L20 B3 WRTown of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Staff Report: Variance
Submitted for the October 15, 1996 meeting
Date October 9, 1996
Project Vedder Duplex
Variance Type Variance for side yard easement and modification of final design
Legal Description Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning PUD
Introduction
Brian Vedder is requesting a modification of the approved final design for the duplex. The home
has shifted to the east and northeast. The plan has been revised to feature a deck over the garage
of the southern unit, and the master bedroom has been shifted back so that it no longer extends
beyond the garage.
Mr. Vedder is requesting a variance to place two stacked boulder walls in the eastern side setback
of Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. He previously received a variance for boulder walls
and retaining walls in the setbacks for the western, southern, and eastern property lines. The
previously approved variance included an eight foot wall in the eastern side yard setback. The
applicant is now requesting two stacked boulder walls within this setback. These walls are
largely constructed, although they are not yet in their final finished form.
The proposed modification also includes a phasing plan. The applicant is currently building
phase I which is the southern unit. He would like to occupy this unit before he commences
construction on the second unit. He intends to start the second unit sometime in the spring.
Thus for a short time period, there would only be one unit on the lot. Staff is not aware of any
guidelines or regulations which prohibit constructing the units at separate times. However, the
phase I building will need to stand alone and meet all design review criteria in case the second
unit would not be constructed.
Staff requested a landscape concept for the north elevation. The applicant will be required to
post surety such as a letter of credit or cash escrow for finishing the north elevation of phase I
and providing landscaping if for some reason the second structure were never built
Approval Criteria and Staff Comments
According to Section 17.36.040 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning
Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: The
staff reviewed the variance request based upon the following criteria:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity.
20B3WR.DOC
Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge subdivision, page 2
Submitted for the October 15, 1996 meeting
The proposed variance will not significantly impact adjacent property. The walls are
adjacent to an open space tract to the east. Although the walls will be visible from Wildridge
Road, and other properties in the vicinity, they will be constructed of natural rock and will
not significantly alter the landscape.
2. The degree to which relief from a strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment
among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege;
The Zoning Code specifically states that steep topography is a valid reason for granting a
variance. According to the applicant the original topographic survey contained an error and
the walls are necessary to retain the slope and ensure it does not exceed the maximum slope
of 2:1 for disturbed slopes.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety;
The granting of the variance is not anticipated to have a negative impact on adjacent
properties in terms of light, air etc. There would not be any impacts on traffic facilities,
utilities, or public safety.
4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
variance.
Staff has not identified any additional factors.
Findings Required
According to Section 17.36.050 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning
Commission shall make the following written findings before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district;
Retaining walls within setbacks have been granted for other properties building on steep slopes
and are not considered a grant of special privilege.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties of improvements in the vicinity;
The walls should not pose a safety problem. There are no other structure in the immediate
vicinity of residences that could be impacted by the walls. The area where the walls have been
constructed is not likely to be an area where people would be walking and should not impose a
safety threat.
3. That the variance is warranted for the two following reasons
A. 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;
The walls are needed to retain the slopes.
20B3 WR.DOC
Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge subdivision, page 3
Submitted for the October 15, 1996 meeting
B. 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;
There are 40 to 45 percent slopes in the vicinity of the site where the retaining wall is proposed.
Since
Design Review Considerations
According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 6. 10, the Commission
shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project:
1. Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town.
• Phase I of the home will conform to all requirements of the zoning code including height
and setbacks. The structure has been moved to the east toward the property line, but is
still outside easements and the 10 foot side setback. dwelling unit designation.
• Landscaping: An interim landscape concept has been submitted. The plantings on the
northern side of the duplex would be required if a significant time lapses between the
construction of the two units.
2. The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it
is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located.
The materials of the structure have not changed.
3. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties.
The home will be moved further north and east. There are no homes in the vicinity of the
structure sot his modification will not impact adjacent properties. The addition of the two
stacked boulder retaining walls on the eastern property will be visible off-site , but should not
have a significant visual impact.
4. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography.
The revised site plan now includes two stacked boulder walls on the property line and within
the side yard setback. The relocation of the home and according to the applicant, an error in
the original topographic survey necessitated the construction of the two stacked boulder
walls. Otherwise it does not appear that any of the modifications will result in any significant
changes in topography.
5. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and
neighboring properties and public ways.
The view of the home off site is not significantly changing. In the interim, phase I might be
visible to the property to the north. A landscape concept has been submitted so that
screening of the structure can be provided if the second structure is never built. This would
help to screen the view of the roof from the property to the north.
6. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity
that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired.
No significant change
7. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals,
Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
20B3 WR.DOC
Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge subdivision, page 4
Submitted for the October 15, 1996 meeting
No significant change
Staff Recommendation -Final Design
Approve final design modification with conditions.
Recommended Motion
Approve Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, revised Final Design, plan sets dated October
3, 1996 with the following conditions:
1. Grading plan and final engineering, including design of boulder wall be approved by staff
2. A revised certified topographic survey needs to be provided.
3. An engineer's stamp on all revised retaining walls over four feet in height be provided.
4. All flues, flashing and galvanized metal will be painted to match surrounding materials.
5. All meters will be placed upon the building.
6. Automatic irrigation system will be installed.
Variance -Recommended Motion
Grant the variance application dated October 2, 1996, and as shown on final design review plans
dated October 3, 1996, with the finding that the variance for the boulder walls is warranted due
to the very steep nature of the slope.
If you have any questions regarding this or any other project or community development issue,
please call me at 949-4280 (extension 131), or stop by the Community Development
Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Griffith
Town Planner
20B3WR.DOC
Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge subdivision, page 5
Submitted for the October 15, 1996 meeting
Planning & Zoning Commission Action
Variance granted as submitted (v� Variance granted with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) . Continued ( ) Variance Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( )
Date 10-15=q 6 Sue Railton, Secretary 'zap .
1. granting of the variance will not consitute a .*rant of specia_ consistent with tae
limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
2. granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public heaih, safety cr welfare, of
materially injurious to properties of improvements in the vicinity,
3. exceptional or extraordinary circumstamces or conditions apr.licabie to the site of the va- an"'t
that do not apply generally to other oroae - es iri the same zo.ie; the vananc for the bouide:
walls was warranted due to the very steep nature of the slope
The Commission also approved your design modification (plans dated October 1, 1996) with the
following conditions:
1. Grading plan and final engineering; including design: of boak'er Shall be approved by staff
2. A revised certified topographic survey to be provided.
3. An engineer's stamp on all revised retaining wails over four feet in height be provided
4. All flues, flashing and galvanized metal will be painted to match surrounding materials
5. Automatic irrigation system will be installed.
20B3 WR.DOC