Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070411 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 205 S. Mill, Suite 226 (Brunelleschi's) Minor Development, Commercial Design, Continued Public Hearing................................................................................................... 1 214 E. Bleeker Street - Major Development - Final, Review and Variance ..................... 4 500 W. Francis, Historic Landmark Lot Split..................................................................... 7 300 West Main ~ Show Cause Hearing .............................................................................. 9 24 .._.",_.~.^.-~--~~"_.,~,-~--~--_......-- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counsel John Worcester, City Attorney Jeffrey will recuse himself on 205 S. Mill 205 S. Mill, Suite 226 (Brunelleschi's) Minor Development, Commercial Design, Continued Public Hearing Gill Vanderra, owner; John Olson, contractor Michael chaired this item Sara said the review is for a deck outside their half story fa<;:ade along Hopkins. All unresolved issues with the Building Department have been complied with. HPC recommended that the applicant restudy the following Issues. 1. Tie posts back into the building. 2. Look into the proposed materials, plantings in the planting boxes proposed at ground level. 3. Size of the west screen door. HPC was amenable to plan I which was proposed Dec. 13th which keeps the stairs in their current configuration and chops off the comer of the deck which is closest to Grape & Grain. HPC also noted that they did not rule out the possibility of waiving 50% of the pedestrian amenity cash-in-lieu for the Mill Plaza building. The application is for 211 Y, square foot deck. Staffs recommendation is that we are still not in favor of having a deck in this location; however, we find that the applicant has met the requests made by HPC at the Dec. 13th meeting. Changes: The deck has been pulled two feet away from the property line, away from Grape and Grain which meet the building code requirements and relieves a 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007 little bit of the pressure that is on the Grape & Grain fa<;:ade. They are tying the deck back into the building with a little over 18 feet tall columns which are brick and metal. There is also a curved wooded beam. They have reduced the size of the metal screen on the west and it is now at the width of about 2'8". They are proposing a wood trellis at the base of the deck behind the planting. Brick and slate are the fabrics chosen. Staff is concerned about future additions to the deck specifically any sort of plastic screening that would happen during the winter time that would make this a usable space. A condition will be added to the resolution regarding screening. Commercial design review and pedestrian amenity space. The space at the sidewalk level does count toward the pedestrian amenity space for the Mill Street plaza building. This deck does not qualify because it is over the four foot height limit because this is a half story store front. At the Dec. meeting HPC seemed amenable to granting up to the 50% waiver of the cash-in-lieu fee which HPC is authorized to do by the land use code for good design. Brandy Dobbin handed out a colored material palate of the decking material, Exhibit 1. The steel beams tie into the steel on Jimmy's Restaurant fa<;:ade. John said the only issue to discuss is the cash in lieu. Gill also said the cash- in-lieu is an important issue because the restaurant is primarily a kids place. We are trying to give ourselves every chance to survive. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Sara stated she received an e-mail from Johrmy Ivansco, partner in Grape & Grain. He stated he was against the deck because it obscures the view of their store front unless a potential customer is exactly in front of the store. If the proposed deck was built and the restaurant went out of business the permanent structure would remain. The structure with no roof will remain partially unused during the winter months and the structure would also obscure the Katie Reid historic house. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Sarah said this project will be a great public amenity for this cold north facing space even though it is against our codes. The design ties into the building and is very thoughtful. Sarah said she feels wood glue lam beams 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 are not appropriate and foreign to the overall aesthetics of the building. Metal might tie in better. The steel mesh on the gate is fine. Alison said she continues to feel this space will be better for the building and will not detract. As far as the pedestrian amenity she is in favor of the 50% reduction in the cash in lieu. She also felt that the steel beam would be preferable. The plantings at the pedestrian level helps and the reddish scheme are more appropriate. Brian agreed with Sarah and Alison especially with regard to the beams which should be steel to tie into the building. The applicant has complied with the building code bringing the deck away from the Grape & Grain. The deck will add to the space which other wise is very dead space. Brian also said he is in favor of the reduction in the pedestrian amenity. Brian said his worry is the mesh storage area adjacent to the Grape and Grain and its visibility. You will see storage inside it etc. Possibly some of the material palate could be used instead of the mesh for the storage area. Michael agreed with everything that has been said. This building was built in the 80's and is somewhat antiseptic. The applicability of some of the guidelines and review don't have direct application here. Waiving half of the pedestrian amenity fee is a good gesture toward making town more affordable for locally serving businesses. The materials discussion can be handled by staff and monitor. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve resolution #12 for 205 S. Mill Street with the following added conditions: 1. The curved structural element be metal not wood. 2. The door/planter material be reviewed by staff and monitor. Motion second by Alison. Amended motion. Sarah amended the motion to add that the red colored slate scheme be used. The bottom course below the deck should be filled in with brick. The storage gate should be looked at with staff and monitor for other more permanent looking solid solutions. The beams should be made out of steel. The trex color to be saddle. Alison amended her second. 3 '...._r__..__r.'M~...._.,,_,._._.,_~._,,__,._.