Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEEDER SUPPLY - PDP - PDP130012 - REPORTS - HISTORIC PRESERVATION (14)Hi Jon, Thank you for sending me the latest plans. I do have a few comments and questions. This pertains to your letter to me dated June 20, 2013: Item 6: the lack of windows is a character -defining feature of the Mill Building. Therefore, I cannot allow the addition of 3 windows. I would allow the addition of one window, and it should be a little smaller than the existing, historic windows. Item 13: Patio: I understand the half walls are glass, but what type of material will the top half of the walls be? I'd like more information on the top half walls' material and appearance. Item 16: Why won't the historic door be used? This door should be used rather than adding a new door and windows. If, for some compelling reason, a new door is absolutely required then the -door could be added but the two new windows should be eliminated. Also, if the new door is added it should not be entirely storefront glass. It should blend in with the historic building better. Item 17: can this fire sprinkler room door be moved to the rear wall instead of on the Willow Street elevation? Site Plan I'd like more information on the landscaping plans on the Willow Street side. Specifically the area in front of the proposed fire sprinkler room door. I copied Karen McWilliams in this email so that she is aware of my comments. Thanks again. Anne McCleave Historic Preservation Specialist State Historical Fund 1200 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 303.866.3536 anne.mccleave@state.co.us 3 The top half of the indoor -outdoor patio walls would be open — open air with no screens — most of the time. However in colder weather or other bad weather, all -glass Poll down windows would provide protection. The design goal relevant to such windows is to maximize the through -visibility of the Feeder Building. The existing mill door and two existing first level mill windows adjacent to the patio would be maintained and used. The addition of this indoor -outdoor patio would be easily and fully removable. Before I could give any approval,_or not, on this iwould needmore information, on the "all -glass roll down windows." How many windows and dividers will there be? What size will the windows be? What type and size of hinges/seams will there be in order for them to be "rolled" up? Etc. If you have a specific product in mind, feel free to send the production information, website link, etc. The door in the Warehouse Addition is a 5-0 sliding warehouse door (see photo attached) which cannot be used for access because a) it does not meet handicap accessibility requirements, and b) operationally it is not at all weather -tight without door replacement or modifications that, if possible, would compromise its historic character. History will be best served, I believe, by securing it as a non-functional door. The opening is 5 feet, thus it should be able to meet ADA requirements. I ask that other options be explored to use this historic opening and thus eliminate the need to add a new door/opening. For instance, the historic sliding door can be either fixed open permanently or fixed open only during operation hours. This would allow a new door to be installed within this opening to function as the door. The new door proposed certainly could be less modem and more historic looking, such as a wooden door with '/z or 3/ glass. This would still meet safety considerations related to visibility and door swings. The windows on each side of the door are desirable from an adaptive reuse standpoint for natural light and visibility, but they are not essential. The fie sprinkler room door could be moved to the end or rear wall, instead of the Willow Street elevation, as you suggested. Thank you. Enclosed is a copy of the landscaping for the area in front of the proposed fire sprinkler door. It is comprised _primarily of a number of juniper trees (maturity 8 feet) and one spruce tree (maturity 12 feet). This amount of landscaping could be reduced if the fire sprinkler room door is relocated and so that the screening of same is not necessary. Thanks for the photo and drawing. Best Regards, Jon From: McCleave - HC, Anne[maiito:anne.mccleave@state.co.us] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:58 PM To: joni0frii.com Cc: Karen McWilliams Subject: Feeder Mill Building plan and renderings 1] Ted Shepard From: McCleave - HC, Anne <anne.mccleave@state.co.us> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:29 PM To: jonj@frii.com Cc: heather.peterson@state.co.us; Karen McWilliams; Josh Weinberg; Ted Shepard Subject: Re: Feeder Mill Building plan and renderings Hi Jon, I apologize for the delay in my response; as you know Heather was out of the office and we needed to compare calendars. Unfortunately it's a busy week, with meetings tomorrow morning and then Heather has to leave the office at 3:00 pm and will be out of the office the rest of the week. So we can meet with you tomorrow some time between 1 and 2:30. Sorry for the tight schedule. If we cant meet this week, feel free to email any new information. I appreciate your consideration of my comments and am happy to see the fire sprinkler room door can be moved to the rear wall, off the Willow Street elevation. Below are my comments in response to yours (mine in red text). Thanks, Anne McCleave Historic Preservation Specialist State Historical Fund 1200 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 303.866.3536 anne.mccleave@state.co.us On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:59 PM, jon prouty <jonj@frii.com> wrote: Hi Anne — In response to your email from Monday: While lack of windows may be a character -defining feature of the Mill Building, it would seem like a reasonable modification to add 3 windows to the second level in order to get the necessary natural light into the space and to meet the requirements for a restaurant as a compatible adaptive reuse of the second (grain bin) level. While 5 new windows would be preferable (2 on the NE side and 3 on the SW side) from the standpoint of restaurant design, none additional on the NE side (Willow facing) and 3 on the SW side would be satisfactory. This way the Willow fronting side of the Mill Building would have no additional windows, but rather all new windows would be facing the patio internally and would not be facing either Willow Street or Linden Street. They would be fixed glass windows with a plain modem look so as not to mimic historical in any way and their installation would be easily and fully reversible. I can allow 2 new windows, but absolutely will not allow 3, the one closest to Linden Street is too visible from Linden Street. I understand they will be simple in design and will be differentiated from the historic windows, and I thank you for that, however they still need to be smaller than the existing (not the exact same size).