Public comment. Back to the commission, commissioner johnck . Yes, thank you. I am interested in getting a little further understanding about the original brick and wondered if the members of the Architecture Review Committee would it be andrew . Yeah, that, and maybe karl, and you previously looked at this, and your recommendation on the stucco was that because the original brick that the location of the original brick was a question. And it was not to be found and so, the next best historic representation would be through stucco, i guess that is the question. Or, does this new information about the possibility location of the original brick would this make me difference in your original consideration about the use of the historic material . At that hearing we were told that the original brick was not available and we felt that the stucco was a better choice than the brick which seemed kind of not an appropriate material in terms that it was just a thick brick and that it was and ther
From seca. It should be noted that the project was evaluated in 2005 after the removal of the materials except for the montgomery street and had received a certificate of approval. The project was received an exemption at that time. The current proposal is a slight modification. Includes the stucco and as well as adding a much smaller roof deck area and penthouses on the roof. The current proposal is an attempt by the new owners of the building to finish construction that was started by the previous owner, and it will not remove additional historic fabric from the building. This will replace the historic fabric that was previously removed with the compatible replacement material to bring back the building and still convey the building as a resource. As such the department has found that the proposed work meets the standards and the requirement of article ten and therefore, it is exempt from the secua. The project sponsor is here to scribe the project for me and the details of the skop
Was a question. And it was not to be found and so, the next best historic representation would be through stucco, i guess that is the question. Or, does this new information about the possibility location of the original brick would this make me difference in your original consideration about the use of the historic material . At that hearing we were told that the original brick was not available and we felt that the stucco was a better choice than the brick which seemed kind of not an appropriate material in terms that it was just a thick brick and that it was and there seemed to be evidence of those and since i had originally been stucco and so that was our recommendation and so so the brick situation is a new information that we didnt have at that time. If the brick is available or not. Commissioner pearlman . Yeah, i mean, part of the department had worked with the project sponsor about putting veneer on it and there is the sense that it looks very fake, you know, even a good one l
Facade and pattern for the side and the proportion and based again on the photographic evidence and that the north and south side elevations will be appropriate on the secondary elevations of the building and will be painted to match the finish as conditioned. Based on these findings, the Department Recommends the approval with the following conditions of approval, revised drawings should be included as part of the building submital and including the attachment details for the rail on the roof and revised drawings shall be included as part of the Building Permit submital and including the windows that closely match the configuration and all exterior profiles of the buildings based on the historic photographic evidence. And after issuance of the Building Permit and prior to installation, a mockup of the metal and the materials and integral cover or finish shall be reviewed and approved by the department preservation staff and more of a stucco finish shall be reviewed at the project site
Only two residential buildings, and we are obviously attracted to the historic square and we support the developer coming on board and taking this project on and seeing the completion of this building. I guess that renovation is a strong woerd, but evolution and seeing the bliet lifted. What we are concerned with is we are blue sky starved already and we are at the base of the financial district and also the cer csf that went up right in the sun arc and blocked a lot of our sunlight during more than half of the year. And we are very supportive of the developer, and working through this project. What we do want to ask is that light blue sky, privacy issues are taken into consideration, for the other home owners, and we are building of eight condos, and two parcels, south of this project. And the penthouses that are already two penthouses on the roof. So i am not sure that if this is a third pept house being discussed but i would like to see some consideration of minimizing additional st