Loading...
PZC Packet 111792STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 17, 1992 Lot 62, Block 3, Wildridge Subdiv-.sion McMahon/Lawrence Single Family Re+:idence Conceptual Design Review INTRODUCTION The applicants are proposing a single tamely residence on Lot 62, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision and are requesting a conceptual design review hearing. The residence is approximately 3000 square feet in architectural and includes an attached two car garage. design is a southwestern style with stucco as the primary building material and log work as an accent element. rhe roof form is a combination of flat and gable forms. The roof material has not yet been finalized and the applicant would like to discuss the possibility of utilizing a metal product for the gable forms. The driveway shows an 8% grade and the siting of the house appears 1,o work well with the topography. STAFF COMMENTS As a conceptual review the recommendation. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review/Discussion Respectfully. Submitted, I Y I Ric!,. Pylman Director of Community Development Staff has no formal • 4N 46 a STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COlAMISSION November 17, 1992 Lot 11, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Kaires Single Family Residence Conceptual Design Review INTRODUCTION Lot 11, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision is a .95 acre duplex lot located on the uphill side of Wildridge Road East. The lot slopes upward at an average slope of approximately 28%. The design solution proposed places the residence 22 feet above the roadway elevation and utilizes a long switchback driveway to provide access. The average drive grade is 8% and a great deal of retaining wall will be necessary to cut in the driveway. The residence is a three story building with gable and flat roof forms. Predominant building materials are stone and stucco. Roof material has not yet been determined. The approximate size of the home is 7000 square feet. The allowable building height is 35 teet maximum and although it is difficult to determine at the conceptual stage, this building is very close to the allowable limit. STAFF COMMENTS As a conceptual review the recommendation. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review/Discussion Respectfully submitted, Rick Pylman Director of Community Development Staff has no tormaI 40A STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMI4ISSION November 16, 1992 Lot 35, Block 3, Wildridge Height variance Public Hearing 94m, INTRODUCTION Clark Brust is currently building a single family residence on Lot • 35, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. While performing construction inspections, the staff noticed that the building app ed to exceed the allowable building height of 35 feet. The definition of building height in the Avon. Zoning Code reads as follows: "Building height means the distance measured vertically from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) at any given point to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof or to the highest ridgeline of a sloping roof." Upon a detailed investigation of Mr. Brust's residence, building plans, and grading plans, the staff has determined that the residence violates the building height allowance by 2 feet. The north end of the main ridgeline is 37 feet above the original existing grade. The finish grade has been brought up 2 feet so the building height is 35 feet to finish grade. The staff has determined that the building has been constructed as designed. The approved architectural drawings indicate a building and abovis mistake w 37, or building permit picked Although the actual building height is apparent by reviewing the site plant the probable cause for not noticing that may be due to the building elevation drawings. A quick review of the elevations shows a building well within the height limits, however, by plotting the grading plan against the elevations the staff now realizes that the grade as shown on the elevations is off by at least 6 feet. STAFF COMMENTS Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: SECTION 17 36 40 Approval Criteria A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential lases and structures in the vicinity; STAFF RESPONSE: The other uses and structures in the area are similar to this single family residence. There have been no other height v&riances granted in the vicinity and all other structures are within the 35 foot height limit. B. ^he degree to which relief from the strict or liral of a istenecessaryptotachieve ncompatibility sand uniformitydregulation of treatment --. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 16, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Lot 35, Block 3, Wildridge Height Variance Public Hearing among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; STAFF RESPONSE: The original error which caused this height problem lies in the architectural design of the building. The staff should have realized this and did not, and auti;orized Mr. Brust to build his house as designed. We believe it would be a considerable hardship to ask Mr. Brust to correct this situation. It is the staff's belief that this height problem exists because of an honest error and was not an intentional attempt to violate or circumvent the zoning regulations. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and aird traffic facilities, public nfacilitiesof land utilities, and public ion n publicsafety: STAFF RESPONSE: The two feet of building that violates the height definition may encroach slightly into the view from other properties in the area, however, the degree of this encroachment is minor. SECTION 17 36 50 Findings Reauired The Commission shall make the following written findings before granting a variance: 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 one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumsle to th that dot conditions topotherlpropertil te of properties in the he same variance samezone, 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. C • 401 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 16, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lot 35, Block 3, Wildridge Height Variance Public Hearing STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is for approval. It is the staffs belief that the violation is the result of an honest mistake by the designer and, in any case, should have been noticed by staff and corrected. The Town issued Mr. Brust a permit to build his house as designed and he has done exactly that. Mr. Brust has been very cooperative with staff in determining the cause of the problem. We believe it would be a great hardship to deny Mr. Brust his variance reauest. QW • STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 16, 1992 Page 4 of 4 Lot 35, Block 3, Wildridge Height variance Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Acton Respectfully submitted, ,� 7l�J Rick Pylman Director of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions Continu d ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date if Patti Dixon, Secretar SEE ATTACHED C7 • STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 17, 1992 Page 5 wl LOT 35, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Brust Residence Height Variance Public Hearing moo The Commission approved the height variance for Lot 35, Block 3, wildridge _- Subdivision based on the findings of Section 17.36.50 as follows: 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: _ 1 The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in pratical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship _- inconsistent with the objectives of this title. -. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 17, 1992 Lot 67, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivisioor Hoff Residence Final Design Review INTRODUCTION On October 6, 1992 the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a final design review submi-tal for the Hoff single family residence on Lot 67, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. The application was tabled at that time, concerns were expressed regarding the site plan, driveway alionment, landscaping and overall building design. On November 3, 1992, the Commission reviewed amended plans which included a complete grading plan, landscape plan and driveway realignment. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt the site work was acceptable but again tabled the application due to general architectural concerns. Mr. Hoff has made several changes to the proposed residence in an attempt to respond to the Planning and Zoning Commission concerns. The building materials have been amended, the entire garden level will be stucco and the upper level of the building will be 1" x 6" dolly varden style cedar siding. The siding color will be a natural semi transparent cedar color. The trim remains a 1" x 4" cedar painted green. Stucco color is October Frost. Roof material is a 300 lb. brownwood asphalt shingle. Fascia and soffits will be green. Three windows have been added to the north elevation. STAFF RECOMMENDAT_ON Please refer to the attached memorandum of October 6, for a complete review of the design criteria. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application (Staff): 2. Applicant Presentation: 3. Commission Review: 4. Commission Action. i •1 • STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 17, 1992 Page 2 of 2 Lot 67, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Hoff Residence Final Design Review Respectfully submitted, Rick Pylman Director of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions Continued d ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn /t 4) 1/1 Date II I I /, I � L/ Patti Dixon, Sec retar, 401111 •1 •1 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIGN November 17, 1992 Lot 70, Blk 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Bristol Pines Townhomes Material Change Request Design Review INTRODUCTION: On March 19, 1991, Mountain Coast Homes Inc. received tinal design review and fractionalization approval for 14 units on Lot 70, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Building materials were cedar shingles, redwood siding with a solid body stain, aluminum, clad windows and metal pipe railings. In July of this year the builder requested a material change to masonite siding and asphalt shingles. The siding change was approved, but the shingle change was not allowed. The builder would like to again request a material change from cedar shingles to a Timberline Ultra Asphalt shingle in the weathered wood color. The builder would also like to change the approved trim color from Myrtle to a Benjamin Moore green color. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a material change request, staff has no formal recommendation. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Presentation of Application 2. Applicant's Presentation 3. Commission Review 4.. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Rick Pylman Director of Community Development • 7 • STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 17, 1992 Page 2 of 2 Lot 70, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Bristol Pines Townhomes Material Change Request Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions l ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date Patti Dixon, Secreta y The Commi sio denied the applicant's request to han the roofing material for this project from cedar shakes to asphalt sh ngl s. The Applicant then withdrew their request for a color change. 4W 1 �z • 1