Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-07-21Prepared: July 8, 2015 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION July 21, 2015 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions — Michael Moon, New County Representative 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, April 21, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting 4. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-01D, MARYS MEADOW CONDOMINIUMS, TBD Kiowa Trail and TBD Bemish Court Owner: Marys Meadow Development Inc. Applicant: CMS Planning & Development, Inc. Request: Amendment to approved development plan to construct four (4) duplexes (8 units) on Kiowa Trail in Phase 2, and six (6) single-family dwellings on Bemish Court in Phase 3. Staff: Phil Kleisler 5. UPDATE/FEEDBACK ON VACATION HOME AMENDMENTS AS IT RELATES TO LAND USES — Planner Kleisler 6. DISCUSSION CONCERNING ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODERNIZATION Planner Kleisler 7. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Rusch Residence Variance approved June 2, 2015 B. Estes Valley Planning Commission 1. Riverview Pines Development Plan 2015-03 — Withdrawn by Applicant July 8, 2015 C. Estes Park Town Board 1. Lot 4, Twin View Resubdivision Rezoning, 1650 Avalon Drive approved May 12, 2015 2. EVDC Amendment to allow pet grooming in the CD district approved May 12, 2015 3. Silver Moon Amended Plat, Development Agreement, and Rezoning approved May 26, 2015 4. Marys Lake Replat Amended Development Agreement withdrawn by applicant June 18, 2015 5. Stonebridge Estates Condominiums, Supplemental Map #8 approved June 23, 2015 D. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners 1. EVDC Amendment to allow pet grooming in the CD district approved May 18, 2015 E. Flood Recovery/Mitigation F. Other 9. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 April 21, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Hills, Schneider, White, Sykes, and Murphree Also Attending: Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioner Klink Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were two 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, March 17, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. RIVERVIEW PINES DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT Planner Kleisler stated the applicant officially withdrew the application, and will resubmit at a later date. 4. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PET GROOMING IN THE CD— COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICT Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated this code amendment would only apply to the CD— Commercial Downtown zone district. Several months ago, staff received a request by a downtown business owner with a desire to have a dog-grooming business in the downtown area. In the Estes Valley, dog grooming businesses are allowed only in the CO—Commercial Outlying zone district. Planner Kleisler stated this particular proposed code amendment would allow pet grooming in the CD—Commercial Downtown zone district as an accessory use. Planner Kleisler stated all property owners in the CD—Commercial Downtown zone district were notified by mail of the proposed code amendment and today's meeting. A legal notice and press release were published in the local newspaper. Additionally, staff reached out to other local pet-related business owners to explain the request and receive initial feedback. Several were opposed to the allowance of pet grooming in the downtown area. Staff also met with the Colorado Department of Agriculture, who administers the Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act, which includes pet grooming businesses. Planner Kleisler stated valuable feedback was received from other grooming businesses located in the CO— Commercial Outlying zone district. Concerning enforcement, he stated the Police Department enforces much of the Estes Park Municipal Code, and staff found regulations for animal grooming are best left in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 April 21, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall that code rather than the development code. The state health department requires approval of this type of business. The sanitation district also requires a certain process for this type of business. Planner Kleisler stated the proposed code amendment would have the following restrictions: 1) permitted as an accessory use only; 2) service shall not exceed two (2) animals at a time; and 3) shall not include Animal Boarding. The limit on the number of animals is to ensure a small capacity. The intent is to allow one animal being groomed, while another is waiting to be picked up. Concerning boarding, staff expects the waiting animals to be held in crates. No pet daycare will be allowed. Planner Kleisler stated the Planning Commission was the recommending body for this proposed code amendment, with both the Town Board and County Commission being the decision-making bodies. The Planning Commission could recommend approval, make desired revisions, or recommend denial. They could also request it be put on hold and examined during the process for the downtown neighborhood plan. Director Chilcott cautioned the Commission the downtown plan would most likely not reach this level of detail, and would have a lower priority than other items. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Schneider requested adding 'at any time' to restriction number three (3), to read "Shall not include Animal Boarding at any time." Public Comment Pam Dewitt/applicant stated the desire was to have a small, clean, organized, and a committed space in the back of the store. She stated there is a similar business in Golden with a framed and glassed-in grooming area that takes one animal at a time. She would like to have a similar setup. Guests to Estes Park have inquired about a grooming station in the downtown area. She estimated it would take approximately one hour per animal for grooming. The hours of operation being considered are 10:30 a.m. to 7 p.m., which are the store hours. Her plan is to build a separate glassed-in area specifically for grooming. She would take walk-ins only. Christine Kalencki/Town resident was concerned about allowing animal grooming in the downtown area. She stated other groomers have been forced to locate outside of the downtown area, several have left the Estes Valley, and others have struggled. She stated it was unfair to other dog groomers in the Estes Valley to now change the regulations and allow this type of business in the downtown area. She was opposed to the code amendment. Donna Elston/Town resident was concerned about the demographics of pet grooming in Estes Park, stating she did not think the community could support another groomer. She recommended limiting the number of groomers in the area. She stated noise can be an issue, and overhead expenses can be large. The sanitation district regulations are strict for this type of business. She was opposed to the code amendment. Michael Palmington/Town resident has a grooming business near Dry Gulch Road. He wanted to relocate to East Riverside Drive, but was told it was not zoned appropriately. Staff and Commission Discussion Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official, stated the building code addresses sound transmission only for dwelling units; accommodations, apartments, hallways in residential buildings, etc. It does not regulate RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 April 21, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall sound transmission controls for commercial businesses. If the ceiling was removed to try to abate noise, it could trigger the installation of fire-resistive construction in the entire building. The town has the ability to require soundproofing either as an amendment to the building codes or the development code. Comments from staff and the Commission included, but were not limited to: if this amendment was implemented, any grooming business that complied with the requirements could have a grooming business as an accessory use in the downtown zone district; all grooming businesses are required to comply with the state regulations; the Code Compliance Officer would be the person to enforce the number of animals being held for grooming; code compliance issues would be driven by complaints; the grooming business must be an accessory use to another pet-related business in the same location; no changes to the current definition of animal boarding are proposed; noise complaints would be addressed by the Police Department, as they have sound meters. It should be noted that sound measurements are taken from the edge of the property line. Director Chilcott stated if the Planning Commission recommends approval, it could recommend consideration of a building code amendment to require some noise mitigation. She stated the Board of Appeals is currently reviewing the 2015 International Building Codes and Local Amendments, with adoption scheduled for the end of 2015. Planner Kleisler stated he would provide a list of the regulations during the building permit process. Any violations to the EVDC would require the normal processes and procedures. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hills) to recommend approval of the EVDC amendment to allow animal grooming as an accessory use to a pet-related business in the CD—Commercial Downtown zone district, with the addition of the words 'at any time' to the code language concerning boarding; and with a request for the Town Board to consider an amendment to the building code for noise abatement in commercial buildings and with the findings and recommendations provided by staff, and the motion passed 6-0 with one absent. 5. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODERNIZATION Planner Kleisler stated the Transportation section will be continued due to Senior Planner Shirk's absence. He stated the Economic section is directly related to the 2010 census data. He provided an interesting history of the US Census, stating the first US census was conducted in 1790. The boundaries are political (state, county, etc.) rather than statistical (geographic boundaries), and the Federal government determines the topics on the census questionnaires. The Estes Valley is a political boundary, and encompasses more than one census tract boundary. Planner Kleisler explained how the census data is organized. Census tracts were created to capture a population of 4,000, which is a manageable area to attempt to contact citizens in person who did not respond through the mail service. Local jurisdictions have a say in the determination of new tract boundaries when an area grows larger than 4,000 people. For the Comprehensive Plan modernization, data is compared between 2010 census versus the American Community Survey (ACS). The US Census tracks the official counts and population totals once every ten years during a certain point in time. The ACS provides sample estimates and population characteristics on an annual basis during the entire calendar year. With the data provided to the Commission, staff regenerated all the graphs to be current with the most recent data. The documents included in the Planning Commissioner meeting materials will be the basis for the narrative section of the comprehensive plan over the last couple of decades. Planner Kleisler discussed the residential construction graph, stating the trend since 2011 is larger single family dwellings, 3000 to 6500 square feet, with higher valuations. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 April 21, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff and Commission Discussion Comments included but were not limited to: appreciation of staff time to complete this section; desire to show statistics of full-time residents versus part-time residents; suggestion to have a very definitive outline or introduction stating why this information is included and how it is to be used; no matter how good your intentions are, they can be used against you; spikes in building permits and subsequent valuation can make the numbers look skewed; Commissioners Schneider, Murphree, and White would appreciate a meeting with staff to further discuss this information. Director Chilcott stated staff could address those suggestions, and present an analysis for the characteristics of our community that are unique. Commissioner Schneider is interested in seeing the data that was used to modernize the transportation section. Director Chilcott stated Planner Shirk was referencing the citizen's surveys that were originated by Public Information Officer Kate Rusch, and they are statistically valid surveys. Copies of the survey will be provided to the Commissioners for future reference. REPORTS 1. Town Board Approvals A. Director Chilcott reported the Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley Hotel Special Review was approved B. An easement vacation on Pinewood Lane was approved 2. County Commission Approval A. AT&T Monopole on Prospect Mountain was approved. 3. Board of Adjustment Approvals A. A variance request was approved for Backbone Adventures on North Lake Avenue. B. A variance request was approved for Earthwood Collections on East Elkhorn Avenue to allow the outdoor sales of merchandise in an area set back from the sidewalk immediately adjacent to (and owned by) the existing Earthwood Collections. 4. Parking Structure Update Public Works Director Greg Muhonen provided an update on the status of the proposed parking structure. He stated the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a parking structure on the north side of the Big Thompson River, east of the Visitor Center. When the bids came in over budget, the Town Board authorized the Public Works Department to revisit the idea for the south side of the river, off of Highway 36. He stated the access is superior to coming off of Highway 34, there is a substantial reduction in utility conflicts, has a larger footprint and will allow building at a lower cost per stall with less visual impact. The project has faced several challenges, with one of the larger ones being the land is partially Town-owned, and partially owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. Maintenance of the river in the immediate area is one of the BORs concerns. Director Muhonen stated the project will most likely be heard by the Planning Commission in July or August, 2015, with hopes for construction to begin in January, 2016. He stated a shortened construction period was planned with a two-story structure instead of three stories, and will take approximately eight months to complete. He welcomed engagement and input from the Planning Commission. There will be additional public outreach with this project. Phase I would increase the existing 102 spaces to 198 spaces. Each additional floor would add 99 new spaces. The final build out would triple what is currently there. 5. Flood Recovery/Mitigation Update RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 April 21, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Director Chilcott reported the Town received $105,800 for the Hydrology Study of Fall River, Big Thompson River, and Black Canyon Creek. This will help determine what the actual flood risk is for the properties along those rivers. The Town received a grant for $190,000 for a Downtown Neighborhood Plan. This will be used for a long-range plan looking at how transportation, land use, floodplain management, etc. fit together in the downtown area. We will revisit the vision for the downtown area, and further articulate and/or refine that vision. The RFP will be released soon. The Town was not awarded the Channel Migration Hazard Zone and Risk Mitigation grant; however, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) may consider completing some of those studies. On April 28, 2015, there will a joint meeting with the Downtown Business Partners, the Community Development Department, and Insurance Associates. The meeting is geared toward downtown business owners to inform and educate them on flood insurance, floodplain studies, mitigation projects, grant updates, and floodproofing measures. Representatives from the CWCB and FEMA will be attending. The meeting will be held from 8:30 — 10:30 a.m., and will be streamed live so business/property owners not living in Estes Park can watch the meeting and ask questions. 6. Term Expirations Director Chilcott reported Chair Hull and Commissioner Sykes terms expire June 30, 2015. Chair Hull has submitted her application to the County Commissioners to request reappointment. Commissioner Sykes will not be living in Estes full-time and will be stepping down from her position. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary A EP io The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-01D 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 MEETING DATE & LOCATION: July 21, 2015, 1:30 PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This is a request to amend the above-referenced development plan by redesigning the final two phases. STAFF OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); 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. Consideration of a motion of approval or denial of the application. LOCATION: The site is located between Mary's Lake Road (County Road 67), Promontory Drive, Kiowa Trail, and Kiowa Drive, within the Town of Estes Park. OWNER/APPLICANT: Mary's Meadow Development, Inc/Owner; CMS Planning and Development, Inc/Applicant. CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Primary Contact: Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering STAFF CONTACT: Philip Kleisler, Planner II REPORT SUMMARY: This report describes a request to amend Development Plan 06-01. The original plan, approved in 2006, was intended to be a co-housing project. The Planning Commission approved a Minor Modification to the Plan in 2013 to replace the proposed community building with a duplex, a step the applicant took to move away from the co-housing model. The applicant now proposes to redesign Phase II and III by completely replacing the co- housing design with a more traditional duplex and single family home design. Phase I of the project includes five (5) duplexes, which are almost complete at this time. The amended Development Plan will decrease the total units in the project from 35 to 24, which includes: Unit Type Current Plan Proposed Plan Single Family 5 6 Duplex 10 18 Multi-family 20 0 Staff reviewed this application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. Staff 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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REVIEW PROCESS: 4 REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS 5 STAFF REVIEW: 5 STAFF FINDINGS 10 RECOMMENDATION 10 Pi Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 21, 2015 Page 2 of 11 12i The Meadow Amended Development Plan SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE: The 5.06 acre building site is located along Mary's Lake Road, just east of Mary's Lake Lodge and north of the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision (single family residential). Figures 1 a and 1 b shown below provides the surrounding land uses and zoning. Parcel Number: 34024-38-004 Lot Area: 5.06 acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped/Multi-Family Residential Partially Proposed Land Uses: No Change Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowed: 50% Proposed: 31.6% Hazards/Physical Features Mapped in the project vicinity? Wildfire Hazard No Geologic Hazard No Wetlands No Streams/Rivers No Ridgeline Protection No Wildlife Habitat No Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 21, 2015 Page 4 of 11 The Meadow Amended Development Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REVIEW PROCESS: The original Development Plan was approved in 2006 to develop thirty-five (35) residential condominium units in four phases. The original concept allowed for 90-degree parking spaces along the entire distance of Kiowa Trail. Owners would park here and use internal sidewalks to access their units along Kiowa Trail and below. Zoning (Fig. 1a) and Land Uses (1b) within the project of area. The amended Plan moves away from the co-housing model to a more traditional site design of duplexes and single family homes. The proposal allows residents to park in a driveway or garage at their home and access the units below through a dead-end drive. The amended Plan decreases the number of spaces along Kiowa Trail by providing garages. This application includes: driveways and Development Plan (§3.8): The purpose of a development plan is to ensure compliance with the zoning standards and provisions of the EVDC, while encouraging quality development in the Estes Valley reflective of the goals, policies and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. Decision-Making Body: Estes Valley Planning Commission 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 Valley Fire Protection District memo dated June 25, 2015; • Town of Estes Park Utilities Division memo dated June 25, 2015; • Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated June 29, 2015, • Town of Estes Park Public Works memo dated July 13, 2015. • Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated July 15, 2015 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 As of July 14, 2015, one (1) formal written comment has been received for this application. The written comment, included in your packet, opposes the configuration of Phase Ill due to impacts on the property owner's view of Mummy Ridge. Written comments will be posted to www.estes.orq/currentapplications if received after July 14, 2015 and summarized by staff during the public hearing. 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) The proposed Residential use is permitted in the A Accommodations zoning district. No additional uses are proposed. 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 proposed plan increases the lot coverage from 27.3% to 31.6%, a difference of 9,343 square feet. The increase represents an increase in the building footprints, and the asphalt drives and paths. The proposed modification does comply with the 50% maximum standard. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards (EVDC §7.2) The grading plan must be altered to demonstrate compliance with general grading standards. Due to the existing slope, the proposed drive to Phase Ill leads to units 19 and 20 being non-compliant with EVDC grading standards (§7.2.6.3) by cutting a building pad on the southern end of the building, while using a substantial amount of fill on the northern side. Staff Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 21, 2015 Page 5 of 11 The Meadow Amended Development Plan requested that the applicant limit the cut and fill to the maximum extent feasible. The applicant has proposed changes to Beamish Court that will bring this driveway and Units 19 and 20 much closer to compliance (see memo from the applicant dated July 10, 2015). The applicant's memo also proposes enhancements to the 1:1 slope along the north side of Beamish Court. A number of the parking spaces in Phase II will need to be redesigned to ensure safe access by leveling the spaces. Landscaping and Buffers (§7.5) As with the original submittal, the proposed landscaping plan complies with the EVDC. The applicant is proposing to leave the clump of Aspen trees west of Unit 18 undisturbed. Staff supports this approach, providing that the trees do not impact driver and pedestrian visibility at the Beamish/Kiowa Trail intersection (as detailed in Public Works memo). Exterior Lighting (EVDC §7.9) The applicant proposes a small number street lights along Kiowa Trail. The exact specifications, including pole height, are generally addressed prior to issuance of Town permits ("construction plans"). Off-Street Parking and Loading (EVDC §7.11) Kiowa Trail is publically owned, but privately maintained through a Maintenance Covenant dated February 17, 2006. This unique agreement was intended to address nearby residents' traffic concerns. While technically a public road, Kiowa Trail functions more like a private drive, both in traffic intensity and routine maintenance. The original, approved plan provided extensive parking backing onto Kiowa Trail, something typically not permitted on public streets. The proposed plan decreased the number of such spaces directly along Kiowa Trail by providing some enclosed garage parking and limited guest spaces for each unit. Similarly, driveways and garages will be used for all parking for Phase Ill units. 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. Sewer The applicant proposes an 8" sewer main between the Phase II and Ill units. Upper Thompson Sanitation District provided comments that a 20' exclusive easement be provided along the main line and that any landscaping (especially trees) be prohibited in the easement area. Staff worked with the applicant to add the recommended condition #6, requiring In Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 21, 2015 Page 6 of 11 td The Meadow Amended Development Plan that the Homeowners Association Declarations be amended to include this prohibition on landscaping in that easement area. Water and Electric Service Adequate water and electric service are available to serve the site and is similar to the original submittal. There were no concerns expressed by the Estes Park Utilities Department. Drainage. The applicant has presented a concept that is intended to retain the historic drainage patterns on the site. This is accomplished by directing drainage between the units in Phase II and III through swales, and then as a sheet flow across Beamish Court into the existing detention facility. As such, no curb and gutter is proposed along Beamish Court. Some additional drainage information will be needed with construction plans to confirm this concept (see Public Works memo). Additionally, Planning staff are recommending that additional information be added to the plan to accurately reflect the existing conditions along Kiowa Trail. Fire Protection. Two fire hydrants will be installed with Phase II for fire protection. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District did not express concerns with this concept. The site is not in a mapped Wildfire Hazard area. Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment (§7.13) As with the original submittal, two (2) trash receptacles will be located along Kiowa Trail to service Phase II and Ill. These receptacles will be screened from public view through an enclosure. Street Design and Construction Standards (Appendix D) Many standards found in Appendix D are addressed with construction plans, such as the detailed driveway and sidewalk design, and erosion control methods. Site visibility at the Beamish Court/Kiowa Trail intersection will need to be confirmed to ensure the Aspen trees are not obstructing pedestrian and motorist views. Minor Modification In accordance with Section 3.7, the Planning Commission may grant a Minor Modifications up to a maximum of 25% from certain zone district standards, provided that the Commission find that such a modification advances the goals and purposes of the EVDC, and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site. The applicant requests a minor modification to EVDC Section 7.11.M, which requires the following: Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 21, 2015 Page 7 of 11 The Meadow Amended Development Plan "For premises requiring twenty (20) or more vehicular parking spaces, bicycle racks facilitating locking shall be provided to accommodate one (1) bicycle per twenty (20) parking spaces required or fraction thereof" The intent of this Section was established to provide alternative modes of transportation, such as bicycles. Typically, if a development has two-car garages, staff has assumed that bicycles would be stored inside garages. Developments that provide a traditional surface parking lot (e.g. Safeway) have consistently provided bicycle racks. In this case, the applicant is proposing some surface parking and primarily single-car garages. Because of the limited garage space, staff assumes that future residents and guests will utilize bicycle racks. The proposed site plan is required to provide parking for four (4) bicycles. A decrease of 25%, per the Minor Modification allowance noted above, would only decrease this requirement to three (3) bicycles. Staff has identified a policy of the Comprehensive Plan for the Commission to consider with this decision: Community Wide Policies 4.8 Encourage movement toward alternative modes of transportation. The Commission needs to make one of the following findings, should you wish to approve the request: 1. The modification advances the goals and purposes of the Estes Valley Development Code; 2. The modification results in less visual impact; 3. The modification results in more effective environmental and open space preservation; or 4. The modification relieves practical difficulties in developing a site. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan The project site is located in the Mary's Lake Planning Sub-area. Staff has identified several consideration and guidelines from the Comprehensive Plan that relate this this proposal. Special Consideration #1: Maintaining the visual quality along Highway 7 will become an important issue as development pressure increases within the area. Staff Comment: Per the request of residents within Phase I of this project, the applicant recorded a "No Building Easement" over much of the area originally contemplated for development, thus better Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 21, 2015 Page 8 of 11 The Meadow Amended Development Plan preserving the area along Highway 7. The negative impacts from the steep northern slope of Beamish Court are also being addressed with this review. Special Consideration #6: Open meadow areas make up an important visual element, especially around Mary's Lake Lodge and the meadow along the lower portion of Cheley Camp. Preservation of these and other meadow areas will help to maintain the character of the area. Special Consideration #8: Mary's Lake Lodge is an historic building. Development within the immediate area should acknowledge the historic importance of this building. Development Guideline #1: Lighting should be kept to a minimum, and use cut-off fixtures. Staff Comment: As noted above, the applicant proposes three (3) street lights along Kiowa Trail. The specific fixture design and pole height must be approved by the Town during the permitting phase. Future Plan Revisions Development plan approval does not obligate a property owner to build the approved units. The property owner can be discard the plan and submit a completely different plan for review and approval. Another possibility is that minor or major changes are made to an approved plan. Depending on the scale of proposed revisions, those revisions are either reviewed by staff or the Planning Commission. Unlike revisions approved by Planning Commission, minor modifications approved by staff do not involve legal notice publication and neighbor notification. The process for reviewing revisions to approved plans is described in EVDC Section 3.7, Minor Modifications. Staff also uses their best judgment to determine if additional review by Planning Commission is required. Generally, staff would approve minor modifications of up to ten percent, minor increases/decreases in unit size that do not affect the required number of parking spaces, minor shifts in building location, flipping the location of duplex and single-family units, or conversion of duplex units to single-family units. Example of changes that would trigger review by the Planning Commission is a change in unit mix that results in more duplexes or multi-family units or significant site design changes. Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 21, 2015 Page 9 of 11 The Meadow Amended Development Plan 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. 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. 4. The Planning Commission is the decision-making body for this application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of Development Plan 06-01D, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated June 25, 2015; b. Town of Estes Park Utilities Division memo dated June 25, 2015; c. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated June 29, 2015; d. Town of Estes Park Public Works memo dated July 13, 2015. e. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated July 15, 2015 2. The site plan shall be amended to accurately show the existing grade and drainage flow along Kiowa Trail, including how off-site drainage flows through the area near the existing traffic island. 3. The slope of parking stalls shall be decreased to provide for safe vehicle access. 4. The site plan shall be amended to reflect the proposed adjustments detailed in the memo from the applicant dated July 10, 2015. Such changes require the review and approval of applicable reviewing agencies. 5. Utility pedestals and boxes north of Unit 18 shall be moved to the west to accommodate 20-foot clearance for utility truck access. 6. HOA Declarations shall be amended to prohibit any landscaping within the sewer and electric easement area in Phase II and III, with the exception of small shrubs within three (3) feet of units. Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 21, 2015 Page 10 of 11 wk The Meadow Amended Development Plan Staff Note: The Commission should add the applicable finding about the Minor Modification (Page 8), if approved. SAMPLE MOTIONS: I move to recommend APPROVAL (or denial) of Development Plan Application 06-01D, as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. rt Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 21, 2015 Ell The Meadow Amended Development Plan Page 11 of 11 r . P.O. Box 568 • Estes Park, CO 80517 Ph: 970-586-4544 • Fax: 970-586-1049 www.utsd.org July 15, 2015 Phil Kleisler Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: The Meadow Amended Plat Dear Phil: The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1. The subject property is within 400 ft. of the District's sewer system, requiring an extension of the collection main. The applicant shall provide drawings showing the location of the proposed sewer main extension. The sewer system extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Upper Thompson Sanitation District Rules and Regulations. 2. Plans to construct the sewer system extension will require District review and approval in accordance with Section 6 of Rules and Regulations. The requirements for planning, easements, preliminary design, final design, construction, as-builts, and maintenance for the sanitary sewer extension are provided in Section 6 of the Rules and Regulations. Additional wastewater collection system specifications for use with the sanitary sewer system extension are provided in Appendix C of the Rules and Regulations. 3. Private lateral sewers shall be constructed in accordance with Appendix B — Lateral Sewer Specifications of the District's Rules and Regulations. Please include information regarding the private lateral sewer with the sewer system extension submittal. 4. District personnel will determine plant investment fees due. Plant investment and permit fees are due before connection is made to the collection system. Environmental Protection Through Wastewater Collection and Treatment 5. Construction plans that are not signed by the engineer will not be considered as official construction plans. 6. A Warranty Agreement and an Application for Acceptance of the collection main must be signed before the District will allow a connection to the system. 7. The District will require a dedicated 20 foot easement exclusive to the main line portion prior to connection and acceptance of the main line. 8. The District will not allow the placement of any landscaping (especially trees) and the impounding of water on the easement. Fencing or any other structures on easement must be designed in a way to allow the access of District vehicles to maintain the collection line. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Upper Thompson Sanitation District Environmental Protection Through Wastewater Collection and Treatment A EP TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum To: Community Development From: Steve Rusch Date: 6/25/2015 Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: FINAL REVIEW - Lot 4, Marys Meadow Replat - Amended Development Plan 06-01D The Utilities Department has the following Development Review comments for the above application: The above application is accepted for Utilities Department 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 Utilities Department reserves the right to request additional information as needed. Water Division: Engineer must verify that all units (at the highest point of plumbing) will have adequate water pressure (higher than 40 psi) in order to remain on the gravity flow side of the water distribution system versus needing to be on pumped flow or repressurized. 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 A fp TOWN or FSTES PAR 1c Inter-Office Memorandum provide the contact information of the firm or person acting as Utility Construction Manager for the project. 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 mainlines are required to have a minimum of 10 ft. horizontal separation from both sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Additionally, water mainlines 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 sruschestes.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. A EP TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum Pipe Size Flow Rate 2" 100 gpm 4" 390 gpm 6" 880 gpm 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 & Power: • Please schedule a required meet at site with Joe Lockhart, Line Superintendent at (970)577-3613. • All infrastructure 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. Trenching & conduit to be provided and installed by developer to Town specifications. EP TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum • 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 Oft from electric. • All services must be on the owner's property. • The size of the service must be shown on the electrical drawings. • All existing lines must be shown on the electrical drawings. • Transformers/pen cells 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. • 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. 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. EP TOWN ESTES PARIc Memo Community Development To: Frank Theis, CMS Planning Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II Date: June 29, 2015 RE: The Meadow Amended Development Plan — Findings of Compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) This written analysis includes only those EVDC provisions that apply to this development proposal. The following are a list of comments which must be addressed in order for staff to determine that the application complies with the EVDC. Planning staff would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss these comments. Pedestrian Amenities (4.4.D.4, Table 4-8) - Why are there no sidewalks proposed for Phase Ill? - Appendix D.V.1.c: Sidewalk should be 8' wide; 5' wide sidewalk is proposed. You have previously indicated your preference for a 5' sidewalk given the low pedestrian traffic and existing concrete pan. The Town Engineer may consider this request prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Grading standards (§7.2) 1. 7.2.B.3 Cutting to Create Benches a. Cutting and grading to create benches or pads for additional or larger building sites or lawns shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed grading plan appears to be in conflict with this standard for Units 19 and 20. A long pad is created for the buildings, with at times a substantial amount of fill for the northern portions (see Figure 7-4). Additionally, staff would like to work with you to determine any alternative to reduce the cut and fill for the Phase Ill driveway. Page 1 1ltItC11tILAW t ar LIIILIWISCUT110 rei l".415n1G 11,11.1.4 1711.41 im$104FIAIVI116 16111Wil VEIN rilaSaDrAle5 1111,1410". .'li ii.1111 1111 1_ =-1 - lEitni Plu3 rxt.tastrt P.A Xhit REtittl.10 VI4L6 • ;!".11111!li fOHIP 411q „,. rtkVaitt-Zil N. irxerrwn yawl trIttaptt / Ii1.10/$1.1111,11.1 1,I41,/nrn tett In1t aia►s sN mule PLAN ' -14.114 G.,11•1 ttlItitIG .0161 ita IN 1 It Gli.kdook totctiehlgtetc I/UMW 11FeRMI. Figure 7-4 2. 7.2.B.5.b: The proposed slope to the west of Unit 19 appears to exceed 50%. Please furnish a soils engineering or geotechnical report per this section or adjust the slope as needed. 3. 7.2.C.1 Follow Natural Contours: Proposed contours to the east of Unit 11 should be designed to follow the existing grade (as much as possible). 4. General Comments: a. Proposed grading contours extend to units 7-10 of Phase I. Landscaping 1. For the purpose of this specific review, please limit the landscaping requirements to the area being reviewed (Phase II and III). All required trees and shrubs should be visually depicted on the plan. Construction plans must address: 1. 4.4.D.4, Table 4-8: a. Indicate type of materials used for sidewalks. The internal pedestrian walkways shall be designed to be visually attractive and distinguishable from driving surfaces through use of durable, low-maintenance surface materials such as pavers, brick or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort. 2. 7.5.D.3.e: Trees cannot be within seven (7) feet of buildings. 3. Exterior Lighting: a. Include unit fixtures, light pole height and design, and photometric plan indicating foot candles at throughout site and property lines. b. Written narrative explaining maintenance plan for light poles, including replacement, in accordance with Maintenance Covenant (recpt. #2006-0020812). 4. Trash enclosure details. Page 2 5. Label man-made slopes greater than 25%. 1. Appendix D.2.F.2: demonstrate compliance with site visibility standards at the intersection of proposed drive. 2. §7.2.0 Restoration of Disturbed Areas 3. §7.5.D.2.b.3 Root Zones. Trees need to be surrounded by pervious area around 1.5 times the area of the drip line. 4. §7.5.D.5 Standards for Protection During Construction. 5. §7.5.D.3.i No trees shall be planted within 25 feet of intersections 6. §7.5.D.5 Include plan for irrigation 7. §7.11.0 Parking and Loading Area Design Standards (markings) 8. §7.11.J Accessible Parking for Disabled Persons regarding ADA signs and markings, and slope of parking space and access aisle. 9. §7.13 Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment. Trash enclosure materials, colors and design of screening walls or fences shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors of the buildings. If such areas are to be covered, then the covering shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors on the building. 10. Appendix D.III.B.9 Driveway Design Requirements 11. Appendix D.I I I.B .10 Driveway Construction Standards. 12. Appendix D.IV.1 Add sight visibility triangles to landscaping plan 13. Appendix D.V Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails 14. Appendix D.VI Erosion Control 15. Appendix D.VII Tree and Vegetation Protection During Construction and Grading Activities 16. Appendix D.VIII Other Requirements, regarding construction plan approval, quality control, etc. 17. Tree well details 18. Demonstrate positive drainage from buildings. Page 3 I ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Serving the Residents and Fuituts of the Estes I Wk.), with Superior Fire and Safety Services PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Date: June 25, 2015 Project Identification: The Meadow Development Referral: The Meadow Development Plan (Amended Development Plan / Phasing) The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the submitted material describing the proposed project referenced above, and has no comments or concerns (approves) regarding those plans. However, when future developments and / or changes are made to this area, the Fire District shall require new plans for review. 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 the 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 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 mrobinsonestesvalleyfire.orq 901 N. Saint Vrain Avenue • Estes Park, CO 80517 • P-970-577-0900 • F-970-577-0923 111 TOWN OF ESTES PARIc, Memo PUBLIC WORKS To: Phil Kleisler From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager Date: July 13, 2015 RE: Kiowa Trail — Mary's Meadow Amended Development Plan Phil — Public Works recommends approval of the May 28th, 2015 submittal of the Mary's Meadow Development Plan submittal. We offer the following conditions: Transportation: 1. Traffic Update Letter — May 27 th, 2015, done by Van Horn Engineering recommends no additional traffic modifications to the Mary's Lake Subdivision as a result of this development. The proposed density is 2/3 of the originally approved plan. Required off-site improvements to Highway 7/Mary's Lake Road have been completed. 2. Approved in 2006 - Kiowa Trail is a privately maintained drive — in public right-of- way. Unit parking and multiple driveway access points in a public owned right-of- way would not typically be approved. 3. Slope arrows on the sidewalk appear to be going the opposite direction. 4. Site distance triangles should be provided. Clump of Aspens at the intersection of Beamish Court/Kiowa Trail should not create a safety concern. 5. Applicant is required to submit and get approval of Final Construction Plans before construction of any transportation related infrastructure. Drainage: 1. Drainage Compliance Letter submitted and stamped by John Spooner from Van Horn Engineering, May 27th, 2015. New drainage plan contributes an additional 9,343 sf of impervious area to the site detention ponds. This increase is mitigated because the original drainage plan included 12,000 sf of impervious area on Kiowa Drive and sidewalk contributing to detention. The Grading Plan should include contours, spot elevations and flow arrows to confirm this. 2. Drainage between the buildings along Kiowa Trail is consolidated in a swale to flow between the buildings. Grading detail should be provided to ensure this runoff flow successfully gets between the units to the north and does not pond up in the middle common area. 3. Beamish Court does not have any drainage runoff control structures (no curb — no inlets, etc.). Consolidated runoff between the buildings will release across Beamish and flow into the pond at random points. The Grading and Drainage Plan should address these point discharges. 4. Drainage in right-of-way along Kiowa Trail should stay in the right-of-way and not spill into the development. Spot elevations and flow arrows should be provided to show conformance to the approved Overall Drainage Plan. 5. Detention pond volumes and structures were last certified in 2007. This should be updated to confirm volumes are still adequate and drainage infrastructure is still effective. 6. Applicant is required to submit and get approval of Final Construction Plans before construction of any storm drainage related infrastructure. I - lain & Sabina McWhinney 345 Kiowa Dr. Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park Planning Commission Amendment Development Plan (06-01D) Lot 4A, Marys Meadow Replat CMS Planning & Development / 5)ECEllV JUL 2 0 2015 SCAO MUNITY_DEVELOPMENT July 20, 2015 Dear Members of the Estes Park Planning Commission, On March 4 th 2011 an Easement Grant was put in place (see attached) with Larimer County. It restricts any building to 125' from Kiowa Tr. and states that "Grantor (Marys Meadow Development LLC) shall be permitted to construct and maintain a series of detention ponds and surface water containment ditches and canals. Provided however, such surface water containment facilities shall be constructed of natural materials and have natural vegetation so as to maintain the natural appearance of the area." The Amendment to the development plan under review will extend into this area. The second row of homes and the road are in the no build zone. It is not a detention pond nor a water containment ditch or canal and it does not have natural vegetation or materials. Therefore the Amendment under review violates the Easement Grant and has no legal standing. When we bought our home on 345 Kiowa Dr. we made it a condition of purchase that only 1 row of homes would be built along Kiowa Trail. We were assured by Mr. Theiss, Mr. Tawney, our realtor Mr. Hanson, both before and after purchase that this was the case. Other buyers, who purchased years after we did were under the same assumption (see letters you received), due to the representations made by the representatives of CMS Planning & Development, Marys Meadow Development LLC. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (US Contract Law) an oral contract, especially when made after a written contract is in force is just as binding as a written contract. Allowing a second row of homes on Bemish Ct. would be a breach of contract. Besides the legal concerns stated above, there is a great loss of quality of life for us. We came to Estes Park because we wanted to get away from the tight living conditions of a city. We love nature and adore the wildlife the Meadow has to offer. This home has been our dream. All of that will be lost with the new Amendment of the development plan. We feel deceived and mislead by Marys Meadow Development / CMS Planning and its representatives. We sincerely hope that the city and its Planning Commission will not support that families who choose to invest in Estes Park are having this type of experience. There has to be an Ethical standard lc 1 under which business in the Town of Estes Park is conducted. lithe new plan with the second row is put in place we will be forced to sell our home or pursue expensive legal action. Additionally, we wish to highlight major concerns with the Developer's approach to the management of Construction Phase activities. Additional homes only extend the nuisance. During the course of the most recent construction (Units 9 & 10) the following issues of public safety and environmental impact were noted and reported. Unsafe working practices at heights — lack of fall protection, edge protection, appropriate access, lifting and hoisting procedures. Materials management — Lack of suitable lay down areas and segregation of materials storage. Failure to adequately "tie down" stored materials resulting in impact damage to surrounding structures and nature. Waste management — inadequate provision for disposal of construction waste, packing materials and the like resulting in trash being scattered throughout the area. Public Safety — adequate segregation of the public from construction activities. Health hazard posed by unrestrained Portable Toilet Facility leaking. Danger to life and property resulting from "storage" of roofing shingles (60Ib bag) on peak of roof for a period of over 2 months — this item was highlighted repeatedly and ultimately resulted in significant damage to our property from a strike. Nuisance — Noise from construction activities during "non-traditional" work hours (early morning, nights & weekends). Extreme noise from loose construction materials (roofing and siding). The failures noted resulted in damage to our personal cars caused by cement spillage and to our home in the form of replacement of broken window and siding. Based on the above stated points we respectfully ask for the Estes Park Planning Commission to disallow the Amendment Development Plan. Sincerely Sabina & lain McWhinney MEMO RE: Amended Development Plan TO: Current Homeowners & Buyers FROM: Frank Theis - CMS Planning DATE: August 15, 2013 You should have recently received a notice from the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department informing you that we filed for a Minor Modification of the Development Plan for The Meadow. You can see the application on the Town's website, if you go to the Community Development Department's current applications. The reason for this modification is to change the approved plan, which has four duplexes and a common building in Phase I. This amendment replaces the common building with another duplex, resulting in Phase I having 10 units in five duplexes with detached garages. Three duplexes have been built, and are owner-occupied. Of the remaining two duplexes in this phase, two of the four units pre-sold. There is no change to the layout of drives, parking, and buildings. We are not changing the old, approved plan for future phases at this time. It has to be changed in the future, because the No-Build Easement, filed with Larimer County, won't allow construction of the lower units on the approved plan. However, the process of a Major Development Plan Modification, which includes a Re-Plat of the property, typically takes over six months. We are doing the Minor Modification now, because it can be done by mid-September, and we can start construction on units 9 86 10 by October. Rick & Dawn James have Unit 9 under contract to close in the Spring of next year, so we need to get started on construction as soon as possible. We are planning to submit the Major Modification, which will move all of the units out of the no-build easement, this winter. You will all have an opportunity for in-put on the plan. I've attached a copy of the no-build easement. Please call me at (970) 231-6200 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Frank Theis CMS Planning The Meadow — Statement Of Intent Pagel 8/18/2013 I RECEPTION#: 20110014524, 03/04/2011 at 10:05:52 AM, 1 OF 4, R $26.00 PD Pgs: 0 Scott Doyle, Larimer County, CO EASEMENT GRANT Fhe Easement Grant is made by Marys Meadow Development, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor" and The Meadow at Estes Park Condominium Owners Association, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the The Meadow". trument: of a tra cd_W '&-fte l(\j r .Y follows and hereafter referred to as the "Property": Lot 4A, Marys Meadow Replat, Larimer County, Colorado B. The Property has been dedicated to The Meadow Condominiums, a Condominium Common Interest Community. C. The Grantor wishes to grant and The Meadow wishes to receive an easement preserving the view of condominium units in The Meadow Condominiums, over and across that part of the Property as shown on the attached Exhibit A. ,_ 1 r_ii ..„---..._, (7--_-...0 _, ___, , T F in si4ation ofl tn.). and other vat le c Q.I c of "hie h ThweadieV-tofollowi ritsf- covenants and restrictions are made: 1. GRANT OF EASEMENT. The Grantor hereby grants to The Meadow and all condominium unit owners in The Meadow Condominiums, their successors and assigns, as a permanent dedication for the use and benefit of owners of condominium units in The Meadow Condominiums, that Grantor, its successors and assigns, shall not build any buildings or structures within the area shown on Exhibit A, to preserve the view of condominium units over and across the portion of the Property shown in Exhibit A. 2. RUNNING OF BENEFITS AND BURDENS. tef,T-,:aad1*411-7-01;hi-Tqntl t*r' , cts.hanjs-and peq? reseqati :11-exis ease7inents reilictiSns All provisions of this instrument, rding upo Irarties h to. 11 s e is to the Pr 3. RESTRICTION ON DEVELOPMENT. The parties state and agree that this easement supercecles any rights Grantor may have by virtue °fatty approved Development Plan with the Estes Valley Planning Department and Commission. Grantor, its successors and assigns, agree to not build the units permitted by such Development Plan. However, Grantor shall be permitted to construct and maintain a series of detention ponds and surface water containment ditches and canals. Provided however, such surface water containment facilities shall be constructed of natural materials and have natural vegetation so as to maintain the natural appearance of the area shown in Exhibit A. This Easement shall also survive any Replatting of the Property as described in Article EI B of the Condominium Common interest Community Declaration of The Meadow Condominiums, and shall (SS) ROCKY MOUNTAIN ESCROW a TITLE 55 E WONDERVIEW AVE 6-2 ESTES PARK, COLORADO S0517 (-0Z— ames W. Tawney, Manager HTiie Estes r • • ilia. Ssoiation, 11 ames W. Tawney, President RECEPTIONi: 20110014524, 03/04/2011 at 10:05:52 AM, 2 OF 4, Scott Doyle, Larimez County, CO be a restriction upon any future development plans applicable to the Property. 4. ENFORCEMENT. Either party may enforce this instalment by appropriate action and the prevailing party in any such enforcement proceedings shall be entitled to recover their costs and reasonable attorneys fees. LN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor and The Meadow have signed this F.asement s / A - GRANTOR: Marys Meadow Development, LLC a Colorado Ltd. Liability Company Lt, r__I C—. UCTC C25 -v"(-1 ' STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss' COUNTY OF LAPJMER ) oe nt w Lt&be Tawne lo 2011. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires:& eiryakrXe ; c9b116, Nbtaiy Public It, 1 RECEPTTON#: 20110014524, 03/04/2011 at 10:05:52 AM, 3 OF 4, Scott Doyle, Larimer County, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing document was acknowledged by James W. Tawney as President of The Meadow at Estes Park Condominium Owners Association, Inc. before me this &4 day of I Public J (7-1 ffi My commission expires:(t)(1 ,c:Dcl a 4rA 4d4'(-9S.1eXA \-7 Map of The Meadow Condominiums of Lot 44 of Mary's Meadow Rep ltit a Portion of Section 2, Township 4 North., Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. Town of Estes Park, County C- La t a /gra Exhibit A NO &D I n..cn eittd. "" • --allgaztrazammrAra 12,6111CMIL: MUMMY igh lar4r4W2t1 an..-antrawantormm-- % g =an. 0131111im BrrlatItItinfr IS NOTES. calmwagatic or= 4 A:1‘c-' adoveasnore...nra,=.- legaimaiMirdpaipitallASKIL 2211ZSAMOITISI:=0""`"""."` ICESIVESIP"'" leer to. prYWOLIJSE'S MICITYRIfr- iiellardig Aigat•Irm =Au,'" SISAIMINV-- ti--) toC atunatrr. rialfiroin tot:ta taw PGANIPW'' LIMP wzrammr- ...11111.1.. C3 107iircirt-RLAIPZIffilta. =terVnra IffiriZAS:"'"" r.rxvirrow s comma& :6v MM. Cit X/_03-1 00. °MgrIr KlOWA lieiniist M, r • 8r I RECEPTION#: 20110014524, 03/04/201/ at /0:05:52 AM, 4 or 4, Scott Doyle, Larimar County, CO rs TO: Estes Park Community Development Department, SUBJECT: Mary's Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-01D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We purchased a condo in 2012 when the first phase of the Meadows was just a couple of years young. We fell in love with the area, its wide open space with abundant wildlife, and amazing views of Mummy Mountain and Mary's Lake. We understand that development in certain areas is crucial for Estes Park's continued growth, but this project and its phases were undefined at best, and poorly communicated to us as future home owners back in 2012. The plans being reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM are phase 2 of the development, (four duplexes [8 units] on Kiowa Trail). At the time we were in the process of purchasing our unit, the developer casually mentioned the possibility of more condos being built along Kiowa Trail, but was unclear and vague as to any definite plans. Phase 3, or the surprise phase, as we like to call it, is the development of six single-family units and a road leading to the units on the east side. We would like to express our concern over this phase. From our point of view it doesn't make much sense. These units will be architecturally different than all the other units, and they will literally be squeezed into an area that's not really suitable for additional housing. This phase will degrade the serenity of the area, take away valuable open space, and affect the natural wildlife that frequents the meadows. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to voice our opinions. Tim & Bonita Pruch 321 Kiowa Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 ', Mary's Meadow Development July 3, 2015 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: The Meadow Amended Development Plan Meetings With Neighbors Mary's Meadow Development has had numerous meetings with property owners neighboring The Meadow Condominiums regarding our plans for Phases 2 863, including the following: 1) Morgan Mulch, owner and operator of the hotel facilities at Marys Lake Lodge. 2) David LaSalle and Rick Loy, President and Vice-President of the Marys Lake Lodge Condominium Owners Association. Both of their wives attended the meeting, but they hadn't received any comments from other owners at that time. 3) Lindsay Lamson, owner of Rocky Mountain Resorts, property manager for the Marys Lake Lodge Condominium Owners Association. 4) All nine of the condominium owners in Phase 1 of The Meadow. 5) Ray and Teri Kuehn (by telephone), the owners of the single-family residence on the southeast corner of Kiowa Drive and Kiowa Trail, which is the house closest to Phase 2. A few of the condominium owners in Phase 1 of The Meadow have expressed concerns about the proximity of the units to their units, and the effect on their views. Otherwise, the people we met with expressed support for reduction in density and addition of open space. We have not received any other requests for meetings or information. Sincerely, Frank Theis MARY'S MEADOW DEVELOPMENT P. 0. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200 CMS Planning & Development July 10, 2015 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: The Meadow Amended Development Plan Response to Staff Findings After reviewing the Town Staff's Findings of Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code of our plans for The Meadow Phases 2 & 3, we have the following comments: 1) There are no sidewalks planned for Phase 3, because there are only six units, and we think the 20-foot-wide drive, with no parking allowed, provides a safe and functional alternative for pedestrian traffic. Also, we would like to limit the amount of pavement in order to maximize the open space and natural feel of the area. 2) The grading plan for Units 19 and 20, and the road serving them, can be changed to allow for two feet less fill at the northeast corner of Unit 19, by increasing the slope on the road from 4% to 5% and from 10% to 12.5%. The finished floor elevation on Unit 19 would be 8094.5. The maximum fill for the building would be 2 1/2 feet, while most of the building would be cut into the natural grade. 3) The maximum fill under the road would be reduced to six feet, and the slope on the north side of the road would be reduced to a 3:1 slope instead of 1:1 slope. A short section of the road nearest to the detention basin would have a 1:1 side slope. 4) Unit 20's finished floor elevation would be lowered to 8094, much closer to the existing grade. 5) The proposed slope to the west of Unit 19 won't exceed 33%. The proposed slope to the east of Unit 11 will be changed to match the existing grade. I hope this addresses staff's concerns regarding the proposed site plan. Sincerely, Frank Theis CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200 Mary's Meadow Development July 3, 2015 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Construction Site Maintenance Plan As part of the Amended Development Plan, Mary's Meadow Development agrees to maintain clean construction sites for all building construction in Phases 2 86 3 of The Meadow. The work shall include: 1) All construction materials will be stored in a neat manner and in a location least visible to neighboring residents. 2) Any construction debris, such as plastic wrapping, product packaging, and ordinary trash, will be picked up daily and disposed of in an approved construction dumpster. 3) Construction materials which are subject to being blown around by high winds, such as plywood, shingles, and siding materials, will be stored in a manner to prevent any material blowing away from the immediate building construction site. 4) If required to screen unsightly material storage or contain blowing materials, a construction fence will be installed. 5) No roofing materials will be stocked on a building's roof, unless the roof is prepared for immediate installation. 6) The meadow, Phase 1 of The Meadow, and other downwind properties will be policed for construction debris on a regular basis. MARY'S MEADOW DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200 pkleisler@estes.org From: Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:34 AM To: Phil Kleisler Subject: Fwd: impacted Homeowner Comment to Current Application: Kiowa Trail - TBD - Marys Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-01D Needs to be added to public comment for the PC notebooks and put on the web. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompsona,estes.org Forwarded message From: DWJ Trust <dwjtrust@centurylink.net> Date: Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:29 PM Subject: Impacted Homeowner Comment to Current Application: Kiowa Trail - TBD - Marys Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-01D To: planning@estes.org Estes Valley Planning Commission: We are writing to comment on the following Current Application: Kiowa Trail - TBD - Marys Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-01D. We are owners in The Meadow Development. Our condo is in Phase 1, Unit #9 which is 351 Kiowa Drive. We do not have any concerns with the development of Phase 2 which consists of 8 units in four duplexes on Kiowa Drive. We do have concerns with the development of Phase 3 which consists of 6 single-family units on Beamish Court. Our main concern is the proximity of the proposed development in Phase 3 to our home. 1 The commitment made by the Developer & Builder when we purchased Unit #9 was that there would be development in Phase 3, but the development would not block our view of the Mummy Mountain Range & Mary's Lake from our upper level deck. The commitment made to us was that the upper peak of the roof on the Phase 3 building was to be at or around the level of the deck floor so that we could enjoy the Mountain & Mary's Lake views while sitting on our deck chairs on our upper level deck. Based on a review of the proposed development plan in the Current Application and the survey stakes in the Meadow Area, it is clear that the proximity of the Southernmost single-family unit on Beamish Court in Phase 3 is too close to our home and the elevation of the roof line is not at or around the level of the deck floor and instead at a higher elevation that would substantially block our view of the Mummy Mountain Range & Mary's Lake from our upper level patio deck. Not only is the Southernmost single-family unit on Beamish Court in Phase 3 too close to our home, but based on an observation of the survey stakes, the proposed building is too close to the utility lines and utility line easement. Our recommendation is that the Developer & Builder move the Southernmost building farther north so that it will not be too close to our home (and the utility easement) and ensure that the roof line of the proposed buildings will not block our view of the Mummy Mountain Range & Mary's Lake while sitting on our deck chairs on our upper level deck. We would further request that Developer & Builder consider changing the design of the buildings in Phase 3 to single story buildings which are more desirable to our growing retirement population. One viable option to maintain the square footage in a one story building is to make them one story patio homes with the common wall at the garages of each building. We thank you in advance for your time and consideration of our comments. Please confirm receipt of our comments. Sincerely, Richard & Dawn James 351 Kiowa Drive (Unit #9 in Phase 1) Estes Park, CO 80517 2 STATEMENT OF INTENT Revised 6/11/15 Development Plan Amendment THE MEADOW CONDOMINIUMS Lot 4 — Mary's Lake Replat The subject property is 5.062 acres located between Marys Lake Road and Kiowa Trail east of Marys Lake Lodge. This property has an approved Development Plan for 35 residential condominium units. The first phase of the development has been completed with 10 units in 5 duplexes. The approved plan has twenty-five units in three phases remaining to be built. This amendment reduces the number of units by 11 to 14 in two phases. The changes that are being proposed: CURRENT PLAN AMENDED PLAN 1) Total Project Area 220,500 sf 220,500 sf 2) Average Slope 6.8% 6.8% 3) Total number of Units 35 24 a. Single 5 6 b. Duplex 10 18 c. Multi-Family 20 0 4) Density Requirements: a. 6 Single x 9,000 sf b. 18 Duplex x 6,750 sf c. Total Area Required Net Density 5) Parking: a. Spaces Required b. Spaces Provided 54,000 sf 121,500 sf 175,500 sf 9,187.5 sf/Unit 2.25/Unit x 24 Units = 54 Spaces 36 Garage + 57 Other = 93 Spaces 6) Lot Coverage 69,610 sf or 31.6% (50% allowed) CMS PLANNINC; & DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 (970) 231-6200 ZONING This property is zoned A-Accommodations, under which Single-family and Two-family dwelling units are Permitted by Right. PHASING Phase 2 consists of 8 units in four duplexes on Kiowa Trail. It includes installation of all sewer and electric mains, and the upper gas and water mains. Phase 3 consists of 6 Single-family units on Beamish Court. It includes the lower gas and water mains, and the construction of Beamish Court. ACCESS & PARKING Kiowa Trail was approved and built as a private drive in a public right-of-way in 2005-2006. Based on neighborhood input, this road layout was intended to allow public access, while discouraging too much traffic. It provided parking for Lot 4 units directly on the road, which is allowed for a private drive. However, it also allowed for unit parking in the right-of-way, which is normally not allowed. This unusual plan was developed and approved by the Town to satisfy neighbors' concerns. Kiowa Trail and the Right-Of-Way have to be maintained by the owners of Lots 2 and 4, as described in the attached Maintenance Covenant. In order to ameliorate any code conflicts created by the approved road plan, this amendment reduces the parking directly on Kiowa Trail from 34 to 16 spaces. The driveways to the one-car garages are shared, so there are only four driveways onto Kiowa Trail. As a private drive, Kiowa Trail is not subject to minimum curb cuts, driveway separation, backing restrictions, landscape buffers, and parking setbacks normally required for public roads. UTILITIES Utilities remain the same as the current plan. Main lines and easements have been relocated to fit the amended plan. LIGHTING Three parking area light fixtures are included in the amended plan. They are located on the Kiowa Trail parking. There are no common light fixtures on Beamish Court. LOT COVERAGE / OPEN SPACE This amendment creates a much larger, dedicated open space than the current plan. DRAINAGE There are no changes to the approved drainage plan. The detention basins have already been built. TRAFFIC This amendment reduces traffic generated by this development by 31%, 24 residential units instead of 35 residential units. WAIVERS The applicant is requesting waiver of the bike rack requirement, since this is essentially a low density, single-family residential development, not a destination or multi-family development. CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 60517 (970) 231.6200 STATEMENT OF INTENT Prepared 5/27/15 Development Plan Amendment THE MEADOW CONDOMINIUMS Lot 4 — Mary's Lake Replat The subject property is 5.062 acres located between Marys Lake Road and Kiowa Trail east of Marys Lake Lodge. This property has an approved Development Plan for 35 residential condominium units. The first phase of the development has been completed with 10 units in 5 duplexes. The approved plan has twenty-five units in three phases remaining to be built. This amendment reduces the number of units by 11 to 14 in two phases. The changes that are being proposed: CURRENT PLAN AMENDED PLAN 1) Total Project Area 220,500 sf 220,500 sf 2) Average Slope 6.8% 6.8% 3) Total number of Units 35 24 a. Single 5 6 b. Duplex 10 18 c. Multi-Family 20 0 4) Density Requirements: a. 6 Single x 9,000 sf b. 18 Duplex x 6,750 sf c. Total Area Required Net Density 5) Parking: a. Spaces Required b. Spaces Provided 54,000 sf 121,500 sf 175,500 sf 9,187.5 sf/Unit 2.25/Unit x 24 Units = 54 Spaces 30 Garage + 57 Other = 87 Spaces CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 (970) 231-6200 ZONING This property is zoned A-Accommodations, under which Single-family and Two-family dwelling units are Permitted by Right. PHASING Phase 2 consists of 8 units in four duplexes on Kiowa Drive. It includes installation of all sewer and electric mains, and the upper gas and water mains. Phase 3 consists of 6 Single-family units on Beamish Court. It includes the lower gas and water mains, and the construction of Beamish Court. ACCESS & PARKING Kiowa Trail was approved and built as a private drive in a public right-of-way in 2005-2006. Based on neighborhood input, this road layout was intended to allow public access, while discouraging too much traffic. It provided parking for Lot 4 units directly on the road, which is allowed for a private drive. However, it also allowed for unit parking in the right-of-way, which is normally not allowed. This unusual plan was developed and approved by the Town to satisfy neighbors' concerns. Kiowa Trail and the Right-Of-Way has to be maintained by maintained by the owners of Lots 2 and 4, as described in the attached Maintenance Covenant. This amendment reduces the parking directly on Kiowa Trail from 34 to 16 spaces. UTILITIES Utilities remain the same as the current plan. Main lines and easements have been relocated to fit the amended plan. LIGHTING Two parking area light fixtures are included in the amended plan. This is one less than the current plan. LOT COVERAGE / OPEN SPACE This amendment significantly reduces Lot Coverage, and creates a much larger dedicated open space than the current plan. DRAINAGE There are no changes to the approved drainage plan. The detention basins have already been built. TRAFFIC This amendment reduces traffic generated by this development by 31%, 24 residential units instead of 35 residential units. WAIVERS The applicant is requesting waiver of the bike rack requirement, since this is essentially a low density, single-family residential development, not a destination or multi-family development. ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 (970) 231-6200 CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 416 ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Type of Applicator) Development Plan I— Boundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map r Special Review r ROW or Easement Vacation r Preliminary Map r Rezoning Petition r Street Name Change f" Final Map r Preliminary Subdivision Plat r Time Extension r Supplemental Map r Final Subdivision Plat ,P( Other: Please specify r r Minor Subdivision Plat Amended Plat AM Eis.) DM EN General Information Project Name Project Description Project Address Legal Description Parcel ID # Site Information -r-te_ I E ADO 3 7:b /17- 4 r-'1 P42--," S VLE /1.D P T _3 4- 02_4 3 S Lot Size c) 6 Area of Disturbance in Acres L l — Ac res A.1._ ' Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service JSGTown r Well r None Proposed Water Service F<Town 3 Well r None Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD Is a sewer lift station required? r Yes Existing Gas Service „JR" Xcel r Other r Other (specify) E Other (specify) UTSD 374, UTSD ,,Pc\ No r None Septic r None Septic Existing Zoning A, - A,G,-,-Dt-ir-topAyofo.., Proposed Zoning Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes No Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? Primary Contact Information r Yes r No Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Attachments tV 0 , 3c3x 6 r Owner A plicant - 5 GC) ,r<bonsultant/En•ineer Application fee S• tatement of intent 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan 1• 1" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan X Digital Copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, andfor other additional information. Town of Estes Park .4. P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Pork. CO 80517 Community Development Deportment Phone: (9701 577-3721 .6 Fox: (9701 586-029 www.estes.org/Communit'Developmenl Revised 2013.08.27 KT Record Owner(s) 1-1 AP----( tstc-.. DE v DLO P - Mailing Address 5e:21 k RAI Ltv # ZCZ) Phone Cell Phone - " 5<;er; Fax Email Applicant t-1 &)/ / N.1c- Mailing Address () r6ox 1 r6, C si C__ 5-1. Phone 2 3 1 - 6 z_z_)c) Cell Phone Fax Email -r-f s 3 C_A-) PtAfi_ ConsultantiEngineer VAN) E I i•-)e_ Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email /C., 4 3 F i s FAR-IC, Ca) xos i 7 ‘.7.3 55`'S 10(-\) he -4,7,` 0-Ai . (i) APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: www.estes.oro/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninqApplicationFeeSchedule.odf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT 46y) at2GrZ97-4) X',260 Applicant PLEASE PRINT Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Date C • 77 - Date 7.(r! /. Revised 2013.08.27 10 Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT /7Zza te- Applicant PLEASE PRINT . Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Date Date 57.Z 77,"/"5" APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property 10. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). 11‘. I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application . The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at hltp://www. estes.orq/Corn DeviDevC ode 111. I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. 10. I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. O. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. Ilk• The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. to- I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. Po I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void Reviseo 2013.0627 KT —TC --TO— BURIED TELE B CABLE WATER UNE (DUCTLE IRON PIPE/COPPER) - 5 BURY MIN. SERER UNE (PVC) - MAIN - Bully LAIN -0— GAS UNE (POLYETHYLENE DIRECT BURIED) 3' BURY, AU. SEANCE LINES ALL RE 1147 — — — — — BUILDING SETBACKS PROPERTY LIVES NEIGHBORING FINNERTY ONES PLATTED UNITS OF DISTURBANCE AND EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE FACILITIES NEW UNITS OF DISTURBANCE PHASE LANES UTILITY POLE LIGHT POLE ELECTRIC PEOESTAL CABLE PEDESTAL 39 ELECTRIC PRIMARY FABIRET ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL WATER VALVE FRE HYDRANT SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TANNARY SEWER CLEANCTJT STORM SEWER MANHOLE (SRI-MANHOLE. SC-TYPE-C) TRASH PAD (FENCE ENCLOSED) CONIFER TREE AS NOTED DECIDUOUS TREE AS NOTED DOe00® a [c, Eltt DRESS SIDE WITH TOP ,SOIL/SEED (AYR.) CONCRETE SIDEWALK USE NATIVE FILL_ WHEN AVAILABLE COMPACTED TO 95%, SUPPLY HARES CLASS 6 ROADBASE THEREAFTER ASPINU-SEE TYPICAL ORE SIDEWALK TO =V MSS SECTION DOWNHILL SIDE UNNECESSARY Cc EATENDfr LOT 29.1601m ADE E-1 ZONE LOT Na. KONA RIDGE E-T Ecem LOT T NOWA RIOCE E-1 ZOE (72 07 DEVELOPMENT PLAN-GENERAL PLAN DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY SCALE 05-27-2015 SLEET 1 OF 5 PRO). NO. 2005 -1 1- 01 STATISTICAL INFORMATION: 1 GROSS PROJECT AREA - 220500 SF OR 5.062 ACRES NET PROJECT AREA 220.500 SF OR 5.062 ACRES 2 NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED AVERAGE SLOPE - 6.8% 3 PROPOSED PRINCIPAL USE IS RESIDENTIAL: SINGLE FAMILY LAND AREA PER UNIT - 9,000 - 6 PROPOSED DUPLEX LANG AREA PER IMO - 6,750 - IN PROPOSED TOTAL LAND AREA USED 9.000(8)46750(18) 175.500 40 UNITS ALLOWED IF DEVELOPED FULLY WITH MAD FAMILY USE 122 TARS ALLOWED IF DEVELOPED WITH ACCOMMODADONS USE 4 PROJECT NET DENSITY - 220,500/24 - 9,1E173 SF/UNIT 5 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED - BASED ON RESIDENTIAL USE TWO PER UNIT + 0,25 FOR GUESTS - 2.25.24 - 54 THREE MUST BE ACCESSIBLE WITH 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED - 87 40 SPACES IN THE GARAGES. 20 IN FRONT OF PHASE 2813 GARAGES, 27 SPACES IN PARKING AREAS. ONE OF WHICH IS VAN ACESSABLE AND ALL OF THE PHASE 2813 GARAGE SPACES WILL BE CAR ACCESSIBLE 6. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT - 30' )}(DROP OVER DIE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING) - NOT TO EXCEED 40' 7, LOT COVERAGE - 69.619 DR 11.6% BLOC FOOTPRINTS 53.007 ASPHALT DIODE 81 PARKING = 29.385 CONCRETE PATHS & PATIOS 6,41E1 (505 ALLOWED) Development Plan for The Meadow Modification #4 Phase 2 & 3 Change and Eliminate Phase 4 of Lot 4A, of Mary's Meadow Replat a Portion of Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. Town of Estes Park, County of Lorimer, State of Colorado SCALE - 40' 40 RD 120 VARIES 20. MIN VESTED RIGHTS STATEMENT APPROVAL OF DNS PLAN CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 60 OF TOLE 24, CRS_ AS AMENDED. PHASING PLAN: PHASE ONE: COMPLETE SLOPE TO 2-4% WYMMILL Legend —ETC 2' CONTOUR BURIED COMM USES - ELECTRIC. ETC — TELEPHONE AND CABLE SEE ELEC CONSTRUCTION PLAN —01M-014U— BURIED EIECINIC. TELE AND CABLE SOW —OM-0111— OVERHEAD ELEC. TELE AND CABLE 0 PHASE IWO • UNITS 11-16 • ALL OF THE SANITARY SEWER INCLUDING SERVICE STUBS • AU. OF THE TELEPHONE. ELECTRIC & CARLE INCLUDING SERVICES STUBS AND LIGHT POLES • THE DOMESTIC WATER FROM THE MAN TAP ON MARY'S TAKE RD TO THE WEST THEN SOON ALONG MORA CT, THEN EAST TO THE TEMPORARY HYDRANT DE FIRE HYDRATES ON KIOWA CT WILL BE INSTALLED MO SE/DACE STUBS TO UNITS 11-18 BILL BE PROVIDED • KIOWA CT WILL BE ALTERED AS NECESSARY AT THE SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS AND DEARTH CT. ALONG WITH ORNEWAYS NECESSARY FOR UNITS 11 THRU 10 • ALL Or THE SIDEWALKS. • All. OF THE LANDSCAPING ALONG KIOWA CT • SOUTH TRASH CONTAINER DIE INDMDUAL UNITS AND THOR LANDSCAPING ALL BE DONE ON AN AS PERMITTED/CONSTRUCTED BASIS PHASE THREE • UNITS 19-24 • THE DOMESTIC WATER ALONG BEARISH CT. THE TEMPORARY HYDRANT WILL BE MOVED TO IT'S PERMANENT LOCATION NEXT TO THE FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND ALONG WTH SERVICE SILOS TO UNITS 19-24. • THE GAS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF UNIT 11 AND 24, THEN NORTH ALONG BEARISH CT • NORTH TRASH CONTAINER STANBARD TYPE 2 CAIRO AND GUNTER WITH TIN' WIER 3. COMPACTED ASPHALT IN PLACE 4' COMPACTED CLASS 5 AGGREGATE ROAD BASE WITH FINES OR MANIERE, COMPACTION WILL RE TO 9511 OR BETTER COMPACTED SUB BASE MATERIAL FREE Of ORGANIC MATERIAL TYPICAL DRIVEWAY CROSS-SECTION NO SCALE STANDARD SIDEWALK NO SCALE 20' AIDE RICHT MOTORIZED THAL EASEMENT PROTECT NOTES: t, THIS SITE PLAN IS REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A LAND SURVEY PLAT NOR AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT, 2. ZONING FOR LOT 4A IS ACCOMMODATIONS 00. SETBACKS ARE SHINN AS 15' FROM SIDE 1.01 LINE 15' FROM KIOWA MAR AND KIOWA DRIVE AND 25' FROM MARES LAKE ROAD. 3. All REWIRED DAPROVENTENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED DR GJARANTEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EON SECTION 7.12 AND 10.5.K. 4. THE OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE U.S.A. MD I.B.C. S. ALL WALKWAYS AND DRIVES SHALL BE HARD SURFACED 6. TRASH DUMPSTERS SHALL BE SECURED AGAINST BEARS AND OTHER ANIMALS. FENCES FOR THE TRASH ENCLOSURES SHALL CONFORM TO THOSE PREDOMINANT MATER...LS AND COLORS Of THE BUILDINGS 7. °ELUDES ARE SCHEMATIC, THE ACTUAL. LOCATORS HELL BE FIELD FIT AT THE THE OF INSTALLATION. B. LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE DESIGNATED IN THE FIELD PROR TO COMMENCEMENT OF EXCAVATION. GRADING. OR CONSTRUCTION 0611.1 CONSTRUCTOR BARRIER FENCING CR SOME OTHER MEMO) APPROVED BY STAFF 9 ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DOWNCAST WITH LUMINAIRES MOUNTED NO HIGHER THAN 15'. AS FER ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT COUE. 10. ALL BUILDINGS ALL HAVE A WOODEN PLACARD WITH THE LINT NUMBER DESIGNATION ON DIE FRONT OF THE BUILDING FAONC DIE DRIVEWAY OR CENTRAL AREA. AS APPUCABLE. THE UNITS ACCESSED THROUGH THE CENTRAL AREA HILL HAW THE UMTS POSTED AT THE ENTRY FROM THE PARKING AREAS, THE ADDRESS LAYOUT IS YET TO BE DETERMINED. IT. ALL SAME UNIT SEDATE LINES SHALL BE 1' COPPER FOR WATER. 4' PVC FOR SEVER, Or PED FOR GAS. 2,1r CONDUIT FOR ELECTRIC. 2' CONDUIT FOR TELEPHONE AND I CONDUIT FOR CABLE. NOTE THAT ALL ELECTRIC MANN LINES ALL HAVE A e CONDUIT FOR 1 PHASE THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. TELEPHONE MAIN ALL HAVE e AND CABLE MAN WILL HAVE r CONDUIT THROUGHOUT AS WELL 12. PARKING LOT STRIPING AND HANDICAP DESIGNATIONS ALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WIN THE 1.1.U.T.C.D. CODE. SIGNS SHALL BE PLACE ON THE OTHER ODE OF THE SIDEWALK FROM THE HANDICAP SPACES 13. ALL POSTAL ADDRESSES ALL RE DELIVERED TD THE CLUSTER BOX LOCATED ALONG KICIVIA CHIVE. ADDITIONAL BOXES ALL BE ADDED TO SERVICE THIS DEVELOPMENT. 14. PER SECTION 7.13, 'CONDUrt. METERS. MOS AND OTTER EOUIPTMENT ATTACHED TO THE BUILOING OR PROTRUDING FROM THE ROOF SHALL RE SCREENED. COVERED OR PANTED TO MINIMIZE VISLIAL IMPACTS.' 15. MAINTENANCE OF ON-STE DRAINAGE FACILITES IS THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCADON OR THE PROPERTY OWNER. 16. THE UNITS. CRUDES, AND LANDSCAPING IN TILE PROPOSED PH ASE AREAS WILL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION CF OTHER PHASES AS BEST ABLE 10 CONTROL SITE DISTURBANCE AND FINISH DEVELOPED AREAS. 17. THE ASPEN GROVE TO THE NORTH OF UNIT 10 ON LOT 4A SHALL BE STARED OFF WITH CONSTRUCTOR FENCE AND BE WITHIN A UNITS OF DISTURBANCE, CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL: THE UNDERSIGNED. BEING THE OWNERS. 00 HEREBY AGREE THAT THE REAL PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FILED HEREWITH, AND AS SHOWN ON THIS STE PLAN SHALL RE SUBJECT TO THE FRONTONS OF 111LE 17 CF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AND ANY OTHER °ROMANCES OF THE TENN OF ESTES PARK. COLORADO PERTAINING THERETO. MARY'S MEADOW DEVELOPMENT, INC. BY GREG H. COFFMAN, PRESIDENT PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATE: APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE ESTES VALLEY PLANNNING COMMISSION ON THIS DAY OF 20 MANNING COMMOTION CHAR ATTEST Vicinity Map . 1200' EASEMENT 10' CONTOUR 10, ExTSTING PosvL CLUSTER 60TH UN DISTANCE DMA RIERSECTON .1411. 174' TO NT. vt, 100P 1 711111111111M1111.t. '•-•• • LIMPLATZD l51 E -1 ZONE UNIT 24 EE-BOSS UNIT 23 FT-5095 • STORM SEWER MANHOLE (SY -NANNDLE. SC-TYPE-C) 0 TRASH PAD (PENCE ENCLOSED) • CONIFER TREE AS NOTED • DECIDUOUS TREE AS NOTED SCALE: •- 22 20 40 Comer 10 EDSIUS PRIMLY sox if' RED Ds Sciwcs (Tr sumo( LINES To RE INSTALLED N SMdE TRENc.H As MAN was UNIT 20 PT-BOS6 .0vOlInt 11A 1111111111111111 MW ELECTRIC MEAN° C. AND CAME SERVICE (TA) UNIT 12 MAT-8118 UNIT 18 Lar.al TO LET.0117.1 UNIT 17 urNe11.3 or-61 DJ UNIT )3 MFF.11116 LEE-41106 UNIT 11 MAT-8118 LFT.111011 UNIT 22 FTBD(15.5 UNIT 19 rr.novas A Development Plan for The Meadow Modification #4 Utility Plan of Lot 4A, of Mary's Meadow Replat a Portion of Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. Town of Estes Park, County of Lorimer, State of Colorado Legend EASEMENT 10' CONTOUR 2' CONTOUR ETC ETC - BURIED COMM LINES - ELECTRIC. TELEPHONE AND CABLE SIT ELEC CONSTRUCTION PLAN BURIED ELECTRIC. TELE AND CABLE SERVICE OVERHEAD ELEC. 11rLE AND CABLE 7c TC - BURIED TELE At CABLE 111-11-- WATER UNE (puns IRON PIPE/COPPER) - BURY MIN S-S S SEWER UNE (PVC) - MAIN - S BURY MIN D.-c_o GAS LINE (POLVETWELENE DIRECT BURIED) 2' BURY. ALL SERVICE UNES MILL BE 15' BUILDING SETBACKS PROPERTY USES NEIGHBORING PROPERTY LINES 0 MUTT POLE ▪ LIGHT POLE ID ELECTRIC PEDESTAL Soli CABLE PEDESTAL • SO ELECTRIC Mawr CABINET ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER • TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SS WATER VALVE • FIRE HYDRANT 0 SANITARY SEWER LuoiNGLE 6 sANRARE SEWER MAHOUT a.. r:4 0 O rr.1 ty En a. ,14 E-1 O DRAWN 91 CHECKED TO JWC LAS SCALE DATE: 05-27-2015 1%420' SHEET 2 5 FRO./ NO 2005-11-01 UTILITY PLAN 1.4 0.40 GRADE FO4 94 7 FG- 14.46 nuns of DERTAGR,G6- /\\ / • / 2yA :::_CIO WA TR. 5 5 51 \ Yt I ?' 1 8090' --- Development Plan for The Meadow Modification #4 Grading and Drainage Plan of Lot 4A, of Mary's Meadow Replat a Portion of Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. Town of Estes Park, County of Lorimer, State of Colorado I li h 1/ 1 i 1, ISLAND 0 6003 1 1 1 ,,\ 1. Al If 11' A 1 %., \ \A t1( - DAR •ATER LEVEL • 6915T.9 • \ .7- -..----.--1) /I i 1: g 1 1( 6 //7 / WI ----------------->-.--- ....Z:- ..----'..-." , --7,-,;- . -.I/ I / k it CETENTION WIN ....," ....,' ,..";,..'------ ______ ...--' ,.." '. ------' • ...'' .4 \ ... , • 0, .., , ... , ....-- DANN TO REhINN IN PLIC ..... E nr........ / .. :1 . ' ..... 7' 'rz DsmaNcE \ IN, •‘,..._ ,- ..- ..-ENVIING 79.4.47C ocitum. r : / " -- ------------------ ,.. •-•.:Gr."---..-•..-.....-.• •••• ....+.• -. . ... ...r.''' Vi.-.1,--..---,11 'A, -IV 1 \ -- , ,,.......!.r,.. - -.' ='''': 4 , 1 1 P.; 1 Ili ton 01-, 4 0 I 3 I 5 7 / I I --- -------- VG. DOA ------ ---- c+c 5 5 4 * • 4 _ . SCALI 90. 0 20 W 60 DRAWN 00 CHECKED 54 LAS SCALE ------- -- --- ________ --- -- ------ — —.— 47— DATE, 05 27 2015 SHEET 3 5 POW 2005--11-01 NOTES: 1. AU. DISTURBED AREAS SMALL SE RESTORED AS MATURAL-APPEARING LAND FERIAS. ROTH C111166 THAT BLEND IN MTH AEVACE141 UNDISTURBED SLOPES. MENU, ANGULAR ERANSMONS AND LINEAR SLOPES SHALL SE AVOIDED. 2. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY GRADING DOLL BE REVEOETATED *RHIN ONE GROWING SEASON AFTER CONS-1163010M USING A SW)STAFERAL MIXED STAND OF NAT& OR ADAPTED GRASSES AND GROUND CRIERS. THE DENSITY OF NE REESTABLISHED GRASS VEGETATION AMER ONE GROWING SEASON SHALL BE ADEQUATE TO PRE/ENT SOIL EROSADIA AND IMASION OF WEEDS 3. ALL PORTMAN OF THE SITE WHERE DUSTING VEGETATNE COVER IS DAMAGED CR REMOVED, THAT ARE NOT OTHERWISE COVERED WITH NEW IMPROVEMENTS, SHALL BE SUOCESSRALY IMTEUETATIX W111-1 A SUBSTANTIAL MIXED STAND OF NATN/E OR ADAPTED BASSES AND GROUND COVE/TS. 1. ON UM MADE SLOPES OF 25% OR GREATER. PLANT MATERIALS 6111I DEEP ROOTING CHARAGTERMTCS SHALL BE SELECTED THAT WILL 111146/ME EROSION AND REDUCE SURFACE RUNOFF. ALL MAN LODE SLOPES GREATER THAN 50% TO BE MULCHED AND NETTED TO ENSURE ADEQUATE STA/NU/AWN AND RE-VEGETATION. 5 TO THE EsExtuum ERENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STOCKPILED AND CONSUMED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION OR I/NOW/APING, SUCH AS MIT AND rill SLOPES. 6. NO TREES OR VEGETATION SHALL BE REMOVE!) OUTSIDE THE APPROVED UNITS OF DISTURBANCE. 7. CONFER TREES SHALL BE 5710 AS 509 EIGHT FEET TALL AND 30% AT SIX FEET TAIL AT PLANTING. DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE SIZED AS 509 AT FOUR INCH C.M.PER MID 509 AT TWO INCH CALIPER PLANTINC. SHRUBS SHALL BE 5 CALLON CONTAINER OR LARGER AT PLANTING. a. ALL PLANE MATERIAL SHALL NEST THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN SPECIFICATION FOR NUMBER 1 GRADE AND MINI. COMPLY WITH THE QUALIFY STANDARDS OF THE COLORADO NURSERY OCT. 110.1 35, ARTICLE 26, C.R.S., AS AMENDED 9. ALL LANDSCAPES SHALL INCLUDE A PROPERLY FUNCTIONING AUTOMATED SPRINKLER SYSTEM WIT11 morvieuaL Sam urrEs FOR NON 11161 AREAS. 10. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY. GROWING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. THE PROPERTY 01614ER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULAR IRRIGATING, PRUNING, REEDING, MOWING, HERTILLSING, REPLACEMENT OF PLANTS IN POOR GONOMDIA AND OTHER MAJNTENANCE Of ALL PuernaGs AS NEEDED. IT. ALL TREES SHALL BE STARED OR EDITED APO 4616,1.0 TO PROTECT FROM WILDLIFE DAMAGE NO CHAIN LINK FENCING SHALL BE ALLOYED TO PROTECT LANDSCAPING FROM WILDUFE DAMAGE 12. DEPARTIAENT OF WILDLIFE SHALL NOT BE RMPONSIFILE FOR DAMAGE BY WILDLIFE 13. THIS SITE PLAN IS REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY. IT IS NOT TO Of FIA CONT. STRUED AS A LAND SWANEY PLAT NOR AN INFINNENENT SURVEY PLANTING REQUIREMENTS: PER WORKSHEET IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. 1 TREE AND 3 SHRUBS FOR EVERY I IMO SF OF IhIPERNOUS EDT AREA 69.610 Sr: 33 TR= AND 116 SIM% 840 8L STREET FRONTAGE: I TREE PER 75 UNEAL FEET MID 1 SHRUB PER 10 UNEAL FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE 852 FEET EAST BOUNDARY REQUIRES 34 TREES AND 85 SHRUBS: NON-ARTERIAL STREET FRONTAGE 1 TREE PER 40 LINEAL FEET AND 1 SHRUB PER 15 LINEAL FEET OF SI KIM FRONTAGE 588 FEET REWIRES II TREES ANO 39 SHRUBS PARKING LOT REOUREMEMS, NON-ARTERIAL 51141EL I TREE PER 30 LINEAL FEET AND I SHRUB PER 10 UNEAL FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE BD FEET REQ0IR6 3 TREES AND a SAIRIMS SCALD - 217 23 40 MEE/4113 TITH8103 UNIT 13 raft -EMS Lf r .8 108 UNIT 14 LIFT-8116 LFFB1011, UNIT 15 TAFF.481 14 Lrt-6100 UNIT 11 MFE461111 IFF-13108 UNIT 12 uFF.F111$ LFT-8106 62 50 12 112 30 30 GO Phase 2 & 3 Phase 1 Existing TOTAL PLANNED TO TOTAL REQUIRED 209 .,.." . .- ......--' ,..--- ......... ....,4DXF.1:.,..driravo.; .: --' .• .....— .....+-4-FF ... -...-••••.- ,,,..._...--.--EA 8 —Al —IA —16--61 1 .1- UNIT 19 8090' FAO 4. e095' T FF.1096.5 UNIT 24 FF-BC115 UNIT 22 FT.8095.5 UNIT 21 M-0095.5 UNIT 23 R7 0000 UNIT 20 F9440096 UNIT la ego ra ----m—M-1-416 ,/ , UNIT 17 MFT,511 3 LFE.5103 UNIT 16 RAFT'-8114 LFF8104 80136' PLANT SCHEDULE - PHASE 2 la 3 PLANT TOTAL COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 6 6' PONDEROSA PINE 8 6' - ASPEN 48 E* SHRUBS TREES QUANTITY SIZE Development Plan for The Meadow Modification #4 LANDSCAPE PLAN of Lot 4A, of Mary's Meadow Replat a Portion of Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. Town of Estes Park, County of Lorimer, State of Colorado 02 CD DRAWN ST. CHECKED BY: LAS DAM SHUT Q W r/1 5 M -27-2015 JWC/FET PROD D. 2006-11-01 FLOOR E AREAS pgas NASEREE11 FT. 1.144 SF Lunt FLOOR- 1.144 SF DECKS- 144 SF EMS. 215 SF TOTAL PER UNIT. 2.551 SF TYPE 413 CONSTRUCTOR 1.0X NET REOUREO AvERAGE PRE MAW SPACING WIRT ER XXI MET CURRENT OM. PRORDEs FOR THAT. IRE TRuCx 04410FRON5 MOM 5.17 NOOK 0.17 UENOTH 40 FRONT 7.05 A0IE-4.41.4 21.0 TURNING NOTES: Ali 1L0NIN0 RADO RENE DONE uSTE. THE LEFT FRONT VATEM PA111 INSIOE LET EPREL RADIUS 1444611.114 204 12'. OUTROE LETT *REEL RADIUS UREMUIA We 50'. Development Plan for The Meadow Modification #4 Fire Truck Turning Templates of Lot 4A, of Mary's Meadow Replat a Portion of Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. Town of Estes Park, County of Lorimer, State of Colorado SCALE 1' N 20 00 60 PHASE 3 NNN FLOOR- 1.540 SF uPPER 1061. - 754 SF EWES- 252 SF TOTAL PER WV. 2.57e SF TOW TB CONSTRUCTION 1.000 NFT RECIUREO FIRETRUCK TURNING RADIUS LRAVAI Efr, SW0 SCALE 1--20" ‘,\ CHECKED 8, LAS 05-27-2015 SHEET 5 OF 5 P004 NO 2005-11-01 AVERAGE FRE ITYDRAErt SPACIOS 40.151 BE 500 FEET. CURROO DESIGN PROVIDES ToR TN41 UNIT 23 0095 UNIT 21 FT.EKI95.5 UNIT 24 FT-8095 UNIT 22 F7.8095.5 vigfiltgry 825' -1.1,01,1ARY IOWANS /- SCE S.1E, 3 BEAMISH CT UNIT 12 4Frs.01 18 LfT.8,00 O UNIT 14 IlliFw8116 I.FF11106 UNIT 13 OFT-61 IN 79 8106 UNIT 17 OFF-8113 I.M.6103 UNIT 16 MiT-6114 lif.13104 UNIT 15 1101,11114 UT-6104 UNIT 11 Hr-8116 vr-atcs 0V0 (Art 19 TV-51095.5 KIOWA TR UNIT 20 7Fm8096 UNIT 18 OFF-6113 Marys Meadow Amended OP 06-O1D.xls Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip 601 S BOWEN PARTNERSHIP / TAYLOR NETTIE 1521 LINDEN ST LONGMONT CO 80501 ALADOR LLC 308 BOULDER RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507 ALVAREZ DAVID/JENNIFER LACROIX 9525 MOSS WAY ARVADA CO 80007 ALWAYS ESTES LLP 6607 ASPEN ST LAVISTA NE 68128 ANUSKEWICZ TARA 45-177 LILIPUNA RD APT G KANEOHE HI 96744 BARBER KENT E/JENNIPHER R 506 31ST ST FAIRBURY NE 68352 BERGERON GERALD E TRUST 77 WANDERING ELK WAY ESTES PARK CO 80517 BLANKENSHIP A SUZANNE/W SCOTT 2301 MALYSA PL PENSACOLA FL 32504 BLATT DAVID R/MELINDA K 508 PROMONTORY DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 CARSON KEITH/SHARON 14115 S 234TH ST GRETNA NE 68028 CBC FRONT RANGE COLORADO LLC 1111 MAIN ST STE 2800 KANSAS CITY MO 64105 CHAN WAN-YU ELISA / HEW MIN CHOW 613 CONTADORA SAN ANTONIO TX 78258 CHASSE BONNE LLC 505 N 7TH ST STE 2700 SAINT LOUIS MO 63101 CHILSON ROGER L/SHARON K BUDDE CONTRAD JR/LARENA 6704 SPANISH BAY DR WINDSOR CO 80550 CLEAR RIVER PROPERTIES LLC 5027 RADBROOK PL DALLAS TX 75220 CLOUGH KYLE D/BRANDON R 102 S LINCOLN AVE WALLACE NE 69169 CLOUGH RODNEY D/DONNA K 37019 W CREEK RD WALLACE NE 69169 COLEMAN SHARON L 351 WHISPERING PINES ESTES PARK CO 80517 COTTON MARY JANE 2625 MARYS LAKE RD UNIT 103 ESTES PARK CO 80517 DOUGAN JAMES MILLER/JANET EAKINS 3630 E PHILLIPS AVE CENTENNIAL CO 80122 DRYER LEONARD J JR/BARBARA A 5349 GRAND FIR WAY PARKER CO 80134 DUGAN CAROL A TRUST 2625 MARYS LAKE RD UNIT S6 ESTES PARK CO 80517 EDELBROCK GREGORY J/PHYLLIS J 802 TREE HAVEN CT HIGHLAND VILLAGE TX 75077 FARKAS STEVEN W / FARKAS LAURIE R 518 STETSON DR CHEYENNE WY 82009 FINCHER JOHN D / BARDAKJIAN SOSY 1443 MARIGOLD ST UPLAND CA 91784 FOUR LOYS LLC 3605 ARBUTUS AVE PALO ALTO CA 94303 FUNKE TERESA R/ROGER 3836 TRADITION DR FORT COLLINS CO 80526 GALLUP CHRISTOPHER S / KREITZER CRYSTAL L 1277 MAPLE ST GOLDEN CO 80401 GOETZ ANNE TRUST/THE (.50) 638 LAKEWOOD CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 GRESSLIN GILBERT T/CAROL 1 PO BOX 353 ESTES PARK CO 80517 HADLEY CAROL L PO BOX 685 KIOWA CO 80117 HARRIS JOHN T 8445 EASTON CIR LINCOLN NE 68520 HASTINGS BRIAN L/DANETTE J 4330 SHADOWBROOKE CT FORT COLLINS CO 80526 HEGGLAND SON CHA 488 MAKANNAA ST HILO HI 96720 HENDERSON ALAN E/KIMBERLY E 382 OSAGE CT PERRYSBURG OH 43551 HERDES DAROLD R/ELIZABETH B 5490 WITTENBERG CT COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80918 HOLM KEITH J/SHrLLY K 24937 CEDAR CREEK DR NEW BRAUNFELS TX 78132 HOPSON WILL , '0 BOX 140483 IRVING -1-) 75014 Marys Meadow Ar 'ed DP 06-01D.xls HOWARD MARLA S 3820 STAR WAY ESTES PARK CO 80517 JAMES RICHARD P/DAWN A 351 KIOWA DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 JOHNSON STEVE J 4 SOUTHSHORE DR COLUMBUS NE 68601 JURENKA MARK 4501 SPRINGER CT CHEYENNE WY 82001 KEEGAN MARK P/LAUREL J 7093 S SECTION LINE RD DELAWARE OH 43015 KELBERLAU DONALD W/ELIZABETH A 7561 S DUQUESNE WAY AURORA CO 80016 KENNER MICHAEL D 1441 WAZEE ST DENVER CO 80202 KEPLER EDWARD K/ROBIN 1025 LOCH LAND CT FORT COLLINS CO 80524 KIOWA RIDGE SUBDIVISION PROPERTY PO BOX 3234 ESTES PARK CO 80517 KUEHN RAYMOND/TERESA A TRUSTEES 1141 18TH AVE SIDNEY NE 69162 KUIVILA RONALD J/TSUMAGARI BARBARA L 2625 MARYS LAKE RD UNIT 16A ESTES PARK CO 80517 LASALLE DAVID L/WENGERT ALIX E 11623 DENSE STAR SAN ANTONIO TX 78245 LIMA IGOR 1020 IVY LN SAN ANTONIO TX 78209 LORENZEN CHRIS A JR 3518 GEORGETOWN ST HOUSTON TX 77005 LOY DAVID ROBERT / GOODHEW LINDA 7736 NIKAU DR NIWOT CO 80503 LOY RICHARD A 2625 MARYS LAKE RD S8 ESTES PARK CO 80517 LUTHER ROBERT G LIVING TRUST 6415 PUMPKIN RIDGE DR WINDSOR CO 80550 MACKEY JAMES R / MACKEY SUSAN M 11 NORMAN PL GREENVILLE SC 29615 MARYS LAKE LODGE 29 B LLC PO BOX 81 KITTREDGE CO 80457 MARYS LAKE LODGE COMBINED CONDOMINIUM PO BOX 315 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MARYS MEADOW DEVELOPMENT INC 1820 FALL RIVER RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 MATHRE SUSAN FARMER 3750 BROKEN BOW RD FORT COLLINS CO 80526 MCALLISTER KATHRYN ANNE/NIALL 469 ROSSUM DR LOVELAND CO 80537 MCATEE SUZANNE/PFEIFFER SANDI J 19320 LINCOLN GREEN LN MONUMENT CO 80132 MCILWRAITH C WAYNE NANCY G 6348 CITY LIGHTS LN LOVELAND CO 80537 MCKEE JOHN H/TERESA K 2850 KIOWA TRL ESTES PARK CO 80517 MCNICHOL PATRICIA K/BRUCE M 817 E BLOOMINGTON IOWA CITY IA 52245 MCWHINNEY IAIN/SABINA 345 KIOWA DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 ML PROPERTIES LLC 15954 MUR-LEN NO 261 OLATHE KS 66062 MORROW TERESA L/OTIS W PO BOX 1146 ARKANSAS CITY KS 67005 MOUNTAIN RENDEZVOUS LLC 305 KIOWA DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 M-SQUARED PROPERTIES LLC 2625 MARYS LAKE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 NEWBERG ANDREW B/STEPHANIE K 805 EDWIN LN BRYN MAWR PA 19010 OBERG J MICHAEL TRUST OBERG J 11510 5 MILLVIEW RD OLATHE KS 66061 PARRISH VICKI J 16398 E WYOMING DR AURORA CO 80017 PRATT LESLIE ANN W PO BOX 289 WINNETKA IL 60093 PROMONTORY LLC/THE 4730 S COLLEGE AVE STE 205 FORT COLLINS CO 80525 PUGH KEVIN J/JADILYN S 3580 CAPITOL PEAK DR LOVELAND CO 80538 RAMS HORN DEVELOPMENT CO LLC 2625 MARYS LAKE RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 Marys Meadow Amended DP 06-01D.xls RAVID PROPERTIES LLC 14145 N 92ND ST UNIT 2011 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85260 RGWENGERT.ORG LLC 310 DAVIDSON DR CHAMPAIGN I L 61821 ROACH GARY L / VIVIEN E 2084 E 101ST PL THORNTON CO 80229 ROCKY MOUNTAIN EVANGELICAL FREE PO BOX 1443 ESTES PARK CO 80517 ROSING CATHY/MATTHEW 3400 CHERRYSTONE CT FORT COLLINS CO 80525 SALMON WAYNE L/EILEEN M 2111 BELMONT LN REDONDO BEACH CA 90278 SALZMAN GREG T/MARCIA T 410 COLFORD AVE WEST CHICAGO IL 60185 SANCHEZ ANTHONY D/CYNTHIA S / ARCHILLA RUBEN 3233 E BIRCH AVE PARKER CO 80134 SCHMITT CRYSTAL Y/LAWRENCE R 100 WAIPUHIA PL HAIKU HI 96708 SCOTT LAUREN L 2927 SPRING MOUNTAIN DR LOVELAND CO 80537 SHOPE WILLIAM J/JANET G 709 BRINY AVE POMPANO BEACH FL 33062 SIBILIA KENNETH P / SIBILIA JANE M 1415 CRAWFORD RD OMAHA NE 68144 SPILLERS DANE/LORI 4912 LONGFELLOW DR SPRINGFIELD IL 62711 SPLOZANGO LLC 5991 S HIGH CT CENTENNIAL CO 80121 STEPHAN ROBRET W/CARA S 1410 BROAD CREEK RD BLOOMINGTON IL 61704 TEN TO 100 PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 2361 DENVER CO 80201 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK CO 80517 TRANSCONTINENTAL INVESTMENTS LLC 1820 FALL RIVER RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 TYREE JAMES B/CATHERINE N 437 DEL MAR BLVD CORPUS CHRISTI TX 78404 WADHAMS CHRIS M/JUDY L 815 N 95TH ST LINCOLN NE 68505 WADLOW RICHARD ARTHUR/LYNDA THOMPSON 7605 COPPER MOUNTAIN LN MCKINNEY TX 75070 WAGNER DORIS E TRUST PO BOX 2184 ESTES PARK CO 80517 WALRATH TIMOTHY G/JILL P 9311 N BROKEN LANCE DR TUCSON AZ 85742 WARDLAW TREVOR/KEMBERLY 200 W STATE HIGHWAY 6 STE 509 WACO TX 76712 WELCH RANDY S/GINA M 2307 FAIRCREST DR SAN JOSE CA 95124 WENDLER JOEL C/LAURA M PO BOX 1357 ELIZABETH CO 80107 WENZL WILLIAM E/TARA B 12711 HOME FARM DR WESTMINSTER CO 80234 WILBUR WYNNE/PHILLIP / ROURK DARCY 604 N FLORENCE ST KIRKSVILLE MO 63501 WRIGHT BEVERLY 315 KIOWA DR UNIT 4 ESTES PARK CO 80517 ZETA LP 2511 W SCHAUMBURG RD UNIT 113 SCHAUMBURG IL 60194 ZOE CONDO LLC 6005 RIVER CHASE CIR ATLANTA GA 30328 \ May 27, 2015 Whom it May Concern John A. Spooner, P.E. Storm Water Management Comments Development Plan for The Meadows Modification Number 4 LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING DATE: TO: FROM: RI VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING The Developer is currently proposing modifications to the development plan for the above referenced project. A number of storm water management plans were developed over the years to properly design the detention storage located on the lower elevations of this current development. Note that these detention basins are sized to carry and detain flow from Mary's Lake Lodge and The Promontory developments in addition to the Meadows development. All this analysis was summarized in a final design report entitled: "Final Combined Storm Water Management Plan For Mary's Meadow Development, The Promontory Development and Mary's Lake Lodge". Dated January 2006 Further calculations were presented in a 1/15/2009 report (as clarified in a letter of 3/25/2009). In these studies, five sub-basins were used to delineate the runoff from The Meadows development. Currently the proposed development in drainage area 1 has been constructed along with the construction of all the detention ponds and associated drainage facilities. The as-built pond volumes and drainage structures were certified in a certificate dated 11/6/2007. The drainage area designated as 1 in the study included a strip containing 1/2 the road and the sidewalk/grass along Kiowa Drive adjacent to the garages/houses built in area 1. The strip (impervious area of 20' x 600' = 12,000 square feet) as constructed does not drain into the development and thus the actual impervious area in the development is reduced by the 12,000 square feet. The development plan as proposed then shows an impervious area of 60,267 square feet while the new proposed plan shows an area of 69,610 square feet — an increase of 9,343 square feet. Thus the increase now proposed is less that the 12,000 square feet reduced from the original study. The conclusion is reached that the new development plan will not impact the drainage on the lots and that the detention as originally proposed is adequate. 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • Fax 970-586-8101 • VHE§Airbits corn v ,---- inr ----1,) klAY 2 8 2 ,. y 01) 1 1 g commu L ' lvITY D6E—C ; IU t4EN7:1 ----- 7 VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING ,••• .044 -":„--7":":7 • , " - • fer LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING May 27, 2015 Kevin Ash Public Works Civil Engineer Town of Estes Park RE: Mary's Lake Subdivision - Mary's Meadow Traffic Update Letter Dear Kevin, This letter is to provide an update to the traffic engineering situation and predicted trips associated with this submittal of the redesign of phases 2 and 3 on Lot 4A of Mary's Meadow Replat. In looking back through the paperwork, there was a Traffic Impact Report and Analysis written by Steve Tuttle (with SHE Consultants) dated December 6, 2004. In that analysis, Mr. Tuttle suggested road improvements that have since been constructed to the Mary's Lake Road and Highway 7 intersection (namely, a left hand- north bound to west turning movement-turn lane). Mr. Tuttle's suggested improvement(s) were based on a predicted build-out for the entire site being 50 units, and specifically Lot 4A (this submittal) having 35 accommodation residential condominium units. This submittal for Lot 4A is much less dense than the prediction was based upon with only 24 (9 less) of the same type units proposed. Therefore, the predicted traffic impact from redesign of phases 2 and 3 of Lot 4A is much less than predicted with the original approved study. To be fair, there is one more phase to construct on Lot 2A of Mary's Meadow Repiat in which 15 units were originally proposed and considered in the original traffic analysis and impact study. Once plans for that last phase on now vacant property are developed, the combined unit count for Lots 2A and 4A should not exceed 50 units unless a revised traffic study is performed. 1043 Fish Creek Road • Este:, Park. CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • Fax: 970-586-8101 • E-mail: vhefi/ airhits.com One more thing to consider regarding traffic impact of the entire site, is a proposal (submitted last month) to add one unit to Lot 7 (which was originally proposed for zero units). This still leaves a potential 25 units on Lot 2A to stay below the maximum number of units taken into account with the original traffic impact study. Attached with this submittal is a development plan to show the access, grading, layout and density, both existing and proposed, as exhibits to this letter. Upon your review of these materials, Joe Coop, or l will be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding traffic or other civil engineering or surveying matters. The main point to consider with this submittal of the redesign of phases 2 and 3 on Lot 4A of Mary's Meadow Replat, is that the proposed unit density is at about 2/3 of that which was proposed in the original traffic study. Sincerely, C Lonnie A. Sheldon, Colorado PE and PLSNo. 26974 . for Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc. 4 .5 cc: Frank Theis, for Mary's Meadow 1043 Fish Creek Road • Esies Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • Fax: 970-586-8101 • E-mail: vhcOsoirbits,com igiptimilitilinicilli SCOTT DOYLE, CLERK LARIMER COUNTY CO PAGES :1?°,7,9T2,9Ps1.- 03/22/2006 A5,46:00 IL!P?a55 ,-,, r, i r11 , ,: MAINTENANCE COVENANT P MA Y 2 P 7-015 111 r 1 THIS MAINTENANCE COVENANT is made by Mary's Meadow Developrnefiqibpiti4);„ ''' /, Colorado Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Mary's Meadow"): . of Col,..,,A,T A. Mary's Meadow is the owner of Lots 2 and 4, of Mary's Lake Replat of Lots 2, 4, 5 & Outlot A of Mary's Lake Subdivision, County of Larimer, State of Colorado (hereinafter "Lots 2 & 4"); B. Mary's Lake Replat creates and establishes a public roadway, identified as Kiowa Trail, which is an interior roadway connecting Promontory Drive on the north, with Kiowa Drive on the south. C. A condition of Town of Estes Park approval of the Mary's Lake Replat, is that Kiowa Trail shall be privately maintained, and that the owner of Lots 2 & 4, its succmsors and assigns, shall be responsible for maintenance of Kiowa D. Mary's Meadow hereby establishes a plan for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of Kiowa Trail, the apportionment of the costs thereof and agreements concerning the methods of determining the need for improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the following grants, agreements and covenants are made: 1. The Owner establishes a plan for the maintenance and repair of Kiowa Trail, as follows: a. Each of Lots 2 & 4 to which this Maintenance Covenant shall be appurtenant, shall share equally in the cost of repair and maintenance of Kiowa Trail and the adjacent sidewalk. Maintenance and repair shall include only those activities consistent with maintenance (snow plowing, sidewalk clearing, patching, re-striping, sealcoating and cleaning and maintaining drainage culverts, etc.), and shall not include activities designed to alter, change or improve the roadway. b. Each of Lots 2 & 4 to which this Maintenance Covenant shall be appurtenant, shall share equally in the cost of non-routine repair and maintenance of Kiowa Trail. This shall include activities (e.g. repaving), which are designed to enhance or prolong the functional life of the roadway.. Non-routine repair and maintenance shall be implemented only upon the unanimous approval and agreement of all the owners of Lots 2 & 4; provided, however, that in the event the owners of Lots 2 & 4 are not in Page 1 of 3 PLEASE RETURN TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK; ATTN: TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE P.O. BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 agreement as to the need for non-routine maintenance, written certification of a Professional Engineer that non-routine maintenance is necessary, shall be conclusive and the professionally recommended repair or maintenance shall be undertaken and completed within six (6) months of the date o f the Professional Engineer certification of need. c. Routine snow plowing shall be contracted for such that Kiowa Trail and its adjacent sidewalk shall remain accessible on a year round basis. Sidewalks and roadways shall be maintained consistent with general Town of Estes Park maintenance standards. Culverts shall be cleaned as needed to prevent overflow. d. Any changes or improvement to Kiowa Trail or attendant curbs, gutters, culverts or signs, shall be implemented only upon the unanimous approval and agreement of all the owners of Lots 2 & 4. In such event, the owners shall also agree upon the allocation of the cost of construction prior to the commencement of any such improvements. Any changes or improvetnents to Kiowa Trail or attendant curbs, gutters, culvert or signs, shall be further subject to review and approval of the Town of Estes Park. e. In the event that the Owners of Lots 2 or 4, shall fail or refuse to pay their prorata share of the costs and expenses of repair and maintenance, interest shall accrue thereon at the rate of 18% per annum. Other owners shall have the right to claim a lien against the delinquent owner's Lot to secure the payment of all sums due and payable. Such lien may be evidenced by a written notice setting forth the amount, the name of the owner and the legal description of the Lot, and shall be signed by one or more of the other Lot owners. Said lien may be foreclosed by suit, power of sale, or in any other manner permitted by applicable law. f. The location of Kiowa Trail shall not be relocated, expanded, altered or diminished without first obtaining the written consent of all of the parties hereto. Any alteration of Kiowa Trail shall be subject to review and approval by the Town of Estes Park. g. If the surface of Kiowa Trail is damaged or disturbed by a person or persons, or in connection with construction activities, or installation or repair of utilities, the Lot owner or other concern causing such damage shall restore the surface of Kiowa Trail to its prior condition. Restoration will be the sole expense of the person or persons causing such damage. 2. All provisions of this instrument, including the benefits and burdens, run with the land and are binding upon and inure to the heirs, assigns, successors, tenants and personal representatives of the owners of Lots 2 & 4, including any condominium or coop housing associations formed for purposes of development or administration of property rights attendant thereto. Page 2 of 3 Nota ti!)-r • • . • 3. Any party may enforce this instrument by appropriate proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. Any prevailing party in such enforcement shall be entitled to recover the costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in such litigation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner has signed this Easement Agreement this /11 day of February, 2006. Mary's Meadow Development, inc. A Colorado Corporation Get ~7cti n4 antes W. Tawney, President STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing document was acknowledged before me this / • day of February, 2006 by James W. Tawney, President of Mary's Meadow Development, Inc. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: /l--,43- goo9 Page 3 of 3 Architectural Concepts LOT 4A - MARYS MEADOW REPLAT CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200 The Meadow Phases 2 & 3 ESTES PARK, COLORADO EU, Li R.T1-k /\,1_(01•-•3 V2'1.ze-- I '••••• L,x sT I ',NS er-r 1.4 e s.1 e_ M PAGE 1 REVISED thss z pie- I _EV IUN 0 • N ft M ArrE,F2-1 A. L_ ez•ON.4) _f??5,1- `r -sTAIN ex! 012,00.3),..) W t -7714 F r‘/C› _T3Lta_.4-44- _ e..QAJ.2,3 1)(,) PL. COMMUNITY DEVELPPIA,EN1 01.3 I r-ca, F34.e_se_ CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200 . L.71 r3 al MA.-re..R--t .S t•..) - rrAP I.-, 13 Alciz LARK_ 6P-OLKIK) t/QT-s OF P—F—O . C=F-E- E-M R.C,C)F.LmG 16\.SPHP.L.T. C.4.)1-11' W uT OLD ECEDVIE N MAY 2 8 ?E115 ,il E S T E. LE—VA-T(0 M 30 Et.,..t..v 6- ION v'e Architectural Concepts The Meadow Phases 2 & 3 LOT 4A - MARYS MEADOW REPLAT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ) rc_o4 F.RoR, LooR. ko - C' r— T )1.-1 rl PP.-n v . LAUNDRY R rt tekl 'CpF11V71' 1'.1,`..Y 2 8 2015 L ) ?e,i 5_ F1_00 R p1 p 1.1 COMMUNITY DEVELOm • ' Du PL1_x UN r TS PP-GF- 2. Architectural Concepts The Meadow Phases 2 & 3 LOT 4A - MARYS MEADOW REPLAT ESTES PARK, COLORADO CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200 Architectural Concepts The Meadow Phases 2 & 3 CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT , 1 1'Q C= R03 CE VEr MAY 2 8 2015 I i 1 ICOMMUNO DEVELOP!!:-W C D -F ! 1 ! ; \-1 pECEME hI MA? 2 e 2C15 • 1 I; -- --- COMMUNITY DEVELC " = - • : . i . ;1 _1 - Architectural Concepts The Meadow Phases 2 & 3 CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Architectural Concepts The Meadow Phases 2 & 3 CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT T\ 0 E,I__:;.re ._.-- . - ! : 'il------..-i- Y' MA f28 2215 1),, -Sovi-i-k EL_ thA, /45-5T 01.E2F31 4rE600 ,-----: L 36' D M A-re- Fa-I A. 1- s -S / LA? _154t.AF,D -r0501,,) f.20, _ 1:›ARK- 5RPG h.3 0-3 Ti-k R-F-rD F-02.EIJOC, - _ Eg-ps4,Kr, /-4 eLEvp.Tioks R.A. 1) cr-rp.) 1,4 0 fr-1-14 " E ts..v /yr loo 4IN 0 20151i 4!Efirri DUPC..5:.X UtQi rs PA.C7E- Architectural Concepts The Meadow Phases 2 & 3 LOT 4A - MARYS MEADOW REPLAT ESTES PARK, COLORADO CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200 The Meadow Phases 2 & 3 Architectural Concepts LOT 4A - MARYS MEADOW REPLAT ESTES PARK, COLORADO CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200 s Si Di- 7- s-rAiN) _ _DARK_ BROc,,w r".11 -n-k. DP_. - tnf &-J e, s 8. E_Niliktto /'_ " "Ve-ri7 JUN / 0 rMU ,20/5 mirr osi; DU P r.s ST t 106 pjk er-r PAv f r.- F4-ri-k L.V...\t/1/41-te-",/,- ?! 'c Li 7 J f • A EP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II Date: July 21, 2015 RE: Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Modernization Objective: Receive Planning Commission comments on the Chapter Two of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan: Planning the Valley's Future Present Situation: The Planning Commission and Town Board directed staff to modernize the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Six modernization options were considered and Option 2 was selected: Option 2: Review and update facts, remove obsolete references, remove information that is no longer relevant What has been accomplished since Option 2 was selected? As directed, staff continues to work on Option 2 to modernize the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, presenting drafts as completed for review and comment. Table 1: Chapter Status Chapter Status Letter of Introduction I Complete 1: The Planning Process August: Initial Draft Presented September: Final Draft Presented 2: Planning the Valley's Future July: Initial Draft Presented August: Final Draft Presented 3: Economic Overview September: Draft Presented October: Final Draft Presented 4: Land Use V Complete 5: Mobility and Circulation September: Draft Presented October: Final Draft Presented Due to staffing levels, this chapter be being completed by Id party consultant. 6: Community-wide Policies I Complete 7: Neighborhood Plans I Complete Action Plan V Complete Appendix 1: Economic Profile V March: Initial Discussion V April: Draft Presented August: Final Draft Presented Appendix 2: Resource Information August: Final Draft Presented Proposal: The attached chapter, Planning the Valley's Future provides a primer on some key upcoming issues facing the community. Much of this narrative is conceptual and policy related. As such, staff has primarily updated the statistical information. Staff requests guidance from the Planning Commission about the following questions: 1. Does the section "Trends Likely to Affect the US" adequately address emerging trends? Staff replaced this section in its entirety, leaving the existing language with a str-kethretigh for reference. The tables, citations and formatting all needs to be finalized, so this discussion should be centered on content. 2. Have any factors in the section "Larger Context, Critical Forces Influencing the Estes Valley" changed since the last update? Does the Commission wish to add, delete or edit any of these points. 3. What is missing? While reviewing the attachment, was there anything that the Commission believes should be included but is not? Advantages: N/A Disadvantages: N/A Page 2 of 2 A. Planning The Valley's Future MASTERING CHANGE Communities all over the nation have embarked upon efforts to reflect upon their accomplishments, their continuous challenges, and upon visions of things to come. This represents the effort both to restore historical links of vibrant community life and to guarantee community survival in the complex, turbulent years of a fast-changing environment. Planning, revitalization schemes, renewal efforts, crisis response, alternative options, impact analyses and plans all represent new forms of mobilizing people and resources to create safe and vibrant communities. Purposeful change in a community happens in several ways. There is strategic planning, which starts with a community's mission and develops a plan for objectives to be achieved within a period of time; and visioning, which looks at the past, present and future as a coherent study of change and as a mechanism for being inspired and thinking about today's realities. By combining data and judgment, and analyzing trends, preferable futures evolve through a systematic process of public involvement. Through this effort the Estes Valley developed the central mechanism for a community-based planning process. There are two basic directions through which one can approach the study of Estes Park and at the same time forecast potential developments and their impacts: Through an historical, econometric, "predictive" model, we can ask ourselves what trends, events, or forecasts can be made with regard to existing or emerging social, political, economic, and technological situations that may lead to probable future states. One moves from the present (with knowledge of the past) towards the future. The second direction is a "normative" approach. It involves describing preferred futures and desired goals and objectives about the future. Normative forecasting compares an analysis of the present community with idealized or desired future states of the identifying the means to achieve desired futures. These general principles and explanations are important if the proposed plan is to be understood as part of a larger context of transformation, and of rapidly changing socio- demographic and economic circumstances. There are really no "perfect" plans. Plans must be flexible, changeable, modular, and capable of adapting to changing times. RECOGNIZING TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS Three important premises will guide our effort to understand the trends and developments affecting the future of Estes Park. Trend is not destiny, i.e., we can -- indeed we must -- interact with our destiny. While futures may not be predicted, futures can be created. Projections often tend not to be borne out. We have very few surprise-free conditions. Therefore, communities must develop the capacity to work with contingency and flexibility. We rarely have the information or the time and resources to be able to make exact predictions. Therefore, it is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong. We need to decide and operate within a framework of reasonable approximation, especially in fast-changing, multi-constituency environments. TRANSFORMATIONS CHARACTERIZING AMERICAN SOCIETY Change permeates every aspect of our lives. Political and social institutions are in constant flux, social values are shifting radically and moral and ethical standards are coming under continuous attacks. In this context, there are five major transformations that characterize American society today: 1. Increasing societal complexity and interdependence which, at the same time, may contribute to the vulnerability of the social system. 2. Increasing number of natural and economic events, which may ultimately test the resiliency of the community. 3. The rapidity of change. 4. The search for a more equitable system in determining who benefits and who pays. 5. We need to proactively solve our problems before they grow even bigger, or their effects become irreversible. TRENDS LIKELY TO AFFECT THE U.S. IN THE NEXT Two DECADES A number of specific global and national trends arc listed in Chapter One. Recent repofts (sec ifI particular John L. Petersen's "The Road to 2015", 1994) suggest that - - t Family settings in which children grow up will cause continuous problems for social competitiveness of the U.S. economy. discernible minority groups and, given current trends, most Hispanics and Asians will be geographically clustered in only a few states. Problems will increase related to health, limitations of routine activities, jobs, etc. The aging of the population will increasingly affect everyone. As support structures At both local and regional levels, population will concentrate in fewer ar Fron-tRange),. -IR such growth ar as, people will experience traffic congestion, the need to replace aging infrastructures, and demand for specialized workers. 1. Rapid growth in older population ) The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that by 2050 the population under 18 and work-age population (18-64) will decrease, while the population that is aged 65 and older will grow by up to 24 percent. This change in demographics will be more pronounced in foreign-born populations. As a result of this demographic change, businesses will likely receive more employment interest from the older population, which brings with it advantages and disadvantages. According to the Department of Labor, "the health care costs of older employees is disproportionately high and, since many will have more seniority than younger workers, they may receive higher pay and qualify for longer vacations." However, older employees are less likely to move or undergo an accident. 2 2. Evolving Preferences toward Connectivity, Mobility and Housing 3 Consumers will continue to use many different devices to stay connected at home, work and around cities. Devices at home will continue to transform simple tasks such as heating and cooling a house. Automated work environments will expand the flexibility of remote offices and unified communication around the country and world. Cities will likely continue to provide services through e-governance, smart transportation systems, e-learning and mobile banking. Preferences along generations are also taking hold across the country. For example, millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) generally prefer smaller housing units in connected and walkable urban areas, embrace technology and ethnic diversity, and often prefer public transit to car ownership. 1 Colby, Sandra L. and Jennifer M. Ortman, Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060, Current Population Reports, P25-1143, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2014. 2 https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/herman/reports/futurework/conference/trends/trendsl.htm 3 http://www.investinbsr.com/ipaforum/wp-content/uploads/lain-Jawad-IPA-Forum-2014-Presentation.pdf 3. Climate Change Local communities are vulnerable to the many risks posed by a changing climate. The social and financial impacts will need to be addressed locally. As such, many communities are integrating land-use and transportation planning into municipal climate action plans. The City of Fort Collins Climate Action Plan sets specific target goals for community leadership, recycling, energy, green building and transportation, with the ultimate goals of: • Reducing emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020; and • Reducing emissions 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. Local actions such as this have and will continue to grow across the Country and State of Colorado. 4. Change in Demographics The U.S. population is projected to grow more slowly in future decades than in the recent past. However, by 2044, more than half of all American are projected to belong to a minority group and by 2060, nearly one in five of the nation's total population is projected to be foreign born 4. CHANGING VALUES, BELIEFS AND DEMOGRAPHICS IN COLORADO In the book, Choices for Colorado's Future, six changing values and emerging beliefs are described as likely to affect potential futures in the state. This study suggests that in the coming decade, citizens will make different choices for themselves, their lifestyles, the economy and politics than they did in the last decade. Emerging values and beliefs include principles of sustainability, ecology, knowledge as more valuable than material goods, consumerism, questions of human development and equity, and yearning for a common vision of a just, equitable and ethical society. Following the release of the 2010 Census data, the State Demography Office updated its population estimates and projections. Population projections indicate that by 2040 Colorado's population will grow to 7.7 million people. FIGURE 2.1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS (IN '000S) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Colorado 5,050 5,439 5,925 6,430 6,915 7,352 7,753 Front Range 4,156 4,503 4,908 5,305 5,675 6,027 6,361 Larimer County 301 327 357 389 419 446 472 4 Colby, Sandra L. and Jennifer M. Ortman, Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population:2014 to 2060, Current Population Reports, P25-1143, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2014. Colorado's demographic composition is expected to change considerably, with a marked increase in senior population. The graying of America will continue well into the next century, particularly with the aging of the baby boom. Projected growth in the older year 2030 (compared to 30 in 1950). This is particularly important to Northern population aged 45 64 jumped by 28% between 1990 and 1994. B. Forces of Transformation in the Estes Valley INFLUENCES OF THE AGING POPULATION While growth in the area duFing the 1970s was quite rapid, it slowed in the 1980s (this was true for the entire state). It started increasing again by the 1990 Census, showing an annual growth rate of 3.1% for the Town of Estes Park. Between 1960 1990 the population of the Estes Valley grew faster than the state. The population profile in Larimer County from 1980 to 2010 shows that the surrounding territory will pFevide steady growth, which will also affect the Estes Valley. Projections " • "" " . • white elderly persons, closely divided between males and females (2963 males vs. 3052 females, for a total of 6015). By 2010 the average age in Estes Park was 51.5 years old, roughly 15 years older than the average Coloradan (36.5). This is consistent with the overall profile of the community as having a high number of retirees, and is expected to continue given the national trends of retirees preferring to reside in what has broadly been called the Fort Collins-Loveland area. The Town of Estes Park has a high number of retirees and, therefore, people not looking for work. Outside the Town in the Estes Valley, a large portion are working or looking for work. This socio-economic profile is skewed compared to the larger area of Larimer County, which is characterized by a high-paying manufacturing sector and significant segments of the population in services and information. Projections for generational changes suggest that Larimer County will see a greater increate in residents between the age of 0-15 and 36-69, when compared to the State of Colorado. Rocky Mountain National Park Yearly Visitation Visitor Count 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1915 1930 1945 1960 1975 1990 2005 Age Range % Change between 2010-2040 Colorado Front Range Larimer County 0-15 41% 37% 44% 16-35 39% 37% 37% 36-50 42% 39% 58% 51-69 45% 50% 47% 70-87 193% 207% 182% 88+ 290% 296% 263% INFLUENCES OF TOURISM Estes Valley and Rocky Mountain National Park coexist in a duality of serving visitors with what the community has to offer and with what a visit to Rocky Mountain National Park has to offer. By 1996 the number of Park visitors reached the impressive total of approximately 3.1 million people. That number is expected to continue to increase. The challenge is in the overall capacity of RMNP to accommodate this number of annual visitors. Two contradictory forces affect the region. On one hand, continuously increasing numbers of people are attracted to the Park. On the other hand, wildlife conservationists continuously argue for restrictions, as the very character of the Park can be distorted by unwieldy numbers of visitors. The tourist profile involves three major groups of individuals: 1. Tourists who come from other parts of the nation. 2. Tourists from the immediate vicinity, say Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska. 3. "Day-trippers" who use Estes Park from easily-accessible surrounding counties. This last group must especially be understood, because it represents a large number of people who may impact the community in terms of one-day services (especially services and casual shopping). They are also the urban residents of the Front Range who explore the immediate mountain facilities and, therefore, demand opportunities typically associated with elderly citizens, but also the entertainment of younger families. A specialized study was conducted by Colorado State University entitled "Recr ea tional - : - {August 1993). When asked, a large number of those questioned pointed out that they do participate in outdoor recreation (88%), with summer being the most popular season. About 1/3 indicated that they recreate during fall or winter. About 2544-4 the sample FCCF-Cmit-CS d.w4ng every season of the year. This study also points out that these people use part of their time in Estes Park. Colorado Parks and Wildlife identified emerging outdoor recreation trends, needs and issues in Colorado through the 2014 Colorado Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. The Plan identified a number of key issues, including: • Walking, hiking/backpacking and picnicking make up the three most popular activities. • Most recreation takes place in North Central Metro and Northwest Regions. • 40% of respondents stated that local, state, and federal agencies that manage recreational areas are underfunded. • Providers should focus on operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities as well as long-term planning and management. "LARGER CONTEXT" CRITICAL FORCES INFLUENCING THE ESTES VALLEY There are six related issues which may act as critical forces in understanding the larger context of transformation in the Estes Valley: 1. The extent to which the Valley can be a self-sustained community versus part of a larger context, i.e., dependent for many of its services on other cities such as Fort Collins and Loveland. It is probable that the Town of Estes Park will be part of a larger complex or "urban territory." 2. Future population growth, especially given the boom and bust history of Colorado, is central to all planning efforts. Projections point to healthy rates of growth, and a significantly increasing older population. 3. The visitor profile (tourists and day-trippers) must be continuously monitored as subtle changes seem to be under way. Visitors (especially day-trippers) may be of higher income with demands for better and more varied services. 4. Mobility and accessibility will affect everything from the visitor experience to the residents' perception of quality of life. 5. The vision of the Estes community (both Town and Valley) faces the perennial dilemmas between "old timers" and "newcomers," growth and stability, access and remoteness -- newly tempered with the emerging trends of seeking equity, ecosystem balances and development of consensus as to what can be done by people who believe they can interact with their destiny. 6. The mechanisms of implementing change and promoting action through specific strategies and action are the forces that will determine the plan's ultimate success. Building partnerships and alliances, balancing rights and responsibilities, and emphasizing functional boundaries and linkages in Northern Colorado are a strong foundation for that long-term success. Much of the next two decades' most rapid growth will be in second-tier cities that are creating jobs rapidly and also becoming havens for "urban refugees," especially from the vast bi-coastal megalopolitan concentrations. Technological breakthroughs, especially in telecommuting, will provide further freedom from the tyranny of time and space, thus making location less critical. Finally, both in terms of institutional shifts and value transformations, Estes Park -- as part of national far-reaching changes -- will experience dramatic alterations in social structure, as the community will become more complex, technical, and interdependent. MAXIMIZING CORE CAPABILITIES AND CRAFTING A COHERENT STRATEGY At the center of any future planning effort is the articulation of a community "image" or idealized perception which, in the Estes Valley, has been changing recently to incorporate three major characteristics: 1. Estes Park as an alpine gateway and service community; 2. Rocky Mountain National Park visitation and recreation; and 3. Wildlife (accessible to view) and communion with nature. In what has become a major urban region and an emerging megalopolis along Colorado's Front Range (where 80% of the state's population is found), tourism poses a special challenge for all citizens and certainly for Estes Park. All studies have pointed out that tourism and destination resort communities promote economic activity and visibility, but they also create a set of difficult social, administrative and environmental problems. Mountain and resort communities throughout Colorado are grappling with these challenges. Those who are moving successfully towards developing a sustainable community while maintaining local identity tend to be working through regional collaboration and local action. All over the world, communities, nations and regions are trying to do something about the forces of change and transformation and in many cases respond to the challenges of rapid growth. In the end, the task of doing something rests with the local community and with the mobilization of citizens to meet their common problems. This has also been the thrust of the special edition of High Country News, entitled "Grappling with Growth," showing how communities throughout the West have been trying to limit, redistribute or channelize population growth. Such techniques include traditional zoning, density bonus for housing clusters, allowing development only on the basis of performance standards, extraction fees, set-asides, and real estate transfer taxes. Any planning effort must be based on the fact that the strategies of growth are not simply temporary measures to stem what looks like overwhelming transformation. Instead, communities must develop the institutional patience that allows them to see growth as a long-range and sustained commitment toward meaningful community engagement and coping with change and transformation. ELEMENTS OF A COHERENT STRATEGY Whatever specific tactics and strategies are articulated, the question of growth and community development raises much larger issues. Any coherent strategy will address the following elements: • Articulating a strategic vision of the future. • Building quality into a community's programs and services, particularly if it plans to attract certain types of populations. • Building mechanisms for environmental scanning and for monitoring change in terms of present and emerging trends and developments. • Continuous participation of all stakeholders in the community and empowerment of many groups so that they can participate in discussions and support decision making. Developing organization and procedures to maintain momentum and means for monitoring and calibrating performance. • Developing the capacity to assume risks in terms of commitment and courage to undertake innovative actions. • Encouraging flexibility and the capacity to respond to both surprises and new emergent trends and developments. Diversifying the economic base to permit adaptation to change and to altered circumstances in the perennial problem of boom and bust cycles. • Combining structural and non-structural solutions, especially in terms of both physical infrastructure changes and also institutional and behavioral adaptations. Establishing long-range budgeting, public and private sector interaction, and interdependence with the larger region. INTERDEPENDENCE Perhaps more important than anything else is the fundamental interdependence of the Estes Valley, Larimer County, and Northern Colorado. This complex interdependence requires an understanding of the forms and forces of cooperation, regionalism, and interdependence. This becomes particularly important with the new mix of permanent residents (retirees as well as younger population) and the shifting profile of the tourist (more affluent and environmentally sensitive). MOBILIZING THE COMMUNITY AND MONITORING CHANGE A continuous process of planning becomes what one may call a "rolling plan." Such a plan, together with consistent monitoring could guarantee the incorporation of shifting strategies responsive to changes in both the community and the surrounding environment. Estes Park's probable future is based on the strengths of its physical environment with a combination of tourism and retirees, and high community spirit. At the same time Estes Park has the weaknesses of the lack of affordable housing, competing and conflicting demands by shifting stakeholders in the community (such as younger vs. older populations) and the perennial conflict between creating new economic opportunities vs. preserving environmental amenities. The issues are but part of the challenges that all settlements face in the harsh competitive and turbulent environment of this and coming decades. They point to the central importance of a "civic infrastructure" that becomes the key ingredient for a community's survival and future growth. As expressed in the National Civic Index, there are 10 critical components that cities must possess (all or most of them) in order to have a fighting chance for remaining healthy communities: 1. A high level of citizen participation, often culminating in broad consensus; 2. Community leadership that is representative and inclusive of diverse interests; 3. Efficient and effective delivery of public services; 4. Focused and effective voluntarism and philanthropy; 5. Approaches to inter-group relations that capitalize on cultural diversity; 6. Civic education taught and nurtured in the classrooms and neighborhoods alike; 7. Trusted forms for community information sharing; 8. Capacity for cooperation and consensus building, such as neighborhood associations, city-county government, or public-private partnerships; 9. Strategic, long-term planning and management; and 10. Regional or inter-community cooperation in tackling shared problems. Estes Park has to face the challenges of the future through systematic environmental scanning, challenging of assumptions, contingency planning, and above all through community mobilization in preparation for more turbulent times. They are a necessary means for articulating a purposeful community image of the future. The crisis of our time is not so much the lack of will or mistrust toward our institutions. It is more the absence of a shared vision that can capture the imagination of people and of an enthusiastic commitment to work for the common good. Without a positive image of the future, nations and communities perish. Without enthusiasm and sharing of meaning, passage to the future becomes less interesting and much more difficult and unpredictable. C. The Valley's "Preferred" Direction The "preferred" direction set forth below describes the desires, hopes, and visions of the community as expressed during several public workshops. While it is difficult to capture or to summarize the "sense of community" and the common aspirations of the citizens of the Valley, one can discern certain dominant themes and broad directions. Following the public workshops and the series of citizens' reactions, there emerged three overarching directions that the residents have for the future of Estes Valley: 1. The relationship of people to nature and surrounding hinterland (NATURE) 2. The guarantee of survival of the community (COMMUNITY) 3. The Enhancement of the "good life" or fulfillment (001) In a schematic fashion these three overlapping directions in their core express the desire for balanced growth, sustainable development, harmonious co-existence, and social- well being. FIGURE 2.2 Nature Community • Balance growth • Sustainable development • 1 larmonious co existance • Social well-being Quality of Life The numbers inside the circles represent the following broad goals as expressed in the public workshop: • Protecting and maintaining its natural beauty, scenic vistas, river systems, wetlands, and wildlife habitat. • Promoting man-made development that is in harmony with its environmental setting. • Encouraging a range of housing opportunities. • Welcoming and accommodating visitors. • Leading in the stewardship of the Valley's natural resources. • Fostering development of the cultural arts. • Offering unique outdoor recreation opportunities • Becoming a model National Park gateway community. • Maintaining a balance between the needs of local residents and tourism. • Recognizing the synergy between tourism and the retirement community. Obviously such "preferred directions" contain underlying dilemmas encountered in any community wishing to improve its overall quality of life, sense of community and stewardship of it natural resources.