HomeMy WebLinkAbout5A - Consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate for 1928 14th St. (HIS2008-00008) - to rehabilitate the west face of a non...nstall a rooftop photovoltaic solar systemMEMORANDUM
February 6'h, 2008
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Intern
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration
certificate to rehabilitate the west face of a non-contributing
building and install a rooftop photovoltaic solar system at
192814°ki Street in the Downtown Historic District per
Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2008-
00008). Applicant/Owner: Kristin Lewis.
STATISTICS:
1. Site:
2. Zoning:
3. Owner/Applicant:
4. Lot Size:
5. Proposed construction:
6. Historic District:
192814~'' Street
DT-4 (Downtown-4)
Kristin Lewis
846 sq. ft.
Remodel fa~ade
Downtown Historic District
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board approves the landmark alteration
certificate to rehabilitate the west fa~ade and install photovoltaic panels on the
roof of the non-contributing building located at 192814w Street in the Downtown
Historic District in that the proposed construction meets the requirements set
forth in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the conditions below, and adopts
this memorandum as findings of the board.
Aeenda Item #SA Paee #1
S:~PLAN~dataVongrangW IS'MLTCERTSWistoric Districts~DownTown\14th.1928~02.06.08 LPAB Memo.doc
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall
be constructed in compliance with all approved plans on file in the City of
Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of
approval.
2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit, subject
to the final review and approval of the Planning Director final
architectural plans showing details regarding colors and materials. The
applicant shall demonstrate that the design details are in compliance with
the intent of this approval and the General Design Guidelines.
3. The applicant shall submit additional information concerning the
proposed installation of photovoltaic panels on the building, to be
reviewed by the Landmark design review committee prior to approval.
This recommendation is based upon staff's opinion that with the conditions
listed above, the proposed construction will be generally consistent with the
conditions as specified in Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C., the General Design
Guidelines.
SUMMARY:
• The two-story, red brick building was constructed between 1896
and 1900, but is not considered a contributing resource to the
downtown Historic District due to the extent of alterations.
• Plans for a rehabilitated store front were approved by the Design
Review Committee on December 14, 2007. See Attachment B:
Apt?roved Mans
• An application for a different window configuration and new
photovoltaic panels on the roof was received on January 11, 2008.
• The building facade has been entirely altered, and is mostly
covered with metal siding, with the original brick extant on the
first floor only. There are currently no windows above the first
floor.
Agenda Item #5A Paee #2
S:\PLAMdataVongrangUilS'MLTCERTSUiistoriC Dis[ricts\DownTOwn\14th.1928\02.06.08 LPAB Memo.doc
DISTRICT AND PROPERT HISTORY:
The Downtown Historic District was designated in 1999. It contains the city's
greatest concentration of historic commercial buildings, especially along Pearl
Street which forms its central spine. These buildings not only serve as a link with
Boulder's cultural heritage, they also establish a model for design quality. Such
buildings are resources for education, recreation, and human enjoyment. They
provide downtown with a rich character and human scale that are unique assets
for both residents and visitors to Boulder.
~ 1, t
,_v N ~ , ~
P - ,
X44' 1 ~r~'
~ 44
~ ~
f
t~ ` ~
~ ,
,f ~ s ~ ~i , ~ 1`t_
' ' ~ 1
i _ 1.
_ -'l c- L - , ~ - ~
j
_ `1
~ti
1
Figure 1. Location Map, 1928 14th Street (highlighted)
Little historic information on the building was revealed during the 1988 survey.
However, examination of Sanborn maps shows that in 1900 it housed the W.F.
Stewart harness sho on the ground level and rooms to let on the a er-stories.
E e" k * 1
' + _ r++daeEa~e
/sue" _r -1 ,'y ~+Yh~i~?7 re
i
4:>
A
x Y.~(
~ tsr~~
- ~ F ~ i
Figure 2. 1928 14th Street (at left), c.1900
Agenda Item #5A Pale #3
S:\PLAN\data\IongranglHIS"IIALTCERTSU-iistoric Districts\DownTown114th.1928\02.06.OR LPAB Memo.doc
I
A fire escape was added to the south elevation of the building sometime 1900
and 1906. The 1918 Sanborn lists the building as housing a "shooting gallery".
During the 1920s, 192814th Street was the location of Jean's Restaurant, a local
institution in the city at that time. Sometime during the 1960's the historic brick
facade of the building was removed and the upper level of the building faced
with wood shingle.
r
t j a.~ ~ ~ ~,~ks T ~ w ,t t'
-x-.r"+~. a "3'1rt w ~ ~-•k• a c Rt
~z {
~ ~ ~ ~ x ~
F
J '2l5 6 ~ d{6',u^
y ~
~ € ~ ~ ~ ~ . 'C` ~.~sm~. " ~~v
z T q~
dreg. ~„$~`i ~ 5
~s ~ 1
€ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t 5
~ 3
t ~p t a y?3 is ~ ~,w'.:
y:Y . ~ ~s~i... ~ a -,.~~a y ~ ~
~ t Ar ~
) d'~
T~~~7 ~ 3 P2' S~.
y'a5
Figure 3. Interior of 1928 14~t~ Street c 1920's during use as Jean's Restaurant.
Non-contributing Buildings are defined in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines
as either "buildings built during the district's period of significance that have
been altered to such an extent that historic information is not interpretable and
restoration is not possible" or "building erected after 1946 which are not
individually significant". The building at 1928 14th Street falls under the first
category. The extent of alterations on the facade undertaken in the 1960s has
diminished the historic integrity of the building.
REQUEST FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION:
Plans for the remodeling of the facade of this non-contributing building were
approved by the Landmarks design review committee on December 5, 2007. The
current application is for a different configuration of the second-story windows
on the facade (west elevation) and the addition of photovoltaic panels and does
not include work currently underway on the storefront and south elevation of
the building which was approved during the December 2007 review.
Agenda Item #SA PaQe #4
S:\VLAN\dataUonorang\HIS'11ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\DownTownU4th.1928\02.06.08 LPAB Memo.doc
f
~
j ~ ~ n ~
x~
y ~
y ~ ~ rn '~rt?""{
y. 3 13{ )J S ,
? d~"~3( Y~ Z`~~ S # ' 4"r 5# " y-~ . 4 ~ ~~~y 3Nkmk A ""'u~q
~ tit ~
P ~ ~ ~ , w °s ~~'tz~r~' Y~ ~ ~ a ti
~ ~ ~ ~ s - ,t ~ ~ S.a
k. liiw , 3
"e
:~r.
Figure Lxistin~; block of 11"' Strect, ?(l0i
E
~ " ~ ~ -
- - - - - wu~~+
----------uaewasar~'+
u,_
i ii i
M~ i
~ sTO~ewc«s
i
tirs.>~rE~
~ rr.~j a.e~~non
~b
Figure 5. Existing West Elevation
Agenda Item #SA Page #6
S:\PLANldataVongrangU-IIST\ALTCERTS1Historic Districts\DownTown\l4th.1928\02.06.08 LPAB Memo.doc
r, ~ y
ri ,
a
"i ~
. ~iY .211' 2 4 ,A . r P"~ _
~ ~.t+'
2,~ , r ,
~
i ~ r z, ,~1®r 1 ~ ~ 1
~1~t ~ ~ _
'
_2 ~ ~
Y1.) ~ T 4,
rW~
z.~ rys~'_n_
1 `f3i
1
2 1
u.,
Figure 4: Existing block of 141h Street, x(111;
-
.o..
~ ~ ~ ~ - - -~ww~~ii+
.~.,~.~l~f-
~;I it
'i
f' I~
ro ncw~naR
r~ _ ~ _
O ctJ rear e.ev~rtoa
Figure 5. Existing West Elevation
:1~enda Item #SA Pa£e #6
S:AI'L,~~'\11;uaUina~rinr~Hitil1;AL'CC'1_RTS\flisturi~: I)fsmcn\Ih~~~u'I~~n~n~l-Uh I`1_'~VI1' UG.O~ LP.~kt Memadoc
i
GAS
~1
~ ~ _ _ a
-
r _ - r: -PREGAST GONG.
i ~ F ! ~ j
` ~
_ I ~ - NeW KAV~NE`cR OR S.M..
~ ~ } _ b ~-~STGRFRONT itiINDCWS
_ ~ ~ F-
~ ~ - -NEW SRIGK VENEER TO
OI - T
~ - Q ~ x ~ MATGH cX15T'G., NP.
-
. "'.._.•.•l••~.~•-•-.' -'?+.RD FLOOR Lc^lc..~
I - -
i
- _ _ oREG,45T GCMG. TILE5
- _ ,
1 _ i' -T~ _ - 8 MOULDINGS SIM TO
_
_ _ F-
- _ . ~
-r-- PREGAST GONG. l-1LES
_ -
E - I MOULDINGS.
l
i - -
- - V I ~
~ ~ ~ - - SECOND fLOORVI...-~ ~ ~i
` f(
_ ~ ~ ~,/T. _ NEW A..UM. {LSULATcD GL?.55
~ ~ STGK'cE~ROPvT. SLAG;; ="VISH
- I - DET.AI'~ TO B SUB`v':-"cD =0P
l t , 1 LDRG A~'PRO'~IAL PRICK `O GG'
h ~ ~ 1 ,PREGAST GONG. TILES
' ~ EGAST GONG. G.=+P
,
y._- -
'iii
- - - AIN.RE -'E
figure 6. Approved West Elevation
, . _ ,,s
_
_ _ _ ~e_
- i , - ,a„~a...~,.
I I ~
I i
J r-- ~ ~ ~aa
_ :T
i r
OfTA-o x'JetnTlD lVll
~ I ~ ~ r 1 i use ~+no+ea rw~ne re rewr.
k ~ ~ f ~ .u,m~
~ .wi,.w~,n~~+~
_l ~ ~ ~ ~ I , ~ m,,.onaae n.aismcw...
- - - - -~...~xz~
~rs.
O~CET
CiCV~
A~
Figure 7. Proposed West Elevation
Agenda Item #SA Page #7
S:\PLAN\data\longang\HIS7IALTCERTS\Historic Distric[slDownTown\14th.1928\02.06.08 LPAB Memo.doc
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that a Landmark Alteration
Certificate may not be approved by the Board or City Council unless it meets the
conditions specified in Section 9-11-18 B.R.C. Specifically:
(a) The landmarks board and the city council shall not approve an
application for a landmark alteration certificate unless each such agency
finds that the proposed work is consistent with the purposes of this
chapter.
(b) Neither the landmarks board nor the city council shall approve a
landmark alteration certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does
not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the
landmark or the subject property within an historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special
character or special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or
value of the landmark and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement
of color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures
are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its
site or the historic district.
ANALYSIS
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or
destroy significant exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject
property within an historic district?
Response: Staff finds the proposed remodeling is consistent with the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (see design guidelines analysis section)
and will not compromise the architectural features of the non-contributing
property in the historic district. The proposed asymmetrical arrangement of
the second-story windows reflects a contemporary character, while
referencing traditional qualities in the proportion of each double-hung sash,
the chosen facade materials, and the general proportion of solid wall to
glazed area.
Aeenda Item #SA Paee #8
S:\PLAN\dato\IongrangWISTALTCERTSWistoric Districts\DownTown\14th.1928\02.06.08 LPAB Memo.doc
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the property or district?
Response: Staff finds that given the traditional proportions of proposed
double-hung windows, choice of materials, and ratio of glazed to solid wall
area, the proposed asymmetrical placement of the second floor windows will
not adversely affect the special character of the non-contributing property or
the Downtown Historic District.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of
the historic district?
Response: The staff finds the arrangement, materials, and colors, will be
compatible with the architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials on historic buildings in the district.
4. The Landmarks Board is required to consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in
determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
Response: While photovoltaic panels have been proposed on the roof of the
building, no details were submitted with the current application. Details
regarding this aspect of the project will need to be submitted for review by
the Landmarks Design Review Committee in a separate Landmark Alteration
Certificate application.
