The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-06-16Prepared: June 9,2009 Revised: 1 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:30 Study Session, Rooms 201 and 202, Town Hall 1:30 p.m. Meeting, Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 2. STAFF REPORT Withdrawal of The Meadow Replat, Mary's Meadow Amended Development Plan, and Preliminary Condominium Map 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes - May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting BLUE SPRUCE SUBDIVISION- Lot 1, Blue Spruce Subdivision and a portion of Lot 10, Greeley-Boulder Colony, located at 2250 Highway 66 4 - Owner/Applicant: Brent & Janel Maher Request: Lot line adjustment 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 09-03 - BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS MASTER PLAN - The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums located in the east 1/2 of section 24, Township 5 North, Range 73 West, located at 800 MacGregor Avenue Owner/Applicant: Sloan Investments, LLC c/o Jim Sloan Request: Development consisting of 32 condominium units 5. AMENDED PLAT - THE NEIGHBORHOOD - Lots 15,16, and 17, Block 2,The Neighborhood Owner: Pawnee Meadows, LLC Applicant: Paul Kochevar Request: To divide three lots into five lots 6. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12 a. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION - Revisions to Section 7.8 of the Estes Valley Development Code, including, but not limited to, removal of the Colorado Division of Wildlife from the review process and updating wildlife habitat maps. The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 7. REPORTS STAFF-LEVEL REVIEWS Lemke Small Group Living Facility, DP 09-04 SafeWay Fueling Station, DP 09-05 PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS TOWN BOARD AND COUNTY COMMISSION DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS REVIEWED BY PLANNING COMMISSION TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION CONCERNING THE VACATION HOME/B&B CODE REVISIONS 8. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Work Process for EVDC Changes Draft for Comments: 6/11/09 This draft is based on County Commissioner Kathay Rennels' June 4 description of the Larimer County process for code changes. 1. A perceived need is brought to the attention of the Estes Park Board of Trustees or the Larimer County Commissioners. 2. Trustees or County Commissioners discuss the issue and decide whether any action is necessary, and if so, whether: a. A code change is needed, or b. Other action is required. 3. If a code change is needed, Trustees or County Commissioners develop and agree on a written problem statement which is sent to the Estes Valley Planning Commission, defining the problem to be solved and the boundaries or constraints within which solutions should be considered. (See next page for a sample Problem Statement template.) 4. Estes Valley Planning Commissioners review the problem statement and: a. Identify questions or issues that need further discussion or clarification; b. Develop initial thoughts on what the types of code revisions may be needed to solve the problem, and the implications (pro and con) of these revisions; c. Post the problem statement and the Planning Commission's initial thoughts for public comments; and, d. Send their questions and thoughts to the Trustees and/or County Commissioners. 5. Estes Valley Planning Commissioners meet with Trustees and/or County Commissioners to reach final agreement on what problem(s) to solve, and what types of solutions should be considered, before Staff begins any work on specific code changes. 6. Estes Valley Planning Commissioners provide Staff with a finalized problem statement, and specific guidelines on what is (and is not) to be addressed in the draft changes. 7. Staff brings the proposed changes to the Planning Commission for public review. 8. Planning Commission holds public review and makes recommendations to the Trustees and County Commissioners, who make the final decisions to approve or disapprove the changes. Work Process for EVDC Changes Draft Template for Problem Statement (Words in parentheses describe what to include under each heading) Words in italics are example language To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Estes Park Board of Trustees and/or Larimer County Commissioners Purpose: (State problem to be solved in 2-3 sentences.) Current code requires the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) to determine whether a development will result in significant adverse impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat; CDOW does not want to be in this role. In addition, current code does not explicitly state that a developer' s wildlife mitigation plan must be judged effective, and does not clearly define the Planning Commission's authority to deny applications whose mitigation plans are not adequate. These issues caused major confusion for the developer, neighbors, and the Planning Commission during consideration of the Wapiti Crossing development. Scope: (Explain what is and is not to be considered, any other constraints or boundaries within which the work is to be kept, and expected timing.) 1. Revise the Code to remove the requirement that CDOW determinJ significant adverse impact of a proposal 2. Add language to this section to clarify that a mitigation plan must be found effective by the Planning Commission as a condition of approval, and that the Planning Commission may deny an application, or request additional conditions, based on the adequacy of the mitigation plan. 3. Make no other changes at this time. 4. Bring recommendations to the Town Board by (date). Desired Outcomes: (Describe the benefits to be gained by solving this problem.) Developers and the public will more clearly understand the process for assessing wildlife habitat requirements and mitigation plans in advance. The process for reviewing and approving such applications will proceed more smoothly and with less effort. Developed Bv: (List Trustees/County Commissioners who participated in defining the problem, and the date.) PCJ Article: "Town Councils-and Planning Boards," by Pamela Plumb Page 1 of 3 Read-excernts ~~CA ~ari <~&*tru***4'A I. - * ~ from more veu 11'm~.1,lainfitswib-<diq than 275 . .- ...IM. 1.,i ;#AN.ke<*:-*0*Â»43-bla.lu. -â„¢ articles; most PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL are available to download Town Councils and Planning Boards: A Challenging Relationship by Pamela Plumb About the Author From Issue 9 of the PCJ, March/April 1993 There has always been a delicate dance in the relationship between Town Councils and their appointed Planning Boards. Perhaps it comes from the community emotion that inevitably surrounds local land use issues. Perhaps it is rooted in a lack of clarity about their different roles. Whatever the origins of this tension, the relationship is frequently a source of debate and occasionally a source of friction. I would like to offer a few thoughts on what that relationship might ideally look like and make some suggestions on how to encourage that positive result. A misunderstanding of roles is the most frequent barrier to a positive relationship between councils and planning boards. What are the roles? The Council begins with the responsibility of appointing the members of the Board. It is the Council's job to create a capable Board with a balance of experience and expertise. However, the Council then needs to leave the Board to do its job. The two groups have distinctly different jobs. Councilors are policy makers. They are elected by and are responsive to the public whom they represent in all its various constituencies. The Board members, on the other hand, are not policy makers. They are appointed to work within the ordinances adopted by the Council. They work within already established policy and do not change policy based on public comment. Even if the room is packed with citizens arguing that a permitted use be denied in a site plan hearing, it is not the Planning Board's role to change what is or is not permitted. It is their role to apply the given ordinance. If the public does not like what the ordinance permits, then the Council is the place to get it changed. Similarly, if the Board is concerned about the impacts of applying a given ordinance, their option is to recommend changes to the Council. Even in the process of rewriting or developing new ordinances, the Council is http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/plu034.html 6/8/2009 *litilliliM~*MG PCJ Article: "Town Councils and Planning Boards," by Pamela Plumb Page 2 of 3 still the policy maker. Tlie Board functions like a technical consultant to the Council recommending effective ways to accomplish the general community goals requested by the Council. The Council gives a sense of direction to the Board. The Board then uses its specialized background and expertise to make recommendations back to the Council. The recommendations may be creative and far reaching. They may be more complex or technically innovative than the Council ever imagined. But, it is the Council that makes the final decision with whatever political considerations it deems appropriate. Each role is vital to a smoothly functioning community. But they are separate. If the Board tries to set policy or the Council tries to interfere with the application of the ordinance or fails to value the technical advice of the Board, confusion and trouble will follow. Equally important to a positive relationship is effective and appropriate communication. When and how should the Council and the Board communicate? Should Councilors lobby Board members as the Board carries out its work? Should Board members consult with individual Councilors before making decisions or recommendations? Neither is likely to be helpful. There needs to be a way for the Council to provide collective guidance, rather than disjointed or individual points of view which might not represent the view of the whole. There needs to be a way for the Board to share with the Council the background and thought process that leads up to a recommendation for a zone change or a new ordinance. Although much of the work in small towns seems to get done around people's kitchen tables or in the aisles of the grocery store, clear and formal avenues of communication are important. There are some specific steps that could enhance communication: â€¢ A yearly workshop to review and agree on roles, to discuss common community goals, and to establish the general work agenda for the year. â€¢ A regular update letter or progress report from the Board to the Council and vice versa on issues of mutual interest. â€¢ Enough workshop time together before major issues so that recommendations can be fully understood and questions answered before the political debate. â€¢ Agreement on ground rules for joint meetings, public statements and informal workshops which include mutual respect. â€¢ Facilitated joint workshops on issues that have created or have the potential to create difficulties between the two groups. â€¢ Zoning and ordinance development processes that provide for community input early in the process thus reducing the likelihood of conflict. The bottom line for a positive and productive working relationship between the Council and the Planning Board is a clear understanding of their different roles, a regular communications system and a healthy understanding of, appreciation and respect for each other's jobs. Please note that this article is copyright protected by the Planning Commissioners Journal. You are welcome to download or print the article for your own personal use -- http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/plu034.html 6/8/2009 l. Memo To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Bob Joseph 12.ez3 CC: Jacquie Halbumt, Eric Blackhurst, Richard Homeier Date: June 1,2009 Re: Regulation of Non-conforming Uses and Structures Recent discussion of land use regulation has brought up questions concerning the regulation of non-conforming structures and uses. It is my opinion that the current regulations in the Estes Valley Development Code found in Chapter Six are ordinary in their scope and general approach to these matters. l 4- What is a nonconforming use? A nonconforming use is a land use, or a structure, which was allowed under local land development regulations when established, but would not be permitted under current development regulations. In deciding how to treat nonconforming uses, local governments must strike a balance between two competing principles: (1) The intended outcome, when a local government changes its planning goals and policies and then enacts revised land development regulations, is to have all development and land use ultimately conform to those regulations. (2) It is unfair to require termination of a use or demolition of a structure that was constructed or commenced in compliance with the law when the owner, relying on the legality of the land use or structure at the time, incurred expenses in establishing the structure or use. Nonconforming uses are about the right to maintain a structure or land use despite changes in land development regulations to the contrary. The usual approach of local governments is to "grandfather" nonconforming uses - to state that the land use may continue, so long as it was legal at the time it commenced. When a nonconforming use is terminated or a nonconforming structure is vacant for a certain period, (e.g. twelve months or more), then the protection of grandfathering is lost. 1 Resumption of the nonconforming use or occupancy is not allowed. The grandfather protection does not apply to major renovations or expansions of a nonconforming ( structure, though it does typically protect routine maintenance and repair. The Estes Valley Development Code language and the intent it expresses is very similar to the majority of such regulations to be found anywhere in the state of Colorado and elsewhere in the United States. I have attached a commentary on this subject authored by a prominent Colorado land use attorney, Don Elliott. Also, I have included a copy of the EVDC language and the conesponding Larimer County and Boulder County language for comparison. I hope this will be useful background information as we move forward with future code revisions. Please let me know your thoughts and comments on this subject, and thank you for time and effort. 4 . , , h Â¥ ,. ' U. 4 . 1- Colorado Land Planning And Development Law Sixth Edition Donald L. Elliott General Editor L_ A Publication of the American Planning Association - Colorado Chapter Graham Billingsley President Larry G. Mugler APA Colorado Liaison L.- BRADFORD PUBLISHING COMPANY Denver, Colorado Colorado Land Planning and Development Law Colorado, the validity of a development agreement limiting the local gov- ernment's power to rezone the property for a period of 35 years has been upheld, although this time period is much longer than those upheld in many other jurisdictions.94 This topic is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 (Vested Rights). F. Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots I 9 1. Nonconforming Uses 61% 2 A nonconfc;rming use is a use that Was lAwful prior to the Kdoption of a zoning regulation prohibiting the use. Taking preliminary steps towards establishing a use that is later made nonconforming is not the same as hav- ing a pre-existing nonconforming use. In order to be treated as a noncon- forming use, the use must actually exist prior to the zoning change that made it nonconforming.95 Owners of property with nonconforming uses are often given the right to continub the prohibited use as a "legal noncon- forming use" in order to allow them timb to recoup their investments in the Q) property made when the use was lawful. This notion is sometimes referred to informally as "grandfathering." Requiring immediate compliance with a regulation that suddenly prohibits a previously legal use is often consid- ered an unreasonable exercige 'of a 16261 gRUrnment's zoning authority as the property owner loses not only a future use cif the property, but also the value of any previous investment in improvements to the property for legal purposes.x An owner's right to continue a nonconforming use, however, is not absolute, and zoning powers are frequently used to restrict such uses and to cause their removal over. time.97 The ,,General Assembly gave counties explicit authority to provide for the termination of nonconforming uses by various means. C.R.S. Â§ 30-28-120. Accordingly, the owner usually has no absolute right to indefinite continuation of a non-conforming use.98 The Colorado Supreme Court has stated:that zoning provisions allowing non- conforming uses should be str~ctly construed and zoning provisions restrict- ing nonconforming uses should be liberally construed. The court also noted that nonconforming uses are disfavored and should be eliminated as quick- ly as possible because they reduce the effectiveness of zoning ordinances, depress property values, and contribute to the growth of urban blight.99 68 Chapter 2: Zoning The most common restrictions on nonconforming uses are (a) a ban on enlargement or expansion of the nonconforming use, (b) a ban on a change in the character of the nonconforming use to cover new or additional non- conforming uses,100 (c) a ban on replacement of the structure containing the nonconforming use if it is destroyed beyond a threshold value (normally 50% to 80% of the value), and (d) a ban on restarting the nonconforming use or any other nonconforming use in question after the use has become inactive for a stated period of time. Some home rule municipalities provide that non-conforming uses that are enlarged or expanded without permis- sion may be terminated, and the Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld such a provision. 101 If an owner loses the value of his or her investment for some reason not associated with the zoning ordinance, the justification for allowing the con- tinuance of a nonconforming use disappears.102 For example, if the building containing the nonconforming use is destroyed by fire, the owner's invest- ment in that particular building is gone, and the' owner stands in the same relation to the zoning regulation as anyone else.103 The same reasoning sup- ports prohibition of the expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming use.104 The fact that the owner has kn investment in a building housing a newly pr6hibited use does not mean that themunicipality or county must allow continued investment to prolong or expand that use, and jurisdic- tions generally prohibit duch investment. Similarly, abandonment or dis- continuahce of the 'nonconforming use by the owner also constitutes grounds for termination of the nonconforming use. The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that a nonconforming use may be terminated after a rea- sonable period of time during which th6 use has been discontinued regard- less of whether the owner intends to abandon the use.105 The right to a nonconforming use runs with the land. Buying or selling the property doek not terminate the right to continue a nonconforming use and does not coristitute an unlawful extension 6f the use.106 In the past, a Color'ado local government could Fequire the termination of a lionconforming use at the end of a reasonable""amortization" period specified by ordinance, even though nonconforming improvements retained some residual value.107 The rationale behind an amortization peri- od is that an owner will not lose the value of his or her investment if the amortization period approximaies the useful economic life of the noncon- 69 Colorado Land Planning and Development Law forming improvements. If the amortization period is too short to be rea- sonable, then it is arguable that the particular ordinance is unconstitution- al because it results in a taking without due process.108 Even though an amortization scheme is generally a legitimate method to phase out a nonconforming use, amortization is not allowed if it is.in conflict with a state statute concerning a matter of mixed or statewide con- cern. For example, the, Colorado Supreme Court has held that an ordi- nance requiring the removal of signs located within 660 feet of an interstate , . or federal-aid primary highway at the end of an amortization period con- flicts with and is preempted by the Colorado Outdoor Advertising Act. 109 Editor's Note: During the 2003 legislative session, the Colorado General Assembly passed SB 03-1089 purporting to eliniinate the use 6f "amorti- zation" as W Way of conipensating landowners for the elimination of non- conforming uses atid structures in general. , r 2. Nonconforming Structures and Signs; Ck. Ji A nbnconforming structure is a structure that is lawfully erected or -I altdred'ih cohformity with applicable zoning regulations but subsequently becoink noncdnforniing due to a change in those regulations. For exhnipld, a bUilding ; construked lawfully at a 0 height of 60 feet would, .... , f. 4 become 'a 'nonconforming structuiJE if the Alaximum height in the 1 1 4. j 0 applicable zone distribt is subsequently rpduded to 45 feet. The status of a structure as a boticgnforming structure is completely, independent , of al ' whethkr its use is bbhfdrmihg. A sfructure is~nqnconfoTming befause of the .. fiti; regulations govarning its physical size or' character, without regard to the ' ~7 f use being maile of the siructurd. Nonconforming structures are treated similarly to nonconforming uses. ff :f Typically, a landowner U pititled to maintaili end operate,a nonconiorming strubtare, subject to reakonable limitations. For examplk zoning regulations often prowde'th#t an owner may npt alter the structure in any manner that increasds' the 86gree of nonconformity. In addition. an owner: mak 66 brohibited froih replacing a nonconforming structure with another nonconforming structure.11Â° it a nonconforming structure is destroyed by casualty, an owndr will often lose the right to rebuild the structure if / reconstruction or restoration is not commenced within a certain prescribed 70 Chapter 2: Zoning time period:11 Signs that are too large or improperly located are sometimes also regulated as nonconforming structures. 3. Nonconforming Lots A third type of nonconformity occurs when a platted lot is too small, or has too little frontage, for the zone district in which it is located. Usually this occurs when the lots were platted as old-style townsites, before mod- ern subdivision statutes were in place, or before an area began to develop with larger lots. Owners of nonconforming lots are often allowed to con- tinue using them for uses allowed in the zone district in order to avoid claims that the larger lot size requirement has "taken" all economic use of their property and to avoid having many vacant lots. However, some juris- dictions limit the use of nonconforming lots to situations where the owner does not also own adj acent lots (i. e., where the owner cannot cure the non- conformity by merging two small lots into one larger lot). In addition, many local governments require that the building constructed on a non- ( conforming lot meet all setback requirements in the zone district-which can limit the size of the building that can be constructed. Increasingly, local governments are requiring that adjacent substandard lots in common own- ership be "merged" for purposes of zoning, either formally or informally. G. Solutions to Specific Zoning Problems 1. Rezoning/Amendment Rezoning is the process by which the current permitted uses on a par- ticular property-or in all or part of the municipality or county-are changed by amending the local government's zoning regulations or zoning map. As such, rezoning is merely another aspect of a local government's power to zone property within its jurisdiction,112 and is generally subject to the same standards and limitations discussed in subsection E above. A rezoning can be initiated by a property owner, the governmental jurisdic- tion itself, or at the initiative of the county or municipal electors.113 Comprehensive rezonings of all or a large part of the municipality or county are relatively rare, and are deemed to be exercises of local govern- ment legislative powers.114 Nevertheless, some local governments have suc- cessfully completed large scale rezonings of land to be in compliance with 71 a\Juo ( CHAPTER 6. NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES AND LOTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Â§ 6.1 APPLICABILITY . 6-1 A. General. 6-1 8. Signs. -. 6-1 Â§ 6.2 PURPOSF 6-1 Â§ 6.3 CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING USES OR STRUCTURES ..................... 6-1 A. Authority to Continue 6-1 B. Repairs and Maintenance 6-1 C. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses and Structures ............................ 6-1 D. Nonconforming as to Parking 6-1 Â§ 6.4 CHANGE OF NONCONFORMING USE 6-2 Â§ 6.5 DISCONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING USE 6-2 Â§ 6.6 DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING A NONCONFORMING USE 6-2 Â§ 6.7 ZONING DISTRICT CHANGES 6-2 Â§ 6.8, ~ :USES ALLOWED ON NONCONFORMING LOTS 6-2 A. Nonconforming Lots in Residential Zoning Districts 6-2 B. Nonconforming Lots in Nonresidential Zoning Districts 6-2 1 t L â‚¬â‚¬99 CHAPTER 6. NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES AND LOTS Â§ 6.1 APPLICABILITY A General, The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to uses, structures (except signs) and lots that were legally existing as of the effective date of this Code, February 1, 2000, but that become nonconforming as the result of the application of this Code to them or from reclassification of the property under any subsequent amendments to this Code. B. Signs. For provisions applicable to nonconforming signs, see Chapter 8. Â§ 6.2 PURPOSE It is the general policy under this Code to allow nonconforming uses, structures or lots to continue to exist and to be put to productive use. The limitations of this Chapter are intended to recognize the interests of property owners in continuing to use their property but to reasonably control expansions, reestablishment of discontinued uses and the reestablishment of nonconforming buildings and structures that have been substantially destroyed. Â§ 6.3 CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING USES OR STRUCTURES A Authority to Continue. Nonconformities shall be allowed to continue in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. B. Repairs and Maintenance. Repairs and normal maintenance required to keep nonconforming uses and structures in a safe condition shall be permitted, provided that no alterations shall be made except those allowed by this Chapter or required by law or ordinance. C. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses and Structures. 1. Alteration/Extension ofÂ· Nonconforming Uses Prohibited Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, a nonconforming use shall not be altered or extended. The extension of a nonconforming use to a portion of a structure which was built for the nonconforming use at the time of adoption of this Code is not an extension of a nonconforming use. 2. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Structures LirAited. Except as a\\owed in Â§58.C below, a structure conforming as to use, but nonconforming as to height, setback or coverage, may be altered or extended, provided hat the alteration or extension does not result in a new violation of this Code or increase the degree or extent of the existing nonconformity. (See Â§3.6, 'Variances"; a variance may be sought to permit alterations or extensions to a nonconforming structure not otherwise allowed by this Chapter.) D. Nonconforming as to Parking. 1. Noncoriformity as to off-street parking or loading shall not- subject the use to the conditions of this Chapter. 2. A use that is nonconforming as to off-street parking or loading shall not be changed to another use requiring more off-street parking or loading unless the additional required parking or loading is provided. 3. The Board of Adjustment may permit a nonconforming use to provide required off- street parking or loading on a lot other than the lot on which the use is located. Â§ 6.4 CHANGE OF NONCONFORMING USE A. A If a nonconforming use is changed, it shall be changed to a use conforming to tile regulations of the zoning district and, after the change, it shall not be changed back again to a nonconforming use. B. B. A nonconforming use may be changed to a conforming use in phases over time, provided that such phasing'is in accordance with a development plan approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in Â§3.8 of this Code. Â§ 6.5 DISCONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING USE If a nonconforming use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, further use of the property or structure shall be for a conforming use ahd its nonconforming status shall terminate. Â§ 6.6 DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING A NONCONFORMING USE If a nonconforming structure or a structure containing a nonconforming use is damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, wind, explosion or act of God, th6 nonconformirig structure or use may continue, but restoration shall, be started within one (1) year of such calamity and shall be completed within three (3) years of initiating restoration. Â§ 6.7 ZONING DISTRICT CHANGES Whenever the boundaries of a zoning district shall be changed so as to transfer an ar@a from one (1) district to another district of a different classification, this Chapter shall apply to any nonconforming uses existing therein, , ~u, Â§ 6.8 USES ALLOWED ON NONCONFORMING LOTS A Nonconforming Lots in Rdsidential Zonin4 Districts. In all residential zoning disttlets, a lot that is nonconforming as to area,or dimension as of the effective date of this Code may be occupied by a single-family detached residential use, subject to all other. Â®plicable zoning district anddevelopment standards unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustnient. B. Nonconforming Lots in Nonresidential Zoning Districts. In all nonresidential zoning . districts, alot that )s nonconforming as to area or dimension ds of the'effeclive date of this Code may be occupied by any use permitted by right in the zoning district, provided that a by-right accommodations use shall not be developed on a lot with an area less than: 1. Forty thousand (40,000) square feet in the A ,ioninb district, pr 2. Fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in the A-1 zoning district. ~ Such uses shall be subject to all other applicable zoning district and development standards unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment. (Ord. 18-02 #1, 12/10/02) LA[2*-tan- Cal~ *Tri 66Â¥tb (166 6,02>6 ZONING 4.8.2 B. These conditions may include, but are not 4.7.7. Process. limited to: All applications for special exception require a 1. Limitations on the size, bulk and location pre-application conference, sketch plan review, a of buildings; neighborhood meeting, planning commission re- 2. Limitations on the extent and intensity of view and county commissioner review. Each of the proposed use; these processes is described in section 12.2 (de- velopment review procedures). All county commis- 3. Standards for landscaping, buffering and sioner decisions concerning special exceptions must lighting; be recorded with the county clerk and recorder. (Res. No. 07192005R010, Exh. A, 7-19-2005) 4. Requirements for adequate ingress and egress; 4.7.8. Reserved. 5. A specific, limited time period to complete Editor's note-Res. No. 04102007R008, Exh. A, adopted the project; Apr. 10, 2007, deleted Â§ 4.7.8, which pertained to decisions of the board of adjustment are final. This section bore no history 6. Limitation on the duration of the use; and note. 7. Limitations on the hours of operation. 4.8. NONCONFORMITIES* C. The county commissioners may require, as a condition of approval, that the applicant sign a ( development agreement (see section 12.6 (post- 4.8.1. Purpose. approval ' requirements) to ensure completion of any public improvements related to the approved This section governs uses, building and struc- special exdeption. tures (except signs), and lots that were legally (Res. No. 07192005R010, Exh. A, 7-19-2005) established prior to the adoption of this code but that do not comply with one or more requirements 4.7.5. Minor deviations. of this code. The provisions of this section are intended to recognize the interests of property Technical, engineering or other considerations owners in continuing and putting to productive during construction or operation may necessitate use nonconforming uses, buildings, structures and minor deviations from the approved plans. The lots while also encouraging as many aspects of planning director may approve minor deviations such uses, buildings, structures and lots to be if they comply with this code and are consistent brought into conformance with this code as is with the intent of the original special exception reasonably practicable. approval. The planning director's approval must (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) be in writing. The decision of the planning direc- tor call be appealed to the county commissioners. 4.8.2. Nonconforming use. (Res. No. 07192005R010, Exh. A, 7-19-2005) A nonconforming use is an existing use that 4.7.6. Amendments. does not comply with the requirements of this code but did conform to all applicable regulations Changes to approved special exception plans in effect at; the time the use commenced. that the planning director determines are not (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) minor deviations require approval through the *Cross reference-Buildings and building regulations, special exception process. This requires a new ch. 10. application and receives full review under the Note-A land use that existed legally before the adoption process described below. of this code and does not comply with this code is considered a (Res. No. 07192005R010, Exh. A, 7-19-2005) nonconforming use. Supp. No. 11 LUC4:71 4.8.3 LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE 4.8.3. Nonconforming building or structure. 4.8.8. Reserved. A nonconforming building or structure is an 4.8.9. Destruction. existing building or structure that does not com- ply with the requirements of this code but did A. If a nonconforming building or structure is conform to all applicable regulations in effect at destroyed (i.e., incurs damages of more than 50 the time the building or structure was con- percent ofthe building or structure's replacement structed. cost) by a calamity beyond the control of the (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) property owner, other than a flood, the property owner may repair or replace the nonconforming building or structure, provided that he/she sub- 4.8.4. Continuation of a nonconforming use. mits a complete building permit application within A nonconforming use may be continued. Nor- 12 months of the calamity The nonconforming mal or routine repairs and maintenance of a building or structure may only be replaced in the building, structure or area containing a noncon- same location and size as the original building or forming use are allowed. Normal or routine re- structure. Nonconforming buildings or structures pairs and maintenance do not include any repairs damaged or destroyed by flood must meet the or maintenance that enlarge a building, structure requirements of subsection 4.2.2 (floodplain over- or area containing a nonconforming use. lay district). (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) B. If a building or structure containing a non- E conforming use is destroyed by a calamity beyond 4.8.5. Substitution of uses. the control of the proberty owher, the property owner may reestablish the nonconforming use A nonconforming use may not be replaced by and may repair or replace the building or 'strtle- another nonconforming use. ture, provided that he/she sulimits A compibte (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) building permit applib@ion within 12 mAArths of the calamity The building or structure containing 4.8.6. DiscontinuaÂ¥ide of a nonconforming the nonconforming use and the konconforming use. ' ' use may only be replaced in the same location, size and character as the original building or If a nonconforming use is discontinued for structure and use. more than 12 consecutive months, the use, may (Res,Â·No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) not be reestablished. If a question arises as to U , Â·.. j whether a nonconforming use has been discontin- 4.8.10. Extension, expansion, enlargement or ued, the property owner has the burden to show change in character. by competent evidence that the nonconforming A. A nonconforming use or'a buildirig 09 strud- use has not been discontinued. ture that contains a honconforming usecannot be (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) extended, expanded, enlarged or clianged id char- acter without the approval of the'Bounty conimis- 4.8.7. Continuation of nonconforming build- sioners. ing or structure. '.4 Â·' 4 B. A nbnconforming building or structure can- A nonconforming building or structurb may not be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed continue to be used and occupied."Normal or in character without the approval of thi county routine repairs and mhintenande of a nbndonform- commissioners except where the building is non- ing building or strodture' 'arA a116wed.' A noncon- conforming only as to h requitdd setback and the forming building or sthicture may not; however, , 0 'r, following conditions are met: be repaired or altered in a way that would in- 1. The prop'osed addition is not more than 25 crease the degree of nonconformity with respect percent of the square footage of the origi- to this code. nal building and is not more than 1,000 (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) square feet; \4-2 Supp. No. 11 LUC4:72 ZONING 4.8.12 2. The proposed addition is outside the re- 4. Whether the new use is different in kind quired setback; and on its effect on the neighborhood. (For 3. No portion of the original building or the example, has there been a change in en- proposed addition is within the future vironmental influences on the neighbor- right-of-way identified by the Larimer hood, such as light, noise or air quality). (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) County Functional Road Classification or the Colorado Department of Transporta- tion. 4.8.11. Review Criteria for requests to ex- tend, expand, enlarge or change the C. A use that is nonconforming because it has character of a nonconforming use, been changed by regulation from a use by right to building or structure. a use by special review or a use by minor special review cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or Except for requests involving special reviews changed in character without special review or or minor special reviews pursuant to subsection minor special review approval by the board of 4.8.10.C, to approve a request to extend, expand, county commissioners under section 4.5. In deter- enlarge or change the character of a nonconform- mining whether to approve the special review or ing use, building or structure, the county commis- minor special review, the county commissioners sioners must consider the following criteria and will consider the entire use, not just the elements find that each has been met or determined to be of the use sought to be extended, expanded, en- inapplicable: larged or changed in character. A. The proposed extension, expansion, en- D. In determining whether there has been a largement or change will be compatible change in character of a use, building or struc- with existing and allowed uses in the ture, the following factors may be considered: surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood. 1. Whether there has been a change in the nature, volume, intensity, frequency, qual- B. The proposed extension, expansion, en- ity or degree of the use, building or struc- largement or change will not adversely ture. (For example, has,there been a sig- affect property values in the area affected nificant increase in the number of by the proposed extension, expansion, en- empldyees or traffic volume; has there largement or change. been a change in the days or hours of operation; or have the physical dimen- C. The proposed extension, expansion, en- sions of the building or structure been largement or change will not impair the increased); intent and purpose of this code'ankl the master plan. 2. Whether there has been a change in the (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) activity, products or services. (For exam- ple, a dog grooming facility that has been converted to a retail store for pet supplies 4.8.12. Conditions of approval. could be considered a change in the char- acter of the use). The county commissioners may impose condi- tions on a request to extend, expand, enlarge or 3. Whether the new use, building or struc- change the character of a nonconforming use, ture reflects the nature and purpose of building or structure to accomplish the purposes the'prior use or structure. (For example, and intent of this code and the master plan; an air strip used for seasonal crop dusting prevent or mitigate adverse effects on the public, operations that is subsequently used only neighborhoods, utilities and county facilities; and for recreational parasailing could be con- ensure compatibility of land uses. These condi- sidered a change in the character of the tions may include a requirement that some or all use); elements of the nonconforming use and/or that Supp. No. 11 LUC4:73 4.8.12 LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE some or all areas of a n onconforming building, 4.9. SETBACKS, LOT REQUIREMENTS structure or site be brought into compliance with AND STRUCTURE HEIGHT the standards in Section 8 of this code. (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) 4.9.1. Setbacks from highways and county roads. 4.8.13. Process. A. Setbacks from state and federal highways All applications for requests to extend, expand, are 100 feet from the right-of-way centerline or 50 enlarge or change the character of a nonconform- feet from the right-of-way lide, whichever is greater, ing use, building or structure require a pre- except those highways noted below where the application conference and county commissioner minimum setback is 130 feet from centerline of review. The planning director may require a neigh- the right-of-way or 80 feet from the right-of-way borhood meeting if he/she determines that the line, whichever is greater: meeting would benefit the county commissioners' 1. U.S, Highway 287 from Fort Collins city review of the application. Each of these processes limits south tb the Boulder County line. is described in section 12.2 (development review procedures). 2. Colorado Highway 68 (Harmony Road) (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) from Interstate 25 west to Highway 287. 3. Colorado Highway 14 (Mulbdrry'Street) 4.8.14. Nonconforming lots. from Fort Collins city limits east to' the Weld County line. A. A nonconforming lot is a lot, parcel or tract , 1 of land that does not meet one or more of the 4. Colorado Highway 392' froin Interstate requirements of this code and:, a , Highway 25 east;,to the Weld County line. 5. U.S. Highway 34 from Mourning Drive 1. Was credtdd by deek[ 09 other instrument east to the Weld County line. ' of W'oArty transfer signed bef,ore May 5, 1972; or 6. Fort Collins Expressway.,and' those por- tions of U.S. Highway 287 and Colorado 2. Was approved by the county commission- Highway 14 north 'of Fort Collids city ers onor after May 5, 1972; or limits that are four lanes. 3. Appears on a final plat of record approved 7. Coldrado High'Way'402 frdm I.;041hnd city by_the appropriat? authority at the time limits east to the Weld CdUnty' liAe. the plat was recorded. (See d~finitions, legal lot). , B. Setbacks from Larimer County roads, as identified and classified on the Larimer County B. NokbAnforming lots must meet all require- Functional Road Classification Map, shall be mea- ments of this code except minimum lot size and sured from the original right-of-way centerline, minimum lot width-to-depth ratio. before any additional right-of-way;was dedicated, (Res. No. 09122006R002, Exh. A, 9-12-206) as follows: i Arterial 110 feet * Major collector . 100 feet * Minor collector :,* , 70 feet * Local, numbered county roads , 60 feet * ~ Â·; *Setbacks for additions to existing buildings, which are nondonforming with respect to county road setbacks, are eligible for an administrativd variance procedure. See section 4.6.7. (Res. No. 01232007R005, Exh. A, 1-23-2007; Res. No. 01222008Rool, Exh. A, 1-22-2008) < _ Supp. No. 11 LUC4:74 Code on Land Use Boulder County Colorado ..L Boulder County Land Use Code Article 4 Zoning - Sections 4-1000 Thru 4-1204 (c)Copyright 1997 by the County of Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A. The information contained herein is for personal use only. Any redistribution of this information is strictly prohibited without permission from the County of Boulder, Colorado. 4-1000 Nonconforming Structures and Uses 4-1001 Principles of Construction as Applied to Nonconforming Structures and Uses (A) In recognition of the broadly accepted policy that nonconforming uses and structures should be brought to conforming status as speedily as justice will permit, and favoring the reasonable regulation of nonconforming uses and structures to minimize their adverse impacts on current comprehensive zoning schemes and the community, this Article shall be strictly construed against the continuation or expansion of nonconformity in Boulder County. (August 20, 1996) 4-1002 Nonconforming Structures (A) A nonconforming structure is any existing structure which does not conform to the structure regulations of this Code for the zoning district in which such nonconforming structure is located, as a result of either (1) the adoption or amendment of this Code, or (2) a final county administrative or judicial decision precluding Boulder County from enforcing this Code specific to a structure on the basis of estoppel, laches, or waiver. (B) A nonconforming structure may continue to be occupied, except as otherwise provided for in this Section. (C) A nonconforming structure may not be altered, repaired, or enlarged in any way which would increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to the setback or height regulations of this Code, 1. For purposes of this Section, an increase in the degree of nonconformity shall be any alteration which adds to the floor area or height of the portion of the structure which violates this Code. 2. This restriction may be waived if the Building Official determines that any such alteration, repair, or enlargement is necessary to rectify a hazardous health or safety situation, or to comply with the public health or safety requirements of another governmental entity having lawful jurisdiction over the structure. 3. Agricultural structures, either singly or cumulatively, legally constructed which were ~ over 25,000 square feet (or 35,000 square feet in a community service area) as of 7-4/ October 18,1994, may be altered, repaired, or enlarged provided the total square footage of the structures on a parcel is not increased. (D) A nonconforming structure which has been damaged or destroyed by causes outside the control of the property owner or their agent, may be restored to its original location, floor area, and height, provided that such restoration complies with the current provisions of the Boulder County Building Code. 1. Such restoration must be commenced Within six months after the date on which the nonconforming structure was damaged or destroyed and completed within one year after the date on which the restoration was commenced. 2. The provisions of this Section 4-1002 (D) shall not apply to substantial improvements to structures in the Floodplain Overlay District as provided for in Section 4-400 of this Code. 4-1003 Nonconforming Uses (A) A nonconforming use is any existing use which does not conform to the use regulations of this Code for the zoning district in which such nonconforming use is located, as a result of either (1) the adoption or amendment of this Code, or (2) a final administrative or judicial decision precluding the County from enforcing this Code < specific to a use on the basis of estoppel, laches; or waiver. 1-1 1. Uses are not considered nonconformiftg due to inadequate parking. 2. Uses which fall within Section 4-1003 (A) (2), above shall not be eligible to apply for a special use permit for a use ofÂ·community significance (Section 4-506 (J)). (Septetnber 5, 1996) (B) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, a nonconforming use may be continued and normal or routine maintenance of a structure containing a nonconforming use shall be permitted. Normal or routine maintenance shall inblude any maintenance or repair which does not impermissibly enlarge or alter the structure containing a nonconforming use under Section 4-1003(C), below. (C) Enlargement or Alteration of a Nonconforming Use 1. The right to continue a nonconforming use terminates immediately whon'the nonconforming use is enlarged, expanded, extended, or altered in any of the following ways, and the property owner does not successfully pursue any of the options specified in Section 4-1003 (H) within 30 calendar days after the Director provides written notification of an alleged illegal enlargement or alteration to the owner: (Septerhber 5, 1996) (a) addition of a new structure containing or accessory to the nonconforming use; (b) enlargement or alteration of a structure containing or accessory to the U nonconforming use, including but not necessarily limited to an increase in floor area, an increase in height, or any other alteration or improvement in excess of normal or routine maintenante of the structure; (September 5, 1996) (c) enlargement or alteration in the land area occupied by the nonconforming use, unless the basic nature of the use, at the time it became nonconforming, clearly indicated or contemplated such an increase or alteration; or (d) any other enlargement or alteration of the nonconforming use which has the effect or threatened effect of creating a hazard or nuisance on or, off the property, of adversely affecting the character of the neighborhood, or of intensifying the use of the land or its ' need for services. (e)removal or replacement of any structural member in a use for which the County is precluded from enforcing this Code specific to use on the basis of estoppel, laches, or waiver. (September.5, 1996) 2. An impermissible enlargemeht or alteration shall not include the following: (a) a change of ownership of the property; (b) an alteration or expansion which the Building Official determines is necessary to rectify a hazardous health or,safety situation 6r to comply with the public health or safety requirements of atiother governmentalentity having lawful jurisdiction over the structure; 1 (c) an extension of theenonconforming,use within the structure containing the use, : provided that such extension is not accompanied by an alteration of the structure falling within category (b), above; . (d) the addition of a solar energy device to a structure containing.a nonconforming use; or , , (e)an~ replacement or upgrading of outmoded or worn equipment or supplies, provided that such activity dods not fall within category Section 4-1003 (C) (1) (d), above. 3. Owners of lega~l building lots containing agricultural uses which havebecome nonconforming,as a result of adpptionor amendment of this Code, may restore, modify, and maintain existing conforming structures; andmay construct new conforming structures, provided such structures are directly related to the agricultural use, and i. '*/ t... provided the use is not enlarged or altered.in any, other way.Â·, (D) Change of a Nonconforming Use . .. $:2 , 1. A nonconforming use may be changed onlyto a use which is conforming in the zoning district in which the use is located. + 1 2. Ahy change of a nonconfprming use to any other use shall operate immediately to terminate the right to continue the nonconforming use. Thereafter, the property shall be used only in conformity with the use provisions of its zoning district. (E) Destruction of a Structure Containing a Nonconforming Use i . 1. A structure containing a nonconforming use shall be deemed destroyed when either greater than 50 percent of its floor area, or greater than 50 percent of its actual value (as determined by the Boulder County Assessor) is destroyed. 2. The right to continue a nonconforming use terminates immediately when the structure containing that use is destroyed by an intentional act of the property or structure owner or their agent. 3. In all other cases, when a structure containing a nonconforming use is destroyed, the structure may be restored, and the nonconforming use may be reestablished. (a) Restoration of the structure must be commenced within six months after the date on which the nonconforming structure was destroyed and completed within one year after the date on which the restoration was commenced. (b) These times may be extended for a reasonable period, if approved by the County Commissioners at a public hearing upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances by the property owner or their agent. 4. The provisions of this Section 4-1003 (IE) shall not apply to substantial improvements to structures in the Floodplain Overlay District as provided Mr in Section. 4-400. (F) Damage to a Structure C6ntaining a Nontonforming Use 1. The right to continue a nonconforming use terminated immediately when the structure containing that use is damaged by an intenti6nal act of the property or structure owner or their agent. -, 5 , 2. In all other cases, when a structure containing a nonconforming use is damaged, the structure may be restored, and the nonconforming use may be reesteiblished. (a) Restoration of the structure must be commenced within six months after the date on which the nonconforming structure was damaged and completed within one year after the date on which the restoration was commencell. (b) These times may be extended for a reasonable period, if approved by the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances by the property owner or their agent. 3. The provisions of this Section 4-1004 (F) shall not apply to substantial improvements to structures in the Floodplain Overlay District as provided for in' Section 4-400. (G) Abandonment of a Nonconforming Use 1. The right to continue a nonconforming use terminates as soon as the use is abandoned through the discontinuance of the use for an uninterrupted period of six months or more, as a result of causes within the control of the property owner or their 4 agent. (a) Discontinuance of the-use shall be a complete cessation of all activity on the property related to the use as determined in relationship to the nature and history of the nonconforming use, based upon available public information on the use. (September 5, 1996) (b) If the nonconforming use is a seasonal usd, the use shall be terminated if it is discontinded for an entire single season based upon the history and nature of the use. 2. Any nonconforming use may be abandoned in less than six months or a season, as applicable, if the property owner expressly states an intent to abandon the use, or engages in actibn which unambiguously expresses an intent to abandon. (H) Notice of Termination in the Event of Unlawful Enlargement or Alteration of a Nondonforming Use, Change of Use, Abandonment of a Nonconforming Use, or Destruction or Damage to a Structure Containing a Nonconforming Use , 4/ 1 1. In the'event that the Direc6r receives information upon which a,determination is made that the right to continue a nonconforming use has been or may have been terminated by operation.of Section 4-1003, the Director.shall provide a written ~ notifiehtion of this determination byfirst classmail t? the property owner, and to the parcel addresh, alias shown bnthe records of the Boulder County Assessor. The property owner shall have 30 calendar days after,the date of the notification within ,, which to provide evidence satisfactory to the Director to show that the determination is in error, to abate the illegal enlargement or alteration, to apply for approval of a special use- or oth'dratiplibable approval under this Code, or to,file an appeal of the Director's - detehnination tb the Board of County Commissioners. In any appeal, the property owner shall have the burden to show that the right to continue the nonconforming use was not terminated according to,the applicable provisions of this Article, when judged in light of the Kistory and Ature of the use and the circumstances of the alleged termination. (September 5, 19'96) I h 2. NothiÂ® in this Section shallÂ·alter or diminish the Director's right to take enforcement action Againsftheunlawful continuation of a nonconforming use terminated by operation of Section 4;1003 hereof, as set forth in 30-28-124, C.R.S.,as amended, and Article 17 of this dode. Moreovet, ekcept in the case of an illegal enlargement or alteration for which the owner shall be provided with a 30 day opportunity to abate, any failure by the Director to provide a notification of a determination of termination as provided for in this Section shall in no wayentitle the property owner to continue or resume a nonconformina use terrhinated by operation of this Section 4-1003 (H). 4-1004 Recognition of Nonconforming Uses (September 4, 1997) (A) A nonconforming use may be recognized as a conforming use if: I- (2/ 1. The use was made nonconforming pursuant to Section 4-1003 (A) (1), and receives special use review approval as a use of community significance under Sections 4-506 Ul and 4-603 (E) this Code, or 2. The use is nonconforming pursuant to 4-1003 (A) (2) and receives special use approval as a temporary use under Section 4-600 (A). In addition to satisfying the special use criteria of Section 4-602, such a use may receive special use approval only if it meets the following requirements, to assure that these nonconforming uses are brought into conformity as quickly as justice may permit: (a) The use is required to totally cease, or to be changed to a conforming use, within a reasonable time certain as determined by the Board of County Commissioners through the special use review process, not to exceed 30 years. (b) During the time certain when the use is allowed to exist as a temporary special use, the property owner grants a conservation easement to the County to assure that no future expansion of the use or its associated structures occurs on the property beyond that approved in the special use. The conservation easement will also require that at the expiration of the temporary use period established in subsection 4-1004(A)(2)(a), the temporary special use shall cease, and the propetty's use and struciures shall be made to conform to the zoning districts requirements and in accordance with any specific requirement of the special use review and conservation easement. (c) Approval of the use as a temporary special use will result in some measurable decrease in one or more of the adverse land use impacts associated in the nonconforming use (such'as in traffic, noise, or adverse visual impact). 3. The nonconforming use is changed to any other conforming use recognized under this Code. 4-1100 Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendments) 4-1101 Initiation of Amendments (A) Initiation of Map Amendments 1. Map amendments may be initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, or the legal owner of any property in Boulder County. 2. Map amendments shall be reviewed and acted upon in accordance with the procedural provisions contained within Article 3 of this Code; e)<cept the following: (a) Comprehensive map amendments initiated by the Board of Cdunty Commissioners or Planning Commission including map amendments resulting from a text amendment to this Code. In this case, the following notification requirements may be adopted by the Planning Commission. (i) The newspaper notice need not contain the name of the landowner and applicant, the L. proposed and existing zoning, or the general location description of the land. (ii) The property need not be posted with a sign. (iii) The written nbtice of the hearing need not be provided to the applicant. (iv) A written notice of the hearing need not be mailed to all owners of interest and adjacent land owners identified in the title report. 4-1102 Standards and Conditions (A) No map amendment shall be hdopted by the Board of County Commissioners unless the Board has determined that: 1. a public need exists for the map amendment; 2. the amendment id consistent with and in furtherance of the stated intent and purposes of,this Code; 3. the amendment is iri accotdance with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan; 4. the subject property is an appropriatesite for the map amendment, and is a reasonable unit of land for such reclassification; 5. the map amendment would not have a material adverse effect on the surrounding area; I/ 6. the map amendment wjll not result in an over-intensive use of land; 7. the map amendment will not have a material adverse effect on community capital improvement programs; - 8. the map amendment will not require a level of community facilities and services greater than that which is available; 9. the map amendment will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards; I j 10. the map amendment will not cause significant air, water, or noise pollution; 11. the map amendrrient will not permit the use of any area designated.within the Bou/der County Comprehensive P/an for the extraction of commercial mineral deposits in a manner which would interferewith the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor to any greater extdnt thhn under the present zoning of the property; 12. it must be demonstrated that any structures to be built on the property will not be affected by geo16gic hazards if they exist; and It ' , 13. the map amendment will ndt otherwise be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the present or future inhabitants of Boulder County. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission May 19, 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: Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners Alan Fraundort John Tucker, Betty Hull, and Ron Norris Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioners Lane and Amos The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Today's meeting will recess prior to the agenda item on Wildlife Habitat Code Revisions, and reconvene at 7:00 p.m. to discuss this item. Director Joseph noted that Commissioner Wendell Amos has resigned from the Planning Commission, effective immediately. His replacement should be named prior to next month's meeting. Commissioner Amos held a seat for the county, and his replacement will be named by the Larimer County Commissioners. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Ewing/Town Resident was present at today's study session and wants to respond to the memo from the Planning Commission to the Town Board about Accessory Dwelling Units. He noted in addition to Trustee Homeier, the town Staff also has the ability to communicate with the Town Board. From past history, he has observed that the Planning Commission and Town Board are not always on the same page, and that staff could do a better job of communicating the Planning Commission's decision-making process. He believes part of the problem is addressed in his letter to the editor in December, 2008. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated April 21, 2009. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 09-03 BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS MASTER PLAN - The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums located in the east 1/2 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. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) that the Consent Agenda be accepted as amended, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 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. Staff Report: Planner Chilcott noted these revisions were drafted approximately two years ago at the direction of Town Board to address concerns about vacation home rentals and B&Bs in residential areas. She indicated that vacation homes are proposed to have more RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 May 19, 2009 limitations than B&Bs as to what activities can occur on the property. This proposal moves some of the regulations from the Municipal Code into the Estes Valley Development Code. After last month's meeting and at the request of the Planning Commission, Planner Chilcott made one change on page 4 of the proposed code, exempting the CD-Commercial Downtown zoning district from the "residential charactef' clause in Section 5.1.B.1.d.1. Vacation homes are proposed to be a principal use in all residential districts rather than the current accessory use. Planner Chilcott commented she did not think it was Town Board's intention to require compliance with adequate public facilities regulations (rights-of-way, fire hydrants, etc) in order to have a vacation home. Therefore, language needs to be written to exempt vacation homes from this requirement. Director Joseph explained th& concept of the vacation hdme use allowance, along with limitations on the number of people allowed to stay in one home is geared to be in line with single-family use, which would not change the demand on water, sewer, etc. Town Attorney White responded to questions about property taxes on these dwellings, stating Town Board accepts the fact that there will be some inequities due to the Gallagher Amendment. Attorney White also noted that the Town does try to level the playing field between vacation homes and commercial accommodations properties by charging commercial utility (water and electricity) rates for vacation homes. Public Comment: Cindy Oliver /Town Resident owns a seven-bedroom home and would like to be able to rent it to more than the maximum limit of eight individuals. Director Joseph noted this portion of the code is to provide for the use while protecting the compatibility with the neighborhood. If this regulation is too permissive, the integrity of the entire program is at risk. This number has been in place for quite some time. According to the U.S. census, the average occupancy in the Estes Park area is 2.25 people per dwelling. Frank Theis/County ResidenUB&B Owner would like to see the occupancy limitations be the same as the single-family household definition of eight unrelated individuals or unliMited number of related individuals. Bill'Ellzey/Town ResidenUB&B Owner is concerned this proposal would limit his ability to rent to more than one family at the same time, and asked for clarification about grandfathering. Planner Chilcott noted his business would be grandfathered in, and as long as it continues to be a Bed & Breakfast, the current use could continue. If he stopped the use for 12 months or more, the grandfathering would be null and void. Closed public comment. Commissioner Tucker noted there is a demand for vacation homes and B&Bs, and feels we are doing harm to the overall community of Estes Park if we do not allow this code change. He stated these regulations are being implemented to minimize the impact in single-family neighborhoods. It was moved and seconded (Norris/ Hull) to APPROVE the proposed Block 12 Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Short-Term'Â·Rentals, with staff authorized to revise the draft code language to add an exemption stating a vacation home classification does not trigger the property owner to make improvements to existing adequate public facilities. The motion passed unanimously with two absent. 4.DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-01B - THE MEADOW REPLAT AND PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP & MARY'S MEADOW AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Lot 4A, Mary's Lake Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision - 341 Kiowa Drive Staff Report: Planner Shirk stated this is a request to amend the existing approved development plan, amend an existing subdivision plat, to subdivide two existing lots into four lots (three buildable and one non-buildable outlot), and submission of a preliminary condominium map. The existing 35-unit plan was approved by the Planning Commission in April 2006, with a minor niodification approved at the staff level in February, 2009. The RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 May 19, 2009 current request is to amend this development plan by separating into two lots, add eleven more units, and adjust the boundary line with the undeveloped lot to the north. The drainage facilities would be put in a non-buildable outlot, with a joint maintenance agreement. Because the issues of this proposal are all inter-related, the report will outline all three requests, concluding with three separate recommendations. Planner Shirk continued by stating Lot 2A, the northernmost lot, has no development currently proposed although the property is zoned A-Accommodations. Lot 4A, the middle lot, is proposed for short-term accommodations use (less than 30 days), with property management operated through Ponderosa Lodge. Lot 4B, the southern lot, is proposed for multi-family residential. This does not preclude short-term or nightly rentals. Director Joseph commented this proposal is reallocating the same allowable density as the approved plan. The density has not been expanded, only reconfigured. The Development Code encourages open space outlots to protect the natural character of the area. One of the trade- offs in protecting the lower part of the meadow is to add some density to the other portions of the lots. Planner Shirk clarified this current transfer in density takes some of the density away from the existing single-family dwellings and moves it closer to the church where the neighbors will not be as strongly affected. This particular outlot is proposed to be the stormwater drainage area. Planner Shirk is recommending the following statement be added on the plat: "Outlot A land area shall be applied to Lot 2A for density calculation purposes. Maximum density is not guaranteed." Planner Shirk briefly discussed the staff-level minor modification where the former quad units 4 were changed to duplexes. The current proposal requests removing the community building on the southwest corner and adding another duplex in its place. Also, remove the single- family dwellings and the duplexes from the lower part of the meadow and construct build four 9-unit buildings on the west side of the lot. Architectural plans indicate a limited kitchen, which is an allowed use. Planner Shirk noted 36 accommodations units are proposed for Lot 4A, which is less than the 39 allowed for the net land area involved. It is an increase from the original development plan. Concerning Lot 4B, 10 duplex units are proposed on an area where a maximum of 12 units would be allowed. According to Planner Shirk, this proposal complies with impervious coverage limits, as well as the provision for pedestrian linkages. This new plan is less fragmented, which has benefits. The parking stalls have proposed curbs instead of wheel stops, which will take up some of the sidewalk space. A minor modification to the code requirement is being requested by the applicant which will result in an 8.5 foot-wide sidewalk. Straight in parking is planned in order to allow traffic from both directions. Planner Shirk reviewed the floor plans, which included discussion about building height. Also discussed was site disturbance, particularly in what some people believe to be a wetlands area. Planner Shirk pointed out there are three conditions for wetlands - soil type, water, and vegetation. The meadow on the east side did not have wetlands soil. It was declassified after an investigation by a wetlands consultant. Concerning the preliminary condominium map, Planner Shirk noted it is Staff's opinion the subdivision review and development plan review combine to provide adequate review of the preliminary condominium map. A final condominium map would be submitted when at least one unit is substantially complete. Planner Shirk indicated the proposed Limits of Disturbance meet the criteria required. Planner Shirk stated there has been some interest and concern from adjacent property owners in the area, which has been included in the reading materials. The concerns vary from increase in density to exterior materials being used. Others are concerned about wind turbines and solar panels being proposed and installed. Other concerns mentioned height, blocked views, and a change in character of the neighborhood by allowing short-term residents. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 May 19, 2009 Planner Shirk then reviewed the Staff Findings and Recommendations as listed in the Staff Report. He pointed out the condition from Will Birchfield concerning the accessibility plan to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act. Commissioner Hull questioned why there were no comments from the Fire District. Director Joseph noted the current development plan does not have driveways, which resulted in concern with the prior proposal. The proposed plan removes those buildings from the, nieadow, and thus, removes the fire access concern. Planner Shirk stated the application includes ISO calculations and would be in compliance. Public Comment: Jim Tawney/Property Owner stated his opinion that the wetlands area being discussed was not a wetlands area until the state put the highway in without sufficient drainage. Frank Theis/Project Developer noted the wetlands study was reviewed by the Corps of Engineers. The original co-housing plan never received the community support that was needed in order to break ground on the project. This new project will be certified "green." Staff supported moving the project out of the meadow and pulling units up on the west side of the 16t. If the current probosal is not accepted, they will continue to build the approved plan. Therb have been many adjustments to the proposed plan in order to appease the neighbors. Chair Klink called a 10-minute recess at 3:23 p.m. The meeting rec6nvened at 3:30 p.m. Commissioner Hull questioned the non-alignment of this project with the Comprehensive Plan, and opposes this development plan for that reason and also due to neighbor concerns. If approved, she would like to see the project designed in a western rustic architectural style. Commissioner Klink reminded those in attendance that the Comprehensive Iflan is not a code, but a recommendation. Planner Shirk recommends approval of "The Meadow" Development Plan 06-01 B with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Public Comment: Ken Sibilia, speaking on behalf of the Mary's Lake Lodge Condominium Board, believes the level of communication is deficient. Mr. Sibilia believes this plan is intrusive to the current property owners, and the new structures do not fit with the historic landmark. Dave Shultz/Town Resident questioned the final height of the project, as well as whether or not the wetlands area was correctly declassified. He opposes this development plan based on belief it will change the character of the neighborhood, damage wildlife and riparian corridors, and deprive him of views of Mary's Lake and the meadow. Mr. Schultz questioned the density calculations and allowance of limited kitchens in the units. Noting the proposed solar panels that would face his home, he thinks the impacts of going "green" should be placed on the people that are benefiting, not their neighbors. Mr. Schultz questioned landscaping requirements determined by the planning department, thinking the trees and shrubs should be larger. It is his opinion to not issue a certificate of occupancy until all landscaping is complete or guaranteed. Planner Shirk clarified density calculations. Tom Greslin/Town Resident believes the drawings in the application are not accurate, and would like staff to review the construction plans. Also, Staff directed the designers to change the configuration of the driveway in order to avoid headlight disturbance at his home, and he does not think this was accomplished. Kent Snapp/Town Resident commended Frank Theis for saving Mary's Lake Lodge. He believes the density in the Mary's Lake areas has changed, and thinks there is foo much property allocated to accommodations. He opposes the development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 May 19, 2009 Tiffany Gordon/Town Resident bought her condo because of views, and opposes the development. Closed public comment. Commissioner Klink indicated a continuance was in order to review the plan in light of the public comment received today. Applicant Jim Tawney reluctantly agreed to a continuation. Commissioner Norris' primary concern is the visual impact, and he wants to make sure the Commission has the most up-to-date construction drawings. Commissioner Tucker noted this type of development is allowed in this zoning district. He suggested the commission taking a tour of the area to gain a better understanding. Commissioner Klink reminded the other Commissioners that there is an approved plan they can build. Commissioner Fraundorf is concerned with the visual impact and how this development compares to recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Klink asked Town Attorney White to explain in the next study session how the Comprehensive Plan relates to the Estes Valley Development Code. Applicant Tawney reminded Commissioners that although Mary's Lake Lodge is a historic property, it is not classified as a historic district. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) to CONTINUE The Meadow Amended Development Plan 06-01 B to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously with two absent. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) to CONTINUE The Meadow Replat to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously with two absent. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) to CONTINUE The Meadow Preliminary Condominium Map to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously with two absent. The meeting recessed at 4:45 p.m. Chair Klink reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 1. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12 a. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION - proposed changes to Â§7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protec#on, 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: Planner Chilcott gave a brief overview of the history behind the proposed code revisions, noting discussion at Planning Commission and Town Board meetings began in September, 2008. The current proposal would trigger a wildlife habitat assessment on land identified as containing critical habitat, based on the Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessement produced by EDAW. Planner Chilcott noted 75% of all species in this area are dependent on riparian habitat, which makes up 1 % of the land. Staff recommended that setbacks be increased to 50 feet, with some of the reasons being wildlife habitat protection, water quality, stream stabilization, and flood protection. Director Joseph noted Staff received clear direction from the Commission there should be a two-tiered system, one for rivers and separate tier for streams and drainages, which is less restrictive. It was also proposed to make setback decisions on a building-by-building basis; for example, if there was a building 30 feet from the river, it could be maintained, expanded vertically, or removed and rebuilt in the same footprint without going through a variance process and the building would be grandfathered in with the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 May 19, 2009 existing setback. Director Joseph clarified that any new construction would have to conform to the setback. If you want to expand the building, you could not exceed the degree of encroachment or nonconformity without getting a variance. Public Comment: Lloyd Claypool/Local property owner does not want the value of his property decreased due to Planning Commission decisions. Jim Tawney/Town Resident opposes any setback changes. Gary Coleman/Local business owner opposes any setback changes. His business is on the river. Elizabeth Repola/Town Resident opposes the proposed setbacks. Appreciates wildlife, but thinks there is enough surrounding land for them. Before setbacks are changed we need to look at the economic analysis of new restrictions and seek additional input from property owners. . Thomas Beck/County Resident opposes any changes. He thinks it would be very difficult to write language and have it interpreted the same every time. He is questioning where the edge of the river and riparian habitat is., Mike Wallace does not think setbacks should be changed, except possibly for new developments. Ray Duggans/Local Builder believes changes in setbacks could affect building envelopes. If setbacks are changed, they should be changed across the board, including downtown. Frank Theiss/Local Builder is concerned about adding the term aquatic habitat, which could include seasonal streams. The definitions are unclear to him. Shelly Powers & Wendy Sykes/Local Business Owners opposes setbacks, which would render much of her property unbuildable. Michael Menard/Estes Valley Contractor's Association (EVCA) President believes all affected property owners should be notified by mail. EVCA agrees that if setbacks are changed, they should be from the high water mark and not the riparian setback. He commended the Planning Commission and Staff for taking on this challenging subject. Supports the idea, "if it's not broken, don't fix it." Lonnie Sheldon/Local Business Owner feels uncomfortable about the town restricting development, when he believes there are paths and trails installed by the Town that are more destructive than a building. Ken Arnold/Local Resort Owner on the river wants to be assured his business can compete with others in the industry if changes are made. Dave Albee/Town Resident suggests requesting open space designations on newer properties with significant amounts of land betwden the home and the river. He believes the wildlife habitat revisions should go hand in hand with an open space plan. Cheri Pettyjohn/Town Resident believes all affected property owners should be notified before any changes are made, and also questioned the mapping process. Sandy Lindquist/Town Resident would like to see an open space study completed and then integrate the wildlife study into it before too many changes are made to this code. Jim Tawney/Town Resident thinks there are too many variables in order to make a decision. Closed public comment. Commission and Staff Discussion: Commissioner Norris likes the suggestion about integrating an open space plan into the wildlife habitat code revisions. Commissioner Tucker believes we need a commitment from the Town Board to complete an open space plan. Upon request, Planner Chilcott again reviewed the chart that listed current and proposed setbacks. She noted if this item is tabled, there would be no triggers for a wildlife assessment for any review processes and the Colorado Division of Wildlife's role in the decision-making process would still be in the code. Director Joseph stated the difficult issues we have been dealing with the last few years are similar to those in other communities, including the frustrations. He believes a successful program would be where habitat protection is judged to be important enough to pass RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 May 19, 2009 regulations and assessments of land or sales tax combined with an open space program. For some, an open space program would be too restrictive, and for others not restrictive enough. He pointed out that typically there is a blend between an open space plan and regulations. Discussion between the Commissioners revolved around the idea of tabling the code revisions, requesting an open space plan, and taking more time to reach a conclusion on this topic. Director Joseph reminded the Commissioners that this Commission initiated the directive to Staff to draft these wildlife habitat code revisions. Also, he believes than an open space plan will not make the tough decisions any easier. The Commission directed Staff to revise those portions of the code that would remove the Colorado Division of Wildlife from the review process and update the wildlife habitat maps. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Norris) to TABLE the proposed amendments to Block 12 of the Estes Valley Development Code concerning Wildlife Habitat Protection until there is an open space study completed. The motion passed with Commissioners Norris, Tucker, and Klink voting in favor, and Commissioners Hull and Fraundorf voting against. There were two absent. 2. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT It was moved and seconded (TuckedNorris) to TABLE the proposed 2008 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment until there is an open space study completed. The motion passed with Commissioners Norris, Tucker, and Klink voting in favor, and Commissioners Hull and Fraundorf voting against. There were two absent. 3. REPORTS Director Joseph reported there have been three permits issued to construct helix-type wind turbines on monopoles that meet all height limits and setback requirements. He would like to facilitate another public forum on wind turbines. This technology is unproven in the Estes Valley, and it is important to gain as much knowledge as possible prior to regulating this energy alternative. Director Joseph also reported on pre-application meetings with land owners and developers. One project is a new fueling facility, while the other is a development plan for a small assisted-living facility. If the owners choose to continue with the proposals, both of these reviews will be conducted at the staff level, as required by the EVDC. Planner Shirk provided an update on the Sunfield Development Plan, stating FEMA wants to reevaluate their conditional letter of approval and issue a revised decision. The pre- application meeting to subdivide the lots has been postponed until the new letter is received. YMCA is almost finished with the Grand Lodge, and will soon be requesting their certificate of occupancy. Della Terra is almost complete, and will also be requesting their certificate of occupancy. There being no further business, Chair Klink adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Doug Klink, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary E Blue Spruce Village/Greeley-Boulder .6407 Colony Amended Plat ~-=~â€ž- Estes Park Community Development Department ~ Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue ~ PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 DATE: June 16,2009 REQUEST: To adjust the internal lot line between two lots originally created in 1918. N RlvND A LOCATION: 2250 Hwy 66, within j - USFS unincorporated Larimer County (site is **I.R..h 34 accessed through Blue Spruce Village ... condominiums - cross bridge and turn right) 38 36 REâ€¢~/ 7 . Kbtr,tain APPLICANT/OWNER: Brent and Janel Maher -94 LEFS STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk e/Dca.-y RMI\P SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering, 586-9388 Parcel Numbers: 3534306001, 3534305010 Development Area: 1.35 acres Number of Lots: Two Existing Land Use: One single-family residential, one undeveloped Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: "A" Accommodations Adj acent Zoning- East: "A-1" Accommodations North: "A" Accommodations West:: "A" Accommodations South: "RM" Multi-Family, "RE" Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Undeveloped North: Single-family residential West: Accommodations South: Multi-family Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer + r PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request to adjust two adjoining lots. There is an existing single-family dwelling on the northeastern lot while the southwestern lot is currently vacant, with no immediate plans to build: This configuration would result in the Lot 1A being larger and Lot 10A being smaller. REVIEW CRITERIA: This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision ofpublic services. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds: 1. Pursuant to C.R.S.30-28-110, sub-section 4(a), "no plat for subdivided land shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners unless at the time of the approval of platting the subdivider provides the certification of the county treasurer's office that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid." . 2. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 4. Within sixty (60) days of the Board's approval of the amended plat,; the developer shall submit the final plat for recording. If the amended plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. 5. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners; Therefore, Sthff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Amended Plat of Lot 1 Blue Spruce Village Subdivision and Lot 10 and a portion of Lot 9 Greeley-Boulder Colony Subdivision. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amended plat to the Board of County Commissioners with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature. Page #2 - Blue Spruce Village and Greeley-Boulder Colony Amended Plat C i ' 1- !gg 0 0 a. ''2 '.1- 8/ EST E S -!*UÂ® PARK Â¥Er*~,2, . I 0 0 *. COLORADO . , Â¥* : + .,11 . . OX , s es ar , Memo To: Dave Shirk and Bob Goehring From: Tracy Feagans Date: May 22,2009 Re: Blue Spruce Subdivision at 2250 Hwy 66 Background: The 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 Plat for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1) We have no comments or concerns. Water: After review of the Amended Plat request the Water Department has the following comments: 1) We will not allow any change or reduction in size to the existing waterline easement across the properties. â€¢ Page 1 CN (( UPPER f 1.1Â£+ -2El.DISTRICTD P.0. Box 568 Estes Parks Colorado 80517 (970)-586-4544 May 20,2009 Dave Shirk, Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Parks CO 80517 ! 0 ' Re: Blue Spruce Subdivision Lot 1, Blue Spruce Subdivision and part of Lot 9 & 10 Greeley-Boulder Colony 2250 Hwy 66 Dear Dave, The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referetited property: 1. The District at this time does not own and is not respohsible for the sewer main in Aspen Brook, Permission will need to be granted for Lot 10A to tap into the Aspen Brook private sewer main if and when they build. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, t,4/01 Todd Kruia Lines Superintendent Upper Thompson Sanitation District Â· ec: Van Horn Engineering (Celine LeBeau) May. 22. 2009 11:10AM No. 9236 P. t \ GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29 970/667-5310 th Stfeet Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 May 15, 2009 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Amended Plat - Blue Spruce Subdivision Dear Mr. Shirk: I have the following comments: 1. The Amended Plat shows a ten foot electric easement "dedicated per this plat". The certification of ownership and dedication does not dedicate this electric easement. The Dedication Statement needs to include appropriate dedication language to dedicate the ten foot electric easement. 2. The Amended Plat shows a fifteen foot waterline easement "dedicated per this plat". The certification of ownership and dedication does not dedicate this waterline easement. The Dedication Statement needs to include appropriate dedication language to dedicate the fifteen foot waterline easement. I f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. /~pry Truly Yours, / 1/6-_Uot ~ Gre ry A. White GAW/ldr Cc: Van Horn Enginee*g, Celine LeBeau Fax: 970/586-8101 A LARIMER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ~COUNTY 1525 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80524-2004 General Health (970) 498-6700 Environmental Health (970) 498-6775 Fax (970) 498-6772 0 De To: Dave. Shirk, Town of Estes Park From: Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner Date: * May,8,2009 .54 (Â« Subject: Blue Spruce Subdivision Amended Plat - 2250 Highway 66 This amended plat would adjust the common boundary between two lots by splitting Lot 9 of the Greeley-Boulder Subdivision between the two owners. The project description notes that the existing residence located on Lpt 1 of Blue Spruce Village Subdivision is served with public water and sewer provided through the Town and the Upper Thompson Sanitation District. These same utilities would be specified for the undeveloped parcel. Based on this understanding, our office would have no objections to the proposal so long as the utility providers have adequate access for their needs. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. I can be reached at 498-6777 if there,are questions prior to the hearing. CC: Celine LeBeau, Van Horne Engineering f f 4 4 TO: Dave Shirk, Planner 11 FROM: Aspen Brook Townhomes Homeowners Association Board of Directors RE: Blue Spruce Subdivision The Board of Directors of the ABHOA would like to make the following comments with regard to the proposed Amended Plat of Lot 1, Blue Spruce Subdivision and part of Lot 9 & 10, Greeley-Boulder Colony, 2250 Hwy 66. At the present time we are unaware of any easements that would permit the addition of utility service across Aspen Brook property to the subject subdivision, nor for residential or commercial traffic. We would oppose any additional residential or construction traffic through Aspen Brook to the subject property, except that which would be necessary to connect to the sewer. We have recently had our subdivision's sewer system connected to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District sewer line running along Hwy 66. We have a manhole that is downhill from the west portion of the subject's property, and, therefore, sewer service would be possible. That manhole and the eight inch sewer line that flow to the UTSD line have not yet been accepted by the UTSD. The securing of their acceptance would involve considerable engineering, construction costs, and a sharing of our cost in making our connection with the UTSD that included a crossing under the Big Thompson River. In addition our Association would require that all incidental costs would be borne by the subject subdivision. Finally, a vote by the membership of the ABHOA would be required to approve the granting of the needed utility easement. 3 1 0 * r.4, I L. e 1 .*Lâ‚¬ 41 f . STATEMENT OF INTENT for the Amended Plat of Lot 1, Blue Spruce Village Subdivision and Lot 10 and a Part of Lot 9, Greeley-Boulder Colony Subdivision April 22,2009 The intent ofthis Amended Plat is to reconfigure two adjoining lots that are owned by two separate parties, requested by Brent and Janel Maher, the owners of Lot 1 (and property adjacent to the east Lot boundary). Currently there is a house, garage, and associated utilities on Lot 1. Lot10/9 (Lot 10 and Part of Lot 9, ofthe Greeley-Boulder Colony Subdivision) contains a small stone pump-house. Both Lots are adjacent to the Big Thompson River, which defines the northwestern Lot boundaries. Currently, the common Lot boundary traverses the backyard (defined by use and topography) of the existing hdme on Lot 1. Brent and Janel Maher have resolved to purchase the piece of land that would complete their backyard form the owners of Lot 9/10, Krotter/Johnson Family Cabins, LLC. No improvements or utility alterations are proposed for either Lot. Utilities and access that serve Lot 1 are active and in place (refer to the Amended Plat). Water service, electric service, and sewer (from Upper Thompson Sanitation District) are available to Lot 9/10. An overhead electric line and water service line crosses Lot 9/10. A sewer manhble is located on the Aspenbrook property, south of Lot9/10, approximately 370' away (south). A sewer service line could be connected toÂ·this manhole (since it is less than 400' away). Existing access for Lot 9/10 is a dirt drive from the Aspenbrook property, into the southwest portion of the Lot. The owners of Lot 9/10 own several large properties adjacent to the southeast boundary and may also be able to access the Lot from those properties. All known easements are shown on the Amended Plat. The lot is currently zoned A, Accommodations in the Estes Valley Development Code (having 25' setbacks from arterial roads, 15' from other streets, 15' from the side lot lines and 10' from the rear lot line). The use of the Lots will not change as a result ofthis Amended Plat. The Lot acreages will change slightly from 0.62 acres to 0.75 acres for Lot 1, and from 0.73 acres to 0.64 acres for Lot 9/10. No changes in zoning are requested. -~[%Â© E 0 y Eli.31 APR 2 2 2009 1 ~~ rn r-/ Ch ESTES VALLEY ~,3 L DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLIC>u'ION 043 L 1/jtpl~ ARR? 212009. 1 All I /-- Submittal Date: ---- ~_ r Development Plan C Boundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map , -1 1- Special Review r ROW or Easement Vacation r Preliminary Map 1 -t 1 -- 1- Rezoning Petition 1- Street Name Change r Final Map -:I r Preliminary Subdivision Plat r Time Extension r supplemental Map ' 1- Final Subdivision Plat 1- Other: Please specify r Minor Subdivision Plat K Amended Plat - . , 4 4., 3. .*t . . 24 1, Generaf Infbrmation . ~ - 10 I .. Project Name An,a,Le! RAvt of- 44: /.8/#15*vee,ulage SU. c.:,2 4/+ oFCâ€¢+01 a.a Lot to. . Project Description ,6 4-- 6 pu, 0Â·-~5'*~~* *1 e nt G-fuA ty- eovl.ler- Co t729 Project Address 2-2- 9-5 /+wt, 66 + pohot-t #-etw-J...te'Ce2- Legal Description Lue- 1 ,6,9-et 466 1; B ' Jo 526,64, v,Iren Parce\\D# 3 3-3 9 3 -0 -00/ Section 31(-3 94#rownship 0/0 Range 0 .. Total Development Area (e.g., lot size) in acres _ h -5/ Existing Land Use OFUL S / /7 9 6_-, /1- rn,* 64 G-1- l U-*-cle-vtGÂ·~e.<1 J I Proposed Land Use " + " " Existing Water Service Fl-own F Well F None F Other (specify) Proposed Water Service 17* own r Well F None F Other (specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service 0 EPSD ri/uTSD r- septic F- None Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service E EPSD r)/UTSD r septic Is a sewer lift station required? F Yes IP-Ao Existing Gas Service 14 Xcel F Other F None Existing Zoning A Proposed Zoning A Site Access (if not on public street) 2 Lat 94 PtÂ·<-c.. L LL ad e-. 13 R Are there wetlands on the site? F Yes r>No Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? F Yes F No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Zo>wie- Sh e td rn y i n H o F.n e ~1Â·'I- g /n C-ey' TF,5 Complete Mailing Address /043 hit (530,216 0>*, 5%*,673,4 dE:57 7 Attachments ~ Application fee Statement of intent 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan 11 " X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan Id 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 mitigati9n report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Town of Estes Park + P.O. Box 1200 4 170 MacGregor Avenue 4 Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4 Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www,estesnet,com/ComDev O .n T'ZP*MAECIAT*flit*titfrit*iS1.4*.r~.*TW~-VI.GATQ#Fâ‚¬*:ic,-11*~4:>*Â·Â·Â·4:*52,1Â·:0- *a--1 â‚¬Â·. 1~ Primary Contact Person is r Owner F Applicant P'~ Consultant/Engineer 4, Record Owner(s) ~ik- ov,ul Â»jin el_-_ Al a-h e e -- Mailing Address 17/0 < 06-~De (2724. 7ihâ€¢n kÂ·/'A , Th. 17067 \S OAÂ¥Â·t~ 4 Phone ~Â£>/93 794-7,PÂ·08 011Â© 193 -5959 ( 970 5-26-4 17'1 Cell Phone (6 '43 29 3 - 9959 44/9) 973 -9710 . -. 1 Pbx 0/<1 794 -0532 -- 4~ Email 644Â©Ema6er Â© py, ona-,k CLYM u..r;c . coÂ»u .-L. It Applicant ,-5â‚¬c a./*D E ct Iâ‚¬ e.ae crl_ Ol k,AR.r S ' .Fi 116 -I Mailing Address , - Phone Cell Phone Fax Email , Donsultant/EngineerÂ· Fk,vi Uncm Fe j,Me'.,1*4 *5urve.,~06)Ar.. ;e-Elinâ‚¬ LeÂ©,alA. Mailing Address / cie, *9*,e revk KÂ¢l J : Esks e av-k. CO 1 esta- Phone 790 - 5%36 - 938 0 K 19 Cell Phone 990 - 289 -09,19- Fax 190 -586-Etc)l ibmmwi Email deli#e,v'ke- Qa.4,1,;is.Ce-rn < APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION On July 1, 2001, House Bill 01-1088 became effective. This legislation requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to give notice of their application to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development. I hereby certify that the provisions of House Bill 01-1088 Saction 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT.Â· /~<St ./44,4,- , Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: Pr Record Owner / OU hlie.~%a Applicant Date 41! Il M 4.1 A 411 I. ''flil::~ APR-21-09 TUE 12:21 ~ HER 79*,538 P.01 1, UPPLFO~.t:Â¢48.I{ffÂ¢-ATIQNE:1%2411)i.~:5:- s.:f -- ........ â€¢ I hereby Gertibr that the informalion 86(1 6,(i166.ti;Um, st4Â®4144.kiU .4**Â»44-kn6wledge | and that In filing the application 1 am hofin~ 40* %4*knowleÂ¢06-*Id *0*R.*149 )**,i:61)i*p#*~W.-9 , i . .: :.r. I- 2:~..,,Pi,. c N, :6/Â·'-5:.- i:2. '~,I:30 1 1 71: .~ 1.,.; .fi>%:ifit.*FE *:...: * In submltting th* *plicalion materlats hnji #ignijjÂ¢~)}#.koplkÂ¥~61:4*n,kit,-1~&6*i44*'6tid**,4 that the applioation 18 subject to tha applidi~bld proom,Alng- and publlo ho-i~-ig K*kluir&*mit* *t 14!111*Wi# 155*RNNI#yÂ· Development . .~Â·:.*-I '.12Â· 3.-, -- .f'.'-;...'.1:::,('4..:.F.:-*.i.,:Â·rk...C ,~.054~:-63;ci:u.:.x~i~: , i $ l acknowledge that 1 have obtabdil or have :.6.,.6..~s; 14 ~e. EV[)0, *id*. lk' . I.#,U *t-#*4*&%*i,IThave had the opporturlity to Consult the relevant pA,vI*lori* D**Mird-** pro60*In* N -arilld,iole)Â®.411.*le 'R 11949ri.. , (The Eetes Valley Development Cod*ls avellabl;..6niine,~ wN,0.~tâ€¢*961.40,It8)~idjbW[j~vG~~.);Â·:s-Â·:,Â·; 2 , C.' it.14' .i.2, k: ... 1, I:Â·.:1. 7.1.. :> i:..:...fi! i.?f.9.i.(X-*M Wi.i:- I I.,,*.'-~4713: b'Â·4 :t' i ' * li:%241812:Lish'eL,ifi::9822'KW~~:, . â€¢- I underatand that thla proposal* m,4 be-*1!~;4~k,4Â»-09 4*1'irbikf?Fit~.In~~~Inw*?92.,~.~- * Inoomplete, Inaccuratâ€¢,or submilfed after.11,61#480*â€¢ dat*Â·:2.3. Â· 2,Â·0 1, f ~.Â· 14r.iVâ€¢Fi :1'~4:1;.~** ..,:n :2.9 i l underatand that a regubmittal fbe wm 14 ~4r'*Â¢#my.Â®,Plhaid.*,1~6)Â®0(#pMb*443;:434 :-:kÂ·7140.7:ic.jÂ·Â·:. :Â·.Â·~ )Â· The Community Development Depâ€¢,Men<4#*Â» oppiAM~..4*to#Â®4.dit#**14(#14 * dion Is 4. d '~'#4:1:.- 1 -*.r:49,%.b:.2;9Â·;2*i<ft,:t determined to be complete. . L.* . .E..0.:4.3.4:' i:....t Â· -..;:.r.LI ;...:.fi';...:i':. ./......rlf.<43%>pil'*1Â·9ffift. 11.0 . I I grant permission for Town of Estes Park'EM my proporty dudng ele rewlew of als 14*~Na.~*1.-c.~:4493 .Er- . :E ::iÂ·74193. :4: f.si'.. ":g.R-$:.-siti?:%.:33iFIin,:., i ... : 1 801<nowledge that i havâ€¢ reteked lhÂ¢~61),ikipir Ii-1*nent Â¢i*vhâ€¢4AAillc*iA, &;ia*ile~*hd 604.t**i~-- to meet E -45*44*Null: imit?Y"su~-- 2 metrÂ¢~~~. Â¥61;0****hal::.-Â· voId. . Â·Â·.Â· ..,-Â·: -Â·-.Â·t:i 1Â·'.'1;-lt.. ' %1*'rk rÂ·:PaftÂ¢Ej '5 Â· Â·Â· >- I ..,/ :'E:-6,Â·.?Â·.10'..k.4/.C: "Â·- .Â·Â·Â· , NamOS: . / i Â·2-73Â» ..Â·:7Â·. - , Al,PliCant,01:648EA*A~ ,~4.:~~:2~~112~02~31*Weit.':...... ' I . ...4.0 :.13./#4,10:.~Â«45% P,3 I /0.8-'.74: 19...1. 4% ... : . t. , Slgnatums: ' 1 *; ; i ::.1-:t.Â· i' 1'.3 ...Â·r.i.en:4......7. t: Ret,>140*MULMAÂ£:2-7 .34%%/bf&~41 * 12; -t,k:yA.2'Z_:'-8 YYZ-1-, w... /7 =r-- /84 -- - 4 1,-p.%â€ž=Â£4,-w-~.4..G.~..2*3Â·',6,32 Li. ;3Â¥2*,M i . e 4.. I Â· . 1 - '. 71 4.1 .4 - Â·Â·' 4: tu.:Â·Â·2' 93Â«.~ Â·4Â· 98492*0*iÂ«jÂ·. Â·: , 3 . I ... I .... :. i. : 4 144 pin <+ (Ii; ~CVh NAN h A Or r,-1- 00 1-0 LO ID If) SeeS E 0 =UNNL*Â§ 0Â£11 00 2% . 00 O ~ O 0 ON 8 - If 00 Ri 4 8 2 w â‚¬ 32â‚¬20 6 21 2 25 -El- â‚¬ 209.59008*AN â‚¬4%â‚¬fgâ‚¬49 1<,-1- ~ -2 8 3 3 -Z - U.1 . 2 31) M W H H H - o w., I= CD ILI -0.(Da.0-0-CO2.- ~-~~JU82 E~ti 32*Ems- c 0 2 c 2 2200= 0 - 0)-0 EMadlmidio22 <uwMNMMM235~Loid32&22/MiE,VAB2 > m o H m a. c O .r- O LU Cd -10 0 2v m EÂ® CD X Z L .- Ill O. # 1 <2 h U'. 4 4-505 N LO (D f ing *8 8 2 -6 * . Â®rm 8v#82=>& a c V' 0 8 - EN@@REE 5823*8 82% 150-12~p 59% gga~2 CD CO-EbE LOISWI(DZU)(O-'6LLITIMIICOU) c 02* 3 5 2!IM~Â¤rocrjG;0â‚¬ C) N - N N (D - O C) CD / â€ž A u=| CV #â€žA C\1 Â« â€ž -1 1-1- m 04-c\toâ€žLUNCO - 0 00 0 0 N 1 91- O 0 - Cv U) 09 CU LO N r- 9- 00 r (D O 00 0 4- al ,- 1.0 N tr) r * CO N C\1 V O N 91- P N 00 - r N h - P CD h LO N N e 00 O h *O O G) N h N C\1 - 00 (O N r EL C\1 C\1 .- .go al .- 4- m h CD W (\1 N Lf) CD (\1 (\1 - - r - r â€¢- 4- LO (\1 ,- C\1 N N â€¢- T- C\1 0) .E OD B .% -1 C m i C O S LL 06 co C CO lo a 8% 0 d 0 â‚¬ 8 05 0 06 S_ Â£ 098 0 2Â¢- E E UE 1- 1- 60,1-1 82 ~ 8 Sa 03 ~3*#%20<- m z 614'.0,@Wey OES - e > a)(0 -c 0 U) CO -m c 52 o E 9 8 22 2 36 ag =W il 2./ 3 1, M CE Eoo -(016 2 53 im ER#2% 5.2[r 5.1.1. J ~~e =*1%11.1-2~hÂ£.5 2 - E 2 8 2 2 -6 06 (0 E 06 J 06 > AÂ¥, _ w > E i * 2%06 92[rodo< 806<%2 m 1 06>Om r-Um>ZO *082 jaa,08-Q E R- -2 5 2 2- 2 2 5 2-2 E * 13 E- i E E i % i *E 2 == * 2 =- /= p :2 2 06 O<020*36O0JiHJ00nn20OO<MOMR~mM~<m~482 KS 66205-3439 6 L L8-9 1SeJO:I leuoileN lieAasook'/04 Box 3837 e Park, CO 80517 rk, CO 80517 28108 20Â£08 OO 'iepino 92008 00 'e Sel.UOH el.UOOI, Â£0908 00 'lu ple4038 E LE-Â£9686 90 'l.loEeEI ~7CJ-na't ue#els 1 BipLIES Jeled Iversifie 200th St IL 62441 T.,<,C=D8800552167 der, CO 80301 80007 EE9E 8 LES-9EE6 leuq!H g Booeqew 19 St, Suite 201 der, CO 80302 E8E8Z 4UOAAI!.a seoue in, TX 78747 Sharon L ubanks Littleton, CO 80128 008 00 quell!Ae!00eo elle40!1/\1 + L999 SM ]Cl luels LLE9* 14e!(] M3 eu!ian *3908 0%,7 Mied leuoueN U!elunoW XM Appaloosa Ct Owner 11 Address 110!113 1 W 41*9103 v e!0!J led 19 =1 Leffler Walker AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1, BLUE SPRUCE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION AND LOT 10 AND PART OF LOT 9, GREELEY-BOULDER COLONY SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SE 1 OF THE SW 1 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO CERTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION: / 6, 4/ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT BRENT MAYER, JANEL MAYER, AND KROTTER/JOHNSON FAMILY VICINITY MAP 4/ CABINS, LLC BEING THE OWNERS OF THAT PART OF THE SW 1 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBE AS FOLLOWS: / 1 1 1 1 LOT 1, BLUE SPRUCE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; / 7 111 1*9 1 1 1 1 f LOT 10, GREELEY-BOULDER COLONY SUBDIVISION, AND A PART OF LOT 9 OF THE GREELEY-BOULDER COLONY // SUBDIVISION OF A PART OF 1-HE SWi OF THE SE; AND THE SE; OF THE SWI OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 / NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., ACCORDING TO THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID LOT 9 AS CORNERS / / // THEREFORE WERE FIXED BY 2 INCH WOODEN STAKES SET AND ESTABLISHED BY THE SURVEY OF L.L. STIMSON, ~-BLUE < CIVIL ENGINEER, AS DEPICTED ON MAP OF SAID SUBDIVISION FILED OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY / ' BIG THOMPSON / y /~ ~ SPRUCE / ,1 APPROXIMATE GEOMETRIC INFORMATION CLERK AND RECORDER OF LARIMER COUNTY, CO., WHICH PART OF SAID LOT 9 HEREBY CONVEYED LIES SOUTH ~ 04~ / RIVER x97/ , VILLAGE ' / FOR RIVER BOUNDARY 1 1 AND WEST OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: te\LMT,/ CORNER OF SAID LOT 9, AS MARKED BY 2 INCH SQUARE WOODEN STAKES SET BY SURVEYOR L.L. STIMSON IN / 5 4 4 ,-h WTE ~* / 6 .. FOUND #4 REBAR BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEAST BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 9, 21 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST / 5 ~ WITH PLASTIC CAP #9485 ,' Â·00/1 / // CURVE LENGTH RADIUS ~ 6 4,# -// Clo 148.86 289.00 - .CD Cl 1 194.84 175.00 1917 AND SHOWN ON SAID MAP: THENCE WITH AN ANGLE OF 119'11' BETWEEN THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE / Â· ~ ~1 2 1 w.- DESCRIBED LINE AND THE SOUTHEAST BOUNDARY OF LOT 9, IN A NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION TO THE BIG ' */ ' ~ 40' UTILITY AND ACCESS C12 98.11 180.00 THOMPSON RIVER, ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SHOWN ON THE ENGINEER'S PLAT RECORDED WITH THE 1982 1 EASEMENT (PER PLAT AT C13 12.28 20.00 4*/ / DEED (AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED) AND MARKED BY IRON STAKES SET JULY 24, 1938 BY L.L. STIMSON, Â· ~1 ' ~ 0/ ' BEARING \ BOOK 2281, PAGE 1809) 1 TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHTS OF WAY OVER SAID SWI OF THE SEI AND SEi OF THE SWI OF SAID SECTION 34, / 1 ' ~ LINE LENGTH 10% i /1 * / i APPURTENANT TO SAID LOT 9 AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN THE LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS IN Ll 8.55 N8407'00"E , (AEE BOOK 1378 PAGE 111, % , FOUND LEANING #4 REBAR 1 1 U 2.47 N54'36'18"E ~~~ ; 1-5 5.0 N57'13'51" 4.2 CONTAINING 1.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS; HAVE BY THESE PRESENTS CAUSED THE SAME TO BE SURVEYED, TO .-1-/1 Fl aÂ»7\ A Â·Â·. ~ WITH PLASTIC CAP #4112 433. 0 884 N09'11'17"W BE KNOWN AS THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1, BLUE SPRUCE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION AND A PART OF LOT 9 AND l 1 1 4494'f,k,4 , L# 13.69 N22'02'24"E ZR LOT 10, GREELEY-BOULDER COLONY SUBDIVISION, AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE EASEMENTS FOR THE 1 // Kr<L./>2> <2/ \ ASPENBROOK + , 4 004 24> INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AS ARE LAID OUT AND DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT, WITNESS \0 / aol i 11 e \ , \ 2340. , / OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS ---______------ DAY OF A.D., 2009 1 <597 \ ' 09 , lon-// 2/\ h / SCALE 1 "=600' 1 /9 / BRENT MAHER (OWNER OF PARCEL I) CALCULATED ~ ' â€žg.Â·g,-{3 8 \ -, \ \ ////, /// 1/ r-7 /0~ 11,1.1 L E BEARING ~ AND DISTANCE Â· , 1.045 6 1 LOT lA STATE OF _ N08'38'18"E | 1 16 21% \ 0.75 ACRES 7 - 1 1 ---------jss LEGEND 1 161.99' 1 , D,tia \ ///4 / / -- -- /40*J# zdg / FOUND #4 REBAR WITH NO CAP VilimiNTS#//2% (20/ </ COUNTY OF ________0 Ste 1 *%~ E 0 \ /f/ / <S89'44'00"E 2833.46??'> THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _----- DAY OF UTILITY POLE PARKING , 2009 BY BRENT MAHER Â® WATER MANHOLE 5%\ \ ~SEMENT 1 ky, O e..0 i AREA ill 1 .01 \ Â«@t UnLITY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. ' ADJUSTED .1 i - TO BE MY COMMISSION EXPIRFS . --------- EASEMENT | COMMON j V \ b./ VACATED PER ,~~ / 10' UTILITY EASEMENT ~/ ,~ LOT LINE 41 0/ THIS PLAT (PER PLAT AT EASEMENT CENTERLINE I / ,/ ~ BOOK 2280, PAGE 1809) ~ 1 FOUND #4 REBAR WITH ILLEGIBLE u#r.F, EE \\71 / f i \ 1 " PLASTIC CAP NOTARY PUBLIC ----.._ BIG THOMPSON RIVER l 91 EXISTING 4/ \ ~e*i~-~h#*4 O FOUND MONUMENTATION ~ / ~ 40 ' ; /\ -- \ ~ HOUSE 1 a JANEL MAHER (OWNER OF PARCEL D %\4 h 444 /// '\, -. SET #4 REAR WITH PLASTIC CAP #26974 . 1, 1 6 - ~ SET #4 REBAR 1 / 1\ \ 5 / / ' x /LSTING b / STATE OF __________) WITNESS CORNER WITH PLASTIC /44 ~\,~ GARAGE / / , \ )SS f CAP #26974 - 0\ , COUNTY OF _________) -0 1 \ Â® Â»774%895 66 \ / / 6 ,/ 400 ALIQUOT MONUMENTATION - STAMPED "WC> | / /// /47 / I / /6. -,ISERE 1 I THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS ------ DAY OF 00.00 MEASURED OR CALCULATED DIMENSIONS Â· / 1 , 2009 BY JANEL MAHER j / Â· â‚¬~ 2~ , (00.00) PLATTED DIMENSIONS OF THE , / # // , A) R> A WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. BLUE SPRUCE VILLAGE - " 1 1 i/// . SEX #4 REBAR '\- i..flf/ N g MY COMMISSION EXPIRFS . SUBDIVISION (BOOK 2281 PAGE \ 9/: " 40' 4* RP' 1809) -/.// 1~/ ~\1 /\ 32FT-j\\ ORIGINAL PLATTED DIMENSIONS ,)' ~ , ~ ~CENTERLINE - , F/9 :/ C,40 .4.Py NOTARY PUBLIC OF THE GREELEY-BOULDER \ EhaTING [00.00] COLONY SUBDIVISION (BOOK 4 / \ \ WONE 15' ELECTRIC \ / /' , PAGE 12) O.4/th, DEDICATED PERDL / 9 SCALE: 10 = 30' - Â·' \ \C t:Â·.NLIPHOUSE EASEMENT h. / // \ / 1 1 \ / M %\ KROTTER/JOHNSON FAMILY CABINS, LLC , 1 PLATTED DIMENSIONS OF THE \ '9< THIS PLAT /u , / (OWNER OF PARCEL It) GENERAL LAND OFFICE 1. 1< 402 Â£1~ ~~'~11~ ~~ ~\ <119'11'> ~ STATE OF __________) {00.00} DEPENDENT RESURVEY OF 1 42# // ~0 (PER PLAT AT BOOK 2280 PAGE 1809) 10' UTILITY EASEMENT O )SS TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 6// / 0 0....4.\. // ro//, // /(24.>/r 1 ..1 1 1 COUNTY OF WEST, OF THE 6TH P.M., / 49/\ 0 30 60 90 COLORADO (DATED AUGUST 6, 6 .6 . 1 <27 .. L' THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS --_--- DAY OF 1928) \\ /// \ \ 225"- 4 , 2009 BY KROTTER/JOHNSON FAMILY CABINS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY 4955' I 04 4 / ,).f' ). Hus/ /1 \ OC <00.00> DEEDED DIMENSION @Xy/ COMPANY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. ~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRFS 4Â° .0. I I , 47/ / \ /9 FOUND #4 REBAR 1 ,/ i 1 '00. / 1 I 1,4: 3 WITH PLASTIC CAP #9485 / NOTARY PUBLIC , ,/ / I LOT l OA // / h~ R ~ 0.65 ACRES I 0. 7/ : I. $50 FW /0~ /e . *\ LIENHOLDER' S STATEMENT / 10' WATER EASEMENT / 4 2/ 1 511 %%/ DEDICATED PER THIS PLAT 7 i.. S~-S--3 r- <1 THE UNDERSIGNED DOES HEREBY AGREE AND CONSENT TO THIS PLATTING AND DOES ALSO CONSENT TO THE /'CARD-34 / 1 2 + A - I - I DEDICATION OF THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS DEPICTED HEREON FROM THEIR LIEN IN CONSIDERATION L. 4250 ,0, /R\ \% mN I R73W W 34=241224 OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF SAID PLATTING. LES â„¢4 .73# tel , C. 1 f .4, 40#00 158 1 va / \<1.9135/ I I S 33~ 534 7 %. / lui 9 I REPRESENTATIVE FOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ESTES (LEINHOLDER) \7 ~v .11, AP /4 ,/1-KNOOF~~ lf') 1974 f /. / 99255/ SET #4 REBAR / STATE OF ) FOUND 2 h" BRASS CAP ON 2" WITH ALUMINUM / / / 1 1 y ON 2" PIPE )SS PIPE CAP #26974 - -/ ./ /6-3/ N54'55'07"E 104.32' ' / t.el /4.y\91,55"i .4, 4<: FOUND 2 6" BRASS CAP COUNTY OF _________) BEARS 0.48' NORTH OF SECTION STAMPED "WC" â‚¬1_ ./ / 16# 1, C , 02 (0 la-24 UJ LINE \ -:S>4821.%--4~ 5; 445*~ 6.109 05' , N 0 NOO'00'00"E ''' -0// C..57 N89'46'05"W 46.48' ~ 1974 / THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS ---_-_ DAY OF 10.02'- \'*\~\,\\; '~~ 1'\'Â·\'\\\\\#,\ ..~.0- ~. Lx-x-1 -'-5.1 ' 1 FOUND J" I.D. 0489'44'00"W 46.41') I , 2009 BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ESTES. . 0/ FPIPE N89(*Â©00"W 269.90' WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. FOUND 3" I.D. {'NEST 270.00'] BASIS OF BEARINGS - ----7//aNQOUCAP PIPE MY COMMISSION EXPIRFS (N89'44'00"W 309.00') - ON 1 PIPE N89'44'00"W 309.10' N89'44'00"W 2704.53' NOTARY PUBLIC IN89'36'W 2704.02'} APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLATÂ· BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT STATEMENT: BOUNDARY LINES INDICATED ON THIS MAP ARE ADJUSTMENTS OF FORMER BOUNDARY LINE OF' THE PROPERTIES DEPICTED HEREON. SUCH ADJUSTMENTS DO NOT CREATE THIS FINAL PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND IS HEREBY APPROVED AS TO FORM AS COMPLYING WITH ALL CURRENT SURVEY REQUIREMENTS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND OF STATE ADDITIONAL LOTS OR BUILDING SITES FOR ANY PURPOSES. THE AREA ADDED TO EACH LOT SHOWN HEREON BY SUCH ADJUSTMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AN ADDITION TO, LARIMER COUNTY HEALTH AUTHORITY APPROVAL: LAW PERTAINING TO PLATTING AND MONUMENTATION. THIS APPROVAL CONSTITUTES NEITHER A WARRANTY BY LARIMER COUNTY CONCERNING SUCH COMPLIANCE, NOR A SHALL BECOME A PART OF, AND SHALL BE CONVEYED TOGETHER WITH, EACH LOT AS SHOWN. RELEASE OR INDEMNITY OF THE SUBDIVIDER AND HIS SURVEYOR CONCERNING ANY NONCOMPLIANCE OF THIS PLAT WITH CURRENT SURVEY REQUIREMENTS. 4 BY THE LARIMER COUNTY HEALTH AUTHORITY THIS DAY OF -_---, 2009. ALL CONSTRUCTION w ON THIS SUBDIVISION, OR ANY LOT THEREIN, INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC WATER, AND THE DATF VESTED RIGHTS STATEMENT: PROVISION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT, SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER WHICH WILL MEET ALL OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S., AS AMENDED. REQUIREMENTS OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND THE LARIMER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DRAWN BY: SURVEYOR'S NOTES: CML DEPARTMENT, AND THE OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO ENFORCE SUCH REQUIREMENTS. , COLORADO P.L.S. NO, 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDED PLAT IS TO RECONFIGURE THE TWO LOTS AS SHOWN. (SIGNATURE) CHECKED BY: LAS 2. THE BLUE SPRUCE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS, UNITS 6, 7, 8, AND 9, LOT 3 BLUE SPRUCE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION, A P.U.D., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO (BOOK 2291, PAGE , LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 1128) AND THE GREELEY-BOULDER COLONY SUBDIVISION, ESTES PARK, COLORADO (BOOK 4, PAGE 12) PLATS AND PAST VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. SCALE 1"=30' LARIMER COUNTY HEALTH AUTHORITY (NAME) SURVEYS WERE USED FOR EASEMENT RESEARCH. NO OTHER RESEARCH WAS PERFORMED BY VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. DATE: 3. THESE PROPERTIES AND THEIR OWNERS HAVE BEEN THROUGH AN ARBITRATION ACTION TO DETERMINE (SETTLE) AN ADJUSTED COMMON LOT LINE AS SHOWN. 06-03-09 LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVAL: 4. THE LINEAL UNIT USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE U.S. SURVEY FOOT. SHEET APPROVED BY THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THIS ---- DAY OF 2009. ALL DEDICATIONS ARE HEREBY ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC. THIS SURVEYOR' S CERTIFICATE: 5. THE NORTHWEST PROPERTY LINE OF BOTH AFFECTED LOTS IS THE HIGH WATER MARK OF THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER, AS IT WAS ON THE PREVIOUS RECORDED PLATS. THE APPROVAL DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY BY THE COUNTY FOR CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR NORTHWEST SET CORNER OF THE NEW LOT LINE DIVIDING LOT l A AND LOT 1 OA IS A WITNESS CORNER TO THE HIGH WATER MARK DUE TO THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF THE OR MAINTENANCE OF ANY STREETS, HIGHWAYS, ALLEYS, BRIDGES, RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS I, LONNIE A. SHELDON, A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1, BLUE SUBSTRATE ALONG THE HIGH WATER MARK. DESIGNATED ON THIS AMENDED PLAT. SPRUCE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION AND LOT 10 AND PART OF LOT 9, GREELEY-BOULDER COLONY SUBDIVISION, TRULY AND CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE RESULT OF A SURVEY 1 MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. 6. ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED 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 OF SHOWN HEREON. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CLERK OF THE BOARD ~ (STATE OF COLORADO) BASIS OF BEARINGS STATEMENT: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SWi OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST MONUMENTED ON EACH END AS LONNIE A. SHELDON, PLS # 26974 DESCRIBED HEREON. SAID LINE BEARS N89'44'00"W AND ALL BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE RELATIVE TO THIS LINE. PROJ. NO. 2007-08-08 18 NOISIAEla 31Â¥0 0100 MEIV M33613 HS13 01,0 L ~ Nn00 HGIMINVI (OL6) UNOHcl 1Vld alaNE 103rOhld l I~ Black Canyon Inn (DP 09-03) Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 ~ Estes Park, CO 80517 ~ Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: June 16, 2009 ""P REOUEST: Approval to build twenty-six 1*N:, i u U USES dwelling/accommodation units. The development -0-'.* 34 plan also includes renovations to some existing -P buildings as well as other existing units. All told, 6,- axky there will be fifty-nine units, assuming approval l,SFS Ik ws and build-out. a LOCATION: 800 MaeGregor Avenue, within the Town of Estes Park. APPLICANT/OWNER: Sloan Investments, LLC STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk (dshirk@estes.org, 577-3729) SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer/Consultant: Cornerstone Engineering Parcel Number: 3524455001 Development Area: 14.4 acres (-1-/-) Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Accommodations Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: "A" Accommodations Adjacent Zoning- East: "E-1" Estate North: "IN" Estate, "RM" Multi-Family, "RE" Rural Estate West: "E-1" Estate South: "RM" Multi-Family, "A" Accommodations Adjacent Land Uses- East: Single-family residential North: Agricultural, Institutional (St. Bartholomew) West: Single-family residential South: Multi-family, accommodations (The Overlook condos) Services- Water: Town Sewer: EPSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request for a development plan for the development of twenty-six units. These units would be in addition to twenty-seven existing units. The site also includes a restaurant, four employees units, pool, an outdoor pavilion, and an office. The site is accessed via a private internal street, which also provides access to a small condominium development a single-family dwelling. The applicant proposes development in the eastern and southwestern portions of the site. Staff does not support the proposed development of five units in the southwestern portion of the site, due to limits of disturbance standards outlined in Section 7.2.D of the Estes Valley Development Code. This proposal requires waivers to cul-de-sac length and number of vehicle trips per day; the Town Engineer has approved these waivers for reasons outlined later in the report. Upll ..641.."a*6,95=*.Â·--*:,b*- - i;:44 j ~ 4-6-4-r- \1 "RE" , / 1-4.C "RE-1 ' 1 9 N Â·*L ir U~tf,~ 3 4Ii"lvIAL: - 7' I': ,9 resâ€žâ€ž-4 1/30-0-4,/39 "/DAEL?. Â· ~1 9 Â·,4 i Â·~ - -' - '1 - - --1 \ -mos - >~ 5*in- =FT >*-:3:1 A~â€¢ /&7'1% ' -- - /11 ' 51 Wi 1 i I - I ~ '.1,4.-,-- 'RM Â·.-. ~Â·.Mi*- 4, 4.12tl-,11: ,BdgME "RM" @ 30 732% 441!E 1 1/1 16* f+7 ..7 4 0 f *A' . Yi. I e WÂ¢P,57:" 4 12-1 -1_.--'iL#Lr/m/z_z_~i- >-Â· "* ' --:434&323Â¥=!6 5 â‚¬.* 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 property is zoned for accommodations and residential use. Density calculations were based on the residential land use category, which is lower density than accommodations units. Page #2 - Black Canyon Inn, Development Plan 09-03 Density. There are twenty-seven (27) existing units, with twenty-six (26) additional units proposed, totaling fifty-nine (59) units. This requires 9.21 acres of net land area, where 12.21 are available. Density requirements vary between unit types. Detached units require 9,000 square feet of net land area each, duplexes require 6,750 square feet, and multi-family units require 5,400 square feet each. Density calculations were based on these requirements and not the 1,800 square feet required for an accommodations unit. In addition to the base density requirements outlined above, density has been modified to account for slope, as required by Section 7.1. For each percentage point by which average slope exceeds twelve percent, the base minimum land area shall be increased by three hundred square feet per unit. The site has an average slope of 16%. Therefore, an additional 1,200 square feet is required per unit. This has been accounted for. The project also includes four employee units. This complies with density limits for employee housing units. Typically, these units would require a deed restriction. However, in this instance the proposal has adequate land area to allow these units "by right," therefore, Staff suggests the deed restriction is not necessary. Density Calculation Base Slope Total Total Number aka/unit Adjustment ared/unit area MF units 52 5,400 1,200 6,600 343,200 Duplex units 6 6,750 1,200 , 7,950 47,700 SF units , 1 9,000 1,200 10,200 10,200 Total Units 59 . 401,100 Gross Land Area 628,006 less 80% floodplain' 49,230 less access easement 46.897 Net Land Area 531,879 s.f. . 12.21 acres Required Land Area 40'MOO's.f. 9.21 acres Impervious Coverage. The "A" district has a maximum impervious coverage of 50%; the proposed 35% complies with this requirement. Impervious coverage will be verified with the required as-built plans. Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements. Table 4-8 requires provision for pedestrian linkages. The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District has requested a trail along MacGregor Avenue. This is described later in the report. Page #3 - Black Canyon Inn, Development Plan 09-03 Appendix D.V requires that all sidewalks in non-residential zone districts have a minimum width of eight-feet. The applicant proposes a five-foot wide sidewalk along the interior street. Appendix D allows the Town Engineer to grant modifications to this standard, which the Town Engineer has approved (5-foot is the standard width required in residential zone districts). In addition to the street sidewalk, the applicant proposes six-foot wide sidewalks fronting interior parking lots, with 18.5-foot deep parkilig stalls. The proposed parking stall'depth means that one foot of the sidewalk counts toward parking stall depth. This means the width of the sidewalk, in terms of code requirements, would be five feet wide, and not the six delineated on the plat. Because these are interior sidewalks that lead only from the parking lot to the guest units, Staff has granted this modification to sidewalk width (5-feet instead of 8-feet typically required). Setbacks. This proposal complies with the required setbacks, which have been delineated on the development plan. Setbacks vary per lot line. For example, there is a 25-foot setback from property lines adjacent to residentially zoned properties, but 15-foot from property lines adjacent to accommodations zoned properties. The site plan includes a "blanket" 25-foot setback. In addition to property line setbacks, there is a 50-foot setback from wetlands, which has also been delineated on the site plan. The parking area and a portion of the access drive serving Building G eneroach into the required wetland setback. Building Height. Building heights vary from 28-36 feet, and will comply with maximum building height. Staff will verify individual building height with each building permit application, and a surveyor will field verify finish fioor elevations (as well as building locations). Grading and Site Disturbance. Section 7.2 "Grading and Site Disturbance Standards" applies to this proposal. No grading, excavation or tree/vegetation removal shall be permitted, whether to provide for a building site, for on-site utilities or services or for any roads or driveways, before issuance of a building permit. 1 Limits of 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 Staffs opinion the proposed LOD do not meet these criteria. Specifically, Building G in the southwestern portion of the site in relation to riparian habitat and adverse impact on wetland buffering (evidenced by the need for a variance to wetland setback, as described above and outlined below). Staff suggests the proposed areas of disturbance, less units 1 -5, do minimize the overall site impact. This notion is based on: Page #4 - Black Canyon Inn, Development Plan 09-03 1) The area with the most significant impact on the site is in the least visible area. 2) Protection of the stream frontage is an important consideration. 3) Much of the site is rock outcroppings that are not possible to develop without significant site disturbance. 4) The proposed impervious coverage is 60% o f the maximum allowed. 5) The proposed density is 75% of the maximum allowed. Staff suggests the site impact created is mostly to significant trees. Therefore, Staff recommends the Planning Commission use the formula for replacement of significant trees outlined in Section 7.3.D5, which requires two six-foot tall trees for each coniferous tree removed. This section typically would not apply for trees removed with approval of a development plan. However, due to the number of significant trees removed, Staff suggests this section be applied. Application of this formula would be allowed under the terms of Section 7.10 "Operational Performance Standards", which allows the Planning Commission to require additional landscaping. Furthermore, Staff suggests those trees to remain should be subject to landscaping maintenance requirements set forth in Section 7.5.J. Finally, Staff suggests the "replacement trees" not be subject to a separate guarantee, but instead incorporated into the standard development plan agreement. This would ease the clerical burden on both the applicant and staff, as there would be one less agreement to monitor. If the applicant revised the development plan to eliminate Units 1-5, and replacement trees required, Staff suggests the overall plan would comply with Limits of Disturbance standards. Tree and Vegetation Protection. Tree protection fencing shall comply with standards set forth in Appendix D.VIII. Existing trees to remain shall be fenced for protection prior to any site work; the property owner should be aware of this requirement and account for it in construction planning, as failure to fence trees could result in a delay in issuance of permit. See above for description of replacement trees. The applicant should be aware that any trees shown to remain on the plan that are removed during construction will be required to be replaced in accordance with Section 7.3. For example, if the sewer main location changes during the final construction plan phase and would result in removal of trees shown to remain, those will need to be replaced and guaranteed through a separate agreement and form of collateral. Landscaping and Buffers. Existing trees to remain exceed the amount of landscaping required for impervious coverage and street frontage. Parking lot perimeter plantings are not required, as the parking lots are either not large enough Page #5 - Black Canyon Inn, Development Plan 09-03 < to require or are intel-ior to the site, with the exception of the eastern most parking lot; this lot will be screened by district buffer. Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection. This proposal does not comply With the minimurn wetlands setback requirement of fifty (50) feet, and cannot be approved by the Planning Commission. Approval of the parking area in the wetland setback areas requires a variance be granted from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. Staff suggests the variance should be obtained from the BOA prior to approval of the proposed development plan. Staff also suggests the development plan could be approved with a condition to remove proposed Units 1 -5 along with appurtenant site features such as utilities and drives. DI{ECIEUVIN *1 lzELLCOU o~f . 0 IL/l 1 1 111 sui i this review. This investigation ill/ L was prepared by Clifford Ham 8///A ~ BLACK CANYON CREEK with MEM Consulting, LLC. / Mr. Ham is on the list of ~.%9313% i 4 -0.- :2->---~ i "Consultants for Wetland - EXISTING ASPHALT - DRNEWAY Determination and Delineations" 0 with the US Army Corps of u / LIMITS OF WETLANDS Engineers, Omaha District, 1 97 WEST OF BLACK CONYON CREEK AS DELINEATED BY MEM CONSULTING Denver Regulatory Office. BANKS OF BLACK 1 ji CANYON CREEK AS DEFINED BY 33CFR PART 328 The purpose of this study was to / determine if any portion of the ~/ BLACK CANYON CREEK~- - EXISTING ROCK OUTCROPP4NG site fall under the Wetland l Jurisdictional Status as defined - by the United States Army Corps - - of Engineers. Wetlands were found along the east bank of the Black Canyon Creek, as shown on this map. Wildlife Habitat Protection. 1 Wildlife Impact Assessment (see attachment). The applicant has submitted a wildlife impact assessment as part of this review. This investigation was prepared by Christopher Roe, Certified Wildlife Biologist, with Roe Ecological Services, LLC. This purpose of this assessment was to determine the potential impacts of the proposed development on wildlife "making use of the property, and the area as a whole." Specifically, the assessment looked at potential impacts to: 1) Elk and deer loafing and foraging activity. 2) Elk and deer movement across the property. 3) Elk and deer calving/fawning habitat 4) Other potential wildlife species impacts, including potential bear problems. Page #6 - Black Canyon Inn, Development Plan 09-03 The assessment offers three suggested recommendations for minimizing potential impacts: timing restrictions, fence considerations, and bear-proof trash enclosures. These have been included as suggested conditions o f approval. Review Standards. In addition to this wildlife habitat assessment, Staff has reviewed this proposal for compliance with review standards set forth in Section 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection. Review standards include buffers, non-native vegetation, exterior lighting, refuse disposal, and domestic animals. Buffers: Proposed development meets the required wetland setback, and will preserve the "pond" wetland area north of Black Canyon Drive (except for proposed Building G). Non-native vegetation: Only landscaping found on the preferred planting list, including grasses, will be planted. Exterior lighting: Exterior lighting will be subject to Section 7.9 "Exterior Lighting." Light fixtures will be reviewed by Staff prior to issuance of first building permit to ensure compliance. Refuse disposal: One new trash enclosure will be provided. This should be bear- proofed (as noted on the plan). Architectural renderings have yet to be provided, but should be subject to review and approval of Staffprior to submittal of mylars. Domestic animals: Domestic animals will be subject to animal restrictions defined in the Estes Park Municipal Code, which requires animals be kept under control of caretakers. 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. A lighting "cut sheet" will need to be submitted for Staff review prior to issuance of first building permit. Off-Street Parking and Loading. Staff has calculated parking requirements only for the proposed units. This is based on Section 7.11.A2, which states "off-street parking spaces will be required only to serve the enlarged or expanded area, not the entire building or use, provided that in all cases the number of off-street parking spaces provided for the entire use must equal at least seventy-five percent of the minimum requirements." The applicant requests a reduction in the parking requirement. The proposed "residential" use (based on density) requires 2.25 spaces per unit. The applicant has submitted a parking analysis based on the historic usage. The applicant's parking Page #7 - Black Canyon Inn, Development Plan 09-03 01 QI 4. study indicates there are currently 1.85 parking spaces available per unit. The property owner has indicated there has never been a shortage of parking, and therefore requests a parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit. For comparison, the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Traffic Generation Manual has an average parking rate of.89 for a motel with restaurant/lounge. The proposed parking plan complies with the above request. Building Required Proposed Difference H 9 9 0 J 6 5 -1 WL 12 8 -4 M/N 14 9 -5 O 5 5 0 P 5 4 -1 Q 9 5 -4 Total 60 45 -15 The development code requires 1 bike rack for every 20 parking spaces. This requires 3 bike spaces; which should be shown on the site plan. Adequate Public Facilities. No building permit shall be issued unless such public facilities and services are in plape 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 pennits are issued. Transportation. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis finds no additional off-site . improvements are required. The Town of Estes Park Public Works Department has reviewed this TIA. The property owner requested waivers to the sections El (length of dead end street) and E2 (vehicle trips per day) of Appendix D.II. The code limits cul-de-sac length to 1,000 feet where approximately 1,900 feet are proposed. The code also limits the number of vehicle trips per day to 120 trips, Where 821 are projected (per the submitted TIA). Staff suggests the- proposed secondary access would benefit The Overlook condominiums, Ridgeview c6ndominiums, and private in-holdings in the Black Canyon area. Based on this, Staff kupports granting the variances to cul-de-sac length and number of units on a dead-end street. A condition of approval should be recordation of this emergency access prior to submittal of the development plan mylars. Furthermore, a reciprocal easement through the Black Canyon property should be recorded prior to submittal of development plan mylars. Page #8 - Black Canyon Inn, Development Plan 09-03 The Town Engineer has granted these requests, as allowed per Appendix D.I.D. The waivers provide mutual emergency access between the Overlook and Black Canyon Inn, helps minimize the number of access points on MaeGregor, and minimizes disturbance of the wetlands area located along the east side of MacGregor Avenue. Electric. All electric service is to be placed underground. Final construction plans will be subject to approval of the Light and Power Department. Sanitary Sewer. New development will require extension of an 8" main. Service will be provided by the Estes Park Sanitation District. The District has noted an additional manhole will be required, the proposed main line is labeled as a 6" and needs correction, and the sewer main location north of Units 25 and 26 will need slight adjustment. Additionally, the District has requested an easement for the service line serving Ridgeview Condominiums. These have been included as suggested conditions of approval. Staff recommends the requested easement be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits. Water. This development will require a water main extension, which will require approval of construction plans. The submitted Statement of Intent suggests service lines be determined with building permit applications to determine size. However, the Water Department has noted these will need to be determined with construction plans. Drainage/Water Qualio, Management. The drainage report has been submitted to Public Works for review and approval. This drainage report calls for use of porous landscape water quality pond areas for stormwater quality; these facilities are considered a form of "best management practices" (BMP) found in the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's criteria (this is the adopted stormwater manual). All required drainage facilities shall be installed and accepted in accordance with Section 7.12.F, which allows 25% of building permits to be issued prior installation of the drainage facilities. The phasing plan shall address this requirement. Fire Protection. The submitted ISO calculations indicate adequate fire flow will be available after installation of two proposed fire hydrants (in conjunction with four existing). Per Section 7.12.G, all required fire protection requirements shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit. The phasing plan shall address this requirement. Staff suggests a condition of approval be the installation and acceptance of the secondary point of access prior to issuance of any building for additional units. Page #9 - Black Canyon Inn, Development Plan 09-03 REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Town Attorney H/hite had comments regarding signature blocks and the secondary emergency access easement. These have been included as suggested conditions of approval. Public Works. As of Tuesday June 2, Conimunity Development had not received comments from the Engineering Division of Public Works. Other comments from Light and Power/Water have been included as suggested conditions of approval. Estes Valley Recreation and Park District has requested "a public trail along the front end [of] the property along MaeGregor Avenue." Staff supports this request, which is supported by Table 4-8 "Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements Nonresidential Zoning Districts", which requires, in part, "to the maximum extent feasible, provision shall be made in the design of developments for interconnections with existing or planned... trail systems." EVRPD has noted al?reliminary plan for the Devils Gulch/Dry Gulch Trail loop in this area, and on this side of Devils Gulch Road/MaeGregor Avenue. Section 7.4 "Public Trails and Private Open Areas" requires dedicated public trails have at least a 25-foot wide land area (in this instance a trail easement) and that trails comply with design criteria set forth in any bike/trail plan adopted by the Town of Estes Park (this area is identified on Map 5.11 "Hike and Bik6 Trails Plan" in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan). 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. These issues relate to accessibility, and will be verified prior to presentation of mylars for signature by the Chair. Staff suggests any changes that may be required to the site design, such as accessible parking spaces and routes, can be approved by Staff through the minor modification process. Aby necessary changes that exceed the limits set forth in Section 3.7 will require the applicant to present changes to the Planning Commission. Neighborhood Comments. Staff has receNed one email comment from a resident of the Overlook Condominiums, as well as a two letters from the Overlook Condominium Board, who has expressed opposition to this proposed emergency access. This is in contrast to a supplemental condominium application that delineates an emergency access easement across the Overlook property. Any approval of the Black Canyon development plan should include a condition of approval that the access easement be secured. Page #10 - Black Canyon Inn, Development Plan 09-03 Staff has also received letter from the "Smedley" family, owners o f property on the west side of MacGregor Avenue, expressing opposition to the proposed units in the southwest portion o f the lot (those fronting MacGregor). 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. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 4. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making body for the development plan. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed "Black Canyon Intl" Development Plan 09-03 CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with approved development plan and architectural plans. Approval of this development plan shall supersede all previous development plan approvals. 2. The development plan shall be revised to account for the following: a. Proposed Units 1-5 (Building CD and appurtenances shall be removed from the plan. b. Submittal of a phasing plan outlining sequential utility installation (including fire hydrants and stormwater facilities) and development ofunits. c. Architectural renderings for the proposed bear-proof trash enclosure. d. Delineate number of significant trees to be removed, and include number of replacement trees. Section 7.3.D shall be used to determine replacement tree requirements. e. Include the note: Significant trees to remain shall be subject to maintenance requirements set forth in Section 7.5.J of the Estes Valley Development Code. Â£ Include the note: No construction activity shall be initiated between April 1 and July 15 of any year. 3. Compliance with the following memos/letters/emails: a. EPSD to Dave Shirk dated May 13, 2009. b. Greg Sievers to Dave Shirk dated May 8,2009. c. Greg White to Dave Shirk date April 16, 2009. d. Public Works (Tracy Feagans) to Dave Shirk dated April 24,2009. Page #11 - Black Canyon Inn, Development Plan 09-03 0 0 t e. Estes Valley Recreation and Park District to Dave Shirk dated April 21, 2009. f. Will Birchfield to DaVe Shirk dated April 27,2009. g. Corps o f Engineers to Dave Shirk dated April 14,2009. 4. Prior to issuance of a grading/building permit for new development: a. Development Agreement and form of guarantee shall be submitted. b. An emergency access easement through the Overlook condominiums shall be recorded with the Larinier County Clerk. This easement shall also provide for emergency access through the Black Canyon property to the Overlook condominiums, and shall be subject to review and approval of Town Staff prior to recordation. c. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department, EPSD, and the EVRPD. d. The "sheep fence" as noted on page 5 of the wildlife impact assessment shall be removed. 5. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a 25-foot wide public trail access easement shall be dedicated, and shall be subject to review and approval of Town Staff pridr to recordation. The applicant should account for this in their development schedule, as dedication of the trail easement will require Town Board action. : SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of Development Plan 09-03 "Black Canyon Inn" with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Attachments: -Wetlands Report -Wildlife Impact Assessment Page #12 - Black Canyon Inn, Development Plan 09-03 -795 U.-VLB-JLA1ULPLJL14 - LillaN ,-1113 1~ P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3582, szurn@estes.org Memo TO: Dave Shirk, Planner 11 From: Scott A. Zurn P.E. Director of Public Works Date: June 2,2009 Re: The Lodge at Black Canyon Inn Condo Master Plan, 800 MacGregor After reviewing the Lodge at Black Canvon Inn Condo Master Plan for the above referenced submittal, the Public Works Department has the following comments: Engineering: 1. Infrastructure: The Public Works Dept. requires per the development code a Concrete Trail detached, and made of concrete to be constructed within the limits of the property along MacGregor Ave. These improvements will need to be included in construction plans to be reviewed and approved prior to any building permits. In addition the sidewalk along the private roadway shall be 5 feet in width along the south side of the private roadway. Public Works supports the variance to eliminate the sidewalk requirement on the north side of the private drive. Submit actual construction drawings for both public and private roadway, drainage and utility improvements. These drawings will need to be reviewed and approved from Public Works and Utility departments prior to any work commencing or building permits issuance. 2. Easements: The Public Works Dept. would require that an access easement from the parking lot of units 30, 31 and 32 be extended to the southern property line for the purpose of emergency access between properties and utility maintenance. The surface of this access shall be 14 feet wide with 6 inches of road base materials. Security of this access shall be in conformance with emergency services of the Town. In addition a similar requirement and easement shall be required for access near unit 28 to be extended to the southern property line. /7 /7-7- ./ 4Â· lirtink=.Al,1.1//AA dthM#Willon -er/!ULÂ· 4 EMVEIms' Estes Park Sanitation District PO Box 722, Estes Park, CO 80517 May 13, 2009 Dave Shirk, Planner 11 Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517-1200 RE: Black Canyon Inn Master Plan Attention: Dave Shirk As per review of the Master Plan for the Black Canyon Inn Condominiums the directors have the following comments: 1. The proposed location of the main line will need to be adjusted t6 provide adequate separation from Units 26 and 27 for a District easement associated with ownership and operation. The District's standard easement is 20 feet in width. Moving the line north may provide sufficient separation. 2. Likely an additional manhole will be needed in this same area due to grade considera- tions. A plan and profile of the line will be necessary to determine requirements. 3. There have been problems with the service line owned by the Ridgeview Condomi- niums. The present location of the line is shown on the plan. The District would prefer to see an easement for their service line be provided from the final proposed manhole on the project to their property. The location can best be determined with District staff and Cornerstone. The replacement of their service line is not a requirement of the Black i Canyon Development. Ridgeview Condominiums will be contacted by the District to discuss possible solutions for the replacement. 4. The engineefs cost estimate sheet references the sewer main as 6" PVC. This needs to be corrected to 8" PVC. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this plan. If you have any questions, please call me at (970) 586-2866. . Sincerely, r-t- Â£4 PA James Duell District Manager Office: 1201 Graves Avenue 970.586.2866 / Plant: 610 Big Thompson Ave 970.586.3516 Fax: 970.586.4712 ( ( Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: James Duell @depsd@qwestoffice.net] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 11:58 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Re: Black Canyon Inn Master Plan Comments Hello Dave - you are right - my notes from the meeting were incorrect. The units are 25 and 26. Thanks - James Duell ----- Original Message --- From: Dave Shirk To: James Duell Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:44 AM Subject: RE: Black Canyon Inn Master Plan Comments Jim- I wonder if you have the correct units numbers referenced in comment 1. Could you check that please? Also, this has been continued for a month to resolve site design issues. We'll keep you posted. -dave From: James Duell [mailto:jldepsd@qwestoffice.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:30 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: RE: Black Canyon Inn Master Plan Comments Hello Dave - attached are the comments from my directors at our meeting yesterday. If you have any questions contact me. I am also sending a copy of this to Jes Reetz at Cornerstone. James Duell Estes Park Sanitation District 5/15/2009 ' C Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Greg Sievers Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:41 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Black Canyon Upon preliminary review, PW has a couple concerns- . P 1. Construct concrete trail along Devils Gulch/MacGregor Ave. - this is within the Trail Master Plan area. 2. An Emergency Access easement to the south (at top of hill) is vital for safety. Greg Slevers, 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 i Ch~t~1-.,-///- Estes Park Sanitation District PO Box 722, Estes Park, CO 80517 April 20,2009 Dave Shirk Town of Estes Park Fax Number: 970.586.0249 RE: Black Canyon Inn Master Plan Attention: Dave Shirk The District will not be able to meet the April 24,2009 comment request period. A review by our Board of Director on May 12,2009 will be necessary. Comments will be submitted the following day. Preliminary questions will be discussed with Jim Sloan and Jes Reetz prior to our board meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at 586-2866. Fax 586-4712. Sincerely, James Duell District Manager c. Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering Office: 1201 Graves Avenue 970.586.2866 / Plant: 610 Big Thompson Ave 970.586.3516 Fax: 970.586.4712 .t.. GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29 970/667-5310 th Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 April 16, 2009 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Development Plan 09-03 - Black Canyon Inn Condominiums Master Plan Dear Mr. Shirk: I have the following comments: 1. Sheet No. 1 contains an owner and lienholder statement. This should be modified to just an owner statement as there are no property dedications in this Development Plan. 2. Sheet No. 5 indicates a proposed 24 inch emergency access easement from the property to Overlook Court. This emergency access easement is labeled "proposed". If this is not a dedicated access easement, this will need to be dedicated by a separate document by the property owliers of Overlook Condominiums. If you have any questions, pleas~o not hesitate to give me a call. yery~ful~Â¥ours, / \/cu. Lyâ‚¬Ii> ~ St-t~~j k.9Akt GAW/ldr cc: Cornerstone Enginee ing, J es RÂ¢tz 1 Fax: 970/586-245~ U - r L 1101 . ~.-44-*Â·Â·K.~ 9~~a ESTES Wk:l Â® PARK WZIniFiEd/MIEF//B,imijjk/MOF/hot; 141/'9 COLORADO Room 100, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Memo TO: Dave Shirk, Bob Goehring, and Scott Zum From: Tracy Feagans Date: April 24,2009 Re: Black Canyon Inn Condos Master Plan, 800 MacGregor Ave 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 a Development Plan #09-03 for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1) Developer to install all trenches & conduits, all materials, truck hours and mileage will be purchased from & installed by Town of Estes Park. 2) No building permits will be approved by Light & Power until the entire electric infrastructure has been paid for and installed. 3) We will in the future need accurate As-Builts in electronic, Mylar, and paper versions. 4) The submitted plan needs to show all existing utilities, type, and location. 5) Easements also need to accompany all existing primary electric lines and any secondary electric on others property. 6) The vacation of an easement is allowable if it is presently vacant with no chance of being occupied in the future. 7) Any relocation or upgrade of existing facilities will be accomplished at the project owners request and expense. â€¢ Page 1 <h 8) Each and every meter isocket will need to be permanently mafRed with the specific address and or unit number prior to hook-up by the utility. 9) All primary electric must be buried 4' deep in a 6" gray electrical conduit with warning tape at 2'. All secondary must be butied 2' deep with warning tape at l' in the appropriately sized gray electrical conduit for the conductor. 10) The engineer's estimated cost of U. G. electrical infra-structure is an estimate only. We will need to meet with the developer and the engineer to determine exact cost and location of proposed facilities. Contact Line Superintendent Todd Steichen at 970-577-3601. 11) Submit plans from the project electrical engineer for Town review and impproval. 12) 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 Development Plan 09-03 the Water Department has the following comments: 1) Some of the existing water line sizes are different than shown on the drawings. If the fire protection volumes were based on these sizes a hydraulic analysis will be necessary to determine if the current line capacities will support the additional proposed demands. 2) Construction drawings are required for the project. Drawings must be approved and signed by the Utilities Director or designated representative prior to anv construction. All water line design and construction shall be done according to the Water Utility Policies and Standards. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. Construction drawings must include: â€¢ Plan and profile to show potential conflicts between water and other utilities including culverts, show Utility Easement locations when utility is not in Road Right of Way. â€¢ Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) indicating tap locations, meter sizing, meter locations, and addresses served by each. â€¢ Service line sizing will be determined by the number of units served. 3) If the structure is required to have a Fire Suppression System a 'Fire Sprinkler System Connection Application' must be completed and submitted to the Water Department before any connection is granted. This application must include a detailed drawing noting: â€¢ Location, sizing and type of backflow prevention device(s) â€¢ Engineered flow requirements for the fire sprinkler system â€¢ Spill control method for proper disposal of discharge from the relief valve, indicating location and sizing of drainage capable of accommodating the discharge that could occur Due to fire line size both a chlorination and pressure test will be required, conducted by a representative of the Water Department prior to acceptance. Any Fire suppression line servicing a building from the water main is a private service line and must be noted as such on the â€¢ Page 2 Development Plan and the SODdivision Plat. Future repair or maintenance required on this service is the sole responsibility of the building owner. 4) For verification all properties must show proof of inclusion in the Northern Colorado Water Conseivancy District. Engineering: Forthcoming â€¢ Page 3 cf-- Page l of l Dave Shirk From: Todd Steichen Sent: Monday, April 27,2009 3:32 PM To: Alison Chilcott; Dave Shirk CC: Mike Mangelsen; Jeff Boles; Cliff Tedder Subject: The Lodges at Black Canyon Just FYI, I have gone over the preliminary utility plans with Cornerstone. They are going to make several changes on the electric and get a revised set of Utility plans to us. Then I will be able to price the Light & Power portion of new infrastructure for them. Todd J. Steichen Town of Estes Park Line Superintendent (970) 577-3601 (970) 577-3762 (fax) tsteichen@estes.org 4/28/2009 C C V .it"L'. 7132,-2..O,/9/ K'k:XA,4 ESTES VALLEY RECREATION and PARK DISTRICT April 21, 2009 Dave Shirk, Planner II Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: Black Canyon Inn Condominiums Master Plan Thank you for allowing us to comment on the Black Canyon Inn Condominiums Master Plan. It would be our recommendation to place a public trail along the front end the property along MacGregor Avenue. The Estes Valley Trails Committee has prepared a preliminary plan for the Devils Gulch/Dry Gulch Trail loop from Wonderview Avenue to Highway 34. In the plan, the proposed Devils Gulch Trail is to be on the east side of MacGregor Avenue along the front of this property. Please consider our request as an addition to the plan. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Stanley C. Gengler U CC: Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying Attention: Jes Reetz P.O. Box 1379, 690 Big Thompson Avenue email: evrpd@aol.com 970.586.8191 Estes Park, CO 80517 www.estesvalleyrecreation.com Fax: 970.586.8193 6% C MEMORANDIJM To: Dave Shirk, Planner II From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official I)ate: April 27,2009 Subject: Black Canyon Inn Condominiums Master Plan Portion of Myers Addition 800 MacGregor Avenue 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. Thedesigner shall specify the CRS Implementation plan asrequired by9-5-106 foraccessible 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. 1Â»0*,VÂ»Â»4#,4*2:Â·44~524*Â·fk*88 DEPARTMENT OF THE Alt-MY CORPS OF ENGrNEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BOULEVARD LITTLETON, COLORADO 80128-6901 April 14, 2009 Ms. Dave Shirk Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Black Canyon Inn Condominiums Master Plan Corps File No. 200380708 Dear Mr. Shirk: Reference is made to the above-mentioned project located in Section 24, T5N, R73W, Larimer County, Colorado. If any work associated with this project requires the placement of dredged or fill material, and any excavation associated with a dredged or fill project, either temporary or permanent, in an aquatic site, which may include ephemeral and perennial streams, wetlands, lakes, ponds, drainage ditches and irrigation ditches, this office should be notified by a proponent of the project for Department of the Army permits, changes in permit requirements or jurisdictional determinations pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Work in an aquatic site should be identified by the proponent of the project and be shown on a map identifying the Quarter Section, Township, Range and County or Latitude and Longitude, Decimal Degrees (datum NAD 83) and the dimensions of work in each aquatic site. Any loss of an aquatic site may require mitigation. Mitigation requirements will be determined during the Department of the Army permitting review. If there are any questions, please call Mr. Terry McKee at 303-979-4120 and reference Corps File No. 200380708. Timâ‚¬hy T. C*y ChieÂ©Benxer~gulatort, OfficA tm CF: Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying Jes Reetz 1692 Big Thompson Avenue, Suite 200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Message / ArÂ·- Page l of 2 Dave Shirk From: Smith 111, James L. [james.smith@troutmansanders.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07,2009 7:45 AM To: Dave Shirk CC: 'Greg Holthoff; 'Mark Holthoff; 'Ellen S. Smith (ellensmedley@yahoo.com)' Subject: RE: Black Canyon Inn Application Apparently it is lost in cyberspace! I was writing on behalf of my Mother, Ellen Smedley Smith, who owns the cabin at 140 Evergreen Lane, directly across Macgregor Road from the entrance to the Black Canyon Inn.. This property has been in the Smedley family for over 90 years, and we still enjoy coming to Estes Park every summer to get close to nature and relive our family heritage. We particularly enjoy the view of Turtle Rock across Macgregor Road from the cabin, and watching the elk grazing along Black Canyon Creek and crossing to road to our property. We strongly object to the proposed building of a multi-story building right in front of Turtle Rock, which will impair our view of this landmark and interfere with elk and other wildlife that we have enjoyed for many years. The increased density of the proposed development and the traffic it will cause are also of concern to us. Please let me know if there is any other information we can provide in this regard. My niphews, Greg and Mark Holthoff have emailed Bob Joseph, and I agree with the points made by each of them. Thank you for considering our family's views on this important question. Jim Smith -----Original Me~sage---- From: Dave Shirk [mailto:dshirk@estes.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 6: 18 PM To: Smith III, James L. Subject: RE: Black Canyon Inn Application Mr. Smith- , We did not receive that email. Could you please forward it to this email, and I will make sure it is presented to the Planning Commission. Thank you. David W. Shirk, AICP Planner, Estes Park Community Development PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3729 From: Bob Joseph Sent: Wednesday, May 06,2009 3:35 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: FW: Black Canyon Inn Application From: Smith III, James L. [mailto:james.smith@troutmansanders.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 06,2009 3:05 PM To: Bob Joseph Subject: Black Canyon Inn Application 5/7/2009 Message r r Page 2 of 2 i < I submitted an objection to the estesnet.com website on behalf of my mother, Ellen Smedley smith who owns the cabin at 140 Evergreen Lane. Please let me know if you are able to access that email. Jim Smith 5/7/2009 0 0 Page 1 of 3 Dave Shirk From: Bob Joseph Sent: Thursday, May Of, 2009 9:32 AM TO: Dave Shirk; Karen Thompson Subject: FW: Black Canyon Inn proposed expansion From: Mark Holthoff [mailto:holthoff@speakeasy.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:43 PM To: Bob Joseph Subject: Re: Black Canyon Inn proposed expansion Dear Mr. Joseph, I would like to echo my brother's comments (below) and also to add a personal note. I've been visiting the Smedley property on Evergreen nearly every summer since I was 6 years old. I'm now 39 and still look forward to returning each year, now with my own 9 year old daughter. I like to think that she'll be able to do the same with her children someday. One of the main reasons that we keep coming back, year after year, generation after generation, is because of the lasting beauty, tranquility and of course history of the area. Ifs simply wonderful to be a part of a place that has remained, for the most part, simple and natural over the last 100 years. While I recognize the need for the town to modernize and expand its tax base, I ask you to consider also, as my brother noted, the unspoiled character o f this particular part o f Estes Park -- located so near to historic MacGregor Ranch and of course Rocky Mountain National Park -- for this is the very thing that keeps generations coming back year after year. The members of the Smedley family have taken great pride in holding up our end of that bargain over the years, keeping our property as original as possible, to the point of preserving even the cast iron stove in the kitchen that was originally fired with wood. I ask that you please also keep this same commitment to preservation, history and nature in mind as you consider the expansions proposed by the Black Canyon Inn. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Mark Holthoff 1403 Idaho Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 On May 6, 2009, at 8:16 PM, Greg Holthoff wrote: From: greg holthoff@hotmail.com To: bjoseph@estes.org; greg holthoff@hotmail.com Subject: Black Canyon Inn proposed expansion Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 20:11:33 -0700 5/7/2009 Page 2 of 3 Dear Bob: I belong to the Smedley family, who've had a presence in Estes Park since around 1900. My great grandfather, Dr. Clyde Smedley, purchased his property on lower Evergreen Avenue fro m Clara MacGregor. The Smedleys built a small office for dentistry and an adjacent cabin for the family to live in during summer months. These structures are still standing across from the entrance to Black Canyon Inn, and are used frequently by the extended Smedley family. So the Smedleys have been a good friend to Estes Park, and we love the place. The character of MacGregor Ave. in this location still has a rural, undeveloped feel. Turtle Rock, a famous landmark, is prominent. We would like to maintain this character and the visual quality of the area. I have reviewed the proposed building application for Black Canyon Inn. Of primary concern to the Smedley family are the actions proposed on Plan Sheet 2, which appears to be a proposed multi-storied Building G and an associated parking structure. The application says that this structure is a replacement from a previously approved development plan. The fact of the matter is that construction of this structure (Building G and associated parking structure) would permanently alter the local view of Turtle Rock from the Smedley property as well as several other residences which long preceded the Black Canyon Inn as taxpayers to the City of Estes Park. If not eliminating it entirely, surely there is an alternative to placing that structure where it is proposed. We are strongly opposed to any development proposal that would further mar the historic view of Turtle Rock or further impinge upon Black Canyon Creek. We are also opposed to any further night lighting in the area - the night-lit Black Canyon Inn sign is already too much. Please preserve the few remaining historic landscapes within Estes Park. Thank you for your consideration, M. Greg Holthoff Environmental Planner 2040 Laurel Ave. NE 5/7/2009 p~ - Page 3 of 3 Salem, Oregon 97301 (503) 559-7692 Insert movie times and more without leaving HotmailÂ®. See how. Windows LiveTM : Keep your life in sync. Check it out. 5/7/2009 ( 0/ MR. a MRS. JAMES L. SMITH, Jil. 824 PARK AVENUE FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 F)11 -j_' ll ' 2 00 1 U r C. cr V-1~4 1,~1.1 U ~.,t ity D.2- u e I O P Al e W-t LD e. Fce â€¢C~Me .7-1 Tb Â·-- 'a DA E .2 1 â‚¬ 5 7, CD : Be ~ 1 2.00 E b 1. e s p. p k , CO 8 0 5- 1 7 (9 - h 12 V -3 y.,Lu-Â· 0)jut:- 0\- f A- 7 1 -Ch- F/Ila-~Al o--12 Al/t 4 , '1 [/ at,~L ~ . 1 4 1, 4 0-Â«02 q. a 0-/ CLC c--4-Â£-4 04.,a-+~ ./60-*42; O-4. .91 - ,Â·-r ta-z.La - + 2-6/L-â‚¬. _.~.32. C..te a-Â·-4. & c. Ov- el iÂ»+-,-.Â«uj -. 7-, cm-~-44~ 4 liu_ Nal-1 1.4 7 a.-t...4.-Le./L .07 --4 7 L t- 13 )4 1 1 9 , & 01/L -A AA_ 0 Â¢ ea *JL a vÂ·f '.tio2 cliÂ£L h' OLÂ·-0 CX_ 62 7 9 A 1,*-1 Aviz1 /0 --c,L/M/1 /1/2/1- A.,d *.3.aialt 2 ~ O.'../LÂ« 0-L Q CK_~_..~ .1-~-~ A 52 ..{f (*Â·--,9 - ?1 ' . P ~~ GL.G.j ,-tÂ·,1...t- 1-IL, - CL V 136 CyL.Qv 'L B 4 Mlitew-*<-00."'. -~~,4* ~_..11 ~~LI,Â·t,_ C~Zf *~~, Cf- -Â»4'L- Ql~k L- vd '' t./.U L.ba yl . rÂ» 7.29 -0 L+61.--.4.... Â»t.~/1 j Â»~~~61---,j -1 (- l. " L Â£_[.t #Lt. a-,~. Q/1/l cl A . 3-17 ' b .l y /60- 201 4 1-~ 1 ~3_ 1) lA-E 0*-1- 0 Lf. 0-,F~9 G. .3 041.,1 Â£64&* O,Â·'ul- C)~ 4/1/l F~ oult L 424 /04- Â» V 94 -1s-1 0~12--4 Cyl , - Â¢ .. - "-\ C I ... F.'1Â« e-'e Le /14.1 /lfi} f~~12-11-2009 /f)// 10 0 0[mom ru-me mio 0 01 -4 0 &6 0 Lm,01(11 1 lim - mo,mA Â°AOL !2~:PoinioniN#lir'miriio Â¤ 01 u FF-I.,U- liuM.,uâ€ž u u u~~I 74 00.6006'De,do,-t Lt=zul P. O. Box 2807 Estes Park, CO 80517 May 5,2009 Estes Valley Planning Commission c/o Town of Estes Park Community Development Department PO Box 1200 Estes Park, Co 80517 REFERENCE: Black Canyon Inn Condominium Master Plan Development Plan 09-03,800 MacGregor Avenue To the Commission, I am writing to the Commission on behalf of The Overlook Condominium Association, Inc. regarding Mr. Sloan's plans for a proposed easement from the Black Canyon Condominiums through the Overlook. Our Association met at their annual meeting at the Stanley Hotel Saturday, April 25,2009 and reviewed the proposal. Most owners had previously received notice but some new owners were not aware of the proposed project and the potential impact on the Overlook. The matter of our granting an easement through the Overlook for emergency ingress and egress for the Black Canyon development was discussed at length. As a group we could not see any benefit to the Overlook and are very concerned about increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic and the resultant loss of privacy for the owners. For the record, please note that the consensus reached is that we are opposed to granting an easement through the Overlook. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, *20-4 D / Tamara H. Scace President Overlook Condominium Association, Inc. t ( Am ..Â»1.\ 8**p< 159 /Rht 0 0 01 mi E_[8111$_1 0 0 01 LO la O L [I,8 0.=OA 1%*94WMQ#Im'IWEQ@99934 76 0,0,606 Da,d....0 P. O. Box 2807 Estes Park, CO 80517 May 5,2009 Jim Sloan Black Canyon Inn 800 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Mr. Sloan, The Overlook Homeowners Association met at their annual meeting at the Stanley Hotel on Saturday, April 25th. The matter of our granting an easement through the Overlook for emergency ingress and egress for the Black Canyon development was discussed. The Association reached consensus that the HOA would not approve any such easement. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, -1014 -Â»- Tamara Scace President Overlook Condominium Association, Inc. Cc: David Shirk, Planner 11 Bob Joseph, Community Development Director r, Page lof 1 2. Davd Shirk From: Jim & Pat Ardis Oimpat@ardisnet.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:11 AM To: Dave Shirk CC: Greg and Sue Millikan; daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net Subject: Black Canyon Inn Condominiums Master Plan Dear Mr. Shirk, As the owner of Unit 326 in the Overlook Development, I am opposed to any easement or other impingement on our property rights. This proposed use of our private roads would be an undesirable beginning of the loss of privacy in our community and potentially would reduce the value of our property. Patty K. Ardis 326 Overlook Court 5/11/2009 Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Dave Prawdzik [2twins@srv.net] Sent: Monday, April 27,2009 5:09 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Black Canyon In Condominiums master plan, 09-03 My name is David Prawdzik, I own one of the Overlook Condominiums. This proposal requires an emergency easement through the Overlook Condominiums and states that it would be beneficial to both Condominium residences. I am absolutely against this easement and disagree that it is beneficial to the Overlook. We, as owners of an established and approved development, do not want or need access to or from Black Canyon. In addition, our property access is partially through the Stanley Hotel property and I doubt that the Stanley Hotel is in favor of this egress through their property. Sincerely, David Prawdzik Overlook 420 4/28/2009 CORNE?STONE Estes Park, CO 80517 1692 Big Thompson - Suite 200 Phone: (970) 586-2458 Fax: (970) 506-2459 ENGINEERING & C ~1 ~ - SURVEYING. INC June 09,2009 Mr. Bob Joseph Community Development Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park , Co. 80517 2 Letter of Intent for the "Black Canyon Inn Condominiums Master Development Plan Dear Mr. Joseph: On behalf of our client, Jim Sloan of Sloan Investments, LLC we are pleased to submit the Master Development Plan for the Black Canyon Inn. Owners/Lien Holders The property is currently owned by Sloan Investments, LLC, Jim Sloan is the manager/applicant, Bank of Colorado of Estes Park is the lien holder. Existing Conditions Currently the Black Canyon Inn property consists of 27 residential condominium units, 10 of which were just currently constructed and finalized in 2007. A restaurant, The Twin Owls Steakhouse, is also located on the Black Canyon Inn Property. Currently maintenance of the roadway and other items is provided by the Black Canyon Inn Condominium Association. Current & Adiacent Zoning The current zoning of the Black Canyon Inn is A- Accommodations. Saint Bartholomews Addition to the northwest is zoned RM- Multi Family along with a portion of the Mac Gregor Ranch bordering the northern property line of the c subject property. Mac Gregor Ranch also has a zoning of RE- Rural Estate bordering the north. Black Canyon Hills borders the east and has a zoning of E-1 Estate. Ridgeview Condominiums is located in the southeastern portion of the property and has a zoning of RM- Multi Family. The Overlook Condominiums, Lot 1 Stanley Historic District, Leonard Property and Black Canyon Chalets Condominiums all border the south and have a zoning of A- Accommodations. The final property to border the subject property is the Rock Acres Condominiums, to the southwest, with a zoning of RM- ilti Family. Setbacks tbacks are typically 25-feet from the property line except for where the property borders an adjacent property zoned A- ..ccommodations which the setback would be reduced to 15-feet. There is a 15-foot setback from the access easement that encompasses the existing driveway. 50-foot setbacks from the wetlands have been established and maintained. Proiect Description This plan will approve the addition of 32 condominium units. These units will consist ofboth new construction and renovation/remodel of existing units. A total of seven buildings will be constructed that will house 27 units. The remaining 6 units will be added through the renovation/remodel of two existing buildings. Buildings 'A' thru 'F' have been finalized with previous condominium maps, therefore our building identification will begin at Building 'G' Building G - Units 1 thru 5 These units have been removed from the proposed development plan. Building H - Units 6 thru 9 This structure will be a remodel/replacement of the existing office and conference building. This building will mainly encompass the original footprint but will protrude to the north from the original footprint slightly. Parking for this building will be provided by existing stalls and two added parallel stalls from the upper lot. Utilities are already provided and have been upgraded with the recent construction of Building F. Building I - Units 10 and 11 These units will be created from an existing structure that is currently used for employee housing. This existing structure will be remodeled and condominimized with a supplemental map. Building J - Units 12 and 13 This structure will replace the existing office and supply additional employee housing. The building will also house commercial laundry available to owners/tenants. Parking for this building will be supplied by a lot located directly off the private drive. The central location would improve the current situation with traffic flows proceeding through the restaurant parking and better accommodate tenant services. The building will be two- story with the office/laundry being on the main floor and employee housing on the upper floor. Building K - Units 14 thru 16 This building is one of three triplexes that will be constructed as part of this development plan. The building will be located adjacent to existing rock outcroppings with the parldng located above the same rocks. Building L - Units 17 and 18 This building will be situated on a rock outcropping with views overlooking MacGregor Ranch and Longs Peak. Parking will be available in the lot for building 'K'. A walkway will provide access to the unit from the parking lot. Building M - Units 19 thru 21 This building is the second of the three triplexes. The building will be located adjacent to existing rock outcropping with the parking located being the same as with Building 'N'. Building N - Units 22 thru 24 This building is the third ofthe three triplexes. The building will be located adjacent to the main access with parking shared with Building 'M'. Building O - Units 25 thru 26 This is a duplex structure located adjacent to rock outcroppings and significant tree stands. An existing structure currently resides in this location but will be removed during construction. Building P - Units 27 thru 28 This is an additional duplex structure with garage access located on the east side. The building has been designed to fit within the tight constraints of the building setbacks from the access easement and Ridgeview Condominiums. Building O - Units 29 thru 32 This building will consist of 4 units and be situated within the "saddle" between Black Canyon Inn and the Overlook Condominiums. Parking will be situated to the east and an "emergency access will be provided beyond the parking to connect to The Overlook Condominiums. Site Statistics Several areas have been netted out of the Gross land area, these items include Land within Floodplains, Wetlands and land falling within the existing access easement. Site statistics for the Black Canyon Inn are as follows: LAND AREA CALCULATIONS Gross Land Area 628,006 sf 14.417& Acres Less 80% of Land Area in Floodplain/Wetlands (61,537 * .80) -49,230 sf Less Land located within Access Easement -46,897 sf Less Black Canyon Chalets Property -7,850 sf NET LAND AREA 524,029 sf 12.030Â£ Acres EXISTING LAND USE COVERAGE % LOT Existing Buildings 31,212 sf 5.96% Existing Asphalt 77,861 sf 14.86% Existing Sidewalk 4,919 sf 0.94% btotal (Pre-Developed Impervious Coverage) 113,992 sf 21.75% PROPOSED LAND USE Buildings 52,327 sf 9.84% Drives/Driveways 112,621 sf 21.17% Sidewalks/Entryways 18,845 sf 3.54% TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 183,793 sf 34.55% TOTAL IMPERVOUS COVERAGE ALLOWED 50% OPEN SPACE 348,086 sf 65.45% As the statistics show, this development will minimally increase the impervious coverage by 12.80%. The Open Space will be preserved and maintained. Allowable Density is is a continuation of a previous development plan that had been approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission .it the vested rights of that plan had expired. The previous development plan proposed a total of 60 units to be constructed with the condominium declaration allowing a total of 77 units. Our submitted plan is proposing a total of 54 units. The density calculations are as follows: PROPOSED DENSITY (UNITS/SF): Multi-Family Units 47 @ 5400 sf (+1200sf) 310,200 sf 2-Family Dwelling 6 @ 6750 sf (+1200sf) 47,700 sf Single Family Units 1 @ 9000 sf (+1200sf) 10,200 sf PROPOSED NET DENSITY TOTAL 368,100 sf TOTAL DEVELOPABLE LAND AREA 531,879 sf Currently the property would be allowed to have a total of 80 multi-family units under the A-Accommodations Zoning. With the proposed submittal the maximum density is not being achieved with care taken in the placement of buildings and existing property constraints. The density of our submitted master plan would be 9850 square feet per unit. Sign A sign currently exists at the Black Canyon Inn entrance from Mac Gregor Avenue. There are no proposed changes to the sign, the existing sign shall remain. Parking A parking analysis has been performed on the Black Canyon Inn Condominiums. The purpose of this analysis was to termine the amount of parking actually used by the owners and tenants. With the majority of units being short term ntals, the usual parking calculation of 2.25 spaces/units causes excess ofparking that is not used or needed. Currently the Black Canyon Inn has a total of 27 units. Six (6) units are owner occupied with the remaining 21 units used as rental properties. The property currently has 50 parking spaces available for those units which would allow 1.85 spaces per unit. Based on the 10 years of operation as a rental property, the owner has never noticed a shortage of parking. In fact, the owner has expressed his concern of constructing parking spaces that would never be needed or used and impact the property more than needed. Based on the observations of the owner and the nature of the rental property that we are requesting a decrease in the number of required parking spaces from 2.25 spaces/units to 1.5 spaces/unit. Access Access to the site is offMac Gregor Ave. which borders the property on the West. This access is proposed to be relocated to improve the entrance from Mac Gregor Avenue. The proposed entrance will not be skewed as is the existing entrance and be at a right angle to Mac Gregor Ave. In addition the relocated entrance will be of a closer proximity the Evergreen Lane thereby improving the safety of both intersections. We are proposing to widen the existing driveway to have a nominal width of 22' with concrete curb and gutter on both sides. To help accommodate the amount of traffic generated but the proposed addition in the case of an emergency we are proposing the addition of an "Emergency Access Easement" for ingress and egress through The Overlook Condominiums. This easement will benefit both properties in the case of an emergency. The easement will be granted with a supplemental map of the Overlook Condominiums that has currently been submitted to the Town of Estes PArk Planning Department. tilities Water Town of Estes Park The main will be extended up the drive to service a proposed fire hydrant and units up the hill. All units are to be metered individually. A portion of existing water line adjacent to units 29-32 will need to be relocated due to cuts required for the proposed driveway. Water service sizes will be determined at the building permit phase in order to determine sizing for sprinklered structures. Sanitary Sewer Estes Park Sanitation District The proposed sewer main is to be extended with a proposed 8" main. All services are to end in a manhole. Electric Town of Estes Park The electric main is to be looped to extend from the previously installed junction box and connect to the Overlook feed. No air conditioning~ is proposed for the units and they are to be metered individually. Gas Excel Energy The main will be extended to service the proposed units. Telephone Owest Communications Telephone service will run with electric while maintaining mandated separation from utilities. All utility extensions will be installed per current regulations and construction drawings will be provided before utility installation. [ildina Heights e building height will be within the limits set forth in the revised height measurement provision of the EVDC. ISO Calculations Calculations have been performed and included with the submittal for review. This proposal meets the required fire flow with the addition of the located fire hydrants. Landscaping Landscaping calculations have been performed and included with the submittal. With the amount of existing trees located on the subject property, it is our assessment that proposed landscaping is not required but shall be installed by the owner at his discretion. District buffer landscaping shall be installed along the boundaries of Black Canyon Hills and Ridge view Condominiums. Based on the wildlife assessment and previous projects, it has been brought to our attention that if the required landscaping where to be installed, it would impede wildlife traffic and make it more difficult for wildlife to reach their destination having to negotiate the required fencing to protect the installed landscaping. Shrubs and trees will be planted in an aesthetic manor consistent with current landscaping. A landscaping sheet has been provided to show the general landscaping proposed around the structures but can vary from building to building. Drainaize Report A drainage report has been written and included with the submittal. Wetland Studv A wetland study has been performed and included with the submittal for the areas adjacent to Black Canyon Creek. These areas have been delineated on our Development Master Plan and setbacks established and maintained based from the report. ildlife Impact Study A professional consultant has been selected and selected to prepare the required Wildlife Impact Study. This report has been included with the submittal. Traffic Impact Analysis i analysis has been performed to determine the affects o f the proposed development at full build-out. The findings of ...e report do not warrant any modifications to Mac Gregor/Wonderview intersection or the proposed entrance to Black Canyon Inn. Phasing This project is scheduled to begin immediately once approval is attained. Phase 1 will consist of constructing the new office/employee housing with a projected completion in Fall of 2009. Once the new office is constructed the renovation of the old office will be Phase 2 which would begin in Spring of 2010 with a completion of Summer of 2010. The five- unit structure adjacent to Black Canyon Creek would begin Fall of 2010 with a completion of Spring 2011. The project has a projected build-out of ten years. Variance Requests Every effort has been made to meet or exceed the standards as set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code but certain requirements could not be attained. Therefore we are requesting a variance to the items listed: EVDC Appendix-D,II.El Number of Vehicle Trips Per Day, this section of the code limits the amount of vehicle trips per day at 120. Are development exceeds this limits, but an emergency access easement for ingress and egress is being proposed to facilitate traffic in the case of an emergency. EVDC Appendix-D, III.B.8.b.(11, this section states that to the maximum exent feasible, driveways must be spaced at least 150 feet from the edge of any other driveway. The uniqueness of the site has determined where proposed driveways connect, though we have made every effort to maintain separation or line up proposed driveways, our plan may deviate from this section of the code. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, 0*4\4 As Reetz Planner 42: I Â·Â· ~ 0 -Â· ,â€¢ z 1/, .- - . .C' a. d ; : S t Â«- I. - ; J 7 . 3% - . : 4>..-tâ€¢9 b > ..,~43' LÂ·r .3~4.4 .Â· ~9Â· gAN[p.0-[SE-0,%0(â‚¬ 0 '+ â‚¬4 C. 4 : E- ' ' 0,1' Â¥ r., 24 F<' .- 6 82 44 '1 1,1 : - : - T -v If 1 - â‚¬'L , L.- -0 + 4 .. - . 0 - 4. 4 -- Â·Al 234#[VOPL r e 111 - MAR.1 2,5240094- 1 -1 -l .., 14 - . U . 11,1 /2 ,nc r I . -, 1 â‚¬ r a . -4 - t . - - Magh 24, -2009Â» . 7, --- '. 4 - 'IM Town of Estes Park i.~ Community Development Department' Â· p Estes,Park CO 80547 I purchased tlie Black'Canyon Inn property on MacGregon Avenue at the end of 1992. The property hall beenÂ·converted fromaprivate residence intora dude ranch/restaurant and lodge pfoperty in the 619 17*!3.XtÂ·the time I purchased the pfoperty, the restaurant had been clqs&1â€¢fonilfilos42 yeakand,tlie 26 cabin units were rented month to month as; essentiattlbw income hoUsing. JA?e property wasigenerating ng salesjax:for the c-Qy.:~ ~BjUJuile'of 19$36.!had'fâ‚¬6@Red tifdrpstaurant and readied the . : cabins:@OheÂ·iu;miher season. DÂ®nit~*~rst sunimer.- ?epson,â‚¬~wi,/9 able to generate about.$13,5%44:419Â»71-1 1-'#4-,- i.4- :4/'.2 '~: ~,AAÂ·the' cabihs:hAd,tieeli'relocRted,Â»thdpropeityffrUm. St&@lfs..Ralichein~the + : /0,Â£ V =lit $ .~ . . *09 4 y Nati(inal.Parktand tlie'suppijftiii* JUtilities'lilid bebn ihs~lied'tor summerlose,neal<lys30 + . A. t . years prahous, ip-1994*began'to:plan'theedevelÂ®ment ofthe,ptope in order to re- establiAh the Blabk'{:hd,ydhinnks-*anIatÂ¢Uct~*and)~eErar66nd>46rt Â·~Linition: I . - began:witha comfnitment to mainfaiA,tlie:uniiuerchhI,hcteristics of the,prdp.erty: natural. 8 V 9 .1 & 31 9 -1 -4 1 E ..1-Â¥ 0 11â‚¬ * .1 . - granite.formations; :tht. streain.fed politi, views'of MacGregor. Rancn,lumpy Ridge and 9,14 . Mommy r,nge,and Lodgs Peak. IMyÂ· planninglhas focused:olf eacti unit offering good, )1.- . I 1./.1 0 viewsÂ·at the expenseÂ· 2.ressttlikn.alloWed kiEÂ®ity to mfliitaiR'thâ‚¬ ppen feelotthe resort 1. and insure an inviting-presence? - r=" A-7 " . ,~ 1 ' i Â· The first step oftheredevelÂ®ment processwas.front,loaded witltu#Arading the infrastructure,whicityas very dated_and,inadequate. The hrstp@ge-of*ie redevelopment was to build tliree foor-plex<Unitd; which wdre:fihished in 4995-,-The,next phase.approvedÂ· by the~toWn wasto include four more four-pldippits and a 13 unit lodgf. Ihe first four- plex was finished in 2000, with the lodke to be built dfiring the winter of 2001-2, and the balance to'be scheduled one each year thereafter. However, economic realities at that time required the postponement of the lodge building. construction. The town allowed the extensionofthe development plan and a modified 10 unit lodge building was completed in 2007., As the town had rewritten the development code since the proposed units were vested ahd modified the zoning from CO-Commercial Outlging to A-Accommodations, the town staff indicated that theunbuilt portion ofthe plan wouldÂ·not be.honored. W#h the current submission, I.have modified the previously approved units to better suit our needs and to more closely meet theÂ·current codes. In addition, we are prop0sing the final build out for the property. In 2004, the existing units.were converted to condominiums and our'condominium dkclarations set a maximum number ofunits at 77. This plan actually proposes a total of 60 units (59 dwelling units and 1 commercial-restaurant) on the 14+ acre site. 800 MacGregor Avenue internet: www.blackcanyoninn.com Phone: (970) 586 8113 Estes Park, CO 80517 E-mail: info@blackcanyoninn.com Fax: (970) 586 5123 tfÂ·: P -4, & .-- . ... Ir i ....1- 1.- I,ir (11 , 6 Z 1 . 1 F 4 Since 1994; I have completed approximately,$700,000Â·in infrastructure upgrades. 4 (ie: new rdad, water, sewer, ,gas, electric, 'Rnd telephone) to the:property.; Incidentally, some ofthese projects were"ontheÂ·town's master planning utilityâ€župgrade list. The plin being submitted will require an additional $500,000 to $600,000 in additional upgrades. Thede costs were originally justified based on the 77 unit build out. At the lower density, it is still feasible, but very tight. I have put forth substantial energy and effort to.meet the current development , code. Given the topography and special features of our property, I accept that this plan does not meet every requirement but feel that it will provide overr~ding benefits to all' ' 4 i concerned. I ain confident that I have met the primary concerns of public safety and access while*minimizing the effect on the site. I believe th'at these efforts and ihvestments have been' fruitful for our operation and for the town in general. Over the past 16 years, including the lodge and the leased restaurant operation, the Black Canyon Inn pdroperty has generated about $500,000 in sales tax for the town. My,expectation is that as I continue with a thoughtful and practical expansion that we will continue to provide a valuable experiâ‚¬nce for our guests, residents and patrons. As always I am available to answer any questions and to provide onsite inspectionofour plan and how it best fits our unique site. + Sincerely, 1 /~-1/EL-- /Â« TiÂ¢1 Sloan ( *lack Canyon Inn, Inc. L./Sloan Idvestments, LLC 1 1 9 4. . U . 1, r 1 r ESTES VALLEY ('< DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Ipt=Â©tanÂ«=-9 %1 _3-1 Submittal Date: 3/25/2009 ,Iybe,effApplicm(Br{AJ3443Â·St.iÂ¥''tkâ€ž.41'C~~u:fyi.*,Yx#441 f 2 ' *~; i.â‚¬'.4-4~.rl.1â‚¬*1FPP ~iÂ·Â¢:Â£ :f> ,~h t.'"'iÂ· iâ‚¬-4*N .<72 1 +444 6. 12 Development Plan r Boundary Line Adjustment Condom~nium Map -- F Special Review F ROW or Easement Vacation E Preliminary Map F Rezoning Petition t- Street Name Change r Final Map r Preliminary Subdivision Plat E Time Extension r Supplemental Map f- Final Subdivision Plat r Other: Please specify 1- Minor Subdivision Plat F Amended Plat Generallriformatio,03 ' , 7' 4 Project Name Black Canyon Inn Condoiniums Master Plan Project Description Master Development Plan for 32 additional units Project Address 800 Mac Gregor Ave. Legal Description Portion of Myers Addition Parcel ID # 35244-55-001 Section 24 Township 5N Range 73W SiteÂ·Iriformation, v 4 2 Total Development Area (acres) 14.408 Existing Land Use Condominiums, owner occupied and rentals , Proposed Land Use Condominiums, owner occupied and rentals Existing Water Service P Town r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service P Town r Well F Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service 12 EPSD r UTSD r- septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service 12 EPSD r UTSD r septic Is a sewer lift station required? E Yes P No Existing Gas Service P Xcel F Other F None Existing Zoning A- Accomodations Proposed Zoning A- Accomodations Site Access (if not on public street) Mac Gregor Ave. Are there wetlands on the site? P Yes E No Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? P Yes E No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Jes Reetz Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave., Suite 200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Attachments F Application fee 12 Statement of intent P 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan P 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan 12 Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Town of Estes Park 4 P.O. Box 1200 4 170 MacGregor Avenue 4 Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 + Fax: (970) 586-0249 + www.estesnet.com/ComDev I Irt- 4.0, ' Primary Contact Person is r Owner r Applicant P ConsultanVEngineer 't d Record Owner(s) Sloan Investments, LLC ~ , Mailing Address 800 Mac Gregor Ave., Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone (970) 586-8113 - Cell Phone (970) 402-1049 Fax Email jesloan@gmail.com Applicant Sloan Investments, LLC Mailing Address 800 Mac Gregor Ave., Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone (970) 586-8113 , Cell Phone (970) 402-1049 Fax Email jesloan@gmail.com ConsultanliEngineer Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave., Suite 200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone (970) 586-2458 Cell Phone Fax (970) 586-2459 Email ireetz@ces-ccc.com ~ APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDeWSchedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION On July 1, 2001, House Bill 01-1088 became effective. This legislation requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to give notice of their application to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development. I hereby certify that the provisions of House Bill 01-1088 Section 24-65.5-103 CRS hav6 been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Sloan Investments, LLC, Jim Sloan-Manager Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Sloan Investments, LLC, Jim Sloan-Manager Signatures: Record Owner / fr.n--7, -2- Date 3 . 2 4 Â·07 1 1-ten. Applicant~-~ 766*49 4- Date 3 Â·24.0 7 - r 0- 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. $ In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the - application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). I I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. (The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.) I I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. I I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. â€¢ I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. * The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. â€¢ I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. 1 GLI\I IUWICUyC Uldl I IldVC It:(.,CIVCU UIC Chlt:2, VcllICy L..CVCIUpll,Clll neVICW Mpplll,clllUII OU,ICUUIC dIIU lildl IdllUIC LU IlleCL $ 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: Sloan Investments, LLC, Jim Sloan-Manager Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Sloan Investments, LLC, Jim Sloan-Manager Signatures: Â¢7 Record Owner Date 3 * 25. 0 1 Applicant Date 3.2-S, 09 Revised 10/13/06 E--552 0 V \* .,3 c 1 P h CORNE?sTONE ~ Al~ 25 2009 i~i 1692 Big Thompson - Suite 200 Estes Park, CO 80517 1,-3 Phone: (970) 586-2458 ENGINEERING & ~~ SURVEYINO, INC Fax: (970) 5 86-2459 March 25,2009 421.006 Dave Shirk, Plann6r Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Black Canyon Inn Condominiums Master Plan , Â· Dear Dave: A crew hired by Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES) made a site visit to the Black Canyon Inn property. The purpose of this visit was to approximately locate the proposed buildings which would be constructed with our proposed development plan. The building is marked by 20" wood stakes with the appropriate unit number labeled. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. Senior uraftsman I k 0 0 N 09 ~5! AN hgc\INA 80&1 ON GE GO>1930 MEGE OM&1 9%* 'B@ Ac\' 00 0,00500ONÂ¥900*00 -Ag#080&9 cvcoN r-o 00 00 (000(O000000OCV W 0000C\1~ *v&O r Lost 0- 10 OW@z0009!052 00 0 BR 10 000 80 'M 928# Ea :8 -- 00000<00000.- 0 (D CD 00 O c.2.2.2-1.2LLI .-r - -Ul- - - ..2 0 % ~-DOZOLULLIO89 0-8 458 P 8 %*as @ & @ D @ z 5 4 % z Â¥ 9 9 5 o p . d eQHz z o P z-0- 23 :B CL [1- 0-.00- Ii go-0- 92 0-Q-0.0- --I= 0 - , fififz #f 65 t; *.92 v 0 2 co .c >42 c 0, (0 2'0 b O 0%%;@822022*@@%255-2 =00=20-A00*Ug*Emothac'04002Â£2 0=cco=222 O LU I LLI < LU 0.-1 m LU LU LU O LLI I $ LU LU J O LU Lu U-1 0 S U) H (5 m (5 13 J < 0 3 2 1- 25 t.0 0 0 E ** * - D (0 a) a) mE>> Â°* 5 ~ 2&e 0 WAR @292>-> 50% R 0,5 & &65 0 O U.' Eb C -0 Ege--m v Lu-5(5 00 wm J mv 02. 2 82Â£ ~2~~7W 8~2%21 ~95% 78=owE < L.L. o OMI -892~59Â£65&3Km 0 r > < m C T; 0 Z *nmcal(/) Ul.288Luce-1 4-"--OZ:80 z cuoÂ®JELL.- * 0 1Â£, CO J JO (9 6 00 00 cy c, c, co hoh 10 00 00 6) â€¢- c) CD ho El- vt- N No 00 N CU O 1-0 0000)OAAOOT,- Er LO N h N Alr)(00.- O h 00 0),- 00 81 CO ,--0000(DON (\1 - 1.0 *UU 0000,Â·-000)0) C\1 UNLOODO) O- ,- AN (DN C\1 N CD (D (0 09 - =f O) CD (Dor) C\1 0 0- O- O - 00 -- N ,- h O- ,Â·- N (D m 0 -M 1 5 = 3 M 2 lEg * 2 -2 O 50 g 0 CD LO 00 R 0 o L E 0- al C , LO 035 88ff 055-- aucd:~ Â®8 E c Eba J SE = 92 c -A C i O W â‚¬0 2 Blcu - 0 S< S Ir ~, @@3 = J 0-2 m r.m.- _ E S 923 4 ~1%%329= O :E .6 C U) CO 200 ~1~-7â‚¬JEeOCU~~O0 r j--f 13-22=~g32 206= DC) CO E>, .J 06 1 .2 06 -2 06 : 05 0 -2 0 8 B z & 6 W buM@~RO~O606 <00<0006_~06.~R>,1 5 0.60 C a> $ g v 0 0 > I n E LLI< 2 0 0 2 -7 b 0 Â® > --3'g s r BE ~ CI E 06 92 t c 5.20 JU)~ 0 00; &&01 co @,3 2% 3213*ilifill' 11% 1*3 ~ >, c .36 % .2 0 W 3 0 m H O O (0 & C O Â£0299 Id E & Evelyn F Leonard Box 26 CO 80517 oehlich regor Ave #A 80517 ummit Dr, NE 55906 MacGregor Ave #7 80517 80005 *Â£908 uosuv eipue Xeleej .lelienl/\1 UOJUJ041 e!1!oe General Partner hi Leisure Ave MacGregor Ave #5 Dickerson MacGregor Ave Address 19 4122 siuunIN Ul!>1 op Uejell00 v Uele>I E *Al N LELL L UEU,Jel.UU]!Z V !301 .Hettinger is W Desmond ue46!a 1 eiqe Linscott cDonald SAÂ¥ 1. Meoeld v esinol (D CY) 8 h NA â€žINT-r-NANING ~h Of) h O h CUBW 0 0 G; SEEGGE" 4- - 4) r- co Â·= E @N 88*8 :B:gg@gg:Â§E8*Â§%tgB* 0 '' 0 00 B cO oo N co 00 00" 000000002 - 00 00 --FOFER~*00 ~00%09 00<00000000 EEÂ°88*Ox.,gwoonoomp@8*& -M-fi#~t#~~#55% as -21M-62-82Â§921:15-15-LwfH#2 - E 0- 0- Â® a n. 0- 0- a. g g O. ~ c 3 0- r g Â®- 0 2 2 & 00-a- .a- O 0- 3 0 21%* 4) 0 0 0 8 EBE>'08 0 2Egui 9. 00,:COCD-N (0 .g m 9 82 ED m U) 5 : 55 geva#98*Egm@~2922%5~*AY#~A J Ill W LL Ill 111 LU LU UJU.ELLI_JLLOLLILLOO6<ILLILL<LU LLI O.LU _1 LU c & 6 C - -'COM 8_12 -1 5 2 - & c c U) , 5 2 0-8 (D (D J J -0 0 < 0 %8 5~=63 - C - 0 ~6022&&&2225Â£5222*za.Ins %31 %205 **RES - C OmOLOAO-051-aLLIC)NO - . O .- 0 91Â· ... O - 01.0-00..h N 10 .000(DLONNG)00.00-0000* 00- U 91- CD O C\1 U UU **hhION UUM N 00 WOO091-0000.- r U 1-0 10 0(DC')004- CL CD 00 00 00 0. 0- O- co co co co co al [1- ' 0- al N =i- CL =r N N c) gr m h CO G. 9- 00 â€¢- Â·r- m m CD C CO 5 CO 0 0 3 0 m E D gao (D E 05 09 CO ) = 06 (D 2 C 0 .0 H 1 22 I %3 E H g ENG) c. E 0 - 2 92 m 9-m 9 2 d 2 tâ‚¬ 0 0 1= 6 C 0 = - CO ; O 4 p 2 2 (1)-1 : O c [r Â·c d@2826%1, I c uf o~ A -6 0 CD El W = (D ~ L e 0 2% 52% S . (Diuo * 55 11 2& 2 726 1# f ju , g R 2 0 2 -O -C C Â®C >.O m â‚¬ E O A U.1 .f.*2 @Â°adoocroOE:@ *~2 w=EE~ .M Lu :E DI.eM?62E :p u, goaa-2Â£rME,E - gRSZT|-SEJ 4 5 2 61 32 r2 1& 1& ai El . ..1 02.c-No-- 06â‚¬I CM 'c O C M g o.m 2 2 -6.0 ~E 2 * ~. - m @ * Â£ ~ * fT .e Â£ c Â® >Â·v c Â¤~co c 22 H J Lur H= cur @gz&~* I ZEEE=kEâ‚¬8% %*28 E (-+ LLIC/)aaI00(000110-_1~COOR-,IRC/)00*-,B"h_m-Mecou- 0 Oj 9387 Betty June Whiteside ark, CO 80517 ZL908 Ul 103~J~~r)~~t ;Snil.Aekl oee 9LZE-L99EL Zlled MeN Carlton B & Judith U Paine 5300 Cam Rd NE 68516 Michael Todd & M argaret HaLLCr Estes Park, CO 8051 Frawley-Frawley Properties, Estes Park, 8051 30929 osilloinH Estes Pa Estes Pa Estes Par der Ln N6rth 19 ellou6e Me!AJep ZOBE 41 W lueludoleAea James E Sloan, Jr. sd Luo icia Ann 0!snie M Jewdols!.I <C. Lr) 10 03 CO xi- 4- 9 9 68 m 982 Nkk g 8%988 Lo 22*82000 g COU)(00000CDCO_*iNCOOLDOODOO gukoom~8.xoK&*w88 52 >000 0 25 0-2<Enom=! R OZâ‚¬E-00 2 -0 22 cio ~-*-~-ri* c i 2 0 00 024Â®2 R i 222 20. a>Eg,EEOE .2-0 -J@mmut--Em ~- * .2 2~ 2~ af g~ i ~2 3 -g .8; 2 -F q) .2 3 -c a) W 0 0 ~ 0 0 N Z W Z CO H E 0 -8 .2 ti 06(JJLUJU.lia-ELLI<OLLILLI_IrnLLI R -0 -00 2 %2% 0 &6~ 2282 &2328&5 %59#g %45EE & 05 (D (DC 4- 2â‚¬*EggpirmESS U co -O 0 0 -0-gco Z m c C) C\1 E Z. N S ZI 1120 - 0â€žLLIZE Z X X CO H * Lf)00oo-Q-(028.cor-**woomo NOCM N (D r 00 00 N m W (D N h 0000,-,--00900000000000 @6 2 o 9- CD al 00 00 91- - RI C\1 91Â· CO 09 0- O- O- 00 ,- 0 0- 06 ./B -C E J D CO - 22 E D m 1- % le i d: 25 ik Â£ 8 0 3 90 241 &9~=3 2. t J. =1 8 2 co E .E m 51%69002(Om 9 06 U.06 ED-a-=0-05*0 M 00 060% C Â·C * 1 0- Cra- m n ne R Kochner 80517 Roope orah Zalman ndence St woo CO 80232 ~u|IF~nhat~r ark, CO 80517 Cynthia A Whidden ek & Pamela K Huffman lOM acGregor Ave #C RevocableTrust ine Taylor E Kutrubes land American Winston Hotels, In DBA Stanley Hotel Tretter leen Marks Prawdzik en A Toal Daniel R & Tamara H S E j E- ~~ MEEMI CONS@TUf34'~ENâ‚¬Rpe Em~C 3105 Sumac Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 r \47Â·. Phone: (970) 988-9774 Fax: (970) 498-0339 hermillia me,aol.com Y March 24,2008 Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying 1692 Big Thompson Ave, Suite 200 Estes Park. CO 80517 RE: Wetland Investigation forthe Vicinity ofLots i -5. The Lodges at Black Caii>on f no Condominiui-,13. Estes Park, Colorado MEM Consuking, LLC Proj ect No. : CSTON-01 -01 A Gentlemen: On March 7,2008. a representative ofthis firm performed a wetland investigation ai the Vicinity of Lots 1 -5. The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums Subdivision for the Town of Fstes Park. Coierado. The purpose ofthis investigation was to render an opinion as to if any portion of this sile and it: vicinity fill under Wetland Jurisdictional Status as defined by the United States Army Corps of Erigincers. The study area is located on the north side ofEstes Park and situated on the east side ofMac Greeor Avemle. Just north Evergreen Lane. The subject site includes the area east of Black Can.yon Creek and nortli of the south property line to approximately fifty feet (250') north ofthe private road leading into The Lodges at Black Canyon inn Condominiums. Please refer to the attached photos. taken dorint the on ite reconnaissance: the 'Study Area" map and the "Wetiand Exh ibit"map for further infei mat.il.)11 regarding the limits ofthe area investigated and delineation of wetlands found in the study area. The majority ofthe study area exhibited upland characteristics and vegetation. However. we:!and areas u ere encountered along the easi bank of Black Canyon Creek, on both the north and south.sick b ofthe calvert at the private paved road into The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, In our opirjon. these wetland areas extend beyond the subject site, to include the areas on the west side of Black C:anyor, Creek as wel l as the upstream and downstream areas. Black Canyon Creek flows south and joins the Bic, Ihomp.sop. 14Â·~Â·er in Estes Park. The U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers define a wetland as an area "which is inundated or saturated with surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficientto support. and undernormal circumstances do support, a prevalence ofvegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Swamps: marshes. bogs and similar areas are typically considered wetlands. In order to be classified as a jurisdictional wetland, three (3) environmental criteria iii ist be satisfied. 1. The prevalent vegetation must be able to grow and persist in a saturated soil condition. Examples include cattails, bulrush and some types of sedges. 2. Soils must be classified as hydric or possess characteristics of a reduced oxygen content from saturation with water. 3. The area must be periodically or permanently inundated at some time during the growing season of the prevalent vegetation. Additionally. jurisdictional wetlands must be contiguous to a "navigable waterway'*. March 24,2008 Project No.: CSTON--01 -,0 LA Page 2 m mountainous areas, the predominant wetland type is known as a Fen. Fens are typicah> characterizeÂ·d hy a waterlogged or spongy ground with a soils type known asa histosol or mineral soils with a histic opipe.Jon. Histosols are primarily known for an organic soils horizon which extends sixteen ( 16-) er n.ore inclies below the ground surface. Histic epipedons are eight to twenty four (8"-24") inch thick organic soils horizons at or near the surface of a mineral soil. These soils are formed by a slow accumulation of pia.m materials in iii waterlogged condition where it cannot decompose due to the relatively low ambient temperatures in mountainous areas. In The vicinity of mountain streams and creeks. wetland areas can be found between the normal water bnc. - -and i.he-100 year flood plains along both sides of fluvial systems. The soils in these areas are typically 'well arained, granular and, due to the slo* accumulation of organic materials, have onk' a few *:Ims eforganic materials above sands. cobbles, gravels, bouiders and bedrock. This situation is typically considered -'atypical" when classifying wetlands. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Larimer County Area. Colorado. does Dot provide. soils mapping iii the higher mountain areas due to the unsuitability ofthe climate and setis for agric:*air>i purposes. Therefore, soil classifications, 5,1.ich as series and phase are not availible fer the 5.c;i is u: tifie i.si.Â¢h Park areas. During the on-site investigation, it was noted that the study area was predominately upland ~,\Â·?3.1~~Black Canyon Creek flowing south along the western boundary of tbe study area. The majority of the study area was vegetated with upland species of weeds, grasses and trees including, but not limitea to: Alpine Timothy (Phleum alpinum L. 1 Mountain Brome (Bromus carinatus H. & A.), Western WheatgraÂ» C l.ji.i :,p:-ion :mithii), Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera). Pondercsa Pine (Pinus ponderosfi).arid Bli: e SprrecÂ·.(Piece pungens). The soils were: typically sandy and well drained. Indications of wetland hydrology were observed at the foilowing area: A relatively narrow band of wetlands along the east side of Black Canyon Creek. This arep exhibitedÂ·two to three inches (2"-3") of organic materiai overa very sandy. well drained soit. The soils were moist to saturated at the rijargins and inundated closer to the creek. Vegetation enceÂ·untered m thi5 p.rea Werâ‚¬ predominantly Sandbar Willow (SalixexiguaNutt.), Canary Reedgrass (Phalaris.A 1.undinacea L.) and Rocky Mountain Willow (Salix Monticola Bebb.) Our representative flagged this area for location b>Â· Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. The results of this delineation are depicted on the "Wet)and Exhibit'- map at the end ofthis report. A review cl related soils and plant references supports these observations. If you have any quesrions, please feel free to call. Resnectfully. 02% 1-- Clifford P. HaiA, M.S. Environmental Specia!ist G : \Civil\Fnviror,men: atÂ»stland\Cornerstone\3688-8-1--1.wpd REFERENCES -- Carter, Jack L., 1988. Trees and Shrubs of Colorado, Johnson Books5 Boulder, Colorado, 165 pp. -- Guennel, G.K., 1995. Guide to Colorado Wildflowers- Volume 1. Plains and Foothills, Westeliffe Publishers, Englewood. Colorado, 336 pp. -- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 169pp -- United States Department ofAgriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, 1980. Soil Survey of Larimer Countv Area. Colorado, Donald C. Moreland, Soil Conservation Service et al, Washington D.C. 174 pp plus aerial photos and appendices. -- The Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1971. Common Weeds of the United States, Dover Publication, New York, New York, 463 pp. -- Stubbendieck3 James; Hatch, Stephan L.; and Butterfield, Charles H., 1992. North American Range Plants, University ofNebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, 493 pp. -- Reed, P.B.,Jr., 1988.National List ofPlant Species That Occur in Wetlands - Intermountain- (Region 8) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Biology Report 88 (26.8). 73 pp STUDY AREA f I i Â·. \ : i LEGEND: ~ = AREA INVESTIGATED FOR JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS l,\ Â« / 1 /1 m. ij /1 / / .1 ~ ~ . F*LOCATE ~ EXISrING k ' - EL - ..... / A - i. e L / 1 . --0. 1.1 1111~11 1,1-11 * 1 1 .111 : 1,~t , 1 5.1/ ./, I#,.' L t.Â¢ >EF. 1 1 1 - - i , cÂ· .. Â·.4. i 1 -b/ ' 6 0 " 1 U... 0 ./ I-- :1 1 d. P *. .... 9,11'41 .4,14. l _a I .B .....- i 1 hi =/ REC NO, 95070721 ,1- ~ ~ 10' GAS ESMT, ' / j)!v , lili 5 | I f r 1 1 1111 If ., f 1 '1 \ lili / l iii 1~ ,/ 1 :. lai.. 1 i , ... 11 , r / .. / \ 1/1 1 i 6.1 1 1) / \ f (((f / 1 / / 01 1! lili 1, / 1111 / 111 lili 1 / < 1 111 1 t li 1 U Â· - - 25' BUILDIN ---Z /1} Urf ~ \ *ETBACK b / /1/ 11 U . 1 NF- -Ill.- 111 Ill rrfp.) -- - --0--J- - 'I-'.-'-I \1 l 1 11 NOTE, THIS INFORMATION IS BASED ON THE SITE PLAN BY CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC,, JOB NO, 421,006, DATED JAN 08, WETLAND INVESTIGATION PERFORMED MARCH 7, 2008, CORNERSTONE ENER, ~ DATE: 3-21-08 /9 MEM CONSULTING, LLC VICINITY OF LOTS 1-5, ; SCALE: 1'=50' 1-- 3105 SUMAC STREET BLACK CANYON INN DEVELOPMENT I JOB # CSTON-01-01A / 6470 VI FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 ESTES PARK, CO 1 DRAFTED BY: CPH P' <970) 988-9774 - ---- MORT.H 9 // 1 1 I i BLACK CANYON CREEK li l - EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY ' LIMITS OF WETLANDS 0 WEST OF BLACK CONYON - CREEK AS DELINEATED BY MEM CONSULTING l BANKS oF BLACK I l. CANYON CREEK . 4 . AS DEF/NED BY .. 33CFR PART 328 0 | EXISTING ROCK OUTCROPPING | BLACK CANYON CREEK -*I- I---i i -1--- -- N JOBNo 421 006 0 25 50 EXIBIT 'B' 1 BLACK CANYON INN CORNE#STONE DEVELOPMENT SCALE 1"= 50' WETLAND EXHIBIT mgorNEL,rfri#n a 1822 810 'IZIMPSON ~ (9708 088-24 im SUITE 200 BY SMH ~ DATE 3/13/06 67!S PAl CO. 808 ~ 7 42 FAX {770) 685-24# FiLEM CES_Job,421_006_Biack_Canyon_Ma*_Plar /agle-n' Weuands a.vg 440 4 4.Ny 21~~mieÂ·. %Â·Â·:2 t'Itift jfi - Cl~--EWILâ€ž5< AIL 21 14 2- 2,j- A .34Â«>4 ~-1--<Â»?a~13 7 209~ Wetland area north of private drive. Â· 0 Â·'t -flal, la. * 1'. - ~3*M- A -e~ f. S k.,A I 1 4 1 / yf- 441//2 - 11. 0..~ r.. itÂ£:,A ?*4 f l u 1.1 ... . Irl -e I - .r- " Â·Â·' -Â· Uu .3.-1. IÂ·~.1-1'~~9.P{.~-549.;-1:~rÂ·-ic.f:jht:,412.~ ..- ~.. ~,~ :j . .~ ~~ ri . , .bh~k.~-'~~~' ~''~ ~'1â€¢ - 4'; ar..-1Â·'11~)2-'223...7-3.r-:*.Â·~ Wetland area south o f private drive. rES Â· 4, ..4 4,4 1 -..1 ~ . 1. 91Â»f. 124 Â·. pt r., C 49â‚¬ 1,-4 rbilililill. 7'lpitill"lilÂ« i rup . 1 .- .96 Â¥ 3*32 * :i J Av~ 1 . .%, 'BE.WAÂ·I 196_ -'Â·SA,En"WR"'/5,6 Soil profile of upland area. DATA FORM il WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name: ~1040*roJE Â£1/<St. Number: ' Name:Lors I.S-,-rWEL(Â£)0,25-s. Ar gâ€¢-Ac-tc. C.N64 State: /060%4400(ounty: LAA-,M,%Â£-Legal Description: Township: Ski Range:9-SLJ Date: 3 - 1.-0 A Plot No.: Section: 2-4 Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. 7. 'PH-Aug, 3 #04./D,jAC,2,4 064 2. 8. 3. 9. Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. SA.% EN#v A 06L 10. 5. SAL# 410.-J-n coLA 060. 11. 6. 12. Z of species that are OBL, FACW. and/or FAC: ISO. Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes â‚¬ No . Basis: /00% phago EN-rn c.- Soil Series and phase : dor /4 D,e,mt=C) [34 SCS On hydric soils list? Yes ; No >i . Mottled: Yes ; No X . Mottle color: 4 /A ,. Matrix color: ,3 /<44. . Gleyed: Yes No ,>< Other indicators: Hydr.ic soils: Yes % No ; Basis: MIAU OR-61#Jic- Cor.ITY>-~r/6*Â·rve*,Â·AD Hydrology Inundated: Yes X ; No . Depth of standing water: i 1 1 " Saturated soils: Yes 0 ; No . Depth to saturated soil: 10"- 8" A-r- C.Â·P<*6 . Other indicators: Wetland hydrology: Yes % i No . Basis: lâ€¢JudDA-n<24Â·/ <Ar-n,Z,A.,r=Â»j Â· Â· Atypical situation: Yes X" ; No NorÂ·mal Circumstances? Yes y No Wetland Determination: Wetland roA ; Nonwetland Comments: 4 C \r / Determined bvt A-Z~- 32 MCH 41,454&7-14, 61_c WILDLIFE IMPACT AsSESSMENT FOR THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO re-6...r, r -- almamut .mipl//1/nir â€¢ 24 March 2008 (Updated 20 April 2009) PREPARED FOR c> Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. 1692 Big Thompson Ave. Suite 200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 PREPARED BY C> Christopher Roe, Certified Wildlife Biologist *54 ROE ECOLOGICAL ~ERVICES, LLC PO Box 1168 Berthoud, Colorado 80513 (970) 532-1305 FAX (970) 532-1306 9, TOLL FREE (866) 4-Wildlife (494-5354) 0.07; www.YourWildlife.com .,4 r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 1. Introductinn 6 2. Underlying Considerations and Definitions 6 2.1. Definition of Significance (of Potential Impacts) for this Assessment 2.2. Considerations Regarding Habituated Wildlife 7 2.3. Definitions of Evaluation Classifications and Criteria 8 2.3.1. Classifications of Relative Habitat Quality 8 2.3.2. Classifications of Potential Disturbances/Impack 8 3. General Site Description 9 4. Current Condition< 9 4.1. Historical and Existing Development/Residential Use 9 4.2. Existing Wildlife Use of the Property and the Surrounding Area......................................................11 5. Proposed Additional Development. 15 6. Evaluation of Potential Wildlife Impork 16 6.1. Considerations Regarding a Phased Development Schedule...........................................................17 6.2. Potential Impacts upon Elk and Deer Loafing and Foraging.............................................................17 6.2.1. Current Elk and Deer Loafing and Foraging Conditiong 17 6.2.2. Post-Construction Elk and Deer Loafing and Foraging Conditions.........................................18 6.3. Potential Impacts upon Elk and Deer Movement 70 6.3.1. Current Elk and Deer Movement Patterng 70 6.3.2. Expected Post-Construction Movement Patterns 97 6.4. Potential Impacts to Eli[ and Deer Calving/Fawning Habitat 6.4.1. Evaluation of Existing Potential Calving/Fawning Hahi- 93 6.4.2. Evaluation of Potential Post-Constructin Calving/Fawning Habitat 6.5. Potential Impacts upon Other Wildlife, 76 6.5.1. Current Nuisance Bear Issupq 76 6.5.2. Potential Post-Construction Nuisance Bear Issues 7. Recommendations for Minimizing Potential Imp;artq 78 7.1. Timing Restrictiong 78 7.2. Fence Removal/Design Modifications 7.3. Installation of Bear-Proof Trash Enclosures and/or Dumpsters.........................................................30 Figures 1, Location of the proposed development site of The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, Estes Park, Colornrin 10 2. Proposed site plan for The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, Estes Park, Colorado - April 2009. .....................11 3. Evidence ofelk and deer movement across the property. Note that movement follows natural swale through the timber, and heads offproperty atthe property's southeast corner...............................................................................12 4. Possible secondary movement corridor connecting the primary drainage swale with the eastern property boundary showing the lower portion of the possible corridor and upper ponion heading off property through the downed fence, respectively 17 5. Open areas adjacent to Black Canyon Creek along MacGregor Avenue across from the property that are used as additional loafing and foraging areas by elk and deer moving along the creek corridor...................................................13 6. Browse marks on willows along Black Canyon Creek 13 WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO i 7. Open foraging areas within the Development utilized by deer and elk throughout the year, especially during spring and summer 13 8. Potential elk and deer calving/fawning habitat within the property along the Black Canyon Creek north and south of the entrance driveway, respectively 14 9. Evidence of beaver activity on the property along Black Canyon Creek, and the protective measures taken to prevent damage by beaver, 1 5 10. Proposed site plan identifying theunit numbers ofproposed buildings........................................................................16 11. Proposed Development site plan showing primary elk and deer loafing and foraging areas and their respective ( relative quality designations. 18 12. Location of the proposed building and parking lot along Black Canyon Creek. Note that most construction will occur from the area of the large trees back toward the rock outcrop, leaving the open corridor along the creek bank C intact. According to proposed Development standards, any disturbed areas between the new building and the Creek corridor will be reclaimed with native vegetation.... 19 13. Primary elk and deer movement corridors through the property 71 14. Location and site characteristics of the proposed entrance driveway realignment. The proposed new driveway will pass roughly between the yellow mailbox and the entrance sign. 74 C 15. Centralized fully enclosed trash enclosure adjacent to the Twin Owls restaurant. 76 16. Unprotected, standard garbage dumpsters and garbage containers on private properties within and adjacent to the Development 77 ( 17. Barbeque grills on properties within and adjacent to the Development. 77 18. North fence line along the MacGregor Ranch boundary. Notice the multi-strand barbed wire in conjunction with the < buck-and-pole fence. This type of fence can be highly restrictive to elk and deer movement .........................................29 19. Unnecessary remnant portions of sheep fence within the creek corridor along the north fence line....................................30 Notice of Copyright Â© 2009. All photos and language contained herein are the exclusive property of Roe Ecological Services, LLC, and may not be reproduced except as a part of this document. This report represents an original work created by Roe ~ Ecological Services, LLC. This report may be reproduced only in its entirety, with no portion omitted or substituted at any ~ time or used as a part of any other document. Roe Ecological Services, LLC, reserves the right to use any or alllanguage or data contained herein for any print or electronic document. c WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT < ESTES PARK, COLORADO ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc., retained Roe Ecological Services, LLC (RES), to conduct a wildlife impact assessment for the proposed additional development of The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums (Development) in Estes Park, Colorado. The purpose of this assessment was to determine the potential impact of the proposed Development on wildlife making use of the property, and on the area as a whole. Based on the location of the property, and the habitat components within and adjacent to it, RES assessed potential impacts upon: 1) Elk and deer loafing and foraging activity (both daily and seasonally); 2) Elk and deer movement across the property (both daily and seasonally); 3) Elk and deer calving/fawning habitat on and immediately adjacent to the property; and 4) Other potential wildlife species, including potential bear problems. PropertY Description The property is approximately 14.41 acres in size, and lies east of MacGregor Ave, approximately 0.4 miles north of U.S. Highway 34. The property lies along the north and west face of a rocky ridge, and generally consists of native Ponderosa Pine forest, with an understory consisting generally of native grasses and shrubs. Black Canyon Creek runs along the western edge of the property, with the associated riparian corridor consisting of a mix of willow and narrow leaf cottonwood, with an understory of native grasses and forbs. The property is currently developed, with approximately 18% of the land area occupied by permanent and temporary housing units, a restaurant, several abandoned buildings and remnant building foundations, and several asphalt parking lots connected by an asphalt road. Post-construction, roughly 29% of the land area will contain housing units, parking lots, etc. Nearly all units on the property are privately owned residences that, when not used by the owners, are used as rental units throughout the year. Peak occupancy occurs from May through October. Wildlife Observations Most wildlife movement across the property appeared to be along Black Canyon Creek, as well as along the main access driveway and primary drainage swale through the property, with animals heading from the Black Canyon Creek corridor to the east/southeast property boundary and areas off property. Movement of elk and deer along the Black Canyon Creek corridor is reported to be fairly consistent throughout the year, with peak activity occurring during the fall. The movement corridor along Black Canyon Creek used by elk and deer reportedly includes areas within the creek drainage, as well as adjacent open areas along MacGregor Avenue. Evidence of elk and/or deer foraging activity across most of the property was limited, although evidence of browsing was observed on willows near the north property boundary, within the Black Canyon Creek riparian corridor. Although no physical evidence WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 1 . of elk or deer calving/fawning sites was observed on the property, areas of moderate to high quality elk and deer calving/fawning habitat were observed. This habitat generally lies along Black Canyon Creek, with the highest quality habitat located toward the north property line along the boundary of Saint Bartholomew's Church property and south of the main entrance driveway. No physical evidence of bear activity was found during the site assessment as most bears were still hibernating at the time of the assessment, however, per the CDOW and the current property manager, nuisance bear issues occur throughout the general area. Sign of beaver activity within Black Canyon Creek, specifically north of the access driveway culvert, was clearly evident by the numerous beaver-cut trees/willows, and the numerous mature trees covered with chicken-wire mesh placed there in an effort to prevent damage. Both the property manager and the CDOW confirmed that beaver activity has been a problem for this and other properties along Black Canyon Creek. Proposed Development According to the proposed Development site plan dated April 2009, and the proposed build-out schedule, the property will eventually contain a total of 32 new units built over approximately 10 years starting in the fall of 2009. For these units, however, only nine (9) new buildings will be built across the properly. Of these nine, two (2) will be built within the footprint of existing buildings/foundations. Nearly every new unit will be a multi-family ' housing unit/condominium of some sort, with additional parking areas and driveways being developed adjacent to ' the new buildings. Two of the additional parking areas will be constructed over the top of existing structures on the I property. Evaluations of Potential Impacts For this report, evaluations of potential adverse impacts upon wildlife as a result of the proposed Development were c based on: 1) The type and level of existing or potential wildlife use of the property within the context of its current development characteristics; 2) The location ofproposed additional units and associated parking areas as related to lost/modified habitat, movement corridors, or impacts upon adjacent habitat areas; I 3) The fact that many elk and deer (and possibly even bear) are habituated to human presence and human- induced disturbances; 4) The fact that elk and deer currently utilize areas within developed portions of the property between existing 4 residential units; 5) The likelihood of wildlife reasonably accommodating to resulting changes in habitat, movement corridors, c etc., due to the development of additional units and parking areas; and WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 2 6) The capacity of the proposed Development to offset potential adverse impacts. Phased Development According to the proposed build-out schedule, construction ofnew buildings/units will occur over a 10-year period beginning in the late-summer/fall 2009. Under a phased construction schedule it is likely that only one or two buildings and associated parking areas will be built in any given year. By extending construction activities across many years, potential construction-related impacts to wildlife will be localized around individual construction units rather than across the property as a whole. Phased construction schedules should allow habituated animals to easily adapt to changes in their surroundings and associated additional human activity, and to continue to utilize undisturbed portions o f the property at or near normal levels. Potential Impacts to Elk and Deer Foraging Approximately 82% of the property is landscaped open space or open space under native vegetation. Based on the property's location and physical attributes, it is likely that most elk and deer loafing and foraging on the property is from transient animals moving along the Black Canyon Creek corridor, and between the MaeGregor Ranch and areas north of the Standley Hotel. Moderate to high quality elk and deer loafing and foraging areas are found within the western third o f the property and are generally associated with the Black Canyon Creek riparian corridor and adjacent areas (both on and offproperty). Low to moderate quality loafing and foraging areas are scattered throughout the east-central portion of the property, with pockets of moderate to high quality habitat found behind the restaurant (irrigated sod lawn) and northwest of the current property management office, as well as in the southeast and extreme east-northeast corners of the property. Per the proposed site plan, new construction along Black Canyon Creek (units 1-5 and the associated parking lot) will occur outside of a 50-foot wetland/100-year floodplain setback. Although a small portion of potential elk and deer foraging habitat will be lost by the addition of this unit, and additional housing units wiltlikely increase human activity in this area, at least seasonally, there is no reason to expect any significant long-term impact on overall elk and deer loafing and foraging along or within the Black Canyon Creek corridor within, or adjacent to, the property. Because construction within the north-central portion of the property (units 6-9) will essentially be a remodel and extension of an already existing structure, and because elk and deer currently utilize areas of high human disturbance behind the restaurant, it is unlikely construction activities in this location will have any significant impact to elk and deer. Construction of additional buildings through the interior of the property (proposed units 14-18, and units 25-26) is likely to have a slight temporary impact on elk and deer utilizing these areas. As such, it is unlikely the development of additional buildings within the interior of the property - where WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEV-ELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 3 currently identified and under a phased construction schedule - will cause a significant long-term impact on overall elk and deer loafing and foraging within these areas. Potential Impacts to Elk and Deer Movement Because the proposed construction for units 1-5 is located on the rocky slope above and east of the creek corridor, and because the access driveway to the new unit will not alter any creek corridor features, it is unlikely that the new building will cause any modification or disruption of elk or deer movement along Black Canyon Creek. The additions of proposed units 14-16,25-26, and 29-32, are likely to cause a temporary moderate impact to elk and deer movement through the area while construction of each of the units is in progress. Movement by elk and deer through the possible secondary corridor is likely to be slightly to moderately impacted by the additions of proposed units 17-18 and units 19-24. Potential Impacts to Calving/Fawning Habitat According to the proposed site plan, no modification of any significant calving/fawning habitat component within the property will occur. Although construction ofunits 1-5 will be adjacent to the creek corridor, it is RES's ( opinion that this building (and the resultant increase in human activity around this building) will not create a c significant impact upon the overall population of elk and deer that calve/fawn along the Black Canyon Creek ( corridor. It is likely only a slight to moderate short-term impact upon individual animals calving/fawning on the ( property will occur while active construction is underway. ( Potential Impact upon Other Wildlife ( Because this proposed Development does not alter any habitat characteristics within the Black Canyon Creek i drainage, or any adjacent "desirable" habitats or resource components, it is not likely that this Development will ( impact beavers to any degree. Likewise, because the creek corridor will be preserved, it is unlikely that ( development activities will significantly or even moderately affect migratory songbird nesting or general activity i within the corridor. Impacts on nuisance wildlife/bear issues, however, may be affected by this Development. c Depending on the actions taken by the Development to manage increases in human-related food sources, the i development of additional housing units across the property may lead to moderate increases in nuisance wildlife/bear issues. Recommendations for Minimizing Potential Impacts Although RES does not believe that the proposed Development will create any significant impacts upon wildlife as it is currently presented, several recommendations were made that may help further reduce or offset wildlife WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) l THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTESPARK, COLORADO ( 4 impacts. In order to help ensure that construction-related disturbances do not impact either nesting migratory birds (which would violate the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act) or potential elk calving/deer fawning activities, construction activities should not be initiated between 1 April and 15 July. If, however, initiation of construction activities is required between 1 April and 15 July, a detailed wildlife assessment of bird nesting and elk and deer calving/fawning activities within and immediately around (within 100 meters) the proposed construction site should be carried out by a qualified third party prior to any construction. If nesting, calving, or fawning animals are observed within or adjacent to the proposed construction area, construction activities should be postponed until such activity has ceased, or until 15 July, whichever comes first. In this way, potential direct impacts to breeding birds and calving/fawning animals can be virtually eliminated. Fully understanding the need for adequate fencing to keep neighboring livestock from entering the property, and understanding that discussions regarding potential fence modifications will surely require the consultation of neighboring landowners, elk and deer could potentially benefit from a modification to the north fence line. Whether the entire fence line is modified, or simply portions of it that might serve as a wildlife "gate," elk and deer stand to benefit greatly by any measure that makes movement across the north property boundary safer and easier. Although potentially less of a problem, it is recommended that the remnant portions o f old "sheep fence" be removed from areas along the property boundary with Saint Bartholomew's Church. When designing additional garbage collection points, or planning for the deployment of additional dumpsters, it is highly recommended that future trash enclosures be designed and built to be bear-proof, and that additional garbage dumpsters be equally bear-proof. NOTE: As of the April 2009 Update, per the property manager, remnant portions of sheep fence within the creek corridor along the north fence line have been removed. Additionally, management at The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums is continuing discussions with the MacGregor Ranch in an effort to work toward minimizing the barbed wire under the buck-and-pole fence along their common boundary. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 5 1. INTRODUCTION Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc., retained Roe Ecological Services, LLC (RES), to conduct a wildlife impact assessment for the proposed additional development of The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums (Development) in Estes Park, Colorado. The purpose of this assessment was to determine the potential impact of ' the proposed Development on wildlife making use of the property, and on the area as a whole. Based on the ( location of the properly, and the habitat components within and adjacent to it, RES assessed potential impacts upon: ' 1) Elk and deer loafing and foraging activity (both daily and seasonally); ( 2) Elk and deer movement across the property (both daily and seasonally); c 3) Elk and deer calving/fawning habitat on and immediately adjacent to the property; and i 4) Other potential wildlife species, including potential bear problems. In carrying out this assignment, RES did the following: c 1) Conducted on-site evaluations of the Development property and the immediate surrounding area between ( 10 March and 12 April 2008; ( 2) Reviewed numerous documents pertaining to the Development request, including: c a) The proposed site plan for the Development; < b) The Estes Valley Development Code adopted 3 November 1999, effective 1 February 2000 c (EVDC)2 and i c) The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan dated December 19963 3) Reviewed the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Elk Management Plan, Data Analysis Unit E-9, Saint Vrain Herd, Game Management Unit 20, dated November 2006;3 4) Discussed the project with the local CDOW District Wildlife Manager (DWM) between 10 and 31 March 2008,4 and 5) Reviewed satellite imagery of the proposed Development site and surrounding area. 2. UNDERLYING CONSIDERATIONS AND DEFINITIONS 2.1. DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANCE (OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS) FOR THIS AsSESSMENT In most discussions regarding potential impacts of some development upon wildlife or wildlife habitat, the term "significant impact" is typically defined as the level of impact that is likely to be made upon the local or regional population of a species to the point that changes in that species' reproduction, survival, localized activity, associated property damage, etc., is statistically detectable, regardless whether the effect of the impact is positive or WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) c THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 6 negative. Typically, the baseline against which such impact is measured is data gathered by State or Federal wildlife agencies (e.g., CDOW population estimates). In the case of urban/suburban development, data gathered by County and municipal workers may also be used. Measurability of the impact is the key ingredient of significance. Within the Town of Estes Park, recent discussions pertaining to the significance of potential impacts of development upon wildlife and wildlife habitat have included not only the potential impact of development upon populations, but even upon individual animals. Although it can be extremely difficult to measure the effects of a development activity on an individual animal, and while it is true that determinations of impact upon individuals can be quite subjective, it has proven important to keep this aspect of impact in mind in discussing this particular Development. For this assessment, therefore, the term "significant impact" will reflect not only measurable effects of a proposed development activity upon wildlife populations, but will also attempt to include an assessment of impact upon individual animals. 2.2. CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING HABITUATED WILDLIFE Within the Town of Estes Park, most concerns regarding potential development impacts upon wildlife center on the potential impacts upon elk, followed by impacts upon deer, bears (specifically problem bear interactions), and other wildlife. Often, concerns regarding new development focus on the potential effects that additional buildings, increased human activity, and a general loss of"open space" might have on the animals that frequent the identified area. When evaluating the level of potential impacts that development activities may have upon wildlife, however, it is important to consider the behavior of a particular species in relation to the specific activity or potential disturbance in question. Both elk and deer are highly adaptable and easily habituated animals with a remarkable ability to learn, and to adjust their behavior to maximize survival.5,6,7,8,9 When the correct conditions are metio -conditions similar to those found within Estes Park-habituation of animals is likely. Because the populations ofelk and deer that reside within the Estes Valley and the Town of Estes Park have increased in recent years, 11,12,13 -in the face of continued urban/suburban development-it could be argued that most elk and deer that routinely utilize the urban/suburban environments of the town for primary habitat throughout the year are habituated to human presence. For these animals-barring their actual exclusion from large portions of their accustomed habitat-many development activities are likely to have minimal impacts upon their daily or seasonal activities. When evaluating potential impacts of development upon wildlife within Estes Park, therefore, it is important to do so within the context of such habituation possibilities. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON IN-N CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 7 2.3. DEFINITIONS OF EVALUATION CLASSIFICATIONS AND CRITERIA 2.3.1. CLASSIFICATIONS OF RELATIVE HABITAT QUALITY For this assessment, evaluations of relative habitat quality are based on the proportion of individual habitat resource components found within a particular habitat type for the habitat being evaluated. This means that the more c resource components found within a particular habitat, the higher will be its relative quality classification. For this assessment, habitat components will be considered to possess "low, "', medium," or "high" quality. Low quality habitats are those that barely meet the needs of wildlife for that particular habitat resource. High quality habitats are those that meet all, or nearly all, of the needs of wildlife for that particular habitat resource. Medium quality habitats are those falling in between. While it is true that these classifications must always be relative to whatever development property is being assessed and to the particular region in which the development is located, and while it is also true that the method is somewhat subjective, it is nonetheless possible to make meaningful classifications on the basis of related scientific literature and on the professional experience of the evaluating biologist. 2.3.2. CLASSIFICATIONS OF POTENTIAL DISTURBANCES/IMPACTS For this assessment, classifications of the level of potential disturbance or impacts to wildlife as the direct or indirect result of a proposed development action are based on the likely response of habituated animals to a particular activity or development action. For this assessment, disturbances/impacts to wildlife are classified as either "light (or slight), ... moderate," or "significant." Disturbances/impacts classified as "light (or slight)" are those in which the individual animal, or population of animals, remains within the general occupied area, and continues the general activity they were engaged in prior to the disturbance or supposed impact. Disturbances/ impacts classified as "moderate" are those in which the animal, or population of animals, may temporarily leave a particular area, or cease a particular activity, immediately after a disturbance or development impact, but later returns to the general area, resuming the activity it was engaged in prior to the disturbance/impact. Additionally, impacts to a particular habitat area/resource may be classified as "moderate" i f animals are able to continue their use of a particular area, but are seen to adjust their behavior in response to development. Disturbances/impacts classified as "significant" are those that cause an animal, or population of animals, to immediately cease their activities within a particular area and to avoid future use of the area or abandon the area altogether. For this assessment, anticipated levels of response by habituated wildlife have been based on scientific literature regarding wildlife responses to various disturbances, as well as on the professional experience of the consulting biologist in wildlife issues within the Estes Valley, across Colorado, and throughout the United States. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 8 3. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The approximately 14.41-acre property lies along the north and west face of a rocky ridge east of MacGregor Avenue and approximately 0.4 miles north of U.S. Highway 34 (Figure 1). Cover consists generally of native Ponderosa pine with an understory of native grasses and shrubs. Black Canyon Creek runs along the western edge of the property, its riparian corridor consisting of a mix of willow and narrow-leaf cottonwood, with an understory of native grasses and forbs. The property is currently developed, with approximately 18% o f the land area occupied by permanent and temporary housing units, a restaurant, several abandoned buildings and remnant building foundations, and several asphalt parking lots connected by an asphalt road. Post-construction, roughly 29% of the land area will contain housing units, parking lots, etc. (Figure 2). Preserved open areas will consist of Ponderosa pine forest scattered among buildings, parking lots, and roadways, and the Black Canyon Creek riparian corridor. 4. CURRENT CONDITIONS 4.1. HISTORICAL AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT/RESIDENTIAL USE Most original development at The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums occurred between the late 1950s and early 1960s when the property was converted to a resort after the relocation of a number of cabins to the property from Rocky Mountain National Park. Since the mid-1970s, additional cabins/condominium units have been added or remodeled, increasing both the real and aesthetic values of the property as a whole. The properly's original private residence was converted to the Twin Owls Steak House Restaurant in 1964. In 2007, a 10-unit condominium building was completed as part of a previously approved long-term development plan for the 14 property. Nearly all units on the property are privately owned residences, with most owners being seasonal occupants. When owners are not present, the units are used as overnight accommodations/rental properties for use by Estes Park visitors and area tourists; thus supporting the Estes Valley Zoning District classification of Accommodations (A) 1 5 . Peak occupancy of units occurs from May through October. Under current property management guidelines, no pets are allowed, all trash is collected and stored in a centralized location, and conservation of trees, shrubs, native vegetation, and general "open space" is of high priority. 16 Although the property maintains a decorative pond and several open-space common areas for its residents, most property use is concentrated around individual residential units, with common-area use being generally light and intermittent. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 9 Srreet~135 USAÂ· 2008 Plus 444 06 .0 Â·. , . Â·1. r. 1â€¢ 1 4 IE . .1 N -Â· 4 + 9 N 7 - 472 0 L - ; pÂ· , 3 1 4 3 .1/4 '..%, f Ttl' 9,1 1~ : 1 2 0 11 7 P '' I 7. I , 3 . .1 '23 .. 4,Â·_ Lak, R./ . .1 4 - 't f 4 44 3 Â·74 9. 4 44 5 4 4<'' 64 a .. I * 1 - 06: - 4 .1./ - 2 14. + .1 . 'tÂ· I U .1 0 ; 13 =,4,7 .- 4 ... I 1.J /' S L 51 14 QU Jâ€¢ C - . 3 . . I,U . I I ,... i . 4 9 2 , O '. 0 * W- -4 -*â€ž.~0 4 4 ID e. GO r % 5 4*42/7,"*- ..reh- -0 C. - F Alk,Â·, A i -int i N 7- 6 791 9 ..' c. 1 ' ~- D Â·1' r:INAK l,1 0 44~ 111 14 .ro.,t A 4, > - I Â»'!....4 4 IN 2 + i "1.46 D' 6 4 1 _al " 02, ./.%/,t .2, f 202 7 - S. : I 11 - 5 4 :2 /$ ' Aâ€¢? 'C I i .4 9 5/ Â· - . 2 2 - 4 3 I ':.# I 24 Â· 1 & - 14 2-11. Dita use Â·Â·ctto end.e * '02 ' Del --,ie: Â·Â·ee!,Â·Â·Â· 0 10 24(10 - 1 1 0 V Jf irl- ".<9 5- E) Dat.3 Zoom .3-0 Figure 1. Location ofthe proposed development site of The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, Estes Park, Colorado. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ 10 g ..f +I:Â·14 , elfle u, ..ACTI [,6 /:Â» ic r , 2 4' 2//14:ULF#44-U-1 ~Id r,\ 'i 1 ., \ Â¢ Â·Â·*i ,El 24 t VEF.1~~ 1 69 1 bi 4/l 1 Â·Â·Â·< , 1 -3 j 'la h \,64.- A U #'' Ip ~ C M ~ ~ =~~- -- - -7//.-*-r 2-93 l Â§ '' . e ... ) /4 41 1 .6.4 :b ; iÂ·{l f T--, 14 ~ \ ~4 1.- 1 \ 13.--4 5_-1/ // 9,14/ 1 <1 + # .04#.fr- Â«33.Ung 11 - .- , '2+.1/0 Litth< ~ V.Â· 1,/ :\ 1 i~W.0.$- 3/ 16 PGF-'., F /ift'.. ~f~ 4//3--W--/1// 'a '0,844 - m . .-- !: 1 -cr f ' A- / 12 / 1-XL i ~// .13 j \ \13 --~4/L.....3/53'-AA.4 :i ~~49 --TH+ ZEâ€¢E 7 1 L :i / 11 -11 4'J ' 15{I/~---- ---6797.9 -3-- 5 .42 2 9 ./ 1 -27 '' fi,--- i H- Iwmph4 p 4 ~ ~_Fr-fk LE 1 .5 , 2 4 /7 ' 4Â»27 4,--7-7---b~f-~ 1:, 43 -74.1 * 2)Â«2~.t 24 -. .... U~1 ... I S Â£ L__3 0 ' O Â·Â·w Â· - 1 /'t//0 1-1"Z i.-J __~_ IÂ·Â«f. I.Â·ol ... i --$ ..... --Â· .-I' 5-=1__ ORNUSIOIE -- ...... ..... I- --2.'junMF- 8-.- v 2-- Figure 2. Proposed site plan for The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, Estes Park, Colorado - April 2009. 4.2. EXISTING WILDLIFE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA RES observed several sets of elk and deer tracks, as well as pellet groups, from small groups of animals traveling from west to east across the property. Movement across the properly appeared to be mostly along the main access driveway and primary drainage swale, with animals heading from the Black Canyon Creek corridor to the east/southeast property boundary and areas off property (Figure 3). Within the east-northeast portion of the property, RES saw evidence of a possible secondary corridor connecting the lower portion of the primary drainage swale with the eastern property boundary. Movement here seemed to be along a secondary swale and through a downed portion of fence line (Figure 4). Based on the existence of prominent geologic formations (rock outcrops) along the north and south property boundaries and a section of potentially restrictive livestock fence on the north properly boundary with the MacGregor Ranch, it is likely that elk and deer movement across the property is largely along this corridor. The current property manager notes that elk and deer movement has also been observed between the north-central residential units and the southeast corner of the property.17 WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT 0 11 ESTES PARK. COLORADO e. 42Â¢@..Sall-Iial-'"5~/-- . - Figure 3. Evidence of elk and deer movement across the property. Note that movement follows natural swale through the timber, and heads off property at the property's southeast corner. . -4~~~% tÂ·.,;1 4Nsi4 . ~27 ' - - - T/'*4002%Â· f . 4 ' * . - -It Ch-23 . <3 2 ?wlik . Â· -1. I. ./ 6 ...74 Figure 4. Possible secondary movement corridor connecting the primary drainage swale with the eastern property boundary showing the lower portion o f the possible corridor and upper portion heading off property through the downed fence, respectively. Movement of elk and deer along the Black Canyon Creek corridor is reported to be fairly consistent throughout the year, with peak activity occurring during the fall. 18,19 The movement corridor along Black Canyon Creek reportedly includes areas within the creek drainage, as well as adjacent open areas along MacGregor Avenue (Figure 5). 20,21 Evidence of elk and/or deer foraging activity across most of the property was limited, although evidence of browsing was observed on willows near the north property boundary, within the Black Canyon Creek riparian corridor (Figure 6). According to the property manager, despite high levels of human activity within these areas, elk and deer routinely forage throughout many of the open areas within and adjacent to the creek corridor, as well as on the irrigated and landscaped lawn area behind the restaurant, throughout the spring, summer, and fall (Figure 7).22 WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ 12 1.1. li> u 1 11-1 -jafie lul /25, '1:EMS'A 'ailill .2,/ jr*:s , . I . <=ark %~~~ ~ 1 2 -1, ~4'~. ~ ~. r 1--- :,1 9 KI. ... ...I ~Q . J - 1-nÂ·-I ~C 1 - , 4 Vt t. *,4 g. Figure 5. Open areas adjacent to Black Canyon Creek along MacGregor Avenue across from the property that are used as additional loafing and foraging areas by elk and deer moving along the creek corridor. *~ k .7 *-Kapt - - I. 4,/- /Â·ki rÂ¥ li~ild -. ' gmid/" 1 'aa--9 , 14,22*ft L 1 K/Â£*DAMÂ¢MN.Â· + -,1.-7 W/M/1-1U1/25-I / 8 2/ 121%1,~likil mlt,4. . , ':' , P 0 . tj~1 1,1 .4 ./ ' 11'7~1. ~ .flig,KE#'1$4~23â‚¬3*5419 Â· -7 ..r ./.- .. - M-*$4 - ,. i . 1... -I 1 1* P 1/' 71 . Â£_.rr"VIVADE'NA j , . : 1 : <4 , 4*'*. ,... Ir .9.rÂ¥.1.-Mt'. . ..'I I'- I ' ..IM. 1 , -- w I T,; ..4. 4 --4- 42 %29 t.11 .Â·IM,#i/1 1 .4 'Â· 1 0 .*44, j ----6.4 - A ..,t!*i Â·~ ialA~R,~*'1 ? - Figure 6. Browse marks on willows along Black Canyon Creek. - ~ #6 t. Â·,r../.Â·fÂ·Â·.*~ Ir rf 9 - - * at~*4-5..:I . 76"....- F &8'L. .. 47 k : -3. 1 0. 4 Figure 7. Open foraging areas within the Development utilized by deer and elk throughout the year, especially during spring and summer. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINII-IMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 13 1 9 1 Although no physical evidence of elk or deer calving/fawning sites was observed on the property, areas of moderate ~ to high quality elk and deer calving/fawning habitat were observed. This habitat generally lies along Black Canyon Creek, with the highest quality habitat located toward the north property line along the boundary of Saint Bartholomew's Church property and south of the main entrance driveway (Figure 8). Because this habitat is associated with Black Canyon Creek, and because moderate to high quality calving/fawning habitat can be found throughout the entire creek drainage, it is likely that elle ancFor deer have utilized, and willlikely continue to utilize, suitable areas along the drainage-possibly including areas within the property-for calving/fawning. Yearly observations by the CDOW in fact confirm that elk and deer utilize the Black Canyon Creek drainage for calving/fawning each year, with calving/fawning occurring along the Creek drainage from the interior of MacGregor Ranch to the Town municipal buildings.23 Although no elk calves or deer fawns less than approximately 5 days old have been seen on site by property management, elk and deer with offspring of at least one week old have been observed utilizing the same open areas identified in Figure 7.24 1#JUNH/RUIZ//I/i/$/IN57*~PV~#.4-/.,,.T114 1 ~, - ... C.'~MPM~v, ilu~11 -4,~*JU 1 . M - 'Tit .*E.r . --m-=N/An.,--r...%11- -1128.7 1---~ 199 . 41 - ./ 6- i,1 g 0 ...1 Â£2 1 . 1 , 1 . k + 4 4 A . _.Â£. - Figure 8. Potential elk and deer calving/fawning habitat within the property along the Black Canyon Creek north and south of the entrance driveway, respectively. Similarly, no physical evidence ofbear activity was found during the site assessment. This was not surprising, as most bears were still hibernating at the time of the assessment, and signs of bear activity are more likely to be noted in late summer and early fall. The location of the property along Black Canyon Creek, however, and the presence of garbage dumpsters, barbeque grills, and bird feeders on private properties within and adjacent to the Development suggest that nuisance bear activity could be an issue; an issue confirmed by both the property manager and the CDOW.25 Per the CDOW, nuisance bear issues occurred all along the Black Canyon Creek corridor and adjacent subdivisions in 2007 as well as previous years.26 WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ 14 . Sign ofbeaver activity within Black Canyon Creek, specifically north of the access driveway culvert, was clearly evident by the numerous beaver-cut trees/willows, and the numerous mature trees covered with chicken-wire mesh placed there in an effort to prevent damage (Figure 9). Both the property manager and the CDOW confirmed that beaver activity has been a problem for this and other properties along Black Canyon Creek. 27,28 -=01.,1....... a 16 6 4 4 , -14*Ati~illjiltj hip,P t'' ' 1 - --1 ~f>Â», a: 1#9-3 4 - ~~d e/m 40it :LY , -\,t-1,/ 443&4*4~#~~I,- 4, ~7~:,:h,y,#r. Figures 9. Evidence ofbeaver activity on the property along Black Canyon Creek, and the protective measures taken to prevent damage by beavers. 5. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT According to the proposed Development site plan dated April 2009 and the proposed build-out schedule, the property will eventually contain a total of 32 new units built over approximately 10 years starting in the fall of 2009 (Figure 2). 29,30 For these units, nine (9) new buildings will be built across the property (units 1-5,12-13,14-16,17- 18, 19-21,22-24,25-26, 27-28, and 29-32), with two (2) buildings being built within the footprint of existing buildings/foundations (units 12-13, and 29-32) (Figure 10). Eight (8) buildings will be constructed across the eastern half of the property within the upland forested area, with the remaining building being constructed adjacent to Black Canyon Creek. Nearly every new unit will be a multi-family housing unit/condominium of some sort, with additional parking areas and driveways being developed adjacent to the new buildings. Two of the additional parking areas will be constructed over the top of existing structures on the property (associated with units 22-24 and 25-26) (Figure 10). WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 15 HM I,iit~1111 rn l 2 #.a %4 4 16\ .i L,4 -f. fi~k (-~ift .'22 ) ',0 -1.-- 1 1 ,~ e 11 -#44-wt 41 h . 96 1 r-* 4- Â·Ili t---\~.f)/.Â»4,7 \:.:1&6-*4-2u0p.;* tiur e 4' 1?. * 4-7 -- J-,r.,s/ '. , P // \ 1 .-' '/ 'Â· N h)* A:pkn~%fl,7-1*:' .3274~--~,~~~aeâ€ž-t~* Â©1 Ill y 44 1- -'1 .*.:1 FL /6<.Â£Illilt,â€ž0 49 014 tr.11 4 1 V=Â«-4 t.,439 1, # 3 \\\f ..Ely:*J~ 0 ill Â°{11->4< 3%;ff / fili' 4, ' ) O 424.1, R 1 #i i 4 ;-â€¢ 1 1,1" Rk / , 449.0 6 L.,2 6-3"All, ti k -t- - 9... 3.7;-1 Yrle Mt*. ,=0424 i t<- --- I i .T.-.lÂ· m. zÂ·10.E -1 i , /- 0 1-Al 3 f 14, Â· a f *,f 7 ~ / - <~ J' t-lr~15 2 >-_21// - 243~ 1 Y 64 1 '2 / f f j.../ / Unit', 29-32-Â·4-1;2~ LA 7 3 -11 ,1 1 1 JIND, 27-28 i.1 J 02/ "7 1 i.1 A ti{!1 4 . -- -,~L Â¥11.1/FE .CURE -19:Arr~~Ir ---- Figure 10. Proposed site plan identifying the unit numbers of proposed buildings. ~ 6. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL WILDLIFE IMPACTS For this report, evaluations of potential adverse impacts upon wildlife as a result of the proposed Development were based on: 1) The type and level of existing or potential wildlife use of the property within the context of its current development characteristics; 2) The location of proposed additional units and associated parking areas as related to lost/modified habitat, movement corridors, or impacts upon adjacent habitat areas; 3) The fact that many elk and deer (and possibly even bear) are habituated to human presence and human- induced disturbances; 4) The fact that elk and deer currently utilize areas within developed portions of the property between existing residential units; 5) The likelihood of wildlife reasonably accommodating to resulting changes in habitat, movement corridors, etc., due to the development of additional units and parking areas; and WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ 16 6) The capacity of the proposed Development to offset potential adverse impacts. 6.1. CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING A PHASED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE According to the proposed build-out schedule, construction of new buildings/units will occur over a 10-year period beginning in the late-summer/fall 2009. Under a phased construction schedule such as this, it is likely that only one or two buildings, along with their associated parking areas, may be built in any given year. By extending construction activities across many years, potential construction-related impacts to wildlife will be localized around individual construction units rather than across the property as a whole. This should leave most of the property open for elk, deer, and other wildlife use. Phased construction schedules should also allow habituated animals to easily adapt to changes in their surroundings and associated additional human activity, and to continue to utilize undisturbed portions of the property at or near normal levels. Research within the Estes Valley itself in 2001 has shown that even in situations where habituated elk and deer were intentionally exposed to potentially highly disruptive human-related disturbances, the affected animals quickly learned to accept the disturbance and continued 3l their normal daily activities. Given the likelihood of this occurring, a phased development schedule like the one proposed should greatly reduce impacts upon elk and deer. 6.2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON ELK AND DEER LoAFING AND FORAGING 6.2.1. CURRENT ELK AND DEER LOAFING AND FORAGING CONDITIONS Approximately 82% of the property is landscaped open space or open space under native vegetation.32 Based on the property's location and physical attributes, it is likely that most elk and deer loafing and foraging on the property is from transient animals moving along the Black Canyon Creek corridor, and between the MacGregor Ranch and areas north of the Standley Hotel. Moderate to high quality elk and deer loafing and foraging areas are found within the western third of the property and are generally associated with the Black Canyon Creek riparian corridor and adjacent areas (both on and off property).33 Low to moderate quality loafing and foraging areas are scattered throughout the east-central portion of the property, with pockets of moderate to high quality habitat found behind the restaurant (irrigated sod lawn) and northwest of the current property management office, as well as in the southeast and extreme east-northeast corners of the property (Figure 11). During the spring, summer, and fall months, each of these areas receives light to moderate levels of human disturbance on a weekly to daily basis.34 Although no buildings are found immediately adjacent to Black Canyon Creek, pedestrian traffic from Rock Acres Condominiums to Saint Bartholomew's Church occurs on a regular basis (in the form of an adult with several children taking "nature walks" along the Creek), with most travel occurring WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 17 OVâ€¢Â· to'.' Iii-:iÂ·, U.*Ity 4 - 0- 1~ 1 1.oderati to H ;,Ii Qu , ty ,~/3 ,< 'mÂ® . - - -in 1 *A/f 0 Ul fill .:. -= T' 12/71/9 1 4 .-10345-- -_37 '-' 4 51 f j,19/1 - - . .-=== .........9 9 4-*P j J.118.TITE--1- 7/ 5$$15=41(99.0/ b.4 ---Urr , / ? 1 . / 1 /2- r/lf/i VEL .(11 .*-:~ trie1 L Qi:.1451 ' '0LtiZZ) 2 ./ 1 NT-~52 h,, e 8 f b \~~ ff lutgal&v f.> 9 1 -1 ~ _- -' ' ' vjWXNG. - . . "1 Uk'tp-' .. *4 it k ,0/. - - - VN -K,..Jid"9437 + _ 63(6~ VIJ . 1 6 9:= =--i-Ax Â¢>'0*5 -_34 %3 4 : t.r- - #7/X< 32 /52*=- 4-1 .Â· O --01 Â· 4 77 F 77 -:S 4-4 A , . _ w- - -- -USS r 1 11 i Â¥ / 2 > 1 - r.9. 1 1 9 . ..7.1-11 'b . . .... ~â„¢*-1 4,1 2 S I .-1-1,1 Ill 2 1 , I .... ~tPl./ :I.L. 0-411-bll ~~' txcÂ»-5 al ' 7 774/#P 1 1 0 31= al. --- 1 144Â·,Â» â€¢ ..Â£. 4.- 7025- _ ORS'*MNE ,:Gitii K nc: MA - ...%.... 11,Â· ... _ ./$= Figure 11. Proposed Development site plan showing primary elk and deer loafing and foraging areas and their respective relative quality . designations. along the east bank of the riparian corridor.35 Human activity around the pond and adjacent open areas occurs periodically throughout the spring, summer, and fall months.36 Levels of human activity around the restaurant and northwest of the management office can be high depending on time of year and time of day; pedestrian traffic behind and around the restaurant, and on the Saint Bartholomew's Church playground occurs daily during spring, summer, and fall. Human activity around the southeast and east-northeast corners of the property is largely attributed to daily activities around housing units and neighboring private residences, with periodic pedestrian traffic between the Development and areas around the Standley Hotel.37 Human activity within low to moderate quality loafing and foraging areas is less periodic, but can increase during spring, summer, and fall.38 6.2.2. POST-CONSTRUCTION ELK AND DEER LOAFING AND FORAGING CONDITIONS According to the proposed Development site plan, construction of additional buildings is desired within at least a portion of each of the areas identified in Figure 11. Construction of additional buildings is scheduled to occur over an approximate 10-year period, with lota] open space after all construction is complete equaling approximately 71% WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ 18 . of the property. Based on current property characteristics, as well as upon current and future management philosophy, native trees, shrubs, and vegetation will be preserved to the maximum extent possible during the construction of additional buildings and driveways, with all disturbed areas being reclaimed to native 39-40 vegetation. According to the proposed site plan, the proposed new construction along Black Canyon Creek (units 1-5, along with the parking lot and the associated access driveway) will occur outside of a 50-foot wetland/100-year floodplain setback. This setback places the building tight against the granite slope of the large rock outcrop, leaving unchanged much of the open area that is currently found between the wetland and the rock slope (Figure 12). Although a small portion of elk and deer foraging habitat will be lost by the addition of this unit, the vast majority of the overall loafing and foraging habitat in this area will be preserved. Because additional housing units will likely increase human activity in this area, at least seasonally, it is possible that light to moderate disturbances to individual elk and deer loafing and foraging activities could increase. Although elk and deer loafing and foraging activities may be temporarily impacted by actual construction activities for this building, or impacted by increased seasonal use of the area by residents, there is no reason to expect any significant long-term impact on overall elk and deer loafing and foraging along or within the Black Canyon Creek corridor on or adjacent to the property. Wil/$ lb- irial.4/ ~~ moutplf~"I~~/f'"al. L - ' iwÂ·-ra,PW9 Â·â€¢- 4, .1 -,Eâ€ž . 41: 11 2- 4 .' ,4- _ i:*'.3.9.MT,392.' r,-~* :*t 40/94(&2 Â·OMâ€¢ , 51 t. 4Â· . -+Ill 'Â· 7 *Itt.' d . f . 1.9...2.- P --- 2Â· Figure 12. Location of the proposed building and parking lot along Black Canyon Creek. Note that most construction will occur from the area of the large trees back toward the rock outcrop, leaving the open corridor along the creek bank intact. According to proposed Development standards, any disturbed areas between the new building and the Creek corridor will be reclaimed with native vegetation. Because construction of within the north-central portion of the property (units 6-9) will essentially be a remodel and extension of an already existing structure, and because elk and deer currently utilize areas of high human disturbance behind the restaurant, it is unlikely that construction activities in this location will have any significant WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT . ESTES PARK, COLORADO 19 impact upon elk and deer. Depending on the time of year that construction occurs, impacts are likely to be ~ moderate or even slight. Construction of additional buildings within and adjacent to the low to medium quality loafing and foraging areas through the interior of the property (proposed units 12-18, and units 25-26) are likely to have only a slight impact on elk and deer utilizing these areas. Because these areas are used by elk and deer as they occasionally move across the property, and not by animals necessarily looking to these areas as "destination" areas, and because much of the better quality portions of these areas will remain once all construction is complete, animals traveling through the interior of the property post-construction will still have loafing and foraging areas available to them around these locations. Additionally, proposed units 10-11, and 12-13 are units to be built over or within existing structures. As such, it is unlikely that the development of additional buildings in the interior of the property-where currently identified and under a phased construction schedule-will cause a significant long-term impact upon overall elk and deer loafing and foraging within these areas. Construction of additional buildings within and adjacent to the medium to high quality loafing and foraging areas at the southeast and east-northeast corners of the property (proposed units 19-24 and 29-32) is likely to have a slight to moderate temporary impact on elk and deer utilizing these areas, at least seasonally. Because these areas are used primarily by elk and deer moving through the property on a transient basis, and not by animals looking to these areas as "destination" areas per se, and because portions of these areas will remain once all construction is complete, animals traveling through these areas post-construction will still have medium quality loafing and foraging areas available to them in these locations. Additionally, at least a portion of the parking lot for units 19-24 lies across an existing structure and its current access driveway, and a large portion of units 29-32 lie across the footprint of an existing building foundation. As such, it is unlikely that the development of additional buildings within the southeast and east-northeast corners of the property-where currently identified and under a phased construction schedule-will cause a significant long-term impact on overall elk and deer loafing and foraging within these areas. 6.3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON ELK AND DEER MOVEMENT 6.3.1. CURRENT ELK AND DEER MOVEMENT PATTERNS As outlined in Section 3.2., movement across the property occurs primarily along two corridors and a possible secondary corridor (Figure 13). Because of the prominent geological formations along the north and south property boundaries, coupled with the presence of potentially highly restrictive livestock fencing along the north property line, elk and deer movement east/west across the properly is forced through areas with potentially high levels of human activity. Despite this, however, the property manager confirms that elk and deer movement a does routinely WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ 20 1._ , 1 re ''-A j .~*3*\ 1-1---..ri i... %,2/ 7 .v.â€¢/-Â·ap.+' ,Â·.1,<: 34/7 1 /\ C lilli 314Â· 9.Ld/ 9 ..â€ž ruf 1,14.5>*,- 9/ 2 -:GL:.&4--i-,- .--/\ 4--- , . - h ' .../. ~0 1 .2,Â· i.3 ...... r '~--44> 1 1 8 1- ,, / / F1.,Â· 1 I. L \ Â·}, , .~4 ,Â·.U~ -â€¢~ ,3XÂ· ~ lÂ·Mt I. i Â·ri - -4 ti 7 77 1 1 .,1 /, Al : p A. X ~ 4 - 63'L : 62 --r .. â€ž.e. 1 1 ./:212*lf b h:- t,-,7 ' 626 %7 i *is; //1.7 1 J ..-,. 3.4 1 . 1 't' r... - / Â·-4 - 7*114 Prtmar ' , 1 6 n-,184.: M N, t e :1,r 14 9. i 5-- -71-Ak / \...95>b n 1 1\ .K b o ~â€ž2522+449-90 1 0 )Â«/ T /ZA:S. â‚¬ it- ~--:-t_, - O .-+41 - 3-*--3 1 E V -t -7 .. 1 Â· al ..4 1, Â£91 4 # ~ ~ -â€¢ â€¢â€¢ L ... W Â¥ 1,~-- T 'u-rn,fY-,7---- 5 .4#i ./ 4 r : 0 2 I '01Â® 1 / , 1 - Ar 6 5-2 1 5 --- _ 1 4-7 -1-130' 1 _ -Beak_ Ob'*51(Â»IE -- '1'14.7. n,Â·Â·Â·111 ~0~k- Figure 13. Primary elk and deer movement corridors through the property. occur along this corridor, as well as between the north-central residential units and areas behind the restaurant and the existing property management office. Movement of elk and deer along the Black Canyon Creek corridor is reported to be fairly consistent throughout the year, with peak activity occurring during the fall. As shown previously (Figure 5), the movement corridor along Black Canyon Creek reportedly includes areas within the creek drainage, as well as in adjacent open areas along MacGregor Avenue. During the spring, summer, and fall months, each of these areas receives light to moderate levels of human disturbance on a weekly to daily basis.41 Although no housing structures are found immediately adjacent to Black Canyon Creek, pedestrian traffic from Rock Acres Condominiums to Saint Bartholomew's Church occurs on a regular basis (in the form of an adult with several children taking "nature walks" along the Creek), with most travel occurring along the east bank of the riparian corridor.42 Human activity around the pond and adjacent open areas occurs periodically throughout the spring, summer, and fall months.43 Human activity around and behind the restaurant occurs regularly throughout the spring, summer, and fall months, with periodic activity during the winter. Human activity around the southeast and east-northeast corners of the property is largely attributed to daily WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 21 activities around housing units and neighboring private residences, with periodic "off-trail" pedestrian traffic ~ occurring between the Development and areas around the Standley Hotel.44 Human activity within low to moderate quality loafing and foraging areas within the interior of the Development is less periodic, but can increase during the spring, summer, and fall months.45 It should be noted that all "non-resident" recreational human activity (i.e., trespassing) is strictly prohibited within the property, except for such activities as are expressly permitted by the management. 6.3.2. EXPECTED POST-CONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT PATTERNS Once construction is complete after the planned 10-year build-out, the property will remain approximately 71% open space. Because the proposed construction for units 1-5 is located on the rocky slope above and east of the creek corridor, and because the access driveway to the new unit will not alter any creek corridor features, it is unlikely that the new building will cause any modification or disruption of elk or deer movement along Black Canyon Creek. While the additions of proposed units 14-16, 25-26, and 29-32, lie within one of the primary movement corridors through the property, it is likely that movement by elk and deer will continue through the area. During the construction of these units and adjacent parking lots, it is likely that elk and deer will be moderately impacted, but this impact should last only as long as construction lasts. Once construction of these additional units is complete, open areas along the corridor will remain relatively intact and allow movement around the new units and parking lots. Similarly, movement by elk and deer through the possible secondary corridor is likely to be moderately impacted by the additions of proposed units 19-21. Elk and deer utilizing this corridor will have to modify their current direct course of travel and move around and between the additional units, however, it is likely animals will acclimate to this adjustment fairly quickly. 6.4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ELK AND DEER CALVING/FAWNING HABITAT Under the EVDC, development potentially affecting land that contains an identified calving/fawning area can trigger formal CDOW review. Chapter 7.8, Section F.3 of this code states: DOW Review. For applications referred to it, the Division of Wildlife will determine whether the proposal will result in significant adverse impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat only if the development adversely impacts the following: a. An endangered or threatened species, b. A calving, lambing, or fawning area, c. Bighorn sheep or bighorn sheep habitat, d. Raptor nest site, or e. Riparian areas or wetlands WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO < 22 Because no historical data or confirmed sightings exist regarding the actual presence on the property of either elk or deer with calves/fawns less than 5 days old, for this assessment, evaluation ofpotential impacts upon calving/fawning areas was limited to evaluation of the potential impacts upon potential calving/fawning habitat. Although the mere presence of potential calving/fawning habitat does not necessarily indicate that the area is in fact a "designated" calving/fawning area, certain habitat characteristics can provide clues as to whether calving/fawning might be expected within a given area. Similarly, the number and relative quality of these characteristics, along with their relative location within the overalllandscape, can be used to judge the quality of the potential calving/fawning habitat. For elk in particular, the vast majority of preferred calving sites in Colorado and throughout North America: 1) Contain some level of woody or shrubby overstory (e.g., willows or other trees, sagebrush, etc.); 2) Contain dense herbaceous ground cover, woody debris, or rocky outcrops/boulders that provide low lying hiding cover for calves; 3) Are located near open foraging areas; and 46,47,48,49 4) Are located within a few to several hundred yards of a water source. Although most discussions of potential impacts to calving/fawning areas typically pertain to the general geographic areas within which a population of animals may calve/fawn, recent discussions with regard to the Town of Estes Park have indicated that potential impacts to individual animals' calving/fawning areas/sites may also be covered within the EVDC. For this Assessment, therefore, evaluations of potential impacts upon potential calving/fawning habitat will include not only the likelihood of impacts upon populations utilizing the area as a whole, but also the likelihood of impacts upon individual animals as a result of a particular proposed development action. 6.4.1. EVALUATION OF EXISTING POTENTIAL CALVING/FAWNING HABITAT Moderate to high quality elk and deer calving/fawning habitat (as compared to known calving/fawning habitats within the Estes Park/Estes Valley region) can be found on the properly throughout the Black Canyon Creek corridor. Portions of the corridor located south of the main entrance driveway and toward the north property line along the boundary of the Saint Bartholomew' s Church property contain the highest quality habitat areas on the property (see Figure 8). Numerous observations by the CDOW and current property management confirm that elk and deer utilize various portions of the Black Canyon Creek drainage for calving/fawning each year, with confirmed calving/fawning occurring from the interior of MacGregor Ranch to areas adjacent to the Town municipal buildings.50,51 In general, the quality ofpotential calving/fawning habitat decreases as one moves east across the property. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK. COLORADO 23 While sightings of elk with young calves, and of deer with young fawns, have been reported on the property in the . last few years, most sightings were of animals with highly mobile calves/fawns at their sides. The fact of calves and fawns quickly and efficiently traveling with their mothers suggests that they are likely more than 5 days old, and makes it difficult to know whether they were born within or immediately adjacent to the property. If, however, we assume they were born on the property, based on the timing of most calving/fawning activities (mid-May through the end of June) and on the existing level of human disturbance along the Creek corridor during this time (as outlined in Sections 3.2 and 5.2.1), it is likely animals giving birth on the property and continuing to use the property during the summer with their calves/fawns are highly habituated to human presence. 6.4.2. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL POST-CONSTRUCTION CALVING/FAWNING HABITAT According to the proposed site plan, no modification of any habitat component within the creek drainage will occur. Adjacent to the drainage, however, a realignment of the entrance driveway into the property is proposed west of the creek, and a new building (units 1-5) with an associated access driveway is proposed east of the creek. The proposed new entrance driveway will traverse the grassy open area adjacent to MacGregor Avenue, with the existing entrance driveway being reclaimed to native (grass) vegetation (Figure 14). The proposed new building will be built against the rock outcrop within the existing Ponderosa pine and native shrub uplands, and will be positioned outside the EVDC 50-foot wetland area setback. No alteration of any potential calving/fawning habitat component is proposed for the high quality habitat area adjacent to the property . boundary south of Saint Bartholomew' s Church. i.. E- 1... Am D. ' - I. ..5 =* 76#jkpikÂ·'Â·~Cf~ 12F~ ~01'-- :s - I .'*09. .-I.- . - -_ - .. Â·Â· -1. ..,.,..(42& â‚¬96 -- 4 14-119/5/4-71/1 Â· ~1 4.1--595 1 CK .... . 14 4~ ~ - 23 2,1- - Â·* .2 2:Â» C ...i,~ 1 -7. N....3.:.4 9..t=.-- - -CM""- .. .. Figure 14. Location and site characteristics of the proposed entrance driveway realignment. The proposed new driveway will pass roughly between the yellow mailbox and the entrance sign. No impact upon potential calving/fawning within the northern high quality habitat area adjacent to Saint Bartholomew's Church is expected. Because the realignment of the entrance driveway will be a slight modification WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ 24 to what already exists, with disturbed areas to be reclaimed once driveway construction is complete, it is unlikely that this proposed development action will cause any long-term impact to the potential calving/fawning habitat found within, or adjacent to, the Black Canyon Creek corridor. Although the proposed new construction of units 1 - 5 will be adjacent to the creek corridor, it is RES's opinion that this building (and the resultant increase in human activity around this building) will not create a significant impact upon the overall population of elk and deer that calve/fawn along the Black Canyon Creek corridor, and will likely cause only a slight to moderate short-term impact upon individual animals calving/fawning on the property-specifically south of the entrance driveway. This opinion is based on: 1) The likely consistent type and intensity of use of the area along Black Canyon Creek from current usage patterns and intensity to post-construction use and intensity; 2) The specific habitat characteristics of areas adjacent to the proposed building location vs. other area characteristics; and 3) The lack of any modification to existing cover, forage, or water resources for calving/fawning animals. Although the proposed new building will add five residential housing units to the area immediately adjacent to the creek corridor, the likely type and intensity of any additional human activity within this area will be similar to what is already experienced by elk and deer currently utilizing this area during early spring and summer. As outlined in Sections 3.2 and 5.2.1, human activity already occurs on a periodic to regular basis along the creek corridor during spring and summer. Because the additional human activity associated with the proposed new building will most likely be predictable and primarily associated with areas around the building and the associated parking lot, it is unlikely that habituated animals will perceive the additional human activity as significantly disruptive. As Black Canyon Creek courses through the property south of the entrance driveway, the highest quality open areas available for loafing and foraging adjacent to the willow bottom are found on the creek's west bank. The location of these open areas, the location, size, and density of the willows within the creek drainage, and the current habitat characteristics of the area east of the creek suggest that a high proportion of elk and deer activity within this area is likely to occur west of the creek, away from the proposed building location. This possibility may be confirmed, in part, by the high level of use of the open areas west of MacGregor Avenue, directly west and southwest of the area in question. Add to this the 50-foot buffer between the proposed building and the stream bank, and it is unlikely that habituated elk and deer would perceive the proposed building as a significant encroachment upon their normal activities. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUNIS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 25 Because no modification to the creek drainage south of the entrance driveway is proposed, no loss of tangible calving/fawning habitat components is likely to occur. Protective cover resources for calves/fawns, adjacent foraging areas for adult animals, and free, available water will all remain at current levels and relative quality post- construction. Because of this, it is unlikely that habituated elk and deer seeking calving/fawning sites along the creek corridor would perceive any significant reduction in overall habitat suitability as a result of the proposed building. 6.5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON OTHER WILDLIFE Because this proposed Development does not alter any habitat characteristics within the Black Canyon Creek drainage, or any adjacent "desirable" habitats or resource components, it is not likely that this Development will impact beavers to any degree. Likewise, because the creek corridor will be preserved, it is unlikely that development activities will significantly or even moderately affect migratory songbird nesting or general activity within the conidor. Impacts on nuisance wildlife/bear issues, however, may be affected by this Development. 6.5.1. CURRENT NUISANCE BEAR ISSUES Currently, the property experiences nuisance bear related issues periodically throughout the summer and early fall, with bears breaking into the fully enclosed trash enclosure behind the restaurant-despite its being locked and surrounded by electrified wire.52 All garbage generated within the Development is collected and stored at this single trash enclosure in an effort to make waste management more efficient, and to help reduce the distribution of nuisance bear issues across the property (Figure 15). Unfortunately, however, owners of private property in- holdings and adjacent properties are not under control of the Development, and may not make the necessary 'J~ ifb .~~~~~~~4 ,~~~~IlljlfkWIZIETiF - rv 1.31- 294# -ILY 1, *0//6..illillt 1 1* \ ~ / A 1 IUM 4 . - t Wi:' T j,//- , ..j ~.~ a -r 1/9 -*06&2 i \11 ga.- - .i7 It - - - . 1//1/.9 1 7 .ZÂ« --C 9,0 Ef'* 47 -' 20= . 0- Ct -, %. lamiv**'. o. i# li "C+PR./.9 Figure 15. Centralized fully enclosed trash enclosure adjacent to the Twin Owls restaurant. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO < 26 efforts to manage their garbage in such a way as to preclude attracting bears and other wildlife species (such as raccoons and skunks) to the area (Figure 16). Similarly, barbeque grills, bird feeders, and other human-related food sources may increase the number of nuisance bear related incidents occurring across the property and throughout the area in general (Figure 17). While the Development currently strives to manage barbeque grills closely during the summer and fall months, it does not have control over what owners of private property in-holdings and adjacent properties do with their barbeque grills, feeders, etc. 4,1 1 Â·Â·Â·.2//1/6 1 ir'/$)//Ill./.W".~'"/- V4 ~ , - .//M .0 AA 4 .7 ' f 4 1 : Â· 1.. 4 i $ r Figure 16. Unprotected, standard garbage dumpsters and garbage containers on private properties within and adjacent to the Development. I trz-JI//4-<"re 4 i -11 -fly:6*11.....#.01*$6:ZIE,M- ~ w Â·Â·114@-~~&242-~: ..2â‚¬ - u. 1.ima"4*~. 19/BEMEHPA - i 1 - Â¥ .,Wr"e-- -I.-PI~- . -0. GEOL-==22=' Figure 17. Barbeque grills on properties within and adjacent to the Development. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 27 6.5.2. POTENTIAL POST-CONSTRUCTION NUISANCE BEAR ISSUES ~ With the addition of new units over the course of 10 years, additional garbage will be produced and will be in need of disposal. Because of this, it is unlikely that the existing trash enclosure will be sufficient to handle the additional load, resulting either in a requirement for a new trash enclosure, or installation of trash enclosures/ dumpsters in additional areas within the Development. Likewise, increases in the number of housing units will likely translate into an increase in the number of barbeque grills, bird feeders, etc., that will also require proper management. With an increase in trash, barbeque grills, etc., comes a likely increase in the Development's attractiveness for bears and other nuisance wildlife. Depending on the actions taken by the Development to manage these increases in human- related food sources, the development of additional housing units across the property may lead to moderate increases in nuisance wildlife/bear issues. 7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MINIMIZING POTENTIAL IMPACTS Although RES does not believe that the proposed Development will create any significant impacts upon wildlife as it is currently presented, we wish to make several recommendations that may help further reduce or offset wildlife impacts. These recommendations pertain to: 1) Timing restrictions on certain Development activities to further reduce potential impacts on elk and/or deer calving/fawning; 2) Possible fence removal/fence design modifications along the north fence line to facilitate wildlife movement; and 3) The installation of bear-proof trash enclosures and/or dumpsters. 7.1. TIMING RESTRICTIONS In order to help ensure that construction-related disturbances do not impact either nesting migratory birds (which would violate the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act) or potential elk calving/deer fawning activities, construction activities should not be initiated between 1 April and 15 July. In Colorado, elk and deer typically give birth between mid-May and mid-June, with most nesting migratory birds beginning nesting (at the elevation of Estes Park) between mid-April and early May, and fledging their young by mid-July. If construction activities are initiated prior to 1 April, it is expected that most, if not all, animals preparing to nest or give birth in the area will have sufficient time and opportunity to find other suitable sites. Construction activities initiated after 15 July are not likely to impact much, if any, bird nesting or deer/elk fawning/calving activity. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ 28 If, however, initiation of construction activities is required between 1 April and 15 July, a detailed wildlife assessment of bird nesting and elk and deer calving/fawning activities within and immediately around (within 100 meters) the proposed construction site should be carried out by a qualified third party prior to any construction. If nesting, calving, or fawning animals are observed within or adjacent to the proposed construction area, construction activities should be postponed until such activity has ceased, or until 15 July, whichever comes first. In this way, potential direct impacts to breeding birds and calving/fawning animals can be virtually eliminated. 7.2. FENCE REMOVAL/DESIGN MODIFICATIONS Fully understanding the need for adequate fencing to keep neighboring livestock from entering the property, and understanding that discussions regarding potential fence modifications will surely require the consultation of neighboring landowners, elk and deer could potentially benefit from a modification to the north fence line. As the fence is currently constructed, the combination of both multi-strand barbed wire and buck-and-pole fencing can create a significant barrier to movement of elk and deer, especially for females with calves or fawns (Figure 18) Whether the entire fence line is modified, or simply portions of it that might serve as a wildlife "gate," elk and deer stand to benefit greatly by any measure that makes movement across the north property boundary safer and easier, as this measure would do. If this recommendation is of interest to the property's management, RES or the CDOW can provide additional design recommendations and consultation regarding this issue. - Al: 1./. 24...I- E,ji.. 1- .Ii. 4 4=~'. -M-,1+ .jo . .- - ' . .e ~ Figure 18. North fence line along the MacGregor Ranch boundary. Notice the multi-strand barbed wire in conjunction with the buck-and- pole fence. This type of fence can be highly restrictive to elle and deer movement. Although potentially less of a problem, it is recommended that the remnant portions of old "sheep fence" be removed from areas along the property boundary with Saint Bartholomew's Church (Figure 19). While this area does not contain restrictive fencing like other areas of the north fence line do, remnant portions of old sheep fence WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 29 could pose an entrapment risk for animals moving through this area. Removal of this fence would likely be ~ relatively easy, and would require no modification to neighboring land use, as this portion of fence currently serves no purpose. z. adirmk~*//LIA"/I . 1, f 43~*Vivtcm'f~24*Nt.Y Â·4<M~ ~4 4 2'.r: 74///C 6.0//40116- .lf 61# - 11Â£'. , l. ..: j.'i Â·7 4. dwdirk,J e- .//2 Â· Â·114, W 1. 1 *g 4. 9 N 44 . 41~M \ r- Â· 1 y Figure 19. Unnecessary remnant portions of sheep fence within the creek corridor along the north fence line. NOTE: As of the April 2009 Update, per the property manager, remnant portions of sheep fence within the creek corridor along the northfence line have been removed.53Additionally, management at The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums is continuing discussions with the MacGregor Ranch in an effort to work toward minimizing the ak barbed wire under the buck-and-pole fence along their common boundary.54 7.3. INSTALLATION OF BEAR-PROOF TRASH ENCLOSURES AND/OR DUMPSTERS As outlined in Section 5.5.2., additional residential units will most certainly create additional garbage in need of disposal. When designing additional garbage collection points, or planning for the deployment of additional dumpsters, it is highly recommended that future trash enclosures be designed and built to be bear-proof, and that additional garbage dumpsters be equally bear-proof. By making the necessary design changes and budgetary adjustments for these additions early in the development stage, nuisance bear and other wildlife issues at trash collection points can be greatly reduced. Not only is this safer for the Development and its residents, but it is also cheaper and less time-consuming for management, makes it easier for the CDOW, and is much better for wildlife as well. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ 30 1 Town of Estes Park. 2007a. Estes Valley Development Code. Accessed on the Internet at http://www.estesnet.com/comdev/devcode/default. aspx 2 Town ofEstes Park. 2007b. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Accessed on the Internet at http://www.estesnet.com/comdev/ComprehensivePlan.aspx 3 Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2006. Elk Management Plan, Data Analysis Unit E-9-Saint Vrain Herd, Game Management Unit 20. 4 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 5 Hudson, R.J. and J.C. Haigh with contributions by A.B. Bubenik. 2002. Physical and Physiological Adaptations. In North American Elk, Ecology and Management, compiled and edited by Dale E. Toweill and Jack Ward Thomas, Wildlife Management Institute, 257. 6 Geist, V. 2002. Adaptive Behavioral Strategies. In North American Elk Ecology and Management, compiled and edited by Dale E. Toweill and Jack Ward Thomas, Wildlife Management Institute, 407. 7 Millspaugh, J.J., G.C. Brundige, R.A. Gitzen, K.J. Raedeke. 2000. Elk and hunter space-use sharing in South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management, 64(4): 994-1003. 8 Thompson, M.J. and R.E. Henderson. 1998. Elk Habituation as a Credibility Challenge for Wildlife Professionals. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(33.477-83. ' VerCauteren, K.C., J.A. Shivik, Mi Lavelle. 2005. Efficacy of an animal-activated frightening device on urban elk and mule deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(4): 1282-87. 1' Thompson, M.J. and R.E. Henderson. 1998. Elk Habituation as a Credibility Challenge for Wildlife Professionals. Wildl@ Society Bulletin, 26(3): 477-83. 11 Colorado Division of Wildli fe. 2006. Elk Management Plan, Data Analysis Unit E-9-Saint Vrain Herd, Game Management Unit 20. 12 National Park Service. 2007. Final Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. 13 Lubow B.C., F.J. Singer, T.L. Johnson, and D.C. Bowden. 2002. Dynamics of Interacting Elk Populations Within and Adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park. In Ecological Evaluation ofthe Abundance andE#ects ofElk Herbivory in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, 1994-1999, edited by F.J. Singer and L.C. Zeigenfuss, 3-23. Fort Collins CO: Colorado State University and U.S.Geological Survey. 14 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 15 Town of Estes Park. 2007c. Zoning Districts Map o f the Estes Valley. Accessed on the Internet at http://www.estesnet.com/comdev/ZoningMaps/zonemap2007.gif 16 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 31 17 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 18 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. < 19 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District I Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 20 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at I Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 21 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District ' Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division ofWildlife, 31 March 2008. 22 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at ( Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 23 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District ( Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 24 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at C Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 25 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at c Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 26 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District c Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 27 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at < Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 28 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District C Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 31 March 2008. 29 Roe, C. 2008c. E-mail communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 1 April 2008. 30 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 31 VerCauteren, K.C., J.A. Shivik, M.J. Lavelle. 2005. Efficacy of an animal-activated frightening device on urban elk and muledeer. Wildl* Society Bulletin, 33(4): 1282-87. 32 Roe, C. 2008c. E-mail communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 1 April 2008. < WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) < THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO ~ 32 33 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 34 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 35 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 36 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 37 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 38 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 39 Roe, C. 2008c. E-mail communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 1 April 2008. 40 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 41 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 42 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 43 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 44 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 45 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 46 Hoover, R.L. and D.L. Wills, ed. 1984. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Colorado Division of Wildlife in cooperation with USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado, 459 pp. 47 Johnson, D.E. 1951. Biology ofthe Elk Calf, Cervus canadensis nelsoni. The Journal of Wildle Management, 15(4): 396- 410. 48 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1999. American Elk. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 11. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUNIS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 33 49 Kuck, L. G.L. Hompland, E.H. Merrill. 1985. Elk Calf Response to Simulated Mine Disturbance in Southeast Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 49(3). 151 -57. 50 Roe, C. 2008a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC, to Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division ofWildlife, 31 March 2008. 51 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 52 Roe, C. 2008b. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 10 April 2008. 53 Roe, C. 2009a. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 14 April 2009. 54 Roe, C. 20098. Personal communication from Chris Roe, CWB, Roe Ecological Services, LLC to Jim Sloan, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums property manager, 14 April 2009. WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARCH 2008 (UPDATED APRIL 2009) THE LODGES AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT ESTES PARK, COLORADO 34 ~ Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16 & 17, Block 2 The Neighborhood Subdivision 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 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 PLAT TITLE: "Preliminary Plat of Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood, Located in the NW 1/4 of Section 20, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado" LOCATION: The Neighborhood subdivision is located in the North End near the Good Samaritan, Talons Pointe, and Vista Ridge developments, and immediately east of The Reserve subdivision. Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2 of The Neighborhood subdivision are located on Gray Hawk Court, which is currently accessed via Red Tail Hawk Drive. Once Phase II of the Gray Hawk Court road construction is complete, Gray Hawk Court will also connect to Crabapple Lane. APPLICANT: Pawnee Meadows LLC, Pawnee Meadows, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: Pawnee Meadows, LLC CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers STAFF CONTACT(S): Bob Joseph APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16. and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood PROJECT DESCRPTION/BACKGROUND: Overview The Neighborhood subdivision, created in 2005, is the first attainable single-family subdivision undertaken by a private developer, Pawnee Meadows, LLC (Pawnee Meadows LLC), since the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code in 2000. Of the thirty homes to be built in the subdivision, fifteen will be deed- restricted for a thirty-year period to households earning 100 percent or less of Larimer County area median income [AMII. The developer stated during the 2005 plat review that his intent was to target the other fifteen homes to households earning 120 percent or less of area median income. Thirteen homes have been constructed, four of which have been sold to income- qualified households and deed-restricted. Both the deed-restricted and non-deed restricted homes help meet the needs of an important component our community. Per the Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment completed for the Estes Park Housing Authority in March 2008, http://www.esteshousing.org/NeedsAssessment.pdf, the median single-family home price in 2007 was $317,500. The average home price according to Larimer County Tax Assessor records for a house in the Neighborhood is $228,873. Per the Housing Assessment, the Neighborhood is an "unsubsidized development [that] provides the lowest priced new single-family homes in the area" and "a more detailed examination of the affordability of units listed for sale shows that the free market provides few housing opportunities for households with incomes below 120% AMI." Below is a picture of a typical house in the subdivision. -tic-4 . el 4 i.6*0.~.ithn Um~,Hir~h- .- .*r-- -I 71(41/2 h IiI:'?11 Â· Â·Â·1 = pt - ,7'lit:. /*â€¢L "521.i -22["Â¥"g~,7//'er./"I'imp!,- Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood 3 Current Application Pawnee Meadows LLC has almost completed Phase I of the project (the west fourteen lots) and is starting to develop Phase II (the east sixteen lots). They have submitted a preliminary plat application to subdivide three R-1- zoned lots in Phase II (Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood Subdivision) into five lots. Pawnee Meadows LLC describes in the statemeiit of intent that this is an effort to keep the project viable given the slow sales. Increasing the number of lots reduces the infrastructure costs per lot, allowing homes on these lots to be sold for about $20,000 less than homes built on other lots in the subdivision, while also increasing the home size by about fifteen percent. All, but one of the existing homes, are one-story, are about 1,320 to 1,898 square feet in size, contain a crawl space or basement that is the same size as the first floor, and a two-car garage. This subdivision would increase the total number of single-family lots in The Neighborhood from thirty to thirty-two and the number attainable (deed-restricted) lots from fifteen to seventeen. The proposed subdivision is shown below. 2005 Subdivision Plat of The Neighborhood 1 260 THE NE!(.11 BORHOOD 'A .I ./1 ../4,1 EL (,41 511. P.I. . Â·4 * 4.... Â¥'Ta~'Â°~lfointeRed-rail Hawket -'T~'-2~~ I 1..... COJNTY. CO;lilli t.-117 ~-77=/R#MA reer,Z.'p#--Â·-Â» 31* ......442- - -, 1.1 1. ..6 'i. ':.~ Â·Â·.. */0,+3/*74 ./ 11 'Â« -6.6~Â£ _*_t-W/t. dic'L-t .,1 1! 1 -2. t. ..,~N=- 4: d mING; 11 .Eiâ€¢imlÂ« e.ill iÂ· 09,4. NI,34*im 1,9,ME:Â·* Et,1~;331~ Â·3~~~Salud ,' 1/.0 i.l':4/*i ' . ' ''.-. I'. I . - . ..: ~ - 6 - 34,~ 8,5 f :i. i.~ag# 6 Â·tlots 1621*;Â·lÂ·:1 j.,4 01 ; I..,6 -7-131173.â€ž 4 ., \' \ -JEE'E':,,'6:. ~ Â¢Fab#*&12%. -19= ...Cm --CM 4 6,1 ~~ ;745#E#55~319*-ATIFES~&6&02~tfwu- fEN~~6 \~sta' ~ ~ ... lt-"--- ,~./.&..21.,zÂ·_1- , 1 Proposed Resubdivision Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood A i --- -1 . .., 9 - ,f' Lot 14 f Lot 2A .f Lit-iA-iot 4AI litoi 5A R; 1 . m. .i: g L .r 1 11. 'i 9 - g I t-9 -2 9 - *15 ~ ~ 2 1 F."k Â¢ 0 21 --1 : 3 '3, i J =11 f ~ : * * 0 16 i ~~ Lot 15 t-,4,- 'Lat 16 : 2 Ldtlk-131 : ... Â· *33.16~--:42**Â· :tize>-22-1..2.-a-:7:-S-'.1 1-/G.-'.'- ./.9 ..://* ....' --1-A: #.-...--...Tr-* - 2*35....9--Â· L. 2.2/ 9.4 Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood !,Fi f k.% lat, 7 4% 1 BE ---- 2 g M c E 30 P g M .2 * LA E 0- e-a (23 =t 51) 1 i R 8. =22 M E N N 9- 9 4# 4M UD m ES!* C Â© g Z Rgb 2 2 ro 1,0 0 . 2% CO .2 0 . podolokepun 9.mnizf LI 1.0 13 >FAR}I Xe.Jâ‚¬) GEL I - E )POIH 919[ 101 E YOO[H 'VE 107 Square Feet Acres Existing Land Use â€ž permit 25202-11 -015 Lot 15. Block 2... 1760 Gray Hawk Ct 11.235 ().258 application #8745 Description scription Square Feet Acres Existing Land Use ed Lot lA, Block 2 Lot 15A. Block 2 1760 Gray Hawk Ct 5.327 0.122 application #8745 submitted Building permi 25202-11-016 Lot 16. Block 2... 1780 Gray Hawk Ct 7.284 0.167 25202-11-017 Lot 17. Block 2. 1800 Gray Hawk Ct 0.167 Gross Land Area 0.592 1 3 "EH REiD OLL I 3 1001EI 'E[9 [ 107 E )[00[H 'VE 107 L I [ '0 10 >Ia<1UH Keli) 06L I E 100[g ' 2 100!EI 'Vt' 10'I Parcel Size Proposed Legal mended Legal Parcel Size OOI'Â§ Gross Land Area 25,804 PID Legal Description Address 10 >IMEH X1310 008 1 -6 VOIE[ *[ 1~77 pooqioqtiSiON 941 7 390[H .LI pull 9 i 'g i Slou Jo luid PopUOUIÂ¥ II. SITE DATA TABLES AND MAPS Kum-JO-142! Existing Lots Proposed Lots PID Address determined 6 SERVICES Water Town of Estes Park Sewer Upper Thompson Sanitation District Fire Protection Town of Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department Gas Xcel Energy Company Electric Town of Estes Park Telephone Qwest MAPPED HAZARDS/PHYSICAL FEATURES Mapped Hazard/Physical Feature Applicable to this Site? Wildfire Hazard No Geologic Hazard No Wetlands NO Streams/Rivers No Ridgeline Protection No Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Elk Wildlife Habitat Map LOCATION MAP AND ADJACENT LAND USES N 4 0. 1-':elplitwrc/lism'F'i"li"""I"li . . 1 4Â»,4 Al,=7-mm 7my '4- I- . , i. I' 40, i Fai~ ' j- . . â€¢557"./ I All./1 I . 12 RMP'#M.- Estate r~~ Multi-Famii;~ | 910 Residential i < 1/.2"'.182*Wflo**Am"VQ#ycll RE I CH Rural Estate Â¥(eavy <4W~ ~ ~ RE-1 Cdmolfear,~ ~ URural Estate 4 E 27-Eigli- Nr1.1 Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood 7 III. REVIEW CRITERIA AND PROCESS ~ All subdivision applications ,shall demonstrate compliance with the standards aiid criteria set forth in Chapter 10, "Subdivision Standards," and all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. The Estes Valley Planning Commission is the recommending body and the Estes Park Town Board is the decision-making body for this preliminary plat application. If approved, the next step is submittal of a final plat application for Town Board review. IV. REFERRAL AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENT REFERRAL AGENCIES This application has been routed to reviewing agencies for consideration and comment. Written comments were received from the following agencies and are included in the Planning Commission notebooks. Estes Park Building Department See Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated May 22,2009. Estes Park Public Works & Utilities See Tracy Feagan' s memo to Alison ~ Chilcott, Bob Goehring, and Scott Zurn dated June 3,2009. Town Attorney See Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated May 15, 2009. PUBLIC COMMENT In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, a legal notice for the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette, and postcards were mailed to nearby property owners directly notifying these owners of the public hearings. A list of the notified property owners is included in the Planning Commission notebooks. An overview of the application is posted on the Town website, http://www.estesnet.com/comdev/CurrentRequests.aspx for public review. The entire application is available for review in the Community Development office. No written public comment has been received. Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood 8 V. STAFF FINDINGS 1. Project Description/Background The Project Description/Background found in Section I of this staff report is included as a staff finding. 2. Reviewing Agency Comments This request has been submitted to all applicable-reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All comments submitted by reviewing agency staff, referred to in Section IV of this staff report, are incorporated as staff findings. 3. Public Comment Staff has not received any written public comment. 4. Compliance with Subdivision Standards Staff finds that this subdivision application has demonstrated compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, "Subdivision Standards," and all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code provided the recommended conditions of approval are met. Staff recommends that no changes to the original Neighborhood subdivision approval be approved except those noted in this staff report. 