Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE River Setback 1700 Highway 66 2005-05-03 DATE: May 3, 2005 REQUEST: A request by Leo Salazar, on behalf of New Spall LLC, for the following variances: (1) Section 1.9.D.2a, (2) Section 7.6.F.1 Prohibited Activities, and (3) Section 7.6.G “Preservation of Vegetation.” 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: In process of redevelopment Proposed Land Use: Residential/Accommodations 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 Beaver Brook Variance Requests 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 River Entrance RMNP Beaver MeadowsEntrance Prospect Mt. - (/34 (/36(/7 (/36 (/34 (/36 (/7 CheleyCamps USFS USFS Page #2 –Beaver Brook Request Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant, Leo Salazar on behalf of owner New Spall LLC, requests the following variances: 1. Section 1.9.D2 Development Setbacks from River and Stream Corridors, which states that “setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky.” 2. Section 7.6.F.1 Prohibited Activities, which states “no person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, fill, drain, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation, within stream or river corridors, wetlands and their associated buffer/setback areas.” 3. Section 7.6.G “Preservation of Vegetation”, which states “all existing vegetation within the stream/river corridor or wetland buffer/setback area shall be preserved, and where necessary to provide adequate screening or to repair damaged riparian areas, supplemented with additional native planting and landscaping.” (The applicant’s application references Section 7.6.E1a, which was listed erroneously. The reference should have been to Section 7.6.G) The applicant is in the process of redeveloping the property, which received development plan approval from the Estes Valley Planning Commission on December 21, 2004. The proposal includes 19 rental units, a laundry/storage building, and a manager’s quarters with on-site office. During the construction process of units near the river, the applicant encountered significant debris along the river bank, and initiated slope stabilization. Mr. Salazar and Dan Smith, the general contractor, contacted the Community Development Department regarding this process. At that time, Community Development informed the applicant that slope stabilization was acceptable and desirable, and suggested the applicant contact the Larimer County Engineer to determine floodplain issues, and the Corps of Engineer’s to determine any Federal requirements. At the time of contact with Community Development, “slope stabilization” was described in terms of erosion control mats and revegetation. Retaining walls were also discussed. However, Staff assumed the proposed retaining walls would be those shown on the development plan, and all trees and vegetation along the bank would remain, as required with the approved development plan. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. “Standards for Review” of the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria set forth below: Page #3 –Beaver Brook Request 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 Comment: As noted above, the previous property owner had dumped garbage in this area for the past two decades. The applicant was attempting to correct this situation, which resulted in the existing retaining wall. 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 Comment: The property could not be developed without some type of slope stabilization process. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances are substantial. 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 Comment: The retaining wall would have a positive effect on the neighborhood. This is due to the fact the previously unstable slope, which sloughed silt and garbage in the Big Thompson River during heavy rains, will be stabilized, thus reducing erosion and runoff. The property owner across the river, Mr. Bill Kirk – who has lived there since 1972, has verified the past condition of the slope, and lent support to the variance requests. d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The applicant purchased the property after adoption of the EVDC. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Page #4 –Beaver Brook Request Staff Comment: Due to the past condition of the slope, and the fact that slope has been re-graded, the Applicant’s predicament can not be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. 4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Larimer County Engineering had a variety of comments related to floodplain, Corps of Engineers, and building permit holds. Revegetation. The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 7.6.G “Preservation of Vegetation”, which states “where necessary to provide adequate screening or to repair damaged riparian areas, supplemented with additional native planting and landscaping.” Staff recommends the lower planting beds between the retaining walls be planted with willow, alder, and birch. These species are commonly found along riparian corridors. The upper planting area should be planted with a creeping juniper, which over time would creep down the wall, thus providing a natural layer of screening of the walls. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. Special circumstances exist. 2. The property could not be put to beneficial use without some type of slope stabilization, which requires a variance. 3. The Applicant's predicament could not be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. 5. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. 6. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances represent the least deviation that would afford relief. Page #5 –Beaver Brook Request 7. The applicant purchased the property after adoption of the EVDC. 8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 9. The variances would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 10. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 11. Approval of these variances would not 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. 12. Approval of these variances would not 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; Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variances CONDITIONAL TO: a. Full compliance with applicable building codes. b. Compliance with the submitted and approved site plan. c. Compliance with memo from Larimer County Engineering (Roxann Hayes) to Dave Shirk dated April 15, 2005, regarding floodplain issues, Corps of Engineer’s issues, and Building Permit Holds. d. The applicant shall submit verification from a licensed engineer that the retaining walls comply with the submitted site plan, and that they were designed and built in a structurally sound manner (e.g. support the proposed buildings, allow proper drainage, etc.). This shall be submitted prior to release of building permit hold. e. The upper planting area shall be planted with a creeping juniper. The lower planting beds between the retaining walls be planted with willow, alder, and birch. f. The approved development plan shall be amended to account for landscaping and grading plan changes, and shall be subject to review and approval of Larimer County Engineering Department. This shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of the next building permit. SUGGESTED MOTION: APPROVAL: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance(s) with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. DENIAL: I move DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance because… (state reason for denial - findings).