Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTAFF REPORT Beaver Brook Development Plan 1700 Highway 66 2004-12-21 DATE: December 21, 2004 REQUEST: This is a request for a development plan to build twenty multi-family residential units, dispersed throughout five tri-plexes, one four-plex, and one manager’s unit. LOCATION: The site is located at 1738 Highway 66, within unincorporated Larimer County. APPLICANT/OWNER: New Spall, LLC STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Estes Park Surveyors and Engineering (Paul Kochevar), 586-5175 Parcel Number: 3534136002 Development Area: 2.4 acres Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Multi-family/short-term rentals (15 units) Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: “A” Accommodations Adjacent Zoning- East: “CO” Commercial North: “A-1” Accommodation, “RM” Multi-Family, “CO” Commercial West: “A” Accommodations South: “E-1” Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Multi-family North: Commercial, single-family residential West: Accommodations South: Single-family residential Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer Beaver Brook Development Plan 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 RMNP RockyMountainNationalPark RMNP USFS USFS USFS Lake Estes MarysLake LilyLake Mac Gregor Ranch YMCAConferenceGrounds 36 EVDC Boundary EVDC Boundary Eagle Rock RMNPFall RiverEntrance RMNPBeaver MeadowsEntrance Prospect Mt. - (/34 (/36(/7 (/36 (/34 (/36 (/7 CheleyCamps USFS USFS Page #2 – Beaver Brook (Development Plan 04-12) PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: This is a request for a development plan to build twenty multi-family residential units, dispersed throughout five tri-plexes, one four-plex, and one manager’s unit. The plan also calls for a laundry/storage building. The site has a burial ground located in the middle of it; this is not owned by the applicant, and will remain. Beaver Brook flows through the property. The applicant proposes to maintain this in a natural state and locate units such that the majority of them will have access to the stream; the remainder of the units, save the manager’s quarters, will have frontage on the Big Thompson River. 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. Land Use. The “A” district allows for both residential and accommodations use. Setbacks. The required setbacks for the “A” district will be met. These are 25-feet from the front lot line, and 15-feet from the side lot lines; the 30-foot river setback requirement supercedes the rear lot line requirement. Density. After netting out the floodplain area, the maximum allowed density for this lot is 19 multi-family units. The manager’s quarters are allowed as additional density so long as a deed restriction is recorded. Impervious Coverage. The “A” district has a maximum impervious coverage of 50%. In this case, the building footprint and paved areas total 43.63%. Floor Area Ratio. The “A” district does not have a floor area ratio. Pedestrian Linkage Requirements. Table 4-8 of the EVDC requires provision for interconnections with existing or planned trails, as well as a requirement for sidewalk construction. The applicant proposes internal sidewalks, with a connection crossing Beaver Brook. 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. Page #3 – Beaver Brook (Development Plan 04-12) All disturbed areas will need to be restored in accordance with Section 7.2.C “Restoration of Disturbed Areas.” The current grading plan does not indicate curb and gutter design, and needs to be revised to reflect this. All disturbed areas shall be restored as natural appearing landforms, with curves that blend in with adjacent undisturbed slopes. Abrupt angular transitions and linear slopes shall be avoided (§7.2.C.1). In addition, the grading plan will need to reflect issues discussed below in the “Drainage/Water Quality Management” section. Cut Rock Treatment. Disturbed areas resulting in rock cuts shall be treated with a rock-staining agent to the extent necessary to match the predominant colors of the surrounding soils or rocks (§7.2.C.6). Retaining Walls. Retaining walls (§7.2.B.6) greater than four (4) feet in height shall be supported by appropriate engineering and reviewed and approved by Staff before construction. Retaining walls visible from an arterial street or highway, or from public open areas or parks, shall be screened by vegetation or faced with wood, stone or other earth-colored materials that blend with the surrounding natural landscape. Details, such as construction materials and color, explaining how this proposal will meet the code requirement shall be included on the site development plan. Limits of Disturbance (LOD). Section 7.2.D of the Estes Valley Development Code requires that LOD be established with every development plan. The applicant proposes to disturb nearly the entire site. Significant trees to be preserved will be fenced for protection in accordance with Section 7.3.E. In addition, silt fences will be installed to protect Beaver Brook and the Big Thompson. It is Staff’s opinion these measures are sufficient. Landscaping and Buffers. The proposed landscaping plan needs to be amended to include at least nine coniferous trees along the highway, as shown on figure 1. These trees would then satisfy the street frontage and replacement of significant trees requirements. is proposal meets landscaping requirements. Section 7.10.B4 allows the Planning Commission to require additional landscaping to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Staff recommends additional trees be planted between the parking lot and Highway 66. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan detail sheet addressing this. Cost Estimate. Section 7.5 requires a cost estimate for the proposed landscaping plan. This needs to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of the first building permit.The following notes need to be added to the plan: “All plant material shall meet the American Association of Nurserymen specifications for Number 1 grade, and shall comply with the quality standards of the Colorado Nursery Act, Title 35, Article 26, C.R.S., as amended.”; “To protect landscaping Page #4 – Beaver Brook (Development Plan 04-12) from wildlife-related damage, transparent fences (including very low-voltage electrified fencing), walls or other architectural elements shall be included around landscaped areas in all landscape and buffering plans. Materials shall be compatible with materials used for structures on the site. No chain link fencing shall be allowed.” ; “Required landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy, growing condition at all times. The property owner is responsible for regular irrigating, pruning, weeding, mowing, fertilizing, replacement of plants in poor condition and other maintenance of all plantings as needed.” All plantings shall be subject to periodic inspections to insure compliance with this regulation and the approved landscape plan. Failure to comply with the Maintenance Plan shall be a violation of this Code, subject to the enforcement and penalties provisions set forth in Chapter 12. Where walls, fences or other structures are an integral part of the landscape plan, such structures shall be maintained in good repair. Fences that are leaning, broken, have missing pieces, peeling paint or are in any other way damaged shall be immediately repaired or replaced. Walls with missing bricks or blocks, crumbling mortar or other aesthetic or structural defects shall be immediately repaired. Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection. 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 (§7.6.E.2b). The submitted plan indicates compliance with this standard. Geologic and Wildfire Hazard. The western portion of the lot is within a mapped and identified wildfire hazard area. This is outside the limits of disturbance, and no construction activity will take place in this area. The northeastern corner of the site is located within a mapped steep slope geologic hazard area. Before construction, the applicant shall, in accordance with the Estes Valley Development Code (§7.7.E.1), submit a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified Professional Geologist. This plan should address any required blasting (including timeframe), slope stabilization, and drainage considerations for proposed retaining walls. Any required blasting should be done at a time to minimize impact on nearby businesses. Wildlife Habitat Protection. The submitted development plan satisfies the standards set forth in Section 7.8 of the EVDC. 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. Staff recommends the applicant verify the proposed light fixtures meet code requirements before installation. Off-Street Parking and Loading. The proposal complies with applicable parking standards, and will contain 16 parking spaces (14 required). twentyforty-five. Tthe parking. The parking area and drive will have a 4” base with 3” of asphalt. Page #5 – Beaver Brook (Development Plan 04-12) Adequate Public Facilities. Approval Conditioned Upon Adequate Public Facilities. The approval of all development shall be conditioned upon the provision of adequate public facilities and services necessary to serve the new development. No building permit shall be issued unless such public facilities and services are in place or the commitments described in Section 7.12.C have been made. This section requires that facilities are available to serve the proposed development when building permits are issued. This means facilities will need to be either installed or guaranteed before issuance of the first building permit. Transportation. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for this proposal, and submitted to Larimer County Engineering and CDOT for review and comment. This TIA indicates there will be minimal impact on Highway 66, and no additional site improvements will be required. The re-alignment of the entry directly across the highway from Mills Drive aids in the traffic flow for this proposal. Drainage/Water Quality Management. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the building permits and certificates of occupancy may be issued before the installation and acceptance of the drainage facilities (including road system) - for this proposal, one unit. • The grading plan should be stamped by a licensed engineer. • Copies of applicable federal permits should be submitted with building permit applications. The submitted plan indicates the majority of the parking area runoff draining towards the east, but does not account for that water in terms of detention, retention, or moving the water towards the drainage system located near the highway. This needs further design consideration. In addition, per Public Works comments, detention pond details need to be added (spot elevations, volume containment, Q-release rate, rip rap areas and quantities). Catch basins along road need to be identified. Sanitary Sewer. The applicant proposes to connect to an existing Upper Thompson Sanitation District main. The memos from Ron WittAn existing UTSD sanitary sewer main is located along the north side of Spur 66. to Dave Shirk dated December 7, 2004 and from David Brand dated December 3, 2004 should be incorporated as a condition of approval. This will require revisions to the development plan to keep the area between units 16 and 17 free and clear of improvements (bike rack, light fixture), and will require the sidewalk in that area to be a minimum of 8” thick. The purpose of these changes is to allow UTSD trucks to access this area for routine maintenance. In addition, the southern stormwater quality basin should be redesigned to not interfere with the existing sanitary sewer. Page #6 – Beaver Brook (Development Plan 04-12) Water. At the time of issuance of any building permit, all necessary water facilities and services, shall be in place and available to serve the new development in accordance with the approved utility plan for the development. Fire Protection. The applicant proposes one fire hydrant on the site. In accordance with Section 7.12.G3, this hydrant shall be “in place and available to serve the new development” at the “time of issuance of any building permit.” REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Estes Park Public Works Department had a variety of standard comments. These should be included as conditions of approval. Town Attorney White had comments regarding stormwater detention and a note regarding ADA. Mr. White noted that if the applicant does not wish to detain the additional stormwater runoff, the adjoining neighbor will need to enter into a written agreement. The applicant has noted they have “discussed this matter with the neighbor downstream and they have agreed to” the site not having detention ponds. Therefore, obtaining a written agreement should be a condition of approval. Rocky Mountain National Park requested “that the Beaver Brook project utilize the Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan performance guidelines to the extent possible.” The site design satisfies several performance guidelines, including: • Retain to the greatest extent possible existing landforms and rock outrcroppings. • Reduce impacts to natural landforms and reduce the potential for soil erosion by keeping site grading to a minimum. • Reduce soil erosion and maintain water quality by preserving natural watercourses and drainageways. • Extensive walls should be broken up with windows, doors, or other architectural features to afford visual relief. The following guidelines should be implemented: • The additional landscaping between the parking lot and Highway 66 would help satisfy goals established in the Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan. • Buildings should be natural colors of wood. Earth tones and muted tones (browns, grays, tans, greens) are the colors of choice for paints and stains. • Preferred roof colors are black, gray, brown, and dark green. • Exterior lighting should be kept to a minimum. Condominium Map. This review does not include review of a condominium map, which will be required before individual sale of the units. Page #7 – Beaver Brook (Development Plan 04-12) Conduits. Per Section 7.13, “conduit, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall be screened, covered or painted to minimize visual impacts”. American with Disabilities Act. The proposed handicap spaces will need to be signed in accordance with Section 7.11.J. Sidewalks will need to be designed with ramps to for accessibility. Construction Plans. Final construction plans will need to be approved by Larimer County Engineering, Town of Estes Park Public Works, Light and Power, and UTSD prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or first building permit. There are root zones that are to be paved over; the final construction plans should account for root protection per Appendix D.VII. As-Built Plans. As-built plans (1 Mylar + 1 paper copy + 1 digital copy) shall be submitted at the time construction of the improvements is completed. As-built plans shall include utilities, parking, building footprints and building square footage. Final certificate of occupancy shall not be issued prior to submittal of as- built plans (Appendix B.III.C.5). Building Material. Staff recommends the building and roof colors be chosen to compliment existing buildings in the area. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 1. This is a request by New Spall LLC (Jason Randall) for a development plan to build twenty multi-family residential units, dispersed throughout five tri-plexes, one four-plex, and one manager’s unit. 2. The site is located at 1738 Highway 66, within unincorporated the Estes Valley. 3. This proposal complies with applicable setback, density, and impervious coverage requirements. 4. This development plan is subject to compliance with applicable sections of the EVDC. These include, but are not limited to: Section 7.2 “Grading and Site Disturbance Standards”; Section 7.3 “Tree and Vegetation Protection”; Section 7.12 “Adequate Public Facilities”. 5. A TIA was prepared for this proposal, which indicates there will be minimal impact on Highway 66, and no additional site improvements will be required. 6. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 7. Rocky Mountain National Park requested this proposal utilize the Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan performance guidelines to the extent possible. 8. No building permit shall be issued unless such public facilities and services are in place or the commitments described in Section 7.12.C have been made. Page #8 – Beaver Brook (Development Plan 04-12) 9. Per Section 7.13, “conduit, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall be screened, covered or painted to minimize visual impacts”. 10. As-built plans (1 Mylar + 1 paper copy + 1 digital copy) shall be submitted at the time construction of the improvements is completed. As-built plans shall include utilities, parking, building footprints and building square footage. Final certificate of occupancy shall not be issued prior to submittal of as-built plans (Appendix B.III.C.5). 11. This review does not constitute approval of a condominium map. Prior to individual sale of any of these units, a condominium map shall be reviewed in accordance with the EVDC. 12. Staff recommends the applicant verify the proposed light fixtures meet code requirements before installation. 13. The Planning Commission is the decision-making body for this request; Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed “Beaver Brook” Development Plan 04-12 CONDITIONAL TO: 1. The memos from Ron WittAn existing UTSD sanitary sewer main is located along the north side of Spur 66. to Dave Shirk dated December 7, 2004 and from David Brand dated December 3, 2004 should be incorporated as a condition of approval. This requires revisions to the development plan to keep the area between units 16 and 17 free and clear of improvements (bike rack, light fixture), and the sidewalk in that area shall be a minimum of 8” thick. In addition, the southern stormwater quality basin shall be redesigned to not interfere with the existing sanitary sewer. 2. Compliance with email from Bob Goehring to Alison Chilcott dated December 10, 2004. 3. Construction Plans shall be reviewed and approved by Estes Park Public Works and Larimer County Engineering prior to issuance of the first building permit. These shall include utilities, drives and retaining walls, erosion control plans and root protection, and the postal cluster box. 4. A landscaping cost estimate shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of the first building permit. 5. A 20-foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated along Highway 66 through a separate instrument prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. 6. A deed restriction for the manager’s quarters shall be recorded, and a copy submitted to Community Development, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that unit. 7. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include additional trees along the highway, as proposed with the document faxed from Estes Park Surveyors to David Shirk on December 14. 8. The adjoining neighbor shall enter into a written agreement to allow additional stormwater to cross their property. A copy of this agreement shall be submitted before issuance of the first building permit. Page #9 – Beaver Brook (Development Plan 04-12) SUGGESTED MOTION: APPROVAL: I move APPROVAL of Development Plan xx-xx with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. DENIAL: I move DISAPPROVAL of Development Plan xx-xx because… (state reason for denial - findings).