Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19980805AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 5, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING, 5:00 p.m. PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY BASEMENT 5:00 I. Roll call II. Public Comments III. Commissioner and Staff Comments IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. Business A. 203 S. Galena, Gucci, Wall Partial Demolition B. AACP Discussion VI. Information VII. Adjourn MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct04#0~ FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner GAM RE: Gucci Back Wall Partial Demolition DATE: August 5, 1998 SUMMARY: During the construction process, the contractor of the Brand Building redevelopment has determined a wall in the proposed Gucci store to be structurally unsound. This is an exterior wall on the second story southwest corner of the building. The HPC conducted a site visit to review the nature of the wall and discuss possible reconstruction techniques on July 23, 1998. After this meeting, the contractor has developed three alternatives for the HPC to consider for the rehabilitation of this wall section. Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission approve the partial demolition, with conditions. APPLICANT: Gucci America. Represented by Hansen Construction. LOCATION: The Brand Building, 203 South Galena Street. PREVIOUS AcTION: The HPC has not previously considered the demolition ofthis wall. The HPC conducted a site visit on July 23rd. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Partial Demolition. The HPC may approve, approve with conditions, or deny at a meeting an application for partial demolition. STAFF COMMENTS: Partial Demolition may be approved by the HPC if all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation ofthe structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Stajffinding: According to the applicant's structural analysis, the partial demolition is necessary for rehabilitation of the structure. The wall is structurally unsound and presents a safety hazard. 1 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a) Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. b) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Stafffinding: The applicant has proposed three alternatives for this wall. First, the applicant could completely restore the wall in the same fashion and by using the same ·bricks or brick from other parts ofthe building. Or, the applicant could construct a steel bearing wall with an exterior veneer ofthe old bricks. In this scenario, less of the original wall would need to be demolished. Or, the applicant could reconstruct the wall with a stucco veneer over steel studs: Again, in this scenario the western most section of the original wall could remain in tact. Staff suggests the HPC not consider the last option. The majority of the wall in question is not visible from public rights-of-way. However, keeping an exterior expression ofthe historic material is important. By using a steel structure, less ofthe original wall would need to be demolished. This preserved section is also the only section which is clearly visible from the alleyway. Staff suggests the HPC approve the second reconstruction option presented by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission approve the partial demolition of the subject wall at 203 South Galena with the following conditions: 1. The applicant preserve as much as the original construction as possible on the western section of the wall by using the second alternative suggested: reconstruction of the wall by using steel bearing studs and a historic brick veneer. 2. Priority ofthe bricks used for this veneer shall be: 1) bricks salvaged from the subject section of the wall; 2) historic bricks salvaged from other portions ofthe building, 3) historic salvaged bricks from off-site. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the partial demolition of the upper south west wall ofthe Brand Building, 203 South Galena Street, with the two conditions outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated August 5,1998." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Development Application 2 LAND USE APPLICATION 60.44, r. .041 PROJECT: al'll- Naine: ('1,(_£ c---<2_ F ill IC>EAJ Location: 1.-03 '5>ove-r,1 GAI--1~NA 5-rTLE.ELT- (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: G u.c-c- i A vn E g.i c-A 1 1 6,} c- Address: 25-0 H A orr-2. Phone #: 5 .3- c A LAC u..5 ~ M 3- 0 -7 0 9 9 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: \4 AA).as-A) C-04-,STA-L,LCT-10 10~~~/1-60_ C. CBA,Z..MA /O Address: 3 to AAe>c_ Phone #: 9 2-0 t 37-SS TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): I) Conditional Use I Conceptual PUD m Conceptual Historic Devt. El Special Review m Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) E Final Historic Development £ Design Review Appeal £ Conceptual SPA m Minor Historic Devt. r- GMQS Allotment ¤ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) 3 Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption 1 Subdivision £ Historic Designation El ESA-8040 Greenline, Stream £ Subdivision Exemption (includes m Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane El Lot Split m Temporary Use £ Other: ~4 A.:1- 1 Al- El Lot Line Adjustment [] Text/Map Amendment De-VY,OL- 11-toR EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 7529-Ck,/2.- u,oll Ina 6 1,42£,4# rlm...c,21£,1 -54 G,-*r..Fc. l (~~1 L.,l,%- 40£.~., CQ c-.61 11*l e.£:> ((c~Je c£%0,0 w.£) re,vy•oct~l. <te=. 501 tuic.40*cl 41,~VJU/,~ L'1~07 51+ allc>tcl,ua.c,( PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) 242™1.