5. Adequate Public Facilities (Infrastructure) Phase II (East Side) Adequate Public Facilities Staff' s understanding is that the developer wishes to move quickly to complete construction on Phase II public infrastructure improvements such as the road connection to Crabapple Lane. He has applied for a building permit for the first home in Phase II and the Town required that utility lines, street curb, and asphalt be complete prior to occupancy of a home in this phase. Completion of the Phase II public infrastructure could not occur until the former property owner moved out of the house now located primarily on Lot 22, Block 2 and partially in the Gray Hawk Court right-of-way. Staffs understanding is that this occurred in the past year. Current Application The public infrastructure, originally required for The Neighborhood subdivision, can also accommodate the proposed subdivision. Additional private service lines will need to be installed for water, sewer and other utilities. Planning staff's understanding is that no revisions to the approved construction plans for The Neighborhood subdivision are needed to accommodate the proposed subdivision. Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood 9 - Adequate public facilities to serve the current and proposed subdivision Are guaranteed with a letter of credit. Drainage from the single-family lots in The Neighborhood subdivision is discharged without detention into to Dry Gulch via a culvert under Dry Gulch Road. There is an easement agreement with the owner of the Dry Gulch property to allow for this discharge. 6. Lot Size, Dimensional Standards, and Configuration The proposed lots are rectangular, gently sloping, and do not contain any dignificant vegetation, with the exception that trees and shrubs were recently planted to serve as a district buffer with the property to the south. The lots comply with the minimum lot size and width requirements in R-1 zoning district. The minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet and the minimum lot width is 50 feet (EVDC Table 4-2). In accordance with EVDC Section 10.4.A, the lot area/size, , width, depth, shape, and orientation are appropriate for the location of the subdivision and for the type of development and use contemplated. Each lot has a building site as demonstrated in the submitted application. The minimum required setbacks in the R-1 zoning district are fifteen feet from front and rear lot lines and ten feet from side lot lines. The applicant is requesting a minor modification to the side-yard setback to allow platted 7.5-foot setbacks. Staff is supportive of reduced setbacks provided the reduced side yard setback shall only apply to one side of each lot. The side so chosen shall be determined at the time of construction of the home on the lot. Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood I 0 15' 15' .-1 â€ž -1 r- 1 1 L------J. L_-___..1 1.i -01 10' r 7.60 7.5' ~ 1 10' 11 -11- A- P i Li.J L L I 15' 15' LOT 15B LOT 15B HOUSE ON EAST SIDE OF LOT HOUSE ON WEST SIDE OF LOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AMENDED PLAT OF LTOS 15 THROUGH 17, BLOCK 2 SETBACK GRAPHIC This request requires Planning Commission approval of a twenty-five percent minor modification to the ten-foot minimum required setback. Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood 1@1 11 In approving a minor modification the Planning Commission must find that the modification "advances the goals and purposes of this Code and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or. open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing the site" (EVDC 3.7.A.2.b - Page 3-12). Staff finds that the reduced setback advances the goals and purposes of this code and would result in less visual impact. As shown on the submitted site plan, the reduced setback combined with the increased setback on the opposite side of the lot would result in larger side yards on one side and therefore improved over-all visual character. 7. Attainable Housing A number of 'documents related to the original Neighborhood subdivision approval need to be. updated in conjunction with any approval of this proposed subdivision. These documents would be reviewed by the Community Development Committee and the Town Board. The Professional Services Agreement also requires review and approval by the Estes Park Housing Authority. A brief description of these documents is provided below. a. Development Agreement The Town Board approved a development agreement on June 29, 2005, which gave th'e owner the right to develop as summarized in the "Development Agreement' column below. R-1 Zoning District Development Agreement 100% of single-family units 50% of single-family units attainable attainable Attainable to households earning Attainable to households earning 100% 80% 6r less of area median of less of area median income income Attainable units deed restricted Attainable units deed restricted for thirty for no less than twenty years years b. Attainable Housing Agreement This recorded agreement between the Town and developer identifies which lots are designated as attainable. The lots originally proposed as attainable, currently proposed as attainable, and deed-restricted lots are shown below. Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood I 2 THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISION M....I . P..#631 <Z4- - U i 69* %;d. / E.Â·6} â€¢5.4. MED *Aa .FE larn 97"/=TrM-pr - , 1 ' /3. loT , f i /*/%/â€¢ u. ' u. . r. 'Â°~ . GRAY NAN]~ANI LzE tep~ Fr'Y-YIL~vir.w =" 71' w.- -T' 0.- 31 T - * iNCICATES 7/AINABLE" LOT DESIGNATION 4 02, 6 i MALÂ»f D-1 1, C.,4 er-tfb AÂ·4 A-/FS'N Aill- 5 ~ 2*~5-re- ArT.:NA.L. A% tbV b 00 t-4.0 I org' des , 74'/ 4 444.*'4 4(~ C C.â€žt...4 re<-ret. 6 ---.-.ORS I U,G.EERS. .C. ..0 00* 30.7 EWES .P: co sosâ€ž (SMÂ» 806-5 75 9.*R . NCO . Ur,ng '-/6-4Â·rA This agreement would need to be updated to reflect the current proposal prior to approval of the plat by the Town Board. Attainable Housing Restrictive Covenant and Agreement This recorded covenant is between the Town and the individual home owner. A separate covenant is recorded for each attainable lot. The covenant starts the clock for the thirty-year attainability period on an individual home. Obligations associated with this covenant transfer to future home owners. This agreement also states that the Town is responsible for determining whether or not a potential buyer is income-qualified to purchase an attainable home. No revisions to this covenant are required. c. Agreement for Professional Services between the Town and Estes Park Housing Authority In this agreement, the Town engages the Housing Authority to perform professional services in connection with the deed restriction (attainable housing covenant) such as income qualification, and sets the method of payment for these services. This agreement would need to be updated to include the new lots. 8. Submitted Application/House Design The developer has identified a need to remain free to modify proposed typical building types to adapt to changing conditions in the market place and the local economy. Therefore the developer requests that all typical house designs presented are for illustrative purposes only and will not be binding as a condition of approval. Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood 04Â£1910 l 3 9. Wildlife Habitat Protection The property is mapped elk habitat per the Comprehensive Plan wildlife ~ map. The property may also contain other mapped wildlife habitat. The plan was sent to the State Division of Wildlife for comments. No comments were received. Since this properly is mapped as wildlife habitat, no fencing exceeding forty inches in height is permitted unless approved by staff to confine domestic animals or to protect landscaping. Fences over forty inches may be allowed with gaps for wildlife. This is summarized from EVDC Section 7.8.G. 1.c, Fencing, Page 7-35. Much of the fencing in The Neighborhood violates these requirements. I J 1 lili '. - Â§ 1 1 11. Staff's understanding is that new homeowners, not the developer, installed these fences after they purchased their homes. Staff would like the developer' s assistance in adopting a subdivision-wide master fencing plan that meets the intent of this code section, while not necessarily meeting the requirements on a lot-by-lot basis. The developer is proposing a fencing restriction for the five lots in the amended plat. This fencing plan is illustrated below: Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood 14 FRONT YARD - NO FENaNG 9 r 1 L------J PRIVACY FENCE-n r=- . 191 i PRIOAC# FENCEE ~ =Lr, 1.-2- Fi 1441 - 4- -Llui- M ' ATTACH COLORED WIRE NEITING , TO EXISTING POLE FENCE WITH ADJACENT INERS PERMISSION THE NEIGHBORHOOD AMENDED PLAT OF LTOS 15 THROUGH 17, BLOCK 2 FENCE GRAPH IC 10. Underground Utilities All utilities are required to be buried underground. Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood PRIVACY FENCE . JON=Ld .UJÂ¥/Â·Uld 15 11. Utility Easements Generally, ten-foot-wide utility easements are required along all property lines. Staff is supportive of the proposed easement locations and widths. 12. Off-Street Parking and Loading The lot size, shape, and configurations are sufficient to provide off- street parking. Two parking spaces are required per single-family home. 13. Postal Cluster Boxes The applicant provided 32 boxes with the first phase. 14. Right-of-Way The applicant is propoÂ§ing dedication of an additional seventy-seven square feet of right-of-way so that the constructed sidewalk will be located entirely within. right-of-way rather than partially on Lot 15 (proposed Lot lA). Staff is supportive of this. 15. Proposed Lot Numbering The lot numbering should be revised as described in section VI of this staff report. 16. Other Items for Town Board Review The following information is provided for informational purposes and requires no action on the part of Planning Commission. The Town Board previously waived all planning application fees for The Neighborhood subdivision and building permit application fees for the thirty single-family lots. These fee waivers were based on a specific house design. Any proposed changes to this house design need to be reviewed to determine if fee waivers will remain in effect. The applicant is also requesting fee waivers for the preliminary and final subdivision plat applications and building permit fee waivers for lots associated with this new subdivision. This fee waiver will be reviewed by the Community Development Committee and Town Board in July. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the preliminary plat CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the submitted application Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood l 6 2. No changes to the original Neighborhood subdivision approval are approved except those noted in the staff report. 3. A minor modification to the side-yard setback to allow platted 7.5-foot setbacks in the locations shown below. Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood 17 15' 15' r- -1 1- 1 1 L------J L------J . m.---1 : 1 10' 7 7.5' 10' 7,51 7 f~ Â«Ij -LU.66 ~ ~ A 61 3:11! ~ LOL ~i I j I 1 1 1 15' 15' LOT 15B LOT 15B HOUSE ON EAST SIDE OF LOT HOUSE ON WEST SIDE OF LOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AMENDED PLAT OF LTOS 15 THROUGH 17, 8LOCK 2 S ETBAC K G RAP HIC Planning Commission finds that the modification advances the goals and purposes of this Code and results in improved visual character. Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood l 8 4. Approval of an attainable housing agreement, and professional services agreenient. 5. A ten-foot wide public utility easement shall be dedicated on all shared lot lines. 6. Lot numbers shall be revised as described, Lot lA to 15A, Lot 2A to 15B, Lot 3A to 16A, Lot 4A to 16B, Lot 5A to Lot 17A. 7. Each lot shall be limited to an enclosed yard, or fenced area, that lies to the south of the rear wall of the garage as illustrated below: Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood 19 FRONT YARD - NO FENONG .1 P 1 1 L------J PRIVACY FUJCE -1 3 , , PRIGACY Fe,ICE ' 41TT Li ~ , 20 0 ' U It: IM g I E ' ATTACH COLORED WIRE NEITING ' i TO EKISTING POLE FENCE WITH , A[MACENT OWNERS PERMISSION THE NEIGHBORHOOD AMENDED PLAT OF LTOS 15 THROUGH 17, BLOCK 2 , FEN CE GRAPH IC Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood 20 VII. SUGGESTED MOTIONS APPROVAL I move to recommend approval of the application to the Town Board of Trustees with staffs' findings and conditions. CONTINUANCE I move to CONTINUE the application to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting because... ( state reason for continuance - findings). This requires written consent of the applicant. DENIAL I move to recommend DENIAL of the application to the Town Board of Trustees because... (state reason for denial - findings). Amended Plat of Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood /.7. MEMORANDUM To: Alison Chilcott, Planner II From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official I)ate: May 22,2009 Subject: The Neighborhood Lots 15, 16 & 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood Gray Hawk Court The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the Amended Plat (Resubdivision) for the above-referenced property and offers the following comments: 1. Existing home located on parcel 25202-12-00lin this subdivision has been determined by the Department of Building Safety to be an attractive nuisance. Necessary permits are required to be obtained for abatement. 2. Addressing for proposed lots are assigned by the Department of Building Safety and are as follows: a. Lot lA: 1760 Gray Hawk Court b. Lot 2A: 1770 Gray Hawk Court c. Lot 3A: 1780 Gray Hawk Court d. Lot 4A: 1790 Gray Hawk Court e. Lot 5A: 1800 Gray Hawk Court /-: r. GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 May 15, 2009 ALISON CHILCOrr, PLANNER II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK. PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Amended Plat (Resubdivision) - The Neighborhood Dear Ms. Chilcott: I have no comment. I f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Ved Truly Yours, f 96.Ou Greg~A. White GAW/ldr CC: Paul Kochevar 1885 Sketch Box Lane #6 Estes Park, CO 80517 C %4. 1 1 -9 0 & 4 SWI!1 Fl rGH'A'tiYE 33Â¥:'U,ITI [IN*00*1 E STES 62<9 Â®PA R K 24/fjjilwil)349 -# & 'le64-4.<46*,i 74# COLORADO Room 100, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Memo TO: Alison Chilcott, Bob Goehring, and Scott Zurn From: Tracy Feagans Date: June 3,2009 Re: The Neighborhood-Lots 15,16 and 17 Block 2- Grey Hawk Court Background: The Public Works and Utilities Departments have enclosed pr0gress 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. Engineering: Public Works and Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1) The Neighborhood subdivision letter of credit should be updated to reflect current unit prices. 2) The applicant should correct erosion problems for which they are responsible. 3) The applicant should complete remaining public improvements in Phase I and- address any warranty items. Timing can be coordinated with Public Works Department. 4) Public improvements in Phase 11 (Eastside) should be completed and accepted by the applicable entity prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a house in this phase. â€¢ Page 1 iIÂ· Light & Power: The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Amended Plat (Resubdivision) for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1) There is still one area light that needs to be paid for and installed otherwise we have no comments or concerns. Water: After review of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Rezoning Request the Water Department has the following comments: 1) This project will be subject to all site inspections being provided by the Chief Building Official (which includes all water and power infrastructure as well as all drainage and civil facilities). 2) Any water service line installation or replacement-will require a Service Line Permit from the Building Department. 1 3) Contractors must call Utilities Notification Center of Colorado prior to any excavation 1 - 800-922-1987 e Page 2 PAWNEE MEADOWS, L.L.C. 1885 Sketch Box Lane #6 Telephone 970-586-5175 Estes Park, CO 80517 FAX received at 970-577-0381 , April 22,2009 Alison Chilcott Town of Estes Park -@20[EOVE'-3 P.O. Box 1200 ~ APR 2 2 2009 ll Estes Park, CO 80517 l + 0- RE: The Neighborhood Subdivision Statement of Intent for Preliminary Amended Plat Dear Alison: The attached application and plat depict the division of 3 lots into 5 lots at The Neighborhood subdivision. They are the first lots east of the entry and along the south side of the street. All utility mains are in-place for these lots. We will need to extend two more sewer services from the north side of the street. Electric can be served with the current pedestals which number three along the south boundary lines. Because the lots are small, it is simple to keep the distance short from the pedestals to the meter on the side of the houses. The water main is south of the curb line and can be tapped for each lot as the buildings are constructed. This proposal will include these five lots in the existing list of attainable houses for the subdivision. The project now offers 15 lots for attainable homes. With the addition of the two new lots created by this plat, we will be able to offer 17 lots for attainable homes. Because the lots are smaller, we will have less invested in infrastructure which will allow us to sell the homes at about $20,000 less than homes built on the other lots. We believe this will make a very great difference to the prospective purchasers. As sales have been slow, this kind of change in the offering price is necessary to keep the project viable. Although the lots have less street frontage, we have prepared a house plan that adapts to the width by moving one side of each house close to one lot line which makes the outside living space available along the side of the house as opposed to the rear of the house. The footprint of the house is smaller but the square footage of the home is about 15% larger than the models currently constructed in the project. /07., C C J. April 22,2009 Page 2 of 2 The Neighborhood Subdivision Statement of Intent for Preliminary Amended Plat The subdivision was originally approved under the current development cbde. As we are not changing utility mains or the street, this proposal is also in keeping with the development code. Not only are all the utility mains and street in-place, but there are no hazard areas to contend with and the site has not been identified as a critical wildlife habitat. These smaller lots abut a commercial property - self storage units - which means very little or no impact to neighboring properties. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully yours, Pawnee Meadows, LLC 08$ 9 1 Paul M. Kochevar Manager ESTES VALLEY c i 01**ED,91*31 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION j 1-81| APR 2 2 2009 9 145<~ Submittal Date: April 22, 2009 81 Ut =Q 1U 1 t --r ' L 11.yp,ejoiÂ·6Pplic8tioni<sest.-44~~:~~42 32:44.1*1~~ i %~~52 <~1,24igr-i - :ri 4. .:'51 Flt~~* i -= I -26 I5f~ceiaofRmevn~plan r Boundary Line Adjustment Condominiumap -J r ROW or Easement Vacation f- Preliminary Map Rezoning Petition r Street Name Change 13 Final Map Preliminary Subdivision Plat r-- Time Extension r Supplemental Map 9 + Final Subdivision Plat f- Other: Please specify Minor Subdivision Plat Amended Plat r - ' - =General Information 4 - ~ * : . -' .- Project Name Amended Plat of Lots 15,16 & 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood c Project Description divide three lots into five lots , -:t Project Address Gray Hawk Court 7 K Legal Description Lots 15,16 & 17, Block 2, The Neighborhood -4.. -I Parcel ID # 2520211015"bl-7 Section 20 Township 5N Range 72W .,. -Site Information L ' 3-' Total Development Area (acres) 0.592 - - Existing Land Use Single Family Proposed Land Use Single Family Existing Water Service F Town r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service P Town r Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service E EPSD 12 UTSD E Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service E EPSD 12 UTSD F Septic Is a sewer lift station required? 0 Yes P No Existing Gas Service 17 Xcel r Other P None Existing Zoning R-1 Residential Proposed Zoning Same Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? E Yes 12 No Has site staking been completed? 12 Yes 13 No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Paul M. Kochevar, Estes Park Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. 586-5175 Mailing Address 1885 Sketch Box Lane #6 Estes Park, CO 80517 Attachments r Application fee Statement of intent 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan 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 f P.O. Box 1200 f 170 MacGregor Avenue f Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 + Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www.estesnet.com/ComDev KI rl ~1 ~1 1 1 1 3 KI 7 I 4.-- i. - Primary Contact Person is' E Owner P Applicant E ConsultanVEngineer 41 - .--4- 1~t itu-- L~-= Record Owner(s) Pawnee Meadows LLC r. - Mailing Address 1885 Sketch Box Lane #6 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone 970-586-5175 1 -32 -- yJ Cell Phone Fax Email paulk0971@qmail.com Applicant Owner -ri Mailing Address Phone F -r ; Cell Phone Fax Email paulk0971@qmail.corn ~ U ConsultanUEngineer SAME AS APPLICANT Mailing Address 111~:'ta Phone Cell Phone Fax Email ~ APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION On July 1, 2001, House Bill 01-1088 became effective. This legislation requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condorpinium Maps to give notice of their application to all mineral estate owners where the s'urface 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 Pawnee Meadows LLC Applicant Same Signatures: 0 .V A U Record Owner 9~0*lt/' l.pM/luu.. , 141/45Â«7'L Date 9--2-1--,9 7 . Record Owner ' Applicant Date APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge > and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). . I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. (The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.) I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. . I 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. 4 I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. 4 The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. . I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to 4 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 Pawnee Meadows LLC Applicant Same Signatures: Record Owner ./t>i~-, /444 Date 9 - 2-7-0 9 'V 1 Record Owner Date Applicant Date /4 1 4 7 h AN Al#h Ah AN NAN T- r r- r- r Â·r-r- T- r- 9- r â€ž ID ID If) 10 1-0 ID LO tO LO LD 1.0 ID If) O.00 000=00 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 * 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .9.0 000000900000000=!00000000000 NO -000000 W 00000000 --- 00000000000 5 2% 22% 2 -29 2222 29 221 22 222 222 22 2 L. 1. 6. 1.- 1- 1- A L L 1. ES@@hotzz -HHZ(ocorcomm-(0(0(6(0(0(0(0(0(0(0 :%2%%00%%20%%%%%%%"%%%%%%anan (D 0 0 0 0 *Â§-522*22.92-5232222222 9 8 22222 0 0-23 lu 00 1- CIO 0 000{00 cio (000 cio .20 (0 0 (0 000{000 O LU D UJ U.1 LU LU LU LU DO LU W 111 111 U.1 111 LU LU O. LU 111 LU LU LU 111 111 LU Ill LU U) -6 + 2 C '- CC=CCCIC O JOJJJjjJJJ , M 1 1 - 2 ot â€ž M DB 23 #3 - 42 86%1 iti &5 1/ 1/ 1/ &5 99 @ ~18Â£% '* .- c, 2 I A 10 -c 9 5,2 ~ E 5! W (0 0) Co co co co (0 co Z co 9 >â€¢ ~ ~dyx*gxg@Â§@@@@@@2@~@35&~1Â§331%95 I u,2 .02.0 u)00000000 6 w w w tom J oo rn m to 1/P ono k ie 00 2 8 2 62 82 W 58'GoR IB ~ f3O 9 28 ~Oo ZB O. h Q. r- CD O.0.00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0. p ,- C\1 - O- 1~ p ,- O. O. r 1 O=55 JULE< Â·.,_0 J LU rn->, - c -' t: c v 2 fE #i 5 3 E i g g 2 5Â§ > - 2 Ok J v E 0 % 25 Ecozo 6 ti (0 Ir o Â® cm .92 1 2 22 8 2% om :2 #% 52&336 6*42 20#32 EFE8: 0 Et 5 -00-0.-0 c :61* cobcomihita> CN-0 * s t =1 N a Â·s (D 0 -pÂ£ 0.6 822 c > 2Â· .c Al ff g. R tf O 0 Z co 0 . w & A 8 6.2 2 Â£ = r * .M 2 @ -~ 6 co 'n O a CO ILI O Z Y I 111111 2 Y 7 n m m m -1 < 9 <0,-5 -10<1-_1 5 ional Trust Co FL 32256 Ire Rd 0517 0517 0517 0517 nda S Shotts 2366 0517 ZLGO z# euel le6nJ>i UXIA LIGO ' ZL90 Izznpleg >I le#OBE' 79 d ZL90 ZL90 AlielsEI 1 eu!1S~J~li~~4 el LLSO ZLGO Jed sals3 9# euel xog 011 'POOWOq45!eN elli Owner Owner 11 Address Z L'9 l-'9 L sjol leld pepuelliv- elli. 'P004JOq46!eN UOSielled W Buoia nity Resource Center h E McMurren -- -- -- --739 BLACK CANYON INN -2.%34 1 / 4j 1 U vvl,1 1 1,1Â·w 1 Vil J~~ 44 ./0/linâ€¢ Ak.,4 81=V==10.1 \\\A 94Â¥ :,4 e . ... .. - -4 - ..9. 0 - 0 0 A .i, a U /4 9. /4 . 91:, . 4. ..(l 1â€¢ .. .= 9/r 2 8 4/6 ; .. \*3 - 0. 6 S 4 ..V 4 1 - v~~ 0. 0: â‚¬r 4: ilillilli vilililim::: 42: Il..::/ .11' lilk e 4.â‚¬i'k bvir-1 . 1& 4 *2Â® 0 + 1 .pa, . E /1.6 $ 9 9- A 11 .6 04. 1:4-* -r*Waa - -,64- 4- 01 6 4. --- ~ /4iIA 44& Ni~,4. . 0 I.V. .t..=. '4.Fl 0.*3"1 94. e lillillillillillillillillillli9llill . 4 ' 0- '62Â¥â€¢4'* ~r .. -..... //0.---L 4240.4~'111'l-0-010)- . O ~41 441-44$10k*.@4 t.-'*102,4.~ -- 4. 4: .dit'll/6 $ ,_ Cubost/,4'.~ 1~*B'* 'flilmliliml*clillizzailillillillillillilli.kyl'~d~iiallillillillil~wililillill'TillibeAT~:~imlimih:'~7 -r , 9/,al"<071/ d. .6 041-04 0,6 40 44 +14 -~ 1:: ..4.4 6 4 - 4- 94' 40â€¢ 4, 6.6 -,V/.& . 0 9, 4.41, W. 4* 01#14 - A 9, 74* 440 66 4.e . 04 /t 'L .6 . . r . 4 r*: AD e., â‚¬4'*4 4. .1 0 4% 6 404 A r & 44* - 6 -2.11 J. e 4 2,9 A.9 811 DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR: MINIUMS IMS, A PORTION OF MEYERS ADDITION LOCATED IN THE EAST E 73 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., TOWN OF ESTES PARK, A: Electric Town of Estes Park Gas Excel Telephone Qwest from Arterial), 10 feet from rear and 15 feet from g, setbacks shall be 25 feet. ,wncasting; (refer to Estes Valley Development Code ill not exceed 17.5 ft in height. led with native grasses/wildflower mix. All new ,althful condition by the Estes Park Medical Center. system. lid fence and built bear proof. gnter of Colorado prior to excovating set forth in the revised height measurement lied to M.U.T.C.D. standards. id or guaranteed in accordance with EVDC 7.12 and handicap accessibility in accordance with the A.D.A., 3 vested right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, sentation of proposed improvements and does not nstruct any of the improvements. 5 165. imber of units and their configuration shown on )eclaration reserves future development rights which n. The exercise of any development rights on this Development Plan is subject to the in effect at the time the Declarant chooses to iossibility of zoning or land use regulations which reserved development rights. 14.417 ACRES F 12.210 ACRES ,850 SF/UNIT) LLQI f 5.87% 14.64% 0.92% f 21.43% 9.84% 21.17% 3.54% 34.55% 65.45% enholders of the real , shall be subject to the :ode and any other do. pertaining thereto. JOB NO: 421.006 4 / -<11 1" - - Approvea Dy Ine Estes valley manning commission Day DATE: April 07, 2009 N 1692 BIG THOMPSON \44 (970) 586-2458 of , 2009. REV DATE: JUNE 09, 2009 SCALE 1" = 100' ~ ESTES PARK, CO. 80517 ~%45>/ FAX (970) 586-2459 Doug Klink Chair SHEET: 1 of 8 SUITE 200 r .., 1 ' t.-%' 1 ,/...1 4 1 - . 4. +11 ' M ill A 1- i, .le '1?.1 LI I 1IL11 1 p 1 4 ' al. 1 1 11 1 1: ' . A .A. A .. A .mÂ¤mÂ¤.m, 1 0, .. . D. --.... ... - .- .A- 1 -- :4(â€¢lel=m:~*A . 0 0 - - 0 11 -A I :mA A A . - . 2;Al ... ., A ' 1 0 0. 0.0 4.#tr - 20 .A A" -. .-A ...... 1. 1 I . I . ... . . 34 *,#:. i 9/44 4 /- ... . .2 . . 1 . 0 0 ..0 -*lili'-i ... .. 1-. ... . . . ., I - T- _E......'llib , .2 - --I-I . I. , i .JW~Wi pd40111 -2 .. I . .-I . 1. ,. . C. .2 ..2. I . ..... .. .. r die Â¥,-- .. ., 0 1 1. +L.~ 44 .... . .... . . :a . . . BiTY ,... . . . 2,0 . 1. 1 . AJA 1 . . C , - {~1~ A 1, I. I . - D 0 , )6:A F 1 -2. r/= '* .. I 4 . .. A. e .1 :, A . 1 .. .. ... 4 ..... .---1- I. -1 r Â£"lv Â·9 . 42 : Â·Â· . . - I ..... . I . 0 0 1 - .. ... V ./ 0 - I ... 0 1 . I. .- .0 1 . . A -D .. 0, . - D- ... .. -D ... - .. ... . . lili-/. .. ... .... . I - -I . . --0-0 . ---- . I . ./0.0 1 - -b. 0 ...... 1 - - A - 3 ..... 1 7 1 0-0-0 1 1... 1 - - .... . 2. I . . 0 ... D - 0 .0 -. 44 (0) , A- . a . M= -D e .. .1 -:0-0 4 1 6 1. Alh @| - I . 41 J %4~ e 0. .0 . 0. $ 4 . 1 .0 .0 -D G :0 . .. I .... .1 1 00 - 0 0 . - SM ---1 e .-'., " - 0 --'.0 I ' 0 0: 0, 'WK .4 A .. .-. 1 - 0- . . 1 ./ -I-/ ID - .2 00 1 . 4 1 1 11 4- . O 1 - 1- 1 - 1 - . -' -'. . 0 . 0 3. 11, .L, i:i 03.9 -1 1.2.02; ... P . . . . 0 . ... . .2..2 . ... D .- . ... ... r,0.*<Â· i 4, "I:,ar â€¢=1 . r.lk - . I -60.Merv* ~ y 7126 - . 4 :,Ell - ... /*.I .6 7 90 - . . .A- 1 = . 2 02. 1 0. P."1 -14 1 4/ t * 4 b L : 44 4 4 2 12. 1. J d .11' , 2 11>Â« 12 1 . I- . .... .. . I. . i lit... ... .... . . - D. ... - 6 11 11 1 lili ; 4 ' ..... 4. I .... d }4 D = . , a ,- I 7 0- 0. .... 0't h 1 14\ r. .1 11\(, 11\( 14 ' t IM \ c. 11\ ID![IMI< 11\ c. lit â‚¬: A. 11 2 & Ch) 1 . . . 1 '' / ,- 1 D- " 1 I ji PUND 0 . r <Aeup ~ .. 7//' i L.2 \\Â»--f (43 Ilt~rt> '. i <1 4 u w / 0 5.1Â«14 1\/ 1 /1/ 00 -10 0) 0 1-, tf~In 11/1/7 1 i i /// 1 1 1 0 \Ii j \ , 1 b / r \ 1 1 1/ I 1 x--- g *R 'A:n~ ,~ U 2 k2/02 ..1 1 1 ; / 1 \4 . 41 -2.4 . // I // 1 4 \~ ~ i ./ 9 jO ~ ~2 < - 7aA r 3 Â· Â· frÂ· =k. 14 11 4/ W Mt -1 - - ---3 41 1 4 + 1-1- 1 / / .. i 1 / ru .+ - 7 20%Â» ; 1 / 1 / 1 1/ f \ \ sy' ii 099 1 )/1 / 1-7 0 \41 /// C'<7 1\rÂ·/ Â· > i.i , 1 ij-fÂ·-EA \' .\ ' r *r;/.i 1{. R /- --- ----- : 2 / ---- ... / 4'-4/f b Â·~ IJA 11 1/1 â€¢ 1\ -' ' 1 j \ / \ -- I //f h \. 4 *- 1 - - - - ' 20 0 10 20 30 1 \ .... 1 ..1 1 427 M U \1 14 1 1 ' NOTES: / / SCALE 1" = 20' ' '' , ' Nt*r~ /~r 11 1 3 . /./ / / \ W>.1 3/0/ + 1 1 1) CONTOURS ARE 21 INTERVAL 2) SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED A-ACCOMODATIONS 1 /i 21\ 4 '/Â· - \. 3) DRY STACK ROCK WALL IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 1 TO 1 1 / 1 LU /.../ ' ... SLOPE WITH 24" MIN. DIAMETER ROCKS. EACH COURSE IS TO ' FORM AS SMOOTH A SURFACE AS PRACTICAL, WITH ROCKS , 1 1 ~ /Â· ~ < -- 4*' BE SECURELY KEYED AND ORIENTED TO MINIMIZE VOIDS, AND 11 4 f,JI' W,?9/ 1 k. i 1 1 le .14 4 1 , . / 1 INTERLOCKED TO PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL BOND. WALL NOT TO , 1 1 .1 + | ' 1 1 1 . 4 4/ r / 1 \ 4 6 / / EXCEED 4-1/2 FEET IN HEIGHL 5' SPACING BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE ROCK TIERS. 1 + \ 1 1 / / : 1 / i f / - A . 0 ~ PkeRQSED MUTCD ~2 ~ .'ll .FlfrX:,< ;42 5 / /. 4 ' 1 STOP -moN-ANP O. - 4 00- , .. / STREET SIGNS TOÂ·â€¢BLg i >Â·: INSTALLED PER TOEP A-- * ''-*- 1 ./ 4, (Â·5 .. , . / PUBUC WORKS -. .+0 2/1 ~25 / ~4 -Â·---Â·/ + L/15' Ul / / 1 AR / + / -e,. -- ' Â· ~i ~;,:,i~-itii:~~~ ~:I.~.Ir. Â·4<-{--. :--s-h.-4 4 \ . 4 0/ /.. / -'. *.0 EXISTING 480 CUL Â· ' ' + ~ ~ -11 -0 9 -- *r" , Â· Â·~ 1 -.... --5 / / 1 .. .. /1 14> er --12- 9-3-:11 1 1 t\22 , ' .'. , â€¢ 1,94 / " -0.- ....0 .. . I. . '1. . - . . . .\ 1 .6:. , I , .. -400. , P . : rÂ·.:.:.. 0-'.,49:.:''pr . . . siod/ . 4/4 F Â»4 . **se . . ds>> ' 1 L;-00- r. r ., ' .â€¢ 223*,..., . 2 .Bi.2.*i'Â·f.'r;:. 0. . 0 0 -- 1/- 1/ ll, R25. . 21*W? 4 . -1.-7 e -% 1 -1 , I \111111(// /dic . "469940 - . . , 1 .. l.'. > 1 51 lu .... . 8- 0* - - I. stes:6501:6:9:ill/- . . N . . /1 â€¢~ 4...., Â· Â· 9:. -V . .... . ---9 I. \ \ 1 --1% 1lljll . 1 I . - ,f'1111'b 1.- .000. \ . \'.\ N \\ /// 1~~~1, ~~~ ~~ ' <* BE EXTENDED TO \ ISTING CULVERT TO 4 1 h / ALLOW SIDEWALK % itij i-- CROSSING \ 0--,1-> EXISTING ENTRANCE :/ 1 ./:1,1 .1 TO BE ABANDONED ~ ~ 1 AND RELOCATED, AREA L / ./ TH7:6>3 ..1 â€¢ TO BE REVEGETATED ' Â·1 Â«4 . .. j --7 / 223 I 2 -- 9 4 1 / , 4 / \\ . 1, ....13 / 3 14 *<C/// i / i j / 5 \ ' /el \ 1'1 . L 2, WETLANDS CONTAINED 111 1 WITHIN 100-YEAR 4.. jpl FLOODPLAm 1 // 3//i // . f 1 1 1 1/ // 1 1 1 *r 1 lill \11 f 11 /1 1 1 1 111 1 1- / 1 lili / 1 / \ 1 j lili //// / 1 / I. 1 1 f //// / \\ i* 1 /1 $ 1 11 1 / ./ / / 0/ // / < 1 V l .km/ / / / / / 1 / / 1 , 1 1 /// / , // f 111 j , 1 - 1 1 1ll \ f lili \11/ 1/// \{ I / 4/ i 1/ j \ / 1 7 1 r / /5; 1 1 1 1 1 , // l / \ r / \ \ 11 1 jl /// / BUttbING / ~ / / / / / /*TBACK / f / / 1 / / \ 500 / *- I / i / R 1 1 / 1/ // /1 /1 1 \ j i /0 6 -\ 6.\ / i /0// / / / // 1 /0//11 / 1 1 7/ //0/ 111 l \\ / 1 1 / EXISTING " , , l// 111 1 /41 / i/\111 ( /11 V / 66; / \ / i r Â£ C I /./ ////f/ 1 1 11 1 2. /Â«L / \ 111 \ \ 1 . N N / \\ / / 1 / / / jij ./// 11' W. 1 li///fit 1 1 Lk. 1//////// 1/ . 0 +fit # t//241 0 5 ' -S- \ i / / / / /1 / / \\ \ 1 /i /,1.'/ 1 h / 1/ / 1 i.II- lll 11 2/ / \ lilli / ---I- -- DATE: REVISION: BY: PROJECT nTLE: THE LODGES _ _ _ _ - ' Zi~$31 1%~GFIAW IImNNTS - 'I.- AR \\ /// 1/,k 11 COWMENTS JUR AT BLACK CANYON INN S88'19'47"E - 1- -- - --- lili 1//11 1 1 CONDOMINIUMS CORNE#STONE -- 102.72'(08:60 --- --. -. SHEET TITLE: UNITS 1 THRU 5 S Waâ„¢' E 461,31' (Dal) â€¢ I SITEPLAN .|aom=Na a ~(k.) sulam=&-,9 â€¢ 1- 00 â„¢011'02" A'N.7/97 -0.-0 ROCK ACRES CONDOMINIUMS DESIGNED SY Kil* APPROVED BY _XML JOB NO. SHEFT SHEET murm â€¢00 RM - MULTI FAMILY DRAWN H _.,la- DATE APRIL 2009 421.008 2 8 CUENT: SLOAN INVESTMENT ,LLC. -1- pat m 8001, Nvy Nx f.,0,=0-0.0 CHECKED BY _Mit SCALE -ALIMAMP!-. JIM SLOAN , MANAGER 41 M: \CES_Jobs ~421_006_Black_Canyon_Master_Plan jEoglePoint jBC - Master Planning-Commission.dwg, 6/9/2009 4:03:09 PM, JLR , 1 1/ 2 T---17 * 00 1 1 -*.-1 1 1 -t \ 2 . 1 / \ /. .......\... ASPBALT.. 1 14/ 1 1 1 r/ 1 1 / -7- i V ~ 1*2 1 ./~--~f-~. . .06,'.. C~. ~-I tf - 1 & . . .......4 * .PARKING. - 14 1 i / 2 ' 1 1 r l . 1// , / 1 1 / 1 k-/ W > Ir / ~ 1 1 . ' . ' ' .PROPOSED ' AbAITiONAL. ' Â· ' Â· r Â· 0 Â· PARKING Â·SPACE~ 0 0 Â· _1 f '1 11/ / / g 3-- 1 / /// 4, /If J /\\ EXISTING ~ ~ /1 - BUILDING 1/ i i / -.- -1- - I Iii *lryÂ· ,, 1 | / <0 1 / 1 / / 16 "' ' / , '.i.:../0~Jii;tf. " \ 1 SCALE 1" = 20' 20 0 10 20 30 Â· Â· Â· STAIRS Â·DO 1 1 ' LEVEL '. /7 \ \ ........\ 63- - -1-* - ---1 3 1 , ''''I'' ~ -3 EXISTING. 4 - -... / / / 1 1: i -063 k ,., 0qtrIN0.'.......' L - - -\\./-/ - I44 1 / 7-/ 0- -- 1 - --=- 1 %\\ / O 7 BUILDING \... . / 1 4 1' -/ \ 0 \\ Â£ O )TO BE Â· Â· Â· Â· Â· 1 \1 0 ~~0~_ ~~0~~~~i Â· Â· 1 1...11. 1 1 lig - -3\\ / 4 \Â·-/ REMODELED \ 1.. / \0 \. ...\ 1 1 \ 1% FF-7632/7642 , Â® 41 \% 4 +P Allti 63 \\ 0 4 1 . 1 1. . 1~' 51SPACES~'~' ,'~'~', '~1'~'~' ~ ~ A / ,\ ' I I \ Al \ / //Al 1// // , ' ASPHALT ''' ''' 'Â·' '' ~ 1 ~ ' EXISTING ' '' ' '' ' 1 ' ' \ 11 / , , 0 Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·I ' PARKING "''l 1 \/ \It / 1 1 .< 7- --- - .. . 1 . / . 2 \ . 'EXISTING...'.1 .4. .h. 1., 1 . il Ilf.Â« --_-'' \ . . SIDE~ALK.TO . -- 2-37-Â» . . . REMAIN . . . .r... 1 3\ \\ \ 1 . ..1 /-Â»\4 .........1,7 1 .PK; .40 '3*4' <1 ~ 1) CONTOURS ARE 2' INTERVAL \ 4 11 i 1. ',Â·EXISTING' PARIKING J. Â· 2) SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED A-ACCOMODATIONS \T' 1 1 , . 1 , Â· Â· @~ 1 Â· 1 .., i :_ . 0- -1 . . . , reÂ«f j .. , A. Â· \\\ ... \ SLOPE WITH 24Â» MIN. DIAMETER ROCKS. EACH COURSE IS TO FORM AS SMOOTH A SURFACE AS PRACTICAL, WITH ROCKS INTERLOCKED TO PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL BOND. WALL NOT TO 1 EXCEED 4-1/2 FEET IN HEIGHT. 5' SPACING BETWEEN 4 \ ,,,*~~ ,, ,,,*,,, SUCCESSIVE ROCK TIERS. I B. 1\\ \ k ASPHALT 'Â· Â· 'Â·A 1 . U W ~ ..- - r. Â· PARKINGÂ·Â·Â·Â·Â·X\ ...... 4 \. 1 . 4 42 EXISTING 0 % r . i .\2 ...1 47 1 Ul BUILDINGr+6 \\ \ \ Â·-Â· . Â· Â· Â· Â·12-SPACES Â· Â· Â· / Â·\L /4 1 \ % ADDmONL--1 '. ' . ,/ / \ 0 N- M-/ 4 4~U--LA 4 1 & 0 fQKING CALCULATIONS: // // 1 1 j / 1 Ic r? l/ 1 4#LA \ \ , 1/ 1//1 1 \ Ul ATY --7+z --=====1 1Â£ 3% fÂ·t* 1 1 BUILDING H REGULAR HANDICAP TOTAL 1. /(/ /0 '. ''',''.'.' Â£ \ 1.1- B ILD G '1 2 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING -EFFICIENCY OR 1 -BEDRROM UNIT: 1.5 SPACES (3) 9 0 9 / . ... A. 1 /// / t s (EVDC 7.11) -2 BEDROOM OR lARGER UNIT: 2 SPACES (1) 1 '''. ''.'' , '.''.'' \ 27+17 EXISTING 4 /ti I Â· 0, i i TOTAL REQUIRED 9 0 9 -- 411 t 3. j E TOTAL PROVIDED 9 0 9 RESTAURANT / /A--t-- \ \\\ 401 / \ 1 BUILDING J REGULAR HANDICAP TOTAL 11 .- - .... N \ unuTY MULTI FAMILY DWELUNG -EFFICIENCY OR 1 -BEDRROM UNIT 1 5 SPACES 2.25 0 2.25 \. 1 1 / 2 .@.1 \ \\ \\\ 11 '..' 11 1 # 4 RE 0 $ F' 'r ' b iTGX;Gg 07. \ \ EASEMENT (EVDC 7.11) -2 BEDROOM OR LARGER UNIT: 2'SPACES (1) TO BE +0.25 GUEST SPACE PER UNIT 1 / < BUSINESS SERVICES -1 SPACE PER 400 SF (1000 SF) 2.5 0 2 1 1 , . ; '~ '.i, 22#NE ~t"' #... ' / i.-/ I \ ..... , 1 1 1 /0 , .(7,635.ko ~*12.,Â·....5'.)1<. // ) -V" \\ ..... / (EVOC 7.11) 1 \ '''WATEN '12 / Â¥ \ 1 , 1 1 4.- ~/ /~ EXISTING ~1 1 y 4/8 1 ,Â§~|(E , 1, f ~45 J / "~ 7 2*L- COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY -1 SPACE PER 400 SF (500 SF) 1.25 0 1.25 i / POOL 1 1 - - -- 1 _---1 ,9#0 i < r : f ::: \I ' 4Â·* 2. J \ 1/4 0 43' 2,0, Â® (EVDC 7.11) 1 // 1 l / -f -9,/-4 \ ,/''. ' ~ 'MY< 0 ~ 43"4/7654 \â€¢ \ 1 1 11 L TOTAL REQUIRED 6 0 6 ''. ' . 1. # 2?Â»0' / . Â· Â· Â·(7651IÂ¢4 // 1/ 1 ...... 711 // // y ~ /,~,','(5681~~4 Â·1(1,0 ~ ~~ Â·0~ TOTAL PROVIDED 5 0 5 lili 1 1 / 1 44 1 /6Â· 1 li f %80*/ C 1/ â‚¬N '11 116-f-,2>.~,8 1 1 NOTES: e 1 . , 1 1 . . . 11 1 . . . . . 3) DRY STACK ROCK WALL IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 1 TO 1 . 91 \ \ : \\ ' . ................ ~ BE SECURELY KEYED AND ORIENTED TO MINIMIZE VOIDS, AND 1 , L.U. 1 1 +0,25 GUEST SPACE PER UNIT I lillil \ 1 9 1/ -. 110' ... r .. N \ . \ , - ..0- 34-/ ' 1 ' ''1 1-Â·L . ' (7635.08 -84- -42 -42)Si -/. zfv i 93Â· r*--, 4 _J -1 Z LEE_Cont of' . I /Â·/Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·NÂ· Â· , . <14\\U --9â‚¬7 - / / Af/--57 -0/ LÂ» 5 1 // - J- . r ..: I I ...:~f. 1 \ C. / rv- V k ' : ' ' ' . = 1 / / \ / 11., ~~le ' .2~ ~ '' , , .1 i,hr , ' ' 0 ' , 54. 4. 1. -3 .. , ' *.... 1 1 / /\ A. . Â· 1 '/ 1 4..,..i. :4 0:,f92'V+G~"-2 1â€¢â€¢â€¢' v"04 9 ' . 7 7 ' ..:6Â· : ..2,7~OPOSED . 0 f 1 1 1 -- \ ' 01.224511'PRI,ATE'.89:. , 1 1.4 1 I ' 4 1_A ' , ES. Ft,MM ,,, P \F 4 0 ' I .... EC.#9 0721 BK RACK~ \ i \ 1 1 1 77 1\ \V i ~ i_ /Efe .1.4 - 1 1 \ / f 5.4 : \ . I 1 \ +0 / /1 L -1............. mh '... . .1 I ' 9 - h 'Â· Â· '500 1 \1/ \ , 'l .- 1 / ~00 GRESS/EGRESS ~ ' . .1 , ""/V \ \ .4.# 004864 ~ # fi /\: " ' ' 1/ 5.42 804.6 Estr. 1 4/' \ REC.# 01004863 . I. 20 REC. 03 37170 '''' . ' . 1. , ' ''.' ' /. \ Â· -â€¢r. U n \\\\ ''' , '44 -21 ' \\\\ / , ' 1*25> \\\ ..1 . . . 7 ./ <f~' ./.' . 0 J., ''1 t.;~Y.1. 1 . . e ....1 22<:44 -/ , .- â€ž --I \ \ :4Â· Â·706'Â·~8.0 -3.65 , .u 1 1 1 - -1 F.gÂ·Â· *-V. . 1 1 ---- 1 ' it ' ' : : 3, ':2 1 ''.'' l' it .. 7.2.â€¢ '.' ,>7' i â€¢ -1â€¢ 1 9 X ' 510 11~ 9-- t~G 1 8 ~ ~ 9 , 1 \ / \ i A ./ . 4/2 2%1 98101 . 1,4:t: 1.fk. 00, il . "11< - \ 1 1. 42,~42 4< /f'\ - â€¢ \ \ A3---,4/ 1 < DECK - BY: u 5 46 .- i< -i , 44. . â€¢ 04/07/09 ~816Ffi%Â¥ RinN 'UMMENTs ~u AT BLACK CANYON INN 7 . /1 2 05/19/09 DATE: REVISION: PROJECT TITLE: THE LODGES i .0.--. * -. : CONDOMINIUMS CORNE#STONE 0 1 5 . / JLM / SHEET TITLE: UNITS 6 THRU 13 ./ SITEPLAN 0KmimUNG & .. DESIGNED BY KIâ€¢ APPROVED BY _M~L JOB NO. SHEET SHEET 1- m ...,1."ON =!.100 I. DRAWN .Y --,11,L DATE APRIL 2009 421.006 3 8 CUENT: SLOAN INVESTMENT ,LLC. -= NaÂ£ 0&0017 9 'AX (00) 88.-00 CHECKED BY hIST SCALE AS SHOWN JIM SLOAN , MANAGER - 11 RE - RURAL ESTATE M:\CES_Jobs\421_006_Black_Canyon_Master_Plon\EoglePoint\BC-Master-Planning-Commission.dwg, 6/9/2009 4:03:52 PM, JLR 11 N A *13 20 0 10 20 30 MU SCALE 1" = 20' NOTES: 1) CONTOURS ARE 2' INTERVAL 2) SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED A-ACCOMODATIONS 4 fle,c#.1 3) DRY STACK ROCK WALL IS TO BE CONSmUCTED AT 1 TO 1 ~ / \$~cy~<f SLOPE WITH 24" MIN. DIAMETER ROCKS. EACH COURSE IS TO BE SECURELY KEYED AND ORIENTED TO MINIMIZE VOIDS, AND ~~ d-i> FORM AS SMOOTH A SURFACE AS PRACTICAL, WITH ROCKS INTERLOCKED TO PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL BOND. WALL NOT TO - EXCEED 4-1/2 FEET IN HEIGHT. 5' SPACING BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE ROCK TIERS. :o. PARKING CALCULATIONS: ILITY EMENT BUILDINGS K&L REGULAR HANDICAP TOTAL MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING -EFFICIENCY OR 1 -BEDRROM UNIT: 1.5 SPACES 12 0 12 (EVDC 7.11) -2 BEDROOM OR LARGER UNm 2 SPACES (5) +0.25 GUEST SPACE PER UNIT TOTAL REQUIRED 12 0 12 TOTAL PROVIDED 8 0 8 BUILDINGS M&N REGULAR HANDICAP TOTAL ~-EFFICIENCY OR 1 -BEDRROM UNIT: 1.5 SPACES 14 0 14 MULTI-FAMILY DWELUNG (EVDC 7.11) -2 BEDROOM OR LARGER UNIT: 2 SPACES (6) +0.25 GUEST SPACE PER UNIT ~ TOTAL REQUIRED 14 0 14 TOTAL PROVIDED 9 0 0 BUILDING 0 REGULAR HANDICAP TOTAL MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING -EmCIENCY OR 1-BEDRFOM UNm 1.5 SPACES 5 0 S (EVDC 7.11) -2 BEDROOM OR LARGER UNIT: 2 SPACES (2) +0.25 GUEST SPACE PER UNIT TOTAL REQUIRED 5 0 5 TOTAL PROVIDED 5 0 5 BUILDING P REGULAR HANDICAP TOTAL MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING -EFFICIENCY OR 1 -BEDRROM UNIT: 1.5 SPACES 5 0 5 (EVDC 7.11) -2 BEDROOM OR LARGER UNIT: 2 SPACES (2) +0.25 GUEST SPACE PER UNIT TOTAL REQUIRED 5 0 5 TOTAL PROVIDED 4 0 4 6 IND ' REBAR WITH STIC CAP 8499 BY: PROJECT TITLE: THE LODGES z *9531 ~i~ifWAWRi~t#Ni:~WMENTS JJW ' AT BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS CORNE#STONE SnEET TITLE: UNITS 14 THRU 28 SITEPLAN =m,=lm,C} a ,/G, JJ ===nÂ«UIC SWEET SHEET DESIGNED BY KIP APPROVED BY __*MIL JOB NO. - DRAWN BY .AR* DATE APRIL 2009 421.006 4 8 CUENT: SLOAN INVESTMENT ,LLC. =--*a ..i, v =.- CHECKED IY W. SCALE --ALIMMN-. JIM SLOAN , MANAGER SllIH VO ov18 SllIH UNY-3 113Â¥18 101 *Â£ 101 s \421_006_Block_Canfon_Master_Plan jEaglePoint\BC-Master-Planning-Commission.dwg, 6/9/2009 4:04:25 PM, JLR ..4 '' G t' ..... , 4\A #A''D&; , : D : 7. %. 1 .,61.~.'dr~* A- 0 , A///./- 0 1 . ' 407.4,12:- -424- . 4 6 . 6 .. 1.5 -04 ..Al.YA.Hall -4* .14 ---lu. . (A - 1. .1.0 ~ 4 9///~ e) . : 9. a: . 38,Â» ' 4-t . 67.3,- 4 1 P :4â€¢r 9, a . '4 0, .....la):. 0 f..~ 44 1, .Â¥f, 74 .le-~ Â¢ I ~ t /"imit//Elia ~4+ -I- /4â€¢ Ag' 4, 09 1 0 '4 ....Al=jej,Â£1<,:Â£-61 ~V" ~7 8 1 ~--1-- a -44.,1,4/â€¢*' ~.' 2/4 .........1 4#ka '. â€¢/1 11.livAIA 4/ .--I .FiÂ¢*41- o . r.i: - A 0 . .t AA 44; AdÂ¥ . -. 'fu-:9 --11 4h..,.,, 7 $64Â» --1 --*/ 4- . 0 44 <47#1Â£ 4- 1 -. 1 - . .. : 16 e-, t 4. \-Ae, V%*i:lijilillill 101.. - lils:li,5.; idul:ifitill"lea,kimpti,bilw~; r -... 1 -riga- mi- 0 0 --I...=' 4 ,=a,V 99*latillu---le 4\*4*, ,-ill"/ 42/4, /4- I. -0 .â‚¬44~lililill I hilies,af 4'~40 , - -- ~40~iawe.~1, ~'4>*â‚¬ ; 9~jibi-. A,Â«Â· "14 - 1 '* f. 'fum,iMmA .. 0\ ,~â‚¬ 4. %4 , 0 - .N I, I4~2 .il p W~d-~9~b~~AV~/AW~~~~~ - .A--'alâ€¢.pr-,7/1/1:- I:/6/4~------JE M .- 0 11 11 I . Alwlill:p.--4/I'll"MI'l.229/lill/"Illilli/6/3/'ll./.-/"/6//ilrl//3/1//Ill'll//./'//I'll"'ll'Zill /1//1/16121./14.1;.~///I&"Flz'.............'../././- a .. FA--0-0--=2- --Amb--- 1, Bolijellililizilimillillili~vilililib ~ ~~~~' Â·4~.~ 11 ~ , . '1 10Â£ . D -~-9. 1, ' 0%.4<10 . - 11 0 /0 m . 0 - .mb . - . . I - 2.I- 1- HIB~/P-~4~ Al~~ ~ ~Lig~~2~~ji~34"~41%0,1'* Â· h - J 41 0 e 79/Apb.- .6 U 94.- . 41 . 1 . ... ... , ..1 . e 1*/Wk 5 1 1 G f I . , , , A , ,---- - 454~4-Â£ 1~2;552$25*62@0~R;$:s,~IZED:*El~rbll . -- -/1 . // 0// ,<.v. f.*29-drpsc,v,- 72*L~fi FOUND -â€ž Â· 6'Â·CON . S 88'48'00' E 170.000 (DMO 1/2" REBAR WITH I- - - 4-~ }/ tri:Ttl , - EXISTI - 0 ~ 215.00 ,.\ PLASTIC CAP 1 /// HYORNE 7 ~.7721~.5~ NO. 6499 ftly_:~PÂ¥~2[) E~~M ~___ 12 R~LOCATEN , / -- . e ./ /1 . . ..1 . . / . I ~b SERVICE / zf -~E>Â·â‚¬i7 -ELECTRIC â€¢ 0 . . . I 1 77 1â‚¬71)0541 2"0219112472516Lbilrl Q\ - Â¥4 -- 4 / / k:.. 6 I . rv-Â·..00 I i . : 6 -1- -1/ 9 -ty 901 - 1 // > 14{1_91 Ut?<~1~~/1~~~~~~~A~~47-4 -A r~ A l - ' 1 0 f 11 0726.80j 1 / , 4.1 'ewy Ar'94 A Nurv, 4 liT h,wieâ€¢.C / - / \A> fir 91260_-~:~ --- - -- -- 0 .5 0 .#D P Akeq -1-- / 1 ''.' 4 19/ 1 **A,/=t\\15/ 3/ 4 ' 11....... . .i,d Â¢7 â„¢:br===-te n I Â«.7 77/3.77 -. 77 , ' - - *--- -$ C}> 2/ El R \64 1 4 7710,0 ,'v~996Â¢ 421 7 - . 2% // \ -1- Â·14* -1=5Â»C SE:-BEE - Â»Â»:t., --2, -2/ l.5Â« / 1/5 .... . 1 0 *4< 4/To,1 0 ---7 / 25.5 Â¢ 4 ktgfl A ' ' ' ''yw - - J./7 V / An L 2.'I / / /L - -4 t 20 0 10 20 30 REC. / / e / . ... 3 37-[5:1?-F 1 NO. 6499 ,-0+10,5 0 1 i --- / S ~41'25' E 232.18' M S 88'46'00= E 232.00' 19 -<--/. _AL'' 0 .F /'' $~t / '7r;pDREBAR WITH / SCALE 1 " = 20' e EXISTING 10' GAS ESMT, c - -- -- - -~ - ~ PLASTIC CAP / RIDGEVIEW CONDOMINIUMS - - 4./1 1 1-1 - ECTRIC- -- -- - (BOOK 1433, PAGE 116) â€¢ e b SERVIC ENT - g -- RM - MULTI FAMILY TO BE- AND ' TED----- - 4b, r --- / , -40---- ------- - 9 -- '78 49\ >b t FF-7728 914 , 25' FF-7732 E.7130 BUILDING - 6.- - -- 30 36" SETBACK \ 1 \\ -1-- - 0 - - 36 ~ ~#~~ --~9 ii LEONARD PROPERTY 24 - - *r :183,; . r , 21 6 1--c-*- - \ - - \- oh 1. NOTES. ) A - ACCOMODATIONS 19 - - -1- 2 1- - ' 77 9.85 . 11 . 0 CONTOURS ARE 2' INTERVAL %17-iÂ£,41 - 'N 7 ..5 . doc ' , :72 01 Â· .f--- , 1... 27 m.' 2) SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED A-ACCOMODATIONS * <13>--1--iliv 31: / a El ------- \\\ \ 3./1- 5, 64-12â€¢44 3) DRY STACK ROCK \WALL IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 1 TO 1 fl I . \ . \\\\\\ r 4/1 ,/Â·c,~(hi* ...9/~ h \ . SLOPE WITH 24â€ž MIIN. DIAMETER ROCKS. EACH COURSE IS TO \\\\ 7 . , 8 51 i 111- ---\ /\\\\\ %~~4 0 .4 5-5449% iN ~1 4 BE SECURELY KEYED AND ORIENTED TO MINIMIZE VOIDS, AND \ \ L i INTERLOCKED TO PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL BOND. WALL NOT TO 8 i FORM AS SMOOTH A SURFACE AS PRACTICAL, WITH ROCKS \ r.- - -/\ 1: . s: \.- !4 1 bt/,11 6 1 \\ \\ \\\\ \ .Ely I ' . . fli- 4 1 11 1 11 -forrot .0\9 1 \ \ \\ \i\ SUCCESSIVE ROCK TIERS. . EXCEED 4-1/2 FEET IN HEIGHT. 5' SPACING BETWEEN \ \ \ ".3 - MT,;1 OMP)Â¥/ I 7041 ~ + \ li z. " IL .--I.--I N \ \\ \ A 1 \ 16%'* Â·1 C,1 1-~162 11 ~ FOUND L- --2-ZE=.--~ 2\ 4 \\ \ \ \ \ i E-h~,1~-*7723~1./ A 1 1 1 /' 1/2" REBAR WITH PLASnC CAP - -j NO. 6499 82,7 -Cr'=-El 14 -4* 7 - -- -1 -- 722rb.<jt: 3 : ,~ : BÂ© rv i 1 I li ->. \MÂ®#2948'7/1 ~ -S 8/48'04 E 100.48' < ' \ N .40'00. W 231.91' ~,10~ ~PR(*OSED) ALLJE,SHER FOOWL - -- - f '\ 1 ,(E A VE (~C~KOD~%'&9OMINIUKiS / SURFACE /FOR PROIQSED -- 1/2" 2BAL WITH dMERGENCY iNGRESS/EGRMSS PLASTIC CA70 \\ \ 0 ; THROUGH OVERLON \ NO. 6499 N~ LOT 1 , 1 5 STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT ~ 1' 1 1 / 0 / CONDOMINIUMS \ -- / A - ACCOMODATIONS ~ ~~ ~l ~ / .EARKING CALCULATIONS: MULTI-FAMILY OWELUNG -EFFICIENCY OR 1-BEDRROM UNIT: 1.5 SPACES 9 0 9 - BUILD~G Q REGULAR HANDICAP TOTAL \ I 1 0/1 // (EVDC 7.11) -2 BEDROOM OR LARGER UNIT: 2 SPACES (4) +0.25 GUEST SPACE PER UNIT 1 1 / TOTAL REQUIRED 9 0 9 FUTURE LOCAnON OF TOTAL PROVIDED 5 0 5 ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL OVERLOOK UNITS AREA RESERVED FOR 1\\ FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS - . SHOWN ON THE OVERLOOK CONDOMINIUMS MAP 72- L 4<f> 7~ ~ * l 4... ~~' O , PROPOSED 24' f YA <1 A EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT 1 Â« 6 0 \\\ \ 4 0 \ 1 %4 \ \ \\ (D 1 \ / \ \ 0 0 2E 0 5 \ \ 7 i L./ \ 6 00 C 0 1 0- OVERLOOK CT. (D 2 C 0 c DATE: 0 ~~S~'1' R#%09 PROJECT TITLE: THE LODGES 04/07/00 . 05/19/00 MMENTS AT BLACK CANYON INN 0 0 CONDOMINIUMS CORNE#STONE m SHEET TITLE: UNITS 29 THRU 32 O 0 f DRAWN BY .912. DATE APRIL 2009 421.006 5 8 CUENT: SLOAN INVESTMENT ,LLC. n ,-1 0,Â· '0511 ~4Â¥r NX (070)- SITEPLAN =w"1'n' /~~h =,=manc DESIGNED BY KMP APPROVED BY _*MP_ JOB NO. SWEET SHEET 0 CHECKED BY IST SCALE AS SHOWN JIM SLOAN , MANAGER 5 Planning-Commission.dwg, 6/9/2009 4:04:42 PM, JLR t- f. -A* W 144Â·'W-0- / / FrrE::- 2<b#l 1 UTILITY NOTES: A ) N Nl 1)( I) 2/<,6/ 9 Vec.f Z 2 Â£9 2 B nvun ,%917 L J VVINL/VIVI'l"VIVIJ I .-. ~X~_ LOOP PROPOSED STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT ~ -THE~ LOOK CONDOMINIUMS -#VERLOOK FEED ELCTRIC TO / DATE: REVISION: BY: PROJECT TITLE: THE LODGES %13;31 1.=1 =.&OWMENTS JUI AT BLACK CANYON INN JIR CONDOMINIUMS CORNE#STONE LhEET TITLE: UTILITY PLAN -imÂ«3& ga.X m==no no DESIGNED BY KMP APPROVED BY _AMP JOB NO. SHEET SHEET DRAWN BY -IaLI DATE APRIL 2009 421.008 6 8 CUENT: SLOAN INVESTMENT ,LLC. -1- PAR= m â€¢0817 Nbey ..(0,0, ./4*/ CHECKED BY UST SCALE AS SHOWN JIM SLOAN , MANAGER 01 92 101 SllIH 14%77 >1Â°VI SllIH NOINVO~~>10Â¥18 SllIH NOANVO >lov-18 121_006_Block_Canion_Master_Plan\EaglePoint \BC-Master-Planning-Commission.dwg, 6/9/2009 4:05:05 PM, JLR U41--Gul 3~-'-<3 ... A. I . m. U L - -1 0 .- . .. .. . D. <40 0 .. . . 1 0 -1 ID . 044 - . I e . 0 ...: ... 0 4. .V-li-*th 0- - . = = D. ID ... - -0 , 0. : D. .. 99 7 -0 - ... 0 . I. 0 0 -0.0 : 0- D p D : 1 0 .... : .- 0 0 - D: 0 . . .. . D D O- O . -0 1 0 .... I = 1- D .. -D 0 1 ......... - - 1 - D: I . .0 0 0 .. . D 0 0 .- . ./ 0 -0 : 1 ... I - A . 0.-0 I .. . I. - . : .- 1 -0 4 D: 0 0 0 . f 11 :A- 0 . .... .6 0 D ... 0 : 0. : .0 0 0 ....0 --0- I .. -A=p .0 .5- J.8 D : lilli D = .. ... 0. --1 0 = 0 4, 1.Â§,5, . eq' . -0 0 -0 -0 1.- . 1 74'Ir 0....0. -4., .mi- . 1.- , 0- . 0. . r ...0 '" . ... . I =:I. 1 - . : u . .. - bRilb # I l i ~l i I; 1 1 5'l a i l l i l l I l i l l ~ E l ' I Il' 4, i. ' I -- - 0 .D A - 0- I. .. D '7 --S ~ivIA 0.6. py D. 1 4 , ft .. i. liwill 4#2*14/1 - 4.,9. % 4.1 e - *k,9.1,> F. 4. $9 . 74'.2 " {r ~~40. 4*m~ eÂ¥ Â®: 1= Â» ' Ill- -. - 6 .5,6 / . e 0 .A, i r '00,- â‚¬ / .0 1 .1-7 . '**(110~%Â® 9*.j ./ 4,4, . 4 I j * 4W *:F 17 1 \ 0 ....79 ' *%746,#:Fi~ 4 11.,4 . Ff- 4 I . .. .... - .5 vi ...114'll'Willp'igr . 4* P ~Â¢4 , / it, '94.6 e'.61~te;44 6 .. .. a. -1 IL- 44* 2@1 0 . 7 , - a.49.,8 , 1 L~ - L iMAg,01.Ii:01~~~*~~A~/~1'*'.~0,-- ik ' 9-I.E<14* 19 11\10=#.4 4,)46' n JI" YA,/2/1â‚¬=~, -V Ai t: 1 1 , .>6 .6 - A- - '61& . '4 - ii.*~:Â£41.2:"I , 6 -4/ id ,- -, #:1*, . 4 t. '*4 / i f /A r - 40,4 % P#F /~w/~*40â€¢ *b m'*Wtâ‚¬*21 /04 9 / . 441 .-, 4 d / -* 4 4.0021:4 , I - f.. '97 J. . 1 .. ~ '' 61 04.9 44.4Z~ ~ ~ ~ ..e'* 1.64.'*....41*4 .Â®1#L . D. *- .. 14 e.,062 4.1. 0 ./. .02#k~J 9,0, . 9919*08 9~k.,0. ...6 /. :C 1111 0 . 1 .0, ~ ~4Â· ~4~~ 0- -4-I_~~~& 0,/3*r:ilillE:Ji./49//102/Ma)467*%,/ ' 04; *Alit, : -d â€ž--__ --a,-:I-.=Quav- A .Filim %726-74-2=,D.-I A.Ily ..6:.gal .1 .6 .6 .6 .4 ..,4 - ./.m"'"pwie//7/9741/IM.mim.%121....... â€¢,Â«/0 40Â·AÂ«'4= - -- 94*9, .. . 00 . - I. I I - - . e - 4% 9 2. 6 - 4 0-82 . 9* ~e -,-, :Â¥6 91*?mity- 94* . 4: , -0 0. 0 6 '4 ,= I .. 1. -,1, -a. .. 22 . 00 - 0. D I/~'~'- 9*,a ; 4/lajaudDLA .ij' .. /'.*Ii)~~*A; 4219 i .. $ .,4, 6 1- / .. . <Faff.EA.9.m.#%%2**2 -' - ./9&44*imilla.Gfe'*. -... 71' 4.7 - 0 51.~.4 9 - 4 :.. , I. . , I . - I 0 0 .- I. .:: .00. I. I. - -- . D. I .... 00 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" x 1/4" SQUARE VERTICAL TUBES 0 8' O.C. MAX./ 1/2" SQUARE PICKETS 0 4 1/2" O.C. --/ 2 1/2'0 x 2 1/2" x 3/16" 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT ' SQUARE TOP TUBE\ 1/2" SQUARE PICKETS 5'-4" @ 4 1/2" O.C.~ \ 1 - 2 1 /2" x 2 1/2" x 3/16" ~/~/ FINISH GRADE ~ SQUARE TOP TUBE- ~ \ 1 . REINF. CONCRETE /- , I 7/, . \ STEPS ve #4 BARS + 0 // *mlp-le---amw~. 42 : .% . %/12" EACH WAY .. 2" x 2" 3 3/16" - -4" MAX. 2" x 2" x 3/16" 1-1 11*11\ . 1 -â€¢ 4 r ...4 1 Â·4/~ 2'-9*" . SQUARE BOTTOM TUBE I . 14, 1 2% SLOPE 3'-6" SQUARE BCTTOÂ·4 T JBE \~ 34" - - 4" MAX. - 3 1/2' =111- ..+47Â·.1, .4.21 11=Ift'll-Â·... 4. _ I I-u Â·Â· Lai 0- -32 4 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT \ E\ - -0 ,~ 4 " 2~ ~ ---~ 4 Â· FINISH GRADE .. ' â€¢ 4 ~41TT Â·Â· *I.. . Â· :4:. ''Â·~ 3~2 8'Â·*dIMUM SPAW*.Â·' '. .4 Â· Â· // 4 , 41 4 4 4 . 4 UJU 4 . 1 ,Â· . '' 'Â· ~' EQUALLY 'SPACeD'â€ž .lilli- \ 1 il~~333Â· .. : 4 4 4 4 4 -/ . /.4. , . 1. 1 111111111 :111111. f /0/411222 14 1 ~ 4 - 4. Â· Â·g' '' 4 ..... 1 1 . 4 1 Â·t Â· ' I 4 Â· M Â· â€¢ REINF. CONCRETE FOOTING -1 1 ~| le .7,..1 1.1 4,2 .21.1121 111 lEi I le'/ 4 ' 4 q 4 4 A . .4 , 1 2 4 44 + + A q .4 ' . I 4'4 2. ~4 , a . , DEPTH VARIES WITH SITE 777- 4 . I .1- 1 .... 4 , 4 Â· 5 ./ A CONDITIONS El I ..4 - E'119=11 lilli- -1/ / 21 4 ~:~ k h 4 4 ILL-Â·Ll-~--~-----37 Â· 40 U.: 4. A. .. 1 'r.. ~~ ~ Â· L~~----c ~al ~ Il I lEi I Irz~ 11 q . CONCRETE OR MSE RETAINING WALL (TYP.) - 1__._A.-U---Â·-----~~~ COMPACTED GRAVEL HANDRAIL DETAIL OR SUBGRADE NOT TO SCALE CONCRETE OR MSE RETAINING WALL (TYP.) - TAPERED END SECTION CONCRETE STAIR DETAIL T-7 4")(2%"xi"Post 2%"X2%"4Â»Post - NOT TO SCALE - 0 8' 0.C Max. 0 8' O.C Max.- NOT TO SCALE HANDRAIL ON 1 11---- 1 F EDGE OF SIDEWALK (TYP.) 80 Gl' 1 t!8NQENL_QEI811.2 * gch. 1~Ok /" grout pad =~ 1. ALL ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE GROUTED INTO HOLES DRILLED INTO EXISTING CONCRETE. POST MAY BE SET IN (4) 8"x5/8" EPOXY ANCHOR 1 Â·Â·, Â·Â· POCKET AND GROUTED. 1 4 1& 9"0 x 8" (min.) A307 bolts , epoxy grouted into concrete 2. ALL WELDS TO BE 3/16" FILLET OF SQUARE BUTT ALL AROUND. . tip-Â» with hex nuts and lock SPACING OF VERTICAL METAL HAND RAILING POSTS washers. Project bolts 23" ' 2. 1-SIDEWALK Â· ~ L#4 above concrete surface. Continuous 4 1'-2" SHALL BE DETERMINED BY MEASUREMENTS. OVERALL W. TO MATCH WIDTH NOTE: '1' LENGTH OF SECTIONS OF RAIL SHALL BE MEASURED OF SIDEWALK, BUT 1. RAMP AND WING SLOPES SHALL NOT BE c, Non shrink grout with AND THEN DIVIDED TO DETERMINE THE CORRESPONDING NOT LESS THAN 4' STEEPER THAN 12:1. fl 1%- ELEVATION - -Â·C-an ultimate EQUIDISTANT MANDRAL SPACING SPAN LENGTH. 2. GUTTER FLOW L/NE AND PROF/LE SHALL BE 1.55 .... 2 6' 6 compressive strength MAX. THROUGH THE RAMP AREA. of 5000 psi. min. 4. ALL HANDRAIL MATERIAL TO BE SELF WEATHERING ' ...(MIN ) 3. /F POSSIBLE, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES SHALL NOT 11<.,24 12/, BE PLACED IN LINE WITH RAMPS. LOCATION OF Edge of 9"0 hole (typ.) ELEVATION STEEL PER ASTM A847. 7-' 2 ~ -2) #4 REBAR CONT. concret; ~ ~ RAMP WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER LOCATION OF 5. ALL MATERIAL THICKNESSES TO BE 0.125" UNLESS RADIUS DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 4. ALL CURB RAMPS ENTERING PUBLIC 4 Â· -#4 REBAR 18" @ 2'-0" 0.1. NOT MORE THAN TRUNCATED DOMES. 4*ab NOTED OTHERW/SE. FLOW LINE TO BE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO HAVE DETECTABLE WARNING F-1 1 Possible post 1 ~ - Post 6 $ 1.55 ACROSS RAMP positions - - Ofo CURB RAMP DETAIL ./. Edge of _ C / PART OF PE OF \ LJ / b concrete - WING OR WNG OR NOT TO SCALE - 8" RETAINING WALL (TYP.) CURB CUR8 44 L 1" x 8" x 8" MDTH OF RAMP r .GENERAL-NOIES r 1. THE DETECTABLE WARNINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED L_z-~1 PLAN ELAN THE DOMES SHALL BE PLACED IN A SQUARE GRID. AT SIDEWALK/STREET TRANSITIONS. THEY SHALL BE MADE IN PAVER FORM WITH A TRUNCATED DOME SURFACE. @6[TED CONNECTION pOCKET CONNECTION SECTION A-A' 2. THE TOP OF THE DRAINAGE WEEP HOLE SHALL BE LOCATED NOT TO SCALE SECTION B-B' AT THE LOWEST POINT OF â„¢E DETECTABLE WARNING WELL NOT TO SCALE ..1....1... .1....1.. 3, ALL DETECTABLE WARNING AREAS SHALL START A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES FROM THE FLOW UNE OF THE CURB AND 33' NOT BE MORE THAN A MUIMUM OF 8 INCHES FROM ANY .......1 ....... POINT ON THE FLOW LINE OF THE CURB. ALL DETECTABLE WARNING AREAS SHALL BE 24 INCHES IN LENGTH AND COVER THE COMPLETE WIDTH OF THE RAMP AREA ONLY. . ...............2 4 9 ............. 4 CURB 4. THE DETECTABLE WARNING AREA SHALL BE INCLUDED F Fl,OW LINE IN THE COST OF â„¢E CONCRETE CURB RAMP. 6' MINI. TO ,~ . .~ n ,:~ ~ .,~~a; CURB FLOW UNE 5. RAMP SLOPES SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 12:1. THE (SEE NOTE 3) - DETECTABLE WARNING AND WELL AREA SLOPES SHALL NOT A- ~ DETECTABE WARNING WELL BE STEEPER THAN 20:1. PLAN VIEW OF THE TOP DIAMETER OF THE mUNCATED DONES DETECTABLE WARNING AND WELL SHALL BE 50% TO 65% OF THE BASE DIAMEIER 1.0' - Z4' L] 1-- (PAVERS NOT DRAWN TO SCALE) 1 | 1 ,0 0 6'WIDE Â·~ 1 6' ~ 24' C I 24" â€¢â€¢â€¢ 0-' CURB 1.6Â» - 2.4Â» &/ils"Es (nQÂ·-X I FLOW LINE ... 7 . 1 - RAMP - ~ E- ~~ TO j ~5111 2 .4 CURB FLOW UNE 6. SHALL BE PROPOSED ' ~~141,4 1 ,EL,EXAnghl-MIER * EL8tLXIE* ORS= -1 L- 34 I DIA. DRAINAGE WEEP HOLE CONCRETE PAN DETAIL EQUALIN 4,94 / 4 .SECTION A-A BOTH DIRECTIONS. \495~~~9~t:~~#il,"1 NOT TO SCALE 44*#*GY#itÂ«6<906-, (2 "=hx - TRUNCATED DOME DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 5 MIN. NQI; DRY STACK ROCK WALL IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED Eff//0 0 AT 1 TO 1 SLOPE WITH 24" MIN. DIAMETER PRoposED ,Â·r- .: C 34 1 ROAD PROFILE ROCKS. EACH COURSEIS TO BE SECURELY DRY-STACK 1 U---a=.~r-----~\ = CROWN SLOPE TABLE ~~D AASNDSMOOR~~HNEADSTORF~'NMZE AMWZÂ° ROCK WALL w -2,-0- WITH ROCKS INTERLOCKED TO PROVIDE A 0--1 F F ib fSEE PLAN) ASPHALT PARKING ROAD PROFILE CROWN SLOPE ~~Al -1/2" R AREA SUBSTANTAL BOND. WALL NOT TO EXCEED 3" ASPHALT <5% 2% 4-1/2 FEET IN HEIGHL 5' SPACING BETWEEN 41__,L_,L~ J ' ~, .... 11:1 .1 4, ... '' t ; 1 , . ... 11. , 1. - 1 i LAYER 5%-8% 3% SUCCESSIVE ROCK TIERS. 4295*,22;378,--- li'Ull'- I .. |, | Upv 14L--.,â€žm,//impy/2125--1 6.-1 2>Â»-~4_~~~i Â»1=2"= >8% 4% 3/)4 ke .2 6. ' lai- DATE: REVISION: BY: PROJECT TITLE: THE LODGES TYPICAL ROCK WALL DETAIL COMPACTED GRAVEL 4" COMPACTED BASE NOT TO SCALE OR UNDISTURBED 04/07/09 ~PLETENESS COMMENTS JLR OR UNDISTURBED SOIL 05/19/00 UN STAft REPORT COMMENTS JIN AT BLACK CANYON INN SOIL CONDOMINIUMS CORNEÂ¢STONE CURB & GUTTER/SIDEWALK DETAIL SHEET TITLE: NOT TO SCALE GENERAL DETAILS ENCHNEZRING & SURVEYINC1 INC . DESIGNED BY K.p APPROVED BY KMP JOB NO. SHEET SHEET lul I maigiON i (.70) 080-1.01 SU!!1 Â»00 DRAWN BY - DATE APRIL 2009 421.006 7 8 CUENT: SLOAN INVESTMENT ,LLC. Ulg PARt m 80017 .44/ 'd (970) 0.0-*.~0 CHECKED BY MST SCALE AS SHOWN - JIM SLOAN , MANAGER : J. ES_Jobs,471_006.Block_Can./on_ Master_Plan,EaglePoint JBC -Master-Planning-Commission.dwg, 6/9/2009 4 05:31 PM. JLR bIAM.SEEnIN2 17'\- /4 3756%31% 1 Â· .r:~:pn, Soil preparation and seeding will be required for all disturbed areas. . ' r /..- 711 11 K The following types and rates shall be used: , k; . 111/ al .1. I Vi: .lili. 1 -1 ji-I--I-~ I .-/bV- I / .'-.- N 88'48'00" W 318.60' (D) N.t-/ I COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME POUNDS Pls/ACRE N 88'48'130 W 318.82' (M) ./ 1 . . 1 1 / 1 / --- 1 , 1 i A Â¥ - 44 , ) X @ X ~i x x'' , / Slander wheatgross Elymus trachycoulus v. Pryor 7 / 3, v / < 1 / ~ '' Sheep fescue Festuco ovina v. Covor 3 / j , 1 Western wheatgrass Pascopyrurn amithii v. Rosanna 7 4 / A 1- , 1 1 '. ' A / Idaho fescue Festucc idohoensls 3 h 1% 1.c--C 1 1 / / 1/Jr Prli z u -% : Sandberg bluegrass Poo sondbergil 2 ' C Wil. Ar-6 . - ' P . Blue groma Boutelous grocills v. Hachita 2 Block-eyed susan Rudbeckla hirto 0.1 / I / li >1~ pp - '' L 1/ 0 / . / -1 / 1 1 1/U / / - I / Rocky Mtn. penstemon Penstemon strictus 1.5 /~ , ~ - 5 SHRUBS i' LP WIE]05=ft / 4' > / // I ./ Gaillardic Goillardia cristato 1 Â° zw 8- 12 10 4/1/1/ \\ Lk, / / . ' L / Linum lewis# 0.5 ./ 1 - / '143 1 17 h - Blue flox 1 , NOc Â· ' ' ' ' ' x r--i /'4 14# Mr,4~ ,-8 SFIRUS U A - 0 Flanders poppy Papaver rhoeos 0.1 ./ tv I / 1 N *S 1 1 v--3. SHNU-BS-23Â§ tr==\ a, 1 / 5% 1 / / 6./ / L /1 A / -/ /<- - l.~6~ < li 1/ Â» 7DTAL 27.20 / nudic FULAA , 94 r LL_ h 9 * 2--fÂ»~2*%02 1 1 / / - I \ 2 Mw 1 / / 0... 1... >7 / 'b 1 Pp/ F ME-N// 1\ .4 -4 \ 2 pp - SEEDING SCHEDULE , i ,- A A 1.-_ 2 / Â«+0Â» 44,/' SEEDING APPUCATION: Hydro-Mulch seeding or Drill seeding .25"-.5" into the topsoil 1 1 1 -&' a==E=. S 88'48'00" E 232.00' (C~-- - . 6 -- Un_ffÂ« - /4 fL-J 'ff l~ --- lip /-- - \ S 8.41'25. E 232.18' OO LANDSCAPING NOTES: 1 1 lilli, 1 /1 1 /1 04 1 1 1 ....: t" I: - 1) All areas disturbed by construction to be revegetated with designated seed mixes. 1/ / 1 Ij / 6 2) Topsoil shall be stripped In areas of disturbance and stockpled to be redistributed to a / / RIDGEVIEW CONDOMINIIUMS (BOOK 1433, PAGE 116) depth of 4" minimum when revegetation is begun. t r //tel --AUL RM - MULTI FAMILY / z Â· Â· Â·Â· ~ 3) All seeded areas to be hydromulched at a rate of 1 1/2 tons per acre. All seeded slopes ~ x * ' needed to avoid erosion and enhance growth potential). l . I V. greater than 2:1 to be mulched and netted for erosion control (use straw bales where /:Â»10 42 1 / 1 I , %19, 1% ~ / / ' RUB . . r ,#.\ / HR SS 0 1 1 1 Obi> 2 -Â»---LL 1.--~ 4) All planting beds to be excovated to a 16" depth and backfilled to an elevation of 2Â» below .... N 1/3 existing soil. m=:71 walks or lawns with soil mix consisting of: 1/3 topsoil. 1/3 peatmoss, and Mt:-:=91 1 2 PIP 5) Cover all planting beds with soil fabric prior to plant installation. 1.Lf' / Â¥BW 14 ~ .:.4&::...Â·~' ~Â·~~~: 1-44 A 2 PP 1.'' -t. DISTRICT BUFFER _LANDSCAPING ~ 1 LP /. 6) Inetall 2' wide cobble and gravel foundation border around all buildings. BW1 .6 St U.S,-=31, 1 M Sk RU F r SCALE 1 "=20' 0 20 10 7) All trees shall have o mulch ring 36" in diameter at the base of the tree. 1 1 1 1 .-- 202 SHRUBS /\Â·- / I. 1 4 . . .. . 8) All tree rings and shrub beds to be mulched at a minimum depth of 30, material to be determined by owner. j '.eL/A 2Â·Â·:Â·Â·'". 3 El-RUBS 9) All trees to be staked or guyed and fenced to be protected from wildlife. . 4 SHRUBS+ >tfU - - \ ~ Ad\\ i:j. ' condition. ty 10) All trees and shrubs shall be drip irrigated and all plant materials maintained In a heolthful \\ PP Z Z f \ ~ ~ *M .2 pp 11) Conifer trees be sized as 50% eight feet tall and 50% at six feet tall, Deciduous trees sized \ 1 8 8 \ Uyrt.PHRUBS as 50% at four-inch caliper and 50% at two-inch caliper. \ -0 \ // 4- i \ ' 99 12) All shrubs sholl be 5-gallon ' Â·' . 2 SHRUbs'~ # mm W _ / i 411Â·Pv 13) Placement of plant material that fronts parking stalls shall conform to Estes Volley 55 L I ..: 90 -\/ 1 - / < 30*1.R-9SHRUBS Development Code 7.11.0.4.d plants within overhong of vehicle bumper. 1 Ill g Fei Avil \ 1 : 74.. /. Z w 14) Planted trees shall have a minimum 5-foot seperation from the sewer main. lt'IYE! \ 1 \ to + M I 15) All plant material shall meet the American Association of Nurseryman specifications for No. 1 -1 Q '-' p . 71 1 pp grade, and shall comply with the quality standards of the Colorado Nursery Act, Title 35, 9 58 = M LU EVERGREEN TREES: STAKE & GUY 1Â¥' \N r \\ 0 i USING 3 STAKES 0 120' AROUND Article 26, C.R.S., as amended. jTREES. NO SPRAYING OR WRAPPING / 1 I .''- i 5 SHRUBS - 5 / / 1 r. 1 0 I / /////j~ i,/02< rE 64 //~ 12s- NOTE: ,' ; 8 SHIEF \ 2 P PROTECT TREE WITH 5' TALL WIRE / \ i i FENCING 1'-6Â» ABOVE GROUND. . / DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING, ' / PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT FENCE TO REMAIN UNTIL PLANT r / -- '' LEADERS, AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. CAN SURVIVE WILDLIFE DAMAGE. TOW 1 / ~ BOW T + SOME INTERIOR TWIGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES - 1/ /93 / ~ MAY BE PRUNED; HOWEVER, DO NOT REMOVE Tls / 8 W 14 3 THE TERMINAL BUDS OFF BRANCHES THAT < / EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. -~ 2~~CL:= EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED SUCH THAT l ~ /c..~ THE mUNK FLARE IS VISIBLE AT IHE TOP / 1 ,/---0 ---- OF THE ROOT BALL TREES WHERE THE TRUNK 0 i / \ FLARE IS NOT MSIBLE SHALL BE REJECTED. O / / / MARK THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TREE ~ ~77'~--- DO NOT COVER THE TOP OF THE ROOT 4 / / 1 IN THE NURSERY, AND ROTATE REE / ' / TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE VMEN EVER BALL WITH SOIL POSSIBUL 0.5 IN. DIAM. -3 /- / ~ MULCH RING PLASIC HOSE / 5 FT. DIAM. MIN.*. 1 LP ~ GALVANIZED WIRE OR CABLE '<' '''*''''''''''9''''''' SET TOP OF ROOT BALL FLUSH TO â„¢ST WIRE TO 11GHTEN. / IRC GRADE OR 1-2 IN. 1.5 x 1.5 IN. HIGHER IN SLOWLY DRAINING SOILS. - '. ' HARDWOOD STAKES OR OTHER EXCAVATE TREE PIT TO 2X BALL DIAMETER. - ~ 8 IN. .-88%/6./**Lii,&==d#.5â€¢i 1 -Ill-.I APPROVED STAKE MATERIAL / ... / 9 , Al -Figfilirifilf:0477=r-27- - / / I. 3 IN. MULCH. DO NO PLACE A. A \ !111 19 I 4 IN. HIGH EARTH SAUCER MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE mUNK. -/111!1!1 ,Sam!â„¢mI:26: ?11!r BEYOND EDGE OF ROOT BAU. TYPICAL LANDSCAPING MAINTAIN THE MULCH WEED-FREE FOR --- lil,11'(IM,41 '0*1.F'4,=21*02, MAINTAIN UNDER AU TOPO CONDInONS SCALE 1 "=20' A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS AFTER 7111/, 1,1 t.~9A -I , .1. B.I.- PLANTING. 4,1 17 11111!111!11! BURLAP FROM TOP HALF OF ROOT BAU 0 20 1,9,7,1,1!th!!71*11111!1111!MI REMOVE ALL â„¢NE , ROPE AND 12 1 / W,Lrrr V"i ' U ,Â¥1,1 IF PLANT IS SHIPPED WITH A WIRE BASKET AROUND LEGEND ' UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE ~ j~ THE ROOT BALL CUT THE WIRE BASKET AND REMOVE. _1- PP - Plnus ponderoaa (Ponderoso Pine) DECIDUOUS TREES: WRAP TRUNK \ - PLACE ROOT BALL ON UNEXCAVATED (17 TOTAL,) DISTRUCT BUFFER LANDSCAPING W/4" TREE WRAP FROM BOTTOM UP OR TAMPED SOIL - - TO FIRST BRANCH & SECURE. STAKE & GUY USING 2 STAKES SPACED 180'. L_ TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL BUCK CANYON HILLS PROPERTY LINE BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE SO lHAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. f \L_L LP - Pinum Contorta Lattfolla (Lodgepole Plne) EXISTING PROPOSED 7DTAL RmUIRED NOTES (6 TOTAL) TREES 15 13 23 19 ALL STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN OUTSIDE SHRUBS 0 26 27 27 TRE EDGE OF THE ROOT BALL. ASSURE THAT THE BEARING SURFACE OF THE PROTECMVE COVERING OF THE WIRE OR CABLE AGAINST THE TREE TRUNK BM - Berberis mentorensia (Red Leaf Borberry) IS A MINIMUM OF O.5 IN.. RIDGEVIEW CONDOMINIUMS - NORTH CAF - Colamagrostis (Kart Foerster Ornomental Gross) REMOVE STAKING AS SOON AS THE TREE HAS GROWN SUFFICIENT ROOTS TO RESIST THE HIGH WINDS EXISTING PROPOSED 7DTAL REQUIRED (~ - PF - Potintilla fruticose (Native Potantilla) REES 2 5 7 7 THAT REQUIRED THE TREE TO BE STAKED. SHRUBS 0 9 0 0 WIRE OR CABLE SIZES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: PM - Pinus mugo (Mugo Pine) TREES UP TO 2.5 IN. CAUPER - 14 GAUGE - JOG - Junlperus chinensts "Old Gold" (Old Gold Jurlper) TREES 2.5 IN. TO 3 IN. CAUPER - 12 GAUGE RIDGEVIEW CONDOMINIUMS - WEST TIGHTEN WIRE OR CABLE ONLY ENOUGH TO KEEP FROM SUPPING. ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. PLASTIC HOSE EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL REQUIRED SHALL BE LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE 1.5 IN. OF GROWTH AND BUFFER ALL BRANCHES FROM THE WIRE. ......... PROPOSED GRASS GROUNDCOVER 77?EES 1 5 0 0 TUCK ANY LOOSE ENDS OF THE WIRE OR CABLE INTO THE WIRE WRAP SO THAT NO SHARP WIRE ENDS ARE EXPOSED. SRUBS 0 7 7 7 TREE PLANTING DETAIL - 8&8 TREES IN ALL SOIL TYPES. ~ PROPOSED COBBLE BORDER NOTE: THIS DETAIL ASSUMES THAT THE PLANTING SPACE IS LARGER THAN 8 FT. SQUARE. OPEN TO THE SKY, AND NOT COVERED BY ANY PAVING OR GRATING. DATE: REVISION: BY: PROJECT TITLE: THE LODGES THIS DETAIL IS TYPICAL IN INENT ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST HIS 04/21/04 95651/617 YOUT. ADD CREEK UNIT JLM . 05/08/08 NeL u AT BLACK CANYON INN WORK TO ACCOMODATE ALL CONDITIONS. JLR - 05/19/09 PREUM STAFF REPORT COMMENTS CONDOMINIUMS CORNE#STONE SHEET TITLE: TYPICAL LANDSCAPE PLAN Clan-RING & 1090 m moo.ON A.bl\ DESIGNED BY KIP APPROVED BY -MMIL JOB NO. SHEET SHEET sum -0 DRAWN BY -JLL- DATE APRIL 2008 421,000 8 8 CLIENT: SLOAN INVESTMENT ,LLC. m PAR. ca. 808,7 \9#/ 111 (070) 80.-s- CHECKED BY wsÂ·r SCALE AS_JWO*MI_ JIM SLOAN , MANAGER 7700 N HILLS FS. jobs ,421_106_13 ick Con.ion__Master-Plon,De,eloprnent ,8-1 Cniscape.d'Ng. 6,'9/2009 4Â·25:42 PM. JLR .//1 1\ T \ r \\ PPEN TO . I BELCH I - 1- -T- OPEN TO ~ U A - BELOW L 24.1 /h 0- .. -4.4511 4 Upt DN \ rh C W UNIT 2 LOCK CFF 0 0. UNIT 4 OWNER C 240 ef 4.-1 714 sP this level u this level~9-0--,#--4==*EVI 1 1 1 'F 1 ./ir--1 t-- 2- UNIT 3 | 0 0 BEORM 1 ' V 500 9? i GOV- 0 0 QQM EL mi in, 1 e. 11 11 this level ,/ PECK PECK I h lul 6.-.1 h * 7 < 21-2- T - 0 1 LOFT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/8" = 1' -0" 'Â®~ ~1 ~ _ / 20 / 11-/ 1 / to / ---I- , 29 Y == --7 LIVINe , .1 L,, 7 LIVINS UNIT 4 LIVINS ~ BEORM. ~ --li 4-7 545 6/ 7 l. 1-1 this level 6- UNIT 1 UNIT 2 rrA----- , =ININS 1 iE DININe , LITET 1 32===39 / 0 tffLCL I C & P It 207 sf this level LIVINe 47---1 412 *19 - --- <33 1 KIT. 4 =p=='ll./..f -711Â» LL__In 1 COM. 1 1 coy= ENTRÂ¥I ~ FdÂ¥<R /1 ~ CY-> ~ - r' --1 1 _se ~ - | ENTRY Â· ENTRY -I-' IL- -i l Â·71 1 .1 1 - Al--r / . . 1 123 1 1 61-11 i 1 1-4 - - i 'r 2%,1 9 1 0 01 / ~49.-' KIT. &2 DININe - Ill . 1 * 1 rl-=IRE ~i~~Uplfi- 1 CD: m 521 1 \FaYER BEORM. .... /-33/, I i COV. L_ . 1 V.t ENTRYI~.1 1 - 1-- LI.114.~ -- *. v cir.A-i- .0, MNTRÂ¥1 1 - 1- 1 4â€žl i 11/V IÂ«, â€¢rl 4 , STOR. , BEDRM. 1 BEORM. < ~ - 1- -1 1 4 r.\ \\ 1 4,2 ~t~ 11 EPRM. 1 ENTRY BATH 1 COV. - 1 -- 0 WIll -0. #1 t' EL -k r--7. i ' 10 1~ .AL 1 ---5. i . ..J ) [-33.- R t- E 4 loe I up i 1 4/ Ir---"ir===-- ,- ---epâ€¢== --m'--- -,li ~ A - 1 1201 e 1- 1 -Â£ 7 1 1 Ir- . ---, k==1 --1471"r Er /4 0 0 1 - UP 1 - -P. -1 W i Ill 111 V _ MESH.< 1 1 0 ~ UNIT 1 1 UNIT 2 ~ UNIT 3 / -- i I leo sp 1 902 ef W 56Â¢1 0 1 1 i EEPRM. 1 [A i this level i this level m this level m I - e - - 4 484-L. BANQUET k f- l- ~--7 b Â« i rV[13' 11 1 1 -1 1--- ----1. - 1 ,- 0 9 1 il i 4 T ~~- ~ ~' SPACE ~ - - 1 i AEN RR <4~7~ ill I 1 -4 43-1 coL kÂ» 12 C: 1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/8" = 1'-O" 1 PUBLIC SPACE--- ---- ~ - 1,8,26 Sp I -1 1 -I- ir 1 this level ~ 1 1 A---- 1 $ U-- _ 1 1 1 -1 L--11 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1-1-1 11 1 1, LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" -. Schematic Floor Plans kenney June 09,2009 Four Unit Building .../\ associates inc. Bllil(ling " H" - architects landscape architects urban designers planners california colorado arizona missouri texas montana new mexico r .-:*./ f.1. 4.- 'tÂ«F.40 .,0:, L 1 Fle.-?Â» . fA 12*Wer-:4* :./1 .4 - / F r -Ill'....#/2'Nial 'L *â„¢; X. m!. 6..9 .3 1.-11 2 U I d ..e $4-a- I = .\- "10-- . J , 0--24. ...6. %. I TÂ·-,1 1 1 - 1 11 I. 1 4 - - . 1 1 tpi ' 4/"16"mae.i .14.?9#. UNS :37 r ~' ... I . 1 4 c..., .,...i:>: ~ .~ 1, ..Â·Â· ~,;Â·,1 -f'~*~ #. . - i i . ' m ' . , . 00kmg*, b L 6.,4 1 Dll r##rÂ· 14*" ~~ I 1 , i * L > Â·204: r 9 1. r. '492â‚¬ I i --2- . b. 11 -,4 41 t 1 1 24% 045 1 ' 'L - - 46-*-â€¢46 4- # .* . F . .. . . , f .... - TYPICAL CEILING HGT. ; 4 . i Â· ,Â·1*Axia&Ne%*;4*& . 71 4 -Â·r. r. -Â·Â·Â·"77'We'â€¢Mem,Â»d 'N.R.- *S- + A..,tte*â€ž?3=Â»/4.4-/t..4 - 4 Â· *- , d 1 , 1 - 7,4 *i,Â«S&Â£27 ./ 4 ' #lili-,0 6 ~ **4(Â·rÂ·Â·Â·*44 1 --- i 4- #-t--11 +44* 2 , 1 4 -/h--.jglk; . 4.B.-L -*ew#â€¢444'9#Â·4Â®4â‚¬1~r - V. -:10.4 ..~ I . f' 11 : , f I & lilli - -11 I e 1 1 1 4.1. 1 1 %t r.%=I 4--* % 4â€¢â€¢a *+ f 1,21 - Â· 1.' ... *"' --*---4 *=- -.4 ~ . -' ./-.*.-iÂ»-2-4 ..... 1 1-. I i I. , 4@fÂ·i:*'7~)P Â»'.4 100.00 14=3 2-a- --. ~-V-,-1.-J. 1 .--*~-7-1........f-..1=. -*.- 4 . . 1 . e. '1 ..1. ./\1 7 14 i i ,~ 4 + 1 Â¢l r. '. , 1 / ..Â»le.â€ž7.---...: /''i i , f ........ $ I . 1-=iv, Â¢ 3 k. ... , 1 --I'/ .,~ --Ut> . ~ T ~ + 0 - r U , I. 1 j %% - 1.6 Â· I . *.1.3, '~ ibÂ· AAM- t~ LOWER LEvEL FF P.,V i i...4.- I . Â·~- g. Â£ . . 1.- 4 + - - 90.00 *. f -4. lf---'fÂ» - ,4, I %1 ----~- -- 7.*Ap--*-'*-*-*.*--'.-....#-'-'-.-*--..0 -.7'i--'w"*'#%'~-r----.*.4- ...-*-p-s--* *_____-___ Â· Â· . Â· -r . 0 4 - >mi 11* - t - pr Mrs.. 1, , 11 ) 34, ~1,4~ 499-*/Zhv/r 11;il/e**â€¢*:~lee.7/ - .......IN./.&/ i 'Mjt/-4- 141 0 1 f 4 1- . c 1 ti*.110 11. 1 1 4 4 - , Â· 2 , Â·Â· r,~ ., ~..; Iâ€¢e-,Â¥t*~ ~'9*,~,~~ ~ - -**dilliabA '44 1 & 1 1 '"""" '-44"492' .,-Â·rewy .r 4.*2%1.--, ...., 2 1,- 1 ..r ......3..r...(1~7'.4-:#.hee ..... i *444** *4**w~~i-*.Â·Z *â€¢Â· .-*#.C-..her '**9'R*........440#Al.........Â·te........4.4Â¢*/7 r.-:Â».911*0< . Aâ€¢Â· /......:Â¥'1: .... .... 4 , .4.3.'. Avrt> 04:Â»Vre-./.' i . It: i ~Â·Â¥GpKilled'.- Â«hu :, ,. &,04~~*4Â· *3,1 %..7:. 44~44**APT ..4 ~.ON.04.::. r ~ I ...*.N-/;F ' ..:'.*...q......., .....&.'84...,tâ€¢klâ€¢~â€¢i,b~;' Â·Â»'~â€¢Â» 2â€ž e.'ul/..-I'.:04.4- 0...<Ik0WÂ»&0*Nr.I'.IM .....:.'Il-* *:....Â®r=,~A...Â·e,Eeall.....2,â€¢-4r:.0,Â·e â‚¬WJrw*#'..m....4â€¢0:Â·-t '.:'Â·r: m.,a,â€¢* V : # I.:- -3,441%40 C...0,-Att 4-1- 'cm.- TY#* %-& E--04 -Â·'~ '-~ -.Â·44Â·02Â·Â·Â·7%9'AG,8/**26*tc~*44Â«.-44 ..... *I' 9 REAR FACINe SCALE *eli = 11-011 -- Exterior Elevation Four Unit Building - kenney associates inc. June 09,2009 Building "H" architects landscape architects urban designers planners california colorado arizona missouri texas montana new mexico -LM'DIaH dE)~If~71ng .XVI-1 f Â« r l '. V .. Schematic Floor / Elevation June 09,2009 New Office Building kenney associates inc. Building "J" architects landscape architects urban designers planners california colorado arizona missouri texas montana new mexico . 4 + .......IX..........XX.....2 0 - 0 - W,",#"#"'."",##"IM ~~,I/~,4,40â€ž4/ / * 0 4 /0 0 tB ./1 /10/ 0-4 4% A -0, "....1 - a /4//44, ,~0" -~1*.h, \ \\2 ill , / ./4/ / 4 4 f.---4 /~ -3.- 1 1% f .41/ 4 J . P , 946 1% % lili - - 4 0 V 1 \\ --/ I ....4 - 1."I,""I.,1,",i,", /0, 0 4 0 / 0 - '4 X ... , 4,44,4 4/,4,4 444/1 ... , 6 .*A ... - /0 / 4-r 4 /- \ 6-Â»t,y- Â· 1/.-0-/7/ de p 1 J 4,4--- 1-1 1=Im-1 .. .. .. ./- -A - - A .1. AS. Nal,11â€¢1â€¢ilimâ€¢11,1 1111,111,1,111,1,i,11:,imili,1,1:immii,iii:Ii,iimii,11111,1â€¢1â€¢1mbi/NS:~~-.- -â€žu,. .,-4*~07,mi,iti,i,:,imi,imi,ni,imii,imi,t,i.,mi,imii,i.ii,Ii.,it,im,imi.iui,i.,Ii,1.ti#i,i.iâ€ž01:,tii. â€¢Illâ€¢111â€¢Iâ€¢Illâ€¢I.1.â€¢111â€¢Iâ€¢111,Illil,mimllial,limmililmimminm.111â€¢Iâ€¢â€¢11Iâ€¢111â€¢Imâ€¢55;.1Ekgr-5==â€¢ ~alâ€¢milillâ€¢Illâ€¢lililimill,Iâ€¢Illâ€ž!E,0-â€¢â€¢--.-93!I,Imil,Imill,Imill,lililim. v..111.111.1,01.1,01.1.-1,1.111=1â€¢imp=..,g.111.111.1111'""11& - -1-jA/-4.mi:11,I--0E4vi. 4.111.1.1.1,1.k .Ii'- Illl"11""111â€¢lik '*A,Â®11,m,ME,I~ - A . ..- 9.*.... ' 4.44 - -4*.. ,-11.1 . lim 1 11 i~ 411=!~4*205.44 -p.' -0'.1.11.111.1.11Â§01.~lialialliv lii 1Â£6iwiuM,*0.80,<ii@61â€¢il~19mmi- - -- ---~~ -- .,4 Ilm. 1.#.1.1111[116*Ilk,*.~..... A . I. E .1 1 111 111.1 101.. J. -1111.....1,1...11-'. . 4 .... - 4kil/92....bqi....W-/. ........1/5/7....../1//Id'......9/6.4 :0:::4:Im"ll 1, . -rE. ./. .:lill.*/.11.lihh. -* - 'AM - 1"11.1.*11 - Al.1 9, _*-,II~L-11*Ell-~i li~06.6*~.Af' -'â€¢- 18-IN.'9'r ........ ./.".........P// - mi I........ . /* ME'*RiliM/42//Kp/= 9 - - - , &- ./* I I . . i . . S 17 <394* 46 4- 9 ,cyÂ·~ $ 4.0, 1 k A I. ' : Â§4 . r 44'--64" I ' COVERED ENTRY PRI f 1,=mi- 0 I PECK -+*1 t_k Pqq BEORM. UNIT "A" 0 A L 1~- ' &45 Sf 4 1 lili ' this level DINI INe eARAeE m L/\ala 1<IT. . 1-- . 1 1 0-- 7 1, - i - I r/ eARASE lIli DINI INS .1-1 KIT. !Â· C F; Â«TI - UNIT "B" e - 1 7-0/ &56 9 this level PECK 1 Liffsk):Ell Ef erM.Vi #1 1 1 :1 111 1 i 71Â£--J" 1 1,11k 1 Al-*!tilt I 1 i t'I 'e COVER!&3 ENTRY 56'-1" 4 4 ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 6 ~ 012' ..9 1 .,1 Schematic Floor Plan Two Unit Building June 09,2009 ./ kenney associates inc. Building "P" . architects landscape architects urban designers planners california colorado arizona missouri texas montana new mexico 119-If Z 111'-a" 43'-8 25'-0 24'-0" r . . 24-7- / F -4.Â·<.. -- - -4* Â»Â» A TY'PICAL CE ILINGWGT. ./34.6â€¢43Â»L**bil, .*--f- *% i H . -"f,/,6 i .94% . *...e.'tfIES.~â€ž....... 9 -*/... f~al - A,E, . 4.. U *+ 9 *.'- I..-* . : /7.1 LOWER LEVEL FF 2--- -7-3.9 - '. t.##:9'r;Â¥R.4 t..i: .kir.*/Ill.Â»â€¢Â·,Â·ek/- -1./ , 2.tie.r-Â·*~~~ - *Ap# .,0 â‚¬/ 0.*IMP Schematic Floor / Elevation June 09,2009 Four Unit Building kenney associates inc. Building "Q" - architects landscape architects urban designers planners california colorado arizona missouri texas montana new mexico rk, Â·i:.t MAX. BUILDING; WEIGWT 32'-0" . . 1 d 1 . - 1. 1.1 1 e ; ,- - 111 I.1 ~ -- p 1,1~ ..1.1 . 22= .. --,1 Y.....A/'ill..... 1 j . 0 1 2-1 i . -- - - ~il 1 I lilluu~irlililiBil il - . - . 1 4----ilit 5 . . A- - 0. 5 '' ./- - A Ai 4 11~ -- A:,Imi,m,1,111â€¢11,â€¢Rip,.0--27â€žm-1-16â€¢1- 1 -11,1 .....1.111.111.111.111.!4,&,idA-ev.--11.11 An'.111.1.1.lilik 4. ....b.Vial.m'.1-11 1,111.111.- mâ€¢mmuâ€¢m Ill,Ilillilillmk 1*11,1,111-1,1,11â€¢Imâ€¢181â€¢,111,1,111â€¢11,emal,111â€¢11,1,1,1-11,11â€¢1111mt,Imâ€¢Illnl,1-11,1,1,1,mialleg-m~ 11= lam 111â€¢mt,Imâ€¢Imm,m 1 ~ Imm n 1 ~mill,immal,~01,11,1, 1,~01,10,11,millmâ€¢11101â€¢el,Immall,â€¢millm~ 1.111.1.11.11111.11,01.11,11.111.1.111.1.1,1:.----~mummnm.11111.11111.11111.11111.111.1.11111.11111.11111. 1,/r-----------------.rMIEM.1.,11.1.m.11111.1,1..1,111.11111.11111.111.1.11.1.11111.1"Ii'1111.1111.1,111.11111.1,111.11111.111.1.11111.11111.1,111.1,111.11111.111.1.1,1.1.1111*1:111.11111~ ----,r Imillim,1,1-11,6,11:Malâ€¢:mill,1,11â€¢miliiâ€¢limillammill,mil-1,91111mlil=111-111,mil,6-. ...,lit~Iâ€¢â€¢pa-â€¢imill=Immuii,Zilmu,millâ€¢â€¢111=11â€¢milit,mi,imâ€¢11,1111,mâ€¢11â€¢mâ€¢111,mi,mii,mâ€¢111â€¢mil,imi,m,1,1,mi,10 Imillimill imalll #m.mmre.~-"=:.mmeâ€¢=m,â€¢~~b 1.111.11=111â€¢1111â€¢1:.1,1,11'1Â£-j'..7,=-,ilimâ€¢lieâ€¢E"FAI~&m"111:limilli,1.11~11~11111,milimmlimum"imilimlilim"111,1,11,ml~ .1.1'Im.1110111.1111,1111,11111.11~ '211Ii,0 -1~ ~191,11â€¢1111â€¢â€¢111â€¢111,1,111,~milimilimal,int:,mi,â€žmi,imi,â€žm.:,i.,i,â€ž2.1,13-Iwit:,mâ€žâ€ž9#:,mi,â€žmâ€ž,imi,im,I,1,~11:mâ€¢11111â€¢11111â€¢11:11â€¢11,11â€¢11111â€¢111â€¢m!1111â€¢1111â€¢=1â€¢111,~11:0â€¢11,imi,imim,11:,illii,.=03,-=7 Aammimmâ€¢i:,mâ€¢,i,miâ€¢iâ€¢:01â€¢mâ€¢mi,ImmiEML= 12%k litallimilli,milili,Iâ€¢Immill,mintamimmilâ€¢Ill,mill,Iâ€¢Ilimil,Imi,Im,!Bea,vA,Ins ,=in-71*,4,Ilimillinl,â€žIllim,li,m,li,mit,imil,mmiimil:Ii,li,Ii,li,millimil,Imâ€¢Illâ€¢,8-,Ilmâ€¢Ill,iâ€¢,lamâ€¢I,Imilll,mill â€¢Im.Im-b* .d.1.1,111.111.1.11111.1,111.111,1.1,1.1.1,111.1,111.1.....â„¢ -~111.111.1.11111.1,1.11.111.1'Ell.1,1.111.All'll'.111.1.1,1.1,1,1.0111.11~11.11111.111.1.1,1.1.11111.111.1.11111.11111.111.1.11111.11111.11111..111.11111=.11,11.[1111.ill'll.ll'.1111,111.11.1.1llt'.mlm 1111111*111..1,11:11:Imilitililililililililmil.11111111,Im'111Â®!10~11111,1,111â€¢111â€¢lilllâ€¢I,111â€¢Iâ€¢1111lmilll,111â€¢I,111â€¢lill:Ilitilmâ€¢111â€¢Iâ€¢-M-M~Mmem&-m,amm!.*,I,..~5 ,.mill,i,mill,miliE,ilimillimilillillimâ€¢li:mâ€¢Iilmilimillâ€¢ --.-/ cn .1.6....... Ili~l-2,11" --J,1......A. I . .. te.,â€ž90''#F- -2-'.1 : 1.117 44.- . I.I....1~1; all~ 1= - -94' ..........1 ./2/2./////~ ~1 11. l84 1 @imr imill"Inimu- -I.nitililillillilill".,1 11. A 1, I -- I ME....1.l + 7 v .....6.....Unl#.Il.W....... 1 1 1 //1 .Ama NA 1 1 -1-1 - t #11 1#*. $ 02 IIill i.li:M 4 1 514/19 1 - 1 r. 1, f Il -1 â€ž&9 .-I'../.-.-". = -= 1 1 -4*El#m,-- ; Â»4 -ar <7 Â»*,0 27?Â¥ 4464 4: 6-- f. 47 ry. . L . 4 4 I # L Â· mi M 13'-0" 24'-0" 25'-0" 242-0 0 0 r 1 COVERED - - 0 - 9[ 0 COVERED COMESED DEC< COVERED 050% ---- ------- COVERED ------1 FATIO 133*ERE-f DECK PATIOBEORM. BEDSM. || PATIC 1 wily* - 82- 'bmi-Fil 1/ DINIINe LIVINS V 0 1 -11 ~~~ %6~34 PIN#INS 4 w IBEORM. BEORM. #2 #5 1i - DINI INS x LIVINS - - L-,106:744\/. UP ATH O O BAT Up 1 '- ~~,1<,~DN #2 #~ DPI &415[3 1 O ri- Cl Â°Â°1 XII. 61.L -1- MECH - - -, - - [ro -f/. 7 0 KIT. , _L I? 1 '09\ MECH. 1 OIN/ID 11 4 97 0 1 BATH DN ATH #1 Â· u TH .-------- 4 1 NAT - - i \1 CRAWL M~ / 7 SPACE O.47 AN --~ ' VOVEREP V CRAWL ENTRY COVEREP - - - . ENTRY - CRAWL BEDSM. BEPRM. ..O / SPACE - Â£ BEPRM. - #1 -EL / COVEREP E ENTRY 0-f_ 0_ UNIT "A" UNIT "B" UNIT "A" rev. UNIT "A" UNIT "B" UNIT "A" rev. 450 s? 600 S? 450 sf this level this level this level &30 SÂ¥ ee S? 550 ef this level this level this level ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/8" = 1'-O" LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/8" = 1'-O" to CL... A 31 < 9. rÂ¥ . - .21. :r; r.... -+../.-: .. f I 4,9110:2,6 . 'Rgjn'kÂ»I- . r 2,4 .ge. il-7- i , '1 1 4 ria T fl|- ~ L 1/*//4:.Â·. .*:4.-V.. . ~UNÂ¥.4-,~.+~*4 . Â· #. .' 1 ...' 1 1 1 1 , -/-/$ 1 7 /- 1 1 .44 ,tr". 2. Â¢371 14 2 4 1 48 4 ,>P,- '4 0 --'+-'ll k . r,- 4--4. 4.- \: r IL- 1 I (4 4 i Ilfli~11 1,1]l--1.11- 2 -JL .1. 1 -,WN .[I, 11_ '/' r , , -Â·Â· TYPICAL CEILING +4(3T. .1. H H N IN' 1 1. -1 1271 . #.-r- --u1-p; 109.00 9 L. 'M , /- , ~ .~l' -34 9 0 .1 2.â€ž.I/- Â¢11- '1 7 1 ~ 1 1. 1 9.:~ 2 -1 - - I /1 i . ...n Â£-24 ~ 11 L - ... t-r ir I ...: I ' /.- .,-...~, i i 1 11 f!1 .%Â« .., ... -- 31 MAIN FF .,. Â·iÂ· Â· -- -9(Â» t , 100.00 9 4 '1 , 4-Â·- .6. . '.; Ch --.'-52.- I -I.--- A -71\ H /' 1 - 1~ 1 22- A.:52,;n -- 4/91~1/-. 7-'.-; 4 + I I .+I' 1 I ... I 4 . 4 --1 49 *,4, L . 4.6 â€¢,1- "t. . c....1*MER LEVEL FF - 1/ " a r. 2 .1 . .** . â‚¬ -1, &.1 V â€ž eâ€ž , 00/ 1 ~'. Â· 4 1 L . *Â·-% T#Â·6Â· ----f: . /Al . '' 'i,9 1.'- Â· < + ' . ';Â· ~: . ' h,__...- Â· X_ 0~E.04"7 Ad/2/1Nt' . ./ J } . 4 *r -' li ; * Eli, g- 1'17'.0 $ ~ - Bâ€¢.82:694Â£.01&:. .. .*'-9 .*.: J.J~ â€¢14.- 4.-2.,f':.k.t.L, . , .1.. .. 41~. 7b= 1..~-1 .. r 3 k VA 19â‚¬u .u..,nÂ·,.p.&*.RkMAWKiy4Â·'2Â·~0'P kâ€¢-,~-.J~Â·R'Â·Â·31Â·â€¢v-i.Â·,- - /0044:mell,JIG/3/r//4,1 -.I#....M...... -S,-n#./.kDÂ·gz.le'll.- -. TYPICAL REAR ELEVATION SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0" k/-/ b: fÂ·Â· gfr-Â·f:ey.Â·iÂ·.* Â· '':~j Schematic Floor/ Elevation --- --- -- -- -- Typical Three Unit Building ------------v-----.--. June 09,2009 kenney associates inc. architects landscape architects urban designers planners california colorado arizona missouri texas monmna new mexico .LtiE>lah E)NIaling -XVINI 49'-0" 1 r . -M.4,-2 -* Â¥Â»2'*4: M#/: Schematic Floor / Elevation June 09,2009 Typical Two Unit Building kenney . associates inc. architects landscape architects urban designers planners california colorado arizona missouri texas montana new mexico râ‚¬-,â€¢43â€¢el .......................... . ~. P FI 1.-1- ' 0 -Illit - ..111 - 7 , , .11- -- ~ . -----1.- . -7. . A - . . a . I .. ./- -A - /-- A A 5 4 m.111.111. 11 imii:,mii,miiâ€¢â€¢mlimmim,Hinii,mimii 11.11.1...~. i,IN"Immmâ€¢miliomm,Imillimmimmilimilmilimm,10â€¢111=,Immiâ€¢mili,Em,11'11,0,1,2 1111111111111101111*!111~1111~1110111111IM'22!E!1101mlill,11111111 1 1101â€¢111=Immll,Immummumimm.1 â€¢101â€¢â€¢mlimmilimmil 1111. m m"":"fiL:6'XL:%:SX:"Ii"~~'""I"~MU".~----widANZL'WI' - ~:f":ill'&~:69Xh/' 1,1,1.m..1,111.11111.11111.111.1.111.1.1111#,Emimiqium 1,1 .111,1.&111.11111.11111.1.111.1111 .121.1.1,0.11111.111.111.m'11.111.11: --9- am 1111.111.111.111.111.1,1 ..161'19 1110111011101110119111 -L,~ limmi,mi,mâ€¢1111=,imm,im -7-1.. ,. imâ€¢I,Em,imâ€¢i,im,Ii,Ii, , - 1.111.11 111.11!m-1 1111.111.11.1111....1.1 MIWV j- 4#al,lamal, mt:1-11101,1,~11 01!Immalâ€¢ Alltmilmlllâ€¢BillmIRâ€¢INA~mBILEI~.R~11$111â€¢Iâ€¢ =â€¢111 ~ 4 . .â€¢Rm...1.6â€ž..Ullâ€¢,Â· . . 4- u 4 1/I'll'll'llil..,1198/9/li ... 1 " tl 16.~ 1 . A - ........ ' . ./Il.. 1.1. 11 - 4 11*1.&111. - lillillial 4 1 -4 44 - 1 ....01-1. I .qi.../4 -. 11 /64# /6Â·Â·~. WF. . . .. .4 * 704 L A . L . 4 04 1-1 -0 Â·r, . .1.J 1# 1 1 1 , .o-,93 ..'.......---'.....,j........,0......................I.--*.,0...' 1 10 -0 1 1 1 1 <REE' 7 \1ML=-=-11 1 0 al ' F 1 43 A IN 9 ~i @<r 0 4*~42-#. -4 1 4 l,11 - ./Isssl lili r. 1 1 ~ iD,-PQD~N ---- 1, 1 111: i 3 1, lil 9 , . m 1 1 lili lilli Ill'.1 1 p . r-1 = . -,9 *M> 1 1- - - . li i J - 1- - 11 11 6 3 1 1-firifill\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Â»a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\}--~--ki I\\\\11 1 e'll 0 i Dith#ith j'-Il E 0 iE*:6 AN,0.- I 11 = oO 4 1 _,N 2 ? 1-/ 1 - a.252 021-0 Ill../.I A f___ .0-,9Z 3 ~ 1'*0,0,----4---4.N,1,ili",A"irir"r/ 1 ----------- /Fi 16 k r . CK .1 I CD S 0 W I il d O - 1 -------- C 01 l 1 - 19 11.1 k f! '' I 1 0 4 ---~ 1 1 lili 9 ) 1 Ill/IL!! "' "' : 0 3 2Â§ U EN o dâ‚¬ [TrTTIT-l 3 l 03231 Â»Il lili lillilllllllllll CEO.4- h Gg I.------l U.la-1 /1 -__!22 IE %62 /03 I--1--- --- 1822& t L L..1 .. /2 0 iÂ©EE ____:__- 1/E + 37 122--- 1 + m LA/--32 b 0 0 'REG .1 1 I 1 m W N i $2 2 /2 Eli H MZ /g~ 01 1 1 . L. 01 eT Â¥ES <*EE /111 96 9*2 011 1 4% \*CZEÂ© rff-.1I-= 1=@ 51 11 6 . g ) 1 1 1 \*2 lilli \E \=E .t- - 11,1,1,111-1 Al . .on= \1 \1 1 il . fl .#,#,/"t,#,#"ll-i'.lit.,1/,1,1,/,/,#,1#,#"I"â€ž/",1,"t"k",'.,1,11,/,/"I,#,/"i'.11",C BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2 ir= -- BATH NOI.LVAS'IR N0ILVA373 NVHH NOM PER LEVEL UPPER LEVEL PLAN BEDROOM GOOHHOE[HOISIN RHJ CLMODEL-1540 (3 B 10'-9â„¢+4' 0*91 739OM KITCHEN i 1 1'/////////////////////'///4 6 -3 e 1 .0-,9Z 1 | 4 4 1 3 a N: 11 T â€ž 1 0* 1 tr-/ N 0, 8 7 11. 1 1 J Q& a: 91 4 - /11-1 60/ 1-LI N m- 0 l, 1 1 1 ./ 1 N \ r--T--4 b P A 2. i Â§* .1'117 i v cO 1 1 - I 2< 1, 1 1 , 10"4 1 1 11 11 1 lilli I'I li lot " --1 3 1 1= \ A_/ 0 i & i i k T le 1% P i i 0 --- F'~ 'r-T 1 8 204 i k .-I................1.........................ull\, S 1 1 0 1 " Milili - 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 4,0 0 f. - 1 1 00 1 1 . W I 1 \ S gar--CBM - 1 1 1 31 4# J 1 : 1 , Ill . 1- 35 I b XJJW 1 1 1 4 rz## 12 L~-EL-3 0-2_ 4 &%23 /1 /1 1 /~ Lilli-lilli 1 1....................I--$-I'll,I., -7 /0 .......... J = 22== 1 . 4 : 64 ed Z 12 zx 55; : 05 - .N 4 A 5 P 10 A i CE.' - 09 r-r i,/-!\N F~'T !! 2 h 2 --t--1 6 4 11 M oil % 01 6=im=mg=Xmrk f lilli Q I /N 1 - 1 1 11 Mil - re ----~ I 'lib 1 1 11 k \1 11111-1 "" "" n , : !30 . 5 El 64 N 8 gi QI kle ~111111111111 ---- 1 Z F ' n i cmxx====T- - - ki 4 ;15 1,/7 3 4 E W 7Â¥ /*7 1 - 1- 1% 4-- 9%4 gt 1- .? 98 N i i 5 5 *m 6 -- /4&#M bill X 00,Â§%**% 1/~ 51 1 1 6 \WA@22 &4%#E .1 1 1 Â«R~ 01 1 1 1 El luintrEd p~ Â§1 1 1 1 \~3 51 1 1 92% 1~ 11 11 \PS \a N'll r.=- \E 1 ' IN: Din \1 \ M. BEDROOM BEDROOM 3 NOM ))457X I OFFICE UPPER LEVEL PLAN 11'-11 712'-4" GOOHNOHHOIiN JIHI NOLLVAE[3 NVHN NOILVAWIS INOWd 73GOR *34 1 liaOR KITCHEN 13'-35(12'- BAT~ FOYER I ENTR~T- GARAGE P--------------------., .I- I. 1-1 1 Ij i f VRE~~~ b 03 1140 ICIN ITY 1" = 1, D = 42Â° R = 50. L = 37. C=N 3( = 43Â°59 = 52.00 = 39.93 = N 4703 38.9 OT 14, E (Rl ZC S89'55'59" 1/2" REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP NO. 649 NE C SW C THE I 615'1Â¥8'1<AL 1Â¥ U 1 15 3: ( IN FEET ) I / 1. ACCESS TO BLOCK 1 AND BLOCK 2 SHALL ONLY BE FROM THE EAST-WEST PORTIONS OF GRAY HAWK COURT. ONLY ONE ACCESS DRIVE SHALL BE ALLOWED TO EACH LOT. 1 inch = 10 ft. THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISION APPROVAL INCLUDED A REQUIREMENT FOR 2. ALL PREVIOUSLY PLATTED UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE TO BE VACATED BY THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT. Â© ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, INC. 2009 DISTRICT BOUNDARY PLANTING WHICH IS SHOWN HEREON. THE IMPROVEMENT 3. WHERE UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE NOT SHOWN, THE BUILDING SETBACK ON ALL SIDE LOT LINES SHALL BE 7.5 FEET. ~ ~ GUARANTEE FOR THIS LANDSCAPING IS INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT IMPROVEMENTS 4. ALL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE IN EXISTENCE AND NO NEW MAIN EXTENSIONS ARE NEEDED TO SERVE THE LOTS. ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, INC AGREEMENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISION. THE BUFFER BOUNDARY APPLIES 5. TOTAL AREA = 25,804 SF = 0.592 ACRES 1885 SKETCH BOX LANE #6 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 TRACT 2 i TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE WHICH ABUTS PROPERTY ZONED COMMERCIAL. 6, ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE TO BE REVEGATATED USING NATIVE GRASS SEED. (970) 586-5175 (970) 577-0381 FAX HILLERY PARRACK EXEMPTION I 7. BUILDINGS, DRIVES AND WALKS ARE SHOWN TO INDICATE THE LOTS ARE ADEQUATE IN SIZE AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE ACTUAL BUILDINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE PROJECT: THE NEIGHBORHOOD s4%13!z:_ BUILDING AS SHOWN ON LOT l A HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AS DEPICTED HEREON. (CO COMMERCIAL) , TOTAL PLANT MATERIALS 4 7 0. DRAWN BY: PMK ~CHECKED BY: (4) 6 FOOT COLO. BLUE SPRUCE 4*jftÂ¢ PROPOSED TREE REV: DATE: APRIL 22, 2009 IOWNER: (3) 8 FOOT COLO. BLUE SPRUCE Â® INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT = 1/2" DIA. REBAR W/PC15760 'DAWNEE 11-80. OW'q, LLC Wl/4 COR. (3) CANADA RED CHERRY REV: 1885 SKETCH BOX LANE #6 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 -SEC. 20-5-72 (36) 5 GALLON SHRUBS (POTENTILLA, JUNIPER) .... INDICATES EXISTING TOWN CORPORATE LIMITS (970) 586-5175 BLM BRASS CAPPED PIPE â‚¬)*~ PROPOSED SHRUBS tz/ ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ACTUAL AND PLATTED AMENDED PLAT SHEET: 1 OF: 1 PROJECT NO: 3315 LI 7-9 .. "/ f f ~lf \, %,) , A f * 1 4 1/ j / 4 : 1 .4 R " 1,1 , , 1 4 1 .1 . ..1 . .. . : .A D . 0 I . A. . 0 ..... .. . 1 .. .. .:0 .:0 0 . a A . e . .4 C S ... 0 A .. .. .. . 1. A. P.Jh ... 'A .A. . g f~ A~ .> /,/7 A ''/ P/,4 i *4 1 1 . A.... I 4 -0 .: - A A ...... i . 4.4 . A . Aâ€¢ .. 4. 4 4 4 ... 4 4 ... . . . I I 4 4 . . A. : . A. . 4, . 4 e . A . 09 4. 4 . 4 4 4 .4 4 . -I - ... 4 . e 4 . 4 4 . . 0 0 . 0 44 . .... . I . . A 4 ... . . . . 4 .A . 4 . I 0 .4 4 0 0 0. I ... L. .. I . 4 0 - 1 1 . . 0 1. 0 A 0 0 . . 00 0 00 .0 . 00 . ...... . . 0 , //0 . . . . .. . e Â» . ... Â» .. I . I . 1 . -M . T-- . -. - 0 0 . 1. e .1 i. .0 . 1. ..... . 01 - .. .1 11 . 1. .. .. 0 1 .. 0. .. 0. . . .. 0. . 0 ) . .. 0 01 00 8 6 4. Ii: 0* 4 4 4 ee ./a L /71 A. 0 & * & . Add J. i - â€¢ . 0 t. 1 ..4 - 4, I ./.- IA . .A - ... ...... . . 1 0. . I 0 f A A , A A. A A I. ... 0 ... A . .. . 1 ..A A.1 0 0 0 :. ./Â·.r .* ./1 344.1,7 Â·t, Â·fl)*1~1*ej Â·94*4*0% 44*4*14Â¢ I #*- 10/I - . Â·I- 'tr - .Â£. I..... a ~ Amendments to the Estes Valley ~-,-9.' Development Code, Portion of Estes Park Community Development Department Block Twelve - Habitat and Wildlife *I==,0 Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue --I....." - PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www. estesnet.com PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 16, 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 1 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #7 for June 16, 2009 Planning Commission Review Â§ 7.8 WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION A. Purpose. To maintain and-GAM@AGe the diversity of wildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valley, and to plan and design land uses to be harmonious with wildlife habitat and the species that depend on this habitat for the economic, recreational and environmental benefit of the residents of and visitors to the Estes Valley. t B. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all applications for review of development plans, subdivision plats, planned unit developments, special review uses and rezonings. This Section shall not apply to development on lots that were approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of this Code. C. Exemptions. The procedures and regulations contained in this Section shall not apply to: 1. Agricultural activities such as soil preparation, irrigation, planting, harvesting, grazing and farm ponds; 2. Majntenance and repair of existing public roads, utilities and other public facilities within an existing right-of-way or easement; 3. Maintenance and repair of flood control structures and activities in response to a flood emergency; 4. Maintenance and repair of existing residential or nonresidential structures; or 5. Wildlifo habitat onhancomont and restoration activities undertaken pursuant to a wildlife conservation plan approved under this Section. D. Other Regulations. This Section of the Code does not repeal or supersede any existing federal, state or local laws, easements, covenants or deed restrictions pertaining to wildlife. When this Section imposes a higher or more restrictive standard, this Section shall apply. E. Wildlife Habitat Data Base. The following sources shall be used to identify important wildlife habitat areas for purposes of review under this Section: 1. Wildlife Habitat map (dated Docombor 1996), ac cot forth in tho Estes Valloy Comprohoncivo Plan, as amondod from timo to timo set forth in Appendix A of this Code. 2. Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat maps for Larimer County, as amended from time to time. 3. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Maps dated December 1996, or as amended from time to time. 4. Other information and maps as Staff or the Estes Valley Planning Commission may from time to time identify in cooperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, such as wildlife maps produced specifically for the Estes Valley. Said maps shall be applicable only following adoption of an amendment to this Code. 2 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #7 for June 16, 2009 Planning Commission Review 5. Wildlife habitat information required by this Section is intended for general planning purposes. Obvious errors or omissions may be corrected by the Staff after consultation with the Division of Wildlife. F. Review Procedures. The following procedures shall apply to all applications for development: 4-; Application. The Applicant shall submit a development plan, subdivision plat or sketch plan, as applicable, depicting the general location of the property, location of structures on the site, prominent natural areas such as streams and wetlands, and other features that Staff may require for review pursuant to this Section. A Wildlife Conservation Plan shall be submitted for sites containing a. An endangered or threatened species, b. Biq Horn sheep or Big Horn sheep habitat, or c. Riparian areas, adiacent to rivers and streams identified on the wildlife habitat map found in Appendix A of this Code, and wetlands. 2. Preliminary Review. Staff shall refer the submitted plan or plat to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for review. Applicants aro also advisod to moot with tho Division of Wildlifo and othor agoncioc as detorminod appropriato by Staff to onsuro complianco with tho roquiromonts of this Section. Applicants are advised to consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and other agencies responsible for reaulation of wildlife and habitat, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior-Rockv Mountain National Park, US Forest Service, and Colorado Natural Heritage Program. These agencies may 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. 3. DOM/ Review. For applications referred to it, the Division of Wildlife will dotormino whether the proposal will rocult in significant adverse impact on wildlifo or wildlifo habitat only if the development adversely impacts the following: a. An ondangorod or throatonod species, b. A calving, lambing or fawning area, c. Big Horn choop or Big Horn shoop habitat, g[ d. Raptor noct cito, or e. Riparian aroac and wotlands. 4 Review Determination. Basod on rocommondations from tho Division of Wildlifo, tho Staff will dotormino whothor tho Applicant must submit a wildlifo concorvation plan prior to approval of any dovolopmont application. Tho consorvation plan should bo cubmittod to tho Division of Wildlife for roviow and rocommondation ac to whothor tho plan adoquatoly addroccos tho advorco impacte idontifiod by tho Division of Wildlife purguant to subsoction F.3 abovo. (Soo Â§7.8.H below.) a. The Review and Decision-Making Bodies shall issue a findina as to whether the application, including the wildlife conservation plan, complies with the requirements of this Section. 3 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #7 for June 16, 2009 Planning Commission Review b. Plans found to be adequate bv the Decision-Making Body shall become binding upon the Applicant. c. Applications that do not comply with Section 7.8 of this code shall be denied. 5. Waivers. Staff may waive or approve minor modifications of any development standard or review criteria contained in this Section upon a finding that such waiver or modification: a. Is consistent with the stated purposes of this Section; b. Will have no significant adverse impacts on wildlife species or habitat; c. Any potential adverse impacts will be mitigated or offset to the maximum extent d. practicable; and e. Application of the standard or criteria is not warranted based on the location of the development, the absence of a particular species on the site or other relevant factors. G. Review Standards. The following review standards shall apply to all development applications as specified, unless Staff determines that a specific standard may be waived pursuant to subsection F.5. above. It is the intent of this Section that these standards be applied in a flexible fashion to protect wildlife habitat and wildlife species in a cost-effective fashion. 1. Review Standards. a. Buffers. All development shall provide a setback from any identified important wildlife habitat area, as spocificd by tho Division of Wildlifo, to the maximum extent feasible. b. Non-Native Vegetation. There shall be no. introduction of plant species that are not on the approved landscaping list in Appendix C on any site containing any important wildlife habitat area. To the maximum extent feasible, existing herbaceous and woody cover on the site shall be maintained and removal of - native vegetation shall be minimized. c. Fencing. (1) No fencing on a site containing important wildlife habitat shall exceed forty (40) inches in height, except to the extent that such fencing is approved by Staff to confine permitted domestic animals or to protect permitted ornamental landscaping or gardens. (2) Fences higher than forty (40) inches may 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 fifty (50) feet apart along continuous fence lines exceeding this length. (3) No fencing using barbed wire shall be allowed. (4) The type of fencing (materials, opacity, etc.) shall be determined by Staff or the Decision-Making Body as appropriate for the wildlife species on the site based on advice from tho Colorado Division of Wildlifo. 4 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #7 for June 16, 2009 Planning Commission Review d. Exterior Lighting. Use of exterior lighting shall be minimized in areas of important wildlife habitat, and lighting shall be designed so that it does not spill over or onto such critical habitat. See also Â§7.9 below. e. Refuse Disposal. Developments on sites containing important wildlife habitat, such as black bear, must use approved animal-proof refuse disposal containers. With Division of Wildlife approval, refuse disposal containers and enclosures may be electrified. f. Domestic Animals. Development applications for property that includes important wildlife habitat must include a plan with specified enforcement measures for the control of domestic animals and household pets. The plan must include provisions to prevent the harassment, disturbance and killing of wildlife and to prevent the destruction of important wildlife habitat. H. Wildlife Conservation Plans. 1. Plan Preparation. A wildlife conservation plan required by this Section shall be prepared for the Applicant, at the Applicant's expense, under the responsible direction of a qualified person who has demonstrated expertise in the field and is acceptable to the Staff. 2. P/an Content. Any wildlife conservation plan required to be prepared pursuant to this Section shall include the following information at a minimum. Specific requirements may be waived by Staff due to the location of the development, the previous use of the site, the size and potential impact of the development, the absence of particular species on a site, the prohibition of a reasonable use of the site and other relevant factors. a. A description of the ownership, location, type, size and other attributes of the wildlife habitat on the site. b. A description of the populations of wildlife species that inhabit or use the site, including a qualitative description of their spatial distribution and abundance. c. An analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site. d. A list of proposed mitigation measures and an analysis of the probability of success of such measures. e. A plan for implementation, maintenance and monitoring of mitigation measures. f. A plan for any relevant enhancement or restoration measures. g. A demonstration of fiscal, administrative and technical competence of the Applicant or other relevant entity to successfully execute the plan. 5 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #7 for June 16, 2009 Planning Commission Review APPENDIX A. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE BOUNDARY MAP - TABLE OF CONTENTS Wildlife Habitat Map A-9 *. 6 Wildlife and Habitat Code Revisions - Draft #7 for June 16, 2009 Planning Commission Review D.-.3 '44=; 63 '*40 Â· -4 Â·Â·4-9 ,â€ž A 41"Â£ ... 1 r 9 4. ; J.# 74 6 I 1 - . 6 , ' 0. N.3.1 4 F , 138 ' ' , k $*66:~ Â·Â·*1:% -6,- ful& ' " * 1.9,;, ,. =. A. W . Ut " *t : 'rA 4 4 1. C * ' re , 1 '4.11 , 1 1 P en C. M ~2 $ @ ..0 . 00 0 09* 2 2 M g â‚¬ t 12 1 2 1 0. a:*,0,46 1 SU cx co M M - 21* la ~ ~~ 1 13, 9 g UD W Ul U) Ch 945 {t.1 * B 2 8 1 IE E S .ggip.-4= S U u U 50 = .% M t. - 9 '4 . - M M M M M R 0 + 059 U 2%254. I 25 0 =3 51 4 5.0 ../. 50 at. + 4.9 34 0 0 0 04 11 E 9 4411*cs 65.11Â£~ 4,Â· ~ M (L) Cs d ce C, .8 2 bo 0 0 rwri.:WÂ· . O 4-; I E o u u u - C 9 i = .= 4.-= Alsâ€¢ O 2 8 882 t~ 2 1 t 8 = 0 3:42: 28 N %2.8 2 ~ -3 -9 2/ Ce d CS C./D C/) CO ' 7 2 EE 05 3gr k t,N'%'W.' foox(21 ' LL.' +LE[l i. - t1. 1*M 4. i .t 6 1â‚¬12 ,; 2 3% 3.. 2 2 4 4 , 6'11-Â·CC J i 12.r:j' m 510 94 1,- ~ 0 0 0 ON ' 0 0.6 ON. 0 O 0 N t.in m N + 2 M - M LU'. /11 -: r."r , 4. 4, 9 J :44*. i Pt â‚¬, , i"I '. d =, 1. 6, lol-~Â· . L,2 4 0!ki 'J - '9 4 16 1 0 . . 2 'Â£2 . 4 : 5 i 33 2 0 r 50 91 O . 5.0 0 6.0 u) ., r E#ZE *deS 5 + C b 049Â¢999 '740' 1 - a :6 z g :6 8 M C r , ag= t cs :6 0 + a Â© 2 2 0 55 84 9 , f t... a u := Â·* 2= g 2 U ... u .2 0 = g=@gu 8 --2 2 6 -5 U '7 ' 1,211Â·gÂ»i . 1 1 &%3& 0:1 - m . a Q "1 21 -2 6 C:4 u =00 8 2â‚¬ 8 U I = 0 0 G Â·6 E â‚¬ '5 N e $ 4 0 > ASÂ·= F 5* E .0 8 2 - 1/ g Zo. E. R ao uo # 45 18 50 -7 Cl, 50 W p a $ 1 2 -- w a -0 - 6 4 9,6.23 0.9.=Ck=.5 + % 5 -8 -7 .5 Â·8 -M fli Â·S -0 -, E % 8 Z G. E .2 .8 IC = 2 -C Â·P * g .9 Â£ 2Â£ 31 3 Â·2Â·2 :2 in o a< alÂ£< C# 2 43 04 * 44 .S tg WO U 21 22 n 19#.yt ' O 6 0 ' 5.0 p,n 50 510 3) Fi M) P .8 Â£4; 59 C + .2 -E 2 5 w C *-, .gg ,gs 00 2 Â·2 N N .N E Ki':*i! ' t~J N E t9 t9 ' A -% 5 7.#I Â· 28. '125:8 0 E <U. !<a A UD = 0 U 24 11 38"Id' - ' 34*: A..' 03 jibim :48'Â§, M 4 p 14 41 . 0 >â€¢ - 56,44, *1 bo B 2 50 44 1 0 .% 3 fÂ¢ 9 , E; Â· m CA r, 1 -4 :2 15 â‚¬ 2 iR ,@ 1% 40 1. = 41, 2 -*1 12. *Ni .3 1 8 2 .-4. t< 0 .5 0 5 - B M CO 0 4- Â·:55 0 ill' 4 Eftf -~di <- 2% a. 193Â· * m ,<rch r.% A.4 05 F m. 20 M Â£ r-1 m 4 Same as Current Stream Setbacks Slouqms IJAIN WallnE) SU JUIES SpuqWS SPUBBOM ]UOIIn) SU OUIES it Stream (No Rivers are Adjacent to I-1 QUATIC HABITAT SETBACKS: PREPARED 5-14-09 BY TOWN PLANNING STAFF 63<Ouqms 10AIN luglin 3 SE JUIES SS9008 0!Iqnd jnowl/kl SIOUcil@S 1@AIN luolln 0 SE OUIES SIOEqlgS JOA!-H luglinj SU QUIES Same as Current River Setbacks SIOUCIPS puBDOM ]Uglin 3 SU OUIES Sioucpos pUBBOAK lualln) SE OUIES SIOUC[los 1@AIN JAOCIV SU Siouqlos OWES possgippy ION (suoIsuedxv Ieluoz !104 Genera R In All Zoning D ets 101 N) lugIUOIddns Except CD an - (With Decision-Making Body A W-uols!0*I 41!AD spuod puu_ 43NT?1{qeH ?nunb vigqi. 11Â¥ Lots ssgo,V pUE SSU!PI S107 BUt)<. Alison Chilcott om: Chip McCreary [chip@amidallas.com] ent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:01 PM To: Bob Joseph CC: Resa Mccreary; Barney Treadway; Joan Sapp; john van vliet; MonteDick@aol.com; Alison Chilcott; Dave Shirk Subject: voicemail Hi Bob, I own a house at 262 Fall River Lane and as I mentioned on your voicemail, I heard there is a plan underway to move set-backs to 50 feet from our rivers in Estes! ! Why would anyone do that?? If you lived on Fall River as I do,why would that be of benefit to you,your heirs or future buyers??.How does this enhance community development? I already have 30 foot set-backs that are restrictive but I have lived and complied with them for over 12 years. Perhaps you can call me or email the rational behind this 50 foot set-back movement so I can absorb and respond appropriately.Although my current property [I'm sure] would be grandfathered, I still cannot comprehend any earthly idea why this proposed plan has gained any momentum at all?? I called and have written you because I will not be in Estes until June 15th and if necessary, I want to respond to you and the -- Community Development Board as soon as possible after I absorb the facts and ideas behind this. I have met Alison in the past and have talked to Dave Shirk on more than a couple of occasions and have copied them as well in this email. Both of these fine people strike me as the epitome of reasonableness so they may care to respond to this issue as well.Thanks Bob Chip McCreary ip@amidallas.com LELL: 469-233-5046 1