Planning Commission - public_hearing

Hey. This meeting is called to order will proceed tonight with the applications and other agenda items in the order indicated on the docket with copies of tonight's agenda and each staff report are available over here in the corner of the room on a first come first serve basis. If you are an applicant, be sure to read the staff report for your case. If you haven't yet for each application, we will proceed in the following order of business. The applicant or his or her representative present the proposal, or be available for questions to the board. It's not required. The board encourages applicants to be thorough but concise. The public will have an opportunity to speak on each application. Any members of the public interested in speaking on a docket item should fill out speaker forms, which are over there, and hand them to the staff, any staff member. You'll have to state your name and address for the record. Members of the public have three minutes to speak on each item. Those representing community organizations will have five minutes. After the public comment is complete, the applicant may respond to any public comments. Following this, the board will close public discussion and begin deliberation. During deliberation, the board will probably ask the majority of its questions of the applicant. After deliberation, the board may take the following actions on each application. Vote on a motion to issue, conditionally issue or deny a certificate of appropriateness. Upon request by an applicant, vote on a motion to defer taking action. Vote to continue the case until the next available public hearing or vote for the next docket item without taking action. If the board takes no action at the next regularly scheduled meeting, the certificate of appropriateness would be automatically issued. Want to make a couple of comments on voting motions passed by a simple majority vote. If a tie vote happens, that means the motion is denied, and if the board votes to deny an application, a similar application will not be considered for a period of one year. I'll make the denial. Board occasionally takes up matters other than applications for a certificate of appropriateness. The public will have an opportunity to comment on those matters. Any decision by the board can be appealed to the City Council. Appeals will be made within 14 days according to the zoning ordinance. And so today our first item is consideration of the minutes of the May 20th EAR hearing. Do any members wish to propose modifications to those minutes? Does any member of the public wish to offer any modifications to the May 20th minutes? If not, can I have a motion on the minutes so moved? Do we have a second?

Second.

Got the second. All those in favor. I any opposed say nay. Nay, all right, the minutes are adopted.

Next, what do we have, Mr. Funke? All right, first item 900, unfinished business. I just previously deferred, AR 2026-00043 of the district. Request for new construction at 1150 Prince Street. The applicant is Prince Corner, New Estate LLC, represented by State and Community Artists.

All right, Mr. Polinski, come on up. Yeah. You can stand here or you can go on the AV card.

Well, thank you. I'll put a record and Stephen Kolinsky said 104 Northwest Street. The architect for the project 1126 Prince Street previously had this. Application here is the original people from 2010 economic. times it didn't happen, unfortunately, but here we are about 15 years later coming back with this application. So we submitted essentially what was the original application and different board, set of eyes, different concerns, different neighbors. I get it. So we were challenged to do better. So I like to think that we've come back and we've done a little bit better. Listen to the comments, you know, from the citizens, but as well as the work of this is the original. This is their first design. This is the second design, which you can see here between the two. Look at this. We did a pair of rumors on the bank. We're separated on our first iteration and our second iteration. They're they're they're getting together. And if you can see the bay is slightly wider on this section. And then the next, or newer iteration, the bay has been reduced. What that's done is that it's helped bring the ultimate height of the root finial down, just because the root peak isn't nearly as high. But also at the same time, in fact, you could see the number of risers, we were able to reduce one and push it a little bit deeper into the ground. so we picked up overall about a foot of depth now our first floor ceiling heights are nine foot four inches our second floor third floor both eight feet high so it's about as low as i think it's reasonable to go under under the circumstances i wish i could you know squeeze more and more but that's that's that's where i've done This is our presentation building back 15 years ago. We've got to just a little here and this is the original design I submitted and then this is the revised. As you can see, kind of jumping between the two. So that's the revised design. But jumping between the two, you can see how the building steps down with what we've done. Now, the base of the building's also stepped back. One of the things that I should point out is if you look up at the roof, we have a synthetic slate covering the roof, not only the pyramidal-shaped roof of the bay, but also the mansard coming back in the side. Whereas before, watch that on this slide here, but we had the brick going all the way up the mansard roof. So we stopped the brick at that. cornice level to help kind of define it so that we're presenting a two-story base of this building to the street.

These are all concerns.

Another issue is because we've set the bay over to the right a little bit and created a little bit of a thing, we ended up pulling the gate between the two properties a little bit further back just to give it a little bit more release. there to get the gates forward. Now it's back kind of buried. Trying to make that distinction. The other thing we did is we carried the brick not only across the front, but all the way down the side and around the back. And we eliminated all that party that was, you know, originally planning to go in that place. And the only place that we do have hard agents product proposed is along this western elevation, which is blocked by the former building here. So it's a non-visible elevation. And when we have the nighttime rendition, it's a little bit clearer, a little less washed out, I think. That's just some of the details of that. The back of the building. There we go. what we had before was just a large kind of plain box with windows based on room arrangements on the interior we reworked the plan we actually pulled that back wall in a little bit to accommodate the the thickness of the brick you know because we have to maintain all our zoning issues and then we reoriented it and we've given some purpose to the window arrangement on the back building and also the windows change the scale of it and how it feels. So we think for the back, it's a little bit more, slightly more modern than the very traditional front where hardly seen, there is an alley, so it is visible from the public, but it's hardly seen and it's more, you say, it's more acceptable to deviate from the very traditional norms that we're keeping in the front. And one other issue, you could see the little brick shed in the front, right at the front of the, Uh, here I'm gonna jump back to. Sorry, you know what? It's it's not going to be shown on here, but it's going to be shown on the, uh. The SAP report jump over to that. You know, yes, we are very firm thinking very little, but for faith in our consultation, certainly. Yeah, but as soon as you get it off. Right there, yes. so if you can see there in the thick heavy lines the outline of our site the brick wall is actually in the alley and the brick wall that runs along between the neighbor to the east and our property is actually all in the neighbor's front so it's not our brick wall so we can't touch it we can't tear it down i know there was concern uh voiced about what we were going to do with that brick wall i wasn't certain because you know what the intention was Not remembering at the time, it's not arched, so I've been touching it.

So with that, I'm just... Can you point out which part is, you were saying that it's not part of your property? Can you just repeat the point out to where it's not part of your property?

So there's a brick wall that runs here, and then there's a brick shed, and across the top there's another brick wall. All of this structure back here is in the alley. Our property is the heavy line. In the same way, there's a wall. It's about a foot off of our property that is the neighbor's wall.

So just in case that wasn't picked up by our recording, the applicant was indicating the brick wall that runs along the alley in the back and the shed at the corner of the rear property line. well as wrapping around to um i guess the west elevation east elevation yeah keep going uh do we have any public speakers on this yes uh uh sure can you stand on our magic x so we can get that's on the handouts okay sure um yeah and for the record my address is

Colorado Springs, Colorado.

I lived in Colorado Springs for five years. Where's Langley Street? On Peterson. I lived downtown near Colorado College. Great area.

Alright, I got three minutes. So basically I was here last meeting and there were a couple of things that were brought up after I spoke that I felt needed to be addressed. Again, as you can see from this, and you can see what windows are going to be taken out, the natural light I'm going to be using. And the last is, what am I going to be wound up with? A couple of windows that are walled in. So that's what I'm looking at inside my property, inside these apartments. So basically, 100% natural light in the kitchen, in the bathroom, in a common hallway. I get to common hallways, probably not primary room. And the living room. So we brought up yesterday or last last meeting excuse me was that. The consideration from one of the board members who voted was that he considered that these were not primary rooms. Well, I don't know if there's specific definition for primary rooms, but I would think at least a kitchen, a bathroom, a living room would be a primary room and these are separate apartments. And that's basically that, I mean, who doesn't even know what a bathroom for in the kitchen? Okay. So, I don't know if they're not primary rooms. I don't know what it is. And again, I'm not sure if there's a specific code enforcement destination as to what a primary room would be. But that was mentioned last time that it was taken into consideration without defining what was the primary room. They also brought up the historic architecture was not significant on my building. And just today, I was told via email, which I was not able to print because I was on the air phone, but I do have email if anybody wants to look at it. But from the bar office, that to replace my staircase, they need to have a drawing so that it doesn't violate the open space requirements. So there are some kind of historical open space requirements tied to this property. Or else they wouldn't have said that I couldn't do it. And about three weeks ago, they said that it had to be done in either stone or wrought iron. So there's rules, historic rules into play here for me, but not for seemingly everybody else for the historic nature of the alleys that we're dealing with. Same story with the windows. Just today I got an email from the bar telling me that my replacement windows were not good. They're not appropriate for the location and the building. And they cited, which they sent me, they were very, very professional. Excellent email, very nice and very prompt. uh but they send me their admin policy citing pages seven and eight of your bar admin policy saying that these windows were not so again there's historical concerns here with what i want to do with my property but now we were told last time that there this wasn't historic there wasn't a historic concern or a structural concern architectural historic structural concerns uh were not significant on the building so it's kind of the two-sided here who's getting what you know So I can do what I want with my windows or I can't. I'm fine. I'm not, but it doesn't go well that they can do what they're trying to do, you know, to my building. And again, it's an email record. I can send it to you if you don't think you can double check it, but it's absolutely sent to me. And the woman's name was Campbell Sapien. I may be mispronouncing that senior planning technician. so uh and lastly again the architecture very nice time we just had a little chat but he said last time that i was not you know spoken to about this project i wasn't oh you've got sorry i appreciate it you can submit for the record to mr honky um any additional documents you'd like for us to consider anything that goes into the record thank you for your time

