HomeMy WebLinkAboutA019 - Email letter to Council from Dean Jensen dated January 23, 2015 Page 1 of 1
Roosevelt URA Amendment
dean jensen
to:
bobanncamp, gloriabetcherwardl, GartinForAmes, pforazem, nelson.ames, mg, amber.corrieri, lvilla,
dvoss
01/23/2015 10:14 PM
Show Details
Dear Honorable Mayor and Ames City Council,
I am writing tonight wi�th faced with a "critique by the
city staff" that will sur �bringhe upcoming council meeting to a heated discussion.;Ultimately,you folks will
decide the direction of thsscussion.
My development team has strived vigilantly over the past two years to bring a creative, adaptive-reuse solution
to a very difficult community topic of an abandoned 1923 School building.
Through this process, the community at large has taken a special interest in watching a process that should be a
story that we would be "celebrating" this coming Tuesday night because we are in the closing moments.
Instead, staff has issued an adverse assessment which involves aesthetics, compatibility, and other subjective
perspectives. (Not code compliant or functional objections)
Understandably, this project has brought several revisions and alterations as the process unfolded. Through
many tough decisions, we believe the project is now successful and represents a model for how our community
can come together with meaningful solutions. The central topic in the staff recommendation is the windows on
the north elevation. Through reading your report, you will note the staff desire to conform and blend into the
neighborhood. This building is a huge, brick mass that was built to be a school. Since its construction 92 years
ago, this building has not and never will blend or conform to the neighborhood residential profile. It is designed
to be a focal point with an intentional front (9th Street) and a back, (loth Street). The surrounding houses are
small wooden structures with few, if any windows in the garages. The Roosevelt garage structure was carefully
\U a� matched to the original building with full aesthetic considerations. The original design elevation was successful
due to objective proportions. By "moving" the window position, when the building footprint was shortened,
we were able to still maintain the brick and limestone compatibility while embracing certain code compliant
'\i)'"echanical devices. Through further enhancements of the east and west elevations, the north elevation now
J
provides visual pause signifying the back of the structure. If added bays of windows are added (as the managers
recommended action), we will clearly create confusion and a general loss of focus from the front, historically
significant elevation. Successful design involves orientation, and once certain elements change, such as the
length of the building, our visual push was to encourage movement of the viewer back to the east and west
elevations working toward the south, focal fagade. There has never been an intention to lessen the value of the
north elevation. The sheer mass of this structure is an over-whelming experience when approaching along loth
Street. If staff thinks that adding additional windows will somehow lessen this experience, they clearly have a
limited lack of sculptural , three-dimensional understanding. The only consistent variable in the neighborhood
would be landscaping. With a general "softening" of the building mass through plantings, the north facade can
become less intimidating.
With this in mind, I am asking for two items of consideration:
�1. City council approve Alternate 3 and require additional landscaping be added to the north fagade.
�2. I Intervene with the managers recommended action and stop this recommendation from becoming
public. I do not wish to bring a tarnished ending to this important project through a difficult public
hearing.
Thanks very much for your consideration,
Dean Jensen
RES Development, Inc
file://C:\Documents and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web6467... 1/26/2015