- S-r O a_E OUCI-LET- Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ / 20- re-Application Conference Summary ittachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement LJ Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form m Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents £ Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents El Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application t · JUL-22-1998 16:57 THEODORE K GUY ASSOC 9709274813 P.02 THE=OORE K GUY AssociA-rm. -- ARCHITECTS ANO STRUCTURAL ING:NEER:3 FIELD_REPORI TO : Alex Long/ Hansen Construction ~ Lee Pearce/Gucci Brian O'tuama/Gender FROM : Ted Guy, THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC DATE : July 16,1998 RE : Gucci/Aspen THOSE PRESENT: Ted Guy/ TKGA Alex Long/Hansen Construction Eric Carman/Hansen Construction Don Hirman/Hansesn Construction Jim Newsom/Myers Metals Roy Mailer/Vagelman West Associates The following decisions and information were reviewed: ]I[EM- 1 : Began layout of steel beams ar upper floor and stair to verify locations. The east west floor bearn will come over the existing steel beam at the east. Ted will prepare a clarification to indicate how the steet beam will fit within the brick wall and wood floors framing above the existing steel bean. ]IEM_2: There will be a new structural block wall at the east side of the old vault rather than the steel posts indicated in the preliminary structural drawings. These structural block will be used to carry the brick wall above the wood beam. The top of the block wall will have three steel plates lagged into the bottom of the wood beam and the mason will grour the vold between the block and the steel plate. ITEM 3: Ray Meller feels the back wall will collapse if we try to carry k on steel channels. There is evidence of an old fire in this area which will have weakened the wall to the point of collapse. Ted will meet with Amy Guthrie of HPC to get her okay for this change. The cost of the wall will include a replacement of the bearing brick wall with a brick veneer. ITEM 4: Ted is reccommending removal of the plywood subfloor as part of the final investigation of the subfloor conditions. There is the chance of satisfaction with the existing joists. JIEM.i: The above represents our report of events noted and items discussed, and will be relied upon as true and correct by all parties unless notified within 5 working days of receipt. CC. Participants TKG/tkg 98133 M3 22280 TWO AIVEMS MCAO P.U. BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 (8701 927-3157 TOTAL P.02 . JUL-30-1998 13:27 THEODORE K GUY ASSOC 9709274813 P.02 THEODORE K GUY ASSCICIATea PC ARCHrrECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENG:NEERS Memorandum 0 10 : Chris Bendan FROM : Ted Guy. THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC DATE : July 30,1998 RE : Smuggler Gucci Back Wall The existing back wall of the old Smuggler Restaurant is structurally unsound due bo past modifications and fires. It is in danger of collapse, especially at the eastern third of its length. The middle third has so many openings thit less than half of the original wall still remains. Only the western portion which is visible from the alley is in relatively ipod condition. I would like tost,gest the HPC consider three possible alternatives for the back wail of the Smuggler, Baita[Zijan Reconstruct the wall as dose lr> its criginal form and height as possible. The wall could be sand cast brick, tvo wythes thick ariel lave the height and scope that existed when it was first built The wall inside the improved space would have the openings as proposed and only the exterior surfaces visible from the alley would be restored to pre-skylight form. There are some original bricks available from the old vaults md the materials could be mostiy from the original historic era. Most of the restored wall will become an interior wall. Reconstruction_-alinomen Remove all of the wall from the east to the westemmost block buttress and 0 rebuild it z a veneer over steel stl.Kis bearing wall to meet current building oode and energy criteria. The veneer will appear w be a restoration and some of the wall (five linear feet at the end of the walkway) will be original. New Constructioil Remove all of the wall from the east m the western most block buttress and rebuild as a stucco surface over steel studs. Leave the original brick wall at the end of the walkway but recognize that the wall is structurally unsound, has been so altered in the past that it tms lost its historical significance, and that restoration or reconstruction creates a false front of no historical value. This approach would maintain the one section of wall that is directly visible from the alley, the bulk cf the new construclion would be interior space of hidden by exit stairs ar,1 tile Baldwin Galley mass which shield this wall from the alley. We are open to other suggestions from the HPC but believe this wall has reached the end of its useful life and is a dangerous without major stabilization. TKG/tkg 98133 MS 0 22280 TWO RIVE,vS ROAD p.0. BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO 81521 [8701 9274167 TOTAL P.02 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 920.5072 DATE: 7.28.98 PROJECT: Gucci Wall Reconstruction REPRESENTATIVE: Eric Corman OWNER: Gucci. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Partial Demolition DESCRIPTION: Brick wall in back of building is structurally unsound and needs to be reconstructed. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.72.020 HPC Partial Demolition Review by: Staff, Historic Preservation Commission Public Hearing: No. Referral Agencies: Historic Preservation Officer. Planning Fees: $120 (minor HPC flat fee) Referral Agency Fees: 0 Total Deposit: $120 To apply, submit the following information: 1. See attached application packet. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.