Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19901212Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 801 E. HYMAN - FINAL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOLITION PITKIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT HANDICAP LIFT PRE-APPLICATION 442 W. BLEEKER, PIONEER PARK PAEPCKE PARK GAZEBO . 1 5 8 11 17 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of December 12, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe, Glenn Rappaport, Jake Vickery and Roger Moyer present. Leslie Holst was absent. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of Nov. 14, 1990; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minutes of Nov. 28, 1990; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS. Roxanne: On January 21st city Council has requested a worksession with the HPC from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. The topic will be the expansion/overlay of the entire townsite. From 5:00 to 6:00 they will be discussing the Ski Museum with the Historical Society. Joe will be the monitor on the ski museum. Bill: I received a call from Little Annie's this weekend as they needed some onsite review from HPC to make corrections to the structure that supports the false front. Because of the necessity of the seven day construction schedule, I have given them the approval representing the HPC Board to change it to a wood structure. It was concrete block and they needed a steel lintel and over the weekend could not get one. I didn't feel that it effected the architectural integrity because it was structural within the building itself. Roxanne: January 31st at the Hotel Jerome from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. will be the State Rehab Tax Credit Workshop. 801 E. HYMAN - FINAL DE~-ELOPMENT AND DEMOLITION Roxanne: At the last meeting the applicant received approval with two conditions: 1.) That the final development application shall include detailed elevations and a site plan of the new structure and that an revised massing model shall be presented. And that the HPC continue to encourage the relocation of the alley outbuilding structure of the main house. Our recommendation is that we have found that the applicant has met those conditions and a model will be presented tonight and that we are recommending final development and demolition approval be granted finding that the conditions have been met. We further recommend that the HPC require the demolition permit to be granted by the Bldg. Dept. concurrent to, not prior to the new construction permit. That the applicant actively continue to still seek relocation in the interim. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 Stan Mathis, architect: There is a glass wall on the east elevation that curves around. There are two small windows on the side. There is stone but it is not carried all the way to the ground. There will be shingles in the gables. We will keep the size of the fascia down. We also do not agree with waiting until we submit for a building permit to demolish this building. That was never part of the deal. Georgeann: Why is that a problem? Stan: John may want to tear it down. John Elmore: I have never seen this condition and do not feel it is a proper condition. The people looking at the property at 803 Hyman were thinking of buying this lot and using it as a yard. The movers told us that the house is not movable. The garage structure is certainly not movable. We have advertised in the paper and people have looked at it and it cannot be moved. Roxanne: There is precedence for that condition. The Planning & Zoning put that condition on a review of a multi-family dwelling demo and reconstruction. I have reviewed this condition with the Planning Director and the City Attorney. The followup discussion after the demolition of 624 Hopkins: Should demolitions occur for just land clearing when new construction is not going up right away. Bill: There have been a few lots in the past that have set vacant. John: What if the next door wants to use it as a yard. Bill: Then you would make application for that. John: That is not what we operated under. It seems onerous at this point to add this condition. What guarantees do I have that what we do here is going to hold? Roxanne: Vesting your rights for three years. After the loss of 624 the HPC and the Planning Office received numerous phone calls from the community stating that it was not OK by the community, that land be cleared for clearing sake. It is our responsibility representing the community that you consider this requirement very carefully. Joe: If we have agreed that the structure can be demolished why should somebody maintain that structure and keep it if they have an approval to demolish it. It seems unfair we have said that it 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 can be demolished then say you can't demolished it through the expense of putting together working filing for a building permit. until you go drawings and Joe stepped down. Georgeann: I definitely feel John should be give assurances and if the person next door wanted to buy the property and turn it into a yard that would be an excellent use for it and open the space up. It would also be traditionally historic. In this age of the shortage of employee housing I can't see tearing down something people can live in but Joe has a good point of why should you have to insure it. Stan: Roxanne is talking about vested rights, well that is for three years and those vested rights go by and we are back in here again applying for a demolition permit if John decided that he doesn't want to continue with ...... The vested rights were really not for our approval. He has to do something in three years per then he has to come back. This way you are forcing us to come back in and that is not correct. Bill: How are they forcing you to come back in before your vested rights expire. Stan: If you don't give us the demolition permit and we get a vested rights approval, if John decided not to build anything on that project then he has to come back through and we have to go through the whole routine again, this way he has to build something within three years or then his approval has to come back through. Every three years we would have to come back and go through the demolition permit again. Bill: That is why the code is written that way so that it doesn't go for eternity. Roxanne: It is a site specific development plan that involves a demo and new construction. Stan: There is a subtle difference. We would have to build there within three years. John: People in town are afraid the rules will change and that causes demolition to occur earlier and other things to happen early just because these kinds of things happen. It is disturbing that we have spent a year to try and comply with everything and spent a lot of money and then to come in here and find an entirely new set of rules on the last night, it is just not right. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 Bill: Rules change in this town and are going to change. John: No, it is a different interpretation of the SAME rules. Bill: I will admit this got added onto at the end of your application. John: Where would I find that in here so I can look at it and read it? Bill: When someone comes in for review there is the possibility of conditions placed on your approval. And every time you come in conditions can be added onto or taken away. That is the process. We are trying to get to a point in order to vote on this. Georgeann: Perhaps we could give him the right to demolish but that there be no hole in the ground and trees should be left standing so that it doesn't look too bad and that we recommend that the house remain to be used as rentable space for as long as it can. That could only be a recommendation and this is only a thought. Roger: That is a good idea. Bill: In this particular case the applicant has started quite some time ago and we have changed our outlook as to whether we should retain buildings and I agree that we should be fair and not let applicants get caught in the middle of a change made by the Board. If it was torn down and the grading was replaced and made to look in a very nice manner I tend to think, on this particular case, that I would be in favor of that. Don: If you add up the expense for carrying insurance and subtract what you could get in rental., we have a housing problem and to be able to keep a building as long as possible that would serve as a dwelling unit is a beneficial thing. I don't understand what the real problem is by waiting for demolition? Georgeann: Is there anyone living there right now? John: Yes, but they are my partner in the house next door and would like to see it demolished and they feel it is a detraction in selling the other house. I honestly don't know that I am going to demolish the house. Jake: The only other reason to keep it there, it would give you more time to find a place to move it to, and if in fact it is not 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 a movable building it negates that argument. I don't feel we should be adding things at the last minute on this on-going process. Charles: I believe that the applicant has cooperated quite well with all of our request in the past and he has arrived here trying to do it again. He had tried to move it to the Eagles and spent considerable amount of money in trying to plan that. It is only fair to let him proceed as we had promised in the beginning. Roxanne: I don't consider this a change of the rules. I consider this being responsive to the needs of the community. We never discussed in the past whether demolition would be tied to it. This is clarifying what should happen. Bill: It is a matter of how we are dealing with an applicant. In the future we should advise c~ients what our philosophy is. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion that we grant Final Development and demolition approval for the parcel at 801 E. Hyman on the condition that if demolition occurs that the site is left level and no hole in the ground; major planting temporarily intact and not looking raw and looking reasonably finished. Also the recommendation that the applicant keep housing there for someone for as long as it is possible; second by Roger. DISCUSSION Charles: Should there be an amendment stating that if there are any significant changes to the final development as approved the building has to come back before HPC for a new approval. Roxanne: That is already required in the code. Charles: letting are. We have had problems with the Building Dept. before permits occur without understanding what HPC conditions AMENDED MOTION: Georgeann amended the motion to add the condition that if there are any changes to the final development plan as presented that this project has to come back to HPC for re-review; second by Roger. All approved of motion and amended motion, motion carries. 6-0 Jake: From an historic point of view it is hard to justify tearing down an historic building anytime earlier than it has to be torn down. I would like that reflected in the records so that in the future we can refer back to this. Because the applicant entered the process a year ago we were able to do this. Our 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 policy is historical preservation. We still don't have examples of materials, windows etc. Bill: This is not the normal project that is historically designated within an historic district. This happens to be a project that just got caught. Roxanne: This is the first one under ordinance #17. Roxanne: The applicant is not absolutely sure of the materials. The stone is presently red sandstone. PITKIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT HANDICAP LIFT Charles seated. Roxanne: The courthouse has not been accessible by mobility impaired since it was built 100 years ago. The county has this application before you to be considered. This is a temporary solution as they have budgeted $190,000 for a permanent solution of which we have not seen. We had recommended at a previous meeting to have the ramp access the north or east with an electric lift. They have chosen a lift that will access the west elevation. I am not sure this is the best solution and they need to get something immediately. Since it is temporary in nature we recommend minor development approval for 12 months for this lift with the following condition: That an HPC monitor or sub- committee work with Tom Newland and Tom Isaac to examine all other options for compatibility to this very critical resource prior to the issuance of a building permit. They still have to apply for a building permit. Bill: The 12 month restriction would force them to put the elevator in. Scott Mackey: We have researched and feel this is our best alternative. Aesthetically it does not look that good but will be on a temporary and the BOCC approved 190,000 for an elevator. Everyday we delay the approval we delay the handicap access. Don: I see in the plan that the proposed lift take up approximately 60% of the stair width of the west entrance. Have you checked that the remaining stair width is legal as far as egress requirements? Scott Mackey: I cannot answer that. According to Tom Newland's memo that would be adequate. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 Don: It appears that the space would be taken up all the time and we want to be sure that the City and County Building Dept. treat Pitkin County the same way they treat the public. It has to fulfill the requirement of the minimum width egress. That would be a condition of approval on this application. Georgeann: It would sit at the bottom of the stairs and be about the same size of a refrigerator box. It then would go straight up and ramp over. On one of the pages it states almond color. We would want something subtle. Bill: When you measure Tom's chair he needs 59 inches clear; you can order a large enough platform size to fit. This type states 40 inch maximum size so you would need a custom size platform made, o~herwise the chair will not fit in. Tom Isaac: I am also getting a new chair. Bill: This is a required exit out of this 100 year old building and you will not be able to reduce the size of it. I thought we could remove the sandstone and take it apart block by block and save the block. The way this works you need to come in one way and as you exit out you continue in the same direction. We could bring in a walk and Tom could turn and the lift would be on its side. In moving those blocks, the lift would be hidden by the stairs and you only remove the sandstone at the landing top portion. When you got to here then you would swing through the doors. That would require the exit to exist down right on through and would be screened. We could store the sandstone and just rebuild it when the elevator goes in as that egress is illegal. Bill: We would want to work out the landing on top so that there is enough room for Tom to make the turn. If need be you could create a wood step that would come straight out and make the landing large enough and safe enough for Tom to maneuver so that there is no possibility of tipping downstairs. Charles: So you would have a temporary wooden step over the existing stairs. Tom Isaac: We also looked at an elevator inside the building and that would cost more and be more disruptive. The permanent elevator would be on the outside of the building similar to the Elks Building and the Opera House. I also agree with the one year condition because for years we have been trying to get an elevator put in. Glenn: The egress is not legal so it has to be as Bill 7 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 suggested. Judging from the scale the space is only two feet wide. Roxanne: It might be stated in the motion that a revised application must be submitted and approved by the monitor and Staff and that the stone should be removed and numbered. Project monitoring is absolutely crucial in this project. MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC approve the installation of the lift as specified in the location to the north of the existing stair connecting to the existing walk to be of some temporary wood or paving walk and that the connection onto the existing landing occur by removing and saving the existing stone/brick to be returned to its existing condition upon the end of the 12 months or when the lift is removed. This shall have a 12 month restriction; second by Roger. AMENDED MOTION: Don made the amended motion that the landing area be increased for sufficient maneuverability of a wheelchair which would entail construction of a temporary wooden stair over the existing stone stairs as required to allow for adequate movement and access to and from the building. Prior to the issuance of a building permit that a revised application be submitted and said application adheres to all building codes that pertain to the city and county. The project monitor and Staff be responsible for ver%fying the applicability of this application. An exact restoration will occur according to specifications; the stone will be removed carefully numbered and preserved and photographed; second by Roger. All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. PRE-APPLICATION 442 W. BLEEKER, PIONEER PA}AK Roxanne: This is strictly an opportunity for the Board to get more informed what the applicant is seeking. No formal action will occur at this meeting. This building is listed on the National Register. Les Kaplan: There are eleven lots that face Bleeker Street and the property was subdivided in 1986. Lot 1 consists of five city blocks with the existing structure and a parcel which is on the other side of the alley. Lot 2 consists of four city blocks with 12,000 square feet. We intend to submit to the HPC a conceptual review application for both sites. By doing that it will improve the way the HPC reviews the project by seeing what we are doing with the existing house in relationship with what we are proposing with the new house. On the existing house the floor plan is obsolete. There is basically no dining room and no family room. We have a dysfunctional site plan; the garage is 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 right now on the other side of the alleyway. It is a three car garage and there is no way to get into the house unless you go thru the alleyway. Another problem is