The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-08-218 LE copy - Prepared: August 15,2007 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Ill:30 a.m. Study_Se~ion, Rooms.201 and 201 Town Hall 1:30 p.m. Meeting, Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes dated July 17, 2007 b. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-10 and PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, The Timbers of Estes, Lot 3, Schroder Subdivision, 1240 Big Thompson Avenue, Mark Theiss/Applicant-Planning staff requests continuance to September 18, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting c. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 5 & 6, Division 7 of High Drive Heights, 731 Columbine Drive, Denise R. Panthen/Applicant-Request to combine two lots into one lot 3. SPECIAL REVIEW 07-03, Tract 19, Beaver Point Addition 2nd Filing, 701 Elm Road Applicant: H & C Properties Request: Special review to allow vehicle rentals, with a maximum of 11 trucks & 17 trailers on the site Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 4. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 46A of the Amended Plat of Tracts 42,43 & 46, Fall River Addition, 505 Big Horn Drive Applicant: Van Horn Engineering Request: Amended the platted building envelope to allow construction of a patio and entry staircase Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-09, Stone Bridge Condominiums, Proposed Lots 2 & 3, Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision, currently a Metes & Bounds Property located at 1043 Fish Creek Road Applicant: Rock Castle Development Co. Request: Develop 3 free-standing units, 18 units in 9 duplexes, and one triplex for a total of 24 condominium units Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 6. PROPOSED BLOCK 10 AMENDMENTS TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE: Â§3.1.D, Required Times for Action and Inaction, Addition of proposed subsection 5, Extension of Times, regarding time frames for action on allland-use applications; Â§3.2, Standard Review Procedure, Addition of proposed subsection H, Alternative Review Procedure, regarding provision of optional alternative review procedure; and Â§4.3, Table 4-2, Amendment regarding required setbacks from interior drives in the RM- Multi-Family Residential zoning district 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, September 18, 2007. There are currently eight 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/CurrentRequests.aspx ' 4, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DRAFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 17, 2007, 1 :30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, Bruce Grant, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Hull; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Planner Chilcott Chair Hull 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. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated June 19, 2007. b. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, Grueff-Edwards Subdivision, Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, Lot4ED, LLC/Applicant-Request withdrawn by applicant c. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-09, Stone Bridge Condominiums, Metes & Bounds Property located at 1043 Fish Creek Road, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant-Request for continuance to August 21, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting It was moved and seconded (Klink/Grant) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN/LOCATION & EXTENT REVIEW-SPECIAL REVIEW 06-01 A, Estes Park Medical Center, Hospital Addition, 555 Prospect Avenue, Applicant: Park Hospital District Director Joseph summarized the staff report. A development plan was approved in January 2006 for a major renovation of the Estes Park Medical Center. This amended development plan request is to allow the remodel of the existing emergency room facilities on the southern side of the building. The proposal includes an addition of approximately 6,900 square feet and renovation of approximately 3,000 square feet in the existing building. Ambulances will continue to use the same area but the porte cochere will be reconstructed to provide an enclosed area for ambulance patients to be dropped off/picked up. Planning staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in compliance with applicable standards in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of one area of stormwater RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 July 17, 2007 drainage, as outlined below. The application mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The proposed addition is in an area that has previously been disturbed. Site protection, slope protection, and site disturbance standards are not applicable. While some trees on the west side of the building will be removed (possibly relocated on site), the three coniferous trees in the south landscape island will be retained. The proposed landscaping exceeds the requirements of the EVDC. Planning staff recommends the storm drainage plan be revised such that drainage from the roof on the south side of the building does not flow across the sidewalk. The project engineers have indicated their willingness to make this change. This request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department and the Water Department. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff recommends approval of the revised special review. Public Comment: Ross Stephen/Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, was present to represent the applicant. He stated a sidewalk chase will be added such that storm drainage will flow under the sidewalk rather than over it. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Tucker) to recommend approval of the Amended Development Plan/Location & Extent Review-Special Review 06-01 A to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. The routing of the roof stormwater discharge shall be redesigned to avoid surface flows across the sidewalk at the street. 2. Submittal of Site Construction drawings consistent with these approved plans upon application for a building permit. 4. PROPOSED BLOCK 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE This request is to make a number of changes and corrections to the Estes Valley Development Code. Director Joseph and Planner Shirk presented information on each proposed change. Chair Hull stated amendments to each Code section would be discussed and voted upon individually. Section 4.3.C.5, Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts, regarding floor area ratio and lot coverage applicability Proposed changes specify that all development in residential zoning districts, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. This will affect the development of allowed uses such as day care centers, senior institutional living facilities, and private schools, which are not currently subject to these standards. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Grant) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 4.3.C.5, Table 4-2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 July 17, 2007 Section 7.1, Slope Protection Standards, regarding development on steep slopes Proposed changes remove the exception regarding development on steep slopes for lots approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). These properties would then be subject to EVDC Section 7.1, Slope Protection Standards. This would require applicants to provide a site plan prepared by a professional engineer for development in areas where the average slope across the proposed building footprint is 20% or greater (rather than the current 30% or greater), which should result in better design for slope stabilization, stormwater drainage mitigation, and access across steep slopes. Planning staff believes the expertise of a professional engineer is warranted for building on slopes of 20% or greater. Much of the remaining vacant land in the Estes Valley is within such areas. Staff's experience is that revisions and redesign of poorly prepared site plans for single-family homes on slopes of 20% or greater in order to address stabilization, drainage, or access issues results in unnecessary delays and additional costs for building permit applicants. Proposed Code revisions would ensure that a property owner is aware of these issues up front and would allow the owner to work with an engineer from the beginning of the project rather than having to redesign midstream. Discussion followed between Planning Commissioners and staff. Concerns expressed by Commissioners are summarized as follows: â€¢ Commissioner Tucker: Possible reduction of property value for affected lots. Addition of more restrictions on development. Changes should not be adopted to make the review process more convenient for staff and the Planning Commission to administer the EVDC. â€¢ Commissioner Klink: Elimination of grandfathering rights for properties created prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. Planning Commission should be concerned with impacts of regulations on property values. â€¢ Commissioner Kitchen: Development on small lots that are steeply sloped results in a proportionately larger amount of land disturbance than development on large lots; proposed code amendments should address this. Additonal comments: â€¢ Commissioner Hull: Development standards should not be lowered to ensure property values. â€¢ Commissioner Amos: Proposed changes are directed at lots that are not preferred for development; the value of these lots will continue to increase. The requirement to hire a professional engineer would ensure all issues are addressed and would not decrease the value of the property nor prevent development of a lot. â€¢ Public Works Director Scott Zurn: The Town is currently dealing with over thirty problems areas where last week's rains caused runoff from development on steep slopes that is impacting adjacent properties. Development in these areas occurred in such a way that revegetation of the properties is not possible. The entire community pays to clean up for individual sites that are not excavated, developed, and revegetated properly. â€¢ Commissioner Tucker: EVDC Section 7.1.B.2.b(4) already requires applicants to demonstrate a good plan for development. â€¢ Director Joseph: EVDC Section 7.1.B.2.b(4) only applies to properties with a 30% or greater slope. â€¢ Town Attorney White: Per the current language in the EVDC, no single-family- residential-zoned lot, whether it has a steep slope or not, will be reviewed for compliance with Section 7.1.B.2.b(4). That is the purpose of the proposed changes. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 July 17, 2007 â€¢ Director Joseph: The public is notified of proposed Code changes via legal notice in the local paper, information on the Town website, and public hearings before the Town Board and County Commissioners. Public Comment: Frank Theis, 450 Fish Creek Road, stated there is growing opposition in the community to increasing restrictions on development. He questioned how proposed changes would impact new subdivisions and expressed concern that the exact location of future homes and garages would have to be shown on plans for any new subdivision. He stated the 30% slope limit works from a developer's point of view and that he is in favor of making his own mistakes. He urged planners/Commissioners to be very careful when proposing restrictions. Director Joseph stated the proposed amendments would most frequently apply to old subdivisions rather than new ones. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7.1 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion FAILED. Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Hull. Those voting against: Grant, Kitchen, Klink, Tucker. Section 7.2, Grading and Site Disturbance, regarding site disturbance standards The proposed change removes the exception regarding grading and site-disturbance standards for development on lots approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of the EVDC. The standards may restrict building location and associated driveways to a location that results in highest degree of compliance with these standards, thereby minimizing site disturbance. The proposed changes are intended to implement several policies in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, including minimizing visual impact of development, visual/environmental quality, and development on skylines/ridgelines. Specifically, changes would address extremely long cuts for driveways on steep slopes and subsequent erosion problems. Although this proposed revision was meant to work hand-in-hand with the proposed changes to Section 7.1, it still has some meaning as a stand-alone revision. Public Comment: Frank Theis, 450 Fish Creek Road, stated he likes this proposed change a lot. His objection to proposed changes to EVDC Section 7.1 was changing the definition of a steep slope from 30% to 20%. He does not object to changing the Code language as it relates to exemptions for lots developed prior to the effective date of the Code. Jim Tawney, 1820 Fall River Road, expressed concern that there are too many regulations, citing his current situation of having to apply for two grading permits in order to move the same dirt on his property at two different times. He also expressed his dissatisfaction with the recently adopted Town ordinance regarding cats at large. Following the vote on this item, Director Joseph clarified that Mr. Tawney would not have been required to obtain two grading permits had he considered the entire scope of the work when he applied for his original grading permit. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Grant) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion PASSED. Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, Klink. Those voting against: Tucker. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 July 17, 2007 Section 7.11.F, Off-Street Parking and Loading; Location, regarding location of guest parking spaces The proposed change adds a condition regarding guest parking requirements for multi- family developments. Specifically, "Driveways may not be counted toward guest parking requirements. Guest parking shall be located to provide convenient access to all units and shall be dispersed throughout the site." Some approved development plans that technically met the Code requirements for guest parking have resulted in unworkable guest-parking spaces. The proposed change impacts multi-family development but not bed-and-breakfast uses in single-family-residential zoning areas. Discussion followed between Commissioners and planning staff. It was agreed that it would be possible for longer driveways to meet the requirements for guest parking and the proposed change was amended thus: "Shared driveways may not be counted toward guest parking requirements unless it is demonstrated the design will not interfere with adjoining traffic movements. Guest parking shall be located to provide convenient access to all units and shall be dispersed throughout the site." Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7.11.F of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Section 7.11.0.5. Basins and Drainage Facilities, regarding Larimer County Stormwater Control Manual applicability The proposed change adds the words "as amended" to the current code language, such that drainage facilities must comply with the Larimer County Stormwater Control Manual, as amended to ensure compliance with the most recently adopted regulations. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Grant/Klink) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7.11.0.5 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Section 10.4.A.2 regarding lot width Planning staff recently discovered conflicting Code language regarding minimum-lot- width requirements. The proposed change corrects this conflict by adding the following language (addition italicized): Lot width shall comply with standards set forth in Tables 4-2 and 4-5 and shall be no less than thirty (30) feet at the front lot line. Flagpole lots shall comply with S 10.4.A.c and shall be no less than thirty (30) feet at the front lot line or seventy-five (75) feet at the building line, or such greater width as may be required by this Code. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Amos) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 10.4.A.2 of the Estes Valley Development DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 July 17, 2007 Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Section 10.5.H, Condominiums, Townhouses, and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership, Exemptions, regarding exemption for review of two-unit condominium projects The EVDC currently does not require review of condominium developments consisting of two units or less. EVDC standards for subdivision of property still apply to such development, but there is no opportunity for planning staff to communicate that information to the property owner. The proposed change removes subsection 3, Exemptions, which exempts condominium projects of two units or less from the appropriate review and approval. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Tucker) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 10.5.H of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Appendix D.1, General, regarding the Larimer County Road Standards Manual applicability The proposed change adds the words "as amended" to the current code language, such that Larimer County Road Standards, as amended, apply in order to ensure compliance with the most recently adopted regulations. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Appendix D.1 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion PASSED. Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Klink, Tucker. Those voting against: Kitchen. Appendix D.111, General Site Access, regarding driveway design The proposed changes add the requirement that no driveway may be so located as to block or alter access to adjoining properties or uses and require driveway aprons to be either less than five feet in length or greater than twenty feet in length unless it is demonstrated that the design will not interfere with adjoining traffic movements. Planning staff has observed poor traffic circulation within a number of multi-family developments in the Estes Valley and has received complaints from property owners regarding this issue. Staff seeks to ensure provision of safe and reasonable access by all users of roads/drives within such developments. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Grant/Klink) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Appendix D.111 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 July 17, 2007 5. REPORTS Chair Hull recently represented the Estes Valley Planning Commission at a water quality forum in Loveland. Strategies to reduce impervious coverage and conserve water were discussed; many recommended standards are currently reflected in the Estes Valley Development Code. She expressed an interest in the use of porous paving materials and requested staff to research the use of these materials as time permits. Director Joseph stated the proposed Code amendments reviewed today will be presented to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners as Block 10 amendments. There will be some additional proposed amendments for Planning Commission review at the August 21, 2007 meeting, which will be included in Block 10 if the Commissioners recommend them for approval. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:14 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT -, Lots 5 and 6 Division 7, High Drive ~ Heights Amended Plat Estes Park Community Development Department *I=-=0 Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue ~--"* PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 DATE: August 21, 2007 REOUEST: This is an application to combine two lots of record into a single lot. LOCATION: 731 Columbine Drive \~0& râ„¢rF~WIrKETI9am~-*,7 / L* USFS / APPLICANT/OWNER: Denise Panthen r v.4/ Rt=.ff f.11 1@ry (731 Columbine Drive, Estes Park, CO exc tb--mss..1-r 80517) -90/ /36 I Fecl~ M)uÂ·*ar y USFS Ntioral Pa,k ./ W 'Z STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk rlbj Â¥f- 1 1 "ILIMf#Â·'-~ 61-L 413 =rgwl| ugs APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes FM\P J~BI'jily h Valley Development Code f SITE DATA TABLE: Consultant: England Surveying (Rick England, Lyons), 303-823-5461 Parcel Number: 3526315032 Total Development Area: 1.11 acres (+/-) Number of Lots: Two existing, one Existing Land Use: One single-family proposed residence Proposed Land Use: Same, with detached Existing Zoning: "E" Estate garage Adjacent Zoning- East: "E" Estate North: "E" Estate West: "E" Estate South: "E" Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Single-family residential North: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request is to combine two existing parcels into a single lot. This proposal will not result in the creation of any new building sites and will eliminate development potential for one lot (a dwelling plus associated outbuildings). The purpose of this request is to allow a detached garage to be built on the eastern portion of the site (current Lot 6). The Estes Valley Development Code prohibits accessory uses from being built on a lot without a principal use (dwelling). Therefore, the property owner proposes to combine the lots, thus ensuring the proposed garage is on the same lot as the principal use (the existing house). REVIEW CRITERIA: This proposal complies with all applicable regulations set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. 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 o f public services. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOM1MENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 1. Pursuant to C.R.S.30-28-110, sub-section 4(a), "no plat for subdivided land shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners unless at the time of the approval of platting the subdivider provides the certification of the county treasurer's office that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid." 2. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. Approval o f this plat will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives ofthis Code. 4. 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. 5. Within sixty (60) days of the Board's approval of the amended plat, the developer shall submit the final plat for recording. If the amended plat is not Page #2 - High Drive Heights Amended Plat (Panthen) submitted for recording within this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. 6. This is a Planning Commission recommendation the Board of County Commissioners; Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Amended Plat of Lots 5 and 6 Division 7 High Drive Heights CONDITIONAL TO a vicinity map being provided on the final mylars. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the proposed Amended Plat of Lots 5 and 6 Division 7 High Drive Heights with the conditions recommended by Staff. Page #3 - High Drive Heights Amended Plat (Panthen) 731 Columbine Drive , / 00 ' ,-8916Â£32Â·'s r, i - uawl z 0--14 HEH V>Z: ' 4 .:pgrm A ,Â¢t J*. ~t 14 : dA 744 L UuM#.*<11? 1 -* Â£' c*f,j / 4 ~ \ -~-f-' 5 ,Â£ ''-~ri~RIEE 4 1 44.- 3 . /.A t.-* 1 CEL:Â£1:um/44 9 412?Â·-i.. C , t--- i , 4%, 1 $ 5 kt,eds.L DR /w i / { 3: 52'.31. 1 m , ;.2,3. 1% 1 - 1 1 & 1. 1 4% tÂ· k- -- -9 -U.42!21' DR ~ R :14.< * ----L< .t....1% -- At,f"rdr - . -1 , --Â·a . 1 ''# 1 2/ 1 Not to Scale 11,24 bi Dave Shirk om: Greg Sievers -ent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 11:09 AM To: Dave Shirk CC: Bob Joseph; Julie Roederer Subject: PC memos Attachments: Beaver Pt 2nd Add, Hanks storage, 701 Elm Rd. 10-20-05.doc 1. Panthen, 731 Columbine - NO COMMENT 2. Larsen: 505 Big Horn - NO COMMENT - (although erosion control has been an issue by the neighbors) Elit: 1 Beaver Pt 2nd Add, 3. 701 Elm Road: see previous comment. Still all the same. Hanks stora... 4. The Timbers - see Zurn memo Greg Sievers Town of Estes Park Public Works Engineering .O. Box 1200 (mail) , 70 MacGregor Avenue (shipping) Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3586 0 970-586-6909 f 970-227-0437 c asievers@estes.org http://www.estesnet.com/publicworks/Engineering/default.aspx 1 LARIMER Steve Miller, Assessor 200 West Oak Street Suite 2000 PO Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190 July 18, 2007 England Surveying P.O. Box 908 Lyons, CO 80540 RE: Job Number 106.08 Amended Plat of Lot 5 & 6, Division 7 High Drive Heights This is a comment regarding the review plat for the above-referenced proposal. The review copy shows some discrepancies between the narrative legal description in the Certificate of Ownership and Dedication Statement, and the courses and distances depicted on the drawing of the underlying parcel. The first is in line 2 of the legal description. The stated legal shows a distance of 250.60 feet, and on the drawing, the distance is 250.61 feet. The second is in line 4. The stated legal shows a course of N 52 45' 36" W, and on the drawing the course is N 52 45' 18" E. These discrepancies should be reviewed before recordation of the final plat. Please contact me at 498-7097 with questions. Sincerely, Lisa Thieme Assessment Technician CC: Dave Shirk (dshirk@estes.org) Phone: 970-498-7050 Fax: 970-498-7070 www.larimer. org/assessor EEL[ENEE GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 July 18, 2007 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Amended Plat - Lots 5 & 6, Division 7 of High Drive Heights Dear Mr. Shirk: I have the following comments: 1. The Plat indicates two former lot lines. Either the surveyor should select one lot line or a Note should be placed upon the Plat explaining the existence of the two lot lines. 2. The Dedication Statement dedicates streets. The Plat indicates a road edge on the northern boundary of the Plat. The amount of street right-of-way to be dedicated should be accurately described on the Amended Plat. I f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. /Ve\y Truly Yours, Greg~y A. White GAW/ldr cc: England Surveyi#, Rick Engladd./ Fax: 303-823-5461 Jul. 25. 2007 3:52PM No. 1267 P. 3 Upper Thompson Sanitation District PO Box 568 Eites Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-4544 July 25,2007 Dave Shirk Planner II Town of Eete8 Park P,O. Box 1200 Estes Pmk, CO 80517 Ref: Panthen Lot Consolidation Lots 5&6, Divigion 7 of High Drive Heights 731 Columbine Drive Dcac Dave, The District has reviewed the application for an Amended Plat for the above property it does not affect the District, Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ld,Â«44. Reed W. Smedley ~-- Lines Supervisor Upper Thompson Sanitation District CC England Surveying, Rick England PO Box 908 Lyons, CO 80540 FAX: 303-823-5461 Email: EnglandSurveying@aol,com Denise Panthen 731 Columbine Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 June 26,2007 To Whom It May Concern, I am the owner and resident of property the legal description of which is "Lots 5 and 6, Division 7 of High Drive Heights". I am requesting the consolidation of these two adjacent lots in order that a garage may be built on the property. The garage will need to be situated on the line between the two existing lots in order to be easily accessible, have the least impact on the property and have an aesthetically pleasing compliment to the existing structure. Thank you for your consideration and appropriate action. SineÂ©rely, i ApiL Denise R. Panthen FFLE(Imi[9147 %7 i j: 9 r-.---.--0---z:-*..It !:4 , 11 JUN 262"I f m ESTES VALLEY .-711 'i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION/ 0, <~i~_]IUM 26 Wm : Submittal Date: 1- Development Plan r Bgundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map E Special Review E ROW or Easement Vacation F Preliminary Map F Rezoning Petition r- Street Name Change F Final Map r Preliminary Subdivision Plat r Time Extension r Supplemental Map 1- Final Subdivision Plat r Other: Please specify r Minor Subdivision Plat liE Amended Plat General Information Project Name Pa M.,iken Project Description Lot covt-St>l t'docti'on Project Address -131 Colu..ty*blne Drive E.5 tea Pa.rk , Co Legal Description Lots 5 wid 6 ibitn'stan 1 j Hi'gh Drl'ue He-0ktr Parcel ID # 3-50163(sou Section 'Â» .2.6 Township S-A/ Range 73 6/ Site Information Total Development Area (acres) t. 1/ arte Existing Land Use Regide*did Proposed Land Use 5a,Me- wilk a-cld ition of 30' x '11' g.ro~,e Existing Water Service 4 Town r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service * Town F Well F Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service F EPSD 1% UTSD r Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service E EPSD 9 UTSD r Septic Is a sewer lift station required? F Yes 8 No Existing Gas Service A Xcel F Other E None Existing Zoning o Proposed Zoning Eon/Ae Site Access (if not on public street) 64.-64477Â» - 0 Are there wetlands on the site? E Yes Fi No ~ Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? N Yes F No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Den i,se Pa_,dit en Mailing Address -731 Colkmbinâ‚¬ Dr, 6-stes Pak k , CD %05 / 7 Attachments W Application fee F Statement of intent p 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan 9 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan R 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 + 170 MacGregor Avenue Â·a Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4 Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www.estesnet.com/ComDev IType-of-AÂ»lication ' f. , , 4, von is R Owner r Applicant F Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) De,n i A e R. Pan,t 6 0-01 Mailing Address 7,3 / Co la.,ph bi'ne Or, Eltâ‚¬.5 Park:,CO 80677 Phone 970Â· 536 8835 Cell Phone 970Â· 443,4-135- Fax - Email - 5*55Â·Ily-[EIR:~ Applicant Sa 49 95 0-600â‚¬ 11 1J Mailing Address N 1 ..1 i, it. Phone ~4 JUN 26 EW fl' Cell Phone Fax #- -1 Email ConsultanVEngineer ,< i c,hourol E-M j la vi d Mailing Address ~.O. Aobl 908 k-Yons: CD 505-40 Phone 303- 52.3 - <51/ 6 / Cell Phone 309' 503 - 0 4 41 Fax 303 + R13 Â·- 6-' S 7/ 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 met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: ~ Â©EM ije Â£ . Pa,n f-ke-4 Applicant PLEASE PR//ya tures: Record Owner Date 6Â·24 -0 7 lk; P ki_ t/'- Applicant Date -Â£2___lummia.1.Immlia:,ak APPLICANT CERTIFICATION * I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge vâ€¢â€¢F 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 acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). I 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€¢ l grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to... my property during the review of this application. â€¢ I acknowledge that I have received the 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: DER 15 â‚¬- R , pajel-h e 21 Applicant PLEASE P~JN=4 0 4,+34 e Signatures: Record Owner Date 6 Â·16Â·07 \ Applicant 5-C-- Date FIE=O-9-[E IR\1 -71J J r Â£* L.------~ 29#;* Revised 10/13/06 '' i r C 1 , 10 .- Ahh ANNAN-1-NANG =f "NON """"GUESSES 20 N .1-h ,- 10 LO LO 1.0 if) 00 tO LOU')OLD 000 00000 .00000000AH 00(000(00000,000000 Ncocoooco"Wcv 2200%00 6000100<oof<0000890>00808000 NO00200=00.RS,000000402(JO . O 00 00 O O lfâ‚¬Â£â‚¬xâ‚¬-g: Câ‚¬c/)2 â‚¬â‚¬.2-20.9 0 -0--2,-2oO.2 J co m co co # co co .E co co 03 co co M @0 1. E 25 M 2~ 580.022-% : :ta .0-0- 00-0-E*dand E.2 CO a. On $ i ga u, W.E U) 06 0 co ,â€ž 5 0 0 0 co * O c E.O 0 5 0 ~3 3%82 -2 0-2 2-2 31-22-2 -92 g= A @' t:C 2 -t .92 ~ Z E Z 0000(001-cou)00 O 0 0 0 0 13 OW LU LLI <WWOLULLIOSUJUJUILLIOE 1- O2LELLWCDOUILLI 0 O LO 228 22*3=*33 2.1,~.MS Â®E O 0 .2 00& g gÂ·=co i 83 4%0 -%Â·& 2 0Â® 9 5 0 0) 2 0 0 9 (D (1) bm B -Â¤ E (D g O 05 c 2 -~ Â£ ~ e Â·0 Â·c ed v m 1 1 -2 0) 2, 2' & 8 -55 1 -2 --~%24Es022222S EEZE@00 E =1~z 3 n g MA d *SS a :1 1 SS 229 / 4/ 1 / 3 202@ 24 88199 Ag 9&93 1 % &!RE ER# 22 W 9 00 0-2 00 h - CD h h - 41- Al - h A 0000 0) 0000 h 00 ,- C\1 03 r- h O= v o i 80. 5 Â£040 0 & 8 O _I C 6 2% Esm m C Ed -m m ~ U) i, 0 .5 0 0 0.- -0 $ CD= - -Ch= OL O R 0 ~ Â£~~~ - LLâ‚¬~~~,jg 06 Ja ~ @d>-Cradv~ ~ Ee= c m E .Y E >Ir'-Lra jisifuasE-*Rwz airwEr?Z &3 80921 -3609 0802- 82001-1010 2999-LE en eAv JeAIN A.le)10!A El XOJ ZL908 ealpa uecwn~ogi ZL908 Uel.UUOM 'El kelli C. Allen spur Road Owner Owner 11 Address uoilepilosu00 101 Uel#Ued T. Kathleen Cunningham Marilyn C. Dean C. & Deirdre S. Farr ssell James & Trudy Ann Franklin William Martin Fowkes eth Jane Anning Gerritz ric Leppmann Joan Cmar Istine J. Holien Ima Knauk ary Ann G uei VeqoH / AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 5 & 6, DIVISION 7 HIGH DRIVE HEIGHTS ANG FND. 3/4" PIPE WHICH 2.13' /1 4 LOT 4 LOT 20 LL NOTICE OF APPROT APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY nTLE 24, C.R.S. AS AMENDED. ACCORDING TO COLORADO lAW YOU MUST COMMENCE Al ~~-E~~* T~~ ~~%Â·g7'14~E&~li~~ -HE ii*F,Z-'iE diAi~k~i&6-~0Ak depicted hereon. Such odjustments do not create cdditional lots or building sites for any purposes. 93360Jib. , .W~ - -VWW66'9 -W Muy -66~6 W~V fÂ¥W*- surveying THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. The area added to each lot shown hereon by such adjustment is to be considered an addition to, shall CLIENT: PANTHEN Specializing in Mountain Surveying' become a part of. ond sholl be conveyed together with, each lot as shown.Â» (Ord. 8-05 #1) JOB NO. SHEET SHEB P,0. Box 908 Lyons. CO 80540 _ ~OFFICE, DESIGNED BY: RE APPRGIED 90. RAE (303) 823-5461 2007/DW0r31 COLUMBINEDWG LYONS DRAWN BY: LE DAm 6/21/2007 CHECKED BY: RAE SCALE: AS SHOWN 106.08 1 1 ' 4.h' I i. I 9 7 ~ 'A~A "Al 0 00 0 , /0 mA. . 0 0 0.1,0 00 . 0 . 4 6 35/ . k a 7/FF - A 0 , t. 0.-1, V 0 0 1, '' , .. 9 0 . 0, ., 0. , -1. :. S 11' :.I ' 0 'l ,. -11- -I I . , E3 e 0 -4 , 0 0 1 0, . -... .. /4 11 r.- 2. . , S." e 4> .... .. * 4 , . r.,1 4 4 - . I .:'' 0 . 0, I. .1 '' . . : i. 1 ' .. TfirÂ· . 0 0 . 1 0 ''' '' ... I. .. , 1 0.:'I. S ' . 0 - 6 , : I : 6 - -... ... , 0 ... 6 0 .. . 11 1 0.11 , , : I. . I : 1 2- 0 0 . . 0 'll'll: 0. 1 . 1 i , 0. 1...1, . I 00 0 .. I . , 0 . 0 . 0 : 0 . 0. . 0 0 , 0 - 1 1 , 1, . I ..0 0 0 . : '0 . 0 0 0 I .: .. 1. .. , . 0. 1 0 .0. ./.. :11 0 .0 0 : I '' . 0 0 0.10 0 4 0. ...' .0:. '11 :1 '1 0 0 , . 1 , , 1.1 0 1,0 , 0 0 .... 1 1 01 0 . '0 , A .,, .. I. 0 I 0 4 â€¢â€¢10 i 0 1 D 0 ; A : . 1 I , I . ... . 0 - 10 I. 1 ... . , 0 , : 0 ' 0 00./0 0. I , 0. 1 0 , . 0 . . , . 0 1 ': 0. 40 , . 0 0 . 0 . :t F ., ,, I . . I , .. 1, 4 0 0 .. 11'.1 1 0 , j 4 . 0 . , 0 . 0 j I I ''40 '. , ....0 10 0 . 0 . .0 : : 0 0. 0 - 0 , 0 0 0 ; - 1 . :Il . ,. i 'r , 0 0 . , 0 , . I . t 1 0 E EIV D.,0 1 . . .: . , 0 0 4 1, . I ./ . '1 : I. 0 . ... 1 9. . I , ...10 - . 1 , ,4/ 6 1 1, 1 f " '. , I , ." 0 - 0 . . 0.0 0. I 0 - 4. 4 . . , 4. 0 01 0 0: 10 . a I * h. , 4 I .~ c . 1 4 t .., 1'.2 0 0 A'. A .-0 , 0,0 , 0 1 I. d. . 1 . 0 - D. , 0 0 8 'SI . ' / 8 2 k 1.11â€¢/ . ..14' , .ID D . ... . I .k I ~ Casey Truck Rental (SR 07-03) ~ 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: August 21, 2007 N = FjANP A 8- REOUEST: Approval to allow the existing 34 USFS - .a 4,6.1,-/h - truck rental operation to continue indefinitely . (currently being operated under a temporary - use permit). - 'D Rocky '6 R~guA - k. USFS Fh* - LOCATION: 701 Elm Road, within the 6 Town of Estes Park. - USES APPLICANT/OWNER: H&C Properties hnd=y STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk (dshirk@estes.org, 577-3729) SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (Amy Plummer), 586-9388 Parcel Number: 3526400062 Development Area: 2.03 acres (+/-) Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Commercial (auto shop, storage units, truck/trailer rental) Proposed Land Use: Same, with the Existing Zoning: "I-1" Light Industrial truck/trailer rental being a permanent use Adj acent Zoning- East: "I-1" Light Industrial North: "I-1" Light Industrial West: "E-1" Estate South: "RM" Multi-Family Adjacent Land Uses- East: Industrial North: Industrial West: Undeveloped single-family South: Multi-family residential Services- Water: Town Sewer: EPSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request for a "U-Haul" truck/trailer rental business to be located at 701 Elm Road. The applicants are currently operating under a temporary use permit which is set to expire later this summer. This request is to allow this business to continue. The use is classified as "Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Rentals," which is an allowed use in the "I-1" district, but includes the "special review" requirement of review by the Planning Commission and Governing Body, which is the Town Board in this case. REVIEW CRITERIA: All applications for a special review use shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use Regulations," of this Code and the following requirement: "The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment." Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project. Lapse. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or operation with regard to the special review use approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the special review use shall automatically render the decision null and void. If a legally established special review use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of one (1) consecutive year or more, then the decision originally approving such special review use shall automatically lapse and be null and void. Zoning Requirements. Land Use. The proposed land use is classified as "Vehicle/equipment sales and rental," which is allowed as a special review in the "I-1" Light Industrial District. This land use also requires compliance with Sections 5.1.L "Outdoor Display/Sales and Storage" and 5.1.R "Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Rentals." These are discussed below. Impervious Coverage. The "I-1" district has a maximum impervious coverage of 80%, the proposed 28% complies with this requirement. Floor Area Ratio. The "I-1" district has a floor area ratio of.30; the proposed .05 FAR complies with this requirement. Outdoor Display/Sales and Storage. Per Section 5.1.L, "all uses with outdoor displays, sales or storage shall be subject to compliance with the outdoor display/sales regulations in Â§7.13 of this Code. See also Â§4.4.D. 1 for specific operation restrictions on outdoor displays and sales applicable in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district." Section 7.13 includes specific standards Page #2 - Casey Truck Rental, Special Review 07-03 for loading areas, outdoor storage, HVAC equipment, conduits, and seasonal inventory that do not apply to this proposed use. Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Rentals. Per Section 5.1.R, vehicle and equipment sales uses (including automobiles, recreational vehicles, boats, trucks and motorcycles) shall be subject to the following standards: 1. Vehicle or equipment displays shall not be located within a required setback area. Staff Comment: This proposal complies. 2. Front yard setback areas shall be landscaped to provide a buffer between the right-of-way and vehicle or equipment sales/storage areas. Side yard setback areas shall also be landscaped if the side yard abuts a public right-of-way (see Landscaping). Sta# Comment: The site plan will be revised prior to Town Board hearing to ensure compliance with requirements (staff has discussed with the applicant's engineer). This revision will require the addition of three evergreen trees. 3. No vehicle or equipment shall be stored in a required landscape area. Staff Comment. This proposal complies. 4. Not more than one (1) vehicle display pad, which may be elevated up to three (3) feet in height, shall be permitted per one hundred (100) feet of street frontage. Staff Comment: None proposed. 5. No other materials for sale shall be displayed between the principal structure and the street. Staff Comment. No other storage is proposed. 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. Per Section 7.2.B6, retaining walls over four feet tall must be engineered. Page #3 - Casey Truck Rental, Special Review 07-03 All disturbed areas will need to be restored in accordance with Section 7.2.C "Restoration of Disturbed Areas." Landscaping and Buffers. The proposed landscaping plan complies with requirements set forth in the Development Code. Exterior Lighting. All new lighting 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. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Public Works. The Public Works Department had a variety of comments. Pertinent and unresolved comments have been included as suggested conditions of approval. Town Attorney H/hite had comments regarding "the installation of the improvements to be constructed on site at the time of expansion of the use." Timing of the improvements will be based on the success of the business. Approval of the plan by the Town Board will require the business to be under operation within one year of approval, and will provide a vesting period of three years for future expansion. Should the proposed parking area not be constructed within this three year timeframe and any applicable sections of the EVDC change, the applicant could be required to go through further review. Staff has included the following as a suggested condition of approval to address Mr. White's concern: "The following note shall be placed on the development plan: Vehicle storage shall be restricted to paved areas. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of Phase II of the project." Upper Thompson Sanitation District had concerns regarding depth of coverage in the area of the proposed stormwater pond. Amy Plummer, engineer for the applicant, has contacted UTSD and determined this will not be a problem. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 1. The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. This application mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment (the impact is minimal). Page #4 - Casey Truck Rental, Special Review 07-03 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 4. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Special Review 07-03 "Casey Truck Rental" CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Phase II activity shall require a Development Agreement and form of guarantee (per Section 10.5.K2) prior issuance of a permit. 2. Phase II activity shall require the drive entry to be reconfigured to provide 20- foot corner radii and curbing, the design of which shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. 3. The following note shall be placed on the development plan: Vehicle storage shall be restricted to paved areas. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of Phase II of the project. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of Special Review 07-03 "Casey Truck Rental" with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. DENIAL: I move DISAPPROVAL of Special Review 07-03 "Casey Truck Rental" because... (state reasonfor denial -findings). CONTINUANCE: I move to continue Special Review 07-03 "Casey Truck Rental" because... (state reason for continuance -findings). Page #5 - Casey Truck Rental, Special Review 07-03 GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 July 18, 2007 DATTE SHIRK,PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Special Review 07-03 - Tract 19, Beaver Point Addition 2nd Filing Dear Mr. Shirk: I have the following comments: 1. The Statement o f Intent indicates that the purpose o f the Special Review is to seek approval of the current use of the property for rentals which is being regulated by a temporary use permit and also approval of expansion of the vehicle rental on the property. Conditions of approval should address timing of the installation of the improvements to be constructed on site at the time of expansion of the use requested in the Statement of Intent. I f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Vtry ~ruly ~purs, i \ im 11 / GregdWA.White CC: Van Horn Engineering, my Pluin~~r Fax: 970-586-8101 v GAW/ldr <OWN-* Town of Estes Park Public Works Engineering Room 100, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3586, qsievers@estes.org Memo TO: Bob Joseph, Director From: Greg Sievers Date: August 2,2007 Re: Tract 19, Beaver Point Addition 2nd Filing Metes and Bounds 701 Elm Road After reviewing the Development plan #05-09 the Public Works Department has the following comments: Engineering: 1. Existing culverts shall be waterjetted clear, upon completion ofthe site work and paving. 2. driveway radius shall be 20' 3. curb shall be provided along driveway and radius onto Elm Road 4. provide cross-section ofpone, show dimensions and volume. 5. provide detail ofretaining wall along south property line. Light & Power: no comments Water: no comments â€¢ Page 1 Jul. 25. 2007 4:15PM No. 1273 P. 2 Upper Thompson Sanitation District PO Box 568 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-4544 July 25,2007 Dave Shirk Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Ref: Tract 19 Beaver Point Addition td Filing 701 Elm Road Dear Dave, ... The District has reviewed the proposal for the above property and it doee not affect the District. However, I would like to comment that the proposed detention pond and the calvert may compromise the integrity of the existing service line. The District requiree at least 30 inches of cover over a service line to prevent freezing, Thank you for your time. Sincerely, KJA-11Â»~ Reed W. Smedley Lines Supervisor Upper Thompson Sanitation District CC Van Horn Engineering Amy Plummer 1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Fax: 970.386-8101 amyvhe@Airbits.com ' 1 4.-. C STATEMENT OF INTENT SPECIAL REVIEW Tract 19, Beaver Point Second Addition This special review application requests the permitting of the use of vehicle rentals on a 2.030 acre parcel of land zoned I-1, restricted industrial. Two ofthe four existing buildings on the property house storage units, one building is currently an auto repair shop, and one building is a "club house" used as a meeting hall. The project is owned and being developed by H&C Properties. The owners have been issued a temporary use permit to allow vehicle rentals and in conjunction are getting a feel for the local demand. They propose to continue the use of the existing pavement as shown in the application and drawing for the temporary use permit (and shown on the special review drawing). If demand matches the numbers proposed in the temporary use permit (4 trucks and 8 trailers), the owners will not construct the parking area in the southwest portion of the property. If business picks up, the owners will construct the parking area within the allowable time frame of the Estes Valley Development Code. The parking area, drainage structures, and landscaping will be developed in a single phase if and when demand of rental vehicles grows. At a maximum, there will be 11 trucks and 17 trailers on site at one time. No main extensions are necessary and no water, gas, electric, nor sewer lines need to be extended. Stormwater runoff will be accommodated in accordance with the submitted drainage plan. There are no wetlands, nor wildfire or geologic hazards on site. The property does not fall in the ridgelifte protection zone. No new buildings are proposed and the existing hydrant provides the required fire flow for the existing buildings. Landscaping south of the proposed parking area will be irrigated. Topographic features create buffers to the north and to the west, along with existing vegetation. ~11 IBEÂ© Im OVE'al 11 U . F Hill JUN 27 - 1 41 / J ESTES VALLEY C' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1 . '/ ~ P n 471 1 JUN 2 7 2001 1~ 7.' Cy 1 e4l -Submittal Date: 6/27/2007 ' 1111 - 1 ., Type of Application . ..A E Development Plan 1- Boundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map ~ 12 Special Review 1- RbW or Easement Vacation F Preliminary Map r Rezoning Petition F Street Name Change 1- Final Map F Preliminary Subdivision Plat 1- Time Extension r Supplemental Map 1- Final Subdivision Plat F Other: Please specify 1- Minor Subdivision Plat F Amended Plat General Information Project Name Special Review of Tract 19, Beaver Point Addition 2nd Filing Project Description Establish vehicle rental use on the property Project Address 701 Elm Road Legal Description see attached Parcel ID # 35264-00-062 Section 26 Township 5N Range 73W Site Information Total Development Area (acres) 2.03 Existing Land Use commercial (auto shop and storage units) Proposed Land Use same with addition of vehicle rentals Existing Water Service P Town F Well f- Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service 17 Town F Well F Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service P EPSD r UTSD r Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service P EPSD r UTSD r Septic Is a sewer lift station required? 1- Yes 12 No Existing Gas Service E Xcel F Other E None Existing Zoning I-1 Proposed Zoning I-1 Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? F Yes P No Has site staking been completed? E Yes F No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Amy Plummer Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park, CO 80517 Attachments 12 Application fee 12 Statement of intent 9 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan P 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan P 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 4 Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4 Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www.estesnet.com/ComDev ( , r, 4* 1 Contact Information 1.-64 Primary Contact Person is 1- Owner r Applicant 12 ConsultanUEngineer r. *It ' , J Record Owner(s) H&C Properties I I Mailing Address P. 0. Box 2882 Phone 970-586-8100 Cell Phone Fax Email 1 Applicant Same as owner Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email ConsultanUEngineer Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, Inc. .-21'I 1 il ,[0 F Â©move rp~v 1, i: Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park, CO 80517 lid JUN 27 EN k . Phone 970-586-9388 di, 11 iL.f/! Cell Phone Fax 970-586-8101 Email vheaairbits.com 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/ComDeWSchedules&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 met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Neil and Mar;*ne Casey Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Neil and Marid#ne Casey tures: i nd k l Record Owner 1/,UA 2*-guk >r 06ate 6.46.Od Applicant --- yp[)ate 6 - 7 4, 06 / --,I i- rb--4-- 992<31, 4, Ar- â€ž ~/,712.11 .12'~F#. 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. I In submitting the application materials and sig'ning this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). $ 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/ComDeWDevCode.) I 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. $ The Community Development Depar'tment 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 Employeesand Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. I I acknowledge that I have received the 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: Neil and Mar;*ne Casey Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Neil and Marianne Casey ~ Signatures: Record Owner - /1 AV ' Arx - Applicant 44 2%07 C -\ 26 14101(01*0 06m U .4 ..OL , b. ~cmÂ©EDV'*fR? lili !1l b{ M JUN 27= lit F.i. 11 th Revised 10/13/06 ' Â· Commitment No. TNEP0000414 f Exhibit "A" A portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., more particularly described as: Commencing at the South 1/4 corner of said Section 26 and considering the South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 26 as bearing South 89Â°20'02" East; thence North 00Â°40'50" West, a distance of 454.97 feet along the North South centerline of said Section 26 to the True Point of Beginning; thence North 00Â°40'50" West, a distance of 295.00 feet along the North South centerline of said Section 26; thence South 89Â°33'04" East, a distance of 300.00 feet parallel to the East West centerline of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 26; thence South 00Â°40'50" East, a distance of 295.00 feet parallel to the North South centerline of said Section 26; thence North 89Â°33'04" West, a distance of 300.00 feet parallel to the East West centerline of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 26 to the True Point of Beginning. The above described property is also known as Tract 4 as described on Plat recorded March 16, 1976 in Book 1689 at Page 994, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. . 111 JUN 27 El lt h h h ,_ h h E b E E E E w O N #002 co 91- 00 9!2500005 202 00 098 00001.u 000 NOÂ©0000 00 000 ZOOo aly-ul.2.2.2200-2--2--ly 16 63 Z &3 & 53 < C) 73- 53 NE 1 0-0-Z-0-0-0.-CCO.0- 2 -0-@58:gf-EmiR:g **Egg,EÂ®6**8 OLLIOLULLILLI<O -1 LU LU U) LU 111 0 g g 0/ C C g O g .r- 8 0 2 Z 4- ID W 00 00 CO ,- &1918008290 O- 00 - - C\1 0. O- r - h O- 0 2/32~ - -2 CO m 95 â‚¬ .- 5 3 B m 73 5 % filf i. C- O-02 '06Cogs @ULLI;; Ovod Im S2E5 9222 Â® > O C L Q- 0#2303 Â£28 314@~ atricia Jean Aitken FEs irde 0517 725A Castle t 80517 Bronson MacDonald Box 3521 80517 Town of Estes Park Estes Park, 80517 Revocable Trust Agreement unrise Lane, Moraine Route ~te: park 8' 1 60 Moraine Avenue Linda Knee Reagan Drive S. Colorado Blvd., Suite Lotus Place Elizabeth Jane Moran Cedar Bluff Drive ox %L ide~;hr~ y Wolvin adow Circle â‚¬0-ZO Els - Pul Jd JeAeed 6 L loeil Owner Owner 11 regory & Terese Bruns EBQ 1. S AS: CON '02- 00 2. f 0 3. 1 DAIL 4. E IN V 5. F f 7.12 ED IN .K p, ;RADE (UNB TRICT DE- 25' PAR 1 '2=1 ING -3/L__J -- F l e 1 - V 1 --WV,1,6.- 1 - . 1.-1 'VI 'k;, , ...'_'.v ....1/ v vill.v.-vâ€¢ i.â€¢v .â€¢.--- â€¢â€¢Â·Â·- -Â·r-.rÂ·-- .Â·Â·-- M IVIA.,1Â·,1.11'n ./ 1 1 ..IN Ill I.U..0 .... 1 / .. I N 1 M, L InAILE.80 1 . -1Fgm'+LLU--\\ '11 11 11 11 1 \\ 1 1- ..,FRIPRAP 2 (1 -6' HIGH AND 1 -8' HIGH) ARE PROPOSED, 5 SHRUBS (5 GALLON) ARE PROPOSED. SHALL BE PARKED ON SITE AT ANY ONE TIME PROJECT: SPECIAL REVIEW 7090- - PER EVDC SEC. 5.1.R, LANDSCAPE BUFFERING IS REQUIRED ALONG THE STREET FOR VEHICLE/ RETAINING WALL CROSS SECTION EQUIPMENT RENTALS. 3 EVERGREEN TREES (2EA 6' HIGH AND 1 EA 8' HIGH) ARE PROPOSED IN THE TRACT 19, BEAVER POINT 2ND ADDITION (SOUTHEAST OF PARKING) GENERAL AREA AS WHAT IS SHOWN. \ EXISTING RESIDENTIAL | ~ 634 - VICINITY- MAP ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ BUILDINGS - TFV 1 DATEÂ· DRAWN BY: SCALE: SCALE: 1" = 10' PER EVDC SEC. 7.G.2.9: PARKING LOTS IN THE I-1 DISTRICT SHALL BE EXEMPT (FROM PERIMETER~ 6-11-2007 1" = 20' 1" = 600' LANDSCAPING). 1 - ~~ X - ~ AUG 14*M ~J EÂ©[EOVES\ PROJ. NO Â· CHECKED BY: SHEET 2005-4-10 1 OF 1 MEAULVY LIr\ULL 1*â‚¬.11*4 2- 06 .LIZ. k. I .1 /- I. . 1 . 0 .1 1. . ... ..:. D . . I ... . 0 1 0 0 1 0 . 0 - r 1 . 1 -:ID A 0 0- 1. 0 1 0 . 1 0,-. 0 0 0 , 0 . : .. , 0 0 = . 1 . 1 0 . . . 1 . . . , = . 1 I 1 IA 0 I A I | 0 - . . . . .. 1 1,1, - 0 - 0 1 0 :- I. :Ill- 1 - . .1 -- I .1 0 1 . 1 0 . 1 .: 1 ...1 - 0 0 0 1 0 . 1 : . 0 - 1 -:. 1 - - 1-1 1 - I . . ... 0 0 0-0.- 2 - 1 0 - 0 , D Al, 0 0-1 - '- 1 : 0 -'I -: I. I -' --0-- 1 -:I .-- . 0- 1 0 0 D : D. ..1 1 - 1 . 0 - : : 1 -10 . 0 $ , 0- 1, D I , 0 -.-' I . I -- ..1,"I-I - 1 . : D . .. .0 0 . . ...1 0 . . . I . .1 IAL : 6 0. 0 0. .. .. . 1 - 1 . . . . 1 . . 00 . .. e : D ..1 ' . D. * . A. .... .... 6 ..... 1.-1 , .1 0, . ./ 0 - 0 ./ 1, /. -1 - .- k. .. 1 1 0.0 1 - 0- =- ..... -- .... 0 . I 0 - . 1 . 1-1 0. :. 0 1 1. : 1-1 1 1: :; A.,4. . 0 0 I ..0 1 1 . : 0. 1.- - 1 .-. , 0 0 - A A . , 1 0- .. . ...0 - - 0 40 ' . . 1 . 0. 1 0 1. . 1 -0 1 1 - 1 I .A .. D ... . ... r - . ., 0 - . 0 . : , - : ... 1 0 - 1 1= 1 D 1 .. . 1 0. :. ... D 0 . 1 0. I - . 0 * 0 .. . :- 11 . ... I 1 - : I. D ' 0 - I : ... D 1 1. I . 0 0. . . 0 1 0 1 .1 0 1 - .. ,. 1 0 li - 0 ... 0 --- D. 4 D .. ..'. .. .0 . .. 1 . .. : 0 .. .0 .... : 1 ..0 : 1 . 11 .A .:A. 0. 1 . D . .. 0 0 1-; I 1 IDle 1- k ' 1 A.1 0 .... ,. .. 0 . . . 1 0 -. .: . 1 0 ..Al 1., 0 .. e :00 . . 0 .t;:; :; A . ..l ... .. A. 0 .. 1 0 - 0 . . - 01 0 1 11.- . 0 g - . 1 .. D D . . A. 0 - ... , 1 . .... 1 . .. 1 . . 4 0 " 1 ~ 4 - .1 0-I - I. i., I. 0 . 1 1, ' I * : -d.......Ele'lijiffilillimill"ll.. \11 4 ..1 . D ... :- I .20 ..... -- 4 'Ill--I.--/#m.L/.I-- D Do . I .: 1 .. . I 4- 0 . 4 , - , 1. .. 1 . / j -1 A . 1 --#.4..' . 24 0 *- 2.- r':41:*, -- ...CA 0 0 - 0 'r . - . ....0 , 1 :s> .. / 4 1 I -i.' .. 0 D . . . 0 '4, 0 - . 11 r - .. . . , r I . 2 1.-= . . / 4 - 1 0.0/.. 0 /,6 2 0 I . 0 I. I . 0 4& ..0...' . . ' : I 0 - ..A , ........ ,-F, r . 4.4 â€¢ 44 0 4 - . 14*~.., b 24 - - 0. 11 , . I. . ... 0 - 1 . D. 1 4 . . 0 0 ~4 . U 00 40 - . 0 L I 0 .1/ . 0 1 liL 0. 1 0 - -4 . \ .A A - 1 D . 1 . .1 . D. . .'*r *'** 8,4 - ib,4 - - - - .0 . 4. .d.*all/ 2. 2 1 â€¢4 - 0 0 .: 2. .... 43:1 :0 1 D . 0 -' , I . 0 - .01011. . 1 Â¥ 8 0, 00 00 - .702'41 . :I :1 1/D ./ k ... , 1. L f 1 : .. 0 . D e, 4 1 - ... .. . 1 .1 1 '1 -0 -'- ..I ''' ' 1 1 1 0=: -1 0 . I . 1. . - ..... 1 ... :..1.- .illbjaililillillilill ..Al . 0 1 , .: 2 -1 0 . .... I .4 /0 â€¢ 0. . - - - I . I . 1 - I . I ... -- z ... r r . A -Al . - . . . 1,e-~Im~--- I- ~ Lot 46A Fall River Addition Amended Plat ~ 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: August 21,2007 REOUEST: Amend a platted building envelope and grant a minor modification to setback requirements. 1*IP ~ :L LOCATION: 505 Bighorn Drive, within ~ USFS the Town of Estes Park. 1 â€¢cler.... f-1 r. ful[ OWNER: Brandon Larson '6 / 0.-M - 1. 1 USE 1~tioral F:&~ik ./ APPLICANT: Van Horn Engineering (Celine LeBeau) STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (Celine LeBeau), 586-9388 Parcel Number: 3524353005 Development Area: 2.31 acres Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Single-family residence (built in 2002) Proposed Land Use: Same, with outdoor Existing Zoning: "E-1" Estate entertainment area and entry stair feature Adjacent Zoning- East: "E-1" Estate North: "RE" Rural Estate West: "E-1" Estate South: "E-1" Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Single-family residence North: Undeveloped West: Single-family residence South: Single-family residence Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request to amend a building envelope that was platted with a formally amended plat in 2000. The purpose of this amendment is to allow an outdoor entertainment area and a new staircase/entry feature. The building envelope was platted to keep development out of a mapped rockfall hazard area to the north, and to maintain the minimum setback requirement for properties to the east. The outdoor entertainment area would consist of bar/grill, hot tub, and open fire pit. The entry staircase would extend into the required 25-foot setback, per zoning district requirement. The applicant requests a Minor Modification for a modification to this required setback. The Statement of Intent states "currently, there is no staircase leading to the front door of the house, which is located on the upper floor deck (current main entry is through the garage only)." This is not true; a "temporary" (according to contractor) set of stairs has been built to serve an interior remodel that Westover Construction is working on. Westover Construction intends to remove the stairs once they complete work. REVIEW CRITERIA: Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project. Geologic Hazard. The applicant has submitted a report from the geologist who originally identified the area as a potential rockfall hazard. That report, from 2000, was prepared before identification of a building envelope or construction of the house. The most recent report, dated July 9,2007, concludes "that extending the building envelope 25 feet to the north... will not effectively increase the potential for geologic hazards~ including potential rockfall hazards, at the site." The report also notes evidence that rockfall mitigation has been performed, including "several rocks located approximately 50 feet from the back of the home were broken up by blasting." Finally, the report notes "the outcrops and boulders at the base of the slope behind the house form a wall and will aid in protecting the patio from any potential rockfall." Based on this geologic report, Staff concludes the amendment to the northern line of the building envelope will not be in violation of any code provision, nor would it negate the intent of geologic hazard or setback regulations. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of amending the northern building envelope. Page #2 - Lot 46A Fall River Addition Amended Plat Minor Modification. The existing house was built in 2002. Staff review of the building plans submitted for the building permit show an exterior stairway to access the upper main living level. These plans indicate the ability to build a code compliant entry stair without the requested Minor Modification. Â·t -411 - 1 I . -- 1 3,3 i lillie' -1 LE, . 1.14_ Â· ,I 7 . f i 1,1 A it li â‚¬1 11 f.;h . 41.3 i ,-~ -I-ZInr_- ' Id Â©t i- i. i 6. L.- Con- A. I L..- r .. _14 1 F 211 /ft ~ '4 FLOOe U--3 -1 1 1 1% 1 , 4, ' Original Building Plans - 2002 Section 3.7 of the Estes Valley Development Code authorizes the planning commission to grant minor modifications up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) from building setback requirements, provided that the EVPC finds that such modification advances the goals and purposes o f this Code and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site. Staff believes allowing a setback of 17.5 feet in lieu of the 25 feet typically required does none of these, and the requested minor modification should be denied. This is based on the following: 1) No advancement of the goals and purposes ofthe Estes Valley Development Code. 2) Would not result in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation. 3) No practical difficulty exists. A compliant set of stairs could be built, per the original building plans. 4) The lot was finalized in 2000, after adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. 5) The existing dwelling was built in 2002, while the 25-foot setback and building envelope were in place. Therefore, any potential hardship or practical difficulty is "self imposed." 6) The applicant purchased the property with the existing regulations in place. Page #3 - Lot 46A Fall River Addition Amended Plat 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. Open Fire Pits. Fire Chief Scott Dorman has stated that open fire pits "are allowed on private property" with the following conditions: 1. Cannot be built by flammable materials (i.e., a fence, building, or under trees). 2. Must be less than 6 feet in diameter. 3. Flammable vegetation must be removed within 3 feet of ring. 4. Can only be used for recreational or cooking fires. 5. Subject to burn restrictions or burn bans. Applicant is responsible for burn ban inquiries. 6. Must have an extinguishing method in close proximity when used (i.e., hose, shovel). 7. Must have someone at least 18 years of age attending fire. 8. Can be made of cement, concrete, rocks if cemented together, or metal fire ring permanently affixed to the ground. 9. Flame height must not reach more than 4 feet high. 10 Owner could be responsible for suppression costs and damage to property. Building Department. The building department has noted that "a building permit is required prior to any construction." This includes the proposed entertainment area. Neighbor Comments. The 2000 plat that created the building envelope brought significant neighborhood opposition, which resulted in a planning commission recommendation of 2-3 in favor (a recommendation of disapproval). The Town Board approved the plat by a 3-2 vote. At the time this report was prepared, Staff has had contact with three neighbors. Two of these were in favor of the proposed amendment. The other questioned why the statement of intent stated there were no entry stairs, when there are. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Stafffinds: 1. This proposal does not comply with required 25-foot setback standards for the "E-1" district. With this exception, the proposal complies with applicable sections o f the Estes Valley Development Code. Page #4 - Lot 46A Fall River Addition Amended Plat 2. The requested Minor Modification does not advance the goals and purposes of this Code and does not result in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, nor relieve practical difficulties in developing the site. 3. The Fire Chief has stated fire pits are allowed, but several restrictions apply. The applicant should familiarize himself with these restrictions, as outlined in the staff report. 4. 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. 5. Within sixty (60) days of the Board's approval of the amended plat, the developer shall submit the final plat for recording. If the amended plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. 6. This is a Planning Commission recommendation the Town Board. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Amended Plat of Lot 46A, Fall River Addition CONDITIONAL TO: 1. The requested Minor Modification has been disapproved. 2. The eastern boundary of the building envelope shall be redrawn to comply with the required 25-foot setback. 3. Compliance with Chief Dorman's comments dated July 2, 2007 regarding outdoor fire pit requirements (as delineated in the staff report). 4. Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements). SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amended plat to the Town Board of Trustees with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. DENIAL: I move to recommend DISAPPROVAL of the proposed amended plat to the Town Board of Trustees because. . . (state reasonfor denial - findings). Page #5 - Lot 46A Fall River Addition Amended Plat Dave Shirk om: Scott Dorman ent: Monday, July 02,2007 2:36 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: RE: outdoor fire pits It is allowed on private property with the following conditions: 1. Cannot be built by flammable materials ie. a fence, building or under trees 2. Must be less than 6 ft in diameter 3. Flammable vegetation must be removed within 3ft of ring 4. Can only be used for recreational or cooking fires 5. Subject to burn restrictions or burn bans 6. Must have an extinguishing method in close proximity when used i.e. hose, shovel 7. Must have someone at least 18 years of age attending fire 8. Can be made of cement, concrete, rocks if cemented together or metal fire ring permanently affixed to the ground 9. Flame height must not reach move than 4ft high 10. Owner could be responsible for suppression costs and damage to property Scott Donnan, Chiff Estes <ParÂ©/ofunteer (Fire Department (970) 577-0900 <mailto:sdorman@estes.org> From: Dave Shirk Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 6:17 PM To: Scott Dorman Subject: outdoor fire pits Hello Scott- We have some folks that want to build an outdoor fire pit (no chimney, just a ring). Is this allowed? -dave 1 Dave Shirk From: Greg Sievers Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 11:09 AM To: Dave Shirk CC: Bob Joseph; Julie Roederer Subject: PC memos Attachments: Beaver Pt 2nd Add, Hanks storage, 701 Elm Rd. 10-20-05.doc 1. Panthen, 731 Columbine - NO COMMENT 2. Larsen: 505 Big Horn - NO COMMENT - (although erosion control has been an issue by the neighbors) .P BEE- Beaver Pt 2nd Add, 3. 701 Elm Road: see previous comment. Still all the same. Hanks stora... 4. The Timbers - see Zurn memo Greg Sievers Town of Estes Park Public Works Engineering P.O. Box 1200 (mail) 170 MacGregor Avenue (shipping) Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3586 0 970-586-6909 f 970-227-0437 c asievers@estes.orq http:Uwww.estesnet.com/publicworks/Engineering/default.aspx 1 MEMORANDUM To: Dave Shirk, Planner II From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official I)ate: July 27,2007 Subject: Larsen Amended Plat 505 Big Horn Drive The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the application in regards to an Amended Plat for the above referenced property and offers the following comments: 1. A Building Permit is required prior to any construction. GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 July 18, 2007 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESI ES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Amended Plat - Larsen Dear Mr. Shirk: I have the following comments: 1. The request to extend the proposed entry staircase into the 25-foot building setback needs to be approved as a minor modification by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. 2. The Dedication Statement dedicates utilities. The only utility shown on the Plat is a drainage easement. If there are other utility easements oil the Plat, they should be shown. If you have any questions, pleasp(do not hesitate to give me a call. ~ e~T Yuly Yours, & \ 4. Ljj 1 Gre,Â©ti k.9]Vite GAW/ldr CC: Van Horn Engineeritg, Celine IleBelu Fax: 970/586-8101~ Cy Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk - From: HIX4730@aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:33 AM , To: Dave Shirk Subject: Larsen Amended Plat Dear Dave, We have no objection to the amendents proposed for the Larsen's property, which is adjacent to our own. We recommend approval of the Amended Plat. Sincerely, Alma & Frank Hix 501 Big Horn Drive Estes Park, CO Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. 7/30/2007 JUL.11.2007 1:59PM TERRACON ' NO.518 P.2 1 1 July 9, 2007 1 lerracon Cor,Gulting Engineers & Scientists 301 North Howes Van Hom Engineering and Surveying Phone 970.484.0359 , Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 1043 Fish Creek Road Fax 970.484.0454 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 uln' torrocotâ€¢Â·earn Re: Geological Site Observation 7 111 ~ EÂ©EDVIE 13\1 Lot 46A of the Fall River Addition : P Estes Park, Colorado Terracon Project 20075061 JU 1~ JUL 1 1 2(07 )M Attn: Ms Celine LeBeau, Project Manager - At your request a senior engineering geologist from Terracon made a visual observation of the above referenced site on July 6,2007. The purpose of this ob~ervation was to evaluate and make recommendations to mitigate potential rockfall hazards that ma7 exist for the proposed extension of the existing approved building envelope. It is our understanfling the building envelope is to be expanded to accommodate a patio area which extends appro*nately 25 feet beyond the existing building envelope. The patio, which will contain a fire pit, wet bar and spa will be benched into the north end of the hillside. A maximum cut of 2 feet is planned. 1 Previous reports have been prepared for portions of the Fal~ River Addition including Lot 46A, A report prepared by Terracon (Project No. 20995222) dated January 4,2000, indicated a potential for rockfall existed at the site. However there was no building envelope delineated for Lot 46A at the time of Terracon's study. A report prepared by Michael W, West and Associates, June 8,2000 was prepared for Lots 42A1 43A and 46A of the subject property: In Wesfs report it was stated that Lot 46A could be developed if stabilization measures were em#loyed. These stabilization methods included dislodging or moving potential hazardous rocks. It appears that a written mitigation plan was not prepared for Lot 46A. However some rockfal] mitigation was performed and a residence was constructed on the site. Evidence can be seen that several rocks located approximately 50 feet from the back of the home were broken up by blasting. It is aâ‚¬ sumed these rocks were potentially unstable and may have contributed to a potential rockfall hazard. A massive granite outcrop is located to the north of the existing residence and the area .of the proposed patio. This outorop is located on a steep irregular slope. The slope contains outcrops, scattered boulders, trees, brush and grasses. Massive low outcrops and boulders form the base of the slope just above where the proposed patio will be built TE is slope, in our opinion, creates the potential for a minor rockfall hazard, Due to the rectangular "slab-like" shape of the rock caused by the joint patterns in the rock, the growth of trees and the irregular rough surface of the hi[Iside it is anticipated that any blocks of rock, which may dislodge over time, would not travel far down slope, Jointing patterns indicate the block size would vary from approximately one foot to in excess of 6 feet in the largest dimension. The outcrops and boulders at the base of the slope behind the house form a wall and will aid in protecting the patio from any potentia rockfal[. Potential rookfall from the top of the outcrop located well above the planned patio would, in our opinion, fall to the west away Delivering Success for Clients and Employees ~ince 1965 More Than 80 Offices Nationwlde i JUL. 11.2007 1:59PM TERRACON i NO.518 P.3 Geological Site Observation Lot 46A of the Fall River Addition Estes Park, Colorado Terracon Project 20075061 Page 2 from the additional building envelope area. It should be noteb a detailed rockfall study was not conducted on the lot and is beyond the scope of this project. 2 Other potential geologic hazards have been discussed in both Terracon's earlier letter and in the West report. Based on Terracon's review of both reports and site observation it is our opinion that extending the building envelope 25 feet to the north on Lot 16A will not effectively increase the potential for geologic hazards, including potential rockfall hazards, at the site, If you have any questions concerning this report or require further information, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, TERRACON ~,TE l,VAÂ» ~ 81 2 24:y 2575 11 \4Â» j 21 Neil R, Sherro*'P.G. PAC.. 4, 4-- 4 ag Senior Engineering Geologist ,%,141%@~ Reviewed by: Raymond L. Denton, 11, P.E Geotechnical Department Manager f STATEMENT OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED LARSEN AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 46A, FALL RIVER ADDITION Revision: July 10, 2007 This proposal is to amend the current platted building envelope on Lot 46A, of the Amended Plat of Tracts 42,43 and 46 of the Fall River Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Brandon L. Larsen is the current owner ofthe subject Lot. A single family home, private asphalt driveway, and all utilities exist on the Lot. Mr. Larsen would like to increase the size of the current platted building envelope to encompass a proposed patio and entry staircase. The concrete patio is proposed in the limited usable space in the back of the house and includes, a fire pit, hot tub, and wet bar. The proposed patio extends approximately 25 feet north of the current building envelope and is designed to blend into the existing natural landscape and topography. The area in which the patio is proposed is vegetated by herbaceous native species and surrounded by a large rock outcropping. This area does fall within the Geologic Rockfall Hazard Area mapped in the Estes Valley Development Code. Neil Sherrod, Senior Engineering Geologist with Terracon Consultants evaluated the proposed patio site and adjacent rock outcropping for a more detailed analysis of the rockfall potential (where rocks would fall from) and outfall zone (where the rocks would fall to). Please find a copy ofthe complete report in this submittal package. A staircase leading to main entry is proposed on the east side of the existing house. Currently, there is no staircase leading to the front door of the house, which is located on the upper floor deck (current main entry is through the garage only). The proposed entry staircase extends approximately 7.5' east of the building envelope, which is 25% ofthe 25 foot building setback prescribed to Estate (E-1) Zoned lots. This Lot is zoned E-1 (Estate) in the Estes Valley Development Code. No change in zoning is requested. -~EÂ© IEDÂ¥[ETE 4 1 11 :.1 ~ JUL 1 1 2007 ~,4 Uj; , 1 1 ESTES VALLEY ~ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APP~.ATIGN IM dENÂ¥~ ~ Submittal Date: 11 lis i al-i\. .rn 11_"10 it If 1 ' 'Â· ~Â· ..31 ",' 14Â® Type of Application Â·- - :Â·Â·Â· v Â¢Nnrd-mrrr,terl----- =* I E Development Plan 1- Boundary Line Adjustment r 1- Special Review 1-' ROW or Easement Vacation |2.-Emilminalk-Maa.- -1 E Rezoning Petition 1- Street Name Change if- Final Map 1- Preliminary Subdivision Plat 1- Time Extension r Supplemental Map E Final Subdivision Plat 1- Other: Please specify 1- Minor Subdivision Plat R Amended Plat General Information Project Name LA cson Ambile.1. 0\,xt Â·.Â·: Projed Description Aer*.4,10, 1, 6)14:t> j Vt/lt r,or- t/VIr,2,(11 cat.) .,37Â·,, Project Address 5-05 83,3 11 or n h rrve., Es-1-r-:i fLA.v-Â£ (PU ru. 4 , 805 1-4- Legal Description 2-4 9 N c> r-.pw 93 West Parcel ID # Section Township Range Site Information , Total Development Area (acres) OÂ·LO Existing Land Use IRIsid.ek, hd - Si~n.*r- -fU-00*,1 17/ Proposed Land Use ~/55201(:,/45.0. 1 - Sin~ IC '{L-Â·4'vi 6 [~ Existing Water Service Frown r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service r Town F Well E Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service F EPSD -g UTSD E Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service E EPSD r uTSD r septic Is a sewer lift station required? r Yes K' No Existing Gas Service K xcei r Other F None Existing Zoning 2-51-,ac (E-l) Proposed Zoning 25+0+0 (E- 1') Site Access (if not on public street) 62,0-8~'ne ,1 0..5(ha-14- &Â·64 e. k>cttr;.133 Are there wetlands on the site? F Yes <No Has site staking been completed? E Yes F No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person (BE[the. LcibfaiA ,\Jan U Afri h/4., 4,!dri-,w?) 4.62/(43Â¥ ('11 U Mailing Address(093, 'PI bl.n Or-ce.k- 21. , iEs4Â·c:. Airk, CO, 805{ 3-- J Attachments 52 Application fee R Statement of intent E 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan F 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan r 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 4 Estes Park, CO 80517 Communily Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 + Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www.estesnet.com/ComDev . Primary Contact Person is r Owner F Applicant R' Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) Dra v,Ar,1/i Lufen Mailing Address los \ *Ar-k,U.\ e.- Drivc ; fll e./ 1 Â£,J 1 Te,Â» b, 195 609 Phone Cell Phone 912. -984-cl(8 Fax Email Applicant Van }lorn E-Â·nÂ£~linedÂ·rin,4 4 Sur VE't-i Vii Mailing Address U, 6(21 Fibla Gruk- 1~garl; 15<2~6 U.r~ LU, 150919- Phone R':N> --- 5 g (2 Â· Â· CA,de(8 Cell Phone Fax 99Â©- 62 U -8 lot Email V Ite..(4 Curia it:s . Corn ConsultanVEngineer O2UY, Lfle,-a.0uu f 'Va.0 110< A S,giviffrl A.clel S~rve.~f.l,~ Mailing Address ip'le, Astn, Critk- Keact f TELÂ·k.1 PArk., (tr)1 930 543- Phone 9.79 *59(e - 958<8 * 14 Cell Phone _ Fax 190-cm{0 -6 \O 1 Email Ptiwe rv In e. 62 4Â£ re,+B ,C..9 n-1 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.corn/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. 1 hereby certify that the provisions of House Bi1101-1088 Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record OWner PLEASE PR/NT: OCAndb,1 4. , 9Â«4 *1 Applicant PLEASE PRINT: /1 Elihe Le,8.e-u.u - Signatures: Record Owner /6.44-1 1~B.(c Â«11 . Date 4/41101- 1, 1 ly Applicant Cv - - _ Date 4~ Li 1 07- Id Wd92:20 2-002 Ir 'Inf BID'Â£-22Â£-02-6: 'ON Xy=1 Dll ' 41Â· I eaH-oad: WOhl3 Contact Infoimalion , C- C , h.. 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 sidning this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and publlc hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). â€¢ 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/ComDeWDevCode.) 4 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 mquirements of the EVDC. * 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. â€¢ The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. * I grant pennission 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 the 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: Bra-v*,411 LarÂ». vi Applicant PLEASE PRINT: d Â£ I /4 4 LiBea.t-.u_ Signatures: / Record Owner 7,491 Date 1.h, 109- .1 Applicant Date - 4) H C" Revised 10/13/06 Ed WdkE :20 2-002 IT 'Inf 8IVE-222-02-6: 'ON X83 Dll ' 41- I eaH-oad : WOhld 1 B O NOO 888 44â‚¬ 05 0 C L~ C 098 INI maimia wh ;50686 28 CD O. CD 1-0 1 - 00 E (D @ 06 -t 0 C[ E J co fod <49 0 -0 2% 82 11 a JF & Dorothy Banker 451 Big Horn Drive Estes P 80517 ~~~&e~Va~n Crislip PO Box 778 Estes Pa O 80517 Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, 80517 itha Hund Drive Estes Park, 80517 Ross & Deborah Maxwell ghorn Drive Estes Park, 80517 acine Bighorn Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 E. Speedway Tucson, AZ 85719 Thomas & Rachelle Washburn Kingfisher Point Chuluota, FL 32766 Owner Owner 11 Address leld pepuelllÂ¥ Ueme-I LARSEN AMENDED PLAT 505 BIG HORN DRIVE, ESTES PARK, COLORADO LEGAL DESCRIPTION(TAKEN FROM DEED WITH RECEPTION #20060096310): LOT 46A, THE AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 42, 43 AND 46, FALL RIVER ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO N 8935'25" W 275.38' ZONED RE CERTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION . KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT BRANDON L. LARSEN, BEING SOUTHWEST 4 THE OWNER OF THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST / CORNER 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST, OF THE 6TH ~ SECTION P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST JU CORNER OF SAID / 24-5-73 SECTION 24 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 89'12'20" W / 159.33 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST )1 OF THE / SOUTHWEST )4 OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 43A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 42, 43 AND 46 OF THE FALL RIVER ADDITION (RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY) THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) BEARINGS AND DISTANCES: S 00'36'25" W 234.67 FEET; N 80'16'07" E 67.13 FEET; S 00'36'25" W 138.00' TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF AN EXISTING 30 FOOT WIDE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARIES OF LOT 41A AND LOT 41 B / OF SAID AMENDED PLAT; THENCE S 58'23'42" E 41.97 FEET; THENCE S 69'27'19" 98.55 FEET; THENCE S 64'56'26" E 88.25 FEET TO A POINT ON LOT 4611. I THE WESTERLY LINE OF AL FRESCO ADDITION (RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY); THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF AL FRESCO SUBDIVISION N 01'48'00" E 18.83 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE 12.31 ACRES CAUSED THE SAME TO BE SURVEYED AND AMENDED TO BE KNOWN AS THE N 00'36'25" E 434.49 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; / CONTAINING 2.31 ACRES MORE OR LESS; HAVE BY THESE PRESENTS LARSEN AMENDED PLAT, LOT 46A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 42, ZONED E-1 43, AND 46 OF THE FALL RIVER ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE AND CONVEY TO AND FOR PRIVATE USE THE STREETS AS ARE LAID OUT AND DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT, AND DO ALSO DEDICATE EASEMENTS SHOWN FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE r.. lei DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT, WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEAS THIS i OF UTILITIES AND FOR DRAINAGE FACILITIES AS ARE LAID OUT AND DAY OF A.D., 20__ Proposed Building Envelope /22* ~ ~ 1-1-1 / m A f<Proposed concrete patio p o pl / LL LO Chi 11 extends approximately / U) 151 PO 8 24.5' north of the / ab BRANDON L. LARSEN, OWNER 1 -- / <0 O current building envelope y m N / z STATE OF }ss Building Envelope as ~ COUNTY OF , 20__ BY BRANDON L. LARSEN. designated on the plat / THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS 1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. SCALE: 1" = 20' f ROCK /.276 / LOTS MY COMMISSION EXPIRFS OUTCROPPING 0--,11 +J Â»4_IN-~414 ~ _34Â«3Â©dOt-/0Â»~-_-t-~4./ 102 & 103 ;-n.Â· ~>CD< >CD< 7--* CE?'L 0 20 40 60 c446~.,g~~43.41-,%.t-->~bj AL FRESCO CONTINUES .'' El, -3, , 97 9 ~311(1 1(1 >ci )0< / ADDITION 1 ~ : v al 1.9 3 .9232-099-ji)%9~-)3> 5.66 ACRES 31-= .,- 91 =Â«370-jit r.9_rlÂ»64 ZONED E- NOTARY PUBLE 9-ft=-7 - ' . /L.Â«47Â°-3.1~04~-3, 4.23 - -9 :.._.57 Lt/1/. N 89Â®12'20" W 80.48' -~~4-3129~/ ~_Â·01Â· ~:.:~ -Â·f. - I ','... 0.-1.-107.J=-~Â·it~ SURVEYOR' S CERTIFICATE: - - - - - - -------- -1, LONNIE A. SHELDON, A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE ~ (N 89Â°12'20" W 158.88TEÂ»*fÂ·-*TM-~f, f -9 : 2 , Â·Â·Â·:.:'~.-2,Â·~.I~Â· ' ~~Â·~Â·' ~~ 012244212214zld 5.Â·0'44 STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS LARSEN AMENDED 1 9 fgl--~tjil)28-- - 1+-16Â§997 ~- . -r:~Â· -2 PLAT OF LOT 46A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 42, 43 AND 46, N 80*16 07 E 67.13 / Â· 1-17.2~ FALL RIVER ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF #--25.0-7 ,-n , LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO TRULY AND CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE 1' 7--4-itzi' --tix.-93 -- > .~-.-.A' ...44Â·Â· 49 '1<Â·.:0-*:-9~"*5+-- 2 33. Â· e 1 |'41.4.-1 RESULTS OF A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE / 4-4- ufÂ«3932, 5 .Â· 7 .c=:0 21.5.1 2-1.-N. Â·'- ~ /-The proposed -0 / (fs 1C] . 1 63 /j entry staircase 0./ - < S / Ch D /99-9~ Â· i /,1Â· ~--1 / / extends - I 2-Jrk:-1 Z.Â«-EXUING HOUSE / approximately /5. .1 11,0 ~ ~ft-2, Â·-,-< < 505 BIG HORN DRIVE ~ 7.5' east of the --' 1. . / current LONNIE A. SHELDON ..}Â· ~ el:CBM / building envelope REG. LAND SURVEYOR #26974 \\1\ CID 0 ... \ 1 / 0 C.le,-... \. 1 \ 1 : 'V>.3.. ... ' '-~-1.- . evt./ L j .1 1 , 1 Z 1Z ' d| ' 1 1 1-7. :1 ~41-~til \ If),A Â«= 2. . Â»6--iÂ·~Â· or-~ - *~4 BOARD OF TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATE: / f ~\4 . bel 11,*)1,0 -/ 1 , 3\ 1- APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF Auslb'r{XX . 1 \ ESTES PARK, COLORADO BY A RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON THIS ----- DAY e. ic | , 52â‚¬.--- --- L-_ Ji. &' #A,L cÂ»i/ , 06 OF , 20___. \ h / 7780 A- / ... 4 -' ' U Â·/ 43 / 1, 194 / / 1-4002%-aseup. 5 6< 2-: tz>N V.1 Ji. CI I 6 /* 1, IA / j ~7- , M=.4# g -f - -47*9/Â·2.-C --7..CL- 4-41 0.-20" 2 x / AA A / / .7 TOWN CLERK MAYOR MD 1 IPO 1 1 .\ 1 . - M ' I .1.-rl 1 44 / ' //r ~ -TRS.-:-:6...~EME<-356 1 1 . | VESTED RIGHTS STATEMENT: ' ~\ ' ROCK OACROPPING - \ APPROVAL OF THIS PLAT CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT PURSUANT / / 6/ f th -19 12\../ ./ 1 1 1 TO ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S., AS AMENDED. 43A \ En ,>,49 j 7yl . N.h:< cl\.\\\,-\ ' 7 /, ,/ / , 7 <ti A . - , / / y . 3.97 ACRES \ <fiÂ· N **y. 0/~F.\, \61 ~ / /// 4 '' . / tti"-12 -L' ~211....] \ Â»/ 1 #.I LEGEND: \44.. 4. .0 f 42 '~ ,~ Â«-7-DRAINAGE 1 L_*2*EMZ==q / ALIQUOT MONUMENTATION 4 -\ 1.41>, Al >9 - EAS MEÂ·NT .1 / '\-Â· 03~20.. r \ 1 J, \ 1.4 4 1 FOUND MONUMENTATION 1 \* le ... 1 \ ~.:<In ~ 690 / LOT \24 . â‚¬./ 1-fâ‚¬19" - 0~" 4 - ; i 41 \\, LA... li \ Â·t 6 r EXISTI 00.00 MEASURED OR CALCULATED DIMENSIONS / EaffROL POINT -- / /-->4 --=----/ I \ \ ; iF ., Wry - - \/ I ---- - <44-f{~1341 \ 0 41 A - 2 42 1 ip''e (00.00) PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS ~ Â»1-1: 4 ... L\'\--,\ \;1~ \CULVER/s FOUND #4 1.10 ACRES REBAR WITH I Of 2 1 ZONED E-1 .- \\ /EX. i , '.. I .. I P/C STAMPED ROCK OUTCROPPINGS I 30' ACCESS AND PLS #9485 E><134 -- :\1-\11 11 j 1 1 UTILITY EASEMEN-S ~ - '~NG -- Â« \ 2 10 1 I--I--I 1 1 -EfffL- DRIVE (RECEPTION#88059350 / \ 4Â» ':14. 1% )\--\ 1 / 1 / 1 21 1 1 . / - -/1/ AND SHOWN ONI REPLAT ,' \\ 1 --\ N \ 8 8 /19\,\1 ------ -.-,- CURRENT BUILDING ENVELOPE / / \\* I . \ N \ 01036,42/ /N/01'48'00" E OF LOT 41) i -%0914[1 #4 1 / REBAE 91TE - 4 24*422/. 41 ~ 18.83' EXISTING TREES (WITH DBH NOTED) 1 1 , LOT P/C STAMPE>- -- \ Al esÂ·Â·s<gl 41 B \\~ \\ <,3 , -C) j j ' 1.18 ACRES PLS #9485 - -I- %\ ACCESS . I / EXISTING SHRUBS 1 1 1 1 1 , ZONED E-1 \- - -BIG HORN --- i j \\49*E\- 11 >\\ \ \ \ 1 / -1 UNxÂ«1' 1 SURVEYOR' S NOTESÂ· 1. WARRANTY DEEDS WITH RECEPTION NUMBERS 20060096310 AND 2001037941 WERE USED FOR OWNERSHIP RESEARCH. PREVIOUS VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING PROJECTS WERE ALSO USED FOR RESEARCH. NO OTHER OWNERSHIP RESEARCH WAS PERFORMED. 2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT ARE BASED ON CONTROL POINT #1 WITH AN ELEVATION OF 7768', ASSUMED FROM TOPOGRAPHIC LINES PROVIDED BY THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. 1 \\ 3. ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE DATE YOU SITE FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE CERTIFICATION DATE SHOWN HEREON. 4. THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ON THE PROPERTY LINES ARE TAKEN FROM A PREVIOUS SURVEY CONDUCTED BY VAN HORN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING DATED: AUGUST 31, 1999, JOB NUMBER 99-01-26. N BEARING STATEMENT: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SUBJECT LOT WHICH BEARS NOO'36'25"E, FOR A DISTANCE OF 434.49', MONUMENTED AT EACH END AS SHOWN BY #4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAPS STAMPED WITH PLS #9485. HAZARD MAPPING NOTEÂ· ACCORDING TO RECENT GIS MAPPING OF THE GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS IN ESTES PARK (PROVIDED BY THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT) THE ~ SUBJECT LOT IS WITHIN A GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREA (ROCKFALL AREA). OWNER: ~EÂ©EDVEJ 41111 IONDERâ‚¬'0 "ENUE (12#r 34 -AB LEÂ«[PIC']-1-1 U i I l/f'~4*~ BRANDON L LARSEN AUG 14 2001 I J 1031 PARKDALE DRIVE VICINITY MAP FAIRVIEW, TX 75069 CELL PHONE: 970-630-2766 SCALE 1"=600' 0 0 SHEET DATE REVISION BY m >O A.. An.-X 08-14-07 NAME CORRECTIONS CML PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE 0 B LARSEN AMENDED PLAT 46*9/*WA'. I 2 6 2 Ibt 46A OF THE FALL RIVER ADDITION 1 1 , V,Ill\Fli 11 1 L -2 'PR'..,Ft- '28%51,30 / '/40 0 . \~ VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING ESTES PARK, COLORADO 1043 FISH CREEK RD. * ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE: (970) 586-9388 * FAX: (970) 586-8101 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ X\\\\\\\\\\ :18 03303HO 00'36'25" E 00Â°36'25" E 1 133HS DRAWN BY: 92-1,0-4002 I , ~ Stone Bridge Estates (DP 07-09) ~ 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: August 21,2007 REOUEST: Approval to build twenty-four 8 - i Lf detached dwelling units on property zoned for multi-family development. .-..% .....- %<*wa,ch / 1-T f ' X-----~2921 y" LOCATION: South of 1043 Fish Creek . 1 U 1 - rn- ' 71 A L Road, within the Town of Estes Park ( access hbur,tain v~ USE Natioral from Fish Creek Road, a county road). M LE'. =- INS APPLICANT: Rock Castle Development m LSFS h (4730 S. College, Fort Collins, CO 80525) RMNP Bandery 1 PROPERTY OWNER: Van Horn Trust (PO Box 456, Estes Park) STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk (dshirk@estes.org, 577-3729) SITE DATA TABLE: Consultant: CMS Planning (Frank Theis, 577-9744) Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (Zach Hanson, 586-9388) Parcel Number: 25311000008 (subject to Development Area: 4.3 acres change upon recordation of Stone Bridge Lot 2: 1.6 subdivision) Lot 3: 2.7 Number of Lots: Two (Lots 2 and 3, proposed Existing Land Use: Undeveloped (proposed Stone Bridge Subdivision) Lot 1 of Stone Bridge Subdivision is developed with the Van Horn Engineering office building) Proposed Land Use: Detached multi-family Existing Zoning: "RM" Multi-Family dwelling Adjacent Zoning- East: "RE" Rural Estate North: "CO" Commercial Outlying West: "CO" Commercial Outlying South: "CO" Commercial Outlying Adjacent Land Uses- East: Single-family North: Institutional (18-hole golf course) ' I West: Institutional (18-hole golf course) South: Institutional (18-hole golf course) Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request to develop 4.3 acres of "RM" zoned land with twenty-four detached multi-family dwelling units. The applicant intends to subdivide these into condominium ownership. Development Plan. This development plan review includes Lots 2 and 3 as a single development plan. Each lot was reviewed for individual compliance with density, floor area ratio, parking, setback, landscaping, open space, and impervious coverage requirements. Subdivision Plat/Rezoning. The land is in the process of being subdivided from a larger parcel into three lots, two of which are included in this development plan proposal. The third lot is where the Van Horn Engineering office is located, and is not part of this development plan proposal. The preliminary plat has been approved by the Planning Commission, but has yet to be scheduled for Town Board hearing. Staff expects the applicant to submit a final plat in September, which will allow both the preliminary and final plats to be heard by the Town Board in late October. A condition of approval for the preliminary plat was to receive a road right-of-way width waiver from the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, which has been conditionally approved. The applicant proposes to also rezone the Van Horn Engineering lot from "RM" Multi-Family to "0" Office. Property History. The Van Horn Engineering office building was originally constructed when the property was in the county. The February 1958 Fish Creek Planning Area designated this as estate-zoned land. The property was annexed to the Town of Estes Park as part of the May 1958 "Community Addition" and was zoned for commercial use with the first town zoning ordinance in 1961. The 2000 valley-wide rezoning rezoned this property to restrict its uses to those allowed in the "RM" Multi-Family district. Maps. -Aerlal photo included at the end of this report. REVIEW CRITERIA: This development plan is subject to applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may Page #2 - Stone Bridge Estates, Development Plan 07-09 involve a more detailed analysis of the standards, based upon issues relevant to any particular project. Zoning Requirements. Land Use. The proposed detached multi-family dwellings are an allowed land use within the "RM" zone district. Density. The proposed density is 6 units per acre (24 units into 3.989 net acres), whereas the "RM" district has a maximum density of 8 units per acre. Therefore, this proposal meets density requirements. Lot 2 allowed units equal eleven (11.4), where ten are proposed. Lot 3 allowed units equal twenty (20.5), where fourteen are proposed. Total allowed units equal thirty-two units, where twenty-four are proposed. Flood Plain. The applicant has applied for a correction to the FEMA floodplain maps. The corrected floodplain, if approved by FEMA, does not extend beyond the creek' s main channel. Approval of this development plan must be contingent upon FEMA approval of this proposed map correction. Review is expected to be completed by mid- October. Impervious Coverage. The "RM" district has a maximum impervious coverage of 50%, the proposed overall 39.1% complies with this requirement. Lot 2: 42.3 % Lot 3: 37.3% Total: 39.1% Impervious coverage will be verified with the required as-built plans. Floor Area Ratio. The "RM" district has a maximum floor area ratio of .30, with which this proposal complies. Lot 2 has a proposed FAR of.27, and Lot 3 has a proposed FAR of .22. This will be tracked throughout the construction process, and verified with the final as-built plans. Building Height. All proposed units will meet maximum building height requirements, and will be verified by a registered land surveyor. Each structure will be one level on the street frontage side, with a walk-out basement on the creek side. Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements. Table 4-8 requires provision for pedestrian linkages. Sidewalks will be provided to each unit. Due to the existing hike/bike path along Fish Creek, no sidewalk will be required along Fish Creek Road. However, a pedestrian trail should be designed from the Fish Creek trail to this proposal. Page #3 - Stone Bridge Estates, Development Plan 07-09 Setbacks. This proposal complies with required setbacks, as follows: Required Proposed Front/Street: 15 feet 15 to 70 feet North and South side lot lines: 10 feet 11 to 60 feet Stream setback: 30 feet 30 feet These setbacks will be verified during the construction process with certificates from registered surveyors. 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 complies with applicable policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. These include land use consistent with existing zoning; certain community design policies such as building facades, signage and exterior lighting; and certain scenic and environmental quality policies such as minimization of development impact on riparian corridors. Grading and Site Disturbance. Section 7.2.D requires the Decision Making Body approve proposed Limits of Disturbance for all development plans. This section includes criteria for establishing Limits of Disturbance. It is Staffs opinion that criteria set forth in Section 7.2.D do not apply to this particular site due to the absence of mature trees, rock outcroppings or other similar features, and because the applicant proposes to enhance the existing riparian corridor. All disturbed areas will need to be restored in accordance with Section 7.2.C "Restoration of Disturbed Areas." Man-made slopes exceeding 25% should be graphically delineated on the plan, and specific reseeding plans noted (i.e. vegetation, erosion control mats). Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection. This proposal calls for the removal of a small disconnected portion of wetlands, which will require a permit from the Corps of Engineers. The applicant proposes to replace this with wetland enhancement along Fish Creek. Furthermore, the applicant proposes significant riparian corridor enhancement through bank stabilization and wetland enhancement, as outlined in the Wetland Creation Plan. This proposal complies with required 30-foot stream corridor setbacks. Page #4 - Stone Bridge Estates, Development Plan 07-09 Landscaping and Buffers. The required L-21-=i- landscaping needs to be graphically delineated Â· U j-3 in the landscaping legend. '-2-' L.1'1 f.' The landscape plan does not include specific district buffer landscaping. Staff suggests the I | -*-7-1 proposed "typical unit" landscaping 9 accomplishes this objective, and recommends ~ I Â· 1==t- r.un : g, the planning commission accept the proposed 4 1 111 ... C li landscaping plan, with the requirement that 'A - - ~:-E i '- .-0,4.. p i AME each unit shall be landscaped as delineated in : ii i -~.L~JÂ·.Â· 4'~~ Â·--Â·c n 1 / the architectural concept drawings. 1 2 AUâ‚¬Â·" C 1 1 1 Section 7.5.C2 authorizes the planning 0-11 + i commission to make such approvals. X .4 .62-h fl i i < 9 ) Wildlife Habitat Protection. The applicant Â·. i: ~ ftÂ·.Â·/fÂ·, t~ has met with the Colorado Division of Wildlife Elf %21 \ to determine elk migration patterns through this property, and has designed the site to allow elk migration (retaining wall design, building - location, fencing). Trash. Because curbside pickup is proposed5 the future condominium declarations should include provisions to keep trash inside until the morning of pick-up. Fence. The Division of Wildlife will need to approve the fence design to ensure it will not pose a hazard to wildlife. A note should be placed on the development plan stating "This site is within an identified wildlife habitat. All development shall comply with Wildlife Protection Standards outlined in the Estes Valley Development Code. This includes future buildings and/or fences." Exterior Lighting. The proposed development will be subject to lighting standards set forth in Section 7.9, which requires exterior lighting be shielded and downeast. No lighting fixture shall be higher than fifteen feet above ground. 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-three parking stalls; sixty-six will be provided. Of these, eighteen will be guest parking spaces and forty-eight will be in garages. The parking requirements outlined on sheet one should be updated to reflect design changes regarding required and provided parking (plan sheet states 48 are required and 62 are provided, whereas 53 are required and 66 are provided). Page #5 - Stone Bridge Estates, Development Plan 07-09 Units 1075, 1095, 11055 1107, and 1157, 1185 do not have adequate driveway depth to accommodate parking, and should therefore be restricted. This should be addressed with the future condominium covenants and declarations. A "hammerhead" should be designed for Units 1125 and 1117, and should be marked with a "no parking" sign. The "hammerhead" turn-around near units 1067 and 1075 should be marked with a "no parking" sign. 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. Electric. All electric service is to be placed underground. This proposal will remove three existing overhead road crossings. 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 proposed erosion control plan must be fully implemented prior to any site excavation, and must be maintained until successfully revegetated. Sanitary Sewer. An 8" main will be extended from the southern portion of the development north to a point near the existing Van Horn Engineering office, where it will connect to an existing main that flows along the western edge of Fish Creek Road. The purpose of this parallel main is to provide gravity flow sanitary sewer. Water. A water main extension will be required. The nearest main is located near the north end o f the Creekside subdivision. This main extension will terminate near Van Horn Engineering, with a fire hydrant. Service lines will extend from this main, and provide adequate domestic and fire flow. There is an existing water service line that crosses this property to provide service to approximately a dozen homes on the east side of Fish Creek Road. The applicant proposes to leave this line in place and provide a twenty-foot-wide easement. Fire Protection. The submitted ISO calculations indicate adequate fire flow is available. Three new hydrants are proposed; one on Lot 2 and two on Lot 3. Per Section 7.12.G, all required fire protection requirements shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit. Page #6 - Stone Bridge Estates, Development Plan 07-09 REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Neighborhood Comments. The Stone Bridge proposal as a whole has generated numerous neighborhood concerns, ranging from potential traffic issues to wetlands preservation to elk migration corridor concerns. Below is a list of neighbors that have provided written comments regarding any of the processes (subdivision, right- of-way waiver, or development plan), their address, and a summary o f their primary concerns. Most of these letters were written several months ago, before the development plan was submitted for review, and were directed to the subdivision and right-of-way waiver request. Several of the concerns expressed have, in Staff's opinion, been addressed with the development plan. These are not listed in any particular order. 1. Dale and Diane Beck, 1635 Powelly Lane: Density, elk, water line. 2. Raymond and Sally Allen, 820 Fish Creek Road: Block views from Fish Creek Road, elk, floodplain, too many condos. 3. Matt and Ruby Lynett, 894 Fish Creek Road: habitat loss, traffic, floodplain, density, views (roofs instead ofwetlands, trees, and streams). 4. Paula Edwards, 1020 Acacia Drive: loss of habitat, developers changing rule, 'invasion' ofdevelopment. 5. John Poulos, 1805 Powelly Lane: decrease in setbacks (variance never applied for), zoning, and another "great wall" along Fish Creek Road. 6. Robert and Myla Bernhard, 1650 Powelly Lane: impact on landscape and Valley, Fish Creek Road is key attraction to Estes Park, increase in speeding vehicles and congestion, private water line (son Fred also wrote, expressing similar concerns). 7. David Diggs and Mari Hirata, 1770 Powelly Lane: opposed to ROW waiver, location of access points in relation to Powelly Lane, concern that FEMA submittal not an independent consultant, lighting concerns (request to not require street lighting), high density zoning near single-family. 8. Karen Edwards, 1020 Acacia Drive: additional developments risk loss of quality to Estes Park, request to deny, riparian area compromised and result in lost wetlands. floodplain. 9. Enda Mills Kiley, 1901 Ptarmigan Trail: loss of wetlands, visual impact from trail, loss of scenery, opposed to ROW waiver, environmental destruction. 10. Kathleen Cannon, 1110 Fish Creek road: floodplain, any development on Fish Creek Road is "inappropriate" and "ridiculous," issues with existing office building, traffic increase, water line (Henry Canon also provided a letter with similar concerns). 11. Bob and Laura Trump, 830 Fish Creek Road: extreme concentration of condos, traffic hazard, reduction of building setbacks, water line, environmental impact on Fish Creek, impact on trail users. 12. John and Patti Watson, 1740 Powelly Lane: density out of character, opposition to variances never applied for, traffic. Page #7 - Stone Bridge Estates, Development Plan 07-09 13. Judith Saurino, 890 Fish Creek Road: impact of development on creek habitat, opposition to ROW wavier due to safety reasons, environmental and aesthetic 1SSUeS. 14. William and Marguerite Paynter, 810 Fish Creek Road (and an adjacent undeveloped parcel): floodplain, high density out of character with single- family neighborhood, views, traffic, water line. 15. Fred Held, 1710 Powelly Lane: high density, views, traffic, access. Public Fforks has requested the final drainage study/easements and final construction plans must be approved prior to issuance of permits. Light and Power/Water. The Light and Power and Water Departments had a variety o f comments which have been included as suggested conditions o f approval. Staff recommends the comment regarding streetlights be waived. The Estes Valley Development Code requires street lights with new subdivisions, but does not address drive entries. It is Staff's opinion the proposed entry columns will provide adequate visual definition of driveway access points. Town Attorney +Fhite had comments regarding the nonconformity of the Van Horn Engineering office building, wetlands restoration, and vesting period. Mr. White noted that only the Town Board may extend the vesting period. This request can be heard by the Town Board at the same time as the preliminary plat. Staff recommends the following note be placed on the development plan: "Any future expansion or change of use of the Van Horn Engineering office building (1043 Fish Creek Road) shall require construction of a parking lot that satisfies requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code, and shall require removal of and revegetation of the existing parking area located on the east side of Fish Creek Road." Building Department. The Building Department provided a Development Plan Review Checklist. The Applicant should contact Will Birchfield (577-3728) to discuss building issues such as grading and building permit requirements. Larimer County Engineering has approved the access plan, with certain conditions. Upper Thompson Sanitation District had comments regarding the need for a pre- construction meeting, construction documents, and man-hole spacing. Estes Valley Recreation anc Park District had comments regarding elk movement, notification of replacement of electric lines, and a standard waiver of liability for errant golf shots. Development Agreement. The Town and the applicant are in the process of formalizing an agreement regarding the "Creek Enhancement and Wetland Creation Plan." This agreement will outline Fish Creek restoration responsibilities, the Page #8 - Stone Bridge Estates, Development Plan 07-09 proposed bridge, and associated easements. This agreement will be reviewed by the Public Works Committee prior to final review by the Town Board. 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." Construction Plans. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Town of Estes Park, UTSD, and Larimer County Engineering prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or first building permit. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 1. The applicant is aware approval of the development plan requires approval of the proposed FEMA floodplain correction, and has opted to present this plan to the Planning Commission with this assumption and risk. 2. The application for floodplain correction has been submitted for FEMA review, which Staff expects to be completed mid to late October (assuming no delays). 3. Pursuant to Section 7.5.C2, the planning commission has determined the proposed landscaping plan satisfies the purpose and intent of the landscaping requirements. 4. The applicant should carefully review the Staff report, which contains several references to Code requirements. Failure to satisfy these requirements could lead to a delay in issuance ofbuilding permits or certificates of occupancy. 5. If all recommended conditions of approval are met, the development plan will comply with density and setback standards, and all other applicable standards set forth in this Code. 6. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 7. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 8. The Town Board must approve the proposed subdivision, rezoning (Lot 1 from "RM" to "0"), vesting period extension, and development agreement. These items have been tentatively scheduled for review on October 23,2007. 9. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making body for the development plan. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed "Stone Bridge Estates" Development Plan 07-09 CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Approval and recordation of Stone Bridge subdivision. 2. Approval of this development plan shall be contingent upon FEMA approval o f the proposed map correction. Page #9 - Stone Bridge Estates, Development Plan 07-09 3. Access and right-of-way permits fi-om Larimer County shall be required prior to issuance of the first building permit for each lot. 4. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Town of Estes Park, UTSD, and Larimer County Engineering prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or , first building permit. 5. Full Implementation of the "Creek Enhancement and Wetland Creation Plan for the Stone Bridge Property (Tiglas Feb. 2007)." Final version of this plan shall be subject to review and approval of Town staff, and shall include details regarding specific plant species and location. 6. A registered land surveyor shall provide a stamped certificate verifying location and height for each structure. The form of this certificate shall be determined by the Chief Building Official or designee. 7. Each unit shall be landscaped in accordance with the typical unit landscaping delineated in the staff report. Staff shall be authorized to grant minor changes to unit landscaping in terms ofplant type to encourage species mix. 8. Compliance with memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated June 21,2007, regarding this project. 9. Compliance with memo from Larimer County Engineering dated August 8, 2007, regarding this project. 10. Neither the Town of Estes Park or the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District shall be liable for any damage or risk associated with the golf course. Future condominiumization shall require the standard waiver of liability for errant golf balls be included in the condominium declarations. 11. Future condominium declarations shall include provisions to keep trash inside until the morning of pick-up; and, shall prohibit parking in front of units 1075, 1095,1105,1107,1157, and1185. 12. The Division of Wildlife shall approve the fence design prior to construction of such fence. 13. A development agreement between the Developer and the Town regarding "Creek Enhancement and Wetland Creation Plan" shall be finalized prior to issuance of first building permit. 14. Streetlights shall be removed from plan 15. The following note shall be placed on the development plan: "Any future expansion or change of use of the Van Horn Engineering office building (1043 Fish Creek Road) shall require construction of a parking lot that satisfies requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code, and shall require removal of and revegetation of the existing parking area located on the east side of Fish Creek Road." 16. A pedestrian trail shall be designed from the Fish Creek trail to serve both lots of this proposal. Design shall be subject to review and approval of staff. 17. Man-made slopes exceeding 25% shall be graphically delineated on the plan, and specific reseeding plans noted (i.e. vegetation, erosion control mats). 18. A note shall be placed on the development plan stating "This site is within an identified wildlife habitat. All development shall comply with Wildlife Page #10 - Stone Bridge Estates, Development Plan 07-09 Protection Standards outlined iii the Estes Valley Development Code. This includes future buildings and/or fences." 19. A "hammerhead" shall be designed for Units 1125 and 1117, and shall be marked with a "no parking" sign. The "hammerhead" turn-around near units 1067 and 1075 should be marked with a "no parking" sign. 20. The required landscaping shall be graphically delineated in the landscaping legend. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of Development Plan 07-09 "Stone Bridge Estates" with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and to recommend approval of a one-year vesting period extension to the Town Board (to allow a four-year vesting period). DENIAL: I move DISAPPROVAL of Development Plan 07-09 because... (state reasonfor denial -findings). CONTINUANCE: I move to continue Development Plan 07-09 because ... (state reason for continuance - findings). Page #11 - Stone Bridge Estates, Development Plan 07-09 .Ii 1- at.fTIG~ : . 1.. . ./ '19. 3 ~~4 r 4 - . b 'Nk* â€¢0/. T Al. 4 I .: 7. ... 7 e + 4 4 6 .9 * I. 3% a &4 ....a '.)4 0 42%.12 . i 11 - *98=e I - 1%- :Â» .8 ............/.**. ,/,p .6,- I .. 44*.Gd? -2 0-Â·. S i. 20 Â· 0*6 = - ..e. 1,3.-A: 4' 31"II4ZVIEA 4 , . .r 7 1:F- r-- '47. 1 A~lillillziillillip 4/Admig<igilillu A.ir .. ..... . Â· A A - .. p ./ - Ir -6 Ii.,# . 1 . , . . -- ..4.lili - .. i ~ N.6/ 1 ..6.7 . < I 965 51:Me""66,- r - .4,4 . , ./., .: 1 -411Â£~ : A i. 4.-7 . .. . 1 .1-211 i 11 1 - Â·:Â·I Â·2964- .i '~i' , ~i; i~, ~,1~~i~jU :*PAÂ· . J 4 + 07-- 1 - v ..1 1. 1 1111,1, 1%1 164 1 .': 4 I t.. â€¢ 1 i 11 1 .t 4.40 1 04 - 11 1 ly } ili 1,1, , 12 1 .1 I. 1 14. A lilli-. t ..~~ ~~. f t:Le % r Q. 64 11, 1 1, a. e.. ueld JueludoleAea se,eisa eSP!,g euois Dave Shirk im: Scott Zurn nt: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:02 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: RE: stone bridge Dave, I do want to include meeting all of Larimer Counties requirements, updated drainage studies and related easements, HOA maintenance of drainage areas and public areas ie Fish creek, and final approved detailed construction plans need to be approved. Thats all I can think of Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Dave Shirk Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:31 AM To: Scott Zurn Subject: stone bridge Hello Scott- I need to finalize the Stone Bridge report today (before 3): Do you have any comments you'd like included as conditions of approval? I've got the FEMA approval included, and I am including a requirement for a Development Construction Permit (because of connection to county road). Anything else? -dave 1 Dave Shirk From: Scott Zurn Sent: Friday, June 29,2007 2:14 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: RE: stone bridge estates condos Dave, I cannot support this application to go before the commission for approval until the LOMR is approved. I know that this item is not complete. This application needs to be signed by me to be forwarded to FEMA for review and approval. 1 have notified Mr. Spooner that I have questions regarding his study a suggested relocated boundary. There are to many issues on this property that are dependent on this relocated floodplain. Also the applicant has not suffiently answered our last group of questions that were identified. Please advise if you need more> Thanks Scott -----Original Message----- From: Dave Shirk Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 1:15 PM To: Scott Zurn Subject: stone bridge estates condos Hi Scott- I need written comments regarding the stone bridge estates condominiums as soon as possible. These need to be specific to this project, and outline what your requirements for approval will be. If you request this be pushed a month to allow for revisions, please put that in writing for the planning commission to consider. I am sending my draft staff report to Van Horn Engineering later today, and they will then have about a week to make changes before going to planning commission. Thanks. -dave 1 Memo To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 06-18-07 Re: Stone Bridge Estates Development Plan, approximately 1043 Fish Creek Road The Light and Power Department and Water Departments have reviewed the Application for Multi-Family Development Plan for the above referenced property and have the following comments: Light and Power Department 1) Developer to install all trenches & conduits, all materials, truck hours and mileage will be purchased from & installed by Town of Estes Park. 2) No building permits will be approved by Light & Power until the entire Electric infrastructure has been paid for and installed. 3) We will in the future need accurate As-Builts in electronic, Mylar, and paper versions. 4) The submitted plan needs to show all existing utilities, type, and location. 5) Easements need to accompany new lot lines in new proposed locations. 6) Easements also need to accompany all existing primary electric lines and any secondary electric on others propetty. 7) The vacation of an easement is allowable if it is presently vacant with no chance of being occupied in the future. 8) Any relocation or upgrade of existing facilities will be accomplished at the project owners request and expense. 9) 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. 10)All primary electric must be buried 4' deep in a 6" conduit with warning tape at 2'. All secondary must be buried 2' deep with warning tape at l' in the appropriately sized conduit for the conductor. The primary for this particular project is 750mcm. 11) The estimated cost of U. G. electrical infra-structure is $75,000. We will need to meet with the developer to determine exact cost and location of proposed facilities. 12) Streetlights will need to be placed at all driveway entrances. 1 13) Submit plans from the project electrical engineer for Town review and approval. 14) We will need to know the size of each individual service, type of heat and whether or not air conditioning is being proposed. Water Department 1) The construction phasing of the infrastructure must be noted for beginning/ending points of each phase on the construction plans submitted for approval. Phased infrastructure must be completed and accepted prior to issuance of any building permits within the phase. 2) Abandonment of the existing Fish Creek Association's 2" line crossing the property will be required at the starting connection point located on the Golf Course property near the maintenance building. â€¢ Page 2 GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 -oveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 June 19, 2007 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PAR.K, CO 80517 Re: Application - Stone Bridge Estates Development Plan Dear Mr. Shirk: I have the following comments: 1. A Note should be placed on the Development Plan stating that the approval of the Development Plan does not change the noncornforming status of the Van Horn Engineering Office which is located within the thirty-foot creek setback. 2. The Development Plan indicates that the Applicant has agreed to stabilize the creek banks including the Town side of the creek and re-establish natural plant communities and wildlife habitat. This Agreement should be reduced to writing and approved as part of the approval of the Development Plan. 3. The Development Plan requests a vesting pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24 C.R.S. for a period greater than three years. Extension of a vesting period for greater than three years may only be granted by an action of the Town Board approving the extended vesting period. Section 24-68-104 (2) C.R.S. If you have any questions, please et(~ not hesitate to give me a call. yery\cruly,Yours, A 0 I y.. / f' r v ~A 1 Â£ U L,uÂ»~u'' 0- 2 i Gre ry A. White G AW Ildi t f CC: Frank Theis Fax: 970/577-9744/ MEMORANDUM To: Dave Shirk, Planner II From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official I)ate: June 20,2007 Subject: Stone Bridge Estates Development Plan Lots 2 and 3, Stone Bridge Subdivision Approximately I043 Fish Creek Road The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the application in regards to a multi-family development plan for the above referenced property. Please see attached Development Plan Review Checklist for comments. Review Date: 6/20/2007 Review By: Will Birchfield DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST Stone Bridge Estates Development Plan U Official street names and addresses shall be assigned by the Department of Building Safety. U Condominiums must submit (to the Department of Building Safety) any address changes before the preliminary condominium map is approved. Process fees will be assessed unless the address change is included with the original building permit application. U 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 the foundation. U Floodplain Development permits are required for any and all activity in the floodplain. U A detailed Code Analysis by a Colorado Design Professional is required. U A detailed site plan is required and shall include utility locations, setbacks, contours, drainage, landscaping, access, easements, etc. U A grading and drainage plan shall be designed by a Colorado Design Professional and shall bear the appropriate wet stamps. 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) 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. C] 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. U The foundation systems, including mitigation of potential water problems shall be designed by a Colorado Design Professional and shall bear the appropriate wet stamps. El Foundation setback and elevation certificates shall be provided by a Colorado design Professional, and shall bear the appropriate wet stamps. \\Servera\comm_dev\Building\REVIEWS\Dev Plan Reviews\Development Plan Review- Stone Bridge Estates.doc Revised 10/17/2006- CB U A construction traffic plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works and Police Departments prior to obstructing or interfering with any vehicular traffic on public right-of-ways. El A pedestrian protection plan is required and shall be approved by the Building Department prior to any construction activity obstructing the pedestrian path. U A pedestrian protection plan is required and shall be approved by the Building Department prior to any construction activity obstructing pedestrian paths. U 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)? Accessibility compliance can not be reviewed unless all proposed uses are specified. An accessibility implementation plan may be required. U 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 the accessibility requirements of the 2003 IBC, Chapter 11. Detailed accessibility specs are required. U Compliance with the accessibility requirements of CRS 9-5 is required, and includes an implementation plan prior to issuance of any building permits. El Minimum one hour fire-resistance-rated construction is required between all dwelling units. U All appendages, such as decks and roofs must be shown on the plans, including building footprint details and construction details. El Building permits are required prior to any construction. U A Building permit is required for temporary construction office trailers. U A Building permit is required for fences over six feet in height. El Sign permits are required and are separate from building permits. U Signs must be 8 feet from property line, only 1 free standing sign per street frontage as per EPMC 17.66.110(2), and drive visibility as per EVDC Appendix D, IV. U All requirements of the approved development plan shall be conditions of any and all permits related to this development, now and in the future. El All requirements of approved variances shall be conditions of any and all permits related to this development, now and in the future. \\Servera\comm_dev\Building\REVIEWS\Dev Plan Reviews\Development Plan Review- Stone Bridge Estates.doc Revised 9/19/2006- CB 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. El A pre-construction meeting with Town staff and construction contractors is required prior to issuance of building permits. U Approval of a Condominium Map is not an approval to change the use from short term (less than 30 days) to long term'(greater than thirty days) and vice versa. Such change of use requires approval of the Chief Building Official, which will entail on site inspections and possibly life-safety improvements. \\Servera\comm_dev\Building\REVIEWS\Dev Plan Reviews\Development Plan Review- Stone Bridge Estates.doc Revised 9/19/2006- CB ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LARIMER ~COUNTY Post Office Box 1190 - (970) 498-570 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 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 DATE: August 8,2007 SUBJECT: Stonebridge Subdivision - Town of Estes Referral Improvements to the Fish Creek Road Public Right-of-way Proiect Description/Background: This is a subdivision plat within the Town limits to subdivide a 4.9-acre parcel into 3 lots. Lot 1 will be at the north end ofthe property and will include the exikting building which houses Van Horn Engineering. Lot 2 and Lot 3 will be developed as a 24 unit residential condominium project. 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. Comments: Since the property is within the town limits and therefore under the Towns jurisdiction, the county engineering department will only provide comments regarding the improvements within the Fish Creek road right-of-way. â€¢ The County Engineering Department does not have any issue with omitting the curb and gutter along the south side of Fish Creek Road as long as there is an adequate alternative conveyance for the roadside drainage that is outside ofthe road right-of-way. If the curb is omitted, we will require the side slope off of the edge of shoulder to be at no more than 4:1. We would recommend that the proposed alternative drainage system is within a drainage easement. The language in the development agreement, and/or other applicable documents, should clearly state that the H.O.A. is required to maintain the drainage easements and drainage systems that covey the roadside drainage to Fish Creek. â€¢ The plan that was submitted does not account for the 6 foot paved shoulder on the west side of Fish Creek Road that was agreed to in the public hearing appeal process. Therefore, a revised plan is needed that includes the proposed edge of asphalt extended west by 6 feet. The road base shall be shown on the cross-section and the plan view to extend 4-6 inches beyond that asphalt edge to support the pavement. â€¢ Detailed construction plans for all improvements in the Fish Creek right-of-way will need to be submitted for review. Chapter 3 of the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards specifies all of the information that is required on these plans. Chapter 4, which discusses Road Design, shall __COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE also be referenced. The pavement design for the additional asphalt will need to be included with this detailed information. â€¢ An exhibit showing the turning movements at the southern access point was submitted for review. The exhibit indicates that the access will function satisfactorily as long as vehicles are not parked at the garage face at Units 1105,1107 and 111. In consideration of this issue, the site has been redesigned to include extra shared parking spaces near these units with a "No Parking" designation at the units. To emphasize that parking is prohibited at these areas, the area needs to be marked as such with red paint and signage. These details need to be included in the plan set. In addition, the development agreement and any other applicable documents should specifically state all units that are prohibited from parking at the face of their garage. Our department is hopeful that these efforts will adequately discourage parking at these areas. â€¢ The new access points and utility work within the Fish Creek Road right-of-way will require both an Access permit and Right-of-way Construction Permit from this office. Access and Permit information can be obtained by contacting Marc Lyons, Access & Utility Permit Coordinator, at (970) 498-5709. â€¢ It should be noted that the proposed access points and internal streets are designed for a typical delivery truck and not for emergency vehicles. We would recommend that the emergency service providers have the opportunity to comment on the final design to confirm that it will meet their needs. â€¢ A note needs to be on the Landscape Sheets of the plan set that states "No landscaping, fencing, subdivision monument signs or any other private infrastructure is permitted in the County right- of-way". Recommendation: The Larimer County Engineering Department will require the above comments to be addressed prior to issuance of a County Access or Right-of-Way Construction Permit for work within the right-of-way of Fish Creek Road. 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: Scott Zurn, Town of Estes Park Public Works Director Marc Lyons, Larimer County Access and Utility Permit Coordinator Van Horn Engineering 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park, CO 80517 Frank Theiss, PO BOX 416, Estes Park CO 80517 reading file file H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Referrals\CITIES\Estes\Stonebridge Subdivison\Stonebridge Subdivision 3.doc LAR.IMER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT *ACOUNTY Post Office Box 1190 FAX (970) 498-798 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Shirk, Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 FROM: Traci Downs, Development Services Engineer 71) DATE: June 22,2007 SUBJECT: Stonebridge Subdivision - Town of Estes Referral Improvements to the Fish Creek Road Public Right-of-way Proiect Description/Background: This is a subdivision plat within the Town limits to subdivide a 4.9-acre parcel into 3 lots. Lot 1 will be at the north end of the property and will include the existing building which houses Van Horn Engineering. Lot 2 and Lot 3 will be developed as a 24 unit residential condominium project. 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. Comments: Since the property is within the town limits and therefore under the Towns jurisdiction, the county engineering department will only provide comments regarding the improvements within the Fish Creek road right-of-way. â€¢ Larimer County classifies Fish Creek Road as a Major Collector Roadway and therefore, the developer shall be required to widen their half of the road along their project frontage to include a 12 foot paved travel lane and a 6 foot paved shoulder. The total width of the asphalt will need to be 30 feet. The plan that was submitted does not account for the 6 foot paved shoulder that was agreed to in the public hearing appeal process and therefore, a revised plan is needed that includes the proposed shifted west by 6 feet. â€¢ Detailed construction plans for all improvements in the Fish Creek right-of-way will need to be submitted for review. Chapter 3 of the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards specifies all of the information that is required on these plans. Chapter 4, which discusses Road Design, shall also be referenced. â€¢ An exhibit showing the turning movements at the access points needs to be submitted for review. A typical delivery truck should be able to maneuver into and out of the site. The analysis should take into account the proper location of the curb, which is 6 feet west of what is shown on the submitted plan. In addition, the analysis needs to account for a vehicle sitting at the access waiting to exit. Based on the submitted plan, it appears that the southern access will function properly; however, this does not appear to be the case for the northern access. The analysis of the northern access will need to account for a car parked at the front of the garage of unit 1107 and LC-OMMITTEDTO-EXCELLENCE 1115 since it is very common for residents to park out side of their garage. As designed, cars parked at these units will obstruct the vehicle movement in and out of the access. â€¢ Per Section 4.9 of the LCRARS, the profile grade of the access can not exceed 3% within the right-of-way. The northern access pxceeds this requirement. â€¢ No landscaping, fencing, subdivision monument signs or any other private infrastructure is permitted in the County right-of-way. This note should be on the plan set and in the development agreement. Any exiting fences need to be moved out of the right-of-way and noted on the plans a such. â€¢ Any work within the Fish Creek Road right-of-way will require a Right-of-way Permit from this office. Access information and permits can be obtained by contacting Marc Lyons, Access & Utility Permit Coordinator, at (970) 498-5709. Recommendation: The Larimer County Engineering Department will require the above comments to be addressed prior to issuance of a County Right-of-way Permit for work within the right-of-way of Fish Creek Road. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5701 or e-mail at tdowns @larimer.org if you have any questions. Thank you. ce: Marc Lyons, Larimer County Access and Utility permit coordinator 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 2.doc Jun. 22. 2007 8:48AM No. 0886 P Upper Thompson Sanitation District PO Box 568 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-4544 June 21, 2007 Dave Shitk/Planner II Town o f Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Ref: Stone Bridge Estates Development Plan Lots 2 and 3, Stone Bridge Subdivision 1043 Fish Creek Road Dear Dave, The District has reviewed the design plane for the Stonebridge Subdivision. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District being a sepatate entity from the town has a number of specific requirements before you proceed: 1) We will need to receive a letter of intent for the construction you intend to perform. 2) Proposed construction dtawings with a 2 foot contoui inteival and signed by a licensed engineer. 3) We need to have a preconstruction meeting before construction begins. This meeting will need to include the owners the engineer and the contractor. 4) We would like to see the endof-line manhole extended further to the south, not to exceed 400 feet between manholes, the balance using an 8 inch service stub 80 that the service lines can be connected directly to the UTSD sewer system, Thank you for your time, If you have any questions I can be reached at the above address. Sincerely, f Reed W, Smetltey Lines Supefintendent Upper Thompson Sanitation District CC Frank Theis PO Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 FAX: 970-577-9744 Zack / Van Horn Engineering FAX: 970-586-8101 /13*-h 4.-2 2 -Itte.:*A ESTES VALLEY RECREATION and PARK DISTRICT June 22,2007 iÂ©l Dave Shirk, Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Stone Bridge Estates Development Plan Dear Dave: Thank you for allowing us to comment on Stone Bridge Estates Development Plan. We only have a few comments on the plan. â€¢ This is a major wildlife corridor to the golf course. Elk enter the golf course all along the eastern border. The traffiEpattern will be impacted by the development plan, although I couldn't predict the new route. â€¢ There should be the standard waiver of liability for errant golf shots similar to other developments that have occurred on property adjacent to the golf course (copy attached). This property is not likely going to be hit by golf shots, but the waiver would be a good addition to the development plan. â€¢ We see the electrical service line from the west will be moved underground through the development. That overhead line crosses the golf course as well, and we may want to join the contractor to place our line underground on the golf course at the same time. We request that the developer contact us when that work is done so we can evaluate the cost ofputting our lines underground as well. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 1,n 59#nuffu~*5 Stanley C. Gengler v CC: Frank Theis P.O. Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 RO.Box 1379, 690 Big Thompson Avenue email: evrpd@aol.com 970.586.8191 Estes Park, CO 80517 www, estesvalleyrecreation.corn Fax 970,586,8193 11~ ....... 2.7, Standard waiver of liability for errant golf shots: The purchase of a Condominium Unit in the Project is deemed an acknowledgement by the Buyer that the Condominium Unit is located adjacent to a golf course and therefore the Buyer (and on behalf of each resident or occupant of such Condominium Unit) recognizes and assumes the risks of purchasing a Condominium Unit adjacent to a golf course. Such potential risks include without limitation, personal injury and/or property damage arising from or out ofthe operation, maintenance or use ofthe golfcourse, noise associated with the golf course, errant golf balls, and potential intentional or negligent acts or omissions of persons using the golf course. Purchase ofa Condominium Unit constitutes a waiver and,release by Buyer, for him/herself and the residents and their invitees of the Condominium Unit, of any claim or demand against (i) the owners and/or operator of the golf course (presently the Town ofEstes Park and the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District); (ii) the Seller as Seller and Declarant of the Condominium Project, and any of its members, managers, officers, directors, employees or agents, and their respective heirs, successors and assigns; (iii) the builder, Rainbow Lake Investments, LLC, and any of its members, managers, officers, directors, employees, or agents, and their respective heirs, successors and assigns; (iv) the Elk Ridge Condominium Association, Inc., and its successors and assigns, for any personal injury, death, or property arising from or on account of the design, construction, operation, maintenance or use ofthe golfcourse. This waiver and release shall only be effective as against the parties specified above, and the Buyer reserves the right to assert any action for personal injury, death, or property damage arising from or on account of acts caused by patrons ofthe golfcourse. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BOULEVARD LITTLETON, COLORADO 80128-6901 _ June 20,2007 Mr. Dave Shirk Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Stone Bridge Estates Development Plan, Lots 2 and 3, Stone Bridge Subdivision Corps File No. 200680292 Dear Mr. Shirk: Reference is made to the above-mentioned project located in the NE !4 of Section 31 and the NW 91 of Section 32, T5N, R72W, Larimer County, Colorado. If any work associated with this project requires the placement of dredged or fill material, and any excavation associated with a dredged or fill project, either temporary or permanent, in a stream bed or wetland, this office should be notified by a proponent of the project for Department of the Army permits or changes in permit requirements pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Please see the enclosed list of environmental consultants that may help with a delineation and mapping of waters of the U.S. Work in a stream bed or wetland should be shown on a map identifying the Quarter Section, Township, Range and County o f the work and the dimensions of work in each area. Any loss of stream bed or wetland may require mitigation. Mitigation requirements will be determined during the Department of the Army permitting review. If there are any questions call Mr. Terry McKee of my office at 303-979-4120 and reference Corps File No. 200680292. Sincerely, ~ -y92Â£~-0;1~ 441 ZiÂ»~-349 0fi~ Timothy'T. Carey Chief, Denver Regulatory Office tm CC: w/ eaot Frank Theis PO BOX 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 Jul 29 07 05:17p CMS< 970/~77 9744 P.a STATEMENT OF INTENT Prepared 7/27/07 By Rock Castle Development Company Development Plan Submittal STONE BRIDGE The subject property is 4.33 acres located between Fish Creek Road and Fish Creek east of the 18-hole golf course. This property is being platted into two lots, Lots 2 and 3 of Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision. Lot 2 (1.60 acres) and Lot 3 (2.74 acres) are zoned RM. These two lots will be developed as a 24-unit residential condominium project. 32 units are allowed under RM zoning density criteria. The project includes 15 free-standing units, 6 units in three duplexes, and one triplex. All units have two-car attached garages, and there are almost 11/2 ViSitor spaces per unit. The average unit size is around 2,150 square feet of finished space. Most units are designed with walk-out lower levels. Maximum Building Height is less than required by the Estes Valley Development Code. The information below outlines density, building lypes, site coverage, floor-area-ratio, and parking for the development of Lots 2 & 3. PHASE UNIT TYPES BLDG. SIZE FOOTPRINT PHASE I 10 UNITS - 10 SINGLE 1,633 sf/unit PHASE II 4 UNITS - 4 SINGLE 1,633 sf/unit PHASE III 10 UNITS - 1 SINGLE, 6 DUPLEX & 3 TRIPLEX 1,632 sf/unit TOTAL 24 UNITS 39,183 sf IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 73,855 sf TOTAL PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE 39.1% MAXIMUM ALLOWED SITE COVERAGE 50 % FLOOR AREA RATIO 24 % MAXIMUM ALLOWED FLOOR AREA RATIO 30 % PARKING REQUIRED 24 x 2.25 SPACES/UNIT 54 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED 24 x 2.75 SPACES/UNIT 66 SPACES (48 in garages and 18 designated for visitors) Stone Bddge Statement of Intent Page 1 7/29/2007 Jul 29 07 05:18p CMS p 970<'777 9744 P.3 PHASING Lot 3 will include the first phases (14 units) of construction, which will commence immediately upon approval of the Development PIan and be completed by the end of 2010. Lot 2 (10 units) will follow immediately upon completion of Lot 3 and is planned for completion by the end of 2012. Because the planned phasing is more than 3 years, the Applicant requests an extension of the Vesting Rights to 2012 for Phase III (Lot 2). 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 precautions will be taken to prevent construction run-off into Fish Creek. UTILITIES 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. WATER - An existing 80 water main for domestic use and fire protection will be extended from just south of this property. There is an existing 2Â» water main on the north end of the property. This private main serves 14 homes east of Fish Creek Road, the Fish Creek Water Association. The applicant proposes to connect this main to the new 8" main which will be built as part of Stone Bridge, at no expense to the Fish Creek Water Association. 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. The applicant has applied 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. See the attached Drainage & Stormwater Management Plan. Stone Bddgc Statement of Intent Page 2 7/29/2007 Jul 29 07 05:18p CMS, 970 '-77 9744 P.4 ( 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. The details of this agreement, including Limits Of Disturbance, design & construction plans, and maintenance specifications, will be outlined in the Development Agreement. 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 severely damaged. 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. 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 (see the Creek Enhancement and Wetlands Creation Plan). Stone Bddge Statement of Intent Page 3 7/29/2007 f ESTES VALLEY ( DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIO ~,c mz0 v,R [-IFE--2-118)1 ~ _ -Submittal Date: Type of Application ~ Development Plan r Boundary Line Adjustment Con36m#110,mMap-_.____~~ r Special Review E ROW or Easement Vacation F Preliminary Map F- Rezoning Petition r Street Name Change r Final Map 1- Preliminary Subdivision Plat 1- Time Extension r Supplemental Map 1- Final Subdivision Plat r Other: Please specify r Minor Subdivision Plat 13 Amended Plat General Information Project Name ,STON L' 6111 ID&& Project Description 2-49 RE-61 DEÂ»TIN- UM ITS Project Address /046 Fl 564 4-Reatc_ g p, Legal Description LOT 5 2 4.6 of SNDME- 1561 16 E BSTATE- SUBDIVISCOAJ Parcel ID # Section23,3 1,32 Township E-hb Range 71 CO Site Information Total Development Area (acres) 4-. 3,-t AC, Existing Land Use VAgkru T Proposed Land Use 2-4 tz-ELS'iDEÂ»T-1 f,Â·1- Ule/T S Existing Water Service p<lown r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service pOown F Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service E EPSD M UTSD r septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service E EPSD K. UTSD r septic Is a sewer lift station required? F Yes 0 No Existing Gas Service K xce' E Other F None Existing Zoning Kit Proposed Zoning AM Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? 4 Yes F- No Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? ,~C Yes E No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person FRADJL 1-HEL S Mailing Address POE> 44 6 E-8,0=> gas /7 Attachments 1% Application fee f Statement of intent 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan 11 " X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan 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 Parl< 4 P.O. Box 1200 4 170 MacGregor Avenue 4 Estes Park CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4 Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www.estesnet,com/ComDev C r V Primary Contact Person is r Owner F Applicant ~*' Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) VAM Ho 12-63 TAL>ST 94 BILL VAN HOAK) Mailing Address FO e> 456 e e, co 866/ 7 Phone Cell Phone 22.7 - 51 02 Fax Email -Applicant gatc LASTLE._ D Ex j E-L-,DFH.ENT Co , ~Mailing Address -1.710 25. COL-LE-<SE- , .SUITE F>Ar 604.-iDS JCC) Phone 2- 26 - 5-48 3 205 2.-g ~ Cell Phone -4-8 1 - 2 847 < Fax 22 1 -6-4 75 Consultant/Engineer PRNa\<- THE-1 S .- CM> PLARNI 6)6 VA" 11012-jo 636, WEEAE, Mailing Address Po B -4-( 6 E-eaD &29 7 /043 0 614 6-REEK- RD Phone 6 77- 9711-' 5~86.- 7389 EP,CO <Ms} 7 Cell Phone 23 / -42Â£23 Fax Â£71-9 741- 596 -810\ 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 met. Names: Record 0Wner PLEASE PR/NT: 8 1 L.l_ VAU AM R io , Fo 8. VAAJ Flotâ‚¬Ljo -1-*061 - Applicant PLEASE PR/NT: FRAN 14- 1--tte-1 5 , Fo ri R-6- D C-. Signatures: Record Owner / /11 Date Applicant ,--- Date 5-2-3-07 / Contact Information - 1 i C APPLICANT CERTIFICATION â€¢ thereby 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 acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). â€¢ 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. â€¢ 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. â€¢ l acknowledge that I have received the 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: E> 1L.L \~M HORN, FDA- VAA) HoRAJ TAL) 54- Applicant pLEAsE PRINT: FAAOK- -TA 516 ; 65/L ACDO Signatures: Record Owner 219?St- Dee 42~07 Applicant -''i~-*':..'#.'I'rrEE&;izirrim':. Date S - 2 3 -07 Revised 10/13/06 N O) h E val G 22902.00 2 0 8426--10 R!000000 500<0000000000 Â® .2 -2 0 Q d -O--2.2 :8@Mubje83 858%#f@fE (- 0 0 2%3@%83 5 11 44 42 OOLLIQ-CO U) SO<LULLILLILLILLI E-EgE 8 â€ž LL 2 -1 0 8 ..: Cl- 0 0 A 00 0 Ir) U e o m U.1 tO 00 00 r - 1-0 OCDOOLD -COO-O O U 00 0 - C) I- U 10 00 U - 0- (\1 00 0) 1.0 00 0. 91- - O. O. % C â‚¬ o6 > O 1 OO Z2 & M Â£(0 n z (Dâ‚¬Â§, 06 : 06 Bm 06 - .Cot= 2 06 i W m-30(r 60-6 -13[2<R Kathleen Cannon 3-2814 aymond & Sally Allen 35th Street IL 60521 Lynett Dex r Street 0222 arilyn Pedersen derview, PMB 234 80517 John Poulos 0517 ames & Judith Saurino stes Park, 80517 stes Park, 80517 em~rd Ho, Inc. PO Box 922 stes Park, 80517 c/o Helen W. Lungstrum PO Box 1712 Estes Park, Avenue Owner Owner 11 Address 60-ZO da sopuoo e6p!JqeUo;S yla Bernhard Susan Faul n r, Catherine Boedenauer ean Austin bert & Laura Trump Bob Trump 830 Fish Creek As president of The Fish Creek Water Assoc., I am speaking for all of the members, who oppose this development for a variety of reasons. We feel strongly this is the wrong development in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have also had the opportunity to meet with various groups in town, in the county, and a few state and national organizations to discuss the preservation of Estes Valley. We have formed coalitions with many of these groups to share information and resources. People come to Estes to visit or live here because of the uncluttered natural mountain charm. They become outraged when they see the area, the entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park, destroyed by extremely high density housing like West Riverside Road and Dry Gulch Road, and I really can't blame them. Recently I attended a Larimer County Board meeting and residents were complaining of a density of 1 home on 2.5 acres. The Planning Code apparently allows 8 or more dwellings on one acre. That is 20 times the density. Where do we propose these high density developments? Right along high traffic highways that are highly visible to visitors and local home owners alike. The Planning Commission should be preserving the beauty of Estes Valley for future generations, and I am sure many of you are on the board with those ideas in mind. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like every time a developer proposes a project that will generate revenue for the Town of Estes the rules disappear in thin air. Laws are bent, regulations are ignored, responsible agencies are bypassed, and the voting public is given bogus information (if they get any information at all). I urge each of you on the Planning Commission to consider the irreparable damage that projects like Stonebridge are doing to Estes Valley and when you vote, vote to preserve the Valley. (Tb A - Ve:=64 C /1,7// 9 0-1 -67 Via e mail to Bob Trump 8-21-07 August 20, 2007 I would like to express my opposition to the Stonebridge Condo development in the form of this E-mail as I am unable to personally attend the August 21, 2007 meeting due to work and travel to the Grand Canyon. From numerous sources, including media and conversations, I understand that "condos are out (of public interest)." Let Estes Park remain "in." From my personal standpoint, the Fish Creek corridor is best suited to remain with natural habitat in the best interest of the area's plants, animals, and for the maintenance of the riparian zone. Condo development would compromise the integrity of the landscape, increase hazards to traffic (including car, bike, and pedestrian), and ruin the aesthetics. Please leave Fish Creek to represent the beauty and park nature that define Estes Park. Thank you, Karin J. Edwards Estes Park resident May 15, 2007 Larimer County Commissioner, Earlier this year, I drafted a letter for your attention opposing the Stonebridge Subdivision. 1 thank you for your attention then and am reminding you again of some of the reasons my wife and I are in opposition. We own the property immediately east of the Van Horn Engineering Bldg. We just built a new home last year so the high density proposal of Stonebridge is an affront to good common sense. Surrounding structural density is much different than what is proposed. Larimer Co. already has R/W specifications for a reason and R/W change should not be allowed simply to allow any developer to do as he pleases. There is clearly not enough room from Fish Creek Rd. and Fish Creek itself for structures as proposed. If R/W changes are allowed safety on Fish Creek Rd. will be compromised as vehicles will nearly be parked on the road edge creating confusion at night with headlights reflecting off parked tail lights, etc. The road curves in this area and just to our south is a hill that is tall enough to make oncoming traffic unseeable making it hard enough now to get safely onto Fish Creek Rd. The increased density will exaggerate that problem. The elk herd comes down the hill from the east to access water and browse along Fish Creek. High density buildings will exclude the wildlife use of this area. As a past President of the Fish Creek Water Assn. I would again remind you the Association has an existing waterline in the area of the subdivision and it has been in place approximately 60 years. The water association called a special meeting Feb. 12, 2007 to discuss the problem and a vote to approve removal of the waterline did not pass. We are still actively engaged in a dryland farm operation in south central Kansas and will be unable to personally attend the scheduled hearing on Mon. May 21 st. We are currently planting our crops now for fall harvest. We have served numerous terms on public service boards, commissions and resource groups, so I believe that an elected official carries the responsibility of acting and reacting fairly and in the interest of the majority of the taxpayers in the unit governed and now is the time for you to be counted on the side of fairness and not individual greed. If the proposed property is to be developed make it be by the same standards imposed on everyone else. Stand by the preexisting rules and regulations. I would think many people traveling through the area would also rather see the elk and a stream as "God made it" instead of an eroded eyesore behind a solid row of condo roofs. I thank you again for your time reading this and your attention to the matter. If you feel the need to talk personally our number is: (620) 286-5331. We have no answering machine in use so you either talk to us or you don't! Dale & Diane Beck 1635 Powelly Lane Estes Park, Co. 80517 and r 28501 W. 17th Ave. t:) 2 04'-6 - Plevna, Ks. 67568 4 43Â£2 06-ry-c. IC.czz# u.r-Â¢u,.) 6/LA~ZI_j-~ ~<u 44Â£ 2-n. /7..44,44-,u-.-2 k...2% Wic_ 9 r- >hoyu..(U~-4 â‚¬ )2~ *.6 ~c 1 c/. 6 9.YU . + A-rn A--2."-leÂ»1- iCjou' A- c~ x'F.1 04-U ~.i A #â€¢tlUI.- 4- 9hi 40 7.2-.6,~L- C.ww ,<522-,,1 0-rt 442, *261729 . ' Au 'Ljt.~1040Â£-d-L- 4,1-.2 -ke,- 3044 0-A-â„¢- Dave Shirk, Planner ~*22 Community Development Department Town ofEstes P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Mr. Shirk re: Stone Bridge Condomiums Thank you for keeping us posted on the above development. We wrote to you last February regarding our opposition to the above. Please incorporate our previous letter with the enclosed copy of our letter of May 17m, 2007 to the Larimer County Commissioners. While we attended the February meeting, we will be unable to be present for the scheduled meeting this month. '- 0#Qi Ct_ 4~a* ~Caae--40 Raymond J. Allen Sally J. Allen 820 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 May 15, 2007 Larimer County Commissioners P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Commissioners, We are writing this letter to express our opposition to the Stone Bridge Condominiums' request for a waiver to build 24 condomiums next to Fish Creek Road in Estes Park. We have lived on Fish Creek Road since 1970 and in the Estes Valley since 1941. We have seen many changes over these years. Many ofthese changes have added to the beauty ofthe area and provided recreation for tourists and towns' people alike. The downtown area has been made much more attractive, the golfcoourses have been improved, Lake Estes was created, and most recently, a paved hiking trail has been put in place around the lake, and along Fish Creek Road. It will probably be completed this summer and it provides miles of safe hiking and biking. We applaud all ofthese improvements. Stone Bridge Condomiums would not be an improvement. The beautiful views which people enjoy while driving along Fish Creek would be blocked. The new hiking trail would be intersected by condos and lose its appeal. The huge elk population which crosses Fish Creek Road twice a day and drinks from the creek and which tourists flock to see, might leave the area. Apart from asthetics and pure enjoyment, these condomiums would be sitting next to Fish Creek which is a flood plain! There was a flood there years ago. Is this a sensible place to build? They would also be near a dangerous curve in the road. Fish Creek is already a dangerous road and this property would add 24 to 48 cars backing out onto it! People, including children, cross this road daily. The school is near the road. There are no stop lights, stop signs or crossing guards. Is it sensible to add to the danger by increasing the traffic? As for the need for more condos in Estes, please drive up and see how many empty ones there are. In fact, a condo development was recently completed at the other end of Fish Creek Road and it is tnot nearly fully occupied. It at least is on the opposite side ofthe road, set far back into the trees, obstructs no views, and has no units which back out onto Fish Creek Road. Why, with all these units available on Fish Creek Road, would we possibly need more? Obviously just to further enrich one man who happens to own a piece of land and sees a chance to make a lot ofmoney from it. When you come to Estes PArk, please take a drive along Dry Creek Road too. We used to enjoy the lovely vistas when we took that road. Now, we avoid it because the views are gone - all blocked out by condos. Estes Park depends on tourists and tourists are appalled by the poor judgment that has resulted in some ofthese developments. Tourists come to enjoy the natural beauty and may soon find other towns in Colorado who have done a better job ofpreserving it. As to the traffic on Fish Creek Road, the developer has asked for a waiver to build much closer to the road than is allowed. What is the purpose ofa setback if it can be changed by one person? Will a 60% reduction of the setback add to the safety ofthe road or make it even more dangerous? This is a proposal which benefits absolutely no one except the developers. How will you vote - for the people ou,#6Rthe developers? You are the care takers for the county. 041 07 SincerelY, Sally and Ray Allen 820 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 ~~ FEB 9 1 2007 111% Raymohd J. and Sally J. Alle L.2225 820 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, CO 80517 February 14, 2007 Attn: David Shirk Community Development Department Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Shirk: My wife and I have maintained a home on the east side ofFish Creek Road for thirty-six years. Before that I lived with my parents who purchased their Estes Park property in 1942. We have seen Estes Park develop mostly for the better - the schools, downtown area, river walk, parks, planting, golf course plus much more have improved the entire area. You and your predecessor have improved the entire ambiance ofthe Estes Park valley. Not too many years ago a popular post card of downtown Elkhorn Avenue showed a yellow and black gas station sign in the background. Critics could cite this, along with the abundance oftee shirt shops in the downtown area, as a sign of derision. We believe that it would be a mistake to allow a row of condominiums to be developed along the west side of Fish Creek Road up to the golf course. It would diminish the rural feeling and beauty ofthat area. You have put a wonderful walkway from downtown through this area to allow residents and visitors to stroll through a rural country area along a creek while enjoying beautiful mountain vistas. Do you really want to steer the hikers through or around a condo development? There could also be a huge negative environmental impact on the area. Mr. David Shirk February 14, 2007 Page 2 0 f 2 Please drive along Dry Creek Road and look west at the row of gray townhouses and condos along the side ofthe road, and then imagine the same effect along Fish Creek Road. Though our home is not located within the Estes Park city limits, in our hearts the entire community is important to us. /'0~~EDhely, 4//02 R~ond J. Alle~ ELâ‚¬-2-f i ..deaD Sally J. Allen , Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: raymond allen [paymeray@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 7:24 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Stnebridge Subdivision on Fish Creek Dear Mr.Shirk, I want to register my opposition to the above development on the basis of lack of factual knowledge. Any government body must have sufficent facts as to the effects on the community,the enviroment, the actual verified description of the request for rezoning. The community especially in the area of the proposed development must t be fully and accurately informend so they may comment of the development. The community needs time to reply. As to road and setbacks revisions requested, who has jurisdiction? Is it the county or city. As to the enviroment is it the State or EPA. Please delay any decision until the community as well as the writter has more facts. Sincerely, Raymond J Allen, 820-Fish Creek Rd. a 65 year part time resident. Winter address: 1017 35th St Oak Brook, Il 60523 Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com 1/17/2007 Dave Shirk, Planner Community Development Dept. Town of Estes P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Shirk: We are the property owners of 894 Fish Creek Road in Estes Park, CO. Our primary residence is in Denver and we chose Estes Park to buy a vacation home because of the excellent quality of life it offers, and the fact that it does not resemble places like the Vail Valley and Summit County which are both filled with high-density housing. We have been excited to be part of the Estes culture and values that are demonstrated throughout the town. We have learned ofthe proposed high-density Stone Bridge Condominium project along Fish Creek Road. We are strongly opposed to this project for the following reasons: * The obvious undesirable impact of replacing the natural habitat and beauty of Fish Creek with condominium buildings, driveways, sidewalks, etc. * The inevitable increase in traffic high-density residences bring to an area. * The obvious consequences of putting any residence, let alone, high-density homes in a FLOODPLAIN. Why were floodplains created? * It seeing a project of this *core should be on a piece of land capable of supporting it, rather than trying to "squeeze" it into such a small space that the right-of-ways and setbacks required by the County can not be met. * Part of the reason people come to Estes Park is for the beautiful views, the breathtaking soenery, the thrill of watching herds of elk on their way to favorite feeding spots ahd drinking holes, the treat it is to Waik along the trails and not see struetufes built an arm 's length away. How disappointing it will be for many, if this project is approved and their views are of rooftops instead, and buildings rather than wetlands and trees and streams. Growth is inevitable. We understand this. Zoning, building regulations, etc. should ensure that high-density residences have a positive impact on their area, not negative. 04 6- /p 81 Bulu~ TAMI'Â£ la 1 / February 25,2009 1 CO SUBJECT: Proposed Stonebridge Subdivision Condominium Project and C Zoning for VanHorn Engineering It looks as though the developers are trying to change the rules AGAIN in the Estes Valley. Is there any way that official attention can be given to our area in order to salvage what is left of wildlife habitat before it is gone? The Fish Creek corridor has already been invaded by condos and homes. The disturbance created by building more condos would increase the stress on the Fish Creek wildlife area. This is one ofthe last drainages that has not been impacted heavily by housing and businesses. Let's keep it as pristine as possible. Let's think about the wildlife that depends on the area for their sustenance instead ofthe almighty dollar. Let's let the wildflowers bloom and the creek sing so that a natural habitat will still exist. VanHorn Engineering is one of the few businesses along Fish Creek. Being an engineering firm, one would think that they would understand the importance ofthe riparian habitat that their building is a part of. One would also think that they would "engineer" themselves out of their property and put the land under a conservation easement. Please do not let this property to be re-zoned as "office" so that more destruction of the area can occur. Thank you for your in depth consideration ofthis matter! Sincergly, 1-44.00/ UjÂ«) Paula Edwards 1020 Acacia Drive Estes Park, CO . mr. De,UC. ShfrIC ple,nne.r IE- 1*#Â«4N Town of E $42.1 Park Cor.,Â·r.wn{ *.1_ De.ucloprnen-+ Otpctrltrne, ,-*I-~4.*.-.*.-.%~-7 C)*wt- mrt. _.Shink-1---- . - __-_ _-T-_J.ohn _Re l.'103 1--At--129Â¢>SS_fQ&6*li,(-kc,ne. _-te."o - ___WY:i_Â¥51'ni--YOV +O-_ Weif.4 -mÂ¥__Oppgs t-+Ala_ja--thc- _S+Ang, _. Br.10-9&__13(uÂ¢.toprn,nkÂ· _ .I__-CA,h_c~cdom:k_9,34â€¢r,+1' h el C4-Y -dcer.c.ctic._in_.sf.+=Jacâ€¢c.ks-_3Â»â€¢c) FuÂ» p,-,c'Â¥_1~(râ€¢As- _I. t. _-4.â‚¬-4.4448 -10+3_+-w.o__*,DJ__thru-_c.hd__Allo_be,+ 424(kh _-___- -- _- tois-*wo* 443 ent...._iW-~Le.4*-4424#4)41.3--Rollow__+IÂ·,c _ _in _ple.ct_-- 2.mniv,c~--1.w, 3 The. teâ€¢,4 - stÂ®J, oF P:,14 e.rack roc.J rs nor,ic) 1.3-_ace.vu__ Fir \Ot . To puÂ¥_.rn:,1*i Urd.h ae.ros) thL roe,2 me.kct ---------- -=--49--lenNA#-linte--666 -try 40 cauoid o.nothg-r --- Le==10,_sial ._-â‚¬mxn_lodo'-42,00Â¥=4-_All__w.c,._=nÂ«.cl__--_ h cano?che Gr.ec.t_-Wc.ld_, --r.unnt'net +Ac. leng+60 of Eish._.Ctee.K Â· . -- . Andâ€ž.dwe.\Oprneâ€¢*. .icÂ«ap,-rhc,vx..hing~_ c,*x_ 1-_ _-3 The.nk__You - _ #*. I. ~ cocj di, J 1 g, Â£ Dave Shirk, Planner jf REÂ©GOVE T Community Development Dept. Town of Estes ~ FEB 1 6 2007 ~ ~ PO Box 1200 . i i . Estes Park, CO 80517 & 4 ul - 1 12=1 Dear Commissioners and concerned citizens, As land owners on Fish Creek Road, my wife and I are very concerned about the proposed Stone Bridge subdivision project and the ramifications it will have on the landscape and the Estes Valley. Fish Creek Road and Fish Creek are key attractions to Estes Park residents and visitors/tourists. If Fish Creek and the road are altered and widened, and condominiums are squeezed into this small area, the end result will be a downgrading of the attractiveness and incur more problems in speeding vehicles and congestion. Many of the vehicles on Fish Creek Road move along quite rapidly and with more traffic and speed the problems would be compounded. As members of the Fish Creek Water association which is responsible for the upkeep ofthe association water lines, we have serious concerns regarding maintenance access to such lines if proposed construction is allowed. Said line runs from the golf course club house to its connection with the association line on the east side of Fish Creek road. As landowners and tax payers, my wife, Myla Jeannine Bernhard, and I are NOT in favor of approving the Stone Bridge project. Sincerely yours, 4Zr- 24.04, Robert C. Bernhard Myla Jeannine Bernhard 1650 Powelly Lane, Estes Park 1650 Powelly Lane, Estes Park 4 4701- Atua Dave Shirk, Planner II 2Â»=1, Community Development Dept. R..0 Town of Estes ~'11- : 200? ~ PO Box 1200 , Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Shirk, I am writing to express support for my parents (1650 Powelly Ln.) and my beliefthat development proposals like The Stone Bridge Condominium project NOT be approved in any way or on any level. I feel very strongly that in past years the Larimer County Commissioners and Estes Park Planning Commissioner have allowed for entirely too much development throughout the valley. My family (especially my parents) has worried since they bought their home that Mr. Van Horn would attempt such a development and now we have to worry that these condos will be approved and Van Horn will complete the destruction of Fish Creek Road with office buildings. In going over literature regarding Stone Bridge it seems OBVIOUS this project is motivated by greed and shall: â€¢ Increase traffic congestion, odds would suggest increased automobile accidents between vehicles and the presently abundant wildlife â€¢ Distort now pristine mountain views, the views that draw over 3 million visitors annually that unlike days gone by, now allow Estes Park to operate year round â€¢ Intrude on current residents properties, Fish Creek Road already infringes on my parent's property evidenced in an October 1992 plot survey by Van Horn Engineering â€¢ Negate the existing necessary flood plane, it sounds like Mr.Spooner in his November 22,2006 letter is hoping FEMA might change the flood plane Personally I am saddened at the thought of more of this beautiful valley I have grown up to love and respect being intruded on. The mentality and disregard for the natural beauty of the Estes Valley exhibited here is heartbreaking! Respec~ly, , . (14(6(~ U Fre* Bernh01 FROM : DIGGS/HIRATA PHONE NO. : 9706350851 Feb. 05 2007 08:05PM Pl David M. Diggs, PhI) and Mari Hirata, OD 4045 Plum Creek Drive Lovelant CO 80538 Ph.970-635-0851 daviddiggs@unco. edu 2/5/07 Dave Shirk, Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Parks CO, 80517 Dear Mr. Shirk: This letter concerns the proposed Stonebridge Subdivision on Fish Creek Road. We own property at 1770 Powelly Lane (directly across from the proposed development). We have serious concerns about this development. We are opposed to this project as currently proposed for the following reasons: 1.) We strongly oppose the developer' s request for a waiver of right-ofway setbacks. and the Planning staff s implicit approval of this waiver (by recommending approval of the project). There was no significant discussion in the staffreport ofthe impact of a lessoned right-of-way (as the developer proposes) on future developments/improvements on Fish Creek Road and the impact this could have on pnoperty owners to lhe east? These impacts could be visual, which might negatively impact property values. 2.) While you have mentioned that a traffic impact analysis study will be required we encourage you to assure that a safe distance exist between any entry/exits to the subdivision and Powelly Lane. 3.) We are concerned that the PINA floodplain mapping be conducted by a truly independent consultant. The request that the 100 floodplain be redefined as the main channel doesn't make sense. While the "floodway" may be confined to the main channel we have a hard time believing that the 100 year floodplain has shrunk since the flood that washed out Fish Creek Road (which-yes-may have been a greater than 100 year event). This flies in the face oflogic and my PhD training in resource management and GIS. Related to the floodplain issue, we are also concerned about the years of dumping fillon the property by Van Horn. This issue was brought to Bob Joseph' s attention a few years ago by the Fish Creek Water Association (of which Diggs was the president), but we never received a response, only surprise that it had been Occurring. Was dumping of the fill illegal without a permit? 4.) We saw no discussion ofthe lighting for this development. We may have missed this. Given recent nationwide concerns about light pollution we would encourage the applicant to not install street lighting or install minimal lighting that meets low light pollution standards. Given the Estes Valley's unique setting it would seem an important factor to minimize nighttime light pollution. Many of us own property and/or live in the Estes Valley, in part, so that we can see the stars at night! 1 FROM : DIGGS/HIRATA PHONE NO. : 9706350851 Feb. 05 2007 08:06PM P2 Let us finish by quoting you in a response to Mr. And Mrs. Painter: I cannot argue that the " high density condominiums" across the road from the relatively low density 2.5. acre zo*>"does not make sense from a planning and zoning standpoint You go on to say tbat the property is zoned multi-family and that essentially what is done, is done. This is a valid point. It is also an extremely strong argument that your office make sure that the developer meet EVERY standard,-City AND County. Since the town and county have a coordinated zoning plan for the entire Estes Valley, we believe that your office also has an obligation to give equal weight to both those owning property within and outside of the city boundaries. We strongly encourage your office make a sincere effort to satisfy the concerns of nearby property owners. Thank you for your time. Sincerely ~A,Â·dd ~A-Â©Slk# (416Â«k Dr. David M. DiggQ Dr. Mari Hirata 2 FEB-14-07 WED 09:15 AM LARIMER CTY COMMISSIONER FAX NO, 970 498 7908 P. 02/08 - David M. Diggs, PhD and Mari Hirata, OD 4045 Plwn Creek Drive , Loveland, CO 80538 Ph.970-635-085 1 Feb. 9% 2007 Kathy Rennels, Commissioner County Commissioners' Office PO Box 1190 Ft. Collins, CO 80522-1190 Dear Commissioner Rennels: This letter concerns the proposed Stonebridge Subdivision on Fish Creek Road in Estes Park and the request for a right-of-wav waiver along Fish Creek Road. We own property at 1770 Powelly Lane (direotly across from the proposed development). We request that you vote NO on the waiver. We believe that the waiver request (and other pending requests with the town) are simply a way to increase the housing density on the proposed development. This is strongly out- of-character with the sumounding neighborhood/properties. We strongly oppose the developer's requegt for a waiver of right-of-way setbacks, and the Estes Park Planning staffs recommended approval of this waiver. We believe that approval of this waiver should be denied for 3 main reasons. They are as follows: 1.) The proposed development project for this property is dramatically out-of-character with the surrounding neighborhood. You should be aware that there was no significant discussion in the Estes Planning staff report of the impact of a lessoned right-of-way (as the developer proposes) on future developments/improvements on Fish Creek Road and the impact this could have on property owners to the east (county residents). These impacts could be visual, which might negatively impact property values. Yes-it's true that this property lies in the town boundaries (barely). But your decision (although seemingly only a right-of-way waiver) will allow a very high level of density on this property-clearly out of character with surrounding properties. Your disapproval doesn't mean the developer can't build--they will just have to have a few less units (than the proposed 24). 2.) The developer wants to reduce already very low stream setbacks. We are also conoerned that the FEMA floodplain re-mapping be conducted by a truly independent consultant. We realize your influence in this arena is limited. Nevertheless, the developer's request that the 100 year fioodplain be redefined as the main channel doesn't make sense. While the"floodway" may be confined to the main channel we have a hard time believing that the 100 year floodplain is also confined to the narrow channel of Fish Creek. This flies in the face of logic, the many years of additional urban development along Fish Creek, and my PhD training in resource management and GIS! Please understand that your approval of the waiver would allow a greater density of housing and coverage of the property by impermeable materials (houses/concrete/etc.), which would have an impact on downstream flow streams. Forcing the developers to meet 1 FEB-14-07 WED 09:16 AM LARIMER CTY COMMISSIONER FAX NO. 970 498 7008 P. 03/06 current standards for setbacks from Fish Creek Road (on the county's part) and stream setbacks (on the town's part) would, at least minimize this impact. 3.) The city has no plans or discussion on the street lighting situation for an approved project. We saw no discussion ofthe lighting for this development Given recent nationwide concerns about light pollution we would encourage the town, county, and developer to take this issue into consideration, Why-because this area is more rural than urban. The town also plans to rezone one lot from multi-family to commercial, thus creating the possibility that this lot will be completely cover (with structures), which could result in more lighting. Given the Estes Valley's unique setting it would seem an important factor to minimize nighttime light pollution. Many of us own property and/or tive in the Estes Valley, in part, so that we can see the stars at night! We (and the Fish Creek Association membership) have often been disappointed with the town's response to past zoning and development issues. A number of us have felt left out ofthe loop. Thus, it is very important to us that the county, where possible, protect our rights. That is why we are beseeching you to deny the right-of-way waiver request. This is not simply a ploy to "stop the development", but an honest effort to force the developer to meet all applicable county and town regulations. Please do not approve the waiver as a way to transfer this section ofroad to the town (and thus limit your responsibility for maintenance/etc.). As county landowners we need your help. At the very least, delay this approval until you've had a chance to go up to Estes Park, see the situation for yourself. and meet with one ofthe residents or landowners on the cast side of Fish Creek Road. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, (*00-\42,4- Dr. David M. DiggÂ¢) 4 Dr. Mari Hirata cc. Karen Wagner Glenn Gibson 2 1020 Acacia Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 P**=ggi%1 February 19, 2007 Dave Shirk, Planner l fi FEd 9 / 1"7 bl V Community Development Dept. Town ofEstes PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Dave Shirk: Estes Park is named for the park, a large open area surrounded by mountains, in which it is located. For the very definition of park, the community aesthetics, and as a.buffifor splendid Rocky Mountain National Park, it is imperative that we maintain a sense of a large open area surrounded by mountains. Additional developments risk loss of quality to Estes Park and it's citizens. The community stops looking like an open area, pollution increases, and people don't respect the land as their home. Please deny the proposed Stonebridge Subdivision Condominium Project and zone changes to the Van Horn Engineering property. Fish Creek's riparian area would-be compromised and result in lost wetlands. Fish Creek is important habitat for resident and migratory birds. The proposed development site is on a floodplain which puts unnecessary risk on the community. The site is narrow and does not fit regulations for roadway set-backs, and would unnecessarily increase road hazards as it is close to sharp curves. Please keep Estes Park looking like an open area surrounded by mountains, and feeling like a community where residents care about their home, their environment, and their neighbors. Thank you, 6~4_~ U -13 Karin Edwards Cc: Kathay Rennels, Larimer County Commissioner; Karen Wagner, Larimer County Commissioner; Glenn Gibson, Larimer County Commissioner - Oil. 11 , 1901 Ptarmigan Trail, Unit 1)3 Estes Park, CO 80517 February 15,2007 Dave Shirk, planner Town ofEstes Park Concerning the proposed Stonebridge Subdivision: This letter opposes this project because: It robs us of our dwindling wetland. Hikers and bikers will see condos instead of natural and unspoiled scenes from the trail. The Fish Creek area is an asset to the town of Estes Park, undeveloped and natural, as is. Scenery is our most valuable resource. It brings visitors. I am in opposition to granting variances to the county's right-of-way and set back requirement for this. Environmental destruction spreads beyond a prescribed area. Please use your power and save the Fish Creek area for us. Enda Mills Kiley Â»/4.- -"7 r ~10711 CANNON PROPERTIES 916 Dayton Drive Scottsboro, Al. 35768 February 6,2007 David Shirk, Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Parkâ€ž CO. 80522 Dear Mr. Shirk, This letter is in response to the notice regarding your meeting of February 27 requesting approval of the Stonebridge Subdivision. As a property owner on the east side of the road, I urge you to seriously consider this petition. This request is completely inappropriate for the location, or any location on Fish Creek Road. How the building on this property ( an engineering office) was approved is in itself an example of ridiculous planning to the detriment of the town and neighboring properties. The employees park across the street--on county land-and jeopardize both themselves and drivers going both directions as they continually walk across the road.. The building (the only commercial property on Fish Creek) is in the floodplain. In fact, the rear of the building couldn't be closer to the creek without being IN the creek. As well, the subdivision proposed to the south is an area of wetlands also in the floodplain. In order to consider the subdivision of 24 condos on 4.9 acres of land, I strongly suggest an independent study of the wetlands and floodplain commissioned by the city and/or county. To rely on a survey done by a former employee of the landowner does not, in my opinion, safeguard the city and county decision makers from possible litigation in the future. I will also point out the unmitigated erosive damage from the rain runoff of 24 rooftops and over 100 parking spaces and the subsequent permanent damage to the creek, its fish and other wildlife. Unless these factors are properly dealt with I fear citizens would view your positions as, at the least, spurious. Another issue to be addressed is that oftraffic. In the more than 30 years I have driven on Fish Creek Road I'm quite sure my life expectancy has been decreased by the decision to allow the driveway into the Solitude condos directly across from Brodie Avenue and only feet from the most dangerous curve on Fish Creek. However, the next dangerous curve comes just south of the proposed development. As planners any unintelligent decision which might just be viewed as causative should there be a dangerous accident resulting in serious injury or death leaves the city, county and its planners vulnerable. The inappropriateness of the county commissioners granting a waiver and the city planners allowing a subdivision would also be in direct opposition to the nature of the area in general. Neighboring properties are single family dwellings on large areas of land. As taxpayers we assumed, for example, that the funds spent for the hiking trail meant we would be viewing nature and wildlife in the few remaining open spaces while hiking. And while my family has loved being a part ofthe Estes community for three generations we wonder why developers can change the entire valley with seeming ease. For years we have paid taxes, supported local merchants, donated yearly to our church, the hospital, library, fire department, historical society, civic groups and so on---as have the other neighbors who would be affected. It is grossly unfair that developers can request changes which would cause a negative effect on our property values and quality of life. In addition, these requests are often made when a number ofproperty owners who are the most immediate neighbors are away as we are seasonal residents. There is also the issue of the water line running under the current right-of-way which was laid in 1941. The Fish Creek Water Association has maintained this line since it was laid and we have not approved its removal. When you consider the legislation in the LaSalle & Sinclair Factors case, the result was "as a legislative judgement, a zoning ordinance may be invalidated by clear evidence that the ordinance as applied is arbitrary, unreasonable and without substantial relation to the health, safety, morals or general welfare ofthe public" you have a valid guideline. Sincerely, CL_-12 01 1 t Â¢ 1 tr. A Kathleen J. Cannon ~ Partner Cc: D. Ludtke, Esq. Johnsen-Cannon Properties Hug 1301 Lincoln Mall Suite 102 Uncoln, NE 68508-2714 (402) 475-1301 January 11, 2007 Dave Shirk Planner H Town ofEstes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Shirk, I am writing to protest the proposal by Rock Castle Development to build 24 or more units on less than 5 acres in a subdivision named "Stone Bridge". As a taxpayer and owner ofproperty on Fish Creek Road for over fifty years, I oppose this project and the setback charge requested by these developers. As well, the elk migration route would be cut off the water runoff from the buildings and paving would seriously erode the creek banks and the traffic on Fish Creek Road would increase to a dangerous level. It is most unfortunate that property adjacent to the hiking trail and golf course was not put in a land trust or used as part of the golf course. That the planners ofEstes would put a priority on population density rather than conservation and land enhancement amazes me. Sincerely, Henry B. Cannon January 16, 2007 Mr. Dave Shirk, Planner 11 Davel 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 indicatesthat 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 044<f> trumptech@juno.com February 13, 2007 County Commissioners' Office P.O. Box 1190 Â· Â· Fort Collins, CO 80522 Ms Karen Wagner, My wife and I live on Fish Creek Road near the proposed Stonebridge condominiums. We are well aware of the amount oftraffic that is currently handled by Fish Creek Road, probably many times what it was designed for. We regularly offer to pull cars out of the ditches and have seen both car and truck rollovers in the last few years. To add 24 condos near one of the tightest curves on Fish Creek Road will only make driving in that area more dangerous. But there are many more reasons the Commissioners should not approve any requests for building closer to the road than current county standards: â€¢ Right-of-way and setback requirements for county roads exist for good reason. Roads need to be maintained, widened, plowed in the wintertime, and buildings need to be far enough back so motorists can safely navigate through congested areas. â€¢ As traffic continues to increase on Fish Creek Road there will certainly be necessary improvements needed. Certainly giving up right-of-way and setback requirements now will complicate and add expense to any future improvements â€¢ Fish Creek Road was badly damaged in the Lily Lake Flood in about 1956. Major reconstruction and rerouting of Fish Creek Road was required. Allowing developers to constantly encroach on rivers does not lessen the danger offuture floods. Common sense would indicate thatitmakes the danger offuture floods far worse. Since Fish Creek Road is extremely close to Fish Creek (especially in this area) it would seem the county would be foolish in giving concessions now that could cost dearly in the future. â€¢ The developer's request benefits no one but himself. It does not benefit residents, motorists, tourists, or anyone else in the Estes Valley or Larimer County. â€¢ Why relax county right-of-way and setback standards to build more condos when there is already an excess of more than 150 condos in Estes Patk? â€¢ In my opinion, all of Larimer County benefits from the 3.4 million visitors that are attracted by Rocky Mountain National Park every year. Visitors are attracted by the beauty of the area, including the views from Estes Park The proposed condo development is on a thin stiver of land between Fish Creek and Fish Creek Road. It is an excellent site for viewing wildlife and the mountains at the same time. The C=los would completely destroy this view for motorists and users of the nearby bike trail. The destruction of these natural views will eventually cost Larimer County a lot more than the quick profits of m eager developer. As Commissioners of Larimer county you represent the interests of all the citizens and taxpayers in the county. I hope you consider all of us when you make your decision. Thank you for your consideration. Bob Trump President, Fish Creek Water Association 830 Fish Creek Road P. O. Box 1375 Estes Palk CO 80517 970-577-0343 Opdyke Agency, Inc. JOHN P. WATSON 710 11 th AVENUE, SUITE 110 LICENSED BROKER GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 FARM & RANCH MANAGEMENT (970) 352-5747 REAL ESTATE SALES Fax (970) 352-5748 Res (970) 352-9383 February 8,2007 Dave Shirk, Planner Community Development Dept. Town of Estes P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Dave Shirk; I am writing this letter on behalf of myself, John P. Watson and Patti L. Watson. We are owners of a home on Fish Creek Road. Our address is 1740 Powelly Lane. Powelly Lane abuts Fish Creek Road and our road comes out on Fish Creek, immediately adjacent to the proposed Stonebridge Subdivision Condominium Project.. We have had the opportunity to see the subdivision plot and review the Estes Valley Planning Commissions minutes. We are very much opposed to Stonebridge Subdivisions, request. The density will not be compatible to the area around Fish Creek . Their request of the 20 foot variance from the county will definitely effect the area, and all the present owners land values. The transportation density will jeopardize the whole traffic patterns as being dangerous to all owners exiting onto Fish Creek Road. To summarize Mr. Van Horns development is not compatible to all the beauty of the Estes Park Valley's overall comprehensive plan. We have owned land in the Estes Park area for over 40 years, and someday plan on retiring in the Estes Park are permanently. Respectfully yours; CU.L. f. 43 e,3[1 Jdiuju_Watson Â»6 c* 0/Â«pv~ Patti L.Watson February 10,2007 ' : 00'17 l.dj i Glenn Gibson County Commissioners' Office P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Gibson; I have lived in Estes Park for 27 years. I am a business owner in the city limits and my home is in the county (East side ofFish Creek Rd.). I pay exorbitant taxes to live here in Estes and do so to enjoy the beauty and the un-crowded nature ofthe town and surrounding area. My four daughters were raised here and graduated from Estes Park High School. The youngest (now a dentist) took part in a long-term survey testing the waters ofFish Creek weekly for a year. The study was I believe funded by the State but regardless it was done to show the impact ofdevelopment near the creek. It made absolutely no difference to the powers that be that development was detrimental to the creek and the animals that depend on it for survival. So I am not going to ask that you not allow the Stonebridge Project because it is detrimentalÂ·to the environment because no one cares about that (although they should). And I won't ask you to not allow it because it will ruin our view and those on the hiking/biking trail will not want to return to Estes to hike that trail when they can stay in the city and see the same thing (although it's true). I will however, ask you to consider the safety issues involved here. It is my understanding that right ofway and set back requirements are designed to insure the safety ofindividuals using the road and the surrounding areas. Ifthis is true then why do the commissioners bother making these requirements ifthey are going to repeatedly allow variances and not enforce them? What was necessary for safety last year now becomes wrong and variances are allowed? What's the point? Why can't you say to these people who design enormous buildings to fit on small pieces of property - NO!? Why don't they have to follow the same rules as the rest of us? Build it smaller. Build it somewhere else. Make it fit within the limits that are already in place and were created for a legitimate reason - safe use by all. For once make them conform. Don't give in. (You could also consider the environmental and aesthetic issues too.) Thank you for listening. Sincgely, con / %4Â«Â©26Â»lj*.Â£23 Judim G. Saurino Just another tax payer tired of seeing Estes Park become any other town all for the $$$$. W. B. PAYNTER P.C. 34--.47 W. B. PAYNTER, Esq. 2- KELLY S. HANSEN, Esq. -111 U! Attorneys at Law 1'42 47 0/jl 117 Main Avenue, P. O. Box A, Akron, Colorado loy//9/4//_ Fll//.I../IME,0/1 Phone (970) 345-2219 FAX (970) 345-2210 ' E-mail: paynter@ptbb.net or hansen@ptbb.net 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 of two parcels of land in Larimer County, being portions ofthe SWIM ofthe SW1/4 of Section 29 and the NW1/4 ofthe NWI/4 of Section 32, Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6th 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 ofthe unobstructed view ofLongs 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- ' 4 FISH CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION, INC. This is a group ofwhat is now 14 owners of watertaps on atwo 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 ofthe 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 1 45%0 uiÂ·h~kÂ©-1 t~-GUi- U / LU<4\' William B. Paynte Marguerâ‚¬R. Paynter 4 Trustees 4 -2- W. B. PAYNTER P.C. W. B. PAYNTER, L.JUG 2 : 4- 947 - i Stockholder KELLY S. HANSEN, Associate Attorneys at Law 117 Main Avenue, P. O. Box A, Akron, Colorado 80720 Phone (970) 345-2219 FAX (970) 345-2210 E-mail: paynter@ptbb.net or hansen@ptbb.net February 14, 2007 Larimer County Commisssioners P. O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: StoneBridge Subdivision Gentlemen The Peg and Bill Payne Living Trust.is the owner of two parcels of land in Larimer County, being portions ofthe SWIM ofthe SWIM of Section 29 and the NW1/4 ofthe NW1/4 of Section 32, Township 5 North, Range 72 West ofthe 68 P.M. more particularly described in the County Assessors Tax schedules #0573817 and #0609714. This is our second home known as 810 Fish Creek Road. Both properties are in Larimer County not in the Town of Estes Park and total approximately 500 feet bordering the east side ofFish Creek Road and North of the proposed Stone Bridge Development, and immediately north of what is labeled as the Girl Scout Exemption on the map. We purchased the property because ofthe unobstructed view ofLongs Peek and Mt. Meeker to the southwest across Fish Creek Road, Fish Creek itself and the Golf Course. We did not anticipate overlooking the roofs of multi family dwellings. 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 16 owners ofwater taps on atwo 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, then east across the StoneBridge property to the east side ofFish Creek Road, then goes along the east side ofFish Creek Road to the North and to the 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 and proposes a dwelling on top of it. This of course will not work. TRAFFIC CONCERNS. This is where the County Commissioners are directly involved: 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. The road is designated as a Major Collector County road, and already is only 60 feet wide whereas Existing County standards require that it be 100 feet wide. Travelers on the road willlook at more houses or 30 foot high condominiums instead ofthe creek, the golf course and the mountains. The Developer proposes a 15 foot setback from the road right-of-way for construction of Buildings whereas Larimer County would require a 50 foot setback. Looking to the future, should Fish Creek Road ever be widened, the then Commissioners will prefer purchasing vacant land to the east of the road rather than improved land to the west. This development effectively takes property away from the owners of the property to the East of the road and gives it to the owners of the property to the west of the road. -2- I . . SUMMARY: WE ASK THAT THE COMMISSIONERS DENY ALL VARIANCE APPLICATIONS WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STONE BRIDGE SUBDIVISION. Thanks for your consideration. The Peg and Bill Paynter Revocable Living Trust /91 (U' , William B. PayntÂ¢r, Jr. Marguâ‚¬* R. Paynter Lulmt--- 4%41 Trustees -3- LZ To: Dave Shirk Planner Community Development Dept. Town ofEstes Park PO Box 1200 k.0 Estes Park CO. 80517 Having been a home owner at 1710 Powelly for some 23 years, mw wife (Ruby) and myself are less than excited about any anticipated high density development proposed directly across Fish Creek from our residense and are not in agreement with it at all. This development of 24 condos between Fish Creek and the golf course does not really make a lot of sense. This property has been dumped on for the last ten-twelve years with additional fill just to enlarge the property area and reduce the creek area itself Considering the reduction of open space in the E>P area,the distortion of view to the Rocky Mountain range,the necessary right ofways needed, setbacks required, water supply, and narrowness ofthis property, it certainly does not seem to be a viable situation to me. Another big question in my mind is the increased traffic problem and access to and from Fish Creek Rd. Thank you for considering our opinion ofthis project and please keep us informed. Yours truly, ~ - / 9 f . Fred E. Held /Â·tÂ£Â·'Â·Utf 520 4105 Aspen Lane L./ U Westlake, Texas 76262 (817)379-5456 1710 Powelly Lane Estes Park, Co. 80517 ri fo'I= 1 1 E-4 4 t. 0 1 1 2 u) m Z4 U i 1 1 1 4 . . - 1 4, I .. ) 14 ~El AOBJOIL LIS08 00'1384 s LOOZ 9 1 9AV STONE BRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT DRAWINGS NHAIdOE[HA~VJJ*INNVEId , T - 07 l. 1 . I . T Dec K- 142 k Al j 3Â·* t- 0 1----11- - UT -. i - I 1 1 1 Flu 1 1 LIVING AM. i It'-4" x 11 ' - Fe / IN 1 1 VAuLT.ED / I 1 6-JL: -# ; <LE Ill N<b I 1 1 Â· 1.-- 1 1 _MA STEÂ® 50111 1 1 ---2 -, .-- ..... -- ..... ---~ - 1--1- --- . - 10-4 1 C 11 l --- C L ~/ 1<- I re-lAE-M 1 L_ 1"-U i -0 1 r-----1 0- ; 1-1-- 1 1 1 ~1 ~ cu - u *_o Â© 1 r-= 1 bKFA_ ~ LE-.2-0 1 11 ! 6 1 - 1 1 . 1 Â£-AUNDAY 1 3.54 &â‚¬1-Ij/ 1 1 01 ;L-1 { 1 1 -,-Â»-..."-1.G..1./.- 1- 1 7- 1< i i i"T 1 1 NoN-LOCAABLE 1 ~ 106 _l i ..111Â· l PART Pal C PCOR. f-n - 1 1 1 lA....I . 1 i -1 - 11 P : -4 1.-4-6 R.A e rE, 07 2.2.' x 2- 1 L. 6 4 il, Je-_ ~ti B il m 1, U' 1 U 1- 1 1 i 7 11 2+ Nf 1 1 -1 17 1 - 1., - 1.-2----w.*...aw.--4 , 4'* 8' 898.cH UNIT "A" - UPPER._ LE.VE.L. _rE 342 = i bo" l; 2-4 3 SF # iwis 11 66 0 97 0 -,97 2-Li_ 0â€ž 9-3 >â‚¬W?d 00 , 9 pM-- 0 , PATIO 8' Â¥ 20 F *4 24- G - _11 " 1 1 1- 1 ... r . -,7.-t .,1,16'U-, 4-. -[ -- -' ..1- - A- 1 - - tro .5 /9 1 1%/ 1 T -- 6E1> F.COM 1/~~ 3 1-- 6 REAT &00 1-1 -91 han 1 20 "...CD 0-1 - 1 - 1 1 1 . <C- L-- ~ --1 1 1 I - F 1/2-DROOM F-1 i 11 2-- . fr,i _ war SAA 1 Z -31 ; ' W . 1 , 1 - - - - 4-- - n - 3 - fooL[ 1 1- 06-1 1 1 ----I--Ill ---1 L 4 1- 1.1 1 - 1 4 MEA . â‚¬ STO BAGE-, Â¥ 1 h i j f j 4 1 411-511\ .4 , 11 It UN l -1- A - Lo k.1 E-A LE,V EL- pfu = 1 , -04 952. Sm F tut SAE,b I NOTE ; LOUE-R- LEN EL- 1 6 140-0 A "LOcK-007 06) IT, IT DOES NOT HAVE- A RA~GE_ OFL OVEN !,6 -TME- laET E~AA. #*.2&?f-p*)--**â€¢' -,. . f i 34'- o" 0 4- 22Â·64_ 1 4 - 1121 NG KM. - -11 - C,L V AOLTED 7/ CE-1 LiN<6 -24' fi- F M AS-rE=E _1 50 1 re, : i 1 --1, j - 0 [-R 1 f 1=12 - - CL -- - ---71~/ [R .-- 1 -: 1 \- 11 I L , i-/ I 3 1 3 5 1 5 -13 4~0 ~1~ r ~ r-1 -T-- ~ 1 3~ 2 Ll--3 - L- NON - Lock-ASLE_ ~ , , DOOR- ', _ I 1 3 1 5 1 E i j (1 Â£ lili : 1 /- 7 ... 1,2 I 31 1 1 F--- 1 ,--1 - 1 1 I. 1 I )-1 . 136~ 100 j UNDELY ~ 0 . be -- :KITHE-14 ' i 1 --7 : 1 I./0/- --Il ....I -.I. . 1 -GARAQ E - 2-j' >< 2-1 lEi 1 1 1 42 11 1 ATI+Ge' poic.8 11 UNI-T' "13>'t - UPPEA L EVE..L /4- /1 = 1 1- 0 4 408+ SF FIMISIAED *....,Ar-* I . U. El - - -- C -L . I ~ -L- 1 1- - -- BED ACOM I 1 1 Â· ---- /W-\ - -F ' ILEâ€žID ROD Fl. CL 1- 1.- - LL----5 6 REAT K.00 M =t u - CL -Â·-Â·~ ... i L * 6 _,1 .. ilbol /. 1 - I 1 0.-77 - - - 027- BAR- 1 i T716~27~J-Â© f_-u' ' 7 CO iÂ·Â·I -jÂ·i~:Â·Â·Â· 1 _ :1 +-T - r . I -3 1 J Srol*OE. 1' ,-(T - ME<A, 1 i . 1 1 -~ 1 . 1 1,1. 1 - - - - - /1 UNIT 27 - 1-01,35.8. L.EVEL /411 = 11 0 MOTE-1 LOLJER- LE.9 EL 12> MOT A LOCK--OUT util-, STORE- COLUMN 5 f H bÂ»E- , CoT STORE- 6 16~3 W KOUGAT 1 go 16 C Ev 5-1~61*.E-E. kj ~*STONE -1-- 1 Â· ORI DGE ~71 J- . -1 00 Â· * IA, 4, j 1 I.-1 I.. .. , tz#SFifirl.... A i \ .\0,0Â£gh'ifil#bitjlv19' Jjb,)11/4 1101 6-{tr71.1/4 it '49/, 1, * r-,r-% 1 It *,4 ' V Pli t- It 1 'rb--F . n-Ni4-4 4 c# mi 11, _ - ;/ 11 , . 74 1 ,&4 . 1, , ~U PLZURT- EATRY _61614 1 -, 11 .. iE:=-Â·101-=,M-':7.-4:~CJZ'.C~-2.\ -- 00Â» 140 2 & 1 , 1 --1-#':W..'... ...1 un=- /91341 1 I 1 0 ~' 11Â¢x' I I 14,0./ <*02,2 1 1 \94 1 1 1 T.I...:414" i,/ 1.Â·Â·: *---~1 flf-A 1 j ../lit I f , 1/eli Â»Â« -â€ž.P......:........ . 7.. ...'.1 L '43:4 1 4-*.,1~Ult' .. --I..... 25/ // \ 1,4 1 1.11 / r >4 1]1 r"-0&4. , li ' 'k 1 /4 - -~ ~-0 1 <rfu-1 2 2 1 i t:j ~< R i , C Â· 1 1 11:j'It. .--4... .... 1 = :-1 11 - 1 - , 1, 11..1 1111 Â£ Ill 1 1 1~ 1 . 1 tu..0 1 . , / 1.1- V --*707"Â·7 --Â· . 1 i lit j. i - 1, 1 6 Â· 4 1 -1 k / i 1, 1 1 i f 41 1 1 .. -U.-4 : .U=Â¥m=Ell- 1. ... --1 M.21 . ... r -Â· - 4-- 1â€¢ It K / ; il PA> LE-5 - EAME E-LE-VATIOAJ 74, = \ 1- 0 -It.- 1 1 ' - . ...1.--:L - 1- -Â» 1 -- i -- - ..... -I ...p - P.I.-I.:.'*:*4.1"... (222.2227-- -7432/ Â« '1 ---1 0414 - .9.4. ,~4~ ..~,--.4."40.-r'.-4,1~f. . '41 .Â¢Â·Â·Â·-Â· I.......'ll-lt.,0./14.4* ..2,--r' 4.LA. 0%=&/ ... /*./.I-'# ; .-- ...... t. . . -'**'Â·-*".-:-1.-â€¢FfhIW~-4;0Â·1~ , 7 . 11- ff f E. JoW,b-J..#11Â§~! Â· f .4.,40.a.4.1Â» r â‚¬ it k 4. ?#44 1 1 1 r 1 4.. - I 'r ; i , I i Â· ~~, -*-- 4-_ Â·1#*-#. - JI'l . 1 il/1. 1. 1 1 (-1 ~.. 1 1131[3 Elm .1- 124 L_.â€ž---.--7 [[3101 ;El El' 1 1000 2 i 1 1 tx ' mEl 00 1113013 1 k f- -- /-:1 6 001 0011 f k ~t:, i 1 '41+ Pa 1 S 1 7>52 1 . a I I 14- .1 V J. 4 , . , 1 'f . 442 1 -i 1 .. /1 - r- I.r.....'.-,1-,Â¥....'.1 1.- 1. 1 UN IT- 'A" - EAST ELE-VATIES J<*" 0 1 Lo n I r. .1, 4 . EXTE.$245>iz-_._filÂ»\SbAE-1> 1/ R.OOP - 10 5.ATREFLE-D 4.000 13 COT-1906{TIOâ€¢,1 66-llgal-E.6, 2.~) S) Dlf\16 - .STOCCO oFF- k>MITE- OJITIA DA.144 Ep 12.0 G.314 HALF- Tt rl{52-14.b .9-% 1-KIM , 58Â»E- 1, 15*Lic-K_ Ag-.c-e-tal-Â£~ 3,~ LleHT(&56 - CAN LIGAT.5 143 FRONVT~ FORCH de-!UN65, NALL-MOUNTED CANS OR De.4 4.4. PAT to . I '- 1.-- . I ---*-. . -*..N*.'#r:Â·Ni-'lla./.'-.*.4 + I.*: . S,r...# -........../ . . .-.4. pi.2=-tâ„¢- .*'..#-I'./.... H.Â· =*-+I -f.'61% I , l .....1Â·/b. ; .~i:*~0-" a,-,~$; -t-,~--Det-09-~~--0X,-/ / iÂ» IÂ·.3/Â·- ... -,7 11 - t =4*%Q-jÂ»' ~44*Â·7:....'.... ' ' Q r# -i-.-I- -/-/ Ir'./ 13.<al *--.-I;.49.'...2.V.,r'*...1.- 1. aN liN - , .'--Vâ€ž--17'.Â«,-'....%~4.1'kq'.,~M.,=leo'..%2* * -1 15 . 4 -11.11Â»1 j . P 50/ i 1 RE on~ ~ 1 30 , i /*-36.. -- 4:F:.2,## 5 lilli -1 ~1 EU l.3 i_j j V . . 4 -Â· Â· 11 --- F ll 1 11 jj i i ) 1, L.Li_'j-1 ~. 2 1 1 : 2-2-U- i 2 2 1 1 1 3 R r # -1-11111 Ul I r[ 1 11 L t~nmÂ¥h i 1 i { 4 i 1 # i l l / . . 4--,---,V....â€ž04-M--W.-..=Â»1:Neli.-.4 . 1 : . moj -- 111 -OF it foujc~n ~ Lli./ 10.1 Oll 1 - 1 -1. 11 OJ OJ , f-"+ 5 1 -13~cli f L 6 100 3 , t iril Dll !-r-2 )-4*.3-4 1 rrnÂ·>rhA CÂ·j;=R F il w__IIUE-WIiErtm*rmitrrt -. ., ... h -*. ... .~ 0 */.7 UN/11'A" - DJEST ELE-VATiON . *1:)1. 144 , 1 I C .tte&+4 0- â€ž . glut~ 18~- 3 (= Cy . 13% A al . Ul .4 n 1*0- 2 ~.'t.AX /0 71 -21 - tv 1â€¢ 04.k V.X. 14 4 0 2 4 . 7\ ; uv, L.0/ . . k 111 9....4,1 J 8i =C a 0 /7 2 e -5 22 ~ /40\ flo/ - & 2 p 0 7 i g 42 . .. h a N .% I iv f.4/ / _t 2 - 14 - \ 14 lÂ»-1 r 41 - 0- 0 2 k - 3 3 4 - 0 E-, 5 8 0 - -S 0 . li =3 -1 4 -1 1 0 -f '4&:0+244~Â·. SIT 1 ,' ~ 0 DA.4>3~ -Cj- AS~41/2~4*44â‚¬(2, F l 0 , _ U f * 1 2. 41 i -J 0 2 3 4 4 -1 4 3 - W 30 0- 1 0 - - f 0 -0 1- A F == 1 - \ iD \ \ t 2..1 8/ ia '9 9- x~ #% 4:;P~ -0 Â«0 /7 2 6 - 9/9/ - 1 0Â° E [/032, d 1 r Â» UU - -1 14 /7<-/A 11 9 - - 0 1? ./. r 9 b 7 k - 1 d 4 --- 0 A - 00 - 52 - 014 L - r - - . I I. ''. I. 4 . 6 . 'I. ~- U k] !!Ilg AT BLUE- 5 f AWE- k.&&4# ./ 9(N U 975"4 94Â¥7 CURRAKST- DEA 136-31 -kr)<U n - 9 01 = 50 Â» n STONE BRIDGE ESTATES PARCEL # 25322-00 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 4C~224 UTILITIES AND LANDS CAPING - S - g+00 60' RIGHT-OB " FOR LOT 2 AND LOT 8 0/ STONE BRIDGE a ESTATES SUBDIVSION, LOCATION IN PORTIONS OF El -s--3.50 VAN HORN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 81, st\- ENGINEERING MAIL BOX ps- . PARKING AREA NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 82. AND THE 24' weKS ......... .............5.. .......r------ - SOUTHIEST 1/4 OF SECTTON 29. ALL IN 9/01 "0\. TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH. RANGE 72 VIST. COUNTY 3!%t OliN ........ ....... OF UR~NZR, S!1!~ OF COLO-00 J ) TT ,31>,5-> e. ........ 0 L L 2 Â£ 9-- --4/k \ - ..... - 14*\- No CORS . // .......... ....2 & GUTTFD - -rl - : Zki K >'21-- _ -T 4 S-J - *-17 Â» BRI GE ABUT SEWERLINE_ CROSSING LEGAL DESCRI LOT 2 AND LOT 3 SUBDIVISION, ESTE1 ZONING: RM - RESIDENTIAL A# SETBACKS: FRONT UNITS: 24 TOTAL UNITS PRC DUPLEXES, 1 TRIPLE: 10 UNITS ON LOT 2: TRIPLEX 14 UNITS ON LOT 3: FLOOR AREA MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LQL.2* TOTAL FLOOR AREA ( AREA OF LOT 2: 69, FAR = 18,644 SF / LQI--3; C TOTAL FLOOR AREA ( AREA OF LOT 3: 115 FAR = 26,664 SF / 44 34 r' -11 1--1---kÂ©- i TOTAL LOT 2: 29,347 IMP. COV. = 42.3% PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR DRAWN BY: 9 1 LOT 3: VESTED RIGHTS STATEMENT: ZSH BUILDINGS: 21,345 SF ATTEST APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN CREATES A VESTED CHECKED BY: 1 - 1 -1- - : SIDEWALK/DECKS: 4,777 SF PROPERTY RIGHT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF LAS i DRIVES: 19,986 SF TITLE 24 C.R.S. AS AMENDED. SCALE 11 1 TOTAL LOT 2: 44,508 IMP. COV. = 37.3% 1"=20' -4~02! Lcp 2121-71 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS: 73,855 SF / 188,760 SF = 39.1% THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE OWNERS, DO HEREBY AGREE THAT THE REAL ' - DATE: TOTAL IMPERVIOUS: 73,855 SF OWNER'S CERTICICATION PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FILED 5/23/2007 :~9:3[fp~j~~f-U~-ff~r-Iia*~TT--.-- ~f-~Â£9---~ ~ ~ ~ HEREWITH, AND AS SHOWN ON THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO WATER: TOWN OF ESTES PARK OWNER: SHEET THE PROVISIONS OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE TOWN OF BILL VAN HORN, TRUSTEE OF VAN HORN TRUST - NQIES ESTES PARK, COLORADO AND ANY OTHER ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES SEWER: UPPER THOMPSON SAN. DIST. P.O. BOX 456 PARK, COLORADO PERTAINING THERETO. ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Â»9404-939 -1- 4 74 1 WITH THE A.D.A, AND I.B.C. ZONING: R-M APPLICANT: - _ P T~AC.~L~~~~" ~~~~ THE OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY IN ACCORDANCE ELECTRIC: TOWN OF ESTES PARK -=/ 11_-1-12* i 4 t. A : --_ 2--1. -tiLLLU-~ ATTACHED TO THE BUILDINGS AND WILL BE SHIELDED AND DEFLECTED DOWNWARD. ESTES PARK, CO 80517 OF CMS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT EXTERIOR LIGH1 ING WILL BE LOCATED AT THE ENTRY POINTS OF THE NEW BUILDINGS, BY: WILLIAM G. VAN HORN, TRUSTEE OF VAN HORN TRUST BUILDING HEIGHT: NOT TO EXCEED 30' 450 FISH CREEK ROAD J 1 970-577-9744 AUG 1 6 2007 j Enm]LAUE ALL REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED OR GUARANTEED IN ACCORDANCE WHH EVDC SECTIONS 7.12 AND 10.5K. PREPARED BY: ATTEST VAN HORN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING SCALE: 1=-1.000' APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT CHANGE THE NONCONFORMING STATUS OF 1043 FISH CREEK RD. THE VAN HORN ENGINEERING OFFICE. ESTES PARK, CO 80517 PROJ. NO. (970) 586-9388 2005-04-1 HSZ HSZ S13>INd Od 250.3 Sl.N3~IA00 a LO/9/9 S1N314)NOO S,3AVO HSZ SlN)MA00 S,3AVO NOISIA3&1 SNIA]AanS ONV JNIN33NI0N3 NXIOH NVA AlS 'ZE '03S AiN GLE .0$[S RN 1 JIO SNOILWOd L 1909 00Vhl0100 ~'>IM~d S * '08 >133&10 HS13 Â£*0 L ill U /4 il 1 W U LU . / --Il.lill""A 4. , C., A .. 0. ... 0 D --ill'Â£nle.'ll.W .. . 0 / 0 0 e . 0 0 0 . 0 44 . 4 .2 2 A* : ... 17:4 RE.'ll...6/.-- 0 / \ - Â»111.~ - , 0 1. 1-22 1/,i 1 1 D . , ..1& .Â»mzm~ 0 . .0 -Ii,w~Ir#Ji* .. 94! - D . 4 4 - ...= . .. 0 '. 1-44- 1. 1 0 0 0 4 .. , .. . .A ill ./ -. .. . A . - . 0. 0 . I . . .. . .. . 4 0 . - 0 .. 1 4 .... 0 . 0 ..1 . 4 0 -0 - . ... 1 0.1 - . lizi ..I ... I. .. - li<K/l 20 1 . m. - 4 ... . 12.1 . 4 I . 0 : 1 . 4 /7,7 0 1 . A A 0 0 .. . . .. - . . . m. 4 -- - ... . ..0 - ... . . 1 . . 1 0 --0-0 1 I 1- 4.'.- 1 ./ .1 . . .. . 4 - ./.. \ b I 1. . 1 I . 0 0 , , . ... 1 * . 1 1. . . 0 .: . . . 0 4 1. . . I. ...1 4. . ..2 . 1,1 0 1 1 -T / 4 / / STONE BRID GE ESTATES 24Â»Â« \\411\ Â«Â«Â«\\\4\-- 1 8 Z 1 2 12 6 / 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN zg Qi / / --0 1 0588~ 2 -/ gl 2 UTILITIES AND LANDS CAPING M.EGE, OJj N 41 0 de .... --E~%->4-- 4 2 0 o! 2 SCALE 1"=20' FOR LOT 2 AND LOT 8 OF STONE BRIDGE 82 % 60 i'â€¢1 + 0 20 40 ESTAT~ SUBDIVSION. LOCATION IN PORTIONS OF .y . -f 0 ....... POWFp r 1 'â€¢11 N THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 81. Z CD Z E oo WM dE - - EP -EP -1 PROPOSED ELECTRIC PRIMARY + Â·; UTILITY NOTES: -â€ž -08 -Ii PROPOSED ELECTRIC SERVICE 1. ALL ROAD CROSSINGS MUST COMPLY WITH COUNTY Â· STANDARDS. /\ FENCE (TO BE REMOVED ALONG 2. COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT REQUIRED FOR WORK WITHIN /i )110 156%.al----a-j :.6 ' 1 4X /\C- THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. .....- , 1 94*05. ' h - EASTERN PORTION OF PROPERTY) 3. ELECTRIC SERVICE TO BE SINGLE PHASE PRIMARY, 4" 7 li . PRrPOSED op@1 SPACE 80' SETBACK NEROM 9. ., SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONDUIT TO BE USED, FROM EAST SIDE OF EXISTING TOWN LIMITS Â· FISH CREEK ROAD TO TRANSFORMER TO BE PLACED ON SITE. , \ j ) AY<-Â·Â·Â·~ / EXISTING CRE~ SECONDARY SERVICES WILL BE RUN FROM THERE. ALSO BOTH j - , )) '11 4& OF THE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES (OVER FISH CREEK ROAD ' CORRECTED 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) WILL BE REMOVED. THE 11 OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES THAT CURRENTLY RUN ALONG THE 0\NQx ..141,1.51 2-3=-47./-00â€žC . r PROPERTY LINE WILL BE PUT UNDERGROUND AND THE LAST DRAWN BY: +5 4~ 13$~ft/ ZS UTILITY POLE POLE ON THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN. THERE IS A SERVICE NOTES: *4.41 4 -0----t,~4442Â« / CHECKED BY: LINE ON THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST THAT WILL BE RELOCATED 1. A HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF THIS SITE HAS BEEN PERFORMED ...Â· ~ . ~~~ -.,>i~~ LA ELECTRIC PEDESTAL UNDERGROUND ACROSS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. A SEPARATE AND THE CORRECTED FLOOD PLAIN IS SHOWN HEREON. A FEMA'Â· 4 B / V,\0\1 . 10-1 EASEMENT WILL BE RECORDED FOR ANY PRIMARY LINES ACROSS LOMR IS CURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED TO OFFICIALLY CORRECT SCALE PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE FLOOD PLAIN PER PRECISE FIELD MEASUREMENTS. 1"=20' TELEPHONE PEDESTAL 4. WATER SERVICE TO BE EXTENDED FROM THE EXISTING 8" 2. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE BLUE SPOT ON THE SOUTH Â·'' ~ DATE: MAIN SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY (CURRENTLY ENDING END OF THE CONCRETE PATIO AT VAN HORN ENGINEERING IS AT Â· 2/23/2007 APPROXIMATELY AT THE NORTH END OF THE CREEKSIDE AN ELEVATION OF 7532.65'. THIS IS AN OFFICIALLY 4 RECOGNIZED FEMA BENCHMARK. MANHOLE SUBDIVISION). THE MAIN EXTENSION WILL BE 8" D.I.P. AND + Â·Â· SHEET 3. THE AREA OF THE 30' CREEK SETBACK IS TO BE DEDICATED RUN WEST OF THE EXISTING TRAIL (SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY) AS OPEN SPACE TO MEET TOWN STANDARDS OF 15% OPEN . - THENCE CROSSING THE TRAIL AND RUNNING ALONG THE ' ~ ~1 lo~=ay-g~ nl 2 f* EXISTING TREES EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. SPACE ON RM DEVELOPMENTS. 2 4. THE LOCATION OF THE SILT FENCE SHOWN HEREON 00.00 MEASURED OR CALCULATED DIMENSIONS ~N STE~EEREASSET~VRINCE W~LTiozEOFFR?HME TKEO~~:fOSE%-LSE&%1(*IN DELINEATES THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. LINES TO BE 4" P.V.C., SEWER MAIN AND SERVICES MUST * AUG 1 6 2007 # M COMPLY WITH UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT OF (00.00) PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS GUIDELINES. fc {00.00} PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS (ROTATED TO MATCH BASIS OF BEARINGS) W ! 4.1 E i M 2005-04-11 PROJ. NO. SZ 313>10Â¥d Od 103rOad ONIA3Akl 3NI0N] NHOH NVA AE 'ZE 'llIS AtN 'l E 'ORS JIN JIHI 2I0 SNOLLWOd LL909 0100 MEIVd S31S3 * 133210 HSM Â£+0 1 LOL -9~~ (OL6), :XÂ¥3 * 6- (0L6) 3NOHd All LN ' N 91 62 *ORS 133HS Z CO . . .. . --1. ,<4\ 0 1 . '' : , / , - -. e :Ill,27*. ... - . 4 0 0 0 :Ill' :Â» 11 .. . AL- ... 1 lilli . 1 .. 4. 0 -./.Ill":IMER:MI'lifil:"B.j~ All)BE:1~~:4- .. 14.e#lim-I.-- .. r.... Aillillail,8/imili,le,Avilli --Illix/l.1......Wil............-3......'-I 1-1 . --. 0 .. 9.9.' 0 } .1-1 . , Ill. . A , ... 1 . 9 . I - 0. - . ... - - -4 . ........ .A ...1=.11./Me.Elm.. .. -~V .... D D // . - ./Â· L . . 0 - .......4.2......1/Mvis.-I-'ll.- .4 PQA .. . -0 p.%.- .' : 7- - ... . / h.= 11 \~ 4. 4. 1.4.. ..th paA . /A -,-,~04 : il ,&---- \- -'ililim/Allimmillillilillill*illy 3 P.li-Il- *~.4. - A'~m. I 4 A./ 0 b .-AD A I. .... . , , ... 1 -ju#/I'- I ..1 0 .. . .: . 1 -:11 0 -4 - .0. . . 0 . .. S . 4. . ..1 ..........5.... . 00 .0 . '. . I. . ..0 . - .. .. 0 0 .. . 1 . -L- .. I :A ... ..... 1 .I. .1 + 0 - . 4, 0 A. 0 -.. ..... 1 . A .0 I. . el . . . 2 . r . A .0 0 .. A - I . .. . - . 'A - L 2/ C tie !b -/ 2 STONE BRIDGE ESTATES w V/ L Z Am ul - DEVELOPMENT PLAN 30 30 . Â£! Â¥ Â¥8 SCALE 1 "=20' UTILITIES AND LANDSCAPING 0 0 59. 1 4 FOR LOT 2 AND LOT 8 0/ STONE BRIDGE im g 11.Â¥PER 0 20 40 50 (5 ~ ~~~'JO'~P 938 9 3 ESTATES SUBDIVSION, LOCATION IN PORTIONS OF : d & INLET 7549 9 W 938.9' OUT THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 81. 17543.9 15.55,27" 4/ 938* , " , w 1 h a=b .... i 91 up I NORTIWIST 1/4 01 SECTION 82, AND TEIE &TS&k ................. r........................... ............... . . . CE, le r 8kkk SOUTHWEST 1/4 0, SECTION 29, ALL IN tÂ¥/ r....L--* ' 9 -:El/~t/:lievjil.,5 '/1. 1-2/0 Ch.Â»Â· 1 ~ -P--1- 06Â¢ 2-Y TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH. RANGE 72 WEST. COUNTY S OF LARIMER. STATE 01 COLORADO 4 1 - 1Â·~49~Li~ P~Â«3445. . --- - $-1- P-274- t. 77 4,4rj 34@Ep ...... :-,t C,-Â«22- L - --/4'Ak , fpe:tiE. 7<4\- Dor ...- LO , O - ................ ...... W Ep *11% ...9...7/Ch,;17\ - I- ENT Â£5> 9 4,81 *1 - / -17' N L,1 AtiokÂ» - 3*1~~./ tv --_ cÂ·Â·Â·Â· c rt-- 32 0 Z O A S ..... S X Ep .......6~NCE U,OUD LO I 1 .............. - Z h --0 .. - 7 780 4 0481.6 2. H/-N-\ - . 11 STREET LIGHT -O P b 0 0 419 . 25' ......... g-* ............ X ~ - Â»~44.-crfiDÂ¢~944 .... 1 6 4 /- 0 0 ZED * 0 u,/ / 0 .~3Â·$-/V 0 1246,Â·, * - 42* &1 9 5 I i - 5 zil E------20<.+Â·-JJ---.2 &4 ..... 6/ 0 . > CULVERT 1 *I= --212 /- /0 le" *8 80%0 / --~-f 41 0) ./%~/ ./#/. ~2 -U- 'J ... .ji.*4 1 cm: - lut; <C~*-312 - -9 9 -9 ! 1\ < REMOVED) 1 A 0 24' - 4~ 1 Dla ~042 <22 -- Â» Emi 0 + 1 Je --- --- - 4 ...... -EP - ......,,. fi 1 1 073 - 11Â·310~0441 1 -4443** 0 ~, --%Â·4 994-,1 - 0 * , â‚¬Q~~43- 1,- V>4/2*4 I ...... v..4 0 - / g d~* f Y/ i It - uzs- -..........................., 0 0 uy<&74 - /Â»\ *r ..... 490*aw - CONCRETE ' DRIVE PAN - 0 ' ZONING 0 F ................ -4.... C 0 0 . --38-- Wij 148-4.'77~Op<2'*----Â· (TOÂ· RE REMOVED) 241 2 'Jia- -ma / 1 OSTAL 0 0 1 i (TYP) 20' *42 . UNIT 1/4 45 0 CLUSTER 2 4, 4333 :*4 Â· Ep ...0- 5 8--06-+1Â» r <54. 1, BOX 0 3 0 00,2' .... 'r. 3/3~~ > UPPER FfÂ·f 7549 0 ' it..., LOWER ~: 7539 1 7/5:>, 1 -.7. Lf. z 92\4...... 0 ..... 0 1 - - /J .... .... 0 1 \ ...... WALY*OUT * 015' BUILDING - lu ---r )-I---- f 0 0| ~ SETBACK Â».-93<- EÂ» \ 0 j i /0 0 / a" ~ ..... ~'â€¢Â·..2 4 41 2 0 . 4 2 4 , Tâ€¢... .(& 15.Â·40' 9 0 UNIT 1157 0 E e \ Â· -/ U -4 W- UPPER FF: 7549 1 . 0 foÂ» lilli:.--22$-S 316*15' 12.'.,4 1,4* 0 0 /4 - ~e LOWER FF: 753 UNIT 1165 0 WALKOUT UPPER FF: 7551 0 fsÂ·160 1.5 '. :-* 1 /21 ' '' ... - Aff Ep ..... ..... 0' dREEK \ -POL#jot>* 1 U N IT 1147 LOWER FF: 7541 ~ 0 Â»Â» - Â·Â·â€¢. ---s.- UPPER FF: 7549 UNIT 1167 ; 11. '1 -7- -- - '-I , ' AL. *T~ACK \ LOWER FF: 7539 UNIT 1155 0 ' - WALKOUT UPPER FF: 7549 UPPER FF: 7551 u 'viii 195 - - L./A /--114108~5:.. \ e - - - / 7Â»Â« 71Â·ocir,m._ f~ ~~ LOWER FF: 7539 LOWER FF: 7541 UNIT 1175 MAIN FF: 7555.0 4Â£3 - *EF. - --/ 40(4,2 - n.Â·24,=m-Oup A 0*&12 *$.S -- --*. l...C./3Â£11fritiZwEME:"EE \ 4, 0 . 3 .i 4 \ ft - WALKOUT APP OXIMATE WALKOUT UPPER FF: 7553 POLE,( ELECTRI LOWER FF: 7543 C S #CHAAi i A EA OF . QN 'ECT TO EUTI->- -- WALKOUT ~Â· oU~~Pro ' PRI)POSED 043 SPACE -". WE LANDS ~~~~~~~-BACK\EROM ~ -__ SETBACK - i / / STRAW 30' CREEK LOWER FF: 7543.5 - i ' h 2 / EXISTING CREOL '--- UNIT 1185 - UNIT 1177 1Â· , - X. ...\36/'V / DQ~---43 UPPER FF: 7553.5 MAIN FF: 7554 BALES <- 119,326 1 / 1 S -- - WALKOUT x '4â‚¬.739 SF - a 224* ~ -/ -- I - . / I. I - -1- .\C- ./ ' : .- N V --* I / \44 00 25 (53 20.-U-.-"-:,-U.L 80 4*04 ka I rf CO K - sp SE 1%~ //---3....6. \ - 9 0000 1 \ I . . ->{- '. / 16"-11=11=11-11.-11-11=.04 1-11=1=11-,4- C:'c- ' N - 2 uk Nx j ,-,1.Â£ 49.5Â¤/-) 11\. ' 22,40"E~,0=11-" \ 1~'36 ~~rw\V" ''-, \--\ r ---1-- (S06'23'24"W 87.42') 4 ..\04 9 49\Â·\-977- 60 /76? ....*+*/00 ~ ~; 1y 11 < w - 0 04 .'.... 4 39./ Xi'De ~ ti~-- --- - 40' 4.4 1 \4 /1.. ....4 ....0 0-0.0 0.0.~"I 404 04.4 \\ 4 , 4 4 \\\ 96 ~ -,2.,-~1- (3,~19 r41â‚¬42â‚¬~31,9.6 282: 11-11' 10' UTILITY .9 " - 44.59') 318.0 '\'5>..i 4 \ 4 ./\ -- --X --- 44 % 2 -11 --- .. / ~~ ~ ffÂ» -5: - ~ s,4,~ 341 *1 ,~-- 3 - .1 .1 0->4 ij ,\ 1 5 \NX 91\ - 4\ 0 44.4 . --/ 1/0 40 .........0......0 t-,1~11.-1-11-,1..'..,0.1- ..... ,\ \ .593 :C f \ 94930./ - ----- N11 L /-- I ./ ..2,.@- --- J 'Â·10'56 m 4 *444 t1 0%~ -FOUND #4 REBAR. i-. 10' WIDE CONCRETE] . TRAI'L,, ' 3 --O--O , U- C. /0 I - ~CO ZONING) - S '15'31"W - i.0 . 4-c CO ZONING) .%00" ~4~~. ~4~~ '3 4 LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1 1. ALL SEEDED AREAS TO BE RESEEDED BY HAND AND RAKED IN PLACE. ALL SEEDED SLOPES GREATER THAN 2:1 TO BE MULCHED AND SEEDED FOR EROSION CONTROL FABERIC (USE STRAW BALES WHERE ~.1 NEEDED TO AVOID EROSION AND ENHANCE GROWTH POTENTIAL). PLANT SCHEDULE 2. TOPSOIL SHALL BE STRIPPED IN AREAS OF DISTURBANCE AND STOCKPILED TO BE REDISTRIBUTED WHEN PLANT QUANTITY SIZE REVEGETATION BEGINS. STOCKPILING SHALL NOT OCCUR OUTSIDE OF DELINEATED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. cron) SHRUBS 3. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY, GROWING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. THE TYPICAL PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS NATIVE POTENTILLA 24 2 GAL , '. PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULAR IRRIGATING, PRUNING, WEEDING, MOWING, FERTILIZING, DRAWN BY: NOT TO SCALE COMMON LILAC 12 5 GAL 044 REPLACEMENT OF PLANTS IN POOR CONDITION AND OTHER MAINTENANCE OF ALL PLANTINGS AS NEEDED. ZSH 0 4. CONIFER TREES SHALL BE SIZED AS 50% EIGHT FEET TALL AND 50% SIX FEET TALL AT PLANTING. PYGMY BARBERRY 24 2 GAL 5. DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE SIZED AS 50% FOUR INCH CALIPER AND 50% TWO INCH CALIPER AT CHECKED BY: bk.WAVAW .Al SCOPULORUM JUNIPER 96 2 GAL $ PLANTING. LAS te -i SNOWMOUND SPIREA 24 2 GAL 6. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET THE AWERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN SPECIFICATIONS FOR SCALE COMPACT PFITZER JUNIPER 48 2 GAL NUMBER 1 GRADE AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE QUALITY STANDARDS OF THE COLORADO NURSERY ACT, 1"=20' BURNING BUSH 24 1 GAL TITLE 35, ARTICLE 26, C.R.S., AS AMENDED. DATE: 4 WMFAVAMIMMWMMV TREES 7. ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED OR GUYED AND FENCED TO PROTECT FROM WILDLIFE DAMAGE. NO CHAIN 2/23/2007 4 N LINK FENCING SHALL BE ALLOWED. - w RADIANT CRABAPPLE 8 6' - 8' 8. NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SHALL BE ISSUED UNLESS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE FULLY ASPEN 24 8' -10 SATISFIED WITH REGARD TO THE APPROVED LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING PLAN: SUCH PLAN HAS BEEN -~ EÂ© E 0 V E -=)~ HEET 4 2 Jr-'~% 4 P PURPLE PLUM 8 5' - 6' FULLY IMPLEMENTED ON THE SITE AND INSPECTED BY STAFF OR, SUCH PLAN, BECAUSE OF SEASONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS; J COTTONLESS COTTONWOOD 4 6' - 8' CONDITIONS, CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY, BUT HAS BEEN GUARANTEED BY AN IMPROVEMENT ~ J.L 4 L : 4 ; PONDEROSA PINE 12 6' -80 9. AN AUTOMATIC DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE REQUIRED. 1 n ' COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 32 5' - 6' IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 33 TREES 115 SHRUBS AGREEMENT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. AUG 1 6 2007 ~ STREET FRONTAGE 42 TREES 113 SHRUBS DIST. BUFF. 5 EVERGREEN TREES 12 SHRUBS 10. SLOPES 25-40% SHALL BE REVEGETATED WITH DEEP ROOTING PLANTS AND SHALL INCLUDE EROSION , C / 4445 i -LIMBER PINE 6 5' - 6' 1 CONTROL BIANKETS UNTIL PLANTS TAKE ROOT. SLOPES GREATER THAN 40% SHALL BE PERMANENTLY I _ STABILIZED WITH ROCK RIP RAP OR HYDRO-MULCHING. L- F NOTE: REFER TO SHEET 3 FOR DETAILED PLANS OF UNITS. 11. ONLY THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ROAD FRONTAGE AND PARKING AREAS ARE SHOWN HEREON. SHRUBS TREES TOTAL PLANNED 252 94 TOTAL REQUIRED 239 80 PROJ. NO, 2005-04-11 NOISI/\3&1 133HS HSZ S.13>IOVd Od 803 Sll43Mrl00 i OGIHEI 103rObld ONIA] AlS 'ZE 'OHS JI L CIO SNOIJH 30100 MUVd 3NOHd ONId V SRILITI111 Td LNRINd OTEIAJIG PHASE.7 2 lili lili .......... STONE BRIDGE ESTATES 4411 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN-GRADING AND 0 Â£ ....... - 24'. , ....... 1 8 Z . EROSION CONTROL . .. . U ---1(/ / L- -O w Z 0 = -â‚¬R> - - - r',0 --6, NO CORS ....... *-< : 1 - 44-- ...............0 - ...'.16 ..61 ...... ...... ...... ...... OL . - C) ro .... .... BRI GE 4 //5,> \. ART< r'Â¥~t Il"- $ --*< I - 8 N. -7530- - I--- /1\\\ Z 2 - 0 0 /:l/ .---- 2 Ph 1..''J' i W Z 1 FOR LOT 2 AND LOT 8 0, STONE BRIDGE ESTATES Z , . <4- / i -CE O ---Ky 3 0 9 \ 4-- . 0 SUBDIVSION, LOCATED IN PORTIONS OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 a u , 0 - - =3 Z '- -* . i . -4 00 ,/ 4- - - 0 1 i \ - . 3. IGHT OF WAY ~ Â» -1 4 t--i- '/ \ 51 4 1 OF SECTION 81, NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 82. AND TU , & GUTTER PROPOSED FOR THIS STRETCH ~~ i ---- 1 01Â£ . ABUT -- 444.-3 1Â« \ SOUTHNEST 1/4 oF SECTION 29, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 5 2 \ ..1.+ ../. , <*<2% -1./.L/<./, \1 1 \ 4 . -/'. N \ .... 1.--r-- , I ' . ' . ~ ~ 1 NORTH. RANGE 72 WEST, COUNTY OF LARIMER. STATI OF 1.00 /ODE R (59 i *. 0./. 0. C - :1 K 1 , -\\ , \ ,% 0 \ ... i \1 '. 10 0\\ N'LUS*4,g.j. 4Â» ~ 11:......,2,Â¢00*00= ..~_~ r -z;*4~.6-- 2%---- s:\ 44 -- \ 1 2 - 44 / ---- 7.0.*04----- 'Â·Â·Â·Â· - ~ ~ \~s# COLORADO ...... S15 19 27"W 369.95' ......... ...... SINGLE STORY ...... ET 7538.8 ~ ........ ...... .......... ...... . O \ h to \ :4 I p 1. r I.* 1 10 N ,D \ \ \ '7 '9 0 5 K 00 1 .0 04 - \ Il . / 2/ w-Â·~-2/X<-, , Â· 0 - 4. .. . . t. A \ 1 \ \44-- 371,- 1- .L . 815.44'30'24) , 1% 62 9411 \ -; : , 19'2711/1 ) 033 *7'*w"**:*,-,8444,0-1- 2 4- I '. 0-4 1 , i -40\ 1 r./33 - f/ U ,~ .- \ \ . -NI . .~ ---Â·-7520 "L - -, 21_ --- .?t---2*4 -he<---~ ",-1 ..., N I --- 1 Â· ' \ <D ...Â·I ~ 1 1 35 481 Z 49 I -- / 2.1.-.2.-ft.04 -. -,fi.Â»< 01\\\ 4\1 -e--* 14 Â· >8- 1 c f c ' 1 z ...0.- ,34 ' . -- <s- . t DoT 31 \\\\1, - --------- ------7 -2>/,- M . ...... 41 1.4 . 9 ~ (s i 4* \ \\\13 -\ENGLA@ORN- -. R20 - Â·815Â· r 30119 . 1 j / L .... . 0 1 02: 19'27"W} U. - ---- % 24' - 1 11. -9 - 3 -' .p......7-112 - -- - 915.19,2774 / ..V \ l - / FRAWE I. - -lo - 00 M, <. 1 1 VtÂ«. TYPE l // 4 LOADING ~ .... ..... 1 / 4.4 - 10'*20' .... 9 4.8 / - . 4 $ --% --r-* .~ . 4.. a: 32 - N 73 / f ,~ - J - N - -- -f-- Â· 'O ZO ING ... O / N. -L.K. -4 1 17' : .... -r 4 1 . 1 1 , \ ~ /Nk OUT: 753428 ,Â·IN~4j2,3 3, ' /4~ E(0* i 2 Â©poo- jp' -00- -<// .... ..... .... .... 0 - â€¢ . ./L \\ / -//// 1, Â¢ \ - %Â·1 w // , 04 1 30'\CREEK 1 1 / -%-4- ....... , 6,sj' ,-> Â£ 7%:Â·- i SETbACK LO,T 6... It H -.... ,. \ 1 1 4 1 241 +42&20 W cn ' -- 1.-6 7531.01 - . LCD - // ... 0--C * 1 1 60 % J i> - 1 . - c.4 --~- ~ ~ ~0 fo Â· c 400..Fi 3 5 31) ,> -~ 23,98(5130 s.f. EASEM NT / 1 0' UT ITY \ \ 1 \ I u 1 1 - W ... 4.- ~X__-'-p I -46 - h 'Ck> .... 45/ -2 0 - ,0- \* lin~~~%1 9/:004 - A) >49 .' / af to 1 O.551 acres / ~ 0 r <44,962 2. 27,44... , /1,%. I 2--j j ,<ft '~' '5(024 -- ..... N --L-- -- 07. i./1 ' ~- '~~~ -P . . .1 - , , 45 ..6~-249-fti.41 41' 1 / . \ , I. ,~ /. DEMONSTRATION 24' EASE ENT / UNIT 1067 ~~ 4)' Â«Â«2 - 135Â»// 58 04 \\ / PARKING SHOWN FOR 10.0' U ILIT~ - --- 10 - \ PURPOSES ONLY- NO MAIN FF: 7536 ro - -1,0 . / - *.. ----, L-F~.TER::~5 i \,< 1 31 Â°4Â»Â°po A 9~~ll L Z r tli \1/ 77-3 ---- /4/ 0-L-_---"~< 2 fl â€¢. ' C'%22 4 </ 1 ele//911 1 PAVING PROPOSED1 %\ tiE, 'â€¢. i 35 7542 91\Â· ~ 9 ---- C RRENTLY \ -------7525---; i / 1 1 \\ 4 ..%6 2 3 5 4 j /19 1 44 -------- Tut 1 1) )1 1.46 2,>. \1 -\ \/950-2 ~ ~~ Ze 1 V h. .LA )> 1 1.\ ,- 0 004 24' 0 ./.3 4% a . 2.1 .;., t . . % \ \ ./32- f 20' \-* '0~9. L //. .V) }lb* 1 ~ i j\< ~ 6 \ .UPIE- + 1if Â·R) :' -4% A:'' / )V/.rut\,\\.\ M -9 1 - I : i LO . - . O 2\ , -e.2.: Â·i.. :\-' in . EASEMENT ,:Â·~"Â·, - : . Â·.% 15' UTILITY , -,6 ~*%~3:2:5~ 00 9 / AN UNIT 1075 w 1 / t.. .MIT "5'A rÂ»A \ 1 < ~l~44.<.il. 4,24 2> 6 6 01 /. MAIN FF: 7536 k - N. ----- 1. -4 x g V 4 \ I 0 \ \ 44 1 10.% / -;3.7 ~4 $ 87*Â¥*4 ///. 0~ yfet: 1 06 I Â£1/// I 3 % \ tin li 0 t' 1 J Â· A, ' f / BARN . to .UNIT '1077 . c 4 1\ 4 44 ki' ps ' N 'Lil 4 31 31,1 = \ ~ / 3\ K - , , MAIN FF: 7537.5 UNIT 1085 ic P ~ LUSTER J \ . MAIN 'RF: 7539.5 2 011/ $ I -N 3<# 0 -0 1 9 401-,1-11 \ â‚¬/ *./. SCALE 1 "=20' . ~ ** -/ 12* I- O. . '- ro ~ 1 0 f :.5 -; 1\Kn ~ \ ~m=~ 6 /7 \ f <' 04 4 41 4 ro 2 0~Â»Ii4704Â«53\~~\13\ Cq o '. // -,000+~ yte'ls~11'22"El \.1:\ S 1 4 h \ .UN k 0Â£ OF) i Ul \ 60 20 40 60 , '~ tch: mz 1. . \ 1 W ON \\ .\* I & w> 0 1 1 \ \\ , / I Clo , I hi I = /7 f i iÂ«Â£// (24.01,1.---lt. $ _>,1~1 1 i K .4 1 - 1 : 9 ,. upp '*-3-5 \ 1-OVA / 1/ I/'1\ '21.- i-%/1.e' 1. 12 /. i \ it &8:[ 1 1 ~~-.-. / /// 31.34 / ' h#Ake \ . 4 , . 0) %/ /%0\V/-1 l.al\i, 2 7 . I SP ATERLNâ‚¬r- GRADE TO \ lit 5â€¢_ 06 / \\ 1 ./ .,9/ -1 . .- \'\ Lin-, .fr SEMENT \ %.00 . . i e , 415\ 09 -. .By \ 1FNK \ / h \ 2- 0 0 / I \ 1\1 +1 , . 0 t -- DIRECT RUN-Fl ROCK RETAINING WALL DETAIL (CO ZONING) , , R - \ .\1} -/ 7 , ''% d" 1. - ' ' \1 5 --71 .N 4.042-2-/1, 5/0/ ~>11 <~ %,2~3-i~~i,~TF~Wf f /1 - . S CALE 1 "=4' *3.0' , 19 ROCK WALL - ....44 -- 03.02 00'W 49.59') , . \\ ON;~'BALES Â»dÂ«Â»29')3~16Â» 22.4 744 Â¥48 - cries \i k A Ct; NQTES 1 0 - 4 d M 0 - NAVIGATED BY ELK, ALL RETAINING WALLS Â· TO BE * 3,0' TALL. -- %6Â·Â»41 \ *932 04.84 0 1. SOIL TO BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND ROCKS AS THEY ARE SET. .t I 2. ALL GAPS BETWEEN BUILDINGS ARE DESIGNED TO BE ABLE TO BE Â»-9/// 3 |lai MINJW. CO , 44 0 45 8 . ~Â«*his30.770-0-N"- 1*._,-_. ----XC'/ ~~~> , < c~,A~"915''OfTWEEN WALLS--- k N E"f"=tRBROOgd~ 1 ..JG.l ; 4-11- 84 U *3.0' . 44 .. .....-I. /4>660,/90 />19Â« I 4**#r#*<prVA#*tf~Bv ROCK WALL 10\ W// -0-*,I*-,' ~C Ti***=- CB 6.1 91 D~% -FLow -9 // --4# â€ž0 .- z 4 ~ |18'0 MINIMUM'-VEÂ»..... 40 0 / - WELL COMPACTER_1 - NATURAL SOIL ---- (4 k / Â«L 18"-24" DIAMETER -ROEK (BIGGER ROCK AT BOTTOM OF EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 1. SILT FENCING AND STRAW BALES TO BE PLACED PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION, GRADING, OR CONSTRUCTION. (EROSION CONTROL LOGS MAY BE USED INPLACE OF SILT FENCING) 70 6 2. NO FUELS OF CHEMICALS WILL BE STORED ON SITE. W 3. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING MUD TRACKED ONTO COUNTY EROSION CONTROL DETAILS a ROADS ON A DAILY BASIS. DRAWN BY: 4. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE INSPECTED WEEKLY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND n'PICAL E ROSION SALE TRENCHING AND STAKING MAINTAINED IN WORKING ORDER. ZSH 5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE TOPSOILED AND SEEDED. SEED WILL BE DRILLED OR HAND RAKED TO INSURE 1" TO 1" COVER. posT 11'/r K 1'4- 1101;W,11 l SLT FINCE RMC - SIGN..DETALLE CHECKED BY: 10 IRED N TTENOI LAS 6. SEED MIXTURE TO BE COMPARABLE TO BEAUTY BEYOND BELIEF WILDFLOWER SEED 1 #D Fla,LY AFT,ElÂ·En NOT TO SCALE SCALE 12~7 GRASSES 5 WH DE OWERS % 1"=20' DITEDED MD $14(ED I Nal' r .95* - 4 PRAIRIE JUNE GRASS 5 RKY.MNT. DESTEMON 5 STPX< < amUN BLE DATE: BLUE GRAMA 5 BLUE FAX 20 ~RRELESTA~L BOTTLEBRUSH 250 BWEKE=BWAN 25 MN[ 01 Ing 1/ 1 5/23/2007 11. ~~T~~ FlrJUU AM - RIVER BEND DRIVE MUTCD 03-1 SIGNS 7' MIN. - SHEET BLUE BUNCH WHEAT GRASS 15 SHOOTING STAR 1 LARKSPUR 2 4 ,~34~ _ _ - SLT FENC[ ' 35 *SUL ' ~' (9"xsb" REFLECTIVE W/ 6" Fiept /L,lir W - LETTERING .080 THICK MTN. LUPINE 5 ACHORm k ...=.r 'i' '915Â¢44414*6 INDIAN PAINTBRUSH 1 4 Â· w,i - ~'445:> 1 . ~Fuoi --145%. f ALUMINUM YOEDVE:~ 4 ALPINE ASTER 2 '<19~3* T--~ ~1~L ~F~~~R ~4 TYPICAL EROSION BALE TRENCHING AND STAKING 776 5JiLEENCE - MUTCD Rl-1 SIGN GROUND - r--3 3' PI~ AUG 16 2007 7. AFTER SEEDING ENTIRE DISTRUBED SITE WILL BE MULCHED USING CLEAN HAY AT A RATE (30" REFLECTIVE 2' MIN.'-' -J OF OF 1.5 TONS/ACRE. SLOPES STEEPER THAN 2: 1 SHALL BE BIANKETED WITH BIODEGRADABLE .080 ALUMINUM) EROSION CONTROL FABRIC WITH A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF d#/sq.yd. INSTALLED PER ~ MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS. PROJ. NO. 2005-04-11 - S.LN3~*10100 S EIA 70UINOO I a VUD H Z 51310Â¥d Od BOd SiN3KIN00 S.3AVC 30(Inf H NOIS 103rOad 31VC] NVTd JI N *dOTA 0-+CILN ' 9294 g.grgl SCIL 33[S AAN SNOILSIOd 1 1 4 .. <NN i 2 1 2 2833 1 1 21 b STONE BRIDGE ESTATES LDING 24 - - \\ \ \ 4 t\ 360.39' \\ 3.\ .4 D! 2 \CK , \ \1 4 1- 01 3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN-GRADING AND 15' UTILITY 2 01 EASEMENT Â· ZE - EROSION CONTROL e \ - ' Om . . 05 d f // l N 424 + 0 1 / *1 22' ~ .~ 41 / 1,1 FOR LOT 2 AND LOT 8 0/ STONE BRIDGE ESTATES 8 \\ 6'CONC.Â· AD ~j \. ~ 2~3 *h h -4.5% SUBDIVSION, LOCATED IN PORTIONS 0, TU NORTHEAST 1/4 9 PAN *â‚¬ 1 ---* ---- ----th. X , + .~ h 90 DCL 1 Ic / 100 1 4 1 11- OF SECTION 81. NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 82. AND TU 58 oi d , - 085 /<r ~ LUSTER ~' 5' 2.19 4 -.~ ..- _ - O.3.- 1 < 7539.5 1 h Q (TYP.) . 16Â¢ 1 10 NTRy I e N0R734 RANGE 72 WEST, COUNTY OF LARIMER. STATE OF b .6 8 â‚¬ N .t \ m /1 : ~~ R *op cd 5- Â· 0 ? i -. COLORADO -029-2 U - \J NG -1 24" O. .. Nre - D 4<44. 1 44 / U, . . h .â€ž........4 \ .4- Z UNIT 1087 UNIT 1095 &*N------ R= G 122.70'. UPPER FF: 7542 Â·, UPPER FF: 7544 h f d '~ /Â· . 4 7535 F/. 1 LOWER FF: 7532 ; LOWER FF: 7534 1 * \9 4 -'Â· 2 9 WALKOUT , \ WALKOUT ' h \2 h 1, - -I UNIT 1097 r OP 3 (4 .' C 14- 1 60' RIGHT-OF-WAY i \ . . .Por- . 1 ' Al' r-- -- 44/ 4Â»-1/f.... k\\0 11.-~~ ~ 1 ~ -%--60 -/ 1 SCRIENT , i 1- UNIT 1105 ~+ 2 :/ 3 - - \ PPER FF: 7546 , 91- , -.-- lo )-- \ / LOWER FF: 7536 - -___.... G h 1 ---Â· ~ ~ -'155 tO -7540 26 2 b - 7 \\ , m WALKOUT./ .0 p o I in - ---- -. L, P -~-./ .* UPPER FF: 7547 N 9 h 2 r< UNIT (1115 --_ - - I LO h ~ UPPER FFI 7548 M. Ni c 0 ' 7535*- '9 \ R'' / ~ ~' ' ~ LOWER FF: 7537 --.; h + h $ // // - WALKOUT R rti LOWER FF:47538 : -- Z 11 2 / 'An ----WALKOU'lk ./ 7 1--0 - cnes ,---1- . r.- -%, 41. 4 /\I 0 - - -- - Ef~ - 1 0 41 PROA?SED 0 S F;ACE . / ,; 1 1 7; 21-----\2 ? - -*222-~ ~62 -Â·-~ ~ SEÂ»ARATE- p ~ ./....CL 4%445, mER 4/ 0 - 03 . /3 5Â¥,A lo - =-- - -.. 4.- 44- M-- '*%- ~o UNIT 1107 X /-*-.*I nl - - - ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LOWER FF: 7537.5 --- -1- --. - - - -~\~312-.-7/~-,\IN N'.(307Â§ETBAC ROM---/ - --- / - - EA EMENT to . - \ ~ >/Z UPPER FF: 7547.5 / 965 -UTILITy ~~~ 4 f a <7 . (DEC)/cl 4 er W / '-1 40' ~~42\~~~ EXISTING--013 E 225 \-~ - - . 41 13 . P i. 42,940* - -- - Â» h . -un. / rN K--%- Â£- ti-// / '-00 ~~ UNIT--1120 15' BUILDING u WALKOUT Â·Â·- \ . 6 -1.7% . 915.20 955 W. CD - . *754 -LII---,024~2 ~VT 7549:9Â·. C ~1 ..se:> / -r ./* \ ..I--il---/-/ . k ~ --0- 2.15.i 4 ' \ UPPER FF: 7550 ---- ------- ------ (521Â£ zoN-IN~ SETBACK . h j $ A - -- $ - WAL.KOUT 1- 3 -----1.- ---2- 7 1 'i-~'44 e 1 - \ - . .\ 1 ''C - - O ,;-* iF#lo/ LOWER FF: 7540 - -4- ..%75404 . 1.5.55 f SETBA -**IM--------- ---' 30' CREEK , Â· - 0 - 9 - *- ** p - 1 4 - \\ - .%22 521 / to- . Â· 9- / -* h - C. N ..... ,---..~ --- + 9- Z T --h 0 3 18' ---CX % - /-7-22 (TYP 50 4 * SF W ' i,.,, SF -Â·.-- G ' E 6558') - ----- --m --- .. SF \ ~-4 % 5' - --& O 410 73Â»=za / .-I ./ U.) 1 . .---- 4 -- 000 , / 1 r- : ---- -- A -11 4-41 % \ , 5 53 . .Â·. 44:01 -- Â· N - ~--~. - -- -4.--.- ///. -i.....N..4~4 - / h ' --- - -0 7535 ./. EN.,000=.-~=H-0 4.22 't . K O 1- -- - - - - - 4 ./ \ 9, ~ -- - T- u . i -Â·Â· ...~ .~. _ .~~ il p.. -PA =190 , 0 \ LO I _ 7. :..2/13-N Â»444 - SF -Â¤LLO V. 4>4 1-1.4-4/9 /3 1,& \ ' 4--b --% 32%4pi ze -- A ::..:.: '. - , I $/ 4 3 10' UTILITY IN- + ~ EASEMENT -- 1 -- 11 y , 1 Sp , / /- 44 3/ , f.\: Â« : 4:04 . tril -I 27 UNIT 1127----.. ~ , .. 32222.~-1 1 ~0~ , <47* > Lr) i --*UPPER FF: 7549.5 .4- N .-% , -2 -\2 4 ./7 1 1 1; 3 \. LOWER FF: 7539,5 Â»: 69,434 -ice -6: i fi~~. '. 1.594 ac~Ur 0/~/// ~-10>7Â»96,1 .0 .. '*' t o - 1 1 . $,04 - 1/-1 ..6 06 )' 411 / ..M . ..4..\ '. LE *16 94 WALKOUT X h \1> %53 -' 1 1104 --* 1 - r.. h 4 - 4 R to ' hi.. 0 1 , 9- 4.4 1-f./ ~.. 1 I. -%: --- 1 / 09 13'45"W h 41 0, / Â£ 9 0 4 / 1\\ 3 969 k/ . 7%.. I 7 . / - g m.*'- 0,.- ' - ...'. 0 1. r h ., ~ %, 00 42Â»\\ : < / 104\ -,1 ----------------- 44 .14r 1 04' >1\J \1 _i 2 ~* UPPER FF:'9549 ~ / i <0 -~. ke ~ Â·4* it- 2 r 0 W j . 1 1 16" , -/--- j ------ - 4 \ r I I ' 4 ArÂ©4 - X% \1.--1.---- -*.-\ %\'1 \% 'e & *1 9,0 Â·*WER FF: 7539 / n U // 1\,1/Â« U N I T ~i 1 3 n \ 44 7 10 ; 352081/ \ 0 ' . .' PROPOSED ADDITIONAL AREA TO BE , \~\ 11 Â· ' . WALKOUT . , 5, 1 lf? 11 h fi N 0 : 0 . 1 071 1 -\ / I , \ . UNIT 1137 2/ 00 BRIDGE DISTURBED DUE TO UTILITY '~ Â·Â·1 ~~ 9 4 : e Lib // CO 41 03Â· , . / , #.*:-f lix- 3 1 f ..70~\20 :' # \ UPPER FF: 7549 ti 1 CROSSING CREEK , lfÂ°O ZONING) 7 . -76 .4 ; Cll 1\ (4 66-;599 .441 I / , .1 - 944 - U & t-- 1 p 6 06 -4...,,.â€ž * / / to. . .LOWER FF: 7539 / 4 C N 0 PROPOSED 100 YEAR FLOO, /d 8\ --1 8 ~11 00 = I ... $ ,~ * 4-Â·4 WALKOUT li h PARCEL # 4 \ \ / 4.4.4.2 25311 -00-901 DISTURBANCE im = X// 4 \ 00 \L...\ \ 9 d *4 \ / 2 4 .1-4 . .4 \ 1 - 3\ 1 - to :<:*L ) ~ i,Lf,% (EXCEPT IN LOCATION WHEREi Â· : CREEK STABILIZATION IS TO ~ i / , M 20 3} .CÂ« / Lr> LEGEND -7 ,/1 , /4 1 '/0/,0''i,~/, t~ 1.i 1 3 /1 4 ' - -- -- . -Â·.Â·-...- WETLANDS < 4 // LO r I / / Â· 1,0 . t> R 4 00 1, 4 ---------- 30' CREEK SETBACK \ 9- ; 5515-lik* e %, i ., %' // .4: C 1-.. 0--- - -/ , -27-- i 6... . UNIT 1/145 h ka f h * -4 , 0 663.3 (t <(+ 1 *C\> 1 :Â·UPPER FR 7549 44 ~! -SF-SF- PROPOSED SILT FENCE LOCATION / LOD { I + //. f.h' 44... \\ I (1 h. I. j A LOWER 60 1 , 7539 U = AL (824*22' '1 44.4 31,(ij: *L / Â·<x)Â«WALBOUT k a M 1 - ./ SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 29. ALL IN TOWNSHIP 6 a W ha <D 3Â·-4-24' .15 - 00% 9 Â¥ or- 44 4% / . - C. - to -- / .\2~.h ./Af LÂ«*44.--7 <~ETE R .6'~ -*- /4454*4% Eal QI tr) ---'. 1--2 - -4 .// Â·Â· Â· 4Â»Â» f < B ' I / 1/ . i. i> 06 12 , /, U / ' 01 , PLAIN LINE TO BE LIMITS OFS \ \ / ME ,\< I \.1 I , L . 1 - CO TAKE PLACE) . ' 44 4% - h. , 1 6:740<34\ /h#- O 104<62 1. 01 ---\ %4* ' 1 l - \ /11 'illi - --' -Tr:Z;Mra"499'/4-al 1 7,4 2,Z li-:*-12- - 81.1 1 CO --Â«.......6.4 :(A: 11''A h. 0 .~ .. 1% V'. 1 h . 4 1,\. \:.:ld.59, , 44 0 8.09 S 4 EMN . rk - O, CIREE~\0.- S04'22'22"W 48.40'i y . 444 4044% tbile-,1-"-1.-il.=7 -2\ 14 + 4 1 + , t C.\ p /; 14/ 63 / , j \ , ; i , 0 '' lia /6/ - 9 02 6, Co . %<r Jit {{ {,ttg 51 t-- '4; li j 1 1 J... 1 1 r. i. 1/+ Â»' i :* 6 44 Ch 630' SETBAC~ROM ; POSTAL CLUSTER BOX DETAIL f EXISTING CRE Rk NOT TO SCALE . .~ ,Â·* 1Â§4hf Â£-2< CORRECTED 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN m -cHE*/INGGAADEINPAVEDAREAS .... .= :-#.2 4.7,3. - Al\. . 9!L Ceu PEDESTAL .INFORCINGWEIRODS ------- i '..'..:Â·''TA~L.,0. ..r / 29:*4' -,D' er<21%- \12 110*//.-*.CT/)4. -)-1.49'. 73 ~ / ASTMA6~SGRADâ‚¬60~ 71 7\ : Vt.4 -: -\ 2.4>40 0.:" IK -1. 940,27//2,4.1 44Â©%0... 44 ,---7535 el / 800MIN J &1 OPTIONALCOMPACTGMVELOR 1 ..s.'.STONE{Â©Mirmâ€¢ERE W /]MUM.....Pâ„¢ :75 \ SOUDnOCKOCCURS, ~ .147. C 0 - 0 I -I........OILOR WEL~-COMPACTEDfllt 6-L- \ MSTALLED HEIGHT 62" Â· r'L -----1------22--\0374*, ZSH DRAWN BY: 1" 81- DEPTH 17-7ff SINGLE UNIT CHECKED BY: 2/// W;DTH 30-li2Â» * 1% 00.00 MEASURED OR CALCULATED DIMENSIONS --I ---- ~~~ LAS SCALE 1"=20' WEIGHT (Wiâ„¢OUT PEDESTAL} 107 LBS :a 1"=20' SCALE WEIGHT (Wrâ„¢ PEDESTAL} ~25 LBS 94 DATE: 0 20 40 60 #- 4 1/-0 --- - Qi OF STANDARD COMPAJCMENTS 8 2/23/2007 (00.00) PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS . --I r: i ) -1- -52-1 -- Qrlr OP PARCEL COMPARIMENIS 2 . SHEET 4' - 1.- s TYP {00.00} PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS PARCEL COMPARâ„¢ENT HEiGHT 10",13" TYP .&34 4, ' '+ (ROTATED TO MATCH BASIS OF BEARINGS) Â· -_ 5 EÂ©[EOVE 4. !2 /4 1 FIJ-1-6-2001~i OF i PROJ. NO. 2005-04-11 S1N3~IM00 S,3AV0 702EIXLAT0J HS O3NW3H' 1 39Â¥Hd NO HSZ &13>INd Od 803 SlN)KA00 S,3AVC 103rOWd 00 S,3AVO 7541. 99 (0L6), :XY=1 (OL6) Â¥@0100 MyÂ¥d 7536.5 L+92- -------------1--------=-224---2 ------------ ------- 8*GL .... 06Â£9L NYTd IN 10 SNOIIHOW -.11WENT ..........,/ ......m::92Â·74 6.8-44 , EÂ· /Nor i CL :- &&000 1'/CATEDÂ·BY --- ........ .....:.......~~ee..J...4........ .......At?.............. fs, 15020 ' 20~--- -754 :lit\1913 751~')Â· AS.15'55,~2 9.30- STONE BRIDGE ESTATES Uult.747.9.Al w v43: 9 / 5Â°55,2 3 'f."'* 9348,7 - -- r.4-1 zg 5 Z 12 6 r- -6. ... - 066 14 -1Â·Â·t:,-2-.%44 ,~ 938 n. 3 -u Â· Ul DEVELOPMENT PLAN-GRADING AND W O2 1. N . 1 - X Lo I . -----1 .... FOR LOT 2 AND LOT 8 OF STONE BRIDGE ESTATES 9 O EROSION CONTROL ENG! h ac % 50 Z i ) ,-2 ---- --- : .- ./ ONE -3--<-:1-s#- U 10 UTILITY \-21 --- -- ---0- 1.- /..7/ 1 --I ----4.-*- .. \\ 1.-19~ . 30- 12 z ...................... ............. ........... ..................... ..... t4~-'L' -' EASEMENT . 11 10'te-* 1 - h 041.11* OF SECTION 81. NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 82. AND Tg SUBDIVSION, LOCATED IN PORTIONS 0, THE NORTHEAST 1/4 -9 ....., 30 / --02-7333.- * 00 7-04Â£10 44*-"\ ...,4.92. ZO 1. 0 - 0 - 20' . -- 44 3- bl , .7 .... k R 1 -24 ---46 - --- %w&46 WfÂ®J>-Â«7-X)- 1--L-- 4 ENT HE /1 46 x + 4 ...... C 9 n . - SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 29. ALL IN TOWNSHIP 5 Mi}RE / Ax .\ \4\ i -#4x T 04'. x-2- 323 h. - -. ........ t I. ky k r l e\*4 , / NORTH. RANGE 72 IEST. COUNTY OF I.ARIMER. STATE OF ....... 1 Â· N 1 -3 -* /-2 - I .. -- -\22====--- ~ L 04 13 - - / I / "1 v %, E EREET 11 HT h ~ ./ h LO . .. ..324- - . 9 W ........ 9 8 ONE / /4/ COLORADO 10 - ....... LO LO 13,7 3,1 ~ Â·=-,m =r* 3 49& *+-Mr#--- , 3 -# 22G Cil Â¥ ONE 1 ;; h ONE X . ..... -N \ / / - 2 // ..11. - 1 '''nr- O ... //L- - ' ..# *, - i / i - o - ... ...1..:2404. -*-- -I V h 1 --4 I../0-- - I.- - I- ... ..\... , ... UNIT 1137 4 754 ~ 94 ORE -1 - 7~~,- .- 0-2Â·rÂ·Â·Â·Â·...,~ ,Â» U, 9 8 - , - e. n ./ ....... ... -- . ... 1 % UPPER FF: 7549 -5'P 12 9 -9 -2 -2 -e - 123 123 122 - -~~ ~~~1~~_ 944..31.-/S.Z.-I- ~~- ~ -~f~'~'~~' ~~Â¤~~*~- LOWER FF: 7539 C CO u /4-0 4 64' . 6' ....1 0114Â£- - - \ lital ~Â· <2~ WALKOUT i' 697. CONC. ~ - .. ...... ! i â„¢ 1, I' jitm r< PAN ...... 4/OVED) 0 - - 7-~ $ .. / 44; / K - - - \ od u. - M h to + M \ 1 CD f '048 .... , SEMENT ........... < -. ~ CONCRETE OR/4 b .... -â‚¬kmkup\-- 20' 0-0 - 06 h / 16 - 4- 0 - 24' 10 f v\/ 155 1 -- 1 ...... B l i BE REMOVED) , lot- /0 \ - \ 3<<44. h . / i ' i C h h r \ f . f 06 / , %- -Â·-#--' '92\AJ . --- h \Ce. ......\ \ -- ------ , 4Â»5% WIT Â· UNIT 1/4 45 4 ,., BOX Â» 79-ti~- .....t i .......=Â»Nk Poc 1 '-UPPER FIN 7549 ~~ - - ,/ OSTAL h Rk 4 5, /5:~EL_-- .~ --â€ž-2=Â« OrÂ« - .......: ... . / 4 11 4> 4/1 / CLUSTE (TYP.) 2" 1551 .-3% Â· I %4 4, / ... I E LO 4 / 2 9 h BUILDING N - * ~ / ~3 j 232:u-7539 1~ If) ....... j h *9~ mER \SETBACK -0 .... 6320 ji - 2-- 1 _ \ ~ Â£ %. tin ' 1 '0 ...... ................. 31)64 . /2 Â»X + 6 139 1 \\49:9*L .... 53 Lo 4 .. ZI Ill f 8 4 2 UNIT 1157 Ul ' i .< A A -4350 ~ \ N Ult d 4 \\ . I Â»\ 47,4.- ,u r-3 1953 2.52' h r\ 0 . UPPER FF: 7549 \ N \2\84> -)4\Pb- ro 1 .11: to \ 1 04 0 -0\ \\ * . Â· i LOWER FF: 753 33>e\ UNIT 11 65 \ , LO \ LO . -01 - \\\\V .....a \\\-b\ Lf) 1- M \, \ 20' . . .1 \ -> WALKOUT UPPER FF: 7551 , 1 r--. -4 1 4 1 10 ' .4 -. . -*f/1 . N l LOWER FF: 7541 : 0 0 U\ / UNIT 1147 â€¢.\ 1.1./.Nd' 40' R t N - - *<.0.0.0<\042 4+CK j LOWER FF: 7539 UNIT 1155 .-1 .#~1!12~~1.~1- -75451 < UNIT 1167 1550 1. tO \ f 2 h 4 i /\ J N.\60 / UPPER FF:Â· 7549 33 / WALKOUT ht ' h Mi \3 1 -1/ - ... =ZZ=ZE -E) -FE) '1 \.0 , % . If) 01 M / 43*00044\ WALKOUT UPPER FF: 7549 1 Lf) 1 Lo 1 - J f UPPER FF: 7551 ~ ~ ~ 5 h Prj i 10 'UNIT 1195 ---J - 11 h . -333 \ /-- LOWER FF: 7541 UNIT 1175 0 *4 2 MA}14 FF: 7555.0 ( Re 1 -- -994 \1>SI: h If) ~ h tO 0 . to h Â· -> i LOWER FF: 7539 j WALKOUT . 10 4 0 ~ E E-Â£*ttlf (36 COIAE#/2â‚¬43>- - m \ LOWER FF: 7543 4) r1 lo k -5 ... f \115 2 0301--4Â£*E I WALKOUT UPPER FFÂ· 7553 -33531 ~ 6 0 n , 10'\ 1 4 -/18 \ \WALKOUT Wk \ / //-- PRpPOSED OP641 SPACE -'* 0, cl~ Â· LO , h, i'=,~ #.t-7 LDS>. 3 --I '\4 3.- i i /// 1 M 430' SETBACK *ROM + 5 + \ 0 13 \ N . I \ | EA\S-[\NG CREÂ£)4.-..~~~.p<~ 1 ---1-< STRAW 30' CREEK ~- L WER C- 44 i / . : R V , X.\ in /4- \ UNIT 1177 * UNIT 1185 1 ~ / . ~ SssN>Â»--- /// \ \ MAIN FF: 7554 ,Â·4 \Â·-_ -*~1.0<â€ž,2 ' 119,3 2-6 02Â»eff 3 f .BALES \SETBACK \ \ 3 .35Â· FF: 7543.5 . N 0 k N --\ to * \ \ .1.-e:i // 16~ fh - * -- .739 eks\11-98/ . SF --75 WALKOUT - ..4.6 a c ]719 4 lo / -- %X . *0* -7 04 V OOV- .,0,10'.1,-,1-1,-,1- - --0 - --/ 1 40.-6 4 \ --. O, h / /0 1. c.:> h. / C.':*22535- \34 \ 1 - . to': / --~- riks:54 â‚¬'6 *#. 444 N \ - \ >840 4. SF --- F : '74% 4 00' 00 \ 818*0 *\ 7-4Â¢--% 1,":~ 22'49,11-,1 4 1 h . / --- 1,0. 0 \ -- â‚¬ ---------- A - -11- 11- 11.1"I- 11 . 7540 ---------0/,0~ 0000., 4'f~%4~~~~00:~P , \ 10 \ /\ .--"-4\\ 4 .' . C \ ---\7,70., \1'\ (S06'23%24"W 87.44 /*00. \\119 .rÂ« uÂ»*kj>15~ - , EAL 1Â· i \ ..,/ 0 1 1 ---- \ '41 0 .0000 11 - ./ \ / +U lu .Â· Â·b . \ i + I . / -- 334,413,~ i : 4- 7535-_---,----'///~.*----. 44+4--0 .1 . (019' ,%151-6'33~1.60' ka 03' 30' 341.1') \\ 9 \ 1/ 2 i b 1 : -11- 17'ic.:1~i ## 4 / \ / U j - NXJ 22 ' 14- 1 25 i~fy 2 '4, / A 44 ,- \ -2 - ./ 1 ./ --- / 1 1 ~ 1 44 0 #9 44 04 X *-.- W.'-- . '.-..... 1. .1 10 TTIDE308*2*.TE + ~:TRAIL *$* --0 -00 f\~i4~541"W-> - 4 .% -. -f ~ 4124 Ek: . \111 t.r 1 0 % M 05 4 Co P 1*44 Ne'.0 44 U 44'b 4 04 44 4 \\ . 4 5 p.% ' SCALE 1"=20' 0\.4.4 TYPICAL DRIVE CROSS SECTION NO SCALE 0 20 40 60 1-4.-1 0. i,. ~3352Â¤-/' VARIES \ .4.* 0 \ VARIES % - < fr'/--- CQNCRETE--BAN-DETAIL x \ I ~Â«IL 006& Â· I,----t CD lÂ¢Â« - 0 00 UD r. MA -- /5,1, Ael*44,\ Z 0 2 .... , <f 1 ==:5<tavkÂ» \4 ~ ..... - 1 -1\ .AD'ee,0 i ClaNNE 1 1 . __ - /0 h -3 - LID - 0 . + Wn , r -r- lf) lO ' UPPER FF: 7553.5 - -- - , r ~10'56'8 3 i T - k 4 0 1-12=It- \ 31 m % E . I \ \ \ 1 5 h 2 4 -4 4 . 1 94 NO SCALE 4 4.4- 4 *Phz,~~62'3,*,"1"->Â» ;k. ylÂ«~99Â«Â«4444%;~4Â«Â«: ~ ' 0,. ZSH 4 DRAWN BY: alÂ»Â»>f~Â»442Â»Â»Â« itÂ» 2[- 6,=3 \ \ 3" COMPACTED TYPE C ASPHALT CHECKED BY: VERTICAL CURB ~ ~-4" COMPACTED AGGREGATE ROAD BASE 684 4....:d'.'. f '7'.:6.1..'.LI LAS L 5" CONCRETE (OUTFLOW) \ COMPACTION WILL BE TO 95% OR BETTER UVERTICAL CURB SCALE (INFLOW) 1"=20' SIDEWALK COMPACTED SUB BASE MATERIAL, FREE OF 1-- VARIES --~ DATE: (LOCATION VARIES) ORGANIC MATERIAL 2/23/2007 SHEET ~Fl~ AUG 16 2007 2 6 oF 6 PROJ. NO. 2005-04-11 SIN3MIN00 TOWINO I (IVUD S.13>IOVd Od @0:1 S1N3)NYIOO S,3AVC 20 103rOBd 7548.9 -- .--- 7548.5 ONIA3A& 03[S AA 2I0 SNOILWOd 07547.9 7548.5 7538.5 - 7548.5 754 .5 7550.5 7550.7 7548.7 7550.= 7538.5 7540.5 7542.5 SE+SL NE[d IN dOUA 133HS L[909 00 'MÂ¥Â¥d S31S3 ~ Amendments to the Estes Valley ~ Development Code, Block Ten Additions ~ Estes Park Community Development Department ~i:.d Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue ~ PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: August 21, 2007 TITLE: Additional amendments to the Estes 8 - i 1 X / -213 Valley Development Code, Block Ten N-=n rM.-IN 96 REQUEST: To make a number of changes ~ 4 27-1 rr--A<~ r r-,~- -' 7 4 1 E and corrections to the adopted Estes Valley = r,f-Wttl USFS haional Development Code. - U:lfr- LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the . - m Town of Estes Park. -4 6 3-pawll LSFS 94 FM~IP .titiamr., APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning , Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: These Code revisions address the following: 1) Section 3.1 General Provisions 2) Section 3.2 Standard Development Review Procedure ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with strikethrough (abc do fghi jk Imn op qrstuv w 2. New text delineated with underline (abc de fahi ik Imn op arstuv w xvz). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. ITEM 1: Â§3.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS D. Required Times for Action and Inaction 5. Extension of Times. Time frames for action on all land use applications, including, but not limited to, development plans, subdivisions, PUD applications, rezoninas, special reviews, use classifications, and separate lot determinations mav be temporarily extended bv the Community Development Director or his designee due the lack of adequate staff in the Community Development Department for timely review, receipt of an above average number of applications for a review period, or any other factor which prevents adequate and timely review of all land use applications to meet the required times for action. The extension shall be for the period of time necessary to enable the Community Development Department to adequately review the land use applications. The extension shall be in writing and posted in the Community Development Office and on the Town's website. ITEM 2: Â§3.2 STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE H. Alternative Review Procedure. The Community Development Department mav adopt a policy providing for an alternative review procedure for anv applicant who wishes to use said procedure. The purpose of the alternative review procedure is to have review of an applicant's land use application conducted bv an outside consultant designated bv Staff. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees and costs associated with this alternative review procedure. The recording of anv Development Plan, Final Subdivision Plat, Final Condominium Map, or PUD Plat shall not occur until all fees and costs have been paid in full. 1. Applicabilitv. The following land use applications shall be available for the Alternative Review Procedure: zoning map amendments, subdivisions and condominiums, PUD developments, special review uses, and development plans. 2. Initiation of Alternative Review Procedure. At the time or within ten (10) days of a pre-application conference, an applicant mav elect to use the Alternative Review Procedure. This election shall be made in writing and delivered to the Community Development Department within said ten (10) day period. 3. Selection of Consultant. The Community Development Director, or his designee, shall select an appropriate consultant from a list of consultants maintained bv the Community Development Department for the application. Said designation shall be in the sole discretion of the Communitv Development Department and not the applicant. The consultant shall be selected within five (5) business davs of receipt of the notice of election of the Alternative Review Procedure from the applicant. 6 - 4. Fees. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees and costs charged bv the consultant including, but not limited to, fees for attendance at all meetings of the Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Board of Trustees, or the Larimer County Commissioners at which the land use application is on the agenda. The fees shall be the hourly rate charged bv the consultant. The Community Development Department shall provide the applicant with the applicable hourly rate at the time of designation of the consultant. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the application fee collected bv the Town at the time of application shall be credited toward the fees of the consultant. All other fees and costs incurred bv the applicant in the Alternative Review Procedure shall be paid to the Town of Estes Park prior to the recording of anv subdivision plat, PUD approval, final condominium map, or development plan. If all fees and costs are not paid within sixty (60) davs of the invoicinq of said costs and fees to the applicant, the land use application shall be null and void. No application for the parcel of property subiect to the terminated application shall be processed bv the Community Development Department until all fees and costs have been paid in full. Also, no building permits or other property use approvals shall be issued or processed for the parcel until all fees and costs have been paid in full. 5. Timing. Review of all land use applications pursuant to the Alternative Review Procedure shall be in accordance with all of the terms and conditions of the Estes Valley Development Code including the time frames set forth in the Code for review. . A Â§ 4.3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C. Density/Dimensional Standards. 5. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Building/Structure Minimum Lot Propert, Line Setbacks Max. Min. Standards [1] [2] [4] [9] Building Building Max. Lot Max. Net Zoning Density Area (sq Width Side Rear Height Width Coverage District (units/acre) ft) (ft.) Front (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) [10] (ft.) (%) RE-1 1/10 Ac. 10 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 rda RE 1/2.5 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 rda E-1 1 1 Ac. [3] 100 25 25 25 30 20 rda 25-arterials; E 2 1/2 Ac. [3] 75 15-other 10 15 30 20 Wa streets 25-arterials; R 4 94 Ac. 60 15-other 10 15 30 20 n/a streets R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 n/a Single- family = 25-arterials; Duplex = R-2 4 18,000; 60 15-other 10 10 30 20 50% Duplex= streets 27,000 40,000, Residential 5,400 sq. 60; Uses: ft./unit Lots Max = 8 and [4] [5] [8] Greater 25-arterials; 10 RM Multi- Min = 3 15-other 10 30 20 [7] family= Ord. 18- Senior than 01 #14) Senior [6] Institutiona 100,000 streets 50% Institutional 1 Living sq. ft.: Living Uses: Uses: M 200 Max = 24 Ac. Notes to Table 4-2: [1] (a) See Chapter 4, Â§4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, Â§4.3.D. 1. (b) See Chapter 11, Â§11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, Â§11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, Â§7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 Â§1) [2] See Chapter 7, Â§7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 Â§1) [3] lf private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in Â§7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities." [4] Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet; however, each individual townhome unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000-square-foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. [5] Multi-family developments shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30. [6] Zero side-yard setbacks (known as "zero lot line development") are allowed for townhome developments. [7] Minimum building width requirements shall I!91 apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. [8] Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 #14) [9] All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adiacent or off-site dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, eF the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement, or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is not applicable in the "MF"district. (Ord. 11-02 Â§1) [10] See Chapter 1, Â§1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3)