The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-11-20- 6 FI LE Opy s Prepared: November 14,2007 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 20,2007 ;12:30 p.m._Study.Sessiod Lobbv outside Board Room 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 October 16, 2007 b. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision, 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane, Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar and John A. Skoog/Applicants - Applicants' request for continuance to December 18, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue Applicant: The Mulhern Group, Ltd. Request: Develop 42 condominium units as follows: 10 single-family units, 1 duplex, 2 triplexes, and one 24-unit multi-family building Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 4. REPORTS 5. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. The Planning Commission study session has been moved into the Board room. Please join us there. Estes Valley Planning Commission The next scheduled meeting will be held Tuesday, December 18, 2007. There are currently two items on the agenda. You can view information about all current submittals, including next month's Planning Commission items, on our web page: www. estesnet. com/comdev/Cu rrentReq uests. aspx RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 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, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Recording Secretary Roederer 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. Approval of minutes dated September 18, 2007 b. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision, 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane, Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar and John A. Skoog/Applicants - Applicants' request for continuance to November 20,2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting It was moved and seconded (Amos/Klink) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT and REZONING REQUEST, KOSEWICK SUBDIVISION, Lot 7 (Less 8850-P194, 81743-P50), Summer Villa, 775 E. Riverside Drive, Applicant: Van Horn Engineering Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to subdivide a parcel into three individual lots, and rezone the two lots with existing dwellings from "A" Accommodations to "E" Estate. The plat includes three non-buildable outlots that contain wetlands with provision to relocate certain wetlands. The applicant has submitted an annexation petition to the Town Clerk. The hearing has been set for November 27,2007. Staff recommends rezoning for proposed Lots 1 and 2 from "A" Accommodations to single-family residential. These lots do not lend themselves to accommodations development and the proposed rezoning will allow the existing use to continue. The applicant has requested a Minor Modification to allow the lots to be smaller than the required 14-acre. Lots l and 2 do not meetthe adjusted minimum lot size. However, when the outlot space is added to these lots, the adjusted minimum lot size is met. Therefore, staff recommends these lots be conveyed with their "partner" lot: Lot 1 and 1A, Lot 2 and 2A, and Lot 3 and 3A. Access to Lot 3 shall be required to meet access standards of the Town of Estes Park. A sidewalk is proposed along the eastern/southern perimeter of the site, attached to Riverside Drive. A twenty-five-foot-wide trail easement is proposed along the river. The . r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 October 16,2007 site contains wetlands and a mapped alluvial fan. These areas have been placed in non- buildable outlots. Furthermore, two wetland areas will be consolidated into a compact, well-defined area providing for a healthier wetland system, and will be reviewed during the final plat approval. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the development code and adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed subdivision. 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. However, the Town engineer has requested additional right-of-way and a design study to determine if the road should be widened. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant and stated the applicant is in agreement with the conditions of approval. It was moved and seconded (Grant/Eisenlauer) to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Rezoning Request, Kosewick Subdivision, Lot 7 (Less B850- P194, B1743-P50), Summer Villa, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: Preliminarv Plat: 1. The outlots shall be named 1A, 2A, and 3A (instead of A, B, and C). 2. Lot 1 and Outlot l A shall remain under common ownership. A deed restriction shall be submitted with the final plat. 3. Lot 2 and Outlot 2A shall remain under common ownership. A deed restriction shall be submitted with the final plat. 4. Lot 3 and Outlot 3A shall remain under common ownership. A deed restriction shall be submitted with the final plat. 5. The following note shall be placed on the plat: "Access to Lot 3 shall be required to meet access standards of the Town of Estes Park." 6. Note 1 of the plat shall be amended to read "Outlot acreage is used for density calculation for Lot 3 and minimum lot size for Lots 1 and 2." 7. Final plat submittal shall include a wetlands creation report, which shall be accounted for with the improvement agreement. 8. An access easement shall be provided for UTSD access. This access easement shall be subject to review and approval of the Upper Thompson Sanitation District prior to preliminary plat hearing by the Town Board. 9. Compliance with the following memos: a. From Scott Zurn to Dave Shirk dated September 28,2007. b. From Mike Mangelsen to Bob Goehring dated 9-14-07. c. From Jeff Boles to Bob Goehring dated 9-19-2007. Rezoning: 1. Recording of the Final Plat. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-15, OUR LADY OF THE MOUNTAINS CATHOLIC CHURCH ADDITION, a Metes & Bounds property located at 690 Big Thompson Avenue, Applicant: Our Lady of the Mountain Parish Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a development plan application to build a two-story, 3,724-square-foot addition to Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church. The proposed addition matches the current church architecture and will house office, classroom, and storage space. This site consists of five lots for a total of approximately 6.5 acres. The proposed construction is located on the three-acre, "CO" Outlying Commercial zoned lot. Religious assembly use is permitted by right in the "CO" zoning district. The plan demonstrates compliance with building/structure setbacks, impervious coverage, and floor area ratio limits. The maximum allowable impervious coverage is sixty-five percent and 54.48 percent coverage is proposed. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is DRAFT , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 October 16,2007 0.25 and a 0.131 FAR is proposed. Detailed review for compliance with the maximum allowable height will be completed with building permit submittal. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Staff has not received written comments from adjacent property owners; however, staff received a call from a neighbor concerned about the cross, which was installed on the south side of the church without a permit, is illuminated at night, and does not comply with the lighting regulations. An application shall be submitted to the Building Department for the cross that was installed without a permit. This shall also include a plan for correcting the lighting violation. Unless the Building Department requires an earlier timeframe, this can be addressed with the building permit application for the addition. A drainage master plan should be submitted to staff for review to determine what facilities and easements are needed, as the 6.5-acre site is built out. The parking lot does not meet the minimum required setbacks and encroaches within the Hwy 34 right-of-way. The proposed redesign of the parking lot is a significant step towards code compliance and CDOT is supportive of the proposed redesign. The proposed sewer line running across all four residential lots should be placed in a dedicated easement. The proposed water line should be relocated so as to avoid damage to a significant tree. Public Comment: Steve Lane/Basis Architecture was present to represent the applicant. He stated the plan will provide handicapped accessibility with a new paved access. The addition will not create new seating; therefore, additional parking is not required. The addition will provide additional staff area, accessibility, functionality, an elevator, and classroom/multi-function space. He stated the cross would be addressed with construction drawings. Chuck Carspecken/1010 S. St. Vrain questioned the complaint regarding the cross. He stated the church has the right to have a cross. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to approve Development Plan 07-15, Our Lady of the Mountains Church, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the affected agency comments, including the comments submitted by the Estes Park Sanitation District on October 10, 2007. To address Greg White's comment, the title on Sheet 2 of 2 shall match the title on Sheet 1 of 2. The traffic impact analysis recommended by Public Works shall include information about accidents at the US Highway 34 intersection with Hillside Lane. 2. Drainage arrows shall be provided on the plan, along with existing contours on Hillside Lane. 3. The limits of disturbance shall be revised to include all disturbed areas, for example the new sidewalk/meditation trail construction to the west of the church addition and the driveway entrance onto Hillside Lane. 4. A new water line location shall be proposed that does not impact existing trees. 5. The planting area at the corner of US Highway 34 and Hillside Lane shall include evergreen trees. 6. Landscaping shall be revised as shown below: === foo~ 1 41â€¢ ... I. 4 1:ah#,Ura)Avm Cum-:4.4../4-â€¢.~* <~ :~$ i ~r<*,7- 72~39/>37# Le~,4.1,41 , i Oil:r~i'~,~ -, 44 6,-2 -11*/ - ./ . 4- U . t -63/7. ' . 4 , K'L..,.227 71. /f *41 cle. DRAFT I * RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 October 16, 2007 7. The locations of the proposed light fixtures shall be shown on the plan for staff review and approval. 8. Parking calculations on both Sheets 1 and 2 shall be clarified. The numbers on the two pages do not appear to be consistent with each other and notes on the second page state that additional spaces will be added to the sixteen-space parking lot; however, these additional spaces are not shown. 9. The plan shall clarify that the Hillside Lane driveway connection is proposed, not existing. 10.The sewer line which runs across the all four residentially-zoned lots owned by the church shall be placed in a dedicated easement. 11. Fire-lane striping near the 4.2-foot-wide sidewalk in the westernmost parking lot shall be shown. 12. The storage shed on the north side of the lower parking lot shall be shown on the development plan. 13. A revised application satisfying the conditions of approval shall be submitted to Community Development by 12:00 p.m. on October 24,2007 for rerouting to affected agencies. The mylar submittal deadline shall be extended from November 15, 2007 to December 20,2007 to allow adequate time for review. 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Applicant: Mulhern Group, Ltd. Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to build forty-two multi-family residential units on a currently undeveloped 5.9-acre parcel. The property is currently zoned "RM" Multi-Family (the property has been zoned for multi-family development since the adoption of zoning in 1961). The units are planned to be a mix of detached units (10), a duplex (2 units), two triplexes (6 units), and a multi-family building (24 units). Site access would be from one point on Lexington Lane, with a through street to Highway 7, aligned with Golf Course Road. The proposal is an allowed use in the "RM" zoning district and meets density requirements, impervious coverage, floor area ratio, pedestrian amenities and linkage requirements, and setbacks; and complies with applicable policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The site contains landscaping, two retention ponds, wildlife migration corridors, an extension of Golf Course Road with one lane into the development and two lanes out (one right- and one left-hand turn lane). The existing cabin is proposed to be used for an "auxiliary dwelling/club house." This unit should be kept in common ownership and the use restricted through the condominium process. The proposed landscaping plan does not meet EVDC requirements; however, the Planning Commission may authorize alternatives to the quantities, provided that the applicant submits a detailed landscaping plan and the Planning Commission determines the proposed landscaping plan satisfies the intent of the code. The Public Works Department has noted that CDOT should approve the access design prior to approval of the development plan. Public Works Director Zurn stated the applicant was required to submit a traffic impact study as it relates to Hwy 7 for review by CDOT. CDOT would require a right-turn deceleration lane off of Hwy 7 onto Lexington Lane. The traffic study has been approved by the Town and CDOT. The design of the deceleration lane would need to be approved by CDOT prior to construction. The current right-of-way would be used to build the new lane, with a possible slope easement necessary from the adjacent property owner. CDOT will not issue an access permit without approved designs for the deceleration lane. Chair Hull stated the Commissioners are concerned with the lack of comment from the Division of Wildlife. Staff will contact the Division of Wildlife and request timely, site- specific comments prior to Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Amos requested an additional condition be included to address the confinement of domestic dogs to limit the disturbance of wildlife. Staff recommends outdoor dog runs or kennels should not be allowed in this development. Commissioner Tucker requested the CDOW provide a statement with regard to the affect of domestic animals as it relates to wildlife. DRAIFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 October 16, 2007 Public Comment: Steve Loos/Lead Design Architect for Wapiti Crossing for the Mulhern Group reviewed the site plan and architecture of the buildings. He stated approximately 62% of the property will be reserved as open space. The overall site plan has been refined to reduce density and preserve open space while taking full advantage of the views. Henry Pool/1017 Pine Knoll Drive stated concerns with access to and from the development off of Hwy 7. He also stated concern with the current real estate sign on the property advertising plotted lots for sale. He questioned if this development would be low income housing. Patricia Washburn/1101A Lexington Lane spoke in opposition to the development. Mary Nell Hardin/1254 Community Drive stated concerns with drainage from the property into the Trail Ridge Apartments. Dir. Zurn stated the drainage basins will not change. However, there are existing drainage issues on the Trail Ridge Apartment complex due to the original development. This project does not impact Trail Ridge further. Louis Weaver/no address given stated concerns with the addition of more condominiums that will stand empty most of the year. Corinne Pool/1017 Pine Knoll Drive commented the condominiums should be restricted to prevent them from becoming rental units. Jayne Zmijewski/Advance Master Instructor for CDOW stated the area is critical for the movement of elk and other wildlife. This is one of the only mitigation areas available through the Prospect Mountain corridor. Paul Kuna/1050 S. St. Vrain addressed the drainage concerns and requested the developer place a bond to ensure there are no issues with the retention ponds or unforeseen drainage issues. Chair Hull called a ten-minute recess at 3:25 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 3:35 P.m. Arleta Bell/1050 S. Saint Vrain Ave. #A-1 questioned the fact that there would be no additional water runoff to the properties to the east. Eleanor Dunn/1254A Community Drive addressed concerns with the potential hazard of the retention ponds and questioned the addition of further traffic onto Hwy 7 in this area. Don Saucier/1081 Scott Ave stated concerns with the additional traffic that would be created with the extension of Golf Course Road. He would suggest changing the intersection and perhaps moving it to the north. He seconded the comments made earlier regarding the loss of prime elk habitat. Bart Dannels/941 S. St. Vrain stated he is against over-development. His property is adjacent to the deceleration lane. His grandfather built on this property because of the views. He stated the triplex would block the views of Twin Sisters and his property would face the back of the homes. He requested the Commission review the landscaping plan to ensure proper screening of the development. Commissioner Klink questioned if the regulations would allow a denial of a development plan due to the impact on wildlife. Director Joseph stated the Planning Commission can request a professional wildlife impact study and can consider appropriate mitigation. The code calls for the CDOW to be the principle reviewing agency of the study. The CDOW would determine whether the proposal would result in significant adverse impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat. Shirley Matheny/1085 Lexington Lane stated concerns with traffic and pollution. DRAFT . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 October 16, 2007 Sandy Osterman/1735 Redtail Hawk Drive questioned if this development is the best kind of development for Estes Park. She questioned the design of the development and accessibility for the growing elderly population of the town. Cory La Bianca/1965 Cherokee Drive spoke against the development. She requested the Commission allow for open space in our community and to avoid over-building. Larry Purdey/1035 Pine Knoll Drive stated the town does not need additional condominiums and he agrees with earlier comments. Carol Billingham/1015 Pine Knoll Drive questioned if the multi-family unit would be sold as condominiums with nightly rentals and if the parking lot would be completely underground. Dirk Knobel/1070 Lexington Lane questioned if the Commissioners just approve the staff's report. Commissioner Klink responded, stating there is limited discretion the Commission can use when reviewing plans and legally the Commission can not deny a development that meets the code. Mr. Knobel requested the developers replace the multi-family building with duplexes. Dick Coe/1070 Pine Knoll Drive stated this development will affect the deer more significantly than the elk. Fred Mares/895 Elk Meadow Court requested a continuance in order to gain additional information from CDOT and CDOW. Mr. Loos stated the developer has made an oven effort to address the wildlife concerns and issues regarding the wildlife corridors. The project would not be a low-income housing development. The architecture of the proposed buildings has been designed to try not to have a backside. The clustering of the housing units has lent the site to additional open space for the wildlife. The deceleration lane on Hwy 7 onto Lexington Lane is due to the current traffic levels, not the additional traffic due to the proposed development. The buildings will meet the current building codes. Commissioner Amos stated he has been concerned with the number of condominiums within the valley. He would ask that the staff discuss the issue of condominiums with the Town Board on the next agenda. Director Joseph stated there is a joint meeting with the County Commissioners, Town Board, and the Planning Commission to discuss the issue on January 29,2008 at a study session. It was moved and seconded (Grant/Tucker) to continue Development Plan 07-13, Wapiti Crossing Contlominiums, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, to the November 20,2007 Planning Commission in order to receive comments from CDOT and CDOW, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT NOV-14#2007 10:59 AM EPSURVEYORS 586 5816 P.01 070 686 0249 Community Developmen 10.22.30 e.m, 11-14-2007 1M ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, INC. Post Office Box 3047 Telephone 970-586-5175 Estes Park, CO 80517 Receive FAX 01 970486-5816 October 31, 2007 W.0.2446 Mr. Davc Shlrk, Town of Estes Park Community Development P,O. BOX 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Dear Dave: I have sent three letters to Scott Zum over the last two months trying to obtain any information concerning Deer Ridge that would Inâ€¢ble me to modify plans. R..N.ause I still have not heard and am now not in a position to deal with a response at this time, I would like to ask the Planning Commission to postpone the preliminary plat review until the December meeting. If this is not possible, then it should be withdrawn and I wlil proceed with utility line installations and drive improvements. If you require additional Information or have any questions, please contact us. Respectfully yours, Estes Park Sulveyors & Engineers, Inc. CUA.U.Je-Ccklv U Ra \4364) UJ Paul M. Kochevar, P.E. & P,L.S. President I I Wapiti Crossing (DP 07-13) ~ 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: November 20, 2007 (first Planning Commission hearing was October 16; the Planning Commission voted to continue to November). REOUEST: Approval to build forty-two 6 - i U multi-family dwellings. Gcn. ~- rÂ·Â·ire.=1'.==-2/ _ USFS / Ih--1 rt' U L.9 14 LOCATION: Southwest corner of .. -- Lexington Lane and Highway 7, within the i.... #ky 3~ Ff . Town of Estes Park. At)*in USFS NE*ic}rej Fhm APPLICANT: The Mulhern Group (on behalf of property owner) * USES RMVP exr,câ€¢y PROPERTY OWNER: Lexington Lane LLC (2595 Canyon Blvd Suite 250, Boulder, CO) STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk (dshirk@estes.ore, 577-3729) SITE DATA TABLE: Consultant Team: Architect/site planning: The Mulhern Group (Steve Loos) Engineering: Cornerstone Engineering (Mike Todd) Parcel Number: 2531105022 Development Area: 5.65 acres (+/-) Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Proposed Land Use: Multi-family residential Existing Zoning: "RM" Multi-family Adjacent Zoning- East: "RM" Multi-family North: "R" Residential (1/4 acre) West: "E" Estate (1/2 acre) South: "E" Estate (1/2 acre) Adjacent Land Uses- East: Multi-family residential North: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential Services- Water: Town Sewer: EPSD I ' Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request to build forty- two multi-family residential units on a currently undeveloped 5.9-acre acre parcel. The property is currently zoned "RM" Multi-Family (the property has been zoned for multi-family development since the adoption of zoning in 1961). The units are planned to be a mix of detached (10 units), duplex (2), triplex (6), and a multi-family building (24). Site access would be from one point on Lexington Lane, with a through street to Highway 7, aligned with Golf Course Road. Changes from previous site plan. The applicant has made several changes from the plan presented at the October Planning Commission hearing. These are summarized below: 1. Preliminary deceleration lane design shown. 2. Landscape berms added along Lexington Lane. 3. Trash enclosures shown. 4. Parking statistics clarified. 5. Technical corrections such as typos and deletion of extraneous lines. 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 involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project. Zoning Requirements. Land Use. The proposed land use is allowed in the "RM" Multi-Family district. Density. The proposed density is 7.8 units per acre (42 units into 5.356 acres), where the "RM" district has a maximum density of 8 units per acre; therefore, this proposal meets density requirements. Density has been modified to account for right-of-way dedication, as required by the Estes Valley Development Code. The existing cabin is proposed to be used for an "auxiliary dwelling/club house" and must be converted prior to issuance of a permit for the forty-second unit. Page #2 - Wapiti Crossing. Development Plan 07-13 f " Impervious Coverage. The "RM district has a maximum impervious coverage of 50%, the proposed 38% complies with this requirement. Impervious coverage will be verified with the required as-built plans. Floor Area Ratio. The "RAA" district has a floor area ratio of .30; the proposed .30 FAR complies with this requirement. Floor Area Ratio will be monitored throughout the development process. Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements. Table 4-8 requires provision for pedestrian linkages. The proposed sidewalk system complies with this requirement. Setbacks. This proposal requires ten-foot setbacks on the west and south property lines, twenty-five feet from the east property line, fifteen feet from the north property line, and fifteen feet from the interior street line. The development plan complies with these requirements. 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 Estes Valley Plan. Specific examples include: â€¢ Urban land use should occur within the Town limits of Estes Park. â€¢ Facades should be broken up with windows, doors or other architectural features to provide visual relief. â€¢ Promote street system connections between developments and promote an interconnected roadway system throughout the community which minimizes cul-de-sacs. â€¢ Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. In addition to Community Wide Policies, the Comprehensive Plan includes "Planning Area Guidelines." This particular site is within the Fish Creek/Little Prospect sub-area, which includes the following as a key issue: "Abundant wildlife is found within the planning area. The golf course is a prime viewing area for elk during the winter. Migration routes through the area need to be maintained (emphasis added)." The site plan provides for migration 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 Staff' s opinion the proposed LOD meet these criteria. Page #3 - Wapiti Crossing. Development Plan 07-13 The southern portion of the site is to remain undisturbed; the remainder of the site does not contain any significant natural features such as rock outcroppings, streams, wetlands, forest, or steep slopes. Tree and Vegetation Protection. Existing trees to remain shall be fenced for protection prior to any site work. Tree protection fencing shall comply with standards set forth in Appendix D.VIII. Landscaping and Buffers. The proposed landscaping plan does not meet requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. â€¢ The southern landscaping buffer also does not contain enough proposed landscaping within the mandated twenty foot buffer (there are several trees that are located within fifty feet of the property line, outside the proposed limits of disturbance). â€¢ The western property line buffer has been adjusted so some of the trees are greater than 20-feet from the property line where they have been located to buffer the north side of the "multi-family" building. This was done to provide space for elk passage into the proposed wildlife corridor. Section 7.5.C2 allows that the planning commission may authorize alternatives to the quantities set forth in the development code, provided that the applicant submits a detailed landscaping plan and that the planning commission determines that the proposed landscaping plan satisfies the purpose and intent of the development code. Staff suggests the proposed landscaping plan satisfies the purpose of district buffering. The applicant proposes a berm system along Lexington Lane, as delineated on the landscaping plan. The landscaping plan should be amended so the southern row of shrubs near Unit Al will be on the berm instead of in front of it. Wildlife. Section 7.8G provides specific review standards regarding wildlife. These include buffer areas, non-native vegetation, fencing, exterior lighting, refuse disposal, and domestic animals. It is Staff's opinion the proposed development complies with these standards. Community Development has sent this development proposal to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for review and comment. Written comments received on November 5 are summarized below: â€¢ Many species of wildlife use this site, with elk being the most notable. In addition, elk use this site and the surrounding area to feed, rut and calve. â€¢ Removal of natural vegetation will reduce forage for several wildlife species (Staff comment: 62% of the site will be vegetated with native flora). Page #4 - Wapiti Crossing, Development Plan 07-13 â€¢ Unless well protected, landscaping will be damaged by deer and elk (Staff comment'. Landscaping is required to be fenced to protect from damage by wildlife). â€¢ Garbage containers should be bear resistant (Staff comment: trash enclosures are proposed). â€¢ Pets should be protected from predation by mountain lions and coyotes. (Staff comment: A suggested condition of approval is to keep animals inside unless under the control of a person). â€¢ Dog owners need to obey leash laws to ensure dogs do not harass wildlife â€¢ If fences are constructed, they will hinder wildlife movement and may result in injury or death (Staff comment: No fences are proposed, other than those to protect landscaping as required by the Estes Valley Development Code). â€¢ An increase in vehicular traffic will likely increase accidents with wildlife. Already, there is a severe problem in the area (Stalf comment: The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by a professional traffic engineer, found this project would have "no significant impact" on existing or proposed traffic in the area). Staff has received phone calls from a nearby neighbor with status of elk using the area: on the afternoon of 10-26, 83 elk were on site "all afternoon"; a herd of approximately 60 elk were on site from Friday October 19-Sunday October 21. Exterior Lighting. The proposed development will be subject to lighting standards set forth in Section 7.9, which requires exterior lighting be shielded and downcast. No lighting fixture shall be higher than fifteen feet above ground. This includes parking lot and security lighting. A lighting "cut sheet" will need to be submitted for Staff review prior to issuance of first building permit. Operation Performance Standards. Section 7.10 of the development code allows the planning commission to impose certain "operational standards" such as location of loading zones, trash receptacles, and other physical components of a site. Staff recommends the proposed transformer locations be changed, as delineated below: \ 0*Ily; ..T-I.. .%.I".-*IÂ£-7 1 UNT A 7 4/(~'1 .\Sl ,-1 - 2.2-33.-5.S, Â»â€¢c '%>'L#32-447 1. \ ,A ,#4*A ' - uN/7 Ad i v.j 4 TZ.--- 0 1,/22~34.F- 2%-0Â»- ..I RR TRANK'ORIER . 11 UNN.*16 423, 3 5/ // -1 6.. 1 â€žr--30....,-- f,/ t[- - â€ž Â«â€ž,1- Â· - I --- - 1 --- I. r PROPOSED 9 -=.----Â·t~Â¥1 2 - 0 --~ 69996.9 -_ *Lt> 6% 6- 62 - - - ASEMENT EACH SOC _L ao.a, { :/1,7/1 w 1 -Il#/# i ---1.[ , ..1. 6..:*.*,0 , -'..3 ,,4. c...1 11 .. 0, ..40â€ž 1 9\ Page #5 - Wapiti Crossing, Development Plan 07- 13 1 Transformer units are typically 3' x3' x3'. Staff suggests these relocated for aesthetic reasons. Furthermore, Light and Power Department policy requires these to be at least six feet from the edge of any sidewalk, so they will need to be moved anyway. Off-Street Parking and Loading. This proposal requires ninety-one parking spaces; one hundred and eleven will be provided. These spaces have been .. distributed throughout the project so that each "pod satisfies its own parking demand. For example: Units A1-A6 (including B 1) require 16 spaces and 23 will be provided; the "multi-family" building requires 50 spaces and 52 will be provided. 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. 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 (10 units). Sanitary Sewer will be provided by an existing main located along Highway 7. Wate r will be provided by a proposed main located along the interior street. Fire Protection. Two additional fire hydrants are proposed. Per Section 7.12.G, all required fire protection requirements shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit. Transportation. The Colorado Department of Transportation has provided a letter regarding this project, summarized as follows: â€¢ CDOT concurs with the Traffic Impact Analysis. â€¢ A southbound right deceleration lane is warranted at Lexington. It will be the responsibility of the applicant to work with CDOT on the design requirements at this location and must meet Region 4 construction plan requirements. If the auxiliary lane cannot be built to Access Code standards, CDOT will consider a waiver for any deficiency, provided the deficiency is caused by right-of-way constraints. â€¢ No traffic signal is warranted at either location at this time. CDOT will not allow the installation of a signal without warrants being met. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Page #6 - Wapiti Crossing, Development Plan 07-13 Building Department. The Applicant should contact Will Birchfield (577-3728) to discuss building department issues such as grading and building permit requirements, and the American with Disabilities Act. 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 Public Works Department and UTSD 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 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 of building permits or certificates of occupancy. 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 4. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making body for the development plan. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed "Wapiti Crossing" Development Plan 07-13 CONDTIONAL TO: 1. Trans formers and pedestals near the north end of the "multi- family" building and between units A6 and A7 in less visible locations, and delineated in the Staff report. 2. All dogs and cats shall be kept inside of the units, except that the dog or cat may be out of doors if it is under the effective control of a person, as defined in the Estes Park Municipal Code. This condition shall be included in any future condominium declarations. 3. The landscaping plan shall be amended so the southern row of shrubs near Unit A1 will be on the berm instead of in front of it. 4. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits. 5. Compliance with the following memos: a. From Jeff Boles to Bob Goehring dated 8/22/2007. b. From James Duell to Dave Shirk dated August 16, 2007. c. From Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated August 24,2007. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to APPROVE Development Plan 07-13 subject to the conditions recommended by Staff. Page #7 - Wapiti Crossing, Development Plan 07-13 a *I:t 1; "'11# 0... { N * 1 20* 1 4 44 & . 444 .~.4 > 4%Â· ? 4.Â¥ Â· Â·Â· e- 2 I L f ,---,- 1! r 's >-- i ; 7. i..,I...j .:i......iÂ» ..y Â·Â·... .f . + NO .Â·* K 4.,'.,4 : t. 0 *? Â· *tf 9. Â· V K k: 4, 631 n Â» 4" 7 . I :a : N *: 44*: 11-/ -H 24 4 9 1 4.. a C . . .....1 NX S.. g leâ€¢:1 I a 24 Â·-/ ti , i '/ -*--/. 6.5: 9 /4: 1 \ Â·t .. . .1 84,1.. 1 JÂ· ... FÂ»en-.-Â·<Â«#L.-"4+J:.06Â«.gy r'â€ž 1 1 1-' - 9,1.: \1 . 4 1 j I P.:8%,1 1/ 1 1 1 i 1 f-F'- f .r*~~t,â‚¬=,10,Â«Â«V'*na<,-CV, ., - -. 794 . 4,0-.'.-779".., C,e- * . . 477â€ž.~4.7.4.4 37 777-- ? I. # V 8 . 1'.1 ~ '-4 4-Ki +41: i rt f r Â»-I *-1 1 4 *94; . 414 0< 34 i X 3 1 91 3 1" ' =t'r U /41 0.1 4'11 4-* 1 ~ 3?,5. -: 4, itt 4 1-: 1/ 1% i 122 i 4 1. 'a .'bj , 9.- -I - 9 Â· C,Ct'* 02 I L , 1 Â· A I .A 1 0 'Â·Â·~Cl 1 1 1 0=: 21. "-1 -1...- 1 . ..24.-721- 1 14 1 1.97,//1.. I. 44 j R. i a I .Â» .6 .,0 6. 1 4%2 LA-fL./L~~,*/*--.JÂ· f 4 -*FL..4,..,+1-p, , ~.~3 '\ Tr ; bt .Â»t : . 4 l. f &%/14Â·fflit# I. d'MAQE]o 944â‚¬ E i AON AA UÂ«kÂ¥ 47 4 Â¢941 Y 11/1342007 09:43 9705862459 CORNERSTONE ENG PAGE 02 NOV-13-2007 09:37AM FROM-ADMT +9703602198 T-201 P.001/001 F-872 - STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A- REGION 4 TRAFFIC ./-92/110 1420 Second Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 (970) 350-2148 ................... ,-.....u, (970) 350-2198 fax Larimer Counly, SH 7 Wapici Crossing Between Lexington & S. Shady Ln Estes Park November 13,2007 Mike Todd Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying 1692 Big Thompson, Ste 200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mike: Per your request I am providing this letter stating CDOT's position regarding the proposed Wapiti Crossing. 1. The projected right-of-way need in 150% 75' either side ofthehighway centerline. The additional right-of-way shoukibe protected by either reservation or dedication. However, bacause of congtraints in many of our mountain locations, it is not possible to get this right-of-way, CDOT understands thia. and will defer to the Town on. whether protecting the fliture right-of-way need is possible. 2, CDOT concurs with the findings of the trafac impact study. Access m this proposal will be allowed at Lexington and South Shady Lane. AGGeSS parmits will be required for both access locations, 3, A southbound right des@leration lane is warranted at Lexington. It will betbe responsibility of the applicant to work with CDOT on the design requirements at this location and must meet Region 4 comtruction plan requirements, A checklist can be provided upon request. If the auxiliary lane carmot be built to Access Code standards, CDOT will consider a waiver for any deficieocy, provided the deficiency is caused by rightÂ·01-way constrnints. 4, No traffic signal is warranted at either location ar this time. CDOT will not allow the Installation of a signal without warrants being made. 5. A drainage repon must be provided and cleared prior to the issuance of an acÂ©ess permit. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate To contact me. Sincerely, 1 A ~yt14Â£+ 1.- 015ria Hke-Idler Permit Manager (970) 350.2148 Xc: file wapiti crossing - estes park referral Page 1 0 f 2 Dave Shirk From: Mike Todd [mtodd@ces-ccc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14,2007 2:19 PM To: Dave Shirk; 'Hice-Idler, Gloria'; Scott Zurn Subject: RE: wapiti crossing - estes park referral Dave, Talking with the Traffic Engineer, Kathleen Krager of Krager & Associates, Inc., since the posted speed was 35 mph the decel lane should be 65 feet in length with a 10:1 taper. Yes if the decel lane is extended past the driveway to the north there are slopes that will be an issue. Thanks Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. Michael Todd, PE mtodd@ces-ccuQm (970) 586-2458 From: Dave Shirk [mailto:dshirk@estes.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:45 PM To: Hice-Idler, Gloria; Scott Zurn; Mike Todd Subject: wapiti crossing - estes park referral Hello Gloria- <<Wapiti Crossing.PDF>> Thank you the memo regarding Wapiti Crossing. Attached is a copy of the "latest" plan that shows a potential decel lane off Highway 7 onto Wapiti Crossing. It shows a 185' long design. My understanding from Cornerstone is that if the length is extended, they will run into slope issues due to existing drives (is this correct Mike?). If you have any comments, please feel free to submit. Thanks again. -dave David W. Shirk, AICP Estes Park Community Development PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 11/14/2007 STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES .=52'~giqim AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mark B. Konishi, Acting Director NOV -5 Â®01 For Wildlife- 6060 Broadway For People Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife. state.co.us Oct. 25,2007 Bob Joseph Community Development Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Bob: Thank you for providing the Colorado Division o f Wildli fe (CDOW) the opportunity to comment on the proposed Wapiti Crossing development. Many species of wildlife use this site with elk or wapiti, the most notable. The project is aptly named with large numbers o f elk crossing highway 7 at this location on their way to the 18 hole golf course. Volunteers from the Colorado Mountain Club and me, with the Colorado Department of Transportation's permission, removed the right-away fence at this location to facilitate this movement. In addition, elk use this site and the surrounding area to feed, rut and calve. Mule deer, in smaller numbers use this site year round. Black bears in the summer and fall are commonly in the area with at least nine individuals this year raiding garbage cans and bird feeders. Mountain lions and coyotes frequent the area, being attracted by the large number of deer and elk. Nuisance raccoons are often reported as well. Removal of natural vegetation will reduce forage for several wildli fe species. Unless well protected, landscaping will be damaged by deer and elk. The CDOW is not responsible for such damage. Garbage containers should be bear resistant. Bird feeders, pet food and barbeque grills should be managed to prevent attracting bears and raccoons. A CDOW regulation requires the mitigation of such bear conflicts. Pets should be protected from predation by mountain lions and coyotes. Dog owners need to obey leash laws to ensure dogs do not harass wildlife. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tom Burke, Chair â€¢ Claire O' Neal, Vice Chair â€¢ Robert Bray, Secretary Members, Dennis Buechler â€¢ Brad Coors â€¢ Jeffrey Crawford â€¢ Tim Glenn â€¢ Roy McAnally â€¢ Richard Ray Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Stulp . If fences are constructed, they will hinder wildlife movement and may result in injury or death. An increase in vehicular traffic willlikely increase accidents with wildlife. Already, there is a severe problem in this area. Sincerely, 71/7 1 --4 1 - / fla. l.,71, -L<1. 4LC0 A.- eq LL- 11 4 0 fc 11-1 0-Â£ 9 1 e.- tor Kathi Green Acting Northeast Regional Manager CC. Mark Leslie, Area Wildlife Manager Copy: Kathi Green, Acting Northeast Regional Manager Area 2 File Dear Town Board Trustee/Commisioner: The > 5 acre piece of open ground on the corner of Lexington Lane and Hi-Way 7 was sadly sold to a developer who plans on building multi-family units on this precious piece of ground. This developer is not local to Estes Park, and obviously has no idea of the value of this land to Estes Park wildlife and human inhabitants. He has ironically called the development "Wapiti Crossing", a sick joke in that this area has become renowned for the vast number of wapiti (elk) that commonly gather here, especially at rutting and calving time. Mule-deer (rapidly declining in number), bears, coyotes, bobcat, raccoons, also frequent this "neighborhood' of town "wilderness". All will be forced away should this development progress. Another troubling factor is that this area has become a very important part of the elk migration corridor. The tremendous effect on all the elk of Estes Park will be irrevocably devastating. Estes Park residents naturally have an emotional attachment to this area, but so do many out-of-towners who drive for miles to visit it. Estes Park depends tremendously on the tourist industry, which flourishes for the short summer period. For the same reason the Town also anticipates the other "snapshots" of time such as elk bugling, rutting and calving seasons. The plans for this property include 42 residential units: 18 Townhouse units and 1 multi family building of 24 units. The entire development will use all of the valuable land: - parking spaces, garages, walkways, garbage disposal, mail boxes (1'rn sure many other potential problems failed to come to mind). This leaves very little space for the trusting wildlife that gathers here. The plans indicate that the code regarding the elk corridor has been upheld. Look closely. It is ridiculously fragmented and useless. Traffic accidents on the Number 7 involving wild life are already sadly too common. Imagine then this development, incumbent with domestic dogs, people noise, added car and bike traffic. How can the accident statistics not dramatically increase? Not to mention the danger to the populace of children who will be living in the development. And what of the increased motor traffic on Hi-way 7? It is already very busy at certain times of day as young folk travel to and from school, and others to work and back. Entering Hi-way 7 from Lexington to turn left toward town at these times of day is already frustrating (and dangerous). The additional traffic from the new residents of Wapiti Crossing would drastically compound existing problems. Concerned residents in the apartments over the road from the proposed development dread wet weather. The gradient of the land starting up Prospect Mountain, ending at the golf course, lends to constant flooding of their property. Water stands in deep puddles long after the rain has gone. The Wapiti development will increase this twofold. These residents want to know what the Town plans to do about this to protect them (they are taxpayers after-all). The only answer they have received to date is that the developers/engineers of their condominium were at fault, and nothing can be done. Culverts and conduits have been planned, but these will be ineffective. How can this be allowed? And why is the City not protecting its people? As of October 29th 2007 there were 419 homes for sale in Estes Park. Do we need another 42?One thing is certain, Estes Park will economically compromised should this project be vetoedl It is bleakly obvious that our Town Board is indifferent to the preservation wildlife habitats in Estes. Why else would it have been recommended to return the 36+ acres (Ranch Meadows borders of portion of this) to the Homeowners Association? And what of Lot 4 in the historic Stanley district? You are urged to consider the dire consequences of this proposal, and recommend it be vetoed. Concerned resident Gwen Knobel 1070 Lexington Lane, Estes Park. ~ ~~ NOV 1 3 2007 'LI 1-~ECEDVE[i~ - - ~ 4 Spidtual-Coaching - ~ft NOV 1 5 2007 ~~ ' fustness - I 3 '.2/FL November 15th,2007 Dear Mr. Amos, On Tuesday, November 20m you and the Planning Commission will be deciding on whether to approve the plans for the development of the meadow at Lexington Lane and Highway 7. It is my deepest hope in making this important 2,1~,tkal 440*9* decision that as you listen to your head, that you will give equal time to your ~' heart. - . *44* 9Â»Â« I realize that your duty is to follow the Estes Valley Development Code. It is for that reason that I am asking that you consider Chapter 7.8, section F3 ofthe code which says: "DOWReview. For applications referred to it, the Division of Wildlife will determine whether the proposal will result in significant adverse -4, -iN impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat only if the development adversely impacts the following: a. An endangered or threatened species, - b. A calving, lambing or fawning area, ::, 4.4 \ c. Big Horn sheep or Big Horn sheep habitat, d. Raptor nest site, or e. Riparian areas and wetlands. Â·1(kt.-U,Â·Â·Â·.; In the Department of Wildlife's letter to Bob Joseph dated October 25th it was clearly stated in the second paragraph that "...elk use this site and the 4 Â·Â· surrounding area to feed, rut and calve." I would hope that this infringement on the code alone would be grounds to deny the proposed development at Lexington Lane and Highway 7. 4* # t El-1 - 1015 Pine KnoILDrive â€¢ Estes Park, Colorado 80517 - 303.403.4003 â€¢ fax 970.577.0101 carole@wisdoincoach.coin â€¢ www.wisdomcoach.com Spirituafcoaching - Gfustness That being said, there were two other statements made in the last two paragraphs ofthe Department of Wildlife's letterthat are worthy of consideration: "/f fences are constructed, they will hinder wildlife movement and may result in injury or death" and "An increase in vehicular tralfic will likely increase accidents with wildlife. Already there is a severe problem in this area. " Although these may not be code considerations, I would propose that perhaps these are matters for the heart to consider. 9- Like most people, I was drawn to Estes Park because of its natural beauty, wildlife and its warm sense of community. Along with my aging parents, my , husband and I moved here when my daughter was an infant. We wanted a loving and caring community in which we could raise our daughter. I thank you for the role that you play in making Estes Park the wonderful community that it is. \ I realize that yourjob is not an easy one and that ultimately your duty is to serve the residents of Estes Park by upholding the Estes Valley Development Code. It is on that basis that I respectfully ask you to deny the proposed development on Lexington Lane and Hwy 7 on grounds that it infringes on Chapter 7.8, section F3. Again, thank you for all that you do for our community and thank you in advance for considering my request. Â¥ Respectfully yours, Cal: Carole L. Billingham 1015 Pine Knoll Drive â€¢ Estes Park, Colorado 80517 303.403.4003 â€¢ fax 970.577.0201 ' carole@wisdomcoach.com . wmv. wisdonicoach.com HI liM--1 - - 11 Ill November 14,2007 1 FF) i D f r' ., i & ..... . 1 1 . 1 4 . 1 Wi, 1 4 :lk)/ h //i 1 I Nla=9 Estes Valley Planning Commissioner Amos: Subject: Proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium development I was present at the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting o f October 16,2007 for consideration of the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium development. During the public comment portion of the meeting I heard many residents express general concerns about the overbuilding of condominiums in Estes Park and specific concerns about the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium development. Specific concerns regarding: e the additional storm water runoffby the hard surfaces of the development contributing to an already existing problem in two existing developments down slope from this pri,petty e traffic flow and safety e the negative impal t the development would have on the indigenous wildlife. I heard numerous people comment on the very large numbers of elk and deer that frequent this land and of the traffic janis caused by the spectacle of such herds within our town. The most compelling report came from Jayne Zmjewski, Advanced Master .l Instructor for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, whose assignment has been to track the location and movements c f wildlife, including bears and mountain lions, in the immediate area o f the Lexington Lane property. She reported 7 elk calves and 3 sets of twin mule deer were born on this proposed development site this year. In addition she stated these 5+ acres are continually used by mixed herds of elk and deer and other herds of only male elk as an overnight resting area. At the request of the Planning Commission, the staff displayed the map of Important Wildlife Habitat Areas as described in the Estes Valley Development Code, Chapter 7.8.E., and entitled "Wildiife Habitat Data Base". This property was shown to be included in two wildlife habitat areas, for Mule Deer and for Elk. A comment was made by staff implying the map was too general and may perhaps be outdated. A call after the meeting to Larry Gamble of Rocky Mountain National Park confirmed that the map is considered viable by the Park Service and is neither vague nor outdated. The Park Service uses the map and follows it as a guideline for elk and deer habitat. The Estes Valley Development Code. Chapter 7.8, entitled "Wildlife Habitat Protection" states as it's purpose "To maintain and enhance the diversity of wildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valley, and to plan and design land uses to be harmonious with wildlife habitat and tne species that depend on this habitat for the economic, recreational and environmental benefit of the residents of and visitors to the Estes Valley." The code goes on to provide, in Chap:er 7.8, section F.3 - "DOW Review.For applications referred to it, the Division of Wildlife will determine whether the proposal will result in significant adverse impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat only if the development adversely impacts the following: a. An endangered or threatened species, b. A calving, lambing or fawning areED c. Big Horn sheep or Big Horn sheep habitat, d. Raptor nest site, or e. Riparian areas and wetlands, The letter from Kathi Green the Northeast Regional Manager of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, dated October 25,2007, to Community Development Director Bob Joseph, very specifically states "Many species of wildlife use this site with elk or wapiti, the most notable...........In addition, elk use this site and the surrounding area to feed, rut and calve. Mule deer, in smaller numbers use this site year round. Black bears in the summer and fall are commonly in the area................An increase in vehicular traffic will likely increase accidents with wildlife. Already there is a severe problem in this area." This report by CDOW is very specific to the site and very clearly, in non-boiler plate language, states this plot is a calving area. The sentence from the CDOW letter, stating that this is a feeding, rutting and calving area was not included in the Draft Staff Report - November meeting (as posted on the iown website). Based on the elk calving and deer fawning which take place on this property, in the ( context of the Estes Valley Development Code, Chapter 7.8.F.3.b as shown above, any development on this property would have a seriously adverse impact on wildlife.... certainly 42 units with on y 60 feet to remain open between buildings. This proposal is not in compliance with th: Estes Valley Development Code. The architect of the devel.,pment stated that much thought and consideration was given to the environment and wild ife. He stated the design is "outstanding considering the scope of the development". His development plan affirms the intent, nicely designed buildings, structures well oriented on the property, and considerable underground parking. Director Joseph's comment that th. s design concept may well be used as a "good example" is well founded; however the key phrase used by the architect is "considering the scope of this development". That phrase translates to -the architect did an outstanding job given his mandate to fit the maximt. m number of units allowable by code onto the property. The issue here is not about how many condos should or should not be built in Estes Park. It is not about whether thi architect did a good job in maximizing the number o f units allowed in a development This is nor about merely providing 60 feet between buildings as a wildlife corridor bect Lise this property is clearly more than a corridor. This is about one unique 1-,roperty within Estes Parks one of the few remaining natural open spaces heavily used by our wildlife. A property which provides residents and visitors alike with an opp<,rtunity not afforded to most, the opportunity to view our native wildlife living within our :ommunity and in their natural habitat. Estes Park sanctioned a visitor survey conducted by RCC Associates of Boulder during the summer of 2006. The report was presented at a town board meeting in December of 2006 and was reported in the Trail-Gazette Trailblazer on December 22,2006. The first finding of the survey was 'Gwildlife viewing has increased significantly in visitor appeal with 78 percent (up from 45 percent a decade ago) listing this as a primary reason for coming to Estes Park. Rocky Mountain National Park remained a strong attraction.........99 Additional condo units may have some beneficial impact on the Estes Park economy but they may also have an even larger detrimental impact. The overwhelming reason visitors come to, and stay in Estes Park is the wildlife in town. After all, isn't this the reason Estes Park, at considerable expense, puts on Elk Fest every year? th I had the privilege of attending the study session before the October 16 meeting and have the following comments: Commissioner Amos is correct; if there were no town in the Estes Valley today the Colorado Division of Wildlife's recornmendations regarding wildlife protection for building a new town would be considerably different than those offered for today's "inch by inch" development. Unfortunatel) we do not have the luxury of beginning with a clean slate. We do however have the opportunity to protect one very special parcel of land not yet developed by taking action before we find all the open spaces in our town have disappeared beneath asphalt and concrete inch by inch. Commissioner Klink is also correct iii pointing out that public action needs to be taken before development plans reach the Planning Commission for review not just when a development is proposed for our own neighborhoods. Not all development is bad or wrong for Estes, however all too many times it is not known to the public what a developer intends for a parcel until a development plan is filed with the city. Only at that time can it be seen if the proposal is reasonable and responsible, or if it is not suited for a particular parcel or neighborhood. As a result we the citizens of Estes Park must look to you, our Planning Commission to represent us well and protect the things that make Estes the special place that it is. Chair person Hull commented the elk herd which had moved through her neighborhood had been rerouted througl- private property (where parties pay to hunt) by a condo development. Commissioner Grant indicated that barking dogs have deterred the once prevalent elk from his neighborhood - jast up the hill fi-om the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominiums. Forty two new units will do little for restoring the elk's path down Prospect Mountain. Commissioner Kitchen veiced appropriate concern for property owner's rights. Along with those rights come the property owner's responsibilities, responsibilities to neighbors, to community and to the future. Sometimes those responsibilities may outweigh one's individual desires. As ons of the attendees ofthe October 16th meeting observed, it would have been nice if the previous property owners would have informed the neighbors and the city oftheir intent to sell before selling to a developer. Perhaps the land could have been purchased by a neighborhood group to be left open as had been done by residents in the condo just east across Highway 7 or perhaps the property could have been purchased for open space. There are other options for the current property owner as explained to us by Jim White, Chair of the Estes Valley Land Trust. Conservation easements provide financial opportunities in the form of significant state and federal tax benefits - a viable alternative to development. Commissioner Eisenlauer may also be correct in his light hearted comment about the need to impose a two year moratorium on condo development, but that is not the specific issue at hand. Right now we have the opportunity to protect one remaining important open space in Estes Park. In closing I will reiterate that this issue is about the future o f one specific 5+ acre parcel of open land which provices a safe refuge for the areas wildlife and a postcard view of Estes Park to residents and visitors alike. Estes Park showcases the ability for people and wildlife to coexist harmoniously. This is a big part ofwhat Estes is about; this is what the world sees of Estes Park and why most of us have chosen to live here. This is Estes at its best! I would submit to the Conimission that the residents of Estes Park and the Colorado Division of Wildlife have provided you with the facts about the use of this land and the Estes Valley Developmen. Code has provided you with the authority. The development plan is clearly in violation ofthe EVDC. We are aware the planning staff is recommending approval, -lowever we trust that you will represent us well, do the right and lawful thing, and den' , the Wapiti Crossing Condominium development proposal. Sincerely, 7 6% 1 *-A Acj C Â»laus Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Coult C. C Water Department Inter-Office Memorandum ESTES l"'] PARK COLORADO To: Bob Goehring From: Jeff Boles Date: 8/22/2007 Re: Wapiti Crossing Condominiums, Lot 22, S. St. Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue After review of the Development Plan 07-13 the Light and Power and Water Departments have the following comments: Light and Power Department comments; 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 also need to accompany all existing primary electric lines and any secondary electric on others property. 6) Any relocation or upgrade of existing facilities will be accomplished at the project owners request and expense. 7) 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. 8) All primary electric must be buried 4' deep in a 3" conduit for single phase and 4" conduit for three phase 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. 9) We will need to meet with the developer to determine exact cost and location of proposed facilities. 10) Streetlights will need to be relocated at developer's expense should the existing ones conflict with proposed entrances. 11) Submit plans from the project electrical engineer for Town review and approval. 12) It does not appear that an electrical engineer was instrumental in the development of the utilities plan, there is no electrical engineers stamp and the number of proposed transformers is excessive. Please contact our Line Superintendent-Todd Steichen at 970-577-3602 for review of the engineered plan when it is ready. 4 0 Water Department Inter-Office Memorandum ESTES lue] PARK COLORADO 13) A metering plan will also need to accompany the engineered electrical plan. 14) It will be necessary to deepen the existing underground (3) phase primary electric line if the proposed Highway 7 entrance goes in as shown. 15) 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 Comments; 1) A Water Main Extension will be required for service, including Fire Protection. This infrastructure must be installed, testing preformed/passed and accepted by the Department prior to issuance of any building permits. Any project phasing of the water main infrastructure must be submitted with the construction drawings for approval prior to construction. 2) Construction drawings are required for the project. Drawings must be approved and signed by the Utilities Director or designated representative prior to anv construction. All water line design and construction shall be done according to the Water Utility Policies and Standards. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. Construction drawings must include: â€¢ Plan and profile to show potential conflicts between water and other utilities including culverts, show Utility Easement locations when utility is not in Road Right of Way. â€¢ Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) indicating tap locations, meter sizing, meter locations, and addresses served by each. 3) If the structure is required to have a Fire Suppression System a 'Fire Sprinkler System Connection Application' must be completed and submitted to the Water Department before any connection is granted. This application must include a detailed drawing noting: â€¢ Location, sizing and type of backflow prevention device(s) â€¢ Engineered flow requirements for the fire sprinkler system â€¢ Spill control method for proper disposal of discharge from the relief valve, indicating location and sizing of drainage capable of accommodating the discharge that could occur Due to fire line size both a chlorination and pressure test will be required, conducted by a representative of the Water Department prior to acceptance. Any Fire Suppression line servicing a building from the water main is a private service line and must be noted as such on the Development Plan and the Subdivision Plat. Future repair or maintenance required on this service is the sole responsibility of the building owner. Water Department Inter-Office Memorandum ESTES IBE] PARK COLORADO 4) Branch lines off the proposed 8" water main are private services and must be indicated as such on the Development Plan and the Subdivision Plat. " 4 supply line to Units Al -A6 4" supply line to Units A7-A12 2" supply line to Units A13-A15 Future repair or maintenance required on these services is the sole responsibility of the building owner(s). 5) All irrigation systems are required to have an approved backflow prevention device installed for isolation purposes. The device will be tested by a Certified Cross-Connection Technician upon installation and annually there after. GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 August 17,2007 DA\'H SHIRK, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PC) 13()\ 12(30 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Development Plan 07-13 - Application - Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Dear Air. Shirk: 1 have no comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call, ~Vely Truly,yours, Gic iy .4. *Flnt.le GAW/ldr CC: Cornerstone Engineering, Mike Todd Fax: 970/586-2459 C C Estes Park Sanitation District PO Box 722, Estes Park, CO 8051 7 August 16,2007 Dave Shirk, Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517-1200 RE: Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Dear Dave Shirk, Upon review of the proposed Development Plan for the above mentioned properly the District has the following comments: 1. The District would like to thank the development and Cornerstone Engineering for the qualily of thought shown in their sewer utility plan, It complies with the Districfs rules and regulations for sewer. 2, Please note that the line providing service to the 24 unit multi-family development will need to be eight-inch. Also any clean outs in or along side of the driveway or roadway will need to have approved slip top covers. 3. Easements will need to be defined on the plat. The District has a policy of not al- lowing trees, either planted or naturally growing within our easement. This will need to be observed, 4. System investment fees will apply for all new units. Thank you. Sincerely, -=CauÂ« James Duell District Manager re E-~-1 Jll AUG 1 6 ~ ~ ~| I t=ELJ Office: 1201 Graves Avenue 970.586.2866 / Plant: 610 Big Thompson Ave 970.586.3516 Fax: 970.586.4712 . MEMORANDUM To: Dave Shirk, Planner II From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official ANAQ '2_4 Date: Juty#7,2007 Subject: Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition 1041 S. St. Vrain Ave. The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the application for Development Plan for the above-referenced property and offers the following comments: 1. Please see attached Development Plan Review Checklist comments. . i Review Date: August 24,2007 Review By: Will Birchfield, CBO DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST 1041 S. St. Vrain Ave. U Official street names and addresses shall be assigned by the Department of Building Safety. There is currently a Shady Lane, which would not be contiguous with this Development. South Shady Lane should not be used. 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. E A detailed site plan is required and shall include utility locations, setbacks, contours, drainage, landscaping, access, easements, etc. E 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. U Prior to any excavation and/or construction activity, a detailed drainage/erosion plan to protect neighboring properties, public right-of-ways 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. U Foundation setback and elevation certificates shall be provided by a Colorado design Professional, and shall bear the appropriate wet stamps. 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. C-Dot shall approve all construction activity on State Highways (Hwy 34, 36 and 7). \\Servera\comm_dev\Building\REVIEWS\Dev Plan Reviews\Development Plan Review-1041 S. St. Vrain Ave.doc Revised 10/17/2006- CB .i . E The developer shall specify the intended uses of all dwelling units. Are they intended to be private dwelling (owner occupied), long term rentals (apartments), or short term rentals (nightly accommodations)? There are specific code requirements (accessibility, life safety, etc.) for each use. E] 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. El Approval of the 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 and accessibility improvements. U Compliance with the accessibility requirements of CRS 9-5 is required, and includes an implementation plan prior to issuance of any building permits. U Minimum one hour fire-resistance-rated construction is required between all dwelling units. El 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 and/or remodeling. Provide distance in between detached single family dwellings. U A Building permit is required for temporag construction office trailers. ~ A Building permit is required for fences over six feet in height. U Sign permits are required and are separate from building permits. Both sign locations need to be dimensioned on the site plan. Must be minimum 8' from property line, comply with EVDC. Refer to Appendix D for Visibility. Lighting to comply with EVDC 7.9. 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. U All requirements of approved variances shall be conditions of any and all permits related to this development, now and in the future. El 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. \\Servera\comm_dev\Building\REVIEWS\Dev Plan Reviews\Development Plan Review-1041 S. St. Vrain Ave.doc Revised 9/19/2006- CB < Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Ramsey [beth.steve@airbits.com] Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 2:01 PM To: Dave Shirk CC: Richard Homeier Subject: Hwy 7 & Lexington Lane We are extremely concerned about the proposed condo development at Highway 7 and Lexington Lane. First of all, there appears to be many unsold condos and empty rental units in Estes Park, so why would the town want more condos to be built? If 42 new condos would be constructed on this property, 42 to 84 more cars would be pulling out onto the highway. If a feasibility study been done, the results need to be distributed to the residents of Estes Park. As traffic is already extremely congested at times in this area, major highway improvements would probably have to be made to accomodate the added numbers of cars (if the condos could even be sold or leased). Would this condo development improve the property values of the people already living in this neighborhood, or would our friends and neighbors be adversely affected? We feel that financially this development would be good for the developer and bad for the residents in our neighborhood. Also, hundreds of elk and deer use this area and would be forced again to find resting and eating areas. Please reconsider what you are proposing to do to our community with the development of 42 more condos. Very concerned residents, Steve & Beth Ramsey 1038 Pine Knoll Drive Estes Park, Colorado 9/10/2007 Barton L. & Sharon Anderson Dannels Sep 14, 2007 306 Tysinger Dr. Hampton, VA 23669 Ph: 757-224-6540 bdannels@cox.net Reference: Development Plan 07-13 concerning Wapiti Crossing Condominiums at 1041 S. St Vrain Avenue Dear Mr. Shirk, We are unable to attend in person and ask that you and the Estes Valley Planning Commission consider our comments during the Sep 18, 2007 meeting when discussing the referenced proposed development. We are the owners of properties immediately adjacent to the proposed development, specifically Lots 2 and 3, Sagers Acres Subdivision, 941 South St. Vrain Ave. at the corner of Lexington Lane and South St. Vrain Ave. To preface our specific comments, we are not at all opposed to development in Estes Park. In fact, we are very proud of the major part played by our family in the growth of the community; grandfather (Henry Dannels on the Town Board), father (Bernie Dannels as Mayor and on the Town Board), and uncle (Al Sager on the Planning Commission). Planned growth has been something they have worked for in this community for more than 50 years, recognizing that Estes Park is too wonderful of a place not to share. We are, however, opposed to over-development as it appears in the Wapiti Crossing Condominium proposal. Since you are the experts on community development we know you are aware and will consider the impact of the large number of condominium, triplex, duplex, and single family homes on both the area in general as well as the properties close to and most directly affected by this proposed development. Concerning the area in general, we rely on your expertise to understand and consider traffic, drainage, zoning, utilities, town support (schools, hospital, police, community- provided services, etc.) of 42 additional units in this small space of 5.882 acres. There will undoubtedly be an impact and know you will give it proper consideration. Concerning the density of the development, it appears the open space requirement for the overall development has been met, but in looking at the development plan, a great deal of this open space requirement is met by including the existing log cabin and surrounding property while making the rest of the development a very dense environment. This seems incongruous with the intent of the Estes community development plan. If a variance is required for the density, even taking the existing cabin into account, we respectfully request the variance be denied. With respect to the impact of this development on our specific property, it is significant. One of the greatest impacts is the proposed deceleration lane off S. St. Vrain Ave that will have to be taken from our property. This lane will take the highway and traffic much closer to the our house, decreasing it's livability, yard, and value while increasing such things as O- Â· (~ the associated traffic noise, headlights, etc. We are vehemently opposed to our land being used for this deceleration lane. If this deceleration lane is approved there will probably be no hope to realize our future plans to build an additional house on the vacant lot, and we probably won't even be able add to expand the current one. Related to the deceleration lane is the increased traffic on Lexington Lane. The technical numbers in the Traffic Impact Analysis are numbers for your consideration of the development proposal but we won't see those numbers from our property, we will see and hear cars, trucks, and motorcycles. Most residents of Wapiti Crossing will traverse Lexington Lane at least once per day due to the location of the postal cluster boxes (and we anticipate newspaper boxes as well) that are proposed to be located close to Lexington Lane on South Shady Lane. Residents will tend to drive up Lexington Lane to get their mail and newspaper. A specific question - is a through street required for the development other than for the convenience of the residents? A suggestion we ask you to consider is that there be one entrance to the development off S. St. Vrain Ave. where a deceleration lane could be located, alleviating the impact to our property as well as the multitude of concerns you must be hearing from other adjacent properties and residents along and beyond Lexington Lane. If a deceleration lane is required, take it from the development requiring it to be needed, not us. There are several intangible aspects of this proposed development that also have an impact on our property. One intangible that we can not tell from the elevation, landscape, or site plan is the current unobstructed view of Twin Sisters, Longs Peak, and the surrounding mountains we enjoy from our house. The spectacular view has been available since the house was built in 1936 and is much more enjoyable than looking at the backside of a condominium. It appears the current view will be obstructed. This loss of view, the deceleration lane, the traffic, the density of the development, the noise, etc., also have an intangible affect on the value of our property, a decrease in value that we expect will be significant. We must now also give second thoughts to our long term plan to move into that house when we are able to quit work and retire. The development site plan shows a sidewalk being built on "our" side of Lexington Lane. We have no need or desire for this sidewalk and do not welcome the associated pedestrian traffic it will bring. These are our initial thoughts, concerns, and questions after reviewing the information available on the estesnet.com website and may have more as you continue to consider the proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact us at any time. Respectfully, Barton L. Dannels Sharon Anderson Dannels Work phone: 757-225-1005 Work phone: 757-269-2213 f.. t . CORNE?STONE Estes Park, CO 80517 1692 Big Thompson - Suite 200 Phone: (970) 586-2458 Fax: (970) 586-2459 ENGINEERING & ~~m ~ SURVEYING, INC. October 8,2007 ~ E 0 12 0 y [E- ~ OCT - 8 2007 21 Mr. Dave Shirk, Planner . Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Letter of Intent for the "Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development" Parcels Number 25311-05-022. Dear Dave, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES) on behalf of our client Lexington Lane, LLC are pleased to submit plans for Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition to the Town ofEstes Park. Owners/Lien Holders The current owners are Lexington Lane, LLC, and Horizon Banks, NA. Boulder Branch is the current lien holder. Adiacent Zoning Current zoning of the subject property is "RM-Multi-familf'. The adjacent properties to the south and the west are zoned E-Estate. The properties to the north across Lexington Lane are zoned R-Residential. The properties to the east across Highway 7 are zoned RM-Multi-family. Proiect Description The project involves the development of 5.882 acres into a Multi-family condominium development. A log cabin structure, constructed around 1938, currently exists in the southeast corner of the property. The existing cabin is to remain as an auxiliary building to be used as a club house for the development. The owner is proposing to construct 42 additional units (9 single family units, two du-plex buildings, two tri-plex buildings and a 24 unit multi-family building). â€¢ Trash Enclosure: o A trash enclosure is not provided for the single family, du-plex and tri-plex units; we are proposing individual trash service for these areas. o For the 24 unit Multi-family building a trash enclosure is to be located outside the garage door. â€¢ Postal Cluster Boxes: A postal cluster box is proposed to be located along the west side of Golf Course Road in front of the multi-family structure. â€¢ Street Name and Address: Golf Course Road is proposed for the street name. The proposed addressing for the development is "1010 through 1017 Golf Course Road, Unit #Al", Etc. The address unit number corresponds with the unit numbers shown on the development plan. â€¢ Sign: A low profile sandstone entrance sign is proposed at the south entrance to Wapiti Crossing. . 0 C Letter of Intent for the "Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development" Parcels Number 25311-05-022. - ge 2 of4 tober 8,2007 â€¢ Building Heights A building height table with schematic drawings has been included with the submittal. Access Current access to the subject property is from the west off of South Saint Vrain Ave. Additional Access is proposed off of Lexington Lane from the north. The two accesses will allow for a through street. The access road is proposed as a 27 foot dedicated public right of way. Nine foot easements are proposed along either side of the proposed right of way. The nine foot easements either side of the public right of way will allow for drainage, utilities and pedestrian sidewalks. Maintenance ofthe improvements within the nine foot easements will be the responsibility of the Home Owners Association The public road is to be constructed to meet current Town of Estes Park street standards. The road will be 24 feet wide with curb and gutter and a 5 foot sidewalk. The proposed access offofLexington Lane is located adjacent to an existing private drive serving two residences to the west of the proposed development. We are requesting a variance to the driveway separation to allow Golf Course Road to access the property at the northwest corner of the property. Site Statistics Gross Land Area - 256,216.99 SF 5.882 ACRES Less 7.5 ' Right of Way Dedication - 2,475.8 SF r ess 27' Public Right of Way -20,449 SF t Land Area - 233,292.19 SF 5.356 ACRES Allowable Maximum NET Densitv (Units/SID: Town Home Units 16 @ 2201.5 SF 35,224 SF 2 @ 1600 SF 3,200 SF Multi-Family Unit 24 30,000SF NET DENSITY TOTAL 42 units 69,915 SF Existing Log Cabin 1 @ 1,494 SF 2,161 SF (Auxiliary Dwelling/Club House) TOTAL DEVELOPABLE LAND AREA 233,292.19 SF Net Land Area per Unit 5,554 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO 30 % Land Area Coverage Statistics Coverage %Lot Existing Land Use 'sting Cabin 1491 sf 0.64% Proposed Land Use Buildings 44,539 sf 19.09% Drives/Driveways 27,733 sf 11.88% Letter of Intent for the "Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development" Parcels Number 25311-05-022. Page 3 0 f 4 October 8,2007 Sidewalks/Entryways/Patio 15,060 sf 6.46% TOTAL 88,823 sf 38.07% OPEN SPACE (50% Required by EVDC) 144,469 sf 61.92% ISO Calculations ISO calculations have been performed and show the property meets proposed needs with the addition of two fire hydrants as shown in the "Fire Hydrant Locations" Exhibit. Proiect Phasing Phase 1 will consist of required infrastructure, private drive, driveway pods, sidewalks, boundary landscaping and detention area. Phase 2 Following completion of Phase 1, the 24 unit multi-family structure, the existing log cabin renovation and associated landscaping will be constructed. Phase 3 Following completion ofPhase 2, Units Al through A15 will be constructed on a sales based time line. Utilities Utility services will be provided as follows: Water Town of Estes Park A Town ofEstes Park 8" water main is located along the northern edge of the proposed development in the Lexington Lane right of way. We are proposing to run a lateral 8"DIP main south off of the existing 8" main in Lexington Lane approximately 800 feet along Golf Course Road and connect to the existing main on the east side o f Highway 7 for a loop feed. Lateral services will extend off the main to service the individual units. Additional fire hydrants are proposed at the north and south end of the main extension. All units are to be individually metered. Electric Town of Estes Park The electrical service for Wapiti Crossing will utilize a primary junction box along the east edge of the property to run a primary loop through the proposed development. All new electrical primary and secondary are to be located underground. All units will be individually metered. The property is currently included in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District per the Larimer County Assessors' information. The overhead electrical currently providing service to the existing log structure is to remain. Sewer Estes Park Sanitation District An existing 8" sewer main with manholes is located along the east property line in the highway right of way. New 8" sewer mains are to be extended west from the existing main to service the proposed development. The property is in the process ofpetitioning into the Sanitation District. Gas Excel Excel will serve the subject property. 0 4 - r r L Letter of Intent for the "Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development" Parcels Number 25311-05-022. ~e 4 of# Itober 8,2007 Traffic Impact Analvsis A traffic impact analysis has been prepared Krager and Associates, Inc. and is included in this submittal. Storm Water Management Plan A storm water drainage report has been completed for the subject property and is included with the submittal package. The property includes two drainage basins with storm water disperses to the north and south along Highway 7. Detention ponds are proposed for each basin. A detention pond, for the northern basin is proposed at the north east corner of the property. The proposed detention pond is to contain 0.08 acre feet ofwater with a two year release rate of 1.8 efs and not to exceed a release rate of 6.8 efs during the 100 year event. The detention basin for the southern portion of the property is proposed at the south west corner of the multi-family structure. The proposed detention basin is to contain 0.02 acre feet of water with a two year release rate of 0.3 efs and not to exceed 1.2 efs during the 100 year event. The release rate is based on the acceptable conveyance through the existing storm drainage facilities down gradient. Sidewalk The 5 foot sidewalk is proposed along the north side of the property in the Lexington Lane right of way. A 5 foot sidewalk is also proposed along the southern side of Golf Course Road from Lexington Lane back to the south entrance offHighway 7. An 8 foot sidewalk is to follow the highway right ofway from the south entrance back north to Lexington Lane. Eht of Wav and Easements Lexington Lane along the northern property line is currently a 30 right of way. An additional 7.5 feet of right of way is proposed along the south side of Lexington Lane. We request that the additional right ofway be dedicate by a deed of dedication. We request that easement for proposed utility mains and the public right of way through wapiti crossing be dedicated with the condominium map. This will allow exact fits of the easement without having to make any modifications following construction. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Landscaping Wapiti Crossing Development is requesting a variance to the required landscaping buffer along the south property line (diktrict buffer) from adding additional trees or shrubs. All proposed improvements are set back approximately 150 feet from the boundary with existing trees and rock outcroppings and topographical relief providing good visual barrier. In addition the installation of additional vegetation with irrigation will probably do more harm than good. Sincerely, câ„¢omerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 1AA I 1 '&4 Michael Todd, PE. Principal I t.' ECEIVM f Â¥Kl ' It 'rl ESTES VALLEY <:, --m j~1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIOI~ 1- - - 4 Submittal Date: 7/24/2007 JUL 25 EN ~ - Type of Application l F Development Plan r Boundary Line Adjustment Con~lominium Map I 1- Special Review E ROW or Easement Vacation r Preliminary Map E Rezoning Petition E Street Name Change 1- Final Map 1- Preliminary Subdivision Plat 1- Time Extension 1- Supplemental Map f- Final Subdivision Plat r Other: Please specify r Minor Subdivision Plat F Amended Plat General Information Project Name Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Project Description Multi-family Condominium Development Project Address 1041 S. Saint Vrain Legal Description Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition to Estes Park Parcel ID # 25311-05-022 Section 31 Township 5 Range 72 Site Information Total Development Area (e.g., lot size) in acres 5.882 Existing Land Use Single family residence Proposed Land Use Multi-family condominium development Existing Water Service ,R' Town F Well F None F Other (specify) Â· | Proposed Water Service R Town r Well F None r Other (specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service E EPSD r UTSD ;F Septic F None Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service * EPSD r UTSD E Septic Is a sewer lift station required? E Yes p< No Existing Gas Service *0 Xcel E Other E None Existing Zoning RM - Multi-family Proposed Zoning RM - Multi-family Site Access (if not on public street) Lexington Lane & Hwy 7 Are there wetlands on the site? F Yes (~ No Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? ~1 Yes F- No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Michael Todd Complete Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave., Estes Park CO 80517 Attachments Ii;/ Application fee 17- Statement of intent 12/ 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan IF/'11 " X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan 12' 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 .A Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4 Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www.estesnet.com/ComDev 1.> r.1.. . r--7 k 1 0 Primary Contact Person is f- Owner F- Applicant Consultant/Engineer 1 Record Owner(s) Lexingtton Lane, LLC Mailing Address 2595 Canyon Blvd. Suite 250, Boulder CO 80302 phone (308) 958- )301 Cell Phone Fax ( 305) N3/ - S#3 / Applicant The Mulhem Group, LTD Email dd@'oftusdevelopments.com Mailing Address 1730 Blake Street Suite 435, Denver CO 80202 , Phone (303) 297-3334 1 Cell Phone (303) 596-5710 Fax (303) 292-2601 Email slogs@themulhernaroup.corn Consultant/Engineer Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave., Suite 200, Estes Park CO 805' ' VÂ®Ril Phone (970) 586-2458 %Â®Â©20 ' Cell Phone (970) 214-7318 i Fax (970) 586-2459 JUL 2 5 2007 1 2/1 Email mtoddaces<cc.com -U 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 effedve. 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 1 Final Condominium Maps to give notice of their application to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral i 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: INNG-mu 6, 110 i le5 2, 6Fms: *vAGeL Applicant PLEASE PRINT: 1116 U Oule# *Asur, 010. M,WÂ¥EL G. Uuutteu Ked,P" g Signatures: 1 Reco~~~~r~~~~~~~5~~~~~LR9iL Date 7 )41 kl ' Date , Ittb 1 i. C 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 l am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. ? In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, l 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 l have obtained or have access to the EVDC. and that, prior to filing this application, 1 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.corn/Com[)ev/Dev(Dode.) ? I understand that acceptance of this applicatton 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 understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the infonnation provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. 7 I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ? The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete, ? I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application, ? I acknowledge that I have received 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: bÂ£,10 6 Â·ro u boe i llâ‚¬ Â£Jmtd f 104j AvAut Applicant PLEASE PRINT: 1#t AWL*ZOW en,vf, l:rO, AUD#Â¢406 6. Uvult#20 P#talloet Signatures: Record O,0 C 64 Date 7/9+67 4*ta4,40,-CM. W,6L. (3.41Â»WÂ¥. Date 4 / Â·2*/ 01 JUL 2 5 2007 J Revised 06/26/07 . 1.. h h h 1- A 1* 1~ 1~ @~ 20@@2@@022@ %~808%21 RE 18 EESESâ€žh <au,LO 00 '- LO /2 00 00 CO CO U. o u, I g Jgro O<DOODO W CO 4- 0 00 CO W 00 00 M 25 Ri 00 cv CO 00 MID CO_CO 0000(0.~01000~00000 98 00 M E im 500000 0.00 '00 200 0 26 0 9 20 N uudgzAO.OOO6osoBOOCO83O0 amp88888@85Â°00%008388% 6 = 2 2 Â·m - c =424Â£0.â‚¬â‚¬ -0 â‚¬â‚¬%â‚¬â‚¬ â‚¬2 â‚¬O -2 Ef â‚¬ w i- Sbtm=J -r.6 - . - 0- 0- 1 *E w 15 11 am t 8 2 2 8 E &2 0 2 2 2 2~ 6 9 6 co Â£12 L n " C .22 2 I -~ -% 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ g ~ 3 2 2 â‚¬ 3 al 3 -2, 4 am-5-2/,82â‚¬212% m 0 & 0 .2 5 5:@16OW...C â‚¬0 (0 0 . 0 - 16 28 & &3 5 X o w Mi%â‚¬02@E U) OILILLIWCOLLIBJwwl-LLILL13J OLLI DEW W W CO *I &SUJ CLImWW W~LUWJLULLUJU.$=053u,322* 0 0 O co 2 4 b e e -=Er IF 1388 13 2 Â¥ t.z % M Â¥ 8 < 7 M <culilÂ® 0131.BO.% 4 2 4 : 5 -- f a) -0 p.@<00 4 2- *36@YEd, 1 2 - a m > >28 3 â€ž9**SEETS>E,>%*BR:NED .2 A /8 4 â‚¬ g = %*MEK: 3 >Â· 0 5 9 oo co > yeho> m / 000; bit i e L 5#HienfE .*maiqui*v#.uixZZ W 36 0.5 < 0 0 > CD <R *Â§22YWz28Â§NeB3EE2Â§Â§9Â§B**%22WEE#*F2Â§%2Â§ CO Lo CO CO r - tor a. CD - 0 8 EVOEN@No &18 Muct C Z L 0 0 E E E = E & 5 *Sifs 5 0 0~* ~E 2 co gBEEA o Ir C Â£ 0 Xed e W r = 00 0 C 00 2 -5:Er Ei 8 -~2â‚¬â‚¬1 9.2 08Â§ 9 -Eak,-i <<5~Â·g.<t (5<02 za ERâ‚¬iv=ZWEI-wgoEf@ .16#DE:â‚¬*P 2â‚¬20*28**32< f@em g *2* MIC"* 8 & i'FiR 4 e F i m * 0-0 -0 2 i Bal, 3 2 i iE i -* -* 3 N <D @644â‚¬-%08 00-m w 0 000 0020- 1 0 I 05 06 8 .Â¥ 08 , -E ... 6921'J 1929 98dJ-JEW:319*Jld $013i~ailtjaujui~.Zil~%*EJ< 8 A 0 0 0 JOUJUI S Lu Â®- 02 0 c UJUIE-%<220EE,02=(Dc'a>=fv*ES-'EawwÂ®(1) brgELLIZILLIcÂ·elli~Egrm 3 r g o = 6< < 0 -, or -+ 4 90 In o 8 0 â‚¬ m z o m g o 19 0 â‚¬ 0 2 co g w or m o w $ In, > co Dr o -,MOLIJa L/ ea, Dale P. Stapleton on Roa 4-3950 derda 19 â‚¬99*-63 108 9049-Â£8008 6)Piti jee4 Jennifer L. Alessandra rain Ave., #Bl 80517 80517 80517 0517 ~ ~~ '>lied sel Z 1.908 ustee ore, MO 640 - 'uef~ow o z z L peow unoo u I 2Â£908 00 'UeABH uele eojeld 'V or M.led sal .9#' stes Park, e %7Â°TNe/Alle~I seeisel 's Becky L. Cash, Co-trustees 1 ve., #Al tr cle Falls sor Manor ousto T Unoo Jeoeld 8 Oakdale l'!EJ ';S 'S 0 LO L Owner Owner 11 Ruth E. Wise ffrey S. / Janice A. Boubelik Susan L. Lindell-Caudillo Leigh A. Wolfe-Dawson 1Sn J-L Al!Ule~I L. Brown Â£ PLO da sopuoo Buissoo !1!deM I - (.. LO 7 tzy.O. hANT- h Ah AN-(v NA h <05/ANI~ h 0 9- -rp.-10â€ž prt.-â€žwN _â€žr co E SU. 10 00 0 N to 10 10 10 N LO 88235 6&&1@ 8&188@E E 1010.-1.D IDIOT- O 0000000(DO,-00$00(90 Lo O 00 4 00 00 00 0 00 Â© co 00 co 00 . O.00 52 w 0000002:poor 280 900000600001018009'00 .,66!900nce@800<00000050800OJO8Â° NÂ©00~000 0-OEOCOOZOÂ©00-MO-0-4Â£.80060 0002-000000#0Â©ooOLL 08#844#012â‚¬22â‚¬Â¥4%4%~55442#4â‚¬5855#flitiff-21â‚¬â‚¬24.~ 2 .g Â£ c-Ect.a-5Â£22222 00- c-a.a--ga.1-0~&*:9- tic % onÂ·- oa.a-act-al/22222 0 @ E E ~ 2 2 2 % 4 2 2 @ 2 g g i 4~ ~~ 4 2 1 % % Â£ e ~ g,j E 13 2 : { 1 2 0 0 0 CO E co 0 0 kÂ©0500 - 0)00002&39! cv;500 Ng 0 ......0,0 S O < LU J UJ UJ W R O ILI LLI W UJ UI S LLI 11 LU LLI ILLILLI CD . JUJLU J U) J O 211111- 31111.LIUJUJUJJ LLJ OLLILLI10 310 0 0 0 C 2 222*E 22222 al * Cy 0 4% 2 â‚¬ 0 8332 9 (1) CO 0 (1) 2 -u - 4, 4 ***Z *t: Â® 6 LU JIn - D 2Â® 0% 8 0 *56% 8=Â®C v ,. 0 1 m c W.kc m 2 02&2Â® 28 #Li= 2 Â£ E8 - - (D - c O a) ai Â® a) 0 <Â°eJ JZEPE@3 gm3~ ~ 3828&%3E.*0199<:08E :%:81% , =02&00.2.@0&62"45-52 Â® Ci.mÂ®<O V 226#3303 3.@32-@.@: 22Â§= 602>t#EBM~'SE 4.2*ub.6*8-2*>>O*~0>>>3>>% CO E 9 ki : f a N Â·% R .2 05 e .2 2.5 65 R ~~ Â·9 8 g -% g f# i E -S S.2 < E E .2 0; M -g K Â® 9 6Â§ 6; 6; Z M M B 52*coggwuiE3520Â§28305.3- agm=223,MER,ELI=2252,2:.2:*2.0-1-- _mooommee 0.0000 (5 w Â·LLE380Lt-UjuiCA~~Zoiuic'iNujuid ~200Â§22%0~&23Â§%23E313302 6Eki ~2 21 2225*Rauseges2ssefNEE m IE 3 1- - - O 22 B .0' ,~ g J -5 3 4 as g r _0 03 co O 2, iii (D 88 Ea @5 C . O ..C 0 Â· 0- 2 E zE * 0 5 5 0 0 0 c ul . c Â® 810 i 0 5 0 T - C C 01) L 0 cog,8 82' Ut & (56.C< -CO-< 4)-ComEM.8*C 81 28#675Â·543*;5115 = X >.2 c -62* Â®a) 0>, 2 NA.C fE ZEC ca, 3Â®0 O mi go V = ~~2% *% Â®288% C Â®kÂ®%-(D (083/â‚¬2 0 2- 2 2= Jaz>g ~â‚¬50@02&8*3442mg~ 0-*akg=EugaaMiaN:2JJW#155%42/32:442Â£*dÂ£30% 25 :5 -6 -% 2 2 N 2 % 3 S E Â·d Ci b 2 z -i :% 5 3 vm 6 -* 0~ ~ 0 ~ .m I r -i 4 2 -i :6 E E < 2 2 U. m < ig E E 0 < E iiK5:8E@mNf2%32*iZE&1a:2â‚¬Â§%&ti3*K244i@gggiji5Ef1f2 OJOmM OI LL.3(9 01- 00-Bm -24 Im CO HEOC<-M<0-50-10-5 51- a. ZE; ECIMONIO -,1- DInaoN 880,-891 iesnew St. Vrain Ave., #L7 0517 Revocable Trust 0517 17Â£#t' sels eejsnil * ZLSO isrul alqeOOAell = sels EN= ZL908 O 'M ed stes 8 00 'lepinog Jed se 93 4ono ~Zntrey Avenue, #H avid Drive salind C. Lukinovic n Avenue onea 745129 Owner 11 ress Thomas L. Bellmann Susan K. O'Connor Genevieve Ann Baker thia A. Leaycraft Linderholm ls'lil elqeooAe Â£ PLO da sopuoo 6uissoo !1!deM obel nice L. Kuna augha ienne S. M C 01) h h ,- h *h y-ANT-h<V ,- h 22~ h ~w~ Â§@*888888822@09@005@gooz@ 10 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 w s.0800<00Â°Â°Â°003~883@48Â§023 20000 ookoo--050000008 - -00Â·goao 000000 Â¢-4â‚¬x-efâ‚¬*-tv-â‚¬.2.g~-Eij~ ~-~LUg--2'UJI- izct/2222222222 00*Zo@z@ 2,3 fl a KE KE # 3 1 : 3 1 { i l fl ifi g OB W CO LLILLI OWCOWLU UJ WUJ UJ 322 ~JOWJWMM#UJUJUJUJ 692 * 21 - m * O - (D * m c 2 UNL-ga~ 2â‚¬53 im 00*>>3*2&555 ~0 jECRUHh middmil#*20;2% =gREM:i#20!ina 530ujECuijE-&05& *3:.0.5 ~ca.LLOILZU)0) R - -- 00 mhoo ce co to - .O 0, o cy m OCOMmoto CV â€ž CV 00 O~Z 1~>LU Jog 58%91585~880&!m No & g! 8,5!XE goo *22 - a. CD ,- - 10 - - r - - r - O. h CD h Q. 91Â· C) - CO - LO â€¢- tO Q. a. C) C) 5 % 13 ~ C 1- 2.2 2 2 5 0-J m E 8 63 9 & @% c 0 1Â· 2 -O m I W U E .Q E 2 iywidE# C J 8%2 C# 9%22<,2 5 '-: 9 CO Mi@Â£54 33 1/2//2/ 2/meap 2= 0--a) r . En- 2 00-EE = >,2 02ICDÂ®mA ormt Â® mtE-?Â£61%@* 1 8 co 1- od cm od 2 6 -8) *m 65 M D $ a 3 = 5 T.E 5 m :5 3 Â£ 2 :s 06 0 0 06 N E :.2 9. 5 0 2 4 4 .E 08 06 O Â©0*.Eg - I . 0 05 0-0 5 32 00 Ec m i 1 % 1 U -2 1 j iii 61 #i 3 3 24 2 2 i 5% 0 9 % i /2 *~E. (DWOO>(00 0 0 0 0 Â° Â° 6 E ~54 ~5 E $ ec E .