Mr. Pong, just a couple questions based on our comments from the public. I see here, I assume this is the shared property line with the applicant's proposal. Has this new construction aligned with the zoning ordinance in terms of windows, anything related to natural light, and anything else?

Yeah, I mean, so the new construction has been checked by a zoning department. It does meet all zoning requirements. There is, this board is not, as you know, this board has not had a purview over anything like natural light, and you shouldn't think something like that. That's not part of the purview of the board. Windows that are on a property line are considered to be at risk because a building can only be built on a property line, and so that's why it's .

Yeah, we routinely see buildings usually from developers that go to the property line and they don't have windows. Is that a zoning issue?

Well, it's two things. If a new construction goes to the property, then you are, there's a limit on how much openings you can have on the wall based on fire assistance. So a new construction from zero to three feet, you can't have any openings without, unless the fire area openings, three to five, you can be a percentage of the wall opening and five feet down, you can have openings. Now, in a historic building, obviously they would have, they were then not these fire regulations. So that's why often you can see on historic buildings, you might see windows on the property, but you won't see that in current construction just because of the fire. Okay.

All right. Well, we've heard from the public. We have an applicant here and I'd like to open it up to my colleagues. Feel free to respond to the public comments as well, if you'd like. You got to come back and stand on the X so we can hear your voice. from our little owl or whatever it is okay well i i really appreciate mr lamb's position what's here and i don't have a i don't have any an answer or a solution to that you don't have to answer i guess um okay does any member uh mr spencer do you have any questions or comments Mr. Adams. Mr. Robinson.

I do have a question about materials. If you could point out the material on the rear elevation, is that shingle?

So the material that's on the third floor and down the left-hand side, it's a synthetic shingle. So it's like a slate shingle that's covering that face.

And is it the same on the west or the east facing elevations?

Just on the top floor, yes.

So I haven't seen something that had that much significant slate on a flat surface like that. It's unusual. And I just wanted to point it out. I find it unusual. And I just wanted to make sure everyone on the board registered that and if there were any

What inspired us was there's a series of townhouses at Robinson Landing, and they have a very similar slated figure. Theirs actually comes all the way down to the ground in the end units in the middle. And it's actually, I find it quite attractive.

It's on Duke Street. They're right adjacent to that. restaurant, bar, Cooperville, those townhouses right there. They have large strips of slate that go down to the ground.

And I also appreciate your thoughtfulness in trying to bring the mass more in proportion with the adjacent buildings. I think the improvements are strong. Thank you.

Sonia?

Is this just for questions or questions and comments?

Whatever you'd like. The floor is yours.

I think it has had a lot of influence with the changes that you have made. I was hoping to see a little bit less high, like not a little bit. Actually, my preference would have been not to be higher than the adjacent buildings, and also that would take out the whole level basically. But I think the back has improved so much. It's really nice. I actually really like this link that you have used to bring. But it would have been really nice if the depth was a little bit more, I think. By a little bit, I mean like a foot or so, if possible. But at least it would set back a little bit. But overall, it has improved so much. The front of it, I like the window layout of the previous one much better. I think proportionally it works better with the building. This one, I think it's just overall with the look of the building, I think it works better. But other than that, I think it has improved so much from last time. That's all mine.

A little bit of background. When we squeezed the bay, we reduced our lateral wall bracing. So we needed, essentially, you need some strength or some meat on each side of your window. And when we made it a little bit lower, we went below those minimums. So by pushing the windows together and taking that six inches or eight inches that was in there and putting it to the outside, you've created that bracing.

I was going to ask, why didn't you

Earthquake action.

So it was technical.

So behind the scenes, we had to make sure the building's buildable as well as compatible. So try to balance that as best we can. Ms. Miller?

I'm pleased with what you've done. I, too, would prefer the facade from the first presentation more than the second, but I understand it. It's kind of why you changed. And I appreciate you responding to our request to make some changes. Thank you.

I still need them.

Yeah, I appreciate the grip on the east side between the front and the back. The detail that just kind of wrapped the mansard material on all the sides. It's working pretty well. I just wanted to point out that, you know, this project's second floor is an eight foot high ceiling height. And our last meeting, you know, we heard a lot about having to have nine feet, but eight feet is totally reasonable with- My client's not happy about it.

Well, you know, I think that that's good to think about.

I really appreciate your comment, Ms. Delvino. I think, Mr. Kahnke, we're going to have a discussion about heights here coming up maybe in September.

We'll put together a little presentation about building heights and how that corresponds to zoning, how historically how we've managed different heights on blocks. Maybe we could take a look at

contemporary standards in terms of what the norm is in the area, just so the board can get a sense of like the range of ceiling heights we're seeing on different floors. And if anybody else has ideas for this, whether it's to talk to him or talk to him, because I think it's going to be a really interesting discussion. Ms. Del Nino, did you have anything else?

I did. I think maybe we can leave the design open if there is an investigation for a like a light well somehow, I don't know. It's for the neighbor. I mean, in case you wanted to investigate that further, maybe work with staff or something.

I'm not against investigating alternatives, but at the same point, I have five. I think. One wants to move forward.

Well, I appreciate your presentation. I was not here for the first I think it's improved quite a bit with some just really minimal architectural detail, and so thank you for that. Thanks for being responsive to the boards. It's a great example of how architectural detailing can make a difference in terms of how it presents on the street. I particularly appreciate the steps back on the side there. And the fact that you wrapped the brick around. I would have approved the last one, and I would gladly support this one. Does any other member have anything else to add?

Or would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. I motion to approve.

Do we have a second?

Second. Is it a roll call, Mr. Conkey? No, demolition was approved against the last time, so this is just within specific approvals. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. You are approved. Thank you. All right, Mr. Conkey, what's next?

Well, we have a new business and another item. This item is the application request and referral, but we'll read it into the recommending way. Item number 4, PAR 2026-00130, Older South District. So we'll need a motion to approve the applicant's request to defer. So do we have a second? Second. All those in favor of approving the motion to defer? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That motion is

Anything in the other business or the adjournment? No, that's all we have.

No, I said today.

I have something to say. In regard to the presentation that you're putting together for heights, I think we should. I would appreciate a discussion on the lock base and maybe even a ratio of. Heights on the block is that I may may not be in our regulations, I think it really ought to be considered. Just as it was in our, just to reference the last case, last time I got together, almost every house on the side of the street, that block face on the side of the street where the building was improved, they were all too storied. So I just want to, and I wrestled with that in terms of being able to improve it. So if we could address how to deal with that, especially since we're having more and more infill in Parker Gray where there are so many two-story houses.

They won't lose that. I was one of them. I've started working with presentations a little bit outlining one of these that I want to do is actually want to look at looking at historic blockbases and just try to identify in in in historic blockbases with all historic buildings. One variation it might still be passed because there's actually quite a lot and there's there's quite often you'll have an historic entirely historic blockbase. You'll have a three story, two stories, four story. It really does not submit a lot. So this notion that that this one particular does have a lot of two stories. But quite often, historically, there's a lot of variation vertically. So I want to try to document that. And one of the things, when I get to this presentation, I want to show examples of, you know, historically very, very historic variations vertically and then and then talk about some of the ways that historically they would have handled that architecture by drawing across you know in the taller building maybe they draw across a cornice line or something that lines up with the lower to reinforce that and then makes the taller makes the upper portion lighter things stuff like that so i want to talk about some of the architectural methods i think that would be really helpful because we've all seen examples uh in this area maybe not an old town but of

New buildings that are taller than other buildings, but there's really been no architectural detailing at all to to minimize the mass as you go higher or to do the types of things that are happening here today to wrap the roof around. So helping educate me, especially as a non architect on the different methods that that you've seen so that we can be more helpful to our applicants. I think would be really helpful. Anything else from anyone? Alright, well, this meeting is adjourned.