Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.OSTB.20221027 MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on October 27, 2022 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ted Mahon, Howie Mallory, Ann Mullins, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Diane Foster, Nick Oliver , Brian Long, Ben Anderson Adoption of the Agenda: Ann added an agenda item: a motion for Board support for Ballot Issue 2B. Juliemoved to adopt the agenda; Ted seconded and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Assistant City Manager Diane Foster and Ben Anderson from Community Development introduced themselves; they were present as observers of the Theater Aspen discussion. Approval of the Minutes: Julie made a motion to approve the minutes; Ann seconded and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: Matt: The Maroon Creek Multi-Use Trail project is currently in phase 2 and on track to be built during summer 2023. Although this name is not formally adopted, staff refer to this as the “Maroon Bells Trail.” With the recent snow, 1k of Nordic trail has been groomed at the Moore ballfields. The Parks budget presented to City Council on Monday was well-received. Council did not request changes; Parks will proceed with this budget which will be adopted next month. Howie asked whether the Maroon Bells Trail was included in this budget; Matt explained that it was included and fully funded at $4 million (of which $500,000 is Pitkin County funds). Yesterday the BOCC approved the joint City-County open space purchase of the Moore Family Ranch property on McClain Flats Road (for which the City is contributing $1 million). Howie explained that this purchase involves about 260 total acres, including 95 acres purchased in fee and a conservation easement on 150 acres. A 42-acre parcel is yet to be finalized, pending family details that are being worked out. Julie asked for clarification of the parcel with existing buildings; Howie explained that there is a 5-acre parcel to the right of the existing buildings that can be developed. This is an important parcel that preserves a primary elk migration corridor and key view plane. Parks is currently transitioning its seasonal workforce from summer to winter. New Business: Dan made a motion asking the Board to support Ballot Isssue 2B. Howie seconded and the vote was unanimous. Old Business: Rio Grande Park and Theatre Aspen: Matt introduced Grant Blankston and Charles Cuniffe of Charles Cuniffe Architects and Alan Richman, Project Planner for Theatre Aspen. This discussion builds on the sketch plan review two months ago, a component of the land use application focused on codes pertinent to the application from a planning lens. In addition to what is covered in the sketch plan review and land use application, this project has several unique attributes: the site is a City of Aspen Parks property, there is an existing lease, and there will be a future lease. This is the first of several Board conversations on this topic, with the purpose of answering questions that are not necessarily covered in land and building codes and engineering requirements prior to Theatre Aspen’s approval to submit a land use application. City Council and the City Manager will look to this Board for recommendations. Mike then carried the presentation, emphasizing that the project is uniquely important and complex with regard to the building, but also with regard to expanded uses in a public park and associated ramifications. Discussions over the next 2-6 months will focus on what this project could mean for Parks, including feasibility, access, and an eventual lease. While Community Development, Building, and Engineering Departments will be managing their requirements through the land use application and building permit processes, this Board will use its expertise to focus on things that impact our parks, including themes of equity, park use, and public lands. Staff will ultimately look to this Board for a motion that provides a recommendation to City Council regarding this project. We will begin with a review of the applicant’s submitted initial design and proposal, which will be refined as it evolves. After this discussion the applicant will likely conduct feasibility and access studies and some design refinement will result from that. This Board will then develop some conditions of support, items that the Board would like to see considered as part of this proposal. A draft lease can be developing as discussions progress. It is important for the lease to be thorough and address future implications. Matt added a key understanding: because the City/Parks Department is the landowner, it is essentially also the applicant in many ways. Dan asked what specific feedback the staff is looking for today; Mike explained that staff seeks a Board motion to formalize a request for the applicant to provide a feasibility and access study. Today staff will provide the Board with information about the current design and seeks Board feedback on three areas: feasibility, access, and the lease. The sketch plan was presented on August 8, 2022 to a joint meeting of Planning & Zoning, City Council and the Open Space & Trails Board, and there was support for continuing the process. The applicant now seeks authorization to apply for a land use application, and as landowners, the City’s name will be on the application for that process. Howie asked for clarification of the “applicant.” Mike explained that Theatre Aspen is the applicant, however as landowners, the City will also be listed on the application. Howie asked for clarification of ownership of the theater building. Matt explained that the building is owned by Theatre Aspen and it is located on a leased area owned by the City of Aspen with a second 10-year lease extension. Howie asked whether Theatre Aspen could move their building elsewhere; Matt explained that they could move it and added that the current level of infrastructure is significantly less impactful and easier to move than the proposed permanent structure which would be much more difficult to remove. As an example of a similar situation, Matt described ownership of the Farm Collaborative’s permanent structures at Cozy Point Ranch, which would default to City of Aspen ownership if the Farm Collaborative ceases to operate. Default ownership should be included in the terms of the Theatre Aspen lease. This is hypothetical at this point, but it is an important point because a subsurface theater would have greater maintenance complexities than those of a tent. Mike brought the focus to feasibility concepts, including site considerations in light of the proposed use (groundwater, soil conditions, and other factors that would affect whether a building of this type can be successful at this location). Another feasibility consideration is the notion of what it means to expand the park. The applicant’s goal is to lower the building into a partially subterranean position and wrap the park over it. Related factors and impacts that would extend into the building’s surroundings include utilities work and associated easements, building routes, the construction plan, staging areas, other impacts. The building does not currently meet typical access requirements, for example there is no adjacent ADA parking; ADA guests are shuttled with golf carts. It is important to consider what access would look like with a permanent structure operating on an expanded, year-round schedule. From a public parks standpoint, additional feasibility items include increases in the leasable area and duration of the lease, public availability, and what type of revenue generation the applicant an expect to have from this project. What would these feasibility concepts mean for a beloved public park space like John Denver Sanctuary and Rio Grande Park? Mike then paused the presentation for questions and discussion. Ann commented that this is a very expensive project in a prominent location and asked what guarantees would be in place to assure that the project will be completed. Ann mentioned the need for assurance that the applicant can raise all needed funding and adhere to the plans, noting concern to avoid the City ending up with an incomplete project. Mike suggested that this could be a required performance criterion. Ben mentioned that this topic is typically discussed in the development agreement that comes after the approval and is part of the entitlements package that gets recorded. There are a couple required financial guarantees as part of every project; these relate to protection and preservation of the site if it would need to be temporarily secured or permanently returned to its previous condition. Specifically guaranteeing the construction and completion of a project is typically not required in development agreements, but this could be an interesting condition of approval that would be handled in the development agreement. Diane added that another option for handling this is in an agreement between the City and Theatre Aspen as co-applicants, noting that there will be things that the City will want to put in an agreement document ahead of time, pertaining to use, etc. This is another available tool based on the City’s role as property owner. If this is of interest to the Board, it can be included in the Board’s recommendation or as an informal request through Matt. Howie commented that the proposed 27,000 sq ft building would be built on a very constrained location, and that this project will cost a lot of money. He asked what the expected budget would be, adding that the Board should undoubtedly ask for a construction pot. We want assurances that there will be enough money for completion, including funds if it runs over budget. We don’t want to leave the City responsible for finishing the project; this project must go to completion if it happens. Mike added that these are important points, and if the Board wants to make them conditions of their recommendation, they should be included. Ann added that because the City owns the property, we need to be working toward building agreements if it is appropriate to do so at this stage. Mike explained that now is a good time to do so. He added that the site is a community- valued public park with historical and sustainability components; the proposed building should embrace these factors. Thoughts along these lines are important to include in the recommendation. Ann mentioned that this should become a model for this type of development. Reflecting on the Board site visit, Ted asked how much of the structure would be below the water table/river. Alan explained that very little of the structure would be below the water table and that floor level would be above the water table. The geotechnical work toward these details has not yet been conducted. Referring to illustrations of the green roof with people walking on it, Ted asked for clarification of how much of the roof would be walkable, noting some steep sides. Alan said that part, but not all, of the roof would be activated as part of the park; some retaining walls and other steep areas would not be active park areas. Noting added challenges of a building that has water on the top and bottom, Ted asked who would be responsible for long-term maintenance of the building and its roof. Alan mentioned that these factors are front and center in their plans and that they are aware of these challenges and planning needs. Mike added that these are the types of items that the Board would want to address well ahead of time, explaining that a maintenance agreement must spell out performance expectations if the green roof is truly an extension of the park, including who maintains it and to what level. He emphasized that this must be carefully thought out. Alan added that the plan would include an endowment that is significant enough to handle the building’s long-term maintenance. Mike continued the presentation on the topic of the lease. The existing lease was renewed in 2021 for a ten-year term; in addition to theater performances, it allows eight non-theater rentals per year. The lease is consistent with Ordinance 38 (2011) that approved the tent structure and the permanent lobby. Matt added that an additional 2022 Ordinance allows the tent walls and roof to remain up; Alan and his team, Parks, and Community Development worked on this ordinance. Mike showed a graphic overlay on an aerial image of the park to show primary and secondary lease boundaries as well as square footage numbers from the applicant’s submittal: the current structure is 8,000 sq. ft. with 199 seats on a primary lease boundary of 16,500 sq. ft. Matt explained the secondary lease boundary which includes the walkway at the edge of the water. Matt mentioned this reflects a change made in the lease renewal. It was added because the primary lease addressed simply the theater and performances; over the past five years Theatre Aspen has increased use of the patio space as an event venue. Parks staff worked with Jed Bernstein (Producing Director) and his team at Theatre Aspen to set mutually agreeable limits to how many events they could have related to this space. Howie asked for clarification of the 4,940 sq ft tent structure as stated in the memo. Matt clarified that the existing tent is about 4,940 and the existing covered lobby is about 2,000 sq ft. The new building would be 27,521 sq. ft. Julie asked if the number of non-theater rentals would change with the proposed project. Mike said that the Board needs to consider this, and that this question is related to a current topic Parks is working on, that of approaches to special events in the parks. The question in this case is what non-theater-related use is appropriate for this space? Does Parks want to temper non- theater events with Parks and community use, and limit the number of these events? Julie asked how Parks arrived at the current eight allowed non-theater rentals. Matt said this was determined collaboratively with Theatre Aspen; Parks understands that these opportunities for revenue are important for this local non-profit outside of performance season. Mike presented the same aerial image with graphics from the applicant as an overlay. Building footprint is 27,521 total sq. ft. beyond the building itself if proposed disturbance area is 36,550 sq. ft. Total building square footage increases from 8,000 to 27,500 and number of seats increases from 199 to 276 seats. He highlighted the existing program and proposed program. Mike suggested pondering whether this is the right area of disturbance. Adjacent to the theater there are riparian areas, man-made water corridors, and existing trees that this limit of disturbance will impact in the .585-acre area of disturbance. Ann asked for clarification of the area of disturbance between Mike’s two aerial views; Mike explained that these are not technical drawings and that one of the views is an oblique view. Julie commented that the disturbance area is a large area and shared her concern about what areas surrounding the theater will look after construction. Mike explained that anything that is impacted it will be restored. The limit of disturbance outlined in orange shows what will be the edges of the mound. Ted commented that there will ultimately be more park space that there currently is, but it is a huge disturbance and is in the middle of a large wetland. Charles mentioned that the idea is to make it better than it is today, but it is a disturbance process to get there. Howie asked about staging from the recycling lot and how access between these sites will work. Matt clarified that the recycling center could be a staging area, if that becomes the decision; this is the closest option. Alan mentioned that the power plant was suggested as an alternative possibility at the work session. He added that there is no application or proposal at this point. Howie posed the thought that this site might require building a temporary bridge to provide access between staging and the theater site. Mike mentioned that Howie’s point brings up the fact that this building has to be built in this location and that accessibility is about as difficult as it can get. We must consider what our tolerance is not only for the disturbance but also for the impacts, such as trucks coming from Mill Street running along the multi-use access trail for one or two years while this space is serving as a park. This falls under the umbrella of the access theme. Charles mentioned that plans are fluid during this formulation stage and that the team needs to hear from this Board to help identify design parameters that are inviolate or of paramount importance. The applicant team has a clear concept, but access and transportation plans, etc. are yet to be developed. Howie asked if the team has established a compelling reason for doing this project and how this work falls into Theatre Aspen’s long range business plan. Alan cited programming, financial, and other needs, and added that this work should have begun years ago. Howie asked if the intent is to change from seasonal to year-round operations. Alan explained that the goal is expanded seasonal operations to accommodate certain shows during the holidays that are difficult to stage at the Jerome, Black Box, and District theaters. Howie mentioned the MAA’s struggle with its winter program potential as an example. Alan added that Theatre Aspen’s program is primarily focused on the summer: presently there are 60-65 days of active use, and 65-70 days of active use are proposed. The current winter cabaret format program staged at the Jerome is desired to be held in the proposed facility. The proposal involves 10-15 days of active use during holidays and 15-20 days of active use during the rest of the winter. Alan mentioned that City Council and the boards at the work session expressed desire for this to be a community facility. Theatre Aspen looks to partner with other non-profits to make it more of a year-round experience, but Theatre Aspen itself is not looking for a 365-day-a-year presentation schedule. If there is additional use, it will be that of other non-profits joining in with winter or fall programs. Theater Aspen has a robust program in community schools and the idea is for that the happen at this facility. Dan expressed his feeling that it is likely wishful thinking to see the green roof space as an expansion of useable park space, given the 45-degree slopes. Charles mentioned that some of the green roof would be actively useable and some of it would be passive, but it would be more park than exists today because the area consumed by parking, the service area, trailers, and the tent itself will become green space. Far less of the building will protrude from the ground, providing more passive and active green space. Ann asked if the disturbance area would block any current access ways into the John Denver Sanctuary, and if so, whether temporary realignment is possible. Mike explained that the path just upslope of the pumphouse would be impacted; potential for realignment of this trail is TBD. Ann suggested monitoring for historical artifacts during construction, given the site’s industrial railroad history. Alan mentioned that more of the building could be exposed to reduce breadth and steepness of slopes as well as the impact area if that is of interest to Parks and this Board. Matt segued the discussion to the notion of park green roof and active/passive spaces, citing the Lift One Park site where park space will be replaced by a green roof; while it has the outward appearance of a park, it is ultimately still a roof and this is important from a maintenance standpoint when repairs necessitate scraping everything that was planted to do repairs and or/deal with roof lifetime factors. Matt said that this Board’s conversation is needed to help determine whether the design target is all park space or a combination of park space and exposed building with less complex construction. This input is part of moving from high level design to something more refined and ensuring that your desires and visions are carried forward in this project. Mike shared basic information on green roofs: extensive green roofs have thin soil and are lightweight, while intensive green roofs (with gardens, parks, trees) have deep soil and are heavy. Mike showed images of example green roofs around the country, in some cases with shrubs and trees. The proposed green roof is more on the intensive end of the spectrum. Charles mentioned that they would accommodate some trees into the roof structure. Mike explained that the proposed green roof, while it is conceptual, shows a heavy, intensive green roof; there will be parts of the roof that are visual and other parts that are accessible. Mike said that Parks would like to see a loading capacity study for the proposed green roof. He described the green roof over the Rio Grande Parking Garage as an example, where the lightweight growing medium is 8” thick and it is difficult to get grass to grow there. Considering what it would take to achieve a look that we may or may not want is an important consideration. The applicant team would like to hear what thresholds this Board is comfortable with. Charles added that the Police Station roof is a better example: the growing medium is more dense and some trees are growing. Howie commented that it is extremely hard to visualize this; story poles showing the elevations could be very valuable. Matt explained that one could imagine the current tent structure buried in soil; that is roughly the same peak height elevation. Where considerable fill would happen is in the rose garden area. Matt asked Ben when story poles typically come into play; Ben said that story poles would be part of an enhanced public outreach effort; it is not required by land use code but it could be an expectation of the Planning Department review. Ann referred to the renderings, commenting that the aggressive slopes required to achieve this are very much out of synch with the rest of the surroundings, and that the mound could be higher than a fully visible building. She suggested considering having more of the building visible to allow for a gentler landscape similar to the existing, surrounding slopes. Charles explained that the steepest section is on the service entrance side; on the other side the slope is intended to be the same as that of the Sanctuary amphitheater, creating a continuation of the amphitheater. Ann commented that one of the goals of this group is to ask that slopes should be similar to those that already exist in the park, whether slope percentage or circumference of the mound. Howie asked if it would be possible to make a scale model. Julie commented that scale models are very helpful. She indicated that the proposed design is intriguing but that she struggles with the disturbance of the area and to have this facility next to the sign for John Denver Sanctuary just doesn’t work for her. Julie expressed that to disrupt such a popular space is difficult for her. She expressed seeing more and more large buildings are starting to close in on our valley. She asked if this is the best place to put this facility and whether it is appropriate for a two-story building to be right there up against the river. Charles explained that it would not be taller than what is there now; imagine the tent as a green mound. Julie said that the look and feel of the existing tent is very different from a mound structure, and that while she appreciates Theatre Aspen, Julie expressed that she is compelled to share her feelings on this. Charles explained that if a design more similar to Harris Hall is more appealing, the amount of mounding could be reduced and more of the structure could be visible. Julie said that cleaning up the trailers, etc. would be desirable, but that the construction part is scary. Ted commented that the construction part is the greater concern; the process to get there is going to be challenging for the community. Dan asked where we are in the duration of the presentation; these thoughts can be brought together near the end of the discussion. Mike said the presentation is wrapping up and showed two final examples of green roof designs. Mike added that exploration of green roof design and degree of mounding will be part of this process. Ann asked how long the construction period is expected to be; Charles said it would be two years. Ann asked for confirmation that if the building is not quite as mounded, the area of disturbance would be reduced. Charles confirmed that. Ann expressed the importance of looking into this possibility since the goal is not necessarily to hide the facility. Matt asked for clarification on whether Ann’s suggestion was that the Board should contemplate strategies to reduce construction complexity and timing or if it is strictly a conversation on reducing the area of disturbance. Ann explained that it is both reducing the disturbance area and making sure that the final project building landscape blend well with the existing park. Julie commented that the sketches of the mound show a very modernized look. Right now, the site has a very natural look, even with the existing temporary/tent structure. Alan commented that all of the natural-looking surroundings are man-made and that the historical setting was a rail yard; this shows what is possible to achieve with careful design as Parks did in creating the Sanctuary. Charles explained that one way to look at the proposed concept is to imagine what is there now, push it into the ground and bring the ground up over it. Mike mentioned that it is important to take care in using the term “natural,” adding that Julie’s comment speaks to the look of the John Denver Sanctuary and that is key: while it is a constructed landscape, it is highly functional and serves strong social and cultural purposes and is a recreational component for our community. He commented that Julie’s comments express not wanting to compromise or loose that; it is not a matter of natural versus manmade, rather it is the way the space looks and works. Mike summarized that the expressed direction is that of getting the look of the proposed concept to better match with the existing look and feel of the park space. Dan expressed that while he prefers a fully green roof, his concern is that this cannot be accomplished. He cited the Bellevue Youth Theater example, which he prefers over seeing a building. He expressed feeling torn because of his concern for the potential of the green building to have the appearance of a “green volcano.” Alan commented that his team could look at sinking the building further to make it look more gentle. Dan said he is inclined to consider an option involving less disturbance because he is concerned about whether this approach is realistic to accomplish. Charles said that his team could provide graphics showing both options. Dan suggested that the design team could convince the Board that the mound could be green, useable space. Howie commented that harmony with the existing landscape is missing with this plan; it involves an unnatural change of size and scale. The Sanctuary is a river corridor, and it feels like one even though it is artificial. Howie commented that this plan looks like “a dump with grass over the top of it.” Howie said that he likes the green aspect, but the size and scale needs to be reduced to flow better with the surrounding; and if it reduces the impacts by three years, that is significant. The community is exhausted by construction. This needs to have natural harmony with the riparian setting so it feels like it belongs there as opposed to feeling contrived. Ann commented that she would like to make sure tonight’s motion includes the completion guarantee idea mentioned earlier this evening by Diane. Matt said that tonight’s motion is much higher level, focusing on initial design cues; completion guarantee ideas will be included in a future discussion. Mike added more information on two types of access, the first being construction access as it applies to things like utilities that happen outside of the site. These factors can be approached either by a combined access route on the multi-use trail where the community would have to bear the brunt of the activities during construction, or another approach option is to ask the applicant to build an alternate route that would provide a separate trail for park users. Yet another access consideration is that of maintenance and operations after construction is complete and the facility is operational, including daily deliveries, maintenance, and the activity of a greater number of theater attendees and performances. Dan asked the Board for summarizing thoughts toward creating a motion. Julie commented that there is no parking for the theater and that the number of attendees will increase by 100 for each performance. Alan explained that parking is available in the garage and that public transit exists; there is no plan to make more parking for the facility. Julie shared the experience of a friend’s wedding in the Sanctuary where parking for vendor vehicles was a challenge; food/beverage box trucks serving the site have nowhere to go other than the Chamber parking lot. Alan mentioned that the Theatre has not needed to use the Chamber parking lot, rather they have used the multi-use trail from Mill Street which is also designed for use by fire trucks. The current dirt service yard would be replaced with an entry way with room for a few trucks to park. Matt added that ensuring that adequate areas for staging deliveries and service vehicles is considered in the design. Julie expressed that the limited service access that presently exists suits the quantity of events that currently happen there; but if the site becomes a big community space in addition to Theatre Aspen, service access will be very limited regardless of how much planning is done. Matt commented that this Board needs to consider access within Rio Grande Park, such as the route for deliveries and services to enter and exit the park. Matt explained that in drafting the motion pertaining to access studies, it should address whether to use multi-use trails as primary means of ingress and egress or to propose alternatives that are separate from the multi-use trails. Ted asked what the alternative options would be. Alan mentioned that the design team envisions Mill Street as the only access point; they would like to stop using the trail coming off of Rio Grande Place except for attendee shuttle vehicles. Howie expressed concern that after completion, the 27,000 sq. ft. building and its required vehicular access for services and maintenance could be a negative factor to the greater park experience; it would be a failure if this became a problem. Charles mentioned that the team anticipates less vehicular traffic because the new facility would have space for set-building and other activities that currently take place off site and thus require truck delivery. Alan added that the focus should not be on the 27,000 sq. ft. area; instead, it is more about the increased auditorium space and seating. Howie commented that the proposal is a huge, submerged industrial structure that requires a lot more maintenance than the current building. Charles added that about 25% of the building is the active part that the public interacts with; the support spaces replace the dirt parking/service area and trailers. The majority of the proposed building will replace that outdoor support area, while the theater footprint itself is 6,750 sq. ft. The active part of the building is about the same size as the active part of the current building, and the service area and trailer services would hidden inside the building. Howie commented that the team should be able to build some models, given the project’s $35 million budget. Charles said that the team needs to know what they will be building, with this Board’s input. He added that the initial building process of the existing theater structure would have benefitted from presenting a model to the public at that time. Howie said that the team should look at a lens of how to make it harmonious and then be able to sell the concept to the public. Ann commented that she supports access coming off Mill Street and not coming down the path from Rio Grande Place; she would not support building an alternative access route. Ann expressed support for the project, acknowledging that the operational square footage will include the current outdoor service space that is not attractive, however she wants to make sure it is harmonious with the rest of the park. In looking at design images, some of the slopes look too acute. Dan commented that feedback from the initial joint meeting indicating support for the project as described by Mike was not quite the same as his interpretation of the level of support expressed. Dan shared that his takeaway was that if the construction could be skipped, the new theater would be phenomenal. Dan said he is confident that it is possible to work out details such as degree of exposed building, etc.; rather his concerns are on a deeper level, looking at the large environmental impacts of the project. He described it as a classic “Aspen project,” to build a world class theater between the water table and the roof peak. The intensity of the project is a big hurdle for Dan. He