The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-12-18s=- Flug--60 N Prepared: December 12, 2007 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 18, 2007 ;11:45 a.m. Sl~dy-SessiBI?, Rooms 201 and 202, Town Hall 1:30 p.m. Meeting, Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes dated November 20,2007 3. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, Tracts 1 & 2, Watts Exemption Plat, 2010 Upper High Drive (AKA 2010 Tanager Road) Applicant: John C. Koenig & Charlotte H. Koenig Request: Adjust the boundary line between 2 lots Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision, 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane Applicant: Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar & John A. Skoog Request: Divide two lots into four lots Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 5. REPORTS 6. ADJOURN \ The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 4 estes vA LLitl PLA vbv\,L vig (10 vIA, vikEssED FL 2002 January 15, 2008 J u ly 15, 2008 February 19, 2008 August 19, 2008 March 18, 2008 September 16, 2008 April 15, 2008 October 21, 2008 May 20,2008 November 18, 2008 June 17, 2008 December 16, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission The next scheduled meeting will be held Tuesday, January 15, 2008. There are currently four items on the agenda. Re"ti .clers: Pea.Ma.0 60.,missio. St.dy Sessio. - January 17 at 1:00 p.m. in rooms 201/202 Jout Study Sessio. witil Go..ty eommissioâ€žors a.d low. Board- January 29 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. in rooms 201/202/203 88ectioM 06 0#|cers at tae Ja,tuary Meethte - Chair for 2008 should be a Town appointee: Ike Eisenlauer Bruce Grant John Tucker Vice-Chair for 2008 should be a County appointee: Wendell Amos Betty Hull Joyce Kitchen Doug Klink You can view information about all current submittals, including next month's Planning Commission items, on our web page: www.estesnet.com/comdev/CurrentRequests.aspx RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DRAFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 20, 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 Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, and Tucker Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Director Zurn, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioners Amos and Klink 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 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 It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Grant) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Hull stated she had read the lengthy correspondence received from neighboring property owner Mark D. Elrod regarding the Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat application and commended planning staff, especially Planner David Shirk, for their thoroughness and attention to detail. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Applicant: Mulhern Group, Ltd. Planner Shirk stated the details of this application were presented at the October 16, 2007 Planning Commission meeting; the item was continued to allow receipt of comments from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). The applicant has submitted plans showing minor revisions, including preliminary plans for a deceleration lane, the addition of landscape berms along Lexington Lane, the location of trash enclosures, clarification of parking statistics, and correction of minor typographical errors. The proposed development meets Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) review criteria, including density limits, impervious coverage limits, floor area ratio, and setback requirements. The proposal is for the development of one 24-unit building, one duplex, two triplexes, ten detachod units, and the use of the existing cabin as a community room. The location of 1. I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 November 20,2007 the postal cluster box is proposed in front of the multi-unit building. An eight-foot-wide sidewalk along Highway 7 and a five-foot-wide interior sidewalk are proposed. The property has been zoned for multi-family development since the adoption of zoning in 1961; this zoning has been maintained throughout all zonings since that time, including the valley-wide rezoning in 2000. Today's hearing is not to determine the land use or density of this project. The intersection of the proposed interior road (Golf Course Road, formerly proposed as South Shady Lane) with Highway 7 would be a three-lane intersection with a dedicated right-turn-only lane. The new deceleration lane on Highway 7 leading to Lexington Lane would have a thirty-foot radius and a sixty-foot "landing area" and would fit within the existing right-of-way. Planner Shirk summarized a letter received from the Colorado Department of Transportation dated November 13, 2007 as follows: projected right-of-way need is 75 feet on either side of the highway centerline, but CDOT will defer to the Town on whether protecting this future right-of-way is possible; CDOT concurs with the findings in the traffic impact analysis; access permits will be required; the deceleration lane is warranted; the applicant must work with CDOT; CDOT will consider a waiver for any deficiency caused by right-of-way constraints. No traffic signal is warranted in either location; CDOT will not allow the installation of a traffic signal without warrants being made. A drainage report must be provided to CDOT. Planning staff has received a drainage report for the overall site, which has been approved by the Public Works Director. Planner Shirk reviewed EVDC Section 7.8, which provides review standards regarding wildlife. He displayed the wildlife habitat map from the EVDC, noting most of the Estes Valley is covered by either elk areas or deer areas. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has requested wildlife mitigation for development along Fall River Road, in the bighorn sheep area, but did not request a mitigation plan for this proposed development. When staff initially discussed the potential development of this property with a CDOW officer, the officer indicated the need to provide wildlife corridors, which the applicant has provided. The development code states that the CDOW must determine whether development will result in significant adverse impact to the wildlife. The letter received from the CDOW dated October 25, 2007 states that elk use this site to feed, rut, and calve but does not indicate that development of the site will have a significant adverse impact on the wildlife. A wildlife conservation plan was not requested by the CDOW. The specific requirements of EVDC Section 7.8.G are summarized below: â€¢ Buffers: requires a setback from identified important wildlife habitat, as specified by the CDOW-none were requested by the CDOW. â€¢ Non-Native Vegetation: allows only plant species shown on the EVDC landscaping list to be introduced, limits removal of native vegetation-the landscaping plan provided complies. â€¢ Fencing: limits height and type of fencing-no fencing is proposed other than that required by the EVDC to protect plantings. â€¢ Exterior Lighting: requires outside lighting to be minimized and not shine onto critical wildlife habitat-the proposal minimizes outside lighting; all exterior lights must be code-compliant, including the street lights. â€¢ Refuse Disposal: requires animal-proof containers-the proposal complies. â€¢ Domestic Animals: requires enforcement measures to control pets-this issue is addressed in the staff's recommended conditions of approval. Letters of opposition to the proposed development were received from the following Estes Park residents/property owners: Steve and Beth Ramsey, 1038 Pine Knoll Drive; Barton L. and Sharon Anderson Dannels, 941 S. St. Vrain Avenue; Gwen Knobel, 1070 Lexington Lane; Fred R. Mares, 895 Elk Meadow Court, Carole L. Billingham, 1015 Pine Knoll Drive; Sandra Lindquist, 1980 Cherokee Drive, and Art Messal via email (no address given). Planning staff also received phone calls from a nearby neighbor, who provided the status of elk using the area as follows: on the afternoon of October 26,83 elk were on site "all afternoon"; a herd of approximately 60 elk were on site from Friday, October 19 through Sunday, October 21. DRAFT 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 November 20,2007 STAFF FINDINGS: 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. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed Wapiti Crossing Development Plan 07-13 conditional to: 1. Transformers and pedestals near the north end of the "multi-family" building and between units A6 and A7 shall be placed in less visible locations, as delineated in the staff report. 2. All dogs and cats shall be kept inside 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 Al 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 August 22,2007. b. From James Duell to Dave Shirk dated August 16, 2007. c. From Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated August 24,2007. Commissioner Tucker noted the letter received from the CDOW does not state clearly whether the proposed development would have a negative impact on wildlife and questioned how planning staff had requested CDOW comments. Planner Shirk read for the record the letter sent to the CDOW from Community Development Director Bob Joseph on October 18, 2007, which states in part, '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 at the intersection of Highway 7 and Lexington.... This property is located at one of the most heavily used elidhighway crossings in the Estes Valley." Commissioner Tucker acknowledged that staff had asked the right questions. Public Comment: Steve Loos/Lead Design Architect for Wapiti Crossing for the Mulhern Group stated he is not a wildlife consultant. The plan (in regard to impact on wildlife) was developed based on input from Town staff and meets the criteria to provide wildlife corridors. Twenty-eight individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Comments are summarized below. Ronald F. Norris/1905 Cherokee Drive has vacationed in Estes Park for 37 years; moved here a couple months ago. Deeply concerned re: the proposed development's impact on wildlife; provisions of EVDC are not being followed. CDOW says proposed development will have significant impact on elk/deer calving area. Traffic accidents involving wildlife are a severe problem, expected to increase. EVDC requires denial if development is in a calving area. EVDC empowers staff to ask developer to submit wildlife conservation plan; this has not been done. There is justification to deny; he requested that Commissioners reject the proposal. Mr. Norris submitted a letter of opposition. Rick SpowarUColorado Division of Wildlife Officer was present. Commissioner Tucker noted there were statements in the letter received from the CDOW that could be viewed as indicating the proposed development would have a negative impact on wildlife and he requested clarification. Mr. Spowart stated he wrote the letter staff received from the CDOW, which was signed by his supervisor, Mark Leslie, on behalf of Mr. Leslie's supervisor. The role of the CDOW is to state impacts; the proposed development will DR-AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS L Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 November 20,2007 definitely have a negative impact to wildlife, just about every development in Estes Park does. This site is the most heavily used crossing point for elk moving to/from the golf course. It is also used by elk during the rut and as a grazing site. The site is used by many other species of wildlife, including bear, deer, mountain lions, coyotes, and raccoons. In 2007 at least nine bears used this area and bear conflicts were extreme during summer and fall. CDOW has asked the Town to require bear-proof trash containers by ordinance. Lots of wildlife is hit on Hwy. 7 in this area; increased traffic will result in increased vehicle/animal accidents. No fencing should be allowed in the proposed development. Dogs harassing wildlife or wildlife injuring/killing dogs could be a problem. Many communities are wrestling with the issue of development in wildlife areas, as is the CDOW. Communities are increasingly strict in terms of protecting wildlife; the more open space that is left for wildlife, the better. Commissioner Grant stated the issue is the word "significant." His understanding of the development code is that the CDOW is to render some judgment on whether adverse impacts to wildlife will be significant. Mr. Spowart stated he views his role and that of the CDOW as a "consulting role." Commissioner Tucker stated the EVDC requests the State to define the term significant but it doesn't appear to be in the State's charter to do so. Mr. Spowart agreed that it's a catch-22. Cory LaBianca/1965 Cherokee Drive-EVDC Section 7.8.A, Purpose, states "to maintain and enhance" wildlife and habitat, and to "plan and design iand uses," which could mean open space, parks, etc. Section 3.8.A, Purpose, encourages development reflective of objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comp. Plan recommendations should apply to development review, which should not be governed solely by codes and regulations. Ms. LaBianca submitted a letter of opposition. Ada McCracken/1089 Pine Knoll Drive-Retired to Estes Park from Colo. Springs because all the land there had been destroyed by development. Excessive number of empty, unsold properties in Estes; low-income housing is not occupied. Town should preserve habitat for wildlife and beauty for future generations. Jayne Zmijewski/926 Village Green Lane-Has volunteered for 40 years for the CDOW and lives at the end of the meadow (the applicant's property). As a State employee, Rick Spowart is restricted in what he can say. The proposed development will have significant impact on wildlife. Use of the property as a fawning and calving area should be emphasized. Director Joseph questioned whether the opinions Ms. Zmijewski voiced were her own or were the opinions of the CDOW. Ms. Zmijewski stated she represents the CDOW as a volunteer. Jo Persons/1000 Woodland Court-Don't "tear down paradise to put up a parking lot." Don't allow the property to be destroyed for money. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right. Al Persons/1000 Woodland Court-Estes Park resident for 24 years. Has heard that the Planning Commission sells out citizens repeatedly in terms of how development is planned for the town. Requested Commissioners do everything possible to stop this proposal from coming through; review all information before making a decision. Commissioner Tucker stated during the time he has been on the Planning Commission, no Commissioner or staff member has sold out for money or made a decision/ recommendation for any reason other than for the benefit of the community. Jim Taylor/659 Cedar Ridge Circle-Very important issue; it's a question of the appropriateness of unbridled, continuous development. Recent newspaper article stated 400-500 houses currently for sale; why build more? The wildlife issue is very big, but the biggest issue is what citizens want for overall growth. The issue is GROWTH. Joy Beard/1600 Hover Road, #C-3, Longmont, CO-For twenty years she and her family have come to Estes Park to relax and enjoy mountains and wildlife. Family guests always want to see elk; she takes them to the applicant's property to view. History of Estes Park is land-grabbing and greed. Don't let elk die. Opposes this proposed development. Eric Waples/1519 Raven Circle-Questioned whether follow-up studies have been done on developed areas to determine whether the wildlife provisions of EVDC Section 7.8 have been effective. Requested examples of projects that have required developers to DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 November 20,2007 provide formal wildlife studies. Director Joseph stated there are no examples. The EVDC has been in place since 2000; that is a short window of time to determine what the influence of the adoption of the development code has been. The prior development code had no such provision for wildlife. The impact of a development on elk might be very different than its impact on another species. Mr. Waples stated his opinion that the Planning Commission has shown callous disregard for wildlife. There is a great deal of discretion in EVDC Section 7.8 for the planning office to exercise; this discretion has been exercised in a negative way in terms of wildlife impacts. He urged the Planning Commission to use that discretion in a much different way. The number of people at the meeting shows the public's unhappiness. Judith Nichol, 264 Solomon Drive-Questioned how the proposal has provided mitigation for wildlife and what variances have been granted. Planner Shirk reviewed again each standard of EVDC Section 7.8.G (buffers, non-native vegetation, etc.) and how the proposal complies with each requirement. He reiterated that a wildlife conservation plan was not requested by the CDOW and stated this section of the development code is not intended to prohibit the development of property. A waiver to the driveway/street separation standard was approved. No variances have been requested for this development; none have been granted. Ms. Nichol stated the development will be harmful to elk. Henry Pool/1017 Pine Knoll Drive-Questioned whether the proposed sidewalk along Hwy. 7 would be in public right-of-way or on private property. Planner Shirk stated the sidewalk would be located on private property with a pedestrian easement so anyone could use it. Mr. Pool expressed concern that an additional right-turn lane at the Hwy. 7/ Golf Course Road intersection is needed, noting traffic uses the existing left-turn lane as a passing lane. He contended the proposed turn radius at Lexington Lane is too small; a 50- foot radius should be required rather than a 30-foot radius. Dick Coe/1070 Pine Knoll Drive-Took issue with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan showing migratory routes and corridors and elk and deer corridors as overlapping. He stated he frequently sees elk come down Axminster Lane, cut across his lot, and continue on to the applicant's property. More bears have been in the area than in the last 14 years. Questioned whether the Town has a plan for open spaces, green belts, wildlife. Stated a visitor center employee told him that they direct people who don't want to pay National Park entrance fees to view the elk on Hwy. 7. Kay Thompson/351 S. St. Vrain Avenue-Addressed Commissioners from business- owner's point of view. Visitors come to see deer and elk; visitors stay in Estes Park in order to do so. Urged Commissioners Tucker and Grant to nail down guidelines not provided by the CDOW. Stated applicant's property is a wildlife corridor and birthing area. Paulette Robles Mares/895 Elk Meadow Court-Questioned who the applicant used as a wildlife expert. Stated the CDOW are experts but were not approached. Noted people in attendance, emails, phone calls, and letters to the editor in opposition of this proposed development. Stated she had names of 450 people who are opposed to the development and submitted sheets with their names/signatures for the record. Signature sheets read as follows: "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. Estes Park voters for wildlife." Robert Taphorn/2613 Wildwood Drive-Expressed surprise that wildlife mitigation was not required for such a volatile issue. Urged follow-through on elements of the EVDC; best judgment is not acceptable. Joanna Hannah/1050 East Lane-Stated elk corridors provided on the former Storer Ranch property do not work. Overbuilding of Estes Park is akin to development on Maui- Estes Park is a tiny island; its uniqueness should be preserved. DR-AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 November 20,2007 Becky Mares/917 Rambling Drive-Grew up in Estes Park; has degree in environmental studies. Multiple generations are concerned with this issue. The applicant's property will not be a wildlife area once buildings are put up and roads are paved. Public outcry is significant enough to be the code for guidance on the use of this property. Suzanne Wolf/425 Ski Road, Allenspark, CO-Teaches outdoor education in Rocky Mountain National Park. Tourists say Estes Park is losing its small-town feel. Many say they don't want to come back because Estes Park looks like a city. Tremendous change in town saddens her. Milt Garrett/1480 Raven Circle-Referenced recent League of Women Voters seminar featuring three speakers on the growth of Estes Park and the Estes Valley. Urged Planning Commission to not approve applicant's proposal; keep the land for wildlife; keep Estes Park for the middle class; don't become like Vail. Jerry Brown/821 University Drive-Opposes proposal. Stated Colorado is caving in on itself due to development. Invited developer to join the Estes Valley Land Trust and preserve the property. Linda Behren/1310 Manford Avenue, #E5-Spoke on behalf of the trees and future generations. Expressed concern about global warming and about destruction of wildflowers, grasses, and trees. Warned that elk will go elsewhere. Chris Baisley/1490 Creekside Court-Expressed concern about lack of buffer area to absorb elk that are shooed off golf course in summer. New development along Fish Creek Road and this proposed development will leave elk nowhere to go. Virginia Tolane/750 Prospect Avenue-Requested continuance to allow time for wildlife review. Paul Kuna/1050 S. St. Vrain Avenue-Expressed concern that CDOT engineer doing runoff survey at the site did not have copy of proposed plans and concern that the developer wants to sell units and make a profit. Stated he lives in Eagle View Condominiums and there is too much density in town. Wants applicant's property to be turned over to the Land Trust or purchased with GOCO funds. Gail Nehrig/921 Village Green Lane-Stated visitors wonder what's going on when they see so many for-sale signs and empty store fronts. Questioned why the town needs more condominiums or more retail space. Jim Tawney/1820 Fall River Road-Repeated "tear down paradise..." quote. Questioned whether applicant's plan provides a common-sense approach to development. Stated development could have been designed to accommodate wildlife, but it probably wouldn't be profitable to the developer. Susan Laird/2516 Pine Meadow Drive-Estes Park resident for 15 years. Stated agreement with everything said so far. Referenced RMNP presentation on sister park in Poland, noting minimum development is allowed close to the Polish park boundary; expressed desire for similar development restrictions. Stated wildlife needs this area; this proposal is the straw that broke the camel's back. Questioned how much more development can be allowed in order to have the quality of life residents wanted when they moved here. On behalf of Dirk and Gwen Knobel/1070 Lexington Lane, who could not be present at the meeting, planning staff displayed two PowerPoint presentations provided by the Knobels, showing photos of elk. Chair Hull closed the meeting to public comment at 3:15. Commissioner Tucker requested Town Board Liaison Homeier convey the size of today's message from the public to the Town Trustees, stating this is the way a community should act when the community feels strongly. He encouraged public attendance at all Town Board meetings to talk about these things in general, stating that's how Trustees make decisions. He stated the planning staff applies the development code as it is written today. DRA]ET I J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 November 20,2007 The developer has done due diligence to create an attractive, functional design. He stated his belief that the proposed development will have an impact on wildlife. There is a need to figure out what Estes Park will look like in the future. He stated the Planning Commission could not rewrite the development code today. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to protect wildlife while figuring out the bigger picture. Commissioner Kitchen stated her belief in property rights. Landowners should be able to do with their properties what is legal and beneficial to them, with the hope that it will not infringe upon others' rights extremely. She pointed out that no one has discussed the dilemma of elk overpopulation. A conservation plan for wildlife was not requested by the CDOW. Neighboring property owners enjoy the open land but the property is zoned for just what the developer is requesting. The applicant has met the requirements of the EVDC and Planning Commissioners must follow the guidelines of the EVDC. Commissioner Tucker noted the Planning Commission had recently voted to disapprove a proposed development plan based on levels of disturbance to trees and stated his belief that levels of disturbance also apply to life. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Grant) to DISAPPROVE Development Plan 07- 13, Wapiti Crossing Condominiums, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, based on the significant impact to the wildlife, and the motion passed. Those voting in favor: Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Tucker. Those voting against: Kitchen. Chair Hull stated she lives north of the Good Samaritan development, which includes corridors for elk migration. She has never seen the elk use those corridors. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:27 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT - r :4/F-y.44. al ""46 t>41 , - A-322'*fl~&U-3,Â· , 42.**, foft*WHF/E ..2 Â¥W ' 9 i I:.: 7 E .~ m., + Et 'r . * p , r 41/9/'12;1-/4 L 2 - 'riref ./.< - r * . ' , 1 . L 0 r=L-82 4- - ' i *< rA- 2 A. . . I. -ar -1 .. t . 1 4 S , *v-9 .i,Libi.~ .A. 42.,-... 1. ,79,& jiJiI EdliEL . %' -4 .-bi" : :2 i a I --/ //Â£- 5!y*02 1~',~ --Il- .,al' r L r $ W -8 ~2 "C. r *; 14 - 16. -'Ate ir 4, 1 ~*~~1~u>~ .0,t~,~.J;f~'~~~ ; kljt,9.+L ~ . Â¥.p*4:-#63Â£:g:127â‚¬1Â£1*4 -: .1 .= f, 1 443> i ~*# 9, ir- *f.1 ~.Â·., f 7 4 - 3# . J >> ..W-, . 43' b r. ,1 f. . - ... 72 D. r'' .lit #.I - f * r. I 1 1 li : ' 2 2 J *$24 , il e.eÂ¢ . WIT- / -<TAG#$ <- 4':1924<,144#i2Â·00143, ..114- j#-:. . -222 V Â£41 *rk : , f.1 -Â¥4â€¢~ '. ~I~ A , . - r 0- 9 -3 , 2 42. < *9*01--f '17<4 - .....9 4 U 1 7 1 1 Â· 4 1 ,Â¢07 4% ' ' x j. 43:U *!72'llbey , A/$49,2 ./99299' Ne. 'â€¢ I:H :*7*40.4,4-600.1 - il- arlf z . . --:II...2*==wt/.' Â«~-20#e_-14/ -1 1,1 - 54.1- W . 12;' A A. FaL er.<Af -r~. fle Aff, te *Â·1346:>0- -4 -ew .44 4 r . 4/5/<41,< ~,<'2~Vt EL 0/ff 2 2.7,J tb' CÂ» AA< . '14 - f .IN .-3 5 ., I422 5 7.>t~Â»--'* i.. . Dre t. B .1 â€ž .4 * I- 1A ./ _ 1 ~ :. . i W 1.... -h al,ArÂ¥ , - IllfÂ·Vt@~M/66: #.V 413.:- a *iT~~4 jeyÂ«*,yd,~~21r,AIUN -~~t~,*~31 /r,2 ?'*Ar.~: V --1: 1 u~J--- f 10 -* - 1.2 -'23 Ir -4.'2 ./ , T--T--41Â¥ 34~J-'J;Ki~R,76*BA:-;~1 11. 915* r='12-=-CP '42 * jiÂ¢ ip- 2--=e iMP 4rs u '40'r. 11 , \0-94. 71Â¥.0 f24'tx, - 1 ' 9% ht iT ~tty. .5 . 4 7 1 C ': I Ztj 17 ~; At/:* :7, - .'~ + >~ ./ I I ' p . I r4 - . 1 1 *44 - 1 Utk-WL : f 9 1 1,~>1 1.4 ,$, Ar t ' 92 9 . - I 4 i =r <d, 0 ,- 7 * ?4 442 t & U#* 0 7 9. . +46.1.1 , '2 - 1 tiÂ¥. '1/ 7.- 9 EL . 4. - 4.1/966/ I F :I'l .= AE>Vt,ZÂ¢12*t Z. .~i// O./*- . 44 J f 4, , . , 2 , 4 - : -' -2-47 #. 4 4 . 0 -40:/ m 2.,f13<rINTâ‚¬'h ' .. ~ 4. . #' */1& = ptÂ·â‚¬ishifzft.~:*41'01*:; gfly. . , 4 E .% 7 / 151 0 .1 /1.Uy 1 '' 1/ ht E.'I- r .. X 1 1 I t $ '.' . 'r tâ‚¬ati,Â·9201?Tr-- #il I 1494 , 0 6. ,1 4,Â¥314 - A* rNÂ·,0% 11*: 3 . 34 , 2â€ž&4 Vi . -1 1.4/B . f 4414' â€ž1. . -t[*03:.1TXr .'--..=1* 1( . f. 66 . 80/jijams /:4 1 - I . .3.4.*~2:MT.~~i::,1 .2#44 6-t:. 3- t.,11 - 1-2, 1,, 1 14/j "'.*- A#* 17#' *'f# * *:*.r= t~~ uj.---w'# .... '4 'r.'.2."r' -t~,2. 1 5#W' I i- . 1/0 1 1 1-4 - 17 1, 5 ~ 2Â· _I _.C . k ./ , dih,6/11'h- 1 4/0 Â» A #. * r:-2*. Watts Exemptior at - Location ~ Amended Plat of the Watts Exemption ~ Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 *IIm0 Estes Park, CO 80517 ~ Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: December 18, 2007 REOUEST: Adjust the interior lot line of two existing lots, establish Limits of Disturbance, and dedicate easements. =- AVNp i I /0 LOCATION: 2010 Tanager Road, within . ~.cA,L__ _â„¢na- d ' USES ~' unincorporated Larimer County (see map at 747ek ...4, --- / end of report) 36 Rocky 36 36 APPLICANT/OWNER: John C. Koenig 1.bulain USFS 1~oral and Charlotte H. Koenig 6 u'l STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk = USFS FMP exu*112Â¥y SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (Tom Bergman), 586-9388 Parcel Number: 3527100030 Development Area: 9.44 acres Number of Lots: Two Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: "RE" Rural Estate (2.5- acre) Adjacent Zoning- East: "RE" Rural Estate North: "O" Open (Larimer County designation) West: "RE" Rural Estate South: "RE" Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Single-family residential North: Rocky Mountain National Park West: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential Services- Water: Hondius/well Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer d , PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request to adjust the interior lot line between two existing lots of record. The perimeter lot line would not be altered. This proposal would also dedicate access easements, and truncate the buildable area for one of the lots. The applicant requests minor modifications to allow side yard setbacks of 40-feet in lieu of the 50-feet typically required. Staff has received comments from two adjoining property owners. 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. Minor Modification. The applicant requests minor modifications to reduce the required setback from 50-feet to 40-feet for the east, west, and southern property lines. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to "truncate" the buildable area by "capping" the northern building setback at 240-feet from the southern property line (thus preventing any building in the northern 1000 feet of the lot, which is steep and not well suited to building. Pursuant to Section 3.7, the planning commission may grant this setback modification "provided that the [planning commission] finds that such modification advances the goals and purposes of [the development code] and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation." Staff suggests the southern setback modification coupled with the northern building envelope, does in fact result in less visual impact and a potential reduction in overall site disturbance, and recommends approval of these two features (southern and northern building envelope). However, the proposed east-west setbacks would provide a "blanket variance" to allow a 40-foot setback instead of the required 50 feet for a 200-foot long building area. It is Staff' s opinion this is excessive, and side yard setbacks would be best handled through a site-specific variance request, through the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, thereby minimizing the request. Minor Subdivision. Section 3.9E of the development code requires that for minor subdivisions, the planning commission shall find that approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injuriouk to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the development code. Staff suggests that approval of the side yard setback modifications could have potential detriment to neighboring properties (see neighbor comments below). Beyond this, the proposed plat would not have any detrimental effect on the neighborhood, and would benefit the neighborhood by the platting of an additional access easement that serves properties to the west. Page #2 - Amended Plat of the Watts Exemption Plat With the exception of the proposed building envelope, this proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Neighbor Concerns. Staff has received comments from the two owners of property adjacent to the west property line. One was not concerned, but requested to be kept posted on the review process. The other, Brenton Washburne, has submitted a letter of opposition based on the following factors: 1. Proposal "would not have been made if it was not for the benefit of the Koenigs and detriment of the" Washburnes. 2. Planning Commission hearing is during winter month when "summer residents cannot attend the meeting." 3. Koenig has apparently learned that Estes Park property lines were drawn using the best surveying techniques of 60 years ago, and granting this adjustment would "just set off a round of useless complaints throughout the neighborhood." (staff note: the four perimeter property corners were found with existing survey pins, and no change to the outer property lines is proposed). STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 1. Pursuant to C.R.S.30-28-110, sub-section 4(a), "no plat for subdivided land shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners unless at the time of the approval of platting the subdivider provides the certification of the county treasurer' s office that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid." 2. The proposed north and south building setback lines warrant a minor modification because they would result in less overall site disturbance. 