11.C.2). It appears that some of the parking calculations rounded up when they should be rounded down. Please confirm. b. Parking calculations for Units 22-25 propose 1 garage space, though it doesn’t appear that any unit has a garage/driveway. c. Please consider a turnaround for the three (3) spaces servicing Unit 11. d. Two (2) accessible spaces should be provided (§7.11.J). e. It doesn’t appear that the driveway to Unit 16 can accommodate a space in front of the garage (19.5 feet). 6. General Comments a. Delete proposed infrastructure changes that are already implemented, such as the realignment of the primary entrance (sheet 4). b. Provide current copy of private access easement labeled on sheet 4. c. The proposed trash enclosure should be moved at least 30 feet from the intersection (Appendix D.IV.1) d. All original reports (e.g. wildlife, drainage, etc.) will be referenced in the staff recommendation and will remain active with this new development plan. – no action required. Page 1 To: Jes Reetz, Planner From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II Date: February 19, 2016 RE: Minor Subdivision: Black Canyon Inn (EVDC) This written analysis includes only those EVDC provisions that apply to this development proposal. 1. Additional Variance a. Staff has identified one additional variance needed this project. Minor Subdivisions require that all lots front an existing street (§3.9.D.1.a). The other option that does not require a variance is to rename this a Preliminary Plat, and submit the Final Plat with the final Townhome Plat application. Planning staff would like to discuss this with you as soon as possible. 2. Easements a. Please provide copies of recorded access easements referenced on the plan to determine if any need to be amended to include the proposed Lot 3. Planning Commission Finding a. The Estes Valley Planning Commission must find that the proposed subdivision “will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code.” (§3.9.E) Community Development Memo Page 1 To: Jes Reetz, Planner From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II Date: February 19, 2016 RE: Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat: Black Canyon Inn (EVDC) This written analysis includes only those EVDC provisions that apply to this development proposal. 1. Homeowners Association a. A homeowners association shall be established for the maintenance of common property and facilities. 2. Outlot a. Clearly label outlots on the plat (§10.5.H.7.b). 3. Lot Coverage a. Sheet one lists the maximum allowable lot coverage for each townhome lot. Please also include a third colum listing the proposed lot coverage for each lot to confirm compliance with §10.5.H.7.e.3. Community Development Memo Inter-Office Memorandum To: Community Development From: Steve Rusch Date: 2/19/2016 Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: FINAL REVIEW - Portion of Myers Addition, 800 MacGregor Avenue - Black Canyon Inn Amended Dev. Plan & Prelim Townhome Subdiv. Plat The Utilities Department has the following Final/Public Review comments for the above application: Water Division: The above application is accepted by the Water Division, but not approved as waterline construction drawings for the water line installation or issuance of any building permits. Should project design or scope change during the review process the Water Division reserves the right to request additional information as needed. It has been determined that this property is already included in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal Subdistrict. No further action is required for this. A Water Main Extension will be required for service, including 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. Construction Drawings are required and 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. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. 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. Inter-Office Memorandum 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. All water line design and construction shall be done according to the Water Utility Policies and Standards. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. All domestic water service lines are required to have a pressure reducing valve installed at the point of entry to the building. Applicant must contact the Water Division (970)577-3625 to discuss additional plumbing requirements. All water lines are required to have a minimum of 10 ft. horizontal separation from both sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Additionally, water lines are required to have a minimum 4 ft. horizontal separation from all other utilities. All commercial properties, fire suppression lines, multi-family dwellings and irrigation are required to have backflow prevention devices installed on the water service lines, contact Steve Rusch at 577-3625 or srusch@estes.org with any questions regarding the backflow devices or requirements. A Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) including meter sizing, meter locations, tap locations and addresses served by each must be submitted to the Water Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Engineering must contact the Water Division at 577-3625 for details regarding final tap and service line sizing prior to any construction. If any structure is 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. Pipe Size Flow Rate 2" 100 gpm 4" 390 gpm 6" 880 gpm Inter-Office Memorandum 8" 1560 gpm 10" 2440 gpm 12" 3520 gpm 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. 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. 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. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Town of Estes Park Water Division. Light and Power: • Please schedule a required meet at site with Joe Lockhart, Line Superintendent at (970)577-3613. • 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. • Light and Power requires one 1½” orange PVC spare conduit from the junction box/transformer into the building at Light and Power’s expense. • Utility pedestals must be spaced at a minimum of one foot apart. • Transformers cannot be placed more than 250 feet from the building being serviced. • All new meter cans must have a bypass Inter-Office Memorandum • 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. • All new construction must be underground. • Service line trenching & conduit (between the meter and the building) to be provided and installed by developer to Town specifications. • All other material will be purchased from & installed by the Town of Estes Park. • 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. • Water must be at least 4ft from electric. • All services must be on the owner’s property or be within a designated easement. • The size of the service must be shown on the electrical drawings. • All existing lines must be shown on the electrical drawings. • Transformers/junction boxes must be in an easement, or if possible on the property line. • All primary lines must be 4ft deep with red warning tape at 2ft. • All subdivision must be designed by an electrical engineer. • All pipes must be schedule 40 gray PVC pipe, if there are more than 4 pipes in a trench then all conduit must be put into a pipe rack. There must be 2-2inch and 2-4inch conduits in a primary trench. • Town must have ownership of all road crossings. • On underground electric services, it will be the electrician’s responsibility to dig them into the transformers or pedestals. • The electrician will need to schedule with L&P to unlock and open transformers or pedestals. • All temporary and permanent electric services will be connected by Light & Power within 5 business days after the state electrical inspection & fees are paid. • Permanent meter sockets must be permanently marked with address or unit number. • 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. Inter-Office Memorandum Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division. PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Community Development From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager Greg Muhonen, PE, Director of Public Works Date: February 19, 2016 RE: Black Canyon Inn Amended Development Plan/Plat Public Works offers the following comments and conditions on the Black Canyon Inn Amended Development Plan and Plat application as submitted. Comments and Conditions are applicable for plans received on January 20, 2016. Transportation: 1. Comment: Roadways are identified as “private access easements”. There is no Town ownership or maintenance responsibility of the roadways in this development. 2. Comment: Typical roadway section is 22’ wide with curb and gutter on both sides and does meet the Town criteria for a sub-local street. 3. Condition: Rock retaining walls are proposed extensively across the site. Walls taller than 4’ will require a structural engineering design. 4. Condition: Driveway slopes are to be 12% maximum. 5. Comment: EVDC Appendix-D, II.E.2. Number of Vehicle Trips Per Day. Public Works supports the applicant’s minor modification request to allow trips in excess of 120 trips per day. This support is due to the emergency access easement in place through the Overlook Development. 6. Comment: EVDC Appendix-D, III.B.8.b(1). Public Works supports the applicant’s minor modification request to allow driveways to encroach within the 150’ spacing from the edge on another driveway. This support is due to the uniqueness of the site layout and driveways access a private roadway system. Drainage & Grading: DRAINAGE REPORT (Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, March 25, 2009). 1. Condition: The submitted report is from 2009. The drainage evaluation should be in compliance with current Town drainage criteria. The engineer should provide an update to the report and demonstrate that the drainage impacts created by this development are being mitigated. 2. Condition: The submittal should include a Drainage Plan with the submitted Drainage Report. Sub-basins “A”, “B” and “C” are identified in the report and a map demonstrating this should be included. 3. Condition: The submitted Grading Plan should identify how concentrated developed runoff in driveway curb and gutter is conveyed to a detention facility. From:James Duell To:pkleisler@estes.org Cc:Thomas, Chris ; Reetz, Jess Subject:RE: Black Canyon Subdivision Date:Thursday, January 28, 2016 5:25:31 PM Hello Phil – as per review of the plans that were provided for the proposed Black Canyon Inn Townhomes, Estes Park Sanitation District has the following comments: The proposed extension of the sewer main meets with our standards with one exception. The sewer line extension to units 22-25 does not list the size of the line. The line must be 8 inch and end in a manhole. The manhole should be placed at the point where the service lines for those units (22-25) can access the line directly. There are two reasons for the requirement: · First, all of the other units have individual service lines that connect to the main line. Technically townhomes/ condominiums can share a service line as long as the ownership is jointly owned by the association, but connecting four units to a shared service also requires a review of the total number of plumbing fixture units and the limiting number is usually exceeded by units with more than one bath. The main should be extended as per the above comment. · Second, the service line for the two Ridgeview condominium units will need to be located and shown reconnecting to this line. Shared service lines can be problematic and even more so with multiple properties and owners. The main line extension to Units 22-25 should solve this. The service lines for the Ridgeview condominiums will remain the property of those units. But a service line easement will need to be part of the plans so the Ridgeview owners can own and maintain their line in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the development. Jim Duell, Estes Park Sanitation District From: pkleisler@estes.org [mailto:pkleisler@estes.org] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:29 PM To: achilcott@estes.org; Audem Gonzales; bomard1@msn.com; cdjones@larimer.org; Chris Thomas; Chris@utsd.org; Clinton Dunkelberger; cphillips@estes.org; ctedder@estes.org; flancaster@estes.org; Greg Muhonen; James Duell; jboles@estes.org; jimber@estes.org; jlockhart@estes.org; Jon Nicholas; kash@estes.org; Linda Hardin; Matt Allen; Melissa@UTSD.org; mrobinson@estesvalleyfire.org; Planning; rbergsten@estes.org; Ronald Duell; sparker@estes.org; srusch@estes.org; todd@utsd.org Subject: Tomorrow's Agenda Development Review Team, Here is tomorrow’s agenda. This should be a fairly quick one. Phil PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Date: February 15, 2016 Project Identification: Black Canyon Inn Location: 800 MacGregor Avenue Referral: Black Canyon Inn Amended D 09-03B, Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat, Minor Subdivision. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the submitted material describing the proposed project referenced above, and approves those plans contingent on compliance with the following requirements (conditions of approval): Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following requirements shall be met: 1. Construction plans (primary and secondary emergency access / roads, water line system design) shall be reviewed and must meet approval of the Fire District. 2. The new required fire hydrants shall be installed. The hydrants shall be maintained operational at all times thereafter, unless alternate provisions for water supply are approved by the fire District. The Town of Estes Park must approve the installation and oversee the testing of water mains and hydrants. 3. In accordance with IFC Chapters 5 and 14, approved fire department access shall be provided during all phases of construction, as well as to completed buildings. The criteria for fire department access roads shall be as follows: A. Permanent asphalt or concrete roads shall be installed unless a temporary road surface, such as recycled asphalt or concrete, is approved. B. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. C. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall be not less than 20 feet. D. Turning radii of a fire department access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. E. All dead-end roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall provide adequate space for fire apparatus to turn around. F. Swinging gates must open in the direction of ingress to the site. Gates must have a minimum opening width of 20 feet Emergency only access gates shall have approved signage marked: EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY NO PARKING FIRE LANE 4. Fire apparatus access roads shall be permanently signed and / or marked “NO PARKING FIRE LANE” in accordance with municipal sign/traffic standards. A. Access roads less than 26 feet wide shall be marked as fire lanes on both sides of the road. B. Access roads at least 26 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide shall have at least one side of the road marked as a fire lane. C. Access roads at least 32 feet wide need not have fire lane markings. All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International Fire Code (2009 Edition) and the International Building Code (2009 Edition). Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Marc W. Robinson Fire Marshal 970-577-3689 mrobinson@estesvalleyfire.org WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 24 March 2008 (Updated 20 April 2009) PREPARED FOR => Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. 1692 Big Thompson Ave. Suite 200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 PREPARED BY ,4> Christopher Roe, Certified Wildlife Biologist ROE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, L LC PO Box 1168 Berthoud, Colorado 80513 (970) 532-1305 FAX (970) 532-1306 TOLL FREE (866) 4-Wildlife (494-5354) www.YourWildlife.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 I. Introduction 6 2. Underlying Considerations and Definitions 6 2.1. Definition of Significance (of Potential Impacts) for this Assessment 6 2.2. Considerations Regarding Habituated Wildlife 7 2.3. Definitions of Evaluation Classifications and Criteria 8 2.3.1. Classifications of Relative Habitat Quality 8 2.3.2. Classifications of Potential Disturbances/Impacts 8 3. General Site Description 9 4. Current Conditions 9 4.1. Historical and Existing Development/Residential Use 9 4.2. Existing Wildlife Use of the Property and the Surrounding Area 11 S. Proposed Additional Development 15 6. Evaluation of Potential Wildlife Impacts 16 6.1. Considerations Regarding a Phased Development Schedule 17 6.2. Potential Impacts upon Elk and Deer Loafing and Foraging 17 6.2.1. Current Elk and Deer Loafing and Foraging Conditions 17 6.2.2. Post-Construction Elk and Deer Loafing and Foraging Conditions 18 6.3. Potential Impacts upon Elk and Deer Movement 20 6.3.1. Current Elk and Deer Movement Patterns 20 6.3.2. Expected Post-Construction Movement Patterns 22 6.4. Potential Impacts to Elk and Deer Calving/Fawning Habitat 22 6.4.1. Evaluation of Existing Potential Calving/Fawning Habitat 23 6.4.2. Evaluation of Potential Post-Constructin Calving/Fawning Habitat 24 6.5. Potential Impacts upon Other Wildlife 26 6.5.1. Current Nuisance Bear Issues 26 6.5.2. Potential Post-Construction Nuisance Bear Issues 28 7. Recommendations for Minimizing Potential Impacts 28 7.1. Timing Restrictions 28 7.2. Fence Removal/Design Modifications 29 7.3. Installation of Bear-Proof Trash Enclosures and/or Dumpsters 30 Figures 1. Location of the proposed development site of The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, Estes Park, Colorado. 10 2. Proposed site plan for The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, Estes Park, Colorado — April 2009. 11 3. Evidence of elk and deer movement across the property. Note that movement follows natural swale through the timber, and heads off property at the property's southeast corner. 12 4. Possible secondary movement corridor connecting the primary drainage swale with the eastern property boundary showing the lower portion of the possible corridor and upper portion heading off property through the downed fence, respectively 12 5. Open areas adjacent to Black Canyon Creek along MacGregor Avenue across from the property that are used as additional loafing and foraging areas by elk and deer moving along the creek corridor. 13 6. Browse marks on willows along Black Canyon Creek. 13 WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 7. Open foraging areas within the Development utilized by deer and elk throughout the year, especially during spring and summer. 13 8. Potential elk and deer calving/fawning habitat within the property along the Black Canyon Creek north and south of the entrance driveway, respectively 14 9. Evidence of beaver activity on the property along Black Canyon Creek, and the protective measures taken to prevent damage by beavers. 1 5 10. Proposed site plan identifying the unit numbers of proposed buildings. 1 6 1 1 . Proposed Development site plan showing primary elk and deer loafing and foraging areas and their respective relative quality designations. 18 12. Location of the proposed building and parking lot along Black Canyon Creek. Note that most construction will occur from the area of the large trees back toward the rock outcrop, leaving the open corridor along the creek bank intact. According to proposed Development standards, any disturbed areas between the new building and the Creek corridor will be reclaimed with native vegetation. 19 13. Primary elk and deer movement corridors through the property 21 14. Location and site characteristics of the proposed entrance driveway realignment. The proposed new driveway will pass roughly between the yellow mailbox and the entrance sign. 24 15. Centralized fully enclosed trash enclosure adjacent to the Twin Owls restaurant. 26 16. Unprotected, standard garbage dumpsters and garbage containers on private properties within and adjacent to the Development 27 17. Barbeque grills on properties within and adjacent to the Development. 27 18. North fence line along the MacGregor Ranch boundary. Notice the multi-strand barbed wire in conjunction with the buck-and-pole fence. This type of fence can be highly restrictive to elk and deer movement. 29 19. Unnecessary remnant portions of sheep fence within the creek corridor along the north fence line. 30 Notice of Copyright © 2009. All photos and language contained herein are the exclusive property of Roe Ecological Services, LLC, and may not be reproduced except as a part of this document. This report represents an original work created by Roe Ecological Services, LLC. This report may be reproduced only in its entirety, with no portion omitted or substituted at any time or used as a part of any other document. Roe Ecological Services, LLC, reserves the right to use any or all language or data contained herein for any print or electronic document. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc., retained Roe Ecological Services, LLC (RES), to conduct a wildlife impact assessment for the proposed additional development of The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums (Development) in Estes Park, Colorado. The purpose of this assessment was to determine the potential impact of the proposed Development on wildlife making use of the property, and on the area as a whole. Based on the location of the property, and the habitat components within and adjacent to it, RES assessed potential impacts upon: 1) Elk and deer loafing and foraging activity (both daily and seasonally); 2) Elk and deer movement across the property (both daily and seasonally); 3) Elk and deer calving/fawning habitat on and immediately adjacent to the property; and 4) Other potential wildlife species, including potential bear problems. Property Description The property is approximately 14.41 acres in size, and lies east of MacGregor Ave, approximately 0.4 miles north of U.S. Highway 34. The property lies along the north and west face of a rocky ridge, and generally consists of native Ponderosa Pine forest, with an understory consisting generally of native grasses and shrubs. Black Canyon Creek runs along the western edge of the property, with the associated riparian corridor consisting of a mix of willow and narrow leaf cottonwood, with an understory of native grasses and forbs. The property is currently developed, with approximately 18% of the land area occupied by permanent and temporary housing units, a restaurant, several abandoned buildings and remnant building foundations, and several asphalt parking lots connected by an asphalt road. Post-construction, roughly 29% of the land area will contain housing units, parking lots, etc. Nearly all units on the property are privately owned residences that, when not used by the owners, are used as rental units throughout the year. Peak occupancy occurs from May through October. Wildlife Observations Most wildlife movement across the property appeared to be along Black Canyon Creek, as well as along the main access driveway and primary drainage swale through the property, with animals heading from the Black Canyon Creek corridor to the east/southeast property boundary and areas off property. Movement of elk and deer along the Black Canyon Creek corridor is reported to be fairly consistent throughout the year, with peak activity occurring during the fall. The movement corridor along Black Canyon Creek used by elk and deer reportedly includes areas within the creek drainage, as well as adjacent open areas along MacGregor Avenue. Evidence of elk and/or deer foraging activity across most of the property was limited, although evidence of browsing was observed on willows near the north property boundary, within the Black Canyon Creek riparian corridor. Although no physical evidence WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO of elk or deer calving/fawning sites was observed on the property, areas of moderate to high quality elk and deer calving/fawning habitat were observed. This habitat generally lies along Black Canyon Creek, with the highest quality habitat located toward the north property line along the boundary of Saint Bartholomew's Church property and south of the main entrance driveway. No physical evidence of bear activity was found during the site assessment as most bears were still hibernating at the time of the assessment, however, per the CDOW and the current property manager, nuisance bear issues occur throughout the general area. Sign of beaver activity within Black Canyon Creek, specifically north of the access driveway culvert, was clearly evident by the numerous beaver-cut trees/willows, and the numerous mature trees covered with chicken-wire mesh placed there in an effort to prevent damage. Both the property manager and the CDOW confirmed that beaver activity has been a problem for this and other properties along Black Canyon Creek. Proposed Development According to the proposed Development site plan dated April 2009, and the proposed build-out schedule, the property will eventually contain a total of 32 new units built over approximately 10 years starting in the fall of 2009. For these units, however, only nine (9) new buildings will be built across the property. Of these nine, two (2) will be built within the footprint of existing buildings/foundations. Nearly every new unit will be a multi-family housing unit/condominium of some sort, with additional parking areas and driveways being developed adjacent to the new buildings. Two of the additional parking areas will be constructed over the top of existing structures on the property. Evaluations of Potential Impacts For this report, evaluations of potential adverse impacts upon wildlife as a result of the proposed Development were based on: 1) The type and level of existing or potential wildlife use of the property within the context of its current development characteristics; 2) The location of proposed additional units and associated parking areas as related to lost/modified habitat, movement corridors, or impacts upon adjacent habitat areas; 3) The fact that many elk and deer (and possibly even bear) are habituated to human presence and human- induced disturbances; 4) The fact that elk and deer currently utilize areas within developed portions of the property between existing residential units; 5) The likelihood of wildlife reasonably accommodating to resulting changes in habitat, movement corridors. etc., due to the development of additional units and parking areas; and WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 2 6) The capacity of the proposed Development to offset potential adverse impacts. Phased Development According to the proposed build-out schedule, construction of new buildings/units will occur over a 10-year period beginning in the late-summer/fall 2009. Under a phased construction schedule it is likely that only one or two buildings and associated parking areas will be built in any given year. By extending construction activities across many years, potential construction-related impacts to wildlife will be localized around individual construction units rather than across the property as a whole. Phased construction schedules should allow habituated animals to easily adapt to changes in their surroundings and associated additional human activity, and to continue to utilize undisturbed portions of the property at or near normal levels. Potential Impacts to Elk and Deer Foraging Approximately 82% of the property is landscaped open space or open space under native vegetation. Based on the property's location and physical attributes, it is likely that most elk and deer loafing and foraging on the property is from transient animals moving along the Black Canyon Creek corridor, and between the MacGregor Ranch and areas north of the Standley Hotel. Moderate to high quality elk and deer loafing and foraging areas are found within the western third of the property and are generally associated with the Black Canyon Creek riparian corridor and adjacent areas (both on and off property). Low to moderate quality loafing and foraging areas are scattered throughout the east-central portion of the property, with pockets of moderate to high quality habitat found behind the restaurant (irrigated sod lawn) and northwest of the current property management office, as well as in the southeast and extreme east-northeast corners of the property. Per the proposed site plan, new construction along Black Canyon Creek (units 1-5 and the associated parking lot) will occur outside of a 50-foot wetland/100-year floodplain setback. Although a small portion of potential elk and deer foraging habitat will be lost by the addition of this unit, and additional housing units will likely increase human activity in this area, at least seasonally, there is no reason to expect any significant long-term impact on overall elk and deer loafing and foraging along or within the Black Canyon Creek corridor within, or adjacent to, the property. Because construction within the north-central portion of the property (units 6-9) will essentially be a remodel and extension of an already existing structure, and because elk and deer currently utilize areas of high human disturbance behind the restaurant, it is unlikely construction activities in this location will have any significant impact to elk and deer. Construction of additional buildings through the interior of the property (proposed units 14-18, and units 25-26) is likely to have a slight temporary impact on elk and deer utilizing these areas. As such, it is unlikely the development of additional buildings within the interior of the property — where WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 3 currently identified and under a phased construction schedule — will cause a significant long-term impact on overall elk and deer loafing and foraging within these areas. Potential Impacts to Elk and Deer Movement Because the proposed construction for units 1-5 is located on the rocky slope above and east of the creek corridor, and because the access driveway to the new unit will not alter any creek corridor features, it is unlikely that the new building will cause any modification or disruption of elk or deer movement along Black Canyon Creek. The additions of proposed units 14-16, 25-26, and 29-32, are likely to cause a temporary moderate impact to elk and deer movement through the area while construction of each of the units is in progress. Movement by elk and deer through the possible secondary corridor is likely to be slightly to moderately impacted by the additions of proposed units 17-18 and units 19-24. Potential Impacts to Calving/Fawning Habitat According to the proposed site plan, no modification of any significant calving/fawning habitat component within the property will occur. Although construction of units 1-5 will be adjacent to the creek corridor, it is RES's opinion that this building (and the resultant increase in human activity around this building) will not create a significant impact upon the overall population of elk and deer that calve/fawn along the Black Canyon Creek corridor. It is likely only a slight to moderate short-term impact upon individual animals calving/fawning