___._O____.._"_..n'~"'_"___''"_~___'' ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007 Discussion: John Olson said the wood came about due to costs and he understands that there is no wood on this building. If there is a way to wrap the wood in metal he will do that. Brian said structurally it doesn't have to be steel; the point is to match the materials. Amy asked ifthere was an aesthetic reason why the posts had to continue above the railing. Sarah said she feels the posts are out of context. The board felt that the curve could be eliminated and possibly the posts. Third amendment to the motion: Michael amended the motion to allow latitude to not do the post and curve and the revisions should be approved by staff and monitor; Alison second. Roll call vote; Alison, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-0. 214 E. Bleeker Street - Major Development - Final, Review and Variance Jeffrey was seated. Affidavit of public notice - Exhibit I Sarah said the proposal is for an addition to the rear of an 1893 single story Victorian located in the West End. At conceptual HPC granted relocation of the house forward, demolition of the outbuilding and approval of the new addition. A setback variance is also proposed for the combined side yard setback for light wells. Overall the application meets the guidelines. Site plan: Staff is a little concerned about the light well off the non-historic bay addition and its prominence along Bleeker Street. Staff is concerned about having a light well and rising up the patio a foot above the natural grade. Guideline 9.7 states that the light wells should be minimized. The landscape proposed is appropriate and it meets the guidelines that we have. The applicant should work with staff regarding the lighting fixture in the packet. Fenestration: The windows proposed for the new addition are appropriate. They are vertically oriented and double hung. Staff is a little concerned about the transom windows along the east elevation. Introducing a new element does not comply with guidelines 11.9 and 11.10 and we feel the transom windows should be eliminated. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 The applicant is also proposing to replace an historic double hung window with a French door to go out onto the patio. There is another entrance onto the patio and staff is opposed to the removal of the double hung window. In terms of materials what is being proposed is appropriate for the resource. The applicant is proposing coursed wood siding. The porch has to be removed when they relocate the historic home. The applicant is trying to locate photographs because there are questions about the balusters and railings which have been replaced with 2 x 4's. We also recommend that the stone steps that are leading to the porch be reused. They intend to demolish two non-historic chimneys. They are proposing flu on the rear elevation which is acceptable because it is not visible from Bleeker Street and it does not impact the historic resource. Setback variances: The light wells are at the minimum size required so variances are not needed but they need a combined side yard setback for a lot this size. The combined has to add up to 15 feet and it only adds up to ten feet so they need a variation of five feet. Staff recommends approval. Dave Rybak, architect explained that the renovation of this residence is with the idea of distinction within the context of a valuable resource. Dave went over the material selection. Ship lock siding with a Y, groove with a batten strip is the siding. A beveled lap siding is proposed for the hip roof building and the gabled roof building. Double hung windows are proposed for all new windows put into the house. We would like to add divided lights into the proposed new windows so that there is a clear distinction between new and old. We added transom windows to both the windows in the master area and the doors. The window trim will mimic what was existing. The structure will be relocated then put back at grade. The light well that Sara brought up does sit to the east side of the Bleeker Street fa<;:ade; however it works off of the back of bay that was added. It steps back approximately three feet. We have "ganged" our light wells so that two rooms take advantage of the one light well and that is probably why it seems larger than a light well for one room. We feel with proper landscaping that view of the light well will be screened from the street face. . Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007 Michael said the light well is concealed and appropriate. He also agreed that a different lighting fixture is recommended. Sara said in interpreting the guidelines she feels the transom windows are introducing a new element. Using the divided light and shape ofthe windows that were proposed without the transom were enough to distinguish between new and old. Michael said he would support staffs recommendation on the transom windows and the French doors. Sara reiterated that the side yard variance request is five feet on the east and five feet on the west side. They are required to have 15 feet and only have ten feet. Sarah thanked the applicant for being so thorough in his presentation. In terms of this application Sarah is in support of everything. She also can support the French doors given it is off the main fa<;:ade but cannot support the transom windows. Alison indicated that she is in favor of the light well and it combines two rooms. The landscape plan is great and works well with the neighborhood. The shielding of the front light well from Bleeker is acceptable. Alison also said she likes the lighting fixture and possibly there is a way to make it work with the lighting code. Regarding the fenestration it is always difficult to give away an historic window. The transom windows on the back read well. The materials and stone steps fit in well. Regarding the setback variance Alison is in favor of them because this is a one story building. Brian touched on the issues of concern for him. The light well will be visible from the streetscape and maybe there is something that can be done to reduce the size or prominence. With regard to the French doors he is not in favor of them and the historic resource should not be altered with the transom window. The transom windows on the new addition are acceptable. Hopefully the light fixture can be modified to comply with the lighting code. Jeffrey commended the applicant and staff on the thorough and thoughtful presentation. It makes it much easier to deliberate and understand the intentions. In addressing guideline 9.7 possibly staff and the applicant can reduce the size ofthe light well especially from the Bleeker Street side. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 Jeffrey also agreed that the transom window on the historic house should be eliminated but the one on the addition can remain. The foundation and relationship to grade is perfect and the detail is exceptional. Dave Rybak said they can reduce the width to the east by a foot of the light well. It is four feet deep and the minimum is three feet. Amy said the bay window is not historic and it sounds like Dave is trying to work around it and maybe a resolution is taking the bay window off and put the historic fa<;:ade back the way it was. The light well is trying to adapt to a circumstance i.e. bay window that is not historic. Dave said the access out of the great room is very important and we don't want to give it up. We understand the board's concern ofloosing the historic window but the window is set back. We could replace the window with a single door and store the window in the attic for future reclamation. The fa<;:ade is not the most important fa<;:ade on the building. Its visibility is not seen because it is set back from the church. Sarah said she feels this area of the house is a spot where we could alter the fat;:ade. The house has gone through growth and revolution. Michael reiterated that this is an historic resource and we can't allow this type of alteration to it. MOTION: Michael moved to approve resolution #13 with the elimination of condition #1. Condition #2 that the combined side yard setback variance of five feet is approved, which means you will end up with ten feet. Condition #4 be amended that the light well comes back one foot. It would be reduced to 3 feet in the east direction. Condition #5 clarifies that the transom window on the historic house be removed. Brian second the motion. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Alison is the monitor. 500 W. Francis, Historic Landmark Lot Split Affidavit of posting, exhibit 1. Sara explained that this is a 9,000 square foot lot that contains a two story Victorian and a carriage house along the alley that encroaches into the east and rear alley. The applicant is required to get an encroachment license for 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007 the carriage house. HPC is also being requested to give setback variances for the existing conditions. The parcel will be spit into a 3,000 square foot lot and a 6,000 square foot lot. Lot 2 which is the 6,000 square foot lot will have the Victorian and the carriage house. In terms of the FAR allotment in the R-6 zone district for a property with two detached dwellings, 4,080 square feet is allowed. The applicant is proposing for Lot 2, 2,987 square feet and Lot 1 would receive 1,093 square feet. The application is also requesting the 500 square foot FAR bonus to be allotted to Lot 1. Staff is in favor of the bonus going to Lot 1 because basically doing that will remove any potential FAR for landing on the two historic resources. Anne Marie McPhee represented the partnership. There is a partnership and the individuals are working on dissolving it and dividing the assets of the property. One current partner will own the two houses and the 6,000 square foot lot and the other partner will have the vacant 3,000 square foot lot. There are no current plans to develop the 3,000 square foot lot. The client will continue to maintain the historic houses and last year they spent a hundred thousand dollars in repairs. There are additional plans in the working so that everything is restored to its original state. They intend to replace all the windows. Sarah asked what the 6,000 square foot lot is allowed in FAR. Sara said 3,600 because they have two detached dwellings and the 3,000 would be allowed 2,400 square feet. Brian said if we had two separate lots coming forward for a development application the 6,000 square foot lot would be allowed more than what we are able to grant in this application. Ann Marie McPhee said basically what we are doing here is preventing no further development on the 6,000 square foot lot. That is part of the preservation concept here. Michael asked Sara what her thought was regarding the FAR bonus and the exemplary project. Sara said she looked at the FAR bonus more in terms of the intent of the preservation program. She forgot about all the restoration efforts that had happened in the past. The intent of the program is to remove development and pressure from the historic resource. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007 Anna McPhee said they can provide staff with the information of what restorations already occurred on the house. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the rneeting was closed. Sarah pointed out that she added a condition to the motion saying that the lots that are created are not required to mitigate for affordable housing. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve resolution #14 for 500 W. Francis, historic lot split and variances as stated in staff's memo with the inclusion of another condition that further clarifies #3 pursuant to section 26.420.030 the lots created through an historic landmark lot split are not required to mitigate for affordable housing. Motion second by Brian. Roll call vote; Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 300 West Main - Show Cause Hearing Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Jim True represented staff. John Worcester represented the City of Aspen. Jim stated that a show cause letter dated May 9, 2007 was directed to Corrine McGovern the owner of Mittel Europa 300 W. Main Street. The letter indicated that there was work done on the property without proper approvals from the HPC and also under one or more Red Tags. We have reached an agreement that Miss McGovern will admit that there have been violations. Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner will outline the violations. There is a stipulated agreement that is being presented to the HPC that there were violations of26.4l5.070 and what we are presenting to the HPC is a determination of the penalties under the code. HPC has authority to assert penalties for violations of the code for conduct that Miss McGovern is admitting. We are presenting the penalty phase. Jennifer Hall, attorney for Miss McGovern will present evidence that she feels appropriate for mitigation for the HPC to determine penalty and staff will have an opportunity to rebut. Staff is recommending that there be a requirement that Miss McGovern repair what was done to the best that it can be repaired pursuant to HPC guidelines. A minor development application is upcoming for the proposed restoration. That is part of the resolution. The statute says in this situation the HPC shall prohibit the owner from attaining a building 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007 permit for the subject property for up to ten years. Staff is recommending