3. The proposed east and west setback lines would not advance the goals and purposes of the development code, nor would they result in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation. 4. Approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the development code. 5. With the exception of the minor modification for building setbacks, this proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 6. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed Page #3 - Amended Plat of the Watts Exemption Plat by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 7. Within sixty (60) days of the Board's approval of the amended plat, the developer shall submit the final plat for recording. If the amended plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. 8. This is a Planning Commission recommendation the Board of County Commissioners; Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Amended Plat of Tracts 1 and 2 of the Watts Exemption CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements). 2. The proposed building envelope shall delineate fifty-foot setbacks for the east and west property lines. 3. Prior to recordation of the plat, the property owner shall apply for a change of address through the Larimer County Building Department to officially change the address to 2010 Tanager Road. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amended plat to the Board of County Commissioners with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature. Page #4 - Amended Plat of the Watts Exemption Plat GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 November 16,2007 DAVE SH[RK, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Boundary Line Adjustment - Koenig - Tracts I & II, Watts Exemption Plat Dear Mr. Shirk: I have tile following comments: 1. The road easement on Tract lA should be labeled "private" road easement. 2. The Dedication Statement dedicates perpetual public easements for the installation and maintenance of utilities, drainage. There are no utility easements nor drainage easements shown on the Plat other than an overhead utility line on Tract lA. If in fact the "road easement" is to be also a utility and drainage easement, it needs to be labeled for that purpose. 3. The Plat indicates thai Upper High Drive crosses the southwest portion of Tract lA. A public access easement shall be granted for this portion of PIigh Drive located on the property. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Â¥ert Truly 10Ers, LU-- - ~ Gregi~ A. White GAW/ldr Memo To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 11-16-07 Re: Koenig Boundary Line Adjustment, 2010 Upper High Drive The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Boundary Line Adjustment Request for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1) Any relocation or upgrade of existing facilities will be accomplished at the project owners request and expense. 1 LARIMER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT *ACOUNTY Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 TO: Dave Shirk, Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 FROM: Traci Downs, Development Services Engineer. Development Services Engineer -F;}> DATE: November 21, 2007 SUBJECT: Koenig Boundary Line Adjustment Tracts 1 and 2 of Watts Exemption Plat 2010 Upper High Drive Proiect Description/Background: This is a request for a boundary line adjustment at 2010 Upper High Drive. Comments: 1. Staff assumes that any subsequent improvements on this site will not adversely impact the drainage patterns or create erosion problems in the area. Recommendation: The Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any major concerns or issues with the submittal of this proposal. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5701 or e-mail at tdowns@larimer.org if you have any questions. Thank you. CC: Van Horn Engineering, PO BOX 456, Estes Park, CO 80517 reading file file A LARIMER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT L- COUNTY 1525 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80524-2004 General Health (970) 498-6700 Environmental Health (970) 498-6775 Fax (970) 498-6772 To: Dave Shirk, Town of Estes Park From: Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner ~Â»R~N0 Date: November 19, 2007 Subject: Koenig Boundary Line Adjustment This is a boundary line adjustment to modify the boundary between two adjacent legal parcels. I have reviewed the proposal and have no objections so long as the other utility providers have adequate access for their needs. The reason for this conclusion is that the adjustment will add more useable building area to Tract 2A, and thereby facilitate the design and installation an onsite sewer system. As is the case with all rural area lots, permits to install new or replacement sewer systems must be obtained prior to their construction. Soi[ test data and an engineer design are required to support the sewer system permit application. At the time this information is received, our office will inspect the site to ensure that the technical standards outlined in the County's Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Regulation can be complied with. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. I can be reached at 498-6777 if there are questions prior to the hearing. 1 Dave Shirk, Planner II 16 Nov 2007 Community Development Department P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 Re: Koenig Boundary Line Adjustment Please record this as a complaint against the proposed boundary line adjustment. The proposal would not have been made if it was not for the benefit of the Koenigs and the detriment ofus, neighboring landowners. It also comes up at a time when we summer residents cannot attend the meetings. John Koenig has apparently learned that Estes Park property lines were drawn using the best surveying techniques of 60 years ago, but that they do not agree with modern GPS techniques. Larimer County maps available in Estes Park clearly show the differences; some land is covered by two landowners and some land is not covered by either of them. Nevertheless, property owners have lived with the earlier surveys all these years and have improved their properties in accordance with those surveys. This includes buildings, fences, roads, utilities. To grant this adjustment would just set off a round ofuseless complaints, throughout the neighborhood. We urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to deny the Koenig boundary line adjustment. Brenton P. Washburne Robin P. Washburne 2080 Tanager Road 5412 Fox Hills Ave. Estes Park CO 80517 Buena Park CA 90621 (summer) (winter) 01 CE Â· Statement of Intent Amended Plat of Tracts 1 and 2, Watts Exemption Plat Koenig Property John and Charlotte Koenig currently jointly own two separate tracts of land at 2010 Upper Upper High Drive. As part o f the settlement of the dissolution o f marriage, John Koenig will own Tract 1 and Charlotte Koenig will own Tract 2 entirely. Tract 1 has a 2- story frame house, well and septic field. Tract 2 has no improvements. John and Charlotte Koenig plan on building a house on Tract 2 and with the limited building area due to 50' setbacks from all property lines the proposed house has to be located on the steeper portion of Tract 2. Thus, the boundaries are proposed to be changed in order to facilitate the construction of a home, provide easier access to the building area, to limit site disturbance and also to limit visual impact. This boundary line adjustment also requests that a staff level variance request of 40' building setback distance (in lieu of 50' building setbacks specified in 4.3.C.5 Table 4-2) be granted in order to place the house in the desired location. The current house is on Hondius water (seasonal) and well water and the proposed house will be on Hondius water (seasonal) and a separate future well. The proposed gravel driveway as shown is as steep as 15%, this is not a concern given that the existing gravel entry driveway exceeds 15% in some locations. To meet the 15% maximum grading criteria the road requires a centerline cut of no more than 3.0 feet and a centerline fill ofno more than 2.5 feet. ~ 1-IC--52001~~1 3 ESTES VALLEY 0 -0 E-Â©go M.,11%1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ni ~ OCT 2 4 2007 11 la .U --4 - Subm ittal Date: - r Development Plan BoundaryLine Adjustment Condominium Map 113 Special Review r ROW or Easement Vacation F Preliminary Map F Rezoning Petition r Street Name Change r Final Map 13 Preliminary Subdivision Plat r Time Extension r Supplemental Map r Final Subdivision Plat r Other: Please specify III Minor Subdivision Plat 13 - Amended Plat General Information Project Name Rbeni q Proferfy ; 20 lo OP, ar Oppeâ€¢Â· Hent~ 10,4 vt Project Description SWAdary line ftdil=fm"f Project Address 20,0 (4,6* 9.,tr Ki,4 Ar) vt . Aki 20 'O -lind.ger ao J 4 Legal Description Parcel ID #35-271 -60 -030 Section 2 7(4-7300)rownship 57/ Range 73 64' Site Information Total Development Area (e.g., lot size) in acres 9.4/4 8.rot 6kf) Existing Land Use Resi d Sh Fiat Proposed Land Use R uidanfial Iret I Existing Water bervice 17 Town F Well E None F Other (specify) Ho holfus Trnct 2 Proposed Water Service 13 Town 17 Well E None IK Other (specify) Hob-dius Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Wact I ri EPSD ri UTSD 17 Septic E None Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service ~f,<ta 13 EPSD r UTSD , Septic Is a sewer lift station required? 6 13 Yes UI No Existing Gas Service E Xcel 17 Other f 13 None Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Site Access (if not on public street) Tract f : Upp,r Upper}*jA Adve 3 77-ut-2: Eagemel\+~CR({5 *C Are there wetlands on the site? ri Yes 96 No Tr.44- r Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? F Yes 1-3 No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Jo An C Koe#,3 Complete Mailing Address'~-1~; f.0.80* 305-2 id?oswt)( MM gtioiL~ffal -4)30 :2721*MUjgko&# Attachments R Application fee \ 6~ Statement of intent 17 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan F 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan g 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 ParkÂ·a P.O, Box 1200 4 170 MacGregor Avenue 4 Estes Park CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4 Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www.estesnet.com/ComDev ~Typeof Application f-' , 0 . 0 Primary Contact Person is IN Owner R Applicant F Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) Johcfben,q Anich#r/om H.Coed,q 20(8 Enâ€¢ce, N Mailing Address44/07,0546/; f.010%3052,(hsve//, A/â€¢1 1:2023-rh,'~*Seâ€¢+3%1 Es*$41*205.7 Phone 2(hfurs#,NIA : 575-413-0 02 & EA3 Park i 974 - 596 - 22?r Cell Phone 337--943- 235-0 Fax - Eme JCâ‚¬Est; Park 20/08 rrtsn . co,71 Appkant Joh,6 0 *oen>, and OU 412 #. herlrl Mailing Address Ah- Box 3052.: Â¢ oswelt Nm Re 2n 2. Phone -6-73--- 41:7-49202. Cell Phone 3-37 -34/3- ZAZED Fax Ema,\ JCE'Esti,Park 20/09. wun . eorÂ¥\ Consultant/Engineer LohnpaSh,Afon /-rern Ber<rn#.n Â¥1 h Hant Uett d Mailing Address /043 FisA CrA,k Rna.4 Phone 970-566-9329 Cell Phone *21 970 - 52 4 - 8/0/ Email F/fe 0 0/46. dz,m APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION On July 1, 2001, House Bill 01-1088 became effective. This legislation requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to give notice of their application to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first he~ development. I hereby certify that the provisions of House Bill 01-1088 Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have t~ et. ~ ~ OCT 2 4 2007 Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Jo A n C Gon} 3 -1 Applicant PLEASE PRINT: John C Â£08476 Signatures: ./A Record Owner Date (grt 19 :2009 Applicant Date ly/1.40//PARIPATOPK U V I /-. r. L..1 ./ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION â€¢ I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. I In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). * I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. (The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.) I I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. â€¢ I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. â€¢ I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. * The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. â€¢ I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. I 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: Jot. c M . hi 3 Applicant PLEASE PRINT: John C h 643 Signatures: 7\ A - LD 2 Record Owner b<Â»EfÂ»vtÂ« Date Â£44 4,1607 U Api*\cant yyvrv v, voe,uv) Date 41.-/1,2067 J F *CEDVIE~ ~~ OCT 2 4 2007 Revised 10/13/06 r) &1520* *30 %5 0 ORO < a kgo== ou . m.ob 00 x-Ex~00 - 2â‚¬ 21.2 M h -AE 00.2 #2t-Ef~.E2 5-Â£000- -0609@.PERM .20@02 >,0 c Q)==5 3 (2 -m 2 -0 -c (D R -351 0 N 0 0 0 0 2 u) 0 0 1 01110_LUOmmOW O. LUOLLCO Z 8 93 f (1) -Â¤ e CO a (1,2 ~â‚¬ co o -2zuegE R*~ 5 0 C ..0-0 4- >â€¢ CO LU U U)~|- Lf) ~ ~C/~ 5823= ms 091Â·00-00 CD h N " ID O. 9- f ieE â‚¬ EE MI C Â® TE O J M M 8 â‚¬62 65 0 22 Â¤) co v 8 @%~2~2Wj/ 06 6 D Â® m co -c erett & Martha Anderson rive Park, CO 80517 Carol Epple -1349 States of America Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest 2150 Centre Avenue E -8119 ZOZZ-80Â£08 Brenton & Robin Washburne 5412 Fox Hills Avenue 90621-1506 enneth Murphy 2075 Tan r R 0517 Sadler Michael, Barry & Dian Stults 166 W. 1325 N, Ste. 350 Owner 11 Address Reeder 4403 W. 93rd Ter. 07 PO Box 1901 Jay Olsen, & Don Allen ith Gunkler Â¥18 6!ueo>1 uthane Mullins Florence Louise Shelton ~/0~.e~~hl~~&~~H Brown M CIO Co DEDICATION: (LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FROM THE AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 1 &20F 1-1- KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT THE UNDERSIGNED BEING THE OWNERS OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 1 & 2, THE WATTS EXEMPTION PLAT) PROPERTY, TO-WIT, (AS WRITTEN ON THE WATTS EXEMPTION PLAT): OUTSIDE BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE EAST 1 /2 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, Â¢ liual w RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER 1 /4 Z CORNER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. AS MONUMENTED BY U.S. BLM BRASS 1 ) ~,~) A o NIF .10%110 -~73/ Â· 2 CAP; THENCE N 51'50'54" W 49.60' TO THE FORMER LOCATION OF SAID CENTER 1/4 CORNER ACCORDING TO WATTS EXEMPTION PLAT SURROUNDING DEEDS; THENCE S 89'05'11" E 425.02' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 01'18'13" E a k R *P* t E 1322.80' TO THE BOUNDARY OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY S 8914'14" E 0â€¢ W 0 220.00'; THENCE S 01'18'13" W 1323.39'; THENCE S 01'16'00" 547.45'; THENCE N 89'05'11" W 220.01'; THENCE N 01'16'00" E 547.45" TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 4*Â»-i i~ 8 0*0.0 ace )PO <P=*tp 0=74 U-) TRACT 1: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER 1 /4 CORNER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH M d Ir * M P.M. AS MONUMENTED BY U.S. BLM BRASS CAP; THENCE N 51'50'54" W 49.60' TO THE FORMER LOCATION OF SAID 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. LARIMER COUNTY, t â‚¬4 Ok-*00 CENTER 1/4 CORNER ACCORDING TO SURROUNDING DEEDS; THENCE S 89'05'11" E 425.02'; THENCE S 01'16'00" E B D 245'i"THEE'NEJ; %32~ E8~00~;' TOET'-1&~;E THOE~CTEÂ°S BEG'7'f'G'w~%142;11.di~:~'T"OVU;Ft; 3'fttl N COLORADO Â° 6 _~*ju go ~4 W I THENCE N 89'05'00" W 189.99' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AU / / ir= 39? TRACT 2: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER 1 /4 CORNER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH d Us b 12,4f / , > OC\1 P.M. AS MONUMENTED BY U.S. BLM BRASS CAP; THENCE N 51'50'54" W 49.60' TO THE FORMER LOCATION OF SAID ~ r" CENTER 1/4 CORNER ACCORDING TO SURROUNDING DEEDS; THENCE S 8905'11" E 425.02' TO THE TRUE POINT OF 0 0 BEGINNING; THENCE N 01'18'13" E 1322.80' TO THE BOUNDARY OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK; THENCE ALONG JOHN KOENIG, CO-OWNER CHARLOTTE KOENIG, CO-OWNER 0 SAID BOUNDARY S 89'14'14" E 220.00% THENCE S 01'18'13" W 1296.89'; THENCE N 89'05'11" W 190.00'; THENCE S LARIMER COUNTY HEALTH AUTHORITY APPROVAL: 5.15 ..1. r 0118'13" W 26.50% THENCE S 01'16'00" E 547.45"; THENCE N 89'05'11" W 30.02'; THENCE N 01'16'00" W 547.45' TO STATE OF COLORADO) APPROVED BY THE LARIMER COUNTY HEALTH AUTHORITY THIS ---- DAY OF 20_-. ALL CONSTRUCTION ON o ~~ If' u #g .e, 9 1 /~)~ THIS SUBDIVISION, OR ANY LOT THEREIN, INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC WATER, AND THE PROVISION OF SEWAGE THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. )SS TREATMENT, SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER WHICH WILL MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF D <1 CONTAINING 9.43 ACRES MORE OR LESS; HAVE BY THESE PRESENTS CAUSED THE SAME TO BE SURVEYED AND PLATTED COUNTY OF LARIMER) HEALTH, AND THE LARIMER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AND THE OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO ENFORCE SUCH REQUIREMENTS. ~Â° 4.78 L la -p INTO TRACTS AS SHOWN ON THIS AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 1 & 2, WATTS EXEMPTION PLAT LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 9ANAGER Â·4 8 ' 29 A. THE EAST 1 /2 OF SECTION 27, T5N, R73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DO HEREBY RESERVE , 2007 BY JOHN AND CHARLOTTE KOENIG. qu Raw 3 39 9#0. 323 oP PO PERPETUAL PUBLIC EASEMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES, DRAINAGE, AND PERPETUAL PRIVATE SITE UPPER b K EF 11 0 If) UPPER \\.6700 MOO 6 EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS, UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE AS ARE LAID OUT AND DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT, WITNESS OUR HANDS WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. LARIMER COUNTY HEALTH AUTHORITY HIGH I AND SEALS BELOW. MY COMMISSION EXPIRFS . DRIVE~ ~ BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT STATEMENT: Z2R . j=. A? I 196 GEOLOGIC REVIEW NOTE: NOTARY PUBLIC 9: i- ; ..<6 4 A SITE INVESTIGATION BY A QUALIFIED, REGISTERED ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST WILL BE REQUIRED BY lARIMER COUNTY PRIOR TO BOUNDARY LINES INDICATED ON THIS MAP ARE ADJUSTMENTS OF FORMER BOUNDARY LINES OF THE PROPERT DEPICTED HEREON. 0 ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR TRACT 2. APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT: SUCH ADJUSTMENTS DO NOT CREATE ADDITIONAL LOTS OR BUILDING SITES FOR ANY PURPOSES. THE AREA ADDED TO EACH LOT * SHOWN HEREON BY SUCH ADJUSTMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AN ADDITION TO, SHALL BECOME A PART OF, AND SHALL BE CONVEYED f 60 THIS FINAL PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND IS HEREBY APPROVED AS TO FORM AS COMPLYING WITH ALL CURRENT SURVEY TOGETHER WITH, EACH LOT AS SHOWN. REQUIREMENTS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND OF STATE LAW PERTAINING TO PLATTING AND MONUMENTATION. THIS APPROVAL . C 01% itt[ U 9 Le< 4--Z NOTES: CONSTITUTES NEITHER A WARRANTY BY LARIMER COUNTY CONCERNING SUCH COMPLIANCE, NOR A RELEASE OR INDEMNITY OF 4 1. THE POSTED ADDRESS OF THE HOUSE ON TRACT 1 IS 2010 UPPER UPPER HIGH DRIVE ESTES PARK, COLORADO. THE SUBDIVIDER AND HIS SURVEYOR CONCERNING ANY NONCOMPLIANCE OF THIS PLAT WITH CURRENT SURVEY REQUIREMENTS. BEARING STATEMENT: 2. THE WATTS EXEMPTION PLAT AND THE DEED FOUND AT RECEPTION #96088099 WERE THE ONLY ITEMS USED FOR P L)~*~~-= 2 / 0 14 4&4055: /ligililiMP !Â·d /, FOR THIS PROJECT BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMED LINE BETWEEN THE ANGLE BREAK IN THE WESTERN LINE OWNERSHIP, BOUNDARY AND EASEMENT RESEARCH. DATE: Ve. 4 3. ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN OF THE ORIGINAL TRACT 2 (#4 RE8AR W/PLASTIC CAP LS 9485) AND THE #4 REBAR W/ PLASTIC CAP LS 9485 Mo THREE YEARS OF THE DATE YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT N , COLORADO P.L.S. NO. REPRESENTING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE ORIGINAL TRACT 2, SAID LINE BEARS S 01'16'00" E. ALL BEARINGS 0 0910 \1Â« ,%93% ili ki 0 THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE CERTICATION DATE SHOWN HEREON. (SIGNATURE) CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO, AS MONUMENTED AS SHOWN HEREON. 0 Â£0 , LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 0.-6 41,7 rm#*46* e,0 (PRINTED NAME) SURVEYOR' S CERTIFICATE: 0 k_ 01 n h P **0 ZIDO 1, LONNIE A. SHELDON, A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS AMENDED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVAL: PLAT OF TRACTS 1 & 2 OF THE WAUS EXEMPTION PLAT OF PORTIONS OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 27, T54 R73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., TRULY AND CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. APPROVED BY THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THIS __ DAY OF 20___. ALL VICINITY MAP DEDICATIONS ARE HEREBY ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC. THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE OF C %0=24 099 RESPONSIBILITY BY THE COUNTY FOR CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE OF ANY STREETS, HIGHWAYS, ALLEYS, BRIDGES, SCALE 1"= 750' RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT. 501'17'03"E *7 Z -/ Z a- a LONNIE A. SHELDON COLORADO PE AND PLS #26974 240.35' ALONG - PROPERTY LINE - >2622Â» Z Il* \1< CHAIRMAN #4 REBAR W/ ~PLASTIC CAP 9485 64\\ 1-1 ~l// ll!~525> ATTEST: CLERK OF THE BOARD NO1 '18'13"E 1296.89' A (NO1'18'13"E 1296.89') A~ 501'18'13"W 26.50' (SO1'16'00"E 547.45') 11 S01 17'03"E 547.67' (501'18'13"W 26.50) \\\ \ A\\\\\\ 1lf,I 3,;11,1,111*Ifill#,ill.-~1111*Iltill,F-xlfiti/Â»Vi,-Fixilxllifillillill,Ix* Sol'17'03"E 60.00' #4 REBAR W/ S01'17'03"E 487.67' \\\ \ PLASTIC CAP 9485 \ \ \ IN, 50 FOOT ~ \\\ BUILDING SETBACK \\\ \ \\\ \\\ . 1 \\\ N r----------------_ \\\ S01'18'13"W 200.00' -1 \\\ \ | 40 FOOT PRIVATE ACCESS & UTILITY \\\ 4 | t-BUILDING- & DRAINAGE EASEMENT , Er SETBACK FOR LOTS l A AND 2A \\\ N61'35'25"E 247.04' - - _ 7~ \ \ \ CENTERLINE OF EASEMENT - S05.51'42"W- 43.52' \ 2.46 ACRES \\\ M) \ Z â€ž- i , TRACT l A \\\ 1 \ 4 k b \\\ 10' UTILITY EASEMENT % m 21 TRACT 2A -w \ \ Ve- / ES 0O sm 16 ~ 6.68 ACRES , PRIVATE ACCESS dc UTILITY L \\\ r,0 / 7P ~ & DRAINAGE EASEMENT -\\\ / FOR LOTS l A AND 2A O\ 8 8 4 4 TRACT 2A IS SHOWN TRUNCATED TO MAINTAIN h 2.\ W \\\ -44& 19 \ j r- ZZ SCALE, PROPERTY EXTENDS AS BEARINGS E\\ 00 00 b, 6 O 41 SHOW TO NORTH BOUNDARY OF TRACT 2 8 % 9-0 6\ / E---- U \\\ %54. \\\ -/91. > m e le .0//\ ~ S06'06'5**'02 121.23., ---L\_\ 1 / N BUILDING ./ K X @ 8 6, /0 i \ r-- 8 6..7 %%m ENVELOPE O pl :w i /40. \\\ 9 J 2 77 -2\ i \\\ \ 00 a: 10 00 /44 r---_ - _ N.04'3727.3 _136.79'~ ~ ~ .09. E SCALE 1"= 30' 5 2% ---ULL- z /6~ / â‚¬31' w 1 2 80 / ----&. J 1 \ 4---- / VO 64 mq 120 \ N01'17'53"E 200.00' 1 \ -144 \ 440 N01'16'25"W 547.35' \\\ UPPER HIGH DRNE 49 \ \b- \\\ PUBUC ACCESS' ./. biJ --- --- - -f--- -~------ 1 ~~Â»44~*~-~,fLASTIC CAP 9485 EASEMENT FOR UPPER '33' #4 REBAR #4 REBAR W/ \ /Â© 3 / 0401'1 6'00"W 547.45) \\\ 4,1 Li \\\ .21 \ w P 50 FOOT WA - S01'16'00"E 61.48' fe> FORMER PROPERTY LINE 0/ 2 \ O, in F Q r 1 BUILDING \ \ \ 43/ 0, 6 PO C'Â£1 49 19 0 109 O n cnn ~ \ SETBACK #4 REBAR V// \ ~ENN= A co \ \PLASTIC CAP 9485 4- ~0-0 n~2 Â¢21 244.07' / S01'16'00"E 487.44' \\\ 43.13' 60.00' MS Z .N al 1-11~ A \\\\\\\ 3 1 16 \\ \\ \\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\-\ 1\\\\\\\\\\\\At\\\\\\\\\\2.\\\\\\\\\\\\\A\\\\Â»\ \\\\\U S01'16'00"E //?93 Z 501 17'53"W 1322.73' PLASTIC CAP 9485 CNX- 119.27' ALONG %5 Crl (SO1'18'13"W 1322.80') #4 REBAR W/ S01'16'00"E - 1 10 PROPERTY LINE Â£& SO 1'1 6'00"E 547.44' LU > 0 0 W 0 40 80 Slo.66'39'9 -427 - - -// 4 / 4 U \ 00 \ (SO 1'1 6'00"E 547.45') 1 BASIS OF BEARINGS (ASSUMED) --.............Ii.-------- DRAWN BY: TWB CHECKED BY: - BLM CENTER 1/4 CORNER LAS SCALE 1"=30' LEGEND DATE: 10-22-2007 f NOTE: THERE ARE TWO MONUMENTED LOCATIONS SHEET O.00 MEASURED DIMENSIONS FOR THE CENTER 1 /4 CORNER OF SECTION (0Â·00) PLATTED DIMENSIONS f 90 PLAT. THESE CORNERS WERE NOT SURVEYED TO AS SOUTH 1/4 CORNER 27-5-73 AS SHOWN ON THE WATTS EXEMPTION , WATTS EXEMPTION * A PART OF THIS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. SECTION 27-T5-R73W LOCAL CENTER 1/4 CORNER e* <) FOUND MONUMENTATION (AS DESCRIBED) (S01'16'00"E 2692.149 # 1 , MONUMENTATION SET (#4 REBAR OF - W/ PLASTIC CAP LS 26974) %01'18'13"W 1321.66') EL__J 1 PROJ. NO. 2007-08-22 ..LIL SNOISIAPH LO- SAL VAi 9NIA3Ahl 0100 'MBÂ¥ RAING HOIH NEIdn ddA 01.03 6) :X 3 * 88Â£6-999 ( Illillilll'll 1~1~ .Â£6'6LZ 3,99,Â£0.69S ~~ *89'14'14"W 425.00') N89 17'47 219.95' S89'08'42"E 119.83' I SI,OVHI, 133HS ~(58905'11"E425.02') 8'42"E 189.82' ONÂ¥ 0Â¥08 3Sn Ollind W03 03190030 (,Uillin 80 IlSVId 103rONd 8 Page lof 2 Julie Roederer From: Mark Elrod [hellomark@hughes.net] Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:17 AM To: Bob Joseph CC: Julie Roederer; Dave Shirk; Greg White Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat (electronic copy of letter) December 12, 2007 Ms. Betty Hull, Chair Estes Valley Planning Commission 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat Estes Park Community Development Department Staff Report Dated December 18, 2007 Dear Ms. Hull, As an interested and notified real estate owner I have been following the process of the Estes , Park Community Development Department (Department) during the review of this preliminary plat hearing. I am particularly concerned when the Department draws conclusions and exercises judgment when the Estes Valley Development Code (the Code) seems to be ignored or relegated to an authority of inconvenience. The Staff Report recognizes that the entire site is within a mapped "steep slope" geologic hazard area. Staff then goes on to offer an opinion that if a licensed professional engineer doesn't think it should be listed as such then the Planning Commission may waive the required mitigation plan. Staff cites as its authority section 7.7F2a of the Code with reverse reasoning stating that if the code allows a licensed professional engineer to submit a mitigation plan, then the Code certainly also means that a licensed professional engineer can render an opinion that the area does not belong in the mapped steep slope geologic hazard area. Staff's opinion appears to ignore the Code section 7.7F1 c which states: "In the event an Applicant questions the existence of a geologic hazard area within the area proposed for development or subdivision, the Applicant may submit evidence with respect thereto from a professional geologist (emphasis added) having requisite technical expertise. Such evidence may be considered by the Decision-Making Body, together will (sic) all other available evidence, in determining whether or not said development or subdivision is within a geologic hazard area" Page 2 of 2 The Code provides a way, short of a hearing before the Board of Adjustment to remove the property from the Code's Appendix A Geologic Hazards Areas Map, to have this property relieved from the necessity of a mitigation plan. Why does the Department go to such exotic extremes to avoid following the provisions of the Code? Code Section 7.7F2a provides in its entirety: Mitigation Plan Required. When a new development or subdivision is proposed within a geologic hazard area, the Applicant shall (emphasis added) be required to submit a mitigation plan prepared by a professional geologist (emphasis added) addressing how the development or subdivision will either avoid or mitigate the hazard, as more fully set forth below. 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. Lots approved for single-family residential development prior to the adoption of this Code do not need to submit a mitigation plan for rock fall hazards." Staff's opinion that the mandatory provisions of the Code appearing in this section can be circumvented with a negative opinion from a licensed professional engineer is illogical. However, the common thread running through Code sections 7.7F1 c and 7.7F2a appears to be the "professional geologist" report or opinion. Is there a concern about what such a report would disclose? Is there a concern over the cost of such opinion? Is there a concern over the bother the Code imposes? My issue is not with the any action of the applicant here. My concern is with the Department's expression of opinion relative to the application of the clear provisions of the Code. If the Department doesn't think the provisions of the Code are equitable then the proper suggestion to a Decision Making Body is to modify such provisions. It is not appropriate for the Department to exercise a judgment power it does not have. We must all be assured that the provisions of the Code apply equally to all applicants, not just those for which the Department wishes to favor for what ever well intentioned reason it may have. Thank you for your Commission's review of my concern. Sincerely, Mark D. Elrod CC: Bob Joseph, Department Director Dave Shirk, Department Planner 11 Julie Roederer, Department Secretary 19 /17/1An7 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. 2. The site is within a mapped geologic hazard area. A professional engineer designed the plat to mitigate the steep slope hazard. 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 of the 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 drainage plan and design shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Director prior to preliminary plat hearing by the Town Board. 2. The south and east lot lines of Tract 88 shall be described. 3. The access easement shall be labeled as a private access easement, and clarify which properties it serves (including those outside the bounds of the Deer Ridge subdivision). 4. Final plat submittal shall include a maintenance plan/agreement for the new road. 5. All easements shall be fully described, including those outside the bounds of the property (for example, the access easement crossing Tract 88 "Betton" plat and Lot 2 of the "Skoog" plat). 6. Compliance with the following memos: a. Upper Thompson Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated August 21, 2007 b. Greg White to Dave Shirk dated August 17, 2007. c. Scott Zurn to Dave Shirk dated August 31, 2007. d. Compliance with memo from Mike Mangelsen to Bob Goehring dated 8-20- 07. Page #5 - Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed preliminary subdivision plat to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Page #6 - Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat ~ Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat ~ Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 *I==0 Estes Park, CO 80517 - Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: December 18, 2007 REOUEST: Adjust the interior boundary between two lots, and subdivide the largest into three smaller lots. N LOCATION: The site is located at 1925 =- F.â€ž) A Homestead Lane, within the Town of Estes 34 USFS ...6-P.Ch Park. APPLICANT/OWNER: John Skoog ~in STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk USFS APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes RIVNP B"*.y 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. Prior to 2003, Lot 3 had the "RM" multi-family zoning designation, and had three tourist cabins located on it. In 2003, the Town Board rezoned the property to "E- 1" Estate in conjunction with preliminary plat review. Final plat approval 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 top of the road to the bottom, thus helping reduce the overall traffic impact on the neighborhood. This plat has been repeatedly continued over the last few months. The purpose of those continuances was to allow for discussion between the Public Works Department and the consulting engineer to discuss stormwater drainage design. 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 exceed 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 of disturbed areas. Page #2 - Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat 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 Staff s opinion the engineer is correct, and suggests the Planning Commission waive the requirement for a formal mitigation plan. Section 7.7.F2a states "licensed professional engineers who are experienced in the engineering specialty (e.g. soils, slope stability) may submit mitigation plans for steep slope and alluvial soil hazards." Because the mapped geologic hazard allows for an engineer to provide the mitigation plan, Staff suggests an engineer is also qualified to determine a mitigation plan is not necessary. The site does contain an area of steep slope in proposed Lots 1 and 2. These lots include Limits of Disturbance that would prohibit disturbance of these steep slopes. One of the mitigation techniques outlined in the EVDC includes location of building envelopes outside geologic hazard areas. Lots 3 and 4 do not contain steep slope, and do not warrant a steep slope mitigation plan. 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. 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. Page #3 - Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat 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. Drainage/Water Quality. Drainage facilities shall be installed and completed prior to issuance of the 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, 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) with a "hammerhead" design proposed instead. 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. The plat requires the following technical corrections: 1. The south and east lot lines of Tract 88 should be described. 2. All easements should be fully described, including those outside the bounds of the property (for example, the access easement crossing Tract 88 "Betton" plat and Lot 2 of the "Skoog" plat). Page #4 - Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat 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. 2. The site is within a mapped geologic hazard area. A professional engineer designed the plat to mitigate the steep slope hazard. 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 of the 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 drainage plan and design shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Director prior to preliminary plat hearing by the Town Board. 2. The south and east lot lines of Tract 88 shall be described. 3. The proposed access easement shall be labeled as a public access easement. 4. All easements shall be fully described, including those outside the bounds of the property (for example, the access easement crossing Tract 88 "Betton" plat and Lot 2 of the "Skoog" plat). 5. Compliance with the following memos: a. Upper Thompson Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated August 21, 2007 b. Greg White to Dave Shirk dated August 17, 2007. c. Scott Zurn to Dave Shirk dated August 31, 2007. d. Compliance with memo from Mike Mangelsen to Bob Goehring dated 8-20- 07. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed preliminary subdivision plat to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Page #5 - Deer Ridge Preliminary Plat Itt 0% ,%30*h ~ UPPER /*1 4i~ISTRIC@ P.O. Box 568 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970)-586-4544 (970) 586-1049 Fax November 28,2007 Dave Shirk, Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O. 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision Revision Dear Dave, The Upper Thompson Sanitation District has no further comments for the above referenced property. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. ank You, 011Â©~16_ Chris Bieker Operations Manager Upper Thompson Sanitation District 0 0 (f UPPER C'._ DismicTI) n:Wm./.. 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 MH-F13713-4A-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, 44> -12 Chris Bieker - Operations Manager Upper Thompson Sanitation District ce: Paul Kochevar 6 7 GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 .oveland, 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 of review of this Plat, I have assumed that said 30- foot access and utility easement is a private access and public utility easement. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Bery Truly Yours, ' I /6- L.Ot- ~ Gregot~A. White GAW/ldr CC: Estes Park Surv#*rs, Paul I<ocheOd Fax: 970/586c-5816- 07\. V , 0- Memo Tb: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 11-28-07 Re: Deer Ridge Subdivision (revised preliminary plat) The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Revised Preliminary 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 existing 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) Submit plans from the project electrical engineer for Town review and approval. 1 Town of Estes Park Public Works Engineering Room 100, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3582, szurn@estes.org Memo TO: Dave Shirk, 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 construcbn 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 section to the beginning of lot 4. The termination of Homestead lane must provide a tum around or other adequate means of accommodating a emergency vehide tum around. The easements and hydrant location must also accommodate these modifications. c. The proposed alignment does not fall within 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 dear as to how the additional impervious roadway and adjacent properties draining to the roadside ditch are being detained and meeting water quality criteria before it being released to the public ROW . b. At this time the 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 this regard. â€¢ Page 1 1,9 0 0. I 4 Note: The Public Works Dept. may have addLial comments or requirements as additional detail and intâ‚¬.:.,Ation is provided for review. â€¢ Page 2 0 0 We, Mark & Rebecca Elrod, own a lot identified as Lot 6, Replat o f 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 Preliininary 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 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 biston? 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 of 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 (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 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 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) (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 Iot, 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 of the Code are given attention that we may have missed or failed to have appreciation of. 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 familiar with dry detention ponds. We want to understand that it is in comphance 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? 0 0 Continuing in Mr. Kochevar's above referenced Statement o f Intent at numbered point 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." 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 o f 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 L7 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 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,Pgrk Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. ~E CEO X.*11 /j A ~~ JUL 25 EW ~~ +aul M. Kothevar, P.E. & P.L,S. , ~.9 President L; ESTES VALLEY -~Ed@09-Imr.-Frir) L DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1 11 JUL 2 5 2001 ~ 1 U ldp Submittal Date: Type of Application F": Development Plan r Boundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map ; Special Review F"': ROW or Easement Vacation i : Preliminary Map P Rezoning Petition 1"" Street Name Change f"*' Final Map 44 Preliminary Subdivision Plat r' Time Extension 2 Supplemental Map . i Final Subdivision Plat P Other: Please specify r Minor Subdivision Plat i' - 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 SCA.&434 00 3 Parcel ID# 3%1-*434004 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 9 Town F~ Well F Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service %0 Town ; Well f"- Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r' EPSD V UTSD 1 Septic f.... Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD 9 UTSD Septic Is a sewer lift station required? F" Yes 50 No â‚¬'... Existing Gas Service 5,0 Xcel r Other , None Existing Zoning E-1 Proposed Zoning Ed Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? i Yes M NO ..... I.-I Has site staking been completetl? } Yes i No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Paul Kochevar Mailing Address P.O. Box 3047, Estes Park, CO 80517 Attachments r Application fee Statement of intent 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan - 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan N Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which it may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. rh - 'r"' Primary Contact Person is F Owner : Applicant 94 Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar Mailing Address P.O. Box 3047, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone 970-586-5175 Cell Phone Fax 970-586-5816 Email PAUL0971@JUNO.COM Record Owner(s) John A. Skoog Mailing Address 224 S. 85th Street, Omaha, NE 68114 Phone 970-577-1712 Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Estes Park Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. ..@[SÂ©[E OVEE' Mailing Address P.O. Box 3047, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone 970-586-5175 li JUL 2 5 *101 1 Cell Phone Fax 970-586-5816 Email PAUL_0971@JUNO.COM APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION On July 1, 2001, House Bill 01-1088 became effective. This legislation requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to give notice of their application to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development. I hereby certify that the provisions of House Bill 01-1088 Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PR/NT.Â· -324* 5000 C Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: - 44 0 L M Â·\4>cite o A+Q- Signatures: 1 :il Reconl Owner C A/F , V ~al Date 1 (11 ~07 1 1 Record Owner <fALL. .di Date 7/10/D :~ Ot(t1n7atr0T I . .-J.. 0 / I t t 1 1 ~APPLICANT CERTIFICATIO~ * I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. * In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). â€¢ I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. (The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.) 1 Ul ILIOIC,ldi IU U Id{ dULCiplâ‚¬:11 IUC Ul U liD dppliall.,11 Uy U It: 1 UW, 1 Ul COLCO ral A IUI !1111,9 dI IU leg.tupl Ul LI IC appllictll~ 1 It:fe â€¢ by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. â€¢ I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. I I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. 4 The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. â€¢ I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. 1 MU,fl IUWIWUye li lell 1 11:1Vti It#Ut:01Vt,U U le Cblt#b Vellit:y Ut#Vt,IUMI I It,1 Il KeVIWW AppillelliUI I OU It,UUIW eli IU tt lell 1211 IUI e LU â€¢ 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: -1 164 5 resdr Record Owner PLEASE PR#VT.Â· 44-0 L A 4cutl-* u AA. Signatures: Record Owner BL L Dia -1/1-4 117 Record Owner Date 7/24/0-9- E Â©E-E*r~1 F JUL 25 2007 l.:~ Revised 10/13/06 .. 1 44 C C- CD E C t:,0 A 8hu,iSC= hOO h CON g~ O 1- E .022 0 6- BE OU, Lo C) LO 00 Woom 285Â®002*22 ** *~ N (DE LO LO .9 0 0 E O co u.1 Q g â„¢00 -20200280?<0848 NOOEOMZU 10 0 0001-100 -~000388 Wh X C 022 8 2 2/28@#25#22 a 521#28 22Â¥F il 15- C, 7M~ 10(6(62(CE2(0*- mgoo-co 0- m -9 0- A O O a. CL â‚¬%%1.24:452%90.:@%"%13%1#%4%#8%45 (0 0 CO *a**2%Eg*2322E3Â§%2%33%85%2%4f*232: O Ul U.1 In Ul $ (O U.1 0 0 0 LU ~ LL LU LU O LLI O LU DI $ LIJ CO O W CO LLI -1 Z In < LL LU (D &It (0 8 N % 8 N. 2 1 v DC r " 2 <33 139* 0 0 1-0 g -8013%43 sgt m 9! O G W -8 Â®82~2%â€ž 02 Â£9 %28&&E~ ~&56Â£uE-2 *E.E.8 ihiE 0 0--Wtz< co-mÂ·-1 *ER E>:I ~ o~g~3:2=BE :ui i ~ ~~ Lo~ &22863$24 500 ~ Â£Dw > Mof 1 99 ~0 1.0 U,0 WhOAONO.-A&' Slog O CD LOn 00 OC') N 00 htÂ·UooONOU 9-Or-Vof) 0,-000000 O- 00 - CD - h .- CU CU O- CD - CD h O- - N O. 10 1.0 r 10 0- 00 1 h h N .- J 5 4 O CD c ERS E (D Mgme 2 2 0 C 2 _O 1 9 .3 2 -0 LL CD ~ 0 - 4% 5 2 9 e Â»E 2 5< 2 ~ 9 4 ui - M O i u~.ga . Il % m & ME % 3 0 5 I .