PZC Packet 042684STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 4/26/84
Balas Townhomes - Greenhouse Addition
Lot 6, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision
Units A, C, F, & H
Enclose Porch North Side, Unit B
These plans are basically the same as those approved for Unit D, by the Avon
Planning and Zoning Commission at the July 13, 1983 meeting.
The following differences are noted in the two plans:
1. East elevation current plan shows upper and lower window with siding
matching the building. The previous plan indicated an all glass side
on this elevation;
2. There appears to be some difference in glass layout on the south elevation,
possibly the addition of a double door.
The earlier submittal for Unit D was approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Condominium Association approval must be achieved prior to issuance of
Building Permit;
2. Any future greenhouses must be the same;
3. North side porch enclosure also approved.
Respectfully Submitted,
Norm Wood
Director of Public Works
Plan;iing and Zoning Acticn:
Approved as Submitted: ae
Approved with Modified Conditions:
Continued:
Denied:
Dated: -1 —.Glp —jdy
glint Watkins, Secretary
NW/mnl 4/23/84
` � 1
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 4/26/84
Benchmark Village Mobile Home Park
mm Lot 1, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision
This proposal is to replace the existing white asphalt shingle roof on the double
• wide mobile home used as a residence and office of the Mobile Home Park. The
location of the office is shown on the enclosed site plan.
Proposed roofing materials are Pro -Panel, 29 guage high tensile steel as
swim manufactured by Metal Sales Manufacturing Corporation. The proposed color is white.
Resptfu_lllyy Submitted,
Norm Wood
Director of Public Works
Planning and Zoning Action:
Approved as Submitted:
Approved with Modified Conditions:
Continued:
Denied:
D. �r
Clint Watkins, Secretary
NW/mml 4/?3/84
M
K:
JJ
STAIF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - 4/26/84
Maron-Erickson Duplex
Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision
The proposed project appears to comply with Section 17 (Zoning) of the Town
of Avon Municipal Code.
The following comments are related to site development plans as submitted:
o M 1. Color rendering is to be submitted at or prior to meeting;
2. Type of retaining wall is not noted on drawings;
3. The grading plan should be modified in the parking and driveway area to
be fully compatible with garage floor elevations and existing grades.
Acceptable grading plan may require slightly higher retaining walls.
The revised Staff Review Checklist provides additional project information.
Respectfully Submitted,
Norm Wood
Director of Public Works
Plannino and Zoning Action:
Approved as Submitted:
Approved with Modified
Continued: e- If
Denied:
nditions
:
Dated: ,2'
Clint Watkins, Secretary
NW/mml 4/24/84
i
:7
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 4/26/84
City Market Garden Center
Lots 67 & 68, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision
The proposed Garden Center is similar to that approved b3 the Design Review
Board at the April 14, 1983 meeting, for Planters of Vail Garden Center at the
same location. The approval allowed a temporary structure to be erected each
year, for 5 years, without additional DRB approval as long as the approved
plans were not deviated from.
The following deviations from the approved plan are noted:
1. The main, entrance to the facility has been revised to face the same as
the store front;
2. The fence around the facility has been changed from 6 foot cedar to
6 foot chain link;
3. The covered structure has been increased in size from 24 feet x 60 feet,
to 36 feet x 72 feet and has been relocated to set against the building;
4. The approved structure was constructed from redwood and covered with 8
mil reinforced poly. Wood framing material for the proposed structure is
not specified and the cover material is 4 mil plastic;
5. The approved structure had a 1/6 roof pitch and all drainage was well
away from the building. The proposed roof line has a 1/9 pitch and
1/2 of the roof drainage appears to be trapped at the building.
None of the above changes impact parking, and parking requirements are met under
both old and new parking regulations.
The following items are recommended for special consideration during the review
of this project:
1. Construction materials and structural integrity of the covered area;
2. Durability of material covering structure;
3. Potential dr,iinage and structural problems where roof abuts existing
building;
4. Length of approval period and time frames when structure may be erected
and when it must be removed.
Respectfully Submitted,
Norm Wood
Director of Public Works
Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 4/26/84
City Market Garden Center
Lots 67 & 68, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision
® Page 2 of 2
Planning and Zoning Action:
Approved as Submitted:
ae Approved with Modified Conditions: S.L�
Continued:: eel
,y/
Denied: (3)Nllw
Dated:
at ind k' s, Secretary
NW/mml 4/24/84
to
e
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 4/26/84
Nottingham Park Restrooms
Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision
The proposed restrooms are located at the entrance to Nottingham Park, near
the northeasterly corner of the soccer field and across Benchmark Road from
the tennis courts.
Landscaping for this project will be incorporated into other park improvements.
As a park and recreation facility, the proposed restrooms are an allowed use in
the PRM zone district.
Respectfully Submitted,
Norm Wood
Director of Public Works
anninq and Zoninq Action:
Approved as Submitted:
Approved with Modified Conditions:
Continued:
Denied:
Dated: F
int
Watkins, Secretary
NW/mml 4/23/84
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - 4/26/84
Lodge at Avon, Phase I
Lots 57-60, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision
There are several factors which need to be considered before coming to any
judgemental recommendations on the Lodge at Avon project:
1. It is impossible to compare the attributes of the project with those which
have been discussed as Master Plan concepts. For example, over the long
term, how is the pedestrian and traffic circulation affected if it is
decided to construct a railroad underpass;
2. How is the overall massing of the project going to affect surrounding
properties. Should the project be required to submit a complete Master
Plan for the site;
3. How is the plan to be justified under existing zoning. What zoning
changes will be necessary to analyze the project properly;
4. Does the project agree with any anticipated changes in the design
character for the Central Business District. For example, solar, noise,
or view blockage either on-site or off,
5. Do we need pedestrian circulation easements along and through the property
in order to gain access over the train tricks.
The size and scope of this project will have a significant impact on the
Central Business District. Care should be exercised to raise all principle
concerns now so that an in-depth analysis can be made of the proposal, parti-
cularly as it compares with evolving design standards to be set forth as part
of the Master Plan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Plannihq Director
Planning and Zoning Action:
Continued:
Denied:
Dated: 7 19y.— CF::V _
'Clint Watkins, Secretary
JFL/mml 4/24/84
51