HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Height Trendwest 740 Moraine Ave 2004-12-07
DATE: December 7, 2004
REQUEST: A request by
Trendwest Resorts for a variance to
Section 1.9.E “Height” and Section
7.6.G “Preservation of Vegetation”
LOCATION: The site is located at
740 Moraine and 825 Riverside
Drive.
APPLICANT: Ankrom Moisan
Architects (Portland, OR; contact is
Shawn O’Donahue, 503-892-7317)
PROPERTY OWNER/ADDRESS: Trendwest Resorts (Redmond, WA; contact is
Wayne Helm, 425-498-2865)
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk
SITE DATA TABLE:
Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (Joe Coop), 586-9388
Parcel Numbers: 3526412003, 3526413001,
3526412002, 3526412001, 3535105019
Development Area: 6.56 acres (+/-)
Number of Lots: 5 Existing Land Use: Undeveloped commercial,
commercial accommodations
Proposed Land Use: Private resort Existing Zoning: “CO” Commercial, “A”
Accommodations
Adjacent Zoning-
East: “A” Accommodations, “A-1”
Accommodations
North: “RE-1” Rural Estate, “I-1” Light
Industrial
West: “CO” Commercial South: “E-1” Estate, “A” Accommodations
Trendwest Height and Preservation of
Vegetation 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 –Trendwest Height and Vegetation Protection Request
Adjacent Land Uses-
East: Commercial Accommodations,
Multi-Family Residential
North: Multi-family residential,
undeveloped industrial
West: Commercial South: Single-family residential,
undeveloped commercial accommodation
Services-
Water: Town Sewer: UTSD
Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer
Surrounding Zoning Aerial Photo
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: This is a request by Ankrom
Moisan Architects, a Portland Oregon company, on behalf of Trendwest Resorts, a
Seattle Washington based company.
The applicant requests a variance to Section 1.9.E “Height” and Section 7.6.G
“Preservation of Vegetation”. The purpose of the height variance request is to allow
three accommodations buildings to exceed the height limit to provide a roof covering
over mechanical equipment, and one accommodations building to exceed the height limit
for a stair tower structure. The purpose of the “vegetation protection” variance is to
allow a corner of a sports court to extend into the river setback area.
The overall proposal is to redevelop the existing 64 commercial accommodations units at
the Big Thompson Timberlane Lodge into 66 accommodations units.
Page #3 –Trendwest Height and Vegetation Protection Request
On November 15, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval
of a request to rezone the property to “CO”, and to “overlay” a PUD development plan.
These items, along with an annexation proposal, are scheduled before the Town Board
for December 14.
The applicant had originally requested several additional variances regarding the design
of the site. These were centered on the location of the southernmost dumpster/enclosure
and parking area. Based on Staff concerns, the applicant redesigned that area in a way
that eliminated those variance requests, and will preserve several significant trees near
Riverside Drive.
Maximum Building Height. The applicant proposes to exceed the maximum height
limit on four buildings. Building 2 would require a 3’9” variance, Building 3 would
require a 5’ variance, and Building 5 would require a 3’9” variance. The applicant
proposes the height variance to allow a pyramid-type enclosure that would conceal
mechanical equipment.
Building 4 would require a variance of 5’. This is the to allow the proposed tower. The
applicant’s intent is to provide architectural variety to the roofline, and to provide a view
corridor through the building.
Stream Corridor Protection. The applicant proposes to place a corner of a basketball
court within the river setback area.
Section 7.6.G 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.
Stream corridor protection requirements and standards are intended to promote, preserve
and enhance the important hydrologic, biological, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and
educational functions that stream and river corridors, associated riparian areas provide.
The applicant proposes to pave an area that has little riparian value. There would be no
tree or shrub removal, only non-native grasses. This is in an area that has been disturbed
in the past with the installation of a sanitary sewer line.
It is Staff’s opinion the proposed landscaping plan, which received a favorable review
from the Parks Department, more than offsets any loss of vegetation near the Big
Thompson River.
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 #4 –Trendwest Height and Vegetation Protection 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: There are no apparent special circumstances associated with this lot
regarding the variance requests. The burden of identifying special circumstances is
on the applicant.
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 be redeveloped without the requested
variances.
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 requested height variances would have a minimal negative
impact on the character of the neighborhood. It is Staff’s opinion that the
requested variances would improve the aesthetics of the property by doing two
things: (1) Various mechanical equipment would be permanently screened by the
roof structures and (2) the tower height would serve to break-up an otherwise
continuous roof line, thus providing architectural variety.
The requested vegetation protection variance would have no effect on the
neighborhood. This request is internal to the property, and would not be visible
off-site except across the river. The proposed landscaping plan would more than
offset the loss of vegetation.
d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Comment: The applicant purchased the property less than a year ago, when
the current regulations were in place.
e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance.
Page #5 –Trendwest Height and Vegetation Protection Request
Staff Comment: The buildings could be designed to eliminate the need for height
variances, and the site could be developed without the proposed sport court (the
sport court is proposed for the only location that would physically allow it).
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.
As noted above, the applicant redesigned the site to eliminate several variance
requests, including dumpster location in relation to sidewalks, setback of dumpster
enclosure, location of a parking area within the required landscape buffer, and the
removal of significant trees within a landscape buffer. This redesign has minimized
variance requests.
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.
Neighbors. Staff has received phone calls from two separate neighbors. Both were
opposed to the height variance requests.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff
finds:
1. The applicant, Trendwest Resorts, requests a variance to Section 1.9.E “Height” and
Section 7.6.G “Preservation of Vegetation”
2. The purpose of the height variance request is to allow three accommodations
buildings to exceed the height limit to provide a roof covering over mechanical
equipment, and one accommodations building to exceed the height limit for a stair
tower structure.
3. The purpose of the “vegetation protection” variance is to allow a corner of a sports
court to extend into the river setback area.
4. The site is located at 740 Moraine and 825 Riverside Drive.
5. There are no apparent special circumstances associated with this lot regarding the
variance requests.
6. There can be beneficial use of the property without the variances.
Page #6 –Trendwest Height and Vegetation Protection Request
7. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a
variance.
8. It is Staff’s opinion the proposed height variances would enhance the aesthetic
value of the property, and the requested vegetation protection variance would have
no impact on the character of the neighborhood.
9. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances are substantial.
10. The Board should use their judgment if the requested variances represent the least
deviation that would afford relief.
11. The applicant purchased the property after adoption of the EVDC.
12. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by
reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
13. Staff has received e-mail’s from two neighbors opposed to the height variances.
14. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as
water and sewer.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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;
Because the impact on the neighborhood would be minimal, and because the intent of the
Code would not be compromised (overall building height, preservation of riparian
corridor), Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variances CONDITIONAL
TO compliance with the applicable development plan.
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).
LAPSE: Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action
with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall
automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.
Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects
ATTN: Shawn O’Donahue
6720 SW Macadam, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97219
RE: Variance Request
Dear Shawn:
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reviewed your variance requests on Tuesday,
December 07, 2004, at the regular monthly meeting.
At that time, the Board of Adjustment voted unanimously (4-0, one absent) to DENY the
height variance request for building 4.
At that time, the Board of Adjustment also voted unanimous (4-0, one absent)
APPROVAL of the “vegetation protection” and height variance for buildings 2, 3, and 5
CONDITIONAL TO compliance with the applicable development plan.
Pursuant to Section 3.6 D. of the Estes Valley Development Code, “Failure of an
Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard
to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall
automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.”
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to
contact me (577-3729) or Bob Joseph (577-3725) at your convenience.
Respectfully,
_____________________
David W. Shirk, AICP
Planner