5. Is the proposed application consistent with the purposes of Chapter 9-11, "Historic
Preservation," B.R.C. 1981?
Response: The proposal respects the character of the setting, maintains the
form, proportion, mass and scale of architectural elements found in the area,
and maintains an appropriate ratio of wall area to glazing on the facade of the
building.
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate. The Board has adopted the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines to help
interpret the historic preservation ordinance. The following is an analysis of the
proposed new construction with respect to relevant guidelines. Design
A¢enda Item #SA Paee #9
S\PLAN\da[aVongrangVilS'MLTCERTSViis[oric Dis[rids\DownTown\14th.1928\02.06.08 LPAB Memo.doc
guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a
checklist of items for compliance.
The following is an analysis of the proposal's compliance with the appropriate
sections of the Downtown Design Guidelines.
DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
1.2 Guidelines for New Construction and Remodeling Non-Contributing
Buildings in the Downtown Historic District
While new building design is expected to reflect the character of its own time, thereby
making the downtown a living district, it is important that it also respect the
traditional qualities that make the downtown unique such as massing, scale, uses of
storefront detailing and choice materials.
1.2.1 Incorporate Traditional Design Elements in New Designs
A. Kick plate as a base to the store front. Kick plate aligns with others on YES
Align height with others in block. block.
First floor display windozt~. Align with First floor display window aligns YES
height of others in the block when others kith others on the block.
are appropriately placed.
C. Incorporate a clerestory form in the N/A N/A
display window.
I~. Transom, align with others when others Transom windows align with YES
are appropriately placed. others On the block.
E, Provide for a sign band. Signboard not shown. MAYBE
F, Provide for parapet cap or cornice. Concrete cornice molding shown YES
in plans.
G. Vertical window patterns/shapes on 2^~ The second-story glazing MAYBE
floor; provide for angled entrances on consists of a gang of three
corners and recessed central entrances.
double-hung sash located
asymmetrically at south. Each of
three panes maintains traditional
proportion. Proportion of glazed
Agenda Item #SA PaQe #10
S:\PLAN\data\longrangU-11ST1ALTCERTSU-listoric Districts\DownTown\14th.1928\02.06.08 LPAB Memo.doc
to solids on second-story
consistent with that found on
historic buildings in the area.
Muntins of the second story
window align with the muntins
of the transom window on the
first floor, strengthening the
verticality of the window
pattern.
1.2.2 Align Arcltitectttral Feat~trres With the Established Patterns of Neighb~rirtg Btaildir:gs
~hhc aligrinter~tof ar~chilec~hrral features 'T'he pr0170SEd W1fldOW YES
from one building to another creates configuration and placement,
visual continuity and establishes a
though non-traditional,
coherant visual context throughout the
downtown. Facades should be designed to maintains visual continuity
reinforce these patterns and support the throughout the block. The
established visual character. assymetrieal location of the gang
of three windows is appropriate
on this building given its location
at the end of the block.
,Maintain the- Lirr.e of Store_frunts at the Sidewalk Edge and Orient Mrtin Entrmices Open Tozt~ard the
1'2'~ St,-eet
Maintain similar setback to that of The building setback is not YES
historic buildings in the area - carefitl altered.
consideration should be given if a
building wall is proposed setback bei/ond
that o tltc historic attern.
1.2.4 Do Nut Construct Herlf Level or Split-Level FirstFloors 7itat Extend Above ar~d BeIozp Grgde.
It is irtapprohriate to corrsh~rrct half-]czxrl Building maintains h1St01•ic form. YES
or split Ievei first floors that extend above
grid bclozv grade.
1.2.5 Consider the Height and Mass of Buildings.
In general, buildings should appear similar in height, mass, and scale to other buildings in the
historic area to maintain the area's visual integrity and unique character whileproviding a
variety of heights to create visual interset. One, two and three story buildings make-up the
primar architectural fabric, with taller buildin s located at ke intersections.
Agenda Item #5A Pai;e #ll
S:\PLAN\data\longrangU-IIST\ALTCERTS1Historic Districts\DownTownU4th.1928102.06.08 LPAF3 Memo.doc
A. Strive for visual interest in The building form does not YES
building forms. change, and is consistent with
the surroundin buildin s.
B. Relate the height of buildings to Building height does not change, YES
neighboring buildings at the and is consistent with the
sidewalk ed e. surroundin buildin s.
C. Consider the effect of building Building height does not change, YES
height on shading and views. and is consistent with the
surr~>unding buildings.
1.2.6 Maintain a Human Scale Rather Than a Monolithic or Monumental Scale
Smaller scale buildings and the Proposed traditional materials, MAYBE
use of traditionally sized proportions and glazed area to
building components help solid wall establish a human
establish human scale and scale. Though the ganged
maintain the character of window configuration not
dozuntozun. Standard size brick, typical for the district, staff
uniform building components, considers that proposed remodel
and standard window sizes are is contemporary yet referential of
most appropriate. traditional material, proportions,
and glazed vs. solid facade
r~~fi~~~.
Maintain the Proportions of Storefront Windows And Doors and F,stablished
1 2 ~ Pattern of Upper Story Windows.
First floor of downtown The first floor is primarily MAYBE
corntnercial buildings should be transparent and is consistent
primarily transparent with with the guidelines. The second
pedestrian orientation and floor window configuration
storefront appearance. Upper maintains a traditional ratio of
floors should incorporate glass and solid mass, but it is set
traditional vertically in an asymmetric pattern. Each
proportioned window openings of the three proposed windows
within a more solid facade. Use in upper-gang traditionally
windows similar in size and proportioned.
shape to those used traditonally.
Agenda Item #SA Page #]2
ti~PL:1~\daCi\I~~nuan~\HIti"I\.ALT('IiRTS~I Ifst~xic I)istriet~Al h~~~nTu« n'~ I-lih l9?~~.I1' nb_0~ LI':At~ '~temn.d~~c
~ 1 2 8 Maintain the Rhythm Established by the Repetition of the Traditiona125 foot
facade storefront widths.
Maintain the rhythm of
facade The rhythm of facade widths is YES
widths, especially for projects primarily maintained by the
that extend over several lots, by design of the first floor in a
changing materials, patterns, recessed alcove, differing
reveals, building setbacks, facade materiality, higher second floor
proportions, or by using design division, and yet maintains
elements such as columns or similar proportions to other
pilasters, buildings on the block.
1.2.9 Use Building Materials that have Texture Pattern and Scale Similar to Those
in the District.
The use of brick as the primary Brick is proposed to match MAYBE
building material is encouraged existing. Accent material is
to reflect historic patterns in the similar in scale, and texture.
commercial downtown. Choose Materiality has not changed since
accent materials similar in the approved plans.
texture and scale to others in the
district.
1.2.10 Improve Rear or Side Alley Elevations to Enhance Public Access From
Parkin Lots and Alte s.
Where buildings are huildi~tg to The south elevation will remain YES
alley edge, consider as is, with the exception of three
opportunities for alley display new windows, which have
windows and secondary entries. elements similar to existing
New construction should be windows. The south facade has
sensitive to and compatible with not changed from the approved
historic alleyscapes in terms of plans.
scale and character of the
building.
While the proposed second-story window configuration contemporary and of
this time it is also contextual and reference historic proportions, materials, and
ratios of glazed area to solid found on historic buildings in the district. Such a
treatment would likely not be appropriate on a building in the middle of a block
or one that continues the rhythm in height. However, this non-contributing
building breaks the rhythm (in height) and acts as a book end to the block and
for this reason design latitude as proposed seems appropriate. For these reasons,
staff considers that the design will not detract but will be compatible with the
A;;enda Item #SA Pa;;e #13
S:\PLAN\data\longang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\DownTown\14th.1928102.06.08 LPAB Memo.doc
historic district per historic preservation ordinance and is generally consistent
with the Downtown Urban Historic Guidelines (See guideline analysis).
FINDINGS:
Provided the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are met, staff
recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
1. The proposed facade remodel will not have an adverse effect on the
special character and special historical, architectural and aesthetic
interest and value of the district, as it will be compatible in terms of
mass, scale, or orientation with other buildings in the district.
2. The proposed design will not have an adverse effect on the special
character and special historic, architectural and aesthetic interest
and value of the district.
3. In terms of mass, scale, and orientation the proposed facade
rehabilitation is generally consistent with Section i(1-10), of the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Letter from Applicant
Attachment B: Approved Plans
Attachment C: Proposed Plans
Attachment D: Photographs
Attachment E: Landmark Design Review Committee Comments
Agenda Item #SA Paee #14
S:\PLAN\da[aVOngrangUilST\ALTCERTSWis[oric Districts\DownTownU 4[h.1928\02.06.08 LPAB Memo.doc
Attachment A
James Hewat -1928 14th St
From: "Kristin Lewis"
To: "'James Hewat"' , "Chris Meschuk"
Date: 1/31/2008 11:44 AM
Subject: 1928 14th St
Greetings James and Chris,
I realized I should have given you some additional information when we turned in the map and streetscape. Here
are the points that I think relevant to our proposal.
We have a unique building in that it is the only historic 3 story structure on the block. The adjacent buildings
are all two story with tall storefront windows. After demolition, we determined that the original building was one
story. The second level was placed beneath the old roof and the third level built up from that. The existing ceiling
heights on the first and second level are about 7 ft. 4 inches which is lower than current codes allow. The original
storefront has been completely removed so the building is listed as noncontributing.
Our intent is to respect the two story buildings on the rest of the block and we are doing this by stepping
back the interior second floor level 10 ft. from 14th street to allow larger windows at the main level. On the third
level we are bringing the new window sills to within 6 inches of the finish floor and aligning the head heights with
the existing windows on the alley. This will not align the new windows with the other ones along 14th Street but it
will improve the connection to those buildings.
Our building only has a potential 18 ft. of new facade and is at the end of the block. It is on the edge of the
Landmark district and transitions to new construction and much larger sites and massing. After providing new
access to the second level and access to the retail space we are left with a 9 ft. storefront window. The design
has already been approved by LAPD design review committee so the only part we are asking to be reviewed is
the second level window design. The currently approved three separate windows is very busy when looked at in
context as they cannot align with the rest of the block. (They are higher) A far better solution is to center a group
of three windows over the new storefront. This provides an anchor to the alley and is a better transition to our
south facade.
We have aligned the new storefront with the other historic buildings on the block and have symmetrically
placed the new third level windows above the new storefront. The second level window examples we submitted
show there are many similar examples in the historic district. The new access to the building is in an eight and
one half foot recess and is set off by the brick plane above that will connect in color to the adjacent buildings. On
the south side 18 inches of brick is painted and it extends to about 12 feet along the south side of the building. We
are not intending to remove the paint. Our new storefront and proposed second level windows will start at this
painted strip of wall on the front. The other side is unpainted brick and will connect to the adjacent buildings.
Additionally, we are using cast stone detailing to connect our building with the adjacent historic buildings.
I will admit to being surprised by the design review committee meeting since our building is non-contributing
and we have paid close attention to existing historic detailing while still maintaining a more contemporary look to
our building. At that time we did not come in with information about the context so are hopeful that a better
examination of the context will convince the full board to back our proposal. I believe there is an opportunity in our
revised second level plan to have a much better resolution of fenestration that cannot align with the existing
context.
Due to the construction schedule, the approved storefront material will have already been ordered. The third
level windows will not be fabricated until reviewed at the LAPD meeting. Please let me know if there is any
additional information you need from us or any suggestions you have for our presentation.
Sincerely,
Agenda Ibm# SA ~f I S
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Hewajl\Local Settings\TempC
rage ~ of ~
Kristin
Kristin A. Lewis
Kristin Lewis Architects
1928 14th Street #300
Boulder, CO 80302
Phone:(303)449-5747
Fax: (303)447-2843
Agenda Ibm #~Pegs
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Hewajl\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47A1B4A7C0... 1/31/2008