No preview available
PZC Packet 031792STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 17, 1392 Lot 18, Filing 1, Front Yard Setback Public Hearing "M INTRODUCTION Eaglebend Variance Request John and Suzanne Railton are requesting a variance to allow for a twenty (20) foot building encroachment and a 6' high stone wall in the required twenty five (25) toot front yard setback on Lot 18, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision. The building encroachment involves a 3 car carport on both sides of the duplex. The lardscaped stone wall -will provide support for the north wall of the carports and will curve toward and terminate at the front property line. Lot 18 is 16,003 sq. ft. in size, however, the Eagle River and the 30' wide Metcalf Ditch easement has effectively cut the useable lot size in half. In addition, the 25' tront yard setback and 7.5' s,de yard setbacks further reduce the buildable area of the lot to approximately 4,800 sq. ft. (30% of lot size). The units themselves are approximately 2,800 and 2,900 sq. ft. in :.ize, respectively. The applicant has stated that the stairway and d.;ck encroachments in the side yard setbacks, shown on the Site plan, are 'at grade' and therefore do not require a setback variance. STAFF COMMENTS Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shalt consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: SECTION 1736_40_Approv_al_Criterla A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; STAFF RESPONSE: Althoug.i the river embankment does restrict the buildable area of the Lot, it would appear that there is still sufficient buildable area remaining co allow for the construction of various duplex building designs. It should be noted that the units on both sides of this lot have received front yard setback variances. In addition, several other lots along Eaglebend Drive (approximately 7) have received front yard setback variances. B. The degree to which relief from the strict or, literal interpretation and enforcements of a specified regulation is necessary tc achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to r STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 17, 1992 b Page 2 of 4 Lot 18, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; STAFF RESPONSE: Staff feels that requesting a variance to accommodate a three car carport is excessive. In light of the recent parking problems experienced by some homeowners along Eaglebend Drive, Staff does encourage the provision of many off street parking spaces on the lot. Whether or not these spaces need to be fully or partially covered is more a matter of design or convenience than necessity. It would appear that a somewh t dit�erent design for this lot would greatly reduce the degree t setback variance requested. C. The effect, of the requested variance on light. and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; STAFF RESPONSE: There is no negative impact upon this criteria. $_ECT,ION,_ 1_7_.36.50___ F_1_ndings_ Recu1red The Commission shall make the following written findings before granting a variance; A. That, the granting of the variance will riot constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not oe detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is warranted for ore or ninre of the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary pnysical naroship incon:>istent with the objectives r3t this title, 10 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 17, 1992 Page 3 of 4 r Lot 18, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, 3. The strict or literal interpreT,atTon and enforcement of the specified regulation woula aeprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of otner properties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is or denial of the variance request as presented. Staff agrees with the applicant that the buildable area o,r this particular lot is considerably more restrictive than other properties along Eaglebend Drive. However, it appears that the degree to which the applicant is requesting the variance (to accommodate 2 -three car carports) is excessive. Staff feels that granting the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistant with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district. A resolution renting the Commission's decision ana findings regar this variance request will be presented at the April 7, 1992, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. r STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 17, 1992 Page 4 of 4 Lot 18, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivsion Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ✓>' Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn Date gZ Patti Dixon, SecretarY4 -- SEE ATTACHED Lot 18, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision r Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing The Commission granted the requested front yard setback variance for Lot 18, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, citing the following findings: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the saeciriea reoulatlon would deprive the applicant or privileges en.lovea by the STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 17, 1992 Lot 101, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Randy Johnson for Ski Vista Townhomes Material Change Request Design Review INTRODUCTION Ski Vista Townhomes (two tri-plexes) located on Lot lul, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision received final design review approval on May 1, 1990 The approved building materials were cedar lap siding (stained blue -grey, cedar trim (blue) and stucco (tan). The approved roof material was a #2 medium cedar shake. Randy Johnson (RJ Builders, Inc.) is now proposing a change from the cedar shake shingle to an asphalt shingle. He is proposing the Tamko Heritage Premium in a Birchwood color. This product has a weight of 340 lbs per square and a 35 year warranty. A sample of the proposed material will be presented at the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS At the October 1, 1991 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the Commission adopted a new policy regarding acceptable roofing products in the Wildridge Subdivision. Specifically, the Commission determined that asphalt shingles will be considered an acceptable roofing material in the Wildridge Subdivision depending on their compatibility with the particular building(s) upon which they are proposed to be installed. The Commission decided that requests for the use of asphalt shingles on a building would be reviewed for compliance with the following minimum standards: Weight - 300 lbs per square (minimum). 2. Texture - Appropriate relief and shadow effect. 3. Color - Darker earthtone colors with appropriate color variation and pattern. With these minimum standards in place the Commission went on to consider three requests for changes from previously approved roofing materials to asphalt shingles. The Timberline Ultra shingle on Jan Livergood's stick built home and the 300 lb per square (minimum) Tamko shingle on a manufactured unit fourplex being built by Richard Wahl and Tad Degen. The Commission denied Bruce Kelly's request to change from wood shakes to a 300 Ib per square (minimum) to STAFF REPORT TO _ March 17, 1992 Page 2 of 3 THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • Lot 101, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Randy Johnson for Ski Vista Townhomes Material Change Request • Design Review asphalt shingle on a log home. This denial was later overturned on appeal to the Avon Town Council. On November 26, 1991, the Avon Town Council approved Resolution 91-31, which established a moratorium on design review considerations of asphalt shingles in the Wildridge Subdivision. The purpose of the resolution was to allow the Wildridge Citizens to work with the other residents and property owners of Wildridge to examine and refine the Covenants and Design Guidelines for Wildridge. Tne moratorium became effective for any design review application submitted after November 1, 1991 and continued until March I, 1992. On March 3, 1992, the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission approved Buz and Monica Reynold's roof material change request for their proposed residence on Lot 44, Block 1, Wiidridge Subdivision. The Reynold's approval involved a change from #2 medium cedar shakes to the 420 lbs. per square, Timberline Ultra asphalt shingles. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review and discussion of proposed roof material change. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Presentation of Application 2. Applicant's Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner la STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNINGG AND ZONING COMMISSION March 17, 1992 Page 3 of 3 • Lot 101, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Randy Johnson for Ski Vista Townhomes Material Change Request 4m Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continnnu11e''d( ) Denied ("� Withdrawn Date -Patti Dixon, Secretary_ _ The Commission denied the requested material change from cedar shakes to asphalt shingles, with a four to three vote_ STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 17, 1992 Lot 20, Block 3, Vedder Duplex Conceptual Design INTRODUCTION Wildridge Subdivision Review Brian Vedder has requested conceptual design review of a proposed duplex on Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. Lot 20 is 1.39 acres in size (60,548 sq. ft.) and slopes toward the southwest at approximately 20--30% over much of the proposed building location. A 14' wide asphalt driveway loops around the southern unit to provvide access to the northern unit. Driveway grade is 10% with the exception of a relatively flat area in front of the south unit garage. Eighteen inch high lights are located on either side of the driveway for nighttime illumination. The proposed duplex steps down the lot in several different levels. A raised patio/porte'cochere (approximaterly 9' high) connects the upper and lower units. The upper unit will have aprpoximately 2,000 sq. ft. of habitable area and the lower unit will have approximately 2,700 sq. ft. Both units will have a 3 car garage and a gas fireplace. Exterior building materials are as follows: - Fired --eramic or cementitious shingles, blue -grey color - Varible surface stucco siding, cold -grey color with darkened contrast panels - Thermal -break aluminum frame windows, midnight blue color - Multi -pane douglas fir doors - Red sandstone veneer at chimneys and retaining walls - Plexiglass skylights, milky white The grading/drainage and landscape plans are very conreptuai in nature. The site plan shows that trees will be used to break up the mass of the buildings and drives as viewed from all sides. Formal irrigated sod areas are provided as well as several fired brick patio areas. The applicant is proposing uplighting for some of the deciduous trees located on the east side of the propc•ty. l• a w STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 17, 1992 Page 2 of 2 Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Conceptual Design Review STAFF COMMENTS As this is a conceptual review, no formal staff recommendation will be presented at this time. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review/Discussion Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 17, 1992 Lot 42 and part of Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Doug DeChant for J. D. McKean M.D. Single Family Residence Conceptual Design Review INTRODUCTION Doug DeChant, on behalf of J. D. McKean M.D. is requesting conceptual design review of a single family residence on Lot 42 and part of Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision. Lots 42 and 43 are owned by Dr. McKean and are both zoned fourplex. In order to position his proposed residence as advantageously as possible, to improve views, topographic conditions, driveway locations, etc., Dr. McKean is proposing to adjust the lot lines between Lots 42 and 43 somewhat. The lot line adjustment will be accomplished by means or a minor subdivision, which will eventually be presented to the Town Council for approval. The applicant has indicated that a caretaker residence may eventually be located on the western lot (43). The proposed building is a two and one half storey building with a maximum building height of 35'. The building has a floor area of approximately 9416 sauare feet including garage and mechanical/storage areas. The habitable area of the house will be 7780 square feet. Exterior building materials include stucco and stone siding, wood windows, doors and trim work, and a slate roof. Other site materials include stone and boulder retaining walls, asphalt driveway and an outdoor spa. A conceptual landscape/grading and drainage plan has been submitted for the Commission's review. The applicant will explain the details of how landscaping will be managed. fhe driveway grade is nearly flat, however, the large bermed area on the south side of the lot exceeds our maximum allowable grade of 50%. STAFF COMMENTS As this is a conceptual review, no formal staff recommendation will be presented at this time. 10i• J STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 17, 1992 Page 2 of 2 Lot 42 and part of Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Doug DeChant for J. D. McKean M.D. Single Family Residence Conceptual Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation s. Commission Review/Discussion Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner