The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.203 S Galena St.HPC024-982737-073-46001 HPC024-98 203 S. GalenA. Part-i:al npmn.. C.,teri WAll &63 lip -39 PARCEL ID:|2737-073-46001 DATE RCVD: ~7/30/98 # COPIES: ~- CASE NO~HPC24 CASE NAME:|203 South Galena Partial Demolition-Gucci Back Wall PLNR:~Amy Guthrie PROJ ADDR:~203 South Galena CASE TYP:~Partial Demolition STEPS:~ OWN/APP: Gucci America, Inc. Â§ ADR~50 Hartz C/S/Z:~Secaucus, NJ 0709 PHN:~ REP4 Hansen Construction/Eric C- ADR:~310 AABC CiS/Z:|Aspen, CO 81611 PHN1920-1558 FEES DUE:|120 (HPC) ~ FEES RCVD1120 STAT: F REFERRALS~ REF] BY| DUE:~ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ PZ: BOA: CLOSED:| BY: ~ DRAC:~ PLAT SUBMITD: | PLAT {BK,PG}:~ ADMINi 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. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING A PARTIAL DEMOLITION AT THE BRAND BUILDING, THE GUCCI STORE, 203 SOUTH GALENA STREET, CITY OF ASPEN. Resolution #98 - ~ WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Gucci America, Inc. for a partial demolition of an exterior wall at the Brand Building, a historic landmark, 203 South Galena Street, City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the partial demolition of a masonry wall on the second story, south west corner as shown in the adjacent diagram, is necessary for structural reasons related to a fire; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission conducted a site visit with Hansen Construction, representing Gucci America, on July 23, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the applicant suggested three alternatives for reconstructing the wall and the Commission preferred alternative two - reconstructing the wall with a steel superstructure and a veneer of historic brick; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission may approve Partial Demolition of Historic Structures in accordance with section 26.72.020 of the Land Use Code at a meeting; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the request and recommended approval of the partial demolition, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during their meeting on August 5, 1998, the Historic Preservation Commission approved by a 5-0 vote the Partial Demolition for the Brand Building, 203 South Galena Street with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Historic Preservation Commission: That the Partial Demolition of the Southwest corner of the Brand Building, as described above, 203 South Galena Street, is approved 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 of the bricks used for this veneer shall be: 1) bricks salvaged from the subject section of the wall; 2) historic bricks salvaged from other portions of the building, 3) historic salvaged bricks from off-site. APPROVED by the Historic Preservation Commission at its meeting on August 5,1998 APPROVED AS TO FORM: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: c aa 0.4 6, f 11,0~84, City Attorney Suzar~pi~ Reid, Chair V ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 1MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner 040Â«~ 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 iii the proposed Gucci store to be structurally unsound. This is an exterior wall on the second story southwest corner o f 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 of this wall. The HPC conducted a site visit on July 23rd. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Partial Demolition. The UPC may approve, approve with conditions, or deny at a meeting an application for partial demolition. STAFF COMMENTS: Partial Demolition may be approved by the 1-!PC if all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Stafflinding: According to the applicants structural analysis, the partial demolition is necessary for rehabilitation ofthe 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 tlie historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition oforiginal 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 iii the same fashion and by using the same bricks or brick from other parts of the building. Or, the applicant could construct a steel bearing wall with an exterior veneer of the 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 ofthe wall in question is not visible from public rights-of-way. However. keeping an exterior expression of the historic material is important. By using a steel structure, less of the 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 of the bricks used for this veneer shall be: 1) bricks salvaged from the subject section of the wall; 2) historic bricks salvaged from other portions of the building, 3) historic salvaged bricks from off-site. RECOMMENDED MOTION: 'I move to approve the partial demolition of the upper south west wall of the 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 ASPEN HISTOR -v PRESERVATION COMMISL--N MINUTES OF AUGUST 5. 1998 Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Chair-person Suzannah Reid, with Roger Moyer, Mary Hirsch and Susan Dodington present. Excused were Jeffrey Halferty, Melanie Roschko, Gilbert Sanchez and Heidi Friedland. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Amy informed the HPC that she received seven calls concerning the crane at 414 N. First, Louis Pasada's house. The crane was allowed by the building dept. It is a temporary thing that they are using to pick up materials and putting them on the site so that they do not have to keep driving back and forth. It is 110 feet high. Mary relayed that she had a conversation with Tom Cardomen and Louis said the crane would be there for at least 18 months and maybe two to three years. When the project was oked everything was to come down the side road through the alley. It is hanging over ACES. She also informed Staff that the picture wall explaining the project is still not up. Amy relayed that the Isis is going under construction next week. 203 S. GALENA - GUCCI - WALL PARTIAL DEMOLITION Chris Bendon, planner relayed that the HPC did a site visit to look at the wall and apparently there was a fire years ago that effected the structural capabilities and the structural engineer feels that the wall should come down. 1) The wall could completely be restored using the same brick or brick from other parts of the building. 2) A steel bearing wall could be constructed. with an exterior veneer o f the old bricks. In this scenario, less o f the original wall would need to be demolished. 3) The wall could be reconstructed with a stucco veneer over steel studs. - Ted Guy, architect was sworn in and presented. 