The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.308 N First St.HPC012-99PN: 2735-124-21005 Case HPC012-99 ~---~ --5 63 0 44 44 -'7308 N. First Street (Nolan) Addition to Inventory of Historic Sites and Structur 0 \1 *19 i-\ 0- 9 C P I 4 PARCEL ID: |2735-124-21005 -DATE RCVD: |4/26/99 # COPIES:~-- CASE NO~HPC012-99 CASE NAME:~308 N First Street Inventory PLNR:~Amy Guthne r . PROJ ADDR:|308 N. First Street CASE TYP:~HPC Inventory STEPS:~ OWN/APP: City of Aspen ' ADR~130 S. Galena C/S/z:1 PHN:~ REpl ADR:~ C/S/Zi PHN1 FEES DUE:~n/a FEES RCVD1 n/a STAT: F REFERRALS~ REF:| BYI " DUE:~ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED I I DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| - - CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ PZ: BOA: CLOSED:~ BY: | DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: | PLAT {BK,PG):| ADMIN: r-] MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager rÂ»rf- THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director(~li FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 308 N. First Street- Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, Second Reading of Ordinance #33, Seriesof 1999 DATE: August 23, 1999 SUMMARY: This property was recently the subject of a lot split approval before City Council. At the Council's request, staff has prepared an application to list 308 N. First Street on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." Listing on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" requires a recommendation by the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission, and a final decision by City Council. On May 26, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of adding this property, Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Nolan Lot Split, to the inventory by a 6-1 vote. On July 6, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered and recommended that Lot 2, which contains the existing house, not be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" by a vote of 3 to 3, and that Lot 1, which is vacant, not be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" by a vote of 5 to 1. APPLICANT: City of Aspen. OWNER: William C. Nolan. Represented by Stan Clauson Associates. LOCATION: 308 N. First Street, Lots 1 and 2, Nolan Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCESS: The following paragraphs are excerpts from the Land Use Code to be utilized by Council in evaluating additions of resources to the Inventory. Staff has prepared responses to these standards to assist the Council in its findings regarding 308 N. First Street. 1 INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Section 26.76.090. Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures. Intent: Fifty (50) years old is generally the age when a property may begin to be considered historically significant. It is not the intention of the HPC to include insignificant structures or sites on the inventory. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community. Response: City records indicate that this house was built in approximately 1887-8. Originally identified as 124 West Hallam Street, the house was occupied by H. A. Brown. According to the Aspen Historical Society, Harry Brown, the brother of D.R.C. Brown, moved here in the 1880's and became the timekeeper for the Aspen Water District. The property was included on the City's first "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," which was completed in 1980. Prior to and subsequent to the 1980 listing, a series of alterations were made to the building which HPC did not have review authority over. In 1991 the City hired a consultant to review the Inventory and to make recommendations as to whether any properties should be added or deleted. The 1991 Inventory form on 308 N. First Street (then 124 W. Hallam Street) describes the architectural integrity, modifications, and importance of the building. As the form reports, the house is illustrative of Aspen' s modest family lifestyle during the mining era but had been substantially compromised with the renovations and additions. The consultant recommended that the house remain on the Inventory, but acknowledged that its integrity had been damaged by the renovations. Following the consultant's report, the HPC held public hearings to receive input from all affected property owners. Attached is a letter from the then owner of the subject property, Katherine Levitz Lee, and a copy of the HPC minutes from March of 1992. The owner requested that the house be de-listed from the Inventory in consideration of the alterations. The minutes reflect the Board' s discussion and acknowledgment of the changes to an already low rated house. The minutes from the following public hearing do not include a discussion about the Hallam property although Roxanne Eflin, then Historic Preservation Officer, recommended the house be de-listed. The HPC Resolution passed and City Council Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, which officially de-listed the property, was adopted. The 1893 "Bird's Eye View of Aspen"and the 1904 Sanborne Map show the original footprint and appearance of the building. (Notice that houses to the east and west of the subject building have been demolished.) The form of the house is still essentially intact, but it has had numerous appendages added, including a corner tower, a masonry chimney stack, decks, and other additions. The original front porch has been enclosed and the entry to the house has been moved from the Hallam Street side to the First Street side. A current front elevation of the building shows the original cross gable roof form and some historic detailing still remain. This drawing also demonstrates the obvious alterations that have been made. 2 The effect of the alterations are significant and have changed the architectural character of the building. Some of the alterations, such as the tower and chimney, are likely cost prohibitive to remove. It is staffs understanding that the owners do not wish to have the property re-listed on the Inventory or to have HPC oversight, but have stated that it is not their intention to tear the house down. Staff finds that while the house has been altered, its form is sufficiently intact to warrant continued monitoring by HPC to preserve what remains, avoid additional inappropriate additions, and to guide any restoration that might be undertaken. There are relatively few examples left in Aspen of the larger Victorian era homes, and the property should be preserved for the future. The property has been subdivided into two new lots; Lot 1 and Lot 2. Lot 2 contains the existing house and Lot 1 is vacant except for an accessory building, which is not historic. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended that both lots be added to the Inventory out of concern that new development on the vacant parcel should be appropriate to the historic character of the neighborhood. While staff agrees, the standards for listing on the historic inventory do not allow the vacant parcel, which has no intrinsic historic value, to be included and recommends that only Lot 2 be listed on the Inventory. Section 26.76.090(c). Structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic landmarks. No further action need be taken with respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the LIPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence and categorized accordingly, as follows: A. Significant. All those resources which are considered Exceptional, Excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. All structures or sites within the City of Aspen, which are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be reviewed according to the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" in addition to the review standards of Section 26.72.010 and 26.72.020. Response: The structure does not meet this standard. B. Contributing. All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for Significant; provided, however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. Response: The structure does not meet this standard. 3 C. Supporting. All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered Contributing once again. Response: The structure qualifies as a Supporting historic resource. Although the house has been significantly altered, the structure still retains original historic fabric. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #33, Series of 1999, which will list 308 N. First Street, Lot 2, Nolan Lot Split, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures finding that the criteria for a Supporting resource have been met." Exhibits: Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1999 A. 1893 Bird's Eye View of 308 N. First Street. B. Vicinity map C. 1991 Inventory map, notes by Roxanne Eflin. Letter from Katherine Levitz Lee and inventory form with her own notes. HPC minutes from March 1992. 1904 Sanborne map. Front elevation of house. Memo from Stan Clauson, owner's representative. Letter from Herb Klein, owner' s counsel. 4 "%O71mp ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk .â‚¬22=01â€ž. 44Â¢4~~ - 32~217 - 122 -~ 40'=T=nale f.- .~r~Vi' /.N-- -2 , /- . --Â·1 , 1- ./00LA -/ 6- -21 47.1 91,2-7-- .21 M ielitor. 4-. -Â·r//41, .* *Wrbt%~~1~~~~9,1 1 W *>7-= AM S ,*4-1- -'--_-2 - *,fl~Â·E~L~,#.ENEF.#f~miE~61-'~,3-~ R-4-13.' 03 ***My# aer . _ - 51 i - Â·-r- . , 131-./ G;k ./=26-/ r V. . 2 4 u *L,ft M 2.-.L _161/MI'~t/.--).I.G.v):52*626;211#illiM65/;'"'Hibl,47:. 2.2.Z.,4. 3Â£3:'iff,-frflf*,5,2"4':I;&,2,;L#Z/El&*Tr%13// --34,; 4 '27 #I' a. - 2-29474---3, IA 43=ke.:4447394fj6Z/**:28<#441.7919&2=,3. - -1 - a.20 - -1 =8641'.ta V-z-if - .7 *JEK =â€žrÂ» - 2'r- =.Â»>27>t? 39*isp' Â·-â‚¬12%=*Â· -0:443*ji#y*id=~47#~27 ......C VE-Z.V.2 .'Â¥ 11 2.-# 17<BLIM -'70*gi jARHf.y.,- ./. 1.I,-d- 8,5130Â£7,3.-0->nrv -*I-I-ai re..., 2.4=2= 4-fy ..W 1Â»2 / -r- - dk. ~ =â€¢e<c,W.721.7 3%:~ --461#F) 9,3%**F .1 ~-,.N*Yff#~riif- 1,2;11\*71 Â£229X~4~%ri 1&7 Wi dbj.Fkjf- Lib:. --~ fm-Â·94 1 ' 23'<&1,197 0 v ., %Â· 01 FWiuÂ¥46&1'~Rn<&11 4 *~ v#v J 1,2;344~9 eâ‚¬1 1 -49â‚¬. wA,9 -9~7~A>ra~ 22~419 20* t.9 - 10 1 9 649& U* 19./ kk~'/ - , 27<4/~449 52 2 Â·7~-ilk:<O/Â£ft dia2&11~B&*11122151;;'ilUiSiA:.ilili28Yeelldfij03&;6<jimilipil;49,19...firlititilifirrig.F I ilill 17--2 4159*~Svi.$*/b#Arb'Ly:~44*74-2/59/5Ati~ se#479497 2 . -gfl-*406/3AitiASat& .. - ....:4.,2 43#3%.k.i ./ WÂ»,=4- . - 7,#7 44*4;04L bi&',* 62-61991#0.-.. I U 7 / 1 1.(SA - *-.~5~~, ~1*~0~-#kk#*~46Q-~1 L~r~rT v--~~~h#1< 2~-i->*f-:--i fi~4-k-- 1,*~AJE*~AR% t-JA M/5.*:fÂ«ej~~ IRT&213 .4 - fe#642 --Mâ‚¬Â·-Â«.- IÂ·Â·.dif#%#iff#E - - 4 >re,P 123(/1/21709 1114:,pid,id:lim:/iltiloitfikjrs'*#Car/--12.1,13'I,J .4/m#%*asilk&.3&-.~i-9-1. :.* - ./ 67 ,%1<*-049~r<A**1449**4,7--8.-iÂ«Â«-3391)463(*349 :48%84*e~Mrvft= 1 1/1 .:... A- Â· v.12 .~Â·C>:, p=-, .m/ 4-Cr i.':'-I/# Â· 22*Â»&*E<WHW/:23Â¥Â© 33,40%3:<-3 -2 ---:+3ciâ€žcj39Gdai,J,nk#ir#Veret:-12:9 -- - - , 1 - - Fral ~ g.---- ... 1 J â„¢3rÂ»-7 ~ D.- 1.â€¢Cm'Q->t- Â£ *.rEE.Z.Mwad/V/+292,)%)*Mtm63We-9.Lf'/27(.1- - I .h ,=ge#fiy--11 9 -13 . :91&0 -4*277.5 ~1 .1.-.-1.~{fo~,I- ~62-:-2<T ~li-~.1~;~b~~'Â£~.42~Z942 4*2i~~~ :95 - 74 3- .4/ Rk: 2 f 1 -i:I ,Â·4 /64Â· .. ,.., .:... .tai:Arisi:â‚¬ 1093~*_-~ g .t-*35,4 J Â»b~:-94â‚¬9 - ..:.t * = HE '-Al :1, - -. r 1 ~ --3 *447#15*L-/<--1-0....â€ž=.:. 1 - 1. - ?1.- , - Â·Irk . .....,./ .., . ~Â·~*4'*4*~i-9 34-:.Â·4.7'Â».A- - -=a.Jur ul. 'u-/254.7-143~Gfi /*/737+4, thut'4-j -160Â«7* --Siefr- -r = -2.. - ~ LY,Et;~.93555-3-1 .:2-i.- .'1*49.-2-:Zint@+91%7~r'~~Ack:v - i--Â·C.it&51<4 5 - '34 'h// 4 , -Â·-'Â· '~.A'Â· 'n:25Â·Â·=-utÂ·rLE.:7SreÂ» Â· â‚¬ 0/ ~9 Â·-,r.t~.1.2.7 ... .'j'D.v~ 2-2Â·.3 -F~~64 - ---- .2-710- -.- - .4Â¥.4 - -- /7/ â‚¬. 2.4...LV.(4.--4 14Â·9939%Â©Â«14~:14*.4. , . 3.1. i.54 1~....:f251~44- -= *.4: - - - * . -- -- u,: ecu ,44 -<.23=~ 1.... .-:.IL.U~-6.-i.-9.4 f .. - '1'91 1 --f, =NZJ>./=1. Mug~ AS,4 ------2,-x- 1 ~4Â·3~*h 4 1.1:.e'I-:Â·30.,-2 Â·Â·-2,\21 */- -9 . M f.3,94* AAE-&3:', C.v. - - _-Â· >7196L] 11 . - .. I - _ . 1, y #17=:g-*#Bjt 6% .' 32% 1, F '1 /4 rk - IL i - T - Er Â¥iKi, . &*0 l /,4.-, 2, 46 1.1 i ' .A ~2 G /1 1 C 1 95 - 11= 1 11 7 =lk 1/ t=:â„¢S j . #44 -.L *2102\ki 11\ 1 1. 20 -- 7 4=57 -4 4 6~7 C . =A -- 1 4- .- =.7=:5:52 w~ *84Â©~9 \. f 6 X</ , 4 fr .U-, I -- -4=98 . \ + I - E-/- ~ 418' -565, p 5 3 .*~ 1 - il a it 1 1 12.Ell N. 11=1 -- \\\' L 4 ~"-* 4 Nolan LJI~ \ 1 1 ) / \ )45-Â©,/ //a,1 / 4 / i CO-- , lili 1.111.-Â· 37 ~/,/~11'U..awl:. ~~ - -e, ' ~ L~ Red BAck eu;- - i. ./1-*M:~0/hnihz.*/ hj â‚¬*f //23 11111111~ - /~ Yellow BM ck ~441/ f/Wq " ' r - -1,2/ - 10/mi WRFF'Mi i.=n Â«Z -4 / /16, 1.111.1111 -11 ... . \ /-/ / / AM' i:J-3- b\~9- J lilli 11 1 '44.. /2-1.1 1,_/ f <*4/1/~ 1/ - 41 1 1 --T :/1 - . . )/6 1- ga. C =e Al,j HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM 1 y&11* let & State Site Number: Lccal Site Number : 124 .WH Phcto Information: ASP-F-26, 27 & 28 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 -- USGS Quad Name Ascen Year 1960 X 7.5' - 15' Building or Structure Name: 124 W.,Hallam House / M.V. Chamberlin . House Full Street Address: 124 West Hallam Legal Description: Lots El/3, L, M City Asren County Pitkin Historic District or Neighbcrhood Name: Hallam Lake Historic District Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: _______Residential-_____---__-______--------------- Architectural Style: * Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 2-Story Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Irrecular with southeast corner turret (e 2)- Landscaping or Special Setting Features: None Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): Northeast sinale-cabled carace: clan- bcard; with cabled end verce board; center north: sincle-cabeled clanboard out buildina, same as other; northwest carace: sinale-crabled with side dormer. clapboard, wood scalloned shincles at cable ends and cutout verae board For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Rocf: Cross-cabled with hinted turret. with brackets and crinaerbread trim at eaveline: wood shincles Walls: Clarboard with fishscale at cable ends Foundation / Basement: Unkncwn Chimney(s): New: south center, corbelled brick Windows: 1st storv: vertical fixed liGht; 2nd storv. west 2 hinned crable dormers; 2nd storv tvoical one-over-one double hunc with shutters and decorative lintel; turret: decorative vanels, brackets and dentils Doors: South Cold front?); 4 nanel West fnew front ?): vair 1/2 licht cut glass with larae transcm and side lichts Porches: Shed roof, west side with square nosts with brackets on sandstone wall/base ..-- --. JÂ£. General Architectural Description: (Retains original character)but 1 porch has been enclosed. fireolace re-ocaterwith new masonrv. steen pitched roofs of front cable and cross cable with lona Aarrow widows, verce board decoratina the cable is simole. but has detail standArd horizontal clanboard of 1890's; larce 1987 turret dramaticallv alters messina Page 2 of 2 State Site Number - Local Site Number 124 FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Construction Date: 1887-88 Actzial Estimate _ Assessor - Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate Major X Moved Date -. I- Describe Modif ications and Da*-e: Comnletelv renovated in 1967 on te 1980 ,k. 4-au., 19 2 -(956 Additions and 6bate:/ Turret 1987; west cartort NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register 1 State Register __ Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B_C_D_E_ Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation 1 1 Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic Cr L.1 - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of this residential structure historically is not of those who owned il= or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Asven' s earlv mining era. This modest structure_is~ of historical importance by illustratina the family/home environment and lifestyles of the average citizen in Asten which was dominated_ bv the_silver_mining--industz. -- - Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin Countv Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Mans - Archaeological Potential: (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Asven Historic Preservation Committee - Citv of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner I*7~ feMOÂ» rchÂ· O-9- gyrrwm .0 - truke 4rrp niifXic~Vt 3 02- 270(7) , & 9-Cre--47 9 e *1, 2% "20,4 /77-07 0 .tf7 ' --Fer?Â¥r 70 0,3 rn* ..0-9n,771'7 9/1 ~,4*trk, que f-*A er*8 -0 E'qfea -- e o~tÂ·m Prm ray* Â»*40-1, ernm..Pwfij~ 0 'r-er>*7ny_/2 rr~t~ c-g* W*'~< -muped vre * DruiA Trt 74' râ‚¬m Â«9-1- tr,-rn'*7â„¢Â«U' 40'n#T yÂ°19 9-74*6~ rere-FR.6 , 11 V i U I ~--~+Q'~0 -rfre~- 9 rr-nlÂ«y rÂ«21-9 9:99) 7.-0 CJ,79- 7~?9f a .-9- 1@9 --P 4) 171- Sh . 9 u+9-,-6f.. t fvm am0. r~NfÂ»rypw B ermu... 4 Â¢ opiff J b â€ž7 7666 1 *04 Fr 060 31 7-1 ,.w~-nâ‚¬,-9,7.vit- ,Cr) bt I 069 ~~ PL'.p r.2- rre 97 p 7 -prF *v( f n_-,Dr (f>. -6 74> 97 7617 ty>'' . 8,7- *22 7Â»47 +â€¢V CÂ»-37 f-*t~~t '4 PUL -4rrÂ¥-- -Â° f~~~4 2/7Â»zy- Â·6~UotiAGFF 4 146+2 -mi % c 131 VT' C 6 6 < 7n' .1 U 16 4.sons *; Ait CL -4; 24 Rica bâ‚¬ S; q,rld.1 t 6 1 50 A 1-9.4 U), NAI\,qrh - Olentr: Ukeri'le_ Le-trit-1. l_e tl I â‚¬roni cal, *Â°4ri 4- 09 houst ~ has btw rd 4; CQ /23- 014.012.11 ~*0<* 19 Grl a <tiC /97t7.<123luepr, n,A %0 92.65~ 76/: 422/e. 4/6 26/4 / 1 3' r?reded-3 *tq-6 lel ar <Â°~ li:Tif~iNflfgfÂ£# #"2Â«9433 2-) 15 no 1001Â« O/t 1Â·IO-ll,9,0,n Sr.d-, -7-ke. - 8-1 Fro nt Â«tru 11 S Ort M i.st â‚¬+r-oEt - tl 3 . _ELL v t c-tor i An cld- 1,1 3'; 40 94 ev luse_ Arew neo 94 kiue, Leen gald 61 ty>~+ 01(,r/')i -+At f LE,- .5.lturs 04,1 Amore- 1/Â¢&Â£_'Â£01 CT Cle,ceds art -to b, a,,44,f ; A die- :Yccrbire-, , 129 2 4 90â‚¬1/Â¢r art /1 uu J 04 Â£-60 -225-1-;ift- -0'flf; 3 Lt-L 1 0- B fi-=4Â£51Â£6-, 40 -716 31 0 CLS -6 kag Le# alter el kra<Â»El-; c J< 340-6, M ~a. 954 Liedl-irat eu; A e~-#-, ~ Cl,fdA,~23-- ff eriflf Fee< 36 4 - ,+tÂ« 5-6 _Z?Q- tl , as anu nfs:thple 6 4 *C i -7/1 A 11:*Ae S e e y ' r./240 9.--4 I . .. - I 5. IE frd.2 14 Lat 5ya. dia l eults e- /r- (sl=CLARL A-0-14 a_, 1 8/3.; cd ~ si &9107/- on . As -1 , -; J A 1 // 4/ 1 a- Ditdod a,n log L'A r Ac ,Â¥4 â‚¬_ 00(16( 14_ py:oft k &Â¥"~.i Â¢44 76, nad 6Â©Lod f ovw82 ~014 -SL adfer arl rÂ£*fore. o.) A~M w " 01<jbthl/1 9lkut,LC' aA O/4 3,(elf *ma .l1 Aq i -1.- cu A â‚¬-t.J " AJ -to - Ut cjh*-/ â‚¬1,2.1 /(/6/-12 44Â£- of- ~ /3~/434* 4*76â‚¬ksÂ·< =.S#f#b*i/3/, (O, -IA Condttg, 012 e t Nom\es Vilit 4.0.41 6 664 ; 94421 Ficio kJ. 19{-t) t,-C t* 1 efer/or cA-Â«ts , Elf koot tÂ¥triA &14 9-Trog S.d'/las 4.loak #M# 00 43 L 011 41 sclit#4 342 -tul- * efla of t jt o j-trfo R ;ca-~ â‚¬ilt (-3- / CÂ«Â·f 6, 4Â£Â»L-0~ 07 .râ€¢ __Â£1- ry,-u k *Â«. -1â‚¬%+ - 7Pd -4 6 33&_ Fronn - (14/ 3 11 e,Ttler 642* 3ilrrou/Ul, 4 4419 /104)-2.-03 C 1(AllkÂ« OR_diRS-f- 51-72*j A-r, v r, U R..a t~RdIS o -Er boo--iU o-- OirÂ°(trl\,Â£ 60 j a J- 7972 1 , 1--- Il f olaq,4 --It ootj- 3 9,4.63 0Â£15 well~k g-,0 Ayo kle.6241IL yet Â£ le,ls ued u.) fc~el i Re'#loothood , -foloteÂ« Â«Rellig Com 007â‚¬.- ha aso/,Alw yw listotical 4% nificaÂ·Ate. aJ >t wo u.11 61- qAOÂ»bfriaft-Ik- 05*ei.B_U(~tef -2 ace- 44Â« dioks cokt#ck kÂ«>t-, clfg-tr 4L Â£,u-f /7jfr,pr of->22 floAâ‚¬, I aim# , r7104 , 3,41 66,2â‚¬-6 1 V tÂ·â€¢ .1 -- U,1 -.'1'1 0 * 4 r f o:14 1 9 T Â·Â· j 9 994 * Coti. -1 4 FA A,(5 D (la/1-G~281 4,:Â«) N Ul/9-01~~LI _ AJÂ° _~0_1 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE 'yORM 68,14 State Site Number: Local Sita Number: 124.WH Photo Information: ASP-F- 25, 27 &-28 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Asten Year 1360 X . 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: 124 W. Hallam House / M.V. Chamberlin Hcuse Full Street Address: 124 West Hallam Legal Description: Lcts El/3. L, M City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District cr Neighborhcod Name: Hallam Lake Historic Dis trict Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: . ARCNITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential 4 00 59-7407 07 6431242-3 Architectural Style: * (1 *g A 725 St 1 Pb- Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number cf Stories: 2-Stcrv Building Plan (Fcotprint, Shapp) : Irreculaci with southeast corner turret fe.21 43.klik- 10 rg,Stter 0(1>n:24. \~11 $+~r O.,*4 0,Eett'Â·Q-4 ~~~'Landscaping or Special betting Features: Ncne Asscciated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): Northeast sincle-cabled garace: cialo= ~71 beard: with crabled end verge board; center north: single-cabeled - ~4 clapbcard out building, same as other; northwest garace: sincl e-cab led_ 1 4 With side dormer, clapboard, wocd scallooed shincies at crable ends_and_ Fatout verce beard - A!\ Ark|-ANs 4140 tedÂ· /2-2.54*1- 0,40-,307Â£-r -_r-~ For the following catagcries inclUde materialg techniques and styles in the description as apprcpriate: Rccf: Cross-aabled with hipted yarret, with brackets and gingerbre-asi..~~~/1 trim at eaveline; weed shinales Walls: Cla'aboard with fishscale at gable ends - Foundaticn / Basement: Unkncwn h i Chimney(s): New:southcentercorbelledbickU~U Windcws: st storv: vertica ixed li ht' 2nd storv west 2 hinted -1 gable dormers; 2nd story tyoical one-over-one dcuble hung with shutters- 1 ~ and decorative lintel; turret: decoratiye vanels, brackets and dentils-1 r West (new front ?3; pair 1/2 light cut class with larcre ~/~<g;â€ž~, 1 Doors: South Cold frcnt?) 1 4 panel A) 01) transom and side lights - -U, a ~1(ZY rorcnes: Shed roof, West side with sauare vosts with brackets on sandstone wall/base -th 47 A / frf- General Architectural Description: Ret*Rs oricinal character but. __ porch has been enclosed, fireplace relocated with new masonrv,, steep 4/9 Ditched roofs of front crable and cross cable with long harrow *idows., a),Le vercre board decorating the cable is simole, but has detail star\dard horizontal claoboard of 1890's: large 1987 turret dramaticallv hiter-s 11 c massina f Lt 'â‚¬/LL? . A; U flfia-d f A 11 i-O.JOR-; t?#1 1 lilillill Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 124.WIC FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Â· Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: , Unknown Intermediate Use: Construction Date: 1887-88 _ Actual _ Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODI7ICATIONS AMI)/OR ADDITIpNe--Giagld~d4 4 Minor Moderate /Major * -h#[oved Date Descrike Modifications and-DEr comoletely renovated in 1967 on to _ 1980 (AAr 12210 Re_-kâ‚¬A.od A-~ Ifie- 19946 Additions hnd 04%2: Turret. 1987; west carport NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register . - Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B_ C- D --.- E ---- Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation 1-1 _ Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or - architectural integrity. 0 - Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, - however, is "retrievablen with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: 0 Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of - this residential structure historically is nct of those who owned it - or lived in it. nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Asten' s early mininc era Af This modest structure is of historical importance by illustratina tte familv/home environment and lifestyles of the averace citizen in Asten which was dominated bv , the silver mining industry.11 ,,71 35 4*5 11,1 0-4/4- ; T] AD /1 21# /5 0~~S~7~ ALs k 4/ t . d/ F- Utr-,06.ll' '1- ElibpÂ·*ie,+ As;OPX / Vw,inickA' dlÂ·~s. -. -YU- Muttt,1561- Â»526036 0~1Vklitto Astj O letoj:~A) (C fU jUO Other Recording-Informaqion -+16 v,h Specific References to the Structute/Building: , Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Mans Archaeological Potential: _ _ (Y or N) Justify: - *ecorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliatlon: Asnen Historic Preservation Committee - Citv of Asnen Project Manager: Rexanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer /Plannen .. , Historic Preservation Committee 27Â» Utvil- E Minutes of March 18, 1992 the neighborhood character there are two new huge structures near by and then you have the Holiday House and across the street from the Holiday House is the Molly Gibson Lodge and those are virtually next dcor to Mrs. Day's house. I don't think there is a community character left and do not feel the house is old enough to qualify. It has no architactural significance At all. Roxanne: Our form indicates that the property was built in the 1880's or early 1900 hundreds. Age is not the limiting factor for being on the inventory. There are buildings built as late as 1952 that are on the inventory. Tam Scott: The hcuse is non-descript and basically falling apart. It has leaks etc. Bill: Do you know of any work that has been done since the last time we evaluated this house? Tam Scott: I don't think any work has been done. Roxanne: This inventory has never been re-evaluated as you are doing right ncw. In 1986 numbers were applied to the existing inventory, they were not re-evaluated structures. I agree that the context in that area has eroded over time but there are numerous little houses in that vicinity that are important. Its overall contribution is to the character of the town. It is an example of a residential structure representative of a working class family of the mining era. Bill: We will take the information given to us and the members of the Board should drive by and look at the house taking everything that was presented here into account. 124 W. HALLAM ~~ Catherine Lee, owner: In 1987 I came tothe meeting when they were ~ numbering the properties as you -can see by the letter in your packet. since then there has been more extensive work done. I also have the blue prints. I am opposed being on this list. The house has no significance in *american history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture. The integirty of the location, the design, setting and materials are new. The feeling that you are looking at was created by me. I added all the trim and all the details. Everything on that house that you see that looks victorian has been added by yours truly. There are no events associated with my property that has made it a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of Aspen. No one of historical significance has lived in this home. I created a ; victorian look with my artistic bays and these are my creations. 2 Historic Preservation Committee f I Minutes of March la, 1392 I would not be eligible to the historic register as the house has been changed 360 degrees. If you notice the Sanborn map shows the foot print of the present house. All private property owners have the right to object to be listed. The. qualities have ceased to meet the criteria of the list. I have petitioned you in writing to be removed from this list and I do not wish to become legally responsible by being on the fraudulent list which my property causes due to lack of integrity. I went through the structure form and it is incorrect. Bill: Do you have pictures of what the house looked like before it was redone. Roger: I think the Stroh' s added the glassed in porch and moved the fire place. Catherine: The Taylor' s did the kitchen and added a wing. There is not a corner on that hcuse that has not been changed. Jake: What is this house on the inventory. Roxanne: It is the lowest rating. Jake: Is it retrievable? Roxanne: Barely, and it was given a 2 in the 1986 rating. In the 1980 rating it was the lowest which was notable. . Bill: I feel all the committee members should site visit this property. Roxanne: Your final action takes place by a resolution the 25th of March. Between now and then you have to be thinking what action you want to take. It then goes to Council in an ordinance form. The public hearing for Council is scheduled for May 13th. Bill: Do you know the square footage of-your floor area? Catherine: The main house has 3750 sq. ft. and there are two separate garages. Bill: Thank you Catherine for your input and we will take everything into consideration when evaluating. We will add your photographs to the file. 707 N. THIRD Carol Craig: In my way of thinking, I didn't realize that you .4 could just designate something an historical structure without the *- 3 244/ ul n â€ž* == -==== === == M=== 3 241.P F :94 U 1 4 1 4 1 Â£ 1 e 0 LO 1 -11 ~ 11 84 9 *p k Lc ' * FT N [3.- 61 E--r # 0, Cle* 6*MOV 411'd 04 tic 3 - A 1*21 4 - 4-52 3.--br 1... . 11 il Pg 07A OZI 9 - *=1 j==== == == ==1==== ==4 == === =====L= = ==*===== ---- === @cld.M.7 93014Â¥33'M CO 9E! 6ZJ ELI toi 'Un,p Fr ' J AL e=Â·relru~ R . h k--2 j *-11 1 ; 1.----' e 61-1 4 - 1 44 k U F R E-~3 [ITI #21 -V G LO 111 1 1 col r P 0~ 11 ..AR L 12%2- 41 LJ .:Â· co -- 142+4 14- - EL -- 3-31 8Â¥11, J Â·,9 /., / i ./J 0-, 4 41 Ht j.5 n &2&32 4# * 0 4 11 9-E j *Z1 9 N '. ~j 001 =*1*14Â¥*M ======== Mill=== va - ==== =1 901 d 'M.* -/ -. ST. 400 I OZ ate 4 1,4 91.+ â‚¬~-f~*-* *- < 4 --; /:-4Â»-i:.-9*352*3Â«Â·?2Â¢tfâ‚¬-f-ft-f-:fyi{~1Â·3361*17..8*s41"""" A ~; "=rs g. - v--- _---.. -2,0 . 1 - . 1,72*3< =,p /1 .\.,4 - v-6- 1 T.* .CzzÂ».. I / . 1 -jar*15"/EK - W...2 - ~tr.7~~~'L-0. 5Â»thiS'.-!C 1/ 1--1 2 ' . - V.Lk--FEULLE, , 2 ,/ 1 .t./ . :12Eill* 12 97/'' , I 0 4 .W â€¢--'~ - - - .., , ~ .3 t. . AEi2629 \.*42 706\.9/1- - Â·: - Â· 4 .1.437 .I Â· .. - -;4745: ~ r .Â·*sa 'At,)%. 3 i~-r-- =at iÂ·Â·- 9-1 Entif. -.2 3-.r& r . . 11 *1 I. Â»9 --*>49 t..ims,516 2.3 17 1-_01 61Â·re, 11 . . . ..+I 1 . - - \F EUES - <36. .49'. .4.-0 1 ./ ...U-- - 2 - 1 . . Ill----IW I-Iill I. .. ...pl--* . -'. a::: â€¢ --2-Â·+ Â·ii ~.44-- *.. 1~ ~~ ~- * * - - - - - i I - 4 (N -- = 1 =111 -ltÂ·Â· 2- '- -- -- A , a. - 1 ~/,Â£49 - t . -, . /2,1.!1 ' 121 4 -IWI 1:Y=Tr,-1~%Â§-3. Â·L--__ 1 2. - .-6 :.SC.: - EL.4- .tr. 1 3-1-gpitkngdiv=<liaÂ·-6-,]1 1331'3-*. f Â· -- ---1 Â· 1% L.~- Hif..~* ~zy i I H .41 : Â· 7.1 u . 4 E Â·- :'Â· , UfpE ~~~11 3 hily -. 1... v ..3 b -=f....% f .-2'211 , - --Ii-.--1 - ...- -Â·Â· Â·- k--- Aj j *LÂ·c" 1 - 2-~31 4 -I-..- ,-9----- - EL =~=41 F - 5 glk:COÂ·,2 =: ca L â‚¬ 1 1 -L.2-1--4 -- .*' I-: *>ACCeâ„¢:M ". - . 1\ 1 1. r 1 / I k 4-= ./:.=-E 1 *71-Ccuâ€¢.1 1 1 ,:j, 1!~~:2 t 1- - - '-- - ; 1- ecÂ· ick<g#02-4 -i 1-----~ It 1 L--4=--2& A., 72;:- H.f,4. . -~311Â·--0- -I--- h g. R,Â£=42= lcd- c. \ .. 12- 11, - 7 -' \ 1 - *IiÂ«*Â«69Â«Â°,J ~4) f I Ce;C-C -4 .... -4 &4.--1- 32_ jS\ .. .-3 :.Â·gÂ»jf.:'rcÂ·7-732--53:- ---Â·. --'- ~- 97 96,0 <1 H N CIAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning â€¢ Urban Design Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925,2323 FAx: 970.920.1628 Memo E-MAIL: Clauson@Csi.Com To: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission From: Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA .Â£5~/ CC: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Date: 1 July 1999 Re: 308 N. First Street, Nolan Property-Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures Summary The Nolan property received a lot split from City Council under Ordinance 9, Series of 1999. At the time the lot split application was discussed by Council, a question arose as to whether the house located on Lots M and N had historic value. The record was presented showing that the original house did indeed date to before the tum of the century and had, at one point, been listed on the Aspen Historic Inventory. However, as a result of construction and architectural changes effected principally during the 1980's, the house had been significantly altered and was recommended for de-listing from the Historic Inventory. Accordingly, Ordinance 34, Series of 1992, an ordinance to update the Historic inventory, proposed de-listing the property along with five others 'by reason of their loss of historic integrity or value." This ordinance was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and City Council on 22 June 1992. Although no change had occurred to the house to improve its historic integrity since it was reconstructed in 1984 and de-listed in 1992, the City Council, in approving the lot split this year, felt that its historic qualities should be re-evaluated. They requested staff to initiate activities to determine if it would be appropriate to list the house on the Historic Inventory. The owners of the property, William and Elaine Nolan, had purchased the house in 1995, aware that it was not listed on the Historic Inventory. While they generally support the goals of historic preservation, they did not want to have a property which was encumbered by the regulation which is attached to an Inventory or Landmark property. They spedfically chose this property because it was not so encumbered. At the time of purchase, moreover, design regulation of historic properties by the Historic Preservation Commission was exdusively directed toward voluntarily landmarked properties. A house on the Inventory, but not landmarked, was subject only to regulations regarding demolition. Subsequently, the City has passed an ordinance that provides for HPC review of both inventoried and voluntarily landmarked properties alike. This makes the level of regulatory encumbrance significantly greater than the Nolans ever expected in purchasing the property. Moreover, with the pending requirement that work only be done by certified historic preservation contractors, there is a considerable level of expense attached to this regulation. All of this might be justified if the house had sufficient integrity that listing on the Historic Register would be appropriate. However, the house was changed in form so substantially by prior owners that very little remains of its original character. Moreover, the changes were of a false historical nature, so that â€¢ Page 1 PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS inventorying would actually result in confusion as to whether recent additions were actually historical elements. Fundamentally, not every old house needs to be on the inventory. Only those which qualify and add to the historic resources should be placed on the inventory. Other structures and sites are intended to be protected by Ordinance 30, which provides more generalized assurance that new construction and remodeling will continue to contribute to neighborhood character. Finally, at the meeting of 26 May 1999 where the HPC reviewed the question of whether the house should be on the Inventory, considerable confusion resulted with respect to the newly created lot, which consists of Townsite Lots K and L. Believing that a garage, located on this lot at the comer of First Street and the alley, was an historic resource, Amy Guthrie had recommended that the lot also be placed on the Inventory. When we presented evidence that the garage was actually constructed in 1984, Amy publicly withdrew her recommendation to the HPC that the lot be placed on the Inventory. Nonetheless, the HPC felt that since it was adjacent to a property which they were disposed to place on the inventory, the lot should be placed on the Inventory as well. It needs to be clearly stated that there is absolutely no basis in the Land Use Code for this action. The lot does not contain any historic resources nor does it meet the listing criteria for an Historic Site, which is: Historic Sites are parcels which may or may not have structures on them, but primarily have significance as parks, cemeteries, archeological resources or similar types of landscapes. Clearly, there is no relationship between this newly created lot and the definition of an Historic Site. In a subsequent conversation with Roger Moyer of the HPC, Roger indicated that it had long been a desire of the HPC to list any vacant properties adjacent to historic resources. He felt the HPC recommendation was based on this intent. However, it should be understood that there is no present provision in the code for so designating adjacent properties simply because of their adjacency. Forthis to occur, a change in the Land Use Code will be required. Should the House be on the inventory? Several factors need to be considered in responding to the question of whether the house should be placed on the Historic Inventory. â€¢ The house is admittedly of an age which would allow for its being on the Inventory. â€¢ The house has been totally altered in form and materials, such that no aspect of its original shape remains, except for the cross gable roof. â€¢ Materials and forms appear to be historical but are not, which would result in confusion with respect to the authenticity of this resource. â€¢ The house was specifically delisted by city ordinance. Nothing has changed with respect to the house since that de-listing. â€¢ The Historic Preservation Officer has identified that: "The effect of the altemations are significant and have changed the architectural character of the building. Some of the alterations, such as the tower and chimney, are likely cost prohibitive to remove. â€¢ The present owners purchased the property with the expectation that it was not encumbered with HPC reviews or requirements. They will suffer financial hardship as a result. â€¢ The property is fully developed on the lot. No significant additions can be undertaken, and any changes would be governed by Ordinance 30 Design Standards. â€¢ Page 2 Attached is a letter from Architect Richard Klein to Suzannah Reid of the HPC, dated 26 May 1999, discussing his evaluation as an architect that the house does not qualify for listing on the Inventory. On balance, we believe that this house no longer presents characteristics which merit its listing on the inventory, and recommend that it not be listed. Should the Adjacent Lot be listed on the Inventory? While there may be some merit in considering the house for listing on the Inventory, there is simply no justification in the Land Use Code for induding the lot as well. There is no historic resource on the lot. Any issues of that has been laid to rest with the memo from Architect Wayne Stryker that he was the architect who designed and oversaw construction of the garage in 1985. This document is attached to our memo. While we can understand that the HPC may be interested in having jurisdiction over properties adjacent to actual or potential historic resources, it is dear that this desire is not supported by the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Reasons for designating an Historic Site are dearly spelled out in the Code. This property does not meet any of the criteria. We strongly recommend that this parcel not be identified for the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures Attachments: A. Letter from Richard Klein, dated 26 May 1999 B. Memo from Wayne Stryker, dated 26 May 1999 â€¢ Page 3 RICHARD KLEIN ---- ~- ~ May 26,1999 Suzannah Reid, AIA /////// Chair Person Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Uy 969 City Hall 0 - 1 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Historic Inventory Status Residence at Lots K,L,M,N, Block 56 City of Aspen Dear Suzannah, Mr. and Mrs. Nolan have retained the services of my firm to assist with the preparation of documents required for the Lot Split of their property and to produce the necessary Architectural Drawings for the remodel of their house. They have also asked me to assess their house relative to H.P.C. Inventory Status. The original residence on Lots M and N was constructed around the turn of the century and the house appears on the 1904 Sanborn Map. Through the yecrs, quite a number of additions have occurred, with the latest major renovation in 1984. As the house now sits, every elevation has been significantly modified. The South facing Elevation, on Hallam Street is no longer the entry to the house, the Entry Porch no longer exists having been replaced by an addition which wraps around to the East. Above, is an awkward looking Turret and Deck, which hides the existing roof. A new Fireplace with a "very red" brick has been added to the front gable. Across the property line to Lot L, a new Enty Foyer has been built. There is also a new Curb Cut to access a long diveway to the Garage at the back of the lot. The West Elevation from First Street is now the entry to the house. An Entry Foyer, mentioned at the South Elevation, with spiral stair to a large deck on the second floor has been added where the original Fireplace was demolished. There is also an addition connecting the original house to an Out Building located in the vicinity of the original Carriage House. On the 1904 Sanborn Map, a Carriage House is located in the same corner of Lot M, but is a different size, more rectangula, and actually sits on the property lines. The North Elevation from the Alley is totally changed. Even though the current former Out Building is probably the oldest addition, it does not seem to be the original Carriage House. The Shed and Garage have also been added in locations where the 1904 Sanborn Map shows there were no structures. One should note that the Gaage does not have access from the Alley. It is accessed by the driveway from Hallam Street. . The East Elevation, adjacent the neighbor, has additions along almost the entire length of the building. There is the addition where the original Entry Porch was located with the Turret and Deck above discussed at the South Elevation. There is a Shed built along-side another addition adjacent the original Kitchen. And there is the infill addition connecting to the Out Building discussed at the West Elevation. A new solid wood fence about 6-ft. high with sandstone plea running along the property line, blocks the house from Hallam and First streets. There is also new 6-ft. high Iron fences at the new Entry and Driveway. I have tried to illustrate to you the amount of modifications, which have been made to the original residence. It is my professional opinion that this residence is no longer anything resembling a once historic house and should not be required to have H.P.C. Inventory status. Also, it should be pointed out that this residence was removed from the H.P.C. Inventory in 1992 by ordinance. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, fo_ Richard Klein, Architect CC: Mr. and Mrs. Nolan Stan Clauson Lane Schiller ma.'05/27/99 THU 13:27 FAX 970 99- 2234 STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS 2001/001 ii; STRYKER/B ROWN ARCHITECTS TRANSMITTAL Total pages: 1 VIA: Fax TO: Aspen Historical Preservation Committee c/o Stan Clauson FROM: Wayne Stryker DATE: May 26, 1999 RE: Residence at 308 North First Street To whom it may concern: 1 was the Architect of the addition and renovation for the house at 308 N. First St. in, Aspen. This work included the reconstruction of the small garage at the Northeast comer of the property. Due to the state of degradation of the original structure this garage was essentially reconstructed of entirely new materials replicating the original's architectural intent. In my opinion it iS not in any way reasonable to designate the new garage as a historical structure. Please call me if l can be of any further assistance. 300 SOUT M 31'Rl,NG STREET. SUITE 300 ASPEN.COLORADO 31611 970.925,2234 923.2253(FAX) 1. - Â«Lilp,1- T - PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET MILLARD J. ZIMET* SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 OF COUNSEL: TEL: (970)925-8700 JACQUELINE L. GARDNER FAX: '370) 925-3977 also admitted in New York . July 1, 1999 Via Hand Delivery City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 308 N. First Street (Lots K,L,M,N Block 56) - City Application to Designate Property on Inventory Of Historic Sites and Structures Dear Honorable Members of the Commission: This office represents William Nolan, the owner of the above- described property. Mr. Nolan recently processed a lot split application for this property and at the time City Council approved the lot split, it recommended that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) investigate whether or not to designate the property to the City' s historic sites and structures. The property consists of two six-thousand square foot parcels. One parcel (Lot 2) contains a house and the other parcel (Lot 1) a garage. Mr. Nolan prefers that his property not be listed on the historic inventory at this time. The house on the property was listed on the City's first inventory in 1980. However, in 1992, at the request of the then-owner of the property and with the support and recommendation of the then-historic preservation of f icer, Roxanne Eflin, the HPC found that the house, having had substantial modifications made to it over the years, had little value as a historic resource and deleted the property from the historic inventory. In response to Councils referral, on May 26, 1999, the HPC recommended that both the lot containing the house and the lot containing the garage be listed on the historic inventory. Although Mr. Nolan does not believe the house should be re-listed due to its very low historic value, he understands that this issue is debatable, however, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever, for listing the lot containing the garage (Lot 1). Mr. Nolan objects in the strongest possible terms to the listing of Lot 1. In its memo to the HPC for their meeting in May, the City City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 1999 Page 2 staff took a position through its historic preservation officer, Amy Guthrie, that the entire parcel be designated. The recommendation to list Lot 1 was due primarily to the thought that the garage on the property had some historic background. However, after Ms. Guthrie visited the property, inspected this outbuilding and learned more about its history, she withdrew that staff recommendation and recommended only that the house on Lot 2 be added to the inventory. Attached as Exhibit A to this letter are the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting of May 26, 1999. The withdrawal of the staff's original recommendation is found on the first page of Exhibit A (marked Page 2 at the bottom). Notwithstanding staff's revised recommendation that Lot 1 not be listed, the HPC voted in favor of its designation. The HPC does not have unfettered discretion to designate sites for inclusion on the historic inventory and its recommendation is contrary to the City land use code standards for designating sites. The City Land Use Code at Section 26.76.090 titled "Establishment of Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" provides the standard for sites which are considered for designation. It states at sub-paragraph A ..... "Historic sites are parcels which may or may not have structures on them, but primarily have significance as parks, cemeteries, archeological resources or similar types of landscapes" It is undisputed that Lot 1 is not a park or cemetery, nor does it have archeological resources or similar types of landscapes. Therefore, under the code, the HPC's recommendation is completely erroneous. There is no historic structure on Lot 1. It is undisputed that the outbuilding on Lot 1 was formerly a garage that was completely demolished and rebuilt in 1984 in approximately the same footprint and shape that had previously existed. This was discussed at the HPC hearing and the minutes reflect Ms. Guthrie's determination on this point where they state: City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 1999 Page 3 "Amy felt because there is nothing historic on the one lot, it would be difficult to justify the entire site on the inventory." (see minutes attached - Exhibit A, at page 4) Attached as Exhibit B to this letter is a letter dated May 26, 1999 from Wayne Stryker, an architect who previously worked on this property. This letter was submitted to the HPC at its hearing. Mr. Stryker states that the small garage on Lot 1 was reconstructed in recent years. Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever for designating Lot 1. Lot 1 neither has an historical building nor the attributes of a site which qualifies for designation. With respect to the listing of the house, as can be gleaned from the attached minutes of the HPC meeting, several members of the HPC expressed reservations about its historic value. Although the Board ultimately voted in favor of the designation, they rated it as "supporting", the lowest available designation to any historic resource. Attached as Exhibit C is a letter from Mr. Nolan's architect, Mr. Richard Klein. His letter describes the substantial changes that have been made to the original house over the years, all of which substantially diminish its historic value. Mr. Klein will be available at our hearing on this matter to discuss this in more detail. There is another aspect of this process which is of great concern to Mr. Nolan and raises further legal challenges to the proposed designation. This issue concerns the fairness of re- listing the house. Mr. Nolan acquired this property in 1996. He did his due diligence and learned that the house had been listed and then de-listed on the City's historic inventory. He acquired the property based upon that record of the City's review, analysis and decision making with respect to this property and the degree of regulatory control to which it would be subject. The house has not become more historic since it was de-listed in 1992. There has been no work done to restore whatever original historic value it may once have had. The only thing that may have changed since 1992 is that the politics of historic preservation at the City Council level have caused tears to be shed and hands to be wrung over the lawful demolition of the Paepcke house. Regardless o f the position you make take on that situation, this is not a good reason to impose historic regulations on Mr. Nolan's house when the City has - City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 1999 Page 4 previously reviewed it in detail and correctly determined that its value was not sufficient to warrant the imposition of historic control regulations. Mr. Nolan relied on the City' s previous actions and should not be subject to arbitrary changes in the political winds when his very important property rights are at stake. We respectfully request that your commission review the record in this matter and make its own independent recommendation to City council that neither the house nor the lot be designated on the City's historic inventory. Again, while the designation of the house may be debatable, the issue of fundamental fairness and reliance of Mr. Nolan should tip the scales in favor of its not being listed as that was its status, after having been extensively reviewed by the City, at the time of his purchase of the property. With respect to the lot, there is no basis whatsoever in the City Land Use Code or in the record before you for its designation as a historic site. That designation is clearly beyond the authority of the HPC and should not be supported by your commission. Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. I look forward to discussing this with you further at your hearing on July 6 tb Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFES@IONAL CORPORATION 1 i 7 1,-7 By: "Hdrbert S. Klein, Esq. sg\nolan\001.ltr Attachments CC: Bill Nolan Stan Clauson 3~5 8.1999 1:4â‚¬PM ' CIT - ASPEN NO.674 P.1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 26, 1999 308 N. FIRST STREET - INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Amy relayed that a site visit occurred today: This house went in from of citycouncil recently for a lot split application and was granted, While council was looking at the project they said they had concerns that the building on the site was historic and they initiated an application to have it listed on the historic inventory. It was listed oIl the 1980 original city inventory and it was then removed in 1992 when HPC held a pubiic hearing and the owner at that time came to the board and presented evidence that there were many changes made to the house that compromised its integrity, It was built around 1887-1888 and was owned by the brother ofD.R.C. Brown. Exhibits were provided from historic maps and city files and testimony from the previous owner about the changes made. The siding and roofing has been replaced in addition to towers, additions and decks being added. Staff feels that the original form of the house, the cross gabled roof and some ofthe wall areas are intact enough and should be monitored by HPC to preserve what remains and avoid any additional inappropriate changes and guide any restoration that might be taken in the future. Staff is recommending that the entire original property that has been split in two be listed on the inventory. This is due to the outbuilding on the new open land that is historic, but upon inspection today it doesn't appear that is the case. That recommendation has been withdrawn. Lot 2 that has the old house on it is being recommended on the inventory. Sworn in were Stan. Clauson and Richard Klein, Stan read into the records a letter from Mr, Nolan (exhibit II[), Also a letter has been entered into the record from Wayne Stryker who was the architect for the reconstruction ofthe outbuilding (exhibit V) which is of no consequence since Staff has withdrawn that recommendation, Plans will be presented to the board so that the Board can see what the owners intent is and what has been accomplished with the lot split and where they would like to go. 6 2 EXHIBIT ~ 92 & /2\ tt_Â«_ 5 'M#/%+1/9/ 9-UN.18.1999 1:46PM CIT - ASPEN NO.674 P.2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. MAY 26, 1999 Richard Klein. stated that he was asked by the Nolan's to address the Historic Inventory status of Ge house. A letter was read and entered into the records (exhibit BO. Stan informed the Board that the.owners clearly feel it is an encumbrance from the standpoint of the approvals and reviews that are required. The owners also feel it has financial disadvantages. He also reminded tile HPC that the code has been changed recently so the listing on the inventory CarrieS II1UCh Inore sigilificarlt restriction in terirls of the use ai~d review, It carries restrictions that used to be for landmark status. The problem with this particular house is that it would be a stretch to put it on the inventory and a huge stretch to put it on landmark status. It is only with landmark status that the compensatory things that we have been able to offer over the years for historic houses become available to a property owner, This is a new era with substantially increased body of restriction for inventory properties and no advantages for them until they achieve landmark status. Stan also felt that City Council in their response to the individuals who spoke at the lot split public hearing really wanted to be responsive and to show that they were concerned about a house that may or may not merit being on the inventory, He is not sure that the instruction from council was to go and put this on the inventory. He feels the instruction was to go and investigate whether it should be on the inventory. He also felt that they were operating out of a mandate to do this. Stan presented a site survey, which extends over two lots, which have been split. The lot split extends over a significant addition from 1984, which does change the entrance. All the additions are pseudo-historical. As a condition of a lot split a section would have to be removed and made conforming to setbacks. He has been investigating what the original footprint of the foundation was. The side porch would have to be removed, With respect to the side yard setback, the lot split was granted conditioned to conformance with setbacks and FAR and lot coverage. They have a program for removing some of the very small outbuildings and the porch that will be sufficient to meet that requirement. There is an historical extension of rhe house that goes closer to the newly established historic 61 Â·JUN. 18.1999 1:46PM CIT"- F ASPEN - NO. 674 P.3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISS lul 4 MINUTES OF, MAY 26, 1999 townsite lot line than the required five feet required setback. It actually sets 2.5 feet into the setback. Stan will go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to allow this extension to be retained and at the same time allow the original historical townsite lot line to be retained as well. As part of the HPC deliberation i f the Commission could see it as possible to offer a resolution of support in. this particular matter, it would be a great benefit to the restoration of the west elevation of the house. QUESTIONS Amy relayed that the next process is to proceed to Planning and Zoning and then City Council who will make the final decision. Roger asked if the property is on the inventory and a structure is on the adjacent lot would the HPC have review over the new structure? Amy said if the entire property is listed HPC would have review over what is built next to the historic house. . Amy felt because there is nothing historic on the one lot it would be difficult to justify the entire site on the inventory. Roger informed the HPC that the garage existed when he came to town in. 1965. Stan said it is used as an office and he conversed with. Wayne Stryker who did the plans for renovation and it was effectively completely demolished and rebuilt essentially in the same footprint and shape that existed. That occurred around 1984, Roger said there is also a little building that comes off to the left and exisited in 1965. . Stan said that building does not appear on the Sanborn Map, 1904. 4 .. , ~JUN. 18.1999 1:47PM CIT ASPEN NO.674 P.4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 26, 1999 Roger confirmed with Staff that ifthe house is not on the inventory to could be demolished. Amy said there is to reliance on the owners representation that they do not want to demolish it, it will also be put up for sale at some point. There is no protection. Amy said unless the entire property is on the inventory- there is no review over the empty lot. - Roger said that should have been part of the consideration by council on the lot split to have review over the entire site. Amy said there is a process for a building to be placed on the inventory and it was her direction to initiate an application. Heidi inquired about the fascia trim and the trim above the window as to whether it was historic. David Hoefer, attorney stated at the NOON site-visit it was determined that those fabrics were not historic. Stall said there is no question that the tim does look historic as the entire house has historical elements about it. Heidi asked about the roof being original. - -Richard said there is a primary gable form that still exists and it is a cross gable form. It is hidden by one of the chimneys and the other side gable it is disguised by the turret and deck area. Heidi said it is the original roof form behind all the additions. She also inquired about the modification plans. Richard said at the present time the door will be restored to the Hallam side. At this time they are only planning on removing the foyer area. It would be extensive remodeling to get involved with restoration of the front ofthis 5 iJUN. 18.1999 1:47PM CITY OF ASPEN - P.S - - NO.674 ASPEN HISTOR.# PRESERVATION COMMIS U 1 C., N MINUTES OF; MAY 26, 1999 house. If the front is restored, there is an issue with the turret that sits over the front of the house and doesn't relate to the old fonner house. Heidi asked what the intent o f the owner is on the adjacent lot. Stall said it is the intent ofthe owner tb build on the newly created lot next door for themselves and put the existing house on the market. Christie stated that the house was quite beautiful when Kathryn Lee bought it. Lisa said the house was on the inventory when the remodel was done from 1984 to 1992. Amy informed the board that the HPC had minimum regulations at that time. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. COND,fENTS Mary said her initial feeling is that it was not fair to put this house on the inventory. Susan said it is discouraging that new owners do not want their houses to be recognized as historic. It is an admiral quality to have an historic house, She is in favor of the house being on the inventory. Heidi stated that historic houses do not effect property values that much and she would like to see the research if that isn't the case. Regarding the criteria there is something old about the house but when you stand in front of the house it has been modified significantly. She is concerned about the confusion factor i f the house is put on the inventory, will too many people then think all the additions are historic. She doesn't want to see the house tom down. Lisa stated she is in support ofpUtting it oil the inventory as a supporting structure. Since 1992 there has been a big shift in our sensitivity to historic 6 - JUN. 18.1999 1:47PM CITY OF ASPEN NO.674 P.6 ASPEN HISTORIL PRESERVATION COMMISSiuN MINUTES OF, MAY 26, 1999 strÂ·uctures and what those mean to the community and the loss o f those structures. We area charged with preserving historic resource and we should do everything we can do preserve our history. Maureen agreed with Lisa and she is also in favor of the 2.5 variance. Christie also supported putting the house on the inventory. There is not a house in town that has not been added to considerably. If the house is not on the inventory we will loose more and more of them. Roger stated if the house was demolished in a month from now the human cry would be outrageous. He was on the }EC when the house was taken off the inventory and at that time the board was different. Underneath all of the additions is a wonderful little structure. He recommends that it be on the inventory. He also recommends that the entire parcel be on the inventory. HPC has always fought to have review over parcels around historic properties. In 1991 there were not lot splits and if they existed then the entire parcel would have been listed. He also recommended working with the owners representatives on the variances. Jeffrey felt that the impact on the neighborhood is important. Although the house has been remodeled and altered the footprint and the essence of the foundation once represented is very important. He is in favor of the house being a supporting stucture. Suzannah stated that she doesn't see this as being any different than the Williams Way project in tenns of its alternations. They are pretty equal and this house has the form of the historic house. She supports the listing on the inventory. She is less inclined to attach the other lot. She is also in support of the variances for the historic house, Stan said the concern of the Nolan's is becoming involved in another layer of bureaucracy which is a real concern for many people. They perceive that other people will have an influence over their hearth and home in a way that maybe uncongenial to them. Stan also relayed that our code is much more draconian at the inventory level in terms of the amount of review. 7 Â·JUN. 18.1999 1:48PM CITY OF ASPEN NO.674 P.7 ASPEN HISTOR. - PRESERVATION COMMIL~N MINUTES OF. MAY 26. 1999 That might not be a bad thing but it certainly effects the way people react. It is certainly a catch 22 for those house that maybe inventoried but not landmarked. Those houses have all the review but none of the benefits of landmarking. Stan relayed as far as the adjoining property goes, you have people that are sympathetic to the historic resource even though they do not want it to be regarded as an. historic resource. The way they have worked with Richard and himself is indicative of that in the way they have moved forward to seek a variance to allow the original historic footprint to be maintained. He feels they will be equaIIy sympathetic and fall strongly on Ordinance #30 for review for the comer property. He doesn't feel the HPC has an historic basic for putting the comer property under review. He also requested a general resolution in support of the variance be addressed in the motion. It is basically a 2.5 foot encroachment for 7.9 feet of length into the setback, Â·Richard relayed that the corner lot that will be available for new construction will probably be contracted with a contractor that is more costly because he is working on historic properties. If that is the case he feels it would be unfair as it is new construction. Heidi relayed that the entire block is historic. MOTION: Roger moved to (1) adopt Resolution #29, 1999 recommending that City Council adopt 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L,M and N Block 56 City and Townsite of Aspen to the r<Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. (2) HPC approves the varicmces that are required when part ofthe non- historic portion of the house is removed. Some of the historic structure wilt be within the property line and HPC encowages that all other boards to grant this variance. Motion second by Susan. Yes Voter Roger, Jefrey, Mcg, Susan, Heidi, Lisa No Vote: Suzannah, 8 JUN. 18. 1999 1:48PM CITY OF ASPEN NO.674 P.8 - C , / RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN E[[STORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT 308 N. FIRST STREET, LOTS K, L, M, AND N, BLOCK 56, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BE ADDED TO THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES RESOLUTION NO.<19, SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, Section 26.76.090.A of the Munitipal Code states that the inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in rhe City of .Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outsmnding examples of more modern architecture; and WILEREAS, the City of Aspen has identified 303 N. First Street. Lots IC L, M, and N, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, as eligible for inclusion on the ';Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 26, 1999, provided a history of the house and supporting evidence of its age and recommended thai the property be added to the :'Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," and WNFREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission onMay 26, 1999, at which the Commission considered and recommended thar the property be added to the ~;Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" by a vote of to , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC recommends that City Council adopt 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L: M, and N, Block 56, City and Townsite ofAspen to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day of May, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney --&. 1.,-61 r.â€¢U Ofu 340 4204 2)1Kk-ith}< BROW, AKCHLIEcls 40001/001 STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS TRANSMITTAL Total pages: 1 VIA: Fax TO: Aspen Historical Preservation Committee c/o Stan Clauson FROM: Wayne Stryker DATE: May 26, 1999 RE: Residence at 308 North First Street To whom it may concern: I was the Architect of the addition and renovabon for the house at 308 N. First St. in Aspen. This work included the reconstruction of the small garage at the Northeast comer of the property. Due to the state of degradation of the original structure this garage was essentially reconstructed of entirely new materials replicating the original's architectural intent. In my opinion it is not in any way reasonable to designate the new garage as a historical structure. Please call me if 1 can be of any further assistance. EXHIBIT , :, + .i If 8 + 300 SOUTH Sl'KING STREET, SUITE 300 ASrEN,COLORADO 81611 970.925.2254 925.2258 (FAX) i RICHARD KLEIN Mcy 26, 1999 Suzcnnch Reid, AIA Chcir Person Aspen Historic Preservation Commissicn . City Hall 130 South Galenc] Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Historic Inventory Status Residence crt Lots K,L.M,N, Block 56 City of Aspen Decr Suzannah, NÂ¥. and Nks. Nolan have retained the services of my firm to assist with the prepa-ation of documents required for the Lot Split of their properly anci to produce the necessary Architectural Drawings for the remoclei of their house. They have also asked me to assess their house relative to H.P.C. Inventcry Status. The original residence on Lots M and N was constructed cround the tun of the century and the house appecrs on the 1904 Sanborn Map. Th-ough the yeas, quite a number of additions have occurred, with the latest major renovation in 1984. As the house now sits, every elevation has been significantly modified. The South facing Elevation. on Hallam Street is no longer the entry to the house, the Entry Porch no longer exists having been replaced by an addition which wraps aound to the East. Above, is an awkward looking Turret and Deck, which hides the existing roof. A new Freplace with a "very red" brick has been added to the front gable. Across the property line to Lot L. a new Entry Foyer has been built. There is also a new Curb Cut to access a long Svewcy to the Gcrage at the back of the lot. The West Elevation from Frst Skeet is now the entry to the house. An Entry Foyer, mentioned at the South Bevation. with spiral stcir to c large deck cn the secend floor has been added where the original Freplace was demolished. There is also an addition connecting the crigind house to an Out Buildng located in the vicinity of the original Carriage House. On the 1904 Sanbcrn -~ Map, a Cariage House is located in the same corner of Lot M, but is a different size. more rectangula, and actually sits on the properly lines. " r The North Bevation from the Alley is totally changed. Even though the current former Out - Building is probably the oldest addition, it does not seem to be the original Carriage House. - The Shed and Gaage have also been added in locations where the 1904 Sanborn Map shows ~.. there were no structures. One should note that the Gcrage does not have access from the Alley. It is accessed by the diveway from Hallcm Skeet. EXHIBIT The East Elevation, aciacent the neighbor, has additions along almost the entre length of the building. There is the addition where the original Enky Porch was located with the Turet and Deck above discussed at the South Bevation. There is a Shed built along-side another addition aclacent the original Kitchen. And there is the infill addtion connecting to the Out Building discussed at the West Elevation. A new solid wood fence about 6-ft. high with sandstone piers, running along the property line, blocks the house from Hallam and First streets. There is also new 6-ft. high iron fences at the new Entry and Driveway. I have tried to illustrate to you the amount of modifications, which have been made to the original residence. It is my professional opinion that this residence is no longer anything resembling a once historic house and should not be required to have H.P.C. Inventory status. Also, it should be pointed out that this residence was removed from the H.P.C. Inventory in 1992 by crdinance. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Richard Klein, Architect CC: NÂ¥. and Aks. Nolan Stan Clauson Lane Schiller .. . te- 09 64.% 2,3 1.1 k - I 1 ,<I'll.Eli'.irilillirRi..~f...Emi.il PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET MILLARD J. ZIMET* SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLOFRADO 81611 OF COUNSEL: TEL: (970) 925-8700 JACQUELINE L. GARDNER FAX: (970) 925-3977 also admitted in New York August 19, 1999 â€žA -7 Â¢40"Â« / fli/4 K./ Via Hand Delivery ~Â·*Â¥\ li) Honorable City Council Members City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 308 N. First Street (Lots K,L,M,N Block 56) - City Application to Designate Property on Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures Dear Honorable Members of the Council: This office represents William Nolan, the owner of the above - described property. Mr. Nolan recently processed a lot split application for this property and at the time City Council approved the lot split, it recommended that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) investigate whether or not to designate the property to the City' s historic sites and structures. The property consists of two six-thousand square foot parcels. One parcel (Lot 2) contains a house and the other parcel (Lot 1) a garage. The HPC and Planning Commission have reviewed your referral. The HPC recommended the addition of Lot 2 to the inventory but the Planning Commission did not. Nevertheless, the Ordinance now be fore you on second reading (Ordinance 33 (Series of 1999) recommends that Lot 2 be added to the inventory. Mr. Nolan prefers that his property not be listed on the historic inventory. The burden and expense of the historic review process can be onerous and this property does not warrant such an imposition. We are confident that after you are fully aware of the background concerning this property, you will agree that it does not meet the City's criteria for listing on the inventory. The house on the property was listed on the City's first inventory in 1980. However, in 1992, at the request of the then- owner of the property and with the support and recommendation of the then-historic preservation officer, Roxanne Eflin, the Hpc found that the house, having had substantial modifications made to it over the years, had little value as a historic resource and deleted the property from the historic inventory. Obviously, the de-listing of the property provides a strong indication that it has , City Council August 19, 1999 Page 2 very low historic value. The reason the house has virtually no historic value is because it has had many changes to its original structure over the years with very substantial changes occurring in the 1980's. The original structure is not recognizable and has been subsumed into the current building. Attached as Exhibit A is a letter from Mr. Nolan's architect, Mr. Richard Klein. His letter describes the substantial changes that have been made to the original house over the years, all of which substantially diminish its historic value. When considering your referral, several members of the HPC expressed reservations about the historic value of the house and although the HPC ultimately voted in favor of the designation, they rated it as "supporting", the lowest available designation to any historic resource. Some members of the HPC and Staff thought that the house was an example of larger Victorian houses that should be preserved. This reason for listing the house is erroneous for two reasons: First, the code"s criteria does not require that a house with little historic value be listed simply because it is large. Second, the former Victorian house was small. When this referral was heard by the Planning Commission, their vote was tied at 3-3, thus they did not recommend the addition of the house to the inventory. The Land Use Code provides guidance on the conditions which must exist for a property to be listed on the inventory and the City does not have unfettered discretion to designate sites for inclusion on the historic inventory. The City Land Use Code at Section 26.76.090 titled "Establishment of Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" provides the standard for structures which are considered for designation. It states that: "It is not the intention of the HPC to include insignificant structures or sites on the inventory. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community." at sub-paragraph A of this section it states: "The inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value..." City Council August 19, 1999 Page 3 The definition of a "supporting" structure is found at Section 26.76.090 C.10. This section states: "All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered Contributing once again. " (Emphasis added) . The definition of a "contributing" structure is found at Section 26.76.090 C.10. This section states: "All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for Significant; provided however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design." (Emphasis added). Based on these provisions, you are asked to determine that with "substantial effort" the house would "maintain its historic integrity. " Unfortunately, the Code does not define "substantial. " However, Black's Law Dictionary does: Substantial. Of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. (Case citations omitted) Black's Law Dictionary th ,4 Edition. Page 1597. In order for the house to "maintain its historic integrity" it would, at the very least, need to have the non-historic additions and changes reversed. A turret was added, outside porches were added, existing porches were enclosed creating new living areas and the chimney was moved. These changes completely revised the floor plan. As Mr. Klein's attached letter points out, "every elevation has been significantly modified." We do not believe that "substantial effort" would reverse these changes. Attached at Exhibit B is a letter from Matt Young, a construction bidding services and value engineering consultant. Mr. Young indicates that the cost of reversing the changes is 1 x : City Council August 19, 1999 Page 4 $365,564.00. If this work was done, the resulting house would be smaller than the current houge. We do not believe that anyone would spend almost $400,00.00 to restore the former architecture only to end up with a smaller house. Such efforts would be viewed as waste rather than as something that has value or real worth, as the definition of "substantial" requires-. Therefore, common sense should tell us that the changes to the house that caused it to be de-listed in 1992 are not going to be reversed and that "substantial effort" will not result in the house qualifying for "contributing" status. There is another aspect of this process which is of great concern to Mr. Nolan and raises further legal challenges to the proposed designation. This issue concerns the fairness of re- listing the house. Mr. Nolan acquired this property in 1996. He did his due diligence and learned that the house had been listed and then de-listed on the City's historic inventory. He acquired the property based upon that record of the City's review, analysis and decision making with respect to this property and the degree of regulatory control to which it would be subject. The house has not become more historic since it was de-listed in 1992. There has been no work done to restore whatever original historic value it may once have had. The only thing that may have changed since 1992 is that the politics of historic preservation have caused tears to be shed and hands to be wrung over the lawful demolition of the Paepcke house. Regardless of the position you make take on that situation, this is not a good reason to impose historic regulations on Mr. Nolan's house when the City has previously reviewed it in detail and correctly determined that its value was not sufficient to warrant the imposition of historic control regulations. Mr. Nolan relied on the City's previous actions and should not be subject to arbitrary changes in the political winds when his very important property rights are at stake. We respectfully request that you review the record in this matter and determine that the house not be designated on the City's historic inventory. If you feel that the designation of the house may be debatable, the issue of fundamental fairness and reliance of Mr. Nolan should tip the scales in favor of its not being listed as that was its status, after having been extensively reviewed by the City, at the time of his purchase of the property. City Council August 19, 1999 Page 5 Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. I look forward to discussing this with you further at your hearing on August 23 rd. Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By: ,-I Herbert S. Klein, Esq. sg\nolan\004.ltr Attachments CC: Bill Nolan Stan Clauson 1 1 Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Stan Clauson, AICP, ASIA CC: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Date: 18 August 1999 Re: 308 N. First Street, Nolan Property-Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures Summary The Nolan property received a lot split from City Councjl under Ordinance 9, Series of 1999. At the time the lot split application was discussed by Council, a question arose as to whether the house located on Lots M and N had historic value. The record was presented showing that the original house did indeed date to before the tum of the century and had, at one point, been listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Homver, as a result of construction and architectural changes effected principally during the 1980's, the house had been significantly altered and was recommended for de-listing from the HistoMc Inventory. According ly, Ordinance 34, Series of 1992, an ordinance to update the Historic inventory1 proposed de-listing the property along with five others "by reason of their loss of historic integrity or value." This ordinance was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and City Council on 22 June 1992. Although no change had occurred to the house to improve its historic integrity since it was reconstruded in 1984 and de-listed in 1992, the City Council in approving the lot split this year, felt that its historic qualities should be re-evaluated. They requested staff to initiate activities to determine if it would be appropriate to list the house on the Historic Inventory. The owners of the property, William and Elaine Nolanl had purchased the house in 1996, aware that it was not listed on the Historic Inventory. While they generally support the goals of historic preservation, they did not want to have a property which was encumbered by the regulation which is attached to an Inventory or Landmark property. They specifically chose this property because it was not so encumbered. At the time of purchase, moreover, design regulation of historic properties by the Historic Preservation Commission was exclusively directed tcward voluntarily landmarked properties. A house on the Inventory, but not landmarked, was subject â€¢ Page 1 only to regulations regarding demolition. Subsequently, the City has passed an ordinance that provides for HPC review of both inventoried and voluntarily landmarked properties alike. This makes the level of regulatory encumbrance significantly greater than the Nolans ever expected in purchasing the property. Moreover, with the pending requirement that work only be done by certified historic preservation contractors, there is a considerable level of expense attached to this regulation. All of this might be justified if the house had sufficient integrity that listing on the Historic Register would be appropriate. However, the house was changed in form so substantially by prior owners that very little remains of its original charader. Moreover, the changes were of a false historical nature, so that inventorying would actually result in confusion as to whether recent additions were actually historical elements. Fundamentally, not every old house needs to be on the inventory, Only those which qualify and add to the historic resources should be placed on the inventory. Other structures and sites are intended to be protected by Ordinance 30, which provides more generafized assurance that new construction and remodeling will continue to contribute to neighborhood character. Finally, the Planning & Zoning Commission at their meeting of 6 July 1999 failed to recommend the re-listing of the property. They had also been presented with a motion to list the adjacent newly-created lot, which they voted to deny listing. Should the House be on the inventory? Several factors need to be considered in responding to the question of whether the house should be placed on the Historic Inventory. â€¢ The house is admittedly of an age which would allow for its being on the Inventory. â€¢ The house has been totally altered in form and materials: such that no aspect of its original shape remains, except for the cross gable roof. â€¢ Materials and forms appear to be historical but are not, which would result in confusion with resped to the authenticity of this resource. â€¢ The criterion for adding a contributing structure to the Inventory is that it may be restored to its historic integrity, although this might require a Usubstantial effort." Our analysis shows that this house would require more than a substantial effort to restore its historic integrity, and that such an effort is quite unlikely to be undertaken. â€¢ The house was specifically delisted by city ordinance. Nothing has changed with respect to the house since that de-listing, â€¢ The Historic Preservation Officer has identified that "The effect of the altemations are significant and have changed the architectural character of i Page 2 the building. Some of the alterations, such as the tower and chimney, are likely cost prohibitive to remove." â€¢ The present owners purchased the property with the expectation that it was not encumbered with HPC reviews or requirements. They will suffer financial hardship as a result. â€¢ The property is fully developed on the lot. No significant additions can be undertaken, and any changes would be governed by Ordinance 30 Design Standards. Attached is a letter from Architect Richard Klein to Suzannah Reid of the HPC, dated 26 May 1999, discussing his evaluation as an architect that the house does not qualify for listing on the Inventory. On balance, we believe that this house no longer presents characteristics which merit its listing on the inventory, and recommend that it not be listed. Attachments: Letter from Richard Kleinl dated 26 May 1999 â€¢Page 3 .. RICHARD KLEIN -- May 26,1999 Suzannah Reid, AIA Chair Person Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City Hall I 30 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Historic Inventory Status Residence at Lots K,L,M,N, Block 56 City of Aspen Dear Suzannah, Nt. and Ma. Nolan have retained the services of my frm to assist with the prepcration of documents required for the Lot Split of their property and to produce the necessary Architectural Drawings for the remodel of their house. They have also asked me to assess their house relative to H.P.C. Inventory Status. The original residence on Lots M and N was constructed cround the turn of the century and the house appecrs on the 1904 Sanborn Map. hough the yeas. quite a number of additions have occurred, with the latest major renovation in 1984. As the house now sits, every elevation has been significantly modified. The South facing Elevation, on Hallam Street is no longer the enky to the house, the Entry Porch no longer exists having been replaced by an addition which wraps around to the East. Above, is an awkward looking Turret and Deck. which hides the existing roof. A new Freplace with a " very red" brick has been added to the front gable. Across the properly line to Lot L a new Entry Foyer has been built. There is also a new Curb Cut to access a long Sveway to the Gcrage at the back of the lot. The West Elevation from First Street is now the enky to the house. An Entry Fo'mr, mentioned at the South Bevation, with spiral stat to a Icrge deck on the second floor has been added where the original Fireplace was demolished. There is also an addition connecting the original house to an Out Building located in the vicinity of the original Carriage House. On the 1904 Sanborn Map. a Cariage House is located in the same corner of Lot M, but is a different size, more rectangula, and actually sits on the property lines. The North Elevation from the Alley is totally changed. Even though the current former Out Building is probably the oldest addition, it does not seem to be the original Carriage House. The Shed and Gcrage have also been added in locations where the 1904 Sanborn Map shows there were no structures. One should note that the Gaage does not have access from the Alley. It is accessed by the ctiveway from Hdlam Sfreet. EXHIBIT A . I . The East Elevation, aciacent the neighbor, has adclitions along almost the entle length of the buildng. There is the addition where the original Entry Porch was located with the Turret and Deck above discussed at the South 8evation. There is a Shed built along-side another addition aciacent the original Kitchen. And there is the infill addition connecting to the Out Buildng discussed at the West Elevation. A new solid wood fence about 6-ft. high with sandstone piers, running along the property line, blocks the house from Hallam and Frst streets. There is also new 6-ft. high Iron fences at the new Entry and Driveway. I have tried to illustrate to you the amount of modifications, which have been made to the original residence. It is my professional opinion that this residence is no longer anything resembling a once historic house and should not be required to have H.P.C. Inventory status. Also, it should be pointed out that this residence was removed from the H.P.C. Inventory in 1992 by ordinance. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, -0 Richard Klein, Architect CC: NÂ¥. and Ms. Nolan Stan Clauson Lane Schiller a . *AUG-1911999 10: 18 FROM: -- :970 728 3069 P.001'001 18-Aug-99 Mr. Bill Nolan 308 N. First Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Historical Re-creation Dear Bill: Attached is a cost estimate for the historical re-creation of your residence at 308 N. First Street In general, the purpose of preparing this estimate is to establish the cost for returning this residence back to its original Victorian architecture. This cost estimate is based on the following scope of work. SCOPE OF WORK West Hallam Porch: Remove this L-shape porch with the attached turret replace with a new open porch with round columns and new entry door. North 1 9 Porch: Remove this porch back to its original building lines. Build new fireplace and chimney at this location. Existing Windows: Replace all existing easement windows with wood double hungs, Includes all associated window trim. Existing Fireplace/Chimney: Remove this chimney and fireplace, rebuild at its Original location in place of North 1 w porch. Patch & Repair: Constructing walls and patching is included where structures no longer exist. Plaster patch and painting is included only for new work. Other exterior trim work and painting may be required in order to achieve a true Victorian architecture throughout the remaining exterior of the house. Please do not hesitate to call me with additional questions regarding this project. Sincerply, M 4 1 -1 Matt Young MATT YOUNG ' 620 W. Hallam * As,en, CO 81611 *voice/lax 910-544-8138 EXHIBIT B ' MATT YOUNG COST ESTIMAKE 620 W. HALLAM ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 544-8138 PROJECT: NOLAN RESIDENCE 308 N. FIRST STREET Revision No.: 0.0 ASPEN, CO 19-Aug-99 Estimator: Matt Young SPEC/ DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT LINE CATEGORY ITEM COST TOTAL TOTAL 01000 GENERAL CONDITIONS superintendent 17 wks equipment rental 4 mos fuel & maintenance 4 mos tool maintenance 4 mos jobsite telephone 4 mos safety 4 mos temporary shoring & protection 1 job dumpster fees 4 mos temporary power hook up n/a job temporary power usage by owner job temporary water by owner mos first aid supplies 4 mos job photo 1 job # general cleanup 1 job window cleaning 1 job final cleaning 1 job project manager 13 wks project development 15 hrs structural engineering 1 job builders risk insurance by owner job building permit, plan check, zoning fees, use tax 300 k shipping 1 job office materials, blueprinting, ect. 1 Is 343*%%21?3 TOTALâ‚¬it. =GENE*ACÂ¢ONRITION*3*%4(*t.%4%%*i~ j-:>it:Â·~ ~ftÂ¢64%.%-;~4*15;*Â·34 54*1100,3-~2 02100 SELECTIVE REMOVAL NORTH 1ST ST. PORCH hand separate structure 1 job demo roof handrail 5 If demo roof structure 364 sf salvage doors/windows 12 ea demo exterior wall 1 job demo columns, stairs, flooring 1 job Page 1 of 5 , SPEC/ DRIPTION QTY UN UNIT LINE CATEGORY~~ ITEM COST TOTAL TOTAL demo foundation 1 job salvage upper deck doors 2 ea TURRET hand separate structure 1 job demo roof structure 1 job salvage doors/windows 12 ea demo exterior wall 1 job W. HALL.AM PORCH hand separate structure 1 job demo interior finishes 1 job demo roof structure 364 sf salvage doors/windows 14 ea demo exterior wall, floor 1 job demo foundation 1 job EXISTING CHIMNEY demo existing masonry fireplace 1 job a [ 1162,325 TOTAL SELECTIVE REMOVAL 03300 CONCRETE porch footings & foundation 1 job fireplace footing 1 job TOTAL ~ CONCRETE ~ ~ Â·x, ~; ~ ~ ~ J j.-4.454-6-175 04200 MASONRY FIREPLACE masonry foundation, cmu backup chimney 1 job firebox, smoke shelf, damper, hearth 1 job brick veneer 1 job i ,, - j Â·~ 1 : :.*<W*6,660. TOTAL f MASONRY FIREPLACE 02 al344 -':**WL *ti <4*.6'... 06100 ROUGH CARPENTRY REPAIR FORMER N. 1st ST. PORCH Exterior Wall 2x6 framing 198 ~sf track 132 | If stud 238 | If 2x6 treated plate 26 |If fasteners, ect. 198 |sf vapor barrier 228 |sf 1/2" cdx sheathing 218 |sf Page 2 of 5 SPEC/ DE -- RIPTION QTY UNIT' - ]NIT LINE CATEGORÂ¥ ITEM OST TOTAL TOTAL miscellaneous blocking 198 sf Siding & Trim cedar horizontal lap siding 238 sf cedar trim 1 job CONSTRUCT N. HALLAM PORCH Floor Framing 1 job 2x12 joists 64 If 2x12 rim 22 If joist hangers 20 ea 3/4" flooring 120 sf Exterior Wall 2x6 framing 198 sf track 132 If stud 238 If 2x6 treated plate 26 If fasteners, ed 198 sf vapor barrier 228 sf 1/2" cdx sheathing 218 sf Hip Roof 1 job 2x10 rafter blocking 64 If rafter hangers 18 ea 2x10 fascia 22 If 5/8" roof sheathing 165 sf Siding & Trim cedar horizontal lap siding 198 sf cedar trim, fascia, eaves, columns 1 job Repairs structural repairs & support 1 job 439*-t*Â¥*94*Re.UGH,CARPENTRY.}*%.%Â»4% 7Â£M#*&BIL.3Â· 4%4;Â·~4%%*32 '69.VU#& ~ 4669&~5717*1 6200 FINISH CARPENTRY Interior Trim base, case, jambs 1 job Fireplace Woodwork mantle, wood work 1 ea Existing Windows window casing, trim & skin 1 ea Page 3 of 5 SPEC/ CRIPTION QTY U[-- UNIT UNE CATEGORY ITEM COST TOTAL TOTAL U:i: 4%83 - TOTAL Â«4 FINISH CARPENTRY 3 ': A :t .:.*, ,:..4.:.<*~:[ t'$36%132,6,573 07210 BUILDING INSULATION BATT INSULATION extenor walls 396 sf interior walls n/a sf vapor barrier 396 sf roof 165 sf TOTAL BATTINSULATION 44+;34*H,! Â»ceÂ«.34 ...I :.CT. i 4*2. 1 u..3.,i@1,373- 07310 CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF CEDAR ROOF ice & water shield 2 sq cedar shingle 2 sq TOTAL CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF 2,300 07610 FLASHING & SHEETMETAL drip edge, step flashing 1 job gutters & downspouts 1 job 2,875_ TOTAL FLASHING & SHEETMETAL 08300 WOOD DOORS new entry door 1 ea 2086- TOTAL WOOD DOORS . i>q?*e:i::L ~$4>3.:. 08500 WOOD WINDOWS N. HALLAM PORCH double hung wood windows 2 ea EXISTING WINDOWS replace existing casements w/ wood double hung 13 ea 4444%4 TOTAL - WOOD WINDOWS it6444*.4 ,~:.1.44:.j:.i' ~ 41-i Â·96,~4Â¢60 ; 4%*441.46 3441-1 1236- 08700 FINISH HARDWARE entry door hardware 1.00 ea 250.00 250 Page 4 of 5 SPEC/ D RIPTION QTY UNIT' UNIT UNE ] CATEGORY ITEM OST TOTAL TOTAL k *** Material cost allowance is shown *** 09250 GYPSUM WALL SYSTEM INTERIOR WALLS plaster new walls, patch existing 1 job >ff?.tÂ¢%1}-2 ,TOTAL ~44* GYPSUM WALL SYSTEM fiRif.:-IA: ~ 0.43.4?~-::4.1-~(;~ 6%43?44:;441Â·..63{1 -f.~ 4Â¢r3*48,625 09900 PAINTING paint plaster walls, patch existing 1 job paint exterior walls, interior & exterior trim 1 job paint windows 1 job TOTAL PAINTING <wic 04Â» 17,250 10300 FIREPLACE fireplace doors 1 ea 594 'fk'>A *.27 TOTAL -:9*~FIREPLACE 1 77% 3,450 1 15600 HVAC modify existing heating system 1 ea iff.t~.Al-(:2. TOTAL - HVAC-- 3:Â·j :.:; :13%42 g.Â·,i.;....:.,*v.... : ~ ..,: 4- :,-Â· c i ~ 1 6:Â·P-= .Â·3291(93-f ;fif.445,750 16000 ELECTRICAL modify existing power system per new layout and 1 job code. %-,433Â£62.- TOTAL::- 1.Â·c .ELECTRICAL ~ffÂ¢{411464.,-~'.,~,s.i:tY#-4 - I..:im*Â·- .Â·-iÂ·. :Â·-il .::,2 ~.:..20-443.,Â·of~- 4-4-44::13,800 TOTAL $363,564 Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT 308 N. FIRST STREET, LOTS K, L, M, AND N, BLOCK 56, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BE ADDED TO THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES RESOLUTION NO. 29, SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, Section 26.76.090.A of the Municipal Code states that the inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has identified 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, as eligible for inclusion on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 26, 1999, provided a history o f the house and supporting evidence of its age and recommended that the property be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," and WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on May 26, 1999, at which the Commission considered and recommended that the property be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" by a vote of 6 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC recommends that City Council adopt 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen to the "Inventory of Ilistoric Sites and Structures," and adds the following recommendation: 1. The HPC supports the variances that will be required to retain the west portion of the historic structure. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day of May, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk .. County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E) I, Â»4 1,1 1 ~7 4-1.1 1.r 1-Â£e/ , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing ofnotice, a copy ofwhich is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 1-Â«day of Â»44.)9/~-199-2 (which is ir) 'AÂ·)4j 4 klet-~24 4-0 0.4- 7[ft- - days prior to the public hearing date of 77*87 1 /66-92 1,1 9%-048'1 , 42 -+ i -1 1--~3 \62 214 acath <1Â£32 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously 1 -VAL 1 from the !, j day of 141-'2 4.61, 1991< (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. 4 f Ij 0// Signature~ - 'U. ;':L . - -4 V. MAT.-,4.1.,Avv 09- ~,% Signed before me th@r.mi66,60,5~~day T.6 02 9~1~ ' Â· ACE dll 1. C~A.~~~ JACKI PUH/Of k l LOTHIAN j ~ '4699;>z:75*10' U.... WITNESS MY HAN#966hz*~1.AllfgIAL SEAL My commission expires: 4/I 7/(13 JAcKIE 607741*4 Notary Puldia - 74- Â»n'CICÂ£U 30(Ar~FPublic's Signaturd U - TOBIN MAURICE B TOBIN JOAN F 1850 K ST NW #380 1850 K ST NW STE 380 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 , ASPEN VALENTINE LLC CONGDON THOMAS E & NOEL MANCLARK Q P RESIDENCE TRUST C,'O GARFIELD & HECHT 1776 LINCOLN ST STE 1100 313 E BAY FRONT 601 E HYMAN AVE DENVER, CO 80203 BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662 . ASPEN, CO 81611 ALDERWOOD SECURITIES LTD LEVY DAVID M DEVOS ESTHER LEONARD PACOR SECOMA SAM 24BD TIMES SQUARE BLDG PO BOX 3238 PRINCESS CHARLOTTE MC 98000 45 EXCHANGE ST ASPEN, CO 81612 MONACO, ROCHESTER, NY 14614 GRIFFITH JAMES P S VICENZI GEORGE A FABRY PAUL A 3417 MILAM AVE STE 5 PO BOX 2238 1127 BOURBON ST HOUSTON, TX 77002 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW ORLEANS. LA 70116 VICKERY JACK H WEST END PARTNERSHIP LLC NEW ROBERT & MONICA 100 S SPRING ST 520 E COOPER AVE 11414 N BAYSHORE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NORTH MIAMI, FL 33181 HARTWIG BRUCE A ERICKSON BERYL ARTHUR & MARY ERWIN GREGORY D 569 PONTE VEDRA BLVD ELIZABETH 11248 JOHN GALT BLVD P O BOX 2655 PO BOX 1207 OMAHA, NE 68137 PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FL 32082 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROBINSON MARYBELLE S CITY OF ASPEN NOLAN ELAINE L 2552 E ALAMEDA ST #97 130 S GALENA ST 148 GLENRIDGE PKWY DENVER, CO 80209 ASPEN, CO 81611 EL DORADO, AR 71730 HENRY FREDERICK B BEN-NINGHOFF ESTHER SMART PAMELA 100 W HALLAM ST 233 W HALLAM AVE 3351 WOODHAVEN RID ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30305 WEST PHILLIP N & SUSAN J MUNDAY TRUST NUMBER ONE CITY OF ASPEN 2114 MT CALVARY RD PO BOX 1689 130 S GALENA ST SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105 AUSTIN, TX 78767 ASPEN, CO 81611 STEVENS LESLEY 4.25% INT DAVIS WILLIAM LLOYD GORMAN JAMES & PATRICIA STEVENS BRUCE 95.75% INT TRUSTEE OF DAVIS LIVING TRUST 1426 ROSE GLEN RD 214 W BLEEKER ST 4924 BALBOA BLVD #489 GLADWYNE, PA 19035 ASPEN, CO 81611 ENCINO, CA 91316 KRUMM DONALD PAUL _ i PO BOX 874 ASPEN, CO 81612 k LE Q MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission A THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director~~,Ap Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director JA<) FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 308 N. First Street- Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures DATE: May 26,1999 SUMMARY: This property was recently the subject of a lot split review before City Co .incil. At the Council's request, staff has prepared an application to lisI 308 N. First Street on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." APPLICANT: City ofAspen. OWNER: William C. Nolan. Represented by Stan Clauson Associates. LOCATION: 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCESS: The following paragraphs are excerpts from the Land Use Code to be utilized by the HPC in evaluating additions of resources to the Inventory. Staff has prepared responses to these standards to assist the HPC in its findings regarding 308 N. First Street. INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Section 26.76.090. Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures. Intent: Fifty (50) years old is generally the age when a property may begin to be considered historically significant. It is not the intention of the HPC to include insignificant structures or sites on the inventory. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community. Response: City records indicate that this house was built in approximately 1887-8. Originally identified as 124 West Hallam Street, the house was occupied by H. A. Brown. According to the Aspen Historical Society, Harry Brown, the brother of D.R.C. Brown, moved here in the 1880's and became the timekeeper for the Aspen Water District. The property was included on the City's first "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," which was completed in 1980. Prior to and subsequent to the 1980 listing, a series of alterations were made to the building which HPC did not have review authority over. 1 In 1991 the City hired a consultant to review the Inventory and to make recommendations as to whether any properties should be added or deleted. The 1991 Inventory form on 308 N. First Street (then 124 W. Hallam Street) describes the architectural integrity, modifications, and importance of the building. As the form reports, the house is illustrative of Aspen's modest family lifestyle during the mining era but has been substantially compromised with the renovations and additions. The consultant recommended that the house remain on the Inventory, but acknowledged that its integrity had been damaged by the renovations. Following the consultant's report, the HPC held public hearings to receive input from all affected property owners. Attached is a letter from the then owner of the subject property, Katherine Levitz Lee, and a copy of the HPC minutes from March of 1992. The owner requested that the house be de-listed from the Inventory in consideration of the alterations. The minutes reflect the Board's discussion and acknowledgment of the changes to an already low rated house. The minutes from the following public hearing do not include a discussion about the Hallam property although Roxanne Eflin, then Historic Preservation Officer, recommended the house be de-listed. The HPC Resolution passed and City Council Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, which officially de-listed the property, was adopted. The 1893 "Bird's Eye View of Aspen"and the 1904 Sanborne Map show the original footprint and appearance of the building. (Notice that houses to the east and west of the subject building have been demolished.) The form of the house is still essentially intact, but it has had numerous appendages added, including a corner tower, a masonry chimney stack, decks, and other additions. The original front porch has been enclosed and the entry to the house has been moved from the Hallam Street side to the First Street side. A current front elevation of the building shows the original cross gable roof form and some historic detailing still remain. This drawing also demonstrates the obvious alterations that have been made. The effect of the alterations are significant and have changed the architectural character of the building. Some of the alterations, such as the tower and chimney, are likely cost prohibitive to remove. It is staff s understanding that the owners do not wish to have the property re-listed on the Inventory or to have HPC oversight, but have stated that it is not their intention to tear the house down. Staff finds that while the house has been altered, its form is sufficiently intact to warrant continued monitoring by HPC to preserve what remains, avoid additional inappropriate additions, and to guide any restoration that might be undertaken. There are relatively few examples left in Aspen of the larger Victorian era homes, and the property should be preserved for the future. Although the property has been subdivided, staff recommends that the entire original parcel, Lots K, L, M, and N, be listed on the Inventory. The house that once existed on 2 Lots K and L has been demolished, but the outbuilding remains and should be preserved, and new construction on the site should be in character with the historic resources. Section 26.76.090(c). Structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic landmarks. No further action need be taken with respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence and categorized accordingly, as follows: A. Significant. All those resources which are considered Exceptional, Excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. All structures or sites within the City of Aspen, which are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be reviewed according to the "Secretary of the Interior' s Standards for Rehabilitation" in addition to the review standards of Section 26.72.010 and 26.72.020. Response: The structure does not meet this standard. B. Contributing. All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for Significant; provided, however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. Response: The structure does not meet this standard. C Supporting. All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered Contributing once again. Response: The structure qualifies as a Supporting historic resource. Although the house has been significantly altered, the structure still retains original historic fabric. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend that Council list 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures finding that the criteria for a Supporting resource have been met." Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. 1893 Bird's Eye View of 308 N. First Street. B. Vicinity map C. 1991 Inventory map, notes by Roxanne Ellin. D. Letter from Katherine Levitz Lee and inventory form with her own notes. E. HPC minutes from March 1992. 3 F. 1904 Sanborne map. G. Front elevation ofhouse. 4 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 308 NORTH FIRST STREET-ADDITION TO THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 26,1999 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by City of Aspen, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611, requesting the addition of 308 North First Street to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The property is located at 308 North 1St Street, and is legally described as Lots K, L, M and N, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information. contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 8, 1999 City of Aspen Account , NOLAN AND ALDERSON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 202 WEST 19â„¢ 5TREET EL DORADO, ARICANSAS 7[730 W! 111AM C. NOLAN. J R. TELEPHONE 501 8G2-0202 EDWIN B.ALI>EASON,JA. FACSIMILE sol 862-0203 26 May 1999 Ms. Suzannah Reid, AIA, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 308 N. First Street, Historic Inventory Listing Dear Ms. Reid: I am presently residing in Arkansas and did not intend to return to Aspen until sometime in June, Unfortunately, I was unable to rearrange my work schedule to be able to return to Aspen for the meeting of your Commission scheduled for today. However, I do want to convey my strong convictions as to this matter, and I am writing to you and members of the Commission to respectfully request that my house not be listed on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. It is my understanding that the Historic Preservation Commission has only very rarely sought to include a specific property on the historic register against the wishes of a property owner. These have been circumstances where the property was of unusually significant historic or architectural value, and moreover at some unusual risk of demolition or destruction. Our property is not of significant historic or architectural value, as the record will show, nor is it at risk of demolition or destruction ofhistoric features. We believe that listing the property on the Inventory will cause a significant loss of value to our property which is not justified by any public benefit. It should also be noted that the house does not offer any historic exterior materials and the exterior form consists of pseudo-Victorian additions. Placing the house on the Inventory will represent a degradation ofthe Inventory and may well cause confusion in any future reviews by the HPC as to what exactly they should be protecting. Briefly, this house was once on the Inventory and was deleted from the Inventory by Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992. That ordinance indicated that the house, along with several other properties, should be delisted "by reason of their loss of historic integrity or value, " The owner at the time, Kathryn Lee Levitz, had strongly objected to the listing and had detiled changes to the house, noting the absence of any historical materials or authentic formal elements. At the time, the HPC, P&Z, and