expressed that in terms of public access to the amenity, this feels like privatization of a public space with the associated incentive to recoup the $35 million cost. He commented that the mission of Theatre Aspen is not to bring theater to the masses or to make it affordable, it is to provide world-class theater. He expressed concerns about making this prized public possession private and exclusive. His third concern is the burden on the Parks Deptartment, regardless of how a lease is structured. If there is even a remote possibility of the City inheriting a $35 million building, that is highly problematic. For Dan, these hurdles seem to offset the value that this theater adds. He expressed being willing to support a motion to get more information. The added that this is the center of one of our most prized parks and might not be the best place for this project. Howie asked if the Recycling Center space could be a possible alternative site for the theater. Matt explained that Parks has considered that, and that they are treating this situation as a right of first refusal, which has not always been Parks’ approach. Matt added that Alan’s sketch plan review reflects a lot of collaboration, intent and purpose and is aligned with the art park concept that originally unfolded with John Denver Sanctuary. We are currently at iteration #3 of what has happened at the site; this proposal is iteration #4. At a staff level, Parks has considered the question of location. Theatre Aspen values this site which is a beautiful place for hosting their programs. Whether this site is the appropriate site is beyond the scope of today’s discussion, but Parks is willing to welcome that discussion. Charles added that Theatre Aspen’s board considered other sites, but the board is unanimously supportive of this site and is not interested in other locations. Charles mentioned the synergy associated with the decision to locate the John Denver Sanctuary at this site. Ann asked about considering a smaller building with lower costs and impacts. Charles said that the team has considered reductions in size and that the proposed building is smaller than originally conceived. The greater seating, height, and size of the theater is needed to provide space for the productions Theatre Aspen wants to do. Part of the impetus for this project is the feeling of being hampered by the space considering the type of venue Theatre Aspen wants to be. Ann suggested that in looking at more above ground space to reduce the slopes and berms, could less overall square footage also be considered? Howie asked about changes in staffing requirements from an operational standpoint. Charles said there would be no changes other than adding a building manager. Alan said there are currently 12 full-time staff and that could increase to 15. Howie commented about housing as a potential challenge for additional staff; Alan mentioned that housing would be addressed in their plan. Dan summarized that the tenor of the conversation is clear in terms of the concerns of this Board. He said that the Board can ask for a feasibility and access study, and if the Theatre Aspen team decides to move forward with that in light of the feelings expressed today, that is reasonable. Dan asked for a motion. Howie said that there were many design refinement comments today and that Dan made some important non-design comments that are of equal value. He suggested that the team could come back with how they would deal with some of the design comments and provide some feasibility and access studies. Julie expressed that continued design refinement seems a little light, and that she would like the team to present a design. Ann said that design refinement doesn’t seem to capture tonight’s discussion; the discussion could read as “going forward with what you’ve got,” but we’ve been talking about looking at alternatives or significant changes to the design. Howie suggested asking for a model. Mike asked Ben how the model request should work. Ben commented that there are things that can be asked of the applicant including a model, but he sees this as a request of this Board to the project team toward the effort of making its initial decisions. Howie asked for clarification on whether the Board can ask for a model; Ben said yes, a model can be requested. Matt added that concepts could be presented prior to building a model, and a model could be created once there is a preferred concept; the model could be a final proof of concept. Julie asked if 3-D images could be made. Charles said that additional 3-D images will be made. Ann made a motion recommending that the applicant present alternative designs or refinements of existing designs that include landscape studies for access and feasibility. Julie seconded and the vote was unanimous. Board Comments: Julie: complimented Parks on the new signage at John Denver Sanctuary. Ted: None. Howie: mentioned the County’s gratitude to the City for its contribution toward making the Moore Ranch acquisition happen. He also asked how Parks protects its fruit trees from bears, citing the broken trees behind the Red Brick Center. Matt mentioned there is very little they can do other than structural pruning and replacing fruit trees with non-fruit-bearing trees. Parks is interested in preserving existing fruit trees while acknowledging the challenges that bears present. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting November 17, 2022. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Julie made a motion to adjourn; Ted seconded and the vote was unanimous.