Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20001213 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Members in attendance were Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Gilbert Sanchez, Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps and Melanie Roschko PUBLIC COMMENTS Donnelley Erdman informed the board that he was chairman of the HPC for some time. His issue is the future use of the Isis Theatre building. In August of 1995 the process began and it took over a year. At that time the City did not deed restrict the Isis to specific uses. There are guarantees from the Isis developers as to what the building would be used for. On January 19th 1996 the city passed all of the provision recommended by HPC & P&Z. The council determined that any change in use of the Isis Theatre would require City review and approval. August 9th HPC granted landmark designation for the building with recommendations of a parking waiver and also open space reduction. Conceptual was granted Aug. 23 1995 and P&Z further recommended GMQS exemption because there were fewer employees being created and there was an exception to the allowable FAR from 1.5 to 1.82. Open space reduction was approved. They also reduced the utility fees. It would be unfortunate to see the use change without numerous mitigations. Ellen Hunt handed out "save the Isis" bumper stickers. Georgeann Waggaman stated that she supports the HPC in their decisions. Helen Klanderud stated that she strongly feels that the use should remain as a theatre. Disclosures: Lisa disclosed that Mr. Allen sits on a board of a client that she works with at Reese Henry. Rally said for the Corbin/Burrows item, his client is the neighbor. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 213 W. BLEEKER - APPEAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAY OF DEMOLITION, PH Tim Whitsitt, Special Council to represent the HPC board went over how the hearing should be handled. He will answer all questions of procedure but will not take an active role in examining witnesses. If things get out of control he will get involved. In general there will be a presentation by the parties. The role ofHPC is a quasi-judicial. HPC members will hear evidence and make a decision based on the evidence and only the evidence that is before the board in the hearing. Opening statements will be made from the prosecution, the City side and a responding opening statement from Mr. Allen. The purpose in that is to provide a framework for the board so that you understand the issues. This has been noticed as a public hearing and the public can participate after the presentation of the evidence. It is not appropriate for the public to cross-examine the witnesses. Witnesses should be sworn in. After all the evidence is closed there should be a summation of closing by the attorney's who will be able to give you their thoughts on what has been proven or not and what suggestions in terms of remedies they might have. Tim also informed the board that they have the opportunity to go into an executive session and then come out and announce the board's findings and take a public vote that will be taken onto City Council. There is not restriction on time limitation. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney informed the board that he agrees with Tim's statements. Whatever decision is made by the HPC will be taken onto City Council for their review. This is not the final board that will be reviewing this. Tim: Under the city ordinance HPC is a recommending body to City Council. David Hoefer said he anticipates three witnesses; Amy Guthrie, Fred Jarman, and Ron Schelling. Witnesses were sworn in by Tim Whitsitt: 2 ~."......"-~.. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV ATIQN COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Amy Guthrie Fred Jarman Ron Schelling Chair - Suzannah Reid said if the board has questions for the witnesses that should happen after the cross-examination of the witness and then questions for the attorneys would be at the point of closing statements. Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer stated that many of the board members were on the committee when the approvals were made for this property of213 W. Bleeker Street. Mr. Hoefer provided staff, council and the board with memorandum. The memorandum was designed to point to the issues that are going to be presented tonight. There are a number of exhibits: A, Resolution 18, 2000, which was the final approval of the project. B, Resolution 11,2000, was a prior approval in which the property was land marked and some variances were granted and consequently it is also of significance to this. C, is the building plan set. D, is a letter from Jack Palomino who was the architect for the project at 213 W. Bleeker to Fred Jarman. E is the stipulation of agreed facts. F is the conditions of approval and scope of work and the preservation plan. Tim said exhibits A-F have been entered as exhibits and the board accepted. David Hoefer: 213 W. Bleeker was a landmark property pursuant to Resolution #18 the property was approved for restoration with some additions and there were a number of conditions that were placed on the property by the board. This case in part will become a question of replication Vs restoration. In addition a big issue will be from the preservation plan which provides that no deviations from the drawings shall be allowed without first being reviewed and approved by HPC, staff and monitor. On that issue Amy Guthrie will testify. I believe her testimony to be that she met with Ron Schelling, owner contractor in this case as well as Jack Palomino and that they wanted to make a number of revisions to the plans but because of the nature of the revisions she indicated that it needed to go forward to HPC and that is where the Jack Palomino letter comes in with the request for the revisions. However, prior to the Jack Palomino 3 .....-+.. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 letter it was discovered by staff that the changes had already been made, so it will become an issue for HPC to decide if in fact there was a reasonable basis for the contractor to have done that. The City's position is that there was none. You will also hear from Fred Jarman. Fred Jarman had taken over as the historic preservation office for the City when Amy left due to the birth of her child and he will tell you what happened when he first met with Jack Palomino. Then finally, Ron Schelling will testify and give his recollection of what occurred. David asked he would welcome specifically the questions from the board as to what they feel is deviations from the plan. Doug Allen, attorney for the owner Ron Schelling: The stipulation of facts was handed out as Exhibit E and basically that is what Mr. Schelling and the City agree happened out there. In the memorandum dated Dec. 10th from David Hoefer there are some items that are cold facts on the first page and they are substantially correct. The property is not owned by Schelling . Development Corporation it is owned by Ron and Laurie Schelling. They were represented by Mr. Palomino all through this process of the approval, the plan sets going to the city and the plan approved and construction started and to have the restoration ofthe house to its historic appearance restored and the fact that the detached addition in back was permitted also. Where the problem occurred was the lack of communication between the architect and the homeowner/contractor and things were done that the homeowner/contractor thought had been approved through the architects good services and were not approved and that is why we are here today. David Hoefer called Amy Guthrie: David asked Amy if she was an employee of the City of Aspen? Amy: Yes. David: What is your official capacity? Amy: She is the historic preservation officer. David: Were you the historic preservation officer at all times relevant to this case? Amy: Yes. David: Did you at some point go on maternity leave? Amy: Yes. I believe Oct. 12th was my last day. 4 I ..." ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF, December 13. 2000 David: Were you the staff person when Resolution #11 was passed? Amy: Yes. David: What did Resolution # 11 do? Amy: Resolution #11 was the resolution that was approved at conceptual level for the project and it granted also partial demolition, temporary relocation, variances, and the residential design standards approval. David: The property we are referring to is 213 W. Bleeker Street in the City of Aspen and is that correct? Amy: Yes. David: When it is designated a landmark, what does that mean? Amy: In this case it was something that was requested by the owner and it has to be found to meet two of five criteria to be approved as a landmark. I believe this one was found to meet three: Architectural Importance, Neighborhood Character and Community Character. David: With land marking designation do you get special privileges? Amy: It opens the door for all of the incentives the city offers for historic buildings. David: Would that include some of the variances that were granted in this case? Amy: Yes. David: Pursuant to Resolution #18, which was from April of this year, what occurred there? Amy: That was the final development. David: For the same property? Amy: Yes. David: Were there a series of conditions attached to that? Amy: Yes. David: How many conditions were there? Amy: 21 conditions. David: Were those accurately reflected on the resolution? Amy: Yes. David: What did condition 13 require? Amy: That they indicate graphically exactly what part of the buildings they would demolish. David: Was that done on the building plan? Amy: Yes. David: Condition #14 required what? 5 --.........1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Amy: That they describe how they would go about preserving the building materials. David: Was that also done on the final plans? Amy: Yes. David: Condition #20 requires a general contractor or superintendent to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; how did that requirement come about in the first place? Amy: It was the result of a previous enforcement issue. David: What was the goal ofthe preservation program? Amy: It was to make sure that anyone who was executing a plan that had been approved by the HPC really understood what their responsibilities were, proper preservation techniques and things like that. David: To your knowledge, did Mr. Schelling take the test to become specialty licensed in historic preservation? Amy: Yes. David: Did he pass the test? Amy: Yes. David: What is the assumption when you pass that test? Amy: That he understands what his responsibilities were. David: Do you review the building plans before they are finalized? Amy: Yes. David: Did you do that in this case? Amy: Yes. David: Did the preservation plan contain six specific conditions in the preservation plan? Amy: Yes. David: Will you go through those one at a time and explain them? Amy: This is written by the architect as their response to the HPC's requirement. The first one is that they had conditions of approval and they were required to meet them. The second one is that they were not to deviate from the approved drawings without additional approvals from HPC staff and monitor. The third condition identifies specific building materials that were to be preserved. The fourth one discusses proper storage of salvaged materials. The fifth one discusses the need to get further approvals if there were some deterioration that hadn't been anticipated. The sixth one talks about the fact that there were some amount of reconstruction that had to be done at the front of the house and we would discuss it more when they were underway. 6 '......-..' ,.". 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 David: Were the 21 conditions listed on the building file? Amy: Yes. David: Was there also a demolition plan? Amy: Yes. David: Did you meet with Jack Palomino and Ron Schelling on August 23rd and verify the date. Amy: Yes. David: What was the nature of that meeting? Amy: I as a meeting with them to discuss some things that had come up in the field. David: Specifically, what are those things that came up and first of all who was supposed to be at this meeting? Amy: My recollection was that the monitors of the project were Melanie and Heidi and Melanie was out of town and Heidi was supposed to attend the meeting and she didn't come so it was just myself. David: Along with Jack & Ron. David: What did they indicate to you at that time? Amy: That they had discovered certain conditions in the building were not what they had anticipated and they wanted to discuss changing the plans. David: Did that involve the six items that are set forth in Exhibit D which is Jack Palomino letter to Fred Jarman of October 11 th? Amy: Yes. David: Those included roofing, siding, windows, bay windows, fire damage and shed floor elevation? Amy: Yes. David: What did you advise them at that time? Amy: I advised them that I thought some of the things they proposed to do were reasonable under the circumstances but I didn't feel I had the authority to make a decision, didn't have any monitors there and they were pretty substantial changes from the plans so I asked them to give me their request in writing for the entire board to review. David: Did you receive that prior to leaving on maternity leave? Amy: No. David: And again, what was the date that you left? Amy: Oct. 12th David: Up until that point oftime, however, did the project seem to comply with the requirements ofthe building plan? Amy: Yes. 7 .'.n'....._'_ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 David: When you as stated that a letter was needed and that it would need to go to HPC, who was present? Amy: Myself, Jack Palomino and Ron Schelling. David: Did you at anytime give them authority to do anyone ofthe six changes? Amy: No. David: Did you have authority on your own, without a monitor, to give them authority to do that? Amy: I don't believe so based on the way that the conditions were worded. David: And, even if the monitor had been there would you still have requested that they go to HPC? Amy: That would be something that the monitors and I would have discussed but I assume that would have probably been the outcome. David: Because of the nature of the changes. Amy: Yes. David: Would it, in your opinion have radically changed this as a landmark? Amy: Would what have? David: Ifthe changes had all been approved. Amy: I don't think necessarily from the things that are discussed here. Some ofthem are reasonable sort of restoration issues that would come up on many houses. David: After you had gone on maternity leave did you go by the project? Amy: Yes. David: Did you see anything that caused alarm to you? Amy: Yes. David: And what was that? Amy: I saw that it looked like the building had been substantially reconstructed and there was a pile of original studs laying in the front yard. David: By substantially reconstructed could you be a little more specific? Amy: I didn't walk onto the site and only saw the project briefly from the street. There was all new framing; new plywood on the exterior ofthe building; none of the previously existing materials seemed to be in place. David: Were some of the things that you saw changes that had been completed from requests that were made on the Aug. 23rd meeting? Amy: Yes, and more beyond that. David: Consequently, in your opinion, did those changes violate the building plan in your opinion? 8 I. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Amy: Yes. David: Did they have permission to do those changes in that point in time? Amy: No. David: Who did you contact? Amy: I called Suzannah Reid and Fred Jarman. David: Fred Jarman was the planner that took over your responsibilities during your absence, is that correct? Amy: Yes. David: Did you at any time meet with Ron Schelling and Jack Palomino following that time? Amy: When we met on the site a week or so ago. That is the only time. David: By that time the property had been red tagged, is that correct? Amy: Yes. David: In your opinion based on what you have since seen do you believe that this building can be restored or is it a replication at this point? Amy: It is a replication. David: Getting back to my prior question that would then drawn to question its landmark status, is that correct? Amy: Yes. David said he has no further questions for Amy at this point. Doug Allen, attorney: Doug: I assume you have seen the memorandum that the City prepared and one ofthe comments in the facts section is: On the positive side, the height of the addition was minimized so that it would not be visible from the front of the house. Do you believe that to be a correct statement? Amy: Yes. Doug: You reviewed these plans as part of the whole process didn't you before the plans and the restoration and demolition were finally approved? Amy: Yes. Doug: Did you feel that that gave the HPC protection that they needed? Amy: The fact that the plans had complied with the HPC approvals, is that what you are asking? Doug: That the plans complied with HPC approvals and the demolition and preservation aspects of it were proper? Amy: Yes. 9 .---."' + ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Doug: The only time, I believe that you talked to Jack Palomino about the request of changes was on August 23rd? Amy: That is my recollection, yes. Doug: On Exhibit D when was the first time that you actually inspected the physical condition of the historic house? Amy: After it went under construction, is that what you mean? Doug: No, when was the first time that you inspected it? Amy: I visited the site when construction had commenced but the August 23rd date was the first time that I had been on the site to view the issues. So you never saw the condition of the house prior to the permit being issued? Amy: Only from walking through the inside ofthe building and viewing the outside but at that point the framing and all hadn't been exposed to VIew. Doug: Was the house empty at that time? Amy: Empty of furnishings. Doug: I am trying to find out what you know of the house before any work started. Amy: No more than Ron and Jack knew in terms of condition of material, changes to the building. Doug: But you had been inside the house at that point. Doug: You couldn't see what was behind the walls at that point? Amy: Right. Doug: You didn't really know what the physical condition of the house was anymore than anybody else did. Amy: Right. Doug: The first time that was called to your attention was August 23rd. Amy: Yes. Doug: When we were out at the site recently you and I talked; You said that Exhibit D was substantially correct as to what went on out there? Amy: Yes. Doug: Is there anything in there that he has said in there that is not correct? Amy: The only part that I question is the last paragraph where Jack says it is his understanding that he would like to address these questions on the Oct. 11th meeting. He didn't discuss that with me. I do not recall that it was scheduled Oct. 11th and I do not know whether Fred Jarman had scheduled that discussion but we had no contact about this. Doug: Had it gone to the HPC then you would have been in support of what these recommendations were? 10 . I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Amy: I do not know if! would say that, I agreed with some of the solutions but I thought it deserved a lot more discussion. Doug: In what respect. Amy: I feel that the HPC should have reviewed some of the framing issues the way the original windows had been laid out and things that I viewed on the site should be restored but the HPC needed to view that as well. Doug: Specifically what? Amy: There was a section of the house that had been fire damaged and the studs were charred and I think it would probably be appropriate to do some reconstruction in that area and HPC would have needed to view that too. Doug presented pictures to be confirmed by Amy as to their accuracy. 1 & 2 accurately depict some ofthe fire damage referenced. # 3 represents the condition of the roof shingles. #4 represents the shed behind the house. #5 represents the house moving back onto the foundation. #6 represents the side ofthe house with the non-historic siding. Amy: The photos are accurate. #6 represents the side of the house prior to the construction. Doug: Isn't that the siding that was determined to be non-historic? Amy: That is what Ron, Jack and I discussed on-site that appeared to be the situation that it was not historic siding. Doug: These were the only aluminum windows. Amy: Yes. Tim Whitsitt asked David Hoefer if he had any objections to the pictures and David replied no. Doug: Would it have occurred different if one of the monitors had been there? Amy: The monitor and myself were empowered to make approval for changes to the plans unless we would think that they needed further discussion we would refer it to the board. So, we would have had that conversation, are we comfortable with this or does it need to go to the whole board. Doug: Was that made clear by you to either Ron or Jack that that was a problem at the meeting. Amy: I believe I made it clear. Doug: To whom? 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Amy: Ron and Jack. Doug: By saying what? Amy: By saying that I didn't feel I had the authority to make the approvals and they needed to submit something in writing to the whole board. Doug: Did you understand that as a result of that meeting, that Jack Palomino was going to bring it to the HPC or send you something. Amy: Yes. Doug: But there wasn't any definite time for that? Amy: No. Doug: Can you remember generally what that discussion was with Jack? Amy: Just what I already stated that it would need further approval and be in writing. Doug: And that he would do that and get it to you. Amy: Yes. Doug relayed that he had no further questions for Amy Guthrie. BOARD MEMBERS Melanie: When did construction start? Ron Schelling: The permits were issued on the 21 sl of August. There was a selected demo permit issued the first week in August to get the house ready for moving. Melanie: When did any kind of movement start. Ron: On the selected demo, right after the permit was issued. I'm the one that determined we had to get Amy out here. Gilbert: Amy, you described the current condition of the house as a replication ofthe historic building and I am wondering in the documentation that I see here, I do not see there was any discussion about replicating the building as compared to what was in the approved documents. Was there any discussion about replicating the building, specifically was there discussion about framing the building and disassembling that or demolishing any of that? 12 .----........ 1 ... ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Amy: No at any part of the HPC approval and the only time that came up on the site visit was regard to the portion of the building that had been burned They were to follow-up with approvals on what to do. Lisa: Photo #5, is it your understanding that that was the condition of the house after it was removed and placed back onto the new foundation. Amy: Yes. . Suzannah said for clarification is that before it was moved back or in its temporary relocated position. Amy: Actually I am not sure. It looked like the building before it was moved back into place, as best I can tell. Doug said the picture is after the house was back. The new foundation is under it. Doug said Amy relayed that there wasn't anything about replication in the conditions of approval in answer to Gilbert's question. Doesn't condition #14 refer to replicating those items that are beyond salvage? So it does contemplate replication does it not? Amy: Gilbert's question was regarding replicating the entire building and that wouldn't typically be something we were contemplating with the language of#14. You are right, it does offer it as a possibility. Doug: What do you do if you have to put something up on a building as a result of a code that wasn't there, like the new siding which is actually the particle board on the outside of the house, are you aware that there was nothing like that on the old house? Amy: I became aware ofthat at the August 23rd site visit. Doug: Some things have to be put on when the house is rebuilt that were not there before and some things have to be replicated in these situations do they not? 13 ..-.-..........." 1- ..-- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Amy: There are some different approaches to how the building has been improved in terms of bracing and things like that. Yes, in some cases those things are added due to the code and in some cases other methods are found. Doug: The house was built in the 1880's a lot of work, some good and some not so good have been done since then. Amy: Yes. David Hoefer: Concerning restoration vs. replication can you give us your definition of the difference. Amy: In some of our documents we have specific definitions for them. In summarizing restoration would be to work with the existing materials and repair them as needed. Replication is to construct something from entirely new materials. David Hoefer: When you are doing restoration, so that I am clear, there is some replication but its done within the basis of the historic house, correct? Amy: It is only when something is beyond salvage. David Hoefer: Which is what these documents reflect. Amy; Yes. David Hoefer: Concerning the framing, do you consider the framing to be historic at this point? Amy: Today, no. David Hoefer: Why is that? Amy: From our site inspection recently it is an entirely new building with pieces of the original framing tacked in not in any sort of authentic placement. David Hoefer: Why is historic framing important? 