The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-01-16FILE- 647 Prepared: January 10, 2007 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 16, 2007 11:30 a.m. Study Session, Rooms 201 and 202 1:30 p.m. Meeting, Board Room, Town Hall 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes dated December 19, 2006 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 3. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments are not to exceed 3 minutes. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-08, RIVERVIEW PINES DEVELOPMENT, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue Applicant: Real Estate Investment Cet I, LLC Request: Remove existing structures and construct 23 units - 3 tri-plexes and 7 duplexes Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, STONEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, Metes & Bounds, 1043 Fish Creek Road Applicant: Rock Castle Development Co. Request: Subdivide one lot into three lots Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 6. REZONING, STONEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, Metes & Bounds, 1043 Fish Creek Road Applicant: Rock Castle Development Co. Request: Rezone proposed Lot 1 from RM - Multi-Family Residential to O - Office Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 7. REPORTS 8. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Estes Valley Planning Commission The next scheduled meeting will be held Tuesday, February 20,2007. There are currently five items on the agenda. You can view information about all current submittals, including next month's Planning Commission items, on our web page: www. estesnet.com/comdev/Cu rrentReq uests. aspx ELECTION OF OFFICERS I nominate Commissioner for Chair. I nominate Commissioner for Vice-Chair. I move that the Community Development Department Administrative Assistant or designee be appointed as Recording Secretary. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DRAFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission December 19, 2006, 1:30 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink Attending: Chair Pohl; Commissioners Eisentauer, Hix, Hull, Kitchen, and Klink Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Amos, Planner Chilcott Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated November 21, 2006. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Hull) that consent agenda item "a" be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and Commission Kitchen abstaining due to her absence at the November 21, 2006 meeting. b. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-06, Bobcat Ridge, Lot 2A, Shanafelt Minor Subdivision, Gary & Christine ShanafeIVApplicant c. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, Bobcat Ridge, Lot 2A, Shanafelt Minor Subdivision, Gary & Christine ShanafeIVApplicant It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Klink) that consent agenda items "b" and "c" be accepted, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-06 CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the comments in Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated September 20,2006. This does not require any revisions to the application. 2. Compliance with Gloria Hice-Idler's note dated September 19, 2006 on the All Affected Agencies memo, which states "a new access permit must be obtained for the increased traffic volumes and relocation of the access." No revisions are required to the application at this point. To comply with this condition, a copy of the approved access permit shall be submitted with the first grading/building permit application. 3. Compliance with the comments in Greg Sievers' memo to Alison Chilcott dated September 22, 2006. Public Works' comments #5 and 6 require revisions to the development plan. 4. A copy of the approved access easement and maintenance agreement showing proof of recordation shall be submitted to staff prior to final development plan approval, i.e., prior to the Planning Commission Chairperson signing the development plan mylar. 5. The minimum required southern-lot-line setback for the Tranquil Lane right-of-way shall be shown. 6. The size of the existing culvert shown at the southeast corner of the property shall be shown correctly on both pages of the development plan, i.e., it shall be shown as a fifteen-inch culvert. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 19, 2006 7. The stormwater management system shall be revised to ensure that water from the driveway leading to Units 1 and 2 enters the detention pond. The cross-slope shall be increased. 8. The detention pond shall be located entirely on Lot 2A, unless the encroachment is permitted by CDOT. 9. Proposed utilities currently proposed behind Unit 5 should be located in the ten- foot-wide easement on Lot 2B to assist in tree protection. 10. Gas lines shall be shown on the development plan. 11. Minimum landscaping requirements shall be revised as follows. Minimum Required Trees Shrubs Landscaping Impervious Coverage 3 21 District Buffer for the Southern 5 Evergreen 13 Lot Line and Trees Street Frontage Buffer for + 2 Trees Tranquil Lane Street Frontage Buffer - CO 8 19 Highway 7 Existing Trees Along District -1 Buffer Existing Trees on Site (Meeting -3 -21 (Although Applicable Standards for there are only 2 Impervious Coverage) existing shrubs, the additional 23 trees on site can be counted to towards the required number of shrubs. Total 14 32 If staff determines that the trees behind Unit 5 are protected, replacement trees shall not required for any of the trees proposed to be removed. 12.The existing access easement was shown on prior versions of the plans but removed from the latest version. This existing access easement shall be shown on Sheet 1 of 2. 13. The access/utility easement shown on Sheet 1 of 2 shall be labeled "proposed" as it was on prior versions of the plan. 14. The "mailboxes pad" label on Sheet 1 of 2 does not point to anything. The mailbox pad shall be shown. 15.The "OHE," "SS," and "E" symbols used on the plan shall be included in the Sheet 1 of 2 legend. 16.The overlapping "drainage pan" text near Colorado Highway 7 shall be removed on both sheets of the development plan. 17. Provision of animal-proof dumpsters is required, and the condominium declaration shall address animal-proof dumpsters. 18. A final drainage report shall be submitted for review and approval with the first grading/building permit. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the Development Plan 06-06 conditions of approval. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Town Board Liaison Homeier acknowledged Commissioner Hix and thanked him for his time, effort, and service to the Planning Commission, Town Board, and numerous other DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 December 19, 2006 local boards. He also recognized the service and commitment of Commission Pohl over his 23 years of service to EPURA and the Planning Commission. Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Court, provided comments on the proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regarding vacation homes. He stated residentially zoned areas should be for residential use only. Commercial enterprises, including vacation homes, should not be allowed in these zoning districts. He noted there is existing zoning for accommodations and business uses; operations that require a business license, such as vacation rentals, should be restricted to areas zoned as Accommodations or Commercial. He emphasized the difficulty in enforcement of regulations relating to vacation rentals. He distributed a written copy of his comments to the Commissioners. Don Gooldy, 1071 Fall River Court, also provided comments on the proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regarding vacation homes. He objected to use of the term "vacation home," noting that vacation homes provide accommodations, not residential living. He requested that no uses, accessory or otherwise, be allowed in residentially zoned areas except residential use. He distributed written comments to the Commissioners. 3. AMENDED PLAT, REZONING, DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-09, & PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP; Sunny Acres Condominiums; Lot 5, Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, and Metes and Bounds, a Portion of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of S25-T5N-R73W of the 6~ P.M.; 260,265, & 267 Sunny Acres Court; Applicant: Van Horn Engineering representing Steven R. Spry Director Joseph reviewed the staff report for the proposed amended plat, rezoning, Development Plan 06-09, and preliminary condominium map proposed for this site. The original plat of this old subdivision did not dedicate public streets for legal access, nor did subsequent amended plats. When the adjacent Fall River Village PUD was approved, access to the applicant's lots was provided via Sunny Acres Court, a private street within the PUD. Sunny Acres Court should have been platted as a public street because it provides public access to an adjacent site, but it was not due to an oversight on the part of planning staff. In order to address this issue, planning staff recommends that a fifty-foot right-of-way for a cul-de-sac bulb be platted on the applicant's property. The cul-de-sac bulb will not be completed at this time, and Sunny Acres Court will remain a private street. However, future landowners in the adjacent Fall River Village Estates lots, in conjunction with future property owners of the applicant's site, could choose to complete the cul-de-sac bulb and dedicate the road as a public street. The future homeowners would pay for the improvements to the road. Prior to the valley-wide rezoning in 2000, the property was zoned RM-Multi-Family Residen#a/, but was rezoned to E-1-Estate and R-2-Two-Fam#y Residen#a/ because of a earlier illegal subdivision of the lot that planning staff was unaware of at the time of the rezoning. The applicant proposes to combine the two lots into one, which will eliminate the non-conforming, illegally created R-2-zoned lot. The applicant also proposes to rezone the property to RM, which staff considers a corrective rezoning, and to formally dedicate access and utility easements. The rezoning will be conditioned on the final approval and recordation of the amended plat. Provided the amended plat and rezoning requests are approved, the applicant's development plan (#06-09) would allow the expansion of the two existing duplexes, as well as an additional single-family unit to be built. The applicant has also submitted a preliminary condominium map proposal for these five units. Each application is conditioned on approval of the others; if one is denied, all are denied. Planning staff recommends approval of the requests. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town of Estes Park Building Department, Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White, and Estes Park Sanitation District. Written comments were received from neighboring property owner, Noel West Lane Ill on behalf of the Lane Ill Group, Inc. on November 13, DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December 19, 2006 2006, and via two emails on December 13, 2006, in opposition to the applicant's requests. Director Joseph stated that in a subsequent telephone conversion with Mr. Lane, Mr. Lane withdrew his opposition. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying stated the applicant has reviewed staff's recommended conditions of approval, is in agreement with them, and will submit corrections as required. Mark Petrovich, representing Noel Lane and the Fall River Village Estates lots, stated Mr. Lane is in support of the applicant's proposals for Sunny Acres Condominiums, provided the following information is correct: â€¢ There will be no removal of Fall River Village Estates street improvements. â€¢ Fall River Village Estates lots will stay separate and distinct from Sunny Acres Condominiums, exactly as they are now. â€¢ If future landowners wish to dedicate the private street, Sunny Acres Court, as a public street, the decision to do so rests solely with future Fall River Village Estates homeowners. Director Joseph clarified that the most likely scenario is that the future landowners will have to pay for the road improvements prior to acceptance of the road by the Town Board into public right-of-way. However, the decision to do so will rest with a future Town Board, which may or may not choose to help pay for the improvements. No action of the Planning Commission can presume to bind any future action of the Town Board in this regard. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the request for an Amended Plat, Rezoning, and Preliminary Condominium Map for Sunny Acres Condominiums; Lot 5, Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, and Metes and Bounds, a Portion of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of $25-T5N-R73W of the 6~ p.M.; to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. AMENDED PLAT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Compliance with the amended plat comments in Greg White's memo dated November 21, 2006. All new easements shall be dedicated. 2. Compliance with Greg Sievers' memo dated November 27, 2006. The following comments require changes to the amended plat. a. To address comment #9, ten-foot-wide utility easements shall be dedicated along all property lines as requested by the Public Works Department. b. To address comment #12, a shared-driveway maintenance agreement shall be submitted for staff review and approval and shall be submitted for recording with the amended plat. The condominium declaration shall address stormwater maintenance. c. To address comment #13, a private non-motorized trail easement shall be dedicated on the amended plat for the existing trail, which connects to the riverwalk, for the benefit of Lots 3 and 4. 3. Compliance with Estes Park Sanitation District's comment #2, which states, "The shared service line agreement needs to be signed by all parties and filed with this office. The District will have the document recorded, but the recording fees will be the responsibility of the developer." The amended plat shall not be recorded until staff has received confirmation from the Estes Park Sanitation District that EPSD has received an approved and signed shared-service-line agreement along with the required recording fee. 4. The private utility easement "for the benefit of Lots 3,4, and 5 Sunny Acres Subdivision" shall reference Lot 5A rather than Lot 5. 5. The dedication statement states the size of the two parcels to be combined is 46,974.32 square feet (1.08 acres). The size is 50,902 square feet (1.17 acres). The dedication statement shall be revised to reference the correct lot size. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 December 19, 2006 REZONING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Town shall reserve the right to rezone the property if the amended plat is not recorded within the timeframes established in the Estes Valley Development Code. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Compliance with the Development Plan 06-09 conditions of approval. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Hull) to approve Development Plan 06-09 for Sunny Acres Condominiums; Lot 5, Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, and Metes and Bounds, a Portion of the SW 14 of the NW 1/4 of S25-T5N-R73W of the 6~h P.M., with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-09 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Compliance with the development plan comments in Greg White's memo dated November 21, 2006. All new easements shall be dedicated. 2. Compliance with Greg Sievers' memo dated November 27, 2006. The following comments require revisions to the development plan: a. Comment #5, which states, "access to the existing pad mount transformer needs to be improved for future upgrade." Demonstrate how the required access will be provided. b. Comment #10, which states, "the 15" culvert extends beyond the Limits of Disturbance and does not have detention shown yet." To address this, the proposed limits of disturbance shall be revised to accurately reflect a# areas that will be disturbed and on/y the areas that will be disturbed with the proposed redevelopment. c. Comment #11, which states, "concrete pan shall not be poured any thinner than 4"." To address this, the detail on Sheet 1 of 2 of the development plan shall be revised to show a four-inch-thick pan. 3. The development plan shall be revised to demonstrate compliance with Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 22,2006. 4. Architectural elevations and floor plans shall be submitted for the master-bedroom addition to the 265/267 Sunny Acres Court duplex. 5. All calculations, e.g., building data, floor area ratio, average slope, and impervious coverage calculations, shall be corrected prior to staff determining whether the plan meets the required density and dimensional standards. Examp/es of errors are listed below. a. Building Data for the 265/267 Sunny Acres Court duplex shall be included on Sheet 1 of 2 of the development plan. b. The Building Data shows a Proposed Building Square Footage of 9,302 square feet; however, when the square footage for the individual buildings is added together the proposed square footage is 6,200. Does the 9,302 number include the second duplex? This shall be clarified. If the total building square footage changes, the floor area ratio shall be updated. c. The building measurements shall be shown correctly on the development plan, i.e., the 265/267 Sunny Acres Court entry is shown as two-feet wide and the width immediately to the west is shown as 21.6 feet. These widths are not correct. d. The incorrect lot size was used to calculate the floor area ratio, i.e., 50,902 was used rather than 46,974.32 square feet, assuming 46,974.32 square feet is the correct lot size for proposed Lot 5A. e. The impervious calculation shall be corrected. This includes verifying the proposed roof coverage, e.g., is the 265/267 duplex included in the roof coverage figure? If so, does it include the proposed master bedroom? Why are patios included in the proposed impervious coverage number, but not the existing impervious coverage? The correct lot size shall be used to determine the impervious coverage. A lot size of 46,962 square feet is used. The 46,974.32-square-foot lot size shall be used, assuming this is the correct lot size for proposed Lot 5A. The maximum allowable impervious coverage shall be stated on the development plan, i.e., fifty percent. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 December 19, 2006 f. The amount of required open space shall be shown accurately - 7,046 square feet, rather than 7,044 square feet, is required. g. The Gross Project Areas data shall be removed. h. All errors in the average slope calculation shall be corrected, e.g., the correct lot size shall be used (46,962 square feet is listed twice). Also, the correct land area required per unit shall be used-in one location 8,610 square feet is mentioned and in another 8,614 square feet. 6. The fifteen-foot and ten-foot setbacks shall not overlap adjacent to the right-of-way. There are two locations where this overlap needs to be corrected. 7. The grading plan shall be re-reviewed and approved by staff after revisions are made. a. Actual elevations rather than assumed elevations shall be provided on the development plan. b. The Drive Cross Section A-A and the plan shall be consistent. The cross section shows a four-foot-wide concrete pan. However, a concrete pan is not shown at Section A-A in plan view. c. The two drive cross-sections shall be consistent with each other. One mentions bedrock as an option for the sub-base, and the other does not. d. Some of the existing contours shown on the original submittal are no longer shown on this plan and shall be shown, e.g., the 7,800' contour shall be fully shown. e. A 7,896' contour is missing at the northeastern end of the existing fifteen-inch culvert and shall be shown. f. The grading plan and the architectural elevations shall be consistent with each other. The architectural elevations show that windows on the east side of the proposed building will be set at an elevation of 7,804' and the proposed grade outside these windows will start at 7,808'. g. Contours shall be shown for the existing driveway leading to the 265/267 duplex. h. What is the 7,799' contour line meant to represent? The remainder of the contour lines on the plan are at even rather than odd elevations. i. Sufficient spot elevations shall be provided to demonstrate that water runs in the center of the existing main driveway and that the driveway has positive drainage. 8. The location of the proposed fifteen-inch culvert and the four-foot-wide concrete drainage pan with riprap at the outlet shall be revised to protect existing trees. 9. The number of existing and proposed trees and shrubs shown on the plan and in the table on Sheet 1 of 2 shall be consistent with each other. 10.The minimum required landscaping provided in the staff report shall be shown on the development plan. 11.The sizes of mature trees and shrubs shall be shown on the development plan. In some cases, this plan shows small trees as being larger than the large trees, e.g., an eight-inch-diameter tree is shown as being larger than a fifteen-inch-diameter tree. 12. References to hand watering in Landscape Note #6 shall be removed. 13. Provision of animal-proof dumpsters is required, and the condominium declaration shall address animal-proof dumpsters. 14. Continuous curbs shall be provided to form a non-interrupted edge around landscaped areas adjacent to parking and turn-around areas that are not protected by wheel stops. 15. The EPSD states that the plan "...meets with their approval with one change. A separate four-inch service line for Lot 3 needs to be extended to the property line of Lot 3 at the time work is done for the proposed single unit. Tearing up and replacing asphalt at a later date is not an acceptable cost-effective solution." A note should be added to the development plan addressing timing of sewer line installation. 16.A final drainage report shall be submitted by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 2,2007 that is stamped by an engineer and includes the certification block found in the DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 December 19, 2006 Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards Manual. The report shall review the need for water quality filtration prior to entering Fall River. 17.The preliminary cul-de-sac bulb construction plans shall include actual rather than assumed elevations, and the applicant shall ensure that as-built conditions for Sunny Acres Court are shown accurately. 18.The preliminary cul-de-sac bulb construction plans shall include elevations of utilities, and any utilities that will need to be relocated shall be noted. 19. Existing and proposed transformer sizes shall be noted. 20. A note shall be placed on the development plan stating that the plan is conditioned on recordation of the approved amended plat by the Town. 21. Labels that do not point to anything shall be removed, e.g., on Sheet 2 of 2 the labels "existing gas line," "existing 6" main not in use," and "existing 4" service" shall be removed. 22.The lot line and monumentation notes for the smaller, illegally subdivided parcel shall be removed. 23. The Certification and Approval shall be removed from Sheet 2 of 2. This is a duplicate of the information on Sheet 1 of 2. 24. An easement symbol shall be provided in the legend. 'TC" shall be included in the legend. 25. Erosion Control Note #6 and Landscape Note #4 shall be combined into one note. 26. The vicinity map on Sheet 1 of 2 shall show the adjacent lots and roads correctly. 27.A wildfire-hazard mitigation plan may be required at the building permit stage. A note on the plan states that it will be required. This note shall be removed. 28. Paper copies of the revised plans addressing all conditions of approval that require changes to the plans shall be submitted to staff by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 2, 2007. This will allow staff time to review the plans prior to the deadline for submittal of the mylar, i.e., 5:00 p.m., Thursday, January 18, 2007. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-08, Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, 1150 West Elkhorn Avenue, Applicant: Real Estate Investment Cet I, LLC Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a proposal to redevelop a site that currently has twenty-six units with twenty-three units for accommodations and multi-family use. The proposed plan includes widening the access road, adding a pedestrian trail along the access road and Elkhorn Avenue, creating drainage ponds along the river, and creating four driveways on the south side of the river and one on the north side. This property and most of the surrounding properties are zoned A-Accommodations, which allows residential and/or accommodations use. The applicant proposes either or both uses. Properties to the south share the common access road with the applicant's lot. An amended plat application to combine two lots into one was approved for this property on September 26,2006, but was not acted upon and has since lapsed. Planning staff based their review of this application on the plans submitted on December 6, 2006. Revised plans that addressed some of staff's concerns were submitted for inclusion with Planning Commission packets on December 13, 2006; however, the Planning Commission must base their decision on the plans submitted for staff review on December 6,2006. Planning staff recommends denial of this application due to noncompliance with a variety of requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), and Planner Shirk provided detailed information on areas of non-compliance. A brief summary is provided in the staff findings shown below. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The submitted application fails to meet numerous requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code, as specified in the Staff report. These include: a. Limits of Disturbance Standards set forth in Section 7.2.D; b. Landscaping does not include street frontage landscaping for the interior street, fails to protect significant trees within twenty-five feet of streets, and uses incorrect calculation requirements; JT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 December 19, 2006 c. Unit 23 does not meet required setbacks. Units 8-11 do not meet required wetland setback; d. Stormwater ponds do not meet "BMP" (Best Management Practices) requirements, aesthetic requirements of Section 7.2.B8, or required river setback; e. Section 7.6.G regarding existing vegetation within required river setback; f. Building height for units 16 and 21 appears to exceed limit. Other units are very close to exceeding height limit; and, g. In Staff's opinion the grading plan fails to comply with Section 7.2.B3 "Cutting to Create Benches." 2. There are a variety of technical corrections that need to be made to the submitted development plan prior to final review. These include: a. Finalization of impervious coverage and density calculations; b. Sidewalk width (need to ensure it will fit in allotted right-of-way); c. Driveway design (width, intersection design); d. Lighting plan; e. Right-of-way width and associated setbacks; f. Refine grading plan; g. Certain landscaping plan changes (retaining wall landscaping, notes, clarify symbols); h. Off-Street parking design; i. Utility design (including required easement); j. Amend Limits of Disturbance to encompass all site work. 3. There are several technical corrections that could be made conditions of approval. These include: a. Road crown; b. Postal box easement; c. Crosswalk markings; d. Corner radii; e. Pedestrian easement near river; f. ADA ramps; g. Parking area curbing. 4. Staff recommends the southern drives be removed, per Table 4-7 and Appendix D.111.6, unless the site can be redesigned to minimize proposed Limits of Disturbance. 5. The Town will not consider assuming public maintenance of the proposed street until a cul-de-sac has been fully developed. 6. An amended plat will be required to be recorded prior to issuance of any permits. 7. The development plan is not consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Plan. 8. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver to Appendix D.11.E2 "Number of Vehicle Trips Per Day," because reducing the number of access points on West Elkhorn Avenue advances the goals and purposes of the EVDC (minimize drives) and would result in superior engineering (fewer drives on an arterial street). 9. Staff recommends disapproval of the requested waivers to right-of-way width (Table D- 1) because it would not advance the goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Development Code and would impact future development of adjacent properties. 10. Staff recommends disapproval of the requested Minor Modification to Section 7.6.E2 (wetlands setback), because such modification would not advance the goals and purposes of the EVDC and would not result in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open-space protection. 11. Written comments from the Division of Wildlife received December 18, 2006 reflect concerns such as the site is on critical winter range for elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep; any increased sedimentation or pollution from petroleum products due to runoff from the site will degrade the riparian area (Fall River); all garbage containers should be bear-proof; etc. 12.The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the development plan. Per Section 3.2.F, appeals to the Planning Commission decision may be made to the Town Board. AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 December 19, 2006 This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Town Attorney Greg White, Estes Park Sanitation District, and the Town of Estes Park Building Department and Public Works Department. Public Comment: Mike Todd of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. He stated that limits of disturbance on the site has been the primary issue between the applicant and planning staff since the original pre-application conference in April 2006. He provided a synopsis of the applicant's submittals for this project. He listed areas of staff concern that he believed had been addressed in the plans submitted on December 13, 2006. He stated the applicant agrees to staff's suggested changes except those regarding limits of disturbance and the cutting and creation benches through grading on the site. The applicant proposes to remove 88 of the 219 trees on the site. He discussed the driveways for units 13 through 23, stating that in order for the property to be marketable, the garages for the units need to be on the main living level. He stated the applicant is not requesting any variances. In response to a question from Commissioner Kitchen, he stated twenty-three units would be maximum number of units allowed on the site, and twenty-three units are proposed. Bryce Dallman addressed the Commissioners, stating he will be the contractor for the project if it is approved. He stated there is nothing recommended by staff that he can't live with or work with except the issue of the trees. He stated more trees can be planted if the Commissioners believe the applicant proposes removal of too many. He stated that the proposed new units will look much nicer than the existing development on the site. The applicanÂ®roperty owner, Carl Towner, stated he has been working with planning staff since April; no major concerns were raised by staff at the pre-application meeting in April. He believes his engineer, Mike Todd, has addressed nearly all issues raised by planning staff over the last seven to nine days. He stated the real issue is the limits of disturbance and that he wants to develop the property. If trees are lost to development, he will replace those trees. Planner Shirk read from a letter he sent to the applicant on April 19, 2006, following the pre-application conference. The letter addresses the need for the interior private road to be constructed to public-street standards, calls out the required right-of-way width, street width, and so forth. It also calls out limits of disturbance standards, notes that no attempt has been made in the pre-application plans to save significant trees, and states that staff will recommend disapproval of the application if it is submitted as shown. Greg Sievers, Town of Estes Park Public Works Department, stated he would like to clarify an item in his memo of September 22, 2006. Bridge design specifications are frequently seen on development plans, but the applicant's submitted plan does not show any AASHTO or roadway bridge design information. This information can be provided at the construction phase. Discussion followed among the Commissioners and planning staff, with Chair Pohl noting the application's multiple areas of non-compliance with the EVDC and the need to balance the property owner's rights with the rights of the community. Commissioner Kitchen stated consideration should be given to the fact that the site has already been disturbed by development. Commissioner Klink stated limits of disturbance are not specifically defined in the EVDC, that changes to the roads/driveways and impervious coverage may require removal of a unit, and suggested continuance of this application to the January meeting. Mike Todd stated the proposed limits of disturbance will be the same in future proposals and that the applicant has not intended to change the proposed limits of disturbance since the original proposal presented to staff in April. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 December 19, 2006 It was moved by Commissioner Hull to disapprove Development Plan 06-08, Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, due to non- compliance with Estes Valley Development Code standards. The motion failed for lack of a second. It was moved and seconded (KlinWHull) to continue Development Plan 06-08, Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, to the January 16, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. Chair Pohl called a recess at 3:35 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 3:42 p.m. 5. NON-MOTORIZED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT, All Section 15, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., less Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners MLD 93-EX0327, 2750 Notaiah Road, Applicant: Eagle Rock School/American Honda Education Corporation Director Joseph reviewed the staff memo. He summarized events leading to this request, including the Eagle Rock School's appeal to the Estes Valley Planning Commission on July 18, 2006 to be relieved of an original condition of approval-that is, to provide a public access easement to National Forest Service property. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, who heard the request on September 11, 2006 and denied the appeal. The County Commissioners further set deadlines for compliance, including the requirement to provide a non-motorized public access easement proposal that would meet the intent of the original condition of approval to the Planning Commission no later than December 2006, with recordation of the easement to be completed no later than January 31, 2007. Planning staff has met with representatives of the school and the Estes Valley Trails Committee, as well as had telephone conversations with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, in an effort to advance discussions so Eagle Rock School could comply with the original condition of approval. Director Joseph provided a graphic presentation of the public access easement proposed by Eagle Rock School (the "black-flag route") and an alternate route proposed by planning staff (the "blue-flag route"). Both routes were walked in the field and recorded using GPS equipment. It is staff's opinion that the black-flag route has serious flaws due to the rugged, steep nature of the terrain and the fact that the route crosses adjacent private property in more than one location. Staff believes the black-flag route does not adequately accommodate the public's right of access across the Eagle Rock School property in a way that is consistent with the intent of the original condition of approval. Furthermore, Eagle Rock School presented a draft "Grant of Easement Agreement" that includes language which imposes a number of restrictions that are unreasonable and inconsistent with the original intent for public access across the school's property. It specifically prohibits hunter access across the property. When development of the property was approved in the 1990s, hunter access across the property was a central issue. The draft easement agreement also requires the County to screen the public and allows Eagle Rock School to terminate the agreement for breach of enforcement. In staff's opinion, the proposed agreement is not workable and is destined to fail. In staff's opinion, there is a workable route that does not interfere with the school's operations on the campus-the blue-flag route. This route closely follows an historic trail that was used for many years to access forest service property to the east of the school property. The school has failed to come forth with a better alternative. Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission create a finding that the proposed black-flag route is unacceptable and the language of the proposed easement agreement is unacceptable. Written comments were received from Dave Larsen, Trails Supervisor for Rocky Mountain National Park, and from Ernst Strenge, Resource Specialist for the Larimer County Parks DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 December 19, 2006 and Open Lands Department, both of whom walked the two routes under consideration. Both concur with planning staff that the black-flag route has serious flaws, including the steep and difficult-to-navigate terrain and practical difficulties for trail construction. Each recommends the blue-flag route. Public Comment: Robert Burkhardt, Head of Eagle Rock School & Professional Development Center, 2750 Notaiah Road, stated only 30% of the approximately 1.25-mile-long proposed trail is in dispute. He requested the trail remain as far north on the property as possible due to issues of intrusion and safety, noting the school uses all of the property. He stated the school had designated a "sacred site" on the northerly portion of the property in 2001 and expressed his desire to ensure the proposed trail does not interfere with the use of the site. He stated there is no doubt about the school's willingness to put in a trail easement; however, the language of the original condition for an access easement does not specify how easy access should be. He expressed concern that the blue-flag route would invite people into the school and create safety issues. He stated his agreement that forest service lands to the east of the school property should be accessible but noted he is extremely reluctant to allow firearms on school property. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider providing for hunter access across the southeast corner of Section 16 on property that was ceded to Rex Walker when the school was developed. He disagreed that the language in the proposed access agreement is designed for failure. He noted there is currently no right of access to the school's property across adjacent private property. When questioned by Commissioner Hull whether the Planning Commission should consider the black-flag route as the school's easement proposal when the route crosses adjacent land privately owned by MacGregor Ranch, he stated he didn't see how they could. Further discussion followed among the Commissioners, Mr. Burkhardt, and Director Joseph. Director Joseph presented a graphic from 1992 showing a tentative trail location that staff's currently proposed blue-flag route closely follows. Commissioner Kitchen pointed out that hunter access across the southeast corner of Section 16 (Rex Walker's property) would still require crossing land privately owned by yet another party. Commissioner Klink stated the original agreement provided for limited hunting on the Eagle Rock School property. Mr. Burkhardt stated the Memorandum of Understanding had expired in 1997, with none of the participating parties moving to renew the MOU. The MOU is null and void. He further stated some hunting abuses had occurred when hunting was allowed during the construction phase of the school. Hunting has not been allowed since that time. Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, stated that prior to development of the Eagle Rock School, the school property (Section 16) was heavily hunted and was a very important elk harvest area. When the section came under consideration for development of the school, the Board of County Commissioners required a trail easement for public access as a prerequisite for approval and further required Eagle Rock School to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service to address elk-harvest issues. Disabled hunters were allowed to hunt on the school property for one season and a portion of another prior to the time the campus was constructed. Upon completion of campus construction, hunting was to be allowed only during school breaks when students would not be present on the property. The disabled hunter access entailed no more than two hunters restricted to vehicles and guided by hunter-education instructors. He stated he had done his best to investigate the alleged hunter abuse, but could not find any Eagle Rock employee who would come forward and tell him what the abuse was. Since that time, approximately twelve years ago, only two elk have been harvested on the Eagle Rock property. He stated the agreement with the County Commissioners was to provide public access as well as hunting access, and that you can't have a hunter access trail that precludes carrying firearms. In considering the issue of safety, he noted that hunter access is allowed across Rocky Mountain National Park property (formerly McGraw Ranch) where the access is right through residential buildings used by research staff, as well as national DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 12 December 19, 2006 park property near Twin Sisters mountain, and a number of hunter access corridors to the Valley. He noted there are many trail easements for hunter access across private land, including the Cheley Colorado Camps property in Glen Haven. Firearms must be completed unloaded from both chamber and magazine, which removes danger of discharge from the firearms. This restriction has prevented problems from occurring on these access easements. He stated that firearms on a trail easement thousands of yards from the school campus, under this requirement, would not pose a danger. He expressed concern that more and more land in the Estes Valley is being removed from hunting access. The management tool for keeping the elk herd in balance is hunting. Forest service trails to the north of the school property don't come anywhere close to Section 15 (the forest service property adjacent to the Eagle Rock property). Gary Matthews, President of the Estes Valley Trails Committee and resident of 139 Stanley Circle Drive, stated he was one of several trails committee members who walked the two access routes under consideration. Neither black-flag nor the blue-flag route is free from obstacles. He stated the area is beautiful and it is clear why hikers, hunters, and horseback riders were very upset about loss of the access when Eagle Rock School was developed. He noted there had been over 90 people in attendance at public hearings in the 1990s. He stated the black-flag route would be very expensive to construct because it crosses very steep, difficult terrain. He stated there is an historic trail in existence where the blue-flag route is proposed. He stated this issue has been drawn out long enough and that he does not want to see the original condition of approval abandoned. He noted that a public access easement on the school property would attract outdoor recreation users and be a great asset to the community. Bob McCreery 2725 Devils Gulch Road, stated he had attended the Board of County Commissioners hearing in September when Eagle Rock School's appeal was denied. He distributed copies of the statement he made to the County Commissioners. He stated his great-grandfather had homesteaded in the North End in 1875; members of his family, including himself, had often ridden on horseback over the Eagle Rock School property, which was highly used by hikers and horseback riders. He stated the County Commissioners had been quite stern in stating the school must mutually agree with the Planning Commission on the proposed trail prior to January 31, 2006 and that the issue should not be drug out into an indeterminate future. He stated the access from Highway 34 (via the southeast portion of Section 16) presents a straight-up wall of rock that is not very conducive even to foot traffic and would not be negotiable by horses. He stated trail could be constructed using existing historic trail that would not cause damage to the school. He urged the Planning Commission to move forward to meet the deadline set by the County Commissioners. Dianne Betts, 2198 Devils Gulch Road, stated she and Dee Burr had ridden on horseback on the "school section" (Eagle Rock School property) extensively from 1981 until it was closed to public access and had attended many meetings to establish a trail to replace the lost access. She noted the importance of maintaining historic access on trails and providing access for horseback riders, stating the blue-flag route could provide such access but the black-flag route would not. She noted the Estes Valley Trail Plan provides a trailhead at the north end of Dry Gulch Road and trail along Dry Gulch Road. She stated she supports the Eagle Rock School but is upset that the school has developed places on the property that they now want the proposed trail to go around. Findings: Director Joseph stated planning staff requests the Planning Commission to consider adopting a finding of non-compliance-that the easement alignments proposed by Eagle Rock School to date fail to meet the requirement set forth by the Board of County Commissioners that the school come forward through their own efforts and provide an easement proposal that, in the judgment of the Estes Valley Planning Commission, accommodates the needs of public right-of-access as contemplated in the original condition of approval and as subsequently reiterated in September 2006. He also requested the Planning Commission find that the proposed language of the school's draft DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 13 December 19, 2006 easement agreement is flawed and also does not accommodate the needs of public right- of-access as contemplated in the original condition of approval. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Kitchen) to find that the Eagle Rock School/American Honda Education Corporation has failed to comply with the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners' demand the Eagle Rock School/American Honda Education Corporation propose a suitable alignment for the trail by the December 19, 2006 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, and to also find that the language proposed in the draft agreement regarding the proposed trail does not adequately accommodate the original condition of approval from 1992. The motion passed with one absent. Those voting in favor: Eisenlauer, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Pohl. Those voting against: Hix. Director Joseph proposed that the Planning Commission find that the blue-flag route shown in the graphic he displayed will provide a suitable alignment across the Eagle Rock School property. He explained the L-shaped area outlined in blue shown in the northwest corner of the section, stating this bracketed area will provide a blanket easement 100 feet wide and 400 feet in either direction to allow flexibility in the placement of future access across adjacent private property. Town Attorney White suggested that future language in the proposed easement agreement is an issue for consideration by the Larimer County Attorney rather than for the Planning Commission. Director Joseph noted that if this finding is adopted, Eagle Rock School could still meet the January 31, 2007 deadline to record the public access easement, provided the recorded easement is consistent with the graphic alignment displayed, without having to return again to the Planning Commission. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Eisenlauer) that the diagram labeled "Eagle Rock Blue Flag Trail Route as Established by GPS on December 13, 2006" be accepted as the proposed access easement across the Eagle Rock School/American Honda Education Corporation property (Section 16) accessing U.S. Forest Service property (Section 15), and that this depiction of the trail meets the requirement to provide a public access easement in this location and meets the intent of the 1992 condition of approval #21 imposed by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. The motion passed with one absent and one abstention. Those voting in favor: Eisenlauer, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Pohl. Those abstaining: Hix. 6. REPORTS Director Joseph stated he will be meeting with Town Administrator Randy Repola regarding the possibility of soliciting input and guidance from the Town Board on the topic of vacation homes. He noted he will be absent from the January Planning Commission meeting due to his required presence in court to testify on a legal matter involving the town; Town Attorney White will be absent from the meeting as well. Proposed Estes Valley Development Code discussions regarding vacation homes and accessory dwelling units may be postponed because of this. Chiar Pohl stated that Commissioner Hix's Planning Commission term expires at the end of December, making this his last meeting as a Commissioner. He thanked Commissioner Hix once again for his many years of service. There being no further business, Chair Pohl adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Ed Pohl, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary I T ~ River View Pines Development Plan (DP 06-08) Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 *,==* Estes Park, CO 80517 -~ Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: January 16, 2007 1 1/4 ~ ~ 4 USPS ~ REOUEST: Approval to build twenty-three ~ce~igr=wor' accommodation/residential units. 1 LL-kLE 1Rt -~~ LOCATION: 1150 West Elkhorn Avenue, .--86&*r,J Ivblrl~in 1**lor-El within the Town of Estes Park. r j APPLICANT/ADDRESS: Real Estate ~EFS LSFS Investment Cet I, LLC, a Nevada Limited RMNP 8"'aly Liability Company (2222 Highway 66, Unit A, Estes Park, CO 80517). PROPERTY OWNER: Same STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk (dshirk@estes.org, 577-3729) SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer/Consultant: Cornerstone Engineering (Mike Todd), 586-2458 Parcel Number: 3523315056 Development Area: 4.35 acres (+/-) Number of Lots: Two Existing Land Use: Accommodations Proposed Land Use: Existing Zoning: "A" Accommodations Residential/Accommodation Adjacent Zoning- East: "A" Accommodations, "RM" Multi- North: "RE" Rural Estate Family West: "A" Accommodations South: "A" Accommodations Adjacent Land Uses- East: Multi-Family North: Single-family (across the highway) West: Accommodations South: Single-family Services- Water: Town Sewer: EPSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer I PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a proposal to redevelop a site that currently has twenty-six units. The proposal is to replace these with twenty-three units for accommodation and multi-family residential use. It is Staff's opinion the overall design fails to meet Limits of Disturbance standards set forth in Section 7.2.D, and should be redesigned. This may require variation in the unit design, whereas the current proposal anticipates one unit type repeated across the site. The redevelopment would provide a new road built to public standards, and provide public right-of-way. An interior sidewalk would be provided, and a portion of the Estes Valley trail system provided along the Elkhorn Avenue frontage. Stormwater filtration ponds would be provided near the river. These would be designed to enhance the riparian corridor. An extensive landscaping plan has been provided. This plan exceeds the required amount of landscaping to offset the removal of the approximately fifty significant mature trees proposed to be removed. It is Staff' s opinion the proposed driveway system could be redesigned to eliminate half of the curb cuts to be located on the south side of the river, thus reducing the overall amount of site disturbance. Adequate public facilities are available to serve this proposal. History. Staff originally met with the applicant on April 14 to discuss this development proposal. At that time, staff expressed concern about the overall site impact. In a letter dated April 19, Staff noted "it appears no attempt has been made to preserve existing significant trees, which is required in Section 7.2 of the EVDC. As is, Staff would recommend disapproval of the submitted plan." The current , submittal varies little from the April pre-application sketch. In a letter dated October 2, staff rejected an application submittal due to incompleteness, and stated "as noted at the pre-application meeting, this design fails to consider Limits of Disturbance standards required by the Estes Valley Development Code. Staff will recommend disapproval of this site design. The plan should take a design approach where the LOD are defined first, and then the site designed around those areas to be protected." In a final letter dated November 6, staff accepted an application as being complete for review, but stated "acceptance of this application as complete for review does not constitute any form of application approval. Furthermore, Staff will Page #2 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 1 recommend disapproval of this design. Some of the primary areas of noncompliance include Limits of Disturbance standards found in Section 7.2.D." REVIEW CRITERIA: This development plan is subject to applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Per Section 3.8.D, development plan applications are subject to the following standards: 1) The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code; and, 2) The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant land use, parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans. Zoning Requirements. Land Use. The "A" Accommodation district allows both residential and accommodation units. Therefore the proposed development complies with allowed land uses in this district. Density. This proposal complies with density requirements. Nine proposed "multi-family" units require 5,400 square feet each (48,600). Fourteen "duplex" units require 6,750 square feet each (94,500). These total a required 143,100 net land area. After netting out the required right-of-way and floodplain, the site contains 149,370 square feet, thus complying with density requirements. Impervious Coverage. The "A' district has a maximum impervious coverage of 50%, the proposed 41% complies with this requirement, Impervious coverage will be verified with the required as-built plans. " A" Floor Area Ratio. There is no Floor Area Ratio in the A Accommodations = district. Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements. Table 4-8 requires provision for pedestrian linkages. The proposed eight-foot wide sidewalk complies with this requirement. The proposed sidewalk crossing requires pavement markings and signage in accordance with MUTCD standards. The proposed trail along Elkhom Avenue complies with the trails plan. Setbacks. This proposal complies with required setbacks. Page #3 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 / 1 Height. All units appear to comply with height standards, though this will need to be verified with individual building permits. Comprehensive Plan. Section 3.8.D requires development plans be consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Plan. The Estes Valley Plan includes several Community Wide Policies focusing on Land Use, Community Design, Growth Management, Mobility and Circulation, Housing, and Scenic and Environmental Quality. It is Staff' s opinion the proposed development plan does not comply with applicable policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Specific policy examples include: 2.2 Locate and design buildings to fit the land. 6.6 Ensure new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental quality within the Valley. 6.10 Minimize development impacts within riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains. These policies have been codified through Section 7.2.D "Limits of Disturbance," which will be discussed below. Grading and Site Disturbance. Section 7.2 "Grading and Site Disturbance Standards" applies to this proposal. No grading, excavation or tree/vegetation removal shall be permitted, whether to provide for a building site, for on-site utilities or services or for any roads or driveways, before issuance of a building permit. General Comments. There are several areas of the grading plan that need revision. For example: â€¢ There are several proposed contours along the western property line that do not "tie into" existing contours. â€¢ Proposed contours in the area of the sidewalk west of unit 17 that appear to overlap. â€¢ The proposed grading east of unit 16 conflicts with the landscaping plan. â€¢ No grading has been shown for the stormwater pond north of units 8-12. â€¢ The proposed sediment pond on the north side of the river shows grading in an area where vegetation is to be preserved. This should be corrected. â€¢ The proposed sediment pond near the wetlands does not include any grading information. This should be corrected. Cutting to Create Benches. Cutting and grading to create benches or pads for additional or larger building sites shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Page #4 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 ' f The proposed grading plan includes extensive and significant "overlot" grading, and therefore does not comply with this section (see Image 2). Limits on Graded or Filled Manmade Slopes. Section 7.2.B5 strongly encourages manmade slopes to be less than twenty-five percent. The grading plan contains areas where this can be accomplished, and the plan should be modified accordingly. Examples include the north of the drive near units 4 and 5, the area east of the postal box, and along the sidewalk for unit 16. Restoration of Disturbed Areas. All disturbed areas will need to be restored in accordance with Section 7.2.C "Restoration of Disturbed Areas." Limits of Disturbance. Section 7.2.D requires the Decision Making Body approve proposed Limits of Disturbance for all development plans. Limits of Disturbance may be multiple and noncontiguous on a site (see Image 1). RIDGEUNE HOME SITE Â· FOREST CLEARED â€¢ STREAM ALTERED, BRIDGED â€¢ MOST NATURA, Â· RIDGELINE VIEWS Â· WIL DLIFF HABITAT RUINED Â·FORESy â€¢ NATIVE VEGETATION REPLACED AMENITIES REMAIN 2 75 - 1 STEEP SLOPES / f- O Â· WILDUFF HABTTAT Â· BUILDING SITE INTEGRATED Â· STREAM CORRIDOR â€¢ EXCESSIVE DRIVEWAY LENGTH 21 ---- 0,5-2_22 4 â€¢ NATIVE VEGETATION INTO LANDSCAPE --2- - ~i.-MI ./Ir.'I- : 1 , 1 , , , 1 *- LIMITS OF - f*41*4 1 1, IwiemmT,-1 , , H.Atilit ; ' DISTURBANCE 4% .8//1/16Â¢40 -4 rap.4/ ) kE*2~70-~4 k /'f IND' P Inl k 1 61)-Al .0.I~**-- -- 9*11<U,Al" l~ 64=21 1 3 4-9-. RN f-%=Â»1 =-, - - -p- -1 #XISTING ch, rt> TREES n/-\ t-~ \- 4'4> 1 RIVER P W 433'674 jsk.#45; Zt........ KAT "1SSR 1 f- 4 ../AN,Ki,â€¢1 3/MiaN""786- r) IICLARVZ RNÂ¢ %1My C r ''4 - ~~ ~ ' AREA 1 y K :WETLANDS ' 1 * RIPARIAN ~ 04/ c - A- --u_li_ . . . 4 J i. 4 EXISTING NOt YES! 7 2 C LIMITS OF SITE DISTURBANCE Image 1 It is Staff' s opinion the proposed LOD does not meet criteria set forth in Section 7.2.D2, specifically: a) Avoidance of visual impacts, including but not limited to ridgeline protection areas, steep slopes and scenic views. b) Preservation of forests, significant native trees, rock outcroppings or formations, and other significant native site vegetation. c) Riparian habitat, stream corridors and wetland protection and buffering. Page #5 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 ' f The proposed Limits of Disturbance cover roughly the entire site. No "pockets" of LOD have been proposed, as suggested in the Image 1. The area of disturbance is shaded red in Image 2. The Fall River is blue. th Â£41/ 1 ' \.?f 1 4 /pof . , ...9?m. 1 - E.. ..:,48&, , 5-13~2- Nt #u'lly >34Â¥4 40 3*itu -~. i + 4.*44 . A /7- Ipy Ul V. 2. I Ad' 4424'. .Â¥Sve, 1 11 - 1 .0 '41 , 3244 1 Ile. S >Ct 1 2Â£ [3 , = Image 2 Staff has received comments from three adj oining property owners who are not concerned about the concept of redeveloping the site, but are concerned about the proposed limits of disturbance (addresses: 1130, 1152, and 1250 W. Elkhorn). Multiple significant trees would be removed, including: Deciduous Coniferous 4" 3 8" 5 5" 3 10" 7 6" 7 12" 3 7" 1 14" 3 8" 4 16" 13 10" 3 18" 12" 1 20" Total 22 22" 24" 26" 30" Total 52 Note: This is not a complete list of trees to be removed. Page #6 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 70FkliÂ·,i;twi 4 . 3. A N tO (-4 04 01 00 1 Section 7.2.D3.b states "to the maximum extent feasible, no development, grading or vegetation removal or alteration shall occur as a part of the development project or associated construction activity outside the LOD." The grading plan indicates site work outside the proposed Limits of Disturbance (near the wetlands). Per Section 7.2.D5, "LODs shall be designated in the field prior to commencement of excavation, grading or construction with construction barrier fencing or other methods approved by Staff." Tree and Vegetation Protection. Existing trees to remain shall be fenced for protection prior to any site work. The area of tree protection fencing should be clearly delineated on the development plan. Tree protection fencing shall comply with standards set forth in Appendix D.VIII. Any significant trees within approved LOD that are removed must be replaced as required in Section 7.3.D5. The grading plan shows grading will occur very close to trees that are to be preserved (east of Units 7 and 16). The grading plan also shows approximately two feet of fill in this area. If the trees are truly to be preserved, this fill should be avoided. This would result in a retaining wall approximately six feet tall to support River Walk Court, which is being raised by six feet to allow the southern units to be "top loaded" with garages on the upper level. Should this proposal be approved, the construction plans should include root protection standards set forth in Appendix D. Landscaping and Buffers. Section 7.5 Landscaping and Buffers applies to this proposal. The landscape plan needs revision: 1) No proposed landscaping is allowed in right-of-way. 2) Several trees listed to be retained will be placed in two or more feet of cut or fill, based on the grading plan. Section 7.5.H requires that all retaining wall be "constructed of wood, stone, brick, decorative concrete block . . ." or a combination of these materials. Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection. This property includes wetlands and river setback requirements. Because this is a previously developed site, the river setback is thirty feet from the edge of the river (as opposed to fifty feet for undeveloped lots). Section 7.6.G states "all existing vegetation within the stream/river corridor or wetland buffer/setback area shall be preserved, and where necessary to provide Page #7 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 , adequate screening or to repair damaged riparian areas, supplemented with additional native planting and landscaping." Based on this requirement, the proposed stormwater ponds have been designed to enhance the riparian corridor with additional wetland species. Specific pond design will need to meet requirements of the Urban Stormwater Manual prior to issuance of a building permit. Wildlife Habitat Protection. All trash containers should be bear proof. This requirement should be included in any future condominium declaration. Exterior Lighting. The proposed development will be subject to lighting standards set forth in Section 7.9, which requires exterior lighting be shielded and downcast. No lighting fixture shall be higher than fifteen feet above ground. This includes parking lot and security lighting. The development plan makes mention of bollard style lighting, but does not graphically delineate where they will be located. These should be added to the plan for additional Staff review. A lighting "cut sheet" will need to be submitted for Staff review prior to issuance of first building permit. Off-Street Parking and Loading. This proposal requires fifty-two parking spaces, two for each unit, plus 1/4 guest spaces per unit. A two car garage is proposed for each unit, except unit 21. A second parking space for this unit will be located in front of the garage. Staff recommends that each "driveway pod" include dedicated guest parking. This equates to two spaces for units 1-7, one space for units 8-12, one space for units 17- 20, one space for units 13-16, and one space for units 21-23. This is based on the fact that not all units have adequate driveway apron space in front of the garages, and guests would be required to park elsewhere, potentially creating inconvenience for other residents/guests, or in a "worst case scenario" possibly blocking access routes for emergency vehicles (see Units 15 and 16). A specific example includes Units 21-23. If the garage door for Unit 22 faces west, there are potential conflicts with Unit 21. If it faces south, there are potential conflicts with Unit 23. Driveways. Table 4-7 states "to the maximum extent feasible, the number of curb cuts shall be minimized by consolidation, shared driveways or other means." Appendix D.III.B5 reiterates this. Appendix D.III.6 states that "shared drives are strongly encouraged. Page #8 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 , Staff suggests it may be feasible to eliminate the two southernmost drives and load those units from the drives to the north, thus reducing overall site disturbance. This would also reduce the amount of fill and associated site disturbance in this portion of the site. For example, there would not be the need for six feet of fill for River Walk Court, which would eliminate the need for fill around trees east of Unit 16 and the required retaining wall. Appendix D.III.B 10 includes a construction standard that requires "whenever possible, driveways shall intersect streets at right angles." The plan should be amended accordingly. Adequate Public Facilities. No building permit shall be issued unless such public facilities and services are in place or the commitments described in Section 7.12.C have been made. This section requires that facilities are available to serve the proposed development when building permits are issued. Section 7.5.D.2b(3) requires "the location of underground utility lines shall be carefully planned to avoid unnecessary disturbance of root zones that would threaten the survival of existing trees and shrubs to be preserved." For example, the electric transformer to be located east of unit 16 would require cutting of tree roots, and could easily be located to avoid this damage. Sanitary Sewer. The proposed buildings will be served by the Estes Park Sanitation District. Section 7.12.D3, regarding timing of installation of sanitary sewer in relation to issuance of building permits, applies to this development. Water. This includes a proposal to relocate a water main near the southern property line. Service lines to the units south of the river will flow from this relocated main. The existing easement will need to be vacated prior to final approval. The units north of the river will have a service line connected to the existing main in the Elkhorn Avenue right-of-way. Section 7.12.E3, regarding timing of installation of water service in relation to issuance of building permits, applies to this development. Drainage/Water Quality Management. All required drainage facilities shall be installed and accepted in accordance with Section 7.12.F, which allows 25% of building permits to be issued prior installation of the drainage facilities. The phasing plan shall address this requirement. All cross pans must meet design standards found in Appendix D. The proposed cross pan at the intersection of Elkhorn Avenue must be ten-feet wide. Additionally, not all required cross pans have been shown. There is a pan alluded Page #9 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 , to on the north side of the bridge (curb cut indicated, but no pan to direct flow into the cut shown). Furthermore, this specific pan should direct flow to the proposed stormwater pond. Another "missing pan" is on the south side of the bridge. Appendix D.ILI "Curb and Gutter" requires Type "R" catch basins. The proposed culvert on the north side of the bridge needs to be redesigned to account for these required catch basins. The proposed drainage plan shows stormwater flowing over the proposed sidewalk. This requires a sidewalk "chase" and the plan should be amended accordingly. Fire Protection. The submitted ISO calculations indicate adequate fire flow is available. Per Section 7.12.G, all required fire protection requirements shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit. The relocated hydrant near the intersection of River Walk Court and Elkhorn Avenue should be shown. Transportation. In accordance with 7.12.H, a Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared and submitted with this proposal. This TIA demonstrates there will be no significant adverse impact on existing transportation levels of service. This is due to the reduced density and the improved road system. Appendix D applies to this development. This section sets forth street design and construction standards. This street is proposed to be a private street in public right-of-way. The Town will not consider assuming public maintenance of this street until a full cul-de-sac has been developed. Cul-de-sacs have a maximum length of 1,000 feet, which this proposal complies = with. Cul-de-sacs also have a maximum of 120 vehicle trips per day, which this proposal will exceed. Staff recommends waiving this standard. The reason for this is because the applicant could create a second access point of Elkhorn Avenue to serve units 1-7, which would reduce the number of trips to a code compliant level. It is Staff's opinion this second access point would create potential traffic hazards. Appendix D.III.B discourages driveway access onto arterial streets. Therefore Staff recommends a waiver to the trips generated by units 1-7 (waiver to Appendix D.II.E.2). Electric. All electric service is to be placed underground, including an existing overhead line the roughly bisects the site. Page #10 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 Section 7.12.I.3, regarding timing of installation of electric infrastructure in relation to issuance of building permits, applies to this development. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Town Attorney White noted that the lot consolidation plat must be approved. This plat was approved, but was not submitted within the allotted submittal timeframe, and has become null and void. Staff recommends a condition of approval be for the plat to be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. Estes Park Sanitation District had comments about field locating service for lots to the south of this property to ensure connection to the new main on the south side of the river. Building Department. The Building Department had comments regarding permit requirements, street name and address, wetlands report, and ADA. Public Works. The Public Works Department had a variety of comments related to paving, stormwater, electric connect fees, and water. These should be included as conditions of approval of the Development Plan. The applicant should be aware of the need for accurate as-built plans, which means they will need to retain the services of a professional surveyor throughout the construction process. Americans with Disabilities Act. Per Building Department comments, this development has requirements regarding accessibility for physically disabled persons. The development proposes four ADA accessible units. Amended Plat. This proposal assumes approval of an amended plat to vacate a water line easement and combine lots. This amended plat should also dedicate appropriate easements for the new sewer main and the proposed mailbox cluster, and appropriate right-of-way. Conduits. Per Section 7.13, "conduit, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall be screened, covered or painted to minimize visual impacts." Postal Cluster Box. The postal cluster box should be included in the final construction plans and cost estimate. Page #11 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 Construction Plans. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Town of Estes Park and EPSD prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or first building permit. Other. There is an existing water line easement in the southeast corner of the lot that needs to be shown on the development plan. The lienholder's signature should be removed from the development plan. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 1. The submitted application fails to meet Limits of Disturbance Standards set forth in Section 7.2.D, and in Staff's opinion the grading plan fails to comply with Section 7.2.B3 "Cutting to Create Benches." 2. There are several corrections and changes that could be made conditions of approval. These include: a. Number of driveways and driveway intersection design; b. Lighting plan; c. Refine grading and landscaping plans; d. Off-Street parking design; e. Amend LOD to encompass all site work; f. The proposed sediment pond on the north side of the river shows grading in an area where vegetation is to be preserved and should be corrected; g. The proposed sediment pond near the wetlands does not include any grading information and should be corrected; h. The relocated hydrant near the intersection of River Walk Court and Elkhorn Avenue should be shown; i. The existing water line easement in the southeast corner of the lot be shown on the development plan; j. The lienholder' s signature should be removed from the development plan; k. The proposed stop sign should include reference to MUTCD standards; 1. The correct crosspan widths should be shown; m. Retaining wall materials should be included in the notes section; n. Construction plans should account for root protection as outlined in Appendix D. 3. Staff recommends to the southern drives be removed, per Table 4-7 and Appendix D.III.6. 4. The Town will not consider assuming public maintenance of the proposed street until a cul-de-sac has been fully developed. Page #12 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 0 f 5. An amended plat will be required to be recorded prior to issuance of any permits. This amended plat will need to account for sewer easement, postal cluster box easement, relocated water line easement, and right-of-way dedication. 6. The development plan is not consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Plan. 7. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver to Appendix D.II.E2 "Number of Vehicle Trips Per Day" because reducing the number of access points on West Elkhorn Avenue advances the goals and purposes of the EVDC (minimize drives) and would result in superior engineering (fewer drives on an arterial street). 8. Construction plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any permits. 9. The applicant should review the Staff report and development code for all requirements, such as construction barrier fencing, timing of utility installation, as-built drawings, etc. 10. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 11. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making body for the development plan. Per Section 3.2.F, appeals to the Planning Commission decision may be made to the Town Board. Due to noncompliance with Limits of Disturbance and Grading standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code, Staff recommends DISAPPROVAL of Development Plan 06-08 "River View Pines." SUGGESTED MOTION: Due to noncompliance with Limits of Disturbance and Grading standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code, as outlined in the Staff report and Findings, I move DISAPPROVAL of Development Plan 06-08 "River View Pines." CONTINUANCE: I move to continue Development Plan 06-08 to allow for revisions of the development plan to comply with the Estes Valley Development Code. APPROVAL: I move APPROVAL of Development Plan 06-08 with the following conditions: (state conditions) Page #13 - River View Pines, Development Plan 06-08 River View Pines Site Development Plan Issues From D. Scott & Patty Eldridge In keeping with the policies of Land Use, Community Design, Scenic and Environmental Quality, Economics and Limitations on Site Disturbance adopted by the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, D. Scott & Patty Eldridge, owners of the Four Seasons Inn at 1130 W. Elkhom Ave. (located along the eastern property line of the proposed RVP Development), Would like to ask the Estes Valley Planning commission to also consider the following information in regards to making their decisions on the RVP development plan. The Four Seasons Inn is a small 9 (nine) unit lodging facility located at 1130 W. Elkhom Avenue. Our property is also located on the eastern property line of the RVP site plan. We derive our income from the tourism that comes to see the scenic beauty of Estes Park and its diverse wildlife not only located in town, but on our property as well. As my wife and I see it and as well as the input, thoughts and recommendations from many of our guests, the current site plan of RVP will have a dramatic impact not only on the views from our rooms but our income as well. â€¢ We are the property most affected by the RVP development plan. Building #20 is to be located within 24 feet of our building, essentially blocking the view of five (5) of our "Executive Rooms". â€¢ The proposed building #20 will block the views of approximately 45 feet out of 52 feet of our front building. â€¢ Instead of having our guests view an open space along the Fall River and a view of the surrounding mountains, they will be looking at the side of a two story condo 24 feet away. â€¢ W,th the substantial loss of trees and the proposed increase from seven (7) buildings to 23 buildings, we feel that it will look more like an urban population center. â€¢ Wah the proposed plan, the Four Seasons Inn could possibly lose income from our 9 rooms. â€¢ There will be a substantial increase in traffic and noise. â€¢ It will triple the current number of pedestrians and automobile traffic. â€¢ There will be a substantial loss of the current wildlife corridor along the Fall River. Also, increased potential of drainage and pollutants into the Fall River. The last thing we want to do is to cause a conflict with our neighbors. We hope we can come to an agreeable solution for all parties involved. I will have pictures for staff to view prior to Tuesdays Town Hall meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration. . - 1 4 14 1000 D._@EMLEIdlidg6' 1-10 -*01 0 j, . \ ,,14: :i--1 Fi.f? 3 'i\ Or?:= r.9,1 1 Patty F. Eldridge 1 1 14 .- Ip 2 11 JAN 1 1 2007 1 Di i{} 11 2.. 47 4 1 - .....J n 4 j 18 06 01:5lp Divir.on Of Wildlife 9704724468 P. 1 1- STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor //32iiah DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE (** 5 AN EQUAL-OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Bruce McCIoskey, Director '~i30' 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 ForWildlife- Telephone: (303) 297-1192 For People wildlife.state.co.us December 18, 2006 ---9 |;.n Bob Joseph I M Q DEC 1 8 2006 1 ~*1 Communily Development Director Town of Estes Park L.Â· ....J P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Bob: Thank you for providing the Division of Wildlife (DOW) the opportunity to comment on the proposed Riverview Pines Subdivision. Many species of wildlife use this site, including mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep, black bears, mountain lions, coyotes, red fox, raccoons, small mammals, and passerine birds. This site is on critical winter range for mule deer, elk and bighorn sheep. Elk and deer routinely feed here and bighorn occasionally cross highway 34 to graze on the blue grass lawns present Removal of vegetation will reduce fonige for several species of wildlife. lf landscaping is planted, unless protected deer and elk may damage it. The DOW will not be responsible for damage to landscaping. If fences are constructed, they will hinder wildlife movement and may result in injury or death if wildlife is entangled. If vehicle traffic is increased on highway 34 because ofthis development, wildlife-vehicle accidents willlikely increase. Currently, this is one of the mortality factors threatening the Fall River bighom herd. The Fall River borders this site. Brown trout, rainbow trout, and brook trout provide a cold water fishery. Mallard ducks and water ouzels are present here year round. Any increased sedimentation or pollution from petroleum products due to run off from site development will degrade this riparian area. Locally, there has been conflict between black bears and people. All garbage containers should be bear-resistant. Bird feeders, pet food and barbecue mills should also be managed to prevent attracting bears and raccoons. Pets should bc protected from predation by mountain lions and coyotes. Dog owneâ„¢ need to obey county leash laws to ensure that their pets do not harass wildlife. This is a severe problem in Estes Park, with several deer and elk injured or killed yearly. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Russell George, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawfoid, Chair â€¢ Tom Butte, Vice Chairâ€¢ Claire ONeal, Secretary Members, Robert Bray . amd Coom â€¢ Rick Enstrom â€¢ Richard Ray â€¢ James MCAnally â€¢ Ken Torres Ex Omcio Members, Russell George and Don Ament Dec 18 06 01:52p Divir+on Of Wildlife 9704724468 P.2 Intentional feeding of wildlife should be discouraged as it can lead to conflicts including property damage mid spread of disease. Feeding does not mitigate for lost habitat Sincerely, 1 --r A & Are.t Le :\41; fc Al-,13 e.,- 7739 /~TJ~'LE,Â£-, 1 n / Scott Hoover Northeast Regional Manager CC: Mark Leslie, Area Wildlife Manager Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager File: Scott Hoover, Northeast Regional Manager Area 2 Files C 'I GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29 970/667-5310 tb Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 November 27,2006 DAVE SHIRL PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Development Plan 06-08 - Riverview Pines Development Dear Mr. Shirk: I have the following comments: 1. The Statement of Intent indicates that the two lots comprising this development will be merged into one single lot to be known as Lot 1 Riverview Pine Subdivision. This lot consolidation must be approved pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Estes Valley Development Code. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. /~ferv Truly Yours, Gr**A. White GAW/ldr Cc: Cornerstone Engineering, Mike ~[*Id Fax: 586-2459 MEMORANDUM To: Dave Shirk, Planner II From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official Date: November 22,2006 Subject: Riverview Pines Development Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision 1150 W. Elkhorn Ave. <~ The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the Development Plan for the above-referenced property and offers the following comments: 1. State and Town Demolition Permits are required prior to demolition of stnictures. 2. Official street names and addresses (including all buildings) shall be assigned by the Department of Building Safety. 3. Grading plans and permits are required prior to and are separate from building permits. A grading permit is required prior to any grading or excavation. (Estes Park Municipal Code 14.12.030) 4. A copy of a Wetland Investigation Report must accompany the first building permit application. 5. All new construction shall comply with all applicable accessibility laws. It is the designers' and developers' responsibilities to comply with laws that Town staff does not have the authority to interpret nor the responsibility to enforce, such as ADA, Federal and State Fair Housing Acts, etc. Additionally, < the designer shall specifically detail how the proposed development shall comply with th; accessibility requirements of the 2003 IBC, Chapter 11. (Detailed accessibility specs are required) Estes Park Sanitation District PO Box 722, Estes Park, CO 80517 November 21,2006 Dave Shirt Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park. CO 80517-1200 RE: Riverview Pine Development Dear Dave Shirk, Upon review of the proposed development plan for the above mentioned properly the District has the following comments: 1. Proposed sewer main replacements and extensions meet with our approval. 2. Sewer mains are shown extending to the south lot line of the properly to connect sewer service lines for houses on Tracts 56A and 57. The District will require that their service lines be found and connected to these new main lines as part of,this devel- opment proposal. Thank you for the opportunily to comment on this review. Sincerely, -427***A Jartids Duell District Manager 1 5 1,1 al .1.>/1 '1; I 1 .: 0 j~~ NOV 2 7 2006 f ? +UJ,1 1 L Office: 1201 Graves Avenue 970.586.2866 / Plant: 610 Big Thompson Ave 970.586.3516 Fax: 970.586.4712 'Â»iul**09 . Town of Estes Park Public Works Engineering Room 100, Municipal Building P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3586, gsievers@estes.org Memo TO: Dave Shirk, planner From: Greg Sievers Date: September 22,2006 revised November 28,2006 Re Riverview Pines Development Tract 56B & Tract 56C, Replat of Tract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Subdivision, and Tracts 56 & 57, Fall River Addition 1150 W. Elkhom Avenue After review of the Amended Plat the Public Works Department has the following comments: Light & power: (~. Any relocation or upgrade of existing facilities will be accomplished at the project owners request and expense. 2. Developer to install all trenches & conduits, all materials, truck hours and mileage will be purchased from & installed by Town of Estes Park. 3. No building permits will be approved by Light & Power until the entire Electric infrastructure has been paid for and installed. 4. We will in the future need accurate As-Builts in electronic, Mylar, and paper versions. 5. The submitted plan needs to show all existing utilities, type, and location 6. Easements need to accompany new lot lines in new proposed locations. 7. Easements also need to accompany all existing primary electric lines and any secondary electric on others property. 8. The vacation of an easement is allowable if it is presently vacant with no chance of being occupied in the future. Engineering: 9. Public trial shall be constructed per the EVDC and PW Trail Master plan. Remove trail note re: Town master plan. 10. CDOT access & utility permit shall be acquired. 11. Bridge shall be inspected and rated by a certified engineer. Bridge design shall meet AASHTO & include guardrails. 12. Identify the eight vicibility at tho Elkhom intorcoction. 13. Show tho full roadway intersection radii at Edge of acphalt. 14. Provido ctorm water managomont plan. 15. Culvert at Sta. 3+40 needs catch basins on roadway. i 16. Curb cutat Sta 3+15 needs beaver slide or armoring for drainage outfall. 17. provide roadway Super Elevation slope angle at Sta 3+15 Water: see Sept. 14,2006 notes 18. The existing 2" Water Main will be required to increase in size for service, including Fire Protection. The Developer must complete a Waterline Extension Agreement' prior to any construction of the water line Intrastructure. 1 MIS Intrastructure must De Installed, testing pretonned/passed and accepted by the , Department prior to issuance of any building permits. 19. Approved construction drawings are required for the project, and must be signed by the Utilities Director prior to anv construction. Construction drawings need to include a profile to show potential conflicts between water and other utilities including culverts. Show Utility Easement locations when utility is not in Road Right of Way. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. All Water line design and construction shall be done according to the Water Utility Policies and Standards. 20. Applicant must schedule a Water Fixture/Dwelling Unit Count with a representative of the Water Department prior to demolition and/or construction to ensure any applicable credit toward additional water fees. Contact the department at 970-577-3622 for scheduling. Any demolition done prior to the fixture count will result in forfeiture of any applicable water tap credits. 21. The service line that extended from the Four Seasons property that used to supply the office building must be abandoned at the water tap connection. 22. A Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) including meter sizing, meter locations, tap locations and addresses served by each must be submitted to the Water Department prior to issuance of any building permits. 23. Any water service line installation or replacement will require a Service Line Permit from the Building Department. 24. All irrigation systems are required to have an approved backflow prevention device installed for isolation purposes. The device will be tested by a Certified Cross-Connection Technician upon installation and annually there after. If you have any questions please contact the Cross-Connection Control Specialist at 970-577-3625. 25. If the structure(s) are required to have a Fire Suppression System a 'Fire Sprinkler System Connection Application' must be completed and submitted to the Water Department before any connection is granted. This application must include a detailed drawing noting: â€¢ Location, sizing and type of backflow prevention device(s) â€¢ Engineered flow requirements for the fire sprinkler system - â€¢ Spill control method for proper disposal of discharge from the relief valve, indicating location and sizing of drainage capable of accommodating the discharge that could occur â€¢ Due to fire line size both a chlorination and pressure test will be required, conducted by a representative (~~ of the Water Department prior to acceptance. (( â€¢ Page 2 . C.j < CORNE?STONE Estes Park, CO 80517 1692 Big Thompson - Suite 200 Phone: (970) 586-2458 Fax: (970) 586-2459 ENGINEERING & ~r. SURVEYING. INC. ..:15-: r .: 1 ~1('2 ~2-: :.5~- #3.6 :'7 '* 351 Octobet 25,2006 UILAN & ., ~ll| OCT 2 5 F - .< 11 2006 :; i:i Mr. Bob Joseph 1 b W 3:7 9 Community Development Director L ' Town of Estes Park i 11 P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Letter of Intent for the "Riverview Pines Development" Parcels Number 35233-15-056 and 35233-15-057. Dear Bob, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES) on behalf of our client Carl Towner are pleased to submit is for Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision. The client currently has a submittal to combine the current Tracts f and 560, Replat ofTract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Subdivision and Tracts 56 and 57, Fall River Addition to the Town of Estes Pack, County of Larimer, State of Colorado into one single Lot to be known as Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision. Owners/Lien Holders The current owners are Real Estate Investment Cet I, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company and First National Bank of Estes Park is the current lien holder. Adiacent Zoning 4* Current zoning ofthe subject property is "A" Accommodations. Surrounding Properties are also zoned A- Accommodations with the exception ofthe property to the southeast which has a zoning of RM-Multi-family. Prolect Description The project involves the demolition and removal of existing structures which are currently located on the property. In addition, existing asphalt and sidewalks will be removed. The owner is proposing to construct 23 total units, (one single family, two tri-plex buildings and eight duplexes) utilizing~he same floor plan for each unit. â€¢ Trash Enclosure: A trash enclosure is not provided; we are proposing individual trash service for the development. â€¢ Postal Cluster Boxes: A postal cluster box is currently located on West Elkhorn approximately 200' east of the Riverview Pines entrance. We propose that an additional cluster box be installed at this location for the proposed development. Adequate area currently exists for pulling offthe road. â€¢ Street Name and Address: River View Drive is proposed for the street name. Addressing for the proposed development will bd "1150 River View Drive, Unit #1", Etc. The address unit number corresponds with the unit numbers shown on the development plan. â€¢ Sign: No sign is proposed at this time with the exception to the required street signage. i. . . Access Current access to the subject property is south offofWest Elkhorn Ave. The access is also used by bordering properties to the south. The access road is to be improved to meet current Town of Estes Park street standards. The road will be widened to 24' on the north side ofFall River and 22' wide on the south side ofFall River with concrete curb and gutter. An existing 12' wide bridge is located on the property. The bridge is proposed to be expanded to 22' wide with a 5' sidewalk. A structural analysis of the bridge provided by CES is included with this submittal. Site Statistics Gross Land Area - 189,724 SF 4.355 ACRES Less Floodplain/wetland area (80% OF 18986SF)- 15,189 SF Less Access Easement -21,430 SF Net Land Area - 153,105 SF 3.515 ACRES Allowable Maximum NET Densitv (Units/SF): Multi-Family Units 6 @ 5400SF 32,400SF Two-Family Dwelling 16 @ 6750SF 108,000SF Single Family Unit 1 @ 9000SF 9,000SF NET DENSITY TOTAL 149,400SF TOTAL DEVELOPABLE LAND AREA 153,105SF Net Land Area per Unit 6,657SF Land Area Coverage Statistics Coverage %Lot Existing Land Use Existing Buildings 12812 sf 8.37% Existing Asphalt 23314 sf 15.23% Existing Sidewalk 1190 sf 0.77% Subtotal (Impervious Coverage) 37316 sf 24.37% Proposed Land Use Buildings 35665 sf 23.29% Drives/Driveways 37565 sf 24.54% Sidewalks/Entryways 3000 sf 1.96% TOTAL 76,230 sf 49.79% OPEN SPACE (50% Required by EVDC) 76,875 sf 50.21% ISO Calculations ISO calculations have been performed and show the property meets proposed needs with the addition of two < (~ fire hydrants as shown in the "Fire Hydrant Locations" Exhibit. \..~y" r < Â· 1 . Proiect Phasing Dhase 1 will consist of required infrastructure, roadway work, units and Landscaping on the south side of Fall :r (Units 8 thru 23). -iase 2 will be the driveway, landscaping and units on the north side ofFall River (Units 1 thru D. The primary utilities are currently in place for the units proposed for Phase 2. Phase 2 is intended to commence following completion of Phase 1. Utilities Utility services will be provided as follows: Water Town of Estes Park A Town ofEstes Park 12" water main is located along the northern edge of the proposed development in the highway right of way. The existing 12" main currently services an existing water meter pit on the property. The existing meter pit will be used to provide service to the proposed units on the north side of Fall River. An existing 6" DIP and 2" galvanized steel water line runs along an existing waterline easement on the south edge ofthe subject property. We are proposing to replace the 2" water line with 6" ductile iron pipe and place the line within the existing 10 foot wide (20 feet total width) utility easement along southern edge of the property with abandonment of the water line easement not located adjacent to the property line. Additional fire hydrants are proposed at the south end of the access road and the northwest corner of the property. Electric Town of Estes Park The electrical service on the north side of Fall River will utilize an existing transformer. Overhead electrical service currently provides power to the existing development on the south side of Fall r. The existing overhead power to the southern portion is to be relocated underground from the southeast .ner of Lot 57, Amended Plat of Lot 2 Deer Crest Subdivision. Existing utility easement as shown on the Deer Crest Subdivision are available for,relocating the power underground. The underground electric line will be from an existing power pole to a proposed transformer. All units will be metered individually. Sewer Estes Park Sanitation District Services on the north side of Fall River will connect directly into an existing 8" sewer main. A new 8" sewer main is to be is to be constructed from the south property line north across Fall River and connect to the existing 8" main on the north side of Fall River. The river crossing will be buried and encased in concrete. All proposed services are 4" PVC. Gas Excel Excel will serve the subject property. Traffic Impact Analvsis A traffic impact analysis has been performed and is included in this submittal. Wetlands Studv Wetlands have been found on the subject property. A "Wetland Investigation Report" provided by Kiva Engineering, Inc. is included in this submittal. Wetlands Setback A stafflevel variance of 20% is requested forUnits 8, 9 and 10. A 20% variance would ce the setback from 50 feet to 40 feet. The propose unit locations increases the setback 16 feet from the 1, ting structure location. 7 . . . 1 f Storm Water Management Plan A storm water drainage report has been completed for the subject property. Three sediment ponds are proposed, a 700 CF pond on the north side of Fall River, a 2250 CF pond on the south east side ofFall River and the designated wetland area will be used as a natural sediment filtration area. ADA Units Four ADA units are planned for the Development. Three units would be located on the south side of Fall River with one unit located on the north side. Tree Removal The proposed development would remove 88 existing trees saving 131 trees. 53 trees and 190 shrubs are proposed to be planted. With the proposed new trees and shrubs the development would have a total of 184 trees and 228 shrubs. The estimated cost for the trees and shrubs are as follows: 53 Trees x $450/Tree = $23,850 190 Shrubs x $ 50/Shrub = $ 9.500 Total Cost for Planting $33,350 Bicvcle / Pedestrian Ttail The proposed bicycle/ pedestrian trail is located in the CDOT right of way per the FaU River Trail Master Plan and Phase 3 FaU River Pedestrian and Bicycle Commuter Path. Moving the trail out ofthe right ofway would push the trail further down the hill. Due to steep side hills at the west side of the property, pushing the trail further down the hill would increase the complexity and cost where the trail leaves the property, for further extensions. 4- If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. 'iTÂ¥!iqely, ~ Vv'T- ./Yes Reetz Senior Draftsman '4 .7. , #71 1. :'2025 ' '. ' DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ly/4 ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT COD~ ~ LEI Development rlan U Boundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map D Special Review Â¤ ROW or Easement Vacation El Preliminary Map U Rezoning Petition j Street Name Change Â¤ Final Map Â¤ Preliminary Subdivision Plat U Time Extension Â¤ Final Subdivision Plat U Other: Please list Â¤ Minor Subdivision Plat D Amended Plat General Information Project Name River View Pines Development Project Description Development of Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision Project Location River View Pines, west of Estes Park on Elkhorn Ave. Legal Description Tract 56B & 56C Replat of Tract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Sub. Parcel ID # 35233-15-056 &057Section 23 Township 5N Range 73W Property Owner Real Estate Investment Cet 1, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company Mailing Address 2222 Hwy 66 House A, Estes Park, CO 80517 Telephone Nos. (970)586-4204 Applicant Real Estate Investment Cet 1, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company C Mailing Address 2222 Hwy 66 House A, Estes Park, CO 80517 Telephone Nos. (970)586-4204 Consultant/Engineer Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. Contact Person Mike Todd / Jes Reetz Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Avenue, Suite 200 Telephone Nos. 970.586.2458 Fax 970.586.2459 E-Mail ireetz@ces.ccc.com Land Use Information Total Development Area (acres) 4.355 Open Space Area (acres) Approx. 3.4 Existing Land Use Accomodations Proposed Land Use NA Existing Water Service TOEP Proposed Water Service NA Existing Sewer Service E El'SD [I] UTSD O Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service NA Excel Existing Gas Service Site Access (if not on public street) West Elkhorn Ave. (State Highway No. 34) ! Wetlands on Site? Yes [] No [] Zoning A-Accomodations Attachments Listed items may not be applicable for all applications. Please refer to the EVDC and Appendix B for complete submittal requirements. Â® Statement of Intent El Digital File Â¤ CDOT Access Permit E ISO Calculations E Drainage Plan E Wetlands Report E 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan U Geologic Hazard Mitigation Report Â® 11 " X 17" reduced Fopy of plat or plan 0 Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Report El Names & Mailing Addresses of Adjacent Â¤ Transmittal Letter Confirming Site Staking Property Owners (within 100 ft., excluding ROW) Town of Estes Park a P.O. Box 1200 4 170 MacGregor Avenue 4 Estes Park, CO 80517 Tel: (970) 577-3721 4 Fax: (970) 586-0249 + www.estesnet.com I . / t. FEE SCHEDULES ~ DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND THE UNICORPORATED ESTES VALLEY See the appropriate Town or County fee schedule. Developments within an identified Geologic Hazard Area shall be referred to the Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS). At the time of application submittal, the applicant shall submit the required fees for the CGS review. If a development is within an identified Wildfire Hazard Area, it shall be reviewed by the Larimer County Wildfire Safety Inspector and a check for $200 made payable to Larimer County will be required at the time of application submittal. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Submittals will not be accepted unless the fees have been paid. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknoweldge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. 1 understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate or submitted after the deadline date. I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. \4.- I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. Signatures: 0-2 owner signature ,/~---:L---- r <CE_2 -- Date 7/edo c L- Applicant Signature Date MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Effective July 1, 2001, House Bill 01-1088 became effective. This legislation requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to give notice of their application to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development. I hereby certify that the provisions of House Bill 01-1088 Section 24=65.5-103 CRS have been met. Signatures: j---1~~ Owner Signature C - r-.. 9/zc/a ~<-1 112; 4.94 ; 13 ~ p.7(NzÂ·.2 3 / / â‚¬ r. Applicant Signature - 4'' F--.....,..~#~I,....b ~ #Ate 1.13 1 ' lii 4 i>- 14 111 SEP 2 6 2006 2 M 12/10/2003 .:-19# 1 i , I t:Quit: tz NAN ANNA AN W hANNAh BE&88m888=8888w,*6885888888En 00 'C A 00 00 Â° 00 00 00Â¥ 00 00 00 00 88* ttoo 00 A, 00 00 00 00 co 00 175 ..00 m m 00 80 00 52 00 00 0 ~ ~ R OO< 00 00 O~ rt NO<<OUWUOOW0000~CR<000-0000008 S â‚¬ i i â‚¬ dz d Â£ Â£8 i Â£ Â£ Â£ 00 0>.4Â£ dE â‚¬ aE Â£ i Â£ E co ro co m (0 4-: m m L ... co 00 Z (0 . - ga.-g,uo-0- can.a Z'Q-non @ ~ ki-*22:22222 2 0@2â‚¬/miNE:15%50ENIZE@BANNE 0 2 -ma.a.0,02,00:betigs,#80010.comca OLLI (0 0 LUUJU-LLILLILLICOLLILLILLIWIDICOOWLLJOW LUOUWLLIW O 1 < 0 C -- 22 3 0/ g ill i li 72~ fi &-1 0% :2 (0 2 0 C . E CO m & as $' 2 20Â£ :98=@5â„¢2&20_ A Â·- e - m 2 v oo 15&21*zezzs!55:%52mvEÂ¢ e~m ~ 43~~reymoWooI.-ODOBL'-COWOLOO Ou,OB 22@@229229%22&2MEW: @mmpoÂ°Â°= 0 N - 0- 0- 0- 00 0- g (D E k M RE Cm- E 12 0 m o I >,06 1Â£ 1" (Da~ A -Cmoo 1 C C 85& : â‚¬ E 0 U) 0 2 D E 00 8 2 O DC Z Ob O J 1 5 al 0 0- 0 (D M -6 C 0 CO 0 (D 5 m.s < 2 E E 3 c i /9 5 0 2 4# 0 / 9 - gâ‚¬ c.829 2 82 Z il g L -5 2:%925122%452Â°Â° Â®013%8 -2#gogix-4/2=88Â£58=202 1185=2 7:lu. YE.*cojae.Â©I-GME[OBILLIX COCDO S :CD ed sels 99* xog VIN 'UOJOJE) ZE xO8 0 Eldridge Ikhom Avenue ~sHperop~2, LLC Avenue Rev~pZZL.Â°res re Street 0â‚¬62 xo 'OUI 'JeA!1:111 elle-I MOOIJeAO 2334.1 c/o Carol Amo Box 1768 80-90 do seuld Me!/UeA!8 Fall Ri ver Owners' Association o ndra Gilfillan Owner 11 v r Co dominium c/o Kat Jungbauer Wnil 'M!IAE#S eel Buuoa 9 Pa icia Hawkins Massett River View Pines Tree Count Coniferous { Deciduous i Total Remove 58 1 22 i 80 Save 23 i 116 2 139 Total 81 1 138 3 219 Trees & Shrubs Required PER LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS Trees Shrubs Lot Coverage 62 183 Arterid Street Frontage 22 55 Non Arterid Street Frontage 26 66 Residential Buffer 10 14 Total Required 120 318 Total Existing Trees & Shrubs Saved -139 -38 Additional Trees & Shrubs Required (-19) 280 Required Replacement Per Section 7.3 Coniferous . Deciduous i Total Removed 52 22 i 74 Required Replacement 104 { 66 1 170 Total Trees Removed (from Tree Count) 74 Trees Removed for Road Right of Way -4 Trees Designated to be Removed Per Report Prepared by A Growing Business -39 Trees to be replaced 31 . 7. RIVERVIEW PINES TREE COUNT DECIDUOUS CONIFEROUS SIZE # SAVED SIZE # SAVED <4" 6 4" 15 5" 6 6" 40 <8" 3 8" 20 8" 3 10" 8 10" 1 12" 7 12" 14" 3 14" 2 16" 6 16" 4 18" 3 18" 1 20" 2 20" 3 22" TOTAL 116 24" 1 26" 28" 1 30" 3 36" 1 TOTAL 23 RIVERVIEW PINES TREE COUNT .&9,11 DECIDUOUS CONIFEROUS .- SIZE # SAVED SIZE # SAVED <4" 6 4" 15 5" 6 6" 40 <8" 3 8" 20 8" 3 10" 8 10" 1 12" 7 12" 14" 3 14" 2 16" 6 16" 4 18" 3 18" 1 20" 2 20" 3 22" TOTAL 116 24" 1 26" 28" 1 30" 3 36" 1 TOTAL 23 ' SCEDÂ¥E~ JAN 1 6 2007 I :T~eÂ» Â»I. i.,9.-4 .4 . f .. 0 ... . i lit p)!ti Â· . 6. f ..9 00 - -0 /1. 0 GO C w u J a. Ect o@e -0 -G .2 .2 .2 2 2 9 2 bdi 5 95.95.02 6 6 3 2 i w O ~= tt= C C C P a, ~u~ Â·- E b 9- 5~-5 E E E.9 ,9.9 6.69 -% c/) 130EarOJJ u) 0 0 0 OZOLLI 00 a) 0 1- CNI Of) El- LO CD 1-- 00 0) 0 - Al 00 - 1-- (NI Chi (\1 N (NI CNI (NI (NI (\1 (N 00.00 0-) CD C CD (1) f: C 47 = 3 8 1 Ee ff i 3% 13 1 1 6 i ) 122!221:11111533 i O=.0(021.-, ...... O 5 : . 1 1 f ,â„¢,Â·, r.Â©-co,9-22 X52 urbance Neighbors urbance Significant Trees suoiionpek:I ieuoillppÂ¥ eejl Table of Contents 17. taff Report Comments ous Coverage ting to Create Bench s isturbance - lual.UdolaAepekj sauld AAeIAJaA!1:1 ~ ' Â«Â·Â· c ~ Â· Â·Â·Â· â€ž ,. , Â·, ,.: Â·, , N'~' ~'Â·.4'4~.'-4 ' '-~"~:;t>', ~t;.*:'li /':2 -'-~, asons Inn Conclusiol CO - F, , e if.):C~-3.- o F --4 @ f %@ \16 -1% /% t j..9 +96,4 003 i'r I t -- L . V , ;N.1.% , - 1 - 1 Â· 2- .1.-1.-44 " : \00 [ L_-1 I1. >11. -- @ 11 // -Â·. +h g 1 -4 --1 . 3 1 -- 11, ': 3 L, ..:%:~ 1 '. I A , , I . 0 - 1 , / . I ./ 1 I .r- ./ I 1 li . 4 x.le . I L ./ 1 _-~1 r-/ C Â£ 4 L 1 9 11 - - - 1 C 3 -1/- 14Â®6 â€¢ Â·Â·t r 1 @ 110 J @ 0/ 2 0 -~ . 3--~l 61 1 .t Â£~ c ' ~ L --1 l/- L * 0 1Â® 9-4 d L_. 1 -i w , - 1 4 il F'.,9 1 - 0 . % ; 1 r. F 1 , .r 4 4-~1' 0 3 L- ------- t 1 1 u.- / I ~ L ---E~ -Ll O -O - /3 , . 0 L , , -- 1 - ,-1 , / - l# e..Â® . . 2 r- .34%1-1 ~>-9-7-941' e / a A~-5443- 9 /9/ fr 4 .2 2. 0 - 5:11" .. - t . 1 -.. 0 I ' - N --- \ /A/,/6 1-9/ ,/ \. '10 -%.I W r -/ 39\ \ 64. r. 0.2 - 0-7â‚¬>.Â© 2 ~' . '4 - -\ i-lir< A / \\ s\ \..<39 . 0 "- . 0 / 9 16/' NXÂ»r..\9 6 - -Ci I.... V l./. 3;~/ I ~.... f \ \- *.4 1 ,- . NU>- - 15 j \.. -r~ Q r.0 ox - 1 Â· 0. .\0*.0\\-CE . k . itl ..4.rM. I.-., 1, '4tf"f , -4 \~0 054 m ..4474 41*pt- 1 jualildole/\epehl seu!d Me!/Ue/\!hl :t: *24'., . 1 . . i 7 0 I t. 0 4 /0. C I Â·:Ir'I' I 9. ' r.yedp -,39? t 1.7-i ti= 9 AM.,1.~7*. LO . peSSALtuoeiudgAepa~ptodeo~d ~41!ojesuoitoace~ Bryson Fami y Â· The Bryson's reside at 1152 West Elkhorn. The property is accessed by the road that divides Riverview Pines. "As adjacent property owners we would like to see the project Jadoid jnoqi!M 'piezell e Jo eq o; suompuoo jueuno pug eN\â€ž 8AE4 S,UOSX.18 841 98!1dul! POCI83 #els 841 el!4M Â· jueludoleAepehl sau!d Me!/\JeA!hl Excerpt from letter approved" â€žsseooe houefuelue l.le~1 jue~doleAep CD Deer Crest Resort Â· Deer Crest is a resort located just west of Riverview Pines. Carl Towner has met with Ken and Kerry Arnold (Principles). They stated they have no objections to the redevelopment and had no suggestions for further luelildole/\epehl seuld Me!AJe/\!hi improvement. > 0 8. 58 (D (D E a) C m O a) C -Â¤ SN Co C C U)(00 RE .. Michelle LeCIerc resides at 1250 West Elkho e.. Michelle's property is pesodoid 841 01 SUO efqo sell 811840!I/\1 98!Iduu! Pode] ge;S el# 81!4 Joi Poddns sioJeloel elle MIAI SUI]!ue je41~~~~Ue~ewA~~|~LPee~J~~enAsepe41 Mic ie e LeC erc accessed by the road that divides Riverview opposed to seeing the project approved" Michelle goes on to e buildings will be much nicer than the grey block structures that are jual.UdoleAepehl seuld Me!AJe/\!hl Â· Excerpt from letter " sidewalks will th w i,Xpedoid 841 0O vc 0 Â« c (F=:4 1 j Jf ~ 0 0 1 N 0 k. 03 2 0 2 0 1 2 3 5 1 08 3 -0 1 9 -04 2 .0- 0 rm ICE G E#E E 882 822 6 â‚¬ c Eq 10 C 181 i; 08N p'E 8 m 4 1 w,2 .b 5 2 8 00 029 6 0 m 4 Q C o sp' 50 9 0 3 3 3 3 2 il E j-*9 1 11% ; :El did; 218 1186 11! ~f/LI; 2 mlo 5 080 09 50: icc E & C S 'fa L ra, 2: 3~11 6801c 0 0 N & **2 61 -2 22 E- m 91 Za EC 9 0518, 1&1 81 41 44 ! 11,1 1 1 p 54 00.Eli O,0 28 EBI 0 1. 8 ERE & 1 in 6Â£18â€¢3 062 2 1 1 22 6 - 011 0 2:= 1 I i 0 ~ 1~ !131 i 181~ 2 11 & 21 11 & 12 82 3 i 4 0 06 Â¤1Â£8&~ 2:5 61 022 *E - 0 22 Z %2 0 0 r a S, #A gali 215 g E Â·3 13 8 :11 lf];2 6 t < 0~ j'@IL~E; 3, 0 58 a c m .6 ~ c m ; c i t a i - 81 E mt,%1 11* 9 >il Blec 23 812 2 v L \ , 0 261 5%<2 2 2 6 = 3* EE > conâ€¢ "Emoc E 0 \ 1 0C 18 0828,ck 'Eh Ge .81 %111 inid 8 12 Ew 1.2 '220 22 1 * 2: , 81 i %012 2 51.21 01 2 8 E E 88 i alf : 1 01 Â«11 1~4 6 0 m Â° 0 : a u &2 0 2 4 Fjoito 2:fe 263 im: ig:E ipti 19 1 1 % 30&50, =6:. 1Â£. ~~0.1 61:3 :5,11& 85 1 1 .9201/ ESBF â€¢82 -20 00,- 0065>2 0 0 a e 1 611Â§31 4{8 1 ~' ~ ~g i ~fj ? :j~ i 1,9 Ef2 ;,2 8; 31 EC Z @ELLI u i 8 319 15:. 6.1 tEe 21 - u . 6 4 6 U~~C n Ria- 2:1 19,8 11; *31 :2:Â£ iial; 23 5 i lj 6 lij ta: flij g: 2 :1 82 1 ; IL 2.:.EÂ¢ ik: 21 2 2591 M..8 els 11 3 Â£ f f } , & 200i9E 13'31 'al 5:0, 1550 ~ =1=; 90 0 8 1 /t e 4 2 *022 *c â‚¬2 8 %22..3.@g20 #:EZE 2,2 2 ~ q mis'c~ ,Â§#tz-0 ~22â‚¬ 200 2*25â‚¬@5~ -SiNG ~9 i i 8 3 5 8 & 0 2-E 1 E m E $1 H.: 5 gs] 50==, c : 2 2 -g ~4 N~~ ~ Swo,3 2 #OBi 4 &% 0 0 â€¢ 0 0,10 *22*9A~~ LOOK L 1 N Â¥r Four Seasons - Letter jueludoleAepehl Sau.d M8!AJe/\!hl 3 9 8Â§3 f@b 9.&2 g Dj 0B 0 f .il E i. 2 1-9 4. 20 E.3 2 ~-2 2 ov a. M 0 2.E 8 a. *20 0. C f m:g 1#3 2 0 0 . CZA:21;32;uout front Weare cted by the RVP development pl Building #20 is v 'eu!1 Xpedoid el# uo Xljoe]!P Wnq s! 6uippnq u!81.U S,Ul.4 SUOSees JnO:I â€¢ co 1!q.!LIxe pelloene ees) 'Aped id d/\hi selloeojoue ul.11 suosees Jno:1 elÂ·11 JO 00!Pod seAA s uosees ino:~ vejinq Jool 42 e 6up!Aoid s! seuid Me!A.18 se!pedoid jueoefpe luo# Moeqjes ou l.1)!AA pelonnSUOO Excerpt from letter esuodsebl dAhi It.,1 9 ec J a. m 1 22 D 2 0 E 2Â£ E Z k the substantial loss of trees an ed increase from seven (7) buildm buildings, we feel tha an population center. .=Mul [gul~INIM] 41#ZE| O 0, - C CD U) -ILIC g co a) Â¤CC X) al . C - 0 0 O r - 222 0 -,3 c E o Â¤- O Qf Eo O 6- 6 -0 0 C 8% 33 8 6 2 3 R (0- e (1) U) " 2 % a, 7-- (1)Â¤) -Â¤ .C Â¢0 2 0 c LU (D J 0 OO CO.*-i r- E g .g SE (D C 2.C 1- C O - 1 Â·- E pg E.<nE M E R lE i 2* (D 0-.- o d (D > A O > 5 6 1Â® 62 Q, C (D ~ (D 25 -Â£== (D -2 8 -ig .E b:g * E (1) 0 1- m (0 e . 0 proposed plan, the Four Seasons Inn could Dossiblv lose income fem our 9 rooms. have asked for a copy of the economic study that concludes lou op sesseu!snq Bu!pun leA p el# Jo sieup 0!LUOUOOe @SJGApe Ue GAe 11 AA Jo SuISolo 841 Bu! 6pol el.11 i eq eq Il!/\A pose] 841 Jo 6U!solo ell) Alienuue elopment of Riverview Pines ould possibl have a Four Seasons - Economic sep!Aoid 5u!SO1O 841 JOP!JJOO JeAIM Ile:1 841!6Uop Swel.Uws!Iqeise 86jel e eu.~nsse oj uui suosees inod 841 Joi do jueoUB.16!S e Impact enueAe] 6u!6pol ienuue +00 '004$ S,dAB Jo U0!Pod c impact on the Four Seas ,eAell eAA BU!lee; e tsnf s jueludoleAepehl seuld Me!Aje/\!hl esuodsehl dAhi uui suosees inod 841 uo jo t 0 2= m i.m u, a. 1.le==,E IE 81 W 3 f h Â· M e â€¢10 1&1 g i A 22 0 e E L jueludoleAepehl seuld Me!/\18/WH Four Seasons - Traffic Increase traffic and noise. strians and automobile traffic. QKEINi=11 &1Ua!!MWI#21AUNI @11[il Excerpt from letter 8% &2 R . 82 2 .2 60 4- (D o j #g b E CO 3 bb 2 2 2 (D ~ A E; c w c (D O 2. E W 1- 03 > (1) rIC 121 eB v H 92 =30 Â£ L jueludoleAepehi seu!d Me!/\JeAQI will be a subst~~ lo~s~s ofjt~c~~ wild fe along the Fall River. Also, Four Seasons - Wildlife s>lueq JeA!] UO X11O83!p seinion.Ils Bupeld Je 4 J eziu6ooej seop M u.104)113 M 0â‚¬ L L le punOJ e ueo 6u!>loolq Jop!]Joo >pep qnt joll e pue eoueJ e pepeze sew uul suosees AqeJel# 86pe SJeA!J 841 SelloeOJOUe lelli eull Xpedoid @41 6u Â·empl!AA Jo luel.UeAOLU leinjeu el.Il BugueAeld Excerpt from letter 1,4. I e i L . 4 0% -Ca) . a) O - 0 filE 4 ~-AL i .' =>- CD .0 LE -Â¤ 2E 0 0 N.E O.1 -j...gn'--'- 3 :Al, f m .9. 4~//:,1~ hm 6. - 0 - L --' k.~>53 75* - L-Limi V al-Jog- re.mil Â£ . 4-5'.7.~ 4~,1-4.. A ./lill'i h.'929111&-1"J....Im. -I. vill:Mill're.1 017Â»0.4 1/1 61 77-/0/ - //96 I. 1 Â· 1.-farif.Â£&41 /#1 -d - %14~/&1// - Â¥2*64 11 . c.Â·MI", f>Â·16#127. s! eu!1 iledoid LUOJJ >1012 88Jel lou e.le Xell_I. SMOpUMA Ilel.US el.11 Jo ejou eMBIN .... :2 -,1 1 pue quou pue Moep elli U]04 SAAe!A 841 SMOpll!/\A AAeIA f L lueludoleAepew seuld Me!/\JeA!hl Four Seasons deck to rivers edge preventing the natural movement of wildlife. ueld jueuu Four Seasons peAJesejd eq 11!/\A 6uiplinq elli JO Photos t# ER 9 L jueludoleAepebl sauld Me!/\JaA#hl Four Seasons - Conclusion Â· The claims that automobile and pedestrian traffic will triple is proven false by the Staff Report. Idlife claims are not supported by the Department of u! jinsal Il!M NOSe.I SGU!d Me!/Ue/\!13 JO Bulsop 841 Â· Aqjeau JOJ all UeAe] /\AGU Jo 000'0010$ !*jewlxoidige E & 2 2 5 -Â£ 8 2 3 CL .33 01 0 0- C.C e : 3 1% :Â§ 9 L jueludoleA@pabl seuld Me!/U@A!hl Affe cted Neighbors The vast majority of neighbors are as ng the Planning Comm-ssion W~o~st~~~~ou~d soen~yfind t plan. After spetaok~~ FZ at had objection every of Four Season Inn's m nstksehwaevde b~i~r~10,1 or hyperbole. Our neighbors want the resort be redeveloped, they Conclusion and overcome by facts and not pefoid s!41 8Aoidde oi noX 6upise eie h j.... . I 4% - ..: 9'.2 t .:40.4 .. . . a r 4 , I ': '22 . 2-1 NAH - li 81 0 ~ /9 0. 1- (D 4- 6 0 5 2 ~ be l J'-2 (D = C Ecs 0 (0 71 M .: m CO U) (DiE -C C 2 2 8 co -28 .E .C 0 (D -C CO 0 0 CJ 2 ~ .54 U A- 0 0. cn ,42 :m CO Â·M' c 9, d E (0 m El 2 * -2- :8 =2 5& 1=:= L . ion the overall design s of Disturbance standards set whjL:thaendcurrentlrop oneun~ype repea*d ianctroess el.11 jn046noil# pew eAeS 01 >IJOM u6!se I JaAeS SJU eseidei ueld Juejino ell-L u!Blue] pefoid elll 8Ae4 Il!ls ue elq!ssod se seall lueou! pe6uello Alleoupeds suf!sep )!un inoi eAell MOU GAA 'elq!seei OILUOUOOe Staff Com~ent (pglp2) elqissod se seeil Xuel.U se eAes 01 Ral] 01*1~ i igmQ[*Ii] 11*[Ii@ - QDIE 1 /. 1 52)1 1 1 1 1 3 lf'' 01 -a o (D 1 0 U) 1 J 0 1 .0 J 0 J ~ li t %2 mo .6 00 CE 1- a. B E 6 L lueludoleAepehl seuld Me!AJe/\!bl It is Staffs opinion the proposed driveway system could be redes ned to eliminate half s to be located on the south of the river, thu ucing the overall GAB4 jellj se!pedoid u! Unse] plnO/\A eA!]p >peq elll Jo uoileullu!le JI 'uo!}nlos elcuseei Ailes!lUOUOOe ue lou S! s!4-I- 7!un elll Jepun 6upp 841 Jo uo!)08]!P 841 u! J s nooJ Sall]04 841 80]OJ osie pin esoddo sioq46!eu es041 0 ,d id 841 JO l#nOS 841 01 8A!! lelll SJOq46!eu [kliI& @1~D (ilklb *mhOdliFI!Â§ Rm#Ek@ ms elqe eq eM j,upinolls lueluesee oes-ep-Ins e Juej6 01 peoioi 6u!eq eje eM Staff Comment (pg.1 p.6) disturbance. toes-ap-1110 el# l1104 SS@OSe eA84 01 KI 3 8 8 10 41 uS y 2 2 ce -* 2440 v Q-~ & (0 E D tx L i (D .92 iii (D O Em!0 6-(1) 0 -> 2 .016 07 > C 0 0 >t: C 3} 21- 1- V, C) a CO 2 2 .Z M /2 Xev 0 E 12 .MEL *9)-C a O 8 01 >2 7 0 - rE~ cr ,- 825 c r.> O *UJ December 19, 2006 Staff 5~0 t~ethr~%1~55%rm*rd dby the sno!AJedl.U! Jejee]6 8Aell jelll Slu 03 NImillrinIAARnAU Calll.-1 AARIA ImAIU :seldluexe Jueoe] 8834 j 8. Impervious Coverage 86eJeAOO snouuedul! M spue] M 868]eAoo sn U,1! %29 Ek )100]8 JeAE88 ement was false efiejeAoo sno!Aleduu! %21;' MOO]JeARd ti (D 0 f 1 /4 EE2 E 8 (D (D ZE jueludoleA@peÂ¥ seuld Me!/UeA!& "Units 16 and 21 appear to exceed maximum height and units 14 and 22 le.leAes epel.U juelupedea 6uluueld ell} 6ulleell] 9001 '6 L Jeq 6ulpeeisilu JSJOAA W pue 8Alsniouoou! JO enfieA ;seq le 8.le/\Aj S}Uell.lejels Height Â· On December 19, 2006 staff commented: 01 peq seq #els 841 Sjueluele#S Jo eldillexe Jel#oue s! s!41 eslei pue are close to the maximum height" U.100 dAB 0, 91 3 1 Â§ 2,5 IM .Eil 82 .~~2.' 22 g Z _ 15 4, El EO 0 aa)6 4 75 2 85 >-~X CO (D E P (D - 2 0 EgEN g co u) 0.52 &3 2 E _ W N (O cr E (1) e -C 2) BbluMEE g 2 (D J Of Z O LU EC jualudoleAepekl seuld Me!/UeA!hl On December 22 RVP requested documents from the planni department nvestigate if iances were granted to developments that equal Cutting to Create Benches tting to create benches onal interpretation it is ~tanl~ye ~psop ur request in order to e ec iv nfines of th~~~~lopment code. xamples of benching that e the amount req u :eje uo! joni}sl.Z~epun Ijus~in~047-~eprfeid,erÂ° (jueineisehl S,X>10!N U]04 SSOJOe fâ‚¬ AMH uo pejeooi) stun!U!luopuoo eouepuns 841 'Seijolleq ino oj eoueueA e penss! ejeM slueludole/\el) 841 Jo Je el.11Jo uouelo!A u! jou s! dAbl ssel XijueouluAS s! d/\hi Xq pesodoid .El OaA CQ E@ 0m 5 7 -C E 53* ANSE@ ~ 0- tt= tt= g 12'Fgpol m m C 05 03 8 k VE lueludoleAepebl Sau!d AA8!AJGA.!hl Limits of Disturbance received comments from three adjoining property owners who are not about the concept of redeveloping the site, but are concerned about the oposed limits of disturbance (addresses: 1130,1152, and 1250 \AL Elkhorn). ([kB[K-,1--00.-fl[*liD Â®11 Neighbors sioq46!eN Jno seu!d AA8!AJeAIB ke[22â€¢110 Comment pg 6. pl w N m m m N to 01 01 el m N LO 60 9 whie babkkiq k rn{Â¥1~-*m.-7 0 0 0 - g@ ==Â·Â·/ 66-5 MIÂ·0(0-0--1Â·- e &31 m (D 0 E (D (D 0 O(1) EE 8 0 fl.1 -- 45 .- I (DO a mig 0 M C E= 0.52 1 3(1) O t< 'im w im m WI *5 C 0 ,!M J v m co O O C .52, .92 0.= (1), G di .113; m f ficant Trees Coniferous Total Disturbance d, including: [![1 M!@8!!DitiEZIB ~1![U g& Staff Comment P6 tal!~~~~2),~1 ialiskilillillillillillill 0/~il 5,1 - EE I Gil CL" m *41-LI .2. E el, I# 2-El M 93 jueludoleAepeÂ¥ Seuld Me!AJeA!hl Since the Planning Department Staff repeatedly claims the redevelopment plan is in violation of EJ)22 ?ultoSts~gd~ifi~n~ tree removal we asked for Staff's Significant Tree Study a copy of the town's S upports their claim. On January 15, 2006 Mr. Bob Joseph admitted the Town never conducted a significant tree study. We asked Mr. Joseph how his staff arrived at the conclusion th t to o many significant trees were being removed. Mr. Joseph went on to s "we relied on the development plan submitted by ~ao~n~tone ngine~n~I Il:ays~eo~nfeors~M[l~~~nn' Mr~. Jos~~t~hs~heantt~' to el# 01 Swel.Uejels e>lelll Xlpejeedal plno/\A #els U/\AO-L elll jelll elqesnoxeu! s! U UeS Swel.Uejels esleJ 84) Ue4AA Allepedse 'PeJ u! S!seq ou eAe4 le41 UO!SS!LULUOO .d'llsieuped S lueludoleAep el.11 uo pedul! le!Oueu!# esieApe ue eAe4 'peAOLUe] eq 4 eog! u 6 esuodsekl dAhi fe g 1 &% 1 (9) FÂ» 1 DIC 0 31.bl-,2 12 2 % ~ 0 6. (1) CE ..... CL.I../ eeg 00 57 Clc) 2 92 M 0 0 ,@ 5 4, w g,% E 17; Fo &38 ~-:UU 0 16 2 0 > 3 4- CO 960 O 1- =Oc B E R >Z -%2 O 0 0 g g 1.- E -0 3- LU Fifl *62 ECE 2 Â§ 1 'g 4 4,6 1!1!1 Bip C 0 [96 8 9 131 -m 2 CD (u /,7â€¢ BU Ig g CD $ 92 a, 0 â‚¬ m MIMIDMO.[122 ZE jueludole/\apehl sauld Me!/UGAIN LOD Significant Tree Report peedlin has twenty-one yea rs of experience evaluating trees as the Superintendent for t Park, seven years as a City Arborist for the City of Li charter member of the Estes it is easier to list Dan Speedlin 11(11*2~1 See attached report Sionificant Tree Board. 83 jueludole/\apehl sauld Me!AJeA!& Significant Tree Additional Reductions The town's requested improvements to the roadways and utility infrastructure require the removal of 4 FOUR significant trees. Although RVP did not prepare a written fire hazard report, professionals have suggested that 5-10 significant trees should be removed. 1 1 1 1 man i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i.O 1 1 1 m 1 1 i 1 Oi ' I i (1) 1 ;E ' 1 1 ' I .U) ~ 1 I.al (D i 1 -CO (D ~ (1) 1--- i 1 -Â¤ 4-1 i i.85 c: a i o E E 1 1 +0 (D v. 2 E * Fi 1 6.1. *-3 i >O 1 1-- CD 1 U.1 u) I CO i (D 1 ' 00 .1 SY ' clÂ· i or) 1 C 1 .1 C) E D .05 LL eLLIOH Jed peAolue] Jo eouecpms!p Jejee]6 Jo lenbe eAe4 Jel# SlueludoleAep Je 410 J eldulexe pug e uo pejeool 86p3 SJGA!hl ll.1808] aJOU] 841 JO euo ueso40 GA84 eM 9884 jueoull.1 6E jueludole/\epebl seu!d Me!/Ue/\41 Significant Tree Count Jell) juepodiu! s! 4! uoilejaidieju! leuosied oj pefqns s! 00 ell) JO El GOUMS (NEIAEIS) Z Jo 0!lei e S! W 41 see]J lueoulu6!s Â£8 p AOLUOJ Phi XJelloWH 1!un iequep!se] A.leAe JOJ AOU.lal 9884 JUBO!Jil.16!s uodsehl dAhi Conservation Groups Conservation groups prefer redevelopment over the use of raw land. These groups include, but are not limited to, the: uonejeped e#!Ip'!M leuoUeN Nature Conservancy of Canada uo!}eA.lesuoo lueld Joi Jeluej 80!Ales uo!18Ajeslloo seoinosehl le.InteN uonepunod ein#eN ueej6jeju!AA 841 09 jueludole/\epehl seuld Me!/Ue/\!hl Sierra Club Department of Wildlife World Wildlife Fund 0 U) (D 4- g (1) 0 0 04- -U) -Â¤ O m (D /2Â¥E 41 InfE fors ZE 2 82 (D E.c- rica) - (0 a) m O a. m > a) m m~ a) J 2 '- 0 -c o Â¤)9 (1) Â¤)> C - 62 m UVE s- CY) O (0 :t:: C- $ g a~ & 2-8? Z SEÂ·* Â£ 1 0 0 6 c u, c -lk 3 v v Â£ m -:= ~ v A J Â£ U).92 * @.g) 0 3. 2, 92 (D -P (1) 1& 2 M. >4-2 E 'KE.!f! tf aE % if g..2 U) 4= > W.= -1- CL,1 00 (1) 0 Â®1- 922@&02#822 0.=.5 8 2 M a. (D .0- = W M .92 73 >R U) C J ~ ~-8 & bo- ~ 8 0 01 ~ (1) m 0 h=0 2 (1) O m C C.c k u 3- 1 >'v R ~Ze (D t m >..C (D Â·- J O L o ~Â¤ 2 -2;80 'D; 18 0 ~92 2 c 12 (D :E 62 ao w 2.80 a) c O U.1 .E * E <2 8-111 12Â£ S * a. >% C * 4- (D.2 2 C .' Al 21 AE zil 4- /07 45 LY /4 *0., =gasyg22 52@* 222 O co320 ~012 CM- C (0 3 200,~=m ~20 22:~~ v EPEE Ceou ,- a) (1) !2 LO g) (D (D (1) U) .Ci T v ->, -0 0 h= .- c % U) (13 =1 .1- .2 â‚¬ (1) S 8/8 2 &,82 CCO-C /--7 .POE2 2%6 2 &% 0 0 Â£0 &242 2 4) a D U)'M (1) I - E..!Q u) (1) ~ td 2 3 -92 % 8 . R E m 8-2 &# E 16 g E IGS g o >, e Â®2.&(D ~.~ ig coco ~cd EE 91-0 0.5 1 m 2 8- c 2 u Z 21) 0 (o 2 4 0 M A gl22'5Â¥E 92 E ~~ 22 E fd~ g 2 ** 1 91 16 8 EHE EE -2 - ii: 2 e' (LI@2 Â·S'2 E *1: 1; .2 2 5 92 fi ~%~20% i& a ~5v-% ~~~~CL g * 312â‚¬ % 2.- 3 >= 4 (1) v 0 1 /21; 2 @ 8.@75.2 2 's E * -2 16 2 % -5 2' 22 g .8 R 3 0 n 12 >4- m o m c > a) J o g, !E 3: iZ i: .642 iE := iii Â£ 22 1-0 m .2 -J --C 4 E Â£ 29 0 0 5 0 - v - 2 ~.2 -3 EE g E EE 2 4 (0 E Â¤)- CO 1- Co (1) a (0 -- co li ~ ~ ~ * 8 22 2 2* Â®- g Â·s E E O -C (1) 0-0 > (D - 1--0 82.5 0 ' fix c Â¤-51 Â® a.-7- E e /2 RE*woo=Fofâ‚¬Â®1259*EÂ®agEE@% t-Se-Â® 5 r-12'f $ st,-2 0523 cos Â® m 1% (1) Co 32.22 -Â¤ iii -Â¤ m 1* 7 c >â€¢ > M.C aE c k c n U.1 0 -a *0 22* 2Â£ 36% 842 2.* EE 8â‚¬.8 2222 @- 64-go 5 fl oâ‚¬o Co O U _ O Zâ‚¬ e overcome eac r~ised by the Pl *~nt 841 Jo 01 le eDu rk Planning Commission 16,2007 ro ert ax s 'AiinAoedsehl JeUMol IJEO Jon A. Bryson Bryson Concrete Construction P.O. Box 3016 Telephone (970)586-3443 Estes Park, Co. 80517 To Whom It May Concern: My wife and I reside at 1152 West Elkhorn Ave. Estes Park, Colorado 80517. We are not opposed to the redevelopment of Riverview Pines located at 1150 West Elkhorn. As adjacent property owners we would like to see the project approved. My wife and I have had the opportunity to meet with Mr.Towner. We feel that the proposed project will be of great improvement and of much benefit; such as, emergency access, ample pedestrian side walks, and increased property value. We find current conditions to be of a hazzard without proper emergency access and obstruction of vision due to overgrowth of trees and shrubs near bridge. We found Mr. Towner to be amicable in his regards to our concerns and he was able to make concessions within reason. We look forward to working with Mr. Towner and are confident that adjacent homeowners will be kept abreast on matters that would be of direct impact. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. SincyfeiF' ij / Jon 21144 Bryson ../ -liata~<77/1 To Whom it May Concern I reside at 1250 Fall River Road, Estes Park, Colorado 80517, directly south of the proposed redevelopment of Riverview Pines located at 1150 W. Elkhorn. As an adjacent property owner I am not opposed to seeing the project approved. As stated, I am not opposed to seeing the project approved provided that I will continue to have access to the road to my property. Currently Riverview Pines, the Bryson's and I share a common road easement. With the approval by the town of the Riverview Pines redevelopment and the subsequent demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of new buildings, there is also the plan to reconstruct the bridge and raise the roadbed six feet. We, (the Bryson's, myself, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, etc.) will need continual access of the road and will need to be assured that we will have this access. Also, the plan states that the water line is to be moved to the property line. There is a ten- foot easement on either side of the property line for this to be done. Disruption of driveways or grasslands on adjacent property should be reestablished. For those of us who have been here for some time, it is hard to see change. This is a major change for this property, but the buildings will be much nicer to view than the current gray block structures that are on the property. Also, the added sidewalks will be more than welcome. I have had the opportunity to talk with Mr. Towner about the development plan on several different occasions and he has been more than willing to explain his project and to try to work with me as an adjacent property owner. I wish the project well and believe it can be good for all concerned. /, I / 1/'9 1,1 / / V ~ 42 1 1 , Michellk Let}erc 01/16/d7 Significant Tree Evaluation for River View Pines Resort 1150 W. Elkhorn Estes Park A Growing Business Inc. January 11, 2007 Dan Speedlin 1940 Baldpate Ct Estes Paik 970-586-8816 To whom it may concern, I have 21 years of experience evaluating trees as the Park Superintendent for the Town of Estes Park, 7 years as a City Arborist for the City of Lincoln Nebraska and charter member oflhe Estes Tree Board. I have been asked to make an expert evaluation ofthe trees on the "River View Pines" property to detennine "significant" trees to the property. My evaluation of the trees are based on three primary factors- 1. Species: Because of Estes Park' s arid mountain environment the area has a very limited variety of tree species that will thrive here. Almost any tree species that grows here is a valuable tree species, unless it is on an invasive or noxious tree list. 2. I,ocation: Where are the trees located in relationship to buildings roads and other amenities? 3. Condition: The health of the tree considering disease, age and damage. Most ofthe trees on the property are deciduous or conifer native species, these would be considered significant species. Most of the trees are located in safe unobtrusive or desirable locations making them a significant tree to the property. Most ofthe trees are in relatively healthy condition. Free ofdisease or pests, very little damage and less than 10% dieback in the crowns. Because ofthe large number oftrees on the property it is easier to list the trees that are not significant or valuable to the property. The report will begin on the north side of Fall River on the west side ofthe propaty. â€¢ Adjacent to the west building, (unit #1), by the south side deck and stairway are two Populus Angustifolia, (Narrowleaf Cottonwoods) that are growing 6" from each side ofthe stairway. Narrowleaf Cottonwoods are fast growing trees that produce weak branching that that has a tendency to have random die back of branches in the crown. This location presents an immediate hazard to people on 1 t i r: l the deck and stairs being struck by falling branches. It also is too close to the structure and will damage the stairway, deck and rooÂ£ I recommend that these trees be removed. 1-8" DBH. (diameter at breast height), and 1-10"DBH. Narrowleaf Cottonwood. â€¢ In the same immediale area is a grove of Populus Tremuloides, (Quaking Aspen) that have had the bark severely removed by elk by 50% or more. This has produced significant dieback or death to this entire grove. Because of the very poor condition and close proximity to people and the building I recommend the removal ofthese trees. 3-4" DBH. Aspen, 1-5" DBH. Aspen, 5-6" DBH. Aspen, 1-7" DBH Aspen, 3-8" DBIL Aspen â€¢ On the east side of the same building are two Pinus Ponderosa, (Ponderosa Pines) that are growing too close the structure. One is only 1' from the deck. the other is 4' away from the building and already rubbing on lhe rooÂ£ Because of their very close location to the structure they should be removed. 1-16" DBH. Ponderosa Pine and 1-18" DBIL Ponderosa Pine. â€¢ On the East side ofthe adjacent building to the east, (unit #2), is a Ponderosa Pine that is also rubbing on the roof, blocking the stairway and encroaching on the sidewalk. This location ofthe tree to unit #2 is reason for removal ofthe tree. 1-6" DBH. Ponderosa Pine. â€¢ On the north side of unit #2 between the building and the parking lot is a large Ponderosa Pine. It is leaning approximately 70 degreesto the east has been recently struck by lightning and has 50% die back of it's crown. Because ofthe trees declining poor condition and close proximity to the building and parking area this tree needs to be removed. 1-32" DBIL Ponderosa Pine. â€¢ On the south side of Fall River at the "office" building on the east property line, is a Narrowleaf Cottonwood tree on the west side of the building near the entrance to the office. This tree is actually growing in the roof structure damaging the structure ofthe building. 'Ihe tree also has at least a 20% die back to the crown. In consideration of the tree's location and condition this tree needs immediate removal. 1- 18"DBH. Narrowleaf Cottonwood. â€¢ To the west of the office building is a two story accommodation unit On the north side ofthis building is a Ponderosa Pine that is also against the building and is causing damage to the structure ofthe building. Because ofthig damage this tree should also be immediately removed. 1-20" DBH. Ponderosa Pine. â€¢ On the east side ofthe same building are 1hree Ponderosa Pines that are too close to the structure. The north tree is encroaching on the sidewalk and over hanging the building. The center tree has encroached on the sidewalk to the point of girdling the base of the tree. The upper tree on the south is over hanging and rubbing on the rooÂ£ These trees are too close to the slructures and need to be removed. 1-16" DBH. Ponderosa Pine, 1-30" DBH. Ponderosa Pine, 1-20" DBH. Ponderosa Pine. â€¢ Between the office and the two story building is a grove of 12 Narrowleaf Cottonwoods, 1 Ponderosa Pine and a Picea Pungens, (Blue Spruce) some of these trees are located in pedestrian and pall~ing areas. They are older trees in declining condition. 1- 18"DBH. Narrowleaf Cottonwood is 50% dead in the crown and needs removal. 2-20" DBH. Narrowleaf Cottonwoods are 40% dead 2 and also need removal. 5-20" DBIL Narrowleaf Cottonwoods are 20% dead in the tops and are not considered as significant trees in that condition and age. The Blue Spruce with a 10" DBH. in this grove is infected with Cooley Galls and Spidermites that has caused a die back of 10% in the crown, this not considered a significant tree in this condition. There is a Ponderosa Pine with a 20" DBH. That is at least 20% dead in the crown and needs to be considered for removal in this location and condition Onthe north side oflhe driveway entrance to the office are two trees in bad condition, one Blue Spruce that is suffering from Cooley Gall and Spidermite infestations that have caused a 40% dieback to the crown of the tree. This tree is definitely not a significant tme and if it was in a higher risk area would be considered for removal. 1-20" DBIL Blue Spruce. The other tree is a Juniperus Monosperma, (Rocky Mountain Juniper), that has a very deformed and stunted crown for the size of it's trunk and height This condition removes the tree from the significant designation. 1-8" DB}L Rocky Mountain J,mirer. On the northeast corner of the property is a metal shop building: on the northeast corner ofthe building is a Ponderosa Pine that has suffered maÂ®r broken limb damage and growing close to lhe building and rubbing on the roof ofthe building. This location and condition of the tree needs to be considered as a removal tree. 1- 26" DBIL Ponderosa Pine. Between the two story building and the shop building are two Aspens that are 50% dead and should be removed. 1- multi stem 6" DBH. Aspen, 1- multi stem 8" DBH. Aspen 4 L 3 :&12 e First National Bank of Estes Park To Whom It May Concern: January 16, 2007 Carl Towner and Real Estate CET 1, LLC has been and continue to be excellent First National Bank of Estes Park clients. They have supported locally owned businesses wherever possible since they relocated to Estes Park. All their accounts and transactions have been handled in a most professional way. Please contact me if you have additional questions. Sincerely, AR. - Frry Saint Senior Vice President Park Lane at MacGregor â€¢ RO. Box 2390 Â· Estes Park, CO 80517 970/586-4485 â€¢ FAX 970/586-0517 â€¢ email: info@fnbestes.com i R73Â¥/ SITE STATISTICS: The undersigned, being all the owners and lienholders of the real property as shown on this development plan, shall be subject to the provisions of the Estes Valley 1---- -- DEVELOPMENT PLAN Utilities: Development Code and any other ordinance of the Town of of Estes Park, Colorado, Water Town of Estes Park Electric Town of Estes Park pertaining thereto. Sewer Estes Park Sanitation District Gas Excel Lif4***'5 *1.*~ - RIVER VIEW PINES CONDOMINIUMS Telephone Qwest Owner Lienholder 1 il:, InT 1 DT\/AQ\/TE:\A/ PTl\IFâ‚¬ C.11RnT\/Tâ‚¬TON . lili .... I -- 9.- â€¢........ Bank of Estes Park Day ,m rear, 15 feet from sides, 11.5 Fall River high water line. - to Estes Valley Development Code )e (three feet height Limit) or )pment code. 3 grasses/wildflower mix. All new on. All plants shall meet ;tandards. ado prior to excavating he revised height measurement nce Rate Map Community-Panel ]n elevation of 7674.01 as 1ed in accordance with EVDC 7.12 655 42' :ssibility in accordance with the rements. 2.0 28 6/ pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, / >roposed improvements and does iy of the improvements. EXISANG ~ ed. 10' UTILNY / EASEMENT decorative block. et. 16.11 nts and sized to adequately allow m r, e r==] e--,~ 3 $77'13'46"E h. 15.38' ~ 1 ~ :./.j P 1 j 1 ~Â¢Al JAN 10 2001 4 11; r - - 02 EL 20 40 60 LE 1" = 20' STING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL STING ELECTRIC PEDESTAL 3TING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STING LIGHT POLE )POSED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE )POSED ELECTRIC PEDESTAL )POSED TRANSFORMER LEGAL )POSED BOLLARD LIGHTING LOT 1, Rlk )POSED FIRE HYDRANT REPLAT OF SUBDIVISIO )POSED DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW TOWN OF E TREE :IDUOUS TREE 'EN TREE )AR TREE 11PER TREE PARKIN ES TO BE REMOVED 'ROX. 58 TOTAL EBQEQZED 23 UNITS TOTAL CORN*TONE GARAGE C* DKENâ„¢UNO & //G. 1 SURVEYINCt INC 10,2 â€¢IG mo-soN N~~ 1$/--71963-830-8488 surrE 200 - --./. -I.-127.--b---- - DRA*,1 m -IWL-- DATE ..1&12.- 483.001 I IY __WI UMI _a-~~m__ 1 6 CLIENT: CARL TOWNER ESTES PAR, CO. 80517 ~%Â¥0 FAX (970) 680- 469 11 DEERC 1 'f"At. .:7 L.[.... . I .A A .DIA . . ... .... , 2. . .. ... m Â·4' . A . .A . . .. : - O 2. ''lit!'!'1 , ... 0 . ... . . A. . A ....... D ...0 9. P :0000 - - .... 1 . .1.- , e. 641 . . 01 .. .... . A . 1 . . 00 0. D - 1 0 00 0 1 - ... . I . / 0. D . 0 . 0 - 0 - - D- . 1 .. . . . ........- 0 - . .. 0 1 I. . .. .. . AL, .-I . .. 0 . .. . ... . I --. . . ... I. .... I . I . .0 . :. I. I . I . I. .... ..... . ..4 . 0.0 0 .. .4, I AD. ..... . -........ - ....0 â€ž :.. -el- I .... *. .. 4 0. I . 1 1 . . .... . . .. I . 0 . I 4 ...-.-0..... 4 4-4...~ . ... .... :. .. .... D ..... 0. -.. 4 1 - .... -1.lammb- .1 ..:.... .- = .-I. I . .-2 . 1 1 -..... ... Ill,1//IANAILL...I-xy *,A VAVA *2 ./1.9/*,4,Â£~.-"1~.Ifi~.*542,3-0. .--6,/RAte-/4./4..42'* . . - .. -. . I ...... ... .. : .. .. I . 1 0 ... . . . . I . 1 .. - . i- -. . I .... K*t.. I ..401;, . .1 -.- - 44 #lifill#"MIESE:06*Ii 1,4/lf; M1mililillililliIl/MI'l- 2.55,0 e.. D 0 . . . 2 . . 2 .... 2- - - 6. ..2 4.- 4 4,4,44 00411"~~:VA 1. ./. P 7 9. Â· . ..0 - $ 4. 4 - ..2 .... . 1 1- . g>. 4. 4., .4 , '44.- , ".4 4 p, ... l l . .-.. , 0 ...4 .. , A .. D I. h ~9/4 ~~ - : M, . ... . e - .. . a 4 , .6 .. . .. 1 . . . . ,l . 'A .A , ':.' 4, 4 9 / 064 1.6 ' 411~ /1 - 4 . I I . 0 0 . I ... - 00 - 4,+ 4 - I . .. . I . ... ..-...... 1, Â· - c .. 1,2 41*. 7 11.- 4 . /tie, - ---- 441.-- /AyFY;/4 ---~ 160::21:.-k .0 N./.4.*22 1 '42. p . $,1 -/AA . -: . .. 0 . '-4 . , -Af.----01 - ...... . ... 1 ~-,-V//EAM< - . 9 V. , 'S villilillimills,ll. 4/1/95,/Illillill:"IN':00*.~0000/0112:22/1,#. . 13~I.G, V C ,. -- 6 06; . , - O A -a. ~~.1~~.0.0,-0 ./ . D. . D . .1 0 * -=:6->- ~IZAF0~ D . 0 * * -IK /9.1 0 - 'll. . 0 - Jet~,~ :-1 0 1 V. 49 +912-*090<gilillte//7 - '.0 .0 - ... â‚¬ 00 0 0 0.-. 1 e . A //6 7/.M~..imp.lug:3~61 0 - a ..1 I. 0 :' 00 I . 0 0 0.-1. ."U I. I. D.- 0 0 19 - O -24* .-7 .. 0 0 9 J 4/ins:-I ..... . 9Â¥ , , 0 .6 ,: D . , 1 1 - I * ~155~ 0.0 1 01* I . ., 1 - 40 .. 'A .. , h 0., ... D . D ;7 .-p ..... 1 = D 0 . 6 1. 111 . . I 1 '. - r I=V- -1 -Gil .. 0 . . 1 1 - I - 1 . . 0 i. 1/ 1 LEGEND p -4 4 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPERTY UNE 6 Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL ~1-Â»- cze 44 - - ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE e. EXISTING ELECTRIC PEDESTAL -p -1,â€¢.1 1-r-A L 1-r - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE --. --- 1-, n /1- 1-h ~,T r=~A, rIT Al Cr ,-r, Al r-v-) IWI TAI TI I IWI C I EXISTING LIGHT POLE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE J/ PROPOSED ELECTRIC PEDESTAL 4 PROPOSED TRANSFORMER PROPOSED BOLLARD UGHnNG Â· PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT 1Â· PROPOSED DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW PINE TREE Â· DECIDUOUS TREE ASPEN TREE CEDAR TREE Â· JUNIPER TREE TREES TO BE REMOVED APPROX. 58 TOTAL 52 +Z- took / 1-02Â¥ /9 On/aO -,LUmo /7 LU 20 /4 MP AND WING SLOPES SHALL NOT BE 0 UJ < 1 /13 DER THAN 12:1. DRMAL GUTTER FLOW LINE AND PROFILE SHALL 'AINTAINED THROUGH THE RAMP AREA. POSSIBLE, DRA/NAGE STRUCTURES SHALL NOT 142<-1 LACED IN LINE WITH RAMPS. LOCATION OF WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER LOCATION OF /AGE STRUCTURE. L CURB RAMPS TO HAVE DETECABLE WARNING 18.4 t CATED DOMES. 1 DETAIL Z .GEblfEAL-NQIES -/PU 1. THE DETECTABLE WARNINGS SHALL BE INSTAUED AT SIDEWALK/STREET TRANSmONS. THEY SHALL BE PROPOSED _ j MADE IN PAVER FORM VATH A TRUNCATED DOME SURFACE. RETAINING WALL >< THE DOMES SHALL BE PLACED lN A SQUARE GRID. 2. THE TOP OF â„¢E DRAINAGE WEEP HOLE SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE LOWEST POINT OF THE DETECTABLE WARNING WELL. 3. ALL DETECTABLE WARNING AREAS SHALL START A MINIMUM NOT BE MORE THAN A MAXIMUM OF 8 INCHES FROM ANY POINT ON â„¢E FLOW UNE OF THE CURB. ALL DETECTABLE WARNING AREAS SHALL BE 24 INCHES IN LENGTH AND COVER â„¢E COMPLETE WIDâ„¢ OF THE RAMP AREA ONLY. 29.8 1 OF 6 INCHES FROM THE FLOW UNE OF THE CURB AND EXISTING / 4. THE DETECTABLE WARNING AREA SHALL BE INCLUDED 10' UTILITY , IN â„¢E COST OF â„¢E CONCRETE CURB RAMP. 5. RAMP SLOPES SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 12:1. THE DETECTABLE WARNING AND WELL AREA SLOPES SHALL NOT EASEMENT / \\74/ BE STEEPER THAN 20:1. NEJER OF THE ~ED DOMES 4 1- t 0% TO 65% OF THE BASE DIANEIER 1.6. - 24. 111 /. 1 1 . CURB 1.In~- 14' FLOW UNE I " ' 7 END 6- - / WATERUNE /\ ==-2= 2 0.9* - 1.4' I r-rm J 1-01&- CURB FLOW LINE RECONNECT TO nk 4 LEÂ¥Â£ION-MIE~ ELAN-MEW SHALL BE PROPERTY UNE > EQUAL IN -. BOTH DIRECTIONS. : AND DETECTABLE WARNING DETAILS X PROPOSED ,1 RETAINING WALL -7~< ,B LE HIGHEST TOTAL ROOF ALLOWABLE RADE ELEV. HEIGHT HEIGHT 1 7557 28.54 31.5 7656 28.54 31.0 7658 28.54 32.0 7658 29.54 32.5 7658 30.54 33.0 7656 30.04 32.5 7656 30.04 32.5 7666 25.04 34.0 7664 27.04 34.0 7662 29.04 34.0 7652 27.04 30.0 7652 27.04 30.0 7676 27.04 33.5 7672 32.04 34.0 7664 28.04 31.0 7664 28.04 31.0 7649 29.54 30.0 7649 29.54 30.5 7648 29.04 31.0 7648 29.04 31.0 CUT CLOPES 0 3: 7659 33.54 34.5 NATURAL 7658 33.54 34.0 GRADE ~ 7656 27.54 30.0 Es CORNEksTONE 94Â«Â« 1*49 X4:144~/ \\' .... V~V , . I . 01 1 DI-litilf gl!O & ~~ SURVEYINQ INC 0Â®-ED UY IBY APMOVED IY -29Â£- Joe NO. SHEET SHEET 1892 BIG THOMPSON (970) 886-2468 BurrE zoo STORMWATER FILTRATION POND DETAIL ./." .Y _AR_- DATE Vol/06 483.001 NOT TO SCALE CHECKED. 101' SCALE -AL'IMINL-- 2 6 cuom CARL TOWNER Ems PARK. co. 80617 ~*F FAX (070) 588- 460 1\11\\VE 1 N \ 1/4 y\~ 4 1 : 0 1\ :D .=.0 - ... C ...L .0 - .... . A . A . DIA . e . . . 0 1\#N . A ..... ... .. .. . D .. . . 4. I A . . ..... . A- - 5 O :34**gh..../.- - ..... 1 : . .6 -* 90 - . 400 - = 1. 1 - Fle 0 1 0 .0 .. . ..... D - .,.40...A'A : \ A . I:~i D 0 - 9 74/ #P,?417 D- * 24'*Pts. 'me...,L ' . 0. b 0 -' 0 0 e %4./.7 Â· 13. - al .169......74.V I I . 0 0 :L- . D I 0 0 44. 0 . .D . . â€¢ 144-1-5IO' . . 1 1 . -- 0 0 1 . -- ~//lf*ll . Â® ./a-A- 9-19./.=al-- D . . -- ragpl , 0-74. ~ - u i. . F., ... .. ' 4 I/29-11!~ ----,M. .a- D , ..:... . ...6811 -7 .. .........=.1.--*mai - I I. .Ill""I.-.ir.,1*t./.,4/"- - Lillibjilkill:Jilill:ilitil:i/*PREE'/Ati/A *~ illill'llibil./. - , 1-' " 0 . A ': I . -1. 00 +I D : . 1 , . -9 .. . VE -2.819 .- . 0 1 - ... . .. 0 10 k :. 0 -: 4 ./"*74-.,3/~1/k A 5.*-- 1 .,~MAMI PAA.li~F~I/4,4Â¥Z#*R,..r..--7 , 1 .... -- .. . r. '.,0 246#42. . 1-=.2 Â© 7-L ~~~~-*,AN ./.07 .2 a I. ' â€¢ 1- r 12Â· O '0. .. . CU-0/*=.. Â® _ 9,1 1 .. -21.=. A. . aL:.1 â‚¬ 0-,L#*M..EIA~ r Ill.....1...........""p' -'., 4949.6 00191,#Miliwitt .tr te*%41#1 .lilliA f '. A O '- . m~'A~-'40.'dkA.*--A- 4 /6 . 1 -00-1 . 93~1~ I I I - . - ~L,- ,@5...... ... .* I 7--/./Â£- .. 02=, -."i la.12- - 1, 1 ~ Ill:lmillillille:~:illi.AR,Imipiti,60 11':16-'.-* . . . ... 0 1 0â‚¬'Ar"AF.7,1,1*3'.,.li1~/'.... EL likillilimMilililimil~milt,"sll//2/61:Polillillillillklil/roilielilillilillijoloillill':milia D I. 0 , 49!! 1 15Â£~.13:ill/~-/I'l//1/WI/"01'llililll/ e . 2, -, -....â‚¬.ne. - . 0 . , .4 .1:ES:memer#All:11:lilli-ililizi,b:.:6:Slitiwif~:idita,E*r..U";/Eallilise::ilerrili/..I.. .....9- ---- twn:trei- . Â· Â· , . I. -1 . - 0 - 0 - Le -.. .. 0. I. .. . 0 .. 1 0 1 . ..0 . .. . .... - I , ..... I ..0 0 D .- 2: * 0 . ... , -: ... 0 0 . 0V0~4 1 0 .. . . D , 1 -- .. 0 0 0 0 , , . 0 I.- . 00 .. . I A. - - d 4 1 . HYDRANT PROPOSED FIRE ~ - 33=& ASSEMBLY hÂ» \.-4 - Â¥ 1 . 20#A COLORA )*EST DEVELOPMENT PLAN RIVER VIEW PINES CONDOMINIUMS \4Â·. COSTING WATER METER PIT --0 ..... TO SERVICE PROPOSED LOT 1, RIVERVIEW PINES SUBDIVISION - 3 UNITS 1 THRU 7 CONNEEVO . 27 1. . WATER SERVIok 74*4 'Â©RIP 1. ,702 3 \21,4.4 EXISTING VAULT REPLAT OF TRACT 56, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2, DEER CREST .. - %44%3//i- SUBDIVISION AND TRACTS 56 AND 57, FALL RIVER ADDITION TO THE ~ / . . Â·x TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO i. A 1 1 ---i -*\1\.4 4 7% / ./\- \ .. . . N:k:Â« . I, 1.... ..... * - /7 M m -/ 1) 1 . 4 . 2 7 1-2 f th 0- 4 EXISTING I 3 4 80' PUBUC |1 /--- 1 - ...:% RIGHT-OF-WAY ~ I L_ \C- ..: - - 2> - 30 0 30 60 90 9~ 1 .1 1 \ 2 1 -M---- . -*- 4 0.2 -9 Â» 4 31/ I ,| EXISMNG i ~ ~ BUILDING . ~0Â» 4 ----- M '. 9\ - â„¢\ I J - - -4- N%:tx SCALE 1 = 30' .1 . 11.1 r .. i Ji v.< " -- )-- < 2 i I I. | L j 21 - 3%-- - N%=tx 4, I 18.11 . liu r .11 1. 09 ~ 47.0/ / *+-I.4 -- .4 i -~-- LEGEND -Â· 7%4 PROPERTY LINE % n - 0273 . < ' ~P~*, - -- ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE 11 r - - ~~~~/' 6 4 --- 0 - 4 K 491 --- \ i - LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 4-x-- d.. - SnNG Or - - 4, ae> - - - - - - -BUILDING SETBACK Â£ p / 11.t BUILDING \% - - -- \ e- -- ... -- -,-.-,-. -Â· - Â· - Â· - 100-YR FLOOD PLAIN , L FF-5.~0 t 1 8 ~ ~ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - EASEMENT - 0 FF=7658.0 ~ - Â® 1--N.f . \ i :42..\ 2\.4 1 . 100 EXISTING CONTOUR PRIMARY -7658.0 / - D 97713'46"E h.2 -~11, 0/ / / .... \ 4, 1> EXISTING C . Â£25 .x ----------- EXISTING CONTOUR SECONDARY - 7 -~..4.- 84'*.-: i d -*k>....... EXISTING WATER LINE - -s EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE 0 44 - , 1 BUILDING ~ (r /1 -- ----- T EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE 0 s - 6, 1 \ CÂ· \ .- \ \ 9,42.1 . -t* --->1- 4 - -W -1 / -17#% 2 - FF=7658.0 1 / 1 - 98 PROPOSED CONTOUR - ----G EXISTING GAS LINE - \ 14*- C:~ - .1. 4, \ / 4 --- -- ---- .1 \ -- 10.1~ (P) . al PROPOSED 2" WATER SERVICE tit /Jflo ' . ........- r ---0 S an PROPOSED 8Â» SEWER UNE \ / 2,22 / ..47 -- -- I I S*35'27"E WS ..In PROPOSED 3/4" WATER SERVICE i\ - ----- 9 82 <,1 --,- PROPOSED 6* WATER LINE - TRACT B os PROPOSED GAS SERVICE 4* SEWER -4 ..- 0,> ~ _ ~ 9/,i,\ ~IL~// /- .. ~ - BOOTH ~ --- RESUBDIVISION T PROPOSED TELEPHONE LINE N79'42'56~ E 380.63' (P) /- 1 . 1 SERVICE (T'(P.) \~~~~ ~ - --~~- ; , ADA , A-ACCOMODATIONS PROPOSED ELECTRIC LINE P m. V \ : 1 1 1 + D ACCESSIB 1 PROPOSED FENCE UNIT / ~ Â® PROPOSED SILT FENCE & 17. 233) , 6 - \ t.2 --- , ..1 / / X \ 2-1/ P -/ \ h . 1 9=r, \ 7-1/7/ POND <\ \ /61 00 CF he' V.A. , 1 di: ..1.3 / 4// . .Llk- \ 8 0 4 . + 1 4 Â«be- ' DECK 1 4 , . ./ 1 e , . .- 0 4 FF=7654 5 9-Â¤Q 4 'f \% . 14 %- \ \ -- ., 4/. A 1- 4 --- .... PROPOSED RIVER 1---2--1 19, @%1 61Â¢-1\ \ / O(1571NG - J --- 1 00 \ ' / - | 4 CROSSING WITH SEWER 1 / BUILDING -1- J/ --- fal- 0 Â«461 , i MAIN, PIPE TO BE ==== \ 1 \ -0 , 18.9 \4\\ l --I 1 ill~ 14 44,-0 d.â€¢0~ a I ~_ENCASED IN CONCRETE 44 --I / 1, 1/ 2 1 11 . 0 ---- 3/ PECK -- ~ GARAGE FF-7654.5 al 26- i 31 \ /---e , ---- -7 (a I -1 , /1 - - - -1 -3 2260~g/ -0-- 1 I Liu ' - .-44- , r -11 . PROPOSED 4765h,5 \ l, 1*6--=_ 6- 4 1 ., SEDIWEMTh \ FF=7858.5 46i-kh L I L 1 :1Tlk i I 7 Â·1 4 - POND / C Mi 2.- Ci) -- -Er=7%88 1 11, 1 - -----0 - 0 16.. r---- \ mÂ¢p ER I 4 -\ C=/ 19)- 1 LJ , 8-1 ~ ~~~ ~ DECK V\1 DECK % 1 L : ACCuqpdBLE -- \\ \ Â«4 i, 3 L_ DECK \ , ~ 2;f -7 \ - @R \. 1\ > g 1\. \ r, 0 44, \ f.\ \ \ G . A 040 M : \ 9/ - Â· S. 1 FF=7652.5 05% 1 1 /4 U 17 % i .9 \ 4 - \ X a l Â« 1 1 r N '' 1 \,1 1,-- 1 1. P . 24 i / * 0 . :58Â£ 1.-- 1- 441 -2 - . 1 4.-4- 4 GAMAGE N , 4 *- 9 < FF=765. \ GARAGE T 4 11 \ I ' 2'h B GARAGE C: 0- N z S - WS . L I / 9 i 1-1/2t ASPHALT PARKING 6 1 W- E ~~7665.5 I 401 -1/2" R AREA 16 4 4 E 4.23 1.0,4 005 \ 1 8 {fp 1 1 650 3" ASPHALT ' 1 , LAYER RECONNECT TO 1 16.1 ~\ 1Â·dW,-lk-.4-==~ ~2~NI 1 1 -43--..~.FF=7~3 -/ \*34. 4 1 .4 , 1 2,4//h/ 11-2 6~-7-18'- 1 :SAL 41. 14 , 04Â¥ \ E -: i ~- -0- .O 1 L\ .0 -&-- --4 \ - COMPACTED GRAVE 4" COMPACTED BASE ir .44Belj . PF- / \ r - OR UNDISTURBED SOIL 3 -41 L_- 2 ... 5 1 0 0 - .OFF-7859.0~ x 14.0 1 ././1 '#tia,/7 / I- 3 9 - . 0\ 1 ,/ --- --- --- \. --- // \ \ ~~' GARAGE ~ Â·~-~~~+~*~ < #<j 2 L 93*1 Ze-- ~ CURB/PAWNG SECTION / \ 1-- \ \\ 1/ 1 1 t. 1// - - I \ --9 //. / - - --- TYPICAL CONCRETE \ I \ -- 7 - 1 24,-LLY\ . \/ 3 1 2. 36 1 ' NOT TO SCALE -7659.0 --1-- 1 1 Â¥-_1_ U=-liz -0-2 4.11 0'3 Â© 38.7-' 1 1 2 migi 0 3,42- / S89'55'35~ 210.42' ~P) - . \ $ GABAGE TRACT 57 ~ : 5&60344 J/~6,5~ ' -- - ,*z -Â·~ 33.8 NEOL AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2, DEER CREST SUBDIVISION 70.58' IJ pEERMEST sua A-ACCOMODATIONS PROPOSED FIRE -/ r *--,AMENDED MAT ,~,---~---f == .*00 1 1-0- I 1- 1 -5 .8~1 HYDRANT ASSEMBLY I i I E)~SnNG 10' |- 1â€¢' - 10' -1 CUL-DE-St CENTERED ,+44, / -2 %0 -1 EASE}#ENT L ...3 ~ :002: >- 4-3 m 4 / - OHP --Il-*.----- UNDERGROUND PRIMARY\ 1 S- ..Â·.~Dr 1 4- Elm. SERVICE FROM -1 Cabobo. EXISTING POWER POLE PROPOSED 6" DIP TO CONNECT TO EXISTING - TRACT 56A AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2. DATE: 1 REVISION: BY: PROJECT TITLE: 2" WATER LINE DEER CREST SUBDIVISION . N.1\ 1 2 RIVERVIEW PINES CORNE#STONE A-ACCOMODAIONS 00>14-+ ---- 12/28/00 ,*i-,Im Â©O~0moN: oF ~,RovAL JU - ESTES PARK, co SHEET TITLE: UTILITY PLAN ENCHNE~ING & SURVEYING INC. - I - JOB NO. - SHEET SHEET 1692 BIG THO-SON ~ (970) 688-2458 DRAWIt If .111- 0*!, 0/01/00 Surâ„¢ 200 403.001 Cl=.D. WL SCME -ALIIMM_ 3 6 cumm CARL TOWNER Ems PAR~ CO. 80517 Nkz57 FAX (970) 686-8459 UBDMSION fil xi \19 \\\\\\\\11 t.\..\b. \ Vt \ \\'36\-\ \\\\\\\\ \1\\>f 31.77 7 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 RIVER VIEW PINES CONDOMINIUMS LOT 1, RIVERVIEW PINES SUBDIVISION REPLAT OF TRACT 56, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2, DEER CREST SUBDIVISION AND TRACTS 56 AND 57, FALL RIVER ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 7670 7670 70' VERTICAL CURVE 70' VERTICAL CURVE EXISTING H/L STA 4+78 HA STA 3+10 BRIDGE ELEV=7661.23 ELEV=7650.95 ELEV=765' .0 - 45.25' VERTICAL CURVE - PROPOSED / GRADE 7660 / 7660 3.0% 6.7-3-ZE===- -{ -----------F--1 PROPOSED GRADE 7 EXISTING -- - EXISTING GRADE .-/ GRADE J 7650 1.5% _ -2.95 --- - 7650 0 -- LU w \8 . Z tyÂ¥@ 4 5 4 7640 r z 2 g /640 LU I W 1% 0 5 3 9 4 muum MEN ec~ PROPOSED GRADE EXISTING GRADE W0 22 8 m im E zn ELEVATION (TYP.) 71-- ELEVATION (TYP.) 6 m s M m 00 0 0 '. Â·a R@ EQ 00 9Q (o~0 109 98<5 28 0Â£0 - c,~7 -0 0&2 ._S 02 .-. Ae o c) 19 LL 81 9 $~ 4~ *a *E ;5 60 40 NN 4 19 1< w O ''Uiw --Â©0,0 +010 NO (D to (00 09 E. 009 19 + 10 3% 221~ lOw lo Ed e 6 LQ 44 Arg ARÂ¥ 19' 11.63 do $2 #2 02 02 18@ BE #22 02% 41/8/ (D <D <62 <*a k= CD (D (0 (D (0 02 2 Lo tr) Lolr) 5858 51~ inir) W 09 LU 60 [12 -- 0 0- u) a. u) a. 0 0- h c. h ... 0 0-0 M a.0 G 21 Lu h b (A W 0 -1 W .wm ;26 Na 1.- X 1-0-1 h tz> 105 ht' 1-C. A.5 5+50 5+00 4+50 4+00 3+50 3+00 2+50 2+00 1+50 1+00 0+50 0+00 0-32 ROADWAY PROFILE SCALE 1 "=db' HORZ. SCALE 1"=10'VERT. 25'-0" 24'-0" * Â· 21'-0" ASPHALT 7'-6" Q 8'-0. 18" - - 18" - SIDEWALK A" MATCH CURB w w MATCH CURB ' 0 -u S ELEVATIONS z z ELEVARONS -1 .,..x~ 1, 3" ASHPALT ELI 1 u, 11.-0 VARIES 6" 4 . VARIES ~ THICKNESS 4 4 . .2 .1 . 6-9 4 1 e, f . ii 12" O. 1- 4"AGGREGATE 3 - 2'-0" CONCRETE BASE COURSE 2'-0" CONCRETE . ~ INV MATCH e 1 CURB & GUTTER CURB & GUTTER 1 L FLOWINE ELEVATIONS TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION ~ SCALE 1 "=2'-0" TYPICAL CONCRETE PAN DETAIL ROAD PROFILE NOT TO SCALE CROWN SLOPE TABLE 4 ROAD PROFILE CROWN SLOPE ' <5% 2% 5%-8% 3% >8% 4% DATE: REVISION: BY: PROJECT TITLE: . 1,/1.,08 I n IlaIL *TA~ M RIVER VIEW PINES CORNE#sTONE ESTES PARK, co SHEET TITLE: . ROADWAY PROFILE D,(me!-Naa ~~ SURVZ!~ INC DESIGNED BY laT APPMOVED UY --IMIL JOB NO. 1 SHEET SHEET 1892 BIG THOMPSON (970) 686-2468 SUM! 200 DRA- .Y IJOL-. DATE ./01/00 48~001 46 Cuom CARL TOWNER mnES PARI. CO. 80517 NÂ¥F FAX (970) 686-2469 Clele IY _1~_ SCAII -~-IL ill nhUSNOO NI 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~ RIVER VIEW PINES CONDOMINIUMS 4 LOT 1, RIVERVIEW PINES SUBDIVISION REPLAT OF TRACT 56, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2, DEER CREST N 4 SPA ARNORN SUBDIVISION AND TRACTS 56 AND 57, FALL RIVER ADDITION TO THE a I 44 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO / slit>-00< 2 0 a +-4/ "// I I c /1/019 1498Â· a 4 / .434 . / 4 0 88 0 4 . 1 / < 20 0 20 40 60 11 0 Â¢ " 6 70 SCALE 1 = 20' 4 . #ZQ / 4 4 4 4 . 80 4 4 Â· NOTES: 04 ar 0 2 - . 6 PI .+ (< 2, 0 #025 1) All landscaping shall be automated drip irrigated. On/00 -3 LU m O + a - 2) Rewuired landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy, growing condition at EMid r.- .5-1, 060% Il . I I all times. I 4 ! l, 04 3) The property owner is responsible for regular irrigating, pruning, weeding, 0 - I v mowing, fertilizing and replacement of plants in poor condition and other < I , â‚¬:.I - maintenance as needed. â‚¬, I W t. . /1 ..9 4) Conifer trees shall be sized as 50% eight feet tall and 50% six feet tall at 1 ' PINE 4~,114, 4 4 planting. 0" D IDUOUS 22" PINE , * ~ 5) Deciduous trees shall be sized as 50% four inch caliper and 50% two in 7660 /-0/ ~~ 4 6' N IDUOUS caliper at planting. 09 " 1 (3) 0 1 4 Â« 6) Shrubs shall be five gallon container or larger at planting. - 1) 60' ./ e 4 7) All planting material shall meet the American Association of Nurserymen . 0 ~ specifications for Number 1 grade, and shall comply with quality standards 16" PINE ' 2&i INE Alit & 4 4 41. 4 of the Colorado Nursurey Act, Title 35, Article 26, C.R.S., as amended. 2 Ce 0 " A 6. 0. PINE 4 4 I 06 6 . I 8) All trees shall be staked or guyed and fenced to protect from wildlife 9Â· FF=7658.0 2%56 22" 95 Â· '~ ~ damage. Â» 491 /07\ 2 " PINE # O. FF=7658.0 @0 12" PI o 7660 . 4 4 4 " NE FF=7658.0 4 O 40 16 694 l' IN~7121 4 .-10Â» PINE , /4Â· O.. O +9 * I.* , . 4 1 49 . 9 14+P- - 0 , PINE 99 INE ~:~ilÂ» PINE 'fÂ·' 'Â·13<1Â· 1 FF=7658.0 4< 1~" PINE ,-, 21 4 1 4% 41 0 7431 ~0" PINE~ CÂ» 040 . 1 X 9 . . . 0- V 22 +0.--I -. =70% ah -- -' 4541 4 20 <IN FF=7656.5 114+ \ 9 ju; I *94 % - 44* PROPOSED . g~* * I COURT DRAINAGE I TRACT B BERM '*- ~= 14 %9 10:40 11)as' 3Â© 0 4 49 .5:35 .\vd. â‚¬ ADA 5 ACCESSIB UNIT ARTERIAL STREET REQUIREMENTS 46. ~ 46 . . f '4 Â· (1) SHRUB FOR EVERY 10 LINEAL FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE. \ 18 â€¢ (1) TREE FOR EVERY 25 LINEAL FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE. 22- ~ 2eA ~' ' ~ ~ / 550 LF>/25 LF =22 TREES ALONG STREET FRONTAGE 76 - -an Â· 550 LF/10 LF = 55 SHRUBS ALONG STREET FRONTAGE SEDIMENT M PROPOSED ~ (28) AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE ~:9 . f .13 \ * POND 9 .'' " ' NON-ARTERIAL STREET REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CANADIAN RED CHERRY/ ', 1 00 cp -44:= (1) SHRUB FOR EVERY 15 UNEAL FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE. . I. '. ef / (1) TREE FOR EVERY 40 UNEAL FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE. '' - 1 2 500 LF/15 LF = 33 SHRUBS ALONG STREET FRONTAGE/ EACH SIDE .. -ff. 72:7- Â· 500 LF/40 LF = 13 TREES ALONG STREET FRONTAGE/ EACH SIDE 4.L) (87) PROPOSED ASPEN TREE ~ t t . 0 ~1~-~F //// 4 : 244+ COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE .11 ~~ (66) PROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREE DOUGLAS FIR RIVERWEW PINES â„¢EE COUNT PONDEROSA PINE OLD GOLD JUN/PER 4 .;~ (318) PROPOSED SHRUB KARL FOERSTAR GRASS ~ CQMEXEQUE 22Â¢lQUQUE mal WHITE SNOWBERRY Gr~% <1 + /OKÂ«. / RUSSIAN SAGE REMOVE 58 22 80 0. SAVE 23 116 139 <~~~, TO BE SAVED - .-- -90 9<fv EXISTING SHRUB / TOTAL 81 138 219 - -- VV I 0 . 4 48 5,iÂ· â‚¬ .319= ~ ~ dA IE Ron. a 1. - EXISTING TREES I , -1/. L./ Â¥)* ,~42-3/\ EX/ST/NG SHRUS . REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TO BE REMOVED Xf= 1. P rECES StiEUXS LQQ1.EQN - 62 183 LOT CONVERAGE EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE 22 55 STREET FRONTAGE ARTERIAL TO BE SAVED 13 33 NORTH SIDE 13 33 SOUTH S/DE 10 14 RM BORDER (SE) EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE TOTAL REQUIRED LANDSCAPING 120 318 TO BE REMOVED TOTAL PROPOSED LANDSCAPING 181 318 EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE EKISTING TREES TO BE SAVED 139 38 TO BE SAVED TOTAL PLANTINGS 320 356 EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE DATE: REVISIONÂ· BY: P=Ii.1*111=#3 OF A-OvAL -Ir-- PROJECT TITLE: TO BE REMOVED RIVER VIEW PINES CORNE#STONE ESTES PARK, co 34EET TITLE: LANDSCAPING PLAN . miCENEENIE & SURVEYINQ INC DESIGNED Ir &(ST APPROVED 07 --L JOB NO. _ SHEET SHEET NORTH SECTION 1892 arG THOMPSON ~~ (070) 580-2458 , DRA= m _Ii- DATE 10/24/00 SurTI 200 483.001 CHICÂ¤D IY m._ SC~&1 --ALEL 5 6 cuom CARL TOWNER ESâ„¢S PARL co. 80517 NÂ¥5/ FAX (970) 580-2459 /14\ 17\ L 19\\\\\\\\13~\\\\\\\\\ 2 4/0 \\\\ 000+0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 43 -0, RIVER VIEW PINES CONDOMINIUMS LOT 1, RIVERVIEW PINES SUBDIVISION '4Â» PROPOSED REPLAT OF TRACT 56, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2, DEER CREST ~ , SUBDIVISION AND TRACTS 56 AND 57, FALL RIVER ADDITION TO THE DRAINAGE \\. .-/ BERM + TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 704 0 Â»Of 41\ .\ r--412.'~Ia# -Â·rssE . I.-2--<22 42>, L 444Â»Â« 1,7 92--33~ AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE ~PROP ~ 628) PROPOSED CANAD/AN RED CHERRY/ 66. SEDIML ~ / ~, ROPOSED itt ~+ POND (87) PROPOSED ASPEN TREE 9*DIMENT POND 00 CF )~92*- 07 1$/ 2750 CF 7 i j j .... .. \ I 01't..4 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE <.MA \ 9%420 . 'f0'11 < 0 F ..L-/ ~~ (66) PROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREE DOUGLAS FIR .V. r - /0 9 U+ 0 4\ 9 91\... C. *67'J ///2 1 ----2 PONDEROSA PINE DECK M. 44 / OLD GOLD JUMPER #4 - ~ .;~ (318) PROPOSED SHRU8 #)~~E FSONEOR~~AERRR~RASS RUSSIAN SAGE FF=7654.5 fÂ»a Mws le~p EXISTING SHRUB ' ' rÂ»6Â· >M='Â·~ TO BE SAVED h- 2 ~twon/ ,2 Â»9 3 23-4 am= e'c" I -61Â«fÂ» .. 1- - ~ EXISTING SHRUB ~ _~ DECK -1 0 ti //2 4. 0 463 3 TO BE REMOVED 1 7407- 46-* DECK 0 ** p ~ EX/SDNG CON/FEROUS TREE DECK 1, 2~ DECK 2~ GARAGE FF=7654.5 11Â«71 3 â‚¬ 1 / TO BE SAVED -1,4 & 12 114 - ===2 --- 114 0 9 1 6. w Z EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE FF=7658.5 .045 Jt- -- N CD ,rq,1 PROPOSED 9023 4 44 1 TO BE REMOVED 1 / FF=7658.5 - O' SEC)IMEN~ POND 17 0 FF=7658.5 1 0 2250 CF / 20" o. PIF 1 0 - 4 474-~71Â«21 30" PINE f~Mjf 4 0 2 EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE " PINE 94 1 4 b.4, TO BE SAVED G RAGE 11't Â» 1 / 4.2 ,%: 4= DECK u/'41 E AR 1 &14% 1 Q M> 0-J; â€ž DECK Dsk f V 1-1 EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE r-Dr PIN . 1 0,1 L --/3 12" C DAR TO BE REMOVED /\J 6" PINE ' 37 'f,{ 4 ' GARAGE ~ Â§ 86 0 A 3 @ Â· a R GE 6"PINE ~ ..a . -,â€ž~ o FF=7652.5 ~ ~ EXISTING , = INE 5" DECIDUOUS 2) 18" PINE 6" DECIDUOUS /94# e E .- 1 0 10" DECIDUOUS E NE 12" DECIDUOUS t@ . < DECK CK GE .3 FF=7654.0 18" PIN o .~ GARAGE - GARAG GARAGE Oc -6-6 .14 66-a m FF=76653 4 1: It.-1 -i DECK 44 8" PINE 031~ E . Â·Â·.... " DECIDUOUS (2) b 0 0 0 . i 4 CK rz<; 2 8" PINE FF=76713 . DECIDUOUS 2~*Rplat*Shir V C OUS - t .. 1 4" PINE 0 -- - . 8. @ b ~~GAR~~~Â£ pl E GARAGE 0" PIN C Â· 13Â·(U~U-I 0 4 ADA - '0 6 ACCESSIBLEp; Ph UNIT to?*AKIE 8 dll l * 61 ' ./.i . fih PINE -~ b FF=7659.0 D ID OUS 0 91 . mi + CIDUOUS ' GARAGE . 16" PIN 1 0 i + ty t ,-. 30 221 ~ DECK 14/ 2-, DA c FF=7659.0 ill 1Â·.STr Â· ~ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / >440\44009 4// // / / / / SSIBLE @ 0 64/ 0 05 = WD GARAGE .44.4*/I & M TRACT 57 4 4 CÂ»/ 20 0 20 40 60 N + / REVISION: BY' PROJECT TmE: SCALE 1" = 20' .111'Inmialf .lin"IQI. . All"'" 1]~ 44Â» / RIVER VIEW PINES CORNE#STONE . 42-1/ ESTES PARK, co SHEET TmE: LANDSCAPING PLAN . . ENGBIES:RIBO & SURVEYINC1 INC. DEâ€¢OMED /179 A-ovED â€¢Y ..miL JOB NO. SHIFT SHEET SOUTH SECTION 1092 RIG THOMPSON ~ (970) 580-2450 In. m -IL= DATE 10/24/00 SUITE 200 483.001 66 CUENT: CARL TOWNER .STXS PARC co. 80517 NÂ¥7 FAX (970) 686-2469 ellÂ©12D IY -2/. UUML CR ST A-ACCOM~DA-nONS 6 + +043 + \\\\ H1008 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\11\\\ ,:r#T\\14\11, zr,~izy#:*Tt SIDEWALK ECK SIDEWALK â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢ Stone Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat and Rezoning ~ Estes Park Community Development Department vll~-" Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue ~I=*d PO Box 1200 ~ Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: January 16, 2007 REOUEST: Subdivide a 5-acre parcel into one lot for office use and two lots for multi-family development. LOCATION: 1043 Fish Creek Road, within the Town of Estes Park. Ut. F~ND ~ 14 w USFS APPLICANT: Rock Castle Development 'Â· (do Frank Theis) *19 '' 6 A'birti A-/1 7 3. USFS PROPERTY OWNER: Van Horn Trust ~ RAN~ -~~- ~ ~~~~~~ USFS (c/o Bill Van Horn) STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (Lonnie Sheldon, Zach Hanson), 586-9388 Parcel Number: 2532200008 Development Area: 4.9 acres Number of Lots: One existing, three Existing Land Use: Office proposed Proposed Land Use: Lot 1 office, Lots 2 and Existing Zoning: "RM" (Lot 1 proposed to be 3 multi-family development rezoned to "0" Office) Adjacent Zoning- East: "RE" Rural Estate North: "CO" Commercial Outlying West: "CO" Commercial Outlying South: "CO" Commercial Outlying Adjacent Land Uses- East: Single-family residential North: Golf course West: Golf course South: Golf course Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request to subdivide a 4.9-acre parcel into three separate lots. The , northernmost lot (Lot 1) would be .551 acre and 2. . 1 contain the existing Van Horn Engineering i. /..- office building, with the use to continue. This : Rl il'Â¥ * 4 lot would be rezoned from "RM" Multi-family .1 : 14 .Â·Â·s m'.1,1 to "0" Office. 14 + 1 h Â·'4Â· ./1 te & t. V.Â» Lot 2 would be 1.594 acres, and the Lot 3 would 32 be 2.741 acre; both these lots would remain - + ~ 1 i. /...:.10- zoned "RM" Multi-family. Staff has had ..2. . - discussions with the applicant regarding the - - .* "/4 < -idjit development of these lots, and anticipates development plans to be submitted in January or .- j 4-Ilp : f k , *~ February. 94 o - 1 4*44*7 140 The property is located on the west side of Fish Creek Road, and Fish Creek roughly i'4*Lic *Â¢ f corresponds with the western property line. The . #'.fit O. 0.1 18-hole golf course is located to the west, and ( i /&.lt,kivark.%* single-family lots are located on the east side of k .3.aterâ€¢*- Fish Creek Road. REVIEW CRITERIA: Pursuant to Section 3.9.E, "all subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, Subdivision Standards, and all other applicable provisions of this Code." Applicable code sections are discussed below. Rezoning. The applicant is proposing to rezone Lot 1 from "RM" Multi-Family to "0" Office, which accurately reflects the existing and proposed land use for that lot. This request is being made at the request of Staff. Lots. This proposal complies with lot dimension/configuration standards set forth in Section 10.4 of the EVDC. Subdivision Design Standards. Streets and Roads. Section 10.5.C requires compliance with Street Design and Construction Standards outlined Appendix D of the Estes Valley Development Code. Appendix D further references the Larimer County Road Standards, which apply because Fish Creek Road is a county road. The Larimer County Road Standards require additional right-of-way dedication along Fish Creek Road. This will be further discussed later in the Staff report. Page #2 - Stone Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat t Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails. The existing Fish Creek Trail satisfies sidewalk requirements set forth in Chapters 4,7, and 10, and Appendix D. Grading and Site Disturbance. Drainage. No development is proposed at this time. A preliminary drainage study has been performed, and a final report (including subsurface investigation) will be required when the lots are developed. The preliminary study has been done to provide general information regarding existing site conditions and "up stream" basin areas. Grading. Grading will be discussed with future development plans. Limits of Disturbance. Section 10.5.B.2 requires that limits of disturbance (LOD) be established with the subdivision of land. Section 7.2.D sets forth criteria for establishment of Limits of Disturbance. These include: a. Erosion prevention and control measures, including but not limited to protection of natural drainage channels. b. Wetland protection and buffering. c. Floodplains, floodways, flood fringes and fiood hazards. Staff recommends the wetlands and associated setbacks on proposed Lot 3 be protected from development through limits of disturbance unless the applicant submits a specific plan delineating how these wetlands will be replaced and how the riparian corridor will be enhanced. Private Open Space. Section 4.3.Dl requires thirty percent open space for "RM" developments. The applicant proposes the stream corridor setback area for the required open space. The note on the preliminary plat suffices, though this should be delineated on the final plat. Landscaping and Buffers. Section 7.5.B states that "landscaping and buffer standards shall apply to residential subdivisions created after the adoption of' the ' Estes Valley Development Code. Therefore, this subdivision requires a landscaping plan regardless of the need for a development plan. No landscaping plan has been submitted at this time. Staff recommends this requirement be waived until the final plat submittal to allow for coordination with the proposed development plan. Because final plats are not reviewed by the Planning Commission, this plan would be subject to Staff level review. Should the proposed development plan be submitted with or before the final plat, the landscaping plan would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection. Fish Creek flows through this property, and has a setback requirement of thirty-feet. Page #3 - Stone Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat A wetland study was conducted by Darcy Tiglas of Loveland Colorado, who has conducted several wetland studies within the Estes Valley Development Code. Ms. Tiglas conducted her study in May 2006. Her report is summarized: "Two wetland communities were identified within the project area during the field reconnaissance. These wetlands are self-sustaining healthy wetland communities, but the creek bed and bank are showing distress and high erosion potential which is detrimental to the existing vegetation, (and) to the waterway downstream of the Van Horn Trust Property including Lake Estes." Staff recommends the wetlands and associated setbacks on proposed Lot 3 be protected from development through limits of disturbance unless the applicant submits a specific plan delineating how these wetlands will be replaced and how the riparian corridor will be enhanced. The applicant has contracted with Darcy Tiglas to prepare this report. Staff expects a preliminary plan to be presented at the January 16 public hearing. Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. There are no geologic or wildfire hazard areas on site. Water. The subdivider shall install water mains, service lines, fire hydrants and appurtenances in accordance with the current water design and construction standards of the Town. This proposal calls for an existing 8" water main to be extended from the south of this property. This line will need to be accounted for with the final plat, not the development plan (unless reviewed simultaneously). There is an existing water line that crosses this site to serve properties on the east side of Fish Creek Road. A plan for how this line will be relocated must be included in the water plan design. Fire Protection. The submitted ISO calculations indicates the Van Horn , Engineering office requires one hydrant within 300 feet, and the proposed dwelling units each require one hydrant within 300 feet, plus either one within 600 feet or two within 1,000 feet. Hydrant locations must be accounted for with the final plat. Electric. The subdivider shall install such electric service and distribution system and such street lighting system as shall be determined by the Town. This proposal calls for the existing overhead line to be removed and new lines placed underground. This will need to be accounted for with the final plat, not the development plan (unless reviewed simultaneously). Page #4 - Stone Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Sanitary Sewer. There is an existing sewer main located in the Fish Creek Road right-of-way. Upper Thompson Sanitation District has stated a main will be required for this subdivision. These plans will need to be submitted with the final plat, not the development plan (unless reviewed simultaneously). Per a January 8,2006 phone conversation with Reed Smedley, the Upper Sanitation District recommends each unit have a dedicated service line. This has been included as a suggested condition of approval. Stormwater Drainage. No development is proposed at this time. A preliminary drainage study has been performed, and a final report will be required when the lots are developed. The preliminary study has been done to provide general information regarding existing site conditions and "up stream" basin areas. The drainage plan must account for existing drainage from the east side of Fish Creek Road where the old culvert is located. Transportation. As noted earlier in the report, Fish Creek Road is a county road, and is therefore subject to the Larimer County Road Standards. Larimer County has classified Fish Creek Road as "major collector" which requires 50-feet of right- of-way from the centerline of the road. The current right-of-way is 30-feet from centerline; thus an additional 20-feet of right-of-way is required. The applicant is proposing to appeal this requirement to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. If the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners denies this request, the subdivision will need to be redesigned and subject to further Planning Commission review. The required additional right-of-way also affects the required building setback requirements. The Estes Valley Development Code defines any road with a right- of-way greater than sixty feet as an arterial street, which has an increased setback requirement (25-feet instead of 15-feet). Depending on the outcome of the appeal to the Board of County Commissioners, the location of building sites could stand at 45-feet from the centerline of the road, or be increased to 75-feet from the centerline. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Larimer County Engineering had comments regarding the right-of-way width and setback requirements. Setback requirements mentioned in the memo from Traci Downs do not apply in the Estes Valley; these are requirements found in the Page #5 - Stone Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Larimer County Land Use Code and do not apply within the bounds of the Estes Valley Development Code. Town Attorney White had a variety of comments that have been included as suggested conditions of approval. Comment 4 regarding the wetland setback does not apply because these are fringe wetlands and the stream/river setback supercedes the wetlands setback. Light and Power had standard comments which should be made conditions of approval. Public Works had several comments that should be included as conditions of approval. These comments included such items as permitting requirements, labeling, and stormwater plan requirements. Upper Thompson Sanitation has noted that a main will be required (the existing sewer main is not deep enough to allow gravity sewer and an new extension will be required to "make grade"). Per a January 8,2006 phone conversation with Reed Smedley, the Upper Sanitation District recommends each unit have a dedicated service line. This has been included as a suggested condition of approval. Building Safety had comments regarding amendment of the floodplain map. This is a Federal requirement, and need not be reiterated with this proposal. Lan'mer County Assessor had a comment regarding inaccuracies with the legal description and plat as well as questions about ownership of land on the east side of Fish Creek Road. The property owner has provided a statement no property is owned on the east side of Fish Creek Road. Section 10.5.A4 states "where an entire parcel is not subdivided, the subdivider shall submit plans for the remainder of the parcel, including major road connections and intended land uses." This discrepancy should be addressed to the satisfaction of the Larimer County Assessor's office prior to final plat submittal. Notice. The applicant/owner is hereby notified EVDC Â§10.2.A states "No owner or agent of the owner of any land located within an addition or subdivision shall transfer, sell, agree to sell or negotiate to sell any land by reference to, exhibition of or by the use of a plan, plat or map of an addition or subdivision before such plan, plat or map has been approved pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 3 of this Code and recorded in the office of the clerk and recorder of Larimer County, Colorado." Vegetation Protection. Per Section 10.5.G "all disturbed areas, including swales, back of curbs, cut-and-fill slopes, vegetated cul-de-sacs and planted medians, or Page #6 - Stone Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat other features at entryways, shall be promptly stabilized through grading, placement or retention of at least four (4) inches of topsoil, and planting with vegetative materials appropriate to the exposure, slope and soils." Monuments. Per Section 10.5.I, all subdivisions shall be monumented in accordance with State law. As-Built Drawings. Upon completion of construction and prior to release of performance guarantees, the subdivider shall submit as-built drawings to the Town Engineer or County Engineer, as applicable, to consist of a Mylar reproducible set of all construction drawings indicating as-built conditions. See Appendix B. The applicant should be aware of the need for accurate as-built plans, which means they will need to retain the services of a professional surveyor throughout the construction process. Public Improvements. All required improvements shall be completed and guaranteed in compliance with Section 10.5.K of the EVDC. This includes specific requirements concerning the form of guarantee, improvement agreement, time for completion, and warranty. Underground Utilities. Telephone lines, electric lines, cable television lines and other similar telecommunications or utility services shall be placed underground. The subdivider shall be responsible for complying with the requirements of this Section and shall make the hecessary arrangements, including any construction or installation charges, with each of the serving utilities for the installation of such facilities and shall be subject to all other applicable Town, County and State regulations. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 1. Larimer County Staff has not approved the requested modification to right-of- way width requirement (30-feet from centerline in lieu of 50-feet required). Therefore, because Fish Creek Road is a county road, the proposed right-of-way modification must be approved by the Board of County Commissions. This has been scheduled for a February 19, 2007 Board of County Commission hearing. 2. With the exception of right-of-way width, this proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. No landscaping plan has been submitted at this time. Staff recommends this requirement be waived until the final plat submittal to allow for coordination with the proposed development plan. Because final plats are not reviewed by the Planning Commission, this plan would be subject to Staff level review. Should the proposed development plan be submitted with or before the final plat, the landscaping plan would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Page #7 - Stone Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat 4. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed subdivision. 5. A development agreement will need to be reviewed and approved by Public Works prior to Final Plat approval by the Town Board. This agreement will need to include the cost for utilities. 6. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. With the exception of right-of-way width, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 7. This subdivision is subject to compliance with applicable sections of the EVDC. These include, but are not limited to: Chapter 3 "Review Procedures and Standards", Chapter 7 "General Development Standards", Chapter 10 "Subdivision Standards", Appendix B "Submittal Requirements, Appendix D "Road Design and Construction Standards". Staff recommends the applicant familiarize himself with these various requirements. 8. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board; Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed: I. Rezoning of proposed Lotl from "RM" to "O" conditional to recording of the final plat (the proposed rezoning will not be heard by the Town Board until the Final Plat). II. Preliminary Plat of Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Approval of the proposed right-of-way width modification from the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. 2. The proposed open space area shall be graphically delineated on the final plat. 3. The wetlands and associated setbacks on proposed Lot 3 shall be protected from development through limits of disturbance unless the applicant submits a specific plan delineating how these wetlands will be replaced and how the riparian corridor will be enhanced. This plan shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior to final plat application. 4. Development of these lots shall require each unit to have individually dedicated service lines for sanitary sewer. 5. All utilities (including fire hydrants) and required landscaping shall be accounted for with the final plat unless a development plan for Lots 2 and 3 is submitted for concurrent review with the final plat. 6. Compliance with memo from Town Attorney White dated December 15, 2006 (except comment four). 7. Compliance with memo from Light and Power dated December 19, 2006. 8. Compliance with memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated December 22,2006. 9. Compliance with memo from Town of Estes Park Public Works dated January 8,2007. Page #8 - Stone Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat 10. Compliance with memo from Town of Estes Park Water Department dated December 18, 2006. I 1. The discrepancy between the Larimer County Assessor's office and the property owners claims of ownership for property located on the east side of Fish Creek Road shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Larimer County Assessor's office prior to final plat submittal. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to recommend APPROVAL of the rezoning and preliminary plat to the Town Board of Trustees with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. (Other options) DENIAL: I move to recommend DISAPPROVAL of the rezoning and preliminary plat to the Town Board of Trustees because.. . (state reason for denial - findings). CONTINUANCE: I move to recommend CONTINUANCE of the plat to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting because... ( state reason for continuance - findings). Note: The applicant must agree -in writing - to a continuance, otherwise the application is deemed approved. Page #9 - Stone Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Town of Estes Park Public Works Engineering NEEEP' Memo 970-577-3586, gsievers@estes.org Room 100, Municipal Building P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 TO: Dave Shirk, Planner From: Greg Sievers, PW Date: January 8,2007 Re: Stone Bridge, 1710 Fall River Road After reviewing the Grading Plan & Preliminary Plat, the Engineering Division has the following comments: Engineering / Preliminary Plat: 1. A completed drainage report shall be submitted. I shall include values and response for off-site storm water from the east. 2. label all adjacent roads by name and add LC Road identification at CR 63. 3. acquire Army Corp of Engineers permit 4. Permits must be acquired from Larimer County PW for: utilities, ROW & access 5. Show foot bridge location and easement if applicable. 6. Show foot bridge abutment in relation to the Flood Plain Limit. 7. Provide 4' paved shoulder plus concrete C&G along Fish Creek Road frontage. 8. Provide storm water catch basins on existing culverts. Replace culverts. 9. Coordinate gravel (east) shoulder sizing & use area with local equestrian riders. 10. Provide silt control fences full length of the property, for the full time period of the project. 11. Provide roadway cross-sections and supporting info. for possible change to ROW width. Engineering / Grading Plan: 1. Add note - to supply gravel mud tracking device. 2. Add note - install silt fence full length of project and maintain per state standards. show proposed changes to river bank to accommodate bridge abutments. Provide X-sections, and details. 3. add names of all adjacent roads to plan sheets. 4. no work shall begin until a set of construction plans are approved & final plat is recorded. ( Memo To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 12-19-06 Re: Stonebridge Subdivision, 1043 Fish Creek Road The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Application for Amended Plat for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1.) Any relocation or upgrade of existing facilities will be accomplished at the project owners request and expense. 2.) Developer to install all trenches & conduits, all materials, truck hours and mileage will be purchased from & installed by Town of Estes Park. 3.) No building permits will be approved by Light & Power until the entire Electric infrastructure has been paid for and installed. 4.) We will in the future need accurate As-Builts in electronic, Mylar, and paper versions. 5.) The submitted plan needs to show all existing utilities, type, and location. 7.) Easements need to accompany all existing and proposed primary electric lines and any secondary electric on others property. 8.) Each and every meter socket will need to be permanently marked with the specific address and or unit number prior to hook-up by the utility. 1 ( Water Department ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum ~WATER To: Bob Goehring From: Jeff Boles Date: 12/18/2006 Re: Stonebridge Subdivision Metes & Bounds 1043 Fish Creek Road After review of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Rezoning the Water Department has the following comments: 1) A Water Main Extension will be required for service, including Fire Protection. This infrastructure must be installed, testing preformed/passed and accepted by the Department prior to issuance of any building permits. Any project phasing of the infrastructure must be submitted with the construction drawings for approval prior to construction. Phased infrastructure must be completed and accepted prior to issuance of any building permits within the phase. 2) Approved construction drawings are required for the project, and must be signed by the Utilities Director prior to any construction. Construction drawings must include a plan and profile to show potential conflicts between water and other utilities including culverts. Show Utility Easement locations when utility is not in Road Right of Way. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. All water line design and construction shall be done according to the Water Utility Policies and Standards. 3) This project will be subject to all site inspections being provided by the Chief Building Official (which includes all water and power infrastructure as well as all drainage and civil facilities). 4) A Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) including meter sizing, meter locations, tap locations and addresses served by each must be submitted to the Water Department prior to issuance of any building permits. 5) Any water service line installation or replacement will require a Service Line Permit from the Building Department. 6) Cross Connection Requirements: â€¢ All service lines are required to have an approved backflow prevention device installed for containment purposes. The device type will be dependant upon the hazard associated with the service (high hazard or Water Department ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum ~WATER low hazard). The device will be tested by a Certified Cross-Connection Technician upon installation and annually there after. â€¢ All irrigation systems are required to have an approved backflow prevention device installed for isolation purposes. The device will be tested by a Certified Cross-Connection Technician upon installation and annually there after. Contact the Cross-Connection Control Specialist at 970-577-3625 for requirements relating to the property. 7) The developers must contact the Fish Creek Homeowners Association regarding impacts to the Associations private water distribution system. An easement must be placed on the line crossing the property or an agreement made between parties to reconnect the line to the new water main extension and abandonment of the existing line crossing the property as well as abandonment of the existing connection point located on the Golf Course property. TOWN Of {STES;PARK Community Development Department MEMORANDUM To: Dave Shirk, Planner II From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official I)ate: December 21, 2006 Subject: Stonebridge Subdivision Metes & Bounds 1043 Fish Creek Road The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Rezoning for the above-referenced property and offers the following comments: 1. Please see attached plan review comments and letter dated 12/21/06 in regards to Floodplain boundaries within Stonebridge Subdivision. P.O. BOX 1200 â€¢ 170 MACGREGOR AVENUE â€¢ ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE, BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICE: 970-577-3735 â€¢ FAX 970-586-0249 PHONE, PLANNING OFFICE: 970-577-3721 â€¢ FAX 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com/ComDev f Ill TOWN Of ESTES PARK Community Development Department December 21, 2006 Mr. Frank Theis P.O. Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Stonebridge Subdivision application Dear Mr. Theis: This letter will serve as written confirmation of Town Staff' s official position regarding Floodplain boundaries within the developmenUproperty known as Stonebridge Subdivision, within the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. The scientific and engineering report titled "The Flood Insurance Study for Larimer County, Colorado & Incorporated areas," dated December 19, 2006, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), are the official source documents for establishing areas of special flood hazard within Town boundaries. According to the F[RM, Community-Panel Number 1301 of 1420, specific areas within the proposed development of Stonebridge Subdivision are within the special flood hazard areas. Documentation must be submitted to FEMA, substantiating Floodplain boundaries designated on the FIRM do not reflect existing real world conditions. FEMA must approve all revisions to the official FIRM. I have contacted Dan Carlson, Program Specialist with the National Flood Insurance Program (303- 235-4825) and discussed the above mentioned circumstances. Mr. Carlson recommended, and I concur the proper way to mitigate the issue is for the developer to apply to FEMA for an official revision to the F[RM. The proper procedure and process will be determined by FEMA (887-336- 2627). I recommend you give this matter your immediate attention as the developer currently does not have a Floodplain Development Permit to do any infrastructure, grading or fill in the Floodplain as it is currently designated on the FIRM. If the developer chooses not to request a map revision, municipal code requires a Floodplain Development Permit and Elevation Certificates for all buildings within the current designated Floodplain. If I can be of additional assistance, please call me at 970-577-3728. Respectfully, 20 457' /' A ,~el-1Â£ Will Birchfield ' Chief Building Official Cc: Bob Joseph, Dave Shirk, Dan Carlson, Address File P.O. BOX 1200 â€¢ 170 MACGREGOR AVENUE â€¢ ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE, BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICE: 970-577-3735 â€¢ FAX 970-586-0249 PHONE, PLANNING OFFICE: 970-577-3721 â€¢ FAX 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com/ComDev C C Review Date: _12/21/2006_ Review By: WB DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST 1043 FISH CREEK ROAD Address El Official street names and addresses shall be assigned by the Department of Building Safety. ~ Due to the developmenfs immediate proximity to the floodplain, an elevation certificate shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Building Safety prior to approval of foundations. El Floodplain Development permits are required for any and all activity in the floodplain. (See attached letter) ~ Any unpermitted fill on the site must be resolved prior to the issue of a Floodplain Development permit. El There is a new flood insurance study (dated 12/19/2006) with accompanying maps that must be used for floodplain determinations. See attached Floodplain Development permit for requirements. Provide a copy of the wetland report. Silt fences shall be properly maintained on a daily basis. Justify reference to Note 4 on Sheet 2 of 2 on grading and erosion control plan dated November 10, 2006. U Provide a copy of the state storm water discharge permit. U A detailed site plan is required and shall include utility locations, setbacks, contours, drainage, landscaping, access, easements, etc. El A grading and drainage plan shall be designed by a Colorado Design Professional and shall bear the appropriate seals. U Grading plans and permits are required prior to and are separate from building permits. A grading permit is required prior to any grading or excavation (Estes Park Municipal Code Â§14.12.030) Floodplain Development permit required before grading permit. U The limits of site disturbance shall be maintained and are restricted to within the property lines and/or to areas specified on the approved plans. Â£ State and Town Demo Permits are required prior to demolition of structures. \\Servera\comm_dev\Building\REVIEWS\Dev Plan Reviews\Development Plan Review-1043 Fish Creek Rd..doc Revised 10/17/2006- CB m El El / ( U Prior to any excavation and/or construction activity, a detailed drainage/erosion plan to protect neighboring properties, public right-of-ways, floodplains and drainage areas during the construction phase shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department. Filtration of storm water is required prior to release from the site. Failure to comply with said approved plans may result in an immediate stop work order on the entire development. The final site drainage plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department. C] The foundation systems, including mitigation of potential water problems shall be designed by a Colorado Design Professional and shall bear the appropriate seals. U Foundation setback and elevation certificates shall be provided by a Colorado design Professional, and shall bear the appropriate seals. U A construction traffic plan shall be submitted to and approved by the County and Town Police Department prior to obstructing or interfering with any vehicular traffic on the public right-of-ways. E The developer shall specify the intended uses of the dwelling units. Are they intended to be private dwelling (owner occupied), long term rentals (apartments), or short term rentals (nightly accommodations)? U Fire-resistance-rated construction is required in all buildings containing more than one residential unit. E All appendages, such as decks and roofs must be shown on the plans, including building footprint details and construction details. U Building permits are required prior to any construction and/or remodeling. 01 A Building permit is required for temporary construction office trailers. U A Building permit is required for fences over six feet in height. m Sign permits are required and are separate from building permits. El All requirements of the approved development plan shall be conditions of any and all permits related to this development, now and in the future. U All requirements of approved variances shall be conditions of any and all permits related to this development, now and in the future. U All requirements of Planning Commission conditions of approval shall be conditions of any and all permits related to this development, now and in the future. U A pre-construction meeting with Town staff and construction contractors is required prior to issuance of building permits. \\Servera\comm_dev\Building\REVIEWS\Dev Plan Reviews\Development Plan Review-1043 Fish Creek Rd..doc Revised 9/19/2006- CB < Received Date Town of Estes Park Permit Number ceived By Application for Floodplain Development Permit Name of Applicant Date Address Phone Location of Proposed Development: Description of Development: (residential, non-residential, mobile home, bridge utility crossing, etc.) NOTE: Attach to the application the following information where applicable: Plans in duplicate, drawn to scale showing the nature, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities; and the location of the foregoing. Specifically the followina information is required: (1) Mean Sea Level (MSL) elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures; (2) MSL elevation to which any structure is floodproofed; (3) certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing methods meet the community floodproofing criteria; (4) a description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated; and (5) base (100-year) flood elevation data for a development or subdivision greater than 50 lots or 5 acres. The following is to be comoleted bv the Buildina Official The proposed development is located in the U Floodway El Flood-fringe The Base Flood Elevation at the development site is: feet Source Document: Plan Review MSL Elevation or depth number to which the structure is to be elevated: feet MSL Elevation or depth number to which the structure is to be floodproofed: feet All necessary information and certificates are attached. O Yes D No ACTION . i The proposed development is not in conformance with applicable Floodplain Management Standards (explanation attached). Permit is denied. * The proposal is not in conformance with applicable Floodplain Management Standards (explanation attached) and the application is referred to the Board of Adjustment for variance action. I I have reviewed the plans and materials submitted in support of the proposed development and find them in compliance with applicable Floodplain Management Standards. Permit is approved. Date Signature Building Construction Documentation Received The certified as-built MSL elevation of the lowest floor of the structure is feet. The certified as-built MSL noodproofed elevation of the structure is feet Certificates of a Colorado registered professional architect, engineer or land surveyor documenting these elevations are attached. O Yes O No Certificate of Compliance Issued: O Yes, O No Date Signature C C APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 1. Complete and submit a Town Floodplain Development Permit Application for any and all proposed construction activity within floodplain boundaries. (a) Accurately describe the proposed activity. (b) Do not complete the bottom portion of the Town Application/Permit. (c) Submit individual applications for each location where activity is proposed within the vertical boundaries of any watercourse channel. 2. Ifproposed activity occurs within the vertical boundaries of any water course channel: (a) Submit a copy of the relevant section of the applicable FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map), and identify the specific location of each activity. (b) Submit a copy of the appropriate river profile, from the flood insurance study, with the site of each activity accurately identified. (c) Submit an accurate cross section of the watercourse at the site of each activity. (d) Cross sections shall accurately specify both existing and proposed conditions. (e) Cross sections shall include both vertical (elevations) and horizontal dimensions (distances) and references (benchmarks). (f) Cross sections shall include the BFE, and both floodplain and floodway boundaries. (g) The Engineer ofRecord shall be responsible for monitoring all activities approved by the Floodplain Development Permit. A Letter of Compliance, from the Engineer ofRecord shall be submitted upon completion of said activity, stating the work was performed in compliance with plans and specifications approved by the permit. (h) The Engineer of Record shall certify that the construction activity did not change (increase) the floodplain. 3. Any and all construction activity within a watercourse channel (including its vertical boundaries), or within wetlands shall be approved by the Department ofthe Army (Corps ofEngineers). (a) Submit a copy of the permit issued by the Corps of Engineers, or, (b) Submit a copy of the letter issued by the Corps of Engineers stating a permit is not required. (c) Contact Address: Department ofthe Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District Tri-Lakes Project Office 9307 State Highway 121 Littleton, CO 80128-6901 Contact Person: Terry McKee 303-979-4120 4. Submit an accurate site plan, detailing all construction activity proposed within floodplain boundaries. (a) Identify floodplain and floodway boundaries. (b) Identify all reference marks (benchmarks). (c) Detail all property lines. (d) Submit documentation of all required easements. (e) Detail public right-of-ways. (Right-of-Way Work Permits may be required.) 5. Submit construction plans and specifications, sealed by a Colorado Registered Engineer. Sid Engineer shall be the Engineer of Record. Special inspections and letters of compliance may be required. 6. Submit $50.00 fee per Section 17.28.090 ofthe Municipal Zoning Code. f GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 December 15, 2006 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Rezoning - Stonebridge Subdivision Dear Mr. Shirk: I have the following comments: Rezoning 1. I have no comments concerning the proposed rezoning of Lot 1 of the Property. Preliminary Subdivision Plat 1. A Note should be placed upon the Final Plat stating that the approval of the Final Plat does not alter the nonconformity of the Van Horn Engineering office due to its encroachment into the setback from Fish Creek Road. 2. The Preliminary Plat indicates in Note No. 3 that there is a scenic easement between the historic fence line and Fish Creek. If this scenic easement exists outside the boundary of the property subject to the Preliminary Plat, it should not be referenced on the Final Plat. 3. The Statement of Intent indicates that the property line follows the creek, but not accurately. It is my opinion that the property owner and the Town need to agree, by separate agreement, that upon approval of the Final Plat that the parties exchange deeds to reflect the common boundary line as indicated on the Final Plat. It is my opinion that this would prevent future boundary disputes from arising as to the actual location of the property line between the Town property and this property. 4. The Statement of Intent indicates the applicants are requesting a waiver of the 50- foot wetlands setback along the creek. It is my opinion that the Staff may not grant f this type o f waiver. A variance will need to be obtained through the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. I f you have any questions, please d~not hesitate to give me a call. ~yery 1 ruly Yyds, Grego*A. White GAW/ldr Frank Theis U P O Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 Fax: 577-9744 12/22/2006 FRI 16:54 FAX 970 " 6 4544 UPPER THOMPSON SAN DIST , -~ @001/001 ( t Upper Thompson Sanitation District PO Box 868 Estes Pa*, CO 80517 (970) 586-4544 December 22, 2006 Dave Shirk Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Ref: Stonebridge Subdivision Metes & Bounds 1043 Fish Creek Road Dear Dave, The plans that you disttibuted to me on December 8, 2006 does not show any sewer lines. I will, however, describe what the District would like to see in the construction of this subdivision. 1) A sewer minwill need to be constnicted to serve thisproperty. This main should be at least five feet deep. If it is less than five fect deep it will be necessary to insulated the pipe, 2) Wherever possible, each unit should have a dedicated connection to the sewef main. They may tap diectly into the main. Each service line can be no less than four inches in diameter of SDR 35 PVC. If it is necessary to connect more than one unit to a service line then the following must be pefformed: A) A condominium association must be in place or a joint use agicement must be Signed, recorded with Larimer County and on file at the Distcict; and B) Six inch PVC must be used for shared lines. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, . I.JA.-- tt. . Reed W, Smedle Lines Supenntendent Upper Thompson Sanitation District CC Frank Theis PO Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 FAX: 970-577-9744 t. 0 ' LARIMER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ~COUNTY Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Shirk, Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 FROM: Traci Downs, Development Services Engineer-lib DATE: December 22,2006 SUBJECT: Stonebridge Subdivision - Estes Valley Planning Area Proiect Description/Background: This is a preliminary subdivision plat, to subdivide a 4.9-acre parcel into 3 lots. The site address is at 1043 Fish Creek. The site is in the Town limits of Estes Park; however, Fish Creek Road is still within Larimer County's jurisdiction. Lot 1 will be at the north end of the property and will be .55 acres and will have the existing building which houses Van Horn Engineering. Lot 2 will be 1.6 acres and Lot 3 will be 2.74 acres and they will be developed as a 24 unit residential condominium project. The applicant is applying for a change in the FEMA Floodplain Maps to correctly represent the current conditions, which shows that the corrected floodplain does not extend beyond the creeks main channel. The development plan proposes to set all buildings back from these limits by 30 feet or more. Comments: Since the property is within the town limits and therefore under the Towns jurisdiction, the county engineering department will primarily provide comments regarding the appeal request to Section 9.7 of the LCLUC to forego dedication of the additional required right-of-way adjacent to this project for Fish Creek Road. Right-of-Wav. Access. and Road Setback Issues: Fish Creek Road is functionally classified as a major collector which currently requires a 100 foot right- of-way. Based on the submitted information, Fish Creek Road appears to be within a 60 foot existing right-of-way along this entire project, which means 20 feet of additional right-of-way is necessary to satisfy the 50 foot half right-of-way requirement. The Larimer County Engineering Department can not support this right-of-way appeal request because having adequate right-of-way width for a given road classification gives sufficient space for frequently needed improvements that can be more minor in nature such as roadside swale grading, localized grading/drainage improvements, installation of various utilities, shoulder widening, etc. Having the adequate right-of-way up front as development occurs prevents a prolonging situation in which the County would need to negotiate with a property owner and compensate for more right-of-way at the time of a needed improvement. Acknowledging that there is an existing COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE 4 1. 4 C (-9 structure within the proposed 20 foot of right-of-way, the County would be willing to consider a reserved right-of-way around the Van Horn office with an associated reserved right-of-way agreement. I have attached the typical Major Collector Road Cross Section from the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards for your reference. As stated above, our department is not inclined to support an appeal to the right-of-way dedication since 60 feet of right-of-way is not generally adequate for a rural road cross-section with a roadside drainage system in mountainous terrain. However, if we were to consider a narrower road right-of-way request, the applicant would need to provide documentation and rational that the additional right-of-way would not be beneficial at this location. The submitted information could include an analysis of the potential for needed auxiliary lanes at this location, any topography and geographical constraints, need for guardrail, local drainage requirements such as swales, additional development potential in the area, etc. The Estes Valley Transportation Alternative Study could also be referenced. A constrained roadway segment's inability to meet certain road design guidelines does not preclude the need for other segments of the same road to meet the standard road requirements stated in the County Rural Area Road Standards. The applicant is proposing only a 15 foot setback off of Fish Creek Road. The County would typically require a 50 foot setback from the edge of the future right-of-way for a major collector. The minimum setback the county would be willing to support in this case is a 30 foot setback off of the future 50 foot half right-of-way that is needed. To minimize the occurrence of vehicles parking within the right-of-way limits, our department cannot support a site design that has building or garage fronts that are oriented towards the road. Per Table 10-1 of the Rural Area Road Standards, the minimum required access spacing for Major Collectors is 660 feet. Prior to supporting a variance from this standard, we would like the applicant to submit the proposed spacing from exiting access on both sides of Fish Creek and also document that there will be adequate sight distance at this location. We would also like justification form a traffic engineer that the proposed access spacing will not impact the road system. Given the complexities surrounding the setback needs, right-of-way dedication, and the future road improvement and maintenance needs of this section of road, the County would encourage the Town of Estes to annex and take over maintenance of the existing right-of-way of Fish Creek Road from the southern limits of the development north to State Highway 36 as part of the final approval of this development. We consider the annexation to be the best approach in handling this section of roadway in regards to the road and the town's future needs. Drainage/Floodplain/Erosion Control Issues: Since the property is within the town limits and therefore under the Towns jurisdiction, the county engineering department did not provide a detailed review of the drainage information. However, we still recommend that a detailed Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report be required of the applicant. The plans should include existing and proposed contours, building envelopes, and finished floor and lowest opening elevations for all structures. The report should include a discussion on whether stormwater detention and water quality measures are needed on this site. Additionally, the development must release into a historic drainage path or drainage easement must be provided for the transport of the site drainage to a defined drainage path. We expect the detailed drainage design for the site will accommodate the upstream offsite flows that are conveyed under Fish Creek through the existing cross culvert across the site to the west. The 100 year developed flows should be contained with in an adequately sized drainage way and associated drainage easement. The erosion control plan must include measures to control erosion and sedimentation during all phases of construction and a plan for permanent erosion control after development is completed. Erosion control measures must be based on calculated 1 ' C. performance standards. The formats and required information for these plans/reports are available in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards (LCSDS). The submitted information states that applicant is applying for a change in the FEMA Floodplain Maps to correctly represent the current conditions, which should show that the corrected floodplain does not extend beyond the creeks main channel. Although we expect the town to provide the detailed review of the floodplain information since it is in their jurisdiction, the County Engineering Staff would also like the opportunity to review the floodplain study given its close proximity to Fish Creek Road at the north end of the property. As part of the more detailed site design, we recommend that all floodplains are shown on the plats and plans with the approximate 100 year floodplain limits delineated and any area within the approximate limit delineation shall be described as a non-buildable area. The vertical and horizontal constraints for all structures should be placed on these plans as well. A geotechnical report should be required and the report should discuss groundwater levels and should address any lots that will not be allowed to have basements. Any recommendations for dealing with potential high groundwater should be included in the report. The applicant shall take into consideration the groundwater characteristics of the site when the finished floor elevations are set. This department requires that lowest floor levels, including basements, be at least 3 feet above groundwater level. It should be noted that the International Building Code calls for lowest floor levels to be at least 5 feet above groundwater level. Lastly, any proposed subdrains are not allowed in the right-of-way. Permits: 1. Any work in on Fish Creek Road will require an Access or Utility Permit from this office. Access information and permits can be obtained by contacting Marc Lyons, Access & Utility Permit Coordinator, at (970) 498-5709. 2. If one acre or more of land is disturbed with this development, the applicant is required to apply for a Stormwater Construction Permit from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Recommendation: The Larimer County Engineering Department can not support preliminary approval of this proposal until the above comments relating to the setback and right of way appeal have been addressed and our department has reviewed and approved the additional information. The applicant should be aware that our department has based the comments on the submitted information and once the additional information has been submitted, we may have additional comments. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5701 or e-mail at tdowns@larimer.org if you have any questions. Thank you. CC: Frank Theiss, PO BOX 416, Estes Park CO 80517 Van Horn Engineering 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park, CO 80517 reading file file H.\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Referrals\CITIES\Estes\Stonebridge Subdivison\Stonebridge Subdivision.doc 12-26-2006 10:22AM FROM-Larimer f ty Assessor 9704987070 ( T-608 P.002/002 F-525 LARIMER -LARRY G. JOHNSON LARIMER COUNTY ASSESSOR PO BOX 1190, FORTCOLLINS CO 80522-1190 TELEPHONE: 970498-7050; FAX: 970-498-7070 December 26,2006 Frank Theis Dave Shirk R\*:970 -586- 0 299 PO Box 416 Planner 11 Estes Park, CO 80517 Town of Estes Park From: Christine Bebow Larimer County Assessofs Office 970-498-7107 bebowcm@larimer. org Subject: Stonebridge Subdivision 1043 Fish Creek Road Mr. Theis, I have noticed a few problems with your Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Rezoning. 1. In the title it is stated that the parcel in question is in Range 73 when it is in Range 72. 2. There is a wrong distance stated in the legal description. After the 31 calls along Fish Creek the Legal than says Thence leaving Fish Creek s17 10' 560 E a distance of 14.52 feet:'. According to the drawing this distance should be 339.60 feet, Also according to our records you still own land on the southeast of Fish Creek Road. As far as I can tell this property is not affected by this plat. This property will remain in your name on the current parcel record (25311-00-008) and the new subdivision will be a split from it. If this is not correct please contact me. Thank you for the opportunity to review your preliminary plat Sincerely, Christine Bebow Assessment Specialist 970-498-7107 bebowcm@larimer.ora Fax: 970-498-7070 COMMirrED-TO-EXCmENCE December 07,2006 Estes Valley Planning Commission Re: Other properties owned by the Van Horn interest Dear Commissioners: Neither the Paul H. Van Horn Trust or any members ofthe Van Horn family own any land adjacent to the Stone Bridge Estate Development that is not included iii the Stone Bridge Estate Development. Specifically, we do not own the land east of Fish Creek Road adjacent to the Van Horn Engineering office. ~11 -24 0 / 41 -7/ William G. Van Horn T 1-ustee for Paul H Van Horn Trust - mt.__Dew.c._ sh,Er.&~ __e le,.anâ‚¬-c___It. . JAN 1 0 m Ell ill Tow-4-gE_E $44 3- Reâ€¢rk Corr,rouniÂ¥*__13â‚¬.l,clop,ne/31__Oqoctr_+Ime.n 4-- 0*,r mr. shirk T I John pou-lost c,+ INDS POLOC.\Ul Actne_ 1 edn Wri *+I'nfi You +0 u_oic.e- rr,Y Â°ProxiÂ·*/0-As +0 thk....S:Eqn ea__- --__ 8,09& Oc.ue.W.prac.n+. I.--brj_C~CdÂ¥U+ 9re.r,+A, e~ c.nY dic.re.c,sc-in__ack_- locae.ks e.r.c) proper+Y line.5 - IN,E. *54.W-u.a_1013ukw-o_-And thru. e.be) c,130 be-4-w-c.t a.__ _ 104Â·f two ar,3 enâ‚¬- . W_hk~__ec,n T 440*lope.rs Mollow-tht in picae.e_ 2.or,Ine1 law, 3 The- e.>4 - s fac- of FA,4 c.Â¥ u.k roca J i s ne,hâ‚¬.c) 1. 6- (Ae.ar, per leÂ¥ . To put rriult:' ur.'+ J de.ron thu- r ee.c) me.ke ho Zoninc.~ 3â€¢Lnel . Le-h try +0 e,00(e) anofhe-r C.ree.14 S{de. Fre-â€¢ be-ine~ ded,flopec). ALl WL nce-d i 3-c,nofht. Grac.4 Wcti i , run,-61 +Ac. 1 eng+A oF Fish Cre..4 . And dcutiopnocat____kitpl nÂ·,c.re-hinc~ e- - Theâ€¢nk You - ( W. B. PAYNTER P.C. W. B. PAYNTER, Esq. KELLY S. HANSEN, Esq. L . -pfM 1~'L - 9 2007 Attorneys at Law 117 Main Avenue, P. O. Box A, Akron, Colorado M/*LV- Phone (970) 345-2219 FAX (970) 345-2210 E-mail: paynter@ptli).net or hansen@ptbb.net --t January 4,2007 Mr. Dave Shirk, Planner II Town ofEstes Park Community Development Department P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: StoneBridge Subdivision Dear Mr. Shirk: The Peg and Bill Paynter Living Trust is the owner oftwo parcels of land in Larimer County, being portions of the SWIM of the SWIM of Section 29 and the NW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 32, Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 66 p.M. more particularly described as Parcels 1 and 2 in the attached Exhibit, Parcel 1 is vacant land, parcel 2 is our second home known as 810 Fish Creek Road. Both properties are in Larimer County and lie east ofFish Creek Road. The South line of our Parcel 1 is the North line of what is marked as Parcel #25322-00-036 on your map, what is marked "Girl Scout Exemption". That parcel was owned by the Camp Fire Girls, called Camp Dunraven, and includes the Dunraven House. We purchased the property because of the unobstructed view of Longs Peek and Mt. Meeker to the southwest across Fish Creek Road, Fish Creek itself and the Golf Course. We enjoy the isolation and the privacy provided by our 7.5 acres. The StoneBridge property has been thought of as in the flood plain, and should Lily Lake dam be breached it would certainly be inundated. The property East across Fish Creek Road from the proposed development is zoned by the County requiring not less than 2.5 acres for a single family dwelling. To permit high density condominiums across fish creek road from the 2.5 acre zoning does not make sense from a planning and zoning standpoint. -1- < FISH CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION, INC. This is a group of what is now 14 owners of water taps on a two inch water line which was installed in 1941 at the expense of the then owners of the properties and connects with the Estes Park town water supply at the club house on the golf course, crosses the StoneBridge property, then goes along the east side ofFish Creek Road to the North and South. The Fish Creek Water Association, Inc. owns the line, but individual taps are metered by the Town of Estes Park. Property owners pay an annual fee to provide for maintenance ofthe existing water line. The map shows the location of the Fish Creek Water line, proposes a dwelling on top of it, but provides no solution to maintaining water service to the present owners of water taps on the Fish Creek Water Association line. TRAFFIC CONCERNS. Fish Creek Road with the development of the Solitude property to the North and many new properties to the South has become a heavily traveled road, and this additional high- density development will place additional stress on the road. SUMMARY: WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STONEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION Thanks for your consideration. The Peg and Bill Paynter Revocable Living Trust 0 11 A rhomill - 61.-iqÂ»41 ~- 777 William B. PayntÂ« Jr. ; 1/ Margueritq R. Payne /1 ~ Trustees C.\ -2- . C j 18 [& Â© RE u V 7 Ift 1 14 41 STATEMENT OF INTENT :'i Iii Prepared 1/10/07 14 ji~ JAN 1 0 2007 9 0 D 2 4 0, L,=f 1 By Rock Castle Development Compan* .. -1 4 Preliminary Plat Submittal STONE BRIDGE SUBDIVISION The subject property is 4.9 acres located between Fish Creek Road and Fish Creek east of the 18-hole golf course. The only improvements on the property are a building housing Van Horn Engineering and a storage shed. This proposal will subdivide the property into three lots. Lot 1 is .55 acres on the north end of the property including the existing buildings. Lot 1 is being rezoned to O at the request of the Planning Staff. Van Horn Engineering will keep their office in the existing building. Lot 2 ( 1.60 acres) and Lot 3 (2.74 acres) will remain zoned RM. These two lots will be developed as a 24-unit residential condominium project. More than 35 units would be allowed under RM zoning density criteria. The applicant is applying for a change in the FEMA Floodplain Maps to correctly represent current conditions. The corrected floodplain does not extend beyond the creek's main channel. The proposed plan shows all units set back 30' or more from the creek. A concept plan for the development on Lots 2 & 3 is being submitted with this Preliminary Plat. It includes 18 free-standing units and 6 units in three duplexes. All units have two-car attached garages, and there are two visitor spaces per unit. The average unit size is around 2,100 square feet of finished space. Most units are designed with walk-out lower levels. Maximum Building Height is 30 feet. UTILITIES - WATER - An existing 8Â» water main for domestic use and fire protection will be extended from just south of this property. An existing water line that crosses this site to serve properties on the other side Fish Creek Road will be relocated by the applicant in a proper utility easement. ELECTRICITY - Overhead electric service already crosses the property from Fish Creek Road to the golf course. Electricity will be put underground. GAS - Natural Gas is located in the Fish Creek Road Right-of-way. SEWER - Sanitary Sewer will be connected to Upper Thompson Sanitation District on a main in the Fish Creek Road Right-of-way. Utility alignments and any necessary easements will be designed and described with the Development Plan for Lots 2 & 3. Stone Btidge Subdivision Statement of Intent Page 1 1/10/2007 REQUESTED WAIVERS & VARIANCES The subject property is within the limits of the Town of Estes Park. Fish Creek Road is maintained by Larimer County, and most of the properties on the east side of Fish Creek Road are in the County. These factors create some confusion over which regulations apply to this property - the Town of Estes Park, Estes Valley Development Code or the Larimer County Development Code. 1) Fish Creek Road is classified as a major collector. This Plat shows the existing 60-foot-wide right-of-way, but relatively new County standards would require a 100-foot-wide right-of-way. 2) Under the Estes Valley Development Code, the current situation requires a 15 foot building setback. However, if the right-of-way was increased, the setback would be 25 feet. If County standards were applied, the setback would be 50 feet. 3) The required minimum separation between driveways is 150 feet under the Estes Valley Development Code, 600 feet under the County standards. Right-Of-Wav Bldg. Setback Drive Separation Estes Valley 60' 15' 150' Larimer County 100' 50' 600' As agreed with the Planning Staff, this Plat is being submitted using the Estes Valley Development Code standards. If required, a waiver from the County standards will be requested. There are 0.02 acres of wetlands existing on Lots 2 & 3. These have been mapped and are approved for removal by the Army Corps of Engineers. The details of this wetland removal will be outlined in the drainage report to be filed with the Development Plan. There are also degraded wetlands along the creek itself. This section of Fish Creek is suffering from heavy bank erosion and destruction of natural plant communities. As part of the development, the applicants have agreed to stabilize the creek banks (including the Town's side of the creek), and to re-establish natural plant communities and wildlife habitat. The creek enhancement will include replacing the 0.02 acres of wetlands being removed. Stone Btidge Subdivision Statement of Intent Page 2 1/10/2007 CREEK IMPROVEMENTS - WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT The property west of the subject property is owned by the Town of Estes Park. It includes the hiking/biking path directly across the creek, and the golf course. The property line follows the creek, but not accurately. The applicants have met with the Town Staff to reach mutual agreements on improving the condition of the creek and future maintenance of the creek. Again, the details of this agreement, including Limits Of Disturbance, will be outlined in the Development Plan. There are several problems with the current condition of Fish Creek between this property and the Town property. There are numerous areas of active bank erosion, some threatening the Hiking/Biking Trail. Vegetation has been almost completely denuded in this area by grazing elk and bank erosion. As a result, the natural wildlife habitat has been virtually ruined. The applicants have a preliminary agreement with the Town of Estes Park to undertake the restoration and beautification of this section of Fish Creek, at the developers expense. This project will include re- vegetation and stabilization of the creek banks. Native plant materials will be used to re-establish a healthy wildlife habitat. The result will be a well-maintained, natural creek that is much more attractive to humans and wildlife, especially the numerous elk which regularly migrate through this area. DRAINAGE This development will address drainage from the east side of Fish Creek Road. The existing culvert under the road is not currently functioning. It will either be replaced or repaired to accept the drainage from this watershed. See the attached Drainage & Stormwater Management Memo. Stone Blidge Subdivision Stamment of Intent Page 3 1/10/2007 4 ( CONCEPT PLAN FOR LOTS 2&3 A concept plan for the development on Lots 2&3is being submitted with this Preliminary Plat in order to allow review of the Plat with a basic understanding of the planned condominium development. This is not a final Development Plan. It does not show details such as sidewalks, drainage improvements, signage, or building plans. These type of details will be submitted with the Development Plan. The information below outlines preliminary density, building types, site coverage, floor-area-ratio, and parking for the development of Lots 2 & 3. PHASE UNIT TYPE BLDG FOOTPRINT PHASE I 6 UNITS - FREE-STANDING 1,742 sf/unit PHASE II 6 UNITS - 3 DUPLEXES 1,742 sf/unit PHASE III 3 UNITS - FREE-STANDING 1,742 sf/unit PHASE IV 9 UNITS - FREE-STANDING 1,742 sf/ unit TOTAL 24 UNITS 41,808 sf DRIVEWAY & PAVING COVERAGE 31,616 sf SIDEWALK & PATIO COVERAGE 6,240 sf 79,664 sf TOTAL PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE 42 % MAXIMUM ALLOWED SITE COVERAGE 50 % FLOOR AREA RATIO 22 % MAXIMUM ALLOWED FLOOR AREA RATIO 30 % PARKING REQUIRED 24 x 2.25 SPACES/UNIT 54 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED 24 x 4 SPACES/UNIT 96 SPACES PHASING Lot 3 will include the first phases (15 units) of construction, which will commence immediately upon approval of the Development Plan and be completed by the spring of 2010. Lot 2 (9 units) will follow immediately upon completion of Lot 3 and is planned for completion by 2011. All site grading and utilities for Lot 3 will be completed as part of Phase I construction. Erosion and silt control will be installed, as required, with each stage of site grading. Due to the property location, extra pre- cautions will be taken to prevent construction run-off into Fish Creek. Stone Bddge Subdivision Statement of Intent Page 4 1/10/2007 r C , 1401%*LF- Â·7#V'M" C A i ild'*2-94â‚¬594692; 72 9.7/ 4 ..~ US,69 ree*,e, S P -~AMI,4./ =~2.22-1 _ _ _-Â·41 -=m../86.y/Elmi - -*./*- .16, ,-7 LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING , SANITARY ENGINEERING ~ MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING ' 1 DATE: December 7,2006 TO: Whom it May Concern FROM: John A. Spooner, P.E. RE: Storm Water Management Comments Preliminary Plat Submittal Stone Bridge Condominiums The Developer is submitting this plat application in advance of an application for a Development Plan for the above referenced project to clarify issues related to right-of-way. It is necessary to clarify these issues prior to expending extensive efforts in the development planning process. Thus, it is premature to develop a complete Storm Water Management Plan. Some general comments can be made at this time. The property is a narrow strip of land located between Fish Creek Road and Fish Creek. The existing flood plain mapping shows considerable areas ofthe land to be in the regulatory 100- year flood plain. The original study computer input data was obtained from FEMA, the river was resurveyed, and new HEC-RAS (the standard method for determining flood water levels) computer runs were done. These runs show that the current regulatory mapping is in considerable error and that the flood plains are actually much closer to the river - in most cases . within the existing river banks. Assuming the project is carried forward, it is the Developer's intent to formalize this effort with a submittal to FEMA requesting a remapping of the flood plains along with a request for fill in certain portions of the site. It is premature to expend that effort at this time. The property in general slopes from the road to the river. There is one small culvert passing under the road from the east. The remainder of the land drainage from the east flows either north or south on the east side of the road. This culvert is an 18-inch diameter CMP, which extends under some old fill about 140 feet into the property (see Figure 1 attachedl_We.havelogiÂ¢#irEE 99* several times, including using a metal detector, and cannot locate the ope-&44Â£02 thikuit*_rt m ,?19 \\I the low spot on the east side of the road. Apparently the end has been coV~Ef~'5TtTE County 1.11 *t< Crews when they have done shoulder work along Fish Creek Road. \ 1 17 A ~ DEC - 7 2006 1043 Fish Creek Road â€¢ Estes Park, CO 80517 â€¢ 970-586-9388 â€¢ Fax 970-586-8101 â€¢ VHE@Airbits.com._,~,_.-~.-Â·--Â·--J - C C If this culvert were to be functional, it would service a drainage basin of about 14.8 acres (see Figure 1). Rational method calculations were done for this drainage basin (attached). The 10- year flow is about 3.8 efs while the 100 year flow is about 13 cfs. This flow could be carried through the road to the river. Our initial thoughts on the site storm drainage management are to contain the parking lot/roof runoff in small Porous Landscape Detention (PLD) - Sedimentation Facilities located throughout the development. (See Volume 3, Chapter 4, Section 5.0 ofthe Denver Urban Drainage Criteria Manual for a description and design criteria for these facilities). Again it is premature to expend additional effort at this time. Of course, appropriate construction sediment control measures will be detailed at the time the Development Plan is prepared. 1043 Fish Creek Road â€¢ Estes Park, CO 80517 â€¢ 970-586-9388 â€¢ Fax 970-586-8101 â€¢ VHE@Airbits.com ESTES VALLEY r IN)\ te Uâ€ž â€¢r-. d ir' 'r......1 14 11 r._, rk.1.n '40.-TÂ·, 'f:EZ T~ 0* C 9:38 t~ 2 ~ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLLATIO~lt Jji------4 - -Â· 1 -11~ M 11 NOV 2 2 2006 5 ~1 It. 11 Submittal Date: ~'i 11 4 . 3 J ~31 Type of Application 1 1- Development Plan r Boundary Line Adjustment Cu'ldo,â€žir,ium Map E Special Review r ROW or Easement Vacation r Preliminary Map r Rezoning Petition r Street Name Change r Final Map ~ Preliminary Subdivision Plat r Time Extension r Supplemental Map r Final Subdivision Plat r Other: Please specify r Minor Subdivision Plat 1*- Amended Plat General Information Project Name .Sroff-#BJD62_ 5015PIVISL<DAb Project Description 4. 7 Acru.5 5,0 e>DIVIDED 1,0-ro 3 l.01-5 Project Address iDÂ«-5 Fi <M CAE-Elâ‚¬ Legal Description Parcel ID # Section 21, 1 I ,62-Township 5-4/ Range 71 4 Site Information Total Development Area (acres) 4.9 Ac. Existing Land Use VACANT k)/ A SMALL OF FICE_ BLDG. 5, SHE-b Proposed Land Use / LOT- OFF laE-CE-Xisl-1 h)6) 2 LOTS. Existing Water Service KTown F Well E Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service ~Town E Well E Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service F EPSD K UTSD r Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD * UTSD r septic Is a sewer lift station required? E Yes DÂ¢ No Existing Gas Service 10 Xcel F- Other F None Existing Zoning All Proposed Zoning Apl Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? k Yes E No Has site staking been completed? r Yes ~< No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person FRAN K.- -TUEU S Mailing Address Fo 6 416 , Ef, co 806 17 Attachments K' Application fee K Statement of intent 0 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan K 11 " x 17" reduced copy of plat or plan 0~K, Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Town of Estes Park 4 P.O. Box 1200 4 170 MacGregor Avenue .5 Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4 Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www.estesnet.com/ComDev . ., C 4 . Primary Contact Person is r Owner E Applicant ,IK, Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) VAR klofÂ¢-N -1-kU ST 4/6 5 1 u_ VAR /4,0 gta 1 Mailing Address / 6+3, Fl 51-\ 6,1242-6-K- AD. Phone 59 6 - 76 8% Cell Phone Fax 5 56 - 810\ Email Applicant g/CA /LASTLE- DE-V EU)PHFNT- 60, 2~ FBAN 1<- Mailing Address 70 6Â©x +14 , E-DLD , 205 6 1 Thlu s Phone S 77 - 9 74-1- Cell Phone Fax _â‚¬77-9741- Email Consultant/Engineer VAR Ad AN S.+46, â€¢0 6-2.-ILI!Â«b Mailing Address /O-1<5 m s B.\ c-REE. 1 8.17. Phone 586-97&93 Cell Phone Fax 5 Email APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION On July 1, 2001, House Bill 01-1088 became effective. This legislation requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to give notice of their application to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development. I hereby certify that the provisions of House Bill 01-1088 Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been*~:; f- Â·4 K.fi .1 NL -: ~ t \%1 4.- 1 -1 341 Names: , 43 4. 'f 1 1 fÂ»3 Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: SiLL- VAU MORN lit 11 1 NOV 2 2 2006 1 ~1 N ilL 1 2 1 Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Fl~~D~K*(- -Et* l S Signatures: Record Owner 42 24 -/ Date / t) 04)06 ,/ I Applicant ,.-:~0-7-â€¢L.â€¢5~---,-~52=--75*k--- Date Il /21/04 , Contact Information 1.. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION â€¢ I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. I In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowlddge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDCD. # I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. (The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.) â€¢ I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. I I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. â€¢ I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. I The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. â€¢ I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ~ I acknowledge that I have received tile Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: 21 11)0* \~ n Uv-Â« Applicant PLEASE PIT: fi%:AR K- -TA E-1 5 Signatures: -7, D O..., 3-1 711- , Record Owner ,~PLf>Â£2>â‚¬>,2,#F Date '1/4204 Applicant 46--1zÂ·Â«a, Date \\ /20/06 j IN; 8-1 2--54:Â·-: 71 3.7 7 71 1 Â©At NOV 2 2 2006 Ed 1_1 1 i! Revised 10/13/06 dÂ«i==3 . ANAN 00000 im j 004 0 000 O 4 -2 8 8 ji- 52- 11 15 &8 G (0.92 0 02.0 0 000- COCOS<LU W .> >. CO LO 1* J :Â¥22 /3 p LL ,m -J o ..:u- 0 0 1.-too(000-CDO- 0 00 09- MU LOOD U -CU m C) 1.0 0. 4- - O- Q. o6 2 t=F 0 0 11 2 g -3 2@ RE 2% 32% =.9'g-,u~ 2 06 E '-'- 0 06 06 28 ~t= coa 0- 0 2 22 Â£ 0 Offi 2 2222@25â‚¬4 ~ yla Bernhard 0401-1445 leen Cannon 35768-2814 ymond & Sally Allen 35th Street 60521 Faulkner, Catherine Boedenauer Nancy Brook ota Drive , CO 80549 Estes Park, C 8051 ith Saurino Estes Park, 8051 Robert aura Trump Estes Park, 8051 Ho, Inc. c/o Helen W. Lungstrum PO Box 1712 Estes Park, 80517 Avenue S 67568 Wonderview, PMB 234 CO 80720 Owner Owner 11 Address 6uluozek:1 19 Jeld qnS 8Jd e6puqeums January 16, 2007 Mr. Dave Shirk, Planner 11 Dave, As property owners and Members of the Fish Creek Water Association, Inc. Laura and I object to the Stonebridge Subdivision for a number of important reasons: â€¢ This extreme concentration of condos would be a severe traffic hazard at one of the 2 most dangerous curves on Fish Creek Road â€¢ Fish Creek Road already carries a great deal of traffic, probably far more than it was originally designed to handle. Are there any current surveys on the traffic on Fish Creek Road? Has a study been scheduled to determine the impact of this proposed development? â€¢ Reducing the building setback and right of way to county standards would make this situation much worse â€¢ Certainly snow removal and road maintainance would be complicated also â€¢ Does the .2 acre of wetland referenced in the proposal reflect the fact that Van Horn has been dumping fill in this area for many years? â€¢ Members of the Fish Creek Water Association, Inc. are requesting an independent survey of this property and are willing to pay for this survey. â€¢ It seems unreasonable to completely cover 4.9 acres of land with buildings and parking lots on filled in flood plain land containing wetlands. â€¢ The proposal indicates that runoff from the driveways and parking lots will be handled. What about runoff from the roofs of 24 condos? There certainly are numerous other environmental issues that need to be settled before this subdivision should even be considered. â€¢ What is the environmental impact on Fish Creek? â€¢ What do previous surveys show as to flood plain and wetlands â€¢ What is the impact on wildlife such as bobcats, deer, and elk when their access to the creek is blocked by condos? â€¢ What is the impact on residents and visitors using the hiking/bicycle trail which would have a view of the backsides of 24 condos? In summary, it is our opinion, that there are many serious issues that require substantial work before this subdivision should even be considered. Bob and Laura Trump 830 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Co 80517 970-577-0343 trumptech@juno.com Â» ./ m . 9 . 25'.:LilliT]11 3 <RE ZONING ./ 43 -9432 - --3373 1 BRODIE Aff==r.- PARCEL , . --, 1 --..... *ad 25322-00 / STONE BRIDGE ESTATES -014 (m -Z- VP- t_ - -__--_-_ILT~~- 1 1 ////// 1 80 PRELIMINARY PLAT tr fi j IL 1 C / / 1 511 A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST OF SECTION 81, Y-- 1 0 11 PARCEL # NORTENEST OF SECTION 82. AND THE F 25322-00-035 z al SOUTENEST OF SECTION 29, ALL IN TOWNSHIP ~ ,/9 - Poll 1,// 0 /4/ # / SITE- /-4\\ Eal 6 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST, COUNTY OF Â» FOUND 1 " PIPE - GIRL SCOUT -3~6- r /// 9-4- EXEMPTION -*0~ 4 ,/ \\6 1 \ '7\9\ 4 1 LARINER, STATE OF COLORADO ~~ ~ ~ (REZONING . /1 '1 1 1 I - ./ - -tj..00Â« i /8 / \ / -- 11 1\ 9/ \ 946--4-- PARCEL # 25322-00 -li ------,1 1 -017 \401Â» 1 - / 44Â«\ // 111 ,. , j /lili: @gi Z82 %* 1 5LD BRIDGE AILfMENIS-~ ZME %\SEWERLINE CROSSIt f E N U h M ar U k Â®CP , 10 h Er % m W H S 30' -2006 -~-~~' -- - - -'- ' -' -~~~- -~~ '-~' SEPARATE EASEMENT WILL BE RECORDED FOR ANY PRIMARY 80% REDUCTION - 52608.47 U-li -9 9.- I.'-7.- -Â·Â·Â·it' 1/ BENCHMARK. APPLICANT: PREPARED BY: 41 11 LINES ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY. NET - 66768.96 OWNER: 3. AREA BETWEEN HISTORIC FENCE LINE AND WEST OF THE 4. WATER SERVICE TO BE EXTENDED FROM THE EXISTING 8" DENSITY - 12.4 UNITS BILL VAN HORN, TRUSTEE OF VAN HORN TRUST CMS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT VAN HORN ENGINEERING dc SURVEYING CREEK IS A SCENIC EASEMENT. P.O. BOX 456 450 FISH CREEK ROAD I[~ JAN 10 2007 1 ~)li SCALE 1 "=30' MAIN SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY (CURRENTLY ENDING OPENSPACE - 26470 = 22% 1043 FISH CREEK RD. 4. THE ENTIRE SITE IN AN ELK HABITAT. ESTES PARK, CO 80517 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 APPROXIMATLY AT THE NORTH END OF THE CREEKSIDE 5. THE AREA OF THE 30' CREEK SETBACK IS TO BE DEDICATED SUBDIVISION). THE MAIN EXTENTION WILL BE 8" D.I.P. AND RUN 970-577-9744 (970) 586-9388 33 b ..:; M ' I AS OPEN SPACE TO MEET TOWN STANDARDS OF 15% ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF FISH CREEK ROAD. 1 P 0 30 60 90 OPENSPACE ON RM DEVELOPMENTS. LOT 1 HAS NO PROPOSED 5. SEWER SERVICE WILL BE FROM EXISTING MAIN WITHIN THE 11 OPENSPACE. FISH CREEK RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE EXISTING MAIN IS 12" 0. ---*=-,14 NO NEW SEWER MAIN IS PROPOSED. PROJ. NO. 2005-04-11 NOISIA]bl 31VC] SNIA a'dwilifi INVAt 9 NIOT,L>TOrT V 3* = %%1 .CtY 7 fZ7 / A--I~ ~ -fi/,f~ll~ Â· I 0 1 ~.- e .. .* . ~i#*111.ligillihilill Jit ~ 0 0. 3 11â€¢4k _ /0. /0 4 40 / '.T. ..L lit - 3 1 1 .. 4911 ~ * -"". .. . 0 0 Â¢ - //# ./ a 0 4 0 . . I . .- I. D I ... . . 44 ... . . . ..... 104. . I . I.,B .4. I . N A Â« . 0 0 . . . . - 1.h D 4.\ . - 41 0 0 4 . . mm .4. -I ... 0: 1 O . ... . I 1.1 . 0. .9 - L 4 0 .. ... . 21= .- 0 4 1 . r I + 0 te .. 1 0 1 4. S ... -/ I & 1 - . -. 0 44 Â¥ . Â· lif ,r 2. . . . ~.r - - ,- = . TAI . P . 01 . - 4. . ~ --. I. . ... , !19 I 64 . -10 A 0: ,-106 -i , 00 --0-. 1.11 Â·- is. - ... ./ I . 1 - . 40..... . -*-- . .. 0. , 0 0 - . . .. 1 = 0 1 - 0 4 -Â· --1 ''' ...*. . Â» .~ Â· 0 - ' e .. I . 1.1 0 I . 1 0 1 4 '~ ~ ... S 0 D- 0 : , .244 F :0 ... 1 - .. . j 00 .0 . :, I .... f. I . 1 - -- - . . 0. . :, 0 -- . Â·Â· 1.- - 1/7 0 ... â€¢ 4 4 m ..1 '-0 I . . I A. . . c./ T e . .... 0 . 0 ,,,, .1 0 0 0 - ..... D. . 1 . 0 ----~ . D - 1.-1 1.1 0 ..1 1 - . -- .0 .:, - .1 .1 1 12 .0 4 ...1 -1 ID . .-0 - ... 0 0 4/ .0-.1 1 I. D D. .. . 1 -0 , I lilli I. I .: - 1. -1 0 -, . - . .. 1 I . . .. - I. 0:0 . 000 ~ 1- . . . 1 1 - 0 - - 1 . 1 1 - ... 1 . = :- 1 0 0 ,. 0 - D -- 0 0 0 - .... : I .... 1 1 0 : : . . 0 .... . - 0 1 0 0 - . / 0 - I . lill - 1 - .. a - .. . . - ' ' 1 El/Al' 1 --L. 1 4%14 \\- r -2.71 2 .i~ F glg 3 1-.1 -; - -.1-IL--11 1.BRODIE A~f==r-- STONE BRIDGE ESTATES ~9.Ip- ~jf 7 3 11--- % f 3 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT V I Il 1 Â«1 / H --- 1 I Â£112 A PORTION OF TNE NORTREAST OF SECTION 81, 1 0 NORTNÂ»,ST 0, SECTION 32, AND THE 1 2\ Rn,Pl,111*RT 01 RECTrON 29. AU â„¢ TOINRmP li L c 3 5 0 40 i ZSH LAS "=30 V .4 1,- A_. I ~ 1_~AVil ~1~'-.4- V. - . V . ~.4-I DA lt: THENCE N15Â°55'27"EA DISTANCE OF 938 9 FEET, 12-7-2( THENCE N15Â°19'27"E A DISTANCE OF 730.34 FEET: THENCE LEAVING SAID FISH CREEK ROAD ROW TO THE CENTERLINE SHEET SCALE 1 "=30' THENCE FOLLOWING SAID CREEK CENTERLINE THE FOLLOWING OF FISH CREEK N89Â°20'23"W A DISTANCE OF 34.65 FEET, FIVE COURSES. THENCE S09Â°17'27"WA DISTANCE OF 116 69 FEET, 0 30 60 90 THENCE S35Â°50 25"W A DISTANCE OF 21 58 FEET, 2 THENCE S49Â°48'27"W A DISTANCE OF 35.57 FEET, THENCE S30Â°16'52"W A DISTANCE OF 84.54 FEET: ' 7- i Â·Â·a Â·Â·=6 -Â· ..9 Â·, 21 '7 ;. r Â·Â·h 1 THENCE S34Â°27'00"W A DISTANCE OF 49 22 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF . i i ni L-*. t.,3 i. -1 d r. Â· r..1 t r\\ i OF BEGINNING, ;r )1 -I- lit 9 1.â€¢â€¢ SAID TRACT CONTAINS 4 886 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND IS SUBJECT. ~ di ]' TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. LARIMER ~ fli JAN 1 0 2007 g 14' COUNTY, COLORADO. St U :24 1! PROJ. NO. 2005-04 A63 NOISIA3M UNIA:IA21[15 UNV UN~~:INION:1 NÂ¢IUM ~PI~ t 2 -ZE KnES Al-N JIS JIN JIHI JIO NOIIHOd V V 'P 1. : ' Â· ' 0 //.' 6 1 1. 11 â€¢ lÂ· 1/0:~Â£7**Imill"""IIIVAillillillill"I'U .- /~ - . raili~ljlmmlillllillillillillillillillimillillillollitilililli~ , -Al.... 9 : \<--.F~*\ 1 \ . /...Am,milillillillilm'llilitil/lill/milip' .. . I j --V.'-lill'"'imMM'""immisil'Mil . INâ‚¬7.~1 . 4 - '' r r Â·51 .4 â€¢I ' 0; D -: 1 @ . e '-I - . - 111 ; p ~% ~ je.Â·~fU < ~. ' ~4- ' 71 I H .. ..6 . I . .. / . .3 .: 74,4. '" Â·11. 0. 0, .. .k I Z I .... : 414~ I O . . 1 . 40,0 , 11 - 0 f. . 0?~7, I a 4 14 4 . :-% .. I . - - Â£ 011\ . . 4 91.1 ./ . . . I N ),i,+. A . 4 .. I , /../ I - I... 4 0 . - 0 .. : .1. 4- 0 .': I - I t-- b ' ..... 4'. . . L j i .....2 7-31/8-*k -- - :12 3.-%1 0 , % -h~ 4 . - \L 4 . . - . 1- 14 1- . I . ... 0 0 0. . 1 ... e tâ€¢ . 0 . D: , ... .= . ..; . B ' &*00=.G=g~ /1621Â¢1*h: .. -. r . D .. . 1 . . . I 1--1 imb/ .. .. 00 41~ D . . .. 1 1 -: - ..1 - . .. D D . . ---- ..=9V , ======L . :. ..... D . , - . 4. . . . ... W 1.. D ... . . e - 1 - -I .. . .... I I I .. 1 D . e . .b D. . 9 I. 1 0. 1 0. 0 + k .. f 4 - 1 D .. . .... 0 0 1 0 . 0 -- . D . O 0, 00 . , D. 0 1 1 1 . .. .. I . 1 D 0 ' . ..1 11' 00 0. ..1 0 I â€ž 1 . 1. . ... ..4.. O â€¢ D.: ' 1 0 Â· .. : .. : 1 0 I , = D . .... 0 r " -I M STONE BRIDGE ~REZONING) GRADING PLAN 4 03% .fv n / PARCEL # 25322-00-014 N ry / 0, / 23 A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST OF SECTION 31, Pi / tRE ZONING) /1- // -Â®-035 NORTHWEST OF SECTION 32, AND THE GIRLSCOUT - / EXEMPTION / FOUND 1 " PIPE SOUTHWEST OF SECTION 29, ALL IN TOWNSHIP V 4,0 3, (RE ZONING) .CROSS VE EXISTING \ h I k./2 I ..4 W 1 /2 PARCEL # 25322-00-017 5 NORTH, RAN GE 72 WEST, COUNTY OF \~ . > 8 - . I ... I \ 1 9. 1 \ O/ 009 i,-- C /' ~of â‚¬r\-. % RIMER, STATE OF COLORADO - 1 Moj- // / &5} 1 1 . .N. ; \\ zER \ . . . Â·C CD ' Â· - ENGINEERING ~AN HORN -1 )2 ~ .. MAIL BOX P~KING AREA 47 1 %~ 0 -7 e l & . . . . CE U /' a.4,BL.6 --- -. * .~~Â» s 1 / b .. LL.1 ., 60' RIGHT-OF-WAY r ' , ~. . - 4555# / Hast \ \ / 94/ \ P -~ - ,1.4..1:. 11.1 / .Iii OF / O.00 ~- Â·>.cr. '.- , 1 % \If. -- L / \ -'/ 1 1 t i 0 1 . 0.-c -%- . .1<I~224 \ 9 0 , t U) A u a h ~ \ O la N. S .O 1- 00 1 1 4. .. .... -- 0 e 'A 00 1 74 - 17 -1 1 ill/ / ..C# . 0 0 Wa) - \ M L -==i-Il. 4 4, .% s -600 \:90.0, ~ 24*,c~~ ~ __ ~~~~_~~~~~ 1974 71) i 81,â€¢ - if W CO 00 W rO REA,#LECT4(C ~*O C %943 z* cl - .Â£441.60 '-'f---li4~Â·;0;~~Â®jj ~~~~~,~~ ~ ~ck:~0 3,,LE LAON: 8 22.32' 79'W --- -0292- 7 . 110.65' ~ <~ ~ ~54 21 , ~4Â· 3.00.94.SCAI ,4- 'AL:.0/ 1,1&2 k ~ '-h-~42 22 k. \\ \ \ /// \44 r. =-02'02 -2.:I .- ;0"1'ly,=fillititÂ·*r*-m-r-e- ' ,>il --4 -9-N -- 211Â»Â«(s~~ 1-2.4, s '2'....6032 ~~~ -~ ~ ~ ZE~ OVERHEAD LINES 11" PIPE ~ ALONG FRONT x: )) c.x 0 -.- -it----194, 2<:Â·~ AN j ' -1- hÂ»il ~ .* I \ 8 OF .' M- - (614'44 PROPERTY . - ..... -2-0>R.4.-*-- 4 9 f m I . EWERLINE CROSSING ....... - ELEVATION BASE E 1 ROD AND O < L-..U. .- 404* ~ / -~4.0*i.irj ~ ;,~ 1 11- \41; /**FOBBmG. 0 ,&74 Z 7 SPOT ON SOUTH END O 1 j / 0~-9 ~~>~ 79 2 5, ~ ~\ ~\. OFFICE -./ VHE PATio 2|NGLE STORY . . 111 \ / *,j\*,4 'OCIO~ Z. ti\Â£~ FNAM~E -- ~\~52 NOTE #5) < 1.0 "l :.% 19'23"I'F 36~f~s, '*CI~ ...,.' ., . . 4 1"lj it / 0 -, .. li~\\ - t--CSÂ« 1 / \FAU Â»1 \ 4-4.-~' -#j - -'.1 ,\- / ~ \\\.% 1 \ >Â·irt-'63 \2\> < --- 4\U, //h \ ~ 7... \ e \ , \ LOT 1 , . \ 4%\ 1 \.1 j.> 2 A r. h...4Â·6 i kle \ 1 / \ O.55 ACRES \ s ~0.96 . 1 -- .- // i fjN,6 (90. "#bi- A, -' .1/ ~*>.2 ~ f ~1-9 -----_ Â£6.- L 11<.<231 ---- ~_~ ~ < ~ f~k~ ~3 524- .\ h 'tâ€¢-. 76. 'hâ€žÂ·tq, 3 11~N ' 1 1 h . S + % 44 -1 ---/ 1\\ 1 \ -- \ h OW \\ . CO \1 \ 1.- h \ , 1.:A Â§-2.=1.3 - - 4-'.. - 1 1 ./ ./9, \\\ 1\ / \\ 1 // C 47-2444'% I ) 21' Â·id-1 :Â·. ' i . 1 ~ ~~ ~ U..~ \ I \ 2 \ 91;1 ID.*% I \ ~<\27Â»2--~ 13:k - I. j L / \\.0~,0'R ..;lj . ~0, ~;~ 4 \ ~ ~ , Â·xÂ·Â·- cu \ / / '25 BUILDING ' - ..%0 4.-I. \ -*- ..../ 41'+wi bok . . APPROXIMATE pETBACK 362Â·40' 0 Â«444 ; BOUNDARY OF ~ -,Â· y- il f . 1*<4 -/3 --2\ \ ..22' . WETLANDS 0- ~4 . . \ d \ \ , ~le' N -- - 18 1/*illd:~4* G *\\ \ 1---3----- % # Flf.zjiNAA 29 g 1 11. \ \/ \\ 1 1 1 1 - 8 -- . , \ 1 \ \\ \ \\ I\\ rt'. ~ . U'. \ \'\ \ \ \ Nt \ \:\ ~||||~ BARN 1 /1\ 0, ka 4'46$ 729 -. , .., \1 \ \ 1 1 .1 . N , r. 6 Â·90,7 A , \ R ZONING *. \0- - tkir:3 GUYW E ~ POWER \\ x CD -i \ Â«-Â»- 608. ~4 ~ % \~.1 N ~ \. 1 \ - - + i : - aj1O.1 1'~~t" 4 '#f~gyr 4.oli.601 H klk>. .~\ _ _- 1 Â» 1.-3-1 32%47f - l ' ~ - ~'BL- - - - J BE REMOVED 122.-70.0 - - - ~ BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS ~. ,~ 1 r;I 1 ; 1 1< 1\ ee ,60'51Â·031 - .6 1 \ - L \ 1 \\ .40 % '-i ' ~\ \.. -â€ž '. ..1-- - -4 - - - .1 4./ L -: \\ 6 * 'LOT 2 - - 1.60 ACRES h - (F.F.E,) LINES FR04FEMA 641 @1' 9- j 1, '/ Y 1 37-1 ,1 80 /3:lt .71~ \ \ \ \ \ , -- ---- \ 8 -I.. 1 7171FES&2 ,. --- Â·-- - 7 94 Uk hÂ«Â·*FIR MAP (TYP.) Â·, <47 lil u,1 1 r j . Â·' f k 'pillitel.2/-1 *94%24%94 * '~, - ES- 6.- 53 2 1 1 PINE TREES - <A)/ky ~ ~e-uNOTE #4) \ k /. 41.61 \4 0 ..0 'f 0. f.-1~/,//;. 'ro '.. \ \\// , 3 / .. *- =--*-F--0#z-- i ~~~~ ~ 1 1 ftig#kWgljWgAL 'i ' ... 1 \ 4\\ i %2 --- -1 p 3-PONDEROSA~>Ff?INU > r 'taet-**4 1:%.*-~--- -* :.L\ \ r % ~14 4 2 44 - ./9 , I \442 -4 444 %2% Â®cp , .0 \ 1 4. / / .4 -7'. / / 7 4 (*16'23Â·542 1~*~~~**~009~2-J 1% D\ 15'04' "2'53(29 m --- to/TQ< . '131 24.- , -_=7645-~ --7 -=i- ' 4, / h , 4?ker // d'' , 4- -U-4- -22 1- 6 $*kE., -~<<aigu. C 0'48'00* 54.00 HISTORIC FENCE LINE / LOCATION - -- ~'44 - 0 7 a; *U A k E...i M (SEE NOTE #6) CONCRETE BOX K , ----I --,22.=2.--r' . 24*- '02#AT76.-42:Fr,Z#/%/0.- + 9/ , / r. -,=--r- -*Â¥Â·*.4.4- t.râ‚¬.br Â«1:_240:K~- ~~~~~ 4 4 ' . 1% -- I 4 7 8/2 . 7% %Â§3 i <===-"4.=ri-~-i~:,46~=5 m U - , 1Â¢\ \ 41 \ , :t X - _ _ 31 -, 1 j: APPROXIMATE . A....'. I FOF Â«6Â·93 1 48/,/9.' C .UP"U BOUNDARY OF 1 -4- / 01-/ 9Â»t WETLANDS --4 (3 E.. \ 04 //C 284~2* C.5 \Â·.20< - .- ......â€ž, .-r --- / / ....... ...... .. 27 ZONE B BASIS OF BEARINGS 00.00 NOO'32'00"W 2677.84' ' ' , 1 ELECTRIC TO BE FLOOD PLAIN PROPOSED OVWERHEAD MEASURED OR CALCULATED DIMENSIONS - - -'~ ~.- ~ 3/.744/ / (00.00) PLATTED OR DEEDED - A~ UNOO'32'00"W 2677.84' 1~6 ftc:~.~ ~ ~ , -f - 4724'*--- --. ti Â·~ f ' C.ritto '-Â·-- - 06<*k Â·- / L f. 4.4, - 1 100.00} PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS FOUND 2.5" BRASS CAP IN X.43â‚¬%401\ - \: 1 2/ 6 J #~SION AN,11'ij20 , i~ A~ .9/ â€ž T~~- \ / 71. %>A/*r W \ Â»GL (ROTATED TO MATCH BASIS OF BEARINGS) MONUMENT BOX STAMPED: / --il SILT FENCE EROSION CONTROL NOTES: SECTION CORNER , / r- \-1#*- 4040-2-_- N'091 490Â». RECONE E ISTING POWER POLE o EXISTING FENCE ZSH AÂ».01.1.-4 fl 1-1- L.-YASe' 12Â·- ,41,( fl/ 2./ /40/.. DRAWN BY: 29 32 1. NO FUELS OR CHEMICALS WILL BE STORED ON SITE. - 30 31 2. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING MUD TRACKED ONTO TOWN 224 ''~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 / ././ - ' . -- *-..21--- }'. CHECKED BY: \ ./ ./ .2 4/ 1 >h /.O - LAS STREETS ON A DAILY BASIS. j /(~1 '' i r OWNER: 41-6 1 -7-=- / - / Â· Â· Â· Â· K ~ i.Â· Â· . SCALE VAN HORN TRUST, BILL VAN HORN, TRUSTEE 3. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE INSPECTED WEEKLY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND (-3 Â£--uÂ»<2- >47831{{31.-0..5--0 - MAINTAINED IN WORKING ORDER. CO ZONING -te/9*91 *-Cri#ir= - / I. - -i M- / DATE: 11-10-2006 1. FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION WAS SCANNED AND SCALED FROM Il \ t- I. SHEET 1"=30' 1 5 -224. 2 7 - J / / \ 9 FIRM MAP # 0801930003B. A HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF THIS 4. REVEGETATION OF DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVDC 7.5.D.3 FOUND - i. . .-& ---., SITE HAS BEEN PERFORMED AND THE RESULTING FLOOD PLAIN AND 7.2.C. PARCEL # 25311-00-901 SCALE 1"=30' IS SHOWN HEREON. A FEMA LOMR WILL BE PERFORMED TO GISZ44:LS) OFFICIALLY REVISE THE FLOOD PLAIN. 5. ALL SOILS EXPOSED DURING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY SHALL BE KEPT IN A APPLICANT: 2. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE THE BLUE SPOT ON THE ROUGHENED CONDITION BY RIPPING OR DISCING ALONG LAND CONTOURS UNTIL MULCH, , fÂ»ri 0 30 60 90 ROCK CASTLE DEVELOPMENT CO. SOUTH END OF THE CONCRETE PATIO AT VAN HORN VEGETATION, OR OTHER PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL IS INSTALLED. ENGINEERING IS 7532.65'. THIS IS AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED ~ FEMA BENCHMARK. 6. DISTURBED GROUND NOT CURRENTLY WITHIN A CONSTRUCTION AREA WILL BE SEEDED 3. AREA BETWEEN HISTORIC FENCE LINE AND WEST OF THE AND WATERED AS NECESSARY TO REDUCE DUST NUISANCE. OF CREEK IS A SCENIC EASEMENT. , PREPARED BY: 7. SILT FENCING WILL BE PLACED AS REQUIRED ALONG WITH THE PHASES OF GRADING. VAN HORN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING 1 . 1... ...4., I, 2 1043 FISH CREEK RD. 8. EROSION CONTROL PLANS COMPLY WITH 42 U.S.C. SECTION 402(p) OF THE CLEAN ESTES PARK, CO 80517 .tt JR WATER ACT. liNI 1 (970) 586-9388 :di ~ JAN 10 2007 'F FPROJ. No, NOISIAEIN 31Â¥0 133HS dlÂ¥ 531ON *0*3 '30N33 11 IS 90-LO-EL ONIA NOIIHOd V 3NOHd Â£1,0 L ~ 103r03d 1 M , STONE BRIDGE GRADING PLAN A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST OF SECTION 31, NORTHWEST OF SECTION 32, AND THE 2 i E SOUTHWEST OF SECTION 29, ALL IN TOWNSHIP * OVED 53 1 0Â£.... 8/,0 -- i S- . Ii. 4 71'â€¢. -IN -; / r. 5 NORTH, , 4* RANGE 72 WEST COUNTY oF fri ~13. y I - ... \ \ .~ - 8 ---* s %04.-- , CRO -0,+Â· 11 11; 1 -, ZES 931/ 1 8 W -& ---4 - 1 - -1--1 P, / <00 1 ac LO 1 -~ - - LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 22Â·--*-LL ........ 1 z82 A. 40>r..\ -- -6845-~ - rrUE '. 1 .Bili-4~1 , \ - - I- - ---/4--- >04*zeÂ» ---AÂ« 14} , -.lu>-- ---Zzz,k~, . n - hau 212 .Â»3:4 952 .-z E- 9 1) <7*44*1 1., i OZZ. 2 4 2 - --- -- --- . -----=7-----2-r-- -~ - 9 - 7540---:- ~~ . 1.14, 60' RIGHT-OF-WAY Â· 7Â· U 2 ; a Â£**6 EVEL 14*fif ~[05 - h'' -1 6 ... ,\-42\ ...- -79Â£1 4..0//./-// 0=14 zia / 0-/1, r. \ -- 0 ~ <atio; EOC lf-) 44-31 75:943*--11 + . i: rl f:. ''... .... .* 74#92 Zmo C ' 11/ 9389'-~--- ' Â· N00'32 00"W 2677.84' 1:55 *22~ 5 5 BASIS OF BEARINGS <314 ==55>, Wt \:>4.\ (N00'32 00"W 2677.84') rh /\43\ , Â· 0 9 .Â· z < i - --- MAS -% 22 Z I Iii i % 1 300 -9 0.0 9.1 . / 5, -43v 6 * W 113.96'i , tage' =9~ I 0 U -.0 -> 22-<4 1 1 ..1 1 , , .. FOUND 2,5" BRA S fs / , C... 1 . -/ i >i \ , 1 \ 04,84.--V,-- .... ~ k.12~ + '1 4, . / I /37 - I--~il~i ~â‚¬~ 43/43\ 1 2 ' . CAP STAMPED: O 1 - 31, SECTION 2 --Z---#.& "' . d /e 1 CORNER SE ION , Catme ' f \ 6 -. 6.2 -- / 61.,- Â£ 84.42< D.X :. 147*:i.-\\>1 , ' ' , 1 % \ 3> 1 / LOT 3 iti L ,/ / 4 <\\ --.. --4.i -. .-----.16-,91>Â·.1 i AREA OF j \ \ i \ 2.76 ACRES 1 Â· 1\ , PPROXIMAT~ \', 1 % oNE ---. -- ~ '' .f 1. 9- \42\ 4\ \ i \\ \WETIANDS : \ b - t - - 1 1~Â«-7.-C- i- r + ZONE A ~ ... -' --- l \ 1 ' . . - \ \ \-\ 3 - r,0 , \ CONCRET 9(. r / i \ ti i X .-, \ \ \ - IVE PA j , . . Â· ,~* r \ I - a.4 Nkl -- - CÂ©,0 ' 7,04. LA'j. li '' fitt~~ fy N .t< 0% 1 %4 I 1 +0 \41 N Â¢ 30 # f ,?rf\ ' 8-4,- 2_-0:: M-* -*# 0. -- -: p. \\ I 4 GATE ROAD SIGN - ' SETBACK .1 15' BUILDING \ 1 ~ ck ,< -- / M \ \ \ 1 1: \. \ 1 \ 0 Nil .3- / . E 2 \ 9,/ \ \ CA i. \ Xt, 6 \ ' 1 . 0. .L J\-1- r -- --4 t Â£ :* ~ .1 i , 1 1 ~ '~ r (S15'40 73Â«44/~419 - i , \ i. \ 4 4,5 1. M.. 21.6 ' . 14 2163 \\ S1505'W 0 4 \ \\U \ .& 4*fc; : .'364 , f... / /,/ -*-0--Ii / ---- --- -- ,/. \ ~ ~~ - SP -0 1 - %-- --* - . I / '~4 Â£ 0 \ r- .- - - 1 -- -- 1 / 4% ka APPROXIMATE ap -X . .. - . 7-4.-_ 1 /- \ - .-" 49 6.M Â»2 t... FOUND #4 REBAR Of 45 1 \ 22.-li-> 1 BOUNDARY OF 7--- - 44 -/ \~ --CO 03 04 WETLANDS - 341 2'-159 ~ 1 . I. I ? 4 ; . 1--- e IZES==- - ZONE B 12#L .. 0 \00. \. : C ... 1.- . h. - p --- --- ..X .. \ 71 rk. ~~41<~418 â€ž\8 339.67 Ktt-ZONING 1 -1 al\Â«/.0- (447254002 \ * - -%/ h>\<4 SF ~ -St-SF --1- , /...1-0 ~.->Â»Â«Il 44424*~ _75*'ll- , 00-- + - (%2 04 41 Â¥2 606'23 , 1 \. / V. 0.Â£-I - /0/ \ 02.2 - *,AllieL=' 0- / -- \ a-ffÂ»K- . 2 , ,-, . -20 , . 1,-461 6 :4 %--- 1. / 1 e/ 4 k E.â„¢ 4 \2341 - r~an .17*<.*--**1----- - --t_----- CO ZONING) LEGEND 2l 5 Q U.2 , -37 -it<J-'L ~4 REB~< -74- -- - - Uk 1 0 *-01-21-1*P#'I CONCRETE - 2/- kcli&* 00.00 MEASURED OR CALCULATED DIMENSIONS f j.f Â·.>Â· X\~42 fl (00.00) PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS r 91 {00.00} PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS / 1 * ~~ ~~ .. --\--<- 4\ ..I .liÂ©Â»96/ 1 -- (ROTATED TO MATCH BASIS OF BEARINGS) 7 4.Vf<*el.it~~~2~=. - .- 1 &1 - ~ SF -*-*---- SILT FENCE Â· ~ : j 0 1 .. (B.F.E.) LINES FROM FEMA LW ~ BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS 0 o EXISTING FENCE . FIR MAP (TYP.) m - Nli}>4 002 /1 0~ c .to, 11*,#*. (SEE NOTE #4) ~ 1 Â° ':-i~~}94:- 3: 2 EROSION CONTROL NOTES: VI Â¥ IIi 1. NO FUELS OR CHEMICALS WILL BE STORED ON SITE. 0 2, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING MUD TRACKED ONTO TOWN tze DRAWN BY: STREETS ON A DAILY BASIS. , <,%-00 ZSH CHECKED BY: 3. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE INSPECTED WEEKLY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND ~ LAS MAINTAINED IN WORKING ORDER. - 4 SCALE 1"=30' 4. REVEGETATION OF DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVDC 7.5.0.3 - DATE: AND 7.2.C. . 11-10-2006 5. ALL SOILS EXPOSED DURING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY SHALL BE KEPT IN A 0.. SHEET ROUGHENED CONDITION BY RIPPING OR DISCING ALONG LAND CONTOURS UNTIL MULCH, 1. VEGETATION, OR OTHER PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL IS INSTALLED. SCALE 1 "=30' 6. DISTURBED GROUND NOT CURRENTLY WITHIN A CONSTRUCTION AREA WILL BE SEEDED AND WATERED AS NECESSARY TO REDUCE DUST NUISANCE. 0 30 60 90 7. SILT FENCING WILL BE PLACED AS REQUIRED ALONG WITH THE PHASES OF GRADING. 1 OF 8. EROSION CONTROL PLANS COMPLY WITH 42 U.S.C. SECTION 402(p) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT. i 2 121 iN Linl JAN 1 0 2007 m D; 1% PROJ. NO. 2005-04-11 PHASE 3 (5 UNITS h ~- ----2 #_' _ _ ~HA* -4 3 Â°NES) HAE 3 (5 UNITS) NOISI/Ukl 31Â¥0 dlÂ¥ 531ON 73 '30N33 116 90-LO-ZL Ulfuo 'ZE OHS 34 NOIIHOd V 103Â£0hld