on the property will occur while active construction is underway. Potential Impact upon Other Wildlife Because this proposed Development does not alter any habitat characteristics within the Black Canyon Creek drainage, or any adjacent "desirable" habitats or resource components, it is not likely that this Development will impact beavers to any degree. Likewise, because the creek corridor will be preserved, it is unlikely that development activities will significantly or even moderately affect migratory songbird nesting or general activity within the corridor. Impacts on nuisance wildlife/bear issues, however, may be affected by this Development. Depending on the actions taken by the Development to manage increases in human-related food sources, the development of additional housing units across the property may lead to moderate increases in nuisance wildlife/bear issues. Recommendations for Minimizing Potential Impacts Although RES does not believe that the proposed Development will create any significant impacts upon wildlife as it is currently presented, several recommendations were made that may help further reduce or offset wildlife WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 4 impacts. In order to help ensure that construction-related disturbances do not impact either nesting migratory birds (which would violate the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act) or potential elk calving/deer fawning activities, construction activities should not be initiated between 1 April and 15 July. lf, however, initiation of construction activities is required between 1 April and 15 July, a detailed wildlife assessment of bird nesting and elk and deer calving/fawning activities within and immediately around (within 100 meters) the proposed construction site should be carried out by a qualified third party prior to any construction. If nesting, calving, or fawning animals are observed within or adjacent to the proposed construction area, construction activities should be postponed until such activity has ceased, or until 15 July, whichever comes first. In this way, potential direct impacts to breeding birds and calving/fawning animals can be virtually eliminated. Fully understanding the need for adequate fencing to keep neighboring livestock from entering the property, and understanding that discussions regarding potential fence modifications will surely require the consultation of neighboring landowners, elk and deer could potentially benefit from a modification to the north fence line. Whether the entire fence line is modified, or simply portions of it that might serve as a wildlife "gate," elk and deer stand to benefit greatly by any measure that makes movement across the north property boundary safer and easier. Although potentially less of a problem, it is recommended that the remnant portions of old "sheep fence" be removed from areas along the property boundary with Saint Bartholomew's Church. When designing additional garbage collection points, or planning for the deployment of additional dumpsters, it is highly recommended that future trash enclosures be designed and built to be bear-proof, and that additional garbage dumpsters be equally bear-proof. NOTE: As of the April 2009 Update, per the property manager, remnant portions of sheep fence within the creek corridor along the north fence line have been removed. Additionally, management at The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums is continuing discussions with the MacGregor Ranch in an effort to work toward minimizing the barbed wire under the buck-and-pole fence along their common boundary. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 5 1. INTRODUCTION Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc., retained Roe Ecological Services, LLC (RES), to conduct a wildlife impact assessment for the proposed additional development of The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums (Development) in Estes Park, Colorado. The purpose of this assessment was to determine the potential impact of the proposed Development on wildlife making use of the property, and on the area as a whole. Based on the location of the property, and the habitat components within and adjacent to it, RES assessed potential impacts upon: I) Elk and deer loafing and foraging activity (both daily and seasonally); 2) Elk and deer movement across the property (both daily and seasonally); 3) Elk and deer calving/fawning habitat on and immediately adjacent to the property; and 4) Other potential wildlife species, including potential bear problems. In carrying out this assignment, RES did the following: 1) Conducted on-site evaluations of the Development property and the immediate surrounding area between 10 March and 12 April 2008; 2) Reviewed numerous documents pertaining to the Development request, including: a) The proposed site plan for the Development; b) The Estes Valley Development Code adopted 3 November 1999, effective 1 February 2000 (EVDC); I and c) The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan dated December 1996.2 3) Reviewed the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Elk Management Plan, Data Analysis Unit E-9, Saint Vrain Herd, Game Management Unit 20, dated November 2006;3 4) Discussed the project with the local CDOW District Wildlife Manager (DWM) between 10 and 31 March 2008;4 and 5) Reviewed satellite imagery of the proposed Development site and surrounding area. 2. UNDERLYING CONSIDERATIONS AND DEFINITIONS 2.1. DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANCE (OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS) FOR THIS ASSESSMENT In most discussions regarding potential impacts of some development upon wildlife or wildlife habitat, the term "significant impact" is typically defined as the level of impact that is likely to be made upon the local or regional population of a species to the point that changes in that species' reproduction, survival, localized activity, associated property damage, etc., is statistically detectable, regardless whether the effect of the impact is positive or WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 6 negative. Typically, the baseline against which such impact is measured is data gathered by State or Federal wildlife agencies (e.g., CDOW population estimates). In the case of urban/suburban development, data gathered by County and municipal workers may also be used. Measurability of the impact is the key ingredient of significance. Within the Town of Estes Park, recent discussions pertaining to the significance of potential impacts of development upon wildlife and wildlife habitat have included not only the potential impact of development upon populations, but even upon individual animals. Although it can be extremely difficult to measure the effects of a development activity on an individual animal, and while it is true that determinations of impact upon individuals can be quite subjective, it has proven important to keep this aspect of impact in mind in discussing this particular Development. For this assessment, therefore, the term "significant impact" will reflect not only measurable effects of a proposed development activity upon wildlife populations, but will also attempt to include an assessment of impact upon individual animals. 2.2. CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING HABITUATED WILDLIFE Within the Town of Estes Park, most concerns regarding potential development impacts upon wildlife center on the potential impacts upon elk, followed by impacts upon deer, bears (specifically problem bear interactions), and other wildlife. Often, concerns regarding new development focus on the potential effects that additional buildings, increased human activity, and a general loss of "open space" might have on the animals that frequent the identified area. When evaluating the level of potential impacts that development activities may have upon wildlife, however, it is important to consider the behavior of a particular species in relation to the specific activity or potential disturbance in question. Both elk and deer are highly adaptable and easily habituated animals with a remarkable ability to learn, and to adjust their behavior to maximize survival.5.6•7'B'9 When the correct conditions are met l° —conditions similar to those found within Estes Park—habituation of animals is likely. Because the populations of elk and deer that reside within the Estes Valley and the Town of Estes Park have increased in recent years:1 '12 '13 —in the face of continued urban/suburban development—it could be argued that most elk and deer that routinely utilize the urban/suburban environments of the town for primary habitat throughout the year are habituated to human presence. For these animals—barring their actual exclusion from large portions of their accustomed habitat—many development activities are likely to have minimal impacts upon their daily or seasonal activities. When evaluating potential impacts of development upon wildlife within Estes Park, therefore, it is important to do so within the context of such habituation possibilities. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 7 2.3. DEFINITIONS OF EVALUATION CLASSIFICATIONS AND CRITERIA 2.3.1. CLASSIFICATIONS OF RELATIVE HABITAT QUALITY For this assessment, evaluations of relative habitat quality are based on the proportion of individual habitat resource components found within a particular habitat type for the habitat being evaluated. This means that the more resource components found within a particular habitat, the higher will be its relative quality classification. For this assessment, habitat components will be considered to possess "low," "medium," or "high" quality. Low quality habitats are those that barely meet the needs of wildlife for that particular habitat resource. High quality habitats are those that meet all, or nearly all, of the needs of wildlife for that particular habitat resource. Medium quality habitats are those falling in between. While it is true that these classifications must always be relative to whatever development property is being assessed and to the particular region in which the development is located, and while it is also true that the method is somewhat subjective, it is nonetheless possible to make meaningful classifications on the basis of related scientific literature and on the professional experience of the evaluating biologist. 2.3.2. CLASSIFICATIONS OF POTENTIAL DISTURBANCES/IMPACTS For this assessment, classifications of the level of potential disturbance or impacts to wildlife as the direct or indirect result of a proposed development action are based on the likely response of habituated animals to a particular activity or development action. For this assessment, disturbances/impacts to wildlife are classified as either "light (or slight)," "moderate," or "significant." Disturbances/impacts classified as "light (or slight)" are those in which the individual animal, or population of animals, remains within the general occupied area, and continues the general activity they were engaged in prior to the disturbance or supposed impact. Disturbances/ impacts classified as "moderate" are those in which the animal, or population of animals, may temporarily leave a particular area, or cease a particular activity, immediately after a disturbance or development impact, but later returns to the general area, resuming the activity it was engaged in prior to the disturbance/impact. Additionally, impacts to a particular habitat area/resource may be classified as "moderate" if animals are able to continue their use of a particular area, but are seen to adjust their behavior in response to development. Disturbances/impacts classified as "significant" are those that cause an animal, or population of animals, to immediately cease their activities within a particular area and to avoid future use of the area or abandon the area altogether. For this assessment, anticipated levels of response by habituated wildlife have been based on scientific literature regarding wildlife responses to various disturbances, as well as on the professional experience of the consulting biologist in wildlife issues within the Estes Valley, across Colorado, and throughout the United States. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 8 3. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The approximately 14.41-acre property lies along the north and west face of a rocky ridge east of MacGregor Avenue and approximately 0.4 miles north of U.S. Highway 34 (Figure 1). Cover consists generally of native Ponderosa pine with an understory of native grasses and shrubs. Black Canyon Creek runs along the western edge of the property, its riparian corridor consisting of a mix of willow and narrow-leaf cottonwood, with an understory of native grasses and forbs. The property is currently developed, with approximately 18% of the land area occupied by permanent and temporary housing units, a restaurant, several abandoned buildings and remnant building foundations, and several asphalt parking lots connected by an asphalt road. Post-construction, roughly 29% of the land area will contain housing units, parking lots, etc. (Figure 2). Preserved open areas will consist of Ponderosa pine forest scattered among buildings, parking lots, and roadways, and the Black Canyon Creek riparian corridor. 4. CURRENT CONDITIONS 4.1. HISTORICAL AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT/RESIDENTIAL USE Most original development at The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums occurred between the late 1950s and early 1960s when the property was converted to a resort after the relocation of a number of cabins to the property from Rocky Mountain National Park. Since the mid-1970s, additional cabins/condominium units have been added or remodeled, increasing both the real and aesthetic values of the property as a whole. The property's original private residence was converted to the Twin Owls Steak House Restaurant in 1964. In 2007, a 10-unit condominium building was completed as part of a previously approved long-term development plan for the property.' 4 Nearly all units on the property are privately owned residences, with most owners being seasonal occupants. When owners are not present, the units are used as overnight accommodations/rental properties for use by Estes Park visitors and area tourists; thus supporting the Estes Valley Zoning District classification of Accommodations (A)15 . Peak occupancy of units occurs from May through October. Under current property management guidelines, no pets are allowed, all trash is collected and stored in a centralized location, and conservation of trees, shrubs, native vegetation, and general "open space" is of high priority.16 Although the property maintains a decorative pond and several open-space common areas for its residents, most property use is concentrated around individual residential units, with common-area use being generally light and intermittent. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 9 CLARA DA_ BIG xORN DR BT MSJMMY f;', 43 O 3 S • Sir: 9 rr n e NOR7H L.N NOR Th LT Ncg-ny ' RAVEN CT 4%7.8 °It 2 -4 S Lake 2-c.01. 24 4., 0 4- 4.. ist, , s i....Tv- e lb i I 1), N '; • , !,- ' 'fa ° C s ,...1 •,,,• i•••., i ...., „„,..t % g 1 j'"Pu ,„ •,. 5w '''"" Af vt,t,7D, ,,, ,.. **. 0.0' e, Is 1. -r, cli g 15:q st i SUNRISE LN ,01 Z 40.?A' - O. 1 -. 1". CV'S' Ait„. '4- 1 4Y • 7 , S A 1:5 G. ....,-, P i..- 'h..' a ...:., cot, ,,,,,e, ,O FAIRWAY CLUB US O VALLEY PD 'S S tt'l'i'-' 1- ; 'i. ,!`. 2%. (aj commuNtrf OP "r• yr* „113e Y • -via .. 