Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Wetland Setback 1700 Big Thompson Ave 2016-12-06 1700 Big Thompson Ave.Wetland Setback Variance Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org E STES V ALLEY B OARD OF A DJUSTMENT MEETINGDATE& LOCATION:December6,2016, 9:00AM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST:This is a request for a variance to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 7.6.E.2.b Wetland Setbacks. The variance would allow a 25-foot setback in lieu of the 50-foot required wetland setback. The purpose of the variance is to accommodate severalproposedcabins on the property, some within the designated wetland area50-foot setback. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 1700 Big Thompson Ave., within the Town of Estes Park VICINITY MAP:See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER:Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC / same as applicant STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II PROJECT DESCRIPTION:This is a request to grant a varianceto allow for a 25-foot setback in lieu of the required 50-foot wetland setback. Code requires that all buildings, accessory structures and parking lotsbe set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of a wetland. The subject property is approximately 9.1 acres 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 calls for creating 42 residential/accommodations units within 21 townhome structures. 6 of the 21 structures are proposed within the 50-foot wetland setback; however, no structure is proposed closer thana 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:VDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. REFERRALAND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to 8 surrounding property owners. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. 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 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. Figure 1: Map showing two delineated wetlands on In April of 2016, Tiglas Ecological Services southern portion of property 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. 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 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 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 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 variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: Staff is recommending that a condition be placed 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 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 shall be designated as a protected no- build area on future Development Plan or Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site plan 5. Wetland Delineation Study and Site Photos can be found at www.estes.org/currentapplications 6. Wildlife Conservation Plan can be found at www.estes.org/currentapplications 7. Reviewing agency comments 8. Public comments 1700 Big Thompson Wetland Variance Page 5 of 5 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 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. protected and designated as an outlot for its preservation and protection. No impacts to the wetlands 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