Page 26 —
COLORADO REAL ESTATE JOURNAL
— September 2-September 15, 2015
Landscape Architecture
and ink, colored markers and
pencils. The value of this hybrid
approach is to incorporate site
photography, 3-D modeling
and casual hand illustration to
communicate the design con-
cept in a believable and casual
image. Most of these hybrid
images are created during the
design process and intended as
an “in-progress” representation
of a creative direction.
n
Digital watercolor tech-
nique, Gold Hill, Nevada.
Tra-
ditional watercolor paintings
created by professional art-
ists can be very expensive and
time-consuming. I developed
a unique visualization method
and comes close to reflecting the
beauty of painted artwork and
uses the same tools as my other
techniques (SketchUp model-
ing, hand drawing and digital
graphic software.) The process is
quite simple and the results are
impressive. I began by construct-
ing a 3-D SketchUp model of the
visitors center scene and after
selecting an eye-level perspec-
tive view, I printed a very light
image on 11-by-17 paper and
colored it with markers, dab-
bing the marker in such a way to
recreate a painted appearance. I
scanned the original artwork and
applied a watercolor filter using
Adobe Photoshop. The resulting
digital painting has an authen-
tic painted appearance and tex-
ture of a true watercolor!
s
A scan composite technique was used on a three-block-long streetscape project on Pearl Street in Boulder. The composite image is on the right.
An overlay and trace technique was used on the Brighton project to show how the streetscape might look with expanding outdoor restaurant seating
onto existing parallel parking spaces with temporary platforms.
attractive to lenders.
John Richert also closed $2.39
million in loans for retail proper-
ties throughout Colorado.
Assisted by Jay Richert, he
closed an acquisition loan for a
5,199-sf Colorado Springs retail
property constructed in 1999.
Correspondent life insurance
companies funded the loan.
The same lender financed a
$5.3 million loan for a 27,537-
sf Boulder shopping center, in
a deal closed by O’Brien and
Gibson.
The loan had a 15-year term
and a 28-year amortization. The
two-building center included a
second-story office space. This
center is 100 percent occupied
by six tenants.
Another correspondent life
insurance company funded a
$1.35 million refinance loan for
another Boulder retail center.
Bourgeois and Blair closed
the loan, with an interest rate
fixed for 10 years and a 20-year
term and 25-year amortization.
A total of $4.6 million
in loans were processed for
three office/warehouses. John
Richert closed $3.15 million in
loans for properties in Boulder
and Longmont. The interest
rate was fixed for five years
with a rate adjustment every
five years. The borrower was a
limited liability company.
O’Brien closed a refinance
loan for a 32,000-sf, two-sto-
ry office/warehouse on just
under five acres in Commerce
City. The tenant was on a short-
term lease, which made the
refinance more complicated.
Terrix closed a total of $8.1
million in loans for two self-
storage facilities in Denver and
Fort Collins.
John Richert and Blair closed
a $5.5 million refinance loan for
a borrower who needed to pay
off existing debt and recapture
some equity.
The loan terms were interest
only for 10 years with funding
from a commercial mortgage-
backed securities lender. Over
half of the units are indoor and
climate controlled. Other ame-
nities included three elevators,
coded keypad entry, on-site
managers and forced air for
two- and three-story buildings.
Chadwick closed a $2.6 mil-
lion loan for a self-storage
property with 446 units in 12
buildings that was just under
100 percent occupied.
The lender was a correspon-
dent life insurance company
that won this deal in a competi-
tive bid process based on the
ability to lock the rate at appli-
cation and had the best rate for
a 20-year fixed-rate loan.
Terrix also closed $10.7 mil-
lion in loans for apartment
properties.
Of those, Chadwick closed a
$4.76 million apartment loan
with a three-year term.
Branton and Blair closed a
$4.48 million acquisition loan
for a 240-space parking facility
located out of state. The loan
terms were interest only for
the first year with a three-year
term and 25-year amortization.
The borrower was a limited
liability company and the lend-
er was a bridge lender.
Finally, John and Jay Richert
closed a loan for a manufac-
tured housing community in
Colorado Springs.
That loan has a fixed inter-
est rate for the first five years
and is amortized over 25 years.
A correspondent life insurance
company funded the loan.
s
lished use of the airspace at the
time the easement was created
(for, say, crop dusting opera-
tions) may be in a better posi-
tion to argue that a new use of
a drone in that airspace is an
added burden and interferes
with the landowner's rights.
Courts will balance this against
the argument that drones
undoubtedly present opportu-
nities to improve safety and
reduce costs of maintenance for
utility companies, something
which the FAA has recognized
in some circumstances. (See
Regulatory Docket No. FAA-
2015-0552, Exemption No.
12404, Aug. 10, 2015 approval
letter, P. 2, Applicant: P.J. Heli-
copters, seeking use of Car-
bon Core Cortex Quadcopter
[approving Section 333 Exemp-
tion for drone use to inspect
utility tower inspections and
stating that using unmanned
aerial vehicles was safer than
using larger, heavier aircraft
that carried more fuel.]
n
Incorporeal trespass by
use of invasive data collec-
tion methods?
Traditionally,
trespass required an unauthor-
ized physical intrusion upon
the property of another (Pub.
Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Van
Wyk, 27 P.3d 377, 389-90 [Colo.
2001]). Yet, when the intrusion
is made by something intan-
gible, like a laser or electromag-
netic wave, Colorado will only
recognize a trespass claim if the
intangible entry causes tangible
damage to the property (Pub.
Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Van
Wyk, 27 P.3d 377, 389-90 [Colo.
2001]). In Colorado, the courts
treat noise, radiation and elec-
tromagnetic fields as intangible
intrusions, not as physical intru-
sions. Keep in mind, excessive
noise (or even the pervasive
presence of drones near, but
not over a property) could give
rise to a nuisance claim. Hence,
nondamaging data collection
by drones through LIDAR or
electromagnetic waves should
not give rise to a trespass claim.
n
Privacy concerns.
In Col-
orado, to prevail an invasion
of privacy claim based upon
intrusion upon someone else's
seclusion, “a plaintiff must
show that another has inten-
tionally intruded, physically or
otherwise, upon the plaintiff's
seclusion or solitude, and that
such intrusion would be con-
sidered offensive by a reason-
able person” (Doe v. High–Tech
Institute, Inc., 972 P.2d 1060,
1065 [Colo.App.1998]). Obvi-
ously, the law cannot precisely
define what would be consid-
ered offensive by a reasonable
person and given the varying
attitudes about drones and pri-
vacy, this standard provides
fertile ground for dispute and
differing opinion. With this in
mind, taking reasonable steps
to give proper notice and pro-
tect privacy could significantly
reduce the cost and time related
to disputes over drone use in
the future.
Companies with existing
easements and rights of inspec-
tion should be allowed to make
use of drones in private air-
space for that purpose with-
out further compensation to
owners, so long as that use
is reasonable and not incon-
sistent with the purpose for
which the easement was cre-
ated. That said, drones present
a “new take” on old legal issues
and companies seeking to use
drones in low-altitude airspace
should be ready to address the
property and privacy related
issues that may arise.
Special thanks to Christy Mil-
liken of Stinson Leonard Street
LLP’s Washington, D.C., office for
research and editorial help.
s
