Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Wetlands 1700 Big Thompson Ave 2016-12-06W 91 Qo 1700 Big Thompson Ave. — Wetland Setback Variance Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 23O.Town HaU, 17OMacGregor Avenue POBox 12O0. Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 870'577'3721 Fox: 970'580'0248 vmww.nutee»rg ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE 8^LOCATION: December 0.2010.8:OOAM;Board Room, Town Hall, 17O MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This isorequest for avariance to Estes Valley Development Code (EVOC) Section 7.0.E.2.bVVet|ond Setbacks. The variance would allow a 25-footsmtbmck in lieu of the 50-foot required wetland setback. The purpose Ofthe variance i8b]accommodate several proposed cabins on the pnop8dx. some within the designated vvetondGn3850-foxotmatb8Ck. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 1700Big Thompson Axe..within the Town ofEstes Park VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: Rooky Mountain Hotel Properties |. LLC /oanna as applicant STAFF CONTACT: Audem {3onzm/ee. Planner || PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to grant a variance to allow for a 25-footnmtbank in lieu of the required 50-foot wetland setback. Code requires that all buildings, accessory structures and parking lots be net back at least fifty /50\ feet h0[izVDt@||y (plan view) from the delineated edge 8fGwetland. The subject property is approximately 9.1 8C0s in size and is zoned A -Accommodations. Currently, it consists of two separate lots with the wetland areas being located on the western lot. The project proposal C8||S for creating 42 residential/accommodations units within 21 tOvvDhOrne structures. 8 of the 21 structures are proposed within the 50-f0Otvved8nd setback; hOvv8vor' no structure is proposed closer than a minimum distance of 25-feet from the delineated edge of the wetland. This request for a 50% setback reduction is outside of the staff level minor modification allowance, therefore, a variance is required. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.0 C. "Standards for Review" of the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to 8 surrounding property owners. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. The application is posted on the department "Current Applications" webpage. The site has been posted with a "variance pending" sign. Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. The following comment is included in the variance packet. 1. TOEP Environmental Planner, Tina Kurtz, memo dated November 21, 2016 (attached) Public Comments. Staff has received one written public comment in regards to this application. The comment is from an adjacent property owner who is in opposition to this variance request. The comment stated that the application should be denied to protect against encroachments and human damage in regards to wildlife, the neighborhood and the community. The public comment is attached to the variance packet. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The property is zoned A -Accommodations and is approximately 9.1 acres in size. It is currently undeveloped. The project proposal calls for developing twenty one 2 unit townhomes, 42 units total. The site plan proposes an open site concept with few roads, attractive landscape buffers and walking paths. In April of 2016, Tiglas Ecological Services performed a wetland delineation study and delineated two non -jurisdictional wetland areas on the southern portion of the property. See figure 1. The information provided to staff showed the wetlands occurring on a shelf and are found to be non -jurisdictional wetland areas. The applicants' letter, p.2, provides a succinct explanation of the term "non - jurisdictional". Although self-sustaining healthy communities, they are not found on the TOEP wetland map, National Wetland Inventory Map, or the United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle map. Figure 1: Map showing two delineated wetlands on southern portion of property The EVDC Code defines wetlands very broadly as an area inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The subject 1700 Big Thompson — Wetland Variance Page 2 of 5 property contains this type of saturated soil and vegetation, therefore the delineation study designated a portion of the property as wetlands. The 50-foot setback applied to the wetlands consists of a very large "undevelopable" area on the property and makes development difficult. Staff believes the proposed location for the townhome units within the 50-foot setback is a practical location. 25-feet of setback area shall remain with the wetlands remaining intact. The applicant has proposed to designate the wetland area as "open space" during the development process. Staff is recommending that this be placed as a condition of approval for the variance. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: The property can still be developed without having to develop in the 50-foot setback. To achieve the number of units proposed, a greater density would have to be built. This would involve clustering development and potentially building upwards. The intent of the project is to create a low profile, low density development that fits in with the neighboring properties and retains viewsheds and balanced open -space elements on the property. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial in regards to the physical location of the townhomes. However, it is substantial numerically at a 50% request. The wetlands have been documented at this location over the last ten years. There was a previous wetland delineation performed on this property. They continue to be non -jurisdictional and are only designated as wetlands per EVDC standards. Staff does not believe encroaching into the setback by 50% is a substantial request. The wetlands themselves are not affected by the proposed development. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The neighborhood consists of accommodations (motel and hotel) to the north and east and single-family residential to the west. Allowing numerous units on the property could affect the neighborhood to the west as the density will increase on the subject property. With the variance, the project could be built as a low profile, low density open space community. If the variance is denied, the project would need to achieve higher densities and be built at a tighter and potentially taller scale. The second concept could result in a more negative impact development to the western neighborhood. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Approval would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. 1700 Big Thompson —Wetland Variance Page 3 of 5 e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of the 50-foot setback. This property has undergone several iterations of potential development with options being expansions of the hotel, separate hotel buildings, higher density development, etc. The current iteration of a low density low profile development requires the need for a variance. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: A variance appears to be the only method to achieve the desired outcome. Staff is exploring the idea of amending the EVDC wetland setback requirements to be more aligned with federal regulations and reasonable development expectations in our valley. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions of situations. Staff Finding: It is not uncommon to find saturated soils in the Estes Valley, but it is uncommon to find such large wetland areas that are non -jurisdictional. Staff does not believe this situation is general or common in the valley. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: No reduction in lot size is proposed by this variance request. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: This variance would represent the least deviation from Code that will afford relief for the proposal but other options do exist. They involve moving the proposed building locations, building less dense of a development, stacking units on multiple levels, etc. 6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding: The variance does not propose a non -permitted or prohibited use. 1700 Big Thompson — Wetland Variance Page 4 of 5 7. In granting such wahonoae. the BOA may require such conditions at will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Staff is nocOnnnoanding that COOdUiOn be p|8o8d On any future Development Plan or Subdivision for this property utilizing this setback Variance to protect the wetlands and 25- foot setback by designating them as "private open space" or "no disturbance area" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested setback variance SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings and conditions recommended by staff. 1. Delineated wetlands and 25-foot setback areas ShGU be designated as protected nobuild area on future Development Plan or Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat. - I move to DENYthe requested variance with the following findings (state reason1findings). ATTACHK8ENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement ofIntent 3. Application 4. Site plan 5. Wetland Delineation Study and Site Photos can bafound at y�yvv.estnn.org/currerdaPp1ioation� O. VVi|d|ifo(�VnaervationPlan can befound otvvwvv.estes.nrg/ourren1aVp|icmtions 7. Reviewing agency comments 8. Public comments 17OOBig Thompson —Wetland Variance Page 5of5 ouw,iirr'mPII!I r'Iu ro, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT To: Audem Gonzales, Planner II From: Tina Kurtz, CFM Environmental Planner/Planner III/Floodplain Administrator Date: November 21, 2016 RE: 1700 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park Resort Wetland Setback Variance Purpose: The applicant (Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC) is seeking a variance from the fifty foot wetland setback, pursuant to §7.6(E) of the Estes Valley Development Code, for a proposed residential/accommodations development. Background: A wetland delineation was conducted on the property to be developed, which identified two wetland communities located in the southern portion of the property, in close proximity to one another. (See "Wetland Delineation at a Proposed Development Site at the Lake Estes Lodge in Estes Park, Colorado" by Darcy A. Tiglas, April 2016.) A portion of the proposed development is located near the two wetland communities. Present Situation: The applicant is requesting a variance from the fifty foot wetland setback in order to locate buildings approximately twenty-five feet or more from the delineated edge of the wetlands. Based on information from the applicant and a site visit, adhering to a minimum of a twenty-five foot setback from the delineated edges of the two wetland communities will place all of the nearest points of the structures on the upland area to the north or other surrounding areas not connected to the two wetland communities. In addition, the variance application states that "The shelf that the wetlands occur upon will be protected and designated as an outlot for its preservation and protection. No impacts to the wetlands will occur under the proposed project." It is recommended that this stipulation be made a variance condition. Recommendation: Support for a staff recommendation to the Board to approve the variance application with condition. 1 cc. ( R, IRntRon 0 STD October 26, 2016 Town of Estes Park Community Development P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Co. 80517 RE: Estes Park Resort Wetland Setback Variance Request Mr. Hunt, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES), on behalf of the owners Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC, is submitting a variance request to the wetland setback for 1700 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado. Legal Description Lot 1 Lake Estes Addition Variance Request Estes Valley Development Code 7.6.E.2.b "All buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of a wetland. See Figure 7-10 above. Development on lots that were approved for single-family residential use prior to the adoption of this Code shall be exempt." The applicant is requesting the setback be reduced to 25-feet from the delineated wetlands. Project Description In 2011 Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC purchased the Lake Shore Lodge and the adjacent lot. The previous ownership was not able to make the hotel financially feasible because they had overbuilt the banquet, wedding and restaurant facilities in comparison to the guestrooms provided. The banquet and wedding facilities accommodate 200+ people but the hotel only has 54 guestrooms. Upon purchasing the hotel and land, our intent was to develop an 80-90 room hotel to alleviate the large shortage of guestrooms and stabilize the investment. We soon had developed concept plan for The Ledges Hotel (see attached). Once our concept had been developed, we began talking to our surrounding residential neighbors, businesses, and to the city planning department. It became abundantly clear that our surrounding neighbors were concerned about the impact our hotel project would have. While the planning department and others at the city were supportive of our concept, they encouraged us to work with the neighbors to alleviate as many of their concerns as possible. We furthered our discussions with the neighboring properties and the city and it was the overwhelming opinion that a high quality low density housing development would have the least amount of impact on the land, wildlife and existing properties, and would also provide housing which the Town of Estes desperately needs and would also raise property values for the neighboring residential development. We began exploring this concept to see if we could build a low density development with single family homes and townhomes that could not only provide housing to residents but also address The Estes Park Resorts' issue of a guestroom shortage. We found other new developments in Estes Park that have had success in Estes Park Resort, Wetland Setbark Variance Request Page 2 of 3 October 26, 2016 doing this. In those new developments, we found that 30%-50% of the housing was purchased with the intent of it being the owners sole residents, and the remaining homes were purchased and used as vacation rentals. Using this information, we developed a low density concept of 21, 2 unit townhomes, 42 units total. Each unit will be 1250 - 1650 sq. ft. with 2/3 bedrooms and 2 baths, laundry washer and dryer, fireplace, luxury interior finishes, exterior decks with Jacuzzi and barbecue area. Each unit will have attractive log exteriors with stone accents. The site plan will be an open site with very few roads, attractive landscape buffers to surrounding neighbors, and walking paths. We anticipate that at least 21 of these units will be used for vacation rentals which we would manage. This would add 42-55 additional rooms for the resort to rent out to alleviate the hotels lack of guestrooms, and provide approximately 21 homes to full time residence. In order to achieve this, the site requires a variance on the setback of the non -jurisdictional wetlands. We have done a wetlands study, wildlife study, and worked with the Environmental Planner for the Town of Estes Park, and all have determined, the variance request we are seeking will have no negative impact on the wetlands or wildlife. If we are unable to get the variance, we will not be able to develop 12 units, which would make the low density housing concept unfeasible. Variance Description Details The project for the Estes Resort Property will entail the request to the Town of Estes Park for a variance to the existing code that requires a 50-foot setback from all wetlands. We are requesting a variance of a setback of 25-feet from the edge of the mapped wetlands to accommodate proposed cabins. The cabins will be in upland, not within the wetland, but will occur within the variance. The shelf that the wetlands occur upon will be protected and designated as an outlot for its preservation and protection. No impacts to the wetlands will occur under the proposed project. The Town of Estes Park staff has indicated that they are likely to amend the existing wetland code for a new wetland code and it would mirror the existing Federal definition of a jurisdictional wetland. At present, under the 2012 Army Corps of Engineers wetland regulations, a wetland that does not have a nexus to an interstate or intrastate surface water source is considered isolated and not jurisdictional. The two palustrine wetlands identified within the Estes Resort project area are isolated and would not be jurisdictional under the current Clean Water Act regulations. These small wetlands are not found on the Town of Estes Park's wetland map, National Wetland Inventory Map, or the United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle map. Each of these maps has been updated in the last 20 years and, I personally know from a wetland delineation conducted ten years ago, the wetlands were present. Since they have always been very small and isolated, they were likely never picked up by aerial photography and were not ground-truthed. Practical Difficulty When determining "practical difficulty" the following factors are considered: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Response: Yes the property could still be used for proposed developments. But the nature of the development would need to be shifted to a higher density development which would have a greater impact on neighboring properties. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Response: Considering the wetlands are non -jurisdictional per Federal standards. If the EVDC where amended, as planned by Community Development, EVDC 7.6.E.2.b would not apply to the property. Estes Park Resort, Wetland Setback Variance Request Page 3 of 3 October 26, 2016 c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Response: The variance is being requested to provide space for a lower density, open development. If the variance is not granted, the approach to the development would need to shift to a higher density plan which could potentially have a greater impact on neighboring properties. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Response: No utility mains or easements are in the area of the proposed variance request. No impacts to public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; and Response: The property was purchased with the knowledge of the 50-foot wetland setback. The plan has evolved over time beginning with higher density developments and possible hotel expansions. The applicant wishes to explore a lower density development but would require the need for the requested variance. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Response: Town of Estes Park Community Development Staff has indicated they wish to amend the EVDC to correlate with Federal Standards. If the amendment had been enacted upon, there would be no need for the requested variance as the wetlands are considered non - jurisdictional. Sincerely, Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. FA! G L908 00 'NaVd S31S3 3f1N3AV NOSdWOHl JIB 00 12JOS321 N2JYd S3IS3 �, a "fib "','Tye$