Loading...
32C-149 CBAC exemption supporting images 2 T h e O f f i c e o f P E T E R F R O T H I N G H A M R e g i s t e r e d A r c h i t e c t 181 Main Street, Suite One Northampton MA 01060 U S A 413 585 5910 Page 1 of 8 8 May 2012 Mr. Louis Hasbrouck, Building Commissioner Puchalski Municipal Building 212 Main Street Northampton MA 01060 Re: 1101 - McCarthy Properties Façade Repairs and Reconstruction Subject: Central Business Architecture Commission Review Mr. Hasbrouck, Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional information in support of a request for exemption from Central Business Architecture Commission (CBAC) review accompanying a building permit application to repair and reconstruct the façade of the building located at 263-271 Pleasant Street in Northampton. We apologize for not providing more detailed documentation for your review. This morning Carolyn Misch indicated that classification under the CBAC survey of this property is not yet done, but is underway and anticipated to complete soon. She has recommended the CBAC classify the building as a Theme Commercial Building on the CBAC survey, and expects the CBAC will concur. My years serving on the CBAC and reading of the classification guidelines in the Design Manual suggest to me the same conclusion and we are proceeding accordingly. First, we refer to Section 156-5.C.15, which includes for exemption: Alteration of the first-floor facade of any theme commercial building, as defined in the Design Guidelines Manual, that was built with glass covering a significant part of the first-floor facade or has glass covering a significant part of the first-floor facade when a permit for the proposed alteration is applied for, when at least 50% of the altered first-floor facade will be glass installed providing a view from the public right-of-way of the inside of at least part of the building. The images provided in our correspondence dated 24 April 2012 labeled “Existing” and “Proposed” (re-included here in Appendix, for convenience) illustrate that the proposed reconstruction of the façade - recall the scope of work is limited to the light-tan brick Page 2 of 8 portion, the red-brick portion is not included - meets the minimum 50% glass area providing a view from the public right-of-way of the inside of at least part of the building. Area calculations of the existing and proposed elevations, measured as seen perpendicularly from the street (re: permit documents drawings 5/EX1.1 & 1/A1.1) indicate: Existing Façade: • The northern 7’ of the existing façade first floor, the stairway to the upper level apartments, is currently opaque and proposed to remain so. • The southern 43’-4” of the existing façade first floor, the business tenant spaces, is currently: o Approximately 472 s.f. in area, of which o Approximately 270 s.f. is glass area, not including stiles and rails between panes. o Resulting in a glass to wall area ratio of approximately 57%. Proposed Façade: • The northern 7’ of the existing façade first floor, the stairway to the upper level apartments, is proposed to remain opaque. • The southern 43’-4” of the existing façade first floor, the business tenant spaces, is proposed to provide MORE glass area: o Approximately 472 s.f. in area, of which o Approximately 337 s.f. is glass area, not including stiles and rails between panes. o Resulting in a glass to wall area ratio of approximately 71%. We respectfully submit that the proposed façade reconstruction meets the criteria of this Section, and request that the City concur that the first floor façade of this building is exempt from review. Next, we refer to Section 156-5.C.18 as cited in our earlier correspondence of 24 April 2012, which includes for exemption: Restoration of features of the same general design and appearance as existed historically on a structure when the Building Commissioner or Committee finds that there is adequate evidence to believe that the restoration is historically accurate and the restoration will not damage other historic features nor alter the historic character of the building. The proposed reconstruction of the façade, while not an exact replication of what previously existed, is “of the same general design and appearance” and is perhaps the only historically consistent building among the surrounding buildings, which are mostly non- conforming anomaly buildings. Please refer to the “street view” option in the Google Maps link below for imagery of the surrounding context: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=263%20pleasant%20street%20northampton%20ma) The proposed reconstruction reuses the existing upper story windows and stone sills in the same location as currently exist. The reconstruction brick is a close match to the existing brick; with the exception of the proposed accent panels located between second and third floor windows, and at the attic story above. These brick are proposed to be a slightly Page 3 of 8 darker shade of the same brick to achieve the similar effect of historical decorative saw- tooth laid brick while avoiding the problematic water-intrusion characteristics of bricks laid at an angle to the façade. We would be pleased to obtain and submit samples for your review if you so desire. Above the third floor windows of the existing building is a series of elongated brick dentils. These are not included in the proposed reconstruction as the current building code does not allow such depth of projection for a single-wythe brick veneer wall. The way to recreate these elongated dentils under the current code is to build a brick wall with a concrete masonry unit back-up wall. The weight of such a wall would overwhelm the compromised foundation wall below, the relief and repair of which is the purpose of this work in the first place. Recall that the Structural Engineer’s evaluation of and recommendations for this building suggest replacing the existing wall with a lighter wall than the current wall. To be contextually and historically appropriate given these constraints, we provide a version of the existing corbeling on the adjacent façade. The major change from the existing façade design involves the pressed metal cornice. Investigation of the existing cornice indicates it is significantly deteriorated by rust and corrosion (re: photos 1-3 in Appendix), and not likely to be successfully removed intact, nor successfully preserved after. Unable to preserve the existing cornice, we have designed historically consistent brick corbelling at the attic story of the building which meets Guideline 11: Cornices on Theme Buildings, Decorative Cornices, of the CBAC Design Guidelines Manual: • Minimum 2’ high • Reflects the detailed . . . or other rich patterning apparent in adjacent and nearby historic buildings. • Such cornices should be corbelled or otherwise in horizontal relief to the street. The proposed cornice (refer to photo #4, close-up from model): • Measures 5’-9” high • Reflects the detailed . . . or other rich patterning apparent in adjacent and nearby historic buildings. o The only adjacent historically appropriate facade is located immediately south – the red-brick portion of this same building – and has similar treatment as proposed. Please refer to images labeled “Existing” and “Proposed” from our 24 April 2012 correspondence. o Please refer to photographs 5-7 in the Appendix for examples of similar cornice treatment on nearby historic commercial theme buildings in the Northampton Central Business District, satisfying the criteria that the proposed cornice “reflects the detailed . . . or other rich patterning apparent in . . . nearby historic buildings”. • The cornice provides horizontal relief: o The cornice corbels forward at the top of the cornice three times, each about one inch, over a vertical distance of approximately 10.5” o The cornice racks back to a recess depth of 4”, with decorative dentils at the top of the recess. o Within the recess, a further recessed decorative panel is provided. Page 4 of 8 We respectfully submit that the proposed façade reconstruction meets the criteria of this Section, and therefore is eligible for the requested exemption. We are hopeful that with the inclusion of the above supplemental information, you or Carolyn can find you have adequate evidence to grant this request for exemption from CBAC review. Thank you very much for your time and helpful attention. Sincerely, Peter Frothingham Cc: Susan Hewett Louis Gallinaro Page 5 of 8 APPENDIX: EXISTING: PROPOSED: Page 6 of 8 Photo 1: Photo 2: Photo 3: Page 7 of 8 Photo 4: Photo 5: Note: - Lower façade pilasters continue up to attic story cornice - Decorative panels set in recessed panels between pilasters - Repetitive corbelling at top and bottom of attic story - Sparing use of dentils at top corbelling Page 8 of 8 Photo 6: Photo 7: