The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2008-08-12L LE. Prepared 7/25/08 11@ TOWN Of {51[5 PARK Di.V, The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 22, 2008 and Town Board Pre-Budget Study Session Minutes dated July 25,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, July 17, 2008. B. Public Works, July 24,2008. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Initiated Ordinance Petitions for Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) - Report. Attorney White. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RE-APPOINTMENT/APPOINTMENT - ADVERTISING COMMITTEE. Dir. Pickering - all terms eight (8) month extensions, expiring 12/3108. 2. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND LARIMER COUNTY FOR THE ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT. Attorney White. \ 3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND LARIMER COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE FOR THE 2008 COORDINATED ELECTION - LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT. Town Clerk Williamson. 4. WAPITI CROSSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, Wapiti Crossing, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - decisions made must be based on the testimony and information presented at the hearing. Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Attorney White â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Appellant Presentation â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Board Discussion & Motion to Approve/Deny. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 6. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal question -Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. Motion: I move the Town Board go into Executive Session - For the purpose of a conference with Town Attorney White to receive legal advice under C. R. S. Section 24-6-4-2(4)(b). 7. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the Anpnrip wAR nrengrprl Jackie Williamson From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 06,2008 2:48 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0567 ST. TIME 08/06 14:38 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channe18 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 MO_UNTAINEER Volume I. Number 6. ESTES PARK, COLORADO, JULY 9, 1908. Single Copies 5 cents. THE GLORIOUS FOURTH SOME OF THE THINGS WAS DULY CELEBRATED IN ESTES PARK I Genuine Wild West Show Provides Plenty Of Thrills For Large Crowd, A Story Written To Answer Some Oft Repeated Question By Those Including Many Eastern Tourists Who Have Never Been Here - * - . , w â€¢.24Â· 61Â·KÂ· 1 :Â·.,Â·ytjAC ;glt'U.11 1, . AL.. . 3*WAWS<44>ktifilf 15 -~~~-fi:.3.;.r--?i, ':4 - ~ -~ f';0*ft,93*91* Fiestl Le*al N*Ws*- Files of The Moutit4ineer Publish-; 1 *s~p~Qt**EA~j*;P5p~**trg*0Â£*~ ed In Vmage In 1908 Is F~ed 1 4*03*Y*40%541~*, 444*z***0 With Fam liar. Names ; A~â€žpirfÂ¢#lf,3.3.:~441**44}14*~*M#52~d~~ f *--444-42~60-446*9â‚¬Â«462&2~-Â»-yetilk=r.Â»1-1-4**~ Ralph R. 3Â·lardonald has pre- I ;611!**iÂ£%**d-*14***:04*6Ift-i-;34#9. . N.pntt:*{ rillit' Trail -,vith full files of .:~t<?31%4-{:-:tt.;c~.:V-~1~Ul.,~S,.~.~~:~.Ji,~a'.A..r~Lij~t.... the first Este>; Park newspaper. -.4,Â·,>Â·- i il:/,P'.1-1.: 1..0.. ....?h,Ve ..'.....:11.-C.. 4,-t.,7 .1 1. 111] 1>lished in 1 ~/T.}24*Ail, 4 fi#htfftifilld<ftne /1./i Mountaineer. i f.~(.)>40 'f'he Xt'1*it;~8 ha< bcell ~}(>11.11(i i ~~.Ittili-!jjif}Affi:iniÂ·]Y-~Â·fb.1,~.:titj*Â·r*:1 6Â¢)pi:â‚¬3s 0 Â· und is available for rexparch intol bf 119/6%fottiltaineep,- pioneer Estes '" ~ V 14441/ Â·5 the local happening,4 01 more titan! Pattil:,49(11*~r, p ilbbihi:dÂ· irt- 1908- c 5Â·1 qual-ter rentlin- aim. 1 4tilid (03<Dixe.86. of Â·. fhe 11â‚¬stes K. Pilrk I TrailÂ· fdp:-tlie years 19.1211913 andÂ¢t 1 1.,t'ruhal of the fhÂ·41 11111111.,t.'r 1914. 1 of the first voluttle whirh ar,Pear. - Voleine . 1, i Number : 1 bf The i i i in Junt. 4 of that Year >il:}invx . Mmintameer tells fif the plans for ~ 1!int 1 he Kev J M, Travis wah Uk buittling of Hbrses.hoe jun in - pit'21Â»11 to find hini>,rÂ·-'if in int honÂ· 1, }Lorges}100 Piar'k by W. .IIi Asliton, (:Mt conuillitilt v for 1 he Hilll(lav C. 11., Bond and A.b *orhans. i.,Oil- i.}11 (1'. 011(Â¢ isÂ· F;hown a.:Â· copirighted i morning roilection had remaitled i pltioto 1,Â¥: Clatwbrthy of th*.CÂ·&.-*1 on the table twar the pulpit 4111 1 station 41 Loveland *ith p. e.onvoy day #ind nothing had hamwned to ! of Sta.1110:i.Steamers,4bout to star*, 1 - 4 it: The editor commented on (the ~ i to it-118 viilla.ge. , favorable impression that Mr, i Travis had macie and predietted j that he would undoubtedly be ; called to the new church when it ~ wAR bililt. 4 Comments to town board Aug. 12, 2008 On several past occasions, I have expressed to the town board my concern about the spread ofnoxious weeds in the Estes Park area. I recognize that the town has contracted for a company to help control weeds on some public property, and that is good. I also appreciate the fact that the town provided a large tent canopy for the weed roundup on July 26. However, current town efforts are insufficient for controlling the spread of noxious weeds in Estes Park, so more is needed. When I last spoke with you about this matter, I was unaware ofwho has specific legal responsibilities for management of noxious weeds. I've done some research, and I recently read Colo. State statute, Title 35 - Article 5.5 (known as the Colorado Noxious Weed Act), which details such requirements. \ This act requires the governing body of all municipalities to adopt an official Weed Management Plan, and to manage certain noxious weeds on both public and private land within municipal boundaries. The act is quite extensive, with many detailed legal requirements. As best I can determine, the town of Estes Park has never been in compliance with statute 35 - 5.5. I have no reason to think that any of you wish to violate state law. Most of you have probably never previously heard of such requirements, but control of such species as myrtle spurge and diffuse knapweed are critical to being good stewards of our natural setting. For several years, the County Weed District helped manage weeds in Estes Park. The Colo. Dept. of Transportation may have also done some weed management, but neither of these seems to be currently involved within town boundaries, and the noxious weed act gives them no responsibility or authority within municipal limits. At least one of the persons I spoke with in the public works department seems interested in complying with the state requirements for weed control. I am requesting that you provide direction and resources to the public works department so that Estes Park can comply with the noxious weed act as soon as possible. If desired, I would be willing to volunteer help in developing a noxious weed plan. Although I have talked with other residents who agree about the importance ofthis issue, I am currently speaking for mysel f rather than any group or organization. However, I may also contact some local civic-minded organizations to determine their level of interest in noxious weed control. Thank you. George Hockman 1625 Prospect Estates Drive Estes Park, CO Town Board Meeting, August 11, 2008 (#9) Good evening, For some time now I have been coming to our Town Board meetings to persuade you to stop reciting the Pledge ofAllegiance because the "under God" phrase added in 1954 is offensive to many and is obviously unconstitutional. I have used logic and reason to show that this well seated ritual is contrary to the concept of a free society and is an affront to many ofyour constituents. But as English comedian Pat Condell would say, "Reason is to religion what sunshine is to a vampire," so why should I expect consideration The following is a bit ofwisdom from Mark Twain: Shortly after Theodore Roosevelt became president he argued that"In God We Trust" should be removed from our coins because they "carried the name of God into improper places." In reply, Mark Twain said that"In God We Trust" was a fine motto, "simple, direct, gracefully phrased; it always sounds well-In God We Trust. I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true." I think the same could be said for'under God' in the Pledge, except for the 'gracefully phrased' part Just so you don't think that my efforts here have been for your benefit only, I should bring you up to date. You were all aware ofthe local and national media coverage during my recall, but you may not have known that the BBC aired a program last summer about religion in American politics including an interview with me. I have also been a featured speaker at an Amaican Humanist Association annual conventionaswell asthatofthe Freedom from Religion Foundation, where I was named "Freethought Hero" of the year. The three page manifesto I sent each of you in April has been published in the Freedom from Religion Foundation's monthly newspaper and my bi-monthly slatements are being compiled into what will be either a short story or full length book, depending on how long you hold out And did you see the story in the Denver Post this morning about a child that was starved to death for refusing to say 'amen' after meals? Some will dismiss the group responsible asa cult but in reality, they were just an expected extension ofthe delusional beliefin an imaginary god we call religion. Enabling nonsensical behavior encourages more ofthe same and toahigher degree. Forthis reason alone you shouldstopreciling the Pledge until 'under God' is removed. Thank you, David Habecker Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 22,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 22nd day of July, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Also Present: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: Town Attorney White Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT. George Hockman, Town resident, expressed concern about the spread of invasive, noxious weeds in the Estes Park area, and encouraged the Town and other public entities to set a good example of compliance with regulations related to controlling weeds. He urged the Town to inform the public about what is being done to control weeds, who to contact with concerns about noxious weeds on public property, and provide information to residents about how to deal with weed problems on private property. Staff reported that Code Enforcement Officer Andrew Hart monitors compliance of the Town's noxious weed regulations, and stated that the annual Weed Roundup is scheduled for Saturday, July 26th. The educational event is a cooperative effort between Colorado State University and local concerned citizens and will feature literature and demonstrations related to identifying noxious weeds. The Town's air curtain burner will be utilized to dispose of noxious weeds that are brought to the event at 680 Elm Road. David Habecker, Town resident, requested that, until Congress removes the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, the Town Board stops the practice of reciting the Pledge at Board meetings. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst announced that the Public Works Committee meeting will be held in the Town Board room on Thursday, July 24,2008, at 8:00 a.m. Mayor Pinkham stated that the Town Board and Staff will be participating in a budget work session on Friday, July 25,2008, at 8:30 a.m., in Rooms 201/202/203, to begin the budgeting process for 2009. He also urged citizens to exercise caution when using any type of fire, including barbecue grills, as fire danger is high due to dry weather conditions. Board of Trustees - July 22,2008 - Page 2 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 8, 2008 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated July 8,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, July 3,2008. B. Utilities, July 10, 2008. a. Water Design Policy Standards Update, RG Engineering, $9,770. b. YMCA Bulk Water Emergency Tap Agreement. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, June 17, 2008 (acknowledgement only). It was moved and seconded (Levine/Blackhurst) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing for the following Consent Agenda items: 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Fall River Village, Amended and Supplemental Condominium Map #1, Fall River Village Condominiums, including Building #3, Lot 8, Fall River Village PUD, Fall River Village Communities/Applicant. B. AMENDED PLAT 1. Fall River Estates, Lots 1, 2, & 4, Replat of Lot 26, Block 1, Fall River Estates, John & Peter Simonson/Applicants. As there were no comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved with Staff conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEM: a. BIG BEAR ESTATES ANNEXATION AND RELATED LAND USE ITEMS: Four Metes and Bounds parcels (parcel identification numbers 35261-00-001, 35261-05-046, 35261-06-001, and 35252- 53-018) and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision, Rock Castle Development Company/Applicant. 1. ANNEXATION - RESOLUTION #-08 & ORDINANCE #-08. 2. REZONING - ORDINANCE #-08 Rezoning of Parcel #35261-00- 001 from RE-Rural Estates to CO-Commercial Outlying. Rezoning of Parcel #35261-05-046 and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision from E-Estate to CO-Commercial Outlying. 3. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT. 4. PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) #08- 01. Board of Trustees - July 22,2008 - Page 3 Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant has requested all items related to the Big Bear Estates development be continued to the September 23,2008 Town Board meeting. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Ericson) to approve the continuance as requested by the applicant, and it passed unanimously. 3. REPORT: a. Presentation of Estes Valley Development Code Block 11 Amendments - First Reading: Revisions to the appeal process (Town Board Public Hearing will be held August 26,2008.) Dir. Joseph read proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code. The changes address timeframes related to the appeal process and allow a party- in-interest thirty days to register an appeal upon a decision. The appeal must then be heard within 60 days of receipt of the written request for appeal. A formal recommendation to adopt the changes to the Estes Valley Development Code will be presented to the Town Board next month. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY ORGANIC CONTRACT & POWER SUPPLY CONTRACT - ORDINANCE #10-08. In the mid-1960s the municipalities of Estes Park, Loveland, Longmont and Fort Collins created a non-profit corporation for the purpose of purchasing blocks of energy from the Bureau of Reclamation for resale to the individual Member Municipalities. The corporation faced limitations, however, in that it was unable to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance capital projects. Subsequent to a 1974 amendment to the Colorado Constitution, the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) was established through an Organic Contract in June of 1975 as a "separate governmental entity" with the power to own energy generation and transmission facilities with investor-owned and cooperative utilities, replacing the non-profit corporation. A stipulation of the Organic Contract is the establishment of the "Power Supply Contract" guaranteeing all power required by the Member Municipalities is purchased from PRPA. Due to the long-term nature of many PRPA actions, it has been a practice to re-extend the Organic Contract every 10 years so the contract term never falls below 30 years. Staff recommends extending the Organic Contract through 2050. Brian Moeck, PRPA General Manager, explained the relationship between the Authority and Member Municipalities and stated that having long term contracts allows PRPA to receive the best possible credit ratings and lowest interest rates. He stated that only minor changes were made to the Organic Contract, updating the language of the contract and reflecting no changes to the governance model of PRPA. The Power Supply Agreement insures that PRPA will provide power to meet the needs of the Town and that the Town of Estes Park agrees to purchase power from PRPA. In addition, a de minimus clause was included in the Power Supply Agreement which will give the Town of Estes Park the option to generate up to 1 megawatt of power, or 1 % of peak demand, from a new power source in the future. Mr. Moeck stated that PRPA monitors legislation and regulations for their impact on the Authority and to stay ahead of mandated standards related to renewable energy resources. Town Administrator Halburnt read Ordinance #10-08 concerning Platte River Power Authority and the Town's electric facilities; authorizing the execution and delivery of an amended and restated organic contract establishing Platte River Power Authority as a separate governmental entity and an amended contract Board of Trustees - July 22,2008 - Page 4 for the supply of electric power and energy into the record. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Miller) to adopt Ordinance #10-08 as read, and it passed unanimously. 2. MARY'S LAKE TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION. A General Contractor/Construction Bid Opening was held on June 26,2008 for the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project. The project design engineers, HDR Engineering, pre-qualified eight construction companies to bid on the project, with six companies submitting bids. The total project cost is $5,995,766.50 which includes the lowest bid and an additional $2,518,348 for the Membrane Contract with GE Zenon Corporation. Staff recommends awarding the contract in the amount of $3,477,418.50 to low bidder Moltz Construction. Funding will come from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) in the amount of $5,465,000 (Bond) and $876,000 from the Water Enterprise Fund for a total of $6,341,000 to cover project expenses and a 10% contingency fund. Utilization of monies from the Enterprise fund will not affect bonding requirements. Sarah Clark, Project Manager, presented the Trustees with an overview of the project that will increase the treatment volume of the plant, improve plant reliability, and meet future standards of efficiency. Ms. Clark reviewed the timing of the project, stating that final completion if scheduled for June 2009. Trustee Blackhurst pointed out that Staff has been working on this project over the past two years to get to this point. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to approve the contract with Moltz Construction in the amount of $3,477,418.50 for the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project, and it passed unanimously. 3.2ND QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the 2nd quarter financial reports. He stated that the Enterprise Funds reflect revenues over 50% and expenses under 50% at the end of the 2nd quarter. He reported that the Investment Fund contains a large deposit from the bonding authority related to Light and Power bonds that will earn interest until depleted by scheduled projects. Expenses in the General Fund have been kept under 50% through the first half of the year with sales tax revenues coming in approximately 6% lower than last year and 6% under projections through May equating to approximately $100,000. Finance Officer McFarland stated that this is the first down quarter in the past nine, and that he advises moving cautiously when considering new or discretionary spending. 4. FIRE TRUCK PURCHASE. The 2008 Fire Department budget includes $270,000 to purchase a Fire Truck Apparatus from account 101-2200-422-34-42 transferred to special revenue fund 229-2200-422-34-42. Staff is recommending replacement of Fire Engine #2, a 1976 Mack Fire truck, which has exceeded its useful life as a primary response vehicle. Chief Dorman stated that the new fire truck apparatus will have greater pumping capacity, comply with occupational safety and health standards, hold four firefighters instead of two resulting in the ability to get more people on the scene faster, and will produce a positive effect on insurance ratings and premiums. Specification requirements for the truck were compiled by Staff to meet the identified needs of the fire department and residents within the Fire Department response area. Bids were solicited from six manufacturers with five companies responding. Low bidder Mile-Hi Fire Apparatus' vehicle met or exceeded a majority of the requirement specifications at a cost of $357,918; $87,918 over budget. Contributing factors to the cost overrun include a 68% increase in steel prices, a 3% increase in labor costs, purchasing a four-passenger unit vs. a two-passenger unit, and the initial costs for the fire truck were researched and Board of Trustees - July 22,2008 - Page 5 acquired in 2006. It should be noted that, once delivered, there are additional equipment expenses for this vehicle. Costs for fire hose, nozzles, adaptors, and clamps are estimated at $70,000 and will be requested in the 2009 budget. The Public Safety Committee requested specific information related to methods of addressing the cost overrun, and staff responded with the following options related to acquiring the vehicle: 1. Use 2008 budgeted dollars ($270,000) and offset overruns ($87,918) with fire subscription fees collected for 2008. 2. Use 2008 budgeted dollars ($270,000), offset a portion of overruns ($41,041) from the fire subscription fees collected and initiate line item cuts from the department budget in the amount of $46,877. 3. Lease purchase. 4. Purchase a used fire truck. 5. Do not purchase the truck at this time which would result in a price increase of approximately 15%-20% according to Mile High Fire Apparatus staff. Discussion followed and is summarized: Engine #2 has little value as a trade-in but can be utilized as a back-up engine; don't cut budget for necessary equipment and training; personnel savings of $27, 377 realized because Fire Department Training Officer was not hired until April 2008; lease payments would be approximately $80,000 per year with approximately $45,000 paid in interest over a five year period; it is difficult to locate a used vehicle that would meet Fire Department requirements, and agreement that this is appropriate use of fire subscription fees. It was moved and seconded (Miller/Blackhurst) to approve the purchase of the Fire Truck apparatus at a cost of $357,918, to be funded in the following manner: $270,000 from 2008 budget, $27,377 from personnel savings, and the balance from subscription fees paid in 2008, and it passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. Based on discussions held at the April 25,2008 Town Board retreat, Town Administrator Halburnt researched the addition of a Public Information Officer (PIO) position and performed a salary survey, gathering data from Frisco, Steamboat Springs, Avon, Fort Collins, Loveland and Longmont which indicated a competitive salary range for the position of $52,785-$72,735 that, with benefits, would increase to $68,600-$94,550. This salary information along with an outline of job duties was presented at the June 10, 2008 Town Board meeting. At that time, the Board requested to review a comprehensive job description and questioned the need for the full-time position. Town Administrator Halburnt stated that although the optimal decision would be to add the position, considering the current decline in sales tax revenue, she is hesitant to do so at this time. Currently PIO duties are included within the Deputy Town Administrator job description and she recommends Deputy Town Administrator Richardson retain these duties, working with an assigned Public Information representative from each department. The Public Information Team will meet regularly as a group and pool resources to increase communication, both internally an externally. The Trustees concurred with this approach and suggested the position be revisited during 2009 budget study sessions. 6. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Halburnt reported that, due to budget cuts, CDOT has delayed the replacement of two bridges on Highway 34 east of Town for at least Board of Trustees - July 22,2008 - Page 6 one year. Repairs to the bridge on Mary's Lake Road in the vicinity of Spruce RV Park will take place this fall and winter. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting 9:18 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 25,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD PRE-BUDGET STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 201/202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 25th day of July, 2008. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, Levine and Miller Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Dept. Heads Dorman, Goehring, Kilsdonk, Kufeld, Joseph, McFarland, Pickering, Smith and Zurn and Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. REVIEW TOWN VISION. Administrator Halburnt reviewed the current Town vision statement. A work session will be scheduled to review the vision. FIVE YEAR OUTLOOK. Mayor Pinkham provided a five year economic outlook for the Town. The U.S. economy is experiencing a downturn and the recovery may take several years. Energy cost will have a significant impact as they continue to escalate due to "Peak Oil" and environmental regulations. The U.S. tourist industry will face increasing competition from developing countries and long distance domestic tourism is directing affected by the higher fuel costs. The Colorado tourist industries rely on Coloradoans with 82% of the state's population living within the Front Range. Issues at the local level continue to increase as the national and state deficits increase with a result in reduced support for programs at the local level. Estes Valley's current economic drivers (RMNP, premier mountain resort, location, geography and logistics) and seasonality rule out attracting manufacturing or distribution to augment the economy. The future economic drivers for the Estes valley include tourism, an increase in the retiree population and the potential to attract location neutral businesses as the Front Range gets more congested. Tourism activities that are currently lacking in Estes Park range from mountain biking, road biking, rafting/kayaking, powerboat waters, alpine skiing, Nordic alpine skiing, snowmobile trails, ballooning and skydiving. Estes Park's economy is at risk due to the reliance on tourism, disposable income, increase in real estate values driven by an increase in retiree population, young families leaving and relocating to the Front Range, lose of work force due to increase gas prices and lack of child care. Estes Park's economic advantages include it is a gateway community to Rocky Mountain National Park, proximity to Denver International Airport, proximity to Front Range, accessibility, shuttles/car-less vacations and the quality of life. The Town needs to develop an economic plan that will address the issues and give the Town direction on where to spend its money. Trustee Blackhurst stated the characteristics of today's economy are the same as those displayed in 1982. This is a normal economic cycle and Estes Park will always face competition from the surrounding areas. He suggested Estes Park should target the higher income visitor that is not affected by the economy. Estes Park continues to be insulated from the housing bubble with property values increasing. Discussion continued and is summarized: the importance of the Local Marketing District (LMD) to address some of the economic issues and to provide a revenue stream for RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - July 25,2008 - Page 2 advertising; the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) addresses many of the economic issues the Town faces; the visitor's expectations are higher and the Town needs to meet their needs with the aid of the retail community; there is a need to identify and attract location neutral businesses to provide additional jobs in the Estes Valley; the Town must identify the level of service to maintain and determine how to pay for the increase costs, i.e. property tax or pass the cost on to development; the Town must address the need for 800 new housing units by 2015 including workforce housing; the population growth rate at 30% is relatively low; however, the Town should protect and maintain the community base while developing new investments to improve the overall assets of the community; land costs are driving the development of multi-family housing development that are not desirable by the community; the downtown core needs to be rejuvenated to attract the upper income visitors. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the target population should be reviewed. The recent Longwood study stated Estes Park was number three on the list of places to visit while Vail and Eagle County were not even listed. Mayor Pinkham called a break at 9:46 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:56 a.m. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed comments from several financial institutions that reflect an economy that is slowing down; however, most institutions are forecasting a gradual recovery in 2009. Locally property tax assessment will exceed the overall Larimer County tax in 2009 by 5%. The real estate market has slowed but property values continue to rise. The Colorado Government Finance Officer Association has reported sales tax flat to down by 10% in Colorado communities. He stated budgets for 2009 and the next couple of years may be flat; however, the Town is insulated from trends and less likely to fall into a recession. A review of the forecasting methods (linear regression, historic percentages and weight multiple forecast - occupancy, traffic and RMNP visits) revealed Estes Park as a destination independent of RMNP. The long range forecast shows a possible decrease in revenue of approximately $2.2 million over a six year period if revenues are flat for the next couple of years. This decrease in revenue would impact available funds for the completion of major capital improvements. The average sales tax/month rate of change of 3.3% would indicate the Town might reach budget, 2.2% the Town would freeze spending and a growth of 0% would require cuts in current budgets. He stated General fund balances between 25 - 30% would have the Town in a cautionary spending mode and a fund balance below 25% would have the Town cutting back expenditures. 2009 POLICY GUIDANCE. Board Priorities/ 5-vr CIP The Board was presented with a list of projects to rank in order to develop a five year CIP plan. The following items were discussed: Trustee Homeier questioned the method of ranking the CIP projects by subject and the addition of maintenance items, equipment and policy/code revisions. Staff would remove those items from the CIP plan and have departments place those items in the budget. A new CIP would be presented at the next budget meeting. â€¢ Stanley Park - The Board ranked the multi-use barr',s as the top priority for improvements at the fairgrounds. The dual functioning facility would increase revenues and the quality of life for the citizens of Estes Park. The best funding option for building the barn would be to use cash available and borrow the other portion through a mechanism such as Certificates of Participation (COPs). The Board would support building the entire building with the ice rink. The parking lot should become a high priority with the possibility of developing a park and ride area. â€¢ Bond Park - A Request for Proposals (RFP) has been completed for the Master Plan and will be sent out in a couple of weeks. The estimated cost RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - July 25,2008 - Page 3 for improvements on a per square foot is $1 million. There may also be EPURA funds available. â€¢ Recycling Center - This item received a high ranking. Discussion followed: single stream recycling exists in Estes Park and efforts should not be duplicated; this is a private industry issue; the Town should continue to investigate a new facility and grant funds to offset the initial building costs; cardboard recycling needs to be addressed; review the cost/benefits of a facility; what are other communities doing to address the issue; would a new facility be competition for Waste Management; are the citizens looking at recycling as an essential service. â€¢ Development Code and Comprehensive Plan - The Development Code needs to be reviewed and updated. The Comprehensive Plan is not essential at this time and money should be spent on infrastructure. â€¢ EPURA Funding - The Town has budgeted $200,000 for the operational costs of EPURA in the past. Administrator Halburnt questioned whether or not the Board would like to continue funding EPURA. Director Smith stated the tax increment would take several years to build up, and therefore, EPURA would need funds for operations and projects. A general sense of the Board was to continue funding EPURA with the Town Board setting the priorities and assigning projects to EPURA. â€¢ Moraine/Crags Intersection - Trustee Miller stated signalization at the intersection of Moraine Ave. and Crags Dr. would be beneficial and questioned how to approach CDOT. Director Zurn stated the Town would have to purchase the signals at a cost of $350,000 per signal as CDOT only has funding for half of a signal per year. â€¢ Fire Code - The Board would support the addition of a Fire Code with the administration of the code by the Fire District. â€¢ Performing Art Center - The Town has a MOU with SOPA for the preparation of the Stanley Fairground site and funding for the operations of the center of $217,000/year. The site preparation has been contingent on the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. Discussion followed regarding the funding for the site preparation without the sale of Lot 4. The Board suggested setting aside the $217,000/year beginning in 2009 for possible site preparation in lieu of using proceeds from the sale of Lot 4. Staff will place operational funds in a separate account for consideration by the Board during the budget process. â€¢ EVRPD Recreational/Community Center - The Board discussed the Rec. Districts request to waive building fees and fund the construction of the community center portion of the building. Trustee Eisenlauer stated the center would be an asset to the community, and therefore, the Board should consider their requests. Trustee Miller expressed concern of the overall cost of the project. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the Community Development Department operates partly on the revenue it generates and a fee waiver policy has been adopted by the Board to waive no more than $2,500 in fees. â€¢ Transportation - The Board considers transportation within the Town a high priority issue that should be addressed. Administrator Halburnt stated the Town has received a grant to conduct a transportation study to determine the Town's needs as related to the shuttle system. The issue of purchasing versus renting buses for 2009 will be discussed during the budget process. Trustee Homeier stated the Town should consider a valley wide bus system. The Board expressed concern with the potential for flat sales tax revenues for 2008 and 2009 and the increase cost of fuel. Essential services must be maintained by the departments; therefore, the Board needs to consider the additional costs to provide those services. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - July 25,2008 - Page 4 Trustee Miller stated the Town needs to be creative and find other funding sources for projects. MISCELLANEOUS. Parking Lot â€¢ Schedule a vision workshop. â€¢ Establish a plan for pursuing business development. â€¢ Address public expectations and distrust of the Town/Board. â€¢ Address lack of workforce housing. â€¢ Single family homes will not be affordable due to land costs. â€¢ Downtown appearance an issue for some member of the Board. The Town needs to ensure "improvement" doesn't result in destroying the charm and character of Estes Park. â€¢ Engage the Urban Land Institute to address development issues. â€¢ Identify the Town's competition. â€¢ Local Marketing District issues need to be resolved and agree on a final IGA with the County. â€¢ Review the use of Design/Build concept. â€¢ Develop a vehicle policy - type, cost, additions, etc. â€¢ Establish new IGA with EPURA. Priority Filters Outlook: 2009 revenues flat; costs increasing Need to ensure funding for: 1. Essential Services (Public Safety and Maintenance) 2. Revenue Producing Services (CVB, Transportation, Barns) There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 17, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 17th day of July, 2008. Committee: Chair Eisenlauer, Trustees Ericson and Homeier Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Chief Dorman and Clerk Williamson Absent: None Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. POLICE DEPARTMENT Report 1. Estes Valley Victim Advocates Mid Year Update: Mary Mesropian/Executive Director reviewed the program which includes advocacy, counseling, bilingual outreach and a safehouse. The program works closely with other agencies such as Crossroads Safehouse, Alternatives to Violence, Larimer County Sheriff, Estes Park Medical Center, RMNP and Estes Park Police. EWA is also a member of the Estes Park Child Protection Team to ensure children are protected in our community. EWA will continue to provide 24 hour/ 7 days per week advocacy services with the objective of continuing to have highly trained volunteer advocates delivering quality care, information and referrals to victims. Education to the community and schools on issues of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and date rape are top priorities. The capital campaign to purchase the safehouse is nearing completion with over 95% raised to date. Domestic abuse and deaths continue to be the number one and two calls received by the advocates. 2. Introduction of New Officers: Chief Kufeld introduced Officer William Haslett and Officer Nathanael Romig. 3. Municipal Fine Review: Chief Kufeld reviewed the current Municipal Fine schedule that was adopted in May 2007 after an extensive review of fine schedules from other municipalities. Judge Brown has recommended the fine schedule be reviewed every two years making the next review due in 2009. The Committee questioned the inclusion of the $20 surcharge with a parking ticket. Staff would review the use of the surcharge fee. Miscellaneous Trustee Ericson stated he appreciates the efforts of the Community Service Officers patrolling the downtown area and commented on the great service they have provided the Town and the visitors. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - July 17, 2008 - Page 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Truck Apparatus - Request Approval to Purchase. The 2008 Fire Department Budget includes $270,000 for the purchase of a new Fire Truck Apparatus. The equipment would be an addition to the existing fleet. The older truck, a 1976 Mack, has been relocated to the new fire station at RMNP. The trade-in value of the older engine would be minimal at approximately $3,000 - $5,000; and therefore, more valuable as a backup engine. A five member team comprised of five fire fighters, the Fire Chief and Fleet Superintendent Mahany developed specs for the new fire truck. Truck specifications were drawn up to address the needs of the Department and were sent to six fire truck apparatus manufactures. JLW Enterprise Inc. / Custom Fab and Body, Henderson CO. $334,690 (Doesn't meet all specs, no dedicated/certified warranty-repair facility) Mile-Hi Fire Apparatus, Smeal Fire Apparatus, Commerce City CO. $357,918 (Meets majority of or exceeds specs - cost reflects discount for payment of chassis when it arrives at factory) KME Fire Apparatus, KME Fire Apparatus, Louisville CO. $361,570 (Doesn't meet some critical specs) Front Range Fire, Pierce Fire Apparatus, Frederick CO. $363,531 (Meets most specs, some minor specs not met - cost reflects discount for partial pre-payment and early total payment) Summit Emergency Equipment, Crimson Apparatus, Commerce City CO. $395,503 (Meets majority of specs) Western Fire, Seagrave Apparatus, Commerce City CO. NO RESPONSE The 33% ($87,918) increase in cost is due to the following factors: 1) The cost estimate was made in 2006 for the 2008 budget. 2) A 68% increase in steel and material costs increasing over the past six months. 3) A 3% increase in labor costs. 4) The selection team recommended a 4-door cab vs. the cost of a 2-door cab. Based on the increased cost, staff identified options regarding this capital purchase: 1) Use fund balance created from fire service subscription fees and billings. 2) Use a portion of fire services fund balance and cut current budget expenditures. 3) Do not purchase the fire truck this year. 4) Lease option - 5 year lease with payments at approximately $80,000/year and payment of the chassis upfront at a cost of $135,000. Additional equipment would be purchased after the truck is delivered with an estimated cost of $70,000 to be requested during the 2009 budget. Staff recommends purchasing the new fire apparatus from Mile-Hi fire apparatus. Mile Hi has stated the cost increase for 2009 would be approximately 15% due to an increase cost of materials and new 2009 NFPA regulations. Chairman Homeier questioned the need to purchase a fire truck now versus a year from now. Chief Dorman stated the costs for a new truck in 2009 would increase by approximately 15%, to meet ISO standards equipment must be in service for three years prior to the recertification scheduled for 2012, to keep the Town's ISO rating at or below a 4, provides the department with a reserve engine, safer for the firefighters, meets the 2 in/2 out requirement with the 4 person cab and to meet FPA standards not currently met. In addition, the placement of the old engine at the RMNP station is anticipated to lower the ISO ratings in the area from a 9 to a 4 with recertification. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - July 17, 2008 - Page 3 Trustee Ericson questioned if a used fire truck could be purchased. Supt. Mahany stated a used fire truck could be purchased; however, the cost to upgrade/retrofit the truck to the new standards would be more than a new truck. Chair Eisenlauer stated the additional cost for the truck should be covered by the subscription fees paid or a combination of cuts from the Fire Department budget and the subscription fee. After further discussion, the Committee recommended the item come forward to the Town Board as an action item on July 22,2008 meeting with additional information on the options to pay for a new truck, what items could be cut in the 2008 budget to cover the overrun and elaborate on the need for the new truck. Report: 1. First Quarter Report: Chief Dorman reviewed the types of calls including Rescue & Emergency (49%), Good Intent (12%), Fire (12%), False Alarms & False Calls (11%), Service Call (9%) and Hazardous Condition (7%). Fire and Service calls have been higher in 2008 YTD. Out of Town calls are up with respect to fire and good intent calls with many of those being smoke reports. The department is operating with 29 volunteers with 35-40 being optimal. The department is working on developing new ideas for recruitment and retention. As the demographics of our community change and the average age increases, it becomes more difficult to find eligible volunteers. Trustee Homeier commented there may be duties currently assigned to volunteer firefighter personnel that could be accomplished by older community members that do not qualify as a firefighter. Chief Dorman stated the department is reviewing the bylaws in an attempt to build an auxiliary unit similar to the Police Department. 2. Introduction of Training Officer: Chief Dorman introduced Derek Rosenquist as the new training captain. There being no further business, Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 9:12 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 24,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of July 2008. Committee: Chairman Blackhurst, Trustees Levine and Miller Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Zurn, Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Chairman Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. Craig Jones/State Forest Service stated Peak to Peak Wood is a five-county (Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, Jefferson and Clear Creek) effort in Colorado's northern Front Range to create markets for products coming from forest management, wildfire reduction and beetle kill in order to lower treatment costs and utilize biomass locally. The program is funded through a US Forest Service grant for the marketing and utilization of forest products, and administered by the Colorado State Parks and Open Space and the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS). The organization is looking for sorting yards for the collection of the material in each of the five counties with up to 6 to 8 sites total and would like the Town to consider the current beetle kill collection site as a cooperative collection site. The grant could fund infrastructure improvements on site such as fencing that Town staff has identified as a need. The project aims to develop a collaborative business infrastructure to move biomass products to the marketplace by developing the business infrastructure needed to transform forest biomass into marketable products such as energy, landscaping materials and firewood. A large percentage of the woody byproduct is not utilized and is either chipped or burned onsite. Committee discussion is summarized: what type of materials would be accepted on the site, how often would the material be hauled away, could chipped material be used in the market place, there could be a hazard to storing large volumes of material, the organization should contact the RMNP. Mr. Jones stated discussions have not been held with the RMNP to date. The organization is working with composting companies to investigate the possibility of using chip material as a bulking agent. Loads would be hauled off site once a full load is available. He commented that some of the beetle kill trees could be used for other wood products instead of burned in the Town's air curtain burner. The Committee requested staff continue to investigate the beetle collection site as a collection site for the Peak to Peak Wood project and return to the Committee with further details. The Committee agreed to participate in the program. League of Women Voters (LWV) Jim Martinsen/LWV reviewed the report provided to the Committee in May with regard to the establishment of a recycling center separate from the transfer station. He stated an additional site located off of Hwy 36 within the Reclamation area could be a potential site. In May, the Committee requested the League provide additional information on the annual costs to operate a recycling center and the following was provided by the LWV: â€¢ Ecocycle o Cardboard - $10,400 - $15,600 o Single Stream Recycling - $24,960 - $37,440 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - July 24,2008 - Page 2 Compactor cost - $3,000 Estimated Yearly Costs - $38,360 - $56,400 â€¢ Recycle America Cost Cardboard - $10,400 - $15,600 Single Stream Recycling - $10,400 - $15,600 Compactor cost - Free Estimated Yearly Costs - $20,800 - 31,200 â€¢ Larimer County o Estimated 2007 Costs - $22,797 Mr. Martinsen stated there are alternative methods to pay for a new recycling center including the adoption of a recycling fee in cooperation with Larimer County for the residents of the Estes Valley and grants are available through the Colorado Department of Public Health for the construction of recycling facilities. The LWV would partner with the Town to obtain such a grant and to obtain a land lease with the Bureau of Reclamation (one of the proposed locations). He also stated recycling providers have questioned the need for a building, which could decrease the start up costs. Chairman Blackhurst recommended the LWV continue to explore the issue and focus on private enterprise to provide the service. Government should be the last resource to fund what should be a private enterprise. Trustee Miller requested staff look into grant opportunities and the possibility of establishing a recycling fee. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson stated there are costs associated with grants including administration, adding a new service and expectation that the Town would continue to fund the program in the future. Dale Eckard/Ecocycle commented there is a need to reuse and conserve our resources in a way that is convenient and appealing to the general public. Ecocycle's partnerships with local governmental entities have been good. Government should view waste as a utility that needs to be managed. The Committee stated tax revenues are down, there is a hiring freeze and departments may be looking at budget cuts for 2008. This would not be an appropriate time to add a new program; however, this item has been added to the Capital Improvement Program to be discussed during the upcoming budget process. REPORTS. 1. Bark Beetle Inspections and Air Curtain Burner Activity - Dir. Zurn stated the pine beetle inspection and destruction programs have been very active since the adoption of the Pine Beetle Ordinance in May. There have been 120 requests with 100 inspections completed by a team of six volunteers and three staff members. Staff would like to publish a map of the results to date with a media release. The Committee supports the media release and the maps should be place on the Town's website. Code Enforcement has been used to make contact with the property owners to gain access to private property. Approximately one third of the properties inspected have signs of past or present beetle infestation. The air curtain burner has been in operation since June 16, 2008 with multiple beetle-killed or infested logs incinerated. A majority of the deliveries have been from private contractors providing service to customers in the valley. The estimated operational cost of the burner at the current infestation level is under $1,000. Only one complaint has been received to date with regard to smoke and staff is investigating potential operational procedures to minimize the smoke. The burner is currently running 24 hours/7 days a week or until the burner is full of ash. The Committee questioned where the material is coming from and stated the material received should be limited to the Estes Valley. 0000 00 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - July 24,2008 - Page 3 2. Hwv 36 Road Construction - Manager Sievers stated beginning August 11 th through September 1 0 the Larimer County Engineering Department will be widening Hwy 36 in front of Hermit Park with one lane of traffic open. Staff continues to have discussions with the County to provide two lanes of traffic especially during the weekend of the Scottish Festival. There being no further business, Chairman Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 9:17 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk TOWN BOARD MEETING August le, 2008 Report #I. Initiated Ordinance Petitions for EPURA. Attorney White will provide a verbal report on the petitions and the Town's responses. TOWN OF ESTES PARKV July 28,2008 William Van Horn Larry Pesses 350 Fall River Lane 5707 Devon Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 ik,6,4#4,b55 William Van Horn Larry Pesses '. 4'.09444..//~4*/65 : 54**AdMitittatâ‚¬; P O Box 456 P O Box 455 0-I-*?.9.3Â¥*04#.f e. i Â·' 2..Towntcierie Â·Â· 4. : Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 i Community, :Development Robert T. Hoban f :planning/Zoning Frank & Finger P.C. 5- Building P.O. Box 1477 ..9.. Evergreen, CO 80437-1477 :Convention and L Visitor Bureau Dear Sirs: .Finance i- RO. Box 1747 On July 21, 2008, a Notice of Intent to Gather Signatures for Two (2) Separate C Human Resources Ballot Initiatives and Request for Approval of the Same was filed with the Town Clerk's Office of the Town of Estes Park. Fi Pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-11-106 (1) C.R.S. please be advised that Museum the proposed Initiated Ordinance Petition requiring a vote prior to the creation of an 200 Fourth St. Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority is hereby rejected in its entirety for the following reason: Â¢Police f. RO. Box 1287 1. The creation of an Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development e Public Works Authority is governed by Sections 31-25-101 et seq. C.R.S. and 31-25-801 et Fleet seq. C.R.S. respectively. The provisions requiring elections approving the : creation of an Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority t Parks would amend the state statutory requirements. Therefore, the proposed Streets Ballot Initiative is not municipal legislation and not subject to the initiative and Senior Center referendum powers pursuant to Section 1 (9) of Article V of the State 220 Fourth St. Constitution. :Utilities Pursuant to the provision of Section 31-11-106 (1) C.R.S. please be advised that t~ the proposed Second Initiated Ordinance Petition for the abolishment of the Estes Light and Power Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) shall be approved upon submittal of a Water proposed Petition containing the following changes: â€¢ The Summary of Proposed Initiated Measure shall read as follows: "The proposed Initiated Ordinance will abolish the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA)." 170 MACGREGOR AVE. I RO. BOX 1200 I ESTES PARK, CO 80517 I PH. 970-586-3551 I www.estes.ori ' 41/ .:.Â·-~-v~F- :ffp,4.'-1-t::, .C-~' 0 4 3,..,0 'ri p:~12 " ?11"â€¢- yaff4*974 )5.9,0..Â·9: 2Â·-.t . I Mr. William Van Horn ~ Mr. Larry Pesses ..., Mr. Robert T. Hoban July 28,2008 Page two â€¢ The Full Text of Proposed Initiated Measure shall read as follows: "The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) shall be abolished pursuant to Section 31-25-115 C.R.S." â€¢ The last sentence of the warning should read: "...you have read or have had read to you..." and should be updated on all pages of the petition. â€¢ The mailing addresses for William Van Horn and Larry Pesses should be corrected to reflect their postal box addresses under Petition Proponents. Upon completion of the revisions, and pursuant to Section 31-11-106 (1) C.R.S., please submit a revised Petition form and first printer's proof for approval. Also enclosed are the forms from the Secretary of State's website for the Issue Committee to register with the Town Clerk and the necessary financial reporting forms to be filed as the issue moves forward. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK Rh~ uaL =L.Z.â„¢Â·-0 0 Jackie Williamson Town Clerk CC: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Greg White, Town Attorney Wil Smith, EPURA Director Â· f 1~ F K 03 i L 4 11.1 LE IDll 1 0 1 1 13/1 WARNING: ~Ull JUL 2 1 2008 ~ lT lS AGAINST THE LAW: |By For anyone to sign any initiative petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly s her name more than once for the same measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure. DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE. Do not sign this Petition unless you have read or have read to you the proposed initiative or the summary in its entirety and understand its meaning. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED INIT[ATED MEASURE: Theproposed Initiated Ordinance willaffordthe citizens ofEstes Park the additional righttorequire as a prerequisite to the creation of any Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority, as defined under the applicable Colorado Revised Statutes, that the question of the creation of the same, shall first be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. Petition Section No. 001 Page No. 001-1 WARNING: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW: For anyone to sign any initiative petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or her name more than once for the same measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE. Do not sign this Petition unless you have read or have~read to you the proposed initiative or the summary in its entirety and understand its meaning. FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED INITIATED MEASURE: Shall the Town ofEstes Park's Municipal Code be amended by the addition ofChapter 2.90 and its below referenced sub-parts, to read: Chapter 2.90 - Creation ofDiscretionary Districts and Authorities 2.90.010 - Discretionary Districts and Authorities (a) Before the creation of any Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority authorized under the Colorado Revised Statutes, the question ofthe creation ofthe same, shall first be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. (b) If approved at the special or general election required under Subsection (a) ofthis Section, the Town must comply with all applicable requirements set forth under the Colorado Revised Statutes. PETITION PROPONENTS: WILLIAM VAN HORN LARRY PESSES 350 FALL RIVER LANE 5707 DEVON DRIVE ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 Petition Section No. 001 Page No. 001-2 WARNING: lT lS AGAINST THE LAW: For anyone to sign any initiative petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or her name more than once for the same measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure. DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE. Do not sign this Petition unless you have read or have read to you the proposed initiative or the summary in its entirely and understand its meaning. Theproposed Initiated Ordinance will afford the citizens ofEstes Parkthe additional right to require, as a prerequisite to the creation of any Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority, as defined under the applicable Colorado Revised Statutes, that the question of the creation of the same, shall first be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. 1 signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name cityrrown Date of Signing 2 Signature Residence Addres: (Street & Number) County Printed Name City,rown Date of Signing 3 sign,tere Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name Cityfrown Date of Signing 4 signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name City/rown Date of Signing 5 s.gnature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name city,rown Date of Signing 6 signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name City,rown Date of Signing 7 signatare Residence Address (Street & Number) County Plinted Name cityrrown Date of Signing Petition Section No. 001 Page No. 001-3 In\ ! iii JUL 2 1 2008 UU WARNING: By IT IS AGAINST THE LAW: For anyone to sign any initiative petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or her name more than once for the same measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure. DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE. Do not sign this Petition unless you have read or have read to you tbe proposed initiative or the summary in its entirety and understand its meaning. *S> SUMMARY OF PROPOSED INITIATED MEASURE: -31,4.-r, Areâ‚¬.c, BQ-C>, A.1 06,-1 C.â‚¬ The proposed -beHet-initiative will submit=the-fiwestien-ef abolishmen*Â·ef the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) te-die-registerc. 2 ---------1.g---------~.viatelection: Petition Section No. 001 Page No. 001-1 aiwiefet[0%1[60/ji.~IWUnETI*I-2qI- WARNING: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW: For anyone to sign any initiative petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or her name more than once for the same measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure DO NOT SIGN THIS PETmON UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE. Do not sign this Petition unless you have read or have read to you the proposed initiative or the summary in its entirety and understand its meaning. FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED INITIATED MEASURE: Shall the existing Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) be abolished pursuant to C.R.S. Â§ 31-25-115? PETITION PROPONENTS: WILLIAM VAN HORN LARRY PESSES 350 FALL RIVER LANE 5707 DEVON DRIVE ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 Petition Section No. 001 Page No. 001-2 WARNING: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW: For anyone to sign any initiative petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or her name more than once for the same measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure. DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE. Do not sign this Petition unless you have read or have read to you the proposed initiative or the summary in its entirety and understand its meaning. The proposed ballot initiative will submit the question of abolishment of the Estes Park UIban Renewal Authority (EPURA) to the registered electorate at a regular or special election. 1 Signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name City/Town Date of Signing 2 Signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name city,rown Date of Signing 3 Signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name Citytrown Date of Signing 4 signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name cityrrown Date of Signing 5 Signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name Cityrrown Date of Signing 6 Signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County PRinted Name city,rown Date of Signing 7 Signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name city,rown Date or Signing Petition Section No. 001 Page No. 001 -3 TOWN[ oF ESTES PARIQ July 14, 2008 William Van Horn Larry Pesses 350 Fall River Lane 570 Devon Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 Robert T. Hoban Frank & Finger P.C. 4 P.O. Box 1477 -95,7Â« 9- I I #14* Mial@ I Evergreen, CO 80437-1477 Â°41--:~'~17Â·~h#*GY . 3Â·+64,itfetlex:.>144 *>. *Â°?:* imi,as Dear Sirs: Â·Â·i*Â·1Â·-ifÂ«--yvy, :,4604&&411Â¥43%93% 69â€¢101:1~46â‚¬0 â‚¬4' On July 7,2008, a Notice of Intent to Gather Signatures for Ballot Initiative and Request ?pia~n-45*2162*,A44%Â·, for Approval of the Same was filed with the Town Clerk's Office of the Town of Estes 76;uii114Â·-i t.04, Park. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-11-106 (1) C.R.S. please be advised .]Â£2. Â«1'K' :<-0Â· titÂ· that the proposed Initiated Ordinance Petition for Ballot Initiative filed on July 7,2008 is 94'en,1,4 42)5 hereby rejected in its entirety for the following reasons: Lisitor B#reaul;t. 1. The creation of an Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development *: Al p#nance Authority is governed by Sections 31-25-101 et seq. C.R.S. and 31-25-801 et 27Â·O. Box 1747 1 seq. C.R.S. respectively. The provisions requiring elections approving the .,Human ResourteÂ§ creation of an Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority : would amend the state statutory requirements. Therefore, the proposed Ballot ~1: Initiative is not municipal legislation and not subject to the initiative and referendum powers pursuant to Section 1 (9) of Article V of the State *Museum Constitution. 6*200 Fourth St. 1 / 2. Any existing Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority once within the Town of Estes Park is a separate entity and not a proper subject of .0. Box 1287 municipal legislation and therefore not subject to the initiative and referendum powers pursuant to Section 1 (9) of Article V of the State Constitution. ublic Works 4 Fleet GYParks 3. The proposed Ballot Initiative Ordinance addresses multiple subjects. *Streets 4 Sincerely, enior Center 220 Fourth St. TOWN OF ESTES PARK 'Utilities 0=*>aL unulll,-Ae"Â· 4 IT 0 Light and Power Jackie Williamson Water Town Clerk CC: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Greg White, Town Attorney Wil Smith, EPURA Director 170 MACGREGOR AVE. I RO. BOX 1200 I ESTES PARK, CO 80517 I PH. 970-586-3551 I www.estes.orf 97*"m"Wn"HM/'Flmimqsm ...' 0 ..li... 7,249â‚¬,11,1,11:5: Summary of Proposed Initiated Measure: The proposed Initiated Ordinance will require as a prerequisite to the creation ofany Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority, as defined under the applicable Colorado Revised Statutes, that the question of the creation of the same, shall first be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. Furthermore, the continued viability of any existing Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority shall be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. Proposed Text: Shall the Town ofEstes Park's Municipal Code be amended by the addition ofChapter 2.90 and its below referenced sub-parts, to read: Chapter 2.90 - Creation of Discretionary Districts and Authorities 2.90.010 - Discretionary Districts and Authorities (a) Before the creation of any Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority authorized under the Colorado Revised Statutes, the question ofthe creation ofthe same, shall first be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. (b) If approved at the special or general election required under Subsection (a) of this Section, the Town must comply with all applicable requirements set forth under the Colorado Revised Statutes. (c) An Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority duly existing at the time ofthe enactment ofthis Municipal Code Section 2.90.010 shall immediately cease operations unless and until first submitted and approved at a regular or special election. In the event such an entity is not approved at a regular or special election, it shall be abolished consistent with all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes. WARNING: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW: For anyone to sign any initiative petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or her name more than once for thesame measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure. DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE. Do not sign this Petition unless you have read or have read to you the proposed initiative or the summary in its entirety and understand its meaning. FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED INITIATED MEASURE: Shall the Town of Estes Park's Municipal Code be amended by the addition of Chapter 2.90 and its below referenced sub-parts, to read: Chapter 2.90 - Creation of Discretionary Districts and Authorities 2.90.010 - Discretionary Districts and Authorities (a) Before the creation of any Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority authorized under the Colorado Revised Statutes, the question of the creation of the same, shall first be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. (b) If approved at the special or general election required under Subsection (a) of this Section, the Town must comply with all applicable requirements set forth under the Colorado Revised Statutes. (c) An Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority duly existing at the time ofthe enactment of this Municipal Code Section 2.90.010 shall immediately cease operations unless and until first submitted and approved at a regular or special election. In the event such an entity is not approved at a regular or special election, it shall be abolished consistent with all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes. PETITION PROPONENTS: WILLIAM VAN HORN LARRY PESSES 350 FALL RIVER LANE 5707 DEVON DRIVE ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80511 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80511 Petition Section No. 001 Page No. 001-2 WARNING: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW: For anyone to sign any initiative petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or hername more than once for the same measureorto knowinglysign a petition when nota registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure. DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE. Do not sign this Petition unless you have read or have read to you the proposed initiative or the summary in its entirety and understand its meaning. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED INITIATED MEASURE: The proposed Initiated Ordinance will require as a prerequisite to the creation ofany Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority, as defined under the applicable Colorado Revised Statutes, that the question of the creation of the same, shall first be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. Furthermore, the continued viability of any existing Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority shall be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. Petition Section No. 001 Page No. 001-1 WARNING: IT [S AGAINST THE LAW: For anyone to sign any initiative petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or her name more than once for the same measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure. DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE. Do not sign this Petition unless you have read or have read to you the proposed initiative or the summary in its entirety and understand its meaning. The proposed Initiated Ordinance will require as a prerequisite to the creation of any Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority, as defined under the applicable Colorado Revised Statutes, that the question of the creation of the same, shall first be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. Furthermore, the continued viability ofany existing Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority shall be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. 1 Signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name Cityrrown Date of Signing 2 Signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name Cityrrown Date of Signing 3 signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name City/rown Date of Signing 4 Signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name Ciwrown Date of Signing 5 Signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name Cityrrown Date of Signing 6 Signature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name Cityrrown Date of Signing 7 Eignature Residence Address (Street & Number) County Printed Name Cilyrrown Date of Signing Petition Section No. 001 Page No. 001-3 Estes Park Convention & Visitors Bureau Memo TO: Mayor Pinkham, Town Board From:Tom Pickering CC: Jacquie Halburnt, Lowell Richardson Date: August 6,2008 Re: Re- appoint CVB Marketing Committee Background: The CVB marketing committee is up for re- appointment. With the potential creation of the new Local Marketing District, this committee will need to be re-appointed for the balance of the year ending December 31, 2008. This will give the voters time to decide on the new Local Marketing District. The Committee exists of Cory Blackman, Kyle Patterson, Rob Pieper, Tom Pickering, Peter Marsh, Suzy Blackhurst, Bo Winslow, Julie Nikolai, and Trustee Jerry Miller. Budget: NA Action: Re-appoint this committee through the end of the year. 1 Memo Date: August 7,2008 TO: Town Board From: Gregory A. White RE: Local Marketing District Intergovernmental Agreement BACKGROUND: The Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Estes Park, Colorado and the Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County, Colorado establishes and organizes the Estes Park Local Marketing District. Since the last review of the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement (Draft #4 6/30/08) two changes have been made as follows: 1. Section VI (B) Residency has been amended to remove any geographical restriction for appointment of any Director other than being a resident of the Service Area of the District. 2. Section VI (1) Waiver of Term Limits was added to allow either the Town or the County to waive term limits if there is no qualified applicant for a vacant Director position and a term limited Director wishes to fill the vacancy. Approval of this IGA by the Town and the County will establish the Estes Park Local Marketing District and provide for the organization and operation of the District. The establishment of the Local Marketing District and the authorization of the levying of a 2% marketing and promotion tax as set forth in the IGA is subject to voter approval at the general election on November 4, 2008. The IGA designates the Town Clerk as a Designated Election Official for said election. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The Town is responsible for its pro-rata share of the cost of the two ballot issues for the general election. Pro-ata share is determined by the number of eligible electors of the Town and the County who are eligible to vote in the District election. The Estes Park Local Marketing District, if established, and upon receipt of marketing and promotion tax revenue will reimburse the Town and the County for said election costs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the Staffs recommendation that the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement be approved. Draft #5,8/5/08 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT effective this day of , 2008, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, (the "Town"), and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LARIMER COUNTY, (the "County"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Local Marketing District Act, Section 29-25-101 et seq., C.R.S. provides for the organization o f local marketing districts ("the Act"); and WHEREAS, the Act allows formation of a local marketing district within the Town of Estes Park and unincorporated Larimer County; and WHEREAS, the Town and the County hereby agree to form a local marketing district pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Act for properties located within the Town and unincorporated areas o f Larimer County; and WHEREAS, Section 29-25-105 (3) C.R.S. of the Act provides that the Town and the County, by contract, may create a local marketing district to exercise the functions authorized by the Act following receipt of a petition for the organization of a local marketing district from the requisite number of owners of commercial real property in the proposed service area; and WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the Town Clerk and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners meeting the requirements set forth in Section 29-25-105 (2) C.R.S. of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Town and the County desire to establish the Estes Park Local Marketing District pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Intergovernmental Agreement; and WHEREAS, Section 29-25-105 C.R.S. provides that the question o f establishing a local marketing-district-shall-be-submitted-to-the-registered-electors-residing within-the-District-at a general election; and WHEREAS, the Petition states that the District shall be funded by the levying of a two percent (2%) marketing and promotion tax pursuant to the provisions of Section 29-25-112 C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, approval by the registered electors residing within the service area of the | proposed local marketing district of the establishment of the local marketing district and the 1 Draft #5,8/5/08 authorization for the levying of a two percent (2Â°/0) marketing and promotion tax to fund the ~ services of the local marketing district by the registered clectors residing within the service area of the proposed local marketing district is a prerequisite to the implementation of this Intergovernmental Agreement; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable statutes of the State of Colorado, the Town and the County are authorized to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN, AND THE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Name and Purpose. The name of the District is the Estes Park Local Marketing District (the "District"). The purpose of the District is to provide the services set forth in Section 29-25-111 (1)(e)(I)(A), (13) and (C) C.R.S. II. District Service Area. The District Service Area (the "Service Area") is depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. III. Eligible Electors. An eligible elector or registered elector of the District means an | elector as defined in Section 1-1-104 -C.R.S. who has complied with the registration provisions of the Uniform Election Code of 1992 in Larimer County, and resides within the Service Area of the District. IV. Elections. An election shall be held pursuant to Section 29-25-105 (6) C.R.S. for the purpose of establishing the District pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Intergovernmental Agreement. An election shall be held pursuant to Section 29-25-112 (1)Â® C.R.S. for the purpose of authorizing the levying of a two percent (2Â°/0) marketing and promotion tax on the purchase price paid or charged to persons for rooms or accommodations located within the District. All District elections will be conducted as provided in Section 29-25- 105 (6) C.R.S. The Town and the County agree that the question of approval of this Intergovernmental Agreement for the establishment of the District and authorization for a two percent (2Â°/0) marketing and promotion tax shall be placed upon the General Election ballot of November 4,2008. Each entity shall be responsible for its share of the cost of sid election ~ based upon the number of registered electors from each entity voting at said clectioneligible to vote in District elections and the formula for payment as set forth in the County Clerk and Recorder's coordinated election agreement. If the District is established, the District shall be responsible for reimbursing the Town and the County for all costs incurred by each entity for said election upon receipt of marketing and promotion tax revenue. The County delegates to the Town the authority to enter into the Agreement Concerning Election Services with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder for the purpose of conducting the election as part of the coordinated General Election. The Town Clerk of the Town shall be the Designated Election Official for the election and shall be responsible for the wording of the ballot issues and | certifying the ballot issues to the Clerk and Recorder- o f Larimer County, Colorado. 2 Draft #5,8/5/08 V. Effective Date. This Agreement shall automatically take effect upon certification of the Clerk and Recorder o f Larimer County, Colorado, that a majority o f the registered electors voting at the November 4,2008 General Election has approved the establishment of the District. VI. Board of Directors. The Board of Directors of the District shall have all legislative power of the District. The Board of Directors shall be composed and appointed as follows: A. Number. The number o f Directors shall be seven (7). Five (5) members shall be appointed by the Town. Two (2) members shall be appointed by the County. Each member shall serve a four (4) year term. The terms shall be staggered so that two (2) members are appointed each year and one (1) member in the fourth year. All Directors shall serve until their successor is appointed by the respective entity. Members may serve for more than one (1) term but no more than two (2) consecutive four year terms. B. Residency. All Wewn-appointees shall be residents o f the Kewn-Service Are of the District for at least one year prior to the appointment. All County appointees shall be residents of the unincorporated portion of the Scnicc Area for at least one year prior to their appointment. All members and shall continue to be residents o f theit- the Service Area during their entire term. A County appointee of the Board residing in a area annexed by the Town may continue to serve the remainder of that member's term. C. Officers. There shall be a Chair and a Vice-Chair. Each shall serve one (1) year terms, beginning with the first meeting in January of each year. The Chair and Vice- Chair may serve for two (2) consecutive terms. The Chair and Vice-Chair shall be chosen by the members of the Board. The Vice-Chair shall serve as the Chair ill absence of the Chair. D. Attendance. All members shall attend all meetings, including special meetings, if possible. In the event any member misses three (3) consecutive regular meetings or a total of four (4) regular meetings in a calendar year, the Town or the County may remove its appointed member for neglect of duty and designate a new member to fill the vacancy. E. Vacancy. Any vacancy occurring on the Commission shall be filled as soon as plaitical-by-appointment-by-either-the-Town-or-â‚¬ounty. F. Meetings. Regular meetings o f the Board of Directors of the District shall be once a month. Special meetings may be called as necessary. G. Powers. The Board o f Directors shall have all the powers set forth in the Act. H. Quorum. The majority of the Board o f Directors shall constitute a quorum. A vote o f majority of those present at a meeting shall be necessary for action by the Board. 3 Draft #5,8/5/08 I. Waiver o f Term Limits. The Town or the County may waive the term limit set forth in subparagraph A. above in the event that either party. in its sole discretion. determines that there are no qualified applicants for a vacant Director position and a term limited Director term limited wishes to serve another term. VII. Term. The term of the District shall be for an initial term of five years beginning on the approval of the establishment of the District by an election (see Section IV), and continuing until December 31, 2013. The term shall automatically extend for additional five (5) year periods unless on or before July 1 0 f any calendar year prior to the end o f any five (5) year period, either party gives written notice to the other party terminating this Agreement. In said event, the District shall automatically terminate on December 31 of sid calendar year. Between the date o f giving the notice of termination and December 31, the District shall continue to be in existence and have all powers as set forth herein. This Agreement nor the District may not be terminated, repealed or rescinded so long as the District has any outstanding financial obligations. VIII. Distribution and Division of the Assets of the District. In the event of termination of the District either by action of the Town and County as more fully set forth herein or by order of any court having jurisdiction thereof, all assets of the District shall be divided between the Town and the County based upon the percentage of marketing and promotion tax collected from the Town and unincorporated Larimer County in the previous calendar year to the extent feasible. IX. Other Provisions. A. Transition. During the period of time between the election establishing the District and January 1, 2010 ("the transition period"), the Town shall provide a staff member to act as administrator of the District. Also, the Town shall provide necessary office space and support to said staff member for administration of the District. In the transition period, the Town Attorney shall provide legal services to the District Board. The Town Attorney shall consult with the County Attorney in any matters affecting the unincorporated portions of Larimer County within the Service Area. B. Automatic Termination. The parties understand and agree that in the event the registered electors of the District fail to approve the formation of the District at the General Election held for said purpose on November 4,2008, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect. C. Enforcement. It is the intent of both the Town and County that this Agreement is binding upon both the Town and County, and that either party hereto shall be permitted to specifically enforce any provisions of this Agreement in a court of competent jurisdiction. D. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended in writing at any time by mutual agreement of the parties. 4 Draft #5,8/5/08 E. Notices. All notices, demands or other documents required or desired to be given, made or sent to the parties under this Agreement shall be made in writing, shall be deemed effective upon mailing or personal delivery. If mailed, said notice shall be mailed, by regular mail, postage prepaid (unless this Agreement specifically requires certified mail) addressed as follows: 000 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Attn. Town Administrator Post Office Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attn: Chair Post Office Box 2066 Loveland, CO 80522 F. Governmental Immunity. The parties agree and understand that both parties are relying on and do not waive, by any provision of this Agreement, tile monetary limitations or terms (presently One Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($150,000) per person and Six Hundred Thousand and 00/100 ($600,000) per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to the parties or any of their officers, agents or employees. G. Current Year Obligations. The parties acknowledge and agree that any payments provided for hereunder or requirements for future appropriations shall constitute only currently budgeted expenditures of the parties. The parties' obligations under this Agreement are subject to each individual party's annual right to budget and appropriate the sums necessary to provide the services set forth herein. No provision of this Agreement shall constitute a mandatory charge or requirement in any ensuing fiscal year beyond the then current fiscal year of each individual party. No provisions of this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as creating a multiple fiscal year, direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation of either or both parties within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation. This-Agreement-shall-not-directlyor-indirectly-obligate-either-p-arty to make any payments beyond those appropriated for each party's then current fiscal year. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to pledge or create a lien on any class or source of either party's monies, nor shall any provision of this Agreement restrict the future issuance of either party's bonds or any obligations payable from any class or source of each individual party's money. H. Operating Plan. Prior to the levying of a Marketing and Promotion Tax or provision of services, the Town and the County shall approve an Operating Plan for 5 Draft #5,8/5/08 the District. The District Board shall file with each entity no later than September 30 of each year, an Operating Plan specifically identifying services to be provided by the District, any Marketing and Promotion Tax to be imposed by the District, and such additional information as required to inform each entity as to the activities, services, and funding of the District in the upcoming year. The Operating Plan shall include a proposed budget for the next fiscal year. Either the Town or the County or both may require the District to supplement the Operating Plan or budget where necessary. The Town and the County shall approve or disapprove the Operating Plan including the proposed budget within thirty (30) days after receipt of the Operating Plan, the proposed budget, and all additional documentation requested by either entity but no later than December 5 of the year in which such documents are filed. The services and financial arrangements of the District shall conform so far as practical to the approved Operating Plan. The Operating Plan may, from time to time, be amended by the District with the approval of the Town and County. I. Dispute Resolution. Either the Town or the County may request mediation of any dispute pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Intergovernmental Agreement. The request for dispute resolution shall be submitted in writing to the other party. The Town and the County shall participate in a dispute resolution process in good faith. The dispute resolution process shall be concluded within sixty (60) days of filing of the request for dispute resolution. If the dispute is not resolved by this process, either or both parties may enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement as provided in Paragraph IX (C) above. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor AITEST: Town Clerk 6 Draft #5,8/5/08 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF LARIMER. By: A'ITEST: Deputy Clerk of the Board 7 Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: August 6 2008 Subject: Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning Election Services Background. Pursuant to C.R.S. 1-7-116(2), an Intergovernmental Agreement is required between a political subdivision (Town) and the County Clerk and Recorder to participate in the upcoming coordinated election. This agreement places all election responsibilities on the County Clerk and Recorder for the preparation and conduct of the coordinated election and provides for the appropriate election costs to be paid by the Town and the County pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and the County for the Local Marketing District. The agreement also outlines the duties of the Town as the public entity which include providing the County Clerk and Recorder with a certified legal description and verification of the street locator, setting the ballot language, providing language for the Tabor notice and publications as required by law. Budget There current estimated cost of the election is $20,000 to $33,000. Funds have been budgeted in account #101-1400-414-26-01. The costs of the election will be shared by the Town and the County based on the number of eligible voters within the District with an estimated 60/40 split. Action: Staff request approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement. AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTION SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made effective this 31 St day of July, 2008, between the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder ("Clerk") and Town of Estes Park ("Public Entity"): The Public Entity desires to conduct an election pursuant to its statutory authority and an election is required pursuant to C.R.S. Â§1-4-201 and C.R.S. Â§1-7-116(1); such election to occur on November 4,2008; and An agreement concerning the conduct of a coordinated election is required pursuant to C.R.S. Â§1-7-116(2); and The Clerk has agreed to perform certain coordinated election services set forth herein in consideration of the performance by the Public Entity of its obligations and payment of a fee as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: DUTIES OF THE CLERK The Clerk agrees to perform the following duties (or such other duties as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties in writing) in connection with the election to be held on November 4, 2008: The Clerk has designated Cynthia Coleman, whose telephone number is (970) 498-7941 as the "Contact Officer" to act as the primary liaison between the Clerk and the Public Entity for the purposes of the election. The Contact Officer shall act under the authority of the Clerk. The Clerk shall: Provide the Public Entity a street locator file, which lists the street addresses located in the Public Entity within the Clerk's voter registration system. The street locator file must be accurate in order for the Clerk to provide correct ballots to electors. The Designated Election Official shall review the information contained in the street locator file and shall certify its accuracy, as well as any changes, additions or deletions to the file. The certification of the street locator file shall be made no later than August 15, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. to the Clerk. If the certification is not provided by the date specified herein, the Public Entity may not participate in the General Election on November 4,2008. Require_a-proposed _Rublic-Entity,_not_already_identified_by_a_tax_authority_code_in_the County Assessor's records, to provide the Clerk's office with a certified legal description, map and locator, identifying all "high/low" ranges for street addresses within the proposed Public Entity no later than August 15, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. Once the information has been entered in the Clerk's voter registration system, the Designated Election Official shall review the information contained in the street locator file and shall certify its accuracy, as well as any changes, additions or deletions to the file no later than August 22,2008 at 5:00 p.m. to the Clerk. The street locator file must be accurate in order for the Clerk to provide correct ballots to electors. If the certification is not provided by the date specified herein, the Public Entity may not participate in the General Election on November 4,2008. 1 Give assistance and information to the designated local election official of the Public Entity on any matter which should ensure the smooth and efficient operation of the election (such information not to include legal advice). Enforce all provisions of Campaign Political Finance and the Fair Campaign Practices Act as they may apply to the conduct of the election. Coordinate the proper number and location of vote centers. Secure and provide vote center locations for all election precincts and submit a copy of the list of confirmed vote centers to the Public Entity. All vote centers will be accessible to electors with disabilities and, if not, the Clerk will provide temporary modifications for such electors. Be responsible for the delivery of the registration/voter lists and assist on or before Election Day in the assembling of all election materials to be delivered to the judges of election at each vote center. Provide forms for application for change of address, and/or change of name, voter challenge forms, and voter assistance forms. Procure all necessary supplies and forms needed for early voting and Election Day voting. Certify the judges of the election and alternate judges and determine their compensation. Provide a list of election judges if requested by the Public Entity. Conduct a training session for election judges prior to the election, provide specific instruction in the use and operation of the election equipment at such training session and provide an election judge guide for distribution to the judges. Arrange for the delivery and installation of vote center signs no less than twelve days prior to the election pursuant to C.R.S. Â§ 1-5-106. Provide voting equipment as needed with memory cards, ballot boxes, transfer cases and necessary seals to ensure the security of the ballots and the voter verifiable paper audit trail canisters (VVPAT) for each vote center, a quantity of secrecy sleeves perÂ· vote center as needed, demonstration ballots per vote center and necessary signs for posting. Be responsible for the security, verification and processing of all mail-in ballots. Provide a replacement ballot upon the receipt of a timely request by the elector. Place upon the ballot the ballot content properly certified to the Clerk in accordance with the law. The Public Entity shall be solely responsible for determining whether a ballot issue, question or candidate is properly placed before the voters. Contract for all printed ballots and coordinate payment to printer(s). Certifiy the ballot content to the printer. The Clerk and Recorder reserves the right to decide to print only the ballot issue identifying information on the ballot and the ballot title on a separate sheet of paper or any other form of ballot as directed by the Secretary of State's office. To avoid ballot space issues, the Clerk requests all issues and questions are no more than 250 words. 2 Provide, no later than ten days before the election, notice by publication of a vote center election, which notice shall set forth items in C.R.S. Â§ 1-5-205. Publish notice of the election, as required by the Election Code, and such publication shall satisfy the publication requirement for all political subdivisions participating in the coordinated election, pursuant to C.R.S. Â§1-5-205(1.4) as amended. However, the City/District shall post and/or publish any other legal notices required of the City/District, pursuant to relevant provisions of the Code, TABOR, the Rules, or the Colorado Municipal Code of 1965, Â§31-10- 101, et seq., C.R.S., as amended, Â§32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S., as amended, except as otherwise provided herein. Conduct testing prior to the commencement of voting to determine the voting system is properly programmed, the election is correctly defined on the voting system, and all of the voting system's input, output and communication devices are working properly pursuant to C.R.S. Â§1- 7-509(1)(a). Conduct hardware, public logic and accuracy and post-election tests or audit pursuant to C.R.S. Â§1-7-509(1)(b) and Secretary of State Rules. After notification by the Secretary of State, the Clerk will conduct a timely post-election audit on those machines and races decreed by the Secretary of State. Provide a secure area for the election activities to take place. Arrange for press accommodations, if necessary. Provide personnel at the tabulation center on Election Day/Night to certify unofficial election results. Establish backup procedures and a backup site for the counting of the election, should the counting equipment become unavailable during the count. Should the equipment become unavailable, and it is determined that facilities must be moved to a predetermined site for the duration of the election counting procedures, all related costs to be paid by the Public Entity (shared with any other Public Entity whose ballots are being counted during the election in the timeframe using the backup procedures and site). Remove the ballots and VVPAT records after the time period for election contests has passed and preserve all items as election records pursuant to C.R.S. Â§1-7-802. If requested by the Clerk, the Public Entity shall advise the Clerk when the time period for election contests has passed. In addition, the Public Entity shall immediately notify the Clerk of any election contest that is initiated and shall keep the Clerk apprised of the need to retain the election records for use in such a contest. Conduct a recount of the ballots where the final ballot tabulation results are close enough to require a recount by law, or if not required by statute, upon the request of the Public Entity, for any reason. The cost of the recount will be charged to the Public Entity, or if more than one Pubic Entity is involved in the recount, the cost will be prorated among the participating Public Entities equally. Keep an accurate accounting of all election costs including, but not limited to, supplies, printing costs, legal notices, temporary labor and other election expenses attributable to the Clerk's 3 administration of the election for the Public Entity. The participating Public Entity's proportional share of costs shall be based on County expenditures relative to the November 4, 2008, General Election and the number of electors per entity. Charge the Public Entity participating in the General Election for all costs of the election incurred by the Clerk for that Public Entity to the date of cancellation of its portion of the election. Submit to the Public Entity an invoice for all expenses incurred under this Agreement. The Public Entity shall remit to the Clerk the total payment within thirty days from the date of receipt of such invoice. Other: The minimum fee for election services is $650.00. DUTIES OF THE PUBLIC ENTITY The Public Entity shall perform the following duties in connection with the election to be held on November 4,2008: Provide the Clerk with a copy of the ordinance or resolution stating that the Public Entity has adopted the Code and that the Public Entity will participate in the Coordinated Election in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The ordinance or resolution shall further authorize the presiding officer of the Public Entity or other designated person to execute this Agreement. Inform the Clerk by letter of any Districts that will not be coordinated by the Clerk but will be conducting an election at the same time as the November 4,2008 General Election. The letter shall clearly state that the District intends to conduct their own election and that they intend to be solely responsible for it. The Public Entity encompasses territory within Larimer County and County(ies). If the Public Entity encompasses territory within other counties, this Agreement shall be construed to apply only to that portion of the Public Entity within Larimer County. The Public Entity has designated , whose mailing address is and whose phone number is , as its "Designated Election Official," pursuant to C.R.S. Â§1-1-104(8) as amended. The Designated Election Official shall act as the primary liaison between the Public Entity and the Clerk. Existing Public Entities shall provide the Clerk's office with a current certified legal description and boundaries drawn on a county precinct map. The street locator provided by the Clerk identifying the "high/low" range for all streets within the Public Entity to identify eligible electors within the Public Entity, shall be certified no later than August 15, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. Proposed Public Entities shall provide the Clerk's office with a current certified legal description and boundaries drawn on a county precinct map. The street locator provided by the Clerk identifying the "high/low" range for all streets within the Public Entity to identify eligible electors 4 within the Public Entity, shall be certified no later than August 22,2008 at 5:00 p.m. Pursuant C.R.S. Â§1-5-203(3)(a), provide a certified copy of the ballot content (candidates, issues and questions) to the Clerk exactly as and in the order in which it is to appear and be printed on the ballot pages and sample ballot. This certified copy shall be submitted no later than sixty days before the election, September 5, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. The certified list of candidates, ballot issues and/or ballot questions shall be final and the Clerk will not be responsible for making any changes after the certification. All Public Entities must use the following formats to submit their ballot content. â€¢ DISKETTE - High Density 3.5 IBM Formatted or â€¢ CD - 650 MB or higher â€¢ MICROSOFT WORD'97 or a version of Microsoft Word able to be converted to Microsoft Word '97 â€¢ FONT TYPE - Arial â€¢ FONT SIZE - 10 pt â€¢ Left justified â€¢ Margins - ALL M inch â€¢ Provide audio pronunciation of all candidates, locations and words that might pose a pronunciation problem. (See Exhibit B) Proofread and approve the Public Entity's ballot content for printing within one day of receipt. The Public Entity shall provide a fax number and designate a person to be available for proofing and approving ballot content for printing. Due to limited printing availability and timing, the Public Entity must provide contact information for someone who is available from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. from September 12, 2008 until ballots are submitted. The Clerk agrees to keep all contact personnel apprised of ballot printing status for all contacts. The Public Entity has designated , whose fax number is Have the designated local election official (or one other person satisfactory to the Clerk) attend the training session for election judges and assist the Clerk in the conduct of the training session if requested by the Clerk. If requested by the Clerk, provide person(s) to participate in the ballot counting procedures, recount-procedures-and-testing/auditing-procedures-as-accomplished-by-any-electromechanical voting system used in the election. The Public Entity personnel may participate in various boards with personnel from the Clerk's office to ensure Public Entity's participation in each of the electronic vote tabulating procedures that shall be used. The person(s) provided by the Public Entity must be registered to vote in Larimer County. Notify the Clerk if it is a municipality which has provided by ordinance or resolution that it will utilize the requirements and procedures of the Uniform Election Code of 1992 in lieu of the Colorado Municipal Election Code of 1965 with respect to this election and to forthwith provide a copy of said ordinance or resolution to the Clerk. 5 Where the Public Entity is a special district, within thirty days after the special district has been declared organized by the court, the Public Entity shall transmit to the county clerk and recorder in each of the counties in which the Public Entity or a part thereof extends certified copies of the findings and the order of the court organizing said special district (C.R.S. Â§32-1-306). The Public Entity avers that it has sufficient funds available in its approved budget to pay its prorated election expenses for the November 4,2008 General Election. In the event that the Public Entity resolves not to hold the General Election, then notice of such resolution shall be provided to the Clerk immediately. The Public Entity shall within thirty days promptly pay the Clerk the full costs of the activities of the Clerk relating to the notice, including without limitation production and mailing costs, incurred both before and after the Clerk's receipt of such notice. The Public Entity shall provide notice by publication of the cancellation of the election and a copy of the notice shall be posted in the office of the Clerk, in the office of the Designated Election Official (as defined in the Code) and, if the Public Entity is a special district in the office of the Division of Local Government. The Public Entity shall not cancel the election after the twenty-fifth day prior to the election (C.R.S. Â§1-5-208(2)). DUTIES OF THE CLERK - TABOR Charge the Public Entity for all expenses related to the Public Entity for the preparation, printing, labeling and postage for the TABOR notice. Said expenses shall be prorated among all Public Entities participating in the TABOR notice, with such proration to be made based, in part, upon the number of persons registered to vote within each Public Entity and the percentage of total column inches used in printing the Public Entity's TABOR notice. Provide a local election office address and telephone number for incorporation into the TABOR notice and notify the Public Entity of such address and telephone number by forty-five days prior to the election. Such local election office and telephone shall be open during the Clerk's regular business hours. The Clerk shall respond to all correspondence and calls that the Clerk receives within its expertise relating to election procedures, but shall refer calls concerning the substance of the ballot issues and ballot questions or the operations of the Public Entity to the Designated Election Official. Mail to all voters registered to vote in Larimer County the TABOR Notice Package/Election Booklet not less than thirty days prior to the election pursuant to Article X, Section 20(3)(b) of the Colorado Constitution. The Clerk shall determine the "least cost" method for mailing the TABOR Notice Package and address the package to "All Registered Voters" at each address of one or more active registered voters of the Public Entity. Nothing herein shall preclude the Clerk from sending the TABOR Notice of the Public Entity to persons other than electors of the Public Entity if such sending arises from the Clerk's efforts to mail the TABOR Notice Package at "least cost". DUTIES OF THE PUBLIC ENTITY - TABOR If the Public Entity is required to prepare a TABOR notice for any ballot issue(s) and is coordinating with the Clerk for publication, the Public Entity shall be solely responsible for its preparation, accuracy and the language contained therein, and shall submit such notice, including pro and con summaries and fiscal information, to the Clerk no later than September 6 23, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., pursuant to C.R.S. Â§1-7-904, as amended. Such notice, including pro and con summaries and fiscal information, shall be provided to the Clerk in both written form and on a computer disc. Assign a designated local election official who shall be the official contact person for the Clerk and who shall perform such duties as are required by law including the obligation to receive and summarize written comments for and against proposals which are subject to the requirements of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The parties agree that the Clerk as chief coordinated election official shall have no duty or obligation to receive or summarize such comments. All Public Entities with TABOR issues on the November 4, 2008 ballot, and coordinating publication of the TABOR notice with the clerk, must use the following format to submit the text of TABOR comments. â€¢ DISKETTE - High Density 3.5 IBM Formatted or â€¢ CD - 650 MB or higher â€¢ MICROSOFT WORD '97 or a version of Microsoft Word able to be converted to Microsoft Word '97 â€¢ FONT TYPE- Arial â€¢ FONT SIZE - 10 pt â€¢ Left justified â€¢ Margins -ALL 16 inch Proofread and approve the public entity's TABOR content for printing. The Public Entity shall provide a fax number and designate a person to be available for proofing and approving TABOR content for printing. Due to limited printing demand and time constraints, the Public Entity must provide contact information for someone who is available from 8:00 am. to 10:00 p.m. from September 24,2008 until TABOR is submitted. The Clerk agrees to keep all contact personnel apprised of TABOR printing status for all contacts. The Public Entity has designated , whose fax number is Mail to all property owners within Public Entity's district, other than those property owners to whom the Clerk has mailed notice above, the notice required by Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, such mailing to be in accordance with the requirements of the Colorado Constitution, statutes and rules and regulations. The Public Entity shall pay a prorated amount for the costs to produce and mail the TABOR notice. Such proration shall be made based upon the percentage of households in which an "Active" registered voter resides who is an eligible elector of the Public Entity, the number of ballot issues and the number of pages and partial pages used within the TABOR notice package for the Public Entity's notice. Other: The minimum fee for TABOR support is $350.00. 7 CLERK/ENTITY AGREEMENTS Upon receipt of the invoice, pay to the Clerk within thirty days a fee which shall be an amount determined in accordance with the formula set forth on Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. If Exhibit "A" cannot be completed at the time of the mailing of the Intergovernmental Agreement, it will be provided as soon after July 31, 2008 as possible. Pay any additional or unique election costs resulting from Public Entity delays and/or special preparations or cancellations relating to the Public Entity's participation in the General Election. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction finds the election for the Public Entity was void or otherwise fatally defective as a result of the sole breach or failure of the Clerk to perform in accordance with this Agreement or laws applicable to the election, the Public Entity shall be entitled to recover expenses or losses caused by such breach or failure up to the maximum amount paid by the Public Entity to the Clerk under this Agreement. The Clerk of Larimer County, Colorado, shall in no event be liable for any expenses, damages or losses in excess of the amounts paid under this Agreement. This remedy shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for the breach available to the Public Entity under this Agreement. No portion of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a cause of action with respect to anyone not a party to this Agreement, nor is this Agreement intended to waive any privileges, immunities to the parties, their officers or employees may possess, except as expressly stated in this Agreement. Time is of the essence under this Agreement. The statutory time frames or requirements of the Code, TABOR, and the Rules shall apply to the completion of any duties or tasks required under this Agreement. 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be effective upon the date first above written. LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO CLERK AND RECORDER Date: Scott Doyle Date: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: Deputy Clerk of the Board Glenn Gibson Chair, Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC ENTITY: NAME OF PUBLIC ENTITY: Date: By: Public Entity phone number Title of Authorized Representative signing on behalf of Public Entity ... 1-1.17 j 07.- ..=- AP 2,14Â£54) 9 [-10:liâ‚¬'CU1KL11:li r. 4 Coinmunity - - Development . Department . c Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: David Shirk, Planner~JÂ¢ Date: August 12,2008 Subject: Wapiti Crossing Development Plan - Appeal Request. Pursuant to Section 2.1.B and Section 12.1.B of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), several neighboring property owners who qualify as "Parties-In-Interest" have filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve the Wapiti Crossing development plan (DP 07-13). Staff recommends discussion is limited to the basis of appeal. Background. The proposed development includes forty-two residential units to be located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Lexington Lane (across from Eagle's Landing condominiums). In November 2007, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 4-1 (with two absent) to disapprove the Wapiti Crossing development plan. Denial was "based on significant impact to the wildlife." The property owner appealed that decision to the Town Board. In January 2008, the Town Board voted to remand the development plan to the Planning Commission to review a Wildlife Conservation Plan. In May 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed a wildlife conservation plan, and found it complied with requirements set forth in Section 7.8.H "Wildlife Conservation Plans." Appeal. The appeal of the Planning Commission decision is based "on the grounds that the legal interpretation adopted by the Planning Commission is erroneous and essentially deletes part of the EVDC. Because the Planning Commission misconstrued and misapplied Section 7.8, the decision must be reversed as an abuse of discretion." The applicant asked the appeal be included as part of the public record, and is attached for your review. The appeal claims the Planning Commission was mis-instructed regarding the provisions of Section 7.8, that Staff did not follow the requirements of the Section 7.8, and that Section 7.8 includes requirements that Staff finds it does not. Staff recommends the Town Board carefully review the language included in Section 7.8, and apply Code language. Wildlife Conservation Plans. 1. Section 7.8.F4 "Review Determination" states that based on recommendations from the CDOW, Staff will determine whether the Applicant must submit a wildlife conservation plan. Based on the statement from the DOW at the January Town Board meeting, and instruction from the Town Board, a conservation plan was submitted. Section 7.8.F4 also states "the conservation plan should be submitted to the Division of Wildlife for review and recommendation as to whether the plan adequately addresses the adverse impacts identified by the" Division. Staff did submit the conservation plan to the DOW. 2. Section 7.8.Hl "Plan Preparation" states that if a conservation plan is required, it "shall be prepared by the Applicant, at the Applicant's expense, under the responsible direction of a qualified person who has demonstrated expertise in the field and is acceptable to the Staff." The plan was paid for by the applicant, and was prepared by a Staff approved certified wildlife biologist (after consultation with the CDOW). 3. Section 7.8.H2 of the EVDC outlines conservation plan content requirements, as follows: a. A description of the ownership, location, type, size and other attributes of the wildlife habitat on the site. b. A description of the populations of wildlife species that inhabit or use the site, including a qualitative description of their spatial distribution and abundance. c. An analysis of potential adverse impacts pf the proposed development on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site. d. A list of mitigation methods measures and an analysis of the probability of success of such measures. â€¢ Page 2 e. A plan for implementation, maintenance and monitoring of mitigation measures. f. A plan for any relevant enhancement or restoration measures. g. A demonstration of fiscal, administrative and technical competence of the Applicant or other relevant entity to successfully execute the plan. Staff and the Planning Commission found the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment and Wildlife Conservation Plan comply with the requirements set forth in the EVDC. Development Plan. After preparation of the conservation plan, the applicant revised the development plan to reflect suggestions made in the conservation plan. These included removal of one unit, relocation of the driveway access to the multi-family building, widening a "migration corridor", and reduction in the amount of landscaping. Action. Following the Staff presentation, Staff recommends the following: 1. Questions from the Board to Staff; 2. Applicant presentation; 3. Public Hearing; 4. Close Public Hearing; and, 5. Board Discussion and Action. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Board uphold the Planning Commission findings and approval of Development Plan 07-13 "Wapiti Crossing. Suggested Motion. I move to uphold the Planning Commission approval of Development Plan 07-13 "Wapiti Crossing", with the following findings: 1. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code, including Section 7.8.G "Review Standards" for Wildlife Habitat Protection. 2. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment, including the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 3. Community Development Staff complied with Section 7.8.F4 of the Estes Valley Development Code, which states conservatioh plans should be forwarded for review and comment. â€¢ Page 3 4. The applicant complied with requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code, including review standards. . . 5. The wildlife conservation plan (in conjunction with the January 2008 Elk Impact Assessment) complies with plan content requirements set forth in Section 7.8.H2 "Plan Content" for Wildlife Conservation Plans, specifically: a. A description of the ownership, location, type, size and other attributes of the wildlife habitat on the site. b. A description of the populations of wildlife species that inhabit or use the site, including a qualitative description of the spatial distribution and abundance. c. An analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site. d. A list of proposed mitigation measures and an analysis of the probability of success of such measures. e. A plan for the implementation, maintenance, and monitoring of mitigation measures. f. A plan for any relevant enhancement or restoration measures. g. A demonstration of fiscal, administrative and technical competence of the Applicant or other relevant entity to successfully execute the plan. Attachments: (1) Vicinity Map/Aerial Photo (2) Summary/letter from appellant, signature page (3) Original development plan, remanded for wildlife conservation plan (4) Revised development plan, approved by Planning Commission in May 2008 (5) Memo to Planning Commission, May 2008 (6) Section 7.8 "Wildlife Habitat Protection" (7) Developer's Response to Appeal â€¢ Page 4 A 8 0 (0 U) 82 4- 0 CD m O C' O r '34 0 0 C-4 1110 0-1 (0 - 1-- p.. _ r -.lokÂ© O O 0124 r & r- - (Cl =1- CO 41Â·â€¢Â·r ,-9 r-- C-4 LAD ,, c-4 84 Â£7 r-r- "- 0- r- r Â· r- r- r- O 04.0 Â© O 01 Â·N Cl O $0 .X X > r 9- r + rÂ· r rÂ·- r r- i, ' X .Â« >f f U ZE 01 if) (C) LD Lf) el 0,4 C.At-_~ 0 III O Chi O 0 0 Â·53,- r r IN el 1%- CE) CO 0 4/ :StÂ·Cbuuzil ./- CIOÂ·4 -râ€ž 8 [r-/ 1 . ~ .~,,4~~1.-~Â»42!Ef-241 /- li <A CIO r -771 ~ 1-1 I Â»301,0 1 03 Efw 55 2 12528 / -14 -Â»1 ..../ 9 g \Li\RF-1 OÂ·-~ 5 - CD (-9 (D LE, 4.3 r-* *3 ' .7- 1 /8 Crt- 0 A //4/ /\ 410% g L 0, /19- / 11: 9\ .1.&ho; 9 2 â€ž-1 r 0 , 7--- Â¤ - 8 -ti L-- .- p A 8 0 8 4- R . - 0 35 9 / 1 76 (0 9 g 141 "- 110 r- 1 4 8 12 5 0 .- g . 0 E Â¥ 9 0 ~- ig| ~E i 8 163 1 9 1 9 1 8-9 1 0 E ----JL12"24-* S! r B G E 04 01 04 = p 1 litl 0 i ~ - r A M g 43 0 0 S LID 860 ~ Oval represents the 500' Party-In- 1054 18-Hole SJ@Uo!1!jed Course -r-~--~~~~~~interest limit Knoll Dr 1062 DEOL 880, ZDOL 9Â£01 6Â£0L t131-e SEOL 6Â£0 L deIN Poollioql.IB'eN/Allu!0!A sjuesaddek:1 -*~ LEOL 821 1151 f 4' Tti â‚¬4 1 f â‚¬ 28 . 9.1 3 V I S- ' IL ':/ ./6a.1././.-6/'all-A- - â€ž=C.Je------Ill- ' ~- .66: . 1 2 '. I.*I 1 1//r n> 3 Â·%-~ 434' *1, 4 ..9, SM . /1 i b .- le a, . -7 A. 411* 1 2 - 4/ " r 0 M -1 4,13* 6., - , 06 90 nar m . . r 1 M. 21 x n I -M- .9. :4 94'r, , I . t .â€¢41 C - r Â»A /*- .. 9 41 2 -E 1, 1.VE:'' i.......F-,5..L:.-Fr.72'M. b. Â· L 14â€ž '1... * rs.-,A -24' 2 2,21.7 % % 4{5 f - 1, 9 0 , J- 44(3, ijAM - Aor - 91 7-E . 17$,t- â€¢ ~04 12 42= U ~192 L * - 1 C* $.2 1, 7. 34/4-*r . I. '*4 Â· â€¢. jer L , /1. 401 - + ; iA t ' d....4 ' 1 1 ....lkÂ¥* - 4 - ..4 11 . d + .1 1': '17 .,4 0 . Lly v H - ' I G , -1 ... , I 'll . .le&/latin & ap/1 â€¢2 - I.M.J . . 104- p . -- 1 1. 1.6 â€¢ 1 -I . 6 -= - Â¢214,21#1~ 6 li~Irt*%* - V . 1--1, ~5/6 + 1 / g 29- * 1, , 2~'2~ ~~ i.4.', U ... ~~~**:43:~-.~10 *~*~W~~ . .1 t r - 1 4 4. :. i ? 9.6/~ + 1.-/*40/1 ~; Ol*%,O.4./de* ~:4 Â»64.1* tr -1 Â·Â· -1,1.- 7 #., k - . -= i .d #.Q .... :/ I ./ 4 - * <P./.Tr.. ' a 'loiftli~ilii'L :~13-4, 1/&64. # net _ A r:/tr'.,6,'r. 0. , ; ~ i f~~ Vib -â€¢' . '~.c~'/r...,f~.4 4 1!% ~:l~ . , f, . 44 7 ) P 96 1. r * 3Ka> 3 1. FI: Br~~ +4,Â» r-,--7..â‚¬4#* 4 ...% Â», U... 9-.1, " t 7 4 4 14.i. *124:~I~/Ct.. .. ..... fl>r,3--94,~'Â» 2* /.-- - ... 1 0 ' 3 0* 4145*6~1/- * , '44 ItY 4--4 .;pq .7 2 C C #4 0 - -Â«Erâ€¢ , *,0< St,DOP 4, 4 .: 71 7*' '36*4",01 ~1-'~ t,Clt rl *'will #90..kili. 4 AMGMy" Â·- . -M. 121, 't;Aâ€¢* a,k m.. - mir id."a I Tpy--p,-il' 1*is -Z- -2 - -- W~. 7'r~E t-~rK b.zi 3-* Ir . ....'I.'-eÂ»~t9 r . '41 4 . LJJ4---' W â‚¬T 1 11 . '431MS + 3 I . 17% ?/6.494-,r IIi 1, 14*IA. 4 1 . 43.-4/'ll'.I 4 1 r 7 -44 . R , 4101 'Imil/&VL : al*' 9 1 //"11,-514 76 .1 . :.m--449 2. I :- 4 1 - /9/lair :IRM' I -11/2 : 14*59 . ' 4 - . FL~Wrigir .- , L 11'J ~ 4 ~ i?rt -~' b< 1 4 4 + ., 9 A I , lirk . d ...... . ~CLEE#IEDÂ¢%[ _~ JUN 1 8 2008 ~ t=J Wai)iti Crossing Summary By We are appealing the Planning Commissions approval of the Wapiti Crossing Condo development because: 1. The Planning Staff report instructed the Planning Commission that the development proposal could not be denied using Section 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection of the Estes Valley Development Code - We disagree with their inteipretation of the code. 2. Town Attorney White told the Planning Commission there were no legal grounds for denial - We disagree, we believe Section 7.8 does provide grounds for denial. 3. Rick Spowart and his manager from CDOW said the new plan did not remove the adverse impact the development would have on the wildlife habitat and that testimony was ignored. 4. The developer's wildlife biologist states the mitigation efforts are inadequate. 5. A speaker identifying herself as a former Planning Commissioner told the Planning Commission that denying the proposal would cause the developer to file a lawsuit against the Town - At that point in the meeting, the Planning Commission became focused on property owner's rights and several members gave that as the reason for approval. We disagree; the developer has many options to develop the property and a process to appeal a decision before his rights are threatened. 6. If the Planning Commission decision stands, it renders the section ofthe development code protecting special wildlife habitat worthless. If the Trustees uphold the decision we are asking they either remove that section of code or fix it so it can provide habitat protection. Wapiti Crossing Summary 06/15/08 ' 4 June 15.2008 To: Estes Park Board of Trustees Subject: Appeal of the Estes ValleÂ¥ Planning Commission's approval of the Wapiti Crossing Condominium development Droposal On May 20,2008, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 5-2 to approve tile Wapiti Crossing Condominium development proposal. We appeal that decision to the Estes Park Board of Trustees for their review and reversal on the grounds that the legal interpretation adopted by the Planning Commission is erroneous and essentially deletes part of the Estes Valley Development Code C'EVDC"). Because the Planning Commission misconstrued and misapplied Section 7.8, the decision must be reversed as an abuse of discretion. We ask that this document be included as part of the public record. For reference, it should be noted that we as concerned citizens are not advocating against the development of Lot 22, have full understanding that Lot 22 is zoned RM and will someday be developed, and also understand Lot 22 is not representative of other development proposals in the Estes Valley. This specific property has been identified as one of the unique wildlife habitats in the Estes Valley and therefore presents a unique policy challenge. The Planning Commission was instructed repeatedly that it had no power to enforce lhe provisions of Section 7.8 ofthe EVDC. This is demonstrated by the following instructions or comments: 1) The StaffReport's instruction to the Planning Commission stating that "Section 7.8 'Wildlife Habitat Protection' does not include provision of denial of a plan based on impact to wildlife..."; 2) Directions prior to and during the meeting including Town Attorney Greg White's instruction to the Planning Commission that "there are no legal grounds for denial of this application"; 3) Statements of concern by at least some Commissioners that a denial would deprive the applicant ofhis property owner's rights and therefore cause a law suit to be filed against the Town of Estes Park. Wapiti_Crossing_Appeal%581%58.doc -1- 6/15/2008 We contend that the Planning Commission's interpretation of Section 7.8 is clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion. The submission of a Wildlife Conservation Plan as required by EVDC Section 7.8.H.2 is only a partial fulfillment of the code's requirements. Section 7.8.F.4 states "The conservation plan should be submitted to the Division of Wildlife (CDOW) for review and recommendation as to whether the plan adequately addresses the adverse impacts identified bv the Division of Wildlife pursuant to subsection F.3 above." This is a clear statement of another condition of the code and provides the basis for denying a proposal. The plan was reviewed by the CDOW Area Wildlife Manager and Regional Wildlife Manager. They testified the revised plan still did not adequately address the adverse impacts this development will have on wildlife habitat. We respectfully ask that the Trustees review CDOW's recommendation carefully and give sufficient weight to their expertise. Mr. Christopher Roe, the wildlife biologist who authored the developer's Wildlife Conservation Plan, also expressed his concerns that the mitigation measures are not adequate. He stated in his Plan: "Given these considerations, "clear cut" mitigation effort(s) for minimizing possible impacts to potential elk and deer calving/fawning on the property are limited." - Wildlife Conservation Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, 7 April 2008, page 20, Section 5.5. Mr. Roe's plan further stated "...mitigation efforts intended for reducing impacts to the potential calving/fawning area cannot be fully realized." - Wildlife Conservation Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, 7 April 2008, page 21. According to Staff and the Town Attorney, there is no mechanism for anyone to consider the adequacy of a Wildlife Conservation Plan, beyond CDOW making a recommendation. But the Wildlife Conservation Plan must provide effective measures to remove the significant adverse impact ofthe development to be compliant with the Code. Otherwise, the implication is the Town can force an applicant to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to produce a Plan to no purpose. In addition, if no one is empowered to act upon CDOW's recommendation, there is no reason to seek their input. Without means of enforcement orany action taken based upon CDOW's recommendation, Section 7.8 would be rendered meaningless. Based on the interpretation ofSection 7.8 presented to the Planning Commission, the Town's position was that the developer only was required to submit a Wildlife Conservation Plan to meet the requirements ofthe code, and that a plan's effectiveness in mitigating the adverse impacts need not be considered. If that remains the Town's positions the Wapiti Crossing Condominium proposal should not have been remanded to the Planning Commission, as the Planning Commission and Town Trustees have absolutely no power to consider the adequacy of a Wildlife Conservation Plan. The proposal should have been approved by Staff upon receipt of the Wildlife Conservation Plan without any review. Wapiti_Crossing_Appeal%581 %5D.doe -2 - 6/15/2008 Since the application and Wildlife Conservation Plan were sent before the Planning Commission, the Town's implied position -at least until the hearing-- was clear. The Commission flift have the power to approve or deny the proposal based on the adequacy of the Plan, contrary to Attorney White's direction to the Commissioners. We contehd some ofthe Commissioners approved the development solely on the basis of the erroneous legal instruction that they have no power to reject the development, even though CDOW testified the mitigation plan is inadequate. The second major grounds for the Planning Commission decision was that following CDOW's recommendation that the Conservation Plan was inadequate would be a denial of the applicant's property rights. But denial of an application under Section 7.8 would not deny the applicant his rights to develop this property. The applicant has many options for development available prior to the actions ofthe Planning Commission or the Board of Trustees becoming a "taking" of his development rights. The options range from resubmitting a site plan with less density and with the size and number of buildings designed to mitigate the wildlife harms, to renovating the existing cabin into a residence and building some additional luxury homes. A less dense development could also include a conservation easement to receive tax credits that can be resold to third parties. Local governments can in fact deny "use by right" for appropriately zoned property. In The City of Colorado Sprinus v. SecurCare Self Storage. Incâ€ž 10 P.3d 1244 (Colo.2000), the Colorado Supreme Court held that Colorado Springs could legally deny a permitted use for a property on the general grounds that the proposed land use was "incompatible" with the surrounding neighborhood, despite the proposal's compliance with the list of permitted uses. See also The Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County v. Conder, 927P.2d 1339 (Colo.1996). We respectfully request the Town Board: 1. reverse the Planning Commission's decision to approve the application and accept the CDOW recommendation by requiring the developer to provide more substantial mitigation to the impact of his development on the wildlife habitat, or, in the alternative, 2. Reverse the decision and remand the application to the Planning Commission, providing immediate clarification that the Planning Commission (and Trustees) have the power to accept or reject CDOW's recommendation, and thereby enforce Section 7.8 ofthe Estes Valley Development Code, Wildlife Habitat Protection. in the event the Trustees deny this appeal, Section 7.8 will be rendered meaningless. The Town will have imposed thousands of dollars in costs upon the developer to no purpose. In the event the Planning Commission's interpretation of Section 7.8 stands, we ask the Wapiti_Crossing_Appeal%513 1%5D.doc -3- 6/15/2008 Town Board to set a schedule to analyze and then amend Section 7.8 ofthe EVDC. Either provide a mechanism for enforcing Section 7.8, or repeal it as a policy which the Town has no desire to enforce. Respectfully submitted, fLut t PWArd** fi~h U i L . AO ' l/ULA./#'LE.tA., ID tâ‚¬ PAL**<09'U fN/PLL Name V Address 2<19 6/dc (10 305/1 ish-Â£- AAk, 46 80 5#71 1613 1-6/1,04-0 6, 2Â£+160* Name Address /011 4-44--tÂ«644 l)20-JC LDAY+7 Name / ~ ' Address 92.i. J.U..<.E Ca.e.8.-> E~Â·55~6-*U<. 4 Res/9 Name l Address p urÂ¥.4- C Loâ‚¬_GÂ·~ ~106*fl 10'10 1--ex i-.,~~04 L.ce.~e__ Em.esÂ· 9 9,05/7 Name Address 4 r d Â¢ 1.60 -, f. )11,Â£3#E.,,..1 i O 25 f pi:.1'iti, ~B tâ€ž ..i.it.Â·i #?ai jipoff--r 7 I. Name d J Address ' / 4 1 V,-2.44 .Ju._ MAL - 8617 1Nalne Address at - Name Address Wapiti_Crossing_Appeal%58 1%5D.doc -4 - 6/15/2008 ~-4 Town Board to set a schedule to analyze and then amend Section 7.8 oftlie EVDC. Either provide a mechanism for enforcing Section 7.8, or repeal it as a policy which the Town has no desire to enforce. Respectfully submitted, 1142. lu~A 1019 GLÂ· 44, 411%.Alo R.44, *45 1 -7 Name I Address tftâ‚¬U 18 1 9 ta GÂ·* b.,51*,Uic.>65-17 Name Address itâ€žÂ·964 101.1 f,4. (4#4( G 65Â·Â·k flri<4 96â‚¬/1 Name ~ Address ed#Quil ~ ~ to/7 6~~ P~ 019 %(337 7 Name Addrdss / Name Address Name Address I Name Address Name Address Wapiti Crossing Appeal -4- 6/16/2008 Town Board to set a schedule to analyze and then amend Section 7.8 of the EVDC. Eilher provide a mechanism for enforcing Section 7.8: or repeal it as a policy which the Town has no desire to enforce. Respectfully submitted, i) h 1 A NA (**4/04'W //41 Filwo-Y dulcu 06- Â£4:slkk 'Name Address Â§U) 0 0-1.2 J 14*D <JA,fidal; flut,6 41 18,15.p#'*A 66=& O 7 7 Address ' 10 ~I jec#v~14.-, U 50 FalÂ¥--Â»oldfubt. 4*ifi JC. 2Nanib (/ Address RbÂ·44-Ql~LLLU-JU /DsÂ·o s-ST.J..4.3 0',u )1=-4 Asu, Po.64 Name Address 414.3- aae 8. saur)â€ža u 31- 4-LL. Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Wapiti Crossing Appeal -4- 6/15/2008 | Town Board to set a schedule to mialyze and then amend Section 7.8 ofthe EVDC. Either provide a mechanism for enforcing Section 7.8, or repeal it as a policy which the Town has no desire to enforce. Respectfully submitted, 12041 1 04. * LYâ‚¬Â®A 6 -5 f 1 093 Name Address 13 ~1% R 42 1, r 4 0 i Name Address Â£ *al E # Etk 10 195 ..1(k*.x~4*Â» U e.*A_%:an Name Address rÂ°\<, 1- \Ag,80-* 1* \\ Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Wapiti Crossing Appeal -4- 6/16/2008 Town Board to set a schedule to analyze and then amend Section 7.8 ofthe EVDC. Either provide a mechanism for enforcing Section 7.8, or repeal it as a policy which the Town has no desire to enforce, Respectfully submitted, Â»0 - &02Â£ /05-05.9-4. in A-\ *4oflu- 0-0 Address 20517 ~*ALAA Vh,lf~ 1090 9.11-\1<4456 (18Â£; Pa,]do POSO Nan* Address ~ ,6*Â»-4. 9-5-26 logo -5- St. fuL- IN 62_,&(3Â«/9 Name 4 AMIress ~ < Yl:M~,Sii&, losb C.94-. Vrmh Flve. 6-1 Es'k; Adr Name ~ Address 30&.,iÂ¥%4 66 /44.2114*,c-& 2, 41*/7 C \ Name Address \0/1 (63iw0121. Aced Ce ,-o s-s, ui,c-o#&. e- atedÂ£,44 ;&77 NarÂ¢ Address U OborÂ£6 /030 69.l644 84 88&4 20 %511 #ame 0 Address 41 4121 i Gco w, e.\jud it-f em It~k ivame C j Address V Wapiti Crossing Appeal -4- 6/15/2008 4 H 4,/L.,, # . 3~h.f.. 1 9Â¢ f... Â· Â· '.1 Â·f . 1. ~-44-, .t 1 7. u '' / .12. 14 . 10â‚¬ ' i ly 1 h. 44>i. I .... , 1 '''' 1 i.!INfliÂ·:iki 2 + e k... . I +4 9/ 4 \ 44 f Â®i 4 E \.6,1 ;IN- , 1 1 S IF . e, G â€¢- L i \Â· 1 49 III .951 \, , 1 hyti t, to lii pr~ i \> = Ai A j 2 w # 4 0 Z \\ 4 ,- ''ll 6 11/9 r 1 G1 '. T \A\\ --51 Â· t, P it O.-1 Y l- P ki I. - 4 :U / \ 1 *~ O Ft- :,.. --\ r '3 1.j 9 44 .* 1 li 1-Â·-A Â¢E:r\ 11\\ 1 1 1-2 1, I 'm b l:0 1 Â·/ -311\ A,; --L Jj m =.s_ ' aF \pr _14 j.'-00*1 1 1 i 4 1,1 j *h -~~~lkIL , _ 7 \,|H dwi ~1 1 '-Fid, .1,Â«Ce \\ 11\11, < ~ \Dem xil-L C. = a _ _10.11 1 16 irt. - - SNVT NOJON:X37 Original Site Plan - Denied by Planning Commission, remanded by Town Board for STATE HIGHWAY No. 7 a Wildlife Conservation Plan 82 - 2% V O râ‚¬?43, 08% 6 Â¢ Ar .MS CE o 1 WVE l n FL ema g Mal! .00 8 1 0 011+ Â¤A 11 4 5 1=/Immimi )4 0 1 13% A Â·- 42% 0i ID 0/0 M r---<v--1 ' <3 M&; ~\l\ 3 7 1 .. 0.4 / 0 , 4 -4 1-' I V u .SO ~il d % 'a.,it '~ ID O MT /4 3 12 % Me= C 4 ZPM %\ -- t 4 E gat a @Em 8 OW: a , Mgs 1 4%3 1 82-0 / r - l--1-P-- - il--~ , m /1 2[NÂ¥'1 NOIDNIXWI Q/ m El e aa C 6-4 Revised Site Plan - Approved by Planning Commission May 2008 AVENUE -STATE HIpaWAY No. 7 REDUCED OPEN SPACE CORRI RECOMMEND RE AIMIN - jujU DETENTION 1 1 Town of Estes Park Community Development emo To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Dave Shirk, Planner 11 Date: May 20,2008 Re: Wapiti Crossing Development Plan - May 2008 Revision to address Wildlife Conservation Plan History. The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed Development Plan 07-13 'Wapiti Crossing" on November 20 2007. By a 4-1 vote (two absent), the Planning Commission disapproved said development plan based on significant impact to wildlife (report and minutes attached). The property owner/applicant, Jim Loftus, appealed this determination to the Town Board, as provided for in Section 12.1.B "Appeals from Final Decisions by the Estes Valley Planning Commission." On January 8, 2008, the Town Board unanimously voted to remand the Wapiti Crossing Development Plan to the Planning Commission due to the Colorado Division of Wildlife's finding of a significant adverse impact on the wildlife and to review a wildlife conservation plan (minutes attached). Wildlife Conservation Plan. Section 7.8 'Wildlife Habitat Protection" does not include provision of denial of a plan based on impact to wildlife, but does include a provision that Staff may require a wildlife conservation plan based on recommendations from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. At the January Town Board hearing, the CDOW stated this proposal would have a significant adverse impact on elk habitat. Based on this, the Town Board remanded the plan to the Planning Commission, Therefore, the property owner has contracted with a Certified Wildlife Biologist to prepare the wildlife conservation plan, which is before the planning commission on this date. As outlined in Section 7.8.H, requirements for wildlife conservation plans indude a description of the populations of wildlife and wildlife habitat, analysis of potential adverse impact on wildlife and habitat, list of mitigation measures and probability of success, a plan for implementation, a plan for any relevant restoration, and demonstration of applicant's ability to successfully execute the plan. Upon review of the plan, Staff finds the plan complies with these requirements. 1 Attached for your review is tile submitted plan, which includes the following suggested mitigation techniques: 1. A phased development schedule; 2. Timing restrictions on construction activities; 3. Limited landscaping recommendations; and, 4. Household pet management considerations. Site Plan. The applicant has proposed the following changes to the site plan: 1. Widened the northern "wildlife corridor" to 80 feet. 2. Eliminated the proposed stand-alone unit north of the multi-family building. 3. Relocated access drive to the multi-family building to the north to reduce activity in the southern "calving/fawning" habitat. 4. Reduced the floor-area ratio and impervious coverage. The general layout remains the same, with the "stand-alone" units fronting S. St. Vrain and Lexington, the "multi-family" structure in the rear of the lot, the southern portion being undisturbed, and general road and stormwater design. Staff suggests the plan continues to comply with review standards set forth in Section 7.8.G: buffers, non-native vegetation (to be verified), fencing, exterior lighting, refuse disposal, and domestic animals. Staff has reviewed this proposal to ensure compliance with zoning requirements such as density, impervious coverage, floor area ratio, setbacks, and height. Items yet to be reviewed include final grading, revised landscaping, revised stormwater pond size, driveway width, parking stall length/width, and other site design details. It is Staff's opinion these issues can be reviewed with final construction plans, and therefore, any motion of approval should include a condition to allow Staff to finalize site design, provided revisions fall within parameters set forth in Section 3.7.Al "Staff Minor Modifications to Approved Final Plans" and Staff finds compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. Staff Findings and Recommendation. Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 1. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code, including Section 7.8.G "Review Standards" for Wildlife Habitat Protection. â€¢ Page 2 2. The wildlife conservation plan (in conjunction with the January 2008 Elk Impact Assessment) complies with plan content requirements set forth in Section 7.8.H2 "Plan Content" for Wildlife Conservation Plans, specifically: a. A description of the ownership, location, type, size and other attributes of the wildlife habitat on the site. b. A description of the populations of wildlife species that inhabit or use the site, including a qualitative description of the spatial distribution and abundance. c. An analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site. d. A list of proposed mitigation measures and an analysis of the probability of success of such measures. e. A plan for the implementation, maintenance, and monitoring of mitigation measures. f. A plan for any relevant enhancement or restoration measures. g. A demonstration of fiscal, administrative and technical competence of the Applicant or other relevant entity to successfully execute the plan. i 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment, including the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 4. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making body for the development plan. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of Development Plan 07-13 "Wapiti Crossing" CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with mitigation techniques set forth in the Wildlife Conservation Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, prepared by Roe Ecological Services. The phasing plan mitigation technique shall be further refined to graphically outline phasing areas. 2. The landscaping plan shall include the required number of street frontage and district buffer trees (per Section 7.5.F), which shall not be located within the proposed 80-foot wildlife corridor and shall provide a movement corridor through the southwest comer. All required conifers trees shall be 8-foot tall, and all required deciduous trees shall be 4" DBH. Because of the tree size, shrubs shall not be required. 3. Staff shall approve final site design, provided revisions fall within parameters set forth in Section 3.7.Al "Staff Minor Modifications to Approved Final Plans" and Staff finds compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. The applicant shall submit a complete site plan, containing all submittal requirements outlined in Appendix B, no later than July 23,2008. 4. All dogs and cats shall be kept inside of the units, except that the dog or cat may be out of doors if it is under the effective control of a person, as defined in the Estes Park Municipal Code. This condition shall be included in future condominium declarations. 5. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits. â€¢ Page 3 6. Compliance with the following memos (as may be amended to address changes to the site design): a. From Jeff Boles to Bob Goehring dated 8/22/2007. b. From James Duell to Dave Shirk dated August 16, 2007. c. From Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated August 24,2007. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of Development Plan 07-13 "wapiti Crossing" with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Attachmentst 1. Town Board minutes, January 8,2008. 2. Section 7.8 'Wildlife Habitat Protection" of the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. Appendix B "Development Plan Submittal Requirements." 4. Revised concept plan, May 2008. 5. Original development plan, November 2007. 6. Planning Commission report, November 2007. 7. Planning Commission minutes, November 2007. 8. Elk Impact Assessment, January 2008. 9. Wildlife Conservation Plan, May 2008, 10. Affected agency and neighbor comments. (NOTE: attachments not included in Town Board distribution; this list included to illustrate the information that available to the Planning Commission). â€¢ Page 4 General Development Standards Â§ 7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas 3. Review Criteria. (Ord. 8-05 #1) a. In reviewing a development subject to this Section, the Decision-Making Body may deny development within a hazard area or may approve it on the condition that the development is designed and built in such a manner as to adequately mitigate the hazard. (Ord. 8-05 #1) b. In reviewing new development and subdivisions, the Decision-Making Body shall take into consideration the following: (Ord. 8-05 #1) (1) The Applicant's mitigation plan; (Ord. 8-05 #1) (2) Geologic, topographic and other technical information presented by the Applicant or other interested party, including the Town, County or other public agency; (Ord. 805 #1) (3) Recommendations of a reviewing state agency having expertise with respect to the hazard in question and recommendations of others with similar expertise; and (Ord. 8-05 #1) (4) The relationship between the development and the hazard area and the potential impact of the development within the area on lands outside the development. (Ord. 8-05 #1) c. Mitigation methods required by the Decision-Making Body may include, but are not limited to: (Ord. 8-05 #1) (1) Compliance with "Guidelines and Criteria for Identification and Land Use Controls of Geologic Hazard and Mineral Resource Areas," written by the Colorado Geological Survey, 1974; (Ord. 8-05 #1) (2) To the maximum extent feasible, in rock fall hazard areas avoidance of the run-out zone shall be the method of mitigation; (Ord. 8-05 #1) (3) Location of building envelopes outside areas identified as.Class Il geologic hazard areas; (Ord. 8-05 #1) (4) Specific requirements for construction, location, density of structures and/or lots; (Ord. 8-05 #1) (5) Specific requirements for construction of roads upon the land; (Ord. 8-05 #1) (6) Specific requirements for alteration to the physical characteristics of the land. (Ord. 8-05 #1) (Ord. 18-02 #1, 12/10/02);Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05) Â§ 7.8 WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION A. Purpose. To maintain and enhance the diversity of wildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valley, and to plan and design land uses to be harmonious with wildlife habitat and the species that depend on this habitat for the economic, recreational and environmental benefit of the residents of and visitors to the Estes Valley. B. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all applications for review of development plans, subdivision plats, planned unit developments, special review uses and rezonings. This Section shall not apply to development on lots that were approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of this Code. (Ord. 18-02 #1) Supp. 6 7-33 General Development Standards Â§ 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection C. Exemptions. The procedures and regulations contained in this Section shall not apply to: 1. Agricultural activities such as soil preparation, irrigation, planting, harvesting, grazing and farm ponds; 2. Maintenance and repair of existing public roads, utilities and other public facilities within an existing right-of-way or easement; 3. Maintenance and repair of flood control structures and activities in response to a flood emergency; 4. Maintenance and repair of existing residential or nonresidential structures; or 5. Wildlife habitat enhancement and restoration activities undertaken pursuant to a wildlife conservation plan approved under this Section. D. Other Regulations. This Section of the Code does not repeal or supersede any existing federal, state or local laws, easements, covenants or deed restrictions pertaining to wildlife. When this Section imposes a higher or more restrictive standard, this Section shall apply. E. Wildlife Habitat Data Base. The following sources shall be used to identify important wildlife habitat areas for purposes of review under this Section: 1. Wildlife Habitat map (dated December 1996), as set forth in the Esteg Valley Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time to time. Supp. 6 7-33a General Developmetit Standaids Â§ 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection 2. Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat maps for Larimer County, as amended from time to time. 3. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Maps dated December 1996, or as amended from time to time. 4. Other information and maps as Staff or the Estes Valley Planning Commission may from time to time identify in cooperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, such as wildlife maps produced specifically for the Estes Valley. Said maps shall be applicable only following adoption of an amendment to this Code. 5. Wildlife habitat information required by this Section is intended for general planning purposes. Obvious errors or omissions may be corrected by the Staff after consultation with the Division of Wildlife. F. Review Procedures. The following procedures shall apply to all applications for development: 1. Application. The Applicant shall submit a development plan, subdivision plat or sketch plan, as applicable, depicting the general location of the properly, location of structures on the site, prominent natural areas such as streams and wetlands, and other features that Staff may require for review pursuant to this Section. 2. Preliminary Review. Staff shall refer the submitted plan or plat to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for review. Applicants are also advised to meet with the Division of Wildlife and other agencies as determined appropriate by Staff to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Section. 3. DOW Review. For applications referred to it, the Division of Wildlife will determine C whether the proposal will result in significant adverse impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat only if the development adversely impacts the following: a. An endangered or threatened species, b. A calving, lambing or fawning area, c. Big Horn sheep or Big Horn sheep habitat, d. Raptor nest site, or e. Riparian areas and wetlands. 4. Review Determination. Based on recommendations from the Division of Wildlife, the Staff will determine whether the Applicant must submit a wildlife conservation plan prior to approval of any development application. The conservation plan should be submitted to the Division of Wildlife for review and recommendation as to whether the plan adequately addresses the adverse impacts identified by the Division of Wildlife pursuant to subsection F.3 above. (See Â§7.8.H below.) 5. Waivers. Staff may waive or approve minor modifications of any development standard or review criteria contained in this Section upon a finding that such waiver or modification: a. Is consistent with the stated purposes of this Section; b. Will have no significant adverse impacts on wildlife species or habitat; 7-34 General Development Standards Â§ 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection c. Any potential adverse impacts will be mitigated or offset to the maximum extent practicable; and d. Application of the standard or criteria is not warranted based on the location of the development, the absence of a particular species on the site or other relevant factors. G. Review Standards. The following review standards shall apply to all development applications as specified, unless Staff determines that a specific standard may be waived pursuant to subsection F.5. above. It is the intent of this Section that these standards be applied in a flexible fashion to protect wildlife habitat and wildlife species in a cost-effective fashion. 1. Review Standards. a. Buffers. All development shall provide a setback from any identified important wildlife habitat area, as specified by the Division of Wildlife, to the maximum extent feasible. b. Non-Native Vegetation. There shall be no introduction of plant species that are not on the approved landscaping list in Appendix C on any site containing any important wildlife habitat area. To the maximum extent feasible, existing herbaceous and woody cover on the site shall be maintained and removal of native vegetation shall be minimized. c. Fencinq, (1) No fencing on a site containing important wildlife habitat shall exceed forty (40) inches in height, except to the extent that such fencing is approved by Staff to confine permitted domestic animals or to protect permitted omamental landscaping or gardens. (2) Fences higher than forty (40) inches may be allowed if adequate openings are provided for the passage of deer, elk or other identified wildlife. These openings shall be at least six (6) feet wide and spaced a maximum ot fifty (50) feet apart along continuous fence lines exceeding this length. (3) No.fencing using barbed wire shall be allowed. (4) The type of fencing (materials, opacity, etc.) shall be determined by Staff or the Decision-Making Body as appropriate for the wildlife species on the site based on advice from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. d. Exterior Liahtinq. Use of exter}or lighting shall be minimized in areas of important wildlife habitat, and lighting shall be designed so that it does not spill over or onto such critical habitat. See also Â§7.9 below. e. Refuse Disposal. Developments on sites containing important wildlife habitat, such as black bear, must use approved animal-proof refuse disposal containers. With Division of Wildlife approval, refuse disposal containers and enclosures may be electrified. (Ord. 8-05 #1) f. Domestic Animals. Development applications for property that includes important wildlife habitat must include a plan with specified enforcement measures for the control of domestic animals and household pets. The plan must include provisions to prevent the harassment, disturbance and killing of wildlife and to prevent the destruction of important wildlife habitat. Supp. 6 7-35 General Development Standards Â§ 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection H. Wildlife Conservation Plans. 1. Plan Preparation. A wildlife conservation plan required by this Section shall be prepared for the Applicant, at the Applicant's expense, under the responsible direction of a qualified person who has demonstrated expertise in the field and is acceptable to the Staff. 2. P/an Content. Any wildlife conservation plan required to be prepared pursuant to this Section shall include the following information at a minimum. Specific requirements may be waived by Staff due to the location of the development, the previous use of the site, the size and potential impact of the development, the absence of particular species on a site, the prohibition of a reasonable use of the site and other relevant factors. a. A description of the ownership, location, type, size and other attributes of the wildlife habitat on the site. b. A description of the populations of wildlife species that inhabit or use the site, including a qualitative description of their spatial distribution and abundance. c. An analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site. d. A list of proposed mitigation measures and an analysis of the probability of success of such measures. e. A plan for implementation, maintenance and monitoring of mitigation measures. f. A plan for any relevant enhancement or restoration measures. g. A demonstration of fiscal, administrative and technical competence of the Applicant or other relevant entity to successfully execute the plan. (Ord. 18-02 #1, 12/10/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05) Â§ 7.9 EXTERIOR LIGHTING A. Purpose. The intent of this Section is to focus on the actual physical effects of lighting, as well as the effect that lighting may have on the surrounding neighborhood. Exterior lighting shall be evaluated in the development review process to ensure that the functional and security needs of the project are met in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood. The degree to which exterior night lighting affects a property owner or neighborhood will be examined considering the light source, level of illumination, hours of illumination and need for illumination in relation to the effects of the lighting on adjacent property owners and the neighborhood. B. Applicability. All new development shall comply with the standards set forth in this Section. C. General Review Standard. If installed, all exterior lighting shall meet the functional security needs of the proposed land use without adversely affecting adjacent properties or the community. Supp. 6 7-36 |1 LOFTUS ~~DEVELOPMENTS Augusl 6.2008 Mayor John Baudek and Members of the Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1200 170 MaeGregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Ret Wapiti Crossing Development Plan (DP 07-13)(the ' Application") Dear Mayor and Members of the Board of Trustees, On June 18, 2008, certain Estes Park residents appealed the Estes Valley Planning Commission's (the "Planning Commission") decision of May 20, 2008, approving the Wapiti Crossing development plan (the "Appeal"). This letter is intended to serve as the Applicant's response to the Appeal. The Planning Commission properly applied the applicable review criteria set forth in Estes Valley Development Code (the "Code"). Section 3.8 (D) of the Code sets forth the standard of review for a development plan application: 1) fhe development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in this Code; and 2) The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan and other relevant land uses. parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans. The Application properly complies with all of the requirements of the Code. including the preparation of a wildlife conservation plan. The subject property is zoned RM- Multi-family residential. This zoning designation has been in place since 1961 and has been reaffirmed by the most recent Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to Table 4-1 of the Code, single-family dwelling. two-family dwelling, town home dwelling and multi- family dwelling are all considered uses permitted by right on the subject property. The Application meets all of the standards set forth in the Code for approval. Contrary to the assertions set forth in the Appeal, the Code does not provide a basis for denial o f a development plan based upon significant impact to wildlife. Rather, it requires the Applicant to prepare a wildlife conservation plan to mitigate impacts on wildlife. The Applicant has properly satisfied this requirement and all other requirements of the Code. 2595 Canyon Boulevard â€¢ Suite 250 â€¢ Boulder, Colorado 80302 â€¢ Phone (303)938-1329 â€¢ Fax (303) 531.8431 ~~< Member For the reasons stated herein. the Applicant respectfully requests the Board uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. 3.incerely, C.1 - -- /Jim LoftuC // i 4.3 /1 ec: Dave Shirk 6 Bob Joseph Greg White Jackie Williamson Mike Todd Steve Loos Keirstin Beck 5& WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE V\fAPITI CROSSING CON[DOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION ESTES PARK, COLORADO rd - .4 1 .14 * .-,Â·:t .._0-r ' Â· *TENKHEiA,7 1 7 April 2008 PREPARED FOR <> The Town of Estes Park Community Development Department P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Ave. Estes Park, Colorado 80517 ON BEHALF OF Â© Packard and Dierking, LLC WaterStreet 2595 Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 PREPARED BY Â» Christopher Roe, Certified Wildlife Biologist ROE ECOLOGICAL ~ERVICES, LLC PO Box 1168 gri\ Berthoud, Colorado 80513 (970) 532-1305 FAX (970) 532-1306 TOLL FREE (866) 4-Wildlife (494-5354) www.YourWildlife.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 5 2. Site and General Habitat Description..........................................................................................................6 3. Current Wildlife ITâ‚¬â€¢gp 8 4. Potential Adverse Impacts of Proposed Development...............................................................................8 4.1. Potential Impacts to a Wildlife Viewing Area.......................................................................................10 4.2. Potential Impacts to Loafing and Foraging Resources 10 4.3. Potential Impacts to Elk and Other Wildlife Movement 10 4.4. Potential Impacts to Elk and Deer Calving/Fawning............................................................................10 4.5. Potential Impacts Concerning Nuisance Wildlife/Bear Issues.............................................................11 5. Mitigation Measures and their Probability of Success..............................................................................11 5.1. General Development Impact Mitigation Measures 1 3 5.1.1. Phased Development Schedap 13 5.1.2. Timing Restrictions for Initiation of Constructioh Activities.....................................................14 5.1.3. Limited Landscaping and Fencing Recommendations...............................................................14 5.1.4. Household Pet Management Considerations...............................................................................15 5.2. Mitigation Measures Concerning Wildlife Viewing Opportunities.....................................................15 5.3. Mitigation Measures Concerning Loafing and Foraging Resources.................................................... 16 5.4. Mitigation Measures Concerning Elk and Other Wildlife Movement.................................................17 5.5. Mitigation Measures Concerning Elk and Deer Calving/Fawning 19 5.6. Mitigation Measures Concerning Nuisance Wildlife/Bear Issues ?1 6. Maintenance and Monitoring of Mitigation Measures 9 1 7. Restoration Measures 72 8. Demonstrated Ability to Execute Plan 77 Figures 1. Vicinity and visual characteristics of Lot 22 and the future Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development in Estes Park, Colorado 7 2. Original proposed Site Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development in Estes Park, Colorado 9 3. Revised proposed Site Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Estes Park, Colorado. Note changes in open space corridors, the elimination of a housing unit, and the revised location of the access drive into the multi-family building. 17 4. Photos taken 29 December 2007 showing examples o f landscape fencing near Lot 22 that can be considered highly restrictive to movement ofelk and other wildlife.....................................................15 5. Revised proposed Site Plan showing existing primary movement corridor and post-construction movement corridor 18 Notice of Copyright Â© 2008. All photos and language contained herein are the exclusive property of Roe Ecological Services, LLC, and may not be reproduced except as a part ofthis document. This report represents an original work created by Roe Ecological Services, LLC. This report may be reproduced only in its entirety, with no portion omitted or substituted at any time or used as a part of any other document. Roe Ecological Services, LLC, reserves the right to use any or alllanguage or data contained herein for any print or electronic document. ELK AND WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND On 8 January 2008, the Estes Park Board of Trustees recommended that the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development plan be remanded back to the Town of Estes Park Planning Commission for their review of a Wildlife Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 7.8.F.4 of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) This recommendation followed the declaration of the Colorado Division o f Wildli fe (CDOW) that it believed the proposed Development would create a "significant impact to the individual deer and elk that chose to fawn or calve on the property." Because the Development's Wildlife Conservation Plan (Plan) would be the first Plan created under the EVDC, a meeting was held on 12 February 2008 between Town staff, the CDOW, Development representatives, and Roe Ecological Services, LLC (RES), to discuss Plan requirements, Town expectations, Plan review procedures, and other topics requiring clarification. In that meeting it was determined that the Plan should include discussions regarding all potential wildlife impacts stemming from the proposed Development, not just the identified impacts that triggered development of the Plan, and the measures to be taken to mitigate these impacts. Based on these requirements, on discussions with Town of Estes Park staff and the CDOW, and on assessments previously made in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report for the Development, it was decided that the Plan would address: 1) The potential impacts upon a highly valued, locally important, wildlife viewing area (primarily for elk, but, to a lesser extent, also deer and other wildlife), and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; 2) The potential impacts upon daily and seasonal loafing and foraging resources for elk and other wildlife, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; 3) The potential impacts upon elk and other wildlife movement across the property, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; 4) The potential impacts upon elk and deer calving/fawning that may occur on the property and in the surrounding area, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; and 5) The potential impacts the Development might have on human interactions with nuisance wildlife or bears within the area, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts. MITIGATION EFFORTS To minimize general development impacts, recommendations were made by RES and the Development team during the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment. These recommendations included: 1) Aphased development schedule; WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 1 2) Resttictions on timing of construction activities; 3) Limited landscaping recommendations; and 4) Household pet management considerations. These recommendations will be implemented during the development of Lot 22, and will enhance mitigation efforts regarding the individual issues of concern. A phased development schedule will reduce the oyerall impact of , construction activities upon wildlife, and will allow wildlife to grow accustomed to changes in habitat characteristics over several years. Timing restrictions on construction activities will help ensure that elk and/or deer that choose to calve/fawn within or immediately adjacent to Lot 22 will not be impacted by development activities while they have dependent young of limited mobility. Limiting the scope and nature of landscaping as it relates to trees and shrubs should ensure that movement corridors, loafing and foraging areas, and wildlife viewing areas remain open with minimal obstructions. Landscaping restrictions will also help to minimize the need for protective landscape fencing, and limit its extent. By not allowing pets within the development, or at least by ensuring that dogs remain indoors unless accompanied by their owners, disturbance to wildlife and adjacent landowners by barking dogs will be eliminated or greatly reduced. To minimize impacts upon wildlife viewing opportunities across the site, the revised site plan now conserves approximately 64% of the property as undeveloped area under native vegetation. A large portion of this arda is adjacent to, or can be readily seen from, Highway 7 or Lexington Lane, as it can be today. Because the continuation of Golf Course Road will be a public right-of-way, residents and visitors will be able to use this road and adjacent sidewalks for wildlife viewing in the interior of the newly developed property as well. The revised site plan also provides for increased open areas along the established primary movement corridor and staging areas within the northern halfofthe property, while clustering development toward the center of the property. This revision should provide for an increase in the overall total contiguous area available for seasonal elk staging/rutting activities and assodiated viewing opportunities over the original site plan. Additionally, development ofthe property will occur under a phased construction schedule, with the northern housing block (units At-A7) being built first, and subsequent housing blocks being built in a southerly progression overseveral years. This should allow: 1) Wildlife viewing opportunities to be preserved to their maximum allowable extent in southern portions of the property as construction takes place; and 2) Animals utilizing the property to acclimate to construction activities over time, which willlikely maintain , some level of wildlife use dn the open portions o f the property for wildli fe viewing. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 2 To minimize impacts upon elk and deer foraging and loafing areas across Lot 22, the revised site plan now conserves approximately 64% of the property as undeveloped areas under native vegetation. With the exception of landscaping at the entrance areas of the various residential units, the majority of the site's open space will remain open, native grassland that will continue to provide loafing and foraging areas for wildlife wishing to utilize the property both during and after construction. To further reduce impacts upon loafing and foraging resources, the revised site plan provides for increased open areas along established movement corridors and staging areas within the northern half of the property, while clustering development toward the center o f the property. To minimize potential impacts upon elk and other wildlife movement corridors across Lot 22, the Development team revised the site plan to provide for a wider, more unobstructed, movement corridor through the developed property. The revised corridor is 80 feet wide, and closely matches the orientation o f the existing primary movement corridor through the property. Additionally, an entire housing unit was removed from the area north of the multi-family building, and the multi-family building itself was shifted south and away from the west property line, to open up the movement corridor through this portion ofthe property. This alignment should allow, and even encourage post-construction elk movement through the property along a corridor that is similar to the corridor that currently exists on the property. Additionally, the revised site plan designates approximately 64% of the property as undeveloped area under native vegetation. To further ensure that these corridors are left as open as possible for elk and other wildlife movement, if the requested landscaping variance is granted, landscaping obstructions within the corridors will be minimal to non-existent. Likewise, fencing on the developed site will be minimized to a great extent by allowing only fencing that is directly needed for the protection of individual tree trunks. Although the Elk and Wildli fe Impact Assessment Report dispels many o f the arguments regarding a possible increase in elk/vehicle collisions, to further reduce this potential, if the requested landscaping variance is granted, no trees will be planted along Highway 7 that could interfere with motorists' ability to notice wildlife staging on the property or crossing Highway 7. In discussions with the CDOW regarding the Wildlife Conservation Plan, and specifically the Development's impact on a potential elk and deer calving/fawning area, the CDOW expressed a desire to have as great a buffer as possible between the preserved area on the extreme south end ofthe property and future housing units. Although the creation of a large buffer zone was not possible, efforts were made to ameliorate the impacts of the Development to at least some degree. Timing restrictions on construction, while not providing a physical buffer, will provide a temporal buffer by prohibiting construction activities during the most critical stage of elk and deer annual life cycles, namely calving/fawning. Such a phased development schedule should also allow wildlife to acclimate to construction activities, and to reductions in overall open space and buffer areas over time. To help WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 3 keep spatial separation from potential calving/fawning areas, access to and from the proposed multi-family building has been moved to the north end of the building. Although this modification moves the building itsel f slightly closer to the preserved area, it should remove nearly all daily human activity, as it relates to the multi-family building, from the identified potential calving/fawning habitat. The conversion of the existing cabin to a primary residence, on the other hand, could cause a direct daily disturbance to animals utilizing the preserved portion o f the property as a calving/fawning area. To reduce this potential disturbance, access to the cabin will be restricted to a sidewalk originating from Golf Course Road running to the front entrance of the cabin. Because the likelihood of daily disturbance of the area still exists, however, mitigation efforts intended for reducing impacts to the potential calving/fawning area could not be fully realized. Because many issues surrounding nuisance wildlife/bear issues come as a direct result of individual household and personal non-compliance with State laws, Colorado Wildlife Commission regulations, and CDOW recommendations for garbage, barbeque grill, bird feeder, pet food, etc., maintenance and storage, this Plan will not be able to address all concerns that may pertain to this issue. However, the proposed Development plan outlines the construction of bear-proof trash enclosures throughout the property, and the Development team will work with RES and the CDOW to develop a design that will be the most cost-effective for the Development and the level of concern for the area. Additionally, the Development team will ensure that bear-proof dumpsters be installed within the enclosures to further reduce any likelihood of nuisance wildlife/bear issues. The Development team will ensure that bear-proo f dumpsters be on site during construction phases as well. The applicant agrees to follow'the recommendations set forth within this Conservation Plan and will work with Town Staff to create a suitable process for monitoring compliance with the mitigation measures set forth within this Plan through periodic inspection o f construction progress by the Development team, Town staff, the CDOW, and RES as needed. Because most mitigation measures will be built into the Development and construction guidelines, very little monitoring will need to be conducted once mitigation measures are in place. Maintenance of established fencing structures, trash enclosures, and bear proof dumpsters will be the responsibility of the future management company and/or homeowner's association once housing units are constructed. In addition, the applicant will impose private covenants for the Development that will ensure all on-going mitigation measures will be adhered to over time. The private covenants for the Development will be submitted for review to the Town Staffbefore recordation. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO , 4 1. INTRODUCTION In December 2007, Packard and Dierking, LLC, retained Roe Ecological Services, LLC (RES), to conduct an elk and wildlife impact assessment for the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development (Development) of Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, in Estes Park, Colorado. The purpose of this assessment was to determine the potential impacts of this development on elk and other wildlife making use of the property, the surrounding subdivisions, and the area as a whole. After a comprehensive review of the property itself, the surrounding subdivisions, the proposed development plan, the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Comprehensive Plan, Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) reports, the effects ofpast development within the Estes Valley on elk, and pertinent scientific literature concerning elk behavior and management as it relates to disturbance and development impacts, RES concluded: 1) The proposed Development would significantly alter the character of a highly valued local wildlife viewing area; 2) The Development would cause a moderate reduction in the total amount of available forage and areas open for elk foraging and staging, however, this reduction would not create a long-term significant impact to the population o f elk utilizing the area annually; 3) The Development would alter the character of the existing movement corridor, however, this alteration would not cause a long-term significant impact to elk movement through or around the property; and 4) The Development would not create a long-term significant impact upon the population of elk or deer that chose to calve or fawn within the immediate area, or the region east of Prospect Mountain. On 8 January 2008, RES presented the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report to the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, along with additional testimony by the Mulhern Group (project architects for the proposed Development) and members of the public. At the conclusion of the presentations and public comment, the CDOW was asked if it concurred with the assessment presented by RES. After much discussion, the CDOW stated it believed the Development would create a "significant impact on the wildlife as it pertains to calving and fawning."1 After further discussion, and based primarily on this statement alone, the Board of Trustees recommended that the proposed Development plan be remanded back to the Town of Estes Park Planning Commission for their review of a Wildlife Conservation Plan concerning the proposed Development pursuant to Section 7.8.F.4 of the EVDC.2 Under Section 7.8.H.2 of the EVDC, any Wildlife Conservation Plan should contain, at a minimum: 1) A description ofthe ownership, location, type, size, and other wildlife habitat attributes of the identified property and proposed development site; 2) A description of the wildlife species that inhabit or use the site, including a qualitative description of their WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 5 spatial distribution and abundance; 3) An analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site; 4) A list ofproposed mitigation measures and an analysis of the probability of success of such measures; 5) A plan of any relevant enhancement or restoration measures; and 6) A demonstration of fiscal, administrative, and technical competence of the applicant or other relevant entity to successfully execute the plan. Because the Development's Wildlife Conservation Plan (Plan) would be the first plan created under the EVDC, a meeting was held on 12 February 2008 between Town staff, the CDOW, Development representatives, and RES to discuss Plan requirements, Town expectations, Plan review procedures, and other matters requiring clarification. In that meeting it was determined that the Plan should include discussions regarding all potential wildlife impacts stemming from the proposed Development, not just the identified impacts that triggered development o f the Plan, and the measures to be taken to mitigate these impacts. Based on these requirements, and on discussions with Town of Estes Park staff, the CDOW, and on assessments previously made in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report, it was decided that the Plan would address: 1) Â·The potential impacts upon a highly valued, locally important, wildlife viewing area (primarily for elk but also, to a lesser extent, deer and othet wildlife), and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; 2) The potential impacts upon daily and seasonal loafing and foraging resources for elk and other wildlife, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; 3) The potential impacts upon elk and other wildlife movement across the property, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; 4) The potential impacts upon elk and deer calving/fawning that may occur on the property and in the surrounding area, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; and 5) The potential impacts the Development might have on nuisance wildlife/bear interactions within the area, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts. 2. SITE AND GENERAL HABITAT DESCRIPTION The proposed Development will occur within Lot 22 0 f the South Saint Vrain Addition of the Town of Estes Park, lying generally west of the Estes Park 18-Hole Golf Course (Golf Course) and Highway 7. The parcel lies east of the Village Acres subdivision, southeast of the Elk Hollow subdivision, north of the Pine Knolls subdivision, and west of the Eagle Landing and Eagle View Condominiums (Figure 1). The site has two components; a WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 6 O.7/Ir.9~'H St,eet Adi: USM 2008 Plug MADGE LM RAVFN C.T a.i. sÂ·rEAMâ‚¬R Â¢4: , 7 3 ,1 MOMMY QI 0 5 gi' "'gt,J 2 3 9 1% A 4 3 _S Â£" f _--6 i 1 w 9 V 4 C W .. V V ) 4 - 0 - d E[.01 LAI : Â£ r MÂ·ir: a 4 â€¢Â·; ,/ 1,.b '44 4 - .965 1 .EMe,P- 404=--24 -Id. . g 1.4, 1' 22.-*:C=Â£. 41'.>: al I 04<~e, tâ€ž1~ TIZ:1 i < f 14 -i f, 34 1 ' . 4 .W..d 9 2 j kids . p n 93 17. w R NERDIC, 1,2 U y mt . 4 4 6 - '4 2 09 i , 14 f 9 4*/ AS 3 8 4 R :Allil,Â·RAIâ€¢ Lh 4 3 3 . k 1 1 U. -: 4 9 + k e*ElLY :H G 47, r U )0 0% .tut: rn Â¢ 3 ta t. Uâ€¢ 0 Â£ D 5..7 4 0 4 Z '~ S ~1 ~ i frUAR LN Li 9 111 I. v, iâ€¢,Ob,0~1 Cl S Hu,PFrY MOUNTAIN m Â¥ '* Â£ 30- , ptvoâ€¢ 0â€¢ i I W+LIL'W .11 ~ C Â£/t g 0 p'*'1Â£*r. 4 rei : 4 BROOI D, #or' Â£" t, r I % 02 6 0 -- 0 9 ..â„¢ elm A . S 4 2 52 0 3 3 1'111% *VUL; 614 * 6% n I .Â· f /6 j 2 N. .# 4 t.4441 w â€¢~ .41* -' t r i 16 Â· , 0 9 Ob eâ€¢g, i % 96 Â¥ 4 MICZ A WAY L.N .~ .4 4 V . tr.. 1 . 8 3 R 4 '14:=' I WHEPER ING 4.9/. .#il. AÂ·.0* 85,58'711 5 5 e TYROLERNE Ud 2F$: :yw ri~ ....1,141,"m Neeref, dpfuu'"9661..Â£66 R * 9007 r,rt orm, 9#rt Ad. 1 IANT, ?013 Pt:,9 o No 1 -m 117 2171 -ar Â¥0-1 ,Â·m,v de orme com "h ly / E) 03ta Zoom 13 1 Figure 1. Vicinity and visual characteristics of Lot 22 and the future Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development in Estes Park, Colorado. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT--ESTES PARK, COLORADO 7 110%IDA hood large, relatively flat, open native grassland meadow covering approximately 5.5 acres, and a timbered, rocky, and broken-terrain portion that lies across the remaining approximately 0.4 acres at the extreme south end of the property around an existing cabin. The open grassland meadow currently provides foraging resources, loafing/staging areas, and an unobstructed movement corridor for animals traveling north and south through the area on their way to and from the Golf Course. The timbered, rocky, broken-terrain portion of the property currently provides some foraging resources, a smallloafing/bedding area, and a small portion of moderate to high quality potential fawning/calving cover. 3. CURRENT WILDLIFE USAGE Most daily and seasonal wildli fe use of Lot 22 is by elk and deer, with reports o f limited use by mountain lions, bears, and small mammals such as raccoons, skunks, squirrels, etc., as well as by a variety of passerine birds. The site is mainly used by elk, and, to a lesser extent, by mule deer. Extent of elk use varies throughout the year from individuals and small groups (throughout the year) to herds of several hundred (fall and early winter). Due to the property's juxtaposition with the Golf Course, large groups of elk routinely travel across the property on their way to and from the Golf Course, especially during the rut. In recent years, cow elk with calves have been observed foraging on the open grassland meadow during the early summer.3 Deer utilize the property periodically throughout the year for foraging, travel, and, in the timbered southern portion of the property, to give birth.4 Use of the property by mountain lions and bears is much less frequent than elk or even deer, and is largely incidental as these animals move throughout the surrounding area.5 4. POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Evaluations of potential adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat as a result of the proposed Development are fully explained in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report.6 Briefly stated, analysis ofpotential adverse impacts of the proposed Development was based on: 1) The original proposed Development site plan (Figure 2); 2) Pre-development property characteristics; 3) Proposed post-development property characteristics; 4) Known elk, deer, and other wildlife activity within and around Lot 22, and on their behavior in general; and 5) Past development within Estes Park and its impact on elk behavior, movement, and reproduction. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 8 lili a I i iÂ¥ 11 IP . 1 1. i i i J--Il-Ti.ilil l: 6 r El '2 f i ~i! il!1 I i 0 1 #4 9 ! ii! P i i ' . i ! 1 a m ...2 1101 101'! 11.1 ,)! .-I Wili milibili iii ii i. 4 $ r Â· 1 1 ?1 ! :i:i i th a 11 11 N' 41 li 1 1 21 3"- 16 . .. 11!' 11 Â¢1111 11 j. :i !1 ,!li 11 11 1 i 0 1 1 8 lidl 11 E11 . 11 ;2 1 4 ; !; 4. 1-i; ilrp,4 Â£ iii iii 11 11'ii-* 11 lit~ 171?ili jk tilliil 111;E:~ '# M 12 11 ! ii ' 41 : # Al, i l lil i li i l i t,j i li {11 % mi ji !ji! !1 li li i; i i ii .1 lilli. 1 1; , 311/.11 i /1 I re / 2 ......t ffy. 9. 99 1 -:*07- - -- - liEL .' di 0 1 'Â·VU ii 2/ - 1 T . 4 Aillili 11 4 li ] -2 -4 0 2 1 . : fj ! 0 timimmi i elli 11 ij Chi 1 . It li d N f. tl, 7 94 1 h 1 . I 0 ~ ILY 8 -,1 , i*-ill,11 - - 41' 466 11 41 Ii' 16111:,11]ii,# 11,#wimit I . ~ 1 \ i lu 4 / ip_ E mummulisi MUU""Il 111 M h A E / 'lizi!111! ; 1 1111 lilli ' 09 - 4 ti I '/4 41009*4 D/ 1 4 lili 1 ill~:lilill illill|lill 4 4 Ill 'u 4 + flu-4 1 1 -it&-/'AJ-# 1 \ 91'F 1 .0 Â·*â€¢-139i./; 1 ll, 0 / te 1 O 74 i 83 1 :C 4 - 1 .. Figure 2. Original proposed Site Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development in Estes Park, Colorado. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 9 Ill T WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMENIUMS DEVE LOPM ENT PLAN 44 c. 4.1. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON A WILDLIFE VIEWING AREA As outlined in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report,7 the proposed Development will transform an open park-like meadow into a developed area consistent with other developed areas within Estes Park, significantly and negatively impacting a highly valued local wildlife viewing area. Post-construction wildlife viewing opportunities from road/highway rights-of-way - although altered - will remain. Open areas in the northeast corner of the property and between buildings will continue to provide wildlife viewing opportunities similar to those in other parts of town. 4.2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON LOAFING AND FORAGING RESOURCES As outlined in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report,8 the proposed Development will reduce the overall loafing area and quantity of forage available to elk and other wildli fe utilizing the Village Acres subdivision and surrounding area. The proposed Development will likely reduce - at least to some degree - the number o f elk and other wildlife species that utilize the property day-to-day, and possibly seasonally. It is, however, highly unlikely that elk or other wildlife will be, or will be perceived to be, precluded from utilizing the property altogether. Remaining open space areas between and around proposed buildings will be similar to other developed areas in the surrounding neighborhood. Concerning elk and deer, no significant, long-term impact to the local populations, their generalized activity, or most seasonal movement is expected within the overall area. However, it is recognized that efforts may need to be made to minimize potential impacts to individual animals utilizing the property during and after construction. 4.3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON MOVEMENT OF ELK AND OTHER WILDLIFE As outlined in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report,9 the proposed Development should not create a significant impact upon elk movement in the area; the proposed Development should create only a slight to moderate impact on elk and other wildlife movement. When considering elk specifically, due to the proven attractiveness of the Golf Course to these animals, including a record of elk adjusting their movements around previous development projects to access it, and to the fact that elk will still be able to move around and through the proposed Development based on proposed site plan characteristics, movement of elk across Highway 7 is expected to continue. However, it is recognized that efforts may need to be made to minimize potential impacts to individual animals choosing to travel across the property during and after construction. 4.4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON ELK AND DEER CALVING/FAWNING As outlined in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report, 10 based on elk and deer calving/fawning behavior, WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 10 typical calving/fawning habitat characteristics, the nature of habitat within the surrounding subdivisions, and the apparent habituation o f elk and deer to urban/suburban environments within Estes Park, RES concluded that the proposed Development would not significantly impact the overall population ofelk or deer that chose to calve/fawn in the area east o f Prospect Mountain. RES further concluded that with seasonal timing restrictions on when construction activities could be initiated, impacts upon individual elk and deer could be avoided as well. At the 8 January 2008 Board of Trustees meeting, however, the CDOW disagreed with this assessment and stated that it believed the proposed Development would, in fact, "have a significant impact on the wildlife as it pertains to [elk and deer] calving and fawning. â€ž11 This statement by the CDOW provided the impetus behind the generation of this Plan as required under Section 7.8.F.4 of the EVDC. 4.5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS CONCERNING NUISANCE WILDLIFE/BEAR IsSUES During the 8 January 2008 Board of Trustees meeting and subsequent meetings, the CDOW expressed continued concern that additional housing units on Lot 22, and generally within the area of the Village Acres subdivision, would likely cause increased instances of nuisance wildlife/bear issues, due to the presence of additional garbage 12 dumpsters, barbeque grills, bird feeders, and other sources of human-related food attractants. Because nuisance wildlife/bear issues have increased dramatically throughout the area in recent years, the CDOW is concerned that additional housing units could greatly exacerbate already problematic conditions within the area. Although not all potential nuisance wildlife/bear issues are expected to be addressed through a Wildlife Conservation Plan, a desire was expressed by the CDOW to include these concerns within this document along with possible mitigation strategies. 5. MITIGATION MEASURES AND THEIR PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS Although every development requirement and characteristic of the original proposed Development met, or was below, the minimum/maximum development standards as outlined in the EVDC,13 and although the Development team conformed to the initial recommendations for wildlife movement/migration corridors as presented in the 23 April 2007 Pre-Application Review Meeting with the Town o f Estes Park Planning and Technical Staff' 4, the Development team revised the proposed Development site plan in an effort to mitigate potential wildlife impacts. The revised proposed Development site plan is shown in Figure 3. Because evaluations of the success of mitigation efforts are largely subjective, and because the success ofmitigation efforts themselves is based on uncontrollable and often unpredictable factors such as weather, individual animal behaviors, and individual human behaviors, the probability of success of identified mitigation measures will be based on the best available knowledge of general wildlife behavior and the outcomes or findings from similar efforts. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 1I 1- 1 *, 1 .052 -... 4--I - ' 2= - -= :ZE 2 1 - /1 1, \,1 702 3, == - tr-tht = - -E= -- B2f 1 -t , .. 4 . . 1 N - 1 - -- . 1 X --- - --- 1 I â€¢t I,/ 9 +I I I . I f 4 4. F. $ gE2 f Le J. r.\1\1- 4 =' liz g '2= 1 A. e N .... .1 . A . -- =. EE = - 49...1-1.- 1 =2: -- 4/VIIâ‚¬), â€¢)%1: 1 1 Figure 3. Revised proposed Site Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Estes Park, Colorado. Note changes in open space corridors, the elimination of a housing unit, and the revised location of the access drive into the multi-family building. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 12 la~11O111%%001111111,1111%1 ~U '1%1~,41 %- Ilt, ~ vH 111 9. 0 RA IN A, lil, + 4 113 111(3111# 13 04 ' ~1~144 It \ 1 lili .11%91 .}111 1111(.'111)11+ 1 1 )111111*' juum i m~-'., f 1 "1 18 19,8 it lilli M,IR RI lit 4 1 1,1~1+ i v'IN<11{1Â¢!IM)14 h'.1. %11,1 %1% ,111 fil,#111 "It %".11 m 11 # !ION iii "11/ i 1 1,Irt' 1...111 1â€ž11. 'lu * 5.1. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR GENERAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS In an effort to minimize general development impacts, RES and the Development team made several recommendations during the initial Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment. These recommendations, which were presented to the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees during the 8 January 2008 presentations,15 included: 1) A phased development schedule; 2) Timing restrictions on construction activities; 3) Limited landscaping recommendations; and 4) Household pet management considerations. 5.1.1. PHASED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE By phasing the development over multiple years through multiple development stages, wildlife will be able to adjust to habitat alterations over time. Development of the property will occur from north to south, with additional housing blocks being developed over several years. To further reduce adverse impacts to wildlife throughout the phased development cycles: 1) Physical disturbances will be restricted to those areas slated to be developed during that particular phase of construction; 2) All construction vehicles and ancillary vehicles will be restricted to a designated parking area or within the bounds of the active construction site; and 3) Dirt/topsoil and other construction materials will be stockpiled within the active construction site or immediately adjacent to the active construction site. Per the proposed construction schedule, Golf Course Road and the northernmost housing block (Units Al through A.7) will be developed in 2008. During the construction of Golf Course Road, utilities will be installed and stubbed out in preparation for future development activities across the property. During this phase, utilities installation will be planned in a way that minimizes native vegetation disturbance by consolidating utilities within single trenches as much as possible, and by extending trenches away from Golf Course Road only as far as absolutely necessary. This will help to conserve the greatest amount o f native vegetation possible on the site in order to maintain forage resources for wildlife and also limit the potential for noxious weed invasion. Wherever possible, and to the greatest extent possible, utility stubs will be enclosed in either temporary or permanent utility boxes. This should help minimize any potential disturbances o f the stubs from wildlife activities, as well as conserve the visual aesthetics of undeveloped portions of the property. If utility stubs are to be marked by 2x4 or 4x4 lumber, all stub markers will be kept close to the ground, ideally no taller than 24 inches. This will WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 13 help maintain the property's visual aesthetics, and ensure that stub markers are less vulnerable to the rutting activities of bull elk (who like to aggressively rub their antlers on saplings and trees of sizes similar to the stub markers) and not knocked over or snapped off. In order to minimize disturbance to wildli fe and usable habitat in the southern end of the property, all construction- related materials and vehicles will be staged at the north end o f the property during initial construction efforts in 2008. If the Road and buildings Al through A7 are to be built in separate stages, materials and vehicles used during Road construction will be staged within the footprint of the future Al through A7 construction envelope. If both are to be constructed together, staging areas will still be placed be at the north end of the property, but located on the Road, and within and as close to the housing unit construction envelope as possible. Proper staging of construction materials and vehicles will help minimize resource damage and secondary impacts to wildlife choosing to utilize the property during construction. 5.1.2. TIMING RESTRICTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES In order to help ensure that construction-related disturbances do not impact either actively nesting migratory birds (which would violate the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act) or elk calving/deer fawning activities (should any animals choose to give birth within the immediate area of Lot 22), construction activities will not be initiated between 1 April and 15 July without a detailed wildlife assessment. In Colorado, deer and elk typically give birth between mid May and mid June, with most nesting migratory birds fledging their young by mid July. If construction activities are initiated prior to 1 April, it is expected that most - if not all - animals preparing to nest or give birth in the area will have sufficient time and opportunity to find other suitable sites. Construction activities initiated after 15 July are not likely to impact much, if any, bird nesting or deer/elk fawning/calving activity. I f initiation of construction activities is desired between 1 April and 15 July, a detailed wildlife assessment of bird nesting and/or elk and deer calving/fawning activities on Lot 22 and the immediate adjacent area (within 100 meters of Lot 22) will be carried out by a qualified third party prior to the construction activity. If nesting, calving, or fawning animals are observed on Lot 22 or the immediate adjacent area, construction activities will be postponed until such activity has moved out of the area, or until 15 July - whichever comes first. In this way, potential direct impacts to breeding birds and calving/fawning animals can be virtually eliminated. 5.1.3. RECOMMENDATIONS ON LIMITED LANDSCAPING AND FENCING As outlined in the original Development plan, and as maintained in the revised site plan, the Development team plans to request a variance from EVDC requirements regarding landscape plantings pertaining to trees and shrubs. To maximize the Development's efforts toward assuring continued elk viewing, and that movement corridors, and WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 14 loafing, foraging, and staging areas remain as open and free of obstruction as possible, only minimal tree plantings of moderate to large-diameter trees (trees with trunks of no less than four inches in diameter at breast height) is desired. By allowing the Development team not to plant shrubs, and to keep tree plantings to a minimum, protective landscape fencing can also be kept to an absolute minimum. Under the desired landscape plan for this Development, fencing would be restricted to the protection of individual trunks only - not to tree clumps or tree canopies. As can be seen throughout Estes Park, landscape fencing around small trees and shrubs can severely limit the width and use o f movement corridors and available forage areas (Figure 4). On this property, excessive tree plantings and landscape fencing would serve to further restrict potential wildlife movement around and between new buildings and to reduce the success of this mitigation strategy. # & 7-98>.;ib-SA~ MA I 04 r i, 4 i. ,. --- i le'l . I .. 169 6 - ., . A,7, Figures 4. Photos taken 29 December 2007 showing examples of landscape fencing near Lot 22 that can be considered highly restrictive to movement o f elk and other wildlife. 5.1.4. HOUSEHOLD PET MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS In order to further reduce adverse impacts to wildlife, ideally residents should not be allowed to keep certain kinds of pets, especially dogs, on the property. If a "no dogs" restriction is not possible for this Development, then the next best option from a wildlife standpoint would be for the Development's restrictive covenants to require that dogs (ideally all pets) be kept inside residences unless under the direct control of the owner. In general, any covenants that will reduce the likelihood o f"dogs (or cats) at large" and barking dogs from the property will greatly minimize adverse impacts on daily and seasonal wildli fe use o f the property and the surrounding area. 5.2. MITIGATION MEASURES CONCERNING WILDLIFE VIEWING OPPORTUNITIES In an effort to provide for open space and wildlife movement corridors, the revised proposed Development plan now conserves approximately 64% of the property as undeveloped area under native vegetation. A large portion of WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 15 this area is adjacent to, or can be readily seen from, Highway 7 or Lexington Lane, as is the case today. Because the continuation of Golf Course Road will be a public right-o f-way, residents and visitors will be able to use the Road and adjacent sidewalks for wildlife viewing within the interior of the newly developed property as well. To further reduce impacts on elk viewing opportunities in particular, the revised proposed Development plan provides for increased open areas along the established primary movement corridor and staging areas within the northern half of the property, while clustering development toward the center of the property. This revision not only allows for increased efficiency in movement of animals across the developed property, but it also provides for an increase in the overall total contiguous area available for seasonal elk staging/rutting activities within the property over the original site plan. As was outlined in the original site plan, open space corridors are oriented in a northeast/southwest direction that should allow wildlife viewing from Highway 7 into the interior of the property, similar to the manner in which the property is viewed currently. To further ensure the unobstructed sightability of elk and other wildlife utilizing the property during and after construction, no trees will be planted along Highway 7 (assuming a variance in landscaping requirements as requested). Beyond the physical characteristics of the Development itself, development of the property will occur under a phased construction schedule; the northern housing block (units Al-A7) being built first, and subsequent housing blocks being built in a southerly progression over several years. This should allow: 1) Wildlife viewing opportunities to be preserved to their maximum allowable extent in southern portions of the property as construction takes place; and 2) Animals utilizing the property to acclimate to construction activities over time, which will likely maintain some level of wildlife use on the open portions of the property for wildlife viewing. As was discussed in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report,16 because many elk and deer within Estes Park are highly habituated to human presence and human-induced disturbances, acclimation to construction activities and changes to their environment, especially under a phased construction schedule, should be fairly rapid. 5.3. MITIGATION MEASURES CONCERNING LOAFING AND FORAGING RESOURCES As mentioned above, the proposed Development plan now conserves approximately 64% of the property as undeveloped area under native vegetation. With the exception of landscaping at the entrance areas of the various residential units, most of the site's open space will remain open, native grassland that will continue to provide loafing and foraging areas for wildlife wishing to utilize the property during and after construction. Per the EVDC, disturbed areas will also be re-seeded to native grasses and forbs. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 16 To further reduce impacts on loafing and foraging resources, the revised proposed Development plan provides for increased open areas along established movement corridors and staging areas within the northern half of the property, while clustering development toward the center o f the property. This revision not only allows for increased efficiency in movement of animals across the developed property, but also provides for an increase in the overall total contiguous area available for seasonal elk loafing/staging/rutting activities within the property over the original site plan. Additionally, the phased construction schedule should allow wildlife to acclimate to construction activities and reductions in open space/forage over time, which will help maintain wildlife use of grassland areas on the property during and after construction. As was discussed in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report,17 because many elk and deer within Estes Park are highly habituated to human presence and human-induced disturbances, acclimation to construction activities and changes to their environment, especially under a phased construction schedule, should be fairly rapid. 5.4. MITIGATION MEASURES CONCERNING MoVEMENT OF ELK AND OTHER WILDLIFE Although the original site plan technically met the requirements of the Town and CDOW concerning wildlife movement corridors,18 the Development team revised the Development site plan in an effort to provide for a wider, more unobstructed, movement corridor through the developed property. As can be seen in Figure 5, the revised corridor is 80 feet wide, and closely matches the orientation of the existing primary corridor through the property. Additionally, an entire housing unit was removed from the area north of the multi-family building, and the multi- family building was shifted south and away from the west property line, to open up the movement corridor through this portion of the property. This alignment should allow, and even encourage, post-construction elk movement through the property between the southwest and northeast corners of Lot 22 (and to and from the Golf Course) via the primary north-south corridor - similar to the way in which the animals currently move across the property. This revision should help minimize any barriers to movement that elk might perceive. Although reduced in width, a secondary corridor is maintained through the center and around the eastern edge of the property. As outlined previously, these open-space corridors are oriented in a general northeast/southwest direction in an effort to accommodate the majority of wildlife movement across the property. The designation of approximately 64% of the property as undeveloped area under native vegetation should increase the attractiveness of the area to deer and elk for movement, loafing, or foraging. To further ensure that these col*ridors are left as open as possible for elk and other wildli fe movement, i f the requested landscaping variance is granted, landscaping obstructions within the corridors will be minimal to non- WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 17 J ~V- - . -mâ€ž 1/4,5 . 1 1 ,# riÂ· 1 53% 1 1 f 0 â‚¬--- tÂ·2 1 1 to '9; I \5\ \ 4 1 - 3 1 1\ .2. 11 40\ 1 0 6- 0 -0 6- 0 0 - (D 1 \ST j 1 D 0 i/Â« 9 l ./ 00 0 I .111 34Â¥7 int:)<turt Figure 5. Revised proposed Site Plan showing existing primary movement corridor across the property and the modified post-construction movement co rridor. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APR1L 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 18 wn;T#INI \RA/#ALAW-VUF 111(;11\% A~ 4 7 011\ 4 Entrg DET'B'MA existent. Likewise, as outlined in Section 5.1.3., fencing on the developed site will be minimized to a great extent by allowing only fencing that is directly needed for the protection of individual tree trunks. The phased construction schedule should further reduce overall impacts to elk and other wildlife movement by allowing animals to acclimate to construction activities and reductions in open space over a period of several years. Phased development will help ensure that wildlife have the ability to move across the property during and after construction. As was discussed in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report," because many elk and deer within Estes Park are highly habituated to human presence and human-induced disturbances, acclimation to construction activities and changes in their environment should be fairly rapid. Although the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report dispels many of the arguments regarding a possible increase in elk/vehicle collisions,20 to further reduce this potential, if the requested landscaping variance is granted, no trees will be planted along Highway 7 that could interfere with motorists' ability to notice wildlife staging on the property or crossing Highway 7. Additionally, maintaining the current Highway 7 elk crossing area at the northeast corner of Lot 22, and discouraging elk from crossing in other areas, should further reduce concerns over increased vehicle/wildlife collisions. Although no statement of this measure's potential for success in reducing elidvehicle collisions can be made, maintenance of existing, known crossings, and efforts to reduce visual obstructions along roadways in areas ofhigh wildlife activity are generally viewed as favorable for reducing wildlife/vehicle collisions. 5.5. MITIGATION MEASURES CONCERNING ELK AND DEER CALVING/FAWNING In discussions with the CDOW regarding this Plan and specifically regarding this topic, the CDOW expressed a desire to have as great a buffer as possible between the timbered, rocky, broken terrain area to be preserved on the extreme south end ofthe property (the area containing the highest quality calving/fawning habitat on the property),21 and future housing units.22 In evaluating this request, RES considered several issues. These included: 1) The fact that most elk and deer that choose to calve/fawn within the Town of Estes Park and the region east of Prospect Mountain are likely highly habituated to human presence; 2) The fact that elk and deer within the Town of Estes Park and the region east of Prospect Mountain have been known to calve/fawn very close to buildings and areas of human disturbance,23 3) The fact that no known specific distance between the timbered area and future buildings can be identified as a minimum distance, or even an "appropriate" distance for a proposed buffer as it relates to habituated elk and deer activity; 4) The fact that no known mitigation effort similar to that being requested here can be used as a template, or WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 19 allow for any evaluation o f success of the mitigation effort; 5) The fact that no baseline data are available to assess the current or historical level of calving/fawning on Lot 22 as it relates to the surrounding area, or the general region east of Prospect Mountain, other than the incidental sightings of calves/fawns by the CDOW and members of the public in recent years; 6) The fact that further modifications of the proposed Development site plan regarding the southern portion of the property (due to previous modifications of the site plan to enhance the primary movement corridor and the overall area available for elk and wildlife viewing, loafing, foraging, and staging) are limited; and 7) A strong desire by senior development staff to utilize the existing cabin as a primary residence within the Development. Given these considerations, "clear cut" mitigation effort(s) for minimizing possible impacts to potential elk and deer calving/fawning on the property are limited. With that being said, however, several efforts were made in an attempt to address concerns over impacts to individual animals that choose to calve/fawn on, or immediately adjacent to, Lot 22. First, timing restrictions will be in place that preclude the initiation of construction activities between 1 April and 15 July each year without a detailed wildlife assessment of nesting, calving, and/or fawning activity. As outlined in Section 5.1.2., this restriction should ensure that animals actively nesting, giving birth, and/or caring for highly dependant young with limited mobility between those dates are protected from the initiation o f any construction activities on the property. While not providing a physical buffer, timing restrictions should help provide a temporal buffer between human disturbance and potential calving/fawning activities. Second, as previously outlined, a phased development schedule should allow wildlife to acclimate to construction activities, and grow accustomed to reductions in overall open space and buffer areas between the timbered portion and new buildings over time. As was discussed in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report,24 because many elk and deer within Estes Park are highly habituated to human presence and human-induced disturbances, acclimation to construction activities and changes in their environment should be fairly rapid. Third, as depicted in the revised Development site plan, access to and from the proposed multi-family building was moved to the north end of the building. Although this modification moves the building slightly closer to the timbered area, it should remove nearly all daily human activity, as it relates to the multi-family building, from the identified potential calving/fawning habitat. While these mitigating measures were identified, and would be realized through the development of the property, it is recognized that the conversion of the existing cabin to a primary residence could cause a direct daily disturbance , to animals wishing to utilize the timbered portion of the property as a calving/fawning area. To reduce this potential disturbance, access to the cabin will be restricted to a sidewalk originating from Golf Course Road WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 20 running to the front entrance of the cabin. While this restriction should help, disturbance of potential calving/fawning activities could occur daily. Because of this, mitigation efforts intended for reducing impacts to the potential calving/fawning area cannot be fully realized. 5.6. MITIGATION MEASURES CONCERNING NUISANCE WILDLIFE/BEAR IsSUES Because many issues surrounding nuisance wildlife/bear issues come as a direct result of individual household and personal non-compliance with State laws, Colorado Wildlife Commission regulations, and CDOW recommendations for garbage, barbeque grill, bird feeder, pet food, etc., maintenance and storage, this Plan will not be able to address all concerns that may pertain to this issue. However, the Development does have direct control over the types of trash enclosures to be constructed on the property, and the types of dumpsters to be used within these trash enclosures. To that end, the proposed Development plan outlines the construction of bear-proof trash enclosures throughout the property, and the Development team will work with RES and the CDOW to develop a design that will be the most cost-effective for the Development and the level of concern for the area. Additionally, the Development team will ensure that bear-proof dumpsters be installed within the enclosures once construction is complete to further reduce any likelihood of nuisance wildlife/bear issues regarding trash and trash collection areas. The Development team will further ensure that bear-proof dumpsters are on site during construction phases as well. By ensuring the availability ofbear-proof trash enclosures and bear-proof dumpsters, the likelihood of increased nuisance wildlife/bear issues due to inadequate trash facilities should be greatly reduced. In addition to these assurances, the phased development schedule should help soften the "single year" impact of additional human-related food attractants for bears and other potentially nuisance wildlife species. 6. MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING OF MITIGATION MEASURES The applicant agrees to follow the recommendations set forth within this Conservation Plan. The Town can implement the mitigation measures provided within the Plan during the construction and development o f the property by approving the Development plan subject to the condition of compliance with this Conservation Plan. The applicant and Town Staff will work together to create a suitable process for monitoring compliance with the mitigation measures set forth within this Plan through periodic inspection of construction progress by the Development team, Town staff, the CDOW, and RES as needed. Because most mitigation measures will be built into the Development and construction guidelines, very little monitoring will need to be conducted once mitigation measures are in place. Maintenance of established fencing structures, trash enclosures, and bear proof dumpsters will be the responsibility of the future management company and/or homeowner's association once housing units are constructed. In addition, the applicant will impose private covenants for the Development that will ensure all WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 21 on-going mitigation measures will be adhered to over time. The private covenants for the Development will be submitted for review to the Town Staff before recordation. 7. RESTORATION MEASURES Restoration of disturbed areas will be pursuant to the EVDC and will entail the use of native plant materials. 8. DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO EXECUTE PLAN Jim Loftus of Loftus Developments will be the principal lead for the,organization an~ construction of the Development as well as the implementation and monitoring ofthe Conservation Plan. Jim Loftus has been active in the real estate industry for 33 years. As a developer and builder, Mr. Loftus has successfully financed, developed, and sold more than 4 million square feet of mixed-use office, retail, industrial,.and multi-family projects in the greater Denver/ Boulder area. Loftus Developments' extensive portfolio is made up of more than 56 major projects, including a variety of office buildings; research and development facilities; retail and mixed-use shopping centers; apartments, condominiums and single-family homes. The Company has been instrumental in providing Colorado residents with high-quality residences and workplaces along the Front Range. This Development and its associated Conservation Plan is well within the abilities and expertise of Loftus Developments. 1 Town of Estes Park. 2008. Meeting Minutes: Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, 8 January. 2 Town of Estes Park. 2007a. Estes Valley Development Code. Accessed on the Internet at: http://www.estesnet. com/comdev/devcode/default.aspx 3 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division ofWildlife, 4 February 2008. 4 Roe, C. 2007a. E-mail communications from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, December 20-31. 5 Roe, C. 2007b. E-mail communications from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, December 20-31. 6 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. 7 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. Pg 9. 8 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN ~ APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 22 Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. Pgs 11-16. 9 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. Pgs 16-23. 10 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. Pgs 23-29, 11 Town of Estes Park. 2008. Meeting Minutes: Regular meeting ofthe Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, 8 January. 12 Roe, C. 2008c. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 4 February 2008. 13 Estes Valley Planning Commission. 2007a. Meeting Minutes with supporting documentation and public comments: Regular Meeting ofthe Estes Valley Planning Commission, 20 November. 14 Town of Estes Park. 2007b. Pre-Application Meeting Follow-up Letter. 24 April. 15 Roe, C. 2008d. Memorandum: Suggested Best Development Practices for Reducing Wildlife Impacts for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Subdivision. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. 6 January. 16 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. Pgs 12-15. 17 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. Pgs 12-15. 18 Town of Estes Park. 2007b. Pre-Application Meeting Follow-up Letter. 24 April. 19 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. Pgs 12-15. 20 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. Pgs 22-23. 21 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. Pgs 23-29. 22 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 4 February 2008. 23 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 4 February 2008. 24 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. Pgs 12-15. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN APRIL 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 23 Estes Park Board of Trustees August 6,2008 On May 20,2008, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to approve a large condo development called Wapiti Crossing on the open space at the corner of Lexington Lane and Highway 7. Many neighbors are appealing that decision to you. These neighbors are supported by many other concerned residents of the Estes Valley. The developer's Plan was found to be inadequate by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and by the developer's own wildlife biologist who wrote "mitigation efforts intended for reducing the impacts to the potential calving/fawning area could not be fully realized". However, the Planning Commission was instructed by the Town Planning Staff and the Town Attorney that they had no legal grounds to deny this proposal. Based on their instructions the Commission voted to approve the development proposal. The neighbors of Lot 22 believe the wildli fe provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code should be enforceable and that the developer's Wildlife Conservation Plan must adequately address the adverse impacts his development will have on the habitat. The Association for Responsible Development supports the appeal of this decision and joins in asking that the Trustees enforce our development code, overturn the Planning Commission's decision, and deny this proposal. Sincerely, Ron Norris, President Association for Responsible Development Barton L. & Sharon Anderson Dannels Aug 6,2008 306 Tysinger Dr. Hampton, VA 23669 Ph: 757-224-6540 bdannels@cox.net Reference: Development Plan 07-13 concerning Wapiti Crossing Condominiums at 1041 S. St Vrain Avenue Dear Board of Trustees, We are unable to attend in person and ask that you and the Estes Valley Planning Commission consider our comments during the Aug 12, 2008 Board of Trustees meeting when discussing the referenced proposed development. We are the owners of properties immediately adjacent to the proposed development, specifically Lots 2 and 3, Sagers Acres Subdivision, 941 South St. Vrain Ave. at the corner of Lexington Lane and South St. Vrain Ave. To preface our specific comments, we are not at all opposed to development in Estes Park. In fact, we are very proud of the major part played by our family in the growth of the community; my grandfather (Henry Dannels on the Town Board), my father (Bernie Dannels as Mayor and on the Town Board), and my uncle (Al Sager on the Planning Commission). Planned growth has been something they worked for in this community for more than 50 years, recognizing that Estes Park is too wonderful of a place not to share. As I indicated to you in person at a previous Board of Trustees meeting, my family is, however, opposed to over-development as it appears in the Wapiti Crossing Condominium proposal. Other individuals will be speaking to you at the Board of Trustees meeting on Aug 12th with facts and figures concerning the REAL impact on the wildlife of Estes by the proposed Wapiti Crossing development. I am confident you will give their comments, whether they be technical, legal, or emotional, due consideration since you as the leaders of our community and managers of our future will be setting precedent for many years to come with your decision on Wapiti Crossing. What we ask of you is what we asked of you in January of this year when you previously considered this proposed development - do the right thing. Step back for a moment and look at the drawings and plans for the development. Look at how many units will be there and their density. Then drive out to the property and look at it. There is a good chance you'll see the elk or deer that are the subject of the appeal you will be hearing about during your Aug 12th meeting. Then look at the plans again. In your minds and hearts you know it is too much development for that space. It is too dense. You've seen it other places in Estes and Colorado communities. You, as our community leaders have the authority, and the responsibility to do something about it. Please, do the right thing. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact us at any time. Respectfully, - signed - - signed - Barton L. Dannels Sharon Anderson Dannels Work phone: 757-225-1005 Work phone: 757-269-2213 August 5,2008 To: Estes Park Board of Trustees Subject: Property Owner's Rights relative to the Wapiti Crossing Condominium Proposal This letter is submitted to expand on the issue of property owner's rights which was raised in the Appeal of the Estes Valley Planning Commission's approval of the Wapiti Crossing Condominium development proposal, June 15,2008. During the May 20,2008 Planning Commission meeting more than one Commissioner voted to approve the development proposal in order to not deny the land owners rights to develop his property. It seems voting to approve or disapprove a development proposal should be based on the merits of the proposal, its compliance with the EVDC and Comprehensive Plan, not the avoidance o f a perceived law suit which might result from a denial. I do not believe the Planning Commission can remove or restrict a property owners rights because an appeal process exists by which the owner can present his case to the next higher authority. The same opportunity exists relative to a Board of Trustees decision. When a land owner has multiple options for development and a formal appeal process, I do not believe the denial of a specific option or proposal by either the Commission or the Board can be viewed as a "taking". I am a firm believer in the rights of property owners; I am an Estes Park property owner. I do, however, just as strongly believe in property owner's responsibilities. Presented here is a recap of Lot 22 history which may not be known to the newest Board members. It is not often a potential land owner has the opportunity to learn of the risks regarding the development of a property prior to purchase. In this case he did and as a result can, and should, do a better job of exercising his responsibility by proposing development which maintains the integrity of the property he purchased. The EVDC lists the minimum requirements for a development, but does not grant the right or provide a guarantee to develop. Section 1.9.C.4 states "the number of dwelling or accommodation units allowed on a site is based on the presumption that all other applicable standards shall be met. The maximum density established for a zoning district is not a guarantee that such densities may be obtained, nor a valid justification for varying other dimensional or development standards." In November 2006, Community Development Department Director Joseph hosted a meeting between an extended neighborhood of the Lexington Lane property, the developer and the developer's staff (an architect and two attorneys). The developer opened the meeting by presenting an architectural rendering of what the Estes Park lumberyard might look like situated on Lot 22. He explained his intent was to relocate the lumberyard into this neighborhood so the vacated property could then be redeveloped into a King Soopers supermarket and associated businesses. As explained by Director Joseph, this action would have required a rezoning of the Lexington Lane property. After hearing considerable negative public response, the developer stated that i f the neighborhood did not want the lumberyard, his intention was to purchase the Lexington Lane property and build condominiums as an alternative plan. With this comment the architect presented two large, very professionally created storyboards showing the high density condo development intended for Lot 22. Again much public comment followed. The overwhelming number of comments focused on three areas o f concern directly associated with developing this specific property: 1) The additional storm water runoff which would be created by the impervious coverage would add to an already existing and serious problem in the area, 2) The additional vehicular traffic would create more congestion and add to an already existing safety problem, 3) A concern that this particular property was very unique in that it is frequently and heavily used by many species of local wildli fe, elk, deer, bear, mountain lions, and many species o f smaller animals, with herds of elk and deer often spending the night and giving birth on the property. The developer's response to hearing these issues was that he understood the potential risks and intended to purchase the property anyway. He closed by stating that he "did not need the neighborhood's permission to build condos". The developer, having been alerted to the serious issues specific to the development of Lot 22, and knowing the risks involved prior to purchase, proceeded to purchase the property two months later. The developer, now the property owner, knew the issues before purchasing the property and obviously was very aware o f the provisions in the EVDC. This knowledge is evidenced by his meetings with Staff, his fitting the maximum number of units allowed by code onto the property and then revising the plan from 43 units to 42 units in order to meet the floor area ratio requirements. We have often heard from Commissioners and, on some occasions from Trustees, that the property owner and/or developer assumes all the risk. In this, he was clearly informed of the risks prior to purchasing Lot 22. Given this pre-purchase history, property owner's rights clearly should not be the sole factor in determining the proper disposition of this development proposal. Sincerely, Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court August 3,2008 To: Estes Park Board of Trustee Subject: Wapiti Crossing Condominium Appeal The Wapiti Crossing application and approval process has raised important issues and generated significant questions about proper application of the Estes Valley Development Code. One question has already been answered at the Planning Commission hearing of May 20, 2008: "Does the Wildlife Conservation Plan submitted by the developer mitigate the significant adverse impact his development will have on this habitat?" The answer is a definite "no", it does not. 1. The developer's wildlife biologist states in the document, "...mitigation efforts intended for reducing impacts to the potential calving/fawning areas could not be fully realized".- Wildlife Conservation for the Wapiti Condominiums Development, 7 April 2008, page 4. 2. Rick Spowart, our local CDOW wildlife manager, and his supervisor at the time, Mark Leslie, testified before the Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees that this development would have a "significant adverse impact" on this wildlife habitat. 3. Rick and his current supervisor, Larry Rogstad testified before the Planning Commission on May 20,2008 that the Wildlife Conservation Plan, with its revised site plan, did not remove or even mitigate the adverse impact. The issue before the Board of Trustees this evening can be plainly stated: The Town Planning Staffand Town Attorney gave two instructions to the Planning Commission prior to their making a decision: 1) the only requirement of the Estes Valley Development Code was the submission of the Wildlife Conservation plan, the effectiveness or adequacy of the Plan in mitigating the adverse effects on the habitat were not considerations, and; 2) Section 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection is not enforceable. If the Town Board of Trustees validates this position, serious questions are raised. Why did the Board of Trustees require the developer to spend thousands of dollars to produce a Wildlife Conservation Plan in accordance with Section 7.8 "Wildlife Habitat Protection" if the Plans effectiveness to conserve wildli fe/habitat is of no consequence? Why did the Board of Trustees require a Wildlife Conservation Plan from the developer if the section o f code which requires the plan is unenforceable? If submission of a plan is the only requirement o f the code, why did the Board of Trustees remand this proposal to the Planning Commission rather than directing the Planning Staff to stamp the application approved upon the receipt of the Plan? If this section o f the code is not enforceable because is does not contain explicit language for denial, how many other provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code will now be rendered unenforceable? We believe the answers to these questions are simple. We believe the Town can enforce its own code and that the Board o f Trustees acted correctly in requiring a Wildli fe Conservation Plan. Lot 22 is the first and only property in the history of the Estes Valley Development Code which has qualified for special consideration under Section 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection. Lot 22 is a calving and fawning area (Section 7.8.F.3.b) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife has testified on three separate occasions this proposed development, including this revised proposal which resulted from the Wildlife Conservation Plan, will have a significant adverse impact on this habitat. Section 7.8.F.4 contains language which clearly states CDOW is to review the plan to determine "whether the Plan adequately address the adverse impacts"....we believe this is a requirement and an enforceable condition of the code. The legal interpretation provided to the Planning Commission and reinforced by lay testimony was clearly wrong, and was the basis for the Planning Commission's decision. Upholding the Planning Commission's decision on these erroneous grounds will create a precedent to apply the same sort of reasoning to each and every other section of the Estes Valley Development Code. We ask that the Town Board reverse the Planning Commission's decision and deny the application on the grounds that by its own terms and the expert opinion of CDOW, the Wildlife Conservation Plan is inadequate. Alternatively, we ask that the matter be remanded to the Planning Commission with instructions that the Planning Commission has the initial power to decide the adequacy of a Conservation Plan submitted under Section 7.8. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court Arleta J. Bell, 1050 S. St. Vrain, Unit A-1 Permanent residence - also owner of Lot 10 in Village Acres Subdivision for almost 50 years. I realize that the developer has rights to develop the property known as Wapiti Crossing. It would seem that all the development codes have been met except for the Wildlife Conservation plan. The development was held up because of the requirement for Wildlife Conservation Plan was not included in the first presentations. When this plan was presented, the Colorado Dept. of Wildlife, Rick Spowart's opinion -- "41 condos cannot be constructed on the site withoout having a significant impact". We ask--was this not grounds for denying the development? Since it was not denied - then we question whether Section 7.8 is being ignored or unenforceable. If it is not enforceable, then why have this code? We think this area is a necessary habitat for wildlife and should be preserved. Thank you. August 12,2008 Wapiti Crossing Appeal - Appellant Comments We do not plan to discuss the adequacy of the Wildlife Conservation Plan. The Plan was thoroughly considered at the Planning Commission meeting and was found to be woefully inadequate at "conserving wildlife" as the title would imply it should, or at Wildlife Habitat Protection, as the title of the code which required its submission would have you think. Although there are many excellent quotes in the document itsel f which speak to its inadequacy, I believe the best characterization was the Colorado Division of Wildlife's comment on the Plan - "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear". Enough said about the Plan. Our appeal is simple, the Planning Staff and Town Attorney interpreted Section 7.8 of the code, entitled Wildlife Habitat Protection, and gave instructions to the Planning Commission. They interpreted Section 7.8 as having no provision for denial, only requiring the submission of a Wildli fe Conservation Plan, and further, that the effectiveness or adequacy of that Plan at mitigating the adverse effects of the proposed development on the habitat is o f no consequence. The Planning Commission was instructed they had no grounds to deny the proposal. We believe both the interpretation and instruction were incorrect and do not represent the Town's position. If this were the Town's position, the Planning Commission would have received these instructions at their first hearings o f this proposal in September and October of last year. They did not. If this were the Town's position, the Planning Staff and the Town Attorney would have th so advised this Board during your January 8 appeal hearing of this proposal. You were not. If this were the Town's position the Board would have directed Staff to stamp the application "approved" upon receipt of the Wildlife Conservation Plan. You did not; instead you remanded this application to the Planning Commission for their consideration after evaluating the Wildlife Conservation Plan. If this were the Town's position this Board would never have required the developer to spend thousands of dollars to produce a Wildlife Conservation Plan, required by an unenforceable section of code, the adequacy of which is of no consequence. We believe the interpretation of the code and the instructions given to the Planning Commission are wrong. We believe this Board acted correctly in requiring the developer to produce a Wildlife Conservation Plan for the evaluation and action of the Planning Commission. Lot 22 is the first property to qualify for the special protection of Section 7.8.F in the 8 year history of the Estes Valley Development Code. This is also the first occasion a Wildlife Conservation Plan has been requested from a developer in that 8 year history. These facts alone define Lot 22 as a very special and unique property and a valuable Estes Park asset. Section 7.8.F.4 contains language which clearly states the Colorado Division of Wildlife is to review the Plan to determine "whether the Plan adequately addresses the adverse impacts" caused by this development. We believe this is a requirement and an enforceable condition of the code which provides the basis for denial of this proposal. The legal interpretation provided to the Planning Commission was clearly wrong, and was the basis for the Planning Commission's decision. Upholding the Planning Commission's decision on these erroneous grounds will create a precedent to apply the same reasoning to every other section of the Estes Valley Development Code. We ask that the Town Board reverse the Planning Commission's decision and deny the application on the grounds that by its own terms and the expert opinion of CDOW, the Wildlife Conservation Plan is inadequate. Alternatively, we ask that this matter be remanded to the Planning Commission with instructions that the Planning Commission has the power and authority to approve or deny this application based on the adequacy of a Conservation Plan submitted under Section 7.8. We thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court This Board would not have remanded the proposal to alqD,0.10#uaun s! apoo *uauldopAag AaipA sal.s3 344 :P--- the Planning Commission... ...if an effective Wildlife Plan is of no consequence Au,p 04 64! -104.1.rID OU poll UO!ss!wwoo 6u!uuold 344 JF- 1 .. ...acted correctly in requiring a Wildlife Conservation Plan ...will insist on its being effective in conserving wildlife apoo .1.uawdopAaq AaI'DA sa*sa 344 30.10:;U) 04 400 11!AA~~~ We believe this Board... *D*!q04 Association for Responsible Development Remarks to Estes Park Board of Trustees: 8/12/08 Our Association strongly supports the appeal, for these reasons: â€¢ This property is a documented calving and fawning area. Our Estes Valley Development Code required a wildlife habitat study to determine the potential impact of the proposed development on this habitat. â€¢ The study found that the developer's proposal will cause significant adverse impact on the habitat. As a result, the developer was required to prepare a mitigation plan, and minor modifications were made to his original proposal. â€¢ The mitigation plan was found to be inadequate by the Colorado Division of Wildlifer~ Itisourunderstanding that DOW literally refused to sign off on the modified development proposal because there is still "significant adverse impact" on the habitat. â€¢ Our Association is not opposed to development of this property. However, allowing this development to proceed in its present form defies common sense. Scientific studies show there will be significant adverse impact, and on-the-record statements by DOW a~*,41~~confirm the inadequacy of the mitigation plan. â€¢ We believe the Planning Commission and the Town Board are both empowered to exercise reasonable judgment in cases like this. The Planning Commission was precluded from exercising judgment because the Planning Staff and Town Attorney told them they had no choice but to approve this proposal. â€¢ Now, members ofthe Town Board are in a position to exercise their judgment to remedy this error. We do not believe that this Board, QI the Planning Commission, can be required to act in a way that does not make sense. â€¢ We believe there il a reasonable way to proceed... a way that allows development, and also builds public trust and confidence in our elected officials. Our Association will support development if a revised project is brought forward with mitigation plans that receive DOW's approval in writing. We ask yo~upport this appeal. If you do, the developer still has the option of working with his consultants and DOW to bring forward a new proposal that truly mitigates the adverse impact. Respectfully, Ron Norris, President Association for Responsible Development August 12,2008 From: Sandy Osterman I cannot be with you this evening to express my thoughts in person regarding this appeal. My husband, Lee has suffered a debilitating stroke and I am giving him all of my support as I sit in the ICU in Loveland. However, I felt compelled to ask that this be read on my behalf for the public record. The friends and neighbors of Lexington Lane have come before the governing bodies of this Town several times to express our concerns regarding the proposed Walpiti Crossing development. Contrary to what has been written & said, we have done so respectfully and intelligently, having "done our homework" regarding the Estes Valley Development Code, the rights of land owners, which we all are & the economic issues facing the Estes Valley and its future. We have worked within "the System" only to be told,ike "the System" is subjective depending upon who interprets the information and the issue at hand. We once again, come before you and respectfully request that this project be denied as it is written. We ask that the development plan be re-worked to the approval ofthe Colorado Division of Wildlife and be re-submitted to the Planning Commission for deliberation & action And We ask that the Estes Valley Development Code as well as the other documents and guidelines that are used in this Town, be interpreted consistently and clearly to all parties involved and representative ofall the citizens of the Estes Valleye -~2+ 2Â£543*u&&4*L) (5<1Iik>d x4.L,cÂ£> 20:Yl'-7 Comments from May 20,2008 Planning Commission Hearing Rick Spowart/Colorado Div of Wildlife, Estes Park District Wildlife Manager 3:47:58 "Preservation of the calving habitat doesn't concern me that much." 3:50:00 "The biggest impact is going to be the loss of this open meadow for elk to stage during the rut, the breeding season, and, I guess, carry on a normal social interaction during that time of the year and for people to watch that interaction." Greg White/Town Attorney: 4:09:50 "Well, whether anybody appeals it or not, I think the question would be, what grounds do you have to deny this development based upon provisions of the Code, would be how I would characterize that. And in my legal opinion, you have none." 4:51:20 "My interpretation of the Code is very simple. The Code gives the Division of Wildlife the requirement to find significant adverse impact on specific areas. They did not find significant adverse impact until they appeared before the Town Board on the appeal. And that is significant adverse impact on a calving, lambing, or fawning area. Based upon that representation by the Division of Wildlife, the Town Board asked for a wildlife conservation plan. That is the requirement for that finding. That is the only requirement for that finding and there's a statement that says what a wildlife conservation plan is, which they have complied with. That's my interpretation of the Code." 1. Mav Planning Commission minutes concerning: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 22, S. St. Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, The Mulhern Group, Ltd./Applicant Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This development plan request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the meeting held November 20, 2007 and was disapproved by a four to one vote based on significant impact to wildlife. The applicant appealed this determination to the Town Board, as provided for in Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 12.1.B. On January 8, 2008, the Town Board voted unanimously to remand the development plan to the Planning Commission due to the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW) finding of a significant adverse impact to wildlife and for Planning Commission review of a wildlife conservation plan. The property is located at the corner of Lexington Lane and Highway 7. It is zoned RM - Mu/ti-Fam#y Residen#a/ and the proposed use is a use-by-right. The property consists of approximately six gently sloping acres and is largely open meadow; there are trees and rock outcroppings on the southern end of the site, with an existing cabin in this area. EVDC Section 7.8 does not provide for denial of an application based on significant impact to wildlife; it requires provision of a wildlife conservation plan. Per Section 7.8.H, wildlife conservation plans must include a description of the populations of wildlife and wildlife habitat, analysis of potential adverse impact on wildlife and habitat, a list of mitigation measures and probability of success, a plan for implementation, a plan for any relevant restoration, and demonstration of an applicant's ability to successfully execute the plan. Staff has reviewed the wildlife conservation plan prepared by Chris Roe of Roe Biological Services and provided by the applicant; staff finds the plan complies with these requirements. In conjunction with the CDOW, staff has determined that Chris Roe is qualified to prepare this plan. The wildlife conservation plan suggests the following mitigation techniques: a phased development schedule; timing restrictions on construction activities; limited landscaping recommendations; and household pet management considerations. The proposed timing restrictions on construction activities would prohibit construction beginning in May or June, during fawning/calving time. Mr. Roe provided a number of photo examples of the manner in which protective fencing around landscaping restricts wildlife movement; staff suggests the Planning Commission approve a waiver to tfie landscaping requirements for shrub planting set forth in the development code. Staff also recommends the applicant be required to provide the requifed number of ~ street-frontage and district buffer trees, with all required conifers at least eight feet tall and all deciduous trees a minimum four-inch diameter at breast height. All dogs and cats shall be kept indoors unless under the direct control of an owner. Some changes have been made to the original site plan. The southern wildlife corridor originally proposed has been shifted farther south and narrowed in order to provide an 80-foot-wide corridor on the northern portion of the lot. The stand-alone unit originally proposed north of the multi-family building has been removed. The access drive for the multi-family building has been moved to the north to reduce impact and activities in the habitat on the southern portion of the lot. Floor-area ratio and impervious coverage have also been reduced. Stand-alone units are proposed fronting S. St. Vrain Avenue and Lexington Lane; the multi-family structure is proposed at the rear of the lot; the southern portion of the lot would remain undisturbed; the general road and stormwater management portions of the proposal would remain the same. Staff has reviewed the proposal to ensure compliance with zoning requirements such as density, impervious coverage, floor area ratio, setbacks, and height. Items yet to be reviewed include final grading, revised landscapintl, revised stormwater pond size, driveway width, parking stall length/width, and other site design details. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant staff the authority to review and approve the final site design, which would include engineering details such as water and sewer line routes from the mains to individual units, sidewalk, provision of ADA ramps, etc. Items such as the building layout and road layout would not change. Planner Shirk read aloud for the record the staff findings And six recommended conditions of approval as shown in the staff memo. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Development Plan 07-13. Planning Commission/Staff Discussion: Commissioner Klink requested it be made clear whether the applicant was requesting any variances, whether the proposed use is a use-by-right, and whether any zoning changes are requested. Planner Shirk verified that the applicant is requesting a variance to landscaping requirements (per the mitigation plan) but no other variances; the proposed use is a use-by-right; and no zoning changes are requested or required. Commissioner Hull questioried whether the wildlife conservation plan is complete if it includes all items shown in EVDC Section 7.8.H.a - g. Planner Shirk confirmed that is correct. Commissioner Hull also questioned whether it is then within the purview of the Planning Commission to review the conservation plan. Attorney White stated the role of the Planning Commission is to review the plan to ensure that is complies with the provisions of the Code, which are listed in EVDC Section 7.8.H.2.a - g (Wildlife Conservation Plans, Plan Content). Commissioner Tucker questioned whether any verbal or written documentation had been received from the CDOW regarding the wildlife conservation plan. Director Joseph noted representatives of the CDOW are in attendance and can address the Planning Commission directly. Applicant Presentation: Steve Loos, Project Architect for the Wapiti Crossing development plan, was present to represent the Mulhern Group/Applicant. He stated Planner Shirk had provided a very good overview of the wildlife conservation plan prepared by Chris Roe of Roe Biological Services, who is a certified wildlife biologist by virtue of training and experience. He stated Mr. Roe was very workmanlike in terms of his efforts to address the issues related to this property and used current, state-of-the-art planning for how they might be mitigated. The 25- page analysis provided by Mr. Roe is comprehensive and reviews point by point all the mitigation efforts the applicant intends to put in place. The applicant's submitted plan is intended to focus attention on the revisions proposed, which reflect significant changes to mitigate impacts to wildlife. Most significantly, the primary lines of elk movement have been preserved on the site; elk move across the property to points elsewhere in the community. A residential unit previously planned in the center of that route has been removed. Additionally, the existing cabin on the southern portion of the site is no longer proposed for full-time residential use. The applicant now proposes to use the cabin as an accessory/community building for recreational activities of residents of the multi-family building. Mr. Roe had indicated that full-time residential use of the cabin would create a potential point of conflict with wildlife. The cabin will be managed so as not to interfere with ellddeer calving/fawning. The revised plan addresses all the established issues the applicant needed to contend with. The Commissioners proceeded with questions for Mr. Loos, whose responses are summarized as follows: â€¢ Parking for the cabin/clubhouse would be accommodated through the use of parking at the multi-family residential building. The applicant wished to ensure there would not be a traffic lane near the cabin; access to the cabin would be via a sidewalk. â€¢ The multi-family building "turns its end" toward the southern portion of the lot, the patio has been shifted back, and access to the first-level parking area has been shifted to the north of the building. These are all measures intended to preserve the peace and quiet of the southern portion of the lot when it is important to do so. Mr. Roe indicated this is the primary calving/fawning habitat on the site. â€¢ Use of the cabin can be managed such that disruptive activities will not take place during sensitive times of the year for wildlife. â€¢ The applicant will make the cabin handicapped-accessible. â€¢ Mr. Roe is not present at the meeting because he is on a trip in Africa. â€¢ The applicant has worked to address concerns regarding impact of the cabin to the calving/fawning area on the southern portion of the site. â€¢ In response to Commissioner Amos's concerns regarding Mr. Roe's use of qualifiers in his report (terms such as "likely reduce," "highly unlikely," and "slight to moderate"), Mr. Loos stated Mr. Roe used the terms because judging what elk will do is not an exact science. The applicant has made efforts to accommodate the wildlife "doing what they do." â€¢ The applicant has provided a route for elk movement in the location currently'used by elk; the elk are very acclimated to people. â€¢ The applicant will provide the full complement of parking, as required by Code. Commissioner Hull expressed concerns regarding comments found in Mr. Roe's wildlife conservation plan that indicate that options for mitigation of impacts to wildlife could not be fully realized or are limited, concern that the two 60-foot wildlife corridors (a total of 120 feet) previously proposed have been reduced to one 22-foot corridor and one 80-foot corridor (102 feet), concern that some of the proposed development has been shifted farther to the south, and concern that more significant changes to the applicant's plans have not been proposed. In response to these concerns, Mr. Loos provided the following information: â€¢ The elk filter through the southern portion of the site from surrounding residential development to the south. The proposed wildlife corridors have been revised in accordance with the advice of a certified wildlife biologist (Mr. Roe). The applicant has provided one major corridor, which Mr. Roe fully believes will retain elk movement across the property. â€¢ Changes to the applicant's plans include the preservation of the open quality of the Highway 7 frontage. Wildlife viewing will be preserved and elk will not run out on the highway "unannounced." â€¢ With the removal of some circulation, removal of one unit, and diminution of some of the circulation near the multi-family building, 64% of the property will be in open space. The majority of the property will remain in vegetation that provides natural forage. â€¢ Wildlife corridors have been widened to approximate the current wildlife circulation paths. â€¢ The southern portion of the property will remain as it is today. The applicant has preserved the best calving and fawning location on the site. â€¢ Development of the property will be phased to allow the wildlife to acclimate over time. â€¢ Use of shrubbery has been restricted to ensure that wildlife corridors, unlike the rest of the neighborhood, will remain unrestricted by landscaping and fencing that would neck down the wildlife circulation paths. â€¢ The applicant proposes restrictions to minimize nuisance-type problems with wildlife (such as raccoons, bears, cougars) and will implement the full measure of efforts to mitigate that type of wildlife interaction. â€¢ The applicant has sought to eliminate human/animal conflicts to the maximum extent possible by virtue of the site design. â€¢ All proposed changes are based on the advice and counsel of a certified wildlife biologist. Colorado Division of Wildlife Comment: Rick Spowart/Colorado Division of Wildlife Estes Park District Wildlife Manager summarized his credentials, which include 30 years experience as a wildlife research biologist and manager and a Ph.D. in wildlife biology. Stated there has been some misunderstanding of CDOW's role in this process. Planner Shirk stated the plan was remanded to the Planning Commission because CDOW found significant impacts. The Division of Wildlife made the statement that they believe there will be significant impacts because of this development, but provisions found in the Development Code required the applicant to submit a conservation plan due to use of the site as a fawning/calving habitat. Stated fawns/calves are born in the area south and east of the cabin. Elk especially are very adaptable and can become very human-habituated. Stated his concern is not so much for the calving habitat. The site is very heavily used by wildlife, elk in particular. The property provides the last natural meadow in the area; 200 or more,elk can be seen there at one time. The proposed development is aptly named because elk use the site to cross Highway 7 to access the 18-hole golf course and feed on Kentucky bluegrass, their preferred diet in Estes Park. Mr. Spowart stated he had worked with Mr. Roe when he prepared the wildlife conservation plan, noting many of the less-than-precise verbs he used are standard in wildlife biology because animals are adaptable. Mr. Spowart's experience has been that elk use the area of least resistance when moving from one point to another. He suggested to Mr. Roe that larger trees be planted rather than fencing smaller trees, and that use of the cabin on the southern end of the property be eliminated or limited due to existing use of that area for fawning and calving. He stated the biggest impact would be loss of the open meadow for elk to stage on during the rut and carry on a normal social interaction during that time of year, as well as loss of opportunity for people to watch that interaction. He noted Highway 7 is lined with vehicles every fall as elk put on a show and stated his belief that will not happen with this development. He stated his belief that the conservation plan has addressed some concerns, but there will still be a significant negative impact because of the proposed use of the property. Without an extremely different type of development on the property, a plan could not be proposed that would remove that negative impact. Commissioner Amos questioned whether every development in Estes Park restricts the movement of elk. Mr. Spowart stated elk are very adaptable and will move around buildings, cross parking lots, and so forth. They are most impacted by development during the winter when they are in large herds. They have difficulty moving through areas where there are lots of buildings or houses at this time.of year due to their need to maintain visual contact with one another. He noted the applicant's property gets extreme use, with wildlife moving across it and grazing on the native vegetation. In response to Commissioner Grant's question whether his findings would be significantly different than Mr. Roe's if he had written the study, Mr. Spowart stated they are in agreement on certain things proposed that would limit some of the impacts; however, you "can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." In his opinion, 41 condominiums cannot be constructed on the site without having a significant impact. Commissioner Hull questioned whether newdorn elk would be abandoned due to construction/heavy equipment noise. Mr. Spowart stated it would be possible but indicated it is unlikely; he has seen elk calves born in neighborhoods such as this and the mothers area very protective-people are sometimes charged and injured. He noted there are a number of other wildlife species that use the area, noting a bear had recently broken into a car just up the road. Stated his cohcern with new developments in Estes Park is conflicts between bears and humans. If developments require bear-resistant dumpsiers, peopld don't always use them. There is no town ordinance to enforce this requirement; enforcement falls to the CDOW and its volunteers and has proved very challenging in recent years. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether the wildlife that use the applicant's property do so because the entire'surrounding area is populated. Mr. Spowart stated that is definitely true for elk. It is the last meadow/open area until they reach the golf course. Elk seek out open areas, especially during rut; there is very high use of the neighborhood and the meadow on the applicant's property, particularly by elk. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether calving and fawning activities would be moved to surrounding areas if the property is developed. Spowart stated elk are very adaptable; there would probably be increased use of the golf course for elk calving. Â· Commissioner Amos requested Mr. Spowart's reaction to a statement in Mr. Roe's report: "Although Lot 22 may have occurrences of calving and/or fawning activity, it may be better for the regional population as a whole to reduce the overall effectiveness of this site within town to preserve and encourage future use of more adaptable elk habitats outside of town. The question here becomes one of helping manage the population of elk within Estes Park and the greater Estes Valley or protecting a wildlife viewing area of habituated elk and deer within the town of Estes Park." Commissioner Amos noted the town trumpets the Valley as a wildlife viewing area. Mr. Spowart staied the CDOW manages elk and hunting seasons, not condominiums. The idea that development that pushes elk outside the Valley where hunters can shoot them is a good thing seems like a "stretch." Stated he doesn't think constructing condominiums on the applicant's property would help with elk management. Commissioner Klink questioned whether any of the animals that use the applicant's property are endangered or suffering population declines. Mr. Spowart stated there are none to his knowledge. Commissioner Klink questioned whether there are habitats on the property unique enough that Mr. Spowart would feel the development would have a significant impact on whether or not any of those animals are endangered in this area. Mr. Spowart stated no, not to endangered species. He noted the meadow is unique, not only because of its location but because it contains native grasses; however, in terms of endangered or threatened wildlife, the lot could be paved over without impacting any of those species. Larry Rogstad/Colorado Division of Wildlife Area Wildlife Manager for Area 2 addressed the Commissioners. He stated he recently accepted his current position; he has 27 years experience as a wildlife manager in the Greeley North District and Area 4 and is an aquatic invertebrate zoologist. In response to Commissioners' questions, he stated the following: â€¢ There is a potential for large ungulates such as elk and deer to charge large windows on either sides of corridors when they see their reflection during rut or when they are panicked and see the window as a means of escape. â€¢ It is possible the 80-foot-wide corridor for wildlife movement could be used as a recreational area for people. Providing an adequate setback with an adequate visual field for large ungulates and people is essential to creating a successful corridor for wildlife movement. This is also true where wildlife will cross highways/roads-adequate setbacks and landscaping that provides a broad visual field are needed for the safety of humans and wildlife. â€¢ There is a $.25 cent surcharge on licenses issued by the CDOW to pay for the advertising necessary to educate the public about who/what the Division does. Mr. Rogstad will convey to his supervisor Commissioner Grant's and Commissioner Hull's concerns about over-saturation of advertising by the CDOW. â€¢ One of the huge issues that is a difficult part of the planning process is that the impact of each individual development is not necessarily as important as the cumulative impacts of development on the entire neighborhood system. At what point are the impacts of development pushing wildlife back onto neighboring .properties in order to allow higher densities? It is difficult to deal realistically with the cumulative impacts of development on wildlife resources. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether the current landowner should bear the burden of the cumulative impacts of neighborhood development, indicating he did not require an answer. Commissioner Grant noted many recent development proposals have involved wildlife issues and expressed appreciation for the presence of Mr. Spowart and Mr. Rogstad at today's meeting. Commissioner Klink asked Attorney White if the Planning Commission voted to disapprove the development plan and the applicant chose to appeal, what part of the Code would the Commission have to stand on? Attorney White stated the question is what grounds do you have to deny this development based upon provisions of the Code, and further stated, in his legal opinion, the Commission has none. Public Comment: Ron Norris/Town Resident stated his opposition to the proposal; the original proposal was for the maximum density of buildings in a calving/fawning area; the buildings are still proposed in this area. Stated no steps have been taken to mitigate impact on habitat; the applicant's own biologist has stated mitigation efforts cannot be fully realized and the CDOW has not signed off on this proposal. Stated nothing changed since the proposal was rejected last fall. The applicant was informed of significant wildlife issues prior to purchasing the property and shows a lack of respect by informing neighbors they could not stop him, by failing to conduct a wildlife study or prepare a wildlife plan until required to do so by the Town Board. Proposed changes are minimal and superficial. Urged the Commissioners to reject the proposal. Dick Coe/Neighboring Property Owner stated he was a seasonal ranger in Rocky Mountain National Park for 13 seasons but is not a wildlife expert. Stated wildlife are unpredictable. Elk have been calving on the applicant's property; cows will protect their calves long after they are born and can and have injured people in doing so. Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park were recently designated at the national level as a wonderful place to vacation with opportunities to see wildlife in town and in the Park. Tourists are drawn here because of the wildlife. Commended the investment made in the Hermit Park property; expressed appreciation that other open-space possibilities are being considered in the Estes Valley. Marlene Bell/Neighboring Property Owner stated she walks along Highway 7 every day and has yet to see elk in the southern portion of the applicant's property; they are always in the meadow grazing and resting. Questioned whether Mr. Roe was present when elk were on the property. Johanna Darden/Town Resident expressed concern about development impacts on elk; stated she would leave Estes Park if the elk disappear. Stated elk have fewer and fewer places in town to "hang out." Expressed concern that children will use the proposed wildlife corridor as a play area. Urged that the whole area be kept free of housing and that the Commissioners vote to keep the land free. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident stated she is a concerned citizen who has studied the EVDC and Mr. Roe's wildlife conservation plan. Ms. Osterman cited numerous specific statements in the wildlife 'conservation plan and sections of the Code, stating the wildlife plan indicates there will be adverse impacts to wildlife and habitat or shows the applicant's proposal is questionable as to whether it meets EVDC standards. Expressed opposition to the applicant's proposal. Joan Hawbeck/Adjoining Resident stated the biologist's indication that this is the "last natural meadow" is alarming. Estes Park needs to continue to ensure that the last natural anything is not lost. Dirk Knobel/Neighboring Property Owner cited EVDC Section 7.8.F.3 and expressed concern that emphasis has been shifted to provision of a wildlife movement corridor rather than impacts to a calving, lambing, or fawning area. Noted wildlife other than elk use the site. Expressed concern regarding impacts to wildlife regardless of proposed phasing; stated use of the cabin as a community building will make matters worse. Stated the EVDC gives the Planning Commission grounds for denial of the application; requested disapproval. Kathleen Murray/Area Resident questioned why the Commissioners would approve the proposal, noting the property is the last open area in that neighborhood. Questioned whether people would not be happy until every single square foot of town is developed. Wildlife is the main draw for tourists, as shown by surveys. Local residents hate to see everything developed. Fred Mares/Neighboring Property Owner stated the EVDC does not include provision for denial of a plan based on wildlife impact; it is not anywhere in the Code. However, staff provides an interpretation and the Commissioners provide a reality check-that is what is intended by the Code. Stated the Code defines five areas of habitat that warrant special consideration; the CDOW has identified one of these on the applicant's property and stated there will be significant impact. Questioned whether the revised site plan removes that impact, noting the CDOW has stated it will not. Mr. Roe's wildlife conservation plan states that mitigation efforts cannot be fully realized. Urged denial of the proposal. Jayne Zmijewski/Neighboring Property Owner stated she is a volunteer for Rocky Mountain National Park, Larimer County Search and Rescue, and CDOW and has participated in bear and mountain lion research-the applicant's property is within her research area. Stated the 80-foot wildlife corridor will be seen as a cattle shoot for elk, which currently have options for crossing the road in several areas. Noted bears and mountain lions also cross the road and will be all be funneled into one 80-foot corridor. Stated the buildings next to the corridor will be viewed as cliffs by the wildlife, which will be panicky running through there. Provided information about bears and mountain lions in the area; bears get into trash containers and there will be more attractants for mountain lions with the proposed development. Stated the developer has options; the animals don't. Cheri Pettijohn/Town Resident stated there were no elk in the Valley when she was a child. Elk, deer, bear, mountain lion, and human populations have all exploded together. Noted all live together, this is not something new; the animals are very adaptable. Regarding Ms. Zmijewski's statement that animals would panic in the corridor between buildings on the applicant's property, she stated she does not sde animals panicking anywhere else; they meander among houses and buildings throughout the area. She stated there are approximately 100,000 acres in national park, national forest and BLM lands; the applicant's property cannot be the last open area. Stated the Planning Commission cannot deny the applicant's request without taking the applicant's property rights and that, as a taxpayer, she would just as soon not have to contribute financially to support a lawsuit regarding this property. Chair Eisenlauer closed this item to public comment at 6:30 p.m. Planning Commissioners Comments and Discussion: Commissioner Amos - Stated when he moved to Estes Park in 1981 there were no elk within the Valley; they began staying in town to browse on landscaping and lawns as properties developed and the herd has grown ever since. Stated the former ownersof the property had contacted the Land Trust about placing a conservation easement on the property, but the financial gain in doing so was apparently not enough for all the siblings and the property was sold. Stated his opinion that proposed changes to the applicant's plan are not enough to protect calving and do not provide enough area for wildlife corridors. Motioned to disapprove the development plan, as shown below. Commissioner Tucker indibated he is struggling with this because the primary issue when this application was reviewed at the November 20,2007 Planning Commission meeting was calving and fawning on the site, based on EVDC guidelines, not so much the provision of wildlife corridors. He noted he had just observed an elk coming out of the drive-through lane at the bank across the street during a meeting break. Many people have stated that the elk adapt; they will have their calves regardless. The question is whether the calving will take place on the applicant's lot or in the neighboring subdivision. Questioned whether the Commissioners can deny the application when the applicant has the zoning rights to build what is proposed; the applicant purchased the property based on its current zoning. No one discussed using the property for anything other than multi-family use prior to the time it was purchased by the applicant. Wildlife use the applicant's property because of surrounding development. Questioned whether it is right to take away property rights based on existing development. Commissioners have been advised that if the development is denied, the town would lose to an appeal if the property owner chose to take legal action; questioned whether the Planning Commission should subject the community to legal fees. Stated his belief that the Commission cannot take away the applicant's property rights based on what they know. Chair Eisenlauer - Expressed his agreement regarding the applicant's property rights. Stated the Commission should not deny the rights of a property owner who wants to develop their property in accordance with applicable codes and regulations. Commissioner Klink - Expressed his sympathy for all those who view this as valuable property; stated the question is whether anyone is willing to tear their house down, move elsewhere, and plant native grass on their property in order to create a place for the elk to calve. There is no question that the elk use the applicant's property to calve, and the developer was aware of wildlife activity on the site. Stated his belief this is not sufficient to stop the development, nor is it grounds to take away the applicant's property rights. The CDOW has not indicated that endangered species use the property and did not indicate the habitat cannot be found elsewhere. Commissioner Kitchen - Stated her belief the Planning Commission would be legally irresponsible to deny the application. Indicated the development will have impacts but not significant impacts in the context that the word "significant" was intended in the Code. Commissioner Grant - Stated he is a neighboring property owner and does not like the proposed density or wildlife impacts, but all development inevitably reduces wildlife habitat. The developer was initially nonresponsive and disrespectful to the neighborhood concerns but has since done his best to mitigate these concerns by preparing a wildlife study. Stated regrettably, he must support the plan. Commissioner Hull - Questioned whether the lot must be developed with 41 units or left as blank land. Suggested the developer should propose less density; the proposal could work if there was less impact. Stated her disagreement with Town Attorney White's opinion that the Commission does not have grounds to deny the application based on EVDC Section 7.8.F, which provides that the CDOW will determine whether the proposal will result in significant adverse impact to wildlife or wildlife habitat. The CDOW has indicated it will. Stated she cannot support the application based on guidelines of the EVDC and will vote no. Commissioner Grant stated he read the same thing and came up with an entirely different view of his charter. Requested Town Attorney White's interpretation. Town Attorney White provided his interpretation of the Code as follows: "The Code gives the Division of Wildlife the requirement to find significant adverse impact on specific areas. They did not find significant impact until they appeared before the Town Board on the appeal. And that is significant adverse impact on a, calving, lambing, or fawning area. Based upon that representation by the Division of Wildlife, the Town Board asked for a wildlife conservation plan. That is the requirement for that finding. That is the only requirement for that finding and there's a statement that says what a wildlife conservation plan is, which they have complied with." Commissioner Amos expressed his strong support of private rights. He stated there are some things that transcend private rights; some things are "community rights"-this is one. The town rece'ives income from sales tax that is intended for open space and trails; the town has chosen to d6vote to the funds to trails. If the town is advertising Elk Fest, Elktober, "come view the elk and listen to the bugles," then the town might want to consider supporting the elk in some fashion since they generate income for the town. These funds could be devoted to open space. If the town were looking at open space areas, it might believe this property has a high priority for protection because the tourists and residents want to see the elk and their movements. Commissioner Hull noted the developer's own wildlife impact assessment states on page 12, "Reportedly 15% of Estes Park sales tax revenues or approximately one million dollars per year is manifested by the ability of visitors to readily view elk within the town limits." Commissioner Klink noted the town spent $400,000 to help with the purchase of Hermit Park and voted to spend $217,000 per year to subsidize the performing arts center, as well as providing the land for art center to be built on. It is not right to take away the applicant's property rights because the Planning Commission has decided open space is a priority. It needs to be a community decision; people of the town should put their money where their mouth is. Commissioner Amos pointed out that the Town, in conjunction with the Land Trust, purchased the nine-acre property "across the river" and devoted several million dollars to purchase the Knoll/Willows property. However, there is not a coordinated effort toward preserving land. Expressed appreciation for Town participation in the purchase of the Hermit Park property. Commission Grant stated a better approach to open-space planning is needed. Estes Park is a rich town given its budget relative to its 8,000 residents. It was moved (Amos) to DISAPPROVE Development Plan 07-13, Wapiti Crossing Condominiums, based on the fact that proposed changes to the plan are not significant enough to mitigate problems in the calving area or to provide sufficient corridors for the elk. The motion was not seconded and was WITHDRAWN by Commissioner Amos. Commissioner Amos requested that Town Trustee Homeier convey to the Town Board his request that a concerted effort toward open space be made in the future. He noted the Town's ongoing wildlife study, stating it could include recommendlitions for future protection of some areas. Requested the town move forward on that. Commissioner Klink suggested interested members of the public contact the Town Board, noting it may not be too late to purchase the property from the developer. Commissioner Tucker requested Town Trustee Homeier convey a request from the Planning Commission and from staff that the effort to protect wildlife be placed on a fast track, stating he did not want to have the same conversation again about another piece of property. Expressed his desire for a Code change to provide the Commissioners the ability to make more black- and-white decisions. Commissioner Grant stated his agreement and his desire for better clarification. It was moved and seconded (KlinWKitchen) to approve Development Plan 07-13, Wapiti Crossing Condominiums, Lot 22, S. St. Vrain Addition, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff; and the motion PASSED. Those voting in favor: Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker. Those voting against: Amos and Hull. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with mitigation techniques set forth in the Wildlife Conservation Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, prepared by Roe Ecological Services. The phasing plan mitigation technique shall be further refined to graphically outline phasing areas. 2. The landscaping plan shall include the required number of street frontage and district buffer trees (per Section 7.5.F), which shall not be located within the proposed 80-foot wildlife corridor and shall provide a movement corridor through the southwest corner. All required conifers trees shall be eight (8) feet tall, and all required deciduous trees shall be 4" DBH. Because of the tree size, shrubs shall not be required. 3. Staff shall approve final site design, provided revisions fall within parameters set forth in Section 3.7.Al "Staff Minor Modifications to Approved Final Plans" and Staff finds compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. The applicant shall submit a complete site plan, containing all submittal requirements outlined in Appendix B, no later than July 23,2008. 4. All dogs and cats shall be kept inside of the units, except that the dog or cat may be out of doors if it is under the effective control of a person, as defined in the Estes Park Municipal Code. This condition shall be included in future condominium declarations. 5. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits. 6. Compliance with the following memos (as may be amended to address changes to the site design): a. From Jeff Boles to Bob Goehring dated August 22,2007. b. From James Duell to Dave Shirk dated August 16, 2007. c. From Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated August 24,2007. Keirstin K. Beck Attorney WaterStreet PackardDierking 2595 Canyon Boulevard Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 303.447.0450 Fax: 303.447.0451 kbeck@packarddierking.com ~~ LOFTUS ~_DEVELOPMENTS August 6,2008 Mayor John Baudek and Members of the Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Rei Wapiti Crossing Development Plan (DP 07-13)(the "Application") Dear Mayor and Members of the Board of Trustees, On June 18, 2008, certain Estes Park residents appealed the Estes Valley Planning Commission's (the "Planning Commission") decision of May 20, 2008, approving the Wapiti Crossing development plan (the "Appeal"). This letter is intended to serve as the Applicant's response to the Appeal. The Planning Commission properly applied the applicable review criteria set forth in Estes Valley Development Code (the "Code"). Section 3.8 (D) of the Code sets forth the standard of review for a development plan application: 1) The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in this Code; and 2) The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and other relevant land uses, parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans. The Application properly complies with all of the requirements of the Code, including the preparation of a wildlife conservation plan. The subject property is zoned RM- Multi-family residential. This zoning designation has been in place since 1961 and has been reaffirmed by the most recent Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to Table 4-1 of the Code, single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, town home dwelling and multi- family dwelling are all considered uses permitted by right on the subject property. The Application meets all ofthe standards set forth in the Code for approval. Contrary to the assertions set forth in the Appeal, the Code does not provide a basis for denial of a development plan based upon significant impact to wildlife. Rather, it requires the Applicant to prepare a wildlife conservation plan to mitigate impacts on wildlife. The Applicant has properly satisfied this requirement and all other requirements of the Code. ,<k 2595 Canyon Boulevard â€¢ Suite 250 â€¢ Boulder, Colorado 80302 â€¢ Phone (303) 938-1329 â€¢ Fax (303) 531-843 I Member For the reasons stated herein, the Applicant respectfully requests the Board uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. ~S*erely, /-17Lib X,-a.Fl 1 /JiM Loftus /~ 1 7 4/ cc: Dave Shirk Bob Joseph Greg White Jackie Williamson Mike Todd Steve Loos Keirstin Beck ~VILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE ~VAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION ESTES PARK, COLORADO * - 11 -4 41-' 84'-I'll-*Â¥" -9LM - I .i,0 ; 14 . 2-*.23<12 4---2....__ 1 Â£18(*# .4 ... I. . 2 -*Â¥1.-2-m R.2-) I el-- -=Ii-~/~4*- # - 601-ill Updated - 5 August 2008 PREPARED FOR C:> The Ton n of Estes Park Community Development Department P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Ave. Estes Park. Colorado 80517 ON BEHALF OF Â» Packard and Dierking, LLC WaterStreet 2595 Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 PREPARED BY 4> Christopher Roe, Certified Wildlife Biologist ROE ECOLOGICAL ~ERVICES, LLC PO Box 1168 Berthoud, Colorado 80513 (970) 532-1305 FAX (970) 532-1306 TOLL FREE (866) 4-Wildlife (494-5354) Por Prou. DED L.PE www.YourWildlife.com h. J 3 ~~ TM -8:3 =- Q-05-r EEG 1 0 EDÂ«-Ey. h.36-E 1-WE Cbco....~kyT f'C. E-â‚¬ Â¥ f EuL E.Â£2> 112*LLE TAALE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction.. ....... 5 2. Site and General Habitat Description 6 3. Current Wildlife Usage.............................. 8 4. Potential Adverse Impacts of Proposed Development............................ .................... ................. 8 4.1. Potential Impacts to a Wildlife Viewing Area......... ......... . 10 4.2. Potential Impacts to Loafing and Foraging Resources................................................ ..... ... 10 4.3. Potential Impacts to Elk and Other Wildlife Movement ... ....... ...... 10 4.4. Potential Impacts to Elk and Deer Calving/Fawning 4.5. Potential Impacts Concerning Nuisance Wildlife/Bear Issues. ....... ............ ............................... 11 5. Mitigation Measures and their Probability of Success............ ........................ 11 5.1. General Development Impact Mitigation Measureq 13 5.1.1. Phased Development Schedule 13 5.1.2. Timing Restrictions for Initiation of Construction Activities.......................... ...... ...... .... 14 5.1.3. Limited Landscaping and Fencing Recommendations............................................. .......... 14 5.1.4. Household Pet Management Considerations.. 15 5.2. Mitigation Measures Concerning Wildlife Viewing Opportunities ... .......... 15 5.3. Mitigation Measures Concerning Loafing and Foraging Resources . 16 5.4. Mitigation Measures Concerning Elk and Other Wildlife Movement..................................... ......... 17 5.5. Mitigation Measures Concerning Elk and Deer Calving/Fawning....................................... ... 19 5.6. Mitigation Measures Concerning Nuisance Wildlife/Bear Issues................... ...................... 20 6. Maintenance and Monitoring of Mitigation Measures 21 7. Restoration Measureq 21 8. Demonstrated Ability to Execute Plan ........... ......... 22 Figures 1. Vicinity and visual characteristics of Lot 22 and the future Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development in Estes Park, Colorado 7 2. Original proposed Site Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development in Estes Park, Colorado............................. ................... ........9 3. Revised proposed Site Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Estes Park, Colorado. Note changes in open space comdors, the elimination of a housing unit, and the revised location of the access drive into the multi-family building..................................... .................. 12 4. Photos taken 29 December 2007 showing examples of landscape fencing near Lot 22 that can beconsidered highly restrictive tomovement of elk and other wildlife................... ...................... ....... 15 5. Revised proposed Site Plan showing existing primary movement corridor and post-construction movement corridor. ............ ... 18 Notice of Copyright Â© 2008. All photos and language contained herein are the exclusive property of Roe Ecological Services, LLC, and may not be reproduced except as a part of this document. This report represents an original work created by Roe Ecological Services, LLC. This report may be reproduced only in its entirety, with no portion omitted or substituted at any time or used as a part of any other document. Roe Ecological Services, LLC, reserves the right to use any or all language or data contained herein for any print or electronic document. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 1 *** On 9 April 2008, the Wildlife Conservation Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22 Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado was submitted to the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department for review and discussion at the 20 May 2008 Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. During the meeting, extensive discussion was had between members of the Planning Commission, the Development team, the CDOW, and the general public regarding various aspects of the Plan, and whether or not the Plan, and the Development in general, adequately addressed the wildlife issues previously identified. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Planning Commission voted to approve the Development Plan per the conditions set forth withinthe Conservation Plan and specific requirements setforthby Town Staff On 18 June 2008, however, members of the public appealed the Planning Commission's decision, requiring the Development proposal to be heard before the Town of Estes Park Board ofTrustees. In order to provide the Town of Estes Park, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the general public -with the most up-to-date and accurate representation of the Development's proposed actions, restrictions, and associated mitigation measures, the Conservation Plan was updated on 5 August 2008. *** WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND On 8 January 2008, the Estes Park Board of Trustees recommended that the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development plan be remanded back to the Town of Estes Park Planning Commission for their review of a Wildlife Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 7.8.F.4 ofthe Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). This recommendation followed the declaration of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) that it believed the proposed Development would create a "significant impact to the individual deer and elk that chose to fawn or calve on the property." Because the Development's Wildlife Conservation Plan (Plan) would be the first Plan created under the EVDC, a meeting was held on 12 February 2008 between Town staff, the CDOW, Development representatives, and Roe Ecological Services, LLC (RES), to discuss Plan requirements, Town expectations, Plan review procedures, and other topics requiring clarification. In that meeting it was determined that the Plan should include discussions regarding all potential wildlife impacts stemming from the proposed Development, not just the identified impacts that triggered development of the Plan, and the measures to be taken to mitigate these impacts. Based on these requirements, on discussions with Town of Estes Park staff and the CDOW, and on assessments previously made in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report for the Development, it was decided that the Plan would address: 1) The potential impacts upon a highly valued, locally important, wildlife viewing area (primarily for elk, but, to a lesser extent, also deer and other wildlife), and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; 2) The potential impacts upon daily and seasonal loafing and foraging resources for elk and other wildlife, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts: 3) The potential impacts upon elk and other wildlife movement across the property, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts. 4) The potential impacts upon elk and deer calving/fawning that may occur on the property and in the surrounding area, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; and 5) The potential impacts the Development might have on human interactions with nuisance wildlife or bears within the area, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts. MITIGATION EFFORTS To minimize general development impacts, recommendations were made by RES and the Development team during the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment. These recommendations included: 1) A phased development schedule; WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 1 2) Restrictions on timing of construction activities; 3) Limited landscaping recommendations: and 4) Household pet management considerations. These recommendations will be implemented during the development of Lot 22, and will enhance mitigation efforts regarding the individual issues of concern. A phased development schedule will reduce the overall impact of construction activities upon wildlife, and will allow wildlife to grow accustomed to changes in habitat characteristics over several years. Timing restrictions on construction activities will help ensure that elk and/or deer that choose to calve/fawn within or immediately adjacent to Lot 22 will not be impacted by development activities while they have dependent young of limited mobility. Limiting the scope and nature of landscaping as it relates to trees and shrubs should ensure that movement conidors, loafing and foraging areas, and wildlife viewing areas remain open with minimal obstructions. Landscaping restrictions will also help to minimize the need for protective landscape fencing, and limit its extent. By not allowing pets within the development, or at least by ensuring that dogs remain indoors unless accompanied by their owners, disturbance to wildlife and adjacent landowners by barking dogs will be eliminated or greatly reduced. To minimize impacts upon wildlife viewing opportunities across the site, the revised site plan now conserves approximately 64% of the property as undeveloped area under native vegetation. A large portion of this area is adjacent to, or can be readily seen from, Highway 7 or Lexington Lane, as it can be today. Because the continuation of Golf Course Road will be a public right-of-way, residents and visitors will be able to use this road and adjacent sidewalks for wildlife viewing in the interior of the newly developed property as well. The revised site plan also provides for increased open areas along the established primary movement corridor and staging areas within the northern half ofthe property, while clustering development toward the center of the property. This revision should provide for an increase in the overall total contiguous area available for seasonal elk staging/rutting activities and associated viewing opportunities over the original site plan. Additionally, development of the property will occur under a phased construction schedule, with the northern housing block (units Al-A7) being built first, and subsequent housing blocks being built in a southerly progression over several years. This should allow: 1) Wildlife viewing opportunities to be preserved to their maximum allowable extent in southern portions of the property as construction takes place; and 2) Animals utilizing the property to acclimate to construction activities over time, which willlikely maintain some level of wildlife use on the open portions ofthe property for wildlife viewing. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 2 To minimize impacts upon elk and deer foraging and loafing areas across Lot 22, the revised site plan now conserves approximately 64% of the property as undeveloped areas under native vegetation. With the exception of landscaping at the entrance areas of the various residential units, the majority of the site's open space will remain open: native grassland that will continue to provide loafing and foraging areas for wildlife wishing to utilize the property both during and after construction. To further reduce impacts upon loafing and foraging resources, the revised site plan provides for increased open areas along established movement corridors and staging areas within the northern half of the property, while clustering development toward the center of the property. To minimize potential impacts upon elk and other wildlife movement corridors across Lot 22, the Development team revised the site plan to provide for a wider, more unobstructed, movement corridor through the developed property. The revised corridor is 80 feet wide, and closely matches the orientation of the existing primary movement corridor through the property. Additionally, an entire housing unit was removed from the area north of the multi-family building, and the multi-family building itself was shifted south and away from the west property line, to open up the movement corndor through this portion of the property. This alignment should allow, and even encourage post-construction elk movement through the property along a corridor that is similar to the corridor that currently exists on the property. Additionally, the revised site plan designates approximately 64% of the property as undeveloped area under native vegetation. To further ensure that these corridors are left as open as possible for elk and other wildlife movement, if the requested landscaping variance is granted, landscaping obstructions within the corridors will be minimal to non-existent. Likewise, fencing on the developed site will be minimized to a great extent by allowing only fencing that is directly needed for the protection of individual tree trunks. Although the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report dispels many ofthe arguments regarding a possible increase in elk/vehicle collisions, to further reduce this potential, if the requested landscaping variance is granted, no trees will be planted along Highway 7 that could interfere with motorists' ability to notice wildlife staging on the property or crossing Highway 7. In discussions with the CDOW regarding the Wildlife Conservation Plan, and specifically the Development's impact on a potential elk and deer calving/fawning area, the CDOW expressed a desire to have as great a buffer as possible between the preserved area on the extreme south end of the property and future housing units. In an effort to provide for this request within the scope of the Development and to minimize potential impacts of the Development on calving/fawning activities, several development restrictions and land-use concessions were made. First, timing restrictions on the initiation of construction activities, while not providing a physical buffer, will provide a temporal buffer by prohibiting the initiation of construction activities during the most critical stage of elk and deer annual life cycles, namely calving/fawning. Second, a phased development schedule across the entire site WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 3 should also allow wildlife to acclimate to construction activities, and to reductions in overall open space and buffer areas over time. Third. in an effort to create a physical buffer between potential calving/fawning areas and pedestrian traffic, access to and from the proposed multi-family building has been moved to the north end of the building. Although this modification moves the building itself slightly closer to the preserved area, it should remove nearly all daily human activity from the identified potential calving/fawning habitat. Finally, designating the existing cabin as a community building, and placing seasonal use-restrictions on when the cabin can be utilized, will reduce potential daily disturbance to animals utilizing the preserved portion of the property and areas around the cabin as a calving/fawning area. To further reduce potential disturbance outside seasonal closures, access to the cabin will be restricted to a sidewalk running between the south side of the multi-family building and the northern- most comer of the cabin. Because many issues surrounding nuisance wildlife/bear issues come as a direct result of individual household and personal non-compliance with State laws, Colorado Wildlife Commission regulations, and CDOW recommendations for garbage, barbeque grill, bird feeder, pet food, etc., maintenance and storage, this Plan will not be able to address all concerns that may pertain to this issue. However, the proposed Development plan outlines the construction of bear-proof trash enclosures throughout the property, and the Development team will work with RES and the CDOW to develop a design that will be the most cost-effective for the Development and the level of concern for the area. Additionally, the Development team will ensure that bear-proof dumpsters be installed within the enclosures to further reduce any likelihood of nuisance wildlife/bear issues. The Development team will ensure that bear-proo f dumpsters be on site during construction phases as well. The applicant agrees to follow the recommendations set forth within this Conservation Plan and will work with Town Staff to create a suitable process for monitoring compliance with the mitigation measures set forth within this Plan through periodic inspection of construction progress by the Development team, Town staff, the CDOW, and RES as needed. Because most mitigation measures will be built into the Development and construction guidelines, very little monitoring will need to be conducted once mitigation measures are in place. Maintenance of established fencing structures, trash enclosures, and bear proof dumpsters will be the responsibility of the future management company and/or homeowner's association once housing units are constructed. In addition, the applicant will impose private covenants for the Development that will ensure all on-going mitigation measures will be adhered to over time. The private covenants for the Development will be submitted for review to the Town Staff before recordation. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 4 1. INTRODUCTION In December 2007, Packard and Dierking, LLC, retained Roe Ecological Services, LLC (RES), to conduct an elk and wildlife impact assessment for the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development (Development) of Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, in Estes Park, Colorado. The purpose of this assessment was to determine the potential impacts of this development on elk and other wildlife making use of the property, the surrounding subdivisions, and the area as a whole. After a comprehensive review of the property itself, the surrounding subdivisions, the proposed development plan, the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Comprehensive Plan, Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) reports, the effects of past development within the Estes Valley on elk. and pertinent scientific literature concerning elk behavior and management as it relates to disturbance and development impacts, RES concluded: 1) The proposed Development would significantly alter the character of a highly valued local wildlife viewing area: 2) The Development would cause a moderate reduction in the total amount of available forage and areas open for elk foraging and staging, however, this reduction would not create a long-term significant impact to the population of elk utilizing the area annually: 3) The Development would alter the character of the existing movement corridor, however, this alteration would not cause a long-term significant impact to elk movement through or around the property: and 4) The Development would not create a long-term significant impact upon the population of elk or deer that chose to calve or fawn within the immediate area, or the region east of Prospect Mountain. On 8 January 2008, RES presented the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report to the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees. along with additional testimony by the Mulhern Group (project architects for the proposed Development) and members of the public. At the conclusion of the presentations and public comment the CDOW was asked if it concurred with the assessment presented by RES. After much discussion, the CDOW stated it â€ž1 believed the Development would create a "significant impact on the wildlife as it pertains to calving and fawning. After further discussion, and based primarily on this statement alone, the Board of Trustees recommended that the proposed Development plan be remanded back to the Town of Estes Park Planning Commission for their review of a Wildlife Conservation Plan concerning the proposed Development pursuant to Section 7.8.F.4 of the EVDC.2 Under Section 7.8.H.2 ofthe EVDC, any Wildlife Conservation Plan should contain, at a minimum: 1) A description of the ownership, location, type, size, and other wildlife habitat attributes of the identified property and proposed development site: 2) A description of the wildlife species that inhabit or use the site, including a qualitative description of their WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 5 spatial distribution and abundance; 3) An analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site; 4) A list of proposed mitigation measures and an analysis of the probability of success of such measures, 5) A plan of any relevant enhancement or restoration measures; and 6) A demonstration of fiscal, administrative, and technical competence of the applicant or other relevant entity to successfully execute the plan. Because the Development's Wildlife Conservation Plan (Plan) would be the first plan created under the EVDC, a meeting was held on 12 February 2008 between Town staff, the CDOW, Development representatives, and RES to discuss Plan requirements, Town expectations, Plan review procedures, and other matters requiring clarification. In that meeting it was determined that the Plan should include discussions regarding all potential wildlife impacts stemming from the proposed Development, notjust the identified impacts that triggered development of the Plan, and the measures to be taken to mitigate these impacts. Based on these requirements, and on discussions with Town of Estes Park staff, the CDOW, and on assessments previously made in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report, it was decided that the Plan would address: 1) The potential impacts upon a highly valued, locally important, wildlife viewing area (primarily for elk but also, to a lesser extent, deer and other wildlife), and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; 2) The potential impacts upon daily and seasonal loafing and foraging resources for elk and other wildlife, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; 3) The potential impacts upon elk and other wildlife movement across the property, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; 4) The potential impacts upon elk and deer calving/fawning that may occur on the property and in the surrounding area, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts; and 5) The potential impacts the Development might have on nuisance wildlife/bear interactions within the area, and the efforts to be taken to minimize these potential impacts. 2. SITE AND GENERAL HABITAT DESCRIPTION The proposed Development will occur within Lot 22 of the South Saint Vrain Addition ofthe Town of Estes Park, lying generally west of the Estes Park 18-Hole Golf Course (Golf Course) and Highway 7. The parcel lies east of the Village Acres subdivision, southeast ofthe Elk Hollow subdivision, north of the Pine Knolls subdivision, and west of the Eagle Landing and Eagle View Condominiums (Figure 1). The site has two components. a WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 6 Street Arlas USA, 2008 Plu EmEZ!1 N RIDGE LN 181 R AVEN CT St E AME 2 41<Â·f g MuMMY 1-N p 1, -_ -_~_ '146 e 9 57 ..1=0 4 4 L 2 â‚¬ 6 . 9 0 .a : 9- A h F E Qrv 1 Â£ 8 . Ar 4 9 4 f swI . 9 58 ..... -0 9 - I= 4/< BEACH LN 2 .1.1 vmstâ€žtAL# \1 -5(B r- BO'10 LN *0 ~4- Estes Paik 74 - r- *z 984, t . lk- -24-, P. 4 - - Lik, *0 -- - A- 99, 1 5 4# wie,UND Ul) ID / e. ..21 -12-== =B- PAR*VEÂ¥ LN Â·0 - 5 3 gr 'th rn t. 8 - 9 OUNRAVEN ST -5~ --4-><* 17_12 Â» 5 'tes P alk M...1 C.nhi -4 0 i,%3. 4 t '0 W 4 OC 2 3 *Ker N~>k 8 4 2-1% 5 7 13 Z 4 RNERÂ·NOE OR g. SAINT wRAINU'$ . I . t, CGJ 9.- ik 4 a 9 y I)*4 2 . 9 4 1, u b 44. " S 1 S O -661/61/6,6,66& 1 LN 8 POWELLY /4 6'r, . W : A - 2 5 5 5'ZE[>AR LN (3 WIND>kAM CT 0 / 4 3/4 PPCGPECT MOUNTAIN DR. w <1 DEIGN DE 3 14< 2 WILLOW LN If 0,â€ž 3 - m 70 â€¢ i % 6 30 C'UB RD 15 - ~ 4Â¢ BROOK DR LOVEÂ© 0 Inn z 4 2 <41 0 ~ ~ DEKKER cm 1 k . 0 3 I m PINEWOOD LN 00 0 5 9 14 y t ..1.:.74' 6252(.3 $<t <0 & - 15)$/66. i e y .0 4 CARRUGe R y 3.0 11 "" t:-4 : MI-â€¢tâ€¢r % C BROOK LN *>ttp HIEDI A WAY LN Krug. wtqSPFRING Plfit-9 OR. . to<, 5 5 TYROLERNE LN Ef 2z dfiCE 1 /* 4Â¥ Data use subject to license. Â©3007 Dearme SkeerAdis USA192008 Plus 0 600 1200 1800 NGO 3000 3600 wm, delorme com MN (9 7Â° E) Data Zoom 13-1 Figure l. Vicinity and visual characteristics of Lot 22 and the future Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development in Estes Park. Colorado. Wi I DLIFIi CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT -ESTES PARK. COLORADO 7 FAR VIEW DR UO 99 00?j~- 167 Wl 3 11* BIRCH AVE Â·00 11!NAWWOO WAPITI DR 00"MUNinÂ· 00 t. e.r 1~3 3.0.fONÂ©k, .LD@d SOkid '49 /2 large. relatively flat. open native grassland meadow covering approximatelv 5.5 acres. and a timbered. rocky. and broken-terrain portion that lies across the remaining approximately 0.4 acres at the extreme south end of the property around an existing cabin. The open grassland meadow currently provides foraging resources. loafing/staging areas, and an unobstructed movement corridor for animals traveling north and south through the area on their wav to and from the Golf Course. The timbered. rocky, broken-terrain portion of the propert> currently provides some foraging resources. a small loafing/bedding area, and a small portion of moderate to high ) quality potential far, ning/calving cover. 3. CURRENT WILDLIFE USAGE Most daily and seasonal wildlife use of Lot 22 is by elk and deer. with reports of limited use by mountain lions, bears. and small mammals such as raccoons, skunks. squirrels. etc.. as weli as by a variety of passerine birds. The ' F site is maink used by elk. and. to a lesser extent. by mule deer. Extent ofelk use varies throughout the year from indi; iduals and small groups (throughout the year) to herds of several hundred (fall and carly winter). Due to the property-s juxtaposition with the Golf Course. large groups ofelk routinely travel across the property on their way to and from the Golf Course. especially during the rut. In recent years. cow elk with calves have been obsen ed foraging on the open grassland meadow during the early summer.3 Deer utilize the properly periodically ~ throughout the year for foraging. travel. and. in the timbered southern portion of the property. to give birth.4 Use of the property by mountain lions and bears is much less frequent than elk or even deer. and is largely incidental as these animals move throughout the surrounding area.- 4. POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Evaluations of potential adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat as a result of the proposed Development are fully explained in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report.6 Briefly stated. analysis of potential adverse impacts of the proposed Development was based on: 1) The original proposed Development site plan (Figure 2); 2) Pre-development properly characteristics: 3) Proposed post-development property characteristics: 4) Known elk. deer. and other wildlife activity within and around Lot 22, and on their behavior in general. and 5) Past development within Estes Park and its impact on elk behavior. movement. and reproduction. WII,I)LIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 20()8 WAPIrr I CROSSIN(} CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK. COI.()RAIX) ' 8 lil 1 c= 81 35 K , 5/41, 'i 1.53 11 8 'aN 1124: 3 1 59! 13 0 14,1:Iii If :i 1 1 : iii 1 wid mi; ibil i iii ii 12 9 9." 3 li i# 01 4 1 1 1% it iii j - i i 4 h i 1 -1; 9 12 1 3 i k ~1345&:1 0 h - n - Ali g :1 ilit *1 11 ! i p Â·!i !! ! ~ :u: L ' " Mii: 111*.MI :31 0 1:Mi!! NUI 4 - im ! a a 40' 490*322*4 iii IIi Â°10!Wi I; iii! 71'/41 14 :lit! 41 1 1' 1 1 ti# 8 11!tils jibill,imilitii:,ilitilt imii:ov- . 2 1" I i LA Ditf:%4 :t Mit, 21 , 1:998 -2 p/!51.i J.~ IN .a -6 ./ I 2:2 7 2 9.-Â· a- I ;77 2 01 /2 W I .1 1 -% W i 19 5 E Il lii mt! 1 33 j# 1 1! 90 141! M 2 11012.-1 1 <47 I *-/*111!1 11;F I 4 |Â·0 'S/ZE u I.Allaii mi i *PlIV r ' ~* ' Â· ?}til * miffi:,ful 6*, i f~ i fÂ»,~'-10 +~ a 4K5i !;ad , 1 h##Rum Mb ~ 4 2-4. 1.1 DIA / d :is. 1,- < 14 11 = - 8 1 16 O Ug 4 I I & Â¥ - .1 4 '1 4 !11\ I 4/ ~ 1 ga. i ili '81 1 4 1\ 5 0 888,2,~U",1 iii!"81:id Alist 1*64 2-/-' ' i / pi 1 itlililiti~11111 18 i Ii}li~itijill imi 11 * 1 ' 5#bwk I 'il f F : 11 \\: 4 lili elli 4!i 11,tillilli\1 F .L Â»@ 0\ 1 42,4 4-::.:3.-/LU..22 4 4 7 \ //SS ; 6 f L - - 13- s *- 3 0 ' t'IIi 6 - 1/ TE i Me S/ 1 4 Vi u Â° .31â€¢6 4 . i< 3_mOEbl..-d |. *01 I e H *IC h It -1 11, 1 4 81 , 9 f #. 3 .. . :117.tkn. ill r g F Ill . : =' ...2.- I: 9*.42 8/M l -----------------12= 11 ./ n 81:. i ~t i , 1 . 31 49- ---7 Figure 2. Original proposed Site Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development in Estes Park. Colorado. WILDI.IFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK. COLORADO 9 .......... ij,~~>0 2 -- =2 2214 STATIXACS NG STA TIST,CS WAPITI OSSI NG CONDOMINIUMS SECTION 31 WNS P 5 NORTH. RANGE 2 , 0, TH'61, P.M.. DE ./.AN UTH *-SECrIONS EVELOPMENT PLAN E TOWN OF ESTES PARK LARIMER 5rATE ~ COLORADO iNDEX: 4.1. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON A WILDLIFE VIEWING AREA As outlined in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report.7 the proposed Development will transform an open park-like meadou into a developed area consistent with other developed areas within Estes Park. significantlv and negatively impacting a highly valued local wildlife viewing area. Post-construction wildlife viewing opportunities from road/highway rights-of-way - although altered - will remain. Open areas in the northeast corner of the j propertv and between buildings will continue to provide wildlife viewing opportunities similar to those in other parts oftown. 4.2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON LOAFING AND FORAGING RESOURCES As outlined in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report.8 the proposed Development will reduce the overall loafing area and quantity of forage available to elk and other wildlife utilizing the Village Acres subdivision and surrounding area. The proposed Development will likely reduce - at least to some degree - the number of elk and , other wildlife species that utilize the property day-to-day, and possibly seasonally It is. however, highly unlikel> that elk or other u ildlife will be. or will be perceived to be. precluded from utilizing the properly altogether. Remaining open space areas between and around proposed buildings will be similar to other developed areas in the surrounding neighborhood. Concerning elk and deer, no significant. long-term impact to the local populations. their generalized activity. or most seasonal movement is expected within the overall area. However. it is recognized that efforts mav need to be made to minimize potential impacts to individual animals utilizing the properly during and after construction. 4.3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON MOVEMENT OF ELK AND OTHER WILDLIFE As outlined in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report.9 the proposed Development should not create a significant impact upon elk movement in the area; the proposed Development should create only a slight to - moderate impact on elk and other wildlife movement. When considering elk specifically. due to the proven attractiveness of the Golf Course to these animals, including a record of elk adjusting their movements around - previous development projects to access it. and to the fact that elk will still be able to move around and through the proposed DeT'elopment based on proposed site plan characteristics. movement ofelk across Highway 7 is expected to continue. How even it is recognized that efforts may need to be made to minimize potential impacts to individual animals choosing to travel across the properly during and after construction. 4.4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON ELK AND DEER CALVING/FAWNING As outlined in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report.1' based on elk and deer calving/fawning behavior. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK. COLORADO 10 typical calving/fawning habitat characteristics. the nature of habitat within the surrounding subdivisions. and the apparent habituation ofelk and deer to urban/suburban environments within Estes Park. RES concluded that the proposed Development would not significantly impact the overall population of elk or deer that chose to calve/fawn in the area east of Prospect Mountain. RES further concluded that with seasonal timing restrictions on when construction actiz ities could be initiated. impacts upon individual elk and deer could be avoided as well. At the 8 January 2008 Board of Trustees meeting, however. the CDOW disagreed with this assessment and stated that it believed the proposed Development would. in fact. 'have a significant impact on the wildlife as it pertains to lelk and deerl calving and fawning."11 This statement by the CDOW provided the impetus behind the generation of this Plan as required under Section 7.8.F.4 of the EVDC. 4.5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS CONCERNING NUISANCE WILDLIFE/BEAR ISSUES During the 8 Januan 2008 Board of Trustees niecting and subsequent meetings. the CDOW expressed continued concern that additional housing units on Lot 22. and generally within the area of the Village Acres subdivision. would likely cause increased instances o f nuisance wildli fe/bear issues. due to the presence o f additional garbage dumpsters. barbeque grills, bird feeders. and other sources of human-related food attractants.12 Because nuisance wildli fe/bear issues have increased dramatically throughout the area in recent years. the CDOW is concerned that additional housing units could greatly exacerbate already problematic conditions within the area. Although not all potential nuisance wildlife/bear issues are expected to be addressed through a Wildlife Consen ation Plan. a desire was expressed by the CDOW to include these concerns K ithin this document along with possible mitigation strategies. 5. MITIGATION MEASURES AND THEIR PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS Although every development requirement and characteristic of the original proposed Development met. or was below. the minimum/maximum development standards as outlined in the EVDC.13 and although the Development team conformed to the initial recommendations for wildlife movement/migration corridors as presented in the 23 April 2()()7 Pre-Application Review Meeting with the Town of Estes Park Planning and Technical Stafflt the Development team revised the proposed Development site plan in an effort to mitigate potential u ildli fe impacts. The revised proposed Development site plan is shown in Figure 3. Because evaluations of the success of mitigation efforts are largely subjective. and because the success of mitigation efforts themselves is based on uncontrollable and often unpredictable factors such as weather. individual animal behaviors and individual human behaviors. the probability of success of identified mitigation measures will be based on the best available knowledge of general wildlife behavior and the outcomes or findings from similar efforts. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONI)OMINHJMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK. COLORAIX) 11 = A-7 f 11 I = 7 T 44 1 14/ - 1 9 1 4 CI '1 1-1 % <.\ =- 1 10 V Zi= 3 zE P *E - -t--1 ; 41 , I. 3-- 1 Ear .a U - i 1 -- -- 7 t --- -- - I - , ~ ~ - . -7 , i J <T / \ 3 'VI 1 's, ....t 2 s Â· r- f--1 ~ ~~ ' 2~ :,1 4 Â· \VÂ» e. 5 0- VA j V./ 2 a r f f: 5.- \ 4 93 0%2 f t -3-4 1. -EZ 1 Â¢ i /1 --5 j E V k Â»/-/-\F - \ ' I 1 I. 1, 1... ./ i ..4 1 3.- L --,2---1 22 2 i/ 5 3 1 ~,1't '4 -4 u . 1.VÂ¥-1 "'L!)â€¢113'1 Figure 3. Revised proposed Site Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development. Estes Park. Colorado. Note changes iii open space corridors the elimination of a housing unit. and the revised location of the access into the multi-family building and existing cabin, WIL])LIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CON] )OMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK. COLORADO 12 .I",1..1'......' ...11/4.0 41'1 11141.\R,UN \4}011 11411 111(.11$0\3 1,1 .*/11/' ft 'fifâ€¢ 1,Â·,â€¢.1-.' ."I, 4 *. I< 1,' 1, { Il I ./.1 (, HRINDOR I,J I I If \Iâ€¢ 1 ...1111 ./.11 Il Il j (Im'll). Pa%! WH /1/.11)lilli. 1,1...1.1 lilli,1 11'.11[1 ' lilli Ill/~ |1| {' I IMI'hl Il ( )~'~ \ 1,~} ' 5.1. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR GENERAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS In an effort to minimize general development impacts. RES and the Development team made several recommendations during the initial Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment. These recommendations. which were presented to the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees during the 8 January 2()()8 presentations.] 3 included 1) A phased development schedule. 2) Timing restrictions on construction activities: 3) Limited landscaping recommendations: and 4) Household pet management considerations. 5.1.1. PHASED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE By phasing the development over multiple years through multiple development stages. wildlife will be able to adjust to habitat alterations over time, Development of the properly will occur from north to south. with additional housing blocks being developed over several years, To further reduce adverse impacts to wildlife throughout the phased development cycles: 1) Physical disturbances will be restricted to those areas slated to be developed during that particular phase of construction. 2) All construction vehicles and ancillarv vehicles will be restricted to a designated parking area or within the bounds of the active construction site: and 3) Dirt/topsoil and other construction materials will be stockpiled within the active construction site or immediately adjacent to the active construction site. Per the proposed construction schedule. Golf Course Road and the northernmost housing block (Units A 1 through A7) will be developed in 2008. During the construction of Gol f Course Road. utilities will be installed and stubbed out in preparation for future development activities across the properly During this phase. utilities installation Will be planned in a way that minimizes native vegetation disturbance by consolidating utilities within single trenches as much as possible. and by extending trenches away from Golf Course Road only as far as absolutely necessan. This w ill help to conserve the greatest amount of native vegetation possible on the site in order to maintain forage resources for wildlife and also limit the potential for noxious weed invasion. Wherever possible, and to the greatest extent possible. utility stubs will be enclosed in either temporan or permanent utility boxes. This should help minimize any potential disturbances of the stubs from wildlife activities. as well as consen e the visual aesthetics of undeveloped portions of the property. 1 f utility stubs are to be marked by 2x4 or 4\4 lumber. all stub markers will be kept close to the ground. ideally no taller than 24 inches. This will WILDLIFE CONS].RVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 13 help maintain the property s visual aesthetics. and ensure that stub markers are less vulnerable to the rutting actiT ities of bull elk (who like to aggressively rub their antlers on saplings and trees of sizes similar to the stub markers) and not knocked over or snapped off. In order to minimize disturbance to wildlife and usable habitat in the southern end of the properly. all construction- related materials and , ehicles will be staged at the north end of the property during initial construction efforts in 2()()8. 1 f the Road and buildings A1 through A7 are to be built in separate stages. materials and vehicles used during Road construction will be staged within the footprint o f the future A 1 through A7 construction envelope. If both are to be constructed together. staging areas will still be placed be at the north end of the property but located ' on the Road. and within and as close to the housing unit construction envelope as possible. Proper staging of construction materials and vehicles will help minimize resource damage and secondary impacts to wildlife choosing to utilize the properly during construction. 5.1.2. TIMING RESTRICTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Iii order to help ensure that construction-related disturbances do not impact either actively nesting migraton birds (which would violate the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act) or elk calving/deer fawning activities (should any animals choose to give birth within the immediate area of Lot 22). construction activities will not be initiated between 1 April and 15 July without a detailed wildlife assessment. in Colorado. deer and elk typically give birth between mid May and mid June, with most nesting migratory birds fledging their young by mid July If construction activities are initiated prior to 1 April. it is expected that most - if not all - animals preparing to nest or give birth in the area will have sufficient time and opportunity to find other suitable sites. Construction activities initiated after 15 Jul> are not likely to impact much if any. bird nesting or deer/elk fawning/calving activity. If initiation o f construction activities is desired between 1 April and 15 July, a detailed u ildlife assessment of bird nesting and/or elk and deer calving/fawning activities on Lot 22 and the immediate adjacent area (within 100 meters of Lot 22) will be carried out by a qualified third part>' prior to the construction activity. If nesting. calring. or fawning animals are observed on Lot 22 or the immediate adjacent area. construction activities will be postponed until such activity has moved out of the area. or until 15 July - whichever comes first. In this way. potential direct impacts to breeding birds and calving/fawning animals can be virtually eliminated. 5.1.3. RECOMMENDATIONS ON LIMITED LANDSCAPING AND FENCING As outlined in the original Development plan, and as maintained in the revised site plan. the Development team plans to request a variance from EVDC requirements regarding landscape plantings pertaining to trees and shrubs. To maximize the Developments efforts toward assuring continued elk viewing. and that movement corridors, and WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CON])OMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK. COI.ORADO 14 loafing. foraging. and staging areas remain as open and free of obstruction as possible. only minimal tree plantings of moderate to large-diameter trees (trees with trunks of no less than four inches in diameter at breast height) is desired. By allowing the Development team not \.o plant shrubs. and to keep tree plantings to a minimum. protective landscape fencing can also be kept to an absolute minimum. Under the desired landscape plan for this Development. fencing would be restricted to the protection of individual trunks only - not to tree clumps or tree canopies. As can be seen throughout Estes Park. landscape fencing around small trees and shrubs can severely limit the width and use of movement corridors and available forage areas (Figure 4). On this property. excessive tree plantings and landscape fencing would serve to further restrict potential wildlife movement around mid between lieu buildings and to reduce the success o f this mitigation strategy. IF<.kÂ·rw k U- 1 44, - .A...; .4. 2 , ==131 F--7- m.-1- .*%*4 :. 4 I.P..P.. "Frtip...7 Â· -Â· - - - i, 0. .' ..46 . 3 -liu. -' j 4 1_fl 1, Figures 4. Photos taken 29 December 2007 showing examples oflandseape fencing near Lot 22 that can be considered highly restrictive to moveinent ofelk and other wildlife. 5.1.4. HOUSEHOLD PET MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS In order to further reduce adverse impacts to wildlife. ideallv residents should not be allowed to keep certain kinds of pets. especially dogs. on the property. If a no dogs" restriction is not possible for this Development. then the next best option from a wildlife standpoint would be for the Development's restrictive covenants to require that dogs (ideally all pets) be kept inside residences unless under the direct control of the owner. In general. ally covenants that will reduce the likelihood of -dogs (or cats) at large" and barking dogs from the property will greatly minimize adverse impacts on daily and seasonal u-ildlife use of the property and the surrounding area. 5.2. MITIGATION MEASURES CONCERNING WILDLIFE VIEWING OPPORTUNITIES In an effort to provide for open space and u ildli fe movement corridors. the revised proposed Development plan now consen es approximately 64% of the properly as undeveloped area under native vegetation. A large portion o f WIL])LIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAI)ITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK COLORAL)O 15 this area is adjacent to. or can be readily seen from. Highway 7 or Lexington Lane. as is the case today. Because the continuation of Golf Course Road u ill be a public right-of-way, residents and visitors will be able to use the Road and adjacent sidewalks for wildlife viewing within the interior of the newly developed property as well. To further reduce impacts on elk viewing opportunities in particular. the revised proposed Development plan provides for increased open areas along the established primary movement corridor and staging areas within the northern half of the property. while clustering development toward the center of the property. This revision not onlv allows for increased efficiency in movement of animals across the developed property, but it also provides for an increase in the overall total contiguous area available for seasonal elk staging/rutting activities within the property over the original site plan. As was outlined in the original site plan. open space con-idors are oriented in a northeast/southwest direction that should allow wildlife viewing from Highway 7 into the interior ofthe property, similar to the manner in which the properly is viewed currently. To further ensure the unobstructed sightability of elk and other wildlife utilizing the property during and after construction, no trees will be planted along Highway 7 (assuming a variance in landscaping requirements as requested). Beyond the physical characteristics of the De elopment itsel f. development of the property u ill occur under a phased construction schedule. the northern housing block (units A1-A7) being built first. and subsequent housing blocks being built in a southerly progression over several years. This should allow: 1) Wildlife viewing opportunities to be presen ed to their maximum allowable extent in southern portions of the propeny as construction takes place. and 2) Animals utilizing the properly to acclimate to construction activities over time. which will likely maintain some level of wildlife use on the open portions of the property for wildlife viewing. As was discussed in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report:Â° because many elk and deer within Estes Park are highly habituated to human presence and human-induced disturbances. acclimation to construction activities and changes to their environment. especially under a phased construction schedule, should be fairly rapid. 5.3. MITIGATION MEASURES CONCERNING LOAFING AND FORAGING RESOURCES As mentioned above, the proposed Development plan now conserves approximately 64% of the property as undeveloped area under native vegetation. With the exception of landscaping at the entrance areas o f the various residential units. most of the site's open space will remain open. native grassland that will continue to provide loafing and foraging areas for wildlife wishing to utilize the property during and after construction. Per the EVDC. disturbed areas will also be re-seeded to native grasses and forbs. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAI)ITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK. COLORADO 16 To further reduce impacts on loafing and foraging resources. the revised proposed Development plan provides for increased open areas along established movement corridors and staging areas within the northern half of the properly. while clustering development toward the centerofthe properly This revision notonly allows for increased efficiency in movement of animals across the developed property. but also provides for an increase in the overall total contiguous area available for seasonal elk loafing/staging/rutting activities within the property over the original site plan. Additionally. the phased construction schedule should allow wildlife to acclimate to construction activities and reductions in open space/forage over time. which will help maintain wildlife use of grassland areas on the property during and after construction. As was discussed in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report.17 because many elk and deer within Estes Park are highly habituated to human presence and human-induced disturbances. acclimation to construction activities and changes to their environment. especially under a phased construction schedule. should be fairly rapid. 5.4. MITIGATION MEASURES CONCERNING MOVEMENT of ELK AND OTHER WILDLIFE Although the original site plan technically met the requirements ofthe Town and CDOW concerning wildlife movement corridors.'h the Development team revised the Development site plan in an effort to provide for a wider. more unobstructed. movement corridor through the developed property. As can be seen in Figure 5. the revised corridor is 80 feet wide. and closely matches the orientation of the existing primary corridor through the property. Additionally. an entire housing unit was removed from the area north of the multi-family building. and the multi- family building u as shifted south and away from the w est property line. to open up the movement corridor through this portion of the property. This alignment should allow. and even encourage. post-construction elk movement through the property between the southwest and northeast corners of Lot 22 (and to and from the Golf Course) via the primary north-south corridor - similar to the way in which the animals currently move across the property This revision should help minimize any barriers to movement that elk might perceive. Although reduced in width. a secondanT corridor is maintained through the center and around the eastern edge of the property. As outlined previously. these open-space corridors are oriented in a general northeast/southwest direction in an effort to accommodate the majority of wildlife movement across the property. The designation of approximately 64% of the property as undeveloped area under native vegetation should increase the attractiveness of the area to deer and elk for movement. loafing. or foraging To further ensure that these col-ridors are left as open as possible for elk and other wildlife movement if the requested landscaping variance is granted, landscaping obstructions u ithin the corridors will be minimal to non- WILDI.IFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 17 Z. , 92 E i L , ..- .. 47 . - 1 -- ' -4- j 4 7 5 3% O 4,\ PE f'- l ; 0% 6 t i % .0 i - 6 ND ~- - L 11 .4 322 .E = IE= = :EE /. I ' O +- E 3 9 *.f ' 1- 3 =52 --a = Â©j Eff---1 C 23 41/Â» 0- - ==. 2 1 4 . 7 0-*K1 0. f -25 *. C\ - I i *5 .5 1 1 -5- - 7 022 --- c L5- AL ---- i t. -' ~1+ - - , . 1. i t.1 * . 2 4 - = 4 f A- 1 ; , r . --1 -1 -1 i - V . =32 - I I. - - - - Â·Ar I- 1 9 \\ -,1 , r .Z fYi / 52 'Ir -- ZIE , - 1,#. 11 *34 1 5 4 \ i : L/-1 X37 - , C - 3*4'1 g,[â€¢141\Â·11 Figure 5. Revised proposed Site Plan showing existing primary movement corridor across the property and the modified post-construction movement corridor. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK. COLORADO 18 . t.'./1. .41 % 01111,1 \ R 8, Â·A I NDE-M \'il Ili,11,~A V| \.. 7 ue[d a 6) Pax!Â·laH 141 iii cil){ilÂ·l "tÂ·lit (r)121'11)1,1 Blr~lpe#BpÂ° /11,1 /1 lili'l ili U 11'(1}'~;312,~: ; 1,1,21'! ; (ti'#1111~:TI t ,~:,~ I' P RE[ ~ existent. Likewise. as outlined in Section 5.1.3., fencing on the developed site will be minimized to a great extent by allowing only fencing that is directly needed for the protection of individual tree trunks. The phased construction schedule should further reduce overall impacts to elk and other wildlife mo, ement by allowing animals to acclimate to construction activities and reductions in open space overa period o f several years. Phased development will help ensure thal wildlife have the ability to move across the properly during and after construction. As u as discussed in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment ReporO because many elk and deer within Estes Park are highly habituated to human presence and human-induced disturbances acclimation to construction activities and changes in their environment should be fairly rapid. Although the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report dispels many of the arguments regarding a possible 20 increase in elk/vehicle collisions. to further reduce this potential. if the requested landscaping variance is granted. no trees will be planted along Highway 7 that could interfere with motorists ability to notice wildlife staging on the properly or crossing Highway 7. Additionally. maintaining the current Highway 7 elk crossing area at the northeast corner of Lot 22. and discouraging elk from crossing in other areas. should further reduce concerns over increased vehicle/wildlife collisions, Although no statement of this measure's potential for success in reducing elk/vehicle collisions can be made. maintenance of existing. known crossings. and efforts to reduce visual obstructions along roadways in areas of high wildlife activity arc generally viewed as favorable for reducing wildlife/vehicle collisions. 5.5. MITIGATION MEASURES CONCERNING ELK AND DEER CALVING/FAWNING In discussions with the CDOW regarding this Plan and specifically regarding this topic the CDOW expressed a desire to have as great a bu ffer as possible between the timbered. rocky broken terrain area to be preserved on the extreme south end of the property (the area containing the highest quality calving/fawning habitat on the property).21 and future housing units.-- In evaluating this request. RES considered several issues. These included: I) The fact that most elk and deer that choose to calve/fawn within the Town of Estes Park and the region east of Prospect Mountain are likely highly habituated to human presence. 2) The fact that elk and deer within the Town of Estes Park and the region east of Prospect Mountain have been known to calve/fawn vcr>Â· close to buildings and areas of human disturbance,-1 3) The fact that no known specific distance between the timbered area and future buildings can be identified as a minimuni distance. or even an "appropriate' distance for a proposed buffer as it relates to habituated elk and deer activitv. 4) The fact that no known mitigation effort similar to that being requested here can be used as a template. or WILDI.IFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK. COLORADO 19 allow for any evaluation o f success of the mitigation effort: 5) The fact that no baseline data are av ailable to assess the current or historical level ofcalving/fawning on Lot 22 as it relates to the surrounding area. or the general region east of Prospect Mountain. other than the incidental sightings of calves/fau-ns by the CDOW and members of the public in recent years. and 6) The fact that further modifications of the proposed Dev elopment site plan regarding the southern portion of the property (due to previous modifications of the site plan to enhance the primary' movement corridor and the overall area in ailable for elk and wildlife viewing. loafing, foraging. and staging) are limited. Given these considerations. several efforts were made in an attempt to address concerns over potential impacts to individual animals that choose to calve/fawn on. or immediately adjacent to. Lot 22. First. timing restrictions will be in place that preclude the initiation of construction activities between 1 April and 15 July each year without a detailed wildlife assessment ofnesting, calving. and/or fauning activity. As outlined in Section 5.1.2., this restriction should ensure that animals actively nesting. giving birth, and/or caring for highly dependant young u ith limited mobility between those dates are protected from the initiation of any construction activ ities on the propert> While not proi iding a physical buffer timing restrictions should help provide a temporal buffer between human disturbance and potential calving/fawning activities. Second. as previously outlined. a phased de,dopment schedule should allow wildlife to acclimate to construction activities, and grow accustomed to reductions in overall open space and buffer areas between the timbered portion and new buildings over time. As was discussed in the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Report,24 because many elk and deer within Estes Park are highk habituated to human presence and human-induced disturbances. acclimation to construction activities and changes in their environment should be fairly rapid. Third, as depicted in the revised Development site plan. access to and from the proposed multi-family building was moved to the north end of the building. Although this modification moves the building slightly closer to the timbered area, it should remove nearly all daily human activity, as it relates to the multi-family building. from the identified potential calving/fawning habitat. Finally. the existing cabin will be utilized simply as a community building," which will be governed by seasonal use restrictions during the months of May and June. As depicted in Figure 3, access to the cabin will be restricted to a sidewalk running between the south side ofthe multi-family building and the northern-most corner ofthe cabin. Although a single. large buffer could not be provided, nearly all potential disturbance(s) to elk and/or deer that choose localve/fawn u ithin the forested preserved area as a result of the Development may be avoided through the spatial and temporal buffers created via the restrictions, construction phasing. and general considerations outlined above. 5.6. MITIGATION MEASURES CONCERNING NUISANCE WILDLIFE/BEAR ISSUES Because many issues surrounding nuisance wildlife/bear issues come as a direct result of individual household and WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK. COLORADO 2() personal non-compliance with State laws, Colorado Wildlife Commission regulations, and CDOW recommendations for garbage. barbeque grill. bird feeder. pet food. etc., maintenance and storage. this Plan will not be able to address all concerns that may pertain to this issue. However, the Development does have direct control over the types of trash enclosures to be constructed on the property. and the types of dumpsters to be used within these trash enclosures. To that end, the proposed Development plan outlines the construction o f bear-proof trash enclosures throughout the property. and the Development team will work with RES and the CDOW to develop a design that will be the most cost-effective for the Development and the level of concern for the area. Additionally. the Development team will ensure that bear-proo f dumpsters be installed within the enclosures once construction is complete to further reduce any likelihood of nuisance wildlife/bear issues regarding trash and trash collection areas. The Development team will further ensure that bear-proof dumpsters are on site during construction phases as well. By ensuring the availability of bear-proof trash enclosures and bear-proof dumpsters. the likelihood of increased nuisance wildlife/bear issues due to inadequate trash facilities should be greatly reduced. In addition to these assurances. the phased development schedule should help soften the "single year" impact of additional human-related food altractants for bears and other potentially nuisance wildlife species. 6. MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING OF MITIGATION MEASURES The applicant agrees to follow the recommendations set forth within this Conservation Plan. The Town can implement the mitigation measures provided within the Plan during the construction and development of the property by approving the Development plan subject to the condition of compliance with this Conservation Plan. The applicant and Town Staff will work together to create a suitable process for monitoring compliance with the mitigation measures set forth within this Plan through periodic inspection of Construction progress by the Development team. Town staff, the CDOW, and RES as needed. Because most mitigation measures will be built into the Development and construction guidelines. very little monitoring will need to be conducted once mitigation measures are in place. Maintenance of established fencing structures. trash enclosures. and bear proof dumpsters will be the responsibility of the future management company and/or homeowner's association once housing units are constructed. In addition. the applicant will impose private covenants for the Development that will ensure all on-going mitigation measures will be adhered to over time. The private covenants for the Development will be submitted for review to the Town Staff before recordation. 7. RESTORATION MEASURES Restoration of disturbed areas will be pursuant to the EVDC and will entail the use of native plant materials. WII.DLIFE CONSERVATION PI,AN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT -ESTES PARK. COLORADO 21 8. DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO EXECUTE PLAN Jim Loftus of Loftus Developments will be the principal lead for the organization and construction of the Development as well as the implementation and monitoring of the Conservation Plan. Jim Loftus has been active in the real estate industry for 33 vears. As a developer and builder, Mr. Loftus has successfullv financed. developed. and sold more than 4 million square feet of mixed-use o ffice. retail. industrial: and multi-family projects in the greater Denver/ Boulder area. Loftus Developments' extensive portfolio is made up of more than 56 major projects. including a variety of office buildings. research and development facilities: retail and mixed-use shopping centers: apartments. condominiums and single-family homes. The Company has been instrumental in providing Colorado residents with high-quality residences and workplaces along the Front Range. This Development and its associated Conservation Plan is well within the abilities and expertise of Loftus Developments. Town of Estes Park. 2008. Meeting Minutes: Regular meeting ofthe Board of rTrustees of the Town of Estes Park. 8 .lanuan- 2 loun of Estes Park. 20078. Estes Valley Development Code. Accessed on the Internet at. http:/A, 1, w.estesnet.com/comdev/deveode/default.aspx 3 Roe. C. 20088. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Senices I,LC. to Rick Spouart District Wildlife Manager. Colorado Division of Wildlife 4 February 2008. 4 Roe. C. 20078. E-mail communications from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, I.I.C. to Rick Spowall. [)istrict Wildlife Manager Colorado Division of Wildlife. December 20-31. D Roe, C. 20()7b, E-mail communications from Chris Roe. CWB. Roe Ecological Services. LLC, to Rick Spowart. I)istrict Wildlife Manager. Colorado Division of Wildlife. December 20-31. 6 Roe. C. 200*b, Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition. Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services. LLC. 7 Roe. C. 2008b, Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development. Lot 22. South Saint Vrain Addition. Estes Park. Colorado. Roe Ecological Services. LLC. Pg 9 8 RoeÂ· C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22. South Saint Vrain Addition. Estes Park. Colorado. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. Pgs 11-16. 9 Roe. C. 2008b, Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development. Lot 22, South Saint Vi-ain Addition, Estes Park, Colorado. Roe Ecological Services. LLC. Pgs 16-23. 10 Roe, C. 20081), Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22. South Saint Vrain Addition. Estes Park. Colorado. Roe Ecological Senices, LLC. Pgs 23-29. " Town of Estes Park. 2008. Meeting Minutes: Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park. 8 January. WIL])LIFE CONSERVATION PLAIN AUGUST 2008 WAINTI CROSSING CONDOMINIIJMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK. COLORAIX) 99 12 Roe. C. 2008c. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB. Roe Ecological Services, LLC. to Rick Spowart. District Wildlife Manager. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 4 February 2008. 13 Estes Valley Planning Commission. 20078. Meeting Minutes with supporting documentation and public comments: Regular Meeting of the Estes Valle> Planning Commission. 20 November. 14 Town of listes Park 2007b. Pre-Application Meeting Follou-up Letter. 24 April. 15 Roe C. 2008d. Men-ti)i-andum: Suggested Best Development Practices for Reducing Wildlife Impacts for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Subdivision. Roe Ecological Services. LI.C. 6 Januaiy 16 Roe, C. 20081). Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition. Estes Park Colorado. Roe Ecological SenÂ·ices. LLC. Pgs 12-15. 17 Roe, C. 2008h. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development. Lot 22. South Saint Vrain Addition. Estes Park. Colorado. Roe Ecological Sen-ices. LLC. Pgs 12-15. 18 Tou n of Estes Park. 2007h. Pre-Application Meeting Folion-up Letter. 24 April. 19 Roe. C. 2008b. lilk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development. Lot 22. South Saint Vi-ain Addition, Estes Park. Colorado. Roe Ecological Services. I.I.C. Pgs 12-15. 20 Roe, C. 2008b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment toi- the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, Lot 22. South Saint Vrain Addition, Estes Park. Colorado. Roe Ecological Services. 1.1.C. Pgs 22-23. 21 Roe. C. 2()()8b. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development Lot 22. South Saint Vrain Addition. Estes Park. Colorado. Roe Ecological Services. LLC. Pgs 23-29. 22 Roe. C. 20()8b. Personal communication from Chris Roe. CWB. Roe Ecological Senices, LLC. to Rick Spowart. District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlite. 4 l ebruary 2008. 23 Roe C. 200811 Personal communicationfrom Chris Roe, CW13, Roe Ecological Services LLC. to Rick Spowart. District Wildlife Manager. Colorado I)ivision of Wildlife 4 l ebruary 2008. 24 Roe. C. 2008h. Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment for the Wai)iti Crossing Condominiums Development. Lot 22. South Saint Vrain Addition. Estes Park. Colorado. Roe Ecological Services. LLC. Pgs 12-15. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT--ESTES PARK, COLORADO 23 il SITE STATISTICS: DEVELOPMENT PLAN Utilities: Water Town of Estes Park Electric Town of Estes Park \A/AOTTT ,-DACCTI\12 rnAIRAMTI\ITI IAAC Sewer Estes Park Sonitation District Gas Excel Telephone Qwest GROSS LAND AREA - 256,216.99 SF 5.882 ACRES LESS 7.5' RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION - 2,475.8 SF LESS RIGHT-OF-WAY - 20,449 SF NET LAND AREA - 233,292.19 SF 5.356 ACRES ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM NET DENSITY (UNITS/ACRE); TOWNHOMES UNITS 16 0 2201.5SF 35,224 SF 2 0 1,600 SF 3,200 SF MULTI-FAMILY BLD 2 30,000 SF NET DENSITY TOTAL 42 units 69,915 SF EXISTING LOG CABIN 1 0 1,494 SF 1,491 SF (AXIALLY DWELLING/CLUB HOUSE) REQUIRED DEVELOP ABLE LAND AREA 226,800 SF (5400 SFx42 UNITS) TOTAL DEVELOP ABLE LAND AREA 233,292.19 SF NET LAND AREA PER UNIT 5,554 SF 1 FLOOR AREA RATIO (30% ALLOWED) 30.0 % SITE LAND AREA COVERAGE STATISTICS COMEBGE LLQI EXISTING LAND USE Existing Cabin 1491 sf 0.64% RROPOSED LAND USE Buildings 44,539 sf 19.09% Drives/Driveways 27,733 sf 11.88% Sidewalks/Entryways 15,060 sf 6.46% TOTAL 88,823 sf 38.07% OPEN SPACE 144,469 sf 61.92% PARKING STATISTICS: .. Al -A6. Bl .UNIIS .82[LABLE REQUIRED GARAGE- 13 SPACES DRIVEWAY- 9 SPACES 7 23 15.75 ADDITIONAL PARKING- 1 SPACES A7-A12. B2 GARAGE- 13 SPACES DRIVEWAY- 9 SPACES 7 23 15.75 ADDITIONAL PARKING- 1 SPACES Ali=81.s GARAGE- 6 SPACES DRIVEWAY- 4 SPACES 3 10 6.75 hli GARAGE- 2 SPACES DRIVEWAY- 2 SPACES 1 4 2.25 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL GARAGE- 40 SPACES ADDITIONAL PARKING- 12 SPACES 24 52 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS (16 @ 2.25/UNIT) 36 90.50 (91) ONETBEDROOM UNITS (8 @ 1.75/UNIT) 14 TOTAC 42 111 NOTES: 1) Zoning of the subject property is RM-MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. f, 21 2) Setbacks - Front 25 feet from Saint Vrain Ave,, 15 feet from Lexington Lane, 10 feet from sides. .,11 -um 3) All exterior lighting shall be shielded and downcast; (refer to Estes Valley Development Code Chapter 7, section 7.9). Exterior lighting to be bollard type (three feet height Limit) or attached to buildings and will adopt to the current development code. All street lights shall be o maximum 15-feet above grode. 4) All disturbed areas will be reseeded or sodded with native grasses/wildflower mix. All new trees and shrubs will be maintained in a healthful condition. All plants shall meet requirements in EVDC 7.5.D General Landscaping Design Standards. 5) Contractors must call Utilities Notification Center of Colorado prior to excavating (1 -800-922-1987). 6) The building height will be within the limits set forth in the revised height measurement 1111 provision or the EVDC. See building plans and elevations. *:it 7) Elevations are relative to a found Highway Right-Of-Way marker being a 3-1/2" Brass Cap with an elevation of 7692.70. 8) All required improvements shall be completed or guaranteed in accordance with EVDC 7.12 and 10.5.K. 9) The owner shall be required to provide for handicap accessibility in accordance with the Town of Estes Park Building Code and EVDC 7.11.J requirements. 10) Approval of this development plan creates a vested right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended. 11) This development plan is a schematic representation of proposed improvements and does not show all the design elements needed to construct any of the improvements. Construction plans shall be approved by Public Works prior to site work. 12) Site has an average slope of 8.6%Â£ 13) Contours are 2' interval. 14) Proposed electric service have a minimum depth of 3 feet. 15) All road signs are to be per the current addition of the Â»Manual of Uniform Traffic Control tigi Devices" (MUTCD) and mounted on a 2-3/8" steel post. 16) Utility easements shall be dedicated prior to acceptance of utility. 17) Drainage & Pedestrian easements and Right-of-Way shall be dedicated prior to issuance of permits. 18) The existing cabin shall be converted to a non-residential use prior to issuance of permit for final unit. 19) Limits of disturbance shall be fenced in accordance with EVDC Section 7.2.05 SUBDIVISk 2007 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1 0. 1 - MLLAGE *EAks-SUBDIVISION CAROLL G. DERMODY bUU-40 Uu C 1 J I W.WJ LA,ruu t.//eRY K. 57 R Al: DERREL L/BEVERLY Al. MITCHELL ZONED E (ESTATE) DATE: BY: r---------------- ZONED E (ESTATE) REVISION: PROJECT TITLE: 4':t. |~:55 -- ---- 0k LOTIA 11- 08/22/07 SEPARATE UNITS Al -4 JLR WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS CORNEMTONE VILLAGE ACRES SUBOMSION ZONED E (ESTATE) 9ASIS OF BEARING: 10/01/07 PER PREUMINARY STAFF REPORT MST MLLAGE A~ ~MSION \ \ HOWARD L JONES 04#CY A. SPOOMER \ \ 11/13/07 FINAL COMM, DEV. COMMENTS JLR SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION ZONED E (ESTATE) ij' ....00, FFT) ~ The basis of bearing for this survey is the West Line of . \ \ the Northwest 1/4, of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, SHEET TITLE: 1 ~ Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6th P.M., From the Center North 1/16 (#5 Rebar w/ 1-1/2Â» Alumunum COVER SHEET .. SURVEYINC1 INC. 40 0 40 80 120 Cap) to the North 1/4 Corner with a plotted bearing of DESIGNED BY MST APPROVED BY -_*MP JOB NO. SH#ET SHEET 1692 BIG THOMPSON (970) 088-2468 North 00'48'00" West. surr: 200 DRAWN BY -EL... DATE NOV 2007 487.002 1 11 CUENT: 01= PARK CO, 80517 Nke FAX (970) 686-2469 SCALE 1" = 40' CHECKED BY WST SCALE AS SHOWN . LEXINGTON LANE, LLC ~ [ECEDVE-% - It 1 NOV 13 2007 14 1116/~ zf- 1/1 Â¥V - . './ . . M '401. N : 1: 1 .. 1. . . 1, . . . 0 A ...... ... .A. 0 1 0 0 ... . . 1. 1 . n 0 0 0 A. I . . . ..... /. 1 . . 8 :D ..1 , 0.- 0 . .A . -" /0 1 - 0 0 1 - I . . '1 , 9. - 0 D - I. D 019*719:04.,t~ .1 0 0 1 a .- 0-Il-0- 1 1 - I b. .. 'L: , 4 -, 0 h N.. : , 1 * I k . D-- 1 1.j . . 1 8 -0 . 11 ... . D %f 11 e - *71 f.eiT . al. , A , ... I 19 1. , . â€¢71/1â€¢7.V 0 -1 . 1 0 . . -D ..- 4 ... , a. I. .. .... .. 1 1 I:/. 1 ..... D - . W.- I. I . -..* . ....-. ...11,416 /01 .- m , . 1 .. ................... - W '/ -1 /*4~1 I ' * 0 1 .. 1 0 .. 1 - : D I . D ..0 --0.0, I . 0 0-0 : :. 1 - :.. - 1 - I . 0 0 1 0 .. 0 0 - ./ D D . , AMA 0 0 0 . . 0 0 '0 ch ....0 1 .. . . . - .. 0 ... . . .. 0 .. lill . - 0 0 0 --0.0 D - D- : .... .. e .. . 40----=.-- I 4 L --1 ..A ~---- 12Â¥I- <4\ -- *Ab 2Â£/1---I ~ L*1- - *a 49=/ ///7 ..r /35>/ e 4. Villillillill:Ellf::I:f:+I:MI~,lir :, 49 /A.0- .* I. f.018# it /â‚¬1 - k ...../<4' Ill.11:Illitr~litdillilillilimilimill:.I"'llill ; i :/il ' ift . -4* Â·156 4 :341 A '7 C - \ 7-/ ..D 2 11 / â€¢ 03 , a 1/6, 0 //// *p $ 0 .-1 r 4099;//////A/~ .e 11~ - --- . /// . .ir-mill~~r 4/6*f /-0 -*,4 . a ut<41 / / 1 L/~ ~*1654# e A.. .4,% 00 2 00 . G 've * 00 1 ... I L .1, 9.- ..... I . DEVELOPMENT PLAN = PROPOSED RI*HT TURN W H % * , <3 & 65: 412: VE, 04 401% WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS___2 r DECELERATION\LANE I (185 F7) ~ STATE HIGHFFA Y No,~4*7/y OC_, 01 LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION ~__=-2 El DIS-TANCE':480 FT ---y/-~ DETECABLE WARNING (TYP.) - Â·. 1 3 4ACCESSIBLE RAMP W/ TO TH E TOWN OF ESTES PARK 100' TRUU,UCUTM C AIROTLI DAAIr'C -79 U/Ce-r AC TLIC /66 n AA f 2% WIRWWAY PROP CDi 0A 9; 9; 9 n 0 FOL R b SH S LA CL px, , / ki - / 20 0 20 40 60 SCALE 1" = 20' i I ' - *- ~ S -Ill- Ii- ON 2007 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT TITLE: WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION CORNE#STONE -2- 1 \ 'v/Â¥LL, L li--,/,-UL-/ '- ---- -11 SHEET TITLE: NORTH SIDE 1- Ig WIDE CONCRETE DARCY A. SPOQUER- 1 CATCH 7 ZONS--2- rESTATE) ~ \ 60' 11\ ~ ~ ~ DESIGNED BY UST APPROVED BY _KMP JOB NO. SHFFT 9WFFT 1092 BIG THOMPSON (970) 080-2408 --- 6 - ~ SITEPLAN ~ w ~ RIGHT OF WA>~ ~ I L~4 - ~ \ 1 sum 200 '|~ SAWCqTASPHA~T<PAN 1 1 DRAWN .Y -296.- DATE NOV 2007 487.002 2 11 CUENT: Li LINGTONNE, LLC ESTES PARL Co. 80017 \*7 FAX (970) 686-2469 . 1 CHECKED BY WST SCALE AS SHOWN 4j 1 1, SAGER ACRES SUBDIVISION 23 S 80 - . 'll . '. . 0 . 0 0 I . I . 0 0 ..... '42~ . D ;31:k~-"I'l--.--k . 0 r - . 4 illillillill'llillillillililimi,::::11111,M.,i:,5:12258:Loal 'IMWI"'A M- . .0.~~ 14 G: .. - 1 , , .. I ./'- .. ..............Il--.../.7..............- -~IA , , D 6 ~~ 05 Â» j 0 . 8. I . ...0 -. '. .. . 0 ..0 .., / \\l . Allu mil*wig Â¢,91 . I. A --.. 0 .. " ...mAA ' ~ a 4//Cal =F#le:.0-1- .00Â« ~ 4/4 0 ..iv . Ii--'-I .- -- I. I ' . 'llilillilligiell'llivilill'll'lib . re .: 0 1 0 1-In h ~ 1.P . ... --4.- vililliwillillillimmt/:1:1;:720&#61&J$illilillijk.- ,~ .X//r i. ~2.5.. r 4~ms....m,",En:,1400000000Fb'"e'.- , 0 \ 1,1 . A . b tuâ€¢ V .. 1/."~le/,1/11-V. Aillillillillill~-M,21/1/:Im:/I:me:'mill.* .--- ./Illillilillillill//1.,205, 1 - .. 'AT"EM,~ \N~ '1.-:*AIO~-- 0 3~ a.'tal~ flisEllillililliwIA All'll'll'll:/,ELE'lipelimilill:illilliliz'- *t 91 A , - â€¢Wil'll E:~Cll 81'. - ../ rAP - . I D, 0 --~.1:. wgid/~fil~ .. rk---=-~=~~-~ e . . mdi....W - 4,91 .74 , 0 404.9- I . A. 21 ; ; ID)0 -0~- .. f -. 2 - . ....40.,0, .. --1.101118!,/11'-' El/. 4 0,- 1 1 8--milli 0 . - - P.A. I. a .- . -Uha,.FOO4io- --I.I-- f . - . D .h , I '4. : . 1-- - Â¥ .. , 'FL . i e e .. :D - ./ D . D . .D I . " - . e " 0 1 -- . I . I . 4 -- -- 0 . 0 ..." 0 0, ' .'. 1 A ..:i. '' , .... . t:.. - .. . A . - 06 . DEVELOPMENT PLAN .-- j 1 -- 1 W - _WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS 14 614 LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION /.4 b r 100' TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK 000 - 1,0% ' 1 Aa unk R,O. W. SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO " 1 - STATE r~IGH-PIPAjÂ¢l ~Nolis:.s~-4-Li-ttifift{-..i<folÂ«944~~~~~ -~- i ~< ,- -- - ! 1.b.:141 : r, ------- ~c.~ , , -1 ~0~., 117 ..~.rf.0,11:'tfF'.'2-I SIGH* DIS~CE = 340:6 FT - ~ W , . i. â€ž "...%~ :. ' ..2 9-6 Â·Â·--- SIGH DISTANCE = 350* FT \ PROPOSED TYPE 'R i i....Â·-Â·Â· ..:.~~.,;::Â·t.:.~Â·1Â·:af: 3 - RELOCATE EX/S77NG fl, 423>47Â· 1 1 *- 1-- 1 UGHT POLE \ 7 3.. , N \ / INLET BOTH SIDES Â· 1 REVEGETATE EXISTING --\ /DRIVEWAY -- --- FOUND 1. BENT PIPE & - - - -i - 1-1/4" Al/JAA CAD Die 4<~ 25' -SEI@gK _ MT. Â·7 J 41 m Ea 'K 20 0 20 40 SCALE 1" = 20' 3 - - OHP REBAR N PLASTIC 1 SUBDIVISION RRY K. STEL (ESTATE) ONE JRVEYINa INC. liybri38-2488 CHECKED BY WST SCALE AS SHOWN U 1 1 r ' )3 4. ji) VH-LUVA 'N HOROM V DIVUO 18Vd S.31S3 -jO N~1 31Â·~~01Â·Uny ON/.SnOH ~ (31.V153) 3 03NOZ NOISIAICian/S >1 3Nld . .. D ..0 . .. r Â¥ .S@ 0 -- . M.1 : .... .. I *04 09*9,p - .Im:& ..9.- 4. ... . 1 .. , iw-&18"-..=* . "14 ~ ././.././..B- li~lillilillit 7FFS' r 1,10..1, /lizw,/40:000:fallillillillimlimillillbabl./.iollily .. 4 Aill.b- *421/29:lill""p .br , 4. N re.mit--.Il t(-V 4. ~ :* 0 : I \11.- - 1 0..,-1 V~VA..4.- ...1 L 9/,2,1.NipA INA *40* .. ..... : 0.-- A- 'e.- -- 9- 4 .. NL)7 :Il.4, T. F. 9 " ..P... ; 99. , 0 0 00 - 44,- - .-,4~.. 9421,*276 = .6 . 4 Al -6 1.2 vyr .. b %'aidlit . 0 4/l~lolilm.V RIdlelyze- A- Aw 0 ~~~4~~ . . -- 4 I . 3/Il/* 6 J % farillilt/Al/4 .7 .. . D 0 0,0 . 0; 1 , - 0. 0 - A. . 0 ---IBYZe//'Sly If . 0 , .. 0 : . D 0, . All,-, .. 00Â¥ 1 K. I . . . . 0 1 '1. .Â¥ Â¥ . . 0 00 2 00 0 0 .. . . 0 e I . . 0 .. 0 e .... . D . 1- . .D -0 0 - .D 00 0. 1 . . . . 1 0 I . 0 ./ .11 0 1 0 1 . A :â€¢ â‚¬1 1:â€¢:â€¢-,11 i. //( f . . - ....:. r ' , 9~, 11 [i DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION TO TH E TOWN OF ESTES PARK SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO Up N - 1. i ' Fil' Â¢ - Â·i i ~~~ I- I. 1 1-: I EXISTING 15* EWER .0 . MANHOLE - -lill-Il--I.--.--Il.-' ' 1 -- , , . .* ' .1/ - -- ------ S -11-~ -- RO SED J -- --G 2-332 - s --*.'* e ERAT_ \ - ~.'~ 1 RELOC,li AG PROPOSED TYPE 'R --. - -- - INLET BOTH SIDES J , --- *I- .il- CU VERT I . -G REVEGETATE EXISTING , : L nON ' 4,~ ROPOSE - 680 --- --- F ' Â·72: -=P='--ke r.--2' U .4 - G - DRIVEWAY , , I EWER ----- ---EXISTING - / / 4 M K MANHOLE - - 1 , -1------ -- 1 1. - 1 // -2-33 ----E LI 125 ELECTRIC . i----- / // --- - 2----G - --- - M~ --- -- -M ---/ /--.JUNCTION BOX - 1/ ,--, . 21 , I // ----- -- 1 U PROPOSED 10 ' ' -6- G 7 -- % - - L____ 1-, ---.Â·.2 -7Nf'> *~~E79 PROPOSED lot _ . 2 f ,# 9 I -1 --- ----- .1 / NITARY SEWER ' 1 '~~0!46Â·kh.=54\SANITARY SEW - - - - :- T .,. PRQP-OSED- O - / . 61.1 I - h./. I r-_ -- 0 - .1 _ ~ NITARY SE E - PROPOSED.- / --- -4 0 - --- ------ - < ~ '>..F----7EASEMENTIF;t - .. ' DETENTION, POND // / -EASgME_ 1 / T \* - OLUAÂ«0.18 AC. R / / ,~6-13 s #/" 7R0PEED . <____ -7-u _ SEWER PROPOSED 10~tÂ»Â·~ --3-'b- 2-PR'RELEASE OF 1.6 CFS " / Â« / 1 - / 4 1 - / - / 1 1 , / IF-L-j RoposED SOKVA ~ 1 UNft Al O MANHOLE ELECTRIC ROP~SED DECICAT -13:*EWER MANHOLEL- D - /\\ \ / ./ UNIT Al 4 , RIGHT OF WAY Â·i A- 1 -- - < TRANSFORMER t,-1,2314 sf ' 1 ' '' ' -- Â· \I...0/ \ \ ./ --/ 1 \ - , 2,2345 st , ~ TO BE 36 W/DE - / 0 / \/ \ JU ' 1 1 1-k / 1 / I 9 *1 UNIT A4 1 UNIT 9 jf, # - o UIWT A15 IN THIS LOCATION - -\\ - ),234.5 st /-0 + - Â· - -\\ 1 2,234.5â„¢ 19 / NIT -2,234.5 sf - 16 \/\ 5~ ,- I /11 - -- \ - / 4211 .1 , 1 --- " I : \\ 1,613 ,- -- ~ PROPOSED 15* ' * r 11 -- 7-- - ApS CULVERT / . \ 79~'r- ~'~ 4 . U A3 Â· . ~ UNIT A . -/ - -- \\ \ ' . , 34.5 /\ 2,23 . sf 0 1 . / h - 9\,4- --><(- i \ - /1 --7 1 / Un , /- / I - . . 6.11 \1 1 , / \ / /.. 0 1/ 1 ~ 4~CURB CUT - / - ROP E ' / / B - 4 / *UNIC 15 < * 1100 r--- \ SEWER 26 2'-6 / \ / , , 2,234.5 st ' 0* DEDICATED 1 l / MANHOLE ,/.' 8 HT OF WAY \ ,/ l<33 - / 1,11 / i / .- -/ w / 2 - 1/2.:.3 / / / \ 11 1 11] 1 / // 0 - / -- - 1 / / . i / . - / * P UNIT A8 . 1 / / \ / / i. ./ / -- I. I I \ -+ */-1 22> - /// ./ - 2,234 11 - 1 fl< 3 f ~ PROPOSED 15' f ** PROPOSED V * ,: #j :'~ . ..%:4 , L.7-3\ / / / - / \ -- - *\, r *74429\ \ // // I - / . /1 - 2 f / MU 0 2,$4 \. '\. 1690 ~ 6. - - 1\24..4 / ):1% t\,10,r~3q / / ' UNIT Al 2' 9 , Â»*.. : Ay OF ' i , O'ELECT?/ ~ r â€¢ 1 , / / .. / / 2,234.5 sf . * I hi*1 . ,~ UNIT A5 - 8/1 - / , /fic // 41, / â€ž . 4/.I . , MA . \.227 7 - il- - - - \ \ 4,4 /4 1/// 6.*,ell \1\\ Fll-\ / i ,2340 sf 21.-00 /,4/ I / / / I --\--t- ~~:iz.4, \ \ I * ,,5/ ./ . 7-fi~.~~-LM~7 1 x ' - / 3<6.-Â·:,...iÂ·ot~mt*:AE&*0<:' Â·--wÂ», '14:-trh. / / - X Y' ./ 1 , , 1514 IT A7 . I / -- -- 14 -M.'/ I / / - --6 *- 2,234.5 sf - .. 1 / -- - / 7 1 ~-11*4 - - K i ' //2 / - ------ 4-1Â¢642*0 'Mmksi ) \ / 1.- --- ADS / / -- -1 . 1 , / / . 1 1 0| X , UNIT A6 ': ,%1@4~:> , PROPOSED 5010/4 ----- -- _ O 1 .9..~A'.'T'~'Â»7:!52 4 / tt / . 1 2 21 J ,/' UNGÂ· Ki ~234.5 sf , .A TE 1 - - -- . TRANSFORMER.'MULTI-FAMILY --- M r - IX- 2,234.5 sf / Â».'Im'LI.' 4 .imel * RESIDENCEJ -- PROPOSED 50KVA .2 / ~/ TRANSFORMER 7710 / EXISTING 1 ~~T~4Q~ - - PROPOSED,/ - , -4~TRANSFORMER , ~ 1OOKVA/ 30,000 sf - / *~h ~-72*1 0 PROPOSED , , /4 , 't .<21 - --'re '404 / / 1 1 2 9 / / / FIRE HYDRANT ~ 22' - 1 O ~7 CABIN /4 -k- )01_ \*>WAI , J // / UNIT,A16 , - - 7 ~ 1 1491 sf ~t~,~~ ~~~'(~~~r--11 I s 0 ~ | ''~ ' \PROPOSED '' ED / 1 I-- ' I~ - 12 1 1 2,231.5 sf , 1 5, 4**97 - --Â·I)/- -0.91~ < - 1 ./ . // 14 1 / 1 1 11/If[ / / 1 -- / 1 ... ./1 -â€¢ a . / / - -- 7 Aa-'.2' 1 - 2* r - // / . 14 1 / ~~~ IiI . I ,, I . / . _ .UE~ . . *i--. =-f~,-aÂ«Tairij , 1 I I - .F / . / -1. ,â€ž. Â£7\ m -- EW I *%11 1 - ' , Ii- -- - 1- -~. 1 1 / - - . -4..i- - -r --- d*-I - 1 3 -/ 10121 , -- -bly K M + 'i.=..L,- 1 PROPOSED_ 22'--- \ PROPOSED 9' 1 - V/LLAGE ACRES SUBDMSSON 1 / LOT 4 /1.01 -,~--'-- --OSRUAEiS=--~EI~EASEMENT EACH SE~~ Â»AD'" 3/1 /4*16*27 -49 23 *3 -9 (al MICHEAL R. MANGELSEN/SUSAN K. O'CONNOR LOT ZONED E (ESTATE) PNE KNOLLS ;5 ~\;Â¥0e~-Er"~ RIGHfy- WAY __L 4 liFIF --------- , ' , ---S CAROLE B./BAP - S ~-GLLAGE ACRES SUBOMSION 1- 1 / 1 s-7 LOT 25 / /24 - 1-- S VILLAGE ACRES SUBDMSION - CAROLL G. DERMODY ZONED E di; i M,77Â·2- S- -Ill-'- ------ S -*-Il . / 1 DERREL L./BEVERLY M. MITCHELL ZONED E 655'TA m) , -- - ZONED E (ESTATE) ---- LOT 2A - ---- -__ Ar I In ----- ----- ///1\ WLLAGE ACRES SUBDIWSION || -*~~ Z -~ LOT 1 - j ~ HOWARD L. JONES MODIFY EXISTING _ MLLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION-- 0 -- \ ZONED E (ESTATE) 12' CULVERT 1 , 11 30 0 30 60 90 NOTES: SCALE 1" = 30' 1) BRANCH LINES OFF THE PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN ARE ELECTRICAL NOTES: ELECTRICAL METERING PLAN: PRIVATE SERVICES, FUTURE REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE Multi=familvt unit to have 25 individual meters. Each REQUIRED ON THESE SERVICES IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDING OWNER(S). 1 - ALL FEEDERS SHOWN ARE TO BE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC. meter to be labled with meter number and address. Meters cre to be set in numeric order. 2007 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DATE: REVISION: BY: PROJECT TITLE: 08/22/07 SEPARATE UNITS Al -Al JLR WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS 10/01/07 PER PREUMINARY STAFF REPORT "ST ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: - SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION CORNEASTONE HEATH WEHRMAN SHEET TITLE: BELFRAY ENGINEERING 2811 WEST 9TH AVENUE DENVER, CO. 80204 P: 303-892-5980 EXT 102 UTILITY PLAN ENOINHERBO & ,4/1 1 SURVE=4 nia DESIGNED BY IST APPROVED BY __KMP JOB NO. SHEET SHEET 1092 BIG THOMPSON~:24,;:7~EBo-24" surrt Boo 487.002 411 CUENT: LEXINGTON LANE, LLC ESTIS PARK. co. 80617 NV>' FAX (970) 686-2469 F: 303-892-5979 DRAWN BY .~li.. DATE JULY 25. 2007 CHECKED BY MST SCALE AS SHOWN r 11 3Â»- SllONN Ne < EXISTING 80' RAW WATER IRRIGATION 25'-0Â» 24.-0- , DEVELOPMENT PLAN 21'-(7 ASPHALT 5'-0" 18Â» - - 18Â» - WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS SIDEWALK W LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION 2 TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK E 6. ~ THICKNESS _L-&5- _1- SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE J<~J 3Â» ASHPALT 1 â€¢' 12" I .4 VARIES- 1 VARIES 6. 6th P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO - 1 12" l d 1- - . 4. AGGREGATE 3 -7 - 1 CURB & GUTTER CURB & GUTTER \ 2'-0Â» CONCRETE BASE COURSE 2'-0* CONCRETE 1 11 1 ROAD PROFILE W - CROWN SLOPE TABLE ~~ ROAD PROFILE CROWN SLOPE TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION F--- ----- w <5% 2% NTS 5%-8% 3% 1--C >8% 4% ~ -641 ~~ 2 - IZT~ ~E~~-j;~~C; u:.-i~ STATE HIGHW~Y No, 7 7'-6" MATCH CURB - 6'-0Â» MATCH CURB PROPOSED TYPE 'R 7 ELEVAMONS RELOCATE EXISTING <C ELEVARONS 7 LIGHT POLE O ~ INLET BOTH SIDES - 6, Or 88.31 9' CONCRETE REVEGETATE EXISTING T-- .. DRIVEWAY ------ 23# 00 f A 30 0 SCAL PROPOS I i -1.11.2-,I~ EX15Â¥ING- 84-= -L.SHOULDER ~ _80fbibliNG -oF -7 \ 3=PE---1 -7 4 % Â¤ THIS t GUTTE + FLOW LEGEND FOR RA[)11 A = 14" TO 1/40 B =1" C = 114" D = 11/2"T0 2' RVED burro AIN U U U 1 1 C rx IT ME Z . . T (SECTION IB) DESIGNED BY liST APPROVED BY .._EML JOB NO. SHEET SHEET ' GOLF COURSE ROAD 1892 BIG TNOMPSON N~isy, (970) 680-2468 . ...NE'gur. a &7 (L" '9, AURVEYI~4 WC (6" BARRIER - 18" GUTTER) LEXINGTON LANE, LLC DRAWN BY _121.. DATE JULY 25. 2007 sum 200 487.002 511 CUENT: ESTES PARK. Co. 80617 NkÂ¢0 FAX (970) 686-8469 CHECKED BY WST SCALE AS SHOWN OWUNE I 1 -73 Flo e. . 1.~ I...=4. . D /- -1/=/=<-7-Â£ 4./.1 I .1 . . ./ 1 0 . 1/9.li~./Add.............. Al/Ar.%"Ill....1 D D - r .Â¥ .... 0 .04, , A *imiiE.fiwililizdlilliligialiiiiigallillidlidillitik ./ . I UJ - A , 0 .. ' . 010"10'0â€¢ :dii:2:9l3:iB;;.-25.-:C . . I , D -:I . D A â€¢E~~ , ~ 19 - , , ;0&3,6//"/)....1 . .1 r - ' A 7.le:'~.11<9112.0, . . ...0 .. A .79-7/1 4 .6- I ilimillgiblit/84: I - 1. 47/lia I. 19/ I . .Â· U I , 0 - 4.-MA..ir 2!02.-- ./Ir/=. . ./49Â§.... ---4-- -- ://4 . . . Â¥i ... .. . "Zek; illilililllip -f . 4/IN...mirtp# 44./*Th . 0 . 1 , : ...1 00 .: D . ---I- -lamm-Q- 92. 0:. - ....a..4'*.4, 4.& .1 .. - .... 4 \93*12@a 4/ .... I.- . I ' 1 -Ill.Ze--I WH~~~78'figixlakidn--11.rep,2*1~ c - ...... - --F'r'-*iv I -,/lial/0..0M *~e \ 0 Vil , i- P ... :0 - 44 - p, -..... \ /-1,1,,1,2.;,11//. .. - I. .. 4 .: A D . ..Y.,DU.7- \ 1.,~ - , "' 0 . . ,E~~ti~ I A . ... .-r/~-*Fji~. An . , : 1#*1, -. 0 0 :- 5.2, . E"C~ - = A.,Illiligrimm~lili~illil. It -. . 0 0. .+ I I I. I -1-"-I--Ii1///1 * 9 97- 4 NE :i . I .. . -. . .% - " I a,- -re I'll/F e .1 1. .0 , Do - 0 0 ' H ./' 0 01 11 0 . . 0, biL 'm' . 0 .-I . 0 , . I D. 0 LANDSCAPE PLAN PROPOSED RIGHT TURN "- - DECELER47-/ON LANE . 1 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS (185 Fr) - 4 SIGHT DISTANCE = 480 FT - ~ 20 0 20 40 60 - SIGHT DISTANCE\ = 420 FT EXISTING 15Â» SCALE 1" = 20' i~_r~ CULVERT \ I/ D # LU I ZA , 11~ ' I WAI.; ./Vilivil; g1. PROJECT TITLE: 433/ l---- --- --- \ VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION 08/22/07 SEPARATE UNITS Al 42 JLR WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS -------- LOT 1 f --- - 10/01/07 PER PREUMINARY STAFF REPORT MST \ # HOWARD L. JONES MODIFY EXISTING _1 10/15/07 PER PREUMINARY STAFF REPORT MST SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION # 11/13/07 FINAL COMM. DEV. COMMENTS JLR VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION --- j ZONED E (ESTATE) 12* CULVERT || ZONS)-2 rEETA TO ~ \ (2) POT ~1 ' DARCY A. SPOOMER - (1) MP % SHEET TITLE: NORTH SIDE - \ -1 ~ - ~ ~~ ~ /'~/ ~ LANDSCAPE PLAN mICHNImuNG & ~~ SURVEY04 INC - .. LiU M w DESIGNED BY Rws APPROVED BY KMP JOB NO. SHEET SHEET 1692 BIG THOMPSON (970) 586-2468 - | DRAWN BY -RE*.. DATE NOV 2007 487.002 611 CLIENT: .2.9 PARK co. 80.17 N*57' FIX (970) 680-2469 SUITE 200 LEXINGTON LANE, LLC CHECKED BY MST SCALE AS SHOWN /1,. A./4- j I :SI./.8/2,=4&::6--d.//i/"Im/- r r 1 - lillilillillill'.iRri~lillilizienilierillilliemilliliwilillilizlelfi~illilillillill 4~~4 9,1.-I-- . 08â€ž4 - eÂ»lilliliallililli~ifilifilillillililillill"/0illilli -/ilili Mr-=- .. .TA.W.../....li..........ni./1.Bil......1..- .. ' -0 2 -alagiativ~ililialillimilliliziz,--% ~04â€¢-- - -. beÂ® â‚¬-r '' Wiwte/li...A : . / I B~-9(Vd'--r*-~ivio,~:7,- - mi.-c~ll A-likil .tr .a ./.P...."/I.OBER:///EW... - . .....0.4............./7.z.k - 90...7- ' o A-.3.1.91-F_r~,-A.li.DIPIL 'Ii' .. ter . 0-':iftj.-1/'ll Ilip A.'///1//2"-0 ..1 . I. 0 1 .ell., -m~i.IM,-~- -b AINI. 11 1.0.- ...4 24:0 00-2/8 ~ â€¢~i.~~ -* 'VE .tr . .0 .. t.*-4,% : DD . V./4 1 ~62~, . , 0 - .*i~ 5-1%,-$-m-- . #21. VAL- 44 A: -,~=-61115/1,7.91/1- 1.1, -I-,~p~- C~'lle, 1./A - '609I-milimigge/Faill......1 4~tiC' ,Â¢ .4 0,0 .. k - --26-2- -:ill-~ W..: 04 .. ~* . r (04%1/ . 4.7~ ......FeaL'll 9.-- 0% .r- /rfE ..1 -Nk W bv. " 4.. ... 1, % .01 .. .100 . I .0 I.A. ,?.,9 .. . . 0.0 .. .e. , -4~4. . 9.1/~C-dmi/ - f - .~ilillillill~irilliggililillillillilli~illiliA/'ll' ft, dA, .*A ... . . .. . i - 0 0 .# 1 --- --- .. -.0007:,"04<Effile,jill/22//1/VI:ell//..'.ill .. -: - 40,7,- 12 4,2, : ... 0 1- ik..4 - 1 ..0*- I ..D - 1 . rl- : lilillililiq,A~WE:ram/ .4 1 ... --- W. V I ,< V e I . e . .. :D . : . I ... . 9" 0, . - - 00 . . .. . D LANDSCAPE PLAN WAPITJ CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS STATE HIGHWA tl No. 7 RELOCATE EXISTING - SIGH~DISTA CE = 350:* FT ~ PROPOSED TYPE 'R i 1 SIGH-k DISTA CE = 340* FT - - REVEGETATE EXISTING FOUND 1 Â» BENT PIPE & -- LIGHT POLE INLET BOTH SIDES --- - -Ii --1 hi- L--/--- (6) PA #6499. BOTH DISTURBED DRIVEWAY 1-1/4" ALUM. CAP PLS - -- - . (CAP BEARS S86'09'49â€žE \ I ALUM. R.O. W. CAP r-------------1 ROM -------5 --G .-/ --------i------------ -- ------- / 2-1 R3.00 , :9 p ---- -- 1 \ CALCULAILU UUMNER) L - -- 3,6 ....,r . . 0*- 6.00 / 30" - \ 769 -- - ~ -- -- - .4 . 1. I . - L ----- p 2 . ---- 4 /. - '4 1- -1 /1-- S --9-- 9. / 0 --L---__ _ _ 8 ---------- ----- 7- e. 4 q- - . r- 1 . 2 37~ '' 3 (\ \ ...... /12Â»P 47 OÂ»pp t/-/--------Ii- =Ag=-6 -1-6 -El- 0 \ 1 1/ 1 10 \- 7 PeR i. KA - h IGN Loc IA * 25' 3 7- -- ----1477--Cy--- - _-1- // 3013 - ' SETBACK 1 Rtal> - - \1\ \-/ --7 2 P>---r-4- - -81 10 075MF -110 *PR.. 0 1 h- //1-\\\ 1\\ -- -- isc / UNIT A14 ' -- 2,234.5 sf ~ , /~GE \ . 1. . \ -- 63) P/K , -Ug....4/Lk' I 0- .1 -- -<)-- - ,4- ..*T74 \1 I B --- - R85.00 0 2 1 12.00 _ FF=-17033.51 200 - 2 ?Ab~ , AP_-fP>- 1 FF=7593.51 r UNIT A15 - / 9.5, 0.PA \ 20 P -' . ~ GARAGE ~ /. \ / 7 ,/.I-li~ / A - -- - .4r - - 1 10% - 1. / /0 2. - - (TrP) 1 - _ -- - , 1. \33,1721 /0004. Il . / . 2/ . _ _.3*=ans/4 (A'Ablh ' t2' O x . \U-------N \ 1/ 90 --*. - .* c \ /- FF=7695.44 (5) \(TYP !..2.. - \ / . S- l .' % 6/. \ I . 1 W 1 . .. 4 1 . . 4 / * h heigu \ P . % 0 %%@ \ 4 , -4 4*-/ - 698 187 10#PP $09 / ,- 0 h 1 - - g ' 1 . 1 ... . 4 t/ 4) . GARAGE 6.. / , ABM -1 1 - / \-/ - . $ -JWE - -' 30Â»p \ AUG Y / . / db . \ \ 07 AR S#MU / 0 / I . / . 1 . 12' 8 EEDED WITH ~ 1 LU GRASSY . 0 / g .C \4 \ 77â‚¬ GRASSEF- - -- -- - . 4EAS SHALL Â· ,'0~41-hÂ·KO CR 4 . 0* ; (6) pOT , --2 R23' 1100 W/7H WILDFZOWER -1 / 8 10' SETBACK E SEEDED WITH / 2,234.5 sf / R . \ / : sse i - I Amr. FF=7705.57 'CO R < SSC 15" 1 1 .PPI 1 \ h IX. z FF=7695.57 - AN / Â· I / -- N / / S 4 ,.... R 2.00 '' ~ - I / / Le//////. I. . I - - -- t - ) * . //\ C' RSE Roe, e M rarep <----- 24"P 5) /64 9 3. 5" 1 "pp --- 4 . C 00, - \ \ - - \\ 3\ 18 PP -__ 0 ' TOW 42. 1 . . ..NA / \ P 33 1 \ \ / 1696 GC) - '' s/ . . .. . 1 / 5' SIDE*ALK , M (5) KA 1 -10% C. / UMITS OF j 310 3 -- -4* : .- -- 2"PP \~ ~DISTURBANCE K * # 12*22 18 P V . KI , I,' ./ " / \U \Ay . ./ . .4 4 / - X.....I:\ / . / r : M A 1| 1> TOW=7705.50 1 28Â»PP / 1 Â»-> - - 15" / P ~ diwil -- f X 1 I - --Uzcwox 2ND FF=7718.00 - -- . 5 /020000'/2.0/000. PROPos '0 AX kir 1ST FF=7708.00 m C' . 1, 1. \ - --0. \2 â€žP . . \ 4 TY) GARAGE FF=7696.00 1\ 6 xy (5) MA 20" /. -- , i ----- pp 9 / 4 0 . - PROPOED MAILBOX CLUSTER -- - I \ 7. . --- . L . ek Mp 36"PP 5) *A--- (43 INCOMING BOXES) - (2)- -- 2 POT / / -0- 14.11:2"I''f ?> , / / p. 0(IT /// 11 'm KA ./ re% / / e 'bosTINGI â€¢2 (6) POT , , - , -0-~O-POSE INA~~AE T / e ' :, , ,..41. ,:t :' '':, ,,,~ 2-,5: ,' i),77, -------- TaY ----- - . O MP 70 0 vi< ''".Â· ' '3,56/y'N ':'4 ' / t ' -- --- -- . - (31 BAR 1106 ' .*-OULTI-FAMILY ' 3) po - (3 IP - orti?,0 1/4'. - h<SEY, 1 ~ 36"PP PEBEGES'v , - // PLANT GUIDE t / ' / . RESIDENCE . - - - / . 30,000 sf - - 6 \ . / . 0 , o ~///// fo / \~~~ 1 PP ~~ C . ) DECIDUOUS TREE / / 0/ , 7708 (2) PO 7710 p ~ 26 52 B R / ' 9.50 EXISTING / / I 1 CABIN 0"P Nor:69 ~h CONIFER TREE 0 6 1491 sf ' - & E w ./ +16 (1) M Â· . PATIO (4) / , / / 10 A / -7 - 07 1 1.5 s f %(4) BAR FF=7708.00 (12) PIP 4 \ I i\Ni 15.50 < 2) MP TOW=7712, 7710 %B3 .- //A\\\ / %68 (7\ ORANMENTAL TREE 09.50 // ) PIP . ~ 39,=7712.50 UEN 2 .(*PQTY- \ CE / 1 0â€žP ---~*CO â€¢P l .P 4 / - 0. 1 R 0 I " ' MP , - - -- b ~r,'7~ EXISTING TREES I 06 ' (POT . 0 1 . \. -- ivjf â€¢ â€¢ - - 0 ' 110 )M Â· 10' S . I .\ ,, 2) OT O . 0 In 03 . . . .. .. . TREES TO BE REMOVED b '0 . I-. - MP /1-J "pÂ· ro .. N '. 1 k 3 FD EBAR -- ~- 63) / , ------ (*tqf- - 1 I.r. 8 H- 72Â·2\ 3 - - OHP - ~ ;.,A 823 (f?- - ---- 1 (3) BAR BASISI OF BEARING / LOT 4 CORNER OF SECTION 31, T5N, / W/ YELLOW PLASTIC ,~,. VARIOUS SHRUBS , FOUND CENTER N 1/16 / ~ FOUND #4 REBAR / - S - (37*0 s (3) P\P ~ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE ZONED E (ESTATE) PINE KNOLLS SUBDIVISION / SO0~48'DOÂ»E 1310.05' VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION R72W BEING A 1 -1/4" ALUM. CAP #9485 .. /ZA MICHEAL R. MANGELSEN/SUSAN K. O'CONNOR (7) P\P CAP PLS #6499 LOT 1 VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION \ CAROLE B./BARRY K. STEIN (3) PIP CAROLL G. DERMODY Ns ZONED E (ESTATE) ZONED E (ESTATE) 1 (h 1 ----- S 1 , 1 -8 -L 2007 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DATE: REVISION: BY: PROJECT TITLE: 10/01 /07 PER PRELIWINARY STAFF RFPORT WST WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS 10/15/07 PER PRELIMINARY STAFF REPORT MST 1 11/13/07 FINAL COMM. DEV. COMMENTS JLR SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION CORNE#sTONE r\Â£ s / SHEET TITLE: SOUTH SIDE 20 0 20 40 60 , - SCALE 1" = 20' 2--J 1 3 i LANDSCAPE PLAN =NO & 4% sum=INQ INC DESIGNED BY _RES APPROVED BY -EML JOB NO. SHEET SHEET 1892 BIG THOMPSON (970) 580-2458 .. 1 1 SUrTE 200 1 1 DRAWN BY -RES= DATE NOV 2007 487.002 7 11 CUENTLEXINGTON LANE, LLC ESTES PARK, CO. 80517NV" 'Ax (970) 688-2459 1 CHECKED BY IST SCALE AS SHOWN 11 11! U VHINVFI /Honobl y DIVED VIS3 3 03NOZ ~N88~9 >IhIVd S3153 - OviF 4 Â£1 an scaping Requirements or s eet PLANT LIST NOTES: Projec ame: LOFTUS D V OPMEN TREES Fill in the blue boxes to get landscaping totals. Use this spreadsheet in conjunction with the Estes Valley Development Code Landscape -SYMCOMMONINAM~JU--T--BOTANICAL-NAMEMINSIZ 1. All areas disturbed by construction to be Regulations. In some cases, ur proposed subdivision or development may be exempt from some landscaping requirements. P%LiLLI*thÂ©REASH[fraxinuspennaylvanica~Suminit"32"CalII revegetated with designated seed mixes. STEP : Impervious Coverage Requirements \ 3HL -- --\-RHADEMASTER_HONE(M-CUST ~ Gleditsia triacoanthos inermis "Shademaster"~2"-Cal~ 2. Topsoil shall be stripped in areas of disturbance 1 Tree and Three Shrubs for Every 1,000 Square Feet of Lot Area Excluding Parking Lots with 30 Parking Spaces or More ross Impervious Coverage: 109,550 1 68,1 - - 1 AqfUMN_-BLAZE_MAPiE ~ Acer x fremon// 'Jeffersred' ____~ 2" Cal ~ and stockpiled to be redistributed to a depth of 4" Number of minimum when revegetation is begun. Parking Lot Area: O Parking Spaces: O 1_SE_ _ _ LSPRING_SNOW_CRAB _ ~ Malus 'Spring Snow' ~ 2" Cal ~ 3. All seeded areas to be hydromulched at a rate of Net Impervious Coverage: 109,550 | PC~ ~ CANADJANRED_CHERRY ~ Prunus 'Canadian Red' __~ 2" Cal ~ 1 1/2 tons per acre. All seeded slopes greater than Tre-: 0 2:1 to be mutched and netted for erosion control (use Shrubs: 94 Note: AH other landscaping requiremen s have been applied. Net impervious coverage subtracts out parking lot area only if the parking lot straw bales where needed to avoid erosion and has thirty or more spaces. pip COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE Picea pungens glauca 6'-8' tall enhance growth potential). STEP : src u er equirements 4. All planting beds to be excavated to a 12" depth 8 Evergreen Trees and 11 Shrubs per 100 Linear Feet and backfilled to an elevation of 2" below walks or North Boundary Distance in Feet: o East Boundary Distance in Feet: o lawns with soil mix consisting of: 1/3 topsoil, 1/3 Evergreen Trees: O Evergreen Trees: O Shrubs: 0 Shrubs: 0 SHRUBS peatmoss, and rE---[COMMONNAME-BOTANICALNAMETMIN-SIZ 1/3 existing soil. South Boundary Distance in Feet: 250 West Boundary Distance in Feet: 88 ~ AM ~ AMUR MAPLE- ~ Acer ginna/0 5 Gal ~ 5. Cover all planting beds with soil fabric prior to Eve rein Trees: 20 Evergreen Trees: 70 Shrubs: 28 Shrubs: 97 ~KA ! - 1 ' 1 _ _! plant installation. KARL FOERSTER Calamagrostis acutiflora Karl Foerster 5 Gal Note: Parking Lot Perimeter requirements for side and rear lot lines have been applied. \ POT t POTENTIL-LA-- - ~ Potentilla fruticosa -Goldfinger,Katherine ___~f -Gal__~ 6. Install 30" wide cobble and gravel foundation border around all buildings. Shrubs may be planted STEP Â· S roe Frontage Buffers ~ MP ~ MUGO PINE ~ Pinus mugo 'Mops' ~ 10 Gal __~ within this border as shown on plan. Arterial Streets - 1 Tree Per 25 Une r Feet and 1 Shrub Per 10 Unear Feet North Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· O Ec t Perimeter Distance in Feet: 888 ~ BAR ~ ROSE GLOW BARBERRY ~ Berberis thunbergii 'Rose Glow' ~5 Gal ~ 7. All trees shall have a wood mulch ring 36" in Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 36 Shrubs: 89 RS RUSSIAN SAGE Perovskia atriplicifolia 5 Gal diameter at the base of the tree. South Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· o We t Perimet r Distance in Feet: 0 Tr es: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shr bs: 0 8. All tree rings and shrub beds to be mulched or Non-Arterial Streets - 1 Tree per 40 Unear cobbled at a minimum depth of 3", material to be Feet and 1 Shurb per 15 Linear Feet determined by owner. North Perimeter Distance in Feet: 330 Ea t Perimeter Distance in Feet: O Trees: 8 Shrubs: 22 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 9. All trees to be staked, fenced and guyed. South Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· O West Perimeter Distance in Feet: 0 10. All trees and shrubs shall be clrip irrigated and all Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 plant materials maintained in a healthful condition. Total Streets 11. Conifer trees be sized as 50% eight feet tail and North Perimeter East PaMmeter 50% at six feet tail, Deciduous trees sized as 50% at ***NOTE: Tre-: 8 Shruba: 22 Trees: 36 Sh bs: 89 VARIOUS CONIFEROUS AND DECIDUOUS SHRUBS WILL BE PLANTED AS BORDERS , FOUNDATION PLANTS, AND PLANTING BEDS. OTHER SPECIES NOT SHOWN MAY BE USED, REFER TO LANDSCAPE four-inch caliper and 50% at two-inch caliper. South Perimeter West Perimeter ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL.ELEVATED PLANTERS PLANTINGS TO BE DETERMINED, USE WOOD MULCH 12. Placement of plant material that fronts parking Trees: 0 hrubs: 0 T :0 Sh be: 0 FOR COVERAGE. PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE COVERED WITH COBBLE OR MULCH AS DETERMINED BY Note: Street Parking Lot Perimeter and Fence/Wall Landscaping requirements have been applied. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. PLANTINGS SHOWN ADJACENT TO ALL STRUCTURES ARE CONCEPTUAL stalls shall conform to Estes Valley Development Code AND NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLANT COUNT. THE DEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE 7.11.0.4.d plants within overhang of vehicle bumper. STEP 4. ar ng o er me er equ remen s THESE PLANTINGS AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 13. Plant material shall meet the American For Parking Lots with 6 or More Spaces" Arterial Streets - 1 Tree per 20 Linear Feet and 1 Shrub per 5 Linear Feet Association of Nuserymen specifications for #1 grade. North Perimeter Distance in Feet' East Perimeter Distonce in Feet: O Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 South Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· 0 West Perimeter Distance in Feet: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 NOTE: Non-Arterial Streets - 1 Tree per 30 Uneor Feet and 1 Shrub per 10 Unear Feet PROTECT TREE NTH 5' TALL WRE North Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· O Ea t Perimet r Distance in Fe t.' O FBMG 1'-t novE GROUND. FENCE TO REMAIN UN111 PLANT Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 CAN SURVIVE NLDLIFE DAMAGE South Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· 0 West Perimeter Distance in Fe t: 0 DECIDUOUS TREES: WRAP TRUNK W/40 TREE EVERGREEN TREES: STAKE & GUY USING 3 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shr bs: 0 MAP FROM BOTTOM UP TO FIRST BRANCH & STAKES 0120' AROUND TREES. NO SECURE STAKE & GUY USING 2 STAKES SPRAYING OR WRAPPING Side and Rear Lot Lines - 1 Tree per 30 Linear Feet and 1 Shrub per 5 Linear Feet SPACED 180% North Perimeter Distance in Feet: O East Perimeter Distance in Feet: O Trees: 0 Shn.lbs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 DO NOT HEAWLY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. South Perim ter Distance In FeetÂ· 0 We t Perimeter Distance In Fe t. 0 PRUNE OHLY CROssma UUES. CO-DOW\,4,141 LEADERS AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shr bs: 0 WAY BE PRUNED; HOWEER, DO NOT REMOvE SOME INTERIOR â„¢GS AND LATERAL BRANCHES THE TERNINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED SUCH THAT Total Parking Perimeter Plantings THE TRUNK FLARE IS MSIBLE AT THE TOP North East OF THE ROOT BALL. TREES NIERE THE TRUNK Tr.s: O Shrubs: O Trees: O Shrubs: O MARK THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TREE FlARE IS NOT MSIBLE SHALL BE REETED. IN THE NURSERY, AND ROTATE TREE DO NOT COVER THE TOP OF THE ROOT 1 South West TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHEN EVER BALL NTH SOIL POSSIBLE 1 Trees: O Shrubs: O Trees: O Shrubs: O 0.5 IN. DIAW. MULCH RING PLASTIC HOSE 5 FT. DIAN. MIN. STEP 5. Interlor Parking Lot Requirements GALVANIZED WIRE OR CABLE For parking lots with thirty or more spaces, 6% of the lot must by landscaped with planted islands. One tree and 2 SET TOP OF ROOT BALL FLUSH TO â„¢ST VARE TO IGHTEN. shrubs per 2,500 square feet of parking lot. GRADE OR 1-2 IN. HIGHER IN SLOWLY DRAINING SOILS 1,5 x 1.5 IN. Parking Spaces: O EXCAVAE TREE PIT TO 2X BALL DIAWEER. HARDWOOD STAKES OR OTHER Parking Lot Area: O 8 IN. APPROVED STAKE MATERIAL- 3 IN. MULCH. DO NO PLACE 4 IN. HIGH EARTH SAUCER Landscape Islands square feet : 0 MULCH IN CONTACT W1114 TREE TRUNK. BEYOND EDGE OF ROOT BALL MAINTAIN THE MULCH Â¥EED-FREE FOR 111111-11 1!, MAINTAIN UNDER ALL TOPO CONDITIONS inimum Number of Trees: O A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS AFER REMOVE ALL TINE , ROPE AND Minimum Number of Shrubs: 0 PLANTING. W**;416 7,1,1&'6 644,W, ir, BURLAP FROM TOP HALF OF ROOT BALL /.3>ya 1 7 1111 , 111,1 \ IF PONT IS SHIPPED Â¥1â„¢ A WRE BASKET AROUND UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE ~ 1~ THE ROOT BALL, CUT THE VIRE BASKET AND REMOVE STE 6: Fences and Walls Adjacent to Streets PLANT GUIDE 1 Evergreen and 3 Shrubs per 40 L- PLACE ROOT BALL ON UNEXCAVATED rh DECIDUOUS TREE Linear Feet of Fence/Wall OR TAMPED SOIL TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL North Fencing/Wall Distance in Feet: o East Fencing/Wall Distance in Feet: 0 BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE 0 CON/FER TREE SO THAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. Tr es: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shr bs: 0 NOTO - 0 ORANMENTAL 71?EE ALL STAKES SHALL BE DRIEN OUTSIDE South Fencing/Wal Distance in Feet: o West Fencing/Wall Distance in Feet: 0 THE EDGE OF THE ROOT BALL ~3> EXISTING TREES Tr es: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 447 ASSURE THAT THE BEARING SURFACE OF THE PROTECTIVE COVERING OF THE WIRE OR CABLE AGAINST THE TREE mUNK IS A MINIMUM OF O.5 IN.. .~ TREES TO BE REMOVED REMOVE STAKING AS SOON AS THE TREE HAS GROWN SUFFIGENT ROOTS TO RESIST THE HIGH WINDS THAT REQUIRED THE TREE TO BE STAKED. Grand Total NRE OR CABLE SIZES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: ~ VARIOUS SHRUBS Total Trees This Plan: #V 114 Added _ 80 Existing TREES UP TO 2.5 IN. CAUPER - 14 GAUGE Existing Trees Total Trees Includes 90 District Buffer Oa rees 194 Total mEES 2.5 IN. TO 3 IN. CAUPER - 12 GAUGE Minus 80 Ever reen Trees Added: 54 Ever reen Trees Required: 134 nGHTEN WIRE OR CABLE ONLY ENOUGH TO KEEP FROM SUPPING. ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. PLASTIC HOSE o a ru o a ru s Total Shrubs SHALL BE LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE 1.5 IN. OF GROWTH AND BUFFER ALL BRANCHES FROM 11â‚¬ WIRE. Ad ed: 329 Re uired: 329 This Plan: 331 TUCK ANY LOOSE ENDS OF THE WIRE OR CABLE INTO THE WIRE WRAP SO lHAT NO SHARP VIRE ENDS ARE EXPOSED. DATE: REVISION: : PROJECT TITLE: Notes: Generally, landscaping requirements are not cumulative. All landscaping requirements moy be used to satisfy impervous coverage landscaping. Street landscaping, i.e., landscaping for street frontage buffers, parking lot perimeters, and fences and TREE PLANTING DETAIL - B&B TREES IN ALL SOIL TYPES WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS CORNE#STONE walls adjacent to streets is not cumulative. This spreadsheet automatically subtracts parking lot permimeter and fence/wall - requirements from the street frontage buffer requirements. It then totals all trees and shrubs in every landscaping category NOTE: THIS DETAIL ASSUMES â„¢AT 1HE PLANTING SPACE IS LARGER THAN 8 FT. other than impervous coverage and subtracts this total from the number of trees and shrubs required for impervious coverage. SQUARE, OPEN TO THE SKY, AND NOT COVERED BY ANY PAVING OR GRABNG. SHEET TITLE: LANDSCAPE TMIS DETAIL IS TYPICAL IN INTENT ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL AD.UST HIS Existing significant trees count towards the total number of required trees. WORK TO ACCOMODATE ALL CONDITIONS DETAILS N./ma y'(1 1 .C DESIGNED BY Rws APPROVED BY 1092 NG nEm;@aiNkt343:#'~~7mj-83.-2408 surr: zoo DRAWN BY _RWS_ DATE JULY 2007 487.002 8 1 1 LOFTUS DEVELOPMENT,INC. CUENT: ESTES PARK; CO. 80017 ~ FAX (970) 686-2469 CHECKED BY WST SCALE AS SHOWN :;11 Â¢11 41 DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTIES PARK SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO &,7 1 -,1.- #-4-71 T".* .- ,<* 1 9 2- i r DRAWN IY ..2-_ DATE _*YA 2007 06074 9 1 1 LOFTUS DEVELOPMENT,INC. 303 297 3334 FAX 303 292 2601 CUENT: DENVER COLORADO 80202 CHECKED m LP SCALE 1/r . r..t ........... ----i=; -&==15,~I ...1.~ . 6~rmmmilic....'.-I-- - 0.1~ 21'2=.1 ,ilimirli- Illililim - - '4 U 0-E 1,11,I=.-mâ€ž 1111111111111 11 -1 ES 4 =râ€¢ ..9-I ./= .1.-'.-'.-.1 2-4-1 11-1-1 P , A.4 A......~ili~In~~I'lli"~ili~~tilliv"1~~Ill mi=**Il-li,1 "Il:rill@ 1 /Zifist,i.'- -iffr-T"..-1 bl -==millimili"Hilililim' -'ll----'-~-sm 11 1,â€¢1â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢11â€¢â€¢11 â€¢11â€¢111 -"''------I'..'/.I- -9,-' i :=6~â€¢Iâ€¢Iâ€¢kilmill "*NE,16'.Ill'.1.'ellâ€¢I~â€¢I rN ~ ,-1"..~ ~w-=-I:01'*ME!!Rin,Jig- - lili!.d...11', 9 < a - me'l".'-I'.=-. - 11 111*. 1 \ 1 Rer#.a *=i#19*all --' - 1.3- r i . 45~LNE,WimE/glul, 1 =-= 1 EA k ... i--- ---'-dz- ' 1 L t. -....1. I ..... 1 ""84'"~la j~ 561:lin"ii *1#WELF-7,-md'm1z~1"1%,imiefT:In~me-=.il-3- ' 24/" 58- * 2112-9=~*2 291:~.X--r e 1~ . - Bm =vi-.*5-*,.w,x=16,*~91w~w-R#<~-.-.. 0 . 6-4- â€¢CU- - D. A 0 1 D D A . 0 1/ ~1111,!~ . 1011'18 -9 -~-1-11.-11 --I..~-I'll-I~'~~Ill~.....~....'-----r K ~ ~111~1 -- .~1.-5 Illllll~lm"= 1111:tl--I-,1111,111...01114 mi=11 0-1-1 .~ b f ki 1 ;01 . -/.55:i:,i:~lijimimimillillili.jifF,1-9"*'4 li-al'â€¢'-:4"ll 11.1--1.41111 ..1-1 -----11!11!lr9~1|"L iia.i~'-=--"--,.it!!!Ii!!!111!I*lilit|!!!!!!!!1! ~â€¢mâ€¢m.1~â€ž4.wI â€¢~ii !!L .............#--1-P---......... .111!Illâ€¢â€¢a"".-â„¢1111".HIE =2i~ EEP~.-=~I.~....- ~'H'11,11!8111111"11!~Â®,"lim-."111(1141 ,!,3~?iE#jij#~~ij@. ~ ~ ~ ailli.*.r....:-'---*-21,ull,11,1,4,"millilimilinlilli!Â®11111;Ill"'11-..lilliwill *,Ellie:11~5~eme:mimmilim~imi~mit..i.../..........'......./............-- - , r j 1-*i~/-1-1-" 11,1-11.1~-111111, UUM--*-1 ,"OU,11!IL*"11.,!11!,Illl- lilli. ilil:EEmilli1111111111111 ~~118'V l. ,!'.' .1. i if."IM -J=l-7 lili M--'.b ,1 :- ,,EEE. 1 Â£,1--,@El :91216;.-55,.F~(Ed;--' imma==4-1==i;166-1 ---I=.-Il'".dil-"'----,1,-104% 00 - .Ju,â€ž1Â¢4./.6--1./..5<7-IL,CA-i. .---I-- . D A .0 , A D . ... A .1 " 0 --%- ., D.. a D ..0 00' 1 I Uj//6 11 -. t' .-_ ~Ill!;imiimimiligerf-W-*.----4-4"*ig '!Il 1==11=1 ||||||11|1~1111111? ;M!*!*RI 0214*]C~ .i , , 41 - - , . 1 0 ==*2 -*........."11111111",11,"11111111â€¢1 irnmil::11::::::::::5.--'Call D . 4 . 00,11,11! -lisi- 11111!2.- r "-'/-' . Â£ Illl- 16.Mz:, ' ?b ~t 4 11.1,1.1, -1--1 1-Im'-1-li-- 1:Sm= t ::r. 4:6-32=29'-40- 1 111 .1,1.1 lili Â£..54/.Ag,4.' .1 4 r==~ ....1 92 . D.. .44.1 m,423221-,'-'-ET--ME'.4,01*fiE'pa&25*~1;El:-,i --a-UV . - . i-/.8,1/25,/Ill/:4//.-82*::UX,/pm:,6/1/re:01.. 1 8 1 A . 1 ... ... '- Lâ€¢ , 1 . D , . Â·t 'J' .il Witlill= -e ... OE:211 NIIIILu~r,â€¢~~m,~ A . - 1 11 It, 1 - I .0 .'.V '. %:: 1:Inilll INTIil In:Till 1 : .1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN WJ AMA 9 V 7 ir/1 f Â· * 4 1; t>.h P Il -/ DATE: REVISION: : PROJECT TIRE: FBONT ELEVATION - MULTI-FAMILY 1 NAPITI CROSSING CONDOMUWUMS ~ SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION SHEET THZE: THE MULHERN GROUP, LTD, BUILDING ELEVATIONS ARCHITECTUREÂ·PLANNINGÂ·INTERIORS - m -1L-- â€¢â€¢RovED m 1730 BUKE STREET SUffE 435 DRAII IY -_LP-- DATE JULY 21 2007 06074 CLIENT: DENVER COLORADO 80202 CHECKED Ir LP SCALE 1/8" . 1Â·-O- 1011 Loms DEVELOPMENT,INC. 303 297 3334 FAX 303 292 2601 ........... XI 1 34 44 4 f V ' A. .0 ... I . .... r 0 0 0 DAD -- . . ..... 0 . . 0 ..... 11 0 -"'I---'.-I.'-f ./ 45=k 111-W- 11.1-1 11-1-1-1- 1 1-1-1-- - 2111/// 1-1-1 LI -##- . ....9--- :-102'21 1 .-111 -1-1 -.---.....1.1-,- 1 .1....111.=1 ~ 1,11~11* ....... I r-Il---7- \ -1..~I.~Il-li=.Ill'lll'llil~-- I * ., ./ D ml--11 *~~! ,a U I .....i.~0101*0* Ill-lly~ 1 0,1 1 i, irmili i mi 1 ==i Â£1 -14 1 5*,=:~-I-; . 1 0 D. 0 I . D =.....Fl.-Ill.... â€ž*./.*-# ......../. ....~....4..............El....liu'lifil.' . -I-1/1 4 -1/0...'I--'I-'-I.- i I -4'led.. - 0 . 1.4 ~ I ' 'Â· MI~il ./-/1~a= .. A -*/tw .91 1 11-,e=..1 1. D . 'IF-411 11.....2/.... .11 flililli .1~.1 A /22 ~FO :E~Il=. _~23:51=msm===..~'Il'-~I.--........I.--'.~- 1=,- IL./-/'./,--, -:1?,-I-..-/-/'.- 2=~=~t~--~~ -.'./-1-1 11-lilli-1-1-1. _.-!li $'*%-#89.44 -jâ€¢Illâ€¢11'â€¢1. 1.1- -1-1 1 -1-- -1 ill .lilli ~ 4 ' '1 .lr ' .. . .1 , r .1 Al.11/.111.11. .am==11-11-11= --1.-ill,1-1.- feg:tÂ·-=.I--'I.-I=-=Il-~ +Ii",i,-Immi~>- Url 4/ ' 'BAI -1 -*11â€¢ J~52:~.mE, .1-HEA.3=4--a.+ ~I~tillPil 4%1.1.1~111...11 ,- 11- 5 ~f 1 -I,-1.1-1 ~4,7,4-~1-- a..A,VAH.4--f.All.Â£'Mill-1.1.1.1.1..1-11 aw.....M.~~~i~| 2-2-.t-'-1-i ilf~'.=.i....-I-I........""N d ilrt0illill....Illill'"1111,lielifi~~"~~~~B~~:::::t .Ii -1-1-il . .........1 f 4 U Al"13,/ - -- mum L...4 -1~111.1~ 111, f~ 0*~~ 4.Iii - 1.1.4-'IL#,1 4% - b.10.\ - : m -1.-1 -1-1-1 -1=1-1 lili ill:il~lic .i 1 1 1/illill ill.li.1 lilli "Â·~UE~ 1 â€¢â€¢* %522*Ilit li,u*Dir=rv* 1 -. .- Râ‚¬<Aine,~ .-lie- I --11.-11-.1 - - . .-1-' SIT 3 529/:..I~/:4:ingf l %aili~~Fle/F,i./.:-:...i.IEi'T-lilillk:JE~,3~ilillY:/aw/*421:Wi::bv,jila:::fri:" - lill'll...bl/'ll'..k- /191/ill,iM"/ell.:.Ill'i 0 -- ... 4 A ' .==~'=",-Iâ€ž~,I'~-"I,I........=â€ž=vlllII~ligll' ' -â€žâ€ž,~vii~711111,%:- 1.111-1-1-!1â€¢ =,~~"IiI'I'..'.-â€ž.mi'-~,I.â€ž- -=â€ž~.,--.--.-~.-,Ii,.-~!MIJfMIJI i!!1!-t.Mi =i=-*1==elm-11-ic-:1~...,I,â€ž~II- ---- .-I 1.1-1,1.11.1.11.11.' 11, r Â©Dr, =!-1.1...ill.1-1.1111.= #,4 . r~~~ I L ,,A 11.hll.~,11: "I. .1.~. 411.111/ 44 1. -0/://11 . .Ii,Ii.*:.4.i- ~ I~....~,=4=~:IMI~FiI<~F#~I -=im-i~: 1 EdM~1~m~~~ 1 ~~1I~ 1~IliEIM ~ lilli 1 1 :.-1-....'-1 --1-,-..I-'.- .ii/~il I i ----- -1--1-- i ~. ...il:allii â€¢ Wal#5&61'~ -mi- i..-6- - Illi'i . ~ j", I.,1! 6'u 1 M - 11*1-1 - 1 -- - -1 .1 1 1 -1.2-- ... =11 imi -11-1- 1 Wilill .1///71//1 1%Ii* trEI! â€¢-~6 -- . .. - . 8.: -11. .111 't~~ li.1 i ~~E 2 -- --- 1 . 111 .1 1.. -11 il-I=-1 -1 = 21-42%-'IM :1: Ihi,I! 7- 1 - -== -Â· 1 21-.*pir". : . - 9.--1--1-. := *=-.:ae-2 - 6 1 -2~Ei-- =~10 a -- Illillillill -i 9.-14/1 & =:iv,.77 â€¢ -:,--,--14* 1- I--.-,-1 9;IMJ,6- -PL--11/3:/,v,,0&TH-L/- i ,--,--p=--4-,1 F~j===~-2~91~-3- Pâ€žmlj 1 W-*.---6- :1.li. 1 ~ L.~~~19 9,5 , 4-= * 2.=a ~ :li 11 1 /4-=. ~m.w E M 'll .11-1 -1 F I -i -1.-/47./--1 - milillimili~ m . 2 -1 ' 1/ lilli ~ Il I /Â©AD>ill Il - -1 1* -1 1. i i i 11 j -1 /*AL P 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4- j ' â‚¬*490*7704+ *9482â€¢Ke WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS i 4 61(-O,1 LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION '- -64*r **we 43 .. ' 1'-4/ 0-0 443*"re* -54.0.+ Ulwl.66 TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK 0 ' -----32- t*Â¥HW **IMP-;PAJ.6 SECTION 31, JOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., ) 14. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO Â·~ r-~-1~11 1111131 tt 11 9 tt tlitpÂ¥'j -: / ~ Dflitt it tt Trir- 4 4- 1 1 . " , ' â‚¬ i t Â· E .1 ..4* - 1 1 . ' 7"*4 '*M&51#- I -Of ' / (2â€ž 4 R = - f A; . 4% O, '/ 11Â· .'.1 ...1 1 1 . 110.14~ 1-. \ I . / / 3 \ 119'Ill 11 h H 11 . Â·4 0 - n.,- 4 <- 78*11- .i.=.2.==a a.1/=am. . Â· 1 --,4.'glgrltriVptj k--'-.-.Jl tr 8 -Â· ~ PVT*- CL,AMW 4,41& AH <4.91*' 1,- - , 1 / rMmA" ' Tri i & UNT 2-B Ul - . i / - 1 / 7* Orte,- Â»*le- 11 - 1 --,1 -/ 1 - | r 2 BED E9- O / % 1- 1 li I 'QI ill 1 1 A tq' 1Aw*4 19*54.611.A,&- R.ul -1Â¥Â·0<*l C,-Â·WUPSAÂ»â‚¬-0- =WKIMA 1 rtitÂ» fH+ , 6*â‚¬f-+0 r*t-71. 1 1 - . 1 13 1-1, --- MAN-r \,+46*,+MI ~ 7 t--1- . - - beBBY J 1 1 1, 1- -r-11 Â· \ 3 14' &50 =1 44 :k--441 : Dz*= 011 1-*. 1BED i - N U..1-1 1- . - I . i i 45Â¥P '03IFF 1.- - p , 1 BEE) ---1 0- : P' ' ill BED i 1 1 ., . ---.1 ! 1 \1 1 --- i ir L ,-1.------111 lilli- MIll-.-0.. i dmevÂ·L 41::1=Mjfit#~13:!:=12~1 . 1 ...... SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 6-- 1 --* /0 ~ ./1 > 9 -- . 14, 1 --1 MULTI-FAMILY lat L t: D ;-4 Â·-. I -1-â€ž-,zI: -Il ; . 1 h \3664(1 4- \ 1 1 1 , . 1., , U 1 , t D 0 2 40 SPACES ,% i : . r. 2,0,Â· - -/ - i ii . ; I IT T d L .4 j M-- -7r ~ ~ ~~ ~ - _ ~ 1 9 1 1 r' VZ-- 1 -- ' 4 , ': l i ~ .1 f ! S. i 3 >it L 4 1. 2: -I- 'll-Fl- .-4.-1.- .1 >t 01 $. . 1 :.: i : Â·:.f, . =. i i , i F PIll ENTRY BELOW_ 1 Py GARAGE LEVEL PLAN \ 11 \ 1 1. 1. ~03,3. i 13811 14 MULTI-FAMILY NTRY BELOW 2BED \ - 1 UNIT HEIGHT TABLE UN IT FINISHED ROOF RIDGE GRADE ELEV. LOWEST HIGHEST TOTAL ROOF ALLOWABLE == -1 $ I D. U*t.Ul_.-- _....... - L- + NUMBER FLOOR ELEV ELEV. @ ROOF RIDGE GRADE ELEV. GRADE ELEV. HEIGHT HEIGHT 41 -23/18*/gil).1 1 2*0UD 21*171,- 2.._ ~ ' r - 1 Al 7689.57 7719.12 7688.07 7687.24 7690.20 31.05 31.48 1Â· A2 7688.5 7716.09 7684.96 7684.07 7687.24 31.13 31.59 1 1-A- A3 7688.79 7682.7 31.20 31.73 '4 7711.45 7680.25 7679.23 r,17,+ . 4 A4 7688.33 7712.22 7681.06 7680.12 7683.4 31.16 31.64 I .rt, 3. ,Â£-fiC A5 7690.42 7718.45 7687 7686.98 7690.66 31.45 31.83 4-1- .-V 6*"I& 1--- $ -- =64*B' 1 1 A6 7692.61 7722.71 7691.64 7690.66 7693.94 31.07 31.64 44 1 -4 11 1 1 3. 1 A8 7694.35 7720.95 7689.54 7688.51 7692.34 31.41 31.91 A7 7695.55 7724.78 7693.39 7692.34 7696.16 31.39 31.91 1 ; Â· Tvlt P ' W- A10 7692.45 7715.6 7684.39 7683.46 7686.81 31.21 A9 7691.15 7713.26 7682.05 7681.22 7684.57 31.21 31.68 1 1 Ill.. 1. ~ ,; 31.68 i ~-T 7692.27 7696.55 31.49 . All 7694.90 7720.75 7689.21 7688.23 7692.27 31.54 37.02 4-__.., ,=cm= ICT lar 12 13 1, :1 4 Â« Trgrrl:j All 7695.57 7726.95 7695.45 7694.45 7698.49 31.5 32.0 A12 7696.17 7724.93 7693.44 32.14 m --44= -1 .. 1 Â«r . - A14 7693.81 7722.9 7691.35 7690.34 7694.45 31.55 32.05 i .~_UNi/1-Ct-t- -19 -]r- IJNIfI:Ir- ---UN.TI:Il -â€¢ 10* Al 5 7695.44 7726.27 7695.03 7694.09 7697.51 31.24 31.71 d -- Al 6 7705.50 7734.92 7703.39 7702.74 7706.57 31.53 . Frft ~1111 F: ---,-â€ž .-*-,-I. 7-/. ...1.... , 11 1 BEI . 1 BED ~ 31.65 82 7691.25 7713.46 7682.32 7681.39 7684.6 31.14 31.61 1 81 7688.58 7712.08 7681.04 7680.02 7683.22 31.04 31.60 \ I ' \ I L 1 4 11 1 EXYâ„¢10/3.Ja -- -- *.- -- ----- b - - - MULTI-FAMILY Â· Â· Â· NORTH 7708 (First Lvl.) 7738.79 7705.58 7704.13 7711.92 33.21 33.89 SOUTH 7696 (Garage) 7731.66 7699.81 7699.05 7703.42 31.85 32.18 131 - - 71 It FIRST FLOOR PLAN DATE: REVISION: UY: PROJECT TITLE: P 4 2 1 1 1 MULTI-FAMILY ' WAPITT CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS ~ SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION THE MULHERN GROUP, LTD. GaEET Tin.E: r , .i 1730 BLAKE STREET 3 . '1 . a BUILDING FLOOR PLANS ARCHITECIUREÂ·MANNINGâ€¢INTERIORS 1 I ' 1 DE-0 m ap _-MID m JML JOI "0. *HEM SHEET SUITE 435 ORA. W ....12.-_ DATE -8ULZE 0,074 1111 c,ENT; 303 297 3334 FAX 303 292 2601 DENVER COLORADO 80202 11 1 CHECKED . 1 SCALE 1/t . 1'4 LOFTUS DEVELOPMENT,INC. ........... I I i r 11 Â· U A 41 11 -*%1.-~-nZ4-L.,1,wr' 7%&& . 1,k AN'.Val -*