Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20240410 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Kim Raymond, Charlie Tarver, Riley Warwick, Barb Pitchford and Kara Thompson. Absent were Jodi Surfas and Jeff Halferty. Staff present: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the draft minutes from 3/27/24. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer said that he had sent a copy of the AMF letter regarding the tent to the local papers but didn’t believe they had published it. Mr. Fornell said that he could send Rick Carroll an email asking about the letter. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond stated that she was conflicted on the agenda item and would leave the meeting before the item. STAFF COMMENTS: None PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Armstrong noted that since the last HPC meeting there was one Project Monitoring item that was approved at 630 W Main St. She then went over the details that are included in the agenda packet. The board briefly discussed the proposed snow clips at this project. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Armstrong noted that there was one Certificate of No Negative Effect that was issued at 100 E Main St. Unit 5. She then went over the details that are included in the agenda packet. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code for the agenda item. Ms. Raymond left the meeting. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2024 OLD BUSINESS: 227 E. Main St. - Consideration of Penalties Regarding Alleged Violation of the Municipal Code, Section 26.415 – Historic Preservation, PUBLIC HEARING Staff Presentation: Kirsten Armstrong - Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong began her presentation by asking if the commissioners would like her to run through the full presentation and summary that staff had shown at the last meeting on March 27th. Ms. Johnson noted that the members who were not present at the March 27th meeting were provided the meeting minutes and audio recording from that meeting ahead of this meeting. Ms. Pitchford and Mr. Warwick confirmed that they had reviewed the materials. Knowing this, Ms. Thompson said staff did not need to go over the previous presentation again. Ms. Armstrong continued by briefly describing the history and location of the property showing a few historic photos and the historic Sanbourn map. She noted that in response to a few commissioner questions at the last meeting, staff had researched the timeline of contractors on the project and that the applicant had provided a timeline as well. She showed the combined timeline and detailed the contractor changes over time. She noted that Steve Waldeck and Forest Jacober were the only ones that held the HP BEST certification. She described how the City’s Operations team handles a change in contractor and noted that staff checks the necessary certificates held at the time of permit issuance, but that there is no automated check built in after that. In response to this Ms. Armstrong mentioned that the operations team has added columns to their spreadsheets that will help indicate when they need to reach out to verify certificates. Ms. Armstrong then went over the three penalties in the Historic Preservation section of the Land Use Code that HPC can impose. These include: 1. Any person who constructs, alters, relocates, changes the appearance, or demolishes a designated property in violation of any section may be required to restore the building, structure or setting to its appearance prior to the violation. 2. Following notice and public hearing, the HPC shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining a building permit for the subject property for a period of up to ten (10) years from the date of the violation. The City shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to ensure enforcement of this penalty. The property owner shall be required to maintain the property during that period of time in conformance with the Standards for reasonable care and upkeep set forth in Subsection 26.415.100(a). 3. Any variances or historic preservation benefits previously granted to the property may be subject to revocation. Ms. Armstrong also noted that in the applicant team’s response they suggested four penalties they would be willing to be subject to. These included: • Reframing of the roof in accordance with the originally approved structural drawings. • Creation of a document with narrative and photos for HPC to use as training for contractors. • Forgoing the $30,000 financial assurance, originally provided to ensure safe relocation of the historic structure. • And or, daily or weekly site visits scheduled with HPC during the course of the violation correction. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2024 Ms. Johnson noted that since these penalties were suggested by the applicant, she believed that HPC could accept them. Mr. Tarver asked if these were being offered individually or all as one. Ms. Johnson said she believed that the HPC was not being asked to pick just one. Ms. Armstrong continued by noting that per Title 8, section 8.12.020, the Chief Building Official has the authority to suspend, revoke or refuse renewal of any license or deny an application for said license, including the Historic Preservation Specialty Certification. She said that this is not under the authority of the HPC, but HPC could provide a recommendation to the Chief Building Official regarding the contractor’s Historic Preservation Specialty Certification, as they see fit. Ms. Armstrong said that staff recommends that HPC require restoration of the building to its exterior appearance prior to the violation and accept the representative team offer forgoing the $30,000 relocation financial security, to be utilized to improve the historic preservation program. Also, if HPC choses to require restoration of the building to its prior appearance, HPC should consider whether the approved plan set, issued as part of Permit #0128-2020-BRES, is acceptable, or if HPC would like to require updated plans which showcase current conditions and the proposed remedy, to be reviewed as a substantial amendment at a public hearing. Additionally, HPC should consider whether they feel additional penalties are appropriate or if a recommendation to the Chief Building Official should be made regarding suspension, revocation, or refusal to renew the Historic Preservation Specialty Certification. Ms. Thompson wanted to confirm that HPC members were allowed to request a site visit at any time. Ms. Armstrong said yes. Mr. Fornell asked when a general contractor goes to pull a building permit, they have to designate someone on their team who has their BEST card and Historic Preservation credentials. Ms. Armstrong said yes, but it depends on who is the one listed as the applicant on the permit. Sometimes the architect is listed and sometimes it’s the contractor. Ms. Thompson referenced the last page of the agenda packet that goes over the requirements for a change of general contractor. Ms. Armstrong noted that in this case the applicant listed in SalesForce is the architecture firm and that firm did not change. She was not sure if this influenced the issues of the handover to a new contractor. Ms. Pitchford asked that if a contractor or their designee that holds the BEST credentials leaves a project, do they have to replace the credentialed person. Ms. Armstrong said that that is what they want to see happen and that there is a requirement that someone on the team has the Historic Preservation BEST certification. She admitted that the checks they have in the system for this might need some updating. Mr. Tarver asked what the relocation financial security was. Ms. Armstrong explained that anytime there is a relocation, the applicant needs to submit a $30,000 bond as a financial assurance in case anything goes wrong with the relocation. Mr. Tarver asked for clarification that the applicant is offering to forgo getting that money back. Ms. Armstrong said yes, that is one of their offers. Ms. Johnson further explained that the relocation had already occurred and since no issues came about, the applicant would have been able to ask for that money back. In this case the applicant is offering to let the City keep the money. Mr. Tarver then asked if there were any remedies for future violations. Ms. Johnson said that while not in HPC’s purview outside of a recommendation, the City has the ability to impose fines for REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2024 violations of the Municipal Code up to $2,650 per day for each day the violation continues. This would have to go through Municipal Court. Mr. Fornell asked staff if they were comfortable with the status of the materials that had been removed during the project and were planned to be replaced. Ms. Armstrong stated that when staff conducted a recent site visit, they were shown the historic siding that had been removed and that it was being stored in a safe place and manner. Mr. Moyer asked if the current plan set was acceptable for restoration. Ms. Armstrong said that staff would like to see updated plans that showcase the current conditions and the proposed remedy with a narrative of how that would be accomplished to be presented as a substantial amendment. This would be to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Ms. Pitchford noted that Ms. Armstrong’s request for updated plans was a staff recommendation and could be firmed up in the resolution. Ms. Thompson asked if HPC could require that no other work occur on the site until this issue is resolved. Ms. Johnson said that HPC would have that power, but it would have to be done in public hearing. Ms. Thompson asked if the project was red tagged, would that prohibit any other work until the issue was resolved. Ms. Johnson said that only the building department can issue the red tag and the violation here was not really against building code but rather HPC’s approval. Ms. Thompson asked if HPC could make a recommendation to the Chief Building Official that they not allow any other work to occur until the issue was resolved. Ms. Johnson said that they could recommend that the red tag not be lifted until the issue was resolved. Ms. Armstrong said that after some conversations, the Chief Building Official is open to recommendations. Public Comment: None. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson began by stating that she generally agreed with staff’s recommendations but would also like to add a recommendation to the Chief Building Official that the red tag not be lifted until the alterations are complete and inspected by HPC staff and monitor. Ms. Pitchford also agreed with staff’s recommendations and would like the applicant to provide new updated site plans. Ms. Thompson said that she would expand Ms. Pitchford’s suggestion to also include documentation on how the issue was to be remedied. Mr. Warwick asked for some clarification on what the updated plans would provide versus the originally approved plans. Ms. Thompson said that because the conditions are different now, it would provide a plan set of the current condition after the violation and also provide an explanation of how the applicant plans to resolve things. There was further discussion between the board members and Ms. Johnson about the current red tag on the project and the options HPC had regarding a recommendation to not have it lifted until the violation was remedied. Mr. Fornell referenced the applicant’s explanation of the timeline of events that was in the agenda packet. He noted that while it attempted to explain how this violation occurred, he thought that the finger needed to be pointed at the people who pulled the permit, and the responsibility lies with the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2024 general contractor. He wondered what other remedies the Building Department could impose on a general contractor holding a City of Aspen building permit license. He wondered if they could require them to acquire additional training or potentially limit their ability to pull any future permits for a period of time. He believed that it was the general contractor’s responsibility to know that the person on site had their Historic Preservation BEST certificate. Ms. Johson responded that the Chief Building Official has pretty broad authority to revoke and suspend permits. She said that this is an incidence in which the Building Official could take action against the general contractors and subcontractor’s licenses. Mr. Fornell thought that with the history of Historic Preservation projects that the general contractor listed as working on, they should have better known what was going on at this project. Mr. Moyer suggested that not only should a general contractor on a historic project hold a Historic Preservation BEST card, but any subcontractor working on historic aspects of the property should hold one as well. Ms. Armstrong said that currently subcontractors are not required to hold the HP Best card, but there have been staff discussions about the topic. Mr. Hayden clarified that currently an on-site supervisor for a specific project must hold a Historic Preservation Best card to pull the permit. Ms. Thompson asked the rest of the board members if they were in support of staff’s recommendations. Mr. Moyer said he supported staff’s recommendations with the addition of a recommendation to the Chief Building Official that the red tag is not lifted until the violation was corrected and the building was restored to its original condition and appearance. Mr. Warwick wondered if the restoring the building to its original condition and appearance was one in the same. Ms. Armstrong stated that because the historic roof rafters have been removed, they can’t be put back in the same way as they were historically. She said that staff is trying to get the appearance back. Mr. Fornell wanted to include in HPC resolution a recommendation to the Chief Building Official that they review and determine whether or not fines and or other remedies be imposed on the general contractor for their lack of oversite. Ms. Johnson noted that the Chief Building Official would be doing that, but the question is whether HPC would like to take a position on if they should pursue additional fines beyond giving up the $30,000 bond that the applicant has suggested. Mr. Tarver asked what the daily fine for this type of building code violation is. Ms. Johnson said that it would be up to the Municipal Court Judge, but it could be up to $2,650 for each day the violation continues. Mr. Tarver was in support of staff’s recommendations and the suggestions that the board had been discussing. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #02 of 2024 with a revision to condition #2 to state that prior to any work beginning, a restoration plan detailing the approach to resolving the issues be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. She also wanted to include in a separate paragraph that HPC recommends to the Chief Building Official that the red tag not be lifted until the restoration REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2024 work is completed, reviewed, and approved to staff and monitor’s satisfaction. Mr. Fornell seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. Ms. Thompson wondered if HPC could direct staff to coordinate with the Chief Building Official that the project manager, site superintendent and subcontractors working on any historic preservation project all receive their HP Certification BEST card. Ms. Armstrong noted that there had been discussion about creating a Spanish version of the certification test for all contractors. Some of the $30,000 forgone at the applicant’s suggestion could be used for this purpose. Mr. Moyer noted that he had been after staff for years to put together a maintenance manual. He gave an example of someone power washing a historic structure forcing water into the siding and then painting it the next day. He thought that to be absurd because the next year the paint will be falling off. He thought it was a case of educating owners of historic properties. Mr. Hayden noted that changes had already been made to the permitting software regarding holding HP BEST certification and they have already had contractors coming in to start the process to obtain the certification based on the new triggers in the software. There was some discussion of the outcomes and benefits of the Historic Preservation certification and BEST card. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor; motion passes. The Board then moved onto their scheduled work session. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk