Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20240718.Regular MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on July 18, 2024 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ted Mahon, Ann Mullins, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Brian Long, Micah Davis Adoption of the Agenda: Ann made a motion to move Staff Comments to follow Old Business; Ted seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: Matt read aloud emails from Howie (2) and Adam (1) regarding topics on the agenda tonight; these Board members are not present at this meeting and their comments via email are recorded as public comments. Howie’s first email expressed his non-support for the use of the Marolt-Thomas Open Space site for the proposed bike skills trails based on habitat values and the Board’s mission that includes protecting undisturbed habitat. He suggested looking to other areas that are already impacted such as Cozy Point Ranch. Howie cited the developments encircling Deer Hill as an example of unfortunate impacts to quality habitat. Adam’s email expressed his non-support for the proposed bike skills trails on the Marolt- Thomas Open Space based on cumulative impacts on wildlife and habitat. Adam commented that it is a difficult decision, but ultimately preserving this piece of habitat outweighs the benefits of a bike skills trail there. He mentioned that in a valley where much development occurs, this is a rare situation in which the Board has a role in preserving habitat and he encouraged the Board not to recommend this proposed project. Howie’s second email addressed Theatre Aspen’s proposed permanent facility in John Denver Sanctuary. He suggested that a model of the proposed facility be constructed so that the scale and mass of the theater building can be seen in context with the park surroundings and adjacent buildings. He commented that there are many other existing activities and purposes in the surroundings of the theater space (Old Powerhouse, City Hall, Courthouse, Rio Grande Field, John Denver Sanctuary), adding that story poles should be installed to provide the public with visual mass, scale and context of the proposed theater building. Howie commented that while Theater Aspen proposes to operate the facility year-round, there are no guarantees. He asked for Theatre Aspen’s proposed financial structure for operations and maintenance of the facility. The final design should provide flexibility for other uses if the theater ceases to operate. He mentioned the importance of theater events’ accessibility to the public, and that the building should be designed for a 500-year flood (not a 100-year flood). Approval of the Minutes: Ted made a motion to adopt the minutes Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous. New Business: None. Old Business: Theater Aspen: Jed Bernstein spoke about the question of permanence with regard to Theater Aspen’s proposed redevelopment of their facility. He explained that Theatre Aspen first occupied its current location in 1987 and that the organization feels it has a legacy in this location. He said the question is not whether Theatre Aspen should be in the park; rather the question is in what way should Theatre Aspen be in the park. Jed shared an incident in which public misconduct outside affected access to public restrooms during a theater performance and showed photos of the current facility to illustrate aspects the organization feels are inadequate. Jed emphasized that a permanent and larger facility would help Theatre Aspen fulfill its mission and serve the community. Jed spoke about needs that the plan would provide such as state-of-the-art stage capabilities, a fly space, front and rear projection capabilities, energy-efficient HVAC systems, new restrooms, and 100+ annual days of availability for use by other community groups and public events. Jed provided an overview of Theatre Aspen’s current programming. He mentioned the student programs, local productions, programs in Parachute and Basalt, and summer story time programming for young children. There are summer internships, local passes, and 700 free tickets through the community program. On the topic of considering a smaller facility, Jed commented that HVAC and restrooms alone would cost $8-10 million. In the current, revised plan, the team has reduced the disturbance area by 36%. Jed explained that while shows do not always sell out, expanded seating would allow sold-out events to help underwrite non-sold-out events. Proposed technical improvements are integral to the organization’s advancement. With a better facility, Theatre Aspen could consolidate and expand its positive impacts, such as doing more with community programs and schools. Ted asked if any funds have been raised; Jed explained that there are some financial commitments, but approvals are awaited. Ted asked if there are plans for an endowment; Jed said that this is part of their plan. Julie asked if programming in other locations would still take place if the new facility is built; Jed explained that some consolidating would happen, but certain programming would still take place off site. Ann asked if they would try to have a regular schedule of performances during construction. Jed answered that construction would begin in September and take about 22 months after which they would begin to use the new facility. During construction, other venues would be used for continued creative operations. Julie asked for Jed’s thoughts on a model and story poles. Matt explained that P & Z typically requires story poles during the land use process; models could be requested by this Board or Council to inform design. Dan referred to questions on the monitor and explained the Board’s work today toward consensus and a potential motion. Ann commented that she has seen such park space uses work well and not work well. She expressed her support for Theatre Aspen on their site, and the importance of an endowment. Ann said that the current design is more humble and works well, and that the operation is a community asset. Ted commented that Theatre Aspen has been a valuable partner for a long time and that the current plan is more palatable. He expressed that he leans toward supporting the proposed permanent theater facility, or at least continuing to move forward with the process. Julie commented that most people she has discussed this with are supportive, however she is skeptical of the success of winter programming. Julie commented that a third option could be important, toward something that the Board can wholeheartedly support. Ted commented that while everyone seems to agree that Theatre Aspen deserves a better facility, everyone also feels uneasy about the proposed facility. Ted questioned the need for year-round programming, noting that the facility would be permanent either way. He mentioned that year-round programming feels like a red flag to the Board. Dan also questioned the benefit of year-round programming, and asked if there could be a design that focuses on HVAC and restrooms and maintains a temporary structure. He posed the question of whether the concerns outweigh public benefit. Dan described the current style of the theater in the park; the new facility would be more like Broadway in Aspen; he expressed that theater in the park is a different concept, a summertime thing. Dan mentioned the importance of public access, suggesting that a world-class facility might be beyond what is needed. He expressed that he feels the concerns outweigh public benefit. Dan said the proposed facility would be a highly specialized space, and asked how it could be more universally useful beyond theater. Julie commented on impacts on wildlife that use the park space, suggesting that this should be weighed equally as with the proposed bike skills trails. Ann asked about the review process if the proposal gets support from both the Board and Council. Matt explained that Theatre Aspen’s attorney and the City attorney are working on a letter of intent that will spell out terms of a new lease which will likely be discussed in executive session. If it goes through, Theater Aspen would start the land use process, a phase during which this Board can make recommendations pertaining to scale, etc. The Board may also be involved in options later in the design process. If P & Z supports the application process, it can be recommended to Council to approve it. There can also be a condition requiring voter approval. There are many options for paths forward. If the Board makes a recommendation tonight, that does not set the proposed design in stone. Ann commented that she feels the theater would be able to have a successful winter schedule. Dan and Ann expressed that design for a flexible space should be a requirement. Dan added that he would like to make some stipulations. Julie asked how the Board would create the stipulations. Dan mentioned that this could be done via a motion or a memo. Ann commented that a shared, flexible space would be good, adding that if Council decides the facility should be used by another entity, we could lose Theatre Aspen and get a different entity that might have more, less, or the same success. Dan suggested that approving with conditions allows this Board to still be involved in the process. Matt prompted the Board to distill concerns down to two to three key items and attempt to make a motion/recommendation now that includes those key items. Matt expressed that it would be good to avoid asking Theatre Aspen to keep making changes which we may not like. Lease area and permanence of the building are relevant to this Board’s role. Certain other considerations, such as programming, may be beyond the scope of this Board. He added that at a certain point, this Board is handing this process off to other bodies. This Board has been focused on change of land use, and if this Board recommends a permanent building, these concerns will not cease to be considered. Dan expressed that the depth of excavation to the water table and the concrete required seems extreme, adding that a minimally invasive structure and broad range of uses are important to going in a good direction. Julie suggested specifying that broad use should pertain to use by other entities rather than to programming. Ann emphasized that flexibility of use is a key factor. She added that minimally impactful construction and visual impact are also important. Dan explained that the complexity of the project is one of his concerns. Ted expressed that he hopes concerns will be addressed as the project goes through next phases with other groups. Julie mentioned that water table and streamflows will change in coming years, and that new structure design must take this into consideration. Ann said that making a recommendation with conditions will require Theatre Aspen to come back and make sure this Board is satisfied. Dan mentioned that requiring an endowment is another important item, suggesting that this could be a stipulation. Ted said that stipulations should be park-specific and construction- specific. Matt summarized that what he heard the Board moving toward: providing a motion of support for a permanent building with these points being considered as terms to the letter of intent. The letter of intent will be adopted by Council resolution, and that document may be the place where these types of stipulations are recorded. This Board will recommend certain things that are important to the Trails & Open Space Board; as these become negotiation points between City Council and Theatre Aspen, they can consider these items from this Board. Ann clarified that Council may choose this Board’s stipulations or not in the letter of intent. John mentioned the Board’s concerns about public access and ensuring that the space does not become privatized. Ann asked if the 700 free community tickets constitute public access. Dan suggested that this might need to grow; he suggested that affordability should be a major component. Ann and Julie commented that community passes sell out instantly; Ann posed that if the facility is being expanded, community tickets should also be expanded. John suggested that access could also be considered in terms of whether the public will be in and around the structure when it is hosting an event or is it private, and whether the structure will impact access to the river behind it. Dan commented that for him, affordability is the access issue; suggesting that this should be a stipulation. Julie commented that this might be out of the scope of this Board. Ann said that the Board can suggest it, and Jim True can cross it out if it is not appropriate. Matt reminded the Board that they are making a recommendation and not a decision. Dan prompted the Board toward creating a motion that includes their key stipulations. Julie expressed that she is still struggling with the recommendation. Ted commented that we all agree that the facility needs some improvements, but none of us are comfortable with what is proposed. He added that it seems like we recognize something permanent is appropriate but we don’t know what that looks like. Dan asked Julie if there are certain considerations that are deal-breakers. Julie mentioned that the size is too big. Mike suggested phrasing stipulations as “the Board can support continuation of this project with the following considerations…” Ann made a motion that the Board recommends that the applicant proceed with submitting a land use application for this project with the following considerations: limited site impacts in the construction of the building, flexibility and access for other organizations, and access for the community to the surrounding park space and the programming on site. Ted seconded. Dan asked whether Theatre Aspen can accomplish what they need in a tent, and expressed that in an ideal world, he would like to explore an option where bathrooms and HVAC are built/improved for the tent structure. Julie expressed agreement with this. Ann mentioned that Jed said it would be hard to adapt what they have now to make the needed changes. Dan suggested going further with limiting site impacts; he commented that he would like a less complex building. Matt commented that what he is hearing from the Board is that there seems to be interest in reducing scope and scale during construction and/or with the final building. Matt spoke about Dan’s comments on the integration of the structure into the environment and producing strategies for design and construction that have a strong connection to the environment in a non-invasive way. There was discussion about how to word the motion in general terms toward what the Board would like to see. Ann amended the motion as follows: … recommendation that the applicant proceed with the land use application for this project with the following considerations: minimally invasive construction process that focuses on environmental integration of the completed project, further reduction of scope and scale, flexibility of space and access for other organizations, and access for the community to the surrounding park space and the programming on site. Ted accepted the amendment, and the vote was unanimous. Marolt Skills Trail: Matt asked for the Board’s final recommendation on this topic as to whether to proceed with the project, including contributing funds (full, matching, maximum allowed, or none), or no action. Ted expressed his support for moving forward with this project; he commented that this site may not be perfect, but any site will have issues. Ann expressed support for this project, mentioning that the site works well overall. Julie expressed her support for the project, commenting that the site visit was valuable and the Friends of Marolt group seemed to understand the project better at that visit. Julie mentioned support for matching funds. Ann and Dan also expressed support for matching funds. Julie made a motion to move forward with the Marolt Skills Trails Project with matching funding. Ann seconded and the vote was unanimous. Ann asked how this project fits into the budget. Matt said that staff will engage with Mike Pritchard and determine funding. Budget presentations with City leadership will begin in about four weeks; Matt will pencil in numbers as soon as possible with some conversations with RFMBA. He will come back to the Board at the September meeting. Matt pointed out that this is subject to Council’s appropriation; this will be reviewed in the budget process. If a majority of Council members see this as a project they do not want to proceed with, they can remove it from the budget. Staff Comments: Mary: staff kicked-off the public process phase of the Strategic Plan at the Saturday Market, including promoting the online survey titled “Guiding Green,” which asks the community to help chart the future of Aspen’s parks. John: the leash ordinance will have its first reading on July 23rd, second reading on August 13th. Matt added that this will probably be seen in the newspaper after the first reading; off-leash play is being allowed in all parks with three exceptions (John Denver Sanctuary, Yellow Brick Playground, and Herron Park). The second ordinance will be a public hearing. If people approach Board members about this topic, they may express their comments at the second reading on August 13th. John mentioned that the County (in partnership with the City and AVLT) has begun an update to the Smuggler Mountain Open Space (SMOS) management plan. Stakeholder outreach meetings have taken place, and we are now moving into public outreach efforts. There will be a booth on Smuggler tomorrow where staff will ask users questions about the SMOS. There is also a community survey that is open until July 26th; Board members are encouraged to do the survey and promote it to friends and contacts. Ann asked when Herron Park bathrooms will be installed. Mike explained that this will happen on July 23rd; he described the process. Dan asked if this is the first SMOS management plan; John said the 2012 plan was the first and that this effort is an update. He added that this will be discussed in a joint meeting with the County on September 18th at 3pm. John introduced Shelly Braudis as the new Natural Resource Manager for the City (former Recreation Manager for the White River National Forest). Dan asked how the Maroon Creek Trail is proceeding. John said that it is on schedule and there have been some additional budget expenses; major sections have been paved, boulder work and landscaping are next. Mike added that the first of three slabs has been poured for the pickleball courts. Julie asked what staff were working on at the Roundabout; John explained that they were pulling weeds. Matt: None. Board Comments: Julie: None. Ann: None. Dan: None. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting August 15, 2024. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Ann made a motion to adjourn; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous.