The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19940901AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE September 1, 1994 SPECIAL MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL 12:0Op.m. I. Committee and Staff Comments II. Public Comments III. NEW BUSINESS 12:10p.m. A. 930 King Street- Partial Demolition and Relocation- PUBLIC HEARING 1:00p.m. IV. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 930 King Street, Partial Demolition and Relocation- Public Hearing DATE: September 1, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for partial demolition and relocation of the historic residence at 930 King Street, along with total demolition of all of the existing outbuildings except those which have been indicated as the "outhouse" and "smokehouse. " The outhouse and smokehouse are to be relocated on the parcel. This parcel has been included on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" since 1980. It is classified as a "supporting" resource. The site is in a fairly pristine state in terms of historical context, but rehabilitation will require substantial effort due to deterioration of the structures. The Smuggler Mountain neighborhood is not as well documented through historic maps as are most other neighborhoods in Aspen. Staff has determined from the bird's eye view of Aspen done in 1893 that the "No Problem Joe house" was constructed by that year. (At that time another house existed directly to the west within what is known today as the Candreia property. The Willits map of 1896 more clearly shows the footprint of the "No Problem Joe house" as well as two small outbuildings, one of which appears to be the east-west cross gabled section of the existing barn. (See attached map.) APPLICANT: Estate of Joseph L. Candreia, represented by Cunningham Investments. LOCATION: Please see attached metes and bounds description. Partial Demolition PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an " H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to demolish all of the rear additions to the original historic structure. This results in a demolition of 47% of the existing structure, which fits within the Land Use Code's definition of partial demolition. HPC's role is to determine whether or not the portions of the building proposed for demolition can be sacrificed without compromising the character of the resource and to insure that all negative impacts on a historic resource which result from partial demolition are minimized. It is not within the Board's power to review design elements of the new construction which do not relate directly to the demolition. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation Of the structure. Response: The structures on this site currently violate the minimum maintenance provision, Section 7-606 of the Land Use Code which refers to prevention of "demolition by neglect." Based on the information provided by the applicant and from Staff's observation of the site and maps, the original residence was a cross gabled miner's cottage. The western lean-to, where the kitchen is located, appears to have been constructed very early (possibly within the 1800's), based on the type of construction and materials. From staff's recollection, there is a historic window in the western lean-to, possibly with cylinder glass panes (This glass has a wavy surface and was manufactured into the early 20th century). Shed roofed kitchen lean-to's were a typical addition to the miner's cottages and could be found on many structures throughout Aspen (for instance, the Iglehart house at 610 W. Hallam.) The roof of this addition is reported to be in good condition, but there has been significant settlement and a failure point in the north wall. The structural engineer suggests that the eastern addition, which currently functions as the entrance, appears to be an early addition as well. Staff is unable to confirm the age of this addition. It is reported to be settling and rotating away from the building. The northeast addition is set on a concrete foundation and appears to have been constructed somewhat more recently. Again, there is settlement, some water damage and cracking in the concrete. The applicant indicates that this project is intended to be a "restoration," wherein the building is returned to its original state. Except in cases of extremely significant structures, historic preservation most often involves "rehabilitation" which allows that "changes which have taken place over the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right and this significance shall be recognized and respected." Staff finds that the west or kitchen lean-to has historic signficance and should be retained. The two additions on the east are of a more uncertain age and quality. The nature of the settlement and rotation of the eastern additions implies that they themselves may be negatively impacting the rest of the structure. In terms of the outbuildings, the applicant proposes to demolish the barn and the non-historic garage. As mentioned above, at least a portion of the barn may date from the 1890's. However, the roof of the structure is collapsing and requiring the applicant to repair and retain this building may be overly onerous. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: This site represents one of the only areas in town where a historic residence and related outbuildings (barn, shed and outhouse) remain with no significant alterations. It provides a great deal of information about the typical homelife of the average citizen during Aspen's mining era. In addition, the site is an important part of the character of the King Street neighborhood. All efforts must be made to preserve this context by limiting the demolition of the structures. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: Removal of the eastern lean-to's must not cause any further damage to the residential structure and the breezeway connection should involve as little demolition as possible. The applicant must coordinate with Staff and the project monitor where any historic materials (clapboards, trim, windows, etc.) which cannot be repaired are to be replaced. HPC is able to recommend a number of products and techniques which will be of value in this project. Relocation PROCEDURE: No approval for relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property Response: This parcel is large enough to accommodate new development without necessitating relocation of the historic structures. If the house is lifted in order to install a foundation, the Zoning Department will require correction of the setback violation. A request for a setback variance will have to be taken to the Board of Adjustments. The Engineering Department does not require that the driveway be any wider than exists now. (As an additional note, the Engineering Department will not permit the second curb cut which is shown in the plans.) 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures Will not be diminished due to the relocation Response: In Staff's opinion, historic structures should not be treated as objects which can be moved randomly on a site. Integrity of location is an important part of the significance of a historic building. In addition, the house should retain its prominence along the streetscape. Staff finds that it would be preferable to leave the historic outbuildings in their current location as well. However, if they are totally obscured by new development, this may not serve any purpose. The applicant has mentioned that existing trees are damaging the house. Branches can of course be trimmed back. If the roots of the trees are causing damage to the building, HPC should discuss any measures to relieve that problem. 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation Response: The structural engineer's report indicates that the cross gabled portion of the house will be able to withstand relocation, but the lean-to's may not survive. Staff has recommended that the kitchen lean- to (west) not be approved for demolition. In order to place a foundation under the structure (which is certainly an important aspect of the rehabilitation of the building), Staff recommends that the applicant work with an experienced housemover to determine whether the lean-to could be detached from the original structure, which could then be moved and a foundation poured. For the lean-to, a more creative method of excavating a foundation by hand under the sill may have to be determined. This is obviously not the simplest or cost effective way to deal with the situation, however, it is a relatively small area. The applicant should provide confirmation that the outbuildings can withstand being moved as well. 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) Of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation Response: These documents may be required as a condition of approval. 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Response: The proposed receiving site is on the same parcel. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the application for Partial Demolition and Relocation as submitted. 2) Approve the application for Partial Demolition and Relocation with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations to be offered). 4) Deny Partial Demolition and/or Relocation approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC take the following actions: 1) Deny the request to relocate the historic house. 2) Approve the request to relocate the "outhouse" and "smokehouse." 3) Deny the request to demolish the west (kitchen) lean-to -9 4) Approve the request to demolish the eastern lean-to's. 5) Approve the request to demolish the barn and garage. 6) Require the applicant to submit a temporary relocation plan for the structures as well as to secure a bond. Additional Comments: \-ty- iR,a ~-LJ\Â©46\~ ,:U-vâ€ž = 1 s uw.A -i LE D 1----Â£&961 d A-le Flow i a.&-8 ~& 91 0 454 4 C V.6 - 1-1--V Â° f ~ *90'1 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name 930 King Street 2) Project Location 930 King Street, Aspen, Colorado (See Attached Legal Description) (indicate street address, lot & block mmber, legal description where appropriate) 3) Preserrt Zoning R_15A 4) Ict Size 13,241 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Fhcne # Estate of Joseph Lt Candreia - see below 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Cunningham Investment Co., Inc, 121 South Galena, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use - Ccncephial SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptial RJD X Minor Historic Dev. under 50% Stream Margin Final FUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivisian _ Historic Designation Condaminiumization - Thxt/Map Amerxlmerrt (243 Allatmnt Lot Split/Lot Line - (NQS Ebomption Adj UstnErt 8) Description of Ebcisting Uses (r=ber and type of ecisting struct=Ires; appmximate sq. ft. ; number of bedrocms; any previals approvals granted to the property). One single family house with one bedroom approximately 840 square feet with substandard additions, outbuildings uninhabiter-1.- Sâ‚¬Â£.-,2~ 9) Description of Develcinerrt Awlicatian Relocation and Partial Demolition of Subhcandard additions to original structure. 10) Have you attached the following? X Respcnse to Attadiment 2, Mininm Sukinission antents x Resperse to Attachment 3, Specific Sukinission Ocntents x Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Applicatian COMMITMENT Plat id No. SCHEDULE A (continiled) Order No. 403607 -0 5. The land referred to in the Commitment is covering the land in the State of Colorado. County of Pitkin . described as follows: A Tract of land situated in the South one-half (S 1/2) of Sectian 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6TH P.M. in, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest oorner of a tract of land described in Book 645 at Page 892 of the Pitkin County reoords whence corner No. 11, East Aspen Additional Townsite bears North 52Â° 23'03"E 160.23 feet; Thence South 26Â° 52'00" West, 103.58 feet along the West line of said tract; Thence North 61Â°57'06" West, 27.78 feet; Thenoe North 55Â°52'50" West, 18.64 feet; Thenoe North 58Â°48'18" West, 34.01 feet; Thence North 58Â°29'54" West, 23.85 feet; Thence North 48Â° 15'12" West, 34.73 feet; Thence North 23Â° 28'17" East, 81.89 feet; Thence South 65Â°20'31" East, 142.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"x17-, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x17" format. Eâ‚¬TATE OF JosaPH CAWIC>fLE IA APPLICANT: 90 OUNN/6161-AAM INWâ‚¬5-rMENTh INC. ADDRESS: 930 14'Ne 613 ZONE DISTRICT: RÂ· 1â‚¬A LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 13.34-5 56. Pr. EXISTING FAR: 145 q. 5 50. PT. ALLOWABLE FAR: 4384-'0{ 5&. Pr. PROPOSED FAR: 37 -74.5 56, FT. 46 10.4 EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): U /A - PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): N/A EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 11 % PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 20 70 EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): N/A PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): N/A EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldoâ€ž t 10 Fr: / Accessory Bldo: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldc.: 2 5 FT- / Accessory Bldg: PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 4-7 % EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 1 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 5 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 2- ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: E SET8ACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: |0 Front: 2â‚¬ Front: 25 Rear: 3 Rear: 10 Rear: 10 Side: 02.0 Side: 10 Side: 10 Combined Front/Rear: Combined Frt/Rr: Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ EXIOTINe ReslpeNCE ENCBOADHES ENCROACHMENTS: IN FgaNT Â¥620 6CTBAct- VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Onlv: character comoatibility finding must be made bv HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildngs: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Frt./Rr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): *f Hunter ~ 94: ----T---- '90, /// Oraw Ad 4>*htec,L46+4 \ 88 6 f - Bennett Bench Rd d p/ace,~ y i E 00 4 0- j Hunter ~ _ e# 6 6 1 1 C , Witloughby Wy C m 0 2 t 4925/) 3 0 92.- 5 1 S lo 3410 9 e sta< 9- CL - Ul - i.. . Aspen Ast \ A46 - \ ler Mtn Rd c Race St 4-4 1 smugg ~4 A sera \C Hallam St pk ht,+49 Bay St Gibson 1 Bleeker St 05 ~7 KM t Alain St 2 *clr---2, Queen St ~ Beaent St pk 0 Â£ Hopkins A v ~ ~ 0 0 4 v E /11Â« 1 m & 9 16 2 - g Hyman Av . el 2 2 4 1 $ Dwe St_12. I i 1 1 Â»j 805 9 â‚¬ &2 -< 0; 6- \7\ E l 1 k \ 1% ~ ~ a.~ hAa\\~ Cooper Av E /1 \ )0 4 De)~n St \ Durant Av '4 % 2/L\ 2 -2ojesivieNi Juan, St - , & Waters 4 v 4 & - Gilbâ‚¬M--d~,ia@ st 4/// 2- p 1 3 . ) \\4 LUÂ¢'3'A (â‚¬0Â»9Fork or 62 humm ~ ~ A~ J ~ OV --Â»91 49 Aspen V 1 L Ir --1~~ 09 A /ps Rd ~ Crystal Lake Rd 0% C-* 3rd St -%2.4, 2nd St CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT CO,.INC. SUITE 201 121 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-8803 August 12, 1994 The Historic Preservation Committee and Ms. Amy Amadon Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: No Problem Joe Historic Redevelopment Plan Submission 930 King Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Amy, We are very pleased to submit the enclosed application for renovation of the original No Problem Joe home located at King and Neal Streets in Aspen. Both Cunningham Investment and Gibson and Reno Architects have worked very hard to preserve the character and quality of the original No Problem Joe miner's cottage, smokehouse and outhouse. We are especially pleased with this plan because we believe that it meets the primary guidelines of historic renovations as advocated by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. To this end, we propose to restore the original gabled miner's cottage, smokehouse and outhouse. Unlike many other historic houses in the Aspen area, we have separated the miner's cottage from the new house through the creation of a sixteen foot breezeway. We also made sure that the original house sits forward of the new structures in order to make it the prominent detail along King Street. We have further insured its integrity by restoring it to its original gabled miner's cottage configuration and have separated it from the garage area, again through the breezeway uses. We also ask you to note that we have placed the garage on north of the original miner's cottage, therefore removing vehicles from infront of the miner's cottage. We have in every case attempted to remain faithful to the original miner's cottage configuration of the structure. This will be done through restoration of the clapboard siding, windows, doors, gabled peaks and by returning the roof to its original shingled configuration, which shingles are currently covered by corrugated metal. Historic Preservation Committee and Ms. Amy Amadon City of Aspen August 12, 1994 Page Two Also within our plan we have taken the gabled roof pitches found on the miner's cottage and replicated those on the new main structure. Though it is not within the perview of Historic Preservation to review the main structure, we have submitted plans showing elevations for all portions of the structures. We feel strongly that this relationship between the structures greatly focuses on and enhances No Problem Joe's original miner's cottage. We have also saved the outhouse and smokehouse as requested by the Historic Preservation Committee and made them the focal point of the garden area which lies north of the main entry to the houses. We feel that both the outhouse and the smokehouse will help lend feeling and character to the overall site and reemphasize the historic nature of the property. We have also proposed to locate No Problem's bench on the southeast corner of the property under the large cottonwood tree. This in part influenced our location of the driveway and the miner's cottage so that there would be proper separation between this area and the driveway. We also be placing a bronze plague on the front of the miner's cottage, a copy of its wording which was provided by No Problem's daughter, is attached for the committee's edification. We also thought the committee would be interested to know that we are under the 80% FAR, as has been recently proposed by the City. We trust that the Historic Preservation Committee will not only find our plan acceptable, but use it in the future as an example of sensitive, compatible restoration of a miner's cottage and its relationship with new structures on the same site. Sincerely, I. McA. Cunningham, President Cunningham Investment Co., Inc. cc: Gibson Reno Architects IMC/pm This application for relocation and partial demolition is being made by the Estate of Joseph L. Candreia (better known as No Problem Joe). The application was prepared by Cunningham Investment Co., Inc. whose principal, Mac Cunningham has a long history of historic renovations throughout the United States (please see resume). He has been a fifteen year resident of Aspen. Enclosed within the application is a site plan showing the historic structure in relation to the primary residence to be constructed on the property. The basis of this development plan is historically accurate under national guidelines since we have separated the No Problem Joe house from the new structure, through the use of a breezeway. What we have done in this plan is to provide maximum exposure for No Problem's original house. It should be noted the original gabled miner's structure is the only portion which is an accurate miner's cottage in its original condition. After significant inspections by both the applicant and the engineer, it is clear that the northern addition's flat roof structures were added at a later date. It is also evident that the front porch area was added after the original construction of the miner's cottage. Specific to those points, the front porch appears to have been initially constructed around 1930. There are a few boards that date to that period, the balance of the boards, especially the vertical posts, are from a significantly later period. To be historically accurate, it would be necessary to restore the front porch to a typical porch with vertical Victorian columns, Â·etc. from the period of the late 1800s. The existing posts, roof pieces, etc. are not original and probably date from the late 1960s or mid 1970s. Regarding the north additions to the original miner's cottage, the westerly portion of the flat roof structure is in very serious decay. The structural portion of the roof is broken, partially collapsed and water is penetrating the structure. It is also sloping to the northwest away from the original miner's cottage. It is our professional opinion that this portion of the structure is beyond saving and is of indeterminate age. We have also attempted to document the addition's age through City maps and have not been able to find any evidence of the addition's - existence during the late 1800s or early 1900s. -2- The easterly portion of the north addition lies on a concrete floor, has substandard ceiling heights and is of equally poor condition. None of the northerly flat roof structure is compatible with the original historic gabled miner's cottage. Its floor also sits approximately one foot lower than the original house. It is unfeasible to move these structures with the original miner's cottage as a foundation must be placed under the miner's cottage to insure its longevity. In summary, demolition of the north flat roofed addition to the miner's cottage will restore the property to its original historic condition. It is not possible to move these north additions without potential damage to the existing miner's cottage. The removal of the north addition will return the structure to its original miner's cottage configuration and preserve its architectural integrity. HPC has provided guidance to the applicant in terms of the historical significance of the garage, chicken coop, smokehouse and outhouse located on out parcels of the property. HPC, in its site visit, noted that there was no architectural significance to any of those dilapidated structures, other than its hope that the smokehouse and outhouse would be saved. It should be noted that the applicant has saved the outhouse and smokehouse and has incorporated them in the overall development plan for the prcperty while removing the chicken coop and garage. The smokehouse and outhouse will be an integral focal point of the courtyard area located between the new garage and the new main structure on the property. ATTACHMENT 3 Application for Demolition, Partial Demolition or Relocation STRUCTURES: No Problem Joe Property, 930 King Street, Aspen, Colorado consisting of one single family house, one garage, one outhouse, one smokehouse, one chicken coop, all in poor condition. Smokehouse: The smokehouse will be restored in its entirety. Outhouse: The outhouse will be restored in its entirety. Miners Cottage: We are proposing to restore the front porch and original gabled roof miner's cottage which is deemed to have been constructed in the 1800s. For removal, the applicant proposes to remove the north shed additions, which additions were made after original construction of the structure, as identified by their flat roofs, concrete floor, etc. These portions of the structure are substandard with below minimum level ceiling heights and a floor 12" below the miner's cottage. Additionally, the roof beams are broken and water is entering the interior. Please see Engineer's Report for further details as to existing condition of the structure. Garage: Garage was recently constructed; wood frame structure with concrete floor which is proposed to be demolished in its entirety. Chicken Coop: A chicken coop structure consisting of wood predominant metal sheathing exterior, unidentifiable date of construction. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY: Please see attached. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY The estimated market value of the property is $600,000.00. After partial demolition and relocation there will be no difference in the value of the property, as the purchase price anticipated the renovation costs. Cunningham Investment Co., Inc. has 21 years of historic renovation background, (a copy of its resume is enclosed). Based upon Cunningham Investment's background in renovation of similar properties, from both an economic perspective and to be historically accurate, the renovation, rehabilitation and restoration of the original miner's gabled cottage is appropriate. It is clear that the property can be properly renovated and incorporated on the site as part of the overall development plan. We believe it will also enhance the architectural character of the property. However, this will require moving the structure in order to put a foundation under the building to insure its long term survival. The north sections of the miner's cottage with their flat roofs and current decayed condition are unfeasible for renovation. From an economic standpoint, the cost of renovating the miner's cottage is approximately $150.00 to $180.00 per square foot. The restoration of the original miner's cottage is considered an important portion of the overall development of the site. From an economic standpoint it is probably not feasible to save any of the cottage, however, the applicant considers the cottage to be an important addition to the property and therefore proposes to restore the building. It should also be noted that a plague will be placed on the front of the house dedicated to the property's former owner, No Problem Joe (see copy of plague wording attached). Please see Attached Letter Concerning the Overall Development Plan on the Property. ATTACHMENT 4c 1. The structure currently violates the setbacks along King Street. The structure must move north in order to meet City of Aspen setback requirements. The current location does not meet code requirements for access to the garage area of the property. Two mature trees lie within a few feet of the front of the structure and are causing significant damage to the original miner's cottage, both at roof level and probably at subgrade. Failure to relocate the structure to the north will result in continued damage to the structure after renovation. The miner's cottage must also be moved in order to put a foundation under it. As is noted in the Engineer's Report the structure currently sits directly on the dirt without any benefit of a true foundation. At present, the base of the structure is wrapped in either fiberglass corrugated sheathing or asphalt roof shingles, which we believe were placed by No Problem Joe in his attempt to reduce the amount of rot occurring at the base of the structure. By relocating the structure onto a concrete base foundation, we will be able to preserve the structure. 2. In preservation of the character and integrity of the structure, relocating the structure to the north will make it more prominent and give it sufficient setback to be seen from the street. In its current condition, the structure is hidden by trees and by vehicles parked in front of it. It is important to note that the structure will be located in the same area of the site, providing the same streetscape character from King Street. 3. Please see Engineer's Report concerning ability to relocate the structure. 4. The structure will not be moved off of the property. It will be moved a short distance on the site in order to properly prepare a foundation for the building. Therefore the potential for damage is greatly minimized when compared to off site storage. 5. See 4 above. . AUG 16 ''94 14:21 [HEODORE K GUY ASSOC PC H P.2 PEIGHTAL GUY ENGINEERS CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS August 12, 1994 Gibson & Reno Architects 210 E. Hyman, Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Jim Terry Re: No Problem Joe Structural Review Dear Jim, On August 11, 1994, Peightal Guy Engineers performed a structural review of the No Problem Joe House on the northeast corner of Neal Avenue and King Street, Aspen, Colorado. The review was undertaken at your request to determine the general condition of the existing structure. The review consisted of a visual observation of the existing structure by walking through the house, around the perimeter, and into the partial cellar below. No material tests or load tests were performed as a part of this review, and no analysis was performed to verify the suitability of any structural elements. The house is a single story structure, with an addition on the North & East sides, which have floor elevations one foot below the original house. The original house seems to be typical of late 1800's construction with 2" x 40' roof and wall construction and 2" x 60' floor construction. The roof construction was not exposed: however, it appeared to be performing adequately. The roofing matenal is metal roofing and appears to have wood shingles under it. The ivall is constructed of 2" x 4" @ 16" o.c with lathe and plaster on the interior and wood siding and fiberglass sheets on the exterior. No other means of lateral sheathing is apparent. The floor as viewed from the partial cellar below the adjacent addition is 2" x 6" @ 24" o.c. with 1 x decking. The original house is founded on timbers which bear on stone rubble at the corners. These timbers have been protected by asphalt shingle, but show signs of deterioration. Other than that and some siding, which seems to be providing lateral bracing, that is excessively weathered, the general condition of the structure is good. The northwest portion of the addition is an early addition with a shed roof. The construction is similar to the original house, except the roof construction is 20' x 6" @ 16" o.c., which appears to be in good condition. The wall construction also appears to be of 2" x 60' construction, however, due to excessive settlement, what appears to be as much as 2"-3" in 101-0", there is a distinct failure point in the north wall. What this failure consists of is not known. The east portion of the addition is also an early addition. It also has a shed roof and appears to be of similar construction. The structure in this portion was not exposed, however, It seemed to be performing adequately, with the exception of settlement. This is directly visible from the outside, where one can see a separation at the roof where the addition seems to have rotated away from the original house as much as 1/2" to 1 " at the eave. The northeast portion of the addition, which appears to be a later addition, has a flat roof and the floor is slab on grade. The roof shows signs of water damage on the finishes; however, the roof construction was not exposed to view. The walls again appeared to be of 2" x 6" construction and seemed in good cond,tion; however, the floor slab showed signs of settlement and distress by 29280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 P.O. BOX 1 640 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 (303) 927-9510 16 '94 14:21 THEODORE K GUY ASSOC PC A P.3 No Problem Joe Structural Review August 12,1994 Page 2 cracking. Based on past experience with similar structures. it is not likely that any portion of this structure could be shown to meet current building code loading requirements. The one out-building that was viewed was the barn; however, it was not possible to view the structure from the interior. From the exterior, it is apparent that the ridge has suffered a failure. The precise nature of this failure is unknown. In conclusion, the general concition of the original house is good and with appropriate bracing and support provided by the moving contractor should withstand being relocated; however, the continuity of the additions with the original house is questionable. This is evident by the differential settlement visible between the structures. Although the original house structure is still serviceable after approximately 100 years, it has experienced subst,ntial settlement which may continue and eventually compromise its overall structural integrity. In order to preserve this structure, the house should be set on a concrete foundation. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of further se:vice in this matter. Sincerely. 44*4,#P Jack L Albright Re\AewedATA A ~ 0Â«P Lf L Michael J. T~, P.E., AIA JLA/bd 94611 Ll DAVID August 12, 1994 GIBSON, AIA Historic Preservation Committee 130 S. Gelena St. AUGUST Aspen, CO 81611 RENO. AIA RE: PARTIAL DEMOLITION & RELOCATION This letter describes architectural observations made by SCOTT Gibson & Reno Architects on a site visit conducted August 11,1994 of SMITH, the existing residence located at 930 King Street in Aspen, Colorado, AIA The following items were observed: r.. ,/1 1. In many places of the residence the original exterior siding had been replaced with newer wood siding and in large areas on the east and west side of the structure the original wood siding was ILI remove and replaced with green corrugated fiberglass. :=22 2. The existing structure originally had a shake roofing which has since been covered with a corrugated metal roofing directly GIBSONÂ·RENO over the shake roof. ARCHITECTS 3. It' s apparent that the shed structure located on the north Ill part of the residence was an addition to the original structure. The date in which the shed was added could not be determined. 210 E. HYMAN 4. The shed addition is in a very deteriorated state. The roof shows significant signs of water damage. The entire shed structure NÂ° 202 has suffered from major settlement due to a lack of a concrete foundation, which has caused apparent structural failure in areas of ASPEN the roof of the shed addition. COLORADO 5. Ceiling heights within the shed addition are very low and 81611 would not conform with current building code requirements. 6. The existing structure currently sets within the required 303.925.5968 front yard setback. FACSIMILE Thank you for your time in reviewing this information should 303.925.5993 you have any questions regarding this matter feel free to contact us. Sincerely, P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW - NÂ° 2 James Terry TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 303.728.6607 FACSIMILE 303.728.6658 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 920.KS Photo Information: ASP-R-35; ASP-S-2 & 3 Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Full Street Address: 920 King Street Legal Description: City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District/Neighborhood Name: Smuqqler Mountain Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Victorian Miners Cottage Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1 Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): "L" shaped Landscaping or Special Setting Features: "Junked up " Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): Northeast corner open shed +/- 100 square feet; north vertical board. single gable, +/- 50 square feet; northwest corner vertical board single qable +/- 150 square feet (falling down); west side rear, board and batten shed +/- 70 sq. ft. For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: L-gabled; rusted corrugated metal Walls: Unpainted clapboard (could be original) with green corrugated fiberglass on east side windows and west side Foundation / Basement: Unknown Chimney(s): Red brick with sheet metal flue / cap Windows: One over one wood double hung Doors: Front (unused); 1/2 light over wood panel Porches: Front (southeast) shed on square posts General Architectural Description: Simple miner's cottage in state of rustic disrepair Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 920.KS FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1880's Actual X Estimate _ Assessor Based On: Building style MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor X Moderate Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Looks original; fiberqlass sidinq, metal roof. dates unknown Additions and Date: Rear shed extensions (multiple), early 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 Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or 11 - 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 is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture. although this structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. This structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Archaeological Potential: * (Y or N) Justify: * Recorded By: * Date: * Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Â¥ - //' .. I ' ..9 &.1' Â· tâ€¢ .- Â· ' r 1.. I:-9 - 9 E-:.... , â‚¬Â£*rTH'-UNE. UlarLE>& Â·YKOF 0 '*034 :Ak, Â»ea e.k' Â· C . , .... . 16 - . - liN J . 5....:,1 - - 2 4 . I e Co .20 51: S 14.Ty-7 V - . 4 0 a}rÂ¢b,* /1 ASAF:-Â· 4122$ 3/4-1. -Â· 1 . 4- . - . . .- -- r -r ./k ..' + / A .4 .. 4 . . 70 -~ ~ ~- qott v 1- 1.-- /73 14 + - \/V, Z_-1 ~ - 4//1 - X /1// A 9 H AA :. 1////1 1% /,2/ 21 :. 1 r \ i / 6 />1 0 ...T rn / 1 / 1 , . 9 I A ..It , V Va_i__L_-1 Â· f 1///A .- I - 71 . P . .:.. - 1 / ,4-7 , I 'J ' . r,, S .Al . .. ' 1 Â¥ ./ty:2*# I . .. 11 I . 44% .. . . - -4<24 cf* I - M 1 4 -- 04â‚¬* A 4 9 - 1., - t. i 1 1'. 1- 1 1: . W . *t lai- I. 1.- i. . . . / 9.1 3 Ad / A.A. = iÂ¢V 1 / iA 1 I I. ... 69 I - 1 I ->NÂ¢K*) -1=9.N0&-/ / 1,6. 3<ft J h29'%4**USK////Ab / .411 1. ' . . /11 , I. Â· ~ -. illk ,/2 /:.t /1.1 ...}.0. .... / '1 / I '.2, 7-_Z.!2.,0-_.-+, ' ' . tv/ / \V // /3\\.PO*CH t. - 0-: 1 -9 - ... 1.1/ .. . Â· Â· _2 , t FPROF,=193"Â¥ L I NEL LUTI~T~~i._L_..___._,__t ~I~I-Ii-II_ - 14%519 - 1.4439' :R.349.i ~ h 17 12.Pr 11+EUEED <occOMEP' 2 34.73' 43/ rÂ·RDeERTY Ul#EL 1 - N 23'28' 17"â‚¬ 81.29 NO EAÂ·belnefr oe, RpEAD - FROM THE DESK OF.19'44Â£444##8~* Id#*44**,2*-Â·, asiciplic<'-r. C'Hai AUGUST 22, 1994 HISTORICAL PRESERVATION CCMMISSION ASPEN, COLORADO DEAR LADIES AND GENTLEMEN; - - Â·i THIS LETTER COMES TO YOU FOR YOUR SINCERE CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF MR. I.MCA CUNNINGHAM'S DEVELOPEMENT APPLICATION. 1 3 4 rl MR. CUNNINGHAM HAS MADE A CONTRACT OF SALE FOR THE ESTATE LE -9- -&15 TO ME BY MY DADDY, NO PROBLEM JOE CANDREIA. HIS PLANNING HAS 4 -TER.;4- ..' INCORPORATED A DELIGHTFUL RESTORATION TO THE HOME AND INCLUDED 19 AN ADJOINING NEW STRUCTURE WHICH IN NO WAY TAKES AWAY FROM THE , t. 1 i#,9. 9 4- * HISTORICAL DWELLING. MAC HAS WORKED VERY HARD IN MEETING ALL 1 .0 '4.-L: < EXISTING AND PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. :r' 17: 4%49* 2Â· - 24.*1 42 7 MY DADDY DIED ALMOST A YEAR AGO AND SINCE THAT TIME, THROUGH ov.leâ„¢: iaÂ·:,r.:*L. THE EFFORTS OF MY ATTORNEY, ART DAILY AND BROKER, JOHN DOREMUS i. KE,FY WE HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY IN PREPARING THE PROPERTY FOR SALE. ~..~..~. AS MANY OF YOU PROBABLY KNOW MUCH HAS TRANSPIRED TO DELAY THIS au=iÂ¥'111 PROCESS, INCORRECT ORIGINAL PLATING OF PROPERTY LINES, REQUIRING ~'*212' t.. I A MAYOR'S DEED, INDENTIFICATION OF WHAT WAS BEING DECLARED HISTORICAL,GIVING THE CITY THE SIDEWALK EASEMENT AND THE CLOSING ~' IT 4.~ OF MY DADDY'S HOME. im"REV6-1 :-, -mEL,1 11 WOULD YOU PLEASE NOT DELAY THE APPROVING OF MR. CUNNINGHAM'S PROPOSED PLAN TO WHERE I CAN HAVE MY PERSONAL CLOSURE AND HAVE MY DADDY'S HOME RESTORED TO WHERE HIS MARKER CAN BE PLACED ON ~ THE PROPERTY FACING KING STREET. THE MARKER READS, IN MEMORY ~â€ž- 4 OF ,*4341 NO PROBLEM JOE CANDREIA ME 1 OUR LOVING Uk@*arÂ»'.'.1, DADDY, GRANDFATHER, FRIEND PLEASE HONOR MY DADDY'S LAST WISHES OF LEAVING HIS PROPERTY TO f,9~ WHICH AND IN ITS BEING SOLD, WILL CARE FOR ME FOR THE MC . I 2 ./1-B REMAINDER OF MY LIFE. Â£=0. SINCERELY YOURS, rfitriff Lt:-2,0(.1 Paa B Co-Â«la 4 PEGGY JO CANDREIA, DAUGHTER AND - 34'.AY} PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE :â‚¬3*4 V./.2..:Â« ESTATE OF NO PROBLEM JOE L CANDREIA 1525 N COLLEGE AVE TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74110 Â¢~1 * i' , '0;1 -4 t. â€¢ I ,>, 45Â·IM t. *4~ .r + .' f/l:': . .ft . ... 01-?Â¢393-~ -4 ..3,1.4&*â‚¬ , . . I . J L_ 7 --- -- -- -U L_____ . -- 40: AEVtSION: 'N : <ED: FAX: 303/ 925-5993 TELEPHONE: 303/925-5968 J, COLORADO - 81611 Â© COPYRIGHT 19 - -- .1. I . , M . . .:-~ .. .. . i:- illia.quilliumt 9 m 11'Im. minmmumn' 0 -- .: . S , 1 / < . = .. Iyra ~1 .. 1 7 c t,:1, 1, '~8288~- ... 4 40:t , .i ~f. *Jt 41 1 - /11< VI.W .. . 4 4-41-.40. - .... ,9 V .: . .. 't Immi= imullm / 1 .... - 4 .. 0 0 0 .. .- 9 - - - . N. 44 : a-6 r I . ' .2. 1 . 2,4 *e,* 134659 .R- mm 00 mm rJ LA lf)~) . 2 lo D .. CU ru m 01 1 Me m 00 e MC) %66 0 < 42 F 0 U.0 p - I a to > 08 120 (D 6 0 0Z Z)-- UJ >W J m 4 1- Ill 4 0 EqI 0 m 10000 9 ///IN 2 i. , ./ r :[!11{1164 imlfâ€¢ej/' O â„¢0 E ,'!}t}1111, , .y / SMOKE 9 *111Â¢ HOUS f Â«La Â»\\\\ i: 2111'9 ' rl ft T tÂ¥ ' f; 'J f .4, 4 11 P . I :1 11.- 1 1%. j 00Â· PROPOSED RESIDENCE 7 - A l. 7 -A- . <- GARAGE N.1- Â· JOXZF V- ...G Â»1.-Â»Â«229:ful . / C 1 222 , -- k44--e . â€¢ U '-<S: OANX b<kia- %4/1 1/ 41( dt; 1 \Ze'llus- 1 -k-A.4. . -422Â£224 \14 , , Â»4.... . %*Il,--* -- 0 / %7 â€¢ 47# . .. - 31 7/3 -4 /' -1 -, 42=21 b 1 . A.D.U. .. 0 . 1 . I . DRIVE ~ 1 .. .. / "40 / .. 47. 442 II C/1\ SITE PLAN SHEET NO: I . L_7 px# -9---: $ , 0 5 ,0 20 4OFT 3. 1 u#67 0,91 anNaAV EladOOD .LSÂ¥3 :03>40 00480100 'NBdSV f ' ..1 t. . I . I Af.r. Â»tÂ« h=:=411--Illr--111====/ /2,~ - r.-.... 1 L._1 -1 t=11 =11 4 - - 1/ FAX: 303/ 925-5993 -IONE: 303/925-5968 h'RIGHT 19 4.'.7 -1, ~~~ :ON 133HS -ill i li --,-u/l Ikp- - -il,111.. 1.1. ,A "*i 11~11 11.11=ill.. 11- - =i 1 .11.11.1lilli l,.1.Y..I '~ 16*Ni;it 1~ i#&56 0 1. 1.1.1 li lill=--1:*/illfllpflp~Li~Lnj~ 1.111 I| |11|1111'1111 i mi,1161 11Â£1111111! Ilizil ~i: N 1111111411111 . 1.1 * 2.61 A 1-1 ....4 . ~11Â© ,-, 1.11..lillillillillillillilillllililillillillillillilim'llilillim~li/~lill' 1 lilli."...........1.2 1 -il r m~ ........~IJ16-1)......1 1.. ]1--1.1.1. ...1 i 1- ... A .. A. A.. A . 0 0 0