a five year moratorium as a penalty and staff is also recommending that a letter of apology by the owner be drawn up and approved by HPC be submitted to the papers, mailed to contractors etc. Miss McGovern and Miss Hall have agreed to that aspect. Jennifer Hall said Jim summed up the agreement very well. Amy Guthrie stated that the HPC will be presented a time line which represents the beginning of Sara Adams involvement. Sara took over the project in mid June and was good at documenting her contacts at the site. Amy said she was also at the site at least once and her recollection was more than that. Her first visit was March 2006. She explained that she was there for the purpose of the deterioration issues and did give advice to the owners about solutions and that there could be some HPC involvement. We were trying to describe the right direction to take this project. Michael asked what was the context of why you went out there. Amy said she went out there because Corrine had called her because she was the new owner of the site and she had work that she was interested in. My specific recollection of things that we discussed were that some exposed rafter tails were rotting and that something had to be done about that. Some porch columns were also rotting that needed to be addressed. She had some ideas of how to modify the porch roof and I also think I forwarded the HPC application. It was a preliminary discussion about what her intentions might be and what the process might be. Michael said but you hadn't taken any action at that point. Amy said no. By the time Sara came Corrine was asking for further information and I turned the project over to her. Jim explained that we are treating this as one violation not asking for consecutive penalties. From the standpoint of the penalty it is important to consider all of the violations starting with her initial contacts. Sara handed out copies of the red tags that were issued. Jim said we are pursuing this as more on an information basis at the penalty phase. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 Sara presented photographs for the HPC to review. Sara explained that the first red tag was issued by the Building Department which was prior to her involvement. She became involved in July of 2006. Corrine called her and was interested in filling in some of the rafters that was heavily deteriorated. There were big holes that were severe. Sara said she would do a site visit to determine what the deterioration really is. A site visit was done with someone from the Building Department because I had ridden my bike by and saw that the rot was so far along that I was concerned about the safety of the building. That site visit occurred July 28, 2006 and we were discussing the structural members whether or not they were sound and the process that Corrine should go through in order to fix a lot of the rot. Michael asked what the status of the building was. Sara stated this building is a designated landmark building and it is also in the Historic Main Street District. It is a 1940's log cabin. On July 28, 2006 I wrote a letter explaining the process that needed to happen with the HPC and I also expressed that we needed to see an engineer's assessment. Eric Pelton from the Building Dept. came with me and we were concerned about the structural soundness of this building and getting through the winter. Multiple e-mails were sent starting in July through September to follow up with getting the engineer's assessment. We definitely tried to give Corrine some flexibility in getting the assessment. No enforcement had happened throughout the summer. We just wanted the engineer's assessment before the first snow fall. Since it wasn't happening on Sept. 2i\ 2006 I issued a 2nd red tag or correction notice to get an engineer's assessment as I was very concerned and Stephen Kanipe from the Building Department also stated that he was concerned with this building. That did happen within 30 as required. Oct. 24th, 2006 we received an assessment from Barry Maggart and Associates and I read through it and had a lot of questions about what he was proposing. Some of the repair methods I felt would not last or work and were not appropriate for this site. We still had talked about coming before HPC and talked about the different processes that could occur. There were e-mails sent back and forth with the engineer stating that ~utting a steel cap on some of the wood pieces was appropriate. On Oct. 30t ,2006 Craig Barnes who is a HP licensed contractor submitted a building permit. I got the building permit and it was exactly what the engineer had given me first and I said we cannot issue this permit because we are still unresolved about how to go about repairing the building. A hold was put on the permit. I 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 gave a copy of the letter that was sent to Barry Maggart to Craig when he came in and asked why his permit was not issued. I explained all the issues. The next day Oct. 31, 2006 I got a call from Craig Barnes and he said there was work going on at 300 W. Main Street. Photos were submitted showing what the front porch and rafters looked like previously. On Oct. 31, 2006 one of the columns was replaced and the rafter tails had been cut sometime prior to July 2006. Stephen Kanipe, department head for the Building Department and I issued a stop order since there was no permit and no approvals. Again I inform Corrine that she needs to submit an application to HPC to propose a long term solution to the wood rot and rafter problems and that she needed approval from HPC for this work. On Nov. 13,2006 I got an e-mail from Barry Maggart confirming that the cabin would survive the winter snow load. On Nov. 14,2006 Stephen Kanipe and I discussed this and decided that maybe periodic inspections (visual) of the building should occur just in case we got a stormy winter that the cabin would make it through the snow load. Amy Guthrie and I decided that we needed a deadline for a minor development application to work on how to fix the column that had already been replaced and the rafter tailings that had already been cut and try to figure out ways to restore the building. On Dec. 12, 2006 I rode my bike by and saw that the tailings on the front porch had been cut and there was a gutter installed. I also discovered that the chinking in the comer had been removed and it is still gone. Leaving the chinking unattended is not a situation you want to leave throughout the winter because water gets in there and will rot the beams even more than they are already deteriorated. On Dec. 12th, 2006 we issued the third red tag again for work without a permit. The first red tag was issued by the Building