The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-01-20Prepared: January 13, 2009 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 20,2009 11:30 p.m. Study Session, 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. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2009 a. Election of Chair - County Resident b. Election of Vice-Chair - Town Resident c. Appointment of Recording Secretary 3. CONSENT AGENDA a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS - Request to continue this item to the February Planning Commission meeting due to the absence of Planner Dave Shirk. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12 a. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION - proposed changes to Â§7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection, to provide review standards for land identified as critical wildlife habitat, require preparation of a wildlife habitat conservation plan for land identified as critical wildlife habitat, and provide for Planning Commission review of said conservation plan 5. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT ASSESSMENT 6. REPORTS STONEWOOD SUBDIVISION - Staff-level review for proposed single-family dwelling 7. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the A' agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission December 16, 2008,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Hull, Kitchen, Tucker, and Klink Also Attending: Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioners Amos and Grant, Director Joseph The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Sandy Lindquist/Town Resident - Ms. Lindquist read her statement communicating information about the uniqueness of the Estes Valley and the high quality of the community members. It is her opinion that the Board should not try to emulate other mountain resort towns, and she feels the Planning Commission is leaning that direction. We should be the ones setting the high standards rather than following other community's development standards. She has concerns about the natural migration of wildlife and how it may relate to new development. Finally, she encouraged the Planning Commission and Staff to be cautious in their decisions on new development in the Estes Valley. A copy of Ms. Lindquist's statement was given to the Recording Secretary. Brian Michener/County Resident - Mr. Michener would like to see a unifying vision between the Estes Valley and YMCA. Mr. Michener stated the wildlife is the loser when it comes to development, and would like to see less development in the Estes Valley. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of meeting minutes dated November 18, 2008. b. AMENDED PLAT, Sarkisian Properties, LLC, Lots 29 & 30, Block 7, Country Club Manor, 557 Driftwood Lane Applicant: Sarkisian Properties, LLC Request: Combine two existing lots into one lot Staff Contact: Dave Shirk It was moved and seconded (Hull/ Klink) to APPROVE the consent agenda, and the motion PASSED unanimously with two absent. 3. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT ASSESSMENT Planner Chilcott gave a brief update on the progress of the Habitat Assessment, stating Staff is anticipating that Planning Commission will vote on the Habitat Assessment prepared by EDAW and the development code revisions at the same Planning Commission meeting.Â· The current draft of the code revisions is not complete enough to vote on and staff is recommending that Planning Commission continue the Assessment and the Code revisions to the next regularly scheduled meeting in January. Staff is reviewing the comments Planning Commissioners and the public provided in prior meetings. An updated draft of the Code revisions will be available for review at the January meeting. We do not have any new information to present at this meeting. Since we published a legal notice placing these items on today's agenda, staff recommends that we take new public comment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 16, 2008 Public Comment: Betty Nickel/County Resident - Mrs. Nickel is unhappy with the quality of the maps, as she thinks they have too little detail for community residents to be able to recognize their specific property. Her personal residence has a footprint of less than 1000 square feet on five acres of land, and the possibility exists that they may not be able to expand the existing structure. Mrs. Nickel endorses open space and has donated land to the Land Trust. She opposes the habitat maps as they relate to the possibility of property owners discoPering their property is unbuildable. Planner Chilcott stated that a full-size map is available for viewing in the Community Development office, and the maps on the Town website are designed to be able to zoom in on specific locations. Staff will review the website to'make sure the maps ard available. John Spooner/County Resident and Estes Valley Contractor's Association (EVCA) representative - Mr. Spooner reported the EVCA met and reviewed the minutes from the October meeting. He would like to see draft minutes of the most recent meeting available to the public at an earlier date. Currently, minutes are not posted to the website nor made available to the public until after approval by the Planning Commission (i.e. November minutes are posted to the website after the December meeting). He stated the EVCA is not opposed to wildlife studies and attaching them to particuldr pieces of property. He , indicated that the proposed code has no section specifying standards, by which to approve or disapprove a project. According to the EVCA, written standards or other mechanisms are needed so property owners and/or potential buyers will have assurance there can be a project built before they go through the study process. These statidards . should be clearly delineated. For example, if a land owner has an assessment completed by a biologist, there is no clear definition in the proposed code as to who makes the decision on the project's ability to proceed. With different biologists having different opinions, Staff and the Planning Commission will be put in uncomfortable situations when making final decisions. The EVCA is also concerned abdut the Habitat Assessment rriaps needing more detail and they would like to see property lines in'cluded. They also believe the property owners should be notified of the potential impact on their Rroperty due to the Habitat Assessment and proposed code revisions. They feel there should . be a mechanism for the developer or property owner to have some , idea whether or not a proposed project would be approved. The EVCA recommends a review of the application by the Planning Commission that would determine possible constraints on the development prior to mbving forward. Additionally, a clearer definition of riparian should be written in order to simplify the survey process. Concerning setbacks, EVCA is concerned about the size of the proposed setbacks in certain habitat areas, and feels a clearer definition is needed. Commissioner Klink appreciates the thoughts brought by the EVCA. Standards are a difficult subject, and Staff is looking for other communities that may have standards in place to use as a guide for writing code that will pertain to our unique community. They will also be contacting EDAW to see if more information can be provided on the maps. Commissioner Klink directed Planner Chilcott to search for standards in other communities and reporf back to the Planning Commission next month. Commissioner Hull suggested the local newspaper could possibly help by publishing a full-page map. She stated the public need to be aware of what is going on and have the right to know which habitat category is connected to their property. Betty Nickel/County Resident - Mrs. Nickel wants assurance from the Commission that a home could still be built on a piece of property zoned residential at the time of purchase. Commissioner Klink stated that there may be constraints on the property that limit the footprint, etc., depending on the habitat label placed on the property. Frank Theis/Town Resident - Mr. Theis noted the Town Board decided not to pursue the contract for the open space study, where Staff was going to provide the mapping of the public and private open space in the Estes Valley. Mr. Theis suggested Staff proceed with RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 December 16, 2008 the open-space mapping to provide a valuable tool for the wildlife code revisions and assessment. Planner Chilcott"indicated the Community Development department has access to GIS maps showing private and public open space but is unsure whether or not these could be made accessible on the Town website. She will look into this matter. Fred Mares/Town Resident - Mr. Mares agrees with Mr. Spooner. He is very willing to work with the Staff and EVCA on the complex issues. Commissioners Klink and Hull suggested the possibility of a citizen's committee. Celine LeBeau/Town Resident'- Mrs. LeBeau has ten years experience as a biological consultant, and has written several studies on habitat. She sees several flaws in the habitat assessment completed by EDAW. One of her concerns is the information used in the assessment came from a study in the National Park, which is higher in elevation than the Estes Valley and notably different in the types of habitat involved. Mrs. LeBeau stated a clearer definition of aquatic and riparian are needdd. Commissioner Klink would like to see the riparian issue clarified with EDAW, as well as more definition of critical habitat. Planner Chilcott indicated that Staff has been in contact with EDAW and is awaiting a response. Mrs. LeBeau stated that because species lists will always be updated, she does not see a need for a defined species list. She feels the buffer for aquatic habitat is too extensive, as there are various levels of functionality with aquatic habitat. Mrs. LeBeau suggested flexibility with the assessment depending on the type of development. Finally, she believes there are too many unknowns to adopt this habitat assessment as written into the code. Matthew Heiser/Town Resident - As an architectural designer in the Estes Valley, Mr. Heiser is in favor of some type of assessment, but feels the proposed setbacks are too extreme, stating that a 300-foot buffer around riparian areas is 10% of the Estes Valley. Mr. Heiser noted the proposed buffer for raptor areas could possibly cover 43% of the valley. Also, he stated there is no clear definition of what the buffer area entails. Mr. Heiser agrees with the importance of having standards, and suggests the standards of the assessment be the requirements for the developers. With standards, conflicts could be discovered and addressed early on. Mr. Heiser also suggested that biologists hired to conduct the studies could possibly be pre-qualified by Staff and Commissioners. Bill Van Horn/Local property owner - Mr. Van Horn stated that an area on Fall River Road currently proposed as critical sheep habitat is on land that he owns. He has never seen bighorn sheep there. Mr. Van Horn considers himself knowledgeable about sheep habitat, and said sheep tend to congregate in small areas and are creatures of habit. He agrees that resources for very detailed maps are limited, but the Planning Commission is dealing with resident's property rights and encouraged them to be cautious in their decisions. Also, according to the map, there is a raptor nest at Nicky's Restaurant, which he believes is incorrect. Mr. Van Horn stated there is more wildlife in the Estes Valley than in the past, which is directly related to development and irrigated property. He does not believe development would encroach on elk migration. Commissioner Tucker noted that neither.the Planning Commission nor the public can expect the map to be accurate to within 1/8 mile, which is the reason for the proposed required site visit before a project is approved. Town Attorney White said the resources for upfront individual parcel evaluations are not available, and at some point we will either have to come up with a process that works, or stop the process. If property owners think there are errors in the mapping process, it would be up to the individual property owners to bring it to Staff's attention. Commissioner Klink believes both sellers and buyers need a mechanism to be able to challenge the habitat assessment. Planner Chilcott agrees more clarification is needed for critical and important habitat definition. Town Attorney White stated the key is predictability from all sides about what happens to a particular piece of property upon development. Ron Norris and Sandy Osterman, Town Residents, also spoke in favor of a better-defined assessment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December 16, 2008 Seth Hanson/Local Developer - Mr. Hanson stated Planners Shirk and Chilcott are already very sensitive to wildlife when reviewing development plans, and feels the people with undeveloped property are those that will be hurt the most. All Planning Commissioners thanked the members of the public who attend the meetings to present their views, as the information given is invaluable. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to CONTINUE discussion of the proposed ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT ASSESSMENT. and item 4.a WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION to the January meeting. Â·The motion PASSED unanimously with two absent. Ten minute recess at 3:10 p.m. Meeting resumed at 3:20 p.m. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12 a. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION - New public comment is being accepted to the proposed changes to Â§7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection, to provide review standards for land identified as critical wildlife habitat, require preparation of a wildlife habitat conservation,plan for land identified as critical wildlife habitat, and provide for Planning Commission review of said conservation plan. Public Comment: Joint discussion with habitat assessment - see above. b. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS - New public comment is being accepted to the proposed changes to Â§5.2.B Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts, to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) within all single-family residential zoning districts except the R-1 district, to allow the lease of one unit, to allow detached units, and to adopt architectural standards for ADUs; also proposed changes to Â§13.3.3 Definition of Words, Terms and Phrases, to redefine the term Accessory Dwelling Unit Public Comment: Planner Shirk stated that today's focus will be on the text in the code and followed-up with discussion about said text. After hearing public comment at previous meetings, Planner Shirk stated there are possible negative aspects of allowing ADUs: potential for increase in population density, Â· increase in neighborhood traffic, potential stress on the current infrastructure, changes in the neighborhood character, and possible impact on property values. Today will hopefully bring clarification on many of those concerns. In the proposed code there are three different types of ADUs; Detached, Attached (may or may not have interior access but has a common wall), and Integrated (i.e. basement finish). A change in the proposed code,will base the type and size of ADUs on lot size rather than zoning districts. It is proposed that ADUs will be allowed as use by right, not by special review by a governing board. The review process would include a staff-level review for all integrated and attached units, with appeals going to Planning Commission and Town Board or County Commissioners. A staff-level review would allow for notification of neighbors and the opportunity for comment, but there would be no public hearing. Detached units would be allowed as a use by right, but a public hearing with the Planning Commission would be required, with appeals forwarded to Town Board or County Commissioners. Those with the right to appeal would include the applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the proposed ADU. Ownership of the ADU shall be common, where the owner of the principle residence is the owner of the ADU, and only one ADU per parcel would be allowed, regardless of lot size. The occupancy shall not exceed the current code for eight unrelated individuals per parcel. Concerning home occupations (no employees reporting), either an ADU or a home occupation would be allowed, but not both. Proposed tenancy regulations state a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 December 16, 2008 minimum stay of 90 days, which is a decision based on summer employment. No short- term or vacation rentals would be allowed. Commissioner Klink stated he is against renting any ADU as a short-term rental or vacation home. After conversations with the public, he was made aware of the adverse affect of unpaid sales tax by most owners of vacation homes. Consequently, if short-term ADU rentals are allowed, there is great potential for the loss of sales tax revenue due to enforcement issues of ADUs. Commissioner Hull sees occupants of ADUs either as caregivers or summer employees. She believes ADUs should not be rented, and there should be strong language in the code stating such. Planner Shirk states the current demand from the public is not for rentals, but for guest suites. Commissioners Kitchen and Eisenlauer also stated their opinion against the rental of ADUs. Commissioner Klink indicated code disallowing rentals could be revised if demand changed and the community was supportive of allowing rentals. Planner Shirk indicated the proposed code for the size of ADUs states detached shall not have more than two bedrooms, and shall be no larger than 49 percent of the floor area of the principle dwelling (excluding attached garages and other areas of accessory use), with a maximum of 1000 square feet. A typical house in Estes Park would allow a 980 square foot ADU. The square footage of the ADU would count towards the cumulative area of accessory use on the parcel. Planner Shirk indicated Staff arrived at the 1000 square foot maximum in order to minimize the impact on the neighborhood and infrastructure. Utilities for the ADU will need to comply with current infrastructure. If the parcel is on a well, the owner will need to have permission and a letter of interpretation from the state Division of Water Resources in order to build the ADU. Private water systems still need to be addressed. Some of these associations purchase their water from the town and have private distribution systems. More specifically, Dunraven Heights is on a community well, which will need to be resolved. Staff will work on addressing these issues over the next month. Staff is recommending that ADUs would be exempted from road standards. Planner Shirk stated Larimer County staff recommended against requiring approval from road associations to build an ADU. Planner Chilcott indicated the need to clarify which road standards would be exempted, as some would still require compliance. Planner Shirk said thought should be given to those with private roads and/or shared driveways and whether the need for approval from the users exists. It is proposed that off-street parking would be allowed only in defined parking spaces not located in yard setback areas and existing landscaping standards would apply. Parked vehicles should be located in approved locations in order to avoid parking on the street. The total number of vehicles on the property must comply with the existing code. Also, all vehicles would be required to use the same driveway. Concerning site design, it is proposed that existing code for limits of disturbance as well as landscaping requirements would apply. The proposed architectural requirements (roof pitch, trim, etc.) would keep the ADU subordinate and tied to the main dwelling. Of all the architectural requirements, Planner Shirk thinks the most important of these regulates the location of the main entrance. For attached units, it is recommended that Staff have the ability to grant exceptions and modifications through a review process. Exceptions and modifications to detached units would go before the Planning Commission. Discussion followed with the Board about which proposed words and sentences to add and which to discard. Staff has also proposed a Land-Use Affidavit requirement, which the property owner signs to acknowledge the land-use requirements. This document would be recorded with the county clerk, would run with the deed on the property, and would also be tied to any building permits. It is proposed that any appeals would go through Town Board or County Commissioners. Building permit fees would apply as well as any applicable impact fees that may be applied at the time of the approval. Utility fees and regulations would be applied by their respective departments. Staff will review the current Development Plan Review fees to establish an acceptable fee. The number of animals shall be limited and the code rewritten to ensure an acceptable but not excessive number be allowed. Code still needed includes those RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 December 16, 2008 dwellings that are only used as sleeping quarters, with no kitchen or bath. Under the current code, "bunkhouses" are prohibited. In order to be considered an ADU, it must be an independent living unit with cooking facilities. After a short discussion about what constitutes the definition of cooking facilities, the Commission decided to continue the bunkhouse issue to another month in order to allow public comment on today's subject. Commissioner Tucker indicated he would like to hear public comment ori the size of the lot and when it becomes acceptable to construct attached or detached ADUs. Planner Shirk stated that until the code changes in 2000, most of the Estes Valley allowed multiple units on lots of 20,000 square feet (1/2 acre) or more. Commission Hull supports attached ADUs on a minimum lot size of one acre, and supports detached ADUs on no less than 5 acre lots. Klink indicated the current proposal states ADU type and size would ~e based on the zoning district; detached units would be allowed on land zoned E-1-Estate, attached units would be allowed in R-1 areas, and integrated units would be permitted in R zoning districts. However, the Commission is considering changing the proposal to have the requirements based on actual size of the lot rather than the zoning district. Public Comment: Ron Norris/Association for Responsible Development (ARD) - Mr. Norris would like to remind the Commission of unintended condequences and chtnges in the character of the neighborhood when ADUs are allowed. He wants to reinforce that the code should state the purpose of ADUs (seasonal workers, extended family, etc.) Also, the rights of the existing property owners can be protected by requiring a case-by-case public review for all ADUs. ARD dupports the disallowance of ADUs as rentals. ARD supports attached units on one acre or larger, detached units on 2.5 acres or larger, including the case-by- case review with Planning Commission for all units. ARD also recommends limiting the size of the ADU to 1000 square feet of less. Rita Kurelja/Estes Park Housing Authority - Ms. Kurelja would like to have Commissioners revisit the rental issue. Rentals may not be a primary purpose, but it could be one of the purposes. The proposed definition of how ADUs can be used is very narrow and could ultimately create more problems. ADUs will not solve the housing issues in the valley. Also, these issues are more readily solved by a collection of small changes rather than one big change. As an example, Ms. Kurelja would encourage the approval of seasonal rentals for those cases where a change occurs from the original purpose of the ADU. These rentals could have a big impact on the families that come to the Estes Valley to work for the summer. Other resort communities have encouraged the Housing Authority to consider ADUs as prospects for housing. Please consider being able to allow rentals. Steve Nickel/County Resident and representative of Portfolio Group - Mr. Nickel *stated the proposed definition of an ADU is specifically for cooking facilities, and .questioned what determines a "cooking facility" in, an ADU. An ADU needs to be defined as a permanent and independent living, cooking, and sleeping facility. Mr. Nickel suggests "kitcheri" be defined as having installed cook tops and/or ovens with 220 volt electric or gas hookups. Microwaves, refrigerators, and sinks should not define a kitchen. He would suggest a very clear definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Betty Nickel/County Resident - Mrs. Nickel stated permits are not required for cabinets, microwaves, etc., but are required for ranges or ovens due to the electric/plumbing requirements. Planner Shirk indicated that wording for the definition of kitchen came from the building code definitions. Ray Duggans/Local Business Owner - Mr. Duggans has a client on High Drive with a bunkhouse who is unable to improve the property due to the ADU issue. Prior to the code change in 2000, the property owner'd structure was compliant. Mr. Duggans would appreciate clear definition and timely action on this issue. Joe Coop/County Resident - Mr. Coop thinks the main problem with the definition is where it involves detached units. He has a detached garage and would like to convert it to a bedroom with a bathroom for guests. Planner Shirk reminded those in attendance that guest quarters are only allowed in certain zoning districts. Mr. Coop thinks that ADUs and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 December 16, 2008 guest quarters are two separate items and should not be combined. It is his opinion that guest quarters should be approved by staff with a site plan review. ADU review should go before the Planning Commission. Mr. Coop agrees with Ron Norris' size and acreage suggestions. Mark Elrod/Town Resident - Mr. Elrod brought up the possibility of aging parents or children living in an ADU and being asked or offering to pay rent. He encouraged the Planning Commission to allow enforceable rentals. Commissioner Tucker suggested solving that issue by writing code about renting to non-family members. Kevin Schwery/Town Resident - Mr. Schwery supports detached ADUs. He was recently required to move out of his ADU in the E-1 zoning district due to non-compliance. He is currently renting the principal dwelling. Mr. Schwery also supports detached ADUs on one acre parcels. As a local business owner, he would like the opportunity to be able to house his employees in his ADU. Matthew Heiser/Local Designer - It is Mr. Heiser's opinion that the architectural standards or design flexibility should be left in the hands of the designer. As a board member of the Estes Park Housing Authority, he reminded the Commission of the section in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan that relates to affordable housing, and he would support rentals of ADUs. Paul Brown/Town Resident - Mr. Brown gave Recoding Secretary Thompson a handout with previous zoning code that lists locations where detached guest houses were allowed. Many substandard detached ADUs already exist and owners are not allowed to improve them due to the current code. Mr. Brown suggests allowing detached ADUs based on lot size: nothing smaller than 300 square foot minimum to 400 square foot maximum on lots 10,890 square feet to 21,779 square feet. This would allow upgrades to already existing ADUs on small lots. Next, 300 square foot minimum to 600 square foot maximum ADUs allowed on lots sized 21,780 square feet to 43,559 square feet to allow a new detached unit. A 300 square foot minimum to 800 square foot maximum ADU allowed on lots 43,560 square feet to 108,899 square feet. Finally, 300 square foot minimum to 1000 square foot maximum ADUs allowed on lots over 108,900 square feet. Mr. Brown also included photo examples of various sized units. He feels that small units are not imposing on a small lot, and it gives the property owners the ability to maintain what they already have. Mr. Brown suggested the Commission ask Will Birchfield to review past building code books for more complete definitions of a kitchen. Planner Shirk stated that legally established detached ADUs may be grandfathered in, but they should check with the planning department to make sure they can be remodeled. Non-conforming uses and intermittent rentals create problems when owners want to upgrade. Mr. Brown has had some success with the county on obtaining building permits to reinstall bathrooms that were originally on summer water systems and removed from the units. Mr. Brown would like to see code written so these types of situations can be dealt with legally. Commissioner Tucker asked that these non-conforming buildings be included in the January study session to begin to determine if there are ways to improve them either using current codes or writing new codes. Cherie Pettyjohn/Town Resident - Ms. Pettyjohn thinks that quick action should be taken to get this code approved due to the EVDC being a living document. She feels the Commission should be able to come up with an equitable solution without months of discussion/study. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to CONTINUE agenda item 4.b, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS-proposed changes to Â§5.2.B Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts, to the January meeting. The motion PASSED unanimously with two absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 December 16, 2008 c. SHORT-TERM RENTALS - revisions to vacation home regulations, including revisions to the definition of accommodation use, guest room, guest quarter, household living, and nightly rental in the Estes Valley Development Code Chapter 13, and revisions to distinguish between Bed & Breakfasts and vacation home uses and the districts in which these uses are permitted. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Kitchen) to CONTINUE agenda item 4.c, SHORT-TERM RENTALS, to the February meeting. The motion PASSED ' unanimously with two absent. 5. REPORTS None 6. ADJOURN Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Ike Eisenlauer, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary t January 14, 2009 ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, I recommend a plan that would eliminate many pressures a biologist would face as an employee of someone needing a wildlife or assessment study. The goal is to achieve a more objective and accurate study. Community Development staff would set up an escrow account. The party that requires a wildlife study or assessment places an agreed amount that would equal an established contract amount in escrow. Staff would have a list of a minimum of three qualified biologists which a party may choose. The chosen biologist will not be one who is currently or previously employed by that party. Guided by the requirements of the wildlife study, the chosen biologist will submit the study or assessment to the Planning Commission for their approval and such payment issued from the escrow account. Sandy Osterman 1735 Red Tail Hawk Dr. Estes Park, CO January 14,2009 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission Subject: Estes Valley Habitat Assessment and proposed EVDC changes For the past several sessions the Planning Commission has undertaken discussion of the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment and a proposed co-de change to the Wildlife & Habitat Protection sections of the EVDC. In addition a significant change to the ADU regulation has been ptoposed by the Planning Staff and an Open Space Study is waiting for the Town Board to approve funding. These are all complex topids with very far reaching implications. We have heard testimony from the public, from the construction and development community and from a biologist, expert in the field. All interested parties have provided helpful and insightful comments, however the rekult remains that these topics are very complex, interrelated and have no apparent easy or universal solutions. Rather than providing additional comments regarding the details of each proposal, I offer what I think might be an orderly path through these issues. While not a solution itself, a systematic process might make the resulting solutions more comprehensive and provide for greater continuity. I would offer the following three step process: 1) Correct an apparent flaw in the Development Application Process 2) Identify the objective (or problem to be fixed) for each of the studies and code proposals 3) Complete the two studies, combine their findings and understand the results, then produce code changes which move Estes in the direction of the stated objectives. 1) The Development Application Process Problem statement: It is my observation that the Development Application Process itself is the cause of a significant portion of community upset, developer dissatisfaction and Staff frustration that has been evidenced in the recent past. Today's process allows for a developer to work with the Planning Staff for months, perhaps years, on a proposed development prior to any public or Planning Commission awareness. Only after the developer has spent many thousands of dollars on architectural, engineering, and legal services, and sometimes land purchase, is a Development Application filed. It is this event which triggers a public notification and a Planning Commission hearing. This is the first opportunity for the developer to learn of any additional Town requirements and to hear public comments. This is certainly late in the cycle for a developer to easily and cost effectively accommodate changes. Proposed solution: Adding a "Concept Phase" check point early in the process would alert all interested parties at a time when all input could be considered, requirements verified, even the need for a Wildlife & Habitat Conservation Plan decided. For this filing, the documents required of the developer could be less formal (requiring less time and money investment) and the Staff' s evaluation and report could be less detailed. The Planning Commission would now have an early notification of the proposal with the ability to express questions or concerns. The developer would have the opportunity to assess the feasibility and cost of any required changes and would learn the probability of the development being approved. All interested parties would benefit. 2) Define the Objective of the proposals Problem Statement: Currently in process are two studies (the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment is awaiting acceptance and an Open Space Study is waiting for Board funding approval) and three significant proposed changes to the EVDC (Wildlife & Habitat Protection, ADU's, and Short-Term Rentals, Vacation Homes, Bed & Breakfasts). Each of these undertakings should have a clearly defined objective, however the only objectives I have heard stated to date are: â€¢ the EVDC Wildlife Habitat Protection Section 7.8 is being rewritten to prevent another Lexington Lane/Wapiti Crossing from ever happening again â€¢ the Housing Authority' s hope to ease the affordable housing and summer worker's housing shortage by encouraging the use of ADUs Proposed Solution: Ideally the development code should be the implementation tool which helps move Estes Park toward the community its citizens want it to be in the future. It is imperative for the Town to create and publish a vision of what Estes wants to look like in one year, five years, and in ten years. Such a vision could include the development goals for single and multifamily housing, affordable housing, accommodations, provisions for ample commercial zoning and growth, incorporation of the Performing Arts center, Community Center, and Fairgrounds improvements and, what we are considering today......how Estes will accommodate wildlife habitat and viewing areas in the future. In the absence of such a forward looking, documented view of the Estes Valley, we can concentrate on one aspect of that vision by clearly defining the objective of the studies and code changes now under consideration. For example, the integrated objective of the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, the Open Space Study and the Wildlife & Habitat Protection code revision might be "to define the type of thoughtful, planned growth in the Estes Valley which protects valued wildlife habitat and viewing areas important for the economic viability and quality of life of the community". 3) Code changes which move Estes in the direction of meeting the objective Problem Statement: Making complex changes to individual sections of code without the forethought of how the pieces interact or how they come together to complete the picture of Estes' future only serves to continue what might be viewed as a piece meal , approach to development. Proposed Solution: With the objective stated above, a logical course of action might be: 1) Complete the discussign of the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment and adopt it into the EV Comprehensive Plan with the understanding it is not "hard science". 2) Authorize and complete the Open Space Study. When complete overlay the Open Space findings on the Wildlife Habitat map to help identi fy areas o f particular interest. An additional map overlay of not yet developed land might further refine the possibilities. 3) Once the information has been collected, analyzed and a direction (with an * implementation plan) established, revise the EVDC to implement the objective of the studies. Sincerely, Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court EÂ©EDVIE~ December 16, 2008 TO: Estes town and valley representatives (and for public record) FROM: Sandy Lindquist, 1980 Cherokee Drive, Estes Park RE: Development/Growth and Land Stewardship (e.g., ADUs, wildlife, etc.) I have some observations about recent comments by those who earn their living from growth and development - and because of the general disdain I've heard from some of those people towards wildlife and towards valley residents who differ with them. Estes Park is the most unique community in Colorado. With its proximity to the urban front range and its gateway status to the most stunning side of Rocky Mountain National Park, it is NOT like any other mountain resort or ski town. The rare combination of scenery and abundant wildlife MAKE this community as desirable as it is to visit or to live within. It has attracted a highly educated and talented group of residents, and I think that valley and town officials don't always appreciate this valuable human resource all around them. We should compare ourselves to other communities, but we do not need to EMULATE them. In the year-and-a-half I've lived here and attended these meetings, I've come to conclude, alarmingly, that the Planning Department wants Estes Park to be like "everybody else" in terms of growth and development at the expense of everything else. But I believe we have the responsibility to be more-carejul stewards of this natural-world gift that makes us so unique. I believe that most valley residents want their representatives to set NEW high standards in their stewardship of these lands - and to be leaders, rather than followers, in that regard. This valley needs a unifying vision I've not yet recognized in its planning. 4. I At these Planning Commission and Board meetings, there can be extreme opinions regarding development and preservation, but most people really just want balance. It's just that no one can agree where that balance point should be. We all have interests (including self-preservation). In this case the development side also includes financial gain; whereas the preservation side does NOT financially benefit. And the preservation side includes all "voiceless" wildlife who can't pay for their own lobbyists! So, where's the tipping point in ruining the ecosystem and the beauty in this environment? Even the experts don't really know for certain. But those who favor continuous growth always take the viewpoint of "just let me do this one" because IT won't be the breaking point. One contractor last month even went so far as to say that wildlife can just "stay in the park" where there's more room for them! Well, the town is in the bottom of a bowl-shaped topographic depression where natural wildlife mtgration is going to focus, especially in the winter. Wildlife behavior is already described as "abnormal" in terms of its local habituation to humans. Unwise and ever-more-dense development will cause that to worsen and will result in more conflict between wildlife and people. The critical guiding point for this special community and physical setting should be that every development changes things forever, so decisions should always be on the side of caution. I believe the MAJORITY of people who live here treasure this land resource and don't want or need financial gain from land speculation or from development endeavors. They'd also rather not spend all their personal time repeatedly fighting such battles in meetings. Our challenge is making the right decisions with respect to this balance for ALL parties involved and for the Estes Valley ecosystem as a whole. l also reference my formal letters of the last year to you, as an individual, which have made similar points << before (11-15-07; 12-28-07; 1-4-08; 1-29-08; 5-14-08; 10-20-08). Within the ever-looming shadow of development profit, this more cautious point of view apparently needs to be made repeatedly. To: Estes Valley Planning Commission November 17,2008 Comments on Section 7.8 Code Revisions Please include as part of the public record. Summarv: Please see comments below. In summary, while a few important clarifications and additions are noted below, this revision represents a major step forward in updating and clarifying.this portion of the Estes Valley Development Code, and IÂ·appreciate the time and consideration that Staffhas obviously put into this draft. Specific Comments: 1. Section 7.4.C.1: Is there a need to clarify what we mean by, or provide specific definitions for, private and public open areas? 2. Section 7.5.H.4.: Good upgradest 3. Section 7.6.E.1: It's not clear how an "annual" high water mark is determined. Should .this be 10-year or 20-year highest water mark, for instance? 4. Section 7.8.F.2: Sugge@t adding that review input froin site Visits and dbcumented observations from residents (if available), as well as review ofthe application forms. 5. Section 7.8.F (Review Procedures): o Great thanks for including both "important" habitat and "critical" habitat in Section 1. This is a very important addition. o Good clarification of Staff and DOW roles in Section 2. This really clarifies this part of the review process. o In Section 4, recommend adding "Plans not found adequate may be rejected." Lack of such specific language has been a major issue in the past. o In Section 5, recommend adding a clause to state that wildlife conservation and habitat plans may be waived "if there is no public objection." 6. Section 7.8.F.3 (Mitigation ofDevelopment Impacts): o Many good additions and clarifications. 3 o Very happy to see inclusion of an item related to migratory birdnegting. o Suggest including documented observations from residents as part of identifying/understanding wildlife movement corridors. 7. Overall: Recommend adding language to "require annual review of how well these regulations are being implemented and complied with" by Staff, Commissioners, and representatives of the public. Reenertfullv gahmittpri , Aon Norris 'Iftl_--112008 1 U 1905 Cherokee Drive 1 ./. r---1 Ill ~# ~~ DEC 1 6 2008 U# ~0,~:55>-ESTES VALLEY<k~j- --J CONTRACTORS AN ASSOCIATION OF CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONALS - ASSOCIATION Contractors, Engineers, Architects, Designers & Developers DATE: December 16, 2008 TO: Members of the Estes Valley Planning Commission FROM: John A. Spooner, P.E., Chair Engineers, Architects and Designers Committee RE: Comments on the proposed Revisions to Chapter 7 EVDC (Wildlife) Members of the Engineers, Architects and Designers Committee of the EVCA, at a recent meeting, discussed at length the proposed code revisions regarding wildlife and have authorized the following comments to be communicated to the Commission and staff. Some of these same concerns were also discussed with the staff at a meeting held on November 26111, The EVCA is not opposed to the concept of incorporating wildlife studies into some of the planning functions administered by the Commission. We are concerned that the process be clearly defined to provide guidance to all parties involved. We believe the following issues should be addressed prior to adoption. 1. The map ("Priorities for an Ecological Network" from the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment), which is proposed to provide guidance for the determination of areas to be studied under the Code, should be reworked. As it exists within the Report, it is difficult to read and confusing. It would be very helpful to provide a larger map with the four habitat areas superimposed upon the property ownership boundaries along with the zoning districts. Areas within conservation easements, under governmental ownership and other uses which are presumably never to be developed should be identified. Â·2. If the suggestions above are followed, it should be relatively easy to provide some graphic and statistical information related to the amount of land within the valley which would fall under wildlife study purview. This would provide very important information to the Commission in deciding on adoption of the amendments. 3. This map revision would assist property owners in determining the status of their property. 4. Paragraph 7.8, F.2 suggests that the "Review of an application may reveal potential... habitat .. that is not reflected .. on the ..map ... In such instances, the Review- or Decision-Making body shall have the discretion to require the Applicant to retain a PO BOX 2942, ESTES PARK, CO 80517 - (970) 586-6190 qualified biologist to assess the habitat." This paragraph affords no assurance to property owners that any.development proposal without an assessment could not be denied by completely discretionary means. i Preferably the adopted map would delineate all properties required to *grayide*siteÂ·specifiE assessment, or at the very least, there should be a process allowing property owners to determine with staff whether such a study would be required before a full submittal is made. 5. We believe that it is of significance that there is no "standards" section in paragraph 7.8. Note that other paragraphs in Chapter 7 have "standards" (7.1 -"development restrittions", 7.2 - "grading standards", 7.4 -"locational and design criteria", 7.5 - "design standard", 7.6 - "development standards", etc). 6. Paragraph 7.8 also states that the "Decision-Making Body shall issue a finding as to whether the application and plan complies with the requirerrients of this Section, including adequately mitigating adverse impacts". Without the standards as noted in item 5, this language also creates a discretionary means of review. Presumably the Decision Making Body, without the same professional expertise, shall judge within a half-hour review whether a document prepared over hours, days or even weeks by a "qualified professional" adequately mitigates wildlife impacts with no provision in the code to guide them. Either the standards should be clearly delineated or the assessment submitted with a development proposal should become the adopted standard for that project site. 7. With other,requirements of the code, if the applicant adheres to the requirements and doesn't ask for variandes,Nthey have a reasonable chance of success. The proposed code amandment does not afford property owners with this same level of assurance. 8. Under the "Applicability" section, "maintenance and repair" of existing residential...structures" is exempted. Presumably under the listed applications for which the section applies, all single- family residential development is already exempted. This should be clarified so there is no confusion. 9. Several definitions of "Riparian" have been suggested in the proposed code revisions. A definition should be adopted, if possible, which makes it clear to the land owner, the owner's 9. surveyor and the regulatory officials where the boundaries are before having to engage a biologist to delineate these boundaries. 10. Setbacks issues should be open to further discussion. By changing the requirements currently in effect, it will often be possible to have a land owner (including single family residence construction) that is burdened with more severe restrictions than those who have already constructed on either side of the owner's property. In addition, some members have suggested that larger setbacks should apply to rivers as opposed to streams (including iritermittent ones). Finally, as a suggestion, the setback distances really should be dependent on the quality of the , biological habitat on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket requirement. 11. Depending on the results of a possible analysis as outlined in items 1-3 above, the EVCA believes that potentially impacted property owners should be notified about the proposed changes to the code due to the potentially far-reaching restrictions. PO BOX 2942, ESTES PARK, CO 80517 - (970) 586-6190 Association for Responsible Development Proposed Action Related to Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment Submitted to Estes Valley Planning Commission 10/21/08 (Please include as part of the public record) Introduction: The Association for Responsible Development is dedicated to preserving the unique mountain character and natural beauty of the Estes Valley, by fostering appropriate and responsible development. We believe the recently-completed Wildlife Habitat Assessment provides a needed foundation for determining what is, and is not, responsible development, in terms of the impact of development on wildlife habitat. We believe the proposed revisions to Chapter 7 of the Estes Valley Development Code are a step in the right direction, but do not fully address many important areas. We have recommended several additional items for inclusion in the code. Comments on Proposed Code Changes: Our Association has reviewed the proposed code changes (Revisions to Chapter 7 EVDC, October 16,2008) in detail and appreciate the work done by Staff in developing this draft. As a ( result of our review, we: a) Support replacing the 1996 Wildlife Habitat map with the 2008 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment; b) Support replacing the term "significant adverse impact" with more specific guidance for developers and the public; c) Support providing riparian zone setbacks of fifty feet; d) Support changing the code to require preparation of a Wildlife Conservation Plan for all areas designated as "Critical Habitat": Critical habitat includes areas which are extremely important to specific species, such as riparian corridors and bighorn sheep habitat. 1 1 1 ~..i'J F____~~1 1 Ill hil i jul L L The following five areas have not been addressed by the proposed code changes. We recommend: 1. Adding provisions to require preparation of a Wildlife Conservation Plan for all areas designated as "Important Habitat", in addition to those areas designated as "Critical Habitat". "Important Habitat" contains rare or sensitive resources, including rare vegetation communities, raptor nesting areas, elk winter range, and elk movement corridors. Most of these areas do not currently enjoy any special protection. We believe additional protection for such areas must be incorporated into the code in order to ensure a viable ecological network as described in the Habitat Assessment. . 2. Adding provisions that require Wildlife Conservation Plans and Mitigation Plans to be reviewed, validated, and evaluated for adequacy in writing by CDOW representatives or other qualified, independent professionals. 3. Adding provisions that provide the option for Staff to require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan and Wildlife and Habitai Mitigation Plan for property which falls within the "Other Valuable Habitat" category when such property has unique characteristics such as: a location which provides continuity or linkage to other protected habitat, an important visitor wildlife viewing area, or is otherwise essential to providing a viable ecological network. 4. Adding provisions to allow denial of a proposal based on negative impact the development would have on wildlife and/or habitat as identified in the Wildlife Conservation Plan, and ade4uacy of the Mitigation Plan. 5. Adding provisions that require an annual audit, by a team including members of the ~c.j Planning Commission, Town Staff, and representatives of the public, to assess compliance with these provisions. Closing: We believe the changes proposed by Staff, in combination with the recommended additions, will provide improved understanding of wildlife protection requirements for developers and the public, increase public trust in the process, and promote future development thqt preserves the unique aspects of our Valley. We urge you to implement all the above recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Ron Norris, President Association for Responsible Development L--7 Ir Â© Elan NOV 1 8 2008 ~ November 18,2008 -U-21 Subject: Revisions to Chapter 7 EVDC (Wildlife), dated November 13,2008 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission I want to express my appreciation to Director Joseph and his staff for the obvious time, energy, and amount ofthought that has been put into this proposed revision to Section 7.8 ofthe EVDC. I believe this revision is a significant improvement in clarifying terminology and adding enforcement measures to this important section of our code. After careful review I offer the following specific comments and questions: 1. Section 7.4.C.1 and Section 7.8 Purpose statement - The phrase "to the maximum extent feasible" is used in both of these paragraphs. Although the intent of this language may be clear, I think it is most important that it's meaning be explicit. When used in Section 7.8, it refers to minimizing the negative impacts ofthe development, but the meaning of this phrase is very different for each of the parties involved in evaluating ani application and a Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Plan: â€¢ Does this mean what the applicant thinks is feasible in regards to schedule, finances, aesthetics, or is it just what he might be willing to do voluntarily? â€¢ Does this mean what a wildlife biologist thinks is feasible to protect a habitat, or a plant community, *or to link habitats into an ecological system? â€¢ Does this mean what the Planning Commission thinks is the most that can be asked of a developer or else he will file a suit against the Town? â€¢ Does this mean the maximum mitigation that can be required before the legal community would consider a "taking"? 2. Section 7.8.F.2 (Review of an application....) - states "the Review - or Decision- Making body shall have the discretion to require the Applicant to retain a qualified biologist to assess the habitat." Does this mean they have the authority to require a Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Plan? 3. Section 7.8.F.1 (Wildlife Habitat Data Base) - My thanks to the staff for including "important" as well as "critical habitat"! 4. Section 7.8.F.2 (Review Procedures) - Please add "in writing" to the first sentence of this paragraph. "Staff shall refer, in writing, the submitted application and Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Plan to the Colorado Division ofWildlife for their review. 5. Section 7.8.F.4 (Review Bodv & Decision-Making Procedures) - This section states the Decision-Making Body will issue a finding as to whether the application and the Wildlife & Habitat Conservation Plan comply with the code and adequately mitigate the adverse impacts. What i f the finding is: a. either the application or the Plan does not comply, or b. the Plan does not adequately mitigate the adverse impacts? Is this cause for denial? 