deterioration, there are structural cracks in the foundation and every element on the outside needs some attention. The third floor needs work and window casements in many cases are rotten. The fence has been vandalized and needs completely repaired. A lot of the additions that were done over time were done insensitively and were not in keeping with the character of the house. There is an addition on the west side of the house which is the bedroom and an addition on the east and south side which is the kitchen and an exterior stairway going down to the basement. They were done in the 60's. We are not proposing to touch that. We are proposing to put a different addition onto the rear which exposes some of the major elements which is more in keeping with the house. The four issues are floor plan, site plan, deterioration of house and the fact that additions were put on over time that were not in keeping with the house. This will not be an exact replication. We would like to reintroduce its prominence as a viable residence and in order to do that we would have to add additional space to it and renovate the outside. We are dealing with forms and function. We would like to move the garage from the north side of the alley back onto the major part of the property. We are not proposing to tear anything down and build a new garage structure. We would like to take the existing extension to the carriage house and use that as a garage. It might have been used for horses years ago. One of the problems is that it is too narrow and we would like to extend the wall out. In the process of doing that we would like to restore the fenestration or detail which is on the outside to as it did based upon the best research that we have. There would also be an addition to the rear. We would take off the addition that is currently the dining room and stairway and adding a larger addition. We are also proposing to use the basement as active living space. We would have to introduce some windows around the east side and west side of the house. All the changes that we are proposing of the exterior alterations are to the rear of the house or to the front of where the old stables are. My relationship to the property is that I am the purchaser of lot #2 and the co-developer and renovator of lot #1. The present owners of lot #1 and myself will be renovating the house. Bruce Sutherland, architect. The south side of the house which is the front, there will be no alterations whatsoever. The connecting stables that were built after the original carriage house we are intending to extend that out slightly and bring to back to what it used to be. We are proposing to extend the detailing, the facade element the whole way around. One of the design elements we have not shown, and we are not sure what to do 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 with, we would like to see an ornamental iron cresting around the top of the fascia as we think it once was. The only thing we could find was an artist rendering and we are not sure that it is correct. We would like input on that. On the east elevation the addition was done in frame and we are proposing to remove the frame portion and add out to the back and expose the detail. We believe we can do this in a brick structure that will still not destroy any of the original character of the existing house. On the east side we will have three windows. On the west side we are planning to add windows in the basement and above. We also intend to remove the iron stairs and ladder. In looking at the new residence the distance between the two houses is approximately 60 feet. We have not removed any of the trees. The top of the ridge of the new house will be lower than the existing and will be set back. We do not want the new residence to impose on the existing facility. Jake: What do you propose to do with the existing garage site across the alley? Bruce: We will tear the garage down and have surface parking. It was built in the mid 60's. Jake: What about using it for the cottage infill program? Roger: Could that be part of the requirement? Roxanne: Les has talked about it. Georgeann: When you move the wall forward, are you going to keep that in the existing brick? Bruce: Our intention is to use the existing brick. Roger: When the Historical Society gives a tour, Weber, the mayor, was ousted from office because he owned some buildings that were rented to prostitutes. He was run out of town because of public opinion because they were sure he killed his wife by poisoning her. Shortly after she died the live-in niece became his wife. When he left town he rented the house for around $10. a year to a local blacksmith. The local blacksmith built the carriage house. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Georgeann: I have no problem with the windows on the back of the carriage house. No problem with taking the ladders off and no problem visually with the "eyebrow" being removed or keeping it simple. It is a distracting element. I am not in favor of 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 making the new additions or the old additions in brick. I like them in siding because it clearly says this was the original building and this is where the additions were. I am also in favor of changing the large window and in favor of moving the wall out as long as it is carefully done so that it is still the original brick. Roger: Because the basement is going to be put in I would recommend that there be close monitoring about moving anything so that the integrity of the house is not destroyed or damaged. Don: How much of the allowable FAR is being used in the basement because you are producing three light wells and that triggers the FAR calculations? Bruce: We had two meetings with Bill Drueding prior to our calculations and we all seem to be on the same level. Three hundred feet of our FAR is going to the basement. Dick Fallin: We are orienting the new structure toward the trees. Don: What is the architectural expression of the new house? Les: The house will stand on its own. We will try to use older elements on the outside so that there will still be a "marriage" between what is old and new. Dick: One of our major considerations is where the house will go on those four lots. There are two enormous trees that have a 20 foot spread and are 100 feet tall and those two trees dictated where the structure should be. Les: The new house will be a two story house with four bedrooms/basement. We are also trying to decide which end of the house the garage will go on. Jake: As I look at the drawings I like the arch as it is a unique element. Glenn: I agree with Jake on the arch because it was there originally. I am concerned about the additions as to whether they should be clapboard or brick and if they should try to stand out a little bit or look subordinate to the house. I also have concerned about the fences and the material proposal. I am also in favor of preserving the character of the house. Don: Is there some reason you didn't want to push the new residence back toward the alley or to the north? If you do so 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 you have a much larger apparent lot size and the visual encroachment on the pioneer park is less and you get more south exposure. Dick Fallin: We do have another plan but we wanted to present the extreme first. Bill: I have no problem with the expansion as you presently show it. I feel brick might be more appropriate as far as the expansion is concerned. I would like to see how the connection is made between new and old. I also agree with Glenn and Jake on the arch. On the streetscape possibly a new roof interest to get a rhythm going would help fit in the context of the neighborhood. Stepping it back is appropriate and lowering it. The massing should not get too big and off balance the elements that are existing. Any renovation should occur in a sequence and not put on a hold. We are presently talking about requiring that the applicant proceed in a timely manner to the code once they start to demolish, that it gets rebuilt and goes on. Jake: The banding on the east side goes around and terminates. Possibly that needs continued or an integration of it. PAEPCKE PARK GAZEBO Roxanne: The Paepcke Park Gazebo is being rebuilt with careful project monitoring with Glenn, Bill Efting and myself on the materials. I would like the Board to discuss any kind of motion or action that you wish to take in the form of a statement that you would like to make to the City or whomever on this particular issue. In April when we approved this we were very specific with our conditions and those conditions did not change. The Parks Dept. put it out to bid and did not get anybody and finally got somebody and by that time it was getting very late in the year. I was getting concerned that with heavy snowfall it was going to continue to damage the existing gazebo and possible would have the potential to fall over. I felt that it was very important that they start it. We finally got Aspen Custom Builders to come in and they started in without any notification to the Planning Office and they tried to contact Glenn on time to tell him they were going to start dismantling the building. That happened a week ago Thursday. They started hand dismantling. I have asked repeatedly for a copy of the actual contract from the Parks Department and have not received it but I will tell you I signed off on the Building Permit and attached a copy of the motion of the exact specifications from the HPC to that permit. The conditions very specifically stated that there shall not be a complete dismantling, a demolition. We knew that the majority of the materials were gone but there would always be a structure 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 there; just done differently than a mass demo. Thursday afternoon they started dismantling and couldn't prop a ladder up without moving it a good distance; I have heard one to two feet and the contractor at that time made the decision and told the Parks Department we've decided that it is unsafe and are concerned about safety over the weekend and we feel that the best way to handle it now is to bring in a front end loader and let it go down. Basically the Parks Department acting for the City, one person, Ken Collins not George Robinson said OK, if that is what you think needs to happen. Friday morning I got a phone call from a City councilmen inquiring about the front end loader. And from there it all started. Monday we had an emergency meeting and went over the plans, Glenn was there, and made some decisions about exact materials and where they were going to be ordered from and the scheduling of the process of reconstruction. I had a couple of phone calls about if the old one isn't there why not put it out for a design competition, why do we have to do it like that? I had another call about not having the gazebo in the Park at all. The majority of people I talked to basically said as long as it looks as it did it is OK. The majority of the City wants to see a gazebo that has the character of the old gazebo. None of the materials were salvaged. They had to go to the dumpster to get them to show people the level of deterioration of the materials. There was noting that was savable. Then we got into an archaeological situation and when they started excavating for the foundation they found bottles and jars. It turns out that Paepcke Park was originally a dump from the 1910 to the 40's. The artifacts found were donated to the Historical Society and they came and took away everything they could. In the meantime we are proceeding with the reconstruction of the gazebo with the contractor. Bill: When they decided to tear it down was there someone in the City who was not familiar with the process and did not contact Glenn or Roxanne? Possibly we should set up a system who the monitor is and how the process works so that in the future we are contacted in a crisis. Glenn: They knew I was the monitor and called the day before and said they were going to begin work. Bill: But they made the decision to tear it down on their own. We need a crisis-management system set up where people can be called so we can issue something immediately and be part of that. We are the city's arm of preservation in this community. Although things like this happen, I don't think it is going to go away, it will happen in the future because people can't contact individuals. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 Roxanne: Mary Martin was present at the Council Meeting and three council members responded and the other two did not. Margo and Bill Stirling asked Carol O'Dowd, City Manager to look into some kind of fine that would be applied or what the penalty would be. Jake Vickery also called and was very concerned about the penalties involved. There are three penalties for an unapproved demolition or a violation of their building permit: $300. fine, 90 days in jail or 5 year sterilization of land. Bill: If Staff were to prepare a memo to be given out to all people who are doing restoration/renovation that explain what to look out for, it would make everybody aware of the process. New contractors and people who have not worked with us before do not know the procedures. Roxanne: I am willing to prepare something. Roxanne: Jed is going to be recommending an amendment to the building code regarding approvals on historic properties. Jake: I take this seriously and did allot of research. I called Gary Lyman, John Davis and talked to Frank Ross at Aspen Builders and the Parks Director. What I got from all of that was that the bottom line was in a situation like this, the contractor because he is the license professional in the picture and the person taking the permit out from the town ends up being the responsible party. The people working for the City do not necessarily know all the rules about a project, however a licensed contractor should be expected to know the rules. Whether it was a lack of willingness or knowledge I do not know but there is a problem of destroying an historic structure without a building permit. I think it is important to give a clear message to a contractors that if they violate this they are in jeopardy because they are responsible professionals. One option for action is to recommend that Roxanne in cooperation wit the building officials review the situation and consider taking it to the board of appeals and examiners who are the people that basically license contractors in the city of aspen. It is real clear to me that this demolition happened without a demolition permit. Who the city goes after is the contractor because they re the licensed professional. There are other issue that are brought up: what was the selection process used to obtain this contractor, what are his qualifications? If there is a problem with the stability of the structure there are things like scaffolding, bracing, fencing etc. all kind of options and we did not get a chance to look at those options. Two people make a decision on their own on a Friday afternoon. It doesn't do any good to go through policies etc. if they get ignored, or avoided. There has to be some authority behind what we do. the best channel that I have 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 is by referring these contractors back to this committee and if they are unwilling there license should be considered for possible revocation. It isn't this specific situation it is all situations like this. Roger: There are two issues communication and education. The fine should go to the contractor and another issue was the contractor present. It is the sensitivity to an issue and allot of contractors are not sensitive to the issues but they need educated. Bill: In the zoning code the contractor is responsible for people working on the job. There are about six projects on Main Street that have really come together and there is an interest. There are allot of people in the community that feel we do not have a tooth and their only goal is to get it done. Rather than pass a resolution that has not bite we might recommend to the City that they do refer this to the Board of appeals. Roger: A letter of reprimand. Jake: I am prepared to make a motion that has two parts to it. Glenn: I agree with everything but part of the problem that comes from the legal aspect is being liable if someone is injured. From my discussion with John Davis that was the factor. Glenn: Possibly there is a way for the city to be liable on public property until it is sufficiently stabilized and maybe there is a way to shift that. Jake: That point of view could be abused. There are all kind of dangers and according to the bldg. inspector no evidence has been submitted to that effect. That is not his call and he has liability insurance to protect him. Charles: The Parks Dept. took it upon themselves to go along with the contractor and demo it. Glenn: He did ask who he thought was the responsible person. Charles: You can't put all the blame on the builders because he turned to the Parks Dept. for an answer. Glenn: The Parks Dept. does represent the city. MOTION: Jake made the motion that in situations that a contractor would act in non-conformance to conditions imposed by the HPC that upon the vote of the HPC that their action be 15 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Examiners. Point #2 is that we find that the contractor in this particular case violated the conditions of his bldg. permit and did not seek a demolition permit through proper channels; second by Roger. All in favor except Georgeann, motion carries. Roxanne: The conditions were not met. Jake: We will leave it to the Board of appeals and Examiners to determine the appropriate action. It is a lot easier to call us up and talk with us than go thru this process. Glenn: The city acted irresponsibly and took it upon themselves to make that decision when in fact it was not their decision to make. Bill: It may come out that way. This should be discussed with Jed also before it is pursued. Also Gary Lyman. MOTION: Bill made the motion to table the rest of the agenda (Meadows) to the next meeting; second by Jake. All in favor of motion and amended motion. 6-0 MOTION: Don made the motion to approve, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. adjourn; second by Glenn. Ail Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk