The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-03-17Prepared: March 10, 2009 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 17, 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. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes - February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting 3. ABUNDANT PROPERTIES OF THE ROCKIES, LLC- Lots 1 & 2, Block 4, 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, and Metes and Bounds Parcel located at 240 E. Elkhorn Avenue - 230,234, and 240 E. Elkhorn Avenue Owner/Applicant: Abundant Properties of the Rockies, LLC, c/o Kevin Schwery Request: To combine two existing lots into one lot and reduce the utility and access easement The applicant has requested this item be CONTINUED to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 09-01 - YMCA OF THE ROCKIES PARADE GROUNDS - Metes and Bounds located directly north of Ruesch Auditorium, 2515 Tunnel Road, Estes Park Owner: YMCA of the Rockies Applicant: BHA Design Request: To convert Kallenberg Drive parking lot into parade grounds and an improved parking lot 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12 a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS - 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, 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. b. 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. The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 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. 6. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT ASSESSMENT 7. REPORTS a. STAFF-LEVEL REVIEWS 1. Boyd residence, Lot 15 of the Village Greens Subdivision, 466 Skyline Drive b. PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS c. TOWN BOARD AND COUNTY COMMISSION DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS REVIEWED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 8. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DRAFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission February 17, 2009,1 :30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Ron Norris Attending: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Ron Norris Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioners Wendell Amos and John Tucker Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Klink recognized Joyce Kitchen for her years of service on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kitchen has resigned her position and will be replaced by county resident Steve Lane beginning in March, 2009. Mit Garrett/Town Resident - As a representative of the Book Buddies study group from the United Methodist Church, Mr. Garrett distributed copies of Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas Friedman to each Commissioner and Staff member, and suggested they read it and use it as reference material. Commissioner Hull has been impressed by and appreciative of the amount of public comment received on the current issues. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident - Ms. Osterman requested the group meeting between the Town Board and the Planning Commission be open to the public for a question/answer period. Her request will be forwarded to Mayor Pinkham. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated January 20,2009. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Norris) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12 a. SHORT-TERM RENTALS It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) to recommend CONTINUANCE of the proposed Block 12 Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Short-Term Rentals to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 February 17, 2009 b. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) Planner Shirk focused on issues raised via public comment. After reviewing the history of the proposed code revisions, Planner Shirk centered on the issues with the most concerns: Requests: The overwhelming majority of requests has been for guest quarters, caretaker quarters, or mother-in-law suites. Use by right: It is being suggested that every ADU be required to go through a review process prior to approval, including notification of adjacent property owners. Setbacks: If detached, regardless of lot size, the unit would have to be closer to the primary dwelling than any property line. Size: Cannot exceed 49% of primary unit, and not to exceed 1000 square feet total. Existing accessory buildings could cut into the 1000 square foot limit. Parking: The standards in the current code would apply; no increase in total allowed vehicles. Increased traffic: Using data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers, it is estimated one ADU would bring an additional seven trips per day. It is estimated that one ADU would add .5 trips per day during peak hours. Infrastructure: The standards in the current code would apply. Water Wells: The state will not allow any ADU to be added to an existing well unless the well is already permitted for multiple dwellings. Septic Systems: These would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If connection to the sewer system is available, it would be required. If sewer connection is not an option, the applicant would need county approval to build. Increase in Density: Based on information from other jurisdictions, it is estimated the Estes Valley would see 5-6 applications per year, which would be dispersed over the 32 square mile area. Visual, traffic or general effects of density are issues that still need to be discussed. Lot Size vs. Zone District: Proposed code would allow detached units in any zone district, with minimum lot size requirements: 1/2 acre minimum for attached, 14 acre minimum for integrated units, one acre minimum for detached. In R, E and E-1 districts, detached ADUs would require twice the minimum lot size. In RE and RE-1 districts, ADUs would require a minimum of 2.5 acres. Guest Quarters: Detached or attached units without kitchen facilities for specific use by guests. No rentals would be allowed. Definition of limited kitchen includes: not contained in a separate room and being limited to a sink, refrigerator no larger than 3.5 cubic feet, stove/oven no larger than 20 inches, and/or a microwave oven. The most common request seen by Staff is for a wet bar. Staff would appreciate more direction from the Planning Commission. It is suggested that if there is an ADU on the property, additional Guest Quarters would not be allowed. Director Joseph indicated by allowing guest quarters as such, it would bring into compliance the many existing structures that have been non-compliant since the adoption of the current EVDC. As proposed, the limited kitchen would be added to the current code on guest quarters. Planner Chilcott indicated that if limited kitchens were allowed in guest quarters, it would essentially be a fourth type of ADU. Definition of Kitchen: The definition in the proposed code is from the current building code. It is suggested to change to language to include installed appliances with 220/40 DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 February 17, 2009 volt or natural gas for the preparation of food, and also containing either or both a refrigerator and sink. Development Plan Review: It is recommended to include "approval" of the review. Limit on Tenancy: Language about long-term rentals was struck. Language needs to be clarified as to whether or not rentals will be allowed. Type: It is recommended that detached ADUs have no more than 2 bedrooms. If the ADU is integrated, specific code should be written as to where the main unit ends and the ADU begins. Road Standards: The standards in the current code would apply. Appendix D would apply for driveways. Architectural Requirement: This section was consolidated to state the architecture will be similar to the prinicipal dwelling. The proposed code contains a higher lighting standard than the current code. All other architectural standards would apply. Entrance: The ADU entrance cannot face the front of the lot, and cannot be visible from the street. Land Use Affidavit: As proposed, the property owner would sign this document, which would travel with the deed to the property. It would state they owners understand the conditions on the property and will be required to comply with the code. Rentals: Commissioner Klink noted that due to a variety of issues, Planning Commissioners decided at the study session to NOT include rentals in this current ADU topic, but rather keeping the affordable housing use and rentals of ADUs a separate item. Review: Commissioner Klink suggests that the code require review of all ADUs, which can be changed at a later date if applicable. A Commissioner suggested a change to Â§14.d to include "to the architectural requirements" so the sentence will not be taken out of context. Commissioner Fraundorf questioned screening for parking areas. PUBLIC COMMENT Sheila Brennan/Town Resident - Has the opinion that allowance of ADUs should only apply to undeveloped lots. Rita Kurella/EstesPark Housing Authority - Ms. Kurelja gave a brief presentation in support of ADUs and the subequent rentals of the units. She referred to information from the Colorado Division of Housing, the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and information from other Colorado communities as a basis for this support. She also referred to the 2008 Housing Needs Assessment that was completed for the Estes Valley area. Commissioners Hull and Klink requested more statistical information from Ms. Kurelja, and asked that she make another presentation when affordable housing and ADU rentals are on the agenda. Carroll Mock/County Resident - Has the opinion that it is unfair to change zoning rules through the allowance of ADUs. He believes rentals should not be allowed. Rick Stiens/Town Resident - Believes ADUs would decrease local property values and have a deteriorating effect on the real estate market and tax receipts. Planner Shirk commented that he met with the Estes Park Board of Realtors, and no one in attendance thought ADUs would have a negative impact. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 February 17, 2009 David Myers/Town Resident - Does not want zoning changed. Robert Ernst/Town Resident - Believes that language in the proposed code should include owner-occupancy to reduce the potential for neighbor/tenant conflicts. He also feels the proposed code is being too generous on the square footage limits. Mr. Ernst also questioned the enforcement of the ADU regulations, and suggested periodic reports on ADU applications in order to keep the public informed. Mr. Ernst provided a copy of the AARP and the MRSC models on ADUs to the recording secretary. Commissioner Norris requested the AARP and MRSC models be made available to the Commissioners for review. Rick Warren/Town Resident - Does not support rentals of ADUs. Jay Heineman/County Resident - Is against ADUs changing the neighborhood, and believes the rental and/or other ADU use issue goes hand-in-hand with the ADU approvalissue. Eric Waples/Town Resident - Believes more research should be done prior to any decisions. Questioned if there is a threshold density for the future, and encouraged the Planning Commission to plan ahead now for the future of the Estes Valley. Mr. Waples supports review of applications by the Planning Commission. Joe Hladick - Presented a letter to the Commission recommending a citizen's committee to refine the final code language using a round-table approach. Johanna Darden/Town Resident - Against detached ADUs, and questions the enforceability if rentals are allowed. A 10-minute recess was announced at 3:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 3:20. Commissioner Klink suggested to eliminate detached units from the proposed code, allowing only integrated and attached ADUs. This not only would remove most of the concerns currently on the table, but would also reduce negative effects on neighbors. Commissioner Kitchen stated that due to the topography of the area, it may be easier to have a detached unit, and would like to see detached ADUs remain a possibility. Dave Schultz/Town Resident - Believes that allowing only attached units makes sense from the zoning aspect. He also thinks owner-occupancy is extremely important, and could possibly be used with a deed restriction. The rental issue will still need to be addressed. He agrees with the permitting of ADUs on an annual basis, with the permit expiring if the dwelling goes out of compliance with any other code. Cheri Pettyjohn/Town Resident - Wants to see bunkhouses allowed soon. Director Joseph stated the bunkhouse issue and ADUs are too closely intertwined to take them as separate issues. Commissioner Klink reminded everyone that the current non- conforming structures can be maintained and repaired, but not improved or expanded with bathrooms, kitchens, etc. Planner Shirk indicated if we removed detached ADUs from the proposed code, the existing non-conforming guest quarters will still be out of compliance. Joe Coop/County Resident - Referred to the letter submitted to the EVPC from the Estes Valley Contractor's Association (EVCA). Stated most ADU requests are for guest or caretaker's quarters. It is his opinion that rentals were not prohibited prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Commissioner Klink stated the Commission would like to hear from people whose lots and possible ADUs were directly affected by the adoption of the EVDC. Commissioner Norris would like to see hard data concerning ADU requests. Arleta Bell/Town Resident - Asked for clarification about ADUs prior to the adoption of the EVDC. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 February 17, 2009 Bob Rising/County Resident - Being the president of the home owners association for Carriage Hills, Mr. Rising had concerns about how ADUs would affect covenants. Attorney While indicated covenants would supercede code changes, depending on how they are written, have been enforced, etc. Mike Richardson/Town Resident - As a long-time resident of Estes Park, he is tired of hearing the politics of fear. He stated that because of covenants, neighborhoods can still make the rules about adus. Commissioner Klink closed the meeting to public comment. In giving direction to Staff, Commissioner Klink stated the Planning Commission does not support rentals of ADUs. They would like to see detached units removed from the proposed code, allowing only integrated and attached units. The Planning Commission supports reviewing the application prior to approval, and thinks owner-occupancy is an important consideration. Planner Shirk reminded the Commissioners that if the owner chooses, he could rent the entire lot as a single-family dwelling, as long as the primary residence and the ADU met the requirements for a "household". The Commissioners believe owner-occupancy is more important with detached units rather than attached. Director Joseph suggested making a decision on the allowance of detached ADUs prior to visiting the guest quarters issue. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Norris) to CONTINUE the proposed Block 12 Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously with two absent. c. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION Planner Chilcott stated this month's focus would be on setbacks. It is proposed that the setback from aquatic and riparian habitat be 50 feet, using the same measurement guidelines as for wetland setbacks. Maps would also be used as a guide, and these maps would be made available to the public. It is being proposed to require the 50-foot setback for all lots, developed and undeveloped, and would apply to all development types. Planner Chilcott reiterated that although no wildlife assessment would be required on a single-family lot, the setbacks would apply. It was clarified that property owners could apply for variances if the required setback made their lot unbuildable. Commissioner Fraundorf questioned the current setbacks in the Commercial areas of town. Director Joseph stated there has been legitimate debate concerning passive and active recreational uses in wildlife areas. The Town has experienced that debate and compromises have been made. It is thought that most areas that are inheritantly attractive to people and wildlife should be structured in order to maintain a balance between the two. It is very possible to have multiple standards for different zoning districts. It was discussed among the Commission and Staff the fairness of establishing different river setbacks for different types of zoning districts, such as the CD district, and the possible unintended consequences that could occur. Planner Chilcott provided a chart indicating 36% of the Estes Valley under this proposal would be considered critical habitat. Of the mapped critical habitat, 35% is already protected as open space and 15% is too steep to develop. For the next meeting, Planner Chilcott will present several types of impacts on river and stream corridors and how they relate to the proposed setbacks. Public Comment: Ed Kitchen/County Resident - Lives adjacent to Fish Creek Road and stated many homes are already located within the proposed setback. He does not think wildlife are affected in areas with small creeks, and would not support the proposed setbacks. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 February 17, 2009 Dave Albee/Town Resident - Thinks 50 feet would be best for wildlife corridors. Mr. Albee was concerned about mitigation in both critical and important habitat areas. Planner Chilcott clarified that these proposed code revisions will apply to all of the Estes Valley, not just critical habitat areas. After some discussion, Planner Chilcott noted a list of qualified biologists has not yet been created. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident - She is concerned about the role the qualified biologist will play in the decision-making process, and requests assurance from the Commission that these biologists will indeed be qualified. She stressed her opinion about how important the wildlife is to the Estes Park economy. Fred Mares/Town Resident - Referred to his letter submitted to the Planning th Commission dated February 17 . He believes Draft 4 is a step backwards. Mr. Mares cited four issues he would like to address: 1) Language allowing the Planning Commission to deny an application has been removed; 2) Â§7.8.H should have a goal of no significant adverse impact in critical habitat areas; 3) He feels that two documents should be submitted as part of the habitat assessment process, one being the biologist's independent assessment of the property and the effect of the mitigation plan, and the other being the developer's plans for mitigation; 4) No language in Draft 4 stating a mitigation plan must be effective to be approved. After discussion between Mr. Mares, Staff, and the Commission, Attorney White assured the Commission and the public that an application will be deniable. Concerning Mr. Mares third issue, Planner Chilcott stated the biologist will be the most knowledgable person to determine a mitigation plan. Hopefully, the biologist and the applicant will have discussed the habitat assessment before it is submitted to the Planning Commission, who will be the decision-making body. Johanna Darden/Town Resident - It is her opinion that any new documents should error on the side of wildlife. She would support a public meeting during the pre- application process. She would also be in support of the town's purchase of certain areas to ensure open space. Commissioner Klink closed public comment. Commissioner Klink referred to an email from Celine LeBeau, suggesting a qualified biologist would be required to have either a master's degree or more than two years experience in the field. Ms. LeBeau also suggested that while certifications are an avenue for determining qualifications, they should not be required if the biologist has other adequate experience. Commissioner Klink anticipates the Fall River and Big Thompson corridors and proposed setbacks being on the agenda for the joint meeting with Town Board and the County Commissioners. He feels strongly about notifying all affected property owners in areas where setbacks will change in order to allow comment before final decisions are made. Commissioner Kitchen stated if the setbacks were changed as proposed, there would be many non-conforming structures, and suggested it apply only to undeveloped land. Director Joseph commented these setback proposals are a test of the commitment to make a change. Planner Chilcott suggested a possible higher level of grandfathering. Director Joseph suggested an automatic variance standard could be written and applied on narrow lots. Developers would not be allowed to artificially change the riverbed in order to meet the setback requirements. Commissioner Klink noted the difficulty lies with weighing the impact on wildlife versus the impact on property owners. He directed Staff to continue working on the code language. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Fraundorf) to CONTINUE the proposed Block 12 Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Wildlife Habitat DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 February 17, 2009 Protection to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 4. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) to CONTINUE the proposed 2008 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 17, 2009. The motion passed unanimously with two absent. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Klink adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m. Douglas Klink, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 6,2009,9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Chuck Levine, Members John Lynch, Bob McCreery, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Levine; Members Lynch, McCreery, and Newsom Also Attending: Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Al Sager, Director Joseph X~>u Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.In. ,~4;'' "'N;h. 43<Zi 4#H ?4%!4 31. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 4 191 None. 4, ,X 62. 9,14 B 2. CONSENT AGENDA 90Â¢47 a. Approval of the minutes of the December 2,2008.Aheeting. ... Â¥al 0.1 4 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to aDproye the minutes as W./.0. presented, and the motion passed unanimously with dne absent. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY(JLOCATEDepT.?9575 FALL RIVER ROAD, .di 06> Owner/Applicant: *J6RA'>Moynihan-Request foridiariance from Estes Valley Develoment Code)Sectionj.4, Table 445 to allow construction of a roof over a proposed deck apbroximately 5 feet away:from the southern property line, in lieu of the required 25-foot.setback in the A-Accommodations zoning district 9 4644-4.Uvf-,c'Â·e~,f' 4.-*7*el Planner, Chilcot!;stated the *applicantÂ°haarasked to withdraw the application at this time. Thea#plicant 'is'looking at'ottier construction options and may be able to build without a variance. .~-21 #4'A .:.... 4 f':t-4. t.1 NE;.0 % jr It 1946:moved and~**conded (Lynch/McCreery) to WITHDRAW the request for vatiance from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5 to allow construction of a roof 0066.proposed deck approximately 5 feet away from the southern property 'libe, in : lieu of the rquired 25-foot setback in the A- Accommodations 'zoning district and the motion passed unanimously with one absent 4. Lot 3, Block 2, Windcliff Estates 5th Subdivision and Replat of Lot 4 1/2, Webster Big Horn Subdivision, 3325 Eagle Cliff Road, Owner: Robert C. and Erin F. Parkinson, Applicant: Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, Inc. - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow construction of a proposed second-level deck within 16 feet of the west property line in lieu of the required 25-foot setback in the E-1 - Estate zoning district. Planner Shirk stated this is a request to allow a variance to the 25-foot front-yard setback to allow a deck within 16 feet of the west property line. The proposed residence complies with all setback requirements on the lot, which is less than 1/2 acre (zoned for one acre) This lot is significantly sub-sized for the zone district, as well as triangular-shaped, and the variance request would not have any detrimental impact on the neighborhood. The total area proposed in the setback is approximately 200 square feet. Most dwellings in this part of Windcliff have received variances. Windcliff Property Owners Association Architectural RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 January 6,2009 Control Committee has provided a letter of support for this request. Staff received one request from a neighboring property owner for a copy of the building and site plans. Member Newsom asked for assurance that the setback certificate is received by the building department prior to construction. Planner Shirk indicated the certificates are given to the appropriate departments in a timely manner. Planner Shirk recommends approval of the variance request with the following conditions: a. Compliance with the approved site and building plans b. Compliance with the applicable building code c. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. Public Comment: Bob IwanickiANestover Construction - Mr. Iwanicki is the buildefofithe home and tried to design the home to fit within the building envelope, having sdbiess with everything except the deck. /NN It was moved and seconded (Newsom/McCreery) t~APPROVE.the request for variance from Estes Valley Development*Code Section 4Â»Iable 4-2, to allow construction of a proposed se@nd-level deck on h4iroposed M,L residence within 16 feet of the west p06@rty line An:lieu of the required125- foot setback in the E-1 - Estate zofilÂ®,disyldtiÂ©with the foligwing conditions, and the motion passed unanimoully+with dne absent. 4 Conditions: ~<b:, a. Compliance with the approved site*,and building plarls-, b. Compliance with the applicablkbdilding,code ~t>' ."-7* 6,... c. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal df. a'setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. * * 49;733 5. REPORTS z~ih 4 Planner Chilcott in*dicated there is~no meeting scheduled for February unless the Moynihan 4 variance request is reaâ‚¬1*ted. St#twill know 43.Mnuary 14,2009 of their decision, and will 41? notify the Board and post a Ibgal notic@> AimiRÂ·h, 9> -72.1. 6. ADJOURNMENT.f .'4,4 <BL 14'.Jt, 42bvi 3Y There bking'no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m. r J y \3:%,4 Chuck Levine, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary YMCA of the Rockies "Parade Grounds" (DP 09-01) Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue ~liil~ PO Box 1200 ~ Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: March 17,2009 REOUEST: Development plan approval for N = FaN~> A new parking lot, outdoor seating area, and 8- I ~ USES pedestrian street, collectively known as the 1 *I--I r.lil "parade grounds." ---l_ v 36 Reky " A~=*/ 7 . LOCATION: In front of the admin lub'-in USFS h~oral building/Ruesch Auditorium, YMCA of the Pam L. S Rockies grounds. APPLICANT: BHA Design PROPERTY OWNERCS): YMCA ofthe Rockies STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk (dshirk@estes.org, 577-3729) SITE DATA TABLE: Lead Consultant: BHA Design (Fort Collins), engineering design by Interwest Consulting Group (also Fort Collins) Parcel Number: 3404200022 Development Area: 5.55 acres (4-/-) Number of Lots: One (interior of YMCA) Existing Land Use: parking, pedestrian/vehicle access Proposed Land Use: Parking, remove the Existing Zoning: "A" Accommodations vehicular access in front of Ruesch, add outdoor seating Adjacent Zoning- East:: "RE" Rural Estate North:: "O" Open (Larimer County designation) West:: "O" Open (Larimer County South: "IN" Estate, "A-1" designation) Accommodations Adjacent Land Uses- surrounding uses interior to YMCA is accommodation use East: Single-family residential North: Rocky Mountain National Park West: Rocky Mountain National Park South: Rocky Mountain National Park, single-family residential Services- Water: N/A Sewer: N/A Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request for a central component of the YMCA of the Rockies Master Plan. That plan, approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2007, provided a general concept of developing a pedestrian oriented "core area" of the YMCA campus. A major implementation tool to achieve this pedestrian core was to eliminate vehicular circulation in this area, primarily to the north and west of the Ruesch Auditorium. Currently, there is a five-way stop intersection located west of the Ruesch. This proposal would greatly modify that intersection with the removal of three roads and the re-design of the remaining two roads such that they form a continuous turn. This develop proposal also includes a reconstructed parking lot, an outdoor seating area, and new parade grounds. REVIEW CRITERIA: This development plan is subject to applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project. Master Plan. In March 2007, the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approved the YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center Master Plan. That Master Plan set forth the general development patterns and guidelines for development at the YMCA of the Rockies, and centered on a "pedestrian campus" concept which focuses development in the core area. This proposal is key in achieving the pedestrian zone, as it will remove two road connections through the core area and route traffic around the perimeter, as envisioned with the Master Plan. Specific issues, in addition to the road network, include additional landscaping and reduced lighting for parking areas. It is these areas the staff report will focus on. Road Re-Alignment. This proposal includes a significant re-design of the intersection of Mountainside/Friendship/Kallenberg to the west of Ruesch Auditorium. Page #2 - YMCA Parade Grounds, Development Plan 09-01 1. Friendship Lane will be redesigned to provide a loop around the Alpen Inn/Wind River Lodge. 2. Kallenberg Drive will be blocked west of the Hyde Chapel with bollards (removable to allow emergency access). Future plans include the removal o f the pavement area and replacement with decorative pavers. 3. Mountainside Drive will be removed between the Alpen Inn and the new Association Drive. ~ A i h PARk c. i.\ 11.K MAN 1 1* 1'1 A i LA/ST/VGCORA Â·IR+. 11#.R/1/ r>â€¢'YMCA of the Rockies 2. . 1 1 . , W . .- 1 - Emit 0.0-- . I .... 1 . 4Â·42 . 1 *9&'. '.1.:.. 3 : '4. )1... I l' I , Â£'Core Area 1 .. 84 d:,â€¢.f, , . 1,2,1 A ./ .1 - 9 . F.- Vâ€¢ . *iiI . . 1 / 33 I I ./ Landscaping and Buffers. A requirement of the Master Plan is that "parking lot interiors shall exceed the minimum planting requirements for parking lot interiors by twenty percent." This equates to an interior parking lot requirement of 21 trees, 42 shrubs; the design provides 27 trees and over 100 shrubs. In addition to this interior landscaping, landscaping is required along the Association Drive frontage on the west side of the parking lot. This requirement is 6 trees and 24 shrubs; 12 trees and 30 shrubs are provided in this area. Finally, the plan includes additional landscaping that is not required in areas along Association Drive and to the north of the parking lot. Staff commends the applicant in this additional landscape design. The landscaping legend needs to graphically delineate proposed landscaping (this information is currently shown only on the plan view). Page #3 - YMCA Parade Grounds, Development Plan 09-01 Exterior Lighting. A requirement of the Master Plan is that "photometric studies shall be included with all parkigg lot proposals. No parking lot lighting shall exceed fifteen feet in height." The lighting plan includes a note that fixture height will not exceed 15-feet, and the photometric plan has been designed accordingly. Furthermore, the photometric plan indicates very little lighting "overlap" which is an indication that lighting has been minimized. As with the landscaping plan, Staff commends the applicant on the lighting design. Off-Street Parking and Loading. Calculation of minimuni parking requirements for this site is impossible to do, as it serves so many nearby uses (pool, Reusch, administration building, etc). However, this is an increase in the amount of parking in this area. Additionally, as noted above, a major component of the Master Plan was to create a pedestrian core area. Based on this concept, a minimum parking requirement does not apply. Therefore, Staff has not calculated a parking requirement other than for ADA, which is a factor of overall number of parking provided. The 111 "standard" parking spaces provide requires 5 ADA spaces, of which at least one must be van accessible; this proposal includes 7 ADA spaces, three of which are van accessible. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Larimer County Engineering has noted there are not any major concerns with the submitted plans and report, though a request for construction plans bearing an engineer's stamp and final as-built plans will be required. Americans with Disabilities Act. The site has been designed for ADA accessibility. Construction Plans. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Larimer County Engineering Department prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or first building permit. Details include engineering design such as stop sign, ADA grade/signage STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 1. If all recommended conditions of approval are required, the development plan will comply with all applicable standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. Page #4 - YMCA Parade Grounds, Development Plan 09-01 2. The development plan is consistent with the YMCA of the Rockies Master Plan, as approved by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. - 3. This request has been submifted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 4. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making body for the development plan. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed "YMCA Parade Grounds" Development Plan 09-01 CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with approved development plan. 2. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Larimer County Engineering Department prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or first building permit. 3. The landscaping legend needs to graphically delineate proposed landscaping (this information is currently shown only on the plan view). 4. The legal description shall include the land area (currently blank). 5. The planning commission signature block shall be amended to include the current Chair (Doug Klink). 6. Compliance with memo from Larimer County Engineering to Town of Estes Park dated February 23,2009. 7. CS1 and LS sheets shall be submitted in mylar form: SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of Development Plan 09-01 "YMCA Parade Grounds" with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Page #5 - YMCA Parade Grounds, Development Plan 09-01 Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Traci Shambo [tshambo@farimer.org] Sent: Monday, February 23,2009 3:58 PM To: Dave Shirk; ralmirall@interwestgrp.com Subject: YMCA of the Rockies_Parade Grounds and Association Drive.docx Attachments: PKZIP (compressed) files Dave and Bob - I dont really have any major comments on this. see attached memo. I would like a really good set of as builts when this whole thing is done. Traci 2/24/2009 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LAIUMER Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 ~COUNTY Post Office Box 1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Shirk, Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 FROM: Traci Downs, Development Review Services 73 DATE: February 23,2009 SUBJECT: YMCA Parade Grounds and Association Drive - Estes Valley Planning Area Proiect Description/Background: YMCA of the Rockies is at 2515 Tunnel Road, also known as Spur 66. The YMCA has an approved master plan for their community which provides an approximate 20 year outlook for the site. The master plan is conceptual in nature and primarily serves to address strategies to better consider architecture, pedestrian and vehicle circulation, roads, parking, landscaping and irrigation, signage, lighting, environmental issues, stormwater management, accessibility, and open space. In the last several years, the YMCA has been designing and constructing improvements in the core area. The improvements have been generally consistent with the Master Plan. With this submittal, the YMCA is completing the design of the Parade Grounds, which includes parking, walkways and patios near the Reusch Building. There are also everal changes to Association Drive proposed with this submittal. Comments: â€¢ The final construction plans must be signed and stamped by a professional engineer prior to our office signing them. We ask that 2 copies of the signed final plan set are submitted to our office for our files. â€¢ A Development Construction Permit has already been issued for work in this area so no additional permits will be required. â€¢ At the completion of the entire core area, a complete set of detailed as built plans and as built drainage report will be required. Recommendation: The Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any maj or concerns with the submitted plans and report. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5701 or e-mail at tdowns@larimer. org if you have any questions. Thank you. cc: YMCA (Attn: Mark Holdt), PO Box 800 Association Camp, Estes Park, CO 80511 reading file file C:\Documents and Settings\Dave Shirk.ENGINEERING\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK241\YMCA of the Rockies Parade Grounds and Association Drive.docx emo To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 2-17-09 Re: YMCA of the Rockies- Parade Grounds Development, ( N of Ruesch Auditorium) 2515 Tunnel Road The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Application for a Development Plan #09-01 for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1. All parking lot lights and any lights associated with this application must be dark sky compliant. 1 CN (( UPPER C 49tqv 9/ DISTRIC@ 44TÂ¢~ P.O. Box 568 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 586-4544 TO: Dave Shirk, Planner II FROM: Todd Krula, Unes Superintendent SUBJECT: YMCA Parade Givund s Development DATE: February 13, 2009 Dear Dave, The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1, The Dislrict has no objection lo theproposed development. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You, b*2&1.- Todd Krula Lines Superintendent ce: Interwest Consulting Group Feb. 16. 2009 8:36AM No. 7993 P. r (-11 -~EÂ©EOVE-:% V. .t 1 11 YMCA of the Rockies - Parade Grounds Development Statement of Intent ~ JAN 2 1 2009 ~ YMCA Master Plan The Estes Park Center Plan was approved and adopted by Larimer County in March of 2007. This proiect represents another step in the implementation of the master plan. Core Area The proposed new facilities will be located in what the master plan refers to as the "Core Area" which is defined as "...the central campus area of the Center. This area inc/udes the /argest amount of site development including conference facilities, guest lodges, food services, and most of the deve/oped program and recreation areas." Master Plan Vision and Goals The following are few of the guiding statements that were utilized in the formation of the YMCA Master Plan. m Build upon past successes and the Center's Character - not creating radical change, but intentionally creating ways to enhance success. ' Create a strong sense of environmental stewardship, balancing environmental protection and land use. â€¢ Promote and preserve the natural environment and beauty of the site. ' The Rocky Mountains are what attract guests to the area. Use every chance to reinforce the mountain experience. Get users outside into the environment. â€¢ Create a more accessible site. People are living longer and accessibility is becoming more difficult; consider proximity of facilities that are used together. â€¢ The core area should be developed for safer and efficient pedestrian circulation and enhanced aesthetic and visitor experience. ' New facilities should fit into the environment. Concepts and Overall Features of the Master Plan Architecture: â€¢ Buildings that should be used as a precedent, setting the architectural standard for the future: Administration, Women's Building, Texas State House, Jellison, Mountainside, Hyde Chapel, Walnut Room/Pine Room, The Museum. m The Ruesch Auditorium is out of character with the surroundings and could be modified at some point to help it blend in more effectively. Parking: m Parking areas consolidated outside the pedestrian core and directly accessed from the main loop road. ' Accessible parking areas included throughout the site to meet current ADA requirements. ' Develop improved bus circulation, drop-off and parking areas. . Parking lots delineated with landscape islands and landscape buffer areas from roads and pedestrian areas. Page 1 of 6 C YMCA of the Rockies- Parade Grounds Development Statement of Intent â€¢ Parking lots should be designed to accommodate turning radius of large trucks and buses, with designated areas for droe-off and pick-up. Pedestrian Areas: â€¢ Pedestrian areas should be developed to meet Americans with Disability Guidelines (ADA) where possible. Design Proposal This proiect includes redevelopment of the existing parking lot north of the Ruesch Building and the Walnut Room, and the conversion of Kallenberg Drive in to a pedestrian environment extending from the Hyde Chapel to the Ruesch Building. Requested Variances None. Chapter 4 - Zoning Districts 4.1 Establishment of Zone Districts: The YMCA campus is currently zoned A - Accommodations/Highway Corridor. 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Not applicable. 4.4 Non-Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zone Districts: Hotels/Motels and Lodges/cabins are defined as Permitted By-Right Uses. The Conference Center is an accessory use or supporting use for the Lodges. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards for Nonresidential Zone Districts: This proiect does not include construction any new buildings, and will not affect existing approved densities. Lot Size: The existing lot size exceeds the minimum lot size requirements. Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks: The conversion of Kallenberg Drive to a pedestrian space eliminates the requirement of building setbacks. Maximum Building Height: Not applicable Maximum Lot Coverage: 50% lot coverage is the maximum allowed in the A zone district. The limit of disturbance for the area surrounding the Ruesch, Conference Center, and the 3 new Guest Lodges is approximately 667,700 square feet. The total building coverage for the Ruesch, Conference Center and the 3 new Guest Lodges is approximately 105,722 square feet. This means that the building coverage is approximately 16% within the Limit of Disturbance. Page 2 of 6 1.-* ,-e) C C YMCA of the Rockiek - Parade Grounds Development Statement of Intent Table 4-7 Vehicular Access-and Circulation Requirements Nonresidential Zone Districts Curb Cuts: not applicable. Driveway Spacing: The proposed driveway access for the new parking lot is aligned with the parking lot entrance on the west side of Association Drive. Location of Loading and Service Docks: Not applicable. Location of Parking: Parking is not located in the buildings front setback area, per the requirements of this table. Nonresidential Uses - Interconnected & Shared Parking: the proposed parking lots are interconnected with adiacent parking lots via existing roadways, to the maximum extent practicable. Table 4-8 Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements Nonresidential Zone Districts Provision of Pedestrian Amenities - General: sidewalks and pathways are provided in the site plan to provide connections belween the buildings, to related parking areas, and to adiacent YMCA facilities. Sidewalks: 7' wide (minimum) sidewalks are provided along the full length of the building facades that feature primary entrances and in areas abutting public parking. In most cases sidewalks will be constructed from scored concrete, and a few pathways will be paved with crusher-fines, where appropriate. Refer to the site plan for sidewalk locations and widths. Sidewalks: A12 foot wide (minimum) clear corridor width is provided throughout the parade grounds to allow for emergency vehicle access to each building and for occasional parades. Chapter 7 - General Development Standards 7.1 Slope Protection Standards - A. Density Calculation: The proposed structures will be constructed on the larger 588-acre parcel without additional subdivision of the property. Therefore proiect far exceeds the minimum required lot sizes. Please refer to page 32 of the YMCA Estes Park Center Master Plan for additional land use/density information. B. Development Restrictions on Steep Slopes: Slope within construction area will be less than 30%, so this criteria is not applicable. C. Ridgeline Protection: This proiect is constructed in the valley, not on a ridgeline. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. D. Staff Waiver of Ridgeline Protection Standards: Not applicable. 7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance Standards - A. Applicability: These standards are applicable to this proiect. B. Grading Standards: Page 3 of 6 YMCA of the Rockies L Parade Grounds Development Statement of Intent 1. No grading, excavation or tree removal will take place without the proper permits, unless approved otherwise. 2. Limits on Changing Natural Grade: The original grade within the Ruesch Outdoor Dining Terrace will be raised to provide a relative flat surface for the tables, and the original grades in the parking lot will be raised 2 to 3 feet which allows the YMCA to uco tho curpluc fill matorial gonoratod by construction of the new lodges and the loop road. 3. Cutting Grade to Create Benches: The parking lot runs roughly parallel to the existing contours, and the southern bay of parking is approximately 2 feet higher than the northern parking bay. The grade transition occurs within the central landscape island. 4. Grading for Accessory Building Pads Discouraged: Not applicable. 5. Limits on Graded or Filled Manmade Slopes. Where practical, grades on fill slopes are limited to 25%. Steeper slopes will exist belween the parking lot and the existing fire ring in order to limit the disturbances associated with construction of the parking lot. 6. Retaining Walls: Retaining walls will be used on a limited basis in order to retain some of the existing trees and to limit the area of disturbance. Two types of retaining walls are planned - stone masonry walls and stacked boulder walls. Walls taller than 4' will be designed by a structural engineer. Native vegetation will be used to soften views of retaining walls. 7. Filling or Dredging Waterways Prohibited: Not applicable. 8. Detention/Stormwater Facilities: Where possible, grading of these facilities will be done in a way that blends with the natural setting. Side slopes will vary and the shape of the detention facilities will be naturalistic, to the extent practical. C. Restoration of Disturbed Areas: Re-contouring of the land is done in a naturalistic fashion without angular or abrupt transitions. Areas disturbed throughout the construction process will be re-vegetated using native species. Refer to the landscape plans. Existing topsoil, where present will be removed, stockpiled and re-spread in landscape areas. Limits of disturbance are illustrated on the grading plans, as well as the site and landscape plans. 7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection: Where possible, existing trees are protected in order to preserve the aesthetic qualities and natural environment of the site. The removal of these trees will be mitigated as required by the EVDC. Existing trees to remain will be protected during construction, as required. 7.4 Public Trails and Private Open Space: Private trails connections are provided between the new facilities and connecting to nearby existing facilities. New trails do not negatively impact existing sensitive areas. A combination of concrete and crusher-fines will be used for the proposed trails. Where possible, trail grading will comply with ADA guidelines. The YMCA will privately maintain the new trails. Refer to the site plan for trail locations and proposed materials. Page 4 of 6 ( YMCA of the Rockiek - Parade Grounds Development Statement of Intent 7.5 Landscaping and Buffers This proiect is located within the Montane Zone which is found belween 6000 and 9000 feet above sea level, and is frequently divided into an upper and lower zone. The most prominent characteristic of this zone is the open canopy Ponderosa Pine woodlands. On some sites Ponderosa co-dominates with Douglas Fir. Quaking Aspen and Lodgepole Pine colonies are also found in this zone. The proposed landscape will include native seed mixes for the ground cover, as well as native perennials, shrubs and trees. Plant sizes and species mix will comply with the Estes Valley Development Code. This proied exceeds the EVDC minimum requirements for interior parking lot landscape in terms of landscape islands and plant quantities. Plant quantities within parking lot interiors exceed the requirements of the EVDC by 20%, per the approved YMCA master plan. In other words, 1.2 trees and 2.4 shrubs are provided for every 2,500 square feet of parking lot. Curbing is provided around the parking lot perimeter and around the landscape islands within the parking lot. Plants will be arranged to create visual appeal, shading of outdoor patios, and to provide screening of service/loading areas. Required separation of trees and utilities are provided. Fences or walls are proposed for screening at the Ruesch loading/service dock at the east side of the building. The fence/wall will be constructed from materials that are complimentary to the building. The YMCA will privately maintain new landscaping, per the requirements of the EVDC. 7.6 Wetland and Stream Corridor Protection: Not applicable. 7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas: A Wildfire Hazard Analysis has not been prepared with this submittal. If required, we will work with the Town of Estes and Larimer County staff to determine specific requirements. Geologic Hazards Analysis - not applicable 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection: The bulk of the development associated with this proiect is located in an area that is currently occupied by cabins and other existing YMCA facilities. It does not appear that there are any significant existing wildlife habitats within the area that will be occupied by the Parade Grounds. The proposed Parade Ground improvements will replace existing roadways and are generally located very close to the alignment of the existing roads. 7.9 Exterior Lighting: Variance: Parking lot light fixtures will be 15 feet tall (including the concrete base). Proposed light fixtures are energy efficient cut-off style. Bollard style lighting is used for pedestrian areas. Refer to the Lighting Specs on Sheet El .2. 7.11 Operational Performance Standards Page 5 of 6 YMCA of the Rockies - Parade Grounds Development Statement of Intent Uses resulting in inappropriate noise levels are not anticipated. 7.11 Off-Street Parking and Loading The proposed parking lot contains a total of 118 parking spaces. The site plan also includes a bus loading/drop-off area within the parking lot. Based on historic uses of similar facilities on the YMCA campus, the YMCA staff believes that the proposed parking quantities are adequate for this proiect. Accessible parking quantities provided in the site plan are compliant with ADA guidelines. Van accessible spaces are provided in each cluster of accessible spaces. Accessible spaces are placed in close proximity to the primary building entrances and accessible routes are provided belween the accessible parking spaces and the primary building entries. Passenger drop-off/pick-up areas are located in close proximity to the primary building entrances. Parking dimensions comply with the EVDC requirements. Curbing is provided in front of each stall, so parking stall depths have been reduced by 2 feet, as allowed. 7.12 Adequate Public Facilities With the proposed utility improvements, the proiect will be supported as required to offset the impacts of the proposed development. Existing traffic patterns on Tunnel Road should not be affected by these improvements. 7.13 Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment. Rooftop equipment will be screened from pedestrian areas. Screening or rooftop equipment and ground mounted equipment will be provided. Outdoor storage areas are not included in the development plan. 7.14 Mobile Home Parks: Not applicable. 7.14 Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park/Campground: Not applicable. END OF STATEMENT OF INTENT Page 6 of 6 mI=m. C ' ESTES VALLEY ~ U)---- 7 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIOA [il ~ ~ JAN 2 1 2009 ~ 2 Submittal Date: - Type of Application ' a h Development Plan 1- Boundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map Special Review r ROW or Easement Vacation r Preliminary Map Rezoning Petition r Street Name Change 1- Final Map Preliminary Subdivision Plat 1- Time Extension f- Supplemental Map Final Subdivision Plat f- Other: Please specify Minor Subdivision Plat E Amended Plat General Information Project Name YMCA of the Rockies - Parade Grounds Development Project Description New Parking Lot and Parade Grounds Project Address 2515 Tunnel Road Legal Description See attached legal description Parcel ID # 34042-00-022 Section Township Range Site Information Total Development Area (e.g., lot size) in acres Parade Grounds Disturbed Area - 5.55 Acres Existing Land Use Kallenbere Drive. Parking Lot Proposed Land Use Parade Grounds, Improved Parking Lot Existing Water Service E Town E Well r None E Other (specify) Private Proposed Water Service r Town r Well !- None B[ Other (specify) Private Existing Sanitary Sewer Service F EPSD Â£ UTSD r= Septic E None Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service E EPSD X UTSD F- Septic Is a sewer lift station required? F Yes N No Existing Gas Service W Xcel 9 Other F None Existing Zoning A - Accommodations Proposed Zoning A - Accommodations Site Access (if not on public street) Mountainside Drive Are there wetlands on the site? P Yes liE No Site Staking will be complete by 1/28/09 Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? / r Yes #C No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Mark Holdt Complete Mailing Address YMCA ofthe Rockies, 2515 Tunnel Road, Estes Park, CO 80511 Attachments r Application fee - $1200 IK Statement of intent E 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan R 11" X 17"reduced copy of plat or plan f- Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) Bob Joseph said this may not be necessary Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologichazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Town of Estes Park 4 P.O. Box 1200 4 170 MacGregor Avenue 4 Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4 Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www.estesnet.com/ComDev 11111;f f C ; Primary Contact Person is M Owner f- Applicant f= Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) YMCA of the Rockies Mailing Address 2515 Tunnel Road. Estes Park. CO 8051I Phone 970.586.4444 Cell Phone Fax 970.586.6088 Email mholdt@vmcarockies.org Applicant BHA Design - Cara Schoy and Roger Sherman Mailing Address 1603 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone 970.223.1827 Cell Phone Fax 970.223.1827 Email cschoy@bhadesign.com Consultant/Engineer Interwest Consulting Group - Bob Almirall Mailing Address 1218 W. Ash, Suite C, Windsor, CO 80550 Phone 970.674.3300 Cell Phone Fax 970.674.3303 Email ralmirall@interwestgrp.com APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDeWSchedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION On July 1, 2001, House Bill 01-1088 became effective. This legislation requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to give notice of their application to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development. I hereby certify that the provisions of House Bill 01-1088 Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT.Â· Mark Holdt Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Roger Sherman Signatures: Record OwnerÂ»47\1#4-- Date 1-21-09 Applicarf---~i~Ii;~ --I Date 1-21-09 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION b I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. I In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). I l acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. (The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.) $ l understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. I I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. â€¢ I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. * The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. * I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. I I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. Names: Record Owner PLEASEPR/NT: Mark Holdt Applicant PLEASE PRINT.Â· Roger Sherman Signatures: Record Owner Date 1-21-09 Applicant 1%Â« Date 1-21-09 Revised 06/26/07 7 71 A c :L--1 . 0 fI LL// ...1 Z 2%1Â¢0-74% \ Z (0 ..r" , M A , fiee '111,1.1111 \11 \\l \ E 2 Il %,6 \,1 0-'--- 1 1 < v., e A e \ m .1 I CB CD Â« 4 -4 2 fe ) 49 . 9 2 69 5 P .1, 1/ ' el js 0 - / t .- 0 \\ 1 4- 1 \ \\ 1 + / e - 11 , 1 1 1 ' 11 , \\ -1 I -- - u-- r I / / o r. 1 + I / 3 t --1 \ r I --- l .1\ 11/. 11 :Vi \ '' ; 9 / 1 \ 1 I 00:00-1\1 1\ ''C< 4 1 1 -t V-'\ 1 0 1 22 20. .0 1 111\ . 3 1 W ''.0 % --- . 11 . 4 11 U 11 4 4 I f Ill A \\ 1.t -~ A . y Ch v Y 1/ A 1 0- -- i.r-1---3 ,),1 %& . 5/ 4 9.- 1 /, --- - ,~ 1,< L t . 2 2 7 2 V. ; h - ' 8 -lili I. . % r ---1 U.-1 , 1 r- > >n. Â£ % \ 3 1 2 / 4 C.4 ,. Illili EL , i 1- Imâ€ž 0 j 1.r- 4. 3 1 ' - i 1 - .i . - -4 ' 54 'IS - 00:\ 4: \ -6 1\ Â· 1, h - +..*-ir- 1 1~ *-5 1 002-- .... â‚¬ h N bl-1 t 1 .... t r i * .- *1--; :Let b B Â·' : ..1 I C CO Vi e .Â¥0404 'bossÂ¥ SNOI1Â¥301 3>IV16 EZ/l &.l YMCA of the Rockies - Parade Grounds Parking Existing Parking The existing parking areas located north of the Administration, Walnut and Ruesch Buildings will be removed and replaced as the Parade Grounds are developed over time. The existing parking in this area is divided into two separate locations, and most of the spaces are on 7'-0 wide. Parking Area 1 Parking Area 1 is located north of the Administration Building and it contains a total of 10 parking spaces, including 8 standard parking spaces and 2 accessible (ADA) parking spaces. These spaces are considered short-term parking and are intended for Guest Check-In/Check-Out. Parking Area 2 Parking Area 2 is located north of the Walnut and Ruesch Buildings and it contains a total of 100 parking spaces, including 96 standard parking spaces and 4 accessible (ADA) parking spaces. These spaces serve the Ruesch building, Walnut/Pine building, Sweet building primarily. Total Existing Parking Standard Parking Spaces 104 Accessible Parking Spaces 6 Total Existing Spaces 110 I. 0.-0 . W '.Q # I ./ .. . t. . 9 1 ) Existing Parking Diagram Page 1 of 2 â‚¬j...14) C /0 Proposed Parking The proposed parking lot will be located north of the Ruesch and Walnut buildings and be accessed from Association Drive, which is consistent with the approved Master Plan documents. In the interim condition, Kallenberg Drive will be closed to automobile traffic, but will remain accessible for pedestrians and emergency vehicles. Ultimately, Kallenberg Drive will be completely removed between the Hyde Chapel and the Ruesch Building to make way for the proposed Parade Grounds. When complete the new parking lot will contain a total of 118 parking spaces, including 111 standard parking spaces and 7 accessible (ADA) parking spaces. A drop-off/bus loading area is provided northwest of the Administration building, and short-term parking is located at the east end of the parking lot for Guest Check-In/Check-Out. This parking lot will continue to serve the Ruesch building, Walnut/Pine building, Administration and Sweet building primarily. The parking lot design mimics the appearance of the new parking lot that will serve the Grand, West and East Lodges. Meaning that landscape islands are incorporated, individual parking spaces are 9 feet wide, parking lot lights are limited to 15 feet in height, cut-off style light fixtures are used, new asphalt pavement and roll over curbing will be used throughout. We understand the sensitivity to lighting and the affect on the surrounding properties, so the light levels have been minimized accordingly (refer to the photometric plan). c., New Parking Lot o 'll -- fly Check-In/ 0 - -- = Check-Out : ==-- QU-1 - -' 0*Cq~ l 1 Y,Â·, \ If 2. 314 â‚¬ r r-Â· - /,5,4,2- .", .,- , ---. 'C) 2 94...6-/CA~-~1 --2----3-0- F#-6 0 . . I - .: C ~ ,; '. u R - ~ 11,------ 2 1 44 -1 /65*AY:t : i~.Lf-it~Â·.-..~, 1-Kitâ‚¬.4122.- 8.-ia. - - /-1 &-- , t, L r Drop-Off / Bus e --' r U.:1 (9.--r dul u 3 Loading Area \ t. G u 4:2- 1 ---1. *1*Ws' T '3*h \ RUESCH \\3Â£44747 -01-e-Â·-A- r ~ L-, .Â¥W '21.1 <0.Â·10 14-try 9-31 --J'F-ry<-6*6+YY#J 2 rÂ·-*-3 : ''. 03*3*Â· dr.7 Proposed Parking Diagram Summary The new parking lot will function in the same manner as the existing parking lots, but circulation and visual quality of the parking lot will be improved significantly, providing a pleasant introduction to the YMCA campus. In addition, the new parking lot will add a total of 8 additional parking places (7 additional standard parking places and 1 accessible parking place). Finally, the new parking lot will provide a safe drop-off area for members and guests. Page 2 of 2 ASSOCIATION DR. C r r (\1 Â¢9 4- ID O N 00 0 0 r- CNI CO =t- tO O N 00 0) 0 ,- CNI (9 XI- to CD N CO G) 0 1- 01 0 r- r-=-rÂ·-=,-rrr-r-NNNCNICNCNINCNNCNIC')09 09 00 0 C=ENCE h Hot= r- r SS:!2'oa,9 t.0 10 10 E E orto 000065ger)LO 00:20:& g %2200 8!BOANBE; R g 00 O 03@800000068.0 xxo 500poM*802% 000 O-10000000 0 01- 1- 0 0\=50 00 x O d g ..r .2 u.1 LU -X Z - LLI â‚¬ Â·E -c-= 22â‚¬Â·E- MID #& 5 3 -~ZZ Z 8 61 al-al qi 3 a. elM,-ES-M E 0 . co E * 0 wel: *>98%220-al ~al ~(ca %5 ~ ~ U) U) O 0 . &< < 2 2% 226@22222E.222#Eia*32 88%:Pifa O < < LU Ill W LU I O. LU ILI LLI LLI LU LL -11- LU LU LL LL LU U.1 U) U.1 <I -100 LU U) LU Ill C 00 0 0: a: 55%* 00 00 .0 0 0 91 9 - C Sove Lo 00 10 E co co :2 2% il & a' Zi 2 0 (0 0 39 FTW C *RÂ¤ m ai E2U22 2Â£ 1*Â£WRU*rl**2 UJUJOHO E .:MO"Â·16000(00:COM.-1-1 0 000 OU,to .,000 w .co , ..Â¤Zo-*â„¢or Â£0 ....000)~~M|~MCD 2 :tO M= ao :20002!#u.Iggg@gOg 0.~ ~~ ~~~~~~ 1 1 0- (9 1 0 0- m 0- 0- 0- -CVN (N N *4-N 0- - 0- 0 tO I- 00 m. co ON N C CIO 00 E t= tz 2 2 2 - -C E m I 0 5 2 - 5 5 &Â§% m < (D 2 0 m ON= 91- 10 to to iii Z E E Ma g 0 CO A 2 - 6 6 S BR*#i@Eâ‚¬~&Â§2 2 e e e -i 22 10 -0-MEOEE-0 ~20%0 f a.>~>4 2922=*MENEM=min=ZE=1=Nalaup BEEE 44bb"g31242%4~1-J~ul:Et@E.Efig 612,922 Â§:Â£ 00 mo %= e :6'02 b ti~1; 0 '=* Av ECE ASE== r- -<02 & r- -- (0 (0 co (0 C t co m (1) m (10 CD E CIO O 2 Z CO E -M CD CD L- E m m a 92 * 2 5 g c c i, < .c, c - a .f .2 -2 9 m .2 2 2:2 c -2 -2. f .2 -3 2233Ei@%%%%333ES#~332@2&22%228232 Owne Addres Parcel # Ilborn R/Herbe 3525 Goodfellow marillo, T)<79121 Box 206 80511 Thunde ountain Ln Park, 0517 Voodland , TX 77381 ZL908 O -Ul snll! ZLGO 0290 9806t 6018 uepeeIN Pmea pue Xpu 40 86P!~118JJ uepeev\1 3526 Goodfe TX 79122 ZL908 List of Adiacent Propertv Owners to YMCA of the Rockies nveiled God PMB 2 stes Park, O Park, dham Collins, rvada, Bonanza Blvd Bonanza Blvd Carol Aileen Beid unnel Unveiled God PMB 2 Ann Dolezal e6Jng ejeqjee 'Pll Al!'Â·ued eleCIJ uepeel/\1 p!AeD pue anet Head 1 LO CO N 00 0 0 1- (\1 Â¢0 91- tO CD h 00 0) O r-- CN (9* LO CD 1~- CO O) O r N CO 91- 10 (D N 00 C) 0 09 CO (9 CO (9 09 4 4 =1- Er El- 1 1 * 4- 1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 tO tO 10 0 0 CO CO CD CD CD (D Â© CD h 0 r- 00000 C) N r r- 00 N r- A N<4 ~wa)Â®a)0) M (9 0) @ER@Â© @@ Â£0 h~~~~~~~~~~~~ r- LoÂ©~Â°04Â·00)EEÂ©OÂ©O"-N 7* 08 * 00 . m Bea = 5 oÂ® a <NN OOge a)-000 nA000000 gos 84goof'88.56* Lf) LO C) C) C) w 0=00066000000 0 -2 -9 -<<,2,2CO<<< 6,2,2,2 ~2 0, d Â®01 - 2<00 ,_- 0 -ti M j &4--rts & >99* 2 : M & M &2 ca-20Â®NEGOZ Â¢0 0- 0- 0- 0-0 c o < k N .W v a) >. > e .E dE u, Â® A i. (D (1) u) U, dE E B E m 0 0 E (0 2,02-3 B 30219Â®2â‚¬*fir.22('CCES .2 t 2.9.232Â£2~22.22~BijGm@*22Ow@2882w W 2 % W mc c i > L - 0 2 ~333-%2gti 6~ . atffE*2 9Â£.waggg~ &F 2 2 2 ~%Â§%Mi*E;Egg~9~u ~ 0 0 0 6 < 10 10 2 N N 01 N = ~ 8000200 2 mui Ni x -a 0-36w& oo# RE##%~N~#i~EllY ddxx (DO WOMICD (9 LU- O LL 1- Â£22(De C) m N Â¢9 Â· r~ co 9- â€¢- CN to co LO O 285%49:ZA: .4. ..E O(\Ir-N~r-oor-OCD-or-(0100(NIAr-000000"-0000* 0 C)â€¢-tor- Â·N.*OCNIrOCNOO,-0000 Â· Â· CN m . cD 0- N N - - r m cr) 1 - tO - N 10 LO 0- 0. a) 1 02 Q. N 0- 0. 0- 0- r (D 2 2 kk Stoo 5%300 0.2 2 g M.E.m -1 11 E- 1.L m GE 8 2 3 m.h .6 & e>> & c 6 (090 m < 5Noo 8 d -25 -E -0 -E U) 6-g 4â‚¬22 m<<<<< 2 21 0 â‚¬E Aph2%21-ge E 26' a % %31:tra E E &.1 --uw a) 5 32 5 E E *.2 2 (0 = U) CO Mlim+N~~ C O 00 af== (D J C) 00 09 (D (D i 11 lilli iii mÂ·~ lo i i a i & le: 1 1 â‚¬ 04-- 4- CO 0 : 00 00=00Â®Â®22 0 X 212 O X (0 J (0 (0 0400:60 -,05 0-12 (O 52 2 CO ~jE O (O 51-HI-I-DDDJD D mes Mathieu A 90034 James Mathieu CA 90034 80112 NY:2:2133R egar Wood Way 77059 Fred Krannig 0537 TX 75075 Laurence Nelson C/O 1 st National Bank KS 67402 92Â£66 Xeiojes Estes Estes 6 !4seAA BOLIelll 'uo#iu!4seM AleA!.le IeJeUe9 eo!-'elli 'uo#iu!4seM x.leAlle leJeueÂ© eo!-lelll 'uoWLI!4seM eopel.U 'uo}Ou!4seM eA!18 IeJeUeD eo!Jewv Jo selels P 'u016u!4seM eA!le lejelleÂ© eoueluv Jo selels pe:!un 902 ANd eAV >ped leuo!leN ule:unoIN *Mookl eo!.lelll Elizabeth and John Fore David and Jane Antonia Alan and y UNAO.18 UUÂ¥ 0/0 Iph and Judith Redfern and, Inc rine Hill hene and, Inc Aarclay of Estes Par -01(9 91Â· tO CD Â»000)0,-<NI CO =1- LO <D Â»000)Or-CNI Cf) 91-LOCD t--000) 0,-CN Â¢9 91- ID O h ANANANNANOO 00 000000000000 00000)C)0)00)00)0 00)00 00 0000 2 00 h N 0 0 ANNA r.:ERIN <Ccor-~Ge N M â€ž 00 .-1-7-1 9- r. r- 1.0 tO 1.0 10 9- r LD .- ID Our)â„¢r-COCOMIDION to N CNI N 00- 00000 ocooor- -ONocoocv~o:~Â©O â€ž 0400 CNI (N * â€ž 00 co 00 00 LO 4- 1 co oo (0 g E Â°Â° M 3 u) U) Crl y CO roo N 000000 2Â§200008@woootbpowME>-05:80562Â·2Ok Rk - -0000*i#$000-:900$ m-m-*MO>.coouwgo E. 0 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 v i bl .2 -r .32 0 ~ J - -Â·62.6 -0 J ILLI *2 59 0 J -Uti XX 0, 0 0 & M & & p 2 9 & Â·% @ 0 2 & E :5Â·5Â·5 E g i 8 z & Bo Â® & . 1- 1- c C C a. a. a. CL . 2 *a, 20-0-~o-~~Ca~~0-md~[C A-E~ 828 2 22 ecou,u,0$20<ou,Qu,ja,enÂ®ca)a)>Â·34*-au)~3~*cot; -5 -95 18*%22Â·82:%3&2%.*s-sa.*216-%232@82-% 522828 B O O LU LLI LUU-10 CO mul O LU O m Mu CO _J -J Ob) LUB 2-W W Ocoul ILI 9-ov w Â®v , <W N NN N (0 co 2 c 2 2 Ee d w le =-=.-2 LE, 5,3-Em El Izig fl*~El 2 0 Â£ = Â£ C r Â£ .:05:m Â®D Â®Boo o /9 8 3%22Â£ Â® cv o cv N .g 24 BE (D O + : o cO E 0 0 _coco x g .g .g} 8 2 50 51- 5 8 5> v E M co g 0% 0 Â® 2(0(0~QIIU)22%(OmLUC~g>g *COR#SOCELL.10> OLOO 20)0 - -cvp9.@& Â·co Â·loco Â®RE o. 0.058 J -1 0. 8; 0.~546322*%95*CiSE@*82886 CD r r 0.0. CN N 00 (9 (9 Q. <0 0- 00 C) 0. C'). 00 N (NI CNI â€¢- N CD Cr) 0. r- CNI (D (N er) 09 (9 (9 Q. @ 6 L -6, % E E CD C U E .- Â§5Â£i . 5 == C= M 0 â‚¬ 2 22 0 0 C M M 2 2 1 -J (0 9 0 0 4) I a) C R CC -5 090 .8 .5 16 0 9 00-0 60 jo M ZO 0 0 C -5 8 e CO CO SOO . . 0 0 A 2 2, 2, e Â¥ 92 2 0 c * C e - 211 RE ali cd dd M tz .0 CIO LL LL Â£ O W -r c CC 5 3.2 5 . - c 0 0 9 C Â£ t ~ _ .c - 0 0 0 - O.2 0 & , =815 & %%:t:2 C C - -vc-89Â£3200 %2%32eÂ®ES 55 5 2 om c-2-'000 cute m k > 1- b EgILIS.522(c > a) co -O Et:-8 0 -8 2 0 0 - 1 -c E v Â·c 2 Â® O 0 - O m co Â¤) c :5 E D =1 0 E->16 -4 *PE - L .= - m = (0 0 v -0-Oc RA --- =: Â® (D CD Â· -- A- - *COCC r-0000 Â· .ga) -1 -- 0 00=;O 8152.*:EN:E 10-3#-/20(Ok-E<(Dau- 50*05*ORRâ‚¬ 20299 SM 'u 90+'96 ZL90 United States of America General Delivery Washington, DC 8Â£012*E 'Ja ue601 2392 uoisullor eoee pue eow 999 3N 1 no eelOJ }sno uePI!4M epeA/\ 0/0 bins bee Fa Aparah x 20635 EL L xog ell1011!M unraven, Ltd. /0 Western States Property s Property u !4M epeM 0/0 United States of America Linda Hanak Swiftcurrent Lodge, Inc. melles es!nol pue se and Co rrine Alb rs Johnson F ide Cottages omas and Ruth Lvd eOUeJ C C .A 00 G O r N CD 91- 10 0 h 00 G) O r N (9 xiÂ· LO Â© 1% 00 0 0 â€¢- CNI (9 91Â· LO CO N 00 C) O OOrr r-r- r-r- r-r--r-(NAICNI N CNI CNI CNINCNCNIC'9(900 (9 re) COCD CO 09 c,0 xr N N r . N N h (D h r-"00 0 N EFRNE "09- E N Al 1 80Â©J o xiÂ· 0 EN22OOOâ€ž05Â§211"W@ge:28Â£ LOOLD 10 CON 00 23%00000.9 zo25Â§8@Noo OOO0OOMO Swmiss&*&2630'awAN .=000 000*0000 I s 7 2 2 94 *2 *d 4Â£ < *d 4( cs -â‚¬ Â¥22@ 1121 li' gul-*255{1*1%25%8 2*i Â£ MEE@com.coom-5Â·520-tccocutioitou, 0,0Â¢0-0MS 11 0001Â£ M fÂ·26 160 Z Em < z !23* B uL Z OLLI 111* UJ UJUI OUILLI : LU 0 0 . OL 6 - c 68 490Mt 3% 8% 2 t~%&&*M@M JEE~91O41% *5&~ece --Mewoom L Cope0O0O - C CO E >,Da-OON 2-5*cov Â®coco:b Â® 0 co Â¥33#17*916:.52.&.E *62 26 M ZE 2 5 3 2 25 MS @Â·23 1,%%2228255*ZE@4291.%.m:Z...Mu-wa <0003 (4 <<m< Cv NOOLOLOLD (9 0 -CO Or- CO 4-0 CO cm w d. &5 ~ d.0.Id E 0.0 LO M (9 - r AINOOâ€¢-r-r- 9-r- O (4 10 M CON* 1.0 v Y Â·Moo M *00 ON r- O) C) CO <D (D LO (D CN (N CD ./ r-1-00 (N NO- cr) 4- 0- 0- 00 N 0-0- CN N (N 10 (N (D t' â‚¬ (0 C 2Â£ 81 (10 8 55 CIO â‚¬ Z %4 co ./ 6 <<< -3 2 0 Es 2 2 0 E k E E E & ; 8 5% DL (2 9 0 0.6 0 41) U. c m 0 Â·c Â·c 53Â£g# Se.@.E Â£ C M 2= *3 3 2 -2 23 e 1 ..2- -% m 1 1 * 22-2 2 i j 1% Eg~~I*51*26IfNE.NEâ‚¬%22E112E BEW888~#m (OM.0 0 Â® 1- =-- 22 35 ~%~2 Q*2 B~ ~x ~ i gEE* E me e l -2 F = Aa -~ 8 7 co-EmEEE wa ca o CEE-0 Eigig & il##f E & A .- 4# 11 03**%%%8%8233,21 Lu m.co2[Ex <<0-90-0.1--jof 80907 64112 64112 Z L909 ZL909 LL908 Z X908 ~86, ZL908 .JO MOOJ 90129 Denver, CO 80 ed sels va MOOJe ueds ueuo)14ed !P!eH pue peqoh' Hines Overlook rlook ttn: Monte L Schatz ttn: Monte L Schatz lice Smith pie~WlS ~1~4~1|~~JOA~4 70 0 penbJeW eu 1 p moth P E dEV.E-FT' r\1 1 Ill MAR 1 1 2009 ~ 1 i Z W %66 ENS â€¢mâ€¢= 4 11 9 #ma %15:.0 a2: mb.Hill i L lin + LE @IL AU.-- 2 E.NO A~,4~,nOI .50005/*Jo: "& 21:385,1 8 WEÂ®%02-= . -9110"5 t 85@6+ZZZ- LU 5 z..,RY:222#!iggi@QUU ;Ulit 0 0 Ul 00% N r Own z M - 3, 5=JeMZMPIMâ€¢Mem=.memme#amMEN=9=NmE. - al Niqi. Mt.1 1:9 20 U) - 0035 * 3 tiBR pt<o %00 *0000 -CO z Ent:; M u im !511 x 8 'q = SON 0 5 - 2 k CUE 1:ow , w w C. i U)0 M U 20 b 4 30, 2 F. 90 r, z m ; 41 i IM 4 I<1 J,:g Flh,02 E*~~-~ ~~~ ~~~ W A < 14 g Z D. 4 M 1,1 A W W 10 03.6 3,1,1. 20 ZE â€¢88 X 6.No Â£ ER EM 3 02 19 3 <8:9 : 19 le -5-azia Qi=W Got 'oz IiI Z I . o M 02 = EZE . ENâ€¢f O ZI o Z Z "Nt Z ,(90 I D 0(D G Â»NWO. O)-NU.D. WE-50. am-Lt.n, (00-1,1~ S '810'BUNRZE<MEE=lit NG:.:135 Â£<00') fr> Z W<=mim=580*832=mjEmiES.Ex.K@zj M m 11; M QutizE-1&014.Jg. R<mmouoomwww Mettte@Sitif.N}553 Eiei g... z 0 2 0 m am: 20:M Lj 00 992"E ROMbe #999 8 03%21 O NE % w D 0 0&2 Te - 219 2002 m r - 0 Â£:ez.:00* 0~0~~.~09 E NO dNESSSM .: sgzatiss )00-1 *5* mosk#UV & Al-*M:.la~ : gal MENENZEN O 0 XtuR<-- Â«W. 11*0 N f Z z Mmmm =3.-6032 . if~m:*Rge l':i4 Ir: '0 m33% :928:92 Â£ 26-82,80'wa 1\ .. ZWFVOS Zzi .:00 1&15 2/5 KE:.1 . :milivt.-El: - f 3.- gill iti e-Ban@@1:2Eam- W 11. 2@899f 20 47 0 610% 0 :8403:. ma < m= ) % CE U) I Â» gameme .=- 0 U z o 0 9 wm,laitz.<0. 5.WREE f m .â€¢ m , im m me a 2 i a Z . m 2 1.1 Z< Z I. I E I 3 0 1- r 0 -Mbo Z 1-f#I : 5 15 9:,E 5 *039=-mEâ€¢,Em 1 Â®Be 0. @p.MWI; m =2& #Ria ~Pegem @ Af@8&.~if ~~~83 - 1- <0'00.1- I<00 Owl"Z Ni:Â¥02 4 -v' 42:5: Em*53 m.529 â€¢ Â·Â· DIWO,2: Z 2 -Rjbi Â£ 0,'.10 m ./952 3 1/NEW- 2 wkimpi J Q.Jiftn EM wt- 4 T t#%588 m 8 00 W maott P ak98 E i & 12 J , 0 322%%*9 Z Â§ i. im.=mwommi@ 8. 83 229 E ElM 8 YM= 8M p R m U k-[1. UQ.ra.I *W 1,1 0. 0. O 0. W . 0 M g g W Q W g i /* 23 2 4 2 y 4 . X 3 3#. wi~ 200 Z:O,N3 263*' E 5%N%Zi 29E2i==3 c â‚¬ @ ziEg~j. OE @ B XEE MEN:EN - 15Â°NEWIREE=Z G i *1015123*111 3 'Ew" & 11!imii 5 5 0&:05.zio,.0 f ta n. 0 0: O g m A-e O >W S G, 2 Wd-: 0 W a Â¥ 9312 5 6 3 3 zzzz z z 0 0 0 8 0 e ggicm g G G 11 :12%01 01:5123 38"181% i i i 88888:8/8 8 EÂ° 11 lili i Sgm ZE*vi OWW Wee E ue 1 11 1 1 TTTTO.8;611 â€¢â€¢ Â· ,-)1 0 e N @ 6if ia 2 8 0 to T 0 Z U Iw o w w.- '* ' i 3 t 11 1121 Â® 9 11 1 I b . 3. 0 ........311,/ SNOILLDEE SSOMO aÂ¥021 13NNrLL CURVATURE a,0, Soevoâ€¢Vis No Ur!0 30 C]VOM 3-000 "ld 8]lsÂ¥" Â¥0- 2 1,38Â· 1 da 31Â¥0 1001SIO NOI1V1 INVS NOSd INOHi &13ddn =7. MANHOLE =10 dO-1 HITECT C L) SO 0 80550 ZOOZ' lE Jeq 3H-L Ol A.LnliEISNOclS3hi Wkil:id =103213H 80Og '9 Â£ eun[ :pas,AaN 1VAOMch=iVa 8001 'El '6nv :pas!Aekl 18 03#31/~38 SNOISS PROPOSED EL THIS PLAN ROSPE D., SU 900Z '4 Â·idÂ¥ :peniew 323OM S.&133NIDN3 0 800Z 'ZZ Alnr :pamaw OWNER / DEVE AVMTI EXISTING UTILITY POLE OLLINS O EMENT (a31Â¥1 ND Nn k,3.Lv 3 Va1O1'691OZE 13A3-I &21Mol 1.NIOct Mol MOD MS 019101 STIVM+41'91012/LAAdOMO EL**' 07 *aae SJO N3 0 80 M 1.3 A]HONIAA N3O NI -ld 1Â¥ 938 EL t-G:9 7 Ny-Id 10*UNOO lande N3>IOV 3IT13N 01'821-eis L.SPâ‚¬â‚¬9 1 ~LL-LeS L OyÂ© ON1111AWI --6.- W-W PART OF SECTIONS 4 & 5, TOWNSHIP 4 NO WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, 3SklnOO A-IMS N39 A-1 EL+G 9 101 ELÂ·- 9 Abl l E 3OO183AO H 3SVId NVId ICIV ONnO SHNOI:U S.LI NOUr,03X3 AS'SNVId 353 S>WVWH NOUVE)!:I 3-11:108.1 9 NVId WHOIS SON LARIMER COUN -1 10 ~B3S 1/4 POSE ERLAND FL~W ---F#-~e *S I 101 9 9107 N-1 N SHOWN %:178: t:72*2 LEGEND ~ PROPOSED TRANSFORMER PAD NG TELEPHONE LINE R CONDITION CONDENSER PADS Y OVERFLOW ROUTE PROPOSED STREET UGHT DRAINAGE BASIN DIVIDE UNE EFFICIENT XISTING ELEVATION PER THIS PLAN C>-C] C>.0 PROPOSED LIGHT POLES CONTROL - - EXISTING MIN CONSTRUCTION NT CONST-RUCTION ENTRANCE TREE TO BE REMOVE NV-Id NOUrl 1 35Â¥Hcl NV-Id DNI crnio saNnokle 5133HS JO NOI IMOSEG .ON 133HS OPOSED SAN TARY SEWER SERVICE -li 311/Oad 9 NV-Id HI INVSÂ·I NVS V3WV 3&103 OPOSED WATER SERVICE i PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING WATER VALVE 3HS JO X3aNI EXISTING EDGE OFASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED AREA INLET 01 02-04-09 ADDITiONÂ£ IEETS ADDED (St) to No. im | . 9 94 P \ 1 \ O t../ 1% I Z 11 1 0-3 111///// \ ./\ \ EL Z '.-Il-- /4-* Fr.t ,Â«<tÂ« %0 A 0- 2 V / HO.LVW 9ax-1 O = 4 1.4 c < r --1 2 p *.4 .* 1 - 14*/ 6% Ln \ M \\ \ 1 . %â€¢1 4'>-Wk' 8/ 4 /. 1 , 7., 4(, aÂ¢4\' 4;#:Sti/1/~trbbo'',0Â·v'Â· A I \Â· 11/ 0 \\ IA / 1 . 11 1 2,1 1 , 'f 1 1, 1%14,0,7 '1 \\ /#2<,rm,ft . Er'.1 Â· / 0 \ C , L '' Alit/~4Â£64, I,'I, 27 - 4 1.4.0232.' 2 \kll , i .1.' .2 . Â· 14 1\edra . 111.2â€žg 1, 4 â€¢. I- , ' 1 , FE -m 4 71 , -. , . . . 'l 0 O , , / 1,Â·1,â€¢ 'Gl',1 + ..4 '*. 6 - - \1 1 I I . ..4 7 1, 1.,1.,1 f / v. 1 .Â·% " I /4 .., 6, ;';La .. - 4 A ' 2, V, 4 i 1 P., : ,'#â€¢/ '~ ~0~~' 4' ~1~~:f:';,t ' 1 1 1 l I /' I ./ 1 r 1 1 1 1 â‚¬ m 1 * 1 4%14 ~ P: 9/. I. I " 1 4// 1 i / irl . '.14~ > / .1 > / 1 1 9 :1.94 : 4443" 0 I Of 1 4 258 f "20 - , f ' I Â« .Â»a 9 < , Mt# . I., ,-21 C .. I. 4 / 4 , / M , 0040/. t : i Z 4 . 11 V A - '1;,Fi .i 'r. /~ ' | ~| 2 4/ 1 , Ai' t. I m Â· Â· i â€¢ 1 .'~ m.1 5 / /.3 th ... 1. 7 4. / 4,44 , ZIESE . 4 i4,- 1 J +4/ , , 4 2 35:4 1/ \ , 1, . . Ph#, 1 - 14. 4 *8@Ma f Â· . Â·~ ~ 'Â·..F'Â© $ bfti 505Qi r . .wzo 1 ..P , 4 -i ,/ 11 f .IC 0. 41 1 / P. h. I ; .- ty.e,,~4Â»4?* , ir j gett O >9m 36 1 1 / 0, 0 22/5 7 - Aze" /A . 4,4...4.41.1, 'd ill . 1-- F=13% ' i / . p =1 U} 7 .i \ 1 4\ - , =F; p Z. 9,.. \4'f,'7,16?431, I RF f -f - 4 4,4141 W 1 / - -- F 4-IN' U} 0 EMEW '.1.0. 1 + . /i<t f % ...47 / 'tfi' W -Z> J CL 4 .1 I I %1 .4, 4 Fil'Li, 'â€¢ i '. a U) LCEK ,. 1- 44['BUI ' ' - Â°H 8 .C 1, 7 6 4 4 #54.49,9;ill4 1 4 .* i I - gil e ., e 7 .., %FÂ§G td f, , 1 '144 ... /0 c '. 1 /1 '45.wÂ·.:.:, b ,.py t kk 1 .'. Weeg / tr 0 U ..4 4., '111 ... -Â· 4 11 * I..I Id El 0-:682 2% . , f OV.."el'.,5-..,A' Im m J 4 4...5 Fri 'f / 1 / .â€¢ 4 / l ' j 4 44 1, 1 4 4 r '14 l'*43 41, i i Â· '<4:,k,ir*.7, f.,A re K f 1 ! r / P': 1,1 -14 , 6%â€¢, S. , 4,/, '. .4 lai -- ---- 6 1 , -9.-9- . Â£70, t. Â· 214,1,1 Ul,+ . 2 TE::6412:&..1..2< f . ./ t. 41 / 4 , ' AL ~ ~ ~f:f:2 1 Â· . - 31 70----------- 1 -~ ' -1 -4. I 1/6'~ / - ~. ,: / L, .IJ 1,,~,$ i Â·, V 80 . =2 7 1 ,1 . 1 4 0 : 1\ Z 3.H / 1 17 --3 , It' 5 - 1 12\1 t. 4 1,--- . I N. Â· I. a Fiag O= *5 "000,4 1./1 4 %40 1 I . 0 V. / Â« Â· Â· 1 0 2>-:Uth-4 - A : I -0 -*'+ E Â»*Uz I _/ 1 , m o I y.4 --74*- 4 /L/ tr,1,-4 .2 ) . I â€¢ -j m 1 / *14~- 1. 4,12 1 4 / 1. j~*': 1 li ./- \1 11 l f L / 77.040Â»Â»LU- 0 4; . Fil r A 1, 1 (N it, / 1 14 (V-Â·-',Â·-Â·. S ...... -"/'-----'-~1 re Â·.â€ž /7 \ ' , ./ LT-4.- --------- -- r 1 1 14 : 2 1 r---21 31- 1 1 -~----*-c-~-z, / 2 on / i i / 1 , \\. T - F. I . 1 /1, 11 \ / 1 // -i 1-1/ i 4///// --93-4 4 \ MA 1 /\ 1 1 14.1.-- . I , 31Â¥0 DNIM33NBN3 UNn00 23rtlhlÂ¥-1 600Z 'F bon,ged NO 061UON n 17Â¥0 Â·AS O3AA31/~38 dnlll D N ilin m~IU ,0[ 0 HINON M e:Z ItOHOODY 031.VOIO SE LIn 1.Lv lad e SNOLLY-TWIS I NflOWDM30Nn DNL X3 1 YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - PARADE GROUNDS DEVELOPMENT 03AO)(321 38 01 Untln SliON30 . 0)01â€¢13@ 38 01 ONIdÂ¥DSONÂ¥-1 ONUSI C3AOr[3Â¥ 36 01 -131Â¥20 ONUSDG 1 >rly#306 DNUSI)(3 1 33211) 30N33 NOLL0310Bd 33ML DION Estes Park, Colorado BO ALID 'S30NVN]ah,0 -1Â¥DO-1 -1-1Â¥ MLIM 33NVC]MODDV 13!MIS NI C]3HSr WOODY 38 03A0M381 38 01 Â¥32Â¥ 3dV0S0NÂ¥1 DNLLSIX3 NIV,(37 01 13AY&19 SNUSI)(3 | OM)Â¥ 38 01 11Â¥HdSÂ¥ ONILSDG 3910NA 3NOH 31Â¥AÂ¥0X -60,0 REVISIONS Z 25 1 1 1 k'k'j/'4.'ro 'Â¥/3 6 1 1 1 1/ 16 \ 13\J 1 ---,43 00 0- Egr >223=57'ea / / 1 1/ i L -1 1-1 9 - i :\\\/1 1 1 4) -1 -b 1 1 . 1 0 0 r 3: tut, -c * M LU 1 1 i / ' 2----7 c 0 f IT 4/ 1 f .2 1 1 0/51-9 1 +J \/( , I i / 1.1 //l r 2 1 411 F 1(31 35 4 Ely' / 1 7 / Â»-6 1 '/ r, 4~*7Â»1449/4 / Â· 4 ARIELL VW?V . IP ~-4-91 ~ 12 41 /3' m I tr M 12 1 9. /1,Â¥ 521. 4,6 if / I 1 ral\3 \\ 1 7 -9 f ; tor .rff,6- --.l If , 1 4 \04 / tâ€¢96Â·1 \ \ /9.-K-\IX L /./ 6 1 , 8* 5 L V.. 824%110 1 / 9. 1 1 OUZ lilli + 'P.A 549% A 4. , , vk H, / 4 ,1 \/ 93 P - 7/ 0 2 FIE W 9 / < . 7,4.Sk/ / WZ*4 1. 34 , ol': 1 ~ '340 . 'ak r-- ' 40 , . -5 1 \G' f m / / 4 25 --*. - KIA k 44 m mi :. t:*. <3 w 0,-IN . i:2B 01 / b-V -- L â€¢ ,,~*OA Â· \ 584 if 1 I i U) 1=me M WÂ£~9 < *Mgo b . 252 i Â·Â· 7 'T z yf31 , .4 2 / W 5. 3 y ' . ~m w a , / %36'.1 I J .., RE**0 M 41949 1 12 k.Â» e A ./ f, MAY U >12--:Â·21. Lr O Z 26& m li' / i 1 t 1 \1.'Ile,1% 4 4 t El d /\: \U â‚¬ f 2 -11@28 w . ? i \A. 1 4 \-~4' 1 1 -4 i Â· f...&362/4<7 -2- _ p 6 0 ? 1&140Â£&220*;LE 1 /* I j 1~ . 0Nt-- /--33. &/ ./ r.-k h. < .>- - s -Ir..Al.: 1 -1. itt*Bte 11/ '- 1 /1\ i*.A- -2ir--4,/17% I. ..1 7 / ' \ E .... t*44/47 4 - 1(, 7 042, .r-----I, -/16 3:1- 71. . i: 1 44 =----r--[1 .P-- ht=- f i it Â·! i" 1.1 .4 1.97- 1 + / 0 a , 1 i eli r--- A 1/ , \- 5 1/ hÂ»]425/ C, 1 , 91 .//Â«7~ \ c m 1 4 1, 1 11 1 El I /1 ..I 91 5 /506 \ 0 Oil 45. O 1 1 4 1 // 0 5 056 1 5 Â·' Ftc ' 1 t-+ f / iâ‚¬=====G 1/ 1 r-- _1 1 b. f :,1 i 11 1 \ 2 * j /1 1 K ll'Â·\ a \ d 4/ i i i41Â¢5 4 +~~.:,4 4, / 1."fy 1 .9 9. ~ ! 1 TI I Lu il_J \ 7. , '1 1 .9 lil f / 1 1 1- )- \1 T 1 1 i , / :-\ 2 6 I .1 1. Elva DN833NI9N3 UNROO H]MIHÂ¥1 6002'P Â·Ati 03â€¢A316'361 3 EloNVNICâ„¢01Â¥301 4 33NV DÂ¥ 38 01 >tdOM "079 9 Nlilne~~...., ,0 H.1-NON 03Aoll3ht 38 01 Al.nun SELLONI30 %:17'\2 03AOIN38 38 01 0NldÂ¥OSON,1 9N[LSIX3 03AOr(38 38 01 -1]AÂ¥89 DNLLSD<3 (13AO#38 38 01 >I1VM30!S DNUSI)(3 (NtÂ¥M32 01 3381) 30Nld NOLL3310Hd 3381 YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - PARADE GROUNDS DEVELOPMENT 15%@92?EBRIVE Â· 3}Â·LLOIDN aLVA]Ud e SNOLLY-TTY.iSN Estes Park, Colorado 8 01 Â¥3hlÂ¥ 3dYOSINrl ONUSIX] NIÂ¥l[3Â¥ 01 -WVND SNUSI)(3 ~ ., :> 1 11Â¥HdSÂ¥ ONLLSD(3 80/ NOLLVAY X3 3hl0838 S31 ~ PHASE 11 3* 1 NOILVW O=INI NOLL OUTON Mjl 1 p* \ rl /L- / 1 152/ \ \ /\ 9 \ \ 1 %1 / A / tÂ«/ f / l / 1 1/ X /// 1 00 / , '. '. 1 - L /6 99917 2.1.1.1: , / 7 / i V b ' i / f ,\ 1 1 1 %14 i\\ - 1 / /1.1 1 /11 i , \16 .\\ r / j / / 11 215,1/ 4 j Y i ,? 6- : \i / / 1 1\ P f~ FE 4-ty ..1 / k,4 : - ~AV 4, . / E I 2111 /6 2.\hro\(v \ i / / /1 il / \\ 9 11 / /1 A //, / S I. P>.All -J# -e R .. 1 / ) hi I- . .- /11\ 1 11.\\ - 1 \\ ~ ,Â¥/1 2 41 96\/ \ // / k 4-,XmÂ«U\ A / C / 14 1 -1 ,/ ..4~/7/ Pt ift 2/4 i A U //\ 1.iriffEETEri#Emeii:'> /.4 1 a \ 1\ rt j k / 14 1 t// 43*29Â§9> I x A \ 4 1 1 Â«1 / 04 14 40.. ...1 UÂ» \ \ 5 1 42 -\/- / / ~f Ift \\\1 /) r :Â·-44.Â·.cÂ¢ \ / I \1.1 / --4r i 3 /4 j ' \ 11\ / 01 / 14 -- 3% m 1 â‚¬ .4* 1 ~44 >4 / m 12 \ N k\\ 1449 .4 1 y f Nqirriay,1 1 1 1< tf-?~4 /... /\ \\ V. 4 th. C 63Â·32\ i '7-h / Â·~ ~ ~ ~j / \ pt 1 \ \ 1 / Mmi \1 t \ 3 1\t tj h 1 /14( / / ,-/1 , :ir: * Y %1~4 *{f*, 'i ~ 4 \\ 1 \ \ //\ 14 t, ' 71/ 1\ \ \ / I. ...... 6 NA * 11% / 4 L \ I Z 58,0 9 08 53- 1 \ \ \ .z*.12 2 .,2.~a w s ~. 94*EL / 1 0 W O_, \ \ '1:. u A *498- i -Â£ 1 '634 ji\1 gliumb i OK O 1 . \4 5%=g W >W / 11 \ 9/ \ / i. 93Â» 5.92 0 \ \ \ 5 11 -'~'- 4~~ I / 0*5 e p:W Z m \\ , 0-3 114 44,3 \ / '/1 // Fis---\ ~\ \ 3% 0 8 li' U ~ 0zEN / H \\ - :RIE. 4 1 11 V. oz..0 u \ \\ 1 Inm O > tw I g \ \ 1 1 \\ .hoto * 1 ' '01'!@ 0 LA mignE R / 1 t\\ 1 1 4 12 * inges R tl , , 37- Ii i ~ Y )< ---1\ --\212 4 82959 4W i \ - ... .to 3 \ L E>AIN\ \ \ ..5 13\ \ \,1 .JEO \ \ i '1 -/*-- - tb r 1% G, --- 74 % 11 01.-\U/=r--l 41 \ Al \\\ F~ 3771/ ' - \ 4 1 V// 4 1.// I l. r m\ ~-1 a P \/q \ * / li 1 l/ ,4 1 \ 6 4 \ \\ 4 '4 1 f 4.4 1â€¢ 1 \ 11 1 /1*1 \ V W , /' \34} \/ z , \*-+ q:j -- +- .--1---#*. : J U -1 fr z w i 1 0 1 I.gldi fi 905 ~ 1' 1 ''" ' '4 - 2: Â£&&4 ga 0 Â·,fb i )-u theD 8515 \\ 1 96 = M Mg ZZO P Â»t lbL.Fl 1 1/// f -_ -- --- --- -- -- ---~Â« -- 1 / b f 2 / F em 1511 =10 4 Z / / /--V 1 0 li \ - li:1.,&*Â·toloÂ·:,),);3:6:4*2~ -3 \ / \\ I i-X '-- \ \ 4 - U... ./ ..Lutr- 3 \00Â·, Â· .',neÂ·, .vk, ,-:'. 1,'t:iâ€ž.Â· . 9 ,\ . 11 1 le" W./(5\ 4'UF'.11.,A,1 .,14-Iii'Â·.4,j'..Ya .-_- b r 4'' 'Â·'IÂ·' 1. 1bi'= '' '-5 'llt<*Mff- 01 f / \A i / 1 2 ': 4.5 ~\\ WO..':i.:REE;'."Ir,41:4?40 0 ~ _ / * : / a -E.962*52/9'-'1?~i~,b,4,92/4\ b f.. %-* ' A \R'AF,* \ / ff?i~* ; 4.413Â£fi,414.1.1~'/'..4..'.."fl) 1, / 9 <r , 3 4; 1...:ff,1..''t 3 4*ki,91,1 l &5 / M L j . .1 E>OSTING SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED -~ EXISTING ASPHALT TO BE REMOVED 03AO,(38 38 01 -GAÂ¥80 ONLLS[)(3 NIVI'{35 01 -[3AÂ¥89 SNLLSDG ~ .~Â·Â·2. - 03AO.]H 38 Oi V3hlÂ¥ 3dVOS0NÂ¥-1 ONLLSDS ~ OAOI'(38 38 01 SNIdVOSONÂ¥-1 DNUSD<3 a]AO,3hl 38 01 kirILLn SEUON30 (NNM38 01 332.L) 3ON33 NOUORIONd 33111 (28) 80 iae4S NV-Id NOUnOWaa 6002'# MOn,qed DNIH33N1DN[3 UNn00 83,â€¢18Â¥-1 Â·*8 03M.31A321 dnoll INillnsloo ........1 610 A.LID'Â£30NVNI REVISIONS YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - PARADE GROUNDS DEVELOPMENT 19NJOMOODY C lad e SNOUL.Â¥TT,lS Estes Park, Colorad d NOLLVAVO 11...0 P no,l 380:132 n 1,9 Â·slanan ~ ~nal DESCRIPTION ~ #Uppe'/FT'*Prp'*I * '129:Fia:-:ek:2222* Naucitr:,20==Sce. i ...., Wilimmgo Ii#35&#33:M:M#,05 M Â¤ *gs03955998522&~ISE (N U EN~*21Â¤8E86*:,i.296:101:842MAS"IgRN:3*MR8;qe'ge:INRN895!22 I -,PEE,frceverepr,4,014:reeper<*Corw;55756 ViI ,4 'i M -------------------------------------------- Prpr"P. B 1, 08**,FFW?iffi:CCeterge F'g 2%*0':229, ue pf :e-~-t wk#Epri -4 Pliâ€¢!MI,MI'In,i'rn.,Ip, zizz,zz i../F=t,rilizhi,z,Ii,zz.z.z z U) M:*NAR:*24**Dkak.&20,2bbE/*b ...i>k>hhkkth,t:h'*h,hkn w ..==.sh=,_.El=M~*00=US.XEBEâ€¢WZ4<CgOEBUE#ORZE*43* ~~71-99 1"39 9==Pr 593=991! 9.91 1,DE 925=7" 'r Â°Fr R 9c 999 99,1 .-1 :213416': =12149:ohâ€¢%'JeciMMI!212J,Iâ€¢14143Rf Il E ---lill----------------------------------------1- im:si2mOzmm:s::=EiB:3::::sizaÂ¤mzS#'gzj2i#aio6i%mm ' ------------------------------------------------- I:waggaamâ€¢Swgijam,339033095905333DjOMS:533533:333 1 ijil 5 \ , 1= 0 , 4 -2.,36Â§ r.4.:a, u. ..9 . rmil / 11 \ // ; IL--\ \ 8 /050tz li ~ i \ :or--ffilt ~-~ Ll 1 \ 1 \ i r- SJ Â¢., 11// /, 4--- , I \U \ \ a ---- \ e \ \\< \ 2 \Â¥/ 1/ I \/ 1 \ \ \ =5.2 i'F..----\ \ // - 1 -..d i /5/1 //// t u--~ ,--/ 3 i V ./ 1 1 ins ./// \ \ \ %\ U. 1 1 Â£Â»=. \\ - 1 \ / I It i 0 1 \ \ Qi 1 \ *-*--1 \ \\ \ 1 \ i 11// ) 1 . 1 \V i , I \ \ - \ \44 1 1 \ Le ) \ .4 --- W . \ It .. 4 1 1 ~ e 41, 0 .glzt 9 9 4, i I I\Â° ' ' 9 - . I d \ A ir- 6 2 1 4 1 \Â·--35.d I *,9 63 2 1 *:,r 1 . 4 4- ti~61 4 5 1 m 11 toi. S. 94- . 1112+1 t I Â¥ lili,1-11 ~ 8, 1 :1,111 Â·92, 20 - .0,2.-+.4 6 P. 6 2 ,Â·i, * &13 1 % , L Illill -4 JE,6 tl 8 1111111 - 3 .* 7 . u * I ef \ -5: 5 -- r., h- -Wh 44 4- fa- . ---11 e. 1 4 tii it - * .-1 *61 \ 9 . 4 In 4-1--Al:Ar--Â»- -- -A I 10 \ '; 'pr 4 4 - --4:. K- I . .. 111 . ..... f <12 , lili " - -- 2 1 111 3 . .. 2 lili 1 \ 1 .31%\ \1 -- 2 33 i ....R - f. 1 5 . / d-0 1 \Ci \Â·CÂ· 7--= #4 / K (O I n 1 1 -1-11 ---- 0/: 1 V IÂ·+1 1 ' $= < *bcom: i . ...1 ....5 -'9Â·h ------:61*c>. -1 (3Â© ./ 6 N 14 1".,f" ..0 - , 9 3:9 -0-* i Ve .rp. & e Z 4.-/fl~%.ail '... + TAJE~il 1:Y62'<162,;Gilmi,4 7-7--7 >,4 - I.-:d . 7. 5 81 44 11 // /11 iÂ« S- - 1; 1 . --3 L_i 1 - 1 :94 , ... 1 7--a 1.--- - ~ -- 1 -. 1 ---/ ,----ZIZZE-4> '' i. 8% â‚¬. -1 jf - 1 it ~ 1. . 1 1 --------- 4 C-*./ .::\ -- 1 i /1 .22* 0 1 , // / fl 7 /9/1 E 1! 1 , .,6\ IF------ 1 It-1- It ! +22.-7,4, 1 - \F 1 ' i 1 1 . %3Â»tr-*D /0- A.9 1 11 1 1/1/ \> 41 - #- \ 1 4 \E '91 41 6 .4 , "./.- 1 4.. lie \ I . NY-Id 1O21NOD 1Â¥1NOZIEIOH 31Â¥0 9N1h[33N1SN3 Al.Nn00 83MIHÂ¥-1 3.4,ZZLEN 0Â£Â·9 WN .. 600Z 't Alon,qed NOU ZON Â·18 O3AA31A321 M I 1 1 n S~~~ ~,iw 0NnOaDh[30N~~~ OND- 3Ht Mod ,04 YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - PARADE GROUNDS DEVELOPMENT \YMCA CONTROL INJ |(]r).4.TZ"|NE'.'E~Er=S Estes Park, Colorado EXISTING FIRE Prr -all.ON ]SIKÂ¥131Â·LLO SSnNn 3NI-MO-13 01 3NFW,0-1.3 ),1083 38Â¥ SNOISN3M!0 HOSankl CONTROL. POINT 11Â¥AÂ¥0*3 80 00Â¥hl \ f 11 11 , 1 1 V#* , W A W / ' 1 49f, 1 '% 9/ \ 5 /1 . m\ \ \41 \14 \ W. A, I 1 4 \\ w 3 0-'161- \ 1 1 1 j :.9 -4 1 -h-' , >---- 1 0 \ / f.\ al 4 \ 1.-4 r 1 \5% 7 \-Er- , { 1 10 U . -- / 4 iv i 749 1-- - r -,f % I ./ u' 'fl'~i'I'~-'~.~:- I . /L \ / 7-4 \ O Z 1, / t< 44 --LEs:~-> ~~ vA \\4 .// 111.,1 J h / 1 5 7, 1 4 - 3 1 1/ 1 . .r -*49 * ; tl g~-ucif / /10 -.Â«f \ 8. . 1 *15 -- I 11 1 i # , # T r- 1' f\ \ f- U / /1- 1- -- ks) J CLA 1\ : 1-3- - 11 40- l St / Ff ) \ .1/0 91 /1 bag - ev 1( f E =. .3.Z /32//f , 1 3...1 b -0 118 V*kâ‚¬M-/ + W /10 - \ 1, /1.-146- / 1 /1 - 4- LÂ° 9,\ U ' 1 I.--\ - g % C.7 \~1 \11 / \ '44 // E...Ped,74:.5) // 1 In i . I / 5 ( 0/ f I t. 6 1 r~ e 7Â£:9*- -M*< i l \ 1 1,% 4\ m ,~ 2 i / ed 1 1 J"l A -4 . 1 791 0,/- . Â£ 0-~ f ill - 1 \\\111 1 ./ '9% %/ /11 1 i 1 1 " n 4"4 4 -3 I \-/-=.4111, 1 1&- 1\ 1 14 . -7 4 4 *5 f / 1 - mo .- ~ 1 1 -923:fj /1 1 \ -140 4/ \ lia#90 \ 1 ~ ... 4 Â· 1 1014 / 9- r--19 tt j 1 / - hn 06 6+ lilli i / 90 ' i' 1 ' zk - -820 Â· /Â»/ /, l>4.- 1,\>< - / h r,~ ) f -Â« =.22Â«22..1 -< 9%&00.--0~,~~-~~ / 1\ <' 1 * 1 1 \ / ~| M Ai14% 1.7 3 4,- / 8 .4 E / jWI 12, 11 2 3 ' ' rÂ· f 1 <4 , 9 -f. f Ki / -4 . 0 it- 1-93 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1r Z @ .... .-\- .--- / r 1 ) 1 1 / // 411 \1 4 / N , Zp 9_. / / f,Ill, -iE _ -7Lx--M~i / ~ \ 9, l ~ 1'2Â« e e ~ Â·~ -, k â‚¬ ~ R i '1 h / 1 -1 . z / / 1 1 ON...3 i 4 ula 1 11 1 3 A ixi f 9 4.92\'..1~4\, RE~ 9 1 1- 8-*m@ 1 0,4 1=.. ' EENE 'L f f f \\/ \11/% / ' - 181 /9 9 / 1 1/ Q \ 1 Y j r -3, \ , 9.r. / h & I. I r 1 / '-555 5.9. 1. w Â¢ 41 ~ 1 d Z. \ i id ellij L - ,Â·~ C ~'68 0 .-* --- / .~ IN eeci! N 4 4 .4-1 - -- 1 -, <*=MI 7---- 8 'a~ Rh , lit % ill 11 5-- 1.--\\ E NE L '1 :Ze 01 4 41-- 7 2 */ 3 1 *h ig ill' 6,1/0Â·-1% 0 * S /\ 4 - R - - WNS 4---- ) 8 .21 - 6 1 i / 4/ I --7-6, i A-- \> t. /2. / -1 11 S Ehoo :M th l'rp99=UFA-8~ r -*---Â·-Â·Â·-...~.._\ fix f- 50 231 11 11 -1 - i S + 1 -Im :R: 0. -/.Â«4 r. f 2 -4 1 SO 1Ii 1 t.+ 4. ' , 1 @1 1 1, t -/.1' L .r. 'lilli :I 11 / 1 ':111''I'rml; 1/ T.4 'L,19 -11, 1: 1 lili 2/UG ~ Â£ Â·16 + 1,u:*,Â·bÂ·A+r...4 / . 1 Â·Â· ; ,- : ,- Â· 3 ,90/5/V/KL~unOW b , vl - 5 --5 L -/11 0/ - '.'. 4.4 - 1/ / 6. ~< 01 ZE / O.k r-- / i -_ (:00. , . ..2 .r .6(44. . - -- 47,." 1 - _i~~ 1 7 ./.1 .'' . t , . - 443+ / , /, i.>3 .\ - . 11 ) 0 3-1 i / 2- \. ~t '' i rfÂ¢/ 79) 1 1, 1. , 13SVHd- V-Id Februory 4,200 9NIHE]3NDN 3 UNn03 83)NIZIV-1 Â·18 03,4,3IA3ht lilli 8Nll,nS/AN, ,Ol ,0 HlkION YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - PARADE GROUNDS DEVELOPMENT 8002 18VHdo '091 Estes Park, Colorado - 6191 8006- =- 03h133NI0N3 00Â¥h10-10 '0Nn089 11 38Â¥Hd OHSING 01 SMI@ SNLLS AOÂ¥ NI SAYO SSiNSne BEGIN 1 S]unin &0 1 11 1 47/ Iii/ 1 .4 < $ .\ I 0 1 /0 \\ L 0 \ \ \ \\ 75 4 \\ , ~ /1.- G e \ /\ C. f Z Â¥ U-Â¢ 9 A\ / U i. 1 /1 1 / / \\ /.4 2/ 8 < 91 0 O Z 1, li , 13 \/ f .6 0- 4 U- PHASE m iÂ« 1/ 1 R xÂ· \ t if 1.2 % \ 1 --1 p.â€¢St b V 4'\ 1 lili ecle - 00 0 \\ -i -4 +Lb 6 --2 3 1 Vv/ 1 / Holww-9-ds , - f- - -- j' 0 d * ? - / d r /l / -v ,' '- 2: , - , te . ~*F 2.81 / 0 g \ 1 0 - %/=8 2 22\ f i g I 'Vi ft \1) 37 i-g 09 / \ r 1 / * 1 1 , 1 30 1 .-. 1 / 1 I\\1 1.1 i.!11 1 111 0 1 : .gh : %1 1 1/ 000 . 191 \ 0 & a .110 t 1 ~ = - 4 i~~i 3 A 3,1\ 1 4 1 rk/4 . f\ \ \ 1 . 9 f #4 / V // i.. -8@ f .2 &4 0 yx. / U. 9 1 /1 \ i th 6 7 qF / , 12 .,1 \ A / f / 1 - --- 'P.; --X / 4 r ity 4...,S , / 1/1 % / f 1 1-1 4/ 1 \ m / /4 , , 3 11 k i.i / 1/13 / / I l\\ , 1 2. Na 1 ici '1 / 0 S N 2 - 4 1 / ' I 1 ' Re 0, ~ 4.1 1 : I / 1 144 1 1 6. wk \ 1 h TY -.i / g./ 0-F .. / L ' / lilli! j ~ 4 <- / i : \\\\\ /t 01 m. li - 1/ for - 42 / 8. 0/ f / 1\ . , P 4 -1 / 1 2 5 0 d \- - 1 - 1- - - 2 - ' 1~ f 1 d 1 - 001: 1 ap. P ::CM 1 6 Al $- 6 1.. '\ V 1 / / / 0.- 1 / - I \..M.-f I . 82 0 4 - <I 2 9 0 (%/ 9 -1 1 L- 1 lf) ) fi \ if : 1- :/ 1 \9 / li /j F : 1 0 1 t. 5.9.6 | 2 455 1 - 0 0 1 h / 0- <Z-W MZ:Fi ' / i \A.. R - # 74 1 ' M- N f : 4 Uf . / / X \ 1 , 1311 1 / / ' 1 1 f Â£ f //~/ /2 - Z /.r 12 28 4/4 i 2 20 9 1 - 40 9 ME .5% 36.~ , 2/ I -I#: O ./ -1 21 1 i -1 18 0 thÂ©0 5. (\\ j i -O - D g 1 -12 V. 0 - - -i I g /1 - 0 / O 4 40 WE l. f m '1 0 NE& i[ ~ M N 04432 .Â· ': i .- -110, I \14 3 -#... c b ~* 0,/ 5*81 :' r <1 2 / - \4 Â·Â· . , r.' U ..., r / O . 1 4.I % 0 \ 1 1, D- 1 " " teÂ· .1:2. f I ----I -I.-J..t j / / / 1...4.2....E>/7 1 1 9 4% I 4 I 11 '1 h . 2 4 Nk, < / 4 2 11 2 /.. Ctc.. . s .1. j I r.-2 \4-- . Â£ 4 1 ' I. 17.1 $ I 1 f 4 I- li I ... 9 4_ i \ 1 6. -: I w ..~ 1 . 1 , f - 38Â¥Hd DNIH33NI9N3 ,UNnOO B30[INV-1 Â·Ati 03~*31A321 inoBS IllnE~~~IM U 0 81.MON EXISTING YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - PARADE GROUNDS DEVELOPMENT FIRE PIT 1 96 1 Estes Park, Colorado 8002 d9133HS 33S 8004 3Nn 3SVHd PHASE I 03B33 NtDN3 8006-~ 9 03 HSINW -do dol 'CINFOOD 03HS,HU 01 SYNIki ON~LSDG TIV 1Snr A I SAVO SS3NEr,8-Z Â·sjunin EVISIONS / 1 1 /1 / -/\ 2//\ . , 1 1,U; 1.- 1 -- 1 j JfÂ·Â· 11,4 .* -a - - 10( , .Ii~~ =N= 4\ / r i 4/ k \ : \ - o \ r- O. I N Zt g / 6 ~ } 2 1. - 2/ 2 -y / > /%)\ f 1.1% 01 A 1 0 0 , / W a < 1 / 2 1 , 1 - *% / n / 1 0 \ 0 - 5 1 , 1 jr j ./. 4 1 1 1 41. 1 1 iÂ» 4 -4 1 1 1 8022 04 -- 0 1 le- 0 . -- .1 -1- M S : 4 . A... . jill 1 L., V eÂ¥ 0 R Â£ 1----- /2 .; t-> / ; fiji \ .\ 1Â«-2... 1 / 1 -1 , i .4-+ t 1 .. ..15, < i1*Uvrfer f V \ \ i , ; ; t ~ 1.... #. 4--~ azla43Â·Â·'- Â· B ' / i / \ 1 - .r / / 1 Â©1 60 > / / / \ / -' .8 - P / ff 4 1 0 3 mil k r *1' / 4.3/4 - e- 2 / '.... l - -/ - \ / 2/f < \ \ / / 09 8 0 ' 1. l 0 iii .2- \ i /0 91. 00 ' if 4*1-1 1 LL!/ " H /////3 / 0 4 6 1 Z /M N 4%% 01/ i I \.j / / <I x m.. 1 . 111 0 -1 - /- . - 1 L liz 3 \ / 06 .411 \ \ 1.Jit Wil / / 11 /: m /h \ \ 1 / / //\{- OiL tri . --- f--4-1 1] 1 } >t i \1 1 / W 1 1 -,44 \1 e 1, - - , 2 7 W JA<Jt~.16 i -- t / \\. 1 l - /1 11 4 4Uir / ' ni . .4 -/ e \ ---*~Â·- 0 - L- . 1 /, 1 f ti i , 4 N;*.Ut -- ,' 1, 3 3/: /- n / / VE+ \ 4/ .U 5 -11 0 . / I >1 1 - M .1, 1-0 7 0 -' 1 1 1 0 4.. . 1Â« 't 4 ,- R ' -8038- 1 I , ~3-~I'j ,~<~. ,~i<.~ /1 *i Aa --,4Â£, .v , \ Â· E h .. N / l o., v 1.. ' C.:I''p.1 / i % 4, ls:1,0: ty C 0 /*I<:.; / L 4% f -9 1 1 1 3+ u i- / 1.4(3pc:~.4:..g:n.:6 N 1 ' ..beÂ·.91 ... / 2 ave ~' 1 E- s -1--2---_-f . 110/ -. 6 f 1 + 8/ . f ..9 1 1 41-- 4-4-4, 60. , A - 1 ... ). W i VE NE / 1%1 525 -1 g 1. 1/ 1 1 + )6 J I pp~ \ dge=Ng \ - 4 252 Lj / 1 ~- N R â€¢54 4 .1 1/ +3 1 , P' ip i 5\tic , \ .eb \ 2- 9. - I .' * I -- 4. -. -3603 -9,-.-- Q 9= I j 4 1 i -- 220 =8@ < 7.... e .1 f -% .. di.2- -:\ AW M,J. 25=.b 7- 9-#... I. -- <--Â·-~.**-21 7 Â«. 'rerÂ¥- W --Â· - // V.....tgÂ» i. 25 *#53 \1 - f \ -s- 2 1- 2/I/ :1 & b. 1. m 2 / :..1.%%444 7 <4 1 j ' &15 . Â» 26/2 9-<f'. '1 , 1 4// 1. \ 0 \ j---348040 1 / 0%1 L 1 \ / .-6 / di \\\ 11 1 , -,-.11 1 rut) -*- + I E H f 449Â© 1 j 4/ 1 7 / -yer --- -- g J .N \ 1- /1 1 04 C , 1,4 ':Oill i / 1 1 i ,' 't k{~i ~ 1 1 2.44. f 17/,4 1 1 1 1 11 11 I-,1 .rjo v , A--p \ 5 /E,9 I j 1, 1 ./liu 1 :123/..,,4 ~ ~ 8 .. >D- Aail / 0 13 W 91 W J I J .1 1 0 t, /1 I f f , 1 '1 ' .00. * -* 6 -1 irr. 1....j .,- 4 - 1 0401 1Â·- .4 12 P \V- \1 0 7- 4. 2 ' f I. â‚¬22*Â·-42- 6 . M q h WW: \ -- 9 --74 4 3 26. e. Â¤500 MEME ------ --- S -----1- = --- 3.. Â£1â€ž04 ... . I -f\\ 0 i 1 1 I __ |b **/ 1 26 1,Â¥ 1 l' 1 . PHASE I 3.L DNIN33NION3 kiNIn00 be,IllkIV-I -8020 VSOMEIGNOd 9209 NlaÂ¥119 Â·*8 O3AA31A38 9109 ELEV= 19.51 "0,9 0 Ntilne~~,AN, YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - PARADE GROUNDS DEVELOPMENT U.88 Estes Park, Colorado SEE SHEET GP6 032133NION] 38 00Â¥H '0NnO'10 03HSING at SMIM SNLLSD(3 'C n080.g3HSINW JO 801 hIO -1.I 351Â¥ Siunan HlkION (1) 01 r- 2z c j reS Ir 1 â‚¬ I , 1 1,/, f 1 / / 4/ 10 1 111 4/ \\ 71 It z l\ 7 - \1 l/ itl 1 1 1 1/7 0 1 . 1 1 .....Pl. 1 3 1 I / r/\ 1/ 1 1 1 1 6 ....94 4 0/ f\-1 (0 / / 0 A V \ /1 \ 1 / \ li i 1 + IJ' I i.-2,/~IÂ« / / f i / 7 \li g \ %4.*.4 1 1 1 N. r -' i m \ 1 /1 Y\ A /24 1 1Â» // / 08 E f / ~11 1 F49 h 7 r 'p~ V / g e Â· \ \ 1 21 /0 2/ / \\ 11 4 \ \\ / /// R 14\ . 1 2 Y..9 ... \ .L , e * i f < 4 i\ \ IJ " 1 0 / \\ < t 424.00 / _4\l A j.\ \ 11 040 - ...... 1 .-1 y /, / 14 V /9// f - - 1 L--, / \ /1 4 /24/ 1 4 i \ A , 1 = 9 4 'It y / 4 0 ~ '*Â·t < T ie ./ I .... /\l 9 - 11 j / 1X + 1 \ f 7 t / N . I .1/2., \ j (4 Â· , 4 >0 & f \.4 , P. 7/ 4 9 j 4 2 1 / 9......1 i C ' f 1 l i / i /4 : 8 \1 1 1 / 0 / , 9 .-*' \\ '152- -i 1 , 14 \ 80 1 2 4 ' 4 13 ..Â· - I , A , 14* tal:g a \\,ri- Â·i 0/ 1 \ \ MA 3\\ f / ./4 1 , he i : . \ 1 1 42* 1 U \ \ 14/ / /0 1 \\ 1.14 , 8 1 1 1 =4 / 0 ' / v\710\ /V 47 / 9 2 93 0 / 1 V \ / ./Â»NN : 1 -C NA\\ ./ 0 i \ f /,CE V / / u.\ A -- / h . w r /1 \ \\44 A \\ 9 A \ . \1 -r ~ 5 _L-0-207 V 1 1 - r--7 Co\, r -1 0/ 1 -~------~ \ \ : f, il' -f <*.73 I r 4 r 94 e f \- '0\ \\ 1 - 1 \ \ \1 .Â¢ 1 4 L 14 \/ 14 571 , r f < J .I 0 \ 0-4/-3/ 0 1 1\ v' \ ' \ / li 1* mq / i ggi ENE M \ %\ 0 4 8 i . ti )r - - - -/1 - - 0 ::m LiÂ· 1 \ ~PE~M j j // 6.-/ -4-11\\ :+ \ \\ 0 a \\ \/1 - b /0 W + 0 L-- & A: \ ' '' 1/2/ 199/3 i / t : A 1.-*-* 1 Â· - , 9 M ~ 4 11 ~ :uit; f Â£ aw a \ \4 \ r 1 \ -W m il.R 1 1 1 \ i 1% --t- 01 0 91 2 1 4 / N i â€¢i 4 /1 1 r 1 1 0 \ \ t \ 53 9 h'-h m 8 4 \ 1 Â§Â§= 0 b f 000 \ 11 ./ , / 0 \1 N. 0 PHASE Ill J 3/ 073 PHASE 1 4 1 1 30 45% -- 4%-- : zjam -g B / 2 1/ l... / H5IVW-g29 ---/ p ' ~ / 'it i / (/ 1/ - Mv/ ,/ 0 61 \ 1. 2 0/0 3 V ,\I \ , f 1 '09 - g k , h .7 1 -in'\ 1/ 9 i / 2 1 1)2 1 6,\ 0% C - ' 1 \ 2 1 1/ 4 1 - /111 1 0. 0 4 1 i\/ / t / 1 X3==;2 - ,-0 / / r / i - ' 17 A. , r 4 1- 1 I ./ . 31VO ONIH33NIDN3 .UNnOD M{3011 111 3SVHd - Februar,4,2009 Sheet Â·AW 03~3~38 MO ON,11nl~i- YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - PARADE GROUNDS DEVELOPMENT s Park, Colorado 03833NIDN3 H1LV3HS 11Â¥M ONINIV]3H NO[103 NIa-!InG '(]Nnoho 03HSING 01 SIlly ON NI SAV SS3NISne 31Â¥AÂ¥0*3 80 '30Â¥hdO '010 Â·Sitinlln 838,0 10* 03 0 L 0 HlkION 1 38Â¥Hd Â¤ al'721> : E 60/0 4 -j /' 1? 0 - \\ 1*1 i . 0.0.0 h -- al rÂ·:.:.r~Â·r=r:zÂ·zz.Â·=v .7 /5/ 00/ 4 41 1 4 .g GIN@ ; 0 494(Fill" h. \ 1, 3) , 2 :' . J re . . EI V/ I m , f I. 0 2 5/2 9993 02 ZE EE-ER Ill 5 0 -m â‚¬ ge qu . iiI 1 7 . m :.9.g -B.- ~ = E â„¢11â„¢ 5-54 044 -9 . Â£y~0Â£ lui \9â‚¬f 1 d 0 .< 0 0 0 0 -C Z > 5 5 Â·i CL .O a) r Â·211-~- --- . - el .- N . lip % \4 \ R O 0 /\ I - 73*-ir.f 5 - I ...i 33:32-3-3-%*< 0- 1 10\ ~ W -I N--1,1 "V 't .- -9\ . Â£48*. . h. j h. . 1 - ..2 qi 2.044.-4.94. U 4 - >.- 4:Ln:==rat:-5.:~ 0 ~ ~fÂ·:~~~~_ 3Â«Uffr ,,. --..- - 1 8. ~ ' -.47:*rÂ·Â·Â·- I J \1 \*k 1-- Â·Â·- -32194 : i 1 Hn III 1 eli , \ \3%: 0// //730 .,1.\ *.42 ' , . 34 ; A-p 0.075 & *4* I- I z:Lâ€ž// i i. ha t ,=36747* . - -7.--- 1 1 f ... 1 \ - - V 4/ s -ix f >... "44 Z O I ;t. - I. I - -- /,/ - - arcul. / I. .,\ 9 . / *7 N . 3510/..-/-22,Â«\-cz- C// /4 \ f- / 1/ x- x 1 :46, - Â· -ir Â»**Â© 0-24 215-2<434.---,4.:4 ,~~~fff ~ ~~~Â·\ .Â«71.,it 4 Â»h#:> 1 1 .11 'P / \1 ~elÂ«.Cor-9 . .... #d//$#I- -- -*77~4 I / 4; 14 -14 - < f/.A{/ti , i k ...1.41 0 i 8--,40 N f 'u./00 k I i i %1 1 1 I -* 4 Â¢41 , *61...FN Q ./ Ish. I - Â»A / M - B Â«W/990 -8-led t U 30'l 1 A. ' 1. V Â·Â·a A '1 I~ '1. " j..1./6.. n 4 ki 'll *A Â£79 r 3 /1 i ---7- 1 N E / 0 I j 04'ixt # ,i.i~ ujg -- . 3*Â«41\~.:61 2:191 5- --- L-4 - j < 9. 911.1 1 ~Ig/ 7,3 Mir' v, i L i W- < / l f t / -Na. /4% I I \ h. I - 111 1.1 1 I - 2 3\. 1 1111111 1 1 7 ./r V ih 1 1 l. _1... 5 30: --5 ,rtn.~ >931*Â§ :iliIN" I C / i <4 offil.'t%0 9/ , , /2/~. 1 \ 1 \ 0 1 t/ 1,- 0 M+ / 1 1 'j. 41 f l.L..2 j / 1 / t.... -re: u '4 2 : 1~ $ ...- - - -Â»Â«304â‚¬'ll"j:! ///02/ 4 1 j <2--7,1-~A0 ' 1 jo "91,1 . 3 /LATT. -42~~-pr6, 4~Â·Â·Â·1.Â·~ 1. ~Â·<>443/ ~ d / 5-4 Fair / 1-ll <w 23: 1 - 06 * \ I. i ...lili \ ; .X: .11 < 1, El 1 1\ /2 i - 441 .2 320.. . 0 .:$22. ATE.'1#1 J - 0 76 I 1111\1 ,/im " 4 --/ 1 1 Â§1\ 1 1 1/1 1 1. 2 . ' j \. .... - 41-3170.(4*.\<5:1. ~.17dl'1111,1~111 0.4 V 4 .=1316 1 (82 . \41 f- .~ ~ ./ // f -1:5- -- , Ul ......7 - \~ -441332<I .-1 9-,E}1 :\- J>92 1 0- .4. , 1 Â®ill O di f ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~:~ _~ ~~~ ~~ ~ / .Gy fp\tF 2 -~. >Â«Ll I ).:/2 *34~1. a 41 i .. t k r O le Entr> 1 4 + i .~ \ f. \ 1\ ' 11.-~ ... ..7... :.fl , .,8,-1 .r..-tlf.jj ~ Ill 4 - t.â€ž 1!FÂ· Â· ' 1/ 2 J / #--- - 4 14'-- 75 --73 3 3/~110 go,iNIÂ¥1NnOW 4 , M1/M- -/ -f / - f.-tf - i I Â· - ~ / 0 0 or ., Â·-,\~ \Â°~.~1-~-. 5- E m r & 0 , 0 # , Uv e h 1 9 6. -_-4 7< ft,1# ) \.) 11\ C 4 . / . ..,- Od C ' -Â·Â·Â·M.., 40- 1'. 1 H = =A. 0 Jil I i . I -) C i \ \.1 1 t 7/6 1 11 rE 4 4 4% 4- F 'f A .2.1,, P. 0 1 1,1 1 - â„¢S@%3E=% r ~ 'j; it*z e- 1 I OFZâ€ž.pÂ·~,2-Z .. - , -+ litid: â€ž 1 . , t*.4 \ ;341 M 4 -44Â·J 5 t, 2 W 4. 4- : Q \: /1 KLEZÂ· 34// , ' - u - 0.0<300Ek . - - 0 n' i K , 4.18 -4.11.11 ,/i 4 1 / ' 1 . Alle N -r 1 1 F M - k > W & , 'ir f /,1 0 .Lf-7- //t/////// 9 f..3.=-2:=:-EERÂ¥ /3 4<(4 4< :~ f " .Pt P ft/JO 1 ... t-fl?\ 13 .,-7 9 /1.11/f' 1 4 ,\ A â‚¬ .- \\ l '154 1 .1 \\ h . hy//// 7/ 2 9 293-1/Â« I,-df \.41\ 1 1 ...6 71, 0, 1/ 0. 1 444 4-ill - Â£ 1, i T \ Cr . / SU .4 f ti I- 11 2/ . 1 REE LEZZEES / 1 8 4.4 , 4 , - 4 Ir % L r , 0 , 111 i r 4.& f 3 1 i 1 - i , M & 8 ' 113 i i i I /3 1 311/11/ ..- // b , f L- 0 Â»a~ , ~ - - ... - . . 0 . 9 . .....0-: 1 0 5 8 #14 14- / f-, 2// im . 1 -1/ # 1 a : lEi:Ii -; ti 26; 8@606; 2/#F.0 0 / 228 4 $ 51 91 22 3 79:/@23 ~ H I i i 1 1 56 -O= =a..0-. agoa-aa + '' \ 11 5 2 333 4 19 9 99 2 =Ste/SES 1 + t.\ 9 X /9:'' 1(-1~,4.1 i :06 0 00# 0, p aiai;,0 1 '01*-- l 06 - 23:33/1 2 6 1. '. 3Lva 9NIB33NIDN3 *1NnOO 23MIH'rl valon I vation r LIn Min i -AS 03AA]IA321 13klaAO AON39 "0Â¥0 IIIMIIA/I 04'6'-1Â·Â·Atwm YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - CONFERENCE CENTER AND LODGES POND 4 Estes Park, Colorado 3 4 8cl 19 0.14 CV ELEV 8026.6 7963.2 8051 7 .0 7964.7 8053.2 8022.0 7960.6 8049.5 Â¥0....01-1 POND SUMMARY REQ. D TOTAL VOLUME PRO ID */ ~,nofl ITIONS MAJOR BASINS DRAINAGE SUMMARYTABLE LEGEND -25-YEARSTORMRUN 0 HlkION h." '40, Ar" imp 41â€¢ 4 / 1:ho 0- 2 IM@I mimE m m 1% 3%2, 1 8 immn: Hien 1- =m=El m= m 1 3% B: 0- mt=-0 =a # 82=Me 5 vi a@ w 52&,MEWE /8 0 8 / Cm Â§8~Z . m= mE /2 2* g EE it ilim 11 811 19 ill 1 i &2 0 z ilf 53/E m i â€¢02=/16 00@2 Me - r mil# gme aw e& se =09 2= ME, 8 : 52 2% 3255 = 91: 1% 431 ii DE R , 5/8 15 , 110 Elii Gi.8 %0%% @UM8 315.0 929%69 C 02 8 8 Â§Â§ 5g -Co CO CE M:imm 2:01 - 4nt WI H 81 111 !11@ ER .asi m & wi it@ * 1 i IDA 2: Bul I limimil. lill" UN C 82: gle: il IMIE LI @859 ift W 80 20 Â£ 6 14 9 8 :W 68#058 a25 2:0 1~ Mz -611 0.2 3 0 N Mi - : 5= I aa -e:.a 20 tglf= ma =dw =Im M*gr ~~ = im 92* #%Ef W E tj* 2* , V i 1 5 u M -4 1 1 I. mim --SE Wa. a Wid Sm : I z 20 I J 0 2=,8 1 4 ZO' 3.00 . 8/M 62 - M CO 2 2 . G Â£ BEaÂ®*1% EMERE EENE@IRN E-2Â£2 Em MEN 3.z -Eca ~B EEM. Gam m*** 235 5 5.G SE //6 / if /4. i / // Il 1, 4 rÂ«. \ 1 972/23,5Â¢%:30.--9/4 ea ir "~55 11 ----- - R M %%%% - Es m Z - WI e K@.0009 /' 1 1. rtÂ· / 2 ~5 iii % 1 ad#EM:L.... _1~17/ Mo 00&2Â£0 boo 4 BE **G82% w â€¢1 5,05 e j /439 \ 06\ I Z m *R *0%202 M E 03@W if Nk 0 RE@BE[Zi W *60 @6 61 H 53 11 \\ H @ eÂ®@Â® r \14 ne, X X Gll 1 1 \ 4 C .1 \ 1. I 1 1 1 @= 4% V 41 1 / /3.v/ U N45171 <84 J p X 1 I 0 / 1 '11. i.,r-:, X .9 f:*C . el -2* 1 0 ' 215 4 e IL- PA, m . Y<4Â·Â·ag i.\6 0-71 , - s 921 / / B. 1 / 1 h . 0 r t..0.8 / Pb.El<11Â£~629 Crk 9. Â¢ 0/ ; H ,%/- 1 , 1 W le 2,0.1\4 1 7/,/ g '4-77 -112.4-.N-4.-/-/' <591 TS # . I e U 1 ipt/---%* 1 A - 606.01 1 fir- 11 / \ Fl V / \N f 46 e . 419# '*Â®\ J 1 9\ i L---6-<5,2.1-:Â·-Â·-Â· Â·Â·Â·Â· .~ 1 C. . --1,/ d [22\ -, 1* 0 069/ \~ 11 1 r. /244 11,1 4.61&9/....2 1.1 41-1 \7 t .lt fâ€ž) I - 'l * ~ f...4..ir--- ju f , ' 447(1 Re (9 \ C- \11\1 - 2.-4 8, '* . Zlht . 1-7 1 2 f /1/1 29Â« 0 . .9 , 1 -j~ i , U. & 6 v--...... 1-Â· l~ 4.0*Vt 0 .-:11=1 '.k , ''.---, -J-,a-:- 44-J 11~ , %.-- ~ Y, * t ... ~. 2 . , ,4 95 , th. I , &72.Vp-Â·Ji j i 3 ....., 1 -1 0 e ' C. --4. 1 \ 1 â€¢- / bl - '' 6 11 1. 0 1. N. A . 6 . 1 In Â· ~ . 4 /:. 4. 6 -- - . \V .--- t:9 ' 9 V 1, 1 J \ 1//AN V ./ / Â· I .t- -1 3 Â· 0-la 1 1 / I- 41,- , , f / ) d .*. I \ I * - I I -4 1) 4 e -* .. - 6 8 -w-#-B-#|e| \ *1:3Â» .... .t <100 / -- -- 7 2-'.1111Â« , 1/0 1 N + v..3,26 4 . . 8 + N ... 0 ,-1, I 11 rÂ·- - ~ I 0 1----4 \ Fl 1 â‚¬*-d UÂ¢ r.4,~ ~ , 06\\ r--. ..n ivj t~Â·flÂ·Â·4 6 . f g i ' r. G r.1 - En 0 C:.-. 3 1,J 9--~9 - 7' - 11\ A . -/ 2\ j 1 \ ' .,4 41 0- @ 1. V (% . 2 4.J 1% . ig 4...,Â· A J- p % U , Â·<af r-1 . i -=, 6 . % 4 blwo 7 / G OF 4. 1 1 F= R ...5 3 (,1# i , F, r.,3 i L.Â«26 44 B A i. 1 1 , M 53 .80.1 / e 1 \ 1 J f/ (8 1- r i --'/ d- 0 1 1 8,/7/ AÂ«~19 0 f/, 4 9. U.... I / 1- + Acofid <74f f~ , fs -. *6 ,-7 , Aw { 1 2, 4 Â¥-0 f..P //0/- e m ma - 4 /3 l , rB ,/; , .31\, d~ w, 0 1 -l.-. 1/' i \ 2 ' / A 4 kil â‚¬r,(?i' ab -G l.i-'i. 1 1.\ f \ lo 1,4 - 0 1 \\\ :4 1 1 \ >2\ // ; i L --1 1 1 11 1 \\ e \4 / , 961&. â€¢.-74V ; . 9.fif FtÂ·Â·220 3 ; i / ' 1 9 / C \L,/10 0 , 122Pt / 4 - -- e - 6 0 6 I .4 . AL TEM RARY EROSION CONTROL FACILmES SHALL BE INSTALLED L SURFACE S MUST BE D AND DJ FINAL StTE ION AND SEE]IME MEASURES TRUCTIO S AINED ON S ~,~~BLUE' L REVENT DUST, SEDIMENT -R CONSTRUC NISA 03NaH OB 39 saoÂ¥:thln S a EL.VlS 01 TION ACTIVITIES T 0.1 DISTURBED) FOR L BE DESIG ORWA OF 30 HO 1 01 93 1 Z lAiD dnoll ON,lin~ UNarÂ°"os) no VM ONV SNI 33NION3 kiN 00 83â€¢18Â¥1 lulltin Mle,el 3 11,niEd 3 ROUGH ON SITES F -MIXED UTNO ASTE, 3M~O53 NI n MAY B V T 800Z ' eunr :Pas!AaN DAY.T EDIME 'SynO~NOO 01 NOISOWEI -AE] 03MlIA38 M013 ONV-1 YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - CONFERENCE CENTER AND LODGES Estes Park, Colorado LLON .Unlin 11Â¥0 Nn -10 ONDIBVI 31Â·11 2,0/ iofc ,OZ L ,09 HlkION No. I ./ I " M / *er .... 71.1 -% . 4 - -..+.41.- -4--4-\Â¢ + 1 >v -4 y Â¥ I , I. 2 - t . 4 f 21 <ki,4-~-~~~~~~- / 1 - . 1- / 1 - S e I. < 42/p / Â»/ /if 2 , I / /2/ $0 1 1 1 ' 1 , , iii \ 1 * 1 4 / 1 f 4 4 f ' 1\ L// , 1 :t. 1 1". , l / 5 0 :: 1 f Il 1 / / 0~8 0 -: e 00\ e .9. 4/4. , / 1 , A -, r. 1//// f â€¢6 ili? 5 1 W L _ </ 3 8. FE u Hil l i 1 1 j I j / 0~, JJ 9Â·0 W 3.1 1- 1 0 1, 0, i ... 1 < ,/ / I '' , 1\0 , ni ' i urÂ»-dk- ' 1 J ' 11& i / i 1\\ f 29 , b ... ' , 91 0 ,Â·P' ff, ~,9}\111 9. . 1 1 ~ 11 \\i I t / 1 1 rhcl 1 h.4 t l I - -1 1 , 1 1 O Â· 4 / U. ... -~1*klps j - , a.':J F ' 7-J~*ZA . 1 Â· / ... X /. \ 151-1, u 4-- 1 ' ------ 1 X.- 1 ' i V k/// Efrig Â·A \ v .1 -' i, 4 4 E 1 3- - '.,h.'[p~'.tÂ·'"'.1 ./.5 , ;iA.0*4~ 6 , . Ii-. i%*-t'.-.:- i.*14 &:3.2*3. ./- Â·- ef -.'Â· --i_-~ %0> '.i / 1 ./. I v i 1 1 \ 1*11,4,50%37 1 / 2 4 + I 4*'G / 0 :. f:C / Â·s, I 1 i ./. P... 1:.....1.*t r . N. :I @i .vtâ€¢,tÂ·':' ' ,,/ l qp:P j ~3* -2 ~ \" ~'Â·. i:'...':61:Â»--3-YO~>'1 - 114: / // ~ ~ 4- l v. ' I / 2 1 211*/----32: 14 - l,fi- / 41> f , hz / / /lili % 1 1 1 - ... - - h r , 14 04. / 4 2* 1-- 9444 1 -'ll ii %9 1 \, - / L 1 z -1 I -2.- 7...... 1 Emf i. 1 â€ž 7/ 1 F...., i 4 1 4 1 - ' 1 + ..4 . I 1 â€¢ . , rÂ· .: 0 .. 6 , 8. 1 Itt / t i. b. ./ V \ '8.1 1 '. f' A . /\ 1 Â·r-' .I u . . ' I ifl. I.,1 1 ' L 12 4 % 1 1 - 42 3, --1-... 4 6 1 .Â· ~"XM#m h *811,8.7 ' .- i . <â€ž_-_---4? --%341-03 7- 03:{ 13~i~ /= ; 4,/6.- ' 1 - Â·--- --- - Alit 'tho 4 c it'*te ' b I - _ 84 - 0,- 0 --. -- ~ER:4. e b ... S . . 1 ii'p J \/ 1 4 1 443 /, 9 1 ... \ 1 7 :.vt.7Â£4 Â· 0// \ -k â‚¬00 1 1 / 71./1- i 1:/ 4.-/ â€¢ WON- 1 X-/ \ \ i 9 / 1 ./ e-4 -fl ( -r. -1 % 1-:...1 -8040 . 1. :'0 3 1 Â· r , /; ' :Â·. i . 3 4 ' 1 . 9 7 / f 76 ' L .. A -22 8 4 -'..â€ž , r P. , r---~_ -4- % 1 f----= dl./ 28 % 446 i Fl: '11 '. 'F~ ~ 1 . 2--.1 F Hi ij \ 1 11 -- 1 01 U. ....1.,0 Ill \ f.-12,4 JA / 'f fix Iii 1 \ 1 3 1 1 0 ///tr 1/ i 1 1 14 *1\1~ 1 h 1 / F f , 1'*Ac Qtj:j j~ I , 91 wwo 1 , yo . , '111 10 ~ . s I \1 1 1 - 1 - f /\ h 1 4 4/10, 1 68 // /fri 1 9, 1-,1 1/l / 1 /1 d= F i Sm 1 4 0- 131 i V / 1 :boo dll / =1 FFS, 513 e=. / I T \ 0 4 40 9 r '45 -4 \ f / -tw 1 1 1 /4. 4 1 1--- / / 1 /1 111\ 1 f-,1 / 1 4 !11 1 li It l; A < LIt i // / f / R p b 4 ---t l' 1 / j ' 1 v 1 / ~2 1 -b ' I. f I j/ 1 1 11 31 1 11 \ ~ I I C --- 6 1 \ 1 1 I-t . t .1 1// 1'.rl 1 --. \ / ./-90 .1 1 -- . t. ,. (DZE) PW.LS #ee4S 6002 'f A'Ofuq@4 DNIk[33NMNE UNROO) 53MIBVI Olld 9 NV-Id 213/*EIS Wk[OlS Â·*8 03N\3M351 3-LN33 33 S N li lnE~~~,AN, FUnun ESCH YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - PARADE GROUNDS DEVELOPMENT .>\ l \ 64]27 DESCRIPTION Estes Park, Colorado NOLLVOUUON 0Â¥ NI SAVO SS3NSng-T REVISIONS :.' \ 93 -0. \\\ . '' \341-11 \ \\\\ \\~\ 'i \\ \ \ \ i *3 88 lii tr u.1 2 34 -- -- .._ CN 1 . " \ , _.1. .1;'f,k/ - c< 0, Id V / \ \ 1 ' ---*K- \ 1% 1 \\ \1 \ A U- \ 4 0- - / 1/>--1 L 1.1.1, ; 1, . 1/20 ..1 9.. \ ('.11.1'.,1,1 * -2 <g-R< 61Â·li:i' .Â·1 4.1 â€¢ h:â€ž1 .i ! i' M ~i 0 1 1 .'~ FA, .74:~.,.~Qcd,(*rfi~â€ž~ # * 3.-Z *1Â¥: 1 I r I 9 1 1 1 21.2 1 t 1 1 --- - . 9..1,!n!.4 .- 1 11 '11.?ilattbl.Rk 11 111 , 1 1.1,\1Â¢6!At 2: f .11\1'.1 ., 1 X'...14.. 11 1 --1 1 1, 1 I ''' 4l 1.111'L,1% 11 1 1 lili 11 r-" Â· A-cr:.t -.AcÂ·~Â·,..2;4:4- 11 11 11 ~ j.,ItÂ·'4'T~Â·Â· A ., .lilnrfi,â€¢,.0, Â·,, Â·.~ .~1'~'Sr 1 1 93#b ' â€¢ â€¢ ~.rY,u. It N & 49 ''' 11 li.: i.)111'.:: 7.. 1.i:!,11!11.,1,1,1, 1\, 4121.19*Uffit It + <1 *Ep?31: 01.'N , , 1 1 1 ---- It, ANTâ‚¬=:Ii:22%72,8~Â·Â¢!#:1~~1,:A.X-p~-:(,:.i:tf ,1-7.*~1'", 11 1 2 111 4 '~, Aâ€¢i~,...r~*â€¢:J!-,rilÂ·~,i;â€¢i Â·.Pf\,-6.rli~.4,-t~~.~.;, Â·â€¢iÂ·Â·. '..j.:.,1. 2/9 *mil-544649 5 ..Â·.3-4=2Â·\'993-9@~:~~*~fi,~t W lit 11 1 %4. 1.~11.1 . 41. ..1 It 1 212 It 1 k'1,1 , 2'/ 4";r-f~-,A ,*'~.1 Â·,Â·.il...':.Â·'Â·1.; .1 +'9 ,NFO ', |Â· 1, 4<Â· - s \\43720 1 1 11 11 Efr:)29*bll{~fi,13 T o k~.1.~:.i.rit'.~..:11 '11829%(4039,1,111<111 11 1 S 1 1 1/ I A 4 6, 01.ir * .. Â· Â·,!1Â·Â·Â· '., :\/r: '>41' '1 '127Â·411' O 4\\40 '-S\\\ ~111 lilli \ / L- -~ Dr -./ -- < .. . S ) & TT ~37+133*1~52~10442-.. .-41 3 S.~ 1 :1 1 11 1 1 ... 1 4 q' 1, 1, 1,, J J 1.-4 . $ 1 11 1 1 I. 11 ,1 11 1 0 1 e'- I--.-'-r * ~E:G''.~i ' ~' '*' I - *- \Â«I-Zi -Ti..N\ s ' ". Â·~ '' ' - Â·- . -,--i- 6-':i~; Â·. 7, 1 1 - 11 Â¢ r ./ 11 V~-4.4.4.11:.1,~(%11- .... , 11. ,1, Â·t 11 : I h 6 4, 1 ; 1. , r ... r ~4~.Â·'9.4- 07 \ 1 3. 2,4 ..1. â€ž 1 # , -c :Â·Â·,d. j.iÂ·Ac . 3)12 -tr~ i i .. I 1 1.1,1,1,1 n Ill $ . . jI ..:,1. . t.;1 1~ti? lili %>1 1 1 , . \ 0 \ .4. .1 6 * . q- J 1 1, " I.Â·,I ~-- \.19 5 i -' , ;1 - F.'>Â· 4Â·Â· ,~, "'~ ~ ~ -- f '-4' t~;,.':Â·i:Â·" 41 - V.-4. F I I . , 1 . ,-r 11 11 1 'Es 1' . AdbiÂ·1!;I' .,~t~ 4'' I x Â·i''.llÂ¢'Â· , '' 1'Â·'1,'i ''i \\: .- 2<2,2:t-;:i~.'91::; ;~''A -- I-Â·. 'Al.:...17,71,., 1 \ -N 2--t--21 4 .1 \ 44,~RetZ- 4'*4~Ve fi,4Â·~i~:4 ...' 21:K~,41.k/â€¢!' â€¢ I.'i,,1 , Mt--4 7-t,n 35342,42&2 L..0.WIP:,1Â·/41115,\ ,'. 1 4 1, Lfâ€¢Â·:. .~Â·Â·Â· ''CE'' ,-ill. 4 r' !.,...:11Â¢jl,'t- 1 â€¢1444,,., j 1 )5-C.mÂ»...1 . i /1---2/< 1.-ki-3-17.&7 9.Oil . 1.-12':11-1::111 :..:rib\~1 , , , w -' -- ------2 0 --- gue:Jit:. 1#W~*5.1.1\1 Il ' 1 40 . ft'*/PAH*,i-i *i â€ž19 / 1 -'-9-Ze 1.t\\ A I f 4 0 - S -7-- / i- 1 11 --1 0 j Ill-- - 1 1 1 // \ '' / / it .W 1 1 1,\ . / /. / 1 1, &12/49, , 1\ \\ 1 1 1 1 1\\i - --5, 9\ l k 6 - / 1 1% 1 J. 4 091 ji~ 4 F ~ r ~ JÂ® etj 'LJ~.1~ j= 0 1.. 1 1 - // 4 1 \ ,-/ 1 49>///mi ~.~ 11 1 1 - / \ E--1. W p ... 1 11. . IIi: ~ 8~E <g 11 , 21 .2 1 11 , - Z -3 NI 11 f f 111 / i 1 1 , , 1111 / I \ 1 1 / \% 1 1 / , 1 ~1 1 1 1 1 /11 ' /1 1 it 1 It 1 1 !1 1 1 1 1 I b 1 1 1-.... i/\ / ; 1 1 1 / 11 1- - f/atal 1 1 - ' '.. 11 1 -- 1 1 , '. 1 / I '1 I ' 1 1 1/ 1 / 1 1 1 //\ If / ,--7 ' , 1 1 1 // I. f \ 1.1, \: al - 'i N U, - L__11 ' '', / 0 j Â·% 0 1 2.-_-/1 14 1 , , 1 11 1 -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1! - 1 - 3 J J j %. 1 1;i - 111 ! / 1, f 11 1 11 1 (8Z) 6006 'EL pal/ OOCC.29 0267 800Z 031 v1303A3kl 38 11VHS 03ANdEN ION ONÂ¥ 03,AOM3W 38 01 1 1VHI 13,AVHO/1N30l3Avd EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ASPHALT TO BE REMOVED EXISTING GRAVEL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED EXISn NG LANDSCAPING TO BE REMOVED d.0.9 D.Ill.SNOO 1.2...1.1 ,09 0Â£ ,91 00 HlkION 0350dOild 80.1 Â·S31NVN 0Â¥08 ONILSIX] 3@V SNÂ¥ld NatillOIN3O 0Â¢02 NO S 3MVN VON 11 RAMMING 1 ~ ' 7VJ Oâ€¢GW ; 31910I Eld@-Ldel 5133HS 33S Fl ..0.%~. -- 8111Xtrl 033S 803 NO 133HS 700132%~ZNZTf#3* I , \. /42 1, i :41' 4, / AR-w I \ \\ \ 0 #WW;):f-% .' \ lili . .1,1 .A. 411,1:1'lnrt .,r L:'26 J. 11 .:ta- . \ \ . \\ 4 -* -* ~f---f ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~_~j ~j~~ ~ ~ ~*~~ or- . I -s g----2- . -- Ok '~~ 4- .L!~~~,'F'FLL,5=5----- - - -- 0/ ------- ---- LO -E K ../ CL Z ./ > . DL E . 1 i, '/- -- - r +- Z nf ac: 04 5 \ 7-42 1 3 ; 1 -7, =Z 04 |Num~~~~-- S , q & \ \ V 71 /3 1-42(. '.'..//13 1 1 --4---10/ A.. , i.x...\\ e 11, :- 44:7 1 1 1 / /2 t it>4 0. %.2. i U / \4\14-It... 9.4 h . \ 2.7 O. ./ 111' . 47 -l 6111 * i~: 1 1 4 / #443 . 77;/2,/ 91 rt\ ,+ . ' all Â¢0 2114 / L.0.1 ..1 . L'.1 . i~-f =Â«22107;-__ _-901Â·t\ / 1 S \ \ 1 7 0 11~~a ._ ....10\ ,- 124 *12 G I 1 1 f.\.1.3.-1 1 1 1 1 1'' 2Ii,~ 491.4 k / i /1 1 $---~ 02Â§. I I Na It I i144 P ..9. 6.%3 / 4,30 1 1 /35Â¢ g 1. 3 1 111'11 1 -j-- - \4 8 111:41 1 1 ' 1 1 91Â£10 + T Â»19 1 1 j j j f 1 ; 1 1, 1% / )2 ' '' t N , .f r,] & 1 1 1 / 1 if / i ': 1 1 1 / e 1 1 6 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1% 1 f - 0 \ 1 1. 1 CO- Z <C IN 1 1 91 1 1 4% r 11 1 1, 4 1 *-)0-]HO- 0 1 A -*0-31,03 T. 1 1 1 S -1 1 1 1 1 5% M T - 1 [i,4:111;141.1 1 ' 1 1 3 81, '.Â·.'Ull A t 92.1 1 X 1 11 1111 1 151 / 1 j 1 1 1.1 1.* ..'W 1 1 1 1 1 $ M 2 1.-'/ p' El ig ' /.1 1 1 2 , 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 W jr- 1 1....11,1 . / / OZ 0 2 U :31 i -2 2 2] 5 1 1 1 1 . 14 ~ ...fp.IN 2 I rÂ·-_ ' I Z 1 -S 1 1 : Sw .. f ---- . 0 32. ; j / I Q e,4 , i Wa 0 1 1 ...1 15 1 , 1 1% + Z LU L ../1 U : 30 \ , 9 1 6.21 .3 Ill 1 1 1 2-3 N. '11 1 1 1 # 1 i / 1 1 I 1 1 / 11 1 1 Il. 37 9/ 1 li 1 1 11\11 70.- 1, 4 i i 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 1.0Â£ ..1 "i V / l %1 1 1 1 1 T Â§ 01 14 N 9 2 f i I , 2 1 1 1 ' ' 1 t?\ 1 / , 1 1 J Z O/ I i # 4 1,111)* / 11 1 1/11- 11 r. 11 H / h 94.1.4 i % i 1 1 1 ;5 . 9 m 4, y 1 - - - 1:211 - ' :1 ' :1 1 1---- 0 t. , S <L 2--5 ----- - 1 - 9 1 1 1 114 . 1 43 41 if.-N.>'1 Ill / i xi - / 01 1 1 _ 11 \ , IN. .,1-5 i.hÂ·.1 -tiV 1 ' ' ~ - - --iL '45 1 1 r 1 1 : C Â£ ww . J. 1 ----/3Â»Â«.l;~1=15*1 1 11 - - 1 / rm< :SM:44,- k. Wn - /0 1 ew i r 74 L,jÂ·*-- : -* L ) AS= r-Ar . 1 .th . e,,2.N .4( . 1 2 4,3.10 =. - 4: il f 1 \,4 0/3 ,) l. -~17--~ Â·, ./. 1 ; 1 A /.1 .*' l'- â‚¬ < /./ 55 '' . 1 111 2-- h \ .Â·' - 4-P 4459/br-1______. Jyl__~_~Â»EN---rii.-----/1.-t- MEM :Etim# 4 b & m -04>35 .-I I. F< !Â·4: i /7< & \61 1--<2<2#4 ) HR W Â·.- 3 Ill - L----1/ 1 1 111.: i I---R l C V.E.464 j 0 3 1 2/ i 'll . 1 -5 Oil :0. \ FER'; 1 6.98 & 91 ~ . un $ .MI K// 4 1.: 61 - iÂ·-,-:T - - 19 L gal!0 / 11Â¥1 Al'-1-i:-11 1:401 b I 1161 1.1. 1~11; 19-0.91 73 1 2. 0 .t s m \ 1 %2 TI S lii i S 1461 b>J " -'-3-[-E --Â»-e 26 , I. I. .. ONI@13]NO 3 ALNnOJ B3â€¢18Â¥1 g 'g[ aunr ;Pa5!Aa Â·031Â¥1303A]Â¥ 38 11Â¥WS 03AVd38 1ON ONÂ¥ 0310*3*I 38 01 S 1 1VH Â¥239 1N3IN]Avd E 'EZ Aln[ :pes!Ag 03AOM]& 38 01 Â¥3@V 3dVJSONvl 0NllSIX3 eeVS 03AO,021 38 01 >IlvAA]OIS DNILS,(3 Abl a]M 31/\3hl 03AO~323 38 01 ONIdVOSONÂ¥1 DNUSIX3 333.31-1~~JIIILE[C â€ž 11IYILECL.IILLIC_ inows 9Nlilns~....1 - 39007 0350dONd 203 S3riVN 0Â¥021 ONU.SIX] 30Â¥ SNvld NOIll-10 YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - CONFERENCE CENTER AND LODGES ~~-g~~13 HAI:3S 531â€¢tv 03AOM32 38 01 13Av20 ONILSIX3 0038 38 1 11Â¥H45Â¥ \ , 3 - r 41 / 14 " /.4 1 F rÂ»-0-<Â«32 --1 / 1-j 0 \A 1/f \ --4 \ A / < 41 -rt. / k I th. 11 1 1// , 6 1 --r I r 1 \=,\\ 000000 2 Ill , - 0000 9 \ A ........ //2 It \2 6 N -C. . 1 ..., : frge - -kN.... 2 --4 1 3 2& & 5 -2 0 ' 23#4. S -r- --- / ". 1 k /1 . 7 ./ / \ 6 / > --UL -2-1/r--1--3-1 / 1 1171 10 r i m f- \ \ 1* 1 1-1 j / S I // / --\ 1 ,Â·illk. 32â€ž 1 / / I / 2 lati 1/ .: 424__A__l \3-1 494 \ \ 1 ..\ /4 I r. \ \ ./ M 9,1 9 1.- / / 2/ 9* I l e *Â·Â·. I ..''~ 1 ik / 1 1 4/4 1. 1 /9,/ e RU / '. 1 ifl 1.4 1 1, 2 0\/112.\ 474- /6/0/>t//7 1 .7% -1 , 9 i /\ Ntt 1 .1 1 . 1 , 1 1 53.3% 44// .././ 1 19$22 \ 1 1 / .7/ . K ID\ 1 I\ 1 1 \ 6. 1 / S \ 0 1.- ~~~Zh 1 / ./ -4.. 1 // /7 '. \ 7 \ \\\ \S ; // 1 1 ,-. 4182 *...r . . I --** 1-S 7\ 04- Â«b -- / / / ----1 \<42<,7 glb/ / 9, AL 1 6 7 1 5 1 4 \ I 48 0.101 . d,1 '714 //4%2\ 71 U i:< 1 f 4 -\ 1,/ 2 /1 \4341 - IS \ \\ ==- e . / -- -- . .--,1 * S 149 4 t., - . 0\ \\ Â»14Â«4 1 5/ 1 11 84; 1.Prt\ 04. 7 1/2 41 / \ bW. 0 1 A : 0 9 / 1 24/16 i Ie 6 . / 8 .0. \ 4>. 41 / r..Aill\\I , , b -7 - - / / 0 ~ 3\31 \. \ 2 f L.- 1 \ / S \ \,4 9\ 1 \ -9..'k i. / \ \ .... j-, 4-rk \ \ \\ i./ \\ \ \ /6 \ 'Â·Â·to M el ..,6-1 41Â§.. -11 / 14 <41 12,4 0 4 7.-LA, L - -1 @1 TA; Â¢6'3'9 0\\\\ W 0\\\-5 -.Xf ~~b ;Â·-' 'f/L 69 N M : 83 5 0 69 0 - Ld Z'- / DI o 2 54 E: y1 :W 8 gla a Il 8 ul I 41 M &13 4 / ///4 2 010 9 th Ilb w W - W - In- * w ----7 - /-78+ 8 .3 I % &10<->3. z 1 .1/ r-f--1 0 1-ghl . ty a- : 0 13 + -1 -.31 M \ :RA ';:clÂ·â€¢JÂ·i Nt ilÂ·i 1 60'*1,., 1, !81.-!Â¥, - * af#:;t &m h,bÂ·;''I/* , 1%.-L-=21 a k 12 Z 1...P 0% 1 m r NAL.- '.ri?.Â« Â·1*, I ' 'h (. 1.1 ta (-ft/94#&91, .~,y / ' 17':0'--~,pfi-~.3-. - ,, "*Al '- 1.21 -l- D-~ - s \\ //// - 0 6 5 . //-- 18 -m 2 3 Â¥ Â¥ r ONIH33NION3 *1Nr'100 23r'liMÂ¥1 COE) Waa-941 #ee4S ' n @,4 Â·Ati O3AA)[AEIN dn~ HillnS~....1 YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - CONFERENCE CENTER AND LODGES Estes Park Colora 031Â¥1.30]A]8 38 11VHS 03Avd]B ION ONV 03,AOIN]h 38 01 SI 1Â¥Hl 1]AVBD 03SOdO8d 2103 S 31"IVN avoN ONUSIX] 3MV SNvld NOILI10 â€¢30 09081 N OVOB 11V -2 33 3 S S37YVN 0 03/~07[38 38 01 13,AVNO 0NliSIX] | O3AOâ€¢3N 38 01 ONIdVOSONÂ¥1 ONILSIX] EE REMOVAL W 0 8 1< 1, Z lilli is - 3. 0 8. - O 12% E .-. h I CO L - ge 2 - Mal!:, 08 121 0 Â£ 2 R :-r'--4,52# w 1 -3 -6 -0 -2 2 N 3 0,2 3 7 0 0 166 4. g .8 Ill= : 2 rel V 1 E' 5 8 1,13 25 â€¢* 4 , Wit- -'f . 9. 03 - IN - 0.6 i .Bli - 8m mihi "88 0 0 ,,16 2 ~ %2 -â‚¬ 9 *.1 'Ge,E %=me ~1~ M ng .4 0 =46 25.*r.=Mia 3 kg -0 :83 -10. \ 5 E & 0 0 *"2223092 Â¥6,2 z Â¥8F~ 5N ..,14./ Elli c f 1 1 1 . .4.,1 . . , l. < 1 1 1 1 '3.--44 1 7/ I 1 . I - + 1 1 \\ 111 Kely \ 1 . // / C/// 1111 11 j -i '' < Vi, 1 1 /Â· 01 / 53% mt 4... 47- t -4. / 18%6: 1 3*~::| iypLEr t.. , / 1 { I tly 'i ) --' - -- ( 2>-f:f-I> ~~ ~43** ~~ i~j ~ ~ I 9. i 4 .'.. T 4 / 7Â»r 44, \\ ; 1 .... ..&---'/ 1 ' 1 ,/ -1 4Â¥37 -I -j , , . I, , . $ 7 . el . / / 1 1 4...:99'.1 -I j. - 1/4.' ..i e " /2 .2 4.'~ r.. 90*46 Â£ . . r- 1 -â€¢r -â€ž..v, ...4 lÂ· Â·tri 1% *113Â»21-z 4 , I ~ 1 <* 41: # ' 4 r , il --2. t. 9 w . 10..,.0 1 - --2 N \ / A, 2 ---4 1 d. Â«41Â»Â»4/ rÂ· I I. 31Â· '1, .4 : 0-0 4%49.- : >$1~% .. k '' ---r==Sh-h-- ..14 2.1,11 i t 0 41 Un &5 118 O ~~406~*--*-- .. S pe :10 .... Z @50 .4/ . 22Â£ /2 /1 4 3 3, ' Y404- ... .4/ 22 - , 3 ... 442 - 9 7 L. 841 - % .. ' 4, 1 .2 0. 12 : / -/ - j \S\ ... 35==122 N N - 0 ---- ./ 't / i \ 0 1 9 Â·b 1 1 1 < <Fj j ... b +I. I ~7 /Â£'9% . 1 99,0 n f I 14 \ 1 1 \ \ 1 / 1..4,411 W N. I t. 1 1 1 7--44 4 .2. ...7-: \ 1 -% 1 1 , 49'# .wa .1/ \ \ f K -i - p- wri, L> 0 - k - - 0-- -En)~ -b I.& 4..- ,/M:. 1, ' bz -- + 1 M . At9 %i 1 / \ + A.4 H : *.d:Â·- Â£'j -- - ~~'1 , f //. 11 9 f rJ / - 1 --7 L-A V 4 I / 9 - 1 r---1 - 0 1 \ i / 4!*tâ€¢ \ \\\ m 1 4. g!~i?ME 7 *10 + / #/49/ \ A. | V| ; l, ' 1 ' i / I ,Â« 2111 ~@ M~*R 4-â‚¬ , - / 1 1 1 : 41 4 1 -EZ /11- //f /1 1---2 / ----- _ _ / i 1 0'~, b re EE 1 1\ ,-f \\ \D \ \\ ~21=20- / / ..06% 53 1--.-/1 1 /1 ----_ 1 1 k. ---- - P. - 1 1 1 1/' 1 ilit . 0 - ..Tr' \ I J , \./ 1 ..A- ~ k / 9%6/ 46 /1 I :29 / ,-----L--4 - 1 d 6 1 -T-MEMI-kid -wa i -wa -We - 2 met 1 1 2411 1 b: .a? 1,511 iamp 88mi 1 1 , s,:03" 1<2â€¢"232- 'Bmi - u t.71 - Â§114% 41Â«12. < -- 1 / f / / ZE 62 %Â§;,22%9,<2 L < / Sld.-Z 0 Lt09 ?NI EÂ·LE09 g NI 4 9,7 ..I I , .2*81 j 8Â·Â¥Zog :F IM ./.69 .9. i 23 3-IOHNVM ,* 41<,LS i .- I F .. 11 1 t:i-:41- 4 Z Ijawll 1 1 1 \ y , i 11/ i 1 Ill / f y 1 /)6 \ 4 1Â§:i 9,7 , i i. 1 lit / 1 1/ ...1,11 \ t'*t00 *1411 1%. \1 4 zÂ·tz.. t --. ~ 4 44Â£ M h--3 Iti / 3101.,V,1, \/' A-%----- b 5 m - â€¢*+i vS iit, C) 1 1 1 .1 i illm* 3303- -0 VAS 4- f Yi 38 \L- ... izill 1 l\\ //1 f-Il / fl b ro Z Ely / J -* 2 3dld .*t /1 k 09+0 VIS r 2-Ir~ r / = f---t-- 3 -1 aom=a I f 1 V i 8 11 1/11/1 - a M M i i elil E 1 1' , 0 , 'll ./ I HONI 9 +Um dÂ¥83 30Â¥89 03HSINW 1 53MniOnaLS ONÂ¥ SinONÂ¥310 11Â¥ aLON (SOBONÂ¥.LS .000Â¥ NI '31713"00 SI 56 lSÂ¥31 17 01 MAI TAIN 2%-4% on Drive Plan 8006 '8 L eun[ : 13AVHS (]3SodOMd ~-' -b ..Â· ~., f 800Z 'E L 5.V :Pas!*ekl 11Â¥HdSV 63SOdobld November 21, 2007 0N1N33NSN3 ALNnOO H3~Ilblyl 318Â¥1 MAINTAIN 21-4% CR~ PAVEM T SEcn 30 Mal'GAVd NNU 'NDS3O 1N3)'GVV ANÂ¥NIM =C 'Ltil ~W tlu~rYZ,7%~17~'YONÂ¥15 30 Â·18 03"31/~38 HONI-9 3Ht ONISSÂ¥d llâ‚¬0 NOI1V Ca INL 01 1Snrov 11Â¥HdSÂ¥ IM lOH dnow, 9 ln:~~~Â¥iAN, St 0 HlkION YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - CONFERENCE CENTER AND LODGES L RIPR 3hOH 11Â¥130 Oa AkiNEH 70Od WZ-1-IS 7,78,0,1~W ~~~~~ 17.lon =A - --- 4 9 : f ... 4. r . 7':max ' -r:'- 0~9 --1-;Li:-9:' g,Rga -- W * I , 5-S 0 6 ifY#-ck L C , 1 h - ' '"14 f....Râ€¢. * - . 0, 4 ,, 0. . - 1 . >8 3 --W S 4 . ./. 9, .C 01 / 4 .&5 >- 1 1 1 . 4, --- 9 . % 61 iiI! :1 3,%2 4.44 / , , "\ an: Â¥ .r 1 1 S '52 1 -0 -0 1 . :ir 1, / 1 j j~ ~ft Â®A7: 0 3%/- " 3 \ 10Â«*41GE - 2 ... 1-IÂ¥, n &. 0 -ma %* /' (14 ' : 042 :CL !0.ZÂ«. 49: M .1 45A j set'~24 ' # \ $ I / IN./ /: ---- -- -----l i // *m.gi. a *v F,t 'Â·. ' Â£* k: I ~ 1 fÂ·,i 7, ,/f,1/ 1 2j -- - ill.-- . '1 1 1 - 1 // lizi -'Mi 'f71\ 47 ' c.-.4 43' ~ ~ ~iii L-j~~ ~ 9 Â¥41 9 1 r--1 \ 3 /, 4 1 . c \Ar,iÂ©4 / ,/ / 6* - f -1 r '1 . / , 1 1 1 \ 1 //lilli 1 , % 1 1 1 1 .. ,-1.24 \\ i 1 1 / / f / f , f. ./10': 1 11 1 \ 1 4. . - d'' Â»1 J 4\ i 1 / le L $ 1 4-4- /1- J \ P - : 1 -- ; 1 , , 10Â·,2. . 00 181 /\ Â«Â»-, c 1 / liN Â°Â° 1 - : mY / . fiE f # 31 2 Yl % 1 / 01 / REIN / 1 1 9 r 02 , i -7-1, , ~~; 9 -r. 1 R vj m '"f~.0..~,5 . 4 :b l / ' 41 1 ,/ 1 .l 2 Il :4~ 11 < 2/ 1/ / / r --J p /5 n ag *./. - |~| J-TMY, +A i., -1 , %*11 1 / 1 it j & / . A '04 " 1 j ft f Ar:A \ Â©1\ 1 , 7 /1 - 1 / M /8 A /--immi L t' V /4 v ( f / n - 0 N bl /12/ 1%1 11 1/ / F #Al Ak 1 k./ - w j i'. 1 -71' 1 1 i E / 1 // /1 ~\4 / 5 6 t\/ 1 ,Â¢ // 1 Wil \ 1 ) I i / S - *--1@11 9/ 4 /'Ith 1 r. k Â·Obal/Â« 1 / 4 Iii , / A 92 1/6/ x 1 1 L 1 .1 1 1 $ Mishi i /1 '0. / 11 S 88 1 7/ f .1, '' 1 / . E f If- 1 li 3 12 v U L 0 6 8 z N Â¥888 > 61 0 Z .mas #3* . 8 3<3 0 1 1 Z/ 6% . 9- L 110& 304 0-X U..1 b // / 4 4Â¢4<4142#-- ~ bo M O e .k 1 1 1 1 111--III Asa 50 9 1 FF. It Â· / , . 1. >01.5: :Z ! m 0 -1 68- E co z . -2 f 1,11 9 & J 0- vljlliES=- 2 .0. 5 Miss 4.. 8 1 -- 8 MI 5" 0 , 1 1 1 .* 4 N .011 111'R 1< 1 -:21 5% m ~ <I,nt!*T 0~ ~ alas Â°i 8!IF .i/1 J * U LU / 1! 1 Ill'./0* a. ~ S 4 W / 11: Z ty .m.W 508 05 / ' f\1 1 * L p . 1 0# 1 . 1 F 1 ~~ N < - :-1,@ < - 98,-~~em E , 0 f : W:11Â§52 e 2 2 Jo 5 . <Z . N z 20â€ž5820 0 1 /~ // .fl lit{,1/' '*?'1 , i Ji ttilit ,Â·i~7 k 1 ki abw .glpll*9"#a . 20 I A 1-1 e:< h. /Â· 4 . 1 I. r / 11\ i \~.3 yel c ' 1@Ng@@44.8 3 Z L p. 1. Â·Â·'~~.j... \ 04,// 1/ 11 1 \>'\4 ./1 1 ' 1 1 Â·04 y i \ .rt ' 1-11 411 1 le / 4/ 22% f *PIr , it k -M 1 1 1 i '\\\1' 4 -â„¢ 0% '1 ' t,- 1 i miliki jifi L...I _1 4 ~\ --- -/ 1 /l / :2* F j 1,/ . 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 : 1 +1.. 5 1 / \Ed'-9: 3 11 / 11 , f Â£ 1 ---- __- -Y 111 f Â£ B) 1 /1. ..4 1 / f *4/ 1/ 11 . 1 S 1 1 I/1 A < \ I lic fl-- - / 0Â» P<--- - -Y // 1 j i 6 liwifk- / 31 4.: \ //C /1 i 0 3 f li 1% --71 / J t. â€¢t 91 11 / ' 1\ O ~1 ---L'-34,#8 --7 , f I. I Â·2,40 1 ----_1 1 1 1 r- w /49 r \1,6 * \v N i / \ 1 1 1 -n / 1 i ' :.4 , i hl:.>/1 > / 17 // ~ . -1 44/ li/ 4 ' :: -1 4,0 ..+1.99 M#'. J f---% ' V f - 4 1 4 b 6 /- 1 2 '* 14, , .4 - Â·, 4 zo - w~ ~ " ~~ 1,-f-Lil:$2?6* 6 1 / / ,/ )&1 . 4,/I :12 1 , / / / : 1 -2/.2.--11133 Be / O f W i O i Â· 1 / -cÂ» f~~ ~ - {/ ~Â¥ i ~ AC I f .f'.I /'r--~' 7% M \ I>N --- 11107 - 1 / .4, Le:Z syf < --x l.-Lk g- i~ / 455 / 0,210 \S ' 1 ..1 e ,~,1"M, */gn,b~ -=~ - - 1 - m â€¢- z/ze 30Â£ Rep~ / &2Â£1'+11 // IE 4// 1/FF 11 UÂ¢ 2 034 // I :i -> : / 52 '490 , 1 / Alg u A--7- , i \ - 1 1 / 6.6 ; /1 \ t / 1 1 1 ... I uold (LE) GdN Son SS.33 Â¥ Alnun 800Z'F 8002 'Et -6flv Â¥1 3AHAD 318Â¥1 3Nn DNB33N19N[3 .UNI)03 H)MIHV-1 ' t E JO~UleAO Â¥80 03HSINt.3 1Â¥NW 01 031Snrav 38 01 S3BnLOn 1 EX SAN Revise :J 18,2008 9002 'ZE Aln[ : es!.93 11Â¥HdSÂ¥ 0350dOWd ~ d - Â·*8 03,~3VA38 m ON11lne~MNAN, ,DE S L â€¢0 0/Er/0 (0Â£5) til #A.*71 (/7/| o.oc, |. Â·M@K 01'Â£Z YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - CON E CENTER AND LODGES MEMORIALSWIMMINGPOOL N-IVAA SSONO DEISIVW 119 fÂ£Â·CE (SOHIONÂ¥15 S1LS3 Hll 30NVC]&1000Â¥ N] 1 NOLLY,7,1.SNI Until OL+99010â‚¬+le'901+120100+ 30 ON-11130 30 Tim NDIS30 1N3M3AÂ¥d 1Â¥NL.3 'NDS]0 1)[3 OINÂ¥DBONI 38 0109+Z OUVIS nUsloIl Mn AlISNE 180 MD(Â¥M 11Â¥Hc15Â¥ XI 13/~980 03SOdOkid ~- DRAINA RIPRAP 4, 1â‚¬I W 0115 EVISIONS 0 4.6% CAB j 144 cw' "/ 9 '' \ 9 \ /> f / . , U -9 / \ . -I .4 -E --Cf-- - -9 . , - 1 / D.. 1 / V 0 1 1 1 1 1 \ & 1 : 4 ff U. .1.- B .8 .5 11 1: \ 9. Â·: 4<E.... - 0 O Z.,2/i , / 11.241% k ,-% 2-- d . / :/11Â¢-41 .0, \ *0'f/Gf f ,/ --\ /1555> fo\51 53-/n<- 3-4 .Â§ /-21 - - / 4 1Â· I \ - 2= 1.T,Jciff 9/ - e 1 -0- 1 ./. / 44 . , . I \--/ -/ h. / /// C 44 _ . vjiy>Â«&'9111 v#= 4 4 - / 4,1.-I-\42â‚¬24 i --/ 3 ' JU rVEÂ»6140*7 i 4 1 499'04 '14Â»139/4 / N / n 3/11 71 L , 3:k 11 Â¢99Â« . 0\ , -A - r . )*.X -, i I NURe /. 2 49 1,- -- 1/3,54 >p//'// s \ 1 \/ 1 - ..... / 4 9 / / 4 1 -\ 74 , -gl r. f. .4 V,dy f 13.<4 -1 1\4# in \ 0 .Â»1 - -/ /< <21Â»- 1 -6 --er/0, ( , v Y /4 -* -196- r- -1 3-- ----70,.s- ,-/* 47~4 '. 7K i[IF. /1. 70 - / / 49/ m / E /.04- 4 / L 1< i. 6 = 0 - . / .54 ... 4 :4 < C mill / - .g 37. . 1 -l Ma/:r 6 ' 0 9 Jt . 1. f 1 4 -e i j / ~ \ j l /7 -449_ 4 Â¥ f / C //1 . , .22'' rr,J b 0 // \ 1 ----Ail~jtf~b~'ki 1 -.- 0 4- '" , 1 / 1%Â« . /4 1 f.' 0\ t.\ //\ 4/ ,. i. i \\ 12 1 1,f< 4 b 71 Â¥ \! i 1 / , .0 \\ / 1 40 r f I,t , / lIjl 18 /- 74.11.- 1 F, 0 ./ 2.. I. ' / /42 26-i/ . k \ ' 6.44 112.1... I. 74f / f / / i / Mn .fi 0 f 1 21 f / /1-I-Jitif.0-.,/;/ 1 + / / 0~ 1~ / \ ; i fil 1 ~~lij~ 1 1 1:Â· 1, : 4,/7 i / 4 XE O ... i 1 41/ / lf / \ /9 \ 9-/< 1/ 11 i i ''Ill/ 3 2.4.- 4 : ' .59 -' I. 1 2 .5/I.- : Il / 1%2 -7 , :29%. 1 1$ l i. l #1 11~ ~it f Â», 0. / ' 9 h : I.... 1 1. / /Y j Yful f j I 1 r ; 4 '1 u i' , x.+ ft;...i/ C .%. - zi ..1- - 1 j ,~ /1 I /// // 11 / 9 \ b 1 - I Ncr-: \4 / , 7-lk 1 . C &mM *%: GbÂ· ..+4* 1 / m / - th , /4 - Mirb w 6/6 1 / ME i lili l 1/ 111 3 1 / /2: ./ 9 im# 5 _.k m 81/1 lillia , -22 /9-i / e l , lili I / &56 1 1 j ; ti{ . / /4 j / Ii/ill' C l fl\' / /1, 12 ' 1 /' 6 - + F.: 2 1 ilit 1 jigi# e 1 f 1 f 0% . m Itil \ d:0; 4 ill! 1 Ch.Zi - o / I Â·la *b-1 V r. '33= M .1 , i 1-4-/ / i .'.4 8 w . 1 2 '0 ~1~ / / 4..1 i ,= millif N 0/10: - 4 j 3 Mt *w:*2 01â€¢813 ~ Â»/i Â»t /. -2 1 9 \i/ M MS 4 0 0 <132%F 3 1//f \ Â¥ 11 i=glim \ 6 h. 0 b 58 .::::5 7 .11:.,i-/0,- f j.tlu. 1 11 , / Ff M* (,LeÂ·=- -- 1 / i *42 0.6 :1161101 Q b el 131 / * 4,41 7 1 ' c. . - : 09 S zill is' -il. L 0:8 :WN:tiwS E \ 0 I '0. 1131 6 - 8:: .1*26*6* "8 R a li" WIN:miti -21 ///1 // / \ \ // i i )8:Sirt!â€¢i .s ---/-- I- \ \ k- \ \ %, I -Il 5 b, P 31V0 DNQ133NDN3 Al.NA03 73MIHV-1 ZOOZ ' LE 800C'F 002'ZE June 18,2008 Â·18 03M]LA321 29 ((%01.3 m ONIflne~laiNI ,0 HlkION YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - CONFERENCE CENTER AND LODGES + WIND RIVER 119HdSÂ¥ 0350dohid 13AÂ¥80 03$0dONd INO. Estes Park, Colora NOI.LOESâ‚¬S0210 3 3-IVAAS 1 MAM M HO I E nionhUS &10 SoIl SS300Â¥ Alnun TlÂ¥ 30Â¥80 iAL// Iti/53NO.LS HLM 03Nn 38 11Â¥HS 1,038]d Â¥ 30 SS30)(3 NI 33 3(Js~08 11Â¥HdSÂ¥ XI iNDkad Z C .8 'FR '8â€ž2 , 01 8 818'8 8 8 8 4* \- 0 5 8 4 1 / 1 103: Â».&00 T \02 c 1 1 2 1/ a 0 0 0 2 0/0 8,50 8 0 7 6 9 52 .2 44 Â¥ /1 1 00'1011 -3 ld/ N 0Â£++C ..'11 1,1~ 1 1 71 -2 3 1 ,, 1 1, -0.~ 1 l/ 0 1 1/ glle -13 04 t ~ l .+2 -Vls 0~ 0 1 N ! / 1 : 1 // 1 li 1 /1 1 /1 /l 1 24/9 1 ah= 1 532; MÂ¥%*025 1 1 1 /1/E \11 \'1 1 \1 1\ . \ @t 1 \ \ 1 1 1 \ 1 1 E /10 9 -13 040 \ 09+Z; -vil 044 t 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 \ 8 0 \ \ 1 \ 1 \ t 1 0 1 1 I 1 ' 1 1 1 \ 1 , 2 1 1 \ 1 & \ 1 1 oe'llog /U idA 1 0-Z -VIE ld' i / 1 \ 92 1 i Â£158 9 1 11'N b \ 0 \ - 1 N \ <27 1 1 9,1209 -"A J 0940:-Â¥ls OdA 1 \ \ go+ZE. f ld, I 00+OZ -vis idA 1 OC-$00, -9 id, I 1 0,42 ./1/1/' / 1 \ 1 1/ 1 08 \\ 0 2 1 /1,5 0 1 es:= W 4 596: 0 U 1 EE \ 1 2 ct - 0Â£+Ic -vt: 04 19'9Â£01 "8 0/A ./09 -10 0," \ 09+01 -15 od' 1 1 2 N Cl N N 0 + . 1 \\ 9 '8--41 1 \\ \\ \\ g g \\ m \\ ..901 -13 1. 1 \. .#t -V. 1. \ 0*+LE -Â¥ls la ~ \\ 08 , / A. / it/4 1 '1/3 b ib 8 15 1 t( i Z Â¥ **29 b 11,0 HNOM â‚¬3 }dA 90+Lt -Â¥ls kd~ 0 091: 14> - 0 801. 30.: 00\ 0 ---If. d 8 8 I 0 1 (4 0 0 0 \ 8 . el!,Old OSSÂ¥ 8002 '8 l @unr :Pes!A@N 8002 'Li Alnr :Pas!Aa}! 8002 'E L env :pes!Aekl DNIM33N10N3 UNnOO Â¥31118Â¥-1 600Z' LE 'Uor :pes!.91 Â·18 03431/\351 23--40 24-60 09<F 00.-rf 0*-ze 02--Lr 09-of 00-or 0*-62 09 -gz OZ-gz dnÂ©~9 SNIi,nS.~.im YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - CONFERENCE CENTER AND LODGES /Estes Pat,Corad 09 DE , 9 0 H.1.NON 1 12 1 = R 11 it O 0 9 NI - ~ w/ R 0 ~ M 9 W 8 18 co co g 7/ 8 n 10 080 /1Â£0@-A 18 j / 00+D--S Ut , 1 1 1 // 7 11 9 1 3/~180 A iLN3 - g l NINLO]5101.,Il l,Inall,00 Â§ 2% 1 1 .t O ,Â·1 0- . M @0Â·E,09-0 OdA 1 0 r-- )0+El-vis ./ . 1 5,820,-T 18 4.TRI-: + SE+IC-Vil 18 0- N L <44<1 ~L ~ 4 ~ ,~5#: K ~t\% 44.4.4. -6-6-8-01 i:18 1 A 6 232 &5&== Â£ .C 28Â·,coe--0 0- -0 9Â£400-vls 0,10 C .g 9 .9 ,0 0 A U 01,8 il: 12 -aw 1 0 A k 12 6 11 2 1 4 1 3... U. 1 r // 11 1 11 1 0 / M=-0 1. l / 17 00.0,13 1., 1 =40-15 18 ~ ~ 9 09,0-1. 14 11 11 1/ 1 1 1 Di@9. Â¢ 1 1 EE / 1 / 1 803800-13 3.a / 00+Ic-/11 0/' ' 1 1 1 / 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 / It S '' : 1 f 1 /1 /l r T 1 0.14...al/, 4 , 3.ithIC ]OISNIV_NnOIN 9 ~~~ 1. N0110352131NI 3N-IH~N30 ~ ~ 1 11 1 2. It 11 ..0913 9 -t 1 li 4 .L ' 8/ 9,1/. - 00+N-VIS $,a R i 2 2 11 1 O 0 23 0 co till i *JUL I 5% 1 1 11 CRM'-3 3. / / 0.4.-11 0. / 380 f. 0 1 - P = Mt Â§ i . 1/ 0 0 8 Wl : '1 1 1 .9 / r . 000011 la 01'9oe-13 1,\ 00+IC - stvo -Lt-Â¥ls la 1 00+0-Vis 1. 7 k 1 1 1\ E. oe -Â·a UA Il I 111; : j l 111 1 2 ** I I E.. li# 3 1 .'090.-13..A / 02+0*-Â¥15 ./ 1 01Â·Doce.= .I I 00*-VIE .. T / 1 11 3AINO AIDO ]IN 7*im VE]M 9 + 11 :144 " F - -----~il:/:do- Me,62 ' LE 1 404) 9 8 lip...1 Qi 4 1 1 A lili .91 92'2= 1 i blit R 1 l/, 1 1 ill o 1 1 il W 1 snol .... 11 01 11 1 0 0...Ils O. 7 1 R 2 9 n //8 8 8 6 //6 14 R N 0 888 O 0 0 CO 11 4 f 1 1 8 10 11 / 9/ / / t R _31 /=4 4 6 / .04/ 9 11 9 1 8 0 Â¤ 1i 2 8 h~/ 8 8 ,/ @5 . 0 . V 00 .CoÂ·01 1 31Â¥0 DNIH33NIDN3 Al-Nn00 h!30[18Â¥1 ot/0 0130 0100- 0070 0070 elyoid ADM esnol]Buol 800E 6001 'll Zooz' 1 acl Â·18 031*3tA]M noue DNilins.~....1 H.LEON 09-6* 03-6* 09-g, 00-8Â¥ 0.-L, 09 -9* OZ--9+ YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - CONFERENCE CENTER AND LODGES Estes Park, Colorado AT~TROL 36-60 39-60 - 08-Â£9 REVISIONS -q Accessory Dwelling Units ~ Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 ~ Estes Park, CO 80517 ~ Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www. estesnet.com DATE: Planning Commission - March 13, 2008; 1 - A 19 September 16 ... 1 1213 [2~nr---""- / / * USFS I ,-. October 21; . rfit J-W 12 November 18; - - 6,- December 16; Rocky I 3. Â£'bumain USFS January 20,2009; Miod L IPark uls February 17; 6 March 17 -6 LGES Town Board - TBD RAN) tl Board of County Commissioners - TBD REQUEST: To amend existing regulations regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. Primary changes include long-term rental and detached units. STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request to change the existing accessory dwelling unit regulations. The impetus for this change is a directive from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. What is an Accessory Dwelling Unit? An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a structure that provides independent living facilities for one or more persons, or a self contained housing unit secondary to the main residence. How is an ADU different from a duplex? ADU's are different from traditional duplexes in the following ways: (1) Units in a duplex are relatively equal in size. (2) ADU's are limited in size to be subordinate to the main residence. (3) Both units in a duplex can be rented. Three Types of ADU. Staff is proposing three varieties of ADU's: integrated, attached, and detached. Generally speaking, the larger the lot, the more independent the unit may be from the main house. Last printed 3/12/2009 11:37:00 AM -1- Subsequent to the February 2009 Planning Commission hearing, Staff has removed the detached option. How many? On a national level, municipalities that allow ADU's see an application for about 1 per 1,000 homes in a year (based on a survey of 47 communities that allow ADUs, per Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington "Accessory Dwelling Units Issues and Options" report). Why are we proposing these changes? /mpetus. In June 2006, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reviewed an appeal to staff decision regarding an accessory dwelling unit, as identified by Staff. The applicant stated the design was not an ADU, but only a "wet bar." Staff disagreed because the design added up to an area-that-could-stand-alone-as a-separate-household/Fhe-Board-of-Adjustment-agreed-with- Staff's assessment, and directed Staff to correct the "grey area" in the code of when a wet bar becomes a kitchen. In addition, ADU's help provide several benefits and serve many purposes: â€¢ Allow for "mother-in-law" suites (or, conversely, allow younger generation to move in with older generation). â€¢ Allow on-site property caretaker for second-home owners. â€¢ Provide guest quarters (Staff believes this would be the most common use). â€¢ ADUs could provide seasonal employee housing dispersed throughout the community. â€¢ Help reduce regulatory barriers that limit affordable housing opportunities. â€¢ Assist older homeowners in maintaining their independence by providing additional income to offset property taxes and the costs of home maintenance and repair. â€¢ Implement the following Comprehensive Plan Community Wide Policies: Growth Management Policies: 3.1 Encourage infill of older core areas in order to reduce infrastructure costs and to stabilize residential neighborhoods. Housing: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. 5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. 5.7 Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. 5.8 Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements. Economics: 7.1 Maintain a unique blend of businesses, residents and visitors, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. 7.9 Build on the strength of the retirement community. â€¢ Implement the Comprehensive Plan "recommended actions" number A.5 Housing, which states in part "there may be opportunities to modify zoning classifications to allow accessory units that serve as affordable housing units." Research. To research this issue, Staff has: Last printed 3/12/2009 11:37:00 AM -2- (1) Attended a Colorado APA sponsored training session; (2) Sponsored a session at the Mountain Resort Town Planners Conference; (3) Sent a request to the Colorado APA email "list serve" (received 27 responses from around the state); (4) Discussed with the building department, utility providers, Larimer County Health Department, and State Division of Water Resources; (5) Internet research (AARP, various municipalities); (6) Held several "focus group" discussions with local builders, designers, realtors, and Homeowners Associations; and, (7) Scheduled meetings with the Estes Park Housing Authority (September 10), Sunrise Rotary and League of Women's Voters (scheduled for November). Common Features of an ADU ordinance. This research has shown "common threads" in ADU ordinances, with the following being common elements: (1) Owner occupancy required in one unit. (2) Long-term rentals usually allowed in one of the units, but not both. (3) Most allow ADU's as attached or detached. (4) Normal setbacks apply. (5) Only one ADU per lot. (6) Parking requirement. (7) Maximum size limit. (8) Orientation of entrance. (9) Design standards. Current regulations. The Estes Valley Development Code currently allows ADU's in all single- family residential districts if the lot is 1.33 times the required minimum lot size. For example, a lot in the "E-1" one-acre zone district would need to be 1.33 acres; a lot in the "RE-1" 10-acre zone district would need to be 13.33 acres. With this current restriction, fewer than 1 in 3 residents could have an accessory dwelling unit (see Lot Size Analysis below). Other current regulations are that a unit must be "integrated within the principal unit", cannot exceed 800 s.f., cannot be rented separately, and there are no architectural standards. Lot Size Analysis: Number that are Number of 1.33 Zone Minimum Number Nonconforming minimum District Lot Size of Lots Lots Percentage size Percentage R 1 /4 acre 590 264 45% 157 27% E 1/2 acre 1501 699 47% 409 27% E-1 1 acre 1701 876 51% 379 22% RE 2 1/2 acre 654 285 44% 235 36% RE-1 10 acre 352 229 65% 98 28% Last printed 3/12/2009 11:37:00 AM -3- Total Â£ 4798 | 2353 49% | 1278 27% Larimer County allows "accessory living" space elsewhere in the county, though no separate rental is allowed. Detached accessory living areas must go before the Larimer County Planning Commission and require approval of the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. Approximately 1/3 of these requests are for units that were illegally built when this use was prohibited, and 15% of all zoning violations in Larimer County over the last three years have been illegal "second homes." Brief History. The first town zoning code in 1947 allowed two-family dwellings on all residentially zoned lots at least M acre in size. The 1986 code, which was in effect through 1999, allowed ADU's in all single-family zone districts, without a minimum lot size. That code required units be integrated, could not exceed 800 s.f., and could not be rented. Larimer County allowed "guest houses" to be built in the county until the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. Guest houses could not have cooking facilities. Proposed regulations. The principal changes include removal of the "1.33" requirement, allowing lease of one unit, allowing detached units, and adoption of architectural standards. Utility Providers. Town of Estes Park Building. The Building Department provided input regarding the definition of a dwelling unit, and stated that detached units would need to ensure adequate fire separation; the draft language satisfies their concerns. Town of Estes Park Utilities. Planning Staff has discussed this issue with the Town of Estes Park Utilities Department, who had no concerns. Larimer County Health. The Larimer County Health Department had comments regarding water and sanitary sewer, which have been incorporated into the draft language. State Division of Water Resources. The Division of Water Resources has provided a letter stating that every property with a well permit is different. Some well permits clearly allow or prohibit multiple units. Others are not so clear. Staff has attempted to addiess this in the draft language: either the well permit clearly allows an ADU, or a letter from the Division will be required. Builders. All builders that we met with and have discussed this with have been in favor of the proposed changes. One builder expressed concern about the size limitation, and suggested that smaller houses - with smaller value - would be the properties that could benefit the most from allowing the separate rental, but would be the most restricted in terms of size of the unit. Another question was how would this affect short-term rentals (draft language would prohibit short-term rentals on properties with an ADU). Architects/Designers. All architects/designers we met with expressed concern about the review process, and most were opposed to architectural standards (one felt that minimal standards could be acceptable). The concern about the review process was that it would be too lengthy for integrated/attached units, and subject to neighbor scrutiny for detached units. They Last printed 3/12/2009 11:37:00 AM -4- expressed fear that a person that has a right to build a detached unit could have their proposal denied in the face of neighborhood opposition. A common statement about architectural standards was that if people wanted those kind of protections, they could move to a neighborhood that has architectural requirements. Another comment was that if the principal house and garage are not subject to architectural standards, why should an ADU? Homeowners Associations. On the Friday before Labor Day, Staff invited sixteen Homeowners Associations and the Association for Responsible Development to discuss the proposed changes. Nine people respresenting four assocations attended. Of these, three people expressed significant concern, which seemed to center on the rental of units. Of note, the three that expressed this concern all lived in the same neighborhood, which prohibits ADUs. Other concerns expressed: Who would regulate rentals, and it's is a mistake for the town to not regulate the individual rentals; why would there not be a full tap fee; concern that eight people would live in one of these units; and concern that an ADU next door would devalue neighboring properties. Another person expressed strong support for the changes. Staff has talked with a resident of Stanley Heights, who expressed concern that the units could be sub-let for less than 90 days. Staff believes this possibility has been addressed in section (8). Staff has received correspondence from the Arapahoe Estates Property Owner's Association, which stated the changes "will not directly impact Arapaho Estates" as their neighborhood covenenants prohibit these. Staff has also received questions from the Koral Heights Property Owner's Association, which were addressed via email. No further correspondence has been received. Board of Realtors. Planning Staff presented the code changes to the Estes Valley Board of Realtors, who expressed no concern. Staff asked the group what their opinion was regarding impact to adjoining neighbors, and the consensus was that an ADU, either attached or detached, rented or not, would have no negative impact on adjoining properties. Other Meetings. In addition to the above noted meetings, Staff has presented this proposal to the: â€¢ Estes Park Housing Authority (Sept 10) â€¢ Sunrise Rotary (Nov. 25) â€¢ League of Women Voters (Feb. 9) Staff is also trying to arrange a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce, though scheduling conflicts has hindered this attempt. Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. General Standards. (No changes proposed) B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Last printed 3/12/2009 11:37:00 AM -5- Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE Ed E R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements Accessory Dwelling Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Â§5.2.B.2.a Unit late@Fated Â¥eeÂ¥88Â¥88Â¥es 44/GNGNe A~ Atteeked Â¥ee Â¥ee Â¥ee Â¥@G Â¥es Ne Ne Ne Det@Ghed Â¥=e@Â¥esÂ¥@6Â¥es*es We We Ne 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. a. Accessory Dwellinq Units. (1) Where Permitted. Accessory dwelling units (ADU) shall consist of living quarters integrated within g~ attached to, or dotachod from the principal single-family detached dwelling on the lot. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used as accessory dwelling units. (2) Defined. (a) An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling unit either in or added to an existing single-family detached dwelling on the same lot as the principal dwellinq, for use as a complete, independent living facility with provisions within the accessory unit for a kitchen, eating, sanitation/bathing, and sleeping. Such a dwelling is an accessory use to the main dwellinq. iN An accessory dwellinq unit may or may not have interior access to the principal dwelling unit. Exterior access to the accessory dwelling unit mav be included, but is not required. At least 12 feet alonq one wall of the accessory dwellinq unit must be contiguous to a wall of the principal dwelling unit. (3) Review. All accessory dwelling units shall be subject to development plan review process, as set forth in Chapter 3. All accessory dwelling units require review and approval of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and shall comply with standards set forth below. (4) Ownership. The principal dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit shall be under the same ownership. Last printed 3/12/2009 11:37:00 AM -6- (5) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a lot in addition to the principal single-family dwelling. (6) Occupancy. The cumulative number of individuals that reside in the principal and accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the number allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in Â§13.2.C.28. [Staff suggests that because rental is not an option, the need for owner occupancy is not necessary.] (7) Home Occupations. Subject to existing regulations, home occupations shall be allowed in either the principal dwelling or in the Accessory Dwelling Unit. In no circumstance, however, shall a home occupation(s) occupy both units. Traffic generated by the ADU shall be included in all home occupation traffic calculations, as required by Section 5.2.82d. (8) Limit on Tenancy. Vacation homes shall not be an allowed use on lots with an accessory dwelling unit. No accessory dwellinq unit shall be leased separately from the principal dwelling unit. (9) Size of Accessory Unit. No accessory dwellinqs shall exceed forty-nine percent (49%) of the size of the floor area of the principal dwelling unit (excluding attached garage) or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. For example, if the principal dwelling unit is one thousand (1,000) square feet, an accessory dwellinq unit could be four hundred and ninety (490) square feet, for a total of fourteen hundred and ninety (1,490) square feet. (10) Utilities. All accessory dwelling units shall be conditioned upon the provision of adequate public facilities, as outlined below. (a) All electrical, phone, and cable wiring serving the accossory dwclling unit shall be placed underground. (b) Sewage Disposal. Accessory dwelling units shall be served by either the Upper Thompson Sanitation District or the Estes Park Sanitation District. When the development site cannot physically be served by the UTSD or EPSD, or the development site is outside the existing or planned service areas the accessory dwelling unit may be served by an on-site sewage treatment system provided however, the Larimer County Health Department approves the service to the ADU. (c) Water. Accessory dwelling units shall be connected to the Town of Estes Park Water System. When the development site cannot physically be served by the Town of Estes Park Water System or the development site is outside the Town's existing or planned water service area the accessory dwelling unit may be served by individual or shared wells, provided however, at the time of application for properties utilizing wells either a well permit that specifically allows service for the proposed multiple dwellings, or a letter of interpretation Last printed 3/12/2009 11:37:00 AM -7 - from the Colorado Division of Water Resources indicating that the applicant's well permit is authorized for the proposed accessory dwelling. (11) Access. (a) The accessory dwelling unit shall utilize the same access point as the principal dwelling unit. (b) Road standards set forth in Section 7.12 of the Estes Valley Development Code shall not apply to ADUs. (c) General Site Access standards set forth in Appendix D shall apply to all accessory dwelling units, except that accessory dwelling units shall not count toward the limit on number of dwellings on a private driveway. (12) Off-Street Parking. (a) At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. This requirement shall be in addition to the parking required for a single-family dwelling unit (2). (b) Parking space dimensions shall comply with standards set forth in Section 7.11. (c) Parking shall not be located in the yard setback areas. (d) All parking areas shall be landscaped to screen from off-site. (e) Where covered parking is used in conjunction with an ADU it shall be calculated with the cumulative accessory use square footage. (f) Parked vehicles shall be located in approved locations. (g) Section 5.2.B2f "Storage or Parking of Vehicles, Recreational Equipment and Recreational Vehicles" applies to Accessory Dwelling Units. Occupants of the accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed to park vehicles on the site. The total number of vehicles on the lot shall not exceed the limit provided for in Section 5.2.B2f. (13) Site Design. (a) All General Development Standards set forth in Chapter 7 shall apply to all accessory dwelling units, except where modified by this Section. (b) Landscaping requirements set forth in Sections 7.5. F "Buffering and Screening" and 7.5.G2e "Perimeter Planting Requirements" shall apply. (14) Architectural Requirements. (a) Exterior lighting shall be concealed, with no bulb/light source visible from off site. Last printed 3/12/2009 11:37:00 AM -8- (b) The entrance to an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not face the front of the lot, and not be directly visible to the public, unless it can be demonstrated that no other reasonable alternative exists. Entrances shall be treated architecturally in such a way as to be de-emphasized in comparison to the principal dwelling unit. Uses of relatively smaller porches, overhangs or trim for the Accessory Dwelling Unit entrance are examples for creating this architectural hierarchy. (b) Tho docign of tho Accessory Dwolling Unit shall bo compatiblo with tho docign of tho principal dwolling unit by uco of similar oxtorior wall matorialc, window types, door and window trims, roofing materials and roof pitch and GeIGNA (d) The Decision-Making Body shall have authority to grant exceptions and modifications to these standards, provided they find tho roquosted modifications and/or waivers: 1. Advances the goals and purposes of this Code; and 2. Eithor rocultc in locc visual impact, more offoctivo onvironmontal or opon spaco procor:ation, roliovoc practical difficulties in dovoloping a site, or results in tho use of superior engineering and/or architectural standards than thoco roquirod by thic Codo. (15) Land-Use Affidavit Required. (a) The applicant shall submit a signed and notarized land-use affidavit that states the applicant has read and understands all requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code and agrees to all conditions of approval. (b) The land-use affidavit shall be approved by the Town or County Attorney. (c) The applicant shall submit the signed and notarized land-use affidavit with the building permit application, along with applicable recording fee. Staff shall submit the document for recording, and provide a copy of the recorded document to the property owner. (16) Fees. (a) Building permit fees apply for all accessory dwelling units. (b) Building permit applications for all accessory dwelling units are subject to all applicable impact fees, including but not limited to transportation capital expansion fees applicable to a multi-family land use type as defined in Section 9.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. (c) Water and sewer fees shall apply as determined by the utility provider. Last printed 3/12/2009 11:37:00 AM -9- (d) Accessory Dwelling Units shall be subject to development plan review fees set forth in-the current Development Review Fee Schedule. (17) Other Regulations. (a) A permitted accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all other applicable site and building design, height, access and other standards for principal dwelling units in the zoning district in which the accessory dwelling unit will be located. (b) In the case of any conflict between the accessory dwelling unit standards of this Section and any other requirement of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control. (c) Accessory dwelling unit square footage shall be included in cumulative accessory building square footage calculations. (d) Accessory dwelling units shall comply with applicable building codes. Â§ 6.3 CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING USES OR STRUCTURES A. Authority to Continue. Nonconformities shall be allowed to continue in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. B. Repairs and Maintenance. Repairs and normal maintenance required to keep nonconforming uses and structures in a safe condition shall be permitted, provided that no alterations shall be made except those allowed by this Chapter or required by law or ordinance. C. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses and Structures. 1. A/teration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses Prohibited. Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, a nonconforming use shall not be altered or extended. The extension of a nonconforming use to a portion of a structure which was built for the nonconforming use at the time of adoption of this Code is not an extension of a nonconforming use. 2. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Structures Limited. Except as allowed in Â§6.3.C below, a structure conforming as to use, but nonconforming as to height, setback or coverage, may be altered or extended, provided that the alteration or extension does not result in a new violation of this Code or increase the degree or extent of the existing nonconformity. (See Â§3.6, "Variances"; a variance may be sought to permit alterations or extensions to a nonconforming structure not otherwise allowed by this Chapter.) Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES 3. Accessory Dwolling Unit sha\\ mean a second dwelling unit integrated with a single- family dotachcd dwolling that is located on the camo lot as tho single family dctachcd dwelling. "Accossory Dwelling Unit" doos not include mobile homes, rocroational vehicles or travol trailer. Last printed 3/12/2009 11:37:00 AM -10- 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit \s a second dwelling unit either in or added to an existing single- family detached dwelling.on the same lot as the principal dwelling, for use as a complete, independent living facility with provisions within the accessory unit for a kitchen, eating, sanitation/bathing, and sleeping areas. Such a dwellinq is an accessory use to the main dwellinq. ********** i EÂ®.of. Proposed_Code change&5**f****1 Review Criteria. Per Section 3.3: All applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; Staff comment: Code changes are necessary to address changes in demographics of the Valley, which has seen a decrease in household size, an increase in the average age, and an increase in the need for affordable/employee housing. 2. The development plan, which the proposed an-~endment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and Staff comment: The proposed changes would help implement several adopted policies set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in the Staff report. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff comment: Each proposal would have to demonstrate ability to provide adequate public facilities. Findings. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The proposed amendment to this Code is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Last printed 3/12/2009 11:37:00 AM -11- ... -ater lines and 5 acre parcels fl---3 fi 7 0 0 2-3 4-91 0 71 ~' f r 1 J L 086 0 -/L L L 4 : 0 E. CL 23 N - 1 1- M 1 M 8 4 0 n N A 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 ~Miles Legend - 8inch current_zoning selection E-1 E - 6inch ~-J <all other values> E-P E-1 - 4inch zone_08 GiER] 1-1 - 2inch ~A ~R - 18inch 1**~ A-1 ~ RE 12inch ~ Current town boundary LI CD ~ RE-1 0 CO ~ RM E---7 null Accessory Dwelling Unit Agreement - Estes Valley Development Code PROPERTY ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: I/WE, the undersigned as owner(s) ofthe above referenced real property, have read and understand Section 5.2.82a, entitled Accessorv DwellinÂ£ Units, of the Estes Valley Development Code. I (we), as owner(s) of the property, understand and acknowledge the requirements and conditions under which this Accessory Dwelling Unit is approved (Development Plan , Exhibit "A"). This shall include the following requirements: (1) Compliance with Section 5.2.B2a "Accessory Dwelling Units" (attached). (2) @Thsert conditions.of development plan.approvall This agreement shall be binding upon the undersigned, his/her heirs, and assigns, and future owners of this property. ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO this day of , -I OWNER (print) OWNER (signature) STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , ,by Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Accessory Dwelling Unit Agreement - Estes Valley Development Code Karen Thompson From: Ronald Norris [ronaldfnorris@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11,2009 4:22 PM To: Douglas Klink CC: Karen Thompson; Alan Fraundorf; jbhull@aol.com; John Tucker; Richard Homeier; Steve Lane; Bob Joseph; Dave Shirk Subject: Re: ADUs for next week's meeting Doug: I agree with these priorities. I would also like to address ADUs first in next week's meeting, with a section added to discuss what can be done to upgrade pre-2000 ADUs. That will free up more of our time to deal with wildlife issues and begin working to understand affordable housing. Thanks, Ron On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Douglas Klink <dougklink@gmail.com> wrote: > Bob and Dave, > > I'd like to try and present the ADU proposed regs for a vote next > week. It might be a small "econimic stimulus package" for a few local > contractors if there is some pent up demand. > > Please make ADUs the first item on the agenda. > > Please add a section that allows renovation of detached ADUs and we > can discuss it during the study session. Perhaps something to the > effect of allowing renovations to any detached ADU that existed prior > to 2000. We can discuss all the points that were hashed over last > night for possible modification, too, but please be sure all the main > points are included per our February direction to staff. > > If we could bring the ADU discussion to a close, then we could focus > on wildlife. Once that is closed, we could start on affordable housing. > > Please call me if you want to discuss, 481-8162. > > Thanks! 1 Karen Thompson From: Richard Homeier [rockyhome@airbits.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11,200910:25 AM To: 'Douglas Klink'; Karen Thompson; 'Alan Fraundorf'; jbhull@aol.com; 'John Tucker'; 'Ron Norris'; 'Steve Lane' CC: Bob Joseph; Dave Shirk Subject: RE: ADUs for next week's meeting Doug, thanks for your hard work and for the exchange of ideas yesterday. It was helpful to all concerned. I agree that the pre-existing ADU's (both integrated and detached) should be addressed and can be considered a health, safety, and welfare issue within our community. Allowing them to be remodeled would bring them up to code and address potential community hazards. Probably many of these pre-existing ADU's are already being rented and this would improve the safety of the older units. We will of course have to address the rental issue, but that can be done later, perhaps in conjunction with reviewing the Vacation Home issue. In addition, an agreement on what a kitchen is and allowing a Single Family residence to have a second kitchen should be addressed. The big mistake was to force the affordable housing issue into this discussion of the "second kitchens or mother-in-law living areas" issue. Take that out, which assumes rentals, along with New Detached Units and I think you have a much easier program to deal with. These related issues can be handled in the future. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss these issues yesterday, Richard Homeier From: Douglas Klink [mailto:dougklink@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:33 AM To: Karen Thompson; Alan Fraundorf; jbhull@aol.com; John Tucker; Richard Homeier; Ron Norris; Steve Lane Cc: Bob Joseph; Dave Shirk Subject: ADUs for next week's meeting Bob and Dave, I'd like to try and present the ADU proposed regs for a vote next week. It might be a small "econimic stimulus package" for a few local contractors if there is some pent up demand. Please make ADUs the first item on the agenda. Please add a section that allows renovation of detached ADUs and we can discuss it during the study session. Perhaps something to the effect of allowing renovations to any detached ADU that existed prior to 2000. We can discuss all the 1 points that were hashed over last night for possible modification, too, but please be sure all the main points are included per our February direction to staff. If we could bring the ADU discussion to a close, then we could focus on wildlife. Once that is closed, we could start on affordable housing. Please call me if you want to discuss, 481-8162. Thanks! Karen Thompson From: Douglas Klink [dougklink@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:33 AM TO: Karen Thompson; Alan Fraundorf; jbhull@aol.com; John Tucker; Richard Homeier; Ron Norris; Steve Lane Dc: Bob Joseph; Dave Shirk Subject: ADUs for next week's meeting Bob and Dave, I'd like to try and present the ADU proposed regs for a vote next week. It might be a small "econimic stimulus package" for a few local contractors if there is some pent up demand. Please make ADUs the first item on the agenda. Please add a section that allows renovation of detached ADUs and we can discuss it during the study session. Perhaps something to the effect of allowing renovations to any detached ADU that existed prior to 2000. We can discuss all the points that were hashed over last night for possible modification, too, but please be sure all the main points are included per our February direction to staff. If we could bring the ADU discussion to a close, then we could focus on wildlife. Once that is closed, we could start on affordable housing. Please call me if you want to discuss, 481-8162. Thanks! 2 Karen Thompson lin: Dave Caddell [dave@caddellappraisals.com] nt: Friday, March 13, 20091:25 PM - TO: Karen Thompson Subject: letter to planning commission Bob, Dave, Alison and Karen, March 11 th, 2009 These are my thoughts both personal and professional, mainly professionally, 1. It is not economically feasible to do ADU's for a profit as a home owner as to keep single family loan status very little value is given to a guest cabin etc. So developers and builders would not get rich doing these for people as they are fairly small jobs for a builder. An idea is that the size should be further limited to under 700-800 sq. ft. and not more than 2-3 people to allow a young couple or single parent with kids to be able to afford to live here. As right now people are living in smaller units year round. It would also for our elderly to stay in their homes longer rather than pay for the high cost of assisted living and giving up their freedom. It would be more cost effective for them to pay $75 to $100K to have one built, design control can be in place so it fits the "neighborhood" so shacks are not built. Assisted living can eat up that cost at $3,000 to $4,000 per month in a hurry so it would be feasible for an elderly person who needs a little help can stay in their home. This is an issue all across the county due to aging population. I my personal case my wife and I would build one so her parents could be close to us and we can watch over them while they have their freedom as a lot of senior's have seen their retirement funds depleted due to the economy and have no way to recoup it. 2. Guest cabins or AUD's historically are all over the valley in the older areas of town and I do not know of any data that shows AUD's will impact values or marketability in a negative fashion, a lot of buyers like the idea and some do not care, in fact they add to the character as buyers do like them in that any guests they have visiting are not right on top of them, they can also have a caretaker in the UAD while they are away and not have to pay the expensive 3. home check fees. 4. The occupancy can be limited to no more than three to four people to eliminate the fears of "shacks going up all over and filled with local hispanics" some of the naysayers are afraid to say it like that but that is their fear but are afraid to address it honestly. One on one some of the folks against the AUD's have stated the above to me personally re the shacks etc. They are concerned about the household definition of up to 8 unrelated people can live in one dwelling as defined by the Estes Valley Development Code. A limit on occupancy of AUD's will eliminate that aspect. 5. If the ADU's are required to be attached it will mess up the flow and design of the main house and that would impact marketability and cause lenders to consider them to be duplexes that are illegal due to the attached nature and kill the ability to still have owner occupied financing. If a home is classified as a duplex or small income property, those have value issues up here as long term rentals do not cash flow at today's values so the attaching aspect would hurt values in my opinion as attached 2-4 unit properties hardly appreciate at all. 6. Some of the people that are griping have no economic interests in this area as they are retired and get their income in the mail from retirement etc. also Some of these folks live in areas where their HOA already bans ADU's or rentals of any kind. Lastly the meetings appear to get over run with people who do not have to work; there may be more balanced input if meetings were at a time that all could attend. I know it is hard for me to stop working during the day to go to a meeting etc. 1 I would be glad to discuss these issues with anyone in more detail in regards to how lenders would look at these properties. Maybe a local lender should be consulted with also. The ADU concept is a great way to preserve more open areas in the valley as our density is very low compared to other mountain areas. I am ok with this letter being distributed and am willing to discuss my points and points of others in this matter. Respectfully Submitted .- Thank You Dave David P. Caddell Caddell Appraisals Inc. B 970-577-9545 Fax 970-577-7596 Cell 970-231-5815 Dave@caddellappraisals.com www.Caddellappraisals.com 2 ~~0~:5>ESTES VALLEY<k:m, CONTR~O~ ANASSOCUrION OFCONSrRUCnON PROFESSIONALS- ASSOCIATION Contractors, Engineers, Architects, Designers & Developers March 10, 2009 Dear Planning Commission Members; Attached are a few documents that you requested from us at the Planning Commission meeting in February. The first one is a list of the contractors that we have talked to who have had requests for ADU's or similar type structures. There are some detailed explanations of what each contractor encountered while dealing with the client and the planning department. The second is a list of existing detached At)U's and bunkhouses in the valley. This is not a complete list; it is a list that has been compiled solely by looking at the Larimer County Assessor's office records. It is highly likely that there are others that we may have missed or are not even registered with the Assessor's office. Nevertheless, it lists over a c hundred detached ADU's or bunkhouses in the Estes Valley. Following the list of ADU's and bunkhouses are six photos of existing detached ADU's and bunkhouses in the Estes Valley. 1. In the High Drive area on Columbine Dr. It was built in 1993 as a bunkhouse. It does not have a kitchen in it, however, it would likely not be allowed under today's code. It is located on a lot that is 0.28 acres in the E zone and met all the setbacks at the time. It is an excellent example of a recent tastefully done construction that can fit on a smalllot. 2. In Little Valley, this is a bunkhouse above a garage that was built in 1995. It is on a lot that is 6.03 acres in the RE-1 zone. The current code would likely not allow the structure to be built today. 3. On Aspen Ave, near the hospital this is an excellent example of a unit that is available for affordable housing in the community. It is on a 0.32 acre lot in the R zone. This unit is a full ADU that was built in 1942 and recently remodeled in the past five years. It is 288 square feet and detached from the principal unit. 4. Also located in the Little Valley area, this ADU was built above a garage in 1999. It is 828 square feet on a 1.40 acre RE lot. This unit is carefully nestled into the trees on the lot. 5. This compound on Tanager Ave in the High Drive area has two detached structures which are allowed in the current zoning. Both of the structures however are ADU's and are not allowed. One ADU was built in 1924 and the other in 1945. They blend well with the architecture and also fit well on the lot as single Page 1 of 2 story structures blended into the trees. They are fine examples of how an ADU should be a subordinate structure and fit well with the character of the neighborhood. 6. The final example is on Evergreen Ave in the town off ofMacGregor Avenue. It is a full ADU that purposefully looks like a garage. It is on a 1.14 acre lot in an E-1 zone built in 1961. The building is 416 square feet. The ADU blends well with the principal building and into the neighborhood. Several of these examples illustrate how a well designed detached ADU can fit on a small lot, blend with the principal structure and fit the character of the neighborhood. Most of them are on lots that are substandard to their current minimum zoning size or less than 2 M acres. Essentially they are not allowed currently or under the proposed changes in Draft 3 presented to the Planning commission in February. The final document is an article about a March, 2008 lawsuit in the North Carolina Court of Appeals. We thought this might be of interest to you. The case involved an owner who did not comply with the City of Wilmington's owner occupancy regulation then refused to pay any fines. The lawsuit was filed by the city and the trial court deemed the regulation of owner occupancy illegal and upon appeal by the city, the court of appeals affirmed the decision. There can be ways to control the rental ability of an ADU, but requiring the owner to reside on the property is an unfair and apparently illegal notion. Two examples of difficulties it creates are it does not allow the owner to have an on-site property caretaker as well as those who don't even want to rent it. In both cases, they may not want to reside fulltime or even part time. It may simply be a vacation house. Forty-two percent of the homes in this community afe second homes according to housing study performed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. The Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment performed by the Estes Park Housing Authority is what we referenced in compiling some of our affordable housing information that we mentioned in our previous letter to the Planning Commission. All the ADU examples shown in the photos could be used as affordable housing interspersed throughout the community. Sincerely, 60&#1-4 Mike Menard, President Estes Valley Contractors Association Page 2 of 2 Survey ofLocal Architects, Designers and Building Contractors Conducted by the Estes Valley Contractors Association to determine the demand for Accessory Dwelling Units in the Commudity BASIS ARCHITECTURE Interview with Steve Lane 2/3/09 He indicated that several oftheir recent clients wished to have attached ADUs on their new homes, but zoning regulations disallowed them. The ADD would have been used for guest accomodations only. These were "high end" homes. He also feels that the architectural standards should be less restrictive to suite the client's taste. His company is currently designing a detacted ADU in Meadowdale Hills because the Larimer County Land Use Code allows this use. BECK ARCHITECTS PC Interview with Thomas Beck 2/3/09 He indicated that his company gets several inquires yearly for integrated, attached and detached ADUs. He has a client with an older home that is built in the side and rear setbacks making it Â£ d impossible to add-on to those two sides and the configuration ofthe floor plan didn't lend itselfto adding-on to the other sides. So the owner obtained a permit to create a bedroom for their teenage children in the top oftheir detached garage. Later they obtained another permit for a full bathroom in that bedroom. As the family grew, the owner tried to obtain another permit to create a bedroom in the garage itself and was denied because the Planning Department said they made a mistake in allowing the full bath in the first place, which had created a detached ADU despite the fact there was no kitchen and thus the owner was not allowed to extend the nonconforning use. DONNA BAGDY DRAFTING & DESIGN Interview with Donna Bagdy 2/3/09 She has numerous recent clients inquiring about integrated, attached and detached ADUs. Several wanted to build integrated ADUs to house elderly parents. She also said several owners wanted them for rentals. In 1999, She built an ADU in her personal home under old zoning regulations and had to sell it when she lost the right to rent it. She indicated that she would definately build another ADU in her present home if the Code allowed it. f. CHARLIE PHILLIPS/RESIDENTIAL DESIGNER Interview with Charlie Phillips 2/18/09 , He had a project three years age that involved what should be considered a basement rec room that happened to include a wet bar. The town brought up the issue ofADUs and made sure that this did not in anyway resemble an ADU In addition the owner was required to modify the deed regarding the issue of an ADU. That the property would only be used as a single family residence. This is an example of excessive analysis of a simple wet bar. See Steve Nickels example ofwhere a wet bar was not even allowed. He had a client two years age with an existing detached family room/recreation room. The client wanted to add a full bathroom to make a bedroom suite but the town would not let him because then it would have been considered a detached ADU. How does a bathroom constitute an ADU? Another client two years ago wanted to build a detached office, with a simple kitchen and bathroom. The town considered this an ADU and required that it could not include a shower and the kitchen could not have a stove. In addition they required a deed restriction that the building could never be used as sleeping quarters. The client did not do the project because they were unwilling to sign the deed restriction. The point here is that the primary use was an office, however there may occasionally be a large family gathering where someone may sleep in the office. The house already had several guest bedrooms that would be predominately available for guest. But there may still be the need to use the office as a sleeping quarter in large family gatherings. The client was fine with the f limited bathroom and kitchen facilities, but not limiting the possibility of sleeping quarters. As a side note, what is wrong with a detached bunkhouse/bedroom? CONCEPT DESIGN/BUILD Interview with Paul Brown 2/4/09 He designed an attached ADU under old Town zoning regulations. A mother decided to build the small mother-in-law apartment for herself on her own home so her son and his young family of four could move into the principal residence because the son could not find any affordable housing in Estes Park. In 2008, he designed an attached mother-in-law apartment with a kitchen and full bathroom on the home ofthe adult children under the Larimer County Land Use Code that allows the use in Glen Haven. Also in 2008, he had a client, an elderly widow, that owned a one bedroom house with a 34 bathroom on a half acre lot. She also had a detached one room sleeping cabin without a bathroom used by visiting elderly widow friends. At night her guests would need to use her bathroom and were afraid to cross the yard in the dark or they didn't want to impose on their hostess, creating a problem. The present zoning code wouldn't allow the owner to install a full bathroom in the cabin. C He said he had several other clients with similar situations that haven't any recourse. In 2007, he designed a new detached garage with a loft above containing a 1/2 bath on a .92 acre nonconforning lot which the Town approved the permit. The owner would like to have the right to eventually convert the loft to an ADU for use by extended family in the summers. He would consider building a small 300 SF to 400 SF detached ADU on his E zoned,,40 acre lot for family use only. CONTRACT DRAFTING & ILLISTRATION SERVICES Interview with Kay Cody 2/3/09 She hasn't had any requests from her clients for any type of ADU, since the 2000 Estes Valley Development Code was adopted. She did comment that the Community should reconsider allowing more detached ADUs (guest houses) because they have an established historic character and use in the community and offer private living space for extended family. CUSTOM CONTRACTING Interview with Dave Mechem 2/10/09 Recently he spoke with a property owner in the north valley that had a fire which destroyed their barn. The owner wanted to rebuild the barn and incorporate an ADU and seperate office into the design. DALLMAN CONSTRUCTION Interview with Jeff Moreau 2/4/09 He recently built a detached garage with a family recreation room above that had a kitchenette with sink, stove, microwave and refrigerator and a M bath on a nonconforming lot. He said the Town granted the permit because it wasn't an ADU if it didn't have a bathtub or shower. DnB CONSTRUCTION Interview with Daniel Ludlam His company has received 2-3 inquires for ADUs in the past three years, but none ofthe owners' lots were conforming to the required size. 4. Many ofhis clients are young families that support the "Green Movemenf' and feel allowing more ADUs is an affordable housing option that conserves energy, natural resources and also helps preserv6 the remaining open spaces in the Estes Valley. DOCTOR CONSTRUCTION Interview with Eunise Doctor 2/13/09 She said their company has had numerous conflicts with the Community Development staff about what constitutes a kithen and depending on which staff member you ask, you'll receive a different interpretation. They're most frequently told its not a kitchen if there is no sink and stove. They have only been allowed to install microwaves and refrigerators in family rooms. She also stated these inconsistent decisions have caused their elderly clients undue emotional anxiety and stress. DONAHUE - ARCHAMBAULT BUILDERS Interview with Mark Donahue 1/31/ 09 He indicated that two years ago their company has an inquiry from a property owner in Stanley Heights about building a new detached ADU. They were adult children that wanted it for their aging parents use. RAY DUGGAN BUILDERS & DESIGN Interview with Ray Duggan 1/03/09 In 2008, He bid on an integrated ADU to be incorporated in the basement of an existing home. The project estimate was $80,000.00. The adult children were having it built for their parents' use. FISHER CONSTRUCTION Interview with David Fisher 1/30/09 In 2008, He had two inquires about detached guest quarters with only a bedroom and full bathroom. FRANK WEST BUILDERS Interview with Frank West 2/4/09 Under the current zoning regulations, he has worked on a alteration/remodeling project in which the owner wanted an intergated ADU with a full bathroom and kitchen in a ( walkout basement for elderly parents. Because the lot was nonconforming in size, the building inspector would not allow a door at the bottom ofthe stairway that would seperate the basement from the rest ofthe house. GLACIER CREEK CONSTRUCTION INC. Interview with Chuck Santagati 2/3/09 He currently is working on a ADU project in the vicinity of Aspen Lodge because the Larimer County Land Use Code allow this use. He is also in negotiations to build a detached studio with a half bath in the Estes Valley and if zoning allows, it could later be converted to an ADU. He also would like to build a detached ADU for his own needs if zoning allowed that would make use of solar cells and a wind generator and it would to be a model for other designers, builders and home owners.. He strongly believes ADUs are a housing trend ofthe future and many young adults, like himself, want them because they promote the "Green Movemenf' of doing more with less, on already developed property. This conserves our open spaces. J C DESIGN Interview with John Clifton 2/4/09 He has designed several basement ADUs for conforming lots and has inquiries for garage apartments but this use is not allowed by current zoning. All the inquiries are from adult children who need the ADU for their elderly parents that can't afford to live in an assisted living facility. THE PORTFOLIO GROUP Interview with Steve Nickel 2/9/09 He said their Company remodeled an existing ADU before the 2000 zoning code changes. The ADU was in a walkout basement and it had a full kitchen, bathroom and a lockable door in the stairway that seperated the basement from the rest of the house. The ADU was used as a rental. Their company was involved with the project concerning the "wet bar" issue. The owner intended to convert an attached onersized garage into a guest suite that had two bedrooms, an exterior exit, a locking door between the suite and the rest ofthe house and a sitting area with a wet bar. The bar had a sink and a dish washer. The Board of Adjustment with the planning staff concurring, ruled the suit was an ADU. Judge fbr yourselfthe facts. f 1. The definition of an Accessoo Dwelling Unit is a second dwelling unit integrated in a single-family detached dwelling. 2. Dwelling Unit shall mean a building or portion of it designed and used as living and sleeping quarters for a single household, and that includes exclusive sleeping, kitchen, eating and sanitation facilitied. 3. Kitchen shall mean a room or space within a room equiped with such electrical or gas hook-up that would enable the installation of a range, oven or like appliance using 220/40 volt or natural gas (or similar fuels) for the preparation of food and also contains either or both a refrigerator and sink. Their company gets requests from other clients of a similar nature and their company is still not sure how to respond. Is this a code language problem or an interpretation problem or both. SCHLARBAUM CONSTRUCTION Interview with Doug Schiarbaum 2/4/09 Last year in 2008, he had two inquiries about ADUs, but zoning wouldn't allow them. DAN SMITH CONSTRUCTION Interview with Dan Smith 2/4/09 He has built several integrated and one attached ADU in Estes Park under the old zoning C regulations. He still gets a few inquires about ADUs but refers the owners to other builders that specialize more in that type ofwork. SWITZER CONSTRUCTION Interview with Joe Switzer He indicated that he receives numerous calls from home owners that want intregated ADUs but their lots are all nonconforming in size. He also has others interested in attached and detached ADUs. TAYLOR BUILT INC. Interview with Bob Taylor 2/4/09 He had an inquire in July of 2008 from a client that had a " high end "house plan that was designed to entertain business associates. The client has postponed the project awaiting the outcome of code revisions relating to detached ADUs. The client would prefer that his guests stay in a detached guest house to maintain everyones privacy. THREE PEAKS CONSTRUCTION < Interview with Joe Hladick 2/4/09 In 2007, He had two inquiries about ADU projects. One was a house addition for a proposed mother-in-law apartment. He also gets numerous inquiries about alterations and additions to existing guest quatters and detached ADUs but can't help the owners because the current code language doesn't allow an extension to a nonconforming use. WESTOVER CONSTRUCTION INC. Interview with Mark Westover 2/4/09 He said several of his company's clients have requested wet bars and ADUs to be installed in the walk-out basements oftheir "high end" homes. With all the controversy and confusion about zoning regulations and subdivision covenants, his company' s policy is to steer clear ofthe problems and don't offer the client the options. WOLEE CONSTRUCTION INC. Interview with Chris Wolfe 2/4/09 He hasn't had any recent inquires above ADUs from property owners in the Estes Valley. However He has recently built several ADUs in barns and garages in the "Valley". All have been for elderly parent housing. A survey of existing residential Detached Living Units (bunk houses) and Detached Accessory Dwelling Units within the Community. Conducted by the Estes Valley Contractors Association 1. Larimer County Accessor records verify that 39 residential detached living units (bunk houses with or without limited plumbing) and 98 residential detached dwelling units (independant dwellings with a kitchen sink and bathroom containing a toilet, bathroom sink and bathtub or shower) exist within the jurisdiction of the Estes Valley Development Code. They were built from 1893 to 2000. 87% ofthe total combined 137 units are located inthe unincorporated Estes Valley and 13% are located within the limits of the Town of Estes Park. 2. For the past nine years, no residential detached living units (bunk houses) or detached accessory dwelling units have been built in the entire Estes Valley after the Estes Valley Development Code was adopted on February 1, 2000. This breaks a 107 year tradition for building these types of residential structures in the Estes Valley. 3. There are currently 4752 residential lots in the entire Estes Valley and only 117 of these lots have a detached living unit or detached accessory dwelling unit. Several of these lots have more than one unit. After 107 years ofunrestricted development, only 2.46 % ofthe total residential lots have some form of detached living structure. 4. 48 % ofthe 117 lots are sub-standard for the current required minimum lot size in their zoning district. Detached living units and detached accessory dwelling units are found on lots that range from .13 acre to 154 acres. 5. In 1986 the Town ofEstes Park no longer allowed detached living units or detached accessory dwelling units to be built within the Town limits. Before 1986 one detached residential living unit (bunk house) was built every 2.66 years in the entire Estes Valley and from 1986 to 2000 one was built every 3.5 years. Before 1986 one detached residential accessory dwelling unit was built in the entire Estes Valley at a rate of 1.02 per year and from 1986 to 2000 one was built at a rate of.72 per year. This decrease in the building rate for both types of units may possibly be due to eliminating their development within the Town of Estes Park or other factors. 6. Subdivision covenants are one factor that restricts the development of detached accessory dwelling units. Cost is another major factor that greatly hinders the development of detached living structures. 7. There is no evidence to support that the expected growth rate of new residential detached living units (bunk houses) or detached accessory dwelling units will excede the historic growth rates, especially in light of the current depressed housing market. Using the historic growth rates for detached living units (bunk houses), 6 to 8 new units would be built in the next 20 years. Using the historic growth rates for detached accessory dwelling units, 14 to 21 new units would be built in the next 20 years. 8. Before 1986 the average size of adetached living unit was 308 SF and from 1986 to 2000 the average size increased to 577 SF. The smallest unit is 80 SF and the largest is 961 SF. Before 1986 the average size of a detached accessory dwelling unit was 513 SF and from 1986 to 2000 the average size increased to 890 SF. The smallest unit is 168 SF and the largest is 1792 SE 9. Most all ofthe structures are single story cabins or cottages with one or more rooms. One structure had two stories and three units are located above garages. 10. All the structures constructed after 1-986 are designed to the the latest building codes for the period, I feature high grade materials and show excellant workmanship. The structures all compliment the principle residence. They are well maintained and do not detract from the neighborhoods in which they are located. They all demonstrate that excessive zoning regulations are not necessary to accomplish a tasteful project. L.. Survey of detached accessory living units (bunk houses) found on residential lots in addition to the primary residence within the entire Estes Valley. All of these units are recorded with the Larimer County Accessor. Larimer C?unty classifies them as calins with or without plumbing fix tures, but not as complete independent dwelling units because they lack either a kitchen sink or a complete bathroom which must include a bathroom sink, toilet and bathtub or shower. All of the living units were built prior to 1986, when they were still allowed in the Town of Estes Park. Address Current Zoning Parcel Number Acreage Year Built Building Size/Sq. Ft. 1. 1080 North Ln. RE 25191-40-045 7.84 1893 308 2. 432 Rockridge Rd. RE-1 35252-00-009 14.54 1900 264 3. 535 Wonderview Ave. E-1 35243-15-002 1.18 1907 362 4. 348 Virginia Dr. RM 35243-08-005 .13 1909 192 5. 1339 McCreery Ln. RE-1 25184-05-006 .97 1910 961 6. 2205 CliffRd. RE 34041-00-004 1.26 1915 192 7. 1261 Devils Gulch Rd. RE-1 25192-00-024 5.09 1916 420 8. 1701 Hummingbird Ln. E 35274-04-014 1.00 1920 328 9. "" "E " " " 144 10. 2451 Devils Gulch Rd. RE-1 25083-00-052 63.05 1924 536 11. 970 Prospect Park Dr. E-1 35351-05-010 1.03 1923 248 12. 1190 Giant Track Rd. E-1 35353-00--65 1.31 1925 340 13. 1910 Upper High Dr. RE 35274-00-036 1.38 1926 288 14. 910 Prospect Park Dr. E-1 35351-05-009 1.96 1929 384 15. 2225 Cliff Ln. RE 34041-00-016 7.59 1930 90 16. 775 Wonderview Ave. E-1 35234-16-002 1.85 1930 264 17. 2451 Devils Gulch Rd. RE-1 25083-00--52 63.05 1930 416 18. " " " RE-1 " " 1935 224 " 19. 1715 Mills Rd. RM 35341-00-010 .37 1935 300 20. 1264 Chasm Dr. RE-1 25184-05-029 .68 1935 176 21. 755 Bailey Ln. E 25303-23-001 .44 1935 288 22. 2112 MeGraw Ranch RE-1 25081-05-010 13.00 1935 408 23. 380 Riverside Dr. unknown 35253-05-006 .66 1940 80 24. 440 Larkspur Rd. RE 35274-00-006 7.56 1940 106 25. 910 Prospect Park Dr. E-1 35351-05-009 1.96 1944 190 26. 1541 Devils Gulch Rd. RE-1 25184-07-001 5.21 1947 192 27. " " " " RE-1 " â€ž ,; 246 28. 2080 Upper High Dr. RE 35274-00-048 .63 1948 294 29. 1980 Cliff Rd. RE 34030-00-007 154.00 1951 456 30. 710 Laurel Ln. E-1 35274-04-054 .50 1952 731 31. 2280 Cliff Rd. RE 34041-00-007 2.75 1962 160 32. 2145 CliffLn. RE 34041-00-003 8.17 1962 216 33. 3980 Little Valley Rd. RE 24074-00-012 1.14 1965 378 34. 601 Highland Ln. E 25302-13-022 .32 1968 396 35. 1285 Chasm Dr. RE-1 25184-05-004 2.01 1978 192 Summary: 1. The Larimer County Accessor has 35 recorded residential detached living units (bunk houses) known to exist in both the Town of Estes Park and the unincorporated Estes Valley before 1986. One detached residential living unit (bunk house) was built, on average, every 2.66 years in the entire Estes Valley from 1893 to 1986. 2. They range in size from 80 SF to 961- SR The average size is 308 SF. 3. They are all built as a single story cabin or cottage with one or more rooms. Survey of detached accessory dwelling units found on residential lots in addition to the primary residence within the Estes Valley. All of these accessory dwelling units are recorded with the Larimer County Accessor. Larimer County classifies them as cabins or additional residences having a kitchen sink and a complete bathroom with a toilet, lavatory and bathtub or shower. All of the detached accessory dwelling units were built prior to 1986, when they were still allowed in the Town of Estes Park Address Current Zoning Parcel Number Acreage Year Built Building Size/Sq. Ft. 1. 3501 Devils Gulch RE-1 25043-00-004 11.25 1900 440 2. """ RE-1 " "" 624 3. 1111 Giant Track Dr. E-1 35353-00-010 1.58 1900 768 4. 535 Wonderview Ave. E-1 35243-15-002 1.18 1907 362 5. 432 Rockridge Rd. RE-1 35252-00-009 14.54 1909 618 6. 1380 Devils Gulch RE-1 25183-00-007 12.00 1911 736 7. """ RE-1 " 1913 991 8. 220 Big Horn Dr. E-1 35252-18-009 .33 1913 492 9. 1380 Devils Gulch RE-1 25183-00-007 12.00 1914 328 10. 440 E Riverside Dr. unknown 35253-05-001 5.90 1915 576 11. 1681 High Drive E-1 35274-04-046 .56 1917 440 ( 12. """ E-1 " " 240 1, 13. 680 Wonderview Ave. E-1 35234-00-001 2.00 1919 240 14. 141 Evergreen Ln. E-1 35243-05-004 1.16 1919 650 15. "" E-1 " 578 16. "" E-1 " " " 664 17. 445 Valley Dr. A 35234-00-038 1.04 1920 249 18. """ A " " " 192 19""" A " " " 192 20. 2275 Cliff Rd. RE 34041-00-038 2.43 1920 250 21. 1701 Hummingbird Ln. E 35274-04-014 1.00 1920 720 22. 2261 High Dr. E-1 35273-05-033 1.76 1923 392 23. 685 Tanager Rd. E-1 35274-06-017 2.27 1924 231 24. 339 Virgina Dr. RM 35252-31-006 .15 1924 220 25. 1112 Giant Track Rd. E-1 35353-00-061 1.00 1924 456 26. Windriver Trail A 34033-00-004 32.00 1925 330 27. " A " " " 168 1, 28. 2112 McGraw Ranch RE-1 25081-05-010 13.00 1925 333 29. 444 Rockridge Rd. RE-1 35264-41-001 15.14 1925 330 30. 610 Chickadee Ln. E-1 35274-04-013 1.00 1925 774 31. 1190 Marys Lake Rd. E 35351-12-005 1.06 1925 288 32. " " "E " 432 33. 1230 Giant Track Rd. E-1 35353-00--36 .40 1925 315 34. 2390 Cliff Dr. RE 34041-00-010 1.44 1926 390 35. 821 University Dr. E 25303-23-026 1.83 1926 528 36. E " " 11 1, 216 37. 1561 High Drive E 35263-16-008 .51 1929 399 38. 721 Chickadee Ln. E-1 35274-04-052 .77 1929 400 - 39. 340 Elm Rd. CO 35262-00-056 1.46 1930 480 40. 1790 Upper High Dr. unknown 35274-00-017 3.50 1930 240 41. 2225 Cliff Ln. RE 34041-00-016 7.59 1930 306 42. 1590 Lower Broadview E-1 35352-12-021 1.26 1930 192 43. 1575 Devils Gulch RE-1 25184-05-012 2.21 1930 686 44. 1731 High Drive E-1 35274-04-047 .44 1930 394 45. 1485 Upper High Dr. unknown 35352-12-012 1.90 1930 440 46. 1220 Marys Lake Rd E. 35351-13-017 .33 1931 280 47. 1954 Upper High Dr. unknown 35271-00--28 12.53 1933 600 48. 575 Tanager Rd. E-1 35274-05-006 1.12 1934 318 49. 1711 Mills Dr. RM 35341-00-035 .42 1935 480 50. 2041 Devils Gulch RE-1 25170-00-003 50.00 1935 1211 51. 1723 Hwy. 66 unknown 35341-00-064 .65 1935 450 52. 816 Riverside Dr. RE 35351-05-006 2.71 1935 420 53. 1765 Moraine Ave. unknown 35341-00-011 2.47 1937 480 54. 1104 Haybarn Rd. RE-1 25191-00-015 3.80 1938 1072 55. 1185 Giant Track Rd. E-1 35353-00-011 2.00 1938 288 56. 1217 Giant Track Rd. E-1 35353-00-008 3.34 1938 360 57. 380 Riverside Dr. unknown 35253-00-009 1.64 1939 576 58. 721 Chickadee Ln. IE-1 35274-04-052 .77 1939 400 59. 1421 Bluebell Dr. E 35263-15-029 .32 1939 742 60. 2375 Tunnel Rd. A 34041-00-059 38.47 1940 436 61. A""" " " 11 216 62. 2441 Devils Gulch RE-1 25082-00-046 18.34 1940 364 63. 1217 Giant Track Rd. E-1 35353-00-008 3.34 1940 510 64. 618 Aspen Ave. R 25303-18-005 .32 1942 288 65. 685 Tanager Rd. E-1 35274-06-017 2.27 1945 640 66. 3020 Big Horn Trail A 34033-00-010 1.86 1945 288 67. 1650 Devils Gulch RE-1 25184-00-002 37.50 1947 447 68. 2039 Kendall Dr. unknown 27171-06-001 11.63 1947 1642 69. " . 1, unknown 1948 1000 " 70. 2120 McGraw Ranch RE-1 25081-05-020 40.12 1949 576 71. 390 Elm Rd. CO 35262-00-025 1.60 1949 480 72. 2225 Fall River Rd. unknown 35153-00-007 35.00 1950 392 73. 1031 E. Riverside Dr. unknown 35351-11-005 .95 1950 292 74. 1950 Fall River Rd. unknown 35221-00-006 33.00 1951 576 75. 1611 High Drive IE-1 35274-04-001 1.00 1952 588 76. 1252 Giant Track Rd. E-1 35353-00-032 1.00 1953 517 77. 819 Big Horn Dr. E-1 35243-05-010 .91 1953 860 78. 1611 High Drive E-1 35274-04-001 1.00 1955 640 79. 3231 Circle Dr RE-1 25044-05-013 2.88 1958 710 80. 390 Elm Rd. CO 35262-00-025 1.60 1960 248 81. 1980 Cliff Rd. RE 34030-00-007 154.00 1961 288 82. 160 Evergreen Ln. E-1 35243-05-018 1.13 1961 416 c 83. 2225 Fall River Rd. unknown 35153-00-007 35.00 1964 1792 84. 421 Larkspur RE 35274-00-008 3.68 1967 756 85. 3390 Devils Gulch RE-1 25043-00-005 13.00 1971 336 86. 1701 Hummingbird E-1 35274-04-014 1.00 1972 884 87. 3390 Devils Gulch RE-1 25043-00-005 13.00 1973 512 88. 3225 Devils Gulch RE-1 25092-06-002 13.59 1975 1091 Summary: 1. The Larimer County Accessor has 88 recorded residential detached accessory dwelling units known to exist in the Town of Estes Park and the unincorporated Estes Valley combined before 1986. One detached accessory dwelling unit was built, on average, at a rate of 1.02 per year in the entire Estes Valley from 1900 to 1986. 2. They range in size from 168 SF to 1792 SE The average size is 513 SE 3. All the units are built as single story cabins or cottages with one or more rooms. Survey of detached accessory living units (bunk houses) found on residential lots in addition to the primaly residence within the Estes Valley. All of these units are recorded with the Larimer County Accessor. Larimer County classifies them as cabins with or without plumbing fixtures but not as complete independent dwelling units because they lack either a kitchen sink or a complete bathroom which must include a bathroom sink, toilet and bathtub or shower. All of these living units were built in the unincorporated Estes Valley between 1986 and February 1, 2000 when detached living units were no longer allowed to be built in the Town of Estes Park. Address Current Zoning Parcel Number Acreage Year Built Building Size/Sq. Ft. 1. 727 Columbine Dr. E 35263-15-005 .28 1993 340 2. 490 Larkspur Dr. E-1 35274-00-021 .69 1994 752 3. 1541 W County Rd. 43 RE-1 25184-07-001 5.21 1995 453 4. 3475 Saint Francis Way RE-1 24040-00-034 6.03 1995 764 Summary: 1. In the 14 year time period of this survey (1986-2000), one detached living unit (bunk house) was built in the unincorporated Estes Valley every 3.5 years. 2. They range in size from 340 SF to 764 SF. The average size is 577 SF. 3. Living unit # 4 is incorporated into a detached garage. All the other living units are built as a single story cabin or cottage. Survey of detached accessory dwelling units found on residential lots in addition to the primary residence within the Estes Valley. All of these accessory dwelling units are recorded with the Larimer County Accessor. Larimer County classifies them as cabins or additional residences having a kitchen sink and a complete bathroom with a toilet, lavatory and bathtub or shower. All of these detacted accessory dwelling units were built in the unincorporated Estes Valley between 1986 and February 1, 2000 when detached accessory dwelling units were no longer allowed to be built in the Town of Estes Park. Address Current Zoning Parcel Number Acreage Year Built Building Size/Sq. Ft. 1. 490 Larkspur E-1 35274-00-021 .69 1989 320 ./.r 2. 527 Hondious Circle E-1 35351-05-001 7.24 1989 864 3. 2525 Terrace Ln. RE 34041-00-012 1.55 1990 880 4. 2100 MeGraw Ranch RE-1 25084-09-008 9.41 1990 1524 5. 131 Old Man Mountain E 35261-05-043 1.24 1993 840 6. 2844 Fall River Rd. E 35*f64-00-091 .92 1994 483 7. 379 Little Beaver Dr. RE-1 25171-05-005 5.99 1996 720 8. 1527 Devils Gulch Dr. RE-1 25138-00-010 14.00 1997 1188 9. 1613 Black Squirrel Dr. RE 24073-05-016 1.40 1999 828 10. 2971 Lory Ln. RE-1 25090-00-017 34.42 2000 1248 Summary: 1. In the 14 year period of this survey (1986-2000). One detached accessory dwelling unit was built in the unincorporated Estes Valley every .72 years. 2. They range in size from 320 SF to 1524 SR The average size is 890 SF. 3. Detached dwelling units # 2 and # 5 are incorporated into a detached garages. Seven units are built as single story cabins or cottages and one is a two story residence. - 1 * 5*L *S & 11 ., , .J '44 2,2 0 ' 0 722...1 12Â»14 1,2 J 4 - . 1 13 I. 4 -- I ~ 3 tr. 1 4 '1 eâ€¢ I AL . ki h 4 , Id* t . 4 .. * I. 1 ..1 4 r. b - 97,:,St'* 1, 1,2,1 1 vin- , / V. 7 ... I . -32 .ir. - t. ..2* . lim . ' . ta~UC .irk. T V -1,>: 47; ", ...tuÂ· 1 ry -- - A 4% . a $ 'R . Â¥ t - Mi . .s - I -# I ..1 E - ,1/ 4*Wil* I,1, r k. 1 Â£ . r t:4" rtiÂ¥ * .e i . - 8.13. . 29-, 70///.,1 /%%+ 4,..5 -- Al .--# , . *1 1 * 5 7414. : t . - *fl :-Li:;., .1 =- : -9,11, r q 1 I. r r t: -<*/i ...1. r.~6. * wi ..r.4.1- 4.16%.fi<': 61,31/* ..7*,2 -41 k : f. . ' e. G> :.Cf,lt.L..: -';m~ 1 Â·Â·1 -:. I ~Â· 1 49* Â¥11 .....'.- 9 . ~4,1. '.2 1 ....%â‚¬Fr,i,3 giÂ·~9/iÂ¢.4 , + re a -1 1 ; 3-Â· ,1 . - i. - -L . 1 L: P 4 1*4449 4â€¢ â€¢' Â·,Firmg/YAW lint _ t . , . - 7 1 107 Y 1/ * :' 6<L". Pr 0 4 . A . 41+L . . flim- ~'**42 Â· a. 1 I ' I ' V â€¢ it., r. 46 ...r 95..: ../ 44 Ipplt. f. *- , 1 7,1 I.., <, 8,-,464.:40'*~Ne:k'#~h~;-IME~"r. .1[,F 64,4 ?t I. . /. Ir . a k. 4.k . r./~..5.. 4 I 6 - 447.1 4 .. 4 . 1 .,4 ' I I 4243: 9 .1.Â·tu~ :33#/fise:S : P.+F-'* 1- ' :96 1/ ' 4 , - .4/ // I. I . it;~h* /3 . ... 7 t:7 . 0%6,(. . Ef~ i z "* . - . 1 4 -t . . 1,r- . J. V I 62,31**2-407~,.1 I.Iâ€¢fÂ·. /2 6, " :./ I. . 1/1â€¢ >U - 61 â€¢ A 4,11 M I 6 4111 64, . A. 15~E!!it: t ./ 7 7-1. Â· . 1--- Â· . 9- Â·â€¢th . -, . 1 :C SLiqpid"; 4 09 .,4 Â» . .n /1.1 X. 4 C -1.t ... â„¢1.-5 1 / 'p. * . r. 10.1/ ' 95 --Em.,32% 2 ...T + 4 4 7 r 4 .' .A= k U .L . 4, /4 r .B grikl -1.42â‚¬ . t. '41,462 9.14 . 1 h . 4 - 140 . 2/ Mi4k' 4.-# +rfwip.44,:.:itiv.rmÂ· 4 4 k I d 14111"lf ..5 - .- 01 - I .% ./ 11 . '0 , '*.2,6, f :5:-0 :i: 44.i*KF-wit 112:,t 4 f.- . f -- - '9- *1 - I 5 ... 79 - ~*+~ W~' >Â»Â·*..... .r ~:*4 .~12' ,#2Â·~~~~20k)4~~fV~ . ~ > 1 , 12 15# i .b- -Â£ L, I , -- . 43 Â·' Ti'~ 5/'Mt . --6/11/. - Ir 4 -- .. 4. ) (Glf . , . . , 9 E *4% f.4 7 1../ . 41. 412 '41.L ~~ 0~~ . I. %4.1,. 0. d * . .. V, A" 2' 4- - ......,7/ , ;14 1 -2.21 ..2./4% v; 111'Ie. - Irpâ€¢ V . ./ 2 -$ Â·. iD j 1 ... der- h.aa,â€¢-A-- .I . . * 49 -. .. . 1. i. 1/#*t:~:.4., * MA- f-- /8 fr , fi... - : - A P. -Â· 3 *Swe-u-, ./ I k..5 / 9.2..4 6/.1 1 Â·~ /*r . . 1 : /,11111 101Htl .lt . 9, tktrâ€¢. . 0 t. . 4, 4. , 1 -. alÂ· , 4 4 ' -1 79;L /~6*0 2 .4- *' F . /17 , 1.2%,Aa f Â· .447.0.-11.1.49%.. ' ' t. I. I I. I.&.- ~ r. '':L 4.Â·4â€¢ .46.Â· : e..WN#, R.: fl ~ 125'421~.:, I i.ti, t. 2. .2- 1 24 1 4 c .. *iratjh./ 4 4. 1<1 1. ' $40 4 '*14>, . 1 r f. 4- 4 -1. : . . 1~, 4Â· ..1 - .1- . I 1. ..,1,4. ~. 2 * X '4 - .'4 . *Af.. 41 1" Â· 'i. *I' . 1.' -'r. ' 4 . .*e . k. + i.Â·-.Â·59- i 4'6Â·/- -,A 4 -P '1 / A D â‚¬42 058 .#. '43 4 't- , 4, I , ./# 77 /- .'227'r U:.7,5/Â®4,..4/ 4 i ~4 9 . '4. f + .: 9.0 2-12 11647- gat'Uâ€ž...4 . . 4 - ..,0 5:,9 414Â·irt~t~t *Â·11 2.. 6 Â· I . I . ., 4. I- , I . .la . Z !' ./ 1- , 291} t <:,Â·i>*7r. : 4 90 1~ 4-4- iÂ», 9...451 -1 UL t p. / 4 -'.4 ' 2 , 'â€ž 4 . 1. -r 7-liÂ» ~, '~,11-- $ 1 . 14 2 2441 . , B it Â£ ./' 4 ..., 0 . 1 ... ' 74*31044 4 ..,6 2 V 1 1 4 44 7~ , * i "r- . 9-3 4 . 41 ; . *.44Â¢41.Sur , i -.1 - ---49 32Â¢' AWâ€¢ - Â·.Di. t:Â¥ f i ti / 4 . 1Â¢ . 1 ~4Â·y~ 1~ 1 .1 3 C . 4 2.. 1 - 1 , 4. 1 ... . * I 99* A 11 ./ '' . r/'Ad"IWdr,1 4 - I it ~ /44 /~ ~ lil 94#. 7. 11* --/*/*g~ f . 5.1 *i.ip,~....fa ...... ...,1, . .-, " l. , ' . 4 - ' . 3 ..4 1 Ilt 1. Â·Al./Ar .li: - h,12& 49. 2 $4*~945/8/Will/.a 7 4 0,6 .. 1 ' E. A ie.Â·Â¢9.9. . 4- f -1 Â¥ 2.r ~ .â€¢,. p i, 4 0,496* -9.-4 . *7 -Â·*. t..p l.f~~et- ~?**U. I . , V. t. -*-er i." 94'. .1, , 545.11* . 2 --4 U f..:.*NN,...7 4--2.... a.-' -- _ . 9 12 ./ <24- 5. 47.4 Â«r , . I Â· ./ t C - /7/ 7 *4471. Â·'41.24:43 .7:<>'.. it~ ..44 - f : ' I ...1 ..0 . '.ja :.' 9 2~ f-Â·:>i Â·-i Â·Â»*Â· V*j-Â·.~! I.~t~~i-Â·*~' f: 1.' - .%3 2 - 2,%*.91 t I ' 1.77 - fÂ·--,Li:4> 4.-/341 . be~&1*3,2 ....... 4/. 7 ... e.. .. C'.,2 1 ~2' 34 '.7 . 6 '. , , \ '. >44*27=.'AV- , Â· , R - . 1 I . . ; .t 2-, '9 1 .../.,2 :t 0 , ..all.Re - 4 ..,27: i ':ta Â·t'.I-*,~3: sm; < 4.4 1-79 Â»Â» .:Mlig 4~' ' * I .t ..0 2/' â€¢le CVâ‚¬ , Â·~-;5Â¥*t:L'&.tv.-.. ....L,Â¥17&4'Â£u ' i,Â£ .1 .. 4 1.64Â¥,ji'.i'..2 1#1'.s h 17 0. f.4 Â«.... 6%41/,i.* . 24 b %â‚¬ . Z 1 r .. . - 1 E.1 t , Vt 2 i 1 - t 41 / 1 '4 Â· v,id:.Am. Amyr . 1 #h: '' f >t ry. b n Â·Â· . . 427- = 1 k - : Ir Tu,1, A I , 44. . I .. %., , I -9Z % #. I.$/.I 7 - 4 diLWAr,. 22 U - -- ~'~~' -1*Ve t. ..1~u. 2 1..i ~7-~*.t. ;aa - ~ ' 'Cl; aLIA .,1- flY~ ., C AU w. * 1- C 14 4 Ze . 1 ..' "~i .41~.~~~~A , 2, 2, - r * . v,4 I + 1 . . + 4 4 t. . b â€¢ /Al"t 4 : :- lilli .. ' ./ . . 1~~6 tt, 40 ./ t V 1 A, '. r 2 4--Ii-- .. 1 ..a'Al' r L - _ , .I-,1, 04- -- - .ic 2*q 1. , 1 -- - A 'f te . - - p C _ r '4/ ./. v I. . d - .* . /'2 2 ': . -I- . fill> ~ Â·-Â·Â·Â· *fÂ· 7*24?54%Â· f ...4 & ./ -rÂ· Â· 0 -,4 613 , . .4 1 ~ .-: . .- . i . 7.5 70*%** . 3- - - 4.gi , M.. I-:3-' ..4, A :4 I. .. 11.... k Â« ./.r 1 , 41 4 (11 . 47 4Â· 4 1 m//1 *: . ) ~1/9 1- t Â·Â· ./r Â¥ t- 04 '~~ - 4 1.0 t.LI '' 1 '1/i_i i:t* 6 %4 1 Ffi-/J 04 U 1175* r LE 412, t. 9 " . *41 - < .19Â· 1, L- , 42 .:14., "- , h . . . 1 1. miwit. 44 Â·:31- 1 f ./ . *,9 .,9.,1 > .9. 10. 1 63%.1, t, 1 1 . P., . ... Alt.2 . .1 i 1 I L. â€¢ 1' #: ,/. W 4 Â·. .â€¢ 3. a .11 , - j '... ./ 4 - /1. 7 I #.-- .. ' F 1 , .El. . 'i, .7 1 b . NA'*>t:~ h -/ I. Â· 'Â£f 't~ I -I I .. 1.b *7 4 2, 7 1(*i~*aull.4.4:, 4. . f 1 f ' 1 . I~ ' .4 4: 19 ; t. F ' .#Ii I ./..../. ..e:,Rpet. 1-Ze . N-I'lip 9 & . I. 4/6 1Â·47*0. ./,2*difii :'.9. I + 4/ 1 /1 3*"r j 1 . - 5'4~*th Â¢ Â·L.,Â·,til /#1 4 I '11 . 1- r * -t.4 -a=:1,2, ~apti- Â·* f,9>Â·~.f'~,i.-u!:frjij i.4 42'-~K,> 1. ./, liE 1 r %:/6'll.-W/6:,/*-.,7 'd#+I 4 42</9,5,11Â£~A.Â£#w:- e 43 .4.4 , . 4.. p h.Â·414-Â« . *J.0 >f . 0.,6 t d .17 'T + ~ 11* *4. 1 $Â·i Â· Â· 4 4.,~Â¥401: L. 4 : 4 j & rh 4.. ...4.A .,7.931/PR.*. 9, *4 k V i '1 '~' j. '4 M.-' 4 . 3 >Nli fr' c * 'f. 8 li.p.=1r *204 i# 1 Â· c. . 2 I. . 4 th 1 - -;31 42*;9924 -9 Â· 1 1-5,134191, I 4.9-,&,f* Â· .4. ' lA . i t .. 394Â¥ft ' fla k S . t. / 1, .. . I 4 ' 4 4 + <P . /,47?.nr p 7 -I 1 42.42~ A X i ' 4,1,71 -1#0(=..e .â‚¬1 14 4, 6 - ;.2,1.:i. . <9'239~ , ...,..1, .t - f . 7 L - f * Â·.i 8 6%Â·'44 Â¥4Â·. i f., yr +1.51'# 9 I - .2 6 - - 4 -' Tr: ' --. 2 i . ,. 1 401 2, ~ Â· 4 41 , + . 4 0 .1 1, . 1 . .: 7 1 1 44 . '.Â·4 4.'4 ., - 6/:21". 1 p ~ Â·t ' ~ ME:.Aki , . F.C h 106 . '-- IpÂ» f i k. 1,11(j~Â·Â« - 1.0*,7,4 L ,~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ *t~:.'49 4, 1.14'.0 24.4:07tf .0 J Â£:. 1- . titlif.4>fÂ·~ 1.9 . ..f : 3 . 1.- & 4 .:.- ~- 11.fl. ;iÂ·;~ 918 r' '. 9 ... 'IJ/,.. '.:54.<*:.~., it:Â¢1.0 .0 f'.AS:6/fil. '4 ' 1 4.7 1 I /1 . *1. 1 .&741 ./ 1. 2&< **1 4 Â· . ft/%14 36, 011:Â·Â¢,1 r 1 -4.Â¢ / 1. . . -,4,9.:.,44 - A--1...V.t ~ . 3 --231'a:.1 1. . ..: I , ' - 4 : : S 4 9# tit: 1<" ... -44 0' 4 1,(.~, A y. '. ...21Â· *. ' :Â·~ 4 wi ~~Â® ~~ti., - '': 4 j., :A~ 3. .7 ' i - . 1.iff. r allâ‚¬. fut * it . -:la:v j, ..Â©TA , ... 4*2 , .74 , f . 393Â¥91.,at 1 4 . , Â¥,34Â»,f,Â¥ia! ,;.11 .4,% al .1 4,9 62Â¥FA.qr,Â¥,/29%) -8 2. . t,4 4 2 1 : 9 Q 4Â¥f~ it 9 1*Wall ?91'ew 4 Â¢1.4 . f '1229Â¢&4 1%Â£*. *,~2~ *~7 . . I lir#*8 4.- .1/*4 #LSTZI - .~. 4,- 4 , .11'., 1 / 4. '' 4'f 't.,...:3 '424.: "rtiz . 7 Â¥ . '4, . ' 1 1, -=//- *' 1 j /i, .1,4. 9///Lill I . 1 ..0 , b I .. % 4- ' ' 13 27Â· , t' , --2 :- 4,4 4,4; I ..h 4,~~ f ..7.. 1 2,5,1 x '-1 , 1 J -7.4/1 -1 - I. h 'I ;t'.1 '.1. 04..1.Z X . â‚¬ it,A-*11 4 3. i , 6 2 3 - 11. .. . -,i -1. 9 7 -I 4 1 Z .. f., i. .... .. f'LÂ· '45/ . 14 4 ./. - Â»-* 2 . 1 --1 --7 '01 .2. . r-1 - k a M * 1.i f?.-1 ~.19*~.. i 2 1 y 't, . 1 1 It L ...D Â·Â·Â· ' e 1. ... . * 4 4 rT, r v 4, 2. Fi - -D..r i. -./ /+ #A+ 4 /7 ' 1, 3 ./ N It... 0 6 4 4 9.,> UN,-3 .*. 1, i .4 - - r--- .4 ~ - I 'C Â·4, '> 1 I - 3 - 'L'.- - r 't + -0 -5 e 1\444#Ic:>a. ...1 ?'.34/I//Ail~42~/ 4. , * 'i -- b 4. :7'*: x ~pniai- , I.. 1 ' L 46*-1-*~â„¢m ./..I- . .2 - - 1/IM .1 I - .. -5. 2.04 2 2 2 . . I 4 . 11 .- */04~i ..0. '. . { 7 p ,: . .4.-,7/W./.Il , 1 41.1 .4 . .t-; r,62-wfr. . Â·. .Ar.. .. I : . -1.4- - f, I , -1-* .. 1~1114: % K ; e,~03&.4 4~.Â·e*ne;.0 1 4 -- 4 - - I , 9- - 4-- .1 14 4 . I.- - -Â«- i. :r. C I >*flk Â¥ i I 2 - 4 -01 . /. .'-. 1 1 Â·j -riâ‚¬42 3 -- -*f1 - 1392,' a 96 4 . * 2 , 6 -2 . 471 -,--: - . ---- ...4Â«--32.4< 7 6 . . â‚¬ 'f 44.10 - Â·Â· - .. .....t, . I I 11 , ' 4 1 '1â„¢ r--21- â‚¬.*. r -~ - .4 . ve . *>54.4. . 7 /2,6'f''T 311*116-1-* r J'.17 , -4.S v 7- --1.-2 hz - - FV' = 3 9 e , - 4 -r- 4-... 1. 1: ..1 -â€ž . 1...1.....11 -r~~i,Cu../Flli . . 1 . . 7Â£., .. ,., ---2,6 -~ . . =72"..... I ./.A . ..t - :4..â„¢=9~, - - 1 , -- ""tif.4 112 r- J /4 e . '1 1 6 .,.4..# *,6-*114 -4> i Jort f - =97.....:- .. :-: --*4" V ' -- I Uf . . 4.4 -- Â· - r.. - 4 4= - 2 - 4 . 4 4,0.12$ . .61 I . 4 1. ./ 1 744 . lei.. . F ' 7- 4 . 7 .. . -- V -. U 1 U. 4-9 I . I .â„¢Â»1 . 'Â·--Â· 1.- I . -1 2-.. 4~ a *4 1+ AL, . f /6-: .t,D li: 1 2... ... 0 1 4 ' , 4 â‚¬ 4 1 , -il .1 FL I -lit .;.tt' ~~4.4 $ I 1/ I . b 4 1.. ... ' -. - 4 - Â· r K Q N .fiA, 4, ... .' . -1. .- I ... ~.' I f . F-*ta : 1 .Ck.49.--9.. .5- . 4 r.,t. . Ms.... I r , a.. .' : ' I .1 . #f, 4.,AWp- et Â· =-- 1 , 1/-9 00 <Â· ''.1 2 . 4.-a" 4â‚¬ V j'' k 4 4 1 ?44& 1 91 -kL A \ : *99, , 9 Owner-occupancy requirement is unconstitutional... http://www. entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/articl... :NTR ODU CING 1 A Socied Network for E Entrepreneur Connect Windows Vista ~~2~ ~ Erdrep,eneus 1 'Small Business Assurance E i Creite e pro,He Â» Franchises for Sale I Women Entrepreneur I Subscribe I Neweletters I Special Offers Entrepneneur.com Search ~ ~.m.-fil Home | Ask Entrepreneur | Grow Your Biz | Business Ideal Franchises & Opportunities | Video | Tools & Se,vices ~ Community EninyenetrConnect Home > Business Jourre > Appraisal Journal Sign In I Create Profile Today on Entrepreneur 63 FEED *=ok,spAnt > Owner-occupancv reauirement is Moon Cakes Are Big Business in China unconstitutional regulation of property Whafs in a Name? Everything ownership. How to Search for Existing Patents 4 Steps to Assessing Your Products Profit Potential 1,0,1/y Avoid These 7 Pannership Killers MarÂ·kethig More Stories . by Weinberger, Aim M. 8.- Appraisal Jou-nal â€¢ Slmner, 2008 Â· Racent Colrt Decisions Adve*IW p Owner-occupancy requirement is unconstitutional ARTICLE TOOLS ~ regulation of property ownership Franct-â€¢ TEXT S[ZE TIT, Biz opportimities A municipal ordnance requiring owner occupancy was pdM Home Based BIz an unconstitutional regulation of legal ownership and Â® b,other not a regulation of property use, accordng to the Court E.Mai 1 211 __~_ i at your side E-Bu--1 of Appeals of North Caroona. 1-'age'I./ In 2004, Broact.Is Hil 111, constucted a garage apartment on rental property 1~nnn Remo-es he owned in the city of Witnington. In 2005, the city notified Hill that he was T.chnology in violation of a land development ordnance requiring the owner of a garage m. 00*inx allic*.*00 IM Hoalth & Waliness apartment to reside either in the apartment or in the nuin residence. After sponsored by i unsuccessfully seeking to eirrinate the owner-residency requirement, HO 1 ~-Blieleald).a.,i.M.*1 began residing in the property twenty-seven days after receiving the first Work LED citation. The city fined HI! a total of $5,4001br his period of nonconlpliance and filed suit when he failed to pay. The trial cout held thatthe fines were Sponsored Links invalid because the ordinance was an unconstitliional regliation of property Special Lâ€¢tk,gs ownership. The city appealed. Als b, Google R Mable Ed*kon On appeal, the city argued that the owner-occupancy requirement was a 8--8 Clrfir constitutional exercise of its zoning powers. The appellate court disagreed, â€¢ 1 ; Ift '.4 noting that zoning ordinances regulate the use of property, not the nature of Small Business Vehicle 7 the legal estate. The court found that owner-occupation and tenant- Entreprenet, Assist occupation were not cifferent property uses when a single family actually See why the Honda Element is the ideal occupied the residence in either case. If a use is permitted, as here, the city More Resources camot regldate the nature of the occupanfs ownership, accordng to the small business vehide today. Frwtchise Your Biz court The court concluded that the ordinance unconstitutionally regulated www. honda.com Business Blog the ownership of property and was thus invalid. The trial court decision was Columnists amrmed. Business Forms Resource Cemers City of Wilnington v. HIt Startup Books Special Offers Court of Appeals of North Carolina Products & Senices March 4,2008 Free Trade Magazines 657 S.E.2d 670 (NC. App. 2008) :IM?tky,Fifte:Mlit!5Eigti Classifieds Trade Jolrnals Alan M. Weinberger, JD, is a professor at Saint Louis University School of 2 Starting a Business u) eÂ·Bullness & Technology Encyclopedia Law where he has been a law professor since 1987. Previously he LJ Sales & Marketing C Franchtsâ€¢ News Sideshows practiced for twelve years with law firms in Detroit and Washington, DC, 9 Growing, Buslne- U Business Book Sampler rÂ·: Get te Magazine specializing in realestate transfer, finance, and development. Weinberger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He E-mair: has published articles and chapters inthe fields of real estate finance, 0 p Code*: Submit partnership, and property law He is coauthor of Property Law Cases, Materials and Problems, 3rd ed., published by West Group. Contact weinbeam@siu. edu ~24 Print 26. E-Mail '~4 Newsletters ~~~ Save/Share 1 of 2 9/17/2008 9,90 PM Ovwmer-occupancy requirement is unconstitutional.. http://www. entrepreneur. com/tradejournals/articl... COPYRIGHT 2008 The Appraisal Institute Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Gale Group Is a Thomson Corporation Company. NOTE: All Illustraeons and photos have been removed from this artide. Browse by Journal Name: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Small Business - Home I Entreprenelr Connect I Entrepreneur Assist I Women Entrepreneurs I Business Startup Guides I Business Bookstore I En Espanot I Small Business Search Magaz~ne Subscripoons I Contact Us I HÂ® 1 Newsleners I Amiate Programs I Advertising Info I Press Releases I Special Offers I RSS Feeds I Reprints & Permissions CopyrightÂ© 2008 Entrepreneur.com, Inc. All rights resend. Prhecy Pokey - 17-- - â€¢=---BeÂ·== I -- --99= =Â· aae==-eapeer- Â·Â·8~3-' -a Â·t -1-â€¢ â€¢bÂ·â€¢miggme 2 of 2 9/17/2008 9:30 PM Owner-occupancy requirement is unconstitutional... http://www. entrepreneur.com/tradejoumals/artiel... iNTR ODU CIN G . 6 .2~ A Social Network for ' it . Iii Entrepreneur Connect , Windows Vista D ~ ~* ~ Entreprenews ) Small Business Assurance 1 1 1 i Create. prnme Â» Franchises for Sate I Women Entrepreneur 1 Subscribe I Newsletters I Special Offers EntrepreneurÂ£orn Search ~ ~WI-~-. Home | Ask Entrepreneur | Grow Your Biz | Business Ideas | Franchises & Opportunities | Video ~ Tools & Services | Community Entirprenturfomea Itme > Business Jol,nals > Appraisal Journal Sign In I Create Profile Today on Entrepreneur E3 FEED Ws-b,spAnt> Owner-occupancy requirement is - - - Moon Cakes Are Big Business in China unconstitutional regulation of property What's in a Name? Everything Starthg â€¢ Bumb,ess How to Search for Existing Patents ownership. 4 Steps to Assessing Your Product's Profit Potential Money , Avot These 7 Partnership Killers g' More Stories D 1 by Weinberger, Alain M. Sab ; Appraisal Journal â€¢ Slmner. 2008 â€¢Recent Cout Decisions i Owner-occupancy requirement is unconstitutional ARTICLE TOOLS ; 1 regdation of properly ownership Franchiles TEXT 8[ZE. TIT Biz opportunities A municipal ordinance requiring owner .ancy was . 6 . bfouw Hone Based Biz an unconstitutional regulation of legal ownership and 1 not a regulation of property use. according to the Court E... iks at your side E-Bulk-1 of Appeals of North Caroina. Ihragen- In 2004, Broadus Hil Ill, constucted a garage apartment on rental property Hunin Relources he owned in the city of Wilmington. In 2005, the city notmed Ell that he was Tochnology in violation of a land development ordinance requiring the owner of a garage 09 lom~. au# uâ€žs*. .0 Health & Winness apartment to reside either in the apanment or in the main residence. After 40-â€¢d by LIBU,Cel:SUy seeking to elminate the owner-residency requirement, Hl Â§,IMâ€ž.,.~,..,.,. began residing in the property twenty-seven days after receiving the first citation. The city fined HO a total of $5,400 for his period of noncompiance Work Lre and med suit when he failed to pay. The trial cout held that the fnes were Sponsored Unks irrvalid because the ordinance was an unconstitutional regdationof property ~ Special U-gs ownership. The city appealed. Ads by Goocle * Mobal Edlion On appeal, the city argued that the ownerÂ«cupancy requirement was a 8-0.*Ce- constitdional exercise of its mning powers. The appellate court disagreed, â€¢ noting that zoning ordinances regulate the use of property, not the nattre of Small Business Vehicle --.1 the legal estate. The court found that owner-occupation and tenant- E-prl- A,list occupation were not cifferent property uses when a single fanlly actually -- ---- - = - See why the Honda Element is the ideal occupied the residence in either case. If a use is pemitted, as here, the city small business vehide today. lore Resources cannot regulate the natue of the occupanrs ownership, accordng to the Franchise Yotr Biz court. The cout conduded that the ordinance u,constitutionally re,Ilated www, honda.com Business Blog the ownership of property and was thus invalid. The trial court decision was Coutno amrmed. Blminess Forms Res#ce CenWs City of Wi~nington v. HU SM/Bp Books W 1 4u -- - - -- Court of Appeals of North Caroina Special Offers Proatcts & SeNces March 4,2008 Â¥7':,Wra-AFf73992;,X f. Free Tracie tiâ€¢Mi JAA.---12*.3-iti~0*Nipl:.72.R;4. Magines 657 S.E.24 670 (N.C. App. 2008) Acum-Al!#Re#r.q.~4% Classifieds Trade Journals Alan M Weinberger, JD, is a professor at Saint Louis UNversity School of 5 Starting a Business O eamlness & Technology Encyclopeda Lawwhere he has been a law professor since 1987. Previously he O Sali & Marketing O Franchise News Sideshows practiced for twelve years with law firms in Detroit and Washington, DC, O Growing a Buslness L Buslness Book Sampler Get tie Magadne speciaizing inreal estate transfer, finance, and development. Weinberger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He E-rnair: has published articles and chapters in the fields of real estate nnance, 2lp Codeâ€¢ ; Submit partnership, and property law. He is coauthor of Property Law Cases, Materials and Problems, 3rd ed., published by West Group. Contact: weinbearn@slu. edu = '~*%41 ~2~ Print ~> E-Ntail #4* Newsletters '*,~ Save/Share 1 of 2 - Owner-occupancy requirement is unconstitutional... http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/articl... COPYRIGHT 2008 Tile Appraisal Institute Reproduced with permission of the copynght holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All fights reserved. Gale Group Is a Thomson Corporation Company. NOTE: All mustratlons and photos have been removed from this article. Browse by Journal Name; ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Smal Business - Home I Entrepreneur Connect I Entrepreneur Assist I Women Entepreneurs I Business Startp Guides I Business Bookstore I En Espafiol I Small Business Search Magazine Subscriptons I Contact Us I Help I Newsletters I Amiate Programs I Aderlising Info I Press Releases I Special Offers I RSS Feeds I Reprints & Permasions CopyrightÂ© 2008 Entrepreneur.com, Inc. AN rights resened. Princy Policy 0 2 of 2 9/17/2008 9510 PM Aarch 3,2009 (FINAL CLARIFIED VERSION) An important and rare joint study session:between the Town Board of Trustees and the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) is scheduled for Tuesday March 10, 4:30 pm, at Town Hall. It is open to the public for observation, although the public cannot speak. The agenda is likely to include the issues of potential development code changes regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and the protection of valley wildlife with respect to development. The Town Board of Trustees will make the ultimate decision on these issues, and it is vital that the public be aware of progress or regress in this next step of the proceedings. Regarding ADUs, the EVPC has been listening to extensive citizen input and has recommended removing "detached" units from consideration, requiring owner occupancy of one unit, and removing the consideration of using ADUs for rental properties at this time. I thank the EVPC for their responsive and conscientious efforts, and I want to urge the Town Board of Trustees to take the public-supported EVPC recommendations regarding ADUs seriously. Additionally, the most recent draft for wildlife-related code changes from town staff removed provisions for a denial-of- development if proposed adverse-impact mitigation is inadequate, and I believe that is a mistake that needs to be corrected. S. Lindquist ~ IMAR/>9 4 2009 'lujl LL=-_1 tiiataz*3%*~ei; March 4, 2009 tes Valley Planning Commissioners, I sense some irregularities in the handiing of some of the major issues facing Estes Valley and I hope these will be addressed in the March 10, 2009 meeting: 1. The Planning Commission is an IGA between Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park. As I understand it, it was set up to represent both County and Town residents equally and fairly. The initial concept is good, but I don't think it is actually working out that way. It appears as if the Town Trustees are making all the decisions, at the expense of County residents. If this is true, who is representing the County residents in Estes Valley? Just because we don't live in the Town of Estes, doesn't mean we are not entitled to appropriate representation. 2. Did Town Planner Joseph make a special presentation to Town Trustees long before the Planning commissioners could even gather the facts on major issues such as detached rental ADU' s? Did he have the courtesy to inform the Commissioners he was doing this? Did he have the courtesy to invite the Commissioners to this meeting? 3. Each of the County Commissioners has publicly endorsed their expectations to be at the next joint meeting. Were they invited to this meeting? If not, why not? 4. Why did Town Planning Staff "cherry pick" the AARP recommended practice on ADU' s and only present the items that appeared to support their viewpoint? Why did staff not include owner occupancy in their recommendations? Why did Commissioners have to repeatedly have to ask for the AARP source document that strongly recommended owner occupancy? What would be wrong with staff presenting all the pertinent information to the Planning Commission? 5. What is the purpose of Planning Commission? If their every move is going to be choreographed by the Town Trustees, why would anyone want to serve as a Commissioner. In my opinion, our current Commissioners are some of the most excellent choices of anyone in the Valley. They are working extremely hard to do what is best for Estes Valley and the Town of Estes. Are they being allowed to do their job? If not, what must be changed so they can represent the majority of residents in the Valley? Bob Trump 3**2 0 VEÂ·9\ 830 Fish Creek Road ~~ MAR I 5- 2009 1 ~2 - 577-0343 4 E Â©EDVE 7 L) 1 --1 ~1~ MAR - 4 2009 Who really owns Estes Valley? Is it the developers who will do just about anything, if they can make enough profit on it? Is it the builders who feel if something is good for them, it is good for Estes Valley? Or is it the residents of Estes Valley? Is it the people who live here, vote here, and pay taxes here? Majority Rule has been popular in our country for several hundred years. It means the people decide on major issues and we all do what is best for the most people. Now the Estes Planning Department comes up with the ADU (accessory dwelling unit) concept. As proposed, it would allow each of your neighbors to put a 1000 square foot shack just 15 feet off your lot line. What if it is in the middle of your best view? Well that' s OK as long as it is not more than 30 feet high. When you drive thru Estes Valley, try to visualize an extra building (the size of a large cabin or small house) added to almost every piece of property in the valley. Yes, the developers would love it. Yes, the builders would love it. But, what about you? You are part owner of this entire valley. You are part of the majority. What do you _ =Rant.this-Yalleytolook,like,in,5,.10â€žor 15.-years?_.- -_. _: - The Town receives 75% of it's income from tourists. The remaining quarter comes from the taxes you and I pay. The ADU concept is an obvious ploy to create more taxable structures in Estes Valley. Yes, the Town of Estes needs money to run the town funetions, but are we willing to destroy the beauty of Estes Valley for a little more income? How many tourists will come to Estes to see a town that looks like any other "inner city"? We need to make our town, and the entire Ulley, more attractive and inviting to tourists. Or should we ignore 75% of the town's income? If you have an opinion on ADU's, join your neighbors at the Planning Commission meeting, February 17, at 1:30 in the Town Hall. We would love to hear your opinion. Bob Trump, Resident ~**914-9 I H UL-_112R - 4 2009 _Ulj~ Just the facts..... L__ ---Ld In my most recent letter to the editor I made the following statements: "The Town receives 75% of its income from tourists. The remaining quarter comes from taxes that you and I pay". These 2 sentences are correct, however, the second one could be misleading. The revenue does not just come from local property taxes, but other sources as well. In fact, only about 3% of the Town's revenue comes from local taxes. With only 3% of the town's revenue coming from property tax, if we filled the valley with detached, rental ADU' s, it would be difficult for the Town see a noticeable financial gain. Who is pushing for detached ADU's and allowing rental of detached ADU's, despite overwhelming opposition from the tax paying voters of Estes Valley? The Town Hall was packed when the Planning Commission discussed this issue on February 17, 2009. The citizen's opposition is now a matter of public record. Why did the Town Planning Department study the AARP recommended practice on ADU' s and leave out very important recommendations like required owner occupancy? Why do developers write restrictive covenants that do not allow ADU' s (especially detached ADU' s) in their home owner associations, as a local developer has pointed out in a recent newspaper article? Who is attempting to push for detached ADU's that can be rented? Unfortunately I do not know the answers to these questions, but I hope to find the answers at the joint study session between the Town Board of Trustees and the Estes Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday March 10, at 4:30 in the Town Board Room. I'll be there, why don't you come too? Bob Trump t-1 Karen Thompson From: Rex Poggenpohl [1 i Sent: Friday, March 06,2069 4:59 PM TO: Karen Thompson Hello Karen: Please pass on my support as a resident for the Planning Commission's recommendations to: allow only attached ADU's in our Valley. Thanks and regards, ..... Rex Poggenpohl, 1440 Prospect Mountain Road, Estes Park D IEÂ©E OVE 1.1\1 -1 MAR - 6 2009 1 -Ja 1 '-8) E Â©ED V.EN:%1 f11 MAR - 6 2009 ~ . - 3-2--ug _ E GTE 5 PALK PLA--14 /4 ;/46- 0006,19*65(64 1 - 91*01/lÂ©. e.l AY tÂ¥21 NEAA 474 -1. 690 U>/Lb Uotee>D Dit E.E)Cac F L ELA-4 â‚¬ 90 -râ‚¬ 40 Â© rv 9--~71-6 f'/29*s GO 4-11-*14 6, 9 S /9- t'Â£- hi/7 Af 6 *D V '5 . 1- BEL-\ E:VE 7-3+/Pr PE=.C>PLE C.+A/ AE-4- L \,V t Tti -r-*E-az- N Eâ‚¬ D 4 8 9 /9-P D ) NG e r/V '71> 1*/ /2 RE) 67-2,WG- /4-919 E S.CHO 4 bo-ITÂ»}46 }<,To#â‚¬,4 - --- 5 F TNE UNITS ..412-9 4-6Â·Â£- D'WEAD 7-v 13 â‚¬ A ErÂ¥7190 OV r, yo v N.A.1/2, t 74 6@59 EN <LE, 4 DUP LE * 4 -Â»*8 NE:en V#R Arey:GRD 4-BLE Hi> vs, R er 9/+D 06-b DEP, Af,TelÂ·-7 4-1RI BE A-DPA â‚¬â‚¬â‚¬A) U//771 /4 bu S. -T19 *r #5 /4--P PES VE 7-2;0-4-7~ N Geo S Â£-~ 016'* 90 LuD orr, 7**/,e yo 6,5 ,,449941#22/u 970- -317_29/6 CELL 97 0 - f# 6, - 54 60 h'e7*2 Karen Thompson rom: JBHULL@aol.com - Sent: Wednesday, February 25,2009 3:54 PM To: ronaldfnorris@gmail.com; Karen Thompson; dougklink@gmail.com; JBHULL@aol.com; info@fallrivercabins.com; afraundorf@yahoo.com; Alison Chilcott; Dave Shirk; Bob Joseph; Richard Homeier; steve_lane @ basisarchitecture.com Subject: Re: ADU question/answers from other resort communities Planning Staff and Fellow Commissioners, My problem with every one of those communities Dave queried is that every last one is a ski town! As I said at the last Planning Commission meeting, we owned property in Vail for years and still have property in Breckenridge, so I am most familiar with those, although we have spent a great deal of time both at Whistler, BC and Whitefish, Mont. None of these ski towns are comparable with our unique town. Yes, we all share basically the same seasonal retail, restaurant and lodging employee needs... but... every one of these others also have an extraordinary number of additional part-time employees-- lift operators, equipment rental &outfitters, ski patrol, ski mountain maintenance people, etc. that we do not have. So, I'm sorry, I see their needs as much different than ours, and to me, this is a perfect case of apples versus oranges. Betty e to stop by a do a little light reading. A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See vours in iust 2 easv steps! r--9 1% 15.Â© E 0 V [E ~_ \-, j rh \ 1 Karen Thompson From: JBHULL@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 23,2009 2:06 PM To: Dave Shirk; ronaldfnorris@gmail.com; Karen Thompson; dougklink@gmail.com; JBHULL@aol.com; info@fallrivercabins.com; afraundorf@yahoo.com; Alison Chilcott; Bob Joseph; Richard Homeier; steve_lane@ basisarchitecture.com Subject: ADU Documents Dave, Thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to e-mail all of us the 3 ADU documents. As you know, I believe we can never get too much information! I've spent most of the day carefully studying them and they, along with my previous Estes Park Housing Authority study and HUD research, were really helpful for me to come to what I think are educated conclusions as to the needs of our unique community on the following: 1) no rentals; 2) limiting ADU's to integrated or attached units throughout all zoning districts for the purpose of 'mother-in-law' apartments, caregiver quarters and family guest quarters; 3) Planning Commission review on all ADU applications; 4) parking and traffic limitations in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods; -- 5) owner occupancy in one unit; 6) approval by permit rather than right; MÂ©_Imily*Fl 7) annual permit renewal; 8) very limited home occupations in properties with ADU's. Thanks again! ~|~~ FEB 2 3 2009 ~|~ I Betty A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See vours in iust 2 easv steps! 1 - varen Thompson -~EÂ©[20Â¥E'31) om: JBHULL@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 7:48 AM ~-~ FEB 1 8 2009 ~ To: Karen Thompson Subject: Attainable Housing questions 1 (Karen, could you please forward this to Alan Fraundorf as I didn't have his e-mail? Thank you-- I hope your poor sore shoulders are better) Hi Rita, As you requested, here's the data I, for one, need for a future Planning Commission meeting when we discuss rentals and Attainable housing: As I said in the meeting this afternoon, I was quite confused by your numbers from the Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment-- in your 2/12 letter you said that by 2015 (6 years) we would need from 756-959-- almost a thousand!-- new housing units; then at the meeting on 2/17, 5 days later, you cited the same study with the same time frame as 166-229 units??? I'd like to know who did that Housing Needs Assessment and I'd also like a copy of it provided to each Planning Commissioner. Why this confused me is that I've learned that out of our Town of approximately 5,000 residents, 43% of those are part-time residents--second home owners who obviously don't ed attainable housing-- that leaves 2,850 folk. Going by your earlier total of nearly 1,000 Estes alley folks qualified for Attainable housing-- I was alarmed to find that was nearly half our Estes Valley residents. Doing some further research with HUD, I found that was way, way over the national average of 10%! ! I, for one, am also curious to learn how your totals changed so drastically in a week. I also believe we need the following hard data in order to make the best judgement we can: 1) Exactly how many Attainable housing units presently exist in the Estes Valley? 2) Exactly how much land and/or parcels throughout the Estes Valley have already been set aside that have not yet been built upon? I am aware of the 3 units off Riverside Drive as well as the 5 1/2 acres zoned multi-family adjacent to Good Samaritan, which, using the same formula for the Lexington Lane development, equals 51 off Red Tail Hawk Drive-- this all comes to 54 units awaiting development. How many and where are others? 3) Of those existing units and available land, exactly how many are occupied at the present time? 4) Is there a waiting list? 5) If so, exactly how many names are on it? 6) If not, exactly how many units are available at the present time? Thank you so much for all you do and I so appreciate your having the above data ready for us. Betty Hull Planning Commissioner A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See vours in iust 2 easv steps! 1 pÂ©EOVE'=~ ~1~ FEB 1 9 2009 Betty: 1 - The difference in the numbers is this 2 The 756-959 is for ALL housing units in ALL income levels, not just those who arc income qualified. So that means everyone from the lowest of our income scale, say those on a fixed income of SS only, up to a multi millionaire. The number of units in this range means everything from the subsidized apartments to large homes. This also means rentals and homeownership. ALL units in ALL income levels. The numbers I presented yesterday were for RENTAL units only, which is the 166-229. I used these numbers since I was discussing rentals only. Again, though keep in mind this is for ALL income levels, not just those who qualify for affordable housing. If you look at the study it is broken down even further into how many units are needed for the various income levels. In both cases, the range in the numbers is based upon employment and growth variables. The Assessment was done by RRC Associates out of Boulder who have done much work up here in Estes Park. Over the last 8 or 9 months I presented the study throughout the community. I will gather your requested info on number of units etc and forward it as soon as I have it put into a reasonable format. You can find some of this in the study as well. I am not aware of property or units on Riverside. This is not the EPHA' s property. If you have some info on that you could pass along, that would be great. Regarding occupancy in units: We only maintain info on our units, but I will try to gather from other sources as well. I can tell you that basically ALL of our rental units are full. As soon as one turns over it is filled very shortly. It has been this way for the last 12 months. On our property budgets we generally budget for about a 7 or 8 % Vacancy rate but they have been at ' under 4 % for the last 2 years. I will put the hard data into a easily understood format and forward it to you all by early next week. I have attached a copy of the Needs Assessment. (my apologies for those who already have it). The study can also be found on the Town' s website, and the EPHA website, www.esteshousing.org Any questions on the above information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Rita Kurelja Estes Park 1 . - -1 Housing Authority Executive Director 970-577-3730 rkurelia@estes.org w.ww.estfs-bo-using.o~ Dave: Summit County's answers are provided below. Hope all is well with you. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Dave Shirk [mailto:dshirk@estes.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9: 16 AM To: burnsie@cox.net; JimC; John Hess; akoehler@co.summit.ut.us; bleist@tetonwyo.org; randall.mckay@banff.ca; dnelson@town.fraser.co.us; dtaylor@cityofwhitefish.org; Truckey, Mark; wake@telus.net Subject: mountain town planner - need a little help here Greetings Fellow Mountain Town Planners- If you wouldn't mind, please spend 30 seconds to respond to these few questions: (1) Does your jurisdiction allow ADUs?[JimC] Yes, we recently changed our code to make them permitted instead of conditional uses and removed a few provisions (limits on the maximum number allowed per subdivision, proximity limitations, etc.) to encourage more of them to be built. (2) Can they be rented separately?[JimC] Yes, we do not control the rental rate but their small size tends to make them affordable to the local workforce. (3) Can they be detached?[JimC] Yes and No, they have to be either incorporated into the primary residence or be above a detached garage so that they do not appear to be a separate dwelling unit on the property. (4) Have they caused any problems? If so, what?[JimC] None. (5) About how many a year are built?[JimC] anywhere from 3 to 5. (6) How many overall housing units does your jurisdiction have?[JimC] 108 legal ones. Probably just as many illegal ones. Thank you all. We won't be at the conference this year, as Estes is hosting the state APA conference. -dave David W. Shirk, AICP Planner, Estes Park Community Development PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3729 Alison Chilcott om: Dave Shirk oent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9.19 AM To: Greg White; Bob Joseph; Alison Chilcott Subject: RE: ADU - Domestic Wells Attachments: Scan001.pdf According to the Division of Water Resources, a detached ADU would be considered a second unit and would need to obtain a well permit. See attached letter from the Division dated Aug. 28. From: Greg White [mailto:greg@gawhite.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22,2008 2:28 PM To: Bob Joseph; Dave Shirk; Alison Chilcott Subject: ADU - Domestic Wells During the discussion with regard to detached ADUs on large lots, there have been several comments made ncerning the fact that a current domestic well permit would not allow a detached ADU on the same lot. In ~ ecking the State Statute, Section 37-92-602 C.R.S., the domestic well may provide domestic water for a uetached ADU. The state requirements for exempt wells include less than 15 GPM, the well serves three or fewer single family residences, and irrigates less than one acre. Also, please be advised that subsequent subdivision of the property served by an exempt well is not permitted by the State Engineer's office. Thanks, Greg 1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES er 401 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Af W August 28,2008 Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director David Shirk, Planner Dick Wolfe, P.E. Town of Estes Park, Community Development Department Director PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Accessory Dwelling Units within the Estes Valley Dear Mr. Shirk: This letter is in response to your request for comments on proposed regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units within the Estes Valley. Since this office can offer only a cursory review and comments on proposals that do not involve the subdivision of land as defined in Section Â§ 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S., (see attached State Engineer's March 4,2005 memorandum to county planning directors ) we will attempt to provide some general guidelines regarding the water supply for those proposals which include an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Water Service Provider For those cases where the water supply is provided by a municipal or quasi-municipal water district or water company, we recommend that the applicant provide the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department a signed copy of the water service agreement from the water provider prior to the final approval of the proposal. As long as the water provider operates within the terms and conditions of its water rights and decrees, this office would have no objection to the water provider servicing the subject property. Wells Unfortunately, those cases where the water supply is provided by a residential well are not always as straight forward. The changes in well permitting statutes, rules, regulations, and policies over time have created a myriad of possible permitted uses for existing and proposed wells and each property may differ from previous proposals. For those proposals supplied by a residential well, one key element is the Accessory Dwelling Unit and its possible function as a separate single family dwelling. Because of similar situations, we have adopted an objective approach to evaluating single-family dwellings in regards to the issuance and administration of well permits. That approach is described in a letter (copy enclosed) from the State Engineer's Office to the El Paso County Planning Department dated April 29, 1993. The State Engineer's Office has applied the guidelines in this letter to evaluate a variety of configurations of living spaces as they pertain to the issuance and administration of well permits. The main requirements of this guideline include: Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 â€¢ Denver, CO 80203 â€¢ Phone: 303-866-3581 â€¢ Fax: 303-866-3589 www.water.state.co.us liAED - Town of Estes Park, Community Development Department Page 2 Accessory Dwelling Units August 28,2008 1) The dwelling must be in a continuous enclosure. Any dwelling spaces joined by a garage or breezeway are not considered to be a single-family dwelling 2) The entire dwelling must function as a unit without any permanent physical separation such as a wall or floor with no means of connections. Any dwelling that cannot meet these two criteria is not considered to be one single- family dwelling for the purposes of issuance and administration of well permits. Therefore, those Accessory Dwelling Units that are physically separate and could function separately from the main residence would, for the purposes of well permit issuance and administration, be considered a second single family dwelling. In those cases where the Accessory Dwelling Unit would be considered a second single family dwelling on the property, a well permit must be obtained which would allow the Accessory Dwelling Unit to be served. However, wells in the Estes Valley withdraw ground water that is tributary to the South Platte River system, which is over-appropriated. Therefore, in many cases a water court approved plan for augmentation may be required before a well permit could be issued to allow the well to serve the Accessory Dwelling Unit in addition to the main residence. Typical scenarios where the service of a main residence and an Accessory Dwelling Unit would likely require an augmentation plan include: 1) Wells constructed after May 8, 1972 located on a parcel of less than 35 acres where that parcel was in existence prior to June 1, 1972, or was created after June 1, 1972 by a county action considered exempt from the definition of subdivision of land as defined in Section Â§ 30-28-101(10)Ca), C,R.S. Pursuant to C.R.S. Â§37-92-602(3)(b)(11)(A), wells on these types of parcels may operate without a plan for augmentation only if the use of the well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside one single family dwelling. No additional dwelling or outside uses would be allowed. 2) Wells constructed prior to May 8, 1972 located on a parcel of less than 35 acres where that parcel was in existence prior to June 1, 1972, or was created after June 1, 1972 by a county action considered exempt from the definition of subdivision of land as defined in Section Â§ 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S, where the historical use of the well established prior to May 8,1972 is limited to serving one single family dwelling. Pursuant to C.R.S. Â§37-92-602(5), the well is limited to the historical uses and those uses cannot be expanded to add a second dwelling 3) Wells operating under a water court approved plan for augmentation where the plan for augmentation provides use of the subject well for only one single family dwelling. A separate plan for augmentation would be required to allow the well to serve the Accessory Dwelling Unit. A plan for augmentation may not be required for wells located on parcels of 35 acres or more and operating under permits issued pursuant to C..R.S. Â§37-92-602(3)(b)(11)(A). Pursuant to this statute, if a well is the only well on a tract of 35 acres or more, the use of ground water from the well would be limited to serving up to three single family dwellings, irrigation of up to one acre of home lawn and gardens and the watering of livestock. The Accessory Dwelling Town of Estes Park, Community Development Department Page 2 Accessory Dwelling Units August 28,2008 Unit would be considered one of the allowed three single family dwellings. However, if the uses allowed by the statute were to be exceeded by the addition of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (i.e. three dweilings are currently served and the Accessory Dwelling Unit would be considered a fourth), a water court approved plan for augmentation would then be required. If you have any questions regarding a specific proposal, please feel free to refer the proposal to this office for review and comment on the water supply. As indicated in the State Engineer's March 4, 2005 memorandum to county planning directors, if the submitted material does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision" as defined in Section Â§ 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S., to this office will only perform a cursory review of the referral information and provide comments. The comments will not address the adequacy of the water supply plan for this development or the ability of the water supply plan to satisfy any County regulations or requirements. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact Megan Sullivan of this office. Sincerely, Jeff Deatherage P.E. Water Resource Engineer Attachments: Memorandum to county planning directors Letter to El Paso County CC: Jim Hall, Division Engineer file JD/MAS/Accessory Dwelling Unit (Larimer) / |i[M FEB 17 2009 PUBLIC COMMENTS presented to the Estes Valley Planning dÂ®~~ission- u On the Topic of Accessory Dwelling Units ~ Tuesday, February 17, 2009 Meeting LAL Q.(AU , Pc 'Vt 1,1 Robert C. Ernst 147-A Stanley Circle Estes Park, CO I appreciate the opportunity to present a number of my concerns regarding the Estes Park Community Development's Proposed Accessory Dwelling Units regarding the edition last printed 1.12.09. Approximately one year ago, the subject before this Commission was the commercial development ofproperty adjacent to Lexington Lane. Members ofthe Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees along with members of the Estes Park Community Development repeatedly reminded nearby homeowners. .."you knew what the "development zoning code was for" for this adjacent property when you purchased your property.. . correct"? Prudent homeowners understand that the Estes Valley Development Code currently allows ADU's in all single-family residential districts with review of all applications for ADU's. The questions then become...why revisions to the development code are now C necessary. Especially when the town receives "on average, one to three requests annually". Seems to me we have come full circle on the issues. I reference two publications on ADU's: AARP Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinances 2000 MRSC Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington Accessory Dwelling Units, October 1995- Report No. 33 With regard to the Estes Park Community Development Department's proposed Accessory Dwelling Units dated 2/12/09... Issue 1: Owner occupancy: Most models (AARP, MRSC) require/highly recommend a provision requiring specific owner occupancy requirements to reduce the potential for tenant/neighbor conflicts. Why does the Estes Park proposal not include this requirement? MRSC: "A common apprehension of opponents is that ADU's may harm neighborhood character if they are not properly maintained by owners and or renters. Opponents also express concern that too many ADU's may be created if individual speculators can purchase or develop multiple homes with ADU's. The expectation is that homeowners W7 linll will be more likely to maintain the property if they also live there, Alsol 13% 1** 1 7 2009 ADU's to owner occupied homef, individual speculators are effectively Di~et nted from _1 L.-----0---- building units. 2&-3 One (1) of the dwelling units in the structure shall be occupied by one or more owners of the property as the owner's (s') permanent and principal residence: provided that the Director maywaive this requirementfor temporary absences ofless than ... Basically the identical argument/recommendations are made by the AARP document. (Personally, I live next door to an ADU. The primary structure and the ADU are rented...i.e.: the owner does not reside in either property. Both are in need of repairâ€ž poorly kept up...one renter was a problem with dogs running loose, noisy parties, and rudeness to neighbor. That enter finally vacated the ADU after a dog bite to a human and numerous calls about freely roaming dogs resulting in a number of visits from Animal Control. Owner occupancy may have prevented such). Issue 2: Size of an accessory unit: EP Community Development Department proposes that "no accessory dwellings shall exceed forty-nine percent (49%) of the size of the floor area of the principal dwelling unit... Most Models advocate much less generosity. For example, MRSC proposes "in the range of 20% to 40% the size of the primary dwelling (See the Public Policy Institute study recommendations done for AARP with assistance from the American Planning Association). Issue 3: Enforcement: Given the 1995 Ziegler case-section 56 A-11 and 56 A-12- which limits enforcement of"ownership" regulations as opposed "land use" regulations, who is going to enforce the proposed covenant provisions of your proposed ADU regulations? Issue 4: Automatic review. Both MRSC and AARP recommend automatic review provisions. The EP proposal does not address automatic review of existing ADUs. Automatic review provisions may be useful to reassure neighborhood groups that any problems related to ADUs will be reviewed and dealt with at some point. Issue 5: Periodic reports on ADU applications: As proposed, there is no provision for periodic reports on ADU applications. Such would in keeping with the town's purported "open and visible government." Periodic reporting and monitoring requirements may give reassurance to neighborhood groups without hindering ADU installations, and may therefore be useful in communities where neighborhood groups are particularly wary of ADUs (MRSC). UL Rel Issue 6: No detached ADU should exist for rent...short or long term. Detached ADU's should not serve as affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis (or any basis as proposed)...should not exist to provide seasonal employee housing (as proposed). As proposed, renting would simply become a business within a residential neighborhood... something current homeowners ought to be greatly concerned about. I have fewer concerns with regard to integrated or attached ADU's. There may exist a need for such, and I am not so opposed to their existence without project review. But with regards to detached ADU's, the town's proposal MUST include Planning Commission Review for each and every proposal that comes before the town. Thank You D EÂ©[Eo v-~ FEB 1 7 2009 1 -~ -4 3~-3 95 2/17/09 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission and Community As we all know the impetus for changing the existing accessory dwelling unit regulations was to correct the "gray areas" in the Code regarding when a "wet bar becomes a kitchen". This opened the door for our Community to consider broadening the use and scope of accessory dwelling units in our Valley, which we all know by now, is inevitable. This being the case, we should move on to refine the lauguage in this latest draft proposal so that it doesn't contain "gray areas" that are ambiguous, confusing or vague. The staff of the Community Development Department should be commended for their efforts to encourage this zoning change. Especially Mr. David Shirk who has shouldered the burden of drafting the various proposals, presenting them to the Community and being the main target of criticism. The whole Community should be sharing in this burden. The Planning Commission should consider forming a citizens recommendation committee composed of a represenative from the various local governing agencies, homeowners associations and concerned business, professional and civic associations to assist the Planning Staff in refining the final ADU code lauguage. This round table approach would permit different points ofview to be considered and mutual compromise F to be found. From' 43 g â‚¬; 0/9&921/0 72:fA) yh 4 - 1 A tz*- 761Â£:PCCUX-~J \2&&82-492..J 'Ifil_ FEB_17_39_'IM ( 49 PaTF - Wl] 02213-12 ~~:::5>ESTES VALLEYÂ·2%~~~~ CONTRACTORS AN ASSOCIATION OF CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONALS - ASSOCIATION Contractors, Engineers, Architects, Designers & Developers Dear Planning Commission Members, Our organization has recently been reinstated because we have seen a lot of issues arise in this community that has affected property owners and resultantly ourselves. This may seem like we are merely trying to develop this valley for our own interests, but this letter is intended to reflect the desires of property owners in this valley, not us. A majority of the property owners are unaware of all the code issues related to their desires and are unable to knowledgeably represent themselves. The latest issue, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's), has garnished a lot of attention of late and what we would like to do is let you know how historical, desired, and necessary they are in the Estes Valley. ADU's and guest houses are an historic established use that is totally in character with this community but has been virtually eradicated. In recent history they were allowed to an extent that may have been under-regulated. Until 1986, the municipal code allowed a principal dwelling unit and an ADU on any residential lot in Town. In addition, guest houses were allowed in "R" zoning districts on half acre lots in addition to the principal dwelling unit and an ADU. That equates to three units on a lot. There were no maximum limits on square footage of the guest house so essentially, it could be the same size as the principal house. Currently there are a number of properties in town that already have this configuration in residential areas because they were built legally prior to 1986. The ADU had no restrictions on rentals so they were allowed to rent them in any manner the home owner desired, however the guest house was not allowed to be rented. The revised Municipal Code of October 14, 1986 created some restrictions on ADU's regarding size of units and eliminated guest houses. They were allowed on all residential lots at this time. Generally, ADU's were limited to 1/3 the size of the principal dwelling and again there were no restrictions on rentals at that time for ADU's. The unit size restriction was Page 1 of 4 implemented in order to make an ADU appear as a subordinate structure like a garage or workshop. We believe this is a very relevant change because it maintains the character of a lot as a single family residential property. Up until this time ADU's were considered to be attached or integrated. This use continues right through today, however the current Estes Valley Development Code, as implemented in February of 2000, eliminated the ability for ADU's on lots that did not meet a minimum of 1.33 the required minimum lot size and could be no larger than 800 square feet. This lot size limitation was a last minute change of the current code before adoption in January of 2000. Not many people noticed and it probably should not have happened because we went from every residential lot allowing ADU's to only 27% of the lots in the Estes Valley allowing ADU's. Considering development and subdividing practices, that percentage will only go down with time, thereby permitting this on only the most affluent of properties. The problem with limiting ADU's and guest rhouses has been an issue of concern with many property owners on many levels. On a number of occasions property owners have wanted to remodel an existing ADU and have found that they could not. The current code did not allow them and the Community Development Department required that the kitchen and/or shower be removed. In some cases they went so far as to require the removal of the ADU -outright, even if it was pehnitted legally at an earlier time. This goes against the grain of legal non-conforming uses and grandfathered properties. Unfortunately, the Community Development Department has wrestled with the interpretation of the code and the IRC due to many inconsistencies regarding definitions and enforceability. What was legal nine years ago has now become illegal, and with strict interpretation, ADU's have been eliminated when at all possible. With regard to new construction there are a number of properties that have attempted to build an ADU or a "guest quarter" only to be rebuffed by the code. There have been inconsistent interpretations of kitchens and bathrooms that have denied building permits just by the appearance of an ADU. These denials have occurred in many new high end homes and remodels that have desired separate guest quarters, wet-bars, breakfast-bars, elderly parent accommodations, caretaker quarters, or full-time home health Page 2 of 4 accommodations in the past nine years. All these instances have been historically associated with this community, but are now illegal, even though most of them would be considered a "guest quarter", not an ADU. "Guest quarters" are defined in the code as "living quarters with or without kitchen facilities for the use of temporary guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling." This is a common sense use that should be allowed by right in any residential zone, but the code interpretation lumps them with ADU's - even though it defines them separately. What the Town now faces is a need for ADU's that can be rented to increase the number of rental units available in the community. The vacancy rate of long term rental properties has historically been very low and there is a need for housing units for our summer workforce, year-long workforce and vacationers. Not only are ADU's needed to fill the demand, but they are also needed for some homeowners to afford their homes that are consistently outpacing the rest of the country in value. The average home price in this community is beyond the reach of our year-long workforce to afford. Our community has a larger proportion of lodging and retail jobs that are traditionally the lower paying jobs compared to other industryies. Fortunately, some are able to find houses that already have ADU's, but some have found that they need to build an ADU in order to afford the mortgage to stay in this community. What they have found is a code that does not allow it and have been forced to downsize or move to the front range. What this community begins to face is that someone living in the front range will eventually find a job in the front range and it will not be in their interest to commute to Estes Park. We will therefore out-price the market without trying to maintain working class citizens in this community and they will eventually stop coming. To limit ADU's to only larger properties would be a mistake. They should be allowed on every property as long as they meet the zoning regulations regarding setbacks, use and accessory structures. Ironically, this aspect of "affordable housing" has been totally ignored in the Rl district, which is designed specifically for such housing. ADU options are not available at all in this zoning district. Page 3 of 4 Limiting ADU's in the current code really was a mistake in 2000. The current Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan actually recommends "modif(ying) zoning classifications to allow accessory units that serve as affordable housing units" (7.A.5) and also recommends the "infill of older core areas" (6.A.3.1). The comprehensive plan states that this is actually smart growth because it reduces the infrastructure cost of building and maintaining new infrastructure in more remote areas where new subdivisions and developments may occur. It will also increase the property values thereby increasing tax revenue which will mean more money to maintain the same infrastructure. In an interview process of over twenty architects, designers, and home-builders in this valley we have found that there have been numerous requests . for all of the above ADU/guest quarter possibilities. It has been a need and a desire for all age ranges and income classes. This is not an isolated issue. Many people in this community want some type of ADU/guest quarter and we are only trying to give them a voice in this process. There has been a nationwide calling for change to allow ADU's in all types of communities, from parts of Denver, to Steamboat Springs, Aspen, and Grand Junction. As mentioned earlier, even our own Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan encourages infill and ADU's. Our association is responding to a demand that is present, real, and necessary in our community. Mokt of ils are working class citizens and have felt the pressures ourselves. I hope that you can agree with these reasons for why ADU's should be re-instated as a use by right in the Estes Valley. We urge you to make a positive change for housing affordability. Sincerely, 44,#Ul Mike Menard, President Estes Valley Contractors Association Page 4 of 4 ~\EÂ©EDâ‚¬*1 13WN R-ei,de.21- Rl~FEB 1 2 2009 1 J -1 TWENTY QUESTIONS FOR PLANNING STAFF REGARDI~(~.ILE.... -1 PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CHANGES Prepared by Eric Waples, an interested citizen Dll/09 1. Does the planning staff intend to do any type of scientific survey of residential property owners to provide them with an opportunity to respond to the final form of the Department's ADU proposal? Why or why not? What assumptions are you making based on the fact that you can cite only one member of the 157 Estes Park Homeowner Associations who provides unqualified support of your plan? 2. How many of the Homeowner Associations which potentially qualify for ADU's forbid ADU's in their covenants? Of those that do not directly forbid ADU's in their covenants, how many have other provisions in their covenants which conflict with your proposed regulations (e. g. parking spaces, etc.)? Would those conflicts prevent the homeowners from establishing ADU's without changing their HOA covenants? Under what conditions would Homeowner covenant provisions supersede the proposed ADU regulations; under what conditions would the proposed Code changes supersede HOA covenants? 3. What happens, for example, if a new owner of a detached ADU is no longer in compliance with, or refuses to follow, the ADU covenant? What happens to the detached ADU? What penalty options does the town have? If an owner of a detached ADU sells it as a condominium, what legal recourse does the city have (especially given the 1995 Ziegler case--section 56 A-11 and 56 A-12-- which limits enforcement of "ownership" regulations as opposed to "land use" regulations)? What case law is Greg White relying on to enforce the covenant provisions of your proposed ADU regulations? Can you also give an example of the "exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship if the restrictions are not removed" under your proposal which would allow a homeowner to have the ADU covenant restrictions removed? And what "applicable Board" would make this determination? 4. Most model ADU ordinances incorporate a provision requiring specific owner occupancy (for both current and future owners) requirements to reduce the potential for tenant/neighbor conflicts. Why does your proposal not include this requirement? 5. Most model ADU ordinances allow an ADU to be 30-40% the size of the primary dwelling (see the Public Policy Institute study recommendations done for AARP with the assistance of the American Planning Association). Why have you chosen a larger size (49%) for your proposal? 6. Do you plan to keep the architectural guidelines in your proposal despite the opposition to this discovered during your meeting with local architects and designers? 7. Many model ADU ordinances specifically limit the number of ADU bedrooms (which in your proposal would also limit the number of additional parking spaces) and the number of unrelated people who may occupy an ADU. Under current code and your ADU proposal, how many bedrooms could be included in a 1,000 square foot ADU? Under your proposal, current code would allow up to seven unrelated people to live in an ADU. Do you feel that is appropriate? Did you consider specifically limiting the number of unrelated people who can reside in an ADU? Did you consider a square footage per person limitation? Why or why not? 8. In your estimation, how many illegal ADU's exist in the Estes Valley? What is your position on how illegal ADU's will be dealt with? 9. Many model ADU ordinances restrict ADU's to existing housing under the assumption that one of the primary benefits of ADU's is to "stabilize existing core neighborhoods" which actually have less density than intended in zoning codes (because of changing demographics). What is your specific definition of "core neighborhood" as applied to the Estes Valley. Why does your proposal not prohibit ADU's for new construction, which can encourage speculators, and, in fact, create new "duplexes" (albeit of different sizes) in areas zoned single family residential? 10. Because the potential for unintended consequences of your ADU proposal is enormous, why have you not incorporated specific provisions in your plan for automatic review of the total number of ADU's created each year, density thresholds of ADU's in particular neighborhoods, the frequency of complaints about ADU's, etc? As a cautionary measure, why have you not incorporated any type of permit renewal process in your proposal? Do you understand why the "trust us" approach is probably not a sufficient safeguard given the potential unanticipated consequences of this proposed change? 11. Do you plan to stick with your proposal to have a "conditional" permit for detached ADU's and a "use by right" permit for integrated and attached ADU's? Is it your intent that neighbors should have no input into attached or integrated ADU's? Have you considered a process (included in other ADU model ordinances) where neighbor objections or complaints could automatically trigger a "conditional" review? 12. What specific subletting policies will apply to ADU's under your proposal and the current code? How do you intend to enforce the three-month lease requirement? How will you track and address abuses of this requirement? How will this requirement affect summer employees who cannot sign a three-month lease (because, for example, many colleges do not have a full three months summer vacation)? Is the intent just to "fudge" or ignore these issues or do you plan aggressive enforcement? 13. Are there currently any state regulations regarding ADU's? To your knowledge, has any legislation been proposed or anticipated? 14. Who will enforce the parking provisions of the new ADU regulations--and how aggressively? Under your proposal how many guests may parkin ADU parking areas and for how long? How will this be enforced? 15. Do you anticipate a fewer or great number of challenges or appeals regarding ADU's to the Board of Adjustment (or other government bodies) as a consequence of your new ADU policy? Why or why not? 16. What constituency is best served by your new ADU policy--residential homeowners, general citizens of the Estes Valley, builders and excavators, developers, realtors, architecUdesigners, or city administrators? What specific evidence do you have to support your assumptions? Have you done due diligence to gather evidence from the general public? 17. Of the "kitchen sink" full of reasons proposed for instituting the new ADU policy, which reasons are your highest priority and why? What evidence do you have that these "reasons" will be successfully achieved by the new policy? 18. Since the code you wish to change was instituted not long ago, and after very extensive Community input, how do you feel this change (and the manner in which you are doing it) will affect public confidence in the stability, predictability and fairness of the zoning process? In the Lexington Lane controversy, members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees repeatedly reminded nearby homeowners, "you knew what the zoning was for this adjacent property when you purchased your property, correct?" How do you reconcile those statements/questions and neighborhood concerns with your current proposal? Can you truly say you accept with a straight face the Board of Realtors' statement that "an ADU either attached or detached, rented or not, would have no negative impact on adjoining properties"? 19. The multiple reasons stated in support of the proposed ADU policy change make it clear that the intent is to encourage the frequency of ADU's. What frequency (e.g. number of additional ADU's established annually) is either anticipated or desired by planning staff and why? What ADU threshold density would be considered "too many" for a neighborhood area or for the town as a whole in the view of planning staff? 20. Since the grab bag of reasons stated to support the new policy understandably causes the goals to be somewhat ambiguous and sometimes contradictory, how will the "Decision-Making Body" be able to fairly "grant exceptions and modifications to these standards" based on whether they "find the requested modifications and/or waivers... "advance the goals and purposes of this code. " Does this give far too much discretion to the decision-making body and open it up to even more frequent challenges of favoritism or capricious decision making? Estes Park @AQ-@#9*r-1 -- ..1.- UJ - 10 --- February 12,2~ous ing Authority TO: Members of the Estes Valley Planning Commission Frorn: The Estes Park Housing Authority Re: Accessory Dwelling Units The Estes Valley Development Code and the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, upon which the Code is based, strive to create the balanced and appropriate development of the Estes Valley while meeting the residential and economic needs of the Valley. The Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA), as an entity formed to address the housing needs of Estes Valley, supports the adoption of a code provision to allow for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and to allow these units to be rented. The Comprehensive Plan lists a variety of policies that support the creation of ADUs including the encouragement of"housing infill", a "variety of housing types and price ranges" and "housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods." Most directly, the Comprehensive Plan, section 7-A.5-3, recommends for housing, not as policy, but as action, to "Evaluate accessory structure options. Within the core and in a number of outlying areas, it may be appropriate to allow accessory structures such as Garage Apartments or Attached Units." The Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment prepared for EPHA last year, estimates a need for 756 to 959 new housing units by the year 2015 including a current need of 221 units. The adoption of ADUs will not fill this need for housing, but it can be one of the solutions. ADUs will assist this community's needs for housing of its employees, the care of an aging population, and to simply allow our children to be able to stay in a community where housing prices are outdistancing the means of our currenÂ£ residents. The Estes community will continue to grow. If we wish to maintain the character of this town and to preserve the open spaces and wildlife that inspire our residents and our guests, then our codes need to allow for the best uses of the developed neighborhoods we have. For these reasons, the Estes Park Housing Authority urges the Planning Commission to recommend the integration of Accessorv Dwelling Units and their ability to be rented into the Development Code. ectfully %Â·4tx Rita Kurelja Executive Director On Behalf of the EPHA Board of Commissioners 170 MacGregor Avenue, RO. Box 1200 Â® Estes Park, CO 80517 â€¢ (970) 577-3730 â€¢ Fax (970) 586-0249 ...r R- FEB 1 1 2009 ~~ February 11, 2009 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission ADUs Are "Responsible Development" There has been some misrepresentations lately of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), what they are and their purpose in the newspapers. Presently, the Estes Valley Development Code only allows 27% ofthe combined residential lots in both the Town ofEstes Park and the unincorporated Estes Valley td have an integrated ADU within an existing single-family dwelling. This policy is a radical departure from past zoning regulations and many property owners have been upset by the loss oftheir right to have an ADU, whether for private use or rental. The Planning Commission is now re-evaluating the current ADU Code policy for several reasons: problems in code language, increasing demand for ADUs on lots not allowed the use, affordable' housing issues, new building codes and recent Larimer County code changes that allow ADUs on any residential lot in the County. The Planning Commission has been following the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, a guideline for Responsible Development that encourages infill housing in existing neighboorhoods, that helps preserve the beauty ofthe remaining open spaces in the Estes Valley froni further sprawl. One such infill housing project supported by the Planning. Commission has been Habitat ofEstes Valley's latest affordable single-family housing project on Riverside Drive. The Comprehensive Plan encourages ADUs as part ofthe infill housing for the unique benefits they provide: 1. Private ADUs allow opportunities for year-round, part-time and retired residents by providing accomodations for elderly parents, visiting family and guests, or on-site housing for caretakers and domestic caregivers. 2. Rentable ADUs provide needed income for their owners and represent an affordable and long-term housing opportunity for local working residents, currently challanged by the housing shortage. 3. ADUs subport local business by housing the employee base within the 6ore commercial districts. Increased living opportunities in close proximity to various employment sectors is an enviromentally preferred land use policy, which reduces autoihobile dependancy and takes full advantage ofthe community' s paved trails system reducihg parking problems, noise and traffic congestion. 4. ADUs also reduce infrastructure cost by making efficient use of existing utility services and roadways. Our community has already been reaping these benefits from the existing and often unnoticed ADUs found in our neighborhoods.Their presence hasn't altered the unique mountain appearance and character ofthe Estes Valley any more than other dwellings; some even enhance it. They are not the source of increased traffic congestion, parking, noise and rental problems. That is mainly caused by the three million tourists that yearly swarm over this community and blatantly violate short-term rental agreements. They have not harmed property values, which continue to outpace most of the nation. Nor have they overloaded the public utilities or infrastructure. Opponants of the proposed ADU zoning code revisions would lead you to believe we need an encumbering public review process to ensure the least amount of impact in our neighborhoods, but the facts above do not support their case. Paul F. Brown and Family 254 Solomon Dr, Estes Park, CO P. S. For the record, Our Family were renters in this community for 16 years and we fully understand the lack of available affordable housing for working people. In 1994, we bought a lot in the Town OfEstes Park because zoning regulations allowed us to have either an intergated or an attached ADU. In January of 2000 we received a Certificate of Occupancy for our new home that we built ourselves on the lot with hopes of adding an attached ADU for our elderly parents. You can imagine how we felt when one month later on February 1, 2000 we lost the right to have the ADU. ( 3-,(mvil f22OO9 # This Letter to editor appeared in the Estes Park News Feb. 6,2009 - This Letter to editor appeared in.the Estes Park Trail Gazette Feb. 6,2002- February 3,2009 Letter to the Editor: The Association for Responsible Development (ARD) has several major concerns regarding the Planning Commission' s proposal for Accessory Dwelling Units, (ADUs). This proposal would be a major change the existing CODE and Zoning in the Estes Town and Valley. The proposed changes could allow for uncontrolled growth and alter the unique mountain character of the Estes Valley. Currently, ADU' s allow for an attached guest quarters or detached buildings with sink, stove and toilet. By changing the existing CODE and Zoning requirements, making it less stringent to add an ADU, there will be an increase of infill in existing residential neighborhoods. In addition, it is highly likely that ihany of these ADU will be Used as rentals. Owner occupied properties are usually not a problem, but absentee owners frequently turn these units into apartments, which sometimes have enforcement problems with both short term and long terms rentals. Currently there is no way to control or enforce problems such as: number of occupants, inadequate parking, increased noise and traffic. A second major issue is that of the "Use by Right" status that this proposal for the ADUs permits. This will allow for a code change that permits an accessory dwelling unit to be built without having the owner/builder go through the proper Planning Commission process which is already in place. This code change would allow construction of ADUs without public review or comment. Individual property owners and neighborhoods should have the opportunity to attend public meetings and voice their concerns. ARD is in agreement that the current system of a case-by-case assessment based on merit and reviewed by the Planning Commission with public comment has been effective in the past in approving appropriate requests. There does not seem to be a need bfased on the number of requests or the desire on the part of residents to make such sweeping code and zoning changes at this time. Maintaining the integrity of current neighborhoods is essential to the character of the town and valley. You are welcome to attend the next ARD meeting, February 13th at 8:30 am at Good Samaritan. ARD encourages all Estes Town and Valley residents who are interested in the proposed changes by the Planning Commission regarding ADUs, to attend the next Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, February 23rd at 1:30 pm in the Town Hall. Dave Albee President, - Association for Responsible Development Al 970-586-6413 R 7 Tj-gao VE-31 3 t f -' ' i 1,11. FEe ,10 -2009- :. 4./. --~OrtfoliOj Group he. i /Â· Residential Design and Construdfion r W**266,4*m*-Solte#Gi**)400Tba4*Miererl~eÂ·Â·.P.O, Box 2735 Â· Estes Park, CO 80517 Â· (970)586-9436, FAX (970) 586-9437 6. i , , 9 (*04(49\VA::f *VE 4 , , 7; 7 Â· ~' ~.~ <i ~i Â· .rÂ·,~1 0â‚¬, 11(\)Â£- 6[,HIFI ~ ../ 1. 3 . C~09:(66N 00tt, >\\1 Commeht and Opinion ~ Estds Park PaA< Trail Gazette ~ . ~ . ' Dear'Editor: We are writing regarding the proposed chaNke; tb tli4 Estes ,Valley Development Code (code) on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The remarks below also res$end to three 1btters to,the editor Which , , appeared on the Friday, January 3Oth pites of the Trail Gazette.J These ' lettdrs, carnU from Elairie Downing, Don Sellers, and Frdd Mares, First we agree Witliall threeletters in that we:encourate concerned citizens, for and against the ADU proposalÂ© to'attend the Planning Conimission he~ings 5 on this issue. As Don Sellers put it: "the need for citizenitiput is crucihi." Secondly, we agree with Fred Mares that concerned citizens should "read and ~ ; understand these proposals."(Withthisinmind, WejarioffeArig.soindthoughts ' 1 whidh niay fa~ilitate abasic unde]Â§tA~ling'bffthe proposkdADU cliar*s. In our view, theke ADU changek akldress th;ee fobjectives: 1) To better define what exactljr Â¢6nstitutes an ADU. 2) To expandpermitted ADUs withili the samb<Residential Zoning ~ Districts where they ard now 4116*ed by right: 3) . Th allow suchADUs to be rented for a minirhum of 90 days. ADUs defined.i The Town Staff report outlining the ADU changes refers to a case Where a propdrty owher was denied a fwet bar". We (The Portfolio â‚¬ Group).were the'reinodeling contractortfor this project. The owner hired us toconvert an RV *afakeinto two guest bedfooms with,a cÂ¢mmon liviti~ ared. The common area included a proposed sink and'dishwasher.:Town Staff denied thesink and dishwasher on the grounds thatihis constituted an ADIJ,:Which was net permittddjon this Lot. In fakt, thetproperty owner had nointentidn;of using these quest quarters as* a petmanent "dwelling unit", nor couldthby be'since , ~ itliadqno kitchen. We prbptise unless'a space,clearly has:a kitchen, with installed stove and/or cooktop, and:requisite space for cabinets,- counters, refri#erator, etc,the accompanying quarters shbuld not be< cobsidered an ADU For those of you with'fwet bars" or "breakfast bars" or a *tidrowave / counter: : ) ,/forthe convenience of youtself br your -guests, such clarification will relie*e'you (~ ~ ~ . ~ i of having *er}taps"illegalÂ¥) a non-conforming ADU. - 5 ': l. ' Il 21. f j )Permitted ADUs. Please Â£*idbrstand that ADUs are now allowed by right. ~ ~ The~ chan*ds reIax tile rkquiremdnt that a lot ha4 1.33 times thd:minimbm lot size tobe>eligible, and would permit detached ADUA ort lots one acre or ~ la}rger. iThe latter would require Planning Commission review. The.Staff ; Report notek a numbet of uses -for ADI.Id: -rsuites for elderly-parents; onsite ' - facilitiesforicaregivers or caretakers; and guest quarters for. visitors. It seems these are legitimate needs for citiz6ns of the Valley.;: The code changes L u 7 46ek to expaWd;eligibilityfor such needs to citizens with smaller lots, and allow. C incredded privacy with detached ADUs on larger lots..' In a. number:of our. residential projects, we have incorporated a "kitchenette" in guedt spacek. None of these cases has led to.increased density. Tlierefore; we don't feel it is 4 totally.clear that ADUs used for the abov@purposes would, as Elaine Downing~ - ~ f . ' puts it: 3significalhtlÂ¥ changeÂ·the character and structure of neighborhoods". r Renthl of-ADUs. Fred Mares states that these codd cha~es rebresent,"a total reversal of the Town's .policy withithe stated purpose of providing more.~ affordablurental housing andmore rental housing for seasonal wdrkers ';, \.,withinresidentialtneighborhdods":, Well...isit self-evident thes*Are <..r-~ - i inappfopriate objectiveb? Do We have an affordable dnd/or seasonal housing > : problem or don't We? If no, then 'perhaps ADUs shouldn't be rentabld. If.yes, the rental of XDUs migfit mhke sense. Many of us who tiow liv@ Wi the Estes' Valle$ permanently, onde came Kdre ad visitors. 3 Then,<we were dependent~ oR ( i: 4 the seasonal help~inrdstaurantund motels. Should seas6hal helpbe walcome to i Work here, but not tehthere? Like*ise; should those:needirig affordable , 9, f - - , housing live elsewhere? Ardl, to the extelht seasoitilc Anld other workdrsare falready hert itis also not self-evident thatADU rentals, as Don Sellers,puts it: ~ ' ~i ~' ~will allow a huge incredsd'in the housing density throukhout the Valley." - ' .7, I Thank you... Steve and-Betty Nickel r The Portfolio Group, Inc: Â· v , i t i j., f , ' I I ,/ ' , ': AfÂ· ' .~ . f 30 ~EÂ©EUVEr=5 1 ~ FEB 9 2009 ( Appeared on January 30,2009 in-the Trail gazette and the Estes Park News January 27,2009 Trail Gazette: Editorial Page Dear Editor: I am writing to express my concerns and to alert others to the proposed ADU code change. Most disturbing, is the "Use by Right" status allowed by the proposed code. The change supersedes current zoning requirements and allows building of an Accessory Dwelling Unit of up to 1,000 square feet without community input or planning commission review. There is currently a process available through the planning commission to add an ADU in appropriate residential locations, so it seems unnecessary for this broad, sweeping code change. Should this ADU code change be passed, it will most certainly lead to increased density and the accompanying noise, traffic and parking problems. In addition, there is the possibility of ADU's being used to generate income as rental property. Many people are concerned that an increased number of ADU' s used as rental units, will significantly change the character and structure of their neighborhood. Please contact the Planning Commission to learn more about this proposal or plan to attend the next meeting on Tuesday, February 17th at 1:30. Elaine Downing Estes Park 586-6413 Karen Thompson ( - :rom: Don Sellers 7 2 IF. ~' Sent: Wednesday, December 17,2008 f2:39 PM To: Karen Thompson Subject: Prohibit ADU Rentals Karen - During yesterday's Planning Commission discussion, there was a suggestion to eliminate the paragraph in the Accessory Dwelling Unit code modifications concerning rental provisions for ADUs. I think elimination of rental capability for ADUs is a very good idea which will make the proposal much more palatable to many residents in Estes Park. In addition to striking the paragraph, however, I suggest adding verbiage to specifically prohibit renting ADUs. Without a clear statement prohibiting rental of ADUs in the code, the possibility of rentals will remain murky. Could you please make my comments part of the public record and copy the Planning Commission members, and Bob Joseph and Dave Shirk? Best regards, Don Sellers rp- 200% 1 70 SUBArr-TED To -ME Â·Es-res vu-60f Â¥wWN/#Â¢> CoMM/55'04 04 14'4=a -El~ 1180, 6 7BawA) 254 50,0004 Ne, 657225 421,6.4 Â· - 17.12.010 -- 17.16.010 Chapter 17.12 Irvel J- I ZONING DISTRICTS | ~_ffi-_11 Sections: 17.12.010 Designated. 17.12.010 Designated. In order to regulate and restrict the location of trades, callings, industries, and other uses, and the location of buildings designed, erected, altered or occupied for specific purposes, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the size of yard, courts and other spaces, and to regulate and limit the denisty of population, the town of Estes Park is divided in the following zoning districts: R residential district; R-1 residential district; R-2 multiple family residential district; R-3 mobile home park district; C-1 commercial district; C-2 restricted commercial district; I71 restricted industrial district; E estate district; E-1 estate district; ( E-2 estate district; and DR developing resource district. (Ord. 27-82 Â§2, 1982: Ord. 5-79 Â§3, 1979: Ord. 12-75 Â§1, 1975; Ord. 27-72 Â§1, 1972: Ord. 295 Â§2: Ord. 287 Â§1: Ord. 269 Â§1: prior code Â§12.3: Ord. 185 Â§2(part), 1958). Chapter 17.16 R RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT* | Sections: 17.16.010 Boundaries. 17.16.020 Permitted uses. 17.16.030 Yards. 17.16.040 Lot area per family. 17.16.050 Floor area per dwelling. 17.16.060 Minimum lot width. 17.16.010 Boundaries. The boundaries of the R residen- tial district shall be as set forth in this section. Included * For statutory provisions authorizing division of the ( municipality into districts, see C.R.S. 139-60-2. 218 (Estes Park 12/82) 11 17.16.020 within the R resid@Atial district shall be the following described lands: 1. All of the lands included in County Club Estates, a resubdivision of Lot 10, South Saint Vrain Addition; 2. Majestic Pines Subdivision, a part of Dekker Ad- dition; 3. One Thousand Pines Addition; 4. Village Acres Addition; 5. All of Lots 100 through 122, inclusive, Lots 126 through 136, inclusive; Lots 138 through 142, inclusive, of Al Fresco Place Addition; 6. All the lands included within Thompson's Pinewood Acres Resubdivision of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Thompson's Pinewood Acres Addition; 7. Tracts 1 through 20, Tracts 24 through 54 and Tracts 83 through 96, Fall River Addition; 8. Black Canyon Hills Addition; 9. All of the lands included within the Kidwell Ad- dition; 10. All the land bounded on the east by MacGregor Avenue on the south by Wonderview Avenue and on the west by the east line of Alfresco Place; 11. All of the lands included within Palmer Addition; 12. / All of the lands included within Connelly Addition; 13. Lots 4 through 8, Block 4, Lot 6 and Lots 8 through 19, Block 5, Lots 1 through 10, Block 6, and Lots 1 through 7, Block 7, all in Lone Pine Acres First Addition; 14. Prospect Estates Addition; 15. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,,49, and 50 Grand Estates Addition. town of Estes Park; :Â·/16. Lots 41, 42, and 43 and Outlot A of Fall River Estates First Addition to the town; /17. Lots 4 through 25, 27 through 34, 36 through 40, Block 1, Lots 1 through 12, Block 2, and Outlots B, C, D, E alld F of Fall River Estates Second Addition; ,; 18. The amended plat of Peak View Subdivision, being a replat of a portion of Lot 1, Dannels Addition. (Ord. 12-83 Â§1, 1983; Ord. 20-82 Â§1, 1982; Ord. 16-82 Â§3, 1982; Ord. 10-82 Â§1, 1982; Ord. 7-82 Â§1, 1982; Ord. 3-82 Â§1, 1982; Ord. 15-81 Â§1, 1981; Ord. 2-80 Â§1, 1980; Ord. 24-79 Â§1, 1979; Ord. 12-79 Â§1, 1979; Ord. 23-77 Â§1, 1977; Ord. 8-77 Â§1, 1977; Ord. 20-75 Â§1, 1975; Ord. 17-73 Â§1(part), 1973; Ord. 13-72 Â§4, 1972; Ord. 10-72 Â§Â§2, 4, 1972;.Ord. 8-72 Â§1, 1972; Ord. 350 Â§2; Ord. ~ 302 Â§Â§2, 4: prior code Â§Â§12.4, 12.4-7) . 17.16.020 Permitted uses. No building or premises shall be used, and no building shall be hereafter erected or structurally altered, unless otherwise provided herein, except for one or more of the following uses: 1. One-family dwelling; - 2. One quest dwelling; 3. Uses customarily incidental to any of the above uses, when located on the same lot and not involving the conduct of a business on the premises; 219 (Estes Park 11/83) 24 17.16.030--17.I6.060 4. Accessory-buildings limited to private garages; 5. Domestic animals, provided such animals are house- hold pets and that kennels are not maintained; 6. Public utility mains, lines and substations, where no public office and no repair or storage facilities are maintained; 7. Fences, hedges and walls, provided such uses are less than three and one-half feet in height when located within one hundred feet of the centerline intersection of two streets or roads. 8. The use of licensed mobile vehicles of radio or television stations or newspapers used to gather and transmit news to their place of publication or broadcast, so long as that place is not a street, alley, sidewalk or other public way or place within the town limits, and there is no audible or visual transmission from said vehicles; 9. Uses permitted by special review: nursing homes, carillons, and electronic instruments imitating a carillon. (ord. 2-76 Â§1, 1976; Ord. 23-75 Â§1, 1975; Ord. 295 Â§3(part): prior code Â§Â§12.6-C, 12-6-C-1). 17.16.030 Yards. For every building there shall be a front yard, rear yard and side yard of not less than twenty- five feet. (Ord. 295 Â§3(part): prior code Â§12.6-C-2). 17.16.040 Lot area per family. For every one-family f dwelling there shall be provided a minimum lot area of twenty- one thousand seven hundred eighty square feet. (Ord. 295 Â§3(part): prior code Â§12.6-C-3). 17.16.050 Floor area per dwelling. There shall be per- mitted, upon each lot, one residence building containing not less than eight hundred square feet of floor area, one guest house containing not less than six hundred square feet of floor area, and one private garage which may be either a separate structure or combined with the residence house or guest house. Basement floor areas shall not be included to determine compliance with the above minimum floor area require- ments. (Ord. 295 Â§3(part): prior code Â§12.6-C-4). 17.16.060 Minimum lot width. Every lot shall have a width of not less than thirty feet as measured along the front lot line, as such line is defined in Title 16 of this code, and a width of not less than seventy-five feet as measured along the lot setback, as such setback is defined in Title 16 of this code, which may be more than the minimum set forth within this chapter. Corner lots shall be at least one hundred twenty feet in width, at the front setback line. (Ord. 2-74 Â§2, 1974: Ord. 21-71 Â§2, 1971: prior code Â§12.6-C-5). l 219-1 (Estes Park 8/82) Proposel square footage for detached accessory dwellng units based on lot size. 300 SF min.- 400 SF max. on lots 10890 SF to 21779 SF 300 SF min.- 600 SF max. on lots 21780 SF to 43559 SP 300 SF min.- 800 SF max. on lots 43560 SF to 108899 SF 300 SF min.- 1000 SF max. on lots 108900 SF or greater 1 ,d , I. ': .. : , 89 ' IM#&,ap .. . .1 11 9,1.4 - f.)1 ...iI:AE:1124 .: ji @31 i AL :â€¢. El F:4:Â·1 F: 7. 94:Â·; < 13'-0" X 8'-4-" , ~ 3,90 X 2,50 22 : 1 Of m Â® 14911 m 11- - 11, - ~ 19'-0" X 10'-4" ,, f==9 - 5.70 X 3,10 E- 3 DU 1 W 1==. 1 +1 1- e =11 17 - . 1 400 SF one bedroom cottage with 3/4 bath and kitchen This cottage is the same size as a small 2 car garage. 4 -44Â·.,~.p~~*lul Â¢4 - I . 1. 3 f U.. 1 11. 1 ; 1..\\. Id 4 J.. 1 . 1 13 411 1111 11; 1141 ; 1 1 11.:.11 4 hyril '11\1\ Â·' 16:t - h, 4, 1 & 24'4* .. 1.4 ..... Br.2 Br.1 81(* 0 6 t fi E.= to '* 7 30 14 4 . .... CRAWL/ % s . .r ACCESS J ~~ i 18 e. f M imiwimr , if % 1 1 f i */ FORNB .r.. 2 . 1 '' E.p..~ -Â·Â· Â· Â· 1 REF., Liv.Rm. WH" 125 .r 1 1 ' '. 4 2.. Kit Cri :; 7 8 g o 5 mrÂ· -/ 6.Â·t'.' 1 2...1 :.~2,%,; STOVE 14,2 .2 , 576 SF two bedroom cottage with full bath, closets and kitchen. -- The cottage is the same size as a standard 2 car garage. 21 .0..14 1- . t Fir : y .....- + . I. I. - 1 4 0 . Â·. â€¢,M i- 12 &* I lurn * . .. 6- - 7..... :. I T..mr 6 .. . 26'0" â‚¬ Pat/o A ~ rges hotace - Bedroom Great Room 11'6x 10' 172 x 12'8 f vaufed GeN,w! --3 ~ .nn ~ pal ' . 1 1 .1 MI I 1 -- Inn - aung bar i 0, I. 020 1 1 1 Kitthd sh' 11'x 11'4 4.- 11 down 9?l 1 C . r 574 SF one bedroom cottage with 3/4 bath, closets, laundry, kitchen/dining nook and living room with fireplace. This cottage is the same size as a standard 2 car garage. ...?. 3{N 4 - .-'-b*.. tÂ©Al vk.13/ 4;li : . 0% c.6--12:3*&1J21,Â·.+E 10 6 44 .264~. 0 X.< t. .LifiÂ·3 +4 t.Â· f N 11... . - :Z--2~*.##faUERE*.4 934. V - 2 3 12**' .%1.,w.. : : - : p 11 11111 , r:'. :Il 1 ilk :4 12 Sm i,il'.60. 70= 4 s ......C '; 1 I 1- i 1 'JJ. r i , :, 1011[B . . - i mil. ..r.3., /4 .: Â·:fir' -ir?: f. -f: ilm#ft - KIT. - 12 x 12 0 0 C imvi ,=-1 *5119 Immrâ€¢ 00 .i,md.I, V --iliCAK FIllâ€¢ ladder \4=. loft over -' ~9 BEDROOM 1~ = BEDROOM ~ ~ 14 x12 1**A .1 14 x 12 WI-r %11.1 LIVING FLOOR PLAN - 12*19 750 sq. ft DECK 1 Houses that range from 600 SF to 800 SF have more creative floor plan opportunities, second bathrooms, more storage and larger rooms. They may also be multi-story and have attached garages. AA ( .. 9*' ~404~ d#ANi/~*k#, f,â€¢101 dill'.ifix/w#- r.- TI -atj&-pl'Bil*AUS"AE 9 4, 1+A H â€¢1â€¢ 1 *~ajappt 1** 38%0' ' L What You're Looking For No. 92030 R,3-0,4 fmn, Sibki. c-=d erny rud shwleâ€¢,â€¢ frer,1 â€¢i*do- tiv. thi. 962 *quans foot ealt: I.Q.4/1 1 nach plan the,tib,ppel that.dayâ€¢/first time buyÂ·c~ is looking for. Upon -lin, 11,8 10,82 | DInhlg/Kil ~|, -_~| ' Brl livinc ioom. Bc/â€ž 411 be I.*t to long vkwi .... . ~1 8-6X11 19=1 -iw]:r 11X11 10 1%-1,1. Livilig ue. d"'Sh N kitcher,Mtni,iret 17-pl~a~!1oruture~3 17 : - *I~ d//128 -1~01, bedroom..,blrodbeth fectlft/1. and.uin f~ece bo 1%'dry c le,il. 1 Main tiving .91 -962 4. n. Living 11-4X 16 Alg-M-8 |92?0-6 ~~ Total l]â€¢100 grea - 962 sqÂ· ~Â· ' [*~,mr-L......45>r 2 or More Otcupant, No. 92030 - .J*..#b.L 1Â·Â·haaMMWa 2 ' ' ~ ' - ~ 2 . a-Y MA~ .1 . pfnrffit-=9!7 -'-4 . -- 0.3 - 00 i' - -41... . 34'-0' L(fe On Two Levels No. 92035 With It'i Ging]â€¢-car='Mlk:d ga.* ird,orertd fkmatelly,duslmOst. In.-Â·*,y,1.ohas JUS, â€¢1=11,â€¢1= 100&14 f* b, a Gnâ€¢Â·t,ne t .,U 200 - i/~6 1 I. The uppet floor fcalums U,- t=t,Torn; w~th fi,adah.dbah. Â· Bra i 8,2 Lowerlevel -480 5 ft. 4--_.._- 910*8Â·61 91(1040 Uppertevel--52034.1 ; Fpl 16*11.4 Guage--lor Â· ~M ?~*N ~ ~'LNaA - Total living aren - 1,000 sq. ft. li j lorMoreOccupants ~~ 1 8,1 amÂ·i . 'ise@rt~ 1 Flia.11. 1 ~R PLAN j I Â·| VAPEft:fLOOR Houses that range from 900 SF to 1000 SF can have 3 bedrooms. 14 /-\ . .4 B *Â©0 oVE' 1\ 3 97 DEC 15 2008 I ~ 1 Ji 1 tr/i .h A -- 1 The Portfolio Group, Inc. www. portfolioa~:oun j iq j I Residential Design & CoAStfuction " I 1204 Graves Avenue . P.O. Box 2735 . Estes Park, CO 80517 . (970) 586-9436 . Fax: 586-9437 . December 15,2008 Ested Valley Planning Commission c/o Dave Shirk, Estes Park Community Developmeift Estes Park, Colorado Â·Subj: Amendments to Existing Regulations of Acceksory Dwelling Units' ~ ; Dear Commissionâ‚¬rs: 1 We are writing to express our suppbrtfor the.proposed chariges to the Estes Valley Development Code.regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (AbUs). We find these changes responll tb Â£i growing need and desire for such facilities,amofig our client base. 11 ' 9 In addition,'we would like to make the following comments and suggestiohs 2,1 3 for your consideration... . . Cooking Facilities defined. We Believe that "permahent 1#ovisions for cooking" needs more specific definition. For example, the following or similarlanguage could be addbd: "Cool<irig facilities shall include the permanent instillation of an oven and cooktop normally re4uiring 220 volt electricity or a dedicated natural gas or propane line." . 1 Such definition would preclude sleeping facilities in excessof 1,000 squdre feet having A microwave for the use of popcohn from being construed as an ADU. i r 4 â€¢ ..r . Setbacks.for.Detached.ADUs. We suggest that ADUs in Zoning = Districts RE and RE-1 bd exempted from the requirement that e 2 "atleastione ekterior wall.df:theADU shall be closer to the printipal i dwelling unit than any exterior wall of the ADU may be to any property,line." We feel this requirement may be unnecessarily restrictive, particularly for these Zoning Districts. \14/ . I I . f /9 ., 0Â£ t We further suggest Hie following language (similar to that contained on Page 9) be added to this setback requirement.... "The Decision-Making Body shall have authority, to grant exceptions and'modifications to this requirement in all Zoning Districts, provided they find the requested Ihodications and/or waivers: 1. Advancds the goals and purposes of this Code; and Â° 1 ,rm 2. Either results in less visual impatt more effective enviroAmental or open space preservation, relieves practical difficultiesin developing A site, or result@ in the use of su-perior en*ineerihg and/or architectural standards thar- those requifed by this Code. , . Aihitectutal Re~uirements. We strongly supportihat the ADU should be designed to be compatible with the design of the iprincipal 4 d#@lihg unit. ab outlined in pathgfa*h (14). Becluse*garages, barns, or other accessoryÂ£Â§tructures are:not subject to such requirements is & no reason not to require them for ADUs: Possibly all accessory j z structures should be subject fo such hquirements.*- 1 9Â· 7 ..1 /1 0. One again, we t}ihnk the Planning Commigsion for attending 'to this develpment need. We also want to thank the Planning Staff, particularly Dave Shirk, for the.thoughtful drafting of the probosed changes. '7 Very trulv yours, 4/1) i v\*X 7 Steve Ni*el, Managing Principal t A I. 4 1 Dec 10,2008 Dear Commissioner, I am writing to urge you to not allow the building and renting of accessory dwelling units as a use by right in virtually every single family zoning district as proposed by City Staff. This action in effect is a rezoning action that allows two family dwellings and/or duplexes in single family zoning districts. Residents have a right to expect the integrity of their zoning district to be upheld unless there is appropriate rezoning action with public hearings that justify such a change. The proposal before you from the Staff was generated by trying to define an accessory dwelling unit and hardly qualifies as an excuse to rezone all single family zoning. The main issue in the proposal is the right by any homeowner to build an accessory dwelling unit either attached to or detached from the original home and then be able to rent it out. The ability to rent the 'ADU" creates the economic incentive to build these units for rental income and not simply be for a mother-in-law or aging relative as is the usual case for an "ADU". Rented out "ADU"s in effect completely changes the character of a single family neighborhood, particularly if several occur in one area. With a lise by right there is no way to try and make sure there are not too many in one area or to prevent over taxing df a narrow residential street or tb protect wildlife corridors etc. A use by right takes away the ability for review of the impact on the neighborhood and the circumstances of each situation. In some areas "Abu"s would have to rely on a well system and even though the proposal says there needs to be approval by the State Engineer on the well permit < assume that since the property has single family zoning they are not going to be involved in how there is no set criteria for whether permission would be granted or not. The State could easily many people can use the property. , There also have been questions raised about how to enforce against rental of "ADU"s. That can be said about enforcing a lot of laws, but the main argument would be in this case that if it were illegal to rent an "ADU" then people would not risk the money to build an "ADU" solely for rental since they would risk not being able to rent in out to recoup their investment. If people were renting out an "ADU" that was causing a problem then the neighbors would complain like they would with other type of perceived violations. The allowance of an "ADU" should be site specific and should allow input from neighbors as with other land use issues. The Staff has said there is not that big of demand for "ADU"s even though local architects see a demarid. There would not be much demand for an "ADU" unless in the case of rental where many people who may be seasonal residents anyway see a way to make some money in a resort type community such as this one. The proposal says it has to be a minimum of thirty days rental, but how in the world would that be enforced, especially with a lot of pressure to rent for shorter terms of one to two weeks. Let's not use this issue as a way to increase affordable housing as was also mentioned by Staff. Keep "ADU"s as specialized situations that can be permitted as the individual circumstances may dictate. Thank you for consideration. Regards, Alan Miller 1 -~ ECEDVE 1~1\ 2700 Eagle Rock Drive - Estes Park, CO 80517 -~ DEC 10 2008 ~ C DEC - 9 2008 ~ E Â© IE 0 V [E Association for Responsible Development Position Statement on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Updated December 9,2008 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. During the October Planning Commission meeting, significant concerns were raised regarding the original ADU proposal. Several of these concerns have been excerpted from the October 21 Planning Commission minutes and are summarized below for context: â€¢ Is this just a way to increase density in some areas? - Tom Ewing â€¢ Allowing ADUs in E1 areas would defeat the true purpose o f zoning; proper enforcement of the current code should take place prior to [developing] a new code. - Greg Sievers â€¢ The potential number of ADUs would, in effect, change zoning; ADU approval should be site specific; property buyers in the area have a right to know and understand the zoning where they are buying, without expectation that it may change. - Sandy Lindquist â€¢ Concerned about loss of control in the number of units that could be built in an area; individual property owners have the right to continue to live in an area as it is currently zoned. - Alan Miller â€¢ The character of the neighborhood will change if ADUs are allowed and the density increases.- Todd Jirsa â€¢ People should be able to expect their property will be used in the manner in which it is zoned. - George Hockman â€¢ Use-by-right status would allow construction of ADUs without public review. This could result in much higher building densities, without neighbors having the right to comment on or challenge such changes. Such de facto rezoning is not compatible with the interests o f existing property owners, nor with the intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. In addition, according to the Town Attorney, we cannot legally enforce rental provisions in our existing code. - ARD Principles: At the November 18 Planning Commission meeting, much of the discussion focused on how to change the code in a way that addresses the above concerns. ARD strongly supports this thoughtful approach, and proposes that the following principles be used by the Planning Commission to guide their actions regarding ADUs: 1. We must have the ability to enforce our code, or the code is meaningless. 2. We must clearly state the purpose ofADUs (i.e., Are they for caregivers? Relatives? Seasonal workers? Unrelated, paid guests? Local employees?) 3. We must respect the rights of existing property owners by providing a case-by-case review process for approval of ADUs, including public meetings and the opportunity for public comment. We must not make ADUs a use-by-right that in effect supersedes (.-- current zoning. Association for Responsible Development Position Statement on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Page 2 ARD's Position: â€¢ ADUs, and rentals in general, are a current, ongoing problem, in that: o The Town is not able to properly enforce current code requirements, and o The Town cannot legally control renting of ADUs, per the Town Attorney â€¢ The original proposed code changes will adversely impact current residential zoning â€¢ Changes to the code regarding ADUs should clearly state the purpose of ADUs. â€¢ Current property-owners' rights and expectations should be preserved by requiring a case-by-case review ofADU proposals. Recommendations: 1. Revise the code to allow rental of ADUs only if the Board of Trustees and the County Commissioners provide a plan, staffing, and funding to adequately enforce rental provisions. 2. When an adequate enforcement plan is in place, then revise the code to: a. Explicitly state the purpose ADUs are intended to serve. b. Allow attached ADUs on residential lots of 1 acre or larger, on a case-by-case basis, if approved by the Planning Commission in a public review. : c. Allow detached ADUs on residential lots of 2.5 acres or larger, on a case-by- case basis, if approved by the Planning Commission in a public review. d. Limit the size of ADUs to 1000 square feet or less. ARD supports giving the Planning Commission authority to approve or reject applications to build ADUs based on each application's individual merit. This will provide the citizens of Estes Park with the flexibility to build quarters for relatives and caregivers on a case-by-case basis. We hope you find these comments helpful in making your decision. / Respectfully submitted, Ron Norris, President . Association for Responsible Development L lq To: members ofEstes Valley Planning Commission Copies: Town Trustees and Town Staff Request: that this Letter be indfuded in the Public Record From: Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Ct., Estes Park, 970-586-3667 December 5,2008 Comments Concerning Proposed Code Amendments re ADU's May 1 express my high level ofconcern following the meeting ofthe Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 18, 2008. My concern is shared by mkny other residents ofthe Estes Valley with whom I have spoken and who have urged me to write. We residents of Estes Valley believe that the interests of average property owners are not being adequately represented. At the November 18,2008 meeting ofthe Planning Commission we witnessed development interests en masse pleading with the Planning Commission for approval ofthe proposal ofthe Estes Valley Community Development Department to amend existing regulations regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. Representatives ofthese interests spoke as if a denial ofthe Proposal would deprive them ofthe opportunity for business that was their "right and due" while at the same time choosing to ignore the negative impact that approval of the Amendments would have on property owners in affected residential zones. Why, in publicizing in Valley media and holding "several 'focus group' discussions" concerning the proposed Amendment, did Staff spend a great amount oftime with members ofthe above-mentioned development interests and businesses (and groups and organizations representing them) while having just one meeting with Homeowners Associations scheduled on Friday afternoon ofLabor Day weekend? Despite public notices, because ofvacations and travel out ofTown and summer indolence most residents were unaware ofthe proposed changes and their implications, and, therefore, concerns and objections did not surface until recently when Planning Commission hearings began. Why, when members of the Planning Commission at their October 18 meeting had expressed concerns and made several suggestions for changes or refinements to the proposed Amendments concerning Accessory Dwelling Units, did Community Development Staff request the Town Board to discuss these Amendments at its Study Session on November 11, and why at that time did Staffmembers make no reference to the prior discussion and comments ofthe Planning Commission, some ofwhose members had raised some real questions about the wisdom and integrity ofthe proposed ~ Amendments? When questioned by the Planning Commission at its November 18 meeting about the Town Board Study Session, Staff reply was "We wanted to bring them (the Town Board) 'up-to-speed' on this proposal." Why was that necessary? Why the quick "end run" around the Planning Commission and attempted "sales job" to the Town Board when this matter still in the discussion stage by the Planning Commission and had C been under consideration for several months? ( . Why, on the one hand, the "downplaying" statements that research shows that other municipalities average only onelapplication for an ADU for every 1000 residences per year and that there have been here in the Estes Valley "perhaps 6 requests a year",while, on the other hand, there is a long list (page 2 ofthe original Proposal dated 9/4/08 and page 2 of the Town Board Study Session Agenda dated November 11, 2008) of "benefits" that may be provided by ADU s that have apparently piqued the great enthusiasm ofthe development interests? A member of the Development Staff at the Town Board Study Session stated that adoption of these ADU Amendments would provide opportunities for new building and residences in the Valley where available space is becoming less and less. The printed Proposaluses this language: "5.6Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area." Ineffect, this means: '*Legally packing more people into our residential zones." An attempt to legally increase density! And along with making possible a doubling of the number of structures and increased number of residents, there will be more noise, traffic, emissions, light, air pollution, pets, wehr-and-tear on roads, utilities, etc., to say nothing ofthe impossibility of monitoring and enforcing the many regulationi; and restrictions involved in the code changes. What's the motivation behind these Amendments? Who really benefits from the proposed changes that would gratit a use-by-right to doubld the number of structures in most residential areas? A specific interest group benefits at the expense ofthe privacy and property value of hundreds of lot owners in residentially-zoned areas. A boost to the architect/designer/excavator/developer/builder/realtor interests; a betrayal of hundreds of resident homeowners, who have invested in their homes under existing zoning restrictions and now face the possibility of having their neighborhoods undergo dramatic negative impact. Why the big push for sweeping changes when the whole process was initiated by a small incident which could, for the future, be corrected by a few simple clarifications and definitions in the present code, which was the intent ofthe original request concerning A[)U's? 1 urge you, the Planning Commission, to say "NO" to the unnecessarily elaborate and eminently unwise and unfair proposal to amend existing regulations regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. Respectfully submitted, -2**5 0 73 IL Association for Responsible Development Position Statement on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) November 14,2008 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 support clarifying the Estes Valley Development Code regarding definition of kitchens for ADUs, which we believe will be helpful to developers and homeowners alike. However, we do not believe that extensive revisions of the code are justified, as they are not supported by the public at large, and could have major unintended consequences. Background: â€¢ There has been an ongoing problem regarding definition of what is or is not a "kitchen" when assessing whether to grant approval for ADUs. â€¢ The Board of Adjustment receives 1-2 requests per year to rule on such items. (per Dave Shirk) â€¢ The Board of Adjustment asked that the Estes Valley Development Code be clarified to provide a more precise definition of a "kitchen". â€¢ Demand for ADUs is expected to be low: nationally one in 1000 residences. (per Dave Shirk) â€¢ ADUs could be used to provide additional affordable housing. â€¢ Staffreviewed the code related to ADUs, and proposed a better definition of"kitchen". In addition, they presented draft recommendations to the Planning Commission which would allow ADUs in all single-family districts (except the 8 unit/acre "R-1" district). â€¢ ADUs are already permitted within the current code for lots that are at least 1.33 times the minimum size specified by current zoning. Close to 1/3 of the lots in the Estes Valley meet this requirement. â€¢ Focus group meetings held by staff with realtors, developers, contractors, other business groups, and a small number of neighborhood groups revealed little or no opposition to these extensive code revisions. â€¢ However, discussions with ARD leadership and members, neighborhood associations, and many other citizens throughout the Valley revealed widespread concerns about the need to make such extensive changes, and the potential for major, adverse, unintended consequences. During the October Planning Commission meeting, many of the Planning Commissioners raised similar concerns about the need for such extensive code changes. ~0Â©EDVE'9\ l ~~ NOV 14 2008 ~ r Our Position: l. ARD supports revising the code to clarify the difference between "kitchen", "wet bar", and other such improvements, so that homeowners, developers, Planning Staff, and the Board of Adjustment are provided with better guidance when future improvements are considered for approval. 2. ARD opposes the extensive and widespread code revisions presented to the Planning Commission in October, for these reasons: a. The expected demand for ADUs is low. With the clarifications mentioned above, decision-making on these issues will not be excessively time-consuming or burdensome. b. Current code already permits ADUs on almost 1/3 of residential properties. c. The proposed changes would, in effect, revise most residential zoning within the Estes Vhlley, creating a use-by-right which could double the number of structures and radically change the-appearance ofthe entire Valley. Many people view this proposed change as a covert attempt to rezone the residential areas of the Valley. d. Such de facto rezoning is not compatible with the rights of existing property owners, nor with the intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. e. Increasing the number of structures would greatly increase the load on utilities and other public infrastructure, and increase traffic and parking problems. Â£ It will be virtually impossible to enforce the proposed changes. g. The focus group approach to discussing ADUs did not provide adequate outreach to most residents, and did not provide most residents with an adequate understanding of the implications of these code changes. 3. ARD supports existing procedures that allow for special review for ADUs. These procedures give the flexibility to provide quarters for relatives and caregivers on a case- by-case basis. We believe the current review procedure will be adequate for this purpose once the clarifications noted id Item #1, above, have been incorporated into the code. We encourage you to consider the proposed revisions carefully so that any actions taken are compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and will not have "unintended negative consequences" on the future of the Estes Valley and its residents. If, in the future, the Planning Commission sees a significant increase in the need for ADUs (such as for affordable housing), our Association will be happy to work with you to investigate such options and provide forums for additional public discussion. Plehse let us know if we can be of Help. Respectfully pubmitted, A . ,1 r A* *4/14 fRon Norris, President Association for Responsible Development ECEDVE t. |[~I NOV 1 4 2008 uu'L 1 1 f 0 October 20,2008 ~02 1 1 100 llJ TO: Estes Valley Planning Commission and Town Development Staff FROM: Sandy Lindquist A 0 E Â©~*j~ ~ 1980 Cherokee RE: ADUs After observing the Planning Commission study session today, I have a few comments I'd like to get on record for your considerations (note that this is NOT a "nimby" issue for me or my neighborhood). This ADU concept has been around for some time, but I have the following concerns relative to if and when the actuality becomes more widespread: 1. It results in a frightening "back-door" way of effectivelv changing single-family residential zoning after the fact, particularly if it turns a residential neighborhood into an "accommodations" neighborhood with the rental option, and 2. It inappropriately can double housing densitv from that intended and expected by property owners. Thus, I don't believe EVERY residence (particularly smaller lot sizes) ought to be able to build detached ADUs, although I agree with potentially being able to have adequate quarters available for housing guests, relatives, caregivers, or caretakers. The stranger-rental option is what destroys the positive spirit of this concept for neighbors who concur with known zoning designations in which they purchased homes for single-family ownership. On one hand, it has been suggested that there likely would not be much demand for ADUs (now), but on C the other hand it also has been pointed out that ADUs could be a major part of "low-income" or "affordable" housing. Such housing (e.g., ADU stranger-rentals) is fine when advance-planned into a development but NOT when appended onto pre-existing neighborhoods not so zoned. I believe that such widely interspersed ADU rentals would reduce home values and quality-of-life for adjacent properties and could arguably detract from the unique attributes of the Estes Valley. Construction and Realty industries stand to gain much from liberal ADU policies, but not residents who don't want to be landlords. When the Estes Valley is "full' in its residential buildout, it's full. Period. Our space is finite. Growth cannot be infinite, so at some point such "growth demands" will no longer be met. Just because a real family might have numerous members and multiple vehicles, it's no excuse to justify EVERY property potentially doubling its housed occupants and vehicles with ADUs. My understanding is that a maximum of 8 unrelated people can live in one residence - but that there is no limit to the number of related occupants - and that the same limitation would exist even if an ADU was added to the property. Who enforces the 90-day ("long-term") minimum rental stipulations? What is to stop a large number of individuals from claiming to be relatives of the primary residence owners (and maybe providing false documentation) so that they can cheaply overload an ADU for seasonal (or longer) employment? It was discussed in the September 16 EVPC meeting that perhaps there could be a cap on the maximum number of ADU residents by limiting the number of bedrooms and people per bedroom. Maybe vehicles also? I encourage you to consider ADU permissibility revisions carefully and to try to avoid the "unintended negative consequences" that could result for the future of the Estes Valley and its residents. I thought the study session discussions were a very good start in this regard, but I hope to see the policies more restrictive than the current draft. Thank you for listening! 0 L 9/16/08 ~ SEP 16 2008 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Paul F. Brown Re: Accessory Dwelling Units My name is Paul Brown. At the July 15 scheduled Planning Commission Meeting, I presented a letter in support of adopting a policy that allows "by right" integrated, attached and detached Accessory bwelling Units in all residential zoning districts on existing and future developed legal lots regardless of lot size. A policy similar to that found in the Larimer County Land Use Code which treats all residential property owners more equally. I would also like to add Ridgway's and Steamboat Springs' simplified ADU codes to the list. Like Estes Park both communities have tourism/retirement based economies. Their policies are straight fonvard, without complicated, costly or strongarm regulatory barriers intended to protect the neighbors but has the unintended consequence of discouraging most property owners from ever considering an ADU. The Planning Commission should also consider the following four points when judging the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regulating Accessory Dwelling Units as presented today by the Estes Park Community Development Department. Point # 1. Most all the stock of existing ADUs found throughout the Estes Valley are quaint cabins or cottages built between 1910 and 1940 when there were no govermental agencies regulating them. At a time when our grandparents didn't see much need for regulations and personal freedoms were more important. After WW2, returning G.I.s were encouraged to leave the cities, to become suburbanites, This required new communities to employ planners to devise ehdless regulations to control suburban development which in turn eroded more personal freedoms.;Planners then viewed ADUs as old fashion forms ofhousing not suited for a contempory society, so ADUs were relegated to the inber-citids of America and outlawed in both urban and rural suburbs. This has certainly been the case in the Estes Valley for the past 20 or more years. America is now facing a severe affordable housing problem, one that even extends to the Estes Valley. In a nutshell, the problem has slowly developed because ofthe lose ofhigh paying jobs in the industrial and high-tech sectors and the low wages in the service sectors have not kept pace with the cost ofhousing, especially in suburbs where housing cost are the highest. This is especially true in mountain communities were housing cost are even higher yet. Nationally, at all govermental levelk, steps are slowly being taken to find solutions for the "affordable housing" problem. State, regional and local planners have rediscover the merits of the obsolete ADU, which our grandparents knew al 1 along. Planners are now promoting ADU's as an option because it requires the least amount oftaxpayer dollars to impliment, with most funds coming out the private residential property owners pocket to develop the "affordable housing". In 1979 Daly City, California, a suburb af San Francisco adopted one ofthe first ADU regulatory policies. The policy soon became the model for regulating ADUs in other large metropolitan communities. AARP publication, Accessory Dwelling Units; Model State Act and Local Ordinance guidelines and the Municipal Research and Services Center ofWashington's, Accessory Dwelling Units guidelines are two well known models used by other urban community planners drafting ADU regulatory policy. The various guidelines offer planners a smorgasbord of choices many ofwhich however, wouldn't be appropriate if applied to drafting an ADU policy for a rural mountain community. Section 5.8 ofthe Estes Valley Comprensive Plan suggest to regularly evaluate zoning regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements that hinder the development of new housing. This proposal has too many complicated regulations and costly requirements that will certainly hinder the development of new ADU housing in the Estes Valley. The following items ofthe proposal should be deleted entirely: All Covenant Requirements Review by the PlanAing Commission All Detailed Architectural Requirements Parking Area Landscaping Requirements Parking Restrictions in the Yard Setback Areas (especially for existing dwellings) Requirments for Electrical, Phone amd Cable Wiring to be Placed Underground (especially for existing dwellings) The next following items should be modified: Definition for Integrated Accessory Dwelling Units Definition for Attached Accessory Dwelling Units Definition for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Please give a new breed ofcabins and cottages a chance to exist. Restore some ofthe lost personal freedoms and traditions like our grandparents once enjoyed to a new generation ofhomeowners in the Estes Valley. Ifproblems arise, then re-evaluate the codes, but for now, just give ADUs a chance to evolve again. Remember also, that for every new ADU built, the whole community benefits from more much needed jobs, more building permit fees, more materials sold, more sale taxes collected on the materials, highdr property taxes and the list can simply go on and on, everyonewins!!! Point # 2 The proposed changes in Section 5.2 B.1 Table ofPermitted Accessory Uses and Structures shows that an Attached ADU is not permitted in R Residential Zoning Districts and a Detached ADU is not permitted in either E or R Residential Zoning Districts. From the numbers in the Lot Size Analysis Chart, that amounts to 2681 property owners that are denied a choice ofan attached and/or a detacted ADU option. The only justification presented for this is "Generally Speaking, the larger the lot, the more independent the unit may be from the main house". If one takes the time to research individual lots in each residential zoning distrist, one will soon discover thiit zoning district designations may have little bearing on the actual lot sizes found in a particular zoning district. To illustrate this point lets consider several examples. Large sections ofWindcliffEstates, Hondious Heights, Carriage Hills, Fall River Estates, and At Fresco Place which are all.zoned E-1, have numerous lots that don't even meet the minimum lot size required for the E Zoning District and some don't even meet the minimum lot size required for the R Zoning District. Then on the other hand, there are many example of lots that are in E Zoning Districts that exceed the minimum lot Â· C size required for the E-1 Zoning District and some even exceed the minimum lot size required for the RE Zoning District. It should be clear that a different formula than the one proposed should be considered. Most all ofthe existing historic detached ADUs (R-2 cabins) found in any ofthe residential zoning district classifications, R, E, E-1, RE, and RE-1, are smaller than the minimum 600 SF now, required by the Larimer County Land Use Code and Building Code to be classified as a full time residence. R-2 cabins are no longer allowed to be built south ofthe Poudre River in Larimer County. The formula should allow all existing detached ADUs to be upgraded to the new minimum standards as defined by the Larimer County Land Use Code. All new detached ADUs in the unincorporated Estes Valley would be required by the Larimer County Building Department to comply with the 600 SF minimum as well. The Town ofEstes Park Building Department may also have the same 600 SF minimum requirment. Using the proposed calculation of fourty-nine percent (49%) ofthe size ofthe floor area ofthe principal dwelling, the principal dwelling would have to have a minimum of 1225 SP inorder to have a minumim 600SF detached ADU. This would eliminate a great many properties throughout the Estes Valley, regardless of residential zoning district designation, the opportunity to have a detached ADU. The Planning Commission should consider a formula that is equitable to all residential property owners.The formula should use actual lot sizes, not zoning district designations, as the chief criteria for determining where detached ADU should be allowed. It should C be based on a percentage ofthe Maximum square footage allowed for uses accessory to a principal residential use based on net land area and principal building size. The Accessory Use Chart should be modified by replacing the 1000 SF principal building size with 600 SE One Possible Suggested Formula: Size ofAccessory Unit. No accessory dwelling shall exceed fifty percent (50%) ofthe maximum allowed square footage allowed for uses accessory to a principal residential use based on net Iand area and principal building size. No new detached accessory dwelling unit shall be less than 600 SF. The Table 5-1 should be modified to include attached ADUs in the R Residential Zoning districts and detached ADUs in both the R and E Residential Zoning Districts. The benefits ofthis formula include: Allows all homeowners the choice of either an Integrated, Attached and Detached ADU in all residential zoning districts regardless ofthe principal building size. Allows all existing ADUs to be upgraded to modern housing standards. < Allows detached ADUs in lots less than than 1 acre 03560 SF >) which are not disproportional in size for a smaller lot. Unlike the other proposal which has a 1000 SF size cap on the ADU, this proposal limits the size ofthe ADU to 50% of the maximum square footage allowed for uses accessory to a principal residential use based on net land area and principal building size. This formula allows larger lots to have larger ADUs that are proportional in size to larger lots. This approach more closely follows the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan's Housing guideline 5.1 that encourages a variety of housing types and price ranges. This Proposal also more closely follows the Estes Valley Comprehansive Plan's Housing guideline 5.2 that encourages housing for permanent residents ofall sectors ofthe community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. Point # 3. Despite all the efforts starting in 1985 to promote the development ofADUs by various affordable housing advocacy groups like AARP, only 1 in 1000 urban homesowners develops an ADU per year. Why then are ADUs not more popular when they seam to offer so many benefits? Several reasons that are most oftened sighted include: zoning and neighborhood covenant restrictions, enviromental and ecological issues, regulatory barriers such as owner occupancy requirements, costly architectural design standards which usually _5- include parking and landscaping riquirements, deed-restrictions, complex staff or planning commission review processes, higher property taxes and more maintenance. The biggest reason, however, is really construction costs. ADUs by their very nature are very expensive to build because oftheir compact size, newly adopted building and energy code requirements, and modern living trends and housing expectations. They're really miniature size versions oftodays MoMansions. For many single-family homeowners, ADUs are simply "Unaffordable". It seams unreasonable to expect most sound minded locat residents to build an expensive ADU and be required to "babysit" it for three summer months for some meager rental income from unknown transient employees. However, it's more reasonable to expect that more affuent local residents would consider building an ADU for personal reasons for use by family members, on-site property caretakers, caregivers, and guests, as it was historically and is currently still the case for most existing ADUs in the Estes Valley. This is more in line with past community policy and the prior.Estes Park Municipal Code definition for "Guest House", which means an accessory structure on the same lot as the single-family dwelling containing a single dwelling unit for occasional occupancy by nonpaying guests ofthe residents ofthe principal dwelling. . The Estes Park Community Development Department Staff have indicated that yearly, 6 to 12 local residents inquire about bdilding detached guest houses or "granny flats" for family use only and occasionally over the past years a resident may inquire about rental oftheir existing ADU. As a residential designer and builder with 25 years working in this community, I know there is a high demand for detached guest houses for owner use only. Despite the need for affordable housing for seasonal employees, at this present time, there is nd strong indication that local single-family homeowners would actually support changing existing ADU zoning regulations inorder to build a rental ADU on their properties to help alleviate that need. The Planning Commission should strongly consider using wording simular to that found in the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding Limit on Tenancy. Suggested Tenancy: Limit on Tenancy. The Accessory Dwelling Unit must not be rented or leased seperately from the principal single-family dwelling or vicd versa. A thought to consider, the Estes Valley Development Code is a land use code that regulates land use. A tenancy proposal that mandates an owner to occupy either of the units goes beyond the intent of a land use code The Planning Commission shoOld strongly consider a citizen' s civil rights regarding this requirement and seek the counsel of a attorny on this matter. Point # 4. 4 L1 ( There are several examples of Ultiple detacted ADUs on lots larger than five acres in the RE-1 Residential Zoning Districts. One could be used by a caretaker, others by family or guests. The Planning Commission should consider allowing more than one ADU on a lot in addition to the principal single-family dwelling as proposed, Suggested Limit on Number: Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a lot less than five acres in size (217800 SF net), in addition to the principal single-family dwelling. There shall not be more then two (2) accessory dwelling units on a lot five acres (217800 SF net) or more in size, in addition to the principal single-family dwelling The combined square footage ofthe two accessory dwelling units shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) ofthe maximum allowed square footage allowed for uses accessory to the principal residential use based on net land area and principal building size. â‚¬ r ~*8~E0VE:5 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission J Fll JUL 15 2008 *l From: Paul F. Brown l.... ---4 1 Re: Accessory Dwelling Units L _- My name is Paul Brown. I and my wife, Brenda, and our children have lived full time in the Estes Valley since 1983. During this time, I've been engaged as an architectural designer and general contractor in this community specializing in residential projects. I'm quite familiar with the history of zoning changes in both the Laimei County Land Use Code, the current EstesValley Development Code and the prior Town of Estes Park municipal zoning code, especially regarding residential land uses, setbacks, lot area, building heights, and accessory uses. In 1990, I designed an attached accessory dwelling unit that complied with the prior Town of Estes Park municipal zoning code regulations and presently, I'm designing another attached ADU that complies with the current version ofthe Larimer County Land Use Code. Staying abreast of any residential zoning changes is especially important to myself because I can better advise and serve my clients regarding their plans for developing their residential property. Mr. Shirk recently informed me, that the Estes Valley Planning Comission was considering revisions to Estes Valley Development Code regulating ADUs and He gave me a copy of a memo, dated 6/23/08, from the Town of Estes Park Community Development Staffto the Planning Commission with suggested changes for its review. He also gave me a survey of zoning regulations governing ADUs in various jurisdictions in Colorado including several counties, Front Range cities and mountain communities. In addition, He informed me the the Commission and Staff were seeking opinions from the public regarding the proposed regulations governing ADUs and invitedÂ»me to attend any Planning Commission hearings regarding ADUs, I've reviewed the Staff' s memo and the survey of zoning regulations from the other sampled jurisdictions. I have also discussed the matter with Russell Legg and Samantha Mott, both planners with the Larimer County Planning Department. I'm ofthe opinion regarding regulating ADUs, the Planning Commission should consider moving closer in line with the regulations as found in the Larimer County Land Use Code, rather than continuing with the current ADU funcionality requirements as outlined in section 5.2.B2a of the Estes Valley Development Code. Certainly the Planning Commission should look for trends that are being established statewide that both benefit and protectthe rights of all residential property owners and don't just favor the select few. Prior to the adoption ofthe Estes Valley Development Code in 2000 all residential property owners inthe incorperated limits ofthe Town ofEstes Park "by right" could have an Assessory Dwelling Unit in the E, R-S, R-M, CLD, and C-O zoning districts. Prior to 2000, Larimer County did not allow Accessory Dwelling Units in any oftheir zoning districts. After the Estes Valley Development Code was adopted in 2000, all residential property owners in the R-M, C.D and C- O zoning districts lost their "by righf' to have Assessory Dwelling Units. Furthermore most all residential properties that were formerly in the R-S zoning districts were assigned to the new E zoning districts which required 28968 S.F. for an Assessory Dwelling Unit. So most all former R- S zoned residential property owners lost their "by right" to an Assessory Dwelling Unit because their lots were now considered sub-standard interms of lot size. Many ofthe properties affected ( were less these 6 years old in the newest developed subdivisions. A /3 Under the new Estes Valley Devel8pment Code all of the residential zoning districts in the unincorperated areas ofthe Estes Valley, formerly under the jurisdiction ofthe Larimer County Land Use Code were now given the right to have Assessory Dwelling Units if the properties met the adjusted minimum required lot sizes. Again very few residential property owners in the unincorperated Estes Valley would benefit because their their lots were sub-standard in terms of lot size. Meantime in 2000, Larimer County adopted revisions to their Land Use Code to allow assessory dwelling units 'to be incorporated into or added to a single family dwelling for the use of guests ofthe occupants ofthe single family house.' This "right" was granted to all residential pronerties regardless of lot size. Furthermore it applied to all zoning districts in which single- familv dwellings were permited. The districts include: FA, FA-1, FO, FO-1,O, E, E-1, RE, RE-1, lit, R-1, R-2, M, M-1, A, and T. It seams everyone was treated equally in Larimer County, notjust the "select few". In 2005 Larimer County again revised their Land Use Code to allow detached Assessary Dwelling Units on all residential properties regardless oflot size or zoning districts in which single-family dwellings were permitted. Commendably, Larimer County is following a statewide trend that is responding to a public demand for detached assessory dwelling units as indicated by Mr. Shirk's survey. It certainly bothers me everytime I see the disappointment on a retired couples faces when I have to inform them our zoning regulations don't allow attached to or detached ADU's for the use oftheir visiting children and grandchildren. Isn't it finally time that the Estes Valley Planning Commission stand up for equal rights for all_the residential property owners served by the Estes Valley Development Code instead of devising property swindles that favor only the remaining Lord Dunravens. I would like to propose adopting a policy that allows "by right" integrated, attached to and detached Assessory Dwelling Units in all residential zoning districts on existing and future developed legal lots regardless of lot size. This policy would trudy take a giant step forward in fulfilling the goals of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 1 ~ Amendments to the Estes Valley ./pl--j'~ Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve - Habitat and Wildlife Estes Park Community Development Department ~ Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue .....â€ži, PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 17, 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 APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a complete packet of proposed code language addressing wildlife and habitat protection. Staff is continuing to refine the maps to accompany this code language. 1 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 1.9.D SETBACKS - BUILDING AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS. 2. Development Setbacks from River and Stream Corridorsi and Wetlands, Aquatic and Riparian Habitat. a. Stream and River Corridors. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated stream or river corridor, as set forth in Â§7.6.D.2, and the furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as otherwise specifically allowed in Â§7.6.D of this Code. See Figure 1 -2. b. Wetlands. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated wetland edge, as set forth in Â§7.6.D.3, and the furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as otherwise specifically allowed in Â§7.6.D of this Code. See Figure 1 -2. c. Aquatic Habitat. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated aquatic habitat edge, as set forth in 47.6.D.4, and the furthermost projection of a building or structure alonq a line at right anales to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the around to the skv except as otherwise specificallv allowed in Â§7.6.D of this Code. d. Riparian Habitat. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated riparian habitat edge, as set forth in Â§7.6.D.5, and the furthermost Droiection of a buildina or structure alona a line at right angles to the setback line. ( Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the qround to the sky except as otherwise specificallv allowed in Â§7.6.D of this Code. Â§ 7.4 PUBLIC TRAILS AND PRIVATE OPEN AREAS C. Locational Criteria. 1. To the maximum extent feasible, where significant natural and scenic resource assets exist on a property, the Applicant shall give priority to their preservation through trail dedication or as private open areas. In reviewing the location of trails and private open areas, Staff and the Decision-Making Body shall use all applicable plans, maps and reports to determine whether significant resources exist on a proposed site that should be protected, with priority being given to the following areas (which are not listed in any particular priority order): a. Wetlandst b. Floodplains. c. Lakes, River, and Stream/Riparian Corridors, and Aquatic and Riparian Habitat. d. Wildlife Migration Corridors. Critical Wildlife Habitat. e. Steep slope areas. f. Ridgelines. g. Geologic or Wildfire Hazard areas. 2 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.5 LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS B. Applicability. Those landscape and buffer standards shall apply to rosidontial subdivisions created aftor tho adoption of this Code, and to all dovolopmont whcro development plan roviow ic roquirod by Â§3.8 of this Codo. 1. These landscape and buffer standards shall applv to all applications for review of development plans, subdivision plats, planned unit developments, special review uses, and rezoninq. 2. Section 7.5.H Fences and Walls shall apply to all new fence and wall construction. H. Fences and Walls. Fences and walls are permitted as elements of a landscape plan and, in some locations, may be used to conceal storage or other unsightly or conflicting land uses. All fences or walls shall meet the following requirements: 1. Materials. e. Barbed-wire and similar fence materials, and sharp pointed fences, may only be used in conjunction with a permitted agricultural use or in conjunction with the permitted keeping of horses or livestock on lots of five acres or more. 4. Fences and Walls In Critical Wildlifo Habitat. Soo Â§7.8.G.1.c bolow for standards. a. In critical wildlife habitat, no fencina shall exceed forty (40) inches in height, except service area fencing, fencing approved bv Staff to confine permitted domestic animals, or fencing to protect landscaping in accordance with Â§7.5.1.2. b. In all other areas, fences higher than forty (40) inches mav be allowed if adequate openings are provided for the passage of deer, elk, or other identified wildlife. These openings shall be at least six (6) feet wide and spaced a maximum of forty (40) feet apart alona continuous fence lines and shall be unobstructed from the around to the skv. 3 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for Februarv 17, 2009 Plannina Commission Review Â§ 7.6 WETLANDS AND STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION RIVER AND STREAM CORRIDORS, WETLANDS, AND AQUATIC HABITAT AND RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION. A. Purpose and Intent. The following requirements and standards are intended to promote, preserve and enhance the important hydrologic, biological, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and educational functions that stream and river corridors, accociatod riparian aroac and wetlands, aquatic habitat, and riparian habitat provide. D. Boundary Delineation. 1. Qualified Professional. Stroam/river corridor and wetland aroa Boundary delineation shall be performed by a qualified professional that has demonstrated experience necessary to conduct site analysis. Delineations shall be subject to Staff's approval. 2. Stream and River Corridor Boundaries. Stream and river corridors shall be delineated at the annual high-water mark, or if not readily discernible, the defined bank of the stream or river, as those terms are defined in Chapter 13 of this Code. Regulated stream and river corridors shall include only those streams and rivers as identified on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map found in Appendix A. The rivers delineated on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map are the Big Thompson and Fall River. Streams delineated on the Map include various named and unnamed streams and minor drainages, some of which are intermittent. 3. Wetland Boundaries. a. Mapped Wetlands. Boundary delineation of wetlands shall be established by ( reference to one (1) of the following wetland maps and identification documents, which are available for reference in the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department and which are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this Code: (1) National Wetlands Inventory prepared by the U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; and (2) Colorado Natural Heritage Program maps. b. Unmapped Wetlands. The review of a development pmpesal application may discover a potential wetland that has not been mapped or for which the boundaries have not been clearly established. In such instances, the Applicant shall retain a qualified wetland expert to delineate the boundaries of the wetland according to accepted professional standards. 4. Aquatic Habitat Boundaries. a. Mapped Aquatic Habitat. Boundary delineation of aquatic habitat shall be established bv reference to the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map found in Appendix A. b. Unmapped Aquatic Habitat. The review of a development application mav discover potential aquatic habitat that has not been mapped or for which the boundaries have not been clearlv established. In such instances, the Applicant shall retain a qualified professional to delineate the boundaries of the aquatic habitat according to accepted i professional standards. 4 4 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review 5. Riparian Habitat Boundaries. a. Mapped Riparian Habitat. Boundary delineation of riparian habitat shall be established bv reference to the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map found in Appendix A. b. Unmapped Riparian Habitat. The review of a development application mav discover potential riparian habitat that has not been mapped or for which the boundaries have not been clearly established. In such instances, the Applicant shall retain a qualified professional to delineate the boundaries of the riparian habitat according to accepted professional standards. E Buffer/Setback Areas. 1. Stream or River Corridors. a. Building/Structure Setbacks. (1) Stream Corridors (except in the CD zoning district). All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least thiftyÂ·-00 feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. See Figure 7-10. (2) River Corridors (except in the CD district). a. Genoral Rulo. All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. b. Exception for Lots Dovolopod Prior to tho Adoption of this Codo. All buildings and accoccory structures shall bo got back at least thirty (30) foot horizontally (plan viow) from tho annual high wator mark of rivor corridorc or, if not readily discorniblo, from the dofinod bank of tho rivor. Sco Figuro 7 10. (3) Stream and River Corridors in the CD Zoning District. In the CD district, all buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream or river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream or river. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. Where a principal building in the CD district provides public access, including a primary entrance, on the side of the building facing a stream or river corridor, the setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with the approval of the Decision-Making Body. b. Parking Lot Setbacks. Except in the CD zoning district, parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream or river corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream or river. In the CD district, parking lots shall be set back at least twelve (12) feet from the delineated edge of the river or stream corridor. 5 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review 2. Wetlands. a. To the maximum extentfeasible, wetlands shall not be included as part of a piatted development lot. b. All buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of a wetland. See Figure 7-10 above. Development on lots that were approved for single-family residential use prior to the adoption of this Code shall be exempt. 3. Aquatic Habitat. AU buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of aquatic habitat. 4. Riparian Habitat. All buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of riparian habitat. 5. 3. Private Open Areas and Landscaping Credit. AH stream corridor and wetland setback areas shall be credited toward any relevant private open areas requirements or landscaping and buffer requirements. 6 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.8 WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION A, Purpose. To maintain and enhance the diversity of wildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valloy, and to plan and dosign land uses to bc harmonious with wildlife habitat and the cpocioc that dopond on this habitat for the economic, rocrcational and environmental benefit of tho rosidonts of and visitors to the Estos Valloy. B. Applicability. This Section chall apply to all applications for review of development plans, subdivision plats, planned unit devolopmonts, spocial reviow uses and rozonings. This Section shall not apply to dovolopmont on lots that woro approved for single family residential use prior to tho offoctive date of thic Code. C. Exemptions. The procedures and regulations containod in this Section shall not apply tâ‚¬N 1. Agricultural activities such as soil preparation, irrigation, planting, harvesting, grazing â‚¬ttlt#lt."M11-F#/"100-9 2. Maintonanco and ropair of existing public roads, utilities and other public facilities within an existing right-of-way or oasemont; 3. Maintonance and repair of flood control structures and activitioe in rosponco to a $100â‚¬1-emefgeng 4. Maintenance and repair of oxisting rosidontial or nonrosidontial structuros; or 6. Wildlifo habitat onhancomont and roctoration activities undertaken pursuant to a wildlife conservation plan approved under this Section. D. Other Regulations. This Section of tho Codo doos not ropoal or cuporecdo any existing fodoral, state or local laws, cacoments, covenants or dood rostrictionc portaining to wildlife. Whon this Soction imposes a highor or moro rostrictivo standard, this Soction shall-appl* E. Wildlife Habitat Data Base. The following sources shall bo usod to idontify important wildlife habitat aroas for purposes of review under thie Section: 1. Wildlifo Habitat map (datod Docombor 1996), ac Got forth in tho Ectoc Valloy Comprohoncivo Plan, ae amondod from time to timo. 2. Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat maps for Larimor County, as amonded from timo te-Â·time: 3. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Maps dated December 1996, or ac amended #G...4ime404imer 1. Other information and maps as Staff or the Estes Valley Planning Commission may from time to time identify in cooperation with tho Colorado Division of Wildlife, such ac wildlife maps produced specifically for tho Ectoc Valley. Said maps shall bc applicablo only following adoption of an amondmont to this Code. 7 WilrlifA Anrl Hghitpt CoriA Reviarinng - DrAft #4 for Februarv 17 2009 Plannino Commission Review 5. Wildlife habitat information required by this Section is intended for gonoral planning purposoc. Obvious errors or omissions may bo correctod by tho Staff after consultation with tho Division of Wildlife. F. Review Procedures. The following procedures shall apply to all applications for develepment 1. Applica#on. Tho Applicant shall submit a devolopment plan, subdivision plat or ckotch plan, as applicable, dopicting the gonoral location of tho proporty, location of structures on tho site, prominent natural areas such ae streams and wetlands, and othor features that Staff may roquiro for roviow pursuant to this Soction. 2. Preliminary Reviow. Staff shall rofer tho submitted plan or plat to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for review. Applicants are also advised to moot with tho Division of Wildlife and othor agencies as dotorminod appropriate by Staff to encuro complianco with the roquiromontc of this Soction. 3. DOW Review. For applications referred to it, tho Division of Wildlife will dotormino whether the proposal will result in significant advorcc impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat only if tho dovolopmont advorcoly impacts the following: a. An ondangored or throatonod cpocies, b. A calving, lambing or fawning aroa, c. Big Horn choop or Big Horn choop habitat, d. Raptor nest cito, or o. Riparian areas and wotlands. 1. Roviow Dotormination. Based on recommondations from tho Divicion of Wildlife, the Staff will dotormino whether tho Applicant must submit a wildlifo concorvation plan prior to approval of any dovolopmont application. Tho concorvation plan should bo cubmittod to tho Division of Wildlifo for roviow and rocommondation as to whothor tho plan adoquately addrossoc tho advorce impacts identifiod by the Division of Wildlife pursuant to subsection F.3 abovo. (Soc Â§7.8.H bolow.> 5. Waivers. Staff may waive or approvo minor modifications of any dovolopmont standard or roviow criteria contained in this Section upon a finding that such waiver eF-modification: a. Ic consistent with tho ctatod purposes of this Soction; b. Will have no significant advorso impacts on wildlifo spocios or habitat; c. Any potential advoreo impacts will bc mitigated or offeot to tho maximum extont d-p#aG#GablepaAd e. Application of tho standard or criteria ic not warranted baced on the location of tlge f. dovolopmont, tho abconco of a particular cpocioc on tho cito or othor rolovant faGteFGÂ·: G. Roviow Standards. Tho following review standards shall apply to all dovolopmont applications ac specifiod, unless Staff dotorminoc that a cpocific standard may be waivod pursuant to subsection F.5. above. It E tho intont of this Section that thoco 8 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review standards bo applied in a floxiblo fashion to protect wildlife habitat and wildlife species in a cost-effective fashion. 1. Review Standards. c. Buffers. All development shall provide a setback from any identified important wildlife habitat area, as specifiod by the Division of Wildlife, to the maximum extent feasible. b. Non Native Vegetation. Thora shall bc no introduction of plant cpccics that aro not on the approved landscaping list in Appendix C on any site containing any important wildlife habitat area. To tho maximum oxtont foasiblo, existing herbacoous and woody cover on the cito shall bo maintained and removal of native vegetation shall bc minimized. c. Fencing. (1) No foncing on a sito containing important wildlife habitat shall exceed forty (10) inchos in height, oxcopt to the extent that such foncing ic approved by Staff to confine permitted domestic animals or to protoct permitted ornamontal landscaping or gardens. (2) Fonces highor than forty (10) inchos may bo allowod if adequate oponings aro provided for tho passago of door, olk or othor idontified wildlife. Theco openings shall bo at least six (6) foot wide and spaced a maximum of fifty (60) foot apart along continuouc fonce lines exceeding this length. (3) No foncing using barbed wire shall bo allowed. (1) Tho typo of foncing (materials, opacity, otc.) shall bo determined by Staff or tho Docicion Making Body as appropriato for the wildlife species on the sito bacod on advice from tho Colorado Division of Wildlife. d. Extorior Lighting. Use of oxtorior lighting shall bo minimizod in aroac of important wildlife habitat, and lighting shall bo designed co that it doos not spill ovor or onto such critical habitat. Soo also Â§7.9 bolow. o. Rofuce Disposal. Developments on citos containing important wildlife habitat, such as black bear, must use approved animal proof refuse disposal containers. With Division of Wildlife approval, rofuse disposal containors and onclocuros may be electrified. f. Domoctic Animals. Devolopmont applications for property that includes important wildlifo habitat must includo a plan with cpocifiod onforcemont measures for tho control of domestic animals and household pots. The plan must includo provisions to prevent tho harassment, disturbance and killing of wildlife and to prevent tho destruction of important wildlife habitat. H. Wildlife Conservation Plans. 1. Plan Preparation. A wildlifo conservation plan roquirod by this Soction shall bo prepared for tho Applicant, at tho Applicant's oxpcnco, under tho rosponciblo 9 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review diroction of a qualifiod porcon who hac domonstrated expertise in the field and is accoptablo to the Staff. . 2. Plan Contont. Any wildlife conservation plan roquirod to bo prepared pursuant to this Soction shall includo tho following information at a minimum. Specific roquircments may bo waived by Staff duo to tho location of the devolopmont, tho previous use of tho site, the cizo and potential impact of the development, the absonco of particular cpocios on a site, tho prohibition of a reasonable uso of the site and other relevant faGtel:&: a. A description of tho ownership, location, typo, size and othor attributes of tho wildlifo habitat on tho sito. b. A description of the populations of wildlife spocios that inhabit or use tho sito, including a qualitativo description of their spatial distribution and abundance. c. An analyeis of the potential adverse impacts of the propocod development on wildlifo and wildlife habitat on or off site. d. A list of propocod mitigation moacuroc and an analygic of tho probability of cuccocc of such moacuroc. o. A plan for implomontation, maintonanco and monitoring of mitigation moaeuros. f. A plan for any rolovant onhancomont or rostoration moacurocr g. A domonctration of fiscal, administrative and tochnical compotence of the Applicant or othor rolovant entity to succocefully exccuto tho plan. l 10 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.8 WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION A. Purpose. To plan and design land uses so that when property is developed: 1. Sufficient wildlife habitat is maintained to support viable populations of native wildlife populations in the Estes Valley. 2. The health and diversity of native wildlife habitat and native wildlife populations that occur in the Estes Valley is protected. 3. Wildlife habitat and wildlife are protected from adverse impacts of development. B. Applicabilitv. 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 wildlife habitat. 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 bv this Section shall be prepared bv or under the responsible direction of a qualified biologist/ecoloclist. The qualified biologisVecologist shall sign and date these submitted maps and reports. The Community Development Department shall maintain a list of qualified biologists from which a qualified bioloclist mav be selected. E. Wildlife and Habitat Database. 1. Adopted Map. The adopted Critical Wildlife Habitat Map is set forth in Appendix A of this Code and is incorporated bv reference. This map, as amended from time to time, shall be used as the basis for review under this Section of the Code. 2. Unmapped Habitat. Review of an application mav reveal potential critical habitat that is not reflected on the Critical Wildlife 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. a. In the event a property owner questions the presence critical habitat on their property, the property owner mav submit evidence with respect thereto from a qualified bioloclist. This evidence shall be reviewed, together with all other applicable evidence, bv 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. b. Property mav be re-designated as critical habitat if conditions change resulting in the renewed presence of critical habitat on the property. c. The Community Development Director and Estes Vallev Planning Commission shall also have the authority to initiate proceedings to add or remove a critical habitat designation from the Critical Habitat Map. The Board of Trustees or the Board of 11 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review County Commissioners is the entity with final approval of Wildlife and Habitat Map revisions, depending on. the location of the property. F. Review Procedures for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. 1. Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment Submittal. a. A Wildlife and Habitat Imnact Assessment shall be submitted for sites containing critical habitat. The cost of the studv shall be paid for bv the applicant. b. The Communitv Development Director, Planning Commission, Board of Trustees. and the Board of Countv Commissioners have the discretion to waive submittal of the Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment in one or more of the following circumstances: (1) Upon review of a signed and dated document from a qualified bioloqist stating that there is no critical habitat present on the gropertv; (2) For development applications that do not impact wildlife habitat and wildlife species. For example a special review application to permit a new use in an existing structure with no additional construction mav not impact wildlife or wildlife habitat. (3) For rezoning applications that reduce development potential: or (4) For development applications in the CD Downtown Commercial zonina district. The applicant shall have the option to request a determination about a waiver prior to submittal of a development application. Any review bv the Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners shall be subsequent to review and recommendation bv the Planning Commission. 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 mav comment on the submitted application and assessment and mav provide an evaluation of whether the application and assessment complies with the requirements of this Section. 3. Other Agencies. Applicants are advised to consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and other agencies responsible 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 Heritaae Proaram. These agencies mav maintain maps and databases that can aid in the site-specific confirmation of the presence or absence of wildlife and habitat on a specific site. 4. Review-Bodv and Decision-Makina Body. a. The Review and Decision-Making Bodies shall issue a finding as to whether the application, including the Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment, complies with the reauirements of this Section. b. Plans found to be adequate bv the Decision-Making Body shall become binding upon the Applicant. ( 12 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review G. Significant Adverse Impact Defined for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. 1. Significant adverse impacts to wildlife shall mean impacts that threaten the health or viability of a native wildlife population in the Estes Valley. 2. Significant adverse impacts to wildlife habitat shall mean impacts that threaten the health or viability of native wildlife habitat or wildlife population in the Estes Valley. H. Review Standards and Criteria for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. All applications shall be planned and designed to ensure that significant adverse impacts are avoided. If that is not feasible that significant adverse impacts shall be miticlated to the maximum extent feasible. The following criteria shall be used to evaluate whether significant adverse impacts are avoided or mitiqated to the maximum extent feasible: 1. Wildlife Impact. Impacts on wildlife that: a. Disrupt necessary life cycle functions of wildlife; b. Cause stress on wildlife; or c. Cause physiological damage to wildlife To the extent that the health or viability of a wildlife population in the Estes Valley is threatened. 2. Wildlife Habitat Impact. Impacts on wildlife habitat, including but not limited to elimination, reduction, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat to the extent that the health or viability of a wildlife population in the Estes Valley is threatened. 3. Impact on Wildlife Movement Patterns/Displacement and Adaptation of Wildlife. impacts on wildlife movement patterns/displacement and adaptation of wildlife, including but not limited to: a. Disruption of wildlife migration or movement patterns that keep wildlife from using their entire habitat, such as blocking migration patterns from summer to winter range; b. Displacement of wildlife into areas that cannot support or sustain the wildlife over the lona term, such as causing wildlife to find new routes that expose them to significantly increased predation, interaction with motor vehicles, intense human activity or more severe topoaraphv and climatic conditions: or c. Inability of wildlife living within or in close proximity to development to adapt to the new conditions and thrive To the extent that the health or viability of a wildlife population in the Estes Valley is threatened. 13 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review 1. Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessments for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessments 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, tvge, size, quality, and other attributes of the habitat on the site, includina, but not limited to: (1) The total acres of each species' habitat on the site: (2) A description of anv veaetation or natural communities that are ranked Sl, 62, S3, Gl, G2, or G3 bv the Colorado Natural Heritage Program: and (3) The health and viability of the habitat in the Estes Valley. b. Wildlife. A description of the wildlife that inhabit or use the site, including, but not limited to, 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. (4) The health and viability of the wildlife population in the Estes Valley. 2. Assessment of Potential DeveloDment Impacts. An analysis of the potential impacts of the proiect on habitat and wildlife using the review criteria in Section 7.8.H. 3. Avoidance and Mitigation of Development Impacts. A description of how development impacts will be avoided. And if not feasible to avoided, 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 probabilitv of success of such measures in pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases. Mitigation efforts shall directlv address the potential adverse impacts of the proposed land use. Examples of possible mitiaation efforts include, but are not limited to: (1) Clusterina or locating development to avoid intrusion into migration or movement areas and/or to avoid intrusion into or fragmentation of habitat: (2) Minimizing the development footprint: (3) Creation of buffers around critical areas, with larger buffers for higher quality habitat (4) Locating structures awav from nesting, birthina, or feeding areas: (5) Limiting/prohibitina fencing that might interfere with migration and movement patterns: (6) Restricting location, hours of illumination, and intensity of lighting: (7) Controllina domestic animals and household pets; (8) Timing construction to minimize impacts such as reducing impacts from vehicles and construction equipment by limitina hours of operation and/or seasonal timing ( of construction. 14 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review (9) Minimizing disturbance of native vegetation; (10) Eradicating existing noxious weeds on site and preventing of introduction of noxious weeds; (11) Avoiding or minimizing use of fertilizers and other chemicals; (12) Enhancing or restoring equivalent habitat on the site or elsewhere in the Estes Valley. 4. Implementation, Monitorina, and Enforcement Plan. (1) 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. (2) A demonstration of the competence of the entity responsible for successful implementation, monitorina, and enforcement of the plan. 5. Enhancement or Restoration. A plan for any relevant enhancement or restoration measures. 6. Certification and Professional Qualifications. A certification that the person preparing the plan has the expertise to evaluate the proposed development application and the wildlife populations and habitat on site and description their professional qualifications of the plan Dreparer. 7. Additional Information. Any other information deemed necessary bv the Review or Decision-Making Bodies to adequately assess the impact of the proposal. Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES Habitat, Aquatic shall mean a water bodv 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 boas. Qualified Biologist/Ecologist sha\\ mean the following: 1. A person with at least two (2) vears of demonstrated experience and expertise in evaluation of development impacts on wildlife habitat and species in the Colorado Rockv Mountains: and qualified to work on the specific site that: (1) Has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States universitv in wildlife biology or ecoloqv: (2) Is a Wildlife Society of America Certified Wildlife Bioloqist, or holds a higher certification from this society or (3) Is an Ecological Society of America Certified Ecologist, or holds a higher certification from this society. Vegetation, Riparian shall mean terrestrial vegetation that is contiguous to and affected bv surface and subsurface hvdroloqic features of perennial or intermittent lotic and lentic water bodies (for example, rivers, streams, lakes, or drainaae ways). Riparian areas have one or both of the following characteristics: 1) distinctly different vegetative species than adiacent 15 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review areas, and 2) species similar to adiacent areas but exhibiting more vigorous or robust growth forms. Wildlife Habitat, Critical shall mean aquatic habitat; wetlands, riparian vegetation: Potential Conservation Areas as defined bv the Colorado Natural Heritage Program: Bia Horn Sheep Winter Concentration Areas as defined bv the Colorado Division of Wildlife: motor nests and a one-half mile area surrounding the nest; Severe Winter Ranae for elk; and Severe Winter Rance for mule deer; migratory bird habitat associated with riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat. Â§ 7.10 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS In addition to any standards required in the underlying zoning districts, all development shall meet the following performance standards: A. Noise. NOTE: NO CHANGES PROPOSED. B. Refuse Disposal. All development shall use approved animal-proof refuse disposal containers. With Division of Wildlife approval, refuse disposal containers and enclosures mav be electrified. @:C. Operational/Physical Compatibility. The following conditions may be imposed upon the approval of any development to ensure that it is compatible with existing uses, including but not limited to, restrictions on: 1. Placement of trash receptacles; ( 2. Location of loading and delivery areas; 3. Location, intensity and hours of illumination; and 4. Additional landscaping and buffering. GrD. Evidence of Compliance. NOTE: NO CHANGES PROPOSED. Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS 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 boas. Habitat, Wildlife shall mean the regions or environment containing those elements necessary for the survival and health of a wildlife species and consisting of principle feeding areas, winter ranae, summer ranae, shelter areas, concentration areas, production areas, movement corridors, buffer zones, areas providing essential minerals and water and special habitat needs. A particular area need not be occupied bv a particular wildlife species in order to be considered habitat for that species. Wildlife habitat mav include those areas which were historicallv occupied and are still suitable for occupancv. APPENDIX B.111.C DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS gg. Anticipated Phases of Development and Timing. A graphic phasir'la plan shall incorporate recommendations found in submitted Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment. 4 16 Wildife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #4 for February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Review A l .4 â‚¬e 1 C.E H 4// i LE: 7\ 1 ) 1 -te, U:7 16 U W F.76 - 1 \ March 17, 2009 ;/ r h 3 1 /,4 U 1 -; .r,-, n j ! C :11 -J} - Â· It 114/11 1 1 / Â£ \. 17 i iI U Subject: Revisions to Chapter 7 EVDC (Wildlife), draft 4 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission I have comments on two aspects of the wildlife code revision. The first deals with a somewhat larger view of the code, its purpose, and the process which we are following. The second set of comments is directed at the specific language of the current draft. I had the privilege to attend last weeks joint study session between our Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees. I was surprised to hear more than one Trustee state that the wildlife code is one of the means our local government uses to protect open space. Their comments were made in reference to the current 30' vs. 50' stream setback discussion now before this Commission. Those comments seem to add significant importance to the discussion. I also heard Trustee Homeier's statement that the basic question is: how many cows do we want to have, that will determine how much range is needed. I don't necessarily agree with the analogy but both sets of comments provide a segue to my first topic. In order to make a sound and comprehensive change to our wildlife and habitat protection code, I believe we need to examine the process we are following. I think the starting point needs to be a definition of our goals and a clear statement of our objectives. The next step would be to construct a plan to attain those goals, part of which would be a code revision. As an example, I view the discussion of wildlife & habitat within the valley as only one part of the whole issue. The other component is open space. We need to complete an Open Space Study to move forward. The result can include an Open Space map which when overlaid onto the existing habitat map will graphically identify and prioritize the areas most important in the Valley. With this knowledge we can then craft code which will help move us toward our goals. Perhaps the most beneficial aspect of a more complete and forward looking approach is the opportunity to establish a process (including code) that ensures no landowner suffers loss, no developer gets surprised at the last moment after thousands of dollars have been spent, and that the citizens of Estes have some idea of how future development in the valley will proceed.. It is important that no one is made to be a loser in this process and I believe if we plan ahead, we can ensure that will be the case. Therefore, I urge you to take a moment and look at the broader view of what we are trying to accomplish, then proceed in a comprehensive manner not just isolated code change by isolated code change. My second set of comments is directed toward the current draft of the Wildlife & Habitat Protection code. Again comments from the Trustees at the joint session seem to make an appropriate opening. Trustee Blackhurst repeatedly said "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and Trustee Homeier' s cow analogy (which I think was his way of saying it is important to sift through a complex issue to find the basics) apply here. The existing code was determined to be "broke" by Staff and the Town Attorney in three ways. 1) The current code places responsibilities on CDOW for decision making which may belong to the Planning Commission. 2) It was interpreted to be non-enforceable because it does not contain explicit language for denial, and 3) although it requires a Wildlife.Conservation Plan for certain unique cases, there is no requirement that the Plan be effective in mitigating the "significant adverse impacts" of a development. There is no language for denial in this revision. It was stated at a previous meeting that many sections of the EVDC do not have language for denial because that authority is given in Section 3.1,8 & 9. I have read those sections of code and cannot find any clear language providing grounds for denial. However, if it is clearly there, and I just missed it, why wasn't it clear and available for use at the Wapiti Crossing hearing with our existing code? The proposed code revision calls for an assessment and mitigation plan for designated special areas as does the existing code and, as with the existing code, it does not require the plan to be effective, only that it be provided to staff. This is another problem not corrected in the revision. The revised code goes on to state in Section 7.8.H: "Review Standards and Criteria for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. All applications shall be planned and designed to ensure that significant adverse impacts are avoided. If that is not feasible that significant adverse impacts shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible." The first sentence states the requirement; the second sentence removes the requirement. Our words must be straightforward and clear in their meaning or we will again have code which is misleading and non-enforceable. 1 Lack of enforceability, no provision for denial and lack of clear requirements are the fundamental reasons the code is being revised. We can discuss criteria and we can discuss setbacks, but the basic question remains; does tlie new code correct the existing problems. If the answer is no, the new code will still be "broke"....and the answer ki no. In summary, at this time we have an opportunity to address the complete issue of open space and wildlife habitat, and to move forward. Perhaps a good starting point would be to define our goals and I think the "purpose" statement of our current code says it best: "To maintain ind enhance the diversity of wildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valley, and to plan and design land uses to be harmonious with wildlife habitat and the species that depend on this habitat for the economic, recreational and environmental benefit of the residents of and visitors to the Estes Valley." Please, let us not be piece meal in our approach to these topics. They are complex in presentation but not in their basic premise. With a systematic, forward looking approach we can ensure the quality of life in the valley without harming individuals. - : Sincerely, Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court I. Co ou 1 IP [e@-ry - Il Fll MAR 1 6 2009 501 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 March 16, 2009 The Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham and The Board o f Trustees Post Office Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Mayor Pinkham and Members of the Board, In May of 2008 I wrote to the Board regarding protection of wildlife in Estes Park. A new copy of that letter is enclosed for your convenience. I am writing to you again after attending more meetings and viewing materials pertaining to the habitat of Estes Park wildlife. I have been a permanent resident in Estes Park since October 2006, and there have been changes near my home which have had very negative effects on the wildlife. Directly across the street from my home at 501 MacGregor Avenue, there is a stream. It runs through the property at 500 MacGregor Avenue. When we moved here, there existed a five-foot chain-link fence that ran the length of the property across the street from me and parallel to MacGregor Avenue. The fence was open at the end. The deer and large herds of elk could easily access the area near the stream. The wildlife would graze and rest there for hours. A male and female fox and their nine kits made their home near the stream as well. People were fascinated by the foxes, deer, and elk and they stopped along MacGregor Avenue to watch and to take pictures. Then new owners purchased this large property which has a house far from the stream and MacGregor Avenue. They hired a crew to mow the grasses, trim the trees and clear away vegetation. The power saws and activity caused the fox family to leave permanently. Periodically the area is mowed and trimmed still. In 2007 the property owners installed even higher fencing perpendicular to the end of the existing fence and a very high gate across the driveway thereby blocking off access to the property by elk and deer. The deer and elk cannot access the property without jumping the fence. Some deer and elk have periodically jumped the fence from an area outside the fence, but they have had problems getting out. I have watched them race towards the fence in different areas and stop suddenly when they realized they could not make the leap, either because a car was passing on the road near where they would land or for some other reason. They would try to get out several times, becoming panicky before finally succeeding. This process could last up to fifteen minutes. I was concerned that the pregnant cows might injure their soon-to-be-born calves. The fence which runs parallel to MacGregor Avenue is close to the road. When the deer or elk jump the fence, they end up on MacGregor Avenue. The fencing attached to the gate and the gate across the driveway are too high c for them to jump over. Johanna Darden - Letter of March 16, 2009 Page 2 of 3 I can see on the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment map showing "Vegetation Communities" that the stream at 500 MacGregor Avenue is designated as "riparian/wetlands." I also believe code for a 30 foot setback from the stream may apply to this property regarding the fencing. What codes govern fencing in riparian areas? In addition the new fence and gate at 500 MacGregor Avenue are higher than the four-foot limit in the existing code. Is this a violation o f the current code? Due to new construction in Estes Park, many of the corridors, grazing, and birthing areas of wildlife have been diminished. Because of large and noisy equipment, extra vehicles and numerous workmen, wildlife seek out new areas to graze and rest. I hear from friends and neighbors about areas which have lost their Bighom sheep and other animals due to development. Large numbers o f Bighorn sheep used to inhabit the area across the street from Nicky's Restaurant before that area began development. An old home next door to me was sold to a developer after we moved to Estes Park. This old house sat empty for 30 years prior to the sale. The developer tore it down and constructed a larger home. The elk used to inhabit the area around this house, but they no longer do so. When subcontractors came to work on it, they would sometimes bring their pet dogs. They were not leashed and stayed mostly near the construction site, except when elk or deer came near. The construction workers were pretty careful about this, but it was just one more deterrent to the wildlife. I have enclosed with this letter a DVD that has a very short video of the mother and father foxes playing with their kits near the stream and their foxhole on the property at 500 MacGregor Avenue. This video was taken before the noise and activity of the crew hired by the new owners forced them to move away. Enclosed also are a few pictures o f fox and elk on the property before they were closed out o f the area. One picture (as marked) shows an adult fox carrying prey to the new den somewhere West of Chiquita Lane. The picture was taken in my back yard. There are also some pictures of the elk herd along MacGregor Avenue after they were cut off from prior access to the stream area. A couple elk can be seen inside the fence, but most stayed on the outside trying to enter by their old route rather than jumping the fence, since they were now closed out by the high gate and fence. I ask that new codes address the issues and legislation spell out clear protections for our wildlife. Please extend the setback distance from streams and other riparian areas to 50 feet on either side of the high water line. Please do not permit any further new construction within this distance. The proposed zoning code changes regarding ADUs affect the density of Estes Park. Detached ADUs will affect the wildlife adversely. Residents currently are able to add rooms to their existing homes. I strongly oppose detached ADUs. Estes Park is indeed unique. Our wildlife is our treasure and should be protected. If we must err, let it be on the side o f the wildli fe. Do not leave doubt as to what our codes mean. We need to clearly state what is not permitted. In this way the codes can be properly enforced. Johanna Darden - Letter of March 16, 2009 Page 3 of 3 I appreciate having the chance to air my thoughts on these important issues before the Commission and Board. I have concentrated on the area where I live because I have a first-hand view o f what is happening here. I hope my views will be given serious consideration, and I thank you wholeheartedly for the time you are spending on these issues. Sincerely yours, 3,0.-1-- Zbo-jel e.,3 Johanna Darden Full-time Resident of Estes Park . I f ja-_nni,~ CLÂ©enry-1/55/04 EMC 1 ; 11 -L 1 f'Â° 1-os 1 1VD U........-EN h . ..5- O1 Â»LÂ«, du-Â©,A, EO517 7*~ 22, 2 00 e 1-4.- Ne-yuÂ»-Â·4&_ 7*711 <. ~Â»8~ 1-U- Â£-a-Â«k 'f--1*,+phu-.2 f, O. (1-~- 1 1 0 0 8,31,; fajo , del-u_j--0- 8 o s- 1 -1 64,#7W #CUL-.w CÂ»U_ 77u--4~ 4. 6.-=tk ; 1 -14.--26- Tw .Â»d-&---6 2 A>-n_, drp-t-â‚¬AÂ«uzk, *Le:t *U-, Lt.-4- 0-1 9.-~Ib--D fuju 1-, mk Â«17 aÂ»/=2.- %104-11;MD A- icA-c- ,-.ux-oL- -Ic- f~Ajz- U_Ul--A lit- a,-06 - /9. 1.- ~ ge-Â»VAL-6- -,-â€ž.at .,Ut T- a.,a.. 2-yM 42-CL-ty .cpt 0,4 ~,-c.u.,c hu 021-6 24 C 4--z 7 aot_ CP. i â€¢ .... 1 .4-puo. a. 2tuA:,c_- ,Â£4-21 4Â»bA,Â·,A-gr/[r V 0 /71 - -~-6 06- Â« Mt 2 1 ,â‚¬-0.-e,Â£2.-0.6 //ArLÂ·ql . 62/4- ..04-ut a_. e-~-L ,c,-6,-U-1 tk.0 - d CLâ‚¬-M *0227,~ .34-- 3=k-L 7Â»~ 4 4-~ ~Â£-Ulg Â£~2,7- AA61.-â‚¬L G,t--6~t"-24- A-1-0--50 44Â«e,GÂ»--~.t Â« .20Â£4~ ,-C-~-~~th 1Â«-54- ~tki /'t~0-56-4-' 34- m 9 0-Ae- -1- 64 4- , y Â«*46 22~-9-26 ,n-06 6~u-L-~D a- Â»Â«7= Uu--t-L~~1.-_ yb__ C_a.~1.- y- -4- G,-MNIZ . --[liro-- Â»-puâ€ž,U-uu.9-3 0-f pctu_ iL-Â«ol_ ~v*t-Â£Â· a~~~ oL62*-~Â«23 AuÂ«__ Â»-9 I. .3~-0 4/k---~~ ae- Â»*--=-1- ff Lu--6~0Â»Â»~56.- /6- 4/ /14 1Â£ l,oÂ»Â«11.- 1-0 e=J"L +v .*4- 6-4 A-- e,Ud-~-aL kLdi 2.2 -04Â«Â»-. 33â‚¬ a/=-2 4-9 Al-.1- 0 .7 O /V ;60 ,,ADA_Lr~R_, .<2-0-7-FC-L 0./14.3~-I /4,-:.1/ tri#lid; LL10--.7 -.2 6,1Â«--, -0Â£4Â«0 00u2-/,4-c- 4 ~n-Â£~a 03 k._1 ~76 -~-6,01-2-d-Â«-, â€¢4/ 6-441.-, a.-y69.0,0, fa,_.) -4--/ .;tft-~t eeL..0, tkl~~ O~-7/ At~ O-t.-CL e-L-/et- /4-4Â»e_ 1 j:ke,ip LÂ«- /6---Â«r- cel.a-.4 ---te.U 12Â£t- r~--tUtU_-, ,-,-z~-e--te- *Â»-7.7 ---Â£/44,/ .-Â«j ~L,re ~ ~7-'Et.-t Â»- Eks.-> /11-4 . -6 45 -Â·' At- =~Â»-Z-/ ~4; fi-1-0 /4 3-0- e/Le_, .,Â·e-Â£-2.--Â·p-(9 - /4-Â».1.-2. UX-u> f O/ao 1-*--~ ,-,-wt a-AA.--7-1 1.-0-Â©L I dr- Â»11,17 I #42 0 .... - 3 - N j . /49*7 ~â‚¬- Lj +0Â«4-/ 04Â£-24Â£-,0 - Â»4~~tul.-4 - k) 1- /2-UL-â‚¬JL1 - AcUL-~ 07 -Lt A/-zt=22 02'Wit L .6 "-;G,-cj Z't/Le_- E-30 h,~3 I. 1 /tu.- 4 -~ 7 3- 6Â»-4- 2-0->-2-(j- 6/96/ ~4-0 44256 1/ a---Â»04 ,/u-,Ult, a_- ~c,1, E=Itup /1-4 -+V klu m-LÂ«>,-tL e--f 3-t3, w -2-_ W.tjuQ_ 066 4 -.Ilt '-2- l.~Â»Â«- 60-2.- hiÂ«ji-06 4 60-R-- +L_..Â£Â£y,t-*--~--c.Â©4 huy /,4*>Â«t-â‚¬- ---XUL 1- t._~ Co) -00 ~Ee-04 U~ .gEÂ« .XUJ._-- ~Â£0--t_JU 0-7 / G.36 af -,tÂ«/ - Â»1.3 I 03,6, AALUL 11-2_- */u~ a-,--L j-+Au U.u U-.i- e.kA,0 1 1-Â«92. &4 14".Ua.-4 Â»1. +K<.-, 6.-Ut.u<06 --L-/ Â£'-Â«Â·t-~ 6~*4_Â£,g~ . 0 /2Â«29 0 . . ~L---,3 . k) 1~t-,t, L,-,Â«_. byvittiV-/u~ Luj-- O-f --6au r--y-A '2--u .U Of /Â«-2-/ .Â»Â«01-/ 44/ LA4~p 22-2-'Lâ‚¬__- ,4:t /L-*/ 1-Â»=Â« -dI- I ,Â©-~~ 2%'Le- 4-1-Y /0-2.- - i.* 440Â« dÂ»c....Cog. ALL A-k9V /L - .-RtzÂ«L-4L-, j OC_- fitfÂ«-7 ~.Pt- LL .--â‚¬2;*G_ 1-4/ r 9L - + - 7 - 't. Â£1-e-i AjÂ·-e-*_Â£0*f~.~ 0 --3 31_su - - ...4 -. -+ . rvioL > . 0 -1 65 - ~~2/7'~~ /C7-Ij 6- -42.2 74,/j -,Â«0 0'~up a-Â»04- /7--01Â»Â«.,27 Ap-36 .~U_Â« r--Â·~-Â«> r jk-u f-Â« -~~,~,-u_~ -t, W'c-, --Udb. ezZL Â»604/ *Â«ZÂ»Evoc. 450 -=-41.-2 Â»L.6 - ~"1~ elf= i Eltf-~ 0 Â£2.-â‚¬4-'.0-20-/ jtc- 0Â«cÂ»Ut-Â·, Aâ‚¬-+.1- Â»-A_. -~Lk_ 8-0,3=1 0 30Â« -S< t~-v,-un_- CL-71 Fle ~t7td_- )&M w-U~u.1-t u-U_- Â»=- A-t- 6~Lyv Ln#W - 4446 - EL ,Â©A-.0 Atit Â©3(L ack..Â».C<:L-/ 2*~L- OU~~ . 60-0-QUL Â»11-0-4_D Â»Al-, Â»c~ ~--2'co .*Ati.02( Â»LÂ«_,,~~~_, 26-yte--/ Mce_. /4e./L~Â·~ Â»'~~~'~4-/ Â»t,/~---1-~â‚¬ gasÂ«~c- 767 Â»*+a--tat a-,i-k_ 75- -ttmt 4, tu =eÂ« 60 -4-2.-, r-4 Â»Lul z4,--. EMJ)#. ~4.0Â« ~640 1~-Â°-~- , 1- UÂ«le-- -Mic *e-202 ~~"Â·"Uc, C 7Â»_ t,h-A<,4-+<f~ . d ' *--12- n..JU,Â»7LU ) 0-"--414 *U~tiu '.1-0 Â¢1/ 131 0.> U...2,,U ' ~ML U.._~Â« 0 61 UQ@J,0 3-' *EL~ta~-c,L e-~ 12E-L <1. 0 4-LR- to-~ 4â‚¬--L *Lu. r 72 - 157 - Â°1 4 ~~Â»1Â·a/L-/ Avt, Â»-~Â£-rL/~ u.+--z~766/ ./Â¥L"1-,21 ~tÂ«-JO- 4-Â£,c/zj -V.3 1-0 11/6~IL XJ~__ 720- Â«Â©04-6 226=t 2 2- . Â·-2. ~Â».2-23 6.-y-,t. 6-~ 4.1-+ Zltu-, Au.L -0Â£4-6 U.Â«u-12Â«-. 4,2- . le 9-0.-a-- *-a-3L 11, 3-<ij . 90- =r -r/1.- 1Â»10 -70 A- Ann-a_ 33'0-t-cle,h FLA.*,- AU-UL *L-cLÂ·Ct 4 - ra~~2.9 l . f. 1~0. I . 119~ 15 frinl 2-00 7 h. 1 Â· 4:11 . *tr +4 4 4 - . . I 4.1 k . 4 . $ ..2 .4 t For â‚¬ 5 ..* . y I 1,14/lm~: t. 4.4 . I , ahol . Kits Â¢ f . + ., I. , ( 9 1 0 a. H K,. A 4 8 not I I . I .0 . 1 s ho LOA ) 4 -a 4% 4+ 04 4, $ : .12>Â¢; :j~Je.* Â·,.. k. . U 1.â€¢ * 1 1,9., 4,4 -ev '4 ..w, iA.t~Â·~~tn.n-â€žg..cÂ·.. 6-- 9-+ ... . ......../-./-- - - Â· Â· /-7f Y 7/9./ I . 47 . 5 # : . 1, ,Â«A &61 Le carrie n : 1 4 b ' I /1 .4 t < .( '*414.,?.0,1,!LI 1 4 Â» .. 9.7..... 500 t. N Â·4 . ..1 4 , k 1* i . N j .Tf .71< 1 Mo,c G rusOr- + 4 ' ' W' 1 .ZF 1 9:ke Â§ 11 1 1 1 + :/ I ** ax N * A Ve n key i. 4/ 7,/i :4%Â»X: < f: \1 :0 0% :L h \ 4 / ' \ I 1 1 4 401 N.1, 14 . 1.x j h la- niz -<--t~z-s f-- <-tj-- k : t X + 4: I. 4.li'I. 06 i or a_d O C, i \ ( 44 4\ 4 /1 : , 7%* I . \4 -*FC 1 '1 , -2 :Se 1, V. 1 %1 2. 41 1 .4 -1 ri. 1 E I'.2522 $1 4 pri K x..9 c . -r-- Wt:Â».9---â€¢â€¢â€¢--,..... - ...: Â·Â·Â·.Â·Â·Â·. .vÂ·- - - - a?,7 C Â·b \1 N 4 1111 . . I I 4 .. I . P . I. 4. 1 * I K 4 .... .. . .7 .. 4 . vt... ' r.47 z . A.. . C . 14: I 4+ . 0. . * 4. 4 0 4 , Fox 14 2007 , I . . . 6 1 I f t. after + .1 + ... 1 * el .., 4 -+ I 0 4 t .1 e-ft 11 - f Pl CL . . +1 + 3. â‚¬ 49 Â«'~ t . ..4 4. . 4 1 + 900 M ct,c ci (- e q or 11 I. I S 6 . .9 A V e. tq ke 4 -p-,O n e l.O d C. 0 %: ..1 -f >. 6 i=.3 0- h i 4 ti i T-Â« L ri >~E 4 - E Std 5 HU- 1Â« EL' a C 10 C-- Cl--<1 C) 1 . t gi' - I. -wi*,a. -- "2" f.6 - I . â€ž f: g . 4. I + - . 1 A . , I.- & A 0-: . % 1- - 77- = . - 4. ~iÂ«AP 1 f + 9.<lS,>_42 -c - 4~-34~â€¢..2 â€¢.â‚¬ 0 ----7 .* - --1 - -## I L - d- J ** -* 1- . _ + U .4, 4 .7 . 9 - I .. . I. . 4 t *32 4.> * W .20DW~ ~. i.,~ - -. p ... ... -#.' *;,9, 4 - 4,0/ '5Â®.9.2../.0,- ~fÂ¢. >4 . .. /////4/ . t . * Ae,b 1 - .*1 '4 ,. . .11 .4 - * Â· - 1- 14-77 .M,W. t@-Â» ....; 4Â¢ 2 .hâ€¢ 1,Â·. *. 471 4-=12Â°?fi..fi-4- I X - ~i,4 .., . 1. - - 1 - .AL + 1 F ar t of o. I a rge herd o + el k Â«-9 + E- c L r>/3 0 4/1 O 7 31 0.0 rn Fla-c. O, re,6~ o r / 1 FC_. Â°icÂ°Â° .1 5 f- r o rn ~ 3- O 0 M zi.c Greg or-7 /1 Ve j 1 n .co Ill f-e.k--4~ 2007 9 :%. . 1 , .1-00 7 9, ' 7 2 1 K ex-~t g-oo f. MAC Gre,90 r . 1 1 . . ..r I -% /1 v â‚¬ ' 9,7 r 6 . ' J# I./ l 'If Â·2 6 e- -r - . O UL :.. /9 â‚¬- L:L.3 . d. 1 6. , k fit 6.-te f. }-1 c t t 1 <f ':3 I *1 1 - + 8 4- - 1 412- ..4 - .Ii -'4 f i ' â€¢ ' 939 i r) 5+ 63 1 fil_ r, 1 -j 1 1 -9 :A ...1 42 / 4 7? 91 i i-9 + 1 1. 1 $ 1 . /1 '40 & , 2 4.3., A:,#F 1 1 ./..Li' I~ r - 1 -,tl,-~IT~~24.4~~ i'~~ ,! L- 1 "6,10/Â·U' 41*~ *L- 1. - 1 -'.1.-lui . - pl-â€¢-4'+ 4,79 :C.i *444'.1 j.'. r. 4 . I $ 11: 1 -4 - 0 0 &3 â‚¬- C <4 04 - 1 . 11 , 1 -4 â‚¬ -'- i--0 0 blic_ G retic, 0 r .. 44*. 1 Al 4.- i . .,r r.9-4%4- tz.Rew/1*. be fbre N,illimill:.liximiliallmilillililitiilimi&/im. -1 - A -- 4-49. 1/,-'I. ,. * . -- h e CAJ 5 - I ..ME,mt'"Bri.IMT' 1 .- 1 , ' . 1 . . f O O ta. C Ne .1 - b / &-*Ll ' f'=:7: 1 11 1 2 1 - 1,161 4.7 1 " --- â€¢" e 8 1 ieff $ I. t.. . $ 00- 1 43 ' heed e ri jp: .p Iiillil*3~Â£ - 011 ,- ..... I .t...%~4,1'.>44.." 1 - .. M ic (.4 c ecs or /1 ve , ...R e I./U1-4.:/lit I.*alf ......./ I. 40 0% A. 4, l <1 ~4' O h Â· j , ff,f , i . :6., %19 j : 14 '1 1 1." n &1 612 (4Â·-i~~e mor .~ Ave . ul A - 44, 1/ . - 125/- 1-4- R Fo v - M CO 1 1,1 1 1 1 1.-, 1 '11; '' Â¢11 1 I Ti'' 4 ' 4 er, C G Fl e. C g . - .~ Â· K icu â‚¬1. CP- 41 nl â‚¬,d 0 1 . kaot-14-1- entry 1 + . 2008 . . V 5<%:4 .-1 . 4 r I Â¥ 12 114 aIP Ll.jy, p A ,Â· ( < - - ' g a. 1* ect LE f -2 J - . C..4 .. I ... .k .P If. 1,9 i * 3 0, .. 6- i...7 f r CL j-1 4.- f L 1.- I .~ 1, - 1- 1 - IC ; 1 - .4 -0 ./ *. . I r c. c /91 CL r G re â‚¬ 0 5 a u t Zi ... Ir - . -16Â·1 L.----~-*-~I .. .:....Â¥ . IX.*...A . I . 1 , 21' 4. '1.- -- 9 ... 1.11' Filill~< p:<t' ' - f h 1 .W C <: 1Â«, e 1- 4 1 c .0 i a.rh ~Â»y i ., Â£ , 41 n y i Ki i -0 ./ (1. Ee irl- - 2 1 ..til,Qi./. 6 + L , 1 -- f lic -- - . --1. -.2-. . ..Â¥V-*--I-'......'.~.-' +I #- - 17- I k - 6 O L1C1- s icle, 8 + I .i t 4 1 4\ t.3 44. a. ,~ra~ - 5-0 0 M r.t_ c 6 r r v> r 1 . fr'Kierl.l.l.g.~ilt 9 Â· ft ve 1 + 1 .. -=-..1 - 4 .. . 717..1 . P <41 +e f tart C-0 + t.. 4 tx". 3 .â€¢Â·Uâ€¢ I. , I - ,1 : 1 /'1 2._ â‚¬05 03 9 ... .,Ii , Ii, Â· F Dll .. -- Ct -*j_ f F 11 2.0 C â‚¬.. k ~ AI-Xe., cl C._. n, 42* ci i 1. U 4 1.. b t'tai- Â« r ff c.,1 1. 1 1 -Unll ' 1 4 . Â¢4 " ..14 I I X 1 1 - 1 .. ,* I Â¢ S /-/ k O en A -mmwi (/1 A C 69Â·' F â‚¬g o r 4,11; I.- r Mut *g"--- . 4 1 1 .7 -4 - im. m C 413 0 A. A <3 1 14 . .......951.4 7.1 4 CL. T \2 . 1. ,/ â€¢ i " , ! .. .,1 1 111, 0 - /*t t 4 A â€¢,5 5-0 1 M ric L.r ~ t.-~e \ I . ... f tv ... 41 0 /= 9 1 -t- .e 46 r Â«- r k o i b. 1 . .. 0 0 8 . ,Â® t F.1 - : . -1- O # ' C Â¢ . 61-9.4 â‚¬ r . .. 1_ â‚¬3 4/5,4, T .â€ž,/~â€ži~- '... 1 4/4 Â·/ 81 /1 44 cu .... . , 4 f , QU A V' â‚¬ ' A efi / 41 2/ k 1.A i 4% A -rÂ« e I kall-Hz -1- a. C e cu $===S...J4---fl-=m.==./.-1 F z C : MAR -6 2009 * _- ----- Original Message ----- From: NORMAN DIANNE TEMPEL Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 2:10 PM Subject: Please refer comments to planning commission Dear Members - Planning Commission I am contacting you with regard to needed code changes regarding wildlife issues in the Estes Valley. In particular I am requesting that the planning commission make a more aggressive effort to consider the impact that building structures and fencing have on the movement of wildlife through this valley. The focus of my concern is the concentrated development of buildings and fencing which is starting to seriously impede the movement of Elk and Deer as they seek access to water. These are large animals which require significant amounts of water. It is time for the establishment of wildlife corridors providing for not only unrestricted movement across the valley, but periodic access to water of the Big Thompson River, the Fall River, and Lake Estes. Consideration of such long range planning will insure the compatibility of Elk and Deer as an integral part of the Estes Valley for future generations of residents and visitors. At this time the valley shows evidence of development not according to long range planning, but development by unrestricted developers. The Estes Valley was a unique valley but is rapidly becoming plist another Colorado town. l. ' j hÂ·,ii observations of this valley started in 1941 and my concerns have benefit of degrees in Wildlife Management and Forestry coupled with service as a park naturalist. I do not feel by concerns are without foundation and hope the planning commission will give some consideration to this request. Dr. Norm Tempel 1479 Narcissus Dr. Estes Park, CO. 1 March 3,2009 (FINAL CLARIFIED VERSION) An important and rare joint study session:between the Town Board of Trustees and the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) is scheduled for Tuesday March 10, 4:30 pm, at Town Hall. It is open to the public for observation, although the public cannot speak. The agenda is likely to include the issues of potential development code changes regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and the protection of valley wildlife with respect to development. The Town Board of Trustees will make the ultimate decision on these issues, and it is vital that the public be aware of progress or regress in this next step of the proceedings. Regarding ADUs, the EVPC has been listening to extensive citizen input and has recommended removing "detached" units from consideration, requiring owner occupancy of one unit, and removing the consideration of using ADUs for rental properties at this time. I thank the EVPC for their responsive and conscientious efforts, and I want to urge the Town Board of Trustees to take the public-supported EVPC recommendations regarding ADUs seriously. Additionally, the most recent draft for wildlife-related code changes from town staff removed provisions for a denial-of- development if proposed adverse-impact mitigation is inadequate, and I believe that is a mistake that needs to be corrected. S. Lindquist d< Â· MARitt 4 2009 ;<~ n IE*~ 7Ee n February 17,2009 Subject: Revisions to Chapter 7 EVDC (Wildlife), draft 4 L_ta__1 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission I want to complement the Planning Commission and Staff for last month's meeting. I think the January meeting might have been the best Planning Commission meeting I have yet attended due in large part to the in depth discussion between each of the Commissioners, the Staff and the public. It was a long meeting but a worthwhile process to work through each paragraph of the proposed Wildlife and Habitat Protection code and to reach a consensus. Thank you! I have read the new draft, Draft 4, and am sorry to report that it seems to represent a major step backwards. I have included a list of specific comments in this handout. I won't read them all here today but there are four topics of major concern which need to be discussed. 1) The explicit language providing the Planning Commission the authority to deny an application has been removed. This is a major flaw in the existing code and is the motivation for doing this revision. 2) The opening paragraph of Section 7.8.H, Review Standards, page 13, reads "All applications shall be planned and designed to ensure that significant adverse impacts are avoided." It then states "Ifthat is not feasible that (then) significant adverse impacts shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible." It is understood that there will be impacts with any development, and some will be negative. The goal is not to have zero impact; the goal is to have no "significant adverse impact" in only those areas identified as critical. 3) As this proposal is written today, when a Wildlife & Habitat Assessment is required, the Staff and Planning Commission will receive one document paid for by the developer. The document is expected to contain an unbiased evaluation of the wildlife and habitat present on a property and an assessment of potential impacts of the development by a qualified biologist. In addition, the document is to contain the developer's plan for mitigating potential impacts. I would suggest these should be two separate documents. The first would be the biologist independent assessment of the property and the effect of the proposed mitigation plan, comprised of items 1 and 2 of Section 7.8.I. The second document, the developer's plans for mitigation would be comprised of items 3,4, and 5. To avoid a conflict of interest, the biologist should be responsible for the evaluation; the developer should be held responsible for the mitigation plan, each plan under their respective signatures. 4) There is no language in this proposal stating that a mitigation plan must be Il < effective to be approved; another major problem uncovered by Wapiti Crossing. 1 OF. 2- This omission, taken in conjunction with no language for denial and the "if not i feasible" statement in the Review Standards has resulted in a proposal which has no real requirements, no means of enforcement by denial, and is no different than what is on the books today. The Planning Commission is being asked to do a difficult job but is not being given the tools needed to do that job by this code. Issues with Wildlife code revision - Draft 4 â€¢ Wildlife code proposal 0 7.4.C.1 - What does this paragraph mean; if yes then what -pg 2 0 7.6.E.1.a.1 - The 30 ft set back for streams has been lined out, shouldn't it be the same 50 ft as it is for rivers, aquatic, & riparian habitats - pg 5 7.8.F.1.b - Shouldn't this be linked to the map revision process as defined in 7.8.E.3 -pg 12 7.8.F.2 -"Staff shall refer, (add IN WRITING), .....to CDOW" -pg 12 7.8.F.4 - Draft 4 removes the previous language for denial, need to add explicit language to provide the Planning Commission the authority to deny a proposal - pg 12 0 7.8.H-Need to remove the second sentence because the reason for the code is to avoid "significant adverse impacts". It is understood there will be impacts, but the code is to prevent the "significant adverse impacts". - pg 13 7.8.I.3 - typo, grammar, syntax - pg 14 7.8.I.3 - add "reduced density" as a means of mitigation and change '~'minimizing the footprint" to "reducing" the footprint. - pg 13 â€¢ 13.3 Definitions ofWords... 0 13.3-Shownintwoplaces, pg 15&16 0 13.3 - Need to add the definition of "population" â€¢ Need to add language requiring an unbiased wildlife habitat analysis to be completed by the biologist, and then separate mitigation plan to be provided by the developer. Sincerely, t UNÂ»aw=> Frbd R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court 00 00 0 I d#L 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS presented to the Estes Valley Planning C.s. On the Topic of Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve -Habitat and Wildlife Draft 4 Tuesday, February 17,2009 Meeting Concern: 7.6 D 1. If a qualified Professional is employed to established Boundary delineation, WHY is such delineation subject to Staff's approval? Concern: 7.6 4.b....the Applicant shall retain a glmlified professional to delineate the boundaries ofthe aquatic habitat according to accepted professionals[Andards. The applicant should pay for such a study, but some other entity should employ the professional to conduct the study. This would remove any thoughts of bias on part of the applicant and or qualified professional. Concern: 7.6 5.b same concern as in 7.6 4.b above Concern: 7.6 E a (1) Why was the set back (of) at least thirty (30) feet removed. What is the proposed set back if not 30 feet? Qae,r 7.6'E.411) What-i,the-â‚¬BUening dist,ict;~ Question: 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection: Why was this section deleted and what appears to be a new, less descriptive section inserted? Concern: 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection (new proposed version) 7.8 E. 1.: "...This map, as amended from time to time..." Define "as amended from time to time." Does it mean annually, every ten years every thirty years?? An up to date Critical Wildlife Habitat Map is critical to wildlife and habitat protection. Concern: 7.8 E. 3. a. In the event a property owner questions the presence of critical habitat on their property, the property owner may submit evidence with respect thereto from a qualified biologist. To avoid any concerns of conflict of interest, a report from a biologists hired by a property owner to conduct said study should not be acceptable. Have the property owner pay for the study, and the biologists employed by a third part entity. Concern: 7.8 f. 1. a. and b.(1) Again I have problems with "paid for by the applicant" as written. The applicant should pay, but the qualified biologists should be employed by a third part entity, not the applicant who is paying for said study. By doing so, you simply c ( eliminate any thoughts of CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Robert Ernst 147-A Stanley Circle - 1 -â€ž 1 Estes Park, CO 80517 D)]L_ _CoVE-9\ ~-~ FE 9 1 7 2009 1 -12 L 11 C C O I C rEi.J i 6 2609 1 , - Estes,Valley Planning Commission February 17, 2009 Comments from Mark Elrod - I of 1- 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO Draft #4, Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve-Habitat and Wildlife provides ... Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES ... Qualified Biologist/Ecologist shall mean the following: Suggestion ... eliminate the term "ecologist" as being too limiting, and being already included in the general term "biologist". 1. A person with at least two (2) years of demonstrated experience and expertise in evaluation of development impacts on wildlife habitat and species in the Colorado Rocky Mountains; and qualified to work on the specific site that: (1) Has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university in wildlife biology or ecology; Suggestion ... reference should be to a higher degree in biology or related sciences and not just wildlife biology or ecology. It appears that the post graduate degrees are offered under many titles. University of Northern Colorado recognizes advanced degrees in Biological Education; Biological Sciences and Earth Sciences. The University of Colorado recognizes advanced degrees in Chemistry and biochemistry and Ecology and evolutionary biology. While Colorado State University recognizes advanced degrees in Botany and Zoology. Biology generally recognizes the following types of biologists ... Aquatic; Marine; Biochemist; Botanists; Microbiologists; Physiologists; Biophysicists; Zoologist; Wildlife and Ecologists. (2) Is a Wildlife Society of America Certified Wildlife Biologist, or holds a higher certification from this society or Suggestion ... eliminate reference to such certification. We know that such membership is not required for any licensing or regulatory purposes in Colorado. It is a voluntary organization, so it goes to reason that very qualified biologists may not be members of this organization but would not qualify for purposes of our Code just because they are not members and so certified. This organization's website lists 138 Colorado members, of which 122 have a certification issued by this organization. So why limit qualified biologists to these 122? (3) Is an Ecological Society of America Certified Ecologist, or holds a higher certification from this society. C Suggestion ...eliminate reference to such certification. We know that such membership is not required for any licensing or regulatory purposes in Colorado. It is a voluntary 1 1 J- 1- organization, so it goes to reason.that very qualified biologists may not be members of this organization but would not qualify for purposes of our Code just because they are not members and so certified. This organization's website lists 23 Colorado members having certification issues by this organization. So why limit qualified biologists to these 23? Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. # 2 Alison Chilcott om: CECushing@aol.com cent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:19 AM To: Alison Chilcott; Bob-Joseph Subject: Definitions Attachments: Riparian.doc Hi: I've looked through several books and publications, contacted some colleagues who should know what they're talking about, and here's what I've found. You'd be surprised to find that, in essence, most professionals don't even like using the term riparian except in its broadest sense. First, I think you're getting yourself in unnecessary trouble by trying to separate stream and river corridors from riparian habitat. In essence the stream/river corridor is the same as riparian habitat, at least in terms of ecological processes. Now there may be some reason that you folks need to separate the two for legal purposes, but I think that you could pick one or the other and reword your definition to suit both cases, thus eliminating one definition that will probably cause "overlap" problems. Anyway, with that in mind, the attached document provides some quasi-definitions that I found plus some very useful web sites that can help you formulate a good defintion for your purposes. The names in front of the first several items refer to the author's names of the books. I hope this is of some use and feel free to call if I can help further. r uood luck, Bert C. E. Cushing 105 Cherokee Ct. Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-1584 cecushina@aol.com C ' 1 RIPARIAN/STREAM CORRIDOR ( Webster dictionary: of, adjacent to, or living on, the bank of a river or, sometimes, of a lake, pond, etc. Cushing and Allan: Vegetated riparian buffer strips recommended to be 50 - 100 m and are greater where slopes are steeper and soils are more prone to erosion. Naiman: Riparian systems are transitional semiterrestrial areas regularly influenced by fresh water, usually extending from the edges of water bodies to the edges of upland communities. Martin: the area of land and vegetation bordering a stream or river. Wintebourn and Townsend : Riparian zones act as nutrient filters, sediment traps, climatic regulators, and wildlife refuges. Wetzel: Littoral zone - Lake equivalent of "riparian zone." The following are several web sites that might help on this. 1. The following web sites provides the CDOW definitions: http://ndisl .nrel.colostate.edu/riparian/Ripwetdef.htm http://ndisl .nrel.colostate.edu/riparian/riparian.htm CDOW: Riparian areas are those plant communities adjacent to and affected by surface or ground water of perennial or ephemeral water bodies such as rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, playas, or drainage ways. These areas have distinctly different vegetation than adjacent areas or have species similar to surrounding areas that exhibit a more vigorous or robust growth form. Note that this definition emphasizes vegetation and is intended to guide mapping of plant communities. Also note the emphasis on "robust growth form." Thus, willows or grasses could occur right next to the stream or further inland. Where _ their growth form was "smaller" might indicate the edge of the riparian zone. CDOW: Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. 2. This web site provides a definition of riparian zones and how they work. It's only 4 pages long. I'd recommend you have a look at it. http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/awa/ripthreatbib/Sveicarl 997a.pdf 3. Another related web site with a lot of good information is: http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/RelatedWebsites/#riparian 4. The following web site addresses stream corridor restoration, namely the document published by the EPA Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. I've lectured for these workshops and have a copy of the 1998 version that I'd be happy to loan. Chapter 1, as you can see below, has a lot of good info on stream corridors, dynamics, and riparian attributes. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/ There's more to a stream than the rushing or meandering water. A stream corridor, or stream valley, is a complex and valuable ecosystem which includes the land, plants, animals, and network of streams within it. Recognition of the value of stream corridors has come with the understanding of what has been lost through uninformed or misguided actions on many streams and the watersheds that nourish them. Part I lays the foundation for understanding the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of stream and riparian areas. Describes the key functions of a stream corridor in terms of habitat, conduit or transport, filter or barrier, source and sink. Discusses the interrelationships of scale to processes and functions: temporal, landscape, watershed, corridor, -- stream and reach. Introduces stream corridor disturbances and their effects on the functioningand characteristics of the stream corridor. Chapter 1.0 Overview of Stream Corridors Chapter 1 defines the stream corridor and discusses the importance of designing restoration actions in an appropriate spatial scale. Also introduced are the five major functions occurring within the corridor. The chapter concludes with sections that examine the stream corridor in lateral and longitudinal views. Â£ 1 4.-/If Alison Chilcott ( om: Celine LeBeau [celinevhe@airbits.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:51 AM To: Alison Chilcott Subject: biologist qualifications Hi Alison, John Spooner just brought to my attention, the qualified biologist parameters. I don't know anyone that I have worked with that does wildlife reports and is 'certified'. I have been doing wildlife reports since 1998 and I don't have a masters or certification, but I probably have equal or more experience writing wildlife reports and evaluating habitats in Colorado than someone with a masters or most certified wildlife biologists. So as long as you have a masters or certification you can write wildlife reports even though you have no to little experience? Where did these qualifications come from? I just had to chime in on that subject, prior to Planning Commission. Thanks, Celine LeBeau Van Horn Engineering and Surveying (970) 586-9388 x14 P"~~L'"fli ~'~7qi ~:e#~V,I.Irf~*/1~L4t~~ :~ ..~~~f;94F~f,fi~r~~~Ti~ P' r- _1 .I'i,-p.~~jt~4-50,1-ti'Ait,I~â€ž6&6:&~-*%~ ~I.~.p~~196~~i~.hfil~-~.ii,14.1~4."Jf~1.~f,:~,'~: 1 1 0697'.1 Alison Chilcott From: Celine LeBeau [celinevhe@airbits.com] C Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:44 AM To: Alison Chilcott Subject: RE: Wildlife and Habitat Protection Hi Alison, Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find time to review the most recent proposed wildlife code changes to get you comment before the Planning Commission hearing. I do intend on commenting as soon as I review them, but it probably will not be until later this week. As for the species vs population, population is more general and could refer a combination of species,.whereas species is a more specific term, referring to a specific animal. You could just combine them to say 'species' populations' . I think populations is important to have in there because just species could be translated as individuals (although a good biologist would not see it that way) and you really want to look at the potential impact on the local population of the subject species. Sorry, this is why it takes me so long to review the code changes! Will my comments be useful later this week? I hope so! Good luck at Planning Commission. Celine LeBeau Van Horn Engineering and Surveying (970) 586-9388 x14 Olin From: Alison Chilcott [mailto:achilcott@estes.org] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:49 PM To: Celine LeBeau Cc: Bob Joseph Subject: Wildlife and Habitat Protection Celine, At the last Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commission asked staff to contact biologists/ecologists and ask for feedback about the draft wildlife and habitat protection code language. I have attached the latest draft. In particular Planning Commission was interested in feedback about whether we are asking the right questions to evaluate significant adverse impact. I've added the term "significant adverse impact" back into to the draft code language, but defined it. Planning Commission also wondered what the terms "population" versus "species" means to a biologist/ecologist. The language in the code originally referred to the "health and viability of wildlife species in the Estes Valley" but now refers to "health and viability of wildlife populations in the Estes Valley." I will have tried to contact Michael Figgs and will also contact Burt Cushing. Thanks. Just let me know if you do not have time or are not comfortable providing a response to this email. 1 From: Mark Elrod Sent: Fliday, January 23,2009 4:55 PM TO: Karen Thompson Ce: Alison Chileott Subject: "Qualified Biologist" 2Estes Valley Planning Commission Consideration When reviewing how to define "Qualified Biologist" for the Estes Valley Development Code the Commission was advised by Directot Joseph that Colorado has no licensing or certification requirements. The Commission was advised by a local Ph.D. Biologist Ecologist that there are in fact some organizations and associations to which certain biologist may belong, but cautioned the Commission that just because such groups exist does not mean that very qualified biologist belong to such groups. That being said it would appear that 'IQualified Biologisf' needs to be defined for the purposes of our Code based upon education, training, geographic experience, and length of service. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has reviewed "Biological Scientists. See www.bls.aov/oco/ocos047.htm . In this report various biologist are referenced; Aquatic; Marine; Biochemist; Botanists; Microbiologists; Physiologists; Biophysicsts; Zoologist; Wildlife; and Ecologists. In 2006 they estimated there were 87,000 biological scientists employed in the United States. The Bureau went on to discuss training. They mentioned that a Ph.D. degree is usually necessary for independent research; a master's degree is sufficient for applied research, or inspection, or research technician or teacher; a bachelor's degree is adequate for some nonresearch positions. This is what led me to suggest that the term "Qualified Biologist" be an individual with a master's degree or a Ph,D because of the research aspect. Again keeping in mind no Colorado state licensing <_ or certifications are required for research. If we believe that our community is unique, and that the Colorado Rocky Mountains add to that uniqueness, then the requirement that for the purposes of our Code that this person possess experience and expertise in identification of natural habitats and vegetative communities in the Colorado Rocky Mountains makes immanent sense. However, to go on to suggest that in the Director's sole discretion a biologist deemed to have experience in habitats "comparable" to the Colorado Rocky Mountains is qualified seems to run contrary to our belief that our community is unique. Now we are saying there could be "comparable" habitats to our "unique" one. This seems to be an oxymoron. I further believe this opens up the possibility of getting into the situation of "my jun is bigger than your gun" expert opinion shopping. I believe we really want to avoid that at al[ cgsts. It would also seem to suggest that qualified biologists with Colorado Rock Mountain experience do not exist. I am not hearing that argued, so why open the door to finding someone with "comparable" experience? I believe the Commission has every right to require the education, length of experience, and geographic exposure to define "Qualified Biologist" and not deprive anyone using such for the purposes of our Code just because comparable is not recognized. Thank you for allowing me to clarify the comments made to the Commission at their last meeting on January 20, 2009. 1 would further appreciate that the Commission be provided with these comments as well. C Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court . Estes Park, CO 80517 51 12Â©EOVE - Iii .-~~ f: JAN 2 0 2009 1 Estes Valley Planning Commission Tuesday, January 20,2009 1 06 1- Proposed Development Code Section 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection Comments From Mark D. Elrod 675 Summerset Court, Estes Park, Colorado The term "qualified biologist" is used seven times in this proposed Code section. See section 7.8 (D); 7.8 (E); 7.8(F) (1) (a) and (b); and section 13.3. In Section 7.8(1) (a) a "qualified biologist" must be mutually agreed to by an applicant and the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director is required to maintain a list of qualified biologists. 0 Section 13.3 provides "The Community Development Director at his sole discretion shall have discretion to approve blologist with at least two (2) year experience in habitats comparable to the Colorado Rocky Mountains." My concern is that in the unlikely event that we may have a less qualified Community Development Director than Mr. Joseph; these provisions seem to unreasonably empower the Community Development Director to make decisions over who wouldbe qualified to assist an applicant or our Town in providing biological information. It seems to me that to take any kind of aÂ®eat'atice of partiality out of the hands of Community Development Director the term."qualified biologlst" should speak for itself, as defined by education, training, geographic experience, length of service, etc. To frame an analogy it is as if the Code were to allow for the employment of an attorney by an applicant, as long as the attorney was one approved by the Community Development Director in his sole discretion as qualified. I would suggest the following changes to 7.8(F) (1) (a)...The assessment shall be prepared by a qualified biologist mutually agreed to bythc Community Development Director and the applicant. ...The 50 7.06 L f. '. 1 - Community Development DepartmenDAa#-may maintain a list of qualified biologists known to it.from time to time from which selections may be made. I would suggest the following changes to 13.3 ...Qualified Biologist shall mean a biologist holding a mastefs degree in biology, or higher, from an accredited United States university, with two (2) or more years of demonstrated experience and expertise in identification of natural habitats and vegetative communities in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Thc CommunitY Dcvclopmcnt Director at his cole discretion to approve brologist with at least two (2) Years experience in habitats comparable to the Colorado Rocky Mountains. These suggestions focus on the qualifications of the biologist to the Colorado Rocky Mountain area and remove any potential allegation of partiality from the Community Development Director. j 49 I am a retired stream ecologist and have studied streams for over 40 years. It is well-known in our science, and backed by a wealth of scientific research, that a river or stream reflects the valley that it drains because of the linkages between the terrestrial and aquatic environments. These linkages include groundwater, surface runoff, canopy drainage, organic matter inputs, flooding, and others. This has led to the truism "the stream is the valley;" a healthy, unperturbed landscape will produce a healthy, normally functioning stream. Thus, any impacts to a stream's valley or environment will eventually be reflected in the stream itself. The closer the impact, the quicker it will be manifested in changes in the stream, and the greater the magnitude of the impacts, the greater will be the impacts within the stream. Thus the question before the Planning Commission is not whether there will be impacts, but how severe they might be. The further you stay away from the shoreline, the less severe will be potential impacts. C. E. Cushing 0 :-7 l-32*22F i Town Resident |~ JAN 10 2009 d L,N 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 4J li-3 t 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 code change to the Wildlife & Habitat Protection sections of the EVDC. In addition a significant change to the ADU regulation has been proposed by the Planning Staff and an Open Space Study is waiting for the Town Board to approve funding. These are all complex topics 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 result 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. 4L 1 +3 Proposed solution: Adding a t8ncept 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 ofADUs 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". 45 563 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 discussion 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 identify areas of 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, 0 Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court 49 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.) 1 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 want& Estes Park to be like "everybody else" in terms of growth and development at the expense of every$hing else. But I believe we have the responsibility to be more-carâ‚¬Ailsteuwrds of this natural-world gift that makes us so unique. I believe that most valley residents want their l. 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. 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 Npping 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 migration 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. I 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. U 1 ~46%-ESTES VALLEY-244- CONTUACTORS AN ASSOCIATION OF CONSTRUCION 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 folioging 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 26th. 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 add2essed prior tb 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 largermap 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 sliould be identified. 2. If the suggestions above are followed, it should be relatively easy to provide some graphic and statistical information telated to the amount of lahd 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) 580-6190 4 2- 21 Â·rk 1 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. Preferably the adopted map would delineate all properties required to provide a site specific 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 restrictions", 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 requirements 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 variancest %hey have a reasonable chance of success. The proposed code amendment does not afford proberty 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, 2!! 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 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 intermittent 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 U1 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 reyision represents a major step forward in updating and clarifying this portion ofthe Estes Valley Development Code, and I appreciate the time and consideration that Staff'has obviously put into this draft. Specific Comments: 1. Section 7.4.C.1: isthereaneed to clarify what we mean by, or provide specific definitions for, private and public open areas? 2. Section 7.5.H.4.: Good upgrades! 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 hi*hest 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 Gieat thankkforihcludingboth "important" habitatand "critical" habitat in Section 1. This is a very important addition. o Good clarification of Stalfand DOW roles in Section 2. Thid really clarifies this part ofthe review process. o In Section 4, rectinmend 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):1 o Many good additidns and clarijications. o Very hhppy to kie 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. Regner.thillv mhhmitted, -RECEDÂ¥[ED , 4on Norris ift NOV 1 8 2008 11'Jl 1905 Cherokee Drive ~:4ESTES VALLEY-2~44 -------- 125 ASSOCIATION DATE: November 12,2008 TO: Members of the Estes Valley Planning Commission FROM: Mike Menard, President, Estes Valley Contractors Association 31Â£76-/ft.~ RE: Comments on the Proposed Revisions To Chapter 7 EVDC (Wildlife) The Architects, Engineers and Designers Committee of the Estes Valley Contractors Association has reviewed the proposed revisions to the Development Code relating to Wildlife as attached to Bob Joseph's memo to you dated October 16,2008. We have identified some items of concern which we believe should have considerable discussion prior to adoption of these revisions and we would urge the Commission to not act to adopt these changes without having this discussion. Some ofthe items we have identified include: â€¢ A clear definition of a "riparian habitat" in the code. â€¢ Would the proposed setbacks apply to all the Creeks, etc. in the Valley as opposed to just the major river systems? â€¢ There is a section on wetlands in the code. How does a riparian habitat differ from a wetland habitat and should the two sections of the code be combined in some manner? â€¢ The "Estes Valley Habitat Assessment" document suggests different setbacks than the proposed code. Will the document be changed to be consistent with whatever is approved? â€¢ "The types of fencing... shall be determined by staff..." We believe this should be clearly defined in the Code. â€¢ What criteria will be used by the Planning Commission in issuing a finding as to whether a conservation plan addresses adverse impacts? Is the Planning Commission qualified to issue this finding? For example, are 30 foot open corridors between buildings adequate or are 50 foot widths needed? â€¢ In general, we believe better definitions of the acceptable conditions for decision making by the Applicant, Staff and Commission are needed. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. The Association stands ready to assist in these deliberations. As Chair of the Committee, you may contact John Spooner if you wish to discuss further (586-9388 ext. 15). PO box 2942, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 - (970) 586-6190 Tili,9*1~014'*Winli~/vi ~14.- i /'. i. - 1 Of- 1- 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 ofthe 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 Chanees: 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. 1/7 3K 2- 2- 2__ 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 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 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 implement all the above recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Ron Norris, President Association for Responsible Development 31 E Â© IE_11-~--I-~-ii~ g ~| NOV 18 2008 1 November 18, 2008 2-2/1 .. 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 of thought 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 o f 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 of the development, but the meaning of this phrase is very different for each of the parties involved in evaluating an~f application and a Wildlife and Habitat Conservation PlanT 0 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 ofthis paragraph. "Staff shall refer. in writinfr, the submitted application and Wildlife and Habitat ConservatiorfPlan to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for their review. 5. Section 7.8.F.4 (Review Bodv & Decision-Making Procedures) - This section <_-7 states the Decision-Making Body will issue a finding as to whether the application 36 2-_ +2_ - and the Wildlife & Habitat Conservation Plan comply with the code and adequately mitigate the adverse impacts. What ifthe 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, Eli. Fled R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court @Â·12Â©Eovfr~ -~ NOV 1 8 2008 | | 1 3 C To: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners From: Estes Valley Improvement Association Date: October ~t, 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 you 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 tbis revision more clearly states our concerns. While only a start, we would hope that you would use this document as an addendum to El)AW's EV Habitat Assessment in making future planning commission decisions. Sincerely, AA- Uttle-*lt 'p Alice Gray EVIA President @{EÂ©EDVEr=\\ ~~ OCT 10 2008 I I J} [ 14-3 < RECOMMENDATIONS to the ' ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION by the ESTES VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION October ~, 2008 To study the Estes Valley habitat is to try to understand the interrelationsbip of human 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"EV' to indicate the value within the Estes Valley, rather than'GS" or "G" to indicate generaliued 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 Drotection; - it is those unprotected by federal or state laws that we must protect on our own. 1. ELK AND ELK CORRIDORS: Elk: CEV-5, 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 ofwildlife/habitat interrelationships and tourism. Elk Comdors: CEM-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 inthe Assessment lhe Elk Habilat & Migralion 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 olher corridors not mentioned in the Assessment, as well. 2. ASPEN AND W[LLOW: Aspen: (EF-1) Aspen is of very "high value" because of it's importance to elk, beaver and other interrelated wildlife. (Forinstance, aspenisanimportant breeding habitatformam,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- 3 -1 1 4_3 Valley. (See Map 2 ofthe AssessmenO Obviously the overpopulation ofelk has decimated the c aspen stands. Most of the 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 /"Criticallv imperiled" and be considered as the highest prioritÂ¥ level for protection. Carr Willow Â¢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 afF-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 of aspen and/or 1hose disturbed bv man. Beaver habitats must also be given significant importance in developmental decisions. Again, the inteirelationship of aspen, willow, elk and beaver is a good example ofthe mutual dependability ofthese vanous species. 4. BIRTH[NG DOMAIN. RIPARIAN AREAS. SETBACKS AND PROTECT[ON AREAS â€ž,4): CI) 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 innuhlerable mammals and birds (only a few qfwhich are listed below) takes place in fhe lower altitude of Estes Valley and is key to maintnining the vitality of numerous kinds ofwildlife in the broader region. Known birthing domains of all species must be a part ofall development considerations. While town dev610pment plam 6~ention protectton oi wetlands, th* 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 FOODSOURCES: All of these species form significant parts oftheecological interrelationship. It would take considerable time to prove tbis point in writing, Oust one example would ihe be broad-tailed hummingbirds that breed in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, aspen and riparian woodlands) 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. 0 -2- ?L 3 0 - CONCLUSIONS 1. Until a more comprehensive habitat study can be done, we recommend that this document be added to the Assessment 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 loss, - 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 itis veiy 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.from the valley.) 4. Rather than paying large sums of money to outside environmental firms who may not understand the specific wildlife and habitat challenges wilhin our Valley, We stron,lv recommend a Cikens Committee of local interested individuals to embark upon a vallev-wide. in-depth habitat studv ofthe nriorities of our own biogeographical 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. Eveiytime any area, large or small, is impacted byhuman development or activities, that big or little bit of habitat 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 fbod sources will be plentiful; and that connectivity between deer and elk conidors will remain intact 100 years fromnow. 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 to enjoy, not only for generations but for centuries to come. r Ai (14 1~ t- Alice Gray, President Estes Valley Improvement Association -3- 115 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 Summarv 1. The hydrological information on the maps, and the resulting assumptions, is flawed. 2. Notice to current or future real estate owners of the impacttof the maps on development of such real estate is in fact neither actual nor constructive as proposed. Â£-Th ( 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 ass"mption thlit maps of Estes Valley Develophient Code are scientific and accurate. 4. There appears to be no clear responsibility or duty on any public employee, official, department, board or commission t, dorrect errors in the maps of the Estes Valley Development Code when proven. Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO 80517 ~ OCT 1 5 200A I~ 3o r - Estes Valley Plaaminag Commission C Curreimt Proposals for Chamges te the Estes Val][ey Development Code Block 12 Amendments - Wildlife Habit Protection Adoption of the Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment October 21, 2008 Details 1. The hvdrologicalinformation 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 existpnce 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 ducing 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 enough".) 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. (When you, a friend or a neighbor purchased real estate, did you or they first check ( 1 79 3 4-_5 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? Didyou find out abou[t the recorded zoning and recorded easdments? I bet yofi 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 1 ' r 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 pretillint: attitude df the C6mmunitv Development Denartment is one of an asiumption that maps of Estes Vallev Development Code are ,. scientific aideacdurate: 7Once a map is adopted as a part of the Development Code it appears that should a land owner wish to challenge the veracity of a 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 you arm the Community Development Department with the need to uphold the validity of a map when dealing with land 5 j owners. By adopting a flawed map you are ultimately 19 2 - t 'p shifting the need to dispute the map to a land owner to be c 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 efror. ][s 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 nublic employee. official. department. board or commission to correct errors in the maps of the Estes Valley 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 employees official department, board or commission to see that errors or misrepresentations on Development Code maps ate rectified? Where is there any responsibility to cdrrect 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?) 37 3 51-5 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 Code 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 1 l. 1 4 ' ESTES VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. P.O. 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 of 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, 4*7>3;GAGAQ-, ECEOVE 1 Bryan Michener ~SEP 3 0 2008 IICI Vice-President, E.V.I.A. cc: Mayor Pinkham Town Trustees ~~ Printed on Recycled Paper TO: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners FROM: Estes Valley Improvement Association Date: September 16, 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 openspace will include wild life and give much more detailed consider- ation to specie specific habitat issues, biodiversity, and impact on habitat from invassive weeds to mouhtair pine beetle control. We also reccomend citizen education concerning such issues.and our strongest reccomendation is the creation of a comma lity wide entity to collate wild life knowledge and provide advisory strategies and options for the Estes Valley Planning Commission. This advisory group should include or consult stakeholder groups and organizÂ·ations ...- as: Colorado Department of Wildlife, ( 1 (/ Rocky Mountain National Park, Roosevelt National Forest, Estes Cy Valley Recreation and Parks District, Town Parks, Estes Valley Land Trust, Estes Land Stewardship Association,, Larimer County Park, Estes Valley Improvement Association, Estes Tree Committee, The Nature Conservary 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 (Xeriscaping), animal rehabilitation (Greenwood), beaver relocation (Wildlife 2000) , school and nature groups, Macgregor Ranch, Cheley camp, YMCA, school groups and hiking plubs. Sincerely, CC: Mayor Pinkham 21&~19*,10)ki C X# ble 0 Town Trustees Bryan Michener Vice-President, E.V.I.A. f 4 D - C~oVE'9\ 1'. ' SEP 29 2008 a 24 10) EÂ©Eny [@11'1\. To: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners From: Estes Valley Improvement Association 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. 1 lth, 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 J 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 assessment 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," Ipg. 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 only 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. 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. (For instance, aspen is an important breeding habitatfor 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 mav not be reflected in the resource studies included in this Assessment. We believe that Estes Vallev aspen should rank as the highest level priority 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 fincluding 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 riparian woodlands.) Nothing was included about the importance of bee and bird pollinators; berries; flowers; noxious C f weeds; monarch and other butterflies; milkweed and other food sources. 21- -2- 3 3-5 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 streams, 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 ( - which was the only area outside the town limits thdt was studied when the EVPC was established) (one copy of which is being submittedfor your reference) *Note: We find it interesting that: a) Along with multiple other agencies, the YMCA helped plan and voluntarily signed onto the principles of the Spur 66 Plan, which included: - the preservation of rural atmosphere along Spur 66; - the elk habitat and migration corridor through 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,Airnished copies last year when other Spur 66 residents voiced concerns regarding the proposed development in the aspen gr"ove 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. 1 4] - and made only passing mention of the high value of aspen or beaver. - 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 alreadv readilv available to the Planning Commissioners. 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, mannots have almost completely disappearedfrom the valley) and colild 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 Cbmmissioners, hold in your hands the duty of good stewardship of the flora and fauna of our land - to assure tile continued health of the abundant Estes Valley wildlife habitat that residents, tourists and biologists holdio dear - and will hopefully be able to enjoy, not only for generations but for centuries to come. Sincerely, Alice Gray EVIA President CC: Mayor Pinkham Town Trustees Attachment: Figure 6, from the Spur 66 Mgmt. Plan. Also provided: One copy of the Spur 66 Management Plan, 1996 for your reference. 00 -4- 5 +5 t Z NUE O - HM :IM . 0 0 < .m, E-1 0 W -4 4 62< 6 -< = *3NMEME 0 & A : 4< 4 0< Owe Â¥-; â‚¬4 Â¢9 ~4 â€¢ri d ri 4 *2*2 #513Â°40 T rÂ« 80 f 10 ///11 g. .. Z U . I I ki Dll ./. i ' 1 a .3 - /// 1 k<1.- :FEli Â·' I / CÂ·i , - - 1/ ......I--- U - .... -1 . 1-1 ..1 P. . /3~> 1. . / 1Â¥. %-1 .t -1 i. / i .11!, e/V, t . 1 ; 1 4 2 - . , Â·. 2Â·: 12.11.Ll g . 4.- I 4% M *00/. 1 4. MÂ¢\ Alik V p I : 1'-=iN 1 1 f \ \X. . RINE FALCON NESTIT 1SGIN 3.110 a:IN ViDIV DATILSGIN Figure 6 AN0100 AVER POND DNI 153M liI 'I a MOGI-E[-203 99 21 1 113 Association for ResDonsible 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 ofthe 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 fof 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 cbnservation (page 3) e) This assessment is aimed at identifying the resources that are most important to sustaining the wildlife resources ofthe Valley (page 7) 0 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 ofhabitat patches and linkages thatdollectivelv 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 ofwhat the maps show. We support this recommendation, but also recommend that the Town and Cowlty develop a plan, budget, and timing for updating these maps. @ECEDVE,7 0 SEP 1 6 2008 ~:~ JU /9 3_Ji-_3 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 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 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, 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. i7 3 *-3 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 on page 16 ofthe Wildlife Habitat Assessment. 7) Require an annual audit, by a team including members of the Planning Commission, l- j 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 notconsider 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 submittet Ron Norris, President Association for Responsible Development 16 1 + a 0 ~*(DEDVE-3 ~ft SEP 1 6 2008 1,!~ Estes Valley I-Ialitat 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 verification of information used in this report". "We analyzed existing inforniation, 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 am what is the basis or source of the undeilying map used in 1996 to oveilay the Wildlife Habitat information, and consequently what is the basis or source of the underlying maps used in their report on which they ovedaid their information? What is GIS? It is a geographic data base. It does no research or scientific verification of infotmation. It is an aggregation, not a generation, of geogtaphic 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 of December 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 ofthe 1996 Plan carries the footnote ... "The map is a general representation of wildlife and related hydrologic systems within the Estes VaUey. The information depicted on this map is subject to scientific verification and may be revised as more accurate information becomes available." )-5 1 + lo The cautionary tale... We purchased a lot in 2004. We noted a dry swale mnning 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 stteams would prohibit us from building our home. The Â«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 query. 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 Â«inteimittene' stream was defined as "containing water only part of the year" 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 "intemlittent" was defined as "containing water for only part of the year, but more than just after rainstorms and snowmeW', they further coined a new term Â«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 snowmelf'. On any new USGS maps a wash would not be denoted on their maps. In an undated report John Conroy, USGS National Mapping Program 4 ~ Standards Team, concluded in his report '<we like to remind people that stream 14 3 k i D - 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 according to the USGS is not based on science, and has 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 Â«High Value Habitat" by vinue of a mapped stream corridor through our lot that in fact does not exist The best advice youhavebeen givenbyEDAW 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 obmined from available sources and is subject to site-specific verification and refinemene'. Not unlike the footnotes to the maps used for the original 1996 Plan. But the maps were adopted as part ofthe Code without such cautionary footnote. So the Community Development Department evidently has no ability to question the veracity of a map of the Code. If you adopt these maps as part of the Code you must do so realizing the impact to the public. The cautionary tale continued... 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 vatiances necessary to build our home after a two hour presentation from us and our other professional advisors to show the science and fact 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 L.3 4 4 1 0 costly and time consuining 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 ofmap 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 mnning though it -5 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 actu01 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 of Adjustment, there is no resulting report from the Community Development Department to this Commission to maire changes to the Maps of the Code. The maps of the Code stay static. lL 51- to 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 G flo .. ......Wl. -*stes Vaffey- - 1-27-, 5 QÂ®1~hensive Plan.,Â£- 7//-99- .f . /u:,ir 12115:-A~--7Â·Â»N_ Â·?~Â·'4,4- .><,~mt,Â·-,7-' 7 . .2'*:Â·A+Fi A..:- h o.Â·-:. I ..,. 'I''c.i .,Â·~ ~1 4/irrÂ· - : 3,/4 tÂ·i- 'ri~ .....74642,& b :/ 2 pr&-'- 1 ' .1 'L,47.1.-1 4 f:. -'. 1 4341Â»:- 25Lin Â« ~7130 -*r- _ fl~~ J..1~ ~~*4.6:1 ./ Naliorial : r.., + L .1 - i lA...9 ' 1 Park Â·: - .' ./ : : . J Â·â‚¬* iÂ·-6- '1*-.'14'iâ€¢i 1& i An-Â· ~3--Â·2 4%+~. 4111 111.....,.4.JÂ·Â· .1 -'~-Â·Â· h V. I 1 -- 4.T r i n 5- Â¢*49'K'.3 -'. .'I ' I ' 4 .' '.... * 4**41: .:Â· k~.../.0 - Â· il ' 1/,~â‚¬4-k ' ' .'' *"1 ;241 :11. 4 1''i! '1â€¢ ,t~ 0'- 33Â£#Â·.2.4 3*#*4*1Â· i. U'43'. 1 -" ._Â»3:01 5*..i Â«t .1-*,rv,:63;Fpri><ff.Â·9.9.21'..pr.. 4.. 1.1 fit, itÂ«Offil . I. #'.': 'I ' - . , Ugend n HIÂ® UY Ungum 11:bilit Sham and Nic/Contdors Topoomplly i Â£31 010 HomSImp Int~mimot SCSIDS 1016.Â©o,.1 1 0 Oar A'' Strlar= and flheâ€¢ WeD*m .0 8Â¥,nar, Sys"ms,IHablt,1 P,lour, hkrament Co,rtdon A.' 02. ,-~,Â· Elk E 1 1 Wildlife Habitat 6/ 11.ft,y Co'/pi'h//*MP;:â€¢ -1 REVISED. Dec. 12.1996 1-,gl..........k. . Thil mlph * 01â€¢â€¢flt ~mes~n-n ot-ile hâ€¢kitat -nl-1 tr/*01+ â€¢rtem,uU*1 - Esto, Vek, ,-4.-Ill... Th,In//1=/eaa /4/1/1/d M - //p b o~blict 1,01*0 10/i//verlk,5,~ -1 -, be irthod - r~re ~cact/*/ Ink-â€¢046 6,/0- ///1.24 10 7 of- 10 'ley Stream & River Lornaors xesource Map . - Â· Â· - E- fil'.'I//19.1/2;5".peâ€¢â€¢- -m'â€¢,4/tiN,9*M:/f///AliÂ«-5Â¤73/:2*9~*Ms- -'----*4 7--- - - 1 --=:*:r..:Â·al.....m'12*=~ . 11 /1 '1 1 , - Â·-3Â£Â·.râ„¢'ll'~ 4-2~~~L - '."119 P 12 1 1-1 1 - JI dix"ELL Estes Valley Stream & River Corridors Resource Map d Stream and River Corridor Resou rce Map 7-1#40=:AbH@i .-*41 nly L r.& 44:2~ 1 AU-%4 13 4,~&4 1 70Â£94-,11>- ---r- 74 326* ' Â· flrÂ·Â·,. r i 'Cm.*1 11 lili'* < . i L A. ,\-4. -2.-1 : - h , f 423 --1.4*:.#ia'.1 4 1 4, - '01 x r 42 \NÂ·1 1:,4= Lk, 1---f'-t--> a,&811 ~t--1-- / #wal - 1 1-:- 1.1-3 -41.11114 ~ / ./ Streams.shp E---1 Ep_limits.sh p 14 Alteriat.shp 1 N ponds_takes.shp W E 24 Pri rivers.shp Update.shp s l 9 http://www.estesnet.com/comdev/StreamsR]versMap.aspx Page 1 of U. 4'S'.:I.-- 4*-/.:'IÂ»0444:'ll'.Â·445:..iGÂ·6'UC.:::.:92/WZI"lk/:'I:/:I.':':::DÂ·Ik~Il;f./.&./.'ul. ra~'w,/'.Ill:.I.--*.Ii.<----- I-*I--44'.gâ€¢!7.926*./- "1'&0 ./ FL i co 4 - HYDROGRAPHY Our standards web address is http://mapping.usgs.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 fo116wing 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-sdale, 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 combiled in source position meet NMAS for horizontal accuricy. 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 /-77-N compiled as beginning'1,000 feet from the saddle or divide. Over the years, the length requirement for streams has changed from L-/' 1,500 feet to 2,500 feet., Also, we used to show all perennial streams, regardlesd..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' 16kes/ponds or springs. The current (1996) Â·standards 'say: If STREAM/RIVER flows froin'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 exclusiv4ly 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 9 + lo_ 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 year, 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 (Tonoqraphic Instructions. Chapter 3A6. MaDDina Of Hydrograohic 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 Topoaraohic Instructions. Chapter 3M. Hydrographic Features. The definitions were changed to: 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 487. There were no other revisions to the standard at this time. In 1980, the standard was renamed Tonograghic Instructions. Chal,ter 47,5. Hydrographic Features on 1:24.000-Scale Maps, 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 Ouadrangle Maos. Part 2: Hvdrograohv, 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 i ust af ter 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 1 to i 10 In 1996, the Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Granhs and Ouadrangle Mans were updated, but the definitions for perennial and intermittent streams remained the same. That being said, we like to remind people that stream classification whs 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 i conrov@usgs.gov (573) 308-3804 0 Page 3 of 3 (0 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: I have reviewed the document entitled Estes FaUey 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 ofa select few previously published documents. One problem, of course, 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 C no field verification. It is beyond the scope ofthis correspondence to identify each shortcoming in the text. However, there are several glaring omissions. e 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 of Estes Park would seek inclusion ofthese points before release ofthe Final Report. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Sincerely, 32fieritI â‚¬72- ........ Estes Valley Resident 3*-Â© Im 0 VIE 3\ ~ SEP 15 2008 4-- -1 g. l.31-4 September 13, 2008 ./ Dear Estes Valley Planning Commissioners, (cc: Mayor Pinkham, Town Trustees) Re: Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, August 2008 As a wildlifb 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, inoluding 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 of existing 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 ifrelevant to the process of identifying, evaluating, and strategizing ibr the protection of important wildli& habitat inthe Estes Valley. This is not an original assessment it is not comprehensive, localized ground- trut}led, or visionary. It does not contain information about the condition or management of habitat, nor does it talk about ortakeinto account'trends. It spends less space talking ~h about the fi,11 suite ofwildlilb 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 of the 'thighest valuB habitat" resources are currently protected. This ihabsolutely a blse contention, as thereare many areas, at varying scales, which contain important wildlife habitatthroughoutthe Valley whichcouldand should be protected through various actidns. [For instance, there is no specific mention ofthe YMCA's Estes Park Center property, which contains important riparian habitat wildlifb corridors, and a surrounding"green" buffer which should be in a'conservation easement, a particularly ironic omission since EDAW also produced the Y's Master Plan.] However, that conclusive statement, buried as it is, is likely the outcome the Town wanted 1br its money because it means no fUrther actionis needed to protect ivildlife habitat in the Estes Valley, and thereibm 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. Carol Beidleman 3245 Tunnel Road Estes Park, CO 80517 .. . 9 1 44-4 - 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 Abert'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-tailed Weasel Badger Mountain Lion Bobcat American Elle (including calving areas) Mule Deer (including fawning areas) BIRDS Great Blue Heron Canada Goose Mallard Common Goldeneye Turkey Vulture Sharp-shinned Hawk ' Cooper's Hawk 3%-CEDÂ¥[El'11 Northern Goshawk Red-tailed Hawk fi SEP 1 6 2008 ~ Golden Eagle ' 8 -? 3 6- 9 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 Pygmy Nuthatch Brown Creeper D- H A H 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 ~ Amendments to the Estes Valley ~ Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve - Vacation Homes & 8&8s Estes Park Community Development Department ~I==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: December 16, 2008 TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve REQUEST: To make a number of changes and corrections to the adopted Estes Valley Development Code relating to short-term rentals, such as bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes. LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the Town of Estes Park. APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph and Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: Staff has prepared Code revisions to address concerns expressed by residents about the impacts of short-term rentals, such as vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns, in residential neighborhoods. If approved, corresponding revisions will need to be made to the Municipal Code. These proposed Municipal Code revisions have been included for informational purposes and do not require action on the part of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Revisions to vacation home regulations, including revisions to the definition of accommodation use, guest room, guest quarter, household living, and nightly rental in EVDC Chapter 13, and revisions to distinguish between B&Bs and vacation home uses and the districts in which these uses are permitted. ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with strikethrough (abc do fghi jk Imn op qrstuv w 2. New text delineated with underline (abc de fqhi ik Imn op arstuv w xyz). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 1 . ITEM 1: SHORT-TERM RENTALS: BED AND BREAKFAST INNS AND VACATION HOMES Section 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. Additional Regulations 0 (Apply in All Use Classification Specific Use . Districts Unless "S" = Permitted by Special Review "-" = Prohibited Otherwise RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Stated) ACCOMMODATION USES 4 Bed and Breakfast S Low-Intensity Inn ------Â£ P Â§5.1.B Accommodations Vacation Home 22Â£2222Â£ Â§5.1.8 Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Nonr,sidelitial Zoning Districts "F' = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Special Review Use â€ž_" = Prohibited Additional Regulations (Apply Classific in All Districts Unless Otherwise ation Specific use A A-1 CD CO O CH. I.1 Stated) . I ACCOMMODATION USES Bed and Â§5.1.B. In CD, such use shall not breakfast Pppp-- be located on the ground floor of a inns building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue In CD, such use shall not be Hotel, Small - P P located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue Low- Â§5.1.B Intensity Accommoda In CD, such ilse shall not be tions located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn NighÂ® Avenue Reali*16 -PP - - - - â€¢Short term and long term nightly Vacation Home rentals allowed as a principal use - in a residential dwelling unit â€¢See also Table 5 2 which allows nightly rentals as an accessory use to a dwelling unit in the A 1 and 1 99-00#4%440*FiGM Revision Date: December 5,2008 2 Resort lodge/cabins -P__-- - Â§5.1.P , low- intensity Section 5.1 Specific Use Standards B. Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home. All bed and breakfast inn uses shall be subject to the following standards: 1. Structures shall not be altered in a way that changes their general residential ap13eal:allee- 2. If four (1) or more off street parking spaces are provided pursuant to Â§7.11, visual screening from adjacent residential uses shall be required. 3. Other than registered guests, no meals shall be served to the general public. No cooking or kitchen facilities shall be allowed in the guest rooms. 1. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall be subiect to the following (see Â§5.1.B.2 and Â§5.1.B.3 for additional regulations): a. Annual Operating Permit. 1 (1) All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall obtain an operating permit on an annual basis. If the property is located within Town limits, the business license shall be considered the permit. If the property is within the unincorporated Estes Valley a permit shall be obtained from the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department. (2) The permit shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted and is available twenty-four (24) hours per day. with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the agent of the owner for all purposes with regard to the operation of the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home . b. State Sales Tax License. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall obtain a state sales tax license. c. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20. d. Residential Character. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential use i of a dwelling unit by one household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: Revision Date: December 5,2008 3 (1) Design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale. mass. and character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential use. (2) Guest rooms shall be integrated within the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. (3) Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms. (4) Accessory buildings shall not be used for amenities beYond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. (5) No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate each bed and breakfast inn or vacation home, except that one (1) wall-mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted. (6) Vehicular traffic and noise levels shall not be out of character with residential use. e. Parking. (1) Minimum Required Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, the number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing a bed and breakfast inn or a vacation home shall not be reduced to less than two (2). (2) Maximum Allowed Parking. No more than three (3) vehicles shall be parked outside at any one (1) time. Vehicles enclosed within a garage do not count towards this maximum. On-street parking shall be prohibited. Refer to Â§5.2.B.2.f, which mav further limit the number of vehicles permitted on site. f. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See Â§5.2.C.2.a). g. Attainable Housing Units. Attainable housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See Â§11.4.E). h. Accessory Dwelling Units. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be permitted on residential lots containing an accessorv dwelling. (See also Â§5.2.B.2.a which prohibits rental of accessory dwelling units regardless of the length oftenancy). Revision Date: December 5,2008 4 i. CD District. In the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district. such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. j. Density. Only one vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall permitted per residential dwelling unit. 2. All bed and breakfast inns shall also be subiect to the following: a. OccupancY. (1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) guests shall occupy a bed and breakfast inn at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two guests. This is not intended to establish maximum occupancy limits for individual rooms within a bed and breakfast inn. For example. three individuals could be accommodated in one bedroom and one individual in another (2) Number of Parties. Bed and Breakfast Inns. Bed and breakfast inns may be rented, leased or furnished to one (1) or more parties. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations may be operated on the site of a bed ( and breakfast inn. Bed and breakfast inns may also offer limited ancillary services to guests, such as performing small weddings or offering classes/workshops to guests, provided they are in character with residential use. c. Housekeeping Services. Bed and breakfast inns shall be permitted to provide daily housekeeping services to guests. d. Meal Service. Bed and breakfast inns maY provide meals service to registered guests; however, meals shall not be provided to the general public. 3. All vacation homes shall also be subiect to the following: a. Occupancy . (1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) individuals shall occupy a vacation home at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) individuals per bedroom plus two individuals. This is not intended to establish maximum occupancy limits for individual rooms within a bed and breakfast inn. For example. three individuals could be accommodated in one bedroom and one individual in another Revision Date: December 5,2008 5 (2) Number of Parties. Vacation homes shall be rented. leased or furnished to no more than one fl) party. One (1) party shall consist of related and/or non-related individuals occupying the vacation home as a group, for example. a familY or group of friends vacationing together or a group of business associates. Owners of the vacation home shall not be permitted to occupy the vacation home while a party is present. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of a vacation home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests, (See Â§5.2.B.2.d). c. Housekeeping Services. Vacation homes shall be permitted to provide housing services only at the beginning and end of a party' s stay. d. Meal Service. Vacation homes shall not provide meal service to registered guests or the general public. Section 5.2.B.1 Accessorv Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. Table 5-1: Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" =Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM .. Requirements NighU+Rental* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Â§5.2.B.2.g Vacation Home 45.1.B Section 5.2.B.2 Additional Requirements for Specific Accessorv Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts d. Home Occupations. (4) Operational: (k) Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of a vacation home and/or accessory dwelling unit. (See Â§5.1.B and Â§5.2.B.2.a). e. Rentals. (1) Long term rentals (lease terms of thirty [30] days or more) of a principal or accessory residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zoning districts. (2) Short term nightly rentals (lease terms of less than thirty [30] days) of a l principal residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all Revision Date: December 5,2008 6 residential zoning districts, provided that the following conditions are met. All permitted short term remals of dwelling units shall be required to: (a) Comply with all the conditions and requirements as set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapters 5.20 and 5.35, and (b) Obtain a business license if within Town limits f. Storage or Parking of Vehicles, Recreational Equipment and Recreational Vehicles. (7)Bed and Breakfast Inns and Vacation Homes. See Â§5.1.B which further limits vehicle storage and parking for dwelling units that are permitted as a bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. Revision Date: December 5,2008 7 Section 5.2.C.1 Accessorv Uses/Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zonink Districts. Table 5-2: Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts . Nonresidential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional , 1-6, Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Requirements Nfghtly*emals No Yes Yes No No No No Â§11=B Vacation Home In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue .AsÂ·-afee,+ef#-IN p*Reipal-Fe&4â‚¬lendal-1:16e enly, â€¢Whe-&heFMGFRifightly rental of a dwelling unit as an accessory use in the A I and CD districts shall 9*be-subjeeMe-the requirements of Â§5.2.8.2.g abever â€¢See also Table 1 1 which pe'mit&Â·4**ly rentals as a Drincipal use e#*-dwe#ingÂ·tH1441+Â·the A--4-*Rd-â‚¬D-ze#ing â‚¬Ii#FiG#&- Section 5.2.D General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. 4. Maximum Building or Structure Size for Nonresidential Uses. Except as otherwise expressly limited or allowed in this Section, and except for structures containing accessory nightly rentals and for accessory recreational facilities including swimming pools, freestanding accessory buildings and structures shall not be larger than one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. (Ord. 15-03 #1) Section 5.2.C.2a Employee Housing (4)Restrictive Covenant Required. (a) Employee housing units provided pursuant to this Section shall be deed restricted for a period of time no less than twenty (20) years to assure the availability of the unit for long-term occupancy only by employees of the principal business use. Such restriction shall include a prohibition of short-term rentals (less than thirty [30] days); see Â§5.1.B and/or rentals to the general public of the unit(s) except as otherwise allowed by this Section. Revision Date: December 5,2008 8 Section 7.11.D. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements The following Off-Street Parking Schedule establishes the minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be provided for the use categories described in this Code. , 9, . Miniknum Number'of Off-Street Parking Spaces : Off-Street + (See.Â§7.11.t above.fgr, boading Group f 1 Use Classification- r Specific Use v measurement rules) ' (See Â§7.11:N)- ACCOMMODATION USES . I ./ Bed and breakfast inns 1 per guest room + 2 spaces for Wa permanent residence Low-Intensity Hotel, Small 1 per guest room + 1 space per 3 n/a Accommodations employees Resort lodge/cabins, low- 2 per cabin or guest room + 1 space n/a intensity per 3 employees Section 11.4 Attainable Housing Density Bonus, E. Development and Design Standards. 4. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Attainable housing units shall not be leased-ep-Fented C rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see Â§5.1.B). Section 13.2.C Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. 1. Accommodations, Low-Intensity. a. General Definition: Visitor-serving facilities that provide temporary lodging for compensation, and with an average length of stay of less than thirty (30) days. (except for permitted long term nightly rentals see 2.b(3) below). Such facility shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a predominantly low-intensity and low-scale residential and/or rural setting. b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses: (1) Bed and Breakfast Inn: A detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied as a single accommodations unit for accommodations purposes for terms of less than thirty (30) days and is operator-occupied on a full-time basis. An establishment operated in an owner occupied, single family detached dwelling unit, or portion thereof (excluding accessory buildings), that provides lodging, with or without the service of a morning meal only, and where the operator lives on the premises. No more than eight (8) guests may be accommodated at any one (1) time. Accessory buildings shall not be used for guest quarters or amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor Feem-: Revision Date: December 5,2008 9 (2) Hotel, Small: An establishment containing no more than eight (8) guest rooms that provides temporary lodging with eating and drinking service and a dining room where meals are served. (3) Nightly-Remal* Nightly Rentals: In the A 1 or CD zoning districts, a single family, duplex or multi family dwelling unit that is leased for compensation, to provide temporary lodging for visitors and guests. The term of lease in this permitted principal nightly rental use may be either short term (less than thirty [30] days) or long term (thirty [30] days or more). See Â§5.2.B for nightly rentals allowed as an accessory use in the residential zoning districts. (4) Resort Lodges/Cabins, Low-Intensity: A tract of land under single ownership and management with no more than a total of twenty (20) guest rooms or guest units available for temporary rental. The guest rooms may be contained in a main "lodge" building and/or contained in detached, freestanding "cabin" structures (the latter freestanding structures shall not include recreational vehicles or mobile homes). A single structure shall contain no more than four (4) guest rooms or units. Guest rooms/units in a resort lodge/cabin use may contain full kitchen facilities in lieu of "limited kitchen facilities," but only if such guest rooms comply with all conditions set forth in Â§5.1.P of this Code. (5) Vacation Home. A residdntial dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied as a single accommodations unit for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days. Section 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases 6. Accommodations Use shall mean a commercial, visitor serving facility that provides temporary lodging in guest rooms or guest units, for compensation, and with an average length of visitor stay of less than thirty (30) days. Examples of accommodations uses include motels, hotels, bed and breakfast inns, resort lodges and hostels. A-pFReipal "nightly rental" use of a dwelling unit in the A 1 or CD zoning districts, as more specifically described in Â§ 13.2.C.2 of this Chapter, is an accommodations use. On the other hand, an accessory short term "nightly rental" use of a dwelling unit in a residential zoning district, as allowed by Â§5.2.B.2.g of this Code, is not an accommodations use. See also the definition of "guest room or unit" below. shall mean the rental, leasing, or occupancy of any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site, or other area in a visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging, such as any hotel, motel, guest house, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple-family dwelling, condominium unit, or any such similar place, to any person whom, for a consideration, uses, possesses, or has the right to use or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site, or other area for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. 18. Household Living. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 10 a. General Definition: A family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident care givers) living together in a single dwelling unit, with common access to and common use of allliving and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. Household living shall include occupancy bv a renter household for terms of thirtY (30) davs or more. Refer to " the definition of "accommodations use for renter occupancy for terms of less than thirty (30) days. b. Examples: This classification includes households living in single-family houses, duplexes, town homes, other multi-family dwelling structures, 117. Guest Quarters :hal\ mean living quarters with or without kitchen facilities for the use of temporary guests of the occupants of the single family dwelling. 118. Guest Unit or Guest Room shall mean: a. A room or suite of rooms in an accommodations use that contains sleeping and sanitary facilities and that may include limited kitchen facilities. With the exception of guest units or guest rooms in bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes, guest units or guest rooms may include limited kitchen facilities. b. For purposes of this definition, "limited kitchen facilities" shall mean a kitchen that is not contained in a separate room and that may have a sink and only the following appliances: (a) a refrigerator no larger than three and one-half (31/2) cubic feet; (b) a stove/oven no wider than twenty (20) inches; and/or (c) a microwave oven. 159. Nightly Rentals, Long Term shall mean the leasing of a principal or accessory dwelling unit for compensation and for a term of thirty (30) days or longer. See Â§ 13.2.C.2 for the description of a principal nightly rental use, and Â§5.2.B of this Code regarding accessory nightly rental uses in the residential zoning districts. 160. Nightly Rentals, Short Term shall mean the leasing of a principal dwelling unit for compensation and for a term of less than thirty (30) days. See Â§13.2.C.2 for the description of a principal nightly rental use, and Â§5.2.B of this Code regarding nightly rentals in residential zoning districts. 199. Rentals, Nightly or Short Term.See definition of "Nightly Rentals" above. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 11 Estes Park Municipal Code 5.20.020 Definitions. In this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: 03 Accommodation means the leasing, renting or furnishing of any room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site or other area in_any hotel, motel, guest house, bed and breakfast, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single family dwelling, duplex, multiple family dwelling, condominium unit, vacation home or any such similar placej_to any person who, for a consideration, uses, possesses or has the right to use or possess such dwelling, room, single family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple family unit, condominium unit, vacation home, site or other accommodation_for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) daydr: Accommodation means the rental, leasing. or occupancy of an accommodation site and/or accommodations unit for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. 03 Accommodation site means a site consisting of one (1) or more accommodation units, including, but not limited to condominium units, which are located on one (1) individual parcel of real property and under management control for rental purposes of an agent, entity-efÂ·-ageneÂ¥. Accommodation site means one (1) individual parcel of real property consisting of one (1) or more accommodations units that are under management control of an agent, entity or agency for rental purposes. (3) Accommodation 111'lit means each individual room, set of rooms, site, single family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple family unit, condominium unit, vacation home or divided area rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis in an accommodation. Accommodations unit means any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site, or other area in a visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging, such as any hotel, motel, guest house, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple-family dwelling, condominium unit. or any such similar place, to any person whom, for a consideration, uses. possesses, or has the right to use or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site, or other area for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. (10) Vacation home means a residential dwelling unit, as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code, that is located within a residential zoning district and is rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis as an accommodation. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 12 Vacation home means a residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied as a single accommodations unit for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days. (11) Bed and breakfast Inn means a detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased. or occupied for accommodations purposes and is operator-occupied on a full-time basis. 5.20.110 Vacation homes in residential zoning districts and Bed and Breakfast Inns. This Section shall apply to the leasing, renting and occupation of any vacation home existing in the followinc zoning districts of the Town: RE 1, RE, El.E,R.Rl,R2 and RM. This Section shall apply to vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns. ( 1) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to permit the leasing, renting and occupation of vacation homes in residential zoning districts while maintaining the residential character of those districts. (2) Restrictions on rentals. The leasing, renting or occupation rental, leasing, or occupancy of all vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns subject to this Section shall be restricted as follows: a. Compliance with the applicable regulations found in the Estes Valley Development Code is required. Vacation homes shall not be operated in a manner that is out of character with residential uses. This includes vehicular traffic and noise levels that are out of character with residential uses. Vacation homes shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a predominantly low intensity and lou' scale residential setting. Guest rooms shall be integrated within the vacation home. Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single family residential use. b. A vacation home shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) paity with a maximum of eight (8) individual guests. The total maximum occupancy of eight (8) individuals shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two individuals. In the event the vacation home is managed by a full time on site manager, the vacation home may be rented, leased or furnished to more than one (1) party subject to the limitations of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two (2) individuals with a maximum of eight (8) guests. c. No change:; in the exterior appearance to accommodate each vacation home shall be allowed, except that one (1) wall mounted identification sign no larger than four (1) square feet in area shall be permitted. d. Only one (1) vacation home shall be permitted per lot in single family residential â‚¬1+611:iets- e. No recreational vehicle, as the same is defined in Chapter 13 of the Estes Valley Development Code, tent, temporary shelter, canopy, teepee or yun shall be used by any individual for living or sleeping purposes. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 13 f. Each vacation home is permitted a maximum of three (3) guest vehicles onsite and parked outside at any one ( 1) time. On street parking shall be prohibited. g. Vacation homes shall be subject to commercial utility rates for the entire calendar year of the current license, and sales tax collection and remittance. It is the owner's responsibility to notify the Utility Billing Department when the residence is no longer being used as a vacation home after the license expires. h. The application for a business license for any vacation home or bed and breakfast inns shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted by the Town with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the agent of the owner for all purposes with regard to the issuance of the business license, the operation of the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn, and revocation of the business license pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Section. i. Any vacation home in operation on or before November 1, 2001, and whose owner obtained a business license from the Town for 2001 shall be entitled to operate the vacation home to the extent of its operation on the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, including but not limited to the number of guest individuals allowed to occupy the vacation home at any one (1) time, the number of guest vehicles allowed to be parked onsite and any permitted signage identifying the operation of < the vacation home. In the event the operation of the vacation home grandfuthered by this Section is abandoned for a period of one (1) year or the owner does not maintain a business license for the vacation home in any subsequent calendar year, the vacation home shall then be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Section, including but not limited to the number of guest individuals occupying the premises, the number of vehicles allowed to be parked outside one site and the signage identifying the operation of the vacation home. (3) Violation. It is a violation of this Section for any owner, agent, guest and/or occupant of a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn to be convicted, including a plea of no contest, of a violation of Section 9.08.010 (Disturbing the Peace) of this Code; to fail to collect and remit all required sales tax to the State due and owing for the leasing, rental or occupation of a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn; to violate any provisions of this Section; and/or to fail to acquire and pay for a business license. For the purpose of this Section, only violations of Section 9.08.010 of this Code which occur on the premises of the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn and while a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn is being occupied as a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be a violation of this Section. (4) Revocation of license. The Town may revoke the business license of any vacation home or bed and breakfast inn for violation of the provisions of this Section as follows: Revision Date: December 5, 2008 14 a. The Town Clerk, upon the receipt and verification of any violation of this Section, shall give written notice to the owner or agent that a violation has occurred. b. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this Section, within two (2) years of the date of the written warning set forth in Subsection a above, the Town Clerk sha# may revoke the business license by giving written notice to the owner or agent of the revocation of the license. Said revocation shall be for one (1) year from the date of the notice. c. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this Section within two (2) years after reinstatement, the Town Clerk shall revoke the business license by giving written notice to the owner or agent of the revocation of the business license. Said revocation shall be for two (2) years from the date of the notice. Upon revocation of the business license, the owner's right to operate a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn on the property shall terminate. (5) Appeal. Any owner or agent who wishes to contest the written warning or the revocation of a business license shall be entitled to request a hearing before the Town Clerk by written notice delivered in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Town Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date of the warning or revocation. The Town Clerk shall hold a hearing on the appeal and determine whether or not a violation of the provisions of this Section has occurred. The owner shall be entitled to present any evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions of this Section at said hearing. The decision of the Town Clerk as to whether or not the violation occurred shall be final and not subject to further appeal. Revision Date: December 5, 2008 15 1*#33./2&2*2/4 #9<9rp/#-4. 1 ~ m?4910<9TJ#Ba~*t~~te&~aR50X/&8*F~iF3#SÂ£/A~/BPFjf1~ To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: 11-5-08 Subject: Short term rentals / Vacation Home regulations Attached with this memo are relevant minutes from two prior study sessions on this subject that were held in 2007. Based on this direction given to staff last year a draft code revision was produced and is provided along with this memo as a third attachment. These draft code revisions have not yet been enacted. Staff requests review of these documents and discussion as to the direction the current board wishes to take regarding these issues. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - AprH 5,2007 - Page 3 Plains Electric - $2,172 for a total project cost for Phase I of $7,247 from account 217-5304-453-25-02 as budgeted. Reports. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. e Museum Monthly o Senior Center Monthly COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Proposed Vacation Home Municipal Code Revisions - Discussion. Dir. Joseph provided a brief history of the licensing of vacation homes in Estes Park. Recent discussion with neighbors and business owners has called for more restrictive use of a vacation home in a residential neighborhood and better enforcement. The revisions allow vacation homes to operate in all residential zoning districts as a principal full-time use with the following proposed regulations: (1) Prohibit any related or unrelated services or home occupation businesses; (2) Overnight occupancy of a vacation home shall not exceed eight people nor be rented to multiple parties (separate rental agreement); (3) No onsite customer services while the residence is occupied or rented as a vacation home; (4) No commercial activities other than accommodations shall be allowed; (5) No home occupation businesses would be permitted at any time on properties licensed as a vacation home, or non-concurrent home occupation businesses would be allowed when the vacation home is not in use; (6) B&B provision would allow an owner occupied vacation home to rent to multiple pattiesand provide daily cleaning, 4 laundry and food services. Discussion was heard and is summarized as follows: the occupancy of eight should never exceed eight including the occupancy of the homeowners (example: 2 homeowners plus 6 guests); leasing of a property to run a B&B would not be permitted; kitchen facilities shall be consistent with single-family residential use (no emciency kitchens permitted); difficulty in regulating/enforcing a non-concurrent home occupation license; impact of vacation homes on residential neighborhoods; requiring the posting of regulations at each vacation rental; setting a minimum night requirement. Jim Bame/A Celtic Lady's Mountain Retreat expressed concern that the proposed revisions do not address the impact of a vacation home on the residential neighborhoods. He stated the current language that allows an onsite manager to be present during the rental to multiple parties aids in maintaining compliance with the Town's regulations. Requiring a property owner to live onsite full time would create a larger impact on the neighborhood with an increase in traffic and noise. The new regulations would decrease the number of vacation rentals and B&Bs in Estes Park. Mr. Barrie requested the Town consider adopting a set time when the new regulations would be enforced as businesses are accepting reservations for future dates. Administrator Repola stated the regulations are an effort to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. He informed the Committee no new B&Bs will be permitted unless the property is within the RM or R-2 (special review) zoning districts as required by the Estes Valley Development Code; however, current businesses will be permitted to continue their operations. Tom Ewing/1082 Fall River Court strongly suggested the Town develop a clear definition of a vacation home with language that is easily interrupted and enforced, the proposed business should be investigated prior to issuance of a business license to ensure that it conforms to the regulations of the Town and private covenants, business owners should be made aware of the Town's regulations, and favors a vacation rental over a B&B operation with a minimum stay of 3 nights in a residential neighborhood. Marge Gooldy/1071 Fall River Court would encourage the Committee to adopt language t' c RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - Ap# 5,2007 - Page 4 that would not permit any other commercial activity at a vacation home. Dir. Joseph stated a growing trend is the purchasing of homes in Estes Park by hotel operators for overflow capacity. These stays could be nightly, with a larger impact on the neighborhoods. The Committee discussed options to address the issue such as a minimum stay requirement. The Committee requests staff prepare the revision for presentation at the April 24th Town Board meeting including the language that would prohibit a home occupation business concurrently with a vacation home and eliminating the optional B&B provision. Reports. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Activity and Budget Summaries â€¢ Building Permit Summaries CONFERENCE CENTER TOUR. All wishing to tour the newly renovated Conference Center will meet on-site directly after the meeting. There being no further business, Chairman Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 10:33 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk ( RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, tarimer County, Colorado, March 28,2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Museum Meeting Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 28th day of March, 2007. Committee: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, Levine, Newsom and Pinkham Attending: All Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Administrator Repola, Director Pickering, Director Joseph, Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. CML UPDATE Sam Mamet/CML Executive Director reviewed current issues including CML seminars/conferences, lodging tax of other Colorado Municipalities, funding of transportation, Amendment 41, and eminent domain for Urban Renewal Authorities. MARKETING DISTRICT Senator Steve Johnson and Representative Don Marostica carried the Local Marketing District (LMD) Amendment, Senate Bill 111, through the State Senate and House respectively. The Town is awaiting Governor Ritter's signature and a signing ceremony has been requested by Senator Johnson. In the event the bill is signed, staff has prepared the following draft schedule for implementing a marketing district: â€¢ Review of the formation/organization of LMD (May) â€¢ Conduct a phone survey (May/June) â€¢ Town/County to assess the formation/organization of the LMD (May/June) â€¢ Draft a proposed contract (IGA) between the Town and County (June) â€¢ Obtain signed petition of 51% (valuation) of commercial property owners - (July/Dec) â€¢ Form a political action committee (Jan/Feb 2008) â€¢ Joint public hearing (March 2008) â€¢ Second joint public hearing (May 2008) â€¢ Adopt contract and order election (June 2008) â€¢ Committee to campaign for LMD (July/Nov 2008) â€¢ Election (Nov 2008) â€¢ Lodging tax begins Wan 2009) â€¢ New marketing committee begins work (July 2009) â€¢ LMD funds begin Wan 2010) The Trustees requested staff provide additional information on the survey including questions to be asked and length of the survey. The marketing district would be a separate governmental entity with a Board that would collect sales tax on the furnishing of lodging accommodations. This Board could be appointed by the Town Board. Staff will review the Vail marketing district to determine how it was formed and has developed i over time. VACATION HOMES Administrator Repola reviewed the recent complaints received for one specific vacation home rental, A Celtic Lady's Mountain Retreat, and the need to address issues related RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - March 28,2007 - Page 2 to vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods. The Municipal Code and the Development Code contain inconsistencies on vacation rentals, specifically Bed and Breakfast. The Municipal code permits vacation rentals including B&13's in all residential zoning districts, whereas, the Development Code only allows them in RM and R-2 zoning districts. Seven strategies were discussed including the pros and cons: 1) do nothing; 2) require that a vacation homes not provide any other business service; 3) limit vacation home rentals to one party; 4) limit groups to no more than eight persons, 5) set minimum for length of stay; 6) strict interpretation and enforcement; 7) prohibit vacation homes in all residential zoning districts. Attorney White provided a historical background on the vacation rental industry in Estes Park that began prior to the incorporation of the town. Business licensing and regulation of the industry began in the late 80's to address concerns raised by residents. The issue has been regulated through the Municipal Code rather than the Development Code due to grand-fathering requirements. He stated the recent concerns raised should be addressed with clear definitions within the Municipal Code. Discussion followed and is summarized: B&B's should be considered if resident owner operated, no other commercial or home occupations should be conducted at a vacation rental, only one rental agreement should be allowed, clear definition of party, add language to business license application that informs each applicant that compliance with local covenants is required, how would minimum stay requirements affect local businesses, violation notices should be sent to properties advertising accommodations for more than 8, enforcement needs to be increased. The following definition was recommended: ( A vacation home rental property in a residential zoning district (RE-1, RE E-1, E R, R- 1, R-2 and R-M) is solely for the purpose of overnight accommodations for periods of less than 30 days with one rental agreement. No other commercial uses and/or home occupations are permitted. There shall be no on-sight management or employee. Staff is proposing code enforcement be moved to the Police Department to provide 24/7 enforcement which would require hiring an additional police employee. This issue will be discussed at the April Public Safety Committee meeting. Staff will present modifications to the current language in the Municipal Code at the Community Development meeting on April 5'h, FIRE DISTRICT Administrator Repola reported staff has a meeting to discuss changes to the current IGA with the County on Tuesday, April 3,2007. The Town will propose the termination of the Automatic Response Agreement; however, if the County is unable to provide fire protection to the residents currently served by the Estes Park Fire Department, the Town is willing to provide specific services contingent on an equitable arrangement to offset the Town's costs. Staff will report the outcome of this meeting at the April Public Safety meeting. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Â£ 16 / \ % 1 - 1/ ,/. 92'4â€ž580:/ 77 4 , =~1 -/ - 'AX* .'frw'4Â·% 1 1 + \ LAND SURVEYS : 21* SUBDIVISIONS 33'.â€žÂ» DEVELOPMENT PLANNING --- -- &- .1 7â€¢7 IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING February 11, 2009 RE: Boyd deck and setback Dear Bob Joseph, We recently measured and inspected the newly constructed deck at the Boyd residence (Lot 15 of the . illage Greens Subdivision, 466 Skyline Drive). The 2nd floor deck was originally designed to not encroach into the setback, but there was a door to the deck that opened outward and couldn't be opened sufficiently. A staff level variance was sought and received and the deck was widened near the door as shown. Upon our inspection we found that the deck encroaches 0.53' into the new (10% reduced) setback. Upon further field staking we found that the setback line fell on the inside edge ofthe deck corner post (see drawing). Between Lot 15 and the neighbor to the East there is a 15' wide drainage easement owned by the homeowners association. It is our opinion that the impact of this encroachment is minimal and if there is a solution that does not involve removing and re-building the deck we would like to pursue that solution. If you have any questions please call me at 970/586-9388 x18. Sincemly, ,Â»171 \14'1/'~1~71/L,A. LO Q%.1. Tom bergman 970/586-9388 x18 tomvhe@airbits.com 1043 Fish Creek Road â€¢ Estes Park, Colorado 80517 â€¢ 970-526-9388 â€¢ fax 970-526-8101 â€¢ E-mail: vhe@airbits.com / 1 11' BUILDING \ FOUND #4 REBAR ~ SETBACK WITH 1 " ALUMINUM ~ \ CAP 10385 52 1 1 OO ..01 1 ELEVATED ag 1 DECK 1 ulul N 0, 1 ENCROACHMENT 0.53' 2 STORY FRWE 1 HOUSE -CORNER POST - 1.5' PRIOR REQUESTED SETBACK ALLOWANCE 15' D INAGE - 1 1 15' BUILDING EAS ENT ~~'1- BUFFER LOT 15 ~ - UNE (FOR 13.5' SETBACK ~ REFERENCE) L FOUND #5 REBAR / 10'BUILDING SETBACK '044 0. 4%0 040 CENTER UNE OF ROCK .. /42/ .%4''J.,5.H.LO:tri t. iFT. &/fLJ 'fy-li;IÂ·y:-.SY; 9 ..Mgr.It-F':f at.,2. 1l E 4 1*2..3,3. 4% i-, -24434' Â·Â·t-,4;e 1.-ErÂ»72.:. i li .4*4* ,~1 . Frtâ‚¬El. :'.e.j-7 -ZÂ·d<A Â·Ki../ i L â€¢ 32&:..t,4- NÂ· A. 4 7 4... C klit 4.3....2,11 4 ......5 4 . :Ar..1.1-, I co C too Z- 0 , 73 A\N (0 ---7b---_ A 0 LJ Â· - .-' l\\\/ 0 1....1 0 -Ill fi -~Nuri 11 M RWU) OPOE 1: CÂ«W 1 : . 0 m . NOI1VMVd3S Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 To: Karen Thompson, Secretary for the Estes Park Planning Commission From: Milt Garrett, Representing Summer International Student Employees (1480Raven Circle, 577.0717) Subject: Critical Lodging Needs At Issue: There is a large summer economy upon which much of the local operating budget is based. Summer guests, sales leading to sales taxes, customer-contact persons, and we all can follow the economic logic from this point. The frontline staffing for the great proportion of local enterprises are comprised of international students, many, many international students. Housing for the approximately 400 to 750 (no good count exists) is not only lacking, but is abysmal. (I'll illustrate below.) Too few local residents are willing to open their homes for lodging and to transport these kids to work from the outlying areas. (I speak with credibility. I have helped and asked for help, for years.) The YMCA employees and provides meals and lodging for 100 or more international young people. This organization will not be part of the conversation that follows. What I want to develop in this conversation will be about those multitudes employed off the campus of the Y, primarily downtown and in the motels and hotels of Estes Park. Background: 1. In the past four years, I have either housed in my home (11 international student workers, one student from Seattle, and three adults), or met and visited out-of- country summer student workers in various business and social settings from at least 15 countries.* Why? No clean, affordable, decent lodging have been available, no good lodging opportunities existed for my14 guests. 2. Church members in at least three churches have been asked to take in these kids. Not one family in these four years has volunteered. Not one. 3. The vast majority of these youngsters have no transportation, so they need to be within walking distance of their place of employment. Rain or shine, you will see them on the streets, walking and starting at 5:30 AM to 11:10 PM or later. (I have 4. driven four to 13 kids a day to and from my home and the Green Apartments to their work and home again during most summer days and nights. Countries from which some of our international students come, and for which I have become involved, now and in the past are: Belarus, Russia (100+/- a year), Poland, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Nepal (200+/- a year), Lithuania, Romania, Ukraine, Singapore, China, Kazakhstan, France, and Australia. 5. Where do they live? The largest groups are found in the Hupp Hotel and the "Green Apartments." Sixteen in an apartment using one bathroom is not unusual. I have been in both properties many times; they are atrocious. (I say I think they are near pigsty quality in many ways. Certainly personal fire safety hazards to say the least.) Why are so many in one apartment or in multiple apartment settings in both properties? There is a shortage of any kind of reasonable rental spaces. There are a shortage of spaces, period. 6. Do any end up "homeless?" Last summer a business owner approached me asking if it were possible to take four who had no place in which to live. They were essentially on the streets floating from place to place with no place to call "summer quarters." Together, they held 11 jobs, 10 were part-time, one had a full time job. I invited them to stay in my home for the season. These four were American university, international visa holding students from Nepal. (It is noteworthy to mention here the reputation of Nepali kids. Almost to a person, these are kids of good ethics, honest, work brittle, do not arrive late or call in sick, or ask for advances in wages.) In many cases, an international student will be given the keys to the businesses, do the openings and closings, and delivering the days receipts to the bank. (I sometimes have driven some to a bank.) These kids tend to be, year after year, our economic first point of public contact. I'm sure each of you have been served by many every summer in various businesses. As an aside, at today's commission meeting (February 178), i was criticized for the fact (~ we have so many foreign students here and I was responsible for their presence. The person three seats to my right said there is no good reason for so many and I should quit entertaining their coming here. (I think I was being seen as an opposing force to their desire to stop the Commission' s effort to develop a solution to the ADU, rentals, and other issues.) Well, given that balding man to my right could be correct, we might consider these points: 1) There are too few local students are of age to fulfill all these frontline jobs, and 2) there are really just too few local students to fill all available jobs. What can an employer do? Add to these two variables what some Elkhorn Avenue employers say to me when I visit trying placing these kids. "American kids don't know how to work, I don't want a one of them, so give me a Nepali or anyone else." Then, visit with a local parent or child who could be employed here and discover they will have higher wage opportunities as university students elsewhere in the country. This leaves entry-level wages jobs here open to the international kids. So, there is our economic perplexity and an accommodations puzzle to solve. Action: I think, if for no other reason than having a reputation of having a decent, safe, and caring community with tuition supporting jobs, the Town needs to address 90-day housing difficulties for our international student employees, and quite soon. These seasonal students are our local economy's base operations staff. Be the solution for this housing need as 1) the auxiliary development unit solution for temporary renting, 2) or ( guest lodging solutions, 3) or making available affordable housing, or 4) eventually asking citizens to open their home by officials of the Town, we need to be better citizen - diplomats for these international sbholars. (My home will not be available this summer, so I will add to an additional four-bed shortage.) Addendum: It might be helpful to recall what our professors in the disciplines of sociology, public administration, and management told us and asked to not forget. Each gave two homilies, or principles, to guide us: 1) "The bias against is stronger than the bias for." That is why it is hard for teachers, scientists, new thinkers, and politicians to persuade change. To say "no" means one does not have to defend anything. And, 2) "people get down on what they are not up on." Picking up on the second theme, we all, especially audience members today, need to call into mind the migration flow of the country today. The patterns of migration have been from the rural to the urban, from the urban to the suburban, and now it is from those places to the pleasant places. As long as we Americans have freedom of movement, freedom of choice, ample money, and an uncontrollable and burgeoning population, commissions like yours and government officials will be under constant pressure for issues like this one facing the Commission today. Or as Thomas Friedman said as he closed his presentation Monday night in Mackey Hall in Boulder: "We are either going to be a democratic [nation] or a BANANA Republic. He uses the term 'banana" the way utility experts use it. You have heard of the acronym C NINBY - "not in my backyard," as in "I love wind turbines, but just not in my back yard?" Well, Friedman uses BANANA in a broader variant of that. It stands for Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything." Ah, what pressures the Commission and the Trustees face. Oh yes, please, one last homily our teachers gave us is the one I think was the keeper to really remember: "Obstructionists eventually loose." Good fortune to you good soldiers of democracy. See you in October or November. Distribution: Members of the Estes Park Planning Commission Town Planning Department, Messieurs Joseph and Shirk and others as needed Trustees and Mayor for the Town of Estes Park