L21 B3 WR final designTown of Avon
Final Design Staff Report
August 18, 1998, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
December 20, 2019
Project type
Residential Duplex
Legal description
Lot 21, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning
Wildridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) – 2 units
Address
4250 Wildridge Road West (Burkhard Duplex)
Introduction
The applicant describes the proposed duplex as avoiding a “style” of architecture that seems to be from another time or place, but one that “feels” at home in both Wildridge and in the
Colorado mountains. Primary exterior building material will consist of wood siding and square cut logs. Please see the attached document titled “Development Intent” for more information.
The site faces west and is quite steep with slopes across the building pad of approximately 25%. Primary views are to the south of Holy Cross and Beaver Creek.
Design Review Considerations
According to the Commission’s Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4.10, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project:
The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning Code.
Allowed use: Conforms with the allowed residential use. However, staff believes that the project does not qualify as a duplex, but is instead two single-family dwellings (please see
Design Consideration 2.2 below).
Density: The presence of an accessory apartment in Unit #1 violates the Wildridge PUD (please see Consideration #2 below).
Lot Coverage: The proposed 11.3% of building coverage conforms to the 50% maximum.
Setbacks: No proposed encroachments. However, the structure is proposed extremely close to the front yard setback. Extreme care would be required during construction to ensure that the
structure does not encroach upon this setback.
Easements: No proposed encroachments; and proposed grading in the 10' Slope Maintenance and Snow Storage Easement is acceptable. However, the retaining walls in the ROW are not acceptable.
Building Height: The largest scaled height of 30' on Unit #1’s west elevation conforms to the 35' maximum limit.
Grading: Conforms with the maximum of 2:1 slope guideline. However, as the driveway reaches the tarmac in front of Unit 2, its slope exceeds 10% and greatly exceeds the maximum allowable
4% slope in front of Unit 1’s garage.
Parking: Unit 1’s two garage and three surface parking spaces and Unit 2’s two garage and two surface parking spaces exceed the required total six spaces.
Snow Storage: Submitted plans show snow storage area equal to the minimum standard of 20% of the proposed impermeable surface area.
Landscaping: Submitted landscape plan appears suitable.
The conformance with other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
Staff has two significant concerns:
The Town of Avon requires that duplexes be attached by at least one common wall. The two dwelling units are attached only by a retaining wall, which does not satisfy this requirement.
Staff’s position is that the project is actually two single-family residences, and therefore violates the parcel's allowed use.
Staff believes the plans reflect an accessory apartment in Unit 1. The Wildridge PUD does not allow duplex units to maintain accessory dwelling units. Though cooking facilities and reference
to an accessory unit have been deleted from the submitted plans, specific design elements remain that suggest that Unit 1’s lowest level is to be constructed and possibly operated as
a independent dwelling unit. Specifically, these elements include a separate parking area and an associated primary entryway, and the inclusion of a foyer and kitchen area, and an easily
locked-off stairway.
Due to these two issues, the project does not conform with the either the subdivision’s or the Town’s applicable rules and regulations.
The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed.
The design of site grading and drainage to minimize impacts to adjacent sites, rights-of-way and easements.
The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant
alteration of existing topography.
The large cut above the driveway is in conflict with the Steep Slope Development Guidelines, which state that disturbed slopes exceeding 30-feet in length should be either terraced or
include planting pockets to assure a more natural appearance.
The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street,
quality of materials, and colors.
There appear to be a number of areas where minimum eave overhangs of 18” are not provided, particularly on gabled ends. The Planning & Zoning Commission’s Rules, Regulations, and Procedures
state that, “Overhangs are required on pitched roofs, and shall extend at least one and one-half feet from the point where the wall meets the roof.”
The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
Due to the concerns with identified above, staff does not believe that this project conforms with the Town’s Goals, Policies or Programs.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial based upon the project’s failure to satisfy Design Review Considerations # 1, 2, 5, 6, & 8.
Recommended Motion
“I move to deny final design approval for the proposed duplex on Lot 21, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, as depicted on the application and plan set dated August 3, 1998, based upon
the following findings:
The proposed design fails to satisfy Design Review Consideration #1, in that the two dwelling unit’s proposed attachment does not meet the requirements for consideration as a duplex,
the apparent inclusion in Unit 1 of an accessory apartment, and that the driveway slope exceeds Town standards.
The proposed design fails to satisfy Design Review Consideration #2, in that Unit 1’s lowest level is to be constructed and operated as a separate dwelling unit and therefore exceeds
the allowed density within the Wildridge PUD Zone District, and that the design is actually two single-family houses because the proposed attachment via a retaining is insufficient.
The proposed design fails to satisfy Design Review Consideration # 5 in that the area of disturbance above the driveway exceeds 30-feet in length contrary to the Steep Slope Development
Guidelines.
The retaining walls in the ROW are not acceptable.
The proposed design fails to satisfy Design Review Consideration # 6 in that the roof eaves do not extend at least 18” as required by the P&Z Regulations, Rules and Procedures.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748-4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
George H. Harrison
Planner
Planning & Zoning Commission Action
( Approved as submitted ( Approved with conditions (noted below)
( Denied ( Tabled ( Withdrawn by applicant
Conditions of approval, reasons for tabling or withdrawal of application, or basis for denial (refer to code or guidelines by number):
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Signed:
_________________________________ Date __________
Andrew Karow, Chair
Attest:
_________________________________ Date __________
Sue Railton, Secretary