* 69'Z 002Â£>eigwooâ‚¬ 8~u ema=Sm,-eze>0*Blea O 80925 ean Shoemaker 80517 Bernadette H. Salter Signatur 80501 8 517 z g ~ '2 Yets eugUI'22 L. V lett nsas City, peka,~ stes Park, 8 517 stes Park, 8 517 Owner 11 Address . Colorado Drive nry Van Aartsen /0 AÂ· *StZon ninges reen Court Teresa Tritico i e C. Weir, Jr. PEMZ .0 BJECIJ Â£ PLO da sopuoo Buissolo !1!deM November 15, 2007 TO: Estes Park Community Development Department and Planning Commission Members Bob Joseph Dave Shirk Wendell Amos Ike Eisenlauer Bruce Grant Betty Hull ~IMÂ©EUVE~ Joyce Kitchen Doug Klink John Tucker Richard Homeier ~ NOV 1 6 2007 FROM: Sandra Lindquist 1980 Cherokee Drive i Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Wapiti Crossing After 3 decades in metro Denver as an actively involved citizen, I recently invested sizably here as a permanet resident - rather than anywhere else in the state or the western U.S. - because of Estes Park's stunning beauty, integrated wildlife, and its community amenities. I chose an existing home on >1 acre of land, where I hope to spend the rest of my able life. I was pleased to read in the comprehensive plan and development code that Estes Park, in theory at least supports only smart and appropriate development in harmony with the natural surroundings and wildlife. These are geographically unique resources that must not be spoiled and that are the historic and current foundation for people wanting to live and visit here. I am disappointed with the condominium development proposal for a -5.9 acre parcel of land at Lexington Lane and Highway 7. There is much irony in the chosen name of Wapiti Crossing, in that the development would destroy a calving and fawning area, greatly disturb patterns of natural wildlife migration, and likely result in greater animal deaths on Highway 7 with the proposed density of dwelling units to be added. My understanding is that the intent of at least some of the previous owners-by-inheritance was for that land to remain undeveloped for those reasons. In my opinion, such a dense cluster of dwelling units also is incompatible with surrounding homesteads, and it would be detrimental to traffic and natural drainage considerations there. As representatives of the area citizens, please find a more appropriate use for that parcel. It is my understanding that the Estes Valley Land Truslfis such an organization that can step in < to bridge the financial requirements of property owners (and/or developers) with sensible and appropriate land use to benefit all plant and animal life. Please deny this development. As a new voter and stakeholder, thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion. Julie Roederer From: Art [art.messal@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:24 AM To: Julie Roederer Subject: Note for EP Planning Commission Hi Julie, Could you pass this on to the planning commission? thanks! -Art- -------------- Estes Park Planning Commission Members, As I am unable to attend todays meeting I would like to express my opposition to the "Wapiti Crossing" development via email. Estes Park is at a significant crossroad in terms of how future development will affect the character of the Valley. It is time to recognize that future development will have a significant impact on the natural balance I have seen since childhood. More structures, and a higher density style are not what this community needs. Unfortunately, developers are still trying to ride the housing "bubble" of the last few years at the cost of our quality of life. Please reject the development at "Wapiti Crossing" and encourage sustainable redevelopment and improvements in other areas. -Art- Art Messal Estes Park, CO 1 Sk $1~ }~ 4 t Community Estes Park, Co. 80517 P.O. Box 1200 Development Town of Estes Park October 18, 2007 Rick Spowart Colorado Division of Wildlife 1651 County Road 43 Drake, CO 80513 Re: Wapiti Crossing Dear Mr. Spowalt: The Estes Valley Planning Commission invites review and requests written response from the DOW regarding potential wildlife related impacts associated with the planning of a 51/2 ac. development currently proposed for property located at the intersection of Highway 7 and Lexington, (please see enclosed materials). This property is located at one of the most heavily used elidhighway crossings in the Estes Valley. This land use review has been continued to the November 20th Planning Commission meeting after the first public hearing held last Tuesday with the express purpose of obtaining written comment from the Division. Town planning staff is available to meet with Division personnel to provide any background information that would assist the Division with this review. Response is requested no later than November 13,2007. Sincerely, 24*-58- Bob J o~epiÂ·dsLA/AICP Community Development Director j fl-1/V Estes Valley Planning Commission L. Tuesday, November 20,2007 If you wish to address the Planning Commission during today' s meeting, please PRINT your name and physical address below. Comments should not exceed three (3) minutes in length. Thank you. **PLEASE PRINT** Name Address of your residence or property 1 \- 4,prJA. F, Norris /905 04,-Â·okze- 402;ve Gsti-es FqrK _ 141 (10 4 Â£14 Â£#A'VOA I96<- (4.0204--lk- -2-P -0 13 1, (Al)13. meCLACKE# 1 659-r--AJJP 11'Noll he 6-1- â€¢*4 T QL, , *~A â‚¬2Â·â‚¬7~7/0,0 j o o o - ti) o-u--R~ Lu--3- (13 -, --t ( 1 (EtÂ« Rrujoyvu- /410(3) t,(/04/42 A,t.< dj- 9.10 C 9 7.1 911-Rifto-5 459 22-41 RJ &2. 2-2/78& 2,30-4 4.R<c~-AA- )(200 1-It)vÂ·elt- Rck Lont ji,on\7 C,6-<.' 9 2#20- kp 4FG:E5 IS(Cl .EADAO OVCCLE- E--P _) r. A. , 1- h N i ch o L 3 6 Â£/ 51, Lutn o N ~13 72. E P /-3 M&(% il Ek)'Cru</ ) 6.:.L ) 6 ( 7 e i 13Â·~G k.11 C. A , 19Â·. ~2 -L) Ic K Co & 16 10 PUL 13 ht | 1 D vi â€¢e- EP 'R *4 J-10 47 10, 1/\ 3, S | S i~|~ - Vt< 't h xt?. 6 P X M.441+149 1064 Le ki ~t,v, La,"f JÂ¥~ 3* '-Tkidertt-RobleÂ·5.Aeres #1395- 12: \Lc-/Uoukoo.) Ci. â‚¬2Â· ><16 'p 1. /411 1 OK 44 1 , bvi /1/ 6/L 444 2- V.1 Ha~e ku...h.".41- (920 16\f laile 00 <312 FA,r ' ,>~ 34 A n 76 98 An--a- / 0 50 â‚¬a st Ln, 20 Estes Valley Planning Commission Tuesday, November 20,2007 Pg. 2 If you wish to address the Planning Commission during today's meeting, please PRINT your name and physical address below. Comments should not exceed three (3) minutes in length. Thank you. **PLEASE PRINT** Name Address of your residence or property 21 , 4 -, 4 '-i,uÂ»:~_ /411*45 9 17 1â‚¬494 61,9\02 Drive _ n 0 J 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Ronald F. Norris Subject: Comments on Proposed Wapiti Crossing Development. Submitted for inclusion in the minutes of the 11/20/2007 Planning Commission Meeting I appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee. My family and I began vacationing in Estes Park over thirty years ago, and my wife and I recently became permanent residents. As a new resident, I am deeply concerned about this development proposal- concerned not only about its impact on wildlife, but also that provisions of the town's own development plan are not being followed. â€¢ The Colorado Division of Wildlife has advised that development of this property will have a significant adverse impact on a known elk calving and deer fawning area. â€¢ The Estes Valley Development Code empowers this Commission to reject a proposal that adversely impacts a calving and fawning area. â€¢ The Code also empowers Staff to ask the developer to submit a Wildlife Conservation Plan that addresses such wildlife issues, prior to approval of a development application. This has not been done. â€¢ Since no Wildlife Conservation Plan has even been requested of the developer, for development in a known calving and fawning area, the Commission has ample justification for refusing to proceed with this plan. â€¢ Therefore, on behalf of Estes Park citizens concerned about both wildlife, and responsible government practices, I ask that you reject this proposal. Thank you, .-/ 1(\ f Ronald F. Norris 1 0 Voild 1905 Cherokee Drive 970-586-3600 1.~ECEDVE'1\ ~~ NOV 20 2007 ~ , To: Estes Valley Planning Commission Date: November 20,2007 RE: Comments on Proposed "Wapiti Crossing" Condominium Development Dear Commissioners, I have been a resident ofEstes Park for six years. My husband and I moved here because of our love of the mountains, Rocky Mountain National Park, and the charming, welcoming community of Estes Park-the gateway town to one of our country's most beautiful national parks. I am concerned about the out-of-control growth of this community, and in reading the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 3.8, Development Plan Review, I read the following purpose with many questions for you today. A. Purpose. The purpose ofthe development plan review process is to ensure compliance with the zoning standards and provisions ofthis Code, while encouraging quality development in the Estes Valley reflective of the goals, policies, and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. While reviewing the proposal before you, I hope you have been taking into consideration the policies and recommendations for land use as stated in this citizen-based plan which outlines the common visions for the growth and development ofthe Estes Valley. If you have not, I urge you to do so. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, 1965 Cherokee Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 557-1026 1~ ECE U VE 17~' fll NOV 2 0 2007 ~:~ , Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lambing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Name (Print) Signature Address Date 1. 90,ng e 1-Intl 2. th ad u 93 bel 1,3-700 N& St.~AÂ·ln ' tfanâ‚¬ C I - 166 --07 204%-2 91R Vi at),6,Â·un /on, ,A k.s Oark 1 'TE 1 07 3. #*7.rn \NX--rl-)(Mr fug(*flk t) 11#go< 535 '?Ing Purr L n. \JrwED. ti--1 9-ort 4. 0 Ka r *,1 Gy-7* 11 ajhÂ·U (fr/ (AA j-Â·f /Ackb-(630 N . 54-- V Odli8 Are , 11 -19 -07 5. --Alli<.2)â€¢A (4rfrv,21:, I-i-RIA..,.84 J.2-e... 161>~0*rzz pah,Â·,o ('f - L-he,ns I 1 ~N lo-7 6. Caorna Mid b\Q:ton ./tÂ«-- mu"d<lm- 950 -816 -Tksmoson Ade.*\141 1\ Mfl /01 7. ~:Wn ne, Al i chols 8/11/\Ao# - 25466 795/1 0\Ul >20 aol /1- 15 -84 8. -)0144 BrMant 15-53- fook O. it E 1\-17 - 0-7 *74 4 9. i 200/ W.efjf / /9 12- li St,1 Vial.4 1* Stes f>01Â·k l/ -/7-07 10. 22/n d.3.cld,jo:,9 u 96;U~ lf;L+04 l(DQ/> 4,0,65%84 15169 >laik, ll-lti- 07 11-end ra. 6* i '419).7/)4?026?14, 0/49 Anno.thrul F=tr,<: Ab,k . Ii-/4-61 11. 5hh,ri I-t:jh-lowgr 691 541 ftsÂ«. r E -P N -/6-07 13. 1 791 4 {61,3 ~*tt' c~5*,4(61*~ 3 7~10~-~1*< /6 .134Â·00& 111 4107 14. ....J)81\ AA 9 . h P A - â€¢ /fA * , ijre -4 & & An %0~AAÂ· 33:/Jip , tu 15-1 67 15. .044*Â·,ah . </Anit>:;cnt-%979)>f,Nw#Â¥tÂ¥Dz ) /82/) Niokhhe 1 ))),WA> 10Â¥ic, Re 12(ULAÂ·en ja--timo ( .dfrfol/~ IRCaRIARAUAr\(c- Ch EP W /y--O-:-7 17.-11.derna 6 j.+Wew- -0-,rk,R,>KL XÂ« 9 24 00 li, vy.(nin dr , l. i 9 ./71- 18. Guwa 4 Col,w,Â© V- i AN 6-9. Gyâ‚¬-O-u /6,00 441. Aca~d,t vÂ·L~ hA. G P lt.(S--Â·07 19. 1 1+1 14AN 5 4./.3 4Â«1 Â« 1 (99 VÂ«.U e.q 124 1-keAS l{ 19-0-7 20. SER+31\RHS â‚¬pâ€¢nu -4-4 1 4 5- VA//6 */ LuMALS CA 1 1 - E-D-7 21. ~~A /9 f h,0 e /4-, f>V- tkk-- 10&0 (nbtc -4 50Â£0;*-1. 11- IS--07 22. .0 -147),v\(lh,fri~ <'~1 MA,-40~ Ismia 2=~XM *14 ,~Â·p 1 1 -l S--0-l 23. 11* 4 \Al a .la 14 v .1 A A r--+ I l~~Litt31 41-4 D Whnfe.*i p.1 f ; r.f 5 E P 11-/5--6- 24. Angelo Gord,DÂ¢\ li~;3,11/ V,(11*,'*4&:m_ 9/Â¥ Aous,wblit Di, E<rks{)+A,W Ii/,do'-7 25. /Â«m E w In a Lt--/f /9 An SUR.le 01 6-Wen RA. t/'-53-07 26. (Moheen C.,A*'cu...- 157 60.,S4>~ 1,161-0- 827 20Â£1< 23,304 U, E.,9*51-,u gkk- /1-45-07 27. barÂ« 44ullh _ 280 \liktdau <10Â£0, 2&2 thik ti- 15 -07 29./â‚¬DÂ»ILQA 2% U.dAJ,0 30. 4.uQi,Â£ \163,-Oad- C/tuQu- \Iaâ‚¬Qi join A.coak bc, %56 2brk 1 1-1.907 31. L Â¢CMÂ£.6 d*:CÂ»Â£Â£-3Uud.,Art}.JAL /1â€¢0.Jct.ou:pulr EP II-IS-07 32.11#6 LXPL 4-511 33.-C) no|v Moval:+ eC~ - _titÂ¥ dittak 5% dilr-;Pil 34. #36* Ar'ts ' :01 5 itâ€¢â€¢â€¢Uâ€¢~~,--tP 1 4 -0 $41 35 -*Aft " il -1 i.te. ErÂ° 36.li-1, *lk %5; los 1.10 1 .1 1-yor 37. *84 , /90677/ Gq5 8,=Ic CA- . 9 f Il-15- 07 38.2130kjroh GreÂ¢nwal-In c-4 3<Uirlianit 600 Â®18(41(fr) 0(r fjr, lip 11-15-67 39.Voredu. Le< .Stee 1 C 4â€ž,Qi ~go,-Aant /086 A qu-A.COELIMA, t/-/6-67 40. RA ul +960 gi h~ fht#,iz, 215 2~-g- 18 ujuRS*FAed ,Neq.?nA< Ii-14-(i-1 i.ojE Â© IE~1 Estes Park Voters for Wildlife 4 11 NOV 2 0 2007 1 Ul - %0 8# V Al C=>\ 0 0 Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lambing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Name (Print) ~ Signature Address Date 1. -IJAY*lE 244Â»sta ..=s.-c.2.,.,41dÂ£1L 926 UJUGh (knEEâ€¢ acrts 0-,9 -01 2.1114-a Orcuke- - /941 ynarris (1 + W. 11//4-/0.7 3. IDivin f-3 u_u Le=, mt-1 1 94 1 140,1-m< G OÂ·n N.4 E.r -re 5 1 < 1 8-10-7 4. W/(,04*n Proks ~116.6.1.1. Ilu..0,4 1.50 Zv~4,4..,t nilâ€¢/6 abras ,/,v-36'11 5. Re betq-r Mear?*tek 62.0 \Ct@0~-&4 , 1 :ri Nol, 1Â£4 1-6 2,1-rD Faib C. c> 1 1-1 11 r...1 6. Ai,0, 11\1 5 B AITCHE,4 l n - ~~~ LLA *400~ qm q C IL to\\ U r-1 11. \6 41 7.73/7,/8 moRAL 62):75*8225234 Soo U K TZ\,6% 6+ â‚¬P â‚¬D 11-16-97 8.-S AL4 mr APPE- /4 484~- 9 u...6 1/L 62 '*61- et 5) 11-16 -OP 9. /09,3- 1.-EXUK1014 LAMIL AP 10. #11 996*.I,1 / (61 C (i &-F vi r.&. . C \--~ CT 0 11. AAU,CUE (Off (-0 IAL,Le---7(L-7 -Â¥ P /it *.7 11. U '1~nAl 115 TY-U>' 14. 10 b.4 el r. f )4*29 dle ! l -C <n-Al 13. ,1671 tg~~t' . 1-bbil Pi** I lt_ /n..6M-e V reÂ·-/C-O +_ 14. E-1 '07.4 terrAGI#â€¢4 LweRID 101-'7 15. -894/IAÂ¢ ~te*,4 1010 60. 51 Â· \,kN 6-1 EF 1 j - rl-t#7 16. 4$ Pg-3 b (2*-~ 7 4Â·y,2 1 1 )i liq k ri, 0 61=11498~91. b~.1.Ll '>- 9/0 61- k jug-5 Ju) 4 . n l (71(~ U.1 Z 1 X. u V (049. 3 {rk rh,+Bn l-â€ž - Â£\ 1 tal 19. 7Â».4 22.-a;:433 l 6 Il l-Â·PÂ· Y i viA 4o *- 8.- M \ Wl Â© 7 10. t,Ir/(n GAer,1-6Â·g ' 1,) to 9. AT. ul/#5,4 n 112/0 1 4 0 20\\04jmAse 64 â‚¬P> /1- *07 22. 0 )5Â»41-~ to +1.1-*4,â€¢G~(0* Let. (\-\1-07 23. Atttv*/4 -01*ictl .14 10Â¥-8 1.W.W-114 2-#. 11-,9 -eÂ¥ 24. ALAA {)1AMP- U'43 14 11-19-01 / 26. / / 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. E 0 *1[9*~1 36. 37. 38. unW 9 n Onni 39. 40. Estes Park Voters for Wildlife 11 . '32 Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lambing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Name (Print) Signathre Address Date 1. billic UN,-OBEL- 47~,A=:- 101,0 LE#:Nkâ€¢W Le,jE. f. 11 Fla 2. 41 w v 3,1 Evial,e-1 =26 +0, ,070 Le<en ..Â·-, â‚¬4' U / -1 ( rn 3. ('akiln ZACeolnni< 61.(040hka t 010 l:e,Â·i A LA) 6 E ll/1-1 10+ 4. 30\ c..1 1.aL Â£+CUS --1-IL id,30 1 2021 LA AP 1 1 / 19/,9 5 Â· k 0 N Ar. LI NT W:161344 I 071:- l.~vin 1-ku) bv . 1\ /14/07 6. C klig /ljouci k 796 73/~devo fa ; 1 9 /99 07 1. de a n do va. E 7.10 /+rttLLLY=,C, /,-1 9 -01 8. â‚¬01)SEPN C#)2-7- / A, 6410,M 4,4=acy- /yyr F,OÂ·l cÂ£â‚¬61= 4, 9. 4 A. L.0, U ArÂ·IT-k #t A 1.~ 4 V AA,Â·4-h 1 1/fo.tik G % k Il ,\ /11 -44) f U (9~0*7 to. frk- >ulll *\2 . U. I. x V L-. 1â‚¬Â¥14 Unct.-14..-LU-4 111 / C 1 /0 7 11. CAÂ»Ok- \4916 loGF lg-*b--6.%. \.4, u 1 In /0 7 12. HEAL *Al,AL,L, AwkÂ»de.2.- 1 62*51*14 6~46 DA (l/2-0 (07 13. $424Â£ 36,l.4 . 2124 9 L.8/ leg , .26ol 616 111â€¢n, P.So N CAN /1-20-07 14(~*AUK-WAH LAAMBE NE1*N \040 Sdolr--AVE Ferel' PA-Rk.~ tl r 0# lt-7 15. r AnÂ»044 1Â¥â‚¬00/ -77-aceit FlesS /4999'15 )'31*erb(de IiÂ·,ao,6-7 ' 16. dSAS k.'ll,8 AeÂ«-0.6 ~~---Af~WLW #Zcd. Ell,09 AÂ«k %4Â¥*-44< PA. 9/ze/2,7 17. ; 1 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. E (DE ]~1 40. NOV 2 0 2007 Estes Park Voters for Wildlife - 1 Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lambing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Name (Print) Signature Address Date 1. RceprIM Ra'.1,2, A . - 55-0 u.Â£464 a- 1 f-Ge -7 2. ,,4.Â£24, , 45--*730-34~k. 3. 2 i c f c A uk A 9Â·~(kift- -r /L%*J( â‚¬ AruÂ»- 4-72,(cp, G 70 07Â·n tg -7 7- 11 -14 -07 4. 1f/i ( . 4 LU . L 11,~ l :11 \0. . P. WA....0.1. 1 -7 4 / A) .trizt 11Â¢0Â¢ y., L,,v , it - ( 4 -0 7 5 . '5'AND<A 4 Lingejer ' 54*997(-wÂ®,4- 19%0 ther okÂ«- tx. '11.(1-07 6. Aâ‚¬a,i-Aa.4.4. 8-+e_.e_- 124 6<u_4101 4 *TJ AA C~-Â·4-aa..a,ko EX .- E P (l- lq- 07 7. MEr .v -", 412 r-ns C."â‚¬Â·64-4 CO(~:K~j-~1,J,9 V:r ita-8910<42,1' tr--(4-O? ~2 <~(u<~fp ~L~~ 7~-~ <~~4- ~~~&RE/ <3 6 â‚¬ (g U. c(4 re *FL 4 07,te -DU. A ,-4- 10< < 2 . LAM< Or 4 1- CLA 03 ((-ru - 0 7 10. Â·41-ick.lâ‚¬ tto- \ ...AL 91- tire UJ.((C{)â‚¬ Oyaw- Cactâ‚¬ CC-/Y-07 ir-7*u-le-lk-, iUbles c-J --va,,aueâ‚¬C-*30â‚¬00 716-82Â£0414Â£0 26 Ill 24 0-7 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. --~ EÂ©EDÂ¥ E,lii\ 40. ~ NOV 2 0 2007 ~:~ Estes Park Voters for Wildlife Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lambing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Name (Print), Signaturei/ Address Date 1. 1 4 v. > A ov, 9 v 34,2.4-. 33 3 l/4 1,/0.-f ./vt )4 /7 11 I iT[03- / 3. 1/ 4. v 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Estes Park Voters for Wildlife roo r'j 1 i i Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lambing, and fawnihg area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Name (PJint) UGge- plare-q .4- Si~ 4/, is,UZ;ij 2<16 Retc '(Plt~) . 4.P 2. Fle 14 A 6-â‚¬ 4 -FT. 640Â« 1.970 '70 X7WeL liD eSTEr FARk \\ / 1 a ALr 3. ileÂ¢Â·r AfÂ»,1 d,- AL 21- 5 0 9 . ,-*4164 F.1 P It |. ./Al 4. T;n A/,45â‚¬ o U 'Lue t 18* :C*r*61 hd, N. 6Â£.Ut 6 0 'it 1 7*1'sec '1 :. I *1125f 1132416-Â· * 6Dx/903 2319,34,027>1 02/) gk/U-4; 447 PO (UA 291 17- A 4 -23 Â£077- ) 44*- itc_ I I /Gl 6-7 7. 77*i,n As: 24 PEW:0 7320..g.,-/7 ~pÂ¢- 128 /14.2es,A op agÂ·779 PkAL , ' 1 (d67 8. 0144 67,-4 6-Â«6 1.-- //09 8,-u v + 4, EP:60 /1/ '6,07 9. Ch ~ A.) bA/ I Q 4-*.- locor-ZOEA'-1 dE-f' 0 1, yog /\ \\ l I'G /A 7 F I AMC- 10. 74+1-to -El,w â‚¬- -1--~~17~~*i 1956 FO~Ort{U. 1-f DO <iro519 te le-\0-7 11.PAY-'ie. AAR.res ('aÂ»Â·:-*haÂ». 9\7 644lina~ Br. â‚¬P CD 90517 11 //9/m 12.hic.kpI- /11Â£1 0,6 75~41 7*UM.z.+ 9,7 Â£;*,J/,M/1 ,FP 'R)57-7 ~\,~/Polo-1 13.1~22Â·<fie N ke,e:. idl.,3-245,11-.,0 0:KFS (E:s. EqAAÂ·20> OCÂ» SnfrÂ¥ i i -20( b-F 14.' 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 11'1 2Â©E8Â¥ El% ~~ NOV 2 0 2007 -dj- Estes Park Voters for Wildlife ~ ' 4 .1 Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lambing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Name (Print) Signature Address 1. \<trni /Ri)<21,~ F#AM.AG,kA, /24 / Anh,Au .Lcuue 1#16/07 1. \LOAWPÂ¢{vi kaw- . 444116 -JK--0, 631 Pwirperit Ov.t hj)Â£~01 3. P,i,Al he 81 4 54, 9 h / M /49- 'f t,t 4. ~'l -la-Pfi _ 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 1- 40. NOV 2 0 2007 Estes Park Voters for Wildlitl-4~ ME<$-E U Â¥ Er-%1 Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lambing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Name (Print) Sianature Address Date 1. berrell M.Veke# 1; )treÂ·0 1~~1:#7 10(5 Le>,;*940. ka.e "bhl 07 2. P:\,1 - fÂ»,- 2/2 049/6 4 (. ). it ~ 6 (07 3. Fr.â€¢1< ter,I â‚¬ 'R;LL-Â¥2- 781 1-6 r :40#,â‚¬ 1 Â¢-14- 69- 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. '~ 2-0 EDVE-3\ Pll NOV 2 0 2007 I Estes Park Voters for Wildlifd U j 1 L L-1 Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving,4=bing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Name (Print) Address DÂ¢te 1. (loed 1-6- 'trAM)PA- U#1-a (kiÂ»- 28 /96<- (3~074 t.6. FF 1,1,515-7 2. Mf\Â·,a r(\Ac-n AM-En '4**41Â¥ta)*<0(L /00Â·A p/â€ž *F,uio )='F l ji-/su o-:1 3. CTÂ«fal S,-rn 5 4 Cl-4-0 10.2.0.,~>, fig R 04< U\(,9'ri 'Dr. E. f 1 1.- ls- - 0 57 4. 95 1,-re.2 A 1-LK 91-'Tet <6:>JQ LA-â€¢-r Â¥ 49 6-41Â« a.....,0,9 Erir / ,// s-/4 7 . ~ 3%121, A/LAIRIG- p,~2172.y{.~- irpro / 2 >000 8$.-A,â‚¬k / t.9 /, / i K- i 07 9 4) \1'Ll A 6â‚¬ GRFEd U. 1~ Ill</ D# p L -212%37191 *f~~,4-A 9. 401(220, EÂ«pizz- 84676446 52)51 ~o. %319~<fbrft:fth -/C-i>~th, Â£ grnsâ€žhe St A.L Ju~.Ip. C,0-9"/ltfF 11.' Ky U; (*rtner 21, e (Itnnor 9'10 (,A-#fild,IDU, LKI , EP 936il W \6. Di 12. 21Â©ht Wl dill /7 > lote - 14. 14\,e K~c\LfÂ·9\r*,\2-7 )1 #~~ R.,1 cp rbs-il ll-'5-0-7 0.>di E-P * Dg 1-1 11-15-8-1 13. DA Â£-2 5425/1-(2311 #XAN /.Â¢5/ Pl #CA22/<- 41 124 -Th:Sfil ll-IrÂ·67 15. fk,wri Â¢(Rke f-â‚¬Â£-p.'(JEilhli;0414 A- 17 16. djyl 97-PnloofYI k/0- Â· (12u i V 3 1 frgj! r-41 0(1 *)5-/ 7 // -/5-â‚¬7 11. /evw-v , prell (i~*4/ //3)~Ap-U 2-3 66-ArÂ¥*JfAKA ti }DE-I,r H 111%%017 18.rd-.-2,-, 2/.te<i, 7:eL.fu.l 47.-ffâ€¢ TR 34,3 06.-, 4y/6/01 190,42 12urr,1 _ f 1 ).0'JA.A' Vult-L 2021 RE,eotâ‚¬E 8 AL' 805-1-7 ttilbtol 20:UNER)21-4 KU*TH- JAKA.~4:tli- ADal Uttko K a 11. RDÂ·s) 7 ,/,//5/07 21.-Pyl- 4 84 6,@OA j .714/ I 910 C ne.roke,e, 3>r-; 20.Gl'7 /lj LEIâ‚¬'1 22.-01/4 4\Ace#.4 1 -<- 4-1-%â€ž...9,4 \ Q Af) C.Q.:r, okog '57- 9<.rh \1 \, C Ib 1 0-1 13. .Sh.e,v-N \ther,k\,rn J.h MAN l.l)LI4-1 14-76 CAAÂ«nkon bri - 17061-7 11/,41,6 24. Knna' 1 A, Arr ke A,--025) /2â€žÂ£- / 9 74 CUrnA:C]br W OK/9 1 1 IM / 0% 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Estes Park Voters for Wildlife ~ ~~ 0/7 [S' rt NOV 2 0 2007 | , 1 Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lambing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Name (Print) Signature Address Date 1. ED,now Ly/0440Â£-jn- 4(ILL.LMI-4,521 41040*L. .2.. /414/0Â£-7 2. LARRY A,BCOUD :re,vt* 65# 600 M o u,+1, w CIRCLE D-r 1 1 -/7 -07 3. At Pe.rs on< + /,4hu-Y 9... 44Â»-1- I 000 Wor)41(.d e ou.+ 1(-19-07 4. R.Â·Awl&11*A (BRA NT/PH -e 1 d. M.=a pht~---1.u,924&9 H) 18,07 5~22Â»* Ae.64Â¥ O + 4-6. w o )4.4 79-9 (PlyÂ©0 + (12*I A- 14- G' -c)9 6. 0+4*rt U cu ls-0.#st ecj<-* dFLjTIr a ) 9 AG SÂ¢' ,19- 7. KEWI/L 9 kek Â·9 te.-7 iS/t f Ol I lDp Â© r j/-1 k - 0-9- - 1 22/k <~~ \,ALLS .-23/2 A-1-1 6U-râ‚¬ OA. //// 2/ by 9. Â·00 A. A.- (ZN} / c 9 j I UJO-u 14.9./ Â«. bf*le,t ;, -1 4 -al 10. W cle \e.96(*tr7\UiC) ~AA1~T.eLVTLA.4-6,, I /ot La; ncton tit lf-I x2O7- 11. 7~9.ull c4~nd- --4, 2, fc.,de arq, 18-v â‚¬Au 9 04 4 (V e V, li. 43%2*ce /1 rep,7*- 11.-1 92),09444 8 11-19- 8 -7 C l. -' 'C"r, r. 1 12.i5>0 0,- v -2---7 z_ R L~~-r,1 LA (-u~s- 1:~>- , 1(- 1â‚¬-07 m%22ytr=â€ž0.- ~ Li 5% 1- 46&2;ZEÂ£ L.â€ž te 774Â£4 ro -7 7 1/-/8-07 A-0 -1 1111467 161 ~Fwai;777. 0-4=*LA. 305- 02>ue,â‚¬,00 4â‚¬ 22* Aâ‚¬' 4 4 037 9 1 1-ft-OÂ» 17.77~Â£6'i-022- mk -2b#Â»uz_ 9/1 44~Â«-044 <30 L r ROSI 7 1./.9/0-7 18.41Â£A.,1 r /ifÂ£-.z,40 ., s .4.10 A.,po :im'I- ~1~2~ bA Â«<M 'it'-12- 6-r 19.,/0 7Â£14:K ' /,4~A 11 (' E D (LD A 4-!0- 6 7 20. ./AANDLL- p_,5.. -84 A~ 0- ChA.,N-Yoe 101*1 Cr)4,Â·C-eria i,t o I l< IR- Inl 1.1. vk)*+Ar C,"*-1-A)-'14-uv 0*03 -9 octg A; IN-1,8 u /4,7 1 22 .A . *220 14 (1},Adil,od-d, PJD k i<*aid -7 'Al A , V\Addv~ *lb- 6-,41* PÂ© 13%01 .32,9-4 6+ /64 R -07 gow,0 11.-016\~CÂ·u. gaf k.u/v,6,4,>tvhn,ep,Ce 25 CLf i BUm,-acÂ¥ U.L.% El . 3, n.yt 6.-1 . / iiI Â¥tli VAnul\444 -9\ , ,)-/9 -04 14. U?ALYL.<.1Â·211(1511.4 0 1/4.:-eÂ·204'9/GlitÂ«91 t'785 2TARNi,CAN Th. it- iK 0,7 27 - M~~Â£13~L*M,xf- .4 3 :-U~,, ,~ (4,1 ;')- 8 4*1 -i :1_3,1, r. 1:/, c#/crt.u <-_, 4 -/9 -07- K. *'tio r~,Ma Â°07.Pitf, 4.--' 2 966- /3 . f<~16 011/7447 /t909 rzfâ‚¬_ if//56,Â» 30. t./ 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. D) ECEDV EFf Estes Park Voters for Wildl ~ NOV 2 0 2007 ~ 21- Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lambing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Name (Print) Signature Address Date 1. #di./4*,frjfru, IUON*C , 9,Ge,4.46, k T*62/09 1. t#*AdLL/k,ctreD.,u# d&â€ž,04~662lk;40*-SDae-Â· 2246.P:Jer<:de br.,RE /1./6..69- 3. Q28-r Â£,u" D Old.me <%;AA,-- Utau.wu uS, Cd.. 4,10~._C:rclf /(- /6-07 4. 4..9 v- 00 Si INÂ·~ s C.,uk ..1.2.-8 9 Bao ReckÂ»og,k L.. 40 H-/4 -07 5. 204Â£Â£,S,abs â€žÂ¢L~z:~be,-1, <Rn 920c,Ilk)06 6 C .A+~12 16-14 -0) . 6. (944-RAT..6 340{ GQ,e,sliÂ» AM kIâ€¢Wâ€¢T-LNX\ 41 v 14-~ - *T-121/6 2%0 /) El#<Aerh 1/-/2.07 8. , e 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. -~- S Â©ISEDVE'3\ ~ NOV 2 0 2007 ~ Estes Park Voters for Wi19 Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lembing, and fawning ' area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. , Name (Print) / Simaturt, Address tosÂ·05.St/<CL"J L tjuâ‚¬-d-/112*40.-INDI V I// i 0,--L,euâ‚¬ GAn.A.tl â‚¬E- 1,(147 1. MittliA. KELuEN 3. sara-4 3. 7'kin 45 51~2lt<~-%~~~)1~7 /0, R.0 -3477.-EÂ»e< PA-niâ‚¬ C-6. 11 f $ S.A> 7 m.- inso S.st.\)ral.a*(91 EstedfarK CO ' 11/15/07 -9 V 21*AngdkS U. /.-6:r.nA,90 LT) Aorai <4$~api 4:Arm,*~ /-1_Auu,i-u Js=*1.,79.46- 5. JAAE /bo JEL -33,0....A_ /<1*99,3 91>.63)â‚¬ /671, ladeS. fO-,â‚¬R .Co Fte,5,7 . '-as 6. DICE Â© 9/.1/1./ G-R)Aly.g.IL-'1 0 /ozin 5957 1/2AIN F & Ell-.â‚¬5. pÂ¥, fo.9,1931 114'it-4> 7. /.ewik//614,4 1rf-lot )4-Al .i 054 5 3-Y- ij#*i. 13?. ckpa, fu 59riNEPW\*)5*- 8. 6-4-1 t. l<e-pde-Dy-c 1 05.0 %7Â¥7- P &4-,0 UP,T Hi 1,6-67-10 f Flu< T O 5-,1 -1 1 1/5/,7 9. A 4824 StÂ£.Derf~. '-74nd#/ti-,-Eb /8m S Af-Umi, A.ve- L.-1 / f //17707 10. LOW -64 0< LA pece. (035Â£) S 3-r- u,â‚¬4, 4 <2- Ct- 2. -r, 4,Â·/4 *064 ' â€ž/;S/t7 11.Â·-râ‚¬r; U'JeUS t:*izinn C.t,L (4),6,*b,uu) COED 5.St-.fgl,e~ 36 Farl ~- i (#6(o-p XL. 40-enek 9*95 - wA /-CA,- O%,9,6.564 8*4-1 1614-0, Ch *47,+4 13. kniyra. -~ifc'n 'tr,(MirE, Mi 9% lillÂ·PeapiA l,lÂ®cl' 180/l PllAÂ©'3 Tt i.,E*Ap A-Far#((F~* - /9.16 6 4.7. 16k, .11 rini. ; 1 9 4Kâ€ž +(44 0472 15.-77.1171~ 43 67~ + /05 0 -0 11- 9,-4.1 -7 74 F~.2 03 3-AS/7 / j 16. KnÂ·+Flert,12.~Ut â‚¬29 ~.7. Â£2ted, Likv/1/AL*# /05:0 6.4. Untin gl Â£546 At,%.- 6&4-*7 17. R.,40 4.=Aâ‚¬ â‚¬ A WL,Ef /4/ 0 9. s I u V â„¢\ 1 M A ut-%04Â¢+HY Estes,44*L-ts#744,2, /4 -U ' 18.. b.,1-k'*ES*02~715#a'- -,mE;h 2-Sal,-Â¢- 6,_4- 0- 4-4 266 8.6 06 205 (07 19. 2#PARCAQ.â‚¬#DER/*42- /090 1<:.76.1- l/,Quk Ave G=14 â‚¬rt:12.> P/GR< 4,/a 20 5/1 10.-4."QDA(120.**!W.Jw /050EW-.VAauu. 8-1 &*4> peak, 0.0 ~0517 21. d Fib.#JUU.LiAA#lo~,A~Â£ 7 8.n S. 31-7)AaÂ£-,u F-4 441,1 J AJ-,C-A POS-17 22.-t--4 A,f C.C ki ,A,h Uu.2. ~Ju-- / O<Ur ST VAAI L A A.*1Â»1 &21,7 â‚¬- 92>% 1,Â·,7 13. -thar le& A M:1(eriftÂ·?071 /724 Dekkert./rde 151:07 Wa,4222Â¢aiuy i\40-61 24 2-16Â·Â·c,-Â·p, /74'/6 rÂ·"4 /6,0<: 4*ove# h.Â£-{ C,-2 -//O . 4 'On c,inail 6- 6-2 20-ro j 25. l\A Ali~ |6( Li c_o c_lk lulu~ lu-'labc Gc_ /4,bo l-0 /+7 AP'/ 2.,2/3 4 2540,3 2.0 A-)92 22-9- 16. 7--,crcl Sc w 97Â£2 ai .91Aut A495%- -) /6.>0 04'Â»,,Â£,tu 6,0 +4 7 dll 68 3-0 51 7 511-44:1 27. /Dal,(42 he 92-Â«u. /110Prrfw 0110 '4u... /410 Mtsr BxrÂ» Pk,72?74 08.72 <c>' ,%6/7-966 9-9 9% 28. rk'Â£44 912 +42-irk 3> r / 6 Â©A </&-Lal n 44 ; 1 J -ajo Â» 11-,u .07 30. ~(61325*47~41,Â«u" *\)tyLuk-1.~WA--t.Res v.,Al ee,Grer UST~eitAAr E c 92â‚¬,7 11 -610 -0-7 31. Liudd luhrn,cj /3>10 11/i t>n thnd. 85 9-%4,4 'pavk eo %05/7 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. P Ed-g.Ey-R--1 Estes Park Voters for Wildl*I NOV 2 0 2007 ~~ Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lambing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Narne (Print) Signature Address Date ~. -PAMELA EK USE AU,4.4 6*Â«it Soo fGAL 14gkl DR- // |TE | 0-7 2. /10- Y Â£02â€¢- 15 h Am.â€¢,4>ao..1.- OE' 86â‚¬-4- ben 11 -ls' 07 3. dent}ace ,2.6 le- 84Â£*,~22+Le , a,166 Q,u..0.-Ab N . 11-/1-01 4. Kic-HARD F. bÂ®,t. 40 N~4421% AuD#Ap )98) UA,0003.C,e L j /R) 01 5. 14,_-00-:- 8 - WS....6/ 410.a M E. 5Ecen , Se 1 6,0,1-ret.4 cA,9 0%. /1-1>1-01 6. ~154 'di<4 /7 23Â·tr,64,2?r Ah,en,id,-61Le,Â£24+ 04.4- 04-rj H44 Hrk,Ld, rk j 2 -01 7. %:cu46,1.L di&&424,217-' Vic qu,Â·6 k, 13[4cfard---2 4 7 e,1, 1,0(ffl Al T"; XM/2, t fl-le-{77 8. 41'167.na-J 1 jincow ftt~itf-- /695 A.*ut L...2. ill 12 107 9. Â© Av KP s EVANS 1 7 1 9 TD/\0 i) R . 1/18101 10. 8,#BA RA C.-EE> Â£4-F, OR,th,44, 71.614, 06/7 COvwkr 2\ 4.. Al / kl D'f 11. JO +rj D . Cootez imn,w hn.ELAR 0 R 36 PQ~4-4 CÂ« i i 11 <' % f 07 12. TPONA E.. (looPER.U qÂ¥*no...62 Ce-rÂ»~ <B Â« 467&.11%.nA) CiA- 11 ji f )07 , 13. <i'AM e R 0 4,2 1-6 Dd 1.'did#**161.,I./ ,}o 049'6,Â£'ew ei- AAâ‚¬ fo-1 14. 131 NG gy) / f h F '037- 'L>la /%54'AU /VI *l) A v - 7 62- M. CARK )h GE. 04 1, 15.\1Â·1 *Mi~ 4,-A LI; LK) A.rfr,u -6*~4~,1,4 1 *u)11*.a,ae-.A 0671-#-ntE-~hfFâ‚¬i- 16 )' /'7 /6-7 16. / va-4 hfi ilt i &, *90,1 0-0 ,\,â€¢.4!k -W- 46-7 Litile--f+UÂ»2 8,1 11'')19707, 17.toanÂ·R Klec\<ner (loa,11 04. /444,M. /4(5-3- Ra.ue n C't *- c le_ 1 i \ 18-101 18. MAAIDRLE AA, 82Â©NAA) CPÂ«I~o~lch, lk.Â»1'j I 214 j k~veÂ« Cl.clu {{ 114 01 1 . 19. 6A LAA,-r hto LAr bla,\ 01 as~Led-1- Ya-3> ARAnnu'na Cir d /aD/07 1 1. 20. A A rn L. p, Trar.k<Ar, IDâ‚¬ D .AL ~ il. 01 U / 440 07 11. -XE ABY A. TAG /<5bn/ 1 D 50 CAP#-,TH CT. r-.4. Vor: f 7 eyrâ‚¬5 PAAK 'llkafa-; 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 0 20 E OVE 3 ~ NOV 2 0 2007 I Estes Park Voters for Wildlifk U 1 Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving,JambiaÂ¥, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. iName (Print) i Signature- / , Address Date 1. |v-a,r(A I.Se)}64\A 14 BAJA,022Â»41-, 1(9(,1(193Â·<~r~Â»2Â£4\, 541,ju- IdG--pr-1 1. pneha, bn\A .2-424 4.NEWÂ·k 106 1<411-Â»21 Â»>10&=Ad .li ~It )89 -4.4- A n /1 3. 4. U 3- AA; 2-f m . qee- 4+4- Th .0,% 1 0-10 Ll-kull-11, 44/1.1 A Gl It ) 14/ an 5. 2,thowil G.de --I**2149,60 . loto -13,4,160/1 91Â£ Ede-P..4 1/- 14-67 6. Bever ~ ~~ 111 223&31.1:212%15 j~ - "l'K '01 1. LÂ® 2, ne- A. r Ep 4),r, 01 8.ROA|Airl .-r \AE, 0 2 .T (1.,L*#w>,0 ~,-Nei- 1 ~v. /0.fÂ¥ p/De k 00(40*_. 62. P. //92< 4-Â°-O-7 9. C.L.c.AL, A k. ~ul.A# 7.- 8.....4... 47.16&*f,048*,W#k.Ie- PL. ge 11-,6-09 10. EbWAYLo 4-. MUUMIIL 87LbKic,--47Fle,Li, /07 F Ptwe-Rk),u O,c. .6-Â¥' il- 16--01 11. /A/(22 2. ADAM , 9-1. po?)1 04/.c 6 {?1.-9//VE-KNjet.Â£-- 1>/1.E,P 1 1 i lA (0'-7 12. ~A) UX U. AVE\41<Jek) \<tuA/3 \1.i, - \09<LA P/de Il,JoiL Da..6-9 13. 69 FIA F 1~(Ca*A (~'<-621/,6 chtt te&Â£-l 1(91?07'PI nel Kn rollog 2-/Â° Â· 14. <DA#LEÂ·lhAN;JE-14 CCUL .4 Y 2*03 CRABA#tc 1.0,/r â‚¬<P, 11//6/0-1 1-5. Cte. 1~n.a L.t.u,v~c~ ~~fÂ®'> '}51'MA#J17 dd,Ubth. P.P. //)/7 16. H ke.0.-/ L i vi v,J-re# . / 2-6- W . Ut,jo .a-vc &&Â·u ,Cg' 1.:S'0-ik 17\031 17.~1 (1< D E MA ITR 6 5 i<<.clM14 G-1- 1440 g/=bell 12/1 t.e. (i/17 18. 1-Jad Gme r %*~4-01 ;2%0~ 0-A. tb 71 4 hok C , FA \1/ / 1 19. FD /47(---JPWVÂ»U Â¥--v..3 W~+~4- 1 09'/ASTANG.5,6.ube 'CA 19 A"Â¥ 07 20. n12W- /71 81, i '3 0 â€ž M Â£4&,44*Â£4~.p t 5-50 R O?ai r,fr- G-P 11!17/07 11.A/7 110 a H ift 44Â·uul iblo/licit-A-\1O4LK k-f~ lilli)07 22. Ofk (4Â£-Fr 19-1:Â¥R4 N 1 Pl,ic 0 1 / FP 11 / 0/Al Â¢%34 te# 23~~brJ /Joiqi-Ao 96 â‚¬9,11 /5*200Â·0'- 300 6*vilw -pA 7/1/b 909 24. d-O Al ,Â£T L ) k A 42Â»1 0 li 11 1 17 187 25. 4-e-77- 71, ,-e- i ' 6JM/ H GO /0Â£1,3;zval. h i i /17 io D 26. ttb\\2Â¢1 Fi1106#v \(,t&..'U),64- *SS fa u.Â¥\ 60Â¥11 /97 0 2 5.)1/ 1 4,1/7!01 27. -hru,a.h izluelrona -0*U\,Wi i#d?MIg/ t7(0 C RA p$ 2 L NV (t / 1 -7 A:>7 28. Ron; fnari.e nfÂ¢k.K i 71442 Â¥\1Â®6 1441& , 445 V,d~ R.A. EP EOSI-1 - 1~ /I-7~01 2,9.0.1-4,06Â£ A- b.( buNEU_u (/FAu-,tu. 4*vJAA 60 20;- Atowd R~*3-%-U~U~'*5-/7///illÂ°'1 30. k,)AL. L.ACE- 8, 66\ ~C IVE 4-1<3Â¥2*uu.-2~ 1 0 â‚¬9 5 c=>71-5AVE-, t, - B 70 9.-/ 31. /3 6/4 L D <401> ;<fe "t 4.1</ Wvl /4 16) O \ 9 1 61 â‚¬& T- L ~ L i"1'7 jOl 32. â‚¬*Ac-r STo loa<_ (\ coe~~~~Â£~~ 3> i o i m / A,Â£-3-Ve .rÂ£.i\'Lf ili!9-/0}- 33..fL'le, irlor ril 10 6 D U .54. \tra il u I ,7 k-7 34. Nk<K 100*\\A ssÂ«rd /bict.k- +27.dt<w 4 54/C lu Rk 141 , 1// 11109 35. kkNIE i>k E gabe:+T ' ll..~ 20211 6161/cO,-661?d EF 36. 6- curv /3,%,1 1 1 5 /7641<1 6"r,An q | $5 W o WD 271 8:'div, LA, f-to 37. Al (121 0 440# 390'73+VAI~(1)1~A. )Pi )0 R}41* Mt C 4 117)(,7 38. AILLituy VULI 4& 1/1 1<*Al /RA Akin/l 11-41 \AA-U.eff,bulfFI ?At)5 F>r 11'1111/ 6-\ 39. E i Aruc .SLJANI -f tâ€ž O +6 ,. 950 (30 74,Ng<,6~ Aurt~+~2*1,2 14 /O/64 40.-Te Re 64 H /) UU(' Il rtli? 4. AllÂ¢7 19 g i 0>â€¢Lfple G g. A /14'Ofl JECEW'&1~\ Estes Park Voters for Wildlife 4 ~ NOV 2 0 2007 _~ Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lea*ing, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. t Name (Print) Sionahirp Address Date 1. H eN B Â¥ F. 180Â£- 0 11 F/NE Â¥*60- OB 13-12-67 2. * nk .E t:('-i>4 Ce&- 44-, 1 14Â·.,Â·i Â£Â«- 6 11 F ; Al /0-" Â£, e--1 1/'. / R ~7 3. .9 A O 8 0 1.49 + V 9-0-â€¢ J JYL. 1 -Â®U d_f- t.-,4-67 tc $ &/ 'V .9 4. V A 1.-~ $ A 10 ---pbc d 01 n U g.Â£.J R.; t.a 4.0 9 Ad.11.0 *- . A- i R- 64 5. fA AÂ«of 4- Tte_In w 'clah 49 12- 8 94 0 148 9- 4 1-0 o ye. u- 1,-/8-07 6. 1 v. Al XS-/bee 48-2-21 A-dKAO- inGG P,~a k *oil Dv ,(-19-87 i ttiftih~kkrAI~~A-A<11. /0 64 -P,nk /4.1/ Din Il ) tr jog 184 / As fe) 0,- 't *~ .L 9. 3-9 aÂ» G . bb UN 5 2%9~n,Ocklk . 4 )0 1-1 Fa , r wav LIA il-/9 -d-]- 10. <zE?5â€ž0:fle&*@~20 C \AL 4-14~ bm)7 ,)*,r,/All# 7/ #-14 Â°0' (91>99 L 11. L A Ak 9 00 45 Ed]<AM 0 +22/i(4-LA// 647'>-ZFÂ«*c//1 / 4- 1*f *rne n./ 1 V , 12. Debora_h E, /43/1 heol,-ULA.#c P.kfga. '99 J \A'ocd lard OT' 1-94707 13. A N u.â‚¬ d.O f.-TZ , /2 441.9 Â£.46 29. 6 51Â¢ 16A w J , tin 14. )adÂ»,-,7,11 C ir,57|(14)11,,- -9 '-i-DG'M~LE:61.634-)44 2%SVE) 4 a,ti~~3,*' 15. Â»,0 ki."ki\-,rIL,ricÂ¥ V-*1,2(41Â¢1 bwl<*tn /097 AlÂ£4<-I! 44 . /t/,467 16. i , MAN / 1 ~LD'' ; A fJ 4, 13-0, AU k\-,HIA'blx /44 / )(44(,Un (02 >19'4'--A+- ' i.. 17. ( r 1 51Â· i r< b i /1 r or\;hr % dit I A-*Ck IA,Gta ikf. 94 c iÂ·,~v &1 W44 icl 18. ift-tut 3/412.5 'U_-U Â£ 14 i A- elti~00'~fÂ·Â£< 10-LMLL 1 ( C' 1 19. 61/ : \&. .cl L (,irt 7)'..,f j M Â£44 /'+34 ''43.116Â·tib (,1/r 11-1,1-0.7 20. X\1\ 363 \1* L F' L. *A l. v V \14 6, \Xt w . A 7 4 9 Â®\.0 _,/u#~ l\, . - P, ' 21. A\A'2-9 ;ty- Â¢A rk?ou-,71 '>7.61-1 74<2,1Â£4 d.~. -75 5r /h â‚¬., .1 - - 421 .*'.. ////14 22.<A A R.4 K 112 JAPÂ»+ 1. 16,Â·t AA U'AL KE< v/lle ' Afbr fy,Â·-Lt-2-4,1/, 1,- ~i 2 - f 23.'Oi';2.-0,+W ,0~,v D Â£,711 04/,11,1Â¤1(41dLl/- /x-'3 6 W9Cfter IM-N 'k - n /,7/4 14: 45.fldee.i L J 7 1.Or 7 go / 5 Ad 4 7,1 C *t , â‚¬ 4. , -tri/-p=J- Â¥1,Ar , Â©a /1 1 #4 (07 8 25. A L. .pi.,i:t, M <, . 5.+vor w ri 3.14 6LL v i... i3- ul,4/0-1 W 26.75-6~044 9Â¢11Â»4* *'2.W-1 64 ---4 2 173&- 661 k,-0 6. ,) 31'92 07 17. 54Â«, 11\, 4ff V# 11 9 1 1 4,1 /-, 4 -: V A*A+Lu ID 19 VtÂ·,1Â£ 421 16,1. Il-,4-0-1 U <LM,< c n . 52~77'7*7 d,AM i A 11 44 .AW. 6,, A /2,1 a 19. 1~,4,70 11 1 I,0 1.< 4.Al - 1 141,Â£{.iki A j p/, *U ,A,AA( tn#*Ul,%06 NUL (/= /9,8 1 30. 14 rbi\*4/ a y/J --41.41.1.1/vf 4 ti., 9,90).be-ea AP - 1\- F, -7\9 31. 14 0 k 217,1 Jh a\01'77 304-1.4 a. 4.-MNÂ« ' 3:lOO ..t~<}(1 67*04#3AA~71,1/-9 -07 32. 4#~ 61, e. - 1 re dc,1 1-(fait //,+W -:1 02J~.,.1.4=0L~~ Â·40 O C&"A-4,Â·e, , 6+ 4 - 14 - 0-7 3 3. 29,) A ) 01 .f t- A-< C /02- 1,2- t 95-3 (f . /,0 6.#vivuLL, i<-/ 9 - 0 7 34.i forval.~ C 24>Hv|'FA ~fi .,.i,1 4. lr// <42*. 15< 74,5-â€ž1; *An ~ d-,4-,c-i 35. 52620.-A H s inaxull-JIJEEDu-6.14,w-Lude,e 25-131 84 #-lekN 449-4 36. J e WAI G) 20 i/,Fs 23624 K L :>cn,777+0 ' 5 9.9 PIOE 9 DOC.Â¥7'14 14/49 -L'/ 37. SA~-,-,*, 11 //o~.,i// c )1 1% A.,raddl\.-14 1 / V 1~2- 014 Ao .- 14 g.f,a-~00â€ž-, g P 111/ 4/0-7 38. M L 5'w o :Dct â‚¬.U -Jpl -21/-* 39$ P4'1 116* V,eut-4 6 lAm.,> 39. F-r- a.-,1 0 e s \4./Me e n Â£*p,0.4,Â·Â·Â·a....0 ttlÂ£*484-4 te>o i W o *A 6-A C Tt*- 64<1-rt 40. F berf- \/e 1116*k (P. DRAdll,4 0 tknu i Oo t wwow.. FO ofrt,-A n FhA B n EÂ©IHEDÂ¥[Â¢"~19 Estes Park Voters for Wild~ NOV 2 0 2007 J 1 - 3 i Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is "a calving, lm,AMB, and fawning area" as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. f Name (Print)1 1 Signature ddress Date 1. -6Â© 31 -6).Ult CAR%'040*I2 -)~ frwl~ IC) It).4.*(4177/1 ~tle- 11#907 2.OWARUE- bal-emAW ,---3%d.--004<. .4ek- /65/*2i--6577 h Â£. U //7/07 3. MARGrAR-Ert?EA cvt\Plie,14#ws,>In haAApAAR,Fli#:..1 j 04 1 444,yte-le-wilÂ¥), 11' \ ;1 I Al 4. E-*lul 1/11 441 '72/ 5, .5f-: 6/4,024 16)Â·us p 6114 269 7 Ill-2 K -O -7 5. *a.g. e- C,Fa 6.--1-2. 3 1 96~) <Il~ 1 510 Z 4.1*~Â»C.Â£- fl-/9-cD ro Rrn ' 54.~Ao , M Dr . 1/- /8-09 12 Â¥ A . 7. AMSâ‚¬. Â· Cz>'<Â« A -gÂ¢ukll_--â‚¬424 Ev . tea /l 5-35 8 4.4 Cr /1 0 / 9- D 7 8. 4.1)Mxm,17'YE- & ....,_175- A .o. RIEC,n CA'~il &<FfhnonÂ·j AU.I nt 1,-19 -07 9. 4Â£ n p -6...0-2- he=e--2.- f-.-iunce o:_ t-eez---Â·---4,-Â·834 10. 49-24 0142 -CID,Av,<00'1 CX~t,t.EZI~~1~,â€¢1.-5-10 ,Â£),-ter,t #Dn H r )94 9 . C 11. /,D c WAâ‚¬z_ GARRL}D Cy=: ~h>Uâ€¢-#1~~/~blriL/e . (2â‚¬- fUL R.u,4 M ou //-17-07 12. Lenie 2005- 4,Â£.,\,ru ~/03.-- ,8;Â·:, 5*~1,4,; -' < Glk-t--2UUÂ»<'3-Â«: -PUt.Â£ . ll- < 4 -04_ 13. \-1,Â»4 Yre 6 2/ ~12\\ Â· 0/'it;'ho &2~ 9(.8-7 0/.11\f,7 4, Â·401 lj-,9-c--7 14. RiAL T , 1. i|MECLL/C 6%:.Ce:66'.5 - * id-2-0 SiaÂ·ttln,â€¢0 ChUJ 11 I &4 V r,7 15. -37>i,u i Zeh i-)0 *of.,uw Pi) 324 ALL,- t,sf,iz C, C O 9~09/6 16. j).4 J , 3 73 elAA/ /DED LAH 6.lriD*.a. ibu , 65Cr-,Ta 174(k< 83 i 1 - 1-0 - cfR 17. tal j Z,al:,e:+Â·h (prwinkti 9*julobtkbnunnk K .20 0-IM el,aA-rra: \ 1,/ac i c,7 18.-1-LtÂ·,t a. d.tr,6 -13@ 61 2, L. dic~~ 024 /4-20, 5\Â·# fâ€ž Mona 1-11. /j- 16-07 7 19. 172 4,I, Â£ -7-44 6 A~ 2(J* Uilf:24'Â£-"< 10.44*=f.T:}4 10 594 - 1(-20 - 0'7 11-20 -07 21.(*006.i/Â¥uo;E /4400,9}-Â¢UtW\' 409Â·~ /+~''uns.JL Jau Tme/n in. .0 -0 A-J-7 22. 7 0 01 46,1004 -1=----2-2-0 -90[4 34 1 / - 2--2 - 0.7 02.3. 6'Mad /66 ; 46~res Altul " 7.23 - C. + 4 24.- 5- ) ~ A 4.,Â·J A. 4.Â« ck 41444 C.be W . _, tÂ¥.26.0 2 \IL) ( 1 2 3-0 61)'7 15. t, chbr < Â¥74 2eK *Ac.2# 9,a..1,72./ 50- OT.\I~+AM- 11 + -LIA 07 26. Â¥v 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 0~,IRCIE OVE Estes Park Voters for Wildl'~ NOV 20 2007 ~ 11 1 Mark D. Elrod 277 Larimore Valley Drive Wildwood, MO 63005 Soon to be 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO 80517 November 09,2007 Commissioner Wendell Amos /Commissioner Richard Eishenlauer Commissioner Bruce Grant Commissioner Betty Hull Commissioner Joyce Kitchen Commissioner Doug Kirk Commissioner John Tucker Estes Valley Planning Commission 170 MacGregor Avenue P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Community Development Department and Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Subdivision Plat Dear Commissioners: I became familiar with the process o f working with the Community Development Department (Department) for a hearing before the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment I had on June 5,2007. In preparation for that hearing I printed off the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code. I became as knowledgeable as anyone can who does not usually deal with the Department. Since that time I have had a keen interest in 1 4 understanding how the Department routinely and unbiasedly processes applications before it. I received a postcard dated August 10, 2007 advising me as an impacted property owner of the Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat hearing before your Commission. I read the Application and Statement of Intent filed by the applicant and examined the plat map that was filed at the same nme. Based upon my own experience with the Department I raised concerns over the sufficiency of the application's statement of intent and the freshness of the plat map. I then offered areas of concern based again on my understanding of the Code and the process o f working with the Department. My statement o f concern was attached to the Staff report generated for the Commission. The Department and I have since then exchanged a number of communications. All have been electronic transmissions since I am not currently living in Estes Park, and with time being of the essence. I am also unaware how the public's additional comments make it to the attention of the Commission, or if they do at all. I have felt frustration in working with the Department which as Commissioners you should be aware. Is the Commission aware that draft minutes o f its meetings are not posted to its website in sufficient time for public examination before its next meeting? Which I now understand your draft minutes are a courtesy to the public, and should not be expected all of the tinie. Is that the Commission's preference? Is the Commission aware that staff reports are filed late after due dates indicated on its website? Is the Commission aware that its agendas, which its site states will be available on the Wednesday prior to its meetings, are not always so posted as indicated? It just seems to me there is a general lack of attention to details and an attitude of "it's close enough" that is pervasive in the Department. I think it is important for those o f you who sit oil the side o f the bench that you do to understand what the public goes through when dealing with the Department. My experience is that I was made to feel as if I was just a nuisance with which the Department had to tolerate being a part of the public. I am attaching the series o f communications, in chronological order, with the Department which details our exchanges since August 19, 2007 over the Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat. I believe I have raised some very legitimate concerns about the sufficiency of the subdivision's plat map; drainage issues; dry retention pond design, road swale design; Estes Valley Development Code issues; and the impact o f a 100 year flood event through the Subdivision. Additional concerns were expressed after I had an opportunity to travel to Estes Park intending to attend your meeting of October 16 after inspecting the Deer Ridge Subdivision site. As you recall the hearing on Deer Ridge Subdivision was extended until your November 20, 2007 meeting. It appears that major work has been accomplished at the site 2 and I questioned whether properly authorized building permits or permissions where obtained. The Department was going to review my concerns and get back to me late the week of October 29m (which would have been by November 2% and nothing has yet been received. The reason of posting this letter to you so early in the month is to allow the Commission the courtesy o f reviewing the situation with time to reflect prior to its November meeting (which I will not be able to attend). It seems that so many items that the public has available to it for inspection are posted so close to the Commission's meetings that it offers little precious time for ill- depth meaningful review. The lack of promptness and attention to the public's concerns from the Department seems to me to discourage the public's involvement with your important work. Thank you for taking the time to read of my concerns. I have no way of knowing if others o f the public have similar experiences with the Department or not. If nothing else it will give you a view of one perspective from the other side of the Commission bench, by one member of the public, offering opinions on one project, working with the Town's one website, and the nature o f the exchange of communications with the Department on this one project. At the end of your review the question I would leave you with is whether if it had been you as a member of the public working with the Department you would fuel well satisfied that your comments had been encouraged and adequately addressed; and that your experience had been a good one? Very truly yours, Le Mark D. Elrod Cc: Bob Joseph Community Development Department Director 3 4 1!11 [OWN Of R rei PARK ~ \1046.81C03888 --' r Community Development Department 0 SCO.269 4-3 PO Box 1200 â€¢Estes Park. CO 80517 ~ - 08,10;2007 , , ~a,iea =rom 30517 - Mark D. & Rebecca J. Elrod 277 Larimore Valley Drive Wildwood, MO 63005 I;ll,,t,ll/ll''.ll,;,,I;l,,i;'lll',,,*ill;ll,ll1,,lli;,l,lll/1 TO: Neighboring Property Owner August 10, 2007 FROM: Dave Shirk, Planner II RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane Applicant: Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar & John A. Skoog A Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the above-referenced property will be considered by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Town Hall. If it is recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, the item will be heard by the Town Board of Trustees on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Town Hall. You are welcome to attend these meetings. Please visit our website at www.estesnet.coin/ComDev/CurrentRequests.aspx for detailed information. To request a printed copy, or if you have questions or would like to comment on the proposed request, please contact me at 970-577-3729, dshirk@estes.org, or at the return address shown on the front of this card. 4 rn'.1.9 ~d~ ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, INC. Post Office Box 3047 Telephone 970-586-5175 Estes Park. CO 80517 Receive FAX at 970-586-5816 July 25,2007 W.O. 2446 Mr. David Shirk Town of Estes Park Community Development P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision - Preliminary Plat 1 Statement of Intent Dear Dave: This property is located on Fall River Road near the Summerset Condominiums and the Homestead Subdivision. A final plat was approved for the property to divide it into four lots instead of the existing two lots. We stopped the process to deal with some of the improvement installations in advance of completing the platting. It is still our goal to install all the utility lines and the new drive before the final plat is completed. We have made a few changes to this plat to reflect some of the progress to-date: 1. The drive serving lot 3 and lot 4 has been relocated - an easement has been added to cover the new location. We have also prepared an easement agreement between John Skoog and ourselves to address this easement as well as the drive that commences at Summerset Court. 2. A detention pond wall has been constructed at the east end of the property. All that needs to be accomplished in this area is the outlet pipe and the overflow pan. We will complete these aspects when the main drive is brought to final grade. 3. A concrete curb was planned on the north side of the main drive. We have decided that a properly constructed roadside swale will better control the drainage in this area. It will handle a higher flow volume without reducing the drives ability to safely carry vehicular traffic. 4. All of the small cabins that existed on Lot 3 have now been removed except the most northerly cabin next to the north lot line. During the last planning process this property was rezoned to E-1 Estate. The goal when this went through the process was to eliminate the potential of multi-family housing on the property, This is still our objective. The proposed lots meet the requirements of the E-1 zoning district. The lots will have access to sewer, water and electric lines which we will be extended. The attached construction drawings indicate the details of the proposed drive and utility line installations. ISO calculations are also attached. If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact us. Respectfully yours, Estes,P,rk Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. Â«ff,t- [~ JUL 2 5 zow ~ "Paul M. Kochevar, P.E. & P.L.S. President 4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ~ ESTESVALLEY - JUL 2 5 2007 ="="* Submittal Date: 1 *11 1 1 , Development Plan E Boundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map - Special Review r ROW or Easement Vacation F- Preliminary Map F Rezoning Petition f"" Street Name Change r Final Map P Preliminary Subdivision Plat r Time Extension r Supplemental Map J Final Subdivision Plat i"" Other: Please specify r Minor Subdivision Plat C Amended Plat General Information . Project Name Deer Ridge Subdivision Project Description Amended Plat of Lot 3 & Lot 4, Skoog Subdivision Project Address 1825 Homestead Lane & 1925 Homestead Lane Legal Description Lot 3 and Lot 4, Skoog Subdivision 36-3-Â»Bv 00 3 Parcel ID # 35 114?Moo 4 Section 22 Township 5N Range 73W Site Information - Total Development Area (acres) 7.31 Existing Land Use Residential Proposed Land Use Same Existing Water Service R Town F~ Well F- Other (Specify) Â· Proposed Water Service 37 Town 1- Well E Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD 9 UTSD r Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD 12 UTSD E- Septic Is a sewer lift station required? 7 Yes 2 No Existing Gas Service 9 Xcel F Other F None Existing Zoning E-1 Proposed Zoning E-1 Site Access (if not on public street) , Are there wetlands on the site? f Yes M No Has site staking been completed? F- Yes i No Primary Contact Information . ~Â· Â· - ~ Name of Primary Contact Person Paul Kochevar Mailing Address P.O. Box 3047, Estes Park, CO 80517 Attachments' 1- Application fee r Statement of intent f- 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan r 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. lili lilli ~Type of Application __ 1 jin - a Yiel W. ~ 1! 11 M :lia Efix Ing 1 1 ! r i i dii ..t I i 1 . 261 1 16, i i ' i 11 i ji 1Z P - i ii ii M Dlls E â€¢ ,7 1 , ,--4- 19 1 / 27 f. 1 H it i fi l i!I ' ' i 03: 1 / ial il '/6,9 / - 1 // --446 4.- - 9 , 1 0 i 1 ..: u Iii # 4 " limit &4 \ - 0 1 62 El . t; 8,4// 40 1 ,. :522232.5/J . 7 - r Â»*-~, 1 44>-C- .: ---~48 1-4-7---3-vt ' *en -r-.- . 1. /1 / 1 1 -- . 1 . 5 -4 h f i 1 - -- nul :.:4 '-: 'i 3 . 6 Sel / '1 - 11 ; A III\~ Â· i i . 11.. M .. / 11 '111 N lili 1, g , 11 - t>-5- 1. la'~4 / \ 16 ,-5-4/i, 944&91 1,20 . .: g. i 1 1 I 1 1. - 2 \ fi 1 1 1 i! ./,ft-I \MI'lu . .,7, ,- , 1 / 6 : . ' .)'/ ''//~//~/:::/::: ./.::/21/ / 4 : :..0 - , ~i . filill 0 . -43 f ./7 / ,~f.37 .fj,,1/ W'' 7 hi!~l ~ '3 -- --- 1 1.1 Etti I , 1,1,1 1'i J h ----02 .1-&41. ri Le.Â»h./ , ' .;'1 1.,re & - 1/ :1 -1. :41 4 1 IiI 1 . . 1,/../ / 41.3 ii :14 fi~(/0''j Â· ,~, ' 1 --I 1 1 .til' 14~6*!11/ Cl, /4,//.: 4 1 1 1 1 $ 7 -Â·7 2 / tii 31 L-------i un. i i E 'Ill Â¢ 1> Dc:2 â€¢f . 05 ~ A 4 / 8. / -- f t.t 6,~~â€¢ 9Â»k.t'â‚¬1931""S&~' 6 1 1 I . 