4s7 'AR PINEWOOD LN as CEDAR. LN b .tY % WILLOW LN .t.,* BROOK OR ifrE 8 BP.00K LN SPRING ST. MARYS LAVE RP "PT' Ls*. MN (9 5' El 0 iSCIO 1600 2400 3200 4000 I:0ta Zoom 13.0 Data use subject to license fti 2007 Delorme Street Atlas IJSAI! 2008 Plus delorme corn 41" DE-.LORME Serie Atlas USA f. 2008 Plus Figure I. Location of the proposed development site of The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, Estes Park, Colorado. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO l0 Figure 2. Proposed site plan for The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, Estes Park, Colorado — April 2009. 4.2. EXISTING WILDLIFE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA RES observed several sets of elk and deer tracks, as well as pellet groups, from small groups of animals traveling from west to east across the property. Movement across the property appeared to be mostly along the main access driveway and primary drainage swale, with animals heading from the Black Canyon Creek corridor to the east/southeast property boundary and areas off property (Figure 3). Within the east-northeast portion of the property, RES saw evidence of a possible secondary corridor connecting the lower portion of the primary drainage swale with the eastern property boundary. Movement here seemed to be along a secondary swale and through a downed portion of fence line (Figure 4). Based on the existence of prominent geologic formations (rock outcrops) along the north and south property boundaries and a section of potentially restrictive livestock fence on the north property boundary with the MacGregor Ranch, it is likely that elk and deer movement across the property is largely along this corridor. The current property manager notes that elk and deer movement has also been observed between the north-central residential units and the southeast corner of the property.'7 WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 11 Figure 3. Evidence of elk and deer movement across the property. Note that movement follows natural swale through the timber, and heads off property at the property's southeast corner. Figure 4. Possible secondary movement corridor connecting the primary drainage swale with the eastern property boundary showing the lower portion of the possible corridor and upper portion heading off property through the downed fence, respectively. Movement of elk and deer along the Black Canyon Creek corridor is reported to be fairly consistent throughout the year, with peak activity occurring during the fall:8'19 The movement corridor along Black Canyon Creek reportedly includes areas within the creek drainage, as well as adjacent open areas along MacGregor Avenue (Figure 5).2021 Evidence of elk and/or deer foraging activity across most of the property was limited, although evidence of browsing was observed on willows near the north property boundary, within the Black Canyon Creek riparian corridor (Figure 6). According to the property manager, despite high levels of human activity within these areas, elk and deer routinely forage throughout many of the open areas within and adjacent to the creek corridor, as well as on the irrigated and landscaped lawn area behind the restaurant, throughout the spring, summer, and fall (Figure 7).22 WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 12 • _ _ Figure 5. Open areas adjacent to Black Canyon Creek along MacGregor Avenue across from the property that are used as additional loafing and foraging areas by elk and deer moving along the creek corridor. Figure 6. Browse marks on willows along Black Canyon Creek. 4044 e .4; 14^ ;..r4,1r.,1;47 4?-""L • ' • --2.14111 - Figure 7. Open foraging areas within the Development utilized by deer and elk throughout the year, especially during spring and summer. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO l3 Although no physical evidence of elk or deer calving/fawning sites was observed on the property, areas of moderate to high quality elk and deer calving/fawning habitat were observed. This habitat generally lies along Black Canyon Creek, with the highest quality habitat located toward the north property line along the boundary of Saint Bartholomew's Church property and south of the main entrance driveway (Figure 8). Because this habitat is associated with Black Canyon Creek, and because moderate to high quality calving/fawning habitat can be found throughout the entire creek drainage, it is likely that elk and/or deer have utilized, and will likely continue to utilize, suitable areas along the drainage—possibly including areas within the property—for calving/fawning. Yearly observations by the CDOW in fact confirm that elk and deer utilize the Black Canyon Creek drainage for calving/fawning each year, with calving/fawning occurring along the Creek drainage from the interior of MacGregor Ranch to the Town municipal buildings.23 Although no elk calves or deer fawns less than approximately 5 days old have been seen on site by property management, elk and deer with offspring of at least one week old have been observed utilizing the same open areas identified in Figure 7.24 Figure 8. Potential elk and deer calvin fawning habitat within the property along the Black Canyon Creek north and south of the entrance driveway, respectively. Similarly, no physical evidence of bear activity was found during the site assessment. This was not surprising, as most bears were still hibernating at the time of the assessment, and signs of bear activity are more likely to be noted in late summer and early fall. The location of the property along Black Canyon Creek, however, and the presence of garbage dumpsters, barbeque grills, and bird feeders on private properties within and adjacent to the Development suggest that nuisance bear activity could be an issue; an issue confirmed by both the property manager and the CDOW.25 Per the CDOW, nuisance bear issues occurred all along the Black Canyon Creek corridor and adjacent subdivisions in 2007 as well as previous years.26 WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 14 Sign of beaver activity within Black Canyon Creek, specifically north of the access driveway culvert, was clearly evident by the numerous beaver-cut trees/willows, and the numerous mature trees covered with chicken-wire mesh placed there in an effort to prevent damage (Figure 9). Both the property manager and the CDOW confirmed that beaver activity has been a problem for this and other properties along Black Canyon Creek.27'28 Figures 9. Evidence of beaver activity on the property along Black Canyon Creek, and the protective measures taken to prevent damage by beavers. 5. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT According to the proposed Development site plan dated April 2009 and the proposed build-out schedule, the property will eventually contain a total of 32 new units built over approximately 10 years starting in the fall of 2009 (Figure 2).29'30 For these units, nine (9) new buildings will be built across the property (units 1-5, 12-13, 14-16, 17- 18, 19-21, 22-24, 25-26, 27-28, and 29-32), with two (2) buildings being built within the footprint of existing buildings/foundations (units 12-13, and 29-32) (Figure 10). Eight (8) buildings will be constructed across the eastern half of the property within the upland forested area, with the remaining building being constructed adjacent to Black Canyon Creek. Nearly every new unit will be a multi-family housing unit/condominium of some sort, with additional parking areas and driveways being developed adjacent to the new buildings. Two of the additional parking areas will be constructed over the top of existing structures on the property (associated with units 22-24 and 25-26) (Figure 10). WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK. CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 15 Units 6-9 Units 10-11 meilaTX ncon .*W4r="1"- Figure 10. Proposed site plan identifying the unit numbers of proposed buildings. 6. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL WILDLIFE IMPACTS For this report, evaluations of potential adverse impacts upon wildlife as a result of the proposed Development were based on: 1) The type and level of existing or potential wildlife use of the property within the context of its current development characteristics; 2) The location of proposed additional units and associated parking areas as related to lost/modified habitat, movement corridors, or impacts upon adjacent habitat areas; 3) The fact that many elk and deer (and possibly even bear) are habituated to human presence and human- induced disturbances; 4) The fact that elk and deer currently utilize areas within developed portions of the property between existing residential units; 5) The likelihood of wildlife reasonably accommodating to resulting changes in habitat, movement corridors, etc., due to the development of additional units and parking areas; and WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 16 6) The capacity of the proposed Development to offset potential adverse impacts. 6.1. CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING A PHASED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE According to the proposed build-out schedule, construction of new buildings/units will occur over a 10-year period beginning in the late-summer/fall 2009. Under a phased construction schedule such as this, it is likely that only one or two buildings, along with their associated parking areas, may be built in any given year. By extending construction activities across many years, potential construction-related impacts to wildlife will be localized around individual construction units rather than across the property as a whole. This should leave most of the property open for elk, deer, and other wildlife use. Phased construction schedules should also allow habituated animals to easily adapt to changes in their surroundings and associated additional human activity, and to continue to utilize undisturbed portions of the property at or near normal levels. Research within the Estes Valley itself in 2001 has shown that even in situations where habituated elk and deer were intentionally exposed to potentially highly disruptive human-related disturbances, the affected animals quickly learned to accept the disturbance and continued their normal daily activities.' Given the likelihood of this occurring, a phased development schedule like the one proposed should greatly reduce impacts upon elk and deer. 6.2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON ELK AND DEER LOAFING AND FORAGING 6.2.1. CURRENT ELK AND DEER LOAFING AND FORAGING CONDITIONS Approximately 82% of the property is landscaped open space or open space under native vegetation.32 Based on the property's location and physical attributes, it is likely that most elk and deer loafing and foraging on the property is from transient animals moving along the Black Canyon Creek corridor, and between the MacGregor Ranch and areas north of the Standley Hotel. Moderate to high quality elk and deer loafing and foraging areas are found within the western third of the property and are generally associated with the Black Canyon Creek riparian corridor and adjacent areas (both on and off property).33 Low to moderate quality loafing and foraging areas are scattered throughout the east-central portion of the property, with pockets of moderate to high quality habitat found behind the restaurant (irrigated sod lawn) and northwest of the current property management office, as well as in the southeast and extreme east-northeast corners of the property (Figure 11). During the spring, summer, and fall months, each of these areas receives light to moderate levels of human disturbance on a weekly to daily basis.' Although no buildings are found immediately adjacent to Black Canyon Creek, pedestrian traffic from Rock Acres Condominiums to Saint Bartholomew's Church occurs on a regular basis (in the form of an adult with several children taking "nature walks" along the Creek), with most travel occurring WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 17 Low to Moderate Quality Moderate to High Quaftty _rte it „ r I •04:1" ..•8G; ------- IC 1 ' / ) j mr -f- 1 L rii2V =W; /I" +Pet —.141, FRI IlEnk FM 4.14Nowe MN ••••J 10 •••••• 1•1•121, Figure 11. Proposed Development site plan showing primary elk and deer loafing and foraging areas and their respective relative quality designations. along the east bank of the riparian corridor.35 Human activity around the pond and adjacent open areas occurs periodically throughout the spring, summer, and fall months.36 Levels of human activity around the restaurant and northwest of the management office can be high depending on time of year and time of day; pedestrian traffic behind and around the restaurant, and on the Saint Bartholomew's Church playground occurs daily during spring, summer, and fall. Human activity around the southeast and east-northeast corners of the property is largely attributed to daily activities around housing units and neighboring private residences, with periodic pedestrian traffic between the Development and areas around the Standley Hote1.37 Human activity within low to moderate quality loafing and foraging areas is less periodic, but can increase during spring, summer, and fal1.38 6.2.2. POST-CONSTRUCTION ELK AND DEER LOAFING AND FORAGING CONDITIONS According to the proposed Development site plan, construction of additional buildings is desired within at least a portion of each of the areas identified in Figure 11. Construction of additional buildings is scheduled to occur over an approximate 10-year period, with total open space after all construction is complete equaling approximately 71% WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 18 of the property. Based on current property characteristics, as well as upon current and future management philosophy, native trees, shrubs, and vegetation will be preserved to the maximum extent possible during the construction of additional buildings and driveways, with all disturbed areas being reclaimed to native vegetation.39'4° According to the proposed site plan, the proposed new construction along Black Canyon Creek (units 1-5, along with the parking lot and the associated access driveway) will occur outside of a 50-foot wetland/100-year floodplain setback. This setback places the building tight against the granite slope of the large rock outcrop, leaving unchanged much of the open area that is currently found between the wetland and the rock slope (Figure 12). Although a small portion of elk and deer foraging habitat will be lost by the addition of this unit, the vast majority of the overall loafing and foraging habitat in this area will be preserved. Because additional housing units will likely increase human activity in this area, at least seasonally, it is possible that light to moderate disturbances to individual elk and deer loafing and foraging activities could increase. Although elk and deer loafing and foraging activities may be temporarily impacted by actual construction activities for this building, or impacted by increased seasonal use of the area by residents, there is no reason to expect any significant long-term impact on overall elk and deer loafing and foraging along or within the Black Canyon Creek corridor on or adjacent to the property. Figure 12. Location of the proposed building and parking lot along Black Canyon Creek. Note that most construction will occur from the area of the large trees back toward the rock outcrop, leaving the open corridor along the creek bank intact. According to proposed Development standards, any disturbed areas between the new building and the Creek corridor will be reclaimed with native vegetation. Because