1 ASPEN HISTOR~ PRESERVATION COMMISSâ€ž,N MINUTES OF AUGUST 5. 1998 Ted relayed that the area is about 13 feet. The brick wall would be like it was originally and the door would be taken out. There is some concern presently with water leaks. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the partial demolition of the upper south west wall of the Brand Bldg. 203 S. Galena St. -with two conditions: 1) The applicant preserve as much of 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 of the bricks usedfor this veneer shall be: 1) bricks salvaged from the subject section of the wall; 2) historic bricks salvaged from other portions of the building, 3) historic salvaged bricks from off-site. Motion second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. Suzannah said it is important to say that it is the eastern part of the wall. Suzannah relayed that there were some individiuals on the board that had a problem with the door pulls but the doors can be reversible. She does not feel they should have to come back that the pulls can be handled by the, monitors. Mary made the motion that the door handles be handled by the monitors; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 Kathleen J. Strickland. Chief Deputy Clerk 2 LAND USE APPLICATION 6-Al r-4 PROJECT: ;Flon,W. Name: ('1, (_1 C-- c_ C -0(~ S PE-kl Location: 2-03 Sov.-râ€¢-~ ~A L-GUVA 1>'TTLEEL-T- (Indicate street address. lot & block number. legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: G U.Oc_ i A vn a (Li c.-A 1 ~ A} C- Address: 2570 1-1 A 34--2 Phone #: 66-CLAulcu-6 REPRESENTATIVE: Ir Name: \-4 A Al.21>GAJ C-- OA.0 57-A--~01.-CUT--10 43 / CZZ. A-.c- Q. Clm,/y, A /O Address: Bio AA Sc_ Phone #: 9 2-0 [ 55-8 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): [3 Conditional Use El Conceptual PUD [3 Conceptual Historic Devt ~3 Special Review m Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) El Final Historic Development ~ Design Review Appeal El Conceptual SPA El Minor Historic Devt. U GMQS Allotment ~1 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) El Historic Demolition El GMQS Exemption E Subdivision g Historic Designation ~1 ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream El Subdivision Exemptioii (includes U Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane U Lot Split g Temporary Use U Other: ~ grr- 1 AL U Lot Line Adjustment U Text/Map Amendment \36-vyIC) W. 1-noN EXISTING CON01TIONS: (description of existing buildings. uses, previous approvals. ete.) T2=-cal- uu oll ho s ' r~01*+UZ ol a 4- F- c._-~ 1- c- (41 \ UUÂ·Â·~ 4 0 L,wÂ· (-2 gwal rn CkÂ·~ co ll( F~ câ‚¬ ve -7 revv - 2- l - <U- 5 + f uu/_3-u~~~C C 42'vi**02-.e~~ L Ainnt c *10 C l,uz-e.~ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings. uses. modifications, etc.) ~ ET A L - 5-r- o R.E O 4-0 L e Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ / 2/ g Pre-Application Conference Summary m Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement El Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Forni m Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents El Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents m Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application i , JUL-22-1998 16:57 - EODORE K GUY ASSOC 9709274813 P.02 THEOBOAE K GUN 18OCIAT=Q - t- ARCH]TECTS ANO GTAL-TURAL ENGINEERS FIELD_REPORI TO : Alex Long/Hansen Construction Lee Pearce/Gucci Brian O'tuama/Gensler 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 Meller/Vogelman West Associates The following decisions and information were reviewed: ITEM 1 ; Began layout of steel beams ar upper floor and stair to verify locations. The east west floor beam will come over the existing steel beam at the east. Ted will prepare a clarification to indicate how the stee: beam will fit within the brick wall and wood floors framing above the existing steel bezm. ITEM 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 ro 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 void between the block and the steel plate. ITEM-1.: Ray Meller feels the back wall will collapse if we try to carry iI 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. lIES.1 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 23280 TWO RIVERS ROAO P.U. BOX 1 640 BASALT. COLORADO 81821 (8701 927Â·3157 TOTAL P.02 JOL-30-1996 1.1 - 2 1 1 hcULLNE K Liu r Abbl.,L r. 8- THEODORE K Gl ASSOCIA-rms pC AFIC,-11-rECTO AND 8 CTURAL ING;NEGAG Memorandum -FE) : Chris Bendan FROM : Ted Guy, THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC DATE : J uly 30,1998 RE : Smuggier Gucci Back Wall The existing back wall of the old Smuggler Restaurant is structurally unsourd due to past modifications and fires. It is in danger of collapse, especially at the eastern third of its length. The middle third hassomany openings that less than half of the original wall still remains. Only the western portion which is visible from the alley is in relatively gxcl condition. I would like to suggest the HPC consider three possible alternatives for dle back wall of the Smuggler. Resta[align Reconstruct the wall as dose to its original form and height as possible. The wall could be sand cast brick, tvo wythes thick and have the height and scope that existed when it was first built. The wall inside theimproved 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 and the materials could be mostly from the original historic era. Most of the restored wall will become an interior wall. Reconstruction as veneer. Remove all of the wall from the east to the westernmost block buttress and rebuild it as a veneer over steel stub bearing wall to meet current building oode Erld energy criteria. The veneer w ill appear to be a restoration and some of the wall (five linear feet at the end of the walkway) will be original. New Construction Remove all of the wall from the east to 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 has lost its historical significance, and that restoration or reconstruction creates a false front of no historical value. This approach wouid maintain the one section of wall that is directly visible from the alley, the bulk of the new construction would be interior space of hidden by exit stairs and the Baldwin Galley mass which shield this wall from the alley. We are open to other suggestions from the HAD but believe this waO has reached the end of its useful life and is a dangerous without major stabiiization. TKG/tkg 98133 M3 23280 TV/O RIVEF,S ROAD P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT. CCILOHAOO 8 1621 [970] 327-3167 TOTAL P.02