Department, the second red tag was issued to get the engineering assessment within 30 days which did happen and the third red tag was for the work that had been done without a permit. There is an application submitted for minor development that will be heard by the HPC that will hopefully restore this building back to what it had looked like with the overhanging tailings etc. The historical materials have been removed and we definitely tried to convey the proper process. John Worcester identified the documents that had been referred to: 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 The first is a tirne line that consists of two pages. Then there were approximately 25 sheets some of which are printed on both sides that consist of various information, work orders and e-mails back and forth from Corrine McGovern. I would ask that they be introduced into the record - Exhibit I. Jim wrapped up that staff in essence is recommends that there be three penalties entered by the HPC. 1. To restore the property as best possible through the proper procedure outlined in the code. 2. That there be a prohibition of obtaining a building permit for a period of five years. 3. A letter of apology and recognition of the conduct that is to be made public in some form. Jeffrey asked if some kind of financial penalty is recommended. Jim said in 26.415.140 it does indicate that a violation is subject to general penalty provisions of the title; however, it also discusses additional penalties and within the additional penalties for this particular violation of 26.415 .070 financial penalties are not discussed. John Worcester, City Attorney said his position is that it does not allow for monetary penalties unless the appellant is admitting to the violation and is willing to make a payment ofthe fine. We have in the past, in lieu of the moratorium allowed for a payment but it is only if the respondent agrees to it. Jim said staff has taken the position that a fine is not necessarily appropriate in this situation and a moratorium is more appropriate. Amy Guthrie explained some of the past experiences with enforcement. We have had two significant enforcement issues previous to this situation that came to the level of a show cause hearing. The first was in 1997 which was the Mullin's house and the second was the Schelling house in the West end. The Mullin's house in 1997 was a project that was approved by HPC and in the field it went awry and they did a number of things that were not approved. It was a very concerning situation. We had a hearing and understood how things came to be and the project was threatened with certain penalties such as revoking bonuses etc. that would undermine their 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007 ability to finish their project. In that case they offered to pay the City a fee to be used for historic preservation and at that time it was $15,000. We used that money to develop the historic preservation contractor license thinking that we needed to do a better job of communicating the appropriate kind of work in the field. It has been very successful and is a model used around the country. The second violation was the Schelling project in 2000. That case is what I would call the midnight demolition. They had little by little demolished the building which is obvious the worst case we can imagine. We had a show cause hearing and the conclusion was that we had done everything that we could to communicate to you what the rules are. We had adopted a lot more series of conditions of approval and they had a licensed preservation contractor on the project. They also offered to pay a cash fee and escalated that to $125,000. As I recall there was a lot of debate on the board not being comfortable setting a price tag on what it takes to get out from under HPC. We have been using that for several projects for HPC projects, Holden Marolt, Aspen Grove Cemetery etc. There has been an upside to it but we lost a resource. A couple years after Schelling we revised our entire preservation ordinance and doubled the moratorium penalty. It used to be a five year penalty and in 2002 it was increased to a possibility of ten years moratorium for violations. With that in mind that is why staffs position is recommended at five years. Ten years is the worst; however we feel what has gone on is not acceptable and is not pattern that can be continued in the future. We do not want any message sent out to the public that this the appropriate thing to take place. We tried multiple times to make contact on this site and it wasn't a once case violation. It has happened numerous times. There is significant staff time spent on this. This is very serious and we cannot have this happen. There are 250 historic resources in town out of 2,400 properties. We are talking roughly 10% of our building stock in town that is actually historic. This town places a lot of value on our historic character and we do not feel that any of our resources can be treated this way. Our position is no less than five years. Jennifer Hall, attorney at Holland and Hart representing for Corrine McGovern who owns the property through her company Mittel Europa. Her partner Lisa Zanie operate a home office in half the building and she occupies the other half of the property as her residence. Corrine drafted a letter to the commission - Exhibit II. In short Corrine does respect the fact that this is an historic asset, a public asset. This is an unfortunate set of circumstances that led us here. We do admit to the violations that occurred essential the four violations. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 1. One being that the tailings of the roof form being cut which actually happened on two different occasions. 2. The front porch column being removed and replaced. 3. The chinking is removed around the front porch column. 4. That gutters were installed. We had discussions with staff to reach an agreement about what we thought were appropriate penalties. By all means Corrine wants to correct all the work that was done and restore the property and the damage that still exists in accordance with the HPC regulations and rules and that is why we have an application in to try and comply with that. She definitely agrees with staffs position that this is not something that anybody wants repeated. She is certainly willing to write a letter of apology to the public but on another note we suggested that it be a good idea because of the circumstances that happened to her in order for this to be avoided in the future it might be a good idea to send some notice to our licensed contractors that helps to remind them of HPC rules and regulations and how things work. The real issue that we are stuck with is the length of the moratorium. What we are asking you to consider right now are the circumstances of this case and also consider the past enforcement actions that occurred and we just ask for a fair penalty. A two year moratorium is a sufficiently harsh penalty to avoid this from happening again in the future. Jennifer entered into the record a contextual time line - Exhibit III. Jennifer entered into the record a time line calendar - Exhibit IV. Jennifer said there are a couple of dates that we should focus on. Jennifer emphasized that there is not a pattern of violations of history here. We have discrete incidences that occurred. One of the sets of violations that happened was when the porch column was replaced and the chinking was removed. This all happened on October 31, 2006. Basically Corrine had a contractor early on in the s~ring and fired that contractor and then when Sara came to the site on July 28t because Corrine had called them up and asked if she could fill in the columns and she didn't know much of what she was talking about and obviously Sara was alarmed and came out to the property. That was the first time that Corrine understood that there was serious structural deterioration to the property. Corrine brought the property and had an inspection and it was never said that there was structural issues. Michael asked when the property was bought. Jennifer said November 2005. She became aware of the problem and realized she had to do stuff to address the problem. Sara did say she needed a structural report. If you 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 look at the time line it was August ih, 2006 that Corrine started calling engineers for this and went through nine engineers and couldn't find anybody that had the availability. Finally got to Maggart and he said he could come out to the property August 1 ih 2006. Maggart comes out to the property and she advises Sara Adams that she has an appointment with Maggart at the property and he did the analysis. The big problem there is that Mat Mongert who did the investigation left on a one month vacation August 25, 2006. Sara is correct that there was communication back and forth. In the mean while Corrine was traveling for business and out of town a lot with Lisa. Sara issues the red tag for the report and at this time Corrine was doing everything that she could to get the report from Maggart. They were on vacation and were just not responding. While this was also going on Sara's July 28th letter said she needed an HPC certified contractor. She them started calling from the HPC contractor list and finally on October 9,2006 she got a hold of Craig Barnes at Aspen Construction who said he would do the job. On October 23, 2006 Maggart got the report in within the red tag time line that had been set up. Corrine was trying to get people to work with her and help her. Finally Corrine engages Barnes and Craig goes out to pull the permit on the 30th. It doesn't even look like it went through preservation even though there were Amy's old notes on the building permit that it needed HPC approval but for whatever reason Craig just sent it straight in and that is when Sara caught it and said they were not issuing a permit because the issues were not being addressed. On the 24th Corrine had sent to Sara and Stephen Kanipe and advised them that she had hired Barnes and also said that Barnes was going to be working Paul D' Arnado because he was a log specialist and the only date that D' Amado would be available would be Oct. 26th and Oct. 302006. At this point Corrine thinks she is on a roll. D' Amado shows up Oct. 31 st on the property to replace the beams and he has to take out some of the chinking in the process and replaces the log and then Craig Barnes shows up onsite and says what are you doing we do not have a permit. At that point Corrine says call the building department and let them know what is happening. Craig was standing there and made the call over to them and said what has happened. Michael said Paul D' Amado used to sit on the HPC board. Jennifer said when Corrine was telling me her story I said to her when Paul showed up and started work and the permit was plastered on the window didn't you know that there was a problem? Corrine said what permit. Corrine was relying on her professional here to do what he was supposed to 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 do. She thought she was in compliance. Whether better communication could have happened I don't know. I don't know what more Corrine could have done other than to have known when Paul showed up to say where are your papers. It wasn't in her vocabulary and it wasn't something that she would do. That takes care of two of the problems that occurred. I want to say that this was set in motion from the day that Corrine bought the property. Corrine bought the property in Nov. 2005 from the McDonald's. Shortly after that Corrine because friends with Dennis Larson who met with the McDonalds as to how to shut off the irrigation system, shut down the electricity, just basic stuff that most wornen don't want to know about their property. She was counting on Dennis to run the stuff. While she was out there McDonald raised issues about sheets of ice forming on the roof and sliding off into the front doorway and pointed out about heat tape and putting up gutters and they also pointed out the rotting beams. After that Dennis went to Corrine and said do you want me to fix these problems and deal with the ice blockage etc. Corrine had a list of things for Dennis to do. Corrine gave Dennis a key and he showed up to do work on the property when he could. Dennis is a full time employee of the sheriffs department and does repair work on the side. Michael asked Jennifer ifher client was represented by counsel when she bought the property. Corrine McGovern said yes she was represented by an attorney. Michael asked if that person reviewed the public record and did he advise you that this was an historic property. Corrine said yes, she bought the property because it was historic. Corrine said she didn't realize the ramifications that you couldn't put heat tape up. Corrine said she did not read any regulations about what she could or couldn't do about the property. Michael said and your counsel didn't tell you those things? Corrine said her counsel did not run through all the historic things. Michael said he didn't go over what it means to be a designated historic property in Aspen? Did he give you a general feeling for what this structure is rated? Corrine said yes they talked but did not read through any of the regulations about what I could or couldn't do even about cutting the tree branches. We didn't talk 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007 about specific things but we talked about how important the property was and how valued it was absolutely. Jennifer said Corrine new the property was regulated. The situation with Aspen Constructors makes it clear that she hired a guy that was HPC certified and she thought this was sufficient to get the project done. This is her first historic home. She knows there are regulations. Corrine said when she hired Steve Weaver she said get it through and change the bathroom and heating system. I didn't really ask him what we could or couldn't do. We didn't even know ifhe was approved as an historic contractor. He got a demo on the property to remove a bathroom. Jennifer said Corrine had hired someone to do inside work on the property and the relationship fell apart for numerous reasons. Jennifer said she then hired Mr. Larson and she gave him a list to do and they discussed the ice jams, gutters and beams rotting. Corrine gave Dennis Larson free reign to the property and he was supposed to take care ofthings for her. You are entirely right, some of those things on the list probably required HPC approval. That was neglectful on her part to not recognize that. Dennis did repairs in December of2005. In the spring of2006 he came out and cut half the tailings on one side of the house. Prior to her buying the house half the railings were cut and Dennis comes out in the spring and cuts the other ones so that they were consistent with the other side of the house. Then we have the October 31 st incident where Aspen Constructors, Paul D' Amado replaced the beam in which she thought they had a permit but they really didn't and then they went to Budapest on business and were gone from late October until Dec. 3, 2006. When Corrine got back there were gutters on the property. In order to put them on Dennis cut into the tailings and cut pieces out of them. That is our second set of violations that were put into motion way back into December of 2005. From her travel schedule they were out of town for most of this period of time. They also moved locations. Lisa said she has never had so many appointments at that time. In retrospect it would have been a good idea to remember that she had given some guy free reign over her house and she needed to bring this in. It was not the focus of her life right then. She looks forward and loves this house and wants to preserve it. She realizes now how much attention it needs and she is willing to put that attention to it. 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007 Dennis Larson informed the board that he does handyman work on the side. He has done work for Corrine for some years at both locations, Obermeyer and at her house on Main Street. Mr. McDonald should me the house a few days after she had bought it. He said there are three problems with the cabin that really need attention: Sheets of ice fall off the porch and water drips off the edge of the porch onto the first step. The 6 beams coming out of the front are badly rotted and the rot is holding the water. In the spring I cut the six beams off. On that same roof in the back side there were four beams that were already cut underneath the roof and they had flashing over them so I just cut the six in the same way about an inch back. That stopped the rot because the water just ran off. I had not though that was inappropriate in anyway. In Nov. I cut 8 other beams off, about 2 Y, inches of rotted wood in order to put the plastic gutter on. I did this while they were in Budapest. Michael said he feels the board should take everything submitted under advisement in order for the board to read it and continue the meeting. Jennifer asked the HPC to consider the circumstances under which this happened. This was not intentional. The second issue is the enforcement. With the Schelling property they did have the complete destruction of the home. They submitted a remediation plan and there was never any kind of discussion ofthe moratorium even though they were subject to a five year moratorium. They didn't get their FAR bonuses taken away but they were prohibited from doing aFAR increase they had available. They did get a payment plan for the $125,000. Corrine doesn't have any money. Her stepfather co signed on her loan. I can't offer you $125,000 because she doesn't have it. The second enforcement action is more relevant the 234 W. Francis house. There are 24 violations and 12 of the instances the historical elements were lost and destroyed. In our instance we can remove the gutters and there are chemical sealants that we can use to preserve the beams. Corrine is committed to doing everything that she can to restore the resource to as close to its original state as we can get. We had a code change in 2001 which was an entire re-write ofHPC's code. Part of that reason was to give more enforcement and to make it more clear what the procedures were. Jennifer said she doesn't see that there is an on-going crisis of violations in our city. I know Amy said we don't want this going on. Corrine is not the bad person. There were communication mistakes. As I suggested by using a penalty where we pay for a notice and a notice to all licensed contractors making it clear that you can't do anything to these properties; don't put up 19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007 heat tape, don't cut off rotting wood. Noticing is much more productive than a five year moratorium especially in light of what happened in the two prior cases. I feel it is unfair and unnecessary making Corrine's case the poster case when there is not necessarily a crisis and this is not a particularly bad incident. I also want to emphasize this is a harsh penalty for Corrine. She has to refinance her home in a couple of years and it will be difficult to refinance if she has a moratorium on the house in addition she is not wealthy. The stepfather is financially tied up to the loan and if something happened and he needed liquidity and if Corrine had to sell it, as you know people buy and redevelop not live in it and it would affect the sale price of this property significantly. Potentially a million dollars to have this restriction on their for a long period. She admits it and feels a two year moratorium is reasonable. It will send a message to the public and she will draft a notice to the people out there, the contractors, and the handyman etc. to make sure they know about the problem. We would rather have an appropriate and fairer penalty. John Worcester, City Attorney said our code requires that you have this hear noticed as a public hearing but I don't think we intended to make it a public hearing but that is what it states. I would suggest that you open it up for public comment. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the hearing was closed. Jim pointed out a couple of things so that it is clear. The notice of the show cause hearing does indicate in essence that there are four actions taken that were in violation. They involve the tailings that support the gutter and the chinking. Jennifer said actually the notice doesn't specify, it only specifies three incidents. Jim said it does specify the three incidents, the sum of which was prior to July 2006 and after 2006. The ones prior to July 2006 include the tailings in which Larson said he did it in the spring and he also did it in Decernber which is the other violation but that involved the tailings. Then there was the support which was in October of 2006 and the supporting chinking. The gutter and other tailing removals were in Dec. I would also like to point out 20 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 that there were three red tags issued on this property. I mention this because that is a distinction from the Mullin's property. Jennifer said you said we were not going to talk about this so I didn't get into it but the red tags were for different reasons. I was only addressing the violations because we had discussed that we were only discussing the violation. Jeffrey asked John Worcester if this is proper procedure. John said it is up to the chair. If you do not feel it is helpful then you can cut it off. Jeffrey said when we have preservation procedures we have the applicant presentation, then we have commissioner questions and then public comment then we go back to commissioner comments. John said it is really up to the chair, if you don't think it is helpful you can cut it off. Jeffrey said from a procedural standpoint it is confusing. Going back and forth and trying to absorb it all is confusing. Jeffrey said he would like the commission to ask questions and if they have any addition questions from the applicants. Michael asked Jim and John if they feel the impact of the rnoratorium is to reduce the market value of the property for the period of the moratorium. Jim said he is not sure how to respond to that. He is not sure that is an appropriate consideration for the HPC to determine the impact and I have not attempted to do that. John said the last time the ordinance was amended there was a discussion as to whether or not fines should be made part of the penalty. It was staffs recommendation to council to not include that because of a concern that people who could afford it would just buy their way out and that the only way that you could put some teeth into the penalty was to put a moratorium into the one thing that a property owner would probably dislike the most and that is to prevent them from remodeling and doing any kind of redevelopment on the property for a period of up to ten years. Admittedly ten years is a very harsh penalty but you never know what people are going to try in our community. The ordinance was drafted to grant you the authority to place a moratorium on the property for a period of up to ten years. 21 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007 Jim said the ordinance also states that it will be enforced through a deed restriction. To the extent that has market impact, I think it would. This determination is within the discretion of this commission. Jeffrey asked ifthere were additional questions. Brian said there were three red tags. Brian asked staff to identify what each red tag was for. Sara said the first red tag was issued by the Building Department and this occurred before I was involved in the project. Stephen Kanipe issued the red tag and he is in Vail so I am going to summarize. Basically Steve Weaver was the contractor who was hired to do interior work. There was a change of contractor and the owner initiated things without approval. Apparently the site was used as an office and they didn't do any growth management mitigation so there is a concern regarding the commercial use expanding and complying with zoning which is why their permit was held up. That is pretty much what it says on the red tag. The second was more of a correction notice because I wanted the engineering assessment before the winter which did happen. The third happened after Oct. 31 st when I got the phone call from Craig Barnes and Stephen Kanipe and I went over to the house. Board comments and clarifications: Jeffrey pointed out that the number one motivation of the historic preservation contractor licensing program is about communication from contractor to the City. Alison asked when someone buys an historic home and the buyer is instructed from counsel what it means how else do people understand what is expected from them. Is it through the buyer contacting the City? Amy said in general the burden is on the owner to let us know and we have our ordinances and design guidelines on line. Usually during the due diligence of a sale we usually get general questions. 22 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007 Michael said to make clear to the City and to the applicant that this is their only opportunity to provide evidence and after tonight we are not going to take any more evidence. Michael suggested to the board that the board read through all the evidence and at the next meeting we should have a discussion as to what is appropriate and render a judgment. Alison asked when Craig Barnes got the permit from Claude and there were the notes about HPC on it but HPC wasn't contacted, does the building department have a list of addresses that are historic? Sara said the permit was never issued. Craig Barnes brought it in on the 30th and I alerted the building department about the problems we were having. Stephen Kanipe and I have been working closely about the engineer's assessment and trying to come up with some solutions. On the building department checklist there are ways to catch it. Jeffrey said usually the title research would catch anything. John Worcester said it would perfectly be proper for the chair at the next meeting to open it up and asked the board if they have any questions based on the review of this document. The respondent would be in the room and would be able to assist you in answering any questions. At some point the meeting would be closed and the board would deliberate. Jennifer Hall said she had nothing else to add. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing on 300 W. Main until April 25, 2007; second by Sarah. Motion carried 5-0. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. MOTION Michael moved to adjourn, second by Alison. All infavor motion carried. Meet~djoumed at 8:50 p.m. A" ,L--- --- / I CI../fA) Kathleen J. trickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 23