11 44 1 1/4 OF SECTION 22, 15,1 R73Â¥ OF THE GTH P.11, PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER. STATE OF COLORADO ER RIDGE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT " , Irid XMNIMITinfd 1-4 1Â¤~llat~ A Page 1 of 3 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: <dshirk@estes.org> CC: <bjoseph@estes.org> Sent Sunday, August 19, 2007 2:46 PM Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Mr. Dave Shirk Planner II Town o f Estes Park Community Development Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane We, Mark & Rebecca Elrod, own a lot identified as Lot 6, Replat of Lot 1, Homestead Subdivision, to be known as 675 Summerset Court. Our lot and Subdivision is immediately to the South of this Preliminary Subdivision Plat. We received a notification dated August 10, 2007 that the Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Subdivision Plat is to be considered by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 18,2007. We were further advised that if we had any question on the proposed request or wanted to comment on the same that we should contact you. We have recently had dealings with the Town o f Estes Park Community Development Department focused on drainage issues. We understand how closely your Department follows rules and guidelines as provided for in the Estes Valley Development Code. No doubt in the Staff Report due out 09/04/07 you may address some o f the concerns and questions we have. We noted that the Board of Trustees meeting ofJune 28,2005 reference to the Final Subdivisions Deer Ridge Subdivision was removed from the Consent Agenda. Further in the minutes the following reference was made "Paving will assist with historic drainageproblems and there were no objections to proposal during the Planning Commission meeting." (Emphasis added) This certainly puts us on note that the Board o f Trustees recognized the drainage problems over two years ago. What has been done since then to elevate that concern? What kind o f paving was being referenced? In reviewing the Estes Valley Development Code, Appendix B, Submittal Requirements, II, A- D we find the issues the Department must have considered. At (A) the statement of intent is to provide how the proposed subdivision meets the applicable standards for review as set forth in Chapter 10 and Chapter 7 of the Code. Has this already been done? Have 10/27/2007 4 Page 2 of 3 (A) and (B) been previously addressed? We are just tying to determine what stage of approval we are at currently. If (A) & (B) have been addressed then Section C (5) requires the contents to include a Vicinity Map showing relationship o f the subdivision to the surrounding area, at a maximum scale of one inch equals on thousand two hundred feet (1"=1,200'). The site plan submitted here does not provide the scale as required by the Code. If the scale was increased to that mandated by the Code our entire Subdivision would be shown, including our lot. It would be helpful for the Department to have a map with the proper scale to understand the drainage issues facing close lot owners. Appendix B (II) (C) (5) (f) indicates a map of existing conditions should be provided. It should show among other things existing significant trees vegetation and natural features such as rock outcroppings. Existing topography. When we had our hearing we were required to update our topography map. The site map submitted here carried the legend that it was from an enlarged aerial mapping o f 1979. This hardly seems compliant with Code requirements or those required o f us in dealing with the Department. Appendix B (II) (C) (5) Â® the map must show location of stormwater facilities/drinage way to be reserved for public use. We are not certin that is shown on the map submitted with this request. Appendix B (C) (5) (o) requires a drinage plan. Considering the historic drainage problems previously noted by the Town Trustees on June 28,2005, a drainage plan would seem critical. There seems to be the need for a preliminary drainage systems design in accordance with the Larimer County Stormwater Management Manual. When we had our hearing we had to provide factual science showing what a 100 year (flood) event would do to drainage to our lot, and surround lots. Why has this not required by the Department, and the public, for consideration? The drainage from this Subdivison would seem to impact Lot 3 and Lot 7 of our Subdivision most significantly, but without more facts and science we cannot tell what other surrounding lot owners, or those in close proximity might be at risk. We shailleave it to the Town of Estes Park Cornmunity Development Department sees that all other requirements of the Code are given attention that we may have missed or failed to have appreciation o f In Mr. Kochevar's, July 25,2007, Statement o f Intent, mention is made to changes having been made to the plat to reflect the progress to-date. At numbered point 2, "A detention pond wall has been constructed at the east end o f the property. All that needs to be accomplished in this are is the outlet pipe and the overflow pan. We will complete these aspects when the min drive is brought to final grade." Our question is whether the detention pond is in compliance with Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. We are not familiar with dry detention ponds. We want to understand that it is in compliance with some regulatory authority relative to its integrity. We want to understand who has responsibility for maintenance and upkeep o f the detention pond. We want to understand 10/27/2007 4 Page 3 of 3 what issues around vegetation in the detention pond require responsibility of the lot owners or the new subdivision. We want to understand what a 100 year flood event would cause to the detention pond. What enforcement authority do surrounding property owners have available to them relative to detention ponds? Continuing in Mr. Kochevar's above referenced Statement o f Intent at numbered point 3, "A concrete curb was planned on the north side o f the main drive. We have decided that a properly constructed roadside swale will better control the drinage in this area." When we had our hearing more fact and science was required about our swale than our opinion. Not only did we have to show the impact of a 100 year flood even on the swale, but we had to give evidence of swale design and construction. That does not seem to be addressed here. We assume the Department will need to have the same information required of us at our hearing to fully understand the drainage of the proposed swale on this subdivision and surrounding property owners. We thank you in advance for the consistent application of Code requirements by the Department for all applicants. We also thank you for your service to the Town and property owners of Estes Park, Colorado. Mark & Rebecca Elrod 10/27/2007 . .6 4 Page 1 of 3 Mark and Becky From: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> CC: "Scott Zurn" <szurn@estes.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:37 AM Subject: RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat 1 have forwarded this message to our Public Works Director, Mr. Scott Zurn. A drainage report has been submitted, and is under review. I will try to answer a few of your questions: 1) The vicinity map has a maximum scale of 1:1200. 2) A surveyor has provided the contours. He is a registered land surveyor in the state of Colorado. Under Colorado law, he is qualified to provide these maps. 3) The submitted plans show the location of the pond. 4) A 23-page Storm Water Management Plan, dated July 25,2007 with an engineer's stamp, has been provided and is under review. A copy of this can be provided to you for a small processing fee. This plan I covers many of your concerns. 5) The licensed engineer designing this stormwater plan has stated the plan complies with Larimer County stormwater standards. 6) The Deer Ridge Subdivision homeowners are responsible for maintenance. 7) A 100-year flood would cause the pond to fill. 8) I do not understand what you mean when you ask about enforcement authority. 9) If they opt for a swale instead of a curb, swale design will be required and reviewed by the town engineer. Mr. Kochevar's opinion is backed by an engineer's stamp issued by the State of Colorado. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 2:46 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Bob Joseph Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Mr. Dave Shirk Planner II Town of Estes Park Community Development Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane We, Mark & Rebecca Elrod, own alot identified as Lot 6, Replat of Lot 1, Homestead Subdivision, to be known as 675 Summerset Court. Our lot and Subdivision is immediately to the South of this Preliminary Subdivision Plat. We received a notification dated August 10, 2007 that the Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Subdivision Plat is to be considered by 10/27/2007 1 Page 2 of 3 the Estes Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 18,2007. We were further advised that if we had any question on the proposed request or wanted to comment on the same that we should contact you. We have recently had dealings with the Town o f Estes Park Community Development Department focused on drainage issues. We understand how closely your Department follows rules and guidelines as provided for in the Estes Valley Development Code. No doubt in the Staff Report due out 09/04/07 you may address some o f the concerns and questions we have. We noted that the Board ofTrustees meeting ofJune 28,2005 reference to the Final Subdivisions Deer Ridge Subdivision was removed from the Consent Agenda. Further in the minutes the following reference was made 'Paving will assist with historic dminageproblems and there were no objections to proposal during the Planning Commission meeting." *mphasis added) This certainly puts us on note that the Board ofTrustees recognized the drinage problems over two years ago. What has been done since then to elevate that concern? What kind of paving was being re ferenced? In reviewing the Estes Valley Development Code, Appendix B, Submittal Requirements, II, A- D we find the issues the Department must have considered. At (A) the statement of intent is to provide how the proposed subdivision meets the applicable standards for review as set forth in Chapter 10 and Chapter 7 of the Code. Has this already been done? Have (A) and (B) been previously addressed? We are just tying to determine what stage of approval we are at currently. If (A) & (13) have been addressed then Section C (5) requires the contents to include a Vicinity Map showing relationship of the subdivision to the surrounding area, at a maximum scale o f one inch equals on thousand two hundred feet (1"=1,2003Â· The site plan submitted here does not provide the scale as required by the Code. If the scale was increased to that mandated by the Code our entire Subdivision would be shown, including our lot. It would be helpful for the Department to have a map with the proper scale to understand the drainage issues facing close lot owners. Appendix B ([I) (C) (5) (0 indicates a map o f existing conditions should be provided. It should show among other things existing significant trees vegetation and natural features such as rock outcroppings. Existing topography. When we had our hearing we were required to update our topography map. The site map submitted here carried the legend that it was from an enlarged aerial mapping o f 1979. This hardly seems compliant with Code requirements or those required of us in dealing with the Department. Appendix B (II) (C) (5) (g) the map must show location of stormwater facilities/drainage way to be reserved for public use. We are not certain that is shown on the map submitted with this request. Appendix B (C) (5) (o) requires a drinage plan. Considering the historic drainage problems 10/27/2007 4 Page 3 of 3 previously noted by the Town Trustees on june 28,2005, a drinage plan would seem critical. There seems to be the need for a preliminary drainage systems design in accordance with the Larimer County Stormwater Management Manual. When we had our hearing we had to provide factual science showing what a 100 year (flood) event would do to drainage to our lot, and surround lots. Why has this not required by the Department, and the public, for consideration? The drainage from this Subdivison would seem to impact Lot 3 and Lot 7 of our Subdivision most significantly, but without more facts and science we cannot tell what other surrounding lot owners, or those in close proximity might be at risk. We shaltleave it to the Town o f Estes Park Community Development Department sees that all other requirements of the Code are given attention that we may have missed or failed to have appreciation o f In Mr. Kochevar's, July 25,2007, Statement of Intent, mention is made to changes having been made to the plat to reflect the progress to-date. At numbered point 2, "A detention pond wall has been constructed at the east end o f the property. All that needs to be accomplished in this are is the outlet pipe and the overflow pan. We will complete these aspects when the main drive is brought to final grade." Our question is whether the detention pond is in compliance with Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. We are not familiar with dry detention ponds. We want to understand that it is in compliance with some regulatory authority relative to its integrity. We want to understand who has responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the detention pond. We want to understand what issues around vegetation in the detention pond require responsibility of the lot owners or the new subdivision. We want to understand what a 100 year flood event would cause to the detention pond. What enforcement authority do surrounding property owners have available to them relative to detention ponds? Continuing in Mr. Kochevar's above referenced Statement of Intent at numbered point 3, "A concrete curb was planned on the north side o f the main drive. We have decided that a properly constructed roadside swale will better control the drainage in this area." When we had our hearing more fact and science was required about our swale than our opinion. Not only did we have to show the impact of a 100 year flood even on the swale, but we had to give evidence of swale design and construction. That does not seem to be addressed here. We assume the Department will need to have the same information required of us at our hearing to fully understand the drainage of the proposed swale on this subdivision and surroun ding property owners. We thank you in advance for the consistent application of Code requirements by the Department for all applicants. We also thank you for your service to the Town and property owners of Estes Park, Colorado. Mark & Rebecca Elrod 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 2 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: <dshirk@estes.org> CC: <szurn@estes.org>; <bjoseph@estes.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 22,2007 6:23 PM Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Mr. Dave Shirk Planner II Town of Estes Park Community Development Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane Thank you for you e-mail communication of August 21,2007. And thank you for forwarding the same to a more appropriate agency (Public Works) for their attention as well. From the content of your reply we are not certain we are articulating our concerns adequately. Lets us try again. We received a notice of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat being considered by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 18,2007. We are directed to www.estesnet.com/ComDev/CurmntRequests.aspx. At this site one scrolls down the name of project column to Deer Ridge Subdivision. One then scrolls across to the Statement of Intent & Application column where one can electronically access the July 25,2007 letter to you from Mr. Paul M. Kochevar along with the first page of the Estes Valley Development Review Application file stamped Jul 25 2007. One can then scroll across to the Site Plan column and access the Preliminary Plat for Deer Ridge Subdivision file stamped Aug 6 2007. As far as we can tell these are the only items electronically available to the public upon which to make comments. 1. We have found the Board of Trustees' minutes of their meeting of June 28,2005. You were in attendance. Reference is made as noted... "Paving will assist with historic drainage problems." (Our emphasis supplied) Please help us understand what those historic drainage problems were / are. Has the current subdivision application addressed them? We can't tell from the current filing that the historic drainage problems recognized over two years ago have been addressed. 2. Estes Valley Development Code at Appendix B references submittal requirements. We have asked at what stage we are in the process. The appendix has ten roman numerals. We assume you are not yet to II (D) for final subdivision plats. 3. Appendix B at II (A) (4) speaks to the statement of intent and "how the proposed subdivision meets the applicable standards for review as set fonh in Chapter 10 and Chapter 7 ofthis Code." Have you deemed the application sufficient in meeting the standards referenced? 4. Appendix B at II (B) (3) and (C) (5) reference having a sketch plan that delineates major natural and physical features on the site such as existing significant trees, vegetation and rock outcroppings. We had asked if the map submitted which references being from aerial mapping in 1979 meets this requirement. When we were before your Department we had to ' bring our map current especially showing current significant trees and vegetation. The Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Submittal Requirements for Pre- Application Review of Subdivision Applications instructions mention relative to sketch plan 10/27/2007 1 Page 2 of 2 at number 3. Contents that the plan shall depict existing significant trees and vegetation. Is the sketch Code compliant? 5. You mentioned that a 23 page Storm Water Management Plan, dated July 25,2007, with an engineer' s stamp, has been provided and is under review. Thank you for answering our question related to the requirement of Appendix B at II (C) (5) (o). The public would have no way of knowing this based upon what is available electronically. 6. Our concern is over the upland drainage through the subdivision. Your Department was most concerned in our hearing about the drainage of the upland acres through our lot and the impact it had on other lot owners. Has this issued been addressed for this subdivision? 7. Our concern is over the 100 year flood event and the impact on drainage through this subdivision. Your Department was most concerned in our hearing about the 100 year flood event impact. Has the 100 year flood event be addressed for this subdivision? 8. The concern expressed over the detention pond and what remained to be done to it with the outlet pipe and overflow plan was more directed to the 100 year flood event. We thank you for your observation ... "A 100-year flood would cause the pond to fill." If that is all that would happen then your answer, as brief as it may be, is what we wanted to know. If however in the 100 year flood event there would be more than just filling, but over flowing, or breaching the pond barriers then we would want to know more. Please verify the accuracy of your reply. 9. You replied to one of our concerns by stating "# they opt./br a swale instead of a curb, swale design will be required and reviewed by the town engineer. Mr. Kochevar' s opinion is backed by an engineer's stamp issued by the State of Colorado." (Emphasis added) In Mr. Kochevar's letter he makes the statement... "We have decided that properly constructed roadside swale will better control the drainage in this area." So it does appear they are going to use a swale. In our hearing involving your Department you wanted more information about our swale and its construction and the 100 year flood event impact. Are you indicating you have enough information at your disposal to make that determination for this subdivision? Our concern is that all applicants be treated equally during the approval process by your Department. Our concern is that "historic drainage issues" be addressed. Our concern is that such drainage issues be put to the same 100 year flood event control test that we were required to supply. Our concern is that plan maps be current and accurate in identifying items the Code mandates. Our concern is that our Subdivision and its individual lots are not adversely impacted by these drainage issues. It is not our job to do the job of the Development Department but we think it our responsibility to see that from a public perspective that it is has been done fairly,consistently and wtih due consideration for the comments by near by land owners. Thank you four your courtesies, Mark and Rebecca Elrod 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 3 Mark and Becky From: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 04,2007 9:25 PM Subject: RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision Mr. Elrod- The hour is late, so this will be quick. My recommendation remains that these issues are best discussed with the town engineer, Mr. Scott Zurn. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22,2007 6:24 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Scott Zum; Bob Joseph Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Mr. Dave Shirk Planner II Town of Estes Park Community Development Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane Thank you for you e-mail communication of August 21,2007. And thank you for forwarding the same to a more appropriate agency (Public Works) for their attention as well. From the content of your reply we are not certain we are articulating our concerns adequately. Lets us try again. We received a notice of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat being considered by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 18,2007. We are directed to www.estesnet.com/ComDev/CurrentRequests@SPR. At this site one scrolls down the name of project column to Deer Ridge Subdivision. One then scrolls across to the Statement of Intent & Application column where one can electronically access the July 25,2007 letter to you from Mr. Paul M. Kochevar along with the first page of the Estes Valley Development Review Application file stamped Jul 25 2007. One can then scroll across to the Site Plan column and access the Preliminary Plat for Deer Ridge Subdivision file stamped Aug 6 2007. As far as we can tell these are the only items electronically available to the public upon which to make comments. 1. We have found the Board of Trustees' minutes of their meeting of June 28,2005. You were in attendance. Reference is made as noted... "Paving will assist with historic drainage problems." (Our emphasis supplied) Please help us understand what those historic drainage problems were / are. Has the current subdivision application addressed them? We can't tell from the current filing that the historic drainage problems recognized over two years ago have been addressed. The drainage problems mentioned are tied to erosion from the existing road, which tends to fill a culvert at the intersection of homestead/sommerset. Paving will eliminate that erosion problem. 2. Estes Valley Development Code at Appendix B references submittal requirements. We 10/27/2007 4 Page 2 of 3 have asked at what stage we are in the process. The appendix has ten roman numerals. We assume you are not yet to II (D) for final subdivision plats. This is correct. Final platting will occur assuming approval of the preliminary plat. The applicant would have 12 months to file the final plat. The final plat is where the final engineering takes place; the preliminary plat is a review to ensure compliance with zoning requirements and to ensure the engineering is feasible. Applicants are not required to finalize engineering until they know if they have approval. Final plats are not reviewed by the planning commission, as they are identical (or nearly so, small changes may be made to account for engineering) to the preliminary plat. Final plats are reviewed by the town board, and neighbor notification will go out again. FYI- I know you are a new property owner in the neighborhood: this has been through review twice before, and the plat was never recorded and expired. I don't know why it wasn't recorded. An important aspect of previous approvals was the "downzoning" of the property from multi-family to single-family. Finally, there were three cabins on this property, and the plat will limit the same site to three dwellings (though in different locations, and they will undoubtedly be larger than the old tourist cabins). 3. Appendix B at II (A) (4) speaks to the statement of intent and "how the proposed subdivision meets the applicable standards for review as set forth in Chapter 10 and Chapter 7 of this Code." Have you deemed the application sufficient in meeting the standards referenced? Yes. This requirement is to provide a general description in the statement of intent as a means of "orienting" plan reviewers. 4, Appendix B at II (B) (3) and (C) (5) reference having a sketch plan that delineates major natural and physical features on the site such as existing significant trees, vegetation and rock outcroppings. We had asked if the map submitted which references being from aerial mapping in 1979 meets this requirement. When we were before your Department we had to bring our map current especially showing current significant trees and vegetation. The Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Submittal Requirements for Pre- Application Review of Subdivision Applications instructions mention relative to sketch plan at number 3. Contents that the plan shall depict existing significant trees and vegetation. Is the sketch Code compliant? Yes, it was prepared by a licensed surveyor 5. You mentioned that a 23 page Storm Water Management Plan, dated July 25,2007, with an engineer's stamp, has been provided and is under review. Thank you for answering our question related to the requirement of Appendix B at II (C) (5) (o). The public would have no way of knowing this based upon what is available electronically. We provide this on request (so far, you are the only member of the public to request a stormwater plan for any developrnent) 6. Our concern is over the upland drainage through the subdivision. Your Department was most concerned in our hearing about the drainage of the upland acres through our lot and the impact it had on other lot owners. Has this issued been addressed for this subdivision? This proposal is in a different drainage sub-basin than your lot (water from this subdivision will not meet water from your lot until Fall River). 7. Our concern is over the 100 year flood event and the impact on drainage through this 10/27/2007 r 4 Page 3 of 3 subdivision. Your Department was most concerned in our hearing about the 100 year tlood event impact. Has the 100 year flood event be addressed for this subdivision? Yes. The stormwater pond has been sized for the 100-year event. The town engineer still has concerns about stormwater quality, however. 8. The concern expressed over the detention pond and what remained to be done to it with the outlet pipe and overflow plan was more directed to the 100 year flood event. We thank you for your observation ... "A 100-year flood would cause the pond to fill." If that is all that would happen then your answer, as brief as it may be, is what we wanted to know. If however in the 100 year flood event there would be more than just filling, but over flowing, or breaching the pond barriers then we would want to know more. Please verify the accuracy of your reply. The pond is designed to contain a 100-year event, and release it at a historic rate through a weir system. After exiting the pond, the water will flow into the existing culvert below sommerseUhomestead and down the swale that flows to fall river. 9. You replied to one of our concerns by stating "If thev opt.tbr a swale instead of a curb, swate design will be required and reviewed by the town engineer. Mr. Kochevar' s opinion is backed by an engineer's stamp issued by the State of Colorado." (Emphasis added) In Mr. Kochevar's letter he makes the statement... "We have decided that properly constructed roadside swale will better control the drainage in this area." So it does appear they are going to use a swale. In our hearing involving your Department you wanted more information about our swale and its construction and the 100 year flood event impact. Are you indicating you have enough information at your disposal to make that determination for this subdivision? This is a question for the town engineer, who also has a stamp. Fortunately, 1 am not an engineer. But I do understand many of their concepts. This is my reading: a swale system is engineered to be wide and flat, with lots of grass in it. These are considered a 'best management practice" or BMP in the Denver Urban Stormwater Manual (which we reference). The idea is that they slow the water down compared to a curb/gutter system which are intended to get the water out as fast as possible. The swale slows it down and results in less turbidity in the water, which equals better water quality. Our concern is that all applicants be treated equally during the approval process by your Department. Our concern is that "historic drainage issues" be addressed. Our concern is that such drainage issues be put to the same 100 year flood event control test that we were required to supply. Our concern is that plan maps be current and accurate in identifying items the Code mandates. Our concern is that our Subdivision and its individual lots are not adversely impacted by these drainage issues. It is not our job to do the job of the Development Department but we think it our responsibility to see that from a public perspective that it is has been done fairly,consistently and wtih due consideration for the comments by near by land owners. Thank you four your courtesies, Mark and Rebecca Elrod 10/27/2007 4 Page i of 4 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: "Dave Shirld <dshirk@estes.org> CC: <szurn@estes.org>; <bjoseph@estes.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:12 AM Subject: Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Thank you Mr. Shirk. Will town engineer, Mr. Zurn, have an attachment along with your staff report which I see is now due out September 7 addressing these issues? Will the Estes Valley Planning Commission Members know of our concern through your report, or will we need to contact them individually? It certainly looks like the calendar for the September 18, 2007 meeting is full. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Mark &Becky Elrod ---- Original Message --- From: Daxe_Shirk To: Mark_Elrod Sent: Tuesday, September 04,2007 9:25 PM Subject: RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision Mr. Elrod- The hour is late, so this will be quick. My recommendation remains that these issues are best discussed with the town engineer, Mr. Scott Zurn. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22,2007 6:24 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Scott Zurn; Bob Joseph Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Mr. Dave Shirk Planner II Town of Estes Park Community Development Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Amended Plat ofLots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane Thank you for you e-mail communication of August 21, 2007. And thank you for forwarding the 10/27/2007 4 Page 2 of 4 same to a more appropriate agency (Public Works) for their attention as well. From the content of your reply we are not certain we are articulating our concerns adequately. Lets us try again. We received a notice of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat being considered by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 18,2007. We are directed to www.estesnet.com/ComDev/CurrentRequests.aspx. At this site one scrolls down the name of project column to Deer Ridge Subdivision. One then scrolls across to the Statement of Intent & Application column where one can electronically access the July 25,2007 letter to you from Mr. Paul M. Kochevar along with the first page of the Estes Valley Development Review Application file stamped Jul 25 2007. One can then scroll across to the Site Plan column and access the Preliminary Plat for Deer Ridge Subdivision file stamped Aug 6 2007. As far as we can tell these are the only items electronically available to the public upon which to make comments. 1. We have found the Board of Trustees' minutes of their meeting of June 28,2005. You were in attendance. Reference is made as noted... "Paving will assist with historic drainage problems" (Our emphasis supplied) Please help us understand what those historic drainage problems were / are. Has the current subdivision application addressed them? We can't tell from the current filing that the historic drainage problems recognized over two years ago have been addressed. The drainage problems mentioned are tied to erosion from the existing road, which tends to fill a culvert at the intersection of homestead/sommerset. Paving will eliminate that erosion problem. 2. Estes Valley Development Code at Appendix B references submittal requirements. We have asked at what stage we are in the process. The appendix has ten roman numerals. We assume you are not yet to II (D) for final subdivision plats. This is correct. Final platting will occur assuming approval of the preliminary plat. The applicant would have 12 months to file the final plat. The final plat is where the final engineering takes place; the preliminary plat is a review to ensure compliance with zoning requirements and to ensure the engineering is feasible. Applicants are not required to finalize engineering until they know if they have approval. Final plats are not reviewed by the planning commission, as they are identical (or nearly so, small changes may be made to account for engineering) to the preliminary plat. Final plats are reviewed by the town board, and neighbor notification will go out again. FYI- I know you are a new property owner in the neighborhood: this has been through review twice before, and the plat was never recorded and expired. I don't know why it wasn't recorded. An important aspect of previous approvals was the "downzoning" of the property from multi-family to single-family. Finally, there were three cabins on this property, and the plat will limit the same site to three dwellings (though in different locations, and they will undoubtedly be larger than the old tourist cabins). 3. Appendix B at II (A) (4) speaks to the statement of intent and "how the proposed subdivision meets the applicable standards for review as set forth in Chapter 10 and Chapter 7 of this Code." Have you deemed the application sufficient in meeting the standards referenced? Yes. This requirement is to provide a general description in the statement of intent as a means of "orienting" plan reviewers. 4. Appendix B at U (B) (3) and (C) (5) reference having a sketch plan that delineates major natural and physical features on the site such as existing significant trees, vegetation and rock outcroppings. We had asked if the map submitted which references being from aerial mapping in 1979 meets this requirement. When we were before your Department we had to bring our map current especially showing current significant trees and vegetation. The Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Submittal Requirements for Pre- 10/27/2007 4 Page 3 of 4 Application Review of Subdivision Applications instructions mention relative to sketch plan at number 3. Contents that the plan shall depict existing significant trees and vegetation. Is the sketch Code compliant? Yes, it was prepared by a licensed surveyor 5. You mentioned that a 23 page Storm Water Management Plan, dated July 25,2007, with an engineer' s stamp, has been provided and is under review. Thank you for answering our question related to the requirement of Appendix B at II (C) (5) (o). The public would have no way of knowing this based upon what is available electronically. We provide this on request (so far, you are the only member of the public to request a stormwater plan for any development) 6. Our concern is over the upland drainage through the subdivision. Your Department was most concerned in our hearing about the drainage of the upland acres through our lot and the impact it had on other lot owners. Has this issued been addressed for this subdivision? This proposal is in a different drainage sub-basin than your lot (water from this subdivision will not meet water from your lot until Fall River). 7. Our concern is over the 100 year flood event and the impact on drainage through this subdivision. Your Department was most concerned in our hearing about the 100 year flood event impact. Has the 100 year flood event be addressed for this subdivision? Yes. The stormwater pond has been sized for the 100-year event. The town engineer still has concerns about stormwater quality, however. 8. The concern expressed over the detention pond and what remained to be done to it with the outlet pipe and overflow plan was more directed to the 100 year flood event. We thank you for your observation..."A 100-year flood would cause the pond to fill." If that is all that would happen then your answer, as brief as it may be, is what we wanted to know. If however in the 100 year flood event there would be more than just filling, but over ftowing, or breaching the pond barriers then we would want to know more. Please verify the accuracy of your reply. The pond is designed to contain a 100-year event, and release it at a historic rate through a weir system. After exiting the pond, the water will flow into the existing culvert below sommerseuhomestead and down the swale that flows to fall river. 9. You replied to one of our concerns by stating "If they opt-for a swale instead of a curb, swale design will be required and reviewed by the town engineer. Mr. Kochevar's opinion is backed by an engineer's stamp issued by the State of Colorado." (Emphasis added) In Mr. Kochevar's letter he makes the statement... "We have decided that properly constructed roadside swale will better control the drainage in this area." So it does appear they are going to use a swale. In our hearing involving your Department you wanted more information about our swale and its construction and the 100 year flood event impact. Are you indicating you have enough information at your disposal to make that determination for this subdivision? 10/27/2007 4 Page 4 of 4 This is a question for the town engineer. who also has a stamp. Fortunately, I am not an engineer. But I do understand many of their concepts. This is my reading: a swale system is engineered to be wide and flat, with lots of grass in it. These are considered a "best management practice" or BMP in the Denver Urban Stormwater Manual (which we reference). The idea is that they slow the water down compared to a curb/gutter system which are intended to get the water out as fast as possible. The swale slows it down and results in less turbidity in the water, which equals better water quality. Our concern is that all applicants be treated equally during the approval process by your Department. Our concern is that "historic drainage issues" be addressed. Our concern is that such drainage issues be put to the same 100 year flood event control test that we were required to supply. Our concern is that plan maps be current and accurate in identifying items the Code mandates. Our concern is that our Subdivision and its individual lots are not adversely impacted by these drainage issues. It is not our job to do the job of the Development Department but we think it our responsibility to see that from a public perspective that it is has been done fairly,consistently and wtih due consideration for the comments by near by land owners. Thank you four your courtesies, Mark and Rebecca Elrod 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 4 Mark and Becky From: "Dave Shirld <dshirk@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 05,2007 9:37 AM Subject: RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision We do not typically include referral agency comments on the webpage. though they are presented to the PC. ' wjil email the staff report and agency comments to you a day or two. Your concerns. along with other neighbors. will be relayed to the PC in the staff report. If you would like 'formal" comments to be presented to the PC. just send them in and we wiil include them in the PC packets. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:12 AM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Scott Zum; Bob Joseph Subject: Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Thank you Mr. Shirk Will town engineer, Mr. Zurn, have an attachment along with your staff report which I see is now due out September 7 addressing these issues? Will the Estes Valley Planning Commission Members know of our concern through your report, or will we need to contact them individually? It certainly looks like the calendar for the September 18, 2007 meeting is full. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Mark &Becky Elrod ---- Original Message - From: Dave Shirl< To: Mark Elrod Sent: Tuesday, September 04,2007 9:25 PM Subject: RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision Mr. Elrod- The hour is late, so this will be quick. My recommendation remains that these issues are best discussed with the town engineer, Mr. Scott Zurn. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22,2007 6:24 PM To: Dave Shirl Cc: Scott Zurn; Bob Joseph Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision 10/27/2007 1 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Dave Shirk Planner II Town of Estes Park Community Development Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane Thank you for you e-mail communication of August 21,2007. And thank you for forwarding the same to a more appropriate agency (Public Works) for their attention as well. From the content of your reply we are not certain we are articulating our concerns adequately. Lets us try again. We received a notice of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat being considered by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 18,2007. We are directed to w_wy.estesnetcomg-grn-DeviCumentRequests.aspx. At this site one scrolls down the name of project column to Deer Ridge Subdivision. One then scrolls across to the Statement of Intent & Application column where one can electronically access the July 25,2007 letter to you from Mr. Paul M. Kochevar along with the first page of the Estes Valley Development Review Application file stamped Jul 25 2007. One can then scroll across to the Site Plan column and access the Preliminary Plat for Deer Ridge Subdivision file stamped Aug 6 2007. As far as we can tell these are the only items electronically available to the public upon which to make comments. 1. We have found the Board of Trustees' minutes of their meeting of June 28,2005. You were in attendance. Reference is made as noted... "Paving will assist with historic ,#ainage problems." (Our emphasis supplied) Please help us understand what those historic drainage problems were / are. Has the current subdivision application addressed them? We can't tell from the current filing that the historic drainage problems recognized over two years ago have been addressed. The drainage problems mentioned are tied to erosion from the existing road, which tends to fill a culvert at the intersection of homestead/sommerset. Paving will eliminate that erosion problem. 2. Estes Valley Development Code at Appendix B references submittal requirements. We have asked at what stage we are in the process. The appendix has ten roman numerals. We assume you are not yet to II (D) for final subdivision plats. This is correct. Final platting will occur assuming approval of the preliminary plat. The applicant would have 12 months to file the final plat. The final plat is where the final engineering takes place; the preliminary plat is a review to ensure compliance with zoning requirements and to ensure the engineering is feasible. Applicants are not required to finalize engineering until they know if they have approval. Final plats are not reviewed by the planning commission, as they are identical (or nearly so, small changes may be made to account for engineering) to the preliminary plat. Final plats are reviewed by the town board, and neighbor notification will go out again. FYI- I know you are a new property owner in the neighborhood: this has been through review twice before, and the plat was never recorded and expired. I don't know why it wasn't recorded. An important aspect of previous approvals was the "downzoning" of the property from multi-family to single-family. Finally, there were three cabins on this property, and the plat will limit the same site to three dwellings (though in different locations, and they will undoubtedly be larger than the old tourist cabins). 3. Appendix B at II (A) (4) speaks to the statement of intent and "how the proposed subdivision meets the applicable standards for review as set forth in Chapter 10 and Chapter 7 of this Code." Have you deemed the application sufficient in meeting the standards referenced? 10/27/2007 4 Page 3 of 4 Yes. This requirement is to provide a general description in the statement of intent as a means of 'orienting" plan reviewers. 4. Appendix B at II (B) (3) and (C) (5) reference having a sketch plan that delineates major natural and physical features on the site such as existing significant trees, vegetation and rock outcroppings. We had asked if the map submitted which references being from aerial mapping in 1979 meets this requirement. When we were before your Department we had to bring our map current especially showing current significant trees and vegetation. The Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Submittal Requirements for Pre- Application Review of Subdivision Applications instructions mention relative to sketch plan at number 3. Contents that the plan shall depict existing significant trees and vegetation. Is the sketch Code compliant? Yes, it was prepared by a licensed surveyor 5. You mentioned that a 23 page Storm Water Management Plan, dated July 25,2007, with an engineer's stamp, has been provided and is under review. Thank you for answering our question related to the requirement of Appendix B at II (C) (5) (o). The public would have no way of knowing this based upon what is available electronically. We provide this on request (so far, you are the only member of the public to request a stormwater plan for any development) 6. Our concern is over the upland drainage through the subdivision. Your Department was most concerned in our hearing about the drainage of the upland acres through our lot and the impact it had on other lot owners. Has this issued been addressed for this subdivision? This proposal is in a different drainage sub-basin than your lot (water from this subdivision will not meet water from your lot until Fall River) 7. Our concern is over the 100 year flood event and the impact on drainage through this subdivision. Your Department was most concerned in our hearing about the 100 year flood event impact. Has the 100 year flood event be addressed for this subdivision? Yes. The stormwater pond has been sized for the 100-year event. The town engineer still has concerns about stormwater quality, however. 8. The concern expressed over the detention pond and what remained to be done to it with the outlet pipe and overflow plan was more directed to the 100 year flood event. We thank you for your observation ... "A 100-year flood would cause the pond to fill." Ifthat is all that would happen then your answer, as brief as it may be, is what we wanted to know. If however in the 100 year flood event there would be more than just filling, but over flowing, or breaching the pond barriers then we would want to know more. Please verify the accuracy of your reply. The pond is designed to contain a 100-year event, and release it at a historic rate through a weir system. After exiting the pond, the water will flow into the existing culvert below sommerseUhomestead and down the swale that flows to fall river. 10/27/2007 4 Page 4 of 4 9. You replied to one of our concerns by stating "Ifthey opt for a swale instead of a curb, swale design will be required and reviewed by the town engineer. Mr. Kochevar's opinion is backed by an engineer's stamp issued by the State of Colorado." (Emphasis added) In Mr. Kochevats letter he makes the statement... "We have decided that properly constructed roadside swale will better control the drainage in this area." So it does appear they are going to use a swale. In our hearing involving your Department you wanted more information about our swale and its construction and the 100 year flood event impact. Are you indicating you have enough information at your disposal to make that determination for this subdivision? This is a question for the town engineer, who also has a stamp. Fortunately, I am not an engineer. But I do understand many of their concepts. This is my reading: a swale system is engineered to be wide and flat, with lots of grass in it. These are considered a "best management practice" or BMP in the Denver Urban Stormwater Manual (which we reference). The idea is that they slow the water down compared to a curb/gutter system which are intended to get the water out as fast as possible. The swale slows it down and results in less turbidity in the water, which equals better water quality. Our concern is that all applicants be treated equally during the approval process by your Department. Our concern is that "historic drainage issues" be addressed. Our concern is that such drainage issues be put to the same 100 year flood event control test that we were required to supply. Our concern is that plan maps be current and accurate in identifying items the Code mandates. Our concern is that our Subdivision and its individual lots are not adversely impacted by these drainage issues. It is not our job to do the job of the Development Department but we think it our responsibility to see that from a public perspective that it is has been done fairly,consistently and wtih due consideration for the comments by near by land owners. Thank you four your courtesies, Mark and Rebecca Elrod 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 5 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 05,2007 6:03 PM Subject: Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Thank you Mr. Shirk. I'll await the report from Mr. Zurn's area- I thought that agency comments were always attached to Staff Report. At least they were on the Staff Report filed of our Board of Adjustment hearing. Am I mistaken in how referral agency comments are accounted for? Upon see what comments Mr. Zurn's area presents we shall see if we need to make additional formal comments for the Planning Commission. Our maior concerns at this point are 1) the drainage of upland acres through the new subdivision; 2) the detention pond; 3) the road swale; 4) the construction of the road swale; 5) and the impact of a 100 year flood event on all of this. How that impacts our Subdivision, the individual lots of our Subdivision and the Homestead and Summerset Court roads. We appreciate you taking time out of your busy day to accommodate us. Mark & Becky Elrod ---- Original Message - From: Dave Shirk To: Mark__Elrod Sent: Wednesday, September 05,2007 9:37 AM Subject: RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision VVe do not typically inc!ude referral agency comments on the webpage. though they are presented to the PC. 1 will email the staff report and agency comments to you a day or two. Your concerns. along with other neighbors, will be relayed to the PC ill the staff report. If you would like formal" comments to be presented to the PC, just send them in and we will include them in the PC packets. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:12 AM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Scott Zum; Bob Joseph Subjed: Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Thank you Mr. Shirk. Will town engineer, Mr. Zurn, have an attachment along with your staff report which I see is now due out September 7 addressing these issues? Will the Estes Valley Planning Commission Members know of our concern through your report, or will we need to contact them individually? 10/27/2007 4 Page 2 of 5 It certainly looks like the calendar for the September 18,2007 meeting is full. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Mark &Becky Elrod ---- Original Message - From: Elave_Sbirk To: Mark Elrod Sent: Tuesday, September 04,2007 9:25 PM Subject: RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision Mr. Elrod- The hour is late, so this will be quick. My recommendation remains that these issues are best discussed with the town engineer, Mr. Scott Zurn. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22,2007 6:24 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Scott Zum; Bob Joseph Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Mr. Dave Shirk Planner II Town of Estes Park Community Development Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane Thank you for you e-mail communication of August 21,2007. And thank you for forwarding the same to a more appropriate agency (Public Works) for their attention as well. From the content of your reply we are not certain we are articulating our concerns adequately. Lets us try again. We received a notice of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat being considered by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 18,2007. We are directed to www.estesnet.com/ComDev/CurrentRequests.aspx. At this site one scrolls down the name of project column to Deer Ridge Subdivision. One then scrolls across to the Statement of Intent & Application column where one can electronically access the July 25,2007 letter to you from Mr. Paul M. Kochevar along with the first page of the Estes Valley Development Review Application file stamped Jul 25 2007. One can then scroll across to the Site Plan column and access the Preliminary Plat for Deer Ridge Subdivision file stamped Aug 6 2007. As far as we can tell these are the only items electronically available to the public upon which to make comments. 1. We have found the Board of Trustees' minutes Qf their meeting of June 28,2005. You were in attendance. Reference is made as noted... "Paving will assist with historic a>ainageproblems." (Our emphasis supplied) Please help us understand what those 10/27/2007 4 Page 3 of 5 historic drainage problems were / are. Has the current subdivision application addressed them? We can't tell from the current filing that the historic drainage problems recognized over two years ago have been addressed. The drainage problems mentioned are tied to erosion from the existing road, which tends to fill a culvert at the intersection of homestead/sommerset. Paving will eliminate that erosion problem. 2. Estes Valley Development Code at Appendix B references submittal requirements. We have asked at what stage we are in the process. The appendix has ten roman numerals. We assume you are not yet to II (D) for final subdivision plats. This is correct. Final platting will occur assuming approval of the preliminary plat. The applicant would have 12 months to file the final plat. The final plat is where the final engineering takes place; the preliminary plat is a review to ensure compliance with zoning requirements and to ensure the engineering is feasible. Applicants are not required to finalize engineering until they know if they have approval. Final plats are not reviewed by the planning commission, as they are identical (or nearly so, small changes may be made to account for engineering) to the preliminary plat. Final plats are reviewed by the town board, and neighbor notification will go out again. FYI- I know you are a new property owner in the neighborhood: this has been through review twice before, and the plat was never recorded and expired. I don't know why it wasn't recorded. An important aspect of previous approvals was the "downzoning" of the property from multi-family to single-family. Finally, there were three cabins on this property, and the plat will limit the same site to three dwellings (though in different locations, and they will undoubtedly be larger than the old tourist cabins). 3. Appendix B at II (A) (4) speaks to the statement of intent and "how the proposed subdivision meets the applicable standards for review as set forth in Chapter 10 and Chapter 7 of this Code." Have you deemed the application sufficient in meeting the standards referenced? Yes. This requirement is to provide a general description in the statement of intent as a means of "orienting" plan reviewers. 4. Appendix B at II (B) (3) and (C) (5) reference having a sketch plan that delineates major natural and physical features on the site such as existing significant trees, vegetation and rock outcroppings. We had asked if the map submitted which references being from aerial mapping in 1979 meets this requirement. When we were before your Department we had to bring our map current especially showing current significant trees and vegetation. The Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Submittal Requirements for Pre-Application Review of Subdivision Applications instructions mention relative to sketch plan at number 3. Contents that the plan shall depict existing significant trees and vegetation. Is the sketch Code compliant? Yes, it was prepared by a licensed surveyor 5. You mentioned that a 23 page Storm Water Management Plan, dated July 25,2007, with an engineer's stamp, has been provided and is under review. Thank you for answering our question related to the requirement of Appendix B at II (C) (5) (o). The public would have no way of knowing this based upon what is available electronically. We provide this on request (so far, you are the only member of the public to request a stormwater plan for any development) 6. Our concern is over the upland drainage through the subdivision. Your Department was 10/27/2007 Page 4 of 5 most concerned in our hearing about the drainage of the upland acres through our lot and the impact it had on other lot owners. Has this issued been addressed for this subdivision? This proposal is in a different drainage sub-basin than your lot (water from this subdivision will not meet water from your lot until Fall River). 7. Our concern is over the 100 year flood event and the impact on drainage through this subdivision. Your Department was most concerned in our hearing about the 100 year flood event impact. Has the 100 year flood event be addressed for this subdivision? Yes. The stormwater pond has been sized for the 100-year event. The town engineer still has concerns about stormwater quality, however. 8. The concern expressed over the detention pond and what remained to be done to it with the outlet pipe and overflow plan was more directed to the 100 year flood event. We thank you for your observation..."A 100-year flood would cause the pond to fill." If that is all that would happen then your answer, as brief as it may be, is what we wanted to know. If however in the 100 year flood event there would be more than just filling, but over flowing, or breaching the pond barriers then we would want to know more. Please verify the accuracy of your reply. The pond is designed to contain a 100-year event, and release it at a historic rate through a weir system. After exiting the pond, the water will flow into the existing culvert below sommerseUhomestead and down the swale that flows to fall river. 9. You replied to one of our concerns by stating"Ifthey opt/br aswale instead of a curb, swale design will be required and reviewed by the town engineer. Mr. Kochevar' s opinion is backed by an engineer' s stamp issued by the State of Colorado." (Emphasis added) In Mr. Kochevats letter he makes the statement... "We have decided that properly constructed roadside swale will better control the drainage in this area." So it does appear they are going to use a swale. In our hearing involving your Department you wanted more information about our swate and its construction and the 100 year flood event impact. Are you indicating you have enough information at your disposal to make that determination for this subdivision? This is a question for the town engineer, who also has a stamp. Fortunately, I am not an engineer. But I do understand many of their concepts. This is my reading: a swale system is engineered to be wide and flat, with lots of grass in it. These are considered a "best management practice" or BMP in the Denver Urban Stormwater Manual (which we reference). The idea is that they slow the water down compared to a curb/gutter system which are intended to get the water out as fast as possible. The swale slows it down and results in less turbidity in the water, which equals better water quality. Our concern is that all applicants be treated equally during the approval process by your Department. Our concern is that "historic drainage issues" be addressed. Our concern is that such drainage issues be put to the same 100 year flood event control test that we were required to supply. Our concern is that plan maps be current and accurate in identifying items the Code mandates. Our concern is that our Subdivision and its individual lots are not adversely impacted by these drainage issues. It is not our job to do the job of the Development Department but we think it our responsibility to see that from a public perspective that it is has been done fairly,consistently and wtih due consideration for 10/27/2007 4 Page 5 of 5 the comments by near by land owners. Thank you four your courtesies, Mark and Rebecca Elrod 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 5 Mark and Becky From: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> TO: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:36 PM Attach: Scan001.pdf; PC Report - Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat.doc Subject: RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision Attached is the draft report and associated review agency comments. Any changes to the report will be minimal. Most of the engineering details are required with the final plat, and the engineering department comments reflect this. --~_--~~~ 'Â¥XiÂ» *Jiff -41-6: .1941t~FrlKilklL,rllÂ£~-VlifvW- j-Al,"ivA71;li- Aft ir<. I er. 311~ti93~ //.4/1 1///I. ~ 22- i?: I.-,~. i\:4:, W?2,4.. .i-~,~* - . , Aâ‚¬16 ke'. 4 2 PL,427.. . 12 4%*ir:24- i*fflij ~-~Â·-4~:1: ~~#~d~.&.=- 4%- 91. D .4..4 . -14 ... 1 /k ---Â· .. Â¢ ';33<,Irt<474,1,tâ‚¬+ 5**r 7**L.*0 :i,f*~*~ ~~iwit ..4 , ...A <4 W 6. r. . 51:33Â£' , I. ': - u 1 4 *t- .2 W ./. . 1, S?064Â§~~t t. ... . 4. I '941.b! t I ...- k Â·.:6 .1 â‚¬-4 ..4 ..:.Al ids::tklibt'~~~~2 ...,*.4:5- M.,11*VI;WA t?*jf't. :43,1 ' ,)p,IJ b - 17 , 3Â¢1.4:ralt.'663*/461/004 :41 14* ...32.4 ... .77 . 1 .r. Ft ef,//IM,- Â·~ , * 0. #WHJ#(:RAAE#,miek#46--- .55*mw 1,"wi . T"RI'Qf'.7~- Atik;Cf A./dia'll /4. 269< 2 From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 9:41 AM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Bob Joseph; Scott Zum Subject: Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Good morning Mr. Shirk. We did not see the staff report which was due on September 7,2007 10/27/2007 ~Vb.-< Page 2 of 5 posted to the Applications Currently Under Review site. Perhaps it is a problem with our computer. May we please request that you supply us with an electronic copy of your report. You may direct it to our attention at hellomarkâ‚¬hughes.ncr. Thank you, Mark and Becky Elrod ---- Original Message ---- From: Dave Shirk To: M_arls_El[Pd Sent: Wednesday, September 05,2007 9:37 AM Subject: RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision \,Ve do not typically include referral agency comments on the webpage. though thev are presented to the PC. 1 will email the staff report and agency comments to you a day or two. Your concerns. along with other neighbors. will be relayed to the PC in the staff report. If you would like '~formal" comments to be presented to the PC. just send them in and we will include them in the PC packets. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:12 AM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Scott Zum; Bob Joseph Subject: Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Thank you Mr. Shirk. Will town engineer, Mr. Zurn, have an attachment along with your staff report which I see is now due out September 7 addressing these issues? Will the Estes Valley Planning Commission Members know of our concern through your report, or will we need to contact them individually? It certainly looks like the calendar for the September 18, 2007 meeting is full. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Mark &Becky Elrod --- Original Message - From: Dave Shirk To: Mark Elrod Sent: Tuesday, September 04,2007 9:25 PM Subject: RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision Mr. Elrod- The hour is late, so this will be quick. My recommendation remains that these issues are best discussed with the town engineer, Mr. Scott Zurn. 10/27/2007 Page 3 of 5 From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22,2007 6:24 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Scott Zum; Bob Joseph Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Mr. Dave Shirk Planner II Town of Estes Park Community Development Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane Thank you for you e-mail communication of August 21,2007. And thank you for forwarding the same to a more appropriate agency (Public Works) for their attention as well. From the content of your reply we are not certain we are articulating our concerns adequately. Lets us try again. We received a notice of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat being considered by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 18,2007. We are directed to www,estesnet.com/ComDev/CurrentRequests.aspx. At this site one scrolls down the name of project column to Deer Ridge Subdivision. One then scrolls across to the Statement of Intent & Application column where one can electronically access the July 25,2007 letter to you from Mr. Paul M. Kochevar along with the first page of the Estes Valley Development Review Application file stamped Jul 25 2007. One can then scroll across to the Site Plan column and access the Preliminary Plat for Deer Ridge Subdivision file stamped Aug 6 2007. As far as we can tell these are the only items electronically available to the public upon which to make comments. 1. We have found the Board of Trustees' minutes oftheir meeting of June 28,2005. You were in attendance. Reference is made as noted... "Paying will assist with historic dramage problems." (Our emphasis supplied) Please help us understand what those historic drainage problems were / are. Has the current subdivision application addressed them? We can't tell from the current filing that the historic drainage problems recognized over two years ago have been addressed. The drainage problems mentioned are tied to erosion from the existing road, which tends to fill a culvert at the intersection of homestead/sommerset. Paving will eliminate that erosion problem. 2. Estes Valley Development Code at Appendix B references submittal requirements. We have asked at what stage we are in the process. The appendix has ten roman numerals. We assume you are not yet to II (D) for final subdivision plats. This is correct. Final platting will occur assuming approval of the preliminary plat. The applicant would have 12 months to file the final plat. The final plat is where the final engineering takes place; the preliminary plat is a review to ensure compliance with zoning requirements and to ensure the engineering is feasible. Applicants are not required to finalize engineering until they know if they have approval. Final plats are not reviewed by the planning commission, as they are identical (or nearly so, small changes may be rnade to account for engineering) to the preliminary plat. Final plats are reviewed by the town board, and neighbor notification will go out again. FYI- I know you are a new property owner in the neighborhood: this has been through review twice before, and the plat was never recorded and expired. I don't know why it wasn't recorded. An important aspect of 10/27/2007 4 Page 4 of 5 previous approvals was the downzoning" of the property from multi-family to single-family. Finally. there were three cabins on this property. and the olat will limit the same site to three dwellings (though in different locations, and they will undoubtedly be larger [nan the old tourist cabins) 3. Appendix B at II (A) (4) speaks to the statement of intent and "how the proposed subdivision meets the applicable standards for review as set forth in Chapter 10 and Chapter 7 of this Code." Have you deemed the application sufficient in meeting the standards referenced? Yes. This requirement is to provide a general description in the statement of intent as a means of "orienting" plan reviewers. 4. Appendix B at II (13) (3) and (C) (5) reference having a sketch plan that delineates major natural and physical features on the site such as existing significant trees, vegetation and rock outcroppings. We had asked if the map submitted which references being from aerial mapping in 1979 meets this requirement. When we were before your Department we had to bring our map current especially showing current significant trees and vegetation. The Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Submittal Requirements for Pre-Application Review of Subdivision Applications instructions mention relative to sketch plan at number 3. Contents that the plan shall depict existing significant trees and vegetation. Is the sketch Code compliant? Yes, it was prepared by a licensed surveyor 5. You mentioned that a 23 page Storm Water Management Plan, dated July 25,2007, with an engineer's stamp, has been provided and is under review. Thank you for answering our question related to the requirement of Appendix B at II (C) (5) (o)- The public would have no way of knowing this based upon what is available electronically. We provide this on request (so far, you are the only member of the public to request a stormwater plan for any development) 6. Our concern is over the upland drainage through the subdivision. Your Department was most concerned in our hearing about the drainage of the upland acres through our lot and the impact it had on other lot owners. Has this issued been addressed for this subdivision? This proposal is in a different drainage sub-basin than your lot (water from this subdivision will not meet water from your lot until Fall River). 7. Our concern is over the 100 year flood event and the impact on drainage through this subdivision. Your Department was most concerned in our hearing about the 100 year flood event impact. Has the 100 year flood event be addressed for this subdivision? Yes. The stormwater pond has been sized for the 100-year event. The town engineer still has concerns about stormwater quality, however. 8. The concern expressed over the detention pond and what remained to be done to it with the outlet pipe and overflow plan was more directed to the 100 year flood event. We thank you for your observation..."A 100-year flood would cause the pond to fill." Ifthat is all that would happen then your answer, as brief as it may be, is what we wanted to know. If however in the 100 year flood event there would be more than just filling, but over 10/27/2007 4 Page 5 of 5 flowing, or breaching the pond barriers then we would want to know more. Please verify the accuracy of your reply. The pond is designed to contain a 100-year event, and release it at a historic rate through a weir system. After exiting the pond, the water will flow into the existing culvert below sommerset/homestead and down the swale that flows to fall river. 9. You replied to one of our concerns by stating"Ifthey optfor a swale instead of a curb, swale design will be required and reviewed by the town engineer. Mr. Kochevar's opinion is backed by an engineer' s stamp issued by the State of Colorado." (Emphasis added) In Mr. Kochevar's letter he makes the statement... "We have decided that properly constructed roadside swale will better control the drainage in this area." So it does appear they are going to use a swale. In our hearing involving your Department you wanted more information about our swale and its construction and the 100 year flood event impact. Are you indicating you have enough information at your disposal to make that determination for this subdivision? This is a question for the town engineer, who also has a stamp. Fortunately, I am not an engineer. But I do understand many of their concepts. This is my reading: a swale system is engineered to be wide and flat, with lots of grass in it. These are considered a "best management practice" or BMP in the Denver Urban Stormwater Manual (which we reference). The idea is that they slow the water down compared to a curb/gutter system which are intended to get the water out as fast as possible. The swale slows it down and results in less turbidity in the water, which equals better water quality. Our concern is that all applicants be treated equally during the approval process by your Department. Our concern is that "historic drainage issues" be addressed. Our concern is that such drainage issues be put to the same 100 year flood event control test that we were required to supply. Our concern is that plan maps be current and accurate in identifying items the Code mandates. Our concern is that our Subdivision and its individual lots are not adversely impacted by these drainage issues. It is not our job to do the job of the Development Department but we think it our responsibility to see that from a public perspective that it is has been done fairly,consistently and wtih due consideration for the comments by near by land owners. Thank you four your courtesies, Mark and Rebecca Elrod 10/27/2007 Page 1 of 2 Mark and Becky From: 'Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> CC: <bjoseph@estes.org>; <szurn@estes.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 11,2007 6:39 PM Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Mr. Shirk, Thank you for your Staff Report for the Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat. In your report we find the following referencing Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas; 19 ht:o:ne,tmi.com/0ndey/Agglicati,rm/09:07/Dia,Rid-PreSubSR.odl - Microloft Interrit Exptorer orovided... |~~~ ~~ F-.le W 100.0 F,yÂ·c,tes >*'D 41 X Z ./.W/es A' -:AA. -- 91 Ntp:,i,:e*e~t.com.le.craeÂ·,Â·.'*ex.ir,)2.46Â·07.rt,10 dgef.elit.6.-i; td v a>) O r<,Â»WAS - *- P<,Câ€¢r; 4â€¢-,. '> J <eft/*- A-A Iâ€¢ se":, ie E I Â·Â· Q Â·>:% - 9 1.1Â·> - Y, c.0100â‚¬,110 rl-,1.int. 11.â€¢61:,1 .,1.2,1. 113Â¢ M:ue t,ae B Â·Altlut, .1 1,20;led deep - iloff yeolo?le loald ale] Ille appl:c an:% engineer 19% cue,nored the ext,renee of buch & Inzird. ind !24 -:s:ted the .te wlth Staff It :5 Staff 5 emnon :he enchne= A zo,rec t, 112Â£1 -,u:zyeiti :fle ?lannlne Comm:i:,011 7%11-.-e the rvp:cal 1 gro:4311Â¢ 11.Incd â€¢.ruidifi: : Â·,~Â·h:Â¢h feqâ€¢.itte i pret'eÂ«toTAl gre!0:101 ;Mer=e ..epor: i :oodi:imm] co .:te piar., and Guiding foundal:om be plepned by j tice:hed c.mnen .v.th in emphails en dra:nage bhouid blasting be requncd J blas; conitclnE .bouid oe retaizid Thcâ‚¬e cond:na,5 ire consistent w:th pa,r ge,Dleglc repolb ne 12Â·.'i rerelved fier Â·.lnular mapped Feolog:.c hanid< Adequate Pliblic F octlitier. App:oval ot* detÂ·elopmrot 1% ccod:t:ened -:pon :he proÂ·.-:,ton ot' Uequate pub.ic fac:1:nes :and Â·,cnices nece-aarv to Kr.Â·c the ncuÂ· deÂ·.'el;in:111! No licild:ne pentut ili211 be :A'Yll iEefi uteh ,-iblte Â£39,11,1r< m:1 avita Ze m plaÂ¢e M :he e.,nuium,en:, de<:11.ed un te<m.:m ' 12 ilne beeu ' m=Ide 5,-.4Â· Adeelute '.en-:,ge J:.F.0.11 Ex.6:.e: and ferace<. to tupport the prcpoted i detÂ·flopmen! '.11311 be .1,-2.able concurren:Ir Â·.%Â·ah ilie impXâ„¢of tuch de:-rierment 111 :1:14 te?jid :he DectsionÂ·631=ny Bodv .hall rerli,ze :11,1. 11 the :ux:e of twrance V 41 4 3 1 14 , .1 0 C.Â»9 0 UUre,6 Lie Is the map you reference that which is found in the Estes Valley Development Code, Appendix A, Geologic Hazard Areas Map? Is it within the Staff's power to suggest to the Planning Commission the waiver of the typical geologic hazard standards conditional to site plans and building foundations be prepared by a licensed engineer, with an emphasis on drainage? Is this really a suggestion by Staff to change the Geologic Hazards Areas Map found in the Estes Valley Development Code? Is such action more properly addressed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment instead of the Planning Commission? In a similar issue we had with the Community Development Department involving the Estes Valley Development Code, Appendix A, Stream and River Corridor Resource Map application to our lot. We were advised that we would have to take issue with the application of the map to our lot to the Board of Adjustment. We were then afforded the opportunity to show why the map should not apply to our property. It would seem that if applicants are facing Code requirements based upon property found on Maps of the Code they would need to have their day before the Board of Adjustment for resolution to 10/27/2007 4 1. * 21...efâ‚¬s 4 -An.1-1 1 pIgel Page 2 of 2 something of that magnitude just as we did. We were lead to believe the Maps found in the Code are considered valid and it would seem up to be up to the applicant to prove the contrary. Please help us understand why our issue with a Code map is difference than that issue when so presented here? Thank you for your comments and those of Director Scott Zurn relative to streets and drainage issues. We believe they address those concerns we had previously expressed. Mark and Becky Elrod 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 2 Mark and Becky From: 'Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> CC: <bjoseph@estes.org>; <jroenderer@estes.org>; <gwhite@estes.org>; <szurn@estes.org> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:02 PM Subject: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18,2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat September 2007 Staff Report On page 3 of the Staff Report the following paragraph is noted: Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. The entire site is within a mapped 'steep slope' geologic hazard area. The applicants' engineer has questioned the existence of such a hazard, and has visited the site with Staff. It is Stafrs opinion the engineer is correct, and suggests the Planning Commission waive the typical geologic hazard standards (which require a professional geologist prepare a report) conditional to site plans and building foundations be prepared by a licensed engineer, with an emphasis on drainage. Should blasting be required, a blast consultant should be retained. These conditions are consistent with past geologic reports we have received for similar mapped geologic hazards." (emphasis added) The Estes Valley Development Code (Code) at section 10.5 (A) (2) provides: "The EVPC shall review the subdivision plan in regard to wildfire hazard and geologic hazards. No subdivision shall be approved where the design or related facilities clearly constitute the creation of a hazardous circumstance or lack of provision for the public safety. See section 7.7 of this Code." At 7.7 (F) (1) (a) of the Code provides: Geologic hazard areas shall include all areas shown on the Geologic Hazard Areas Resource map and all areas classified as 5, 6 or 7 on the official Geologic Hazard Maps which have been reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey and are incorporated by reference in the Code. ..." (emphasis added) At 7.7 (2) (a) of the Code provides: "When new development or subdivision is proposed within a geologic hazard area, the Applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan prepared by a professional geologist addressing how the development or subdivision will either avoid or mitigate the hazard, as more fully set fort below...." (emphasis added) At 1.6 (F) of the Code provides: "The word 'shall' is always mandatory, and the words 'may' or 'should' are always permissive." (emphasis added) If we properly understand the provisions of the Code the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) does not have the ability to waive a mandatory provision of the Code. That would seem to be a power reserved to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment according to section 2.1 of the Code (Code 10/27/2007 4 Page 2 of 2 Administration And Review Roles). If however Staff is suggesting an amendment to the Code, more particularly to the Geologic Hazard Areas Map found at Appendix A. by removing this real estate from the map then that would seem to require a different process that would involve not only the EVPC, The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. In a similar incident involving us with the Town ofEstes Park Community Development Department our lot was impacted by its showing on the Stream and River Corridors Resource Map, of Appendix A of the Code. We were required to appear before the Estes Valley board of Adjustment for a resolution to our issue. We are confused by what appears to be an unequal application of the process of dealing with Code maps and resulting Code requirements. We certainly do not wish to needlessly burden the current Applicants of Deer Ridge Subdivision beyond any thing that we ourselves had to go through in dealing with the Community Development Department. Thanking you in advance for explaining and clarifying this matter for us. Since we will not be able to attend the September 18, 2007 meeting we wanted the EVPC to know of our concerns. Mark & Becky Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, Colorado 80517 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 2 Mark and Becky From: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 8:15 AM Subject: RE: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18,2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat The development code allows professional engineers to provide plans for steep slope hazards, which will be addressed with building permits. Furthermore, the proposed building envelopes preclude development in steep slopes areas. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:02 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Bob Joseph; jroenderer@estes.org; gwhite@estes.org; Scott Zum Subject: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat September 2007 Staff Report On page 3 of the Staff Report the following paragraph is noted: Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. The entire site is within a mapped 'steep slope' geologic hazard area. The applicants' engineer has questioned the existence of such a hazard, and has visited the site with Staff It is Staff's opinion the engineer is correct, and suggests the Planning Commission waive the typical geologic hazard standards (which require a professional geologist prepare a report) conditional to site plans and building foundations be prepared by a licensed engineer, with an emphasis on drainage. Should blasting be required, a blast consultant should be retained. These conditions are consistent with past geologic reports we have received for similar mapped geologic hazards." (emphasis added) The Estes Valley Development Code (Code) at section 10.5 (A) (2) provides: "The EVPC shall review the subdivision plan in regard to wildfire hazard and geologic hazards. No subdivision shall be approved where the design or related facilities clearly constitute the creation of a hazardous circumstance or lack of provision for the public safety. See section 7.7 of this Code." At 7.7 (F) (1) (a) of the Code provides: 'Geologic hazard areas shall include all areas shown on the Geologic Hazard Areas Resource map and all areas classified as 5, 6 or 7 on the official Geologic Hazard Maps which have been reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey and are incorporated by reference in the Code. ..." (emphasis added) At 7.7 (2) (a) of the Code provides: "When new development or subdivision is proposed within a geologic hazard area, the Applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan prepared by a professional geologist addressing how the development or subdivision will either avoid or mitigate the hazard, as more fully set fort below...." (emphasis added) 10/27/2007 4 1 Page 1 of 2 Mark and Becky From: "Bob Joseph" <RoberU@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> CC: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 9:18 AM Subject: RE: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Mr. Elrod, Staff is exercising judgment in this case based on site specific observations that show no evidence of hazard. In this case the slope is just on the threshold of the hazard classification and this small area is completely surrounded by more moderate slopes. It therefore does not warrant further investigation or analysis. If you have knowledge of some site specific condition that requires further attention please let us know. -Bob Joseph Director From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:02 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Bob Joseph; jroenderer@estes.org; gwhite@estes.org; Scott Zurn Subject: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat September 2007 Staff Report On page 3 of the Staff Report the following paragraph is noted: Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. The entire site is within a mapped 'steep slope' geologic hazard area. The applicants' engineer has questioned the existence of such a hazard, and has visited the site with Staff. It is Staff's opinion the engineer is correct, and suggests the Planning Commission waive the typical geologic hazard standards (which require a professional geologist prepare a report) conditional to site plans and building foundations be prepared by a licensed engineer, with an emphasis on drainage. Should blasting be required, a blast consultant should be retained. These conditions are consistent with past geologic reports we have received for similar mapped geologic hazards." (emphasis added) The Estes Valley Development Code (Code) at section 10.5 (A) (2) provides: "The EVPC shall review the subdivision plan in regard to wildfire hazard and geologic hazards. No subdivision shall be approved where the design or related facilities clearly constitute the creation of a hazardous circumstance or lack of provision forthe public safety. See section 7.7 of this Code." At 7.7 (F) (1) (a) of the Code provides: 'Geologic hazard areas shall include all areas shown on the Geologic Hazard Areas Resource map and all areas classified as 5, 6 or 7 on the official Geologic Hazard Maps which have been reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey and are incorporated by reference in the Code. ..." (emphasis added) At 7.7 (2) (a) ofthe Code provides: 10/27/2007 4 Page 2 of 2 "When new development or subdivision is proposed within a geologic hazard area, the Applicant shall_be required to submit a mitigation plan prepared by a professional geologist addressing how the development or subdivision will either avoid or mitigate the hazard, as more fully set fort below. ..." (emphasis added) At 1.6 (F) of the Code provides: "The word 'shall' is always mandatory, and the words 'may' or 'should' are always permissive." (emphasis added) If we properly understand the provisions ofthe Code the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) does not have the ability to waive a mandatory provision of the Code. That would seem to be a power reserved to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment according to section 2.1 of the Code (Code Administration And Review Roles). If however Staff is suggesting an amendment to the Code, more particularly to the Geologic Hazard Areas Map found at Appendix A, by removing this real estate from the map then that would seem to require a different process that would involve not only the EVPC, The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. In a similar incident involving us with the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department our lot was impacted by its showing on the Stream and River Corridors Resource Map, of Appendix A of the Code. We were required to appear before the Estes Valley board of Adjustment for a resolution to our issue. We are confused by what appears to be an unequal application of the process of dealing with Code maps and resulting Code requirements. We certainly do not wish to needlessly burden the current Applicants of Deer Ridge Subdivision beyond any thing that we ourselves had to go through in dealing with the Community Development Department. Thanking you in advance for explaining and clarifying this matter for us. Since we will not be able to attend the September 18, 2007 meeting we wanted the EV-PC to know of our concerns. Mark & Becky Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, Colorado 80517 10/27/2007 4 Page 2 of 2 At 1.6 (F) of the Code provides: "The word 'shall' is always mandatory, and the words 'may' or 'should' are always permissive. (emphasis added) If we properly understand the provisions of the Code the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) does not have the ability to waive a mandatory provision of the Code. That would seem to be a power reserved to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment according to section 2.1 of the Code (Code Administration And Review Roles). If however Staff is suggesting an amendment to the Code, more particularly to the Geologic Hazard Areas Map found at Appendix A, by removing this real estate from the map then that would seem to require a different process that would involve not only the EVPC, The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. In a similar incident involving us with the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department our lot was impacted by its showing on the Stream and River Corridors Resource Map, of Appendix A of the Code. We were required to appear before the Estes Valley board of Adjustment for a resolution to our issue. We are confused by what appears to be an unequal application of the process of dealing with Code maps and resulting Code requirements. We certainly do not wish to needlessly burden the current Applicants of Deer Ridge Subdivision beyond any thing that we ourselves had to go through in dealing with the Community Development Department. Thanking you in advance for explaining and clarifying this matter for us. Since we will not be able to attend the September 18, 2007 meeting we wanted the EVPC to know of our concerns. Mark & Becky Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, Colorado 80517 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 2 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> CC: "Joseph, Bob" <RobertJ@estes.org> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 5:35 PM Subject: Re: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Thank you Mr. Shirk. Could you please direct us to the provision of the Code that you are referencing below. Thank you for clearing this up for us. Mark & Becky Elrod ---- Original Message ---- From: Dave Shirk To: Marj_Elrod Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 8:15 AM Subject: RE: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat The development code allows professional engineers to provide plans for steep slope hazards, which will be addressed with building permits. Furthermore, the proposed building envelopes preclude development in steep slopes areas. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:02 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Bob Joseph; jroenderer@estes.org; gwhite@estes.org; Scott Zum Subject: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat September 2007 Staff Report On page 3 of the Staff Report the following paragraph is noted: Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. The entire site is within a mapped 'steep slope' geologic hazard area. The applicants' engineer has questioned the existence of such a hazard, and has visited the site with Staff. It is Staff's opinion the engineer is correct, and suggests the Planning Commission waive the typical geologic hazard standards (which require a professional geologist prepare a report) conditional to site plans and building foundations be prepared by a licensed engineer, with an emphasis on drainage. Should blasting be required, a blast consultant should be retained. These conditions are consistent with past geologic reports we have received for similar mapped geologic hazards." (emphasis added) The Estes Valley Development Code (Code) at section 10.5 (A) (2) provides: 10/27/2007 4 Page 2 of 2 "The EVPC shall review the subdivision plan in regard to wildfire hazard and geologic hazards. No subdivision shall be approved where the design or related facilities clearly constitute the creation of a hazardous circumstance or lack of provision for the public safety. See section 7.7 of this Code." At 7.7 (F) (1) (a) of the Code provides: Geologic hazard areas shall include all areas shown on the Geologic Hazard Areas Resource map and all areas classified as 5, 6 or 7 on the official Geologic Hazard Maps which have been reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey and are incorporated by reference in the Code. ..." (emphasis added) At 7.7 (2) (a) of the Code provides: "When new development or subdivision is proposed within a geologic hazard area, the Applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan prepared by a professional geologist addressing how the development or subdivision will either avoid or mitigate the hazard, as more fully set fort below...." (emphasis added) At 1.6 (F) of the Code provides: "The word 'shall' is always mandatory, and the words 'may' or'should' are always permissive." (emphasis added) If we properly understand the provisions of the Code the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) does not have the ability to waive a mandatory provision of the Code. That would seem to be a power reserved to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment according to section 2.1 of the Code (Code Administration And Review Roles). If however Staff is suggesting an amendment to the Code, more particularly to the Geologic Hazard Areas Map found at Appendix A, by removing this real estate from the map then that would seem to require a different process that would involve not only the EVPC, The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. In a similar incident involving us with the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department our lot was impacted by its showing on the Stream and River Corridors Resource Map, of Appendix A of the Code. We were required to appear before the Estes Valley board of Adjustment for a resolution to our issue. We are confused by what appears to be an unequal application of the process of dealing with Code maps and resulting Code requirements. We certainly do not wish to needlessly burden the current Applicants of Deer Ridge Subdivision beyond any thing that we ourselves had to go through in dealing with the Community Development Department. Thanking you in advance for explaining and clarifying this matter for us. Since we will not be able to attend the September 18, 2007 meeting we wanted the EVPC to know of our concerns. Mark & Becky Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, Colorado 80517 10/27/2007 1 Page 1 of 3 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: "Bob Joseph" <RoberU@estes.org> CC "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Good afternoon Mr. joseph, With all due respects for the exercise of "judgment" by your Department, the Code is rather specific about the matter as we articulated m our comments below. It does not appear that your Department has the authority to exercise "judgment", absent the referenced map being amended to exclude this property from a Code map, and the requirements of the Code resulting due to that inclusion. As you will recall our lot was on a Code map, and by virtue of that we had to take it to the Board of Adjustment for resolution. There was never an offer by your department to exercise "judgment" to over ride the specific provisions of the Code, nor should there have been. We feel this is not treating applicants equally and consistently if your position here is that the Code's mandatory provisions may be disregarded if your Department's "judgment" is that it does not warrant further investigation or analysts. All we are trying to do is to see that all applicants are treated equally by your Department as it relates to the provisions of the Code. If the Code's application is not equitable, then the Code should be amended to make it so. If this property is on the Geologic Hazard Areas Map of the Code, then it seems fairly certain to us that provisions ofthe Code as referenced below apply. If our understanding of the Code's application is in error we would certainly appreciate learning from you or your Department where our misunderstanding is. Othenvise we believe the EVPC should be made aware of our concern. Thanking you in advance for assisting us. Mark & Becky Elrod ---- Original Message ---- From: Bob Joseph To: Mark Elrod Cc: Dave Shirk Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 9:18 AM Subject: RE: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Mr. Elrod, Staff is exercising judgment in this case based on site specific observations that show no evidence of hazard. In this case the slope is just on the threshold of the hazard classification and this small area is completely 10/27/2007 4 Page 2 of 3 surrounded by mc re moderate slopes. It therefore dces not warrant ijrther investigation or analysts. If you have knowledge of some site specific condition that requires further attention please let us know. -Bob Joseph Director From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:02 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Bob Joseph; jroenderer@estes.org; gwhite@estes.org; Scott Zurn Subject: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat September 2007 Staff Report On page 3 of the Staff Report the following paragraph is noted: 'Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. The entire site is within a mapped 'steep slope'geologic hazard area. The applicants' engineer has questioned the existence of such a hazard, and has visited the site with Staff It is Staff's opinion the engineer is correct, and suggests the Planning Commission waive the typical geologic hazard standards (which require a professional geologist prepare a report) conditional to site plans and building foundations be prepared by a licensed engineer, with an emphasis on drainage. Should blasting be required, a blast consultant should be retained. These conditions are consistent with past geologic reports we have received for similar mapped geologic hazards." (emphasis added) The Estes Valley Development Code (Code) at section 10.5 (A) (2) provides: "The EVPC shall review the subdivision plan in regard to wildfire hazard and geologic hazards. No subdivision shall be approved where the design or related facilities clearly constitute the creation of a hazardous circumstance or lack of provision forthe public safety. See section 7.7 of this Code." At 7.7 (F) (1) (a) of the Code provides: "Geologic hazard areas shall include all areas shown on the Geologic Hazard Areas Resource map and all areas classified as 5,6 or 7 on the official Geologic Hazard Maps which have been reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey and are incorporated by reference in the Code. ..." (emphasis added) At 7.7 (2) (a) ofthe Code provides: "When new development or subdivision is proposed within a geologic hazard area, the Applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan prepared by a professional geologist addressing how the development or subdivision will either avoid or mitigate the hazard, as more fully set fort below...." (emphasis added) At 1.6 (F) of the Code provides: "The word 'shall' is always mandatory, and the words 'may' or 'should' are always permissive." (emphasis added) 10/27/2007 1 Page 3 of 3 If we properly understand the provisions of the Code the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) does not have the ability to waive a mandatory provision of the Code. That would seem to be a power reserved to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment according to section 2.1 of the Code (Code Administration And Review Roles). If however Staff is suggesting an amendment to the Code, more particularly to the Geologic Hazard Areas Map found at Appendix A, by removing this real estate from the map then that would seem to require a different process that would involve not only the EVPC, The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. In a similar incident involving us with the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department our lot was impacted by its showing on the Stream and River Corridors Resource Map, of Appendix A of the Code. We were required to appear before the Estes Valley board of Adjustment for a resolution to our issue. We are confused by what appears to be an unequal application of the process of dealing with Code maps and resulting Code requirements. We certainly do not wish to needlessly burden the current Applicants of Deer Ridge Subdivision beyond any thing that we ourselves had to go through in dealing with the Community Development Department. Thanking you in advance for explaining and clarifying this matter for us. Since we will not be able to attend the September 18, 2007 meeting we wanted the EVPC to know of our concerns. Mark & Becky Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, Colorado 80517 10/27/2007 4 â€¢â€¢â€¢--- Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 ~ Este; Park, CO 80517 â€ž,â€žâ€žâ€žâ€žâ€ž, Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: September 18,2007 REOUEST: Adjust the interior boundary between two lots, and subdivide the largest into three smaller lots. LOCATION: The site is located at 1925 RAFF 1 Homestead Lane, within the Town of Estes _ USES A- Park. ; - r 1 f.-1. = 4-- APPLICANT/OWNER: John Skoog Rocky -4 kibu,tall 1 USFS t~1 * STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk e APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes = UB n ReP h Valley Development Code (EVDC) - SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers (Paul Kochevar), 586-5175 Parcel Numbers: 3522434-003, -004 Total Development Area: 7.31 acres Number of Lots: Two existing, four Existing Land Use: Single-family proposed Proposed Land Use: single family Existing Zoning: "E-1" single-family Adjacent Zoning- East: "A" Accommodations, "RM" Multi- North: "E-1" Estate family West: "E-1" Estate South: "E-1" Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Accommodations North: Single-Family residential West: Single-Family residential South: Single-Family residential Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request to adjust the common property line between Lots 3 and 4 of the Skoog Subdivision, and subdivide Lot 3 into three smaller lots. This subdivision review is for the preliminary plat, and is a recommendation to the Town Board. Lot 3 was formerly zoned for multi-family development, and had three tourist cabins located on it. The property was rezoned in 2003 to "E-1" Estate in conjunction with preliminary plat review. The final plat was approved, but expired prior to recordation. Therefore, the applicant has submitted a new plat for review. This plat would pave an existing drive, extend water and sewer mains into the neighborhood, and provide fire hydrants. This plat would also have the effect of "pulling" two dwellings' traffic from the road at the bottom of the hill, thus helping reduce the overall traffic impact on the neighborhood (prior to 2003, there were two additional cabins at the top of the hill and traffic to those dwellings would have to drive to the top of the hill and past three additional cabins). 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. Subdivision Design Standards. This proposal complies with minimum lot size (base of 1 acre) and width standards (100 feet) set forth in Table 4-2 of the EVDC. Density. A portion of the subdivision is located above the "blue line" water-service elevation. The EVDC requires that 80% of lands located above the elevation serviceable by the Town of Estes Park water system be deducted from density calculations. In this case, there are 2.39 acres located above the service elevation; this equates to deducting 1.91 acres from the gross of 7.31 acres, for a net land area of 5.41 acres. This is sufficient for the proposed number of lots. Slope Protection and Analysis. The applicant's engineer has submitted a slope analysis for proposed Lots 1 and 2; the size of these lots has been increased accordingly. The EVDC requires that for each percentage point average slope exceeds 12%, the base zone minimum lot area shall be increased by one thousand square feet. The average slope of proposed Lot 1 is 25.2%, which equates to a minimum lot area of 1.303 acres; the average slope of proposed Lot 2 is 13.3%, which equates to a minimum lot area of 1.03 acres. Grading and Site Disturbance. The proposed new lots (Lots 1 and 2) will be subject to standards set forth in Section 7.2 "Grading and Site Disturbance", which includes restoration o f disturbed areas. Page #2 - Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat 4 Detention/Stormwater Facilities. Where detention basins and other storm and erosion control facilities may be required, any adverse visual and aesthetic impacts on the natural landscape and topography shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. These details should be included in the construction plans for the proposed detention pond. Tree and Vegetation Protection. The proposed new lots (Lots 1 and 2) will be subject to standards set forth in Section 7.3 "Tree and Vegetation Protection". Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. The entire site is within a mapped "steep slope" geologic hazard area. The applicants' engineer has questioned the existence of such a hazard, and has visited the site with Staff. It is Staffs opinion the engineer is correct, and suggests the Planning Commission waive the typical geologic hazard standards (which require a professional geologist prepare a report) conditional to site plans and building foundations be prepared by a licensed engineer, with an emphasis on drainage. Should blasting be required, a blast consultant should be retained. These conditions are consistent with past geologic reports we have received for similar mapped geologic hazards. Adequate Public Facilities. Approval of development is conditioned upon the provision of adequate public facilities and services necessary to serve the new development. No building permit shall be issued unless such public facilities and services are in place or the commitments described in Section 7.12 have been made. Sewer. Adequate sewage disposal facilities and services to support the proposed development shall be available concurrently with the impacts of such development. In this regard, the Decision-Making Body shall require that, at the time of issuance of any building permit, all necessary sewage disposal facilities and services, as described in Â§7.12.D.2 above, are in place and available to serve the new development in accordance with the approved utility plan for the development. The proposed sewer line should be routed such that it will not interfere with existing significant trees or rock outcroppings. Water. Adequate domestic water facilities and services to support the proposed development shall be available concurrently with the impacts of such development. In this regard, the Decision-Making Body shall require that, at the time of issuance of any building permit, all necessary water facilities and services, as described in Â§7.12.E.2 above, are in place and available to serve the new development in accordance with the approved utility plan for the development. Section 10.5.E "Utility Standards" requires that the subdivider install water service lines, and that "service lines shall be installed to the property line prior to the paving of the street." This will need to be included in the improvement guarantee. Page #3 - Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat 4 Drainage/Water Quality. Drainage facilities shall be installed and completed prior to issuance ofthe first building permit. Fire Protection. Adequate fire protection facilities and services to support the proposed development shall be in place and available to serve the new development. This includes the proposed fire hydrant, which should be included in the improvement guarantee. Transportation. Pursuant to Section 7.12.H, sub. 1.c, before issuance of first building permit, the cul-de-sac paving will need to be extended, as identified on the "Drive and Utility Plan". The submitted drive section has been approved as a design alternative to the width standards set forth in Appendix D. The need for a full cul-de-sac bulb has been waived (with support from the Fire Chief). This will be a private road. 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. Upper Thompson Sanitation District noted that plant investment fees will be collected at the time building permit applications are routed through the District's administration office. Town Attorney White had a comment regarding the labeling of an easement. Public Works had comments regarding the road and drainage. All of these can be addressed with the final plat. Light and Power has noted "additional underground infrastructure will be necessary at the developer's expense." Water had comments regarding the water main extension, policies and standards, construction drawings, and as-builts. These should be conditions of approval. Other. Tract "89" of the Betton BLA should be changed to "Tract 87", which is the actual lot designation. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 1. This proposal complies with adjusted lot size and width standards set forth in the EVDC. Page #4 - Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat 4 2. The site is within a mapped geologic hazard area. Staff recommends waiving the requirement for a professional geologist. 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.2.E.2 "Compliance with Board's Conditions", compliance with conditions of approval shall be completed by the Applicant and submitted to Staff within thirty days ofthe Board's action. 5. Final plat approval is required. Submittal will require compliance with applicable sections of the EVDC, including but not limited to: Â§3.9 "Subdivisions"; Â§7.1 "Slope Protection and Analysis"; Â§7.2 "Grading and Site Disturbance"; Â§7.3 "Tree and Vegetation Protection"; Â§7.12 "Adequate Public Facilities"; Â§10.5.E "Utility Standards"; Â§ 10.5.G.2 "Restoration of Disturbed Roadside Areas"; Â§ 10.5.I "Monuments"; Â§ 10.5.J "As-Built Drawings"; Â§10.5.K "Public Improvements"; Appendix B.II.D "Final Subdivision Plat"; and, Appendix D "Road Standards". 6. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board. The Planning Commission will not review the subsequent final plat, which will proceed directly to the Town Board. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed preliminary plat of the "Deer Ridge Subdivision" CONDITIONAL TO: 1. The proposed sewer line shall be routed such that it will not interfere with existing significant trees or rock outcroppings. This shall be clarified on the construction drawings. 2. Compliance with memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated August 21,2007. 3. Compliance with memo from Greg White to Dave Shirk dated August 17,2007. 4. Compliance with memo from Scott Zurn to Dave Shirk dated August 31,2007. 5. Compliance with memo from Mike Mangelsen to Bob Goehring dated 8-20-07. Page #5 - Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat 4 agâ€¢: / oisTRIci ) - P.O. Box 568 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970)-586-4544 (970) 586-1049 Fax August 21,2007 Dave Shirk, Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O. 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane Dear Dave, The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: â€¢ The property is in the District and can be served by gravity. â€¢ An eight inch mainline extension from MEI-F137E-4A-2, extending north between Lots 1&2 will be required. â€¢ Plant Investment and Permit fees will need to be collected at the time the building permit applications are routed through the District's administration office. â€¢ Plans to construct will need to be submitted to the District, and upon approval, a pre-construction meeting will be scheduled. â€¢ A Warranty Agreement and an Applicationfor Acceptance must be signed before the District will allow a connection to the system. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank You, (24 El Chris Bieker Operations Manager Upper Thompson Sanitation District cc: Paul Kochevar GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 August 17,2007 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Deer Ridge Subdivision Dear Mr. Shirk: I have the following comments: 1. The Note on the "30-foot access and utility easement as shown upon the Skoog Subdivision Plat" shall be changed to read "the 30-foot private access and public utility easement." For purposes o f review of this Plat, I have assumed that said 30 foot access and utility easement is a private access and public utility easement. I f you have any questions, please ~ not hesitate to give me a call. Pery Truly Y~ars, 1 ~ Gregor~A. White GAW/ldr cc: Estes Park Surv*ors, Paul KocherV Fax: 970/586-5816 4 Town of Estes Park Public Works Engineering Room 100, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3582, szum@estes.org Memo To: Dave Shirl< , Planner 11 From: Scott A. Zum P.E. Director of Public Works Date: Aug 31, 2007 Re: Deer Ridge Sub Amended Plat of lots 3&4 After reviewing the Amended plat and & Deer Ridge drive and utility plan for the above referenced submittal, the Public Works Department has the following comments: Engineering: 1. STREETS: a. The applicant is responsible for construction of the roadway and appurtances to full Town standards. These standards shall be compliant with the local mountain criteria. b. The applicant must extend the standard street sedon to the beginning of lot 4. The tennination of Homestead lane must provide a tum around or other adequate means of accommodaung a emergency vehide turn around. The easements and hydrant locaUon must also accommodate these modifications. c. The proposed alignment does not fall wn'thin previously plated easements. Previous plats and recorded easements are not shown correctly. Please have the applicant resubmit correct representations of the previously recorded plats and easements. d. Provide shared driveway maintenance agreement & drainage maintenance agreement. 2. DRAINAGE: a. The applicant must provide an updated drainage study in compliance with the Town and Larimer County standards. It is not clear as to how the additional impervious roadway and adjacent properties draining to the roadside ditch are being detained and meeting water qualky criteria before it being released to the public ROW . b. At this time Ihe Public Works Dept is undear as to the responsibility and ownership of these proposed drainage easements, detention areas and infrastructure. Please inform us as to what the applicant is proposing in lhis regard. â€¢ Page 1 Note: The PublicWorks Dept. may have additional comments or requirements as additional detail and information is provided for review. â€¢ Page 2 U Illu U To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 08-20-07 Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision, Amended plat of Lots 3 and 4, Skoog Subdivision, 1825 and 1925 Homestead Lane The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Application for Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 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 primary electric lines and any secondary electric on others property. 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 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. 11) We will need to meet with the developer to determine exact cost and location of proposed facilities. The developer will need to meet with the departments Line Superintendent Todd Steichen 970-586-3602 to determine electrical feed requirements for lots 3 and 4. 12) Submit plans from the project electrical engineer for Town review and approval. 1 13) We will need to know the size of each individual service, type of heat and whether or not air conditioning is being proposed. â€¢ Page 2 We, Mark & Rebecca Elrod, own a lot identified as Lot 6, Replat of Lot 1, Homestead Subdivision, to be known as 675 Summerset Court. Our lot and Subdivision is immediately to the South o f this Preliminary Subdivision Plat. We received a notification dated August 10, 2007 that the Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Subdivision Plat is to be considered by the Estes Valley Planning Comrnission on Tuesday, September 18, 2007. We were further advised that if we had any question on the proposed request or wanted to comment on the same that we should contact you. We have recently had dealings with the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department focused on drainage issues. We understand how closely your Department follows rules and guidelines as provided for in the Estes Valley Development Code. No doubt in the Staff Report due out 09/04/07 you may address some of the concerns and questions we have. We noted that the Board of Trustees meeting ofjune 28,2005 reference to the Final Subdivisions Deer Ridge Subdivision was removed from the Consent Agenda. Further in the minutes the following reference was made "Paving will assist with historic drainage problems and there were no objections to proposal during the Planning Commission meeting." (Emphasis added) This certainly puts us on note that the Board ofTrustees recognized the drainage problems over two years ago. What has been done since then to elevate that concern? What kind o f paving was being referenced? In reviewing the Estes Valley Development Code, Appendix B, Submittal Requirements, II, A- D we find the issues the Department must have considered. At (A) the statement of intent is to provide how the proposed subdivision meets the applicable standards for review as set forth in Chapter 10 and Chapter 7 of the Code. Has this already been done? Have (A) and (13) been previously addressed? We are just tying to determine what stage of approval we are at currently. If (A) & (B) have been addressed then Section C (5) requires the contents to include a Vicinity Map showing relationship of the subdivision to the surrounding area, at a maximum scale of one inch equals on thousand two hundred feet (1"=1,200'). The site plan submitted here does not provide the scale as required by the Code. If the scale was increased to that mandated by the Code our entire Subdivision would be shown, including our lot. It would be helpful for the Department to have a map with the proper scale to understand the drainage issues facing close lot owners. Appendix B (II) (C) (5) (f) indicates a map of existing conditions should be provided. It should show among other things existing significant trees 4 vegetation and natural features such as rock outcroppings. Existing topography. When we had our hearing we were required to update our topography map. The site map submitted here carried the legend that it was from an enlarged aerial mapping of 1979. This hardly seems compliant with Code requirements or those required of us in dealing with the Department. Appendix B (II) (C) (5) (g) the map must show location of stormwater facilities/drainage way to be reserved for public use. We are not certain that is shown on the map submitted with this request. Appendix B (C) (5) (o) requires a drainage plan. Considering the historic drainage problems previously noted by the Town Trustees on June 28,2005, a drainage plan would seem critical. There seems to be the need for a preliminary drainage systems design in accordance with the Larimer County Stormwater Management Manual. When we had our hearing we had to provide factual science showing what a 100 year (flood) event would do to drainage to our lot, and surround lots. Why has this not required by the Department, and the public, for consideration? The drainage from this Subdivison would seem to impact Lot 3 and Lot 7 of our Subdivision most significantly, but without more facts and science we cannot tell what other surrounding lot owners, or those in close proximity might be at risk. We shallleave it to the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department sees that all other requirements o f the Code are given attention that we may have missed or failed to have appreciation 0Â£ In Mr. Kochevar's, July 25,2007, Statement of Intent, mention is made to changes having been made to the plat to reflect the progress to-date. At numbered point 2, "A detention pond wall has been constructed at the east end of the property. All that needs to be accomplished in this are is the outlet pipe and the overflow pan. We will complete these aspects when the main drive is brought to final grade." Our question is whether the detention pond is in compliance with Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. We are not famlliar with dry detention ponds. We want to understand that it is in compliance with some regulatory authority relative to its integrity. We want to understand who has responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the detention pond. We want to understand what issues around vegetation in the detention pond require responsibility of the lot owners or the new subdivision. We want to understand what a 100 year flood event would cause to the detention pond. What enforcement authority do surrounding property owners have available to them relative to detention ponds? 4 Continuing in Mr. Kochevar's above referenced Statement of Intent at numbered point 3, "A concrete curb was planned on the north side o f the main drive. We have decided that a properly constructed roadside swale will better " control the drainage in this area. When we had our hearing more fact and science was required about our swale than our opinion. Not only did we have to show the impact of a 100 year flood even on the swale, but we had to give evidence of swale design and construction. That does not seem to be addressed here. We assume the Department will need to have the same information required of us at our hearing to fully understand the drainage of the proposed swale on this subdivision and surrounding property owners. We thank you in advance for the consistent application of Code requirements by the Department for all applicants. We also thank you for your service to the Town and property owners of Estes Park, Colorado. Mark & Rebecca Elrod 4 Page 1 of 3 Mark and Becky From: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> CC: "Bob Joseph" <RoberU@estes.org> Sent Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:09 AM Subject: RE: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Section 7.7.F2a: "Licensed professional engineers who are experienced in the engineering specialty (e.g. soils, slope stability) may submit mitigation plans for steep slope and alluvial soils hazards." The consulting engineer has over 20 years of experience in engineering in the Estes Park area. anc is experienced in working with steep slopes From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 5:35 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Bob Joseph Subject: Re: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Thank you Mr. Shirk. Could you please direct us to the provision of the Code that you are referencing below. Thank you for clearing this up for us. Mark & Becky Elrod --- Original Message ---- From: Dave_Shick To: M.ark Elrod Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 8:15 AM Subject: RE: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat The development code allows professional engineers to provide plans for steep slope hazards, which will be addressed with building permits. Furthermore, the proposed building envelopes preclude development in steep slopes areas. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:02 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Bob Joseph; jroenderer@estes.org; gwhite@estes.org; Scott Zurn Subject: Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 2007 Meeting-Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat September 2007 Staff Report 10/27/2007 4 Page 2 of 3 On page 3 of the Staff Report the following paragraph is noted: Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. The entire site is within a mapped 'steep slope' geologic hazard area. The applicants' engineer has questioned the existence of such a hazard, and has visited the site with Staff It is Staff's opinion the engineer is correct, and suggests the Planning Commission waive the typical geologic hazard standards (which require a professional geologist prepare a report) conditional to site plans and building foundations be prepared by a licensed engineer, with an emphasis on drainage. Should blasting be required, a blast consultant should be retained. These conditions are consistent with past geologic reports we have received for similar mapped geologic hazards." (emphasis added) The Estes Valley Development Code (Code) at section 10.5 (A) (2) provides: "The EVPC shall review the subdivision plan in regard to wildfire hazard and geologic hazards. No subdivision shall be approved where the design or related facilities clearly constitute the creation of a hazardous circumstance or lack of provision for the public safety. See section 7.7 of this Code." At 7.7 (F) (1) (a) of the Code provides: Geologic hazard areas shall include all areas shown on the Geologic Hazard Areas Resource map and all areas classified as 5, 6 or 7 on the official Geologic Hazard Maps which have been '' reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey and are incorporated by reference in the Code. ... (emphasis added) At 7.7 (2) (a) of the Code provides: "When new development or subdivision is proposed within a geologic hazard area, the Applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan prepared by a professional geologist addressing how the development or subdivision will either avoid or mitigate the hazard, as more fully set fort below. ..." (emphasis added) At 1.6 (F) of the Code provides: "The word 'shall' is always mandatory, and the words 'may' or'should' are always permissive." (emphasis added) If we properly understand the provisions of the Code the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) does not have the ability to waive a mandatory provision of the Code. That would seem to be a power reserved to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment according to section 2.1 of the Code (Code Administration And Review Roles). If however Staff is suggesting an amendment to the Code, more particularly to the Geologic Hazard Areas Map found at Appendix A by removing this real estate from the map then that would seem to require a different process that would involve not only the EVPC, The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. In a similar incident involving us with the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department our lot was impacted by its showing on the Stream and River Corridors Resource Map, of Appendix A of the Code. We were required to appear before the Estes Valley board of Adjustment for a resolution to our issue. We are confused by what appears to be an unequal application ofthe process of dealing with Code maps and resulting Code requirements. We certainly do not wish to needlessly burden the current Applicants of Deer Ridge Subdivision beyond any thing that we ourselves had to go through in 10/27/2007 4 Page 3 of 3 dealing with the Community Development Department. Thanking you in advance for explaining and clarifying this matter for us. Since we will not be able to attend the September 18, 2007 meeting we wanted the EVPC to know of our concerns. Mark & Becky Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, Colorado 80517 - 10/27/2007 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission September 18, 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, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, Public Works Director Scott Zurn, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Kitchen, 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 August 21, 2007. b. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, The Mulhern Group, Ltd./Applicant-Request by applicant to continue this item to the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting on October 16, 2007. c. REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 00-07C, MARY'S LAKE LODGE CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, and Lots 3A and 3B of Mary's Lake Replat, 2625 Mary's Lake Road, Ram's Horn Development Co./Applicant- Request to change two buildings on Lot 3A such that each shall contain six accommodations units rather than the formerly approved four dwelling units each. No change to the building footprint is proposed. The request is in compliance with density limits. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Klink) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-10 and PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, THE TIMBERS. OF ESTES, Lot 3, Schroeder Subdivision, 1240 Big Thompson Avenue, Applicant: Mark Theiss Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to construct and condominiumize four triplexes and a single unit for a total of thirteen dwelling units on a currently undeveloped, 1.9-acre, A-Accommodations-zoned lot. The applicant proposes different unit types. The stand-alone unit is proposed on the portion of the lot closest to the neighbor's residence, thus providing transition from the adjoining single-family- residential-zoned lot to the south. District buffer landscaping will be provided along the southern property line. The proposal meets the following Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) limits or requirements: density, impervious coverage, setbacks, pedestrian amenities and linkages, parking, and exterior lighting. Access to the proposed development will be provided from Grand Estates Drive. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk will be installed along the western RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 September 18, 2007 property line bordering Grand Estates Drive; a portion of sidewalk will extend into the development. The proposed sidewalk ramps will need to meet federal ADA standards. Building code standards for handicapped accessibility will be applied when the building permits are reviewed. Sanitary sewer service will be provided through an existing eight-inch main along the southern property boundary. An eight-inch water main will be extended from the existing twelve-inch water line near the northern property boundary. The application was continued at last month's Planning Commission meeting due to drainage concerns. Two drainages from the north flow through the property. The applicant proposes to capture these flows in a swale to be built along the northern property line. Those flows will be directed into a pipe that will run through the center of the property and will be released into a detention pond near the south-central portion of the lot, which will allow release of the drainage at the historic rate and in the historic location. Also, the curb and gutter to be installed along the east side of Grand Estates Drive will capture water from the road, which will flow southward and discharge off the side of the road south of the applicant's property. The adjoining property owner to the south expressed concern about the proposed drainage and met with planning staff to review their concerns. Because the property is zoned appropriately for the proposed use (residential/accommo- dations), it is a use by right. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed development plan. Public Comment: Paul Bennett of Alpine Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant has worked with Town staff to address any issues. The neighboring property owner to the south voiced some concerns regarding drainage, particularly drainage off Grand Estates Drive. Leonard "Harry" Potzler, 560 Grand Estates Drive, stated he is the property owner to the south. He is concerned about drainage from the proposed detention pond and from water directed onto his property by the new curb and gutter proposed along Grand Estates Drive. Water from the Travellodge and Grand Estates Drive is currently absorbed by the property under consideration for development. Buildings and pavement on the lot will add to the water flowing into the detention pond, which will direct all the flows onto his property. He requested that the developer either forego installing curb and gutter or provide curb and gutter past his lot to keep road runoff flowing down Grand Estates Drive and into Lake Estes. He also requested that "no parking" signs be posted on the east side of the road. Ron Harris, no address given, questioned whether there will be a limit on the number of vehicles that can be parked on the site and expressed concern that the occupant of one of the proposed units could be trapped by an improperly parked vehicle; that particular unit does not have a large enough driveway apron for a vehicle to park in front of the garage. Planner Shirk and Director Joseph responded. Vehicles, including RVs, could be parked in the proposed development, up to the cumulative number allowed by the development code. The driveway is a private drive; there is no entitlement to park anywhere on the site that is not a paved parking area as depicted on the development plan. Properly prepared covenants would address how parking is allocated and used, as well as where guest parking is allowed. Further comments from Mr. Bennett are summarized as follows. There is no existing curb and gutter along Grand Estates Drive; drainage from the road flows through tbe applicant's property, into the natural swale, and onto the property to the south. Adding curb and gutter will concentrate flows along Grand Estates Drive. The applicant is not willing to extend curb and gutter past the property to the south at the applicant's expense. The area is affected by drainage from properties north of Highway 34. If Travellodge is redeveloped in the future, additional detention should be added on that site. The Town's Public Works Department has requested the applicant provide a twenty-foot-wide drainage easement along the southern property line for possible future use. The applicant is willing to do so. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 September 18, 2007 Public Works Director Scott Zurn reviewed drainage flows in the area. Two drainages enter the property from the north and meet (forming a "Y") before exiting the property at the south-central portion of the site. The requested drainage easement will reserve the right to route drainage as it historically flowed. The developer is installing curb and gutter along Grand Estates Drive at the request of the Public Works Department. A long-term goal is to provide curb and gutter along both sides of Grand Estates Drive to direct runoff into the lake. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Eisenlauer) to approve Development Plan 07-10, The Timbers of Estes, Lot 3, Schroeder Subdivision, and to recommend approval of the accompanying Preliminary Condominium Map to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Final construction plans (including erosion control plan) shall be approved by the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department and Estes Park Sanitation District prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or first building permit. 2. Compliance with the following memos: a. From Mike Mangelsen to Bob Goehring dated July 19, 2007. b. From Scott Zurn to Dave Shirk dated July 27,2007. c. From Estes Park Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated August 15, 2007. 3. The trash enclosure shall be subject to review and approval of the Colorado Division of Wildlife prior to issuance of first building permit, and shall be installed prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy. 4. The grading plan shall bear an engineer's stamp. 5. Copies of applicable state permits shall be submitted with first grading/building permit (e.g., stormwater, CDOT access). 6. A development agreement and form of guarantee shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the town prior to issuance of any permits. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-12, SNUGGLERS COVE, a Metes and Bounds property accessed via Mesa Drive on the YMCA of the Rockies campus, 2515 Tunnel Road, Applicant: YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to build six new four-bedroom guest cabins and two new eight-bedroom "reunion cabins" at the YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center. The proposed units will be in the southeast quadrant of the YMCA grounds with access off Mesa Drive. A new master plan for the YMCA was approved by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners in March 2007. This approval granted waivers to some development standards, such as paving, but also applied specific conditions of approval. The master plan conditions of approval are conditions of this proposed development plan. The proposed street names for the two drives that will access the units must meet Larimer County street-naming standards. Paved parking, curbs, and sidewalk will be provided in front of the reunio,n cabins. The applicant must pay special attention to revegetation of the western edge of this parking lot due to the fairly steep grade. Changes have been made to the submitted plans to remove all of the previously proposed parking-lot lighting. The applicant has minimized all proposed exterior lighting, which must be code compliant. Each cabin will be provided with an outdoor trash receptacle. A stormwater filtration pond is proposed north of the northernmost reunion cabin. Water is available to serve the proposed development through the YMCA's private water system, which has recently , been extensively upgraded. This request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Larimer County Engineering Department and Building Department, Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department, and Public Works Department, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and Town Attorney White. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 September 18, 2007 The proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and Estes Valley Development Code as conditioned by the YMCA Master Plan approval. Planning staff recommends approval of the development plan. Public Comment: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, was present to represent the applicant. The applicant agrees to all recommended conditions of approval. The trash receptacles at the new units will be bear-proof. Barbara Finley, adjacent property owner/2634 Dorsey Circle, expressed concern about lack of landscaping around parking lots on the YMCA grounds and questioned whether landscaping would be required and when it would be installed. Mr. Reetz stated landscaping would be installed as promptly as possible following installation of infrastructure. Planner Shirk noted all landscaping must be installed or financially guaranteed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new cabins. The recently approved YMCA master plan provides that new parking-lot landscaping shall exceed the required amount by 20% Mark Holdt, YMCA Vice President, stated landscaping should be installed during planting season. The parking lot will be landscaped as shown on the submitted plans, It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to approve Development Plan 07-12, Snugglers Cove, a Metes and Bounds property accessed via Mesa Drive on the YMCA of the Rockies campus, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1, A Development Construction Permit is required through the Larimer County Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Compliance with memo from Traci Downs to Dave Shirk dated September 6,2007. 3. Compliance with memo from Greg Sievers and Scott Zurn to Dave Shirk dated August 23,2007. 4. The owner's statement shall be revised to reference Larimer County instead of the Town of Estes Park. 5. The proposed slope along the western edge of the parking lot requires special consideration, per Section 7.2. Method of accomplishing revegetation (i.e., erosion mats, deep-rooting plants) shall be included on the plan. 6. Street names shall be changed to conform to Larimer County street naming standards. 7. Location of street signs and street sign specifications shall be shown on the plat. 8. The ADA route shall be designed to meet federal accessibility standards (slope and width of sidewalk ramps). 9. Details of the sediment filtration pond shall be included on the plan and shall be subject to review and approval of Larimer County Engineering. 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-14, DELLA TERRA, a Metes and Bounds property located at 3501 Fall River Road, Applicant: Della Terra, LLC Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. The applicant's property is on edge of the Estes Valley planning area and is bordered on the north and west by Rocky Mountain National Park. It is currently developed with 100 campsites, a small motel, cabin units, and a coffee shop. The applicant proposes to remove all campsites and develop a fourteen-room guest lodge/wedding facility; the motel, cabins, and coffee shop would remain. The redevelopment is minor and will consist primarily of paving the existing drive and building a new lodge in an area currently used'for RV campsites. Very little additional site disturbance is proposed. An area for outdoor weddings is proposed west of the new lodge; this area could accommodate up to 160 guests. No improvements are proposed for this outdoor wedding area. Although the proposed lodge is a large structure, it meets the height limit because it will be located in an existing cut. The property is 12.73 acres in size and is located entirely above the blue line. Because of this, 80% of the land area was netted out for density calculations. The proposal complies with density requirements. The applicant proposes to continue to use the existing well RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 September 18, 2007 system (with improvements to the system) on the site. The wells were adjudicated in 1975; the Larimer County Health Department has indicated the wells are excellent in terms of water quality and flow. The applicant submitted a water study using methodology provided by the Town Water department, which indicated water usage will decrease by 30% with this redevelopment. There are ongoing discussions between the applicant and the town regarding annexation of this property; water service to the property is one of the main discussion points. Staff recommends that annexation of the property be a condition of approval, Larimer County has agreed to cede building permit review and issuance to the town based on the pending annexation of the property. The existing driveway into the site will be paved. Parking will be added along the drive in locations that are now generally camping sites. A small section of interior road will be added to provide an emergency-vehicle turnaround. To meet landscaping requirements, a few more shrubs must be added to the parking areas. The parking calculations must be corrected on the plan cover sheet, although the plans show the required number of parking spaces. There will be a decrease in the daily vehicle trips generated: the Colorado Department of Transportation has indicated that no new access permit is required. This request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town Attorney Greg White, Town of Estes Park Building Department and Public Works Department, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and Rocky Mountain National Park. The national park expressed concern about outside noise levels. There will be no outdoor sound amplification, and reception activities will be held indoors. The town's noise ordinance will apply to this site. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed development plan. Town Attorney White stated the current intergovernmental agreement between Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park requires any development such as this be annexed to the town at the town's sole discretion. Staffs recommended condition of approval #1, which states "The applicant shall submit an annexation petition to the Town Clerk no later than March 31, 2008," should be changed to require annexation by that date. Connection to town water shall be addressed with the annexation agreement. Director Joseph stated he received comments from Rick Spowart, Colorado Division of Wildlife, indicating that the change of use of this property from a campground to a wedding facility will reduce the adverse impacts to the area's big horn sheep, Public Comment: Pam Amelang/Della Terra, LLC thanked the Commissioners and town staff and expressed her excitement for the project and its positive impact on Estes Park. Mike Sanem/3355 Fall River Road stated the applicants have visited with them about the proposal several times; they are quite pleased with the plan. He questioned when the camping use would cease, stating he would not want both camping and the wedding facility uses to occur at}the same time. Ms. Amelang stated camping will be discontinued when the grand opening of the wedding facility occurs (currently estimated to be at the end of 2008); the,uses will not coexist. - It was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to approve Development Plan 07-14, Della Terra, a Metes and Bounds property located at 3501 Fall River Road, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and with condition #1 revised as shown, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. The property shall be annexed into the Town of Estes Park no later than March 31, 2008. 2. Compliance with memo from Scott Zurn to Dave Shirk dated August 31,2007. 3. Stormwater management plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Town Engineer, 4. Compliance with memo from Doug Ryan to Dave Shirk dated August 27,2007. 5. Compliance with memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated August 21,2007. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 September 18, 2007 6. A development agreement and letter of credit shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. The parking lot screening shall comply with Section 7.5 of the Estes Valley Development Code. 8. The parking summary table shall be amended to include the coffee, motel, and cabins requirements, and the Lodge requirements shall be amended to require 28 spaces instead of 14. 6. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, Amended Plat of Lots 3 and 4, Skoog Subdivision, 1825 and 1925 Homestead Lane, Applicants: Paul M. and Katherine M. Kochevar and John A. Skoog Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to adjust the interior boundary line between Lots 3 and 4 of the Skoog Subdivision and subdivide the largest lot (Lot 3) into three smaller lots. Lot 3 formerly contained three tourist cabins and was zoned for multi-family development. It was rezoned in 2003 to E-1-Estate in conjunction with the preliminary plat review, and two of the cabins have since been removed. The final plat was approved but expired prior to recordation and is null and void; thus the applicant has submitted a new plat for review. The third cabin would have to be removed before another residence could be constructed on the proposed lot on which it is situated. With this plat, the applicant proposes to extend water and sewer mains into the neighborhood and provide fire hydrants. The applicant also proposes to move an existing road farther north and pave it to the western edge of proposed Lot 2. The former road area will be revegetated. The existing road erodes severely during rains and plugs the culvert, resulting in storm drainage flowing over the road. Paving will alleviate potential stormwater problems. The proposed alignment of the private drive to serve two of the lots would also have the effect of removing the traffic for two dwellings from a portion of the existing road, thus helping reduce the overall traffic impact on the neighborhood. The property is within a mapped steep-slope hazard area. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) allows an experienced engineer to address steep-slope hazards rather than requiring a professional geologist to prepare a report, provided that site plans and building foundations are prepared by a licensed engineer, with an emphasis on drainage. The applicant proposes building envelopes to prevent development on the steepest portions of the site and minimize site disturbance. Neighboring property owners Mark and Rebecca Elrod, 675 Summerset Court, have expressed concern about geologic and drainage issues. The applicant's property is in a different drainage than the Elrod's property. Town Engineer/Public Works Director Scott Zurn has expressed some concern regarding the road design and drainage issues. Director Zurn addressed the Commissioners. He stated drainage sheet flows from the north to the south and drainage off the existing road are captured in a roadside ditch. The applicant's proposal does not adequately address the drainage. The detention area may need to be changed or resized. He also expressed concern about the proposed road width; mountain road standards require the road be two feet wider than proposed to provide for emergency vehicle access. A fire hydrant proposed at the end of the road (beyond the prof)osed pavement) should have paved access and a paved area for emergency vehicle turnaround. These issues may necessitate additional easements be granted along the length of the applicant's property. Director Zurn also requests some minor corrections to the language on the plat. The consulting engineer for this proposal, Paul Kochevar, was unable to attend today's meeting due to a family emergency. A letter from Mr. Kochevar received today acknowledges the concerns expressed by Director Zurn and requests approval of the preliminary plat as presented. Director Zurn requested this application be continued to the October 16, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Public Comment: The property owner, John Skoog, was present and indicated he is in the process of selling the property to Mr. Kochevar. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 September 18, 2007 It was moved and seconded (Klink/Grant) to continue the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Deer Ridge Subdivision, Amended Plat of Lots 3 and 4, Skoog Subdivision, to the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting on October 16, 2007 in order to resolve the issues presented by Town Engineer Zurn, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 7. PROPOSED BLOCK 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE This request is to make additions and a correction to the Estes Valley Development Code, and is a continuation of discussions which began at the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting of August 21, 2007. Director Joseph presented information on the proposed changes as follows: Section 3.1.D, Required Times for Action and Inaction, addition of proposed subsection 5, Extension of Times, regarding timeframes for action on all land- use applications; and Section 3.2, Standard Review Procedure, addition of proposed subsection H, Alternative Review Procedure, regarding provision of optional alternative review procedure Proposed Section 3.1.D allows the temporary extension of timeframes for review of land-use applications due to short-staffing, a vacancy, or an extremely heavy workload in the Community Development Department, or any other factor that would prevent adequate and timely review of applications. Extension would be at the discretion of the Community Development Director and would be for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days beyond the normal timeframe for review. In response to Commissioners' request at the August meeting to identify a trigger or threshold for this extension, Director Joseph offered to add the following language as the final sentence of this subsection: "A vacancy of more than three weeks in Planning staff due to personnel changes, medical leave, or other FMLA-authorized absence shall be considered adequate grounds for an Extension of Time under this provision." Following further discussion, it was agreed that this additional language would be too restrictive and that the trigger for time extension should be based on workload, as originally proposed. Proposed Section 3.2.H provides the applicant an alternative to waiting an additional sixty days if the time extension has been invoked. It allows the applicant to elect to pay for the services of a qualified professional planner, chosen from a list of appropriate consultants maintained by the Community Development Department, to process and review the application. This option may be attractive to an applicant who wishes to stay on a particular time schedule for development purposes. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Grant) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 3.1.D and 3.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code, with the deletion of the final sentence of proposed Section 3.1.D.5, to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. Section 4.3, Table 4-2, Base Density and Dimensional Standards, Residential Zoning Districts, regarding required setbacks from interior drives in the RM- Multi-Family Residential zoning district Director Joseph stated the proposed change to footnote [9] of EVDC Table 4-2 is a "housekeeping" item. The footnote pertains to setbacks in multi-family residential developments and currently implies that no street setback is required. Staff would like to clarify that structures must be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site dwellings. If the road does not serve more than four dwellings, the setback requirements are not invoked, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 September 18, 2007 Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Amos) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 4.3, 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 with one absent. 8. REPORTS Planner Shirk stated the Board of County Commissioners approved the Panthen lot consolidation plat at their meeting on September 17, 2007. He also recently attended a workshop on accessory dwelling units and will have input on this issue for Planning Commission consideration at a future meeting. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary Page 1 of 1 Mark and Becky From: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 8:38 AM Subject: deer ridge prelirdnary plat Mr. Elrod- FYI- the planning commission voted to continue the deer ridge plat until the Oct 16 meeting. There are unresolved engineering issues (primarily road design and how the drainage will flow into the pond). Nothing major, but the design needed additional Yeshing out." t 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 1 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:37 PM Subject: Re: deer ridge preliminary plat Thank you Mr. Shirk for taking the time, and making the effort, to update us on the action of the EVPC relative to the Deer Ridge Subdivision prelimmary plat. Will the unresolved engineering issues to be addressed be open for public review? Will Staff make a report back to the EVPC as they did for yesterday's meeting? Regards, Mark & Becky Elrod ---- Original Message - From: Dave Shirk To: Mark.Elrod Sent: Wednesday, September 19,2007 8:38 AM Subject: deer ridge preliminary plat Mr. Elrod- FYI- the planning commission voted to continue the deer ridge plat until the Oct 16 meeting. There are 'unresolved engineering issues (primarily road design and how the drainage will flow into the pond). Nothing major, but the design needed additional Nleshing out: 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 1 Mark and Becky From: "Dave Shirld <dshirk@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> Sent: Thursday, September 20,2007 8:57 AM Subject: RE: deer ridge preliminary plat Yes. The consulting engineer has a couple of weeks to make revisions, Public Works/Engineering will review, and a revised staff report will be available about one week before the next hearing. We will also post the revised plans when they come in. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:38 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Re: deer ridge preliminary plat Thank you Mr. Shirk for taking the time, and making the effort, to update us on the action of the EVPC relative to the Deer Ridge Subdivision preliminary plat. Will the unresolved engineering issues to be addressed be open for public review? Will Staff make a report back to the EVPC as they did for yesterday's meeting? Regards, Mark & Becky Elrod ---- Original Message - From: Dave_Shilk To: Mark_Elrod Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 8:38 AM Subject: deer ridge preliminary plat Mr. Elrod- FYI- the planning commission voted to continue the deer ridge plat unW the Oct 16 meeting. There are unresolved engineering issues (primarily road design and how the drainage will flow into the pond). Nothing major, but the design needed additional =fleshing out.Â» 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 2 Mark and Becky From: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> Sent: Friday, October 05,2007 2:02 PM Subject: RE: deer ridge preliminary plat Hello Mr. Elrod- The consulting engineer has not addressed drainage concerns yet. Hence another continuance. David W. Shirk, AICP Estes Park Community Development PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3729 From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 5:10 PM To: Julie Roederer Cc: Dave Shirk Subject: Re: deer ridge preliminary plat Thank you so much Ms. Roederer. I reviewed the minutes this afternoon. I noted that the Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat proposal reflected that it was continued until the EVPC meeting of October 16,2007. However, when visiting the "Current Proposals" link, we note that under the column heading "Estes Valley Planning Commission Date" the notation 9/18/07 continued to meeting on 10/16/07 will be continued to meeting on 11/20/07". Could you assist us in understanding the reference in the minutes to October 16, and the reference on the current proposals reference to November 20 please. Thank you for your helpful assistance. Mark & Becky Elrod ---- Original Message ----- From: Julie Roederer To: Mark Elrod Sent: Thursday, October 04,2007 9:23 AM Subject: RE: deer ridge preliminary plat Mr. Elrod, The draft minutes of the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting held September 18: 2007 are now available online at http://www.estesnet.com/comdev/EVPIanningCommissionMinutes/PCMinutes2007/PC09-18-07.pdf. Julie Roederer, Secretary 10/27/2007 1 Page 2 of 2 Community Development Department .Town of Estes Park fl; icqÂ®erer@estes.org 4 970-577-3721 ,~. FAX: 970-586-0249 -----Original Message----- From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11: 11 AM To: Julie Roederer Cc: Dave Shirk Subject: Fw: deer ridge preliminary plat Good morning Ms. Roederer. Mr. Shirl[ was kind enough to provide us with his summary of the September 18, 2007 EVPC meeting. More particularly the Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat action. I have been checking the EVPC minutes site and so far the draft minutes of the September 18, 2007 meeting have not been posted. Do you have an idea when they may be posted? I am most interested in reviewing them From what Mr. Shirk advises the matter will be going back to the October 16 EVPC meeting. Thank you for your courtesies. Mark Elrod hellomar_Ii@hughes.ner ---- Original Message ---- From: D-ave_Shick To: Mark Elrod Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 8:38 AM Subject: deer ridge preliminary plat Mr. Elrod- FYI- the planning commission voted to continue the deer ridge plat until the Oct 16 meeting. There are unresolved engineering issues (primarily road design and how the drainage will flow into the pond). Nothing major, but the design needed additional Nleshing out." 10/27/2007 1 Page 1 of 3 Mark and Becky From: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 8:31 AM Subject: RE: deer ridge preliminary plat We usuaily do not post technical reports such as drainage. geo-, wetland, etc. If this one does not get posted. just shoot me an email "tickler" to remind. \Ne will certainly update *he plat. road. utility. etc plans on the website. From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Friday, October 05,2007 4:50 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Re: deer ridge preliminary plat Good afternoon Mr. Shirk. Thank you for your reply. Will the report you reference be available for public inspection when it is generated? Have a nice weekend. Regards, Mark Elrod ---- Original Message ---- From: Dave Shick To: Mark_EJ[ggi Sent: Friday, October 05,2007 2:02 PM Subject: RE: deer ridge preliminary plat Hello Mr. Elrod- The consulting engineer has not addressed drainage concerns yet. Hence another continuance. David W. Shirk, AICP Estes Park Community Development PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3729 From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 5: 10 PM To: Julie Roederer Cc: Dave Shirk Subject: Re: deer ridge preliminary plat Thank you so much Ms. Roederer. 10/27/2007 4 Page 2 of 3 I reviewed the minutes this afternoon. I noted that the Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat proposal reflected that it was continued until the EVPC meeting of October 16, 2007. However, when visiting the "Current Proposals" link, we note that under the column heading "Estes Valley Planning Commission Date" the notation 9/18/07 continued to meeting on 10/16/07 will be continued to meetlng on 11/20/07". Could you assist us in understanding the reference in the minutes to October 16, and the reference on the current proposals reference to November 20 please. Thank you for your helpful assistance. Mark & Becky Elrod ---- Original Message --- From: Julie_Roedern.r To: Mark Elrod. Sent: Thursday, October 04,2007 9:23 AM Subject: RE: deer ridge preliminary plat Mr. Elrod, The draft minutes of the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting held September 18, 2007 are now available online at http://www.estesnet.corn/comdev/EVPIanningCommissionMinutes/PCMinutes2007/PC09-18-07.pdf. Julie Roederer, Secretary Community Development Department Tcwn of Estes Park - iro@gle_rer@estes.org 2 970-577-3721 FAX: 970-586-0249 -----Original Message----- From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11: 11 AM To: Julie Roederer Cc: Dave Shirk Subjed: Fw: deer ridge preliminary plat Good morning Ms. Roederer. Mr. Shirk was kind enough to provide us with his summary of the September 18, 2007 EVPC meeting. More particularly the Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat action. I have been checking the EVPC minutes site and so far the draft minutes of the September 18, 2007 meeting have not been posted. Do you have an idea when they may be posted? I am most interested in reviewing them. From what Mr. Shirk advises the matter will be going back to the October 16 EVPC meeting. Thank you for your courtesies. 10/27/2007 4 Page 3 of 3 Mark Elrod hellomark@hughes._neg ---- Original Message ---- From: Dave_Shirk To: Mark Elrod Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 8:38 AM Subject: deer ridge preliminary plat Mr. Elrod- FYI- the planning comrnission voted to continue the deer ridge plat until the Oct 16 meeting. There are unresolved engineering issues (primarily road design and how the drainage will flow into the pond). Nothing major, but the design needed additional "fleshing out. 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 1 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: <dshirk@estes.org>; <bjoseph@estes.org> CC: <szum@estes.org> Sent: Saturday, October 20,2007 2:48 PM Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Good afternoon Mr. Shirk and Mr. joseph, We were in Estes Park last week intending to attend the EVPC meeting on October 16, and learned just prior to or departure that the application review had been rescheduled to the November 2007 meeting. Due to scheduling conflicts and the economical issues of flying back for these meetings we will conunue to resort to electronic communication to you and the EVPC. We did inspect the Deer Ridge Subdivision site while in Estes Park. We searched for any sign of a permit for the significant work that appears to have been done and found none. We did notice large earth moving equipment on the lots. We did note what appears to be new sewer connections. We did note some new road grading. We did note a new fire hydrant installed. We did note a lot of clearing of the lots. We did note the dry retention pond area. We noted a French drain in the retention pond area Help us understand... are permits not required BEFORE these items are commenced? It is apparent these alterations were well underway when the September 18 EVPC meeting was held. There was no mention of these significant issues in the Staff Report to the EVPC. We also believe there should be an electronic posting of the drainage plan you indicate has been filed for this proposed subdivision, you have done this on other properties. We would also request that there be an electronic posting of the resolution to the issues raised by Director Zurn. Perhaps there is a difference between how subdivision plats and a personal residences are treated, but we can't imagine your Department tolerating such construction without prior approval and issuance of permits. It would seem at the very least there are significant existing Code violations with which your Department should be dealing. We look forward to your reply. Thank you, Mark and Rebecca Elrod hellomark@hughes.net r 10/27/2007 1 Page 1 of 2 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: <dshirk@estes.org>; <bjoseph@estes.org> CC: <szurn@estes.org> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 10:32 AM Subject: Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Good day Mr. Shirk and Mr. Joseph, We realize it has only been seven days since we communicated with you. We realize that responsibilities of your jobs are such that perhaps there was just no time to respond to our inquiry. We shall await the courtesy of your reply until November 9,2007. If your time is such that you cannot favor us with an adequate response by then we will need to express our concerns directly to each of the seven members of the Estes Valley Planning Commission prior to their November 20,2007 meeting with enough time for them to review the concerns we have been expressing as impacted surrounding lot owners. Thanking you in advance for your professionalism in dealing with us over this matter of concern, Mark & Becky Elrod ---- Original Message --- From: Mark.Elrod To: dshi~k@e_stes-0-rg ; bjgERb_@estes.ofg Cc: szurn@esles-qg Sent: Saturday, October 20,2007 2:48 PM Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Good afternoon Mr. Shirk and Mr. joseph, We were in Estes Park last week intending to attend the EVPC meeting on October 16, and learned iust prior to or departure that the application review had been rescheduled to the November 2007 meeting. Due to scheduling conflicts and the economical issues of flying back for these meetings we will contlnue to resort to electronic communication to you and the EVPC. We did inspect the Deer Ridge Subdivision site while in Estes Park. We searched for any sign of a permit for the significant work that appears to have been done and found none. We did notice large earth moving equipment on the lots. We did note what appears to be new sewer connections. We did note some new road grading. We did note a new fire hydrant installed. We did note a lot of clearing of the lots. We did note the dry retention pond area We noted a French drain in the retention pond area- 10/27/2007 Page 2 of 2 Help us understand ... are permits not required BEFORE these items are commenced? It is apparent these alterations were well underway when the September 18 EVPC meeting was held. There was no mention of these significant issues in the Staff Report to the EVPC. We also believe there should be an electronic posting of the drainage plan you indicate has ' been filed for this proposed subdivision, you have done this on other properties. We would also request that there be an electronic posting of the resolution to the issues raised by Director Zurn. Perhaps there is a difference between how subdivision plats and a personal residences are treated, but we can't Imagine your Department tolerating such construchon without prior approval and issuance of permits. It would seem at the very least there are significant existing Code violations with which your Department should be dealing. We look forward to your reply. Thank you, Mark and Rebecca Elrod hellomark@hughes.net r 10/27/2007 4 Page 1 of 2 Mark and Becky From: "Bob Joseph" <RobertJ@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> CC: "Dave Shirk" <dshirk@estes.org> Sent: Monday, October 29,2007 8:50 AM Subject: RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision Mr. Elrod, Thank you for this update on conditions in your neighborhood. You can follow the progress of this land use approval on our web site if it is inconvenient to come to the meeting. Also, you can obtain copies of any of the records pertaining to this project by filling out an open records request in the Town Clerks office. I am looking into the concern you have raised about un-permitted work and will report by to you later this week. -Bob Joseph From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Saturday, October 20,2007 2:48 PM To: Dave Shirk; Bob Joseph Cc: Scott Zurn Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Good afternoon Mr. Shirk and Mr. joseph, We were in Estes Park last week intending to attend the EVPC meeting on October 16, and learned just prior to or departure that the application review had been rescheduled to the November 2007 meeting. Due to scheduling conflicts and the economical issues of flying back for these meetings we will continue to resort to electronic communication to you and the EVPC. We did inspect the Deer Ridge Subdivision site while in Estes Park. We searched for any sign of a permit for the significant work that appears to have been done and found none. We did notice large earth moving equipment on the lots. We did note what appears to be new sewer connections. We did note some new road grading. We did note a new fire hydrant installed. We did note a lot of clearing of the lots. We did note the dry retention pond area. We noted a French drain in the retention pond area. Help us understand... are permits not required BEFORE these items are commenced? It is apparent these alterations were well underway when the September 18 EVPC meeting was held. There was no mention of these significant issues in the Staff Report to the EVPC. We also believe there should be an electronic posting of the drainage plan you indicate has been filed for this proposed subdivision, you have done this on other properties. We would also request that there be an electronic posting of the resolution to the issues raised by Director Zurn. Perhaps there is a difference between how subdivision plats and a personal residences are treated, but we can't imagine your Department tolerating such construction without prior approval and issuance o f permits. It would seem at the very least there are significant existing 10/29/2007 4 Page 2 of 2 Code violations with which your Department should be dealing. We look forward to vour reply. Thank you, Mark and Rebecca Elrod hellomark@hugheing ~ 10/29/2007 4 Page 1 0 f 1 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: "Julie Roederer" <jroederer@estes.org> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 12:00 PM Subject: EVPC Minutes Good day Ms. Roederer. In checking the EVI?C site frequently I have noted that the minutes of the October 16, 2007 meeting have not yet been posted. Do you know when they may be available for public inspection? Thank you, Mark Elrod hellomark@hugthes.net 11/3/2007 1 Page 1 of 1 Mark and Becky From: "Julie Roederer <jroederer@estes.org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: RE: EVPC Minutes Mr. Elrod, Due to my illness and subsequent absence from the October Planning Commission meeting, Town Clerk Jackie Williamson was the recording secretary for the meeting. Given her position, she has a number of high-priority responsibilities for the Town. She has said she'll have the minutes ready prior to the next Planning Commission meeting (November 20) but is unable to commit to more than that. Please remember that making draft minutes of Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment meetings available to the public is a courtesy: most public entities do not post minutes until they have been approved by the Board/Commission. Julie Julie Roederer, Secretary Community Development Department Town of Estes Park n jroederer@estes.org 970-577-3721 ~ FAX: 970-586-0249 -----Original Message----- From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 12:00 PM To: Julie Roederer Subject: EVPC Minutes Good day Ms. Roederer. In checking the EVI?C site frequently I have noted that the minutes of the October 16, 2007 meeting have not yet been posted. Do you know when they may be available for public inspection? Thank you, Mark Elrod hgllomark@bugthes.net 11/5/2007 4 Page 1 0 f 2 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: "Julie Roederef' <jroederer@estes.org> Sent: Monday, November 05,2007 6:33 PM Subject: Re: EVPC Minutes Thank vou Ms. Roeder. Your comment... "Please remember that making draft minutes of Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment meetings available to the public is a courtesy; most public entities do not post minutes until they have been approved by the Board/Commission." is most interesting. How can corrections to minutes be presented to the Board/Commission until after they have been approved? In my own experience with the Board of Adjustment on June 5,2007 there were corrections that needed to be made (including spelling errors and misstatements) to the minutes and I made comments on them to Ms. Williamson, who passed them along to you for the Board. The Board accepted my suggested edits before approving the minutes of the June 5,2007 meeting. If what you are now suggesting is that draft minutes are simply a courtesy to the public prior to their approval, how can accurate minutes be assured? I would think the Board/Commission would appreciate making corrections and edits to their minutes before they are formally approved. Should I as a concerned citizen raise this issue with the Board/Commission for their consideration? Thank you for your thoughts. I do appreciate you assisting me in understanding how the Board/Commission process works in Estes Park. Mark Elrod - Original Message --- From: Julie Roederer To: Mark Elrod Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: RE: EVPC Minutes Mr. Elrod, Due to my illness and subsequent absence from the October Planning Commission meeting, Town Clerk Jackie Williamson was the recording secretary for the meeting. Given her position, she has a number of high-priority responsibilities for the Town. She has said she'll have the minutes ready pMor to the next Planning Commission meeting (November 20) but is unable to commit to more than that. Please remember that making draft minutes of Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment meetings available to the public is a courtesy; most public entities do not post minutes until they have been approved by the Board/Commission. Julie Julie Roederer, Secretary Community Development Department Town of Estes Park r!1 jroederer@estes.org f 1 970-577-3721 ~ FAX: 970-586-0249 -----Original Message----- 11/5/2007 4 Â· Page 2 0 f 2 From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 12:00 PM To: Julie Roederer Subject: EVPC Minutes Good day Ms. Roederer. In checking the EVPC site frequently I have noted that the ininutes o f the October 16, 2007 meeting have not yet been posted. Do you know when they may be available for public inspection? Thank you, Mark Elrod hellomark@hugthes.net 11/5/2007 Page 1 of 2 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net>; "Julie Roederer" <jroederer@estes.org> Sent Monday, November 05,2007 9:05 PM Subject: Re: EVPC Minutes Ms. Roederer, Please forgive me... I noticed that my fat fingers managed to misspell your name in my last communications to you. I apologize. Mark Elrod ---- Original Message -- From: Mark Elrod To: Julie Roederer Sent: Monday, November 05,2007 6-33 PM Subject: Re: EVPC Minutes Thank you Ms. Roeder. Your comment ... "Please remember that making draft minutes of Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment meetings available to the public is a courtesy; most public entities do not post minutes until they have been approved by the Board/Commission." is most interesting. How can corrections to minutes be presented to the Board/Commission until after they have been approved? In my own experience with the Board of Adjustment on June 5,2007 there were corrections that needed to be made (including spelling errors and misstatements) to the minutes and I made comments on them to Ms. Williamson, who passed them along to you for the Board. The Board accepted my suggested edits before approving the minutes of the June 5,2007 meeting. If what you are now suggesting is that draft minutes are simply a courtesy to the public prior to their approval, how can accurate minutes be assured? 1 would think the Board/Commission would appreciate making corrections and edits to their minutes before they are formally approved. Should I as a concerned citizen raise this issue with the Board/Commission for their consideration? Thank you for your thoughts. I do appreciate you assisting me in understanding how the Board/Commission process works in Estes Park. Mark Elrod --- Original Message - From: Julie Boederer To: Mark Elrod Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: RE: EVPC Minutes Mr. Elrod, Due to my illness and subsequent absence from the October Planning Commission meeting, Town Clerk Jackie Williamson was the recording secretary for the meeting. Given her position, she has a number of high- priority responsibilities for the Town. She has said she'll have the minutes ready prior to the next Planning 11/5/2007 Page 2 of 2 Commission meeting (November 20) but is unable to commit to more than that. Please remember that making draft minutes of Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment meetings available to the public is a courtesy; most public entities do not post minutes until they have been approved by the Board/Commission. Julie Julie Roederer, Secretary Community Development Department Town of Estes Park n jroederer@estes.org f 1 970-577-3721 ~ FAX: 970-586-0249 -----Original Message----- From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 12:00 PM To: Julie Roederer Subject: EVPC Minutes Good day Ms. Roederer. In checking the EVI?C site frequently I have noted that the minutes of the October 16, 2007 meeting have not yet been posted. Do you know when they may be available for public inspection? Thank you, Mark Elrod hellomark@hugthes.net Â· 11/5/2007 4 Page 1 0 f 2 Mark and Becky From: "Bob Joseph" <RoberU@estes.org> To: <hellomark@hughes.net> Cc: "Jackie Williamson" <jwilliamson@estes.org>; "Greg White" <greg@gawhite.com>; "Julie Roederer" 9roederer@estes.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 07,2007 4:55 PM Subject: minutes of public meetings Mr. Elrod In the event a member of the public finds a significant error or omission in the approved_minutes the public may say so at a subsequent public hearing before that same body. The board / commission may then adopt new minutes amending or correcting the minutes of the prior meeting if they see fit. Therefore there is no need to disseminate the minutes to the general public as a draft prior to acceptance by the board/commission. Regards, Bob Joseph Community Development Director Thank you Ms. Roeder. Your comment ... "Please remember that making draft minutes of Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment meetings available to the public is a courtesy; most public entities do not post minutes until they have been approved by the Board/Commission." is most interesting. How can corrections to minutes be presented to the Board/Commission until after they have been approved? In my own experience with the Board of Adjustment on June 5,2007 there were corrections that needed to be made (including spelling errors and misstatements) to the minutes and I made comments on them to Ms. Williamson, who passed them along to you for the Board. The Board accepted my suggested edits before approving the minutes of the June 5,2007 meeting. If what you are now suggesting is that draft minutes are simply a courtesy to the public prior to their approval, how can accurate minutes be assured? I would think the Board/Commission would appreciate making corrections and edits to their minutes before they are formally approved. Should I as a concerned citizen raise this issue with the Board/Commission for their consideration? Thank you for your thoughts. I do appreciate you assisting me in understanding how the Board/Commission process works in Estes Park. Mark Elrod -- Original Message - From: Julie Roederer To: Mark Elrod Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: RE: EVPC Minutes - 11/7/2007 4 Page 2 0 f 2 Mr. Elrod, Due to my illness and subsequent absence from the October Planning Commission meeting, Town Clerk Jackie Williamson was the recording secretary for the meeting. Given her position, she has a number of high-priority responsibilities for the Town. She has said she'll have the minutes ready prior to the next Planning Commission meeting (November 20) but is unable to commit to more than that. Please remember that making draft minutes of Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment meetings available to the public is a courtesy; most public entities do not post minutes until they have been approved by the Board/Commission. Julie Julie Roederer, Secretary Community Development Department Town of Estes Park n: jroederer@estes.org 21 970-577-3721 11,11 FAX: 970-586-0249 -----Original Message----- From: Mark Elrod [mailto: hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 12:00 PM TO: Julie Roederer Subject: EVPC Minutes Good day Ms. Roederer. In checking the EVPC site frequently I have noted that the minutes of the October 16, 2007 meeting have not yet been posted. Do you know when they may be available for public inspection? Thank you, Mark Elrod hellomark@hugthes.net 11/7/2007 Page 1 of3 Mark and Becky From: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> To: "Bob Joseph" <RobertJ@estes.org> CC: "Jackie Williamson" <jwilliamson@estes.org>; "Greg White" <greg@gawhite.com>; "Julie Roederer" <jroederer@estes.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 07,2007 5:43 PM Subject: Re: minutes of public meetings Director Joseph, Thank you for your explanation. I understand from your communication that there is no "need" to distribute draft minutes to the public prior to their adoption by the Board/Commission. I believe my query of Ms. Roederer was whether the courtesy of a timely posting the draft minutes to the public website was a preference of the Board/Commission. It would seem that the Board/Commission would value input from the public prior to formal adoption of the minutes. That was why I was asking Ms. Roederer if that is something as a concerned member of the public I should raise with the Board/Commission. What are your thoughts? Thank you for taking the time to share your comments with me. Cheers, Mark Elrod Member of the Public ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Joseph To: hellomark@hughes.net Cc: Jackie Williamson ; Greg White ; Julie Roederer Sent: Wednesday, November 07,2007 4:55 PM Subject: minutes of public meetings Mr. Elrod In the event a member of the public finds a significant error or omission in the approved minutes the public may say so at a subsequent public hearing before that same body. The board / commission may then adopt new minutes amending or correcting the minutes of the prior meeting if they see fit. Therefore there is no need to disseminate the minutes to the general public as a draft prior to acceptance by the board/commission. Regards, Bob Joseph Community Development Director 11/7/2007 4 Page 2 of 3 Thank you Ms. Roeder. Your comment... "Please remember that making draft minutes of Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment meetings available to the public is a courtesy; most public entities do not post minutes until they have been approved by the Board/Commission." is most interesting. How can corrections to minutes be presented to the Board/Commission until after they have been approved? In my own experience with the Board of Adjustment on June 5,2007 there were corrections that needed to be made (including spelling errors and misstatements) to the minutes and I made comments on them to Ms. Williamson, who passed them along to you for the Board. The Board accepted my suggested edits before approving the minutes of the June 5,2007 meeting. If what you are now suggesting is that draft minutes are simply a courtesy to the public prior to their approval, how can accurate minutes be assured? 1 would think the Board/Commission would appreciate making corrections and edits to their minutes before they are formally approved. Should I as a concerned citizen raise this issue with the Board/Commission for their consideration? Thank you for your thoughts. I do appreciate you assisting me in understanding how the Board/Commission process works in Estes Park. Mark Elrod ----- Original Message - From: Julie Roederer To: Mark Elrod Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: RE: EVPC Minutes Mr. Elrod, Due to my illness and subsequent absence from the October Planning Commission meeting, Town Clerk Jackie Williamson was the recording secretary for the meeting. Given her position, she has a number of high-priority responsibilities for the Town. She has said she'll have the minutes ready prior to the next Planning Commission meeting (November 20) but is unable to commit to more than that. Please remember that making draft minutes of Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment meetings available to the public is a courtesy; most public entities do not post minutes until they have been approved by the Board/Commission. Julie Julie Roederer, Secretary Community Development Department Tcwn of Estes Park jroederer@estes.org 970-577-3721 FAX: 970-586-0249 -----Original Message----- From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 12:00 PM To: Julie Roederer Subject: EVPC Minutes 11/7/2007 4 Page 3 of 3 Good day Ms. Roederer. In checking the EVPC site frequently I have noted that the minutes of the October 16, 2007 meeting have not yet been posted. Do you know when they may be available for public inspection? Thank you, Mark Elrod hellomark@hugthes.net r. 11/7/2007 Page 1 of 3 Mark and Becky From: "Bob Joseph" <RobertJ@estes. org> To: "Mark Elrod" <hellomark@hughes.net> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:33 AM Subject: RE: minutes of public meetings Mr. Elrod, You may pose that question to the various boards and the Planning Commission. I will recommend against such a policy for the reasons I have set out in my prior email. -Bob From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 07,2007 4:44 PM To: Bob Joseph Cc: Jackie Williamson; Greg White; Julie Roederer Subject: Re: minutes of public meetings Director Joseph, Thank you for your explanation. I understand from your communication that there is no "need" to distribute draft minutes to the public prior to their adoption by the Board/Commission. I believe my query of Ms. Roederer was whether the courtesy of a timely posting the draft minutes to the public website was a preference of the Board/Commission. It would seem that the Board/Commission would value input from the public prior to formal adoption of the minutes. That was why I was asking Ms. Roederer if that is something as a concerned member of the public I should raise with the Board/Commission. What are your thoughts? Thank you for taking the time to share your comments with me. Cheers, Mark Elrod Member of the Public ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Joseph To: hellomark@llughes-net Cc: Jackie Williamson ; Greg_White ; Julie_Roederer Sent: Wednesday, November 07,2007 4:55 PM Subject: minutes of public meetings Mr. Elrod In the event a member of the public finds a significant error or omission in the approved minutes the public may say so at a subsequent public hearing before that same body. The board / commission may then adopt new minutes amending or 11/8/2007 4 Page 2 of 3 correcting the minutes of the prior meeting if they see fit. Therefore there is no need to disseminate the minutes to the general public asa draft prior to acceptance by the board/commission. Regards, Bob Joseph Community Development Director Thank you Ms. Roeder. Your comment ... "Please remember that making draft minutes of Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment meetings available to the public is a courtesy; most public entities do not post minutes until they have been approved by the Board/Commission." is most interesting. How can corrections to minutes be presented to the Board/Commission until after they have been approved? In my own experience with the Board of Adjustment on June 5,2007 there were corrections that needed to be made (including spelling errors and misstatements) to the minutes and I made comments on them to Ms. Williamson, who passed them along to you for the Board. The Board accepted my suggested edits before approving the minutes of the June 5,2007 meeting. If what you are now suggesting is that draft minutes are simply a courtesy to the public prior to their approval, how can accurate minutes be assured? I would think the Board/Commission would appreciate making corrections and edits to their minutes before they are formally approved. Should I as a concerned citizen raise this issue with the Board/Commission for their consideration? Thank you for your thoughts. I do appreciate you assisting me in understanding how the Board/Commission process works in Estes Park. Mark Elrod ---- Original Message -- From: Julie Roederer To: Mark Elrod Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: RE: EVPC Minutes Mr. Elrod, Due to my illness and subsequent absence from the October Planning Commission meeting, Town Clerk Jackie Williamson was the recording secretary for the meeting. Given her position, she has a number of high- priority responsibilities for the Town. She has said she'll have the minutes ready prior to the next Planning Commission meeting (November 20) but is unable to commit to more than that. Please remember that making draft minutes of Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment meetings available to the public is a courtesy; most public entities do not post minutes until they have been approved by the Board/Commission. Julie Julie Roederer, Secretary Community Development Department Town of Estes Park , 11/8/2007 Page 3 of 3 - jroederer@estes.org 2 970-577-3721 FAX: 970-586-0249 -----Original Message----- From: Mark Elrod [mailto:hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 12:00 PM To: Julie Roederer Subject: EVPC Minutes Good day Ms. Roederer. In checking the EVPC site frequently I have noted that the minutes of the October 16, 2007 meeting have not yet been posted. Do you know when they may be available for public inspection? Thank you, Mark Elrod hellomark@hugthe s.net 11/8/2007 4 ,SIT~ STATISTICS: DEVELOPMENT PLAN Utilities: Water Town of Estes Park Electric Town of Estes Park WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS Sewer Estes Park Sanitation District Gas Excel Telephone Qwest lz. cr',7 Ir'20-jw 33â€¢mololk r\\ Mm.$1 ,@ 04 -*9 H WAIMT1 CIR 11 1 -Iq- 44 M - 1 1--1 1 a A ./ 1- ..M A ..1 A ...........1 GROSS LAND AREA - 988.91 A QQ RF 8 882 ACRES 6 ACRES LLQI 0.64% 19.09% 11.88% 6.46% 38.07% 61.92% REQUIRED 15.75 15.75 6.75 2.25 36 14 90.50 (91) TIAL. im Lexington Lane, 10 feet from Estes Valley Development Code (three feet height Limit) or tent code. All street lights shall rosses/wildflower mix. All new All plants shall meet dards. prior to excavating i revised height measurement rker being a 3-1/2" Brass Cap in accordance with EVDC 7.12 oility in accordance with the ents. -suant to Article 68 of Title 24, osed improvements and does f the improvements. / o site work. mud of Uniform Traffic Control Jtility. i dedicated prior to issuance of se prior to issuance of permit )C Section 7.2.D5 COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CORNE#STONE nK]INEERING & 1092 BIG THOMPSON surr: zoo EST= PARL CO. 80017 107 PAX (970) 686-8469 \ ~ |~ NOV 1 3 2001 J ~ 11 1 2- 1 11 1 ... - 0 ....0 0 0 0 .A. . . ' ~ ft' * m 0 0 0 â€¢ â€¢ Â· Â·Â· 0 . - 1,51 . , Ill . , e . A. . A . : D I. , . Al. 0 0 .... ... .0 .Â· m. 0 'F'*'. 1, :71'*IM 0 .... I : D . ... 9~41, t=, ' : D D . 1 .0 , 0 0- 0 0 .A .... . 0 : 0. D . V 1 I : 0 0 1 = D - . :.0 - /4 :. Il. - . D . 1 : .. D - I. D " 01"7/0.8... 1 0 - . 0 0 . 0 . D - . - . . . 1 . 1 I . Â· e - 0 0 0,-- .:- S .1 - 1 1 I =, . 4, A ..1 : 'j 6 - 0 :, . 4 ... . D . AA. ... g.g - 1 -C D ..4 2 ..... . I ; L . 1. 1 D ... 9 I mI . .4 0 ...; 1 0. ... D . .. P , ... 7,1 .. . D .-1 .D- . ...... ... .. 2 . ...... ..... . . /4 â€¢â€¢ . .*..2. . I . . . . . I . 'Pi!/ 1 .4 -.. ..... . -.... ... ....... ,- .., U "4Â· , r' .....0 , - . . - .. .2 . I -. ... 0 . 1/ -r - ... D .. : 8 - ... . 1 - ... . 0 - ... D - D - D . ..0, - ---. 0. 0 = :. , -:. D - I ... 0 . . 0 5 0 .0 - 0 0 - D. . . . 0 D- . 0 A , - - .... I 0 - I . ..... D ... . -I. 2 2 ... . 00 a . e -0-0 . 0 Py 1 - I . 0 ... -4 . , - /- 2 u -1, : ' A - I... D .' .. e .... . . : (.1 .. ... ... . 2 . ..G - . . 1 1 . . I . . 4 2 . . .i~. I-- - .D.. ... . :. .. .. D. . .. ........ 4. .2 . . ... ... ..... ..-.. .... . e .. .000.liA iii 'ilze'llrl .by.Wh - ./." -V - '73 . -22.4. . ...:. .. - em ~44 44* , D /2. ..... .1-. I - .. . .2 . . 2. . I. ... .... .,4 *21'65 . . .0 rrJ} D -0 . ... I.- I. .lk . 2... 2. .; -- I .:-4 -- a -I'lliwillililli ..4 lith// + /0 ?i ~4. 4 I .... I .... ...... . 0 . D.. . . . /43 29 r~2<9: ~r--T. ... ..= f.. . . ... . . . 4-. --in- r ... ./- .-I....4. .. ... 4 i Ilill Ilia li l le pli~ 1/ I " 1 4442 1* 9 ,~ 0 0 - .0 = . ... 0 0 D . ~-S~SPX- 4~".7 I.lib -14; 5 7. O ..... . 2.. . -1 2. . . %Â¥ - .. I . . 2 . .-- ..... 451 9-344. , 4. *40'4'~.. V. .. - r. --- ---- . -- I. r 20. . I ..... ........ ... ..... .. . 1 . vA,1./,.4#-- / / . $ I // . .... -.. .2. . ... : f -44-~ .. ' 'f ./. -/ f.- I. I I ; ..... ... I -Il. . 4- I. 4 I. 2. *.04.6 mv -4 It /// 1 2/-A.1 .. ..i . -... . . I .- 6 x -fq"FI-/#SI// / .~ -a!*.- .k . I . I. I .2 . 4 2. I . . 2- ./ I 4,~ .7 .. --- 1. . ** 20* -1 -0 1 % f. - .0 2 . . I. p ./-- . . .. - 1 . .:.... -1 :. . . 1 .:. .0 0- I . . - 1 I- A ./ , A . , Do 1. .... - ... . .. 0. 2 . 0 A . a ./1 0 ... I ... -I.* - I ... ,. -......... .. 0 0 .0 , e. .:. I " :,0 - . A,1 1 . 0 4 ECEIÂ¥1% DEVELOPMENT PLAN = .' PROPOSED R/JHT TURN- ;~~.~.~~Jitittil'r. ..4-~,,~L.,-i(2-, %~":~46",*'3Ll"~"=:fi~"",~..,,~Ii'r'L~4"~~6tfij fiff WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS.- - ~ PECELERATION\ LANE .0 (185 FT) 3)- - ~23;Ft<Eli~li'~1{ilitt~18>ff;LicclsiE RAL>wJ -f 2. STATE)IHI,UH+VAY~LZVILiMM'7~j:fiutil LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION L..11~~ DISTANCE ~480 FT -y/-~ DETECABLE WARNING~ f,9,Â·Â·A~2'~~. 1 .- '' 0 .1.-I '.,1 ~j :6Â·'340 ;'~: Â·""Â·* TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK . ., ..c..~ Â·Â·77, ..Â· li'â€¢i: a.rÂ· :g,Â· '- Â·61:, EÂ·.d. e'Â·~Â·~i 'Â·:4Â·Â· ~Â·I; ~ ''Â· ~ Â·Â· ;Â· ~~-~~~ Â·Â· Â· Â· Â·~ ~~~~~ '' !~ ~''~:Â· Â· 'Â· ~'~~~'~''~~ Â·Â»3.i:.Â·Â·Â·Â·? 'Â·1:(~ Â·",...~ C Cl-rT,~, M 02 1 TAN/AICUTD C AIAOTU DAAIr.C -77 U/CCT AD TUC Cik O AA 14 4.1... ##CHWAy 21 '4 b< r 43 Xy 20 0 20 40 60 SCALE 1" = 20' 2 -6 Il-$ --I--- S --lilll -'- NON 2007 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING dc SURVEYING, INC. COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ' PROJECT TITLE: j WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS CORNE#sTONE SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION I- I ' ~ 1 ~ |- 10' W/DE CONCRETE DARCY A. SPOOMER- ' ' ---- - ~-----~ 3.EET TITLE:~ NORTH SIDE \ 2 \124~ -#YJI It - - - "\ , SITEPLAN ENGINE=mo & tf' Nh SURVEYINQ INC \ CATCH PAN ZOâ‚¬40-2- FE@TA TE) I : DESIGNED BY MST ~APPROVED BY _JIMP_ 1 JOB NO. 1 SHFFT I SHEET 0~~0!NOMPSON ~ ~ (970) 586-8458 r 1 1 ,-1 ' ~ || 4-AF Â·Â·Ear/NG POS~L | CHECKED BY _ME_ISCALE AS SHOWN | LEXINGTON LANE, LLC Wr= PARK. CO. 80617 NkÂ¢f 'Ax (970) 686-2489 SAÂ»CUT..ASP/$(ET PAN 1 DRAWN BY -NL-. ~ DATE NOV 2007 | 487.002 |2|11 CLIENT: 11 1 1 . I . A . I ..... 42////91/~~pb â€ž--294=444.LLL , 1 11"m. -,1."ill'.0121,1, 11.mar 1 0 -/157- . ..- . .. I . ~-.~7. -- .. D. D D I. I - --I-Ii---.& ./ ----~--= .-- I -lil.Ii- , . - . 0 . .2 0 0 0-10 ' ' 0." 0 -f.' . . . ..0 . . - : -"X,il......Liwid'milli,3..IEBil............Fill .. . --- 2 =./. . .. -Li..............LlilillillililimilliA A . ....M."all./.it/ ila ~~~..~ . ~~ . .. .. I , A I I Â·1 , I Z - .. .. .. .. , Vill'/Bill'lls/1,-2,16/laill" -14 /6 al~c- .. ... . D 1 1.k 0, tvvlqlmilimmilimilliH~2mmillilillilillillillilller/Efilil-le~~eirrili.ititt/+Eg,3.-?t A. '#Rli...017:.- 'P. er:m=31 - .m.-1 , of~ i ~,~ f~~. .. a. , D .. I...ip-=I.-4./ . v ihisiar:Imi.- i,1 -1, %,MA //~Illillill/V 1.#1'.kia.T~AW . Va ./I'llillillilillillillillillillillillillll 2:I:r.* 6 4. ;15~ .. ...0 :>00. =10.. - 119)0 'Nalier ' . 1 :4*ri ~f~'6 - er. ~ . , 9 0 .A.0-600- 1> I.~. 0 '- 4 , , I , 0 ...,-I#'-13 - . . A/Q=. -Imimy -~,~2..ef. '' ./,-i-in--dililml. . 0 1 ... .=*m"*mr./.,9 9/ - Il *El /0 -1 .1 -1 0 00 - 00 - ~ ~; -- ". ... 19 . 49.Bv. e e ..D . 0: - 5 0 1 ... D - ID . - . D A . D . 0 D-=- 1, 7 . . 6% 0 . ..1 . DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAPITI CROSSING CON DOMINIUMS j:44 M 4 LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION /@B@ TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK 1 -ib O-4 1 '.' .;...1'j SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.. i.y ---I--i- - W- COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO ,-1.1.1,1-%:11% - - f . , . ./ I ' 1 -W -W - 1 .. ... 1. . ; â€¢ Â».4 h SIGHN DISTA CE \ PROPOSED TfpE 'R , - -2--5 -â€ž -;.~â€ž~#â€ž-4- f: 1 .11)93Â·,1,Â·i..:.RELOCAL~~E~ISpn~~ ::~ti:FR#414: 2.: '6:4.- 4"0...i INLET BOTH S/DES - ' K - --- .. 1 1 1 REVEGETATE EXISTING b- L i.:.7.- :bf 1.......a.,2.%871 --- - G -I*__ -iÂ· u a. DRIVEWAY FOUND 1" BENT PIPE & + 1-1/4" ALUM. CAP PLS - #6499, BOTH DISTURBED -- I. I / - - b / (CAP BEARS S86.09'49.E, / \ P ALUM. R.O.W. CAP 7----__ __----- â‚¬04'23'53~W -888.22' C- =-~=-- ~ - ------------- ------- 1 --- R36.00 ROM Â¤Ek'ruWARK ELE\'-7692.70 L. -1 -SEI@8CK --- 1 -.5.EziÂ£-091, p G--- , --- CALCULAI ED COMNEK) 1 -- - E H 769 -- -~ - -- - 03\\F------ ---- L , - - ~--1 -0- ---0\ - 4 ~FT- 420~=-* t~L Â·Z_ _ 4_ m A,1 v - _ _____ _ i - -- ---- -- - 6.00 i 30" - - L - 11- --- \ G - P - -- . .. I 1 4 a ... 1 I --- . 4 9,1. , - -% /5, f.14 4 8 ---- . 4 1 . '4 2.- I ------- G ' 42Â· i -\ 1 - 2 . V ----- __ G -- .... Ct: \ \ râ„¢ - I. 4 4 \ \ // \ / \ 4.P / -I--9..0 / /---- - =-Ii-- 4 3. 1 1 r.â€¢\ / i .\\- 371: 23 - \ \ \ r* /ftp Â»pi:K // 0"pp --- 111{ 7692 --=.ms- -5----1.--ty-- rc \\-LPROPOSED S/GN LocAT/04 25' 10 & 1 -- --- .\ -- - ~ SETBACK j At.25 . -- - IA#-- //1\ 1\ - -- . 1 1\\ //\----- i 2 Fr - - t--4 - - â‚¬~A UNIT A14 tu r mi ~>%â‚¬ppi \\/1 \ \ - 1 42721,979- L \\ -- 1 12.00 _ P-Uh<* 2,234.5 sf ~ .71:41 ' i.-4,Â·'-iâ‚¬; / 4, (0 i~ - _ ,>3kj. - -L Â« Â«- 3 11 X ~GARAGE N 885.00 . r I ' ./ \ FE=77033.81<1,6' 11 = m. 9.1' 0 ~PA 20 P ,4~-P37,c-91 4 1 90 .V- - % '112---// FF=7693.04 2. ---- 70â„¢ 11 1 \ arp\ , C Â©Ne V UNIT A15 / *84#NEÂ·i.,)7% Â·;ci'* 0- I * \>__ f 90 - IL LIFE 1/ J I -- 4 I. \ 0 810 p 42 . /1 . :LM.."";':i:11::%' Gil:.FC ..1.2\ \ 9, / 7 I ~ GARAGE ' - - FF=7695.44 / / R12.00' m Â· %'70 0*i / Itt \\- -- - --- / \ 1 \-f iN /\ ------ -/ 2 447 / / 1 ' 14:41 8 'Â·54Hi)Â¢........ \\11.4,np ! .p r./ f A 4 1 22 ~7 . . Al,7 .':1 1 // O / 4. .; - 1 1 li -I / * ' : , CiaL, 2:1 4 0 - , e 96Â§~ 187 * . 10"PP \ \ 77 . .,': :6Â·fiÂ·14': ~'7!â‚¬ i .1 1 b - /- / -, 4/0 1 :41\ fi_:a ~* 12"P â€¢ *-< _ 4 / *--0- . 7 , AGE -286%:57, /1 - r . c. .s~v.- - . - / -08 / \ \ 4%2 \ \ - -Th er,r - \ / 7 ... g 14 - \ i / \ --- . , - /. 1 ELLIE / kb 94; / 6 .1 . - / * 12' 0-PP ) \ 1-, 1 3.1 M - 5/ 30Â»P L 0 4 4 + /1 4* R23 1100 ---- / --~ â€¢ / j~ 8 r-- 10' SETBACK ..UN Il\413 Â· 4 7 444. 9 !1 / f \/Al ly I .f . - 2,234.5 st - R12. 3* / OK 1 1 4 'Co M 0 / 4- f -3- VE=1105.5-1 r -*' AN ~6- / | ," 15" 12 1 78 1 / I -MA FF=7695.57 / T 1-2 - 1, - g.':Il Of Â¢04.:C.. . 1 \ ,~ 2.00 0,â€¢~ ~ -2 . ' I / -0.- \ I - / OAD: DÂ·Â·s i.: / - -- / 2/\ /P r< -00.-Â· .~'ab tr w * - / / 4 11 t.3 - / 8"PP / -- -- K - /1/ -' - 4 Y , RSE :iÂ·.:8#$445-Â· &*60.. 0- TOW ~02.- 3. 9 - ~' 24"P , 5" 1 *PP r, - 1 app / 4 7 --- -- \ ./ f ,; 1 r3 k< C ,.~.. < .: R.:91,#PLE . 9 . P ./. (fli. 1 / \ 1\ . n --p (74Â»rÂ·Â·r, 1- \ / / 34. t.* i 1.9 ~ 1696 -- I I I ... UMITS OF 1 4.pp/ / /\ 0* \\ 4\.1 / I 1 - Fk 6 . . 11513)92"PP 1%1,9....4 . \~ ~DISTURBANCE 4 * 12, . 412â€¢ 18 p . 30 9 - I . . %..\ / \L 4 -- TOW=7705.50 1 28~PP // 1 -LA/\ . - V -I I - 3 \ 0 9 . A 124. 1 , P \ 0.-1 I - -- f lad - peopos t ~ ;~, :tâ‚¬ #6* , /0 -280% 1 / .:Â¢\ 2ND FF=7718.00 - - \2r \ \ -- - . di '. N 1ST FF=7708.00 1. --- 770 GARAGE FF=7696.00 â€¢p \ \ . .... 20" / / 9 I 0% I'l ~'Â· 1 - -- ---- \ I f 31~ 0. ---- *Pp \ - . ' 9 -/- 704 - - , 1. ... 1. ./. ... PROPOSED MAILBOX CLUSTER -- ---- 36"PP I. ~ --- - (43 INCOMING BOXES) 1/ 9 I \ POS 1 Â» 22 - )\ . / / 40 /~/STING ~ " r / I / Kkx,' Â£%11 /// 1 - / j , %2 / /-/-,8Â¥* DRA'#6 1 / / PROPOSED / 0 --- ~ ~ ~ 10 / -0/ - ----------- fac __ .5...f:.Gr,.-, ,,....,~ ..::Â·,.t,*Â·& Â· 4 1 --- 1 , / 110/ 104- 438 sf ~ 36"PP C) / SHED \ - --- --- ' .''MULTI-FAMILY -- -- -/7 3 30.40 -- '. T rE, opr 1 ' / / O Â· / / RESIDENCE 07Â«-- , Ne- 66, I 20 20 40 60 * - , / . / 4/ 30,000 sf SCALE 1" = 20' ,- .\,4 1./ppy Â£-1129> \ / \ N-1 ,//3.21\ /3-84?RE O ./ 7708 / 4 1 !26 / / 7710 . / * 2 \ // TO 9.50 A EXISTING Pa I . CABIN 4 --/_.N\_20"Pk>â‚¬ Ltr~ . 0 'ki 6 - s x i 1491 sf N BLL'kE / -,Â« V r N--CM+C 20"PR - 1 5 sf ' -- FF=7708.00 -Cl &(1=LU 150 TOW=7712.50 711~ 40'--bl~'~ 50 // r c ~-- 30-W=7712.50 , /30â€žPP / \li~.PP ./ 1.- N l / // --- 1 1 /1,30"889Â« 1 / 4\ -_-<000'- 1 20 ILI / 1 17 -/ -- . 0 - 1/ \ .leyeÂ¥> ./ 1 CE k ----- - - ]FÂ«3912*4-*26116 p~ 0 - ~ ~ 106 - M rÂ·*za~ /73Â£z==Dka ?1 / V- ...I -4'- ---4--1 \ 1106 ~~ - - - <-77:8"22_-7 Â· -Â·- ~Â·-cÂ·-----'-,1__ ,, - -- , - -- 10' SETBACK / 0 ------9----1 1 'D . 01- 71-17<Mna/ / ---- E-----26iedka-~~* I 6-2 Â°.pp .011 F FOUND REBAR 0 SOO*48'00"E 879.68' (C)- _ --- - d.r-1 8,9 11 HC"== ------ TE 6 -6 ~ 7 0378, 2 800,5. Cp) - - ' ey ----- ------ dHO ---- ------ OHP / BASIS OF BEARING FOUND CENTER N 1/16 ~ v~UND /4 REBAR V / LOT 4 CORNER OF SECTION 31, T514, / W/ YELLOW PLASTIC SOO'48'00Â»E 1310.05' ~ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE ~ VILLAGE ACRES SUBDfaON R72W BEING A 1 -1/4* ALUM. CAP #9485 (SAL MICHEAL R. MANGELSEN/SUSAN K. O'CONNOR CAP PLS #6499 LOT 1 ~ GA+ s -S -----4 VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION i .- V CAROLE B./BARRY K. STD, ZONED E (ESTATE) ~ CAROLL G. DERMODY PINE KNOLLS SUBDIVISION ZONES E (ESTATE) | ~ 2007 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESÂ®ED ZONED E (ESTATE) 8 DATE: REVISION: BY: PROJECT TITLE: 10/01/07 PER PREUMINARY STAFF REPORT WST WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS 11/13/07 FINAL COMW. DEV. COMMENTS JLR SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION CORNE#STONE SHEET TrTLE: SOUTH SIDE .". SITEPLAN DK]n[EnING& ~~ SURVEIZINC DESIGNED BY AIST ~APPROVED BY _KMP I JOB NO. 1 SHFET I SHEET 1892 BIG THO,WSON (970) 688-2488 DRAWN . -196- 1 DATE NOV 2007 | 487.002 13~11 CUENT: mz ma; m .001,NV' nx (970, 580-2,60 LEXINGTON LANE, LLC 0, CHECKED BY 'IST | SCALE AS SHOWN | 11 5/ , i Â¥HlaVIN ~21 3,+-7-37%7 3 0 0 V DIVMO NUVd 53153 30 b -30 AL W lAy ONISAOH NOISIAI(18n DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO l - EXISTING 15Â» EWER .0 . MANHOLE - \ a 4*OPRO SED ~Â»PE RAT ' ~ - TI- --I r=A--â€ž - 141.0-::Â·3&%:te'4Â·-F.t;~,AC:'2Â·iÂ·~~~:31.-'.3319-2 'Â·1Â· ; t-~: ~~51:> .i...r: 1....; 13<jl,/1 ......: 11 3.:1.4~~~Â·;'Â·. ~Â·t ~'~Â· .7~'c 11 .1 :.,C : --- '-9 CU VERT-- Â· - .; ~~;: ' 'Â·)~.'REXOGUE PROPOSED TYPE 'R / El L TION ROPOSED RMGE'7)471 27877NG _ _ _ INLEr BOTH SIDES 880 .-1 -- -h . - G - 6--r- , - Â· C' '.- 11 ,Â·. EWER -- - DRNEHM Y - MANHOLE< SE=*--- - 1 ./ LI-' ' -- ------- - - / --. - /. ----- ---EXISTING ,<\ / I -----i--6 li------I- -- / K. 4 JUNCTION BOX - -2 -- /--------, / PROPOSED 10 7 ---4< L --'---- . - - 1 --_________ .*Â£ELECTRIC G & - ~ NITARY SEWER -r-7 >4.-_of i--.mi-*- - - J - - - Â·Â¥ f 7-i . *M PROPOSED 1OLyÂ· 5 .- -- , . 7-=Z~Jâ€¢A< 4 =\SANITARY SEWER,\ , 9 PROPOSED, / / , 1 ~ 09'---IEASEMENT177 - - I / ---r- - DETENTION-- POND , J NITARY SE E Â» e --------------- - / ' E â€žL ~\ /-- - G -- Â·Â· EASEME 0 7.Ru +13 s -- - -9 - 4 \ -- 1 , , , 1\/ - SEWER --- ROPOSED -53KVA ,- '\ UNfr A10 MANHOLE ELECTRIC ROP~SED DECICAT --EMSEWER MANHOLEL- 31 / / PROPOSED 10' , TRANSFORMER #2- /2,23* sf UNIT Al 4 \ / RIGHT OF WAY .1 -U 1 Â¥ - -/ - \ /// \\ \ ./ 0 / / /\ j / . \ 2,234.5~sf < 6 / - 2,234.5 sf , 4 TO BE 36' . - \1 ____ ~ UNIT A4 UNIT 9 - 4b WIDE ' NIT 1 2,234.5 sf - . 04, / r 1 1 UN!T A15 IN THIS LOCATION _ ____ \ L IrÂ·Â·--Ar-~;7Â·C- ---= . 1 / / 9 940,1,Â¥4 / -- 1,613 , 0 - PROPOSED 15" . --- --1-- \ / t. 1 1 ~.234.5 Rf_ __- .1 -/ / , -- 4 1~4 ~Â· ~~ ~ ~ U A3 / 3.4 - *s . , \ \ B . / t d .U-4 4-- \ /// \ 1 ---- , 34.5 ../ \ - ..... â‚¬.,2..r. / - / . I . N - 1 <Dm.f' ir Â·1 . 1 ' ' *1:1 : UNIT A w 0 4 0 441 , - 81-K I 04.M.;,6 qb / 4"44 2,23 . sf ,Â»te- \\ \ 0- 31 / M - t..Â·Ef:'4'did:A.:. 31*f -- -- < // I \\ v- $ - -91 k O 94'' N 1 - ..,441,2 / a 4 Â· N N - bki V / ACURB CUT / 1 / / -*./ / I 4 W . h_ I \ M / - ROP // 0 \ /// . N , - 1 .. \\ SEWER - - - 20' 21'-6 / / / MANHOLE / ' , 2,234,5 sf 0/.. 4 DEDICATED , ._ 1 .emfLATS \\ 1 1 1100 2 ,, .Rl HT OF WAY \ 0 // -- / // / / thy - - / 24- :.:'.7 / / / / / UNIT A8 S 1 /- \ / / / / / / I. 0 / -- 1 2,234 11 ' / - 3 -- ' ~ lego ~ 1/ //\ / , / \ 20' / _ \ PR~SED 15' S. 21'-0. . -- j Â«f>/ 1:-6, 3 / 74. r'~WÂ»> / ' 1 /ADS CUERT PROPOSED - -- *i ,eÂ· I '. f ter- 4 l U\>% \1 / / / O'ELECT?/ \ ' UNIT Al 2/ ' '' . r .. 1 , /~UNIT 62/ / -' UNIT A5 2,21Â« 1 .. \ 1 4-\ \ / . I * 1 9/ / 2,234.5 sf // ,23Â£5 sf -- ' 0 .. D . / - )699 44,1,\ 2 \ 0 // - -- /U \\ 1 21.-60 f , / , - / / X17 / -. 0 ' 4.- 4 /1 11-a-ch,41 / ,/ r 1:7. $ / Ill - I 1-~ / / - 1 ' 1 . .1. . .k. 7-- . \ 2-5 'Â» Artgi 1/ \ 1 ' / 1 f , 'UNIT A7 . . boy / / 111.5, '-El . / -- --- / - _ - ~ 2,234.5 sf Y/.Lir di. I ' . i.- - - rri.. ADS r 2 - - f~-gj, f:%.:27 / \ J. , UNIT A6 -------- 4 / t- ic 7 6Â·'/titi..... 0 k D ,/'UNLT- Kf / 2 234.5 sf illill 0 ------- 920*429/ 1 . / .11 , ------ / 9 ./. 0*41 f + 11 1 2,234.5 sf , , ,# -,-- YED - - - O /. . PROPOSED 50#(2 -- - - . I -- gmel -- -- PROPOSED 50KVA , TRANSFORMER.Â·MULTI-FAMILY - - -% . ki / - mi *\\ , r / / 2 ~. LU '~ ' ~~~TRANSFORMER / PROPOSED, / / RESIDENCE - 1 / .-- \---1 --6.,:" j ~ Bul ' 4 1 4 . .4.7 UGHr POLE PROPOSED , I -1 ..4. / 1001<VA.- 30,000 sf / N /2 7/ 9-r/*10 TRANSFORMER 7710 / 1 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT 1 12 , / -1 1 / / EXISTING i t~d:Â·RS:â‚¬ - 1 Â§Â»44 WN I *-I / \ PROPOSED / , - O .1 CABIN /4--"DtÂ·Â·.74.~ 3*:51194 | N UNIT,Al 6 It.12-Ik36:2-2: - -~ - 0 / / 1491 sf / X22%311Â»4 1 5 0 - / 1,11,1/'A41... . ... / / A 12' 1 - / / :14/316 - -ha~â€¢03. \ / - / K -- ,Â©PLOL -0./ 0 1 7 r.1~ / / /// -_- /1-7..'00~ 0-v/ // \ 69*77, ,; 1 11 ' IL-.- --- / 24' - I - ~ // / ;i...2:~ :11,7:44;.....1:1.8.11 // --- --1 2,231.5 sf / / . / . / 0- i 1/ / t--/ \ 1,---J- :i:tit./. / / 4 ~ *811-L ., , ., , -- 1 - 1 ---- ..--0- --, . -*'---,- 1.- ..-.----- ..~ . -'---- ..-...'---- NM.$ 9 .\#s- % -- /- %221< I PROPOSED lz'- - \ PROPOSED 9' \ i -EASEMENT EACH SIDEM- ' ' Â»Â» ZONED E (ESTATE) - '- 7-~ 44(2~-23â‚¬_ 1 6- -6_ 27 - , - .RIGHT OF Â»My I - - I 1 ky 43/ -- I=-dAIBI---Ii== .. 9%, -------------------76 , , d--- -- 1=r 11,- Â£73 /79 f 1341 K LOT 4 A MICHEAL R. MANGELSEN/SUSAN K. O'CONNOR LOT VILLAGE ACRES SUBDMSION PINE KNOLLS .dÂ·Â·Â· letâ€¢Ee- s- - - s- -1.T-277% ty VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION / CAROLL G. DERMODY __ ___- LOT 28 \ VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION CAROLE B./BA# /--------1----- , DERREL L./BEVERLY M. MITCHELL ZONED E (ESTATE) ---- I.-I.'ll --- LOT 2A ZONED E (ESTATE) S LOT 1 HOWARD L. JONES MODIFY DISTING WLLAGE ACRES SUBO/WSION ----- .01\ \\\1 1 1111~ ZONED E VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION- - - ZONED E (ESTATE) 12" CULVERT - 11 NOTES: 30 0 30 60 90 1) BRANCH LINES OFF THE PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN ARE ELECTRICAL NOTES: ELECTRICAL METERING PLAN: PRIVATE SERVICES, FUTURE REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE SCALE 1" = 30' REQUIRED ON THESE SERVICES IS THE SOLE Multi=famill unit to have 25 individual meters. Each RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDING OWNER(S). 1 - ALL FEEDERS SHOWN ARE TO BE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC. meter to be labled with meter number and address. Meters cre to be set in numeric order. 2007 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING dc SURVEYING, INC. COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DATE: REVISION: BY: PROJECT TITLE: ELECTRICAL ENG/NEER: - 10/01/07 PER PREUMINARY STAFF REPORT WRT 08/22/07 SEPARATE UNITS Al-A2 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS HEATH WEHRMAN SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION CORNE#sTONE BELFRAY ENGINEERING a 2811 WEST 9TH AVENUE - or,cET TITLE: DENVER, CO. 80204 UTILITY PLAN Ia 4% SURVEYIBKU!*1 P: 303-892-5980 EXT 102 DESIGNED BY WST ~APPROVED BY KMP I JOB NO. 1 SHEFT ISHEET 1692 BI~THOMPSON (970) 688-1488 F: 303-892-5979 DRAWN BY _BOL___ ~ DATE JULY 25.2007| 487.002 |4Ill CUENT: ~ PARK. CO. 80Â§17 1Â§0 FAX (070) 686-2469 CHECKED BY _MST |SCALE AS SHOWN ~ LEXINGTON LANE, LLC 11 BARTON L/SHARON A~ DANNELS < EXISTING 8~ RAW WATER IRR/GA N TO GOLF COURSE 25'-0Â» 24'-0'0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 21'-0Â» ASPHALT 5'-o" 18' - -18" - WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS SIDEWALK w LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION TO TH E TOWN OF ESTES PARK - 3" ASHPALT 1. 21 T THICKNESS # 2_ I SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE J<~d .. 6. VARIES Â£ 6th P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO - - A . 1 . ,,, ,< , ,<,,~,1, 1 E17 , , .c, , 311. ' ' A.l/1.C ' '71 .A '.Câ€ž(.#,i, ,<c,i,, ,< ,<,0,.. , . 12 - "4' 4 . 4" AGGREGATE 3 .'..' .'' 7- 2'-0" CONCRETE BASE COURSE 2'-0" CONCRETE . T t - \ CURB & GUTER CURB & GUTTER \ \ 1Â¥- ROAD PROFILE -2 CROWN SLOPE TABLE TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION - ROAD PROFILE CROWN SLOPE Â· i Â· Â·Â· : -W <5% 2% NTS I. ' 5%-8% 3% :. 1 >8% 4% l .. .......~I' i...... .2... ~#:If?.'.11.;fi;.{iÂ·~t~~~:~ STATE HIGHW Y No. 7 7'-6Â» ~' UJ 1 L 6'-0" MATCH CURB \ RELOCATE EXISTING MATCH CURB f ELEVATIONS 81 1 ELEVATIONS n\ - inf T POLE ~ INLET BOTH SIDES .... 0, rnur=~ ~ ~PROPOSED TYPE DR Drurb.DIA,r rvier,Ai~ 30 0 SCA PROR - - - -C E- \ EXI~TING- 80-~ E SHOULDER ~ ---BE-Git*iNG -OF.L> 3LDPE- - - --- 7 1 9 Â£ THI GU + FLC LEGEND FOR RADII A= 1/8"TO 1/ B = 10 C = 11/2" D - 11/2*T0 2 D - DESIGNED BY IAST APPROVED BY _KMEL JOB NO. SNFET 9WEET- l,Ul,1~ l ULJ.t'C2511, .1(UAD 04&/Lâ„¢OMPSON <d/Swl-*TR44 (SECTION IB) DRAWN BY _226.. DATE JULY 25. 2007 487.002 511 CLIENTÂ· WrES PARK, CO, 8061,N*' FAX (970) 686-2469 (6" BARRIER - 18" GUTTER) CHECKED BY WST SCALE AS SHOWN ~ LEXINGTON LANE, LLC 1 4 7-fi 1 - ... - 0.0 . ..0. .. D ,-Nlip- D ... r 37. *-, 0 ..J, P I. -- J ./ 1111.0,0,-~,"Unni.pLline",0.- nâ€žâ€žNHâ€žHNâ€žâ€žâ€ž . . -- . . - .- I , D - , 0 "i.171,71:1==75- .. ~1--0.0 . # -f - -3'. '. A , -Ill.-.I-- ..-Il-/ (i=~ D- D a.g.1,3,4==2~ . I I. I ' 0. ,%::millilim-.i--i~.B-L~Im='S-- D . I 0 0 4..16 -- -Al,#11113-~i-----..ila . 27=-- WY.-f 91=1~~~p,=-12:::6&:mfil -,74*Mi~*v I . D . . . ..21 'Sfil,â€¢Ipli~' ' ~,1.,=011=.r' . V. .. .... 2. 1 1-.-P-- ...el ~=A A. -. '3=F.,t~~ . 1 . - . . . : I. .: 1 / A//A04 . 0 4. :: 0. : I Ji"*filijjk'-I- F....../ek....A - 0 ... 151 ..e// A - 0 il - .1 ....mh.- 9,6 ' 9 Ik Â£4 2 0. A 0 #.- a 400. 6 - 4,1.- , I.1 . ....lawzillaiwn#.Al...m/.In , 71-1 -/ . 2. 1 - . ilr --L=~2*9 ~1~*i~ -I...........tal...r ... . //3~7~.6. 9,5 , .. -D .. 0 , "' .~~----' -. .. 0 : - ~ "Â£10,1 vilitelit#PI,El * . :Al- I %%%%%% 42.iall'll'll-: - .a~--,~~1~~~ ;.- . lmRS-, - //~// ./10 0," 1~..1,57- , O ... . 1 A Â· 0 lf'*C.LA~. , ..6 ./.. 4, 4 , /0 ,-r 11 0-Il.... I . , 'r - 'AILI~:~ . D e . - 1*244 v 10 - ~ 1- I. 0 5 00 0. - 0 . 4--:- *& 4<#17 . - arf = ,: 1.-*wij. =14 . '6Â¥ .0 . , 2. . . , 10 I. , - m , 7- I. e 0 4 ., . U '-'- 1 . D . D .... 0 .. I D. 0 . 0,9 r = AL . :.. -- - -- --- -- - .. .1 1....,1 . A LANDSCAPE PLAN - PROPOSED RIGHT TURN - DECELERAT/ON LANE I / WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS -- (185 Fo 20 0 20 40 60 SIGHT DISTANCE = 480 FT - ~ SCALE 1" = 20' - SIGHT DISTANCE\ = 420 Fr EXISTING 15" D \ VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION imMM ---- 10/01/07 PER PRELIMINARY STAFF REPORT MST WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS - LOT 1 \ ' HOWARD L. JONES MODIFY EXISTING 10/15/07 PER PRELIMINARY STAFF REPORT MST SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION CORNE?STONE Nj\72---- VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION ---- (1) MP NORTH SIDE -- ') j ZONED E (ESTATE) 12Â» CULVERT 11/13/07 FINAL COMM. DEV. COMMENTS JLR DARCY A. SPOO/WER- \ SHEET TITLE: ZONED--2 FE@lATE) % j (2) POT M , , . LANDSCAPE PLAN mKEN-& <Â£, =04 nÂ«1 - - DESIGNED BY RWS APPROVED BY _EML I JOB NO. 1 SHFFT I SHEET 1692 BIG THOMPSON (970) 688-2458 - 4___~ Ill LIu / ~ ~ ~ SUITE 200 CLIENT: .97= PAR. co. 80517 NÂ¥7 FAX (970) 585-2469 -1 i I . . LEXINGTON LANE, LLC ) 6 1 1 - L _la /11'!/ 1/ 'A .. .. - -~ 1/F#-*gle.*4, .Ladizill':Mel:i~.i~~~~~ilililli.i/~i""A ..i--4.....all'll"... --~--1.--1~#-. ti mif*PLAn:/4'.,0-i.jitldin'/1:,119/1,1~V~'~ *21.4Â¥L- -dia A- /" 1 0 14\ 1 i:*fammiT- All.......8/1/ . I.- - *C . -9,+ 0 , 00 I k A .4 90.1 -. .. vAL-(4*AN .CTAII 0 4. . A . . .... 20.~ + 1% 74 1 O, . Â»,1 â€¢ A.M'*451-0 1* ./.a D. - itilillimillihmliMI;iliwplill,re/90"'ll': Triallriqilillihilh . 69.1 -9=/0- e" 0**231*18,00161<~,Be#.v ,-dh il-~4*Mill 69.D Hl 00.40 ..2/dillisili"""lifijA .. 9NG=---~ it "BE,A.9....6........a fl",1, .~ ,, -#.88...14/"IM -Val//Aihpijm.7/ I . All"I""liwis#111:ili,10'.- .70~ v --4:7..i A~~~~P=* ~~.0 ~, '.1, *. @*1...ililli~lililmilimil A A/,4 .lic. . . 4*-6 0 .1,1 - 4 -0 441 00.-j. ~- .0. 1 1 li ~Il VI Ilil lill I ..0 0 . - h./. .W /9/Be. 0 I 0 .45* 0.0, ( 4 , 402 . ... .. r 44-5 -0 . . 4 ......... . I. 1. , .. . I- 1.5-~t//1 -- I . 0 , 0, . 0 . ........'-0- Al,V -- 7 -~1- . fliwilliMi~fili,/jill ': .---,i-1,1&01<~119 . ~-: P .*.G~ /7 0 0 M. -agm,~it#~~* 00 -G"*69 - I. .. 7,4, 'illi .0 . 0 - , . - .i / I~ 3â‚¬13\~ Â· 'Cul . ~,w~2,8~ 0*;#*-~-~10 0*Â· 9~~ '*420 4... A fl-Â·; ::' I 4 * *&11,m,-7 . - 7* 1.. . V. .-I/~~.1/ - V ..0- 0 -le INGk ..* e :D . : m. \- -. D - ID . D .- . - .0 - 0 . .. -. - 10. ~ - . D . //A . LANDSCAPE PLAN WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS STATE HIGHWA 14 No. 7 RELOCATE EXISTING -- SIGH~DISTA CE =3502* FT ~ PROPOSED TYPE'R 1 SIGH-k DISTA CE = 340* FT - -- - LIGHT POLE INLET BOTH SIDES REVEGETATE EXISTING FOUND 1 " BENT PIPE & - DRIVEWAY 1 - 1/4" ALUM. CAP PLS ---- ---- - (6) PA - . #6499, BOTH DISTURBED L--/--- - \ I --------- ----- N (CAP BEARS S86'09'49â€žE, - u \ 1 ALUM R. O. W. CAP r----___ -------5 - -# ---------- ------- ---- R3.00 - - L ,--- 7-/ ROM v p --------- grA/ruUA *Af ELEV- 7692.70 , CALCULA I LU CORNER) 0 --- 1 .*.-,.-. ..-- .--- -0-PA- -- .. - 769 -- - ---0\ -- ---------- 42.41 - 0*- G 6.00 / 30" - T-:nzr~ 4--&. I L - - - G -- P 4 .... -- - I -- - C - , (51 --- -- 4--- I .4 .-I -1 /2 --------- 8 . . 4 5 U \ .-/ G r- ... 1 \ --- 4.P - - - I. / I. 37 - /{2"P .ppi ./ O.pp \ 7 PCK, Â· - , *;4 ---_ i- - 1-1 ~23- ' ' 1 IGN LOC /04 \./ 25' 3 10 .- - _.1- ,Â·h \ - ' SETBACK I' d- FL>17.4 - r~Â»4-Â·A. V UP / - \6 \-- - 2 PÂ»--r-4 _ 8"8874 m nor -No "PR>/ 1 \\1 \ 1 .<â€¢A.L.f~ UNIT Al 4 SSC / 0 .0. . 0 -- 63) P/ki ~ 1 -tiÂ»_ -- / / ' 1 --- - '.- - -1\ 2,234.5 sf ~ x "AGE l R85.00 0 0 1 12.00 - Â· 1 f 'p -1 - FF=77033.81 --4' / GAne ~ ~ 9.50 0"PA \ 20 p FE=7693.%17 UNIT A 15 / --- - P \ / & 1.0 - -4 V: \ //// , ~ GARAGE~ ~ ~ --. \\ / \ \ 11 2" -2*34.5 sf_ ,-----4'~ Â· -- I \2 + ' _- 9-211244 (A:#bt , . ~ 0 -. \ 9, i ~ - /-- FF=7695.44 (5) \(Typ - \ / \ I-- \ . p& 0 . 1 I . 2 . . 1 HE \ /.-. . 4\. . ki Â·~ , - * i . ga 1 / \\ / /1. C , .- *\ 10"PP p . - - 4%133 693 18'P / GA455 *-Â· . - 4).-' \ \ / 1 - . 4 1 . . ABM \ /. 1 94124 4 . - -// 307 ./1 1 \/- C ALL G SY *DE \ ~ 12' Oupp AR SHALL - - / B EEDED WITH - 0 1 LL, BASSY Â·- *' b ~ 1 77â‚¬ GRASÂ»---__~ 1 ~8 10' SETBACK A 1 1 CR R23' 1100 W/7H WILDFLpWER 4EAS SHALL Â· ./ 014-UT,3 4 , (6) POT . \ MIX. , - E SEEDED WITH . / ATIyE GRASSES . I SSC . 2,234.5 sf / R. . CLE-- -- 1 'CO R~' ,* ' Ssc j | Â« 15" ef -3 1 1 'P I 77kELDFL0WER y . FF=7705.57 r ix. 2 FF=7695.57 7 Â· Â·0 40 AN 0 % / r<D ' R 2.00.00 1 \ i . / -- / . I - I Â£0./0/ I . 0 3" 5~ 1 "pp *app ----- 247 -- - 9-,0 - 1 * RSE .1 - N 5) /64 \ \\ 0 - 0, TOW 02. 1 18 PP 9 9 - --\ 3 C . ... p . \ 1 \ \\ \ -- SS 4,4/ \ 2.41 \ 5* SIDEWALK', , i / . .-M . . \ 1696 GO - u m /64 0 -- .'....\ CD - 34./.Â·t UMITS OF 1 / (D/ /7.- \ 2 ~DISTURBANCE \ , ~|| ~ * / \ <412.0991 , 121 18' P 0 - 9 .9.9 .A:* i " / p 1 -30. 2.Pp \A ~9Â· Â·* 4 " I 99 ,. - - ---). -' 0 / 0 / 3' C ---- .6- TOW=7705.50 1 28*PP/ 1 *Un>rv - 2 \ M â€¢ 5 1 2ND FF=7718.00 1 2 \ 1* PROPO OPS 4 0 ~ 1ST FF=7708.00 m , #<it 4*120 . 1 \ \ \ \ 1/9 4 TY ) / 1 . (5) KA ' .90 -, ' GARAGE FF=7696.00 â€¢p 20Â» N \ O% K< * Â· 5- ' _ PROPOD MAILBOX CLUSTER -- .L. 01MP pp -- 9 - 1.- .4. 36Â»PP 4. 7. 1 / .. (43 INCOMING BOXES) Â· m - -- O 2 POT - /.)\ erâ€¢ - p Exir /// 1 - 1 / / ' (2) KA . 4,2 / ,;;06Â£ iNA~AEÂ· T (6) POT ,*- ----------- 10 ----- - . OUp 70 0 , .t ' 'Â· '7 2..,.T: r . }: 1./ SHED 1 / 1106 -- â‚¬<*410*2' - - h ~ 438 sf I ~ 36"PP PLANT GUIDE / 1 / . i/ r '<<2 / i // .''MOLTI-FAMILY .. 3)po - (3 IP Â»52 29>6*.2/ 00 1 1 / RESIDENCE Â· -. , \ 30,000 sf P 0 9% rh DECIDUOUS TREE IP / / 1 PP / 1 ' / E ke 7708 (2) PO / 7710 p / p ~26 -&4 1 9.50 EXISTING / Â· | ~,0 1~ / MA M / 9 0 4'-'\ CONFER TREE 1 CABIN O.P CND; 4 > / 1 O.p .5416 PA TIO / 1491 sf , 1 & 8 u 1.5 Sf -(4) BAR FF=7708.00 / \ 1 ill (12) P/P 4 0 909 15.50 -*2) MP TOW=7712. .-/~ rh ORANMENTAL TREE 1 DUO // ) pip ' ,-- 39-W=7712.50 1 07 ><tz) Mp j 7 4.p - / 0 *6 up - ON (*8â‚¬7Jf ~~ " . | I , - - - -- - --~- -- 2 <-:~~ EXIST/NG TREES -- /0\ I \. .. . I. . - - - 0-- 1- ' 110 10' S I \ ,p T Â· - Â· ,* 2) OT O - . 4 1 :~ TREES TO BE REMOVED - MP --- ---â€¢ 0 / / . - R .p 2% 0 0 --- .. \ 2. 1 --- 0 FD EBAR - ; 0"E 879.68 CL - - - H- 33\ ) - - OHP -- -- -- m ------ 1 - 0)- - / --5-P) - FOUND CENTER N 1/16 / 1~ FOUND #4 REBAR / BASISI OF BEARING / LOT 4 CORNER OF SECTION 31, T5N, / W/ YELLOW PLASTIC . r. 1 63) BAR SOO'48'~0Â»E 1310.05' B~R VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION R72W BEING A 1 -1/4* ALUM. CAP #9485 - ,~.. VARIOUS SHRUBS MICHEAL R. MANGELSEN/SUSAN K. O'CONNOR (7) P\P CAP PLS #6499 LOT 1 ~ s - - GE-+s - - -s - ZONED E (ESTATE) VILLAGE ACRES SUBDIVISION i .- (3) Pip ~ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE , PINE KNOLLS SUBDMSION (3) PIP CAROLL G. DERMODY ZONED E (ESTATE) u CAROLE B./BARRY K. STEIN ZONED E (ESTATE) 1 - s ' Ns 4 . W 1 1 REVISION: BY: PROJECT TITLE: 2007 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1 -<.- Z -*.1 10/01/07 PFR PRELIWINARY STAFF REPORT UST WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DATE: N s 10/15/07 PER PREUMINARY STAFF REPORT MST r-1 11/13/07 FINAL COWW. DEV. COMMENTS AR SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION CORNE#STONE 1 - ... *- SHEET TITLE: SOUTH SIDE ~ SCALE 1 " = 20' 2--4/ 20 0 20 40 60 , - 7 i DESIGNED BY _RES_ APPROVED BY _EML 1 JOB NO. 1 SHEET I SHEET 1892 Bm THOMPSON (970) 680-2488 m LANDSCAPE PLAN .Ial=INO& 44)=E~INC SUITE 200 DRAWN BY _B*L_ DATE NOV 2007 | 487.002 I7I11 CLIENTÂ· 8778 PARK co. 80617 ~ FAX (970) 686-2458 CHECKED BY WST SCALE AS SHOWN ~ LEXINGTON LANE, LLC 1 1 / 1 1 - it J R H VH1MVIN 0-314~ 0 9 91Â¥NO x74,- 2: : NM~925 >INVd 53153 3HL 3 an scaping Requirements or s ee PLANT LIST N OTES; Project ame: LOFTUS D V OPMENT TREES FIN in the blue boxes to get landscaping totals. Use this spreadsheet in conjunction with the Estes Valley Development Code Landscape SYMTCOMMENNAGE--3----BOTANICALNAMEMINSIZ 1. All areas disturbed by construction to be Regulations. In some cases, our proposed subdivision or development may be exempt from some landscaping requirements. \-PE_ - - \ fATMORE ASH ~ Fraxinus pennsylvanica "Summit" ~2" Cal ~ revegetated with designated seed mixes. STEP : Impervious Coverage Requirements ~SHL_ _- \ 3HADEMASTER HONEYLOCUSTI~ Gleditsia triacoanthos inermis "Shademaster"~2" Cal ~ 2. Topsoil shall be stripped in areas of disturbance 1 Tree and Three Shrubs for Every 1,000 Square Feet of Lot Area Excluding Parking Lots with 30 Parking Spaces or More ross Impervious Coverage: 109,550 ~ ABM ~ AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE ~ Acer x fremon// 'Jeffersred' ~2" Cal ~ and stockpiled to be redistributed to a depth of 4" Nurnber of minimum when revegetation is begun. 1-SE---3 -SPRING S*OW CRAB ~ Malus 'Spring Snow' Parking Lot Area: O 3. All seeded areas to be hydromulched at a rate of Parking Spaces: 0 ~PRL____~_CANADIAN RED CHERRY ~ Prunus 'Canadian Red' ~2" Cal ~ Net Impervious Coverage: 109,550 1 1/2 tons per acre. All seeded slopes greater than Trees: 0 2:1 to be mulched and netted for erosion control (use Shrubs: 94 1 1 straw bales where needed to avoid erosion and Note: AN other landscaping requiremen s have been applied. Net impervious coverage subtracts out parking lot area only if the parking lot has thirty or more spaces. pip COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE Picea pungens glauca 60-8' tall enhance growth potential). STEP : src u er equirements 4. All planting beds to be excavated to a 12" depth 8 Evergreen Trees and 11 Shrubs per 100 Linear Feet and backfilled to an elevation of 2" below walks or North Boundary Distance in Feet: o East Boundary Distance in Feet: o lawns with soil mix consisting of: 1/3 topsoil, 1/3 Evergreen Trees: O Evergreen Trees: 0 peatmoss, and Shrubs: 0 Shrubs: 0 SHRUBS [Sir-[COMMON-NAMEBOTANICALNAMETMIN-SIZI 1/3 existing soil. South Boundary Distance in Feet: o West Boundary Distance in Feet: 880 5. Cover all planting beds with soil fabric prior to Eve reen Trees: 20 Evergreen Trees: 70 plant installation. Shrubs: 28 Shrubs: 97 ~ KA ~ KARL FOERSTER ~ Calamagrostis acutiflora 'Karl Foerster' ~5 Gal ~ Note: Parking Lot Perimeter requirements for side and rear lot lines have been applied. 6. Install 30" wide cobble and gravel foundation ~ Potenti//a fruticosa -Goldfinger,Katherine ~ 5 Gal border around all buildings. Shrubs may be planted STEP 3Â· S root Frontage Buffers ~ MP ~ MUGO PINE ~ Pinus mugo 'Mops' ~ 10 Gal ~ within this border as shown on plan. ~~~ ~~~*~~t;rlD;;;;nc~ ~ FUeneet r Feet nd 1 Shrub Per 10 Lir~ear Feet East Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· 888 ~ BAR ~ ROSE GLOW BARBERRY ~ Berberis thunbergii 'Rose Glow' ~ 5 Gal 7. All trees shall have a wood mulch ring 36" in Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 36 Shrubs: 89 RS RUSSIAN SAGE Perovskia atriplicifolia 5 Gal diameter at the base of the tree. South Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· 0 We t Perimet r Distance in Feet: 0 Tr es: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 8. All tree rings and shrub beds to be mulched or Non-Arteriot Streets - 1 Tree per 40 Unear determined by owner. cobbled at a minimum depth of 3", material to be Feet and 1 Shurb per 15 Linear Feet North Perimeter Distance in Feet: 330 East Perimeter Distance in Feet O Trees: 8 Shrubs: 22 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 9. All trees to be staked, fenced and guyed. South Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· O West Perimeter Distance in Feet: 0 10. All trees and shrubs shall be drip irrigated and all Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Pi[~f~ plant materials maintained in a healthful condition. Total Streets 11. Conifer trees be sized as 50% eight feet tall and North Perimeter East Perimeter ***NOTE: Trees: 8 Shrubs: 22 Trees: 36 Shrubs: 89 VARIOUS CONIFEROUS AND DECIDUOUS SHRUBS WILL BE PLANTED AS BORDERS , FOUNDATION 50% at six feet tall, Deciduous trees sized as 50% at PLANTS, AND PLANTING BEDS. OTHER SPECIES NOT SHOWN MAY BE USED, REFER TO LANDSCAPE four-inch caliper and 50% at two-inch caliper. South Perimeter West Perimeter ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL.ELEVATED PLANTERS PLANTINGS TO BE DETERMINED, USE WOOD MULCH 12. Placement of plant material that fronts parking Trees: 0 hrubs: 0 T :0 Sh bs: 0 FOR COVERAGE. PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE COVERED WITH COBBLE OR MULCH AS DETERMINED BY Note: Street Parking Lot Perimeter and Fence/Wall Landscaping requirements have been applied. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECL PLANTINGS SHOWN ADJACENT TO ALL STRUCTURES ARE CONCEPTUAL stalls shall conform to Estes Valley Development Code STEP 4. ar ng o er me er equ remen s AND NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLANT COUNT. THE DEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE 7.11.0.4.d plants within overhang of vehicle bumper. THESE PLANTINGS AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 13. Plant material shall meet the American For Parking Lots with 6 or More Spaces" Arterial Streets - 1 Tree per 20 Linear Feet and 1 Shrub per 5 Linear Feet Association of Nuserymen specifications for #1 grade. North Perimeter Distance in Feet' East Perimeter Distance in Feet: O Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 South Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· 0 West Perimeter Distance in Feet: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Non-Arterial Streets - 1 Tree per 30 Unear Feet and 1 Shrub per 10 Linear Feet NOTE: PROTECT TREE VATH 5' TALL WIRE North Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· O Ea t Perimeter Distance in Feet: o VENGNS Ge' ABONE GROU,t. / FENCE TO REMAIN UN111 PLANT Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 CAN SURWE NLDLIFE DAMAGE South Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· 0 West Perimeter Distance in Feet: 0 DECIDUOUS TREES: WRAP TRUNK W/4' TREE EVERGREEN TREES: STAKE & GUY USING 3 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 WRAP FROM BOTTOM up TO FIRST BRANCH & -ty U, STAKES 0 120' AROUND TREES. NO SECURE STAKE & GUY USING 2 STAKES SPRAYING OR WRAPPING SPACED 180'. Side and Rear Lot Lines - 1 Tree per 30 Unear Feet and 1 Shrub per 5 Linear Feet 1 North Perimeter Distance in Feet: O East Perimeter Distance in Feet: O 1 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 DO NOT HEAMLY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. South Perimeter Distance in FeetÂ· 0 We t Perimet r Distance in Fe t: 0 PRUNE MUY CROSSOVER UWas CO-DOIAN,al LEADERS, AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shr bs: 0 SOUE INTERIOR â„¢GS AND LATERAL BRANCHES MAY BE PRUNED; HOMEVER, DO NOT RENOVE THE TERMINAL BUDS oF BRANCHES THAT Total Parking Perimeter Plontings EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. EACH TREE MUST BE PLANED SUCH DIAT THE mUNK FLARE IS ISIBLE AT THE TOP North East OF THE ROOT BALL TREES Â¥,HERE THE TRUNK Tress. 0 Shrubs: O Trees: O Shrubs: 0 MARK THE NORTH SDE OF THE TREE FLARE IS NOT ISIBLE SHALL BE RUCTED. IN THE NURSERY, AND ROTATE TREE DO NOT COVER THE TOP OF THE ROOT South West TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHEN EVER BALL WITH SOIL Trees: O Shrubs: O Trees: 0 Shrubs: O POSSIBLE. 0.5 IN. DIAM. MULCH RING PLASTIC HOSE 5 FT. DIAN. WIN. STEP 5: Interior Parking Lot Requirements - GALVANIZED VARE OR CABLE For parking lots with thirty or more spaces, 6% of the lot must by landscaped with planted islands. One tree and 2 SET TOP OF ROOT BAU FLUSH TO 1-L â„¢ST Â¥,RE TO nGHTEN. shrubs per 2,500 square feet of parking lot. GRADE OR 1-2 IN. HIGHER IN SLOWLY DRAINING SOILS. - 1.5 x 1.5 IN. Parking Spaces: 0 EXCAVATE TREE PIT TO 2X BALL DIAMETER. - HARDWOOD STAKES OR OTHER Parking Lot Area: O 8 IN. --54 APPROVED STAKE MATERIAL 3 IN. MULCH. DO NO PLACE -171mn A. MIGH EARTH SAUCER Landscape Islands square feet : 0 ONtL~ #'I~W'Jm-RE'YJ --lf,1,1,1,4',I, ~t~t~--BEYOND EDGE OF ROOT BALL MAINTAIN UNDER ALL TOPO CONDIMONS Minimum Number of Trees: 0 A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS AFTER ,44'26'-4' e 71**Z~ REMOVE ALL â„¢NE , ROPE AND PLANMNG BURLAP FROM TOP HALF OF ROOT BALL 7*Wh'Â¥414'MW'12*16,4,4, 1,1 Minimum Number of Shrubs: O ~ IF PLANT IS SHIPPED VITH A VIRE BASKET AROUND UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE ~ ' THE ROOT BALL. CUT DERE BASKET AND REMOVE STE 6: Fences and Walls Adjacent to Streets PLANT GUIDE 1 Evergreen and 3 Shrubs per 40 \ - PLACE ROOT BALL ON UND(CAVATED Linear Feet of Fence/Wall m ~ M TAMPED 51 ~ DECIDUOUS D?EE - TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL North Fencing/Wall Distance in Feet: o East Fencing/Wall Distance in Feet: o WE Faw mm FOOT Mism,RE /~ CON/FER TREE SO THAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shr bs: 0 NOTES - 0 ORANMENTAL 17?EE ALL STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN OUTSIDE South Fencing/Wall Distance in Feet: o West Fencing/Wall Distance in Feet: 0 THE EDGE OF THE ROOT BALL - 7. EXISTING TREES Tr es: 0 Shrubs: 0 Trees: 0 Shrubs: 0 417 ASSURE THAT THE BEARING SURFACE OF THE PROTECTIVE COVERING OF THE Â¥,RE OR CABLE AGAINST THE TREE TRUNK IS A MINIMUM OF 0.5 IN.. ~ TREES TO BE REMOVED REMOVE STAKING AS SOON AS THE TREE HAS GROVN SUmaENT ROOTS TO RESIST THE HIGH VANDS . THAT REQUIRED THE TREE TO BE STAKED. Grand Total .~. VARIOUS SHRUBS Total Trees This Plan: Â¥IRE OR CABLE SIZES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: UW 114 Added _ 80 Existing REES UP TO 2.3 IN, CAUPER - 14 GAUGE Existing Trees Total Trees Includes 90 District Buffer oa rees 194 Total mEES 2.5 IN. TO 3 IN. CAUPER - 12 GAUGE Minus 80 Ever reen Trees Added: 54 Ever reen Trees Required: 134 nGHTEN WIRE OR CABLE ONLY ENOUGH TO KEEP FROM SUPPING. ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. PLASnC HOSE oa ru s oa ru s Total Shrubs SHALL BE LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODAE 1.5 IN. OF GROWn, AND BUFFER ALL BRANCHES FROM niE WIRE. Added: 329 Re uired: 329 This Plan: 331 TUCK ANY LOOSE ENDS OF THE VARE OR CABLE INTO THE VARE MRAP SO THAT NO SHARP *IRE ENDS ARE EXPOSED. Notes: Generally, landscaping requirements are not cumulative. All landscaping requirements may be used to satisfy impervous DA E: REVISION: : PROJECT TITLE: coverage landscaping. Street landscaping, i.e., landscaping for street frontage buffers, parking lot perimeters, and fences and TREE PLANTING DETAIL - B&B TREES IN ALL SOIL TYPES WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS CORNE#STONE walls adjacent to streets is not cumulative. This spreadsheet automatically subtracts parking lot permimeter and fence/wall - requirements from the street frontage buffer requirements. It then totals all trees and shrubs in every landscaping category NOTE: THIS DETAIL ASSUMES THAT THE PLANTING SPACE IS LARGER THAN 8 FT. other than impervous coverage and subtracts this total from the number of trees and shrubs required for Impervious coverage. SQUARE, OPEN TO THE SKY, AND NOT COVERED BY ANY PAVING OR GRATING. SHEET TITLE: THIS DETAIL IS TYPICAL IN INTENT ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL AD.UST HIS LANDSCAPE Existing significant trees count towards the total number of required trees. WORK TO ACCOMODATE ALL CONDIMONS DETAILS mIonimmuNG & mc DESIGNED eY RWS APPROVED BY A:&â‚¬>~iwi~~ --mibri.-2.08 DRAWN BY -RWS_ DATE JULY 2007 487.002 8.11 CUENT: .718 PAR. co. 805 17 NÂ¥/ rAI (970) 686-2469 CHECKED BY WST SCALE AS SHOWN LOFTUS DEVELOPMENT,INC. ..1 ...m DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., COUN-IY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO \ P i r- 1 DATDIREVISJOIt--------197:----ri;*332EfiiE--~ IMPICAUYALE=211=-IRELEX 28 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS| ~ SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION % ~ BUILDING ELEVATIONS \ ARCHITECTUREÂ·PLANNINGÂ·INTERIORS ~I-= 1 ~/FROVED .Y--LM.21-211.-NQZ=FS=ip#=1-=======-_--~ 1730 BLAKE STREET SUITE 435 9 DENVER COLORADO 80202 | DIUMI DY - | DATE JULY 25.2007 06074 I 9 '1 1. LOFTUS DEVELOPMENT,INC. 1 303 297 3334 F* 303 292 2601 'CHECKED gy LP 'SCALE 1/r = 1'-0"' ........... =====:===illiggiliggiliggilligillima#,9/~:.'1111"il;.- Oh--//#I'l~:.~~2.1.2.1~~~~~'~~'Il:mililililililililililililililililiammi~~//./.~~-.Il.~.....-1 '1161 <Mlmlikilille'l-".11,1Allihil.Hu'lull,11 Ill"!ill'll"lli::BLI:ill i~* 14:::::ma:e:i:w- --4--lad--~--M,--1 =- 1,"11.11111111.1.1.1.... -*im*4Iilliplimt:Ililli _ _i ~ ..1.'llill"!L-: Al.- /6...1--.il--- --,=E~-22~.~ =; gil......A -6:T~~::::'me:eme:L'.".m.&-L....1,"A"e'#'",W3.".-.---42,6..-........ 6.... I~~-~-~.~-'......."Il.-.........................................I-....1-.- --Â· iÂ»42\24 M*~hilte~e ~~~Ui6 -Al 1 --- --- < 11-"Ill."I 1-1 -1.1 FEM Ill 9.1/r 1.- 1.1.lilli'jilitiSLLL~; ",i,~;11,f,WH5;Ii.111 ba...1$?t FF.729296;Prikal:% #3 â€¢i 9 , r-m --1 6.29.2- I. 0 ID 0 7 ..... 1 0 ID 1-!110-li R#~2~~-- m1. . ..!!111!1!!11'â€ž*â€ž11~!!!1!!!1! ,â€¢m~~mliâ€žt.wl .53 iii '11911,-1-1.~111.illl.,4 1 1 1 - ~ 21-1-1â€¢111111 -- "||'|-|-I-'N'llitilll=I=Il Ell i .....-ilimililiti@limmillimili*-*Il|~ =31-!1~Illl -L, 11 01-~~za , ==11,11"11-11-1'll .............I--I.-------. --11"milill-illl'-[|||"."il""Hill[Ill-L6--I.2.1111111!1111 ji -I--I.-------.-i--*# ---ST==9. ..... In'll:F~Lill'.;::::::",..'10-i.iminimimiiii-"il ~ =~= .~~:==~mmmImmmI!#11!MI~| 1% ---01#2 -=~111111111111111111111111'111'11'11â€¢14;1011111110 118'1 ---- -*-%1..............W------ -- --------- - . *.5::/EEEIEEEXE.ill,XE,EFE................./...Ill.ill'-Il......Ill.I.............................Ill--i../Ill.I--iv-".,ili.J..J............../.....................i---I~...P..W........I............Ill-I.I.-... 40" b. -dr/2, -- - mmimm'-'-'-'111111 1/6/:/.4 L.f#*,65::66:le:5211,11'llillp"""4;.68:~wililrimi 5ll:ill'ill"11111 111 Pqgm#9 0//*:i A -4.- =.1 1 r , 1 /pa/'1:29~9/PrEEZiffv///F.;a/7/~:'~~~/'......1;' -4.- , --=.1-9 11------I-#-7/2-21&81**7-4*,",99-i:;gi:*.6.uM.. -kgl f ~ 14.=-1.=4%3.'-1......4:1:F~ili~~92==1 00 0 .1 A . D . .AD ID , - D. D - D. A D & D --I.*.-~--il-=I'll-'-I.- ...~F e.la=...I- 1 '522!222!82/2: :-'" EL"'111â€¢101.1.â€¢- dig lut..1 ~55!2~~~04-6 9 . P *%_ )1111,i--i,i,:nâ€¢~2=5@@~ 111| --4 - 11]11~||||||| 941~*~ 15 -=21111111 1-4.11-lilli 8/2 -AgE/EXEES,Exiat-- 110!!~:0.- I.H..."'IM", + aillillill/0....i:11::9:,ilililizi:,i:i:::::::::::::::::" I- -/1/2- ~-~-I---~-=.I-,6----2--- .00.h'#011!'//8~--liditinguider..........m -i,&95~. D . U D . 1/Mit/M. li /.,4 1 11.1,1.1 1,91 - -3*-.-AN 'W--Call-b--9-~lir-4-9/Zip'=-- :r =iT-E----.- ---- - '1..,i.'Ell'11-- --d'""""'i=U,â€¢ -_ m--=lifiBErtii?RE Â£'532'.",.SEE----*i -2'-~~ DE=:=,11'Z9â‚¬ # 11|~51&1jjil~i~22&2~2 ~ . 1~--|G~!}EN~~2''g~ji,bi~.~4192.~.'&--Mil'pl *~il-'-Ev~~01;j,1;1~21 *1~1~1.0 ul~ v i . D . .- . - li 3 t]11.E Â¢ 1.0. D . 1 1.. 7,4 i-1.011 0 -- 1 4 11 1 11.'ll/-14 , D . D . DEVELOPMENT PLAN /I-,b- 1 7, 4-XV 1. . -,7 1 P- -4 1* 11 t. R . 1 y . . A. : 'A./ . 1 AL *> :I ' I. ., 11 /1 Â£ .1 \ =-1-u_ FRONT ELEVATION- MULTI-FAMIL SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION SHEET TITLE: THE MUUIERN GROUP, Lm BUILDING ELEVATIONS ARCHITECTUREÂ·PLANNINGÂ·INTERIORS . D W lIfED m 1730 BLAKE STREET SUITE 435 DRAMI â€¢f - DATE ..8122-22 06074 CUENT: DENVER COLORADO 80202 CHECKED Ir _12__ SCALE _U*LE-e=Â£ 1011 LOFTUS DEVELOPMENT,INC. 303 297 3334 FAX 303 292 2601 ........... Ii A. .0 . D. 0 . A .. ... . ... .. 0- . ,- rai Al:Ead . .... . 0 ..... -4 46&=========9-I----< -- In-U-11.1-1 :Vir '1: .1.1=1-11,-1.P--W'll ..*11 11 ~'-4,(-1-1-1- D -~1.--1~1--1~ ::,1.-m N.lit 1. - - - - -. . ~ - 1.1 14, 1-.1... ; t- Li,',.t; D . 1 + w~?'3~ ' .- -1.7-0 . 0 0 1.021011'll'lipqi' 1 .=' 1 - IllillililiJIIIIWIIC<IUEils:.3 9 - - VVT"lif~'liff! lilillillillillillillillillill.iliwililillitilliar,0~ul'llul".ill",1 61'llillilla~~~illijl .1~11 *CM! 1--lim../.Ul'.1...1-11 1 .P~~~4, Â« At . ... D - ..9 -ill-,-1- 'll --'-'-/ rly.7//1 + ./1.1~ 1 11- Por#,..7 .- 1 --- 1- 3 <-Ill- , 0 gil <9 1 11-- ...- ..- .- 0---' me--4 - IP-- ID D -*'21*-5;/P='.4 ---1,~ ---'.--'-- !1,2.1 - - 1 A .9~- 0 I.. .. A . .ni 'laillimillializilifillill'lli,illil '1/0.81 lilililia::6.li' 1 D ..D ... 1 0 A A ~1 - -ESL- -1.--- 4221~~E1 ~--Ill'~....==6 - '1~ -I--f EF~.-"- - M.---I.-0----Id--*-- : --- -.I-~ilill,11.-I.....Mlillim,qi.-"'ll.- ..111!.111.Ill 11 X -1 -i. ..111 -â€ž-11-1 - 1-1.-1 - I ./1...1..3//1 ...1 t.:.Â«fiâ‚¬J:;* -1. ' Â·p f i //I: 1/ :er -- g= -/.1- : =9 *:; ~aU'll~ 1!2~~~ [2~. 4~d' 4~1 '1,~ 4*1.1.1.11 'le.11,11.1.11 -1--.1---1. 1 1.-1,1-1... .I-,-Ill.1-I ...1/,--I-.1-li-'. . .-I-/-'ll. ---Ill-Il Â£11 Aisi~ Al./.............. .~ NA#VA - - -9 / -m-'.---/'/-%m-Aulli-HE~- =-"'-/'/1 ~I -- LIA.4 -I - 1 9... f.' ...............H....3..#Ill.111 7-:1 ~Li~=HJ :~ 11- Mill 1-11.1. .Illill 3*1I - * 3 1â€žâ€ž11i il'#Iv , ./.Y../.--.I.I.-- = -1=1-1 6.3 '..1-1:~p*H 1 . -11..1 1/1.-1-1 1-- 1. 3.9 1 jWiva3 2 ...1 -- d *< IIlj~~~1~|~1*l~I#*~liE@i ~!Elll~I: ~ LII ~1.I0 ,~ ; ~ #9~.~ ~ i=*,- 1~1~~li~Ii * . -1- iS 4**fea I il4ll --111~~7~ 1 1.51 =IB~l - --25. 9 1//#44~ 2 g-~r~~: 2~42-t i ! -'-1231162: I -9,1 . -r._- aec~~4- 1~~ ~~~- 4// e A. A . -- =5 - -1-Ki m -'""'"----..â€ž'-~'...,-:==1 ---.----.'---'-----'"---,--- ~ ~.1.11~11,11'.,==67,-Iifi~*fill:=:.$-,I.I~=~~~imif~---~I..â€žI.~5-.~~~~~~~I,~..I~.I,~ ---- , g ~/5 :Â·f 1, 44' A ..1.'.ipl. ... ,5--21"./..............i ' i 1.1.1.,1 -11~111,1 4:Ji~f:.l~ 1 mi-1 .1-1.1-1.-1 2 :*:.:L~< Â» 1 r)",2 -7? 2 4 . t> -11.~11~,ijalti~i1ti,i= .lilli-1. .' 4,11.1 .-=..14--Ille.~-4, 21-1-1 1 -11=1â€¢1 23â€¢Il.Iâ€¢11-1 -----1... ..1111.Ill ~1994'ely'l..NE...1.1...1,1~.1.~1~*1-'- ..9. H-li~.--~I i Ill".1 lf-i.1-1.1 -----------. -il~*,1- 11 ./All/Vili i ..1.1/'lle/- 1 il-'"-1-1-ili i 1/ 9, .- -11 iwil -1 mi =i 11.em-~= 2-In,11'm ~ 1-1 i 1~11 1-1-1 *11 il. ...i Imil - --1.. 11. . 8 ET1IIFI. .111 ...1-1 :=01 1 6 . ",1 ' 1. =11 11 -11--1 -1 f -Ill! -11-11 iÂ® f.,- r.fi:Ii '6:,1*1 ~ ~i,lâ€ž,r,vin:,14* A,Iâ€ž,I,;5 -__i - :_ s* 3 It,I# 1-- le I I lim' i .wl "I'Il'Ili1~ ~Il3 2 mâ€¢ '2 1 iE '---m~f#im=: - - - ~Ii WEE~wi ~,ti~ ~ ;g~ ~ ~ 0 ~ - - #5 -1 ..11-1 9 /7- -- 0 0- reem Il 'tal' 1 Â£%~ 1 li 21 /1 I .1 I. I 1 1, -11 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~-- --- WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS ..3*44-,9- .THQ **ic,ea*r, 4 1 4 -4+Â« *12â€¢41â€¢ 44 9+6Â¢.\ *A ~~Ft LOT 22, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION ~' â€ž/44 % 444 U-* flu,:.4-k- /1 TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK ~ ..ill SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., Tr i.'E, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO Â·0 ~~~}~ 1! 0 it tt tt tt 11 n ti ti t-4Â¥;< / #1 0/1 12 11 11 Ir -ir- it ' 11 Ileen J y. 9----1- 4 r-1 1 it f 1 ... " 128& 1 2 I 1 . 1/ C --- - ----- 1 - .b" 1 i A i ./ I. XXP ------ '-r---- mi 1 - 1 44 : E a Il- ./.. r. 1- 22 - .tft ,, Mi 4 i--- .- 11=Tl- . 7 1 ' * 1-...I- - = ) 1.- / =-=-I-'-Ir 1| 4.e 6â€¢â€¢wa~616 utiff2.IC- -4 - ...====~IG.==.== - 11 11 11 11 ~~-irvi . y 9 li -95-- - < -7- A.,erve 441* $ 9-P / / UNwi -..... -, / 1 1 1 . 0 . 1 -- 1 i / 1 k 1- 1,4 7 i 2-WED. :--- 1 1.4 & 1 1 'S-1 1*4.â‚¬4â‚¬.B Ft#.4 17444 m.,4..t:uz-g- m.050â€¢n04 AE > 4 14 13 14, >lA'/-71 ~14'06./.4 7 +Â¥t ' 1 -Â¥<fru, f/+6, CA*St,9 1 | f ~ ~'' '71=r .1 J . i TIS11 1.-*... 11 P - 1 BED uN Tl.1 - 1 11 - >i. i~* 1 : 1 -- 1 -- 4**COLEM I 02*0 - BE'z.Jkt#*1 4#9.- 3 r rit ,Â£UNEf 2-4â‚¬- -eiVIT Mi ~ - - f- 1 1 1 1 fri- I; 1--' 1 BED 1 BE) 7 <-< --* Â¥Mt,011 9-1 -- 1 1 .... - ., -7 ---- â€¢11111IA t1111*Ir . . I \\1 -- 9 :1 thz' 4 , .- D ./ It I . - 462# 1 1 1 4 -\/0 -- PE I SECOND FLOOR PLAN ; ~ -:. C 9 MULTI-FAMILY f. S LE-- -17=S,01; . 1,1 - 1 \ Ne-IMI A- i ~ ~ _~ ~4 ~~ | ~~ 2 I . ! 1 - 1 i . 1 1 1 1 -9 -Lâ€¢ 40 SPACES - 01\ 4 1 % :4 9 1 1 - 1/ 1, P Â· ..t I.1, 23Â»tjM#tin--_ ~1 --Ill.-I- -M .-- .--Il-.- . \ 1. , , i ..7â€¢ u; " . 1 - 3 11 1 '' 1?11 -1 . , I It.1 1 -1 111 - ne i -P-ED. ENTRY BELOW. 1:. I i tri 1 GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 1 . 6 1 g i 1011'* MULTI-FAMILY '* F$/fli 4 J S .Â»- m I i; ~ r:.! : 0 'BES' t Â· \ UNIT HEIGHT TABLE 1 L i .. - t 11'17 - 4 - UNIT FINISHED ROOF RIDGE GRADE ELEV. LOWEST HIGHEST TOTAL ROOF ALLOWABLE 7 4 I Â·ENtrter' 1 12 ' ~ NUMBER FLOOR ELEV ELEV. @ ROOF RIDGE GRADE ELEV. GRADE ELEV. HEIGHT HEIGHT bl - 1 3 Llti-'1'1 1 -U T, 4 +9901 1 1 + 4 2*TD . \ A 7689.57 7719.12 7688.07 7687.24 7690.20 31.05 31.48 i .. ,r R ,2 , Al 13 -1 *Â· 6 - ~"' A2 7684.07 31.13 7688.5 7716.09 7684.96 7687.24 31.59 31. . 0 A3 7688.79 7711.45 7680.25 7679.23 7682.7 31.20 31.73 A4 7688.33 7712.22 7681.06 7680.12 7683.4 31.16 31.64 1 - i i H - ji_ 1 L' I. 1- 1 f2L t.er.. A5 7690.42 7718.45 7687 7686.98 7690.66 31.45 31.83 _~ Â·- E.6 --1-11-14-4-â‚¬01~%8%*-- --;-- p' --~--- 2-Â·~ Â·--21 LeDBr '1 . A6 7692.61 7722.71 7691.64 7690.66 7693.94 31.07 31.64 - 192.- A/ 7695.55 7724.78 7693.39 7692.34 7696.16 31.39 31.91 7713.26 7682.05 7681.22 7684.57 31.21 31.68 4 AB 7694.35 7720.95 7689.54 7688.51 7692.34 31.41 31.91 ~.1 23 1 1 f ' A9 1 1 464 Fl (' S <1 VII 1, 1 -1 10 *- ' Â· Al O 7692.45 7715.6 7684.39 7683.46 7686.81 31.21 31.68 *113. A12 7696.17 7724.93 7693.44 7692.27 7696.55 31.49 32.14 4 1.6. . 3,5 I ;:;b - All 7694.90 7720.75 7689.21 7688.23 7692.27 31.54 32.02 1 .1 - b. 1 A13 7695.57 7726.95 7695.45 7694.45 7698.49 31.5 32,0 " ~ -r -r l~Â£ Al 4 7693.81 7722.9 7691.35 7690.34 7694.45 31.55 32.05 u â€¢ 1-i-1- 1.JMT 1-H UN,111' 1-1, ~ f Al 5 7695.44 7726.27 7695.03 7694.09 7697.51 31.24 31.71 El BEE 1 BED // \ Al 6 7705.50 7734.92 7703.39 7702.74 7706.57 31.53 31.65 04- : LIli r 1 . 1 '. 81 7688.58 7712.08 7681.04 7680.02 7683.22 31.04 31.60 82 7691.25 7713.46 7682.32 7681.39 7684.6 31.14 31.61 1 4 1 4 n . MULTI-FAMILY #i 4 --_ _. - f ENIFEJORPKI~ ~ j ~~ Â· NORTH 7708 (First Lvl.) 7738.79 7705.58 7704.13 7711.92 33.21 33.89 SOUTH 7696 (Garage) 7731.66 7699.81 7699.05 7703.42 31.85 32.18 1 2 r ... 1 1 S 21 9 1 m . I . a. r J Al ~1 11 - - Â·- f .t: 3 1. 911/ft MULTI-FAMILY ' WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS ~ FIRST FLOOR PLAN Â£ 41 .*a DATE: REVISION: im PROJECT TITLE: 'Â·Li â€¢ U : 1- tl fi + SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION 5 4 THE MULHERN GROUP, LTD, .SHEET TmE: . BUILDING FLOOR PLANS ARCHITECIUREÂ·PLANNINGâ€¢INTERIORS -------- i 1730 BlAKE STREET SUITE 435 1 9 1 ! 8 DE=NED . -1,2-1.-O.D . .....1 J- NO. 1 SHErt I SHEET 3, 4 i lit ... Ir ._Le- | DATI -/LiI-Ii,-1 00074 |11 |11 CL~FTUS DEVELOPMENT,INC. ~ 29721 FAX 303 292 2601 1 4t '2 DENVER COLORADO 80202 i 5 - F CHECKED. -t-_1=.2 1/r - 1.-0. ....... Ibl F ,--, 1 F1 41 -