6. Section 7.8.F.5 Waivers - The waiving of a Wildlife Conservation & Habitat Plan by Staff (or the Planning Commission) should only be done after a public hearing. Sincerely, Fi'ed R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court ~*CE OVE -1-1 NOV 1 8 2008 ~ . 1 . 4 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission November 17,2008 K_/ Comments on Section 7.8 Code Revisions L-ip )) Please include as part ofthe public record. Summarv: Please see comments below. In summary, while a few important clarifications and additions are noted below, this revision represents a major step forward in updating and clarifying this portion ofthe Estes Valley Development Code, and I appreciate the time and consideration that Staffhas obviously put into this draft. Specific Comments: 1. Section 7.4.C.1: Is there a need to clarify what we mean by, orprovide specific definitions for, private and public open areas? 2. Section 7.5.H.4.: Good upgradest 3. Section 7.6.E.1: It's not clear how an "annual" high water mark is determined. Should this be 10-year or 20-year highest water mark, for instance? 4. Section 7.8.F.2: Suggest adding that review input from site visits and documented observations from residents (if available), as well as review of the application forms. 5. Section 7.8.F (Review Procedures): o Great thanks for including both "important" habitat and "critical" habitat in Section 1. This is a very important addition. o Good clarification of Staffand DOW roles in Section 2. This really clarijtes this part ofthe review process. o In Section 4, recommend adding "Plans not found adequate may be rejected." Lack of such specific language has been a major issue in the past. o In Section 5, recommend adding a clause to state that wildlife conservation and habitat plans may be waived "if there is no public objection." 6. Section 7.8.F.3 (Mitigation of Development Impacts): o Many good additions and clarifications. o Very happy to see inclusion of an item related to migratory bird nesting. o Suggest including documented observations from residents as part of identifying/understanding wildlife movement corridors. 7. Overall: Recommend adding language to "require annual review of how well these regulations are being implemented and complied with" by Staff, Commissioners, and representatives ofthe public. R ecnertfullv elll,mittpli, .- '~Â¤*IMK Aon Norris 1905 Cherokee Drive Association for Responsible Development Proposed Action Related to Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment Submitted to Estes Valley Planning Commission 10/21/08 (Please include as part of the public record) Introduction: 434 The Association for Responsible Development is dedicated to preserving the unique mountain L character and natural beauty of the Estes Valley, by fostering appropriate and responsible development. We believe the recently-completed Wildlife Habitat Assessment provides a needed foundation for determining what is, a],d is not, responsible development, in terms of the impact of development on wildlife habitat. We believe the prop6sed revisions to Chapter 7 of the Estes Valley Development Code are a step in the right direction, but do not fully address many important areas. We have recommended several additional items for inclusion in the code. Comments on Proposed Code Changes: Our Association has reviewed the proposed code changes (Revisions to Chapter 7 EVDC, October 16,2008) in detail and appreciate the work done by Staff in developing this draft. As a result of our review, we: a) Support replacing the 1996 Wildlife Habitat map with the 2008 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment; . b) Support replacing the term "significant adverse impact" with more specific guidance for developers and the public; c) Support providing riparian zone setbacks of fifty feet; d) Support changing the code to require preparation of a Wildlife Conservation Plan for all areas designated as "Critical Habitat": Critical habitat includes areas which are extremely important to specific species, such as riparian corridors and bighorn sheep habitat. /0 The following five areas have not been addressed by the proposed code changes. We recommend: 4 1. Adding provisions to require preparation of a Wildlife Conservation Plan for all areas Cof' designated as "Important Habitat", in addition to those areas designated as "Critical Habitat". "Important Habitat" contains rare or sensitive resources, including rare vegetation communities, raptor nesting areas, elk winter range, and elk movement corridors. Most of these areas do not currently enjoy any special protection. We believe additional protection for such areas must be incorporated into the code in order to ensure a viable ecological network as described in the Habitat Assessment. . 2. Adding provisions that require Wildlife Conservation Plans and Mitigation Plans to be reviewed, validated, and evaluated for adequacy in writing by CDOW representatives or other qualified, independent professionals. 3. Adding provisions that provide the option for Staff to require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan and Wildlife and Habitat Mitigation Plan for property which falls within the "Other Valuable Habitat" category when such property has unique characteristics such as: a location which provides continuity or linkage to other protected habitat, an important visitor wildlife viewing area, or is otherwise essential to providing a viable ecological network. 4. Adding provisions to allow denial of a proposal based on negative impact the development would have on wildlife and/or habitat as identified in the Wildlife Conservation Plan, and adequacy of the Mitigation Plan. 5. Adding provisions that require an annual audit, by a team including members of the Planning Commission, Town Staff, and representatives of the public, to assess compliance with these provisions. Closing: We believe the changes proposed by Staff, in combination with the recommended additions, will provide improved understanding o f wildli fe protection requirements for developers and the public, increase public trust in the process, and promote future development that preserves the unique aspects of our Valley. We urge you to implement all the above recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Ron Norris, President Association for Responsible Development Estes Valley Planning Commission Current Proposals for Changes to the Estes Valley Development Code Block 12 Amendments - Wildlife Habit Protection Adoption of the Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment October 21, 2008 Summary 1. The hydrological information on the maps, and the resulting assumptions, is flawed. 2. Notice to current or future real estate owners of the impact of the maps on development of such real estate is in fact neither actual nor constructive as proposed. ( 3. The burden of"proving" the maps to be inaccurate is shifted to current or future land owners. It appears that in working with the maps of the Estes Valley Development Code the prevailing attitude of the Community Development Department is one of an assumption that maps of Estes Valley Development Code are scientific and accurate. 4. There appears to be no clear responsibility or duly on any public employee, official, department, board or commission tg correct errors in the maps of the Estes Valley Development Code when proven. Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO 80517 Â»@INCE OVE77 ~-~ OCT 1 5 2008 1 JJ Estes Valley Planning Commission c Current Proposals for Changes to the Estes Valley Devebpment Code Block 12 Amendments - Wildlife Habit Protection Adoption of the Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment October 21, 2008 Details 1. The hvdrological information on the maps, and the resulting assumptions. is flawed. (It appears that the hydrological information on the maps derive from the United States Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5 minute quadrangle map created in 1976 using the standards in existence from 1972. Extensive standard revisions were made in 1993, but absent some catastrophic event, USGS maps are not updated to take into considerations new standards. Further, the USGS has opined "that stream classification was done in the field during a limited time period and relied on observations and information obtained from local residents and, thus, was a subjective process. No scientific measurements were made to determine the classification." Consequently, the assumptions and analysis found on the Estes Valley Habitat Assedsment is suspect. Hopefully it is not the intention to play Horseshoes with our Development Code ... "close enougW'.) 2. Notice to current or future real estate owners of the impact of the mans on develonment of such real estate is in fact neither actual nor constructive as proposed. (When you, a friend or a neighbor purchased real estate, did you or they first check ( 1 the maps of the Development Code? The Estes Valley Development Code Area? Flood Insurance Rate Map? Flood Plain Map? Geologic Hazard Areas Map? National Wetlands Inventory Resource Map? . Ridgeline Protection Areas? Stream and River Corridors Resource Map? Street Map? Trails Map? Wildfire Hazard Areas Map? Zoning Map? Will you soon be checking the new maps of the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment you are being asked to adopt? The Study Area Map; Vegetation Communities Map; Composit Analysis Map or the Priorities for an Ecological Network Map? I doubt you checked any of those maps prior to purchasing your real estate. However, did you do a title inspection? Did you find out about the recorded zoning and recorded easements? I bet you did. What is the point being made? There is certainly a significant difference between a public record and a publicly recorded document in imparting knowledge on a land owner or purchaser. The adoption of new maps can hardly be imputed to impart knowledge on a current or future landowner as to the impact of such maps on the development of the lands.) 3. The burden of *'proving" the maps to be inaccurate is shifted to current or future land owners. It appears that in working with the maps of the Estes Vallev Development Code the prevailing attitude of the Communitv Development Department iN one of an assumption that maps of Estes Vallev Development Code are scientific and accurate. (Once a map is adopted as a part of the Development Code it appears that should a land owner wish to challenge the veracity ofa map and the restrictions applicable to it because of the location of the real estate on the map the recourse is through a hearing before the Board of Adjustment. . It appears ybu arm the Community Development Department with the need to uphold the validity of a map when dealing with land owners. By adopting a flawed map you are ultimately 2 shifting the need to dispute the map to a land owner to be I resolved by the Board of Adjustment. Depending on the issues with the map it could cost a land owner thousands of dollars to prove the science and fact of the map to be in error. Is this shifting of responsibility to the land owner equitable? Is it an attitude of"better them [the real estate owned to bear the cost of correcting the map than the cost to the town for adopting an accurate map?") 4. There appears to be no clear responsibility or dutv on anv public employee. official, department, board or commission to correct errors in the maps of the Estes Vallev Development Code when proven. (If any map of the Development Code is found to be in error, even if it is site specific, where does the responsibility to correct the map reside? Is it the responsibility of the Director of the Community Development Department? Is it the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment? Is it the responsibility of the Planning Commission? When and under what circumstances have you ever been advised of errors on any map of the Development Code? Where in the Development Code does it provide a modicum of responsibility to any public employee, official, department, board or commission to see that errors or misrepresentations on Development Code maps are rectified? Where is there any responsibility to correct erroneous information on Development Code maps or their underlying foundation map found in the Geographic Information System [GIS]? When we hire consultants who use the GIS system, shame on us for not correcting such information on the system when we could have. Are we again just playing Horseshoes with the responsibility of having accurate maps as part of our Development Code? Is "close enough" good enough for land owners in Estes Valley as far as this Commission is concerned?) 3 Z Thank you for your time in reading through this detail of my concern. Again I represent no special interest group nor am I a member of any organization, formal or informal, having an interest in thE Development Code. I am just presenting my personal views as an individual who has had a Development Co~le map, which was in error, used against me in building on my lot. I just think that all real estate owners in Estes Valley deserve more than Horseshoe (close enough) Development Code maps. Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO 80517 j e 4 To: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners From: Estes Valley Improvement Association Date: October i, 2008 Re: Revised Suggestions to be added to August 2008 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment Dear Commissioners: Following is a document comprised of "netted-out" suggestions made to you in our Sept. 15, 2008 letter. As we told ypu at the time, that letter was drawn up very quickly between the time we received a copy of the Assessment and your meeting. We feel that this revision more clearly states our concerns. While only a start, we would hope that you would use this document as an addendum to EDAW's EV Habitat Assessment in making future planning commission decisions. Sincerely, AA- U.EOCD# .M Alice Gray EVIA President ~ECE OVE'9\ ~1~ OCT 1 0 2008 1 -:~ mE RECOMMENDATIONS to the ~ ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION by the ESTES VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION October _~, 2008 To study the Estes Valley habitat is to tty to understand the interrelationship ofhuman development and occupation on the one hand; and fish, bird and animal habits and habitat, as well as water resources and vegetation, on the other. Habitat is not only affected by buildings, driving lanes and parking lots, but also by other man-made features and human activities which do not require government oversight, such as picnic grounds, hot tubs, zip lines, decks, campfire areas, etc. Since Planning Commission decisions are focused exclusively on the Estes Valley, the information upon which those decisions are made should first take into account the unique conditions of the Estes Valley. Because known ranking systems may not be directly applicable to our area, we have, for the sake of clarity, created a local rating system which would correlate with the Natural Heritage Ranking System. We are using'GEV' to indicate the value within the Estes Valley, ralher than"S" or " rp, to indicate generalized State or Global priorities. As in other systems, the relative degree of imperilment would follow a 1-5 scale, with 1 = "Critically Imperiled" and 5 = "Demonstrably Secure." We remind you that - protected species do not need our protection: - it is those unprotected by federal or state laws that we must protect on our own. 1. ELK AND ELK CORRIDORS: Elk: 05FLS) While the total number of elk must be reduced, smaller herds are still a very high value and desirable attribute ofthe Valley, both in terms of wildlife/habitat interrelationships and tourism. Elk Conidors: tEI/-1) Connectivity of multiple corridors, and their accompanying natural supportive vegetation, must be established and maintained to assure the protection ofwildlife and habitat for centuries to come. - Include in the Assessment the Elk Habitat & Migration Corridor on the *Spur 66 Mgmt. Plan (See Figure 6 attached) - which includes the Elk Conservation Easement along Spur 66 established as part of Thunder Mtn. Park, and consider other corridors not mentioned in the Assessment, as well. 2. ASPEN AND WILLOW: Aspen: CEF-11 Aspen is of very "high value" because of it's importance to elk, beaver and other interrelated ~wilafe. (For instance, aspenisanimportant breeding habitatforma,g species of migratory birds, particularlyfor cavio; nesters.) The Assessment shows that 70% ofPark visitors come to view elk, but large numbers oftourists also frequent Estes in the fall to view aspen leaves, which makes aspen commercially important as well. The number surviving aspen groves of any significant size are few and far between in Estes -1- Valley. (See Map 2 ofthe Assessment Obviously the overpopulation of elk has decimated the aspen stands. Most ofthe surviving trees are the ones mature enough to withstand elk feeding - and antler rubbing, and few, if any, young trees or emerging saplings even have a chance of survival. This condition is worsening every year. We recommend that Estes Vallev's Aspen should now be ranked EV-1 / "Critically imperiled" and be considered as the highest prioritv level for protection. Carr Willow (EF-2): While Carr Willows are an integral element ofthe riparian habitat but are not shown on the Assessment's Vegetation Communities (Map 2.) They, too, are imperiled due to the pressure of too many elk, drying wetlands, etc. and should be considered high value for protection purposes. 3. BEAVER OW-1): With global warming and the resulting shrinking ice fields, water flowing from these resources are expected to diminish over the years. Except for man-made reservoirs, beavers may become the only salvation for retaining water in the few remaining wetlands. Yet, beavers consistentlv leave areas devoid ofaspen and/or those disturbed bv man. Beaver habitats must also be given significant importance in developmental decisions. Again, the interrelationship of aspen, willow, elk and beaver is a good example ofthe mutual dependability ofthese various species. 4. BIRTHING DOMAIN. RIPARIAN AREAS. SETBACKS AND PROTECT[ON AREAS ATFÂ·4): Estes Valley is essential to the wildlife ofthe National Park. While many birds and mammals frequent the higher regions of the Park, the birthing of innumerable mammals and birds (only a few ofwhich are listed below) takes place in the lower altitude of Estes Valley and is key to maintaining the vitality of numerous kinds ofwildlife in the broader region. Known birthing domains of all species must be a part of all development considerations. While town development plans mention protection ofwetlands, they generally specify 20% green space and 20' setbacks from streams and wetlands. This may not be adequate for some critical habitats such as: - Birthing areas for deer, elk, bighorn, and beaver, and - Nesting areas for raptors, land birds, waterfowl, etc. For outside town limits, we recommend at least 50% or more green space and more substantial setbacks to protect streams, ponds and wetlands. 5. FISH. BIRDS. POLLINATORS. BERRIES FLOWERS & RELATED FOODSOIJRCES: All of these species form significant parts of the ecological interrelationship. It would take considerable time to prove this point in writing, Oust one exang,le would the be broad-tailed hummingbirds that breed in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, aspen and riparian woodiands) but the importance of fish, bee and bird pollinators; berries; flowers; noxious weeds; monarch and other butterflies; milkweed and other food sources must all be taken into consideration. -2- CONCLUSIONS 1. Until a more comprehensive habitat study can be done, we recommend that this document be added to theAssessment as an addendum, and the following studies also be considered in making Planning Commission decisions: - Wildlife study for the Wapiti Crossing on Highway 7; - RMNP studies regarding critical beaver Ioss, - RMNP Related Lands Evaluation, 1998; - the studies done when Thunder Mountain subdivision was planned in 1979. - Spur 66 Management Plan of 1996 2. We feel it is very important to - not only study the habitat now, but -.to track the changes that have taken place in the past and - could take place in the future (for example, marmots have almost completely disappeared ftom the valley.) 4. Rather than paying large sums of money to outside environmental firms who may not understand the specific wildlife and habitat challenges within our Valley, We stronglv recommend a Citizens Conunittee of local interested individuals to embark upon a vallev-wide, in-depth habitat studv of the priorities of our own biopeographical area which could serve as guidelines for making future planning and development decisions. The success ofthe Spur 66 Management Plans attests to the success a wider study could provide. 5. Every time any area, large or small, is impacted by human development or activities, that big or little bit ofhabitat is robbed from nature - usually forever. We applaud the Town and Commissioners for wanting to further investigate the habitat of our Valley and enthusiastically support your intentions to focus on careful long-term planning which will assure, for instance, that open space will remain; that vegetation will remain balanced; that shelter and birthing areas not be disturbed; that beavers will still be building dams; that food sources will be plentiful; and that connectivity between deer and elk corridors will remain intact 100 years from now. You, the Planning Commissioners, hold in your hands the duty of good stewardship ofthe flora and fauna of our land - to assure the continued health of the abundant Estes Valley wildlife habitat that residents, tourists and biologists hold so dear - and will hopefully be able fo enjoy, not only for generations but for centuries to come. 041< 7/- . 4 Alice Gray, President Estes Valley Improvement Association -3- // 1, [EVIA1 ESTES VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. RO. Box 597 Estes Park Colorado 80517 Phone: (970) 586-9519 Fax: (970) 586-6685 TO: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners Email: HobertOffices@aol.com FROM: Estes Valley Improvement Association Date: September 29,2008 Re: Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008 Dear Commissioners: We see the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment as a commendable first step. We also believe the revised plan for open space will include wildlife and give much more detailed consideration to specific specie habitat issues, biodiversity, and impact on habitat from invasive weeds to maintain pine beetle control. We also recommend citizen education concerning such issues and our strongest recommendation is the creation o f a community wide entity to collate wildlife knowledge and provide advisory strategies and options for the Estes Valley Planning Commission. This advisory group should include or consult stakeholder groups and organizations as: Colorado Department of Wildlife, Rocky Mountain National Park, Roosevelt National Forest, Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District, Town Parks, Estes Valley Land Trust, Estes Land Stewardship Associa- tion, Larimer County Park, Estes Valley Improvement Association, Estes Tree Committee, The Nature Conservancy and any other similar groups. The group should also educationally consult with: conservation groups, Homeowners Associations, Trout Unlimited, The Elk Foundation, Estes Park Bird Club, gardeners, landscapers (xeriscapes), animal rehabilitation (Greenwood), beaver relocation (Wildlife 2000), school and nature groups, Macgregor Ranch, Cheley Camp, YMCA, and hiking clubs. Sincerely, 34*110+.,-Ad/*9.5 '~IECEOVE ~' Bryan Michener R i SEP 3 0 2008 Vice-President, E.V.I.A. U lit_-_J ec: Mayor Pinkham Town Trustees IQ Printed on Recycled Paper -~ EÂ©EDV It[Fij TO: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners From: Estes Valley Improvement Association -1 Date: September 15, 2008 Re:. Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008 Dear Commissioners: At a special meeting of the Estes Valley Improvement Association on Thursday, Sept. 11th, the group discussed the newly released Estes Valley Habitat Assessment by EDAW of Ft. Collins for the Town of Estes Park. This response has been drawn up over the very few days between that meeting and having it ready to present at the-Public Comment portion of your Tuesday, September 16th meeting. To study the Estes Valley habitat is to try to understand the interrelationship of human development and occupation; fish, bird and animal habits and habitat, water resources and vegetation. Habitat is not only affected by buildings and parking lots, but also by other man- made features and human activities which do not require government oversight, such as picnic grounds, hot tubs, campfire areas, etc. Everyone agreed that EDAW did a good job on the report in terms of it's being clear, concise, ~ easy-to-read and understandable, and covers many important aspects of the Valley's habitat. However, our group also concurred that there were many omissions, especially regarding the inter-relationship of the Valley's habitat. Just some of these are: 1. Elk Corridors: While the assessnient gives major attention to the elk population and showed elk corridors on Map 4, Ecological Network Priorities, it ignored, for instance, - the Elk Habitat & Migration Corridor on the *Spur Corridor 66 Mgmt. Plan [See Figure 6, attached] - which includes the Elk Conservation Easement established below Thunder Mtn in 1979, and remains a well-used passageway for large numbers of elk. - and perhaps others should have been included, as well. The Assessment does refer to elk habitat "along US Highway 34," Lpg. 121 (which could be anywhere from the Big Thompson Canyon to,Old Fall River Road) and, "south of Hwy. 34 and north of Hwy. 66" which is again 9nly a vague reference to where elk actually tend to migrate. Since the Thunder Mountain elk conservation easement lies south of Hwy 66, we were further confused. While the number of elk must be reduced, smaller herds are still a very high value and desirable attribute of the Valley, both in terms of wildlife/habitat interrelationships and tourism. We believe that the connectivity of multiple corridors must be established and maintained to assure the protection of wildlife and habitat for centuries to come. -1- 2. Aspen and Willow: While aspen is mentioned as "high value" vegetation in Table 2 on page 9, no mention is made of the precariousness of our aspens' very survival, nor of its importance to elk, beaver and other interrelated aspects of wildlife. (Por instance, aspen is an important breeding habitat for many species of migratory birds, particularly for cavity nesters.) In looking at Map 2, Vegetation Communities, the number of significant aspen patches are few and far between in Estes Valley. Obviously the overpopulation of elk has decimated the aspen stands and few, if any, emerging saplings even have a chance of survival. This condition has worsened every year and may not be reflected in the resource studies included in this Assessment. We believe that Estes ValleÂ¥ aspen should rank as the highest level prioritÂ¥ for, protection. We also note the Assessment stated that 70% of Park visitors come to view elk, but there was no mention of the large numbers of tourists who also frequent Estes in the fall to view aspen leaves. Carr Willow habitats are hardly mentioned. In fact, the Vegetation Communities shown on Map 2 does not even show willows, yet they are an important element of the riparian habitat. 3) Beaver: With global warming and the resulting shrinking ice fields, water flowing from these resources are expected to diminish over the years. Except for man-made reservoirs, beavers may become the only salvation for retaining water in the few remaining wetlands. Yet, beavers consistently leave areas devoid of aspen and/or those disturbed by man. For example, as recently as early this summer a number of beavers were sighted on the Wind River along Spur 66. However it appears now in September that few, if any of the Keystone beavers that have historically populated the Wind River, remain. Why? We believe that new and more intense human activity (including a new zip line that crossed the beaver habitat, and a relocated hay-ride / campfire / picnic area on the YMCA property adjacent to the Wind river, etc.) have caused this abandonment. Again, the interrelationship of aspen, willow, elk and beaver is a good example of the mutual dependability of these various species. 4. Birds. Pollinators, Berries. Flowers. and Related Food Sources: While pages of the Assessment are devoted to elk, except for raptors, only one sentence was included about the 300 species of birds. (For instance, broad-tailed hummingbird breed in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, aspen and ripa.rian woodiands.) Nothing was included about the importance of bee and bird pollinators; berries; flowers; noxious weeds; monarch and other butterflies; milkweed and other food sources. -2- 5. Valley is Birthing Domain: The Estes Valley is essential to the wildlife of the National Park. While many birds and mammals frequent the higher regions of the Park, the birthing of innumerable mammals and birds (only a few of which are listed below) takes place in the lower altitude of Estes Valley and is key to maintaining the vitality of numerous kinds of wildlife in the broader region. 6. Setbacks and Protection areas: While town development plans mention protection of wetlands, they generally specify 20% green space, and 20' setbacks from streams and wetlands, this may not be adequate for some critical habitats such as: - Birthing areas for deer, elk, bighorn, and beaver, and - Nesting areas for raptors, land birds, waterfowl, etc. For outside town limits, we recommend at least 50% or more green space and more substantial setbacks to protect streami ponds and wetlands. 7. Sources - Used and Unused: While EDAW cites a number of sources used in the Assessment, we felt that some of the sources, like Colorado Natural Heritage Program, are more state-based and their priority ranking system may not equate to Estes Valley's unique needs. Other studies we felt important were apparently not considered, including: - Wildlife study for the Wapiti Crossing on Highway 7; - RMNP studies regarding critical beaver loss, - RMNP Related Lands Evaluation, 1998; - the studies done when Thunder Mountain subdivision was planned in 1979. - Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan of 1996 C - which was the only area outside the town limits that was studied when the EVPC was established) Cone copy of which is being submitted for your reference) *Note: We find it interesting that: a) Along with multipld other agencies, the YMCA helped plan and voluntarily signed onto the principlds of the Spur 66 Plan, which included: - the preservation of rural atmosphere along Spur 66; - the elk habitat and migration corridor thro'ugh the YMCA property [See Figure 6, attached]; - and, by inference, the high value beaver population and aspen groves on Y grounds. b)' EDAW drew up the 20 Year Master Plan for the YMCA of the Rockies and is well aware of the Spur 66 Management Plan of 1996. (It was,furnished copies last year when other Spur 66 residents voiced concerns regarding the proposed development in the aspen grove on YMCA property along Spur 66.) c) Now, just a year later, EDAW has - chosen not to include that Spur 66 Plan in the Assessment; - has excluded the YMCA/Spur 66 area in "larger areas with higher habitat values" [pg. I 4] - and made only passing mention of the high value of aspen or beaver. t It is also our understanding that the EDAW's YMCA Master Plan did not include a wildlife and habitat study because EDAW was not requested to do so by the YMCA. We wonder how this plan got approved without the Commissioners understanding of the impact of such a massive project on the wildlife and habitat? Was a separate wildlife study submitted? If so, why was that information not included in the Assessment? -3- Conclusion: 1) We applaud the Town and Commissioners for wanting to further investigate the habitat of our Valley, however, in reviewing the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, we found very little new information and many omissions. In fact, it was very generalized and "nearly all the data presented ... is from available published sources" [pg. 7] which was obviously already readily available to the Planning Commissioners. 1 11 2) We remind you that protected species do not need our protection; it is the habitat and species that are unprotected by federal or state laws that we must protect on our own. Every time any area, large or small, is impacted by human development or activities, that big or little bit of habitat is robbed from nature - usually forever. 3) We feel it is very important to not only study the habitat now, but to track the changes that have taken place in the past (for example, marmots have almost completely disappeared from the valley) and could take place in the future. We enthusiastically support your intentions to focus on careful long-term planning which will assure, for instance, that open space will remain; that vegetation will remain balanced; that shelter and birthing areas not be disturbed; that beavers will still be building dams; that food sources will be plentiful; and that connectivity between deer and elk corridors will remain intact 100 years from now. You, the Planning Commissioners, hold in your hands the duty of good stewardship of the flora and fauna of our land - to assure the continued health of the abundant Estes Valley wildlife habitat that residents, tourists and biologists hold so dear - and will hopefully be able to enjoy, not only for generations but for centuries to come. Sincerely, 11 l' OA luzu.2 /Nut Alice Gray EVIA President CC: Mayor Pinkham Town Trustees Attachrnent: Figure 6, from the Spur 66 Mgmt. Plan. Also provided: One copy of the Spur 66 Management Plan, 1996 for your reference. -4- C E-- 11 3 4 8 23 4 02* v 0 24 AM :11. f 4 62 58 4 2< Mi mEEN@ME g.00 M vi d t< 06 9 553 4,4~444ip-l.i).i~r.+.# >4 b t~%~Â«XM~XZZZ' a . ,-6/.**f>7 555/ 4 - k#7551->1>-r -. - L_-1 / / 60 :2 . %\/, 1 a L t . tr- J ---- - 1- --0 - //Â»5Â»r, =; 1. -- -J- _ . '11 iliWitrL---, 'Â· 4Â· I- t_l] HAZI-4 -. 7 - . V d~> It / . + --1 LE__1.1 .4 6 1,4 94. . / -1 . \ , .Ii /1.' /1 1, 1 It... 1 ic- 1 f\6.f, .... -1 .. 1 101 11 ..:1; . I /..1 1.1- 4 4 19 338â‚¬1 / 440 . --: Fal 0 20 U Â» 0 . S (1) gl 9 1 K A I.SGIN '1.#0 1. BLUE SPRUCE GROVE AN0100 - OCI-2-%[03 99 Z[ f 3. WETL 4. BEAVER POND SMIT[ a r Association for Responsible Development Proposed Action Related to Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment Submitted to Estes Valley Planning Commission 9/16/08 (Please include as part of the public record) Introduction: The Association for Responsible Development is dedicated to preserving the unique mountain character and natural beauty of the Estes Valley, by fostering appropriate and responsible development. We believe the recently-completed Wildlife Habitat Assessment provides a needed foundation for determining what is, and is not, responsible development, in terms ofthe impact of development on wildlife habitat. General Comments Regarding the Wildlife Habitat Assessment: We have reviewed the Assessment in detail and want to thank the Board of Trustees, the Planning Commission, and the Community Development Director for providing this study. It provides thoughtful guidance that can be used to assess the impact of all future developments. Key points made by the study include: a) Estes Valley is admired for its abundant wildlife, natural vegetation, scenic vistas, and rich history (page 1) b) Steady growth has led to habitat loss (page 1) c) Results of this study can be used to identify specific lands that could be considered for some form of protection, and can be used to evaluate planned developments (page 1) d) Estes Valley has become a year-round refuge for many wildlife species, adding to its tourist appeal and importance for regional habitat conservation (page 3) e) This assessment is aimed at identifying the resources that are most important to sustaining the wildlife resources of the Valley (page 7) f) Establishing an ecological network for the Valley will make it more probable for populations of native plants and animals to be healthy and even improve over time. This ecological network proposes a series of habitat patches and linkages that collectively will create a healthier ecosystem (page 13) We have also noted important considerations arising from this study that must be addressed: 1. The study itselfnotes that it is based, in part, on maps that are decades old, and are in many cases out of date in terms of hydrological and geological features. The study recommends field verification ofwhat the maps show. We support this recommendation, but also recommend that the Town and County develop a plan, budget, and timing for updating these maps. ~ECEDVEr=\\ ~1~ SEP 1 6 2008 |~Â· 2. The study identified a surprising abundance of rare vegetation communities, but did not address the issue of noxious weed invasion and its impact on rare vegetation communities and local wildlife. We recommend that the Town and County fund an effort to map and monitor the impact of noxious weed control programs. 3. Results from this Habitat study must be integrated with results from the recently- authorized Open Space study, as soon as that information becomes available. Description of Important Habitats: The study identifies which habitats are most important and urgent to conse?ve, and defines three levels of habitat: â€¢ Highest Value Habitat: Areas already regulated by laws or policies, and areas which are extremely important to specific species. This includes riparian corridors and bighorn sheep habitat. (page 13) Most ofthese areas are identified in the code,,but may not be adequately protected unless the code is amended to clarify enforcement provisions. â€¢ High Value Habitat: Areas with rare or sensitive resources, including rare vegetarian communities, raptor nesting areas, elk winter range, and elk movement corridors. (page 13) Most ofthese areas do not currently enjoy any special protection. We believe that additional protection for such areas should be incorporated into our development code, along with enforcement provisions. â€¢ Other Valuable Habitat: Additional, extensive areas within the Valley, such as forested or shrubland areas with steep slopes. (pages 13-14) "Steep slope" and "limits of disturbance" provisions of the current code may provide some protection to these areas. We recommend clarifying enforcement provisions for protecting such areas. Approach to Code Changes: The Association for Responsible Development asks the Planning Commission.to adopt the following as minimum essential requirements for any meaningful code changes. This approach will help ensure that future development in the Estes Valley preserves the natural features and abundant wildlife that make our valley such a unique place. , 1) Require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan (WCP) to determine the impact of any development which affects areas classified as "Highest Value" by this study (e.g., wetlands, bighom sheep habitat). Require a formal Mitigation Plan from the developer for any negative impact caused by the proposed development as identified in the WCP. Our code should explicitly call for such plans. Developers should pay for, but not directly hire, the certified wildlife biologists who produce these plans. 2) Require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan to determine the impact of any development which affects areas classified as "High Value" by this study (e.g., raptor nesting areas, elk winter range, elk movement corridors). Require a formal Mitigation Plan from the developer for any negative impact caused by the proposed development as identified in the WCP. These areas typically do not now enjoy special protection, but are critical to establishing a viable ecological network for the Valley. Our code should explicitly call for such plans. Developers should pay for, but not directly hire, the certified wildlife biologists who produce these plans. 3) Provide the option for Staff to require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan and a Wildlife and Habitat Mitigation Plan for property which falls within the "Other Valuable Habitaf' category when such property has unique characteristics such as: a location which provides continuity or linkage to other protected habitat, an important visitor wildlife viewing area, or is otherwise essential to providing a viable ecological network. 4) Require Wildlife Conservation Plans and Mitigation Plans be independently reviewed, validated, and evaluated for adequacy (in writing) by CDOW representatives. 5) Modify the code to add provisions for denial of a proposal based on: â€¢ the amount of negative impact the development would have on wildlife and/or habitat as identified in the Wildlife Conservation Plan, and â€¢ the adequacy ofthe Wildlife and Habitat Mitigation Plan. 6) Incorporate the recommended buffer widths listed onpage 16 ofthe Wildlife Habitat Assessment. 7) Require an annual audit, by a team including members ofthe Planning Commission, Town Staff, and representatives of the public, to assess compliance with these provisions. Closing: We believe this approach to revising the code will provide improved understanding of wildlife protection requirements for developers and the public, increase public trust in the process, and promote future development that preserves the unique aspects of our Valley. We urge you to ask staff to begin work now on this comprehensive package of changes, with a goal having a draft available for review within two months. We ask that you not consider other, piecemeal changes to the code in the meantime. We hope you will view these comprehensive changes as one of your most important legacies as Planning Commissioners. Respectfully submitted, Ron Norris, President Association for Responsible Development ~2Â©EUVE 7 ~ SEP 16 2008 Jl Estes Valley I-Iabitat Assessment August 2008 "Don't Bother Us With Science" A Cautionary Tale Estes Valley Planning Commission, Tuesday, August 19, 2008, presentation of the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment by EDAW, Inc. ... opening comments by EDAW, Inc. representative "There has been no scientific verifigation of information used in this report". "We analyzed existing information, we reviewed what is already out there". Stated objectives Â« ... intended to update the 1996 map and enhance an understanding of wildlife resources within the Estes Valley." "Geographic Information'systems (sic) (GIS) were used as the ptimary method of analysis for this habitat assessment which was supplemented by existing research studies and professional opinions." The critical questions you should be asking your consultants are what is the basis or source ofthe undedying map used in 1996 to overlay the Wildlife Habitat information, and consequently what is the basis or source of the underlying maps used in their report on which they overlaid their information? What is GIS? It is a geographic data base. It does no research or scientific verification ofinformation. It is an aggregation,notageneration, of geographic information. This information can then be questioned, interpreted, analyzed and visualized based upon the criteria of the user. Why is it so important to understand the basis or foundation for the maps being used? Based upon the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan ofDecember 1996 the Estes Valley Development Code was adopted in 2000 and appended a number of Estes Valley Planning Maps which appear therein have arisen from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The Wildlife Habitat map of the 1996 Plan carries the footnote... '*The map is a general representation ofwildlife and related hydrologic systems within the Estes Valley. The information depicted on this map is subject to scientific verification and may be revised as more accurate information becomes available." The cautionary tale... We purchased a lot in 2004. We noted a diy swale running across our lot. We had two architects examine our lot to make certain that we could build our home on it No problems were discovered; just some unique design elements would be needed to bridge the swale. Upon submitting our plans to the Community Development Department we were advised that according to the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map of the Code that a stream ran though our property, and that Code restrictions relative to setbacks and bridging streams would prohibit us from building our home. The "face' that there was no stream on our property was inconsequential to the Community Development Department it was the map that indicated there was a stream and the map controlled. I started researching the Stceam and River Corridor Resource Map. I was interested in determining where it came from. What science was used in its creation? The Community Development Department never was able to verify the source of the map. I even corresponded with Design Studios West, the consultant engaged for the 1996 Plan. I was never favored with a courtesy of a reply to my queryÂ· Upon my own investigative research I learned that the basis of the map was the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 quadrangle map which was generated in 1976 using standards then inexistence to generate the hydrological information on the map. It was this map that was used for the basis of the various maps of the Plan and the Code. I also learned that in 1971 an "intermittenf' stream was defined as "containing water only part of the yeaf" and was to be shown in USGS maps with a blue dashed line. Keep in mind that the map used in our Town's Plan and Code was generated in 1976. In 1993 the USGS issued new standards and Â«intermittent" was defined as "containing water for only part of the year, but more than just after rainstorms and snowmelt", they further coined a new term <'wash" and defined it as "the usually dry portion of a stream bed that contains water only during or after a local rainstorm or heavy snowineW'. On any new USGS maps a wash would not be denoted on their maps. In an undated reportJohn Conroy, USGS National Mapping Program Standards Team, concluded in his report Â«we like to remind people that stream and classifications was done in the field during a limited time period and relied on observations and information obtained from the local residents and, thus, was a subjective process. No scientific measurements were made to determine the classification." So the Code adopted a USGS map for Stream and River Corridors which appears to have been generated in 1976. A static map that is not updated for new classifications that occurred in 1993. A map that even according to the USGS is not scientific in nature. So here we are today dealing with an analysis which seems to be based upon a 1976 USGS 7.5 quadrangle map, which accordi~ng to the USGS is not based on science, and had not been updated to reflect new classifications relative to hydrological characteristics. So when I review Map 4 of the new assessment captioned "Ecological Network Priorities", our lot is shown as 'THigh Value Habitat" by virtue of a mapped stream corridor through our lot that in fact does not exist The best advice you have been given by EDAW is found on page 7... "The use of this information is therefore subject to site specific verification and potential refinement" and footnoted on Map 4 stating"Mapped data was obtained from available sources and is subject to site-specific verification and refinement". Not unlike the footnotes to the maps used for the original 1996 Plan. But the maps were adopted as part of the Code without such cautionacy footnote. So the Community Development Department evidently has no ability to question the veracity of a map of the Code. I f you adopt these maps as part of the Code you must do so realizing the impact to the public. The cautionary tale continued ..1 in our own case we were required to go before the Board ofAdjustment to seek relief from code restrictions for the non-existent stream on our lot We were successful, despite the objection of the Community Development Department, in obtaining the valiances necessary to build our home after a two hour presentation from us and our other professional advisors to show the science and fict relative to the hydrological characteristics of our lot notwithstanding The Map. The out of pocket expense to us was' between $14,000 - $15,000, and a three month delay in being able to start our construction. So if you adopt this Map 4 as a part of the Code and make certain development restrictions apply to it, you may again be forcing a lot owner to go through the costly and wne consuming process of proving the science and fact of the map to be in error. Another consideration you may wish to discuss with the Town Attorney is how to put property owners on note that their property has certain characteristics that may in fact be restrictive in development by virtue of map adopted as part of the Code. For example, the Code was adopted in 2000; we purchased our lot in 2004. The Community Development Department argued that by virtue of the Code being adopted in 2000 and it being a public document that we purchased our property with imputed knowledge of a stream being on our property according to the Stream and River Corridor Map of the Code. The Community Development Department is confusing a public document with a publicly recorded document In the title search on our property in 2004 we were made aware of the publicly recorded easements, zoning and subdivision building restrictions. There were no such publicly recorded documents against our lot showing that that a stream was running though it So I believe you face a challenge when adopting maps without benefit of scientific basis or public recordation on specific parcels of real estate in successfully proving an innocent land purchaser had actual notice of development restictions In summary... Understand the underlying foundation map is not scientific, as cautioned by your consultant and the USGS. The application of such maps as a part of the Code may in fact work a burden on innocent land owners or purchasers. The position of the Community Development Department seems to be that the Maps of the Code are not subject to revision or interpretation. The maps speak for themselves. Thus you end up shifting the burden to the Board of Adjustment to deal with these issues, and put the financial and research burden on the innocent land owner to disprove. It also seems that if a map is successfully challenged through the Board ofAdjustment, there is no resulting report from the Community Development Department to this Commission to make changes to the Maps of the Code. The maps of the Code stay static. To think that without proper recordation against parcels of real estate that these Maps of the Code constitute public knowledge to an innocent land owner or purchaser is to strain credulity. This Habitat Assessment is important The resulting protection of lands and development restrictions are important But please, please base it all on fact and science before adopting new maps for the Code. Thank you, Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO 80517 September 16, 2008 -~stes V~lie~ih . f -1\' 14 -'f Cdmprehensive PlaIL- --' 0 1.2. . 1295, i' /dfy- I : 0 . 4-1 - 2 /6 A-/f -~*Â·â€¢ z.-FÂ»-Tr.:.5 - 4 ./.' , RMNP , . -lith:4.2-7. 7 ~ /41-Al.- 1/ ~ -1,1. ~ 12 pu~44Â°- 7-1 Â· It- L / 1 â€žÂ«..7. Mountain . IC. -dic:1 fl 'I '7' Nauonal r--Irl , t?1~9Â¥Â¤~ ~,it,Z,~ - 11 litti 2,22-7- -- -/1/ 1 -r , - M â€¢mey -124-1, -+ r LI -TiqH,ir,CÂ·' ~ i" 1 = ' ')or, 1 !10, . -- 4-2.2,-7...= 5Â·hu~-'-1 .2~ir,j~~~0~*Â¥11,1, '1 'f 11. /, W... ).L A,- 1, ./ 'BEL '-2 . 1 ~ -75,Â·-ililti794Â·i~(Af., , I -4,.-' 1 'K t.' Â· 1.z ":Am~<Trk! U. 19 :.. -4 v ,[176,4 .1 .14 1 7- *ij'Â·'' '0'-~52.11, 79 4 1.5 Lili 1.11 F*:-'A-? r.:14&3>--21~r Â· r: 1 ~ r-1Â· il L . - p :,-5 - . LU, '. 1:.5 11.1 ,, 1/ ,#10Â·r-, t.4-t L-)..,''.1'3 . I 4 1 -rp ..1, Legend n 11001 Uno Urloulato Hibitat Staam and Aver t/,iktgrs Top' 313#ly CE Bio Him Sh=p ' . *Ic'Ims'.,ps 401001 contours CZ) Oar /V Sugarm Â¥18 Rmis : ... 81Â· Wchnds an,011*1111, Systam,Al,bltal Prir,â€¢u y 10*vom:nt Corrl dots /V Dâ€¢f .Elk E Wildlife Habitat Â£30 t'.Ch C..'llh,-el P.N REVISED Dec. 12.1996 .: :tes Valley Stream & River lorriaors Resource Map ....fl/1....../.'.Me- ' - - Â·=9-8.*:..1.laS.I:'illmgzz./'I.:MI=Â¥XÂ»....*I'l...4/'ll/:4.4@I.*;*41,r=wi.:42MÂ¥'av . . YÂ§*M'seWL'=021[e~ Â· 5 -1 f. - :2 - ,% 1 ...6-- .1 ,-,4 ... GRWUMB)&0#* Estes Valley Stream & River Corridors Resource Map 9.2%:'Â»4*. mt/#Al Stream and River Corridor Resource Map GO 2.2-lblE*bâ‚¬*4 E 1/05Â£30~ ~ - . .1111. , 1 1. ) 72 I -10-4 2 6 2 : A />S.,Na,Â«f, ...i (: p , - -L-:M~ 1 , 1*Â¥r! 1- 4-- r 3-4. r,U 7 it: '. d kLF ' '..... 4 Â·4 0 1 - I .A l 3 ... TFU:T-244.-1-(fic- 1=00 1, - Â· h. 9 1 - Â£11"*1 1Â· -21 - .' 147Â¢*-f- + - ;=Â¥11Mbl FT-1 h r-Â·ce 1. 1 3 ..,Â·M 1.1 4 L . il _> -1,1 <1 rr -41 4111081 1.Â»O 1- Lf.Ar Streams.shp E--1 Epjimits.shp 14 Arterial.shp /iv/ponds_lakes.shp W~E /*/ Pri_rivers.shp 1--1 Update.shp S http://www.estesnet.com/comdev/StreamsRiversMap.aspx Page 1 of Nu,=2Â·.Â·,ra:*.4=.I-v:*6174,1:,Â·lwA'.vAÂ·Â·6Â¢4,=9Â·aÂ·QU'.S.W...=44.k='I~.i,v-ot------<-Â·-- .--*P. HYDROGRAPHY Our standards web address is http://mapping.usqs.gov/standards/. If you click on Digital Line Graphs, locate the Standards for 1:24,000- Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps, and click on Part 2: Hydrography, Contents, and Stream/River, you will find the current definitions for perennial and intermittent. The National Hydrography Dataset'(NHD), which is still in draft form, is used for collecting and revising digital vector hydrographic data. You can work your way to the definitions in the NHD standard on the standards web site the same way you did for the Hydrography chapter. The definitions for perennial and intermittent in the NHD standard are worded the same way as they are in the Hydrography standard. Sometimes people want to know what the criteria was for compiling streams on a particular map, which calls for a little different answer. The following is a brief historical summary of the criteria we have used over the years: The location of streams on USGS maps is subject to the same National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS) requirements as all other features at 1:24,000-scale, which is 1/50-inch (40 feet). The source that is used is aerial imagery that has been scaled and rectified, to insure that all streams that are compiled in source position meet NMAS for horizontal accuracy. If a saddle or divide is not involved, the streams are compiled where the channel becomes visible. If the headwaters of a stream are closer than 1,000 feet from a saddle or divide, the stream is compiled as beginning 1,000 feet from the saddle or divide. Over the years, the length requirement for streams has changed from 1,500 feet to 2,500 feet. Also, we used to show all perennial streams, regardless of length or location, but since 5/93 we have only shown perennial streams shorter than 2,500 feet if they are in arid areas or if they flow from lakes/ponds or springs. The current (1996) standards say: If STREAM/RIVER flows from LAKE/POND or SPRING/SEEP, Or If STREAM/RIVER is 2 1.25" along the longest axis, Or If STREAM/RIVER is perennial and is in an arid region, Then capture. Up until the early 1980's, 7.5-minute map features were shown exclusively with what is referred to as "Part 6" symbology. On Part 6 symbology maps, single line perennial streams are symbolized with a solid line and intermittent streams are shown with a dash/dot symbol, both with a lineweight of .005". Beginning in the early 1980's, new "Part 5" solid line stream symbology began being used on some maps, primarily because it was easier to digitize solid lines using the technology that was in use at the time, but also because it took less time to hand-scribe solid line symbols. On Part 5 symbology maps, single line perennial streams are shown with a .008" line and intermittent streams are shown are shown with a .004" line. In some States, provisional maps (P-maps) were also prepared in the 1980's with unconventional symbology reproduced, for the most part, from original map manuscripts. For economic purposes, maps are currently revised using the original symbology (normally Part 6). Page 1 of 3 The National Mapping Program of the USGS (formerly the Topographic Division) has had a few slightly different definitions for perennial and intermittent over the years: Prior to the 1950's, the following definitions were in use (Topographic Instructions of the United States Geological Survey, Bulletin 788, 1928): Perennial Stream--A perennial stream is one that flows throughout the year. Intermittent Stream--An intermittent stream is one that is dry for a considerable time each yearl say for three months or longer. Intermittent and Dry Lakes--Shallow lakes and ponds that are dry for many months each year. In the 1950's the following definitions were in use (Topographic Instructions, Chapter 3A6. Mangina of Hvdrographic Features, 1954): Perennial--Those hydrographic features that contain water for the major part of the year. Intermittent--Those hydrographic features that are dry for the major part of the year. , In 1971, the standard was revised and renamed Tonographic Instructions, Chapter 3A6. Hydrographic Features. The definitions were changed to: Â·A Perennial--Containing water throughout the year (except for infrequent periods of,severe drought). Intermittent--Containing water only part of the year. In 1978, the chapter number of the standard was changed to 4B7. There were no other revisions to the standard at this time. In 1980, the standard was renamed Topograohic Instructions. Chapter 4AS. Hydrographic Features on 1:24.000-Scale Mans, 1980; however, the definitions of perennial and intermittent were unchanged. In 1993, the definitions became as follows (Standards for 1:24.000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Ouadranale Mans. Part 2 Hvdrographv, 5/93): Perennial--Contains water throughout the year, except for infrequent periods of severe drought. Intermittent--Contains water for only part of the year, but more than just after rainstorms and at snowmelt. The change in the intermittent definition was necessary because washes were defined as being: Wash--The usually dry portion of a stream bed that contains water only during or after a local rainstorm or heavy snowmelt. Page 2 of 3 In 1996, the Standards for 1:24.000-Scale Digital Line Graohs and Ouadrangle Maps were updated, but the definitions for perennial and intermittent streams remained the same. That being said, we like to remind people that stream classification was done in the field during a limited time period and relied on observations and information obtained from local residents and, thus, was a subjective process. No scientific measurements were made to determine the classification. John Conroy USGS, National Mapping Program Standards Team iconrov@usqs.gov (573) 308-3804 Page 3 of 3 From: David Tiemeyer 3245 Tunnel Road Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 577-0373 To: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners Date: September 14,2008 Re: Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008 Dear Commissioners: 1 have reviewed the document entitled Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008, prepared for the Town ofEstes Park by EDAW, Inc. and have some general comments , that I would like to pass along to the Estes Valley Planning Commission. The Estes Valley Habitat Assessment (EVHA) was by EDAW's own admission a summary of a select few previously published documents. One problem, ofcourse, is reliance on outdated and generalized information. Another problem with this approach is that any errors and omissions in those documents are passed on to this report with little or no field verification. It is beyond the scope ofthis correspondence to identify each shortcoming in the text. However, there are several glaring omissions. â€¢ Basic to a habitat assessment is discussion ofthe current state ofhealth ofeach habitat type. â€¢ The rate ofchange ofresource depletion is crucial to determining appropriate ~ action. â€¢ An appendix should be included that lists all wildlife species in the valley. Statements like: "The area is home to more than 300 bird species" should include further discussion. â€¢ The report should address important habitat found on large private parcels within the Estes Park Valley including the YMCA Conference Center, the Cheley Camp and the Honda properties. â€¢ The Spur 66 Management Plan (1996) warrants inclusion in the reference section. I would hope that the Town ofEstes Park would seek inclusion ofthese points before release ofthe Final Report. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Sincerely, 036'eet-1-IG."147 ed ......I--I...I-.-' David H. Tiemeyer Â· ~ 2-Â© E o VE 3\ Estes Valley Resident ~ SEP 15 2008 l,~ 1 1 September 13, 2008 Dear Estes Valley Planning Commissioners, (cc: Mayor Pinkham, Town Trustees) Re: Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008 As a wildlife biologist, I had been eagerly awaiting the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment developed for the Town ofEstes Park. Having reviewed that document, however, I am very disappointed with the product, which is better titled "Assessment Light". Because others, including EVIA, have provided specific points which they feel, and I concur, need addressing in this report I will not go into similar details but rather give you my broad brush and blunt assessment. This report is a simple regurgitation ofexisting information and data pulled together for other areas, such as the from park's elk management plan and especially the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CHNP), which are irrelevant to tile process of identifying, evaluating, and strategizing for the protection of important wildlife habitat in the Estes Valley. This is not an original assessment; it is not comprehensive, localizet ground- truthed, or visionary. It does not contain information about the condition or management ofhabitat, nor does it talk about or take into account trends. It spends less space talking about the full suite ofwildlilk species in the Estes Valley than it does about CNHP rare vegetation communities which do not impact the sustaining ofwildlife in the Valley. The report even concludes that most ofthe "highest value habitat" resources are currently protected. This is absolutely a ihise contention, as there are many areas, at varying scales, which contain important wildlife habitat throughout the Valley which could and should be protected through various actions. [For instance, there is no specific mention ofthe YMCA's Estes Park Center property, which contains important riparian habitat, wildlife corridors, and a surrounding "green" buffbr which should be ina conservation easement, a particularly ironic omission since EDAW also produced the Y's Master Plan.J However, that conclusive statement, buried as it is, is likely the outcome the Town wanted for its money because it means no flirther action is needed to protect wildlife habitat in the Estes Valley, and therefore development can proceed anywhere. Thus, the value ofthis assessment is extremely limited ifyou support protecting wildlife habitat in the Valley, but is very useful is you wish to develop it. No surprises here. O.A..eâ‚¬, *226~~-1/u Carol Beidleman 3245 Tunnel Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Wildlife documented along Upper Spur 66/Tunnel Road, Estes Park From YMCA entrance to Thunder Mountain~ 1988-2008 By Carol Beidleman, Wildlife Biologist (Ornithologist), 3245 Tunnel Road, Estes Park September 2008 MAMMALS Bat species Nuttall's Cottontail Snowshoe Hare Chipmunk species Yellow-bellied Marmot Wyoming Ground Squirrel Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel At,ert's Squirrel Fox Squirrel Chickaree Northern Pocket Gopher Beaver Deer Mouse Vole species YelloW-bellied Marmot Porcupine Coyote Red Fox Black Bear (including with cubs) Raccoon, Long-tailfd Weasel Badger Mountain Lion Bobcat American Elk (including calving areas) Mule Deer (including fawning areas) BIRDS f Great Blue Heron Canada Goose Mallard Common Goldeneye Turkey Vulture Sharp-shinned Hawk ~ Cooper's Hawk ~!g-Â©EDÂ¥[2~1 Northern Goshawk Red-tailed Hawk Golden Eagle ~ SEP 16 2008 ~ Bald Eagle Dusky Grouse Wild Turkey Common Snipe Band-tailed Pigeon Mourning Dove Eurasian Collared Dove (non-native) Great Horned Owl Northern Pygmy-Owl Northern Saw-whet Owl Common Nighthawk Black Swift Broad-tailed Hummingbird Rufous Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher Red-naped Sapsucker Williamson's Sapsucker Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Northern Flicker Olive-sided Flycatcher Western Wood-Pewee Cordilleran Flycatcher Western Kingbird Eastern Kingbird Northern Shrike Warbling Vireo Plumbeous Vireo Steller's Jay Blue Jay Western Scrub-Jay Gray Jay Pinyon Jay Clark's Nutcracker American Magpie Common Raven American Crow Horned Lark Tree Swallow Violet-green Swallow Black-capped Chickadee Mountain Chickadee Red-breasted Nuthatch White-breasted Nuthatch 1 Pygmy Nuthatch Brown Creeper House Wren Ruby-crowned Kinglet Townsend's Solitaire Mountain Bluebird Western Bluebird Eastern Bluebird American Robin Hermit Thrush Swainson's Thrush Brown Thrasher European Starling (non-native) Tennesse Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Black-throated Gray Warbler Townsend's Warbler Wilson's Warbler Western Tanager Black-headed Grosbeak Rose-breasted Grosbeak Lazuli Bunting Indigo Bunting Green-tailed Towhee American Tree Sparrow Chipping Sparrow Harris's Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Lincoln's Sparrow Dark-eyed Junco (Oregon, Pink-sided, White-winged, Slate-colored, Gray-headed) Brown-headed Cowbird Red-winged Blackbird Brewer's Blackbird Common Grackle Bullock's Oriole Evening Grosbeak Pine Grosbeak Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch (Gray-checked, Gray-crowned) Brown-capped Rosy-Finch Black Rosy-Finch Cassin's Finch House Finch Red Crossbill Common Redpoll Pine Siskin American Goldfinch f 11 Association for Responsible Development 1 Proposed Action Related to Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment 9/ Submitted to Estes Valley Planning Commission 9/16/08 (Please include as part of the public record) Introduction: The Association for Responsible Development is dedicated to preserving the unique mountain character and natural beauty of the Estes Valley, by fostering appropriate and responsible development. We believe the recently-completed Wildlife Habitat Assessment provides a needed foundation for determining what is, and is not, responsible development, in terms of the impact of development on wildlife habitat. General Comments Regarding the Wildlife Habitat Assessment: We have reviewed the Assessment in detail and want to thank the Board of Trustees, the Planning Commission, and the Community Development Director for providing this study. It provides thoughtful guidance that can be used to assess the impact of all future developments. Key points made by the study include: a) Estes Valley is admired for its abundant wildlife, natural vegetation, scenic vistas, and rich history (page 1) L b) Steady growth has led to habitat loss (page 1) c) Results of this study can be used to identify specific lands that could be considered for some form of protection, and can be used to evaluate planned developments (page 1) d) Estes Valley has become a year-round refuge for many wildlife species, adding to its tourist appeal and importance for regional habitat conservation (page 3) e) This assessment is aimed at identifying the resources that are most important to sustaining the wildlife resources of the Valley (page 7) f) Establishing an ecological network for the Valley will make it more probable for populations of native plants and animals to be healthy and even improve over time. This ecological network proposes a series of habitat patches and linkages that collectively will create a healthier ecosystem (page 13) / We have also noted important considerations arising from this study that must be addressed: 1. The study itself notes that it is based, in part, on maps that are decades old, and are in many cases out of date in terms of hydrological and geological features. The study recommends field verification of what the maps show. We support this recommendation, but also recommend that the Town and County develop a plan, budget, and timing for r updating these maps. ~ECE OVE L .,111 SEP 1 6 2008 ~ \U / i 2. The study identified a surprising abundance ofrare vegetation communities, but *21 hot- address the issue of noxious weed invasion and its impact on rare vegetation communit~/ and local wildlife. We recommend that the Town and County fund an effort to map and 7 monitor the impact of noxious weed control programs. 3. Results from this Habitat study must be integrated with results from the recently- authorized Open Space study, as soon as that information becomes available. Description of Important Habitats: The study identifies which habitats are most important and urgent to conserve, and defines three levels of habitat: â€¢ Highest Value Habitat: Areas already regulated by laws or policies, and areas which are extremely important to specific species. This includes riparian corridors and bighorn sheep habitat. (page 13) Most of these areas are identified in the code, but may not be adequately protected unless the code is amended to clarify enforcement provisions. â€¢ High Value Habitat: Areas with rare or sensitive resources, including rare vegetarian communities, raptor nesting areas, elk winter range, and elk movement corridors. (page 13) Most ofthese areas do not currently enjoy anv special protection. We believe that additional protection for such areas should be incorporated into our development code, along with enforcement provisions. â€¢ Other Valuable Habitat: Additional, extensive areas within the Valley, such as forested or shrubland areas with steep slopes. *ages 13-14) "Steep slope"and "limits of disturbance" provisions of the current code may provide some protection to these areas. We recommend clarifying enforcement provisions for protecting such areas. Approach to Code Changes: The Association for Responsible Development asks the Planning Commission to adopt the following as minimum essential requirements for any meaningful code changes. This approach will help ensure that future development in the Estes Valley preserves the natural features and ' abundant wildlife that make our valley such a unique place. . 1) Require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan (WCP) to determine the impact of any development which affects areas classified as "Highest Value" by this study (e.g., 0 wetlands, bighorn sheep habitat). Require a formal Mitigation Plan from the developer for any negative impact caused by the proposed development as identified in the WCP. Our code should explicitly call for such plans. Developers should pay for, but not directly hire, the certified wildlife biologists who produce these plans. %0) 2) Require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan to determine the impact of any developme,f ~ j ( which affects areas classified as "High Value" by this study (e.g., raptor nesting areas, elk ~9 winter range, elk movement corridors). Require a formal Mitigation Plan from the developer for any negative impact caused by the proposed development as identified in the WCP. These areas typically do not now enjoy special protection, but are critical to establishing a viable ecological network for the Valley. Our code should explicitly call for such plans. Developers should pay for, but not directly hire, the certified wildlife biologists who produce these plans. 3) Provide the option for Staff to require a formal Wildlife Conservation Plan and a Wildlife and Habitat Mitigation Plan for property which falls within the "Other Valuable Habitat" category when such property has unique characteristics such as: a location which provides continuity or linkage to other protected habitat, an important visitor wildlife viewing area, or is otherwise essential to providing a viable ecological network. 4) Require Wildlife Conservation Plans and Mitigation Plans be independently reviewed, validated, and evaluated for adequacy (in writing) by CDOW representatives. 5) Modify the code to add provisions for denial of a proposal based on: â€¢ the amount of negative impact the development would have on wildlife and/or habitat as identified in the Wildlife Conservation Plan, and â€¢ the adequacy of the Wildlife and Habitat Mitigation Plan. 6) Incorporate the recommended buffer widths listed on page 16 of the Wildlife Habitat Assessment. 7) Require an annual audit, by a team including members of the Planning Commission, Town Staff, and representatives of the public, to assess compliance with these provisions. Closing: We believe this approach to revising the code will provide improved understanding of wildlife protection requirements for developers and the public, increase public trust in the process, and promote future development that preserves the unique aspects of our Valley. We urge you to ask staff to begin work now on this comprehensive package of changes, with a goal having a draft available for review within two months. We ask that you not consider other, piecemeal changes to the code in the meantime. We hope you will view these' comprehensive changes as one of your most important legacies as Planning Commissioners. Respectfully submitted, Ron Norris, President Association for Responsible Development Amendments to the Estes Valey ~.,0,â€ž,- Development Code, Portion of ~ Block Twelve - Habitat and Wildlife ~ Estes Park Community Development Department *Ii==,0 Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue ""==-* PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 20,2009 TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve REQUEST: To make a number of revisions to the habitat and wildlife protection regulations. LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the Town of Estes Park. APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph and Alison Chilcott K..l APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: The draft code language below focuses on when a Wildlife Habitat and Impact Assessment would be required, the content of the assessment, and how an assessment is reviewed. This language is presented for discussion purposes only, is not ready for adoption, and will be revised after obtaining comment from the Planning Commission and public. At the January 20,2009 Planning Commission meeting staff may also present a rough draft of code language addressing protection df vegetation and natural communities that the Colorado Natural Heritage Program has identified as vulnerable, imperiled, or critically imperiled. Staff will also present a draft Wildlife and Habitat Map based on the definition of critical habitat proposed in the below code revisions. Staff is continuing to work on this map and will map updates on the Town website. In a future meeting staff will present draft code language addressing items such as setbacks from rivers, streams, and drainages, which may be applicable to all lots in the Estes Valley. 1 Â·rÂ¢b,Nri="97/-:Â·-- 4, ft'7Â»,-Â·4Â·-6 Â§ 7.8 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT PROTECTION A. Purpose. To plan and design land uses so that when property is developed: 1. Habitat and the wildlife species that depend on this habitat are protected from significant adverse impacts of development; and 2. The diversity of wildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valley is protected. B. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all applications for review of development plans, subdivision plats, planned unit developments, special review uses, and rezoning on property that contains critical habitat as defined below. 1. Aquatic Habitat; 2. Wetlands; 3. Riparian Vegetation; 4. Potential Conservation Areas as defined by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program; 5. Big Horn Sheep Winter Concentration Area as defined by the Colorado Division of Wildlife; 6. Raptor nests and a one-half mile area surrounding the nest; 7. Severe Winter Range for elk; and 8. Severe Winter Range for mule deer. /7\4 lj \L=.1 C. Other Regulations. This Section of the Code does not repeal or supersede any existing federal, state, or local laws, easements, covenants, or deed restrictions pertaining to wildlife. When this Section imposes a higher or more restrictive standard, this Section shall apply. D. Qualified Professional. All maps and reports required by this Section shall be prepared by or under the responsible direction of a qualified biologist. The qualified biologist shall sign and date these submitted maps and reports. 1 E. Wildlife and Habitat Database. 1. Adopted Map. The adopted Wildlife and Habitat Map is set forth in Appendix A of this Code and is incorporated by reference. This map, as amended from time to time, shall be used as the basis for review under this Section of the Code. The Wildlife and Habitat Map is intended as an indicator of areas where further study is necessary. 2. Unmapped Habitat. Review of an application may reveal potential critical habitat that is not reflected on the Wildlife and Habitat Map. In such instances, the Review- or Decision-Making body shall have the discretion to require review under this Section of the Code. 3. Revisions to Adopted Map. In the event a property owner questions the presence critical habitat on their property, the property owner may submit evidence with respect thereto 0 from a qualified biologist. This evidence shall be reviewed, together with all other 2 ' applicable evidence, by the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners. The Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners is the entity with final approval of Wildlife and Habitat Map revisions, depending on the location of the property. If the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners determines that the property does not contain critical habitat, the Community Development Director shall update the Wildlife and Habitat Map and remove the critical habitat designation. The Community Development Director may also update the map, with Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners approval, when unmapped habitat map may also be updated to the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners determines that property does contain critical habitat, that is not reflected on the Wildlife and Habitat Map, the Community Development Director shall update the map and add the critical habitat designation. F. Review Procedures. 1. Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment Submittal. a. A Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment shall be submitted for sites containing critical habitat. The assessment shall be prepared by a qualified biologist mutually agreed to by the Community Development Director and the applicant. The cost of the study shall be paid for by the applicant. The Community Development Department shall maintain a list of qualified biologists. b. The Community Development Director, Planning Commission, Board of Trustees, and the Board of County Commissioners have the discretion to waive submittal of the Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment upon review of a signed and dated document from a qualified biologist stating that there is no critical habitat present on the property. The applicant shall have the option to request a determination about a waiver prior to submittal of a development application. 2. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Staff shall refer the submitted application and Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for review. The Division of Wildlife may comment on the submitted application and assessment and may provide an evaluation of whether the application and assessment complies wiih the requirements of this Section. 3. Other Agencies. Applicants are advised to consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and other agencies r6sponsible for regulation of wildlife and habitat, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior-Rocky Mountain National Park, US Forest Service, and Colorado Natural Heritage Program. These agencies may maintain maps and databases th-at can aid in the site-specific confirmation of the presence or absence of wildlife and habitat on a specific site. 4. Review-Body and Decision-Making Body. a. The R6view and Decision-Making Bodies shall give consideration to whether the proposal protects wildlife habitats and wildlife species from the significant adverse c impacts of development. l 3 b. The Review and Decision-Making Bodies may give consideration to specific measures in the proposal that meaningfully mitigate adverse impacts on wildlife habitat and species. c. In cases where the significant adverse impacts of a development is not adequately mitigated resulting in a significant adverse impact on wildlife habitat and/or wildlife species in the Estes Valley: (1) The Review Body may recommend, and the Decision-Making Body may require, special conditions or modifications of a proposal; or (2) The Review Body may recommend denial of an application, and the Decision-Making Body deny an application. G. R&*iNW35AGigi*3Ggi@i:giwiWTiE#Mfi*aiRRFtimiial ry'291: Â· 22-'-Â¢Â·p Â»5:*rM:$0(A,â€¢UP=T=r .- -- *.~ 1 .2Â»+I.-a .,014'7'.04 In determining/lpaÂ·.developmentwillion.If*Â·lha'96 4?m@hifiE#Rf 89@rsesihitiact-on#Wudlife hrld wildlife habitat or,lhat Â·suÂ®: 4dbersefit@*ti, havie- been h~ided, oE 4mitigated,tb thd t.. .t I ..1- 1. 1.: ..,J'.4.,r â€ž~(. ,-*iv, .- 4 ,maximum extent feasibla, thet.ra#iewi.and:dheiAidfAmal<indftBodies*,shallbis.applichblbj 'e-le i â€¢-,64,-. -â€¢ Â·4,Â·;Â£4*wÂ·d~Â®â€ži.i:-r- I â€¢,AAâ€¢.';.* t/ 1~Â· . . . bonsiobr,thd.following factord IN. ... ' 1. WildliftÂ®92Â«-Impacta Impacts on wildlife species, including but not limited to human-related activities (including impacts from domestic pets) that disrupt necessary life cycle functions of wildlife or cause stress on wildlife to the extent that the health or viabilitv of a species is threatened in the Estes Vallev Inote: emphasis for discussion purposes]. Assessment of significant impacts will be based on the following: a. Activities in previously undisturbed areas involving any combination of humans, pets, and machines or equipment that disturb or harass an individual animal, group of animals or wildlife species; b. Site development or activities that disrupt necessary lifecycle functions, resulting in stress to the extent that physiological damage is done to an individual animal, group of animals or wildlife species. Examples include, but are not limited to, introduction of non-native vegetation; excessive use of fertilizers and other chemicals; placement of structures in close proximity to nesting and feeding areas; and excessive exterior lighting; c. Species reliance on specific, unique habitat features, such as fiparian areas, that may be affected; d. Mitigation efforts that directly address,the potential adverse impacts of the proposed land use on wildlife species, including, but not limited to, controls on domestic animals and household pets; restrictions on types and intensity of lighting; clustering of development to avoid intrusion into or fragmentation of habitat; and creation of buffers around critical areas. f . I . 1 * I ..BE'â€¢-WS.*â‚¬:106:/IN,W 2. 1*#c#ife -,Hab#aUmbact: Impacts on wildlife habitat, including but not limited to elimination, reduction, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat to the extent that the viabilitv of an individual species is threatened in the Estes Vallev and the diversitv of wildlife species occurring in the Estes Vallev is reduced. Assessment t of significant impacts will be based on the following: 4 a. The amount of vegetation/habitat removal or alteration within the development site; b. The amount of habitat of similar type and quality within the development site that remains contiguous; c. The existing and proposed amount of lot coverage; d. The existence of contiguous habitat of similar type and quality on adjoining land; and e. Mitigation efforts that directly address the potential adverse impacts of the proposed land use on wildlife species, including, but not limited to clustering of development to avoid intrusion into or fragmentation of habitat; creation of buffers around critical areas; limits on the amount of disturbance on a site; restrictions on vegetation removal; and enhancement or restoration of equivalent habitat on or adjacent to the site. 3. *Impabf 6Â¢tp,-Wilillifiâ„¢6yanientlEattmAPOiÂ®*Â¢em#fit-d-n-'21..'"Adiptitidil-,lfiyviltitim \Populations} Impact on wildlife movement patterns/displacement and adaptation of wildlife populations, including but not limited to disruption of necessary migration or movement patterns that keep wildlife from using their entire habitat to the extent that the health and viability of a species is threatened in the county; displacement of wildlife species into areas that cannot support or sustain the species over the long term to the extent that the health and viability of a species is threatened in the Estes Valley; and the inability of wildlife species living within or in close proximity to development to adapt and thrive to the extent that the health or viabilitv of the species is threatened in the Estes Vallev. Assessment of significant impacts will be based on the following: a. Preventing wildlife from using a habitat they would normally use, such as blocking migratioh patteins from surnmer to winter range; b. Causing wildlife to find new routes that expose them to significantly increased predation, interaction with motor vehicles, intense human activity or more severe topography and climatic conditions; Â· c. The size of the affected habitat and availability of similarly sized and quality habitat within the surrounding area; d. The human activity and development that would result in the inability of a single or multiple species to adapt to the new cohditions; e. Inability of the specie, or species, to adapt to significant alteration of their current habitats; f. Inability of the specie, or species, to find a new habitat that is sufficient to sustain the species over the long term; and g. Mitigation efforts that directly address the potential adverse impacts of the proposed land use on wildlife species, including, but not limited to clustering or location of development to avoid intrusion into migration or movement areas; creation of buffers around critical areas; limits on fencing that might interfere with migration and 5 movement patterns; and enhancement or restoration of equivalent habitat on or ( adjacent to the site. . 4. 'HabitatÂ· ahd. S#ecies Sionificance. Uniqueness of habitat and species to the Estes Vallev, including but not limited to elimination, reduction, or fragmentation of important wildlife habitat that is identified as unique to the Estes Valley in that it supports wildlife species that do not commonly occur outside the Estes Valley to the extent that the health or viabilitv of a species is threatened in the Estes Vallev and impacts on wildlife species that do not commonly occur outside the Estes Vallev to the extent that the health or viabilitv of a species is threatened in the Estes Vallev. Assessment of significant adverse impacts will be based on the following: a. The extent that habitat similar to that affected by the submitted application exists in the Estes Valley b. Whether the species does not commonly occur outside the Estes Valley, as determined by listing by state or federal agencies as threatened or endangered or as determined by Decision-Making Body in conjunction with the Colorado Division of Wildlife; c. Whether the habitat does not commonly occur outside of the Estes Valley as determined by the Decision-Making Body in conjunction with the Colorado Division of Wildlife; d. The extent of the threat to the viability of the species; C - 1 ' e. The extent of the reduction of the diversity of wildlife species in the Estes Valley; and f. Mitigation efforts that directly address the potential adverse impacts of the proposed land use on wildlife species, including, but not limited to clustering of development to avoid intrusion into or fragmentation of habitat; creation of buffers around critical . areas; limits on the amount of disturbance on a site; and enhancement or restoration of equivalent habitat on the site or elsewhere in the Estes Valley. 74Â£Â·"'ll-.LiNJIREA-/74Z-4 5. CiinlulativellmpagtÂ® Cumulative impacts, including but not limited to cumulative impacts beyond the boundaries of the proposed site such that the wildlife habitat in the county is eliminated, reduced, or fragmented to the point thett the viabilitv of individual species is threatened and the diversitv of species occurring in the Larimer Countv is reduced. Assessment of significant adverse impacts will be based on the following: a. The area, including land outside the project site, in which effects of the proposed project will occur and the impacts of the proposed project that are expected to occur in that area; and b. The incremental impact on wildlife habitat and wildlife species of the proposed development added to the past and present impact of other activities and developments. 6 H. Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment. Any Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment required to be prepared pursuant to this Section shall include the following information at a minimum. 1. Existing Conditions. An analysis of existing site conditions. Including, but not limited to: a. Habitat. A description of the location, type, size, quality, and other attributes of the habitat on the site, including the total acres of each species' habitat on the site. b. Wildlife. A description of the wildlife species that inhabit or use the site, including a description: (1) The species spatial distribution and abundance; (2) Use patterns of wildlife habitat within the site, including, but not limited to movement corridors and feeding areas; and (3) Critical connections or relationships with adjoining habitats outside the site. 2. Assessment of Poten#a/ Deve/opment /mpacts. An analysis of the potential impacts of the project on habitat and wildlife using the review criteria in Section 7.8.H. 3. Mitigation of Development Impacts. A list of proposed mitigation measures for each wildlife habitat, wildlife species, and/or wildlife movement patterns/displacement of wildlife populations and an analysis of the probability of success of such measures in pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases. 4. Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement Plan. A plan for implementation, maintenance and monitoring, and enforcement of mitigation measures, including cost estimates for the implementation of the plan. Describe the role of a homeowners association, if applicable. 5. Enhancement or Restoration. A plan for any relevant enhancement or restoration measures. 5. Additional Information. Any other information deemed necessary by the Review or Decision-Making Bodies to adequately assess the impact of the proposal. 1 Â§ 13.3 DEFINInONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES Habitat, Aquatic shall mean a water body in which communities of organisms that are dependent on each other and on their environment live. Examples include lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, marshes, springs, seeps, and bogs. Qualified Biologist shall mean a biologist with at least two (2) years of demonstrated experience and expertise in identification of natural habitats and vegetative communities in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. The Community Development Director at his sole discretion shall have discretion to approve biologist with at least two (2) years experience in habitats comparable to the Colorado Rocky Mountains. q 7 Vegetation, Riparian shall mean terrestrial vegetation that is contiguous to and affected by surface and subsurface hydrologic features of perennial or intermittent lotic and lentic water bodies (for example, rivers, streams, lakes, or drainage ways). Riparian areas have one or both of the following characteristics: 1) distinctly different vegetative species than adjacent areas, and 2) species similar to adjacent areas but exhibiting more vigorous or robust growth forms. 1 8 Draft Wildlife & Habitat Map (With Private & Public Open Space Overlaid on Critical Habitat) 41/' -Ln 1 1 1 1 1 i j 1 7 / f __rj 41=Â« ir-:,7//4% -7/ , 4 /.U-- F 1 J f j /,3 h Ph 1 4 .:, *=*1~-/ I-' Ve- t 'I - 1 a 2 , Â°da - i *- N 1 1 42* f 1 1 -4, W / 7*2 *- ru r rl * r. 1 . 1 #lit ..t,Q, h 1- 3142 / '44 1.... - C â‚¬2 4 INJ& i 1 hie - 5 V C --.- 24 - J' 49\ 1 11 12,\ / --7 4 -2-1 r C . +I- 4 f = 4 4 Â¢----9 11 LI X 34- 4\\ , r.,4 - tri \*094>- 1- .v * 12 Laj:12. i 1 â€ž. .y / 33=2=g,fr < L.j& r LMT , 1 --4. ..2 61:/litil ' WArl. 4//1 Y J /t{/1 7 -f--4rg11 ~~ A -1/ ' -4..1>h. 1 1 4 f. 1 ==-Lf A ~flk ) 4- 4- - 3 I,f J / 4-4 e. - / ...I. '2@= 1 ) Hbkil - '2 1 r' , J n -7 --/~~/ 1 1 r -111;xi < 14/ rIJ J 4.-9 Legend Estes Valley Planning Area Boundary Public Open Space N Private Open Space Critical Habitat for 1-20-09 Planning Commission Review A January 15, 2009