- .2 Z a. 0 0 0 C E 20 E Â£ 0 11.i 2 EL E 1 5 - .c B 9 & * ~ 9 N E jE 5 & * g cm 2 5 & E 't 0 Â® H O -0 2 6 59 E @O 032 -= -* 3 0- SZ N 2 .ta F E o S.9 82 200 2 0624062 8 C.N:* co Â® ..,act. Â®u-rtz *E 2 2 52 5 m E @ &:h o r t r o 12 2 4 3 C i a E & 0 0 3 *06(=Emm $ e (1) 0Â®7IfFNEBJectÂ® 6906 igâ‚¬% tg &1@~18#;E3Nt-%:50f1~%3 EA;~ m Â·3 ~3232*2*EÂ°'-L~~-~ *Etgs2â‚¬~0 * AbLLI E ty C C 11 - le Â·= Â·c 2 cl# O 1% - 2 go -as m .C Â£ (00 za) m % :m â‚¬ 2 5 2 & S @ 0 ~ ~ 4 -Â§ 1% 9 5 g ODIO-DI F 2 0000 m 066 U.mU-16 crIO S CO I Ir -,LILInacol-mH 9111 E. Bay Harbor Drive #2D FL 33154 E KE99 9>1 ' ed P errace KS 66223 ELS*-VELOZ obert & Noreen Baker 690 Summerset Court 80517 Id Steven Burbach 69361 20999 enueAV 36 11 eemna ' Uto ZL908 ne Harris ark, ~ 80517 ZL908 uno u!eM uueor 0/0 erset Court CO 80517 .-90008 O JeA3 6 L 1Snil Z :908 00 'MJ~Id se peold Jemy Ile=188 'Oul 'Je El spuelpo~Au~~ prings Drive 518 Riverrock Circle J. Elrod ~o~~~'~Drive enueA Mark Vincent 1882 Fall Rive eA!JG XEMpOOM 90 Owner 11 Address ver Road, LLC ~te 200 Burbach z oON 31 euuezns h Betton, Trustees 1 Ann Davies Â£002 qnS Nd 36Ply Jeea TRACT 968, FALL RIVER ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT El ESTATE ZONING DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION FOUND 1 1/2" DIA. REBAR WITH ~ PLASTIC CAP NO.15760 1 ' OF LOT 3 AND LOT 4, SKOOG SUBDIVISION TRANSFORMER_D<- i EN~- (S 7803'00" E 269.133 | S 78'03'00" E 341.60' LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 22, T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M., 4 14429- -6 --%- ~ FOUND - b 1/2" DIA. REBAR WITH TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO | PLASTIC CAP NO.9485 TRACT 96A, FALL RIVER ADDITION I ---- . E 1 ESTATE ZONING ' Â»-1 . \46 1\4%42\ -Â·. ~ 7 +14.9, I /5 1: . -7870- .- -1 2/ S 78.03'00" E 345.20, | TREAGER SUB. (S 78'03'00" E 447.47 LOT 1, SKOOG SUB. / i 19. RM MULTI-FAMILY ZONING - ti - -4 -r- ~,2 . EXISTINd- *Â·Â· -Â·,h>'Â·.~,-Â»14. UNÂ· 1 LOT 4 A ACCOMMODATIONS ZONING 2.000 ACRES -1.-1-1.13\ 1 1 9% I CABIN ' 1~~~~~~~~~~ | 25 1.X . 87,096 SF ' ~ \,142[4. 41 3/9 / 1\ 1 .7- S \ - 1/ ..\21â‚¬.41<...:t.-4.1 \ -986(4 ---- - /&/Ri~Lce. Â·ELECTRIC, ' IELE.. ~ 2'Â· ~ .. ... - -: -Trs,Epifi Â·. L EXISTING Â·.OVERHEAD-21 1 - 4. N E-~ _2131-i:<Ii ~ 11 WII*~4222-Â·-i** --- 2. . I CATV Â·.4 1 1 1 -ILL-:-,/ 7 - 4.41'> . i .1 , ~6 ~/Asry oseperil Â£ f -Â·Â·Â· ---- 2 --- BUR~~~~-~- / 1 * 4 \ - lit & 1 I U-- J 01 / /r> - --... 11... 9 41- : -1- 4.1 1 0/ 2. . 1 la: .1 1 ix' I :1, - '';5,2 f 34. ' 01. 2. .7 ~~C- 7850- - U ' 1. .81 N ki ~hi. \ LOT 3 EXISTING WATER SEINICE TO LOT 4 1 + 1 NOTES: \Â· rt .3.1 0.- -/71 f//. . =6'..'.. . ..... 2.775 ACRES IS IN +THE SAME Â·-TRENCH WITH Â·THE 82 * 1 1 1 120,888 SF EXISTING 1" DIA. WATER SERVICE */ 1 l 1. THE EXISTING CABIN ON LOT 3 IS NON-CONFORMING AS TO BUILDING SETBACK. 1/ . .+TO LOT 3. SERVIdE TO LOT 4 TO /Â· 4 Â· 2. A LICENSED ENGINEER SHALL PREPARE THE SITE PLANS AND BUILDING FOUNDATION DESIGNS, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON DRAINAGE. SURFACE DRAINAGE FROM NEW IMPROVEMENTS / O\4/ - BE BE ABANDONED WHEN .MAIN . Â· .1 PLACED UPON LOT 1 ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO NEW STREET INLETS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. 3. IF BLASTING IS REQUIRED, A BLAST CONSULTANT SHALL BE RETAINED. 16Â·toi ~ Â·[ FoubiD- - - , A \ \ 1 1 ~ FROM HOMESTEAD LANE ( - / / 4. THE PROPOSED SEWER SHALL BE ROUTED SUCH THAT IT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES OR ROCK OUTCROPPINGS r-AND.Â· NEW SERVICE f IS COMPLETED / ~ .7 1/27 D\A. REBAN-~NUM /.1- . . 6. THE EXISTING WATER SERVICE CROSSING LOT 3 TO SERVE LOT 4 SHALL BE REPLACED WITH A SERVICE LINE ENTIRELY LOCATED UPON LOT 4 AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. PLASTIC CAP NO. 15760-- 4-- 31 + -11-1. h - Â£ THE UNPAVED PORTION OF THE DRIVE SHALL HAVE ALL-SEASON SURFACING OF COMPACTED ROAD BASE. N74'29'48 . ~ gil ../ 7. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS ENLARGED FROM TOWN OF ESTES PARK AERIAL MAPPING OF 1979. SITE SPECIFIC MAPPING MAY BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE (N 74-29'48 "~ 2Â·73.34' ' - 10:\.4. \. \ . - - i -...- mi ' SITE PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS UPON EACH LOT. 315.34,2 \ 1 S 7-- Ct 1 ke -unn- - ..2 1\Â» - ~-- 8. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: LOT 3 AND LOT 4, SKOOG SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SE1 /4 OF SECTION 22, T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M., TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO -uÂ·--pie~V ,Â«.. /Â·,rz . Â·44*.* %4 I...TE -.-C- 211 k N /. Ar .\\.O.. 40\ ..40 BUILDING /93 0 KTLJ 1 ..r >i %'+ #::442 L.%44 -78 ENVELOPE ~~, 4 -j *Mo,j- - .4 Â¥k 4 0/ 1 25 822 .4 1 1 .Vel . 1/\ 24<44 1 \ \ 1.4 0.1 co. 0 q 26Â« + 30' PRIVATE ACCESS /~â‚¬07 * 1 1' <.e~.Â·0 Â· u< \Â· \ +2\ . / A k N 82%32*392/JOWN | 66 60 / \\>.<\\ \ \\\\45-'\ . / 30./Â«.3?E~Et.DTOLO~E~V~.- ' ~ ---06 + \ree ~ .~~~~' ~ t .. k 1 .1 .PP k .,02 (SHOW DIMENSIONS ON FINAL PLAT) * \ < 1 \11 pe, 4 tj~-~1- ~~~~:~~~~14-~25.212 ~ k 1 4 ~ *49 - LBUILD.ING. Â»fh~.J' 62 ..f Â· ,-7-- .1 \ 1 LOT 2, SKOOG SUB. .: 72 Â· Â· -ENVELOP.E ~Â·.9 '*1~Â· ~ ~ 7-6 4 . \ / Â·11 1 i 31 - 61 j /l . 0 El ESTATE ZONING N40Â°55'39"W 39.76' , \~ 0440'55'39"W 39.76') 41 9. \ -1-1- 1 231 ACRES 309.:Â·t-y~Â·~./'4~ , Â· 1 ...3.4 â‚¬4: 12' 1-41 1 E- UOT 2 ~ P . h 10' UTILITY Â· %.h JÂ· 1 - /61 53,6~2Â· SF . Zy \ "\AN 3Â·' Â· #. ~'>~ ~ tr . . - '~'--~c . EASEMENT / r --- --- --- / \64.\ \\\ \ ->%34 -- .J 1 - ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT / -7818;4.. 1 / iiÂ£ 11 f.r' -4 C 1,2. ~ / AS SHOWN UPON THE BETTOE~ .1 | BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT --3 ig-I // t." 7 . \ 2/h A .1 41 + . /1 1 / 1 -1 1 Â· L. 877Â· - / .1 ..24 4\'. . 1 '4 4 '.- 4009 --'.- / i r-fÂ·:.:.42Â·'51 'e \ TRACT 88 ~ ill - Miuffi. c-) 1 h \ BETTON BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT , 1 El ESTATE ZONING , 1 Â·1 1.309 ACRES > .- ".7 LOT 1 - - c j / M T /app 1 , \ \\ 1 % 1 LOT 1 57,019 SF /----\ N36'32'30"W 47.OOL---,0}i; 1 # 1' * / 2/.4--BUILDING ./ REPLAT OF LOT 1 / . +1 S8~>1-6*00"E 32.60 10'00"E 32.60 1 - 4, 0 '~ HOMESTEAD SUB. #-1-- - -Ill- (N36'32'30"W 47.00') \ .34jj ~ . /# f I W ENVELOPE- RM MULTI-FAMILY ZONING 0 ,-4 \ 5 'r. 1 \ .. 74 / .-9 \ 6...34Â» . 371' --- E- 0159-34 ] l 1 2 .4 -rE=-- ------- 1.531"-- --~0 C 0' 7- .(S16'27'557*83.0~ ./ EXISTING DETENTION POND IS ~ LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED ~ ~ - 4/ / - . /..~.Â·PARAINAGEÂ· 2 DRAINAGE EASEMENT l / r - - N71. t2~866,1- U 3~ / EASEMENT.Â· .,.1 FOUND ~ ~ ov jl~*.51 iF , +7707.7 '*. C +Th /; Â·1Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·.~~~ .Â·.Â·/ /3~ 1/2" DIA. REBAR WITH 15.51. ,1 2.>R R - 112.50' \ TRACT 87 (/0 i. /1-4- ~ PLASTIC CAP NO.15760 i 1-,Â° 1/F- -- BETTON BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT --- \ 1 1 /1 10 2 4 / x 1 El ESTATE ZONING .--/ it / --U- : /--/1 N.*113ZLE-98&9~ _ _-f 81.58' | I | / ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT_-1 . / / 4~c--7ASPHALT ' AS SHOWN UPON THE BETTON -*- - 496 FEET FROM 1~ \ 1 1 BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT ---23 - .Th 1ALL 13!MER,.ROAD - 1 / \ 1 1 -- \ p \9> \ --- <~21%33%3=1 - / \ .0.*46 \ 1 TRANSFORMER ------ \ 0 \ \ \U, \ TRACT 86 --------- .-4/ LOT 2 BETTON BOUNDARY * REPLAT OF LOT 1 \\ Â»6/4/9,9 \ \ \ * GRAPHIC SCALE \ ADJUSTMENT PLAT _ - - - _ --- ' *.1-- \ i.*11 ) a 1 HOMESTEAD SUB. .\ \\ E 1 ESTATE ZONIN- __---- 79- 1 E ESTATE ZONING j 1 --- 2 ~ \\\ -44 0713 i \ \ 1 \Al ; \ LOT 7 \ \ (IN FEET ) REPLAT OF LOT 1 41 Q / 401 \ \ 14% \ HOMESTEAD SUB. / \ 1 inch =50 ft. HOMESTEAD SUB. Xe 1 E ESTATE ZONING \ ~ ~Â£ '% \ 2 3.42 1 LOT 3 1 --~ \\% \ REPLAT OF LOT 1 \ * \ < -, ==v \ \ // 62 < \,6 c N 75'39'15"i ' E ESTATE ZONING Â© ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, INC. 2007 RIVER ~ \ Ul \ 1 / \ ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, INC. FALL / \ 1 \\ \\ \ P.O. BOX 3047 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BLDG. ESTATES //4 / 0 \\ \ ESTES PARK, CO SUITE 204 \ - \ 1-~CHECE[ly*i~' 80517 (970) 586-5175 VICINITY MAP ---- , i \ 1" = 1,250' u---- i / 1 -11 LEGEND / \ ~ DEC 1 1 2007 ~ PROJECT: DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION --377hC-\i \ \ O INDICATES F0UND M0NUMENT AS N0TED DRAWN BY: PMK CHECKED BY: /GAGWELIA SUG. INDICATES SET 1 /2" DIA. REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP NO. 15760 - (S89'53'00"E 188.25') INDICATES DEEDED OR PLAT INFORMATION WHEN DIFFERENT THAN ACTUAL DATE: JULY 25, 2007 224 SOUTH 85TH ST JOHN A. SKOOG REV: SEPT. 12, 2007 OMAHA, NE 68114 58953'00"E 188.30' INDICATES ACTUAL DIMENSIONS REV: (402) 393-2646 BUILDING ENVELOPE PRELIMINARY PLAT SHEET: 1 OF: 1 PROJECT NO: 2446 \\\\ ONINOZ SNOU.VOOFYINODOV V -1 f - 20'0.0. 7110 RMNP TRACT 96B, FALL RIVER ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT rVISION SÂ·UBDIVISION R73* OF THE 6TH P.Ivl., STATE OF COLORADO DING SETBACK. DING FOUNDATION DESIGNS, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON DRAINAGE. SURFACE DRAINAGE FROM NEW IMPROVEMENTS S MUCH AS POSSIBLE. NED. )T INTERFERE WITH EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES OR ROCK OUTCROPPINGS SURFACING OF COMPACTED ROAD BASE. SHALL BE REPLACED WITH A SERVICE LINE ENTIRELY LOCATED UPON LOT 4 AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. I TOWN OF ESTES PARK AERIAL MAPPING OF 1979. SITE SPECIFIC MAPPING MAY BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ECTION 22, T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M., TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 1 1 Ck) ,-S.hA 1 3.< la l 1 m 1 5& \ GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 100 200 21,1-,u ..,~PiturÂ·,~"41,1 /:'",1- (IN FEET ) l inch = 50 ft. \ \ \ Â© ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, INC. 2007 l ESTES PARK SURVEYORS dc ENGINEERS, INC. \ P.O. BOX 3047 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BLDG. \ ESTES PARK, CO SUITE 204 \ 80517 (970) 586-5175 ~EÂ©[%07 PROJECT: DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION DEC 11 2007 ~ _~ DRAWN BY: PMK CHECKED BY: JOHN A. SKOOG DATE: JULY 25, 2007 224 SOUTH 85TH ST REV: SEPT. 12, 2007 OMAHA, NE 68114 REV: (402) 393-2646 I ' I. ''.:'I ''' 11,1 1.-:2~ PRELIMINARY PLAT SHEET: 1 OF: 1 PROJECT NO: 2446 I - - ain - / . D .. . 0 .0 0 0 .. - .A . . . I . .1 . 0 -A. . 0 A. m I. . I I. . ..: C , ... . . ID, 0 .. :. 0. 4 - 11 : - ' ... I I .0 I . . 0. 0 0 - 0 e- - I . I .. I. .. 6 0 -- . 1 . .: .i ./ I . / D I. .0 I . .... .. . ... 0 0 . = 0 . .... ..: A. I .... ... .A ID: 0 . 00 0 - .Al . A. .:.. 1. I :A. I A .. . ..1 ..... D . : I. D . 1 0 .1 .. .1 . . A. .... . I . : 0 0. ...... .... 0 .. A . ... . I .. 0. . 0 0 .. . 0 I :.0 . . 0. : .... I D 0 .1., .O -D . .. D ... I . I. - ... D . I ..... 0 ... . 0 . 0. .: . . I ' . 1 . . 0 .. .. ..... 1 0 I . e. I . .. .0 =D . . .. 0 1 . I . e .. 0 0, : I . . - ... . . .. I . .. V . . .4 0 -0 . .. :Ii' ID . . I. . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0. I ... . 0. ... 0 0 0 .:D .: , 1 . 0 . .0 0 : . 0 , 0, I . .0 - I . 0 . . 4, 2 Dll 0 1 ..... D 4 ... . 4 .4 0 1 I . .0 .0 , .. . :': , I e -, . 4 I. . .. I . 6 D -. 8 .... 0 0 :0 . . 4 0 0 , D ./ 0, e . .0 .D . , 0 . 0 ,1 . ... 0 r - . t. 1 . ... J I . .11/EA , 0 1. ... DA .... . A .. . O f 1//4/: Aill.- I D ...0- ..... I-:Il : ... =. 0 .i.