14 ..,.1,.-- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Amy: It is part ofthe record of the building. It is part of the integrity of it as a 19th century structure if the original framing is lost there isn't a 19th century building there anymore. David Hoefer: Concerning the windows did you see how many windows they saved at the site? Amy: When I was there last week I do not recall seeing the windows. David Hoefer: According to the plan on page A2.0C does it refer to a number of different windows as being historic and being required to be retained. Amy: Yes. David Hoefer: So consequently there should be more than one window saved at this point? Amy: Yes. David Hoefer: Did you at anytime authorize the destruction of any of the windows that were there? Amy: No. Doug: You were aware that most of those windows turned out to be wood windows over aluminum frames, that those were aluminum windows? Amy: Yes. Doug: That was not what was contemplated by A2.0C was to keep no historic windows. Amy: No, A2.0C said that historic windows would be kept and that was everyone's assumption and that was all of the information that we had. Doug: That assumption turned out to be incorrect. 15 .----.......''.1 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Amy: It did later. Doug: You talked about the structural integrity of the old house. What do you do when the old house doesn't have structural integrity enough to hold itself together? Amy: There is a note on one of the structural sheets S2.2. There is mention of sistering new framing onto the existing. That would be the typical way to increase the strength of the building. Doug: In fact, right now the old framing was sistered onto the new framing. Amy: That is what the condition is right now. Doug: What is there now structurally in the level of that house is what is . also on the approved drawings, structurally. The glue lams and the other things that were approved on the drawings. Amy: Say that again. Doug: What is sitting there now is structurally what is show on the drawings. Amy: I do not know that I would agree with that as I said there is mention of maintaining existing framing. Doug: But the existing framing is sistered to the new elements of that frame board. All along the west wall and the rafters on the West Side. Amy: Yes, but it is not sistered to the members in their original location. Doug: How do you know that. Amy: Because, maybe I am making an assumption but what I looked at, you have rafters landing on a plate and a stud not directly underneath it. Things are not aligned in a typical way. It doesn't appear that the pieces of the original framing are anyway structural now. They are just tacked onto a new building. 16 '.-..... ....... ... I. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Doug: When you say anyway structural, what do you do if they are not structurally sound enough to hold up the structure? Amy: What I am saying is that typically you would see the original framing system intact. New members would be placed against it. Instead you have an entirely new building and here and there there is a stud tacked in. From what I saw, it is not in regular spaces it is just here and there. Doug: Do you know what the spacing was on the old studs. Amy: I am not sure that I recall. Doug: In picture two these are far apart and that would not pass today would it? Amy: I do not know what specifically the code is but probably not. Doug: So you have to work those in among the new materials, do you not? Amy: Yes. Doug: That is all. Suzannah relayed that the board needs to discuss with the other applicants on the agenda whether or not they would like to be continued until another day. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS Suzannah opened the public hearings. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue the public hearingfor 610 W Smuggler & 505 N. Fifth Street until Dec. 20th, second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Susan moved to continue the public hearing andfinal review for St. Mary's Church at 104 S Galena until Dec 20th; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried. 17 .----."... 1,- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Rally: Most historic houses were built with 2x4 for walls and 2x6 for roofs and structurally 2x6 are not code anymore and that is why they are 2x12. At what point does historic preservation leave off and building codes take precedence over that. What would be the remedy or solution for keeping the historic framing intact but meeting new codes. Amy: A permit cannot be issued for something that the building department isn't confident meets the UBC. There are certain leeway or opportunities for them to look at things differently on historic buildings so it may not have to rise to quite the level of an entirely newly constructed building. Rally: Say you are required to some degree to beef up the roof system for example, at what point does the historic integrity of the historic framing loose its integrity and sub-planted by the new code frame? Amy: The goal is to not have the members destroy the integrity ofthe original system. That the two are co-existing. That is the concept that is mentioned here sistering next to the original structure. Rally: A 2x6 will not hold a roof. Amy: I don't feel that is necessarily true as there are lots of buildings that are sitting out here right now that have not gone through any restoration process and they do not have any additional framing that has been added. Rally: Right but when you start going in and changing the roof forms, are you required to put in something that is code or can you go in and put in 2x6 new rafters in order to keep the same thickness of the roof and the fascia detail exterior? Amy: I am not sure I can answer those kinds oftechnical questions, those are judgment calls that structural engineers and the Building Dept. typically get into. Doug: As an historic preservation staff member you deal with these all the time. 18 ,--"..,.1... ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Amy: I am not a structural engineer who determines which additional framing and what exactly has to be done to meet the UBC. Doug: If there is a 2x6 or 2x4 holding it up that certainly won't pass the building inspection today. Amy: That is not my judgment call to make, I don't administer the UBC. There are lots of 19th century buildings sitting in town with 2x4 and 2x6 that are acceptable to the Building Department, they meet the UBC. Doug: Do they meet the UBC or are they there just because they have always been there? Amy: They are pre-existing. Doug: They wouldn't meet the UBC. Amy: I honestly can't answer that question. It is a Stephen Kanipe call. There maybe exceptions in the UBC for historic buildings. Doug relayed that is all he has right now. David Hoefer: In fact we have approved other houses restorations where we require them to retain the framing. Amy: Yes. David Hoefer: They can make upgrades and modifications as necessary to meet the building code but none the less you keep the historic framing intact. Amy: Yes. David Hoefer: That was not done in this case. Amy: Right. David Hoefer addressed the witness Fred Jarman. David: Fred, who are you employed by? 19 ..,.......-..,.....,.1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Fred: Community Development Dept. David: When you were first hired what was your position? Fred: Land use planner. David: Currently you are wearing two hats, is that correct? Fred: Yes. David: What would the second hat be? Fred: Acting historic preservation officer. David: So you are filling in for Amy while she is on maternity leave. Fred: That is correct. David: When did you start acting as the historic preservation officer? Fred: On Oct. 11th or 12th. David: Shortly after you started in that capacity did you receive a phone call concerning 213 W. Bleeker Street. Fred: Yes I did. David: Who was that call from? Fred: The call came in from Amy Guthrie as well as Suzannah Reid. David: What was the nature ofthe calls? Fred: The calls were basically a red flag to me that there was something happening on the site at 213 W. Bleeker that was not consistent with what was approved and that there was also a memorandum that was coming to me from the architect of the project and in fact that memo had arrived by the time I received the calls. David: That would be October 11, 2000, is that correct? Fred: That is correct. David: That is exhibit D from Mr. Palomino? Fred: Yes. David: Did you then go out to the site at some point? Fred: I did after hearing the phone call from Amy and Suzannah and reading the memorandum from Jack Palomino dated October 11 tho I called Jack Palomino and asked him about what was happening at the site that I had received a fax. I indicated to him that I understood that changed had actually happened and that the memo that I received was in fact retroactive and in the bit of disbelief he indicated to me we should be at the site so we went out to the site on the 20th of October. David: At the site who did you meet with? Fred: Jack Palomino, Ron Schelling and Suzannah Reid. David: What did you discuss at that site visit? 20 --.........+..-- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Fred: We discussed the changes that they requested and in fact viewed what was on the ground and what had transpired with the respect to the requested six issues on the memo. David: Did it appear that those had already been done? Fred: Yes David: That would include for the record, the roofing, siding, windows, bay window, fire damage and the shed floor elevation? Fred: Yes. David: Did you indicate at that time what was going to happen? Fred: We did. Suzannah indicated that the project would have to stop at that point and that we would go back to City Hall and have the building officials come out and do a red tag order. David: Did you see any reaction between Jack Palomino and Ron Schelling at that point? Fred: The reaction was certainly something that they didn't want to hear and it came as a shock to both ofthem. A larger shock was the fact that Jack hadn't realized that the work had progressed past without the approvals that he had requested in the memo. There was a bit of confusion it seemed between the architect, Jack Palomino and Ron Schelling, owner/contractor as to what approvals they had and what authority they had to move forward putting them in their current position. David: At that time or a later time did you also notice a problem with the framing; i.e. did it appear to be historic framing? Fred: No, in my judgment and through the walkthroughs what exists now is a new frame with the lumber that exists, the existing old historic lumber if you will from the original structure had been married into the existing new wood structure. David: Is it safe to say that they did the reverse as to what is normally done in historic buildings? Fred: Yes. David: In other words in a normal situation the historic framing would be there and they would work around that as opposed to doing it in reverse? Fred: Yes. David: Did you go back and get a red tag at that point or was a red tag issued? 21 ,.,...,.-- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Fred: We did. We came back to City Hall and met with you and then met with the building department and later that same day the building department went out and issued the project a red tag. David: At this point does it appear to be a replication or a restoration? Fred: Now, in my opinion this is a pure replication of what's there and essentially what you have is a brand new structure that has some of the parts of what used to be structure. It is no longer a structure, it is wood laying on the ground that they placed in with a new structure. That clearly fits my definition of replication, rather than restoration. David: Have you seen the stipulation paragraph #5 of the agreed facts and does that appear to be what is remaining at this point in time of the historic elements? Fred: Yes. David: Did you have a conversation with Palomino concerning the allegations here and did he recognize that there was a problem? Fred: Yes he did. David: Could elaborate on the conversation. Fred: Simply, we arrived at the site and he clearly recognized that he had a site that had proceeded without the approvals that requesting and work had been completed and he didn't do anything about it. When we got there it was a shock for him. David: Did you discuss the alleged violations with Mr. Schelling as well? Fred: Yes, he was present as well. David: Did he recognize it as a problem or did he seem surprised by it? Fred: He seemed surprised. David had no further questions for the witness. Doug: Regarding Jack Palomino was there any conversation about why it took him almost two months to do the memo regarding the August 23rd meeting? Fred: No, the only thing I knew was that he stated he was away for two weeks is what I had heard during the conversation. I do not know ifthere were any reasons why he couldn't generate a memo to us sooner. I know that the meeting was on the 23rd of August with Amy and I received the fax the 11th. Doug: That is a month. Doug: What is the purpose of requiring restoration rather than replication? 22 --,,--...1.,. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Fred: My assumption is that you've got a structure that is deemed by something, some one, some board that there is integrity and historic value to it and that would beg the question if its worthy of saving, should we save it. In that sense you would use the original materials as best possible. A replication is a similar intent except that the materials are different, you represent the same existing portion of something and as far as replication V s restoration when you reach a certain point I think you go beyond restoration and enter into replication then you are unclear as to what you are preservmg. Doug: You said the integrity of the structure, but if the integrity of the structure is gone because it is deficient and defection and it's inside the walls what have you accomplished, you have created a building that is not structurally sound. Fred: I do not have any evidence to give you that the structure was not structurally sound. I cannot answer that question. Doug: But ifit wasn't structurally sound what would be the case then? Fred: Probably in this case the decision would be something that the board (HPC) needs to make. Doug: Have you looked at these plans that are exhibit C? Fred: Yes. Doug: Have you compared the plans to the dimensionality of the structure that exists there now? Fred: No. Doug: So you do not know if it is correct or not? Fred: That is correct. Doug: What is the purpose of requiring the gingerbread feature on the out side of the house being historic rather than replications? Fred: Because it contains historic value to that property. Doug: Isn't it a lot more important to have that on the outside as historic rather than something that is concealed behind a wall that no one will ever see? Fred: I am not sure ifthat entirely means that the structure doesn't retain it significance if it is something you can't see. Doug: Isn't it more important to have it on the outside where you can see it, as being truly historic? Fred: No being well versed as a professional historic preservation officer I do not think I can make that statement. Doug: Ok. 23 '..---........ .... 1 .,.. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 BOARD QUESTIONS Melanie: When structural changes are made or required things like the shed floor, fire damage etc. beside the decision being made by the HPC officer and the monitor and whole board are there requirements that plans be drawn or details given back to the City that are structural changes? Is there some sort of official structural change that has to be made? Do they need a change or something like that? Fred: I am not sure. Suzannah: We cannot ask questions of ourselves. Rally asked Stephen Kanipe, building official a question. Are exceptions made for historic structures as far as not complying with the UBC? Stephen Kanipe was sworn in. Stephen Kanipe: In some respects, yes. There is a document that is the uniform code for building conservation that is compiled specifically to deal with those UBC conservation conflicts and this is the document that we have adopted. David concluded with his witnesses. Doug: You have reviewed the demolition scope of work, the preservation plan and the conditions set forth by HPC have you not? Ron Schelling, owner: Yes I have. Doug addressed Exhibit F on the demolition scope of work. #1 Remove all non-historic windows as identified on the plan. You have heard the testimony of the previous witnesses regarding this and is what they say about the historic and non-historic windows substantially correct? Ron: Yes it is. 24 ............, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, December 13. 2000 Doug: How many historic windows were in that house? Ron: One. Doug: Where is that window now? Ron: That window is in the historic shed. Doug: Is it going to be reincorporated in the dwelling in the place that it came out of? Ron: Yes it is. Doug: On #2 you did remove the existing front entry porch including all roofing, roof structure, floor structure, and the north and east exterior enclosure walls. The flooring, is that still onsite? Ron: The tongue and groove spruce type flooring appears to be old. Doug: Will that be reincorporated into the new dwelling? Ron: Yes. Doug: Where? Ron: In the exterior porch floor. Doug: What was there before was a former porch that was enclosed? Ron: That is correct. Doug: On photograph #5 Ron: #5 shows the porch all enclosed. Doug: And now this much exists and there is a setback for what was a former porch before they remodeled? 25 '-- .,..... 1 ,".- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Ron: That is correct. Doug: You removed the existing greenhouse? Ron: That is correct. Doug; You removed everything in #5 did you not? Ron: Yes we did. Doug: How about #6? Ron: All the gypsum board, ceiling surfaces. Doug; In #7 you removed the existing brick chimney and is that what is shown on photograph #3? Ron: Yes it is. Doug: Are those bricks stored on site at the present time? Ron: Yes they are. Doug: Will they be placed in the newly reconstructed house? Ron: Yes. Doug: On #8 did you do what was required there? Ron: We moved all the existing floor structure in the process of relocating the building, yes we did. We saved all of that. Doug: Did you move the house back off its site where it was originally saved and move it back on intact? Ron: The house got moved to the rear yard while the new foundation was being done and moved back onto the foundation. Doug: You did 9,10,11,12 did you not? 26 ----...--...--,-,-- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Ron: Yes we did. Doug: Lets turn to the preservation plan. Doug: When you discovered that there were some things in the house that had been thought to be historic but were not historic of course, that August 23rd meeting was called and as a result of the August 23rd meeting do you agree that exhibit D that was prepared by Jack Palomino correctly represents what happened at that meeting? Ron: Yes it does. Doug: When you left that meeting what was your understanding as to what Jack Palomino was going to do as a result of that meeting? Ron: He indicated to that he was going to take care of it by getting the paper work to the HPC. Doug: Did you ever talk to him about this project after Aug. 23rd and prior to October 11 Ih? Ron: Several times during the month of September. Doug: What was the gist of those conversations? Ron: I point blank asked him that we were getting close to the point of getting the house back on the new foundation and at that time asked him if were going to be able to remove the siding and demo it rather than restore it since that was the bulk of the work, stripping the siding and getting it to a condition to reinstall. He indicated to me that the siding could be destroyed several times during the course of September. Doug: Did you and he talk about anything else relative to what you were doing out there? Ron: We talked about all these items on here that are addressed 1 .. 6. Doug: How did that conversation go? 27 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Ron: The conversation went that the roofing was agreed upon, that the roofing was past its service limits and that I was going to be able to throw it away. The siding we talked about, the windows, the aluminum windows were not historic and that they could be thrown. The bay window we looked at the framing there and it was obvious that there was a larger opening previously since it had new lumber framing the old opening to a smaller opening. The fire damage was looked at and there was extension fire damage, not only in the kitchen are but in the foyer area. The shed floor elevation was too low with relation to the elevation of the alleyway. There was a lot of soil against the shed which was going to cause it to deteriorate ifthat wasn't changed. Doug: You heard the conversation about the old materials being incorporated into what some people would refer to as the new structure. Would you explain what happened when you started dismantling the existing house after it was back on the new foundation? Ron: After we started dismantling the removal of the siding, the roofing, the micro lambs that were installed for the moving process were removed, the structural integrity of the house was just to a point where there was really nothing left of it. Ron: The ceiling joists were all removed because they were not part of the new design. Those were holding the walls and the roof up basically holding it together. All the interior walls were removed as part of the approved demolition. Really, the only part of the house that was left was the circled portion, a little bit in the front, the west wall and a very tiny bit in the south west corner. The stud walls on the East Side of the house were part of the previous fire. Doug: Do those show on picture #2? Ron: It shows some of them. It shows that area in the original kitchen. Doug: What was done with the west wall shown on the demolition plan? 28 1 '..----,...---.--.----...., ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Ron: The west wall, basically we picked up the roof section and slid the new materials in place. Doug: Why did you sister in the old studs and rafters like you did? Ron: Well, in my mind it was the only way to do it in order to make all the new materials structurally supportive of the entire structure. Doug: Was it your understanding that you were allowed to proceed with this based on your conversations. Ron: It was my understanding based on several conversations that I had with Jack that it had been taken care of. Doug: Have you saved all of the portions of the house for use in the use of reconstruction that are shown on the stipulation? Ron: Everything in paragraph #5 is there. There is some additional stuff that is not mentioned on here and that is the porch decking, the end moldings and souffet materials. Doug: Is there anything else that you are aware of that is saved to be incorporated in the new house. Ron: That should pretty much cover it. David asked Ron if Jack Palomino was under contract with him? Ron: Yes. David: Consequently would you agree that as the owner of the house you are legally responsible for his decisions as well as your own? Ron: That's correct. David: Would you agree that Jack did not bring the request forward to HPC in a timely manner and that the changes were in fact made prior to that letter arriving at City Hall, is that correct? 29 , ........--..'--... -I ..--". ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Ron: That's correct. David: Concerning the sistering in of the old framing, in fact many of the pieces do not offer any support at the present time, isn't that correct? Ron: Currently yes. David: There is a gap between them and the top. David. If Jack had in fact come forward at an HPC meeting would you have attended that meeting with him? Ron: In all of the meetings that we had I was only at one of them and he handled all ofthem. David: You primarily let him carry the ball? Ron: That is correct. David: Did you take the training course for the specialty license for an HPC contractor? Ron: Yes I did. David: Did you obtain a set of materials from the historic preservation office and did you read all of those materials? Ron: Yes I did. David: So you understood the difference between replication and restoration and would you agree that at this point it is probably a replication? Ron: With regard to the structural? David: Yes. Ron: I would say that is fairly accurate. 30 "'"_<"~~___"""_'''',~',^'__~_>o",,,~,,_ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 David Hoefer stated that he had no further questions. HPC member questions. Melanie: Prior to this, have you worked on any historic structures? Ron: No I have not. Lisa: As outlined in the preservation and demolition plan in a number of situations it indicates that the removal of certain materials had to be reviewed and approved by the HPC, staff and monitor. Was it your understanding that Mr. Palomino had met with HPC, staff and monitor? Ron: That was my intent of bringing these things to the attention of Amy and Jack when we did the selective demolition. It was me that pointed all of these six items out to Jack that we better get HPC out here to look at these because the drawings were not accurately depicting what we actually had out there. So, with that I called Jack and we set the meeting up for August 23rd thinking then in conversations that later followed that I had done everything that I needed to do. Lisa: So it wasn't your understanding that as you moved along with different demolition or opening of the walls that it was necessary again to call HPC staff, subsequent to the Aug. 23rd meeting? Ron: I didn't feel we had any further reason to get HPC out there after August 23rd. Gilbert: During this delay from Aug. 23rd meeting to the October 11 th letter you said you had asked the architect if things were being taken care of. At any time during that period did you contact Amy or any of the HPC monitors? Ron: No I hadn't because I hadn't previously and Jack had handled everything. It was just something that he was handling. Gilbert: Did you discuss with him when you apparently opened up the walls and were able to look at what the framing what would have existed 31 1 ... ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 there. Did you discuss with the architect the notion that you would be disassembling that framing at any point? Ron: We talked about that and that is when we talked about the sistering of new to old, old to new. Gilbert: Did you or the architect to your knowledge ever discuss the notion of disassembling the framing with Amy or any of the HPC monitors? Ron: No. Gibert: I am assuming that this deconstruction of the framing occurred during this August 23rd to October 11 th time frame? Ron: That's correct. Gilbert: In looking at that one ofthe details on the drawings sheet A2.0C, the entry level demolition plan this does contemplate how some ofthis reconstruction of floor would occur and what this anticipates is that the existing 2 x 8 sill plate would remain. We don't see that out there now so I am wondering did you and the architect discuss removing that sill plate? Ron: I believe we did, yes. That was part of the selective demo prior to moving the house. Gilbert: Did you request the architect to have a conversation with Amy and the HPC monitors about removing that sill plate? Ron: Gilbert, I cannot honestly answer that, but I believe we did. I had several conversations with him back in the early part of August regarding this sheet right here because this is primarily the demo work that was done prior to the house being moved. Gilbert: When you had that conversation with them and requested in that conversation with Amy and the monitor did he give you a response to that? Ron: Regarding the sill plate, I can not honestly answer that. 32 I .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Gilbert: This drawing also says that the existing sheathing was to remain as well as the existing siding. It is clear that you guys have discussed the siding and that there was going to be some discussion about removing that so I am not really interested in that. What about the sheathing that was behind it or did you discover that there was no sheathing. Ron: There was no sheathing behind the siding there was a clear plastic visquine that was there. Melanie: Not being a contractor would you explain to me what an interior partition stud framing is? Is that something that is put on to support and then removed? Ron: Interior partition studs framing were the original walls that were not part ofthe new design. Melanie: They were removed after the house was moved. They were historic but not part of the new design? Ron: They were not historic, all the new partition framing, the majority of it was with new studding. Melanie: Interior partition stud framing was not historic. Rally: Is your understanding that the August 23rd meeting with Amy constituted an OK to go ahead that those changes that you guys had listed were approved? Ron: Well the way I understood it was that Jack was going to write Amy a letter and HPC was going to get together in their own formal meeting and decide what was going to happen. That is how I understood it. Rally: Had you had any confirmation that that had occurred before you began your demolition? Ron: Yeah, I did. That is the conversation that I had with Jack that he had indicated it was OK for me to throw the siding away. 33 1..----- -~=.,,~. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Rally: What about not just the siding but the roof? Ron: We talked about all six items. Lisa: David had indicated that Jack Palomino would be a witness. Is he still presumed to be a witness at some point? Tim Witsitt, HPC Special Council said that decision is up to the attorney's that are presenting the case. Jeffrey: Concerning the roofing on Jack Palomino's memorandum on item #1 is it correct that all of the stuff talking about being removed due to inadequate weathering is that not correct, does it say anything about framing in Exhibit D. Tim Whitsitt: What was your question Jeffrey? Jeffrey: The question I had was concerning the first portion of the roofing, does it say anything about removing the existing framing or are these just finishes and accoutrements.ofthe roofing? Ron: The exterior shake portion of the roof. Jeffrey: It is just the shingles and the ball ends and most of the shake roofing. Doug: Stephen Kanipe, in an historic house is the roof allowed to exist in a newly constructed or reconstructed historic house that will not support snow loads? Stephen: No. Doug: You couldn't pass an inspection, is that correct? Stephen: That is correct. You couldn't get an approved plan issued on a structural plan that could not support snow loads. Doug: In as far as you can tell is the roof structure out there sufficient or in conformity with the approved plans? 34 1---- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Stephen: The roof structure as drawn on S2.2 is sufficient. Doug: I know you didn't do the building inspection but you looked at the house. Does it appear to be constructed in conformity to the approved plan? Stephen: I cannot answer that because I did not do a framing inspection on that house. Doug: I realize that but you looked at the rafters. Stephen: I could ask Ron are these bent steel beams in there? Ron: Those are aluminum. Stephen: It is not built according to the approved plans. I did not recognize the bent steel beams and they are called out on S2.2 and they are not out there. Melanie: When changes are requested that are structural do they need to have a change order by the City? Stephen: Yes they do. Melanie: Then these were not done. Stephen: No they were not. We have not received any change orders. Susan asked Doug ifhe was going to ask Jack Palomino to be with us? Doug replied no. Doug stated he had no other witnesses. David Hoefer said he had no rebuttal that it was a good testimony. Tim suggested at this point that the chair open the public hearing. Suzannah opened the public hearing for 213 w. Bleeker. 35 -.------'-----".------'-I.---~...------ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 Suzannah closed the public hearing. Doug said there was something left hanging in the air as a result of what Stephen said. He said there were steel in there and there isn't. Was there a change order? Ron: There was a steel bent system that was going to be in the wall and gable, two of them and they were taken out and I can get you the paper that shows they were taken out. Doug: Was there a change order? Ron: Yes. Jeffrey: In David Hoefer's memorandum he had thought that Jack Palomino was going to be a witness, and is that going to be the case? David Hoefer: No, as I will discuss in my closing I do not feel it will make any difference because my argument is that Ron is the owner/contractor he is responsible for miss-communication with Jack unfortunate as it was. CLOSING STATEMENTS David Hoefer ask Tim Whitsitt ifhe wants the board to make a recommendation as to a penalty at this point? Tim Whitsitt said that would be helpful to the board. David Hoefer stated that this is a civil not a criminal proceeding. It doesn't matter what Mr. Schelling intent was. What matters is that we have an historic landmark building that today based on the testimony is a replication. We have a loss of a resource and the owner is the one that is responsible for that loss. It is unfortunate that there apparently was miscommunication between Jack Palomino and Ron Schelling but because Mr. Palomino was the representative of the owner who was also the contractor in this particular project he has a responsibility to bare for that and they can resolve if there is a financial penalty or whatever kind of financial impact is resulted in your decision they can resolve that amongst themselves. The only person that we can go after as a board is the owner. Ron obtained a specialty license and as Amy has indicated that was set up 36 --..' '1--......--, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 specifically to avoid these kinds of problems. Again, it is imperative that a contractor working on an historic project understand the significance of, for example removing historic framing so that is something that he is responsible for. I do not think it is disputed that the owner and the architect did not give permission to do the changes that occurred. We do not know at this point what the Historic Preservation Commission would have told them. When it came before them, the Historic Preservation Commission might have had very useful ideas for dealing with these problems that would have been different than how they were dealt with now which basically is removal ofthe structure. In addition, because it was a landmark it received variances and there were amenities that would not have been granted if it was to be a replication. And so again you have damage there. In terms of a penalty on page 4 of my memorandum I've set forth basically the two options. The first option is a moratorium on the property from 0-5 years. I personally do not favor a moratorium approach and think there are a lot of negative impacts with that. My view is it probably would be appropriate for somebody that did a midnight raising ofthe piece of property where they came in and just got rid of the historic resource but that is not what occurred here. For the neighbors they would probably prefer to have some sort of finished product in the neighborhood rather than an unfinished product. I would recommend the alternative approach which is similar to what we did with the Mullin case. In that case, we basically came up with a number of different things. The first one was that the owner was required to submit a remediation plan to the HPC for their review and approval. I think that is important in a case ofthis nature so that we are not representing it is an historic product when in fact it is probably not at this point. B: The remedial work was required to be supervised and performed by subcontractors. C: A weekly plan of action and a progress report were required to be submitted to the Historic Preservation Office of the City. D: In the Mullin case there was a fine in the amount of $15,000. I am not recommending a specific dollar amount. There are differences and the Mullin house probably was more important from an historic perspective because of its association with the former governor; however, this piece of property was an historic landmark and obviously significant. In the Mullin case some siding was removed and the damage was not nearly as significantly as in this case. These are things that the board has to wave back and forth. Then they required a letter of credit sufficient enough to cover the completion of the historic work. The owner was required to write 37 j.,_.._."--,._,,.,_.,,,,,---,-~,-^- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 a letter of apology to the community, which was submitted to both newspapers. Finally, there was a community service requirement for the contractor but I would note item G is actually the part that Stephen Kanipe would be dealing with which is the contractors license. That would be my recommendation. In no way are we saying Ron intentionally did anything wrong here but non-the less there is damage to the historic resource and there needs to be an appropriate penalty. Doug Allen state there is not much disagreement about the facts in this case. Ron Schelling relied on his architect all through the process to do what he agreed to do in connection with shepherding this along. Jack Palomino went through the whole Historic Preservation Process in behalf of Ron, got the project approved, all the conditions set forth, drew the plans in accordance with those conditions, came out there on August 23rd to the meeting and when he left the meeting Ron thought it was in Jack's hands to finish it. He had conversations with Jack after that time and Jack led him to believe that everything was OK and he could proceed with what he was doing. We had a serious lack of communication between those two people and it has put us where we are now. I think that everybody would agree that the most important thing about this house is that the materials on the exterior not be replicated but they be the historic materials. There is no historic siding and there was not historic siding on the house. We have a list in the stipulation the materials that have been preserved on the site that will be on the exterior of this house. I think we all know that the interior of the this house and what's going to be behind the sheet rock of the house when it is finished is structurally sound. The old pieces are sistered in there. There is a big controversy about whether the new pieces could have been sistered to the old when in fact the old were sistered to the new. There are several architects on the HPC and no body understands better than the board how all those goes together structurally. We have a very structurally sound shell. We have a house that has sheathing on the side where it didn't have it before and when the historic elements are restored to the outside of this house those ridge caps have been preserved, the front porch back the way it was before, the water board at the bottom of the siding, the corners and souffet trim, we will have the historic elements where they matter the most. The old bricks will be sticking out of the chimney just like they were on the old house. I think that is the most important thing. Everybody is absolutely correct it falls right on his shoulders. It was a horrible miscommunication. 38 ....._-,-.-~_____H~...._~~_'""'_~.__ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 I agree with David that some of these items in paragraph two of page 4 are probably appropriate. I do not see any problem with A, and we would agree to B. I would like to see a BI-weekly plan of action and progress report and C it was mentioned about the Mullin case. As part of preparing for this I went and looked at the Mullin case and most everything on the Mullin case seemed to relate to the exterior of the house. Things that were thrown away in the exterior that were not truly historic and were replicated. Ron has been religious about saving exterior items that are historic. I would suggest a fine ofless than $15,000 would be appropriate. We have no problem with D. The letter of apology to the community is appropriate because Ron is apologetic. The community service for the contractor is being handled by Stephen Kanipe. Tim Whitsitt: For clarification to the board in the past there has been an indication that a fine has been assessed. From either attorney is there some sort of defined range as to potential fine? That question should be in front of the board. David Hoefer said the fine was determined on the amount of staff time. I am not saying that there is a maximum or a minimum as it should be reasonable within the idea of being that there needs to be some penalty for misconduct and restitution with the city for staff time. At the last time part of the money went to the program to set up the contractor's license and part of the money went to various departments. Doug said he felt $15,000 is a little excessive from the circumstances. There has been some staff time spent on this and this is not as serious an issue as the Mullin case was. Tim asked if either attorney were aware of any actual limitations in terms of top amounts? Doug said he felt $15,000 would be the top amount. Tim said there has been an indication made that certain variances were made and given because this was an historic landmark structure. Is there any opportunity for the board to recommend that those variances be rejected or withdrawn? 39 _.~-..--~.,I - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. December 13. 2000 David: My opinion is under subsection A on the remediation plan that the HPC could look again at those issues. Tim said the board will probably not made a decision tonight. They will call an executive session next Wed. and I would suggest that if either of you wants to submit anything in writing to the board regarding specifically limitations or recommendations on the remediation or penalties that should be done and exchanged by next Tuesday. David suggested doing proposed findings and an order. Suzannah suggested an executive session this evening. Tim said the meeting is concluded. Meeti~g adjo,;rned at 8:00 r~m. .0 ",J ". ~~~JI Kathleen J. Str' land, Chief Deputy Clerk c 40