The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-05-19Prepared: May 7,2009 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:30 a.m. Study Session, Rooms 201 and 202, Town Hall 1:30 p.m. Meeting, Board Room, Town Hall Reconvening at 7:00 p.m., Board Room, Town Hall, Wildlife Habitat Code Revision & Adoption of 2008 Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment 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 - April 21, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting DEVELOPMENT PLAN 09-03 BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS MASTER PLAN - The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums located in the east M of section 24, T5N, R73W - 800 MacGregor Avenue Owner/Applicant Jim Sloan has requested this item be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12 a. 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. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-01 B - THE MEADOW REPLAT & PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP & MARY'S MEADOW AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Lot 4A, Mary's Lake Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision - 341Kiowa Drive Owner: James Tawney Applicant: CMS Planning & Development, do Frank Theis Request: To amend the approved Development Plan 06-01 by changing the 35-unit co- housing project to a 10-unit townhouse development and a 36-unit accommodations development 5. REPORTS STAFF-LEVEL REVIEWS PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS TOWN BOARD AND COUNTY COMMISSION DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS REVIEWED BY PLANNING COMMISSION The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 6. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12 a. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION - proposed changes to Â§7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection, to provide review standards for land identified as critical wildlife habitat, require preparation of a wildlife habitat conservation plan for land identified as critical wildlife habitat, and provide for Planning Commission review of said conservation plan. 7. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT ASSESSMENT 8. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 81 tr A- 5+ ely M 1 9.A *z Arlf ' ~53l' ot/\- ie/SS 1 /613 To: Estes Park Board of Trustees ec: Larimer County Commissioners Planning Commission Executive Summarv on ADUs May 19, 2009 On March 17, the Estes Valley Planning Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend code changes to: â€¢ Remove lot size restrictions on attached ADUs. This change removes a barrier that has prevented the majority of property owners in the Estes Valley from building ADUs for use by their adult children, aging parents, or caregivers. â€¢ Clarify the definitions of what constitutes an ADU to avoid confusion over this issue. â€¢ Continue the current code's prohibitions against detached ADUs and rental of ADUs, based on overwhelming public opposition to rentals, and widespread concerns regarding a detached ADU creating 2 homes on a single family lot, i.e., "de facto rezoning". The Commissioners further agreed that: â€¢ Code changes related to employee housing/affordable housing should be addressed as a major topic in its own right - a topic that encompasses much more than ADUs. We have already begun discussions with the Estes Park Housing Authority and other groups to get a better understanding of the issues involved. â€¢ Code changes related to concerns brought up by owners and contractors wishing to upgrade existing, grandfathered, detached ADUs should also be addressed as a separate topic. â€¢ Code changes related to the possibility of allowing detached ADUs on large lots should be addressed as a separate topic. This information was reviewed with the Estes Park Board of Trustees on March 10 - just prior to the above actions. At that meeting, the Trustees' feedback to this Commission was that the Commissioners were doing an excellent job and were headed in the right direction. We appreciate this support from the Town Board, and as a next step, we would like to know what priority you would like us to give to the code changes for employee/affordable housing and for upgrading existing, grandfathered ADUs. Sincerely, Estes Valley Planning Commissioners (Signed) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission April 21, 2009,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, and Ron Norris Attending: Vice-Chair John Tucker; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Wendell Amos and Ron Norris Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioner Klink, Commissioner Amos, Planner Chilcott The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Vice-Chair Tucker called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated March 17, 2009. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) that the Consent Agenda be accepted as amended, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. STAFF REPORT - Accessory Dwelling Unit timeline for approval Planner Shirk notified the Commission that the first reading of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Code revisions by the Town Board will be April 28th, and will allow public comment. The Town Board public hearing is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, May 26*1 2009, and the public hearing date before the Larimer County Commissioners has not been set. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 09-02 - SUNFIELD ESTATES - Metes and Bounds located directly southwest of 1095 Moraine Avenue, Estes Park; Owner/Applicant - Stonewood Properties, c/o Mark Hollenbeck; Request to construct a 3-unit development Staff Report: Planner Shirk stated this is a request for development plan approval to build three detached residential dwelling units on property zoned A-Accommodations, which is an allowed use in that zone district. This property has been approved for a development plan of seven units called Rippling River. If this Sunfield Estates plan is approved, the Rippling River Development Plan would be null and void. This proposal meets the required density standards, impervious coverage requirement, and complies with setback requirements, including the 50-foot river corridor setback. The current proposal would bring in fill in order to move the flood plain back towards the river. A retaining wall will be built, and will be designed to allow maintenance vehicle access to the river. Changes in limits of disturbance between the two development plans includes "pulling in" the proposed retaining wall between the units, minimizing utility cuts, and adding more protection to the slope between the units and the highway. Landscaping for Sunfield Estates exceeds the minimum requirements in terms of volume. The developer plans to subdivide the lots for single-family dwellings at some point, and all lots will maintain the minimum size and required setbacks for the zoning district. Staff recommends approval after compliance with the conditions listed below. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 April 21, 2009 Public Comment: Mark Hollenbeck/Stonewood Properties, DJ Chasen/Stonewood Properties, Bryce Brady and Rod Harr/Landmark Engineering were in attendance to explain the project and answer questions. Mr. Hollenbeck expressed genuine concern about building a quality development and wants their first major project to be high quality. He hopes to have all site work completed this summer. The proposed three units will average 3500 square feet, with a mountain style architectural theme using native building materials. Commissioner Lane questioned the decision to create a development plan prior to subdividing the lots. Hollenbeck replied the group of developers decided to wait until this proposed concept was approved before moving forward with subdividing the lots. Director Joseph interjected that although rezoning is an option, single-family use is permitted in the A- Accommodations district. Agreements will need to be reached between the owners for shared access, maintenance, etc. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) to APPROVE Development Plan 09-02, SUNFIELD ESTATES, with the following conditions recommended by Staff, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. Conditions: 1. Compliance with approved development plan. Approval of Development Plan 08- 05 shall become null and void upon final approval of Development Plan 09-02 "Sunfield Estates". 2. Prior to issuance of any grading/building permits, the applicant shall: a. Submit final construction plans (including drainage/erosion control) for review and approval of utility providers and Larimer County Engineering; b. Obtain a Development Construction Permit from the Larimer County Engineering Department: c. Updated Conditional Letter of Map Revisions-Fill shall be provided to Larimer County Engineering for review and approval if necessary, and a copy submitted to Community Development; d. Fence Limits of Disturbance, as required by Section 7.2.D5 of the Estes Valley Development Code; e. Provide Restoration Landscaping Guarantee letter; f. Provide lighting cut sheet to ensure compliance with Section 7.9; g. Provide development agreement and letter of credit. 3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall; a. Dedicate proposed easements and right-of-way; b. Provide engineer certificate's verifying grading and drainage complies with approved plans; c. Provide as-built plans for review and approval of utility providers and Larimer County Engineering; d. Letter of Map Revisions-Fill shall be provided to Larimer County Engineering, and a copy submitted to Community Development. 4. Compliance with the following: a. Letter from Community Development to Stonewood Properties dated April 8, 2009; b. Memo from Estes Park Public Works and Utilities to Dave Shirk, Bob Goehring, and Scott Zurn dated March 25,2009 (except Note 9 regarding street lights); c. Letter from Upper Thompson Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated March 19, 2009 (this will require minor changes to the development plan to ensure accessibility to the sewer main). 5. AMENDED PLAT - ABUNDANT PROPERTIES OF THE ROCKIES, LLC - Lots 1 & 2, Block 4,2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, and Metes and Bounds Parcel RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 April 21, 2009 located at 240 E. Elkhorn Avenue, 230, 234, and 240 E. Elkhorn; 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 Staff Report: Director Joseph stated this is a request to adjust the property line between Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 of the Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park; vacate the property line between Lot 1 and the metes-and-bounds parcel; and reduce the width of a public utility and access easement on the metes-and-bounds parcel from nineteen feet to ten feet wide. The proposed property line vacation eliminates a lot line, which runs through a building and is not centered on a common wall. The lot line adjustment of .033 feet will center the lot line on the common wall between Kirk's Flyshop and the Shirt Shack. Additionally, the property owner wants to narrow the public easement down the alleyway on the east side of the property. This easement is currently used for access to a parking area behind building as well as utility access. Staff does not recommend vacating nine feet of the nineteen-foot wide public access and utility easement on the metes-and-bounds parcel due to the responses received from the Public Works and Utilities departments. Estes Light and Power and the Fire Department also recommended against the vacation. Director Joseph stated the location of this easement is valuable to the Town due to the existing limitations. If this easement is reduced, emergency vehicles will not be able to get to the riverwalk. Public Comment: Kevin Schwery, Owner/Applicant stated the reason behind the easement reduction was to develop behind the building, but he understands the reasoning against the reduction. It was moved and seconded (Fraundorl/Norris) to APPROVE the Amended Plat of Lots 1 & 2, 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, and Metes-and-Bounds Parcel located at 240 E. Elkhorn Avenue with conditions recommended by Staff. The motion passed unanimously with two absent. Conditions: 1. Denial of the requested reduction in the width of a nineteen-foot wide public access and utility easement and removal of the language vacating nine feet of this easement from the plat. 2. All signs on the property shall be properly permitted prior to plat recordation. 3. Prior to plat recordation, the dumpster on the Abundant Properties, LLC property should be animal proof and screened as described in the Estes Valley Development Code. The proposed dumpster location and screening design should be reviewed and approved by Staff. 4. The existing size for Lot 2 shall be provided on the plat. 5. The vicinity map shall be to scale with the scale noted. 6. Font sizes for the existing lot sizes shall be increased so as to be legible. 7. The dedication statement shall be revised to dedicate any new easement proposed with this plat, and only those easements. 8. Kirk's Flyshop, LLC shall be added to the dedication statement and signature blocks for Kirk's Flyshop shall be added. 9. The reception number or book and page shall be provided for the nineteen-foot wide public access and utility easement. 10.The month shall be added to the Board of Trustee's Certificate. 6. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 April 21, 2009 a. 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. Staff Report: Director Joseph stated Planner Chilcott 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. Staff did not want short-term rentals to be more restrictive, but rather desired to tighten the language as to what constitutes a business-related activity and what does not. It is important to clarify if you are using your home as a short-term rental, you are not allowed to have a home occupation at the same residence. It was also clarified in this proposal that B&Bs will be allowed only in RM, R-2 (multi-family residential) districts and in A and A-1 (commercial accommodations) districts. The Town Board issued a directive that these zones were most appropriate for this use. This proposed Code revision brings the Municipal Code into alignment with the current Land Use Code. With this revision short-term rentals are elevated to a permitted principal use by right in all residential zoning districts. Commissioner and Staff Comments: Commissioner Hull thinks the requirements of B&Bs being owner-occupied full time and vacation homes requiring a local manager who is available 24/7 are positive code changes. Commissioner Lane believes the maximum occupancy of eight is unrealistic and would like to see it increased to 10. He also would like Staff to rethink how this proposed code relates to nightly rentals in the commercial districts. Commissioner Tucker agrees with the concept and thinks the proposed controls address most issues. He believes that vacation homes should pay commercial water and electricity rates. Town Attorney White explained the current code limits on occupancy and the reasoning behind limiting occupancy of vacation homes to eight individuals. Public Comment: Frank Theis/Town Resident - Questioned grandfathering of current B&Bs in residential areas. Director Joseph indicated the grandfathering would stay in place only if the structure was to remain a B&B and not a vacation home. Larimer County officials state that short-term rentals in the county have never been an explicitly permitted principal use; therefore, grandfathering of vacation homes does not come into play. Mr. Theis also suggested either using the same language concerning occupancy as is in the current code, or changing the language to eight adults instead of eight people, with a limit of four vehicles. Jim Tawney/Town Resident - As a lodge owner, he does not agree with permitting short-term rentals in residential zoning districts, due to the inequality of the playing field where property taxes are concerned. Closed public comment. Commissioner Lane thinks the language in section 1.d should be revised to say "except in the CD district". Commissioners Norris and Tucker agreed. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Fraundorf) to CONTINUE the proposed Block 12 Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Short-Term Rentals to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. It was requested this item be the first on the agenda. The motion passed unanimously with two absent RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 April 21, 2009 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. Staff Report: Director Joseph gave a brief history of the code revision background. In today's proposed Code revision, Staff has removed any references to setbacks from riparian vegetation and kept language concerning setbacks from aquatic habitat, i.e. wetlands, streams, rivers, and standing bodies of water, including seasonal. Staff is proposing a 50-foot setback from the annual high water mark (not from riparian vegetation) for undeveloped lots and a 30-foot setback for developed lots which were developed prior to 2000. Different standards apply to downtown areas and also for parking lots as opposed to buildings. The current Code operates as a two-tiered system, and today's proposal abandons one of the tiers; the current 30-foot setback for smaller drainages would be removed and all areas containing aquatic habitat would have a 50-foot setback. Wetlands area setbacks are currently 50 feet and no changes are proposed. Studies show a proportionate relationship between the amount of water flowing through a drainage and its value as habitat. The current proposal works with a "one size fits all" concept. If the proposed setbacks are adopted, the number of non-conforming properties will approximately double, creating a lot of discussion and concern. In response, Staff has written into the code whereas existing non-conforming developed properties that are set back at least 30-feet would be allowed to expand vertically and be exempt from the 50-foot setback. Any horizontal expansion of these new non-conforming structures would be subject to the 50-foot setback regulations. Staff and Commission Discussion: Director Joseph commented that a suggestion was made to add mitigation recommendations following the habitat assessment. Also, the right to deny a development plan that does not comply with the Code is clearly stated; however, Planning Commission will have the authority to continue an agenda item if the development plan does not comply with the Code to allow the developer time to make necessary modifications. Director Joseph clarified that in urbanized areas, the value of the habitat has already been compromised and, therefore, those areas will not be designated as severe winter range for deer and elk. Commissioner Norris would like a better understanding of property owner's rights and guidance as to how to judge the setbacks. Public Comment: Rick Spowart/Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) thinks the change in the Code language helps the DOW act as an advisor rather than a decision-making body. DOW will become an affected agency that will be allowed to comment on proposed developments. It is DOW's opinion that aquatic areas are the most important to protect, with raptor nesting areas and bighorn sheep habitat also having major significance. Mr. Spowart believes smaller setbacks can create loss of wildlife populations and species for those animals that are not very mobile. Several species, like elk, are very adaptable and in some ways actually benefit from development. He noted that various maps and other information is available on the Division of Wildlife website. Cheri Pettyjohn/Town Resident believes all affected property owners should be notified by personal letter. She is against changing the setback from 30 to 50 feet. Ms. Pettyjohn also recommended an evening Planning Commission meeting in order to accommodate members of the public that are unable to attend the afternoon meetings. Director Joseph noted that from a legal standpoint, newspapers are adequate notification. While Staff is always striving to improve the accessibilty to the public, a mass mailing such as this will lengthen the process as well as be very time-consuming and costly. It is very difficult to determine how specific to make your notification list. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 April 21, 2009 Frank Theis/County Resident likes the two-tiered system that is currently in place, and worries about unintended consequences. From a design standpoint, he is unsure about the allowance to expand vertically and the potential for bureaucratic problems where building permits are involved. Rick Spowart/DOW responded to a question by Dave Albee/Town Resident and stated that if the town were able to purchase land for open space, he would consider bighorn sheet habitat to be important. Conservation easements and the Estes Valley Land Trust would also be good options to acquire additional open space. Eric Waples/Town Resident encouraged the Commissioners to keep the future in mind when making decisions. His goal for Estes Park would be a more pedestrian-friendly community. He believes significant adverse impact is usually cumulative. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident has continuing concerns about how decisions will be made in determining "maximum extent feasible" and "significant adverse impact". Mark Elrod/Town Resident reminded Commissioners that abuse of the Code rather than the exercise of using the Code is where problems will lie. He is having difficulty with acceptable definitions for "aquatic habitat" and "qualified biologisf'. Also, he does not see language allowing for changes in errors on adopted maps. Sandy Lindquist/Town Resident thinks the Town should move quickly on establishing an open space plan to incorporate into the Estes Valley Development Code. Closed to public comment and called recess at 4:15 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 4:25. Commissioners Norris and Hull supports the suggested addition to the code about the option to expand vertically if the structure is non-conforming in the setback. Commissioner Lane wants to understand the in's and out's of the proposed code before approval. He is supportive of moving forward with the issues that are not controversial. To this point, he hasn't heard of any specific quantitative benefits that would come with increasing the setbacks. He believes the multi-level tier approach makes more sense than a one-tier approach. Commissioner Tucker would like to see a calendar that lists when the map will be updated. He does not support the proposed 50-foot setback. Commissioner Fraundorf thinks the two-tiered system seems very appropriate. He believes the Commission could go ahead and approve the proposal and make modifications as they come up through the Board of Adjustments. He supports the 30-foot setback on developed lots. After discussion about pulling the setback portion of the proposed code out for further review, Director Joseph stated it is easier to defend broad legislative guidelines than specific ones. All of the proposed wildlife habitat code revisions to date have created the expectation that property adjacent to areas containing aquatic habitat is going to be held to a higher standard of development. When setbacks are not changed, developments will possibly be subject to a wildlife habitat assessment and it will be this Commission's duty, on a case-by-base basis, to determine if the minimum setback standard is adequate. After more discussion among the Commissioners, it was determined that Staff should revise the code to a level of completeness in order for them to vote on the revisions without addressing the setack issues. This setback issue will be addressed separately. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Lane) to CONTINUE the proposed Block 12 Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Wildlife Habitat Protection to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 April 21, 2009 7. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT It was moved and seconded (Hull /Lane) to CONTINUE the proposed 2008 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously with two absent. 8. REPORTS a. Burr Minor Special Review - Planner Shirk noted the Larimer County Commissioners are hearing a minor special review for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, located at 2978 Lory Lane, which is just outside of the Estes Valley Zoning District towards Glen Haven. b. Pre-Application Meetings that Staff has received this past month include one for an amended plat, another for an amended Development Plan for Mary's Meadow, a Development Plant for the Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, and one application for a minor subdivision. c. Town Board and County Commission decisions on applications reviewed by Planning Commission include a Supplemental Map on the Stanley Avenue Condominiums and the Final Plat for the Deer Ridge Subdivision. d. The Board of Adjustment heard a variance request for a setback variance in the Little Valley area. Director Joseph noted a joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners, Town Board and Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for June 4,2009 at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Tucker suggested commissioners attend the Town Board meeting on April 28, 2009 to hear the first reading and comments concerning the code revisions for Accessory Dwelling Units. Director Joseph announced a public forum to discuss regulations on wind turbines in residential areas. This meeting will be held Thursday, April 30,2009 in the Town Board Room. This meeting is strictly to obtain public input before regulations are drafted by Staff. Staff will be in attendance to facilitate discussion. Finally, Directly Joseph stated he has received direction from the Community Development Committee to organize a task force to take a critical look at the current sign code. The objective of this task force will be to critique the sign code. There will be seven (7) citizens on this task force, with Staff available to facilitate discussion. There being no further business, Vice-Chair Tucker adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m. John Tucker, Vice-Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary - Amendments to the Estes Valley 1~;C9 Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve - Vacation Homes & B&Bs Estes Park Community Development Department ~ 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: May 19, 2009 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. Ne*-revisions-arejliÂ®lighted in yeÂ»w; ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with strikethrough (abc do fghi jk Imn op qrctuv w *yz). 2. New text delineated with underline (abc de fahi ik Imn op arstuv w xvz). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. Revision Date: May 19, 2009 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 Rei:ulations Use Classification Specific Use "S" = Permitted by Special Review (Apply in All Districts Unless "-" = Prohibited Otherwise RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Stated) ACCOMMODATION USES' Bed and Breakfast S Low-Intensity Inn ------Â£PÂ§5.1.B Accommodations Vacation Home Â£22Â£Â£Â£22 45.1.8 Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Nonresidential Zoning Districts "F' = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Special Review Use "-" = Prohibited Additional Regulations (Apply Classific in All Districts Unless Otherwise ation Specific use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Stated) ACCbMMODATION USES '~ ' r , 1 1 1. - - 4 . , Bed and Â§5.1.B. In CD, such use shall not A breakfast P P PP-- _ be located on the ground floor of a inns building fronting on Elkhom 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 use shall not be tions located on the ground floor of a Ni#1*ly building fronting on Elkhorn Remal6 Avenue - P P - - - - Â·Short term and long term nightly Vacation Home rentals allowed as a principal use 4*+*fesideadal-dwellingÂ·41+48 dee also Table 5 2 which allows nightly rentals as an accessory use to a dwelling unit in the A 1 and GD.*eal##diGWie*6 Revision Date: May 19, 2009 2 Resort lodge/cabins , low- P - - - - - Â§5.1.P 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 appeal:aBee: 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) 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 Communitv 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 of a dwelling unit by one household. This includes, but is not limited to. the following: Revision Date: May 19, 2009 3 (1) Except- in the CD district,| 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 roorns. (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 may 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 of tenancy). Revision Date: May 19, 2009 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 subject 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 (1) party. One (1) party shall consist of related and/or non-related individuals occup'ying 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 onlv 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 Uie RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R.2 RM Requiremenb Nighgy-Ret*als Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Â§5.2.8.2.9 Vacation Home Â§5.1.B Section 5.2.B.2 Additional Requirements for Specific Accessorv Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts d. Home Occupations. (4) Operational: Ck) Hoine 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:--Remath (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 130] days) of a 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 rentals 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 Zoning Districts. Table 5-2: Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning District "Yes" =Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use AÂ· A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Requirements . -i.r @U~ ..d...44 No Yes Yes No No No No Â§5.1.B /*+MIM//9-/*/M*/a/b Vacation Home In CD. such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue 4454â‚¬ee&60,940-0 pFi-Reipat-Fes-idential-use ealy= 4--*4 rental of a dwelling unit as an accessory use in the A 1 and CD districts shall nebbesubjeeHe--the requirements of Â§5.2.8.2.g abeve: -See also Table 1 1 which pefmi-igh*ly rentals as a principal use e#*dwelingtte,+48-*he A 1 and CD zoning â‚¬1461Fiet,/ 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 Emplovee 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. Mini~hum*Number of Off:Street Parking SpacesÂ· , . Off-Street (See #7.11*.C above for Loading Group # Use Classification Specific Use ~ measurement 'rules) iSee Â§7.11.N) WCCOMMODATION USES, 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 Wa Accommodations employees Resort lodge/cabins, low- 2 per cabin or guest room + 1 space Wa 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 leaseâ‚¬#-ep-Fee<ed 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 2.143) 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 ou'ner 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 Fee*Â¥h 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) NighUy-Remalsi Nightly Rentals: In the A 1 or CD zoning districts, a ningle 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 130] 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 residential 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-pfineipal "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, anv single-familv 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 all living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. Household living shall include occupancy by a renter household for terms of thirtv (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 :anitary 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 i 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 (314) cubic feet; (b) a stove/oven no wider than twenty (20) inches; and/or (c) a microwave oven. 159. Nightly Rentals, Long Tcrm 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 Tcrm 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 Tcrm. 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: (1) 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 place,_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) flay*T 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 or agency. i 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 unit 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, dormitorv. 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. 01) 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 following zoning districts ofthe Town: RE 1, RE, E l. E, R, R 1,R2andRM. 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 arc 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) party 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 changes 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 4454*46*9: e. No recreational vehicle, as the same is defined in Chapter 13 of the Estes Valley ' Development Code, tent, temporary shelter, canopy, teepee or yurt 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 on site 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 l, 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 grandfathered 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: l Revision Date: December 5, 2008 14 C 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 shall 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 C 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 imempagiv*$9#&Si=5:Â·'- - F-PAG#j.*~eads.:f~*,7*1&'Â£10*iÂ¢Iâ€¢~~IN'D~*S~~0,3*&-P_:S-#31 1~plitlmftitij~i~ 11#21 t. 01 h . .j! U v -Â· 8 -83Â¥ - 9 1.0 0 -94* ~-' . 0 - 0 - I lea:~4 4% -: Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halbumt 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 - April 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. â€¢ 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 parties and provide daily cleaning, 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 efficiency 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 Barrie/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 distrids 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 # C RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community DeveBopment - April 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 24~h 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, Lar\mer 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 Mame#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 Wan/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 (Jan 2009) â€¢ New marketing committee begins work (July 2009) â€¢ LMD funds begin (Jan 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 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&B'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 4ummarized: 8&8'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-Mj \s 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 50, 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 ~ The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-01B), The Meadow Replat and ~ Preliminary Condominium Map ~ Estes Park Community Development Department - Municip al Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: May 19,2009 REOUESTS: . \2 6 F.W A 1/7 1) Amend existing approved development .,1â€ž - 1 123 1=.:=1-r-"-"-7 f ~ USFS j plan; and, 2) Amend an existing subdivision plat, and 14 - LLE=*1Â»Â·J J subdivide two existing lots into four lots e- 36 Rocky (three buildable, and one non-buildable Ivbulain USFS 1*,tioral outlot); and, Rl* - 3) Preliminary condominium map. 95 USFS LOCATION: West of Marys Lake Road, i RIVNP Biumdiy north of Kiowa Drive, south of Promontory Drive, and east of Kiowa Trail (within the Town of Estes Park). APPLICANT: CMS Planning and Development (Frank Theis) PROPERTY OWNER: Marys Meadow Development, Inc. (Jim Tawney, Ponderosa Lodge) STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk (dshirk@estes.org, 577-3729) SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (Joe Coop) Parcel Numbers: 3402124002, 3402438004 Development Area: 5 acres (+/-) Number of Lots: Two existing, three Existing Land Use: Undeveloped, with new buildable and one non-buildable outlet units under construction in the southern proposed. portion of the site (working under approval of existing development plan) Proposed Land Use: Accommodations and Existing Zoning: "A" Accommodations multi-family residential Adjacent Zoning- East: "A" Accommodations North: "A" Accoinmodations West: "A" Accommodations South: "E-1" Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Uiideveloped North: Institutional (Rocky Mountain Church) West: Accommodations (Marys Lake South: Single-family residential (Kiowa Lodge) Ridge Subdivisioii) Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer "RE" 1<Iowa Or u "5-14 Fj 40 (A) PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request to modify an existing approved development plan know as "Marys Mea(low" and to subdivide one lot (Lot 4) into three lots (two buildable lots and an outlot). This request also includes the preliminary condominium map. Pursuant to state law, final condominium maps cannot be filed until individual units are substantially complete; declarations would be filed with the final condominium map application. The existing 35-unit plan was approved by the Planning Commission in April 2006, with a minor modification approved by Staff in February 2009. The current request is to amend this development plan by separating into two lots, add eleven more units, and adjust the boundary with the undeveloped lot to the north. The drainage Page #2 - The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-01 B. The Meadow Replat and preliminary condominium map V facilities would be put in a non-buildable outlot, with a joint maintenance agreement. Because the issues of this proposal are all inter-related, this report outlines all three requests, and concludes with three separate recommendations. Small scale copies of the development plan and platting history have been included for reference. REVIEW CRITERIA: This development plan is subject to applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project. Zoning Requirements. Land Use. The proposed land uses are allowed in "A" Accommodation district: â€¢ Lot 2A (northern lot) does not have any development proposed at this time, though the property is zoned "A" Accommodations. â€¢ Lot 4A (middle lot) is proposed for short-term accommodations use (Hotel/Motel), with property management operated through the Ponderosa Lodge. â€¢ Lot 4B (southern lot) is proposed for multi-family residential. This does not preclude short-term or nightly rentals. Definitions: General definition of "Accommodations, High-Intensity" is "visitor- serving facilities that provide temporary lodging in guest rooms or guest units for compensation, and with an average length of stay of less than thirty (30) days. High-intensity accommodations generally serve a larger number of guests than low- intensity accommodations." Examples include a Hotel/Motel, which is defined as "An establishment that provides temporary lodging to the general public in guest rooms and typically providing additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms, entertainment and recreational facilities." Guest rooms/units are defined as "a room or suite of rooms in an accommodations use that contains sleeping and sanitary facilities and that may include limited kitchen facilities." Density. This proposal meets density requirements, as outlined below. Page #3 - The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-018, The Meadow Replat and preliminary condominium map Density requirements vary depending on unit type. For example, accommodations units (without full kitchens) require 1,800 square feet of net land area each, and duplex units each require 6,750 square feet. The applicant does not propose single- family units or multi-family units, each of which has its own density requirement. â€¢ Lot 2A: No development proposed at this time, though the applicant has requested the density from Outlot A be transferred to Lot 2A. Staff supports this request because this area was part of Lot 2A with the original submittal, and it was staff who requested the stormwater ponds be placed in the outlot. The following note should be placed on the plat: "Outlot A land area shall be applied to Lot 2A for density calculation purposes. Maximum density is not guaranteed." â€¢ Lot 4A: Thirty-six (36) accommodations units are proposed. Each accommodations unit requires at least 1,800 square feet of net land area. Thirty-six units require a total of 64,800 square feet of land area, or 1.48 acres. The lot is 1.61 acres, thus large enough for the proposed units. In sum, thirty- six units are proposed where a maximum of thirty-nine would be allowed. â€¢ Lot 4B: Ten duplex units are proposed. Each duplex unit requires at least 6,750 square feet of net land area. Ten duplex units require a total of 67,500 square feet of land area, or 1.55 acres. The lot is 1.88 acres, thus large enough for the proposed units. In sum, ten units (five duplexes) are proposed where a maximum of twelve units (six duplexes) would be allowed. Impervious Coverage. This proposal complies with impervious coverage limits. The "A" district has a maximum impervious coverage of 50%. Lot 4A proposed lot coverage is 36.5%; Lot 4B proposed lot coverage is 42.6%. Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements. Table 4-8 requires provision for pedestrian linkages. Staff suggests the sidewalk on Kiowa Trail be extended along the entire frontage, which the applicant has agreed to. Sidewalk Width. Appendix D.Vlc requires sidewalks in nonresidential zoning districts to be at least 8-feet wide. The applicant proposes 7-foot wide sidewalks along Kiowa Trail in front of the accommodations buildings. The design of the parking stalls utilizes a curb instead of wheel stops. Due to the vehicle overhang, this means that 2.5-feet of the sidewalk does not count toward the required eight-foot width. Add these together, and the applicant proposes a 4.5-foot wide pedestrian walkway (7 feet - 2.5 feet = 4.5 feet), where eight-feet are required. The applicant requests a Minor Modification to the code requirement. The Planning Commission may grant up to a 25% modification. In this case, that would Page #4 - The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-01B, The Meadow Replat and preliminary condominium map allow a sidewalk width of 8.5-feet. Staff arrived at this figure by reducing 8-feet to 6-feet through the Minor Modification allowance, then adding the 2.5-foot over hang: 6+2.5=8.5. The Planning Commission must decide if this Minor Modification request advances the goals of the code or results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation. Setbacks. The proposed layout complies with setback requirements: 15-foot front and side yards, 10-foot rear yard. Building 1 would have steps on the south side to provide access, which is allowed per Section 1.9.Dlb. A surveyor will establish footer locations and provide a certificate to the building official at the foundation inspection. This certificate will need to verify that building locations comply with the approved development plan. Height. The proposed structures comply with height limitations set forth on Table 4-5 "Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts" (which defines how tall a structure can be) and Section 1.9.E "Height" (which defines how maximum height is measured). Maximum building height will be verified with each building permit application by a registered land surveyor during the construction process. Building height on Lot 4A has generated interest and concern of condominium owners on the west side of Kiowa Trail, and building height on Lot 4B has generated interest and concern of a property owner south of Kiowa Drive. All units will appear as one story units from the "uphill side," with a walk-out on the "downhill side." For example, Building 1 (southern building on Lot 4A) would have an upper level finish floor elevation of 8118.5; the road elevation at that point is 8120. Subdivision Design Standards. Subdivision requirements such as water, sewer, electric, and pedestrian access are addressed elsewhere in this report. At Staff' s suggestion, the applicant has agreed to place the stormwater detention ponds in a non-buildable outlot. Ownership and maintenance of this outlot should be addressed in a maintenance agreement, and should be submitted for staff review and approval prior to Town Board hearing. The proposed subdivision is a Minor Subdivision in terms of review procedures. Section 3.9.E requires the planning commission "find that approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in confiict with the purposes and objectives of [the EVDC]." Staff suggests this is the case because the subdivision of the property has no bearing on the overall zoning, land use, or density for this area. Page #5 - The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-01B, The Meadow Replat and preliminary condominium map The outlot should be labeled "Outlet A" and be clearly labeled as a drainage easement, and include the label "nonbuildable." Condominium Review Standards. Section 10.5.H of the EVDC requires that condominium airspace developments be subject to the same review process as subdivisions. It is staff's opinion the subdivision review and development plan review combine to provide adequate review of the preliminary condominium map. Final condominium map would not be submitted for Town Board review until at least one unit is substantially complete, which allows for surveying of the airspace. Condominium projects typically involve submittal of a final map, with multiple supplemental maps as the project builds out. Staff suggests future condominium declarations clarify the use of Lot 4A is accommodations use, as defined by the EVDC. This should be included in condominium declarations because the proposed density is allowed only for accommodations use, and not for residential use. Grading and Site Disturbance. Section 7.2.D requires the Decision-Making Body approve proposed Limits of Disturbance for all development plans. This section includes criteria for establishing Limits of Disturbance. It is Staff' s opinion the proposed LOD meet these criteria. For example, the existing aspen grove north of Building 4 will be protected with construction fencing during construction, and the overall site configuration will reduce site disturbance compared to the existing approved plan. Tree and Vegetation Protection. Existing trees to remain shall be fenced for protection prior to any site work. Tree protection fencing shall comply with standards set forth in Appendix D.VIII. Landscaping and Buffers. The landscape plans require several minor corrections. The applicant has agreed to these requirements, as outlined in letter to the applicant dated May 6,2009 (attached). Exterior Lighting. The proposed development will be subject to lighting standards set forth in Section 7.9, which requires exterior lighting be shielded and downcast. No lighting fixture shall be higher than fifteen feet above ground. This includes parking lot and security lighting. A lighting "cut sheet" will need to be submitted for Staff review prior to issuance of first building permit. Off-Street Parking and Loading. Lot 4A requires thirty-six (36) parking spaces; thirty-nine will be provided. These include the on-street parking spaces approved during the original subdivision design process. Page #6 - The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-018, The Meadow Replat and preliminary condominium map Lot 4B requires twenty-three (23) parking spaces; thirty-two will be provided. The overall parking design and layout are functional, and comply with design standards set forth in Section 7.11 and Appendix D. Adequate Public Facilities. No building permit shall be issued unless such public facilities and services are in place or the commitments described in Section 7.12.C have been made. This section requires that facilities are available to serve the proposed development when building permits are issued. Electric. All electric service is to be placed underground. Drainage/Water Quality Management. The storm water management plan has been forwarded to the Public Works Department for review and comment. The basic design concept is the same as for the currently approved plan: drain downhill across the meadow toward the ponds, using culverts and swales where necessary. Sanitary Sewer. Before a certificate of occupancy is issued for Lot 4A, a sanitary sewer/access easement shall be granted to the UTSD, and a copy submitted to Community Development. Water A two-inch private main will extend from the existing 12-inch main in Marys Lake Road to serve Lot 4B. Individual service lines will extend from this. A new 8-inch main will be extended from the existing 12-inch main in Marys Lake Road to serve Lot 4A. A four-inch line will be extended from this new 8-inch main, with service lines extending from the four-inch line into each of the four proposed buildings. The 8-inch main will become part of the town' s water system, where all other lines will be private. Fire Protection. The submitted ISO calculations indicate one additional hydrant will be installed. Per Section 7.12.G, all fire protection requirements shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit. The fire chief will need to provide building permit approval. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Town Attorney White had comments regarding notes on the plat and responsibility for maintenance of the drainage ponds. Page #7 - The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-018, The Meadow Replat and preliminary condominium map Building Department. The Building Department has listed five comments that must be addressed prior to approval. Staff has included compliance with the Building Department memo as a suggested condition of approval. These issues relate to accessibility, and will be verified prior to presentation of mylars for signature by the Chair. The applicant has a consultant (Thomas Beck) evaluating ADA needs. Public Works. Comments from Engineering, Light and Power, and Water have been included as suggested conditions of approval. Neighborhood Comments. As of May 6, Staff had received comments from six nearby property owners. Comments include: - "I oppose this change in development." - Opposition to increase in density - Concern about height and blocked views. - Exterior materials and design. - Concern about change in character of Marys Lake Lodge area and mix of short-term visitors and long-term residents. - Concern about wind turbine and solar panels. Conduits. Per Section 7.13, "conduit, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall be screened, covered or painted to minimize visual impacts." Construction Plans. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department and UTSD prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or first building permit. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 1. The applicant should carefully review the Staff report, which contains several references to Code requirements. Failure to satisfy these requirements could lead to a delay in issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. 2. If all recommended conditions of approval are required, the development plan will comply with all applicable standards set forth in this Code. 3. Approval of The Meadow Replat will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the Estes Valley Development Code. 4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 5. The Planning Commission must decide if this Minor Modification request advances the goals of the code or results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation. Page #8 - The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-01B, The Meadow Replat and preliminary condominium map 6. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making body for the development plan and the recommending body for the subdivision plat and preliminary condominium map. Therefore, Staff recommends: I. APPROVAL of the proposed "The Meadow" Development Plan 06-01B CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with approved development plan, architectural plans, and "The Meadow Replat" submitted as part of the review package; 2. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department and UTSD prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or first building permit for Lot 4A. 3. Before a certificate of occupancy is issued for Lot 4A, a sanitary sewer/access easement shall be granted to the UTSD, and a copy of the recorded document submitted to Community Development. 4. The sidewalk between on-street parking and the accommodations buildings shall be 8.5-feet wide. 5. Compliance with the following memos/letters: a. From Community Development to CMS Planning and Development dated May 6,2009. b. From Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official, to Dave Shirk dated April 27,2009. c. From Tracy Feagans to Dave Shirk, Bob Goehring and Scott Zurn dated April 24,2009. d. Memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated April 24,2009. e. Memo from Greg White to Dave Shirk dated April 15, 2009. f. Letter from Dave Shirk to CMS Planning dated May 7,2009. g. Email from Greg Sievers to Dave Shirk dated May 8,2009 (except note 2). II. The Planning Commission recommend approval of The Meadow Replat CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Ownership and maintenance of Outlot A shall be addressed in a maintenance agreement, which shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior to Town Board hearing, and shall be submitted for recording with plat mylars. This agreement shall include a summary of existing agreements in place for this property, and outline necessary changes; Page #9 - The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-018, The Meadow Replat and preliminary condominium map 2. The following note shall be placed on the plat: "Outlot A land area shall be applied to Lot 2A for density calculation purposes. Maximum density is not guaranteed." 3. The outlot shall be labeled "Outlot A" and be clearly labeled as a drainage easement, and include the label "nonbuildable." 4. The property owner shall be responsible for revising, if necessary, the following agreements: Reception number 2005-0018246, Reception number 2005-0018247, Reception number 2006-0055940, and Reception number 2006-0020812. These revisions shall be subject to review and approval of the Town Attorney, and shall be submitted for recording, along with applicable filing fee, with The Meadow Replat. III. The Planning Commission recommend approval of The Meadow preliminary condominium map CONDITIONAL TO: Condominium declarations shall specify the use of Lot 4A is accommodations use, as defined by the EVDC. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I. I move approval of Development Plan 06-01B "The Meadows Amended Development Plan" with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and; II. I move to recommend approval of "The Meadow Replat" to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommend by staff, and; III. I move to recommend approval of "The Meadow preliminary condominium map to the Town Board. (Staff recommends separate votes be taken) Page #10 - The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-018, The Meadow Replat and preliminary condominium map GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 April 15,2009 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Amended Development Plan 06-01B - Mary's Meadow Development Dear Mr. Shirk: I have the following comments: Replat of Lots 2A and 4A 1. The area of non-disturbance on Lots 4A is labeled "non-disturbance portion of Lot 4A". However, the Plan indicates that is now a portion of Lot 2A. Also, the area of non- disturbance portion of Lot 4A Oabeled) does not close. 2. Subdivision Notes No. 3 refers to "the area outside the platted limits of disturbance". However, the wording uses "non-disturbance portion". The Subdivision Note should accurately refer to that portion of the property. 3. The Dedication Statements needs to dedicate all of the easements located on the Plat including, but not limited to, all utility easements, drainage easements, and non- motorized trail easements. Amended Development Plan 1. Project Notes No. 14 indicates that the detention basin will be the responsibility of the owner of Lot 2A. For purposes of this comment, I am assuming that drainage from the development will drain into the series of detention facilities located in the easement for drainage and detention facilities shown on the Development Plan. It is my opinion that the responsibility for the maintenance of those detention facilities should be the development occurring pursuant to this Development Plan. As Lot 2A is a separate lot, it may be under separate ownership and the owners of Lot 2A responsibility to maintain the series of detention facilities used by this development may not occur. .. . ...---.-UU-i --$//WIÂ£ 2. This property was annexed to the Town pursuant to an Annexation Agreement. Said Annexation Agreement listed the responsibilities of the owners of the property with regard to conditions to development on the properties. For purpose of this review, I have assumed that all of the responsibilities of the owners set forth in the Annexation Agreement have been met and that the Annexation Agreement does not need to be amended to approve this proposed development. If you have any questions, pleas9 do not hesitate to give me a call. Ye*v Truly Yours, A 11_ / A r / \J V i i '(1 U-0,(-A~.00% 1/ L./Ul i Gredbry A. White GAW/ldr CC: Van Horn EngineerinÂ£ Joe Co Fax: 970/586-8101 ~ MEMORANDIJM To: Dave Shirk, Planner H From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official I)ate: April 27,2009 Subject: Mary' s Meadow Development Lot 4A, Mary' s Lake Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision 341 Kiowa Drive The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the Development Plan for the above-referenced property and offers the following: Below comments must be addressed and revised plans must be submitted to the Town of Estes Park Department of Building Safety for review/approval prior to development plan final approval. 1. The designer shall specify the intended use for the proposed units on the development plan. (2003 IBC R-2, R-1; 2003 IRC R-3 one & two family dwellings, etc) 3. The designer shall specify the CRS Implementation plan as required by 9-5-106 for accessible units on the development plan. 4. The designer shall specify the required number and location of accessible parking spaces on the development plan. 5. The designer shall provide accessible route, slope, curb and ramp details on the development plan. Please refer to attached Development Plan Review Checklist for Building Department requirements. - - ESTES -'Â®PARK COLORADO F.U. tiox '1 LUU, ts es ar , Memo To: Dave Shirk, Bob Goehring, and Scott Zum From: Tracy Feagans Date: April 24,2009 Re: Marys Meadow Development, 341 Kiowa Dr Background: The Public Works and Utilities Departments have enclosed progress comments regarding the submittals received to date and remain general as the submittals are not complete and construction drawings for the public improvements have not been submitted. It is important to note that these Departments reserve the right to make additional comments and revise comments as more detail is provided in the subsequent submittals and development plans. Light & Power: The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Application for an Amended Development Plan #06-01B for the above referenced prbperty and has the following comments: 1. Due to the significant changes that have been made to the initial plan. The Department requires a plan showing the requested electrical underground facilities, from that, we can ascertain our level of involvement and will be able to determine the cost to provide service. Contact Line Superintendent Todd Steichen at 970-577-3601 with questions or concerns. 2. A three phase loop feed will be necessary, compensation in full must be made to the department and installation of all underground conduits is imperative before any building permits will be released. 3. Developer to install all trenches & conduits, all materials, truck hours and mileage will be purchased from & installed by Town of Estes Park. 4. We will in the future need accurate As-Builts in electronic, Mylar, and paper versions. 5. Easements need to accompany new lot lines in new proposed locations. â€¢ Page 1 6. Easements also need to accompany all existing primary electric lines and any secondary electric on others property. 7. The vacation of an easement is allowable if it is presently vacant with no chance of being occupied in the future. 8. Any relocation or upgrade of existing facilities will be accomplished at the project owners request and expense. 9. Each and every meter socket will need to be permanently marked with the specific address and or unit number prior to hook-up by the utility. 10. All primary electric must be buried 4' deep in a 6" gray electric conduit with warning tape at 2'. All secondary must be buried 2' deep with warning tape at l' in the appropriately sized gray electric conduit for the conductor. 11. We will need to meet with the developer and the electrical engineer to determine exact cost and location of proposed facilities. 12. Submit plans from the project electrical engineer for Town review and approval. 13. We will need to know the size of each individual service, type of heat and whether or not air conditioning is being proposed. Water: After review of the Amended Development Plan 06-01 B the Water Department has the following comments: 1) The Blue line elevation for service from Mary's Lake Road is 8120. Domestic service may be adequate at the upper levels on The Suites on the Meadow. If any of the buildings require a fire suppression/sprinkler system then this supply will not be adequate, in which case the fire suppression and domestic service will be required to come off the main line to the west of the property that is supplied by the Kiowa tank which has a Blue line elevation of 8250. 2) If the structure is required to have a Fire Suppression System a 'Fire Sprinkler System Connection Application' must be completed and submitted to the Water Department before any connection is granted. This application must include a detailed drawing noting: â€¢ Location, sizing and type of backflow prevention device(s) â€¢ Engineered flow requirements for the fire sprinkler system â€¢ Spill control method for proper disposal of discharge from the relief valve, indicating location and sizing of drainage capable of accommodating the discharge that could occur Due to fire line size both a chlorination and pressure test will be required, conducted by a representative of the Water Department prior to acceptance. Any Fire suppression line servicing a building from the water main is a private service line and must be noted as such on the Development Plan and the Subdivision Plat. Future repair or maintenance required on this service is the sole responsibility of the building owner. â€¢ Page 2 3) Construction drawings are required for the project. Drawings must be approved and signed by the Utilities Director or designated representative prior to any construction. All water line design and construction shall be done according to the Water Utility Policies and Standards. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. Construction drawings must include: o Plan and profile to show potential conflicts between water and other utilities including culverts, show Utility Easement locations when utility is not in Road Right of Way. â€¢ Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) indicating tap locations, meter sizing, meter locations, and addresses served by each. 4) Any water service line greater than 2" will be required to pass a chlorination and pressure test prior to activation for service. To schedule the chlorination and pressure testing contact 970-577-6322 prior to installation. A service line permit is required and installation is subject to inspection by the Building Department. 5) For verification all properties must show proof of inclusion in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District prior to connection to the water distribution system. Engineering: Forthcoming â€¢ Page 3 Q UPPER r Ay 10/ oisTRIc@ tiÂ¢fÂ¢~ P.O. Box 568 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 586-4544 April 24,2009 Dave Shit Planner II Town ofEstes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Mary's Meadow Development Lot 4A, Mary's Lake Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision 341 Kiowa Drive Dear Dave, The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1. The District has the capacity in the collection system and the treatment facility to serve the proposed development 2. Distict pemonnel will need to review the plans to determine the plant investment fees due. Plant investment and permit fees aitto be collected at the time the building permit applications ait routed through the District's administration office. The condominium association will be billed accordingly for service charges. The District will contact them to establish a billing procedure. 3. The District will require a dedicated easement exclusive to the main line podion prior to the connection and acceptance of the main fine. 4. The District will require a separate 6"connection to each unit. 5, Plans to construct will need to be submitted to the District, and upon approval, a pre- construction meeting will be scheduled, Please have the owner, contractor, and the engineei present at the pre-construction meeting. 6. Construction plans that are not signed by the engineer will not be considered as official construction plans, 52 7. The District will not allow the placement of any landscaping (especially trees) and the impoui*ling of water on the easement without prior approval. Fencing or any other structures on the easement must be designed in a way to allow the access of District vehicles to maintain the collection line. 8. A Warranty Agreement and an Application for Acceptance must be signed before the District will allow a connection to the system. Ifyou have any questions orneed further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you, A . . 1 Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Upper Thompson Sanitation District cc: Joe Coop L d TOWN Of MIES PARK 5/ //2009 Community Development Department CMS Planning PO Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: The Meadow Amended Development Plan and Replat To Whom It May Concern: Staff has completed review of the proposed The Meadow development plan, and offers the following corrections/changes that need to be made: 1) Revise architectural plans to reference "Limited Kitchen Facilities" instead of "Kitchenette," add dimensions ofparking spaces in basement, clarify that fireplaces will be gas. 2) Revise landscape plan show it shows the proposed site configuration for Lot 4B and account for relocated sanitary sewer main on Lot 4A. 3) Revise landscape plan title blocks so they accurately reflect the lot they reference. 4) Add grass mix to landscaping plans. 5) Add note to landscaping plans: Property owner shall be responsible for maintenance of landscaping within right-of-way. 6) Coordinate size ofplantings shown on the planting table with the requirements outlined in the notes section. For example, aspens are listed per height in the table, but are required to be measured by DBH. Also, the table lists a height of 7-feet for some conifers, where that should be 8-feet. 7) Show landscaping proposed in retaining wall planting pockets. 8) Relocate proposed sewer main for Lot 4A so it is closer to the water main, and revise landscaping plan so the trees are on the east side of the sewer main. 9) Add notes to landscaping plans: No tree shall be planted within 5-feet of any water main or 7.5 feet of any sewer main. 10) Landscaping plan for Lot 4B does not graphically show plantings required. For example, the schedule lists 7 cottonwoods none are shown; 9 crabapples are listed, four are shown; etc, for a total of 25 missing trees. Those yet to be graphically delineated should be located as street landscaping along Kiowa Trail and in the retaining wall planting pockets. 11) Add note to landscaping plans, below sign graphic: "Signs shall be subject to review and approval at time of sign permit application." Should you have questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Community Development at your convenience. Thank you. Respectfully, T~30,4 l, 94-~.PIL ~1>aÂ¢id W. Shirk, AICP Planner P.O. BOX 1200 â€¢ 170 MACGREGOR AVENUE â€¢ ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE, BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICE: 970-577-3735 â€¢ FAX 970-586-0249 PHONE, PLANNING OFFICE: 970-577-3721 â€¢ FAX 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com/ComDev Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Greg Sievers Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:28 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Marys Meadows After reviewing this Development PW has the following comments: 1. Provide a continuation of the proposed sidewalk along Kiowa Trail to cross the southwest dwy. 2. Widen proposed sidewalk to 10' to accommodate auto bumper overhang, and public access esmt. to match. 3. Provide radii on both sides of both driveways to meet local/local 20' radius. (due the ADT, as well as RV & trash trucks) 4. Provide larger turn-around area (or hammerhead) in service road to accommodate Fire or Trash truck size vehicles. 5. NW dwy. cannot be on top of existing Drainage Easement. 6. Design the storm water collection catch basin east of Unit 1. 7. Design the storm water collection/discharge point to the south of Building 1, and its drainage to the east. 8. Provide thorough design for east driveway including cross sections. Greg Sievers, Project Manager Town of Estes Park Public Works Engineering P.O. Box 1200 (mail) 170 MacGregor Avenue (shipping) Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3586 0 970-586-6909 f gsievers@,estes.org http://www.estesnet.com/publicworks/Engineering/default.aspx We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.-- Aristotle 5/8/2009 ren Thompson From: Fredrick Silverman [flsilver@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 18,2009 9:12 PM To: Dave Shirk CC: Don Gordon; Judy Gordon Subject: Meadow Development Proposed Change Dear Mr. Shirk: I oppose this change in development. Does my opposition matter, or is this a done deal? Sincerely, Rick Silverman ~EÂ©Â®OV*3' ~~ APR 2 0 2009 1 ~ a Jb -U 1 I i 1/ *~520 V[El~ Karen Thompson lO~23 0 2009 1' k Front: Dave & Chiqui Schultz [chiqui39@bellsouth.net] L-- -1 Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:31 PM To: Bob Joseph CC: Karen Thompson; Dave Shirk; Ronald Norris; Greg White; Bill Pinkham personal; Tom and Carol Gresslin Subject: Mary's Meadow Frank Theis has submitted an application for an amended development plan, which 1) reduces Lot 4B to 1.62 acres by moving the property lines to include the detention ponds in Lot 2A (out of Lot 4B); and increases the total number of units from 35 to 46 by replacing the common building with a duplex and by removing the 15 units in the lower meadow and changing the three 4-plexes on the west side to four 9-plexes. The 9-plexes are shown as accommodation units, which have either 560 or 700 square feet. Therefore, it needs to be clear whether these 9-plexes are to be sold as condominiums or will be classified as resort/lodge cabins, which is discussed below. These 9-plexes are shown as three story buildings, which are all 41 feet tall. Since the slope in this area would likely allow Frank to build a 31 foot building on the lower side of the slope (pursuant to sec. 1.9E), the application indicates that Frank intends to dig ten feet below the original contour to place his lowest floor. First, I see nothing in the code which allows an applicant to exceed the maximum height requirements by digging below the original contour. Height requirements are imposed for more reasons than just the altitude of the roof line. Three-story plus structures completely change the nature of the environment, not the least of which is density and intensity. Therefore, I do not believe that the application should be approved to allow this. Furthermore, sec. 4.4 of the Development Code only allows a maximum lot coverage of 50% and requires 1,800 square feet of minimum land area for every accommodation unit. Therefore, these 36 accommodation units would require a minimum of 129,600 square feet or approximately 2.98 acres. If these units are classified as guest units in a resort lodge/cabin use, then the minimum land area increases to approximately 4.46 acres. Frank wants to reduce this lot size to 1.62 acres, which is significantly less than required by code; therefore, I do not believe that the application should be approved also on this basis. In regard to this specific application for a amended development plan, you have indicated to me that this is clustering, a term you used at the last planning commission meeting. I would point out that the Town at this time does not acknowledge this term in development standards, and that any rush to change the development code in this regard could be considered spot zoning. Be that as it may, I cannot believe that the Town would allow a development to be this much more intense and dense, in the name of clustering. It just would not advance the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Please also recall that as part of the approval process on the original application for a development plan of this property, the Town required the applicant to make and maintain improvements to the detention ponds to enhance the wildlife value of this area. Please also recall that this area is a critical winter habitat for elk which sits in the middle of an elk movement corridor. Therefore, I believe moving this area out of Lot 4A, creates too great a risk that down the road the good intentions in regard to these detention ponds will be compromised. Clearly, the better decision is to leave the detention ponds as part of Lot 4B and avoid any issues in regard to clustering, wildlife habitat value and spot zoning. F-Unit 9, part of the new duplex which replaces the common building, shows a LL of 8105. This is incorrect. It should be on Lthe 8102 contour (the original contour). The application shows the LL of the southernmost 9-plex on the 8108.5 contour. This also is incorrect. It should be on the 8106.5 contour (the original contour). Karen, would you please make this part of the public record and see that each of the planning commission members gets a copy. Thanks. Dave Schultz 2800 Kiowa Trail 577-1103 1 ren Thompson From: Rosing, Cathy (VEP CA (jobshare with Donna Henry)) [cathy.rosing@hp.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:53 PM To: Dave Shirk CC: donlgordon@comcast.net; cathytyree56@yahoo.com Subject: Mary's Meadow Development Plan Dear Mr. Shirk We are writing as a condo owner at Mary's Lake Lodge. We appreciate the recent notification of a review next week for the "Amended Development Plan 06-01 B:. We are unfortunately traveling on business all week and unable to attend in person. We do, however, wish to have the following recorded with the Town of Estes park. As a condo owner we have several specific concerns regarding the proposed changes in The Meadow Development. 1) We are concerned about the look & feel of the units called "The Suites On The Meadow". Mary's Lake Lodge has worked hard to enhance the rustic look & feel of the Lodge, providing a historical touch which attracts & retains visitors to Mary's Lake Lodge and Estes Park overall. The 3 story multi-unit buildings and townhomes do not appear to be following the same exterior design standard. In addition, the height of the units and density of the units wililikely have a negative impact on Mary's Lake Lodge guests and owners. 2) We are concerned about the density increase, moving from 35 units to 46 units. Mary's Lake Lodge has worked hard to create an open & relaxing atmosphere and we are concerned that the multi-unit density (9 units/building) will drastically diverge from the current environment. We j ust recently read the amendments, so we may not have all the details correct. But honestly, we remain very icerned about the addition of the multi-unit buildings to this development. We are very concerned about this area and we want to do all we can to enhance the current charm & attraction of Mary's Lake Lodge. We are also, personally, very concerned about the impact to our property values. Guests at the Lodge come for the view and the ambiance. Both will be lost with the inclusion of multi-unit buildings. We would really like to see the multi-unit buildings removed from the current plan and replaced with the original town home designs. Another option might be to reduced the multi-units building in size by moving the garage level to standalone buildings,. Thank you for your consideration of our petition against the current proposal to replat Lot 4Z of Mary's lake Subdivision. Please do not hesitate to contact us if further information is required. Cathy & Matt Rosing Owners - Guest House 17A Mary's Lake Lodge HOA . Permanent Residence: 3400 Cherrystone Court. Fort Collins, CO 80525 2 OVE [29- 111 APR 2 0 2009 ' r --1 1 --711 111 Dave Shirk WI}l APR 20 2009 9 Planner 11 Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 LIG=--1-J Dear Mr. Shirk, We understand there will be a meeting to discuss the "Amended Development Plan 06-018" regarding Lot 4A replat of Marys Lake Subdivision. As it is being held during business hours on a weekday we will not be able to attend the meeting but we did want to have the following recorded with the Town of Estes Park. We are condo owners at the Condos at Marys Lake Lodge, specifically unit S-8. We plan to retire and live at Marys Lake Lodge within the next 2 years. We have several concerns about The Meadow Development. 1) The exterior materials, even though being energy efficient in nature, do not blend in with the natural more rustic materials already in use by existing condos at Marys Lake Lodge and the single family homes at Kiowa. Visitors to Marys Lake Lodge come for the ambience of the 100-year old historic property. The modern look of The Meadow exterior siding will detract from that experience. 2) The replat of 4A includes the development of several apartment type multi-unit buildings called "The Suites On The Meadow." These buildings will most likely have the same/similar exterior finishes as the town homes being built in Lot 4B of The Meadow which would have the same negative impact as described in #1 above. In addition, these large multi-unit buildings will severely block the impressive views that visitors and owners at Marys Lake Lodge have enjoyed and paid for for decades. Being a continuous series of buildings, there will be little space between the buildings for visitors/owners to continue to enjoy these views. Also, the height of these buildings (now with a garage on the bottom level and 2 stories of residences above as depicted in the East Elevation drawing) are certainly taller than the typical town homes being constructed and will further block these views. We realize there is no way to stop development and growth to a community, but we believe further consideration should be given to the materials being used and the size of "The Suites' and the impact it will have on the success of Marys Lake Lodge and the enjoyment of its guests. 3) The Suites On The Meadow will be located a very short distance away from Marys Lake Lodge condos, separated by a very narrow private road. This will definitely be a further detraction to the visitors and residences at Marys Lake Lodge. We are very concerned about the vicinity of Kiowa and Marys Lake Lodge losing the charm that it currently has. It is this very charm that brings visitors back to Estes Park year after year. 4) We are also concerned about the property value of the condo we currently own. Renters who come for the views and the charm of Marys Lake Lodge will not be able to enjoy the same for future generations coming to Estes Park. As owners we are very concerned with the likely drop in property values as a result of this highly concentrated, unattractive apartment complex. Simply put, a complex such as this does not belong on this site. One possible alternative that might minimize this deprivation to visitors would be to eliminate the use of large apartment-style buildings as proposed with The Suites. The original plat for the Co-Housing plan (see Storm Water Management Plan - Plate 2B) shows that the units in the area of Lot 4A were going to be identical to the units in the area of 4B. Proceeding with this original plan would reduce the height of the structures and allow for slightly more spacing between the structures allowing for some visibility of the mountain range from Marys Lake Lodge. In other words, put the same town homes currently being built in Lot 4B with similar or greater spacing between them in Lot 4A. Thank you for your consideration of our petition against the current proposa/ to replat Lot 4A of Mary's Lake Subdivision. Please let us know if you need any further specifics about our position. Sincerely, Rick and Carol Loy Property Owners/Part-Time Residents at Marys Lake Lodge Condo S-8 Permanent Residents at 2741 47~h Street Court, Rock Island, IL 61201 ID)EÂ©Â®84*~ _~ APR 20 2009 1-=~ lif-1.- Karen Thompson From: donlgordon@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, April 19,2009 1:02 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Mary's Meadow Development 15*"94% Dave Shirk ~|Rf~ APR 2 0 2009 |1~| Planner 11 It! UL----41-j I Town of Estes Park Ek_-1 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Shirk, Thank you for the invitation to attend the meeting to discuss the "Amended Development Plan 06- 01 B" regarding Lot 4A replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision. As it is being held during business hours on a weekday we will not be able to attend the meeting but we did want to have the following recorded with the Town of Estes Park. We are condo owners at the Lakeview Condos at Marys Lake Lodge, specifically unit 15B. We have several concerns about The Meadow Development. 1) The exterior materials, even though being energy efficient in nature, do not blend in with the natural more rustic materials already in use by existing condos at Marys Lake Lodge and the single family homes at Kiowa. Visitors to Marys Lake Lodge come for the ambience of the 100-year old historic property. The modern look of The Meadow exterior siding will detract from that experience. 2) The replat of 4A includes the development of several apartment type multi-unit buildings called "The Suites On The Meadow." These buildings will most likely have the same/similar exterior finishes as the town homes being built in Lot 4B of The Meadow which would have the same negative impact as described in #1 above. In addition, these large multi-unit buildings will severely block the impressive views that visitors and owners at Marys Lake Lodge have enjoyed for decades. Being a continuous series of buildings, there will be little space between the buildings for visitors/owners to continue to enjoy these views. Also, the height of these buildings (now with a garage on the bottom level and 2 stories of residences above as depicted in the East Elevation drawing) are certainly taller than the typical town homes being constructed and will further block these views. We realize there is no way to stop development and growth to a community, but we believe further consideration should be given to the materials being used and the size of "The Suites' and the impact it will have on the success of Marys Lake Lodge and the enjoyment of its guests. - 3) Condos sold at Marys Lake Lodge are "Condo-tel" units. They are designated as such so that owners cannot reside there for more than a 30-day period. People who permanently reside at a residence like The Meadow, will most likely do certain things to units that guests of a resort like Marys Lake Lodge do not want to see. It is those very things that they come to a resort or lodge community to get away from. The Suites On The Meadow will be located a very short distance away from Marys Lake Lodge condos separated by a very narrow private road in clear view of these permanent residences. This will definitely be a further detraction to the visitors at Marys Lake Lodge. 1 We are very concerned about the vicinity of Kiowa and Marys Lake Lodge losing the charm that it rrently has. It is this very charm that brings visitors back to Estes Park year after year. We are also concerned about the property value of the condo we currently own. Renters who come for the views and the charm of Marys Lake Lodge will not be able to enjoy the same for future generations coming to Estes Park. One possible alternative that might minimize this deprivation to visitors would be to eliminate the use of large apartment-style buildings as proposed with The Suites. The original plat for the Co-Housing plan (see Storm Water Management Plan - Plate 2B) shows that the units in the area of Lot 4A were going to be identical to the units in the area of 4B. Proceeding with this original plan would reduce the height of the structures and allow for slightly more spacing between the structures allowing for some visibility of the mountain range from Marys Lake Lodge. In other words, put the same town homes currently being built in Lot 4B with similar or greater spacing between them in Lot 4A. Thank you for your consideration of our petition against the current proposal to replat Lot 4A of Mary's Lake Subdivision. Please let us know if you need any further specifics about our position. Sincerely, Don and Judy Gordon Property Owners/Part-Time Residents at Marys Lake Lodge Condo 15B Permanent Residents at 1250 S. Duquesne Circle, Aurora, CO 80018 1311 APR 2 0 2009 1~ 0 UL- 2 Page l of l Dave Shirk From: George Droll [george.droll@oliver-riley.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:18 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Meadows Development Dave, I received an e-mail from a few homeowners at Marys Lake Lodge about the Meadows and Marys Lake development. I did receive your reply to some of the owners as well. I am the HOA President and had a couple of questions for you. 1. Many homeowners were told when they purchased their units that the land in front of the lake view condos (in front of the pool area) was a registered wetlands and could not be developed. The pipe that Frank and Jim had in the hillside last week was spraying spring water and this has concerned some area residents should that land were to be developed. Are you and the commission aware of the spring water issue there? 2. Many homeowners are concerned about things like a wind turbine on that property as this would certainly be considered sight pollution (or whatever the appropriate name for it may be). Is this something that they can add to this plan? It seems like they are not providing full disclosure on what their true intentions are and this does not give the area residents time to understand the new plan in time for your meeting. You have this on your web site but the plan you have it sounds like does not represent the final plan. Perhaps you should disclose this and then give the area residents time to review it. Your thoughts? Your insights would be helpful. Thank you. George E. Droll Oliver-Riley & Associates, Inc. 513-379-9598 5/7/2009 . . I C EN ';~PEÂ©[209[25 STATEMENT OF INTENT APR - 7 2009 ~ ~ Amended Development Plan/Minor Squu_Vision-----J- THE MEADOW L_ Lot 4a - Mary's Lake Replat The subject property is 5.062 acres located between Marys Lake Road and Kiowa Trail east of Marys Lake Lodge. It is zoned A-Accommodations. The property has an approved Development Plan for 35 residential condominium units. This plan, approved in 2006, was intended to be a co-housing project. This Amended Development Plan reflects a change from the 35-unit co- housing project to a 10-unit townhouse-style residential development (The Meadow), and a 36- unit accommodations development (The Suites at The Meadow). A Minor Subdivision splits the property, so these two projects are on separate lots. The Meadow is on Lot 4B (1.88 acres). The Suites at The Meadow is on Lot 4A (1.62 acres). The Minor Subdivision also moves the Property Line between Lots 2A and 4A, expanding Lot 2A to encompass the detention basins currently on Lot 4A. THE MEADOW - The approved plan has four duplexes and a common building in Phase I, which is under construction. This Amended Development Plan replaces the common building with another duplex, resulting in a residential development containing 10 units in five duplexes with detached garages. The only change to the basic layout of drives, parking, and buildings is he elimination of four surface parking spaces. THE SUITES AT THE MEADOW - The Amended Development Plan proposes 36 accommodations units on the new Lot4A. There are four buildings with 9 units each, connected by covered walkways. Each building contains five 560-square-foot units on the upper level, four 700-square-foot units on the lower level, and four parking spaces, storage, laundry, and mechanical on the basement level. The new layout removes all the units from the meadow, and increases the number of units located on Kiowa Trail. The perpendicular parking on Kiowa Drive was approved in 2005 as part of the Â«private drive" design of the Kiowa Trail extension. This road design was intended to discourage general use of this section of road - a major concern of home owners in the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision. This Amended Development Plan eliminates six of the parking spaces on Kiowa Trail, and increases the landscaped area. PHASING The approved plan has four phases. The Amended Plan has no phasing. UTILITIES As a result of shifting the units out of the meadow, the utilities are simplified and site disturbance is dramatically reduced. DRAINAGE There are no changes to the approved drainage plan. Detention basins have already been built. BUILT GREEN Both The Meadow and The Suites at The Meadow are going to be LEED-certified Built Green structures. Solar panels are planned for the south facing garage roofs in The Meadow and may also be incorporated in the final design of the Suites buildings. The Meadow - Statement Of Intent Page l 4/7/2009 ( \ OTHER ITEMS Landscaping islands are located in the Right-Of-Way of Kiowa Trail in the parking area. A Subdivision Sign is located at the intersection of Marys Lake Road and Kiowa Drive on Lot 4B. It will include directional signage for the different entities in the subdivision. STATISTICAL INFORMATION LOT 4A LOT AREA 1.62 acres 70,353 sf AVERAGE SLOPE 5.6 % DENSITY/AREA USED 36 ACCOM. UNITS @ 1,800 sf/UNIT 64,800 sf UNITS ALLOWED 70,353sf/ 1,800 sf/UNIT 39 UNITS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 25,666 sf TOTAL PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE 36.5% MAXIMUM ALLOWED SITE COVERAGE 50 % PARK[NG REQUIRED 36 x 1 SPACE/UNIT 36 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED 36 x 1.08 SPACES/UNIT 39 SPACES ( 16 in garages and 23 surface) LOT 4B LOT AREA 1.88 acres 82,053 sf AVERAGE SLOPE 8.2 % DENSITY/AREA USED 10 DUPLEX UNITS @ 6,750 sf/UNIT 67,500sf UNITS ALLOWED 82,053/6,750 sf/DUPLEX UNIT 12 UNITS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 34,138 sf TOTAL PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE 41.6% MAXIMUM ALLOWED SITE COVERAGE 50 % PARKING REQUIRED 10 x 2.25 SPACES/UNIT 23 SPACES PARKING PROV[DED 10 x 3.2 SPACES/UNIT 32 SPACES (20 in garages and 12 surface) The Meadow - Statement Of Intent Page 2 4/7/2009 i \ j C ESTES VALLEY ("b N . i I. './: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ~ Submittal Date: 1- Boundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map IN,6 1~11 r Special Review 1- ROW or Easement Vacation 1%. Preliminary Map ir*4511!111 1 Rezoning Petition r Street Name Change 1- Final Map 6. 414 1 1- Preliminary Subdivision Plat r Time Extension E Supplemental Map ~ 9 ' r Final Subdivision Plat r Other: Please specify r ~ Minor Subdivision Plat 1 1 Amended Plat Gdneral Information Project Name TUE- rl,EADO(.O - krialeDE.D DEN ELortiENT FIAR Project Description t L M.| AXI) A Subbl\)(SLOk) Project Address 3-1- l 14(Objal DFC, Legal Description LOT + A .MARYS rl-EAD<)(Â» RE-fLAT Parcel ID# 340 243 80044 Section 2 Township -4 10Â©FUHRange 736Â¢OE-ST Site Information Total Development Area (e.g., lot size) in acres 6.062_ AL, Existing Land Use APFROVE-P .39 -DÂ»\T DE-0 ELOPKEAJT UNDEF. coms-[. 1 Proposed Land Use /0-UN LT RE-SIDE-hhT LAL/ 36- UAJIT Adic-OtiMDDA--TM,Â·35 Existing Water Service .RTown r Well F None C Other (specify) Proposed Water Service FTown T- Well r None E- Other (specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service F EPSD 17< UTSD r= septic r- None Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service 0 EPSD *J UTSD C Septic Is a sewer lift station required? P Yes CK' No Existing Gas Service M Xcel E Other F None Existing Zoning A - Aa-oM Proposed Zoning SAAE- Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? E Yes ~K No (JILL DO oRE_ WEEL Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? f 12-(08=-[Yes~ K No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person FgaÂ©4<2 -TUE.,1 6 Complete Mailing Address 705 4(4 E-F , CO 805 /7 Attachments *~ Application fee K Statement of intent LUEE *,55/ U=. U W L!=1 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan ~ MAR 2 5 2009 ~~ 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan 1 1 i Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Town of Estes Park,a P.0, Box 1200 4 170 MacGregor Avenue a Estes Park, CO 80517 Communily Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 + Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www.estesnet.com/ComDev t lii>' 41'|T IAT Primary Contact Person is 1- Owner ,)K' Applicant E Consultant/Engineer l' HI f r Record Owner(s) MAR-i 5 MEADOW) DE.17 E--Lot=:' Me-UT , 1 616 , -- Mailing Address L s 2-0 FALL- 123 V E.12- RD, EF; 4,5 80917 Phone Cell Phone 2(4 - 69 2 1 Fax Email Applicant O t-1 6 PLAN MI Â»6 *-, DEVELOPM.EM-T (FFARK 1-RE{ S Mailing Address PO [b 4 la E-F, 66> 205- 1 7 Phone 577- Â¥741- Cell Phone 2-5 ( -6 2-063 Fax -577- 9 744 Email FTREAS -5 @ 61141 L, 6-0 K ConsultanVEngineer VAN PtL:>IZAJ E-NA I N EJE_IK.l 1~Co C JOE- 6007%) Mailing Address Phone 69 4 - 75%8 Cell Phone Fax 656 - S COL Email 30(,vile- 0.0:~6:-,g.,avi*. 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: JA ME, \A) .1 A 60 NE (c Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Flz.Ale K -11(El 5 Signatures: Record 04971% -0--7-<> 0 Date ~Â¥-z s-76- 9 , Am- Date b -215 -09 C r APPLICANT CERTIFICATION 4 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). 4 I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. (The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.) â€¢ I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. â€¢ I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. I I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. â€¢ The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. â€¢ l grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. â€¢ I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT.Â· 7 4 ~t $55 * . T 4,4 /v E (/ 1 Applicant PLEASE PR/NT: TRAAj K- -7-Ral 6 Signatures: Record Ow~ -- Date 311 1 S,-) 0 9 NÂ«44 v,r Date 3-25 -09 \1 / V Revised 10/13/06 In Le g m 00 O 09 03 0 8 3% re O LO 02 2 00 6 0 -ON I O > 0 ~=~Â¤EE a. O oousM'z R e r.Â·uim< El- a < l856 2239 00-Eig D f 6 I 3 2 0 2 M z a. mu-1 -J B =92%%Ez=19 5 0 Di~Con u) 7 < R) U.1 r. O O U)<-6lt Sm,-oowao 1-LI ~ H-0- DE IL < 22* O 3 M co m Ir cr rn 09 12 N > HmccLU J o 832[02&Ett @BtlE %3%<22*tctsW 983%88,34= [I 5! W 8 k 2 24 co N 1- 0 D 3 ~LLI 8@% SE O- < Z LLI ~ & m <LU O U.1 D O >Z LU AP * ,_ Z %%023@19,r <gawl z -a:<croOR CO :13 Dat<50)Etiotito< > 0 E X 5 # 9 O xul< zzoz %*%6 ~ U) - O (911_Z 0<m 32 D@ES 96 28.522&522 03< Ed a,Enwl 00(DA C\'cu 0 00 CD p O Â·Â¥-009Â·-c\IN W CL (0 - 01 - N ~ 4- C\1 - CO N O) I 111 N 1- m O Z Lu ~ ST:~395 a W 0 9:1 Ul W g <m O 0 co Z dz # Jf LUOU- 3 w a ILLI Ill 1- 0 UJZ<W @@ 2<29~0~Â§ E g LU ILLIem o >corn< Z Z- 25 Z U.6Â£Â£ at tz@ER e W.LUOJO < 2 0 I g E.6 069<< <WIj > EE-iÂ£rjz O H r w LU LU 05><-JLLZ 0 0 1 06 U.1 H. l.11 0 1- r 1-1-1 00 0 06 F OU)-=!O Zrr >m 06~93 R omoo6; OEE ~-9888*9@Gggod 62 = 0a adm=E 0 U) E!= <Zi<m vu ~- H LUOUJLUZZZ ZHM<Omm A crir >>>zz zOR OzmosLU ZZ <LLI DI~- <5~ < rIm< <000 DIO ;ELI<Ill .in~~~3~ <<<mmoomOOOOOOOOOOOO LULLI LLI (5 0 00-1--3-1-1-2 MUU, 4~ 13~49 44.- 3150IRIS106, LLC 2453 LEXINGTON STREET CO 80026 638 LAKEWOOD COURT , CO 80517 4730 COLLEGE AVE, STE 206 LINS, CO 80525 7426 COUPLES COURT NS, CO 80525 MICHAEL DUGAN LAKE ROAD #6 80517 W ROSING 3400 CHERRYSTONE O 80525 LOVEE 13 'HOV38 EllS H16 9 LE ZllnHOS 1 8Â¥NNV 18 9~09 11 'O D'0*82 X1 'llSI LAN & DORA BENSCH 2500 BRENT VALLEY 43528 SANCHEZ RUBEN ARCHILLA 3233 E BIRCH AVENUE 80134 SILVERMAN 2010 46TH AVENUE, F2 Y, CO 80634 8L008 ona s ogn 16735 VILLAGE DRIVE BELTON, MO 64012 9 K008 OO ' S :992 0Â¥1838133 H138Â¥ZI13 ValÂ¥ *8108 S L892 z L908 00 EOEN 'a HIll/\IS Or 68308 O O 'NO.LNEIOHJL OB N31AIA 9 2 L908 OO NllSS3hl 98ZL6 VO 'aNÂ¥ld NVIDIVal:IVEI ASOS LLUP CRYSTAL KREITZER 3872 RIDGELA ADDISON, T 11:InOO NO31 113dd lbIROO 1631d33 NI 3518 HEORGETOWN H AV 31943 *330 NCE SCHMITT 100 WAIPUHIA & ALIX LASALLE 341 COUNTY R( E, TX 78009 6EZZ Mi 39 Owner Owner 11 Mary's Meadow Mailing Labels - Modified DP S9NlalOH 31V1 A31NVIAI HADLEY h NE 1-00 Mo) - E &1 0 51 00 O LO h 01 if) 09 10 00 Sg A CO OD CD 00 00. 00 00 (Q LO CU 00 420 98*NOM 2%20%0000100~000!z- O AE=0020#20.-r .4.(c)*05000-0200-vo-ow=rio80 ~ 3 LD ~ bE O 0 2 0- H 32 u M W 'D " 12 - cd M M 16 z co- be ~ 36 ui O 111- . co- Cd M E D .LU .En. 0<CBmzmlecomb,-CCCECE<Z[[ ILI [r Zed LUZZCE . f Z er O,rt td <97<<<-'m<-< -Z--<n Ircumnms=mInE ~ *5-~ ~~-~u~ ~~~~u ~Haka@** 03gam z m co S J co J UJ U-1 -1 <u) LLI>z262=~->irZU-1.11-ZI-<< 1-LLI~1-1--1--~-;_oK zmul 1.- Dr w -2< C/) O < U > D U) < U) 0 -1 0 0 or, CO U) (0 0 F-1 0 0( 0 H- U.1 D I M-~ 1-2 ~ 2 U) CD ZROLLU-1_10501-LUCOLLIOOOLLILLU-LU LLI LLI m LL LUmUJ LL. minOLLU_ LU Br CO 0.1 4 > UJ LU O-1 CE D 8 d >oz "ELE Z E F 111 LU I LU N g /9%9 M Â° 4 9/3 d 01 ILI z m92 z ic> Z@*~ 0 WE H m _1 Lli!1:1~q < U.1 m ~ 0 U) U.1 -1 W Wmo D oc< R m < O LU OC oz Wzijml-& & *% W 12 > 1~@ 0220%05 2 LuJ@E 90# ZIZZ Om <000 8=*Â·-3*E*%*RQ%22%_Em==a= *mag=m az= LU U) 00 U) 10< 00 3 m>c\1 U) OU)mcon o ~4 <Or-MCOLLIÂ¥*COU) RU-LU~U-11Â£ Z6m~ ECOZZLI~ I=< 0091Â·LOM Â·1~~00 .1.O If)O-00.-CDOLOOGI-0 Â·-10 Â·-LOLOOM tO O ONOLOOE'-he 090*NO00*00â€¢-co=fo gRGEQ&]SPER&}cooocur-cuoo-A-ca Â·AN per-00-ht 01 - 9- 1.0 0- C\1 00 0- C) 00 00 - - C) 1Â·- C) 01 00 4- h N O- C\1 N Q. 4- C\1 00 00 - 1-0 tO - h G) Ill 0 0 D 00 <C Z ILI CE 0 >06 LU G 0 < >-Z 6 0 < 0 0 Z O T LU Ul 2ELLI 0 0 Z l.u 2 51523% % % 8 (3 O~ E Â£) o m s 5 EE CO U.1 LU g Eg@1% < %%mMEN d Ic Z ~3 2% g N > OUJCORI~ ~Â¤ZE OOLUOM@213 -J Cri ZU.11-00 aLLILLIn Dr<QUJOC>>>O<52-10 LU DIZ Z LU 1-1- (D <<MIZ LILLI LU>LUZ -' < --Z DII C Ill A 92.20 OZ!&12 W- <4@ 3%@ba mEET 82 5 r <coz*u or rl-coam-1 Lum@ CDR rrggoâ€žnooozM52*wmz@S@Worzo-Oog Ord.<15- LU Z com-Ik- 00 22 Lruz ,.1,-Omo-hE 0(O COE 00 CO <~JJJ~O6Zcoo*OL~ 06 06 Z # 06 06 Â« m J Col_ â€¢1-1.,H<BbiI-),-U]WLLIÂ©6>OBI[1-mE Dror<z z 0606 <u'06 < m <LU , 06 15>5:<<<_, 0 566!00 <LU SE 1.U n' N W W &2&-5--4 I ZHR~ZJAU-1.--III Szmo 0'-O>><<<< E t ~ Z Z A D O W ~ -1 91 Vi ~~ g o g D e 0 6.5 0-lilil.LIDCOU)OZ Â·03000 O111 LU LLI W W v 4 LU Ill Â£ > f f - <LUE<<<WOOOOO0-1-#1-DJ'< -,FbEFFMMJ-1-1_IUSaSammo-O-0-~rnmmm~mmEU)(OU)(ocou)K SEPH & LIA 8720 JEFFREY ILLWATER, MN 55082 ELS, TX 78132 KS 66212 S, LLC 80550 80537 CO 80517 OWA TRAIL 80517 93908 902 31InS '3AV 39311 82908 O 92908 00 011301 3WH1 RON CARSON 14115 234TH STRE , NE 68028 26296 V 3OV-Id OO>101 8602- AVM >!13 9Nlhl STREET STREET 3NV-I 311SVO >100" 310800 OS131S dc] pelppow - siegel Su!1!BIN MopeeIN SAIBI/\1 HOHAHO SNI>IMVH M01138 NV AS 9 A3Na 01N3IAIdO 3A30 â€¢r- 9 ID N CD 2 7 o e 0 0.00 2 0 2 On O.05 000-5 -azz 35 9.0 0 Lu D 4%@RM B<=150 D 1- i LU 111 0 D LU Z 0 W < DE 2 -iLLI m W m 0 1 06 ID 00 0< JI 1 0 L O i *W ok CD O T- C) T- 00 - CDC\1 0 09 1.- 4- 1- co 00 0 0 - CD LO w 00 ,- CD ,- N (D CU ,- 5 0 m <C 23 LU OLLI m M 06006 < m LU ILI co LU> ZZ m LU >> W 2552% & EILEEN SALMON BELMONT LANE BEACH, CA 90278 GER FUNKE TRY~:?-31T1 C:+22~2-1'2 CO 80526 TX 76714 SUZANNE MCATEE & SANDI EIFFER 32C LINCOLN GREEN LN MONUMENT,CO 80132 ZETA LP RD 113 CKI PARRISH ING DRIV da pe!1!PoIN - siegel 6u!1!e'Al MopeeIN SAIBIN TRANSC NTINENTAL I NVESTMENTS, LLC & NANCY MCILWRAITH ./ f TW BECK Architects 170jb./aint Vrain Ave. - P.O. Box 57 - btes Park CO 80517 Architecture Phone 970-586-3915 - tax: 970-586-4211 Planning & Interiors Email: thomas@twbeckarchitects.corn April 28,2009 Mary's Meadow CMS Planning and Development P.O. Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970)577-9744 Attention: Frank Theis Re: Mary' s Meadow Amended Development Plan Site Analysis Lot 4A & Lot 4B: I. Number of accessible parking spaces. A. Per the Fair Housing Act 2% of covered (handicapped accessible) dwellings. The 2003 IBC table 1106.1 requires (3) HC spaces when the total parking spaces are between 51 to 75. B. Minimum of (1) HC space at each site amenily. C. For visitors when visitor parking is provided, a minimum of one at each building containing covered (HC accessible) dwelling units. A minimum of one at sales/rental office and at all other community/common buildings. D. A minimum of one HC space per each type ofparking (covered) even if total exceeds 2%. E. Van spaces - for every six or fraction of six accessible parking spaces, at least one shall be van accessible. F. Lot 4B is duplex residential so no handicap units are required. II. Required Accessible Route A. Site arrival points. Accessible routes within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance served. Extraordinary Design Pays Extraordinary Dividends B. Within a site. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces that that are on the same site. C. Exception: An accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance ifthe only means ofaccess between them is a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access. III. Number of accessible dwellings for Lot 4A A. The Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines (the Guidelines) define covered multifamily dwellings as: 1. Those buildings consisting of four or more units if such buildings have one or more elevators and 2. Ground floor units in other buildings having four or more units. The guidelines do not specify the total number of entrances a building must have nor where they must be positioned. However, the Guidelines do stipulate that each covered building on a site must have at least one accessible entrance on an accessible route. B. Accessible Routes in Multistory Dwelling Units "Multistory dwelling unit" is defined in the Fair Housing Act Guidelines as a unit "with finished living space located on one floor and the floor or floors immediately above or below it. Multistory dwelling units in buildings without one or more elevators are not covered by the Fair Housing Act; however, when multistory dwelling units are in buildings with elevators, the dwelling unit is covered and the story that is served by the building elevator must be the primary entry to the unit and must meet the requirements of the Guidelines. C. Number of Accessible Units per the 2003 IBC 1. Section 1107.6.2 Group R-2. Accessible units, Type A units and Type B units shall be provided in occupancies in Group R-2 in accordance with Sections 1107.6.2.1.1 and 1107.6.2.2 A. 1107.6.2.1.1 Type A units. In occupancies in Group R-2 containing more than 20 dwelling units or sleeping units, at least 2 percent, but not less than one, of the units shall be a Type A unit. All units on a site shall be considered to determine y the total number of Type A units. Type A units shall be dispersed among the various classes of units. Exception: The number of Type A units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7. B. 1107.6.2.1.2 Type B units. Where there are four or more dwelling units or sleeping units intended to be occupied as a residence in a single structure, every dwelling unit and sleeping unit intended to be occupied as a residence shall be a Type B unit. Exception: The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7 2. 2003 I.B.C Section 1107.7 General Exceptions. Where specifically permitted by Section 1107.5 or 1107.6, the required number of Type A and Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Sections 1107.7.1 through 1107.7.5. 1107.7.2 Multistory units. A mullistory dwelling or sleeping unit which is not provided with elevator service is not required to be a Type B unit. Where a multistory unit is provided with external elevator service shall be the primary entry to the unit, shall comply with the requirements for a Type B unit and a toilet facility shall be provided on that floor. 3. 2003 I.B.C. Section 1103.2.4 Detached dwellings. Detached one- and lwo- family dwellings and accessory structures, and their associated sites and facilities as applicable in Section 101.2, are not required to be accessible. 4. In your four (4) 9-plex buildings the ground floor is in this case the upper floor, that will be at street grade. All units on this level only would need to be type B units with six ofthese being constructed as type A units. D. Buildings Constructed by Public or Private Funds-Standards: This Colorado statute (C.R.S. 9-5-101 et seq.), in effect since 1975 requires 1 of each 7 units in "residential and transient accommodation projects" to be accessible according to the "most current version" ofthe ANSI A117.1 standards. The statute exempts "separate houses designed as single-family residences." Since this project has no accommodation units, it should be exempt from this Colorado statute E. Americans with Disabilities Act (Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, or ADAAG): Contrary to public perception, the ADA applies to housing only in limited circumstances: Public Accommodations: In private housing, the ADA applies only if it is also a "public accommodation" as defined under Title III of the ADA, such as a rental or sales office, and common areas (pool, clubhouse) if rented out to the public. (Facilities in private housing used only by the residents and their guests are not public accommodations under the ADA, but owners would be wise to design to ADAAG standards since the facility might be used as a public accommodation in the future.) 17 Frank, please review my above analysis. If you or Jim have questions, we can sit down and review them. I would recommend we at least review the requirements for Type 'A' and 'B' units on the four (4) 9-plex buildings on the revised Lot 4A. Then, ifyou want I will setup a meeting with Will Birchfield to review the above. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Sincerely, Okp u,*23> yrliomas W. Beck, A.I.A., N.C.A.R.B. Cc: Mr. Jim Tawney , 1 4$ * Â«fil F *1 1 . 07.* F L - /1 <-- ,0r 32 O 42 9 81? I ev ? 0/ 3/% t 1.1 1 17-1 11 11,1 L- - 2 - - --- - --.- - 0 - f 0 CK i - -El F 0 3 - I -1 02 A +I 0 - b - - E-1 V 1 <31 - . -10 1 1 k 4- 7 1 2 , I I r I _ - .Al - Â¢ i Â· i.- ~ , .. 1 - .- J * r.. t t /*im ..,VJ~ t ~' ' -Â£2 1. c VELI jÂ»lt. .- 3.. , ./ .r 4 ---~- 1=r t -- --LI,I....J -Â·. K -m -Â·~- -4 -4-4- - â€ž. . _ - ... k' /1 - --- - - - .*- -- - -4 < 1:LLV- - .---: ,-- * . :.. *: I. ~. al < 11 1 - i 1 . 10 U -.Il- - 0 -'' U ' 5 ve-~ - - ~- - - I 66 0 11 t re' 4 41 - 1 -i M. - . lid (44-74 79 Ocra /, i L=t,+0-~3 11~0*1 11 Holld 4 /A 0 A - 1 2 I 4 0 X X k X - 1- r--1 H 1 1 \ ell 11 ll 11 0 11 11 11 - 11 711 11 f - 1- 1i l. U 44 H i. 11 \ 8 11 4-*10- -? .1 fN 13 ~'WJ -39'V-3~ 9 MOLLVA1913 19Va SOUT !4 El-EVATIOR ' 3 Cupola http//ecoastweathervanes.com/Hamlin_Cupola.htm 3 -- * -_~, gf==~ rrn CED (94 1-~P 2' ~%*AE#4 b=:fl 94' d k_%7 ... N-9-6 : 4*2+.1.F~.m.~wFWzi;r Weatliervanes, Cupolas, and FlmaIs . .)442, ,#. I........9Â§534/3}Â·VE>,7 ..7 . C . Weathervanes Cupelas Fnab Moints Ordert,g & Shppng The Hamlin .:Â·4:a/~.....'YE/2,64 Â·twil"99$*... ffULLI~~~ 28.- Sizei Dimensions 1 P,kned Pine Price | Vinyl PRAcopperlouver* C 18- ; 18-W*23-H i $264 1327 i add$38 L., 1~91-;Axw-1 $33~-T--1440 1 a=I- 1 ~ 24- i 24-Wx35-H ~ $432 ~ $572 | add;74 i ~ 30" ~ 30-Wx 42"H $598 ~ 1792 ~ add $92 ' 36- ' 36-W x 50"H $770 ~ 31036 ~ add $133 I i 1 1 1 ! 420 42-W x 59-H $1003 i $1379 ~ add$192 2 48- ~ 48-Wx664* i $1232 i . 31683 ~ add $230 i 1 1 Ge ' 601 * 83"H i $1949 1 $2670 3 add $379 1 1 1 72- 71-W*99"H ! $2534 $3500 jadd 5547 1 40$ Copper Louvers '~ ~ ~ in vinyl models only Order This Item Home Customer Photos H?yEW *gut_Us Return Policy Sile-MAP Â© 2008 ECoastWeathervanes.com Â· 1.800.986.2870 17/11/700% 7-56 PI . - . ..LIC'Wl I ilip=r ... iliwiji !*Â·05-: *1- ~111%1Â«1* 01_ r -2 MI- 1/ . i 1 n.r- ....Il L r: 11101 - 0. -" 1 -~ i lue 1 - t.1 (0 , - ---..... F SOUTH ELEVATION --.i' 1- - -0,h I .t i)h'W \A . ~Gf[Ilililly>y'll ,â‚¬>S'It A~ -I . ,/~15.11 \D Jlf LLJI 11.S~Elll -1.. i : LE ~14 - '-Ebi_ 224 - If trIA' 421 4 : & ----- 1 -4 -t ' EZE Vi . t = 3 +494 ' 1 -- i 11 41 1 . 6 Lbite==L 4'..ll TRN L Laiwk*lill .iul"dij f C..LiJ ,- :Lii_Li;;121 j - - e----72%2 Inzz - - ' -1 1 Wt it 1 ----- p I 1-1 1_211 - 1 t 1 NORIA ELM.VAÂ¥141 DUPLEX UNITS 1-8 THE MEADOW LOT 4 - MARYS LAKE REPLAT ESTES PARK, COLORADO CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 416 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 577-9744 f ~~'P.4 . i -N l 1- ...i 7.1-I l Ea- w Oml , .....# #. -4,%.. . 1 2 -lw 1!u 1 - gASE ELE-VAT le>hS 723 " 51 1 '-o'I /01 .r Â£ 1- .1\~ lili 'n } D-----41 -:' ,--- MllIT/In~ 1% ee \ 1 11 1 - .-4 1 i r-LTJ M . 1@EST E..1.-EN Al-lphJ 1/8 " ~ /7 - 22/ 71+E- ME.At*_6â€¢4,- DUP; g x FILDe.6. -. 72-0 -SP Fira,5 HE-ID> DECK 81, 14. 1 0 1 FF 0 DWA DIMt â€¢46 1 VA~LTEP 1 UE#Lt'~6 I / LR Frf " - 1 ID Itht A6 \ 490 1 1 125' *.1 re.EN LK 3 OO ~<1_'h\!lzz:Lfil -Il.I-- -9 L -*.-*.....#-VI OfficE ~ -- MAsTEA ' 1 [Â©4 43 212-* \J 11" MASTEA 0- ~ CL ~ % -=f- - .call r f UNIT "A* t NOATIA I UNIT '* MAIM LENEL FLOOK. FLA KJ 1 . 7% 0 = 1.- 04 DUPLEX UNITS 1-8 THE MEADOW L~r 4 - INIARYS LAKR REPLAT ESTES PARK COLORADO | CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 416 Esses Pa,k. CO 80517 (970) 577-9744 FATIo/DEÂ£-tÂ« 1 8 * 1 2/ r- I . F? ayÂ«19 10 01 Wal 0 gAA - >* ; 1-'V I ------ E-== M j RMof.. - 1 116(pL FLOOF. P LAM F -~ 1!,DR11 3 LAuNPKY 530 SF FINISHED 2-80 5F UNFIN,SMED MULÂ·R - t/IToKAGE 9 ' X 12' NORTH LOWEF# BLEVEL PLC)OA FLAM 1/1 't = F,_ 0,1 DUPLEX UNITS 1 - 8 THE MEADOW LOT 4 -Â· MARYS LAKE REPLAT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 416 Estcs Park, CO 80517 (970) 577-9744 I.H ttL6-LL5 (0L6) LI908 00 SPEd salsa 9It xog .O'd INE*dO72[AE[a 79 ONININVE[d SWO ' OCIVHOE[OD'NXIVd SHISH IVE[dEIN AOOIVHIN SAWIVAI - Vt 101 AdopBOK 041 UO Sal.Ins 041 idoouo:) IBIn,001!NOJV t . f i ., , , , 1 - - 2 ?02 W 1 ..... 4 .11# -,1.-1-~ 1 i j i 1 /1 '1 1 : : J *1 & A X 'tr 0i g * ! j 1, ! 1 0. 1 49 -X EL ! lall. / i T i~ T--1 *to ; 4.- 1 : -1 -util*h . f - 1 /1 '1,1 J 4, Ill' L..1 1 1'' 2 ct.Gl i 1Â£ 2 -4= -- ---2 - _<LU-'-*11 1-1- 2'0 11 , Â° I e ' 1 i 1 1 , i Ut *15:22 J 9'1 1 ~- S-- ig/61 1 4 ' 1- - - ~ -,1+ +TOT 2-21 ~1- JL- -3 -- 1 15 11 .L - .% T ' H Uy 44 f 0 AU= - 1 - 1. - -1 - #r--L~2 1-t_& O Q W-- UJ 2> ....... 1 Â¤- 1-11 1 R Â·--Mi 1 A-*.- '( 1--- f-- .--- Or 1 2 . , 4 --1. 4 -'.*. 0,0 --- . - - -- - - 4 -- - - -- L T , /1 1 I , , 4 i .' ' I ' â€¢ 1 -' Il 'Il# . 1 1 0 ' 1 1 1 .714:7.&. 1- , -- r - - --~ -- r ~ ~~ 4 ~ .61 4 i ~-It .-- - 1.Â· ---- 1/ - - 1 0-,f 5,193 1 - .tucul=IN ~ tu-' '-Â· - 4 IT fy, lit , I ' ' . : -- P * --r.1.- --r. I. L.,1-1 Ms -9, =t-he- - LE- 1% 41_ 14 - 7- 1. 4 - 100--1 -4- , ul 4 } . 1"4.",--=1 - .1 -~1~ . 2 1 1 1 11~ Â· ' 71- 1 ' 1 4 1 , - ' 1 I. , . ,: r-, t ,Â· F. - . - 41 VA Â· - 4 r I., I -- _ 4*t 4--I,64 -- 12- I , 1: 11 413Â¥,p . i k 1-1. F=q 2-t ' F~t# -:tri â€ž + TE-1 416 -1~1; t[, :0 + . 7. TAN - 1.: - -T.X....6a I , ' 1 w :h Â£ 1 K==i; i hot --- 1,5*Ligi - - IL, Â¥ 1 , J i U.19=l ' 4 1 - 6.1 j; 31 - -f f ie=-".51 . ' 1 1. 1 .- 6/*,2,; k * 4 1 > 11-=-~4 - , u , 7,- 'f $4=.--,"~419 L --1.-:Lk-2, 1 2 Â· i - I''h-LL-*-- ' - \\'\41: i - I Uil ' I 'r i f 1~ i i 1 M. i ' 1 -" 1 1 k=it i. 1 7 1- - . I - '4' . ' . . 14 i *251 ' 1 . , 1 I .. 1 4 4 - - -- - - i,Â£ i , I ~M~' - ieiuk,82Â£,4 _ -LL i ___ i :'Ill f | _ t== 1. - ./ 11 ELL_ --1 ' iÂ· V i - -P - 7 '6 , ' ' l , 7.- Filic - '.- I- -F- -- - f.-- .- - - /~ 1 ' 14 tIt2 . 1 P ..1 1 1 .4. . 1 1 JLVA-31El- 1 119Â¥19 NOUMA *+46-LLS (0L6) LIS08 of) Spud 60*88 9It xog 'O'd INS[WdOTIE[AE[a 9 DNINN/ld SWO OCIVHOE[OD 'NNVd SHISE[ I.VE[dE[H 10(IVE[* SANVAI - Vt LOU MopBOTAI 041 UO Sal.InS 041 ida ouoo IBJn,001!40:IV 441 C~ 2 1 2 4 1 53 2 j & V, 2 3 3.54 54 1, db & r 5 t,a, - t~ 2 i k p #i~ 24 -Â§22 3 Ij~ ,- 0,1 IN -91 GL Â£~1-10 O.11 1- 3 d A. a<UJCJJ 11 4 k WÂ° 3le :1 k 20 - = _, 21:z J & id. 1-<all-.9 .DUIJ'Zj, #zw25&-X 0 2%=S#V El 4 34 6- -- * 20 - ax h > 1 ~2 a = -1 ht N 1-. 1 1 1 4 * 1 ,IL; Â· 2.Â· " . f. JI / 0~0 A U . 1 - A- 11 a v 9 0Â« /111-\ %.. A i . 1--1- 11 1 # i ; ---~.O a. Ct: . : 0 =jO__3- 1 f i 0 -9- -=-7 1 - 00 L, 10 t e 0 1 0 1 J* 11 i 51 4 10 -3 t 16 S-DO & T.0 L to ul 0 44: 4 t - - oq Na 2'Ed 13,1,107=1 rait w rl * '~ Ok 14' 1-aN37 73MO-I 91!NO + 0+ W>v-3 ds 002 1 +PLO-LLG (OLO) LIS08 Oc) 4,Ed 80:81 9It xog 'O'd .LNE[WdOE[HAE[a 79 DNINNV,d SWO OCIVHOE[00 tnIVd SELLSH LVIWEIN MOCIVHK SANVA - Vt 101 MopBOK 041 U~ Souns 041 'doouo:) IBIn,001!40;V Z -1 a- 1- 0 :21 U.1- i 30 00 2. It 1111& L~ -# 1 2|i JI r- P . 3 id 1, 1 1.14 9+ \4 NJ 41 4 ' 949 1 1 2 i Â£ 1-/ I _ ___4 t _~-41,--~ - 1 1 1. 1 O- VI 1 i Â·1 2 41 V' 12 \ 1- UJ - b. t r x ' 5-w#wq 1- i R .-- el.JO 'i ,1 Fr--T -T f-\- 1--4- 41* j . , '1 .11 119;11-lilli -X 4 /0-05Â¢14 +~, 2 - 4 41 _ i G ; f.; i i 1 r 1 1- *-----. -z---i--:- --L z.j-.*. 0 f i 2 I 1 1 1 - ' ' I ' 4. I I W Â¥ 3 , 1 ''4, 4 1 0.- e 1.- .L le : J : ;11 1-/III 1 J 1 2 / 1,9 : i i'@ j -1- 1 i , i - 1 E i i 1 1 . < ill , tu i 1 +0 1 ! ,1 1 1 N IU * ir -7 0 V, R ' 1 lial' 1 1 1, 1 2 . 11 1; 4 2 ' 1 i Â· 1.1 + 1 1 1 1 j .1 1 1 ~~i' , ,, 1 1 1 ! I i r 1, R J:lifivj I!l , 2 P & WL6-LLG (OL6) LIS08 00 Sped 80*83 9117 xog .O'd INHTNdOTIMASICI 79 DNINNIVId SIND OODVHOTO:) 5nIVd SHISH JIVE[dEQI AOEIVE[* SAWIVAI - Vl, 107 ALOpBOpy Oqi UO SO}!ns ONJÂ£ idjouo) IBIn,021!40;IV Ii- l1' , F 3 1 .1 . f i lili i : 1 1 2 ! i i Ill , --- --'.:_-J _i- t.-- 1-â€ž-- '--- " - ----j.*- â€¢Â¥-L- 1 . 1 09-Wy 1 i j .' 1 + 14 I 1-0 /.' 1,11 4; ) j-3 1-j. ...1 , 11 /- 1 9 . Ii,S 1 11 1 0 1 6.- 3 4 i i 4 1 4% iu 1- 2- 3 1 1 . 06 ' 40 S 1 1 it I 0 11 7:11 - i /0 . U. J = 11 -- - Till i r J,-In j/ 4:10 I ea X 1 i /1 . 1 -S t 1 1, . 0 44 - 1-i : 4 7-i--- 1 1 2 < , 1- -1- M - 09 1 i:1 1 1 1 2 - .+ . 2 -. -. - -- = - ~ - F % :{ f 8 '1 k rq 2 t V} d 2 i \/4 1 1-,0 I - - e ~, .,- - L ..1 i lii'' 1, 41. / i L i /: i '3 1 Ill - 44 0 01 J 3 _.- L j 0 -OW /\ 1 r J , .11 ,< 1 I \\ :. 2 =Â£ <3 A 1 i 11 0 1 & -.- 11 + _ .---_ <-- ~_ 4 ; A -, - A J al- , '.1 1 i 1,11 & 4 1 1 1 001 . 1 , -Â»14 4 - X CS X i i 1 1 1 1 1 i , 1 1 1\\ i .*: 1 alau 1 i & 1 . -1 1 Si i 1 /1 1 + r + r 1 1111 0 ! i 1 4 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ''11 1 1 1 i lili 111 i . 1 - -- ~- -- - ' -5 ----4- i , ---.-- -- 1.- . 1.--- 1\-- - -- --- 1 '' 1 1 â€ž 1 r L. 1 -, i u 4/li 1 1,4/1 111 -,12 I f 1 1 1 1 vi- t , 1 1 1 1 1 El: 1 1 1 r , Â£ i i 1 1 i T Ii I i 14 1 0 1111, 1 1 1 \! S 1910 ' I fi - 1 J.i : 1 : 5 1 i Â· 1 1 till.,1 i/7 Ili~ J - 1-. - . :Ilifl 11;i 11 , 111 - Ii I: - + .. L--/1 .. -- --. - . 1- --- - . -- - n -- I- 34 1,In|li:2 1 : . '4 . -1 - --- li I]*111111141,1ll 1 1 1 ./IiI ' i - ./1 1 1 I i i -1.- 2 - L L 1 1 2 -4- M 1 - 1, -- - - -- J '11, ./ Ol lr~ ;I 1 f J , 1 1,/ 1 , 4 1. 1 1 1- i i 0 4 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1,1/ 1 1 2 J Z Y #I --~.... i :1 4 . 1.d 4 , 1 1 1 Â· . 1 , ha - 4-- ti w-------*-.-- v-.L- -u - -. +- -- ~-- - ~- - ~ , 1 1 9 <L J + 1 1 , i i Iii Â·;! 11' I __l--L L A. * ./1 . A 1/\ , Â·-Â· Â·Â· 1 1; 6 1 | I . Â£11 , 9-4)-A U) 02 i / i _ i f 205 1 4' 11 _t *1 F O -84 r 13 1 1 1 - . J L O 1!11 1 1 1 b 6 5 . . dilat 1 8>. 11 U' 1,1, . ~ . 1 -9 .---~.-9- .. .P ... . ; r 1 f 1 . ) ;11 1 1 1 1 9 Â·.i I 1, 1, 1 11 , 1 f t ~1 , 01 - 5 % i i 1- i ' + - 41 i ' UU' U 1 1 .-/ 4.-I- t....~ -,- 1 1 q i 71 441 It i . , 1.0 i 1 -to '111 i.U' *.%-I *- 1 1 lilli i:It 1 Iii It : S --1- 2 - r- 7 + . ' 4, '724.1. 1 1. i 11 I i 1 5 4 1 I 1 , ' L 9-LH9rl 1303Wil 12-S~*f 1HHraw ttL6-LL5 (0L6) LI508 00 **Jud 89183 9It xog.O'd INSIWdOTHAZIG 79 DNINNIVT[d SWO OaVHOTOD 'NXIVd SBILSEI JIVE[daH AODIVE[* SANVN - Vt 107 MOpBO* 041 uo Souns OILL idoouo) IB:in,001!4OJV I -1 T. I - - .61 1 I IQ la 4\ LA I 27 . , - 0- le I . , 1.. 1 V n - Â¢4 I 1.- 9} 1 dt --\1 - 10 .2 0 1- lA 5 4 U)l 1 1, 1 W i , 1 Â¢04 +- 1 1 , 1 I 3/1 i 1 i ... i I 1 n t 1 /1 1 . .1 1 A / 1 1 - ' i i-~ ' 1 LM / -1 1,1 i ; -~ tarr ---- - -lilLi ' 4 i 1 1/ ilr 1 I . L In, 1 3 1 --WI t- i 1 4% 1 4 !i; 1 , 1 1 :,1 - 4 1.. - it L J i i 4 2 : j} 11? i ' i ' 4 0 1// J : 1 5 5/ I. --ril L . , -t 1 1 j E---... j; 1 Ji i 1 . ,.1 111 5. - I *4 10 ' 1 114 : 1 N! 1 1 111 2 '1 4 --- - *.4-- -+ 00 _ _ rY-1 1 1, , t -1 1 1 i M I 44 1 1, 1 _ Ul -,4 lili Jink 44 VO 1 - i l 1 2 -t- --41*i- #*- 2+ - tl ! 1 ~ -- ~ Â£01= 1 1 1 4 14 - i ' 1 1 1 - 7 9 5'960'8 Vaw 78.-L Â©10 33 8, (35 El 96 E r-O 9<41<1-11 09 .1-v 010/Ib-3 eff LEN E-L - 8, 11-4, 1 ill-9.5 EXE LE-VE,L 1 N... &%0 N 4 + The Meadou) Replat 60' WIDE R-0-W Â»5 11 //4\ of Lots 2A & 41 of 6Â· I e / Z 'Cb d?cpoe, SURVEYOR' S NOTES: DEDICATION: 0 Jo?'te@ ./ 0 94 / Morru' s Meadow Replat z ... KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE OWNERS OF E 30 / , 1 1) SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINS 7.796 ACRES. THAT PART OF SECTION 2, T4N, R73W OF THE 6th P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, / \. 2) BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PLAT IS THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 4B, OF THIS REPLAT. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT: / *60' WIDE a Portion Of Section 2, Township 4 THIS LINE IS ASSUMED TO BEAR SOUTH 89'31'22" EAST. LOTS 2A AND LOT 4A, MARY'S MEADOW REPLAT, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, / ~ R-O-W STATE OF COLORADO 3) SECUITY TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY'S COMMITMENT #S0291913, AMEND. NO. 2, THE PLAT CONT/JNING 7.796 ACRES MORE OR LESS, HAVE BY THESE PRESENTS CAUSED THE SAME TO BE LOT 1 North, Range 73 West of the 6th OF MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION, MARY'S LAKE REPLAT, AND MARY'S MEADOW REPLAT WERE DEDICATE EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS AS ARE LAID OUT AND DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT, WITNESS \ SURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS TO BE KNOWN AS THE MEADOW REPLAT; AND DO ALSO MARY'S LAKE / USED FOR ENCUMBRANCE RESEARCH. SUBDIVISION ' OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS DAY OF , 2009Â· ~ 4 \ / 4) PROPERTY LINES OF MARY'S MEADOW REPLAT THAT ARE BEING VACATED ARE ONLY & 1 ~,10' UTILITY P.M. Town of Estes Porrk, County SHOWN GRAPHICALLY. SEE THE MARY'S LAKE REPLAT FOR GEOMETRY OF THESE LINES. ~ # EASEMENT / 5) ALL MEASURED AND PLATTED BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ON THIS PLAT ARE THE SAME \ ' AS THOSE ON THE PLAT OF MARY'S MEADOW REPLAT. SOME HAVE BEEN REMOVED THAT of Larimer, State of Colorado NO LONGER APPLY TO THIS PLAT AND NEW ONES HAVE BEEN ADDED. SEE LEGEND. 6) NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED 04 3// h \7% - 'Â·5 UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE DATE YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE CERTIFICATION DATE STATE OF COLORADO) MARY'S MEADOW DEVELOPMENT, INC. 0 / hn SHOWN HEREON. )SS JAMES W. TAWNEY, PRESIDENT / ... e. 109 COUNTY OF LARIMER) W \ 1 \01\ U' Q E 0%42 // 6\ 1 Legend THE FDREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS --- OF , QE}- 2009 BY JAMES W. TAWNEY. 782 Â· 44%39 / 20' UTILITY EASEMENT ~~ AND NON-MOTORIZED' TRAIL EASEMENT o.oo PLATTED AND MEASURED INFORMATION WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. ..21 dig j SEE SURVEYOR NOTE #5 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES . ~ 52 SUBDIVISION NOTES: e < LOT 2A O FOUND MONUMENTATION, PLASTIC CAP #9485 ON A #4 REBAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED NOTARY PUBLIC 2.650 ACRES . 1) ALL LOTS SHALL BE USED TO CONVEY HISTORIC ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE DRAINAGE AND 115,454 SQFT Ft~f WEER i 4 \ ....t I FOUND 1" PLASTIC CAP ON A SHALL ACCEPT DEVELOPED POINT DISCHARGE STORM WATER FROM ADJACENT LOTS WITHIN #4 REBAR, #26974 THIS SUBDIVISION AND FROM MARY'S LAKE REPLAT AND MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION LOTS 6\ \ Â® SET 1" PLASTIC CAP ON A (EXCEPT LOT 1, MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION). ALL DEVELOPED STORM FLOWS FROM ADJACENT 45' WIDE e \\ \ 0 #4 REBAR, #26974 LOTS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION AND MARY'S LAKE REPLAT AND MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION tj<%3%08 ELI 64 \ \ THE EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND DETENTION FACILITIES ON THE OUTLOT. LOT 2A SHALL R-0-W 1% \ \ FORMER LOT 2A LOTS (EXCEPT LOT 1, MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION) SHALL BE DIRECTED FOR DETENTION TO ~~ <DIE O MARY'S MEADOW HAVE SOLE DISCRETION TO CHANGE THE POINT DISCHARGES AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES FROM Â¥4%;Â« /IME \\ REPLAT , 4. %\ THE ADJACENT LOTS SO LONG AS THEY CAN SHOW THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE 1-424 1~,Ildh /0 \ \ .86 \ Pvt CE Â·9) --------- EASEMENT THE DRAINAGE FROM SAID SUBDIVISIONS. LOT 2A SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MAINTENANCE OF THE DRAINAGE AND DETENTION FACILITIES WITHIN LOT 2A AND THE OUTLOT. 8' NON-MOTORIZED '10' WIDE- / Â·31-66 . ~C- TRAIL EASEMENT ./ ''Â·Â·. '4%, _--_-_ -_- EASEMENT CENTERLINE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE ON THE MEADOW REPLAT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE TOWN. 15 *UTILITY, DRAINAGE \/. < #Al.*â‚¬28*24 \ AND StpPE EASEMENT Y\~ \ A / -_ .- _ -- ._ -- - - - _- -.. EASEMENT TO BE VACATED 2) DIRECT ACCESS FROM MARY'S LAKE ROAD SHALL BE PROHIBITED. ALL LOTS SHALL / Â·Â· RECEIVE ACCESS FROM KIOWA DRIVE, KIOWA TRAIL AND/OR PROMONTORY DRIVE. BOARD OF TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATE: 2 E 6 .t\ ,&, â‚¬1. / A \ #4 REBAR Aw/4%42~9 Z 34' WIDE UTILITY AND *00:~ /\ 'Â·Â·.. NO CAP -- - _-_ - .---- - .-_- - _-- EASEMENT CENTERLINE TO BE VACATED 3) THE AREA OUTSIDE THE PLATTED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (THE NON-DISTURBANCE AREA) APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT 24' WIRE ~Â·.... ~- - - - - - --0 PROPERTY LINE TO BE VACATED SHALL ALLOW UTILITY AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES ALONG WITH THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT, ESTES PARK, COLORADO BY A RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON THIS __--- DAY <99 f < 02334 8 92,377 -01 \VE \ MAINTAIN, INSPECT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND REPLACE SUCH UTILITY AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES. OF , 2009. TOWN LIMITS AS OF #...; 16' E \\ 24' WIDE7 *0 \~ ~fl N FORMER ~ JULY 5, 2006 \ , - LOT LINE -I~-1-S> 1 4 PLATTED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 9-0340-,04 SEE NOTE #3 UTILITY AND L 10' WIDE . 9.1 43* \ ,r24, DRAINAGE EASEMEN11 91\ / /.1 / / LOT 38 1 . TOWN CLERK MAYOR " OUTLOT \, ~Â·Â·..... x~ MARY'S LAKE REPLAT / / 15' UTILITY, DRAINAGE 11\ tb>. i >f A \ 14 + 11 AND SLOPE EASEMENT / 1\ b. / \4 1.590 ACRES tt 69,262 SQFT ~ C S \\\99/ . / NEW PRIVA ACCESS # 1 15>& \\ . 46 0 1 \ Â£ -k ' / EASEMENT FOR OT 2A, 1/0 OUTLOT A SHALL BE 1 ..4 4 4A. 4ND OUTL A \49Â· AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC \ 0 ...6\ Q ~ /05' 9 -3?r'Â« ~ \ FOR UTILITIES, DRAINAGE, ~ ~- u'l ~ AND DETENTION FACILITIES .. e 11 \3\ seÂ· 193) 0* \ -e..o. C> 100. / \ s:# 0 M 8' NON-MOTORIZED \ \ \ h~.34 6 ~ 0 <Ps VT TRAIL EASEMENT v ~ ~~74'34'28'W \ ... A ~ NOTICE oF APPROVAL: 0.1 S 40' WIDE , 1 + 20' EACH SIDE \ 0 .1\ 45 OF PROPERTY LINE APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT PURSUANT TO \ ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S. AS AMENDED. :94 co 1 . Owl 61 N 9**P. b. 3 ely. 9. \ 914 iiI:1 e" 4 , \ SURVE YOR' S CERTIFICATE: <01 4 /1 \ 1, LONNIE A. SHELDON, BEING FIRST DULY SWORN ON HIS OATH, DEPOSES AND SAYS: THAT I e. 1 .... HE IS A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO: THAT LOT 3 SLOPE EASEMENT \ ' LOT 4A 1/2" REBAR ACCURATELY REPRESENTED ON THIS PLAT, ALSO THAT THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREON ~ 5' UTILITY AND \ '-Â·.. SQUARE THIS SURVEY WAS MADE BY HIM OR UNDER HIS DIRECT SUPERVISION: THAT THE SURVEY WAS MARY'S LAKE 1\ \ WERE READ BY HIM AND THE SAME ARE TRUE OF HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE. SUBDIVISION NON-MOTORIZED 1.671 ACRES \ SCALE: 1" = 50' j<8 TRAIL EASEMENT 72,806 SQFT . Li \:a' 0 50 100 150 \ S. \0\ \ e *1 \ 41 LONNIE A SHELDON, FORMER LOT 4A 'Â·16 #4 REBAR REG. LAND SURVEYOR #26974 M S \\ MARY'S LAKE REPLAT 'Â·Â·.. PC #6499 \\ 11+ 84 W \\ 1.4. 0 2 , L=4.54' \MARY'Aj C f <5 - \\ R=122.50' 10.18'2/ \\6 \221 4.p~ \ 9 6 i/in. 0* *00 D=2*07'22" \ ri. CHB=N29'25'41"W CH=4.54' 195.13' rÂ« 3 e \\ .4 , rÂ« \ llÂ·* \ \ 4 11, S83 13'53"E 145.91 ~ ~ 2 - 11 4# ' j 341.04' .....3 Â»Â·01 \ 959 22. \\\\ f \\\ 5...,*?26.04â€¢ LOT 4B . 434* Iia#Z J .*~~~*1 *60' WIDE \ JWC DRAWN BY: R-0-W 6-'0â€¢001 9:dle.d, 1.884 ACRES CHECKED BY: 0 (31(J'.'-' 83,0.14 , + . '13?\ ~ ~ 0>taa, 00Â«Uy,5 7.6109 - 82,053 SQFT . 444Â·2.4* ..:* h LAS 0.0.0 Ct FORMER LOT 4 ....~~~*~*~ * ~~~~~~~~~~~*~*~~*~~~ ~ ~ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 586-9388 ~ ~ ~ 20' UTILITY EASEMEN~\ 1" = 50' OWNER: ENGINEER: SCALE o LOT 3B MARY'S LAKE REPLAT MARY'S LAKE REPtAT 4 .411 ./fy#)#4<(42 0 Â·Â·. AND NON-MOTORIZED TRAIL EASEUENT MARY'S MEADOW DEVELOPMENT, INC. VAN HORN ENGINEERING 44<yeÂ«y \ JIM TAWNEY, AGENT 1043 FISH CREEK RD. DATE: 03-25-2009 Chro UP> go 00 11 \002\ 7+4* 0 11 \ 1820 FALL RIVER RD. ESTES PARK, CO 80517 45' ::~ ~_.~_ 8' NON-MOTORIZED 7%34 j -RYEW 2.11 TRAIL EASEMENT , I tiv\/ 4 4...... 586-4233 SHEET 10' UTILITY / 8 11 ~ EASEMENT , 2 \0431\ 0 / 1 Vicinity Map ~ 1 BASIS OF BEARINGS U.) 1,11111111'l#1111111111111111111111111111 j ill'llt'll'lljll'll'111/11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'1111111'1111111\Abll 44710-0: ~4 DESIGNER: oF CMS PLANNING 1" = 1200' S 89'31'22" E 494.02' 0~~*1 ~ p# PO BOX 416 ~12~'616 ca FRANK THEIS, CONSULTANT 60' WIDE KIOWA DR. 577-9744 R-0-W ESTES PARK, CO 80517 \ PROJ. NO. 2005-11-01 1N3K3SV3 SS300Â¥ 0300Â¥ 6003-ZO-*0 Mr WWOO -NÂ¥ld 2103 S39NVH0 6002-Z 1-90 ,I,VldEH ALOGVEN EHI, 753 9NIA3Ahl 49 L[909 Sld Â£*0 L ~ 'iLVIdGIH ALO 133HS 103rOad -- Vicinity Map Legend MW9 The Meadou) 1" = 1200' ----------- EASEMENT \MARY'A\ V<Q- N' AKE MI 10' CONTOUR Amended 3 6\ 20(- / 2,%5 2' CONTOUR Development Plan PROMONTORY \*h -E- E- E- BURIED ELEC LINE - SEE ELEC PLAN DETAIL SHEET 49 ECT FINISH GRADE CONTOURS . --WTO. -V-TO - -11O1rI -Am' 1 Iklre .irn -rn I n Tr-, r ni i .-, k , r .lili A A r-U r DR. 1 /24 n li~ 1Â»ls E C d IWC 7-L-7 1 310- rbi nri. TLK C ~ U-lodflu--9 x U-8 *~ U-7 U-6 4-Rm U-5 [~| U-4 4--,CAR U-3 - U-2 4..Â¤ U-1 1Â» 9/ 76< 10. ALL BUILDINGS WILL HAVE A WOODEN PLACARD WITH THE UNIT NUMBER DESIGNATION ON THE FRONT OF THE CHECKED BY: E \ 'I V"fOLIR "POWEREB GARAGE 1-' GA h - BUILI~NG -/ Â· BUIL~ING BUIFING BUIL~ING 11 ' ~t EE}~ Â·t, DETERMINED. SCALE BUILDING FACING THE DRIVEWAY OR CENTRAL AREA, AS APPLICABLE. THE ADDRESS LAYOUT IS YET TO BE LAS _Els-L- ,Â·1) , \\ 'U-E'GN / / cp /g ./ 11. ALL UTILITIES ARE NEW UNLESS NOTED AS EXISTING. ALL SINGLE UNIT SERVICE LINES SHALL BE 1" COPPER 1"=40' ~ING W-ALL Â· , 6). 1 RETAINING WA03- -- / FOR WATER, 4" PVC FOR SEWER, 34" PED FOR GAS, 25" CONDUIT FOR ELECTRIC, 2" CONDUIT FOR TELEPHONE DATE: 70.11 / AND 1" CONDUIT FOR CABLE. NOTE THAT ALL ELECTRIC MAIN LINES WILL HAVE A 3" CONDUIT FOR 1 PHASE AND 03-25-21 ' --- -- S 89*3177-2 494.02' 15' BUILDING SETBACK -1 - , i, 1, 4" CONDUIT FOR 30 THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. TELEPHONE MAIN WILL HAVE 4" AND CABLE MAIN WILL 1 C , I. I \ I. 44. HAVE 2" CONDUIT THROUGHOUT AS WELL. SHEET 4.6 1 til l 114 .1 1, . , . AND.LANDSpAPE BUFFER . Ull .. I . I. . 1 . 2 & ... I 1 ... 12. PARKING LOT STRIPING AND HANDICAP DESIGNATIONS WILL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE M.U.T.C.D. ~/4 ~ CODE. SIGNS SHALL BE PLACE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SIDEWALK FROM THE HANDICAP SPACES. ~ - 13. ALL POSTAL ADDRESSES WILL BE DELIVERED TO THE CLUSTER BOX LOCATED ALONG KIOWA DRIVE. ADDITIONAL G & PROJECT BENCHMARK AT "X" ~ EXISTING POSTAL ~ SIGHT DISTANCE ' /0 IN SIDEWALK J KIOWA DR. CLUSTER BOX DRIVE INTERSECTION 62\~ BOXES WILL BE ADDED TO SERVICE THESE DEVELOPMENTS. ELEVATION = 8114.46' - 641' 174' TO INT.- / 14. MAINTENANCE OF ON-SITE DRAINAGE FACILITIES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LOT OWNER AND THE ~ - - 0- - - 0 3 0 u u u - u ~ c u 1, , RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER OF LOT 2A. OF w v w ~ - SUBSEQUENT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES ARE ON. THE DETENTION BASIN WILL BE THE 00 M UNPLATTED LOT 15. THE ASPEN GROVE TO THE NORTH OF BUILDING 4 ON LOT 4A SHALL BE STAKED OFF WITH CONSTRUCTION / E-1 ZONE FENCE AND BE WITHIN A LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. LOT 29. KIOWA RIDGE LOT 30, KIOWA RIDGE ~ ' LOT 1 KIOWA RIDGE ~ E-1 ZONE E-1 ZONE E-1 ZONE PROJ. NO. 2005-11- NOISIA3@ SlN3rln00 SS3N3. SlN3Arl00 SS3N3. illj ~~ VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING T wr-r Tr:mT 11 rwn,r:TTAT r:rT TT ' rT# WAL T ArT 0--g-. . ..../ . I. D A - 0 0 AA : A: 0 . .... .0 0 0 0 0 - 1 1 = I . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 OA. .. i - 0-. I : ' limU,0ilril' . ' . V. 1.,la 0 0 . . 0 0 0 - - I 1. 0 - 0 . 'f -0 ,- =-1 . .. 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 101. ' . .... 4 0 1 . . 7%44 Q . A 0 A D ....0 A . 1,1 :410 0 .... .. D- 1: 0 - D. .' - =61Â£Bip I . . 1 .. , mY,1 9 D . I G 0 4. 0 . 0 - 0 . 0 ... 0 - 0-1 0 0 0 7%34.9. .Â· 0 .. -0 m ..1 . 1 - . ~ il : . 1 ' C : - 1. 1 ma 1 , 1 0. e . --Â® ./ . I .- .. '."Â£ i~ 9 I . 4. .A 0 \1 0 1 1 .. . 1 : D. . 0 0 - 0 0 - 1- 1 0 ... , . 0 00: . ttial S 4-:. 11'29 Y,r 99â‚¬j.6 - 0 .0 :0 0 . e V \ 1 if - . L , . D . 0 1â‚¬244 - . .... ".' 0 0 - 1 0 0 : I 0 0 '...0 J - 0 0 00.0 \*7'til~ ., 0. e , ...0 ./ ., I. I . ...1 0.-1 \\ . . 1 1. . 0 - .2 0 - , D - 1 1. . 01 A . 0 .A . 4 j...Il 4 $.Mill 91* .. " ''4, .. . . 444 :,. . I. .. ..0 - : 0 ... .. O 1 4 1. . .. : 0 1. 4441â€ž .- . :.. . 1 N /4 16:14 A .0.'-- 1 . t 'll . . . . 1 .... . 0 1 I , . .... 0 0. 1 :11 I . 200 0 1-1 . 0 0 . .0 . . - i 0 , . . 0 ... 1 2 0 0 . : 0. 0 ., I 0 - 1 -ID 0 - D . .. . I 1 . I - I - I 1. I - 0. I . 1 1 . ... * -0 . .. I :.= : 1- 0 ... le ... . . . 0 1 A 1. 1 . .. . 1 - 0 0 A - 1 . 1- - ./- - - 0- 1 - e Â· 44$14~ ~: .. . 0 0 . 1 . 4 - 0. 1 0 44,1 4 . , . A A .0 0 4.mil .. . 7 94 . , . 1 1 1.... . . :1 . 0 1 0 0 '. .:, . 1 1 0 . e - . 0 . D AA : 0.- 0. . . .. : 1 .1 - .0 ......... 9 - 1 :/ I . . 0 - . 2 .. . 0 . 0 1 1 .I'- I: 00.. . . 0 .0 Il 1 1 7%1~ 0. 1 %01 . . ,.... .. .. .. ./.=- Â· . e. ... . . 0 1 . = 0 ... 0 - D . ...r.. 0 1- ... IG - -\ a.imal/=I. -,U'. - .. . . 0 ... -0 0 - i. AA .. 0 . 1 . 10 1 t. . ..0 70 1 , 0 . ' I ... 1 . . . . . 0 2: -t , .4 - . .. 0 . . .- 1= . A 'Al A A DA., DIA 42 4 ' 1 . Iii , t . - 0. . ..0 0 6--: h . . , i. 4 01"~ilia . . 0 1 . 1= 0 - 1 1 - I . 2 01 - T~. 41\ F\G : 0 - . ': . 0- 0 : . 0 . 0 -0 1 0 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 . -0 1 - 444 . : 1 - - - - , . 0-1 , 0 , 0 '9, D . ,, ..1/ rÂ·-+ 8 . 1.1 - 1 0 1 . I D ... 01 . .. .0 -D 0. 1 - I : , ..1 1 /.. = .. 1 41 . - 1 - I . : .1 :- 1, 1.-I . . -0- 3.41 . 0 0 :1 0 0 6 00 . - : .' I~' ':"'' I .-'I .0 . 0 . 0 - 0 . - . 0 0 - .1 .... 1 = 4,3 - .. t. : 1 . ... : 11 ID. . 0 1. .. 0 00 . 1 0 1 1 a. f3/:b . I ./ 01 - The Me ado'LU 2 05 et, Minor Mo dific ation of f , 2. t] ' 01& 1 ki SCALEÂ· 1" = 20' Merry' s Meadow Development Plown, ~ am.00 4 \ 0 20 40 60 ac Mil~ ~ ~ of Lot 44 of MourV' s Meadow Replat a Portion of Section, 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the Gth P.M. Town of Estes Park, County of Larinzer, State of Colorado #* J J -1 - 155& WEA,)., 6'~,1- le>J_woot> (6-6.VE, 1/~~~ -46/NA NOTES: 1475#10 p ~ STAI REID 1&,Rot,~/ 1 ALL REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED OR GUARANTEED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 2 UTILITIES ARE SCHEMATIC THE ACTUAL LOCATIONS WILL BE FIELD FIT AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION. 1 3 LIMITS oF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE DESIGNATED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF EXCAVATION, GRADING. OR CONSTRUCTION WITH CONSTRUCTION <D BARRIER FENCING OR SOME OTHER METHOD APPROVED BY STAFF. 4 ALL PORTIONS OF THE SITE WHERE EXISTING VEGETATIVE COVER IS DAMAGED OR REMOVED THAT ARE NOT OTHERWISE COVERED WITH NEW IMPROVEMENTS, SHALL BE SUCCESSFULLY REVEGETATED WITH A SUBSTANTIAL MIXED STAND OF NATIVE OR ADXPTED GRASSES AND GROUND COVERS. THE DENSITY OF THE Fir- - REESTABLISHED GRASS VEGETATION AFTER ONE GROWING SEASON SHALL BE ADEQUATE TO PREVENT SOIL EROSION AND INVASION OF WEEDS. U.- 1 11- --11- 5 ALL SEEDED AREAS TO BE HYDROMULCHED. ALL SEEDED SLOPES GREATER THAN 2:1 TO BE MULCHED AND NETTED FOR EROSION CONTROL (USE STRAW >8= --N. -71'Tl".'.~-rr'-rr-,494.~y~ 1 BALES WHERE NEEDED TO AVOID EROSION AND ENHANCE GROWTH POTENTIAL) -Â°OX 6 AKA6E OCCUR OUTSIDE OF DELINEATED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. , ~Â¤,O 6 TOPSOIL SHALL BE STRIPPED IN AREAS OF DISTURBANCE AND STOCKPILED TO BE REDISTRIBUTED WHEN REVEGETATION BEGINS. STOCKPILING SHALL NOT 'OT GAFAC* ~~ .----i-*---A* 7 ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE AUTOMATIC DRIP IRRIGATED. A 8 THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULAR IRRIGATING, PRUNING, WEEDING, MOWING, FERTILIZING AND REPLACEMENT OF PLANTS IN POOR 09 CONDITION AND OTHER MAINTENANCE OF ALL PLANTINGS AS NEEDED. g CONIFER TREES SHALL BE SIZED AS 50% EIGHT FEET TALL AND 50% SIX FEET TALL AT PLANTING z8 16 4 -- 10 DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL BE SIZED AS 50% FOUR INCH CALIPER AND 50% TWO INCH CALIPER AT PLANTING. < 11 J 1 2 - 13 0 9 '1 ... .r- 1 1 -0 --- 11 SHRUBS SHALL BE 5 GALLON CONTAINER OR LARGER AT PLANTING. 82 12 ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERâ„¢EN SPECIFICATIONS FOR NUMBER 1 GRADE AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE '422 - QUALITY STANDARDS OF THE COLORADO NURSERY ACT, TITLE 35, ARTICLE 26, C R.S, AS AMENDED. 13 ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED OR GUYED AND FENCED TO PROTECT FROM WILDLIFE DAMAGE. 14 DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE BY WILDLIFE. 1- MAS A EMOLOSUFLE- 15 THIS SITE PLAN IS REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY. IT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A LAND SURVEY PLAT NOR AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT. 1*t Nk - 1 -U - W Â¥M- / L- -.. 7 - 7 2 I k y 7 Y PLANT SCHEDULE ' -~ #99, 0: w Â«C e .- ~C:' f -' m tie OV :r Â»Ar----~~Â».- PLANT QUANTITY SIZE ftâ‚¬Ir --1.-sÂ» ' f r... .. 66 A EXISTING CONIFER TREES SHRUBS: Le =08 EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREES r--4~ l- - Z,la '441 x * -'47';,tit" &' '64 3 L: v %UNZARNYTILLA 2~ * ~~ to,r RED ELDERBERRY 70 5 GAL TREES. 64' 40 .lf. - 44> 4 . 7 ,â‚¬-TA) t\1 1 + 2-)1 1,1'M,Â·'t~ :;d'~flf.7.1, COTTONWOOD 7 8' - 10' _22Â£ i OF PROPOSED CONIFER 1REES , It . 1. 11 'v' "1 9/ I. , 1290,0, 7, t'Â·:i,-3,44'if, noss 84/*C ~ MONUMENT 616N - 1,3\\ 41, - 2,-4 -: 0.,...'r 9#..''I''IC. i ,-: COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 23 6' 474\ 461 1. 7.-13 ,' 4 : 2 ' Â·Sk . j 0- 9 CRABAPPLE 9 6' r-gvm < â€¢ B PROPOSED DECIDUOUS FEES .SANDSTDNE IN - AT KIOUADR, 1 li I "Baby Blue Eyes" PONDEROSA PINE 25 6'-8' 'kt"/ wooD FRAME , 't A: t:.9. 1 ,6 Â· __ __ _____ ~ - ~'-1~ 4, SHRUBS TREES TOTAL 4, 2/56373 0 PROPOSED SIGNIFICANT SHRUB EXISTING 30 12 NOTE: ALL NEWLY VEGETATED 1 8 ~ . h )6 4 J Y>~f-273Â· PROPOSED 107 64 AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED. ALL S..0.2 151, '. 0.11 4 :0.- TOTAL PLANNED 137 76 DISTURBED AREAS TO BE . 1..2- 0: .NÂ¢0<7 ~ >"i.d~--k REPLANTED. 0 GG - O - -00 I - .-.1 #m\* a --,4 \\ 429 X5~4 - ---'~.4 - 4 $,4 -Alk 1- 1 St@~ s -S S-*2Â«9r--S- N- G-G---21:-GL-- ------- 8094' \\ , - 4-65'.4 TOTAL REQUIRED 138 59 , d / 34,2 . *-%-- I -----ft__ iÂ»--f-J-0-21--J]--1.~STQ-uxibek<FETTES&Te .17--Ts --- -- -Xrk> 1 ----- 9 1 ---1 - - - - - --''r...f.--- OP' \ *32. Â·Â·Wi,i.*Ae:0*iuci - 4 4 - \ ..1"411141,1*944%11~:24'4-' -0- g- --M WHAQwh - 22 ' \~ 4,49~tiaw,0 - 310/ - \ 7"-E:-77.-=2-1 0 5-3 F A . i''Â¢41%;2*#r'.~4~:3~454~24 , 1- 9%92 R :09/. ' "Â» 1. 1 , I . 4 0 .-7 / 4 91 ' . :VT>YAELI.&-:: .,-t .bi - Â«1**6 UNIT 8 , INdunnh j.;59 '749.1 1 . T 4 ',9~26 . . U.-50~ 4 4,1-Ap:,*04% ~ . '- - U N IT 6 i.2..5. % 1 '$6 ..../. .4 1 0 \\ K\ \ x ..3:2:: ' ..~4%.-- 0 -- I j UNIT 9 ~ 3% /4, I \44 ./4 34>4 3 .illi-th :\- .../. 11 )79* lt ft'' S ,~ .:06'. UNIT 5 UNIT 4 :9 7 ~~4'f,vi~.ilk&â‚¬+_I1~111. MO c 2 -POER~ \ A />/4\434:. 44.44,324 00 \1 1--- UNIT;10 1 ---___- N \ M L==8111 PHASE--1-__2-PLE>< : UNIT 3 ,-7: 1 \ - 1 T,148*.4,14 1 1 11 1 1 / 0 1 LL=8101 -C- ME=8110 . \199\t/\At\ \\\\04.-F :1..\\1\\,\ \ 4-JLE>G ~ ~---- ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~~~~*1||| 4 r.r.1 i LL= 8100-- ~,~2,r..,.... 2-PLEX ..... ...I# ......12|' .2.|| || | ~g-1. 6-' 10 w i & ~jÂ© 137---~ t~pi. / 1 1/ . 1.-: 24.: x LL=8105 ML=8109 0 1- - 1 1 L~ - <VPM L:"1 ~ E-1 7 , '14 01 2*JI -3%0*86,421<44 L 1 /40; i ' .i Â¢ \4/ \\ 1 1 F Aâ€¢--- . -7 1 1 WI \ -1 4 47 1 ill ' V......:< :*K .- . - -------- *LL==8099 \'UNIT 1 . â‚¬ 1 \\\ \\\ \411 - 1 1.- 1119 1 - 11 41 2 f \ \ i. 4/::::F- 2 - - 3 /1~'~~921~Â·9 47-3/ 1/ . # / '.* - I.-/-4 -4- --7 A ALEX , --- a-- I i 1 1 1 1 1 11 -r --- - -.-\\-- 1-_61.5 26/\BAFFLE< - -. . N I \ . --' .id-M ML=8107' 1 1 1 / 4 - -1411 \4\ 1.\ . 94\ . W . - Plk - \\9 = in 7 ileD f - A- , L / 944 -1 U- ---31 - \ --------- -- , i---/ 1 34 4%1 -~ J 1 * 561'-11-1111112-1 7 1 lili.9 60 tri> \ \ -A b# 7 +1- 4 -- , \ \ %.9 1-+ 6 - -\ I . 1 11 1. . - \ 1 -1 1 -- -- %,1 .-r LL-8n97 -11 - 3,2, I -\ . , - - ~ + - -V A # - * - llc- 2 Â·Â·41 1 8 I - i \\ \\~111-1 11-11 6;11111-2- t. 41\ \- ' 49 1 (/ I 1, , 01 4, a ~i ($46 \\ 7,11 - - O /. -TE // I. | B ) 0 &r-' Ill . 4 4/ , I 111 Fll # mi m 00 PONP \ 1.19 1\ 1 k 1,$ a 11 Â£ .4 \ 10 , 1 101 I '34 \3. -p...44 '~ '1 3.11 - 'Fl 'L, 1111 111 ' il MI rr--t Â·- 111 1 1 j- 1. 1 . -1 L-- .4 4 F- 1 1 -0 - -- 1 -- - % -1 ~ \ . / ---- 1 / 14 - - - --/ fr 1 .11-1 1 2 -r # .rk \ 11... 1.. \ .1 \ 1 1 1 -# i ... . . \, .\ .. N -1 111 lia- 1 Th . - - -- U ,p, , ., â€¢ ; . d 1 ..- 0'.'.4 16 . . 1 0 - -____ 1.97 3 '\- #1-, . MA -1-L - - 1 1- 112- 1,1, 11 IÂ· 6 \ 0 : \ . 44 \\\ 14'. 11 1. ..I, 1 4 4 1 -0.14 \ .- / â€¢04'47 - / C 16 -: x : ' - i,1 44 111. i 1 1.-1-:1 1 + \ . 15-AM,iff E . 19 / 1 I ... 1,1 T 1-3 I ~ h.\ .1 \ ~4 -1 1 4 - 4 4 \ 1,11' \14 1 0. .,51~ i .~\ ;\ --- ///1 \ 1 .1 ; \./1 i.. U..11/.'11,02:,5 4\ / %. r Â¢' 1 \ , . ..1 I / ' '.' .. . - 7 4/ -- -- I 1 \ -1 ,| -li| || 'JIT .1Â¢ U; /ty . 4\ a, 'td=UK. 1 1 't , 14 .- 1 ... .14 1 I ',4.Al; 4 1 -11 * I STA U R L 1 10 4, - .,9.3 J . ' . %.....-=----FL./.5 4 I ? 1.-Â·, t, 1,1, t' , 'ti,4, '.,L ..i ' ;i., 2 \ /3,Â·., Nj. I O -d, 4 *' 1 7 '4 '7-Usl\"trN<LLOSU E- 1 0 14,4 ,> 1.i' Dit 'k 1 -1 24 .rt ' 1 1 $- , 1-4 i, 'e: 0 M ' ' 4'-, 9 Â·h'U: ~ ' 1 LAID 11 41 4 1 - 4.4 1 <.-tri...-' ... 1 , 7441 1,114:,; , ,, 1 14014 - . 1% 4.,1.12 . 1 '' 7%: - ':V i l -i I Irt,tr .1 .4 1 le . Ali<LCS,1, f.-fil>lij ..1 w. 6,04,01/4/ \11....-rr~/~ , *~~ ' 2.,v. 4,..p:t ,7- i ~Jo' ~344 , iv ~ i.4 1 , '0- . . 4 \, '~1 ,,1Â·'9?,i,2,2,1' 2 492, ...,. a . ~:.tt ..~,FS 1 11 1 j"kil , *102Â·' 'citt40 ..40,1 0-4 1 N'h Â· ' .i ''& , , . 'Cr. I.' .. 1.- L., , 11,1 11 - , -ETC / ,./ '.. ; ' r.. Â·Â· ' ~plit '4,%1 1. * ' J j . I / 1 1 / 1,Â· IK /4'b . 1.- .a 44:1% \/ 0 ' .1-ETC-' - , A . .1 1 4 1 . sh. 2 ./ -: =\ k-tâ‚¬y/ -N -1 1- lili t r , 1- +11 1- r 4 \ . - . /11 4 , , 4Â»\4 I 11 L -3 --- 1 4 . Ir'-11 1 -1 9 1 a 4 ' 1 1. ti \A 5 - .lt'.1 %, 1..: . ... ..,1. 1, ..Â» 6\--\ 1 j * -1 - 1 1 zill/\1 1 7? , . tyi J I . , -7.-----A \ i . e , 0. I \T' . ,...' r : , '-Â·A t. 1 4, -., Bll ./1 \ 0/ 1 .1 11 ----- ||| I i < ... , 4 1 . \ .1- '' 4 4 *1.1 1, ,(TO-El--DfgaaR.KN j. . 12 . 1 -4''to / _wi ~~ 1 ~ ; . 0/ & , 117 \ 41 & 1 . r h . 0 \7 \rn CP ~~- -r 1 1 lili 1 U \4% \\\\ . .. . ' , I '/r ~ ' -, (0Â»2.- 639\1Ep ' ',-v., .i., 4 , I b' 1 11 11 T Â·Â·Â·'1 - - i ''-Â·' IIi. â€¢I I r i . ,-21,11,1 . ' . 1 %'' 1,9.1 11 J:'...11 1. ...[ ' '1. 7,1%, 4,1 N ~ \ E-4 04, L. 4, , 1 411 1 r . '2 ' f .Â¥ 4, r' 1 1 1 A r 21,%41 . 4:gÂ·0 - i *z 3 0 jr f #p---4-Ki...LI-zi , ~ , - 11 ; 11, 1,, |Dull,paTER.Â·6 st,SER- lU .ce ..t ...\\. ro.~~..,3.11 i 11 11- 1 -1 Â·4>54* A ' -:-- ~ *----I #;4 ; -- U B\ \11\\1 1- 2/*:MICÂ·-Â·CriÂ· 111\ i - 13 1 .. -* 0 1.- I. 1, Al .4 1. ' ,/ / */ I o h 6 1 .1 7- (PI r '' e94i. r x . 11- 4 1 /9- v , r i- r r 1 1% .' , + I.0 2-cd B'EN- '4 4,- 9 q,, UlÂ».11%I 4 \6 . , P f..1/.lili , \ /.\ // ~ .EJOIL--AETCki---1-ETCÂ£-=-L-rÂ·ETC-=1ETE -ETC r, ET64--ETC - ~TC / 1 , .an eer .[EMNanT|14 \, %*,1 9,1 - 1 \ 1 V Â£ 'f A\y./u.Â« \ - 1 1 1 ../c - pillit>laft.ref Â·Â·-1\*iÂ·" Â·' 111 \ 1 - .Astia 9 30\ 9% 9 w 1 N . 1 A_.F / ( l ZOJELDEJUJEER,Y , 912#l), 4,>.4,1 4 , -At 1 8 Â¢ 1%5 / \ \ / L.,LE) \ 0 0 2, Id . o \ . Aze )\0 \9 2 .. - 135104 2 /1, 1 r: A /\ \~'Ct ~~ 1. r 1 \ < \ -47,11 A- .7/YA 9 w o 0 r N\ r~-1 I 0 4 0 a. '..,1' U 11~\, ,~~/~te/(CE-IbEEKE'Of U-10 4-ICAR U-8 U-7 , U-6 1 U-5 U-1 , J Z., 11 1\ 1 \ JWC/FT 4 -CAR 4-qAR 4-ICAR .'4:ti" 1 7 0 GARAGE U -9 Nt 's c . GARIAGE : 0% Â· \ \\4,-1 i <~ 4.1,4 ~ N /11/ /, V . 1 .'.. 1 . \ - \\46 , ..$ 1 IN \ 1 \Ill ARADE GARAGE\ L~.1 U- 4 GARAGE U -3 4*, U-2 4-(CAR Â·. 'rÂ¥ \ a .r C;% \ / 1 /\ 05 . - ~.: ~ r ~ B IL4145\ ULA BUILÂ¢ING\ 91'TI ' BUIL~ING ,~ 0 1 Ii#VM<l ~~p 4 1#%"r~ ~/ 2 4 .autÂ¥Â·PEN CHECKED BY: v 7/Pr ; X. \ \ .5194 AFYS BUI[~DING' , 0 --\wv~Gf< Â·16) EKL1.(DE~iIXDA.LETC=L-ETCr--4-,ETC-ETE~t,{~EE==-E=ry<=r-ETC _ ET ; - v 'c"*44,\: ' 1 '- = . Â·<~~ SCALE u.4194* 41: UJ /1 / 1 1--4-- P 'r 1% LateÂ»= 1 1 Â«4042 4 04 , ./ g . 2%1427 BUI[~DING 4,(P 0 = 2 - 4#4 / Etpo *i_-0-0-oyr~* 211 LAS _ =11 Â»33 =/1 -- -xkk--41<0 ---- 17-Y-----l - =-- w 1,1Â«[-(SF-U@Ulit~ r.91 1 / =20 5% O /1 \ --04Â£ A Â»~ MZ,<3.- *f. 11 â€¢ilk.UA40 -- -Â·- --Â£ =*4-}flf'~*~72*-7 2- -/AlÂ«=-nAA*-t~- - a_a= -* ' 95 1- 1 404-drl-' ~ ~ A ' Â£ ..~~~ DATE: .. 1 " 1 Â£ 79%4 I + g -%1. -- 4 L. 2 11-21-2005 1 faggrl{Â«14, r (Sk 1 -2/1-4 -=6:'* 1 - 74%84 /1.' FE .,a,â€¢1,79 u ;* . ..*u ,4, ft , 6;<~ ,~~~~ SHEET *-t):~-4/ fi,/ 'i//i//i/i M*fhm //i/i// 034ik.*91*/ ///iii///i//i/// , *N-,Achkl i//// if%l*wd-4+1-Â«*i 1%/2â‚¬/Alrf~414'Fit*?TnÂ»m4&>i y ~ // ////// c -Tb /- A Â¥ fi ej,",. f & fre -Â·, Pf ) - 321>j ~ t -=u 0 -171 . - ric;ilflitt:FiX+Kii#IN*4#* / A '1 ' r v- r , 7\ 1~ lu. 1 / i 'lt I 4 4<*f##**:~// I , &*5 \(/1 ?FOÂ»De.go.SA Piree- - 6/G) CO . E,LOC. 6 FR.CE.r_ -11- //f// VUL)-~~~A I I ~~ -- ((Â© PoTENT~LA , 25 $2&,i.;1~/~9~~'~~~~~,4~r~~ Ji~ 4 V d 'BRedâ€¢GLUE_ 4 cipx *' 1% ' 4 V . . 4 4 4 4 . 4 . ' 4 <.1,MN,Kn/11"lITM'li~-,- 'Try"Fllit 4. 4 V 4 4 . * & ~213%1-,7;1'..1.~i,~K-, , 11.-:.dike~14:42,4~.041, 4.flk , 1 -Â·Â· 5 Gyâ‚¬4@Eic . Â·' pz: -..}~47Â«ti~,~ 14%13.c-)31%1.;-,21'i?44%#1*~.*:li: -C"J,Â» 4 61 4 .4 a t /4 9 4 A 44 A. ~ . .' :'~:1,*I~*2~~~'Ok,','~,~~.i.1:..&59,~41 OF :f;-4%4 Â·4 -1 4-Â· -44961:1**alt Â·43 Â·77 4 ,- t. 1,1/.1,3 2 ./- I I â€¢.*.1. 4 ;i,$ W 4 '. ' - 4 h. )1. . 4 - ..':.1 bl,1. '' t.,? 1.. 152,1.4.1,4,U,5,10â€¢4btr,4:4720'â‚¬=442,1â€¢1.4 5~~3~98.5*fL;k~ 'g,2,#:'1 ' '~'',30iÂ·â€¢ Â·tt''t@ . fid>. â‚¬".44 -'. 34 Â· 'Â£~~Â»''i,7 Pl'-4%44Ig f.~~~1*Ybf*'7 - U PFA 1:<DE-1-~},tit-942-t-;-j~-,c,f.-.(At ~j.id.,faci~k*~~.ki':.:-f -:.*:~1:~442~~~:~F;:24,& -*-~.EJ i , *â€¢ e..%, 2-, ,~ .i .t '.12.kp' 14 ;tta*p .iq -~ .~ ;:4:>~9~~,ii k ?.EF;1,1..1-5 ~5*Â©.3%2*1.28#2&#:.id . ;9'.19**~~4,~AfM~rT.27~~ *Lit&~4 ..I- ~lift",1{333,9143%*892Â§5I~i#?".I~fl,43ri~'].# tgoy: . 52; ~r.,111Â·tf~Â·9.rtr 1,,i.~~-Cll.;,iff?'&,9)41--7 ~I~-2~ii~~~~~ ~40n:t; ;t>. 7.~Yt:V.T ~,-LE--:rÂ·i iurÂ·t,04%4~~,: '.7-.â€žÂ· - Â·.,, ~' .spt~.,i. , :, . â€ž,Â· ." 4 -.74 .1 ~ ' I. - 1. ill' /.... I Â· Â·Â· x,Â·-Â· 0 ,Â· 1:4*qf,-?Â·p.-,Â·, r,~,tÂ·3~3,444113**ffÂ«Â·~_Â·; 2.<~btfyi:,6 *Akilf,44%%-1~~9938** Fi;fi,fff@*4(t .%**9*y PROJ. NO 2005-11-01 I ' I ' ' '' '. C0L6) :XY 89Â£6 EdVOSG NI.IIGO HVd SGLLSGI Vy CD The Meadolu \MAR25 <Of <P~- r37 3/ Pt- .Amended Z O G SCALE: 1" = 20' PROMONTORY Â© -~lt = Development plan 3 0 0/ DR. - & yl c 0 20 40 60 Vt 4 C 4 U it 14 0 kÂ¢: --T C12 C/Â¥T LAS =20' 5-2/ 1-11- 3 -31 ng 1 - \ 1 ; i'k W \1 41:..; 1,1 9~11)3~XMrii~~~â€žM~~4&3iWibAN~J,i~OUUkNVA %\ /3/ . pr. 7 1 8 -I 90 Wl T ArT m . .... 0 0 A A ~ A ~ 0 - .0 0 0 ..0 0 0 0,0 0 ..... lilli il...... . 0 0 ..0 0 0 0 - 0. 0 00000 . 0 P. . I . 0 . 1 - . ...1 1 . . 1 0 0 : 1 0 1 . . a . 1 -=A : 1 1 ...... . 0 0 -1 0- 0 - 1 .-. I .. . . . .1 .. . 0 -1 . 1 - . 0 - 0 . A .0 4 0 A .- - 0 -, 1 1. ..1 - 1 -0 0 . - 0 0 0 0 . . = , - . : 1 ... 1 1 0 1 1 A I.'-' .: . D I. - - .: 1 1 . . .. .... . I . A . 1 1 0 .1 1 .0 -1 0, . ..0 . : ...1 - 0 1 -: 1 I . 1 .= -1 -: 1 . . = 0 - e 0 0 0 .... 1 . 1 .. . A 1 . 1 - 4 : 0 0- - -- 0 - 2 --0-- 0 - . - 1-- 0 - -- . :0 .. . 0. I 0 - f .,.. .: Ii,.,... I . .... - . : 1 0,0 '-- 1. 0 .: 0.-- I ... -- . 0 .- :- 01 1 .. I . 1 - . ./ I.-.0 0.-0. - I - . - I : .I.- 0 1 , 1 . . . . 1 1, 0 1 . Z - I. 2 : ...2. 1 . I .ID . . b .. . . :. 1 0 - 1, 1 - --- 0 0 ..=.-1 D- . 0- ... Al. .. . 0 -: .0- ... ... . 0 ... .-. 0 * 61'6 -- .- h . 0 . r e ... -1 .4 X 1 - 1' 1 - i \it *'4 - 0 4 411 11\ * Ve: . 1 . / 0 44. 1 44Â¢ 4 . . 0 - 0. -: i=tv . - t ' .0 43~ 1 -ell. 4 'll & - 0. I Â¢ 1 * 41 : 0 - ==m ..0 2 - I.-I.-- 1 1-1,1-willillill:"Illillilillillillillill~ 1 Â¥./ 0 .. millidsil'. i. - .ilil *,~ a m "0/ ./:IM//1,/mi/,izm//i/:I//I//I'di//1 I--41//I-~ 00 ----- 0 0*0 / 4, -~ 40 3 0 0 2 . ~202 ----- . -I/////~~~~~~//A .0 ~: -*....l * 0 0 . 2 2.L J. O. 4 -I46 . . M / 42=- 8 4*, 7'R-:Nisia,1:-- ./a.- 1 - taki:::Fir-liss=.=~.=---I-.I=-Il-----/--- . .. 160. I'- I. . e A . . - 0 : .. M-vt-- .4- ----==2=29'emgm@ge==m~ 1 1 - ---0/"- 7,-//=4 / 1 P/"". 59 \ 1~*A 0 - 4*0\1 ./42,1/1/0:*51 - . .. ..0 0 1 r 11 L. 2 1 49 .1 if, 1 b =iII, 3; . 65. 49 1%% 1 i./1* B./ I 4 1 43 g . 0 0 5 0 tfl M ~ 2 8 0 t -9 0 0 M W CO E E p 2 2 2 b % 00 00 93 .im S .0 2 u Â·h 12 0- 0.- u =00= 31 2 f f a .6 W M =.5 C/Z 5 M -d u W 0 a 760â‚¬ 61) 5.1 0 9 .9 * * .2) 9 00 g u g 3.2 59 - N %%â‚¬ .-1 , N E N 8 = N d + (4 W - -49 45 CS 4 4 59 â€ž2 0 5/) 4.' f., r . R 0 0 0 N. R R 0 0 ON 0 7.1 - N-un- -1 + | f.ast , 9 +1 42 . U' : I U 50 51) bo . 8 4 bOM 0 .E E .9 6 rp & c .9 E 0 Â¤ 4 to 7 20 41 2 2 U ./. 1-6..3 0 .3 91% 16 - 9 ;.0 2 u - 4 -= U = .6-I - m o z am SE ir li. AN 1% A 3 9 I 5 â‚¬ B. E = ig .E R - a e 4 00 i.8 8 19â‚¬1*â‚¬ M 6 - F o & >. s Â·c 14 k 0<8 I * 9 50 Â· ~ EL 50 -0 8 0 1 .0 0 *00 bo LU O P *~ 9 k ~@ * R 3 1,44; E 0 >t- 2 -i a Â£ -4 3 g g _ 3 &g86 # 9 IR E 1@ -2 1 2 ':3 8 8 -2 Â£ 2 2 7 1= .% 1 A . - ma 0 -6 ~- ... .ir128 FF 01 NN 0 t8 IQ t2'5 R <c a JM <0 0 8% 1141 1 -10 CC 13 . 1 A,. . ~8 r. 2 .9 50 8 2 bo 44 a C,1 5 50 50 68 50 C Â¢ CO =C 0 .= g 2 F ria R 2 Â¢ 0 0 1% 4,2 0 2 v - R. 2 = O 0 21. 33 71 k i# SO E ~ t .2 -O 0,tl 4 co 04 m< .ul .. co @ m 4 05 ~ HAbitat . 79 - ~ etbak s- CIA Fkt)k= rf - Â·Â· . SUbadks Pr s Pfaffnij* 9 Ii-Al)141,r. Same as Current Stream Setbacks siouqi@S Â·IDAIM 1Ual.In) SU JUIES siouql@S SpUBBOAA ]Ual.Inj SU OUIES 9107 Suplied rent Streani Same as Current Stream Setbacks (No Rivers are Adjacent to I-1 property) (Same as backs Zoning D Same as Curren trearn Setbacks AQUATIC HABITAT SETBACKS: PREPARED 5-14-09 BY TOWN PLANNING STAFF Spuqlo S JJAIN lUDilnj SU QUIES 550008 0 10Ills!.CI siouql@S 1*AIN luaLInD SU OUIES slouqws Â·IJAIN ]UOLIn) SU OUIES SuluoZ IIV 107 SIOUCIWS .IJAIN 1UJ.LIn~ SU JUIES %108*@S PUBINAA ]UNInD su Jules SIOLI:'SIG SIOUqies puBI]JAA ]UO.I.In) SU OWES siouqi@S .IJAIN @AOqv su siouqlos @UIES poss@ippv loN 103 V/N) lugUI@Iddns (suo!suedxo Ieluozuoq > 42(immi n i Prior to Buildings and Acces Except CD and Jo uogdopy ception for Lots Exception for Exist g Except CD and I-1 (With Decision Making Body Approval) (IBAoiddy Kpos SuquIN UOISIDOG lIlIa) (idulaxE[) District ie access access .. UIUO S luouidoloA pUB spuot[ pue 593[el '41'0 '1131!quH 3!113nbv iatuo Ily somlon.Ils Kiossooov pue sSuPPIIng treams s]01 Sup[led ~ Amendments to the Estes Valley ~ Development Code, Portion of Block Twelve - Habitat and Wildlife Estes Park Community Development Department *I=,10 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: May 19, 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 wildlifeand habitat protection. Staff is continuing to refine the maps to accompany this code language. Information.highlighted ,in yellow iBEntifi@s revisions made after. the Aprii-Fiannirlg_CommisEIEnmeetingj 1 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 1.9.D SETBACKS - BUILDING AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS. 2. Development Setbacks from River and Stream Corridors Aquatic Habitat, and Wetlands. a. Stream and River Corridors Aquatic Habitat. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated stream or river corridor aquatic habitat edae, 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. Â§ 4.3.C.5. TABLE 4-2: BASE DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Notes to Table 4-2: [2] See Chapter 7, Â§7.6, for required setbacks from etroam/river corridors aquatic habitat and wetlands. Â§ 4.4.C.4 TABLE 4-5: BASE DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Note to Table 4-5: [4] See Chapter 7, Â§7.6 for required setbacks from ctroam/rivor corridors aquatic habitat and wetlands. 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. Lakos, Rivor, and Stream/Riparian Corridors Aquatic and Riparian Habitat. d. Wildlifo Migration Corridors. Critical Wildlife Habitat. e. Steep slope areas. f. Ridgelines. g. Geologic or Wildfire Hazard areas. 2 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.5 LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS B. Applicability. Thoco landscape and buffer standards shall apply to rosidential subdivicions created after tho adoption of this Codo, and to all development whcro development plan review ic roquired by Â§3.8 of this Codo. 1. These landscape and buffer standards shall apply 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 applv 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 Wa//s /n Critical M47dlifo Habitat. Soo Â§7.8.G.1.c below 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 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.6 WETLANDS AND Sâ„¢EAM-CORRIDOR AQUATIC HABITAT PROTECTION A. Purpose and Intent. The following requirements and standards are intended to promote, preserve and enhance the important hydrological, biological, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and educational functions that aquatic habitat, including stream and river corridors, associated riparian areas, and wetlands habitat provide. D. Boundary Delineation. 1. Qualified Professional. Stream/rivor corridor aquatic habitat and wetland area 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 Aquatic Habitat Boundaries. Sueam-an@-Avez corridors shall bo dolincatod at the annual high-wator mark, or if not roadily discorniblo, the defined bank of the ctroam or river, as thoco terms aro dofinod in Chaptor 13 of this Codo. Regulatod ctrcam and rivor corridors shall include only thoco stroams and rivers as identified on tho Stream and River Corridor Resource Map found in Appondix A. Tho rivers delinoatod on tho Stream and River Corridor Resource Map arc tho Big Thompson and Fall River. Streams dolinoatod on tho Map include various named and unnamed etroams and minor drainagoc, come of which aro intormittont. a. Mapped Aquatic Habitat. Boundary delineation of aquatic habitat shall be established bv reference to the Aquatic Habitat 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 clearly established. In such instances, the Applicant shall retain a qualified professional to delineate the aquatic habitat boundaries. The delineated edge of the aquatic habitat shall be the high water mark as defined in Chapter 13 of this Code. c. Revisions to Adopted Map. (1) In the event a propertv owner questions the presence of aquatic habitat on their property, the property owner mav submit evidence with respect thereto from a qualified biologist/ecologist. This evidence shall be reviewed, together with all other applicable evidence, bv the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and then bv Board of Trustees or Board of Country Commissioners. The Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners is the entity with final approval of Aquatic 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 aquatic habitat the Community Development Director shall update the Aquatic Habitat Map and remove the aquatic designation. (2) Property mav be re-designated as aquatic habitat if conditions change resulting in the renewed presence of aquatic habitat on the property. (3) The Community Development Director and Estes Valley Planning Commission shall also have the authoritv to initiate proceedings to add or remove an aquatic 4 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review habitat designation from the Aquatic Habitat Map. The Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners is the entity with final approval of Aquatic Habitat Map revisions, depending on the location of the property. 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. E. Buffer/Setback Areas. 1. Stream or River Corridors Aquatic Habitat. a. Building/Structure Setbacks. (1) Stroam Corridors (except in the CD zoning district). All buildings and accessory structures shall bo set back at least thirty (30) fect horizontally (plan viow) from tho annual high-wator mark of stroam corridors, or if not readily discorniblo, from tho dofined bank of the stream. Where defined banks arc not roadily discornible, tho setback shall bo measured from tho thread of tho stroam. Soo Eiguze-744 Aquatic Habitat (except in the CD and I-1 district). a. General Rule. All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least fiftv (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of aquatic habitat, i.e., from the high water mark as defined in Chapter 13 of this Code. b. Exception for Buildings and Accessory Structures Constructed Prior to INTTH IdiTIinilid date these bode revisions areadopted).| [NOTE: THE LANGUAGE BELOW IS INCLUDED BELOW FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION PURPOSES1 .....i EIZE:ZE-6~31-42 &#ol strt,totures that are 000,-~br,Ki*@ as to the prloll 6treavik or rlver setback as of the drate of aoloptiovu of Â·Sikpplevkevut #TED of th Es Coâ‚¬le. p,uot that are setback Less thavi ft-~10. (50) fft.frovk tlte eole.8 0.~E 5 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review /12 beptatto habitat. shall be exenipt froML the flfty foot (50) sitbi3012 #efiktrevkevits a#01 shall be swejeot to a thirty foot setback. This exevikptloN khall vuot applg to the horlzoputal. (pl.mk vlew) expra kstopL Of extstip* bix.Elollws apt,01 striketu.res. Ptortzovital. expapusiovi shall be subject to the fl-%0' 1(50) foot setback.| (2) Rivor Corridors (oxcopt in tho CD district). a. General Rulo. All buildings and accessory structures shall bo set back at loast fifty (50) foot horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river corridors or, if not roadily discorniblo, from the definod bank of the rivor. b. Exception for Lots Dovolopod Prior to tho Adoption of thic Code. All buildings and accessory structures chall bc cot back at least thirty (30) feot horizontally (plan viow) from tho annual high wator mark of rivor corridors or, if not readily diccorniblo, from tho dofinod bank of the rivor. Sco Figuro 7-10. Aquatic Habitat in the I-1 Zonina District. In the I-1 Zoning District, all buildings and accessorv structures shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of aquatic habitat, i.e., from the high water mark as defined in Chapter 13 of this Code. [Note: This retains the current setbacks for I-1 property alona Fish Creek.1 (3) Stream and River Corridors Aquatic Habitat 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 tho annual high-water mark of ctroam or river corridors or, if not readily diccornible, from tho defined bank of tho ctroam or rivor. Whoro defined banks aro not readily discorniblo, tho setback chall bo moasurod from tho throad of the ctroam the delineated edge of the aquatic habitat. Where a principal building in the CD district provides public access, including a primary entrance, on the side of the building facing a stroam or rivor corridor aquatic habitat, 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 tho annual high-wator mark of ctroam or rivor corridors, or if not roadily discorniblo, from tho dofinod bank of tho 6tFeam--GF--FiÂ¥eF from the delineated edge of the aquatic habitat. In the CD district, parking lots shall be set back at least twelve (12) feet from the delineated edge of the ctroam or river corridor aquatic habitat. 6 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review 2. Wetlands. a. To the maximum extent feasible, wetlands shall not be included as part of a platted 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. Private Open Areas and Landscaping Credit. A\\ sueam-Ge*Ade aquatic habitat and wetland setback areas shall be credited toward any relevant private open areas requirements or landscaping and buffer requirements. F. Development Standards. 1. Prohibited Activities. No person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, fill, drain, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation, within stfeam-GR-FiVer GeFFiâ‚¬|eFS aquatic habitat, wetlands and their associated buffer/setback areas, except as may be expressly allowed in this Section or Code. 7 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.8 WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION A. Purpose. To maintain and onhanco tho diversity of wildlife cpocioc and habitat that occur in tho Ectos Valloy, and to plan and design land usos to bo harmoniouc with wildlife habitat and tho cpocioc that dopond on this habitat for the oconomic, rocroational and environmental boncfit of tho rocidonte of and visitors to tho Estcc Valloy. B. Applicability. This Soction shall apply to all applications for reviow of dovolopmont plans, cubdivision plats, plannod unit dovolopmonts, special review ucos and rozonings. This Soction shall not apply to dovolopmont on lots that woro approved for cinglo-family rosidontial uso prior to the effective dato of this Codo. C. Exemptions. Tho procedures and regulations containod in this Section shall not apply tâ‚¬)4 1. Agricultural activities such as soil preparation, irrigation, planting, harvocting, grazing aaâ‚¬Warm-penâ‚¬16Â·i 2. Maintonanco and repair of existing public roads, utilities and othor public facilitios within an existing right-of-way or casemont; 3. Maintonanco and repair of flood control structuros and activitioc in rocponso to a Need-eme*ger,Gy# 1. Maintonanco and repair of oxicting residential or nonrosidontial structures; or 6. Wildlife habitat onhancomont and restoration activitios undortal<on pursuant to a wildlife conservation plan approvod undor this Soction. D. Other Regulations. This Section of tho Codo doos not ropcal or suporeodo any existing fodoral, Mate or local laws, oacomonts, covonante or dood roctrictions portaining to wildlifo. Whon this Section impocos a highor or moro roctrictivo standard, this Soction Shallappl* E. Wildlife Habitat Data Base. The following courcoc shall bo usod to idontify important wildlifo habitat areas for purposes of reviow undor thie Section: 1. Wildlifo Habitat map (dated Docombor 1996), as cot forth in the Estoc Valley Comprohoncivo Plan, ac amondod from timo to timo. 2. Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat maps for Larimor County, as amendod from timo te-timer 3. Colorado Natural Horitago Program Maps datod December 1996, or as amondod from time to time. 1. Other information and maps ac Staff or the Estes Valloy Planning Commission may from time to timo idontify in cooporation with tho Colorado Division of Wildlifo, cuch ac wildlife maps produced cpocifically for tho Estes Valley. Said maps shall bo applicable only following adoption of an amondmont to this Codo. 8 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review 5. Wildlife habitat information required by this Section is intondod for gonoral planning purposoc. Obvious orrors or omissions may bo corroctod by tho Staff after consultation with tho Division of Wildlife. F. Review Procedures. Tho following procedures shall apply to all applications for development; 1. App/ication. Tho Applicant shall submit a development plan, subdivision plat or sketch plan, as applicablo, dopicting tho gonoral location of tho property, location of structuroc on tho sitc, prominent natural aroac such as stroams and wetlands, and other featuroc that Staff may roquirc for review pursuant to this Section. 2. Preliminary Roviow. Staff shall rofor tho submitted plan or plat to the Colorado Division of Wildlifo for roviow. Applicants aro also advised to moot with tho Divigion of Wildlife and other agoncios as dotorminod appropriate by Staff to onsuro compliance with tho roquiromontc of this Soction. 3. DOW Roviow. For applications roforrod to it, tho Division of Wildlifo will dctermino whothor the proposal will result in significant advorco impact on wildlife or wildlifo habitat only if tho dovolopment advorsoly impacts tho following: a. An endangered or throatonod cpocios, b. A calving, lambing or fawning area, c. Big Horn chccp or Big Horn shcop habitat, d. Raptor noct citc, or o. Riparian areas and wetlands. 1. Roviow Determination. Based on recommondations from tho Division of Wildlifo, the Staff will dotormino whether tho Applicant must submit a wildlifo conservation plan prior to approval of any dovolopmont application. Thc concorvation plan should be submitted to tho Division of Wildlifo for roviow and recommendation as to whothor tho plan adoquatoly addroccoc the advorso impacts identifiod by the Division of Wildlife pursuant to subsection F.3 above. (Sco Â§7.8.H bolow.) 5. Waivors. Staff may waivo or approve minor modifications of any dovelopmont etandard or roviow criteria containod in this Soction upon a finding that such waiver or modification: a. Ic consistont with tho stated purpocos of this Section; b. Will have no significant adverse impacts on wildlife cpocies or habitat; c. Any potontial advorso impacts will be mitigatcd or offcot to tho maximum oxtont d. practicable; and c. Application of tho standard or criteria ic not warrantod bacod on tho location of the f. dovolopmont, the absonco of a particular spccios on tho sito or othor rolevant faG#efa G. Review Standards. The following review standards shall apply to all dovolopmont applications as cpocificd, unless Staff detorminos that a specific standard may bo waivod pursuant to subsoction F.5. above. It is tho intent of this Section that thoso standards bo applied in a floxiblo fashion to protect wildlifo habitat and wildlifo spocioc in a cost-offoctivo fashion. 9 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review 1. Roviow Standards. c. Buffors. All devolopmont shall provido a setback from any idontifiod important wildlifo habitat aroa, ae spocifiod by tho Division of Wildlife, to tho maximum extent feasible. b. Non Native Vogotation. Thoro shall bo no introduction of plant cpocies that aro not on tho approved landscaping list in Appondix C on any cito containing any important wildlifo habitat aroa. To the maximum oxtont foaciblo, existing horbacoous and woody covor on tho sito shall bo maintainod and removal of native vogotation shall bo minimized. G-ReAGing: (1) No foncing on a sito containing important wildlifo habitat shall excood forty (10) inchoc in hoight, oxcopt to tho extent that such foncing k approved by Staff to confino pormitted domoctic animals or to protoct pormittod ornamontal landscaping or gardons. (2) Foncoc highor than forty (10) inchoc may bc allowod if adequate openings aro providod for tho paccago of door, olk or othor idontifiod wildlife. Thoso oponings chall bo at loast six (6) foot wide and spacod a maximum of fifty (50) foot apart along continuous foncc linoc oxcooding this length. (3) No fcncing using barbed wire shall bo allowod. (1) The typo of foncing (matorials, opacity, otc.) shall bo dotorminod by Staff or the Docicion Making Body ac appropriato for tho wildlife cpocios on tho cito based on advico from tho Colorado Division of Wildlifo. d. Extorior Lighting. Uso of oxtorior lighting shall bo minimized in aroac of important wildlifo habitat, and lighting shall bo docignod co that it doos not spill over or onto such critical habitat. Soo also Â§7.9 below. o. Rofuse Disposal. Dovolopmonts on sitos containing important wildlifo habitat, such ac black bear, must uco approvod animal proof rofuco disposal containors. With Division of Wildlifo approval, rofuco dicpocal containorc and onclocuroc may be electrified. f. Domestic Animals. Dovolopment applications for proporty that includos important wildlife habitat must include a plan with spocifiod onforcomont moacuroc for tho control of domestic animals and household pot Tho plan must includo provisions to provont tho harasemont, disturbanco and killing of wildlifo and to provont tho destruction of important wildlife habitat. H. Wildlife Conservation Plans. 1. plan Proparation. A wildlife concorvation plan roquirod by this Section shall bo proparod for tho Applicant, at tho Applicant'c oxponco, under tho recponsiblo diroction of a qualified percon who has demonstrated oxportico in tho field and is accoptablo to tho Staff. 10 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review 2. /Wan Content. Any wildlife consorvation plan roquirod to bo propared pursuant to this Section shall include tho following information at a minimum. Specific roquircmonts may bo waived by Staff duo to tho location of the dovolopmont, the previous uso of tho sitc, the size and potential impact of tho devolopmont, tho abscnco of particular species on a site, the prohibition of a reasonable uso of the cito and othor relevant #aeters a. A description of the ownership, location, typo, sizo and othor attributes of tho wildlife habitat on the sito. b. A description of the populations of wildlifo spocioc that inhabit or uso tho site, including a qualitative description of their spatial distribution and abundanco. c. An analysis of the potontial advorco impacts of tho proposed dovolopmont on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site. d. A list of proposed mitigation moasuros and an analysis of tho probability of â‚¬uccoss of such moacuros. o. A plan for implomontation, maintenance and monitoring of mitigation moasuroe. f. A plan for any rolovant enhancement or rostoration moacuros. g. A demonstration of fiecal, adminictrativo and technical compctonco of tho Applicant or other relevant ontity to cuccossfully oxecuto tho plan. 11 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.8 WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to plan and design land uses so that when property is developed: 1. Sufficient wildlife habitat is maintained to support viable 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. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all applications for review of development plans, subdivision plats, planned unit developments, special review uses, and rezonina on property that contains critical wildlife habitat. C. Other Regulations. This Section of the Code does not repeal or supersede any existina 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 by or under the responsible direction of a qualified bioloqist/ecologist. The qualified biologisgecologist shall sign and date these submitted maps and reports. The Community Development Department shall maintain a list of biologists/ecologists who have established their qualifications to prepare reports under this section. The qualifications of anv unlisted biologist/ecologist mav be submitted for acceptance and inclusion on this list at anytime prior to preparation of the reports required under this section. 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 may reveal potential critical habitat that is not reflected on the Critical Wildlife Habitat Map. In such instances, the Review- or Decision-Making bodv 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/ecoloaist. This evidence shall be reviewed, toaether with all other applicable evidence, bv the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and then bv the 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 may be re-designated as critical habitat if conditions change resulting in the renewed presence of critical habitat on the property. 12 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review c. The Community Development Director and Estes Valley Planning Commission shall also have the authoritv to initiate proceedings to add or remove a critical habitat designation from the Critical Habitat Map. 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. F. Review Procedures for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. Wi/d#fe and Habitat impact Assessment Submitta/. A Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment shall be submitted for sites containing critical habitat. However, if a site is identified as urbanized on the Urbanized Area Map set forth in Appendix A, a Wildife and Habitat Impact Assessment shall onlv be required if the site contains one or more of the following types of critical habitat: aquatic habitat; wetlands, or riparian vegetation The studv shall be paid for by the applicant. 1. Wildlife Habitat and Impact Assessment Waiver. The Community Development Director, has the discretion to waive submittal of the Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment in one or more of the following circumstances: a. Upon review of a signed and dated document from a qualified biologisVecologist stating that there is no critical habitat present on the property; b. For 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. c. For rezoninq applications that reduce development potential and are not accompanied bv a development plan submittal: or d. For single-family residential subdivision applications in mapped elk severe winter ranqe or mule deer severe winter rancle habitat that are designed in accordance with the Section 11.3 Open Space Development, without requesting a densitv bonus for clustering. The applicant shall have the option to request a determination about a waiver prior to submittal of a development application. Anv 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. 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 Heritage Program. 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 Bodv. 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 requirements of this Section. 13 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review b. Plans found to be adequate bv the Decision-Making Bodv shall become binding upon the Applicant. c. Applications that do not comply with Section 7.8 of this code shall be denied. G. Wildlife Habitat Protection Standards for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. 1. all applications subiect to review under this section shall be planned and designed, to the maximum extent feasible, to be: a. Be compatible with and to protect natural habitats and features, including the plants and animals that inhabit them, and b. To integrate the natural habitat and features, including the plants and animals, within the developed landscape. Through means including, but not limited to: a. Directing development awav from critical habitat: b. Minimizing impacts and disturbance through the use of buffer zones; and/or c. Enhancing existing conditions. 2. All applications shall be planned and designed to the maximum extent feasible to ensure that significant adverse impacts, as defined in 7.8.H. below, are avoided or miticiated. H. Significant Adverse Impacts Defined. 1. Significant Adverse Impacts to Wildlife. 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. 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. 3. Examples of Significant Adverse Impacts. The following are examples of significant adverse impacts: a. Wildlife Impact. Impacts on wildlife that: (1) Disrupt necessary life cycle functions of wildlife: (2) Cause stress on wildlife; or (3) Cause physiological damage to wildlife To the extent that the health or viability of a wildlife population in the Estes Valley is threatened. b. 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 viabilitv of a wildlife population in the Estes Valley is threatened. c. 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: 14 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review (1) Disruption of wildlife migration or movement patterns that keep wildlife from using their entire habitat, such as blocking migration patterns from summer to winter ranae: (2) 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 topooraphv and climatic conditions; or (3) Inabilitv 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. 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, type, size, quality, and other attributes of the habitat on the site, including, but not limited to: (1) The total acres of each species' habitat on the site; (2) A description of anv vegetation or natural communities that are ranked Sl, S2, S3, Gl, G2, or G3 bv the Colorado Natural Heritage Program: and (3) The health and viabilitv of the habitat in the Estes Valley. b. Wildlife. A description of the various types of 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 adioinina habitats outside the site. (4) The health and viability of the wildlife population in the Estes Valley. For sites that are within one half mile of a raptor nest and do not contain anv other form of critical habitat, the assessment is onlv required to evaluate raptors. 2. Assessment of Potential Development Impacts. An analvsis of the potential impacts of the proiect on habitat and wildlife using the criteria in Section 7.8.G and 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. 15 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review Mitigation efforts shall directlv address the potential adverse impacts of the proposed land use. Examples of possible mitigation efforts include, but are not limited to: (1) Clustering 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 or reducing densitv: (3) Creation of buffers around critical areas, with larger buffers for higher quality habitat; (4) Locating structures awav from nesting, birthing, or feedina areas: (5) Limiting/prohibiting fencing that might interfere with migration and movement patterns; (6) Restricting location, hours of illumination, and intensity of lightina: (7) Controlling domestic animals and household pets; (8) Timing construction to minimize impacts such as reducing impacts from vehicles and construction equipment bv limiting hours of operation and/or seasonal timing of construction. (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. 16 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review 4. Implementation, Monitoring, 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, monitoring, and enforcement of the plan. 5. Enhancement or Restoration. A plan for anv relevant enhancement or restoration measures. 6. Professional Qualifications and Certification. A description the professional qualifications of the plan preparer and a certification that the plan preparer has the expertise to: (1) Evaluate the proposed development application; (2) Evaluate the impacts to wildlife populations and habitat on site, includina aquatic populations and habitat: and (3) Prepare a Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment in accordance with EVDC Â§7.8. 7. Additional Information. Any other information deemed necessary bv the Review or Decision-Making Bodies to adequatelv assess the impact of the proposal. 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. B.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. G=D. Evidence of Compliance. NOTE: NO CHANGES PROPOSED. Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES # TBD Aquatic Habitat 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 boca 122. High Water Mark shall mean the line on the bank of a stream, river, lake or impoundment to which the high water ordinarily rises annually in seasons, as indicated by changes in the characteristics of soil, vegetation or other appropriate means, taking into consideration the 17 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review characteristics of the surrounding areas. Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be presumed to be the edge of vegetation growing along the channel bank. In braided channels, the ordinary high water mark shall be measured so as to include the entire stream feature. For streams where the presumed edqe of vegetation cannot be found setbacks shall be measured from the thread of the stream. #TBD Qualified Biologist/Ecologist shall mean 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 that: (1) Has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university in wildlife biology or ecoloav: (2) Is a Wildlife Society of America Certified Wildlife Biologist, or holds a higher certification from this society; or (3) Is an Ecological Society of America Certified Ecologist, or holds a hiaher certification from this society. Or a person with at least five (5) years of demonstrated experience and expertise in evaluation of development impacts on wildlife habitat and species in the Colorado Rocky Mountains that: (1) Has an undergraduate degree or higher from an accredited United States university in wildlife biology or ecoloqv. 209. Setback shall mean the distance between the nearest lot line and the furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles to the lot line. Setback also refers to the horizontal distance (plan view) between the delineated edge of a wetlands, designated ridgeline protection area, 6tFeam#iveF--GeFfiâ‚¬IGF aquatic habitat or wildlife habitat and the furthermost projection of a building or structure. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as otherwise specifically allowed in Â§1.9.D of this Code. #TBD Vegetation, Riparian shall mean terrestrial vegetation that is contiquous to and affected bv surface and subsurface hvdrologic features of perennial or intermittent lotic and lentic water bodies (for example, rivers, streams, lakes, or drainage ways). Riparian areas have one or both of the following characteristics: 1) distinctly different veqetative species than adiacent areas, and 2) species similar to adiacent areas but exhibiting more vigorous or robust growth forms. #TBD Wildlife shall mean any animal life form, including but not limited to amphibians, birds, mammals, reptiles, and insects. #TBD Wildlife Habitat shall mean the regions or environment containina 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 18 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review habitat mav include those areas which were historically occupied and are still suitable for occupancv. #TBD 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: raptor nests and a one-half mile area surrounding the nest; Severe Winter Range for elk; and Severe Winter Range for mule deer; migratory bird habitat associated with riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat. *PPENDIX A._ESTES VALLEY-DEVECOPMENT-CODE_BOUNDARY_MAILn_TABLE_015 :CONTENTS' 'Stroam_aod~fliy~6Â£(orritliFI\)13-p Aquatic Habitat Map A-8 tritical Wildlife Habitat Map A-9 Urbanized Area 191*EF T - A-10' APPENDIX B.111.C DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS gg. Anticipated Phases of Development and Timing. A araphic phasing plan shall incorporate recommendations found in submitted Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment. 19 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #6 for May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Review *31*fER-le lin, 1 -Ii )11 ill i MAY 1 3 2009 /~j~ May 13,2009 Subject: Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8 Wildlife and Habitat Protection To: Estes Valley Planning Commission (Please place this letter in the public record) I want to thank the Planning Commission for the time and energy you have expended in discussing and evaluating the proposed change to Section 7.8 Wildlife and Habitat Protection of the Estes Valley Development Code. Ultimately, you must make decisions that will determine the future look and feel of the Estes Valley. Reviewing land use questions on a case by case basis will necessarily be viewed as subjective. The issues are complex and do not easily lend themselves to an objective check list of regulations. An underlying concern regarding the enforceability of the code voiced at a number of Planning Commission and Board of Trustees' meetings is that of denial of a property owner's or developer's rights. Rippling River is a good example of a reasonable land-use restriction on development which thwarted a landowner's proposed fill on riparian land. For some property owners, any decision that prevents the maximum-sized development of their land will be viewed as illegitimate. No property owner wants to forfeit rights or receive less than maximum value. When the restrictions seem most burdensome, property owners may criticize the code as constituting a partial governmental taking without just compensation. (Nevertheless, many of these objections lack any legal basis. Rather than make crucial decisions on the basis of speculation, the Planning Commission needs a detailed written explanation of Colorado case law concerning the U.S. Constitution's Takings Clause.) The EVDC is the regulatory component of a system which is missing a second component, a viable Open Space Program. In certain circumstances, a property owner may deserve to be compensated for not developing riparian land or other crucial habitat. (For example, Larimer County owns numerous parcels along the Big Thompson). An Open Space Program can complement the EVDC by ensuring that the concern of a partial taking does not unduly affect the decision making process. Such a program can act as the compensation portion of the EVDC regulations. The Open Space Program is defined in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 7, Section A.4, page 7-3: 1 1 4-5 4. Establish an open space and preservation funding and management program. There are numerous unique natural and physical resources within the community as well as a community-wide desire to acquire open lands. In order to implement this process, a specific funding and management program must be developed. Identifying both specific funding sources and priority properties will help to insure that this becomes a reality. This may include working with local districts and/or land trusts as land managers. Far too often, open spaee is looked upon as the accumulation of vast acres of undeveloped land surrounding the town with the purpose of limiting or curtailing development. More appropriately, open space in the Estes Valley might be an undeveloped lot that provides an outstanding view, a few acres within our daily travels which provide a place for local wildlife to congregate or a trail system in natural surroundings providing pedestrian access to all parts of town. Most importantly, open space is the breathing room we allow for ourselves, our visitors, and our wildlife in an otherwise dense, urbanized environment. The recent Marketing and Brand Assessment of Estes Park by Hannah Marketing Group, Inc. (May 5,2009) recognized that "Watchable Wildlife" served as a demand generator for visitors to Estes Park. Previous visitor surveys demonstrate a high demand for wildlife viewing. Hannah Marketing identifies "satisfaction levels" as crucial to marketing success, since 65 percent of visitors are repeat visitors. Failing to adopt an open space policy that fosters wildlife viewing and view corridors within urban areas could therefore be expected to have a negative economic impact. A proper open space process would complement the proposed Wildlife and Habitat Protection code revision being considered by the Planning Commission. The following actions should be taken. (Please see attachment A) Step 1: Approve funding and complete the Open Space Study. In January 2008, the Larimer County Commission, Estes Park Board of Trustees and Planning Commission held a joint meeting to discuss the need for further open space planning. By December 2008, Town staff completed a conscientious and comprehensive REP process and identified a company to inventory, evaluate, and report on the open space within the Valley. It appears that the Town Board has rejected the need for such planning by rejecting the carefully-prepared RFP as "going too far." The Planning Commission should recommend immediate action on the existing RFP. Step 2: When completed, the study will identify the significant remaining open spaces within the area served by the EVDC, including how such open space relates to wildlife habitat. Such a study would result in a map not unlike the one contained in the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment (the basis for the composite map referenced by the proposed Wildlife and Habitat Protection code). Step 3: Overlaying an Open Space map on to the habitat map will graphically present and prioritize the most important areas within the Valley. Areas common to both maps would be the highest priority for special consideration. Parcels with some significant 2 3&-5 nd Â· open space and critical habitat might be of a 2 priority, and areas specific to only the rd Â· Â· open space map or the wildlife map might constitute a 3 priority . This composite map would also be useful in planning for and completing a trail network; in establishing and maintaining wildlife viewing areas; in planning for crucial view corridors; and extremely helpful for planning future commercial, industrial, and governmental development. Step 4: With a prioritized list and a map of the significant open space and habitat, an Estes Valley policy for Open Space and Wildlife and Habitat Protection can be created and enacted. The resulting policy would be the basis for an Open Space program as defined in the comprehensive plan. A carefully planned open space program will complement the EVDC. Such a program of planning and management can be used to engage additional resources such as the Estes Valley Land Trust, Larimer County Open Lands Program, Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) funding, as well as numerous public and private organizations at the state and federal level. With the availability of these resources the burden of funding an Open Space Program does not lay solely with the Town and the tax payers of Estes Park. (Please see attachment B) I would encourage each of you to look at a larger view of the Estes Valley and of its future because that image will be your legacy to all who live and visit here. Land use questions will continue to come before you and as the undeveloped portion of the Valley becomes smaller, the decisions will become more difficult....and more important! Please do not rush to pass changes to the EVDC until they are comprehensive in scope, come with all the tools needed to be enforceable and are certain to accomplish that vision. Sincerely, Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court 3 /4 048Â»inr f.=- Attachment A / 53 ~ f Wildlife & Habitat Protection and Open Space Program - id ~ MAY 1 3 2009 ~ 1)1 Combined Approach l._-141-J Open Space Study Estes Valley Habitat Assessment -To be completed- -Completed- Â¥ Identification and Identification and Map of Important Map of Critical Habitats Open Spaces -Completed- -To be completed- Revised Wildlife and Habitat Protection Development Code -In process- Combine Wildlife Habitat and Open Space Maps Â¥ Result Prioritized list with a map of the most significant remaining spaces in the Estes Valley Open Space Flowchart FRM 05/13/09 Attachment B 19*6Â»33.-En=3 1 --99 2.-r '.Ti f ' Application Process with an Open Space Program -.12---tf 11 111 MAY 1 3 Onnn 1' j ~~ f i. ,{1 3 pj Ul Development Application submitted Staff PReject-Application --31.-' No Meets EVDC Requirements? Yes ~/ Staff ~ No ~ In Critical Yes ~ Habitat? ~ V V / p-c Meets EVDC Yes _ No | Mitigation Plan Requirements? Adequate? 1 No #-1 Approve .il Application ~ Reject Application 1 Yes PC, Applicant & biologist Yes Can mitigation plan be fixed? No Approve Application ' Additional Resources available to ,~ an Open Space Program â€¢ EV Land Trust Open Space Program â€¢ Larimer Co. Open Lands Engaged /-1 Program \r--1/ â€¢ GOCO â€¢ State & Federal agencies & $ â€¢ Voter initiatives Application Flowchart FRM 05/13/09 'r~E(DE OVm; Al ~~ MAY 1 3 2009 El May 11,2009 L .~ 1 Subject: Wildlife and Habitat Protection code revision - Draft 5 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission (Please place this letter in the public record) After review of the latest Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #5 for April 21, 2009 Planning Commission Review given to me by Alison Chilcott on May 8,2009, I offer the following questions, comments, and requests. General questions and comments: 1. Since the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment and its associated Wildlife Habitat Map (by EDAW, Inc) are the foundation documents for the proposed Wildlife Habitat Protection code changes, is it not required that the Planning Commission vote to accept these documents as updates to the Estes Valley Comprehensive plan prior to voting on the actual proposed EVDC changes? 2. Maps referenced in Appendix A a. Will the finalized versions of the maps referenced in the proposed code be posted for public review before the Planning Commission votes on the code changes? b. Where can the referenced maps be found? i. Aquatic Habitat Map (what is the origin of this map?) ii. Urbanized Area Map c. Will the finalized versions of the maps be available for Planning Commission review and discussion before the Planning Commission is expected to vote on the proposed code changes? 3. Terminology a. Why did the term "River and Stream Corridors" change to "Aquatic Habitat"? b. How does "Aquatic Habitat" differ from "Wetlands"? c. An earlier draft included references to rare and/or endangered plant species and communities. Has protection for native flora been removed? 4. Definitions a. The term "wildlife population" is frequently used in the proposed code but there is no definition in Section 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases. To avoid ambiguity perhaps this term should be defined as "a group of plants or animals inhabiting a particular locality within the Estes Valley" (as opposed to being interpreted as the population of the entire Estes Valley). 5. Setbacks - It is apparent that the subject of setbacks is being thoroughly investigated and is a work in process. I have no comments at this time. Review of Draft 5 - 051109 . 200% E f YAE .- i Code specific comments and requests: Page 2, Section 7.4.C Public Trails and Private Open Areas, Location Criteria Item 1 only directs an Applicant to "give priority" to preserving natural and scenic resource assets. This is not stated as a requirement so the opening phrase "to the maximum extent feasible" is not relevant and only adds complexity and ambiguity to the paragraph. Page 6, Section 7.6.E Wetlands & Aquatic Habitat Protection, Buffer & Setback Areas Item 2. Aquatic Habitat in the I-1 Zoning District. This draft has defined 50 feet as the standard setback with exceptions for special cases, e.g. the downtown area. Why should new construction in Industrial zoned areas be exempted from the larger setback? Is not the potential damage the same or worse from industrial use than residential development, e.g. lawn fertilizer and insect spray runoff vs. industrial chemicals, solvents, etc.? Page 12, Section 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection, Purpose. "The purpose of this section* is to plan and design land uses so that when property is developed:" This introductory statement for this section of code is clear and concise as it goes on to state three goals. This is a section of the Estes Valley Development Code therefore the last four words (shown as struck through above) are redundant. Page 13, Section 7.8.E Review Procedure for Sites Containing Critical Habitat â€¢ Item 1.a - A review to determine if a Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment can be waived seems appropriate but only if the review and approval process takes place in a public venue such as a Planning Commission or Board of Trustees meeting. â€¢ Item 1.b - An application to permit a new use in an existing structure with no additional construction may be a candidate for a waiver but as above, the review should take place at a public meeting. Using an existing barn to accommodate rock concerts with parking provided on the adjacent meadow may have a serious impact on wildlife and/or habitat. â€¢ Item 1.c - A waiver should not automatically be granted for rezoning applications which may reduce development potential. For example, rezoning from A, or C, or I to RM does not mean the potential for significant adverse impact disappears. â€¢ Item 1.d - A waiver should not be automatically granted for applications based only on I-1 zoning. â€¢ Item 1.e - If I read this paragraph correctly, an applicant for a residential subdivision in an elk or mule deer severe winter range habitat can be granted a waiver from providing a Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment if the residences are "clustered" and if the applicant does not ask for an increase in density as a result of the clustering. In come cases "clustering" may be an effective means of mitigating the negative impacts of a development but that is certainly not true in all cases ! Understanding and mitigating the impact of a subdivision in a sensitive Review of Draft 5 - 051109 area is the exact reason this code is being written and this example certainly is not a candidate for a waiver! Page 13, Section 7.8.E Review Procedure for Sites Containing Critical Habitat â€¢ Item 2 - "Colorado Division of Wildlife. Staff shall refer (please add "in " writing") the submitted application....... I have heard a representative of CDOW explain that the division will always respond in writing to a request it receives in writing. If the Town expects a formal response, it needs to make a formal request. Page 14, Section 7.8.F Wildlife Habitat Protections Standards for Sites Containing Critical Habitat. Item 1 - This paragraph simply provides direction for the planning and design goals of an application. It does not specify a requirement and therefore the phrase "to the maximum extent feasible" does not apply and should be removed for clarity of language. Page 14, Section 7.8.G Significant Adverse Impacts Defined Question - Today's code speaks specifically of Big Horn Sheep, does the proposed code need language specifically directed to the needs of this specie? Page 14, Section 7.8.G Significant Adverse Impacts Defined Item 3.a, and Item 3.c - Items 1&2 define "significant adverse impacts" in terms of impacts that threaten the health or viability of a wildlife population or habitat in the Estes Valley. Item 3.a and 3.c each have that same phrase repeated. In each case this is redundant and not a grammatically correct sentence. Removing these phrases would add to the clarity of this section of code. Page 15, Section 7.8.H Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessments for Sites Containing Critical Habitat Item 3 - Avoidance and Mitigation of Development Impacts This paragraph requires a description of how impacts will be avoided, or if not avoided, how the impacts will be mitigated. It goes on to require an analysis of the probability of success of such measures but nowhere does this code require the avoidance or mitigation means to be effective in reducing or eliminating those impacts which were deemed to be significant and adverse. Without explicit language requiring a plan to be effective, an applicant can meet the requirements of this code by providing a plan listing mitigation measures, each with a very low (perhaps zero) probability success. The lack of requiring a mitigation plan to be effective is a major flaw in the existing code, painfully discovered during the Wapiti Crossing hearing, and is a significant reason for this revision. This revision must correct the current problem by providing specific language requiring an effective plan. Review of Draft 5 - 051109 Page 15, Section 7.8.H Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessments for Sites Containing Critical Habitat Item 3. - "Examples of possible mitigation efforts include but are not limited to:" (12) "Enhancing or restoring equivalent habitat on the site or elsewhere in the Estes Valley." Question - Does this example indicate an applicant is not required to avoid or mitigate significant adverse impacts of development to wildlife or habitat on the property identified in the application if some other property is enhanced or restored? Does this not describe a defacto extra density credit for the property being developed? I would respectfully request the Planning Commission to ensure this code corrects the shortcomings of the current code before voting for its approval. Sincerely, Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court Review of Draft 5 - 051109 -AEÂ©E OVE[:1\ 11 h Karen Thompson f~ Arn 2 3 2005 110=31. oin: Dave Albee [ARD@dim.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28,2009 6:22 PM i To: Karen Thompson Subject: Fw: Wildlife and Open Space similar Towns ----- Original Message ----- 1 1 - Â· r---- . e. .h -4 1 -1.- 1- r' from: Dave Albee , . â€¢ S To: Karen Thompson Cc: Betty Hull Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:01 AM Subject: Wildlife and Open Space similar Towns April 22,2009 RE: Wildlife, Habitat and Open Space Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff: I have been in contact with some environmental political groups that are interested in Open Space and Wildlife. They were very sympathetic to our efforts and suggested that we check out the following communities and their codes as they had similar concerns: Fremont County, Idaho - they have a performance based code that may be worth looking at. - 2. Teton County, WY - Lots of high end residents that are very concerned about Wildlife and Open Space. http://www.jacksontetonplan.com/ 3. Banff, Canada - In addition to the town they have good support from their county and the surrounding area for their Wildlife and Open Space. They are also experiencing Pine Beatle problems. Thank you, Dave Albee, President ARD Association for Responsible Development L 1 ~ []~ APR 2 7 2009 ' U BUU Karen Thompson L , 0 5 3<LIA ('~ From: JBHULL@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 10:13 AM To: ronaldfnorris@gmail.com; Karen Thompson; dougklink@gmail.com; JBHULL@aol.com; info@fallrivercabins.com; afraundorf @yahoo.com; Alison Chilcott; Dave Shirk; Bob Joseph; steve_lane @ basisarchitecture.com Subject: Further Setback data Hello All, I just learned that the setbacks from river and streams in Whitefish, Montana, (which sits on the border of Glacier National Park and again has virtually the same wildlife habitat that we do) is according to their Code Section 2, page 11: "Setbacks for streams, wetlands and lakes are hereby established as follows": Rivers- 75 feet from ordinary high water mark. Wetlands- 100 feet from the edge of the wetland, increased by 25 feet for multi-family, industrial and commercial development, and reduced by 25 feet for parks or low-density residential development on lots of 2.5 acres or greater. Streams- 100 feet from ordinary high water mark, increased by 25 feet in RM, I or C zones and reduced by 25 feet for parks or low-density residential development on lots 2.5 acres or larger. Intermittent streams- 50 feet from ordinary high water mark. Hmm... food for thought, huh? Betty C . Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar! 1 Karen Thompson f}]lit Im: JBHULL@aol.com L-1-iLL ~ Sent: Monday, April 27,2009 9:26 AM To: ronaldfnorris@gmail.com; Karen Thompson;,dougklink@gmail.com; JBHUI.-li1233E--~Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·J info@fallrivercabins.com; afraundorf @yahoo.com; Alison Chilcott; Dave Shirk; Bob Joseph; steve_lane @ basisarchitecture.com Subject: Fwd: Help! Hello All, I studied the Teton-Jackson Comprehensive Plan, and was very interested to see they have the same issues we do. As you also read, their 2 top priorities are: first- stewardship of wildlife and natural resources and second- responsible growth management. As to their first priority, I see they have what they call a Natural Resource Overlay map much akin to our Critical Habitat map, which they update periodically. They limit development in crucial habitat areas and require mitigation of impact to that crucial habitat. They also make an effort to "conserve large, contiguous and connected open spaces... to enable migration and reduce human conflict". Additionally, they require development to conform to setbacks from water bodies. But they didn't say what they were, so I wrote to them and asked. Below is their answer. Now, I told them in my e-mail that even though our research all recommended an average of 100' setbacks, that really wasn't practical for us because we were a fairly narrow valley governed by 2 rivers and assorted streams. I also told him what our present code stated concerning the 30' and 50' tbacks. C I realize I was the one on Dave about comparing us to other communities-- and that we are unique, and I also know that Jackson Hole isn't in nearly as narrow a valley as we are. I still believe that we are indeed unique, but I also will repeat that I don't mind working hard, but I'd just as soon work smart. Why re-invent the wheel on this Wildlife Habitat Protection Development Code language if we can gain any insight on what other similar communities are doing-- in this case a community who sits on the border of not one, but two, National Parks (Grand Teton and Yellowstone) and has virtually the same wildlife species that we do. So this afternoon, I'm going to contact other Colorado communities-- Breckenridge, Vail, Avon, Evergreen, etc) concerning their setbacks; then I'm on to Whitefish, Montana (Glacier)... I'll let you know what I find out. The two horrible examples of development run amok that I'm most familiar with are West Yellowstone and Gattlinburg, TN (Great Smokies), even though the latter is also in a narrow valley. What a congested hodgepodge mess each of them are! This is actually kind of fun-- we old anal research Librarians live for data, you know. Betty From: anorton @tetonwyo.org To: JBHULL@aol.com Sent: 4/27/2009 7:33:43 A.M. Mountain Standard Time Subj: RE: Help! f- Betty, 1 141- Our current regulations in Teton County have a 150 foot setback from rivers and a 50-150 foot setback from creeks and streams depending on riparian vegetation. We also have a 30 foot setback from wetlands. These regulations may or may not change with the adoption of the draft Comprehensive Plan you read. Let me know ( if you have any further questions. Thanks. Alex Alex Norton Staff Planner Teton County Planning and Development 200 S. Willow St. / PO Box 1727 Jackson, WY 83001 307-733-3959 Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar! 2 0 1 1) 1 CE l l I '~ APR 2 1 2009 l~ Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 O U April 21, 2009 Comments from Mark Elrod On Draft Five Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Addressing Wildlife and Habitat Protection The definition of the term "aquatic habitat" is most difficult to find. 1 question the wisdom to use it in our Code and attempt to define it ourselves. So far the only one authority I've found is the USGS which explains that "aquatic habitats include permanently flooded parts of estuaries and nearshore environments like seagrass beds, rivers, ponds, and lakes." Even in our Estes Valley Habitat Assessment (September 16, 2008) the term "aquatic habitat" is only found once as a bullet point on page 13 and is referenced with the parenthical "springs, seeps, streams, rivers, open water". The Estes Valley Habitat Assessment references "riparian corridors"; "riparian areas"; "riparian areas and wetlands"; riparian habitat"; "riparian vegetation"; 'riparian systems"; and "riparian/stream corridors" at least thirty one (31) times. The Colorado Division of Wildlife Strategic Plan for the Wetland Wildlife Conservation Program report of December 2008 defines "wetlands" and "riparian areas". It does not define "aquatic habitat". The United States Environmental Protection Agency has a glossary that defines "riparian area" and "wetlands", but not "aquatic habitat". The Larimer County Land Use Code defines "wetland", but not "aquatic habitat". If the term "aquatic habitat" is so difficult to authoratively define then ! think we would be better served by not using the term in our Code and stick to variations of "wetlands"and "riparian" which seem much more abundant. I do believe this draft's inclusion at section 7.6 of a method to revise the wetlands map brings it into parity with section 7.8's method to revise the wildlife habitat map. This is good for land owners. In section 7.6(E) addressing setbacks of 50 feet. Would there be any value in addressing the setback issue as the Larimer County Land Use Code does at its section 8.2.8 where if one acre or less the setback is 50 feet and if more than one acre the setback is 100 feet? 1 Ar 1 In section 13.3 definitions "qualified biologist/ecologist" I would refer you to my comments made on February 17, 2008 about the wisdom of requiring membership in a voluntary non-regulatory/non-licensing organizations to be deemed "qualified". And now with the additional language added since the last draft this definition now reads that one who has an advanced degree must be a member of these voluntary organizations, and if one does not have an advanced degree but has five years of experience there is no such similar requirement about being a member of these voluntary professional organizations. It just doesn't seem to make sense. If now education is not the qualifying factor (which I believe it should be), but it is experience then let's just say that. Finally in section 13.3 definitions "wildlife" being defined as "any animal life form" you may wish to modify it to read "any non-human animal life form" Thank you for your attention. Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO 80517 . 6 1 "p LE Â©E0V13-El li-41-il Ill ~ ~ APR 2 1 2009 IU Colorado Division of Wildlife Strategic Plan for the Wetland Wildlife Conservation Program C 0 , . 9-itiÂ«2Â·,r Â·Â·Â· 74. 0 e 9.; 4 9 k .0 030,2 4% 4 50. 4#,r, . 4 1 -1 -# 1. .A., 9-- =41=6,1. .*, 11 1,;.&, . , Version 1.0 December 2008 Appendix A - Wetland and Riparian Definitions "Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of the year." (National Wetlands Inventory, U, S. Fish and Wildlife Service) "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." (Definition used in CDOW's riparian mapping project) Appendix B - Types of Wetlands Submerged aquatic (semi-permanent flooding with aquatic plants) Emergent marsh (seasonal or semi-permanent flooding) Wet meadow (high water table with grass/sedge/rush community) Shrublands and floodplains (seasonal flooding with shrubby vegetation) Peatlands/fens (flooded during growing season, low decomposition rate) Springs, seeps and sloughs (grow}dwater discharge site) Riverine (sand/gravel bars, other wetlands associated with stream channel) Playas (temporary lakes in pastures or prairies, flooded seasonally or less often) Lakes and reservoirs (included here because of their association with strategic wetlands and migratoiy waterfowl habitat) Artificial wetlands Appendix C - Summaries of National Bird Conservation Plans North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/index.shtm The vision of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is to recover waterfowl populations by restoring and managing wetland ecosystems, to conserve biological diversity in the western hemisphere, to integrate wildlife conservation with sustainable economic development, and to promote partnerships of public and private agencies, organizations and individuals for conservation. Canada, the United States and Mexico are committed to the ongoing continental effort to restore North America's waterfowl and wetland resources. ( 15 Glossary Abiotic: Not biological: not involving or produced by cant restoration function to a degraded system organisms (Merriam-Webster, 1991), (USEPA. 1998). Adsorption: The accumulation of substances at the Denitrification: The biochemical reduction of nitrate interface between two phases; in water treatment, the or nitrite to gaseous nitrogen, either as molecular interface is between the liquid and solid surfaces that nitrogen or as an oxide of nitrogen. are artificially provided (Peavy et alâ€ž 1985). Ecosystem: The complex of a community and its Best Management Practice (BMP): Methods that environment functioning as an ecological unit in have been determined to be the most effective. nature: a basic functional unit of nature comprising practical means ofpreventing or reducing pollution both organisms and theirnonliving environment, from nonpoint sources. intimately linked by a variety ofbiological, chemical, and physical processes (Barnhart. 1986: Merriam- Biofiltration: The removal and oxidation of com. Webster. 1991). pounds from contaminated air using microorganisms. (Environmental Engineering Program, University of Erosion and Sediment Control: A set of plans Southern California: http://www-rcf.usc.edu/-bfilter/ prepared by or under the direction of a licensed intro.html) professional engineer indicating the specific measures and sequencing to be used to control sediment and Biological assimilation: The conversion of nonliving erosion on a development site during and after con- substances into living protoplasm or cells by using struction (USEPA. 19934 energy to build up complex compounds of living matter from the simple nutritive compounds obtained from Filtration: The process of being passed through a food (Barnhart. 1986). filter (as in the physical removal of impurities froin water) or the condition of being filtered (Barnhart. Biotic: Caused or produced by living beings 1986). (Merriam-Webster. 1991), Habitat: The place where an organism naturally lives Chemical decomposition: Separation into elements or grows. or simpler compounds; chemical breakdown (Merriam-Webster, 1991). Mitigation: For the purpose of CWA section 404. compensatory mitigation is the restoration, creation, or Complexation: The process by which one substance enhancement of wetlands. is converted to another substance in which the con- stituents are more intimately associated than in a Riparian area: Vegetated ecosystems along a simple mixture; chelation is one type of complexation waterbody through which energy. materials, and water (Merriam-Webster. 1991). pass. Riparian areas characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic flooding and Connectedness: Having the property of being joined influence from the adjacent waterbody. These sys- or linked together. as in aquatic or riparian habitats. tems encompass wetlands. uplands. or some combina- Constructed wetland: Engineered wetlands that tion of these two landforms; they do not in all cases utilize natural processes involving wetland vegetation, have all of the characteristics necessary for them to soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to be classified as wetlands (Lowrance et al.. 1983; assist. at least partially, in treating an emuent or other Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986). source water. These systems are engineered and Sedimentation: The formation of earth. stones, and constructed in uplands, outside "waters of the United other matter deposited by water, wind, or ice States." unless the water source can serve a signifi- (Barnhart. 1986), EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 85 Glossary Species diversity: The variations between groups of sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet related organisms that have certain characteristics in meadows. playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, common (Barnhart, 1986: Metriain-Webster: 1991). degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such Synoptic Assessment Approach: An approach that waters: involves compiling. organizing. and depicting environ- mental information in a manner that ranks watersheds (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign according to the relative significance and risks to travelers for recreational or other purposes; or wetlands and other ecosystems. The approach (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken considers the environmental effects of cumulative and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or impacts on wetlands and other ecosystems. (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial Upland: Ground elevated above the lowlands along purposes by industries in interstate commerce; rivers or between hills (Merriam-Webster, 1991). (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as Vegetated buffer: Strips of vegetation separating a waters of the United States under this definition; waterbody from a land use that could act as a nonpoint pollution source. Vegetated buffers (orsimply (5) Tributaries ofwaters identified in paragraphs buffers) are variable in width and can range in func- (s)(1) through (4) of this section; tion from vegetated filter strips to wetlands or riparian (6) The territorial sea; areas, Vegetated filter strip: Created areas of vegetation (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs designed to remove sediment and other pollutants from surface water runoff by filtration, deposition, (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment infiltration, adsorption, decomposition, and volatilim= systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons de- tion. A vegetated filter strip is an area that maintains signed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than soil acration as opposed to a wetland, which at times cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters exhibits anaerobic soil conditions (Dillahaet al., 19898). of the United States. Waters of the United States do not include prior Vegetated treatment system: A system that converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determina- consists of a vegetated filter strip, a constructed wetland. or a combination of both. tion of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Watershed: Tlie land area that drains into a stream; Clean Water Act: the final authority regarding Clean the watershed for a major river may encompass a Water Actjurisdiction remains with EPA. number of smaller watersheds that ultimately combine at a common point. Wetlandm: Those areas that are inundated or satu- rated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency Waters of the United States: As defined by 40 and duration to support, and that under normal circum- CFR 230.3: stances do support. a prevalence ofvegetation typi- cally adapted for life in saturated soil conditions: - (s) The term waters of the United States means: wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs. (1) All waters which are currently used, or were used and similar areas. (This definition is consistent with in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate the federal definition at 40 CFR 230.3. promulgated or foreign commerce. including all waters which are December 24, 1980. As amendments are made to the subject to the ebb and flow of the tide: wetland definition, they will be considered applicable to this guidance.) (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands: (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers. C streams (including intermittent streams): mudflats. 86 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 ( 8.1.5 LARIMER COUNTY LAND IJSE CODE required to demonstrate compliance with When encroachment cannot be avoided, this sec- the capacity and level of service require- tion provides for mitigation of the impacts result- ments in subsection C above. A paving ing from the encroachment. threshold study must be submitted to demonstrate that these capacity and level 8.2.2. Applicability. of service requirements for unpaved or This section applies to all subdivisions, conser- gravel roads are satisfied. The minimum vation developments, planned land divisions, rezon- requirements for a paving threshold study ings, special reviews, special exceptions and site are described in Appendix K "Guidelines plan reviews. This section also applies to any for Traffic Impact Studies," of the techni- minor land division that will result in a new, cal supplement to this code, Larimer vacant building site. This section does not apply County Road Standards. to: 2. Developments within the GMA district A. Agricultural activities, such as soil prep- must subrnit a traffic impact study as aration, irrigation, planting, harvesting, required in Chapter 4 of the Larimer grazing and farm ponds; County Urban Area Street Standards, in the technical supplement to this code. B. Urban and rural drainage systems; C. Maintenance and repair of existing public G. Capital contribution front-ending agree- roads, utilities and other public facilities ment. The county may enter into a capital contri- within an existing right-of-way or ease- bution front-ending agreement with any person ment; proposing to construct a road to provide safe and adequate access to a proposed development. Where D. Maintenance and repair of flood control the road is on the county's major road system structures and activities in response to a ( (collector and arterial streets established in the bonafide flood emergency; county's transportation master plan) and is eligi- E. Wetland and wildlife habitat restoration, ble for capital expansion fee credits, the capital creation and/or enhancement that im- contribution front-ending agreement will provide proves the wetland's function if the activ- proportionate and fair share reimbursement to ity proposed is approved by the appropri- the extent that the cost of the road exceeds the ate agency, such as the Army Corps of amount of credits for which the road is eligible. Engineers or Colorado Division of Wild- Where the road is not eligible for road capital life; or expansion fee credits, the capital contribution front-ending agreement will provide proportion- F. Building permit applications for single- ate and fair share reimbursement, Reimburse- family or duplex dwellings on existing ment must be provided from the new development legal lots. that, in the future, will use the road for safe and adequate access within the traffic impact area. 8.2.3. Other regulations. When this section imposes a higher or more 8.2. WETLAND AREAS restrictive standard than that imposed by a fed- eral, state or local law, easement, covenant, deed restriction or other similar document, this section 8.2.1. Purpose. will apply. The purpose ofthis section is to protect wetlands, 8.2.4. Wetland mapping. their buffer areas and their water sources from encroachment that would adversely affect the Wetland mapping is intended for general plan- wetlands' ability to maintain water quality, pro- ning purposes. The following sources of mapping vid.e wildlife habitat, provide flood protection and shall be used to indicate the approximate location maintain other critical environmental functions. and/or extent of possible wetland areas. The fol- LUC8:14 STANDARDS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT 8.2.8 lowing wetland maps and identification docu- low water at some time during the ments are available for reference in the planning growing season of each year. This department: applies only to salt flats too saline to support hydrophytes, and the mar- A. Larimer County Partnership Land Use gins oflakes, reservoirs and streams System (PLUS) Wetland Classification and where there is too much erosion to Protection Program, prepared by David J. support either hydrophytes or hydric Cooper, Ph.D., and David M. Merritt, M. soils. S., dated March 29, 1996 and revised by David J. Cooper and Scott Woods, Novem- ber 4, 1999; 8.2.0. Unmapped wetlands. B. National Wetlands Inventory prepared by Review of a development proposal may reveal a the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish potential wetland on the site. The county plan- end Wildlife Service; ning department will cooperate with the appli- cant to identify boundaries of the wetland. The C. Colorado Natural Heritage Program maps; applicant is responsible for delineating the and wetland's boundaries on maps, plats and site D. Other maps or information that may be plans submitted as part of a development pro- identified by the planning director in co- posal. operation with other agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wild- 8.2.7. Wetland boundary disputes. life Service or the Colorado Natural Her- A. If the available information, such as the itage Program. Soil Survey by the U.S. Natural Resources Con- i 8.2,6. Wetland definition. servation Service, referral comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Two definitions are used in concert to identify Corps of Engineers and/or vegetation on the site, mapped and unmapped wetlands under this code: indicate the presence of a wetland and the appli- A. Wetlands are those areas that are inun- cant disputes the information, the applicant must demonstrate that the information is incorrect. dated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sum- Information submitted by the applicant will be cient to support, and that under normal reviewed by a qualified wetlands expert retained or employed by the county. The county commis- circumstances do support, a prevalence of sioners will make the final determination of the vegetation typically adapted for life in existence and boundaries of the wetland based on saturated soil conditions. Wetlands gener- the expert's recommendation. ally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas; and B. A request to delineate a wetland boundary B. Wetlands are land transitions between may be submitted as part of a development appli- terrestrial and aquatic systems where the cation, or the applicant may submit a separate water table is usually at or near the application to be decided before a development surface or the land is covered by shallow application is submitted. All requests to delineate water. Wetlands must have one or more of wetland boundaries will be decided at a public the following attributes: hearing by the county commissioners under sec- tion 12.2 (development review procedures). 1. At least periodically the land sup- ports predominately hydrophytes; 8.2.8. Wetland development standards. 2. The substrate is predominately undrained hydric soil; and A. The following minimum buffer areas must be established from the boundary of a wetland: 3. The substrate is non-soil and is sat- urated with water or covered by shal- 1. Wetlands of one acre or less-50 feet. Supp. No. 1 LUC8:15 8.2.8 LARIMER COUNTY LANI) USE CODE 2. Wetlands of more than one acre-100 and viewing, may be permitted in buffer areas feet. with a use plan for residual land and/or common area conforming to section 8.10 (management 3. Class 3 and 4 wetlands of any size as plans). delineated on Larimer County Partner- ship Land Use System Wetland Classifi- F. The county commissioners may allow roads cation and Protection Program Maps- and bridges across wetlands and buffer areas if 100 feet. they determine that: Note: The buffer widths stated above are 1. No practical alternative exists; based on recommendations from the county's wetland consultant. If credible 2. All crossings minimize impact to the and competent evidence, including the wetland and provide mitigation for un- site inventory, is presented to show that avoidable impacts through restoration, en- the recommended buffer widths are not hancement or replacement; appropriate, the county commissioners may approve increased or decreased buffer 3. Crossings do not change the overall wetland widths that are supported by the evi- hydrology; dence. 4. Crossings do not diminish the flood stor- B. Only plant species that are identified by the age capacity of the wetland; and Larimer County Landscape Guide as being appro- priate for riparian life zones can be introduced 5. Crossings do not negatively impact wild- into any wetland or riparian area, including the life. (Res. No. 11122002R001,9-23-2002) required buffer area. C. Development proposals that include the keep- 8.2.9. Protection of wetland water sources. 4 ing of livestock adjacent to wetlands or their buffer areas must include provisions in a use plan A. Applications for developments must evalu- for residual land and/or common area conforming ate the impact of the proposed development on to section 8.10 (management plans) that protect surface and ground water flows and design the the wetland and buffer area from damage due to project to ensure that the historic flow of surface such livestock. and ground water needed to sustain an existing D. Utilities may be allowed in the buffer area wetland will not be interrupted. only if county commissioners determine there is B. Surface and ground water flows intercepted no practical alternative. Any disturbance of the by roads, utility trenches and other development buffer area must be reclaimed by regrading and improvements can not be diverted away from an revegetation. Provisions for reclamation of the existing wetland unless a mitigation plan is ap- disturbed area must be included in the develop- proved with the development to mitigate the ment agreement for the project with adequate impact on the existing wetland. collateral to guarantee reclamation will be com- pleted. Utility corridors in buffer areas must be C. Activities below the seasonal high ground- located at the buffer's outside edge and access water table, decreases in infiltration and diver- roads for utility maintenance must be located sions of surface and ground water flows with outside the buffer area. Access for utility mainte- drainage ditches or fill must be avoided. nance in buffer areas should be at specific points rather than parallel to the utility corridor. 8.2.10. Wetland mitigation requirements. E. Structures and improvements are prohib- ited in any wetland except those for educational A. Restoration is required when a wetland or or scientific activities. Improvements, such as its buffer is altered in violation of law or without trails, fishing access and wildlife management specific permission or approval of county commis- ( . Supp. No. 1 LUCH:16 STANDARDS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT 8.2.11 sioners. The following standards apply to restora- E. Replacement off-site may be allowed if the tion of a wetland or buffer area to the maximum property owner shows in a study by a recognized extent practicable: wetlands expert acceptable to Lerimer County that the off-site location is in the same drainage 1. The original wetland configuration must subbasin as the original wetland; the replacement be restored, including its width, depth, is on a one-to-one basis by area; and greater length and gradient at the original loca- biologic and Hydrologic functions can be achieved, tion; F. Replacement sites must be located to avoid 2. The original soil type and configuration wildlife habitat fragmentation. must be restored; 3. The wetland edge and buffer area must be 8.2.11. Wetland mitigation plan requirements. restored to its original configuration; A. A wetland mitigation plan must include at 4. The wetland and buffer must be re- least the following information: planted with species native or adaptive to 1. A description of the ownership, location, Larimer County that restores the original type, size and classification of the wetland vegetation in species composition, size and its buffer area; and densities to the maximum extent prac- 2. An evaluation of the altered wetland's ticable; hydrologic and biologic functions; 6. The original wetland functions must be 3. The estimated cost of the proposed miti- restored, including hydrologic and bio- gation, its probability of success and a logic functions; financial guarantee for completion. The 6. The restoration must be accomplished ac- financial guarantee may be included in cor(ling to a plan prepared by a recognized the development agreement described in wetland expert with demonstrated exper- section 12.6 (post-approval requirements); Use in the field who is acceptable to 4. An evaluation of the suitability of the Larimer County. The property owner is proposed mitigation site for establishing responsible for the expert's fee and cost of the restored or created wetland; restoration. Restoration must be accom- plished within 12 months after the alter- 5. An evaluation of the hydrology of the site ation of the wetland or buffer area is proposed for restoration or creation of a discovered. wetland and a clear statement of the project's hydrologic and ecological goals; B. Replacement of a wetland is required when 6. Amaintenance program that includes weed a wetland or buffer is altered or when a wetland is control; litter and debris removal; erosion used for a regional retention or detention pond or control; watering, repair of water-control other use approved by the county commissioners. structures; maintenance ofvegetation and C. Enhancement may be allowed when a wildlife habitat; and cleaning of culverts. wetland or buffer is altered under an approved The maintenance program must be in- development proposal but the wetland's biologic cluded in the use plan for residual land or hydrologic functions will be improved as dem- and/or common area described in section onstrated in a study by a recognized wetlands 8.10; expert acceptable to Larimer County. 7. A description of the water source and evidence of ownership of water rights ap- D. All approved alterations of wetlands must proved by the state engineer; be mitigated by replacement or enhancement on the site or within the same drainage basin on a 8. A description of the critical elements and one-to-one basis with equivalent or better biologic potential problems that may influence the and hydrologic functions. success of the mitigation effort; Supp. No. 8 LUC8:17 8.2.11 LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE 9. A timetable for construction and monitor- 8.3.2. Applicability. ing; This section applies to subdivisions, planned 10. A three-year, post-construction monitor- land divisions, conservation developments, spe- ing program. The monitoringprogram must cial reviews, rezonings, special exceptions and be included in the use plan for residual site plans. This section also applies to any minor land and/or common area described in land division that will result in a new, vacant section 8.10; land] building site. 11. A demonstration of fiscal, administrative 8.3.3. Other regulations. and technical competence to successfully execute the plan. This section applies with all other county and B. All maps and reports prepared under this state land use regulations. If a provision of any section must be prepared by or under the respon- other land use regulation conflicts with this sec- sible direction of a person with demonstrated tion, this section will apply. technical expertise in the field who is acceptable to Larimer County. 8.3.4. Description of hazard areas. (Res. No. 11122002R001, 9-23-2002) Hazard areas regulated by this section include all areas that are or may become hazardous due 8.2.12. Mitigation plan review. to environmental conditions. Hazards include but The planning director may refer proposed mit- are not limited to wildfire; avalanche; landslide; igation plans to a qualified wetlands expert re- rock fall; mud flow and debris fan; unstable or tained by the county for review and recommenda- potentially-unstable slopes; seismic effects; radio- tion. activity; ground subsidence; and expansive soil and rock. 8.2.13. Administrative modifications. ( The planning director may approve minor mod- 8.3.5. Restrictions on development. ifications of any standards in this section that Development proposed within an area that is might prevent a reasonable use of property if or may become a natural hazard may be disal- he/she finds the following conditions exist: lowed if not designed and built in a manner to A. The administrative modification complies adequately mitigate the hazard as described be- with this section; low. Hazard areas within proposed developments B. The administrative modification has no should be identified as early in the development appreciable adverse impacts on wetlands; review process as possible. At the pre-application conference, planning staff will consult the avail- C. Any potential adverse impacts are miti- able hazard maps to help determine if a mitiga- gated or offset to the maximum extent tion plan is required. At the concept review or practicable; and sketch plan review meeting, staff will discuss D. The decision of the planning director can potential hazard areas with the applicant. be appealed to the county commissioners The application for the first public hearing on under section 22 (appeals). any project or the site plan review application must include a complete mitigation plan as de- 8.3. HAZARD AREAS* scribed below. 8.3.1. Purpose. 8.3.6. Classification of hazards. The purpose of this section is to protect county For purposes of administration, hazards are residents and their property by securing safety divided into these classes: from natural hazards. A. Wildfire hazards. (See Wildfire Hazard *Cross reference--Health, environment and natural re. Areas Map which was adopted by the sources, ch. 30. county commissioners on June 25, 2001.) li Supp. No. 8 LUC8:18 rage 1 Ul I Mark ElrE! From: <Mciver.Paul@epamail.epa.gov> To: "Mark Elrod" â‚¬2~ 3-2-[E o VE~ Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:18 AM Subject: Re: Wetlands / Riparian Area / Aquatic Habitat : 3~ APR 2 1 2009 ~ Mr. Elrod, The definition of aquatic habitat is found in the description of Part ~ 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged of Fill Material. To be brief, the Guidelines state that "the terms aquatic environment and aquatic ecosystem mean waters of the United States, including wetlands, that serve as habitat for interrelated and interacting communities and populations of plants and animals." waters ofthe United States include lakes, rivers, streams and ponds, This also includes coastal waters. Pul McIver Public Outreach Coordinator Wetlands and Aquatic Resources Unit Ecosystems Protection Program USEPA Region 8 4/21/2009 11 r.4 1 f 'J ~1 APR 2 1 20 --41_ Estes Valley Planning Commission February 17, 2009 Comments from Mark Elrod 675 Summerset Court Estes Park, CO Draft #4, Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Ponion of Block Twelve-Habitat and Wildlife provides... . Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES ... Qua#fied Biologist/geologist 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; 4- 1 313 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 1227 - (3) Is an Ecological Society of America Certified Ecologist, or holds a higher certification 3 F-_3 from this society. 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 23 Colorado members having certification issues by this organization. So why limit qualified biologists to these 237 Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. l