Loading...
PZC Packet 112001Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Site Tour November 20, 2001 12:00 PM Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road Meet in the Community Development Conference Room. Lunch is available to those Commissioners who RSVP by 10:00 a.m. I. SITE TOUR Posted on November 16, 2001 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main lobby Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Work Session November 20, 2001 5:30 PM Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road I. AGENDA Discussion of regular meeting agenda items. Posted on November 16, 2001 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main lobby Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 20, 2001 6:00 PM Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda Approval of the November 6, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes [Tab 1 ] VI. DESIGN REVIEW - Minor Project A. Lots 9 and 10, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision [Tab 2] Project Type: Driveway Applicant/Owner: Paul Miller Address: 4883 and 4915 Eaglebend Drive Posted on November 16, 2001 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main lobby VII. CONCEPT REVIEW - PUD A. Lot 52, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision [Tab 3] Project Type: Rezoning for Two Single Family Units on Duplex Lot Applicant: Brian Vedder Address: 2470 Saddle Ridge Loop VIII. SPECIAL REVIEW USE - Public Hearing Applicant Has Requested to Table A. Lot 67168, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek [Tab 4] Project Type: Automobile Gas Station & Convenience Store Applicant: TAB Associates Owner: Coultier Properties Address: 40 Nottingham Road IX. OTHER BUSINESS A. Resolution No. 01 -21 [Tab 5] East Avon and Town Center Study B. Staff Approvals: None C. Sign Permits 1. Lot 22, Block 2, Chapel Square 240 Chapel Square, Unit B -117 "The Bellflower" X. ADJOURN Posted on November 16, 2001 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main lobby Town of Avon Final Report Design Staff Re p November 20, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Report Date Project Type Legal Description Zoning Address Introduction November 7, 2001 Single Family Residences Lots 9 and 10, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision Multi - Family 4883 and 4915 Eaglebend Drive The applicant is proposing a new driveway at 4915 Eaglebend Drive in the Eaglebend Subdivision. Currently, Lots 9 and 10 share a single access point for their driveways. The proposal is to create an additional access for Lot 10, to remove the concrete between the two properties and revegetate the area. Attached is a letter from the owner of Lot 10 supporting this application. 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: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning Code. • Allowed use: Conforms with the allowed residential use. • Density: Multi- Family • Lot Coverage: Conforms with lot coverage requirements. • Setbacks: Due to the creation of an additional access onto the Town Right -of -Way, there will be an encroachment into the front setback. • Easements: The creation of an additional access onto the Town Right -of -Way will be an encroachment into the front Drainage and Utility Easement. 0 Grading: Grading plan complies with Town standards. • Parking: The applicant is providing sufficient parking on site; however, as proposed, vehicles will have to back out onto the street. • Snow Storage: Submitted plans comply with the Town requirements for snow storage. • Landscaping: The landscaping plan is sufficient. 2. The conformance with other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. The project is in conformance with other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749 Lots 9 and 10, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision, Driveway November 20, 2001, Planning &Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 2 3. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed. The materials are acceptable. 4. The design of site grading and drainage to minimize impacts to adjacent sites, rights -of- way and easements. The creation of the additional driveway and culvert will impact street maintenance, drainage and snow removal. 5. 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 proposal is compatible with the site. 6. 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. The design and materials work well within the neighborhood and are consistent with Town standards. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. Staff believes that the intent of Eaglebend Filing 2 was to allow single - family housing on multi - family zoned lots by the use of shared driveway access. The proposed individual driveways for Lots 9 and 10 will be contradictory to the rest of Filing 2 with the exception of Lot 21, which is at the end of the street. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. As proposed, there is a safety concern due to a lack of turnarounds for the driveways, which will encourage backing out into the street. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the application for Lots 9 and 10, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision due to increased maintenance, drainage, snow removal and safety concerns, in addition to the proposal being inconsistent with the other properties in the area. If you have any questions regarding this project, please call me at 748.4413 or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submi Eric Jo Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749 Oct-31, 2001 12:19PM RMT ARCHITECTS PC No.5101 P. 2/2 P.O. Box 7314 Avon, CO 81620 (970) 418 -9568 October 30, 2001 Town of Avon Community Development P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 To Whom It May Concern: I, Curt Schneider, am the property owner at 4915 Eaglebend Dr. sharing the driveway with Paul Miller. It is with great enthusiasm that I support the proposal to separate our shared°driveway and to construct a single driveway that is not only inherently appropriate to a single - family residence, but also more practical from both a convenience and safety standpoint. I drive a long bed extended cab pickup, and with the current driveway approach at a 90 -degree angle to my garage doors, it is physically impossible for me to park in my garage without driving across the lawn while making a three -point maneuver. In order to park two vehicles, I am forced to park perpendicular to my garage doors and the front of the house. When exiting, again I am required to make a three -point maneuver to avoid driving over the Miller's lawn or flowerbed. It would be so much safer for me to exit directly out of a driveway that is perpendicular to Eaglebend Dr. I would greatly appreciate your careful examination of the problems associated with the current shared driveway layout, and encourage you to approve our proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely 0 Curt Schneider Town of Avon Concept Review November 20, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date November 20, 2001 Project type Rezoning Concept Legal description Lot 52, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Current Zoning Duplex (PUD) Address 2470 Saddle Ridge Loop Introduction The applicant has submitted a concept review application for Lot 52, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. The applicant has requested input from the Planning and Zoning Commissioners on the proposed PUD amendment to create two single - family units on a lot that is currently zoned for a duplex. The applicant contends that there exists a need to provide 'affordable' single - family homes in Wildridge, and that allowing the land cost to be halved on this duplex -zoned lot would permit the builder to provide two single - family homes for less than one -half million dollars. Additionally, the application proposes three different scenarios for either duplex or single family homes sited on this lot. All scenarios may utilize an access easement being provided for this lot from the adjacent Lot 51 (owned by the same applicant), since access directly from Saddle Ridge Loop appears difficult at best. Summary Staff previously informed the applicant of Town policy regarding the 'splitting' of duplex or multifamily lots into separate dwelling units. Town Council passed Resolution No. 91 -17 on July 9, 1991 specifically instructing the Planning and Zoning Commission to no longer allow any further subdivision of multifamily units into single family (or detached) units in the Wildridge Subdivision. Moreover, the definition for a duplex -zoned lot in Wildridge was specifically called out as an "attached duplex building ", with "no detached duplexes allowed" in the same Resolution. However, recent policy has also permitted the splitting of multi - family designations when an effective 'down- zoning' has been sought by an applicant (i.e. Beaver Creek Point). Though the applicant has been informed of this policy, he may choose to apply for a separate PUD for this lot rather than an amendment to the Wildridge PUD, which both Staff and the Planning Commission would be compelled to deny according to Resolution No. 91 -17. If you have any questions regarding this project or anything in this report, please call me at 748- 4002 or stop by the Community Development department. Respectf y submitted, Tambi Katieb, AICP Town of Avon Community Development f: \planning & zoning commission \staff reports \2001 \112001 \152 b1 wr vedderconcept.dc (970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749 Brian hendrik vedder aia, associate - - -- designlbuild p.o.box 1560 Avon, co 81620 - - - -- 970 - 949 -0509 Fax -5049 bbvmaOtekta.net - - - -- bttp://tekta.net /vedder Date: 11 /6 /01 - - -- 1:57 PM To: Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Committee Town Council Re: Lot 52, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Proposed lot split SYNOPSIS Work Session Analysis In this packet we endeavor to demonstrate how the concept of splitting the subject property best suits conditions unique to the property. Three options are shown. The included narrative further elaborates on that theme. brian bendrik vedder aia, associate - - -- design /build p.o.box 1560 Avon, co 81620 - - - -- 970 - 949 -0509 Fax -5049 bhvmaCa)tekta het - - - -- http: / /tekta.net /vedder Date: 11/6/01 - - -- 2:00 PM To: Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Committee Town Council Re: Lot 52, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Proposed lot split To all concerned; The owner of Lot 52 proposes to divide the duplex -zoned property into two Lots of nearly equal size. The owner, Mr. Stephen Olson, wishes to construct two similar single - family homes of such size and design as to conform to a badly neglected sector of the housing market in the Vail Valley, with a retail market price below one -half million dollars each. In this effort, they intend to utilize free - market devices to deliver a product that conforms more to criteria of 'affordable housing', without relying upon governmental assistance of any kind. Property values in the Valley in general have increased in recent years to such high values that land cost alone makes it impossible to deliver a single - family home to the market at an 'affordable' price. By dividing the subject property, land cost for each home is halved. The subject property, Lot 52, is of such size and shape as to easily accommodate this concept, resulting in new Lots of approximately 12,000 sq. ft. each, or more than 1/4 acre each. The homes are to be designed to standard formula of 3 bd, 3.5 ba, ofc /den, kit /liv /din, 2- car +stor, with approximately 2,500 sq. ft. of finished interior floor area, and a site footprint not to exceed 2,000 sq. ft. including garage. Building lot coverage therefore will be less than 18 %. The proposed design makes use of an existing driveway from a previous project also built and owned by the same partners, so there would be no additional road cuts as a result of this split action. Access in perpetuity to that driveway will be granted by covenant. Moreover, the excellence of design and construction quality of that previous project speaks for itself. The Town can expect this future development to be of equal quality. The site condition and topography also welcome the split concept. In separating the two units, the proposed driveway preserves a view corridor into an existing grove of aspen trees that will be protected, with the new buildings on either side, versus one large duplex building positioned in the center of the property and at the end of the driveway, thereby stopping that view and resulting in a congested and overbuilt appearance. In this concept also, due to the steepness of the site, we believe there will be somewhat less site disturbance for two smaller buildings, versus one large building spanning a greater distance. Both houses will be built as one construction project. They will not be built individually. Proposed start of construction is early Spring 2002. Surrounding properties are mostly built upon already, with small residences on large lots, some of them under - utilized with single - family homes on duplex -zoned lots, yielding an open and uncongested neighborhood appearance. There is sufficient area involved in this split concept to continue in that same aesthetic, with adequate distances between all existing and future constructions. Certain aspen trees existing on the property must be moved to accommodate the proposed construction, but all will be replanted on the same properties in such a manner to enhance the final landscape scheme. If there are any other concerns or questions, please feel free to contact me. We wish for this project to meet the highest standards and welcome all advice. st regards, Brian Hendrik Vedder -- A.I.A., Associate Owner's representative u RESOLUTION NO. 91 -17 SERIES OF 1991 The attached sheet is from the-.Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 25, 1991. Resolution No. 91 -17, Series of 1991 was not put in written form; only verbal via the attached minutes. J. TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1991. This ordinance would be deferred until the July 9, 1991 Council Meeting. At that point, Councilman Ptach. entered a Resolution on the floor. He proposed that Resolution No. 91 -17, Series of 1991 be proposed stating that the Town of Avon Council direct the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Design Review Board to no longer allow any further subdivision of residential lots in the Wildridge Subdivision. Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Design Review Board would be instructed to enforce the regulations as written in Wildridge to interpret that two unit lots mean "attached duplex buildings and no detached,' duplex allowed and, three unit or greater lots would mean multi - family attached buildings of three units or more per building ". The motion was seconded by'.Councilman Bennett. Mayor Davis stated that there was a moratorium on this issue at this time, and it was not clear of what the resolution would accomplish. Councilman Ptach stated that the resolution would accomplish no further subdivision of residential lots in Wildridge. He stated. that it deterred from the character of Wildridge and a resolution was needed as to comfort the residents of what was happening in Wildridge. Mayor Davis stated that it was not appropriate to circumvent the process that the Council had been discussing the issue. He stated that the Council agreed in an earlier work session to come up with a way to resolve this issue. Councilwoman McRory stated that it was the consensus that 30,000 square feet of 40,000 square feet might be acceptable - to allow the duplex subdivision for single family homes. The Mayor felt that that was the consensus of -the Council and that this issue be reviewed and brought back-to the next meeting. Councilwoman McRory called for.question. Because of the nature of the issue, the Mayor called for a roll call. Those Councilmembers voting aye were Tom Ptach, Jim Stovall and Mike Bennett. Those Councilmembers opposing the resolution were Albert Reynolds and Gloria McRory. The motion carried by a 3 to 2 vote. The Mayor stated that he found that type of action objectable, for the Council to agree at one point to discuss the issue further and then to propose a resolution, approve it without any further . discussion was not appropriate. U -4- TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 9, 1991 The next discussion was in respect to duplex subdivision in Wildridge. Ken Gubler approached the Council. He wanted to express his opinions of the-issue of the subdivision of lots in Wildridge. He stated that his goal was to have a single family home and two car garage. He believed and hoped the opportunity would surface in Wildridge with some of the re- zoning of some of the multi - family lots, down- zoning and building of single family homes, that those would provide a range that his budget could afford. Joe Peplinski, a Real Estate Broker and who was also involved in the Claivin Project in Wildridge. This project had a lot of focus in respect to this issue. The project was a six unit detached townhomes. He stated that their group had purchased another lot in Wildridge, Lot 17, Block 1, which was zoned for four units. He stated that their main concern was whether those units could be detached. They were not going to change the density or the zoning. The Claivin was six detached Townhomes. He stated that in appearance they looked like single family homes. . Councilman Stovall stated that the resolution- that was adopted would not preclude the developer from developing the lot as requested. He stated that the developer bought the lot with the knowledge of the restrictive covenants of Wildridge.. He .stated that those restrictive covenants could be amended. He stated that there was an alternative process that could come into the Town which probably would be more appropriate and that was to amend the covenants to allow what was wanted to be accomplished. Councilman Ptach stated that the intent of the resolution was not to restrict conventional attached duplexes or multi - family subdivisions. The intent was to restrict subdivision or resubdivision of undeveloped land to allow for additional single family housing to be constructed. Mr. Peplinski stated that there was a market for detached units verses attached units. Paul Jeppson a property owner in Wildridge stated that he had bought in Wildridge three yeara ago because that was the only undeveloped property in the area. He stated that he like the open space. He stated that it was important to take a look of what would be built in Wildridge. Mike Bruen owner of a lot in Wildridge and, also a real estate agent. He agreed with the above comments. He stated that they were ready to break ground for a fractionalized project that would allow six units on a four -plex lot. This was approved in June of this year. He stated that there seemed to be a wide variety of lot sizes, square footage acreage, some lots had multi- entrances off of different roads. HV stated that there were a lot of gray areas, nothing was written in stone. He stated that the variety was much more attractive than having buildings all the same. Ir -2- Michael Rick, property owner in Wildridge and owner of a duplex in Wildridge approached the Council. The original intent of what the building was to be in Wildridge when he bought his lot now seemed to be changing. He stated that if you let one developer.have approval for subdividing, then you would have to let all developers have their wish. Ken Sortland property owner and developer in Wildridge approached the Council. He felt that there have been too many changes in the laws in Avon. He stated that Council wanted to encourage building in Avon, then they dempen that encouragement by changing the laws. He stated that the lenders would not loan any funds on four -plex units unless all the units were pre -sold. He suggested that the requests should be on a case by case basis. Peter Monroe, property owner in Wildridge and structural engineer approached the Council. He stated that the resolution was excellent. He stated that the guidelines have to be specific. He stated that a more simplified language in the resolution could have read, "Undeveloped property cannot be subdivided and sold ". Jack Hunn, resident of Wildridge approached the Council. He served on the Planning and Zoning Commission for two years and dealt with these issues of for and against of these types of projects. He stated that for two years he had been encouraging the Planning staff to come up with a criteria on which you could consider these types of projects. There was no process to notify owners of what was going on. People that own property in Wildridge that do not live in the area, do not know what is being proposed in Wildridge, and how their property value may be greatly effected. He stated that there are covenants in Wildridge, they were legal and binding. The people that bought in Wildridge. had confidence that the laws of the covenants would stand. Celeste Nottingham approached the Council. She also was a property owner in Wildridge. She stated that she also supported the resolution. She felt that the Wildridge covenants was there to protect the intent of openance, which was very attractive. The Council should not be moving as a reaction to the market or, chasing the market. She stated that Council should not loose site of the big picture. Those people were looking toward the Council to preserve that confidence for them. Councilman Bennett asked if the resolution precluded anyone from appealing.to the Council to allow subdivision of a lot. He was under the impression that the request could be heard. -3- Mr. Dunn stated that there was nothing in the resolution that stated that a developer could not ask. He stated that what was really being talked about was the SPA for Wildridge. The provision of the resolution was for the Planning and Zoning Commission to enforce the regulations as they were written for Wildridge. Councilman Garton stated that it had always been his understanding that protective covenants ran with the land. He stated that he did not feel that Council could override protective covenants. He did not think it was the right group of people to be discussing changes in the covenants that govern the building in Wildridge. He stated that there was a provision in the covenants that would set forth how amendments could be made to those covenants. He stated that 75% of property owners would have to get together in order to change the zoning in Wildridge. Councilman Ptach stated that one observation was that people who live in Wildridge support the resolution, and those who do not live in Wildridge, do not support the resolution. Mayor Davis stated that the Town of Avon did not have the obligation or responsibility to amend the covenants, but the Council did control Design Review and zoning and what can and cannot be built in Wildridge. The Planning Commission did not have an ordinance that would enforce the covenants, and that the resolution did not enforce the covenants. He stated that he objected to the process last time. There was a market out there now for single family homes. There are not any single family lots in the valley. He stated that Avon could continue to build row townhomes. Single family homes would add to the variety. He stated that there was an article in the Planning Issue of July, 1991 in which they were describing a new idea called "Co- Communities ". He stated that things change,. new ideas come along and he did not know why Avon should resist. Perhaps staff could look at a study then, come up with something that would be acceptable. His concern was that the Council had cut off all requests, when probably an.ordinance needed to be established to clarify what was and what was not proper to define a SPA. He felt it was a very unstable situation. He stated that he woulc like to see Avon grow, and having a few more single family homes would do that. He had hoped that this Council could look at that somewhere in the future and solve the problem. He. stated that he was not sure that the problem was solved with this resolution. Councilwoman McRory stated that there were more duplex lots than there were multi - family lots. She felt that was a great concern. She suggested that a open hearing or work session be scheduled to discuss this issue and set a criteria for two single. families on a duplex lot provided the lot was large enough and flat enough. -4- Councilman Reynolds stated that two weeks ago the Council had requested that Rick Pylman research this issue. He stated that he voted unfavorably of the resolution because there was not a public hearing on this issue. He requested that Mr. Pylman do the research and return to the Council. He :stated that possibly some lots were feasible. He felt that the resolution needed to be in writing so it would not be interpreted differently each time it was discussed. Mr. Dunn stated that the resolution was written into the minutes therefore, a resolution was not needed. Being there was no further discussion on this matter, the Mayor stated that the resolution would stand as is. The Council recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m... Second reading of Ordinance No. 91 -11, Series of 1991, AN ORDINANCE REGULATING FIREPLACES AND OTHER SIMILAR DEVICES WITHIN THE TOWN OF AVON AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION HEREOF. Bill James stated that there were three parts to the proposed Air Quality Progra,a. 1. Was the ordinance regulating fireplaces and other similar devices. 2. Was the resolution in respect to an Incentive Program to encourage people to convert from Solid Fuel Devices to Certified Solid Fuel Devices. 3. A request for a purchase of a street sweeper. He stated that approximately 40% of the air problems were created by dust. The Town was looking at using a different type of material in the winter months to reduce the dust. Mr. James reviewed the ordinance with the Council. If the Council approved the resolution in. respect to the Incentive Program then Section 15.40.070 -could be deleted from the ordinance. The resolution outlined conditions that staff suggested for consideration. Staff made an extensive study of costs that would make conversions. The Certified Solid Fuel Devices range in price from $750.00 to $1,500. Mr. James recommended that the Town pay 50% of the actual cost not to exceed $750.00 for the conversion of any existing Solid Fuel burning device to any Certified sold fuel burning device, gas log fireplaces or gas appliance. The program would be limited to only two units of condominiums complex within any given year. The ordinance did allow a wood burning fireplace in the areas of hotel lobbies and lodges and recommended that a fee of $3,000 be applied to the Construction Fund. There were some modifications to the ordinance. 15.40.030, add to the sentence, "provided, a fee in the amount of $3,000 is paid at the time of application for building permit ".. _r_ - Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners From: Tambi Katieb, AICP Date November 13, 2001 Re: Lot 67/68, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Roberts Complex SRU Summary: The applicant is requesting a tabling of the file (S- PL2001 -7) in order to respond to staff comments and revise the submittal. The application is for a Special Review Use in a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district for an automobile service (gas) station. Recommendation: Staff recommends that you table this application in order to allow the applicant sufficient time to submit additional information as requested. F-Planning & Zoning CommissionMEMOS12001167 &68 B11 BMBC Roberts SRU Table Request doc TOWN OF AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01 -21 SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING REVIEW AND FURTHER STUDY OF EAST AVON AND ITS POTENTIAL FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND ITS CONNECTION TO TOWN CENTER HEREAS, The Town of Avon recognized the potential for new development and redevelopment of an area of town known as the "Town Center" and developed basic concepts to guide development of this area in a phased approach; and WHEREAS, the East Avon Access and Circulation Plan and the Avon Town Center Implementation Plan both conclude there is an access issue across Avon Road; and both studies terminated the scope of their investigations and solution finding at Avon Road, we should seek to strengthen the connections all along Avon Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes, and the Avon Town Center Implementation Plan concludes, that there is a need and potential for extensive redevelopment in East Avon; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that as the Village at Avon grows and redevelopment takes place in East Avon, the major internal east /west access of Beaver Creek Boulevard and roundabout number three will likely become an increasing problem, and roundabout number four is an impediment as it exits now; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes the benefit of coordinated development, aesthetic, access and circulation plans to create cohesion throughout the Town of Avon; and F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Resolutions\2001\Res 01 -21 East Avon Connection to Town Center RW BS.doc NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends the Town Council recognize the need for a redevelopment plan for East Avon, as an extension of and incorporating the approved Avon Town Center Implementation Plan and East Avon Access and Circulation Plan, and to incorporate a common design theme for the Town for visual, aesthetic, and a strong physical connection across Avon Road, to develop solutions for roundabouts three and four and that projects be authorized to address these issues. ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2001 d: Clairc� Atte t ecr tary Date: l /7-0 2-00 j Date: FAManning & Zoning Commission \Resolutions\2001 \Res 01 -21 Last Avon Connection to Town Center RW BS.doc is s r X4 %s I' e� I' I I Ilk I s if �� of M 1 ti s N / Z Z m -0 .4 Miller /Schnieder Drivewa��p� n D Z Lots 9 and 10, Ea0ebmd Drive d, sag m Aym 0"&& 7 t 3 u F: m m m Q 4 in d Q A wag a �a m fto U Vh 4 F m 9 ab ®W Em I-at 5Z. Block 4 IWd odge "d 4w R owmwwum iir. Stave OAror SAS !)..bawd wad P,.— by CJTJZEN ARCANE —_ % /+ POS "- V� yO 0557 " Brim Handrik Vidder Al wwMlYN d lA1 A 1 A P. O. 1wx 16" A.X GO WS" (WA ! %O) ww1 -0001 /wY Iww- eoww lAVaMI1wkN. awO Alm AA.A1t•Awl /WOMr i i- i rJA b a agtoSa � Co a a Q O P ©© a �3 a r O ............ 0 _j ' P � o s 0 z i v � a � 4 P. S , � a)o'sy. 1 �i G r O Mr. Stave Oban Lot 32. 8kxk 4 aubt Posm lofA VSK CO -j L rRusomnr -'sa rw CWAWWCM ir I_� +_ mm--- mL---..w i O .AP i I i "DIP b "u q2 2 G 2 O O n 0 m O a O D..ym.d .nd d-- by C)TIZEN ARCANE Zi Brian Hendr)* Vedder F A....0[Y.. a .Y. A 1 A a.. 1060 A-- - OIOAD EWA (.?O) 6.FO6 a l 0.0- 60.. �y ODVm.ef.Y[.. WI dd.r � 7r mor"--m7 Cam' �