Also from the SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION (November 5, 2009)
B. University of St. Thomas Student Center, 2115 Summit Avenue, Summit Avenue West Historic District – by OPUS, pre-application review for the construction of a 225,000 square feet Student Center at the northeast corner of Summit and Cretin (Spong, 266-6714).
Chair Manning recused himself from the discussion and Commissioner Igo took over position of chair. Commissioner Trimble left the meeting at this point, as well. Staff read a description of the property, the proposed changes, and preliminary findings. Staff began discussions by adding the setback information that had not been provided in time for the staff report. Aquinas Hall’s setbacks are 143 feet, and 108 feet to the bays. The proposed Anderson Student Center setbacks are 120 feet, and 109 feet to the bays. Aquinas Hall is 64 feet, 6 inches high, and the height of Anderson as proposed is 69 feet, 5 inches. Commissioner Trimble asked what was historically on the site before the existing parking lot. Staff was unsure, but they would research Sanborn maps to find out. Doug Hennes, with University of St. Thomas, spoke about the scope of the project, saying it is, at 210,000 square feet, the biggest project they have undertaken, and will rival the next-biggest building in size. It is important for the University and neighborhood because of its location, specifically in a historic district, and purpose. They have taken design issues relating to the historic fabric of the district into account when designing the building. Because of this, they feel that their plans are appropriate for the Summit Avenue West Historic District. Dan Dixon, of OPUS, then spoke. The building is very important for the campus as it will be the signature building that links the south and west campuses together; it is an iconic location. The design is compatible with Aquinas Hall and other historic buildings, but differentiated by use and function. The style is Neo-collegiate Gothic, add would add continuity along Summit Avenue. There are breathing spaces added into the design for rhythm, vocabulary, and to blend with existing buildings. Mr. Dixon addressed the height of the building; from the street it would not seem higher due to changes in elevation and slope. The diagonal sidewalks are to aid in traffic flow from the Summit & Cretin intersection to the main entrance. Materials, including Kasota stone, cast stone watertable and trim, pilasters, and clay tile roof, are coherent with existing buildings. There is less glass, fewer openings, than Aquinas Hall because of energy conservation (LEED), as well as because the difference in uses. Mr. Dixon stated that the building is in agreement with the guidelines, and it was clarified that the building is new construction and must comply with those guidelines.
The 106 Group reported that the design was compatible and complies with the principles of massing and scale. He also added that although the foot print is very large, it is not as obvious from street level. Although the height is higher than Aquinas, it is lower than Roach, and the changes will be not be “interruptible” from Summit Avenue. The zoning setback requirements are 100 feet, and Anderson Student Center will be 120 feet. The three projecting bays and main entry break up the massing of the building and the bays are consistent with those on Aquinas Hall. Mr. Dixon also addressed the landscape. WSNAC and other community neighborhood groups’ voices have impacted landscape plans. In order to encourage students to actually utilize the cross walks, the paving in between the boulevard and mid-block cross walks will be removed. The diagonal walk is in keeping with Finn & Summit walks that lead to Roach and McNeely. The court at the front entry has a plaza wall that is three feet at its tallest height, which will also aid in directing the flow of traffic to and from the crosswalks. There is a similar wall at McNeely. At this point, Mr. Dixon was interested in hearing feedback from the commissioners, so they opened discussion.
Commissioner Trout-Oertel was concerned that the uses along Cretin Avenue don’t lend themselves to the façade along Summit; she would like to see more fenestration and articulation on the Cretin façade. Mr. Dixon replied that the Cretin Avenue side is where most service doors, parking, recycling, cafeteria and kitchens are located, and windows aren’t necessary due to freezers and refrigerators on that wall. The four bays along Cretin project ten feet or more, which is hard to see in the pictures. There will be landscaping along Cretin and closer to the building to help break up the relatively-blank walls. Mr. Dixon added that the neighborhood committees shared Commissioner Trout-Oertel’s concerns in preliminary phases, and the landscaping has improved their opinions. He also added that the texture of the building is “beautiful on its own” and they didn’t want additional adornments to distract from that. Commissioner Carey asked if arched windows on the East main floor, on the recessed walls, could match closer to the main façade. Mr. Dixon reasserted that freezers are to be located along some of those walls, so windows are not necessary from a function standpoint. Commissioner Thomas said that because of scale, the roof line reads like a giant wall. Mr. Dixon replied that perspective helps, and that the bays, which are consistent with those on Aquinas, help break up the massing. Staff pointed out that the roofs on Aquinas and Roach both step down at the ends of the buildings, and that Anderson Student Center’s design is not consistent in that sense.
The applicant asked the HPC what direction they should take on the next steps. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to be completed in February of 2010; if an EIS is not required, then the applicants hope for a March 2010 formal HPC review and site plan review. O’Shaughnessy is slated for demolition in March 2010, as well; construction would start in April or May 2010, and be complete in June 2012. They are planning for an 18-20 month process. Greg Mathis with the 106 Group spoke about the cultural resource report portion of the EAW. They researched O’Shaughnessy Hall as part of phase I, as well as a survey of the area to determine the audio, visual, physical effects of the proposed project. Of 65 nearby properties, 22 are in the Summit Avenue West Historic District, seven are considered potentially eligible, and there are 36 new properties. O’Shaughnessy is not eligible under significant design or architect. The whole campus is also not eligible for National Register designation because the original campus plans were never completed as significantly as designed. The final EAW will be published on December 14, 2009, followed by a 30-day public review period. Mr. Mathis emphasized that the Anderson Student Center will have very little impact on the historic district since it is right on the edge of it, and that there is very limited visual impact. The bays that read with Aquinas mitigate changes of main masses with the building. He added that if the building were to be the exact same height as Aquinas, it would be read as monotonous. From the street-view, the scale would not be read as massive. Mr. Dixon added that the building has single-loaded functions. Commissioner Trout-Oertel said that she would be more comfortable lending direction if more commissioners were present to discuss the proposal. She added that this building is at the terminus of the Summit Avenue West District and not in the middle of, so it has less of an impact on the district as a whole. She added that the building is not insignificantly large, but has been handled well. Commissioner Igo countered Commissioner Trout-Oertel’s comment and said that he views the building to be the beginning of the district, the first glimpse of what to expect as you travel through it, and acts as an anchor point. Other commissioners echoed Commissioner Trout-Oertel’s feelings about being uneasy proceeding without more commissioners involved in the discussion. Commissioner Thomas said that the interior spaces become less accessible with the proposed design, because there are more edges to read along and not through. A parking lot is not an ideal use for the space, but the sense of being able to read through the campus is lost. Commissioner Carey replied that she hadn’t thought about it in that sense, but thought it was nice that an interior campus was created by the proposed building. She would also like to see more pictures of O’Shaughnessy Hall, especially if it is to be lost, as well as modifications to the design to create balance regarding the setback issues. Commissioner Igo also asked about O’Shaughnessy Hall. Staff replied that they have the opportunity to comment on it for the EAW; although it is not eligible for the National Register, it wasn’t surveyed for potential for local designation. Commissioner Carey asked why the historic district’s lines did not include the entire campus, rather than just a portion of it. Staff replied that at the time of the district’s creation, there was pressure not designate the whole campus.
Commissioner Igo asked for any more staff input. He asked if the west elevation needs more fenestration. Commissioner Trout-Oertel liked Commissioner Carey’s idea of a more articulated first level of the west elevation, to mimic that of the Summit Avenue elevation. Staff asked the commissioners to comment on any major issues to focus on, including massing, volume, and setbacks, adding that the guidelines state that setbacks are not to be more than 5% of surrounding contributing buildings. Staff also stated that, per the guidelines, college buildings, if taller, should have greater setbacks in comparison to contributing buildings. They are not to dwarf, minimize, or overshadow historic buildings. Commissioner Trout-Oertel clarified that the commissioners’ main concerns do relate to the 5% rule, setbacks, massing, and projections. Staff also brought up the massing of the Ashland Hotel on Ashland and Mackubin; they broke up the façade more to make up for the larger foot print. Commissioner Igo confirmed that the massing, site, and setback were their concerns and asked staff how to proceed, given the applicant’s tight timeline. It was proposed that a second pre-application review, primarily to discuss these concerns be set. Commissioner Carey asked if a committee could be formed to create opportunities for dialog, outside of a formal meeting, then asked how committees were formed. Staff replied that ad-hoc sub-committees can be appointed by the chair, but that public notice also needs to be taken into consideration when moving forward. It was decided that a continuation of the current pre-application review be added on the next HPC meeting agenda, November 19, to focus on the main concerns. Mr. Hennes asked if former HPC members could speak on the project’s behalf, as a former commissioner was influential in the McNeely Hall. Staff told him that he could testify, either in written form or speak on their behalf. Commissioner Trout-Oertel pointed out that she would like more commissioners to speak on it, not just specifically architects that sit on the Commission. Mr. Dixon asked if it would be beneficial for the commissioners to know what the interior uses will be, but Commissioners Trout-Oertel and Igo said that no, it was clear from the submitted drawings. Before the discussion was closed, the applicant submitted an old rendering of the original plans for the St. Thomas campus. The discussion was continued at the November 19 Public Hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment