Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit B.Draft HPC Minutes.20201108DRAFT MINUTES- HPC MEETING, NOVEMBER 18, 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.