Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20201118REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18TH, 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Sherri Sanzone, Gretchen Greenwood. Commissioners not in attendance: Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jim True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone stated that she has a conflict with the second agenda item 211 West Hopkins. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon stated that there has been a lot of project monitoring happening and she has been in direct communication with the monitors. Ms. Yoon stated that she will be reaching out to her monitors with details on a project. NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: 500 W. Main Street- Final Major Development. John Rowland and Dana Ellis of Rowland + Broughton. Mr. Rowland stated that there was concern at the last meeting about the proportion in relation to the front covered porch. Mr. Rowland showed a rendering of the new proposed porch with added articulation. He pointed out that the deck has a tiered element to break up the visual of a large bulkhead. Mr. Rowland said while walking through the West End studying the porches and what makes them stick out, it was the dentil veil that sits up under the covered patio. Mr. Rowland stated that the new plan has lowered the building by a foot. He said that the front patio window will be a simple frame and no-frill, he added that all the windows will be stained wood. Ms. Ellis stated that they change the plan of a heavy band around the profile of the gable to an articulation of steps in the profile with a more traditional gable treatment. She further explained that the new plan gives a shadow line to the front façade otherwise reading as very contemporary. Ms. Ellis said that in the landscaping plan the lilac bushes that sit along the property line were given a great focus for preservation and they also create a nice buffer between properties. Ms. Ellis stated that they will be adding trees along the same property line to create a screening element. Mr. Rowland pointed out that the lilac bushes do not sit on the 500 W. Main property, they sit on the next-door neighbor’s property. He further stated that the neighbors have voiced concern about protecting the lilacs at all costs. Ms. Ellis stated that there will be a stone walkway and patio to the front of the building. She explained the stone would be a cut face large format light gray. Ms. Ellis stated that on the second floor there are two green roof elements to help with the flat roof option and to help bring back the natural feel of the space while relating to the landscape of the neighboring property. She explained that the plants that will be in the green elements will be low maintenance, low water-dependent concerning water restrictions. Ms. Ellis REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18TH, 2020 stated that they will be adding two dogwood trees into planters to help break up the visual to the alley. She said that the stepping stones that go along the side of the building will help create a pedestrian buffer between the Mesa store and the proposed building. Ms. Ellis stated that the large tree that sits on the street will remain in the public right away. Mr. Rowland reviewed the materials that will be used. He explained that the siding will be a wood lap that can be painted white, the wood windows and front door will be stained, the columns will be gray painted metal matching the roof, and finally, the stone walkway will connect to the entry in a cut stone. Ms. Ellis said that they are proposing a simple wall sconce that will be next to the front door and flanking the garage doors in the back and will be a simple downlight. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated at conceptual review a standard waived from the residential design that dealt with the building mass, building articulation requires a break in the sidewalls of the project within 50-feet of the front. She said that there are no dimensional variances involved in the project. She explained that HPC is reviewing landscaping, lighting, and materials for final review. Ms. Simon stated that the applicant was successful in addressing the board's concerns about the heaviness of the front of the project. Ms. Simon said that staff is recommending approval with conditions. She said that the proposed decking of the porch is stone and normally in the historic district they would see wood decks and listed this as a discussion to review with staff and monitor. A second condition Ms. Simon listed is to review the lighting plan to ensure it meets the code. The final condition is vested rights for three years from the time of approval. Ms. Sanzone asked the applicant where the dry well is located. Ms. Ellis stated that the dry well is located at the Mesa Store parking area. PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Fornell. Mr. Fornell stated if an applicant requested and was granted an addition of 2000 square feet for a project the Building Department would be reviewing the approvals and building before, during, and after. Mr. Fornell explained that he has seen four different references to the size of the Mesa Store building. Mr. Fornell further explained that in an early application the size is 6000 square feet, county records call it 4500 square feet, in the 2018 application, it calls it 4417 square feet, and finally, the approval document calls it 3451 square feet. Mr. Fornell stated that he has had multiple conversations with Mr. True the City Attorney and said that this should be a matter for Referendum One. He said the only one that would not be subjected to Referendum One is the 3451 square foot. Mr. Fornell stated that he has asked multiple times where did this final number come from and no response from staff. He said if the number is not coming from the Building Dept. then HPC does not really know the size of this building. Mr. Fornell said that this is backwards, and the approvals of extra square footage should not be granted until the building size is known. He stated that he will take this issue as far as he needs to so the public domain and Building Dept. gets an accurate measurement. Mr. Fornell said that this could be a matter for City of Aspen voters. Mr. Fornell reiterated his question of where did the 3451 square feet come from. He stated that he has never seen in his 40 years of being in Aspen that a board take an opinion from an applicant of size and scope of a project that was not verified by City staff. Mr. Fornell stated that this discussion needs to be put on hold until the size of the Mesa building is confirmed and if it should go to the voters. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18TH, 2020 Mr. True stated that he has responded to everything Mr. Fornell just stated in a memo. He explained that this is not the venue for this discussion, that this is between City Council and Mr. Fornell. Mr. True said he gave a detailed analysis of every question he asked. Ms. Greenwood stated that this is not the place to hash this out. She said when HPC gets an application there is a level of expectation and assumption that the project was vetted completely. Ms. Greenwood stated that this not in HPC’s purview to get into these kinds of details. Mr. Fornell restated his stance that the 3415 square foot did not come from the Building Dept. Mr. True stated that this is incorrect and pointed out in the memo he sent to Mr. Fornell and referenced footnote one and that it explains. He restated that this is not the proper venue to discuss this matter. Ms. Greenwood stated that HPC receives projects that have been vetted and the board does not comment on disputes. Amos Underwood. Mr. Underwood wanted to make sure his letter was attached to the agenda. Ms. Simon stated his letter was distributed to the board outside the October 28th agenda since the agenda was already sent out when the letter was received. She summarized the letter. Mr. Underwood summarized his letter. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon about the statement she made saying that the building depth is no longer an issue. Ms. Simon stated that at conceptual review the board discussed the massing and reviewed requests for variances from the residential design standards. She explained that HPC required the applicant to restudy so they could meet garages and one story element. A variation was granted for building articulation. She further explained that the applicant showed massing models of the reduction to the upper floor and the back of the site and that this was more meaningful and HPC expected this. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION: Ms. Greenwood stated that she likes the details and added articulation to the deck and that this has made a huge impact on the massing. She said it is appreciated when an applicant listens to the board and returns with thoughtful solutions. Ms. Greenwood stated that she appreciates the gray stone walkway and for a modern building it is perfect and does not need to be reviewed. She said the stone walkway tells the same story as a historic walkway but in a modern fashion and the materials work great with the building. Ms. Greenwood stated that she is in favor of moving this project forward. Mr. Kendrick stated he likes the changes made to the building and that they were nicely done. He said the combination of lowering the height by a foot, the single window on the front façade, and the articulation on the deck area makes it feel smaller in scale and mass and giving it more of a cottage feel. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18TH, 2020 Ms. Sanzone stated that she agrees with Ms. Greenwood and Mr. Kendrick’s comments. She said the applicant has done a great job taking and applying HPC’s comments and resolving the design issues. Ms. Thompson stated this is a significant improvement from what was presented from last time. She said that in the drawing it noted the gray walkway as concrete but in the rendering, it is shown as stone. Ms. Thompson stated that the walkway should stay in as a condition with staff and monitor. Ms. Greenwood stated that the walkway should be natural stone. Mr. Moyer stated that he is ok with the stone walkway, the deck is much better, the porch is much simpler, and the reduction in mass is great. Mr. Moyer said if the applicant uses a composite material with no overhangs the structure should not sit on the ground. He explained the material will decompose and rot. He said one way to avoid this for a few years would be to paint both sides and ends. Mr. Halferty stated he appreciates the applicant’s response to the directions given. He said the articulation was well executed. He said the issue with the square footage and the neighbor puts the applicant at risk along with City staff. Mr. Halferty stated that the lighting plan was done well, and he is fine with either stone or concrete for the walkway. He said that the lilac bushes should be under staff and monitor. Ms. Greenwood stated that there is nothing in the conditions about the lilac bushes and that they are hard to build around. She asked if this issue should be taken further or left in the hands of the applicant. Ms. Simon stated that the lilac bushes are indicated on the site plan as being preserved. Ms. Sanzone stated that adding language around a preservation plan to protect the lilacs would make her feel a bit more comfortable. Ms. Greenwood stated that condition #4 will be to add language around a preservation plan to protect the lilacs. Ms. Greenwood motioned to approve Resolution #025-2020 with added conditions. Ms. Thompson seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Sanzone left the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue– AspenModern Historic Designation, Conceptual Major Development Review including Relocation, Variations. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that the project was near approval on October 28th however the board agreed with staff that a restudy needed to be done on the north façade of the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18TH, 2020 proposed new building. Ms. Simon reviewed the application that was present at the October 28th meeting. Ms. Simon stated at the time the November 18th packet was written staff felt that not enough restudy was done in reference to the north façade. She explained that the applicant submitted more options of the restudy at a later date. Ms. Simon stated that she will outline staff’s recommendations and would like to see this project move forward. Ms. Simon reviewed and read the condition attached to the resolution. Ms. Simon stated the staff is recommending approval. Ms. Simon said that the applicant will be presenting two other alternatives that change the orientation of the roofline that brings it down to a low eave behind the Pan Abode. APPLICANT COMMENTS: Sara Adams with BendonAdams and John Rowland of Rowland + Broughton. Ms. Adams stated that the feedback that was given on the Oct. 28th meeting was great. She said that nothing has changed from the AspenModern request or the restoration plan. Ms. Adams stated that her team focused on the north elevation and the feedback that was given. She explained that HPC felt that the elevation was too flat and domineering and needed to add depth and breaking down the mass of the new addition. Ms. Adams stated that she will be presenting four different options that address the north elevation. The first option Ms. Adams showed kept the street-facing shallow gable with an add on of a 20inch eave that matches the Pan Abode. She explained that the team has pulled in more reference material to the new addition with the vertical seams and a breakdown of the siding with different size wood siding. Ms. Adams stated that they wanted to relate form and material to the Pan Abode however wanted to be a bit more playful with the windows. She said that the entrance under the gable has not changed much under any of the options. Ms. Adams stated that option two has an asymmetrical shallow roof, the windows and materials are the same as option one. Option three shows the north façade turned to line up with the Pan Abode. She pointed out the added dormer that relates to the entrance to the Pan Abode. Ms. Adams stated in option four, is like option three with the north facade turned to line up with the Pan Abode however, there is no dormer and is just a simple roofline. Ms. Adams said that the fence that raised some concern was lowered to two and a half feet and spaced boards to create more transparency. Mr. Rowland stated the rotated ridge options that go parallel to the Pan Abode don’t change the operations of the house but are not as playful as the first two options. Ms. Adams stated that they would like to add language to the condition that states otherwise negotiated with the Parks Dept. and Engineering Dept. She explained the conditions seem to be too finite, and that is not the intent of staff or the referral departments. Ms. Adams stated that they plan on working with Parks and Engineering Dept for their approvals along the way and stay in constant communication. Mr. Kendrick asked if there is any room to lower the overall height. Mr. Rowland explained if lowered there would be an additional cost to the mechanical system and applicant. Ms. Adams said the Pan Abode is so small that anything behind it will feel big. She further said that with the two large trees in the front yard that will be preserved, and the addition will fit in nicely behind the frame. Mr. Halferty asked staff which roof line they prefer. Ms. Simon stated that option three or four with lower eave height is more sympathetic. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18TH, 2020 PUBLIC COMMENT: David Scruggs neighbor. Mr. Scruggs thanked Ms. Simon for answering all of his questions that he had sent her and commended the applicant team for being responsive. He stated that the Pan Abode is twelve feet tall and is a product of the 40’s & 50’s and would be pretty difficult to live in by today’s standards without a modern addition. Mr. Scruggs stated that he is in favor of option one. He explained the eves and gable compliment the Pan Abode along with the simplicity of the form. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson said that the fenestration changes are great and definitely add a bit of playfulness to the different structures. She said she is torn between the options and that she likes them all. Ms. Greenwood agreed with Ms. Thompson about the fenestration changes. Ms. Greenwood stated that she likes option four the most. She explained that option four is the most sympathetic and best solution to simplifying the addition. Ms. Greenwood said when you compare to option one, option one has two different roof pitches and is much more complicated. She stated when HPC discusses Victorian homes with additions, the gable will always face the same way as the historic resource does and that same theme should follow with the Pan Abode. Ms. Greenwood said that she agrees with the materials and articulations. Mr. Kendrick said that he agrees with staff that option three and four do bring the massing down however option one and two work better architecturally. He stated that he likes the fenestration and overall details that have been added. He said he is willing to move forward with option one or two. Ms. Greenwood asked Mr. Kendrick if he thinks the roofline of options one and two are a bit busy after reviewing options three and four. Mr. Kendrick stated he does not think so. Mr. Halferty stated that it is tough when you have a small Pan Abode and adding a large addition. He said he appreciates the fence redesign. He said he agrees with Ms. Greenwood that it does get busy. Ms. Thompson stated that the elegant sloping roofline of option four of the addition against the Pan Abode is a success and clean. Ms. Greenwood stated that she likes that the chimney of the Pan Abode and the new addition is on the same side. She said it tells a similar story. Ms. Thompson agrees and said it was very playful and sympathetic. Mr. Halferty stated that the plate height is too tall. Ms. Greenwood asked if the plate height is the same for each option. Mr. Rowland stated that the plate height does not change in any option. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18TH, 2020 Mr. Moyer stated that this is a tough decision since the Pan Abode is 12 feet tall. He suggested a way around the height problem is to raise the Pan Abode a few feet with the foundation. He said that he would support a plate height reduction on the second floor. Mr. Moyer stated he likes option 3. He explained he likes the playfulness of the dormer. He said he could go with option 4 as well. Ms. Greenwood stated that you don’t see dormers on a Pan Abode redo concept. She said that the dormer is not successful. Ms. Greenwood said that you can’t tell what is old versus new with option four. She explained that option four follows the design idea into the future quietly especially from the street. Mr. Moyer restated that he is fine with option four. Mr. Kendrick stated that he prefers option four to option three, he explained that the dormer makes it too symmetrical between the three peaks of the entry of the Pan Abode, the dormer, and the new addition. Mr. Kendrick said that option four almost blends in too much to the Pan Abode and if HPC is looking for a product of its own time, option one or two delivers. Ms. Thompson stated that the simplistic detailing on the new addition will be very clear and the difference will be highlighted while complementing. Ms. Thompson said that she could have been on board with the dormer if it was on the entrance to the new addition and more of a direct relation to the Pan Abode, however since it is a simple window there is no real relation and cannot support. Ms. Greenwood asked if the chimney on the new addition sits above the ridgeline as the Pan Abode does. Mr. Rowland said no the chimney will not sit on the ridgeline. He said that the chimney might look a bit short but the Pan Abode set a precedent. Ms. Thompson stated that she understands the concern about the plate height. She explained that it is extremely changing to add a two-story resource behind a one-story and not knowing that the addition is behind it. She stated that she is ok with the plate height. Ms. Greenwood stated that she is ok with plate height. She explained that if there was a reduction of any sort, that is should be on the 8:12 pitch over the entry. Ms. Greenwood said that she has no objections to the 4:12 pitch plate height. Ms. Greenwood stated that Ms. Thompson, Mr. Moyer, and herself agree with option four. She asked Mr. Halferty and Mr. Kendrick where is their thinking. Mr. Halferty stated that it is between option four and one. He explained he is always looking for a lower plate height on new additions. Mr. Kendrick stated that he is between options one and four and leaning towards one. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18TH, 2020 Ms. Greenwood stated that HPC agrees that this project should move forward. Ms. Simon said that unanimous consent would be very helpful. Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #025-2020 with attached conditions and option four, for the roof form. Ms. Greenwood stated that they did not ask the architects which option they preferred. Ms. Adams stated they preferred option one and so does the neighbor. Ms. Greenwood seconded the motion. Ms. Greenwood stated that option one and four are the best. She said that she is in total agreement with staff about option four. Mr. Kendrick asked if the applicant could state which option, he would prefer for him and his family. Matt Joblon owner. Mr. Joblon stated that his goals are to get an incredible home built that is long-lasting and sets a new standard with HPC. He said that the reality is if it is option one or four, it won’t change his family’s life. Mr. Joblon stated that he is excited to get this job done and would like for HPC to be proud to be coauthors of this world-class project with unanimous consent. Ms. Greenwood called for a roll call vote. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Thompson stated that all the requests that the applicant is requesting is extremely reasonable and should be an easy yes for City Council. She said that HPC is very excited about this project. Mr. Kendrick said he would like to reiterate Ms. Thompson’s comments. Adjourn All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. _________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy Clerk