construction of within the north-central portion of the property (units 6-9) will essentially be a remodel and extension of an already existing structure, and because elk and deer currently utilize areas of high human disturbance behind the restaurant, it is unlikely that construction activities in this location will have any significant WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 19 impact upon elk and deer. Depending on the time of year that construction occurs, impacts are likely to be moderate or even slight. Construction of additional buildings within and adjacent to the low to medium quality loafing and foraging areas through the interior of the property (proposed units 12-18, and units 25-26) are likely to have only a slight impact on elk and deer utilizing these areas. Because these areas are used by elk and deer as they occasionally move across the property, and not by animals necessarily looking to these areas as "destination" areas, and because much of the better quality portions of these areas will remain once all construction is complete, animals traveling through the interior of the property post-construction will still have loafing and foraging areas available to them around these locations. Additionally, proposed units 10-11, and 12-13 are units to be built over or within existing structures. As such, it is unlikely that the development of additional buildings in the interior of the property—where currently identified and under a phased construction schedule—will cause a significant long-term impact upon overall elk and deer loafing and foraging within these areas. Construction of additional buildings within and adjacent to the medium to high quality loafing and foraging areas at the southeast and east-northeast corners of the property (proposed units 19-24 and 29-32) is likely to have a slight to moderate temporary impact on elk and deer utilizing these areas, at least seasonally. Because these areas are used primarily by elk and deer moving through the property on a transient basis, and not by animals looking to these areas as "destination" areas per se, and because portions of these areas will remain once all construction is complete, animals traveling through these areas post-construction will still have medium quality loafing and foraging areas available to them in these locations. Additionally, at least a portion of the parking lot for units 19-24 lies across an existing structure and its current access driveway, and a large portion of units 29-32 lie across the footprint of an existing building foundation. As such, it is unlikely that the development of additional buildings within the southeast and east-northeast corners of the property—where currently identified and under a phased construction schedule—will cause a significant long-term impact on overall elk and deer loafing and foraging within these areas. 6.3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON ELK AND DEER MOVEMENT 6.3.1. CURRENT ELK AND DEER MOVEMENT PATTERNS As outlined in Section 3.2., movement across the property occurs primarily along two corridors and a possible secondary corridor (Figure 13). Because of the prominent geological formations along the north and south property boundaries, coupled with the presence of potentially highly restrictive livestock fencing along the north property line, elk and deer movement east/west across the property is forced through areas with potentially high levels of human activity. Despite this, however, the property manager confirms that elk and deer movement a does routinely WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 20 Li lion, noir., _r • as , --- ------ ft' f / /"no--, f tz":. •-• f•••• "I, iStW fA r a 01 131.04 i43.1....1 1: .4.0 ti z _ . WNW, ••••• MST am ma LINFR 110.. (0' A Nrirt Ma: Figure 13. Primary elk and deer movement corridors through the property. occur along this corridor, as well as between the north-central residential units and areas behind the restaurant and the existing property management office. Movement of elk and deer along the Black Canyon Creek corridor is reported to be fairly consistent throughout the year, with peak activity occurring during the fall. As shown previously (Figure 5), the movement corridor along Black Canyon Creek reportedly includes areas within the creek drainage, as well as in adjacent open areas along MacGregor Avenue. During the spring, summer, and fall months, each of these areas receives light to moderate levels of human disturbance on a weekly to daily basis.41 Although no housing structures are found immediately adjacent to Black Canyon Creek, pedestrian traffic from Rock Acres Condominiums to Saint Bartholomew's Church occurs on a regular basis (in the form of an adult with several children taking "nature walks" along the Creek), with most travel occurring along the east bank of the riparian corridor.42 Human activity around the pond and adjacent open areas occurs periodically throughout the spring, summer, and fall months.43 Human activity around and behind the restaurant occurs regularly throughout the spring, summer, and fall months, with periodic activity during the winter. Human activity around the southeast and cast-northeast corners of the property is largely attributed to daily WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 21 activities around housing units and neighboring private residences, with periodic "off-trail" pedestrian traffic occurring between the Development and areas around the Standley Hote1.44 Human activity within low to moderate quality loafing and foraging areas within the interior of the Development is less periodic, but can increase during the spring, summer, and fall months:" It should be noted that all "non-resident" recreational human activity (i.e., trespassing) is strictly prohibited within the property, except for such activities as are expressly permitted by the management. 6.3.2. EXPECTED POST-CONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT PATTERNS Once construction is complete after the planned 10-year build-out, the property will remain approximately 71% open space. Because the proposed construction for units 1-5 is located on the rocky slope above and east of the creek corridor, and because the access driveway to the new unit will not alter any creek corridor features, it is unlikely that the new building will cause any modification or disruption of elk or deer movement along Black Canyon Creek. While the additions of proposed units 14-16, 25-26, and 29-32, lie within one of the primary movement corridors through the property, it is likely that movement by elk and deer will continue through the area. During the construction of these units and adjacent parking lots, it is likely that elk and deer will be moderately impacted, but this impact should last only as long as construction lasts. Once construction of these additional units is complete, open areas along the corridor will remain relatively intact and allow movement around the new units and parking lots. Similarly, movement by elk and deer through the possible secondary corridor is likely to be moderately impacted by the additions of proposed units 19-21. Elk and deer utilizing this corridor will have to modify their current direct course of travel and move around and between the additional units, however, it is likely animals will acclimate to this adjustment fairly quickly. 6.4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ELK AND DEER CALVING/FAWNING HABITAT Under the EVDC, development potentially affecting land that contains an identified calving/fawning area can trigger formal CDOW review. Chapter 7.8, Section F.3 of this code states: DOW Review. For applications referred to it, the Division of Wildlife will determine whether the proposal will result in significant adverse impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat only if the development adversely impacts the following: a. An endangered or threatened species, b. A calving, lambing, or fawning area, c. Bighorn sheep or bighorn sheep habitat, d. Raptor nest site, or e. Riparian areas or wetlands WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 22 Because no historical data or confirmed sightings exist regarding the actual presence on the property of either elk or deer with calves/fawns less than 5 days old, for this assessment, evaluation of potential impacts upon calving/fawning areas was limited to evaluation of the potential impacts upon potential calving/fawning habitat. Although the mere presence of potential calving/fawning habitat does not necessarily indicate that the area is in fact a "designated" calving/fawning area, certain habitat characteristics can provide clues as to whether calving/fawning might be expected within a given area. Similarly, the number and relative quality of these characteristics, along with their relative location within the overall landscape, can be used to judge the quality of the potential calving/fawning habitat. For elk in particular, the vast majority of preferred calving sites in Colorado and throughout North America: I) Contain some level of woody or shrubby overstory (e.g., willows or other trees, sagebrush, etc.); 2) Contain dense herbaceous ground cover, woody debris, or rocky outcrops/boulders that provide low lying hiding cover for calves; 3) Are located near open foraging areas; and 4) Are located within a few to several hundred yards of a water source.46,47.48,49 Although most discussions of potential impacts to calving/fawning areas typically pertain to the general geographic areas within which a population of animals may calve/fawn, recent discussions with regard to the Town of Estes Park have indicated that potential impacts to individual animals' calving/fawning areas/sites may also be covered within the EVDC. For this Assessment, therefore, evaluations of potential impacts upon potential calving/fawning habitat will include not only the likelihood of impacts upon populations utilizing the area as a whole, but also the likelihood of impacts upon individual animals as a result of a particular proposed development action. 6.4.1. EVALUATION OF EXISTING POTENTIAL CALVING/FAWNING HABITAT Moderate to high quality elk and deer calving/fawning habitat (as compared to known calving/fawning habitats within the Estes Park/Estes Valley region) can be found on the property throughout the Black Canyon Creek corridor. Portions of the corridor located south of the main entrance driveway and toward the north property line along the boundary of the Saint Bartholomew's Church property contain the highest quality habitat areas on the property (see Figure 8). Numerous observations by the CDOW and current property management confirm that elk and deer utilize various portions of the Black Canyon. Creek drainage for calving/fawning each year, with confirmed calving/fawning occurring from the interior of MacGregor Ranch to areas adjacent to the Town municipal buildings.50.51 In general, the quality of potential calving/fawning habitat decreases as one moves east across the property. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 23 While sightings of elk with young calves, and of deer with young fawns, have been reported on the property in the last few years, most sightings were of animals with highly mobile calves/fawns at their sides. The fact of calves and fawns quickly and efficiently traveling with their mothers suggests that they are likely more than 5 days old, and makes it difficult to know whether they were born within or immediately adjacent to the property. If, however, we assume they were born on the property, based on the timing of most calving/fawning activities (mid-May through the end of June) and on the existing level of human disturbance along the Creek corridor during this time (as outlined in Sections 3.2 and 5.2.1), it is likely animals giving birth on the property and continuing to use the property during the summer with their calves/fawns are highly habituated to human presence. 6.42. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL POST-CONSTRUCTION CALVING/FAWNING HABITAT According to the proposed site plan, no modification of any habitat component within the creek drainage will occur. Adjacent to the drainage, however, a realignment of the entrance driveway into the property is proposed west of the creek, and a new building (units 1-5) with an associated access driveway is proposed east of the creek. The proposed new entrance driveway will traverse the grassy open area adjacent to MacGregor Avenue, with the existing entrance driveway being reclaimed to native (grass) vegetation (Figure 14). The proposed new building will be built against the rock outcrop within the existing Ponderosa pine and native shrub uplands, and will be positioned outside the EVDC 50-foot wetland area setback. No alteration of any potential calving/fawning habitat component is proposed for the high quality habitat area adjacent to the property boundary south of Saint Bartholomew's Church. Figure 14. Location and site characteristics of the proposed entrance driveway realianment. The proposed new driveway will pass roughly between the yellow mailbox and the entrance sign. No impact upon potential calving/fawning within the northern high quality habitat area adjacent to Saint Bartholomew's Church is expected. Because the realignment of the entrance driveway will be a slight modification WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 24 to what already exists, with disturbed areas to be reclaimed once driveway construction is complete, it is unlikely that this proposed development action will cause any long-term impact to the potential calving/fawning habitat found within, or adjacent to, the Black Canyon Creek corridor. Although the proposed new construction of units I - 5 will be adjacent to the creek corridor, it is RES's opinion that this building (and the resultant increase in human activity around this building) will not create a significant impact upon the overall population of elk and deer that calve/fawn along the Black Canyon Creek corridor, and will likely cause only a slight to moderate short-term impact upon individual animals calving/fawning on the property specifically south of the entrance driveway. This opinion is based on: 1) The likely consistent type and intensity of use of the area along Black Canyon Creek from current usage patterns and intensity to post-construction use and intensity; 2) The specific habitat characteristics of areas adjacent to the proposed building location vs. other area characteristics; and 3) The lack of any modification to existing cover, forage, or water resources for calving/fawning animals. Although the proposed new building will add five residential housing units to the area immediately adjacent to the creek corridor, the likely type and intensity of any additional human activity within this area will be similar to what is already experienced by elk and deer currently utilizing this area during early spring and summer. As outlined in Sections 3.2 and 5.2.1, human activity already occurs on a periodic to regular basis along the creek corridor during spring and summer. Because the additional human activity associated with the proposed new building will most likely be predictable and primarily associated with areas around the building and the associated parking lot, it is unlikely that habituated animals will perceive the additional human activity as significantly disruptive. As Black Canyon Creek courses through the property south of the entrance driveway, the highest quality open areas available for loafing and foraging adjacent to the willow bottom are found on the creek's west bank. The location of these open areas, the location, size, and density of the willows within the creek drainage, and the current habitat characteristics of the area east of the creek suggest that a high proportion of elk and deer activity within this area is likely to occur west of the creek, away from the proposed building location. This possibility may be confirmed, in part, by the high level of use of the open areas west of MacGregor Avenue, directly west and southwest of the area in question. Add to this the 50-fool buffer between the proposed building and the stream bank, and it is unlikely that habituated elk and deer would perceive the proposed building as a significant encroachment upon their normal activities. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 25 Because no modification to the creek drainage south of the entrance driveway is proposed, no loss of tangible calving/fawning habitat components is likely to occur. Protective cover resources for calves/fawns, adjacent foraging areas for adult animals, and free, available water will all remain at current levels and relative quality post- construction. Because of this, it is unlikely that habituated elk and deer seeking calving/fawning sites along the creek corridor would perceive any significant reduction in overall habitat suitability as a result of the proposed building. 6.5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON OTHER WILDLIFE Because this proposed Development does not alter any habitat characteristics within the Black Canyon Creek drainage, or any adjacent "desirable" habitats or resource components, it is not likely that this Development will impact beavers to any degree. Likewise, because the creek corridor will be preserved, it is unlikely that development activities will significantly or even moderately affect migratory songbird nesting or general activity within the corridor. Impacts on nuisance wildlife/bear issues, however, may be affected by this Development. 6.5.1. CURRENT NUISANCE BEAR ISSUES Currently, the property experiences nuisance bear related issues periodically throughout the summer and early fall, with bears breaking into the fully enclosed trash enclosure behind the restaurant—despite its being locked and surrounded by electrified wire.52 All garbage generated within the Development is collected and stored at this single trash enclosure in an effort to make waste management more efficient, and to help reduce the distribution of nuisance bear issues across the property (Figure 15). Unfortunately, however, owners of private property in- holdings and adjacent properties are not under control of the Development, and may not make the necessary Figure 15. Centralized fully enclosed trash enclosure adjacent to the Twin Owls restaurant. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 26 efforts to manage their garbage in such a way as to preclude attracting bears and other wildlife species (such as raccoons and skunks) to the area (Figure 16). Similarly, barbeque grills, bird feeders, and other human-related food sources may increase the number of nuisance bear related incidents occurring across the property and throughout the area in general (Figure 17). While the Development currently strives to manage barbeque grills closely during the summer and fall months, it does not have control over what owners of private property in-holdings and adjacent properties do with their barbeque grills, feeders, etc. Figure 16. Unprotected, standard garbage dumpsters and garbage containers on private properties within and adjacent to the Development. Figure 17. Barbeque grills on properties within and adjacent to the Development. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 27 6.5.2. POTENTIAL POST-CONSTRUCTION NUISANCE BEAR ISSUES With the addition of new units over the course of 10 years, additional garbage will be produced and will be in need of disposal. Because of this, it is unlikely that the existing trash enclosure will be sufficient to handle the additional load, resulting either in a requirement for a new trash enclosure, or installation of trash enclosures/ dumpsters in additional areas within the Development. Likewise, increases in the number of housing units will likely translate into an increase in the number of barbeque grills, bird feeders, etc., that will also require proper management. With an increase in trash, barbeque grills, etc., comes a likely increase in the Development's attractiveness for bears and other nuisance wildlife. Depending on the actions taken by the Development to manage these increases in human- related food sources, the development of additional housing units across the property may lead to moderate increases in nuisance wildlife/bear issues. 7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MINIMIZING POTENTIAL IMPACTS Although RES does not believe that the proposed Development will create any significant impacts upon wildlife as it is currently presented, we wish to make several recommendations that may help further reduce or offset wildlife impacts. These recommendations pertain to: 1) Timing restrictions on certain Development activities to further reduce potential impacts on elk and/or deer calving/fawning; 2) Possible fence removal/fence design modifications along the north fence line to facilitate wildlife movement; and 3) The installation of bear-proof trash enclosures and/or dumpsters. 7.1. TIMING RESTRICTIONS In order to help ensure that construction-related disturbances do not impact either nesting migratory birds (which would violate the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act) or potential elk calving/deer fawning activities, construction activities should not be initiated between 1 April and 15 July. In Colorado, elk and deer typically give birth between mid-May and mid-June, with most nesting migratory birds beginning nesting (at the elevation of Estes Park) between mid-April and early May, and fledging their young by mid-July. If construction activities are initiated prior to 1 April, it is expected that most, if not all, animals preparing to nest or give birth in the area will have sufficient time and opportunity to find other suitable sites. Construction activities initiated after 15 July are not likely to impact much, if any, bird nesting or deer/elk fawning/calving activity. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 28 - isub.41 Figure 18. North fence line along the MacGregor Ranch boundary. Notice the multi-strand barbed wire in conjunction with the buck-and- pole fence. This type of fence can be highly restrictive to elk and deer movement. If, however, initiation of construction activities is required between I April and 15 July, a detailed wildlife assessment of bird nesting and elk and deer calving/fawning activities within and immediately around (within 100 meters) the proposed construction site should be carried out by a qualified third party prior to any construction. If nesting, calving, or fawning animals are observed within or adjacent to the proposed construction area, construction activities should be postponed until such activity has ceased, or until 15 July, whichever comes first. In this way, potential direct impacts to breeding birds and calving/fawning animals can be virtually eliminated. 7.2. FENCE REMOVAL/DESIGN MODIFICATIONS Fully understanding the need for adequate fencing to keep neighboring livestock from entering the property, and understanding that discussions regarding potential fence modifications will surely require the consultation of neighboring landowners, elk and deer could potentially benefit from a modification to the north fence line. As the fence is currently constructed, the combination of both multi-strand barbed wire and buck-and-pole fencing can create a significant barrier to movement of elk and deer, especially for females with calves or fawns (Figure 18). Whether the entire fence line is modified, or simply portions of it that might serve as a wildlife "gate," elk and deer stand to benefit greatly by any measure that makes movement across the north property boundary safer and easier, as this measure would do. If this recommendation is of interest to the property's management, RES or the CDOW can provide additional design recommendations and consultation regarding this issue. Although potentially less of a problem, it is recommended that the remnant portions of old "sheep fence" be removed from areas along the property boundary with Saint Bartholomew's Church (Figure 19). While this area does not contain restrictive fencing like other areas of the north fence line do, remnant portions of old sheep fence WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 29 could pose an entrapment risk for animals moving through this area. Removal of this fence would likely be relatively easy, and would require no modification to neighboring land use, as this portion of fence currently serves no purpose. Figure 19. Unnecessary remnant portions of sheep fence within the creek corridor along the north fence line. NOTE: As of the April 2009 Update, per the property manager, remnant portions of sheep fence within the creek corridor along the north fence line have been removed.53Additionally, management at The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums is continuing discussions with the MacGregor Ranch in an effort to work toward minimizing the barbed wire under the buck-and-pole fence along their common boundary.54 7.3. INSTALLATION OF BEAR-PROOF TRASH ENCLOSURES AND/OR DUMPSTERS As outlined in Section 5.5.2., additional residential units will most certainly create additional garbage in need of disposal. When designing additional garbage collection points, or planning for the deployment of additional dumpsters, it is highly recommended that future trash enclosures be designed and built to be bear-proof, and that additional garbage dumpsters be equally bear-proof. By making the necessary design changes and budgetary adjustments for these additions early in the development stage, nuisance bear and other wildlife issues at trash collection points can be greatly reduced. Not only is this safer for the Development and its residents, but it is also cheaper and less time-consuming for management, makes it easier for the CDOW, and is much better for wildlife as well. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 30 Town of Estes Park. 2007a. Estes Valley Development Code. Accessed on the Internet at http://www.estesnet.com/comdevidevcode/defaultaspx 2 Town of Estes Park. 2007b. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Accessed on the Internet at http://www.estesnet.corn/corndev/ComprehensivePlan.aspx 3 Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2006. Elk Management Plan, Data Analysis Unit E-9 Saint Vrain Herd, Game Management Unit 20. 4 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 5 Hudson, R.J. and J.C. Haigh with contributions by A.B. Bubenik. 2002. Physical and Physiological Adaptations. In North American Elk, Ecology and Management, compiled and edited by Dale E. Toweill and Jack Ward Thomas, Wildlife Management Institute, 257. Geist, V. 2002. Adaptive Behavioral Strategies. In North American Elk, Ecology and Management, compiled and edited by Dale E. Toweill and Jack Ward Thomas, Wildlife Management Institute, 407. 7 Millspaugh, J.J., G.C. Brundige, R.A. Gitzen, K.J. Raedeke. 2000. Elk and hunter space-use sharing in South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management, 64(4): 994-1003. 8 Thompson, M.J. and R.E. Henderson. 1998. Elk Habituation as a Credibility Challenge for Wildlife Professionals. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(3): 477-83. 9 VerCauteren, K.C., J.A. Shivik, M.J. Lavelle. 2005. Efficacy of an animal-activated frightening device on urban elk and mule deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(4): 1282-87. 10 Thompson, M.J. and R.E. Henderson. 1998. Elk Habituation as a Credibility Challenge for Wildlife Professionals. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(3): 477-83. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2006. Elk Management Plan, Data Analysis Unit E-9 Saint Vrain Herd, Game Management Unit 20. 12 National Park Service. 2007. Final Elk and Vegetation Management Plant/EIS. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. 13 Lubow B.C., F.J. Singer, T.L. Johnson, and D.C. Bowden. 2002. Dynamics of Interacting Elk Populations Within and Adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park. In Ecological Evaluation of the Abundance and Effects of Elk Herbivory in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, 1994-1999, edited by F.J. Singer and L.C. Zeigenfuss, 3-23. Fort Collins CO: Colorado State University and U.S.Geological Survey. 14 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 15 Town of Estes Park. 2007c. Zoning Districts Map of the Estes Valley. Accessed on the Internet at http://www.estesnet.com/comdev/ZoningMapshonemap2007.gif 16 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 31 17 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 18 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 19 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 20 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 21 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 22 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 23 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 24 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008 25 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 26 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 27 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 28 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 29 Roe, C. 2008c. E-mail communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 1 April 2008. 30 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 31 VerCauteren, K.C., J.A. Shivik, M.J. Lavelle. 2005. Efficacy of an animal-activated frightening device on urban elk and mule deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(4): 1282-87. 32 Roe, C. 2008c. E-mail communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 1 April 2008. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 32 33 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 34 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 35 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 36 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 37 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 38 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 39 Roe, C. 2008c. E-mail communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 1 April 2008. 40 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon lnn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 41 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 42 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 43 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 44 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 45 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 46 Hoover, R.L. and D.L. Wills, ed. 1984. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Colorado Division of Wildlife in cooperation with USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado, 459 pp. 47 Johnson, D.E. 1951. Biology of the Elk Calf, Cervus canadensis nelsoni. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 15(4): 396- 410. 48 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1999. American Elk. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 1 1 . WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 33 49 Kuck, L. G.L. Hompland, E.H. Merrill. 1985. Elk Calf Response to Simulated Mine Disturbance in Southeast Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 49(3): 751-57. 50 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 51 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 52 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 53 Roe, C. 2009a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 14 April 2009. 54 Roe, C. 2009a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 14 April 2009. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 34 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director Date: March 15, 2016 RE: Review of Density Calculation Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code Objective: Review of a draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. Present Situation: The Estes Valley Development Code establishes density regulations that apply to residential and non-residential zone districts. Density refers to the number of residential dwellings and accommodation units an individual may build on a given property. Current regulations require that all fractions as a result of a density calculation be rounded down. The proposed regulations will allow fractions of one-half (1/2) or more to be rounded up. If approved by the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, this amendment would result in a slight increase in development and redevelopment potential. Recently a few property owners/developers have expressed concern that the current density calculation unfairly and/or unnecessarily restricts development potential and that this amendment is needed for re-development projects to move forward. If this amendment is approved, each of these projects may contain one additional unit. Any text amendment to the EVDC shall comply with §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review, including: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected; 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Proposal: Amend the EVDC density calculation to allow fractions of one-half (½ ) or more to be rounded up. EVDC Section 1.9.C.3 When applying a density standard to a parcel’s net land area, all resulting fractions shall be rounded down to the next lower whole number any fraction of less than one-half (1/2) shall be rounded down to the next lower whole number and any fraction of one-half (1/2) or more shall be rounded up to the next higher whole number. Staff Findings: §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected; Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected. Over the past year or so, the number of redevelopment projects proposed and underway has increased significantly. While this amendment applies to both new development and re-development, the amendment is particularly necessary for re-development. 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; Staff Finding: The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. A development plan is not required. Specific comprehensive plan policies with which this code amendment is consistent are listed below. Growth Management Policy 3.1 Encourage infill of older core areas in order to reduce infrastructure costs and to stabilize residential neighborhoods. Housing Policy 5.4 Encourage redevelopment of existing substandard areas. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Finding: Town, County and other relevant service providers have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required. Advantages:  Complies with the EVDC text amendment regulations, including supporting the above listed comprehensive plan policies. Disadvantages:  None Action Recommended: Review draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. Budget: Code Amendment – Staff Time and Publishing Costs, estimated to be under $5,000 Level of Public Interest: High – Redevelopment. Low – Code amendment. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II Date: March 15, 2016 RE: Proposed Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code Relating to Vacation Homes Rentals Objective: Continue hearing initiated on February 16, 2016 for the consideration of an ordinance amending the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) relating to Vacation Homes Rentals. Present Situation: Planning Commission discussed and received public testimony about this topic at their during their February 16 meeting. The public hearing was continued to March 15 due in part to two commissioners being absent. The February staff report is attached to this memo, and the following section details major changes made to the draft ordinance since your February hearing. Proposal: The following changes to the ordinance have been made as a result of feedback from the Planning Commission and routing to the Town Attorney and Affected Agencies during the past three (3) weeks. Annual Operating Permit Limit The Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners asked the Planning Commission to review a possible Valley-wide limit on the total number of Annual Operating Permits for vacation homes. Information presented by staff is included in the February staff report (attached). Staff can add the following language to the draft ordinance relating to this “cap” through direction by the Planning Commission: Density. The total number of Annual Operating Permits shall be limited to ___. Should the total allowance of Annual Operating Permits be reached, the Town shall maintain a waitlist for all subsequent applications. Annual Renewal The Planning Commission discussed concept of an annual review of vacation home licenses to allow the Community Development Director to deny or withhold a license at the annual renewal time if there is an open code violation on the property. Commissioners also commented that staff should have the ability to revoke a license throughout the year if there are unresolved code issues. The attached draft ordinance reflects input received by the Planning Commission during their February meeting: • Annual Renewals: The Community Development Director may deny or withhold a vacation home permit during the annual renewal process until a violation is corrected or resolved in court. Such a decision would implement an existing regulation (§12.4.A.1) and is appealable to the County Commissioners or Town Board. There will be no mass mailing to all neighbors of a vacation home. Rather, this approach seeks to address vacation homes with a confirmed violation. • Permit Revocation Throughout the Year: As a result of code violations, the Community Development Director may call a public hearing to revoke a vacation home permit pursuant to §12.4.A.1. This would involve a notice and comment period for nearby neighbors of the vacation home. In summary, this recommendation relies on confirmed violations on the site prior to initiating any review of the permit. Once a violation is confirmed, this approach will utilize existing enforcement regulations to gain compliance. Local Contact Per the Planning Commission’s discussion, no change is proposed to the requirement that a local contact reside in the Estes Valley. Enforcement Procedures Chapter 12 of the EVDC, Enforcement and Penalties, establishes the various types of land use violations and subsequent enforcement steps staff must take. All non- emergency matters currently require a 15-day window for the property owner to correct the violation. Vacation homes are a relatively new transient land use with different renters every few days. In most cases the alleged violators have left the rental within that 15-day window. Per comments from the Town Attorney, the draft ordinance allows the Code Compliance Officer to shorten the 15-day window by replacing the word “shall” with “may”. The ordinance also lists the local contact as being able to receive such notices. Neighborhood Communication Commissioners generally agreed with the communication strategies included in the ordinance. Section 5.1.B.1.d(1) of the draft ordinance requires an internal posting. Per comments from the Planning Commission, the property address has been added to the required posting. A-Accommodations Zone Throughout the review staff and the Town Attorney identified a discrepancy in the existing regulations that should be corrected. Currently, Vacation Homes are prohibited in the A Accommodations district. This is confusing to the development and real estate community because similar uses (single family home, cabins) are permitted. The draft ordinance corrects this by permitting Vacation Homes in the A district. Upcoming Dates The table below outlines the major upcoming meetings for this project. Table 1. Key upcoming dates. Date Description March 15 Planning Commission recommendation of draft ordinance. March 30 Town Board & County Commission concurrent hearing to adopt final ordinance. Advantages: • A benefit to the revised enforcement strategy is that it implements existing enforcement regulations and relies on confirmed violations. • Strengthening neighborhood communication through §5.1.B.1.d Posting of the draft ordinance seeks to strengthen communication among vacation homes owners and area neighbors. Disadvantages: • §5.1.B.1.d Posting of the draft ordinance will require additional efforts of the vacation home owner. However, increased communication to renters and neighbors may ultimately decrease time spent on nuisance complaints. Action Recommended: 1. Review, hear public testimony, and if necessary edit the draft ordinance. 2. Provide a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest: High. Most public meetings have attracted a high number of people. Staff is also receiving consistent written and verbal comments on the topic. Attachment: 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Planning Commission Memo: February 16, 2016 3. EVDC Chapter 12, Enforcement and Remedies (for reference) Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code Additions are shown in blue. Deletions are shown in red. §5.1 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS B. Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home. (Ord. 02-10 §1) 1. General Applicable Standards. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall be subject to the following (see §5.1.B.2 and §5.1.B.3 for additional regulations): a. Annual Operating Permit. (1) Permit Required. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall obtain an operating permit on an annual basis. If the property is located within Town limits, the business license shall be considered the permit. If the property is within the unincorporated Estes Valley, a permit shall be obtained from the Town of Estes Park Town Clerk's Office. (2) Local Contact. The permit shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted and is available twenty- four (24) hours per day, with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The local resident or property manager shall respond to complaints on site within thirty (30) minutes. The person set forth on the application shall be the representative of the owner for all purposes with regard to the operation of the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. (3) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operating permit shall be proof of a current sales tax license. (3)(4) Violations. The Community Development Director or relevant Decision- Making Bodies may deny or withhold the renewal of an Annual Operating Permit until an alleged violation related to such property, use or development is corrected, in accordance with §12.4.A.1. The Community Development Director or relevant Decision-Making Bodies may revoke the Annual Operating Permit at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or County, within their respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies and enforcement powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code. b. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20. c. Residential Character. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential use of a dwelling unit by one household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Except in the CD district, design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential use. (2) Guest rooms shall be integrated within the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. (3) Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms. (4) Accessory buildings shall not be used for amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. (5) No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate each bed and breakfast inn or vacation home, except that one (1) wall- mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code Additions are shown in blue. Deletions are shown in red. permitted. (6) Vehicular traffic and noise levels shall not be out of character with residential use. (7) Quiet hours. Use of outdoor hot tubs or pools shall not be allowed after 10:00 p.m. d. Postings. (1) Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall have a clearly legible notice posted on-site, containing at a minimum the following: (a) The physical address of the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home; (b) Name and telephone number of the local contact and property owner; (c) Maximum number of occupants and vehicles allowed; (d) Safety information, such as water and gas shut off locations; (e) Quiet hours; and (f) Refuse disposal, wildlife protection standards and domestic animal regulations. (2) Property owner or local contact of any bed and breakfast inn and vacation home shall include in all print or online advertising the vacation home rental license or permit number. (3) Neighbor Notification. Prior to issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit, the owner or local contact shall be responsible for mailing a written notice. (a) Notice shall be mailed, with certificate of mailing or other method as approved by staff, to the owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the subject property. (b) Notices shall provide a name and telephone number of the local contact and property owner. Any change in the local contact or property owner shall be furnished to the Community Development Director and owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the subject property within two (2) weeks of the change. (c) Copies of all required mailing lists and mailing certificates shall be provided to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit. (d) Vacation homes legally existing as of the effective date of this code shall be required to send written notice pursuant to §5.1.B.1.D.3. d.e. Parking. (1) Minimum Required Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, the number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing a bed and breakfast inn or a vacation home shall not be reduced to less than two (2). (2) Maximum Allowed Parking. Unless otherwise permitted by this Chapter parking shall comply with §5.2.B.2.e no more than three (3) vehicles shall be parked outside at any one (1) time. Vehicles enclosed within a garage do not count towards this maximum. On-street parking shall be prohibited. Refer to §5.2.B.2.f, which may further limit the number of vehicles permitted on site. e.f. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units shall not be rented, leased or Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code Additions are shown in blue. Deletions are shown in red. furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See §5.2.C.2.a). f.g. Attainable Housing Units. Attainable housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See §11.4.E). g.h. Accessory Dwelling Units. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be permitted on residential lots containing an accessory dwelling. (See also §5.2.B.2.a, which prohibits rental of accessory dwelling units regardless of the length of tenancy). h.i. CD District. In the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. j. Density. Only one (1) vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be permitted per residential dwelling unit. 2. All bed and breakfast inns shall also be subject to the following: a. Occupancy. (1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) guests shall occupy a bed and breakfast inn at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two guests. (2) Number of Parties, Bed and Breakfast Inns. Bed and breakfast inns may be rented, leased or furnished to one (1) or more parties. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations may be operated on the site of a bed and breakfast inn. Bed and breakfast inns may also offer limited ancillary services to guests, such as performing small weddings or offering classes/workshops to guests, provided they are in character with residential use. c. Meal Service. Bed and breakfast inns may provide meals service to registered guests; however, meals shall not be provided to the general public. 3. All Vacation homes shall also be subject to the following: a. Occupancy. (1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) individuals shall occupy a vacation home at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) individuals per bedroom plus two (2) individuals. (2) Number of Parties. Vacation homes shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party, occupying the vacation home as a single group. Owners of the vacation home shall not be permitted to occupy the vacation home while a party is present. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of a vacation home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests. See §5.2.B.2.d). (Ord. 02-10 §1) Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code Additions are shown in blue. Deletions are shown in red. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Nonresidential Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Low-Intensity Accommodations Vacation Home —P P P — — — — §5.1.B. In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. (Ord. 02-10 §1) § 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Accessory Use Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit Additional Requirements A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Vacation Home No Yes Yes No No No No §5.1.B In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. (Ord. 02-10 § 1) (Ord. 18-01 §18; Ord. 15-03 §1; Ord 6-06 §1; Ord. 03-10 §1; Ord. 05-10 §1; Ord. 21-10 §1; Ord. 19- 11 §1 Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code Additions are shown in blue. Deletions are shown in red. § 12.7 - ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Nonemergency Matters. A. In the case of a violation of this Code that does not constitute an emergency or require immediate attention, written notice of the nature of the violation shall be given to the property owner, agent, occupant, local contact or the Applicant for any relevant permit. Notice shall be given in person, or by certified U.S. Mail, or by posting notice on the premises. The notice shall specify the Code provisions allegedly in violation, and— unless a shorter time frame is allowed by this Chapter—shall may state that the individual has a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice in which to correct the alleged violations before further enforcement action shall be taken. The notice shall also state any appeal and/or variance procedures available pursuant to this Code. The Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners, as applicable, may grant an extension of the time to cure an alleged violation, up to a total of ninety (90) days, if the Board finds that due to the nature of the alleged violation, it reasonably appears that it cannot be corrected within fifteen (15) days. (Ord 2-02 #3) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission CC: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Estes Park Board of Trustees Honorable Commissioner Chair Donnelly Larimer County Board of County Commissioners Town Administrator Lancaster County Manager Hoffmann From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II Date: February 16, 2016 RE: Review of Vacation Home Text Amendment Objective: Review of a draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. Present Situation: The so-called “sharing economy” continues to grow out of almost universal internet usage. This has allowed the longstanding vacation home use in Estes Park to grow at an impressive rate. As with many mountain communities, Estes Park is experiencing high demand for visitors that want to stay in homes during their vacation as opposed to traditional hotel/motels. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County have engaged in a long and public conversation over the proliferation of vacation home rentals in the Estes Valley Planning Area. The Town and County have hosted four (4) public forums and the Planning Commission has held one public hearing to accept testimony about this text amendment. Each of these meetings were well attended, attracting between roughly 70 to over 100 people. Most recently, the Town Board, County Commissioners and Planning Commission discussed various components of this project during a February 2, 2016 joint work session, including: 1. Annual Operating Permit Limit. 2. Neighborhood Communication. 3. Enforcement. 4. Vacation Homes Hosting Parties Greater Than Eight. Any text amendment to the EVDC shall comply with §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review, including: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected; 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Proposal: Annual Operating Permit Limit The Planning Commission received public comment about setting a limit on the number of licenses, which was then discussed at the recent joint work session. The Town Board and County Commissioners requested that the Planning Commission discuss this concept and provide a recommendation on if it should be pursued. Permitted vacation homes in the Estes Valley have increased roughly 25-30% in the past five years. A central land use policy question in determining any limit is: “how many of our housing units should be allowed to be a vacation home?” Table 1 lists some options for the Commission to consider. Currently, the 339 permitted vacation homes in the Estes Valley represent 4.7% of Housing Units counted in the 2010-2014 American Communities Survey (Census Bureau). Increasing the limit to 10% of total Housing Units would allow for up to 729 Annual Operating Permits throughout the Estes Valley. Twenty five percent (25%) of Housing Units would set the limit at 1,822. Table 1. Options for vacation home limit. Town Unincorporated Valley Total Housing Units 4,227 3,060 7,087 Vacation Home Licenses 187 152 339 VHRs as a % of Housing Units 1 4.4% 5.0% 4.7% Vacation Home Options 5% of Housing Units 211 153 364 7% of Housing Units 296 214 510 10% of Housing Units 423 306 729 25% of Housing Units 1,057 765 1,822 1 Source: American Communities Survey 2000-2014, developed by Colorado State Demography Office. Setting a limit of the number of Annual Operating Permits is ultimately a land use policy decision. Table 2 below lists initial benchmarking of numerous Colorado communities. Table 2. Initial benchmarking analysis for license cap. City Housing Units 2 VHRs (Estimate) VHRs as a % of Housing Units Aspen 6,039 651 11% Avon 3,882 381 10% Durango 7,659 97 1% Frisco 3,140 557 18% Grand Lake (central) 1,015 76 7% Grand Lake (greater area) 3,485 236 7% Steamboat Springs 9,766 2,185 22% Telluride 1,963 503 26% Telluride/Mountain Village 3,890 697 18% Vail 7,209 1,131 16% Boulder 44,029 292 1% Fort Collins 59,518 115 0% Denver 290,624 459 0% Neighborhood Communication A central theme staff has heard throughout the public process has been the need for better communication among a vacation home owner and surrounding property owners. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) does not currently require any neighborhood notification throughout the licensing process. The attached draft ordinance seeks to improve communication among the various groups involved in vacation home rentals: 1. Renters. §5.1.B.1.d(1) requires an internal posting containing, at a minimum, the contact information for the property manager or owner, the maximum number of occupants and vehicles; water and gas shutoff locations; quiet hours; and information about refuse disposal. 2. Code Compliance Staff. §5.1.B.1.d(2) requires a reference to the property’s license number with all online listings. 3. Neighboring Properties. §5.1.B.1.d(3) requires that written notice be mailed to nearby neighbors providing the name and contact information for property manager and/or owner. During the recent work session the boards also discussed the concept of annual mailings to all neighbors of vacation homes each year prior to renewal. The Town Clerk could then refer application to the Planning Commission for review if surrounding 2 Source: American Communities Survey 2000-2014, developed by Colorado State Demography Office. property owners object to the use. This concept has been routed to the Town Clerk, Administration Department and Town Attorney. During their review numerous issues were identified relating to staffing and review criteria. At this point staff does not have a recommendation about this component, though numerous related public comments are included in your packet. Enforcement At the recent joint work session the group discussed a possible intergovernmental agreement between the Estes Park Police Department and Larimer County Sherriff’s Office to enforce certain laws in the unincorporated Estes Valley. The outcome of those discussions will likely be presented at a Town Board meeting in April 2016. As such, the Planning Commission does not need to comment on those actions at this point. The Town Board did recently increase Annual Operating Permit fees for vacation homes within Estes Park. This additional stream of income will directly fund a code compliance officer to focus on vacation home enforcement. Vacation Homes Hosting Parties Greater Than Eight An impetus in initiating this project was the request to operate vacation homes in the Estes Valley to parties greater than eight (the current limit). During the joint work session the group agreed to proceed with a County-led task force to develop recommendations for this new zoning use. The Planning Commission will have a liaison on the task force. §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected; Staff Comment: Prior to 2010 vacation homes were allowed in the Town as an accessory use to single family homes. An accessory use refers to the use of land that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the primary use of land. An example of an accessory use is a hotel pool or restaurant that is primarily used by the on-site guests. In 2010 the Town Board and County Commissioners opted to allow vacation homes as a principle use throughout the Estes Valley. To achieve this, the regulations needed to be transferred from the Estes Park Municipal Code to the Estes Valley Development Code. Larimer County prohibited vacation homes prior to these 2010 changes. Vacation rentals have increased each year since the changes in 2010, bringing with them ancillary services such as local marketing websites and professional property managers. The continued rise in local vacation home rentals is not surprising given the national trend moving in that direction. Many vacationers prefer the comfort and convenience of renting a home rather than bunking together in a hotel room. Not surprisingly, websites connecting vacationers with vacation home owners have become very popular. A substantial change was made in 2010 that reclassified vacation homes in the Estes Valley from an accessory use to a principle use. That change to a principle use allowed single family homes to be built or converted to serve solely as a vacation home. Prior to 2010 the principle use generally needed to be long term residential, with vacation homes allowed as an accessory use. In practice this usually consisted of home owners occasionally renting their primary residence as a vacation home. Since 2010 we have seen an increase in licensing by 64.5% (Figure 1). Staff expects the increase in rentals to continue for the foreseeable future. The increase of this accommodation use in residential districts will likely generate some land use conflicts among rental owners and nearby residents. Because of this staff believes that the provisions of the draft ordinance, particularly those related to neighborhood communication, are critical in facilitating harmonious relationships in residential neighborhoods. 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of PermitsTown County 206 339 Figure 1. Number of Annual Operating Permits over time. Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; Staff Comment: Specific policies of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan are listed below, along with staff comments. Housing Policy 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. Staff Comment: The contemplated a limit (or “cap”) of Annual Operating Permits may advance this policy by preserving some level of long-term residential use should the limit ever be reached. Economics Policy 7.1 Maintain a unique blend of businesses, residents and guests, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. Staff Comment: Vacation Homes currently provide an alternative to traditional Hotel/motels. Economics Policy 7.3 Sustain and support the existing tourism industry and marketing programs. Staff Comment: Vacation homes are one component of vigorous marketing for lodging facilities in the Estes Valley. Aside from the numerous independent agencies offering vacation homes, the Estes Park Local Marketing District promotes both hotels and cabins. There has recently been some level of coordination among vacation home owners and the Estes Park Local Marketing District. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Comment: The draft amendment has been shared with service providers. The draft ordinance should have little-to-no impact on public services. Advantages: • An advantage to establishing a Valley-wide limit on Annual Operating Permits is that future boards may reassess the community's direction if the cap is ever reached, allowing for a “pause” if needed. • Strengthening neighborhood communication through §5.1.B.1.d Posting of the draft ordinance seeks to strengthen communication among vacation homes owners and area neighbors. Disadvantages: • §5.1.B.1.d Posting of the draft ordinance will require additional efforts of the vacation home owner. However, increased communication to renters and neighbors may ultimately decrease time spent on nuisance issues. Action Recommended: The Town Board and County Commissioners have requested that the Planning Commission review and provide a recommendation of the draft ordinance. Staff is attempting to coordinate a joint meeting on March 30 for the Town Board and County Commissioners to adopt the final ordinance. Because of this, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to discuss and provide a recommendation today, or revisit and provide a final recommendation during your March meeting. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest High. All public forums and meetings have been very well attended. Staff continues to receive written and verbal comments on the topic. Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance Attachment 3 Attachment 3 Attachment 3 Attachment 3 Attachment 3 Attachment 3 Attachment 3