Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920624Historic Preservation committee Minutes of June 24, 1992 627 E. 624 E. HOPKINS - FINAL DEVELOPMENT MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT · ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1 4 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE 'Minutes of June 24, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Karen Day and Linda Smisek present. Martha Madsen was absent. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of May 13, 1992; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minutes of June 10, 1992; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. Roger: The paint is spalding on the brick at Pioneer Park. will do more damage. The brick should be refaced. It Roxanne: I will write them a letter. 624 E. HOPKINS - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Bill stepped down Joe chaired Karen seated to vote Roxanne: There were no conditions placed on the conceptual approval and Staff is recommending final development approval. The applicant has applied for vested rights approval. Kim Weil, architect: We made very few insignificant changes, mostly the detailing. We also made material selections. The base will be kept heavier with the sandstone, then a rusticated brick with a face similar to sandstone but lighter in character then work to the gabled areas where we go with a traditional brick which would be the lightest. Metal windows, metal railings and a wood door as you enter. The sandstone color is colorado rose. The rusticated brick would occur from the top of the sandstone to the facia stone on the front. The stone back around the facia would be smooth. It is still three bedrooms plus an office and has the same vertical layout. We have done a little work with the master rub. The chimney has to be above KSNO as it is a UBC requirement for proper draw. That is one of the reasons we are jogging the fireplace to hide a portion of the chimney behind the parapet. Jake: What are the materials in the gable end? Kim: This would be smoother brick letting it get lighter as it gets to the top. Don: The assumption is made that the KSNO bldg. and the buildings that are bracing this have no contextual influence on your bldg. Kim: Not exactly, KSNO and Dr. Wesson's office have a great deal Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 24, 1992 going on because they are built to the property line and that was one of the strongest factors in dealing with this. Don: I mean in materials. Kim: In a response to materials I think you are probably right. Dr. Wesson's bldg. will be redone much sooner than the KSNO bldg. The materials generate out of what is going on to and going to happen across the street. We have selected metal windows but not the color and will work with the monitor. Roger: Most of the brick buildings in town that are stone buildings are the same type of stone in foundation to top. There maybe a banding that is different. In this building you have three elements, why did you choose to insert three elements when the character of the town is more of one material. Kim: To break down the massing as this is a transitional zone. If this was all brick the massing would be significantly different and overpower some of the other buildings. Across the street the townhomes where the stone and brick is played up and down helped to break down the massing. Linda: All the materials seems like a patch work, can you explain that transitional concept. Kim: We are not going back from one material to another it is working its way up in a different way. We are doing stone with the texture of the brand bldg. first. It is an effort to break the building down horizontally like we did it vertically. Don: I would like to see less sheet metal and more masonry on the chimney to hide the mechanical. Even if the masonry was raised 2 1/2 feet. Kim: At one time it was up higher because powering. Don: Chimneys are after thoughts in effort is put into the design. I thought it too over this town and not enough it is the color that is Roxanne: It is not the rustication, contrary. Les: What we had before was something that related to the historic parts of the neighborhood and this doesn't meet those parameters. I am not opposed to the massing and scale. Jake: I feel the use of materials tie it to more of the core with Historic Preservation committee Minutes of June 24, 1992 the sandstone and brick as opposed to wood. Roger: One of the charming elements is a brick or stone chimney, so I concur with Donnelley. I feel the light color of stone on the bottom and the darker in the middle needs to be addressed and should be a condition that the stone be dealt with and that you do not go light, dark, dark. The darker color should be toward the bottom. It is not happening with what you have. It is a great project. Possibly the fenestration is a little too much in regards to Les's concern about historical context. Kim: My opinion is the opposite. This process went through a team effort and I stand behind it and it does what we want it to do and fits well within the neighborhood. Roxanne: The proportions meet the guidelines. Karen: I feel this is consistent with the neighborhood and ties itself to the core. The chimney tapers and it is a graceful way to end. Joe: I would also like to see a treatment done to the chimney. The other concern I have is the combination of textures and colors of stones. It seems to clash and possibly can be worked out with the monitor. Breaking up the massing is appropriate. Kim: We discussed whether or not it would over power also. The lower pieces are massive and not broken down as brick is. We haven't used the textured brick before but have used the stone. Joe: The monitor should be someone who can conceptualize the picture. We lost this one when the other building was lost and it is difficult to apply our standards to an infill project. MOTION= Roger made the motion that HPC grant final development of 624 E. Hopkins finding that the development review standards have been met with two conditions to be worked out by the monitor and Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. The first condition should be a resolution on the chimney detail as to what materials (brick) and the color transition between the base stone and the textured stone and the brick will work smoothly and not be too much of a contrast. Stone comes in all different colors and if there was a problem a stain could possibly be utilized which would solve it also, it simply needs to be addressed for the record so that it doesn't become a problem; second by Karen. Kim: As we leave the fire box it will be clay. Don: That is appropriate and it is done in England all the time. Historlo Preservation Committee Minutes of June 24, 1992 Kim: I had trouble finding clay of any height and that forced the brick up. I can work with monitors and staff. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion to have no exposed metal or very little metal on the chimney and the chimney should be studied to include more masonry; second by Karen. Ail in favor of motion and amended motion except Les. Motion carries. Don will be monitor. 627 E. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: You already approved the fence and it was going to be open so cars could park back there but since the fence is on the property line the Zoning officer made a determination that the gate would have to slide. It would be forced to be open in the winter as snow piles up so he determined that there was no parking on site and it would require an HPC or BOA variance for all the parking spaces. The reason you are allowed to review parking variations is for compatibility for properties like this. You also have to look at impacts to the neighborhood because there would only be one parking space on site. We are recommending approval. Kim Weil, architect: If we had to provide three parking spaces there would be essentially no yard. There are really no side yards either. The only usable yard is in the back. Roxanne: You could condition the approval that if it ever becomes anything but single family that the back section of the fence be removed. Bob Throm: I represent the condominium association of the building at 617 E. Main and the problem with one car when they bought the house there were two cars there all winter. The concept of the sliding gate will not work because of the congestion in the neighborhood. The entire area is office building so parking is crucial. People in our building have to often park two blocks away. Our petition is very simple, this in our opinion is not sufficient parking for this house and it violates the parking code. Dave Oreganagen: I own a unit in the building to the east. If this man has no friends then it is perfect. We are in a commercial area there. If you reduce his we want ours reduced and we moved six blocks away from town to get parking. Bob Throm: The monitor of this project should carefully look at Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 24, 1992 the height of this fence he is building because over six feet. I feel it is way Kim: Just a point about the two cars in the back. I would say that only one belonged to the Kempners. People use their back yard as a parking lot. Bob Throm: The owner when he purchased this house notified us that we should not park there. We have a rule that when one vehicle is on our property then the second vehicle does not park there. Greg Young, owner of Unit E: What happens if that one parking space becomes a non parking space and that space becomes a patio or garden or fountain. Roxanne: That is a zoning enforcement and it has to be kept as a parking space. Bob Throm: You can't stop the man from parking on the street which takes more parking space. So if you reduce it that hazard increases. Joe: With the addition how many bedrooms will there be? Kim: There are no additional bedrooms and total of three. Bob Throm: It appears that a fence is going to be built in front of the house also. Roxanne: It is a low picket fence that meets the guidelines. Bob Throm: My only concern is that the fence will impede the plowing of the alley as they would be on the zero lot line in the alley. The plow will hit this fence and the snow will pile up on the fence as he will not be able to use the property. He knew this when he bought the property that it is in the commercial area. Les: What happens with two parking spaces? Kim: space. wants. It works and I have never not been able to find a parking It is more parking than he needs and less yard than he Bob Throm: If you reduce this parking please reduce ours. Joe: If you are an historic landmark you are allowed to submit an application. Michelle Dunston: I own a unit to the east. My only feeling is Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 24, 1992 that there are two houses across the alley, directly to the south and both have two car garages and both need extra parking. They use the alley and their guests use the alley all the time. It is wonderful to say that you are only going to have one car but with three bedrooms it would be difficult. Roxanne: As an alternative, what if the HPC granted one variation so that two parking spaces were on the parcel. What would that do to the fence and the yard. Klm: The gates would have to open up for two spaces and bypass and there is a lot less room to do that. You will never see two cars in the back yard because they don't have two cars. They will remain with a space in the back yard for a yard about the size of a parking space. All we are asking is a back yard the size of two parking spaces. For a landmark in this zone we don't feel that it is out of line. Bob Throm: I am not concerned about how many vehicles he parks in the back yard, I am concerned about the vehicles that will be off the property that will be a direct result if you reduce the parking. Committee Member Comments Roger: When we did our tour we went into an alley that has a building built right onto the line and to the west of the building are two parking spaces and it is grass. They aren't used as parking spaces but can be. It is lawn and there is no fence in front and works perfectly well. Our whole concept is that we don't grant variations and adjustments unless it is absolutely necessary. When you walked down the alley the little building created an ambiance with green grass and open with no fence. Don: This is on Main Street and I am for auto disincentives and for the project. People can use public transportation on Main Street. Jake: This involves two issues, the fence on the property line and I can see how it would be advantageous to move the fence in a little in order for plowing to occur. If the fence was erected because others were using their spaces there may be some validity. I do not feel this particular person should be punished because the adjacent property has a problem. He is certainly entitled to park at least one vehicle at the curb and the one space onsite which would give him more private outdoor space which supports the historical resource. Karen: What is the purpose of this fence? Historio Preservation Committee Minutes of June 24, 1992 Kim: The fence was presented a few months ago and it is a privacy issue to them. They have had people park in their back yard. Karen: I would agree with Roger that the solution is to grass over the area and use it as a parking space or open space. Don: That is a great idea but programmatically because this is in a commercial zone the owners have a different problem. The problem of privacy. A fence of some sort is necessary. Making that all gate would be a complex technical issue. Les: It is possible to put a post in and lock it in place. Kim: That can not occur as it is an obstruction. A gate can be pushed but lifting an iron post is different. I cannot see Mrs. Kepmner doing that. Joe: I have a similar problem on my lot. They are requesting three spaces to one and possible two could work. Kim: Regarding Roger's' statement the Palmer house has more yard around the side than we have. We have no room on the side. Bob Throm: Guests coming to this town bring other friends and our tenants do not park on his lawn. The height of the fence to the east is not valid because the roof pitch is such that there will never be a yard there because it is too narrow and doesn't get any sun. The problem is created by the height of the fence and restriction of the fence. In the beginning he used our dumpster and we used the two parking spaces because he was never there and then he decided he wanted the dumpster removed and then the next thing the fence came up and he is fencing in his land. Public: What does he do with the trash and if the fence and gate are on the property line he has no place to put a dumpster. Joe: Part of my reaction is that we have a group of neighbors who don't get a long and they are coming to the HPC to say fix our trash problem and fix our parking problem. We need to focus on the application in the context of what we do. Public: I was going to buy this house and it could be four bedrooms or four offices. We had no problems for twelve years. If this property sells and it becomes commercial are you going to increase the parking spaces at that point. Kim: There are two bedrooms and one bath upstairs. A kitchen, diningroom and a master bedroom. There are not four bedrooms. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 24t 1992 Les: I feel a compromise from three to two spaces would be viable. Jake: This could be a reversible situation. Also if you are going to put a fence on the property line it will impact the utilities and that is the owners responsibility. There are other options and one would be to move the fence in on the property line and creating a parallel space. Kim: That would be the option for one but not both spaces. Jake: That would give you one space outside the fence and pulling the fence in and gives them the privacy and something to the alley for snow plowing etc. Roxanne: If this property would ever change from residential, a review would be required and they would have to go back through a conditional use. If you grant a variation it would be for residential use only. Joe: The fence was approved. Roxanne: The Board approved the fence not knowing about the parking issue. Design wise the fence is not an issue. It was a minor review and did not require a public hearing. Joe: If damage is done to the fence it is not the city's responsibility. You do not need a zoning approval for a six foot fence. Bearing that in mind, to me it comes down to a parking variation. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC grant a parking variation from three spaces to two spaces at 627 W. Main finding that it meets the development review standard A; second by Linda. Roxanne: There are competing uses on Main Street and according to the master plan study we need mixed uses. Main Street is an historic district and we do what we can to retain it and that is why the Board is able to give variations. Jake: I subcontract with Bill Poss but feel I have no conflict in this decision but will step down due to potential conflict from the public. Karen: Will you restate the motion. MOTION: Joe restated the motion. The motion is to grant a one space parking variation for 627 W. Main with no conditions finding that the application meets the applicable development review 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 24, 1992 standards, i.e. reduction from three to two spaces. Two parking spaces will be required; second by Linda. Vote: 4 to 2. Motion carries. ~SPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY Jody McCabe: This is a simple request. We are overwhelmed with summer visitor at the Wheeler Stallard house museum and I would appreciate any of the Board members volunteer help. We need house guides for the summer. We are already up over 33% from last year. We will train at your convenience. Karen and Linda will be monitor of 134 E. Bleeker MOTIONs Les made the motion to adjourn; second by Joe. favor, motion carries. Ail in Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk