|
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TESTIMONY LPC-23-08409 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A Colonial Revival style freestanding house with alterations designed by A. White Pierce and built in c. 1905. Application is to modify and enlarge the front of the building and modify openings. Architect: AE Design Solution HDC finds this proposal inappropriate as currently presented. HDC could support an addition to this house but believes that an addition should involve a series of accretions – more in keeping with what appears to be a shingle style house. The extrusion of the existing form forward on the lot is creating too many awkwardly proportioned volumes and elevations that we believe are compositionally unconvincing. Action: No Action |
 |
|
LPC-23-11282 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS An Italianate style town house built in 1853-54. Application is to construct a rooftop Architect: arcologica HDC finds the proposed masonry opening and door on the east facade of the second floor to be too large and too awkwardly located to be appropriate. A masonry opening and door that matches the width of the window that is directly east of the historic bay window and is centered on the east masonry facade would be a more pleasant and less visually intrusive solution. Action: Unanimously approved |
 |
|
LPC-24-02643 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS An altered Renaissance Revival style rowhouse designed by Charles T. Mott and built in 1891-1892. Application is to replace windows, alter the entrance surround, install ironwork, and modify openings at the rear façade. Architect: Isaac and Stern Architects HDC finds many details of this proposal inappropriate. The applicant is reworking this historic facade, which has been destroyed by previous renovations, and has the opportunity to find a way for the new facade to relate to its neighbors, which were designed as a group, but the applicant has not done that here. For example, the building’s original facade, and those of its neighbors have a clear change in articulation between the 4th and 5th floor; the proposed lintels and head heights of the new facade do not align with the neighboring buildings, and the third floor masonry opening modification is inappropriate. HDC notes that the applicant is attempting to add historicity to their building by adding a 4-over-4 window configuration, but it appears that the present 1-over-1 configuration is historically appropriate. We ask that LPC require this applicant to work with staff to refine this proposal’s compositional logic and material detailing. Action: Unanimously approved, work with staff on details of ironwork |
 |
|
LPC-24-03689 ADVISORY REPORT HDC appreciates that the Parks Department is improving ADA access at this site, and fixing what appears to be significant drainage issues. We are largely supportive of this project, but we feel that the proposed fencing is excessive, and should be limited only to what is necessary to make the area safe. We also feel that the planting beds should be rectilinear rather than undulating so that they adhere more concretely to the geometry within the playground’s perimeter. Finally, we note that the proposed world’s fair benches are not true to the period when this playground was built, and we believe that the existing benches should be replaced in kind. We agree with our colleagues at the Victorian Society that if the Commission decides to recommend changes to this application, it should also ask Parks to return with a revised proposal before issuing any Advisory Report so that Parks will have an incentive to heed LPC recommendations. Action: 10-1 favorable report |
 |
 |