HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEEDER SUPPLY - PDP - PDP130012 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGe. The Apartment Building we are proposing is aesthetic 1) with simplicity and
elegance in its overall design and use of materials and 2) with the glass and steel
tower being the dominant element of architectural design.
f. Most of the members of the Landmark Preservation Commission at their last
complimentary review of the Feeders Project, were pleased with our Feeders
Project plans, and especially were in favor of the dominant, glass and steel,
protruding center tower element of the Apartment Building (see attachment).
g. Heather Peterson, from State Historic (whose expertise relates to the eligibility of
historic buildings and districts), expressed the opinion on July 23rd, that "One
building like that [the Apartment Building we are proposing] would not
negatively impact the Historic District' (see attachment). (She did however
indicated her preference for a recessed lobby).
Thanks for your consideration.
Best regards,
JP/sjw
C:\Users\Jon\Documents\My Does 071210\Feeders\P & Z\Shepard Staff Rec PZ Reconsider Conditions 073013.doc 37/31/2013 4:01 PM
banquet and conference room ancillary to a restaurant use. Such windows would
be simple (not mimicking original mill windows) and reversible.
d. Most of the members of the Landmark Preservation Commission at our last
Complimentary Review expressed, or acquiesced in, the opinion that these three
windows were reasonable and necessary for the successful adaptive reuse of the
mill second level as a banquet and conference room, and furthermore recognized
the logic of adding these windows to the west non -street -facing side of the Mill
Building rather than the east Willow -Street -facing side (see attachment).
e. Restaurant professionals we have consulted all feel strongly that it is essential that
the second level of the Mill Building have at least three additional windows to
allow natural daylight in in order for it to be successfully used as a banquet and
conference room.
From the standpoint of interior design, a 52 ft. x 36 ft. space with 15 ft. high walls
plus a vaulted ceiling will feel claustrophobic without additional windows,
however, with additional windows, it will have a magnificent "chapel -like" feel to
it.
2. The central tower element of the Apartment Building should be allowed to protrude 2
ft., as proposed, because: .
a. While the apartment is a long -frontage building, there are numerous long -frontage
buildings both in Old Town and on Willow Street (see attachment). In Old Town,
there are eight buildings with frontages from 138 ft. to 234 ft. (average: 186). On
Willow Street, there are ten buildings with frontages from 138 ft. to 270 ft.
(average: 204 ft.). Most of these buildings have no break in mass and the few that
do have dominant tower elements (see attachment). The proposed Apartment
Building has a total frontage of 184 ft. which falls well within the range of
existing building frontages and, in addition, its frontage is comprised of two 78-ft.
elements separated by a 28 ft. tower element.
b. The Land Use Code Section 3.5.3(C)(1) requirement of a break in mass is
achieved by the 2-ft. protruding tower.
c. The protruding tower is essential to provide the additional square footage
necessary to achieve building functionality that is the tower being big enough to
enclose oversized elevator (for bicycles), waiting area (between entry doors and
elevator, stairs, mailboxes, and 5 ft. accessways to garage access and courtyard
access doors (necessary for bicycle clearance). Bicycles for residents of each
apartment will be stored in a "sports equipment alcove" adjacent to the front door
of each respective apartment.
d. The protruding tower represents a historically accurate interpretation of mill
architectural design, which we are emulating in a modern way (see attachment).
C:\UsersUon\Documents\My Docs 071210\Feeders\P & Z\Shepard Staff Rec PZ Reconsider Conditions 073013.doc 27/31/2013 4:01 PM
To: Ted Shepard
From- Jon Prouty
Re: Staff Recommendation to P&Z/Please Reconsider Conditions
Date: July 30, 2013
In reviewing the Feeders Supply Project history as it has evolved and where I think we are at
now, I would like to respectively request that you consider dropping the two proposed conditions
for the following reasons:
Three windows should be allowed on the West Mill second level elevation because:
a. Allowing these three windows is in compliance with L.U.C. Section 3.4.7 which
requires that "the building design provide for the preservation and adaptive use of
the historic structure [Feeders Mill Building]."
Our building design provides for the preservation of the Mill Building inside and
out, except for: 1) conversion of one window to an access doorway into new West
Addition, 2) addition of one doorway to access-2nd Mill level from the elevator; 3)
reconstruction of stairs to meet code and 4) addition of three new 2nd level
windows.
Our building design also provides for the compatible adaptive use of the Mill
Building as a restaurant, with the primary adaptations necessary to achieve this
successful adaptive use being: 1) the West Addition, 2) the Patio Addition and 3)
three windows necessary to provide natural light to the second level banquet /
conference room area.
b. Heather Peterson, from State Historic (whose expertise relates to the eligibility of
historic buildings and districts), expressed the opinion on July 23rd that "The
addition and other alterations [to the Feeder Building] will not negatively affect
the designation (contributing building) status of the historic building. The historic
portion would be contributing to the district and the addition would be non-
contributing, even though it's attached." (See attachment.)
c. Historic Structure Analysis — Parts 1 and 2, dated July 2013, specifically notes
that, "Adaptive reuse rehabilitation will be necessary" and that "some functions,
depending on the ultimate proposed use, will require some alternations to the
building envelope, i.e., addition of windows and doors (to be kept to a minimum)
required for functional adaptions and code enhancement." (See attachment.) I
believe the windows this report is referring to are the three windows we have
proposed to allow the mill second level to have a compatible adaptive reuse as a
CAUsersVon\DocumentsNy Docs 071210\Feeders\P-& Z\Shepard Staff Rec H-Reconsider Conditions 073013.doo 17/31/2013 4:01 PM