the City Council agreed with that assessment and ordered the house removed from the Inventory. Nothing has changed to enhance the historic significance of the house since then. Moreover, the fact that the house was not inventoried (and in fact had recently Ms. Suzannah Reid, AIA, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 26 May 1999 Page Two been removed from the Inventory by ordinance of the city council after due deliberation by your Commission) played a major role in our decision to purchase it. Recently, my wife and I have sought and obtained a lot split for our property. In approving the lot split, the City Council felt constrained to request that staff investigate whether the house should be included on the Inventory. We can well understand the desire to protect homes of historical value. However, this action by Council was largely prompted by two persons, not trained in historic preservation, who commented on the value of the house at the public hearing before Council. Council was in a position where they needed to appear responsive to these comments. Nonetheless, an objective assessment ofthe historical value ofthe house needs to prevail. In the 1980's, this house was completely redone in its exterior forms and materials, Many changes were added which may appear to be historical in nature, but are simply not authentic. The house no longer offers anything which might be properly protected by the Historic Preservation sections ofthe code. It should also be noted that the house is not at risk. As the owners ofthe property, we have repeatedly stated our intention to remove some of non-historical (and formally detrimental) additions to the house in order to complete the lot split. We have worked with Amy Guthrie to identify the original shape ofthe foundation and retain that historical shape, even though doing so requires us to appear before the Board of Adjustment for a setback variance. We also intend to restore the original orientation of the entrance to the house. The lot split itself ensures that the floor area for significant changes to the property will not be available. And, finally, Ordinance 30 provides a substantial measure ofprotection in ensuring that any exterior changes will be generally compatible with neighborhood scale and streetscape elements. In summary, we are opposed to having our house listed on the Inventory We do not believe that the house merits inclusion on the Inventory and feel it would impose an unnecessary and inappropriate financial hardship upon us to have it listed. Our intention is to work respectfully with the house, bearing in mind that it has lost its historic qualities and features, but still can continue to be a good neighbor and contribute to the neighborhood streetscape. We hope that the Historic Preservation Commission will respect our desire, as welI as the evidence that the house is no longer of histotic significance, and recommend against listing the property. You cooperation and understanding as to the importance ofthis action as it affects my property is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, A n -OU* 0 -<110Â«* . William C. N5lan, Jr. CC: Members of the Historic Preservation Commission Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RICHARD KLEIN - â„¢~-- ,~i - ~.- :I May 26, 1999 Suzannah Reid, AIA Chair Person Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City Hall 130 South Galena Sfreet Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Historic Inventory Status Residence at Lots K,L,M,N, Block 56 City of Aspen Dear Suzannah, Mr. and Mrs. Nolan have retained the services of my firm to assist with the prepaation of documents required for the Lot Split of their property and to produce the necessary Architectural Drawings for the remodel of their house. They have also asked me to assess their house relative to H.P.C. Inventory Status. The original residence on Lots M and N was constructed around the turn of the century and the house appears on the 1904 Sanborn Map. Through the years, quite a number of additions have occurred, with the latest major renovation in 1984. As the house now sits, every elevation has been significantly modified. The South facing Elevation, on Hallam Street is no longer the entry to the house, the Entry Porch no longer exists having been replaced by an addition which wraps around to the East. Above, is an awkward looking Turret and Deck, which hides the existing roof. A new Fireplace with a "very red" brick has been added to the front gable. Across the property line to Lot L, a new Entry Foyer has been built. There is also a new Curb Cut to access a long driveway to the Garage at the back of the lot. The West Elevation from First Street is now the entry to the house. An Entry Foyer, mentioned at the South Elevation, with spiral stair to a large deck on the second floor has been added where the original Fireplace was demolished. There is also an addition connecting the original house to an Out Building located in the vicinity of the original Carriage House. On the 1904 Sanborn Map, a Carriage House is located in the same corner of Lot M, but is a different size, more rectangular, and actually sits on the property lines. The North Elevation from the Alley is totally changed. Even though the current former Out Building is probably the oldest addition, it does not seem to be the original Carriage House. The Shed and Gaage have also been added in locations where the 1904 Sanborn Map shows there were no structures. One should note that the Gcrage does not have access from the Alley. It is accessed by the clriveway from Hallam Street. The East Elevation, ac#acent the neighbor, has additions along almost the entire length of the building. There is the addition where the original Entry Porch was located with the Turret and Deck above discussed at the South Elevation. There is a Shed built along-side another addition ac#acent the original Kitchen. And there is the infill addition connecting to the Out Building discussed at the West Elevation. A new solid wood fence about 6-ft. high with sandstone piers, running along the property line, blocks the house from Hallam and First streets. There is also new 6-ft. high Iron fences at the new Entry and Driveway. I have tried to illustrate to you the amount of modifications, which have been made to the original residence. It is my professional opinion that this residence is no longer anything resembling a once historic house and should not be required to have H.P.C. Inventory status. Also, it should be pointed out that this residence was removed from the H.P.C. Inventory in 1992 by ordinance. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, -0 Richard Klein, Architect CC: Mr. and Mrs. Nolan Stan Clauson Lane Schiller I.'05/27/99 THU 13:27 FAX 970 925 2234 STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS 2001/001 STRYKER/B ROWN ARCHITECTS TRANSMITTAL Total pages: 1 VIA: Fax TO: Aspen Historical Preservation Committee c/o Stan Clauson FROM: Wayne Stryker DATE: May 26, 1999 RE: Residence at 308 North First Street To whom it may concern: I was the Architect of the addition and renova Mon for the house at 308 N. First St. in Aspen. This work included the reconstruction of the small garage at the Northeast comer of the property. Due to the state of degradation of the original structure this garage was essentially reconstructed of entirely new materials replicating the original's architectural intent. In my opinion it is not in any way reasonable to designate the new garage as a historical structure. Please call me if 1 can be of any further assistance. 3 0 0 SOUT M 51'RING SrKEET, SUITE 300 ASrEN, COLORADO 81611 970.925.2234 925.2258(FAX) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT 308 N. FIRST STREET, LOTS K, L, M, AND N, ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 1 AND 2, NOLAN LOT SPLIT, BLOCK 56, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, NOT BE ADDED TO THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES RESOLUTION NO. 16, SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, Section 26.76.090.A of the Municipal Code states that the inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has identified 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, as eligible for inclusion on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 6,1999, provided a history of the house and supporting evidence of its age and recommended that the property be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," and WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was opened at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 1, 1999, and continued to a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 6, 1999, at which the Commission considered and recommended that Lot 2, which contains the existing house not be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" by a vote of 3 to 3, and that Lot 1, which does not currently contain a single family home not be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" by a vote of 5 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that City Council not approve the addition of 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, also known as Lots 1 and 2, Nolan Lot Split, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 6th day of July, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning DirectorJ'. p FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 308 N. First Street- Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures DATE: July 6,1999 (Public Hearing continued from June 1, 1991 SUMMARY: This property was recently the subject of a lot split review before City Council. At the Council's request, staff has prepared an application to list 308 N. First Street on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." Listing on the "Inventory of Ilistoric Sites and Structures requires a recommendation by the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission, and a final decision by City Council. At their regular meeting on May 26, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of adding this property to the inventory by a 6-1 vote. APPLICANT: City ofAspen. OWNER: William C. Nolan. Represented by Stan Clauson Associates. LOCATION: 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCESS: The following paragraphs are excerpts from the Land Use Code to be utilized by the P&Z in evaluating additions of resources to the Inventory. Staff has prepared responses to these standards to assist the P&Z in its findings regarding 308 N. First Street. INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Section 26.76.090. Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures. Intent: Fifty (50) years old is generally the age when a property may begin to be considered historically significant. It is not the intention of the HPC to include insignificant structures or sites on the inventory. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community. 1 Response: City records indicate that this house was built in approximately 1887-8. Originally identified as 124 West Hallam Street, the house was occupied by H. A. Brown. According to the Aspen Historical Society, Harry Brown, the brother of D.R.C. Brown. moved here in the 1880's and became the timekeeper for the Aspen Water District. The property was included on the City's first "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," which was completed in 1980. Prior to and subsequent to the 1980 listing, a series of alterations were made to the building which HPC did not have review authority over. In 1991 the City hired a consultant to review the Inventory and to make recommendations as to whether any properties should be added or deleted. The 1991 Inventory form on 308 N. First Street (then 124 W. Hallam Street) describes the architectural integrity, modifications, and importance of the building. As the form reports, the house is illustrative of Aspen' s modest family lifestyle during the mining era but had been substantially compromised with the renovations and additions. The consultant recommended that the house remain on the Inventory, but acknowledged that its integrity had been damaged by the renovations. Following the consultant's report, the HPC held public hearings to receive input from all affected property owners. Attached is a letter from the then owner of the subject property, Katherine Levitz Lee, and a copy of the HPC minutes from March of 1992. The owner requested that the house be de-listed from the Inventory in consideration of the alterations. The minutes reflect the Board' s discussion and acknowledgment of the changes to an already low rated house. The minutes from the following public hearing do not include a discussion about the Hallam property although Roxanne Eflin, then Historic Preservation Officer, recommended the house be de-listed. The HPC Resolution passed and City Council Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, which officially de-listed the property, was adopted. The 1893 "Bird' s Eye View of Aspen"and the 1904 Sanborne Map show the original footprint and appearance of the building. (Notice that houses to the east and west of the subject building have been demolished.) The form of the house is still essentially intact, but it has had numerous appendages added, including a corner tower, a masonry chimney stack, decks, and other additions. The original front porch has been enclosed and the entry to the house has been moved from the Hallam Street side to the First Street side. A current front elevation of the building shows the original cross gable roof form and some historic detailing still remain. This drawing also demonstrates the obvious alterations that have been made. The effect of the alterations are significant and have changed the architectural character of the building. Some of the alterations, such as the tower and chimney, are likely cost prohibitive to remove. It is staffs understanding that the owners do not wish to have the property re-listed on the Inventory or to have HPC oversight, but have stated that it is not their intention to tear the house down. Staff finds that while the house has been altered, its form is sufficiently 2 intact to warrant continued monitoring by HPC to preserve what remains, avoid additional inappropriate additions, and to guide any restoration that might be undertaken. There are relatively few examples left in Aspen of the larger Victorian era homes, and the property should be preserved for the future. Although the property has been subdivided, staff recommends that the entire original parcel, Lots K, L, M, and N, be listed on the Inventory. The house that once existed on Lots K and L has been demolished, but the property is adjacent to several other historic sites, and the new construction on it should be in character with the historic resources. Section 26.76.090(c). Structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic landmarks. No further action need be taken with respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence and categorized accordingly, as follows: A. Significant. All those resources which are considered Exceptional, Excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. All structures or sites within the City of Aspen, which are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be reviewed according to the "Secretary of the Interior' s Standards for Rehabilitation" in addition to the review standards of Section 26.72.010 and 26.72.020. Response: The structure does not meet this standard. B. Contributing. AU those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for Significant; provided, however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. Response: The structure does not meet this standard. C. Supporting. All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered Contributing once again. Response: The structure qualifies as a Supporting historic resource. Although the house has been significantly altered, the structure still retains original historic fabric. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend that Council list 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures finding that the criteria for a Supporting resource have been met." 3 Exhibits: Resolution No. ~ ~2, Series of 1999 A. 1893 Bird's Eye View of 308 N. First Street. B. Vicinity map C. 1991 Inventory map, notes by Roxanne Eflin. D. Letter from Katherine Levitz Lee and inventory form with her own notes. E. HPC minutes from March 1992. F. 1904 Sanborne map. G. Front elevation of house. 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT 308 N. FIRST STREET, LOTS K, L, M, AND N, BLOCK 56, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BE ADDED TO THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~t? SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, Section 26.76.090.A of the Municipal Code states that the inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has identified 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, as eligible for inclusion on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 6,1999, provided a history of the house and supporting evidence of its age and recommended that the property be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," and WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was opened at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 1, 1999, and continued to a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 6, 1999, at which the Commission considered and recommended that the property be added to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that City Council approve the addition of 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 6th day of July, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 308 NORTH FIRST STREET-ADDITION TO THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday. June 1. 1999 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Council Chambers or Sister Cities Rodm, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by City of Aspen, 130 S. Galena, Aspen. CO 81611, requesting the addition of 308 North First Street to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The property is located at 308 North ist Street, and is legally described as Lots K, L, M and N, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planing and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 15, 1999 City of Aspen Account RICHARD KLEIN May 26,1999 Suzannah Reid, AIA Chair Person Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Skeet City Hall Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Historic Inventory Status Residence at Lots K,L,M,N, Block 56 City of Aspen Dear Suzannah, NAr. and Ws. Nolan have retained the services of my firm to assist with the prepcration of documents required for the Lot Split of their property and to produce the necessary Architectural Drawings for the remodel of their house. They have also asked me to assess their house relative to H.P.C. Inventory Status. The original residence on Lots M and N was constructed cround the turn of the century and the house appears on the 1904 Sanborn Map. TPrough the yeas, quite a number of additions have occurred, with the latest major renovation in 1984. As the house now sits, every elevation has been significantly modified. The South facing Elevation, on Hallam Street is no longer the enty to the house, the Entry Pcrch no longer exists having been replaced by an addition which wraps around to the East. Above, is an awkward looking Turret and Deck, which hides the existing roof. A new Fireplace with a " very red" brick has been added to the front gable. Across the property line to Lot L, a new Entry Foyer has been built. There is also a new Curb Cut to access a long diveway to the Gcrage at the back of the lot. The West Elevation from First Skeet is now the entry to the house. An Entry Faye, mentioned at the South Elevation, with spiral stair to a Icrge deck on the second floor has been added where the original Fireplace was demolished. There is also an addition connecting the original house to an Out Building located in the vicinity of the original Carriage House. On the 1904 Sanborn Map, a Cc:rriage House is located in the same corner of Lot M, but is a different size, more rectangula, and actually sits on the property lines. The North Bevation from the Alley is totally changed. Even though the current former Out Building is probably the oldest addition, it does not seem to be the original Carriage House. The Shed and Gcrage have also been added in locations where the 1904 Sanborn Map shows there were no structures. One should note that the Gcrage does not have access from the Alley. It is accessed by the diveway from Hallam Street. EXHIBIT A The East Elevation, aciacent the neighbor, has additions along almost the entire length of the buildng. There is the addition where the original Entry Pcrch was located with the Turret and Deck above discussed at the South Elevation. There is a Shed built along-side another addition aciacent the original Kitchen. And there is the infill addition connecting to the Out Building discussed at the West Elevation. A new solid wood fence about 6-ft. high with sandstone piers, running along the property line, blocks the house from Hallam and First streets. There is also new 6-ft. high Iron fences crt the new Entry and Driveway. I have tried to illustrate to you the amount of modifications, which have been made to the original residence. It is my professional opinion that this residence is no longer anything resembling a once historic house and should not be required to have H.P.C. Inventory status. Also, it should be pointed out that this residence was removed from the H.P.C. Inventory in 1992 by ordinance. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, 9 Richard Klein, Architect CC: M.and M's. Nolan Stan Clauson Lane Schiller KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET MILLARD J. ZIMEr SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 OF COUNSEL: TEL: (970) 925-8700 JACQUELINE L. GARDNER FAX: (970) 925-3977 *also admitted in New York August 19, 1999 Via Hand Delivery Honorable City Council Members City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 308 N. First Street (Lots K,L,M,N Block 56) - City Application to Designate Property on Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures Dear Honorable Members of the Council: This office represents William Nolan, the owner of the above- described property. Mr. Nolan recently processed a lot split application for this property and at the time City Council approved the lot split, it recommended that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) investigate whether or not to designate the property to the City's historic sites and structures. The property consists of two six-thousand square foot parcels. One parcel (Lot 2) contains a house and the other parcel (Lot 1) a garage. The HPC and Planning Commission have reviewed your referral. The HPC recommended the addition of Lot 2 to the inventory but the Planning Commission did not. Nevertheless, the Ordinance now before you on second reading (Ordinance 33 (Series of 1999) recommends that Lot 2 be added to the inventory. Mr. Nolan prefers that his property not be listed on the historic inventory. The burden and expense of the historic review process can be onerous and this property does not warrant such an imposition. We are confident that after you are fully aware of the background concerning this property, you will agree that it does not meet the City's criteria for listing on the inventory. The house on the property was listed on the City's first inventory in 1980. However, in 1992, at the request of the then- owner of the property and with the support and recommendation of the then-historic preservation officer, Roxanne Eflin, the HPC found that the house, having had substantial modifications made to it over the years, had little value as a historic resource and deleted the property from the historic inventory. Obviously, the de-listing of the property provides a strong indication that it has L City Council August 19, 1999 Page 2 very low historic value. The reason the house has virtually no historic value is because it has had many changes to its original structure over the years with very substantial changes occurring in the 1980's. The original structure is not recognizable and has been subsumed into the current building. Attached as Exhibit A is a letter from Mr. Nolan's architect, Mr. Richard Klein. His letter describes the substantial changes that have been made to the original house over the years, all of which substantially diminish its historic value. When considering your referral, several members of the HPC expressed reservations about the historic value of the house and although the HPC ultimately voted in favor of the designation, they rated it as "supporting", the lowest available designation to any historic resource. Some members of the HPC and Staff thought that the house was an example of larger Victorian houses that should be preserved. This reason for listing the house is erroneous for two reasons: First, the code"s criteria does not require that a house with little historic value be listed simply because it is large. Second, the former Victorian house was small. When this referral was heard by the Planning Commission, their vote was tied at 3-3, thus they did not recommend the addition of the house to the inventory. The Land Use Code provides guidance on the conditions which must exist for a property to be listed on the inventory and the City does not have unfettered discretion to designate sites for inclusion on the historic inventory. The City Land Use Code at Section 26.76.090 titled "Establishment of Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" provides the standard for structures which are considered for designation. It states that: "It is not the intention of the HPC to include insignificant structures or sites on the inventory. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community." at sub-paragraph A of this section it states: "The inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value..." City Council August 19, 1999 Page 3 The definition of a "supporting" structure is found at Section 26.76.090 C.10. This section states: "All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however are " retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered Contributing once again." (Emphasis added). The definition of a "contributing" structure is found at Section 26.76.090 C.10. This section states: "All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for Significant; provided however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design." (Emphasis added). Based on these provisions, you are asked to determine that with "substantial effort" the house would "maintain its historic integrity. " Unfortunately, the Code does not define "substantial. " However, Black's Law Dictionary does: Substantial. Of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. (Case citations omitted) Black's Law Dictionary '4th Edition. Page 1597. In order for the house to "maintain its historic integrity" it would, at the very least, need to have the non-historic additions and changes reversed. A turret was added, outside porches were added, existing porches were enclosed creating new living areas and the chimney was moved. These changes completely revised the floor plan. As Mr. Klein' s attached letter points out, "every elevation has been significantly modified." We do not believe that "substantial effort" would reverse these changes. Attached at Exhibit B is a letter from Matt Young, a construction bidding services and value engineering consultant. Mr. Young indicates that the cost of reversing the changes is City Council August 19, 1999 Page 4 $365,564.00. If this work was done, the resulting house would be smaller than the current house. We do not believe that anyone would spend almost $400,00.00 to restore the former architecture only to end up with a smaller house. Such efforts would be viewed as waste rather than as something that has value or real worth, as the definition of "substantial" requires. Therefore, common sense should tell us that the changes to the house that caused it to be de-listed in 1992 are not going to be reversed and that "substantial effort" will not result in the house qualifying for "contributing" status. There is another aspect of this process which is of great concern to Mr. Nolan and raises further legal challenges to the proposed designation. This issue concerns the fairness of re- listing the house. Mr. Nolan acquired this property in 1996. He did his due diligence and learned that the house had been listed and then de-listed on the City's historic inventory. He acquired the property based upon that record of the City's review, analysis and decision making with respect to this property and the degree of regulatory control to which it would be subject. The house has not become more historic since it was de-listed in 1992. There has been no work done to restore whatever original historic value it may once have had. The only thing that may have changed since 1992 is that the politics of historic preservation have caused tears to be shed and hands to be wrung over the lawful demolition of the Paepcke house. Regardless of the position you make take on that situation, this is not a good reason to impose historic regulations on Mr. Nolan's house when the City has previously reviewed it in detail and correctly determined that its value was not sufficient to warrant the imposition of historic control regulations. Mr. Nolan relied on the City's previous actions and should not be subject to arbitrary changes in the political winds when his very important property rights are at stake. We respectfully request that you review the record in this matter and determine that the house not be designated on the City's historic inventory. If you feel that the designation of the house may be debatable, the issue of fundamental fairness and reliance of Mr. Nolan should tip the scales in favor of its not being listed as that was its status, after having been extensively reviewed by the City, at the time of his purchase of the property. City Council August 19, 1999 Page 5 Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. I look forward to discussing this with you further at your hearing on August 23rd. Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By: Herbert S. Klein, Esq. sg\nolan\004.ltr Attachments CC: Bill Nolan Stan Clauson 19-1999 10:18 FROM: TO:970 728 3069 p, 001,081 18-Aug-99 Mr. Bill Nolan 308 N. First Street Aspenl CO 81611 Re: Historical Re-creation Dear Bill: Attached is a cost estimate for the historical re-creation of your residence at 308 N. First Street. In general, the purpose of preparing this estimate is to establish the cost for returning this residence back to its original Victorian architecture. This cost estimate is based on the following scope of work. SCOPE OF WORK West Hallam Porch: Remove this L-shape porch with the attached turret, replace with a new open porch with round columns and new entry door. North 1 St Porch: Remove this porch back to its original building lines. Build new fireplace and chimney at this location. Existing Windows: Replace all existing easement windows with wood double hungs. Includes all associated window trim. Existing Fireplace/Chimney: Remove this chimney and fireplace, rebuild at its original location in place of North 1 St porch. Patch & Repair: Constructing walls and patching is included where structures no longer exist. Plaster patch and painting is included only for new work. Other exterior trim work and painting may be required in order to achieve a true Victorian architecture throughout the remaining exterior of the house. Please do not hesitate to call me with additional questions regarding this project. Sincerply, M 414 Matt Young MATI YOUNG ' 620 W. Hallam *As,en, CO 81611 *voice/lax 970-544-813 8 EXHIBIT B MATT YOUNG COST ESTIMATE 620 W. HALLAM ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 544-8138 PROJECT: NOLAN RESIDENCE 308 N. FIRST STREET Revision No.: 0.0 ASPEN, CO 19-Aug-99 Estimator: Matt Young SPEC/ DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT LINE CATEGORY ITEM COST TOTAL TOTAL 01000 GENERAL CONDITIONS superintendent 17 wks equipment rental 4 mos fuel & maintenance 4 mos tool maintenance 4 mos jobsite telephone 4 mos safety 4 mos temporary shoring & protection 1 job dumpster fees 4 mos temporary power hook up n/a job temporary power usage by owner job temporary water by owner mos first aid supplies 4 mos job photo 1 job general cleanup 1 job window cleaning 1 job final cleaning 1 job project manager 13 wks project development 15 hrs structural engineering 1 job builders risk insurance by owner job building permit, plan check, zoning fees, use tax 300 k shipping 1 job office materials, blueprinting, ect. 1 Is TOTAL GENERAL CONDITIONS 100,372 02100 SELECTIVE REMOVAL NORTH 1ST ST. PORCH hand separate structure 1 job demo roof handrail 5 If demo roof structure 364 sf salvage doors/windows 12 ea demo exterior wall 1 job demo columns, stairs, flooring 1 job Page 1 of 5 SPEC/ DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT LINE CATEGORY ITEM COST TOTAL TOTAL demo foundation 1 job salvage upper deck doors 2 ea TURRET hand separate structure 1 job demo roof structure 1 job salvage doors/windows 12 ea demo exterior wall 1 job W. HALLAM PORCH hand separate structure 1 job demo interior finishes 1 job demo roof structure 364 sf salvage doors/windows 14 ea demo exterior wall, floor 1 job demo foundation 1 job EXISTING CHIMNEY demo existing masonry fireplace 1 job TOTAL SELECTIVE REMOVAL 52,325 03300 CONCRETE porch footings & foundation 1 job fireplace footing 1 job TOTAL CONCRETE 5,175 04200 MASONRY FIREPLACE masonry foundation, cmu backup chimney 1 job firebox, smoke shelf, damper, hearth 1 job brick veneer 1 job TOTAL MASONRY FIREPLACE 46,000 06100~ROUGH CARPENTRY REPAIR FORMER N. 1st ST. PORCH Exterior Wall 2x6 framing 198 ~sf track 132 |If stud 238 | If 2x6 treated plate 26 |If fasteners, ect. 198 |sf vapor barrier 228 |sf 1/2" cdx sheathing 218 |sf Page 2 of 5 SPEC/ DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT LINE CATEGORY ITEM COST TOTAL TOTAL miscellaneous blocking 198 sf Siding & Trim cedar horizontal lap siding 238 sf cedar trim 1 job CONSTRUCT N. HALLAM PORCH Floor Framing 1 job 2x12 joists 64 If 2x12 rim 22 If joist hangers 20 ea 3/4" flooring 120 sf Exterior Wall 2x6 framing 198 sf track 132 If stud 238 If 2x6 treated plate 26 If fasteners, ect. 198 sf vapor barrier 228 sf 1/2" cdx sheathing 218 sf Hip Roof 1 job 2x10 rafter blocking 64 If rafter hangers 18 ea 2x10 fascia 22 If 5/8" roof sheathing 165 sf Siding & Trim cedar horizontal lap siding 198 sf cedar trim, fascia, eaves, columns 1 job Repairs structural repairs & support 1 job TOTAL ROUGH CARPENTRY 57,728 6200 FINISH CARPENTRY Interior Trim base, case, jambs 1 job Fireplace Woodwork mantle, wood work 1 ea Existing Windows window easing, tdm & skin 1 ea Page 3 of 5 : SPEC/ DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT LINE CATEGORY ITEM COST TOTAL TOTAL 32,657 TOTAL FINISH CARPENTRY 07210 BUILDING INSULATION BATT INSULATION exterior walls 396 sf interior walls n/a sf vapor barrier 396 sf roof 165 sf 1,373 TOTAL BATT INSULATION 07310 CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF CEDAR ROOF ice & water shield 2 sq cedar shingle 2 sq TOTAL CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF 2,300 07610 FLASHING & SHEETMETAL drip edge, step flashing 1 job gutters & downspouts 1 job TOTAL FLASHING & SHEETMETAL 2,875 08300 WOOD DOORS new entry door 1 ea TOTAL WOOD DOORS 2,086 08500 WOOD WINDOWS N. HALL-AM PORCH double hung wood windows 2 ea EXISTING WINDOWS replace existing casements w/ wood double hung 13 ea TOTAL WOOD WINDOWS 11,330 ~ 08700~FINISH HARDWARE entry door hardware 1.00 1ea 250.00 250 Page 4 of 5 SPEC/ DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT LINE CATEGORY ITEM COST TOTAL TOTAL *** Material cost allowance is shown *** TOTAL FINISH HARDWARE 468 09250 GYPSUM WALL SYSTEM INTERIOR WALLS plaster new walls, patch existing 1 job TOTAL GYPSUM WALL SYSTEM 8,625 09900 PAINTING paint plaster walls, patch existing 1 job paint exterior walls, interior & exterior trim 1 job paint windows 1 job TOTAL PAINTING 17,250 10300 FIREPLACE fireplace doors 1 ea TOTAL FIREPLACE 3,450 15600 HVAC modify existing heating system 1 ea TOTAL HVAC 5,750 16000 ELECTRICAL modify existing power system per new layout anc 1 job code. TOTAL ELECTRICAL 13,800 TOTAL $363,564 Page 5 of 5