HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920812Historic Preservation committee
Minutes of August 12, 1992
332 W. MAIN CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION
434 W. SMUGGLER - LANDMARK DESIGNATION
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COI~-MITTEE
MINUTES OF AUGUST 12~ 1992
Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe
Krabacher, Don Erdman, Roger Moyer, Karen Day and Martha Madsen
present. Excused were Les Holst, Jake Vickery and Linda Smisek.
MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of June 24,
1992, second by Don. All in favor, motion carries.
$3Z W. I~IN CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION
Roxanne: This property received conceptual approval August 14,
1992 and the code allows for 12 months in which time they have to
apply for a final development application or their conceptual can
lapse and they would have to start over and that would be public
hearings etc. The code allows for an extension and in the past we
have allowed a six month extension which I think is appropriate in
this case. Staff is recommending a six month extension.
Public: Why is six months the maximum?
Roxanne: The code does not state a maximum allowable extension
time but the Board prefers to see it again in six months in case
the language of the code was to change. The code allows 18 months
for a final development approval from which you need to pull a
building permit unless you vest and the state of Colo. allows a
three year vesting time period.
MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant a six month conceptual
development extension for 332 W. Main Street from this date; second
by Roger. All in favor, motion carries.
434 W. SMUGGLER - LANDMARK DESIGNATION
Bill opened the public hearing.
Roxanne: Designation standards B, A,
are only required to meet one. We
designation.
E, F have been met and you
are recommending landmark
MOTION: Joe made the motion to recommend landmark designation of
434 W. Smuggler; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries.
Gretchen Greenwood: I would like to discuss the parking issue
which we will be bringing before the Board.
WORKSESSION - DISCUSSION
Gretchen: One of the reasons we are going through landmark
designation is variances etc. We are going to be submitting for
a minor development and putting in three bedrooms in an existing
garage and altering the roof to make it more architecturally
Historic Preservation committee
Minutes of August 12, 1992
victorian with the house. The property as long as Katherine
Thalberg has lived there never has utilized the existing garage as
a garage, she always parked on the street. We will be asking for
a three to four car variance for the entire property because we do
not want to destroy the south east lawn or any part of the
historical lawn. One of the units within the existing garage is
going to be an employee unit. It will not go through a deed
restriction unless it helps our parking situation. We meet all our
site requirements etc. We wanted the HPC's feeling about
converting garages into living spaces but not providing any
parking. We are on the corner and the garage was never used, only
for storage. For the employee unit that she is putting in we
either have to provide one garage space or eliminate this employee
unit.
Roxanne: An employee unit and a free market unit. So you would
have the main house plus a detached free market unit.
Bill: Could you design it so that it could be put back into a
garage. We have never given a variance for no parking at all.
Joe: In the past we have granted parking variations and if you
have a single family residence and have five bedrooms, you are
required to have five parking spaces and it doesn't seem to make
a lot of sense to me so occasionally we have given variations of
two spaces.
Gretchen: Maybe there are other solutions for the life of this
house while Katherine is living there. The two bedrooms are very
small and there is not a solution for parking with also providing
employee housing.
Katherine: If we have to provide the two parking spaces it would
be either the front garden or rear garden. We would also have to
tear down trees.
WORKSESSION ON FRONT PORCH FAR AND SITE COVERAGE
Bill: While we are going through the process should we add site
coverage for historic structures. Pioneer Park has a problem with
site coverage also.
Ro×anne: We need to change our standard for site coverage and we
can do that the next time.
Joe: What is the definition of principle facade?
Roxanne: One front of the house.
Historic Preservation committee
Minutes of August 12, 1992
Joe: A principle facade is defined at one that faces the street.
Roxanne: On a corner you get to decide what is your front yard for
setback purposes.
Bill: On a corner site do not we want to give it to both sides.
Don: We need site specific variations.
Roxanne: You have a principle facade and a secondary facade and
both are important and both should have porches.
Bill: I feel we should drive around the city and look at porches
with wrapping verandas and see why we do or do not like them.
Joe: It also states may not encroach into setbacks.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
MOTION: Roger made the motion to elect Bill Poss as Chairman and
Joe Krabacher as Vice Chairman and Don Erdman as Vice Vice
Chairman; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries.
MOTION: Joe made motion to adjourn; second by Martha. Ail in
favor, motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk