Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20241211REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11TH, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Dakota Severe, Kim Raymond and Kara Thompson. Absent were Jodi Surfas and Riley Warwick. Staff present: Gillian White, Principal Planner – Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Director of Community Development Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the draft minutes from October 9th, 2024. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0 vote, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer passed around a historic photo of how the Crystal Palace looked when he moved to Aspen and then one from after the renovations were done in 1970. He also mentioned a book called the “Music Man” about the whole thing. Ms. Pitchford asked about the draft letter Ms. Thompson put together about the Armory building. She wanted to know if it was sent and if there had been any response from Council. Ms. Thompson confirmed that it was sent. Ms. Raymond noted that she received an email from Councilor Guth confirming he had received it, and Mr. Fornell mentioned that he had talked to Councilor Rose about it. Mr. Fornell noted that Councilor Rose told him that he would be engaging in whatever HPC’s recommendation was. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last Project Monitoring update there had been ten Project Monitoring items. These were at: • 720 E. Hyman Ave. • 227 E. Bleeker St. • 343 E. Cooper Ave. • 335 Lake Ave. • 216 W. Hyman Ave. • 110 W. Main St. • 214 W. Bleeker St. • 520 E. Cooper Ave. • 820 E. Cooper Ave. • 316 E. Hopkins Ave. Mr. Hayden then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet. STAFF COMMENTS: None CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last Project Monitoring update there had been four Project Monitoring items. These were at: REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11TH, 2024 • 404 S Galena St. #301 • 302 E Hyman Ave. • 110 E Hallam St. • 400 E Cooper Ave. Mr. Hayden then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet. CALL UP REPORTS: None SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Berne confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item. Ms. Severe entered the meeting at 4:50pm. NEW BUSINESS: 333 W. Bleeker St. – Consideration of Penalties Regarding Alleged Violation of the Municipal Code, Section 26.415 – Historic Preservation, PUBLIC HEARING Staff Presentation: Gillian White, Principal Planner – Historic Preservation Ms. White introduced the item and noted that a representative from the applicant team, Mr. Derek Skalko, was in the audience and would be available for questions after her presentation. She then began her presentation by showing an overhead view of the property and went over the neighborhood context and history of the property. She displayed the plans and various elevations showing the structure prior to the project starting and noted the red sections as areas where previous historic materials existed. She then detailed the insubstantial amendment that staff approved in April of 2024, regarding work on the historic framing, which was to be minimally invasive. Next, she showed some pictures that were taken at a site visit in June documenting the location of the historic framing that was intact at that time. Ms. White continued by going over a timeline of events that was complied by staff and the contractor team as detailed in the staff memo. She then showed a site plan detailing the conditions as they exist today and noted the red sections as areas where violations were observed by staff. She also showed the same areas where violations occurred on the west elevation drawing. She continued to detail the timeline of events through the fall of 2024 and showed a few more pictures of the framing violations. Ms. White noted that as a means of resolving the outstanding violations, the applicant has offered to pay the City $45K, which is the same amount as the bond that was previously returned on June 16th, 2024. She said that in exchange for this amount, HPC would be agreeing that no further penalties would be pursued. She noted that staff is further recommending that HPC make a request of the City’s Chief Building official keep the stop work order in place until the proper documentation is submitted by the applicant, including an insubstantial amendment and a change order. She said that HPC could decide to pursue penalties allowed per the Land Use Code or to accept the $45K offered by the representative team. She noted that staff is recommending HPC accept the offer of $45K to be utilized to improve the Historic Preservation program. Ms. Berne clarified to the HPC that the options in front of them would be to either approve or reject the draft resolution as presented in the agenda packet. She noted that they could make recommendations but could not negotiate to add anything to the existing resolution. Mr. Fornell asked what the City of Aspen would do with the $45,000. Ms. White said that it would go towards the Historic Preservation program, which could include updating design guidelines, training REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11TH, 2024 opportunities, etc. Ms. Thompson said that the board could have a conversation with staff to provide recommendations on where the money goes. Ms. Pitchford asked if there was any possibility of restoration of the areas that violations occurred. Ms. White said that the areas that do remain have been cut and placed back so there was no chance of it going back to the way it was. Mr. Hayden noted that if staff had thought restoration was possible, they would have pursued that first, before pursing potential penalties. Ms. Pitchford then asked if there was a BEST certified person on site when this occurred. Ms. White said that the contractor’s team does have a BEST certified employee that to staff’s knowledge was on site. Mr. Fornell asked if any staff had an opportunity to observe any of the removed historic materials or did the contractor just discard them after removal. Mr. Hayden noted that it wasn’t a case that materials were discarded, but rather removed, cut and then placed back in various locations and orientations other than the historic locations. Ms. Thompson invited the project’s representatives to the dais. Mr. Derek Skalko, 1 Friday Design and Mr. Chris Madigan, Madigan & Company introduced themselves. Mr. Madigan noted that their superintendent is HP certified and was on site every day. He also noted that no framing materials were discarded but remained on site and reinstalled. He felt that where the failure occurred was when the team got to these portions of the framing, they did not engage HPC when conflicts were found between the plan sets and the actual conditions of the historic framing. He went on to note that the simplicity of the framing in the garage allowed for standard means and methods to be used as opposed to the in the main building. Ms. Pitchford asked why the HP certified supervisor on site did not consult with Mr. Madigan or staff when these conflicts were found. Mr. Madigan said that while there are many areas of the building where great care was taken in preserving the historic framing, there were areas that the same level of care was not taken. He also did not want to put all this on the superintendent and noted that he bore the responsibility as well, again noting the lack of communication with HP staff. Ms. Thompson asked if Mr. Madigan had any suggestions on how to prevent this from happening in the future. Mr. Madigan pointed to more robust communication regarding monitors and having a known point of contact. He took full responsibility but noted the transition in the HP staff and that his team should have been more proactive in seeking out feedback from the new staff on how to proceed. Mr. Fornell asked how much oversight the ownership group played during the course of the construction work. Mr. Skalko noted that he was the original designer of record on the project, but a New York entity ended up taking over. He said that he was willing to stay on as a local liaison, but the ownership instructed him to stay as minimally on the clock as possible. He said that going forward he would be much more involved as a site supervisor or construction administrator. He agreed with Mr. Madigan that this was very much a communication issue and that with a historic property like this there is so much communication about the process that is necessary. He noted that this was a failure and that it cannot happen again and was a learning process for all involved. Mr. Fornell asked if the ownership gave any instruction to continue with work, knowing the variations. Mr. Madigan said that the owners did not have any knowledge of any deviations from the approved plans. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11TH, 2024 Ms. Raymond asked if it would help going forward with this and any other projects in town, if there were set timeframes where a monitor shows up to inspect the work. Mr. Madigan said absolutely and noted that on other historic projects he had worked on, there was always an assigned monitor that they could call and review the progress at critical milestones. There was some discussion about the idea of having HP staff and the HPC monitor come to the sites at certain set milestones. Ms. Severe wanted to clarify that Mr. Skalko was the main point of contact going forward to which Mr. Skalko said yes. Ms. White did acknowledge that the level of communication with the applicant team has been very good as of late. Ms. Raymond asked what the total cost was of this project and whether it received any variances or benefits originally. Mr. Madigan said the cost was around $12 million and Mr. Skalko noted that the project actually saw a reduction of the preliminary variations originally granted. He then detailed some history of the project approvals and a reduction of floor area that came when the project went to final review. Ms. Thompson asked for a short five-minute recess to take an urgent call. Ms. Thompson reentered the meeting, and Mr. Skalko continued his explanation of the reduction of floor area and setbacks from the originally approved plans. Mr. Hayden detailed the setback variations that were in place for the historic outbuilding and there was more discussion about the setbacks. Public Comment: None Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson felt this was a very unfortunate situation and felt that communication could be improved. She also felt that the money offered by the applicant should be used for the Historic Preservation program and appreciated that the applicant was taking steps to address this. She was in support of the resolution. Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Thompson and Ms. Raymond as the architects on the board if once the work was done if any of this would be noticeable to the lay person walking by the property. Both Ms. Thompson and Ms. Raymond said nothing would be noticeable. Ms. Raymond commented that this was a really nice historic building and will never be back to what it was. She also felt that $45K on a $12 million project was such a drop in the bucket. She did not want other projects to look at this and think “we can do whatever we want and then just give them the $45K fine”. She admitted that while it is not meant to set a precedent, it does. Mr. Fornell agreed. Ms. Thompson said they needed to consider just this specific project right now and did not want to say no to this resolution which would just prolong the project. Mr. Moyer felt that in today’s world there are no punishments anymore and there was just a dollar amount. He also felt that the $45K was a pittance and laughable. He did not support the resolution and thought that the punishment should be more focused on education. He felt that every member of the construction team should have to get the BEST card and then write a letter to HPC about their experience in getting the card and how to make the process better. He also suggested the applicant REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11TH, 2024 team write a public apology to be included in the newspapers, on the radio and addressed to HPC. He wanted to make sure the pubic was educated so that someone else won’t do the same thing. Ms. Thompson noted that they could not require any of those things. They could only make recommendations to the Chief Building Official. Ms. Berne reminded the members that they were stuck with the penalties spelled out in the Land Use Code and that they could not require the applicant to do anything outside of that. She noted that the agreement in the resolution was worked on by staff and the applicant and was very similar to what was brought before HPC for 227 Main St. but was $15K more. She wanted to be clear that if HPC rejected this resolution, there would be no guarantee that a new deal could be reached with the applicant. There was further discussion of the other potential penalty options. Ms. Severe felt a bit annoyed that this was a case of “do what you want and then ask for forgiveness after”. She did not feel the applicant team really tried to reach out and communicate when there was such a massive issue. She did not want the same employee with the BEST card to continue to oversee this work. There was general agreement that the money should be used to improve the HP program and processes so that something like this does not happen again. There was also some agreement about the do something and then beg for forgiveness later attitude. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. Mr. Skalko stressed that both himself and Mr. Madigan are long time locals, and he wanted HPC to know that this did not come from the attitude of “let just do this and ask for forgiveness later”. He acknowledged that this happened but thanked HPC for their understanding and that they will only be better going forward. He acknowledged that they did earn this punishment. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk