PZC Packet 050410Staff Report - Final Design
May 4, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission
Report date April 30, 2010
Project type Single Family Residence
Legal description Lot 35, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning Wildridge PUD
Address 5075 Wildridge Road
Prepared By Matt Gennett, AICP, Planning Manager_,��
Summary of Request
Jeffrey Manley, of Martin -Manley Architects (the "Applicant"), has submitted a Final Design
application on behalf of the property owners, Brian and Jackie Work, for development of a new
single-family, seven bedroom residential structure on the Property described above. A Vicinity
Map (Exhibit A) is attached for your reference.
Background & Process
The applicant's proposal, as submitted for a Final Design Review, complies with the applicable
zoning standards of the Wildridge PUD and Title 17, Zoning, Avon Municipal Code (AMC). The
Commission reviewed the Sketch Design application for this project at their April 6, 2010 meeting
and provided comments regarding the appearance of the proposed South Elevation and alternative
strategies for breaking -up the appearance of the building's overall bulk and mass.
Property Description
The Property is 1.1 acres, or 47,916 sq ft, and is zoned for one duplex structure. The Property
fronts along Wildridge Rd and has a benched area immediately adjacent to the road before it
slopes downhill rapidly to the south and southwest. Slopes in excess of 30% and 40% traverse
across approximately 70% of the total lot area. The Property is surrounded by a combination of
comparably sized single-family and duplex homes.
Planning Analysis
The proposed single-family structure is 7,641 sq ft which includes a 1,130 sq ft garage. The
maximum site coverage allowed on this Property is 50%, or 23,958 sq ft. The building footprint
area is 7,745 sq ft, including overhangs, which amounts to 16.2% of the total lot area. The
minimum landscape area required is 25% of the lot, or 11,979 sq ft. The proposed landscape area
is 40,741 sq ft, or 84% of the lot area. The total area of site coverage, including the building
footprint and roof eaves/overhangs, is 7,575 sq ft, or 16% of the lot area. The maximum allowed
building height is thirty-five feet (35'), which has been adhered to. The required snow storage area
is 20% of the driveway area, or 500 sq ft, and is likewise being complied with as depicted in the
application materials. All of the retaining walls over four -feet (4') in height will be engineered. All
exterior fighting complies with the Town's Dark Sky Preservation Initiative and Chapter 15.24
Outdoor Lighting, AMC (aka the "Outdoor Lighting Ordinance" No. 04-19, Series of 2004).
Engineering Analysis
The Engineering Department has identified the following items which must be resolved prior to
application for a building permit:
1. T A1.1 shows the location of electrical, phone, and water utilities. However, gas and
sanitary sewer are not shown.
2. The catch basin should not be located within a snow storage area.
3. The driveway should be oriented perpendicular through the snow storage, slope stability
and utility easement.
4. Any disturbed slope graded greater than 3:1 should be protected by erosion control
blankets.
5. The southeast swale appears to discharge toward the southeast corner of the house and
over the retaining wall. Re -grading and erosion protection may be necessary at the bottom
of the swale.
Design Review Considerations
The proposed Final Design application conforms to all the applicable sections of the Town of Avon
Residential. Commercial and Industrial Guidelines.
The proposed building materials include stone, wood siding, and stucco. A color and material
board will be provided at the meeting, and the Applicant will provide a summary of how the
comments provided by the Commission at the Sketch Design review, including those regarding the
general architectural expression presented by the proposed South Elevation, and potential
opportunities to better articulate and vary the massing of the proposed structure, have been
addressed with the proposed Final Design plan set.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of this Final Design application with the findings that it adheres to
the applicable zoning regulations, which include the Wildridge PUD Development Plan and Final
Plat in addition to Title 17, Zoning, Avon Municipal Code (AMC); and generally conforms with the
applicable Town of Avon Residential Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines. This approval
recommendation includes the revisions required by the Engineering Department as stated in the
Engineering Analysis section of this report. A full size plan set will be available for the
Commission's review at the meeting.
Exhibits
A: Vicinity Map
B: Reduced Plan Set
Vicinity Maps - Lot 35, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivis
77VT7TT1Tm L
—Residential Streets
In y3^avr.ask'�-;-uJ.'s lne l"cmnua�i If !V-pj,tI of eumap
Property Boundaries Q-wa 1cp nOro, <.a � tp>
acswa;r ct vyn <,a�a mniaman re,e.n
4 00 inn
.../�
a
Staff Report - Final Design Plan a:..
May 4, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting a o 0
Report Date April 30, 2010
Legal Description Tract B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision _
Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD) — 4 Units (2 Duplexes)
Address 2101 Saddle Ridge Loop
Prepared By Jared Barnes, Planner 1 Qom.4 41— �_
Summary of Request
Tract B, LLC (the Applicant and the Owner) of Tract B, Block 1, of the Wildridge Subdivision (the
Property), has submitted a Final Design application for two (2) duplex structures (East Building
and West Building) with a shared driveway access off of Old Trail Road (the Application).
The East Building includes two (2) units approximately 1,900 square feet each and the West
Building includes 2 units approximately 1,500 square feet each. Each of the four (4) units is
three stories with attached one (1) car garages on the West Building and two (2) car garages on
the East Building.
The Property was approved for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment with the
following limitations: a) the maximum residential floor area is restricted to 1,500 square feet for
the two (2) western most duplex units and 1,900 square feet for the two (2) eastern most duplex
units; b) building heights are limited to thirty-three feet (33') and twenty-seven feet (27'),
respectively; c) site coverage is limited to twenty-five percent (25%); and d) the minimum
landscaped area required is forty percent (40%) of the lot area.
Staff is recommending approval of the Final Design application subject to the following
conditions:
1. Revise all plan sets to ensure the proper address is used, 2101 Old Trail Road;
2. Revise the Landscape Table on sheet A1.2 to callout specific shrubs and ensure they
are on the approved plant list for the Town of Avon;
3. Revise the Landscape Plan (Sheet A1.2) to reduce the amount of sod area by half thus
reducing the amount of permanent irrigated area;
4. Revise the proposed Light Fixture to ensure its compatibility with the Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance; and
5. Revise all plan sets to adequately address the conditions listed in Attachment B,
Engineering Comments dated 4/21/10, prior to building permit submittal.
Process
At its November 10`", 2009 meeting, the Town Council reviewed and approved a PUD
Amendment for the Property to change the permitted uses from light commercial with 4
accessory apartments to two duplex structures. As stated above, the PUD Amendment also
limited the size, height, and site coverage and requiring more landscaped area and a deed
restricted unit.
At its December 15`", 2009 meeting, the Commission reviewed a Sketch Design for the
Application. The Commission made the following comments concerning the proposed design:
The duplexes were two similar and need to be more complementary of one another;
• Variation needed in the roof forms;
0 Variation in the massing of each unit within each duplex was needed; and
• The architecture needs more differentiation between units and structures to help achieve
the similar, but different design guideline.
Property Description
The Property is 0.38 acres with frontages on Wildridge Road, Old Trail Road, and Saddle Ridge _
Loop. The Property has high points in the northeast and southwest corners of the lot and
generally slopes downhill towards the southeast corner. The Property has three (3) front
setbacks off each street frontage with typical easements. The surrounding uses are all
residential structures, with the exception of the Eagle River Fire Protection District (ERFPD)
substation to the south of the Property.
Policy Analysis
The Comprehensive Plan includes one (1) planning principal for District 24: Wildridge
Residential District which is relevant to this application:
a. The character for the developed landscape should reflect the area's dry climate
and typically steep terrain with low water -requiring plant materials and natural
landscaping.
The application does propose low water -requiring trees, but doesn't call out specific shrub
material. The applicant should provide evidence that the selected plant materials are listed on
the Town of Avon Approved Plant Material List. The project includes approximately 1,600 SF,
or nineteen percent (19%) of the total lot area, of sod area between and to the south of the
proposed structures. Because sod is a high water requiring plant material, it does not promote
the planning principal stated above.
Planning Analysis
The application complies with the additional regulations outlined in the PUD amendment
approval. It proposes maximum building heights of twenty-six and one-half feet (26.5') for the
West Building and thirty-one and one-half feet (31.5') for the East Building. The proposed site
coverage is nineteen percent (19%), and the proposed landscape area is forty-nine percent
(49%). All proposed floor areas are below the maximum allowed by the PUD amendment. The
application also complies with all applicable setbacks and easements.
The application has been modified since the Sketch Design review to ensure that all parking
spaces are functional and can be accessed without violating the Zoning Code. Furthermore, the
application provides sufficient parking for the project by exceeding the two (2) spaces per unit
and two (2) guest spaces requirement.
Staff does have concerns about the proposed exterior light fixtures. The cut sheet does not
indicate the type of bulb used in the fixture, but does indicate a 100 watt maximum bulb. The
application should be revised to ensure that the fixture is dark sky compliant and uses no more
than 1,000 lumens per fixture (equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent bulb).
Engineering Analysis
Please refer to Attachment B for the Engineering comments and necessary revisions. To
summarize, most of the comments provided will require the application to further specify
ambiguities on the plan sets. These comments include: specifying the size of the driveway
culvert and ensuring it meets the Town requirements; providing specific drainage plans for the
driveway to ensure proper drainage will occur; specifying if the existing split rail fence is to
remain or be removed; and ensuring that proposed landscaping will not interfere with utility
access.
Other comments are intended to provide direction to the applicant on the necessary steps
needed prior to receipt of a TCO or CO.
Design Review
The application proposes to use wood siding and stucco as the primary exterior building
materials. The elevations include both horizontal and vertical wood siding, and the roof
materials include a combination of asphalt shingles and Cor -Ten metal. The materials will be
finished with the following colors, as seen on Attachment C: vertical wood siding – "Green —
Aspen" (Unit A), "Alamosa Gold" (Unit B), "Georgia Brick" (Unit C), "Hamilton Blue" (Unit D);
horizontal wood siding – "Natural Cedartone" stain; and stucco – "Moondust" (East building),
"Spectral" (West building).
The landscaping includes eight (8) Colorado Blue Spruce trees that are eight feet (8') in height,
fourteen (14) aspen trees with three (3) to five (5) inch calipers, and a mixture of eight (8)
deciduous shrubs all five (5) gallons in size. As staff pointed out earlier, the Landscape Table
will need to be revised to further clarify the shrub plant materials to ensure they are on the Town
of Avon approved plant list.
The application proposes to irrigate twenty percent (20%) of the site. This is the maximum
allowed by zoning, but is more than typically approved in Wildridge. As stated earlier in this
report, the amount of irrigation although permitted by zoning, does not promote the Planning
Principals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore should be revised. Staff
recommends that this area be reduced by half to make the approval more consistent with recent
approvals.
Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of this Final Design application for Tract B, Block 1, Wildridge
Subdivision, subject to the criteria and corresponding findings listed in this report.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve this Final Design application for construction on Tract B, Block 1, Wildridge
Subdivision, with the following conditions:
1. Revise all plan sets to ensure the proper address is used, 2101 Old Trail Road;
2. Revise the Landscape Table on sheet A1.2 to callout specific shrubs and ensure they
are on the approved plant list for the Town of Avon;
3. Revise the Landscape Plan (Sheet A1.2) to reduce the amount of sod area by half thus
reducing the amount of permanent irrigated area;
4. Revise the proposed Light Fixture to ensure its compatibility with the Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance; and
5. Revise all plan sets to adequately address the conditions listed in Attachment B,
Engineering Comments dated 4/21/10, prior to building permit submittal.
and subject to the FINDING that the design is in conformance with the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 (AMC) and the Town of Avon Design Review Guidelines."
Exhibits
A: Vicinity Map
B: Engineering Comments dated 4/21/10
C: Color and Material Board
D: Light Fixture Cut Sheet
E: Reduced Plan Sets
Exhibit B
HEART d thc VALLEY
I
To:
From:
Cc:
Date:
Re:
MEMORANDUM
Jared Barnes
Jeffrey Schneider
Justin Hildreth, Sally Vecchio
April 21, 2010
Tract B, Block 1, Wildridge, Gandorf PUD Final Design Comments
Below please find Engineering comments on the above -referenced project submittal
dated 4-19-10.
1. Specify size of driveway culvert. Town of Avon requires 18 -inch minimum
diameter.
2. Public access and mailbox easements must be recorded prior to issuance of any
certificates of occupancy for the site (at time of Final Plat).
3. The drainage flow arrows in the driveway suggest a flow pan or other drainage
conveyance, yet the grading suggests sheet flow. Please reconcile.
4. A "Wood Fence" is called out on the plans adjacent to the entrance. Is this
existing or proposed? Is it to be removed? Please clarify.
5. Ensure that the landscaping (tree planting) proposed at the northwest property
corner does not interfere with access to the adjacent utilities.
6. A townhome/patio home style subdivision will need to have associated
Declarations and Covenants to maintain common drives, walls, landscaping, etc.
The Declarations and Covenants will need to be recorded with the Final Plat.
CADocuments and Settings\jbarnes\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Tract B Gandorf Final Design Eng
Comments.doc I
Materials & Color Samples
Tract B Duplexes
Gandorf Tract B
Tract B, Lot 1, Wildridge
2101 Saddle Ridge Loop
Avon, CO 81620
Roofing #1
Elk Timberline Prestique 40; color: Hickory
Roofina #2
Cor -Ten, corrugated, natural rust
Vertical Wood Siding - Unit A
Benjamin Moore Paints - "Green Aspen"
Vertical Wood Siding - Unit B
Benjamin Moore Paints - "Alamosa Gold"
Vertical Wood Sidina - Unit C
Benjamin Moore Paints - "Georgia Brick"
Vertical Wood Siding - Unit D
Benjamin Moore Paints - "Hamilton Blue"
]Exhibit C
MPP -
PO Box 288
APP, s - 095 Willowstone Place
Gypsum, CO 81637
T�ornmunipv Davelonmen3_ c 970-390-4931
michael@mlolpdesignshOI2.com
0901 matedols_sample 04-19-10.doc Page I oft
Materials & Color Samples MnLdesiqn shops
PO Box 288
095 Willowstone Place
Gypsum, CO 81637
c 970-390-4931
mic haeMmpodesignshoo.cOM
Horizontal Wood Sidinq
Benjamin Moore Stains - 45 "Natural Cedartone"
Wood Trim & Heavy Timbers
Benjamin Moore Stains - 45 "Natural Cedartone"
Sto-93440-36 "Moondust"
Sto - 32132-23 "Spectral'
Exterior Windows & Doors
Aluminum Clad - Brown
0901 materbN-ample 041940.doc Page 2 of
Available Finishes: Black
(Painted), Black (Painted)
Technical Information
Tremillo - Outdoor Wall Lantern ILt Incan
49201BK
Outdoor Watt Lantern 1LtIncandescent
Dia./Width: 7.0 IN
Body Height: 14.3 IN
Type
Outdoor Lights
Backplate Dimensions
6.70 X 7.00 IN
Style
Casual
Bulb Included
N
Finish Group
Black
Primary Bulb Count
1
Weight
7 LBS
Primary Max Watt
100W
Body Height
14.3 IN
Primary Lamp Type
A19
Width
71N
UL CSA Listed
Y
Extension
8.1 IN
Diffuser Description
OPAL ETCHED
Height from Junction Box
6.1 IN
Body Material
ALUMINUM
Related Products
Outdoor Post Lt Incandescent
Finish: Black (Painted)
Dia./Width: 10.0
Body Height: 23.0
http://www.kichler.com/products/printDetail.do?prod_id=49201 &order_id... 4/18/2010
4920 - Tremillo Outdoor Wall Lantern
By Kichler Lighting
Part #
5883442
Price
$118.00
Size
Medium
Light Bulb
(1)100w A19 Med F Incand
Dimensions
Height: 14.5' - Width: 7" - - Projection: 8.5
Description
Tremillo Outdoor Wall Lantern Black Finish Satin -Etched Cased Opal Glass
http://www.lightinguniverse.com/print/print.aspx?sku=5883442
Page 1 of 1
.Lightin
4/18/2010
Staff Report - Final Design Plan
May 4, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report Date April 29, 2010 _
Legal Description Tract G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Zoning Government, Park, Employee Housing (GPEH)
Address One Lake Street
Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, Planner II
Summary
Stephanie Lord -Johnson (the Applicant), of Vail Architecture Group, Inc (VAg), has submitted a
Final Design application for the H.A. Nottingham Performing Pavilion (the Pavilion). The
Pavilion is located immediately adjacent to the north side of the Engineering wing of the
Municipal Building. A Sketch Design application was reviewed at the March 16, 2010 Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting; the meeting minutes of which are attached to this report for
your reference.
Process
This Final Design must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to review
and approval of construction documents by the Town Council. All improvements identified in
the West Town Center District, and all other required public improvements, must receive final
design approval from the Town Council.
Property Description
The Property is located in Tract G, Nottingham Park, a forty-six (46) acre parcel zoned
Government, Park, and Employee Housing. There is a mix of residential, commercial and civic
uses surrounding the park.
Planning Analysis
Locating the stage in the area identified in the Park Master Plan is somewhat constrained due to
the fixed location of several existing improvements, including: the south wing of Town Hall, a
sidewalk and stairs to the west, and a recreation path to the north. Please refer to the attached
survey for existing property information.
The stage will be loaded from the west Town Hall parking lots, which is the current location used
for loading other special events onto the field and a ramp will be constructed from the parking lot
to the back of the stage. A door & sidewalk will be installed that will connect to Town Hall,
which will be used as a green room for the performers. A more detailed review of these
elements will take place during construction documentation review.
The location of the Pavilion is consistent with the Park Master Plan which proposes that the
Town Hall area, also referred to as Zone H, the Public Redevelopment Site, be redeveloped
once Town Hall relocates to the current fire station property on Main Street. After Town Hall is
relocated, Zone H is intended to be redeveloped with a structured parking garage, additional
park support facilities and the Pavilion. The Park Master Plan also contemplates an immediate
phase of development before Town Hall is relocated; including the Main Street Extension
Promenade, the Pavilion, and several lake shore pavilions. The Pavilion will be a permanent
structure integrated with the redevelopment of Zone H.
The parking demand created by the Pavillon will need to be addressed in light of the fact that
the timing of constructing the proposed parking structure(s) is unknown. There are limited
sizeable parking facilities in the immediate area to serve the Pavilion, the nearest of which is
devoted largely to the Recreation Center. As a condition of approval, Staff is recommending
that a Parking Management Plan be developed prior to scheduling any major events at the
Pavilion.
Staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission review the Pavilion design
against the Design Guidelines, West Town Center Implementation Plan, and the Park Master
Plan. The Design Review section of this report further defines the review authority documents.
Engineering Analysis
There is minimal infrastructure required for the construction of the stage. There is adequate
vehicular access and electrical supply 100 feet to the east. There is approximately six feet of
grade differential between the bottom edge of the Engineering wing and the recreation path,
which includes a retaining wall. This is what requires the stepping down of the stage level to the
level of the path and playing field immediately adjacent to the Pavilion. The applicant has
chosen to the step from the stage to cut boulders in front of the stage to meet this grade
differentiation.
Design Review
The materials and colors for the Pavilion were selected to complement the Town's recent Lake
Street and Transportation Station improvements. Both of these projects were designed to
conform to the Town Center West Implementation Plan.
To complement these recent public improvements, the Applicant is proposing that the Pavilion
be constructed with boulders for a seating wall in front of the stage, dry stack stone veneer to
match existing improvements such as the veneer used on all new light poles in the area,
structural truss system to match Lake Street green color used on public signage, steel finish to
match the Town's new light poles, and smooth stucco paneling to tie in with the Municipal
Building. The standing seam metal roof is to match the patinaed copper color and the
patinaed copper panel system is of high quality and appropriate for the project.
The following minimum requirements from the Design Guidelines shall be considered with this
review:
1. The use of high quality, durable, low maintenance building materials is highly
encouraged.
2. The following materials and wall finishes will not ordinarily be permitted on the
exterior of any structure: asphalt siding, imitation brick, asbestos cement shingles
or siding, imitation log siding or plastic. Metal siding, concrete or concrete block
will be permitted only with specific approval of the Commission. Each elevation
must use a minimum of two materials (i. e. stucco, siding, wood).
3. Natural or earth tones are encouraged as the dominant color with brighter colors
used for accent.
The proposed colors and materials are in conformance with the Design Guidelines.
The West Town Center Implementation Plan's District Wide Design Guidelines also govern the
design review for this application. According to the District Plan, improvements should utilize
muted colors, and shall be built as high quality long-term components achieving a life span of
greater than 50 years. The District Plan deals largely with the construction of buildings and
public infrastructure, with little to no attention to this type of application. However, the material
and color guidelines from the District Plan dictate the exact colors and materials being used for
portions of this project. It is appropriate to match recent public improvements with color and
materials, as submitted by the Applicant.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of this Final Design application for the Pavilion, Tract G, _
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, subject to the conditions and corresponding findings
listed in this report.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve the Final Design application for the Pavilion, Tract G, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek Subdivision, with the following condition:
1. A Parking Management Plan must be approved prior to the issuance of a building
permit for construction.
Pursuant to the following FINDINGS:
1. The application is in compliance with the Town of Avon Design Guidelines.
2. The application complies with all applicable zoning standards from Title 17 of the
Avon Municipal Code.
Exhibits
A: March 16, 2010 Minutes
B: Reduced Plans
43
�BrlR7Yy�Iie vr�GZ4�
j
REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order 5:35pm
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2010
if. Roll Call
Commissioner Lane was absent.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
None
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Anderson disclosed a conflict of Interest with Item VI. Sketch Design Review for
the H.A. Nottingham Park Pavilion. He will abstain from any comments or action on this item
at Final Design review.
V. Consent Agenda
• Approval of the February 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes
• Approval of the March 2, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Action: Feb 16th Minutes — With amendments, Commissioner Struve moved to approve the
February 16th minutes, and all Commissioners were in favor.
March 2nd — With amendments, Commissioner Struve moved to approve the March 2nd
2010 meeting minutes, and all Commissioners were in favor.
DESIGN REVIEW
VI. Sketch Design - H.A. Nottingham Park Pavilion
Property Location: Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / One Lake St
Applicant: Stephanie Lord -Johnson, VAg / Owner: Town of Avon
Description: Sketch Design review for a performing arts pavilion, to be located on the north
side of the municipal building.
Discussion: Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer, explained the background of the project and the
direction from Council. Stephanie Lord -Johnson presented the design of the stage and the
programming for the project. Stephanie walked through the materials and colors for the
project and how they arrived at the current proposal.
Commissioner Prince asked if there would be any heat. Stephanie stated that there could be
radiant heat provided to the slab floor.
Commissioner Anderson questioned the height of the structure. Stephanie stated that the
height is approximately 31'.
Commissioner Green asked if their have been modifications to the original programming of the
project. Justin responded that at the first design included a promenade, but that element was
dropped out.
Commissioner Prince questioned the size of the stage and how it compared to other venues in
the area such as Eagle, Ford, etc. Justin stated that it was much smaller than the Ford, and
larger than Eagle's stage. Stephanie responded that it depends more on the type of band and
what there requirements were.
Commissioner Green felt that the siting did not make sense, and mentioned that if it were
required to be moved in the future then the element of permanency would need to be
addressed. Commissioner Green thought the design was fine. Commissioner Green thought
that it was a quality space, and the materiality is good. He stated that this was a descent
architectural statement.
Commissioner Struve mentioned that if the stage were to be placed in any other place in the
park it would take up park space.
Commissioner Goulding hit on the fact that sound amplification can be anywhere in the park,
and wanted to better understand the site lines, how amplification worked in the current
location, and felt that a larger site plan could benefit the review. Stephanie stated that they did
try to open up the stage as much as possible by pushing back the wing walls. This was a
result of further studies in the park and looking at aerial photographs.
Commissioner Struve was concerned that this could be an attractive nuisance for citizens that
could set up there own instruments at night, such as with the stage in Boulder. He thought
that the applicant did a good job making the most of the project.
Commissioner Prince was concerned that we are working under a constrained budget and this
design process should be more geared towards long term visioning. Justin Hildreth explained
that the Council supported an "Enhanced" version of the design since the bare bones design
was not quite appropriate for the park.
Commissioner Goulding directed the Commission to focus on the design application instead of
the programming. Commissioner Prince was concerned with the pillars and the relationship to
the large backdrop. Stephanie explained that the wing walls were to be layered with possibly
a patina finished copper. Commissioner Prince questioned the clear story windows in the
upper rear portion of the stage. Stephanie explained that they are still speaking to the
acoustical engineer and they wanted to keep the roof of the stage as lofty as possible.
Additional light form the south would be a benefit to the stage
Commissioner Anderson stated that he would hold his comments due to a conflict of interest.
Commissioner Roubos stated that it probably meets the design guidelines, but she is
somewhat disappointed with the structure because it lacks interest. She said we may be
jumping the gun because we cannot afford the stage today, and it would be nice to see the
master plan and the big picture for the park and the Town in general before committing to this
design.
Commissioner Goulding explained what he thought would help sell this is and that would be
the richness of the materials and how it will be viewed from all perspectives, including coming
down from Beaver Creek. He questioned the bottom of the roof and if there were acoustical
coffers. Stephanie explained that the warmth of the wood and copper and stone is the
intention of the project. Commissioner Goulding wanted more clarification at final design for
how the rake edge and fascia boards tie in. He questioned the flooring, and Stephanie
responded that the intent is a colored slab, but it needs to be something solid to stand up to
the weather. Stephanie stated that performers would have the ability to come in and put a
wood floor over the slab if they wanted to.
Commissioner Goulding wanted to know if it was real stone or cultured. Stephanie clarified
that it is real and is to match other Lake Street and Transportation center improvements.
Commissioner Goulding wanted more details on lighting and signage and wanted to know
exactly what are we going to see. Commissioner Struve asked Larry Brooks if there was a
possibility of naming rights from a sponsor, would that be pursued by Town? Larry responded
negatively.
Commissioner Goulding concurred with staff's report and asked if we could see what parking
could be for the project.
Action: No action for Sketch Design Plans.
WORK SESSION
VII. Transportation Master Plan Visioning (5:30pm)
Description: Final review of the Mission Statements complied during the previous two
meetings.
Discussion: Sally explained that if endorsement could be reached then at the next meeting a
resolution would be brought forth for a final motion. The Commission went through each
mission statement individually and made additional edits.
Action: Commissioner Struve moved to endorse the vision statements, as edited by the
Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Green and all Commissioners
were in favor.
VIII. Unified Land Use Code (6:30pm)
Description: Review of the Residential Design Standards.
Discussion: Sally Vecchio briefed the Commission on where the Unified Code process stands
today, and why we are reviewing the Design Standards in advance of the entire Code. There
will be a March 23rd Joint Meeting with the Town Council to hand off the entire document.
Sally presented a PowerPoint slideshow highlighting the new baseline standards.
Commissioner Green questioned if the standards applied to all residential development. Staff
responded that the first part of the document was generally applicable to all residential
development, and then there is an additional layer of requirements for duplex and multifamily
design review.
Commissioner Green was concerned with a performance based set of requirements. The
differentiation between prescriptive based versus performance based requirements was
discussed. Commissioner Goulding explained that prescriptive requirements would be like
those for Bachelor Gulch's design regulations.
Commissioner Goulding explained that Staff would go through photographs of different
developments in Town, and the Commission would see what we definitely do not like. More
importantly, we need to express why we do not want to see certain design elements and that
could give Staff direction for further refinements to the requirements. For example,
Commissioner Goulding felt that walk outs should be required for stepped buildings so that the
end result is not an 8' tall blank wall or a retaining wall to meet the ground.
Commissioner Green asked if we should be precluding flat roofs all together.
Commissioner Roubos stated that she too was also concerned with the prescriptive nature of
the requirements as drafted. She explained that the roof and building material requirements
are too limited for general applicability.
Commissioner Struve questioned if it was o.k. to have flat roofs in Town Center.
Commissioner Goulding stated that if we did not prescribe pitched roofs that we would be
challenged with a max height and flat roof design at that max height.
Commissioner Green questioned if there truly was a way to regulate "good" design.
Commissioner Struve brought up the example of Carefree, Arizona, where every building
looks the same, and that it is not all good or bad but not great design.