HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.201705241
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 24, 2017
Chairman Halferty brought the meeting to order at 4:31 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, John Whipple, Bob
Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai and Willis Pember. Nora Berko was absent.
Staff present:
James R. True, City Attorney
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Denis Murray, Plans Examination Manager
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer made a comment about insulating historic homes and he has
found that the contractor tries to make the house airtight, but a house has to breath so the moisture is
causing rot. A lot of contractors aren’t aware of this and he believes this should be part of BEST card
testing.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Mr. Halferty stated that he worked at 232 E. Bleeker about four years ago.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon stated that she has a couple of things to speak with Mr. Pember
about.
STAFF COMMENTS: Reminder from Ms. Simon that she sent a request today for a special meeting one
week from tonight in Council Chambers.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan stated that she has seen and is good with the public notice for 232 E Bleeker.
She hasn’t seen the notice for 210 W. Main St., but Ms Simon said it was provided at the previous
meeting.
CALL UPS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: Motion to continue 210 W. Main St. hearing to May 31st. Mr. Blaich motioned and Mr.
Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS: 232 E. Bleeker for consideration of penalties for alleged violation of the Municipal Code
– site visit. Will return by 5:10 p.m. Mr. Halferty mentioned once again that he worked on this project
four years ago with Kim Raymond as consulting architect. Ms. Bryan asked that he be fair and impartial
and Mr. Halferty said yes.
Ms. Simon summarized the staff memo while Ms. Garrow handed out copies. One handout explains the
evidence with a timeline and the other has outlined the various penalties that can be put into effect.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 24, 2017
On March 16th, the City issued a stop work order for this project. There were violations of the building
permit and violations of the contractor specialty license regarding HPC guidelines. Determination of any
penalties is within HPC’s authority. HPC granted an approval in 2015, which included preserving a
historic structure on site and making an addition, converting it from a single-family home into a duplex.
During the review process, they had a conceptual and a final. HPC approved the demolition of the
garage on site and relocation and basement to be renovated. HPC granted reductions of setback
requirements, floor area bonuses and waivers of some residential design standards. The review time
took about seven months and the issuance of the building permit took about thirteen months.
The architect is the same as appeared before HPC, but the contractors are new. Aspen was the first
town in the country to institute a specialty license for historic preservation contractors. The purpose of
the training is that best preservation practices are known to avoid situations like this.
The property was built in a couple of phases. There was a log home portion, which was built in 1882 and
is one of the oldest buildings remaining in Aspen. There were additions also made on north and west
sides of building and HPC understood this to be part of the restoration process. As laid out in the plans,
the log walls should be thicker than the frame walls. HPC’s approval included several bonuses and the
application said to only demo the non-historic garage. The alterations approved were an addition of
dormers on the rear of the roof and a connector. Staff met on site with the contractor to review the
expectations and make sure the approval was understood. She stated they had numerous meetings with
the architect to make sure additional notes were added to the plans to make sure the original siding and
framing were preserved.
Staff received an email that the rear portion of the house was built more recently, possibly in the 1970’s
and matched what was on the maps on earlier periods of the property so someone reconstructed this
and this was not known during the HPC review. The contractor asked if that portion of the house could
be demolished since it wasn’t considered historic and staff said no, but that area was demolished
anyway. This is a representation of not following through with what HPC suggested and a clear lack of
communication.
Ms. Simon said they understand that the contractor found issues and challenges with preservation, but
were never contacted on what to do with facing these challenges. She says they did not expect that the
log walls were going to be disassembled and taken from the site when she visited the site earlier in the
year. What is on site now does not match what was approved. She said it is a completely new building
with historic materials that can be applied to it, but that isn’t the intent of the historic preservation
program.
Ms. Simon said she hopes that HPC will make a finding that the applicant is in violation of their approval
and the land use code. She said there is a handout which outlines options that HPC can take as far as
penalties. Sections 1 through 4 outlines HPC’s power to issue a moratorium on the property, but staff is
not recommending this option. Other options are to revoke the approvals that have been granted and
staff is recommending this and feel that they should start over. They feel they should restore the house
to its original condition using the materials on site. Ms. Simon feels the landmark designation should
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 24, 2017
stand. There has been some discussion on owner representation to reattach the log walls, but staff
does not feel this is meaningful and is not recommending. This is a very unfortunate outcome and we
feel staff did enough to communicate HPC’s expectations. This is not the way this program operates and
we do feel that HPC should revoke the benefits and variances and ask that the property be put back to
its previous condition.
Mr. DeFrancia asked Ms. Simon to tick off in summary the things they did that they should not have
done. Ms. Simon summarized by saying that all exterior materials were removed and the process of
moving the house and then the demolishing of part of it was not what was expected.
Mr. Moyer asked for Ms. Simon to explain the implication to the owner of the building regarding the
potential penalties. Ms. Simon stated that she doesn’t think it should be taken down or rebuilt, but put
back together from an exterior appearance to resemble what it was previously. There is a very large
basement that has been dug on site and we are asking for that variance to be revoked. We aren’t asking
for the basement to be demolished, but for a smaller basement to be built instead. We would like to
rescind a 448 square foot floor area bonus and rescind the residential design standard variances that
were granted, which would unwind the approval and ask applicant to start process all over again.
Mr. Whipple asked about when we cross the threshold of making decisions based on the outside of the
building to the inside of the building regarding structural changes and when does it become the building
department’s purview and not HPC’s issue. Ms. Simon stated that while we didn’t discuss it specifically,
it was expected that the building would be preserved completely and said she looks at the structural
plans as well for HPC in the review process. She noted that there was a label placed on the drawings
stating that the original framing must be maintained. The framing is always preserved and this is where
this project departed regarding the exterior frame, not the interior frame.
Mr. Moyer asked if it is possible to maintain the original logs instead of removing them completely. Ms.
Simon said yes, that was the expectation, but that is not what happened. Ms. Moyer observed that
there seemed to be a complete lack of communication from the applicant and the builders and Ms.
Simon agreed saying there was no more contact after they were denied demoing the backside of the
building. Mr. Moyer asked about ways of punishing the people involved instead of just putting
restrictions on the home and asked how we hold them accountable so this won’t happen again.
Ms. Simon mention that fines and jail time are an option by the municipal code, but we are not
suggesting this. Mr. Kaegebein’s license expired in January and we are not suggesting revocation, but
we would not welcome this contractor for an HPC specialty license in the future.
Ms. Greenwood asked for the demolition plan and Ms. Simon said the CMP plan would explain how the
house would be relocated and the plan for this to be followed.
Mr. Halferty asked if what was intended for the logs was outlined on the drawings clearly and Ms. Simon
stated there was instruction about how they would insert metal columns into the log framing and she
felt the architect completely understood what was to be accomplished.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 24, 2017
Mr. Whipple asked if the all grey steel was approved by the building department and Ms. Simon said
yes. Ms. Garrow mentioned this was the reason for the sticker saying to keep the original material there
while achieving the needed structural design.
Mr. Pember asked about the provisions for dealing with mold, mildew and rot as far as the contractor
licensing goes. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t know, but they state repeatedly to contact staff when these
issues arise and staff will guide on how to deal with it.
Mr. Pember asked why the building permit took 13 months to be issued and Ms. Garrow said there were
the normal issues as far as inconsistencies in the plans, structurals didn’t match architecturals and there
was incorrect routing on the first round of reviews and HPC was accidentally missed on that first round.
It went through three rounds of review and there were discussions with engineering regarding storm
water impacts and grading as well.
Mr. DeFrancia asked if the logs were interior to the building, in their most recent position so when you
go by, the logs are not visible and Ms. Simon said that maybe the logs weren’t visible, but we didn’t get
to see it in modern times.
Mr. Blaich asked what happened to bring all of this about and Ms. Simon said that as she passed by the
property in March, she noticed material had been removed from the exterior of the house all the way
up to the eave.
Mr. Whipple asked if it was the intent of the original building permit that there would never be exposed
walls and that everything would always be covered up. Ms. Simon stated that they don’t review the
interior finishes of a historic property but they do want an authentic presentation of what was there
before regarding the envelope.
Ms. Greenwood asked if Ms. Simon inspected the north addition and Ms. Simon said that she responded
to the email saying that was new information to them and you cannot remove that without further HPC
approval. She never saw it for herself.
Ms. Garrow explained the reason for that answer was if we had known that addition was made post ‘78,
the entire design might have been different for the entire project and we needed HPC to weigh in on it.
Mr. Halferty mentioned that we approved the temporary removal, so on behalf of the applicant, he feels
that should show that the applicant had good intentions and they were following through with the
approvals by paying the tremendous amount of money and having the structure moved.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Joseph Krabacher, a local attorney who got involved three weeks after the
red tag was issued. Kim Raymond, the architect on the project and Nate Kaegebein, the contractor on
the project also present.
The project has a landmark designation and has a score of 78 out of 100. He said he is in agreement
with staff regarding the landmark designation not being withdrawn.
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 24, 2017
One of the main issues is revolving around the original structure. The original log cabin was built in 1882
and by 1893, the property had been changed. It now had clap board siding and was then more of a
Victorian miner’s cottage as opposed to a log cabin. The logs haven’t been visible since 1893 and were
not visible from the outside. We understood this to be a rehabilitation to the miners cottage instead of
to the log cabin. Looking at the secretary of interiors standards, he stated a portion of their rule. He
quoted the phrase, “sound and usable” regarding the definition of “rehabilitation” in the code, while
keeping defining characteristics. From our view, the character defining features are what you see from
the outside. That’s his take on it, to preserve the architectural features. The exterior siding, fascia and
soffit was removed and Mr. Kaegebein will talk about why. 10% was left in place with 90% removed,
labeled and photographed, back primed down valley and the intended would be put back in place. The
windows remain in their exact location. The doors and jambs, were removed for restoration and would
be reinstalled. 100% of the porch was removed and to be reinstalled in historical condition. 22% of the
exterior wall structure, 40% of that framing remains in place. 60% of this can be reinstalled if we start
back up on the project. Showed a large size plan that was on site to the commissioners. The contractor
felt like he didn’t need to communicate because the plan shows exactly what he needed to do. The
concept of sistering a new wall system wasn’t called out in the plans. There was a disconnect of what
the note on the plans was supposed to say and what it actually said. The other option that has been
tossed around was maybe you should have built a new wall inside the old wall, which would create
continued deterioration with the logs on the outside. With respect to the wall structure, 44% of the
exterior wall structure was the post 1978 construction and 22% was the 1900 era rough-sawn, 35% of
the exterior structure was in log. We would have close to 80% of the log structure that would be
retained if we are allowed to move forward with the project. The bonus of 448 sq ft granted was not
specific to keep wall structure, but related to a greater separation of the new and old buildings. The
variances were granted to separate the two masses. If we take this variance away, we will require a new
foundation wall and all of this would necessitate a whole new floor plan. We’re talking millions of dollars
here. The project would be on hold for another year. Currently, 10 or 15 thousand dollars a day is lost
just sitting for the past two months so this has already been a huge penalty because we have a
construction loan and everything is demobilized. When Ms. Simon was told that the logs on site were
being turned into furniture, that is not the case and we don’t know who said that, but is completely not
true. There was no intent to evade the requirements of the code or the rules. Mr. Kaegebein is also
currently working on 301 Lake and doing an exemplary job on it.
Ms. Raymond stated that she has done a lot of historic preservation projects. In the past three to four
years, she has been involved with fourteen historic preservation projects. She said she is very
committed to Aspen’s history and the preservation process. She stated that she met with Ms. Simon
early on and discussed the building, log walls, etc. Ms. Simon told her that they were more interested in
preserving the Victorian miners cabin and that was the direction to go. Going through the HPC process,
we went through many iterations coming up with ideas to be respectful to everyone. The HPC manual
says you can remove material with the intent of putting it back. The brunt of the problem is that we
didn’t call and communicate what we were doing and what the intent was and that is where we got the
most sideways. If we keep the logs, you can’t add wall to the outside so they must be kept where they
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 24, 2017
were historically. For the design intent to happen, they took it off carefully and added the sheer wall
that was required. None of this was done as malicious to get rid of the material, it was very meticulous
and they cleaned off the insides of the walls of mold and mildew so they can last another 100 years. We
just should have communicated better and we’re feeling very unfortunate that we missed that phone
call. Mr. Kaegebein’s team has done an exceptional job and has well preserved the little miners cabin.
Mr. Kaegebein stated that he has been in the valley for the past 20 years and has built about 70 homes
in the valley. He said that he has done four HPC projects previously. On three of these projects he
stated that they removed all of the material from outside to install weather proofing so he has done this
prior to this project. The biggest thing that went on, if you reference the yellow line on the plans, the
note above it says, “keep all original framing, per the design of the walls and roof.” It also states
“removing a minimal amount necessary in order to achieve the required design is fine.” This note was
approved by HPC in the permit review. The statement was approved by HPC and that is why we didn’t
call. The note indicated to us that we were doing the right thing and had the note said something
different, to not touch structural whatsoever, we would have done things differently. This is the only
thing I have to work off of. He then read portions of the code regarding removing materials. We intend
to reinstall every piece of material. There is only one page that relates to structural framing, he
proceeded to read the section, and said he is in possession of all 2X4 material and intend to reinstall all
of this. In order to install the sheer walls, you have to remove the siding and it’s been carefully
cataloged. The building did not contain a water-resistant panel on the outside so we couldn’t do this
without removing it. The Aspen Muni Code, 26.415, lists section A- “ineffective waterproofing on the
building must be corrected” and this building clearly had no waterproof membrane. The HPC handbook
lists three reasons to contact HPC staff on page 3 and he continued to read the conditions to the
commission. We felt the only way to save the material was to take it out, which it says we are allowed
to do. As a licensed general contractor, I have to insulate the building according to current codes and
such a note was never communicated to me. He stated that the only mechanisms he had were the HPC
manual, the approved plans and the building codes. We felt we acted in appropriate methods to remove
and reinstall the material and we fee we have preserved every historical piece of the exterior. I’m sorry
I didn’t do a better job of communicating this process to Ms. Simon. He said he can’t possibly imagine a
better way of getting these logs back into the wall and this project is in jeopardy of serious
consequences. If there is a fault in this process, the fault is mine. I just hope that you don’t penalize the
people that employed me to do this and I apologize.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Mr. Pember said he did in fact have a question and asked if Steve Peightel was brought into the loop on
the standards of HPC? Ms. Raymond said yes, that he is well aware of all HPC standards and works on
many projects. Mr. Whipple commented that he is not “Dr. Steel” and he is reasonable.
Mr. Pember commented that it seems Mr. Peightel would know a better way to do a sheer wall without
removing the exterior siding and there are several other ways of doing this, as Mr. Peightel could tell
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 24, 2017
you. He then asked when the log wall situation came up and said that this is not the first time we’ve
heard this waterproofing issue.
Mr. Kaegebein’s last statement was regarding the stair tower section of the building. He commented
that he didn’t maliciously try to destroy the materials and just tried to do as best as he could.
HPC DISCUSSION: Mr. Blaich asked if there was a project monitor and Ms. Simon said that Mr. Blaich
was the monitor, but she hadn’t needed to contact him for anything. He asked if he should have been
going on site checking this project, but she said no.
Mr. DeFrancia stated that the thing most troubling and most disturbed by is that they were told not to
demolish, but went ahead anyway.
Mr. Pember asked if Ms. Simon reviews structural documents and she answered yes, and had suggested
the note be worded differently.
Ms. Greenwood mentioned that the chain link fence was required before these sounds walls started
going up, which the CMP requires. She said that a lot more concern would come up from the public
when it was chain link because people could see what was going on. She mused that they got a lot
further along before there was a noticeable problem due to the sound wall. Ms. Simon said she believes
the demolition occurred in February, but she didn’t noticed it until March. Ms. Greenwood said she has
been involved in the restoration of many historic homes in Aspen and it requires enormous thought and
the role of the architect is to understand preservation and the unique construction details that go along
with it. The goal and role of professionals is to figure out a correct way to go about it. This job got
started on the wrong foot with the architect from the beginning. She previously had to get special
permission to take materials off site and bring them back. For her there was a complete disregard from
the start for preservation on this project and feels there’s nothing left of the historic fabric. We award
bonuses and setbacks for excellence in preservation, but there isn’t any preservation here. She stated
that she understands the contractor’s role and he was just following his plans, but feels the structural
plans are not good. This project completely lacks and it’s disappointing and is no longer a historic
building in her estimation. There’s a right way and a wrong way and for Ms. Greenwood, the decisions
were wrong.
Mr. Moyer agreed with Ms. Greenwood.
Mr. Pember said he has confidence that the applicant will reassemble this to its original state and he has
this confidence based on their presentation. He stated that he would like to put this out there for the
board’s consideration. The historic character is very much the same and to any passerby on the street,
it will look like a historically preserved property.
Mr. Whipple made a motion to extend and Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
Mr. DeFrancia also in support of Mr. Pember’s view and said if it’s put back to the way it was, you’ve
accomplished your mission to the person walking down the street. The fact that they can restore to the
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 24, 2017
appearance it had before, is in line with what our original objective is. The ignoring of what Ms. Simon
suggested is another issue and the main issue.
Mr. Whipple commented that the two plus months of the stop work order might be adequate regarding
punishment. He stated that Mr. Kaegebein’s presentation made him feel a lot better. He went on to say
that he doesn’t feel like we need to make an example of the applicant even though the communication
breakdown is unfortunate. He thinks that Mr. Kaegebein does a great job on other project and doesn’t
think there is any malice in it.
Mr. Halferty commented that it’s not always black and white dealing with HPC and sometimes the
methods and means of construction don’t match up with a lot of ambiguity coming in to play. The
communication could have been better and it’s hard when it’s not so cut and dry. Looking at the
structural drawings, it’s clear that Peightel has shown a new structural infrastructure that’s going
completely around the building. He stated that he feels from the contractor’s standpoint, they should
construct exactly as the plans show. He said he thinks there is a very challenging task to make it all
work together. It’s a tough one and puts extra time on all of us and with the financial issues that have
come up, everyone loses. He stated he’d hate to have a demolition by neglect because it sits there
exposed. Mr. DeFrancia noted that a potential bankruptcy and foreclosures would lie in the future of
this property. Mr. Halferty then commented that it’s important to make sure it goes back to what was
originally presented.
Mr. Moyer asked how this can be prevented from happening again and noted that he last occurrence
was 17 years ago.
Mr. Whipple stated that this doesn’t seem like a normal occurrence and in his opinion they do not need
to do a whole lot more than what has already been done. There’s a fine line between a slap on the wrist
or to make contractors not want to deal with these historic structures anymore. There needs to be
more dialogue with Peightel and the Building Department. We do not want to set someone up for
failure, but in future we need to address these issues in a different manner to make sure this can all
work better. If these plans were reviewed and approved by the Building Department, that is all you
have to go off of.
Mr. Pember asked Ms. Simon why staff was not recommending a moratorium on the property and she
stated that they would rather move to a solution or conclusion on this matter. There are other
processes that can be used to send the message that this wasn’t what was approved instead of putting
this property in moth balls for ten years.
Mr. DeFrancia asked Ms. Simon if the HPC board has the authority to impose a fine and Ms. Simon
answered no. Mr. DeFrancia then clarified that they could withhold the $30,000 assurance bond, which
would be like a fine.
Mr. Pember said that he would like to take rescinding the designation off the table.
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 24, 2017
MOTION: Ms. Greenwood moved to rescind the bonus.
Mr. DeFrancia said that his sense is to lift the red tag, let them move forward and forgo the 30,000
assurance.
MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia moved that they do find a violation of the approvals granted by HPC so
therefore direct forfeiture of the 30,000 financial assurance and impose a moratorium so that after the
CO is issued, there will be no more permits until ten years has passed and finally to lift the red tag and
proceed. Mr. Blaich seconded.
Ms. Greenwood made a friendly motion to amend removing the moratorium.
MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia motioned to amend and strike the moratorium condition, Mr. Halferty
seconded.
Role call vote: Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Whipple, yes; Mr. Blaich,
yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes. 7-0 motion carried.
Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn, Mr. Pember seconded 7:24 p.m.
______________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk