Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910321 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of March 21, 1991 Continue publlc hearing & Conceptual Development Aspen Meadows Academic and Music sectors Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill Poss with Don Erdman, Jake Vickery, Les Holst, Georgeann Waggaman, Charles Cunniffe and Roger Moyer present. Glenn Rappaport and Joe Krabacher were excused. Continued public hearing and conceptual development review of the Aspen Meadows - Academic and Music sectors. Roxanne: Staff feels confident that the academic portion meet the development review standards and they meet the concerns of the sub-committee. We are recommending that Conceptual Development be approved with conditions on page 8 and 9 of the memo. The first four relate to the rehearsal hall and that the structure be re-sited to the north east closer to the parking lot. That the height of the mound be lowered and the diameter be reduced. A restudy of the surface treatments between both land form and the tent be considered. The roadway width be reduced in the chalet areas. We are recommending conceptual approval as stated in this memo. Amy Margerum, Planning Director: city Council has the final say on the location of this proposal. Gideon Kaufman: In terms of the chalet and level of partial demolition we are clear that the demolition will occur down to the foundation. This is in response to the Academic/Institute portion of Roxanne's memo (page 3). Gideon: In reference to the pile of dirt, the problem is the proximity to the buildings and to have your first floor looking into the mound. That is why we are reducing it a great degree. We will show cross sections at final. Joe Wells: The language in the application states that the Aspen Institute proposes to reconstruct and expand the 44 lodge rooms in the chalet buildings and re-configure the 16 rooms in the Kresge building. Harry Teague, architect for the Meadows: responded to issues that have come up. I will be adding and Harry: The primary issue is the location of the structure in itself. A good building responds to its location. One of the first decisions was which side of the tent should the building be put on. There were positive and negatives and we took a neutral position, that is the MAA did. There was a site on the east side and west side. On the west side one of the problems is that we have a pedestrian access coming out of Paepcke and going around Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Special Meeting March 21, 1991 the tent that is frequently used and also another pedestrian access that comes around from the meadows that connects and is frequently used. Putting the building on the west side of the tent would cause our service access to conflict with the pedestrian. That was one of the major objections. We go clear directive after numerous meetings to put the building on the east side. Then the question was where on the east side. We site visited with the HPC sub-committee that in fact the building should be off at a 45% angle that we would shift it slightly to the south east. In order to have the least amount of impact possible we developed a concept that was based upon the landform concept of Anderson Park, that we would have a clear geometric shape and the building would be contained within. We had a certain height of the mound in order to have a certain volume (acoustic reasons). It is difficult for us to make the building smaller and still retain the natural acoustics. If we go deeper we will have to have longer ramps etc. to get people in and out. The maximum height is 30 feet and the height to the mid point is 20 ft. It is not any higher than across the street. The tent is 45 feet high. Harry Teague did a slide show presentation on the Meadows area. We are proposing to expand the seating on the west side of the tent. The mound is as much a part of the building as the building itself. We are putting a building on the opposite of the tent where the wind is coming from. Bill Martin: What about loading and unloading on the east side? Harry: We had examined connecting the two facilities with a tunnel. Right now we have a service access on the rear of the building and it is all contained within the shape of the mound. Chairman Bill Poss opened the continued public hearing. Mary Apple: How does the size relate to the design conference tent that is placed there. Harry: It is lower than the tent already there. Mary Martin: I can't believe we have taken an hour to discuss the east side when we haven't heard the alternatives to the east side (the west side). Bob Starodoj: The two reasons for you not putting it on the west side seem to be cosmetic, one of which was a pristine meadow on the west side and then you later said it would be part of the seating. One of my bigger concerns, the more you put facilities on the east side the more you are going to impact the traffic 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Special Meeting March 21, 1991 problems that we know are acute now. If you put it on the west side you have a better chance to disperse people both coming and going from the tent during the high traffic period. Joe Wells: The traffic problem is the same no matter which side you put the facility on. Ron Austin: From a design standpoint do you feel you could put the building on the west and integrate it as well as you can on the east forgetting the service crossover? Harry: To take it and move it to the other side, we would have some design difficulty. If we put it on the west side going from the rehearsal facility to the performance people will be crossing the delivery of grand pianos etc. Ramona Markalunas: I want to bring up the parking lot. traffic situation needs to be addressed. The Carol Craig: I would prefer the west side. Bruce Berg: When you ride down Gilespie whether it is at the corner of third or fourth you will take that whole breath of Gilespie and be blocking the view of the tent. Fritz Beneditct: Harry made a good point, it is important to have a low pitch on the berm. If we move to the west side some of those large trees will make the berm steeper because there is not enough space there. There also seems to be a concern about the loss of seating on the east side. The new seating on the west side you could see the stage where you can't on the east side. Jan Collins: Is this deeded land? Gideon: It is not deeded presently and we would have to have an easement. Perry Harvey: The MAA and the institute stated that in the conceptual review they didn't have a preference. The Planning Office recommended the east side. Council approved it and granted SPA for the east side. My concerns are frankly that we would have to go back and amend our conceptual approval and go through the process in front of a new city council. I appreciate neighborhood concerns and the importance of the view from your doors and driveway; however, it upsets me when people say there was no opportunity to speak. This is a public process and the decision was made. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Special Meeting March 21, 1991 Ann Turnbull: It is important that we be heard and we have a strong desire to have the building put to the other side. My impression of the tent is Gilespie and Third (west side). Joe Wells: In the Planning memo to Council they stated the best site would be the east side with numerous reasons. Charles Collins: If everything has to be finalized at conceptual then what is the use of having final. George Vicenzi: The panels in the roof are 20 feet by 30 feet which are much larger than what the tent is and it feel it will overwhelm the existing tent. The main point is the size of the mound going up to the building and it should be staked. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Bill: You had stated that the mound is 20 feet at the top and 250 across. Harry: It gets to 18 feet. and they vary down. The roofs are a maximum of 25 feet Don: Once the siting is established then we can get involved with the relationship of the new structure to the historic structure (tent). Regarding the outside seating all music is presented in the late afternoon or early evening at which time if I were facing the music I would be staring directly into the sun on the east side. Jake: We need to review what is presented, the east side. Les: There are two standards that the project does not meet, one and three. I need to see story poles. Georgeann: There is no reason that some design in the east meadow would not work. Harry's design doesn't work in the east meadow and it totally dominates the historic building, the tent. It does not meet standard one or three. That particular design does not seem to work in the east because the tent is dominated by the rehearsal hall where most people do experience the first view of the tent. Charles: I am concerned about the way the building is perceived as you approach the music facility. The approach is from town to the music tent and that perception would be forever altered if the facility was built on the eastern site. I find it more compatible on the west. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Special Meeting March 21, 1991 Roger: I concur that we need staking and at this time I do not have enough information to make a decision. Bill: With regard to standard one which is the development is compatible in character with the historic structures on the parcel, I find that the design to he exciting and fresh and a great design approach of something we have been looking for of a new building that is compatible to an historic building. With the similar mounding that is over at the Meadows I find it to be appropriate. The roof forms are compatible. I have some concern with the loss of the open meadow seating but am sympathetic to the operational concerns. With regard to standard #2 which is the development reflects and is consistent in character with the neighborhood of the parcel, I think it meets that standard. Standard #3 is the development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of the historic structure on the parcel. This is the one that I had the most trouble with. I agree with Staff that the design impact the cultural value of the tent. I would like to see if the building could be relocated somewhat but leave that up to the applicant. I would like to see that open meadow seating retained somewhere. Bill: Ellen. Silver, Marsha ~arerra, Patty~nd Paul Patterson had ?o~maments si~l!ar ~o the public here today.~,c ~ Bill: We should give a motion to the academic portion first then handle the rehearsal facility. MOTION: Don made the motion that the conceptual development application for the academic, parking structure, lodge and back stage renovation and addition to the music portion of the Aspen Meadows be approved with the following conditions: A) With respect to the chalet structures that partial demolition standards be addressed pursuant to Section 7-602 (C). B) That the new construction relative to Kresge and the music back stage facilities be staked relative to perimeter and height. C) That representation of all materials be made at final. D) A cross section drawing be prepared indicating the relationship between the lower fox mound and building #6. E) Final landscape plan indicating all significant existing and proposed vegetation, surface treatments and lighting be prepared. F) Final elevations he prepared for the restaurant expansion. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Special Meeting March 21, 1991 G) That roadway width reduction be studied chalet/restaurant/academic area. in the H) Detailed drawing of tent/music area parking lot treatment and bus drop-off area. Charles second the motion. Ail in favor, motion carries. Jake: Do we have enough to grant conceptual on the rehearsal. Charles: I think the west side needs reviewed. Les: I can't grant conceptual. Roxanne: If you cannot grant conceptual you need to state why the proposal does not meet the standards. Harry Teague: We need specific direction and we will be happy to respond. Charles: I would recommend tabling. Mary Martin: The west side needs to be reviewed. Georgeann: We are only looking at the building in the east meadow, that was all that was presented to us. The general concensus of this design is not appropriate in this location and its relationship to the tent. Possibly if it were lower, the mound lower and the roof less dominant. I would say that we would have to deny conceptual. Bill: I just have concerns on the east side and would like to see story poles. Jake: I'd like to do a straw pole on Roxanne's memo with conditions studying relocating the rehearsal hall facility and add other conditions such as height poles. What is important is the approach to the tent. Bill: With regard to relocation do you have any specifics and how does this effect the application. MOTION: Charles made the motion to table conceptual development application until 4-08-91 to allow the applicant time to restudy the following area: (died for lack of second). Charles: Re-site the rehearsal hall facility to the westerly site, do west of the existing tent; study potential for lowering the height; stake the height and perimeter of the building and 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Special Meeting March 21, 1991 recommend P&Z and City Council restudy the site. Charles: It needs staked on both sides in order for everybody to see the benefits of the west side. Roxanne: You are recommending tabling because it does not meet the development review standards #1 and #3 as it is currently proposed. Georgeann: I have a problem with granting conceptual development approval because again if nothing else we are asking them to significantly lower the height of both the mound and the structure to lessen the bulk and general visual impacts and I think in general if we came in with a building that had none but one site to be put on and we asked them to reduce it and change it that significantly we would not grant conceptual we would table it. We have to treat this as if that is the site and recommend that they look at another site. Les: We have two problems scale and massing. Bill: You could table and ask for the height poles to go up and ask for a separate motion to study. Gideon Kaufman: I understand that you are asking the architect to re-look at the eastern location in terms of flagging the poles and the impact over there. Are we also asking him to design a building or some idea of a building so he can pick a location between now and April 8th, I don't see how that is possible. If it is placed due west it goes right over six groups of existing trees. Bill: Amy Margerum, Planning Director has dictated that it be on the eastern side and we should deal with it on the eastern side and table and stake the heights. I am saying you review it the way it is presented then make a separate motion. Gideon: We need some direction. Charles: If I made a motion to table I would leave the latitude that a lowering, reconfiguration on the eastern site as well as an alternative location on the western site. Word the motion so that both alternatives are left for the applicant to restudy. If there are problems on the western site then he can go back to the eastern. Les: Conceptually it is too big on the eastern site and if there is a way for them to drop it down. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Special Meeting March 21, 1991 Gideon: In order to lower it we would have to drop the floor. The height of the building cannot be compressed. Georgeann: I need to see it staked. Don: I would agree on tabling. Bill: I would like to see the site staked and would recommend tabling. Georgeann: Possibly the berm should be a natural form and cover it with sage. Roxanne: In the motion you need to be very clear as to when the staking should occur etc. Bill: The berm is part of the open space. MOTION: Charles made the motion to continue the public hearing and to table action on the conceptual development application on the music/rehearsal hall facility portion until April 8, 1991- 2:00 p.m. to allow the applicant time to restudy the following: 1) Study lowering the height of both the mound and the structure to lessen the bulk and general impacts. 2) Study shifting the location and study reducing the size of the building on the easterly site to improve the view planes to and from the tent area. 3) Study residing the rehearsal hall facility to the westerly site. 4) Provide staking of the rehearsal hall and locations showing height and the perimeter of mound. its mound in both the building and 5) Recommend that the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council restudy and reconsider the siting of this facility. Don second the motion. Ail in favor, motion carries. Bill: This is a dual process and we are allowing them to go ahead. MOTION: Don made the motion that HPC endorse the applicants' to proceed with their application to the P&Z as a dual process with the HPC; second by Charles. Ail in favor, motion carries. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Special Meeting March 21, 1991 Roxanne: It will have to be staked in advance and then the Board would have to site visit at 2:00 p.m. MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn; second by Charles. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 9