From: 	Jean Fraser
To:	Cameron, Caitlin;  Jaegerman, Alex
CC:	Andrews, Deb;  Barhydt, Barbara
Date: 	9/18/2013 3:49 PM
Subject: 	Design Review 133 York Street
Attachments:	East & west elevs 133 York A-203.pdf; North (rear0 elev 133 York A-202.pdf; South (front)  elev 133 York A-201.pdf; (7) Design Guidelines Response.pdf; Response memo.pdf

Alex and Caitlin,
 
The architect for this project has requested a meeting (I think he has also spoken to Alex) to discuss the Planning Board and staff comments on the design (see BACKGROUND below) and see what can be resolved/revised for the final plan set.  In order to avoid delay to the project (they are completing revisions and soon plan to submit final proposals for the hearing) I think the meeting needs to include Alex and one other person (ie not necessarily all of us).
 
Could you both please let me know your availability on the following dates (which have been suggested by Bob Howe of HKTA architects):    
 
Thursday 9/19 (tomorrow) anytime
Friday 9/20 morning
Monday 9/23 anytime
Thursday 9/26 anytime
 
Many thanks
Jean
 
Background (for Caitlin and Deb) (see ELEVATIONS attached):
 
1.  Staff comments quoted from PB Memo that went to PB on 9/10/13:

Historic Resources
 
The Site Plan ordinance includes a requirement for projects to be compatible with the character-defining elements of the portion of the historic district nearest the proposal.  The proposal is about 65 feet from the West End Historic District, measured across the Harborview Townhomes site. The Historic Preservation Program Manager considered the proposals and notes that between this site and the core of the historic district there are relatively recent developments that are more modern in design and therefore this proposal is generally compatible. 
 
R-6 Infill Development Design Principles and Standards 
 
The applicant has submitted a narrative outlining how the proposed design addresses the R-6 design standards (Attachment E).  Staff reviewed the narrative and the project and advised the applicant that:
 
Alex Jaegerman, Caitlin Cameron (Urban Designer) and I have reviewed the Narrative you submitted regarding the R-6 Design Principles and Standards.  We generally consider that the proposals meet the principles and standards except regarding C-1 and F-6 (main entrance), where we recommend the central entrance at ground level be more strongly emphasized through the introduction of features such as transome windows, wider door, more robust canopy articulation.  We would also like to know why one half of the building is higher than the other? (Attachment 1)
 
The applicant responded on 9.5.2013 and staff have not had an opportunity to consider the response, which includes: 
 
“The entrance is deliberately understated.  The design takes a minimal approach to this feature for it occupies no particular significance to a streetscape and acknowledges the rather private nature of these owner units and the structure’s juxtaposition to the surrounding buildings.  The client’s intention is to create a more “loft” like environment.  So, in keeping with the design theme, unnecessary embellishments run counter to the design intent” (Attachment O)  Attached to this e-mail
 
2.  Planning Board and public comments at Workshop 9/10/2013:
 
(Note-  north elevation faces uphill but is more than 100 feet from HP district line)
(neighbor)  Live in historical west end and architecture does not fit in;  needs better design though flat roof OK
(Board member)  Not sure about metal cladding
(2 Board members)  Bring materials to next meeting
(Board member) Not sure design is appropriate-  lacks visual interest and may impact value of adjoining properties;  teal blue siding?????
(Board member) Agrees with above; could use more articulation on rear elevation
(Board member) Long, flat facade at rear does not fit in with neighborhood