Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEEDER SUPPLY - PDP - PDP130012 - CORRESPONDENCE - HISTORIC PRESERVATION (6)I briefly saw Heather Peterson this morning and we compared schedules. Between our two schedules it looks like I might not be able to talk to her until Friday. However she did comment that she would need to know what was on the site, now and historically. If you could get that information to me, that would be helpful. . he above is how I understood our discussion yesterday. Please let me know if I left anything out or if I have some information wrong. Thanks for getting us together, I think it was a good meeting. And thanks again for lunch, Anne McCleave Historic Preservation Specialist State Historical Fund 1200 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 303.866.3536 anne.mccleave@state.co.us 4 prom: Karen McWilliams [mailto:KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com] ant: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:29 AM To: jonj@frii.com; Josh Weinberg; Sherry Albertson -Clark; aedesignassoc@aim.com; 'Bud Frick'; Bruce Hendee Subject: FW: Feed Bldg - Meeting Notes from SHF Hello, all — Here are Anne McCleave's notes from Mondays meeting. Dick, you said you had information on the historic configuration of the Feeder Supply site — I believe an early RR map from the County? If you could locate that information, I will send it to Heather. Thanks! - Karen From: Mccleave, Anne[mailto:anne.mccleave@state.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:17 AM To: Karen McWilliams; Josh Weinberg Subject: Feed Bldg Hi Karen, Here are my notes from yesterday's meeting: Addition: The addition will be made to look like a separate building by construction only a "connection" to the feed building. This could be done by the following: The addition will be moved back to at least behind the dock door. Either the half window or the full window to the west of the dock door could be made into a door so as to connect the feed bldg and the addition (I think it best for the full window to be made into a door, then the addition is back even farther. 'he addition may then be brought back out towards the sidewalk, but leaving a "courtyard" between the addition and feed building and preserving the truck scale in place. We also talked about more patio seating that could then be provided in front of the addition (since it will be moved back). No windows will be added to the second story of the feed building. However, maybe the gable vent on the rear could become a window. The roof top addition (on top of the warehouse portion) will not be constructed. The elevator and stair will be constructed in the addition (which relocates the ADA access that is currently shown on Willow Ave, and eliminates the need for stairs inside the first level of the feed building's "warehouse"). We talked about the need for the fire lane between the feed building and the new apartment building - is it necessary? If not, maybe the addition could be moved farther back and maybe one of the historic additions could be preserved. Apartment Buildings: we agreed that the design should be simplified - more "industrial" looking (fits in more with the historic district, yet is still recognizable as contemporary). The new buildings do not need to incorporate materials or architectural details from the feed buildings (eg. metal roofs/panels). We agreed that the buildings don't need to have so many "planes" (they seem busy). We talked about basement/parking underground. We talked about setting the buildings back farther from Willow, but never resolved this. 3 13. Historic buildings in the neighborhood, that is the Old Town neighborhood which we are part of in the National Historic District, mostly front on the sidewalk (including the Feeder Mill building fronting on Linden Street sidewalk), so we would be respecting that aspect of their historic character by fronting the apartments on the Willow sidewalk. tiank you for your help with this unique and important project. I will have new and updated renderings, drawings, site plans and floor plan to you shortly. Best Regards, Jon PS - My previous memo FYI: Dear folks - Thank you all who were able to be there. I think we covered all relevant subjects and made excellent progress. Following up: 1 - We will move a portion of the first level addition exterior wall back (north) to expose scale, loading dock and freight door ( they now will be outside in the patio area). 2 - We will convert first window north of the now exposed scale, loading dock and freight door into a doorway to provide server and patron access to the Feeder Mill dining room. 3 - We will remove the new addition, stairs and elevator from over the Warehouse Addition. - We will move the new stairs and elevator to the west so they go up from / in the new addition, rather than being ,cated in the Warehouse Addition footprint. 5 - On the main level the new addition (kitchen) will adjoin the back (west side) of the Warehouse Addition with access using existing Warehouse Addition doorway and two windows. 6 - With regard to the architectural design of apartment buildings A and B, we will consider a simpler more industrial theme. 7 - We are concerned about being able to maintain apartment building frontages on the sidewalk, as shown in our site plan,(no setback). If setbacks are required, they will reduce the total number of apartments by 27% which would be problematic for the feasibililiy of the project. We think no setback is appropriate because: A. Feeder Supply Mill was a unique historical building fronting on railroad tracks for loading and unloading, and thus required 20 feet setback, however some other types of historic buildings (if there were any) would have had sidewalk frontage, and therefore what we are requesting is not historically inappropriate. B. Historic buildings in the neighborhood, that is the Old Town neighborhood which we are part of in the National Historic District, mostly front on the sidewalk (including the Feeder Mill building fronting on Linden Street sidewalk), so we would be respecting that aspect of their historic character by fronting the apartments on the Willow sidewalk. We will get you renderings, drawings and plans revisions for your review ASAP. Thank you for your assistance with this really extraordinary project. Rest Regards, Jon 2 Sherry Albertson -Clark •om: jon prouty <jonj@frii.com> .ent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:55 AM To: anne.mccleave@state.co.us Cc: Karen McWilliams; Josh Weinberg; Sherry Albertson -Clark; wjfdg@hotmail.com; 'Dick Beardmore'; Bruce Hendee; joseph.saldibar@state.co.us; lyle.miller@state.co.us; heather.peterson@state.co.us Subject: RE: Feed Bldg - Meeting Notes from SHF ICw-IrUm Thank you for your notes about our meeting monday, which Karen forwarded to me yesterday. I am in agreement with most of your comments, as you are aware from my agreement at our meeting and my follow-up memo which I sent everyone, and a copy of which is attached below as part of this email. Several differences or clarifications however: 1 - At our meeting I agreed to move the addition back to behind the dock door making the half window into a doorway, as you mentioned. This will still work for permitting the successful flow of patrons from the entry -reception area to the Mill building dining room. However, it is not possible for us to push the wall further back and use the second window as an access for patrons to the Mill building dining room a) from the standpoint of fundamental restaurant design and access requirements, b) based on the advice of major restaurant owners (Austin's, Oskar Blues), and c) based on my experience as a prior owner of three restaurants in Boulder and Louisville. Please remember that our goal is the compatible adaptive reuse of the Feeder Mill and Warehouse Addition as a destination restaurant. Enclosed please see a west elevation photo showing where the wall would be and use of the 1/2 window for Mill building dining room access. Most importantly note that the loading dock, warehouse door and scale will all be preserved and will become part of the outside patio area. 2 - As I recall, we left the idea of adding 2nd level windows to the west (non -street -facing side) of the Mill building open for further consideration. Please recall that we added these windows a) at the suggestion of Joe at our previous meeting in Denver, and b) so we would not have to put 2nd level windows in the east (Willow Street facing) side of the Mill building. Second level Mill building windows will be required, either on the east side or the west side, in order to have enough natural light to make the second mill level successful as an adaptive reuse as a banquet / conference room for the restaurant. Converting both gable vents to windows would let it some light, but not an adequate amount. 3 - The fire lane / private drive off Willow Street is necessary for a) building code required separation between buildings with windows, and b) access to parking under the south side of Apartment Building A. 4 - There will be no underground parking or basements. Parking will be on grade. 5 - Regarding my view on apartment building setbacks: We are concerned about being able to maintain apartment building frontages on the sidewalk, as shown in our site plan,(no setback). If setbacks are required, they will reduce the total number of apartments by 27% which would be problematic for the feasibililiy of the project. We think no setback is appropriate because: A. Feeder Supply Mill was a unique historical building fronting on railroad tracks for loading and unloading, and thus required 20 feet setback, however some other types of historic buildings (if there were any) would have had sidewalk -ontage, and therefore what we are requesting is not historically inappropriate.